Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowere
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowere
One of the most amusing and entertaining aspects of reading, studying
and discussing Mediaeval History and Genealogy as well as watching
Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians at WORK and PLAY is observing
their VERY sloppy and non-professional use of SOURCES.
Normally, Real Genealogists and Historians insist on CONFIRMATORY,
NON-DUPLICATIVE SOURCES. They then TRIANGULATE towards TRUTH from
several DISCRETE, FREE-STANDING sources.
But, since Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians have so FEW sources --
and they are so fragmentary and oft obtuse and/or ambiguous -- the
mediaevalists have agreed upon and set much LOWER STANDARDS for their
WORK.
In an oft-unspoken but agreed-upon conspiracy among the mediaeval
genealogists and historians, they go into PRINT with FAR less EVIDENCE
to back up their conclusions than they SHOULD.
Otherwise they would have NOTHING TO WRITE ABOUT -- their CAREERS would
WITHER on the VINE and they would STARVE or wind up teaching High-School
History or "Social Studies" in the boondocks.
That's one of their dirty little secrets they would prefer to keep from
the General Public -- who make it possible for them to earn a living and
keep on EATING.
This ALSO opens the door to all sorts of pretenders, frauds and
charlatans who can bamboozle the General Public more easily -- since the
mediaeval evidence to propose or refute alleged statements of fact is
often so SLIM and INCONSEQUENTIAL.
But there are many HONEST practitioners in the professions also. The
difficulty for the General Public is sifting out the sloppy
exaggerators, the frauds, the pretenders and the charlatans from the
others.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
and discussing Mediaeval History and Genealogy as well as watching
Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians at WORK and PLAY is observing
their VERY sloppy and non-professional use of SOURCES.
Normally, Real Genealogists and Historians insist on CONFIRMATORY,
NON-DUPLICATIVE SOURCES. They then TRIANGULATE towards TRUTH from
several DISCRETE, FREE-STANDING sources.
But, since Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians have so FEW sources --
and they are so fragmentary and oft obtuse and/or ambiguous -- the
mediaevalists have agreed upon and set much LOWER STANDARDS for their
WORK.
In an oft-unspoken but agreed-upon conspiracy among the mediaeval
genealogists and historians, they go into PRINT with FAR less EVIDENCE
to back up their conclusions than they SHOULD.
Otherwise they would have NOTHING TO WRITE ABOUT -- their CAREERS would
WITHER on the VINE and they would STARVE or wind up teaching High-School
History or "Social Studies" in the boondocks.
That's one of their dirty little secrets they would prefer to keep from
the General Public -- who make it possible for them to earn a living and
keep on EATING.
This ALSO opens the door to all sorts of pretenders, frauds and
charlatans who can bamboozle the General Public more easily -- since the
mediaeval evidence to propose or refute alleged statements of fact is
often so SLIM and INCONSEQUENTIAL.
But there are many HONEST practitioners in the professions also. The
difficulty for the General Public is sifting out the sloppy
exaggerators, the frauds, the pretenders and the charlatans from the
others.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
This screed from Hines is a kind of Dada - so blatantly silly that no-one
could coneivably take it as other than sefl-serving nonsense.
Anyone who observes the state of surviving evidence for a great many
medieval facts, including some about which Spencer Hines himself is willing
to SHOUT his certainty & eviscerate any opposition, will know this rubbish
for what it is.
Anything goes when Spencer has made a plain blunder and can't bring himself
to admit it.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RlbMd.16$eF2.390@eagle.america.net...
could coneivably take it as other than sefl-serving nonsense.
Anyone who observes the state of surviving evidence for a great many
medieval facts, including some about which Spencer Hines himself is willing
to SHOUT his certainty & eviscerate any opposition, will know this rubbish
for what it is.
Anything goes when Spencer has made a plain blunder and can't bring himself
to admit it.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RlbMd.16$eF2.390@eagle.america.net...
One of the most amusing and entertaining aspects of reading, studying
and discussing Mediaeval History and Genealogy as well as watching
Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians at WORK and PLAY is observing
their VERY sloppy and non-professional use of SOURCES.
Normally, Real Genealogists and Historians insist on CONFIRMATORY,
NON-DUPLICATIVE SOURCES. They then TRIANGULATE towards TRUTH from
several DISCRETE, FREE-STANDING sources.
But, since Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians have so FEW sources --
and they are so fragmentary and oft obtuse and/or ambiguous -- the
mediaevalists have agreed upon and set much LOWER STANDARDS for their
WORK.
In an oft-unspoken but agreed-upon conspiracy among the mediaeval
genealogists and historians, they go into PRINT with FAR less EVIDENCE
to back up their conclusions than they SHOULD.
Otherwise they would have NOTHING TO WRITE ABOUT -- their CAREERS would
WITHER on the VINE and they would STARVE or wind up teaching High-School
History or "Social Studies" in the boondocks.
That's one of their dirty little secrets they would prefer to keep from
the General Public -- who make it possible for them to earn a living and
keep on EATING.
This ALSO opens the door to all sorts of pretenders, frauds and
charlatans who can bamboozle the General Public more easily -- since the
mediaeval evidence to propose or refute alleged statements of fact is
often so SLIM and INCONSEQUENTIAL.
But there are many HONEST practitioners in the professions also. The
difficulty for the General Public is sifting out the sloppy
exaggerators, the frauds, the pretenders and the charlatans from the
others.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
One of the charlatans pipes up, right on cue.
Absolutely Pavlovian....
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart, whose brain is saponifying, increasingly strikes out
incoherently, angrily and vengefully against all and sundry.
Now he is firing hissy-fit blanks at Douglas Richardson.
Sad, very sad to see Peter in a state of continual deterioration like
this...
This undisciplined venting of his frustrated, righteous anger is some
sort of therapy for Stewart?
It would certainly seem so -- perhaps even prescribed by his
neurologists.
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sKbMd.145307$K7.12662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<baldersnip>
Absolutely Pavlovian....
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart, whose brain is saponifying, increasingly strikes out
incoherently, angrily and vengefully against all and sundry.
Now he is firing hissy-fit blanks at Douglas Richardson.
Sad, very sad to see Peter in a state of continual deterioration like
this...
This undisciplined venting of his frustrated, righteous anger is some
sort of therapy for Stewart?
It would certainly seem so -- perhaps even prescribed by his
neurologists.
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sKbMd.145307$K7.12662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<baldersnip>
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
One of the mediaeval charlatans pipes up, right on cue.
Absolutely Pavlovian....
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart, whose brain is saponifying rapidly, increasingly strikes
out incoherently, angrily and vengefully against all and sundry.
Now he is firing hissy-fit blanks at Douglas Richardson in another
thread.
It is sad, very sad to see Peter in a state of continual, rapidly
accelerating deterioration like this.
This undisciplined venting of his frustrated, flummoxed, furious anger
is some sort of THERAPY for Stewart?
It would certainly seem so -- perhaps even prescribed by his
NEUROLOGISTS.
Further, the increasing pain, discomfort and frightened anxiety
generated by his self-confessed TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA seem to drive him
into more frequent and violent paroxysms of poorly focused USENET RAGE.
Quite Pitiful On A Personal Level -- But NEITHER Professional NOR
Scholarly....
Ergo Not Credible....
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sKbMd.145307$K7.12662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<baldersnip>
Absolutely Pavlovian....
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart, whose brain is saponifying rapidly, increasingly strikes
out incoherently, angrily and vengefully against all and sundry.
Now he is firing hissy-fit blanks at Douglas Richardson in another
thread.
It is sad, very sad to see Peter in a state of continual, rapidly
accelerating deterioration like this.
This undisciplined venting of his frustrated, flummoxed, furious anger
is some sort of THERAPY for Stewart?
It would certainly seem so -- perhaps even prescribed by his
NEUROLOGISTS.
Further, the increasing pain, discomfort and frightened anxiety
generated by his self-confessed TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA seem to drive him
into more frequent and violent paroxysms of poorly focused USENET RAGE.
Quite Pitiful On A Personal Level -- But NEITHER Professional NOR
Scholarly....
Ergo Not Credible....
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:sKbMd.145307$K7.12662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<baldersnip>
-
JBernigaud
Re: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -
Dear D. Spencer Hines,
Unfortunately, I don't speak neither write english good enough to give you
an appropriate answer. So I do in French:
Vous n'êtes qu'un abruti fini. Vous devez avoir une vie vraiment pitoyable
pour trouver un quelconque intérêt à vous attarder à lancer de telles
critiques. Laisser les membres de cette liste partager leur passion et
aller voir un psy, ou trouvez un moyen de remédier à vos frustrations! Et
arrêtez de nous casser les c.......!
Thanks for your attention.
Julien Bernigaud
Unfortunately, I don't speak neither write english good enough to give you
an appropriate answer. So I do in French:
Vous n'êtes qu'un abruti fini. Vous devez avoir une vie vraiment pitoyable
pour trouver un quelconque intérêt à vous attarder à lancer de telles
critiques. Laisser les membres de cette liste partager leur passion et
aller voir un psy, ou trouvez un moyen de remédier à vos frustrations! Et
arrêtez de nous casser les c.......!
Thanks for your attention.
Julien Bernigaud
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -
"JBernigaud" <julienbernigaud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:78d987aa6f4bcc5c3aff85b2c97fd2ef@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...
Merci, Julien - vous serez probablement soumis à une diatribe de Spencer
Hines contre les français, et j'espère que vous ne prendrez pas la peine de
lire une telle chose.
Peter Stewart
news:78d987aa6f4bcc5c3aff85b2c97fd2ef@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...
Dear D. Spencer Hines,
Unfortunately, I don't speak neither write english good enough to give you
an appropriate answer. So I do in French:
Vous n'êtes qu'un abruti fini. Vous devez avoir une vie vraiment pitoyable
pour trouver un quelconque intérêt à vous attarder à lancer de telles
critiques. Laisser les membres de cette liste partager leur passion et
aller voir un psy, ou trouvez un moyen de remédier à vos frustrations! Et
arrêtez de nous casser les c.......!
Merci, Julien - vous serez probablement soumis à une diatribe de Spencer
Hines contre les français, et j'espère que vous ne prendrez pas la peine de
lire une telle chose.
Peter Stewart
-
Francois Papin
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Wh
dear friends
I went to you
2 or 3 years ago
because the french group was so a pity.
I am affraid with what I read.
-----
I have build my own genealogy...
I descend from family of " Comtes de Lautrec"
and so "Comtes de Toulouse"
and so Louis VI le Gros (~1100)
and so Hughes Capet, Charlemagne, etc ...
and ... Muhammad (like Georges Bush, seems it)
many people have a such genealogy...
I did a big work about Charles de Great family's
I just looked for farmers in Larzac ...
and I find family in ... Manitoba !
-----
I come back with a gift for you :
Comité Technique Historique et Scientifique (very serious) :
" La France Anglaise au Moyen Age"
ref (in BNF) : 944-05 CTHS 111-1
Have you read it soon ?
If not, you *must* read it.
François
who want to study english names
in today french familys ?
Anglès, of course
but many others :
Godon, Goudal, ... oh ! my God
(it was not friendly ...)
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
a8nMd.146061$K7.74921@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
-----
cher Julien
inutile d'exporter nos exécrables habitudes françaises.
en France, tout le monde dit que les sites anglais ont de la tenue.
prions pour que cela dure ...
et surtout, gardons nous de contribuer à leur dégradation.
I went to you
2 or 3 years ago
because the french group was so a pity.
I am affraid with what I read.
-----
I have build my own genealogy...
I descend from family of " Comtes de Lautrec"
and so "Comtes de Toulouse"
and so Louis VI le Gros (~1100)
and so Hughes Capet, Charlemagne, etc ...
and ... Muhammad (like Georges Bush, seems it)
many people have a such genealogy...
I did a big work about Charles de Great family's
I just looked for farmers in Larzac ...
and I find family in ... Manitoba !
-----
I come back with a gift for you :
Comité Technique Historique et Scientifique (very serious) :
" La France Anglaise au Moyen Age"
ref (in BNF) : 944-05 CTHS 111-1
Have you read it soon ?
If not, you *must* read it.
François
who want to study english names
in today french familys ?
Anglès, of course
but many others :
Godon, Goudal, ... oh ! my God
(it was not friendly ...)
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
a8nMd.146061$K7.74921@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"JBernigaud" <julienbernigaud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:78d987aa6f4bcc5c3aff85b2c97fd2ef@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...
Dear D. Spencer Hines,
Unfortunately, I don't speak neither write english good enough to give
you
an appropriate answer. So I do in French:
Peter Stewart
-----
cher Julien
inutile d'exporter nos exécrables habitudes françaises.
en France, tout le monde dit que les sites anglais ont de la tenue.
prions pour que cela dure ...
et surtout, gardons nous de contribuer à leur dégradation.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Wh
Francois Papin wrote:
How do you get to Muhammad through these lines? (How does George Bush?)
taf
I have build my own genealogy...
I descend from family of " Comtes de Lautrec"
and so "Comtes de Toulouse"
and so Louis VI le Gros (~1100)
and so Hughes Capet, Charlemagne, etc ...
and ... Muhammad (like Georges Bush, seems it)
How do you get to Muhammad through these lines? (How does George Bush?)
taf
-
Francois Papin
Re: Muhammad sons ....
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
4203e317@news.ColoState.EDU...
many christian and muslim families in Spain
maried their children
many families of South France (and of England)
married with spanish families.
Louis XIV and Elisabeth II descend of Muhammad.
-----
in France, we like to speak about G. Bush ...
if he descend of english royal family,
he descend, also of Muhammad.
Georges, son of Muhammad,
what a joke !
(but I don't know George's family ...)
I have a long chain beetwen Muhammad and I.
trough the Emirs of Cordoue
but I have a problem :
not with Muslims,
with a King of Castille.
In that chain,
the life of the muslim man and the christian woman
is very well known.
her father was twenty years in jail.
for freedom recover, his daughter married the emir.
the earls of Toulouse, the earls of Narbonne
and so many others, descend all of the Prophet.
and all the kings in Europe ....
more surrely than millions of immigrants workers.
we are all brothers ...
of course, more long is the chain , more weak also ...
F.
4203e317@news.ColoState.EDU...
Francois Papin wrote:
I have build my own genealogy...
I descend from family of " Comtes de Lautrec"
and so "Comtes de Toulouse"
and so Louis VI le Gros (~1100)
and so Hughes Capet, Charlemagne, etc ...
and ... Muhammad (like Georges Bush, seems it)
How do you get to Muhammad through these lines? (How does George Bush?)
taf
many christian and muslim families in Spain
maried their children
many families of South France (and of England)
married with spanish families.
Louis XIV and Elisabeth II descend of Muhammad.
-----
in France, we like to speak about G. Bush ...
if he descend of english royal family,
he descend, also of Muhammad.
Georges, son of Muhammad,
what a joke !
(but I don't know George's family ...)
I have a long chain beetwen Muhammad and I.
trough the Emirs of Cordoue
but I have a problem :
not with Muslims,
with a King of Castille.
In that chain,
the life of the muslim man and the christian woman
is very well known.
her father was twenty years in jail.
for freedom recover, his daughter married the emir.
the earls of Toulouse, the earls of Narbonne
and so many others, descend all of the Prophet.
and all the kings in Europe ....
more surrely than millions of immigrants workers.
we are all brothers ...
of course, more long is the chain , more weak also ...
F.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Muhammad sons ....
Francois Papin wrote:
I don't doubt this.
Nor this, but so far, what you have presented is a statistical
and not a genealogical argument. One of the best studied Spanish
women marrying an English family, Sancha de Ayala, appears to
have muslim ancestry, but I have yet to see a Muhammaden descent
that I find convincing. More prominant women, like Eleanor or
Blanche of Castile, have no valid arab descents that have been
uncovered.
Care to be more specific?
How so?
Here you appear to be talking about Fortun Garces, King of
Navarre, and the marriage of his daughter is well documented.
Modern descents from this daughter and her muslim husband are
more problematic.
How so?
I do not deny this, but while I don't doubt that many such
connections exist, finding a single one in the medieval period
that can be documented in the historical record is much more
problematic. Further, the desire for them to be found has led to
numerous leaps of faith. My question was a request for
genealogical specifics.
taf
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
4203e317@news.ColoState.EDU...
Francois Papin wrote:
I have build my own genealogy...
I descend from family of " Comtes de Lautrec"
and so "Comtes de Toulouse"
and so Louis VI le Gros (~1100)
and so Hughes Capet, Charlemagne, etc ...
and ... Muhammad (like Georges Bush, seems it)
How do you get to Muhammad through these lines? (How does George Bush?)
many christian and muslim families in Spain
maried their children
I don't doubt this.
many families of South France (and of England)
married with spanish families.
Nor this, but so far, what you have presented is a statistical
and not a genealogical argument. One of the best studied Spanish
women marrying an English family, Sancha de Ayala, appears to
have muslim ancestry, but I have yet to see a Muhammaden descent
that I find convincing. More prominant women, like Eleanor or
Blanche of Castile, have no valid arab descents that have been
uncovered.
Louis XIV and Elisabeth II descend of Muhammad.
Care to be more specific?
if he descend of english royal family,
he descend, also of Muhammad.
How so?
I have a long chain beetwen Muhammad and I.
trough the Emirs of Cordoue
but I have a problem :
not with Muslims,
with a King of Castille.
In that chain,
the life of the muslim man and the christian woman
is very well known.
her father was twenty years in jail.
for freedom recover, his daughter married the emir.
Here you appear to be talking about Fortun Garces, King of
Navarre, and the marriage of his daughter is well documented.
Modern descents from this daughter and her muslim husband are
more problematic.
the earls of Toulouse, the earls of Narbonne
and so many others, descend all of the Prophet.
and all the kings in Europe ....
How so?
we are all brothers ...
I do not deny this, but while I don't doubt that many such
connections exist, finding a single one in the medieval period
that can be documented in the historical record is much more
problematic. Further, the desire for them to be found has led to
numerous leaps of faith. My question was a request for
genealogical specifics.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Muhammad sons ....
You are kindly invited to post the line from Muhammad to the Emirs of
Cordoba.
As far as I know the emirs of Cordoba were Ummayads, a dinasty founded
by the only Ummayad prince who escape the murder of the whole family by
Abbas "le Sanguinaire" founder of the Abbassid dinasty (and 2nd cousin
to Muhammad). Through the Ummayads you go to 'Abd Manaf, Muhammad's
gggrandfather but not closer.
If you had a line to the sheriffs of Morocco or the Fatimids in Egipt
it could be different but through the emirs of Cordoba, the only
possibility is an ignored female line rather unprobable because I do
not see an emir of Cordoba marrying a shiya muslim.
Please post it.
Regards
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Cordoba.
As far as I know the emirs of Cordoba were Ummayads, a dinasty founded
by the only Ummayad prince who escape the murder of the whole family by
Abbas "le Sanguinaire" founder of the Abbassid dinasty (and 2nd cousin
to Muhammad). Through the Ummayads you go to 'Abd Manaf, Muhammad's
gggrandfather but not closer.
If you had a line to the sheriffs of Morocco or the Fatimids in Egipt
it could be different but through the emirs of Cordoba, the only
possibility is an ignored female line rather unprobable because I do
not see an emir of Cordoba marrying a shiya muslim.
Please post it.
Regards
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
-
Francisco Antonio Doria
Re: Muhammad sons ....
Dear xará Francisco,
May I add my twopence?
Actually several Ummayad and Quraysh survived in
Spain. Some al-Fikhri (the original Quraysh
designator) ruled al-Andaluz before Abd ar-Rahman I,
and there is the well-developed and well-attested
al-Habibi line, from which I think Zaad(um) was
descended.
Best, fa
PS: The Uthman connection is a mystery for me. My own
interpretation follows from Marwan's closeness to him
- and to a later propaganda-induced omission, since as
far as I can tell all extant sources go back to early
Abbasid times. But anyway it's just speculation.
--- ftalmeida@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
May I add my twopence?
Actually several Ummayad and Quraysh survived in
Spain. Some al-Fikhri (the original Quraysh
designator) ruled al-Andaluz before Abd ar-Rahman I,
and there is the well-developed and well-attested
al-Habibi line, from which I think Zaad(um) was
descended.
Best, fa
PS: The Uthman connection is a mystery for me. My own
interpretation follows from Marwan's closeness to him
- and to a later propaganda-induced omission, since as
far as I can tell all extant sources go back to early
Abbasid times. But anyway it's just speculation.
--- ftalmeida@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
You are kindly invited to post the line from
Muhammad to the Emirs of
Cordoba.
As far as I know the emirs of Cordoba were Ummayads,
a dinasty founded
by the only Ummayad prince who escape the murder of
the whole family by
Abbas "le Sanguinaire" founder of the Abbassid
dinasty (and 2nd cousin
to Muhammad). Through the Ummayads you go to 'Abd
Manaf, Muhammad's
gggrandfather but not closer.
If you had a line to the sheriffs of Morocco or the
Fatimids in Egipt
it could be different but through the emirs of
Cordoba, the only
possibility is an ignored female line rather
unprobable because I do
not see an emir of Cordoba marrying a shiya muslim.
Please post it.
Regards
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
One of the most amusing and entertaining aspects of reading, studying
and discussing Mediaeval History and Genealogy as well as watching
Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians at WORK and PLAY is observing
their VERY sloppy and non-professional use of SOURCES, both primary and
secondary.
Normally, Real Genealogists and Historians insist on CONFIRMATORY,
NON-DUPLICATIVE SOURCES. They then TRIANGULATE towards TRUTH from
several DISCRETE, FREE-STANDING sources.
But, since Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians have so FEW sources --
and they are so fragmentary and often obtuse and/or ambiguous as well --
the mediaevalists have agreed upon and set much LOWER STANDARDS for
their WORK than is the accepted practice among many historians working
in other periods.
In an oft-unspoken but implicitly agreed-upon conspiracy among the
mediaeval genealogists and historians, they go into PRINT with FAR less
EVIDENCE to back up their conclusions than they SHOULD.
Otherwise they would have NOTHING TO WRITE ABOUT -- their CAREERS would
WITHER on the VINE and they would STARVE or wind up teaching High-School
History or "Social Studies" in the boondocks.
That's one of their dirty little secrets they would prefer to keep from
the General Public -- who make it possible for them to earn a living and
keep on EATING.
This ALSO opens the door to all sorts of pretenders, frauds and
charlatans who can bamboozle the General Public more easily -- since the
mediaeval evidence to propose or refute alleged statements of fact is
often so SLIM and INCONSEQUENTIAL.
But there are many HONEST practitioners in the professions also. The
difficulty for the General Public is sifting out the sloppy
exaggerators, the frauds, the disingenuous pretenders and the charlatans
from the others -- who are trying to be careful, honest, professional
and straightforward.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
and discussing Mediaeval History and Genealogy as well as watching
Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians at WORK and PLAY is observing
their VERY sloppy and non-professional use of SOURCES, both primary and
secondary.
Normally, Real Genealogists and Historians insist on CONFIRMATORY,
NON-DUPLICATIVE SOURCES. They then TRIANGULATE towards TRUTH from
several DISCRETE, FREE-STANDING sources.
But, since Mediaeval Genealogists And Historians have so FEW sources --
and they are so fragmentary and often obtuse and/or ambiguous as well --
the mediaevalists have agreed upon and set much LOWER STANDARDS for
their WORK than is the accepted practice among many historians working
in other periods.
In an oft-unspoken but implicitly agreed-upon conspiracy among the
mediaeval genealogists and historians, they go into PRINT with FAR less
EVIDENCE to back up their conclusions than they SHOULD.
Otherwise they would have NOTHING TO WRITE ABOUT -- their CAREERS would
WITHER on the VINE and they would STARVE or wind up teaching High-School
History or "Social Studies" in the boondocks.
That's one of their dirty little secrets they would prefer to keep from
the General Public -- who make it possible for them to earn a living and
keep on EATING.
This ALSO opens the door to all sorts of pretenders, frauds and
charlatans who can bamboozle the General Public more easily -- since the
mediaeval evidence to propose or refute alleged statements of fact is
often so SLIM and INCONSEQUENTIAL.
But there are many HONEST practitioners in the professions also. The
difficulty for the General Public is sifting out the sloppy
exaggerators, the frauds, the disingenuous pretenders and the charlatans
from the others -- who are trying to be careful, honest, professional
and straightforward.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VeeOd.221$Df3.3262@eagle.america.net...
<blather snipped>
Why is this difficult if the historian gives, or at least cites, the
specific source/s for any statement, so that the reader can readily check &
make up his or her own mind?
The "dirty" tricksters surely are those who announce they have "MANY
sources" for a statement and then fail to deliver.
Peter Stewart
news:VeeOd.221$Df3.3262@eagle.america.net...
<blather snipped>
But there are many HONEST practitioners in the professions also. The
difficulty for the General Public is sifting out the sloppy
exaggerators, the frauds, the disingenuous pretenders and the charlatans
from the others -- who are trying to be careful, honest, professional
and straightforward.
Why is this difficult if the historian gives, or at least cites, the
specific source/s for any statement, so that the reader can readily check &
make up his or her own mind?
The "dirty" tricksters surely are those who announce they have "MANY
sources" for a statement and then fail to deliver.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
Gosh, Peter, I hate to say it, but it sure seems like you're describing
yourself in your post above. If you recall, I asked and asked for you
to provide me examples of cognatus meaning brother-in-law - all to no
avail. You said that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
the word cognatus, yet you were unable to quote a single contemporary
record to back up your statements. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg.
Are you a "dirty trickster?" Mmmm ... if the shoe fits, I say wear
it, dude.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The "dirty" tricksters surely are those who announce they have "MANY
sources" for a statement and then fail to deliver.
Peter Stewart
Gosh, Peter, I hate to say it, but it sure seems like you're describing
yourself in your post above. If you recall, I asked and asked for you
to provide me examples of cognatus meaning brother-in-law - all to no
avail. You said that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
the word cognatus, yet you were unable to quote a single contemporary
record to back up your statements. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg.
Are you a "dirty trickster?" Mmmm ... if the shoe fits, I say wear
it, dude.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Douglas they way you are twisting situations can only place you amongst the
tricksters. Or your logic could be out of kilter.
Hines : "there are many sources" if he says so he should be able to quote,
he has quoted some I think but those were faulty; if you say something you
should put up.
Douglas Richardson : asks Peter Stewart for sources. Asks! Peter Stewart is
not obliged to answer. You can ask till you are blue in the face. In my
opinion a totally different situation.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowered
Historiographical Standards
tricksters. Or your logic could be out of kilter.
Hines : "there are many sources" if he says so he should be able to quote,
he has quoted some I think but those were faulty; if you say something you
should put up.
Douglas Richardson : asks Peter Stewart for sources. Asks! Peter Stewart is
not obliged to answer. You can ask till you are blue in the face. In my
opinion a totally different situation.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowered
Historiographical Standards
Peter Stewart wrote:
The "dirty" tricksters surely are those who announce they have "MANY
sources" for a statement and then fail to deliver.
Peter Stewart
Gosh, Peter, I hate to say it, but it sure seems like you're describing
yourself in your post above. If you recall, I asked and asked for you
to provide me examples of cognatus meaning brother-in-law - all to no
avail. You said that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
the word cognatus, yet you were unable to quote a single contemporary
record to back up your statements. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg.
Are you a "dirty trickster?" Mmmm ... if the shoe fits, I say wear
it, dude.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Duoglas Richardson wrote:
No, the problem here is that you are in the throes of denial, just like
Spencer in the ungainly tumble he has taken from his lame hobby-horse -
I gave you the example from Bede that could not be more explicit, and
described at length why a Latin word _must_ have been useable with the
same meaning in the 12th century, which was the entire point that I had
made about it.
Yes by all means - and you are the one twisting & distorting and
cramming your foot once more into this particular shoe.
Peter Stewart
Gosh, Peter, I hate to say it, but it sure seems like you're
describing yourself in your post above. If you recall, I
asked and asked for you to provide me examples of cognatus
meaning brother-in-law - all to no avail. You said that
brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of the word
cognatus, yet you were unable to quote a single contemporary
record to back up your statements. None. Nada. Zip. Goose
egg.
No, the problem here is that you are in the throes of denial, just like
Spencer in the ungainly tumble he has taken from his lame hobby-horse -
I gave you the example from Bede that could not be more explicit, and
described at length why a Latin word _must_ have been useable with the
same meaning in the 12th century, which was the entire point that I had
made about it.
Are you a "dirty trickster?" Mmmm ... if the shoe fits,
I say wear it, dude.
Yes by all means - and you are the one twisting & distorting and
cramming your foot once more into this particular shoe.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
We know the point you made, Peter. You're still a "goose egg" with the
cognatus thing. All the same, thanks for the kind words.
Best regards, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
cognatus thing. All the same, thanks for the kind words.
Best regards, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Duoglas Richardson wrote:
Gosh, Peter, I hate to say it, but it sure seems like you're
describing yourself in your post above. If you recall, I
asked and asked for you to provide me examples of cognatus
meaning brother-in-law - all to no avail. You said that
brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of the word
cognatus, yet you were unable to quote a single contemporary
record to back up your statements. None. Nada. Zip. Goose
egg.
No, the problem here is that you are in the throes of denial, just
like
Spencer in the ungainly tumble he has taken from his lame hobby-horse
-
I gave you the example from Bede that could not be more explicit, and
described at length why a Latin word _must_ have been useable with
the
same meaning in the 12th century, which was the entire point that I
had
made about it.
Are you a "dirty trickster?" Mmmm ... if the shoe fits,
I say wear it, dude.
Yes by all means - and you are the one twisting & distorting and
cramming your foot once more into this particular shoe.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I agree and disagree, Leo (a perfectly comfortable situation that
doesn't involve any "mugwamp" contortions for either of us).
_If_ Richardson had been telling the truth, he would have a point - but
of course he isn't. He had every right to ask me to substantiate the
point I had made about "cognatus", and in my view I was obliged to
answer in order to sustain the alternative definition I had put
forward. And so I did, using the standard dictionary and providing what
must necessarily be a very rare example that stated precisely what I
had claimed. This came from Bede, a writer whose influence in later
centuries was vast, and the matter was further illuminated with another
"-in-law" meaning from no less than St Jerome's Bible, which had an
even greater influence.
By any reasonable standards of discourse, my point was more than
adequately proved. The fact that Richardson still won't accept and
acknowledge this only tells us something to his own discredit, not
mine.
Peter Stewart
Douglas they way you are twisting situations can only place
you amongst the tricksters. Or your logic could be out of kilter.
Hines : "there are many sources" if he says so he should be
able to quote, he has quoted some I think but those were faulty;
if you say something you should put up.
Douglas Richardson : asks Peter Stewart for sources. Asks!
Peter Stewart is not obliged to answer. You can ask till you are
blue in the face. In my opinion a totally different situation.
I agree and disagree, Leo (a perfectly comfortable situation that
doesn't involve any "mugwamp" contortions for either of us).
_If_ Richardson had been telling the truth, he would have a point - but
of course he isn't. He had every right to ask me to substantiate the
point I had made about "cognatus", and in my view I was obliged to
answer in order to sustain the alternative definition I had put
forward. And so I did, using the standard dictionary and providing what
must necessarily be a very rare example that stated precisely what I
had claimed. This came from Bede, a writer whose influence in later
centuries was vast, and the matter was further illuminated with another
"-in-law" meaning from no less than St Jerome's Bible, which had an
even greater influence.
By any reasonable standards of discourse, my point was more than
adequately proved. The fact that Richardson still won't accept and
acknowledge this only tells us something to his own discredit, not
mine.
Peter Stewart
-
Betty Owen
forced tags and questionable computer ethics
Well speaking of disrespect and tricksters.
I do not have to disguise my email address and I don't have to send a tag
with all my emails constantly asking if I want Japanese of English Inviting
to change the language..
This is unfortunate that we cannot do something about the
constant use of language tag. I really wish that our monitors would see this
as an intrusion and ask the offending party to stop or be removed. It is a
threat to down load something into my computer everytime-who is to say it is
not a virus or something else destructive ?.
Also if he really wants to be heard that is the wrong way to go about it..
As I just delete the offending emails.
Thanks
Betty
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
I do not have to disguise my email address and I don't have to send a tag
with all my emails constantly asking if I want Japanese of English Inviting
to change the language..
This is unfortunate that we cannot do something about the
constant use of language tag. I really wish that our monitors would see this
as an intrusion and ask the offending party to stop or be removed. It is a
threat to down load something into my computer everytime-who is to say it is
not a virus or something else destructive ?.
Also if he really wants to be heard that is the wrong way to go about it..
As I just delete the offending emails.
Thanks
Betty
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I agree and disagree, Leo (a perfectly comfortable situation that
doesn't involve any "mugwamp" contortions for either of us).
_If_ Richardson had been telling the truth, he would have a point - but
of course he isn't. He had every right to ask me to substantiate the
point I had made about "cognatus", and in my view I was obliged to
answer in order to sustain the alternative definition I had put
forward. And so I did, using the standard dictionary and providing what
must necessarily be a very rare example that stated precisely what I
had claimed. This came from Bede, a writer whose influence in later
centuries was vast, and the matter was further illuminated with another
"-in-law" meaning from no less than St Jerome's Bible, which had an
even greater influence.
By any reasonable standards of discourse, my point was more than
adequately proved. The fact that Richardson still won't accept and
acknowledge this only tells us something to his own discredit, not
mine.
Peter Stewart
Douglas they way you are twisting situations can only place
you amongst the tricksters. Or your logic could be out of kilter.
Hines : "there are many sources" if he says so he should be
able to quote, he has quoted some I think but those were faulty;
if you say something you should put up.
Douglas Richardson : asks Peter Stewart for sources. Asks!
Peter Stewart is not obliged to answer. You can ask till you are
blue in the face. In my opinion a totally different situation.
I agree and disagree, Leo (a perfectly comfortable situation that
doesn't involve any "mugwamp" contortions for either of us).
_If_ Richardson had been telling the truth, he would have a point - but
of course he isn't. He had every right to ask me to substantiate the
point I had made about "cognatus", and in my view I was obliged to
answer in order to sustain the alternative definition I had put
forward. And so I did, using the standard dictionary and providing what
must necessarily be a very rare example that stated precisely what I
had claimed. This came from Bede, a writer whose influence in later
centuries was vast, and the matter was further illuminated with another
"-in-law" meaning from no less than St Jerome's Bible, which had an
even greater influence.
By any reasonable standards of discourse, my point was more than
adequately proved. The fact that Richardson still won't accept and
acknowledge this only tells us something to his own discredit, not
mine.
Peter Stewart
-
Paul J Gans
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
In soc.history.medieval Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve and
much of the royalty that followed?
---- Paul J. Gans
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VeeOd.221$Df3.3262@eagle.america.net...
blather snipped
But there are many HONEST practitioners in the professions also. The
difficulty for the General Public is sifting out the sloppy
exaggerators, the frauds, the disingenuous pretenders and the charlatans
from the others -- who are trying to be careful, honest, professional
and straightforward.
Why is this difficult if the historian gives, or at least cites, the
specific source/s for any statement, so that the reader can readily check &
make up his or her own mind?
The "dirty" tricksters surely are those who announce they have "MANY
sources" for a statement and then fail to deliver.
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve and
much of the royalty that followed?
---- Paul J. Gans
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Quite True.
Peter failed to perform on that occasion, as on so many others.
Goose Egg Indeed. His knowledge of Mediaeval Latin, as well as
Classical Latin, is obviously quite rudimentary and inadequate.
He's been trying to bugger us on that score.
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
Hilarious!
Peter also seems quite ignorant of the fact that sources can be primary,
secondary or even tertiary ---- and there are MANY secondary sources,
including dictionaries, encyclopedias, biographies and history books
that have a birthdate of circa 1122 for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
If there is new CONVINCING evidence for a birthdate of 1124 or circa
1124, Peter can't make up his mind on which, then we shall consider it
in the Free Market of Ideas -- using standard, not lowered, Rules of
Evidence.
However, we have not been shown anything APPROACHING such CONVINCING
evidence for a birthdate of 1124, or of circa 1124, to date.
I'm certainly not saying the evidence for 1122, or circa 1122, is solid
either, and never have.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107923415.062459.204180@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Peter Stewart wrote:
| >
| > The "dirty" tricksters surely are those who announce they have "MANY
| > sources" for a statement and then fail to deliver.
| >
| > Peter Stewart
|
| Gosh, Peter, I hate to say it, but it sure seems like you're
describing
| yourself in your post above. If you recall, I asked and asked for you
| to provide me examples of cognatus meaning brother-in-law - all to no
| avail. You said that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
| the word cognatus, yet you were unable to quote a single contemporary
| record to back up your statements. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg.
|
| Are you a "dirty trickster?" Mmmm ... if the shoe fits, I say wear
| it, dude.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter failed to perform on that occasion, as on so many others.
Goose Egg Indeed. His knowledge of Mediaeval Latin, as well as
Classical Latin, is obviously quite rudimentary and inadequate.
He's been trying to bugger us on that score.
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
Hilarious!
Peter also seems quite ignorant of the fact that sources can be primary,
secondary or even tertiary ---- and there are MANY secondary sources,
including dictionaries, encyclopedias, biographies and history books
that have a birthdate of circa 1122 for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
If there is new CONVINCING evidence for a birthdate of 1124 or circa
1124, Peter can't make up his mind on which, then we shall consider it
in the Free Market of Ideas -- using standard, not lowered, Rules of
Evidence.
However, we have not been shown anything APPROACHING such CONVINCING
evidence for a birthdate of 1124, or of circa 1124, to date.
I'm certainly not saying the evidence for 1122, or circa 1122, is solid
either, and never have.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107923415.062459.204180@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Peter Stewart wrote:
| >
| > The "dirty" tricksters surely are those who announce they have "MANY
| > sources" for a statement and then fail to deliver.
| >
| > Peter Stewart
|
| Gosh, Peter, I hate to say it, but it sure seems like you're
describing
| yourself in your post above. If you recall, I asked and asked for you
| to provide me examples of cognatus meaning brother-in-law - all to no
| avail. You said that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning of
| the word cognatus, yet you were unable to quote a single contemporary
| record to back up your statements. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg.
|
| Are you a "dirty trickster?" Mmmm ... if the shoe fits, I say wear
| it, dude.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Leo van de Pas is the one who wanted us to take seriously the idea that
Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, may well have been
the infamous Jack The Ripper.
Bats In the Belfry Of The Ex-Pat Dutchman.
Who knew that Leo was reading the tabloids and believing them?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Leo van de Pas is the one who wanted us to take seriously the idea that
Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, may well have been
the infamous Jack The Ripper.
Bats In the Belfry Of The Ex-Pat Dutchman.
Who knew that Leo was reading the tabloids and believing them?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Really!
Has this risible accusation of Leo's been made there too?
Not that I have any particular respect for The History Channel. They
have aired some terrible rubbish on Pearl Harbor.
DSH
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cudqg5$vva$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > Hilarious!
| >
| > Leo van de Pas is the one who wanted us to take seriously the idea
| > that Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, may well
| > have been the infamous Jack The Ripper.
| >
| > Bats In the Belfry Of The Ex-Pat Dutchman.
| >
| > Who knew that Leo was reading the tabloids and believing them?
|
|
| Tabloids are unnecessary. The History Channel will do.
|
| Doug McDonald
Has this risible accusation of Leo's been made there too?
Not that I have any particular respect for The History Channel. They
have aired some terrible rubbish on Pearl Harbor.
DSH
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cudqg5$vva$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > Hilarious!
| >
| > Leo van de Pas is the one who wanted us to take seriously the idea
| > that Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, may well
| > have been the infamous Jack The Ripper.
| >
| > Bats In the Belfry Of The Ex-Pat Dutchman.
| >
| > Who knew that Leo was reading the tabloids and believing them?
|
|
| Tabloids are unnecessary. The History Channel will do.
|
| Doug McDonald
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6QsOd.235$Df3.3885@eagle.america.net...
No, it's a barefaced lie & it won't go unanswered - yet again.
What others? Only "many, not "MANY" this time? The point I made about
"cognatus" was that "brother-in-law" was a usual meaning of the word. I
proved this by showing that this was the PRIMARY definition given in the
STANDARD dictionary, illustrated by an EXPLICIT statement of no less than
Bede. This is not open to debate - the archive can't be manipulated and
distortions of the truth won't stand a moment's scutiny. Hines had nothng to
say at the time, but now that he is trying to cosy up with Douglas
Richardson again - acting on the crudest principle imaginable, of course -
he has changed his tune.
If you have - or ever had - issues with a translation given by me, you are -
and always have been - free to bring these forward. So far you have covered
your own reputation in mud with nonsense about the meaning of "non sequitur"
and "apud", not exactly inspiring confidence in your ability to reach a
valid conclusion in this field.
Where in a map of Galicia can you direct us to a place named "Saint-James"?
At least you have learned not to repeat your nonsense about "apud
Sanctum-Jacobum" meaning "at [the shrine of] Saint-James [de Compostela]".
Not at all - this is not going to work. On 4 February Spencer wrote:
"MANY other sources have Eleanor's birthdate as c. 1122 -- and MANY
Mediaeval Historians and Genealogists use this birthdate -- NOT c. 1124"
making a clear distinction between "MANY sources" (implicitly primary) and
"MANY Mediaeval Histrorians and Genealogists" (explicitly secondary). He has
since come up with several secondary sources (including at third-hand, I
suppose leading to his idea of "tertiary" sources) that were all faulty in
the relevant respect, but NOT ONE primary source of the "MANY" that he
plainly claimed.
You have been given the link - and didn't have the wits or honesty even to
look it up until I gave you the text and hepled you out with a translation.
You have since chosen to quibble absurdly over this while vainly trying to
disparage the source. And you have come up with NO evidence ("CONVINCING" or
otherwise) for your own contention.
She was said to be aged 13 in mid-1137. Do the maths yourself. To claim that
the only direct source for her age doesn't approach the standard of
convincing proof, without any other source or even circumstantial evidence
to counter it, is blatant & deliberate ignorance.
This is as close to retraction as Spencer can manage. A very graceful report
from the horse's arse indeed - hoist back up his own petard - in line with
his honesty on other questions.
Peter Stewart
news:6QsOd.235$Df3.3885@eagle.america.net...
Quite True.
No, it's a barefaced lie & it won't go unanswered - yet again.
Peter failed to perform on that occasion, as on so many others.
What others? Only "many, not "MANY" this time? The point I made about
"cognatus" was that "brother-in-law" was a usual meaning of the word. I
proved this by showing that this was the PRIMARY definition given in the
STANDARD dictionary, illustrated by an EXPLICIT statement of no less than
Bede. This is not open to debate - the archive can't be manipulated and
distortions of the truth won't stand a moment's scutiny. Hines had nothng to
say at the time, but now that he is trying to cosy up with Douglas
Richardson again - acting on the crudest principle imaginable, of course -
he has changed his tune.
Goose Egg Indeed. His knowledge of Mediaeval Latin, as well as
Classical Latin, is obviously quite rudimentary and inadequate.
He's been trying to bugger us on that score.
If you have - or ever had - issues with a translation given by me, you are -
and always have been - free to bring these forward. So far you have covered
your own reputation in mud with nonsense about the meaning of "non sequitur"
and "apud", not exactly inspiring confidence in your ability to reach a
valid conclusion in this field.
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
Where in a map of Galicia can you direct us to a place named "Saint-James"?
At least you have learned not to repeat your nonsense about "apud
Sanctum-Jacobum" meaning "at [the shrine of] Saint-James [de Compostela]".
Hilarious!
Peter also seems quite ignorant of the fact that sources can be primary,
secondary or even tertiary ---- and there are MANY secondary sources,
including dictionaries, encyclopedias, biographies and history books
that have a birthdate of circa 1122 for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Not at all - this is not going to work. On 4 February Spencer wrote:
"MANY other sources have Eleanor's birthdate as c. 1122 -- and MANY
Mediaeval Historians and Genealogists use this birthdate -- NOT c. 1124"
making a clear distinction between "MANY sources" (implicitly primary) and
"MANY Mediaeval Histrorians and Genealogists" (explicitly secondary). He has
since come up with several secondary sources (including at third-hand, I
suppose leading to his idea of "tertiary" sources) that were all faulty in
the relevant respect, but NOT ONE primary source of the "MANY" that he
plainly claimed.
If there is new CONVINCING evidence for a birthdate of 1124 or circa
1124, Peter can't make up his mind on which, then we shall consider it
in the Free Market of Ideas -- using standard, not lowered, Rules of
Evidence.
You have been given the link - and didn't have the wits or honesty even to
look it up until I gave you the text and hepled you out with a translation.
You have since chosen to quibble absurdly over this while vainly trying to
disparage the source. And you have come up with NO evidence ("CONVINCING" or
otherwise) for your own contention.
However, we have not been shown anything APPROACHING such CONVINCING
evidence for a birthdate of 1124, or of circa 1124, to date.
She was said to be aged 13 in mid-1137. Do the maths yourself. To claim that
the only direct source for her age doesn't approach the standard of
convincing proof, without any other source or even circumstantial evidence
to counter it, is blatant & deliberate ignorance.
I'm certainly not saying the evidence for 1122, or circa 1122, is solid
either, and never have.
This is as close to retraction as Spencer can manage. A very graceful report
from the horse's arse indeed - hoist back up his own petard - in line with
his honesty on other questions.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Paul J. Gans wrote:
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Spencer has multiple
lines of descent from Cain. His morals had to come from somewhere...
Peter Stewart
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve
and much of the royalty that followed?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Spencer has multiple
lines of descent from Cain. His morals had to come from somewhere...
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart comes up with yet ANOTHER Goose Egg.
His knowledge of Mediaeval Latin, as well as Classical Latin, is
obviously quite rudimentary, sloppy and inadequate.
He's been trying to bugger us on that score for years now.
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
Any first-year Latin student should be able to do that -- say a
seventh-grader in Mrs. Malcolm's Latin class, in my Junior-High School
days.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Peter also seems quite ignorant of the fact that sources can be primary,
secondary or even tertiary ---- and there are MANY secondary sources,
including dictionaries, encyclopedias, biographies and history books
that have a birthdate of circa 1122 for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
If there is NEW CONVINCING evidence for a birthdate of 1124 or circa
1124, Pogue Stewart can't make up his mind as to WHICH it is, then we
shall consider it in the Free Market of Ideas, weighing the evidence on
its MERITS -- using standard, NOT lowered, Rules of Evidence.
However, we have not been shown ANYTHING APPROACHING such CONVINCING
evidence for a birthdate of 1124, or of circa 1124, to date.
I'm certainly not saying the evidence for 1122, or circa 1122, is solid
either, and I NEVER have.
As any intelligent reader can readily ascertain, all I've said is that
many quite accomplished and respected scholars hold that Eleanor was
born circa 1122. That is a HISTORICAL FACT.
If Pogue Stewart and his perambulating sidekick and straight man, Pogue
Parsons, [that parses nicely doesn't it, rolls right off the tongue]
have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to the CONTRARY let them bring it to the
table -- but they have shown us NOTHING convincing to date -- and they
seem to have run out of both steam and EXCUSES.
Quite Amusing Actually -- Pogue Stewart, the Top Banana, and his
sidekick straight man, Pogue Parsons.
Great Entertainment!...
But Sans Genealogical Or Historical Substance In Any SERIOUS Sense....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Pogue Stewart comes up with yet ANOTHER Goose Egg.
His knowledge of Mediaeval Latin, as well as Classical Latin, is
obviously quite rudimentary, sloppy and inadequate.
He's been trying to bugger us on that score for years now.
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
Any first-year Latin student should be able to do that -- say a
seventh-grader in Mrs. Malcolm's Latin class, in my Junior-High School
days.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Peter also seems quite ignorant of the fact that sources can be primary,
secondary or even tertiary ---- and there are MANY secondary sources,
including dictionaries, encyclopedias, biographies and history books
that have a birthdate of circa 1122 for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
If there is NEW CONVINCING evidence for a birthdate of 1124 or circa
1124, Pogue Stewart can't make up his mind as to WHICH it is, then we
shall consider it in the Free Market of Ideas, weighing the evidence on
its MERITS -- using standard, NOT lowered, Rules of Evidence.
However, we have not been shown ANYTHING APPROACHING such CONVINCING
evidence for a birthdate of 1124, or of circa 1124, to date.
I'm certainly not saying the evidence for 1122, or circa 1122, is solid
either, and I NEVER have.
As any intelligent reader can readily ascertain, all I've said is that
many quite accomplished and respected scholars hold that Eleanor was
born circa 1122. That is a HISTORICAL FACT.
If Pogue Stewart and his perambulating sidekick and straight man, Pogue
Parsons, [that parses nicely doesn't it, rolls right off the tongue]
have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to the CONTRARY let them bring it to the
table -- but they have shown us NOTHING convincing to date -- and they
seem to have run out of both steam and EXCUSES.
Quite Amusing Actually -- Pogue Stewart, the Top Banana, and his
sidekick straight man, Pogue Parsons.
Great Entertainment!...
But Sans Genealogical Or Historical Substance In Any SERIOUS Sense....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zMzOd.326$Df3.4116@eagle.america.net...
I dtranslated this as "at Santiago". Santiago IS "Saint-James". This is NOT
a matter of opinion. There is a place in north-west Spain called Santiago -
there is NO place there called (either locally or internationally)
"Saint-James".
If you will refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition (far the
best) you will find:
"Santiago de Compostela, or Santiago (formerly written in English 'St Jago
de Compostella' and sometimes 'Compostello), a city of N.W. Spain" (vol. 24
pp. 191-192.
NO reference there to "Saint-James". Why is that?
Because Spencer is blathering, trying vainly to distract attention from his
latest inane blunder and showing a nasty streak of contempt for the entire
newsgroup with his distortions, as usual, and his utterly moronic
repetitions (deleted) about primary, secondary and "tertiary" sources. We
all know what he said, what he meant, and how wrong he was.
Peter Stewart
news:zMzOd.326$Df3.4116@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart comes up with yet ANOTHER Goose Egg.
His knowledge of Mediaeval Latin, as well as Classical Latin, is
obviously quite rudimentary, sloppy and inadequate.
He's been trying to bugger us on that score for years now.
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
I dtranslated this as "at Santiago". Santiago IS "Saint-James". This is NOT
a matter of opinion. There is a place in north-west Spain called Santiago -
there is NO place there called (either locally or internationally)
"Saint-James".
If you will refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition (far the
best) you will find:
"Santiago de Compostela, or Santiago (formerly written in English 'St Jago
de Compostella' and sometimes 'Compostello), a city of N.W. Spain" (vol. 24
pp. 191-192.
NO reference there to "Saint-James". Why is that?
Because Spencer is blathering, trying vainly to distract attention from his
latest inane blunder and showing a nasty streak of contempt for the entire
newsgroup with his distortions, as usual, and his utterly moronic
repetitions (deleted) about primary, secondary and "tertiary" sources. We
all know what he said, what he meant, and how wrong he was.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Paul J. Gans wrote:
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve
and much of the royalty that followed?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Spencer has multiple
lines of descent from Cain. His morals had to come from somewhere...
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Douglas Richardson wrote:
You just flunked Genealogy class, yet again - there is no more basis
for a fantasy of lines of ascent to Noah as these might have been
fabricated in the middle ages than there is for lines to Cain as these
might not have been in the Bible.
If you really believe that Genesis tells the full story, no doubt
someone here has shares in a bridge from Brooklyn to Manhattan that you
can buy.
Meanwhile, congratulations on not being fool enough to support Spencer
Hines (yet, anyway), as he is clearly angling himself to support you.
Peter Stewart
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
You just flunked Genealogy class, yet again - there is no more basis
for a fantasy of lines of ascent to Noah as these might have been
fabricated in the middle ages than there is for lines to Cain as these
might not have been in the Bible.
If you really believe that Genesis tells the full story, no doubt
someone here has shares in a bridge from Brooklyn to Manhattan that you
can buy.
Meanwhile, congratulations on not being fool enough to support Spencer
Hines (yet, anyway), as he is clearly angling himself to support you.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Furthermore, Henry and Eleanor were probably not together at any stage
in the period around nine months before Christmas 1167,..."
Pogue Stewart -- Trolling Hopefully
----------------------------------
Hilarious!
This is the kind of LUNATIC, categorical statement, sans a scintilla of
evidence, that these fraudulent, charlatan genealogists and historians
are so apt to make.
As if ANYONE today could say for sure that Henry II and his wife Eleanor
of Aquitaine -- living over 800 years ago -- probably could NOT have had
ANY conjugal relations in a period nine months before a given date.
These are the sorts of false premises they invent, straws they grasp at
and disingenuous webs they weave because they must PUBLISH and entice
CLIENTS in order to EAT.
Most Amusing.
And Proves My Point....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
in the period around nine months before Christmas 1167,..."
Pogue Stewart -- Trolling Hopefully
----------------------------------
Hilarious!
This is the kind of LUNATIC, categorical statement, sans a scintilla of
evidence, that these fraudulent, charlatan genealogists and historians
are so apt to make.
As if ANYONE today could say for sure that Henry II and his wife Eleanor
of Aquitaine -- living over 800 years ago -- probably could NOT have had
ANY conjugal relations in a period nine months before a given date.
These are the sorts of false premises they invent, straws they grasp at
and disingenuous webs they weave because they must PUBLISH and entice
CLIENTS in order to EAT.
Most Amusing.
And Proves My Point....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart just keeps laying those goose eggs.
Saint-James of Compostela is ENGLISH.
Santiago de Compostela is SPANISH.
Pogue Stewart can't get THAT through his addled brain.
Pogue Stewart apparently has never heard of Santiago de la Espana,
ANOTHER Santiago in Spain, in Murcia -- far, far away from Santiago de
Compostela, in Galicia.
There are also many OTHER Santiagos in various Hispanic Nations, e.g.,
Mexico, Cuba, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Peru, Portugal,
Paraguay, Argentina, etc.
Damaged Brain!
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate into English
_apud Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
Any first-year Latin student should be able to do that -- say a
seventh-grader in Mrs. Malcolm's Latin class, in my Junior-High School
days.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Peter also seems quite ignorant of the fact that sources can be primary,
secondary or even tertiary ---- and there are MANY secondary and
tertiary sources, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, biographies and
history books that have a birthdate of circa 1122 for Eleanor of
Aquitaine.
If there is NEW CONVINCING evidence for a birthdate of 1124 or circa
1124, Pogue Stewart can't make up his mind as to WHICH it is, then we
shall consider it in the Free Market of Ideas, weighing the evidence on
its MERITS -- using standard, NOT lowered, Rules of Evidence.
However, we have not been shown ANYTHING APPROACHING such CONVINCING
evidence for a birthdate of 1124, or of circa 1124, to date.
I'm certainly not saying the evidence for 1122, or circa 1122, is solid
either, and I NEVER have.
As any intelligent reader can readily ascertain, all I've said is that
many quite accomplished and respected scholars hold that Eleanor was
born circa 1122. That is a HISTORICAL FACT.
If Pogue Stewart and his perambulating sidekick and straight man, Pogue
Parsons, [that parses nicely doesn't it, rolls right off the tongue]
have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to the CONTRARY let them bring it to the
table -- but they have shown us NOTHING convincing to date -- and they
seem to have run out of both steam and EXCUSES.
So they whine, kvetch and cry in their beer.
Quite Amusing Actually -- Pogue Stewart, the Top Banana, and his
sidekick straight man, Pogue Parsons.
Great Entertainment!...
But Sans Genealogical Or Historical Substance In Any SERIOUS Sense.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Pogue Stewart just keeps laying those goose eggs.
Saint-James of Compostela is ENGLISH.
Santiago de Compostela is SPANISH.
Pogue Stewart can't get THAT through his addled brain.
Pogue Stewart apparently has never heard of Santiago de la Espana,
ANOTHER Santiago in Spain, in Murcia -- far, far away from Santiago de
Compostela, in Galicia.
There are also many OTHER Santiagos in various Hispanic Nations, e.g.,
Mexico, Cuba, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Peru, Portugal,
Paraguay, Argentina, etc.
Damaged Brain!
Why, Peter is so ignorant he can't even properly translate into English
_apud Sanctum-Jacobum_ as "at Saint-James."
Any first-year Latin student should be able to do that -- say a
seventh-grader in Mrs. Malcolm's Latin class, in my Junior-High School
days.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Peter also seems quite ignorant of the fact that sources can be primary,
secondary or even tertiary ---- and there are MANY secondary and
tertiary sources, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, biographies and
history books that have a birthdate of circa 1122 for Eleanor of
Aquitaine.
If there is NEW CONVINCING evidence for a birthdate of 1124 or circa
1124, Pogue Stewart can't make up his mind as to WHICH it is, then we
shall consider it in the Free Market of Ideas, weighing the evidence on
its MERITS -- using standard, NOT lowered, Rules of Evidence.
However, we have not been shown ANYTHING APPROACHING such CONVINCING
evidence for a birthdate of 1124, or of circa 1124, to date.
I'm certainly not saying the evidence for 1122, or circa 1122, is solid
either, and I NEVER have.
As any intelligent reader can readily ascertain, all I've said is that
many quite accomplished and respected scholars hold that Eleanor was
born circa 1122. That is a HISTORICAL FACT.
If Pogue Stewart and his perambulating sidekick and straight man, Pogue
Parsons, [that parses nicely doesn't it, rolls right off the tongue]
have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to the CONTRARY let them bring it to the
table -- but they have shown us NOTHING convincing to date -- and they
seem to have run out of both steam and EXCUSES.
So they whine, kvetch and cry in their beer.
Quite Amusing Actually -- Pogue Stewart, the Top Banana, and his
sidekick straight man, Pogue Parsons.
Great Entertainment!...
But Sans Genealogical Or Historical Substance In Any SERIOUS Sense.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Spencer Hines wrote:
Instead of ranting again, why not try to explain the brain-damage that
must in your opinion underlie the Encyclopaedia Britannica, as quoted
before: "Santiago de Compostela, or Santiago (formerly written in
English 'St Jago de Compostella' and sometimes 'Compostello), a city of
N.W. Spain" (vol. 24 pp. 191-192).
The author of the medieval text I quoted didn't go into elaborate and
uselss discussion of OTHER Santiagos. He gave "Sanctus-Jacobus", the
Latin for Santiago which is a perfectly correct term to use IN ENGLISH
for the place in Spain. As noted in EB, the former English term
(commonly used in the days before local vernaculars were generally
respected for place names) was "Saint Jago" - NOT "Saint-James" anyway.
Hines can't win any credit just by mindless repetition of his
stupidities.
It goes on getting worse for him, and he alone can't see this.
Yet I'M the one who is supposed by him to be brain damaged!
Peter Stewart
Saint-James of Compostela is ENGLISH.
Santiago de Compostela is SPANISH.
Pogue Stewart can't get THAT through his addled brain.
Pogue Stewart apparently has never heard of Santiago
de la Espana, ANOTHER Santiago in Spain, in Murcia --
far, far away from Santiago de Compostela, in Galicia.
There are also many OTHER Santiagos in various
Hispanic Nations, e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Chile, the Dominican
Republic, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Paraguay, Argentina, etc.
Damaged Brain!
Instead of ranting again, why not try to explain the brain-damage that
must in your opinion underlie the Encyclopaedia Britannica, as quoted
before: "Santiago de Compostela, or Santiago (formerly written in
English 'St Jago de Compostella' and sometimes 'Compostello), a city of
N.W. Spain" (vol. 24 pp. 191-192).
The author of the medieval text I quoted didn't go into elaborate and
uselss discussion of OTHER Santiagos. He gave "Sanctus-Jacobus", the
Latin for Santiago which is a perfectly correct term to use IN ENGLISH
for the place in Spain. As noted in EB, the former English term
(commonly used in the days before local vernaculars were generally
respected for place names) was "Saint Jago" - NOT "Saint-James" anyway.
Hines can't win any credit just by mindless repetition of his
stupidities.
It goes on getting worse for him, and he alone can't see this.
Yet I'M the one who is supposed by him to be brain damaged!
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Spencer Hines wrote:
Ranting again - he quotes me saying "probably" and then describes this
as a "categorical statement". His English is evidently almost as poor
as his Latin.
NB "for sure"...."probably". Can any teachers reading this thread tell
us at what age a primary school child would be expected to do better
than Hines at basic logic?
I haven't PUBLISHED it, Spencer - this was a post to the FMG discussion
site. And I don't have or seek to have any "CLIENTS" - that's the
preserve of your new best-friend-to-be Douglas Richardson.
Hines has not bothered to read Andrew Lewis on the subject, he has
clearly not bothered to read Eyton & investigate the itineraries of the
principals involved, he hasn't sudied the charters of Henry II and of
Eleanor or cited any other evidence to indicate where they might have
been around March 1167, together or far apart, and yet he splutters out
rubbish like this. And he calls OTHER people "brain damaged", OTHER
people "fraudulent", OTHER people "ignorant"! And still he tags his
posts with Latin that we all know - categorically - he can't understand
except by rote....
Peter Stewart
"Furthermore, Henry and Eleanor were probably not together
at any stage in the period around nine months before Christmas
1167,..."
Pogue Stewart -- Trolling Hopefully
----------------------------------
Hilarious!
This is the kind of LUNATIC, categorical statement, sans a
scintilla of evidence, that these fraudulent, charlatan genealogists
and historians are so apt to make.
Ranting again - he quotes me saying "probably" and then describes this
as a "categorical statement". His English is evidently almost as poor
as his Latin.
As if ANYONE today could say for sure that Henry II and his
wife Eleanor of Aquitaine -- living over 800 years ago -- probably
could NOT have had ANY conjugal relations in a period nine months
before a given date.
NB "for sure"...."probably". Can any teachers reading this thread tell
us at what age a primary school child would be expected to do better
than Hines at basic logic?
These are the sorts of false premises they invent, straws they
grasp at and disingenuous webs they weave because they must
PUBLISH and entice CLIENTS in order to EAT.
I haven't PUBLISHED it, Spencer - this was a post to the FMG discussion
site. And I don't have or seek to have any "CLIENTS" - that's the
preserve of your new best-friend-to-be Douglas Richardson.
Hines has not bothered to read Andrew Lewis on the subject, he has
clearly not bothered to read Eyton & investigate the itineraries of the
principals involved, he hasn't sudied the charters of Henry II and of
Eleanor or cited any other evidence to indicate where they might have
been around March 1167, together or far apart, and yet he splutters out
rubbish like this. And he calls OTHER people "brain damaged", OTHER
people "fraudulent", OTHER people "ignorant"! And still he tags his
posts with Latin that we all know - categorically - he can't understand
except by rote....
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
| Douglas Richardson wrote:
|
| > You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
| > gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
| > flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
| > from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
| > lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Indeed! <g>
Great-Grandfather Noah and his lovely wife, Great-Grandmother Naamah *,
are WONDERFUL people -- always quite popular at the Family Reunions.
<g>
* I'm delighted to reveal her name although the Holy Bible does not.
<g>
Excursions in the Ark are a prized vacation and there is a long waiting
list, but I'm scheduled to make the trip in the summer of 2008. <g>
Many of us have pets given to us by Great-Grandfather Noah, offspring of
the originals with EXTRAORDINARY pedigrees -- indeed often far better
than those of their owners. <g>
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
| Douglas Richardson wrote:
|
| > You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
| > gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
| > flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
| > from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
| > lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
|
| > You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
| > gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
| > flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
| > from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
| > lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Indeed! <g>
Great-Grandfather Noah and his lovely wife, Great-Grandmother Naamah *,
are WONDERFUL people -- always quite popular at the Family Reunions.
<g>
* I'm delighted to reveal her name although the Holy Bible does not.
<g>
Excursions in the Ark are a prized vacation and there is a long waiting
list, but I'm scheduled to make the trip in the summer of 2008. <g>
Many of us have pets given to us by Great-Grandfather Noah, offspring of
the originals with EXTRAORDINARY pedigrees -- indeed often far better
than those of their owners. <g>
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
| Douglas Richardson wrote:
|
| > You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
| > gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
| > flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
| > from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
| > lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Douglas,
If you know the bible so well. Who were the wives of the sons of Cain and
Abel? Could it be that the sons of Abel married daughters of Cain and
vice-versa? Who else were those women, and if it comes to it, who were the
wives of Cain and Abel? If you take the bible literally, they must have been
their own sisters.
Instead of giving Peter a gong----you are perhaps 'ding-dong' reeling from
your own observations?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowered
Historiographical Standards
If you know the bible so well. Who were the wives of the sons of Cain and
Abel? Could it be that the sons of Abel married daughters of Cain and
vice-versa? Who else were those women, and if it comes to it, who were the
wives of Cain and Abel? If you take the bible literally, they must have been
their own sisters.
Instead of giving Peter a gong----you are perhaps 'ding-dong' reeling from
your own observations?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowered
Historiographical Standards
Peter Stewart wrote:
Paul J. Gans wrote:
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve
and much of the royalty that followed?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Spencer has multiple
lines of descent from Cain. His morals had to come from somewhere...
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Thanks for the good laugh, Leo. You made my day. Ding dong indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Douglas,
If you know the bible so well. Who were the wives of the sons of Cain
and
Abel? Could it be that the sons of Abel married daughters of Cain and
vice-versa? Who else were those women, and if it comes to it, who
were the
wives of Cain and Abel? If you take the bible literally, they must
have been
their own sisters.
Instead of giving Peter a gong----you are perhaps 'ding-dong' reeling
from
your own observations?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play --
Lowered
Historiographical Standards
Peter Stewart wrote:
Paul J. Gans wrote:
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve
and much of the royalty that followed?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Spencer has
multiple
lines of descent from Cain. His morals had to come from
somewhere...
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong
for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable
and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
norenxaq
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- L
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
except for the ancestors of a character in Beowulf who was mentioned as a
descendant of Cain
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Glad you think it funny. But think about it.....if Abel's sons only have
Cains daughters to look for, sadly, Cains genes are everywhere even with Mr.
and Mrs. Noah as you call them.......no possibility to escape to sign of
Cain.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowered
Historiographical Standards
Cains daughters to look for, sadly, Cains genes are everywhere even with Mr.
and Mrs. Noah as you call them.......no possibility to escape to sign of
Cain.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowered
Historiographical Standards
Thanks for the good laugh, Leo. You made my day. Ding dong indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Douglas,
If you know the bible so well. Who were the wives of the sons of Cain
and
Abel? Could it be that the sons of Abel married daughters of Cain and
vice-versa? Who else were those women, and if it comes to it, who
were the
wives of Cain and Abel? If you take the bible literally, they must
have been
their own sisters.
Instead of giving Peter a gong----you are perhaps 'ding-dong' reeling
from
your own observations?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play --
Lowered
Historiographical Standards
Peter Stewart wrote:
Paul J. Gans wrote:
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve
and much of the royalty that followed?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Spencer has
multiple
lines of descent from Cain. His morals had to come from
somewhere...
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong
for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable
and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
The Bible is ALLEGORICAL, Leo.
Douglas knows that.
Do wake up, old chap.
DSH
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000601c50f33$20025660$c3b4fea9@email...
| Glad you think it funny. But think about it.....if Abel's sons only
have
| Cains daughters to look for, sadly, Cains genes are everywhere even
with Mr.
| and Mrs. Noah as you call them.......no possibility to escape to sign
of
| Cain.
Douglas knows that.
Do wake up, old chap.
DSH
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000601c50f33$20025660$c3b4fea9@email...
| Glad you think it funny. But think about it.....if Abel's sons only
have
| Cains daughters to look for, sadly, Cains genes are everywhere even
with Mr.
| and Mrs. Noah as you call them.......no possibility to escape to sign
of
| Cain.
-
Gordon Johnson
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
for Cognatus: "related by birth", and a few furbelows, but nothing about
in-law connections. Of course, we do have the problem that medieval
Latin varied a bit in usage from country to country, so it might indeed
have been used on some occasions/places in that way. In "Statutes of the
Scottish Church 1225-1559" (S.H.S. vol.LIV, 1907), on page LXXVI after a
diatribe against poor learning among the clergy, it states: "Bad Latin
was an old weakness of Scotic clergy", and later "Scotland in the 13th
century was painfully following the lead of England on the way to
reform: and in England the minimum of Latinity exigible from priests was
but a miserable smattering."
So bad usage of Latin was common. Not surprising without dictionaries!
I'll leave you folks to argue the point....
Gordon Johnson.
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6QsOd.235$Df3.3885@eagle.america.net...
Quite True.
No, it's a barefaced lie & it won't go unanswered - yet again.
Peter failed to perform on that occasion, as on so many others.
What others? Only "many, not "MANY" this time? The point I made about
"cognatus" was that "brother-in-law" was a usual meaning of the word. I
proved this by showing that this was the PRIMARY definition given in the
STANDARD dictionary, illustrated by an EXPLICIT statement of no less than
Bede. This is not open to debate - the archive can't be manipulated and
distortions of the truth won't stand a moment's scutiny. Hines had nothng to
say at the time, but now that he is trying to cosy up with Douglas
Richardson again - acting on the crudest principle imaginable, of course -
he has changed his tune.
** I have just checked my Chambers Latin-English dictionary and it say
for Cognatus: "related by birth", and a few furbelows, but nothing about
in-law connections. Of course, we do have the problem that medieval
Latin varied a bit in usage from country to country, so it might indeed
have been used on some occasions/places in that way. In "Statutes of the
Scottish Church 1225-1559" (S.H.S. vol.LIV, 1907), on page LXXVI after a
diatribe against poor learning among the clergy, it states: "Bad Latin
was an old weakness of Scotic clergy", and later "Scotland in the 13th
century was painfully following the lead of England on the way to
reform: and in England the minimum of Latinity exigible from priests was
but a miserable smattering."
So bad usage of Latin was common. Not surprising without dictionaries!
I'll leave you folks to argue the point....
Gordon Johnson.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Dear Gordon ~
Thank you for your good post. Much apreciated.
As far as I know, the Latin word "cognatus" in medieval England from
1200 forward (my period of expertise) meant kinsman only. It did not
mean "brother-in-law." In fact I recently encountered one English
record from this time period where a man referred to his kinsman and
his wife's brother in the same sentence. He called his kinsman
"cognatus" but not his brother-in-law.
It seems painfully obvious from the lengthy discussion about "cognatus"
that Mr. Stewart's knowledge of English records after 1200 is extremely
limited. He unknowingly revealed his lack when he uttered his
statement that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning for
"cognatus." If he knew anything about this period of English history,
he would never have made such a statement. In contrast, Peter seems to
be quite knowledgeable about Continental European families prior to
1200.
I appreciate Mr Stewart's help when he is polite and courteous, but
that is often not the case. Those that defend his outrageous behavior
and inane name calling are no friends of the newsgroup. I'm talking
about Tim, Leo, and Rosie, by the way. Peter has let us all down. He
has pretended to be something he isn't, and doesn't admit what he is.
Pretensions trip you up every time.
Best thing is to be yourself, don't take yourself seriously (or anyone
else), and keep a sense of humor.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Gordon Johnson wrote:
Thank you for your good post. Much apreciated.
As far as I know, the Latin word "cognatus" in medieval England from
1200 forward (my period of expertise) meant kinsman only. It did not
mean "brother-in-law." In fact I recently encountered one English
record from this time period where a man referred to his kinsman and
his wife's brother in the same sentence. He called his kinsman
"cognatus" but not his brother-in-law.
It seems painfully obvious from the lengthy discussion about "cognatus"
that Mr. Stewart's knowledge of English records after 1200 is extremely
limited. He unknowingly revealed his lack when he uttered his
statement that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning for
"cognatus." If he knew anything about this period of English history,
he would never have made such a statement. In contrast, Peter seems to
be quite knowledgeable about Continental European families prior to
1200.
I appreciate Mr Stewart's help when he is polite and courteous, but
that is often not the case. Those that defend his outrageous behavior
and inane name calling are no friends of the newsgroup. I'm talking
about Tim, Leo, and Rosie, by the way. Peter has let us all down. He
has pretended to be something he isn't, and doesn't admit what he is.
Pretensions trip you up every time.
Best thing is to be yourself, don't take yourself seriously (or anyone
else), and keep a sense of humor.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Gordon Johnson wrote:
** I have just checked my Chambers Latin-English dictionary and it
say
for Cognatus: "related by birth", and a few furbelows, but nothing
about
in-law connections. Of course, we do have the problem that medieval
Latin varied a bit in usage from country to country, so it might
indeed
have been used on some occasions/places in that way. In "Statutes of
the
Scottish Church 1225-1559" (S.H.S. vol.LIV, 1907), on page LXXVI
after a
diatribe against poor learning among the clergy, it states: "Bad
Latin
was an old weakness of Scotic clergy", and later "Scotland in the
13th
century was painfully following the lead of England on the way to
reform: and in England the minimum of Latinity exigible from priests
was
but a miserable smattering."
So bad usage of Latin was common. Not surprising without
dictionaries!
I'll leave you folks to argue the point....
Gordon Johnson.
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
and you flunked humor class.
Doug McDonald
Douglas Richardson wrote:
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
You just flunked Genealogy class, \
and you flunked humor class.
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
And Mr. Hines has not flunked humor class.
Doug McDonald
| Douglas Richardson wrote:
|
| > You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
| > gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
| > flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
| > from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
| > lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Indeed! <g
Great-Grandfather Noah and his lovely wife, Great-Grandmother Naamah *,
are WONDERFUL people -- always quite popular at the Family Reunions.
g
* I'm delighted to reveal her name although the Holy Bible does not.
g
Excursions in the Ark are a prized vacation and there is a long waiting
list, but I'm scheduled to make the trip in the summer of 2008.
And Mr. Hines has not flunked humor class.
Doug McDonald
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
As I recall, racists have maintained that Ham's wife was a descendant of
Cain.
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 18:58 -0800, Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
Cain.
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 18:58 -0800, Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Paul J. Gans wrote:
You mean like Spencer's claimed descent from Adam and Eve
and much of the royalty that followed?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Spencer has multiple
lines of descent from Cain. His morals had to come from somewhere...
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
Chris Phillips
Cognatus again (Was: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think what he said was that though it could mean a blood relative, it was
(also) "quite usual" for it to mean brother-in-law. I believe that's true -
I've certainly seen it used in that sense.
Chris Phillips
It seems painfully obvious from the lengthy discussion about "cognatus"
that Mr. Stewart's knowledge of English records after 1200 is extremely
limited. He unknowingly revealed his lack when he uttered his
statement that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning for
"cognatus." If he knew anything about this period of English history,
he would never have made such a statement.
I think what he said was that though it could mean a blood relative, it was
(also) "quite usual" for it to mean brother-in-law. I believe that's true -
I've certainly seen it used in that sense.
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Cognatus again (Was: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians
Chris Phillips wrote:
Dear Chris ~
To jog your memory, this is what Peter Stewart said:
'"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law
was quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough
to rule it out.' END OF QUOTE.
I surveyed a variety of original records while preparing the Magna
Carta Ancestry manuscript. The word cognatus came up occasionally in
cartularies. I found no instance of it being used to mean
brother-in-law. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg. This doesn't mean
that cognatus was never ever used for "brother-in-law." But, it does
means that cognatus was not the "usual" meaning of the word - at least
in the time period and country we were originally discussing. Mr.
Stewart overrreached himself I think.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I think what he said was that though it could mean a blood relative,
it was
(also) "quite usual" for it to mean brother-in-law. I believe that's
true -
I've certainly seen it used in that sense.
Chris Phillips
Dear Chris ~
To jog your memory, this is what Peter Stewart said:
'"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law
was quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough
to rule it out.' END OF QUOTE.
I surveyed a variety of original records while preparing the Magna
Carta Ancestry manuscript. The word cognatus came up occasionally in
cartularies. I found no instance of it being used to mean
brother-in-law. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg. This doesn't mean
that cognatus was never ever used for "brother-in-law." But, it does
means that cognatus was not the "usual" meaning of the word - at least
in the time period and country we were originally discussing. Mr.
Stewart overrreached himself I think.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Gordon Johnson" <gordon@kinhelp.naespam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:npCdnfqyy_mz6pbfRVnyuQ@eclipse.net.uk...
This is not a matter of "bad" Latin, but of extended meaning - Bede was far
from an illiterate, and the rest of your remarks are not relevant to this
question. Chambers is a dictionary of CLASSICAL Latin, not Medieval.
Meanings extended, but as I wrote beofre could not become obsolete in an
archaic language. St Jerome and Bede were not unlearned Scots.
Peter Stewart
news:npCdnfqyy_mz6pbfRVnyuQ@eclipse.net.uk...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6QsOd.235$Df3.3885@eagle.america.net...
Quite True.
No, it's a barefaced lie & it won't go unanswered - yet again.
Peter failed to perform on that occasion, as on so many others.
What others? Only "many, not "MANY" this time? The point I made about
"cognatus" was that "brother-in-law" was a usual meaning of the word. I
proved this by showing that this was the PRIMARY definition given in the
STANDARD dictionary, illustrated by an EXPLICIT statement of no less than
Bede. This is not open to debate - the archive can't be manipulated and
distortions of the truth won't stand a moment's scutiny. Hines had nothng
to say at the time, but now that he is trying to cosy up with Douglas
Richardson again - acting on the crudest principle imaginable, of
course - he has changed his tune.
** I have just checked my Chambers Latin-English dictionary and it say for
Cognatus: "related by birth", and a few furbelows, but nothing about
in-law connections. Of course, we do have the problem that medieval Latin
varied a bit in usage from country to country, so it might indeed have
been used on some occasions/places in that way. In "Statutes of the
Scottish Church 1225-1559" (S.H.S. vol.LIV, 1907), on page LXXVI after a
diatribe against poor learning among the clergy, it states: "Bad Latin was
an old weakness of Scotic clergy", and later "Scotland in the 13th century
was painfully following the lead of England on the way to reform: and in
England the minimum of Latinity exigible from priests was but a miserable
smattering."
So bad usage of Latin was common. Not surprising without dictionaries!
I'll leave you folks to argue the point....
This is not a matter of "bad" Latin, but of extended meaning - Bede was far
from an illiterate, and the rest of your remarks are not relevant to this
question. Chambers is a dictionary of CLASSICAL Latin, not Medieval.
Meanings extended, but as I wrote beofre could not become obsolete in an
archaic language. St Jerome and Bede were not unlearned Scots.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108051983.449804.71920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
These comments had better be directed at the British Academy, whose
dictionary gives a perfect warrnat for my statement. You are betraying your
own complete ignorance of Latin and its use in the medieval period, and not
even a glancing a blow off me or the authority I gave.
As for name-calling, pretensions, and spreading your smarmy remarks to some
others, look back at your Bible to the passage about motes and beams.
Peter Stewart
news:1108051983.449804.71920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Gordon ~
Thank you for your good post. Much apreciated.
As far as I know, the Latin word "cognatus" in medieval England from
1200 forward (my period of expertise) meant kinsman only. It did not
mean "brother-in-law." In fact I recently encountered one English
record from this time period where a man referred to his kinsman and
his wife's brother in the same sentence. He called his kinsman
"cognatus" but not his brother-in-law.
It seems painfully obvious from the lengthy discussion about "cognatus"
that Mr. Stewart's knowledge of English records after 1200 is extremely
limited. He unknowingly revealed his lack when he uttered his
statement that brother-in-law was the "quite usual" meaning for
"cognatus." If he knew anything about this period of English history,
he would never have made such a statement. In contrast, Peter seems to
be quite knowledgeable about Continental European families prior to
1200.
I appreciate Mr Stewart's help when he is polite and courteous, but
that is often not the case. Those that defend his outrageous behavior
and inane name calling are no friends of the newsgroup. I'm talking
about Tim, Leo, and Rosie, by the way. Peter has let us all down. He
has pretended to be something he isn't, and doesn't admit what he is.
Pretensions trip you up every time.
These comments had better be directed at the British Academy, whose
dictionary gives a perfect warrnat for my statement. You are betraying your
own complete ignorance of Latin and its use in the medieval period, and not
even a glancing a blow off me or the authority I gave.
As for name-calling, pretensions, and spreading your smarmy remarks to some
others, look back at your Bible to the passage about motes and beams.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cug1u6$kol$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
If this gooey piece of whimsy takes your fancy, who are you to judge?
Peter Stewart
news:cug1u6$kol$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| Douglas Richardson wrote:
|
| > You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another
| > gong for you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the
| > flood. Read Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended
| > from the venerable and honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his
| > lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
Indeed! <g
Great-Grandfather Noah and his lovely wife, Great-Grandmother Naamah *,
are WONDERFUL people -- always quite popular at the Family Reunions.
g
* I'm delighted to reveal her name although the Holy Bible does not.
g
Excursions in the Ark are a prized vacation and there is a long waiting
list, but I'm scheduled to make the trip in the summer of 2008.
And Mr. Hines has not flunked humor class.
If this gooey piece of whimsy takes your fancy, who are you to judge?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Cognatus again (Was: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108060760.405058.152550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here we go again - this has been explained to the ignoramus before, several
timesa: I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS "THE" USUAL MEANING. Read the quote again
slowly. Move your lips.
"Brother-in-law" is amonsgt the PRIMARY definitions given by the STANDARD
dictionary. Your nonsense of denying this from 1200 onwards is a
non-starter, a dead horse that you CAN'T flog back to life. Your own
charlatanry is showing, yet again. Latin did't and couldn't work that way,
there was no authority or practice that could take a meaning definitely out
of use. Bede and St Jerome were current & unquestionably influential
throught the middle ages.
Peter Stewart
news:1108060760.405058.152550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chris Phillips wrote:
I think what he said was that though it could mean a blood relative,
it was
(also) "quite usual" for it to mean brother-in-law. I believe that's
true -
I've certainly seen it used in that sense.
Chris Phillips
Dear Chris ~
To jog your memory, this is what Peter Stewart said:
'"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law
was quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough
to rule it out.' END OF QUOTE.
I surveyed a variety of original records while preparing the Magna
Carta Ancestry manuscript. The word cognatus came up occasionally in
cartularies. I found no instance of it being used to mean
brother-in-law. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg. This doesn't mean
that cognatus was never ever used for "brother-in-law." But, it does
means that cognatus was not the "usual" meaning of the word - at least
in the time period and country we were originally discussing. Mr.
Stewart overrreached himself I think.
Here we go again - this has been explained to the ignoramus before, several
timesa: I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS "THE" USUAL MEANING. Read the quote again
slowly. Move your lips.
"Brother-in-law" is amonsgt the PRIMARY definitions given by the STANDARD
dictionary. Your nonsense of denying this from 1200 onwards is a
non-starter, a dead horse that you CAN'T flog back to life. Your own
charlatanry is showing, yet again. Latin did't and couldn't work that way,
there was no authority or practice that could take a meaning definitely out
of use. Bede and St Jerome were current & unquestionably influential
throught the middle ages.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Cognatus again (Was: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Another point to be made here is that in denying my remark on the
question of meanings to be considered for "cognatus", Richardson is
opposing the authority of his own researches - and for that matter his
own unsupported word about the findings - against the published studies
of the British Academy's committee of experts and other independent
lexicographers of medieval Latin whom I have cited. Who is overreaching
himself?
We know, beyond any doubt, that Richardson can't read Latin. He has
defined words here in the dative case ("uxori" springs to mind) as if
nominative, which no-one would do who understood the elementary
principle of declension that _must_ be taught in the first days of
learning Latin. Without this, mastering the vastly more complex
conjugation of verbs would be useless, although of course we have no
indication that Richardson has done this. Any worthwhile comprehension
of syntax beyond this is necessarily impossible for him. So he can't
read an ordinary phrase and know its subject from its object, much less
comprehend a narrative passage or legal document entire. He must rely
on extracts, translations and paraphrases, with a bit of
rough-and-ready word spotting from time to time (mainly in Foedera
anyway), designed to give an exaggerated image of original scholarship
to his work and beef up his bibliography.
We also know from experience here that he makes frequent mistakes in
relating one individual to another on the basis of his unaided
researches.
How much then is his unsupported word to be taken as valid evidence on
the matter of "cognatus", that he has harped on about for most of a
year now without any progress in commonsense or honesty? The reason he
keeps bringing it up is not that even he thinks he is on a winner, but
that he hopes to goad me into doing basic research for him on
relationship terms in 13th-century and later English records. No dice.
I don't need to do this to prove the simple point I had made, as quoted
by Richardson.
I also don't need or wish to do anything of the kind in order to
establish a reputation for expertise, in a particular field of medieval
studies or in general - because I don't seek this, and have never
claimed it. That, again, is something that Richardson himself does & a
failed ambition of his own that he projects quite falsely onto me. I am
not trying to sell books to the newsgroup, and never will. I provide
sources for my statements, either in the first place if I have time or
willingly later when asked, because I come here to share in the pursuit
of knowledge, and not to enrich myself on the combined efforts of
Faris, SGM members & any others who can be inveigled into doing work
for me.
Readers may wish to remind themselves of the views expressed last year
by the Big Banana himself, D. Spencer Hines, copied below my signature.
Peter Stewart
*******************************************
D. Spencer Hines wrote on Thurs, Mar 11 2004 1:05 am (Re: Henry
Beaufort and his illegitimate daugher, Joan):
In my carefully considered opinion, anyone who has been following
Richardson's posts to this newsgroup over the years and who has NOT
come to the conclusion that Richardson is a sly, manipulative charlatan
and an utter fraud is clearly naive, none-too-swift and a damned fool
to boot.
I've been reading him for eight years now and have seen nothing to
change my mind on that considered judgment. Further, folks here will
know I used to DEFEND Richardson and encourage folks to cut him some
slack.
Well, we DID cut him some slack --- far more than he deserved -- and
Richardson proceeded to hang himself with it.
To jog your memory, this is what Peter Stewart said:
'"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though
brother-in-law was quite usual and should be considered
whenever we don't know enough to rule it out.' END OF
QUOTE.
I surveyed a variety of original records while preparing the
Magna Carta Ancestry manuscript. The word cognatus
came up occasionally in cartularies. I found no instance
of it being used to mean brother-in-law. None. Nada.
Zip. Goose egg. This doesn't mean that cognatus was
never ever used for "brother-in-law." But, it does means
that cognatus was not the "usual" meaning of the word -
at least in the time period and country we were originally
discussing. Mr. Stewart overrreached himself I think.
Another point to be made here is that in denying my remark on the
question of meanings to be considered for "cognatus", Richardson is
opposing the authority of his own researches - and for that matter his
own unsupported word about the findings - against the published studies
of the British Academy's committee of experts and other independent
lexicographers of medieval Latin whom I have cited. Who is overreaching
himself?
We know, beyond any doubt, that Richardson can't read Latin. He has
defined words here in the dative case ("uxori" springs to mind) as if
nominative, which no-one would do who understood the elementary
principle of declension that _must_ be taught in the first days of
learning Latin. Without this, mastering the vastly more complex
conjugation of verbs would be useless, although of course we have no
indication that Richardson has done this. Any worthwhile comprehension
of syntax beyond this is necessarily impossible for him. So he can't
read an ordinary phrase and know its subject from its object, much less
comprehend a narrative passage or legal document entire. He must rely
on extracts, translations and paraphrases, with a bit of
rough-and-ready word spotting from time to time (mainly in Foedera
anyway), designed to give an exaggerated image of original scholarship
to his work and beef up his bibliography.
We also know from experience here that he makes frequent mistakes in
relating one individual to another on the basis of his unaided
researches.
How much then is his unsupported word to be taken as valid evidence on
the matter of "cognatus", that he has harped on about for most of a
year now without any progress in commonsense or honesty? The reason he
keeps bringing it up is not that even he thinks he is on a winner, but
that he hopes to goad me into doing basic research for him on
relationship terms in 13th-century and later English records. No dice.
I don't need to do this to prove the simple point I had made, as quoted
by Richardson.
I also don't need or wish to do anything of the kind in order to
establish a reputation for expertise, in a particular field of medieval
studies or in general - because I don't seek this, and have never
claimed it. That, again, is something that Richardson himself does & a
failed ambition of his own that he projects quite falsely onto me. I am
not trying to sell books to the newsgroup, and never will. I provide
sources for my statements, either in the first place if I have time or
willingly later when asked, because I come here to share in the pursuit
of knowledge, and not to enrich myself on the combined efforts of
Faris, SGM members & any others who can be inveigled into doing work
for me.
Readers may wish to remind themselves of the views expressed last year
by the Big Banana himself, D. Spencer Hines, copied below my signature.
Peter Stewart
*******************************************
D. Spencer Hines wrote on Thurs, Mar 11 2004 1:05 am (Re: Henry
Beaufort and his illegitimate daugher, Joan):
In my carefully considered opinion, anyone who has been following
Richardson's posts to this newsgroup over the years and who has NOT
come to the conclusion that Richardson is a sly, manipulative charlatan
and an utter fraud is clearly naive, none-too-swift and a damned fool
to boot.
I've been reading him for eight years now and have seen nothing to
change my mind on that considered judgment. Further, folks here will
know I used to DEFEND Richardson and encourage folks to cut him some
slack.
Well, we DID cut him some slack --- far more than he deserved -- and
Richardson proceeded to hang himself with it.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Douglas Richardson has been doing FAR better of late and he deserves
credit for it.
Why?
Because it is the FAIR-MINDED, DECENT, OBJECTIVE thing to DO, Virginia.
NEW EVIDENCE often leads to NEW DECISIONS.
Prejudiced, Angry, Idiots, such as Peter 'Pogue' Stewart never seem to
learn that fundamental principle.
When I see someone doing that, making a change of behavior distinctly
for the better, I am NOT inclined to be niggardly in my praise.
Nor do I carry a grudge or indulge in hissy-fits or silly-buggers
temper tantrums -- in marked contrast to one Peter 'Pogue' Stewart --
who also seems to suffer from Advanced, Acute, Penis Envy [AAPE], as he
refers to me as "Big Banana".
Hilarious! A very sad case indeed is Pogue Stewart -- much to be
pitied.
So, I look forward to seeing Douglas Richardson's new book, _Magna Carta
Ancestry_, in June 2005, or soon thereafter, and I'll be sending him a
check for $60, OR my credit card numbers, before the cutoff date.
Douglas has not told us whether he can take VISA and MASTERCARD.
Frankly, in this case, I think others would be wise to do the same.
_Magna Carta Ancestry_ should make a worthy companion to PA3, on the
serious mediaeval genealogist's shelf -- and in the same
large-economy-size, easy-to-read and handsome format.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
credit for it.
Why?
Because it is the FAIR-MINDED, DECENT, OBJECTIVE thing to DO, Virginia.
NEW EVIDENCE often leads to NEW DECISIONS.
Prejudiced, Angry, Idiots, such as Peter 'Pogue' Stewart never seem to
learn that fundamental principle.
When I see someone doing that, making a change of behavior distinctly
for the better, I am NOT inclined to be niggardly in my praise.
Nor do I carry a grudge or indulge in hissy-fits or silly-buggers
temper tantrums -- in marked contrast to one Peter 'Pogue' Stewart --
who also seems to suffer from Advanced, Acute, Penis Envy [AAPE], as he
refers to me as "Big Banana".
Hilarious! A very sad case indeed is Pogue Stewart -- much to be
pitied.
So, I look forward to seeing Douglas Richardson's new book, _Magna Carta
Ancestry_, in June 2005, or soon thereafter, and I'll be sending him a
check for $60, OR my credit card numbers, before the cutoff date.
Douglas has not told us whether he can take VISA and MASTERCARD.
Frankly, in this case, I think others would be wise to do the same.
_Magna Carta Ancestry_ should make a worthy companion to PA3, on the
serious mediaeval genealogist's shelf -- and in the same
large-economy-size, easy-to-read and handsome format.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1iTOd.30$1e4.632@eagle.america.net...
What "NEW EVIDENCE" precisely?
Again, what change? It took you eight years to reach the "carefully
considered" opinion expressed last year. No-one can be expected to
understand what might have changed your mind since then unless you tell us.
There is certainly nothing apparent in Richardson's contributions to SGM, or
in anything reported here about PA3.
Your language & fevered imagination betray you, Spencer - this is clearly
the longest, most begrudging and most bitter hissy fit you have had in some
time.
Marshall Kirk was condemend as a "shill" for a rather less effusive &
transparently dishonest spruik than this.
Peter Stewart
news:1iTOd.30$1e4.632@eagle.america.net...
Douglas Richardson has been doing FAR better of late and he deserves
credit for it.
Why?
Because it is the FAIR-MINDED, DECENT, OBJECTIVE thing to DO, Virginia.
NEW EVIDENCE often leads to NEW DECISIONS.
What "NEW EVIDENCE" precisely?
Prejudiced, Angry, Idiots, such as Peter 'Pogue' Stewart never seem to
learn that fundamental principle.
When I see someone doing that, making a change of behavior distinctly
for the better, I am NOT inclined to be niggardly in my praise.
Again, what change? It took you eight years to reach the "carefully
considered" opinion expressed last year. No-one can be expected to
understand what might have changed your mind since then unless you tell us.
There is certainly nothing apparent in Richardson's contributions to SGM, or
in anything reported here about PA3.
Nor do I carry a grudge or indulge in hissy-fits or silly-buggers
temper tantrums -- in marked contrast to one Peter 'Pogue' Stewart --
who also seems to suffer from Advanced, Acute, Penis Envy [AAPE], as he
refers to me as "Big Banana".
Your language & fevered imagination betray you, Spencer - this is clearly
the longest, most begrudging and most bitter hissy fit you have had in some
time.
Hilarious! A very sad case indeed is Pogue Stewart -- much to be
pitied.
So, I look forward to seeing Douglas Richardson's new book, _Magna Carta
Ancestry_, in June 2005, or soon thereafter, and I'll be sending him a
check for $60, OR my credit card numbers, before the cutoff date.
Douglas has not told us whether he can take VISA and MASTERCARD.
Frankly, in this case, I think others would be wise to do the same.
_Magna Carta Ancestry_ should make a worthy companion to PA3, on the
serious mediaeval genealogist's shelf -- and in the same
large-economy-size, easy-to-read and handsome format.
Marshall Kirk was condemend as a "shill" for a rather less effusive &
transparently dishonest spruik than this.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
Marshall Kirk is an extremely bright scholar and a great help to all
who come his way. I have an enormous amount of respect for him.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Marshall Kirk was condemend as a "shill" for a rather less effusive &
transparently dishonest spruik than this.
Peter Stewart
Marshall Kirk is an extremely bright scholar and a great help to all
who come his way. I have an enormous amount of respect for him.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Douglas Richardson wrote:
That may be - I didn't intend disrepect towards him on my part in
reminding Spencer Hines of his own past strictures against puff pieces.
I don't have a problem with people expressing their genuine
appreciation of publications just becasue I might not think of so
highly of the work, and I don't doubt that Marshall was being perfectly
honest in whatever opinion he gave.
I see that my phrasing didn't make this plain enough before. Thank you
for the opportunity to correct the impression I clumsily left, and
apologise for it to Marshall.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart wrote:
Marshall Kirk was condemend as a "shill" for a rather less
effusive & transparently dishonest spruik than this.
Peter Stewart
Marshall Kirk is an extremely bright scholar and a great help
to all who come his way. I have an enormous amount of
respect for him.
That may be - I didn't intend disrepect towards him on my part in
reminding Spencer Hines of his own past strictures against puff pieces.
I don't have a problem with people expressing their genuine
appreciation of publications just becasue I might not think of so
highly of the work, and I don't doubt that Marshall was being perfectly
honest in whatever opinion he gave.
I see that my phrasing didn't make this plain enough before. Thank you
for the opportunity to correct the impression I clumsily left, and
apologise for it to Marshall.
Peter Stewart
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Dear Douglas,
Being based around SLC (I am guessing?), you must surely be aware of
the unfortunate LDS folk-belief regarding the descendants of Cain...
though I suspect that this is not what Mr. Stewart has in mind
(although perhaps I am wrong? I hope not...).
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Being based around SLC (I am guessing?), you must surely be aware of
the unfortunate LDS folk-belief regarding the descendants of Cain...
though I suspect that this is not what Mr. Stewart has in mind
(although perhaps I am wrong? I hope not...).
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Peter ~
You must have flunked Sunday school class. This is another gong for
you. All of Cain's descendants were wiped out by the flood. Read
Genesis. As such, Spencer can only be descended from the venerable
and
honored patriarch, Father Noah, and his lovely wife, Mrs. Noah.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108104800.216406.310770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
No Judy, I wasn't thinking of that or any other racial idea - Spencer
doesn't even belong to the appropriate branch of the Hines family, unless he
is more closely related to Earl "Fatha" Hines than I imagine.
Peter Stewart
news:1108104800.216406.310770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dear Douglas,
Being based around SLC (I am guessing?), you must surely be aware of
the unfortunate LDS folk-belief regarding the descendants of Cain...
though I suspect that this is not what Mr. Stewart has in mind
(although perhaps I am wrong? I hope not...).
No Judy, I wasn't thinking of that or any other racial idea - Spencer
doesn't even belong to the appropriate branch of the Hines family, unless he
is more closely related to Earl "Fatha" Hines than I imagine.
Peter Stewart
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Oh, yes, HINES...
I had rather missed that.
Oops... smacking self with wet noodle...
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
I had rather missed that.
Oops... smacking self with wet noodle...
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108109256.997055.191210@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I don't think you missed anything, Judy - Earl Hines was a man of great
talent & integrity, so there's nothing about Spencer that should put you in
mind of him.
Peter Stewart
news:1108109256.997055.191210@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Oh, yes, HINES...
I had rather missed that.
Oops... smacking self with wet noodle...
I don't think you missed anything, Judy - Earl Hines was a man of great
talent & integrity, so there's nothing about Spencer that should put you in
mind of him.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Yet another PRATFALL by Peter Stewart.
Hoist by his own PETAR -- and that bollixed BRAIN of his.
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Marshall Kirk actually GRADUATED from Harvard -- whereas Peter 'Pogue'
Stewart merely ATTENDED Oxford and then bilged out.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108100025.076075.136880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Douglas Richardson wrote:
|
| > Peter Stewart wrote:
| > > Marshall Kirk was condemend as a "shill" for a rather less
| > > effusive & transparently dishonest spruik than this.
| > >
| > > Peter Stewart
| >
| > Marshall Kirk is an extremely bright scholar and a great help
| > to all who come his way. I have an enormous amount of
| > respect for him.
|
| That may be - I didn't intend disrepect towards him on my part in
| reminding Spencer Hines of his own past strictures against puff
pieces.
| I don't have a problem with people expressing their genuine
| appreciation of publications just becasue [sic] I might not think of
[sic] so
| highly of the work, and I don't doubt that Marshall was being
perfectly
| honest in whatever opinion he gave.
|
| I see that my phrasing didn't make this plain enough before. Thank you
| for the opportunity to correct the impression I clumsily left, and
| apologise for it to Marshall.
|
| Peter Stewart
Yet another PRATFALL by Peter Stewart.
Hoist by his own PETAR -- and that bollixed BRAIN of his.
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Marshall Kirk actually GRADUATED from Harvard -- whereas Peter 'Pogue'
Stewart merely ATTENDED Oxford and then bilged out.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108100025.076075.136880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Douglas Richardson wrote:
|
| > Peter Stewart wrote:
| > > Marshall Kirk was condemend as a "shill" for a rather less
| > > effusive & transparently dishonest spruik than this.
| > >
| > > Peter Stewart
| >
| > Marshall Kirk is an extremely bright scholar and a great help
| > to all who come his way. I have an enormous amount of
| > respect for him.
|
| That may be - I didn't intend disrepect towards him on my part in
| reminding Spencer Hines of his own past strictures against puff
pieces.
| I don't have a problem with people expressing their genuine
| appreciation of publications just becasue [sic] I might not think of
[sic] so
| highly of the work, and I don't doubt that Marshall was being
perfectly
| honest in whatever opinion he gave.
|
| I see that my phrasing didn't make this plain enough before. Thank you
| for the opportunity to correct the impression I clumsily left, and
| apologise for it to Marshall.
|
| Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart has been MOST disingenuous and duplicitous in telling us
about the chapter in Pogue Parsons' book by Andrew Lewis. So has
PARSONS.
VERY SLIPPERY & DISHONEST INDEED IS PETER "POGUE" STEWART.
LEWIS translates the LATIN in the relevant passage from the Saint-Martin
of Limoges manuscript, which is Stewart's only SOURCE, JUST as HINES
has, i.e. as:
"AT SAINT-JAMES IN GALICIA."
| Why, Peter is so pig- ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
| Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie_ as "at Saint-James in Galicia." [DSH]
Pogue Stewart is AGAIN hoist with his own PETAR.
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Lewis also dates this alleged Saint-Martin of Limoges manuscript as
"early fourteenth century" -- so it is by NO means a CONTEMPORARY,
PRIMARY source on ANYTHING to do with ELEANOR of AQUITAINE -- since
Eleanor died in 1204 -- a HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE.
Stewart and his sidekick, Pogue Parsons, have been playing fast and
loose with the historical facts on this matter of Eleanor of Aquitaine's
birthdate and have been severely distorting what even LEWIS -- ACTUALLY
WRITES.
That, Gentle Readers, is FRAUD and CHARLATANRY WRIT LARGE -- by two
self-styled "MEDIAEVALISTS".
Appalling!
However, it is what we have learned to expect....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Pogue Stewart has been MOST disingenuous and duplicitous in telling us
about the chapter in Pogue Parsons' book by Andrew Lewis. So has
PARSONS.
VERY SLIPPERY & DISHONEST INDEED IS PETER "POGUE" STEWART.
LEWIS translates the LATIN in the relevant passage from the Saint-Martin
of Limoges manuscript, which is Stewart's only SOURCE, JUST as HINES
has, i.e. as:
"AT SAINT-JAMES IN GALICIA."
| Why, Peter is so pig- ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
| Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie_ as "at Saint-James in Galicia." [DSH]
Pogue Stewart is AGAIN hoist with his own PETAR.
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Lewis also dates this alleged Saint-Martin of Limoges manuscript as
"early fourteenth century" -- so it is by NO means a CONTEMPORARY,
PRIMARY source on ANYTHING to do with ELEANOR of AQUITAINE -- since
Eleanor died in 1204 -- a HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE.
Stewart and his sidekick, Pogue Parsons, have been playing fast and
loose with the historical facts on this matter of Eleanor of Aquitaine's
birthdate and have been severely distorting what even LEWIS -- ACTUALLY
WRITES.
That, Gentle Readers, is FRAUD and CHARLATANRY WRIT LARGE -- by two
self-styled "MEDIAEVALISTS".
Appalling!
However, it is what we have learned to expect....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Lewis was NOT my source, nor was he stated to be so, much less my "only
source" for translating "Sanctus-Jacobus" as "Santiago", as the discussion
showed. The fact that he put a gloss on the word instead of giving its
literal modern qeuivalen is neither here nor there. Spencer purported to
"correct" my Latin - calling me a fraud in the process - when there was
absolutely nothing wrong in the first place.
And remember, I gave "at Santiago in Galicia", whereas Hines gave "at [the
shrine of] Saint-James [de Compostela]" - not simply "at Saint-James in
Galicia" that he now considers adequate. The fact that Lewis didn't use
Santiago is of no consequence whatever - this point has been settled by the
Encyclopaedia Britannica (as long ago as 1911) in favour of my choice over
the conventional English version which was actually "Saint-Jago".
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B%wQd.18$vc5.210@eagle.america.net...
source" for translating "Sanctus-Jacobus" as "Santiago", as the discussion
showed. The fact that he put a gloss on the word instead of giving its
literal modern qeuivalen is neither here nor there. Spencer purported to
"correct" my Latin - calling me a fraud in the process - when there was
absolutely nothing wrong in the first place.
And remember, I gave "at Santiago in Galicia", whereas Hines gave "at [the
shrine of] Saint-James [de Compostela]" - not simply "at Saint-James in
Galicia" that he now considers adequate. The fact that Lewis didn't use
Santiago is of no consequence whatever - this point has been settled by the
Encyclopaedia Britannica (as long ago as 1911) in favour of my choice over
the conventional English version which was actually "Saint-Jago".
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B%wQd.18$vc5.210@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart has been MOST disingenuous and duplicitous in telling us
about the chapter in Pogue Parsons' book by Andrew Lewis. So has
PARSONS.
VERY SLIPPERY & DISHONEST INDEED IS PETER "POGUE" STEWART.
LEWIS translates the LATIN in the relevant passage from the Saint-Martin
of Limoges manuscript, which is Stewart's only SOURCE, JUST as HINES
has, i.e. as:
"AT SAINT-JAMES IN GALICIA."
| Why, Peter is so pig- ignorant he can't even properly translate _apud
| Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie_ as "at Saint-James in Galicia." [DSH]
Pogue Stewart is AGAIN hoist with his own PETAR.
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Lewis also dates this alleged Saint-Martin of Limoges manuscript as
"early fourteenth century" -- so it is by NO means a CONTEMPORARY,
PRIMARY source on ANYTHING to do with ELEANOR of AQUITAINE -- since
Eleanor died in 1204 -- a HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE.
Stewart and his sidekick, Pogue Parsons, have been playing fast and
loose with the historical facts on this matter of Eleanor of Aquitaine's
birthdate and have been severely distorting what even LEWIS -- ACTUALLY
WRITES.
That, Gentle Readers, is FRAUD and CHARLATANRY WRIT LARGE -- by two
self-styled "MEDIAEVALISTS".
Appalling!
However, it is what we have learned to expect....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B%wQd.18$vc5.210@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Rubbish - neither John Parsons nor I gave any dating for this manuscruipt
from Limoges - on the contrary, Spencer Hines was repeatedly advised by me
to READ LEWIS on the subject.
And as for distoring him, Hines has conveniently passed over what he has to
say about the probable source of information being earlier than the
manuscript in question.
Slippery, indeed. Can't even his own lies without slippin in his own slime
trail.
Peter Stewart
news:B%wQd.18$vc5.210@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Lewis also dates this alleged Saint-Martin of Limoges manuscript as
"early fourteenth century" -- so it is by NO means a CONTEMPORARY,
PRIMARY source on ANYTHING to do with ELEANOR of AQUITAINE -- since
Eleanor died in 1204 -- a HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE.
Stewart and his sidekick, Pogue Parsons, have been playing fast and
loose with the historical facts on this matter of Eleanor of Aquitaine's
birthdate and have been severely distorting what even LEWIS -- ACTUALLY
WRITES.
Rubbish - neither John Parsons nor I gave any dating for this manuscruipt
from Limoges - on the contrary, Spencer Hines was repeatedly advised by me
to READ LEWIS on the subject.
And as for distoring him, Hines has conveniently passed over what he has to
say about the probable source of information being earlier than the
manuscript in question.
Slippery, indeed. Can't even his own lies without slippin in his own slime
trail.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:_VxQd.162783$K7.88772@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Someone has kindly sent me off-list just now the original message from
Spencer Hines taking up this bogus point of "correction": he actually wrote
(on 7 February):
"The Latin translates into English as "at [the shrine of] Saint James [de
Compostela] in Galicia" -- [which is located at Santiago.]"
neatly proving MY point by HIS own words, since "apud" means at, by or near,
and the place in question is, as Spencer himself wrote IN ENGLISH
"Santiago".
Peter Stewart
news:_VxQd.162783$K7.88772@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
And remember, I gave "at Santiago in Galicia", whereas Hines gave "at [the
shrine of] Saint-James [de Compostela]" - not simply "at Saint-James in
Galicia" that he now considers adequate. The fact that Lewis didn't use
Santiago is of no consequence whatever - this point has been settled by
the Encyclopaedia Britannica (as long ago as 1911) in favour of my choice
over the conventional English version which was actually "Saint-Jago".
Someone has kindly sent me off-list just now the original message from
Spencer Hines taking up this bogus point of "correction": he actually wrote
(on 7 February):
"The Latin translates into English as "at [the shrine of] Saint James [de
Compostela] in Galicia" -- [which is located at Santiago.]"
neatly proving MY point by HIS own words, since "apud" means at, by or near,
and the place in question is, as Spencer himself wrote IN ENGLISH
"Santiago".
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart tries to cop a plea and leave his sidekick, Parsons,
holding the bag as the sole fraud and charlatan.
No Sale.
The source for the information on the Limoges manuscript was clearly
stated by Pogue Parsons.
It is further stated by Lewis as composed in the EARLY FOURTEENTH
CENTURY and ergo by NO MEANS represents a PRIMARY SOURCE on the birth
date of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who DIED in 1204 -- a HUNDRED YEARS
BEFORE.
This source was ALSO composed at LEAST 180 YEARS AFTER Eleanor's
BIRTH -- and CERTAINLY constitutes no sort of PRIMARY EVIDENCE for her
birthdate.
BOTH Stewart and his sidekick, Parsons, are disingenuously and
duplicitously misrepresenting what Lewis ACTUALLY SAYS in his chapter in
the Wheeler -- Parsons edited book -- _Eleanor Of Aquitaine: Lord And
Lady_.
I have serious doubts that Stewart has even READ it -- he's that
SLIPPERY.
If Stewart HAS read LEWIS he is as dumb as a doorknob, has the memory
capacity of a cockroach AND is also LYING.
These two pogues were so stupid they thought they could get away with it
and just bluff their way through.
No Sale.
People here are far smarter than they give us credit for.
Further, Stewart is so pig-ignorant he thinks "qeuivalen" is actually an
English word.
Hilarious!
Stewart is also LYING about what I have written previously. So, he LIES
about what LEWIS has written and he LIES about what HINES has written.
Why this is easier than shooting phlegmatic frogs in a barrel or drunken
kangaroos in the Outback, Vanessa.
LEWIS and HINES both translate "apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie" as:
At Saint-James in Galicia.
Pogue Stewart -- hoist with his own PETAR yet again:
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Pogue Stewart tries to cop a plea and leave his sidekick, Parsons,
holding the bag as the sole fraud and charlatan.
No Sale.
The source for the information on the Limoges manuscript was clearly
stated by Pogue Parsons.
It is further stated by Lewis as composed in the EARLY FOURTEENTH
CENTURY and ergo by NO MEANS represents a PRIMARY SOURCE on the birth
date of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who DIED in 1204 -- a HUNDRED YEARS
BEFORE.
This source was ALSO composed at LEAST 180 YEARS AFTER Eleanor's
BIRTH -- and CERTAINLY constitutes no sort of PRIMARY EVIDENCE for her
birthdate.
BOTH Stewart and his sidekick, Parsons, are disingenuously and
duplicitously misrepresenting what Lewis ACTUALLY SAYS in his chapter in
the Wheeler -- Parsons edited book -- _Eleanor Of Aquitaine: Lord And
Lady_.
I have serious doubts that Stewart has even READ it -- he's that
SLIPPERY.
If Stewart HAS read LEWIS he is as dumb as a doorknob, has the memory
capacity of a cockroach AND is also LYING.
These two pogues were so stupid they thought they could get away with it
and just bluff their way through.
No Sale.
People here are far smarter than they give us credit for.
Further, Stewart is so pig-ignorant he thinks "qeuivalen" is actually an
English word.
Hilarious!
Stewart is also LYING about what I have written previously. So, he LIES
about what LEWIS has written and he LIES about what HINES has written.
Why this is easier than shooting phlegmatic frogs in a barrel or drunken
kangaroos in the Outback, Vanessa.
LEWIS and HINES both translate "apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie" as:
At Saint-James in Galicia.
Pogue Stewart -- hoist with his own PETAR yet again:
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Spencer Hines wrote:
<snip>
Nothing stated by John has been shown to be wrong.
Once again, the "lie direct" from Spencer Hines - Lewis carefully
considered that the source was COMPILED from earlier originals, not
"composed", in the early 14th century.
It constitutes the earliest statement that has come down to us on this
point: that is all there is to it. There can be no guarantee that it
was correct, and nothing of the sort has been represented by Lewis,
John Parsons or myself. The alternative, still espoused by Spencer
Hines without anything to back it up, is just the confused estimate of
a modern historian, published early in the 20th century (1903) in
ignorance of this medieval source, and stuck in the secondary (or let
him have "tertiary") literature since then. 1903 is 700 years after
Eleanor's death and this certainly constitutes no sort of evidence at
all for her birthdate.
<snip>
Obviously this is "equivalent", mistyped. I don't give outpourings of
nonsense from Spencer Hines the time to proof read responses.
<snip>
No Spencer, unfortunately for you I did no such thing - the quote from
you was a cut and paste from your post of 7 February. This is in the
archive (at http://tinyurl.com/4u7h3). You wrote:
This is WRONG, the "understood elided words" are imaginary. There is
nothing whatsoever in the Latin "apud Sanctum-Jacobum" to indicate that
the duke died AT THE SHRINE of Santiago rather than, say, in his
lodging at the place named "Santus-Jacobus", which HINES HIMSELF quote
properly called "Santiago" in English. He was so confused in the
falsehood he was trying to peddle about me that he didn't even notice
he contradicted himself.
I wrote in response (on 8 February): "Sanctus-Jacobus IS Santiago, a
perfectly literal translation of the place name - and "apud" means
"at", "by" or "near", not "in": nothing here says that the duke died
actually in the shrine of Santiago (or Saint James if you
must), just at that place (to which he had gone on pilgrimage)".
No, it's Spencer's pertard & its foulness has exploded under him
already: Hines translated "apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie" as "at [the
shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela] in Galicia", claiming to have
glossed some "understood elided words" that just aren't in the text or
between the lines of it, period. The fact that Andrew Lewis may have
chosen "Saint James" rather than "Santiago" is neither here nor there -
he didn't try to make out that the duke had died at the shrine at
Compostela, which is the only point of difference that Hines can
possibly claim to have with me after HE used "Santiago" for the place
IN ENGLISH. I have already given better authority than the incidental
usage of Lewis that the conventional English version of this place name
was formerly "Saint Jago" anyway, not "Saint-James".
Still Hines goes on trying to smear John Parsons and me while denying
his own blunders that all the world can see. Could he actually be more
stupid if he tried?
Peter Stewart
<snip>
The source for the information on the Limoges manuscript
was clearly stated by Pogue Parsons.
Nothing stated by John has been shown to be wrong.
It is further stated by Lewis as composed in the EARLY
FOURTEENTH CENTURY and ergo by NO MEANS represents
a PRIMARY SOURCE on the birth date of Eleanor of Aquitaine,
who DIED in 1204 -- a HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE.
Once again, the "lie direct" from Spencer Hines - Lewis carefully
considered that the source was COMPILED from earlier originals, not
"composed", in the early 14th century.
This source was ALSO composed at LEAST 180 YEARS AFTER
Eleanor's BIRTH -- and CERTAINLY constitutes no sort of PRIMARY
EVIDENCE for her birthdate.
It constitutes the earliest statement that has come down to us on this
point: that is all there is to it. There can be no guarantee that it
was correct, and nothing of the sort has been represented by Lewis,
John Parsons or myself. The alternative, still espoused by Spencer
Hines without anything to back it up, is just the confused estimate of
a modern historian, published early in the 20th century (1903) in
ignorance of this medieval source, and stuck in the secondary (or let
him have "tertiary") literature since then. 1903 is 700 years after
Eleanor's death and this certainly constitutes no sort of evidence at
all for her birthdate.
<snip>
Further, Stewart is so pig-ignorant he thinks "qeuivalen" is actually
an English word.
Obviously this is "equivalent", mistyped. I don't give outpourings of
nonsense from Spencer Hines the time to proof read responses.
<snip>
Stewart is also LYING about what I have written previously. So,
he LIES about what LEWIS has written and he LIES about what
HINES has written.
No Spencer, unfortunately for you I did no such thing - the quote from
you was a cut and paste from your post of 7 February. This is in the
archive (at http://tinyurl.com/4u7h3). You wrote:
***BAD Translation by Pogue Stewart. The Latin translates
into English as "at [the shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela]
in Galicia" -- [which is located at Santiago.] *** I've filled
in the understood elided words in the brackets.
This is WRONG, the "understood elided words" are imaginary. There is
nothing whatsoever in the Latin "apud Sanctum-Jacobum" to indicate that
the duke died AT THE SHRINE of Santiago rather than, say, in his
lodging at the place named "Santus-Jacobus", which HINES HIMSELF quote
properly called "Santiago" in English. He was so confused in the
falsehood he was trying to peddle about me that he didn't even notice
he contradicted himself.
LEWIS and HINES both translate "apud Sanctum-Jacobum en
Galicie" as:
At Saint-James in Galicia.
I wrote in response (on 8 February): "Sanctus-Jacobus IS Santiago, a
perfectly literal translation of the place name - and "apud" means
"at", "by" or "near", not "in": nothing here says that the duke died
actually in the shrine of Santiago (or Saint James if you
must), just at that place (to which he had gone on pilgrimage)".
Pogue Stewart -- hoist with his own PETAR yet again
No, it's Spencer's pertard & its foulness has exploded under him
already: Hines translated "apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie" as "at [the
shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela] in Galicia", claiming to have
glossed some "understood elided words" that just aren't in the text or
between the lines of it, period. The fact that Andrew Lewis may have
chosen "Saint James" rather than "Santiago" is neither here nor there -
he didn't try to make out that the duke had died at the shrine at
Compostela, which is the only point of difference that Hines can
possibly claim to have with me after HE used "Santiago" for the place
IN ENGLISH. I have already given better authority than the incidental
usage of Lewis that the conventional English version of this place name
was formerly "Saint Jago" anyway, not "Saint-James".
Still Hines goes on trying to smear John Parsons and me while denying
his own blunders that all the world can see. Could he actually be more
stupid if he tried?
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Clearly Pogue Stewart has NOT READ and UNDERSTOOD what Lewis says in his
chapter of Stewart-sidekick Parsons' book.
Because of his brain damage, if Stewart HAS read LEWIS he is as dumb as
a doorknob, has the memory capacity of a cockroach AND is also LYING
about important details.
Lewis clearly states, on one track, that the alleged Limoges manuscript
is from the EARLY FOURTEENTH CENTURY -- AT LEAST 180 YEARS AFTER
Eleanor's BIRTH.
OF COURSE the alleged 14th Century Limoges manuscript uses data from
PREVIOUS writings -- ANY SECONDARY or TERTIARY SOURCE does THAT -- but
that proves NOTHING and Lewis can't prove that Eleanor's alleged AGE of
13 in 1137 comes from any PRIMARY SOURCE he can IDENTIFY -- he simply
babbles on about the author's drawing on "written material that is now
lost" and "a presumably earlier tradition that she [Eleanor] was
thirteen years old at the time of her father's death in April 1137."
La-De-Da.
Further, Lewis CONTRADICTS HIMSELF roundly. At one point he says the
alleged Limoges manuscript was COMPOSED in the
"later-thirteenth-century" whereas ELSEWHERE in the same BRIEF piece of
work he describes it as "an early fourteenth-century manuscript." Vide
supra.
Hilarious!
Stewart is simply grasping at straws -- wailing and crying in his beer.
He has been cornered, like a rat, and is screeching.
IF he HAS read Lewis he doesn't understand him -- and if he has NOT read
Lewis he is LYING.
I suspect it is some of both:
1. Poor Reading Comprehension Skills.
2. Lying -- accentuated by Stewart's acute fear of being found out as
severely brain-damaged -- and babbling.
That's The Bottom Line.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
chapter of Stewart-sidekick Parsons' book.
Because of his brain damage, if Stewart HAS read LEWIS he is as dumb as
a doorknob, has the memory capacity of a cockroach AND is also LYING
about important details.
Lewis clearly states, on one track, that the alleged Limoges manuscript
is from the EARLY FOURTEENTH CENTURY -- AT LEAST 180 YEARS AFTER
Eleanor's BIRTH.
OF COURSE the alleged 14th Century Limoges manuscript uses data from
PREVIOUS writings -- ANY SECONDARY or TERTIARY SOURCE does THAT -- but
that proves NOTHING and Lewis can't prove that Eleanor's alleged AGE of
13 in 1137 comes from any PRIMARY SOURCE he can IDENTIFY -- he simply
babbles on about the author's drawing on "written material that is now
lost" and "a presumably earlier tradition that she [Eleanor] was
thirteen years old at the time of her father's death in April 1137."
La-De-Da.
Further, Lewis CONTRADICTS HIMSELF roundly. At one point he says the
alleged Limoges manuscript was COMPOSED in the
"later-thirteenth-century" whereas ELSEWHERE in the same BRIEF piece of
work he describes it as "an early fourteenth-century manuscript." Vide
supra.
Hilarious!
Stewart is simply grasping at straws -- wailing and crying in his beer.
He has been cornered, like a rat, and is screeching.
IF he HAS read Lewis he doesn't understand him -- and if he has NOT read
Lewis he is LYING.
I suspect it is some of both:
1. Poor Reading Comprehension Skills.
2. Lying -- accentuated by Stewart's acute fear of being found out as
severely brain-damaged -- and babbling.
That's The Bottom Line.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
So that people can make up their own minds about this, I shall transcribe
the relevant statements from the paper by Andrew Lewis, 'The Birth and
Childhood of King John: Some Revisions', in _Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and
Lady_, edited by John Carmi Parsons & Bonnie Wheeler (New York &
Basingstoke, 2002) from note 12 on pp. 170-171:
"The source is Paris BnF latin 5452, an early fourteenth-century manuscript
from Saint-Martial of Limoges containing copies of earlier materials from
Saint-Martial of Limoges....[quotation & translation of passage already
discussed]. Initial reaction to this source may be skepticism as to its
reliability because of the number of errors it contains. Fuller
investigation, however [NB carried out by Lewis, NOT Hines] reveals that the
text is essentially a pastiche of excerpts from the chronicle of Geoffroi de
Vigeois [NB a writer who "composed" his work in the 12th century, not the
14th] and that most of the errors are from Geoffroi's record of events from
outside the Limousin...[relevant citations]. By contrast, although the
sentence pertinent here was adapted from Geoffroi...[citation], the death
date of William X and Eleanor's age are interpolations drawn from a
different source. The note on William is accurate: He died on Good Friday,
April 9, 1137. The citation of the year as 1126 may be a copyist's error, or
it may reflect the style of reckoning the year from Easter that was
introduced at Limoges in the thirteenth century...[citation]. Moreover,
since Geoffroi had not mentioned William's children other than Eleanor, a
later writer who relied on his chronicles could well have assumed that she
had been an only child. The provenience of the manuscript and the author's
dependence on Geoffroi point to Limoges as the place of composition [my
apologies, Lewis does use this term - but clearly in this context meant it
in the sense of "compilation"]. The mention of Edward I in the piece implies
a date of composition after 1272. A somewhat later date may be preferred,
for the text calls the two Constances, wife and daughter of Geoffrey, son of
Henry II, "Berta" and "Brita" respectively. "Berta" may be a scribal
corruption of "Brita" and translated as "the Breton woman", used
disrespectfully in place of the given name because of anti-Breton sentiment
prompted by resentment of Arthur of Brittany, by marriage viscount of
Limoges, who, beginning in 1277, quarreled bitterly with the abbot and monks
of Saint-Martial...[citaitons]. The amount of detail on William X may
suggest that for these interpolations the author drew on written material
that is now lost. In subsequent studies I shall examine other texts from
this manuscript. AMong recent scholars, Labande cites this source in a
footmote but, in the corresponding text, leans towrad the date advanced by
Richard [i.e. "ca 1122" as estimated in his work published in
1903]...[citation]. Later...[citation], when Labande says that "she died at
the age of qighty-two years, at Poitiers, according to a single chronicler",
he cites a source the 'Chronicae Sancti Albini Andegavensis'. This source
does say that Eleanor died at Poitiers, but says nothing about her
age...[citation]. Duby...[citation] is the only scholar I have seen who has
accepted 1124 as the year of Eleanor's birth."
Now the newsgroup can decide what misrepresentations have been made about
this, and by whom. Manuscripts can be made up of parts written - whether
composed or compiled - at different times, starting as it may be in the late
13th and finishing in the early 14th centuries. Lewis was not confused or in
any way deceptive over this: he knows the document in question better than
anyone else.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MHCQd.32$vc5.961@eagle.america.net...
the relevant statements from the paper by Andrew Lewis, 'The Birth and
Childhood of King John: Some Revisions', in _Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and
Lady_, edited by John Carmi Parsons & Bonnie Wheeler (New York &
Basingstoke, 2002) from note 12 on pp. 170-171:
"The source is Paris BnF latin 5452, an early fourteenth-century manuscript
from Saint-Martial of Limoges containing copies of earlier materials from
Saint-Martial of Limoges....[quotation & translation of passage already
discussed]. Initial reaction to this source may be skepticism as to its
reliability because of the number of errors it contains. Fuller
investigation, however [NB carried out by Lewis, NOT Hines] reveals that the
text is essentially a pastiche of excerpts from the chronicle of Geoffroi de
Vigeois [NB a writer who "composed" his work in the 12th century, not the
14th] and that most of the errors are from Geoffroi's record of events from
outside the Limousin...[relevant citations]. By contrast, although the
sentence pertinent here was adapted from Geoffroi...[citation], the death
date of William X and Eleanor's age are interpolations drawn from a
different source. The note on William is accurate: He died on Good Friday,
April 9, 1137. The citation of the year as 1126 may be a copyist's error, or
it may reflect the style of reckoning the year from Easter that was
introduced at Limoges in the thirteenth century...[citation]. Moreover,
since Geoffroi had not mentioned William's children other than Eleanor, a
later writer who relied on his chronicles could well have assumed that she
had been an only child. The provenience of the manuscript and the author's
dependence on Geoffroi point to Limoges as the place of composition [my
apologies, Lewis does use this term - but clearly in this context meant it
in the sense of "compilation"]. The mention of Edward I in the piece implies
a date of composition after 1272. A somewhat later date may be preferred,
for the text calls the two Constances, wife and daughter of Geoffrey, son of
Henry II, "Berta" and "Brita" respectively. "Berta" may be a scribal
corruption of "Brita" and translated as "the Breton woman", used
disrespectfully in place of the given name because of anti-Breton sentiment
prompted by resentment of Arthur of Brittany, by marriage viscount of
Limoges, who, beginning in 1277, quarreled bitterly with the abbot and monks
of Saint-Martial...[citaitons]. The amount of detail on William X may
suggest that for these interpolations the author drew on written material
that is now lost. In subsequent studies I shall examine other texts from
this manuscript. AMong recent scholars, Labande cites this source in a
footmote but, in the corresponding text, leans towrad the date advanced by
Richard [i.e. "ca 1122" as estimated in his work published in
1903]...[citation]. Later...[citation], when Labande says that "she died at
the age of qighty-two years, at Poitiers, according to a single chronicler",
he cites a source the 'Chronicae Sancti Albini Andegavensis'. This source
does say that Eleanor died at Poitiers, but says nothing about her
age...[citation]. Duby...[citation] is the only scholar I have seen who has
accepted 1124 as the year of Eleanor's birth."
Now the newsgroup can decide what misrepresentations have been made about
this, and by whom. Manuscripts can be made up of parts written - whether
composed or compiled - at different times, starting as it may be in the late
13th and finishing in the early 14th centuries. Lewis was not confused or in
any way deceptive over this: he knows the document in question better than
anyone else.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MHCQd.32$vc5.961@eagle.america.net...
Clearly Pogue Stewart has NOT READ and UNDERSTOOD what Lewis says in his
chapter of Stewart-sidekick Parsons' book.
Because of his brain damage, if Stewart HAS read LEWIS he is as dumb as
a doorknob, has the memory capacity of a cockroach AND is also LYING
about important details.
Lewis clearly states, on one track, that the alleged Limoges manuscript
is from the EARLY FOURTEENTH CENTURY -- AT LEAST 180 YEARS AFTER
Eleanor's BIRTH.
OF COURSE the alleged 14th Century Limoges manuscript uses data from
PREVIOUS writings -- ANY SECONDARY or TERTIARY SOURCE does THAT -- but
that proves NOTHING and Lewis can't prove that Eleanor's alleged AGE of
13 in 1137 comes from any PRIMARY SOURCE he can IDENTIFY -- he simply
babbles on about the author's drawing on "written material that is now
lost" and "a presumably earlier tradition that she [Eleanor] was
thirteen years old at the time of her father's death in April 1137."
La-De-Da.
Further, Lewis CONTRADICTS HIMSELF roundly. At one point he says the
alleged Limoges manuscript was COMPOSED in the
"later-thirteenth-century" whereas ELSEWHERE in the same BRIEF piece of
work he describes it as "an early fourteenth-century manuscript." Vide
supra.
Hilarious!
Stewart is simply grasping at straws -- wailing and crying in his beer.
He has been cornered, like a rat, and is screeching.
IF he HAS read Lewis he doesn't understand him -- and if he has NOT read
Lewis he is LYING.
I suspect it is some of both:
1. Poor Reading Comprehension Skills.
2. Lying -- accentuated by Stewart's acute fear of being found out as
severely brain-damaged -- and babbling.
That's The Bottom Line.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BdDQd.163101$K7.66356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
I made another typo - obvious enough I hope as the point was discussed
before - and this should read:
"The citation of the year as 1136 may be a copyist's error..."
By the way, this explanation seems to me far less plausible than the
adequate explanation in the rest of the sentence, and thus unnecessary
because of it.
Peter Stewart
news:BdDQd.163101$K7.66356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
So that people can make up their own minds about this, I shall transcribe
the relevant statements from the paper by Andrew Lewis, 'The Birth and
Childhood of King John: Some Revisions', in _Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord
and Lady_, edited by John Carmi Parsons & Bonnie Wheeler (New York &
Basingstoke, 2002) from note 12 on pp. 170-171:
<snip>
"...The note on William is accurate: He died on Good Friday, April 9,
1137. The citation of the year as 1126 may be a copyist's error, or it may
reflect the style of reckoning the year from Easter that was introduced at
Limoges in the thirteenth century
I made another typo - obvious enough I hope as the point was discussed
before - and this should read:
"The citation of the year as 1136 may be a copyist's error..."
By the way, this explanation seems to me far less plausible than the
adequate explanation in the rest of the sentence, and thus unnecessary
because of it.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Stewart is still lying.
Lewis clearly states:
"One may place greater confidence in the genealogical text composed in
the later thirteenth-century [sic] records [sic] a presumably earlier
tradition that she was thirteen years old at the time of her father's
death, in April 1137."
COMPOSED....
Incorporating "a presumably earlier tradition."
Thin gruel indeed. NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE for Eleanor's date of birth.
Would any of us here accept a document of uncertain provenance and
authorship, composed in say 2005, as valid proof for a birth date for
one of our ancestors as definitely born in 1840 -- with NO other
buttressing evidence?
Of course not.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Stewart is still lying.
Lewis clearly states:
"One may place greater confidence in the genealogical text composed in
the later thirteenth-century [sic] records [sic] a presumably earlier
tradition that she was thirteen years old at the time of her father's
death, in April 1137."
COMPOSED....
Incorporating "a presumably earlier tradition."
Thin gruel indeed. NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE for Eleanor's date of birth.
Would any of us here accept a document of uncertain provenance and
authorship, composed in say 2005, as valid proof for a birth date for
one of our ancestors as definitely born in 1840 -- with NO other
buttressing evidence?
Of course not.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Comments interspersed:
Spencer hines wrote:
After posting the passage from Lewis for all to see? After repeatedly
urging Hines to read this for himself before making a greater fool of
himself in attempting to refute it unread? The only thing that keeps
Spencer from being a complete idiot is the old chestnut - some of the
parts are missing.
I have already acknowledged that Lewis used this word - by it he very
clearly meant "compiled" or "constituted" rather than "created", as if
from thin air. The impression left by Spencer's distorted summary was
just that, a fourteenth-century guess with no earlier basis. Yet Lewis
pointed out that the sentence was based on a 12th-century original,
including errors and perhaps mistaken inference from this about Eleanor
as the "only daughter" - however, enumerations of children in the
middle ages sometimes deliberately left out even sons who were not
heirs and the younger sister of a sole heiress was not of notable
interest.
The word "compose" is more usually associated with music, and Lewis
used another word for the chronicle in question that can illuminate
this: "pastiche". Beethoven by any measure "composed" the Emperor
concerto; Leonard Bernstein arranged a phrase fom the slow movement
into the opening of "Somewhere", the heroine's song in "West Side
Story", changing values slightly but still coming up with a tune that
even Sondheim couldn't fit with a graceful lyric ("There's A place for
us..."), because it was never meant by the COMPOSER Beethoven to carry
one, and the PASTICHEUR Bernstein wasn't as skillful at covering his
tracks as he thought.
On the contrary, it is the only source we have so MUST be "primary" in
that sense although not "contemporary" with the subject.
All of us here DO accept far less plausible and proximate sources than
this, for countless details of medieval genealogy. Spencer may choose
to ignore this - or doesn't realise it - but the fact remains.
Against the early 14th-century record from a lost earlier source,
almost certainly the same that was precisely correct about the more
detailed information regarding William X's death, Spencer has yet to
come up with anything more substantial than the confused guesstimate by
an early 20th-century historian who didn't know about the chronicle
from Saint-Martial of Limoges.
And by the way, Lewis HAS to some extent identified this source, as
itself originating at Saint-Martial - see the passage I quoted in full
before.
Peter Stewart
Spencer hines wrote:
Stewart is still lying.
After posting the passage from Lewis for all to see? After repeatedly
urging Hines to read this for himself before making a greater fool of
himself in attempting to refute it unread? The only thing that keeps
Spencer from being a complete idiot is the old chestnut - some of the
parts are missing.
Lewis clearly states:
"One may place greater confidence in the genealogical text
composed in the later thirteenth-century [sic] records [sic]
a presumably earlier tradition that she was thirteen years old
at the time of her father's death, in April 1137."
COMPOSED....
I have already acknowledged that Lewis used this word - by it he very
clearly meant "compiled" or "constituted" rather than "created", as if
from thin air. The impression left by Spencer's distorted summary was
just that, a fourteenth-century guess with no earlier basis. Yet Lewis
pointed out that the sentence was based on a 12th-century original,
including errors and perhaps mistaken inference from this about Eleanor
as the "only daughter" - however, enumerations of children in the
middle ages sometimes deliberately left out even sons who were not
heirs and the younger sister of a sole heiress was not of notable
interest.
The word "compose" is more usually associated with music, and Lewis
used another word for the chronicle in question that can illuminate
this: "pastiche". Beethoven by any measure "composed" the Emperor
concerto; Leonard Bernstein arranged a phrase fom the slow movement
into the opening of "Somewhere", the heroine's song in "West Side
Story", changing values slightly but still coming up with a tune that
even Sondheim couldn't fit with a graceful lyric ("There's A place for
us..."), because it was never meant by the COMPOSER Beethoven to carry
one, and the PASTICHEUR Bernstein wasn't as skillful at covering his
tracks as he thought.
Incorporating "a presumably earlier tradition."
Thin gruel indeed. NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE for Eleanor's date of
birth.
On the contrary, it is the only source we have so MUST be "primary" in
that sense although not "contemporary" with the subject.
Would any of us here accept a document of uncertain provenance
and authorship, composed in say 2005, as valid proof for a birth
date for one of our ancestors as definitely born in 1840 -- with NO
other buttressing evidence?
Of course not.
All of us here DO accept far less plausible and proximate sources than
this, for countless details of medieval genealogy. Spencer may choose
to ignore this - or doesn't realise it - but the fact remains.
Against the early 14th-century record from a lost earlier source,
almost certainly the same that was precisely correct about the more
detailed information regarding William X's death, Spencer has yet to
come up with anything more substantial than the confused guesstimate by
an early 20th-century historian who didn't know about the chronicle
from Saint-Martial of Limoges.
And by the way, Lewis HAS to some extent identified this source, as
itself originating at Saint-Martial - see the passage I quoted in full
before.
Peter Stewart
-
Harvey Van Sickle
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
On 16 Feb 2005, Peter Stewart wrote
With respect, Peter, you should be ignoring this nonsense rather than
trying to counter it.
Anyone who has actually grappled with the problems of working with
source material will recognise that what you say is self-evidently
correct. The rantings of strange obsessives who have clearly never
tried to reconcile primary sources in any systematic way really aren't
worth bothering with.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
And by the way, Lewis HAS to some extent identified this source,
as itself originating at Saint-Martial - see the passage I quoted
in full before.
With respect, Peter, you should be ignoring this nonsense rather than
trying to counter it.
Anyone who has actually grappled with the problems of working with
source material will recognise that what you say is self-evidently
correct. The rantings of strange obsessives who have clearly never
tried to reconcile primary sources in any systematic way really aren't
worth bothering with.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Thank you, Harvey. I would MUCH prefer to have dropped the subject long
ago, or indeed that it had never come up.
I apologise to those who find the whole thread extremely tedious and
petty, which it certainly is. However, new readers come along to
GEN-MED and SGM all the time - and people will go on consulting the
archive - who are not experienced in these matters, so that it is
perhaps worth countering distortions and outright garbage from someone
who will continue to pose as an expert here. Besides, even a few
intelligent and veteran readers (such as Gordon Hale, who actually
expressed this) might read the posts from Hines and myself but with not
enough attention to work out the merits of the argument.
Peter Stewart
With respect, Peter, you should be ignoring this nonsense
rather than trying to counter it.
Thank you, Harvey. I would MUCH prefer to have dropped the subject long
ago, or indeed that it had never come up.
I apologise to those who find the whole thread extremely tedious and
petty, which it certainly is. However, new readers come along to
GEN-MED and SGM all the time - and people will go on consulting the
archive - who are not experienced in these matters, so that it is
perhaps worth countering distortions and outright garbage from someone
who will continue to pose as an expert here. Besides, even a few
intelligent and veteran readers (such as Gordon Hale, who actually
expressed this) might read the posts from Hines and myself but with not
enough attention to work out the merits of the argument.
Peter Stewart
-
Harvey Van Sickle
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
On 16 Feb 2005, Peter Stewart wrote
A very reasonable approach; you're a much more enthusiastic teacher
than I could ever be....
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
With respect, Peter, you should be ignoring this nonsense
rather than trying to counter it.
Thank you, Harvey. I would MUCH prefer to have dropped the subject
long ago, or indeed that it had never come up.
I apologise to those who find the whole thread extremely tedious
and petty, which it certainly is. However, new readers come along
to GEN-MED and SGM all the time - and people will go on consulting
the archive - who are not experienced in these matters, so that it
is perhaps worth countering distortions and outright garbage from
someone who will continue to pose as an expert here. Besides, even
a few intelligent and veteran readers (such as Gordon Hale, who
actually expressed this) might read the posts from Hines and
myself but with not enough attention to work out the merits of the
argument.
A very reasonable approach; you're a much more enthusiastic teacher
than I could ever be....
--
Cheers,
Harvey
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Hilarious!
Stewart is still lying.
Lewis clearly states:
"One may place greater confidence in the genealogical text composed in
the later thirteenth-century [sic] records [sic] a presumably earlier
tradition that she was thirteen years old at the time of her father's
death, in April 1137."
[N.B. The sentence by Lewis does not parse correctly, of course, hence
the [sics]. It also contradicts other statements by Lewis, as I've
previously pointed out. ---- DSH]
COMPOSED....
Incorporating "a presumably earlier tradition."
Thin gruel indeed. NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE for Eleanor's date of birth.
To which Pogue Stewart stupidly replies:
| On the contrary, it is the only source we have so MUST be "primary" in
| that sense although not "contemporary" with the subject.
Hilarious!
Bollixed Basic English!
So, to Stewart, if a source is simply the FIRST one he has to hand it
must be PRIMARY. This is just the sort of lowered historiographical
standards and sloppy Rules of Evidence I have pointed out as sometimes
commonly employed by mediaeval genealogists and historians.
Pogue Stewart is PROVING my case for me.
Deeeeelightful!
By a process of SEMANTIC OBFUSCATION and FRAUD, even if they have a
source that was COMPOSED 100, 200 or 300 YEARS after a given event, some
historical and genealogical practitioners, who are charlatans and
frauds, call it a PRIMARY SOURCE -- because it is the ONLY one they
have -- and/or the FIRST ONE.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Real Genealogists and Historians, Honest Genealogists and Historians
know that a PRIMARY SOURCE is FIRSTHAND testimony or DIRECT evidence
concerning a topic under investigation. The nature and value of a source
cannot be determined without reference to the TOPIC and QUESTIONS it is
meant to ANSWER. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be
a primary source in one investigation and secondary in another.
Pogue Stewart obviously has MUCH LOWER STANDARDS.
Which makes him VERY Amusing -- and NO Historian -- or professional
genealogist.
Hell, he doesn't even know the basic rules.
That hard knock on the head he received on the cobblestones at Oxford
did him no good at all.
But he DOES make for marvelous ENTERTAINMENT, Vanessa.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Stewart is still lying.
Lewis clearly states:
"One may place greater confidence in the genealogical text composed in
the later thirteenth-century [sic] records [sic] a presumably earlier
tradition that she was thirteen years old at the time of her father's
death, in April 1137."
[N.B. The sentence by Lewis does not parse correctly, of course, hence
the [sics]. It also contradicts other statements by Lewis, as I've
previously pointed out. ---- DSH]
COMPOSED....
Incorporating "a presumably earlier tradition."
Thin gruel indeed. NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE for Eleanor's date of birth.
To which Pogue Stewart stupidly replies:
| On the contrary, it is the only source we have so MUST be "primary" in
| that sense although not "contemporary" with the subject.
Hilarious!
Bollixed Basic English!
So, to Stewart, if a source is simply the FIRST one he has to hand it
must be PRIMARY. This is just the sort of lowered historiographical
standards and sloppy Rules of Evidence I have pointed out as sometimes
commonly employed by mediaeval genealogists and historians.
Pogue Stewart is PROVING my case for me.
Deeeeelightful!
By a process of SEMANTIC OBFUSCATION and FRAUD, even if they have a
source that was COMPOSED 100, 200 or 300 YEARS after a given event, some
historical and genealogical practitioners, who are charlatans and
frauds, call it a PRIMARY SOURCE -- because it is the ONLY one they
have -- and/or the FIRST ONE.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Real Genealogists and Historians, Honest Genealogists and Historians
know that a PRIMARY SOURCE is FIRSTHAND testimony or DIRECT evidence
concerning a topic under investigation. The nature and value of a source
cannot be determined without reference to the TOPIC and QUESTIONS it is
meant to ANSWER. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be
a primary source in one investigation and secondary in another.
Pogue Stewart obviously has MUCH LOWER STANDARDS.
Which makes him VERY Amusing -- and NO Historian -- or professional
genealogist.
Hell, he doesn't even know the basic rules.
That hard knock on the head he received on the cobblestones at Oxford
did him no good at all.
But he DOES make for marvelous ENTERTAINMENT, Vanessa.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
This rant about sources is ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE and UTTER rot: if anyone
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the term
for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second or third
hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime evidence).
Spencer is evidently too ignorant of Latin even to recognise the link
between "prime" and "primary" - both come ultimately from "primus" meaning
"the first in order of time" NB NOT "the immediate" as Hines is trying to
make out ("primary" comes by way of "primarius", "the chief" or "the
principal"). The source from Saint-Martial of Limoges IS unquestionably the
first in order of time that we possess, and the chief evidence available on
the point at issue - ergo, it IS "primary".
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S6SQd.26$Zp5.748@eagle.america.net...
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the term
for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second or third
hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime evidence).
Spencer is evidently too ignorant of Latin even to recognise the link
between "prime" and "primary" - both come ultimately from "primus" meaning
"the first in order of time" NB NOT "the immediate" as Hines is trying to
make out ("primary" comes by way of "primarius", "the chief" or "the
principal"). The source from Saint-Martial of Limoges IS unquestionably the
first in order of time that we possess, and the chief evidence available on
the point at issue - ergo, it IS "primary".
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S6SQd.26$Zp5.748@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!
Stewart is still lying.
Lewis clearly states:
"One may place greater confidence in the genealogical text composed in
the later thirteenth-century [sic] records [sic] a presumably earlier
tradition that she was thirteen years old at the time of her father's
death, in April 1137."
[N.B. The sentence by Lewis does not parse correctly, of course, hence
the [sics]. It also contradicts other statements by Lewis, as I've
previously pointed out. ---- DSH]
COMPOSED....
Incorporating "a presumably earlier tradition."
Thin gruel indeed. NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE for Eleanor's date of birth.
To which Pogue Stewart stupidly replies:
| On the contrary, it is the only source we have so MUST be "primary" in
| that sense although not "contemporary" with the subject.
Hilarious!
Bollixed Basic English!
So, to Stewart, if a source is simply the FIRST one he has to hand it
must be PRIMARY. This is just the sort of lowered historiographical
standards and sloppy Rules of Evidence I have pointed out as sometimes
commonly employed by mediaeval genealogists and historians.
Pogue Stewart is PROVING my case for me.
Deeeeelightful!
By a process of SEMANTIC OBFUSCATION and FRAUD, even if they have a
source that was COMPOSED 100, 200 or 300 YEARS after a given event, some
historical and genealogical practitioners, who are charlatans and
frauds, call it a PRIMARY SOURCE -- because it is the ONLY one they
have -- and/or the FIRST ONE.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Real Genealogists and Historians, Honest Genealogists and Historians
know that a PRIMARY SOURCE is FIRSTHAND testimony or DIRECT evidence
concerning a topic under investigation. The nature and value of a source
cannot be determined without reference to the TOPIC and QUESTIONS it is
meant to ANSWER. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be
a primary source in one investigation and secondary in another.
Pogue Stewart obviously has MUCH LOWER STANDARDS.
Which makes him VERY Amusing -- and NO Historian -- or professional
genealogist.
Hell, he doesn't even know the basic rules.
That hard knock on the head he received on the cobblestones at Oxford
did him no good at all.
But he DOES make for marvelous ENTERTAINMENT, Vanessa.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Renia
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.
Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources.
The term "primary sources" is not a generic term meaning "old sources".
The term Secondary sources is not a generic term meaning "modern sources".
Sometimes, the primary sources have been lost (if ever they existed) and
we are left only with the secondary sources, which we use "as if" they
were a primary source, but they remain a secondary source.
These not general terms but mandatory terms in historiography and thus
in genealogy.
Prime sources, if you will, are "leading" or "best" sources. They can be
primary or secondary. An example of a prime source, is the Complete
Peerage, which is a secondary source, or the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a
primary source.
Renia
This rant about sources is ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE and UTTER rot: if anyone
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the term
for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second or third
hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime evidence).
Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.
Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources.
The term "primary sources" is not a generic term meaning "old sources".
The term Secondary sources is not a generic term meaning "modern sources".
Sometimes, the primary sources have been lost (if ever they existed) and
we are left only with the secondary sources, which we use "as if" they
were a primary source, but they remain a secondary source.
These not general terms but mandatory terms in historiography and thus
in genealogy.
Prime sources, if you will, are "leading" or "best" sources. They can be
primary or secondary. An example of a prime source, is the Complete
Peerage, which is a secondary source, or the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a
primary source.
Renia
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv1od5$hme$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Unmitigated rubbish, Renia - at this rate, you have rewritten the dictionary
(did you bother to look up "primary"?) as well as reinvented the discipline
of writing history. In your view there must be vastly fewer "primary"
sources than most medieval historians list in their bibliographies under
this label, so you had better alert the academic authorities to review their
higher degrees in a hurry. "Earliest" in a series or sequence does not mean
the same as "contemporary".
Equally wrong - a secondary source about today's events could be written
today.
Who said it was? Not me - read again. I defined "primary" as any good
dictionary does, meaning "chief", related to "first in order of time" - from
"primarius", from "primus". LOOK IT UP, don't rely on your memory or
impressions.
No, but effectively most secondary works cited are modern, and I was talking
in that paragraph about what can be found in bibliographies, not in
dictionaries. "Secondary" means "belonging to the second [or in this case
also subsequent] order in time". Unless you are perhaps going to argue for a
geographic or maybe alphabetic order, I don't know what else you can be
proposing that isn't completely arbitrary and beside the point.
No they don't - LOOK UP the words. "Primary", meaning as it does in this
context "first in order of time", by your too literal reckoning could allow
for only ONE "primary" source per subject, the first one committed to
writing. That is blatant nonsense.
I wrote about prime evidence, not sources. CP is a standard source, only
"prime" in the sense of being distinguished, of the first rank in importance
rather than time. It is NOT "prime" in the sense that this is applied to
specific usages such as a "prime" number, or the service of "prime", both of
which taken their meaning from being first or having no integral factors.
Peter Stewart
news:cv1od5$hme$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This rant about sources is ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE and UTTER rot: if anyone
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the
term for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second or
third hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime evidence).
Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.
Unmitigated rubbish, Renia - at this rate, you have rewritten the dictionary
(did you bother to look up "primary"?) as well as reinvented the discipline
of writing history. In your view there must be vastly fewer "primary"
sources than most medieval historians list in their bibliographies under
this label, so you had better alert the academic authorities to review their
higher degrees in a hurry. "Earliest" in a series or sequence does not mean
the same as "contemporary".
Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources.
Equally wrong - a secondary source about today's events could be written
today.
The term "primary sources" is not a generic term meaning "old sources".
Who said it was? Not me - read again. I defined "primary" as any good
dictionary does, meaning "chief", related to "first in order of time" - from
"primarius", from "primus". LOOK IT UP, don't rely on your memory or
impressions.
The term Secondary sources is not a generic term meaning "modern sources".
No, but effectively most secondary works cited are modern, and I was talking
in that paragraph about what can be found in bibliographies, not in
dictionaries. "Secondary" means "belonging to the second [or in this case
also subsequent] order in time". Unless you are perhaps going to argue for a
geographic or maybe alphabetic order, I don't know what else you can be
proposing that isn't completely arbitrary and beside the point.
Sometimes, the primary sources have been lost (if ever they existed) and
we are left only with the secondary sources, which we use "as if" they
were a primary source, but they remain a secondary source.
No they don't - LOOK UP the words. "Primary", meaning as it does in this
context "first in order of time", by your too literal reckoning could allow
for only ONE "primary" source per subject, the first one committed to
writing. That is blatant nonsense.
These not general terms but mandatory terms in historiography and thus in
genealogy.
Prime sources, if you will, are "leading" or "best" sources. They can be
primary or secondary. An example of a prime source, is the Complete
Peerage, which is a secondary source, or the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a
primary source.
I wrote about prime evidence, not sources. CP is a standard source, only
"prime" in the sense of being distinguished, of the first rank in importance
rather than time. It is NOT "prime" in the sense that this is applied to
specific usages such as a "prime" number, or the service of "prime", both of
which taken their meaning from being first or having no integral factors.
Peter Stewart
-
Renia
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
Never mind the dictionary. We are talking about the discipline of
history. Forget the word "primary" as a word in its own right. The
phrase used by historians to denote sources created at the time of the
event being studied is "primary source". That's a fundamentary piece of
training when taking a history degree.
I did not say that "earliest" sources are the same as contemporary. My
point exactly. "Earliest" sources are not primary sources. However,
sometimes, if they are the earliest sources available, we treat them "as
if" they were primary sources, because that is all we have. But we have
to treat them with care. For example, the Battle Abbey Rolls. This is a
secondary source, apparently based on a primary source. But the primary
source is missing, so we have nothing with which to compare the
secondary source. So we cannot be sure the primary source ever existed
or that the secondary source is correct. Always, we look for further
sources to back up our argument.
I don't think you have quite got the hang of primary/secondary sources.
A primary source today, might be Hansard, for example. If a newspaper
then produces an article based on what Hansard says, then the newspaper
is a secondary source, even if it is produced on the same day. However,
in the future, that newspaper becomes a primary source.
Forget the dictionary definition of primary as "chief". As historians we
use primary as "first" and, if anything, use prime as "chief".
What sort of examples given in bibliographies? Bibliographies list
books. Books are secondary sources. (Secondary does not mean
second-best. It means, if you like, second-generation, i.e. produced
from a first-generation or primary source.)
Excuse me, but you are talking the nonsense of one who is not a trained
historian. I am a trained historian and the difference between primary
and secondary sources is the first thing I learnt. The dictionary
definition of primary and secondary is not the same thing as the
technical terminology used in historiography.
You are always moving the goalposts. You were talking about primary
sources. In many ways, sources and evidence can amount to the same
thing. But we are talking of the technical terms of "primary and
secondary sources" as used in historiography.
Exactly. That is what I said.
Exactly, and I never said that so stop moving the goalposts again.
Renia
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv1od5$hme$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This rant about sources is ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE and UTTER rot: if anyone
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the
term for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second or
third hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime evidence).
Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.
Unmitigated rubbish, Renia - at this rate, you have rewritten the dictionary
(did you bother to look up "primary"?) as well as reinvented the discipline
of writing history.
Never mind the dictionary. We are talking about the discipline of
history. Forget the word "primary" as a word in its own right. The
phrase used by historians to denote sources created at the time of the
event being studied is "primary source". That's a fundamentary piece of
training when taking a history degree.
In your view there must be vastly fewer "primary"
sources than most medieval historians list in their bibliographies under
this label, so you had better alert the academic authorities to review their
higher degrees in a hurry. "Earliest" in a series or sequence does not mean
the same as "contemporary".
I did not say that "earliest" sources are the same as contemporary. My
point exactly. "Earliest" sources are not primary sources. However,
sometimes, if they are the earliest sources available, we treat them "as
if" they were primary sources, because that is all we have. But we have
to treat them with care. For example, the Battle Abbey Rolls. This is a
secondary source, apparently based on a primary source. But the primary
source is missing, so we have nothing with which to compare the
secondary source. So we cannot be sure the primary source ever existed
or that the secondary source is correct. Always, we look for further
sources to back up our argument.
Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources.
Equally wrong - a secondary source about today's events could be written
today.
I don't think you have quite got the hang of primary/secondary sources.
A primary source today, might be Hansard, for example. If a newspaper
then produces an article based on what Hansard says, then the newspaper
is a secondary source, even if it is produced on the same day. However,
in the future, that newspaper becomes a primary source.
The term "primary sources" is not a generic term meaning "old sources".
Who said it was? Not me - read again. I defined "primary" as any good
dictionary does, meaning "chief", related to "first in order of time" - from
"primarius", from "primus". LOOK IT UP, don't rely on your memory or
impressions.
Forget the dictionary definition of primary as "chief". As historians we
use primary as "first" and, if anything, use prime as "chief".
The term Secondary sources is not a generic term meaning "modern sources".
No, but effectively most secondary works cited are modern, and I was talking
in that paragraph about what can be found in bibliographies,
What sort of examples given in bibliographies? Bibliographies list
books. Books are secondary sources. (Secondary does not mean
second-best. It means, if you like, second-generation, i.e. produced
from a first-generation or primary source.)
not in
dictionaries. "Secondary" means "belonging to the second [or in this case
also subsequent] order in time". Unless you are perhaps going to argue for a
geographic or maybe alphabetic order, I don't know what else you can be
proposing that isn't completely arbitrary and beside the point.
Sometimes, the primary sources have been lost (if ever they existed) and
we are left only with the secondary sources, which we use "as if" they
were a primary source, but they remain a secondary source.
No they don't - LOOK UP the words. "Primary", meaning as it does in this
context "first in order of time", by your too literal reckoning could allow
for only ONE "primary" source per subject, the first one committed to
writing. That is blatant nonsense.
Excuse me, but you are talking the nonsense of one who is not a trained
historian. I am a trained historian and the difference between primary
and secondary sources is the first thing I learnt. The dictionary
definition of primary and secondary is not the same thing as the
technical terminology used in historiography.
These not general terms but mandatory terms in historiography and thus in
genealogy.
Prime sources, if you will, are "leading" or "best" sources. They can be
primary or secondary. An example of a prime source, is the Complete
Peerage, which is a secondary source, or the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a
primary source.
I wrote about prime evidence, not sources.
You are always moving the goalposts. You were talking about primary
sources. In many ways, sources and evidence can amount to the same
thing. But we are talking of the technical terms of "primary and
secondary sources" as used in historiography.
CP is a standard source, only
"prime" in the sense of being distinguished, of the first rank in importance
rather than time.
Exactly. That is what I said.
It is NOT "prime" in the sense that this is applied to
specific usages such as a "prime" number, or the service of "prime", both of
which taken their meaning from being first or having no integral factors.
Exactly, and I never said that so stop moving the goalposts again.
Renia
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv1vkq$k8i$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
O golly - please take a moment to think, Renia: medieval documents can by
your definition be "primary" for one point and "secondary" for the next,
even both within the same sentence, depending only on whether or not you can
tell if their was another original behind the separate phrases.
No, the "ORIGINAL" source, if you like and can bear with the tautology, is
missing - this word is NOT the same as "primary" and no historian that I can
think of makes such a distinction in general, although it may of course be a
matter of specific importance as it was with Andrew Lewis over the material
from Saint-Martial of Limoges.
Of course this is understood - but it is impractical. In any case, the
politician's speech notes would be the "primary" written source and Hansard,
a transcript at one remove, just a "secondary" one, even though this might
be far more accurate as to what was spoken. By your "contemporary" standard
for "primary" sources the Gospels would be "secondary"; an account written
by a 70-year-old of events in which he participated as a 20-year-old would
be "secondary", even more so if he used anyone else's earlier report to
refresh his memory; whereas any immediate source could be "primary" for one
point and then as I said "secondary" for the next, because the information
came from elsewhere, and so on, making a nonsense of all definitions.
We sometimes can't know in what order primary sources were written or
compiled. Monastic annals were often accrued over time rather than composed
at a sitting, augmented and interpolated with notes taken down on visits to
other houses with their own annals, in turn drawn from various sources: the
complications and permutations as to the original can be endless. "Primary"
is NOT a synonym for "original" or "contemporary". The word is used by
historians in a necessarily vague, perhaps - rather than generic - way, and
their viewpoint is necessarily subjective because complete objectivity is
impossible. A source is OUR primary source, not necessarily THE primary (in
your over-literal sense of "original") source for its burden of information.
Bibliographies also list unpublished sources, and these too as I have
explained above may be both primary and secondary by your narrow
definitions.
But it is - and you are not the only person who ever was trained at a
university. A "primary" source is either unique or one of a group of sources
providing information that can't be traced beyond it. However, "derived"
information can be found in these, almost entire in some cases. Obviously a
universal chronicle written in the middle ages is not a "primary" source for
the ancient history it may contain, but it is nevertheless listed among
"primary sources" even where such parts may be discussed in the study,
because it would be absurd to list it twice in a bibliography. The secondary
nature of hte text will be plain from the discussion of it, but not in the
overall labelling.
No, I'm reminding you of what I wrote - this harping on goalposts appear to
be a very unbecoming technique of yours in controversy when you don't have a
better response.
I never said you said so, I was taking the liberty of making my own point in
my own post.
Peter Stewart
news:cv1vkq$k8i$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv1od5$hme$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This rant about sources is ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE and UTTER rot: if anyone
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the
term for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second
or third hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime
evidence).
Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.
Unmitigated rubbish, Renia - at this rate, you have rewritten the
dictionary (did you bother to look up "primary"?) as well as reinvented
the discipline of writing history.
Never mind the dictionary. We are talking about the discipline of history.
Forget the word "primary" as a word in its own right. The phrase used by
historians to denote sources created at the time of the event being
studied is "primary source". That's a fundamentary piece of training when
taking a history degree.
O golly - please take a moment to think, Renia: medieval documents can by
your definition be "primary" for one point and "secondary" for the next,
even both within the same sentence, depending only on whether or not you can
tell if their was another original behind the separate phrases.
In your view there must be vastly fewer "primary"
sources than most medieval historians list in their bibliographies under
this label, so you had better alert the academic authorities to review
their higher degrees in a hurry. "Earliest" in a series or sequence does
not mean the same as "contemporary".
I did not say that "earliest" sources are the same as contemporary. My
point exactly. "Earliest" sources are not primary sources. However,
sometimes, if they are the earliest sources available, we treat them "as
if" they were primary sources, because that is all we have. But we have to
treat them with care. For example, the Battle Abbey Rolls. This is a
secondary source, apparently based on a primary source. But the primary
source is missing, so we have nothing with which to compare the secondary
source. So we cannot be sure the primary source ever existed or that the
secondary source is correct. Always, we look for further sources to back
up our argument.
No, the "ORIGINAL" source, if you like and can bear with the tautology, is
missing - this word is NOT the same as "primary" and no historian that I can
think of makes such a distinction in general, although it may of course be a
matter of specific importance as it was with Andrew Lewis over the material
from Saint-Martial of Limoges.
Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources.
Equally wrong - a secondary source about today's events could be written
today.
I don't think you have quite got the hang of primary/secondary sources. A
primary source today, might be Hansard, for example. If a newspaper then
produces an article based on what Hansard says, then the newspaper is a
secondary source, even if it is produced on the same day. However, in the
future, that newspaper becomes a primary source.
Of course this is understood - but it is impractical. In any case, the
politician's speech notes would be the "primary" written source and Hansard,
a transcript at one remove, just a "secondary" one, even though this might
be far more accurate as to what was spoken. By your "contemporary" standard
for "primary" sources the Gospels would be "secondary"; an account written
by a 70-year-old of events in which he participated as a 20-year-old would
be "secondary", even more so if he used anyone else's earlier report to
refresh his memory; whereas any immediate source could be "primary" for one
point and then as I said "secondary" for the next, because the information
came from elsewhere, and so on, making a nonsense of all definitions.
We sometimes can't know in what order primary sources were written or
compiled. Monastic annals were often accrued over time rather than composed
at a sitting, augmented and interpolated with notes taken down on visits to
other houses with their own annals, in turn drawn from various sources: the
complications and permutations as to the original can be endless. "Primary"
is NOT a synonym for "original" or "contemporary". The word is used by
historians in a necessarily vague, perhaps - rather than generic - way, and
their viewpoint is necessarily subjective because complete objectivity is
impossible. A source is OUR primary source, not necessarily THE primary (in
your over-literal sense of "original") source for its burden of information.
The term "primary sources" is not a generic term meaning "old sources".
Who said it was? Not me - read again. I defined "primary" as any good
dictionary does, meaning "chief", related to "first in order of time" -
from "primarius", from "primus". LOOK IT UP, don't rely on your memory or
impressions.
Forget the dictionary definition of primary as "chief". As historians we
use primary as "first" and, if anything, use prime as "chief".
The term Secondary sources is not a generic term meaning "modern
sources".
No, but effectively most secondary works cited are modern, and I was
talking in that paragraph about what can be found in bibliographies,
What sort of examples given in bibliographies? Bibliographies list books.
Books are secondary sources. (Secondary does not mean second-best. It
means, if you like, second-generation, i.e. produced from a
first-generation or primary source.)
Bibliographies also list unpublished sources, and these too as I have
explained above may be both primary and secondary by your narrow
definitions.
not in
dictionaries. "Secondary" means "belonging to the second [or in this case
also subsequent] order in time". Unless you are perhaps going to argue
for a geographic or maybe alphabetic order, I don't know what else you
can be proposing that isn't completely arbitrary and beside the point.
Sometimes, the primary sources have been lost (if ever they existed) and
we are left only with the secondary sources, which we use "as if" they
were a primary source, but they remain a secondary source.
No they don't - LOOK UP the words. "Primary", meaning as it does in this
context "first in order of time", by your too literal reckoning could
allow for only ONE "primary" source per subject, the first one committed
to writing. That is blatant nonsense.
Excuse me, but you are talking the nonsense of one who is not a trained
historian. I am a trained historian and the difference between primary and
secondary sources is the first thing I learnt. The dictionary definition
of primary and secondary is not the same thing as the technical
terminology used in historiography.
But it is - and you are not the only person who ever was trained at a
university. A "primary" source is either unique or one of a group of sources
providing information that can't be traced beyond it. However, "derived"
information can be found in these, almost entire in some cases. Obviously a
universal chronicle written in the middle ages is not a "primary" source for
the ancient history it may contain, but it is nevertheless listed among
"primary sources" even where such parts may be discussed in the study,
because it would be absurd to list it twice in a bibliography. The secondary
nature of hte text will be plain from the discussion of it, but not in the
overall labelling.
These not general terms but mandatory terms in historiography and thus in
genealogy.
Prime sources, if you will, are "leading" or "best" sources. They can be
primary or secondary. An example of a prime source, is the Complete
Peerage, which is a secondary source, or the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a
primary source.
I wrote about prime evidence, not sources.
You are always moving the goalposts. You were talking about primary
sources. In many ways, sources and evidence can amount to the same thing.
But we are talking of the technical terms of "primary and secondary
sources" as used in historiography.
No, I'm reminding you of what I wrote - this harping on goalposts appear to
be a very unbecoming technique of yours in controversy when you don't have a
better response.
CP is a standard source, only
"prime" in the sense of being distinguished, of the first rank in
importance rather than time.
Exactly. That is what I said.
It is NOT "prime" in the sense that this is applied to
specific usages such as a "prime" number, or the service of "prime", both
of which taken their meaning from being first or having no integral
factors.
Exactly, and I never said that so stop moving the goalposts again.
I never said you said so, I was taking the liberty of making my own point in
my own post.
Peter Stewart
-
David B
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote in message
<0CSQd.163903$K7.95735@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Peter,
I've decided to reply to this message rather than to one of your replies to
Renia, mainly because I started on this last night, before she had written
her replies. You're wrong, she's basically right (though I'm sure Mr Hines
is quite capable of finding reasons to "Kersplat" both of you).
"Primus", from which we derive the English word "prime" does not mean
"first in order of time", just "first". That includes "first in order of
time", but does not exclude "first in order of merit" or "first in order of
importance", or "first in order from left to right" etc.
"Primarius", from which we derive the English word "primary", indicates
membership of a group of things which are "primus" (I'd have to check, but
there may have been some sort of drift between adjectival and substantive
meanings of the same word). This distinction carries over into English, so
that we have a "Prime Minister", but "Primary schools". Because both words
have been in English for a very long time, there are many overlaps and
discrepancies, of which "prime numbers" is perhaps the most jarring
(brought to you by the same sort of mind that can endow sub-atomic
entities, randomly named out of James Joyce, with "strangeness" and
"charm"), but ultimately, that's not relevant to the meaning of the terms
"prime source" and "primary source".
In history, the "prime source" for any given information is the best
source, whatever its origin (most likely tertiary these days). In theory,
for any given information, there is only one "prime source", though it can
be supplanted by a new "prime source". There is no need for terms such as
"second source", all that matters is to identify the best. However, because
history relies on piecing together small pieces of information from
different sources, the "prime source" for a fairly complex piece of
information (like the life of a person) will almost certainly be derived
from numerous "prime sources" of individual details, and those in turn from
other "prime sources" of smaller details, and so on- but always a single
"prime source" for each particular detail.
"Primary sources", however, are a very different thing. Even the smallest
of details can have many "primary sources" if, for example, it is an event
recorded by many eyewitnesses or participants. But sources not derived
directly from eyewitnesses or participants are not "primary", though they
may still be "prime". Hence, any medieval document is a primary source for
some aspect of medieval history- but if the actual content of that document
is an interpretation of information, by somebody who was not an eyewitness
or participant in the matters being described, then the document is a
primary source for the interpretation, not for the information being
interpreted.
No source of information ever becomes "primary" with the passing of time,
though growing sophistication in scholarship may reveal that it is
"primary" for more matters than might originally have been supposed. For
example, a newspaper report of an event which does not include a verbatim
account by an eyewitness or participant is a secondary source for that
event, but it is a primary source for the contemporary perception of that
event- and the newspaper cutting itself is a primary source for the
technology of paper, ink and printing, plus styles of journalistic writing,
font design etc. On the other hand, a primary source is not always the most
accurate- people forget, embellish, or even simply lie and cheat. Another
reason why it's important to distinguish between "primary" and "prime".
Another big problem is copying. A copy of a copy of a copy can still be a
primary source, if the information it contains has been copied accurately,
over however many generations, from an eyewitness / participant account
(also, in this sense, a "fourteenth century manuscript", or even a "21st
century edition" can still be a "thirteenth century document"). But if we
don't have the first-generation version, we cannot be certain that the
information has been copied accurately. This problem is particularly acute
when considering early historiography, because of the casual way writers
treated quotations. In the particular case of the genealogical text by
Saint-Martial which states that Eleanor of Aquitaine was 13 in 1137,
Lewis's presumption that it "records a presumably earlier tradition" is
only a presumption. At best, the information may be copied directly from a
now-lost primary source such as a legal document confirming some person's
age on a particular date; at the unlikely worst, it may be a guess by the
genealogist, dressed up to look convincing.
So Saint-Martial's statement may or may not be copied from a primary
source, but it does at present appear to be the prime source, unless
anybody can prove otherwise.
David B.
PS If all the Gospels were primary sources, there would be far less
argument over the Turin Shroud!
<0CSQd.163903$K7.95735@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
This rant about sources is ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE and UTTER rot: if anyone
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the term
for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second or third
hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime evidence).
Spencer is evidently too ignorant of Latin even to recognise the link
between "prime" and "primary" - both come ultimately from "primus" meaning
"the first in order of time" NB NOT "the immediate" as Hines is trying to
make out ("primary" comes by way of "primarius", "the chief" or "the
principal"). The source from Saint-Martial of Limoges IS unquestionably
the
first in order of time that we possess, and the chief evidence available
on
the point at issue - ergo, it IS "primary".
Peter,
I've decided to reply to this message rather than to one of your replies to
Renia, mainly because I started on this last night, before she had written
her replies. You're wrong, she's basically right (though I'm sure Mr Hines
is quite capable of finding reasons to "Kersplat" both of you).
"Primus", from which we derive the English word "prime" does not mean
"first in order of time", just "first". That includes "first in order of
time", but does not exclude "first in order of merit" or "first in order of
importance", or "first in order from left to right" etc.
"Primarius", from which we derive the English word "primary", indicates
membership of a group of things which are "primus" (I'd have to check, but
there may have been some sort of drift between adjectival and substantive
meanings of the same word). This distinction carries over into English, so
that we have a "Prime Minister", but "Primary schools". Because both words
have been in English for a very long time, there are many overlaps and
discrepancies, of which "prime numbers" is perhaps the most jarring
(brought to you by the same sort of mind that can endow sub-atomic
entities, randomly named out of James Joyce, with "strangeness" and
"charm"), but ultimately, that's not relevant to the meaning of the terms
"prime source" and "primary source".
In history, the "prime source" for any given information is the best
source, whatever its origin (most likely tertiary these days). In theory,
for any given information, there is only one "prime source", though it can
be supplanted by a new "prime source". There is no need for terms such as
"second source", all that matters is to identify the best. However, because
history relies on piecing together small pieces of information from
different sources, the "prime source" for a fairly complex piece of
information (like the life of a person) will almost certainly be derived
from numerous "prime sources" of individual details, and those in turn from
other "prime sources" of smaller details, and so on- but always a single
"prime source" for each particular detail.
"Primary sources", however, are a very different thing. Even the smallest
of details can have many "primary sources" if, for example, it is an event
recorded by many eyewitnesses or participants. But sources not derived
directly from eyewitnesses or participants are not "primary", though they
may still be "prime". Hence, any medieval document is a primary source for
some aspect of medieval history- but if the actual content of that document
is an interpretation of information, by somebody who was not an eyewitness
or participant in the matters being described, then the document is a
primary source for the interpretation, not for the information being
interpreted.
No source of information ever becomes "primary" with the passing of time,
though growing sophistication in scholarship may reveal that it is
"primary" for more matters than might originally have been supposed. For
example, a newspaper report of an event which does not include a verbatim
account by an eyewitness or participant is a secondary source for that
event, but it is a primary source for the contemporary perception of that
event- and the newspaper cutting itself is a primary source for the
technology of paper, ink and printing, plus styles of journalistic writing,
font design etc. On the other hand, a primary source is not always the most
accurate- people forget, embellish, or even simply lie and cheat. Another
reason why it's important to distinguish between "primary" and "prime".
Another big problem is copying. A copy of a copy of a copy can still be a
primary source, if the information it contains has been copied accurately,
over however many generations, from an eyewitness / participant account
(also, in this sense, a "fourteenth century manuscript", or even a "21st
century edition" can still be a "thirteenth century document"). But if we
don't have the first-generation version, we cannot be certain that the
information has been copied accurately. This problem is particularly acute
when considering early historiography, because of the casual way writers
treated quotations. In the particular case of the genealogical text by
Saint-Martial which states that Eleanor of Aquitaine was 13 in 1137,
Lewis's presumption that it "records a presumably earlier tradition" is
only a presumption. At best, the information may be copied directly from a
now-lost primary source such as a legal document confirming some person's
age on a particular date; at the unlikely worst, it may be a guess by the
genealogist, dressed up to look convincing.
So Saint-Martial's statement may or may not be copied from a primary
source, but it does at present appear to be the prime source, unless
anybody can prove otherwise.
David B.
PS If all the Gospels were primary sources, there would be far less
argument over the Turin Shroud!
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.
.. . .
the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a primary source.
This example of a primary source suggests that the phrase "is contemporary
with" as used by trained historians is intrinsically vague. As a robust
defender of intrinsically vague language, I am pleased to learn that.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Renia
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
Is that what I was talking about or implied in my paragraph, above? I
don't think so. Please respond to the paragraph and not add a different
point which has nothing to do with the paragraph. Moving the goalposts
again.
The Battle Abbey Rolls is not a primary source. It is a secondary source
which a lot of people use as a primary source. It was said to be created
in the 14th century, which is several centuries after the event and was
destroyed by fire in 1793. (There are a number of copies but they all
vary.) The problem with these Rolls, is whether they were created using
primary (or original) sources. The answer is, we don't know. So, we
don't know if there WAS an original (primary in this instance) source
for the Battle Abbey Rolls or what names it truly listed.
However, I do not understand why you have brought up the distinction
between "original" and "primary" source in this context. We are
discussing primary sources. Historians don't talk about "original"
sources; they talk of "primary sources". An original source may or not
be a primary source, or a primary source may or not be an original
source, but that is not what we are talking about.
What is impractical? This particular example (Hansard/newspaper), or the
terms primary/secondary sources?
Yes, this is one of the difficulties of any report, whether medieval or
modern. Most of the old medieval charters were transcripts of oral
dictation or of other charters. So, yes, this begs the question as to
whether all medieval manuscripts should be accurately called primary
sources.
I have not used the word "original" source. This is your word because
you misunderstand. An "original" source implies there was only one
"original" source for that event, when very often, there are many
"original" sources for an event. All of these "original" sources are
primary sources. It does not matter in which order they were produced as
long as they are contemporaneous with the event.
To help him decide of what value a source (primary or secondary) is, the
historian asks himself: who, what, where, why, when, how. What is the
source and why was it produced? Who produced the source and when? Where
and how was it produced? The answers to these questions will determine
how far the source is subject to any subjectivity. The historian will
not be bogged down in the nitty-gritty of whether a medieval manuscript
was a transcript and thus "only" a secondary source to be ignored. He
will know that for his puposes, this is a primary source. But he will
not use just one primary source, he will use several if at all possible,
with which to build his argument.
Indeed, bibliographies list the material used in the publication of the
work. Sometimes primary sources are listed separately from the
bibliography, sometimes within the bibliography, but often under the
separate heading of sources.
I realise this. But history is the discipline I was trained in and the
difference between primary and secondary sources is one of the first
things history undergraduates are taught. (Indeed, in lieu of learning
history itself, 9-year-olds in England are now being taught this.)
I'm afraid that is how I see it with you. When you fumble, you go off at
a tangent, and then insist it isn't a tangent, that the tangent is the
other person's fault.
You never mentioned the word "evidence". You mentioned "sources". It is
you who has gone off at a tangent by bringing in the word "evidence".
Evidence is relative to "sources", but it is not relevant to this
discussion. Therefore, you cannot remind me of something you say you
wrote, when you did not write it.
Then why say it, except to make it look like that is what I thought?
Renia
(Not snipped because of the way Peter states or implies I have said
something, when I haven't.)
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv1vkq$k8i$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv1od5$hme$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This rant about sources is ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE and UTTER rot: if anyone
doubts it, just refer to the bibliographies in countless history books,
where "Primary sources" is the term used for medieval texts - whether
contemporary with their subject or not - and "Secondary works" is the
term for modern studies (that is, all historiography whether at second
or third hand, or otherwise more distantly connected to the prime
evidence).
Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.
Unmitigated rubbish, Renia - at this rate, you have rewritten the
dictionary (did you bother to look up "primary"?) as well as reinvented
the discipline of writing history.
Never mind the dictionary. We are talking about the discipline of history.
Forget the word "primary" as a word in its own right. The phrase used by
historians to denote sources created at the time of the event being
studied is "primary source". That's a fundamentary piece of training when
taking a history degree.
O golly - please take a moment to think, Renia: medieval documents can by
your definition be "primary" for one point and "secondary" for the next,
even both within the same sentence, depending only on whether or not you can
tell if their was another original behind the separate phrases.
Is that what I was talking about or implied in my paragraph, above? I
don't think so. Please respond to the paragraph and not add a different
point which has nothing to do with the paragraph. Moving the goalposts
again.
In your view there must be vastly fewer "primary"
sources than most medieval historians list in their bibliographies under
this label, so you had better alert the academic authorities to review
their higher degrees in a hurry. "Earliest" in a series or sequence does
not mean the same as "contemporary".
I did not say that "earliest" sources are the same as contemporary. My
point exactly. "Earliest" sources are not primary sources. However,
sometimes, if they are the earliest sources available, we treat them "as
if" they were primary sources, because that is all we have. But we have to
treat them with care. For example, the Battle Abbey Rolls. This is a
secondary source, apparently based on a primary source. But the primary
source is missing, so we have nothing with which to compare the secondary
source. So we cannot be sure the primary source ever existed or that the
secondary source is correct. Always, we look for further sources to back
up our argument.
No, the "ORIGINAL" source, if you like and can bear with the tautology, is
missing - this word is NOT the same as "primary" and no historian that I can
think of makes such a distinction in general, although it may of course be a
matter of specific importance as it was with Andrew Lewis over the material
from Saint-Martial of Limoges.
The Battle Abbey Rolls is not a primary source. It is a secondary source
which a lot of people use as a primary source. It was said to be created
in the 14th century, which is several centuries after the event and was
destroyed by fire in 1793. (There are a number of copies but they all
vary.) The problem with these Rolls, is whether they were created using
primary (or original) sources. The answer is, we don't know. So, we
don't know if there WAS an original (primary in this instance) source
for the Battle Abbey Rolls or what names it truly listed.
However, I do not understand why you have brought up the distinction
between "original" and "primary" source in this context. We are
discussing primary sources. Historians don't talk about "original"
sources; they talk of "primary sources". An original source may or not
be a primary source, or a primary source may or not be an original
source, but that is not what we are talking about.
Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources.
Equally wrong - a secondary source about today's events could be written
today.
I don't think you have quite got the hang of primary/secondary sources. A
primary source today, might be Hansard, for example. If a newspaper then
produces an article based on what Hansard says, then the newspaper is a
secondary source, even if it is produced on the same day. However, in the
future, that newspaper becomes a primary source.
Of course this is understood - but it is impractical.
What is impractical? This particular example (Hansard/newspaper), or the
terms primary/secondary sources?
In any case, the
politician's speech notes would be the "primary" written source and Hansard,
a transcript at one remove, just a "secondary" one, even though this might
be far more accurate as to what was spoken.
Yes, this is one of the difficulties of any report, whether medieval or
modern. Most of the old medieval charters were transcripts of oral
dictation or of other charters. So, yes, this begs the question as to
whether all medieval manuscripts should be accurately called primary
sources.
By your "contemporary" standard
for "primary" sources the Gospels would be "secondary"; an account written
by a 70-year-old of events in which he participated as a 20-year-old would
be "secondary", even more so if he used anyone else's earlier report to
refresh his memory; whereas any immediate source could be "primary" for one
point and then as I said "secondary" for the next, because the information
came from elsewhere, and so on, making a nonsense of all definitions.
We sometimes can't know in what order primary sources were written or
compiled. Monastic annals were often accrued over time rather than composed
at a sitting, augmented and interpolated with notes taken down on visits to
other houses with their own annals, in turn drawn from various sources: the
complications and permutations as to the original can be endless. "Primary"
is NOT a synonym for "original" or "contemporary". The word is used by
historians in a necessarily vague, perhaps - rather than generic - way, and
their viewpoint is necessarily subjective because complete objectivity is
impossible. A source is OUR primary source, not necessarily THE primary (in
your over-literal sense of "original") source for its burden of information.
I have not used the word "original" source. This is your word because
you misunderstand. An "original" source implies there was only one
"original" source for that event, when very often, there are many
"original" sources for an event. All of these "original" sources are
primary sources. It does not matter in which order they were produced as
long as they are contemporaneous with the event.
To help him decide of what value a source (primary or secondary) is, the
historian asks himself: who, what, where, why, when, how. What is the
source and why was it produced? Who produced the source and when? Where
and how was it produced? The answers to these questions will determine
how far the source is subject to any subjectivity. The historian will
not be bogged down in the nitty-gritty of whether a medieval manuscript
was a transcript and thus "only" a secondary source to be ignored. He
will know that for his puposes, this is a primary source. But he will
not use just one primary source, he will use several if at all possible,
with which to build his argument.
The term "primary sources" is not a generic term meaning "old sources".
Who said it was? Not me - read again. I defined "primary" as any good
dictionary does, meaning "chief", related to "first in order of time" -
from "primarius", from "primus". LOOK IT UP, don't rely on your memory or
impressions.
Forget the dictionary definition of primary as "chief". As historians we
use primary as "first" and, if anything, use prime as "chief".
The term Secondary sources is not a generic term meaning "modern
sources".
No, but effectively most secondary works cited are modern, and I was
talking in that paragraph about what can be found in bibliographies,
What sort of examples given in bibliographies? Bibliographies list books.
Books are secondary sources. (Secondary does not mean second-best. It
means, if you like, second-generation, i.e. produced from a
first-generation or primary source.)
Bibliographies also list unpublished sources, and these too as I have
explained above may be both primary and secondary by your narrow
definitions.
Indeed, bibliographies list the material used in the publication of the
work. Sometimes primary sources are listed separately from the
bibliography, sometimes within the bibliography, but often under the
separate heading of sources.
not in
dictionaries. "Secondary" means "belonging to the second [or in this case
also subsequent] order in time". Unless you are perhaps going to argue
for a geographic or maybe alphabetic order, I don't know what else you
can be proposing that isn't completely arbitrary and beside the point.
Sometimes, the primary sources have been lost (if ever they existed) and
we are left only with the secondary sources, which we use "as if" they
were a primary source, but they remain a secondary source.
No they don't - LOOK UP the words. "Primary", meaning as it does in this
context "first in order of time", by your too literal reckoning could
allow for only ONE "primary" source per subject, the first one committed
to writing. That is blatant nonsense.
Excuse me, but you are talking the nonsense of one who is not a trained
historian. I am a trained historian and the difference between primary and
secondary sources is the first thing I learnt. The dictionary definition
of primary and secondary is not the same thing as the technical
terminology used in historiography.
But it is - and you are not the only person who ever was trained at a
university.
I realise this. But history is the discipline I was trained in and the
difference between primary and secondary sources is one of the first
things history undergraduates are taught. (Indeed, in lieu of learning
history itself, 9-year-olds in England are now being taught this.)
A "primary" source is either unique or one of a group of sources
providing information that can't be traced beyond it. However, "derived"
information can be found in these, almost entire in some cases. Obviously a
universal chronicle written in the middle ages is not a "primary" source for
the ancient history it may contain, but it is nevertheless listed among
"primary sources" even where such parts may be discussed in the study,
because it would be absurd to list it twice in a bibliography. The secondary
nature of hte text will be plain from the discussion of it, but not in the
overall labelling.
These not general terms but mandatory terms in historiography and thus in
genealogy.
Prime sources, if you will, are "leading" or "best" sources. They can be
primary or secondary. An example of a prime source, is the Complete
Peerage, which is a secondary source, or the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a
primary source.
I wrote about prime evidence, not sources.
You are always moving the goalposts. You were talking about primary
sources. In many ways, sources and evidence can amount to the same thing.
But we are talking of the technical terms of "primary and secondary
sources" as used in historiography.
No, I'm reminding you of what I wrote - this harping on goalposts appear to
be a very unbecoming technique of yours in controversy when you don't have a
better response.
I'm afraid that is how I see it with you. When you fumble, you go off at
a tangent, and then insist it isn't a tangent, that the tangent is the
other person's fault.
You never mentioned the word "evidence". You mentioned "sources". It is
you who has gone off at a tangent by bringing in the word "evidence".
Evidence is relative to "sources", but it is not relevant to this
discussion. Therefore, you cannot remind me of something you say you
wrote, when you did not write it.
CP is a standard source, only
"prime" in the sense of being distinguished, of the first rank in
importance rather than time.
Exactly. That is what I said.
It is NOT "prime" in the sense that this is applied to
specific usages such as a "prime" number, or the service of "prime", both
of which taken their meaning from being first or having no integral
factors.
Exactly, and I never said that so stop moving the goalposts again.
I never said you said so, I was taking the liberty of making my own point in
my own post.
Then why say it, except to make it look like that is what I thought?
Peter Stewart
Renia
(Not snipped because of the way Peter states or implies I have said
something, when I haven't.)
-
Renia
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Doug McDonald wrote:
This is what I said in my answer to Peter Stewart.
See my reply to Peter Stewart re some of the nuances of medieval sources.
Yes, but it can be used as a primary source only in relation to our
20th/21st attitudes to history and events.
The subject currently in soc.gen.med "Clues found in _List of
Proceedings in the Court of Requests_" is not a primary source, however
useful the list. It is a transcript of a primary source and thus a
secondary source. But (presuming Starbuck is transcibing it faithfully)
it can be used "as if" it was a primary source.
Why? It is relevant to that group as well.
Renia
Peter Stewart wrote:
Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources.
Equally wrong - a secondary source about today's events could be
written today.
Exactly. A primary source would be, for example, the official
government records of George Bush's or John Kerry's military
service, or the diarys of Kerry or them men serving near them.
A "good" secondary souce would be for example the book "Stolen
Honor" with the direct reports of those men.
This is what I said in my answer to Peter Stewart.
A "bad" secondary
source would be, for example, CBS News's report about
Bush's military service, which was an intentional fraud.
Exactly similar things happened during the medieval period.
Note also that some of the official records of Kerry's
service are wrong, being written by him for political
purposes [i.e. overly puffy action reports].
See my reply to Peter Stewart re some of the nuances of medieval sources.
The records of soc.history.medieval are both a primary and
a secondary source for the history of the modern peried. They
document quite nicely the discourse that took place, in
that sense being primary records for future historians.
Yes, but it can be used as a primary source only in relation to our
20th/21st attitudes to history and events.
The subject currently in soc.gen.med "Clues found in _List of
Proceedings in the Court of Requests_" is not a primary source, however
useful the list. It is a transcript of a primary source and thus a
secondary source. But (presuming Starbuck is transcibing it faithfully)
it can be used "as if" it was a primary source.
I am cutting soc.genealogy.medieval from the group list.
Why? It is relevant to that group as well.
Doug McDonald
Renia
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart probably doesn't even read AHB and SHM consistently -- but
just SGM.
So, if you delete SGM from the addee list you castrate and emasculate
the discussion of these important points -- because Stewart probably
won't even see what you write, unless someone picks it up and repeats
it.
Do you really want to do that?
Both Genealogists and Historians SHOULD be concerned with Primary
Sources.
Read, Mark, Learn & Inwardly Digest
---------------------------------------------------
Primary Sources In History & Genealogy:
1. FIRSTHAND testimony or DIRECT evidence concerning a topic under
investigation.
2. The nature and value of a source cannot be determined without
reference to the TOPIC and QUESTIONS it is meant to ANSWER.
3. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be a primary
source in one investigation and secondary in another.
------------------------------------------------------
The topic under discussion here, the unresolved question we are asking,
is the BIRTH DATE of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
The alleged Limoges manuscript, which is a pastiche and a much later
composition [even Lewis admits that] is NOT a Primary Source for Eleanor
of Aquitaine's birth date. Lewis is not even confident the manuscript
was COMPOSED in Limoges. He simply says some of the evidence "points
to" that conclusion.
Renia has got it right -- she has a university honors degree in History.
Peter Stewart has got it WRONG.
He has no university degree in History, left Oxford without a degree and
specializes in prattling about matters far beyond his ken and conducting
Intellectual Masturbation -- in public.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cv28jm$7r9$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
[...]
| I am cutting soc.genealogy.medieval from the group list.
|
| Doug McDonald
just SGM.
So, if you delete SGM from the addee list you castrate and emasculate
the discussion of these important points -- because Stewart probably
won't even see what you write, unless someone picks it up and repeats
it.
Do you really want to do that?
Both Genealogists and Historians SHOULD be concerned with Primary
Sources.
Read, Mark, Learn & Inwardly Digest
---------------------------------------------------
Primary Sources In History & Genealogy:
1. FIRSTHAND testimony or DIRECT evidence concerning a topic under
investigation.
2. The nature and value of a source cannot be determined without
reference to the TOPIC and QUESTIONS it is meant to ANSWER.
3. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be a primary
source in one investigation and secondary in another.
------------------------------------------------------
The topic under discussion here, the unresolved question we are asking,
is the BIRTH DATE of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
The alleged Limoges manuscript, which is a pastiche and a much later
composition [even Lewis admits that] is NOT a Primary Source for Eleanor
of Aquitaine's birth date. Lewis is not even confident the manuscript
was COMPOSED in Limoges. He simply says some of the evidence "points
to" that conclusion.
Renia has got it right -- she has a university honors degree in History.
Peter Stewart has got it WRONG.
He has no university degree in History, left Oxford without a degree and
specializes in prattling about matters far beyond his ken and conducting
Intellectual Masturbation -- in public.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cv28jm$7r9$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
[...]
| I am cutting soc.genealogy.medieval from the group list.
|
| Doug McDonald
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv293n$mp6$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
<chomp>
Chomped, because this is a discussion and the parameters are not static. I
am not replying exclusively to you, nor am able to get into your head: both
of us must make some assumptions about the others thinking in order to post
efficiently and promptly.
As for this entire misunderstanding, the unspoken qualification - that I
never thought could need to be expressed - is that an historian simply
doesn't use the "secondary" contents of a "primary" source in the normal
course of things.
For instance, in a biography of William the Conqueror the works of Froissart
are not a primary source and would not occur in the bibliography. However,
if the biographer wished to make the point that William's death had been
marked in later centuries at the English court and Froissart was the source
for this (hypothetically), then his statement would be adduced as primary
evidence of that fact and he would be included amongst primary sources in
the bibliography.
Of course historians must use the "best" as well as the "earliest" (not
necessarily the same) sources, and will consider both (or all) of these
"primary". Equally, the historian will not adduce evidence of a "secondary"
nature from an otherwise "primary" source without making this explicit.
But Renia's idea that a "primary" source must be "contemporary" is still
balderdash.
Peter Stewart
news:cv293n$mp6$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
<chomp>
(Not snipped because of the way Peter states or implies I have said
something, when I haven't.)
Chomped, because this is a discussion and the parameters are not static. I
am not replying exclusively to you, nor am able to get into your head: both
of us must make some assumptions about the others thinking in order to post
efficiently and promptly.
As for this entire misunderstanding, the unspoken qualification - that I
never thought could need to be expressed - is that an historian simply
doesn't use the "secondary" contents of a "primary" source in the normal
course of things.
For instance, in a biography of William the Conqueror the works of Froissart
are not a primary source and would not occur in the bibliography. However,
if the biographer wished to make the point that William's death had been
marked in later centuries at the English court and Froissart was the source
for this (hypothetically), then his statement would be adduced as primary
evidence of that fact and he would be included amongst primary sources in
the bibliography.
Of course historians must use the "best" as well as the "earliest" (not
necessarily the same) sources, and will consider both (or all) of these
"primary". Equally, the historian will not adduce evidence of a "secondary"
nature from an otherwise "primary" source without making this explicit.
But Renia's idea that a "primary" source must be "contemporary" is still
balderdash.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:Vk1Rd.426$Yq3.403@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
<snip>
I was using this definition in the context of the source from Saint-Martial
of Limoges, the instigation of this thread, being the first source in order
of time to indicate a specific birthdate range for Eleanor. I acknowledged
other meanings that could conceivably be relevant in this context. "First in
order of merit" is not one of them, because the source also happens to be
unique and its merits are under discussion whereas its primacy in time
should not be.
<snip>
This would limit the "primary source" bibliographies that could be
legitimately given by historians almost to nil. What then are the "primary"
sources for the death of Charlemagne? You have eyewitness accounts of his
passing, perhaps, that are unknown to the rest of us. Can you then nominate
any historian who defines the sources for this as "secondary"?
Peter Stewart
news:Vk1Rd.426$Yq3.403@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
<snip>
"Primus", from which we derive the English word "prime" does not mean
"first in order of time", just "first". That includes "first in order of
time", but does not exclude "first in order of merit" or "first in order
of
importance", or "first in order from left to right" etc.
I was using this definition in the context of the source from Saint-Martial
of Limoges, the instigation of this thread, being the first source in order
of time to indicate a specific birthdate range for Eleanor. I acknowledged
other meanings that could conceivably be relevant in this context. "First in
order of merit" is not one of them, because the source also happens to be
unique and its merits are under discussion whereas its primacy in time
should not be.
<snip>
But sources not derived directly from eyewitnesses or participants are not
"primary", though they may still be "prime".
This would limit the "primary source" bibliographies that could be
legitimately given by historians almost to nil. What then are the "primary"
sources for the death of Charlemagne? You have eyewitness accounts of his
passing, perhaps, that are unknown to the rest of us. Can you then nominate
any historian who defines the sources for this as "secondary"?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nj6Rd.4$_C5.438@eagle.america.net...
More than "not consistently", Spencer - I never read them.
But I'm quite happy to be left out, and the remedy is mine if people choose
to post in this thread elsewhere.
Peter Stewart
news:nj6Rd.4$_C5.438@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart probably doesn't even read AHB and SHM consistently -- but
just SGM.
More than "not consistently", Spencer - I never read them.
But I'm quite happy to be left out, and the remedy is mine if people choose
to post in this thread elsewhere.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Bingo!
I was cautious, precise and CORRECT.
Stewart could change what he reads at any time -- I'm well aware of
that.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cj8Rd.164868$K7.69951@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:nj6Rd.4$_C5.438@eagle.america.net...
| > Peter Stewart probably doesn't even read AHB and SHM consistently --
| > but just SGM.
|
| More than "not consistently", Spencer - I never read them.
|
| But I'm quite happy to be left out, and the remedy is mine if people
choose
| to post in this thread elsewhere.
|
| Peter Stewart
I was cautious, precise and CORRECT.
Stewart could change what he reads at any time -- I'm well aware of
that.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cj8Rd.164868$K7.69951@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:nj6Rd.4$_C5.438@eagle.america.net...
| > Peter Stewart probably doesn't even read AHB and SHM consistently --
| > but just SGM.
|
| More than "not consistently", Spencer - I never read them.
|
| But I'm quite happy to be left out, and the remedy is mine if people
choose
| to post in this thread elsewhere.
|
| Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart probably doesn't even read AHB and SHM consistently -- but
just SGM.
So, if you delete SGM from the addee list you castrate and emasculate
the discussion of these important points -- because Stewart probably
won't even see what you write, unless someone picks it up and repeats
it.
Do you really want to do that?
Both Genealogists and Historians SHOULD be concerned with Primary
Sources.
Read, Mark, Learn & Inwardly Digest
---------------------------------------------------
Primary Sources In History & Genealogy:
1. FIRSTHAND testimony or DIRECT evidence concerning a topic under
investigation.
2. The nature and value of a source cannot be determined without
reference to the TOPIC and QUESTIONS it is meant to ANSWER.
3. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be a primary
source in one investigation and secondary in another.
------------------------------------------------------
The topic under discussion here, the unresolved question we are asking,
is the BIRTH DATE of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
The alleged Limoges manuscript, which is a pastiche and a much later
composition [even Lewis admits that] is NOT a Primary Source for Eleanor
of Aquitaine's birth date. Lewis is not even confident the manuscript
was COMPOSED in Limoges. He simply says some of the evidence "points
to" that conclusion.
Renia has got it right -- she has a university honors degree in History.
Peter Stewart has got it WRONG.
He has no university degree in History, left Oxford without a
degree ---- and specializes in rampant prattling about matters far
beyond his ken, silly-buggers semantic obfuscation, continuous goal-post
shifting and conducting amusing Intellectual Masturbation, flaunting his
severe brain damage -- in public.
Stewart is also abysmally ignorant in the field of HISTORIOGRAPHY -- and
has obviously never studied it in any disciplined way, whereas Renia
Simmonds has.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cv28jm$7r9$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
[...]
| I am cutting soc.genealogy.medieval from the group list.
|
| Doug McDonald
just SGM.
So, if you delete SGM from the addee list you castrate and emasculate
the discussion of these important points -- because Stewart probably
won't even see what you write, unless someone picks it up and repeats
it.
Do you really want to do that?
Both Genealogists and Historians SHOULD be concerned with Primary
Sources.
Read, Mark, Learn & Inwardly Digest
---------------------------------------------------
Primary Sources In History & Genealogy:
1. FIRSTHAND testimony or DIRECT evidence concerning a topic under
investigation.
2. The nature and value of a source cannot be determined without
reference to the TOPIC and QUESTIONS it is meant to ANSWER.
3. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be a primary
source in one investigation and secondary in another.
------------------------------------------------------
The topic under discussion here, the unresolved question we are asking,
is the BIRTH DATE of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
The alleged Limoges manuscript, which is a pastiche and a much later
composition [even Lewis admits that] is NOT a Primary Source for Eleanor
of Aquitaine's birth date. Lewis is not even confident the manuscript
was COMPOSED in Limoges. He simply says some of the evidence "points
to" that conclusion.
Renia has got it right -- she has a university honors degree in History.
Peter Stewart has got it WRONG.
He has no university degree in History, left Oxford without a
degree ---- and specializes in rampant prattling about matters far
beyond his ken, silly-buggers semantic obfuscation, continuous goal-post
shifting and conducting amusing Intellectual Masturbation, flaunting his
severe brain damage -- in public.
Stewart is also abysmally ignorant in the field of HISTORIOGRAPHY -- and
has obviously never studied it in any disciplined way, whereas Renia
Simmonds has.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cv28jm$7r9$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
[...]
| I am cutting soc.genealogy.medieval from the group list.
|
| Doug McDonald
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Of more than passing note, Wheeler and Parsons do NOT list ALL their
consulted Medieval Documents as "Primary Sources" in the Bibliography --
as Stewart wrongly insists is perfectly kosher, indeed desirable.
In _Eleanor Of Aquitaine: Lord And Lady_, Wheeler and Parsons list:
UNPUBLISHED SOURCES
PUBLISHED SOURCES
AND:
SECONDARY WORKS.
SOME Mediaeval Historians and Genealogists are becoming more HONEST.
Perhaps it was Bonnie Wheeler, of Southern Methodist University, who got
this one RIGHT, HONEST and came CLEAN, telling Parsons that's the way it
would be. She is Editor of _The New Middle Ages_ series, published by
Palgrave Macmillan*, of which this book is a part.
Amusing....
Whereas Pogue Parsons is as quiet as a Muslim mouse living in a
synagogue, during a Bar Mitzvah.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
* The book even incorrectly spells the PUBLISHER'S name as "Macmillian"
(sic) on the FIRST page. Deeeeelightful!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
consulted Medieval Documents as "Primary Sources" in the Bibliography --
as Stewart wrongly insists is perfectly kosher, indeed desirable.
In _Eleanor Of Aquitaine: Lord And Lady_, Wheeler and Parsons list:
UNPUBLISHED SOURCES
PUBLISHED SOURCES
AND:
SECONDARY WORKS.
SOME Mediaeval Historians and Genealogists are becoming more HONEST.
Perhaps it was Bonnie Wheeler, of Southern Methodist University, who got
this one RIGHT, HONEST and came CLEAN, telling Parsons that's the way it
would be. She is Editor of _The New Middle Ages_ series, published by
Palgrave Macmillan*, of which this book is a part.
Amusing....
Whereas Pogue Parsons is as quiet as a Muslim mouse living in a
synagogue, during a Bar Mitzvah.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
* The book even incorrectly spells the PUBLISHER'S name as "Macmillian"
(sic) on the FIRST page. Deeeeelightful!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Spencer Hines wrote:
and yet he also wrote:
(NB the same Spencer Hines who consistently tells us what frauds
academics have become & how poor he thinks the teaching is nowadays in
universities)
and more of this is what Spencer feels will keep the discussion
"masculate"!
The discussion had run its course before Spencer picked up on Renia's
bogus complaint about goal-posts. She tried to make out that "primary"
means the same as "contemporary", then shifted to "immediate", then
finally confirmed in a few words exactly what I had been saying all
along.
"Primary" means just the dictionary defines. It has never meant the
same as "immediate" or "contemporary" or "direct from an eyewitness",
either in Latin or in English. That is why a different word is used.
Many historians choose other descriptions, and the headings given by
John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler are fine - I never said "all"
historians use "primary" and "secondary".
And if historians are "becoming more honest" by using alternative
labels, Spencer's favourite WL Warren must be going fast in the
opposite direction - as in his _Henry II_ bibliography ALL sources used
are lumped together in one alphabetical listing.
As to familiarity with the alleged technical jargon of historiography:
this is a public forum made up of a few academics & professional
genealogists, but more numerous amateurs and beginners. If Spencer,
Renia or anyone else wants to indulge in obfuscations based on defining
"primary" in ways unkown to lexicography and to common usage through
the ages, just who is playing at semantic "silly-buggers"?
Peter Stewart
So, if you delete SGM from the addee list you castrate and
emasculate the discussion of these important points -- because
Stewart probably won't even see what you write, unless someone
picks it up and repeats it.
Do you really want to do that?
and yet he also wrote:
Peter Stewart has got it WRONG. He has no university
degree in History, left Oxford without a degree
(NB the same Spencer Hines who consistently tells us what frauds
academics have become & how poor he thinks the teaching is nowadays in
universities)
---- and specializes in rampant prattling about matters
far beyond his ken, silly-buggers semantic obfuscation,
continuous goal-post shifting and conducting amusing
Intellectual Masturbation, flaunting his severe brain
damage -- in public.
and more of this is what Spencer feels will keep the discussion
"masculate"!
The discussion had run its course before Spencer picked up on Renia's
bogus complaint about goal-posts. She tried to make out that "primary"
means the same as "contemporary", then shifted to "immediate", then
finally confirmed in a few words exactly what I had been saying all
along.
"Primary" means just the dictionary defines. It has never meant the
same as "immediate" or "contemporary" or "direct from an eyewitness",
either in Latin or in English. That is why a different word is used.
Many historians choose other descriptions, and the headings given by
John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler are fine - I never said "all"
historians use "primary" and "secondary".
And if historians are "becoming more honest" by using alternative
labels, Spencer's favourite WL Warren must be going fast in the
opposite direction - as in his _Henry II_ bibliography ALL sources used
are lumped together in one alphabetical listing.
As to familiarity with the alleged technical jargon of historiography:
this is a public forum made up of a few academics & professional
genealogists, but more numerous amateurs and beginners. If Spencer,
Renia or anyone else wants to indulge in obfuscations based on defining
"primary" in ways unkown to lexicography and to common usage through
the ages, just who is playing at semantic "silly-buggers"?
Peter Stewart
-
David B.
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote in message ...
Don't tempt me to come over all Hinesish.
Archives are stuffed full of primary sources which can provide all sorts of
information, often incidental to their main function. Currently I'm using
manorial court rolls to improve my understanding of the organisation of
hill sheep farming in a Cumbrian valley. In the past I've used medieval
rent rolls for geographical reconstruction, Inquisitiones Post Mortem for
all sorts of odd purposes, monastic charters ditto (including biography and
the interpretation of Domesday Book) and so on and so on.
There doesn't have to be any primary source for any event. In that case,
researchers must use secondary (or even more distant) sources, and attempt
to understand the context in which those sources were created. But
historians who fail to understand the difference between primary and
secondary, and the different ways in which sources need to be used, are
asking for trouble (and very often get it).
David B.
"David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:Vk1Rd.426$Yq3.403@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
But sources not derived directly from eyewitnesses or participants are
not
"primary", though they may still be "prime".
This would limit the "primary source" bibliographies that could be
legitimately given by historians almost to nil.
Don't tempt me to come over all Hinesish.
Archives are stuffed full of primary sources which can provide all sorts of
information, often incidental to their main function. Currently I'm using
manorial court rolls to improve my understanding of the organisation of
hill sheep farming in a Cumbrian valley. In the past I've used medieval
rent rolls for geographical reconstruction, Inquisitiones Post Mortem for
all sorts of odd purposes, monastic charters ditto (including biography and
the interpretation of Domesday Book) and so on and so on.
What then are the "primary"
sources for the death of Charlemagne? You have eyewitness accounts of his
passing, perhaps, that are unknown to the rest of us. Can you then
nominate
any historian who defines the sources for this as "secondary"?
There doesn't have to be any primary source for any event. In that case,
researchers must use secondary (or even more distant) sources, and attempt
to understand the context in which those sources were created. But
historians who fail to understand the difference between primary and
secondary, and the different ways in which sources need to be used, are
asking for trouble (and very often get it).
David B.
-
Gjest
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Actually my suggestion is that a primary source, or rather, a fact from a source should be considered primary if :
"the writer could possibly or definitely have had first-hand knowledge (eye-witness for visual facts) to the fact alledged."
And secondary if:
"the writer states or it can be assumed to state that they are copying a fact from another source which is stated or presumed to be primary (see above)".
And then the distinction between contemporary and after-the-fact would have to be an additional distinction given.
Thus,
Primary and Contemporary Sources
Primary, later sources
Secondary yet Contemporary Sources
Secondary, later sources
Will
"the writer could possibly or definitely have had first-hand knowledge (eye-witness for visual facts) to the fact alledged."
And secondary if:
"the writer states or it can be assumed to state that they are copying a fact from another source which is stated or presumed to be primary (see above)".
And then the distinction between contemporary and after-the-fact would have to be an additional distinction given.
Thus,
Primary and Contemporary Sources
Primary, later sources
Secondary yet Contemporary Sources
Secondary, later sources
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Examples
Primary and Contemporary Sources
--- Birth Certificate state birthdate
Primary, later sources
--- Social Security Application File states birthdate
Secondary yet Contemporary Sources
--- Bible record writen by great-aunt who incidentally notes birthdate of great-nephew
Secondary, later sources
--- Police report presumes to guess at age of suspect, and thus approximates birthdate.
Primary and Contemporary Sources
--- Birth Certificate state birthdate
Primary, later sources
--- Social Security Application File states birthdate
Secondary yet Contemporary Sources
--- Bible record writen by great-aunt who incidentally notes birthdate of great-nephew
Secondary, later sources
--- Police report presumes to guess at age of suspect, and thus approximates birthdate.
-
Renia
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The nature of historical sources has nothing to do with what anything
thinks they are or should be. The discipline of history is well-founded.
The nature of historical sources is one of the first things a student of
history learns at university. The student then spends the rest of their
history degree, in one way or the other, utilising and evaluating
sources in order to put forward their argument.
The sources themselves are the primary or secondary sources. The facts
presented within the sources are not the issue. A good historian (or
genealogist) evaluates the source in order to evaluate the information
given in the source. And that is a different discussion.
To add to the nature of primary sources, such sources do not comprise
only manuscripts. A coin is a primary source, as is a painting, a
photograph, a piece of film or audio tape, a church or other building, a
memorial inscription, a field boundary, a well. All sorts of different
things are primary sources.
Renia
Actually my suggestion is that a primary source, or rather, a fact from a source should be considered primary if :
"the writer could possibly or definitely have had first-hand knowledge (eye-witness for visual facts) to the fact alledged."
And secondary if:
"the writer states or it can be assumed to state that they are copying a fact from another source which is stated or presumed to be primary (see above)".
And then the distinction between contemporary and after-the-fact would have to be an additional distinction given.
Thus,
Primary and Contemporary Sources
Primary, later sources
Secondary yet Contemporary Sources
Secondary, later sources
Will
The nature of historical sources has nothing to do with what anything
thinks they are or should be. The discipline of history is well-founded.
The nature of historical sources is one of the first things a student of
history learns at university. The student then spends the rest of their
history degree, in one way or the other, utilising and evaluating
sources in order to put forward their argument.
The sources themselves are the primary or secondary sources. The facts
presented within the sources are not the issue. A good historian (or
genealogist) evaluates the source in order to evaluate the information
given in the source. And that is a different discussion.
To add to the nature of primary sources, such sources do not comprise
only manuscripts. A coin is a primary source, as is a painting, a
photograph, a piece of film or audio tape, a church or other building, a
memorial inscription, a field boundary, a well. All sorts of different
things are primary sources.
Renia
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
David B wrote:
Again in my view you are confusing the disparate information contained
in sources with the whole - the primary sources for any event are the
first (including a group of firsts) and/or best-informed record/s we
have of it. A source is a whole document that may be "secondary" for
one precise detail and yet "primary" for another, as Spencer for once
rightly said.
The source from Saint-Martial of Limoges is "primary" in this
discussion as being the first in order of time (there being no
comparison as to merit, since it is unique) for the age of Eleanor at
the time of her father's death - everything else in the passage is
taken either from Geoffroi de Vigeois (himself contemporary with the
lady but not necessarily for that reason a direct source for any
information he gave about her), or otherwise taken from an earlier lost
source that in reflection here has no particular "secondary" value to
historians for confirming the date and place of William X's death,
DESPITE being our "primary" source for his daughter's age at the time.
No historian who makes a distinction between "primary" and "secondary"
sources in a bibliography would place this amongst the latter, and it
would only be adduced in the context for just ONE phrase anyway, as it
was by Andrew Lewis.
Peter Stewart
There doesn't have to be any primary source for any event.
In that case, researchers must use secondary (or even more
distant) sources, and attempt to understand the context in
which those sources were created. But historians who fail
to understand the difference between primary and secondary,
and the different ways in which sources need to be used, are
asking for trouble (and very often get it).
Again in my view you are confusing the disparate information contained
in sources with the whole - the primary sources for any event are the
first (including a group of firsts) and/or best-informed record/s we
have of it. A source is a whole document that may be "secondary" for
one precise detail and yet "primary" for another, as Spencer for once
rightly said.
The source from Saint-Martial of Limoges is "primary" in this
discussion as being the first in order of time (there being no
comparison as to merit, since it is unique) for the age of Eleanor at
the time of her father's death - everything else in the passage is
taken either from Geoffroi de Vigeois (himself contemporary with the
lady but not necessarily for that reason a direct source for any
information he gave about her), or otherwise taken from an earlier lost
source that in reflection here has no particular "secondary" value to
historians for confirming the date and place of William X's death,
DESPITE being our "primary" source for his daughter's age at the time.
No historian who makes a distinction between "primary" and "secondary"
sources in a bibliography would place this amongst the latter, and it
would only be adduced in the context for just ONE phrase anyway, as it
was by Andrew Lewis.
Peter Stewart
-
Renia
Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo
Peter Stewart wrote:
What a vacuus and pompous statement. In a meaningful discussion, one
responds to what the other is saying. One does not bring in implied
statements unless there are grounds to do so. One does not discuss
statements which are not made. Those are the parameters of any
discussion or reasoned argument. Big words in an empty statement do not
an argument make.
Another empty statement full of big words. The discussion should be
based on what is written here, not make second-guesses about what the
other is thinking about.
In order to post "efficiently and promptly" it is necessary to respond
to what each other says. It is inefficient to post according to what you
think I have said or might have said, as opposed to what I have actually
said. It is inefficient to post according to what you think others might
think of what I said or might have said or what you said.
As I have said many times, we are not discussing the contents of
sources, but the sources themselves. We have to evaluate the source in
order to evaluate what the source tells us. It is not the content which
is "primary" or "secondary", it is the source itself.
If the works of Froissart were not used in the biography, then the
source would not be listed in the bibliography, regardless of its status
as a primary or secondary source.
Put more simply, if the biographer had used Froissart, he would list
Froissart in the bibliography. Historians often cite their sources
chapter-by-chapter, sometimes evaluating the source as they go.
Sometimes historians use footnotes, and refer to the source on the same
page as the stated fact or at the end of the chapter, again, often
evaluating the source.
Not at all. It is the cornerstone of historiography.
Renia
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv293n$mp6$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
chomp
(Not snipped because of the way Peter states or implies I have said
something, when I haven't.)
Chomped, because this is a discussion and the parameters are not static.
What a vacuus and pompous statement. In a meaningful discussion, one
responds to what the other is saying. One does not bring in implied
statements unless there are grounds to do so. One does not discuss
statements which are not made. Those are the parameters of any
discussion or reasoned argument. Big words in an empty statement do not
an argument make.
I
am not replying exclusively to you, nor am able to get into your head: both
of us must make some assumptions about the others thinking in order to post
efficiently and promptly.
Another empty statement full of big words. The discussion should be
based on what is written here, not make second-guesses about what the
other is thinking about.
In order to post "efficiently and promptly" it is necessary to respond
to what each other says. It is inefficient to post according to what you
think I have said or might have said, as opposed to what I have actually
said. It is inefficient to post according to what you think others might
think of what I said or might have said or what you said.
As for this entire misunderstanding, the unspoken qualification - that I
never thought could need to be expressed - is that an historian simply
doesn't use the "secondary" contents of a "primary" source in the normal
course of things.
As I have said many times, we are not discussing the contents of
sources, but the sources themselves. We have to evaluate the source in
order to evaluate what the source tells us. It is not the content which
is "primary" or "secondary", it is the source itself.
For instance, in a biography of William the Conqueror the works of Froissart
are not a primary source and would not occur in the bibliography.
If the works of Froissart were not used in the biography, then the
source would not be listed in the bibliography, regardless of its status
as a primary or secondary source.
However,
if the biographer wished to make the point that William's death had been
marked in later centuries at the English court and Froissart was the source
for this (hypothetically), then his statement would be adduced as primary
evidence of that fact and he would be included amongst primary sources in
the bibliography.
Put more simply, if the biographer had used Froissart, he would list
Froissart in the bibliography. Historians often cite their sources
chapter-by-chapter, sometimes evaluating the source as they go.
Sometimes historians use footnotes, and refer to the source on the same
page as the stated fact or at the end of the chapter, again, often
evaluating the source.
Of course historians must use the "best" as well as the "earliest" (not
necessarily the same) sources, and will consider both (or all) of these
"primary". Equally, the historian will not adduce evidence of a "secondary"
nature from an otherwise "primary" source without making this explicit.
But Renia's idea that a "primary" source must be "contemporary" is still
balderdash.
Not at all. It is the cornerstone of historiography.
Renia