Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lowere

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 02:40:53

Peter Stewart wrote:

"David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net> wrote in message


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"?


Personally, I don't know the primary sources for the death of
Charlemagne, but I imagine it would be in the Capitularies or in other
Carolingian documents. So many books and encyclopaedias, authoritative
or otherwise, give such information about Charlemagne (and others in
history) that we have almost forgotten that the information in them
originally came from primary sources and we don't question it.

Renia

Peter Stewart

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 feb 2005 03:13:15

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv3h4j$4rm$5@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

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.

Most of the words are monosyllables or dissyllables, Renia - you have spun
into Hines territory completely now, with self-serving and demonstrable (a
BIG word) rubbish to leave an impression of your own choosing.

Once you run out of puff on the substance, there is nothing to be gained by
misrepresenting the manner of a discussion that everyone can refer to in the
archive.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 feb 2005 03:43:43

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv3h4m$4rm$6@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:

"David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net> wrote in message


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"?


Personally, I don't know the primary sources for the death of Charlemagne,
but I imagine it would be in the Capitularies or in other Carolingian
documents. So many books and encyclopaedias, authoritative or otherwise,
give such information about Charlemagne (and others in history) that we
have almost forgotten that the information in them originally came from
primary sources and we don't question it.

The point is that there are no explicitly or demonstably "eyewitness"
accounts, or their immediate derivatives, for the vast majority of facts
known about the middle ages from what historians call "primary" sources - by
your convoluted definition or my everyday one. The plain statement of David
B. contradicted this.

The death of Charlemagne is recorded most "officially" in the royal Frankish
annals, in a passage that gives his age at the time as ca 70 (he was most
likely around 66). This event is unusual in the records of his dynasty &
time in being almost unanimously followed to the letter in copied or
otherwise derived documents, from all over the Carolingian world & beyond.

However, "primary" sources by any definition can be wrong or confusing, and
of course these need to be evaluated carefully for any particular detail
wherever possible, and wherever there may be room for doubt.

An example that could help illustrate this is the death of Duke Gislebert of
Lorraine in 938 or 939. The continuator of Regino's chronicle gives the
fullest account of this, writing decades later and placing it in 939. This
was evidently the source for several different monastic annalists who gave
the same year with briefer details of the circumstances (he drowned escaping
from a skirmish). One set of annals records the same event both in 938 and
939. King Louis IV married Gislebert's widow, and a diploma of his dated 938
speaks of his wife (he married only once). So there is a puzzle. Yet from
the dating of various monastic annals we can be fairly confident that people
who were close enough to have known Gislebert thought he died in 939, and
they are "primary" evidence that this was plausible in the area of his rule
and around his lifetime. There is no question of a divorce, Louis definitely
married his widow. The best prospect of solving this is to find independent
evidence of the time of death of Gislebert's known companions who perished
along with him. Yet that is indirect, also a matter of consensus anyway, and
has nothing to do with eyewitness statements.

So is only the "best" evidence in any historian's considered view allowed to
be "primary", or do we have here several conflicting "primary" sources? We
can't readily tell which had priority in time or direct information from an
eyewitness, or in which the date given is incontestable (royal dipolomas
could be faulty in this respect).

Historians have to do their own work, and analyse the evidence for
themselves, and could perhaps come to different conclusions. What they can't
very well do, if they are professional, is enter into contests over "my
source is more primary than yours", i.e. meaning "more contemporary" or
"better informed". All the sources whose language is different on the
matter, or that can't otherwise be shown to be derivative, can equally be
considered "primary" for this point, and listed as such in bibliographies.
Whatever Renia may claim, that is NOT the opposite of what I have been
saying until now.

Peter Stewart

Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 03:54:07

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv3h4j$4rm$5@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:


snip

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.


Most of the words are monosyllables or dissyllables, Renia - you have spun
into Hines territory completely now, with self-serving and demonstrable (a
BIG word) rubbish to leave an impression of your own choosing.

It doesn't matter how many syllables your words have. I have come to the
conclusion that you do not actually read what others write, or, failing
that, you do not understand it. Therefore, you answer according to what
you think they wrote or meant and stuff your answers with arrogant
utterances in order to seem more knowledgable than you actually are.


Once you run out of puff on the substance, there is nothing to be gained by
misrepresenting the manner of a discussion that everyone can refer to in the
archive.

Indeed, they can, and you took the words right out of my mouth.

Renia

Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 04:04:58

Peter Stewart wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv3h4m$4rm$6@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:


"David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net> wrote in message

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"?


Personally, I don't know the primary sources for the death of Charlemagne,
but I imagine it would be in the Capitularies or in other Carolingian
documents. So many books and encyclopaedias, authoritative or otherwise,
give such information about Charlemagne (and others in history) that we
have almost forgotten that the information in them originally came from
primary sources and we don't question it.


The point is that there are no explicitly or demonstably "eyewitness"
accounts, or their immediate derivatives, for the vast majority of facts
known about the middle ages from what historians call "primary" sources - by
your convoluted definition or my everyday one. The plain statement of David
B. contradicted this.

First, my definition of primary sources is not convoluted but is the
accepted practice of historians.

Second, your everyday definition is fine for you, but it is not what is
understood in historical circles.

Third, your statement that "there are no explicitly or demonstrably
'eyewitnes' accounts . . . for the vast majority of facts known about
the middle ages from what historians call 'primary sources' is bunkum.

I take it you have never been to the Public Records Office at Kew, for
example? The place is stuffed full of them. Similarly in other major
archives in other countries.

I'm afraid you make yourself sound foolish with a statement such as that.


The death of Charlemagne is recorded most "officially" in the royal Frankish
annals, in a passage that gives his age at the time as ca 70 (he was most
likely around 66). This event is unusual in the records of his dynasty &
time in being almost unanimously followed to the letter in copied or
otherwise derived documents, from all over the Carolingian world & beyond.

I said I don't know what sources have been used for the death of
Charlemagne. It is not my period nor area of interest. But whatever
source was used, it has been lost in a library of biographies on him.

However, "primary" sources by any definition can be wrong or confusing, and
of course these need to be evaluated carefully for any particular detail
wherever possible, and wherever there may be room for doubt.

Exactly what I have told you and you are now repeating. I do not doubt
you were already aware of the necessity of evaluating sources. But this
is not what we are discussing. Hence your wordy and distracting example
regarding the death of Duke Gislebert is irrelevant and so I have
snipped it.

Renia

Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 04:22:36

Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>
Historians have to do their own work, and analyse the evidence for
themselves, and could perhaps come to different conclusions. What they can't
very well do, if they are professional, is enter into contests over "my
source is more primary than yours", i.e. meaning "more contemporary" or
"better informed". All the sources whose language is different on the
matter, or that can't otherwise be shown to be derivative, can equally be
considered "primary" for this point, and listed as such in bibliographies.
Whatever Renia may claim, that is NOT the opposite of what I have been
saying until now.

It's not a case of saying "my source is more primary than yours" meaning
"more contemporary" or "better informed". This is how you are
interpreting the difference between primary and secondary sources, but
this is wrong.

It's a case of when the source was created, by whom, and for what purpose.

If the source was created at the time of the event, it is a primary source.

If it is a later copy, extraction, transcript, analysis, then it is a
secondary source.

(I will not go again into more detail over the nuances of this, because
it has been discussed before in this thread.)

Renia

Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 04:31:15

Peter Stewart wrote:

David B wrote:


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.


That a document can be a primary source for one detail and a secondary
source for another detail is quite true. A medieval charter which
additionally quotes a previous charter is an example of this.


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)

The term "primary source" does not mean "first in order of time". It
means created at or near the time of the event. There can be multiple
primary sources for one event. A baptism record can record the child's
date of birth. So can its birth certificate. Both are primary sources,
perhaps created weeks or months apart, and both created after the event
itself.

I can't comment about Saint-Martial or Eleanor's death, because I know
nothing about it. I was ignoring the thread until I happened to spot
your gross misunderstanding of the difference between primary and
secondary sources.

Renia

Peter Stewart

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 feb 2005 04:37:08

Renia wrote:

First, my definition of primary sources is not convoluted but
is the accepted practice of historians.

Second, your everyday definition is fine for you, but it is not
what is understood in historical circles.

Third, your statement that "there are no explicitly or
demonstrably 'eyewitnes' accounts . . . for the vast majority
of facts known about the middle ages from what historians
call 'primary sources' is bunkum.

I take it you have never been to the Public Records Office at
Kew, for example? The place is stuffed full of them. Similarly
in other major archives in other countries.

This is all arbitrary, and not proven by any standard that you have
been espousing. The PRO may be "stuffed full" of documents (although
there's room for more, indeed), but can you demonstrate that a majority
are from eyewitnesses? Most personal documents from the middle ages
relate to people who didn't personally write or read them. Most other
documents carry no statement or implication to the effect that they
were set down by eyewitnesses or people who spoke with one of them.

I'm afraid you make yourself sound foolish with a statement
such as that.

Get over your fear, Renia - it doesn't touch my sides. Again, this is a
cop-out, as you haven't engaged with the statement I made, you have
tried to refute it with mere bluster.

I said I don't know what sources have been used for the death
of Charlemagne. It is not my period nor area of interest. But
whatever source was used, it has been lost in a library of
biographies on him.

That's why I told you - without further alluding to your very odd
notion that this death might have first appeared in the Capitularies,
as if ordered in advance - and it can't have been "lost" in biographies
that cite sources, even if I hadn't told you exactly where to find it.

Exactly what I have told you and you are now repeating. I do not
doubt you were already aware of the necessity of evaluating sources.
But this is not what we are discussing. Hence your wordy and
distracting example regarding the death of Duke Gislebert is
irrelevant and so I have snipped it.

I am not writing for your sole benefit, Renia - this may come as a
surprise, but we are participating in a public forum and no-one
especially cares if you have trouble with big words or too many of
them. The relevance of the example went directly to the absurd point
you made in claiming that "primary" sources must be "contemporary"
ones, followed by David B.'s claim that they are simply "the best"
ones.

My point all along has been that they are the actually the documents
containing information that is either unmediated or unprecedented in
the record from OUR point of view, period.

The fact that you and I might find specific points of agreement within
a wider disagreement is not some kind of proof that you were right and
I was wrong from the start.

Peter Stewart

Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 05:24:53

Peter Stewart wrote:

Renia wrote:


First, my definition of primary sources is not convoluted but
is the accepted practice of historians.

Second, your everyday definition is fine for you, but it is not
what is understood in historical circles.

Third, your statement that "there are no explicitly or
demonstrably 'eyewitnes' accounts . . . for the vast majority
of facts known about the middle ages from what historians
call 'primary sources' is bunkum.

I take it you have never been to the Public Records Office at
Kew, for example? The place is stuffed full of them. Similarly
in other major archives in other countries.


This is all arbitrary, and not proven by any standard that you have
been espousing. The PRO may be "stuffed full" of documents (although
there's room for more, indeed), but can you demonstrate that a majority
are from eyewitnesses?

More distraction from you. There is 1,000 years or more's worth of
documents in the Public Record Office in London which people have been
using to publish history books for centuries. Every time someone on this
newsgroup mentions Magna Carta (all four of them), think of the Public
Record Office. Every time someone mentions Domesday Book, think of the
Public Record Office. The Public Record Office at Kew is stuffed full of
legal documents (eyewitness accounts) not because some wag wanted a
great collection, but because they are the foundation of English law. We
just happen to use those documents for history and genealogy. Genealogy
was, indeed, part of their original purpose. Legal title to land.

Arbitrary, indeed.

Most personal documents from the middle ages
relate to people who didn't personally write or read them.

So what? Besides, how do you know this? Have you been through every last
document yourself? More distraction. More shuffling your feet.

Most other
documents carry no statement or implication to the effect that they
were set down by eyewitnesses or people who spoke with one of them.

Ah, so you have been through every last document in the PRO, otherwise
you couldn't possibly make a statement like this.


I'm afraid you make yourself sound foolish with a statement
such as that.


Get over your fear, Renia - it doesn't touch my sides.


What fear would this be, Peter?

Again, this is a
cop-out, as you haven't engaged with the statement I made, you have
tried to refute it with mere bluster.

You are blustering and distracting so much, I've forgotten which
statement you are talking about. Remind me.


I said I don't know what sources have been used for the death
of Charlemagne. It is not my period nor area of interest. But
whatever source was used, it has been lost in a library of
biographies on him.


That's why I told you - without further alluding to your very odd
notion that this death might have first appeared in the Capitularies,

That was a guess. I told you, I don't know which sources were used. His
death was quite possibly mentioned in the Capitularies after his death.
I don't know. I never said they "first appeared" in the Capitularies.
Ged rid of the notion that "primary" source in this context means
"first". It doesn't.

as if ordered in advance - and it can't have been "lost" in biographies
that cite sources, even if I hadn't told you exactly where to find it.

You know full well what I mean by "lost" here. We read a book or article
on Charlemagne, it mentions his death, we accept it. Unless we want to
challenge history, we accept the account of his death and take no action
to find out what the original source was.


Exactly what I have told you and you are now repeating. I do not
doubt you were already aware of the necessity of evaluating sources.
But this is not what we are discussing. Hence your wordy and
distracting example regarding the death of Duke Gislebert is
irrelevant and so I have snipped it.


I am not writing for your sole benefit, Renia - this may come as a
surprise, but we are participating in a public forum

The reason I am responding to you is because we are in a public forum,
and you continue to distract from the issue under discussion in order to
disguise your own ignorance.

and no-one
especially cares if you have trouble with big words or too many of
them.

Being a journalist, I don't have a problem with big or small words. But
being a journalist, I understand why words are used. You use words to
make yourself sound clever and others to sound stupid, not to support
your argument.

The relevance of the example went directly to the absurd point
you made in claiming that "primary" sources must be "contemporary"
ones, followed by David B.'s claim that they are simply "the best"
ones.

You should read David B's post again. That is not what he said. He said
a "prime" source was a "best" source. That is not the same thing as a
primary source. He said a "primary" source was a quite different thing.
He said: 'But sources not derived directly from eyewitnesses or
participants are not "primary", though they may still be "prime".'

My point all along has been that they are the actually the documents
containing information that is either unmediated or unprecedented in
the record from OUR point of view, period.

And your point is wrong. Period.

The fact that you and I might find specific points of agreement within
a wider disagreement is not some kind of proof that you were right and
I was wrong from the start.

You were wrong from the start. And you are still wrong. Period.

Renia

Peter Stewart

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 feb 2005 05:52:23

You really are getting beside yourself, Renia. You wrote "I'm afraid"
then I referred to your fear and you ask "what fear is that?". Cranky.

For what little in your message is worth any response, the medieval
period stretched back to ca 500 and forward to ca 1500 - for most of
this period across most of Europe written records were in Latin, which
most of the participants in legal transactions couldn't read even if
they were literate in their own vernacular. They were mostly written by
clerks and alter lay scribes whose names we cannot even know. Picking
out a few highlights in British history and official papers as if these
cover the field for your purpose is simply inane. Have you looked into
the cartularies and muniments of all Europe to see how many documents
are there, compared to the smaller number of later-medieval English
manorial and court records?

So far you have told us that "primary" sources must be "contemporary"
and are literally just the original document itself, not what it says,
and also that these should be evaluated without regard to their
contents anyway. I honestly can't imagine a more stupid set of shifting
statements than yours in this thread, setting out alleged principles of
your training that NO reputable historian could ever follow except to
the unemployment line. I can't see any purpose in continuing the
discussion.

Have your last word, Renia.

Peter Stewart

Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 07:25:26

Peter Stewart wrote:

You really are getting beside yourself, Renia. You wrote "I'm afraid"
then I referred to your fear and you ask "what fear is that?". Cranky.

For what little in your message is worth any response, the medieval
period stretched back to ca 500 and forward to ca 1500 - for most of
this period across most of Europe written records were in Latin, which
most of the participants in legal transactions couldn't read even if
they were literate in their own vernacular. They were mostly written by
clerks and alter lay scribes whose names we cannot even know.


Irrelevant diversionary tactic while teaching grandma to suck eggs. You
really are struggling to divert the issue away from your error.


Picking
out a few highlights in British history and official papers as if these
cover the field for your purpose is simply inane.

Inane? Who is being inane? The field "for my purpose" - the discussion
of what constitutes a primary or a secondary source - is the whole of
history, from pre-history to ten minutes ago. A primary source is a
primary source is a primary source, no matter which era in history it
was produced. Stonehenge is a primary source. So is yesterday's Hansard.

Have you looked into
the cartularies and muniments of all Europe to see how many documents
are there, compared to the smaller number of later-medieval English
manorial and court records?

What has that got to do with the price of sucking eggs? More irrelevant
chatter to divert readers from the issues.


So far you have told us that "primary" sources must be "contemporary"
and are literally just the original document itself, not what it says,
and also that these should be evaluated without regard to their
contents anyway.

Nope. You still haven't got it.

For the umpteenth time, there can be more than one primary source to
tell us about an event. Therefore, there is not always "just the
original document itself". You have used the definite article "the",
specifying one particular document. You are still thinking in terms of
the FIRST document.

The term "primary source", in this discussion, does not mean "first
source". It is a technical term to denote a source created
contemporaneously with the event it concerns. A secondary source, in
this discussion, does not mean "second source". It is a technical term
to denote a source created by using primary sources.

I honestly can't imagine a more stupid set of shifting
statements than yours in this thread, setting out alleged principles of
your training that NO reputable historian could ever follow except to
the unemployment line.

Well, there you have it, folks.

I can only quote from the University of California Berkley:

Q
I. Definitions
WHAT ARE PRIMARY SOURCES?
Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to
what actually happened during an historical event or time period. A
primary source reflects the individual viewpoint of a participant or
observer.

WHAT ARE SECONDARY SOURCES?
A secondary source is a work that interprets or analyzes an historical
event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the
event. A recent article that evaluates and analyzes the relationship
between the feminist movement and the labor movement in
turn-of-the-century England is an example of a secondary source; if you
were to look at the bibliography of this article you would see that the
author's research was based on both primary sources such as labor union
documents, speeches and personal letters as well as other secondary
sources. Textbooks and encyclopedias are also examples of secondary sources.
UNQ

Or the University of Washington:

Q
What are Primary Sources?
Primary sources are the evidence left behind by participants or
observers of a given event or during a particular period of time. They
are the "leavings, the shards, the remnants of people who once lived and
don't live any more." Primary sources allow us to make personal
connections to the past. And finally, primary sources are the evidence
used by historians to support an interpretation of the past.

What are Secondary Sources?
Secondary sources are accounts of the past created by people writing
about events sometime after they happened (this could be a few years
later or centuries later). In other words, secondary sources are what
historians (and History Day participants) create.
UNQ

Or the University at Albany:

Q
Sometimes, the same source might be a primary source for one research
paper and a secondary source for another. It all depends on the
relationship of the source to your research question. For example, if
you are researching Franklin Roosevelt's life, the book No Ordinary
Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II by
Doris Kearns Goodwin would be a secondary source. If you were
researching the literary style of Ms. Goodwin, it would be a primary source.
UNQ

Or try this, from the National History Day website:
http://www.nationalhistoryday.org/02_co ... a3_1d.html

Q
A Research Roadmap
by Jodi Vandenberg-Daves, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

What's a "primary source" and why would I want to find one?

So many participants in National History Day get hooked on history
because history becomes real to them. How does this happen? The key to
making exciting discoveries about the past is interacting with primary
sources.

What's the difference between a primary source and a secondary source
when you're doing historical research? Sometimes this can be a
complicated question, but here are some general written by an author
who is not an eyewitness or a participant in the historical event or
period. For example, high school history textbooks and other history
books about a particular topic are secondary sources. So are biographies
and reference books, such as encyclopedias. The most basic definition of
a primary source is: material written or produced in the time period
students are investigating. A letter written by President Lincoln in
1862 is a primary source for a student researching the Civil War era.
The memories of a person who was part of Cesar Chavez's labor union
movement also can serve as a primary source, even if you conduct an oral
history interview with the person in 2001. He or she was an eyewitness
to and a participant in this historical event at the time.

Like professional historians, History Day students must ask questions
about their topic's significance in history, and they must creatively
interpret primary sources in order to answer questions about their
research topics. As you participate in National History Day you will be
defining, identifying, getting your hands on, and interpreting primary
sources, as well as doing background research in secondary sources. As
you do this, you are making history! We have created this roadmap to
give you some ideas of the logistics involved and to help you start
stretching your brain for the marathon ahead.

Now, to get started on your research. . . .

1. Secondary sources give you background and lead you to the primary
sources.

It's important to start your research journey by looking at some
secondary sources. This will help you understand how to place your topic
in the larger historical context. History books and other reference
materials help you understand why your topic is important and how it
relates to economic, social and political developments of the period. A
good National History Day project draws on several kinds of secondary
sources, in addition to your own original interpretation of primary
sources. Look at monographs as well as general reference books to get
background on your topic. You will discover that professional historians
bring their own biases to the topics they research, and you should seek
more than one perspective on the issues you are researching.
UNQ

I can't see any purpose in continuing the
discussion.

Have your last word, Renia.

No, I'll leave that to the Universities and Historical bodies I have
quoted from.

Renia

Brad Verity

Primary/Secondary Sources - Medieval

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 18 feb 2005 10:03:52

This is an important discussion, and I just want to make sure I'm
understanding everything correctly.

Let's say I'm going to write an article about the birth of John
Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1390-1432).

My primary sources for his birthdate would be documents that were
created in or shortly after his lifetime (so late 14th/15th century
documentation). Examples:

A) A chronicle recording his birth at the time it happened.
B) The IPMs of his brother, which returned John as his heir and
provided his age.
C) The Proof of Age that occurred twenty-one years after his birth and
included testimony of eyewitnesses to the birth/baptism.
D) A family pedigree in a chronicle from an Abbey patronized by the
Mowbrays, written in the early 1500s.
E) The Household Accounts of the Mowbrays from the years 1389-1392.

Now, let's say all of these above [hypothetical] documents exist, but
in various archives in England. And of course, they are in Latin, plus
a hard-to-decipher medieval handwritten script.

Luckily, the IPMS and Proof of Age have been transcribed/translated and
published in the Calendar of IPM series, which all authorities agree
are authentic and accurate representations of the original documents
housed in the National Archives. I can then list the relevant CIPM
volumes for B) and C) above as Primary Sources in my Bibliography.

Also, chronicle A) above was translated and published in the late 19th
century by G.W. Watson for the Surtees Society, and chronicle D) above
was published last year in a brand-new modern translation. Though I
have not actually gone to the Bodleian Library and thumbed through the
original manuscripts myself, I can still list the published translated
versions as Primary Sources in my Bibliography.

Finally, the Household Accounts in E) above have not been published,
but are deposited in the Lincolnshire Record Office. Rowena Archer, in
her unpublished doctoral thesis on the Mowbrays refers to them
extensively throughout, draws conclusions from them, and even provides
details on the expenses paid out for the churching of John Mowbray's
mother after his birth. I rely on Dr. Archer's thesis for the facts in
the Household Accounts and list her thesis as a Secondary Source in my
Bibliography.

Also, there's a wonderful article in the 1963 volume of the Bulletin
for the Institute of Historical Research which discusses how the trauma
Mowbray endured when being dropped on his head at birth led to his
famous quarrel over precedence with the Earl of Warwick in Henry VI's
Parliaments. The author used the Rotuli Parliamentorum extensively as
a source. I expand upon the author's conclusions and refute a couple
of them. I then would list the BIHR article as a Secondary Source in
my Bibliography.

So in this [hypothetical] example, the medieval documents (or valid
published transcriptions of same) are the Primary Sources. Doctoral
Theses and published articles that use/refer to the medieval
documentation are Secondary Sources.

The reliability and the accuracy of the varoius sources A) thru E)
above would be a completely separate issue - one that I would need to
address as I establish a birthdate for Mowbray within my article - and
would not affect them being Primary Sources for Mowbray's birth.

Would this be the correct way to list these sources in a Bibliography
in this hypothetical article?

Thanks and Cheers, ----Brad

David B

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av David B » 18 feb 2005 10:11:26

Renia wrote in message ...
Peter Stewart wrote:

Most personal documents from the middle ages
relate to people who didn't personally write or read them.

So what? Besides, how do you know this? Have you been through every last
document yourself? More distraction. More shuffling your feet.

Besides, the point is that most were composed (if not necessarily copies to
the rolls) by eyewitnesses to the legal proceedings they record- though not
necessarily to events described in those legal proceedings.


David B.

PS Renia- personally I would accept a transcript from a primary source
document as a primary source, but with increased caution about mistakes
etc.

John Cartmell

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 18 feb 2005 13:00:03

In article <cv3nfu$3mc$5@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
The term "primary source" does not mean "first in order of time". It
means created at or near the time of the event.

Not quite my understanding. Primary sources really need to be part of the
history rather than reportage. A diary could be a primary source iro an
individual's own actions and observations but secondary iro what he hears
as reported news. His reaction to that reportage is primary of course.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

Renia

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 15:00:15

John Cartmell wrote:
In article <cv3nfu$3mc$5@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

The term "primary source" does not mean "first in order of time". It
means created at or near the time of the event.


Not quite my understanding. Primary sources really need to be part of the
history rather than reportage. A diary could be a primary source iro an
individual's own actions and observations but secondary iro what he hears
as reported news. His reaction to that reportage is primary of course.

See my other posts where this sort of thing is discussed.

Renia

Renia

Re: Primary/Secondary Sources - Medieval

Legg inn av Renia » 18 feb 2005 15:57:02

Brad Verity wrote:

This is an important discussion, and I just want to make sure I'm
understanding everything correctly.

Let's say I'm going to write an article about the birth of John
Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1390-1432).

My primary sources for his birthdate would be documents that were
created in or shortly after his lifetime (so late 14th/15th century
documentation). Examples:

A) A chronicle recording his birth at the time it happened.
B) The IPMs of his brother, which returned John as his heir and
provided his age.
C) The Proof of Age that occurred twenty-one years after his birth and
included testimony of eyewitnesses to the birth/baptism.
D) A family pedigree in a chronicle from an Abbey patronized by the
Mowbrays, written in the early 1500s.
E) The Household Accounts of the Mowbrays from the years 1389-1392.

Now, let's say all of these above [hypothetical] documents exist, but
in various archives in England. And of course, they are in Latin, plus
a hard-to-decipher medieval handwritten script.

Luckily, the IPMS and Proof of Age have been transcribed/translated and
published in the Calendar of IPM series, which all authorities agree
are authentic and accurate representations of the original documents
housed in the National Archives. I can then list the relevant CIPM
volumes for B) and C) above as Primary Sources in my Bibliography.

Also, chronicle A) above was translated and published in the late 19th
century by G.W. Watson for the Surtees Society, and chronicle D) above
was published last year in a brand-new modern translation. Though I
have not actually gone to the Bodleian Library and thumbed through the
original manuscripts myself, I can still list the published translated
versions as Primary Sources in my Bibliography.

Finally, the Household Accounts in E) above have not been published,
but are deposited in the Lincolnshire Record Office. Rowena Archer, in
her unpublished doctoral thesis on the Mowbrays refers to them
extensively throughout, draws conclusions from them, and even provides
details on the expenses paid out for the churching of John Mowbray's
mother after his birth. I rely on Dr. Archer's thesis for the facts in
the Household Accounts and list her thesis as a Secondary Source in my
Bibliography.

Also, there's a wonderful article in the 1963 volume of the Bulletin
for the Institute of Historical Research which discusses how the trauma
Mowbray endured when being dropped on his head at birth led to his
famous quarrel over precedence with the Earl of Warwick in Henry VI's
Parliaments. The author used the Rotuli Parliamentorum extensively as
a source. I expand upon the author's conclusions and refute a couple
of them. I then would list the BIHR article as a Secondary Source in
my Bibliography.

So in this [hypothetical] example, the medieval documents (or valid
published transcriptions of same) are the Primary Sources. Doctoral
Theses and published articles that use/refer to the medieval
documentation are Secondary Sources.

The reliability and the accuracy of the varoius sources A) thru E)
above would be a completely separate issue - one that I would need to
address as I establish a birthdate for Mowbray within my article - and
would not affect them being Primary Sources for Mowbray's birth.

Would this be the correct way to list these sources in a Bibliography
in this hypothetical article?

Thanks and Cheers, ----Brad

Your sources A-E, above, with the exception of source D, would all be
primary sources. The various transcripts and translations of them would
be used "as if" they were primary sources. (It is better for the
preservation of the original sources if they are left in their
repositories. Sometimes, though, a new approach or theory might warrant
re-checking the original primary source just in case something was
mis-transcribed, but that's another issue.)

Source D is a bit more of a grey area. It is an old document, but was
created some time after the event (his birth and death), so it is a
secondary source. It would only be a primary source for the details of
the people living at the time the pedigree was created. If the compiler
cited sources A-C or E, then it is a secondary source.

If the compiler cited the testimony of a person or descendant who knew
the Duke personally and was told personally by the Duke when he was
born, then it is a primary source, not for the date of the Duke's birth,
but for what the "witness" was told, or remembers. We would hope the
pedigree and memory of the witness is accurate. If it was present with
other legal documents pertaining to inheritance and other matters
requiring a pedigree, then we could treat it as a primary source. If it
was lying around in the castle, then we would have to ask "why was the
pedigree created"? To impress the neighbours? To look pretty on the wall?

So you are mostly correct, with the exception of grey area D.

The correct way to list the sources would be in the manner of
Keats-Rohan in Domesday Descendants, for example:

Clay, 'Early Yorkshire Charters' (1936), V, nos 344, 390;
Greenway, 'Charters of the Honour of Mowbray (1972), no. 188;
Pipe Roll ll Henry II, 39-ln

Sometimes you would abbreviate these - DB, EYC and IPM are familiar
abbreviations.

In your Bibliography, you would identify the sources you have used
(examples from KR):

Cal. Ch. Rolls - Calendar of the Charter Rolls Preserved in the Public
Record Office, 6 vols (Public Record Office, 1903-27)
DB - Domesday Book, seu Liber Censualis Willelmi Primi Regis Angliae,
ed. Abraham Farley, 2 vols, Record Commission (London, 1783). Farley's
edition was reprinted . . . .
DB - Domesday Book, seu Liber Densualis Willelmi Primi Regis Angliae,
Additamenta (Exon Domesday), Record Commission (London, 1816), contains
Exon and Tax Returns

There are different ways of presenting your bibliography.

Keats-Rohan has used so many sources, she has listed them all in
alphabetical order, without distinguishing primary from secondary sources.

Other historians split the sources into two groups, primary and
secondary. Yet others rely only on secondary sources.

Renia

Brad Verity

Re: Primary/Secondary Sources - Medieval

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 18 feb 2005 17:47:06

Renia wrote:

[snip]
There are different ways of presenting your bibliography.

Keats-Rohan has used so many sources, she has listed them all in
alphabetical order, without distinguishing primary from secondary
sources.

Other historians split the sources into two groups, primary and
secondary. Yet others rely only on secondary sources.

Thanks, Renia, for your thorough explanation. It's quite helpful.

Cheers, ----Brad

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 feb 2005 01:11:01

Even Andrew Lewis understands that IF we had a HYPOTHETICAL SOURCE,
dating from 1204, testifying to Eleanor of Aquitaine's age at her death
we would certainly be justified in questioning its reliability because
the writers of said document in 1204 would undoubtedly be much younger
than Eleanor and therefore less likely to know exactly how old she was
when she died.

Hilarious!

So, that is an interesting twist in Lewis's logic -- since on the other
hand he is quite willing to trust a document of unproven authorship and
provenance, but certainly of a MUCH LATER, but still UNKNOWN, DATE than
1204, perhaps more than 100 years after 1204, to tell him how old
Eleanor was when her father died in 1137.

Hilarious!

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

I.E_Johansson

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av I.E_Johansson » 19 feb 2005 07:20:28

DSH,
you are pointing to a very important factor for all scholars of History(one
way or an other) and interested to rise: How can we make certain that the
importance of 'close in time' and 'close in place' of an event written om is
at hand when we refer to a source using it as a Prime source in all cases
where we can't show that the source in question really is a Prime source re.
the event or re. the fact(-s) it's used as a source for.

While the 'older school' of Scholars from around 1900 had this in mind most
of the time, several today seems to have lost contact with this important
Science Methodical problem all of the time.

I think we need to make clear that it's necessary for everyone dealing with
or refering to sources from periods not their own to take precautions and if
necessary lessons in how to deal with and valuate sources. As seen many
times in soc.history.medieval there is a hugh gap between scholars of
History and scholars of other diciplines. That's understandable but not
acceptable. What's worse is that there seem to have been a custom at some
universities, none named and none forgotten, not to stress this very
essential question good enough for all to understand.

Inger E
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:JNARd.44$nQ5.896@eagle.america.net...
Even Andrew Lewis understands, because he tells us so, that if we had a
hypothetical source, dating from 1204, testifying to Eleanor of
Aquitaine's age at her death we would certainly be justified in
questioning its reliability because the writers of said document in 1204
would undoubtedly be much younger than Eleanor and therefore less likely
to know exactly how old she was when she died.

So, that is an interesting, contradictory twist in Lewis's logic --
since on the other hand he is quite willing to trust a document of
unproven authorship and provenance, but certainly of a MUCH LATER
DATE -- but still UNKNOWN date -- than 1204, perhaps more than 100 years
after 1204, to tell him how old Eleanor was when her father died in
1137.

Tres drole.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 feb 2005 07:21:02

Even Andrew Lewis understands, because he tells us so, that if we had a
hypothetical source, dating from 1204, testifying to Eleanor of
Aquitaine's age at her death we would certainly be justified in
questioning its reliability because the writers of said document in 1204
would undoubtedly be much younger than Eleanor and therefore less likely
to know exactly how old she was when she died.

So, that is an interesting, contradictory twist in Lewis's logic --
since on the other hand he is quite willing to trust a document of
unproven authorship and provenance, but certainly of a MUCH LATER
DATE -- but still UNKNOWN date -- than 1204, perhaps more than 100 years
after 1204, to tell him how old Eleanor was when her father died in
1137.

Tres drole.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 feb 2005 19:11:01

Bravo Zulu!

This is a very intelligent post.

There is obviously a lot of learning going on.

Cheers,

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""Ginny Wagner"" <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOEEAEEJAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com...

| <How do you all feel the subject of sources and their relevance and
| importance with reference to medeival genealogy?>
|
| I'm a total novice at all this but, since you ask, -- I want to say
thank
| you all for this discussion. It isn't falling on deaf ears. I feel
like
| I'm getting a first class education on this list -- even when the
genealogy
| creeps into the modern world -- I learn something. I'm learning how
to
| think like a genealogist/historian. I know that if I can learn to
think the
| way you guys do, eventually I will be able to keep the important
things in
| my head because I'll have learned how to categorize and prioritize.
|
| This discussion taught me how to think about the various source
documents
| and the reliability of them. It has taught me that documents can be
| mistranslated, that people err and may have written down a date
incorrectly
| so that you want to have corroborating evidence whenever possible.
That the
| evidence you think you have must make sense within everything known
about
| the times/place/situation so that history is vital in order to test
the
| information as to whether it even makes sense and which account is
accurate.
|
| That today there is more knowledge and source work than one person
alone can
| keep up with, that there is a body of knowledge, that has led to an
| understanding of life back then as to what is possible and what isn't,
so
| that even the good forgeries from back then are found out. In other
cases
| it may never be possible to locate a name/person. That you guys have
spent
| years accummulating scads of data and you've placed it where you can
find it
| when you begin to discuss a bit of data because you know how to
organize it.
| That one person can't possibly hold all the information and check
| everything -- that we need to help each other by sharing information
and
| testing "facts" with each other to avoid simple errors in assumptions.
|
| I've learned that footnotes can be tricky things -- they don't always
back
| up all the information in a sentence/paragraph so that it's good to
double
| check and even better, when writing, to be specific and add
explanation
| about the footnotes. I've learned that there are many sources and
scads of
| information out there against which each bit of information must be
tested
| before making assertions and that assertions as to fact should be made
| gingerly unless one wants to eat a lot of crow; that certainty often
acts as
| a roadblock to getting at the truth.
|
| I've learned how stupid my comment, 1137 - 15 = 1122 was, re Eleanor's
birth
| date!
|
| After reading through you guys' discussion, I learned that I have a
lot to
| learn, not just about genealogy and history but also how to conduct a
| discussion. I'm very glad I'm on this list. Even if I'm not posting
I'm
| listening and appreciative of those who do, willing to post if/when I
have
| something to contribute or a question to ask. Thank you. ;-)
|
| Ginny Wagner
|
| "Do the best one can. Do it over again. Then still improve, even if
ever
| so slightly, those retouches. It is myself that I re-make," said the
poet
| Yeats in speaking of his revisions. -- Marguerite Yourcenar

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 feb 2005 19:41:03

The Bottom Line:

DSH
--------------------

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.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

"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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 feb 2005 17:21:02

"To insist that we must reject any chronicle if its authorship is
unknown, because it was written at an unknown location, or at a date
later than the events it relates, would be to deprive ourselves of so
many sources of information about the Middle Ages that our histories
would have to be massively rewritten."

John Carmi Parsons
-----------------------------------------

Silly-Buggers Strawman....

NO ONE has suggested that entire chronicles "must be rejected". --
Parsons is just making yet another argument for lowered
historiographical standards in Mediaeval History and Genealogy by piling
one rampant speculation on top of another, in a very shaky pyramid.

Lewis has not proven his case for 1124. Even he understands, because he
tells us so, that if we had a hypothetical source, dating from 1204,
testifying to Eleanor of Aquitaine's age at her death we would certainly
be justified in questioning its reliability because the writers of said
document in 1204 would undoubtedly be much younger than Eleanor and
therefore less likely to know exactly how old she was when she died.

So, that is an interesting, contradictory twist in Lewis's logic --
since on the other hand he is quite willing to trust a document of
unproven authorship and provenance, but certainly of a MUCH LATER
DATE -- but still UNKNOWN date -- than 1204, perhaps more than 100 years
after 1204, to tell him how old Eleanor was when her father died in
1137.

Hoist with his own petar and by his own words.

Lewis, as even he admits, needs to give further thought to these
matters. He says, "In subsequent studies I shall examine other texts
from this manuscript." Lewis also admits the alleged Limoges manuscript
is a "pastiche of excerpts" and is riddled with errors.

Tres drole.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 feb 2005 20:25:22

Spencer Hines is right, of course. John Carmi Parsons is grasping at
straws.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"To insist that we must reject any chronicle if its authorship is
unknown, because it was written at an unknown location, or at a date
later than the events it relates, would be to deprive ourselves of so
many sources of information about the Middle Ages that our histories
would have to be massively rewritten."

John Carmi Parsons
-----------------------------------------

Silly-Buggers Strawman....

NO ONE has suggested that entire chronicles "must be rejected". --
Parsons is just making yet another argument for lowered
historiographical standards in Mediaeval History and Genealogy by
piling
one rampant speculation on top of another, in a very shaky pyramid.

Lewis has not proven his case for 1124. Even he understands, because
he
tells us so, that if we had a hypothetical source, dating from 1204,
testifying to Eleanor of Aquitaine's age at her death we would
certainly
be justified in questioning its reliability because the writers of
said
document in 1204 would undoubtedly be much younger than Eleanor and
therefore less likely to know exactly how old she was when she died.

So, that is an interesting, contradictory twist in Lewis's logic --
since on the other hand he is quite willing to trust a document of
unproven authorship and provenance, but certainly of a MUCH LATER
DATE -- but still UNKNOWN date -- than 1204, perhaps more than 100
years
after 1204, to tell him how old Eleanor was when her father died in
1137.

Hoist with his own petar and by his own words.

Lewis, as even he admits, needs to give further thought to these
matters. He says, "In subsequent studies I shall examine other texts
from this manuscript." Lewis also admits the alleged Limoges
manuscript
is a "pastiche of excerpts" and is riddled with errors.

Tres drole.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 feb 2005 21:51:01

I have no doubt that Andrew Lewis is a serious scholar -- but we need
some CONFIRMATION of his work.

We don't just accept it on FAITH, sans confirmation from other
scholars ---- TRIANGULATION.

Lewis tells us that Edmond-Rene Labande leans toward the 1122 date.

We need to hear more from LABANDE if he is still alive and ACTIVE -- and
from other scholars.

We can't get CONFIRMATION from Parsons because he's not doing any
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH -- he's just PARROTING back what Lewis wrote in
Parsons' book -- and Parsons, as we all know, has an axe to grind.

Lewis may well turn out to be RIGHT -- if he is, more POWER to him. But
we aren't there yet.

If Eleanor of Aquitaine was only NINE years younger than Henry II and
28, rather than 30, when she married him in 1152 [Henry was 19] that
makes for an even MORE romantic story. <g>

I'll bet Henry was a randy young devil indeed at 19. <g>

New Subject:

Here's another apparent error in the Wheeler-Parsons edited book,
_Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady_.

Elizabeth A. R. Brown, the doyenne of American Mediaeval Historians,
tells us she had illuminating and enjoyable conversations with "the late
William [sic] Goldman and Katherine Hepburn" about Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Interesting. <g>

When one drops the names of celebrities [who are hardly any sort of
experts on Eleanor of Aquitaine] one should at least get the NAMES
right.

Surely she means JAMES Goldman, the author of _The Lion In Winter_, both
the play and the screenplay.

WILLIAM Goldman is the fellow who wrote _Marathon Man_, among other
books and screenplays such as _The Great Waldo Pepper_ , _All The
President's Men_, _Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid_ and _The Princess
Bride_.

That LAST one is probably the closest William Goldman ever got to
writing about Eleanor of Aquitaine.

EDITORS are supposed to CATCH this sort of ERROR. Obviously Wheeler and
Parsons did NOT.

This is yet ANOTHER example of what I have noted as sloppy work and
lowered historiographical standards in Mediaeval History.

Parsons seems to want to be the Poster Boy for this casual, sloppy
approach.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108927522.006217.182290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Spencer Hines is right, of course. John Carmi Parsons is grasping at
| straws.
|
| Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
|
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:

| > "To insist that we must reject any chronicle if its authorship is
| > unknown, because it was written at an unknown location, or at a date
| > later than the events it relates, would be to deprive ourselves of
| > so many sources of information about the Middle Ages that our
| > histories would have to be massively rewritten."
| >
| > John Carmi Parsons
| > -----------------------------------------
| >
| > Silly-Buggers Strawman....
| >
| > NO ONE has suggested that entire chronicles "must be rejected". --
| > Parsons is just making yet another argument for lowered
| > historiographical standards in Mediaeval History and Genealogy by
| > piling one rampant speculation on top of another, in a very shaky
| > pyramid.
| >
| > Lewis has not proven his case for 1124. Even he understands,
| > because he tells us so, that if we had a hypothetical source, dating
| > from 1204, testifying to Eleanor of Aquitaine's age at her death we
| > would certainly be justified in questioning its reliability because
| > the writers of said document in 1204 would undoubtedly be much
| > younger than Eleanor and therefore less likely to know exactly how
| > old she was when she died.
| >
| > So, that is an interesting, contradictory twist in Lewis's logic --
| > since on the other hand he is quite willing to trust a document of
| > unproven authorship and provenance, but certainly of a MUCH LATER
| > DATE -- but still UNKNOWN date -- than 1204, perhaps more than 100
| > years after 1204, to tell him how old Eleanor was when her father
| > died in 1137.
| >
| > Hoist with his own petar and by his own words.
| >
| > Lewis, as even he admits, needs to give further thought to these
| > matters. He says, "In subsequent studies I shall examine other
| > texts from this manuscript." Lewis also admits the alleged Limoges
| > manuscript is a "pastiche of excerpts" and is riddled with errors.
| >
| > Tres drole.
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 feb 2005 00:41:02

Recte:

I have no doubt that Andrew Lewis is a serious scholar -- but we need
some CONFIRMATION of his work.

We don't just accept it on FAITH, sans confirmation from other
scholars ---- TRIANGULATION.

Lewis tells us that Edmond-Rene Labande leans toward the 1122 date.

We need to hear more from LABANDE if he is still alive and ACTIVE -- and
from other scholars.

We can't get CONFIRMATION from Parsons because he's not doing any
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH -- he's just PARROTING back what Lewis wrote in
Parsons' book -- and Parsons, as we all know, has an axe to grind.

Lewis may well turn out to be RIGHT -- if he is, more POWER to him. But
we aren't there yet.

If Eleanor of Aquitaine was only NINE years, rather than ELEVEN years,
older than Henry -- and 28, rather than 30, when she married him in
1152 [Henry was 19] that makes for an even MORE romantic story. <g>

I'll bet Henry was a randy young devil indeed at 19. <g>

New Subject:

Here's another apparent error in the Wheeler-Parsons edited book,
_Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady_.

Elizabeth A. R. Brown, the doyenne of American Mediaeval Historians,
tells us she had illuminating and enjoyable conversations with "the late
William [sic] Goldman and Katherine Hepburn" about Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Interesting. <g>

When one drops the names of celebrities [who are hardly any sort of
historical experts on Eleanor of Aquitaine] one should at least get the
NAMES right.

Surely she means JAMES Goldman, the author of _The Lion In Winter_, both
the play and the screenplay.

WILLIAM Goldman is the fellow who wrote _Marathon Man_, among other
books and screenplays such as _The Great Waldo Pepper_ , _All The
President's Men_, _Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid_ and _The Princess
Bride_.

That LAST one is probably the closest William Goldman ever got to
writing about Eleanor of Aquitaine.

EDITORS are supposed to CATCH this sort of ERROR. Obviously Wheeler and
Parsons did NOT.

This is yet ANOTHER example of what I have noted as sloppy work and
lowered historiographical standards in Mediaeval History.

Parsons seems to want to be the Poster Boy for this casual, sloppy
approach.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108927522.006217.182290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Spencer Hines is right, of course. John Carmi Parsons is grasping at
| straws.
|
| Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
|
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:

| > "To insist that we must reject any chronicle if its authorship is
| > unknown, because it was written at an unknown location, or at a date
| > later than the events it relates, would be to deprive ourselves of
| > so many sources of information about the Middle Ages that our
| > histories would have to be massively rewritten."
| >
| > John Carmi Parsons
| > -----------------------------------------
| >
| > Silly-Buggers Strawman....
| >
| > NO ONE has suggested that entire chronicles "must be rejected". --
| > Parsons is just making yet another argument for lowered
| > historiographical standards in Mediaeval History and Genealogy by
| > piling one rampant speculation on top of another, in a very shaky
| > pyramid.
| >
| > Lewis has not proven his case for 1124. Even he understands,
| > because he tells us so, that if we had a hypothetical source, dating
| > from 1204, testifying to Eleanor of Aquitaine's age at her death we
| > would certainly be justified in questioning its reliability because
| > the writers of said document in 1204 would undoubtedly be much
| > younger than Eleanor and therefore less likely to know exactly how
| > old she was when she died.
| >
| > So, that is an interesting, contradictory twist in Lewis's logic --
| > since on the other hand he is quite willing to trust a document of
| > unproven authorship and provenance, but certainly of a MUCH LATER
| > DATE -- but still UNKNOWN date -- than 1204, perhaps more than 100
| > years after 1204, to tell him how old Eleanor was when her father
| > died in 1137.
| >
| > Hoist with his own petar and by his own words.
| >
| > Lewis, as even he admits, needs to give further thought to these
| > matters. He says, "In subsequent studies I shall examine other
| > texts from this manuscript." Lewis also admits the alleged Limoges
| > manuscript is a "pastiche of excerpts" and is riddled with errors.
| >
| > Tres drole.
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > Vires et Honor

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 feb 2005 03:33:04

Peter Stewart wrote:
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.

Peter Stewart

You can tell when Peter Stewart is losing an argument. He has to
flame me to make a point.

Well, Peter, you're off topic. And, out of line as usual. This is so
sad.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

a.spencer3

Re: Mediaeval Genealogists & Historians At Work & Play -- Lo

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 feb 2005 18:26:50

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cv293n$mp6$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
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.


There may well have been a lost original.

There were most certainly later copies.
One of these 'inserted' the de Spenser name in an attempt for glory!
I have a copy of the latter.
The info came from the Editor of Burke's Peerage in around 1960.

Surreyman

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»