Fw: Roger le Poitevin

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Roger le Poitevin

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 des 2005 11:15:02

Richardson does not understand the nature of Latin. Unlike English, it is an inflected language. This means that there is not a simple equivalence of one Latin word = one English translation.

Context is always important, and the context at issue here is that Roger Montgomery was never "count of Poitou", the title that is coonventionally used for the counts of his time and before. He was also never "count of Poitiers", the title that is conventionally used for Alphonse of France who lived in the following century. The fact that Dugdale and Round in different context gave one of the possible renderings of "comes Pictavensis" does not make this especially correct. It was not incorrect for them, since the source under discussion had given this title to Roger. But it was incorrect for the monks of St Mary's Lancaster, who misrepresented that Roger himself subscribed their forged charter.

Dugdale and Round did not specifically study the charter to examine its authenticity, and they did not explicitly endorse it as the proper title for Roger in his own time and place. Round knew that it was not so, but Dugdale might not have realised this. Their views are not relevant to the debate today.

As to medieval sources for Roger and his countship of La Marche in right of his wife, the sources are many. For Anglo-Norman perspective Orderic is a good starting point, who called him "Rogerius Pictavinus" and described his wife's patrimony including the castle of Charroux, the original stronghold of her ancestors the counts of La Marche. References cited by the editor Marjorie Chibnall are found in 'Roger de Montgomery and his Sons (1067-1102)' by JFA Mason, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series xiii pages 1-28 at 14 and 17. It is surprising that leads are demanded as new information by someone who has already thrown out opinions on the subject.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 des 2005 11:35:23

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Richardson does not understand the nature of Latin. Unlike English, it is an inflected language. This means that there is not a simple equivalence of one Latin word = one English translation.

What does "comes Pictavensis" mean to you?

DR

CED

Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin

Legg inn av CED » 12 des 2005 11:45:12

Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Richardson does not understand the nature of Latin. Unlike English, it is an inflected language. This means that there is not a simple equivalence of one Latin word = one English translation.

What does "comes Pictavensis" mean to you?

To the Newsgroup:

Richardson is demonstrating his ignorance about Latin. Anybody who has
had even a semester of college Latin knows that you can not take two
words out of context and have a proper translation. In Latin, in order
to get the true meaning, one must look at the entire sentence.

I think that he is being difficult on this matter because he does not
want (for reasons that only he knows) to give up on a forged (or badly
copied) charter. The more he insists, the more his ignorance shows.

CED

DR

Ginny Wagner

comes and placement of filius

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 12 des 2005 12:31:35

The signators to a late 11c charter are:

"Hujus donationis testes sunt:—Rogerius comes; Robertus
filius Hamonis; Robertus de Belismo; Hugo de Monte Gomerico;
Rogerius Pictavensis; Robertus Osberni filius; Gaufredus
Rivallonii filius; Alvredus pincerna; Hugo de Diva; Guido de
Landevi, Vitalis pincerna; Richardus de Lestra; Aigulfus
vicecomes de Dorset."

Which I translate as:

These gifts are witnessed:--

Count/Earl Roger
Robert son of Hamon
Robert of Belismo
Hugh of Monte Gomerico
Roger Pictavensis
Robert Osbern son
Gaufredus Rivallonii son
Alverdus butler
Hugh de Diva
Guido de Landevi
Vitalis butler
Richard de Lestra
Aigulfus sheriff of Dorset

Since this charter was to give the belongings of the dead
Mathildis, countess of Mortain, to abbey of Marmoutier of
Tours, was Count/Earl Roger "of Mortain"?

Now, the Robert and Gaufredus where the son follows Osbern
and Rivallonii is different from Robert son [of] Hamon. Why
is it different? Does that give it a different meaning?
Are we now looking at Robert Osbern son [of] Count/Earl
Roger and Gaufredus Rivallonii son [of] Count/Earl Roger? By
putting the filius at the end does it then refer back to the
main signator? Is that the difference in placement of the
filius?

My dos latin dictionary says if England then comes means
'earl' and if France then comes means 'count' as a Later
translation. It also says comes means official, magnate,
occupant of any state office. Is that right?

Any help is greatly appreciated since I'm totally novice at
Latin.

Thanks in advance. ;-) Ginny Wagner

J.C.B.Sharp

Re: comes and placement of filius

Legg inn av J.C.B.Sharp » 13 des 2005 00:16:01

In article <GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOIEEIGPAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com>,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com ("Ginny Wagner") wrote:

The signators to a late 11c charter are:

"Hujus donationis testes sunt:—Rogerius comes; Robertus
filius Hamonis; Robertus de Belismo; Hugo de Monte Gomerico;
Rogerius Pictavensis; Robertus Osberni filius; Gaufredus
Rivallonii filius; Alvredus pincerna; Hugo de Diva; Guido de
Landevi, Vitalis pincerna; Richardus de Lestra; Aigulfus
vicecomes de Dorset."

Which I translate as:

These gifts are witnessed:--

Count/Earl Roger
Robert son of Hamon
Robert of Belismo
Hugh of Monte Gomerico
Roger Pictavensis
Robert Osbern son
Gaufredus Rivallonii son
Alverdus butler
Hugh de Diva
Guido de Landevi
Vitalis butler
Richard de Lestra
Aigulfus sheriff of Dorset

Since this charter was to give the belongings of the dead
Mathildis, countess of Mortain, to abbey of Marmoutier of
Tours, was Count/Earl Roger "of Mortain"?

Now, the Robert and Gaufredus where the son follows Osbern
and Rivallonii is different from Robert son [of] Hamon. Why
is it different? Does that give it a different meaning?
Are we now looking at Robert Osbern son [of] Count/Earl
Roger and Gaufredus Rivallonii son [of] Count/Earl Roger? By
putting the filius at the end does it then refer back to the
main signator? Is that the difference in placement of the
filius?

My dos latin dictionary says if England then comes means
'earl' and if France then comes means 'count' as a Later
translation. It also says comes means official, magnate,
occupant of any state office. Is that right?

Any help is greatly appreciated since I'm totally novice at
Latin.

Thanks in advance. ;-) Ginny Wagner

This charter is printed in Bates (Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum no 207)
where he suggests that Rogerius comes is the earl of Shrewsbury.

J.C.B.Sharp
London

Ginny Wagner

predatory kinship

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 13 des 2005 01:06:02

Does anyone know where a copy of predatory kinship by searle
is available at a reasonable price? Thanks. Ginny

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»