Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Charles
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
DaHoorn
Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Charles
I am looking for a solid, contemporary source for the death date and
place for Beatrice of Provence (1234 - 1267) was the first wife and
Queen of Charles I of Sicily. She was also the youngest daughter of
Raymond Berenguer IV of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy. The date and
place given in most secondary publications (Ancestral Roots, etc) is
23 September 1267, Nocera. As always, thank you in advance for your
assistance.
place for Beatrice of Provence (1234 - 1267) was the first wife and
Queen of Charles I of Sicily. She was also the youngest daughter of
Raymond Berenguer IV of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy. The date and
place given in most secondary publications (Ancestral Roots, etc) is
23 September 1267, Nocera. As always, thank you in advance for your
assistance.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
My files indicate that Beatrice of Provence, Queen of Siciliy, died at
Nocera di Pagani 23 September 1267, and was initially buried in the
monastery of St. Mary de la Rocca-Pymont. Her remains were later
transferred to the Church of the Knights of St. John at Aix-en-
Provence.
I suggest you consult Van Kerrebrouck, Les Capétians 987-1328 (2000),
who probably cites what contemporary records exist regarding Queen
Beatrice's death date and place.
You can find a transcript of Queen Beatrice's interesting will dated
23 June 1266, in the following source:
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, DaHoorn <sbarnho...@mail.com> wrote:
< I am looking for a solid, contemporary source for the death date and
< place for Beatrice of Provence (1234 - 1267) was the first wife and
< Queen of Charles I of Sicily. She was also the youngest daughter of
< Raymond Berenguer IV of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy. The date
and
< place given in most secondary publications (Ancestral Roots, etc) is
< 23 September 1267, Nocera. As always, thank you in advance for your
< assistance.
Nocera di Pagani 23 September 1267, and was initially buried in the
monastery of St. Mary de la Rocca-Pymont. Her remains were later
transferred to the Church of the Knights of St. John at Aix-en-
Provence.
I suggest you consult Van Kerrebrouck, Les Capétians 987-1328 (2000),
who probably cites what contemporary records exist regarding Queen
Beatrice's death date and place.
You can find a transcript of Queen Beatrice's interesting will dated
23 June 1266, in the following source:
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, DaHoorn <sbarnho...@mail.com> wrote:
< I am looking for a solid, contemporary source for the death date and
< place for Beatrice of Provence (1234 - 1267) was the first wife and
< Queen of Charles I of Sicily. She was also the youngest daughter of
< Raymond Berenguer IV of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy. The date
and
< place given in most secondary publications (Ancestral Roots, etc) is
< 23 September 1267, Nocera. As always, thank you in advance for your
< assistance.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
If you look up Patrick van Kerrebrouck's _Les Capétians 987-1328_ as
recommended below, you will find discrepancies with most of the information
given below:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181633166.379418.44310@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On p. 249 Kerrebrouck states that Béatrice died at Naples on 23 September
1267: he notes that Père Anselme gave Nocera as the place, in July 1267.
Kerrebrouck says she was buried first in the cathedral of Naples, then
transferred in 1277 to the church of Saint-Jean de Jérusalem at
Aix-en-Provence - however, the only source given is the probability that her
testamentary wishes to this effect were carried out.
Kerrebrouck notes her will dated 30 June 1266.
The will of 30 June is cited by Kerrebrouck in _Spicilegium..._ vol. 6, p.
472.
Peter Stewart
recommended below, you will find discrepancies with most of the information
given below:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181633166.379418.44310@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
My files indicate that Beatrice of Provence, Queen of Siciliy, died at
Nocera di Pagani 23 September 1267, and was initially buried in the
monastery of St. Mary de la Rocca-Pymont. Her remains were later
transferred to the Church of the Knights of St. John at Aix-en-
Provence.
On p. 249 Kerrebrouck states that Béatrice died at Naples on 23 September
1267: he notes that Père Anselme gave Nocera as the place, in July 1267.
Kerrebrouck says she was buried first in the cathedral of Naples, then
transferred in 1277 to the church of Saint-Jean de Jérusalem at
Aix-en-Provence - however, the only source given is the probability that her
testamentary wishes to this effect were carried out.
I suggest you consult Van Kerrebrouck, Les Capétians 987-1328 (2000),
who probably cites what contemporary records exist regarding Queen
Beatrice's death date and place.
You can find a transcript of Queen Beatrice's interesting will dated
23 June 1266, in the following source:
Kerrebrouck notes her will dated 30 June 1266.
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The will of 30 June is cited by Kerrebrouck in _Spicilegium..._ vol. 6, p.
472.
Peter Stewart
-
Larsy
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Isn't it pointless to nitpick about such tiny discrepancies?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
"Larsy" <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181665124.559158.179340@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Isn't is pointless to post such a cretinous question?
Of course the enquirer wants to know details of this woman's death, and just
as obviously wants correct & verifiable rather than inaccurate & unsupported
information.
Richardson offered no primary source, and suggested consulting a secondary
source that turns out to provide only contradcitions, referring to another
that confuses the issue with a date two months earlier.
If you are so careless about "tiny" diiscrepancies with your off-topic
subjects of research, it's probably just as well that you don't publish on
them.
Peter Stewart
news:1181665124.559158.179340@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Isn't it pointless to nitpick about such tiny discrepancies?
Isn't is pointless to post such a cretinous question?
Of course the enquirer wants to know details of this woman's death, and just
as obviously wants correct & verifiable rather than inaccurate & unsupported
information.
Richardson offered no primary source, and suggested consulting a secondary
source that turns out to provide only contradcitions, referring to another
that confuses the issue with a date two months earlier.
If you are so careless about "tiny" diiscrepancies with your off-topic
subjects of research, it's probably just as well that you don't publish on
them.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Comments interspersed:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:CEwbi.12942$wH4.1390@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I expected to find more definite informaiton in Jean Dunbabin's _Charles I
of Anjou: Power, Kingship and State-Making in Thirteenth-Century Europe_
(1998), but for such a distinguished historian this book is somewhat
underdone, especially in sources. Anyway, she says nothing about the place
of Beatrice's death and as to the date notes only (p. 35) that she died in
1267 while Charles was at the siege of Poggibonsi: since this lasted from
mid-July to December, it is not much help. Dunbabin mentions the will (p.
43) citing _I Regestri della Concellaria angioina_, edited by R. Filangieri
& others (Nalples, 1950-81), volume 2, addenda 92. She says that Beatrice
was buried with her parents in the Hospitaller church at Aix-en-Provence,
after a delay because this had to be extended for her tomb.
The article on Beatrice in _Dizionario biografico degli Italiani_ voume 7
pp. 367-9 states that she died on 23 September 1267 and was buried in the
cathedral of Naples, then in 1277 was reburied in Saint-Jean de Jérusalem at
Aix, agreeing on these points with Patrick van Kerrebrouck. Her will is also
dated 30 June 1266, a week later than Richardson placed it. I checked his
reference in Spicilegium vol. 3, p. 661, where the date is clearly Wednesday
30 June 1266 ("die Mercurii in crastino beatorum Petri et Pauli
apostolorum", i.e. the day after their feast day of 29 June).
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:CEwbi.12942$wH4.1390@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
If you look up Patrick van Kerrebrouck's _Les Capétians 987-1328_ as
recommended below, you will find discrepancies with most of the
information given below:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181633166.379418.44310@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
My files indicate that Beatrice of Provence, Queen of Siciliy, died at
Nocera di Pagani 23 September 1267, and was initially buried in the
monastery of St. Mary de la Rocca-Pymont. Her remains were later
transferred to the Church of the Knights of St. John at Aix-en-
Provence.
On p. 249 Kerrebrouck states that Béatrice died at Naples on 23 September
1267: he notes that Père Anselme gave Nocera as the place, in July 1267.
Kerrebrouck says she was buried first in the cathedral of Naples, then
transferred in 1277 to the church of Saint-Jean de Jérusalem at
Aix-en-Provence - however, the only source given is the probability that
her testamentary wishes to this effect were carried out.
I expected to find more definite informaiton in Jean Dunbabin's _Charles I
of Anjou: Power, Kingship and State-Making in Thirteenth-Century Europe_
(1998), but for such a distinguished historian this book is somewhat
underdone, especially in sources. Anyway, she says nothing about the place
of Beatrice's death and as to the date notes only (p. 35) that she died in
1267 while Charles was at the siege of Poggibonsi: since this lasted from
mid-July to December, it is not much help. Dunbabin mentions the will (p.
43) citing _I Regestri della Concellaria angioina_, edited by R. Filangieri
& others (Nalples, 1950-81), volume 2, addenda 92. She says that Beatrice
was buried with her parents in the Hospitaller church at Aix-en-Provence,
after a delay because this had to be extended for her tomb.
I suggest you consult Van Kerrebrouck, Les Capétians 987-1328 (2000),
who probably cites what contemporary records exist regarding Queen
Beatrice's death date and place.
You can find a transcript of Queen Beatrice's interesting will dated
23 June 1266, in the following source:
Kerrebrouck notes her will dated 30 June 1266.
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The will of 30 June is cited by Kerrebrouck in _Spicilegium..._ vol. 6, p.
472.
The article on Beatrice in _Dizionario biografico degli Italiani_ voume 7
pp. 367-9 states that she died on 23 September 1267 and was buried in the
cathedral of Naples, then in 1277 was reburied in Saint-Jean de Jérusalem at
Aix, agreeing on these points with Patrick van Kerrebrouck. Her will is also
dated 30 June 1266, a week later than Richardson placed it. I checked his
reference in Spicilegium vol. 3, p. 661, where the date is clearly Wednesday
30 June 1266 ("die Mercurii in crastino beatorum Petri et Pauli
apostolorum", i.e. the day after their feast day of 29 June).
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:S3Kbi.13101$wH4.9281@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
In case anyone wants to obtain a copy, I should have added that
Kerrebrouck's citation for Beatrice's will is to the original edition of
_Spicilegium_, edited by Luc d'Achery, 13 vols (Paris, 1655-1677),
Richardson's citation is to the second edition, revised by Étienne Baluze,
Edmond Martène & Louis-François-Joseph de la Barre, 3 vols (Paris,
1721-1723), of which the second and third volumes are available on Gallica.
By the way, for those who are interested in _Acta sanctorum ordinis sancti
Benedicti_, Gallica's digitisation of the set started in January. For some
reason the volumes done so far are held up for cataloguing.
Peter Stewart
news:S3Kbi.13101$wH4.9281@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Comments interspersed:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:CEwbi.12942$wH4.1390@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
If you look up Patrick van Kerrebrouck's _Les Capétians 987-1328_ as
recommended below, you will find discrepancies with most of the
information given below:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181633166.379418.44310@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
You can find a transcript of Queen Beatrice's interesting will dated
23 June 1266, in the following source:
Kerrebrouck notes her will dated 30 June 1266.
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The will of 30 June is cited by Kerrebrouck in _Spicilegium..._ vol. 6,
p. 472.
The article on Beatrice in _Dizionario biografico degli Italiani_ voume 7
pp. 367-9 states that she died on 23 September 1267 and was buried in the
cathedral of Naples, then in 1277 was reburied in Saint-Jean de Jérusalem
at Aix, agreeing on these points with Patrick van Kerrebrouck. Her will is
also dated 30 June 1266, a week later than Richardson placed it. I checked
his reference in Spicilegium vol. 3, p. 661, where the date is clearly
Wednesday 30 June 1266 ("die Mercurii in crastino beatorum Petri et Pauli
apostolorum", i.e. the day after their feast day of 29 June).
In case anyone wants to obtain a copy, I should have added that
Kerrebrouck's citation for Beatrice's will is to the original edition of
_Spicilegium_, edited by Luc d'Achery, 13 vols (Paris, 1655-1677),
Richardson's citation is to the second edition, revised by Étienne Baluze,
Edmond Martène & Louis-François-Joseph de la Barre, 3 vols (Paris,
1721-1723), of which the second and third volumes are available on Gallica.
By the way, for those who are interested in _Acta sanctorum ordinis sancti
Benedicti_, Gallica's digitisation of the set started in January. For some
reason the volumes done so far are held up for cataloguing.
Peter Stewart
-
Larsy
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Isn't is pointless to post such a cretinous question?
Ooh, "cretinous," I haven't been called that in several years now.
It's nice to know that old-fashioned word is still around.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
As I stated in my earlier post, you can find the transcript of Queen
Beatrice's will in the following source:
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The volume, publication date, and pages I cited are correct.
The will of Queen Beatrice is dated "die Mercurii in crastino Beatorum
Petri & Pauli Apostolorum." The term "in crastino Beatorum Petri &
Pauli Apostolorum" refers to the "commemoratio" of this saints' day
which celebrated each year on 30 June, in the week following the
actual saints' day which is 21 June.
For an example of this Latin phraseology, newsgroup members can go to
the following weblink, which exhibits a similar document in Monumenta
Boica also dated "in crastino Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostolorum," or
30 June.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pl4KAA ... #PPA204,M1
Here is are three more weblinks which show the same thing:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7qo6jd ... m+Petri%22
]
http://books.google.com/books?id=d28qAA ... %22&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=3bIJAA ... m+Petri%22
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Beatrice's will in the following source:
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The volume, publication date, and pages I cited are correct.
The will of Queen Beatrice is dated "die Mercurii in crastino Beatorum
Petri & Pauli Apostolorum." The term "in crastino Beatorum Petri &
Pauli Apostolorum" refers to the "commemoratio" of this saints' day
which celebrated each year on 30 June, in the week following the
actual saints' day which is 21 June.
For an example of this Latin phraseology, newsgroup members can go to
the following weblink, which exhibits a similar document in Monumenta
Boica also dated "in crastino Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostolorum," or
30 June.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pl4KAA ... #PPA204,M1
Here is are three more weblinks which show the same thing:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7qo6jd ... m+Petri%22
]
http://books.google.com/books?id=d28qAA ... %22&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=3bIJAA ... m+Petri%22
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181746663.591670.152470@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
No-one said they were incorrec - I simply pointed out that these details
were different from those cited by Patrick van Kerrebrouck, to save anyone
the trouble & expense of seeking a copy if one or other was not correct. But
yours is misleading, as Luc d'Achery's _Spicilegim_ was not the 18th century
edition published after his death: this was originally titled _Prospectus
novae editionis Spicilegium_, and should be cited indicating it was the
second edition.
Wrong. Many thousands of medieval documents are dated for the feast of SS
Peter and Paul, that was - and is - 29 June. "Crastino" does not refer to a
commemoration or octave, but rather it is the ablative of "crastinus",
plainly meaning "the morrow".
It doesn't matter how many examples you give, it will still mean 30 June
every time, not 23 June as you misstated earlier. When you post an error, it
is better to acknowledge the fact, or else shut up. It is also better not to
cross-post your attempts to cover your mistakes in worthless blather.
Peter Stewart
news:1181746663.591670.152470@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
As I stated in my earlier post, you can find the transcript of Queen
Beatrice's will in the following source:
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The volume, publication date, and pages I cited are correct.
No-one said they were incorrec - I simply pointed out that these details
were different from those cited by Patrick van Kerrebrouck, to save anyone
the trouble & expense of seeking a copy if one or other was not correct. But
yours is misleading, as Luc d'Achery's _Spicilegim_ was not the 18th century
edition published after his death: this was originally titled _Prospectus
novae editionis Spicilegium_, and should be cited indicating it was the
second edition.
The will of Queen Beatrice is dated "die Mercurii in crastino Beatorum
Petri & Pauli Apostolorum." The term "in crastino Beatorum Petri &
Pauli Apostolorum" refers to the "commemoratio" of this saints' day
which celebrated each year on 30 June, in the week following the
actual saints' day which is 21 June.
Wrong. Many thousands of medieval documents are dated for the feast of SS
Peter and Paul, that was - and is - 29 June. "Crastino" does not refer to a
commemoration or octave, but rather it is the ablative of "crastinus",
plainly meaning "the morrow".
For an example of this Latin phraseology, newsgroup members can go to
the following weblink, which exhibits a similar document in Monumenta
Boica also dated "in crastino Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostolorum," or
30 June.
It doesn't matter how many examples you give, it will still mean 30 June
every time, not 23 June as you misstated earlier. When you post an error, it
is better to acknowledge the fact, or else shut up. It is also better not to
cross-post your attempts to cover your mistakes in worthless blather.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
"Larsy" <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181743389.012161.207140@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
O yes you have, many times - maybe off-list and not in your hearing or
reading, but the term is perfectly apt & has certainly been used to describe
your posts, thoughts and habits.
Peter Stewart
news:1181743389.012161.207140@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Isn't is pointless to post such a cretinous question?
Ooh, "cretinous," I haven't been called that in several years now.
O yes you have, many times - maybe off-list and not in your hearing or
reading, but the term is perfectly apt & has certainly been used to describe
your posts, thoughts and habits.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
"DaHoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1181414633.265297.260080@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I believe the correct date was 26 September, not 23, but both are possible -
it has proved a little harder to pin down than I anticipated, and perhaps
this is why Patrick van Kerrebrouck settled for second- and third-hand
references with none specified at all for his assertion of 23 September.
Beatrix occurs on 26 September in a necrology from Montecassino, published
in facsimile as _I Necrologi Cassinesi, i. Il Necrologio del Codice
Cassinese 47_, edited by Mauro Inguanez, Fonti per la Storia d'Italia 83
(Rome, 1941). She is recorded by name only, without a title. The
identification is confirmed and amplified, though the date is confused, in
_Necrologio del Liber confratrum di S. Matteo di Salerno_, edited by Carlo
Alberto Garufi, Fonti per la storia d'Italia 56 (Rome, 1922) on p. 145,
where a 13th-century entry gives the following details:
"A.D. .MCC.LXVII. .VIIII. kalendas octobris ob. domina Beatrix uxor
excellentissimi regis Caroli et sepulta est in ecclesia Neapolitana".
Ostensibly this states that she died on 23 September 1267, but it is placed
third of the entries under 26 September so that the date as written out may
be a scribal error for "VI kalendas". Alternatively it may be that she had
died on 23 September and was buried in the cathedral of Naples on 26th of
the same month, although if so this would be an odd way to record it.
However, the necrology from Montecassino would appear to bolster the
argument for 26 September as the correct death date.
In the index of names identified in the San Matteo necrology, p. 339, Garufi
accepted 23 September as the date without comment (he may not have known of
the record from Montecassino) and noted that Beatrix was temporarily buried
at Nocera dei Pagani. That may be where she died, as Père Anselme stated,
but I have not come across a source for this. On the other hand, a chronicle
written around 1270 stated that she died at Naples while Charles was engaged
at the siege of Poggibonsi in Tuscany: "Eo tempore rex in Tuscia rebelles
fortiter impugnabat, et tempore illo uxor regis apud Neapolim diem clausit
extremum", see _Chronicon marchiae Tarvisinae et Lombardiae [aa.
1207-1270]_, edited by LA Botteghi, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores VIII part 3
p. 57. This, from a northern perspective, may not be exact, of course.
Peter Stewart
news:1181414633.265297.260080@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I am looking for a solid, contemporary source for the death date and
place for Beatrice of Provence (1234 - 1267) was the first wife and
Queen of Charles I of Sicily. She was also the youngest daughter of
Raymond Berenguer IV of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy. The date and
place given in most secondary publications (Ancestral Roots, etc) is
23 September 1267, Nocera.
I believe the correct date was 26 September, not 23, but both are possible -
it has proved a little harder to pin down than I anticipated, and perhaps
this is why Patrick van Kerrebrouck settled for second- and third-hand
references with none specified at all for his assertion of 23 September.
Beatrix occurs on 26 September in a necrology from Montecassino, published
in facsimile as _I Necrologi Cassinesi, i. Il Necrologio del Codice
Cassinese 47_, edited by Mauro Inguanez, Fonti per la Storia d'Italia 83
(Rome, 1941). She is recorded by name only, without a title. The
identification is confirmed and amplified, though the date is confused, in
_Necrologio del Liber confratrum di S. Matteo di Salerno_, edited by Carlo
Alberto Garufi, Fonti per la storia d'Italia 56 (Rome, 1922) on p. 145,
where a 13th-century entry gives the following details:
"A.D. .MCC.LXVII. .VIIII. kalendas octobris ob. domina Beatrix uxor
excellentissimi regis Caroli et sepulta est in ecclesia Neapolitana".
Ostensibly this states that she died on 23 September 1267, but it is placed
third of the entries under 26 September so that the date as written out may
be a scribal error for "VI kalendas". Alternatively it may be that she had
died on 23 September and was buried in the cathedral of Naples on 26th of
the same month, although if so this would be an odd way to record it.
However, the necrology from Montecassino would appear to bolster the
argument for 26 September as the correct death date.
In the index of names identified in the San Matteo necrology, p. 339, Garufi
accepted 23 September as the date without comment (he may not have known of
the record from Montecassino) and noted that Beatrix was temporarily buried
at Nocera dei Pagani. That may be where she died, as Père Anselme stated,
but I have not come across a source for this. On the other hand, a chronicle
written around 1270 stated that she died at Naples while Charles was engaged
at the siege of Poggibonsi in Tuscany: "Eo tempore rex in Tuscia rebelles
fortiter impugnabat, et tempore illo uxor regis apud Neapolim diem clausit
extremum", see _Chronicon marchiae Tarvisinae et Lombardiae [aa.
1207-1270]_, edited by LA Botteghi, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores VIII part 3
p. 57. This, from a northern perspective, may not be exact, of course.
Peter Stewart
-
Larsy
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
O yes you have, many times - maybe off-list and not in your hearing or
reading, but the term is perfectly apt & has certainly been used to describe
your posts, thoughts and habits.
I'm distraught to know someone anonymous in an undisclosed location is
saying untrue (?) things about me.
I wouldn't think you'd find it very productive to be portraying your
esteemed genealogical colleagues as gossiping, old (male) bitches.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
I believe the confusion about dating actually belongs to the book, A
Handbook of Dates, by C.R. Cheney and Michael Jones. It shows the
following saints' days:
Paulus et Petrus, app. 21 June
commemoratio 30 June
Petrus et Paulus, app. 29 June
I believe that the date for Paulus et Petrus, 21 June, should be the
same date as for Petrus et Paulus, 29 June. However, as you can see,
they are not. Certainly the "morrow" [crastino] of Petrus and Paul is
30 June, as I showed in my last post.
That Paulus et Petrus should be the same date [29 June] as Petrus et
Paulus is confirmed by a separate list of saints' days available
online at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=F3mcB6 ... +Petrus%22
This source shows 29 June for both Paulus et Petrus, Ap. AND for
Petrus et Paulus, Ap.
I've written to Professor Jones in England and asked for his
clarification. With his permission, I'll post his response when I
receive it. Professor Jones is the editor of the well known journal,
Nottingham Medieval Studies.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Handbook of Dates, by C.R. Cheney and Michael Jones. It shows the
following saints' days:
Paulus et Petrus, app. 21 June
commemoratio 30 June
Petrus et Paulus, app. 29 June
I believe that the date for Paulus et Petrus, 21 June, should be the
same date as for Petrus et Paulus, 29 June. However, as you can see,
they are not. Certainly the "morrow" [crastino] of Petrus and Paul is
30 June, as I showed in my last post.
That Paulus et Petrus should be the same date [29 June] as Petrus et
Paulus is confirmed by a separate list of saints' days available
online at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=F3mcB6 ... +Petrus%22
This source shows 29 June for both Paulus et Petrus, Ap. AND for
Petrus et Paulus, Ap.
I've written to Professor Jones in England and asked for his
clarification. With his permission, I'll post his response when I
receive it. Professor Jones is the editor of the well known journal,
Nottingham Medieval Studies.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Good work, Peter.
On Jun 13, 10:58 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
< "DaHoorn" <sbarnho...@mail.com> wrote in message
<
< news:1181414633.265297.260080@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<
< >I am looking for a solid, contemporary source for the death date
and
< > place for Beatrice of Provence (1234 - 1267) was the first wife
and
< > Queen of Charles I of Sicily. She was also the youngest daughter
of
< > Raymond Berenguer IV of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy. The date
and
< > place given in most secondary publications (Ancestral Roots, etc)
is
< > 23 September 1267, Nocera.
<
< I believe the correct date was 26 September, not 23, but both are
possible -
< it has proved a little harder to pin down than I anticipated, and
perhaps
< this is why Patrick van Kerrebrouck settled for second- and third-
hand
< references with none specified at all for his assertion of 23
September.
<
< Beatrix occurs on 26 September in a necrology from Montecassino,
published
< in facsimile as _I Necrologi Cassinesi, i. Il Necrologio del Codice
< Cassinese 47_, edited by Mauro Inguanez, Fonti per la Storia
d'Italia 83
< (Rome, 1941). She is recorded by name only, without a title. The
< identification is confirmed and amplified, though the date is
confused, in
< _Necrologio del Liber confratrum di S. Matteo di Salerno_, edited by
Carlo
< Alberto Garufi, Fonti per la storia d'Italia 56 (Rome, 1922) on p.
145,
< where a 13th-century entry gives the following details:
<
< "A.D. .MCC.LXVII. .VIIII. kalendas octobris ob. domina Beatrix uxor
< excellentissimi regis Caroli et sepulta est in ecclesia
Neapolitana".
< Ostensibly this states that she died on 23 September 1267, but it is
placed
< third of the entries under 26 September so that the date as written
out may
< be a scribal error for "VI kalendas". Alternatively it may be that
she had
< died on 23 September and was buried in the cathedral of Naples on
26th of
< the same month, although if so this would be an odd way to record
it.
< However, the necrology from Montecassino would appear to bolster the
< argument for 26 September as the correct death date.
<
< In the index of names identified in the San Matteo necrology, p.
339, Garufi
< accepted 23 September as the date without comment (he may not have
known of
< the record from Montecassino) and noted that Beatrix was temporarily
buried
< at Nocera dei Pagani. That may be where she died, as Père Anselme
stated,
< but I have not come across a source for this. On the other hand, a
chronicle
< written around 1270 stated that she died at Naples while Charles was
engaged
< at the siege of Poggibonsi in Tuscany: "Eo tempore rex in Tuscia
rebelles
< fortiter impugnabat, et tempore illo uxor regis apud Neapolim diem
clausit
< extremum", see _Chronicon marchiae Tarvisinae et Lombardiae [aa.
< 1207-1270]_, edited by LA Botteghi, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores VIII
part 3
< p. 57. This, from a northern perspective, may not be exact, of
course.
<
< Peter Stewart
On Jun 13, 10:58 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
< "DaHoorn" <sbarnho...@mail.com> wrote in message
<
< news:1181414633.265297.260080@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<
< >I am looking for a solid, contemporary source for the death date
and
< > place for Beatrice of Provence (1234 - 1267) was the first wife
and
< > Queen of Charles I of Sicily. She was also the youngest daughter
of
< > Raymond Berenguer IV of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy. The date
and
< > place given in most secondary publications (Ancestral Roots, etc)
is
< > 23 September 1267, Nocera.
<
< I believe the correct date was 26 September, not 23, but both are
possible -
< it has proved a little harder to pin down than I anticipated, and
perhaps
< this is why Patrick van Kerrebrouck settled for second- and third-
hand
< references with none specified at all for his assertion of 23
September.
<
< Beatrix occurs on 26 September in a necrology from Montecassino,
published
< in facsimile as _I Necrologi Cassinesi, i. Il Necrologio del Codice
< Cassinese 47_, edited by Mauro Inguanez, Fonti per la Storia
d'Italia 83
< (Rome, 1941). She is recorded by name only, without a title. The
< identification is confirmed and amplified, though the date is
confused, in
< _Necrologio del Liber confratrum di S. Matteo di Salerno_, edited by
Carlo
< Alberto Garufi, Fonti per la storia d'Italia 56 (Rome, 1922) on p.
145,
< where a 13th-century entry gives the following details:
<
< "A.D. .MCC.LXVII. .VIIII. kalendas octobris ob. domina Beatrix uxor
< excellentissimi regis Caroli et sepulta est in ecclesia
Neapolitana".
< Ostensibly this states that she died on 23 September 1267, but it is
placed
< third of the entries under 26 September so that the date as written
out may
< be a scribal error for "VI kalendas". Alternatively it may be that
she had
< died on 23 September and was buried in the cathedral of Naples on
26th of
< the same month, although if so this would be an odd way to record
it.
< However, the necrology from Montecassino would appear to bolster the
< argument for 26 September as the correct death date.
<
< In the index of names identified in the San Matteo necrology, p.
339, Garufi
< accepted 23 September as the date without comment (he may not have
known of
< the record from Montecassino) and noted that Beatrix was temporarily
buried
< at Nocera dei Pagani. That may be where she died, as Père Anselme
stated,
< but I have not come across a source for this. On the other hand, a
chronicle
< written around 1270 stated that she died at Naples while Charles was
engaged
< at the siege of Poggibonsi in Tuscany: "Eo tempore rex in Tuscia
rebelles
< fortiter impugnabat, et tempore illo uxor regis apud Neapolim diem
clausit
< extremum", see _Chronicon marchiae Tarvisinae et Lombardiae [aa.
< 1207-1270]_, edited by LA Botteghi, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores VIII
part 3
< p. 57. This, from a northern perspective, may not be exact, of
course.
<
< Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is a weblink to the specific page in the book, A Handbook of
Dates, which shows the wrong date (21 June) for Paulus et Petrus,
app.:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9_Fakx ... bju0kuKO1o
The Handbook of British Chronology at this weblink, however, gives the
correct date, 29 June, for Paulus et Petrus, app.:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qgonAA ... %22&pgis=1
To err is human.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Below is a weblink to the specific page in the book, A Handbook of
Dates, which shows the wrong date (21 June) for Paulus et Petrus,
app.:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9_Fakx ... bju0kuKO1o
The Handbook of British Chronology at this weblink, however, gives the
correct date, 29 June, for Paulus et Petrus, app.:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qgonAA ... %22&pgis=1
To err is human.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
REVISED POST
As I stated in my earlier post, you can find the transcript of Queen
Beatrice's will in the following source:
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The volume, publication date, and pages I cited are correct.
The will of Queen Beatrice is dated "die Mercurii in crastino Beatorum
Petri & Pauli Apostolorum." The term "in crastino Beatorum Petri &
Pauli Apostolorum" refers to the "commemoratio" of this saints' day
which celebrated each year on 30 June, on the day following the actual
saints' day which is 29 June.
For an example of this Latin phraseology, newsgroup members can go to
the following weblink, which exhibits a similar document in Monumenta
Boica also dated "in crastino Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostolorum," or
30 June.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pl4KAA ... #PPA204,M1
Here is are three more weblinks which show the same thing:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7qo6jd ... m+Petri%22
]
http://books.google.com/books?id=d28qAA ... %22&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=3bIJAA ... m+Petri%22
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
As I stated in my earlier post, you can find the transcript of Queen
Beatrice's will in the following source:
Luc d'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum
qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, 3 (1723): 660-661.
The volume, publication date, and pages I cited are correct.
The will of Queen Beatrice is dated "die Mercurii in crastino Beatorum
Petri & Pauli Apostolorum." The term "in crastino Beatorum Petri &
Pauli Apostolorum" refers to the "commemoratio" of this saints' day
which celebrated each year on 30 June, on the day following the actual
saints' day which is 29 June.
For an example of this Latin phraseology, newsgroup members can go to
the following weblink, which exhibits a similar document in Monumenta
Boica also dated "in crastino Beatorum Petri & Pauli Apostolorum," or
30 June.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pl4KAA ... #PPA204,M1
Here is are three more weblinks which show the same thing:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7qo6jd ... m+Petri%22
]
http://books.google.com/books?id=d28qAA ... %22&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=3bIJAA ... m+Petri%22
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
"Larsy" <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181829850.354089.196370@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Dismissal with a contemptuous word is not "gossip" - get over yourself,
other people don't find you that interesting.
You have been told this countless times in different ways and still fail to
grasp the obvious: that is cretinous.
Peter Stewart
news:1181829850.354089.196370@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
O yes you have, many times - maybe off-list and not in your hearing or
reading, but the term is perfectly apt & has certainly been used to
describe
your posts, thoughts and habits.
I'm distraught to know someone anonymous in an undisclosed location is
saying untrue (?) things about me.
I wouldn't think you'd find it very productive to be portraying your
esteemed genealogical colleagues as gossiping, old (male) bitches.
Dismissal with a contemptuous word is not "gossip" - get over yourself,
other people don't find you that interesting.
You have been told this countless times in different ways and still fail to
grasp the obvious: that is cretinous.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Crossposting to SMH removed, once again....
Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181830891.987549.51580@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I'm sure he will be surprised, and less sure he will be delighted, to be
asked to provide remedial training in the use of reference books. I hope you
had the courtesy to buy his before requesting support services, and did not
bother Jones directly from looking it up on Google.
There is no mistake on p. 81 in the book, but rather in the way you are
trying to use this list. The book's title should be a hint: it is not
called 'A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History' by accident. NB
Queen Beatrix of Sicily was not a student of British history.
The page you consulted is in an alphabetical list headed '4/I Saints days
and other festivals'. In order to find the calendar date corresponding to
'crastino beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum' (the morrow of the blessed
apostles Peter and Paul) you need to look for Petrus et Paulus, not Paulus
et Petrus. Then you would have come to the correct date, 29 June.
If in doubt over the occurrence of 'Paulus et Petrus' on 21 June, and the
following line 'commemoratio 30 June', you should next have cross-checked in
the subsequent list, '4/II Saints days in chronological order'. There (p.
90) you would find under 21 June only Leufredus, on 29 June 'Paulus et
Petrus' (this is a mistake, it should read 'Petrus et Paulus') and under 30
June 'Paulus, ap. decollatio' (the apostle Paul, beheading).
SS Peter and Paul share a feast day, 29 June, because it was believed they
were martyred on the same day.
The source given for 'Paulus et Petrus' on 21 June on p. 81 is a calendar in
the 13th-century Black Book of the Exchequer. Without claiming to know
details, I would assume that the entry 'Paulus et Petrus' under 21 June was
probably just a reminder to the clerks of some administrative milestone
occurring in eight days' time - obviously, it is not a luturgical calendar.
What precise import the entry may have had is not necessary to know in the
present context, since most people were not privy to this information even
at the time. Although it may have been the dearest wish of Queen Beatrix to
find employment as an exchequer clerk in England, she was never so
fortunate, and had to rub along with the actual saints' day in dating her
will.
It is clearly not meant to indicate a real celebration, since Paul is named
before Peter: any medieval clerk would have known that Peter, as prince of
the apostles, took precedence over Paul, and that their feast day was known
as SS Peter and Paul, not the other way round.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181830891.987549.51580@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I believe the confusion about dating actually belongs to the book, A
Handbook of Dates, by C.R. Cheney and Michael Jones. It shows the
following saints' days:
Paulus et Petrus, app. 21 June
commemoratio 30 June
Petrus et Paulus, app. 29 June
I believe that the date for Paulus et Petrus, 21 June, should be the
same date as for Petrus et Paulus, 29 June. However, as you can see,
they are not. Certainly the "morrow" [crastino] of Petrus and Paul is
30 June, as I showed in my last post.
That Paulus et Petrus should be the same date [29 June] as Petrus et
Paulus is confirmed by a separate list of saints' days available
online at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=F3mcB6 ... +Petrus%22
This source shows 29 June for both Paulus et Petrus, Ap. AND for
Petrus et Paulus, Ap.
I've written to Professor Jones in England and asked for his
clarification. With his permission, I'll post his response when I
receive it. Professor Jones is the editor of the well known journal,
Nottingham Medieval Studies.
I'm sure he will be surprised, and less sure he will be delighted, to be
asked to provide remedial training in the use of reference books. I hope you
had the courtesy to buy his before requesting support services, and did not
bother Jones directly from looking it up on Google.
There is no mistake on p. 81 in the book, but rather in the way you are
trying to use this list. The book's title should be a hint: it is not
called 'A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History' by accident. NB
Queen Beatrix of Sicily was not a student of British history.
The page you consulted is in an alphabetical list headed '4/I Saints days
and other festivals'. In order to find the calendar date corresponding to
'crastino beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum' (the morrow of the blessed
apostles Peter and Paul) you need to look for Petrus et Paulus, not Paulus
et Petrus. Then you would have come to the correct date, 29 June.
If in doubt over the occurrence of 'Paulus et Petrus' on 21 June, and the
following line 'commemoratio 30 June', you should next have cross-checked in
the subsequent list, '4/II Saints days in chronological order'. There (p.
90) you would find under 21 June only Leufredus, on 29 June 'Paulus et
Petrus' (this is a mistake, it should read 'Petrus et Paulus') and under 30
June 'Paulus, ap. decollatio' (the apostle Paul, beheading).
SS Peter and Paul share a feast day, 29 June, because it was believed they
were martyred on the same day.
The source given for 'Paulus et Petrus' on 21 June on p. 81 is a calendar in
the 13th-century Black Book of the Exchequer. Without claiming to know
details, I would assume that the entry 'Paulus et Petrus' under 21 June was
probably just a reminder to the clerks of some administrative milestone
occurring in eight days' time - obviously, it is not a luturgical calendar.
What precise import the entry may have had is not necessary to know in the
present context, since most people were not privy to this information even
at the time. Although it may have been the dearest wish of Queen Beatrix to
find employment as an exchequer clerk in England, she was never so
fortunate, and had to rub along with the actual saints' day in dating her
will.
It is clearly not meant to indicate a real celebration, since Paul is named
before Peter: any medieval clerk would have known that Peter, as prince of
the apostles, took precedence over Paul, and that their feast day was known
as SS Peter and Paul, not the other way round.
Peter Stewart
-
Larsy
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Dismissal with a contemptuous word is not "gossip"
It's still more gossip than I've indulged in concerning you. I don't
believe I've ever mentioned your name in the private emails I've sent
to newsgroup members (Leslie, Nat, Doug, Robert).
You have been told this countless times in different ways and still
fail to
grasp the obvious: that is cretinous.
Continually denigrating the intelligence of others is a cheap trick
and obvious ploy; but apparently many newsgroups members "buy into"
this behavior from you.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Dear Newsgroup ~
As I indicated in my previous post, the book, A Handbook of Dates for
Students of British History, appears to have incorrectly dated "Paulus
et Petrus app." as 21 June. The correct date is 29 June, as indicated
by two other published lists of saints' days which I've cited in my
earlier post.
Simply put, "Paulus et Petrus app." is the same saints' day as "Petrus
et Paulus app." Both are June 29.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
As I indicated in my previous post, the book, A Handbook of Dates for
Students of British History, appears to have incorrectly dated "Paulus
et Petrus app." as 21 June. The correct date is 29 June, as indicated
by two other published lists of saints' days which I've cited in my
earlier post.
Simply put, "Paulus et Petrus app." is the same saints' day as "Petrus
et Paulus app." Both are June 29.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
On Jun 16, 12:04 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I pointed out a specific, definitive example - that you have not
countered in any way by this self-serving mischaracterisation as a
"trick" and "ploy". In case you have not noticed, criticisms of your
posts here are substantial and clearly substantiated, and not just
from me.
By contrast you habitually make baseless assertions, like the one
above, fail to back them up, then repeat them. That is a feeble ploy,
though no-one but yourself "buys into" it.
Peter Stewart
Dismissal with a contemptuous word is not "gossip"
It's still more gossip than I've indulged in concerning you. I don't
believe I've ever mentioned your name in the private emails I've sent
to newsgroup members (Leslie, Nat, Doug, Robert).
You have been told this countless times in different ways and still
fail to
grasp the obvious: that is cretinous.
Continually denigrating the intelligence of others is a cheap trick
and obvious ploy; but apparently many newsgroups members "buy into"
this behavior from you.
I pointed out a specific, definitive example - that you have not
countered in any way by this self-serving mischaracterisation as a
"trick" and "ploy". In case you have not noticed, criticisms of your
posts here are substantial and clearly substantiated, and not just
from me.
By contrast you habitually make baseless assertions, like the one
above, fail to back them up, then repeat them. That is a feeble ploy,
though no-one but yourself "buys into" it.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
On Jun 16, 3:55 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Ho hum - another poster demonstrating a cretinous approach to this
newsgroup. Richardson doesn't have credibility here, as a reader of
English or as a medievalist, to get away with such nonsense even for
those who have not seen the book in question.
The introduction to the list he foolishly persists in misusing and
falsely criticising states (pp. 59-60):
'A list of saints' days and festivals, in order to be of assistance in
problems of dating, must be based on the material and the usage of the
country concerned. The list given below is an attempt to help
specifically the student of English history indicating to him whence
each entry is derived and where he may expect to find a particular
observance in use. The form of the list is dictated by the nature of
its sources, and this must be explained. The medieval calendars, upon
which such lists as this are naturally based, were themselves highly
individual...It is not easy for the historian to bear always in mind
the background which explains the dating peculiarities of the
documents he is using....It is of course impossible, in a mere hand-
list for ready reference, to treat exhaustively problems of origin and
variation. It is hopes, however, that the appended list may at any
rate draw attention to some important categories in which
individuality of dating may be expected."
The entry "Paulus et Petrus" came from a calendar used in the English
exchequer from the mid-13th century. "Petrus et Paulus" correctly
appears there under 29 June. "Paulus et Petrus" under 21 June is
written with the saints names in reverse order, presumably as a
reminder to clerks that a countdown commenced on 21 June to 29 of the
same month, or for some other reason of administrivia.
The was no actual festival known as "SS Paul and Peter", on 21 June or
any other date. The apostles Peter and Paul ranked in that order, in
naming their feast day and in other contexts. As the book shows
elsewhere, pointed out earlier, 21 June was the feast day of St
Leofrid.
That is plain enough, surely. Richardson chose to use the wrong book
for his purpose, though the right answer was in it if he had looked
competently and/or thought sensibly. He didn't.
And in any case his obfuscations and quite unjustified criticism of
Cheney's book revised by Jones cannot hide the fact that he got the
date wrong first time round, since nothing even imagined from a
misreading can support his initial stab at "23 June" for "in crastino
beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum". Does he need to be reminded also
that the day after 21 June is 22, not 23?
Peter Stewart
Dear Newsgroup ~
As I indicated in my previous post, the book, A Handbook of Dates for
Students of British History, appears to have incorrectly dated "Paulus
et Petrus app." as 21 June. The correct date is 29 June, as indicated
by two other published lists of saints' days which I've cited in my
earlier post.
Simply put, "Paulus et Petrus app." is the same saints' day as "Petrus
et Paulus app." Both are June 29.
Ho hum - another poster demonstrating a cretinous approach to this
newsgroup. Richardson doesn't have credibility here, as a reader of
English or as a medievalist, to get away with such nonsense even for
those who have not seen the book in question.
The introduction to the list he foolishly persists in misusing and
falsely criticising states (pp. 59-60):
'A list of saints' days and festivals, in order to be of assistance in
problems of dating, must be based on the material and the usage of the
country concerned. The list given below is an attempt to help
specifically the student of English history indicating to him whence
each entry is derived and where he may expect to find a particular
observance in use. The form of the list is dictated by the nature of
its sources, and this must be explained. The medieval calendars, upon
which such lists as this are naturally based, were themselves highly
individual...It is not easy for the historian to bear always in mind
the background which explains the dating peculiarities of the
documents he is using....It is of course impossible, in a mere hand-
list for ready reference, to treat exhaustively problems of origin and
variation. It is hopes, however, that the appended list may at any
rate draw attention to some important categories in which
individuality of dating may be expected."
The entry "Paulus et Petrus" came from a calendar used in the English
exchequer from the mid-13th century. "Petrus et Paulus" correctly
appears there under 29 June. "Paulus et Petrus" under 21 June is
written with the saints names in reverse order, presumably as a
reminder to clerks that a countdown commenced on 21 June to 29 of the
same month, or for some other reason of administrivia.
The was no actual festival known as "SS Paul and Peter", on 21 June or
any other date. The apostles Peter and Paul ranked in that order, in
naming their feast day and in other contexts. As the book shows
elsewhere, pointed out earlier, 21 June was the feast day of St
Leofrid.
That is plain enough, surely. Richardson chose to use the wrong book
for his purpose, though the right answer was in it if he had looked
competently and/or thought sensibly. He didn't.
And in any case his obfuscations and quite unjustified criticism of
Cheney's book revised by Jones cannot hide the fact that he got the
date wrong first time round, since nothing even imagined from a
misreading can support his initial stab at "23 June" for "in crastino
beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum". Does he need to be reminded also
that the day after 21 June is 22, not 23?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
Dear Newsgroup ~
I have the highest opinion of the book, A Handbook of Dates for
Students of British History. I have it on my work desk and use it on
a regular basis. The book is an invaluable aid to any British
medievalist.
For those interested in ordering a copy, they may do so at the
following weblink:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Dates-St ... 052177845X
The price is $28.49, plus shipping.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake Clty, Utah
I have the highest opinion of the book, A Handbook of Dates for
Students of British History. I have it on my work desk and use it on
a regular basis. The book is an invaluable aid to any British
medievalist.
For those interested in ordering a copy, they may do so at the
following weblink:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Dates-St ... 052177845X
The price is $28.49, plus shipping.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake Clty, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char
On Jun 17, 3:47 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
So the question remains: why do you not use the book on its own terms,
for the purposes that the whole and the parts are explicitly intended
to cover?
When it specifically tells you that an entry has come from a 13th-
century exchequer calendar, adding caution as to the variations
encountered in such documents, why have you persisted in asserting
that the book appears to be in error on a point of interest, when
clearly this opinion of yours is false as has been explained to you?
Do you really think the newsgroup readers who have not the same access
to this book deserve to be treated in such a deceptive - and/or
phenomenally obtuse - way? Or is it that you just can't help yourself,
because the alternative is to admit your mistake and acknowledge the
deep ignorance of medieval dating behind it?
Peter Stewart
Dear Newsgroup ~
I have the highest opinion of the book, A Handbook of Dates for
Students of British History. I have it on my work desk and use it on
a regular basis. The book is an invaluable aid to any British
medievalist.
So the question remains: why do you not use the book on its own terms,
for the purposes that the whole and the parts are explicitly intended
to cover?
When it specifically tells you that an entry has come from a 13th-
century exchequer calendar, adding caution as to the variations
encountered in such documents, why have you persisted in asserting
that the book appears to be in error on a point of interest, when
clearly this opinion of yours is false as has been explained to you?
Do you really think the newsgroup readers who have not the same access
to this book deserve to be treated in such a deceptive - and/or
phenomenally obtuse - way? Or is it that you just can't help yourself,
because the alternative is to admit your mistake and acknowledge the
deep ignorance of medieval dating behind it?
Peter Stewart