Still Ida de Tosny

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Still Ida de Tosny

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 09 okt 2007 00:02:01

I hope Douglas Richardson will digest this message properly. It would be nice if he gave appropriate acknowledgements.

Dear Leo

You would be well advised to take the latest post on this subject with a mass of salt grains. Douglas Richardson is tying himself in knots in an effort to suggest that he has found out the family of Ida independently of Ray Phair's research.

He posted "Furthermore, among the English prisoners captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph [le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as "brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury [see Brial Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis"); see also Malo Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin et la coalition de Bouvines (1898):199, 209, which author identified Ralph le Bigod as brother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury]."

In fact, Henri Malo failed even to identify Ralph Bigod as Ralph Bigod of the comial family of Norfolk. Twice (page 199 and page 204) he called the man "Bigot de Clifford", on the erroneous assumption that Rosamund de Clifford was the mother of William Longespee and therefore also of this Ralph. Only on page 209 did Malo even name him, as in the medieval source, "Raoul le Bigot", but he made no further attempt at accuracy much less at identification as misclaimed by Douglas Richardson.

Also, Ray Phair appropriately cited the current standard edition of the registers of Philippe Auguste, edited by John Baldwin (1992), to which further evidence was added in a post from Peter Stewart giving the same relationship from the other perspective. Neither citation appears in the list provided by Douglas Richardson, giving instead an extract in the original 'Recueil des historiens' edition from 1878, now superceded for this document, that Henri Malo did not follow through to a correct identificaiton. Needless to say, this is not the way that professional historians work.

Gjest

Re: Still Ida de Tosny

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2007 02:45:12

On Oct 8, 4:02 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I hope Douglas Richardson will digest this message properly. It would be nice if he gave appropriate acknowledgements.



Credit for discoveries is a curious thing. You will rarely fond
someone claiming less credit than is due them, and frequently find
them claiming more (and certainly some are more prone to this failing
than others).

What deserves credit? Certainly the discovery of a critical document
that demonstrates a relationship merits credit, but if one does not
recognize the significance of the document, then the credit is
lessened. Publishing a document without knowing what it proves is
hardly 'discovery' at all. Likewise, though, if one just makes a guess
based on chronology, without any supporting documentation, that cannot
be given precedence over discovery of proof, but if it was the
original speculation that led another researcher to consult the
document in question, then certainly the person who made the original
speculation deserves a part of the credit. On the other hand, if the
probative document is found independently, then the person who made
the guess really made little contribution to the answer (and
distinguishing these alternatives depends on good faith of the latter
researcher in accurately conveying what led to their discovery).

What if someone makes a suggestion and everyone ignores it, then a
hundred years later someone else independently reaches the same
conclusion and at that point everyone adopts the 'discovery'? Who
deserves the credit? Does credit accrue to the person who made a
discovery that was lost in obscurity, or does there need to be some
requirement for propagation? Jette is regarded as the discoverer of
the 'Agatha was daughter of Jaroslav' theory, yet as we have recently
learned, the solution had been around for more than 100 years, and
Jette added little further evidence to the question, and yet before he
published his article, no one seemed to be aware of the earlier
writing on the subject and many jumped on 'Jette's solution' as the
best. Should credit go to the person who was ignored and forgotten,
or to the person whose discovery was adopted? (This again assumes good
faith on the part of the more recent researcher, something that cannot
always be accepted without question.) There was a parallel case in
science, where a procedure called PCR was discovered by a couple of
Soviet scientists, laboring in obscurity, and was completely ignored.
A decade later it was rediscovered by an American researcher who
(apparently) knew nothing of the earlier work. His procedure
revolutionized the field and he was awarded the Nobel prize, even
though he was not the first to have the critical insight.

That being said, it certainly make the bile well up to see some of the
gymnastics used here to deny others of the credit they clearly
deserve.

taf

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Still Ida de Tosny

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 11 okt 2007 09:30:53

On 9 oct, 01:02, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I hope Douglas Richardson will digest this message properly. It would be nice if he gave appropriate acknowledgements.

Dear Leo

You would be well advised to take the latest post on this subject with a mass of salt grains. Douglas Richardson is tying himself in knots in an effort to suggest that he has found out the family of Ida independently of Ray Phair's research.

He posted "Furthermore, among the English prisoners captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph [le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as "brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury [see Brial Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis"); see also Malo Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin et la coalition de Bouvines (1898):199, 209, which author identified Ralph le Bigod as brother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury]."

In fact, Henri Malo failed even to identify Ralph Bigod as Ralph Bigod of the comial family of Norfolk. Twice (page 199 and page 204) he called the man "Bigot de Clifford", on the erroneous assumption that Rosamund de Clifford was the mother of William Longespee and therefore also of this Ralph. Only on page 209 did Malo even name him, as in the medieval source, "Raoul le Bigot", but he made no further attempt at accuracy much less at identification as misclaimed by Douglas Richardson.

Also, Ray Phair appropriately cited the current standard edition of the registers of Philippe Auguste, edited by John Baldwin (1992), to which further evidence was added in a post from Peter Stewart giving the same relationship from the other perspective. Neither citation appears in the list provided by Douglas Richardson, giving instead an extract in the original 'Recueil des historiens' edition from 1878, now superceded for this document, that Henri Malo did not follow through to a correct identificaiton. Needless to say, this is not the way that professional historians work.

Well spotted Leo. As we say, "pris la main dans le sac"... once again.

Pierre

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»