Tr: Conqueror's Companions
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
anybody tell me who they are & how to get in touch?
Annie
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : vendredi 18 mai 2001 07:28
Objet : Re: Conqueror's Companions
>StNeel wrote:
>>
>> taf- I was going to give you the last word but I got to ask -
>>
>> taf wrote
>> >Then you don't understand what I am saying, since on Wace I have
>> >not given my opinion.
>>
>> >> He can't be dismissed as a "romantic poem not historical'. (StNeel)
>> >
>> >Oh, but he can, and has.
>>
>> Some details on who/why dismissed Wace please.
>
>Most of the English historians of the late 19th and most of the
>20th century, for the reasons I gave (he was not writing history,
>but heroic poetry, and thus his motivations were different, and
>likewise, he was more removed from being a contemporary than were
>the authors they accepted. Finally, there are a couple of
>obvious errors, such as placing Breton Duke Alan there, that
>place the rest into question). It should be kept in mind that
>this rejection was paralleled by rejection of Dudo's account of
>the early Norman settlements.
>
>> That is in disagreement with Prof Piggot of Princeton & his French friends.
>> Also my independent research on Norman land titles/lands indicates Wace is
>> pretty correct.
>
>I don't follow this. What is the connection between Norman land
>tenure and participation in the Battle of Hastings (as opposed
>to, say, the battles in the north early the next year)?
>
>> But I suspect you disagree so I won't try to convince you.
>
>I am ambivalent (in the true sense of the word).
>
>> I though, at least I read it that way, that you said van Houts was
>> 'reevaluating' her position on Wace (i.e. from her NO position but she was
>> uncertain.) If she is saying yes then good.
>
>Not reevaluating her position - reevaluating the standard
>position that he couldn't be trusted. (It should be said that
>this was not the only article in which van Houts has tried to
>rehabilitate a discounted historical source - she definitely
>takes a more liberal view than many of her coleagues.
>
>> By the way, I am not an admirer of Round so that reference leaves me rather
>> cool, but to each his own.
>
>While he made his mistakes and was sometimes given to hyperbole,
>Round single-handedly brought English genealogy into the modern
>age. Is there anything specific about him that turns you off?
>
>taf
>