Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Peter Stewart...

You haven't explained anything, apart from you view that the single
logically admissable interpretation of Cawley's own words is "plain silly"
and "absolute nonsense".

Peter Stewart...

Only if he admits what must be true.

Has it not yet occurred to you that the "Lui von Frizberg" absurdity would
be hardly any less gross if the Introduction pointing to it didn't even
exist?

The idiocy & incompetence are staggering in someone who pretends to have
consulted dozens of German works, and even scatters his narratives with
German for verisimilitude. This has got nothing to do with the
Introduction - all that adds to the embarrassment Cawley and you ought to be
feeling now is the extra sting of his having boasted about a howler.

Chris Phillips...

I have made it clear to you several times that _all_ I was arguing was that
I did not believe he was referring to "Lui von Frizberg" in the
Introduction.

That is the only point at issue. And it can easily be settled, by asking the
author what he was referring to.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:

Peter Stewart...

"Cawley has skimmed over many sources rather than making a close study of
the lineages or geographic areas included. The result is not a systematic
prosopography of the ruling class, kindred or individuals"

This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material. The results are presented in

Peter Stewart...

"he contents himself with giving a source or two (some not the most
proximate or plausible) for the details he has found".

pierre_aronax...

narrative form and are organised geographically. The files, in HTML format,
are freely available on the Foundation's website (note that some of the

Peter Stewart...

But why is such a small additional ineptitude worth your arguing over, as if
there is something to be gained? Do you think it helps if Cawley was

Chris Phillips...

You are the one who is posting message after message after message about it!

I keep telling you, in every message, that it's a waste of time to keep
arguing about it when the issue can easily be settled by asking the author.
Please stop, by all means.

Chris Phillips

absent-mindedly forgetting or actually unaware there is nothing new in the
Peter Orseolo section when he pointed to this?

You really are making a prize fool of yourself over what is in the remarks
at issue, that are not debatable anyway, apparently just to avoid coming to
grips with the enormity of the misstatements in the rest of the
Introduction.

files are very large and may take a while to download through slow
connections).

The geographical area covered is Europe together with adjacent regions of

Peter Stewart...

Yes, if he is truthful - and that will leave you in an even more invidious
position from having so brazenly resisted the inevitable.

Peter Stewart

Asia and Africa, and the time period is roughly 500-1500. Some secondary

pierre_aronax...

works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. In the current version,
most data are available for Germany, Northern France, Lombardy and

pierre_aronax...

d=2E

Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600 years of the medieval period.
Statements not yet documented from primary sources are indicated in some
parts by [...], and in others by the absence of source citations.

Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped to produce a more fully

pierre_aronax...

documented second edition in due course. However, as it stands now the work
contains a tremendous amount of information, and I'm sure people will find
it an extremely useful resource.

pierre_aronax...

I have browsed through the genealogy of the Palaiologoi: it seem to
contain a myriad of inexactnesses but, compared to other websites,
relatively few blatant errors. Its major problem is the use of a

Peter Stewart...

"Unfortunately Cawley has deprived himself of benefits from a great deal of
modern scholarship by using 19th-century editions, mainly Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, when more recent ones are to be preferred for many -
usually the most important - sources. The way he uses what he has found in
isolation sometimes from what he would have found by further research of his
own, or in editorial glosses, is unsatisfactory by scholarly standards. His
use of cartularia and narrative sources tends to be uncritical and even
careless."

Peter Stewart...

[Unknown to me last July, but reportedly emerging from the presentation at
the annual general meeting of the FMG, the entirety of material relating to
England is as yet unverified from primary sources - yet according to the
"factual" presentation of Phillips afterwards, this is among the sections of
this project allegedly drawing from primary sources with most data
available.]

Chris Phillips...

My understanding from the presentation was precisely as I posted - that
_Anglo-Saxon_ England was among those areas more fully covered

And this is confirmed by the online introduction:
"Much new information is contained in the documents which cover Germany, the
northern half of France, the Italian Lombard kingdom and principalities, and
the Anglo-Saxon kings and nobles."

Your information about the AGM seems to be incorrect. Where did it come
from?

Chris Phillips

bibliography which is scarce, dated (Runciman), not absolutely (Nicol)
or even not at all (Sturdza) reliable, and of course almost exclusively

Peter Stewart...

Tim Powys-Lybbe's post of 7 June, as folllows:

"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and would
much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of Edition 1
as that would delay him significantly. And he had firmly decided on a
recent policy change to enclose all non-primary-referenced items in square
brackets, presumably intending to implement this in Edition 2; in this
context he said (or I thought I heard him say) the whole of the English
material should be in square brackets."

You will surely note that I wrote "reportedly", because I was not present.

Peter Stewart

in English. The page shows almost no effort to use primary sources. At
least, some pieces of information (but not all) have a footnote with a
bibliography, which can make a little less uneasy to find the actual
primary source hidden (or not) behind: that at least makes this page a
bit more useful than the other Palaiologoi genealogies available on
line. There is also an effort to distinguish between dates which are
deduced and dates which are in the sources.

Chris Phillips

the_verminator...

Might I suggest that all data which has not been verified from primary
source material be deleted and added to the project only when it is so
verified?

Much less confusion that way as to what is and is not "real".

Tim Powys-Lybbe...

Quite.

But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and

Peter Stewart...

"The availability of this kind of work would be a useful addition to online
resources for many people, However, it's apparent from the scope of the
project and from the example provided that Cawley has skimmed over many
sources rather than making a close study of the lineages or geographic areas
included."

I am at a loss to know how useful it may be to be told that a count of Macon
was married to his paternal grandmother's sister, or to read a conjecture
that two queens of Hungary might have been married to a modern historian who
wrote about them. And these are two of the three "new discoveries"
highlighted by the author in his Introduction!

Chris Phillips...

I think you have misunderstood. Surely this is not what he is referring to
in the Introduction as a "discovery". He is referring to the identity of the
second wife of King Peter, isn't he?

I realise you are eager to ridicule the work, but in fairness it should be
pointed out that what you call a "conjecture" is actually a note about a
footnote he couldn't understand, and a query about its possible meaning. It
wasn't anything that was included in the genealogical structure of the work,
even provisionally.

Chris Phillips

This is a "major resource" in the same way as a guano deposit might be so
called, except that crops would not be fertilised by Cawley's work nearly as
well as by old bird poo.

Peter Stewart

would much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of
Edition 1 as that would delay him significantly. And he had firmly
decided on a recent policy change to enclose all non-primary-referenced
items in square brackets, presumably intending to implement this in
Edition 2; in this context he said (or I thought I heard him say) the
whole of the English material should be in square brackets. Though he

Peter Stewart...

There is absolutely NOTHING new in Cawley's work regarding the second wife
of King Peter Orseolo. He absurdly chooses to quote Annalista Saxo about the

Chris Phillips...

Perhaps not, but I think it's clear that the identification of the second
wife was what he was highlighting in his Introduction, not the query about
"Lui von Frizberg".

matter, when the passage in question was lifted word for word from the
earlier and more proximate chronicle written by Cosmas of Prague - and that
is compromisingly included in Cawley's bibliography, yet not consulted on
this cardinal point of evidence given in it.

If you don't have the wherwithal to assess Cawley's work properly, or can't
be bothered doing so, why do you choose to bandy words about it?

Chris Phillips...

I make no claim to be an expert in Hungarian genealogy, but at least I can
understand plain English.

Peter Stewart...

WRONG again, in plain English - the identity of the second wife is not and
NEVER HAS BEEN in question. Whether or not she really married him HAS been
questioned, but Cawley offers NOTHING new whatsoever on this issue.

You don't need to be an expert in Hungarian genealogy to have the sense to
shut up about what you don't know.

Chris Phillips...

I think you are still missing the point.

I am pointing out to you that when Charles Cawley speaks in his introduction
of a discovery concerning "the wives of Peter Orseolo King of Hungary", it
is clear that he is referring to the information he has found in Annalista
Saxo concerning Peter's second marriage, and not to the query about "Lui von
Frizberg" as you claimed. The text makes it clear that he sees the
information about Judith as an addition to the information in the volume
edited by Wegener (but written by Tyroller according to you), and as
providing extra chronological information about the first marriage.

You have pointed out that this is not in fact new, but that doesn't change
the facts that he clearly thought it was, and that this is what he was
referring to in the Introduction.

I really think you need to calm down, stop flinging around insults and
posting in capital letters, and try to be objective about all this.

Peter Stewart...

Once again, this is rot - I am trying to get through to you that there is
NOTHING new in Calwey's account of Peter Orseolo's wives apart from the
absurdity about Lui von Frizburg.

No matter how much you resist this straightforward fact, it remains a fact.

The essential ponts are not even made by Cawley, but nothing newer than 1125
is adduced for the second wife.

It is you who need to calm down, and stop trying to manufacture quibbles out
of hot air. The _objective_ reality is that Cawley has done even worse with
Peter Orseolo of Hungary than he did with Otto II of Macon. He CANNOT have
read the primary and secondary sources he cited (NOT of the appropriate ones
for the relevant points in either case) and still have imagined that his
discussion of the second wife was a "new discovery".

How many times do you need to be advised to keep your total ignorance on
these matters to yourself? No wonder you made (and astonishingly continue to
make) a travesty of interpreting my straightforward advice to the FMG last
year.

Chris Phillips...

OK. Once more.

All I am pointing out is that he is not referring in the Introduction to
what you claimed he was - "Lui von Frizberg". I am not saying any more or
less than that.

Do you agree, or not?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

The eagerness to ridicule is not on my part - I can substantiate everything
I have to say, unlike you who are clearly floundering.

Peter Stewart

did say he would be glad to hear of genealogical corrections.