Today I happened upon this curious stub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_I,_Count_of_Vermandois
Note that this article has *no* sources at all.
When I tried to do a cursory google books search I could find almost nothing about this person.
Any help?
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 7:59:59 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
Today I happened upon this curious stub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_I,_Count_of_Vermandois
Note that this article has *no* sources at all.
When I tried to do a cursory google books search I could find almost nothing about this person.
Any help?Have you looked at the page history? It used to have sources, a 19th century French history of Vermandois, and Palgrave - not good modern sources, mind you, but they may serve as a starting point.
taf
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 8:52:12 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 7:59:59 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
Today I happened upon this curious stub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_I,_Count_of_Vermandois
Note that this article has *no* sources at all.
When I tried to do a cursory google books search I could find almost nothing about this person.
Any help?Have you looked at the page history? It used to have sources, a 19th century French history of Vermandois, and Palgrave - not good modern sources, mind you, but they may serve as a starting point.
tafI did find one source mentioned by Cawley's Medlands
https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:02:24 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 8:52:12 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 7:59:59 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote: >>>> Today I happened upon this curious stubI did find one source mentioned by Cawley's Medlands
Have you looked at the page history? It used to have sources, a 19th century French history of Vermandois, and Palgrave - not good modern sources, mind you, but they may serve as a starting point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_I,_Count_of_Vermandois
Note that this article has *no* sources at all.
When I tried to do a cursory google books search I could find almost nothing about this person.
Any help?
taf
https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up
De Genere Comitum Flandrisium Notae Parisiensis, in MGH, 1881 https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up "Comes Herbertus genuit Odonem et Adelam sororem. Odo fuit fatuus et indiscretus. BaronesViromandenses rogaverunt regem, ut Adelam daret Hugoni le Magne, fratri eius- dem regis; quod factum est. Predictus vero Hugo dedit in uxorem fillam cuiusdam militis Viro[mandensis] predieto Odoni Fatuo. De Odone Fatuo et eius uxore exivit Odo Ferrarius,
Translation to English: Count Herbert He begat Odon and his sister Adela. Odo was foolish and indiscreet. The barons of Viromandense asked the king to give Adela to Hugh le Magne, the king's brother; which was done. But the aforesaid Hugh gave inmarriage the daughter of a certain soldier of Mandensis, the estate of Odonius the Fatus. From Odon the Fatus and his wife came Odo Ferrarius, who was the father of Lohannis de Sancto Simon, who is still living. Of the aforesaid Count Hugh and the
The meaning is:
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
On 16-Feb-23 5:13 AM, Will Johnson wrote:dem regis; quod factum est. Predictus vero Hugo dedit in uxorem fillam cuiusdam militis Viro[mandensis] predieto Odoni Fatuo. De Odone Fatuo et eius uxore exivit Odo Ferrarius, qui fuit pater lohannıs de Sancto Simone, qui adhuc vivit. De predicto
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:02:24 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 8:52:12 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 7:59:59 AM UTC-8, Will JohnsonI did find one source mentioned by Cawley's Medlands
wrote:
Today I happened upon this curious stubHave you looked at the page history? It used to have sources, a 19th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_I,_Count_of_Vermandois
Note that this article has *no* sources at all.
When I tried to do a cursory google books search I could find
almost nothing about this person.
Any help?
century French history of Vermandois, and Palgrave - not good modern
sources, mind you, but they may serve as a starting point.
taf
https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up
De Genere Comitum Flandrisium Notae Parisiensis, in MGH, 1881
https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up "Comes Herbertus genuit Odonem et Adelam sororem. Odo fuit fatuus et indiscretus. Barones Viromandenses rogaverunt regem, ut Adelam daret Hugoni le Magne, fratri eius-
Correctly this should read: "Comes Herbertus genuit Odonem et Adelam
sororem. Odo fuit fatuus et indiscretus. Barones Viromandenses
rogaverunt regem, ut Adelam daret Hugoni le Magne, fratri eiusdem regis;
quod factum est. Predictus vero Hugo dedit in uxorem filiam cuiusdam
militis Viro[mandensis] predicto Odoni Fatuo. De Odone Fatuo et eius
uxore exivit Odo Ferrarius, qui fuit pater Iohannıs de Sancto Simone,
qui adhuc vivit. De predicto comite Hugone et predicta Adela uxore sua
exivit comes Radulfus, Simon Noviomensis episcopus, dominus Henricus de Chaumont et quatuor filie; de quibus quidam marchıo Lumbardie unam
habuit, secundam dominus Baugenciaci, tertiam comes Mellenti, quartam
comes Garentie."
Translation to English: Count Herbert He begat Odon and his sister
Adela. Odo was foolish and indiscreet. The barons of Viromandense
asked the king to give Adela to Hugh le Magne, the king's brother;
which was done. But the aforesaid Hugh gave in marriage the daughter
of a certain soldier of Mandensis, the estate of Odonius the Fatus.
From Odon the Fatus and his wife came Odo Ferrarius, who was the
father of Lohannis de Sancto Simon, who is still living. Of the
aforesaid Count Hugh and the aforesaid Adela by his wife, there came
Count Ralphus, Bishop Simon of Novio, Sir Henry de Chaumont, and four
daughters; of which a certain Marquis of Lumbardie had one, the Lord
Baugenciaci the second, and the third Count Mellenti
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
The meaning is:
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane andThis was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today. Peter Stewart
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
The meaning is:
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today. Peter Stewart
_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned, who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
Mike
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
Peter Stewart
_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned, who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem >>>> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily >>> disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today. >>> Peter Stewart
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th
century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come >> from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned, >> who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this >> thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
Mike
Yes in general Mike you are correct.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
On 16-Feb-23 11:09 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote: >>> On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and >>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem >>>> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife >>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in >>> his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily >>> disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today. >>> Peter Stewart
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th
century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
Mike
Yes in general Mike you are correct.Whoever put this on Wikipedia should amend "Odo the Fool" to "Odo the Insane", or else change the word "insane" to "fool/ish" elsewhere in the passage.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
Also, Hugo as count of Vermandois arranged a marriage for Odo to a local knight
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 6:15:28 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 16-Feb-23 11:09 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote:Whoever put this on Wikipedia should amend "Odo the Fool" to "Odo the
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>>> On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in >>>>> his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily >>>>> disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today. >>>>> Peter Stewart
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and >>>>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem >>>>>> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife >>>>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is >>>> does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
Mike
Yes in general Mike you are correct.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
Insane", or else change the word "insane" to "fool/ish" elsewhere in the
passage.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Done
I've now called him Foolish throughout, and added the gloss that fatuus can mean Stupid, Foolish, Insane
On 17-Feb-23 7:11 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 6:15:28 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote: >>> On 16-Feb-23 11:09 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter StewartWhoever put this on Wikipedia should amend "Odo the Fool" to "Odo the
wrote:
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic,
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane >>>>>>> and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri
eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his >>>>>>> wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
but in
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not
necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of
today.
Peter Stewart
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own
confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>>>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of
St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later
Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a
link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
Mike
Yes in general Mike you are correct.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board,
I think that's frowned upon
Insane", or else change the word "insane" to "fool/ish" elsewhere in the >>> passage.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Done
I've now called him Foolish throughout, and added the gloss that
fatuus can mean Stupid, Foolish, Insane
I'm afraid this Wikipedia page is getting worse, not better.
There is no warrant in medieval sources for asserting that "Odo I (Eudes
I), called “the Foolish” (fatuus), was Count of Vermandois and Valois from 1080 to 1085". The likelihood is that he was never count of
Vermandois at all, and that he was probably disinherited by the time of
(or in the course of) the settlement made by his maternal uncle St Simon
of Crépy in the first half of April 1077. All we know about Odo in the
1080s is that he was living in 1085.
As noted upthread, Hugo Magnus was calling himself count at the siege of Gerberoy in the last days of December 1078 or in January 1079 - this indicates that Hugo's wife Adela, Odo's sister, had by then received at
least one of the countships that would otherwise have been Odo's
inheritance.
Also, Hugo as count of Vermandois arranged a marriage for Odo to a local knight after he was granted the seigneury of Saint-Simon. This suggests
that Odo was not trustworthy as count but capable of managing (or being supervised in) a small lordship and family life supported by it. I would think this means that his untrustworthiness (whether from insanity or retardation) was not due to a recent behavioural crisis but rather from long-established instability that could be foreseeably constrained in vassalage. He quite probably suffered from a type of what would now be
called schizophrenia.
In any event, the barons of St Simon's agglomeration of countships and overlorships (including of Vermandois under its own counts) would have
had something to say about it if he intended to pass on his most
important territorial powers to a sister whose heir was considered
mentally unbalanced and/or intellectually unsuitable. The disinheritance
of Odo, if this had not already happened, very probably occurred in his mother's lifetime - if not also in his father's.
Moreover, it is flat wrong to state that "The work Memoires de
Saint-Simon continues the family tree forward". The link I provided to
the first volume of Boislisle's monumental edition was to an appendix, written by the editor and not part of the duke of Saint-Simon's
memoires. In this the Rouvroy family is said to be traceable to the
early 14th century, not to the Carolingians - I already pointed out that
this was not genealogical fact that could be meaningfully continued.
On 17-Feb-23 8:29 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Feb-23 7:11 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 6:15:28 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote: >>> On 16-Feb-23 11:09 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart >>>>> wrote:Whoever put this on Wikipedia should amend "Odo the Fool" to "Odo the >>> Insane", or else change the word "insane" to "fool/ish" elsewhere in the >>> passage.
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to >>>>> promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, >>>>>> but in
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane >>>>>>> and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri >>>>>>> eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of >>>>>>> Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his >>>>>>> wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not
necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of >>>>>> today.
Peter Stewart
confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>>>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or >>>>> is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of
St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later
Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a
link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation? >>>>>
Mike
Yes in general Mike you are correct.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, >>>> I think that's frowned upon
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Done
I've now called him Foolish throughout, and added the gloss that
fatuus can mean Stupid, Foolish, Insane
I'm afraid this Wikipedia page is getting worse, not better.
There is no warrant in medieval sources for asserting that "Odo I (Eudes I), called “the Foolish” (fatuus), was Count of Vermandois and Valois from 1080 to 1085". The likelihood is that he was never count of Vermandois at all, and that he was probably disinherited by the time of (or in the course of) the settlement made by his maternal uncle St Simon of Crépy in the first half of April 1077. All we know about Odo in the 1080s is that he was living in 1085.
As noted upthread, Hugo Magnus was calling himself count at the siege of Gerberoy in the last days of December 1078 or in January 1079 - this indicates that Hugo's wife Adela, Odo's sister, had by then received at least one of the countships that would otherwise have been Odo's inheritance.
Also, Hugo as count of Vermandois arranged a marriage for Odo to a local knight after he was granted the seigneury of Saint-Simon. This suggests that Odo was not trustworthy as count but capable of managing (or being supervised in) a small lordship and family life supported by it. I would think this means that his untrustworthiness (whether from insanity or retardation) was not due to a recent behavioural crisis but rather from long-established instability that could be foreseeably constrained in vassalage. He quite probably suffered from a type of what would now be called schizophrenia.
In any event, the barons of St Simon's agglomeration of countships and overlorships (including of Vermandois under its own counts) would have
had something to say about it if he intended to pass on his most
important territorial powers to a sister whose heir was considered mentally unbalanced and/or intellectually unsuitable. The disinheritance of Odo, if this had not already happened, very probably occurred in his mother's lifetime - if not also in his father's.
Moreover, it is flat wrong to state that "The work Memoires deHere you can read an account of the purported Carolingian ancestry
Saint-Simon continues the family tree forward". The link I provided to
the first volume of Boislisle's monumental edition was to an appendix, written by the editor and not part of the duke of Saint-Simon's
memoires. In this the Rouvroy family is said to be traceable to the
early 14th century, not to the Carolingians - I already pointed out that this was not genealogical fact that could be meaningfully continued.
written by a duke of Saint-Simon, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=KSVIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1 - and even this credulous version says that Odo was disinherited ca 1077, not deposed as count in 1085.
Peter Stewart
On 17-Feb-23 7:11 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 6:15:28 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 16-Feb-23 11:09 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:Whoever put this on Wikipedia should amend "Odo the Fool" to "Odo the
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and >>>>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife >>>>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
Peter Stewart
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is >>>> does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or >>>> is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation? >>>>
Mike
Yes in general Mike you are correct.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
Insane", or else change the word "insane" to "fool/ish" elsewhere in the >> passage.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
DoneI'm afraid this Wikipedia page is getting worse, not better.
I've now called him Foolish throughout, and added the gloss that fatuus can mean Stupid, Foolish, Insane
There is no warrant in medieval sources for asserting that "Odo I (Eudes
I), called “the Foolish” (fatuus), was Count of Vermandois and Valois from 1080 to 1085". The likelihood is that he was never count of
Vermandois at all, and that he was probably disinherited by the time of
(or in the course of) the settlement made by his maternal uncle St Simon
of Crépy in the first half of April 1077. All we know about Odo in the 1080s is that he was living in 1085.
As noted upthread, Hugo Magnus was calling himself count at the siege of Gerberoy in the last days of December 1078 or in January 1079 - this indicates that Hugo's wife Adela, Odo's sister, had by then received at least one of the countships that would otherwise have been Odo's inheritance.
Also, Hugo as count of Vermandois arranged a marriage for Odo to a local knight after he was granted the seigneury of Saint-Simon. This suggests
that Odo was not trustworthy as count but capable of managing (or being supervised in) a small lordship and family life supported by it. I would think this means that his untrustworthiness (whether from insanity or retardation) was not due to a recent behavioural crisis but rather from long-established instability that could be foreseeably constrained in vassalage. He quite probably suffered from a type of what would now be called schizophrenia.
In any event, the barons of St Simon's agglomeration of countships and overlorships (including of Vermandois under its own counts) would have
had something to say about it if he intended to pass on his most
important territorial powers to a sister whose heir was considered
mentally unbalanced and/or intellectually unsuitable. The disinheritance
of Odo, if this had not already happened, very probably occurred in his mother's lifetime - if not also in his father's.
Moreover, it is flat wrong to state that "The work Memoires de
Saint-Simon continues the family tree forward". The link I provided to
the first volume of Boislisle's monumental edition was to an appendix, written by the editor and not part of the duke of Saint-Simon's
memoires. In this the Rouvroy family is said to be traceable to the
early 14th century, not to the Carolingians - I already pointed out that this was not genealogical fact that could be meaningfully continued.
Peter Stewart
I should say that the claim that he was count of vermandois etc at any time, was already present in this article.
The claim that the source you cited was Memories de Saint Simon is archive.com's claim, not mine
I'm merely citing the bibliographic source that they scanned
According to the book by Duke Louis [d 1755]
Odo of Vermandois m Avide of St.Simon
|
Odo II Farinus [what was he - a miller?]
|
John I of St.Simon [d fl 1195]
abandoned any claims to Vermandois
and Valois to Philip II who 1212/20
made an inquiry to prove he was
descended from Odo
|
John II fought at Bouvines 1214 m Marguerite de Beauvoir
|
Simon alive 1260 m Beatrix de Coudon
|
James I m Agnes d'Estouilly
|______________________________
James II Marguerite Beatrix m 1)1332 Raoul de Fremicourt
dsp 1333 m Mathieu de 2)William de Precy
Rouvroy
On another website it said that Mathieu le Borgne of Rouvroy [1305-84]
or a later descendant who fought at Agincourt was an ancestor of King
Charles III. Apparently theres no contemporary evidence for Mathieu
de Rovroy's marriage to Marguerite.
However the earlier link you
posted to the Appendice of this book, adds another generation and
says there was a Mathieu de St.Simon in between the James's. It
also adds a few more wives, not always the same ones. Perhaps
this genealogy is still a work in progress.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
The meaning is:
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today. Peter Stewart
_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
MikeYes in general Mike you are correct.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:09:16 AM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:future editors understand the context, and also understand what the article still needs.)
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:Yes in general Mike you are correct.
_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and >>>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem >>>>> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife >>>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in >>>> his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily >>>> disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today. >>>> Peter Stewart
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th
century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come >>> from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned, >>> who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
Mike
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
It is true that a message board is not normally an acceptable Wikipedia source, but there can be link to the discussion on the talk page, in order to register that there have been comments made in public about something in the article. (It might help
Of course concerning sourcing the article is currently relying on primary sources, which is fine on Wikitree, and for genealogists in general, but not fine on Wikipedia. Technically the present article could be proposed for deletion, because it is notclear if this is a notable subject that modern experts actually publish about. This is true for a lot of Wikipedia articles about medieval subjects unfortunately.
(Will knows, but for those who do not, Wikipedia specifically has a rule that it is NOT a genealogy website, and more generally it is not a place to post any type of original research. Wikipedia is for summarizing notable information which has beenpublished by recognized experts. Wikitree on the other hand is a wiki where people cooperate to research genealogy.)
I wonder if there are any modern secondary sources on this topic. In general, if anyone has a handy modern source for a medieval subject you can also make a short note on the article talk page. This can help Wikipedia editors to make better medievalarticles.
On 17-Feb-23 5:48 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:future editors understand the context, and also understand what the article still needs.)
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:09:16 AM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes in general Mike you are correct._indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in >>>> his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and >>>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem >>>>> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife >>>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
Peter Stewart
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is >>> does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?
Mike
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
It is true that a message board is not normally an acceptable Wikipedia source, but there can be link to the discussion on the talk page, in order to register that there have been comments made in public about something in the article. (It might help
not clear if this is a notable subject that modern experts actually publish about. This is true for a lot of Wikipedia articles about medieval subjects unfortunately.Of course concerning sourcing the article is currently relying on primary sources, which is fine on Wikitree, and for genealogists in general, but not fine on Wikipedia. Technically the present article could be proposed for deletion, because it is
published by recognized experts. Wikitree on the other hand is a wiki where people cooperate to research genealogy.)(Will knows, but for those who do not, Wikipedia specifically has a rule that it is NOT a genealogy website, and more generally it is not a place to post any type of original research. Wikipedia is for summarizing notable information which has been
articles.I wonder if there are any modern secondary sources on this topic. In general, if anyone has a handy modern source for a medieval subject you can also make a short note on the article talk page. This can help Wikipedia editors to make better medieval
Arthur de Boislisle is a modern secondary source - that is why I tried
get his work on the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon ancestry adequately cited, which
has still not happened (for some reason, or more probably for none, it
is now a garbled reference to the whole edition of the memoires with
life dates added for several people including two who had nothing to do
with the appendix in question).
Boislisle has not been superseded on this subject, or for that matter on
the subjects of appendices about 'La maison de La Tour-d'Auvergne' and
'Le cardinal de Bouillon, Baluze et le procès des faussaires' both in
vol. 14 (1899).
I don't follow what Wikipedia can be aiming for in "summarizing notable information which has been published by recognized experts" if such
studies by Boislisle may not qualify their subject matter. Just because
a question has not been rehashed in print without adding significant
value through the 20th & 21st centuries does not reflect on the
continuing importance of some 19th century work. Odo may not be an outstanding figure for any reason other then the peculiar fact of his
having been disinherited, but if this is not a notable-enough episode in medieval history for Wikipedia I don't know why. I suppose it could be covered in a page for Hugo Magnus instead of one dedicated to Odo, but unless Wikipedia is running short of bandwidth that would seem niggardly
to me.
Peter Stewart
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:21:24 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:help future editors understand the context, and also understand what the article still needs.)
On 17-Feb-23 5:48 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:09:16 AM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes in general Mike you are correct.On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
Peter Stewart
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or >>> is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation? >>>
Mike
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
It is true that a message board is not normally an acceptable Wikipedia source, but there can be link to the discussion on the talk page, in order to register that there have been comments made in public about something in the article. (It might
not clear if this is a notable subject that modern experts actually publish about. This is true for a lot of Wikipedia articles about medieval subjects unfortunately.Of course concerning sourcing the article is currently relying on primary sources, which is fine on Wikitree, and for genealogists in general, but not fine on Wikipedia. Technically the present article could be proposed for deletion, because it is
published by recognized experts. Wikitree on the other hand is a wiki where people cooperate to research genealogy.)(Will knows, but for those who do not, Wikipedia specifically has a rule that it is NOT a genealogy website, and more generally it is not a place to post any type of original research. Wikipedia is for summarizing notable information which has been
medieval articles.I wonder if there are any modern secondary sources on this topic. In general, if anyone has a handy modern source for a medieval subject you can also make a short note on the article talk page. This can help Wikipedia editors to make better
supposed to follow.Arthur de Boislisle is a modern secondary source - that is why I tried
get his work on the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon ancestry adequately cited, which has still not happened (for some reason, or more probably for none, it
is now a garbled reference to the whole edition of the memoires with
life dates added for several people including two who had nothing to do with the appendix in question).
Boislisle has not been superseded on this subject, or for that matter on the subjects of appendices about 'La maison de La Tour-d'Auvergne' and
'Le cardinal de Bouillon, Baluze et le procès des faussaires' both in vol. 14 (1899).
I don't follow what Wikipedia can be aiming for in "summarizing notable information which has been published by recognized experts" if such studies by Boislisle may not qualify their subject matter. Just becausePeter on Wikipedia what counts as a a recent enough expert varies between fields, as it should. Obviously in medieval matters it is common for experts to still cite people like Dugdale. Whoever the experts judge to be experts, the WP editors are
a question has not been rehashed in print without adding significant
value through the 20th & 21st centuries does not reflect on the
continuing importance of some 19th century work. Odo may not be an outstanding figure for any reason other then the peculiar fact of his having been disinherited, but if this is not a notable-enough episode in medieval history for Wikipedia I don't know why. I suppose it could be covered in a page for Hugo Magnus instead of one dedicated to Odo, but unless Wikipedia is running short of bandwidth that would seem niggardly to me.
Peter Stewart
Notability is another matter. In reality Wikipedia struggles to enforce the notability rule when it comes to medieval people, but as long as people have been published about then in principle they can be covered in WP.
The quality of articles would often be better if groups of related people were handled together. This is not because of bandwidth, but it becomes easier for editors to find and maintain groups of related articles.
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 2:38:58 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:help future editors understand the context, and also understand what the article still needs.)
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:21:24 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Feb-23 5:48 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:09:16 AM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:Yes in general Mike you are correct.
On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to >>> promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of >>>>> Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
Peter Stewart
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th
century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or >>> is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation? >>>
Mike
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
It is true that a message board is not normally an acceptable Wikipedia source, but there can be link to the discussion on the talk page, in order to register that there have been comments made in public about something in the article. (It might
is not clear if this is a notable subject that modern experts actually publish about. This is true for a lot of Wikipedia articles about medieval subjects unfortunately.Of course concerning sourcing the article is currently relying on primary sources, which is fine on Wikitree, and for genealogists in general, but not fine on Wikipedia. Technically the present article could be proposed for deletion, because it
been published by recognized experts. Wikitree on the other hand is a wiki where people cooperate to research genealogy.)(Will knows, but for those who do not, Wikipedia specifically has a rule that it is NOT a genealogy website, and more generally it is not a place to post any type of original research. Wikipedia is for summarizing notable information which has
medieval articles.I wonder if there are any modern secondary sources on this topic. In general, if anyone has a handy modern source for a medieval subject you can also make a short note on the article talk page. This can help Wikipedia editors to make better
supposed to follow.Arthur de Boislisle is a modern secondary source - that is why I tried get his work on the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon ancestry adequately cited, which has still not happened (for some reason, or more probably for none, it is now a garbled reference to the whole edition of the memoires with life dates added for several people including two who had nothing to do with the appendix in question).
Boislisle has not been superseded on this subject, or for that matter on the subjects of appendices about 'La maison de La Tour-d'Auvergne' and 'Le cardinal de Bouillon, Baluze et le procès des faussaires' both in vol. 14 (1899).
I don't follow what Wikipedia can be aiming for in "summarizing notable information which has been published by recognized experts" if such studies by Boislisle may not qualify their subject matter. Just because a question has not been rehashed in print without adding significant value through the 20th & 21st centuries does not reflect on the continuing importance of some 19th century work. Odo may not be an outstanding figure for any reason other then the peculiar fact of his having been disinherited, but if this is not a notable-enough episode in medieval history for Wikipedia I don't know why. I suppose it could be covered in a page for Hugo Magnus instead of one dedicated to Odo, but unless Wikipedia is running short of bandwidth that would seem niggardly to me.Peter on Wikipedia what counts as a a recent enough expert varies between fields, as it should. Obviously in medieval matters it is common for experts to still cite people like Dugdale. Whoever the experts judge to be experts, the WP editors are
Peter Stewart
Notability is another matter. In reality Wikipedia struggles to enforce the notability rule when it comes to medieval people, but as long as people have been published about then in principle they can be covered in WP.
The quality of articles would often be better if groups of related people were handled together. This is not because of bandwidth, but it becomes easier for editors to find and maintain groups of related articles.It's not true that primary sources are not fine on Wikipedia.
Secondary sources, which can put primary sources into context and add commentary, are preferred; however, it's not a requirement.
At any rate, this is not a primary source in the first place. Comments in an appendix by the editor of a primary source, are considered secondary sources.
Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix it. Go ahead. Instead of complaining.
Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix it. Go ahead. Instead of complaining.
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:55:51 PM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:help future editors understand the context, and also understand what the article still needs.)
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 2:38:58 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:21:24 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On 17-Feb-23 5:48 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:09:16 AM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes in general Mike you are correct.On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to >>>>>>> promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is >>>>>>> does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>>>>>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or >>>>>>> is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>>>>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and >>>>>>>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>>>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>>>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of >>>>>>>>> Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife >>>>>>>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
Peter Stewart
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation? >>>>>>>
Mike
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
It is true that a message board is not normally an acceptable Wikipedia source, but there can be link to the discussion on the talk page, in order to register that there have been comments made in public about something in the article. (It might
not clear if this is a notable subject that modern experts actually publish about. This is true for a lot of Wikipedia articles about medieval subjects unfortunately.
Of course concerning sourcing the article is currently relying on primary sources, which is fine on Wikitree, and for genealogists in general, but not fine on Wikipedia. Technically the present article could be proposed for deletion, because it is
published by recognized experts. Wikitree on the other hand is a wiki where people cooperate to research genealogy.)
(Will knows, but for those who do not, Wikipedia specifically has a rule that it is NOT a genealogy website, and more generally it is not a place to post any type of original research. Wikipedia is for summarizing notable information which has been
medieval articles.
I wonder if there are any modern secondary sources on this topic. In general, if anyone has a handy modern source for a medieval subject you can also make a short note on the article talk page. This can help Wikipedia editors to make better
supposed to follow.Arthur de Boislisle is a modern secondary source - that is why I tried >>>> get his work on the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon ancestry adequately cited, which >>>> has still not happened (for some reason, or more probably for none, it >>>> is now a garbled reference to the whole edition of the memoires withPeter on Wikipedia what counts as a a recent enough expert varies between fields, as it should. Obviously in medieval matters it is common for experts to still cite people like Dugdale. Whoever the experts judge to be experts, the WP editors are
life dates added for several people including two who had nothing to do >>>> with the appendix in question).
Boislisle has not been superseded on this subject, or for that matter on >>>> the subjects of appendices about 'La maison de La Tour-d'Auvergne' and >>>> 'Le cardinal de Bouillon, Baluze et le procès des faussaires' both in >>>> vol. 14 (1899).
I don't follow what Wikipedia can be aiming for in "summarizing notable >>>> information which has been published by recognized experts" if such
studies by Boislisle may not qualify their subject matter. Just because >>>> a question has not been rehashed in print without adding significant
value through the 20th & 21st centuries does not reflect on the
continuing importance of some 19th century work. Odo may not be an
outstanding figure for any reason other then the peculiar fact of his
having been disinherited, but if this is not a notable-enough episode in >>>> medieval history for Wikipedia I don't know why. I suppose it could be >>>> covered in a page for Hugo Magnus instead of one dedicated to Odo, but >>>> unless Wikipedia is running short of bandwidth that would seem niggardly >>>> to me.
Peter Stewart
all draw the line the same way but in high profile articles even things like census figures are sometimes challenged because they arguably need interpretation. So I think we both understand why I was suggesting that a medieval history article based onIt's not true that primary sources are not fine on Wikipedia.
Notability is another matter. In reality Wikipedia struggles to enforce the notability rule when it comes to medieval people, but as long as people have been published about then in principle they can be covered in WP.
The quality of articles would often be better if groups of related people were handled together. This is not because of bandwidth, but it becomes easier for editors to find and maintain groups of related articles.
Secondary sources, which can put primary sources into context and add commentary, are preferred; however, it's not a requirement.
At any rate, this is not a primary source in the first place. Comments in an appendix by the editor of a primary source, are considered secondary sources.
Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix it. Go ahead. Instead of complaining.
Will yes you have a point. I'll explain because others might be interested. Primary sources can be used. In practice the community looks at how much interpretation is needed. The concern is that it can look like original research. The community doesn't
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 2:38:58 AM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:help future editors understand the context, and also understand what the article still needs.)
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:21:24 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Feb-23 5:48 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:09:16 AM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 3:42:44 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>>>>> On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes in general Mike you are correct._indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to >>>>>> promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is >>>>>> does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th >>>>>> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or >>>>>> is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
The meaning is:This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same >>>>>>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in >>>>>>> his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and >>>>>>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be >>>>>>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem >>>>>>>> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note], >>>>>>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of >>>>>>>> Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife >>>>>>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
Peter Stewart
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?
I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?
I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation? >>>>>>
Mike
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon
It is true that a message board is not normally an acceptable Wikipedia source, but there can be link to the discussion on the talk page, in order to register that there have been comments made in public about something in the article. (It might
not clear if this is a notable subject that modern experts actually publish about. This is true for a lot of Wikipedia articles about medieval subjects unfortunately.
Of course concerning sourcing the article is currently relying on primary sources, which is fine on Wikitree, and for genealogists in general, but not fine on Wikipedia. Technically the present article could be proposed for deletion, because it is
published by recognized experts. Wikitree on the other hand is a wiki where people cooperate to research genealogy.)
(Will knows, but for those who do not, Wikipedia specifically has a rule that it is NOT a genealogy website, and more generally it is not a place to post any type of original research. Wikipedia is for summarizing notable information which has been
articles.
I wonder if there are any modern secondary sources on this topic. In general, if anyone has a handy modern source for a medieval subject you can also make a short note on the article talk page. This can help Wikipedia editors to make better medieval
supposed to follow.Arthur de Boislisle is a modern secondary source - that is why I triedPeter on Wikipedia what counts as a a recent enough expert varies between fields, as it should. Obviously in medieval matters it is common for experts to still cite people like Dugdale. Whoever the experts judge to be experts, the WP editors are
get his work on the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon ancestry adequately cited, which >>> has still not happened (for some reason, or more probably for none, it
is now a garbled reference to the whole edition of the memoires with
life dates added for several people including two who had nothing to do
with the appendix in question).
Boislisle has not been superseded on this subject, or for that matter on >>> the subjects of appendices about 'La maison de La Tour-d'Auvergne' and
'Le cardinal de Bouillon, Baluze et le procès des faussaires' both in
vol. 14 (1899).
I don't follow what Wikipedia can be aiming for in "summarizing notable
information which has been published by recognized experts" if such
studies by Boislisle may not qualify their subject matter. Just because
a question has not been rehashed in print without adding significant
value through the 20th & 21st centuries does not reflect on the
continuing importance of some 19th century work. Odo may not be an
outstanding figure for any reason other then the peculiar fact of his
having been disinherited, but if this is not a notable-enough episode in >>> medieval history for Wikipedia I don't know why. I suppose it could be
covered in a page for Hugo Magnus instead of one dedicated to Odo, but
unless Wikipedia is running short of bandwidth that would seem niggardly >>> to me.
Peter Stewart
Notability is another matter. In reality Wikipedia struggles to enforce the notability rule when it comes to medieval people, but as long as people have been published about then in principle they can be covered in WP.
The quality of articles would often be better if groups of related people were handled together. This is not because of bandwidth, but it becomes easier for editors to find and maintain groups of related articles.
It's not true that primary sources are not fine on Wikipedia.
Secondary sources, which can put primary sources into context and add commentary, are preferred; however, it's not a requirement.
At any rate, this is not a primary source in the first place. Comments in an appendix by the editor of a primary source, are considered secondary sources.
Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix it. Go ahead. Instead of complaining.
The name "Wikipedia" literally means "quick education" - it would make
more sense to me if it was called "Wikipinion", or better yet change
"wiki" to an Hawaiian word for "changing".
On 18-Feb-23 2:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
<snip>
Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a
citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix
it. Go ahead. Instead of complaining.
This link to the Gallica scan at least provides more helpful
bibliographic details
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k52571/f474.item.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:17:06 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,106 |