Talk:Chronicle of Moissac
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
 |
Chronicle of Moissac is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
In fact the block of years that would have contained the Battle of Tours is missing. Bad luck. I added a reference and footnotes. --Wetman (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rl (talk) posted at User talk:Wetman, "the article now says that "the entries covering the years 716-770 are missing". The chronicle is, however, a source on the Battle of Tours (732) (e.g. "De re militari"), as the article claimed in earlier versions. Do you know more about that?"
-
- Wetman responded, in part: "The articles at "De re militari" are usually dependable: in this case the website, which you cite, says "The ensuing Battle of Bordeaux is recorded in the Annals of Aniane and the Chronicle of Moissac, which contain the same account." It cites Chronicle of Moissac in MGH SS 1:291, which I can't check, can you? I had deleted the Wikipedia article's assertion "Among other events, the Chronicle of Moissac recorded the Battle of Tours," because Roger Collins, Charlemagne (University of Toronto Press) 1998:6, the reference I cited, says that the Chronicle of Moissac is missing the entries covering the years 716-770, which are filled, I presume, by interpolating the relevant years from the Chronicle of Aniane. Thus the "two" Chronicles would in fact be but one, if Collins is not mistaken about the missing leaves. I simply deleted the statement on this basis."--Wetman (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- This is the cited source: MGH SS 1:291 Rl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- There! very good. So there it is in black and white, in the prefatory remarks, page 314: "Complura codicis loca aut temporum iniuria deleta, aut Bosqueti [François Bosquet] oculis impenetrabilia, a Chesnio [François du Chesne] asteriscis notata sunt; post annum vero 716 foliis aliquot excisis, omnia usque ad anni 777 verba "et Segebarg" deerant." The preface goes on to tell how the edition of Edmund Marten and Ursinus Durand, Annales veteres francorum, page 883ff, and other early editors pieced out the lacunae from the Chronicle of Aniene... just exactly as I wrote, with a reference to Roger Collins. When I initially said "bad luck" above, so indeed it is: a chronicle covering the time span in which the battle of Poitiers took place, in point of fact is actually missing any reference to it, as the article should now state. Perhaps you'd add the reference you've found, in a footnote to the statement as made by Collins. --Wetman (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Another source for this is Philippe Buc (2000), "Ritual and Interpretation: the Early Medieval Case" in Early Medieval Europe, 9 (2), 183–210, see especially the Appenix. The Moissac chronicle is missing the reference to 717–770 because the folios have been lost from the lone surviving (11th-c.) MS. The Aniane Chronicle (12th-c. MS) is based on a Carolingian original, possibly the Moissac chronicle but possibly another lost one. All this ought to be explained in the article. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
