Post by Chris PhillipsPost by Peter StewartIf you can't bring yourself to admit this plain, inescapable fact &
apologise, then kindly refrain from trying to lecture other people about
manners since you are no sort of gentleman, indeed you are a very stupid
and/or lying poltroon.
You can insult me just as much as you like, but I really do not believe that
Charles Cawley would highlight, as a "new discovery" resulting from a "Back
to Basics" approach concentrating on primary source material, a noted query
about the meaning of a footnote he didn't understand, from a work published
in the 1960s, when the suggested interpretation was not included even
provisionally in the structure of the database, and was clearly inconsistent
with the rest of his article on the family.
I am not _pretending_ I don't believe it. I just don't believe it, that's
all.
Then more fool you - the blind prejudice you are demonstrating in favour of
Cawley's having commonsense and competence, in light of all you have been
told about his work since July 2005, is truly astonishing obtuseness.
Post by Chris PhillipsPost by Peter StewartThere is nowhere to scurry next over this: NOTHING that Cawley has to
say
Post by Chris Phillipsin
Post by Peter Stewartthe section about Tuta is new, indeed it has been out of date for more
than
Post by Peter Stewart40 years, and NOTHING that he says about Judith is new in the Medieval
Lands
Post by Peter Stewartaccount EXCEPT the bizarre howler about Lui von Frizberg THAT ALONE
APPLIES
But the point is, as I've already pointed out at least half a dozen times,
the author did _not_ think that was new, because it came from a footnote in
a book published in the 1960s.
And the point I have been making is that the book published in the 1960s
DIDN"T PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER the way Cawley imagines that he might have
done in his utterly absurd postulation about Lui von Frizberg AND THE WIVES
OF PETER ORSEOLO. "Wegener" in his view had only realised that these two
women were wives of Lui von Frizberg, and had NOT given them as wives of
Peter Orseolo. Combining the two streams of evidence and mistaken conjecture
was, in Cawley's warped and ignorant view of things, a "new discovery" on
his part. That is perfectly plain, cut & dried.
Post by Chris PhillipsDo you not see how inconsistent your argument is? You argue that he could
not have been referring to Judith's marriage to Peter as a "discovery",
because it is in ES. But by exactly the same logic, he could not have been
referring to "Lui von Frizberg" because it is in Tyroller.
BUT Judith's marriage to Peter Orseolo is NOT in Tyroller. Cawley thought
that HE would have the credit of first putting these disparate elements
together into a "new discovery", presented interrogatively becasue he didn't
know enough German to be sure of himself.
Post by Chris PhillipsI can only guess what the explanation is, but presumably when he described
this as a new discovery, he had forgotten one of these facts.
It does not seem likely to me that he had forgotten that "Lui von Frizberg"
came from Tyroller, because it is right there in the article, and equally it
does not seem likely he would give it prominence as a discovery stemming
from his "Back to Basics" approach, because it didn't even come from a
primary source, because he acknowledged he wasn't even sure what it meant,
and because he therefore hadn't incorporated it into his database, even
provisionally.
Perhaps he had forgotten that Judith's marriage to Peter was in a different
table in ES? I don't know, but I find it a far more plausible explanation
than the assumption you are trying to force on everyone as a "plain,
inescapable fact".
You are trying to come up with any explanation that will satisfy your need
to go on trusting in the broken reed of Cawley's work.
Post by Chris Phillips(By the way, the reason that the Judith identification would affect both
wives is that it also implies a substantial correction to the ES chronology
for Tuta. Perhaps you missed this when I pointed it out before.)
No I didn't. There is no such thing as "the Judith identification": from the
first source reporting her marriage to Peter Orseolo (Cosmas of Prague, who
was around 10 years old when this happened) there has been no question over
who she was, only about whether Cosmas is reliable on the matter.
The ES chronology for Tuta is inconsistent, but that is not the burden of
Cawley's "discovery". We know that Judith can't have married Peter until
after her first husband died in January 1055, so that Tuta (presumbably,
remembering that HER identification is not definite) was either dead or
divorced by then - but naturally this has been recognised for many centuries
now. Cawley is so ignorant about the evidence for Tuta, so incompetent at
reading German, and so lazy at checking things for himself, that he has made
a hash of the chronology, but this cannot be regarded as something
"discovered" about the wives anyway. Judith died in 1058, as Cosmas and
Annalista Saxo identically relate, so that obviously her marriage to Peter
fell between 1055 & 1058 and the previous wife was out of the way before
1059 or 1070. No-one could seriously propose this as a "new discovery".
All we know for sure is that Tuta founded Suben abbey in 1040, that she was
apparently married to Peter Orseolo before November/December 1046 (somebody
was, and she is the prime candidate), that it is most likely she was married
to him between October 1031 and August 1038 (forget Cawley's bumbling
analysis - the probability is that St Stephen and his Bavarian wife Gisela
arranged this marriage for his heir with a Bavarian noblewoman from a
powerful family), and that she was dead before 1055, perhaps soon after 1046
as a result of the privations inflicted on her and Peter after his downfall
(related by Hermannus Contractus, but again overlooked by Cawley who goes
off into a pointless disquisition about whether or not he left Hungary).
Cawley, pretending to familiarity with German and the relevant sources,
wrote: "Archbishop Eberhard (von Sulzbach) names "Tuta" (in a document dated
1153, more than a century after the events) as "die Gründerin von Suben,
Königin", and that in an even later document from the monastery she is
called "Königin von Ungarn", although it cannot be concluded from these
documents that she was queen at the date she founded the monastery."
This is misleading. The 1153 privilege of Archbishop Eberhard actually says
"Subensem ecclesiam a quadam regina Tuta nomine...primo fundatam" (Suben
abbey, first established by a certain queen named Tuta), which is not in
German and does indeed suggest that Tuta was a queen at the time of the
foundation: The "even later document" calling her "Tuota" and describing her
as regina Hungariae is actually not medieval and not "from the monastery"at
all, but a preface written by a German editor of the Suben abbey muniments
and published in 1765. This is not of any value as supporting evidence, but
probably correct as a guess (if that's what it was). Cawley has not taken
the trouble to get his thick head around the evidence, direct or indirect.
He has merely repeated ES and paraphrased from other secondary works for the
important points, apparently borrowing even the few ill-chosen and
ill-understood sources from other people's research.
Ludicrous and nonsensical as it is on Cawley's part, the only conclusion
available to be drawn is that he meant to bring the "Lui von Frizberg"
conjecture to attention as one of his "new discoveries".
There is no mystery about this: the man is totally incapable of doing the
work he set himself, has done it very badly, and doesn't know enough to
realise his own shortcomings. Phillips on the other hand has been told more
than enough to see all this, time & again, and yet refuses to acknowledge
it.
Peter Stewart