Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"




"Chris Phillips" <cgp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e6u6pg$3tl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Stewart wrote:
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!

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.

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
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?

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


.