Re: Rules regarding Fitz
- From: terrence White <revenant1963@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Ah, that would be Emerson--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..." from his "Essays"
. I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough obtained online.
T.J. White
taf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[inappropriate crosspost removed]
On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor
wrote:
< In article ,
< "Nancy L. Allen" wrote:
<
< > Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a
space or
< > hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many
variations and
< > would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
<
< > Richard fitz Roger
< > Richard fitz-Roger
< > Richard fitzRoger
< > Richard Fitz Roger
< > Richard Fitz-Roger
< > Richard FitzRoger
<
< > Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?
<
< Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
one,
< and everyone should follow it.
Dear Nancy ~
Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names.
Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.
Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.
I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.
For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong.
No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.
Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.
Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.
To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".
Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.
'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.
On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine.
The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.
Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."
And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.
For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all?
Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.
Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.
So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.
When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.
Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.
taf
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
.
- Prev by Date: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton Harcourt
- Next by Date: Re: A Librarian's Perspective on Medieval Genealogy
- Previous by thread: Re: Rules regarding Fitz
- Next by thread: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton Harcourt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
