Thanks for everyone's help with the dissertation. I will contact the
Courtauld when in london to see about a copy. But i want also to respond to
Bill's quibble-ette as well, and see what the list thinks.
>Just a quibble-ette: he was Matthew Paris, not Matthew "of" Paris. In fact
>he was of St Alban's.
For some time I have been struggling with this issue. Most of the
scholarship does indeed call him Matthew Paris, and I have been for a while
myself. But on going over some work in Vaughan's book, I am beginning to
rethink that. When Matthew wrote out his name, he usually wrote
"Parisiensis" or sometimes "de Parisius" and would often abbreviate the same
with something like "Paris's"
Shouldn't one translate that as "of Paris"?
One of Vaughan's arguements is that Matthew was from England, and Paris was
a common patronymic in the 13th century. And I wonder about this in a
couple of ways: did they really have patronyms the way we think of them.
Weren't they really just "of someplace." For example, Roger Wendover, is
often referred to as Roger of Wendover.
Michael Clanchy thinks that matthew may well be a product of the Parisian
schools, St. Victor, most likely (which helps my work with him
considerably), and so perhaps Matthew referred to himself as being "of
Paris" as a distinguishing element from the other Matthews floating around
St. Albans at the time? And should we really change his name, even though
he specifically styled himself that?
Please, give me your thoughts on this.
Dan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|