Re: Norman Vikings

----- Original Message -----
From: Rex H. McTyeire <rexbo@...>
To: <cybalist@eGroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 29 January, 2000 3:11 AM
Subject: [cybalist] Re: Norman Vikings


> "John Croft" <jdcroft@...> says, parenthetically:
> >(like the loss of Norman French in a sea of Anglo Saxon).
>
> Not picking on John, nor Mark who made the "Norman French"
> reference earlier on this list, but I wish to make a peripheral point of
> historical order: "Norman French" is an oxymoron..albeit a very common
one
> in scholarly circles, particularly, for some inexplicable reason: English
> ones. There was little French associated with the men of William in 1066,
> and very few Franks.

Why is it an oxymoron? How else would you describe the Norman dialect of
French? If the dialect had not been transferred to England, you would have a
point. But used to describe the language of an abundant literature produced
in England but which is not standard Old French, but a obviously a variant
of it, it seems perfectly apposite.

>Therefore, there is no real mystery to the loss in a
> sea of Anglo Saxon. (And Mark's earlier point of a French substrata in
> English..in my view, is a much earlier contribution and in no way related
to
> Hastings; and perhaps merely a common older substrata to both modern
> languages..unless the event at Hastings just opened up exchange between
the
> isles and the continent for later linguistic intrusion..but I favor the
> former.)

What possible older substratum could you be referring to here?
The "event" at Hastings introduced a new language - the Norman dialect of
French - to England. It was not lost in a sea of Anglo-Saxon, but the
combination of the two languages gave rise (eventually) to modern English.

> The French state boarders did not coalesce until the 15th century, so
it
> is not even "politically correct".

The medieval state was not a question of borders and territory, but a system
of feudal allegiances. Even if the king sometimes had no practical power
beyond his immediate environs, he was still the liege lord of his subjects.
If he was the King of France, this title having been established in the time
of Louis I, eldest son of Charlemagne, his subjects could rightfully be
called French, and the ensemble of their domains could rightfully be called
the Kingdom of France. Complications of course arose after the conquest, and
especially after the accession of the Angevins to the English throne,
because was the King of England a vassal of the King of France?

>Norman Franks? No. The Norman state
> was intrusive into the Frankish state..the collapsing remnants of
> Charlemaign's post Roman creation. The Frankish state ceded by treaty the
> Norman lands to intrusive Nordics (who chased off the autochthons, keeping
> only females of choice.) (911: Treaty of St. Clair-sur-Epte; between
Charles
> III and Rollo). This granted Rollo, a Viking, the lands around the mouth
of
> the Seine and the present city of Rouen.

No. Rollo and his followers received land to settle, and in return became
vassals of the French king. As for chasing off the autochthons, a quote
from
the Chronicles of St.Denis :
"Rollo gave assurance of security to all those who wished to dwell in his
country. The land he divided among his followers, and, as it had been a long
time unused, he improved it by the construction of new buildings. It was
peopled by the Norman warriors and by immigrants from outside regions."

> Norman means Northman> Norsemen.
> In 1066, most of William's men still spoke Danish, with some Angle, Saxon,
> Norwegian, Icelandic, Norn and other polyglot groups thrown in (probably
to
> include some Gaelic speakers from the Scots coast, including my
Danish/Celt
> ancestors in Easter Ross?). The only Franks being small groups Rollo's
> successors had gained hegemony over as they re-spread west into what
became
> "Normandy".

By 1066, some 6 generations on from Rollo, the Normans spoke a dialect of
French.

None of them had any problem finding interpreters across the
> channel either. That's why we all don't key in French on the
> internet :-).

There is a story that a slaughter took place during William's coronation
because the Norman soldiers failed to understand that the English were
shouting "Long Live the King".

>Alliances from outside the Norman sphere are of course known
> in support of William, but their post battle influence was limited. The
> strongest of these came from the North: remember that Harold was forced
to
> stop Sigurdson at York on 25 Sept, while William was in Pevensey Bay on
the
> 28th.

Hardly an alliance. This was a three-way contest for the English throne,
Harold Godwinsson, usurper but in possession, Harald Hadrada descendant of
Canute, and William, designated heir of Edward the Confessor. That they
landed almost together was more due to coincidence and the vagaries of the
weather.


>Therefore, if modified, lest we are discussing post 15th century
> "French from Normandy, in which case Norman would be wrong..It is either
> just "Norman"....or maybe.."Norman Vikings" (Hmm..consider Hastings as
the
> last and largest Viking raid:-)

I disagree. Hrolf Ragnvaldsson was a pagan Viking. He became Duke Rollo of
Normandy, Christian knight and vassal of Charles III. Therefore William and
his men were French. The code of laws promulgated by William soon after the
conquest speak of Frenchmen and Englishmen. The use of the word Norman
probably arose later to distinguish the French rulers of England and the
subjects of the King of France.
>
> La Revedere;
> Rex H. McTyeire
> Bucharest, Romania
> <rexbo@...>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WEMedia.com empowers persons with disabilities to build a strong and
vibrant community.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/682/0/_/2431/_/949087062/
>
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/cybalist/?m=1
>
>
>