And Dennis Poulter contributes to this entertaining discussion:
> Why is it an oxymoron?
Because the Normans were not French, nor were they French subjects at the
time of the Conquest.
>How else would you describe the Norman dialect of French?
Something that developed in Normandy a long time after 1066.
> 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.
Why does that make it Norman, or make Norman French? This dialectical
confusion was occurring from a common Latin base back and forth across the
(very narrow) channel for centuries before and after Hastings.
> What possible older substratum could you be referring to here?
Surprise:-) The Romans were in both places, and even pre and post Roman,
migrations in a revolving door were occurring between the isles and the
continent..this, rather than Hastings, is the source of significant common
substrata to the language we, and the French, now use.
> 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 element(s) of linguistic intrusion we are blaming on Norman was
already there..along with Gaelic, Norn, Breton, Danish, Vulgar Latin,
Spanish Latin, Welsh and a host of others....the Norman contribution was not
additional input..but a reduction of impact, by reduction in power..of these
already present influences and their proponents..which then: "gave rise
(eventually) to modern English."
>Even if the king sometimes had no practical power
> beyond his immediate environs, he was still the liege lord of his
>subjects.
Da, and the Normans weren't.
> 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.
Hmm..Not sure of this titling you are referring to here, and it could impact
on the discussion..as the earliest recognition of a region named France.
But..the recognition is of a subordinate Frankish Kingdom. The Ile de
France, as a separate kingdom is defined by river borders on three sides and
Normandy on the other, but did not exist until so defined, under Hugh Capet,
not assuming until 987 (The France that we know and love grew from there)
deriving ethnically from a small region generally referred to as "Francia"
on an Axis between Paris and Orleans.
> because was the King of England a vassal of the King of France?
No, as pre-Norman, Norman nor Angevin.
> No. Rollo and his followers received land to settle, and in return >became
vassals of the French king.
No. Rollo was only the strongest leader of the Viking Groups that had
secured a permanent foothold on Frankish soil before 900. He aggressively
consolidated forces and expanded eastward and was threatening Paris..battle
ensued..draw...The treaty 911. He did agree to become a vassal, (of the
Frankish state) and the degree of vassallage fluctuated, by 1066, the
autonomy of Normandy was tested in battle before this date against the then
French King, distinct from the Frankish state. William won. The earlier
Frankish treaty simply recognized and legitimized Rolos's holdings..the
Frankish state was collapsing..and could not hold its historical vassels.
Essentially Rollo agreed to be a good boy and not trash Paris in exchange
for formal recognition of his already factual presence, nearly useless
Frankish titles, etc. He also agreed to be Christened, but died a Pagan.
> 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."
No argument..he really did become a good boy. Note "his country". And
immigrants were accepted as things settled, as long as they accepted his
and successors hegemony...and Franks of all stripes and Germans came. This
reassurance was deemed necessary because the earlier settlers, and the later
expansion had been ruthless at the expense of the locals. Among the "new
buildings" of the time was the Motte and Bailey fortification style..so
effective in small hasty defense in a cavalry world.
> By 1066, some 6 generations on from Rollo, the Normans spoke a >dialect of
French.
No. Danish and new Danish immigrants were still common, and local influences
were having an effect..but this included German. Most linguists would argue
that no language would shift completely in 155
years without conquest, even without reinforcement from the source.
In Normandy there was no conquest (prior to 1066), and plenty of Northern
Immigration as reinforcement.
> 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".
Interesting story, I think I remember reading it: no claim that everybody
understood everybody. Interesting: I have never claimed that the resulting
linguistic stabilization of William was deliberate..But perhaps this kind of
confusion and similar events had made it an agenda?
> 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.
I think thats your point. William was delayed almost a month. But I still
think Harold would have fared better but for the stretch..so it worked well
for William..even if purely coincidental.
> 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.
Nah...He was a Frankish vassal nominally, at best, and died a pagan,
christening or no. This had nothing to do with France...and even though his
son was in the court at Paris..William resolved this issue in his favor
before moving against England. He was allied (as equal post Frankish
rulers) with Henry at several earlier points in establishing his power base
and putting down internal challenges to his power..but the relationship
soured. Between 1054 and 1060 William maintained his autonomy against an
alliance of King Henry I of France and Geoffrey Martel of Anjou. Both men
died in 1060 and were succeeded by weaker rulers. As a result, in 1063
William was able to conquer Maine (Formerly French..or formally Angevin?).
Willam and his men were not French, and owed no homage to the emerging
power.
>The code of laws promulgated by William soon after the
> conquest speak of Frenchmen and Englishmen.
William had simply included Normandy into the larger "estate", and spoke of
its balancing power..the still emerging French. Normandy had become a
subordinate fief to his larger equally non-French holdings. It would be more
accurate to call Normandy English at this juncture (linguistics aside) than
England "French".
>The use of the word Norman probably arose later to distinguish the >French
rulers of England and the subjects of the King of France.
Not even the Angevin Plantagenets would agree with that.
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>