Talk:Chronicle of Moissac

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

In fact the block of years that would have contained the Battle of Tours is missing. Bad luck. I added a reference and footnotes. --Wetman (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rl (talk) posted at User talk:Wetman, "the article now says that "the entries covering the years 716-770 are missing". The chronicle is, however, a source on the Battle of Tours (732) (e.g. "De re militari"), as the article claimed in earlier versions. Do you know more about that?"

Wetman responded, in part: "The articles at "De re militari" are usually dependable: in this case the website, which you cite, says "The ensuing Battle of Bordeaux is recorded in the Annals of Aniane and the Chronicle of Moissac, which contain the same account." It cites Chronicle of Moissac in MGH SS 1:291, which I can't check, can you? I had deleted the Wikipedia article's assertion "Among other events, the Chronicle of Moissac recorded the Battle of Tours," because Roger Collins, Charlemagne (University of Toronto Press) 1998:6, the reference I cited, says that the Chronicle of Moissac is missing the entries covering the years 716-770, which are filled, I presume, by interpolating the relevant years from the Chronicle of Aniane. Thus the "two" Chronicles would in fact be but one, if Collins is not mistaken about the missing leaves. I simply deleted the statement on this basis."--Wetman (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the cited source: MGH SS 1:291 Rl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There! very good. So there it is in black and white, in the prefatory remarks, page 314: "Complura codicis loca aut temporum iniuria deleta, aut Bosqueti [François Bosquet] oculis impenetrabilia, a Chesnio [François du Chesne] asteriscis notata sunt; post annum vero 716 foliis aliquot excisis, omnia usque ad anni 777 verba "et Segebarg" deerant." The preface goes on to tell how the edition of Edmund Marten and Ursinus Durand, Annales veteres francorum, page 883ff, and other early editors pieced out the lacunae from the Chronicle of Aniene... just exactly as I wrote, with a reference to Roger Collins. When I initially said "bad luck" above, so indeed it is: a chronicle covering the time span in which the battle of Poitiers took place, in point of fact is actually missing any reference to it, as the article should now state. Perhaps you'd add the reference you've found, in a footnote to the statement as made by Collins. --Wetman (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source for this is Philippe Buc (2000), "Ritual and Interpretation: the Early Medieval Case" in Early Medieval Europe, 9 (2), 183–210, see especially the Appenix. The Moissac chronicle is missing the reference to 717–770 because the folios have been lost from the lone surviving (11th-c.) MS. The Aniane Chronicle (12th-c. MS) is based on a Carolingian original, possibly the Moissac chronicle but possibly another lost one. All this ought to be explained in the article. Srnec (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed very interesting a period deleted, thank you for checking. It hardly goes unnoticed that they are exactly the years of Carolingian confrontation with the Aquitanians.Iñaki LL (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]