Talk:Annales laureshamenses

[Untitled]
At Wikipedia Annales Laurissenses maiores ("Greater annals of Lorsch") redirects to Royal Frankish Annals. --Wetman (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Annales laurissenses maiores is the name for the earlier and shorter version of the Annales regni francorum. The fuller version is called the Annales Einhardi. Both have been called the "Lorsch annals" etc., but it seems that the term Annales laurissenses maiores has fallen somewhat out of fashion. From what I can tell, besides the textual similarities for a few years (see article), they are unrelated: laurissenses referring to a manuscript provenance and laureshamenses to a (presumed) textual provenance. Srnec (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the two medieval Latin adjectives are not simply two ways of saying "of/from the abbey of Lorsch" ("Laurissa" or "Lauresham")? Are these two confusingly similar abbeys? --Wetman (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same abbeys, different Latinisations. I do not know why the one Latinisation has become attached to one set of annals and the other one to a different set. I meant that the one text is called "of Lorsch" (Laurissenses) because that is where the manuscript was found (and written? I haven't looked that far, but Einhard, who continued it, was not writing there) and the other is called "of Lorsch" (Laureshamenses) because that is where the text was presumed to have been written (though none of its manuscripts can be connected with Lorsch and the most important part of the text is no longer associated with Lorsch).
 * The German Wiki (here) has conflated them. It is clearly talking about the Laureshamenses, but it mistakenly calls it the Laurissenses maiores and includes a link to the Annales regni francorum (of which the Laurissenses maiores is just the earlier and shorter version upon which Einhard expanded). Does this make sense? Srnec (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My confusions
Things in an article in a specialised field like this need to be introduced to a reader, who probably does not already know all about the lost Lorsch manuscript of the Bavarian ducal library.--Wetman (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...a series of Reichsannalen... A "series" in what sense? A group of related manuscripts? A set of entries in a manuscript, represented in more than one ms tradition?
 * A set of annalistic entries [surviving in two MSS]. Should "annals" be treated as singular? Srnec (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * copy of the Lorsch annals for 703–803 was kept at Sankt-Paul (Saint Paul) im Lavanttal and copied probably in 835 by a single scribe... Kept at Sankt-Paul in the C19, not maintained at Sankt-Paul in the C9, yes? Please vet the edit I made to this.
 * Correct. My bad wording. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * a manuscript of Vienna Conserved in Vienna or written at Vienna? Alemannian script links to the Alamanni of Roman times: the reader needs to know what "Alemannian script" tell of the origin of the ms? Does it confirm that it was copied at Reichenau?
 * Annales mosellani. I'm really not that unprepared, but I can't tell where these annals were written. Would this be "the single surviving north French manuscript" mentioned in the footnote? Moselle?
 * Clarified. I don't believe anything more specific than "Moselle" can be said about their origin. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the Fragmentum chesnii A fragment of something from the abbey of Chesney?
 * Edited by Chesneus (Chesnius?). I can't figure out the Latin on this one. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I try. I thought "lost Lorsch manuscript of the Bavarian ducal library" implied it all, but this is what happens when you've been reading way too much about one topic just for a Wikipedia entry. Is there anything else? Srnec (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)