Talk:Chilperic I

Untitled
Can anybody expand upon his adding letters to the Latin alphabet? -- Zoe

Which Herod?
The article says:
 * Chilperic was stigmatized as the Nero and the Herod of his time.

Which Herod is meant? Gdr 21:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Accent aigu
Why is it used on his name (the acute accent on the e, that is) in an English encyclopaedia? I would not have called it standard in English. Srnec 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It depends on the naming rules. - Pernambuco 22:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Chilperic's verse
The article says that Chilperic's verse is well-regarded. It certainly was not well regarded by Gregory of Tours (though of course he despised the king on other grounds). More importantly: as far as I am aware none of Chilperic's verses survive-- so we have no real basis for forming any opinion as to its quality. A footnote in an English translation of the Historia (Penguin, 1974) says explicitly that "None of the poems of King Chilperic has survived". I think that unless someone can point to the poems, the sentence stating that they are well-regarded should be deleted.

Mjhrynick (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Letters
This is in response to Zoe's enquiry at the top of the page. As far as I know, the only contemporary reference to the King's new letters is in Gregory (v.44), and runs as follows:

Addit autem et litteras litteris nostris, id est w, sicut Graeci habent, ae, the, uui, quarum caracteres hi sunt: Et misit epistulas in universis civitatibus regni sui, ut sic pueri docerentur ac libri antiquitus scripti, planati pomice, rescriberentur.

I think the "w" was an omega, that is to say, a long o, and I suspect that in manuscript (I have never seen one) exemplars of the four characters were to be found in the place where some editor has placed a colon. Bischoff (Latin Palaeography, Cambridge, 1990, p. 194) seems to say that the first was a circle with a central dot, the second a figure like a psi, the third a figure like our capital Z, and the fourth a triangle, like a big delta.

Perhaps the following would suit in the article:

"Chiperic tried in his kingdom to force the use of four new letters of the alphabet; but his innovations never caught on."

Mjhrynick (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, one of the best reasons one can give regarding the reason as why the revolution failed despite Chilperic wanting to interfere with the Latin alphabet in use in the Frankish realm at the time is that he got murdered. Dead men do not talk, and kings barely 4 months old have better things to do than discuss linguistics. I know he must have been assassinated by other reasons; but clearly he had enemies and against him all the Gallo-Roman intelligentsia which was swarming the administration and bishoprics. The letters he wanted to introduce were Germanic friendly and to an expert in Old Englisc very friendly. Interestingly, his letters will find asylum in Britain when the first Law Codex is written in Kent in vernacular Saxon barely 20years later after his death. Having seen the proposed letters in their context, it is clear French would have been a lot different had the king lived longer! see p 254-255 KRUSCH LEVINSON Gregorii Episcopi 1937-1951. Taking responsibility of this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.148 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Gregory's bias
It's clear that all, or at least very nearly all of the inormation for this article is taken from Gregory's Historiae. This is problematic, as Gregory had every reason to portray Chilperic in the poorest of lights. At the very least, Gregory's bias should be mentioned. A caveat near the top of the article would do nicely, no?Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The big problem is that naturally all comes from Gregrory prior to his death in 594 or from Fredegar Chronicle. It is just like wishing a non-Northumbrian bias in Bede. We are given only one bell and only one toll because we only have one document to cover this period.

What needs to be done is to look at what is missing, what we can define as bias. In short, we can guess the known unknown; but the unknown unknown, we shall never know. Unless documents spring from so far undisclosed locations. Let's say we get a copy of St Eligius memoirs? Until then Chilperic will have his wife strangled and Fredegund will be a she-wolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMorangles (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)