Gordon, Gordon Banks wrote: >No, it was a forwarded post from gen-medieval-l that I thought people >here might be interested in. I haven't investigated this material >myself. > Perhaps you might want to look into Zuckerman's book. It's 490 pages and extensively footnoted, but it's an interesting read to say the least. Like everything else, though, it needs verification by other sources. At the very least, investigation of all supporting materials and documentation would be necessary. Unfortunately, that's no small undertaking. Again, find a copy of the book and you'll see what I mean. I have checked his information on the counts of Toulouse several generations after Theuderic-Makhir, and was disturbed by the fact his accounts were the opposite of other scholarly sources. That itself doesn't diminish the work as a whole, nor disprove the Theuderic-Makhir theory, but like everything else, it needs to be carefully scrutinized point for point. Something I've been unable to do time wise as yet. > I find Nat Taylor's article pretty convincing in debunking >Zuckerman. > If someone hasn't read and studied Zuckerman, it would be difficult to arrive at that conclusion. Actually, I've read and enjoyed several things by Nat Taylor, all of them, I thought, better than this TAG article. The main problem I had with it was that it seemed to be absolutely dripping with cynicism. Had he approached the material in the same manner as Zuckerman had, I think it would have been a far more effective critique. He had some valid points, but he missed some also. > I also don't accept the lines through the Irish kings. Too >many ulterior motives to make the Kings relate to the Bible in Christian >times. > I agree completely. Many kings seemed to have felt it necessary to invent glorious lineages which served to prove they were ordained by the heavens to rule. >The only line I think has possibilities that I've seen is the >one through Michael III, which I know you don't accept. I do think >there are some good possibilities for more research through >Spainish/Arab connections (not Zaida Denia, which is bogus). > The Zaida connection certainly holds no water. Again... I just think that there is insufficient evidence to prove Michael was the father of Leo. Anyone can believe anything they like, but genealogy is not a faith-based discipline. I think you're probably right about the Spanish/Arab connections though. Jim

As the clock struck 05:01 PM 8/5/2003 -0700, JF took pen in hand and wrote: >Gordon, > >Gordon Banks wrote: > >>No, it was a forwarded post from gen-medieval-l that I thought people >>here might be interested in. I haven't investigated this material >>myself. >Perhaps you might want to look into Zuckerman's book. It's 490 pages and >extensively footnoted, but it's an interesting read to say the least. Like >everything else, though, it needs verification by other sources. At the >very least, investigation of all supporting materials and documentation >would be necessary. Unfortunately, that's no small undertaking. Again, >find a copy of the book and you'll see what I mean. I have checked his >information on the counts of Toulouse several generations after >Theuderic-Makhir, and was disturbed by the fact his accounts were the >opposite of other scholarly sources. That itself doesn't diminish the work >as a whole, nor disprove the Theuderic-Makhir theory, but like everything >else, it needs to be carefully scrutinized point for point. Something I've >been unable to do time wise as yet. I have read Zuckerman, and I must say I found him unconvincing both in his Theuderic/Makhir theory and in his larger theory of the existence of a Jewish territorial principality on the Spanish marches. One of the principal problems with the Theuderic-Makhir theory is that it is based almost entirely on negative evidence and Zuckerman's reconstruction of what he believes was left out of or revised out of certain popular lays. At best, these songs are very tricky to tease history out of, but when you start trying to interpolate facts into them which admittedly are not there (the theory is that all references that would connect Theuderic and his family with Makhir or other Jews were purposefully omitted or removed) and then use those interpolated facts (the ones that do not appear in the text) as the basis of your "proof", you have a problem. At the end of the day, my personal opinion from Zuckerman (and Nat Taylor) is that Theuderic could have been Makhir, but that there is no credible evidence supporting the identification. On the other had, I think that Zuckerman fails more completely to demonstrate the existence of a territorial Jewish state in SW France subsidiary to the Franks. Having said all of the above, I still enjoyed Zuckerman and believe his work is important. >> I find Nat Taylor's article pretty convincing in debunking >>Zuckerman. >If someone hasn't read and studied Zuckerman, it would be difficult to >arrive at that conclusion. Actually, I've read and enjoyed several things >by Nat Taylor, all of them, I thought, better than this TAG article. The >main problem I had with it was that it seemed to be absolutely dripping >with cynicism. Had he approached the material in the same manner as >Zuckerman had, I think it would have been a far more effective critique. >He had some valid points, but he missed some also. I think Taylor made very good points, but I think he went too far with them. Just as I feel Zuckerman failed to establish that Theuderic was Makhir, I do not think that Taylor proved that Theuderic could not have been Makhir. Incidently, there was a refutation of Nat Taylor's article in one of the Augustan Society publications, but it was also unconvincing and really rather facile. Jim R. -- ================================================= James P. Robinson III jprobins@ix.netcom.com All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given in writing. =================================================

Jim, James P. Robinson III wrote: > I have read Zuckerman, and I must say I found him unconvincing both in > his Theuderic/Makhir theory and in his larger theory of the existence > of a Jewish territorial principality on the Spanish marches. One of > the principal problems with the Theuderic/Makhir theory is that it is > based almost entirely on negative evidence and Zuckerman's > reconstruction of what he believes was left out of or revised out of > certain popular lays. At best, these songs are very tricky to tease > history out of, but when you start trying to interpolate facts into > them which admittedly are not there (the theory is that all references > that would connect Theuderic and his family with Makhir or other Jews > were purposefully omitted or removed) and then use those interpolated > facts (the ones that do not appear in the text) as the basis of your > "proof", you have a problem. At the end of the day, my personal > opinion from Zuckerman (and Nat Taylor) is that Theuderic could have > been Makhir, but that there is no credible evidence supporting the > identification. On the other had, I think that Zuckerman fails more > completely to demonstrate the existence of a territorial Jewish state > in SW France subsidiary to the Franks. Having said all of the above, > I still enjoyed Zuckerman and believe his work is important. I think Zuckerman's work is important, and his contention that records were altered in the eleventh century may explain the lack of information on a Jewish presence in Septimania. I've also seen mention of fraudulent and altered documents by other authors not connected with Zuckerman. Even so, and despite it's plausibility, I'm not completely convinced that explains the lack of information. Other sources have verified there was a Jewish presence in the marches, but vary in opinion as to it's overall importance. In all fairness, none seemed to have found it as significant as Professor Zuckerman. I have for some time thought the key to clarifying any of this lay in finding more information on the events leading up to and directly following the fall of Narbonne in 759. > I think Taylor made very good points, but I think he went too far with > them. That's another way of putting it. > Just as I feel Zuckerman failed to establish that Theuderic was > Makhir, I do not think that Taylor proved that Theuderic could not > have been Makhir. Incidently, there was a refutation of Nat Taylor's > article in one of the Augustan Society publications, but it was also > unconvincing and really rather facile. While I haven't seen the AS article, based on it's source I wouldn't particularly expect it to add a great deal to the discussion. All in all I think the book on it's own falls somewhat short of proving either premise and both subjects, that of a Carolinian/Jewish relationship and the origins of Theuderic-Makhir need more study. Thanks for your input though. Jim

I'd have to find it in a library. Cheapest price on the Internet is > $100, and I have higher priorities for my money. On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 17:01, JF wrote: > Gordon, > > Gordon Banks wrote: > > >No, it was a forwarded post from gen-medieval-l that I thought people > >here might be interested in. I haven't investigated this material > >myself. > > > Perhaps you might want to look into Zuckerman's book. It's 490 pages and > extensively footnoted, but it's an interesting read to say the least.