This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skäpperöd (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 2 August 2010 (→Name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:28, 2 August 2010 by Skäpperöd (talk | contribs) (→Name)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Middle Ages Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Biography: Royalty and Nobility Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Name
The name used in en.wiki should be Zemuzil, because Zemuzil is the spelling used in the only record existing for this duke, whereas Siemomysl is only used in Polish literature as an adapted Polish spelling. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Zemuzil is the latinization of Siemomysł. See section on pl wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
First, this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zemuzil,_Duke_of_Pomerania&diff=prev&oldid=376052514 is not true. Rymar mentions the name Zemuzil in connection with the Annals (as do pretty much all sources which discuss this guy) but he CALLS him Siemomysl. The section of his book devoted exclusively to the duke is under a heading "Siemomysl (Siemysl)", not under a heading of Zemuzil. In fact Rymar discusses the name in that section and outlines the various positions historians and linguists have taken on it, pretty much either Siemomysl or Siemysl. Second, I don´t think it´s true that he is known as "Siemomysl" only in "Polish historiography" - the guy was slavic, so obviously he had a slavic name, and Zemuzil ain´t slavic. So he´s Siemomysl or Siemysl in any kind of historiography that studied him; Polish, German, Fijian, whatever. Why does this guy´s real name, obviously slavic, have to be qualified here? Third, it´s true that the only record of his name is under Zemuzil ... actually that´s not true either, according to Rymar there´s another record, more recently discovered, that calls him Siemomysl and ít´s the same person ... but anyway, that is not a good enough reason to have the article title under that name. We´re talking 11th century here were everything was written in Latin so not surprising that his name got latinized. Bu the name was Siemomysl and that is what he is called in sources (btw, if you´re thinking of slapping up a google books search, don´t bother - as I´ve already said, any sources which discusses him will mention the Annals and Zemuzil, but that doesn´t mean that´s what the sources call him). I´m gonna get the precise info from Rymar here later and move back to the proper name shortly. Radek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)
- "Rymar mentions the name Zemuzil in connection with the Annals (as do pretty much all sources which discuss this guy)"
- Yes, unsurprisingly.
- "but he CALLS him Siemomysl"
- Rymar, in a Polish language book, outlines that some (Polish) historians think that Zemuzil is a variant of Siemomysl or Siemosil, spelled in modern Polish Siemomysł or Siemosił. While it is ok for a Polish book to use the Polish equivalent of the Pomeranian name (Polish authors often Polonize names from other languages), this is not relevant for en.wiki.
- "the guy was slavic, so obviously he had a slavic name, and Zemuzil ain´t slavic"
- You are mistaken, Zemuzil is of course Slavic. I am surprised that you think it is German.
- "So he´s Siemomysl or Siemysl in any kind of historiography that studied him; Polish, German, Fijian, whatever"
- 9 hits for "siemomysl+1046" (all Polish except for one English source that reads "Zemuzil (Siemomysl?)"
- 195 hits for "zemuzil+1046" (all languages, mostly German and Polish, no Fijian hit though), including Cambridge Medieval History
- "Third, it´s true that the only record of his name is under Zemuzil ... actually that´s not true either, according to Rymar there´s another record, more recently discovered, that calls him Siemomysl and ít´s the same person"
- What record would that be, and who connects that record to Zemuzil?
- "We´re talking 11th century here were everything was written in Latin so not surprising that his name got latinized"
- I don't see how Zemuzil is Latinized. It appears in a Latin record, but has no Latin features and is not a Latin equivalent either. The author wrote down the name as he knew it, in the contemporary alphabet. Since English is using the same alphabet, why should the spelling be changed to modern Polish? That alphabet didn't even exist back then, Zemuzil was not a Pole, and the alternative "true names" are speculative anyway.
- Skäpperöd (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Link to Bolesław I the Brave
There is a selection from the book Saga of the Kashub People in Poland, Canada, U.S.A. by Fr. Aloysius J. Rekowski (ISBN 1-895292-95-6) which states:
Around the year 1000 the East Pomeranian Prince or Duke reigning in Danzig (Gdansk) married the daughter of the Polish King Boleslaw and was baptized.
I'd like to see if anyone is able to back that up. Fr. Rekowski has been known to base his works off of an (out-of-print?) book called Ziemia Gromadzi Prochy (The Land Gathers Dust) by Józef Kisielewski, made in 1939. -- Zblewski|talk 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- If I remember right, this is a myth originating in the Hungarian "Gesta". I'll need to look it up though. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Move
Maybe we should move this to Zemuzil, as there is no other Zemuzil on Misplaced Pages. PatGallacher (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- All other dukes of Pomerania have the epitaph "..., Duke of Pomerania" in the article title. What do the nobility naming guides say? For consistency, I'd say either move all or none. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unassessed Middle Ages articles
- Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles
- Unassessed history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles