Skip to content
1882
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0778-9750
  • E-ISSN: 2034-645X

Abstract

Abstract

In recent years, a consensus has begun to develop that Einhard had read the and that he used it in his . In particular, scholars have argued that he must have drawn the rare word from the text. In this article, we first review the history of the idea that Einhard had read the , then show how weakly grounded it is. In particular, we demonstrate that it is very unlikely that the text was his source for . We conclude with some thoughts on the way that this might influence recent debate over the in the Carolingian period.

Abstract

Au cours des dernières années, la communauté scientifique en est venue au consensus selon lequel Einhard aurait lu l’et l’aurait utilisée dans sa . Les chercheurs ont particulièrement mis de l’avant l’hypothèse qu’Einhard aurait emprunté à l’le terme rare de . Dans cet article, nous faisons le survol de l’historiographie qui prétend qu’Einhard aurait lu l’et démontrons ensuite la faiblesse des arguments qui sous-tendent ce raisonnement. Nous avançons qu’il est peu probable que l’ait été la source du mot dans la . En conclusion, nous offrons des réflexions sur la façon dont notre contribution pourrait influencer le débat récent sur la place de l’à l’époque carolingienne.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1484/J.JML.5.133612
2023-01-01
2025-12-07

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1484/J.JML.5.133612
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field.
Please enter a valid email address.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred.
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error:
Please enter a valid_number test
aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYnJlcG9sc29ubGluZS5uZXQv