Bibliography
Pierre
Flobert
Works authored
Edition of the Latin text of Vita I S. Samsonis, with a French translation on facing pages; introduction
Contributions to journals
Flobert, Pierre, “La Vie ancienne de saint Samson et l’histoire”, Études Celtiques 29 (1992): 183–190.
abstract:
[FR] La première Vie de saint Samson passe en général pour dater du début du VIIe siècle, ce qui n’est guère vraisemblable. Si saint Samson probablement présent au Concile de Paris vers 561, est mort en 565, il est étrange que les faits aient été dénaturés à ce point en cinquante ans : par exemple, la femme de Childebert est dépeinte comme une reine particulièrement odieuse. Il faut aussi tenir compte des références du rédacteur, un grand vieillard, qui tient ses informations d’un octogénaire, neveu du diacre Hénoc, cousin de saint Samson, qui avait écrit une Vie et obtenu des renseignements par la mère du saint - longtemps après sa mort. En somme, l’auteur ne masque pas le décalage chronologique : un délai de 150 ans, presque trois vies humaines, n’a rien d’excessif ; cela situerait la composition, au plus tôt, au début (peut-être même au milieu) du VIIIe siècle. Cette datation ne ruine pas la portée historique de la Vie (cf. les traits de mœurs celtiques, et quelques celticismes de langue), mais elle invite à une extrême circonspection. La Vita prima serait antérieure de plus d’un siècle à la Vita secunda.
[EN] The First Vita Samsonis and History.
The First Life of St. Samson is generally considered as dating back from the early VIIth c., which is rather unprobable. If saint Samson, probably attending the Paris Concile around 561, really died in 565, it is surprising that facts could be altered to such extent within fifty years : Childebert’s wife, for example, is depicted as a particularly hateful queen. One should also take into account that the redactor, himself very old, received his informations from an octogenarian, a nephew of Henoc the deacon, a cousin of saint Samson, who had written a Life and collected informations from the saint’s mother, long after he died. The author finally does not conceal the chronological gap : a span of 150 years, nearly three life-times, would not be exaggerated ; this would place the composition, at the earliest, in the early (or middle) VIIIth c. Such a date would not ruin the historical value of the Life (cf. Celtic customs, and some linguistical celticisms), but it invites us to treat it most cautiously. The Vita prima would then precede by more than one century the Vita secunda.
[EN] The First Vita Samsonis and History.
The First Life of St. Samson is generally considered as dating back from the early VIIth c., which is rather unprobable. If saint Samson, probably attending the Paris Concile around 561, really died in 565, it is surprising that facts could be altered to such extent within fifty years : Childebert’s wife, for example, is depicted as a particularly hateful queen. One should also take into account that the redactor, himself very old, received his informations from an octogenarian, a nephew of Henoc the deacon, a cousin of saint Samson, who had written a Life and collected informations from the saint’s mother, long after he died. The author finally does not conceal the chronological gap : a span of 150 years, nearly three life-times, would not be exaggerated ; this would place the composition, at the earliest, in the early (or middle) VIIIth c. Such a date would not ruin the historical value of the Life (cf. Celtic customs, and some linguistical celticisms), but it invites us to treat it most cautiously. The Vita prima would then precede by more than one century the Vita secunda.
Persée – Études Celtiques, vol. 29, 1992: <link>
abstract:
[FR] La première Vie de saint Samson passe en général pour dater du début du VIIe siècle, ce qui n’est guère vraisemblable. Si saint Samson probablement présent au Concile de Paris vers 561, est mort en 565, il est étrange que les faits aient été dénaturés à ce point en cinquante ans : par exemple, la femme de Childebert est dépeinte comme une reine particulièrement odieuse. Il faut aussi tenir compte des références du rédacteur, un grand vieillard, qui tient ses informations d’un octogénaire, neveu du diacre Hénoc, cousin de saint Samson, qui avait écrit une Vie et obtenu des renseignements par la mère du saint - longtemps après sa mort. En somme, l’auteur ne masque pas le décalage chronologique : un délai de 150 ans, presque trois vies humaines, n’a rien d’excessif ; cela situerait la composition, au plus tôt, au début (peut-être même au milieu) du VIIIe siècle. Cette datation ne ruine pas la portée historique de la Vie (cf. les traits de mœurs celtiques, et quelques celticismes de langue), mais elle invite à une extrême circonspection. La Vita prima serait antérieure de plus d’un siècle à la Vita secunda.
[EN] The First Vita Samsonis and History.
The First Life of St. Samson is generally considered as dating back from the early VIIth c., which is rather unprobable. If saint Samson, probably attending the Paris Concile around 561, really died in 565, it is surprising that facts could be altered to such extent within fifty years : Childebert’s wife, for example, is depicted as a particularly hateful queen. One should also take into account that the redactor, himself very old, received his informations from an octogenarian, a nephew of Henoc the deacon, a cousin of saint Samson, who had written a Life and collected informations from the saint’s mother, long after he died. The author finally does not conceal the chronological gap : a span of 150 years, nearly three life-times, would not be exaggerated ; this would place the composition, at the earliest, in the early (or middle) VIIIth c. Such a date would not ruin the historical value of the Life (cf. Celtic customs, and some linguistical celticisms), but it invites us to treat it most cautiously. The Vita prima would then precede by more than one century the Vita secunda.
[EN] The First Vita Samsonis and History.
The First Life of St. Samson is generally considered as dating back from the early VIIth c., which is rather unprobable. If saint Samson, probably attending the Paris Concile around 561, really died in 565, it is surprising that facts could be altered to such extent within fifty years : Childebert’s wife, for example, is depicted as a particularly hateful queen. One should also take into account that the redactor, himself very old, received his informations from an octogenarian, a nephew of Henoc the deacon, a cousin of saint Samson, who had written a Life and collected informations from the saint’s mother, long after he died. The author finally does not conceal the chronological gap : a span of 150 years, nearly three life-times, would not be exaggerated ; this would place the composition, at the earliest, in the early (or middle) VIIIth c. Such a date would not ruin the historical value of the Life (cf. Celtic customs, and some linguistical celticisms), but it invites us to treat it most cautiously. The Vita prima would then precede by more than one century the Vita secunda.
