Talk:Treaty of Senlis

Untitled

..were relinquished to the House of Habsburg in Austria. Franche-Comté were among the territories ceded to Austria...

This is very confusing. To the House of Habsburg yes, to Austria no. As an independent country Austria did not exist in these days any more than the Netherlands. Yes Maximilian possessed the Austrian lands as well as Flanders Franche-Comte etc. but Brussels was the capital of what would become the Burgundian Circle. Not Vienna.

Another problem is that for some of the territories mentioned it is merely a recognition of ownership by the French king, not a cession

The Dutchy of Burgundy?? That had been taken in 1477 and ceded by Maximillian at the Peace of Arras.. Yes, the title was continued, but it was only a title. Or is this part of the confusion around the Franche-Comte being the Freigrafschaft Burgund, the German fief to the east of the French one?

nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

There's a mistake. The Duchy of Burgundy was still under French rule after 1493. The House of Austria and Burgundy (that is , Maximilian of Hapsburg, Mary of Burgundy's widower) took over the Franche-Comté (Free County of Burgundy), not over the Duchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stuck in the conflict?

It seems that the reason given for Charles giving in at Senlis: "In 1493, Charles VIII, stuck in the conflict with King Alfonso II of Naples," is pretty unlikely, as Alfonso was neither king at that time nor had the French quest for the crown of Naples, usually called the First Italian war, started. If it played a role, then in the ambitions of Charles, he was certainly not "stuck" in the meaning that his resources were bound to the south. If nobody objects I will rewrite that passage in a week or four. ASchudak (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Original text of the treaty

I'm trying to retrieve the original text of the treaty. Only Google Books seems to host copies of the text in its entirety, but there are some small differences between the versions. The 1726 Dumont version seemed reliable, so I took that as the article's model:

• Dumont, Jean (1726). Corps Universel Diplomatique Du Droit Des Gens: Contenant Un Recueil Des Traitez D'Alliance, De Paix, De Trêve,... qui ont été faits en Europe, depuis le Regne de l'Empereur Charlemagne jusques à présent. Amsterdam: P. Brunel, R. & G. Wetstein, Janssons-Waesberge, L'Honore' & Chatelain. pp. 303–308. Retrieved 30 May 2022..
  

Dumont cites his primary sources as:

• 'Divers Traitez, Contracts, Testamens, &c. Servant aux Mémoires de Philippe de Commines, page 253.
• Frederic Leonard, Tom. I. page 354.
• Observations de Godefroi sur l'Histoire de Charles VIII. Roi de France, page 640.
• Voyez la Commission de l'Achiduc d'Autriche par raport à l'execution de ce Traité, sous le 30. Avril 1495.'
  

However, there are 233 years in between the treaty date and this copy's publication, so we need to be on our guard for textual changes.

I just found a slightly older 1718 copy by Müller, which notably does not number the items, and has fewer accents aigus or circonflexes on words, and therefore is likely less edited than Dumont's version.

• Müller, Johann Joachim (1718). Des Heil. Römischen Reichs, Teutscher Nation, Reichs Rags theatrum. Retrieved 31 May 2022.

Most copies found on Google Books seem to draw from the memoires of Commines, e.g. this 1747 Lenglet du Fresnoy edition, which does not number the items either. There are also a few wordings differently, e.g. in item no. #2:

• "conduire honorablement selon son état, en tel lieu ou ville" (Müller 1718)
• "conduire honorablement selon son état, en tel Lieu ou Ville" (Dumont 1726)
• "conduire honorablement selon son état en telle ville ou lieu" (Lenglet 1747)
  

These are just some initial observations that we should pay attention to if we want to reconstruct the original text. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

PS: Apart from the capitalisation of some words in Dumont's version, there seems to be no strong evidence of a change in spelling of words, except for the words roi and roiaume where one would expect roy and royaume in 15th-century French. Lenglet spells roi but royaume, however, and also adds a 'Salut' in the opening sentence (common practice in the 16th century) that Müller and Dumont omit. Lenglet also turns 'nôtre Cousin le Comte de Solre' into 'le Comte de Zollern', noting in a comment that this should be understood as Eitel Friedrich II, Count of Hohenzollern. Although I don't see evidence that 'Solre' is an old French exonym of 'Zollern', it's true that this Eitel Frederick of Hohenzollern was close to Emperor Maximilian. I initially thought 'Solre' referred to someone from the House_of_Croÿ#The_line_of_Croÿ-Solre, but they wouldn't be known as Croÿ-Solre until the 18th century. Either way, this is more evidence of Lenglet changing the text. In the same sentence, he turns Aichstad into Eystad (probably Eichstätt) and spells envoier as envoyer and moienner as moyenner. The question is, which one is the original spelling? Roi is definitely a modernisation of Roy, but what about Roiaume? I've never seen this spelling; it appears to be a failed early modern attempt at modernising Royaume without a y, which was subsequently reintroduced (modern French still has roi and royaume, a historically frozen inconsistency). The same goes for Pais versus Pays. It's possible that Müller and Dumont changed the ys in the original text into is, but that Lenglet undid these changes except for the i in Roi. Just because Müller and Dumont are older and more consistent with each other, does not necessarily mean Lenglet is always wrong. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)