|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Faramundus is the normal spelling. Google it for information-- all the Latin histories of the Franks begin with "Faramundus"-- and put it under Salian Franks, the entry that needs to be made before this one, I'd think. User:Wetman
Faramundus (Pharamond) is not attested by Prosper Tiro (Prosper of Aquitaine) in his Chronicle, except in an "amended" version on which Sir Isaac Newton based his conclusions in his book on the prophecies of Daniel, etc. This flawed version of Prosper is not accepted as legitimate by scholars. Thus, no contemporary sources mention Faramundus, and the earliest mention of him is distinctly later in Carolingian times. Faramundus probably did not exist. Almirena 07:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say none of the above info is correct. The name Faramond is spelled in several ways in the sources (and Google, nor internet is a source). Furthermore there is a Faramond mentioned by Gregorius of Tours (as bishop)- who certainly was not a Carolingian. Faramond is named by a Carolingian source called Liber Historiae Francorum who states that he is the son of Marcomer/Marchomir. Marchomir is a well attested historical person. So why would his son probably not exist? Having said this, the whole article looks like teenage fiction. And why the **** is this a "WikiProject France"? Faramond was a Frank, not a Frenchman. And Franks are a proto-Dutch speaking tribe. Shame on Wikipedia! Johanthon, 01-02-2007. 19.30hrs P.S. I'm thinking of a RADICAL clean up for this article, but I don't want to end up in an edit war. So who is the responsibel editor for this page? Johanthon.
- Huh? I've removed some legendary stuff from the page years ago and it has been on my watchlist since. Now the current short text seems factual and sensible, but I can't vow for its accuracy. Whoever is going to redo this page, PLEASE go to the original sources (beware of Carolingian or later interpolations!), and quote them. Even then iff much of this person is dynastic fiction from later time, it is worth mentioning since it tells something about how the French regarded these early Franks, and Wikipedia readers may stumble upon this name and come look for info here. And BTW even though these pre-Merovingians may have come from a territory currently within the Netherlands, and spoke a West-Germanic language, traditionally the Dutch have not regarded them much as founders of their current country, while the French do for theirs. So I think it is OK to assign this article to France rather than the Netherlands or Belgium; I find the Andorran and Monagask flags here more puzzling. A WikiProject may incorporate any article they find relevant anyhow. Tom Peters 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tom, I don't want to hurt your feelings but the text is full of legendary stuff and there are no sources mentioned, just look at the text. Birthdate? Date of Death? Sun in law of Marcomer? 420? Prosper Tiro? Seperation ripuarians? Argotta? Son Chlodio? That's exactly why I am thinking of putting in some sources. For I feel it is time to seperate the account of historical sources and the scholars who promote pseudohistory. I am certainly not thinking of interpolating from Carolingian sources, on the contrary, I want to seperate fact from fiction. But I do think that for example the story of the Liber Historiae Francorum could be mentioned as a legendaric believe that lead to later "literary fascination".
- BTW; As a Dutch I can say I think Franks are part of my ancestors. That's very unimportant to me and to most Dutch, but it remains ridiculous that Wikipedia claims that Pharamond is a "French peer or noble". Why should Wikipedia want to make this political? That is not a good idea. johanthon 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well OK, but mind that these people are semi-legendary anyway (although likely based on historical persons), and no or very few contemporary sources on these people have been preserved, yet they have been playing a role as part of our history, in the sense of a story told about our past. It is good to separate verifiable fact from stories, but the way these people have been regarded in later times is at least as interesting as what is left of their "true" story, and should not be omitted. Another example: Jesus... Tom Peters 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to reiterate this - there is a LOT of misinformation about this Pharamond/Faramond/Faramundus on the internet. The only legitimate sources are in the original works, many of which you will probably be able to find in your local library. Please do not say that he is mentioned by Gregory of Tours. He is not. Check through your entire copy of the Decem Libri Historiarum, in whatever translation you have if you do not have the original Latin, and you will note that there is no mention of Pharamond (in any spelling). You will find Pharamond mentioned in the Gesta regnum Francorum (also known as the Liber Historiae Francorum), an anonymous work roughly dated to 720. The anonymous writer does not attribute his mention of Pharamond to any sources. Since earlier sources that are extant do not mention Pharamond, on what basis does this anonymous writer name Pharamond as the son of Marcomir? Is there anything to suggest this mention was purely apocryphal? Yes, on the basis of other material KNOWN to be apocryphal in the Gesta regnum Francorum, we can assert with confidence that the anonymous writer included either errors or inventions in his text. This is, by the way, not unusual. See the Historia Augusta for what is perhaps the most infamous of pseudohistory. As Thierry wrote in his Lettres l'Historie de France (p. 90): "Faramond fils de Markomir, quo que son nom soit bien germanique, et son regne possible, ne figure pas dans les histoires les plus dignes de foi." To sum up: there is no mention - NONE - of this Pharamond (Faramond, Faramundus) in any source earlier than the 700s. It would be irresponsible to refer to Pharamond as though he were a real and documented historical character. The evidence is clear, and Merovingian and Carolingian scholars are virtually unanimous in agreeing Pharamond almost certainly did not exist. This doesn't affect the validity of Marcomer, who is attested in Decem Libri Historiarum (and Gregory of Tours was actually quoting Sulpicius Alexander, who flourish in the late fourth century, with his mention of Marcomer), and earlier in De Consulatu Stilichonis (Liber Primo, XXI, line 240), by Claudius Claudiani, 400 A.D. Unless we discover source material earlier than the 700s attesting the existence of Pharamond, we must conclude his existence is a later invention intended to give a kingly validity to the Merovingians by the Carolingians who based their own validity upon the Merovingians even while decrying the weakness and lack of fitness of the Merovingian line (see R. McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World).Almirena
- But what do you think of the way I rewrote the article, Almirena? johanthon 14:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Johanthon, you have rewritten the article very carefully and with good attention to the historically ascertainable information, as well as referencing that which gives scholars the high degree of certainty that Pharamond is a mythical figure. I added something to the very start - an extremely small bit - to enable the reader to know immediately the actual status of Pharamond. Your work is laudable. There isn't much more we can say about Pharamond - unless you feel you'd like to add the use made by Handel's librettist of this mythological figure? (The opera "Faramondo" is based upon this figure - a very good opera it is, too, and it's a pity there isn't a decent recording of it. But the libretto has no historical value at all... simply another mythologising of a myth, which is a lovely irony.) Almirena 11:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently in a very poor state. It says essentially the opposite of what it used to say, with no more citations than it used to to justify the change. The phrasing is off, and the prose reiterates the same points again and again, never with any citations to back it up. There is also no context: how did the legend develop? What did historians from the period say about the Franks? For an article that has seen so much attention over the last few months, this is very disappointing.--Cúchullain t/c 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cuchullain, you wont get a better article if you delete sourced statements of for example Gregory, nor does the article improve if you put a fact-tag, right after the source. johanthon 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't delete anything about Gregory, and I certainly didn't delete anything that's sourced - nothing here is sourced. All I deleted was the reiteration that the character is probably mythical (which is also unsourced). Other than that I did some minor rewording; it needs much more still.--Cúchullain t/c 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please take a look at my small re-write, with sourced quotations. Johanthon, I have kept very much to the basic outline of what you had written. Cuchallain, if you're happy with this re-write, you could safely remove the tag. -Almirena 14:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy with this. Especially since you kept the point of multiple kings in Gregory. I think that is essential. Nicely sourced as well. johanthon 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)