Disputatio:Belgium Hispanicum

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

De nomine[fontem recensere]

As it is mentioned in the hidden text, Nederlandia Hispanica does not seem right. The Westphalia treaty (or this text which deals with it) mentions Belgium Hispanicum [1]. In Spanish texts of the period it's usually referred to as Flandes, so there may be references to Flandria Hispanica, Provinciae Flandricae, or something similar. (Histories of the Eighty Years' War normally refer to it as Bellum Flandricum)--Xaverius 21:29, 3 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've deleted the hidden text. Hidden text in article space is a nuisance: removing it is generally advisable. Hidden text that's not in Latin is especially bad: I remove it whenever I see it (unless the article is "in progressu") and I would encourage others to do the same. I'm sure this is not the intention of hidden-texters, but its effect is to dissuade those who don't know the language concerned from improving the article. However, this hidden text started the discussion! so [it was evidently useful and] I'll place it here. Hope that's OK.
"Nederlandia" is quite recent and applies to the current Netherlands; in its times, the Spanish Netherlands would rather have been "Belgium Hispanicum" (but maybe still something else was more widespread)
Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:35, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I admit that here a "dubsig" and an mention on the talk page would have been more useful. But I also quite extensively use hidden text to give sources in lists of place names that don't have their own pages yet. I delete them whenever I create a corresponding page (which will then have the source, of course), but until then I don't see much of an alternative. Sigur (disputatio) 19:02, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might understand better if I saw an example, but what I do (and I have seen others do) is to put the source in a footnote to the relevant name. If you do that, anyone searching Vicipaedia for the name will find both the name and the footnote; if the source is online, you can include a link in the footnote and they will find that too. So, if creating the page, they might be able simply to take your footnote and place it after the lemma on the new page. That actually does happen. On the other hand, if you hide it, they will most likely not find it and Vicipaedia will not benefit. Even you, if you're creating the page long afterwards, will more easily find the information if it's visible, and will be able to click on the link to confirm it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:26, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's discuss this here. Sigur (disputatio) 20:45, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK: some quick GoogleBook searches:
  • Flandria Hispanica or Belgium Regium (as opposed to Flandria Hollandica and Confoederatio Belgica) 1999, secondary source. This one seems to refer to the entirety of the territory controlled by either the Habsburgs or the rebels Dutch. Cf. With the treaty between Charles II of Sp. and Leopold imp. in 1672. It is also referred as such in an imperial geography of 1703, where Belgium Regium = Spanische Niederlanden. This one actially lists the various territories of the dukes of Burgundy that by 1703 had been split into the Dutch, the Spanish, and the French.
  • Flandria Hispanica (as opposed to Flandria Gallica, Hollandica and Imperialis) 1711 geographical dictionary, cf. a 1736 Dutch version. NB that this dictionary also includes Brabantia Hispanica, ~Gallica &c, suggesting that it refers to Flanders proper and not to all the Netherlands.
  • Belgium Hispanicum, unequivocally referring to the entire territory: 1742.
--Xaverius 10:50, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall, I'd suggest something on the lines of "Flandria Hispanica vel aevo proprio Belgium Regium seu Hispanicum est..."--Xaverius 10:53, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your searching. Is "Flandria Imperialis" different from "Flandria Hispanica", or are they two ways of saying nearly the same thing? Forgive my ignorance. I should explain that in school history we stopped when we got to the Spanish Armada ... I guess the article itself, now that I re-read it, helps me understand this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:25, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, based on what I can read from the 1736 text, Flandria reflects the entire territory, but there are three political divisions: Hispanica, Gallica and Belgica (i.e, Dutch). Flandria Imperialis is another way of subdivission of the region, together with ~ Proprietaria, ~ Teutonica and ~ Gallica [the cognate of 'Welsh Flanders' in Dutch to refer to the Valoons]. I don't think these are language subdivisions (my Dutch is null), bu Imperialis is not opposed to Hispanica in the same way that Hispanica is opposed to Dutch/Belgica or French/Gallica.--Xaverius 16:08, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really would avoid "Flandria" in this context, certainly as the title. It is true that Flandria has often been used for the larger territory (Just like today people tend to say Holland for the whole of the Netherlands), but most of the time Flandria will today be understood to be the modern region (made out of parts of what used to be Flanders, Brabant and Liège) or the former County of Flanders (covering East and West Flanders in Belgium, Zeelandic Flanders in the Netherlands as well as in France French Flanders and Walloon Flanders (sic!), the latter being the Romance-speaking area around the city of Lille while "French Flanders" is the formerly (and to some extent still currently) Germanic-speaking part that is now in France). Belgium Regium seu Hispanicum seems OK to me, but Flandria Hispanica should only be mentioned later with an explanation of the "pars pro toto" usage of the term.
Concerning "Flandria Imperialis", I suspect it refers to the later Austrian Flanders/Netherlands (same territory after it passed from the Spanish to the Austrian Habsburgers in 1715), but it's not certain, because it could also simply refer to the fact that it was still part of the Holy Roman Empire (contrary to the Northern provinces). (This source gives a definition of "Flandria Imperialis" as a small part of the County of Flanders.) Sigur (disputatio) 19:02, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry - I moved it before seeing your comment. But it should be straight forward now to change and fix the redirects. I have added the names and sources to the lemma, but all three (Belgium/Flandria Hispanicx/Regix) appear in contemporary documents. I went for Flandria because it's closer to the Spanish expression, but I'm happy to have Belgium Regium as the main lemma.--Xaverius 19:11, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was trying to revise the page first, but when checking the source given I realised that it didn't really define what it referred to. I did another search in Google Books, and what I've found there for "Flandria Hispanica", "Flandria Hollandica" and "Flandria Gallica" (e.g. here and here) clearly refers to the three parts of the County of Flanders, not the larger territory this page is about. I do have a recollection of some ancient use of "Flanders" that basically encompassed several if not all territories of the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands, but unless someone finds a source for an unambiguous usage of "Flandria Hispanica" clearly meaning the "Spanish Netherlands", I would now tend to leave it completely out. Sigur (disputatio) 21:03, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the area we're talking about is, in general, what's shown on the map, then I agree it would be confusing to call it "Flandria ..." But then it seems equally confusing to call it "Belgium ..."! Did the name "Belgium" ever apply to the region north of the Rhine?
Thanks for clarifying "Flandria Imperialis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:21, 5 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes for Belgium. Actually, "Belgicus" used to be the Latin translation for "Nederlands" until it was taken over in the vernaculars to mean only the south while new words were coined in Latin for the north. Sigur (disputatio) 11:36, 5 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't know that. My ignorance never ceases to surprise me. Yes, I now find "Belgium Hispanicum trans Rhenum" referring specifically to that region (p. 265 apud Google Books).
"Belgium Hispanicum" might possibly be clearer than "Belgium Regium": it seems both phrases exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 5 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiding foreign-language text can have its uses, but not hiding it? Not so much! See what the article "Id, ego, et superego" looked like until a few minutes ago! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not hiding it is worse! How right you are, Iacobe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chronology and definition[fontem recensere]

"grex provinciarum Nederlandicarum, quae, postquam rebelles Hollandienses Rem Publicam Septem Provinciarum anno 1581 condiderunt" -- I am sure that "Spanish Netherlands" would also cover the northern protestant provinces between 1556 and 1581. I know it is debatable if Charles I's rule (1518-1556) over the 17 provinces should be considered "Spanish", but it isn't fair to start the Spanish Netherlands only after the north went its own way. --Xaverius 16:12, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, the Dutch national anthem, going back to 1572 (?), still acknowledges the Spanish king. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:56, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's more or less okay the way it is now. As to the exact dates, note that Wikidata says it started in 1522 in German, in 1581 in English and in 1556 in French. I'm not any wiser... Sigur (disputatio) 10:48, 6 Octobris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]