[Archelaos]

> The title jarl is often translated into English as earl, but the correct translation would be duke. Jarl is simply just etymologically related to earl.

This is not so simple. Titles and their significance change over time. During the Anglo-Saxon period in Britain, an "ealdorman" was the ruler of one or (later) more shires; during the end of the period the title was shortend into "earl". The title lost later more and more of its importance. "Duke" was originally a French title (from French "Duc") and started to be used in England from the middle of the 14th century -- long after the Viking Period. Therefore it would be very anachronistic to translate "jarl" with "duke". If you were looking for the highest official of a shire in todays England you may prefer the translation "High Sheriff" (a title created in the early 1970s), but which is more or less only ceremonial. So no, a "jarl" is best to be left an "earl".

[atchoo]

> Duke" ... started to be used in England from the middle of the 14th century -- long after the Viking Period. Therefore it would be very anachronistic to translate "jarl" with "duke".

Apparently the Anglo-Saxon chronicle refers to Ealdormen as "Duces", plural of Dux, same Latin root as Duc and then Duke. It just means leader. As far as actual meaning then "second highest noble rank to a King" would mean that Jarls and Dukes are equivalent noble titles.

The spanner in the works is after 1066, Earls became equivalent to Counts, below the rank of Dukes. I wonder if this is due to King William still being a Duke in fealty to the King of France? Maybe the Shires were smaller/less-powerful than Duchies like Aquitaine, Normandy etc.?

So it sounds like it went: Ealdormen==Duke then after Cnut, Ealdormen==Jarl==Earl==Duke and then after 1066, (Earl==Count)!=Duke.

[shever73]

>an "ealdorman" was the ruler of one or (later) more shires; during the end of the period the title was shortend into "earl"

Do you have a source for this, please?

The OED says that "Ealdorman" is cognate with "Alderman", while "Jarl" is cognate with "Earl". The titles were used interchangeably, but one did not come from the other. The distinction being that earls held power under Danelaw. Earl replaced ealdorman as the title of distinction in the mid-11th century due to the extension of the power of earls outside of Danelaw.

[Archelaos]

Yes, my remark was not very precise. The two words seem to have different roots ("jarl"/"earl" < Old Engl. "eorl" = "brave man, warrior, leader, chief") vs. ("alderman" = "ald" + "man" = "old man").

Instead of writing:

"during the end of the period the title was shortend into 'earl'"

I should have written:

"during the end of the period 'ealdorman' was replaced by the etymologically unrelated, but phonetically close and shorter 'eorl', that later turned into 'earl'."

What I wanted to say is that "earl", though somewhat anachronistic, can still be an exceptable translation of "jarl". When the emphasis is on contemporary jargon, it might perhaps best be left untranslated. Another alternative would be to translate it with "count", because contemporary Latin sources sometimes use the word "comes" to refer to a jarl; but this translation has its own difficulties because "count" entered the English language also late via the French "comte". The only criteria in favour of "duke" is the fact that this title was later often used in Scandinavia instead of "jarl" for functionally similar offices. Another option is to translate "jarl" with "chief", which corresponds to a more general early usage of "jarl"; however, this would indicate too low a status for most of the Anglo-Saxon period.

My personal preference for the Anglo-Saxon period is to leave it untranslated. If someone insists on a translation, "earl" would still be the best fit in my opinion.