I wondered about that too, but if the conclusion to the Via Gundulfi
(as related by the Bollandists, per Don Stone's posting in the "My
Merovingian line" thread) calls Gundulf the patruus of Arnulf, then it
will be the father's side.
For Arnulf to be the great-nephew of Gundulf then "patruus" must be be
used in the sense of "great-uncle" as well as "uncle'. Can someone
confirm that such usage is known to occur?
On a separate point, what do we know about the ancestry of the various
spouses of these men? I recall one author -- I think it was Stuart in
RFC --giving pedigrees that showed that Arnoald of Metz was both
father-in-law of Arnulf and father of Itta wife of Pepin of Landen,
which results in their children marrying their first cousins. Is that
incorrect and if so, which of the claimed filiations is in error?
Ancestrry of St Arnulf
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
"Mark Harry" <dunsland@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5e99e54.0501081751.5fd2b7fd@posting.google.com...
The classical term for great-uncle was "patruus magnus", but adding the
adjective was far from common in medieval usage. Anyway, in order to make a
certain distinction you would first have to know from other evidence that
the writer was aware of the generation gap, and there are precious few
instances where that can be shown.
Peter Stewart
news:d5e99e54.0501081751.5fd2b7fd@posting.google.com...
I wondered about that too, but if the conclusion to the Via Gundulfi
(as related by the Bollandists, per Don Stone's posting in the "My
Merovingian line" thread) calls Gundulf the patruus of Arnulf, then it
will be the father's side.
For Arnulf to be the great-nephew of Gundulf then "patruus" must be be
used in the sense of "great-uncle" as well as "uncle'. Can someone
confirm that such usage is known to occur?
The classical term for great-uncle was "patruus magnus", but adding the
adjective was far from common in medieval usage. Anyway, in order to make a
certain distinction you would first have to know from other evidence that
the writer was aware of the generation gap, and there are precious few
instances where that can be shown.
Peter Stewart
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
On 8 Jan 2005 17:51:16 -0800, dunsland@yahoo.com (Mark Harry) wrote:
The problem with questions like these regarding such thinly documented
matters of early medieval genealogy is that there is no good answer,
at least not at the present state of research. RFC, which is bad
enough for the better documented early period, is utterly worthless on
the points mentioned here. Of course, there are MUCH better places to
turn than RFC (such as various articles on the subject by Settipani
and others), but the sources being thin as they are, there is no way
to make progress without using sources whose reliability is in
dispute. This being the case, a fairly typical way of dealing with a
suspect (and usually late) source is as follows. First, it is argued
that the author had access to some genuine information, which was used
(at least in part) as a source. Second, it is argued that some
reliable information can be isolated from the mixture of reliable and
unreliable data present in the suspect source. Although the arguments
in favor of the first point are often quite plausible, the second
stage of the process (often called the "separating the wheat from the
chaff" problem in this newsgroup) is much more problematic, making it
much more difficult to reach any kind of consensus.
As an example, take the Gundulf problem mentioned above. Since the
Life of Gundulf refers to Bodegisil as the brother of Gundulf as well
as the father of Arnulf, there does not seem to bew much room to
maneuver with regard to the definition of the word "nepos" in this
particular case. If one wishes to make Gundulf a granduncle of Arnulf
rather than an uncle (the latter having chronological problems), then
at least part of the "Vita Gundulfi" must be rejected. If one also
wishes to use other genealogical statements from the same source, then
we are back to the "wheat vs. chaff" problem, needing to explain why
one piece of the genealogy should be accepted while another is
rejected.
Given such problems, the lack of a definitive answer to your question
is understandable.
Stewart Baldwin
I wondered about that too, but if the conclusion to the Via Gundulfi
(as related by the Bollandists, per Don Stone's posting in the "My
Merovingian line" thread) calls Gundulf the patruus of Arnulf, then it
will be the father's side.
For Arnulf to be the great-nephew of Gundulf then "patruus" must be be
used in the sense of "great-uncle" as well as "uncle'. Can someone
confirm that such usage is known to occur?
On a separate point, what do we know about the ancestry of the various
spouses of these men? I recall one author -- I think it was Stuart in
RFC --giving pedigrees that showed that Arnoald of Metz was both
father-in-law of Arnulf and father of Itta wife of Pepin of Landen,
which results in their children marrying their first cousins. Is that
incorrect and if so, which of the claimed filiations is in error?
The problem with questions like these regarding such thinly documented
matters of early medieval genealogy is that there is no good answer,
at least not at the present state of research. RFC, which is bad
enough for the better documented early period, is utterly worthless on
the points mentioned here. Of course, there are MUCH better places to
turn than RFC (such as various articles on the subject by Settipani
and others), but the sources being thin as they are, there is no way
to make progress without using sources whose reliability is in
dispute. This being the case, a fairly typical way of dealing with a
suspect (and usually late) source is as follows. First, it is argued
that the author had access to some genuine information, which was used
(at least in part) as a source. Second, it is argued that some
reliable information can be isolated from the mixture of reliable and
unreliable data present in the suspect source. Although the arguments
in favor of the first point are often quite plausible, the second
stage of the process (often called the "separating the wheat from the
chaff" problem in this newsgroup) is much more problematic, making it
much more difficult to reach any kind of consensus.
As an example, take the Gundulf problem mentioned above. Since the
Life of Gundulf refers to Bodegisil as the brother of Gundulf as well
as the father of Arnulf, there does not seem to bew much room to
maneuver with regard to the definition of the word "nepos" in this
particular case. If one wishes to make Gundulf a granduncle of Arnulf
rather than an uncle (the latter having chronological problems), then
at least part of the "Vita Gundulfi" must be rejected. If one also
wishes to use other genealogical statements from the same source, then
we are back to the "wheat vs. chaff" problem, needing to explain why
one piece of the genealogy should be accepted while another is
rejected.
Given such problems, the lack of a definitive answer to your question
is understandable.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Don Stone
Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
[snip]
Following Settipani (and others), there are two different Bodogisels here:
1) the Austrasian duke, b. say 520/5, d. 585, probable brother of Gundulf
and Mummolinus;
2) the ambassador to Byzantium in 589, son of Mummolinus and probable father
of Arnulf.
(In _Onomastique and Parente_, edited by Keats-Rohan and Settipani, see
Settipani's discussion "La famille de Bodogisel" on pp. 217-9 and his chart
on p. 229.)
So we don't have to reject part of the "Vita Gundulfi" in this case.
When there are several people of a given name in a given (thinly documented)
time period and region, it is often tricky to assign specific deeds to
specific individuals.
[snip]
.... the sources being thin as they are, there is no way
to make progress without using sources whose reliability is in
dispute. This being the case, a fairly typical way of dealing with a
suspect (and usually late) source is as follows. First, it is argued
that the author had access to some genuine information, which was used
(at least in part) as a source. Second, it is argued that some
reliable information can be isolated from the mixture of reliable and
unreliable data present in the suspect source. Although the arguments
in favor of the first point are often quite plausible, the second
stage of the process (often called the "separating the wheat from the
chaff" problem in this newsgroup) is much more problematic, making it
much more difficult to reach any kind of consensus.
As an example, take the Gundulf problem mentioned above. Since the
Life of Gundulf refers to Bodegisil as the brother of Gundulf as well
as the father of Arnulf, there does not seem to be much room to
maneuver with regard to the definition of the word "nepos" in this
particular case. If one wishes to make Gundulf a granduncle of Arnulf
rather than an uncle (the latter having chronological problems), then
at least part of the "Vita Gundulfi" must be rejected.
Following Settipani (and others), there are two different Bodogisels here:
1) the Austrasian duke, b. say 520/5, d. 585, probable brother of Gundulf
and Mummolinus;
2) the ambassador to Byzantium in 589, son of Mummolinus and probable father
of Arnulf.
(In _Onomastique and Parente_, edited by Keats-Rohan and Settipani, see
Settipani's discussion "La famille de Bodogisel" on pp. 217-9 and his chart
on p. 229.)
So we don't have to reject part of the "Vita Gundulfi" in this case.
When there are several people of a given name in a given (thinly documented)
time period and region, it is often tricky to assign specific deeds to
specific individuals.
If one also
wishes to use other genealogical statements from the same source, then
we are back to the "wheat vs. chaff" problem, needing to explain why
one piece of the genealogy should be accepted while another is
rejected.
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:26:54 GMT, Don Stone <don.stone@verizon.net>
wrote:
It depends on how the individual(s) are mentioned in the source. If,
for example, we have the two statements that "Celebrían was the
daughter of Galadriel" and that "Arwen was the daughter of Celebrían"
separated by enough intervening passages that it is not clear from
context whether or not these passages concerned the same Celebrían,
then there is clearly more room for interpretation than if we have a
single statement that "Galadriel was the mother of Celebrían, who was
the mother of Arwen." To go to the example under consideration, the
following is the relevant text and translation from "Vita Gundulfi"
(taken from Acta Sanctorum, the source cited by Settipani in the above
reference, but leaving the word "nepos" untranslated).
From Acta Sanctorum, July, IV, p. 160:
Sanctus Gondulphus filius deplorati Munderici, quem Theodoricus rex
necari jussit, fuit magnus in Austria sed major & nobilior coram
Domino, cujus mandata servavit. Ille nutritus cum Bodegisilo Duce
fratre suo in palatio regis Chlotarii; ita hominibus & Deo placuit, ut
ab omnibus laudaretur Vir sanctus. Cum polleret honoribus Theodeberti
regis, dixit in senectute sua Arnulpho filio Bodegisili Ducis: Audi
me, nepos carissime, judicium inchoatum Domini, qui Mundericum perimi
gladio permisit, filium Childerici parricidæ. Oremus, ut Christus
avertat capita nostra a ventura ira: dixit enim Omnipotens; Visitabo
iniquitates vestras usque ad tertiam & quartam generationem. Hæc
cogitans, relicto seculo, vitam monasticiam amplexus est, & post
migrationem Monulfi, cum attigisset ætatis annum septuagesimum sextum
ab universis civibus urbis Tungreensis electus, consecratur episcopus.
My translation (corrections welcome, if needed):
St. Gondulph, son of the mourned Munderic, whom king Theoderic ordered
to be killed, was great in Austra[sia], but greater and nobler in the
presence of the Lord, whose command he served. Brought up with his
brother Duke Bodegisil in the palace of King Chlotar, he so pleased
men and God that he was praised by all as a holy man. When he was
powerful in the service of King Theodebert, he said in old age to
Arnulph the son of Duke Bodegisil: "Hear from me, dearest 'nepos',
about the unfinished judgement of the Lord, which has allowed Munderic
to be killed by the sword, son of Childeric the Parricide. We beg
that Christ avert our heads from the wrath to come. Truly, the
Almighty has said, 'I shall visit your iniquities up to the third and
fourth generation.'" Knowing this, as the century turned, he embraced
the life of a monk, and after the removal of Monulf, when he had
reached the age of seventy-six years, having been elected by all of
the citizens of the city of Tongres, he was consecrated as bishop.
In this case, as I read it, there does not seem to be much latitude
for interpreting this passage as mentioning two different Bodegisils.
Not only do the two statements come in adjacent sentences, but both
references refer to Bodegisil with the title of duke. Thus, the
context seems to be clearly referring to a single Bodegisil here, so
that "nepos" would be translated by the usual "nephew" rather than the
uncommon "grandnephew". For that reason, I don't see how you can make
Arnulf a grandnephew of Gundulf without at least partly rejecting the
testimony of this source.
I only recently read the above article of Settipani for the first time
(having just recently purchased the book in which it appears), and I
have not read enough of the other works on this topic to form a strong
opinion about the claims made there (in fact, I have never even seen a
copy of Settipani's book on the ancestors of Charlemagne). Thus, I am
not claiming here that I believe the reconstruction making Arnulf a
grandnephew of Gundulf to be wrong, only that such a reconstruction
requires, at the very least, that one assume that "Vita Gundulfi" has
confused two different men named Bodegisil.
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
Following Settipani (and others), there are two different Bodogisels here:
1) the Austrasian duke, b. say 520/5, d. 585, probable brother of Gundulf
and Mummolinus;
2) the ambassador to Byzantium in 589, son of Mummolinus and probable father
of Arnulf.
(In _Onomastique and Parente_, edited by Keats-Rohan and Settipani, see
Settipani's discussion "La famille de Bodogisel" on pp. 217-9 and his chart
on p. 229.)
So we don't have to reject part of the "Vita Gundulfi" in this case.
When there are several people of a given name in a given (thinly documented)
time period and region, it is often tricky to assign specific deeds to
specific individuals.
It depends on how the individual(s) are mentioned in the source. If,
for example, we have the two statements that "Celebrían was the
daughter of Galadriel" and that "Arwen was the daughter of Celebrían"
separated by enough intervening passages that it is not clear from
context whether or not these passages concerned the same Celebrían,
then there is clearly more room for interpretation than if we have a
single statement that "Galadriel was the mother of Celebrían, who was
the mother of Arwen." To go to the example under consideration, the
following is the relevant text and translation from "Vita Gundulfi"
(taken from Acta Sanctorum, the source cited by Settipani in the above
reference, but leaving the word "nepos" untranslated).
From Acta Sanctorum, July, IV, p. 160:
Sanctus Gondulphus filius deplorati Munderici, quem Theodoricus rex
necari jussit, fuit magnus in Austria sed major & nobilior coram
Domino, cujus mandata servavit. Ille nutritus cum Bodegisilo Duce
fratre suo in palatio regis Chlotarii; ita hominibus & Deo placuit, ut
ab omnibus laudaretur Vir sanctus. Cum polleret honoribus Theodeberti
regis, dixit in senectute sua Arnulpho filio Bodegisili Ducis: Audi
me, nepos carissime, judicium inchoatum Domini, qui Mundericum perimi
gladio permisit, filium Childerici parricidæ. Oremus, ut Christus
avertat capita nostra a ventura ira: dixit enim Omnipotens; Visitabo
iniquitates vestras usque ad tertiam & quartam generationem. Hæc
cogitans, relicto seculo, vitam monasticiam amplexus est, & post
migrationem Monulfi, cum attigisset ætatis annum septuagesimum sextum
ab universis civibus urbis Tungreensis electus, consecratur episcopus.
My translation (corrections welcome, if needed):
St. Gondulph, son of the mourned Munderic, whom king Theoderic ordered
to be killed, was great in Austra[sia], but greater and nobler in the
presence of the Lord, whose command he served. Brought up with his
brother Duke Bodegisil in the palace of King Chlotar, he so pleased
men and God that he was praised by all as a holy man. When he was
powerful in the service of King Theodebert, he said in old age to
Arnulph the son of Duke Bodegisil: "Hear from me, dearest 'nepos',
about the unfinished judgement of the Lord, which has allowed Munderic
to be killed by the sword, son of Childeric the Parricide. We beg
that Christ avert our heads from the wrath to come. Truly, the
Almighty has said, 'I shall visit your iniquities up to the third and
fourth generation.'" Knowing this, as the century turned, he embraced
the life of a monk, and after the removal of Monulf, when he had
reached the age of seventy-six years, having been elected by all of
the citizens of the city of Tongres, he was consecrated as bishop.
In this case, as I read it, there does not seem to be much latitude
for interpreting this passage as mentioning two different Bodegisils.
Not only do the two statements come in adjacent sentences, but both
references refer to Bodegisil with the title of duke. Thus, the
context seems to be clearly referring to a single Bodegisil here, so
that "nepos" would be translated by the usual "nephew" rather than the
uncommon "grandnephew". For that reason, I don't see how you can make
Arnulf a grandnephew of Gundulf without at least partly rejecting the
testimony of this source.
I only recently read the above article of Settipani for the first time
(having just recently purchased the book in which it appears), and I
have not read enough of the other works on this topic to form a strong
opinion about the claims made there (in fact, I have never even seen a
copy of Settipani's book on the ancestors of Charlemagne). Thus, I am
not claiming here that I believe the reconstruction making Arnulf a
grandnephew of Gundulf to be wrong, only that such a reconstruction
requires, at the very least, that one assume that "Vita Gundulfi" has
confused two different men named Bodegisil.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Paul K Davis
Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
So, if I understand and, if we take the sources as they stand, there were
indeed two Bodegisels, but Arnulf was the son of the elder one, rather than
the younger one, but this is chronologically difficult.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
indeed two Bodegisels, but Arnulf was the son of the elder one, rather than
the younger one, but this is chronologically difficult.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
[Original Message]
From: Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 1/12/2005 3:14:43 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:26:54 GMT, Don Stone <don.stone@verizon.net
wrote:
Following Settipani (and others), there are two different Bodogisels
here:
1) the Austrasian duke, b. say 520/5, d. 585, probable brother of
Gundulf
and Mummolinus;
2) the ambassador to Byzantium in 589, son of Mummolinus and probable
father
of Arnulf.
(In _Onomastique and Parente_, edited by Keats-Rohan and Settipani, see
Settipani's discussion "La famille de Bodogisel" on pp. 217-9 and his
chart
on p. 229.)
So we don't have to reject part of the "Vita Gundulfi" in this case.
When there are several people of a given name in a given (thinly
documented)
time period and region, it is often tricky to assign specific deeds to
specific individuals.
It depends on how the individual(s) are mentioned in the source. If,
for example, we have the two statements that "Celebrían was the
daughter of Galadriel" and that "Arwen was the daughter of Celebrían"
separated by enough intervening passages that it is not clear from
context whether or not these passages concerned the same Celebrían,
then there is clearly more room for interpretation than if we have a
single statement that "Galadriel was the mother of Celebrían, who was
the mother of Arwen." To go to the example under consideration, the
following is the relevant text and translation from "Vita Gundulfi"
(taken from Acta Sanctorum, the source cited by Settipani in the above
reference, but leaving the word "nepos" untranslated).
From Acta Sanctorum, July, IV, p. 160:
Sanctus Gondulphus filius deplorati Munderici, quem Theodoricus rex
necari jussit, fuit magnus in Austria sed major & nobilior coram
Domino, cujus mandata servavit. Ille nutritus cum Bodegisilo Duce
fratre suo in palatio regis Chlotarii; ita hominibus & Deo placuit, ut
ab omnibus laudaretur Vir sanctus. Cum polleret honoribus Theodeberti
regis, dixit in senectute sua Arnulpho filio Bodegisili Ducis: Audi
me, nepos carissime, judicium inchoatum Domini, qui Mundericum perimi
gladio permisit, filium Childerici parricidæ. Oremus, ut Christus
avertat capita nostra a ventura ira: dixit enim Omnipotens; Visitabo
iniquitates vestras usque ad tertiam & quartam generationem. Hæc
cogitans, relicto seculo, vitam monasticiam amplexus est, & post
migrationem Monulfi, cum attigisset ætatis annum septuagesimum sextum
ab universis civibus urbis Tungreensis electus, consecratur episcopus.
My translation (corrections welcome, if needed):
St. Gondulph, son of the mourned Munderic, whom king Theoderic ordered
to be killed, was great in Austra[sia], but greater and nobler in the
presence of the Lord, whose command he served. Brought up with his
brother Duke Bodegisil in the palace of King Chlotar, he so pleased
men and God that he was praised by all as a holy man. When he was
powerful in the service of King Theodebert, he said in old age to
Arnulph the son of Duke Bodegisil: "Hear from me, dearest 'nepos',
about the unfinished judgement of the Lord, which has allowed Munderic
to be killed by the sword, son of Childeric the Parricide. We beg
that Christ avert our heads from the wrath to come. Truly, the
Almighty has said, 'I shall visit your iniquities up to the third and
fourth generation.'" Knowing this, as the century turned, he embraced
the life of a monk, and after the removal of Monulf, when he had
reached the age of seventy-six years, having been elected by all of
the citizens of the city of Tongres, he was consecrated as bishop.
In this case, as I read it, there does not seem to be much latitude
for interpreting this passage as mentioning two different Bodegisils.
Not only do the two statements come in adjacent sentences, but both
references refer to Bodegisil with the title of duke. Thus, the
context seems to be clearly referring to a single Bodegisil here, so
that "nepos" would be translated by the usual "nephew" rather than the
uncommon "grandnephew". For that reason, I don't see how you can make
Arnulf a grandnephew of Gundulf without at least partly rejecting the
testimony of this source.
I only recently read the above article of Settipani for the first time
(having just recently purchased the book in which it appears), and I
have not read enough of the other works on this topic to form a strong
opinion about the claims made there (in fact, I have never even seen a
copy of Settipani's book on the ancestors of Charlemagne). Thus, I am
not claiming here that I believe the reconstruction making Arnulf a
grandnephew of Gundulf to be wrong, only that such a reconstruction
requires, at the very least, that one assume that "Vita Gundulfi" has
confused two different men named Bodegisil.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Don Stone
Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
Stewart,
You are right. The two Bodogisels are not relevant, because the quoted
passage pretty clearly mentions the same Bodogisel twice (in the form that
we have it, anyway). I responded too quickly and was too focused on
Settipani's eventual reconstruction.
-- Don Stone
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
You are right. The two Bodogisels are not relevant, because the quoted
passage pretty clearly mentions the same Bodogisel twice (in the form that
we have it, anyway). I responded too quickly and was too focused on
Settipani's eventual reconstruction.
-- Don Stone
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:26:54 GMT, Don Stone <don.stone@verizon.net
wrote:
Following Settipani (and others), there are two different Bodogisels here:
1) the Austrasian duke, b. say 520/5, d. 585, probable brother of Gundulf
and Mummolinus;
2) the ambassador to Byzantium in 589, son of Mummolinus and probable father
of Arnulf.
(In _Onomastique and Parente_, edited by Keats-Rohan and Settipani, see
Settipani's discussion "La famille de Bodogisel" on pp. 217-9 and his chart
on p. 229.)
So we don't have to reject part of the "Vita Gundulfi" in this case.
When there are several people of a given name in a given (thinly documented)
time period and region, it is often tricky to assign specific deeds to
specific individuals.
It depends on how the individual(s) are mentioned in the source. If,
for example, we have the two statements that "Celebrían was the
daughter of Galadriel" and that "Arwen was the daughter of Celebrían"
separated by enough intervening passages that it is not clear from
context whether or not these passages concerned the same Celebrían,
then there is clearly more room for interpretation than if we have a
single statement that "Galadriel was the mother of Celebrían, who was
the mother of Arwen." To go to the example under consideration, the
following is the relevant text and translation from "Vita Gundulfi"
(taken from Acta Sanctorum, the source cited by Settipani in the above
reference, but leaving the word "nepos" untranslated).
From Acta Sanctorum, July, IV, p. 160:
Sanctus Gondulphus filius deplorati Munderici, quem Theodoricus rex
necari jussit, fuit magnus in Austria sed major & nobilior coram
Domino, cujus mandata servavit. Ille nutritus cum Bodegisilo Duce
fratre suo in palatio regis Chlotarii; ita hominibus & Deo placuit, ut
ab omnibus laudaretur Vir sanctus. Cum polleret honoribus Theodeberti
regis, dixit in senectute sua Arnulpho filio Bodegisili Ducis: Audi
me, nepos carissime, judicium inchoatum Domini, qui Mundericum perimi
gladio permisit, filium Childerici parricidæ. Oremus, ut Christus
avertat capita nostra a ventura ira: dixit enim Omnipotens; Visitabo
iniquitates vestras usque ad tertiam & quartam generationem. Hæc
cogitans, relicto seculo, vitam monasticiam amplexus est, & post
migrationem Monulfi, cum attigisset ætatis annum septuagesimum sextum
ab universis civibus urbis Tungreensis electus, consecratur episcopus.
My translation (corrections welcome, if needed):
St. Gondulph, son of the mourned Munderic, whom king Theoderic ordered
to be killed, was great in Austra[sia], but greater and nobler in the
presence of the Lord, whose command he served. Brought up with his
brother Duke Bodegisil in the palace of King Chlotar, he so pleased
men and God that he was praised by all as a holy man. When he was
powerful in the service of King Theodebert, he said in old age to
Arnulph the son of Duke Bodegisil: "Hear from me, dearest 'nepos',
about the unfinished judgement of the Lord, which has allowed Munderic
to be killed by the sword, son of Childeric the Parricide. We beg
that Christ avert our heads from the wrath to come. Truly, the
Almighty has said, 'I shall visit your iniquities up to the third and
fourth generation.'" Knowing this, as the century turned, he embraced
the life of a monk, and after the removal of Monulf, when he had
reached the age of seventy-six years, having been elected by all of
the citizens of the city of Tongres, he was consecrated as bishop.
In this case, as I read it, there does not seem to be much latitude
for interpreting this passage as mentioning two different Bodegisils.
Not only do the two statements come in adjacent sentences, but both
references refer to Bodegisil with the title of duke. Thus, the
context seems to be clearly referring to a single Bodegisil here, so
that "nepos" would be translated by the usual "nephew" rather than the
uncommon "grandnephew". For that reason, I don't see how you can make
Arnulf a grandnephew of Gundulf without at least partly rejecting the
testimony of this source.
I only recently read the above article of Settipani for the first time
(having just recently purchased the book in which it appears), and I
have not read enough of the other works on this topic to form a strong
opinion about the claims made there (in fact, I have never even seen a
copy of Settipani's book on the ancestors of Charlemagne). Thus, I am
not claiming here that I believe the reconstruction making Arnulf a
grandnephew of Gundulf to be wrong, only that such a reconstruction
requires, at the very least, that one assume that "Vita Gundulfi" has
confused two different men named Bodegisil.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Ancestrry of St Arnulf
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:p3vau0l76pio8qup8s1rcg1qtj7r19i914@4ax.com...
<snip>
<snip>
A minor point - it's worth noting that this doesn't mean after the "removal"
of Monulf from his bishopric, but rather after his "passing away" from life.
A modern view might be that "migratio" in this context was a euphemism for
death, but to medieval people the idea of passing, or migrating, from mortal
to eternal life was quite literal.
<snip>
Even though this text is earlier than the period covered in it, the P-Pazzu
issue of _Novum glossarium mediae Latinitatis ab anno DCCC usque ad annum
MCC_, doesn't include any instance of "patruus" meaning great-uncle.
Peter Stewart
news:p3vau0l76pio8qup8s1rcg1qtj7r19i914@4ax.com...
<snip>
From Acta Sanctorum, July, IV, p. 160:
<snip>
post migrationem Monulfi.
A minor point - it's worth noting that this doesn't mean after the "removal"
of Monulf from his bishopric, but rather after his "passing away" from life.
A modern view might be that "migratio" in this context was a euphemism for
death, but to medieval people the idea of passing, or migrating, from mortal
to eternal life was quite literal.
<snip>
In this case, as I read it, there does not seem to be much latitude
for interpreting this passage as mentioning two different Bodegisils.
Not only do the two statements come in adjacent sentences, but both
references refer to Bodegisil with the title of duke. Thus, the
context seems to be clearly referring to a single Bodegisil here, so
that "nepos" would be translated by the usual "nephew" rather than the
uncommon "grandnephew". For that reason, I don't see how you can make
Arnulf a grandnephew of Gundulf without at least partly rejecting the
testimony of this source.
Even though this text is earlier than the period covered in it, the P-Pazzu
issue of _Novum glossarium mediae Latinitatis ab anno DCCC usque ad annum
MCC_, doesn't include any instance of "patruus" meaning great-uncle.
Peter Stewart