Two Giselberts, 10th century

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Stewart Baldwin

Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 29 jan 2007 22:36:06

I am currewntly working on Henry Project pages for Sigefroid of
Luxemburg and some of his close relatives. The longest one will be
for his mother Cunégone, on whose page many of the detailed
discussions will take place. These pages are all still in rough form,
but I am copying here a small part of Cunégonde's page which discusses
the identification her son Giselbert, whose identification is
complicated by the existence of another count Giselbert of uncertain
origin. As usual, comments are welcome.

Who was Cunégonde's son Giselbert?

The problem with Giselbert is that he is mentioned as a brother only
in the will of Gozlin, and there were two counts named Giselbert
appearing in the records during this period, as indicated by a charter
of duke Frédéric dated 959 mentioning two count Giselberts [Depoin
(1904), 313; Parisot (1907-8), 57: 260-1, n. 5; 58: 16-7; Hlawitschka
(1960), 437, n. 55; all three cite charter number 108 of the cartulary
of Gorze (p. 200), which I have not seen], and confirmed by the
necrology of Gorze, which gives the day and month of death for two
count Giselberts who are not accounted for elsewhere and would appear
to be from this century [13 July: "Gislebertus comes qui dedit nobis
Gismundivillam."; Nec. Gorze, 82; 24 Nov.: "Gislebertus comes, qui
dedit nobis 5 mansos de terra." ibid., 90; neither of these would be
the empress Cunégonde's brother Giselbert, who was killed on 18 May
1004]. Thus, there is the additional difficuly of determining which
notices of a count Giselbert in the records refer to "our" Giselbert,
and which refer to the "other" Giselbert, who, if possible, should
also be more clearly identified. Here is a list (as close to
chronological as possible, given the uncertainties), containing the
known (to me) mentions of a count Giselbert in the area during this
period, with any information which might identify them.

1. Giselbert, brother of Gozlin, who witnessed the latter's will in
943 (identity obvious).

2. A Giselbertus comes et abbas is mentioned in the cartulary of
Stavelot-Malmédy in 947 [Wampach (1935), 233, citing Halkin & Roland I
(#69), which I have not had the opportunity to check yet (the closest
known copy to me is 100+ miles away)].

3. Although it probably does not concern either count Giselbert, an
interesting item worth mentioning concerns the marriage settlement of
a certain Giselbert, son of Gerricus, to his future wife Raintrudis,
daughter of Stephen ["Dulcissime atque amantissime sponse mee puellæ
nomine Raintrudi filiæ Stephani Gislebertus filius Gerrici. ... in
comitatu Virdunensi in loco nuncupante qui dicitur ad Lescherias, ...
Actum sub die XVI kl. feb., anno XIII regnante Ottone rege, filio
Heinrici regis, comite Rodulfo. Signum Gisleberti, qui hanc cartulam,
libellum dotis, fieri et firmare rogavit." Parisot (1907-8), 58: 240-2
(Pièces justificatives, I); see also Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 368].
For count Raoul (Rodulfus) of Verdun, whose son of the same name was
evidently a relative of one of the counts Giselbert, see below. While
it is tempting to regard Gerricus as a variant of Wigeric, and to
identify this Giselbert as a son of Wigeric and Cunégonde, the
Giselbert in this record is not called a count, and if he was a member
of a comital family, one would at least expect to see him described as
a noble (e.g., vir nobilis or something similar). Thus, he is probably
not either one of our individuals of interest.

4. A count Giselbert appears as a witness in the supposed 950 charter
of countess Ève (widow of Hugues of Chaumontois, see above), along
with "duke" Frédéric and count Sigefroid [Wampach (1935), 205-6
(#162)]. This charter is not genuine in its current form (e.g.,
Frédéric was not yet duke in 950), but if there is any authentic basis
to this charter, the presence of Frédéric and Sigefroid would seem to
point to their brother Giselbert being the witness here.

5. Two count Giselberts witnessed a charter of duke Frédéric in 959
(see above).

6. A Giselbert was lay-abbot of Moyenmoutier about this time, a
contemporary of duke Fréderic of Upper Lorraine (959-978) [Chronicon
Mediani Monasterii, c. 6-7, MGH SS 4: 89]. The chronology is vague,
but early in the reign of Frédéric seems likely. The presence of
Frédéric, along with the fact that both Ricuin of Verdun and his son
Otto (by his first marriage) were lay-abbots of Moyenmoutier, suggests
this is Cunégonde's son here.

7. On 17 February 963, a Giselbert was mentioned as a count in the
pagus of Ardenne, in the document recording count Sigefroid's exchange
of an allod "... in comitatu Giselberti comitis in pago Arduennæ que
dicitur Viulna" for the castle of Luxemburg [Wampach (1935), 234
(#173); I plan to include the full text on Sigefroid's page]. It seems
likely that this was Sigefroid's brother and Cunégonde's son.

8. A charter of a Hedwig, widow of a count Giselbert and mother of a
son Godefroid, would, if correctly dated by Vanderkindere to ca. 965,
place the death of one Giselbert before that time [Vanderkindere
(1902), 2: 353-5; Wampach (1935), 233, citing the cartulary of Gorze,
181 (#98)]. Since Gozlin's son count Godefroid of Verdun appears to
have been named for a maternal uncle, the presence of the name
Godefroid is not necessarily relevant here in identifying this
Giselbert.

9. An undated charter, which Bloch would place ca. 960(?) and
Vanderkindere would place ca. 965, mentions Raoul/Rudolf, son of the
late count Raoul/Rudolf by his wife Eva, mentions a relative (parens)
Otto, brother of the late count Giselbert ["... Quod ego Rodulfus,
filius quondam nobilissimi comitis Rodulfi et eius dilectae coniugis
Evae, perpendens sollicite et de salute animarum sepius tractans, pro
animae meae remedio affiniumque meorum per manus tunc temporis
senioris mei Wigfridi, episcopi et parentis mei Ottonis, Gisleberti
quondam comitis fratris, tradidi loco beati apostolorum principis
Petri res meae proprietatis sitas in pago et comitatu Virdunensi, id
est integram medietatem alodi mei in Geldulfi villa, iure hereditario
tam in terris quam in pratis silvis pascuis cultis et incultis
mancipiis utriusque sexus et ecclesiae medietatem." Bloch (1898-1902),
10: 400-2; Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 341, 369]. Here, the most natural
interpretation would be that we have here a record of the "other"
Giselbert, said to be brother of a certain Otto, a name which does not
appear among Cunégonde's children. Vanderkindere would explain frater
as meaning brother-in-law here, making Otto a sister of the above
Hedwig [Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 355].

10. Aubri de Troisfonatines, in an entry under the year 972, mentions
a count and abbot Giselbert ["Abbates Sancti Remacli Gislebertus comes
et abbas et post eum Gundradus similiter comes et abbas de Rupe in
Ardenna fuerunt." Aubri de Troisfontaines, Chronicon, MGH SS 23: 771;
see also Wampach (1935), 233].

11. A count Giselbert (identified by Wampach with the husband of
Hedwig) was mentioned as dead in a charter of 22 August 973 [Wampach
(1935), 233, citing charter #112 from Gorze].

12. A count Giselbert who gave Gismundiville (not identified) died on
13 July of an unknown year [Nec. Gorze, 82; see above].

13.A count Giselbert who gave 5 manses died on 24 November of an
unknown year [Nec. Gorze, 90; see above].

Sources

Bloch (1898-1902) = Hermann Bloch, "Die älteren Urkunden des Klosters
S. Vanne zu Verdun", Jahr-Buch der Gesellschaft für lothringische
Geschichte und Altertumskunde 10 (1898): 338-449; 14 (1902): 48-150.

Depoin (1904) = Joseph Depoin, "Sifroi Kunuz, comte de Mosellane, tige
de la Maison de Luxembourg", Ons Hemecht 10 (1904): 307-315, 349-358,
422-431, 507-516.

Hlawitschka (1960) = Eduard Hlawitschka, "Herzog Giselbert von
Lothringen und das Kloster Remiremont", Zeitschrift für die Geschichte
des Oberrheins 108 (1960): 422-465.

MGH SS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica,Scriptores series.

Nec. Gorze = Michel Parisse, Le Nécrologe de Gorze (Nancy, 1971).
[Also edited by Charles Aimond, "Le Nécrologe de Gorze", Bulletin
mensuel de la Société d'archéologie lorraine 63 (1914): 76-85]

Parisot (1907-8) = Robert Parisot, "Les Origines de la Haute-Lorraine
et sa première maison ducale (959-1033), Mémoires de la Société
d'Archéologie Lorraine et du Musée historique Lorrain 57 (1907):
151-428; 58 (1908): 5-265. [Presumably an earlier version of his 1909
book with the same title, which I have not seen]

Vanderkindere (1902) = Léon Vanderkindere, La Formation Territoriale
des Principautes Belge au Moyen Age, 2 vols. (2nd ed., Brussels, 1902,
reprinted 1981).

Wampach (1935) = C. Wampach, Urkunden- und Quellenbuch zur Geschichte
der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur burgundischen Zeit, I
(Luxemburg, 1935).

At the moment, I am handicapped by not having seen the cartulary of
Gorze, which obviously has a number of relevant entries (including the
crucial charter showing the existence of two different counts named
Giselbert in 959), and I have had to scrounge bits of the content from
other sources. Does anybody know of any other additions to the above
list, or a place where the (presumably public-domain) cartulary of
Gorze (Mettensia vol. 2, 1898) can be downloaded?

Stewart Baldwin

Gjest

Re: Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 15:54:13

Wow, what a challenge to sort out all these Giselberts! It looks like
there were at least two contemporaneous Giselberts running about, one
who died in July and one who died in November (of different years,
probably).

As for the Gorze cartulary, I don't know if it'll be of any use to
you, but d'Herbomez published an analysis of the cartulary (in
French): http://tinyurl.com/29hyf4

On Jan 29, 3:36 pm, Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I am currewntly working on Henry Project pages for Sigefroid of
Luxemburg and some of his close relatives. The longest one will be
for his mother Cunégone, on whose page many of the detailed
discussions will take place. These pages are all still in rough form,
but I am copying here a small part of Cunégonde's page which discusses
the identification her son Giselbert, whose identification is
complicated by the existence of another count Giselbert of uncertain
origin. As usual, comments are welcome.

Who was Cunégonde's son Giselbert?

The problem with Giselbert is that he is mentioned as a brother only
in the will of Gozlin, and there were two counts named Giselbert
appearing in the records during this period, as indicated by a charter
of duke Frédéric dated 959 mentioning two count Giselberts [Depoin
(1904), 313; Parisot (1907-8), 57: 260-1, n. 5; 58: 16-7; Hlawitschka
(1960), 437, n. 55; all three cite charter number 108 of the cartulary
of Gorze (p. 200), which I have not seen], and confirmed by the
necrology of Gorze, which gives the day and month of death for two
count Giselberts who are not accounted for elsewhere and would appear
to be from this century [13 July: "Gislebertus comes qui dedit nobis
Gismundivillam."; Nec. Gorze, 82; 24 Nov.: "Gislebertus comes, qui
dedit nobis 5 mansos de terra." ibid., 90; neither of these would be
the empress Cunégonde's brother Giselbert, who was killed on 18 May
1004]. Thus, there is the additional difficuly of determining which
notices of a count Giselbert in the records refer to "our" Giselbert,
and which refer to the "other" Giselbert, who, if possible, should
also be more clearly identified. Here is a list (as close to
chronological as possible, given the uncertainties), containing the
known (to me) mentions of a count Giselbert in the area during this
period, with any information which might identify them.

1. Giselbert, brother of Gozlin, who witnessed the latter's will in
943 (identity obvious).

2. A Giselbertus comes et abbas is mentioned in the cartulary of
Stavelot-Malmédy in 947 [Wampach (1935), 233, citing Halkin & Roland I
(#69), which I have not had the opportunity to check yet (the closest
known copy to me is 100+ miles away)].

3. Although it probably does not concern either count Giselbert, an
interesting item worth mentioning concerns the marriage settlement of
a certain Giselbert, son of Gerricus, to his future wife Raintrudis,
daughter of Stephen ["Dulcissime atque amantissime sponse mee puellæ
nomine Raintrudi filiæ Stephani Gislebertus filius Gerrici. ... in
comitatu Virdunensi in loco nuncupante qui dicitur ad Lescherias, ...
Actum sub die XVI kl. feb., anno XIII regnante Ottone rege, filio
Heinrici regis, comite Rodulfo. Signum Gisleberti, qui hanc cartulam,
libellum dotis, fieri et firmare rogavit." Parisot (1907-8), 58: 240-2
(Pièces justificatives, I); see also Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 368].
For count Raoul (Rodulfus) of Verdun, whose son of the same name was
evidently a relative of one of the counts Giselbert, see below. While
it is tempting to regard Gerricus as a variant of Wigeric, and to
identify this Giselbert as a son of Wigeric and Cunégonde, the
Giselbert in this record is not called a count, and if he was a member
of a comital family, one would at least expect to see him described as
a noble (e.g., vir nobilis or something similar). Thus, he is probably
not either one of our individuals of interest.

4. A count Giselbert appears as a witness in the supposed 950 charter
of countess Ève (widow of Hugues of Chaumontois, see above), along
with "duke" Frédéric and count Sigefroid [Wampach (1935), 205-6
(#162)]. This charter is not genuine in its current form (e.g.,
Frédéric was not yet duke in 950), but if there is any authentic basis
to this charter, the presence of Frédéric and Sigefroid would seem to
point to their brother Giselbert being the witness here.

5. Two count Giselberts witnessed a charter of duke Frédéric in 959
(see above).

6. A Giselbert was lay-abbot of Moyenmoutier about this time, a
contemporary of duke Fréderic of Upper Lorraine (959-978) [Chronicon
Mediani Monasterii, c. 6-7, MGH SS 4: 89]. The chronology is vague,
but early in the reign of Frédéric seems likely. The presence of
Frédéric, along with the fact that both Ricuin of Verdun and his son
Otto (by his first marriage) were lay-abbots of Moyenmoutier, suggests
this is Cunégonde's son here.

7. On 17 February 963, a Giselbert was mentioned as a count in the
pagus of Ardenne, in the document recording count Sigefroid's exchange
of an allod "... in comitatu Giselberti comitis in pago Arduennæ que
dicitur Viulna" for the castle of Luxemburg [Wampach (1935), 234
(#173); I plan to include the full text on Sigefroid's page]. It seems
likely that this was Sigefroid's brother and Cunégonde's son.

8. A charter of a Hedwig, widow of a count Giselbert and mother of a
son Godefroid, would, if correctly dated by Vanderkindere to ca. 965,
place the death of one Giselbert before that time [Vanderkindere
(1902), 2: 353-5; Wampach (1935), 233, citing the cartulary of Gorze,
181 (#98)]. Since Gozlin's son count Godefroid of Verdun appears to
have been named for a maternal uncle, the presence of the name
Godefroid is not necessarily relevant here in identifying this
Giselbert.

9. An undated charter, which Bloch would place ca. 960(?) and
Vanderkindere would place ca. 965, mentions Raoul/Rudolf, son of the
late count Raoul/Rudolf by his wife Eva, mentions a relative (parens)
Otto, brother of the late count Giselbert ["... Quod ego Rodulfus,
filius quondam nobilissimi comitis Rodulfi et eius dilectae coniugis
Evae, perpendens sollicite et de salute animarum sepius tractans, pro
animae meae remedio affiniumque meorum per manus tunc temporis
senioris mei Wigfridi, episcopi et parentis mei Ottonis, Gisleberti
quondam comitis fratris, tradidi loco beati apostolorum principis
Petri res meae proprietatis sitas in pago et comitatu Virdunensi, id
est integram medietatem alodi mei in Geldulfi villa, iure hereditario
tam in terris quam in pratis silvis pascuis cultis et incultis
mancipiis utriusque sexus et ecclesiae medietatem." Bloch (1898-1902),
10: 400-2; Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 341, 369]. Here, the most natural
interpretation would be that we have here a record of the "other"
Giselbert, said to be brother of a certain Otto, a name which does not
appear among Cunégonde's children. Vanderkindere would explain frater
as meaning brother-in-law here, making Otto a sister of the above
Hedwig [Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 355].

10. Aubri de Troisfonatines, in an entry under the year 972, mentions
a count and abbot Giselbert ["Abbates Sancti Remacli Gislebertus comes
et abbas et post eum Gundradus similiter comes et abbas de Rupe in
Ardenna fuerunt." Aubri de Troisfontaines, Chronicon, MGH SS 23: 771;
see also Wampach (1935), 233].

11. A count Giselbert (identified by Wampach with the husband of
Hedwig) was mentioned as dead in a charter of 22 August 973 [Wampach
(1935), 233, citing charter #112 from Gorze].

12. A count Giselbert who gave Gismundiville (not identified) died on
13 July of an unknown year [Nec. Gorze, 82; see above].

13.A count Giselbert who gave 5 manses died on 24 November of an
unknown year [Nec. Gorze, 90; see above].

Sources

Bloch (1898-1902) = Hermann Bloch, "Die älteren Urkunden des Klosters
S. Vanne zu Verdun", Jahr-Buch der Gesellschaft für lothringische
Geschichte und Altertumskunde 10 (1898): 338-449; 14 (1902): 48-150.

Depoin (1904) = Joseph Depoin, "Sifroi Kunuz, comte de Mosellane, tige
de la Maison de Luxembourg", Ons Hemecht 10 (1904): 307-315, 349-358,
422-431, 507-516.

Hlawitschka (1960) = Eduard Hlawitschka, "Herzog Giselbert von
Lothringen und das Kloster Remiremont", Zeitschrift für die Geschichte
des Oberrheins 108 (1960): 422-465.

MGH SS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica,Scriptores series.

Nec. Gorze = Michel Parisse, Le Nécrologe de Gorze (Nancy, 1971).
[Also edited by Charles Aimond, "Le Nécrologe de Gorze", Bulletin
mensuel de la Société d'archéologie lorraine 63 (1914): 76-85]

Parisot (1907-8) = Robert Parisot, "Les Origines de la Haute-Lorraine
et sa première maison ducale (959-1033), Mémoires de la Société
d'Archéologie Lorraine et du Musée historique Lorrain 57 (1907):
151-428; 58 (1908): 5-265. [Presumably an earlier version of his 1909
book with the same title, which I have not seen]

Vanderkindere (1902) = Léon Vanderkindere, La Formation Territoriale
des Principautes Belge au Moyen Age, 2 vols. (2nd ed., Brussels, 1902,
reprinted 1981).

Wampach (1935) = C. Wampach, Urkunden- und Quellenbuch zur Geschichte
der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur burgundischen Zeit, I
(Luxemburg, 1935).

At the moment, I am handicapped by not having seen the cartulary of
Gorze, which obviously has a number of relevant entries (including the
crucial charter showing the existence of two different counts named
Giselbert in 959), and I have had to scrounge bits of the content from
other sources. Does anybody know of any other additions to the above
list, or a place where the (presumably public-domain) cartulary of
Gorze (Mettensia vol. 2, 1898) can be downloaded?

Stewart Baldwin

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 04 feb 2007 22:40:47

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:36:06 GMT, Stewart Baldwin
<sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:

[snip]

9. An undated charter, which Bloch would place ca. 960(?) and
Vanderkindere would place ca. 965, mentions Raoul/Rudolf, son of the
late count Raoul/Rudolf by his wife Eva, mentions a relative (parens)
Otto, brother of the late count Giselbert ["... Quod ego Rodulfus,
filius quondam nobilissimi comitis Rodulfi et eius dilectae coniugis
Evae, perpendens sollicite et de salute animarum sepius tractans, pro
animae meae remedio affiniumque meorum per manus tunc temporis
senioris mei Wigfridi, episcopi et parentis mei Ottonis, Gisleberti
quondam comitis fratris, tradidi loco beati apostolorum principis
Petri res meae proprietatis sitas in pago et comitatu Virdunensi, id
est integram medietatem alodi mei in Geldulfi villa, iure hereditario
tam in terris quam in pratis silvis pascuis cultis et incultis
mancipiis utriusque sexus et ecclesiae medietatem." Bloch (1898-1902),
10: 400-2; Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 341, 369]. Here, the most natural
interpretation would be that we have here a record of the "other"
Giselbert, said to be brother of a certain Otto, a name which does not
appear among Cunégonde's children. Vanderkindere would explain frater
as meaning brother-in-law here, making Otto a sister of the above
Hedwig [Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 355].

[snip]

Having looked at this more carefully now, I think that this is
probably an occurrence of the "other" count Giselbert, i.e., the one
who was not a brother of bishop Adalbero I of Metz. The region over
which he was count is not mentioned, but if the grantor's father, the
late count Raoul, was the same as the Raoul who was count of Verdun in
949, and the document was signed by the well known count of Verdun,
Godefroid, later known as "the Captive", could not the above count
Giselbert also be a late count of Verdun? The context of the document
seems consistent with such a conjecture. [Note: Bloch's transcript
of this charter is available at the Gallica website.]

If we assume for the sake of argument that Giselbert was a count of
Verdun between Raoul and Godefroid, then it would be obvious to ask
what his claim was. Could he have been a son of duke Otto of
Lorraine, and thus a grandson of count Ricuin of Verdun by his first
marriage to a daughter of count Ingelram? That would explain holding
the countship of Verdun and also a brother named Otto (who was living
at the time of the above charter, which can be firmly dated to the
period 959×967, as Bloch notes). If Giselbert was too young to be
count in 944 when Otto died, that might explain wht Raoul was chosen
count of Verdun.

Of course, even if this speculation is true, it does not throw much
light on the Giselbert who was a brother of Adalbero I.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 feb 2007 00:55:38

On Feb 5, 8:40 am, Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:36:06 GMT, Stewart Baldwin

sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:

[snip]





9. An undated charter, which Bloch would place ca. 960(?) and
Vanderkindere would place ca. 965, mentions Raoul/Rudolf, son of the
late count Raoul/Rudolf by his wife Eva, mentions a relative (parens)
Otto, brother of the late count Giselbert ["... Quod ego Rodulfus,
filius quondam nobilissimi comitis Rodulfi et eius dilectae coniugis
Evae, perpendens sollicite et de salute animarum sepius tractans, pro
animae meae remedio affiniumque meorum per manus tunc temporis
senioris mei Wigfridi, episcopi et parentis mei Ottonis, Gisleberti
quondam comitis fratris, tradidi loco beati apostolorum principis
Petri res meae proprietatis sitas in pago et comitatu Virdunensi, id
est integram medietatem alodi mei in Geldulfi villa, iure hereditario
tam in terris quam in pratis silvis pascuis cultis et incultis
mancipiis utriusque sexus et ecclesiae medietatem." Bloch (1898-1902),
10: 400-2; Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 341, 369]. Here, the most natural
interpretation would be that we have here a record of the "other"
Giselbert, said to be brother of a certain Otto, a name which does not
appear among Cunégonde's children. Vanderkindere would explain frater
as meaning brother-in-law here, making Otto a sister of the above
Hedwig [Vanderkindere (1902), 2: 355].

[snip]

Having looked at this more carefully now, I think that this is
probably an occurrence of the "other" count Giselbert, i.e., the one
who was not a brother of bishop Adalbero I of Metz. The region over
which he was count is not mentioned, but if the grantor's father, the
late count Raoul, was the same as the Raoul who was count of Verdun in
949, and the document was signed by the well known count of Verdun,
Godefroid, later known as "the Captive", could not the above count
Giselbert also be a late count of Verdun? The context of the document
seems consistent with such a conjecture. [Note: Bloch's transcript
of this charter is available at the Gallica website.]

If we assume for the sake of argument that Giselbert was a count of
Verdun between Raoul and Godefroid, then it would be obvious to ask
what his claim was. Could he have been a son of duke Otto of
Lorraine, and thus a grandson of count Ricuin of Verdun by his first
marriage to a daughter of count Ingelram? That would explain holding
the countship of Verdun and also a brother named Otto (who was living
at the time of the above charter, which can be firmly dated to the
period 959×967, as Bloch notes). If Giselbert was too young to be
count in 944 when Otto died, that might explain wht Raoul was chosen
count of Verdun.

Of course, even if this speculation is true, it does not throw much
light on the Giselbert who was a brother of Adalbero I.

I'm not so sure - if the name Giselbert occurred in the next
generation of Ricuin's family, for a son of his son Otto, it seems to
me this would make the placement of the earlier Giselbert as a
maternal half-brother of Bishop Adalbero and paternal half-brother of
Otto (i.e. a son of Cunegonde by Ricuin of Verdun) more likely than
otherwise.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 06 feb 2007 18:01:44

On 4 Feb 2007 15:55:38 -0800, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:40 am, Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:

....

Of course, even if this speculation is true, it does not throw much
light on the Giselbert who was a brother of Adalbero I.

I'm not so sure - if the name Giselbert occurred in the next
generation of Ricuin's family, for a son of his son Otto, it seems to
me this would make the placement of the earlier Giselbert as a
maternal half-brother of Bishop Adalbero and paternal half-brother of
Otto (i.e. a son of Cunegonde by Ricuin of Verdun) more likely than
otherwise.

It seems to me that it is more complicated than that, because of the
fact that Cunégonde and Ricuin were both married twice, and we know
very little about any of the four families involved. In the
conjectured scenario where Otto is the father of the "other"
Giselbert, if "our" Giselbert was a son of Ricuin and younger
half-brother of Otto, then it would be more likely that the name
Giselbert came from Ricuin's family, which in turn would make it more
likely that Sigefroid was also a son of Ricuin. If, on the other
hand, it is claimed that Otto would have given a son the name of a
half brother which did not appear among his own ancestors, then the
same argument would hold for Sigefroid and his son Frédéric, weakening
the onomastic argument that Sigefroid was a son of Wigeric.

If the conjecture that Otto of Lorraine was the father of the brothers
Giselbert and Otto is indeed true, then to follow the guesswork
further along the same line (probably unwisely), it would be
interesting to ask who Otto's presumed wife must have been. Since
Otto was named duke jointly with the young Henri, son of the deceased
duke Giselbert, the obvious candidate for Otto's wife would be a
sister duke Giselbert, in which case there would be no need to have an
alternate explanation for the appearance of that name among Otto's
hypothetical sons.

Bringing ourselves back down to earth, a key factor is where the names
Reginar and Giselbert came from among Cunégonde's descendants. The
following table (to be viewed as usual in constant-width font), shows
how the names Reginar and Giselbert occur among Cunégonde's
descendants (leaving the paternity of Giselbert and Sigefroid as
ambiguous):

Wigeric-m-Cunégonde-m-Ricuin-m-NN (1st wife)
____| |__________ |___
| | | |
Gozlin Giselbert Sigefroid Otto
| |
Reginar Giselbert

The name Reginar appears to come from either Wigeric or Cunégone.
Assuming that the name Giselbert came from the same source, Cunégonde
would be the more likely source than Wigeric, unless you make both
Giselbert and Sigefroid sons of Wigeric (a plausible enough
possibility). I tend to agree with Hlawitschka that Cunégonde being
married to a relative of Reginar I would be more likely than a
marriage to Reginar I himself [Eduard Hlawitschka, "Lotharingien und
das Reich an der Schwelle der deutschen Geschichte" (Stuttgart, 1968),
177]. If the names come from more than one set of ancestors (also
plausible enough, given the uncertainty), then things get even more
complicated, but I think that the passing of the name Giselbert
through Cunégunde is the most likely.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 feb 2007 03:25:55

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:228hs2lq5947ro886d2ua45uau1amgipja@4ax.com...
On 4 Feb 2007 15:55:38 -0800, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:40 am, Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:

...

Of course, even if this speculation is true, it does not throw much
light on the Giselbert who was a brother of Adalbero I.

I'm not so sure - if the name Giselbert occurred in the next
generation of Ricuin's family, for a son of his son Otto, it seems to
me this would make the placement of the earlier Giselbert as a
maternal half-brother of Bishop Adalbero and paternal half-brother of
Otto (i.e. a son of Cunegonde by Ricuin of Verdun) more likely than
otherwise.

It seems to me that it is more complicated than that, because of the
fact that Cunégonde and Ricuin were both married twice, and we know
very little about any of the four families involved. In the
conjectured scenario where Otto is the father of the "other"
Giselbert, if "our" Giselbert was a son of Ricuin and younger
half-brother of Otto, then it would be more likely that the name
Giselbert came from Ricuin's family, which in turn would make it more
likely that Sigefroid was also a son of Ricuin. If, on the other
hand, it is claimed that Otto would have given a son the name of a
half brother which did not appear among his own ancestors, then the
same argument would hold for Sigefroid and his son Frédéric, weakening
the onomastic argument that Sigefroid was a son of Wigeric.

It appears you have misunderstood my post: I was not suggesting that if your
speculation were true the name Giselbert must have come to a son of Otto
through the male line of Ricuin, but rather that Otto was more likely to
have given this name to a son if he himself had a paternal half-brother
called Giselbert, rather than merely a step-brother. I do not consider that
ancestry is invariably the source of names - in the case of descendants of
Wigeric and Cunegonde, it seems that once a name had been used in the
family, from whatever source, it was likely to be taken up in other
branches, as for instance with Thierry and Hermann.

The argument for Sigefrid as a son of Wigeric is not merely from onomastics,
since we have Gerbert's description of him as "patruus" to an agnatic
grandson of Wigeric. Unless you wish to argue that "patruus" meant a
maternal half-brother of the father instead of strictly an agnatic uncle,
there appears to be no room - or need - for speculation on this point.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 08 feb 2007 06:32:07

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 02:25:55 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

[snip]

... I do not consider that
ancestry is invariably the source of names - in the case of descendants of
Wigeric and Cunegonde, it seems that once a name had been used in the
family, from whatever source, it was likely to be taken up in other
branches, as for instance with Thierry and Hermann.

Certainly, ancestry was not invariably the source of names, but the
main exceptions tended to be either with children destined for the
church (e.g., Adalbero and Thierry among Sigefroid's children) and
among younger children who were (at the time of their birth)
considered less likely to inherit the principle lands. I don't think
this applies to the name Hermann, which arrived among the descendants
of Godefroid of Verdun because of his marriage to Mathilde, daughter
of Hermann Billung, and probably arrived among the descendants of
Frédéric "of Luxemburg" via his marriage to a Konradiner (in which
dynasty the name Hermann appeared several times). Also, the unknown
parentage of Sigefroid's wife Hedwig makes it difficult to rule out
possibilities with regard to the naming of his children.

The argument for Sigefrid as a son of Wigeric is not merely from onomastics,
since we have Gerbert's description of him as "patruus" to an agnatic
grandson of Wigeric. Unless you wish to argue that "patruus" meant a
maternal half-brother of the father instead of strictly an agnatic uncle,
there appears to be no room - or need - for speculation on this point.

I wouldn't argue as you have worded it above. Keeping in mind that I
don't claim to be an expert at Latin, my understanding of the
classical meaning of "patruus" is that it means "paternal uncle",
which I interpret in the wider sense of "father's brother", thus
allowing "maternal half-brother" as one possibility in addition to the
stricter "agnatic uncle". I definitely have company in this
interpretation. Parisse, Geldner and Settipani, for example, are all
obviously allowing this possibility in suggesting that Sigefroid was
the son of a third marriage of Cunégone (although I do not agree with
them on that particular point). In fact, at the moment, I do not
recall seeing the strict definition of patruus as meaning only agnatic
uncle as having been argued in the literature.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Two Giselberts, 10th century

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2007 08:46:12

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9e9ls2ht3dfhlm8cc48bfiefitpqrb9ll8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 02:25:55 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

[snip]

... I do not consider that
ancestry is invariably the source of names - in the case of descendants of
Wigeric and Cunegonde, it seems that once a name had been used in the
family, from whatever source, it was likely to be taken up in other
branches, as for instance with Thierry and Hermann.

Certainly, ancestry was not invariably the source of names, but the
main exceptions tended to be either with children destined for the
church (e.g., Adalbero and Thierry among Sigefroid's children) and
among younger children who were (at the time of their birth)
considered less likely to inherit the principle lands. I don't think
this applies to the name Hermann, which arrived among the descendants
of Godefroid of Verdun because of his marriage to Mathilde, daughter
of Hermann Billung, and probably arrived among the descendants of
Frédéric "of Luxemburg" via his marriage to a Konradiner (in which
dynasty the name Hermann appeared several times). Also, the unknown
parentage of Sigefroid's wife Hedwig makes it difficult to rule out
possibilities with regard to the naming of his children.

The argument for Sigefrid as a son of Wigeric is not merely from
onomastics,
since we have Gerbert's description of him as "patruus" to an agnatic
grandson of Wigeric. Unless you wish to argue that "patruus" meant a
maternal half-brother of the father instead of strictly an agnatic uncle,
there appears to be no room - or need - for speculation on this point.

I wouldn't argue as you have worded it above. Keeping in mind that I
don't claim to be an expert at Latin, my understanding of the
classical meaning of "patruus" is that it means "paternal uncle",
which I interpret in the wider sense of "father's brother", thus
allowing "maternal half-brother" as one possibility in addition to the
stricter "agnatic uncle". I definitely have company in this
interpretation. Parisse, Geldner and Settipani, for example, are all
obviously allowing this possibility in suggesting that Sigefroid was
the son of a third marriage of Cunégone (although I do not agree with
them on that particular point). In fact, at the moment, I do not
recall seeing the strict definition of patruus as meaning only agnatic
uncle as having been argued in the literature.

"Avunculus" was often used for a maternal half-bnrother of the father, but I
don't know of an instance where "patruus" can be shown to mean anything
except a full- or paternal half-brother of the father, i.e. belonging to the
same male line as the etymology suggests. The word "patruus" could also mean
a stern authority figure, who punishes an offense or imposes discipline to
prevent it, from the analogy with a head of the family. In Roman usage and
in the medievval era this did not indicate someone related through a female,
whether on the father's or the mother's side.

If Parisse, Geldner or Settipani offer any examples of a looser definition,
rather than just assuming the possibility, can you please provide citations?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Sigifred of Luxemburg as "patruus" [was Re: Two Giselberts,

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 mar 2007 06:36:07

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9e9ls2ht3dfhlm8cc48bfiefitpqrb9ll8@4ax.com...

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 02:25:55 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

The argument for Sigefrid as a son of Wigeric is not merely from
onomastics,
since we have Gerbert's description of him as "patruus" to an agnatic
grandson of Wigeric. Unless you wish to argue that "patruus" meant a
maternal half-brother of the father instead of strictly an agnatic uncle,
there appears to be no room - or need - for speculation on this point.

I wouldn't argue as you have worded it above. Keeping in mind that I
don't claim to be an expert at Latin, my understanding of the
classical meaning of "patruus" is that it means "paternal uncle",
which I interpret in the wider sense of "father's brother", thus
allowing "maternal half-brother" as one possibility in addition to the
stricter "agnatic uncle". I definitely have company in this
interpretation. Parisse, Geldner and Settipani, for example, are all
obviously allowing this possibility in suggesting that Sigefroid was
the son of a third marriage of Cunégone (although I do not agree with
them on that particular point). In fact, at the moment, I do not
recall seeing the strict definition of patruus as meaning only agnatic
uncle as having been argued in the literature.

I have looked for discussion of this in the literature on Wigeric's family,
but as Stewart rightly suggested it appears not to have been examined in
terms of the way Gerbert was likely to use the word "patruus".

Heinz Renn [in _Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)_ (Bonn, 1941)]
barely touched on the point. He noted it (p. 18), only to remark that
although a full-brother relationship was a natural reading this was not
compelling. Renn did consider Sigefrid to be Wigeric's son, but preferred
the evidence of territorial possessions and especially onomastics - names of
Wigeric's children reappear in Sigefrid's family, while those of his
mother's subsequent husband Ricuin of Verdun do not.

I disagree with Renn when he says that if Sigefrid was Wigeric's son then
Giselbert must have too, since the latter's name comes before Sigefrid's in
the attestations to a charter of 943, indicating that he was the senior of
the pair and thus born from the same marriage. My view is that this is not
solid evidence: first, because the charter in question does not surviv in
its original, and the later copyist might have reversed the order of names;
secondly because the order might represent seniority of rank rather than of
age, and as a son of Ricuin Giselbert might have outranked his elder
half-brother Sigefrid in the local hierarchy by 943; and thirdly because if
they were both just younger sons of equal rank (or lack of it) apart from
their age then paternity might not have mattered to original the scribe, if
indeed he was even aware of the details - in the surviving copy Sigefrid is
named as "Sigebert" anyway, that hardly betokens great care for precision.

But whatever the connection of Giselbert, the evidence of Gerbert's
"patruus" for Sigefrid having been a son of Wigeric seems a bit more
compelling to me than it did to Renn and others.

The nephew in question was Godefrid the Captive, undoubtedly a son of
Wigeric's son Gozlin. If "patruus" only indicated an uncle on his father's
side generally, this could just as well make Sigefrid a maternal
half-brother to Gozlin, both sons of Cunegonde, rather than necessarily
meaning further that they were both born from her marriage to Wigeric.

Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II), like all Carolingian
scholars, learned relationship terms from the principal authority on these
(and much else besides) throughout the medieval era, the Etymologies of St
Isidore of Seville.

The relevant passage, in book IX chapter vi, contains a famous error that
exists in all the early manuscripts, whether made in the first instance by
Isidore himself or (more probably) not: the definition of "patruus" is
partially misstated. The text, in the standard edition by Wallace Lindsay
(1911), reads as follows:

"Agnati dicti eo, quod accedant pro natis, dum desunt filii. Qui ideo prius
in gente agnoscuntur, quia veniunt per virilis sexus personas, veluti frater
eodem patre natus, vel fratris filius neposve ex eo; item patruus. Cognati
dicti, quia sunt et ipsi propinquitate cognationis coniuncti. Qui inde post
agnatos habentur, quia per feminini sexus personas veniunt, nec sunt agnati,
sed alias naturali iure cognati.....Patruus frater patris est, quasi pater
alius. Vnde et moriente patre pupillum prior patruus suscipit, et quasi
filium lege tuetur. Avunculus est matris frater, cuius nomen formam
diminutivi habere videtur, quia ab avo venire monstratur....Patris mei
frater mihi patruus est, ego illi fratris filius, aut filia. Patrui mei
pater mihi pater magnus est [sic], ego illi filii, aut filiae fratris
filius, aut filia." (Agnates are so named because they take the place of
children, when there are no sons. They are recognised as first in the line
by precedence, because they are offspring of male persons, like a brother
born from the same father, the son of a brother or a grandson by the son; so
equally a paternal uncle ["patruus"]. Cognates are so named because they
also are linked by the proximacy of kinship. They are considered to take
precedence after agnates, because they are offspring of female persons, not
as agnates but otherwise connected by natural right....A paternal uncle
["patruus"] is the father's brother, as if to say another father.
Consequently, on the death of a minor's father the paternal uncle takes
charge and becomes the legal guardian as of his own child. The maternal
uncle ["avunculus"] is the mother's brother, whose descriptor appears to
have a diminutive form because it is evidently derived from "avus"
(grandfather)....A brother of my father is my paternal uncle ["patruus"], to
him I am a brother's son or daughter. The father of my paternal uncle is my
great father [sic], to him I am the son or daughter of his son's or
daughter's brother.)

Clearly the last sentence is wrong as it stands. Most of the early
manuscripts contain three stemmata setting out the relationships, and it is
clear from these that the last sentence should read as follows:

"Patruus mei patris mihi patruus magnus est..." (A paternal uncle of my
father is my great uncle). However, Carolingian schoolboys had to be taught
this orally, or work it out for themselves, as it is not written properly in
any of the vast number of surviving medieval manuscripts.

It is clear to me from the context, and especially from the propagation of
this telling error substituting "pater" for "patruus", that the latter term
was taken to indicate an agnatic relative. The definition of "avunculus"
perhaps seems equally prescriptive for a mother's brother, but in practice
this was demonstrably extended to mean a maternal half-brother of the
father, instead of "patruus" filling the gap - there are many instances of
this, for example Regino (under 853) called Charlemagne's illegitimate son
Drogo, bishop of Metz, "avunculus" rather than "patruus" to the emperor's
grandson Pippin I, king of Aquitaine; Charlemagne's father Pippin the
Short's maternal half-brother Bernard was called his "avunculus" (under 773)
in the version of the Royal Frankish Annals written in the 790s. (However,
the word was changed to "patruus" in the revision of these annals written
later, in the reign of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious, when the exact
details were apparently not remembered.)

I don't know an example of "patruus" for a maternal half-brother of the
nephew's father, where the writer would certainly have been aware of this
distinction, before Otto of Freising in the 12th century. Gerbert would have
known how Sigefrid was related to Godefrid, and would have known the work of
Isidore backwards. In my view he would have associated the unqualified term
"patruus" with an agnatic relationship.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Sigifred of Luxemburg as "patruus" [was Re: Two Giselber

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 mar 2007 10:25:26

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bd4Lh.12603$8U4.8472@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<smip>

The relevant passage, in book IX chapter vi, contains a famous error that
exists in all the early manuscripts, whether made in the first instance by
Isidore himself or (more probably) not: the definition of "patruus" is
partially misstated. The text, in the standard edition by Wallace Lindsay
(1911), reads as follows:

<snip>

"Patrui mei pater mihi pater magnus est [sic] <snip> The father of my
paternal uncle is my great father [sic], to him I am the son or daughter
of his son's or daughter's brother.)

Clearly the last sentence is wrong as it stands. Most of the early
manuscripts contain three stemmata setting out the relationships, and it
is clear from these that the last sentence should read as follows:

"Patruus mei patris mihi patruus magnus est..." (A paternal uncle of my
father is my great uncle).

Intending to make the word substitution clear I have committed a solecism
against the language, or at least its proper word order, rather than sense
as the medieval scribes did: the amended version should read:

"Patris mei patruus mihi patruus magnus est...".

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Sigifred of Luxemburg as "patruus" [was Re: Two Giselber

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 20 mar 2007 16:47:10

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:36:07 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

[snip]

I disagree with Renn when he says that if Sigefrid was Wigeric's son then
Giselbert must have too, since the latter's name comes before Sigefrid's in
the attestations to a charter of 943, indicating that he was the senior of
the pair and thus born from the same marriage. My view is that this is not
solid evidence: first, because the charter in question does not surviv in
its original, and the later copyist might have reversed the order of names;
secondly because the order might represent seniority of rank rather than of
age, and as a son of Ricuin Giselbert might have outranked his elder
half-brother Sigefrid in the local hierarchy by 943; and thirdly because if
they were both just younger sons of equal rank (or lack of it) apart from
their age then paternity might not have mattered to original the scribe, if
indeed he was even aware of the details - in the surviving copy Sigefrid is
named as "Sigebert" anyway, that hardly betokens great care for precision.

I think you are right that the evidence for Giselbert being a son of
Wigeric is weak. There is also a charter, which is not genuine in its
surviving form but is evidently based in part on a genuine one, in
which Frédéric, Sigefroid, and Giselbert sign in that order [Wampach
(1935), p. 206]. Another point is that one of the main arguments
which has been used to claim that Ricuin had no children by Cunégonde
does not really apply to Giselbert. The argument is that since
Gozlin's son Godefroid was count of Verdun, it is unlikley that Ricuin
and Cunégonde had any children, who would have evidently had a greater
claim. However, this argument (to the extent that it is valid) would
not apply to Giselbert, who is not known to have been alive at the
time that Godefroid was count of Verdun.

But whatever the connection of Giselbert, the evidence of Gerbert's
"patruus" for Sigefrid having been a son of Wigeric seems a bit more
compelling to me than it did to Renn and others.

The nephew in question was Godefrid the Captive, undoubtedly a son of
Wigeric's son Gozlin. If "patruus" only indicated an uncle on his father's
side generally, this could just as well make Sigefrid a maternal
half-brother to Gozlin, both sons of Cunegonde, rather than necessarily
meaning further that they were both born from her marriage to Wigeric.

Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II), like all Carolingian
scholars, learned relationship terms from the principal authority on these
(and much else besides) throughout the medieval era, the Etymologies of St
Isidore of Seville.

The relevant passage, in book IX chapter vi, contains a famous error that
exists in all the early manuscripts, whether made in the first instance by
Isidore himself or (more probably) not: the definition of "patruus" is
partially misstated. The text, in the standard edition by Wallace Lindsay
(1911), reads as follows:

"Agnati dicti eo, quod accedant pro natis, dum desunt filii. Qui ideo prius
in gente agnoscuntur, quia veniunt per virilis sexus personas, veluti frater
eodem patre natus, vel fratris filius neposve ex eo; item patruus. Cognati
dicti, quia sunt et ipsi propinquitate cognationis coniuncti. Qui inde post
agnatos habentur, quia per feminini sexus personas veniunt, nec sunt agnati,
sed alias naturali iure cognati.....Patruus frater patris est, quasi pater
alius. Vnde et moriente patre pupillum prior patruus suscipit, et quasi
filium lege tuetur. Avunculus est matris frater, cuius nomen formam
diminutivi habere videtur, quia ab avo venire monstratur....Patris mei
frater mihi patruus est, ego illi fratris filius, aut filia. Patrui mei
pater mihi pater magnus est [sic], ego illi filii, aut filiae fratris
filius, aut filia." (Agnates are so named because they take the place of
children, when there are no sons. They are recognised as first in the line
by precedence, because they are offspring of male persons, like a brother
born from the same father, the son of a brother or a grandson by the son; so
equally a paternal uncle ["patruus"]. Cognates are so named because they
also are linked by the proximacy of kinship. They are considered to take
precedence after agnates, because they are offspring of female persons, not
as agnates but otherwise connected by natural right....A paternal uncle
["patruus"] is the father's brother, as if to say another father.
Consequently, on the death of a minor's father the paternal uncle takes
charge and becomes the legal guardian as of his own child. The maternal
uncle ["avunculus"] is the mother's brother, whose descriptor appears to
have a diminutive form because it is evidently derived from "avus"
(grandfather)....A brother of my father is my paternal uncle ["patruus"], to
him I am a brother's son or daughter. The father of my paternal uncle is my
great father [sic], to him I am the son or daughter of his son's or
daughter's brother.)

Clearly the last sentence is wrong as it stands. Most of the early
manuscripts contain three stemmata setting out the relationships, and it is
clear from these that the last sentence should read as follows:

"Patruus mei patris mihi patruus magnus est..." (A paternal uncle of my
father is my great uncle). However, Carolingian schoolboys had to be taught
this orally, or work it out for themselves, as it is not written properly in
any of the vast number of surviving medieval manuscripts.

It is clear to me from the context, and especially from the propagation of
this telling error substituting "pater" for "patruus", that the latter term
was taken to indicate an agnatic relative. The definition of "avunculus"
perhaps seems equally prescriptive for a mother's brother, but in practice
this was demonstrably extended to mean a maternal half-brother of the
father, instead of "patruus" filling the gap - there are many instances of
this, for example Regino (under 853) called Charlemagne's illegitimate son
Drogo, bishop of Metz, "avunculus" rather than "patruus" to the emperor's
grandson Pippin I, king of Aquitaine; Charlemagne's father Pippin the
Short's maternal half-brother Bernard was called his "avunculus" (under 773)
in the version of the Royal Frankish Annals written in the 790s. (However,
the word was changed to "patruus" in the revision of these annals written
later, in the reign of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious, when the exact
details were apparently not remembered.)

I don't know an example of "patruus" for a maternal half-brother of the
nephew's father, where the writer would certainly have been aware of this
distinction, before Otto of Freising in the 12th century. Gerbert would have
known how Sigefrid was related to Godefrid, and would have known the work of
Isidore backwards. In my view he would have associated the unqualified term
"patruus" with an agnatic relationship.

What seems unknown to me is the degree of uncertainty which is
relevant here. To look at it from a different view, it is clear that
a uterine brother of the father would satisfy Isidore's definition for
neither patruus nor avunculus. Confronted with such a relationship,
it is not clear to me that avuncuclus would be the invariable choice
of the scribe making the decision.

Looking specifically at the case of Cunégonde's five known sons, and
listing them in order of the probability that they were sons of
Wigeric (from greatest probability to least), I think that the order
would be Adalbero, Gozlin, Frédéric, Sigefroid, and Giselbert, with
the case for Giselbert being weak and the others strong. The question
is how strong, and at what point the qulifying word "probable" should
be included. As an explicitly documented son of Wigeric, Adalbero
presents no problem. It is possible to concoct a chronology which
would make Gozlin a son of Ricuin and which does not explicitly
violate any known evidence, but the chronology is too tight to be
really plausible, so I would also list him as a son of Wigeric. In my
nearly finished Henry Project page for Cunégone (as well as other
related pages), I list Frédéric and Sigefroid as "probable" sons of
Wigeric. In addition to the absence of conclusive evidence, my main
lingering doubts about Frédéric are geographical. His possessions
were located in the dioceses of Toul and Verdun, which matches very
well with Ricuin's theater of operation. Sigefroid was evidently
younger than Frédéric and perhaps even the youngest. As for
Giselbert, if any of them were a son of Ricuin, he would seem to be
the most likely one, but I am currently leaving his father as
ambiguous.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Sigifred of Luxemburg as "patruus" [was Re: Two Giselber

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 mar 2007 00:23:25

On Mar 21, 2:47 am, Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:

<snip>

What seems unknown to me is the degree of uncertainty which is
relevant here. To look at it from a different view, it is clear that
a uterine brother of the father would satisfy Isidore's definition for
neither patruus nor avunculus. Confronted with such a relationship,
it is not clear to me that avuncuclus would be the invariable choice
of the scribe making the decision.

I agree that we can't say "invariable", but the statement of Isidore
seems pretty clear to me:

"Agnati dicti eo...quia veniunt per virilis sexus personas, veluti
frater eodem patre natus, vel fratris filius neposve ex eo; item
patruus" (Agnates are so named...because they are offspring of male
persons, like a brother born from the same father, the son of a
brother or a grandson by the son; so equally a paternal uncle
["patruus"]).

In the medieval era Isidore's work took the place for general
reference of, say, the OED plus Roget's Thesaurus plus Encyclopaedia
Britannica plus most classroom textbooks in the English-speaking world
today. People learned what Latin terms meant and where words came from
principally through study of Isidore - in manuscripts indeed that
substituted "pater" for "patruus" in the relevant section - and they
came to prefer "avunculus" to "patruus" even for paternal uncles that
were not the father's "germani" (full-brothers), even though these
satisfied the definition as agnates in the examples I gave. Why would
they not do so even more for those uncles who were not agnates at all,
but cognates, as uterine brothers of the father?

The instance of Otto of Freising is not indicative of Gerbert's usage
for several reasons - I will check this further and post again about
this.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»