Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Matthew Rockefeller

Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Matthew Rockefeller » 21 nov 2004 08:45:16

Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.

Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt (69 BC – 30 BC)
married
Mark Antony, Consul of Rome

Cleopatra Selene, Queen of Libya (40 BC – 5 BC)
married
Juba II of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (d 23) s of Juba I of
Mauretania, King of Mauretania s of Hiempsal I of Numidia, King of
Numidia

Ptolemy of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (22 BC – 40)
married
Julia Urania, daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia and Thea Urania

Drusilla of Mauretania, Princess of Mauretania, divorced wife of
Felix, Governor of Judea
married
Gaius Julius Sohaemus, Priest-King of Emesa and Sophene (d 73), son of
Sampsigeratnus, Priest-King of Emesa and Iotape II, Priestess-Queen of
Emesa, was deaf, daughter of Aristobulus II, Priest-King of Emesa,
Prince of Judea and Iotape I, Priestess-Queen of Emesa, daughter of
Sampsigeramus, Priest-King of Emesa, Sohaemus was the younger brother
of the childless Priest-King Azizus
Children:
Gaius Julius Alexio, Priest-King of Emesa
Iotape = Rabbel II Soter, King of the Arabs, ancestors of Zenobia
Mamaea = Marcus Antonius Polemo, Prince of Pontus


***
Break in the pedigree

Gaius Julis Sohaemus was a descendant of Herod the Great.

Here is his lineage quickly

Herod the Great = Mariamme, a Hasomonaean heiress

Aristobulus I, Prince of Judea = Berenice II, daughter of Costobarus,
Governor of Idumaea and Salome a sister of Herod the Great

Aristobulus II, Priest-King of Emesa = Iotape I, Priestess-Queen of
Emesa, daughter of Sampsigeramus, Priest-King of Emesa who was a
younger brother of the childless Priest-King Azizus

Iotape II, Priestess-Queen of Emesa, was deaf = Sampsigeratnus,
Priest-King of Emesa

Gaius Julius Sohaemus

***

Continuation of the original lineage

Gaius Julius Alexio, Priest-King of Emesa (d 78)
married
Claudia, daughter of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, King of Syria and
possibly Servilla an illegitimate daughter of Claudius, Emperor of
Rome
Children:
Gaius Julius Sampsigeramus III Silas, Priest-King of Emesa
Mamaea = Malchus, King of Palmyra, ancestors of Zenobia

Gaius Julius Sampsigeramus III Silas, Priest-King of Emesa (d ca 120)

Gaius Julius Longinus Soaemus, Priest-King of Emesa (d ca 160)
Children:
Julius Bassianus, Priest-King of Emesa, progenitor of Roman emperors,
father of Empress Julia Domna and her sisters
Iamblichus

Iamblichus, Prince of Emesa

Gaius Julius Sulpicius, Priest-King of Emesa (d ca 210)

Uranius Antoninus, rival Emperor of Rome [218 - 235], Priest-King of
Emesa (d 235)

Lucius Julius Aurelius Sulpicius Severus Uranius Antoninus, rival
Emperor of Rome [253 - 254], Priest-King of Emesa (d 254)

Iamblichus (d 325), philosopher, disciple of Porphyry in Rome, founder
of his own neoplatonic school

Urania
married
Sopater (d 312), Imperial Counsellor to Constantine, philosopher,
disciple of Iamblichus

Himerius

Iamblichus

Tetradius, Proconsul of Treves, Senator (d after 386)
married
Arthemia

Arthemia
married
Decimius Rusticus, Praetorian Prefect (d after 411)

Rusticus, his parentage and that of his children are certain but his
name is speculated
married
Tullia, daughter of Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons

Aquilinus, Bishop of Lyons (d 470)
married
Fuscina, daughter of Hesychius, Bishop of Vienne and Audentia a
daughter Emperor Petronius Maximus and Eparchia, sister of Emperor
Avitus

Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons (d April 25, 501)
married
Ommace, daughter of Ruricius, Bishop of Limoges

Sacerdos, Bishop of Lyons (d September 11, 552)

Aurelian, Bishop of Arles (d June 16, 551)

Arthemia
married
Munderic, Bishop of Arisitum (d after 578)

Mummolin, Mayor of the Palace of Neustrie
married
a daughter of Maurilion and sister of Arnulf, Duke of Angouleme

Bodegisel II, Duke of Aquitaine, Ambassador to Byzantium (d 588)
married
Chrodoare, Abbess of Amay (d 634)

Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d August 16,
640)
married
Clothilde, daughter of Arnold, Bishop of Metz and Dode a daughter of
Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above

Ansegisel, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d 685)
married
St. Begga (d 698), daughter of Pepin "of Landen", Mayor of the Palace
of Austrasia and Itta

Pepin "of Heristal", Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia and Neustrie
(635 - December 16, 714)
married
Aupais

Charles "Martel", Duke of Franks, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia
(689 - October 22, 741)
married
Chrotrude (d 724), daughter of St. Lievin, Bishop of Treves

Pepin "the Short", King of Franks [751 - 768], Mayor of the Palace of
Neustrie, Provence, and Bourgogne (714 - September 24, 768)
married 740
Bertha "the White Lady" (d 783), daughter of Charibert, Count of Laon
and Bertha a daughter of Clothaire IV, King of Franks

Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor (April 2, 742 - January 28, 814)

Matthew

Gjest

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 nov 2004 09:11:02

In a message dated 11/20/2004 11:54:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com writes:

Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.


Indicate which parts are from Settipani so we can find the parts you wove out
of whole cloth.
Will

Robert

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Robert » 21 nov 2004 15:14:41

Most software packages can produce text reports that include citations
for the facts presented.

This is interesting but can't you present this descent with the
sources you used? (Otherwise it's just bandwidth.) I think you're
finding the serious here on this forum expect facts and data.

"Settipani" is fine, but what work, what page from that work? A
"whole lot of my own time and research." You are keeping track of all
your sources no doubt. But not presenting them alongside this descent
goes nowhere with regards to establishing a credible presentation.
Especially on something like this descent from Herod and the Queen of
the Nile.

Thanks.

matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com (Matthew Rockefeller) wrote in message news:<1623fca6.0411202345.619444ad@posting.google.com>...
Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.

snip

Doug McDonald

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 21 nov 2004 15:48:09

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/20/2004 11:54:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com writes:


Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.



Indicate which parts are from Settipani so we can find the parts you wove out
of whole cloth.
Will



This is similar to but not identical with a similar
descent (chart) by Mr. Mommaerts who posted it on the Rootsweb
gen-ancient list. Mommaerts clearly indiocates that much of
it is exceedingly speculative. Lots and lots of dotted lines.

Doug McDonald

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 21 nov 2004 22:07:57

Matthew Rockefeller wrote:
Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.

I have not read most of Settipani's pre-medieval work. I do know that
it is highly speculative. I can comment on the latter part:

Arthemia
married
Munderic, Bishop of Arisitum (d after 578)

Mummolin, Mayor of the Palace of Neustrie
married
a daughter of Maurilion and sister of Arnulf, Duke of Angouleme

Bodegisel II, Duke of Aquitaine, Ambassador to Byzantium (d 588)
married
Chrodoare, Abbess of Amay (d 634)

This, link (B II to A) I know is speculative.

Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d August 16,
640)
married
Clothilde, daughter of Arnold, Bishop of Metz and Dode a daughter of

This looks like an attempt to 'fix' claims that Arnulf was son of Arnold.

Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above

I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.


Ansegisel, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d 685)
married
St. Begga (d 698), daughter of Pepin "of Landen", Mayor of the Palace
of Austrasia and Itta

I have seen it indicated that this is the first generation (Ansegisel
and Begga) that can be documented with 'absolute certainty' (whatever
that means in a world where some loons claim that a thousand years of
medieval history were invented).

Pepin "of Heristal", Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia and Neustrie
(635 - December 16, 714)
married
Aupais

Charles "Martel", Duke of Franks, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia
(689 - October 22, 741)
married
Chrotrude (d 724), daughter of St. Lievin, Bishop of Treves

Chrotrude's parentage is speculative - not documented in any source that
I am aware of.

Pepin "the Short", King of Franks [751 - 768], Mayor of the Palace of
Neustrie, Provence, and Bourgogne (714 - September 24, 768)
married 740
Bertha "the White Lady" (d 783), daughter of Charibert, Count of Laon
and Bertha a daughter of Clothaire IV, King of Franks

The wife of Charibert is not documented. However, his mother was
Bertrada (Bertha) and it has been speculated that this mother was
daughter of a Merovingian king (several different ones have been
suggested, although the prefered candidates are non-royal). This
version looks like it has confused mother and wife (or perhaps taken the
alternative solutions and applied one to mother and one to wife, so that
you could buy one, get one free.

Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor (April 2, 742 - January 28, 814)

taf

Gjest

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 nov 2004 02:41:01

"Cleopatra Selene, Queen of Libya (40 BC – 5 BC)
married Juba II of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (d 23) s of Juba I of Mauretania, King of Mauretania s of Hiempsal I of Numidia, King of Numidia"

1) The death date of Cleopatra Selene is uncertain, guesses range from 5BC to 11 AD.

"Ptolemy of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (22 BC – 40)
married Julia Urania, daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia and Thea Urania"

Ptolemy, King of Mauretania was not born in 22 BC. This is apparently some sort of mistake based on when he started to rule. When his father died in 23 AD it was said that Ptolemy had been co-ruler with him for 3 to 4 years. Ptolemy the son was born in 1 BC. The attribution of Julia Urania as daughter to King Phraates is uncertain. It is mere speculation.

Will Johnson

Bob Turcott

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 23 nov 2004 05:16:02

WJ,

I don't know much about ancestry beyond Charlemagne, is it unlikley that
Cleopatra
is an ancestor of Charlemagne? I just want to make sure I interpret the
findings properly..

Bob

From: WJhonson@aol.com To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Herod
and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:32:13 -0500

"Cleopatra Selene, Queen of Libya (40 BC – 5 BC) married Juba II of
Mauretania, King of Mauretania (d 23) s of Juba I of Mauretania, King of
Mauretania s of Hiempsal I of Numidia, King of Numidia"

1) The death date of Cleopatra Selene is uncertain, guesses range from 5BC
to 11 AD.

"Ptolemy of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (22 BC – 40) married Julia
Urania, daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia and Thea Urania"

Ptolemy, King of Mauretania was not born in 22 BC. This is apparently some
sort of mistake based on when he started to rule. When his father died in
23 AD it was said that Ptolemy had been co-ruler with him for 3 to 4 years.
Ptolemy the son was born in 1 BC. The attribution of Julia Urania as
daughter to King Phraates is uncertain. It is mere speculation.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2004 05:31:02

" I don't know much about ancestry beyond Charlemagne, is it unlikley that Cleopatra is an ancestor of Charlemagne? I just want to make sure I interpret the findings properly"

Bob first I want to make sure you realize this was NOT my original post, I was merely adding corrections to THIS part of the alledged lineage. Others have commented on other parts of it. The lineage from end-to-end is suspect yes.

We know for example that while Mark Antony and Cleopatra were offing themselves, their three children were captured and taken captive to Rome. There they were entrusted to the royal household, (in the past they would have been killed).
Nothing more is heard of the two boys, but the girl Selene was raised in the royal household and married off to Juba II.

Ok we're on firm ground there. The existence of Selene and Juba is on solid ground, we have several coins from their reign and Selene imprudently appears to boast that she is heir to most of Roman Africa constantly exhibiting her Egyptian symbols on her coinage. She was not, in fact, since Egypt had become a Roman province and had no dynastic ruler (IIRC).

However once the lineage devolves into base marriages into the insignificant house of Emesa things get pretty murky.

However consider if you will, the reign of Caligula and Tiberius, both known (esp under Sejanus) for being quite bloodthirsty. I'm not sure, if I can cotton to the idea of THEM leaving a person alive who could possibly claim the throne of Egypt, no matter how trivia that person's "actual" power had become.

But please note, that the entire lineage was presented by the offending party without ANY sources. That is a big red flag right there.

Will Johnson

marshall kirk

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av marshall kirk » 23 nov 2004 15:45:47

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:

Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above

I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.

In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into sufficiently highly
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began to bestow Germanic
names as well as Latin names on their kids. Gregory of Tours, whose
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost nothing but Latin
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf -- or, if there were
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully trust my memory on
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated to around 584 (?),
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was on some sort of
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly, as I realized that
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me on this, please, and
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate access.)

This onomastic accommodation to the facts of social life rapidly
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of Gallo-Roman patrilineage
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly Burgundian) names.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 23 nov 2004 18:07:09

marshall kirk wrote:
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:


Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above

I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.


In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into sufficiently highly
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began to bestow Germanic
names as well as Latin names on their kids. Gregory of Tours, whose
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost nothing but Latin
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf -- or, if there were
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully trust my memory on
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated to around 584 (?),
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was on some sort of
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly, as I realized that
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me on this, please, and
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate access.)

This onomastic accommodation to the facts of social life rapidly
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of Gallo-Roman patrilineage
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly Burgundian) names.

I was basing my conclusion (that he was probably a Frank) as much on his
title as on his name, but I will admit, I don't have the best of feel
for this. How frequently did the Gallo-Roman aristocracy occupy the
highest levels of the Frankish nobility at this time?

taf

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 24 nov 2004 10:01:02

Todd,

Think of the Ferreoli, and their family entourage.

fa

--- "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
escreveu:
marshall kirk wrote:
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:


Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz,
Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and
Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above

I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of
Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.


In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into
sufficiently highly
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began
to bestow Germanic
names as well as Latin names on their kids.
Gregory of Tours, whose
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost
nothing but Latin
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf --
or, if there were
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully
trust my memory on
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated
to around 584 (?),
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was
on some sort of
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly,
as I realized that
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me
on this, please, and
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate
access.)

This onomastic accommodation to the facts of
social life rapidly
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of
Gallo-Roman patrilineage
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly
Burgundian) names.

I was basing my conclusion (that he was probably a
Frank) as much on his
title as on his name, but I will admit, I don't have
the best of feel
for this. How frequently did the Gallo-Roman
aristocracy occupy the
highest levels of the Frankish nobility at this
time?

taf







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

marshall kirk

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av marshall kirk » 01 des 2004 14:00:18

First, a self-correction. (My expressed doubt as to the entire
accuracy of my memory was well-founded.) Gregory says that Gundulf
"was my mother's UNCLE," not "mother's BROTHER." (Which seems to make
Gundulf pretty old to be engaged in diplomatic and military affairs
.... but compare Liberius and Narses, in high military commands well
into their eighties.)

This might seem to open the possibility that Gundulf was an uncle by
marriage, but perhaps the Latin --which I haven't seen -- doesn't
permit that, as every pedigree of Gregory's family I've ever seen (and
I've seen perhaps a dozen), including some by qualified folk such as
Settipani and, I think, Ralph Whitney Mathisen, makes Gundulf
Armentaria's uncle by blood, not marriage. Perhaps someone might
comment here on whether Latin typically distinguished between the two
possibilities in 6th-c. Gaul. I don't know.

(Gregory states explicitly that he was related to all but five of the
previous 18 bishops of Tours. Kelley has argued rather persuasively
that among his episcopal relatives were Baldwin and Gundahar (Baudinus
and Gunthar). Scholars have wrangled over this passage for
generations, tho'.)

I do know that the Frankish and Gallo-Roman onomastics began to mix,
in Gaul, within single family groups by 500 CE or so, and that such
mixed naming-patterns became quite common by 600 CE. Any short
dogpaddle through the literature of that period makes the phenomenon
immediately clear. Some of this may, again IIRC, show up in
Mathisen's (sadly) unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, _An Ecclesiastical
Aristocracy in Fifth-Century Gaul_, which is an onomastic gold-mine,
really indispensable.

As for your question about the frequency with which Gallo-Roman
aristocrats held high office in the Frankish kingdoms by the late 500s
-- quite frequently indeed. Gregory is full of tittle-tattle about
the doings of both the royal officials (tax collectors, referendaries,
and suchlike) and the many Counts and Dukes who held regional or
military commands. You'll find plenty of both Frankish and Roman
names. Some of the latter (Ennodius, Firminus, Parthenius) are
redolent of high aristocracy.

I would conjecture that the Franks had to lean rather heavily, at
least at first, on pre-existing Roman offialdom to keep the complex
administrative machinery running. (Note that an early codifier of
Burgundian law was one Syagrius, apparently of the highest nobility.
Sidonius wrote him a letter expressing mock-admiration that he now
speaks perfect Burgundian.) If so, this would have become both a
precedent and a habit. At the same time, so many high-level
Gallo-Roman aristocrats moved over to that other power-base, the
Church, and became bishops, that even the Frankish kings seem uneasily
to have feared them as *perhaps* having supernatural powers ... an
impression that, if we can trust Gregory, the said bishops did little
to dispel.



"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41a36df2@news.ColoState.EDU>...
marshall kirk wrote:
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:


Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above

I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.


In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into sufficiently highly
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began to bestow Germanic
names as well as Latin names on their kids. Gregory of Tours, whose
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost nothing but Latin
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf -- or, if there were
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully trust my memory on
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated to around 584 (?),
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was on some sort of
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly, as I realized that
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me on this, please, and
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate access.)

This onomastic accommodation to the facts of social life rapidly
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of Gallo-Roman patrilineage
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly Burgundian) names.

I was basing my conclusion (that he was probably a Frank) as much on his
title as on his name, but I will admit, I don't have the best of feel
for this. How frequently did the Gallo-Roman aristocracy occupy the
highest levels of the Frankish nobility at this time?

taf

Don Stone

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Don Stone » 01 des 2004 19:06:11

marshall kirk wrote:
First, a self-correction. (My expressed doubt as to the entire
accuracy of my memory was well-founded.) Gregory says that Gundulf
"was my mother's UNCLE," not "mother's BROTHER." (Which seems to make
Gundulf pretty old to be engaged in diplomatic and military affairs
... but compare Liberius and Narses, in high military commands well
into their eighties.)

This might seem to open the possibility that Gundulf was an uncle by
marriage, but perhaps the Latin --which I haven't seen -- doesn't
permit that, as every pedigree of Gregory's family I've ever seen (and
I've seen perhaps a dozen), including some by qualified folk such as
Settipani and, I think, Ralph Whitney Mathisen, makes Gundulf
Armentaria's uncle by blood, not marriage. Perhaps someone might
comment here on whether Latin typically distinguished between the two
possibilities in 6th-c. Gaul. I don't know.

Martin Heinzelmann's _Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth
Century_ (2001) devotes part of Chapter 1 to Gregory's prosopography and
genealogy. He shows a sister of Duke Gundulf marrying a son of Gregorius
Attalus (Bp. of Langres) and producing Gregory's mother Armentaria II.

In the entry for Gundulf, Heinzelmann reports that Gregory said of Duke
Gundulf: "I recognized him as the uncle [avunculus] of my mother."

-- Don Stone

marshall kirk

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av marshall kirk » 03 des 2004 17:53:45

Interesting, and the first time I've heard of anyone taking this
reconstructive route. Does Heinzelmann explicitly state his reasoning
for doing so?

(For that matter, Don, I wonder if you might mail me a copy of the
relevant section? I'm in the middle (or perhaps I'm only at the
quarter mark) of a deeply upsetting change in residence (chasing after
a moving job), and it may be a long time before I again have access to
a useful library.----I must have been out of my mind to agree to all
that ...)

If Settipani's lurking out there, his opinion of Heinzelmann's work in
this regard would be welcome. (This should fall under the heading of
_Capetiens_, vol. II, part 1, anyway, hint hint ... :) )

Does anyone here have a well-founded opinion as to the attested
extensions of *avunculus* in this era and region? As a parallel case,
I've always taken *amita* as meaning 'father's sister.' However, as
I've been at pains to state before, I'm *not* a Latinist.

Don Stone <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<nKnrd.706$Xd.166@trndny02>...
marshall kirk wrote:
First, a self-correction. (My expressed doubt as to the entire
accuracy of my memory was well-founded.) Gregory says that Gundulf
"was my mother's UNCLE," not "mother's BROTHER." (Which seems to make
Gundulf pretty old to be engaged in diplomatic and military affairs
... but compare Liberius and Narses, in high military commands well
into their eighties.)

This might seem to open the possibility that Gundulf was an uncle by
marriage, but perhaps the Latin --which I haven't seen -- doesn't
permit that, as every pedigree of Gregory's family I've ever seen (and
I've seen perhaps a dozen), including some by qualified folk such as
Settipani and, I think, Ralph Whitney Mathisen, makes Gundulf
Armentaria's uncle by blood, not marriage. Perhaps someone might
comment here on whether Latin typically distinguished between the two
possibilities in 6th-c. Gaul. I don't know.

Martin Heinzelmann's _Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth
Century_ (2001) devotes part of Chapter 1 to Gregory's prosopography and
genealogy. He shows a sister of Duke Gundulf marrying a son of Gregorius
Attalus (Bp. of Langres) and producing Gregory's mother Armentaria II.

In the entry for Gundulf, Heinzelmann reports that Gregory said of Duke
Gundulf: "I recognized him as the uncle [avunculus] of my mother."

-- Don Stone

Peter Stewart

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 04 des 2004 01:08:33

marshall kirk wrote:

<snip>

Does anyone here have a well-founded opinion as to the attested
extensions of *avunculus* in this era and region? As a parallel case,
I've always taken *amita* as meaning 'father's sister.' However, as
I've been at pains to state before, I'm *not* a Latinist.

I'm not sure what you require as to "era and region" - I trust this is
just for confirmation and not an opening to rationalise denial as in the
wonky idea of Douglas Richardson about distinctly regional and temporal
Latin vocabulary. Apart from the general principle, we don't have enough
material from around the time and place in question to allow for
certainty and nicety in definition even if this idea could be taken as
meaningful.

Anyway, the second continuator of Fredegar described Childebrand as
"germanus" to Charles Martel and yet as "avunculus" rather than
"patruus" to the latter's son Pippin - see _The Fourth Book of the
Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations_, edited by JM
Wallace-Hadrill (London, 1960), p. 94: "Ad contra uir egregius Carlus
dux germanum suum uirum inlustrium Childebrando ducem...diriget"; ibid
p. 97: "Pippinus dux...cum auunculo suo Childebrando duce"; ibid p. 102:
inluster uir Childebrandus comes auunculus praedicto rege Pippino".

However "germanus" may also be misleading here: Charles Martel was the
son of their father Pippin of Heristal's second wife Chalpais, and
Childebrand was not a son of the first wife Plectrude. The two _may_
have been full-brothers, but it is possible that they were uterine
half-brothes and Childebrand was son of Chalpais by another (though
unrecorded) husband. Either way, the relationship as "avunculs" to
Charles Martel's son was through a brother and not a sister.

Regino also described Charlemagne's son Drogo, bishop of Metz, as
"avunculus" to the emperor's grandson Pippin I, king of Aquitaine, under
the year 853 - see _Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis chronicon cum
continuatione Trevernensi_, edited by Friedrich Kurze, MGH SSrG 50
(Hanover, 1890) p. 76.

The point of this is that "avunculus" was used beyond its stricter
classical meaning of maternal uncle, and for what little it's worth this
can be shown within a few centuries after Gregory & not very far away
from Tours. Lexicography, like the writing of Latin at any time,
anywhere, is an art and not an exact science.

Peter Stewart

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 04 des 2004 12:11:02

The argument that Childebrand was an uterine brother
(see below) was advanced by Lévillain, but once
Christian Settipani gave me an exhaustive discussion
of the matter which supported the traditional view
(full brothers).

fa

--- Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

marshall kirk wrote:

snip

Does anyone here have a well-founded opinion as to
the attested
extensions of *avunculus* in this era and region?
As a parallel case,
I've always taken *amita* as meaning 'father's
sister.' However, as
I've been at pains to state before, I'm *not* a
Latinist.

I'm not sure what you require as to "era and region"
- I trust this is
just for confirmation and not an opening to
rationalise denial as in the
wonky idea of Douglas Richardson about distinctly
regional and temporal
Latin vocabulary. Apart from the general principle,
we don't have enough
material from around the time and place in question
to allow for
certainty and nicety in definition even if this idea
could be taken as
meaningful.

Anyway, the second continuator of Fredegar described
Childebrand as
"germanus" to Charles Martel and yet as "avunculus"
rather than
"patruus" to the latter's son Pippin - see _The
Fourth Book of the
Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations_,
edited by JM
Wallace-Hadrill (London, 1960), p. 94: "Ad contra
uir egregius Carlus
dux germanum suum uirum inlustrium Childebrando
ducem...diriget"; ibid
p. 97: "Pippinus dux...cum auunculo suo Childebrando
duce"; ibid p. 102:
inluster uir Childebrandus comes auunculus praedicto
rege Pippino".

However "germanus" may also be misleading here:
Charles Martel was the
son of their father Pippin of Heristal's second wife
Chalpais, and
Childebrand was not a son of the first wife
Plectrude. The two _may_
have been full-brothers, but it is possible that
they were uterine
half-brothes and Childebrand was son of Chalpais by
another (though
unrecorded) husband. Either way, the relationship as
"avunculs" to
Charles Martel's son was through a brother and not a
sister.

Regino also described Charlemagne's son Drogo,
bishop of Metz, as
"avunculus" to the emperor's grandson Pippin I, king
of Aquitaine, under
the year 853 - see _Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis
chronicon cum
continuatione Trevernensi_, edited by Friedrich
Kurze, MGH SSrG 50
(Hanover, 1890) p. 76.

The point of this is that "avunculus" was used
beyond its stricter
classical meaning of maternal uncle, and for what
little it's worth this
can be shown within a few centuries after Gregory &
not very far away
from Tours. Lexicography, like the writing of Latin
at any time,
anywhere, is an art and not an exact science.

Peter Stewart






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Douglas Richardson

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 04 des 2004 20:38:26

Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<5e7sd.57639$K7.47101@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
I'm not sure what you require as to "era and region" - I trust this is
just for confirmation and not an opening to rationalise denial as in the
wonky idea of Douglas Richardson about distinctly regional and temporal
Latin vocabulary. Apart from the general principle, we don't have enough
material from around the time and place in question to allow for
certainty and nicety in definition even if this idea could be taken as
meaningful.


Peter Stewart

Wonky idea? Mmmmmm .....

I don't recall proposing such a thing, but now that you've mentioned
it, a distinctly regional and temporal Latin dictionary makes good
sense.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 des 2004 00:13:20

royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0412041138.54027cb5@posting.google.com>...
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<5e7sd.57639$K7.47101@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

I'm not sure what you require as to "era and region" - I trust this is
just for confirmation and not an opening to rationalise denial as in the
wonky idea of Douglas Richardson about distinctly regional and temporal
Latin vocabulary. Apart from the general principle, we don't have enough
material from around the time and place in question to allow for
certainty and nicety in definition even if this idea could be taken as
meaningful.


Peter Stewart

Wonky idea? Mmmmmm .....

I don't recall proposing such a thing, but now that you've mentioned
it, a distinctly regional and temporal Latin dictionary makes good
sense.

Of course you have advanced this idea: I didn't say you explicitly
proposed it - once again you are failing to comprehend a simple
statement in contemporary English, your native language, which as
always casts a shadow over your ability to interpret any statement in
sources primary or secondary, even when written or summarised in
English.

The idea is clearly implicit in your demand for post-Conquest examples
from English sources of certain meanings of "avunculus" (which you
still haven't acknowledged), "nepos" and "cognatus", as well as by
your stubborn refusal to accept that examples given of the last in the
standard dictionary from Bede or Jerome's Bible could answer the
point.

Once a non-classical extension of a word's meaning had been put into
circulation in Latin, there was no putting it back out again - even IF
meanings in a formal, archaic language could be said to become somehow
obsolete, nothing could conceivably prevent their revival when writers
kept reading older sources that used them. Bede and St Jerome's Bible
were both widely read and enormously influential, and the second
carried authority above all other writings. This is approximately the
fifth time I have had to go over this very straightforward point,
apparently for your sole benefit since no-one else keeps raising the
issue.

But for Marshall Kirk's question, it is not possible to tell precisely
when the cat of "avunculus" instead of "patruus" (for paternal uncle)
got out of the bag, only to show that it was used by Frankish writers
after Gregory. There may be examples closer in time and place to him,
but of course with less external evidence for relationships it is very
hard to say for sure.

And ten or twenty such examples would not be absolute PROOF of
Gregory's meaning in a specific instance, while on the other hand the
certainty that there were NO others available for lexicographers today
couldn't establish that there had been none known to him in the sixth
century.

So there is no purpose - for me at least - in searching for
post-Conquest examples in England of "cognatus" meaning an in-law,
when the earlier examples given prove that the word COULD have been
(because it HAD been) used in this way.

As for a regional and temporal Latin dictionary, there are plenty of
these but NOT for the purpose you seem to imagine. The British
Academy's medieval Latin dictionary is just one such publication
(notable counterparts exist for the Netherlands and Hungary, amongst
others): the temporality is as wide as the entire middle ages because
nothing less would be of value; and the region is due to specialised
interest in the study of local history and culture, for which sources
from elsewhere would only be a distraction, and to a lesser extent the
developing Latinity of native languages.

Peter Stewart

Don Stone

Re: Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA

Legg inn av Don Stone » 06 des 2004 03:01:14

marshall kirk wrote:

Interesting, and the first time I've heard of anyone taking this
reconstructive route. Does Heinzelmann explicitly state his reasoning
for doing so?

Heinzelmann's _Gregory of Tours_ is the focus of a review article by Danuta
Shanzer in the 2002 issue of _Medieval Prosopography_. Quoting (p. 249):

Heinzelmann provides a bolder and more conjectural stemma than does either
Jean Verdon or J. R. Martindale in _The Prosopography of the Later Roman
Empire (PLRE)_ 3. In it he uses straight solid lines for hard connections,
dashes for relationships mentioned (imprecisely or vaguely) by Gregory, and
dotted lines for his own conjectural reconstructions. His conclusions seem
sound, but the thought processes behind them need clarification in many
cases. The reader is customarily sent without comment to earlier studies.

-- Don Stone

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»