As requested in another thread, here (followed by a translation &
end-notes) is chapter 22 from book 3 of 'Chronica Naierensis' edited
by Juan Estévez Sola, _Chronica hispana saeculi XII_, part 2, Corpus
Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis 71A (Turnhout, 1995), pp.
178-179:
Rex autem iste quinque uxores legitimas noscitur habuisse: prima
Agnetem, que obiit era MCXXXVI secundam Constantiam, ex qua genuit
Vrracam uxorem comitis Raimundi, de qua ipse comes genuit Sanciam, que
obiit era MCXCa II kalendas Marcii, et Aldefonsum qui postea
Yspaniarum extitit imperator; tertiam Bertam Tuscia oriundam; quartam
Helysabeth, ex qua genuit Santiam uxorem comitis Roderici et Geluiram,
quam duxit Rotgerius dux Sicilie; quintam Beatricem, que eo mortuo ad
propria repedauit.
Habuit etiam duas concubinas tamen nobilissimas: prima fuit Xemena
Munioz, ex qua genuit Geloyram, uxorem comitis Raimundi Tolosani, qui
cognominatus est Caput Stupe, qui ex ea genuit Aldefonsum Iordanis, et
Tarasiam, uxorem comitis Henrici, qui ex ea genuit Vrracam, que obiit
era MCXXXIXa, XIo kalendas Octobris, et Geloyram, que obiit era
MCXXXVIIa, XVIIo kalendas Septembris, et Aldefonsum qui postea rex
extitit in Portugale. Posterior fuit nomine Zeida filia Auenabeth
[sic] regis Hyspalensis, que baptizata Helysabeth fuit uocata, ex qua
genuit Santium, qui occisus est in lite de Ocles era MCXLVI, VIIIo
kalendas Iulii, in die Natiuitatis Sancti Iohannis Babtiste, ubi etiam
occisus est comes Garsias de Grannione cognomento Crispus et sex alii
comites cum eo. Vnde promontorium illud ubi occisi sunt, propter
septem comites ibi interfectos, Septem Comitum nominatur.
Trans: This king (Alfonso VI) is known to have had five lawful
spouses: first Agnes, who died in 1098 [1]; secondly Constance, from
whom he begot Urraca, the wife of Count Raimond by whom the count was
father of Sancha who died on 28 February 1152 [2], and Alfonso who
afterwards became emperor of the Spaniards; third Berta who came from
Tuscia; fourth Elizabeth, from whom he begot Sancha the wife of Count
Rodrigo [González de Lara] and Elvira whom Duke Roger of Sicily
married; fifth Beatrice, who went back to her homeland after his
death.
He also had two concubines who were nevertheless most noble ladies:
first Jimena Múñoz, from whom he begot Elvira, the wife of Count
Raimond of Toulouse (nick-named the Tousle-headed) who by her fathered
Alphonse Jourdain, and Teresa, the wife of Count Henry who with her
had Urraca (died 21 September 1101) and Elvira (died 16 August 1099)
[3] and Alfonso who later became king in Portugal. The second was
named Zaida, daughter[-in-law] of King Ibn Abbad of Seville, who after
baptism was named Elisabeth [4], with whom he begot Sancho, killed in
the battle of Uclés on 24 June 1108 [5], the day of St John the
Baptist's nativity, where Count García [Ordóñez, count in Nájera] of
Granon (nick-named the Curly-headed) and six other counts were also
killed. For this reason the headland where they died was called Seven
Counts for the sake of those who were killed. [6]
[1] As noted earlier, this year of death appears to have been that of
her namesake half-sister Queen Agnes of Aragon, but despite this the
confidence of several writers in the next century that she had died in
Spain has to be set against the peculiar statement of Orderic that she
had remarried to a much younger man in France some 40 years after her
first wedding. Whether or not Queen Agnes of Castile was divorced
following the pope's letter to her husband apparently written in late
June 1080 remains unsolved. There are later histories affirming that
she had died before Alfonso VI married Constance of Burgundy in May
1081, for instance Rodrigo of Toledo's 'De rebus Hispaniae' book 6
chapter 21, "Tunc mortua Agnete duxit uxorem nomine Constantiam ex
partibus Galliarum" – see _Roderici Ximemii de Rada, Opera omnia_,
part 1, edited by Juan Fernández Valverde, CCCM 72 (Turnhout, 1987) p.
203. There is also an old tradition that Agnes is buried at Sahagún
along with Constance.
[2] This appears to be a scribal error, as she died seven years later
by other accounts.
[3] This is incorrect – Henry and Teresa did have a daughter named
Urraca but she died a few decades after this date and had no sister
named Elvira (they would have been infants in 1099 & 1101 anyway).
Perhaps someone can suggest another pair of sisters with these names
who may have been transposed into this genealogy.
[4] An obvious enough explanation for this if Zaida was sent openly to
Alfonso's court and converted there, before or after becoming the
king's mistress, would be that his queen of the same name had stood as
her sponsor.
[5] The battle is usually dated 30 May, but failing other records
closer to the event I suppose this could indicate that Sancho died a
while later of injuries sustained at the end of the previous month.
[6] Bishop Pelayo's chronicle is evidently the proximate source of
this account down to the battle of Uclés, cf _Crónica del obispo Don
Pelayo_ edited by Benito Sánchez Alonso (Madrid, 1924) p. 86. The
anonymous chronicler of Nájera has copied this passage almost
word-for-word, with minor variations in form and some additional
content, mainly the dates and the by-name details suggesting a curious
interest in hair-styles. It is clear enough that five wives and two
concubines meant seven different women, and the theory now popular
making Zaida the same as Queen Isabella is somewhat disingenuous. The
idea that Bishop Pelayo disguised the truth and started a conspiracy
of subsequent historians, who added details but never clarified this
important point – quite unnecessarily, given the plain statement – is
wishful and sloppy thinking in my view.
Peter Stewart
The family of Alfonso VI in the chronicle of Nájera
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: The family of Alfonso VI in the chronicle of Nájera
In article <88abeaa.0409230209.6c6e6cc9@posting.google.com>,
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote:
Yes, I agree with this. I have always thought Pelayo should be
interpreted at face value--that the one queen of that name and the
baptized Zaida were different people. [Pelayo's passage is now readily
available, translated in the paperback _World of El Cid_, ed. Simon
Barton & Richard Fletcher (Manchester, 2000), which includes portions of
Pelayo's chronicle, the Historia Silense, the Historia Roderici, and the
Chronicle of Alfonso VII.]
There is still the theory on the table that there were two queens
Elisabeth--not driven, originally, by a forced rehabilitation of the
Zaida-as-queen theory, but to explain for an apparent 'Elisabeth gap' in
charters (see Reilly). But I am not sure the charter gap is strong
enough to give much weight to this theory, which would again contradict
Pelayo--nor is it necessary or even likely that, if there were a second,
obscure Queen Elisabeth, she be Zaida.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote:
... the theory now popular
making Zaida the same as Queen Isabella is somewhat disingenuous.
Yes, I agree with this. I have always thought Pelayo should be
interpreted at face value--that the one queen of that name and the
baptized Zaida were different people. [Pelayo's passage is now readily
available, translated in the paperback _World of El Cid_, ed. Simon
Barton & Richard Fletcher (Manchester, 2000), which includes portions of
Pelayo's chronicle, the Historia Silense, the Historia Roderici, and the
Chronicle of Alfonso VII.]
There is still the theory on the table that there were two queens
Elisabeth--not driven, originally, by a forced rehabilitation of the
Zaida-as-queen theory, but to explain for an apparent 'Elisabeth gap' in
charters (see Reilly). But I am not sure the charter gap is strong
enough to give much weight to this theory, which would again contradict
Pelayo--nor is it necessary or even likely that, if there were a second,
obscure Queen Elisabeth, she be Zaida.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The family of Alfonso VI in t he chronicle of Nájera
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
While I haven't seen this & wouldn't discourage anyone from reading it,
I generally find that for exact genealogical purposes even some of the
most scholarly translations by historians can be seriously misleading.
It is very easy to introduce ambiguities, either by missing small
nuances of the original text or in the process of smoothing out the
narrative into modern readability. The Latin of academic experts
nowadays can be surprisingly rudimentary, and even great ones of the
19th-century who submitted their own dissertations in Latin could pass
blithely uncomprehending over such telling points as the tense, voice or
mood of verbs.
My practice in SGM posts is to give fairly literal translations, depite
clumsiness of expression at times, so that each word and phrase can be
matched readily enough by someone who might wish to examine and dispute
my interpretation. That is why - several people have questioned this
off-list - I usually ignore the parallel translations given by Marjorie
Chibnall & other editors who provide them.
Peter Stewart
In article <88abeaa.0409230209.6c6e6cc9@posting.google.com>,
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote:
... the theory now popular
making Zaida the same as Queen Isabella is somewhat disingenuous.
Yes, I agree with this. I have always thought Pelayo should be
interpreted at face value--that the one queen of that name and the
baptized Zaida were different people. [Pelayo's passage is now readily
available, translated in the paperback _World of El Cid_, ed. Simon
Barton & Richard Fletcher (Manchester, 2000), which includes portions of
Pelayo's chronicle, the Historia Silense, the Historia Roderici, and the
Chronicle of Alfonso VII.]
While I haven't seen this & wouldn't discourage anyone from reading it,
I generally find that for exact genealogical purposes even some of the
most scholarly translations by historians can be seriously misleading.
It is very easy to introduce ambiguities, either by missing small
nuances of the original text or in the process of smoothing out the
narrative into modern readability. The Latin of academic experts
nowadays can be surprisingly rudimentary, and even great ones of the
19th-century who submitted their own dissertations in Latin could pass
blithely uncomprehending over such telling points as the tense, voice or
mood of verbs.
My practice in SGM posts is to give fairly literal translations, depite
clumsiness of expression at times, so that each word and phrase can be
matched readily enough by someone who might wish to examine and dispute
my interpretation. That is why - several people have questioned this
off-list - I usually ignore the parallel translations given by Marjorie
Chibnall & other editors who provide them.
Peter Stewart
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: The family of Alfonso VI in the chronicle of Najera
In article <PE25d.3196$5O5.202@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Of course Peter's caveat about not relying on a translation for a
genealogial assertion is quite appropriate. My opinion of Zaida and
Pelayo were formed by reading the passage in one of the various articles
on the wives of Alfonso VI, in which I've seen the paragraph quoted in
full (J. M. Canal Sanchez-Pagin)--years before this present volume came
out, which is the first translation of Pelayo of which I'm aware. I
can't pull the Latin right now (my xerox of the 'apendice documental' to
Canal's _AEM_ article on Jimena Munoz seems to have gone astray), but
going from memory I noticed nothing in the translation that appeared to
alter the sense, which is pretty much the same as the chronicle of
Najera quoted by Peter, as Peter says too. The difficulty is to square
Pelayo--who, I think, would have written the passage differently if
Zaida and Queen Elisabeth had been the same person--and the
(non-contemporary) sepulcral inscription for Zaida / Elisabeth which may
elevate her to the status of 'wife'. I think Pelayo wins here, but this
has been a matter for different approaches.
As for this particular translated volume--though I have not made any
study of the quality of translations against the original, I would still
endorse it as illuminating the period well, both with the juxtaposition
of texts and with Barton & Fletcher's able introductions / commentary.
I particularly like Fletcher's writing, and also recommend his _Quest
for El Cid_. I am currently teaching an undergraduate history course on
medieval Spain and use both volumes in it.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <88abeaa.0409230209.6c6e6cc9@posting.google.com>,
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote:
... the theory now popular
making Zaida the same as Queen Isabella is somewhat disingenuous.
Yes, I agree with this. I have always thought Pelayo should be
interpreted at face value--that the one queen of that name and the
baptized Zaida were different people. [Pelayo's passage is now readily
available, translated in the paperback _World of El Cid_, ed. Simon
Barton & Richard Fletcher (Manchester, 2000), which includes portions of
Pelayo's chronicle, the Historia Silense, the Historia Roderici, and the
Chronicle of Alfonso VII.]
While I haven't seen this & wouldn't discourage anyone from reading it,
I generally find that for exact genealogical purposes even some of the
most scholarly translations by historians can be seriously misleading.
It is very easy to introduce ambiguities, either by missing small
nuances of the original text or in the process of smoothing out the
narrative into modern readability. The Latin of academic experts
nowadays can be surprisingly rudimentary, and even great ones of the
19th-century who submitted their own dissertations in Latin could pass
blithely uncomprehending over such telling points as the tense, voice or
mood of verbs.
My practice in SGM posts is to give fairly literal translations, depite
clumsiness of expression at times, so that each word and phrase can be
matched readily enough by someone who might wish to examine and dispute
my interpretation. That is why - several people have questioned this
off-list - I usually ignore the parallel translations given by Marjorie
Chibnall & other editors who provide them.
Of course Peter's caveat about not relying on a translation for a
genealogial assertion is quite appropriate. My opinion of Zaida and
Pelayo were formed by reading the passage in one of the various articles
on the wives of Alfonso VI, in which I've seen the paragraph quoted in
full (J. M. Canal Sanchez-Pagin)--years before this present volume came
out, which is the first translation of Pelayo of which I'm aware. I
can't pull the Latin right now (my xerox of the 'apendice documental' to
Canal's _AEM_ article on Jimena Munoz seems to have gone astray), but
going from memory I noticed nothing in the translation that appeared to
alter the sense, which is pretty much the same as the chronicle of
Najera quoted by Peter, as Peter says too. The difficulty is to square
Pelayo--who, I think, would have written the passage differently if
Zaida and Queen Elisabeth had been the same person--and the
(non-contemporary) sepulcral inscription for Zaida / Elisabeth which may
elevate her to the status of 'wife'. I think Pelayo wins here, but this
has been a matter for different approaches.
As for this particular translated volume--though I have not made any
study of the quality of translations against the original, I would still
endorse it as illuminating the period well, both with the juxtaposition
of texts and with Barton & Fletcher's able introductions / commentary.
I particularly like Fletcher's writing, and also recommend his _Quest
for El Cid_. I am currently teaching an undergraduate history course on
medieval Spain and use both volumes in it.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The family of Alfonso VI in the chronicle of Najera
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
I didn't mean to give the impression that Pelayo in this sepcific
passage may have been misrepresented, much less that Nat would overlook
it if this were so - I meant to making a general observation on the
difference in semantic focus, if you like, between historians and
genealogists dealing with the same texts.
For comparison, the original version by Bishop Pelayo is as follows (see
the reference in my first post of this thread, and the translation there
will serve):
Hic [Adefonsus] habuit quinque uxores legitimas: primam Agnetem,
secundam Constanciam reginam, ex qua genuit Urracam reginam, coniugem
comitis Raimundi, de qua ipse genuit Sanciam et Adefonsum regem; tertiam
Bertam, Tuscia oriundam, quartam Elisabeth, ex qua genuit Sanciam,
coniugem comitis Roderici, et Geloiram, quam duxit Rogerius, dux
Siciliae; quintam Beatricem, quae, mortuo eo, repedauit in patriam suam.
Habuit etiam duas concubinas, tamen nobilissimas: priorem fuit Xemenam
Munionis, ex qua genuit Geloiran, uxorem comitis Raimundi Tolosani,
patris ex ea Adefonsi Iordanis, et Tarasiam, uxorem Henrici comitis,
patris ex ea Urracae, Geloirae et Adefonsi. Posteriorem nomine Ceidam,
filiam Abenabeth, regis Hispalensis, quae baptizata Elisabeth fuit
vocata, ex hac genuit Sancium, qui obiit in lite de Ocles.
Peter Stewart
In article <PE25d.3196$5O5.202@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <88abeaa.0409230209.6c6e6cc9@posting.google.com>,
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote:
... the theory now popular
making Zaida the same as Queen Isabella is somewhat disingenuous.
Yes, I agree with this. I have always thought Pelayo should be
interpreted at face value--that the one queen of that name and the
baptized Zaida were different people. [Pelayo's passage is now readily
available, translated in the paperback _World of El Cid_, ed. Simon
Barton & Richard Fletcher (Manchester, 2000), which includes portions of
Pelayo's chronicle, the Historia Silense, the Historia Roderici, and the
Chronicle of Alfonso VII.]
While I haven't seen this & wouldn't discourage anyone from reading it,
I generally find that for exact genealogical purposes even some of the
most scholarly translations by historians can be seriously misleading.
It is very easy to introduce ambiguities, either by missing small
nuances of the original text or in the process of smoothing out the
narrative into modern readability. The Latin of academic experts
nowadays can be surprisingly rudimentary, and even great ones of the
19th-century who submitted their own dissertations in Latin could pass
blithely uncomprehending over such telling points as the tense, voice or
mood of verbs.
My practice in SGM posts is to give fairly literal translations, depite
clumsiness of expression at times, so that each word and phrase can be
matched readily enough by someone who might wish to examine and dispute
my interpretation. That is why - several people have questioned this
off-list - I usually ignore the parallel translations given by Marjorie
Chibnall & other editors who provide them.
Of course Peter's caveat about not relying on a translation for a
genealogial assertion is quite appropriate. My opinion of Zaida and
Pelayo were formed by reading the passage in one of the various articles
on the wives of Alfonso VI, in which I've seen the paragraph quoted in
full (J. M. Canal Sanchez-Pagin)--years before this present volume came
out, which is the first translation of Pelayo of which I'm aware. I
can't pull the Latin right now (my xerox of the 'apendice documental' to
Canal's _AEM_ article on Jimena Munoz seems to have gone astray), but
going from memory I noticed nothing in the translation that appeared to
alter the sense, which is pretty much the same as the chronicle of
Najera quoted by Peter, as Peter says too. The difficulty is to square
Pelayo--who, I think, would have written the passage differently if
Zaida and Queen Elisabeth had been the same person--and the
(non-contemporary) sepulcral inscription for Zaida / Elisabeth which may
elevate her to the status of 'wife'. I think Pelayo wins here, but this
has been a matter for different approaches.
I didn't mean to give the impression that Pelayo in this sepcific
passage may have been misrepresented, much less that Nat would overlook
it if this were so - I meant to making a general observation on the
difference in semantic focus, if you like, between historians and
genealogists dealing with the same texts.
For comparison, the original version by Bishop Pelayo is as follows (see
the reference in my first post of this thread, and the translation there
will serve):
Hic [Adefonsus] habuit quinque uxores legitimas: primam Agnetem,
secundam Constanciam reginam, ex qua genuit Urracam reginam, coniugem
comitis Raimundi, de qua ipse genuit Sanciam et Adefonsum regem; tertiam
Bertam, Tuscia oriundam, quartam Elisabeth, ex qua genuit Sanciam,
coniugem comitis Roderici, et Geloiram, quam duxit Rogerius, dux
Siciliae; quintam Beatricem, quae, mortuo eo, repedauit in patriam suam.
Habuit etiam duas concubinas, tamen nobilissimas: priorem fuit Xemenam
Munionis, ex qua genuit Geloiran, uxorem comitis Raimundi Tolosani,
patris ex ea Adefonsi Iordanis, et Tarasiam, uxorem Henrici comitis,
patris ex ea Urracae, Geloirae et Adefonsi. Posteriorem nomine Ceidam,
filiam Abenabeth, regis Hispalensis, quae baptizata Elisabeth fuit
vocata, ex hac genuit Sancium, qui obiit in lite de Ocles.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The family of Alfonso VI in the chronicle of Najera
Peter Stewart wrote:
How easy it is to botch a simple sentence in one's own native
language...Medieval authors were often more careful than they were
skilled in Latin, and of course they were normally more painstaking
(given the value of writing materials and the formality of their
purposes) than I am in newsgroup posts.
Peter Stewart
I meant to making a general observation
How easy it is to botch a simple sentence in one's own native
language...Medieval authors were often more careful than they were
skilled in Latin, and of course they were normally more painstaking
(given the value of writing materials and the formality of their
purposes) than I am in newsgroup posts.
Peter Stewart