Discussion:
The wife of Vulgrin of Angoulême
(too old to reply)
Peter Stewart
2021-06-08 01:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Since this vexed subject came up in a recent thread, it may be worth
starting a new one focused on the problem.

According to Ademar of Chabannes, Vulgrin when already ageing was sent
by his close relative Charles the Bald to be count in Angoulême and
Périgueux after the death (in June 866) of Emeno, count of Angoulême,
resulting from local strife. Vulgrin by Ademar's account took with him
two sons, Hilduin and William, and once there claimed Agen owing to his
unnamed wife being the sister of William of Toulouse. He ruled the three
cities for 17 years ("Carolus ... Vulgrimnum propinquum suum ... direxit
in Aquitaniam, et prefecit eum comitem Egolisme simul et Petragorice ...
eratque jam senex quando eum Carolus Calvus fecit comitem supradictarum
urbium. Venerunt cum eo a Francia duo filii, Alduinus et Willelmus.
Aginnum quoque urbem habebat, quam assumens vindicavit propter sororem
Willelmi Tolosani, quam in matrimonium acceperat. Tenuit principatum in
his tribus civitatibus per XVII annos.")

The details here can't all be correct, since the circumstances do not
entirely fit with information stated or implied in sources closer to the
time and place, and generally more reliable than Ademar anyway.

For starters, it's scarcely credible that Charles would have sent a
brother-in-law of his deceased enemy William of Toulouse to govern in a
distant and troubled region. William was very probably count of Bordeaux
from 845 to 848, and in that capacity would have controlled Agen, but he
led opposition to Charles in Aquitaine favouring the king's nephew
Pippin II against him. William was almost certainly captured by Normans
in 848 and dispossessed, after which he briefly usurped power in
Ampurias and Barcelona before being killed in 849 or 850. His father
Bernard of Septimania had been executed in 844 and was hardly the late
father-in-law of a relative whom Charles would highly trust, since apart
from political differences he had been accused of adultery with the
king's mother empress Judith.

Also Vulgrin's wife was the mother of grown sons who were sent to
support her ageing husband in 866, whereas any sister of William of
Toulouse could not have been born before 842 and (since she was not
mentioned in his mother Dhuoda's manual written in the early 840s)
probably not until a few years later if such a sibling ever existed at
all. In that case, the onomastic link from her purported brother to
Vulgrin's son William is broken since he would necessarily have been son
of a prior wife and his inheritance of Agen along with Périgueux (while
Angoulême went to his brother Hilduin) becomes another problem.

Agen in 866 was presumably controlled by the count of Bordeaux at that
time, and as far as we can tell this was Arnald, duke of Gascony, son of
count Immo of Périgueux. The sole source for Arnald is an account of the
translation of relics of St Fausta in 864 from Vic-Fezensac to Brivezac,
where the journey ended on 15 June as recorded in the mid-12th century
martyrology of Solignac abbey here (folio 51v):
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10032632p/f53 ("XVII Kl [julii]
... Briuaciaco translacio sanctę Faustę uirginis").

Since Arnald sent the expedition to collect St Fausta's relics after
succeeding his maternal uncle Sancho Sanchez Mitarra as ruler of the
Gascon duchy he must have been duke before 15 June 864, and since one of
the men he sent was his 'nepos' Godefrid he was himself evidently
already the uncle (if not the grandfather, but in any event the senior
relative) of a grown man, i.e. most probably not born in 840 as asserted
without evidence by Christian Settipani in 2004.

The next ruler of Gascony on record, perhaps Arnald's successor but
maybe his rival or sharer in partitioned rule over the Bordeaux-linked
duchy and an ethnic Gascon principality respectively, was evidently his
first cousin Sancho Sanchez, who was perhaps the man called 'king' as if
he ruled all Gascons in 867 by his father-in-law Galindo Aznárez of
Aragón ("ego Galindo Asinari comes deprecor Sancium regem generum
meum"). This identification is debatable, but at any rate Sancho Sanchez
ruled Gascony including Bordeaux not long after 864 - Arnald reportedly
met an untimely death between the translation of St Fausta in June 864
and the writing of the account apparently not long afterwards from which
we know of him. According to this, he wished to become a monk at
Solignac himself but was prevented by unexpected death ("spondens
voueret se in eodem pro Christi amore comam capitis sui depositurum, et
monasticis semetipsum subdendum disciplinis. Postea vero id implesset,
nisi inopinata morte praeuentus fuisset"). One of these men, either
Arnald or his successor in Bordeaux, must have ceded Agen to Vulgrin on
demand in 866. Given the precarious condition of the region under Viking
incursions this concession is not very surprising.

Solignac where Arnald wished to retire is about 10 kms south of Limoges,
making it difficult to be sure where he was count apart from Bordeaux.
His father is said to have been Immo, count of Périgueux, and whoever
this may have been he was almost certainly not the man identified as his
father by Settipani, Emeno of Angoulême who was killed in 866 before
Vulgrin's arrival. First, there is no sound evidence that this
Emeno/Immo was ever count in Périgueux, and secondly the chronology is
overstretched for him to have been father of Arnald who was duke of
Gascony by 864. Emeno of Angoulême had sons named Ademar (also count of
Angoulême, who married Vulgrin's granddaughter Sancia) and Adalelm. An
Arnald, evidently a third son, occurs in a charter dated June 923 as
brother of count Ademar ("Signum Arnaldi, fratri Ademaro comite" - the
editor glossed this as a copyist's error made in the 12th/13th century,
substituting the name Ademar for his successor in Angoulême, Guillem I
Taillefer, but since 'Ademaro' is not at all similar to 'Willelmo' this
is implausible). A man who was duke by the summer of 864 and who had met
an untimely death before he could enter a monastery not long after was
plainly not still living without a title in 923. He was also surely not
alive until 884, as asserted without citing evidence by Settipani in
2004, following Édouard de Saint Phalle in 2000 making him son of Emeno
of Angoulême by a first wife, born long before Ademar and Adalelm from a
purported second marriage.

There are a number of occurrences of counts named Immo/Emeno in the
region of Aquitaine from the late-8th century through the 9th. In 1969
Otto Gerhard Oexle wrily remarked that historians had tried to identify
these with as few individuals as possible, and the subsequent Saint
Phalle/Settipani proposal falls into this unwarranted pattern.

From an onomastics point of view the obvious place to look for the
count Immo of Périgueux whose son Arnald briefly became duke of Gascony
is a family in the region using also the name Godefrid that belonged to
duke Arnald's 'nepos'. In the comital family of Quercy (Cahors) both
Immo/Emeno and Godefrid are recorded, though not Arnald. An Immo was
appointed count in the pagus, not necessarily in the county, of Périgord
by Pippin the Short after he had campaigned through Aquitaine in 767.
This Immo evidently lived until 823, as he had kept a hostage taken in
767 at Turenne in servitude until the man was liberated and given back
his property by Louis I in November 823. Turenne is not in the county of
Périgord, and in any case we know that in 778 Charlemagne made Widbod
count of Périgord with other counts newly appointed in Bourges,
Poitiers, Auvergne, Velay, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Albi and Limoges at the
same time. No new count was named in Cahors, perhaps because Immo
remained in office there. He may have been the father, uncle or
grandfather of Rodulf who occurs as count from November 823, just when
Immo had evidently disappeared allowing for his unjustly-retained
hostage to seek freedom and recompense from the emperor after more than
50 years in servitude. Rodulf had sons named Godefrid and Immo/Emeno -
the latter, or an unknown namesake relative, possibly became count of
Périgueux and father of Arnald.

As for Ademar of Chabannes and 'William of Toulouse', he may have simply
guessed at the name on learning that Vulgrin's brother-in-law had been
the count controlling Agen in or before 866. If the correct name was
Arnald rather than William, Vulgrin's wife would have been the daughter
of Immo, count of Périgueux. However, this is merely conjecture:
Ferdinand Lot reasonably suggested and long maintained that Vulgrin's
wife was probably a Gascon lady who brought the name Sancia into his
family - this does not occur in the comital line of Quercy, although the
absence of a female name in the extant record is hardly strong evidence
that it was never used.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-08 16:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The next ruler of Gascony on record, perhaps Arnald's successor but
maybe his rival or sharer in partitioned rule over the Bordeaux-linked
duchy and an ethnic Gascon principality respectively, was evidently his
first cousin Sancho Sanchez, who was perhaps the man called 'king' as if
he ruled all Gascons in 867 by his father-in-law Galindo Aznárez of
Aragón ("ego Galindo Asinari comes deprecor Sancium regem generum
meum"). This identification is debatable, but at any rate Sancho Sanchez
ruled Gascony including Bordeaux not long after 864
At the risk of taking this thread off-topic as soon as it starts, both Antonio Ubieto Arteta and Fernando Cañada Palacio (the former in a directed article, the latter in a more superficial summary of the royal family) have identified this 'king Sancho', son-in-law of Galindo Aznar, as Sancho Garces, brother of king Fortun Garces of Pamplona, and paternal grandfather of queen Toda. This Sancho was also brother of Oneca, wife of Aznar Galindez of Aragon. There are two Arabic chronicles that refer to a king Sancho in the 860s/70s. I don't have the text of Ibn Jaldun, who apparently makes passing mention, but Al-Udri refers to the marriage of Mutarrif ibn Musa ibn Qasi to Faliskitah (Velasquita), daughter of Sanyah, sahib of Pamplona and head of the Basques, the same titulature given Iñigo Arista and Garcia Iñiguez. (Ibn Hayyan calls this Velasquita's father Garcia, but al-Udri seems to have had better local sources and Ibn Hayyan (or his copyists) had a tendency to refer to men by a nasab but but then confuse child and parent - Ibn Garcia vs Garcia.)

Antonio Ubieto Arteta (1967), ¿Un nuevo rey pamplonés para el siglo IX?, Príncipe de Viana, Año nº 28, Nº 108-109, pp. 289-292
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2257355

Fernando Cañada Palacio (1988), El círculo nobiliario y la "familia regis" en la monarquía paplonesa hasta el siglo XI, Príncipe de Viana. Anejo, Nº. 8, pp. 19-26
http://sehn.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/10503.pdf

It would be a mistake to envision the rule of Pamplona, an off-and-on appanage to the Upper March of the Cordoba Emirate, while at the same time still somewhat a tribal headship, through the lense of familiar European royalty and succession. Garcia Iniguez was still living at this time according to al-Udri, but he may have been of diminished capacity - he is so inactive that Ibn Hayyan can hardly be bothered to mention him during this period - and his son and heir Fortun was in the midst of a 20-year captivity. The resulting leadership vacuum past historians have tried to fill with either Garcia Jimenez or his father Jimeno as regent, but Sancho would have been the obvious person to take the reigns during this period.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-06-09 00:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
The next ruler of Gascony on record, perhaps Arnald's successor but
maybe his rival or sharer in partitioned rule over the Bordeaux-linked
duchy and an ethnic Gascon principality respectively, was evidently his
first cousin Sancho Sanchez, who was perhaps the man called 'king' as if
he ruled all Gascons in 867 by his father-in-law Galindo Aznárez of
Aragón ("ego Galindo Asinari comes deprecor Sancium regem generum
meum"). This identification is debatable, but at any rate Sancho Sanchez
ruled Gascony including Bordeaux not long after 864
At the risk of taking this thread off-topic as soon as it starts, both Antonio Ubieto Arteta and Fernando Cañada Palacio (the former in a directed article, the latter in a more superficial summary of the royal family) have identified this 'king Sancho', son-in-law of Galindo Aznar, as Sancho Garces, brother of king Fortun Garces of Pamplona, and paternal grandfather of queen Toda. This Sancho was also brother of Oneca, wife of Aznar Galindez of Aragon. There are two Arabic chronicles that refer to a king Sancho in the 860s/70s. I don't have the text of Ibn Jaldun, who apparently makes passing mention, but Al-Udri refers to the marriage of Mutarrif ibn Musa ibn Qasi to Faliskitah (Velasquita), daughter of Sanyah, sahib of Pamplona and head of the Basques, the same titulature given Iñigo Arista and Garcia Iñiguez. (Ibn Hayyan calls this Velasquita's father Garcia, but al-Udri seems to have had better local sources and Ibn Hayyan (or his copyists) had a tendency to refer to men by a nasab but but then confuse child and parent - Ibn Garcia vs Garcia.)
Antonio Ubieto Arteta (1967), ¿Un nuevo rey pamplonés para el siglo IX?, Príncipe de Viana, Año nº 28, Nº 108-109, pp. 289-292
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2257355
Fernando Cañada Palacio (1988), El círculo nobiliario y la "familia regis" en la monarquía paplonesa hasta el siglo XI, Príncipe de Viana. Anejo, Nº. 8, pp. 19-26
http://sehn.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/10503.pdf
It would be a mistake to envision the rule of Pamplona, an off-and-on appanage to the Upper March of the Cordoba Emirate, while at the same time still somewhat a tribal headship, through the lense of familiar European royalty and succession. Garcia Iniguez was still living at this time according to al-Udri, but he may have been of diminished capacity - he is so inactive that Ibn Hayyan can hardly be bothered to mention him during this period - and his son and heir Fortun was in the midst of a 20-year captivity. The resulting leadership vacuum past historians have tried to fill with either Garcia Jimenez or his father Jimeno as regent, but Sancho would have been the obvious person to take the reigns during this period.
This is why I wrote that the identification is debatable.

However, I don't think the case put by Ubieto Arteta is nearly strong
enough to negate the alternative.

There are two Siresa charters in which Galindo Aznar named a 'king
Sancho' - one of these is undated and in his revised 1986 edition of the
cartulary Ubieto Arteta ascribed it to "antes de 867" on the basis that
the other charter, dated in that year, enlarges on it. The latter adds
in particular the information that 'king Sancho' had become Galindo
Aznar's son-in-law, evidently in the interval between the two charters
as this connection was not mentioned in the other.

The possibility taken from a later Arabic source that Sancho Garcés may
have been ruling in his father's stead or in association with his father
in Pamplona does not necessitate that he was the only ruler named Sancho
who could be called on to protect Siresa in 867. The monastery is not
much further from Pau than it is from Pamplona, and we know that there
was a Gascon ruler named Sancho shortly after 867.

But the main point that Ubieto Arteta and Cañada Palacio neglected to
address is the dating clause of the 867 charter. Apart from stating the
year (by era), this specifies that king Charles (the Bald) was ruling in
Francia, Alfonso Ordoñez in Galicia and Garcia Iñiguez in Pamplona
("Facta carta era DCCCC. Va., regnante Karlo rege in Franza, Aldefonso
filio Ardonis in Gallia Comata, Garsia Enneconis in Pampilona"). Why
would Galindo Aznar take the trouble to acknowledge Christian rulers in
Iberia but then omit the very 'king' allegedly co-ruling in Pamplona
whose support he was requesting in the charter? And call Sancho and
Charles both 'king' while just naming Alfonso and Garcia without the
royal title (but with their patronymics, not given for Sancho)
Peter Stewart
2021-06-09 05:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Since this vexed subject came up in a recent thread, it may be worth
starting a new one focused on the problem.
According to Ademar of Chabannes, Vulgrin when already ageing was sent
by his close relative Charles the Bald to be count in Angoulême and
Périgueux after the death (in June 866) of Emeno, count of Angoulême,
resulting from local strife. Vulgrin by Ademar's account took with him
two sons, Hilduin and William, and once there claimed Agen owing to his
unnamed wife being the sister of William of Toulouse. He ruled the three
cities for 17 years ("Carolus ... Vulgrimnum propinquum suum ... direxit
in Aquitaniam, et prefecit eum comitem Egolisme simul et Petragorice ...
eratque jam senex quando eum Carolus Calvus fecit comitem supradictarum
urbium. Venerunt cum eo a Francia duo filii, Alduinus et Willelmus.
Aginnum quoque urbem habebat, quam assumens vindicavit propter sororem
Willelmi Tolosani, quam in matrimonium acceperat. Tenuit principatum in
his tribus civitatibus per XVII annos.")
The details here can't all be correct, since the circumstances do not
entirely fit with information stated or implied in sources closer to the
time and place, and generally more reliable than Ademar anyway.
I was forgetting that Ademar apparently contradicted himself over this:
in the third version of his chronicle, written in 1029, he repeated the
statement that Vulgrin held all three cities for 17 years but then he
(or possibly an anonymous interpolator) repeated some of the same
information while adding that Vulgrin's wife, supposedly the sister of
William of Toulouse, was mother of the two sons who had come with him in
866 and that at the time of his death in 886 Vulgrin had held Agen for
26 years, Angoulême and Périgueux for 15 ("Vulgrinus autem, Aginnum
vindicans propter sororem Willelmi Tolosani, ex qua supradictos duos
susceperat filios, Egolismam et Petrugoricas rexit perstrenue, Aginnum
per XXVI annos, Egolismam et Petrugoricas per XV annos").

Obviously both versions can't be accurate, and the second is highly
implausible. Since Charles the Bald sent Vulgrin south after the death
of Emeno, who was count of Angoulême until June 866, he must have
remained in charge for almost 19 years by the time of his own death in
May 886. He is hardly likely to have been an absentee count of Agen for
11 or any other number of years before taking up his post in Angoulême,
but even if he had been (and depending on whether he held the other two
counties for 15, 17 or 19 years) this would still place his acquisition
of Agen around five years to a full decade after the death of William of
Toulouse in 849 or 850. This also raises the question of why Vulgrin
claimed, obtained and kept this as a vassal or peer of subsequent counts
of Bordeaux by right of William's alleged sister when the dead count had
a known brother (Bernard Plantevelue) living at the time.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-06-09 21:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Since this vexed subject came up in a recent thread, it may be worth
starting a new one focused on the problem.
According to Ademar of Chabannes, Vulgrin when already ageing was sent
by his close relative Charles the Bald to be count in Angoulême and
Périgueux after the death (in June 866) of Emeno, count of Angoulême,
resulting from local strife. Vulgrin by Ademar's account took with him
two sons, Hilduin and William, and once there claimed Agen owing to his
unnamed wife being the sister of William of Toulouse. He ruled the three
cities for 17 years ("Carolus ... Vulgrimnum propinquum suum ... direxit
in Aquitaniam, et prefecit eum comitem Egolisme simul et Petragorice ...
eratque jam senex quando eum Carolus Calvus fecit comitem supradictarum
urbium. Venerunt cum eo a Francia duo filii, Alduinus et Willelmus.
Aginnum quoque urbem habebat, quam assumens vindicavit propter sororem
Willelmi Tolosani, quam in matrimonium acceperat. Tenuit principatum in
his tribus civitatibus per XVII annos.")
The details here can't all be correct, since the circumstances do not
entirely fit with information stated or implied in sources closer to the
time and place, and generally more reliable than Ademar anyway.
in the third version of his chronicle, written in 1029, he repeated the
statement that Vulgrin held all three cities for 17 years but then he
(or possibly an anonymous interpolator) repeated some of the same
information while adding that Vulgrin's wife, supposedly the sister of
William of Toulouse, was mother of the two sons who had come with him in
866 and that at the time of his death in 886 Vulgrin had held Agen for
26 years, Angoulême and Périgueux for 15 ("Vulgrinus autem, Aginnum
vindicans propter sororem Willelmi Tolosani, ex qua supradictos duos
susceperat filios, Egolismam et Petrugoricas rexit perstrenue, Aginnum
per XXVI annos, Egolismam et Petrugoricas per XV annos").
Obviously both versions can't be accurate, and the second is highly
implausible. Since Charles the Bald sent Vulgrin south after the death
of Emeno, who was count of Angoulême until June 866, he must have
remained in charge for almost 19 years by the time of his own death in
May 886. He is hardly likely to have been an absentee count of Agen for
11 or any other number of years before taking up his post in Angoulême,
but even if he had been (and depending on whether he held the other two
counties for 15, 17 or 19 years) this would still place his acquisition
of Agen around five years to a full decade after the death of William of
Toulouse in 849 or 850. This also raises the question of why Vulgrin
claimed, obtained and kept this as a vassal or peer of subsequent counts
of Bordeaux by right of William's alleged sister when the dead count had
a known brother (Bernard Plantevelue) living at the time.
Peter Stewart
The problem goes away if as Gillingham suggested [I think it was him
but I havnt got his article to hand] we set aside this info from Ademar
about Agen and the dowry of Agen. It all seems an anachronism in the
ninth century. As for the numbers, maybe it was also Gillingham but
I remember reading somewhere that Ademars obsession with a rather
trivial piece of chronology was simply because Ademar misread one
of his own sources and couldnt make the dates fit with the annals of
Angouleme.

Thankyou for the explanation about Arnald and Immo: I always thought
that Emeno was the wrong man ever since I saw the presumed tree
of the family in Collins book on the Basques. It just looked wrong
with Emeno and Arnald surely the same generation not father and son.

There is a 'family of Turenne' which occasionally crops up on the net,
and I think Rodulf Archbishop of Bourges was a relative, possibly
I read this in Prof Nelsons book on Charles the Bald but I may
have mis-remembered as I dont have any books to check it in.

I've often wondered where the mysterious Sancho Mitarra/Menditarra fits in.
Theres a gap after Arnald until Garsie Sanche in 887[?] and historians
all seem to accept Mitarra existed but exactly who he was or where
he came from is unclear. Collins p173, says the the account in the Auch
Cartulary which says Sancho Menditarra came from Castille at the
the Gascons request who elected him duke is false. Are the arab accounts
any closer to the 9th cenury?

Why is the charter dated 867, if its dated 895th year of the era? What era
began in 28BC? Did someone misread Orosius about the conquest of Spain
under Augustus?

kerica
keri CA
2021-06-09 23:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Since this vexed subject came up in a recent thread, it may be worth
starting a new one focused on the problem.
According to Ademar of Chabannes, Vulgrin when already ageing was sent
by his close relative Charles the Bald to be count in Angoulême and
Périgueux after the death (in June 866) of Emeno, count of Angoulême,
resulting from local strife. Vulgrin by Ademar's account took with him
two sons, Hilduin and William, and once there claimed Agen owing to his
unnamed wife being the sister of William of Toulouse. He ruled the three
cities for 17 years ("Carolus ... Vulgrimnum propinquum suum ... direxit
in Aquitaniam, et prefecit eum comitem Egolisme simul et Petragorice ...
eratque jam senex quando eum Carolus Calvus fecit comitem supradictarum
urbium. Venerunt cum eo a Francia duo filii, Alduinus et Willelmus.
Aginnum quoque urbem habebat, quam assumens vindicavit propter sororem
Willelmi Tolosani, quam in matrimonium acceperat. Tenuit principatum in
his tribus civitatibus per XVII annos.")
The details here can't all be correct, since the circumstances do not
entirely fit with information stated or implied in sources closer to the
time and place, and generally more reliable than Ademar anyway.
in the third version of his chronicle, written in 1029, he repeated the
statement that Vulgrin held all three cities for 17 years but then he
(or possibly an anonymous interpolator) repeated some of the same
information while adding that Vulgrin's wife, supposedly the sister of
William of Toulouse, was mother of the two sons who had come with him in
866 and that at the time of his death in 886 Vulgrin had held Agen for
26 years, Angoulême and Périgueux for 15 ("Vulgrinus autem, Aginnum
vindicans propter sororem Willelmi Tolosani, ex qua supradictos duos
susceperat filios, Egolismam et Petrugoricas rexit perstrenue, Aginnum
per XXVI annos, Egolismam et Petrugoricas per XV annos").
Obviously both versions can't be accurate, and the second is highly
implausible. Since Charles the Bald sent Vulgrin south after the death
of Emeno, who was count of Angoulême until June 866, he must have
remained in charge for almost 19 years by the time of his own death in
May 886. He is hardly likely to have been an absentee count of Agen for
11 or any other number of years before taking up his post in Angoulême,
but even if he had been (and depending on whether he held the other two
counties for 15, 17 or 19 years) this would still place his acquisition
of Agen around five years to a full decade after the death of William of
Toulouse in 849 or 850. This also raises the question of why Vulgrin
claimed, obtained and kept this as a vassal or peer of subsequent counts
of Bordeaux by right of William's alleged sister when the dead count had
a known brother (Bernard Plantevelue) living at the time.
Peter Stewart
The problem goes away if as Gillingham suggested [I think it was him
but I havnt got his article to hand] we set aside this info from Ademar
about Agen and the dowry of Agen.
I should have said: about Vulgrins wife and the dowry of Agen
Post by keri CA
I've often wondered where the mysterious Sancho Mitarra/Menditarra fits in.
Theres a gap after Arnald until Garsie Sanche in 887[?] and historians
all seem to accept Mitarra existed but exactly who he was or where
he came from is unclear. Collins p173, says the the account in the Auch
Cartulary which says Sancho Menditarra came from Castille at the
the Gascons request who elected him duke is false.
I deleted a sentence by mistake here. I meant to say I read that Mitarra
was arabic, so are the Arab accounts any clearer and
Post by keri CA
any closer to the 9th century?
I also meant to ask if it was absolutely certain that Meditarra amd Mitara
were the same man
Post by keri CA
kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-06-09 23:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
I also meant to ask if it was absolutely certain that Meditarra amd Mitara
were the same man
Mussot-Goulard described Sancho Mitarra as a personage between legend
and history. The byname is attached to Gascon rulers named Sancho over a
period that must include at least two different men, and sometimes in
the form Meditarra. This is often taken to mean a man from the
mountains, but the etymology is uncertain. At any rate, he was not a
yeti from the Pyrenees.

By the way, in the 867 charter's dating clause Alfonso Ordoñez who was
ruler of Galicia at the time is said to have been ruling in "Gallia
Comata", which would literally indicate Aquitaine but presumably was
meant by the original scribe (who named himself as the priest Galindo)
as "Gallicie".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-09 23:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Since this vexed subject came up in a recent thread, it may be worth
starting a new one focused on the problem.
According to Ademar of Chabannes, Vulgrin when already ageing was sent
by his close relative Charles the Bald to be count in Angoulême and
Périgueux after the death (in June 866) of Emeno, count of Angoulême,
resulting from local strife. Vulgrin by Ademar's account took with him
two sons, Hilduin and William, and once there claimed Agen owing to his
unnamed wife being the sister of William of Toulouse. He ruled the three
cities for 17 years ("Carolus ... Vulgrimnum propinquum suum ... direxit
in Aquitaniam, et prefecit eum comitem Egolisme simul et Petragorice ...
eratque jam senex quando eum Carolus Calvus fecit comitem supradictarum
urbium. Venerunt cum eo a Francia duo filii, Alduinus et Willelmus.
Aginnum quoque urbem habebat, quam assumens vindicavit propter sororem
Willelmi Tolosani, quam in matrimonium acceperat. Tenuit principatum in
his tribus civitatibus per XVII annos.")
The details here can't all be correct, since the circumstances do not
entirely fit with information stated or implied in sources closer to the
time and place, and generally more reliable than Ademar anyway.
in the third version of his chronicle, written in 1029, he repeated the
statement that Vulgrin held all three cities for 17 years but then he
(or possibly an anonymous interpolator) repeated some of the same
information while adding that Vulgrin's wife, supposedly the sister of
William of Toulouse, was mother of the two sons who had come with him in
866 and that at the time of his death in 886 Vulgrin had held Agen for
26 years, Angoulême and Périgueux for 15 ("Vulgrinus autem, Aginnum
vindicans propter sororem Willelmi Tolosani, ex qua supradictos duos
susceperat filios, Egolismam et Petrugoricas rexit perstrenue, Aginnum
per XXVI annos, Egolismam et Petrugoricas per XV annos").
Obviously both versions can't be accurate, and the second is highly
implausible. Since Charles the Bald sent Vulgrin south after the death
of Emeno, who was count of Angoulême until June 866, he must have
remained in charge for almost 19 years by the time of his own death in
May 886. He is hardly likely to have been an absentee count of Agen for
11 or any other number of years before taking up his post in Angoulême,
but even if he had been (and depending on whether he held the other two
counties for 15, 17 or 19 years) this would still place his acquisition
of Agen around five years to a full decade after the death of William of
Toulouse in 849 or 850. This also raises the question of why Vulgrin
claimed, obtained and kept this as a vassal or peer of subsequent counts
of Bordeaux by right of William's alleged sister when the dead count had
a known brother (Bernard Plantevelue) living at the time.
Peter Stewart
The problem goes away if as Gillingham suggested [I think it was him
but I havnt got his article to hand] we set aside this info from Ademar
about Agen and the dowry of Agen. It all seems an anachronism in the
ninth century. As for the numbers, maybe it was also Gillingham but
I remember reading somewhere that Ademars obsession with a rather
trivial piece of chronology was simply because Ademar misread one
of his own sources and couldnt make the dates fit with the annals of
Angouleme.
The question of comital authority over Agen doesn't simply go away by
ignoring Ademar - we have no other information about its acquisition by
the family of Vulgrin, but anyone who wants to set aside Ademar's
account entirely needs to show first that it is unreliable and then what
is actually right. Since we can't do this in full regarding Agen, we are
obliged to acknowledge whatever is not disprovable and work from there.
Control of Agen by Vulgrin and his son/s is not implausible. That this
came to them by some right of Vulgrin's wife is only plausible in so far
as the count/s of Bordeaux needed their support, which in turn may have
no direct bearing on whether Vulgrin's wife, the mother of his sons,
happened to be sister to a count of Bordeaux but is not an argument
against such a relationship either. The name Sancia came into their
family in the generation of Vulgrin's grandchildren, and given that her
mother was most probably a niece of king Eudes whose family did not use
Gascon names this is more in need of explanation than the occurrence of
the Frankish name William for one of Vulgrin's sons.
Post by keri CA
Thankyou for the explanation about Arnald and Immo: I always thought
that Emeno was the wrong man ever since I saw the presumed tree
of the family in Collins book on the Basques. It just looked wrong
with Emeno and Arnald surely the same generation not father and son.
There is a 'family of Turenne' which occasionally crops up on the net,
and I think Rodulf Archbishop of Bourges was a relative, possibly
I read this in Prof Nelsons book on Charles the Bald but I may
have mis-remembered as I dont have any books to check it in.
There is an informative article by François Aubel on the family of
archbishop Rodulf here:
https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1997_num_109_219_2562.
Post by keri CA
I've often wondered where the mysterious Sancho Mitarra/Menditarra fits in.
Theres a gap after Arnald until Garsie Sanche in 887[?] and historians
all seem to accept Mitarra existed but exactly who he was or where
he came from is unclear. Collins p173, says the the account in the Auch
Cartulary which says Sancho Menditarra came from Castille at the
the Gascons request who elected him duke is false. Are the arab accounts
any closer to the 9th cenury?
Renée Mussot-Goulard in *Les princes de Gascogne* (1982) used the byname
Mitarra for Arnald's uncle and predecessor rather than for his
successor. According to her, apart from the 867 Siresa charter, the
first occurrence of Arnald's successor Sancho was before 872 but the
citation she gave for this without a page reference (Fernando de la
Granja's translation of extracts from al-ʽUdri) doesn't substantiate it
as far as I can see. The next citation, from before 875, is to Osvaldo
Machado's translation of Ibn Khaldun, which I haven't seen. The account
in the cartulary of Auch was written ca 1170 and implausibly says that a
deputation of the Gascon nobility asked the count of Castille for one of
his sons to be their ruler and he sent them back with the youngest,
Sancho Mitarra ("maxima pars nobilium virorum Guasconie Ispaniam ad
consulem Castelle ingressi sunt, postulantes ut unum de filiis suis eis
in dominum daret ... Sancius Mitarra minimus filiorum ejus cum viris
illis Guasconiam venit").
Post by keri CA
Why is the charter dated 867, if its dated 895th year of the era? What era
began in 28BC? Did someone misread Orosius about the conquest of Spain
under Augustus?
The dating in the 867 charter is 905, not 895 - the Spanish era started
from 1 January in 38 BCE for some reason lost in the mists of time, so
this corresponds to 867 AD.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-10 06:37:35 UTC
Permalink
On 08-Jun-21 11:35 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
From an onomastics point of view the obvious place to look for the
count Immo of Périgueux whose son Arnald briefly became duke of Gascony
is a family in the region using also the name Godefrid that belonged to
duke Arnald's 'nepos'. In the comital family of Quercy (Cahors) both
Immo/Emeno and Godefrid are recorded, though not Arnald. An Immo was
appointed count in the pagus, not necessarily in the county, of Périgord
by Pippin the Short after he had campaigned through Aquitaine in 767.
This Immo evidently lived until 823, as he had kept a hostage taken in
767 at Turenne in servitude until the man was liberated and given back
his property by Louis I in November 823. Turenne is not in the county of
Périgord, and in any case we know that in 778 Charlemagne made Widbod
count of Périgord with other counts newly appointed in Bourges,
Poitiers, Auvergne, Velay, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Albi and Limoges at the
same time. No new count was named in Cahors, perhaps because Immo
remained in office there. He may have been the father, uncle or
grandfather of Rodulf who occurs as count from November 823, just when
Immo had evidently disappeared allowing for his unjustly-retained
hostage to seek freedom and recompense from the emperor after more than
50 years in servitude. Rodulf had sons named Godefrid and Immo/Emeno -
the latter, or an unknown namesake relative, possibly became count of
Périgueux and father of Arnald.
There may have been a namesake of the duke of Gascony in the family of
the counts Quercy - according to Didier Panfili (here:
https://books.openedition.org/pur/108738#bodyftn14) Rodulf (Raoul) of
Quercy's recorded son Immo may have been the count of this name
occurring in Quercy in 841 (died after 857), perhaps the man called
count of Périgueux as father of Arnald in the translation of St Fausta.
This Immo appears to have had a brother named Andrald, abbot of Moissac,
who died in 868.

Andrald and Arnald are not the same name, but we have more than a single
source for abbot Andrald and only one for the duke Arnald in 864 that
may have misstated his name, or possibly this was miscopied by Du Chesne
in the 17th century (the only transmission of the source to modern times).

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-06-10 21:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
From an onomastics point of view the obvious place to look for the
count Immo of Périgueux whose son Arnald briefly became duke of Gascony
is a family in the region using also the name Godefrid that belonged to
duke Arnald's 'nepos'. In the comital family of Quercy (Cahors) both
Immo/Emeno and Godefrid are recorded, though not Arnald. An Immo was
appointed count in the pagus, not necessarily in the county, of Périgord
by Pippin the Short after he had campaigned through Aquitaine in 767.
This Immo evidently lived until 823, as he had kept a hostage taken in
767 at Turenne in servitude until the man was liberated and given back
his property by Louis I in November 823. Turenne is not in the county of
Périgord, and in any case we know that in 778 Charlemagne made Widbod
count of Périgord with other counts newly appointed in Bourges,
Poitiers, Auvergne, Velay, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Albi and Limoges at the
same time. No new count was named in Cahors, perhaps because Immo
remained in office there. He may have been the father, uncle or
grandfather of Rodulf who occurs as count from November 823, just when
Immo had evidently disappeared allowing for his unjustly-retained
hostage to seek freedom and recompense from the emperor after more than
50 years in servitude. Rodulf had sons named Godefrid and Immo/Emeno -
the latter, or an unknown namesake relative, possibly became count of
Périgueux and father of Arnald.
There may have been a namesake of the duke of Gascony in the family of
https://books.openedition.org/pur/108738#bodyftn14) Rodulf (Raoul) of
Quercy's recorded son Immo may have been the count of this name
occurring in Quercy in 841 (died after 857), perhaps the man called
count of Périgueux as father of Arnald in the translation of St Fausta.
This Immo appears to have had a brother named Andrald, abbot of Moissac,
who died in 868.
Andrald and Arnald are not the same name, but we have more than a single
source for abbot Andrald and only one for the duke Arnald in 864 that
may have misstated his name, or possibly this was miscopied by Du Chesne
in the 17th century (the only transmission of the source to modern times).
I'm surprised that Didier didnt know that Duke Arnald had a Count Immo
for a father according to the Translation of faustas relics. Its interesting
that although both Immo and Emenona appear in this family, theres no
appearance of the more famous Emeno Count of Angouleme.

On the other hand can the Fausta account can be trusted as a source
for the 9th century, if this Duke Arnald doesnt appear in any other text?

Also both Latour in his article on the Amels, and this Didier assume that
Lezat was founded by Viscount Ato and his wife in the 940s not the 840s.
I havnt seen this charter, but its apparently original so why the difference
in dating?

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-06-11 00:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
From an onomastics point of view the obvious place to look for the
count Immo of Périgueux whose son Arnald briefly became duke of Gascony
is a family in the region using also the name Godefrid that belonged to
duke Arnald's 'nepos'. In the comital family of Quercy (Cahors) both
Immo/Emeno and Godefrid are recorded, though not Arnald. An Immo was
appointed count in the pagus, not necessarily in the county, of Périgord
by Pippin the Short after he had campaigned through Aquitaine in 767.
This Immo evidently lived until 823, as he had kept a hostage taken in
767 at Turenne in servitude until the man was liberated and given back
his property by Louis I in November 823. Turenne is not in the county of
Périgord, and in any case we know that in 778 Charlemagne made Widbod
count of Périgord with other counts newly appointed in Bourges,
Poitiers, Auvergne, Velay, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Albi and Limoges at the
same time. No new count was named in Cahors, perhaps because Immo
remained in office there. He may have been the father, uncle or
grandfather of Rodulf who occurs as count from November 823, just when
Immo had evidently disappeared allowing for his unjustly-retained
hostage to seek freedom and recompense from the emperor after more than
50 years in servitude. Rodulf had sons named Godefrid and Immo/Emeno -
the latter, or an unknown namesake relative, possibly became count of
Périgueux and father of Arnald.
There may have been a namesake of the duke of Gascony in the family of
https://books.openedition.org/pur/108738#bodyftn14) Rodulf (Raoul) of
Quercy's recorded son Immo may have been the count of this name
occurring in Quercy in 841 (died after 857), perhaps the man called
count of Périgueux as father of Arnald in the translation of St Fausta.
This Immo appears to have had a brother named Andrald, abbot of Moissac,
who died in 868.
Andrald and Arnald are not the same name, but we have more than a single
source for abbot Andrald and only one for the duke Arnald in 864 that
may have misstated his name, or possibly this was miscopied by Du Chesne
in the 17th century (the only transmission of the source to modern times).
I'm surprised that Didier didnt know that Duke Arnald had a Count Immo
for a father according to the Translation of faustas relics. Its interesting
that although both Immo and Emenona appear in this family, theres no
appearance of the more famous Emeno Count of Angouleme.
Panfili's book was published in 2010 - he may have looked at the recent
literature when writing and found from works by Saint Phalle (2000) and
Settipani (2004) that Emeno of Angoulême was supposed to be from the
Guilhemid lineage, a count of Périgueux and father of duke Arnald.
Historians don't always chose to start a controversy on unfamiliar
ground where others have set down apparently definite - although in this
case I think unreliable - markers.
Post by keri CA
On the other hand can the Fausta account can be trusted as a source
for the 9th century, if this Duke Arnald doesnt appear in any other text?
The St Fausta translation account was transcribed by Du Chesne twice,
and his version of it was published in full in Acta Sanctorum from where
it was copied by Mabillon and other subsequent editors. Its authenticity
has never been doubted as far as I'm aware. Settipani thought it was
contemporary, that is 9th century. It must have been written after
Arnald's death and probably far enough from the events for the
chronology to become compressed to some extent. Lot thought that it
covered from 863 with all explicitly placed in 864. There is nothing in
it I can see to question its details - we know from other sources that
saints relics were taken from the region of Vic-Fezensac at the time due
to Viking raids, and we know that St Fausta's relics were taken to
Brivezac. There are very few sources for anything at all in this area
around the time, so that a sole source for Arnald is not suspicious.
Post by keri CA
Also both Latour in his article on the Amels, and this Didier assume that
Lezat was founded by Viscount Ato and his wife in the 940s not the 840s.
I havnt seen this charter, but its apparently original so why the difference
in dating?
I'm not sure where they get 940s from - by its own tradition Lézat abbey
was founded in 844 by someone named Ato, who may have been a bishop of
Béziers or a viscount in the region according to the latest editors of
the cartulary, Paul Ourliac and Anne-Marie Magnou in 1984.

Incidentally, Panfili's proposal that Raoul of Quercy's wife Aiga was
daughter of a bishop of Cahors living until 823, and yet that this
prelate was the father of Lambert whom Louis I freed from 50+ years in
servitude to a count Immo in 823, is pure fantasy.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-11 04:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Also both Latour in his article on the Amels, and this Didier assume that
Lezat was founded by Viscount Ato and his wife in the 940s not the 840s.
I havnt seen this charter, but its apparently original so why the difference
in dating?
I'm not sure where they get 940s from - by its own tradition Lézat abbey
was founded in 844 by someone named Ato, who may have been a bishop of
Béziers or a viscount in the region according to the latest editors of
the cartulary, Paul Ourliac and Anne-Marie Magnou in 1984.
The abbey's tradition of its foundation in 844 is not backed up by proof
- the first abbot identified is Adazius who occurs in securely-dated
charters from 944. The alleged foundation by a viscount named Ato is
related in a charter purportedly dated 842 in the reign of "Dagobert"
and the pontificate of "Callixtus", so not a credibly-based record
overall even if it may contain some other vestiges of reality.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-11 06:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Also both Latour in his article on the Amels, and this Didier assume that
Lezat was founded by Viscount Ato and his wife in the 940s not the 840s.
I havnt seen this charter, but its apparently original so why the difference
in dating?
I'm not sure where they get 940s from - by its own tradition Lézat
abbey was founded in 844 by someone named Ato, who may have been a
bishop of Béziers or a viscount in the region according to the latest
editors of the cartulary, Paul Ourliac and Anne-Marie Magnou in 1984.
The abbey's tradition of its foundation in 844 is not backed up by proof
- the first abbot identified is Adazius who occurs in securely-dated
charters from 944. The alleged foundation by a viscount named Ato is
related in a charter purportedly dated 842 in the reign of "Dagobert"
and the pontificate of "Callixtus", so not a credibly-based record
overall even if it may contain some other vestiges of reality.
This is not entirely accurate - the earliest abbot named in a
securely-dated Lézat charter was Daniel in February 944, while Adazius
first occurs in April 944. It is thought that Adazius took charge of
several abbeys, based at Tulle or Sarlat, and that Daniel was
effectively his sub-abbot in Lézat.

The document fictitiously dated 842 in the reign of Dagobert and the
pontificate of Callixtus was formerly in the archives of Foix castle but
is now lost. It is not in the extant cartulary and the Latin text is
evidently not recorded - it was translated in HGL vol. IV here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0hJTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA126.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-11 23:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Also both Latour in his article on the Amels, and this Didier assume that
Lezat was founded by Viscount Ato and his wife in the 940s not the 840s.
I havnt seen this charter, but its apparently original so why the difference
in dating?
I'm not sure where they get 940s from - by its own tradition Lézat
abbey was founded in 844 by someone named Ato, who may have been a
bishop of Béziers or a viscount in the region according to the latest
editors of the cartulary, Paul Ourliac and Anne-Marie Magnou in 1984.
The abbey's tradition of its foundation in 844 is not backed up by
proof - the first abbot identified is Adazius who occurs in
securely-dated charters from 944. The alleged foundation by a viscount
named Ato is related in a charter purportedly dated 842 in the reign
of "Dagobert" and the pontificate of "Callixtus", so not a
credibly-based record overall even if it may contain some other
vestiges of reality.
This is not entirely accurate - the earliest abbot named in a
securely-dated Lézat charter was Daniel in February 944, while Adazius
first occurs in April 944. It is thought that Adazius took charge of
several abbeys, based at Tulle or Sarlat, and that Daniel was
effectively his sub-abbot in Lézat.
This is still not entirely accurate - I didn't have time yesterday to
check further and I took the editors' datings as correct, a risk that is
better avoided wherever possible.

In this case, despite the dating of Lézat charters being already fraught
enough, they have waved a stick at regnal years without bothering to be
exact or to justify their inexactness sensibly.

For instance, one of the charters in the cartulary dated before the 940s
was explicitly written on Thursday 1 December in the 27th year of king
Charles (the Simple). This was dated 1 December 919 by the editors, with
no explanation of why they took the start of Charles' joint reign with
Eudes in January 893 as the reference point. However, 1 December in 919
was a Wednesday: the scribe may be supposed to have known the weekday
correctly, but the regnal year not always precisely depending on his
proficiency in history and/or arithmetic. The closest years to 919 with
1 December on a Thursday were 914 and 925, and the latter is just one
year off Charles' 27th as king reckoning from the start of his sole
reign in January 898. I can see no solid reason to prefer 919 over 925
for this charter. Incidentally, like some other charters dated before
the 940s this one does not mention Lézat and so does not prove that the
abbey was necessarily established at the time of writing.

The two earliest charters naming abbots of Lézat, Daniel and Adazius,
are dated February and April respectively both in the 9th year of king
Louis (IV). The editors ascribed both to 944, but Louis was crowned in
June 936 so February and April in his 9th year were in 945. No case was
put forward by the editors for adjusting Louis' regnal years to calendar
years or for any other rationale they may have cogently applied in
preferring 944 to 945. They actually explained that Raimond Pons of
Toulouse delayed recognising Louis IV as king and that 944 evidently
reflects the 9th year from his belated recognition. However, if this
meant that Louis' reign was counted as starting after June 936 then the
February and April charters might be placed in 945 or possibly 946, but
not in 944 which would indicate an earlier, not later, reference point.

The upshot is: never trust the arbitrary statements, or computations, of
cartulary editors.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-12 04:12:16 UTC
Permalink
On 11-Jun-21 7:13 AM, keri CA wrote:

<snip>
Post by keri CA
I'm surprised that Didier didnt know that Duke Arnald had a Count Immo
for a father according to the Translation of faustas relics. Its interesting
that although both Immo and Emenona appear in this family, theres no
appearance of the more famous Emeno Count of Angouleme.
On the other hand can the Fausta account can be trusted as a source
for the 9th century, if this Duke Arnald doesnt appear in any other text?
The most extensive discussion I can find of the Translation of St Fausta
is by Patrick Geary in the revised edition of *Furta sacra: Thefts of
Relics in the Central Middle Ages* (Princeton, NJ, 1990), pp. 141-145.

He did not attempt to date the text but assumed it was contemporary and
placed it in the context of other translations in the same region at the
time, notably that of St Vincent to Castres also in 864 which was
narrated in 869. Although a later writer may possibly have specified the
same year by accident or from copying, it is less likely that he would
chosen to represent the translation in a way that by Geary's analysis
disguised the removal instigated by the duke as if it had been unauthorised.

He considered that this was indirectly due to rivalry between Solignac
abbey, where the duke planned to retire, and Beaulieu founded in 855 as
a dependency of Solignac by the comital family of Quercy (identified by
Geary as counts of Turenne). Beaulieu was rapidly becoming more wealthy
and prestigious than its parent house. Solignac was sacked by Vikings
and the abbey's archives were reportedly destroyed. The monks may have
wanted to give the impression that St Fausta's relics were so highly
precious that they needed to be obtained illicitly, whereas in fact the
saint's story and even existence were so obscure that she may actually
have been an unintentional transgendering of Faustus, a 6th-century
bishop of Auch.

Geary mistakenly ascribed the commemoration of the event to 15 May,
while citing for this a 17th-century chronicle of Solignac clearly
placing it on 15 June as a solemn feast celebrated with its octave ("Au
mois de juin, le quinzième d'icelui, la translation de sainte Fauste,
vierge et martyre, avec octave").

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-06-14 00:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by keri CA
I'm surprised that Didier didnt know that Duke Arnald had a Count Immo
for a father according to the Translation of faustas relics. Its interesting
that although both Immo and Emenona appear in this family, theres no
appearance of the more famous Emeno Count of Angouleme.
On the other hand can the Fausta account can be trusted as a source
for the 9th century, if this Duke Arnald doesnt appear in any other text?
The most extensive discussion I can find of the Translation of St Fausta
is by Patrick Geary in the revised edition of *Furta sacra: Thefts of
Relics in the Central Middle Ages* (Princeton, NJ, 1990), pp. 141-145.
He did not attempt to date the text but assumed it was contemporary and
placed it in the context of other translations in the same region at the
time, notably that of St Vincent to Castres also in 864 which was
narrated in 869. Although a later writer may possibly have specified the
same year by accident or from copying, it is less likely that he would
chosen to represent the translation in a way that by Geary's analysis
disguised the removal instigated by the duke as if it had been unauthorised.
He considered that this was indirectly due to rivalry between Solignac
abbey, where the duke planned to retire, and Beaulieu founded in 855 as
a dependency of Solignac by the comital family of Quercy (identified by
Geary as counts of Turenne). Beaulieu was rapidly becoming more wealthy
and prestigious than its parent house. Solignac was sacked by Vikings
and the abbey's archives were reportedly destroyed. The monks may have
wanted to give the impression that St Fausta's relics were so highly
precious that they needed to be obtained illicitly, whereas in fact the
saint's story and even existence were so obscure that she may actually
have been an unintentional transgendering of Faustus, a 6th-century
bishop of Auch.
Geary mistakenly ascribed the commemoration of the event to 15 May,
while citing for this a 17th-century chronicle of Solignac clearly
placing it on 15 June as a solemn feast celebrated with its octave ("Au
mois de juin, le quinzième d'icelui, la translation de sainte Fauste,
vierge et martyre, avec octave").
Peter Stewart
As usual you posts are very informative. Firstly about Lezat, i'm kinda surprised that any document
purporting to be 9th century but dated to Dagobert and Calixtus could be accepted by modern editors,
especially when the supposed founders also appear in 10th century charters. I've read from latour or
was it Didier that Adazius was sent from Cluny by Abbot Odo at their request so this clearly places the
timeline in tenth.

Unfortunately I havnt yet been able to read Gearys article so i'm still uncertain as to what it claims.
Does the translatio describe the transfer of relics from Vic Fezansac to Solignac in 864? I read a critique of
this story on the net [which I can no longer find the link to] which suggested that it was a much later
text designed to authenticate a fraud that was the transfer of a child saint from Fezansac who didnt exist
by a duke who didnt exist either. Briefly from what I remember the argument was something like this

Solignac was sacked in the 860s as you say, and inspired by the success Conques was having
attracting pilgrims with St Foy [who was stolen from Selestat apparently in 868] wanted its own child
saint, so invented the whole story to help attract pilgrims and patrons, and then this text was produced
sometime later, possibly 12th I think it said.

I believe that there are a few documents for Solignac in the 10th century, the question is are they
original and do they already mention St Fausta, although even if they did it wouldnt necessarily
disprove this theory.

Also I was wrong to say that Collins 'the Basques' pub1986 makes Arnald [d864] son of Emeno of
Angouleme [d866]. He actually follows the translatio and has him as son of Count Immo of Perigord
[for some reason he has him d c844] and Arnald is the successor of Sancho II who died sometime
after 852. I must have seen Arnald as son of Emeno of angouleme in another work. Collins sees
the 'first line' of Gascon dukes ending with Arnald [p130-1] .

According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd
son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made
count of Castille. This Jimeno had 3 sons, Garcia became king of Pamplona, Roderic was Count of
Castille, and Sancho Jimenez Menditarra was summoned by the Basques north of the pyrenees and
elected duke in 864. I wonder if it actually gives this date 864, or whether this is assumption by
historians, that Sancho Menditarra was Arnalds successor. Collins [173] says none of this is true,
but on the opposite page [172] has a tree with Sancho Menditarra son of Jimeno married to Quisilo
daughter of Garcia Datus count of Bail, and these are the parents of the historically attested Garcia
Sancho the Bent 887-904. Where do this Quisilo and the count of Bail come from, the same source?
Anyway he says the Auch legend isnt true but still accepts Sancho Menditarra as the ancestor of the
'2nd line' of gascon Dukes who last til 1032.

I first read this book when I was a student and I dont why I never noticed this contradiction before!
I know that the kings of Pamplona in the 9th is a terribly tangled web, which I wont venture into, but I
did notice that Garcia Jimenez and Dadildis of Pallars are also the named parents [in this book] of
Sancho I of Pamplona [905-25] , which may suggest that the AUch legend confused this king with
whoever Sancho Menditarra was and who then acquired a false ancestry.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-06-14 10:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by keri CA
I'm surprised that Didier didnt know that Duke Arnald had a Count Immo
for a father according to the Translation of faustas relics. Its interesting
that although both Immo and Emenona appear in this family, theres no
appearance of the more famous Emeno Count of Angouleme.
On the other hand can the Fausta account can be trusted as a source
for the 9th century, if this Duke Arnald doesnt appear in any other text?
The most extensive discussion I can find of the Translation of St Fausta
is by Patrick Geary in the revised edition of *Furta sacra: Thefts of
Relics in the Central Middle Ages* (Princeton, NJ, 1990), pp. 141-145.
He did not attempt to date the text but assumed it was contemporary and
placed it in the context of other translations in the same region at the
time, notably that of St Vincent to Castres also in 864 which was
narrated in 869. Although a later writer may possibly have specified the
same year by accident or from copying, it is less likely that he would
chosen to represent the translation in a way that by Geary's analysis
disguised the removal instigated by the duke as if it had been unauthorised.
He considered that this was indirectly due to rivalry between Solignac
abbey, where the duke planned to retire, and Beaulieu founded in 855 as
a dependency of Solignac by the comital family of Quercy (identified by
Geary as counts of Turenne). Beaulieu was rapidly becoming more wealthy
and prestigious than its parent house. Solignac was sacked by Vikings
and the abbey's archives were reportedly destroyed. The monks may have
wanted to give the impression that St Fausta's relics were so highly
precious that they needed to be obtained illicitly, whereas in fact the
saint's story and even existence were so obscure that she may actually
have been an unintentional transgendering of Faustus, a 6th-century
bishop of Auch.
Geary mistakenly ascribed the commemoration of the event to 15 May,
while citing for this a 17th-century chronicle of Solignac clearly
placing it on 15 June as a solemn feast celebrated with its octave ("Au
mois de juin, le quinzième d'icelui, la translation de sainte Fauste,
vierge et martyre, avec octave").
Peter Stewart
As usual you posts are very informative. Firstly about Lezat, i'm kinda surprised that any document
purporting to be 9th century but dated to Dagobert and Calixtus could be accepted by modern editors,
especially when the supposed founders also appear in 10th century charters. I've read from latour or
was it Didier that Adazius was sent from Cluny by Abbot Odo at their request so this clearly places the
timeline in tenth.
Adazius and Daniel are the first abbots ruling Lézat named in extant
records, but this alone doesn't prove that they must have been the first
abbots of a newly-founded monastery. However, they very probably were
so. The false charter naming Dagobert and Callixtus is not treated as
authentic - a translation of it was printed in HGL because the original
text was lost and the editors thought it may contain some elements taken
from genuine 9th-century source/s.
Post by keri CA
Unfortunately I havnt yet been able to read Gearys article so i'm still uncertain as to what it claims.
Does the translatio describe the transfer of relics from Vic Fezansac to Solignac in 864? I read a critique of
this story on the net [which I can no longer find the link to] which suggested that it was a much later
text designed to authenticate a fraud that was the transfer of a child saint from Fezansac who didnt exist
by a duke who didnt exist either. Briefly from what I remember the argument was something like this
The relics of St Fausta were taken to Brivezac, a dependency of Solignac
in the territory ruled by the counts of Quercy - not to Solignac abbey
itself. It may be that Arnald intended to become a monk of Solignac at
Brivezac, within the sphere of the comital family I think he may have
come from, rather than at the parent house near Limoges. The translation
and Solignac's tradition regarding St Fausta identify her as a virgin
and martyr, not as a child.
Post by keri CA
Solignac was sacked in the 860s as you say, and inspired by the success Conques was having
attracting pilgrims with St Foy [who was stolen from Selestat apparently in 868] wanted its own child
saint, so invented the whole story to help attract pilgrims and patrons, and then this text was produced
sometime later, possibly 12th I think it said.
Apart from the 12th-century attribution and the child aspect, this is
basically the opinion of Patrick Geary in his book (not article) cited
above. The earliest extant record of the translation is in the
mid-12th-century martyrology of Solignac that I linked to upthread. The
translation is known from 17th-century copies, two made by Du Chesne,
but there is nothing in the language or circumstances to necessitate
placing it later than the 9th century, and most scholars have agreed
with this dating without troubling over the question as far as I can
tell. If monks had wished to beat up the story of St Fausta beyond the
mere possession of relics implicitly valuable enough to be stolen, they
would surely have invented a Vita for her - but they didn't. Geary
explained this by the circumstance of finding her tomb in a church
devastated by Vikings and abandoned, so that the two men sent by Arnald
(including his 'nepos') could not learn much about her. They made the
best of a bad lot by representing that she was specially venerable
because of the miracles performed by her relics on the way back to
Brivezac, not from any details of her life and alleged martyrdom. This
is not how later storytellers would have gone about creating hype over
relics they had fabricated or already held.
Post by keri CA
I believe that there are a few documents for Solignac in the 10th century, the question is are they
original and do they already mention St Fausta, although even if they did it wouldnt necessarily
disprove this theory.
Also I was wrong to say that Collins 'the Basques' pub1986 makes Arnald [d864] son of Emeno of
Angouleme [d866]. He actually follows the translatio and has him as son of Count Immo of Perigord
[for some reason he has him d c844] and Arnald is the successor of Sancho II who died sometime
after 852. I must have seen Arnald as son of Emeno of angouleme in another work. Collins sees
the 'first line' of Gascon dukes ending with Arnald [p130-1] .
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd
son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made
count of Castille. This Jimeno had 3 sons, Garcia became king of Pamplona, Roderic was Count of
Castille, and Sancho Jimenez Menditarra was summoned by the Basques north of the pyrenees and
elected duke in 864. I wonder if it actually gives this date 864, or whether this is assumption by
historians, that Sancho Menditarra was Arnalds successor. Collins [173] says none of this is true,
but on the opposite page [172] has a tree with Sancho Menditarra son of Jimeno married to Quisilo
daughter of Garcia Datus count of Bail, and these are the parents of the historically attested Garcia
Sancho the Bent 887-904. Where do this Quisilo and the count of Bail come from, the same source?
Anyway he says the Auch legend isnt true but still accepts Sancho Menditarra as the ancestor of the
'2nd line' of gascon Dukes who last til 1032.
Very little is known for certain about Gascon rulers in the 9th century.
Jaurgain, who was somewhat fanciful, was corrected by Mussot-Goulard in
important respects, but large blanks remain unfilled.
Post by keri CA
I first read this book when I was a student and I dont why I never noticed this contradiction before!
I know that the kings of Pamplona in the 9th is a terribly tangled web, which I wont venture into, but I
did notice that Garcia Jimenez and Dadildis of Pallars are also the named parents [in this book] of
Sancho I of Pamplona [905-25] , which may suggest that the AUch legend confused this king with
whoever Sancho Menditarra was and who then acquired a false ancestry.
The phenomenon of historians trying to shoehorn all men named Immo/Emeno
into as few individuals as possible applies also to Sancho and to other
repeated but sparsely-attested rulers' names in the 9th/10th centuries.
The temptation is almost always to attach any record to the most
interesting personage it can plausibly belong to, and there is a lot of
conjecture in the received version of history in this period.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-14 14:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were
descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made count
of Castille. This Jimeno had 3 sons, Garcia became king of Pamplona,
Roderic was Count of Castille, and Sancho Jimenez Menditarra was
summoned by the Basques north of the pyrenees and elected duke in
864. I wonder if it actually gives this date 864, or whether this is
assumption by historians, that Sancho Menditarra was Arnalds
successor. Collins [173] says none of this is true, but on the opposite
page [172] has a tree with Sancho Menditarra son of Jimeno married
to Quisilo daughter of Garcia Datus count of Bail, and these are the
parents of the historically attested Garcia Sancho the Bent 887-904.
Where do this Quisilo and the count of Bail come from, the same
source? Anyway he says the Auch legend isnt true but still accepts
Sancho Menditarra as the ancestor of the '2nd line' of gascon Dukes
who last til 1032.
Several of the names here are recognizable from the Codice de Roda, though with an anachronistic twist. There was indeed a Jimeno Garces, son of Garcia Jimenez and Dadildis of Pallars. He appears as 'king' (sahib) of Pamplona from the death of his brother Sancho in 925, dying in 931. Though there is little on which to base a birthdate/age, but we know he was militarily vigorous in the late 920s, making him an odd fit for the father of a man born 864.

As to the children given here, the Garcia who 'became king of Pamplona' would seem to be based on his actual father, 'king in another part of the realm', the husband of Dadildis. Sahib Jimeno did have a son named Garcia - two actually, one legitimate, one illegitimate - but neither was ever king. The bastard died in Cordoba, probably as a hostage given by his cousin Garcia Sanchez I. The legitimate went to live with his mother in 'Galias in uilla que dicitur Laco'.

Roderic (Rodrigo [I]), Count of Castile, had no connection to Pamplona. He was probably a native Castilian, though some have tried to make him a scion of the Asturian royal house (more likely he was an -in-law). He was iconic as the 'first count of Castile', and so is a popular figure in pseudo-historical legend. In an odd twist, al-Andalus chroniclers sometimes named refer to a count 'Lideriq' in Castile, long after his death when other people ruled as count, apparently in historical memory of Roderic.

As to the son Sancho, this was indeed the name of one of the children of sahib Jimeno, and we can see that the compiler has incorporated some of his biographical details. Sancho Jimenez married Quissilo, daughter of Garcia comitis Bagilliensis - the Garcia Datus, count of Bail of this account. (The final child of sahib Jimeno was Dadildis, wife of Muza Aznar ibn al-Tawil of Huesca, who became wali of Huesca in 940 and died in 954, again establishing the chronology.)

The Auch author has plucked this Sancho Jimenez out of his historical context and threw everyone back 100 years to identify him with Sancho Mitarra. From the position of genealogy, this rendering of the family is patently absurd. It is only interesting in the historiographical sense, in that the compiler clearly had access to a copy of the Codice de Roda genealogy.

taf
Todd
2021-06-14 15:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were
descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made count
of Castille. This Jimeno had 3 sons, Garcia became king of Pamplona,
Roderic was Count of Castille, and Sancho Jimenez Menditarra was
summoned by the Basques north of the pyrenees and elected duke in
864. I wonder if it actually gives this date 864, or whether this is
assumption by historians, that Sancho Menditarra was Arnalds
successor. Collins [173] says none of this is true, but on the opposite
page [172] has a tree with Sancho Menditarra son of Jimeno married
to Quisilo daughter of Garcia Datus count of Bail, and these are the
parents of the historically attested Garcia Sancho the Bent 887-904.
Where do this Quisilo and the count of Bail come from, the same
source? Anyway he says the Auch legend isnt true but still accepts
Sancho Menditarra as the ancestor of the '2nd line' of gascon Dukes
who last til 1032.
Though there is little on which to base a birthdate/age, but
we know he was militarily vigorous in the late 920s, making
him an odd fit for the father of a man born 864.
oops . . . for a man who succeeded to Gascony in 864.
Post by taf
From the position of genealogy, this rendering of the family
is patently absurd. It is only interesting in the historiographical
sense, in that the compiler clearly had access to a copy of the
Codice de Roda genealogy.
As an amplification on this, it should be kept in mind that sahib Jimeno Garces was completely written out of Pamplona history. His brother and predecessor Sancho Garces came to be viewed as son of Garcia Iniguez, and immediately succeeded by Garcia Sanchez. It really wasn't until the 'rediscovery' of the Codice de Roda and al-Udri (first published in the west in the mid-20th century) that his role came to be appreciated, but this account has this all-but-forgotten man front and center.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-06-15 01:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were
descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made count
of Castille. This Jimeno had 3 sons, Garcia became king of Pamplona,
Roderic was Count of Castille, and Sancho Jimenez Menditarra was
summoned by the Basques north of the pyrenees and elected duke in
864. I wonder if it actually gives this date 864, or whether this is
assumption by historians, that Sancho Menditarra was Arnalds
successor. Collins [173] says none of this is true, but on the opposite
page [172] has a tree with Sancho Menditarra son of Jimeno married
to Quisilo daughter of Garcia Datus count of Bail, and these are the
parents of the historically attested Garcia Sancho the Bent 887-904.
Where do this Quisilo and the count of Bail come from, the same
source? Anyway he says the Auch legend isnt true but still accepts
Sancho Menditarra as the ancestor of the '2nd line' of gascon Dukes
who last til 1032.
Several of the names here are recognizable from the Codice de Roda, though with an anachronistic twist. There was indeed a Jimeno Garces, son of Garcia Jimenez and Dadildis of Pallars. He appears as 'king' (sahib) of Pamplona from the death of his brother Sancho in 925, dying in 931. Though there is little on which to base a birthdate/age, but we know he was militarily vigorous in the late 920s, making him an odd fit for the father of a man born 864.
As to the children given here, the Garcia who 'became king of Pamplona' would seem to be based on his actual father, 'king in another part of the realm', the husband of Dadildis. Sahib Jimeno did have a son named Garcia - two actually, one legitimate, one illegitimate - but neither was ever king. The bastard died in Cordoba, probably as a hostage given by his cousin Garcia Sanchez I. The legitimate went to live with his mother in 'Galias in uilla que dicitur Laco'.
Roderic (Rodrigo [I]), Count of Castile, had no connection to Pamplona. He was probably a native Castilian, though some have tried to make him a scion of the Asturian royal house (more likely he was an -in-law). He was iconic as the 'first count of Castile', and so is a popular figure in pseudo-historical legend. In an odd twist, al-Andalus chroniclers sometimes named refer to a count 'Lideriq' in Castile, long after his death when other people ruled as count, apparently in historical memory of Roderic.
As to the son Sancho, this was indeed the name of one of the children of sahib Jimeno, and we can see that the compiler has incorporated some of his biographical details. Sancho Jimenez married Quissilo, daughter of Garcia comitis Bagilliensis - the Garcia Datus, count of Bail of this account. (The final child of sahib Jimeno was Dadildis, wife of Muza Aznar ibn al-Tawil of Huesca, who became wali of Huesca in 940 and died in 954, again establishing the chronology.)
The Auch author has plucked this Sancho Jimenez out of his historical context and threw everyone back 100 years to identify him with Sancho Mitarra. From the position of genealogy, this rendering of the family is patently absurd. It is only interesting in the historiographical sense, in that the compiler clearly had access to a copy of the Codice de Roda genealogy.
This kind of chronology-distorting, name's-the-same genealogy is still
going on - a less flagrant but unfortunately persistent example is in
the alleged two marriages of Ebbo I of Déols, presumed by Alexandre
Vidier in 1907, refuted on specious grounds with a different distortion
by Emile Chénon in 1909, and then reinstated on equally specious grounds
by Joachim Wollasch in 1959 copied into ESnF volume 14 in 1991 and all
over the internet today. Some people can't resist attaching any random
mention of a name to whichever bearer of it they are particularly
interested in, even when they are sold on the crude notion of strictly
hereditary onomastics - as if somehow this means that an exclusive name
could be given only to one unicorn person at a time, with no cousins or
other agnatic collaterals also having it.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-15 00:57:24 UTC
Permalink
On 14-Jun-21 10:54 AM, keri CA wrote:

<snip>
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd
son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made
count of Castille. This Jimeno had 3 sons, Garcia became king of Pamplona, Roderic was Count of
Castille, and Sancho Jimenez Menditarra was summoned by the Basques north of the pyrenees and
elected duke in 864. I wonder if it actually gives this date 864, or whether this is assumption by
historians, that Sancho Menditarra was Arnalds successor. Collins [173] says none of this is true,
but on the opposite page [172] has a tree with Sancho Menditarra son of Jimeno married to Quisilo
daughter of Garcia Datus count of Bail, and these are the parents of the historically attested Garcia
Sancho the Bent 887-904. Where do this Quisilo and the count of Bail come from, the same source?
Anyway he says the Auch legend isnt true but still accepts Sancho Menditarra as the ancestor of the
'2nd line' of gascon Dukes who last til 1032.
I first read this book when I was a student and I dont why I never noticed this contradiction before!
On p. 173 Collins wrote: "On this basis [the Auch cartulary account,
other early charters from the region and the genealogies composed in
Navarre in the 10th century] a rough chronology and genealogy of the
line of the hereditary dukes of Gascony can be drawn up as shown here".

He was not intending the table opposite to be taken as fact endorsed by
himself, and he went on to add: "From him [Sancho 'Menditarra']
descended the ducal line that became extinct in 1032. With the probable
exception of the last statement, none of this is true."

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-15 20:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were
descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made count
of Castille.
Are you taking this directly from an edition of the cartulary, or indirectly via Collins' summary? Lacarra cites the Auch cartulary (Marca, Histoire de Bearn, 1640) to correlate its rendering of the early Gascon counts with that of the Codice de Roda, but what it says about Sancho Mitarra is completely different. If via Collins, does he give bibliographical information for the described material?

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-06-16 00:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were
descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made count
of Castille.
Are you taking this directly from an edition of the cartulary, or indirectly via Collins' summary? Lacarra cites the Auch cartulary (Marca, Histoire de Bearn, 1640) to correlate its rendering of the early Gascon counts with that of the Codice de Roda, but what it says about Sancho Mitarra is completely different. If via Collins, does he give bibliographical information for the described material?
Collins cited the account of the 'consuls' of Gascony in this edition,
#2 in the Auch cathedral chapter's Cartulaire noir (that he misprinted
as "noire"):

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5772977w/f27.item.

For what it's worth, this is followed by the counts of Fezensac (#3),
Armagnac (#4) and Astarac (#5).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-16 00:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were
descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made count
of Castille.
Are you taking this directly from an edition of the cartulary, or
indirectly via Collins' summary?  Lacarra cites the Auch cartulary
(Marca, Histoire de Bearn, 1640) to correlate its rendering of the
early Gascon counts with that of the Codice de Roda, but what it says
about Sancho Mitarra is completely different. If via Collins, does he
give bibliographical information for the described material?
Collins cited the account of the 'consuls' of Gascony in this edition,
#2 in the Auch cathedral chapter's Cartulaire noir (that he misprinted
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5772977w/f27.item.
The folio indications are to the original, Auch, Archives
départementales du Gers (AD32), G 0016. Apparently this is now
considered a bit later than ca 1170, as its contents are dated to after
1201/before 1400 here:

https://telma-repertoires.irht.cnrs.fr/cartulr/notice-entite/6706.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-16 14:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
According to the Auch cartulary, the next Ducal family in gascony were
descended from Jimino Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars who having been defeated by king Ordono was made count
of Castille.
Are you taking this directly from an edition of the cartulary, or indirectly
via Collins' summary? Lacarra cites the Auch cartulary (Marca, Histoire
de Bearn, 1640) to correlate its rendering of the early Gascon counts
with that of the Codice de Roda, but what it says about Sancho Mitarra
is completely different. If via Collins, does he give bibliographical
information for the described material?
Collins cited the account of the 'consuls' of Gascony in this edition,
#2 in the Auch cathedral chapter's Cartulaire noir (that he misprinted
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5772977w/f27.item.
This has the same basic information as the Marca edition text. It makes Sancho Mitarra the son of a Castilian lord, but makes no mention of Jimeno Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis of Pallars. It looks like someone has overlaid the Auch account with a separate strain of historical material from the Codice de Roda, plus some additions to spice it up (e.g. count Rodrigo), but they seriously botched the job.

taf
taf
2021-06-16 18:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
This has the same basic information as the Marca edition text. It
makes Sancho Mitarra the son of a Castilian lord, but makes no
mention of Jimeno Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars. It looks like someone has overlaid the Auch account
with a separate strain of historical material from the Codice de
Roda, plus some additions to spice it up (e.g. count Rodrigo), but
they seriously botched the job.
And that someone appears to have been Jaurgain. In his 1898 La Vasconie, Part 1, he gives the text of the Codice de Roda. After the text relating that Sancho Jimenez, son of [sahib] Jimeno Garces, married Quisilo, daughter of 'Garcia comitis Bagiliensis' he attaches a note:

"Bugiliensis, -Buil ou Boil, en Aragon. - Sanche-Semen, surnomme Menditarra, fut la tige des ducs de Gascoigne. Evidemment l'auteur de la genealogie de Meya [Roda] etait moins bien renseigne sur cette branche que sur celle issue d'Eneco Arista."

then to the end of the paragraph detailing Jimeno's children, he has another footnote:

"Semen-Garcia laissa aussi, d'un second mariage, Roderic-Semen, comte en Castile, et Vela-Semen, comte d'Alava." (there follows cross referencing to where he talks about these men further)

and then in the subsequent footnote, following the text reporting that Jimeno's son Garcia Jimenez was in Laco with his mother, he adds that this mother was,

"Sa maratre, mere de Roderic et de Vela."

In the beginning of Part 2, (1902) we see this fully elaborates, with the Jimeno Garces who son of Dadildis thrown back in time to be active about 824. made chief of the Basques of Alava, married about 820 to the daughter of Aznar Sanchez, "comte de la Vasconie Citerieure", then to a second wife of Gothic race, and he was assassinated 860. It goes on to attach Vela Jimenez of Alava and Rodrigo Jimenez of Castile as his sons by this second marriage.

So, it appears that Jaurgain is to blame for this abomination.

taf
keri CA
2021-06-16 20:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
This has the same basic information as the Marca edition text. It
makes Sancho Mitarra the son of a Castilian lord, but makes no
mention of Jimeno Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars. It looks like someone has overlaid the Auch account
with a separate strain of historical material from the Codice de
Roda, plus some additions to spice it up (e.g. count Rodrigo), but
they seriously botched the job.
"Bugiliensis, -Buil ou Boil, en Aragon. - Sanche-Semen, surnomme Menditarra, fut la tige des ducs de Gascoigne. Evidemment l'auteur de la genealogie de Meya [Roda] etait moins bien renseigne sur cette branche que sur celle issue d'Eneco Arista."
"Semen-Garcia laissa aussi, d'un second mariage, Roderic-Semen, comte en Castile, et Vela-Semen, comte d'Alava." (there follows cross referencing to where he talks about these men further)
and then in the subsequent footnote, following the text reporting that Jimeno's son Garcia Jimenez was in Laco with his mother, he adds that this mother was,
"Sa maratre, mere de Roderic et de Vela."
In the beginning of Part 2, (1902) we see this fully elaborates, with the Jimeno Garces who son of Dadildis thrown back in time to be active about 824. made chief of the Basques of Alava, married about 820 to the daughter of Aznar Sanchez, "comte de la Vasconie Citerieure", then to a second wife of Gothic race, and he was assassinated 860. It goes on to attach Vela Jimenez of Alava and Rodrigo Jimenez of Castile as his sons by this second marriage.
So, it appears that Jaurgain is to blame for this abomination.
taf
But Collins has confused the issue when the Auch cartulary as posted by Peter only says
that Sancho Mitarra was the youngest son of the count of castille sent north to become count of
Gascony. He begat Mitarra Sanche [who?] who in turn begat Garsie Sanche the Bent. So where
does the tale of Menditarra and his supposed descent from the Jiminez kings of Pamplona come
from? Earlier Collins says that the evidence from Auch can be augmented by documents from
the region [unnamed and uncited] and the cartulary of Najera [uncited], but the only ref is to
Auch. Later p191 he says the Najera cartulary only exists in an 18th century copy now in the
Madrid archives.

However it doesnt seem that these later sources are really adding much useful info. Both
want give Sancho Mitarra an origin south of the pyrenees, Auch in Castille, ?Najera perhaps
from Pamplona, but as Collins says this is a fiction. So why not jettison these later accounts
entirely. We know from his patronym, Sancho was the father of Garsie Sanche, so could he not
be related to the earlier Sancho Sanche in the 850s? Its not clear what happened to him.
Didnt Mussot-Goulard suggest something like this or even make the first Sancho the
otherwise legendary Sancho Mitarra? Of course that means theres still a big gap to fill between
Sancho Sanche, Duke Arnald and Garsie Sanche.

To get back to the subject, wasnt the mistake about Regelinde exposed by a post by Nathaniel
Taylor? which I can no longer find in the archives. I dont think the wife of Garsie Sanche is
named in the codex de roda but in many places on the net she is called Amuna of Agen
daughter of Vulgrin and the mythical Regelinde. Is this a mistake too, or just a theory or
did Amuna actually exist?

kerica
keri CA
2021-06-16 22:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by taf
Post by taf
This has the same basic information as the Marca edition text. It
makes Sancho Mitarra the son of a Castilian lord, but makes no
mention of Jimeno Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars. It looks like someone has overlaid the Auch account
with a separate strain of historical material from the Codice de
Roda, plus some additions to spice it up (e.g. count Rodrigo), but
they seriously botched the job.
"Bugiliensis, -Buil ou Boil, en Aragon. - Sanche-Semen, surnomme Menditarra, fut la tige des ducs de Gascoigne. Evidemment l'auteur de la genealogie de Meya [Roda] etait moins bien renseigne sur cette branche que sur celle issue d'Eneco Arista."
"Semen-Garcia laissa aussi, d'un second mariage, Roderic-Semen, comte en Castile, et Vela-Semen, comte d'Alava." (there follows cross referencing to where he talks about these men further)
and then in the subsequent footnote, following the text reporting that Jimeno's son Garcia Jimenez was in Laco with his mother, he adds that this mother was,
"Sa maratre, mere de Roderic et de Vela."
In the beginning of Part 2, (1902) we see this fully elaborates, with the Jimeno Garces who son of Dadildis thrown back in time to be active about 824. made chief of the Basques of Alava, married about 820 to the daughter of Aznar Sanchez, "comte de la Vasconie Citerieure", then to a second wife of Gothic race, and he was assassinated 860. It goes on to attach Vela Jimenez of Alava and Rodrigo Jimenez of Castile as his sons by this second marriage.
So, it appears that Jaurgain is to blame for this abomination.
taf
But Collins has confused the issue when the Auch cartulary as posted by Peter only says
that Sancho Mitarra was the youngest son of the count of castille sent north to become count of
Gascony. He begat Mitarra Sanche [who?] who in turn begat Garsie Sanche the Bent. So where
does the tale of Menditarra and his supposed descent from the Jiminez kings of Pamplona come
from? Earlier Collins says that the evidence from Auch can be augmented by documents from
the region [unnamed and uncited] and the cartulary of Najera [uncited], but the only ref is to
Auch. Later p191 he says the Najera cartulary only exists in an 18th century copy now in the
Madrid archives.
However it doesnt seem that these later sources are really adding much useful info. Both
want give Sancho Mitarra an origin south of the pyrenees, Auch in Castille, ?Najera perhaps
from Pamplona, but as Collins says this is a fiction. So why not jettison these later accounts
entirely. We know from his patronym, Sancho was the father of Garsie Sanche, so could he not
be related to the earlier Sancho Sanche in the 850s? Its not clear what happened to him.
I worded this badly. I meant to say its clear that Garsie Sanche had a father called Sancho.
Could this Sancho be related to Sancho Sanche who was Count of Gascony in the 850s.
Its not clear when Sancho Sanche dies or the circumstances.

kerica
Post by keri CA
Didnt Mussot-Goulard suggest something like this or even make the first Sancho the
otherwise legendary Sancho Mitarra? Of course that means theres still a big gap to fill between
Sancho Sanche, Duke Arnald and Garsie Sanche.
To get back to the subject, wasnt the mistake about Regelinde exposed by a post by Nathaniel
Taylor? which I can no longer find in the archives. I dont think the wife of Garsie Sanche is
named in the codex de roda but in many places on the net she is called Amuna of Agen
daughter of Vulgrin and the mythical Regelinde. Is this a mistake too, or just a theory or
did Amuna actually exist?
kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-06-16 23:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by keri CA
Post by taf
Post by taf
This has the same basic information as the Marca edition text. It
makes Sancho Mitarra the son of a Castilian lord, but makes no
mention of Jimeno Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars. It looks like someone has overlaid the Auch account
with a separate strain of historical material from the Codice de
Roda, plus some additions to spice it up (e.g. count Rodrigo), but
they seriously botched the job.
"Bugiliensis, -Buil ou Boil, en Aragon. - Sanche-Semen, surnomme Menditarra, fut la tige des ducs de Gascoigne. Evidemment l'auteur de la genealogie de Meya [Roda] etait moins bien renseigne sur cette branche que sur celle issue d'Eneco Arista."
"Semen-Garcia laissa aussi, d'un second mariage, Roderic-Semen, comte en Castile, et Vela-Semen, comte d'Alava." (there follows cross referencing to where he talks about these men further)
and then in the subsequent footnote, following the text reporting that Jimeno's son Garcia Jimenez was in Laco with his mother, he adds that this mother was,
"Sa maratre, mere de Roderic et de Vela."
In the beginning of Part 2, (1902) we see this fully elaborates, with the Jimeno Garces who son of Dadildis thrown back in time to be active about 824. made chief of the Basques of Alava, married about 820 to the daughter of Aznar Sanchez, "comte de la Vasconie Citerieure", then to a second wife of Gothic race, and he was assassinated 860. It goes on to attach Vela Jimenez of Alava and Rodrigo Jimenez of Castile as his sons by this second marriage.
So, it appears that Jaurgain is to blame for this abomination.
taf
But Collins has confused the issue when the Auch cartulary as posted by Peter only says
that Sancho Mitarra was the youngest son of the count of castille sent north to become count of
Gascony. He begat Mitarra Sanche [who?] who in turn begat Garsie Sanche the Bent. So where
does the tale of Menditarra and his supposed descent from the Jiminez kings of Pamplona come
from? Earlier Collins says that the evidence from Auch can be augmented by documents from
the region [unnamed and uncited] and the cartulary of Najera [uncited], but the only ref is to
Auch. Later p191 he says the Najera cartulary only exists in an 18th century copy now in the
Madrid archives.
However it doesnt seem that these later sources are really adding much useful info. Both
want give Sancho Mitarra an origin south of the pyrenees, Auch in Castille, ?Najera perhaps
from Pamplona, but as Collins says this is a fiction. So why not jettison these later accounts
entirely. We know from his patronym, Sancho was the father of Garsie Sanche, so could he not
be related to the earlier Sancho Sanche in the 850s? Its not clear what happened to him.
I worded this badly. I meant to say its clear that Garsie Sanche had a father called Sancho.
Could this Sancho be related to Sancho Sanche who was Count of Gascony in the 850s.
Its not clear when Sancho Sanche dies or the circumstances.
kerica
Post by keri CA
Didnt Mussot-Goulard suggest something like this or even make the first Sancho the
otherwise legendary Sancho Mitarra? Of course that means theres still a big gap to fill between
Sancho Sanche, Duke Arnald and Garsie Sanche.
The succession according to Mussot-Goulard was the following (tabulated
on p. 106):

Sanche-Sanche Mitarra, count of Fezensac ("nearer Gascony", citerioris
Vuasconiae comes) in 836, duke of Gascony in 850, died ca 860

Arnald, his nephew through a sister, who was duke by 864

Sanche-Sanche, probably son of Mitarra, called 'king' in 867 and 'king
of the Gascons' in 870, married to a daughter of Galindo Aznar of Aragon
- identified rather than his Navarrese namesake (as the man called on by
his father-in-law to protect Siresa) mainly because in her view the
Gascon rulers were more constant and potent warriors against Islam than
their counterparts in Pamplona.

Garsie-Sanche, son of his predecessor.

Obviously not everybody agrees with this.
Post by keri CA
Post by keri CA
To get back to the subject, wasnt the mistake about Regelinde exposed by a post by Nathaniel
Taylor? which I can no longer find in the archives. I dont think the wife of Garsie Sanche is
named in the codex de roda but in many places on the net she is called Amuna of Agen
daughter of Vulgrin and the mythical Regelinde. Is this a mistake too, or just a theory or
did Amuna actually exist?
I explained the Regilinde confusion upthread, or perhaps in another
recent thread, not many days ago - Nat Taylor may have done the same
years before, this is not new news and historians worth reading have not
fallen into such an easily-detectable trap.

The alleged parentage of Garcie-Sanche's wife (unnamed in the Roda
genealogy, with a lacuna where her name was to be added) who was mother
to his successor is mere speculation. Her name occurs in an Auch
cathedral charter dated 902 as Aminiana, later aka Amuna and Honoreta;
she reportedly died in childbirth with Arnald "the Unborn", count of
Astarac. The purported Angoulême connection came about as a facile way
of explaining the name William given to her second son, count of
Fezensac & Armagnac, and has no special plausibility as far as I can see.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-16 23:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
This has the same basic information as the Marca edition text. It
makes Sancho Mitarra the son of a Castilian lord, but makes no
mention of Jimeno Garcia 3rd son of Garcia Jimeno and Dadildis
of Pallars. It looks like someone has overlaid the Auch account
with a separate strain of historical material from the Codice de
Roda, plus some additions to spice it up (e.g. count Rodrigo), but
they seriously botched the job.
"Bugiliensis, -Buil ou Boil, en Aragon. - Sanche-Semen, surnomme Menditarra, fut la tige des ducs de Gascoigne. Evidemment l'auteur de la genealogie de Meya [Roda] etait moins bien renseigne sur cette branche que sur celle issue d'Eneco Arista."
"Semen-Garcia laissa aussi, d'un second mariage, Roderic-Semen, comte en Castile, et Vela-Semen, comte d'Alava." (there follows cross referencing to where he talks about these men further)
and then in the subsequent footnote, following the text reporting that Jimeno's son Garcia Jimenez was in Laco with his mother, he adds that this mother was,
"Sa maratre, mere de Roderic et de Vela."
In the beginning of Part 2, (1902) we see this fully elaborates, with the Jimeno Garces who son of Dadildis thrown back in time to be active about 824. made chief of the Basques of Alava, married about 820 to the daughter of Aznar Sanchez, "comte de la Vasconie Citerieure", then to a second wife of Gothic race, and he was assassinated 860. It goes on to attach Vela Jimenez of Alava and Rodrigo Jimenez of Castile as his sons by this second marriage.
So, it appears that Jaurgain is to blame for this abomination.
Jaurgain wrote a big book, in two volumes, with a lot of Latin in it -
that is more than enough for many people since to consider him an
oracle. The same phenomenon happens today, for instance with Medieval
Lands that is overall far worse than Jaurgain's work.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-17 00:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Jaurgain wrote a big book, in two volumes, with a lot of Latin in it -
that is more than enough for many people since to consider him an
oracle. The same phenomenon happens today, for instance with Medieval
Lands that is overall far worse than Jaurgain's work.
Overall, perhaps, but in the portions covering the early years, where Jaurgain was trying to present all leaders of Basque lands as part of a single patrilineage, there are layer upon layer of invented nonsense. And he basically did the same with a lot of the Basque noble families, inventing connections to the more prominent families and the royal family. When he had documentation, he usually knew what to do with it (present case excepted), which is more than can be said for MedLands, but when he didn't have documentation he never let that stop him from tracing descents nonetheless.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-06-17 01:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Jaurgain wrote a big book, in two volumes, with a lot of Latin in it -
that is more than enough for many people since to consider him an
oracle. The same phenomenon happens today, for instance with Medieval
Lands that is overall far worse than Jaurgain's work.
Overall, perhaps, but in the portions covering the early years, where Jaurgain was trying to present all leaders of Basque lands as part of a single patrilineage, there are layer upon layer of invented nonsense. And he basically did the same with a lot of the Basque noble families, inventing connections to the more prominent families and the royal family. When he had documentation, he usually knew what to do with it (present case excepted), which is more than can be said for MedLands, but when he didn't have documentation he never let that stop him from tracing descents nonetheless.
Indeed, he was a fanciful genealogist. Fortunately his inventiveness is
not too widespread and entrenched for at least some of it to be
untangled. Mussot-Goulard is also not perfect, for instance falling
partly into the error with Regilinde (whom she further misnamed
Roselinde) as daughter of Bernard of Septimania and wife of Vulgrin,
then Amuna "d'Agen" as daughter of this supposed couple. But she wasn't
studying the history of Angoulême or of the duchesses of Gascony, but
rather of the rulers (*Les princes de Gascogne*).

The compulsion to connect men with the same name to the most famous
bearer of it is based on the fundamental stupidity of supposing that the
people we know of are by some magic all the individuals there were to
know of - in the case of William, they invariably look to the agnatic
family of St William of Gellone despite not having a clue which part of
his ancestry the name came from to him or whether it could have passed
from the same (or another) lineage by agnatic or cognatic progression to
any namesake of his. If the beginning of wisdom is to realise the extent
of one's ignorance, the strict-onomastics devotees have a long way yet
to go out of the depths of foolishness.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-17 13:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
When he had documentation, he usually knew what to do with it (present case
excepted), which is more than can be said for MedLands, but when he didn't have
documentation he never let that stop him from tracing descents nonetheless.
This, by the way, is not to say that MedLands isn't awash with incompetence, just that it is of a different type. In the case of Jaurgain, it was the fantasists' urge to fill in blank pedigrees and build a master-pedigree to satisfy his preconceptions. With MedLands, it is just serial incompetence, like when he takes a text that says that Amrus ibn Umar got the people of Huesca to rise up against Mutarrif ibn Musa, . . . and entered the city, and took him prisoner, and "captured his sons and his money, along with his wife who was daughter of Garcia Iniguez of Pamplona", and he concludes based on this text that Amrus ibn Umar married Garcia's daughter. Forget competence as a genealogist, this just takes reading comprehension.

taf

Loading...