Discussion:
Viscounts of Marcillac
Add Reply
Peter Stewart
2021-05-27 06:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I've just comes across an unexpectedly rash deduction from onomastics by
Léon Levillain in 1934, that was followed by André Debord in 1984 and
probably still holds sway on the internet:

Levillain discussed the descendants of Ranulf, the first viscount of
Marcillac, a Frank appointed by Vulgrin I of Angoulême & Périgueux whom
he had accompanied into the region. Vulgrin was a brother of abbot
Hilduin, arch-chaplain to Charles the Bald, and his wife was a sister of
William Tolosanus.

Ademar of Chabannes in the earliest version of his chronicle (1025/28)
described Ranulf of Marcillac as a very loyal friend of Vulgrin, made
viscount by him ("amicum suum fidelissimum, nomine Ranulfum, fecitque
eum vicecomitem suum") who had three sons, Lambert, Arnald and Odalric
("Idemque Ranulfus habuit tres filios, Lambertum, Arnaldum atque
Odolricum"). No family connection is implied between Vulgrin and Ranulf.

In a subsequent version (1028) Ademar recounted that in 1018 the eldest
two sons of Ranulf were killed by Vulgrin's grandson Bernard of
Périgueux in revenge for their attempt to murder his sister Sancia
("occisi sunt a Bernardo, in ultionem Santie sororis sue quam occidere
conati sunt, Lambertus, vicecomes Martiliacensis et Arnaldus, frater
ejus").

There is no suggestion whatever here that Bernard and Sancia were first
cousins of Lambert and Arnald, but this relationship was posited by
Levillain on the shaky basis that Ranulf's third son Odalric (the name
of Vulgrin's father in Levillain's opinion) had sons named Thierry and
Alleaume, which he supposed must have come from the family of Vulgrin's
brother-in-law William Tolosanus, as well as great-grandsons living in
the early-11th century named William and Hilduin. Levillain thought that
this completed both ends of an onomastic chain, proving that Ranulf's
wife must have been a daughter of abbot Hilduin's brother and William
Tolosanus's brother-in-law, Vulgrin ("Et voici qu'au bout de la chaîne
nous avons les noms qui se trouvaient à l'autre extrémité: ce qui prouve
bien que Senegonde était la petite-fille du comte alémanique Odolric, la
fille de Vulgrin et la nièce d'Hilduin de Saint-Denis et de Guillaume le
Toulousain.")

Pish. The inconvenient names Lambert and Arnald that might spoil this
silly fantasy don't figure in the probative mix, of course, presumably
because Ranulf and his wife Senegonde must have had a premonition that
the onomastic legacy of their families would be carried on by their
third son.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-27 06:28:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
In a subsequent version (1028) Ademar recounted that in 1018 the eldest
two sons of Ranulf were killed by Vulgrin's grandson Bernard of
Périgueux
My fingers will have to go into the naughty corner with my absent mind -
the revenge killing of Ranulf's sons took place in 918, not 1018.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-30 08:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
I've just comes across an unexpectedly rash deduction from onomastics by
Léon Levillain in 1934, that was followed by André Debord in 1984 and
Levillain discussed the descendants of Ranulf, the first viscount of
Marcillac, a Frank appointed by Vulgrin I of Angoulême & Périgueux whom
he had accompanied into the region. Vulgrin was a brother of abbot
Hilduin, arch-chaplain to Charles the Bald, and his wife was a sister of
William Tolosanus.
Ademar of Chabannes in the earliest version of his chronicle (1025/28)
described Ranulf of Marcillac as a very loyal friend of Vulgrin, made
viscount by him ("amicum suum fidelissimum, nomine Ranulfum, fecitque
eum vicecomitem suum") who had three sons, Lambert, Arnald and Odalric
("Idemque Ranulfus habuit tres filios, Lambertum, Arnaldum atque
Odolricum"). No family connection is implied between Vulgrin and Ranulf.
In a subsequent version (1028) Ademar recounted that in 1018 the eldest
two sons of Ranulf were killed by Vulgrin's grandson Bernard of
Périgueux in revenge for their attempt to murder his sister Sancia
("occisi sunt a Bernardo, in ultionem Santie sororis sue quam occidere
conati sunt, Lambertus, vicecomes Martiliacensis et Arnaldus, frater
ejus").
There is no suggestion whatever here that Bernard and Sancia were first
cousins of Lambert and Arnald, but this relationship was posited by
Levillain on the shaky basis that Ranulf's third son Odalric (the name
of Vulgrin's father in Levillain's opinion) had sons named Thierry and
Alleaume, which he supposed must have come from the family of Vulgrin's
brother-in-law William Tolosanus, as well as great-grandsons living in
the early-11th century named William and Hilduin. Levillain thought that
this completed both ends of an onomastic chain, proving that Ranulf's
wife must have been a daughter of abbot Hilduin's brother and William
Tolosanus's brother-in-law, Vulgrin ("Et voici qu'au bout de la chaîne
nous avons les noms qui se trouvaient à l'autre extrémité: ce qui prouve
bien que Senegonde était la petite-fille du comte alémanique Odolric, la
fille de Vulgrin et la nièce d'Hilduin de Saint-Denis et de Guillaume le
Toulousain.")
Pish. The inconvenient names Lambert and Arnald that might spoil this
silly fantasy don't figure in the probative mix, of course, presumably
because Ranulf and his wife Senegonde must have had a premonition that
the onomastic legacy of their families would be carried on by their
third son.
I hadn't realised how persistent this nonsense has become.

The line of descent proposed by Levillain was tabulated by Christian
Settipani in 2004 here:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1tho6B1mUGMC&pg=PA8

After the article from 1934 Levillain returned to the subject in 1938,
arguing at length for his identification of William 'Tolosanus' as the
elder son of Bernard of Septimania and Dhuoda, and for Ranulf of
Marcillac's wife Senegonde as his niece, daughter of William's sister
and Vulgrin I of Angoulême.

But Levillain fell into two holes of his own digging:

He wrote that he had undertaken extensive search into the family of
abbot Hilduin, finding the name Senegonde nowhere else but among his
brother Vulgrin's kindred ("Au cours des recherches très étendues
auxquelles nous nous sommes livré sur la famille du célèbre abbé de
Saint-Denis, nous n'avons jamais rencontré le nom de Senegonde ailleurs
que chez Vulgrin.") He is right that the name is rare in the 9th
century, but it can only be found in the family of Vulgrin if the
viscountess of Marcillac is placed there first, so his reasoning is
tightly circular. This is compounded by his failure to account for the
absence of the name Vulgrin in Senegonde's family, when she is
nonetheless supposed to have passed on names of collateral relatives of
her putative mother.

He claimed that William 'Tolosanus' must have been the son of Bernard
and Dhuoda born on 29 November 826, citing Dhoda herself for this
information, but failed to mention that she had gone on to tell William
that his younger brother Bernard had been born on 22 March 841 as the
second issue from her womb ("ex meo secundus post te ... egressus est
utero"). There is no reason to assume that Dhuoda was arbitrarily
omitting any daughter/s born between these two sons. Consequently if
Vulgrin's wife was a third child of Dhuoda she would have been born
after 841, but in that case would not have been old enough for marriage
when the eldest child, William, was killed in 849/50 (the annals of
Fontenelle report his death under 849, the annals of St Bertin under
850). She can hardly have been sent to Vulgrin endowed with Agen as
William's sister (reported by Ademar of Chabannes) on reaching the age
of 12, in order to be eligible for marriage, at least years four after
William had died, by when the remaining brother Bernard would have been
the only plausible sibling to be referenced for Agen as her dowry. But
Levillain had already pointed out that Agen was a fief of the counts of
Bordeaux, which Bernard was not.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-30 09:57:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
I've just comes across an unexpectedly rash deduction from onomastics by
Léon Levillain in 1934, that was followed by André Debord in 1984 and
Levillain discussed the descendants of Ranulf, the first viscount of
Marcillac, a Frank appointed by Vulgrin I of Angoulême & Périgueux whom
he had accompanied into the region. Vulgrin was a brother of abbot
Hilduin, arch-chaplain to Charles the Bald, and his wife was a sister of
William Tolosanus.
Ademar of Chabannes in the earliest version of his chronicle (1025/28)
described Ranulf of Marcillac as a very loyal friend of Vulgrin, made
viscount by him ("amicum suum fidelissimum, nomine Ranulfum, fecitque
eum vicecomitem suum") who had three sons, Lambert, Arnald and Odalric
("Idemque Ranulfus habuit tres filios, Lambertum, Arnaldum atque
Odolricum"). No family connection is implied between Vulgrin and Ranulf.
In a subsequent version (1028) Ademar recounted that in 1018 the eldest
two sons of Ranulf were killed by Vulgrin's grandson Bernard of
Périgueux in revenge for their attempt to murder his sister Sancia
("occisi sunt a Bernardo, in ultionem Santie sororis sue quam occidere
conati sunt, Lambertus, vicecomes Martiliacensis et Arnaldus, frater
ejus").
There is no suggestion whatever here that Bernard and Sancia were first
cousins of Lambert and Arnald, but this relationship was posited by
Levillain on the shaky basis that Ranulf's third son Odalric (the name
of Vulgrin's father in Levillain's opinion) had sons named Thierry and
Alleaume, which he supposed must have come from the family of Vulgrin's
brother-in-law William Tolosanus, as well as great-grandsons living in
the early-11th century named William and Hilduin. Levillain thought that
this completed both ends of an onomastic chain, proving that Ranulf's
wife must have been a daughter of abbot Hilduin's brother and William
Tolosanus's brother-in-law, Vulgrin ("Et voici qu'au bout de la chaîne
nous avons les noms qui se trouvaient à l'autre extrémité: ce qui prouve
bien que Senegonde était la petite-fille du comte alémanique Odolric, la
fille de Vulgrin et la nièce d'Hilduin de Saint-Denis et de Guillaume le
Toulousain.")
Pish. The inconvenient names Lambert and Arnald that might spoil this
silly fantasy don't figure in the probative mix, of course, presumably
because Ranulf and his wife Senegonde must have had a premonition that
the onomastic legacy of their families would be carried on by their
third son.
I hadn't realised how persistent this nonsense has become.
The line of descent proposed by Levillain was tabulated by Christian
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1tho6B1mUGMC&pg=PA8
After the article from 1934 Levillain returned to the subject in 1938,
arguing at length for his identification of William 'Tolosanus' as the
elder son of Bernard of Septimania and Dhuoda, and for Ranulf of
Marcillac's wife Senegonde as his niece, daughter of William's sister
and Vulgrin I of Angoulême.
He wrote that he had undertaken extensive search into the family of
abbot Hilduin, finding the name Senegonde nowhere else but among his
brother Vulgrin's kindred ("Au cours des recherches très étendues
auxquelles nous nous sommes livré sur la famille du célèbre abbé de
Saint-Denis, nous n'avons jamais rencontré le nom de Senegonde ailleurs
que chez Vulgrin.") He is right that the name is rare in the 9th
century, but it can only be found in the family of Vulgrin if the
viscountess of Marcillac is placed there first, so his reasoning is
tightly circular. This is compounded by his failure to account for the
absence of the name Vulgrin in Senegonde's family, when she is
nonetheless supposed to have passed on names of collateral relatives of
her putative mother.
He claimed that William 'Tolosanus' must have been the son of Bernard
and Dhuoda born on 29 November 826, citing Dhoda herself for this
information, but failed to mention that she had gone on to tell William
that his younger brother Bernard had been born on 22 March 841 as the
second issue from her womb ("ex meo secundus post te ... egressus est
utero"). There is no reason to assume that Dhuoda was arbitrarily
omitting any daughter/s born between these two sons. Consequently if
Vulgrin's wife was a third child of Dhuoda she would have been born
after 841, but in that case would not have been old enough for marriage
when the eldest child, William, was killed in 849/50 (the annals of
Fontenelle report his death under 849, the annals of St Bertin under
850). She can hardly have been sent to Vulgrin endowed with Agen as
William's sister (reported by Ademar of Chabannes) on reaching the age
of 12, in order to be eligible for marriage, at least years four after
William had died, by when the remaining brother Bernard would have been
the only plausible sibling to be referenced for Agen as her dowry. But
Levillain had already pointed out that Agen was a fief of the counts of
Bordeaux, which Bernard was not.
Peter Stewart
Just to be sure are you saying that Senegonde couldnt be the daughter of Bernard
of Septimania, not that she didnt exist? I think KF Werner researched Vulgrins
origins so he must have had a view on this Senegonde story.

Is there evidence independant of Ademar that Vulgrins wife was called Senegonde?
Surely at this time nobles couldnt hand over cities/counties as dowries as if they were
independant princes? this may have been the case when Ademar was writing in the
early 11th but not in the 9th century.

There is an old essay by John Gillingham, „Ademar of Chabannes and the History of
Aquitaine in the Reign of Charles the Bald‟ in M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson (eds),
Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (2 nd ed., Oxford, 1990) about the stuff Ademar
wrote about 9th century Aquitaine and the uncritical use Levillain made of it, although
its a long time time since I read it so I dont remember if he actually mentions the
Marcillac business. Why did they want to kill the counts wife? seems a bit extreme:
was it a blood feud?

Although his history is quite entertaining Ademar was publicly exposed as a forger
in his own lifetime at an assembly at St.Martial according to the account in
Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History: Ademar of Chabannes, 989—1034.
Harvard Historical Studies 117 by Richard Landes. Typically he went back home and
wrote his own account of the debate in which he triumphed over his accusers. And
Ademar had the last laugh as well, because about 100 years later the monks of st.Martial
rediscovered his forgeries and believed them to be true and went on using his
liturgy until the revolution.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-05-30 11:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Just to be sure are you saying that Senegonde couldnt be the daughter of Bernard
of Septimania, not that she didnt exist? I think KF Werner researched Vulgrins
origins so he must have had a view on this Senegonde story.
I haven't made myself clear - the proposal by Levillain, as shown in
Settipani's table, is that Senegonde was a granddaughter of Bernard. The
purported daughter of Bernard, whose name is unknown, was supposedly her
mother, i.e. the wife of Vulgrin described by Ademar of Chabannes as the
sister of William 'Tolosanus' whom Levillain thought to be Bernard's
elder son.

The identity of William 'Tolosanus' has been debated exhaustively, with
no certain result. I am simply saying that Levillain's solution to the
puzzle is unsustainable, and that his attaching of Ranulf of Marcillac's
wife Senegonde to the family of Vulgrin and his wife endowed with Agen
(sister of 'Tolosanus') is a non-starter.

The questions around Vulgrin's wife and any purported daughter of theirs
do not touch on the origin of Vulgrin himself, except insofar as he was
a Frank and so was his liegeman Ranulf of Marcillac.
Post by keri CA
Is there evidence independant of Ademar that Vulgrins wife was called Senegonde?
As above, the name of Vulgrin's wife is unknown. Senegonde - whoever her
father may have been - was the wife of Ranulf of Marcillac.
Post by keri CA
Surely at this time nobles couldnt hand over cities/counties as dowries as if they were
independant princes? this may have been the case when Ademar was writing in the
early 11th but not in the 9th century.
There is debate over whether or not Agen ever belonged to Vulgrin,
through marriage or otherwise. Levillain thought that he obtained it in
869, that is 19 or 20 years after the death of his candidate for William
'Tolosanus' whom he thought had been the count of Bordeaux (and thereby
suzerain of Agen), from 845 to 848. The bestowal of Agen may be
anachronistic, as you suggest, but it is not necessarily supposed to
have been given away as allodial property rather than just granted as a
fief.
Post by keri CA
There is an old essay by John Gillingham, „Ademar of Chabannes and the History of
Aquitaine in the Reign of Charles the Bald‟ in M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson (eds),
Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (2 nd ed., Oxford, 1990) about the stuff Ademar
wrote about 9th century Aquitaine and the uncritical use Levillain made of it, although
its a long time time since I read it so I dont remember if he actually mentions the
Marcillac business.
Gillingham wrote: "Ademar is such an ingeniously unreliable historian
that the onus of proof rests fair and square on the shoulders of those
who wish to believe anything he says". He did not mention Senegonde.
Post by keri CA
was it a blood feud?
We only have Ademar's account of this and he didn't explain it. My point
about this is just that if Sancia was really a first cousin of the
brothers (Senegonde's sons) who tried to murder her then surely Ademar
would have alluded to the relationship when narrating that her brother
killed them in revenge for the attempt.
Post by keri CA
Although his history is quite entertaining Ademar was publicly exposed as a forger
in his own lifetime at an assembly at St.Martial according to the account in
Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History: Ademar of Chabannes, 989—1034.
Harvard Historical Studies 117 by Richard Landes. Typically he went back home and
wrote his own account of the debate in which he triumphed over his accusers. And
Ademar had the last laugh as well, because about 100 years later the monks of st.Martial
rediscovered his forgeries and believed them to be true and went on using his
liturgy until the revolution.
Ademar may be unreliable but he is also indespensible, covering some
plausible episodes that we don't hear about from other chroniclers. The
reasons for forging charters are usually not applicable to the writing
of history. Ademar was a proto-tabloid journalist, long ahead of the
modern type of tittle-tattler but not entirely different. Rupert Murdoch
might have given him a newspaper column, if not a show of his own on Fox
News. I suspect he would have been smarter than Sean Hannity, less
sinister than Tucker Carlson, and probably more honest than the rest of
them put together.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-30 14:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Just to be sure are you saying that Senegonde couldnt be the daughter of Bernard
of Septimania, not that she didnt exist? I think KF Werner researched Vulgrins
origins so he must have had a view on this Senegonde story.
I haven't made myself clear - the proposal by Levillain, as shown in
Settipani's table, is that Senegonde was a granddaughter of Bernard. The
purported daughter of Bernard, whose name is unknown, was supposedly her
mother, i.e. the wife of Vulgrin described by Ademar of Chabannes as the
sister of William 'Tolosanus' whom Levillain thought to be Bernard's
elder son.
The identity of William 'Tolosanus' has been debated exhaustively, with
no certain result. I am simply saying that Levillain's solution to the
puzzle is unsustainable, and that his attaching of Ranulf of Marcillac's
wife Senegonde to the family of Vulgrin and his wife endowed with Agen
(sister of 'Tolosanus') is a non-starter.
The questions around Vulgrin's wife and any purported daughter of theirs
do not touch on the origin of Vulgrin himself, except insofar as he was
a Frank and so was his liegeman Ranulf of Marcillac.
I get it now. I misread what you wote. But Levillain couldnt looked very
closely for Senegondes because that was the name of the mother of Fredelon
Count of Toulouse and also his brother Raymond I. So maybe Vulgrins wife was
a sister of the count of Toulouse just not the one Ademar was thinking of.
On the net Vulgrins wife is called Regelinde and the reference is Europaische
Stammtafeln II/4 731, 817. However on Medlands [ok not your favorite site]
that is the name also of the wife of Vulgrins son William where its said that
she is the daughter of Raymond I. The 'proof' being that a later text, the
history of the bishops and counts of Angouleme says, like Ademar, the
Marcillacs were killed by Bernard, but calls him nepote Odonis. Settipani [p12]
in the book you linked to, identifys this Odo as Odo count of Toulouse [d918]
rather than King Odo [d892].
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Is there evidence independant of Ademar that Vulgrins wife was called Senegonde?
As above, the name of Vulgrin's wife is unknown. Senegonde - whoever her
father may have been - was the wife of Ranulf of Marcillac.
Post by keri CA
Surely at this time nobles couldnt hand over cities/counties as dowries as if they were
independant princes? this may have been the case when Ademar was writing in the
early 11th but not in the 9th century.
There is debate over whether or not Agen ever belonged to Vulgrin,
through marriage or otherwise. Levillain thought that he obtained it in
869, that is 19 or 20 years after the death of his candidate for William
'Tolosanus' whom he thought had been the count of Bordeaux (and thereby
suzerain of Agen), from 845 to 848. The bestowal of Agen may be
anachronistic, as you suggest, but it is not necessarily supposed to
have been given away as allodial property rather than just granted as a
fief.
This Agen business seems a separate question. Its passed into many
secondary works as fact. Settipani doesnt help by referring to a Guilhem de Agen [p11].
Not sure if this is another version of William Tolosanus or a separate entity!

I recently tried to read 'Three Bernards sent South to Govern' by Donald Jackman.
This made a difficult and complex subject - the identity of all these Count Bernards
in the Midi in the late 9th century - even more confusing. It was no help at all!
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
There is an old essay by John Gillingham, „Ademar of Chabannes and the History of
Aquitaine in the Reign of Charles the Bald‟ in M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson (eds),
Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (2 nd ed., Oxford, 1990) about the stuff Ademar
wrote about 9th century Aquitaine and the uncritical use Levillain made of it, although
its a long time time since I read it so I dont remember if he actually mentions the
Marcillac business.
Gillingham wrote: "Ademar is such an ingeniously unreliable historian
that the onus of proof rests fair and square on the shoulders of those
who wish to believe anything he says". He did not mention Senegonde.
Yes I remember he wasnt impressed with Ademar as historian, at least for
the ninth century anyway.

Was Vulgrin [d886] who Ademar says was an old man when he was appointed to
Angouleme and Perigord 866 really the brother of Hilduin of St.Denis [d842]
as it often appears on the net or is some other Hilduin/Alduin intended? Like
William Tolosanus its not clear who Ademar was refering to. I just wonder if
Ademar intended to curry favour with the comital dynasty to big up their
ancestral lignage. Later on when all his schemes collapsed and he had
no hope of comital favour says Landes , he retired back to St.Cybard in disgrace,
rewrote his entire chronicle, and added many more salacious details.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
was it a blood feud?
We only have Ademar's account of this and he didn't explain it. My point
about this is just that if Sancia was really a first cousin of the
brothers (Senegonde's sons) who tried to murder her then surely Ademar
would have alluded to the relationship when narrating that her brother
killed them in revenge for the attempt.
Post by keri CA
Although his history is quite entertaining Ademar was publicly exposed as a forger
in his own lifetime at an assembly at St.Martial according to the account in
Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History: Ademar of Chabannes, 989—1034.
Harvard Historical Studies 117 by Richard Landes. Typically he went back home and
wrote his own account of the debate in which he triumphed over his accusers. And
Ademar had the last laugh as well, because about 100 years later the monks of st.Martial
rediscovered his forgeries and believed them to be true and went on using his
liturgy until the revolution.
Ademar may be unreliable but he is also indespensible, covering some
plausible episodes that we don't hear about from other chroniclers. The
reasons for forging charters are usually not applicable to the writing
of history. Ademar was a proto-tabloid journalist, long ahead of the
I think he forged the false decretals of St.Martial making out that the saint
was an apostle sent to Gaul to evangelise, then wrote an entire liturgy for
the celebration. That was too much even for his contempories.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-05-31 00:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Just to be sure are you saying that Senegonde couldnt be the daughter of Bernard
of Septimania, not that she didnt exist? I think KF Werner researched Vulgrins
origins so he must have had a view on this Senegonde story.
I haven't made myself clear - the proposal by Levillain, as shown in
Settipani's table, is that Senegonde was a granddaughter of Bernard. The
purported daughter of Bernard, whose name is unknown, was supposedly her
mother, i.e. the wife of Vulgrin described by Ademar of Chabannes as the
sister of William 'Tolosanus' whom Levillain thought to be Bernard's
elder son.
The identity of William 'Tolosanus' has been debated exhaustively, with
no certain result. I am simply saying that Levillain's solution to the
puzzle is unsustainable, and that his attaching of Ranulf of Marcillac's
wife Senegonde to the family of Vulgrin and his wife endowed with Agen
(sister of 'Tolosanus') is a non-starter.
The questions around Vulgrin's wife and any purported daughter of theirs
do not touch on the origin of Vulgrin himself, except insofar as he was
a Frank and so was his liegeman Ranulf of Marcillac.
I get it now. I misread what you wote. But Levillain couldnt looked very
closely for Senegondes because that was the name of the mother of Fredelon
Count of Toulouse and also his brother Raymond I. So maybe Vulgrins wife was
a sister of the count of Toulouse just not the one Ademar was thinking of.
I'm afraid this is slipping into or at least towards one of the holes
dug by Levillain in his genealogy-by-onomastics spree - there is no
reason outside of this to suppose the name Senegonde came to the
viscountess of Marcillac from the family of either Vulgin or his wife.

Senegonde the wife of Fredelon was a contemporary of Vulgrin's wife.
Settipani in 2004 suggested that this other Senegonde may have been a
daughter of St Guilhem of Gellone's eldest son (as he thought, but
possibly step-son) Heribert, who was blinded ca May 830 and exiled to
Italy. But in any event she was of little interest to Levillain, who
made the point that Agen was controlled not by the count of Toulouse but
by his counterpart of Bordeaux. There is no William recorded in the
immediate family of Fredelo, while Ademar is unlikely to have confused
these two names and Vulgrin can hardly have obtained Agen from the
latter whose authority extended from Toulouse to Paillars, Rouergue and
Limoges but not to Bordeaux.
Post by keri CA
On the net Vulgrins wife is called Regelinde and the reference is Europaische
Stammtafeln II/4 731, 817. However on Medlands [ok not your favorite site]
that is the name also of the wife of Vulgrins son William where its said that
she is the daughter of Raymond I. The 'proof' being that a later text, the
history of the bishops and counts of Angouleme says, like Ademar, the
Marcillacs were killed by Bernard, but calls him nepote Odonis. Settipani [p12]
in the book you linked to, identifys this Odo as Odo count of Toulouse [d918]
rather than King Odo [d892].
The grounds proposed by Settipani for this are far from compelling: the
king had been mentioned by name and title shortly beforehand in the same
text whereas Eudes of Toulouse was not. Settipani noted that king Eudes
had evidently passed the winter of 892-93 in Aquitaine and asserted that
Vulgrin's grandson Bernard was born not long afterwards, but he argued
that the king would not have been accompanied by his sister, who must
have been aged at least 27/28 at the time. However, it is not certain
when Bernard was born and for all we know this could have been some
years before the early 890s - the rationale for placing his birth after
892 is extremely weak, just that he is not mentioned in a charter of his
parents written 907/08 leading to an arbitrary assumption that he was
under 15 at that time. This is flatly unwarranted, since sons more than
15 years old were not always mentioned by their fathers - for instance,
a charter of Guilhem Fier-à-bras of Aquitaine dated May 985 (extant in
the original, here
http://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/originaux/charte1146/) does not mention
his son Guilhem, whom we know to have been born by November 969 when he
was named in a charter dated "Anno XV Lotharii regis" (12 November
968-11 November 969). Even if the king's sister was not already married
before his stay in Aquitaine, she need not have been with him when her
marriage was arranged if this did occur while he was there. Debord in
1984 considered her most probably the king's sister.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Is there evidence independant of Ademar that Vulgrins wife was called Senegonde?
As above, the name of Vulgrin's wife is unknown. Senegonde - whoever her
father may have been - was the wife of Ranulf of Marcillac.
Post by keri CA
Surely at this time nobles couldnt hand over cities/counties as dowries as if they were
independant princes? this may have been the case when Ademar was writing in the
early 11th but not in the 9th century.
There is debate over whether or not Agen ever belonged to Vulgrin,
through marriage or otherwise. Levillain thought that he obtained it in
869, that is 19 or 20 years after the death of his candidate for William
'Tolosanus' whom he thought had been the count of Bordeaux (and thereby
suzerain of Agen), from 845 to 848. The bestowal of Agen may be
anachronistic, as you suggest, but it is not necessarily supposed to
have been given away as allodial property rather than just granted as a
fief.
This Agen business seems a separate question. Its passed into many
secondary works as fact. Settipani doesnt help by referring to a Guilhem de Agen [p11].
Not sure if this is another version of William Tolosanus or a separate entity!
I recently tried to read 'Three Bernards sent South to Govern' by Donald Jackman.
This made a difficult and complex subject - the identity of all these Count Bernards
in the Midi in the late 9th century - even more confusing. It was no help at all!
Donald Jackman is the reigning champion of No help at all.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
There is an old essay by John Gillingham, „Ademar of Chabannes and the History of
Aquitaine in the Reign of Charles the Bald‟ in M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson (eds),
Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (2 nd ed., Oxford, 1990) about the stuff Ademar
wrote about 9th century Aquitaine and the uncritical use Levillain made of it, although
its a long time time since I read it so I dont remember if he actually mentions the
Marcillac business.
Gillingham wrote: "Ademar is such an ingeniously unreliable historian
that the onus of proof rests fair and square on the shoulders of those
who wish to believe anything he says". He did not mention Senegonde.
Yes I remember he wasnt impressed with Ademar as historian, at least for
the ninth century anyway.
Was Vulgrin [d886] who Ademar says was an old man when he was appointed to
Angouleme and Perigord 866 really the brother of Hilduin of St.Denis [d842]
as it often appears on the net or is some other Hilduin/Alduin intended? Like
William Tolosanus its not clear who Ademar was refering to. I just wonder if
Ademar intended to curry favour with the comital dynasty to big up their
ancestral lignage. Later on when all his schemes collapsed and he had
no hope of comital favour says Landes , he retired back to St.Cybard in disgrace,
rewrote his entire chronicle, and added many more salacious details.
Vulgrin's brother Hilduin was not the abbot of Saint-Denis - the latter
may have been his paternal uncle, as Settipani and others have thought,
but Vulgrin's brother Hilduin was abbot of Saint-Martin de Tours from
842, of Saint-Germain-des-Prés 854-60, and arch-chaplain to Charles the
Bald by 18 December 855. He died on 19 November before 867 (by when his
death had been recorded by Usuard who himself died in that year).
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
was it a blood feud?
We only have Ademar's account of this and he didn't explain it. My point
about this is just that if Sancia was really a first cousin of the
brothers (Senegonde's sons) who tried to murder her then surely Ademar
would have alluded to the relationship when narrating that her brother
killed them in revenge for the attempt.
Post by keri CA
Although his history is quite entertaining Ademar was publicly exposed as a forger
in his own lifetime at an assembly at St.Martial according to the account in
Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History: Ademar of Chabannes, 989—1034.
Harvard Historical Studies 117 by Richard Landes. Typically he went back home and
wrote his own account of the debate in which he triumphed over his accusers. And
Ademar had the last laugh as well, because about 100 years later the monks of st.Martial
rediscovered his forgeries and believed them to be true and went on using his
liturgy until the revolution.
Ademar may be unreliable but he is also indespensible, covering some
plausible episodes that we don't hear about from other chroniclers. The
reasons for forging charters are usually not applicable to the writing
of history. Ademar was a proto-tabloid journalist, long ahead of the
I think he forged the false decretals of St.Martial making out that the saint
was an apostle sent to Gaul to evangelise, then wrote an entire liturgy for
the celebration. That was too much even for his contempories.
Right, I had forgotten the eye-glazing details. Ademar may have received
the blame, but misrepresenting St Martial as an apostle was most
probably not undertaken on his own initiative. The competition for
pilgrims was intense, and just as the tourism trade is keen on hyped
advertising today there were plenty of elaborate deceptions practiced in
the 11th century. The charter of Alet discussed regarding Bera of
Barcelona is another example, laying groundwork for a reputed piece of
the true cross to be venerated there by representing Bera as having
asked the pope to send him one in the early-9th century for a foundation
that he had purportedly placed under the direct authority of Rome.

Monks had a limited repertoire of promotional gimmicks, and fabricating
a 1st-century apostle out of a 3rd-century bishop was at least a bold one.

Peter stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-31 04:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Was Vulgrin [d886] who Ademar says was an old man when he was
appointed to
Angouleme and Perigord 866 really the brother of Hilduin of St.Denis [d842]
as it often appears on the net or is some other Hilduin/Alduin intended? Like
William Tolosanus its not clear who Ademar was refering to. I just wonder if
Ademar intended to curry favour with the comital dynasty to big up their
ancestral lignage. Later on when all his schemes collapsed and he had
no hope of comital favour says Landes , he retired back to St.Cybard in disgrace,
rewrote his entire chronicle, and added many more salacious details.
Vulgrin's brother Hilduin was not the abbot of Saint-Denis - the latter
may have been his paternal uncle, as Settipani and others have thought,
but Vulgrin's brother Hilduin was abbot of Saint-Martin de Tours from
842, of Saint-Germain-des-Prés 854-60, and arch-chaplain to Charles the
Bald by 18 December 855. He died on 19 November before 867 (by when his
death had been recorded by Usuard who himself died in that year).
Ademar of Chabannes confused these two abbots named Hilduin as well - he
wrote that Vulgrin's brother was abbot of Saint-Denis ("Vulgrimnum ...
fratrem Aldoini abbatis ex monasterio Sancti Dionisii").

The elder and more famous Hilduin was abbot of Saint-Denis by 1 December
814 until 842, abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Près from 826, and also
imperial arch-chaplain. He died on a 22 November between 855 and 859.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-31 01:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 31-May-21 12:09 AM, keri CA wrote:

<snip>
Post by keri CA
On the net Vulgrins wife is called Regelinde and the reference is Europaische
Stammtafeln II/4 731, 817. However on Medlands [ok not your favorite site]
that is the name also of the wife of Vulgrins son William
This mistake of calling Vulgrin's wife of unknown name Regilinde is an
old error, from the same charter adduced as supposed evidence that
Vulgrin's grandson Bernard was not born until 892/95 - this is dated "in
mense Januario anno VIIII regnante Karolo rege", and the regnal count is
either as some interpret it from 28 January 893, the beginning of
Charles the Simple's joint reign with Eudes (leading them to date it
902), or more probably from early January 898 when his sole reign
commenced (leading to a date in January 906 or 907 but for no solid
reason ascribed by some to 907/08).

The Latin is scratchy and the text mixes cases for the principals ("ego,
in Dei nomine vir illuster Willelmus comis qui fuit filius Vulgrino, et
uxore sua Rigilindis nec non et Theotone seu et Ausberto"). Since
William is named in the nominative, unlike Regilinde and the others
whose case is the same as used for Vulgrin that should be amended to the
genitive, some read it as indicating that Regilinde was Vulgrin's wife
and therefore mother of William as if her name too should be amended to
the genitive like Vulgrin's rather than to the nominative like William's.

However, this is disproved by the subscriptions, where the cases are
consistently ablative and Regilinde is explicitly called William's wife
with no mention of Vulgrin ("S. Willelmo. Sign. Rigilinde uxore sua
necnon et Theotone seu et Ausberto qui hanc cessione ista fieri vel
adfirmare rogaverunt").

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-31 01:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The Latin is scratchy and the text mixes cases for the principals ("ego,
in Dei nomine vir illuster Willelmus comis qui fuit filius Vulgrino, et
uxore sua Rigilindis nec non et Theotone seu et Ausberto"). Since
William is named in the nominative, unlike Regilinde and the others
whose case is the same as used for Vulgrin that should be amended to the
genitive, some read it as indicating that Regilinde was Vulgrin's wife
and therefore mother of William as if her name too should be amended to
the genitive like Vulgrin's rather than to the nominative like William's.
This is not accurately written on my part - the name Regilindis itself
is nominative, but the description of her as William's wife ("uxore
sua") is ablative as are the two following names. Anyway, I hope the
drift of my post is plain enough.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-31 06:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The Latin is scratchy and the text mixes cases for the principals
("ego, in Dei nomine vir illuster Willelmus comis qui fuit filius
Vulgrino, et uxore sua Rigilindis nec non et Theotone seu et
Ausberto"). Since William is named in the nominative, unlike Regilinde
and the others whose case is the same as used for Vulgrin that should
be amended to the genitive, some read it as indicating that Regilinde
was Vulgrin's wife and therefore mother of William as if her name too
should be amended to the genitive like Vulgrin's rather than to the
nominative like William's.
This is not accurately written on my part - the name Regilindis itself
is nominative, but the description of her as William's wife ("uxore
sua") is ablative as are the two following names. Anyway, I hope the
drift of my post is plain enough.
Perhaps it still isn't fully plain how this old and persistent misnaming
of Vulgrin's wife with her daughter-in-law's name Regilinde apparently
came about.

The cases (and orthography) in the charter need to be amended in order
to make better sense. If we knew nothing else but the passage quoted
above, there are two obvious ways to resolve the problems:

1. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini et uxoris sue
Rigilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin and of his (= Vulgrin's)
wife Regilinde), with the names of Vulgrin and Regilinde both changed to
genitive.

2. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini, et uxor sua
Regilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin, and his (= my) wife
Regilinde), with the name of Vulgrin changed to genitiive and "uxore
sua" from ablative to nominative.

Of these the second is far more plausible - many cartulary versions of
charters, and some originals, use the first person for the principal and
yet the third person for his possessive pronoun, so there is no
difficulty with "uxor sua" instead of "uxor mea". Also it could be a
little invidious to refer to oneself as the son of X and of his wife Y,
rather than just son of X and of Y, because if the marriage of parents
is not understood a world of trouble might be opened.

But we do know more in this case, because the subscriptions make it
perfectly clear whose wife Regilinde was - she could only be William's,
otherwise it would not read as it does "S. Willelmo. Sign. Rigilinde
uxore sua" (Signed by William. Signed by his wife Regilinde) but rather
"Sign. Regilinde matre sua" (Signed by his mother Regilinde).

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-31 22:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The Latin is scratchy and the text mixes cases for the principals
("ego, in Dei nomine vir illuster Willelmus comis qui fuit filius
Vulgrino, et uxore sua Rigilindis nec non et Theotone seu et
Ausberto"). Since William is named in the nominative, unlike Regilinde
and the others whose case is the same as used for Vulgrin that should
be amended to the genitive, some read it as indicating that Regilinde
was Vulgrin's wife and therefore mother of William as if her name too
should be amended to the genitive like Vulgrin's rather than to the
nominative like William's.
This is not accurately written on my part - the name Regilindis itself
is nominative, but the description of her as William's wife ("uxore
sua") is ablative as are the two following names. Anyway, I hope the
drift of my post is plain enough.
Perhaps it still isn't fully plain how this old and persistent misnaming
of Vulgrin's wife with her daughter-in-law's name Regilinde apparently
came about.
The cases (and orthography) in the charter need to be amended in order
to make better sense. If we knew nothing else but the passage quoted
1. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini et uxoris sue
Rigilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin and of his (= Vulgrin's)
wife Regilinde), with the names of Vulgrin and Regilinde both changed to
genitive.
2. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini, et uxor sua
Regilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin, and his (= my) wife
Regilinde), with the name of Vulgrin changed to genitiive and "uxore
sua" from ablative to nominative.
Of these the second is far more plausible - many cartulary versions of
charters, and some originals, use the first person for the principal and
yet the third person for his possessive pronoun, so there is no
difficulty with "uxor sua" instead of "uxor mea". Also it could be a
little invidious to refer to oneself as the son of X and of his wife Y,
rather than just son of X and of Y, because if the marriage of parents
is not understood a world of trouble might be opened.
But we do know more in this case, because the subscriptions make it
perfectly clear whose wife Regilinde was - she could only be William's,
otherwise it would not read as it does "S. Willelmo. Sign. Rigilinde
uxore sua" (Signed by William. Signed by his wife Regilinde) but rather
"Sign. Regilinde matre sua" (Signed by his mother Regilinde).
Peter Stewart
Yes it seems a simple error but its not only all over the net like Wiki, its also
found its way into secondary works and many a scholars thesis,
often as Rogelinde of Agen m Vulgrin etc. Sometimes she is called
Rogelinde/Regelindis of Rouergue Comtesse d'Agen, or even
Sancia d'Agen AKA Regelinde. The Rouergue variant makes her
daughter of Raymond I of Toulouse; someone else must have the same
idea of attaching Vulgrins wife to that family!

Vulgrin in these geni sites is often made a son of Rorico/Rorgo of Maine and
Bilichilde. Ademar [bk III 19] also says he was a relative [propinquum] of Charles the Bald.
Is propinquus always a blood relative? Or could he be this related through his wife
[whoever she was]? Referencing Werner the net says his mother was Susanna herself a daughter
of Bego count of Paris and Alpais daughter of Charlemagne.or Louis the Pious.

Despite his role in Ademars history as the founder of the local comital dynasty, there doesnt
appear another Vulgrin in the Angouleme family until almost the 12th century.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-06-01 00:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The Latin is scratchy and the text mixes cases for the principals
("ego, in Dei nomine vir illuster Willelmus comis qui fuit filius
Vulgrino, et uxore sua Rigilindis nec non et Theotone seu et
Ausberto"). Since William is named in the nominative, unlike Regilinde
and the others whose case is the same as used for Vulgrin that should
be amended to the genitive, some read it as indicating that Regilinde
was Vulgrin's wife and therefore mother of William as if her name too
should be amended to the genitive like Vulgrin's rather than to the
nominative like William's.
This is not accurately written on my part - the name Regilindis itself
is nominative, but the description of her as William's wife ("uxore
sua") is ablative as are the two following names. Anyway, I hope the
drift of my post is plain enough.
Perhaps it still isn't fully plain how this old and persistent misnaming
of Vulgrin's wife with her daughter-in-law's name Regilinde apparently
came about.
The cases (and orthography) in the charter need to be amended in order
to make better sense. If we knew nothing else but the passage quoted
1. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini et uxoris sue
Rigilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin and of his (= Vulgrin's)
wife Regilinde), with the names of Vulgrin and Regilinde both changed to
genitive.
2. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini, et uxor sua
Regilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin, and his (= my) wife
Regilinde), with the name of Vulgrin changed to genitiive and "uxore
sua" from ablative to nominative.
Of these the second is far more plausible - many cartulary versions of
charters, and some originals, use the first person for the principal and
yet the third person for his possessive pronoun, so there is no
difficulty with "uxor sua" instead of "uxor mea". Also it could be a
little invidious to refer to oneself as the son of X and of his wife Y,
rather than just son of X and of Y, because if the marriage of parents
is not understood a world of trouble might be opened.
But we do know more in this case, because the subscriptions make it
perfectly clear whose wife Regilinde was - she could only be William's,
otherwise it would not read as it does "S. Willelmo. Sign. Rigilinde
uxore sua" (Signed by William. Signed by his wife Regilinde) but rather
"Sign. Regilinde matre sua" (Signed by his mother Regilinde).
Peter Stewart
Yes it seems a simple error but its not only all over the net like Wiki, its also
found its way into secondary works and many a scholars thesis,
often as Rogelinde of Agen m Vulgrin etc. Sometimes she is called
Rogelinde/Regelindis of Rouergue Comtesse d'Agen, or even
Sancia d'Agen AKA Regelinde. The Rouergue variant makes her
daughter of Raymond I of Toulouse; someone else must have the same
idea of attaching Vulgrins wife to that family!
That is modern historiography for you: appearing in a scholarly thesis
doesn't make anything necessarily true, correct or even sensible.

Broadly speaking, historians are usually not well prepared by their
training for the study of genealogy. They have in view the formation of
a bigger picture through the accumulation of details gathered in their
research, but genealogy has no big picture. It may be made to seem wide
by illuminating collateral relationships, or deep by following a lineage
through many successive generations, but these are not panoramic views
of anything except a lot of specific details.

In other words the mosaic formed by a genealogist is only documentary,
not also pictorial. This frustrates historians, who aim for more
profound and sweeping results. They tend to cut genealogical corners by
copying details from each other in the interests of filling in bits of
colour to their more ample scope.
Post by keri CA
Vulgrin in these geni sites is often made a son of Rorico/Rorgo of Maine and
Bilichilde. Ademar [bk III 19] also says he was a relative [propinquum] of Charles the Bald.
Is propinquus always a blood relative? Or could he be this related through his wife
[whoever she was]? Referencing Werner the net says his mother was Susanna herself a daughter
of Bego count of Paris and Alpais daughter of Charlemagne.or Louis the Pious.
You have evidently forgotten a thread from 2015 in which I painstakingly
showed that Werner was misguided (at best) in his invention of "Susanna
of Paris". There was no such person, and I suggest you stop reading any
work that mentions her unless it directly addresses and adequately
counters the points raised here:

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/8JcNohNHm6w

Note a post dated 24 December 2015 responding to you in which I wrote:
"The basic message from my series of posts is that Werner repeatedly
misrepresented evidence he used to construct his hypothesis. We don't
know anything about the ancestry of Adelaide except that one of her
great-grandfathers was Bego, count of Paris, and that one of her
great-grandmothers was almost certainly not Louis I's daughter Alpais".

Werner was an outstanding scholar in some aspects of his work, but not
by any means in all. His Susanna as a daughter of Bego of Paris is a
distortion of evidence and disservice to genealogy on a par with the
re-imagining of Charles Constantine of Vienne as son of a Byzantine
princess.
Post by keri CA
Despite his role in Ademars history as the founder of the local comital dynasty, there doesnt
appear another Vulgrin in the Angouleme family until almost the 12th century.
Yes, fancy that. The real application of onomastic patrimony in Frankish
families doesn't bear very much resemblance to the facile theory of some
historians that it can be used in the absence of other evidence to
determine relationships.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-06-02 22:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The Latin is scratchy and the text mixes cases for the principals
("ego, in Dei nomine vir illuster Willelmus comis qui fuit filius
Vulgrino, et uxore sua Rigilindis nec non et Theotone seu et
Ausberto"). Since William is named in the nominative, unlike Regilinde
and the others whose case is the same as used for Vulgrin that should
be amended to the genitive, some read it as indicating that Regilinde
was Vulgrin's wife and therefore mother of William as if her name too
should be amended to the genitive like Vulgrin's rather than to the
nominative like William's.
This is not accurately written on my part - the name Regilindis itself
is nominative, but the description of her as William's wife ("uxore
sua") is ablative as are the two following names. Anyway, I hope the
drift of my post is plain enough.
Perhaps it still isn't fully plain how this old and persistent misnaming
of Vulgrin's wife with her daughter-in-law's name Regilinde apparently
came about.
The cases (and orthography) in the charter need to be amended in order
to make better sense. If we knew nothing else but the passage quoted
1. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini et uxoris sue
Rigilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin and of his (= Vulgrin's)
wife Regilinde), with the names of Vulgrin and Regilinde both changed to
genitive.
2. ego ... Willelmus comes, qui fuit filius Vulgrini, et uxor sua
Regilindis (I ... count William, son of Vulgrin, and his (= my) wife
Regilinde), with the name of Vulgrin changed to genitiive and "uxore
sua" from ablative to nominative.
Of these the second is far more plausible - many cartulary versions of
charters, and some originals, use the first person for the principal and
yet the third person for his possessive pronoun, so there is no
difficulty with "uxor sua" instead of "uxor mea". Also it could be a
little invidious to refer to oneself as the son of X and of his wife Y,
rather than just son of X and of Y, because if the marriage of parents
is not understood a world of trouble might be opened.
But we do know more in this case, because the subscriptions make it
perfectly clear whose wife Regilinde was - she could only be William's,
otherwise it would not read as it does "S. Willelmo. Sign. Rigilinde
uxore sua" (Signed by William. Signed by his wife Regilinde) but rather
"Sign. Regilinde matre sua" (Signed by his mother Regilinde).
Peter Stewart
Yes it seems a simple error but its not only all over the net like Wiki, its also
found its way into secondary works and many a scholars thesis,
often as Rogelinde of Agen m Vulgrin etc. Sometimes she is called
Rogelinde/Regelindis of Rouergue Comtesse d'Agen, or even
Sancia d'Agen AKA Regelinde. The Rouergue variant makes her
daughter of Raymond I of Toulouse; someone else must have the same
idea of attaching Vulgrins wife to that family!
That is modern historiography for you: appearing in a scholarly thesis
doesn't make anything necessarily true, correct or even sensible.
Broadly speaking, historians are usually not well prepared by their
training for the study of genealogy. They have in view the formation of
a bigger picture through the accumulation of details gathered in their
research, but genealogy has no big picture. It may be made to seem wide
by illuminating collateral relationships, or deep by following a lineage
through many successive generations, but these are not panoramic views
of anything except a lot of specific details.
In other words the mosaic formed by a genealogist is only documentary,
not also pictorial. This frustrates historians, who aim for more
profound and sweeping results. They tend to cut genealogical corners by
copying details from each other in the interests of filling in bits of
colour to their more ample scope.
Post by keri CA
Vulgrin in these geni sites is often made a son of Rorico/Rorgo of Maine and
Bilichilde. Ademar [bk III 19] also says he was a relative [propinquum] of Charles the Bald.
Is propinquus always a blood relative? Or could he be this related through his wife
[whoever she was]? Referencing Werner the net says his mother was Susanna herself a daughter
of Bego count of Paris and Alpais daughter of Charlemagne.or Louis the Pious.
You have evidently forgotten a thread from 2015 in which I painstakingly
showed that Werner was misguided (at best) in his invention of "Susanna
of Paris". There was no such person, and I suggest you stop reading any
work that mentions her unless it directly addresses and adequately
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/8JcNohNHm6w
"The basic message from my series of posts is that Werner repeatedly
misrepresented evidence he used to construct his hypothesis. We don't
know anything about the ancestry of Adelaide except that one of her
great-grandfathers was Bego, count of Paris, and that one of her
great-grandmothers was almost certainly not Louis I's daughter Alpais".
Yes I had forgotten that this had been exhaustively examined before.
Thankyou for reminding me. I will have to read it again.

I was interested initially just because the name Susanna seemed so unusual
for the time. Perhaps there are others but the only one I remember was the
later countess of Flanders Rosala of Ivrea who assumed that name when she
remarried. It seems a very odd thing to do, unless like the lady in the bible,
she considered herself a wronged woman or falsely accused.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-06-03 01:47:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 03-Jun-21 8:57 AM, keri CA wrote:

<snip>
Post by keri CA
I was interested initially just because the name Susanna seemed so unusual
for the time. Perhaps there are others but the only one I remember was the
later countess of Flanders Rosala of Ivrea who assumed that name when she
remarried. It seems a very odd thing to do, unless like the lady in the bible,
she considered herself a wronged woman or falsely accused.
This was the scenario suggested for Rozala-Susanna by Jean Dunbabin in
1989 - she conjectured that an adultery charge (aiming to disinherit her
son) was behind the change of her name.

I find this unconvincing, as we hear enough about her to expect that if
it actually happened this would be told, by Richer as well as by Flemish
sources.

The name Susanna was rare at all social levels but especially so among
the aristocracy because it carried the invidious repute that an
accusation of adultery had been made against the woman which, although
denied by her, could be true.

It's possible that Susanna was Rozala's baptismal name which she took to
using only when she was anticipating coronation as queen. But to me it
seems more likely that she adopted it not from the biblical Susanna at
all but instead from the Roman martyr of the same name (some whose
relics were kept at Ghent), who had been killed when she refused to
marry the son & heir of an emperor. Rozala may have wished to present
herself as the jilter of Hugo Capet's son Robert II rather than as
having been jilted by him. It's not certain that the pair ever met each
other, but a marriage was projected and she strove to keep hold of
Montreuil after gaining it for Flanders in the negotiation. She wasn't a
woman to be trifled with, and was known as Queen Susanna for the rest of
her life, including by Robert's son Henri I, even if there was never a
formal union between her and the young king.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
2021-06-01 04:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 01-Jun-21 8:25 AM, keri CA wrote:

<snip>
Post by keri CA
Vulgrin in these geni sites is often made a son of Rorico/Rorgo of Maine and
Bilichilde. Ademar [bk III 19] also says he was a relative [propinquum] of Charles the Bald.
Is propinquus always a blood relative? Or could he be this related through his wife
[whoever she was]?
Since we don't know for certain the family of Vulgrin's father (though
it is highly unlikely that he was Rorgo), and we don't know more about
his mother than that she was probably named Beletrudis (a different name
from Bilichildis), we can't tell how Ademar may have thought him related
to Charles the Bald. (By the way, Rorgo had an illegitimate son named
Louis, supposed by onomastics zealots to have been a sacrosanct dynastic
possession of Carolingian agnates in his time, by a daughter of
Charlemagne.)

Vulgrin evidently came from the highest circles of Frankish aristocracy.
His brother Hilduin was abbot of Saint-Martin de Tours, and king Eudes -
whose niece (very probably) Regilinde married Vulgrin's son - was later
lay abbot there as were his brother king Robert I and the latter's son
Hugo Magnus and grandson Hugo Capet.

'Propinquus' means close kinsman, rather than in-law, but how Vulgrin
may have been related to Charles (or indeed whether Ademar was right
about this) is open to guesswork if you have the inclination for it.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-31 00:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
I've just comes across an unexpectedly rash deduction from onomastics
by Léon Levillain in 1934, that was followed by André Debord in 1984
Levillain discussed the descendants of Ranulf, the first viscount of
Marcillac, a Frank appointed by Vulgrin I of Angoulême & Périgueux
whom he had accompanied into the region. Vulgrin was a brother of
abbot Hilduin, arch-chaplain to Charles the Bald, and his wife was a
sister of William Tolosanus.
Ademar of Chabannes in the earliest version of his chronicle (1025/28)
described Ranulf of Marcillac as a very loyal friend of Vulgrin, made
viscount by him ("amicum suum fidelissimum, nomine Ranulfum, fecitque
eum vicecomitem suum") who had three sons, Lambert, Arnald and Odalric
("Idemque Ranulfus habuit tres filios, Lambertum, Arnaldum atque
Odolricum"). No family connection is implied between Vulgrin and Ranulf.
In a subsequent version (1028) Ademar recounted that in 1018 the
eldest two sons of Ranulf were killed by Vulgrin's grandson Bernard of
Périgueux in revenge for their attempt to murder his sister Sancia
("occisi sunt a Bernardo, in ultionem Santie sororis sue quam occidere
conati sunt, Lambertus, vicecomes Martiliacensis et Arnaldus, frater
ejus").
There is no suggestion whatever here that Bernard and Sancia were
first cousins of Lambert and Arnald, but this relationship was posited
by Levillain on the shaky basis that Ranulf's third son Odalric (the
name of Vulgrin's father in Levillain's opinion) had sons named
Thierry and Alleaume, which he supposed must have come from the family
of Vulgrin's brother-in-law William Tolosanus, as well as
great-grandsons living in the early-11th century named William and
Hilduin. Levillain thought that this completed both ends of an
onomastic chain, proving that Ranulf's wife must have been a daughter
of abbot Hilduin's brother and William Tolosanus's brother-in-law,
Vulgrin ("Et voici qu'au bout de la chaîne nous avons les noms qui se
trouvaient à l'autre extrémité: ce qui prouve bien que Senegonde était
la petite-fille du comte alémanique Odolric, la fille de Vulgrin et la
nièce d'Hilduin de Saint-Denis et de Guillaume le Toulousain.")
Pish. The inconvenient names Lambert and Arnald that might spoil this
silly fantasy don't figure in the probative mix, of course, presumably
because Ranulf and his wife Senegonde must have had a premonition that
the onomastic legacy of their families would be carried on by their
third son.
I hadn't realised how persistent this nonsense has become.
The line of descent proposed by Levillain was tabulated by Christian
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1tho6B1mUGMC&pg=PA8
After the article from 1934 Levillain returned to the subject in 1938,
arguing at length for his identification of William 'Tolosanus' as the
elder son of Bernard of Septimania and Dhuoda, and for Ranulf of
Marcillac's wife Senegonde as his niece, daughter of William's sister
and Vulgrin I of Angoulême.
He wrote that he had undertaken extensive search into the family of
abbot Hilduin, finding the name Senegonde nowhere else but among his
brother Vulgrin's kindred ("Au cours des recherches très étendues
auxquelles nous nous sommes livré sur la famille du célèbre abbé de
Saint-Denis, nous n'avons jamais rencontré le nom de Senegonde ailleurs
que chez Vulgrin.") He is right that the name is rare in the 9th
century, but it can only be found in the family of Vulgrin if the
viscountess of Marcillac is placed there first, so his reasoning is
tightly circular. This is compounded by his failure to account for the
absence of the name Vulgrin in Senegonde's family, when she is
nonetheless supposed to have passed on names of collateral relatives of
her putative mother.
He claimed that William 'Tolosanus' must have been the son of Bernard
and Dhuoda born on 29 November 826, citing Dhoda herself for this
information, but failed to mention that she had gone on to tell William
that his younger brother Bernard had been born on 22 March 841 as the
second issue from her womb ("ex meo secundus post te ... egressus est
utero"). There is no reason to assume that Dhuoda was arbitrarily
omitting any daughter/s born between these two sons.
I received an email off-list questioning this, on the basis that it
could be taken to mean Bernard was the second child born after William
rather than the next child, leaving room for a daughter between the two
sons.

This interpretation is inadmissible for Dhuoda writing in the 840s with
no concept of zero in her mind. She definitely meant that William was
her firstborn child and after him her second was Bernard. A modern
understanding might count William as child 0 with another unmentioned as
ordinally the first after him and Bernard as the second, but by
9th-century counting practice William was child 1 and Bernard after him
the second-born. Dates were expressed in the same way, for instance the
first of June was "kalends iunii", 31st May was "pridie kalendas iunii"
sometimes written as "II kalendas iunii" (i.e. second, not first, before
the kalends of June) and 30 May was "III kalendas iunii" - the reference
point was counted as day 1, not a conceptual day 0.

Peter Stewart
Loading...