Discussion:
Pedro Komnenos on WikiTree (and Geni)
(too old to reply)
taf
2017-03-05 03:46:18 UTC
Permalink
We have been asked to point out mistakes on medieval WikiTree pages, so I bring you:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Comnenus-7

This represents quite an achievement, in that it contains precisely zero accurate genealogical or biographical facts. Not one. He was not a Komnenos, he was not Count of Toledo, he was not born 8 Aug. 1053 (or any other date in 1053), he was not born in Toledo, he was not son of Isaac Komnenos, he did not marry Jimena Núñez Bierzo, he was father of neither Melen Perez nor Suer Perez. Last but not least, he is not "30 degrees from Kevin Bacon, 30 degrees from Dorothy Coakley, 35 degrees from Virgil Grissom, 34 degrees from Ayn Rand and 27 degrees from Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms."

There is a very good reason for this. He is abject fiction.

I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.

On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-03-05 05:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Comnenus-7
This represents quite an achievement, in that it contains precisely zero accurate genealogical or biographical facts. Not one. He was not a Komnenos, he was not Count of Toledo, he was not born 8 Aug. 1053 (or any other date in 1053), he was not born in Toledo, he was not son of Isaac Komnenos, he did not marry Jimena Núñez Bierzo, he was father of neither Melen Perez nor Suer Perez. Last but not least, he is not "30 degrees from Kevin Bacon, 30 degrees from Dorothy Coakley, 35 degrees from Virgil Grissom, 34 degrees from Ayn Rand and 27 degrees from Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms."
There is a very good reason for this. He is abject fiction.
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
The source is "Travis Wagner, firsthand knowledge", so presumably either
Pedro is still alive (or was so within the memory of this individual
Wiki editor), or Travis Wagner has discovered the secret of time travel.

But are you sure he isn't just playing a variant of the game "Six
Degrees of Kevin Bacon"?

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-03-05 08:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Comnenus-7
Following up on this, the source provides two lines of descent from Pedro Komnenos. The line in the descent is the dividing line between fantasy and reality - everyone above the line is, more or less, invented.

Line 1:
1. Pedro Komnenos
2. Melen Perez Komnenos
3. Este Rodrigo Melendez Toledo
4. Garcia Rodriguez Toledo
5. Diego Garcia Toledo
6. Pedro Garcia Toledo
7. Juan Perez Toledo
8. Garcia Toledo
-----
9. Juan Garcia Toledo
10. Diego Garcia Toledo

Note the ridiculous use of Toledo as if it was a surname, rather than just the place they lived. Generation 9, Juan Garcia de Toledo was the first member of the family to routinely use a toponym (in Toledo, everyone is de Toledo, so they only began to call themselves that when they started to interact on a more national level and copied the usage of the other great families of the realm). Before that they just used name/patronymic. With his son Diego Garcia de Toledo, we see the first patronymic/toponymic combined surname in this family. Diego's father was Garcia de Toledo because he was son of a Garcia, and he was from Toledo. The son was Garcia de Toledo because his father was. It is not coincidental that generation 9, Juan Garcia de Toledo, is also the first person int he whole list who actually existed, unless you count Garcia Toledo in generation 8 - as I said, you know from the son's patronymic that his father was named Garcia, and was from Toledo, but this isn't really a person's name, just a placeholder.

Noteworthy cluelessness 1: "3. Esta Rodrigo Melendez Toledo" - Esta is the Spanish word for 'this' - someone has copied a sentence that began "This Rodrigo Melendez, and not realized that the first word was not part of the name. This is directly equivalent to the Anglian Collection Wessex extension that converts the heroic Scef into Sescef because they didn't recognize in Se Scef the Anglo-Saxon 'This Scef'.

Noteworthy cluelessness 2: "6. Pedro Garcia Toledo" as son of 5. Diego Garcia Toledo. At this time - indeed for another century, the Toledo gentry used strict patronymics. A Pedro Garcia, by definition, was son of a Garcia.

As I said though, generation 9 is the first in the list that hasn't been made up (and to be clear, I am not blaming the page compilers here - some of these people were made up by historian Salazar y Castro in the late 17th/early 18th century, or even his predecessors.

Line 2:
1. Pedro Komnenos
2. Suer Perez Toledo
3. Pedro Suarez Toledo
4. Gutierre Perez Toledo
5. Pedro Gutierrez Toledo
6. Fernan Perez Toledo
7. Pedro Fernandez de Toledo y Illan Illan
-----
8. Gomez Perez Palomeque
9. Fernan Gomez de Toledo
10. Pedro Suarez de Toledo and Gomez Perez de Toledo

Again with the surname silliness, only worse. Number 7 is called, in full, "Pedro Fernández (Toledo) de Toledo Y Illan Illán formerly Toledo aka de Toledo". I won't dwell on this, because he didn't exist anyhow. Generation 8 is the first one here who actually existed, unless you want to pluck generation 3 out from above, since that was the name of the true father of 8. Gomez Perez (not Palomeque). Someone has taken the modern convention of linking the father's and mother's surnames to form a dual surname and apply it to a period when they didn't use surnames at all, then got confused and thought that the (apocryphal) maternal surname, Palomeque, was actually the sole one. In reality, there is no evidence he used anything but his patronymic - he was simply Gomez Perez. Likewise his son Fernan Perez has not been found with a toponymic.

taf
Andrew Lancaster
2017-03-05 09:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Thanks taf and Peter. These types of profiles are often awful. I will at least start by posting a link to this discussion. As I have mentioned before, I think wikitree is slowly improving in areas where it has well organized projects like the Magna Carta project. For pedigrees outside Britain and pre Magna Carta I think there are some areas of better work but I am not so familiar with them.
taf
2017-03-05 10:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
I will at least start by posting a link to this discussion.
I realize that not everyone will be able to see these, but the following links take me to tables that show the correct patrilineal ancestry of those I marked as the earliest authentic ancestors in the two lines. In each case the person in question is in the lower left of the pedigree.


Line 1: Juan Garcia de Toledo

https://books.google.com/books?id=nOeSqv7SM2AC&q=imram#v=snippet&q=imram&f=false


Line 2: Gomez Perez (not Palomeque)

https://books.google.com/books?id=nOeSqv7SM2AC&q=Pedro+suarez+asbag#v=snippet&q=Pedro%20suarez%20asbag&f=false

Note the paucity of wives - sometimes this a quirk of the tables, but more often it is a reflection of our (lack of) knowledge. In some cases both 'Castilian' and Mozarab forms of the names are given, e.g. Suer Meléndez / Suero b. Melendo b. Lampader - here the first simply means Suer son of Melendo, while the second starts the same but then gets a little tricky. The 'b.' is an abbreviation of the Arabic word for 'son of' (بن), and should be spelled out in full as either 'ben' or 'ibn' in any database entries. Literally, then, Suero ben Melendo ben Lampader means Suero son of Melendo son of Lampader. However, in this form the last takes on an alternative meaning, identifying an ancient family founder, and thus the full name could be represented somewhat whimsically as Suero, son of Melendo of the clan Lampader.

taf
taf
2017-03-05 18:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
I realize that not everyone will be able to see these, but
the following links take me to tables that show the correct
patrilineal ancestry of those I marked as the earliest
authentic ancestors in the two lines. In each case the
person in question is in the lower left of the pedigree.
Looking at the archive, I see that I have never spelled out these lines here, so for the benefit of those who can't see the pages I listed:

Line 1: Banu Lampader (بنوانبظار, the descendants of Lampader [literally Lanbathar, with the 'th' of father])

1. 'Attaf ibn Lampader - known only from the patronymic string of his grandson, Pedro ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Attaf ibn Lampader. It is unknown if he was literally son of Lampader, or if the latter was a more distant ancestor.

2. Abu l'Asbag 'Abd al'Aziz ibn Lampader (ابو الاصبغ عبد العزيز بن لنبظار), his name consists of two nickname forms and it is unclear if he was given these forms as his proper name, or if they were simply two nicknames. Abu l'Asbag means (as best I have been able to find) 'father of the flood', while Abd al-Aziz means 'servant of the Almighty' (i.e. of God). Late in life he appears as Pedro Suarez. Again, it is unclear if at least the name Pedro was his true name from birth, or if it all represents an attempt to assimilate to the onomastics of the non-Mozarab Castilian nobility. He was alguacil alcalde (a civic office) in 1129, and still living in 1146. He married Dominga.

3. Melendo ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Lampader, married twice: 1) a sister of Esteban Illan; 2) Maria Peláez, daughter of Pelayo Pérez de Fromista

4. Suer Meléndez (Suero ibn Melendo ibn Lampader), alguacil (another civic office)

5. Pedro Suárez, alguacil, d. 1255

6. Gómez Pérez, alguacil, d. 1295, m. Orabona - he was #9 in the Wikitree account.


Line 2: which for want of a better name could be called the Banu 'Imram, although I have found no source to have done so, and later came to use the surname 'García de Toledo'

1. 'Imram (عمران), alguacil alcaide, 1115

2. Esteban ibn 'Imram (Esteban Hambrán), alguacil, m. Dominga Ponce, daughter of Ponce Pétrez, son of alcaide Pierre of Toulouse and Maria. THeir sons took the mother's or maternal grandfather's patronymics.

3. Juan Ponce (sometime Juán Pérez), alguacil alcalde, d. April 1213

4. García Yuannes, alguacil alcalde, married twice: 1) María; 2) María Álvarez

5. Juan García (de Toledo), portero mayor. (According to Molenat, he was father, by Ines Alfonso, of Diego García de Toledo. I have discussed the alternative parentage of Diego before, and it can be found in the archive. Briefly, Rodriguez Marquina has him as son of García Meléndez, who was husband of Ines. García Meléndez in turn was son of Urraca García, sister of Juan García, and of Melendo Suárez, brother of Pedro Suárez [#5 above])

taf
taf
2017-03-05 23:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Line 1: Banu Lampader (بنوانبظار, the descendants of Lampader [literally
Lanbathar, with the 'th' of father])
3. Melendo ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Lampader, married twice: 1) a sister
of Esteban Illan; 2) Maria Peláez, daughter of Pelayo Pérez de Fromista
Molenat writes of Pelay Perez de Fromista that his only descendants are the Beni Lampader of Toledo, suggesting Maria was mother of at least some of his children.
Post by taf
6. Gómez Pérez, alguacil, d. 1295, m. Orabona - he was #9 in the Wikitree account.
I find in a footnote that there is claimed to have been a charter in Arabic, apparently since lost, in which Gutierre Armildez and his wife Mayor Fernandez make a grant to their daughter Orabuena, wife of Gomez Perez. There is a tradition that these families are related somehow, and this would be chronologically sound.
Post by taf
Line 2: which for want of a better name could be called the Banu 'Imram,
although I have found no source to have done so
And having said this, I then find Molenat using Beni 'Imran as a section heading. Note - it is 'ImraN in the text, 'ImraM in the table. The former matches the Arabic better, and also the Hambran bastardization.
Post by taf
5. Juan García (de Toledo), portero mayor. (According to Molenat,
he was father, by Ines Alfonso, of Diego García de Toledo. I have
discussed the alternative parentage of Diego before, and it can be
found in the archive. Briefly, Rodriguez Marquina has him as son of
García Meléndez, who was husband of Ines. García Meléndez in turn
was son of Urraca García, sister of Juan García, and of Melendo
Suárez, brother of Pedro Suárez [#5 above])
More on this - there is no document that names the father or any siblings of Diego Garcia. However, his is explicitly names as son by Ines Alfonso. Gonzalo Melendez states explicitly that neither his brother Garcia Melendez nor his uncle Juan Garcia had _legitiate_ children. This also has ramifications for the claims that the (so-called by later tradition) Garcia Melendez de Sotomayor, father-in-law of Fernan Perez Barroso, is identical to this Garcia Melendez of the Banu Lampader. I am going to have to go back over some things to seek clarity.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-03-05 11:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Thanks taf and Peter. These types of profiles are often awful. I will at least start by posting a link to this discussion. As I have mentioned before, I think wikitree is slowly improving in areas where it has well organized projects like the Magna Carta project. For pedigrees outside Britain and pre Magna Carta I think there are some areas of better work but I am not so familiar with them.
In this case, and I suspect in many others like it, there is probably at
least as much malicious fun (or feebly attempted satire) at work as
plain ignorance. It's hard to believe that anyone foolish enough to be
taken in by such crude genealogical fiction in the first place would
then go on to think, "O yes, I should take to Wiki and share this
precious information that the rest of the world doesn't yet know about".
If they didn't make it up themselves, then surely wherever they found it
would be cited instead of absurdly claiming "firsthand knowledge".
Phrases like that should set up red flags instantly.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2017-03-05 14:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
In this case, and I suspect in many others like it, there is probably at
least as much malicious fun (or feebly attempted satire) at work as
plain ignorance. It's hard to believe that anyone foolish enough to be
taken in by such crude genealogical fiction in the first place would
then go on to think, "O yes, I should take to Wiki and share this
precious information that the rest of the world doesn't yet know about".
If they didn't make it up themselves, then surely wherever they found it
would be cited instead of absurdly claiming "firsthand knowledge".
Phrases like that should set up red flags instantly.
Well I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that, people on the internet really are like that. The good, slightly good, news is that the firsthand knowledge wording comes from software. These profiles will come from the early days of wikitree when people were allowed to upload massive gedcoms still, and these words were often added when the software could not see any other source.

Basically that algorithm in turn comes from good intentions: Wikitree wanted people to see those strange words and realize everything needs a source, and if you add no other party then you are the source, which looks unconvincing to the point of funny.
Peter Stewart
2017-03-05 21:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
In this case, and I suspect in many others like it, there is probably at
least as much malicious fun (or feebly attempted satire) at work as
plain ignorance. It's hard to believe that anyone foolish enough to be
taken in by such crude genealogical fiction in the first place would
then go on to think, "O yes, I should take to Wiki and share this
precious information that the rest of the world doesn't yet know about".
If they didn't make it up themselves, then surely wherever they found it
would be cited instead of absurdly claiming "firsthand knowledge".
Phrases like that should set up red flags instantly.
Well I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that, people on the internet really are like that. The good, slightly good, news is that the firsthand knowledge wording comes from software. These profiles will come from the early days of wikitree when people were allowed to upload massive gedcoms still, and these words were often added when the software could not see any other source.
Basically that algorithm in turn comes from good intentions: Wikitree wanted people to see those strange words and realize everything needs a source, and if you add no other party then you are the source, which looks unconvincing to the point of funny.
Not necessarily, but of course there are limits. Medieval events are
obviously well outside those limits.

For instance, someone reasonably might assert that their
great-grandfather was born in 1830, referencing firsthand knowledge.
That would seem preposterous to some, but what if the writer was in his
or her 90s and personally attended that great-grandfather's 100th
birthday party in 1930?

What beats common sense is that Wiki functionaries might believe "people
on the internet really are like that" and yet at the same time that they
will "see those strange words and realize everything needs a source". If
people are dumb enough for the first, why wouldn't they be too stupid
for the second?

Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
2017-03-05 22:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Basically that algorithm in turn comes from good intentions: Wikitree wanted people to see those strange words and realize everything needs a source, and if you add no other party then you are the source, which looks unconvincing to the point of funny.
Good intentions maybe but not good thinking. "Citation needed" or
"unverified" would have served equally well with the advantage of being
true.
--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
Andrew Lancaster
2017-03-06 09:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Goddard
Good intentions maybe but not good thinking. "Citation needed" or
"unverified" would have served equally well with the advantage of being
true.
I agree. Wikitree certainly has quirks. Probably the one which grates medieval genealogy the most is the surname (or more specifically the "last name at birth") policy, which is supposedly needed for better searching. On the other hand projects using more conventional wiki software, which does not demand such quirks, has failed to get the public involvement that Wikitree has. I think many of the quirks were designed with a cunning eye towards human nature, and with the main focus being upon getting people involved who are mainly only going to work on recent generations.

The trend has therefore been that rules have been changed bit by bit for pre 1500 and pre 1700 profiles, and it will be interesting to see how far that is allowed to go.
Stewart Baldwin
2017-03-05 17:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Thanks taf and Peter. These types of profiles are often awful. I will
at least start by posting a link to this discussion. As I have
mentioned before, I think wikitree is slowly improving in areas where
it has well organized projects like the Magna Carta project. For
pedigrees outside Britain and pre Magna Carta I think there are some
areas of better work but I am not so familiar with them.
In this case, and I suspect in many others like it, there is probably
at least as much malicious fun (or feebly attempted satire) at work as
plain ignorance. It's hard to believe that anyone foolish enough to be
taken in by such crude genealogical fiction in the first place would
then go on to think, "O yes, I should take to Wiki and share this
precious information that the rest of the world doesn't yet know
about". If they didn't make it up themselves, then surely wherever
they found it would be cited instead of absurdly claiming "firsthand
knowledge". Phrases like that should set up red flags instantly.
I have seen "firsthand knowledge" or "personal knowledge" cited as a
"source" on Wikitree on quite a few occasions where the information is
centuries before the birth of the person providing it. I don't think
that it necessarily means that the information was invented. Rather,
those using this "source" seem to be using it as a euphemism for
something along the lines of "I have no idea what the source is and I am
too lazy (or too incompetent) to check for myself." If the owners of
Wikitree were really serious about improving the quality of their
product, they would revoke the "project manager" status of anyone using
such a phony "source."

Stewart Baldwin
Richard Smith
2017-03-05 20:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stewart Baldwin
I have seen "firsthand knowledge" or "personal knowledge" cited as a
"source" on Wikitree on quite a few occasions where the information is
centuries before the birth of the person providing it.
I forget the precise details, but in at least some circumstances it was
the case that if you failed to supply a source for something a citation
of that form was supplied automatically.

Richard
Stewart Baldwin
2017-03-05 19:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stewart Baldwin
I have seen "firsthand knowledge" or "personal knowledge" cited as a
"source" on Wikitree on quite a few occasions where the information is
centuries before the birth of the person providing it. I don't think
that it necessarily means that the information was invented. Rather,
those using this "source" seem to be using it as a euphemism for
something along the lines of "I have no idea what the source is and I
am too lazy (or too incompetent) to check for myself." If the owners
of Wikitree were really serious about improving the quality of their
product, they would revoke the "project manager" status of anyone
using such a phony "source."
I wrote this before reading Andrew's explanation that this "source" was
often generated automatically by software. If the people who thought
that automatically inserting phony sources (however comical) was a good
idea are still calling the shots at Wikitree, it is hard to see how much
progress could be made on the stated goal of improving quality.

Stewart Baldwin
wjhonson
2017-03-06 18:44:51 UTC
Permalink
I really cannot see how Wikitree can *ever* overcome the nonsense with which it started. There are so many entries that are bad.

The sole reason that Wikipedia has been able to fix most of its content is that it has thousands of editors and tens of thousands of viewers every day. Perhaps more. I haven't looked in a while.

Genealogy on the other hand is a specialist sport when it comes to this time period.

Wikitree would have been far better served to have *not allowed* *any* entries in this time period at all.
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
2017-03-07 00:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Todd, Peter, Stewart et al,

There are some culprits for Pedro. The most recent one are the Garcia Carafa brothers, who showed him as it is shown on the wiki tree. The thing started with Salazar y Castro, who, if IIRC, shows exactly the same. So, it's quite a long standing fiction.
taf
2017-03-07 01:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.L. Fernandez Blanco
There are some culprits for Pedro. The most recent one are the Garcia
Carafa brothers, who showed him as it is shown on the wiki tree. The
thing started with Salazar y Castro, who, if IIRC, shows exactly the
same. So, it's quite a long standing fiction.
It was Salazar y Castro I was thinking of - I knew he traced all of the 'de Toledo' families back to Pedro, son of a Byzantine emperor, but I don't think he made him explicitly a Komnenos. I also knew there had to be another source, because SyC presented it in chart form, and the 'Este Rodrigo Menendez' had to have come from a prose presentation.

The good news is that this Iberian faux-genealogical material is beyond the capabilities of most genealogists, and so it doesn't get copied about as much as some of the English-language material that Round disproved in the 19th century but still is in circulation.

taf
taf
2017-03-07 01:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by J.L. Fernandez Blanco
There are some culprits for Pedro. The most recent one are the Garcia
Carafa brothers, who showed him as it is shown on the wiki tree. The
thing started with Salazar y Castro, who, if IIRC, shows exactly the
same. So, it's quite a long standing fiction.
It was Salazar y Castro I was thinking of - I knew he traced all of the
'de Toledo' families back to Pedro, son of a Byzantine emperor, but I
don't think he made him explicitly a Komnenos.
I'm wrong here. What he says (Glorias de la Casa de Farnese, p. 587) is that he was living in 1088 and took par in the conquest of Toledo, and that (I can't read the next bit due to a poor-quality copy, but it looks like Salazar y Castro is hedging a little bit, with something like, 'there are signs that') he was a Greek prince, born 8 April 1033 (this is hard to read in the copy I saw, and apparently was misread as 1053 by the abstractor - that or I am misreading it, but the marriage date suggests otherwise), son of Isaac Komnenos, Caesar, and grandson of Emperor Isaac. He then gives his marriage to Ximena Nunez taking place in 1057.

In the Garcia de Toledo line, Salazar y Castro does not have language that would have led to 'Este Rodrigo'. The later part of the pedigree deviates from Salazar y Castro's, directly or indirectly, but some where along the line there has been an added a generation due to sloppy copying.

As a reminder, out Wikitree has:

4. Garcia Rodriguez Toledo
5. Diego Garcia Toledo
6. Pedro Garcia Toledo
7. Juan Perez Toledo
8. Garcia Toledo
9. Juan Garcia Toledo

SyC has:
4. Garcia Rodriguez
5. Diego Garcia and Pedro Garcia (brothers)
6. Juan Perez, son of Pedro Garcia
7. Garcia Yvanez
8. Juan Garcia

The second line is identical to Salazar y Castro, except for the crazy surnames.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-03-07 03:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
Post by J.L. Fernandez Blanco
There are some culprits for Pedro. The most recent one are the Garcia
Carafa brothers, who showed him as it is shown on the wiki tree. The
thing started with Salazar y Castro, who, if IIRC, shows exactly the
same. So, it's quite a long standing fiction.
It was Salazar y Castro I was thinking of - I knew he traced all of the
'de Toledo' families back to Pedro, son of a Byzantine emperor, but I
don't think he made him explicitly a Komnenos.
I'm wrong here. What he says (Glorias de la Casa de Farnese, p. 587) is that he was living in 1088 and took par in the conquest of Toledo, and that (I can't read the next bit due to a poor-quality copy, but it looks like Salazar y Castro is hedging a little bit, with something like, 'there are signs that') he was a Greek prince, born 8 April 1033 (this is hard to read in the copy I saw, and apparently was misread as 1053 by the abstractor - that or I am misreading it, but the marriage date suggests otherwise), son of Isaac Komnenos, Caesar, and grandson of Emperor Isaac. He then gives his marriage to Ximena Nunez taking place in 1057.
1053 is not a mistake by the abstractor - see the legible copy here
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10328303_00615.html.

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-03-07 12:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
he was a Greek prince, born 8 April 1033 (this is hard to read
in the copy I saw, and apparently was misread as 1053 by the
abstractor - that or I am misreading it, but the marriage date
suggests otherwise), son of Isaac Komnenos, Caesar, and grandson
of Emperor Isaac. He then gives his marriage to Ximena Nunez
taking place in 1057.
1053 is not a mistake by the abstractor - see the legible copy here
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10328303_00615.html.
Ah, thanks. I see my mistake now. The date 1057 associates with the previous sentence, as that of Isaac Komnenos' succession and not with the subsequent sentence describing the marriage of his 'grandson'.

The historical Komnenos had no son Isaac, but why quibble over minor details like that.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-03-07 22:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
he was a Greek prince, born 8 April 1033 (this is hard to read
in the copy I saw, and apparently was misread as 1053 by the
abstractor - that or I am misreading it, but the marriage date
suggests otherwise), son of Isaac Komnenos, Caesar, and grandson
of Emperor Isaac. He then gives his marriage to Ximena Nunez
taking place in 1057.
1053 is not a mistake by the abstractor - see the legible copy here
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10328303_00615.html.
Ah, thanks. I see my mistake now. The date 1057 associates with the previous sentence, as that of Isaac Komnenos' succession and not with the subsequent sentence describing the marriage of his 'grandson'.
The historical Komnenos had no son Isaac, but why quibble over minor details like that.
This is a glaring point - Byzantine people did not give a father's name
to a son so that two Isaacs in succession should be a red flag straight
away. And for that matter, Petros was a most unusual name for a
Byzantine aristocrat - this was more often taken as a name in religion
rather than given at birth.

Isaac I perhaps had a son, named Manuel, who had died before he took the
throne in 1057. But even this is not certain, since Manuel the son of
Komnenos was said to be aged 20 when breaking a marriage contract in the
1030s whereas Isaak was still underage when his own father Manuel died,
probably in the early 1020s. Apart from that, we only know of one child,
a daughter named Maria who became a nun with her mother Aikaterine after
Isaac was deposed in 1059.

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-03-07 22:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
This is a glaring point - Byzantine people did not give a father's name
to a son so that two Isaacs in succession should be a red flag straight
away. And for that matter, Petros was a most unusual name for a
Byzantine aristocrat - this was more often taken as a name in religion
rather than given at birth.
I never even looked into it. They idea that the son of a prominent Byzantine family would turn up in as head of every family in Mozarab Toledo who used the toponymic 'de Toledo' was ridiculous enough for me to dismiss it out of hand.

taf
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
2017-03-07 22:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
This is a glaring point - Byzantine people did not give a father's name
to a son so that two Isaacs in succession should be a red flag straight
away. And for that matter, Petros was a most unusual name for a
Byzantine aristocrat - this was more often taken as a name in religion
rather than given at birth.
I never even looked into it. They idea that the son of a prominent Byzantine family would turn up in as head of every family in Mozarab Toledo who used the toponymic 'de Toledo' was ridiculous enough for me to dismiss it out of hand.
taf
Besides laughing my head off, I couldn't agree more! The problem with this BS still around 4 centuries later is that there are way too many people who prefer to believe in these ludicrous claims than in more modern research that has disproved those origins...although some of them still have mistakes. Nowadays, the tendency among Spanish genealogists is to begin with the lines that are documented, without making any assumption (beyond the Mozarab origin) as to who founded these lineages--which is another point, as SyC made of, IIRC, 3 or 4 different families just one.
taf
2017-03-07 23:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Nowadays, the tendency among Spanish genealogists is to begin with the
lines that are documented, without making any assumption (beyond the
Mozarab origin) as to who founded these lineages--which is another point,
as SyC made of, IIRC, 3 or 4 different families just one.
Actually five - he had four different sons of Pedro: 1) Illan Perez, an actual historical individual, though historically the so of a Pedro Illan, the ancestor of the Alvarez de Toledo; 2) Lampader Perez, invented to be ancestor of the Beni Lampader, whom he made father of Melendo Lampader, the historical Melendo ibn Abu l'Asbag, and he then follows the actual correct pedigree down to the Gonzalo Menendez (maternal nephew of Juan Garcia) I have mentioned in this thread; 3) Melen Perez, made ancestor of the Garcia de Toledo as we have discussed - they actually were Beni Imran; 4) Suer Perez, made to be ancestor through two different sons of Gomez Perez (actually a descendant of the man he called Melendo Lampader) and of the Lords of Orgaz, who were yet again a completely different Mozarab family, the Beni 'Abd Al-Malik.

Iberia is not alone in the 'connect the dots' school of genealogy that assumes every noble family must link together if you go back far enough. SyC started with the assumption that everyone named de Toledo must have been related. Some of the more recent scholars do the same thing with given names - I can't get over that someone proposed a Pamplona count was a descendant of the Banu Qasi because his family used the names Lupe and Fortun, names found in the Banu Qasi, completely ignoring that these are names found throughout the entire social spectrum of Pamplona, being among the 10 most popular names in medieval charters from the kingdom.

taf
taf
2017-03-09 20:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Besides laughing my head off, . . .
Speaking of which, I just came across a web page arguing that Lampader is none other than a representation of the eponym of several Welsh place names, Llan Pedr - St. Peter.

Though used in the names of places dedicated to saints, 'Llan' doesn't really mean 'saint', but rather derives from the same Indo-European origin as 'lawn' and 'land'. Thus, rather than being descendants of St. Peter, this Mozarab family would have descended from Peterslawn, a much less well know Apostle. But this is a minor quibble.

taf
Richard Carruthers
2017-03-09 21:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Besides laughing my head off, . . .
Speaking of which, I just came across a web page arguing that Lampader is
none other than a representation of the eponym of several Welsh place names,
Llan Pedr - St. Peter.
Though used in the names of places dedicated to saints, 'Llan' doesn't
really mean 'saint', but rather derives from the same Indo-European origin
as 'lawn' and 'land'. Thus, rather than being descendants of St. Peter,
this Mozarab family would have descended from Peterslawn, a much less well
know Apostle. But this is a minor quibble.
taf
But "Peter's lawn" of course refers to the sainted Apostle's dual role
as the first Bishop.;)

Richard
Nicole Forsgren
2017-03-09 23:39:36 UTC
Permalink
I know this isn't about the particular profile. I did notice mention of Geni. Out of curiosity, how accurate are the Master Profiles (MP) on the site?
Post by taf
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Comnenus-7
This represents quite an achievement, in that it contains precisely zero accurate genealogical or biographical facts. Not one. He was not a Komnenos, he was not Count of Toledo, he was not born 8 Aug. 1053 (or any other date in 1053), he was not born in Toledo, he was not son of Isaac Komnenos, he did not marry Jimena Núñez Bierzo, he was father of neither Melen Perez nor Suer Perez. Last but not least, he is not "30 degrees from Kevin Bacon, 30 degrees from Dorothy Coakley, 35 degrees from Virgil Grissom, 34 degrees from Ayn Rand and 27 degrees from Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms."
There is a very good reason for this. He is abject fiction.
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
taf
wjhonson
2017-03-10 16:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Geni has the same and worse errors.
d***@hotmail.com
2019-11-29 21:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Comnenus-7
This represents quite an achievement, in that it contains precisely zero accurate genealogical or biographical facts. Not one. He was not a Komnenos, he was not Count of Toledo, he was not born 8 Aug. 1053 (or any other date in 1053), he was not born in Toledo, he was not son of Isaac Komnenos, he did not marry Jimena Núñez Bierzo, he was father of neither Melen Perez nor Suer Perez. Last but not least, he is not "30 degrees from Kevin Bacon, 30 degrees from Dorothy Coakley, 35 degrees from Virgil Grissom, 34 degrees from Ayn Rand and 27 degrees from Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms."
There is a very good reason for this. He is abject fiction.
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
taf
d***@hotmail.com
2019-11-29 21:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Comnenus-7
This represents quite an achievement, in that it contains precisely zero accurate genealogical or biographical facts. Not one. He was not a Komnenos, he was not Count of Toledo, he was not born 8 Aug. 1053 (or any other date in 1053), he was not born in Toledo, he was not son of Isaac Komnenos, he did not marry Jimena Núñez Bierzo, he was father of neither Melen Perez nor Suer Perez. Last but not least, he is not "30 degrees from Kevin Bacon, 30 degrees from Dorothy Coakley, 35 degrees from Virgil Grissom, 34 degrees from Ayn Rand and 27 degrees from Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms."
There is a very good reason for this. He is abject fiction.
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
taf
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is altogether incorrect. I have noted these people listed elsewhere, with citations to Andre de Moura's book "30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris". It is certainly possible that this is a work of fiction, or may not exist. Still, it is a far more likely source that "personal knowledge". Also, I concur with the notion that "de Toledo" was not actually part of the name other than that in many medieval writings the birthplace of place of residence was noted. At some point in France "de" became a mark of nobility, but still noted the place of the family home.
Peter Stewart
2019-11-29 21:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by taf
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Comnenus-7
This represents quite an achievement, in that it contains precisely zero accurate genealogical or biographical facts. Not one. He was not a Komnenos, he was not Count of Toledo, he was not born 8 Aug. 1053 (or any other date in 1053), he was not born in Toledo, he was not son of Isaac Komnenos, he did not marry Jimena Núñez Bierzo, he was father of neither Melen Perez nor Suer Perez. Last but not least, he is not "30 degrees from Kevin Bacon, 30 degrees from Dorothy Coakley, 35 degrees from Virgil Grissom, 34 degrees from Ayn Rand and 27 degrees from Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms."
There is a very good reason for this. He is abject fiction.
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
taf
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is altogether incorrect.
"Personal knowledge" of someone allegedly born in the mid-11th century
may be within John Schmeeckle's purview, but it is not a credible
authority for anyone with a smattering of common sense.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
I have noted these people listed elsewhere, with citations to Andre de Moura's book "30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris". It is certainly possible that this is a work of fiction, or may not exist. Still, it is a far more likely source that "personal knowledge".
If the work does not exist, then "personal imagination" might be a
correct citation but "knowledge" doesn't enter into it. If it exists as
a work of fiction, then "personal" is just another falsehood.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Also, I concur with the notion that "de Toledo" was not actually part of the name other than that in many medieval writings the birthplace of place of residence was noted. At some point in France "de" became a mark of nobility, but still noted the place of the family home.
This is like saying "O, she must have been a real princess because she
wore a tiara".

Peter Stewart
Richard Smith
2019-11-30 14:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@hotmail.com
I have noted these people listed elsewhere, with citations to Andre
de Moura's book "30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris". It is
certainly possible that this is a work of fiction, or may not
exist. Still, it is a far more likely source that "personal
knowledge".
If the work does not exist, then "personal imagination" might be a
correct citation but "knowledge" doesn't enter into it. If it exists
as a work of fiction, then "personal" is just another falsehood.
I think this case is likely to be more dull. Some time ago – maybe five
years or so – WikiTree would supply "personal knowledge" as the default
source if you entered data without supplying another source. I forget
whether this happened with all data, or just in some particular
situation, but it means that you do occasionally find otherwise
reasonable pages on WikiTree with this silly citation, because one
particular detail was not sourced. Quite why they didn't make the
default a "citation needed" warning, instead, I don't know. And I make
no comment on the accuracy of this particular page.

Richard
Peter Stewart
2019-11-30 22:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@hotmail.com
I have noted these people listed elsewhere, with citations to Andre
de Moura's book "30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris".  It is
certainly possible that this is a work of fiction, or may not
exist. Still, it is a far more likely source that "personal
knowledge".
If the work does not exist, then "personal imagination" might be a
correct citation but "knowledge" doesn't enter into it. If it exists
as a work of fiction, then "personal" is just another falsehood.
I think this case is likely to be more dull.  Some time ago – maybe five
years or so – WikiTree would supply "personal knowledge" as the default
source if you entered data without supplying another source.  I forget
whether this happened with all data, or just in some particular
situation, but it means that you do occasionally find otherwise
reasonable pages on WikiTree with this silly citation, because one
particular detail was not sourced.  Quite why they didn't make the
default a "citation needed" warning, instead, I don't know.   And I make
no comment on the accuracy of this particular page.
I'm not sure how this dulls the suggested offense of using a book titled
"30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris" and not citing it properly.

Anyway, I would question the cerebral integrity of someone who would use
WikiTree in the first place if it imposed such a moronic citation when
none had been given by the writer.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-12-02 18:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@hotmail.com
I have noted these people listed elsewhere, with citations to Andre
de Moura's book "30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris".  It is
certainly possible that this is a work of fiction, or may not
exist. Still, it is a far more likely source that "personal
knowledge".
If the work does not exist, then "personal imagination" might be a
correct citation but "knowledge" doesn't enter into it. If it exists
as a work of fiction, then "personal" is just another falsehood.
I think this case is likely to be more dull.  Some time ago – maybe five
years or so – WikiTree would supply "personal knowledge" as the default
source if you entered data without supplying another source.  I forget
whether this happened with all data, or just in some particular
situation, but it means that you do occasionally find otherwise
reasonable pages on WikiTree with this silly citation, because one
particular detail was not sourced.  Quite why they didn't make the
default a "citation needed" warning, instead, I don't know.   And I make
no comment on the accuracy of this particular page.
I'm not sure how this dulls the suggested offense of using a book titled
"30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris" and not citing it properly.
Anyway, I would question the cerebral integrity of someone who would use
WikiTree in the first place if it imposed such a moronic citation when
none had been given by the writer.
Peter Stewart
Yes, we probably all should have our sanity questioned regularly, but at least concerning this particular insanity, things improved quite long ago. Don't worry: there are many insane things still on Wikitree.

Perhaps it is best to see Wikitree as a point on a path to somewhere? I say hopefully...

Learning, as they say, requires making mistakes. I understand this is even true of AI in a sense.
Peter Stewart
2019-12-02 22:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@hotmail.com
I have noted these people listed elsewhere, with citations to Andre
de Moura's book "30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris".  It is
certainly possible that this is a work of fiction, or may not
exist. Still, it is a far more likely source that "personal
knowledge".
If the work does not exist, then "personal imagination" might be a
correct citation but "knowledge" doesn't enter into it. If it exists
as a work of fiction, then "personal" is just another falsehood.
I think this case is likely to be more dull.  Some time ago – maybe five
years or so – WikiTree would supply "personal knowledge" as the default
source if you entered data without supplying another source.  I forget
whether this happened with all data, or just in some particular
situation, but it means that you do occasionally find otherwise
reasonable pages on WikiTree with this silly citation, because one
particular detail was not sourced.  Quite why they didn't make the
default a "citation needed" warning, instead, I don't know.   And I make
no comment on the accuracy of this particular page.
I'm not sure how this dulls the suggested offense of using a book titled
"30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris" and not citing it properly.
Anyway, I would question the cerebral integrity of someone who would use
WikiTree in the first place if it imposed such a moronic citation when
none had been given by the writer.
Peter Stewart
Yes, we probably all should have our sanity questioned regularly, but at least concerning this particular insanity, things improved quite long ago. Don't worry: there are many insane things still on Wikitree.
Perhaps it is best to see Wikitree as a point on a path to somewhere? I say hopefully...
Learning, as they say, requires making mistakes. I understand this is even true of AI in a sense.
I wonder what AI in time will do for (or to) medieval genealogy. And if
analysis of sources should be left to computer processing, however
sophisticated, what will have been done for (or to) the capacities of
human recipients in the field.

Until recently I thought that students of medieval history were coming
to be drastically under-prepared, as many of them nowadays are unable or
unwilling to read sources in the language of the writers. But the
discovery that researchers over centuries, myself included, have botched
the parentage of a figure as notable as Elisabeth de Courtenay through
failing to find relevant sources or to verify exactly what these say has
shaken my confidence that these tasks are always best left to people
rather than entrusted to machines.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-12-03 09:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@hotmail.com
I have noted these people listed elsewhere, with citations to Andre
de Moura's book "30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris".  It is
certainly possible that this is a work of fiction, or may not
exist. Still, it is a far more likely source that "personal
knowledge".
If the work does not exist, then "personal imagination" might be a
correct citation but "knowledge" doesn't enter into it. If it exists
as a work of fiction, then "personal" is just another falsehood.
I think this case is likely to be more dull.  Some time ago – maybe five
years or so – WikiTree would supply "personal knowledge" as the default
source if you entered data without supplying another source.  I forget
whether this happened with all data, or just in some particular
situation, but it means that you do occasionally find otherwise
reasonable pages on WikiTree with this silly citation, because one
particular detail was not sourced.  Quite why they didn't make the
default a "citation needed" warning, instead, I don't know.   And I make
no comment on the accuracy of this particular page.
I'm not sure how this dulls the suggested offense of using a book titled
"30000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris" and not citing it properly.
Anyway, I would question the cerebral integrity of someone who would use
WikiTree in the first place if it imposed such a moronic citation when
none had been given by the writer.
Peter Stewart
Yes, we probably all should have our sanity questioned regularly, but at least concerning this particular insanity, things improved quite long ago. Don't worry: there are many insane things still on Wikitree.
Perhaps it is best to see Wikitree as a point on a path to somewhere? I say hopefully...
Learning, as they say, requires making mistakes. I understand this is even true of AI in a sense.
I wonder what AI in time will do for (or to) medieval genealogy. And if
analysis of sources should be left to computer processing, however
sophisticated, what will have been done for (or to) the capacities of
human recipients in the field.
Until recently I thought that students of medieval history were coming
to be drastically under-prepared, as many of them nowadays are unable or
unwilling to read sources in the language of the writers. But the
discovery that researchers over centuries, myself included, have botched
the parentage of a figure as notable as Elisabeth de Courtenay through
failing to find relevant sources or to verify exactly what these say has
shaken my confidence that these tasks are always best left to people
rather than entrusted to machines.
Peter Stewart
I find it a philosophically interesting problem. In the original arguments of Bacon for modern science he pointed to the fact that people are not really always naturally drawn to the truth, because they actually like some types of lies. (A shocking Copernican moment which no longer seems shocking.)

Genealogy is a great subject for someone interested in the challenges of scientific methodology because it seems to be full of cases where people find it difficult to be neutral. AI needs programming and training by humans so the original concern of Bacon remains relevant, which was to try to design methods that could give neutral answers. The simplest case of such a method is maybe the blind test. For example if you remove the names of people we are studying from the evidence we are looking at do we still come to the same answer?

AI should eventually be able to help do such blind tests. An algorithm will never jump past the option, once taught, that nepos can mean cousin for example, whereas we sometimes do, especially when we can see how handy it would be for making a tree bigger and better. But at least in our lifetimes it will be a tool I think.

Looking at Wikitree, some of the strong points for humans are weak points for software and for any effort to make progress in medieval studies. The wiki software is simplified and encourages inputs to be simple, leading to simplified searching and categorizing. Just for example certain data is pushed for: birth and death year fields, surnames, biological links between parents and children, and marriage links. You can not mark someone as a grandparent without pretending you know the parent in between - and so on. There is no floruit field, and of course no categories of relationship which are not biological or marriage.

Part of this is presumably to help keep it popular and part to help keep the server from having too much to do? The POMS website is an interesting experiment, and in terms of a more neutral collection of raw data there is wikidata. Wikidata is not really fun to read and it is as good or bad as the wikis and other sources it collects from, but it is potentially something future AI could work with more easily. Presumably the quality of the input information will continue to improve as long as it does not evolve down a dead-end path.
taf
2019-12-03 17:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
I find it a philosophically interesting problem. In the original
arguments of Bacon for modern science he pointed to the fact that
people are not really always naturally drawn to the truth, because
they actually like some types of lies. (A shocking Copernican moment
which no longer seems shocking.)
That summarizes many of the disputes we see here, whether it be novices who don't like their sacred cows being barbequed of experts too enamoured with their own ingenuity or pet theory to see that they are overinterpreting things (and that doesn't even touch on those who prefer to tell themselves the whisperings of their own imagination are actually dead people talking to them). In other words, this does not seem shocking at all.

Back to the original subject, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the critical view being taken by Fernan Perez de Guzman in the mid-15th century. With every self-glorifying reason to accept the Byzantine descent, as it was thought to apply to him as well, he instead was dismissive because of the lack of good source material. It is too bad such an approach to genealogical scholarship in Iberia then went into hibernation for the next 500 years.

taf

taf
Andrew Lancaster
2019-12-03 18:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Andrew Lancaster
I find it a philosophically interesting problem. In the original
arguments of Bacon for modern science he pointed to the fact that
people are not really always naturally drawn to the truth, because
they actually like some types of lies. (A shocking Copernican moment
which no longer seems shocking.)
That summarizes many of the disputes we see here, whether it be novices who don't like their sacred cows being barbequed of experts too enamoured with their own ingenuity or pet theory to see that they are overinterpreting things (and that doesn't even touch on those who prefer to tell themselves the whisperings of their own imagination are actually dead people talking to them). In other words, this does not seem shocking at all.
OT, but of course I was already saying that Bacon no longer seems shocking today. It shocked and surprised people at the time though. Probably many fields could do with a bit of a refresher.
Lee Bertie
2019-12-16 23:32:13 UTC
Permalink
It's just like double blind trials in medicine. Basically, Group A takes a pill with medication. Group B takes a placebo pill that looks exactly like Group A's . Neither group knows whether they are taking placebo or medication. Outcomes are checked over a period of time.
Example: Viagra

This thread is making me laugh!!

taf
2019-11-30 02:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by taf
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for
the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is
altogether incorrect.
You mistake me - I wasn't saying it was incorrect because the creator cited 'personal information'. I was saying it is incorrect because it is known to be an invention, though not an invention of the person who added it to Wikitree.

I am going from memory here, but in the mid-15th century, no such tradition existed when Fernan Perez de Guzman wrote his Generaciones y Semblanzas, but shortly thereafter the most prominent of the Toledo Maozarab noble families started to claim that they were related to the Palaeologus Byzantine Emperors. From there the claim changed from being related to being descended from them, but it was rapidly noticed that this was chronologically impossible, so the Comnenoi were substituted as the relevant imperial dynasty.

Next, all of the mozarab noble families that used the toponym de Toledo (meaning simply 'of Toledo' and not a sign of either nobility or shared patrilineage) were collected into a single tree. The earliest documented ancestor of the most prominent of them, the Alvarez de Toledo, Dukes of Alba, was made to be the ancestor of all de Toledo Mozarabs. This was a certain Pedro (he is still the earliest definitive ancestor) who appears in patronymic form in the name of his son, Illan Perez, who was alcalde mayor of Toledo in the early 13th century. All the other lines were simply lined up based on chronology, traced back as far as they could be, and then names were invented to fill in the connection back to Pedro. The earliest rendering I have seen of this is in a copy of a manuscript history of the Toledo Mozarab nobility prepared by a known forger/hoaxer from the 16th century.

The final step was to make the connection between the Toledo families and the emperors explicit, by making Pedro son (or in a later variant, grandson) of Emperor Isaac Comnenos. The earliest document I have found making this connection is a hand-written note in the collection of Luis de Salazar y Castro (late 17th/early 18th century), which cites a published work of a Greek author, but a Latin variant of the man's name is used, while the title is given in Spanish, and though I have been unable to identify the true bibliographic information, there certainly wasn't any historical basis for it.

Salazar y Castro then put the fully elaborated lineage in two of his books, with some extra details like a birthdate and marriage added from an unknown source (or from no source at all), and from these books it got picked up by 18th and 19th century genealogists, and finally the late-20th century compilers of the GEDCOMs that are now routinely exchanged and combined without the slightest effort to determine if the information is authentic, and which have often served as the basis for the online crowd-sourced genealogy sites.

So, the whole thing is what you get when genealogists have more enthusiasm than prudence.

taf
P J Evans
2019-11-30 03:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by taf
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for
the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is
altogether incorrect.
You mistake me - I wasn't saying it was incorrect because the creator cited 'personal information'. I was saying it is incorrect because it is known to be an invention, though not an invention of the person who added it to Wikitree.
I am going from memory here, but in the mid-15th century, no such tradition existed when Fernan Perez de Guzman wrote his Generaciones y Semblanzas, but shortly thereafter the most prominent of the Toledo Maozarab noble families started to claim that they were related to the Palaeologus Byzantine Emperors. From there the claim changed from being related to being descended from them, but it was rapidly noticed that this was chronologically impossible, so the Comnenoi were substituted as the relevant imperial dynasty.
Next, all of the mozarab noble families that used the toponym de Toledo (meaning simply 'of Toledo' and not a sign of either nobility or shared patrilineage) were collected into a single tree. The earliest documented ancestor of the most prominent of them, the Alvarez de Toledo, Dukes of Alba, was made to be the ancestor of all de Toledo Mozarabs. This was a certain Pedro (he is still the earliest definitive ancestor) who appears in patronymic form in the name of his son, Illan Perez, who was alcalde mayor of Toledo in the early 13th century. All the other lines were simply lined up based on chronology, traced back as far as they could be, and then names were invented to fill in the connection back to Pedro. The earliest rendering I have seen of this is in a copy of a manuscript history of the Toledo Mozarab nobility prepared by a known forger/hoaxer from the 16th century.
The final step was to make the connection between the Toledo families and the emperors explicit, by making Pedro son (or in a later variant, grandson) of Emperor Isaac Comnenos. The earliest document I have found making this connection is a hand-written note in the collection of Luis de Salazar y Castro (late 17th/early 18th century), which cites a published work of a Greek author, but a Latin variant of the man's name is used, while the title is given in Spanish, and though I have been unable to identify the true bibliographic information, there certainly wasn't any historical basis for it.
Salazar y Castro then put the fully elaborated lineage in two of his books, with some extra details like a birthdate and marriage added from an unknown source (or from no source at all), and from these books it got picked up by 18th and 19th century genealogists, and finally the late-20th century compilers of the GEDCOMs that are now routinely exchanged and combined without the slightest effort to determine if the information is authentic, and which have often served as the basis for the online crowd-sourced genealogy sites.
So, the whole thing is what you get when genealogists have more enthusiasm than prudence.
taf
Thank you for that excellent explanation!
Peter Stewart
2019-11-30 04:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by taf
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for
the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is
altogether incorrect.
You mistake me - I wasn't saying it was incorrect because the creator cited 'personal information'. I was saying it is incorrect because it is known to be an invention, though not an invention of the person who added it to Wikitree.
I am going from memory here, but in the mid-15th century, no such tradition existed when Fernan Perez de Guzman wrote his Generaciones y Semblanzas, but shortly thereafter the most prominent of the Toledo Maozarab noble families started to claim that they were related to the Palaeologus Byzantine Emperors. From there the claim changed from being related to being descended from them, but it was rapidly noticed that this was chronologically impossible, so the Comnenoi were substituted as the relevant imperial dynasty.
Next, all of the mozarab noble families that used the toponym de Toledo (meaning simply 'of Toledo' and not a sign of either nobility or shared patrilineage) were collected into a single tree. The earliest documented ancestor of the most prominent of them, the Alvarez de Toledo, Dukes of Alba, was made to be the ancestor of all de Toledo Mozarabs. This was a certain Pedro (he is still the earliest definitive ancestor) who appears in patronymic form in the name of his son, Illan Perez, who was alcalde mayor of Toledo in the early 13th century. All the other lines were simply lined up based on chronology, traced back as far as they could be, and then names were invented to fill in the connection back to Pedro. The earliest rendering I have seen of this is in a copy of a manuscript history of the Toledo Mozarab nobility prepared by a known forger/hoaxer from the 16th century.
The final step was to make the connection between the Toledo families and the emperors explicit, by making Pedro son (or in a later variant, grandson) of Emperor Isaac Comnenos. The earliest document I have found making this connection is a hand-written note in the collection of Luis de Salazar y Castro (late 17th/early 18th century), which cites a published work of a Greek author, but a Latin variant of the man's name is used, while the title is given in Spanish, and though I have been unable to identify the true bibliographic information, there certainly wasn't any historical basis for it.
Salazar y Castro then put the fully elaborated lineage in two of his books, with some extra details like a birthdate and marriage added from an unknown source (or from no source at all), and from these books it got picked up by 18th and 19th century genealogists, and finally the late-20th century compilers of the GEDCOMs that are now routinely exchanged and combined without the slightest effort to determine if the information is authentic, and which have often served as the basis for the online crowd-sourced genealogy sites.
So, the whole thing is what you get when genealogists have more enthusiasm than prudence.
Luis de Salazar y Castro may have insinuated the Toledo line into a
pre-existing fictitious descent of "princes of Macedonia" from "Isaacio
Angelo Flavio Comneno" that was already current in Italy by 1686, see here:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=our9rXNg25QC

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-11-30 05:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by taf
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the
cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge."  One would think
that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all
themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent
due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for
the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is
altogether incorrect.
You mistake me - I wasn't saying it was incorrect because the creator
cited 'personal information'.  I was saying it is incorrect because it
is known to be an invention, though not an invention of the person who
added it to Wikitree.
I am going from memory here, but in the mid-15th century, no such
tradition existed when Fernan Perez de Guzman wrote his Generaciones y
Semblanzas, but shortly thereafter the most prominent of the Toledo
Maozarab noble families started to claim that they were related to the
Palaeologus Byzantine Emperors.  From there the claim changed from
being related to being descended from them, but it was rapidly noticed
that this was chronologically impossible, so the Comnenoi were
substituted as the relevant imperial dynasty.
Next, all of the mozarab noble families that used the toponym de
Toledo (meaning simply 'of Toledo' and not a sign of either nobility
or shared patrilineage) were collected into a single tree.  The
earliest documented ancestor of the most prominent of them, the
Alvarez de Toledo, Dukes of Alba, was made to be the ancestor of all
de Toledo Mozarabs.  This was a certain Pedro (he is still the
earliest definitive ancestor) who appears in patronymic form in the
name of his son, Illan Perez, who was alcalde mayor of Toledo in the
early 13th century.  All the other lines were simply lined up based on
chronology, traced back as far as they could be, and then names were
invented to fill in the connection back to Pedro.  The earliest
rendering I have seen of this is in a copy of a manuscript history of
the Toledo Mozarab nobility prepared by a known forger/hoaxer from the
16th century.
The final step was to make the connection between the Toledo families
and the emperors explicit, by making Pedro son (or in a later variant,
grandson) of Emperor Isaac Comnenos.  The earliest document I have
found making this connection is a hand-written note in the collection
of Luis de Salazar y Castro (late 17th/early 18th century), which
cites a published work of a Greek author, but a Latin variant of the
man's name is used, while the title is given in Spanish, and though I
have been unable to identify the true bibliographic information, there
certainly wasn't any historical basis for it.
Salazar y Castro then put the fully elaborated lineage in two of his
books, with some extra details like a birthdate and marriage added
from an unknown source (or from no source at all), and from these
books it got picked up by 18th and 19th century genealogists, and
finally the late-20th century compilers of the GEDCOMs that are now
routinely exchanged and combined without the slightest effort to
determine if the information is authentic, and which have often served
as the basis for the online crowd-sourced genealogy sites.
So, the whole thing is what you get when genealogists have more enthusiasm than prudence.
Luis de Salazar y Castro may have insinuated the Toledo line into a
pre-existing fictitious descent of "princes of Macedonia" from "Isaacio
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=our9rXNg25QC
Could this book published in Venice in 1621 be the work cited in Salazar
y Castro's note?

https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/CVTED4PV4WFZFZHREP7USQXLXHOUTGAD

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-11-30 06:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by taf
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the
cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge."  One would think
that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all
themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent
due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for
the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is
altogether incorrect.
You mistake me - I wasn't saying it was incorrect because the creator
cited 'personal information'.  I was saying it is incorrect because
it is known to be an invention, though not an invention of the person
who added it to Wikitree.
I am going from memory here, but in the mid-15th century, no such
tradition existed when Fernan Perez de Guzman wrote his Generaciones
y Semblanzas, but shortly thereafter the most prominent of the Toledo
Maozarab noble families started to claim that they were related to
the Palaeologus Byzantine Emperors.  From there the claim changed
from being related to being descended from them, but it was rapidly
noticed that this was chronologically impossible, so the Comnenoi
were substituted as the relevant imperial dynasty.
Next, all of the mozarab noble families that used the toponym de
Toledo (meaning simply 'of Toledo' and not a sign of either nobility
or shared patrilineage) were collected into a single tree.  The
earliest documented ancestor of the most prominent of them, the
Alvarez de Toledo, Dukes of Alba, was made to be the ancestor of all
de Toledo Mozarabs.  This was a certain Pedro (he is still the
earliest definitive ancestor) who appears in patronymic form in the
name of his son, Illan Perez, who was alcalde mayor of Toledo in the
early 13th century.  All the other lines were simply lined up based
on chronology, traced back as far as they could be, and then names
were invented to fill in the connection back to Pedro.  The earliest
rendering I have seen of this is in a copy of a manuscript history of
the Toledo Mozarab nobility prepared by a known forger/hoaxer from
the 16th century.
The final step was to make the connection between the Toledo families
and the emperors explicit, by making Pedro son (or in a later
variant, grandson) of Emperor Isaac Comnenos.  The earliest document
I have found making this connection is a hand-written note in the
collection of Luis de Salazar y Castro (late 17th/early 18th
century), which cites a published work of a Greek author, but a Latin
variant of the man's name is used, while the title is given in
Spanish, and though I have been unable to identify the true
bibliographic information, there certainly wasn't any historical
basis for it.
Salazar y Castro then put the fully elaborated lineage in two of his
books, with some extra details like a birthdate and marriage added
from an unknown source (or from no source at all), and from these
books it got picked up by 18th and 19th century genealogists, and
finally the late-20th century compilers of the GEDCOMs that are now
routinely exchanged and combined without the slightest effort to
determine if the information is authentic, and which have often
served as the basis for the online crowd-sourced genealogy sites.
So, the whole thing is what you get when genealogists have more
enthusiasm than prudence.
Luis de Salazar y Castro may have insinuated the Toledo line into a
pre-existing fictitious descent of "princes of Macedonia" from
"Isaacio Angelo Flavio Comneno" that was already current in Italy by
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=our9rXNg25QC
Could this book published in Venice in 1621 be the work cited in Salazar
y Castro's note?
https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/CVTED4PV4WFZFZHREP7USQXLXHOUTGAD
If this is the work in question, Salazar y Castro evidently reinvented
the fictional line of descent since the "prince of Macedonia" traced the
Toledo family's line to Isaac Comnenus through a a daughter named Maria
(he actually did have one, though she became a nun and is not recorded
as marrying) and her daughter of the same name (tables 22 & 23).

Weirdly, Isaac is counted as belonging to generation 74 from Adam,
whereas Charlemagne who lived almost three centuries earlier is placed
in generation 108 (table 9). I suppose if you have just 10 fingers and
10 toes it gets hard to keep track of such long lineages.

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-11-30 15:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Could this book published in Venice in 1621 be the work cited in Salazar
y Castro's note?
https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/CVTED4PV4WFZFZHREP7USQXLXHOUTGAD
First I correction - I was misremembering a couple of things. First, Illan Perez de San Roman (a Toledo parish) died in 1167, not early-13th century. Also, I was not correctly remembering Fernan Perez de Guzman correctly. He was aware of the traditions, he just had no truck with it: (translated, obviously) "some say of this lineage, and it appears in some manuscripts though it is not found in authentic history, that they came from Count Don Pedro, brother of the Emperor of Constantinople, who came to Spain for the conquest of the Moors." It is noteworthy that Perez de Guzman was patrilineally a de Toledo, and would have known it - his father Pedro Suarez de Guzman was son of Pedro Suarez de Toledo and Maria Ramirez de Toledo, so these would have been legends developing in his own family. Elsewhere he would lament that there was no serious scholarship on the origin of the Toledo nobility, just 'what was in the knowledge of old men.' Pedro de Alcocer (1554) is the first I have seen making the emperor one of the Paliaologoi, and Estevan de Garibay y Çamáloa (1571) mentioned this, said it didn't work, and shifted it to Komnenoi.

As to the source you suggest, I don't think that's it. I didn't take notes because I thought it was too far down a rabbit hole already, but as I remember it the author was Georgios _____ (a surname that I don't remember) and the title specifically dealt with the Dukes of Alba.

The take home here is that the imperial claim had been bouncing around for a while, the only think unusual about Salazar y Castro's version was his level of specificity, the precise relationship to a precise emperor, giving Pedro a birthdate and a wife that I haven't found earlier, and the title, Count of Carrion, appropriated from an actual participant in Toledo's conquest, Pedro Ansurez, the premier nobleman of Alfonso VI and rival of el Cid.

taf
taf
2019-11-30 16:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
It is noteworthy that Perez de Guzman was patrilineally a de Toledo, and
would have known it - his father Pedro Suarez de Guzman was son of Pedro
Suarez de Toledo and Maria Ramirez de Toledo,
Fingers typed something different than my brain was thinking.

. . . his father Pedro Suarez de Guzman was son of Pedro Suarez de Toledo and Maria Ramirez de GUZMAN.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-11-30 22:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Could this book published in Venice in 1621 be the work cited in Salazar
y Castro's note?
https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/CVTED4PV4WFZFZHREP7USQXLXHOUTGAD
First I correction - I was misremembering a couple of things. First, Illan Perez de San Roman (a Toledo parish) died in 1167, not early-13th century. Also, I was not correctly remembering Fernan Perez de Guzman correctly. He was aware of the traditions, he just had no truck with it: (translated, obviously) "some say of this lineage, and it appears in some manuscripts though it is not found in authentic history, that they came from Count Don Pedro, brother of the Emperor of Constantinople, who came to Spain for the conquest of the Moors." It is noteworthy that Perez de Guzman was patrilineally a de Toledo, and would have known it - his father Pedro Suarez de Guzman was son of Pedro Suarez de Toledo and Maria Ramirez de Toledo, so these would have been legends developing in his own family. Elsewhere he would lament that there was no serious scholarship on the origin of the Toledo nobility, just 'what was in the knowledge of old men.' Pedro de Alcocer (1554) is the first I have seen making the emperor one of the Paliaologoi, and Estevan de Garibay y Çamáloa (1571) mentioned this, said it didn't work, and shifted it to Komnenoi.
As to the source you suggest, I don't think that's it. I didn't take notes because I thought it was too far down a rabbit hole already, but as I remember it the author was Georgios _____ (a surname that I don't remember) and the title specifically dealt with the Dukes of Alba.
The author Giovanni Andrea Angelo Flavio Comneno had evidently sent one
of his lineage trees a few years before publication to Pedro de Toledo
Osorio, see Salazar y Castro's collection index vol V no. 7.975 here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mFdKmkfcRXMC&pg=PA71. Can you find
the note you are referring to in this or another volume?

Other claims of the "prince of Macedonia" were debunked early in the
18th century, see https://books.google.com
taf
2019-12-01 02:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The author Giovanni Andrea Angelo Flavio Comneno had evidently sent one
of his lineage trees a few years before publication to Pedro de Toledo
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mFdKmkfcRXMC&pg=PA71. Can you find
the note you are referring to in this or another volume?
Google gives me that book in preview mode and this page is not among those I can see.

I was looking at a scan of a handwritten page from his collection on the Real Academia de Historia website, and it simply had a sentence at the bottom saying something along the lines of 'this information comes from _____", giving author and title (in Spanish). Given enough time I could perhaps find it again by going through every document relevant to Alvarez de Toledo (and if that doesn't work, the various other Toledo families), but I doubt the prey is worth the chase.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-12-01 03:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
The author Giovanni Andrea Angelo Flavio Comneno had evidently sent one
of his lineage trees a few years before publication to Pedro de Toledo
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mFdKmkfcRXMC&pg=PA71. Can you find
the note you are referring to in this or another volume?
Google gives me that book in preview mode and this page is not among those I can see.
I was looking at a scan of a handwritten page from his collection on the Real Academia de Historia website, and it simply had a sentence at the bottom saying something along the lines of 'this information comes from _____", giving author and title (in Spanish). Given enough time I could perhaps find it again by going through every document relevant to Alvarez de Toledo (and if that doesn't work, the various other Toledo families), but I doubt the prey is worth the chase.
The mysteries of Google Books access are impenetrable. In cases of
genealogical fiction the prey is rarely worth chasing, but this one is
unusually old and persistent.

The item mentioned in vol V pp 71-72 reads as follows:

"7.975 9.-Tabla genealógica de la sucesión de ‘Isacius 3 Comnenus,
alius Angelus, imperator Constantinopolitani in anno 1059. Obiit an.
1063. Generationes ab. Adamo 74, qui genuit fil. 13.’

Termina en su décimoquinto nieto Garcia de Toledo y Mendoza, IV duque de
Fernandina, VI marqués de Villafranca.

En una nota se lee: ‘En Venecia, 19 mayo 1618, embió este árbol al
marqués de Villafranca, Pedro de Toledo Osorio, don Juan Andrea Angelo
Flabio Comneno, príncipe de Macedonia, pidiéndole más noticias q. éstas
para estamparlas en el árbol que hacía de su casa de la de Austria. La
carta y el árbol que están copiados aquí son de su misma letra.’

Se advierte que el citado Isaac III, el Angel, no lo cita Edouard de
Muralt en Essai de Chronologie byzantine..., San Petersburgo, 1855, ni
César Cantú en las tablas cronológicas de su Historia Universal.

Copia autógrafa de Luis de Salazar uy Castro.
A. 50, fo. 4."

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-12-01 07:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
"7.975 9.-Tabla genealógica de la sucesión de ‘Isacius 3 Comnenus,
alius Angelus, imperator Constantinopolitani in anno 1059. Obiit an.
1063. Generationes ab. Adamo 74, qui genuit fil. 13.’
OK.

An alternative index of Salazar y Castro's genealogical manuscripts and notes can be found here, though I have noticed that it omits large works like his history of the house of Acuna and Roman de la Higuera's account of the Toledo Mozarab families.

https://www.rah.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SalazaryCastro_22_nov_2016.pdf

I am not finding the document in question online. I thought they had the A series up, but nothing in A is returning a match. This is definitely not what I saw before, but clearly covers the same generations and more.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-12-01 10:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
"7.975 9.-Tabla genealógica de la sucesión de ‘Isacius 3 Comnenus,
alius Angelus, imperator Constantinopolitani in anno 1059. Obiit an.
1063. Generationes ab. Adamo 74, qui genuit fil. 13.’
OK.
An alternative index of Salazar y Castro's genealogical manuscripts and notes can be found here, though I have noticed that it omits large works like his history of the house of Acuna and Roman de la Higuera's account of the Toledo Mozarab families.
https://www.rah.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SalazaryCastro_22_nov_2016.pdf
I am not finding the document in question online. I thought they had the A series up, but nothing in A is returning a match. This is definitely not what I saw before, but clearly covers the same generations and more.
The link above is to the same reference work I linked to on Google
Books, *Índice de la colección de don Luis de Salazar y Castro*
(1949-1979), but with the text from all 49 volumes (73,925 items)
aggregated into one pdf file.

Apart from the entry I copied before, the only other relevant occurrence
of the name Comneno is in vol. 18 p. 258 no. 30,743 here:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MQK_fSZN5BsC&pg=PA258

This item (on p. 5,055 of the pdf file) reads as follows:

"Sin fecha
Vida de Pedro Comneno.
Manuscrito en latín sacado de la Historia de la Casa de Comneno.
D-61, fº 49 y 50. El fº 50 v. está en blanco.
Nº 30743 del inventario. Nivel de descripción: Documento"

Not much help. The name Giorgio does not occur anywhere in the 13,001
pages of the aggregated 49 vol. file.

If the Toledo family was ever connected to Isaac Comnenus in print
earlier than the 1621 book, the bibliographic trace of this is evidently
not in Salazar y Castro's collection as documented by Baltasar Cuartero
and Antonio de Vargas-Zúñiga.

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-12-01 17:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The link above is to the same reference work I linked to on Google
Books, *Índice de la colección de don Luis de Salazar y Castro*
(1949-1979), but with the text from all 49 volumes (73,925 items)
aggregated into one pdf file.
Except missing some items (at least from other volumes in the set you linked to). If one follows the pdf, there are occasional missing items in the sequential numbering. Those are items that, for whatever reason, the compiler of the list chose not to include, but I have found some interesting things by checking (when available) the corresponding books to see what was being omitted, or (again when available) just calling up the missing items on the Real Academia site.
Post by Peter Stewart
Apart from the entry I copied before, the only other relevant occurrence
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MQK_fSZN5BsC&pg=PA258
"Sin fecha
Vida de Pedro Comneno.
Manuscrito en latín sacado de la Historia de la Casa de Comneno.
D-61, fº 49 y 50. El fº 50 v. está en blanco.
Nº 30743 del inventario. Nivel de descripción: Documento"
This one is online here:
http://bibliotecadigital.rah.es/dgbrah/es/consulta/resultados_ocr.cmd?buscar_cabecera=Buscar&id=292677&tipoResultados=BIB&presentacion=mosaico&posicion=1&forma=ficha

This 3-page account is not what I saw before. It begins with "Petrus Comnenus, Isacii Comneni Primi, Augusti, et Sebastocratoris, et Eodocia nepta Eodocia Imperatricis, spectata cum paucis qua pietate, qua prudentia Matrona, filius: . . . ."

There is a citation at the end: "pag. 20. Generat. 2. Hist de la Casa Comnena"

This appears to be the same source referred to here:

https://vdocuments.site/5750a08a1a28abcf0c8cd826.html

p. 594, note 36

"Por ejemplo, en 1704, Gaspar Ibáñez de Segovia enviaba a su íntimo corresponsal Luis de Salazar y Castro un fragmento «copiado de la Historia de la Casa Comnena, escrita por don Lorenço Miniati, Protonotario Apostólico, traducido de griego en que le escrivió Juan Láscaris, varón celebrado en Ytalia entre los primeros de su siglo, que murió el año de 1489», además de informarle que le mandaría «las seys generaciones que con él refiere el mismo Miniati, el conde Zavarela, y Carlos Le Coint, de los Comnenos, sus predecesores». Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, Colección Salazar y Castro, legajo 10, carpeta 12, documento 8. Carta de Gaspar Ibáñez de Segovia a Luis de Salazar y Castro, Mondéjar, 12-X-1704. La cursiva es nuestra."

This in turn leads to:
https://books.google.com/books?id=C99DAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Le Glorie Cadute dell'Antichissima, ed Augustissima Famiglia Comnena
Lorenzo Miniati, 1663

The Salazar manuscript text is a direct quote from page 20 here. The pagination is inconsistent, but search for the word "annotamenti" and pick the result that is on page 20 to find it. I have seen this book before, so this is not the one I couldn't find.
Post by Peter Stewart
Not much help. The name Giorgio does not occur anywhere in the 13,001
pages of the aggregated 49 vol. file.
As I said, what I saw was just a citation at the end of a document, I think about the Alvarez de Toledo, and not something that was catalogued with the information.

taf
taf
2019-12-01 18:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Le Glorie Cadute dell'Antichissima, ed Augustissima Famiglia Comnena
Lorenzo Miniati, 1663
The Salazar manuscript text is a direct quote from page 20 here. The
pagination is inconsistent, but search for the word "annotamenti" and
pick the result that is on page 20 to find it. I have seen this book
before, so this is not the one I couldn't find.
I note that a few pages earlier he attributes to Andrea Angelo, Libro della Genealogia degl'Imperadori Romani, as claiming the Alvarez de Toledo descended from "Ferdinando Lascari", a clear if confused attempt to link them to yet another imperial family. This would appear to be the following, from 1551, but I didn't find the claimed connection on my first pass through:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SUZf2zxrTAEC

He then cites 'a very old Greek manuscript' that he translates into Italian for the Comnenus version. The text given includes a reference to something that happened in 1423, placing an earliest date to it. he then gives a Latin translation and that is what has been copied and found its way to the Salazar y Castro collection.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-12-01 23:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
The link above is to the same reference work I linked to on Google
Books, *Índice de la colección de don Luis de Salazar y Castro*
(1949-1979), but with the text from all 49 volumes (73,925 items)
aggregated into one pdf file.
Except missing some items (at least from other volumes in the set you linked to). If one follows the pdf, there are occasional missing items in the sequential numbering. Those are items that, for whatever reason, the compiler of the list chose not to include, but I have found some interesting things by checking (when available) the corresponding books to see what was being omitted, or (again when available) just calling up the missing items on the Real Academia site.
Post by Peter Stewart
Apart from the entry I copied before, the only other relevant occurrence
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MQK_fSZN5BsC&pg=PA258
"Sin fecha
Vida de Pedro Comneno.
Manuscrito en latín sacado de la Historia de la Casa de Comneno.
D-61, fº 49 y 50. El fº 50 v. está en blanco.
Nº 30743 del inventario. Nivel de descripción: Documento"
http://bibliotecadigital.rah.es/dgbrah/es/consulta/resultados_ocr.cmd?buscar_cabecera=Buscar&id=292677&tipoResultados=BIB&presentacion=mosaico&posicion=1&forma=ficha
This 3-page account is not what I saw before. It begins with "Petrus Comnenus, Isacii Comneni Primi, Augusti, et Sebastocratoris, et Eodocia nepta Eodocia Imperatricis, spectata cum paucis qua pietate, qua prudentia Matrona, filius: . . . ."
There is a citation at the end: "pag. 20. Generat. 2. Hist de la Casa Comnena"
https://vdocuments.site/5750a08a1a28abcf0c8cd826.html
p. 594, note 36
"Por ejemplo, en 1704, Gaspar Ibáñez de Segovia enviaba a su íntimo corresponsal Luis de Salazar y Castro un fragmento «copiado de la Historia de la Casa Comnena, escrita por don Lorenço Miniati, Protonotario Apostólico, traducido de griego en que le escrivió Juan Láscaris, varón celebrado en Ytalia entre los primeros de su siglo, que murió el año de 1489», además de informarle que le mandaría «las seys generaciones que con él refiere el mismo Miniati, el conde Zavarela, y Carlos Le Coint, de los Comnenos, sus predecesores». Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, Colección Salazar y Castro, legajo 10, carpeta 12, documento 8. Carta de Gaspar Ibáñez de Segovia a Luis de Salazar y Castro, Mondéjar, 12-X-1704. La cursiva es nuestra."
https://books.google.com/books?id=C99DAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Le Glorie Cadute dell'Antichissima, ed Augustissima Famiglia Comnena
Lorenzo Miniati, 1663
The Salazar manuscript text is a direct quote from page 20 here. The pagination is inconsistent, but search for the word "annotamenti" and pick the result that is on page 20 to find it. I have seen this book before, so this is not the one I couldn't find.
Nonetheless it is interesting, at least as a purveyor of the fictitious
date 8 April 1053 for the birth of Isaac's purported son Peter. This is
said to come from a very ancient Greek manuscript faithfully translated
into Italian by the author ("un mantiscritto Greco molto antico, da me
fedelmente tradotto in lingua Italiana"), yet the birthdate is given
Anno Domini style ("otto d'Aprile dell'Anno 1053") rather than Anno
Mundi which would surely have been used in an old Greek document. Also,
Antonio Alvarez de Toledo, duke of Alba, is said to have been forearmed
with this information when (in the presence of the author) "Count
Giovanni Andrea Angelo" (deprived of his princely title to Macedonia and
his extra surname Comneno) presented his false genealogy to the duke in
the viceregal palace. Ho hum.

The ludicrous explanation given for the name Peter given to a Comnenus
child is that invocation of St Peter in a litany sung at the time
miraculously spared his mother from the excruciating pains she had been
suffering until then in childbirth. Crickey, if only pregnant women
through the ages had known how easy it could be ...

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-12-02 01:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Antonio Alvarez de Toledo, duke of Alba, is said to have been forearmed
with this information when (in the presence of the author) "Count
Giovanni Andrea Angelo" (deprived of his princely title to Macedonia and
his extra surname Comneno) presented his false genealogy to the duke in
the viceregal palace. Ho hum.
This would be the 5th Duke of Alba, who held the title from 1583-1633.

taf
Loading...