Discussion:
Emma of Provence, countess of Toulouse
Add Reply
Peter Stewart
2021-04-17 05:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Emma was the second wife of Guillaume Taillefer of Toulouse and daughter
of Roubaud of Provence and Ermengarde.

Leaving aside the vexed question of whether her mother was the same as
Eimildis wife of Roubaud, and therefore the duplication of the latter
into a father and son married to Eimildis and Ermengarde respectively is
an unnecessary conjecture, the chronology of Emma's marriage has been
left confused in the literature.

She is sometimes said to have married Guillaume (now usually numbered
III) of Toulouse by 992, but this is based only on their later
affirmation of a charter of her father dated in that year, which was
subscribed by his children and their spouses after he had died.

Emma named her parents as Roubaud and Ermengarde in a charter misdated
22 April 1015, known from a transcription by Claude Chantelou here
(folio 66r-v): https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10073789v/f67.item.

In this Emma said that she had received her inheritance at Favas in the
county of Fréjus ("ex hereditate quæ mihi legitime obuenit hoc est in
comitatu Foroiulensi in castro que nominant Fauars"). This came to her
probably from her mother, but in any case from a parent who had died by
the time of the charter.

The trouble with its dating is that it specifies Sunday 22 April 1015
("X kl maii anno dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo XV. sub die
dominico"), but 22 April in 1015 was a Friday.

Jean-Pierre Poly in his 1972 catalogue of acts of the counts of Provence
suggested that the date should be amended to 23 May 1008, on the grounds
that months were frequently misstated in dating by calends, that
Audibert of Châteaurenard who subscribed the charter was supposedly dead
by 23 April 1010, and that 23 May was a Sunday in 1008.

But even allowing for confusion over the month it is hard to see how a
scribe or copyist could write "XV" instead of "VIII", 1015 instead of 1008.

A better emendation I think would be to 22 April 1016. There is no proof
that Audibert had died as Poly asserted before 23 April 1010 - this is
the date of a charter for Correns priory by his wife and sons (copied by
Chantelou without dating but ascribed to 1010 here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10073789v/f65.item). In this the
wife's father, mother and relatives are remembered but not a deceased
husband, which would be strikingly odd if Audibert had recently died.

It would also be remarkably mysterious that a bull of Sergius IV dated
16 May 1010 absolved Audibert and his brother while granting an
indulgence to all benefactors of Correns priory (copied by Chantelou,
ascribed to ca. 1009 but without internal dating that is known from a
copy by Baluze, on folio 50r-v here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10073789v/f51.item). The
authenticity of this document has been doubted, as several aspects of
its form suggest a later forgery, but in any event the close coincidence
of date and the absolution indicate that the writer knew the
circumstances well enough, and that Audibert's absence from his wife's
charter of 23 April - just over three weeks before the papal response to
a deal apparently agreed beforehand - was because he was still under
excommunication at that time rather than deceased.

The upshot for Emma's chronology is that her charter as countess need
not have been written before 1010 and it seems that a slight slip in the
date could be readily amended to Sunday 22 April 1016 ("X kl maii anno
dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo XVI sub die dominico"). This fits with
the earliest known milestone in the life of her son Pons II of Toulouse,
who was married for the first time by 1037, and leaves open the
possibility that her husband's first wife, Arsinde, may have lived into
the second decade of the 11th century.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-18 05:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The upshot for Emma's chronology is that her charter as countess need
not have been written before 1010 and it seems that a slight slip in the
date could be readily amended to Sunday 22 April 1016 ("X kl maii anno
dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo XVI sub die dominico"). This fits with
the earliest known milestone in the life of her son Pons II of Toulouse,
who was married for the first time by 1037, and leaves open the
possibility that her husband's first wife, Arsinde, may have lived into
the second decade of the 11th century.
Another problematically-dated charter may reduce this to an open
possibility that Arsinde lived only into the first decade of the 11th
century - this is a charter of Adelais of Anjou for Saint-Victor de
Marseille dated October in indiction 4 (1005 or 1020), which was
subscribed by Adalais and Emma as countesses (of Provence and Toulouse
respectively) followed by nine others of whom the seventh was a Count
William.

The editor ascribed this to 1005, but it could be 1020 depending on the
identity of Count William - it seems more likely to me that this was
Emma's husband in 1020, since it would be odd for the son of Adelais to
subscribe her charter third-last and without being included as a
principal in her donation when he was the reigning count. He was dead
before 1020, so that if he was the count in question it must be from
1005 and Emma would have been married by then.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-20 21:15:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The upshot for Emma's chronology is that her charter as countess need
not have been written before 1010 and it seems that a slight slip in the
date could be readily amended to Sunday 22 April 1016 ("X kl maii anno
dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo XVI sub die dominico"). This fits with
the earliest known milestone in the life of her son Pons II of Toulouse,
who was married for the first time by 1037, and leaves open the
possibility that her husband's first wife, Arsinde, may have lived into
the second decade of the 11th century.
Another problematically-dated charter may reduce this to an open
possibility that Arsinde lived only into the first decade of the 11th
century - this is a charter of Adelais of Anjou for Saint-Victor de
Marseille dated October in indiction 4 (1005 or 1020), which was
subscribed by Adalais and Emma as countesses (of Provence and Toulouse
respectively) followed by nine others of whom the seventh was a Count
William.
The editor ascribed this to 1005, but it could be 1020 depending on the
identity of Count William - it seems more likely to me that this was
Emma's husband in 1020, since it would be odd for the son of Adelais to
subscribe her charter third-last and without being included as a
principal in her donation when he was the reigning count. He was dead
before 1020, so that if he was the count in question it must be from
1005 and Emma would have been married by then.
Peter Stewart
The net mentions a charter from Psalmodi dated 999 which lists all 4 of
William Tailefers children and their mother Emma, and the reference is
Manteyer [work on Provence?] 1908, p518. Is this charter misdated too?
Meanwhile the miracles of St.Foy from the early 11th century names
Arsinde as the mother of 2 of his sons Raymond and Henry. Does
William mention Arsinde in any of his charters and did they have children?
I think the '992' charter you mention only mentions Emma. If you are
right about the dates, it also impacts on WT's active career. Supposedly
he was born about 970, but when does he actually appear as Count of
Toulouse?

Since his mother Adelaide of Anjou seems to have married William of
Provence c984 [and then had 4 children by him apparently] who was
governing Toulouse in the 980/90s if William was only child and
presumably living with his mother in Provence? On Wiki
there is a suggestion that it was in the hands of his uncle Hugh who
combined being both count and bishop and died during a hunt.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-04-20 23:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The upshot for Emma's chronology is that her charter as countess need
not have been written before 1010 and it seems that a slight slip in the
date could be readily amended to Sunday 22 April 1016 ("X kl maii anno
dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo XVI sub die dominico"). This fits with
the earliest known milestone in the life of her son Pons II of Toulouse,
who was married for the first time by 1037, and leaves open the
possibility that her husband's first wife, Arsinde, may have lived into
the second decade of the 11th century.
Another problematically-dated charter may reduce this to an open
possibility that Arsinde lived only into the first decade of the 11th
century - this is a charter of Adelais of Anjou for Saint-Victor de
Marseille dated October in indiction 4 (1005 or 1020), which was
subscribed by Adalais and Emma as countesses (of Provence and Toulouse
respectively) followed by nine others of whom the seventh was a Count
William.
The editor ascribed this to 1005, but it could be 1020 depending on the
identity of Count William - it seems more likely to me that this was
Emma's husband in 1020, since it would be odd for the son of Adelais to
subscribe her charter third-last and without being included as a
principal in her donation when he was the reigning count. He was dead
before 1020, so that if he was the count in question it must be from
1005 and Emma would have been married by then.
Peter Stewart
The net mentions a charter from Psalmodi dated 999 which lists all 4 of
William Tailefers children and their mother Emma, and the reference is
Manteyer [work on Provence?] 1908, p518. Is this charter misdated too?
Yes, by Manteyer if not by the scribe - the original is still extant,
and its dating is "anno a passione Domini nongentesimo nonagesimo
.VIII., indictione XII", not "anno ab incarnatione". The crucifixion
obviously did not take place at the time of the nativity as
misinterpreted by Manteyer, so it was not 999 but 1030/31 though with
indiction for 1029.
Post by keri CA
Meanwhile the miracles of St.Foy from the early 11th century names
Arsinde as the mother of 2 of his sons Raymond and Henry. Does
William mention Arsinde in any of his charters and did they have children?
I think the '992' charter you mention only mentions Emma. If you are
right about the dates, it also impacts on WT's active career. Supposedly
he was born about 970, but when does he actually appear as Count of
Toulouse?
The four sons named in the Psalmodi charter are Raimond, Aialric/Aianric
(one mention with each spelling), Pons and Bertrand. The first two are
thought to have been sons of Arsinde, the last two of Emma - at the
first mention they are described as sons of William and Emma ("ad
Wilelmum comitem et ad Emam uxorem eius et ad filios eorum uidelicet
Raimundum et Aialricum et Pontium et Bertrannum"), the second time as
sons of William ("Isti omnes sunt filii Wilelmi"). The first mention
cannot be taken as iron-clad evidence that Emma was biological mother
rather than step-mother to the first two.

Guillaume III Taillefer first occurs as count of Toulouse as a child,
from memory - his father is thought to have died in battle in 978/79. I
will have to do some checking on this (it is too early in the day just
now for me to get hold of books shelved overhead).
Post by keri CA
Since his mother Adelaide of Anjou seems to have married William of
Provence c984 [and then had 4 children by him apparently] who was
governing Toulouse in the 980/90s if William was only child and
presumably living with his mother in Provence? On Wiki
there is a suggestion that it was in the hands of his uncle Hugh who
combined being both count and bishop and died during a hunt.
Again, I need to do more checking - my memory is that the Bishop Hugo
who died hunting may have died before Guillaume III's father and may
have been the latter's uncle rather than brother.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-21 03:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The upshot for Emma's chronology is that her charter as countess need
not have been written before 1010 and it seems that a slight slip in the
date could be readily amended to Sunday 22 April 1016 ("X kl maii anno
dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo XVI sub die dominico"). This fits with
the earliest known milestone in the life of her son Pons II of Toulouse,
who was married for the first time by 1037, and leaves open the
possibility that her husband's first wife, Arsinde, may have lived into
the second decade of the 11th century.
Another problematically-dated charter may reduce this to an open
possibility that Arsinde lived only into the first decade of the 11th
century - this is a charter of Adelais of Anjou for Saint-Victor de
Marseille dated October in indiction 4 (1005 or 1020), which was
subscribed by Adalais and Emma as countesses (of Provence and Toulouse
respectively) followed by nine others of whom the seventh was a Count
William.
The editor ascribed this to 1005, but it could be 1020 depending on the
identity of Count William - it seems more likely to me that this was
Emma's husband in 1020, since it would be odd for the son of Adelais to
subscribe her charter third-last and without being included as a
principal in her donation when he was the reigning count. He was dead
before 1020, so that if he was the count in question it must be from
1005 and Emma would have been married by then.
Peter Stewart
The net mentions a charter from Psalmodi dated 999 which lists all 4 of
William Tailefers children and their mother Emma, and the reference is
Manteyer [work on Provence?] 1908, p518. Is this charter misdated too?
Meanwhile the miracles of St.Foy from the early 11th century names
Arsinde as the mother of 2 of his sons Raymond and Henry. Does
William mention Arsinde in any of his charters and did they have children?
I think the '992' charter you mention only mentions Emma. If you are
right about the dates, it also impacts on WT's active career. Supposedly
he was born about 970, but when does he actually appear as Count of
Toulouse?
The earliest certainly-dated occurrence I can find of Guillaume III
specified as count of Toulouse was in 1004 at the dedication of
Psalmodi's rebuilding and repair, here:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10334800t/f221.item.r=12774

This was transcribed in the 17th century from a damaged codex at
Psalmodi, the rest of the document being illegible and the whole codex
having apparently since disappeared. The relevant text reads:

(p. 200)
Dictus Warnerius suscipiat reaedificandum
et reparandum S Petri Psalmodii monasterium
et ei abbas praeesse........
...
S. Adalaicae comitissae
S. Willelmi comitis Tolosae
S. Pontii comitis
S. Iterii [sic, perhaps a misreading of Item] Willelmi comitis
Prouinciae
S. Rotbaldi comitis
S. Hugonis comitis et Pontii fratris sui
...
(p. 201)
actum anno regis Roberti VIII
Post by keri CA
Since his mother Adelaide of Anjou seems to have married William of
Provence c984 [and then had 4 children by him apparently] who was
governing Toulouse in the 980/90s if William was only child and
presumably living with his mother in Provence? On Wiki
there is a suggestion that it was in the hands of his uncle Hugh who
combined being both count and bishop and died during a hunt.
Presumably Adelaide of Anjou married Louis V, king of Aquitaine, and
then Guillaume II of Provence at least partly in order to ensure the
position of her young son Guillaume Taillefer as heir of Toulouse. It is
not clear when he took up rule there, or who took his place in the
980s/990s. A count named Raimond occurs in that period where a count of
Toulouse might be expected, presumably Raimond of Rouergue who was
marquis of Gothia. There was also a count Hugo, but he was not titled
bishop.

The identity of the Bishop Hugo who according to the Roda codex died
hunting is not certain, but this was probably a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband Raimond (V) of Toulouse. However, the death of Hugo may
have preceded that of Raimond in 978/79, and I can't find evidence that
he ruled Toulouse after the latter's death.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-21 08:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The earliest certainly-dated occurrence I can find of Guillaume III
specified as count of Toulouse was in 1004 at the dedication of
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10334800t/f221.item.r=12774
This volume is curiously listed on Gallica as untitled ("Document sans
titre"), but it is volume 12 (dated 1681) of Claude Estiennot's
collection titled *Fragmenta historiae Aquitanicae*.
Post by Peter Stewart
This was transcribed in the 17th century from a damaged codex at
Psalmodi, the rest of the document being illegible and the whole codex
having apparently since disappeared.
The last part of this is apparently incorrect - Estiennot stated the
first part, repeated by Jean Mabillon in vol. 4 of *Annales ordinis
sancti Benedicti* (1707), p. 176. However, the damaged codex from which
Estiennot made a copy of the legible text from 1004 is evidently in the
Archives départementales du Gard, H 114 (containing documents from
816-1342, see http://bach.anaphore.gard.fr/document/FRAD030_H) as cited
here (p. 24 note 19):
https://www.persee.fr/doc/arcme_0153-9337_1989_num_19_1_951.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-22 00:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The earliest certainly-dated occurrence I can find of Guillaume III
specified as count of Toulouse was in 1004 at the dedication of
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10334800t/f221.item.r=12774
This volume is curiously listed on Gallica as untitled ("Document sans
titre"), but it is volume 12 (dated 1681) of Claude Estiennot's
collection titled *Fragmenta historiae Aquitanicae*.
Post by Peter Stewart
This was transcribed in the 17th century from a damaged codex at
Psalmodi, the rest of the document being illegible and the whole codex
having apparently since disappeared.
The last part of this is apparently incorrect - Estiennot stated the
first part, repeated by Jean Mabillon in vol. 4 of *Annales ordinis
sancti Benedicti* (1707), p. 176. However, the damaged codex from which
Estiennot made a copy of the legible text from 1004 is evidently in the
Archives départementales du Gard, H 114 (containing documents from
816-1342, see http://bach.anaphore.gard.fr/document/FRAD030_H) as cited
https://www.persee.fr/doc/arcme_0153-9337_1989_num_19_1_951.
I'm not confident that the citation to Archives départementales du Gard
H 114 is reliable - Jean-Pierre Poly in his 1972 catalogue of the acts
of counts of Provence, p. 31 no. 63, stated "original disparu" for the
document transcribed by Estiennot from a damaged Psalmodi codex in 1681.

In that case we may never know if there was an extraneous untitled
Iterius among the subscriptions, and in that case evidently among the
family or with high status in the entourage of Adelaide and her sons, or
just a note "item" (meaning "also") before the second Count William's name.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-21 11:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The upshot for Emma's chronology is that her charter as countess need
not have been written before 1010 and it seems that a slight slip in the
date could be readily amended to Sunday 22 April 1016 ("X kl maii anno
dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo XVI sub die dominico"). This fits with
the earliest known milestone in the life of her son Pons II of Toulouse,
who was married for the first time by 1037, and leaves open the
possibility that her husband's first wife, Arsinde, may have lived into
the second decade of the 11th century.
Another problematically-dated charter may reduce this to an open
possibility that Arsinde lived only into the first decade of the 11th
century - this is a charter of Adelais of Anjou for Saint-Victor de
Marseille dated October in indiction 4 (1005 or 1020), which was
subscribed by Adalais and Emma as countesses (of Provence and Toulouse
respectively) followed by nine others of whom the seventh was a Count
William.
The editor ascribed this to 1005, but it could be 1020 depending on the
identity of Count William - it seems more likely to me that this was
Emma's husband in 1020, since it would be odd for the son of Adelais to
subscribe her charter third-last and without being included as a
principal in her donation when he was the reigning count. He was dead
before 1020, so that if he was the count in question it must be from
1005 and Emma would have been married by then.
Peter Stewart
The net mentions a charter from Psalmodi dated 999 which lists all 4 of
William Tailefers children and their mother Emma, and the reference is
Manteyer [work on Provence?] 1908, p518. Is this charter misdated too?
Meanwhile the miracles of St.Foy from the early 11th century names
Arsinde as the mother of 2 of his sons Raymond and Henry. Does
William mention Arsinde in any of his charters and did they have children?
I think the '992' charter you mention only mentions Emma. If you are
right about the dates, it also impacts on WT's active career. Supposedly
he was born about 970, but when does he actually appear as Count of
Toulouse?
The earliest certainly-dated occurrence I can find of Guillaume III
specified as count of Toulouse was in 1004 at the dedication of
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10334800t/f221.item.r=12774
This was transcribed in the 17th century from a damaged codex at
Psalmodi, the rest of the document being illegible and the whole codex
(p. 200)
Dictus Warnerius suscipiat reaedificandum
et reparandum S Petri Psalmodii monasterium
et ei abbas praeesse........
...
S. Adalaicae comitissae
S. Willelmi comitis Tolosae
S. Pontii comitis
S. Iterii [sic, perhaps a misreading of Item] Willelmi comitis
Prouinciae
S. Rotbaldi comitis
S. Hugonis comitis et Pontii fratris sui
...
(p. 201)
actum anno regis Roberti VIII
It looks like she has with her at least 3 of her sons: WT, William II of Provence,
and Pons of Gevaudan as well? Is Rotbald her brother inlaw?
Who are the last 2 brothers? Could they be more Toulouse relatives or Rouergue
ones? Having 2 sons with the same name must have made mealtimes confusing!

Thats if William II of Provence was her son; the article on wiki has him as
both son and stepson.

So all these charters place William T and Emma in the 11th century.
There doesnt seem anything about him before 1000.

Are the Miracles from Conques the only source for WTs first wife
Arsinde? On french wiki she is called Arsinde de Comminges without
any real proof, but as her father Arnald died c957, she seems the wrong
generation. Arsinde was the name of the first wife of William I of Provence,
so I wonder if she was his daughter. Could stepchildren marry in
those days?

Why was he called Taillefer? I think it means ironcutter. There was
another William Taillefer of Angouleme [d1028], whose surname is explained
by Ademar of Chabannes. Did historians confuse the 2? It just
seems suspicious that there were 2 Counts with the same name and
nickname exactly in the same period/area.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Since his mother Adelaide of Anjou seems to have married William of
Provence c984 [and then had 4 children by him apparently] who was
governing Toulouse in the 980/90s if William was only child and
presumably living with his mother in Provence? On Wiki
there is a suggestion that it was in the hands of his uncle Hugh who
combined being both count and bishop and died during a hunt.
Presumably Adelaide of Anjou married Louis V, king of Aquitaine, and
then Guillaume II of Provence at least partly in order to ensure the
position of her young son Guillaume Taillefer as heir of Toulouse. It is
not clear when he took up rule there, or who took his place in the
980s/990s. A count named Raimond occurs in that period where a count of
Toulouse might be expected, presumably Raimond of Rouergue who was
marquis of Gothia. There was also a count Hugo, but he was not titled
bishop.
I think its Bachrach who assigns Geoffrey Greycloak a major role in her
early marriages, as he wanted to expand his influence in aquitaine,
presumably the same was true for Louis's father. And when her first
husband Stephen died, she married the Prince of Gothia to protect
her children by Stephen, but after her marriage to Louis she lived in
the north it seems from Raoul Glabers account, because she had to trick him
to go to visit aquitaine and then fled to her family though whether
that means her brother Geoffrey in Anjou or Guy in Le Puy or her children
somewhere else its not said. It must have been very sad if she had to
leave her 4 children behind in the south when she was living with Louis.
Richer says they got a divorce because they were so incompatible due
to age and character. Was divorce easier in the 10th century
compared to the 9th and 11th? Did they have to petition the pope?
Post by Peter Stewart
The identity of the Bishop Hugo who according to the Roda codex died
hunting is not certain, but this was probably a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband Raimond (V) of Toulouse. However, the death of Hugo may
have preceded that of Raimond in 978/79, and I can't find evidence that
he ruled Toulouse after the latter's death.
So theres quite a gap between 978 and 1004. Could Toulouse have been
under the Counts of Rouergue in the 980s and 990s until WT became adult?
Theres a story in the miracles of St.Foy that Raymond II of Rouergue made a big
donation that included a gilt saddle which was booty from fighting the saracens in
Spain, so he might have been leading the forces of Toulouse and Gothia
against Al Manzur attacks.

kerica
taf
2021-04-21 13:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Why was he called Taillefer? I think it means ironcutter. There was
another William Taillefer of Angouleme [d1028], whose surname is explained
by Ademar of Chabannes. Did historians confuse the 2? It just
seems suspicious that there were 2 Counts with the same name and
nickname exactly in the same period/area.
I would not read too much into this. sometimes name/nickname combinations could become 'typical', e.g. there were a number of men named William with the byname Longsword.
Post by keri CA
So theres quite a gap between 978 and 1004. Could Toulouse have been
under the Counts of Rouergue in the 980s and 990s until WT became adult?
Theres a story in the miracles of St.Foy that Raymond II of Rouergue made a big
donation that included a gilt saddle which was booty from fighting the saracens in
Spain, so he might have been leading the forces of Toulouse and Gothia
against Al Manzur attacks.
The dirty little secret is that what happened to Toulouse between Raymond Pons and William is highly speculative. One reconstruction has Raymond Pons dying without children and Raymond I of Rouergue inheriting Toulouse as count, then leaving it to son Raymond, who in this reconstruction is paternal half-brother of Raymond II of Rouergue. It comes down to what one chooses to read into the will of the widow of Raymond Pons, how much faith one gives the Codice de Roda's pedigree, and which Raymond in these sources one chooses to identify with the husband of Adelais.

taf
paulorica...@gmail.com
2021-04-21 18:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_III,_Count_of_Toulouse for a discussion of the three different reconstructions of the genealogy of the counts of Toulouse in the mid to late 10th century.
Peter Stewart
2021-04-22 02:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
Why was he called Taillefer? I think it means ironcutter. There was
another William Taillefer of Angouleme [d1028], whose surname is explained
by Ademar of Chabannes. Did historians confuse the 2? It just
seems suspicious that there were 2 Counts with the same name and
nickname exactly in the same period/area.
I would not read too much into this. sometimes name/nickname combinations could become 'typical', e.g. there were a number of men named William with the byname Longsword.
A false William Taillefer was inserted into the record by a 16th/17th
century forger, representing himself as a monk at Saint-Maixent in
Poitou. His work was given the title "Fragmenta chronicorum comitum
Pictaviæ, ducum Aquitaniæ" and believed genuine until the 19th century.

According to this fiction a William Taillefer was son of Trullus,
viscount of Thouars ("Trulli vicecomitis filius et superstes, Willelmus
Ferrum-sector").

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-22 23:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Why was he called Taillefer? I think it means ironcutter. There was
another William Taillefer of Angouleme [d1028], whose surname is explained
by Ademar of Chabannes. Did historians confuse the 2? It just
seems suspicious that there were 2 Counts with the same name and
nickname exactly in the same period/area.
I would not read too much into this. sometimes name/nickname combinations could become 'typical', e.g. there were a number of men named William with the byname Longsword.
A false William Taillefer was inserted into the record by a 16th/17th
century forger, representing himself as a monk at Saint-Maixent in
Poitou. His work was given the title "Fragmenta chronicorum comitum
Pictaviæ, ducum Aquitaniæ" and believed genuine until the 19th century.
According to this fiction a William Taillefer was son of Trullus,
viscount of Thouars ("Trulli vicecomitis filius et superstes, Willelmus
Ferrum-sector").
Peter Stewart
I've not seen this but apparently there is a undated epitaph for Count William called Taliafer and
Raymond Bertrand [his son?] at St.Sernin, Toulouse in Histoire Générale de Languedoc
3rd Edn. Tome V, Preuves, Inscriptions, 10, p. 4. Maybe this explains why he was
called this, or at least its the only source I've found for the name, assuming it
is WT d1037.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-04-22 23:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Why was he called Taillefer? I think it means ironcutter. There was
another William Taillefer of Angouleme [d1028], whose surname is explained
by Ademar of Chabannes. Did historians confuse the 2? It just
seems suspicious that there were 2 Counts with the same name and
nickname exactly in the same period/area.
I would not read too much into this. sometimes name/nickname combinations could become 'typical', e.g. there were a number of men named William with the byname Longsword.
A false William Taillefer was inserted into the record by a 16th/17th
century forger, representing himself as a monk at Saint-Maixent in
Poitou. His work was given the title "Fragmenta chronicorum comitum
Pictaviæ, ducum Aquitaniæ" and believed genuine until the 19th century.
According to this fiction a William Taillefer was son of Trullus,
viscount of Thouars ("Trulli vicecomitis filius et superstes, Willelmus
Ferrum-sector").
Peter Stewart
I've not seen this but apparently there is a undated epitaph for Count William called Taliafer and
Raymond Bertrand [his son?] at St.Sernin, Toulouse in Histoire Générale de Languedoc
3rd Edn. Tome V, Preuves, Inscriptions, 10, p. 4. Maybe this explains why he was
called this, or at least its the only source I've found for the name, assuming it
is WT d1037.
According to the editors of *Corpus des inscriptions de la France
médiévale* 7 (1982) p. 39 no. 17, this inscription dates from before
1050 when Guillaume Taillefer's grandson Raimond Bertrand died young
("Guillaume III dit Taillefer, comte de Toulouse, mourut en 1037. Son
petit-fils, Raimond Bertrand, mourut en bas-âge, avant 1050. La
paléographie de l'inscription montre que l'épitaphe a dû être rédigée au
moment de l'inhumation de Raimond Bertrand.") The illustration (plate
XXII fig. 44) appears to support this.

I think you have cause and effect backwards - the byname would have been
inscribed on his contemporary epitaph because he was already known by
it, not the other way round.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-22 00:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
The earliest certainly-dated occurrence I can find of Guillaume III
specified as count of Toulouse was in 1004 at the dedication of
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10334800t/f221.item.r=12774
This was transcribed in the 17th century from a damaged codex at
Psalmodi, the rest of the document being illegible and the whole codex
(p. 200)
Dictus Warnerius suscipiat reaedificandum
et reparandum S Petri Psalmodii monasterium
et ei abbas praeesse........
...
S. Adalaicae comitissae
S. Willelmi comitis Tolosae
S. Pontii comitis
S. Iterii [sic, perhaps a misreading of Item] Willelmi comitis
Prouinciae
S. Rotbaldi comitis
S. Hugonis comitis et Pontii fratris sui
...
(p. 201)
actum anno regis Roberti VIII
It looks like she has with her at least 3 of her sons: WT, William II of Provence,
and Pons of Gevaudan as well? Is Rotbald her brother inlaw?
Who are the last 2 brothers? Could they be more Toulouse relatives or Rouergue
ones? Having 2 sons with the same name must have made mealtimes confusing!
That is why I guess that the scribe wrote "Item" before the name of the
second Count Guillaume, rather than interpolating the name Iterius as
oddly supposed by Estiennot, Mabillon and many others since them. At the
breakfast table, if they all ate together, I assume Adelais could have
used nicknames for one or both of her two sons Guillaume.

Your identifications of these people seem fine to me - I'm not sure of
the identity of the last two brothers, Hugo and Pons: my guess is that
these were Raimond III of Rouergue's two younger brothers of these
names. He was marquis of Gothia at the time, but I don't know where Hugo
may have been count. Perhaps he had ruled in Toulouse before then and
kept using the title. Family stand-ins around this time usually just
assumed the title as if theirs by right rather than as proxy.
Post by keri CA
Thats if William II of Provence was her son; the article on wiki has him as
both son and stepson.
Numbering can be the detail-devil: William II of Provence is the ordinal
normally given to Adelaide's fourth husband, William III to her son.
There are charters affirming this relationship (e.g. "ego Adalaix
comitissa et filius meus Willelmus" probably in 996, "comitissa Adalax
et filius suus Willelmus" in 1000, "Adalax, inclita comitissa ...
Guillelmus, comes Provintie, filius ejus" in 1005).
Post by keri CA
So all these charters place William T and Emma in the 11th century.
There doesnt seem anything about him before 1000.
Thierry Stasser noted that William had married Emma by 1021, though he
also accepted the dating emendation by Poly that I mentioned upthread,
from 22 April 1015 (that I think should be 1016) to 23 May 1008.
Post by keri CA
Are the Miracles from Conques the only source for WTs first wife
Arsinde? On french wiki she is called Arsinde de Comminges without
any real proof, but as her father Arnald died c957, she seems the wrong
generation. Arsinde was the name of the first wife of William I of Provence,
so I wonder if she was his daughter. Could stepchildren marry in
those days?
Stasser suggested making Arsinde a step-daughter of Adelaide of Anjou,
daughter of William II by his first wife Arsinde. I think this is
unwarranted just from coincidental onomastics given that the name was
fairly widespread and frequent. Unfortunately some have taken it as
definite rather than conjectural.
Post by keri CA
Why was he called Taillefer? I think it means ironcutter. There was
another William Taillefer of Angouleme [d1028], whose surname is explained
by Ademar of Chabannes. Did historians confuse the 2? It just
seems suspicious that there were 2 Counts with the same name and
nickname exactly in the same period/area.
Taillefer was first used for a "greatly beloved" (valde amantissimus)
count of Angoulême who is said to have cut through the breastplate of a
Viking chieftain in single combat, as related by Ademar. This
10th-century personage became legendary, morphing into a hero of
romance. His grandson given the same byname was a contemporary of
Adelaide's son William of Toulouse and married to the latter's first
cousin Gerberge of Anjou. These people were the rock-stars of their
time, and like their counterparts today they could be vain and
competitive. Taking on the byname Taillefer was probably somewhat like
imitating Mick Jagger's prance on stage, keeping up with the gimmick of
a leading idol.

<snip>
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Presumably Adelaide of Anjou married Louis V, king of Aquitaine, and
then Guillaume II of Provence at least partly in order to ensure the
position of her young son Guillaume Taillefer as heir of Toulouse. It is
not clear when he took up rule there, or who took his place in the
980s/990s. A count named Raimond occurs in that period where a count of
Toulouse might be expected, presumably Raimond of Rouergue who was
marquis of Gothia. There was also a count Hugo, but he was not titled
bishop.
I think its Bachrach who assigns Geoffrey Greycloak a major role in her
early marriages, as he wanted to expand his influence in aquitaine,
presumably the same was true for Louis's father. And when her first
husband Stephen died, she married the Prince of Gothia to protect
her children by Stephen, but after her marriage to Louis she lived in
the north it seems from Raoul Glabers account, because she had to trick him
to go to visit aquitaine and then fled to her family though whether
that means her brother Geoffrey in Anjou or Guy in Le Puy or her children
somewhere else its not said. It must have been very sad if she had to
leave her 4 children behind in the south when she was living with Louis.
Richer says they got a divorce because they were so incompatible due
to age and character. Was divorce easier in the 10th century
compared to the 9th and 11th? Did they have to petition the pope?
I doubt that Adelaide of Anjou was very closely acquainted with sadness
over her sons: she was tough, to say the least, if not quite in the
monstrous league of her daughter Constance in that and other respects.

Divorce around the year 1000 could be an informal matter of repudiation,
as with King Robert II and his first wife Rozala Suzanna. Rulers,
including Carolingian kings, could either get away with this or not
depending on papal authority and/or whim from time to time.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
The identity of the Bishop Hugo who according to the Roda codex died
hunting is not certain, but this was probably a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband Raimond (V) of Toulouse. However, the death of Hugo may
have preceded that of Raimond in 978/79, and I can't find evidence that
he ruled Toulouse after the latter's death.
So theres quite a gap between 978 and 1004. Could Toulouse have been
under the Counts of Rouergue in the 980s and 990s until WT became adult?
Theres a story in the miracles of St.Foy that Raymond II of Rouergue made a big
donation that included a gilt saddle which was booty from fighting the saracens in
Spain, so he might have been leading the forces of Toulouse and Gothia
against Al Manzur attacks.
Writing the history of Toulouse in this period is far more art than
science. There may be countless permutations in chronology and
relationships depending on how identities are assigned to common names
in the extant sources. The medieval monks who wrote most of these were
not careful to specify territorial designations much less ordinal
numbers for various counts, or family origins for their wives, so
historians can (and relentlessly do) apply their own imaginations to the
many puzzles arising.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-22 10:31:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
The earliest certainly-dated occurrence I can find of Guillaume III
specified as count of Toulouse was in 1004 at the dedication of
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10334800t/f221.item.r=12774
This was transcribed in the 17th century from a damaged codex at
Psalmodi, the rest of the document being illegible and the whole codex
(p. 200)
Dictus Warnerius suscipiat reaedificandum
et reparandum S Petri Psalmodii monasterium
et ei abbas praeesse........
...
S. Adalaicae comitissae
S. Willelmi comitis Tolosae
S. Pontii comitis
S. Iterii [sic, perhaps a misreading of Item] Willelmi comitis
Prouinciae
S. Rotbaldi comitis
S. Hugonis comitis et Pontii fratris sui
...
(p. 201)
actum anno regis Roberti VIII
It looks like she has with her at least 3 of her sons: WT, William II of Provence,
and Pons of Gevaudan as well? Is Rotbald her brother inlaw?
Who are the last 2 brothers? Could they be more Toulouse relatives or Rouergue
ones? Having 2 sons with the same name must have made mealtimes confusing!
That is why I guess that the scribe wrote "Item" before the name of the
second Count Guillaume, rather than interpolating the name Iterius as
oddly supposed by Estiennot, Mabillon and many others since them. At the
breakfast table, if they all ate together, I assume Adelais could have
used nicknames for one or both of her two sons Guillaume.
Your identifications of these people seem fine to me - I'm not sure of
the identity of the last two brothers, Hugo and Pons: my guess is that
these were Raimond III of Rouergue's two younger brothers of these
names. He was marquis of Gothia at the time, but I don't know where Hugo
may have been count. Perhaps he had ruled in Toulouse before then and
kept using the title. Family stand-ins around this time usually just
assumed the title as if theirs by right rather than as proxy.
Post by keri CA
Thats if William II of Provence was her son; the article on wiki has him as
both son and stepson.
Numbering can be the detail-devil: William II of Provence is the ordinal
normally given to Adelaide's fourth husband, William III to her son.
There are charters affirming this relationship (e.g. "ego Adalaix
comitissa et filius meus Willelmus" probably in 996, "comitissa Adalax
et filius suus Willelmus" in 1000, "Adalax, inclita comitissa ...
Guillelmus, comes Provintie, filius ejus" in 1005).
Its made more confusing because it seems all the male descendants of
William the liberator called themselves count of Provence while those of Robald used
marquis or margrave.

In several places on wiki it says Emma herself became margrave of provence when her
brother William IV died 1037 without heirs. I believe that in the south women could rule in
their own right, such as Ermengarde of narbonne so was Emma an earlier example?
The counts of Toulouse certainly inherited her rights in Provence, but did her son
or grandson not do so until she died?
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
So all these charters place William T and Emma in the 11th century.
There doesnt seem anything about him before 1000.
Thierry Stasser noted that William had married Emma by 1021, though he
also accepted the dating emendation by Poly that I mentioned upthread,
from 22 April 1015 (that I think should be 1016) to 23 May 1008.
do we know when Emma died? Some places say 1062 others after 1063.
either she was very old, or she was much younger than her husband.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Are the Miracles from Conques the only source for WTs first wife
Arsinde? On french wiki she is called Arsinde de Comminges without
any real proof, but as her father Arnald died c957, she seems the wrong
generation. Arsinde was the name of the first wife of William I of Provence,
so I wonder if she was his daughter. Could stepchildren marry in
those days?
Stasser suggested making Arsinde a step-daughter of Adelaide of Anjou,
daughter of William II by his first wife Arsinde. I think this is
unwarranted just from coincidental onomastics given that the name was
fairly widespread and frequent. Unfortunately some have taken it as
definite rather than conjectural.
Post by keri CA
Why was he called Taillefer? I think it means ironcutter. There was
another William Taillefer of Angouleme [d1028], whose surname is explained
by Ademar of Chabannes. Did historians confuse the 2? It just
seems suspicious that there were 2 Counts with the same name and
nickname exactly in the same period/area.
Taillefer was first used for a "greatly beloved" (valde amantissimus)
count of Angoulême who is said to have cut through the breastplate of a
Viking chieftain in single combat, as related by Ademar. This
10th-century personage became legendary, morphing into a hero of
romance. His grandson given the same byname was a contemporary of
Adelaide's son William of Toulouse and married to the latter's first
Yes when i looked this up properly you are right, and I confused the
story of Count WT [I] who died 962 with his grandson WT [II] who died 1028.

Count William Taillefer [I] died without legit sons so Angouleme was seized
by his relatives in Perigord and one of these was Arnald Bourratio. He got this
name says Ademar because when he saw a wolf attacking people he dashed
over in his armour and pinned it down until his men could kill it. But what does
bourratio mean? it doesnt seem latin is it romance term?

In fact all 4 Perigord brothers have surnames; William Talerand, Ramnulf Bompard,
Richard the Foolish. I thought Talerand might be connected to Talleyrand which
was owned by the later family of princes, but its near Clermont far from
Perigord. Bompard seems to be a common surname in France today so perhaps
it derived from an estate name or place.
Post by Peter Stewart
cousin Gerberge of Anjou. These people were the rock-stars of their
time, and like their counterparts today they could be vain and
competitive. Taking on the byname Taillefer was probably somewhat like
imitating Mick Jagger's prance on stage, keeping up with the gimmick of
a leading idol.
<snip>
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Presumably Adelaide of Anjou married Louis V, king of Aquitaine, and
then Guillaume II of Provence at least partly in order to ensure the
position of her young son Guillaume Taillefer as heir of Toulouse. It is
not clear when he took up rule there, or who took his place in the
980s/990s. A count named Raimond occurs in that period where a count of
Toulouse might be expected, presumably Raimond of Rouergue who was
marquis of Gothia. There was also a count Hugo, but he was not titled
bishop.
I think its Bachrach who assigns Geoffrey Greycloak a major role in her
early marriages, as he wanted to expand his influence in aquitaine,
presumably the same was true for Louis's father. And when her first
husband Stephen died, she married the Prince of Gothia to protect
her children by Stephen, but after her marriage to Louis she lived in
the north it seems from Raoul Glabers account, because she had to trick him
to go to visit aquitaine and then fled to her family though whether
that means her brother Geoffrey in Anjou or Guy in Le Puy or her children
somewhere else its not said. It must have been very sad if she had to
leave her 4 children behind in the south when she was living with Louis.
Richer says they got a divorce because they were so incompatible due
to age and character. Was divorce easier in the 10th century
compared to the 9th and 11th? Did they have to petition the pope?
I doubt that Adelaide of Anjou was very closely acquainted with sadness
over her sons: she was tough, to say the least, if not quite in the
monstrous league of her daughter Constance in that and other respects.
Constance of Arles was quite exceptional. Even bishops were afraid of her!
Post by Peter Stewart
Divorce around the year 1000 could be an informal matter of repudiation,
as with King Robert II and his first wife Rozala Suzanna. Rulers,
including Carolingian kings, could either get away with this or not
depending on papal authority and/or whim from time to time.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
The identity of the Bishop Hugo who according to the Roda codex died
hunting is not certain, but this was probably a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband Raimond (V) of Toulouse. However, the death of Hugo may
have preceded that of Raimond in 978/79, and I can't find evidence that
he ruled Toulouse after the latter's death.
The only Hugo Bishop of Toulouse I found was given the dates 928-72,
so hes the wrong generation/too early. So if there was a bishop Hugo
he must have had another see.

kerica
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
So theres quite a gap between 978 and 1004. Could Toulouse have been
under the Counts of Rouergue in the 980s and 990s until WT became adult?
Theres a story in the miracles of St.Foy that Raymond II of Rouergue made a big
donation that included a gilt saddle which was booty from fighting the saracens in
Spain, so he might have been leading the forces of Toulouse and Gothia
against Al Manzur attacks.
Writing the history of Toulouse in this period is far more art than
science. There may be countless permutations in chronology and
relationships depending on how identities are assigned to common names
in the extant sources. The medieval monks who wrote most of these were
not careful to specify territorial designations much less ordinal
numbers for various counts, or family origins for their wives, so
historians can (and relentlessly do) apply their own imaginations to the
many puzzles arising.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-23 00:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Numbering can be the detail-devil: William II of Provence is the ordinal
normally given to Adelaide's fourth husband, William III to her son.
There are charters affirming this relationship (e.g. "ego Adalaix
comitissa et filius meus Willelmus" probably in 996, "comitissa Adalax
et filius suus Willelmus" in 1000, "Adalax, inclita comitissa ...
Guillelmus, comes Provintie, filius ejus" in 1005).
Its made more confusing because it seems all the male descendants of
William the liberator called themselves count of Provence while those of Robald used
marquis or margrave.
Adding to the confusion, Guillaume of Urgel from the lineage of William
the Liberator called himself marquis of Provence when he became count of
Forcalquier (a third division of the ancestral territory). The various
family arrangements and conflicts are too complicated to unravel here,
but basically Provence was shared/divided between the Liberator's
descendants as counts across the south and east originally based at
Arles and his brother Roubaud's in the north-western marquisate
originally based at Avignon. Forcalquier was immediately to the east of
the marquisate, including Sisteron and Embrun both near its eastern
demarcation with the county of Provence.
Post by keri CA
In several places on wiki it says Emma herself became margrave of provence when her
brother William IV died 1037 without heirs. I believe that in the south women could rule in
their own right, such as Ermengarde of narbonne so was Emma an earlier example?
The counts of Toulouse certainly inherited her rights in Provence, but did her son
or grandson not do so until she died?
<snip>
Post by keri CA
do we know when Emma died? Some places say 1062 others after 1063.
either she was very old, or she was much younger than her husband.
I don't know when Emma died and I don't think anyone else does for
certain. She should not be considered a marchioness of Provence
exercising power in her own right, as there is no direct evidence for
this - it's a bit like claiming Cleopatra as an African native, a
projection of wishful thinking from a modern socio-political agenda.
Feminist historians can be among the most imaginative.

<snip>
Post by keri CA
Count William Taillefer [I] died without legit sons so Angouleme was seized
by his relatives in Perigord and one of these was Arnald Bourratio. He got this
name says Ademar because when he saw a wolf attacking people he dashed
over in his armour and pinned it down until his men could kill it. But what does
bourratio mean? it doesnt seem latin is it romance term?
I haven't looked into it but I would assume it is derived from the Latin
'vorax' meaning voracious - the byname occurs as Voratio.
Post by keri CA
In fact all 4 Perigord brothers have surnames; William Talerand, Ramnulf Bompard,
Richard the Foolish. I thought Talerand might be connected to Talleyrand which
was owned by the later family of princes, but its near Clermont far from
Perigord. Bompard seems to be a common surname in France today so perhaps
it derived from an estate name or place.
The Talleyrand family took the surname from later on, around a century
after the time of Guillaume Talairan, but there may be an indirect
connection I haven't looked for, either from a place name or perhaps
just from association with an alleged ancestor. I don't think even they
claim descent from one of these 10th-century brothers. Their father used
to be given the byname Grandin, but this was a 17th-century adornment.

<snip>
Post by keri CA
Constance of Arles was quite exceptional. Even bishops were afraid of her!
They probably felt exposed in her firing line. A virago who could poke
out the eye of a priest with a stick "pour encourager les autres" when
she was aiming to control a crowd at a heresy trial is not to be taken
lightly.

<snip>
Post by keri CA
The only Hugo Bishop of Toulouse I found was given the dates 928-72,
so hes the wrong generation/too early. So if there was a bishop Hugo
he must have had another see.
There were perhaps two bishops of Toulouse named Hugo in the comital
family - one was bishop by 1 July 928 and evidently count of Albi in the
early 940s. Assuming he is not the man who was killed in a hunting
accident in 973/74, as related in the Roda codex, when a man who was
bishop by 928 would have been a geriatric sportsman, there may have been
a namesake from a later generation, perhaps a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband. But this is far from definite.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-23 21:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
<snip>
Post by keri CA
The only Hugo Bishop of Toulouse I found was given the dates 928-72,
so hes the wrong generation/too early. So if there was a bishop Hugo
he must have had another see.
There were perhaps two bishops of Toulouse named Hugo in the comital
family - one was bishop by 1 July 928 and evidently count of Albi in the
early 940s. Assuming he is not the man who was killed in a hunting
accident in 973/74, as related in the Roda codex, when a man who was
bishop by 928 would have been a geriatric sportsman, there may have been
a namesake from a later generation, perhaps a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband. But this is far from definite.
Peter Stewart
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it. The breakdown for Hugo said he wrote a letter to Pope John X
in 926 [perhaps that should be 928], attended the synod of Enserune 937,
approved the foundation of Cambon 943, signed a charter for Lezat [no571] 955,
made his will c960, confirmed the charter of Loup/Lupus for Cuxa 969, and
authorised Bernard Bishop of Comminges to consacrate his church 972.

I assume that as his will is 'c960' its undated, which means that if these
other dates are correct, there could be Hugo I bishop of Toulouse 926-55
and maybe another Hugo II 969-72 for example. I'm suprised Prof Wolff
didnt consider this. How does a bishop become a count? Did he resign his
see, or do you mean he acquired comital powers as well, like Guy did at
Le Puy? I wonder if the will gives any clue as to who he was and whether
he was a member of the Toulouse or Rouergue dynasty.

I notice that there was also a Raymond bishop of Toulouse 994-1007.

kerica
taf
2021-04-23 22:47:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it.
Would this be Philippe Wolff, Histoire de Toulouse, 1959 (and several later editions)?

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-23 23:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it.
Would this be Philippe Wolff, Histoire de Toulouse, 1959 (and several later editions)?
This book was written by Wolff, but I assume the work referenced as
"Wolff's histoire du diocese Toulouse" is *Le diocèse de Toulouse*
(Paris, 1983), edited by him in the series 'Histoire des diocèses de
France'. I haven't seen this and don't know who wrote the section
covering the late-10th century (maybe Élisabeth Magnou-Nortier).

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-24 00:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it.
Would this be Philippe Wolff, Histoire de Toulouse, 1959 (and several later editions)?
This book was written by Wolff, but I assume the work referenced as
"Wolff's histoire du diocese Toulouse" is *Le diocèse de Toulouse*
(Paris, 1983), edited by him in the series 'Histoire des diocèses de
France'. I haven't seen this and don't know who wrote the section
covering the late-10th century (maybe Élisabeth Magnou-Nortier).
Ah. Google is letting me see some pages, and from what I can see, it is unclear that they have divided editorial responsibilities in an identifiable way (I can't see the T.O.C., but neither the first page of a chapter nor the concluding page of one have an identified author).

I am finding our man named two places. On p. 284 there is simply the continuation of a list of bishops and archbishops, and it includes "vers 928-972 Hughes I". The more detailed mention is in Chapter 2, 'Sous la conduite des évêques at moines (VIIIe-XIe siècles)'. There on p. 30, in a section on 'L'origine sociale des évêques' it says of him:

Hughes Ier, par exemple (v. 928-v.972), porte un nom raimondin. Le testament qu'il rédige vers 960 constitue une autre preuve de son appartance à la haute aristocratie, puisqu'il y dispose d'alleux sis en Toulousain, en Ariège, en Albigeois, et même dans l'Aude ou le Razès. . . . . On voit ces évêques conclure des contats concernant la gestion de telle ou telle fraction de leur patrimoine, tel Hughes Ier conluant, vers 950, une 'convenientia venditionis' avec le clerc Loup (puet-être ce même Loup devint-il primicier de la cathédrale Saint-Etienne avant 969) dans cest termes: . . . . Le successeur d'Hughes, l'évêque Islus, concédait en 'fevum', en 985, . . . ."

(Note: there are no footnotes given in the text. I don't know if there is a list of sources for each chapter at the end of the book.)

There could be other mentions of him that it is not showing me.
taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-24 01:23:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it.
Would this be Philippe Wolff, Histoire de Toulouse, 1959 (and several later editions)?
This book was written by Wolff, but I assume the work referenced as
"Wolff's histoire du diocese Toulouse" is *Le diocèse de Toulouse*
(Paris, 1983), edited by him in the series 'Histoire des diocèses de
France'. I haven't seen this and don't know who wrote the section
covering the late-10th century (maybe Élisabeth Magnou-Nortier).
Ah. Google is letting me see some pages, and from what I can see, it is unclear that they have divided editorial responsibilities in an identifiable way (I can't see the T.O.C., but neither the first page of a chapter nor the concluding page of one have an identified author).
It is clearer here:
https://lessaisons.fr/livre/65517-toulouse-philippe-wolff-beauchesne.
The article covering the late-10th century is by Magnou-Nortier, 'Sous
la conduite des évêques et des moines (VIIIe-XIe siècles)' on pp. 26-46.
Post by taf
Hughes Ier, par exemple (v. 928-v.972), porte un nom raimondin. Le testament qu'il rédige vers 960 constitue une autre preuve de son appartance à la haute aristocratie, puisqu'il y dispose d'alleux sis en Toulousain, en Ariège, en Albigeois, et même dans l'Aude ou le Razès. . . . . On voit ces évêques conclure des contats concernant la gestion de telle ou telle fraction de leur patrimoine, tel Hughes Ier conluant, vers 950, une 'convenientia venditionis' avec le clerc Loup (puet-être ce même Loup devint-il primicier de la cathédrale Saint-Etienne avant 969) dans cest termes: . . . . Le successeur d'Hughes, l'évêque Islus, concédait en 'fevum', en 985, . . . ."
(Note: there are no footnotes given in the text. I don't know if there is a list of sources for each chapter at the end of the book.)
There could be other mentions of him that it is not showing me.
Google Books will be found in a circle of hell beneath the lowest
visited by Dante...

I think the rationale for 926 is probably that the letter to Pope John X
was co-written by Aimeric the newly-elected archbishop of Narbonne, and
his predecessor Agius is last recorded on 28 September 926. If so, not a
very strong case for that particular year but nonetheless after
September 926-before July 928 (John X was deposed in the late spring or
early summer of that year, often placed in May because of a questionable
record of his death in that month but anyway within a few months
afterwards at the latest).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-24 00:07:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
<snip>
Post by keri CA
The only Hugo Bishop of Toulouse I found was given the dates 928-72,
so hes the wrong generation/too early. So if there was a bishop Hugo
he must have had another see.
There were perhaps two bishops of Toulouse named Hugo in the comital
family - one was bishop by 1 July 928 and evidently count of Albi in the
early 940s. Assuming he is not the man who was killed in a hunting
accident in 973/74, as related in the Roda codex, when a man who was
bishop by 928 would have been a geriatric sportsman, there may have been
a namesake from a later generation, perhaps a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband. But this is far from definite.
Peter Stewart
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it. The breakdown for Hugo said he wrote a letter to Pope John X
in 926 [perhaps that should be 928], attended the synod of Enserune 937,
approved the foundation of Cambon 943, signed a charter for Lezat [no571] 955,
made his will c960, confirmed the charter of Loup/Lupus for Cuxa 969, and
authorised Bernard Bishop of Comminges to consacrate his church 972.
The first known occurrence of Hugo as bishop is the letter to John X
that was written by July 928 - I have not seen the rationale for
ascribing it to 926. A bishop Hugo last occurs in a charter datable to
22 January 973. If these were one-and-the-same man, then presumably he
would have been in his mid-70s or older when killed in a hunting
accident (if the Roda codex is to be credited on this). By 8 March 974
the bishop of Toulouse was named Isolus.
Post by keri CA
I assume that as his will is 'c960' its undated, which means that if these
other dates are correct, there could be Hugo I bishop of Toulouse 926-55
and maybe another Hugo II 969-72 for example. I'm suprised Prof Wolff
didnt consider this. How does a bishop become a count? Did he resign his
see, or do you mean he acquired comital powers as well, like Guy did at
Le Puy? I wonder if the will gives any clue as to who he was and whether
he was a member of the Toulouse or Rouergue dynasty.
The Church militant of the 10th/11th century had other bishop-counts,
for example Hugo who was count of Chalon and bishop of Auxerre. Hugo the
bishop by July 928 in his will did not settle the question of his origin
- he was attributed to the comital family of Carcassonne by Devic and
Vaissette (as he is now called), the authors of *Histoire générale de
Languedoc*.
Post by keri CA
I notice that there was also a Raymond bishop of Toulouse 994-1007.
Raimond was bishop by 28 June 987 evidently until after October/November
1010 - but he was made into two men of the same name by Guillaume de
Catel in the 17th century, followed by others. There are not many
definite cut-and-dried facts from this era in Toulouse.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-24 04:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The first known occurrence of Hugo as bishop is the letter to John X
that was written by July 928 - I have not seen the rationale for
ascribing it to 926. A bishop Hugo last occurs in a charter datable to
22 January 973.
This is a fair example of the difficulties of securely dating events in
Languedoc around the year 1000.

The charter in question mentions Hugo specified as bishop of Toulouse.
This is known only from 17th/18th-century readings:

#1. A transcription by Jean de Doat, the date given as Friday 22 January
979, indiction IV, in the 18th regnal year of Lothair IV.

#2. A reference by Guillaume de Catel in 1633 ascribing it to the 18th
year of Lothair in 973.

#3. A note by Jean Mabillon in 1681 quoting its dating elements as in #1
except for the year, given as 972 instead of 979.

#4. A reference by Mabillon in 1706 giving no year or indiction but
changing the weekday of 22 January from Friday to Wednesday.

#5. An edition in Gallia Christiana vol. 13 (1755) giving the date as
Wednesday 22 January 972, indiction I, in the 18th regnal year of
Lothair IV.

None of these can be fully correct - 22 January 972 corresponds to the
18th regnal year of Lothair IV but that's about it:

#1. 22 January in 979 was a Wednesday in indiction VII, and Hugo had
been succeeded as bishop of Toulouse before that year anyway.

#2. January 973 was in the 19th year of Lothair IV.

#3. 22 January in 972 was a Monday in indiction XV.

#4. and #5. 22 January fell on Wednesday in 973 in indiction I.

The dating in #5 may be preferable on the whole, but the choice is
really just a best guess for Hugo's last occurrence. The most recent
complete edition I can find was by Ramon d'Abadal in 1954, and he used
Doat's transcription (#1) but ascribed it to 972 instead of 979.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-24 21:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
<snip>
Post by keri CA
The only Hugo Bishop of Toulouse I found was given the dates 928-72,
so hes the wrong generation/too early. So if there was a bishop Hugo
he must have had another see.
There were perhaps two bishops of Toulouse named Hugo in the comital
family - one was bishop by 1 July 928 and evidently count of Albi in the
early 940s. Assuming he is not the man who was killed in a hunting
accident in 973/74, as related in the Roda codex, when a man who was
bishop by 928 would have been a geriatric sportsman, there may have been
a namesake from a later generation, perhaps a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband. But this is far from definite.
Peter Stewart
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it. The breakdown for Hugo said he wrote a letter to Pope John X
in 926 [perhaps that should be 928], attended the synod of Enserune 937,
approved the foundation of Cambon 943, signed a charter for Lezat [no571] 955,
made his will c960, confirmed the charter of Loup/Lupus for Cuxa 969, and
authorised Bernard Bishop of Comminges to consacrate his church 972.
The first known occurrence of Hugo as bishop is the letter to John X
that was written by July 928 - I have not seen the rationale for
ascribing it to 926. A bishop Hugo last occurs in a charter datable to
22 January 973. If these were one-and-the-same man, then presumably he
would have been in his mid-70s or older when killed in a hunting
accident (if the Roda codex is to be credited on this). By 8 March 974
the bishop of Toulouse was named Isolus.
Post by keri CA
I assume that as his will is 'c960' its undated, which means that if these
other dates are correct, there could be Hugo I bishop of Toulouse 926-55
and maybe another Hugo II 969-72 for example. I'm suprised Prof Wolff
didnt consider this. How does a bishop become a count? Did he resign his
see, or do you mean he acquired comital powers as well, like Guy did at
Le Puy? I wonder if the will gives any clue as to who he was and whether
he was a member of the Toulouse or Rouergue dynasty.
The Church militant of the 10th/11th century had other bishop-counts,
for example Hugo who was count of Chalon and bishop of Auxerre. Hugo the
bishop by July 928 in his will did not settle the question of his origin
- he was attributed to the comital family of Carcassonne by Devic and
Vaissette (as he is now called), the authors of *Histoire générale de
Languedoc*.
which Carcassonne family did they put him in? Oliba or Roger the old?
What is the evidence for Hugo being count of Albi?
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I notice that there was also a Raymond bishop of Toulouse 994-1007.
Raimond was bishop by 28 June 987 evidently until after October/November
1010 - but he was made into two men of the same name by Guillaume de
Catel in the 17th century, followed by others. There are not many
definite cut-and-dried facts from this era in Toulouse.
yes every piece seems to add to the confusion but its not helped by our learned
forebears making 2 men into one and 1 man into 2.

and then there are pages like this on wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh,_Count_of_Toulouse

while french Wiki has Raymond IV Count of Toulouse 944-61 followed by
Hugo I of Toulouse 961-72, Raymond V 972-78 his brother, and another Hugo II.
Some sites say that William Tailefer had a brother Pons who was Count of Albi 987.
I wonder if this is a mistake and that a charter has been misdated and
this is actually WT's son.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-04-24 22:37:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
<snip>
Post by keri CA
The only Hugo Bishop of Toulouse I found was given the dates 928-72,
so hes the wrong generation/too early. So if there was a bishop Hugo
he must have had another see.
There were perhaps two bishops of Toulouse named Hugo in the comital
family - one was bishop by 1 July 928 and evidently count of Albi in the
early 940s. Assuming he is not the man who was killed in a hunting
accident in 973/74, as related in the Roda codex, when a man who was
bishop by 928 would have been a geriatric sportsman, there may have been
a namesake from a later generation, perhaps a brother of Adelaide of
Anjou's husband. But this is far from definite.
Peter Stewart
The reference for Hugo 928-72 came from Wolffs histoire du diocese Toulouse,
but I havnt seen it. The breakdown for Hugo said he wrote a letter to Pope John X
in 926 [perhaps that should be 928], attended the synod of Enserune 937,
approved the foundation of Cambon 943, signed a charter for Lezat [no571] 955,
made his will c960, confirmed the charter of Loup/Lupus for Cuxa 969, and
authorised Bernard Bishop of Comminges to consacrate his church 972.
The first known occurrence of Hugo as bishop is the letter to John X
that was written by July 928 - I have not seen the rationale for
ascribing it to 926. A bishop Hugo last occurs in a charter datable to
22 January 973. If these were one-and-the-same man, then presumably he
would have been in his mid-70s or older when killed in a hunting
accident (if the Roda codex is to be credited on this). By 8 March 974
the bishop of Toulouse was named Isolus.
Post by keri CA
I assume that as his will is 'c960' its undated, which means that if these
other dates are correct, there could be Hugo I bishop of Toulouse 926-55
and maybe another Hugo II 969-72 for example. I'm suprised Prof Wolff
didnt consider this. How does a bishop become a count? Did he resign his
see, or do you mean he acquired comital powers as well, like Guy did at
Le Puy? I wonder if the will gives any clue as to who he was and whether
he was a member of the Toulouse or Rouergue dynasty.
The Church militant of the 10th/11th century had other bishop-counts,
for example Hugo who was count of Chalon and bishop of Auxerre. Hugo the
bishop by July 928 in his will did not settle the question of his origin
- he was attributed to the comital family of Carcassonne by Devic and
Vaissette (as he is now called), the authors of *Histoire générale de
Languedoc*.
which Carcassonne family did they put him in? Oliba or Roger the old?
Hugo as bishop ceded rights to Roger the Old and his mother Arsinde, but
I may have misremembered the conclusion that Devic and Vaissette drew
from this as at one point they suggested that Hugo was the son or
brother of Guilabert who was vicarius in Carcassonne in the 950s.
Post by keri CA
What is the evidence for Hugo being count of Albi?
Another questionable identification, not to be relied on: a Hugo was
evidently exerting comital power in Albi in the early 940s and there
does not appear to be a better candidate in the record. There are no
mountains to be made in 10th-century Toulousain history, just a lot of
fairly indistinguishable molehills.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I notice that there was also a Raymond bishop of Toulouse 994-1007.
Raimond was bishop by 28 June 987 evidently until after October/November
1010 - but he was made into two men of the same name by Guillaume de
Catel in the 17th century, followed by others. There are not many
definite cut-and-dried facts from this era in Toulouse.
yes every piece seems to add to the confusion but its not helped by our learned
forebears making 2 men into one and 1 man into 2.
and then there are pages like this on wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh,_Count_of_Toulouse
while french Wiki has Raymond IV Count of Toulouse 944-61 followed by
Hugo I of Toulouse 961-72, Raymond V 972-78 his brother, and another Hugo II.
Some sites say that William Tailefer had a brother Pons who was Count of Albi 987.
I wonder if this is a mistake and that a charter has been misdated and
this is actually WT's son.
I think the Pons occurring in Albi in 987 is usually thought to be a
paternal uncle or brother of Adelaide of Anjou's husband, not her son
(she had one named Pons from her first marriage, but he was count in
Gévaudan by inheritance and Forez by marriage) or her grandson who lived
until the 1060s.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-25 06:04:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 25-Apr-21 7:39 AM, keri CA wrote:

<snip>
Post by keri CA
yes every piece seems to add to the confusion but its not helped by our learned
forebears making 2 men into one and 1 man into 2.
The trouble in establishing proof of one man or two without confusion is
neatly illustrated in a 1997 article here:
https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1997_num_109_219_2563.

In the table on p. 354 bishop Hugo of Toulouse is shown as a brother of
Adelaide of Anjou's husband Raimond V and as dying ca 985.

But on p. 350 Hugo is said to have been most probably the prelate killed
in a hunting accident as related in the Roda codex, the son of count
Raimond IV named with the latter as executors in the testament written
ca 960 of his namesake and predecessor bishop Hugo (identified as a
younger son of count Odo who died in 918), whom he succeeded from ca 970
until the fatal accident in which he was killed in 974, a prodigious
event causing a single death on two occasions separated by ca 11 years.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-25 07:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by keri CA
yes every piece seems to add to the confusion but its not helped by our learned
forebears making 2 men into one and 1 man into 2.
The trouble in establishing proof of one man or two without confusion is
https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1997_num_109_219_2563.
In the table on p. 354 bishop Hugo of Toulouse is shown as a brother of
Adelaide of Anjou's husband Raimond V and as dying ca 985.
But on p. 350 Hugo is said to have been most probably the prelate killed
in a hunting accident as related in the Roda codex, the son of count
Raimond IV named with the latter as executors in the testament written
ca 960 of his namesake and predecessor bishop Hugo (identified as a
younger son of count Odo who died in 918), whom he succeeded from ca 970
until the fatal accident in which he was killed in 974, a prodigious
event causing a single death on two occasions separated by ca 11 years.
By the way, it is worth noting that the undated testament of bishop Hugo
of Toulouse that has been usually ascribed to ca 960 was actually
written after 15 July 969 and before 8 March 974 according to Patrice
Cabau in 'Chronologie des évêques de Toulouse: Xe siècle', *Mémoires de
la Société archéologique du Midi de la France* 50 (1990), p. 92. The
rationale for this is based on the presence of Géraud in office as
primicier of the diocese, having succeeded Loup who last occurs on 15
July 969, and the appearance of Isolus as the next bishop of Toulouse by
8 March 974.

This reassessment makes it more likely to my mind that there may have
been just one Hugo who was bishop by ca 927 until 973/74. However, the
Roda codex story of his being killed hunting must add a caution because
it specifies that he was brother of the count Raimond killed at Garazo
("Regemundus genuit Regemundo qui occiderunt in Garazo et domnus Ucus
episcopus qui se ipsum occidit in uenatione"). This Raimond is now
thought to have been the second husband of Adelaide of Anjou - and if
so, far too young to have had a brother who was bishop by ca 927 and
consequently an arguable basis for duplicating Hugo into two namesake
bishops as by Patrick de Latour in the 1997 article linked above.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-25 16:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
This reassessment makes it more likely to my mind that there may have
been just one Hugo who was bishop by ca 927 until 973/74. However, the
Roda codex story of his being killed hunting must add a caution because
it specifies that he was brother of the count Raimond killed at Garazo
("Regemundus genuit Regemundo qui occiderunt in Garazo et domnus Ucus
episcopus qui se ipsum occidit in uenatione"). This Raimond is now
thought to have been the second husband of Adelaide of Anjou - and if
so, far too young to have had a brother who was bishop by ca 927 and
consequently an arguable basis for duplicating Hugo into two namesake
bishops as by Patrick de Latour in the 1997 article linked above.
Just for the sake of argument, Framond suggested that Adelaide's husband was the Raymond of the prior generation, making her step-mother of these brothers. Though this would allow Hugh an earlier birthdate, it sets up a scenario whereby a man who died in 1037 was half-brother of someone made bishop in 927. Not impossible, but not exactly likely.

One could, I guess, argue that the Codice de Roda has erred in attributing episcopal status to its Hugh, but this is some of the most recent material given in the collection of genealogies, thought to have been compiled not too long after the events being described here, and the level of detail on the fates of the two suggests the compiler had some degree of precise knowledge on the brothers.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-25 22:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
This reassessment makes it more likely to my mind that there may have
been just one Hugo who was bishop by ca 927 until 973/74. However, the
Roda codex story of his being killed hunting must add a caution because
it specifies that he was brother of the count Raimond killed at Garazo
("Regemundus genuit Regemundo qui occiderunt in Garazo et domnus Ucus
episcopus qui se ipsum occidit in uenatione"). This Raimond is now
thought to have been the second husband of Adelaide of Anjou - and if
so, far too young to have had a brother who was bishop by ca 927 and
consequently an arguable basis for duplicating Hugo into two namesake
bishops as by Patrick de Latour in the 1997 article linked above.
Just for the sake of argument, Framond suggested that Adelaide's husband was the Raymond of the prior generation, making her step-mother of these brothers. Though this would allow Hugh an earlier birthdate, it sets up a scenario whereby a man who died in 1037 was half-brother of someone made bishop in 927. Not impossible, but not exactly likely.
The bishop of Toulouse before Hugo last occurs in the 25th year of
Charles the Simple, possibly 917 but more probably 922. Hugo was
evidently not newly-installed as bishop at the time of the letter to
John X written very soon after the election of Aimeric as archbishop of
Narbonne, probably in 927. At any rate John responded before he was
deposed in mid-928, so Hugo apparently became bishop within the period
922/ca 927.
Post by taf
One could, I guess, argue that the Codice de Roda has erred in attributing episcopal status to its Hugh, but this is some of the most recent material given in the collection of genealogies, thought to have been compiled not too long after the events being described here, and the level of detail on the fates of the two suggests the compiler had some degree of precise knowledge on the brothers.
The redating by Cabau of Bishop Hugo's testament is consequential - the
primicier Gerald was one of his executors so it must have been written
after the time in office of the former primicier who occurs until 15
July 969, and Hugo bequeathed as allods properties in which he had given
life interest before 950. He also named a count Raimond and the latter's
son Hugo as executors, presumably the father- and brother-in-law of
Adelaide of Anjou respectively. This means that if her husband was the
Raimond killed at Garazo and his brother Hugo was the bishop killed
hunting as the Roda codex says then there were either two bishops of
Toulouse named Hugo in succession before March 974 or else count
Raimond's brother Hugo killed hunting was bishop somewhere else than
Toulouse.

The Roda codex author was interested in the connection between the
rulers of Gascony and Toulouse - on folio 192v he gave the genealogy of
the Gascon family down to the bottom of the sheet and then turned it
anti-clockwise to add the Toulouse family sideways in the left margin.
The link was a daughter of Garcie Sanche of Gascony (died in or after
920) who married Pons the paternal grandfather of count Raimond killed
at Garazo and bishop Hugo killed hunting. Not many men would have lived
to see a great-grandson nearly eligible to become a bishop, so again
there were probably either two successive bishops of Toulouse named Hugo
or else the one killed hunting must have been bishop somewhere else. The
Roda codex just calls him "Ucus episcopus", without specifying his
diocese. I think Toulouse is not very likely, since if there he could
only have been a short-term successor (ca 970-ca 973) to a long-term
bishop (922/ca 927-969/ca 973) of the same name, and as you say the
author seems to have had some precise knowledge - probably enough to
distinguish his bishop Hugo as the younger one if he had had only a
brief follow-on episcopacy in Toulouse.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-25 22:43:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The Roda codex author was interested in the connection between the
rulers of Gascony and Toulouse - on folio 192v he gave the genealogy of
the Gascon family down to the bottom of the sheet and then turned it
anti-clockwise to add the Toulouse family sideways in the left margin.
The link was a daughter of Garcie Sanche of Gascony (died in or after
920) who married Pons the paternal grandfather of count Raimond killed
at Garazo and bishop Hugo killed hunting. Not many men would have lived
to see a great-grandson nearly eligible to become a bishop, so again
there were probably either two successive bishops of Toulouse named Hugo
or else the one killed hunting must have been bishop somewhere else. The
Roda codex just calls him "Ucus episcopus", without specifying his
diocese. I think Toulouse is not very likely, since if there he could
only have been a short-term successor (ca 970-ca 973) to a long-term
bishop (922/ca 927-969/ca 973) of the same name, and as you say the
author seems to have had some precise knowledge - probably enough to
distinguish his bishop Hugo as the younger one if he had had only a
brief follow-on episcopacy in Toulouse.
Perhaps he did just this, with the mention of bishop Hugo having been
killed hunting, if the older namesake was known to have died in his bed
like most aged prelates. But I still think another bishopric than
Toulouse more likely for the younger, sporting cleric.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-25 23:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
This reassessment makes it more likely to my mind that there may have
been just one Hugo who was bishop by ca 927 until 973/74. However, the
Roda codex story of his being killed hunting must add a caution because
it specifies that he was brother of the count Raimond killed at Garazo
("Regemundus genuit Regemundo qui occiderunt in Garazo et domnus Ucus
episcopus qui se ipsum occidit in uenatione"). This Raimond is now
thought to have been the second husband of Adelaide of Anjou - and if
so, far too young to have had a brother who was bishop by ca 927 and
consequently an arguable basis for duplicating Hugo into two namesake
bishops as by Patrick de Latour in the 1997 article linked above.
Just for the sake of argument, Framond suggested that Adelaide's husband was the Raymond of the prior generation, making her step-mother of these brothers. Though this would allow Hugh an earlier birthdate, it sets up a scenario whereby a man who died in 1037 was half-brother of someone made bishop in 927. Not impossible, but not exactly likely.
The bishop of Toulouse before Hugo last occurs in the 25th year of
Charles the Simple, possibly 917 but more probably 922. Hugo was
evidently not newly-installed as bishop at the time of the letter to
John X written very soon after the election of Aimeric as archbishop of
Narbonne, probably in 927. At any rate John responded before he was
deposed in mid-928, so Hugo apparently became bishop within the period
922/ca 927.
Post by taf
One could, I guess, argue that the Codice de Roda has erred in attributing episcopal status to its Hugh, but this is some of the most recent material given in the collection of genealogies, thought to have been compiled not too long after the events being described here, and the level of detail on the fates of the two suggests the compiler had some degree of precise knowledge on the brothers.
The redating by Cabau of Bishop Hugo's testament is consequential - the
primicier Gerald was one of his executors so it must have been written
after the time in office of the former primicier who occurs until 15
July 969, and Hugo bequeathed as allods properties in which he had given
life interest before 950. He also named a count Raimond and the latter's
son Hugo as executors, presumably the father- and brother-in-law of
Adelaide of Anjou respectively. This means that if her husband was the
Raimond killed at Garazo and his brother Hugo was the bishop killed
hunting as the Roda codex says then there were either two bishops of
Toulouse named Hugo in succession before March 974 or else count
Raimond's brother Hugo killed hunting was bishop somewhere else than
Toulouse.
I'm sold on the idea of an elder Bp Hugo and a younger one who might like to
go hunting with his secular buddies. However you could argue that if an
elderly bishop did go hunting, its not surprising he died on the course. More
than 1 king perished that way. French sites call Garazo Garaison, is it a real
place because I've also seen it written Carazo.

I also saw a french site which says Raymond I also had a brother called Hugo who it says was Count of Quercy
which gives various refs to Histoire General de Languedoc without explanation.

Another or the same Count Hugo appears with Raymond Pons at Thomieres in 940 [HGL V, no74] and again in the
grant of Vicomte Ato to Thomieres in 942 [no77]. I dont think he was the same as the bishop of Toulouse.
Post by Peter Stewart
The Roda codex author was interested in the connection between the
rulers of Gascony and Toulouse - on folio 192v he gave the genealogy of
the Gascon family down to the bottom of the sheet and then turned it
anti-clockwise to add the Toulouse family sideways in the left margin.
The link was a daughter of Garcie Sanche of Gascony (died in or after
920) who married Pons the paternal grandfather of count Raimond killed
at Garazo and bishop Hugo killed hunting. Not many men would have lived
to see a great-grandson nearly eligible to become a bishop, so again
there were probably either two successive bishops of Toulouse named Hugo
or else the one killed hunting must have been bishop somewhere else. The
I thought Garsende the wife of Raymond Pons who appears with him in
his charters has been attached to the family of narbonne vicomtes.
Of course he could have had an earlier wife. But Roda annoyingly
doesnt name this daughter.
Post by Peter Stewart
Roda codex just calls him "Ucus episcopus", without specifying his
diocese. I think Toulouse is not very likely, since if there he could
only have been a short-term successor (ca 970-ca 973) to a long-term
bishop (922/ca 927-969/ca 973) of the same name, and as you say the
author seems to have had some precise knowledge - probably enough to
distinguish his bishop Hugo as the younger one if he had had only a
brief follow-on episcopacy in Toulouse.
Peter Stewart
There are some interesting details in the will of Raymond I of Rouergue dc961 [HGL V 111]. Its definitely his
as he names his wife Berta who I believe was the niece and heir of Hugh of Arles. I didnt realise he had a
son called Hugo too, although at the time hes not a bishop. He also leaves land to his nepos Raymond and
his brother Hugo. I think there was some debate as to what Garsinde meant when she refers to her nepotes,
some think she means her grandchildren, others say nephews. I'm not sure when Bertha married Raymond I but
I would have thought Raymond I children would have been too young to have grandchildren in 960. But he
also mentions some unnamed property which he says he bought from his cousin count William. This couldnt
be William Tailefer as he wasnt born, so who was it?

I now notice that you have both discussed this all before about 20 years ago long before my time
on this forum. I'm sorry to drag it up all over again.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-04-26 00:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
There are some interesting details in the will of Raymond I of Rouergue dc961 [HGL V 111]. Its definitely his
as he names his wife Berta who I believe was the niece and heir of Hugh of Arles. I didnt realise he had a
son called Hugo too, although at the time hes not a bishop. He also leaves land to his nepos Raymond and
his brother Hugo. I think there was some debate as to what Garsinde meant when she refers to her nepotes,
some think she means her grandchildren, others say nephews. I'm not sure when Bertha married Raymond I but
I would have thought Raymond I children would have been too young to have grandchildren in 960. But he
also mentions some unnamed property which he says he bought from his cousin count William. This couldnt
be William Tailefer as he wasnt born, so who was it?
Your guess is at least as good as mine. According to Liutprand of
Cremona the marriage to Raimond of Rouergue took place soon after Berta
had inherited the fortune of her uncle Hugo, who died on 10 April 947
("rex Hugo viam est carnis universae ingressus, Bertae nepti suae,
Bosonis Arelatensis comitis viduae, pecunia derelicta. Quam etiam brevi
spatio intercedente memoratus Raimundus, inpurissimae gentis princeps
inpurior, sibi maritam effecerat"). Historians often repeat that the
marriage happened in 946 but I haven't see evidence cited for this and
Liutprand shouldn't be too lightly contradicted on such a point.
Post by keri CA
I now notice that you have both discussed this all before about 20 years ago long before my time
on this forum. I'm sorry to drag it up all over again.
I had long ago forgotten this. Anyway, you have prompted me to look
again, and I'm less convinced now by Patrick de Latour's proposal of two
successive bishops of Toulouse named Hugo. There is no particular reason
to conclude that the son of a count of Toulouse must have been bishop
there, since no matter how powerful the family they can only get their
sons appointed to bishoprics that are vacant. If one Hugo held the
bishopric of Toulouse from ca 922/27 until ca 973 then the younger
hunting namesake would necessarily have gone to a different diocese.

Very little is known about bishops in Gascony through the period in
question, and given the Roda codex author's interest in the connection
between ruling families that is a possibility. Gams listed no bishop in
Aire between Asinarius in 788-791 and Gumbaldus who was called bishop of
Gascony in 977, followed by Arsias Racha listed also as bishop of
Bayonne from 980. A Hugo of Toulouse may have been bishop there before
Gumbaldus for all I know.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-26 11:08:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
There are some interesting details in the will of Raymond I of Rouergue dc961 [HGL V 111]. Its definitely his
as he names his wife Berta who I believe was the niece and heir of Hugh of Arles. I didnt realise he had a
son called Hugo too, although at the time hes not a bishop. He also leaves land to his nepos Raymond and
his brother Hugo. I think there was some debate as to what Garsinde meant when she refers to her nepotes,
some think she means her grandchildren, others say nephews. I'm not sure when Bertha married Raymond I but
I would have thought Raymond I children would have been too young to have grandchildren in 960. But he
also mentions some unnamed property which he says he bought from his cousin count William. This couldnt
be William Tailefer as he wasnt born, so who was it?
Your guess is at least as good as mine.
Well I guess William of Bourdeaux, who I had never heard of until I started reading
the Latour article you posted. Did this William actually exist, because his story
does seem a bit like a duplication of William Taliafer I of Angouleme.

I'm still reading Latour, so I dont know how many of the propositions and
scenarios he introduces, he follows. But his discussion of Gascony, Agen
and Bourdeaux in the 9th century seems a bit odd. He says Garsie Sanche
of Gascony married Amuna grand-daughter of Dhuoda and Bernard of
Septimania whose dowry was Agenais. I had never seen this before, and
I wonder what the source is for this, please dont let it be Ademar! By the
late 10th century the counts were carving up counties but surely the 9th
is a bit early for counties to constitute dowries? Then Garsie Sanche
gave his daughter Andregotha to Raymond of Bourdeaux another grand son
of Dhuoda etc and their son was William the Good not only Count of
Bourdeaux but Duke of Gascony who dsp 977.

His references seem first class:
2.J.-P. Poly, La Provence et la société féodale (879-1166), Paris, 1976, et Catalogue des actes des comtes de Provence (dactylographié) ; M. de Framont, La succession des comtes de Toulouse autour de l'An MU (940-1030), dans Annales du Midi, t. 105, n° 20, 1993. 3.H. Debax, Stratégies matrimoniales de comtes de Toulouse (850-1270) et « Les comtesses de Toulouse », dans Annales du Midi, t. 100, 1988 ; P. Ourliac, Les pays de Garonne vers l'An Mil. La société et le droit, Toulouse, 1993. 4.R. Mussot-Goulard, Les princes de Gascogne, Marsolan, 1982, et Ch. Lauranson-Rosaz, L'Auvergne et ses marges du VIIIe au XI' siècle, Le Puy-en-Velay, 1987.
Post by Peter Stewart
According to Liutprand of
Cremona the marriage to Raimond of Rouergue took place soon after Berta
had inherited the fortune of her uncle Hugo, who died on 10 April 947
("rex Hugo viam est carnis universae ingressus, Bertae nepti suae,
Bosonis Arelatensis comitis viduae, pecunia derelicta. Quam etiam brevi
spatio intercedente memoratus Raimundus, inpurissimae gentis princeps
inpurior, sibi maritam effecerat"). Historians often repeat that the
marriage happened in 946 but I haven't see evidence cited for this and
Liutprand shouldn't be too lightly contradicted on such a point.
So if it means nephews in Raymond 's will, it should mean the same in Garsende's
12 years later? And Luitprand clearly means niece.

I think it was Framond who suggested a scenario that saw
the subsequent dynasty of Toulouse being descended from Rouergue line not
Raymond Pons. I dont believe this because I read that one of the later counts
calls Raymond Pons his ancester [thats if he doesnt mean Pons II who died
in 1060].

I notice that Latour seems to follow this scenario which also makes
Odo of Comminges perhaps ancester of the later family of Comminges,
a son of raymond I of Rouergue by an unnamed daughter of Odoin. But
the Raymond and Odo who appear as counts in Comminges in the
late 10th seem to be sons of Roger of Carcassonne.
Post by Peter Stewart
I now notice that you have both discussed this all before about 20 years ago long before my time
on this forum. I'm sorry to drag it up all over again.
I had long ago forgotten this. Anyway, you have prompted me to look
again, and I'm less convinced now by Patrick de Latour's proposal of two
successive bishops of Toulouse named Hugo. There is no particular reason
to conclude that the son of a count of Toulouse must have been bishop
there, since no matter how powerful the family they can only get their
sons appointed to bishoprics that are vacant. If one Hugo held the
bishopric of Toulouse from ca 922/27 until ca 973 then the younger
hunting namesake would necessarily have gone to a different diocese.
Very little is known about bishops in Gascony through the period in
question, and given the Roda codex author's interest in the connection
between ruling families that is a possibility. Gams listed no bishop in
Aire between Asinarius in 788-791 and Gumbaldus who was called bishop of
Gascony in 977, followed by Arsias Racha listed also as bishop of
Bayonne from 980. A Hugo of Toulouse may have been bishop there before
Gumbaldus for all I know.
There is a Hugo de Jarnac who appears as Bishop of Angouleme 977-91,
but I suspect that he came from Jarnac not Toulouse.



kerica
taf
2021-04-26 14:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
According to Liutprand of
Cremona the marriage to Raimond of Rouergue took place soon after Berta
had inherited the fortune of her uncle Hugo, who died on 10 April 947
("rex Hugo viam est carnis universae ingressus, Bertae nepti suae,
Bosonis Arelatensis comitis viduae, pecunia derelicta. Quam etiam brevi
spatio intercedente memoratus Raimundus, inpurissimae gentis princeps
inpurior, sibi maritam effecerat"). Historians often repeat that the
marriage happened in 946 but I haven't see evidence cited for this and
Liutprand shouldn't be too lightly contradicted on such a point.
So if it means nephews in Raymond 's will, it should mean the same in Garsende's
12 years later? And Luitprand clearly means niece.
If I understand what you are saying, this is a non-sequitur. The term was ambiguous compared to our usage, and it could be applied to a number of relationships for which English has different words, and it need not consistently mean just one of them within a given historical/geographical context. Compare to modern 'brother-in-law' in English. Just because you find a usage of it meaning 'sibling's husband' doesn't mean every usage from that time and place must be that and not 'spouse's brother'.
Post by keri CA
I think it was Framond who suggested a scenario that saw
the subsequent dynasty of Toulouse being descended from Rouergue line not
Raymond Pons. I dont believe this because I read that one of the later counts
calls Raymond Pons his ancester [thats if he doesnt mean Pons II who died
in 1060].
One of Framond's two scenarios suggested Toulouse falling to the Rouergue line, but required the invention of two sons of the same name there to make it work.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-26 23:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
According to Liutprand of
Cremona the marriage to Raimond of Rouergue took place soon after Berta
had inherited the fortune of her uncle Hugo, who died on 10 April 947
("rex Hugo viam est carnis universae ingressus, Bertae nepti suae,
Bosonis Arelatensis comitis viduae, pecunia derelicta. Quam etiam brevi
spatio intercedente memoratus Raimundus, inpurissimae gentis princeps
inpurior, sibi maritam effecerat"). Historians often repeat that the
marriage happened in 946 but I haven't see evidence cited for this and
Liutprand shouldn't be too lightly contradicted on such a point.
So if it means nephews in Raymond 's will, it should mean the same in Garsende's
12 years later? And Luitprand clearly means niece.
If I understand what you are saying, this is a non-sequitur. The term was ambiguous compared to our usage, and it could be applied to a number of relationships for which English has different words, and it need not consistently mean just one of them within a given historical/geographical context. Compare to modern 'brother-in-law' in English. Just because you find a usage of it meaning 'sibling's husband' doesn't mean every usage from that time and place must be that and not 'spouse's brother'.
There is no question that ny neptis Liutprand meant Berta was niece to
King Hugo - but as for the nepotes in the testament of Garsende,
according to Christian Settipani the word in her time and place is
likely to mean either grandson or nephew (here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1tho6B1mUGMC&pg=PA43&, "Or, le
testament de Garsinde, veuve de Raimond Pons, mentionne ses deux nepotes
Raimond et Hugues. Le mot nepos n'est susceptible de recouvrir que deux
sens à cette époque dans cette région : « petit-fils» ou « neveu ».")

Even if he had tracked most occurrences of this term in 10th-century
Languedoc to one or other of these meanings, how could know for certain
that Garsende's usage was not anomalous? There are certainly examples in
the 10th century of nepos for grand-nephew, and demonstrably Carolingian
kings used relationship terms loosely on occasion.
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
I think it was Framond who suggested a scenario that saw
the subsequent dynasty of Toulouse being descended from Rouergue line not
Raymond Pons. I dont believe this because I read that one of the later counts
calls Raymond Pons his ancester [thats if he doesnt mean Pons II who died
in 1060].
One of Framond's two scenarios suggested Toulouse falling to the Rouergue line, but required the invention of two sons of the same name there to make it work.
To make my own confident and unprovable assertion: The free-and-easy
interchange of identifications between like-named rulers of Rouergue and
Toulouse is the biggest open rabbit-hole that historians have
compulsively explored in this region, larger even that that of
onomastics regarding their wives. It should be in the Guiness Book of
Records as leading to perhaps the most unmappable warren in the modern
historiography of medieval France.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-27 00:04:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
There are some interesting details in the will of Raymond I of Rouergue dc961 [HGL V 111]. Its definitely his
as he names his wife Berta who I believe was the niece and heir of Hugh of Arles. I didnt realise he had a
son called Hugo too, although at the time hes not a bishop. He also leaves land to his nepos Raymond and
his brother Hugo. I think there was some debate as to what Garsinde meant when she refers to her nepotes,
some think she means her grandchildren, others say nephews. I'm not sure when Bertha married Raymond I but
I would have thought Raymond I children would have been too young to have grandchildren in 960. But he
also mentions some unnamed property which he says he bought from his cousin count William. This couldnt
be William Tailefer as he wasnt born, so who was it?
Your guess is at least as good as mine.
Well I guess William of Bourdeaux, who I had never heard of until I started reading
the Latour article you posted. Did this William actually exist, because his story
does seem a bit like a duplication of William Taliafer I of Angouleme.
William of Bordeaux certainly did exist, but how he was connected to
rulers of Toulouse and Gascony remains debatable.
Post by keri CA
I'm still reading Latour, so I dont know how many of the propositions and
scenarios he introduces, he follows. But his discussion of Gascony, Agen
and Bourdeaux in the 9th century seems a bit odd. He says Garsie Sanche
of Gascony married Amuna grand-daughter of Dhuoda and Bernard of
Septimania whose dowry was Agenais. I had never seen this before, and
I wonder what the source is for this, please dont let it be Ademar! By the
late 10th century the counts were carving up counties but surely the 9th
is a bit early for counties to constitute dowries? Then Garsie Sanche
gave his daughter Andregotha to Raymond of Bourdeaux another grand son
of Dhuoda etc and their son was William the Good not only Count of
Bourdeaux but Duke of Gascony who dsp 977.
Take all this with liberal grains of salt. The parentage of Garcie
Sanche's wife Amuna (or Aminiana, etc) is uncertain.
Post by keri CA
2.J.-P. Poly, La Provence et la société féodale (879-1166), Paris, 1976, et Catalogue des actes des comtes de Provence (dactylographié) ; M. de Framont, La succession des comtes de Toulouse autour de l'An MU (940-1030), dans Annales du Midi, t. 105, n° 20, 1993. 3.H. Debax, Stratégies matrimoniales de comtes de Toulouse (850-1270) et « Les comtesses de Toulouse », dans Annales du Midi, t. 100, 1988 ; P. Ourliac, Les pays de Garonne vers l'An Mil. La société et le droit, Toulouse, 1993. 4.R. Mussot-Goulard, Les princes de Gascogne, Marsolan, 1982, et Ch. Lauranson-Rosaz, L'Auvergne et ses marges du VIIIe au XI' siècle, Le Puy-en-Velay, 1987.
I would say that secondary works are always second class references, but
these are standard works for the subject and it would be surprising if
Latour had not cited all of them.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
According to Liutprand of
Cremona the marriage to Raimond of Rouergue took place soon after Berta
had inherited the fortune of her uncle Hugo, who died on 10 April 947
("rex Hugo viam est carnis universae ingressus, Bertae nepti suae,
Bosonis Arelatensis comitis viduae, pecunia derelicta. Quam etiam brevi
spatio intercedente memoratus Raimundus, inpurissimae gentis princeps
inpurior, sibi maritam effecerat"). Historians often repeat that the
marriage happened in 946 but I haven't see evidence cited for this and
Liutprand shouldn't be too lightly contradicted on such a point.
So if it means nephews in Raymond 's will, it should mean the same in Garsende's
12 years later? And Luitprand clearly means niece.
Yes to the latter, not so yes to the former - but no so not so as to be
no. Clear enough? If I keep practicing maybe I could take up where
Latour and others left off.

<snip>
Post by keri CA
There is a Hugo de Jarnac who appears as Bishop of Angouleme 977-91,
but I suspect that he came from Jarnac not Toulouse.
There was a seigneurial family of Jarnac at the time, and in any case
Angoulême is a bit far afield from Toulouse and within another comital
family's grasp to go looking there for a candidate bishop named Hugo.

My reason for suggesting Aire or Tarbes is because the Roda codex author
bothered to mention Garcie Sanche's great-grandson bishop Hugo and note
that he was killed hunting - I don't think a bishop away from the region
of Gascony and/or Toulouse would have been so notable to him.

Ascribing the bishop killed hunting as a brother of Adelaide of Anjou's
husband Raimond and as a bishop of Toulouse seem very unsafe given the
later dating of the testament of a long-term bishop Hugo of Toulouse in
Patrice Cabau's 1990 study. The most recent editors of the testament,
Pierre Gérard & Thérèse Gérard in *Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin de
Toulouse* (2000) placed the document ca 972. Hugo was explicitly
contemplating death and divine judgement at the time of writing, feeling
the burden of his sins and wishing to make a pilgrimage to Rome ("Ab hoc
igitur ego, in Christi nomine Ugo quamvis indignus sedis Tolose Dei dono
episcopus, reminiscens magni judicii diem quando Dominus noster venturus
est judicare omnes homines secundum opera eorum, bonis bona reddere
malis vero mala, propterea ego, recognoscens me graviter deliquisse,
desidero videre limina beati Petri Apostolorum principis.") This does
not sound much like a keen sportsman who would get in a spot of hunting
along the way to meet the pope and/or his maker.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-27 22:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
There are some interesting details in the will of Raymond I of Rouergue dc961 [HGL V 111]. Its definitely his
as he names his wife Berta who I believe was the niece and heir of Hugh of Arles. I didnt realise he had a
son called Hugo too, although at the time hes not a bishop. He also leaves land to his nepos Raymond and
his brother Hugo. I think there was some debate as to what Garsinde meant when she refers to her nepotes,
some think she means her grandchildren, others say nephews. I'm not sure when Bertha married Raymond I but
I would have thought Raymond I children would have been too young to have grandchildren in 960. But he
also mentions some unnamed property which he says he bought from his cousin count William. This couldnt
be William Tailefer as he wasnt born, so who was it?
Your guess is at least as good as mine.
Well I guess William of Bourdeaux, who I had never heard of until I started reading
the Latour article you posted. Did this William actually exist, because his story
does seem a bit like a duplication of William Taliafer I of Angouleme.
William of Bordeaux certainly did exist, but how he was connected to
rulers of Toulouse and Gascony remains debatable.
I havnt seen the actual latin term the will uses for what the french call cousin,
to be sure what kind of relationship it could be, but if Roda is correct and if
the unnamed daughter of Garsie Sanchez was Garsende, and his other
daughter Andregota is the same as Entregota mother of William of Bourdeaux
[as settipani said], then Raymond Pons and William the Good of Bordeaux were
brothers in law since their wives were sisters. And Raymond Pons was first cousin
of Raymond I of Rouergue, so I wonder if William the Good son of a count raymond
is perhaps a brother of Raymond Pons, son of Raymond II of Toulouse and thus
the Count William who Raymond I of Rouergue calls his cousin in his will.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I'm still reading Latour, so I dont know how many of the propositions and
scenarios he introduces, he follows. But his discussion of Gascony, Agen
and Bourdeaux in the 9th century seems a bit odd. He says Garsie Sanche
of Gascony married Amuna grand-daughter of Dhuoda and Bernard of
Septimania whose dowry was Agenais. I had never seen this before, and
I wonder what the source is for this, please dont let it be Ademar! By the
late 10th century the counts were carving up counties but surely the 9th
is a bit early for counties to constitute dowries? Then Garsie Sanche
gave his daughter Andregotha to Raymond of Bourdeaux another grand son
of Dhuoda etc and their son was William the Good not only Count of
Bourdeaux but Duke of Gascony who dsp 977.
Take all this with liberal grains of salt. The parentage of Garcie
Sanche's wife Amuna (or Aminiana, etc) is uncertain.
Good. I dont believe there is any connection with Bernard of Septimania.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
2.J.-P. Poly, La Provence et la société féodale (879-1166), Paris, 1976, et Catalogue des actes des comtes de Provence (dactylographié) ; M. de Framont, La succession des comtes de Toulouse autour de l'An MU (940-1030), dans Annales du Midi, t. 105, n° 20, 1993. 3.H. Debax, Stratégies matrimoniales de comtes de Toulouse (850-1270) et « Les comtesses de Toulouse », dans Annales du Midi, t. 100, 1988 ; P. Ourliac, Les pays de Garonne vers l'An Mil. La société et le droit, Toulouse, 1993. 4.R. Mussot-Goulard, Les princes de Gascogne, Marsolan, 1982, et Ch. Lauranson-Rosaz, L'Auvergne et ses marges du VIIIe au XI' siècle, Le Puy-en-Velay, 1987.
I would say that secondary works are always second class references, but
these are standard works for the subject and it would be surprising if
Latour had not cited all of them.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
According to Liutprand of
Cremona the marriage to Raimond of Rouergue took place soon after Berta
had inherited the fortune of her uncle Hugo, who died on 10 April 947
("rex Hugo viam est carnis universae ingressus, Bertae nepti suae,
Bosonis Arelatensis comitis viduae, pecunia derelicta. Quam etiam brevi
spatio intercedente memoratus Raimundus, inpurissimae gentis princeps
inpurior, sibi maritam effecerat"). Historians often repeat that the
marriage happened in 946 but I haven't see evidence cited for this and
Liutprand shouldn't be too lightly contradicted on such a point.
So if it means nephews in Raymond 's will, it should mean the same in Garsende's
12 years later? And Luitprand clearly means niece.
Yes to the latter, not so yes to the former - but no so not so as to be
no. Clear enough? If I keep practicing maybe I could take up where
Latour and others left off.
<snip>
Post by keri CA
There is a Hugo de Jarnac who appears as Bishop of Angouleme 977-91,
but I suspect that he came from Jarnac not Toulouse.
There was a seigneurial family of Jarnac at the time, and in any case
Angoulême is a bit far afield from Toulouse and within another comital
family's grasp to go looking there for a candidate bishop named Hugo.
My reason for suggesting Aire or Tarbes is because the Roda codex author
bothered to mention Garcie Sanche's great-grandson bishop Hugo and note
that he was killed hunting - I don't think a bishop away from the region
of Gascony and/or Toulouse would have been so notable to him.
There was a bishop Hugo at Bazas when Arsius Raca [bizarre name!] administered
the see c981-1000 in the name of Hugo son of Gumbald , who was only a child,
Hugo died about 1012, when Arsius became bishop 1012-25. Maybe this is too late
chronologically for Roda and clearly he wasnt part of the Toulouse clan but he was
a descendant of Garsie Sanchez. I think there was also a Hugo bishop of Agen but
he might have been the same man. Seems quite a dynasty of bishops!

the refs for this are B. Guillemain p33-37, Le diocèse de Bordeaux (Paris, 1974), and
Bazas in the Dictionnaire de Histoire et geographie.

kerica
Post by Peter Stewart
Ascribing the bishop killed hunting as a brother of Adelaide of Anjou's
husband Raimond and as a bishop of Toulouse seem very unsafe given the
later dating of the testament of a long-term bishop Hugo of Toulouse in
Patrice Cabau's 1990 study. The most recent editors of the testament,
Pierre Gérard & Thérèse Gérard in *Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin de
Toulouse* (2000) placed the document ca 972. Hugo was explicitly
contemplating death and divine judgement at the time of writing, feeling
the burden of his sins and wishing to make a pilgrimage to Rome ("Ab hoc
igitur ego, in Christi nomine Ugo quamvis indignus sedis Tolose Dei dono
episcopus, reminiscens magni judicii diem quando Dominus noster venturus
est judicare omnes homines secundum opera eorum, bonis bona reddere
malis vero mala, propterea ego, recognoscens me graviter deliquisse,
desidero videre limina beati Petri Apostolorum principis.") This does
not sound much like a keen sportsman who would get in a spot of hunting
along the way to meet the pope and/or his maker.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-27 23:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
There are some interesting details in the will of Raymond I of Rouergue dc961 [HGL V 111]. Its definitely his
as he names his wife Berta who I believe was the niece and heir of Hugh of Arles. I didnt realise he had a
son called Hugo too, although at the time hes not a bishop. He also leaves land to his nepos Raymond and
his brother Hugo. I think there was some debate as to what Garsinde meant when she refers to her nepotes,
some think she means her grandchildren, others say nephews. I'm not sure when Bertha married Raymond I but
I would have thought Raymond I children would have been too young to have grandchildren in 960. But he
also mentions some unnamed property which he says he bought from his cousin count William. This couldnt
be William Tailefer as he wasnt born, so who was it?
Your guess is at least as good as mine.
Well I guess William of Bourdeaux, who I had never heard of until I started reading
the Latour article you posted. Did this William actually exist, because his story
does seem a bit like a duplication of William Taliafer I of Angouleme.
William of Bordeaux certainly did exist, but how he was connected to
rulers of Toulouse and Gascony remains debatable.
I havnt seen the actual latin term the will uses for what the french call cousin,
to be sure what kind of relationship it could be, but if Roda is correct and if
the unnamed daughter of Garsie Sanchez was Garsende, and his other
daughter Andregota is the same as Entregota mother of William of Bourdeaux
[as settipani said], then Raymond Pons and William the Good of Bordeaux were
brothers in law since their wives were sisters. And Raymond Pons was first cousin
of Raymond I of Rouergue, so I wonder if William the Good son of a count raymond
is perhaps a brother of Raymond Pons, son of Raymond II of Toulouse and thus
the Count William who Raymond I of Rouergue calls his cousin in his will.
This was proposed by Jean-Pierre Poly in a table on p. 74 in 'L'autre
nom du comte Raimon' (1991). The trouble with it, from disregarding the
Roda codex information, was pointed out by Christian Settipani here (pp.
40-41): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1tho6B1mUGMC&pg=PA40.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-26 12:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Very little is known about bishops in Gascony through the period in
question, and given the Roda codex author's interest in the connection
between ruling families that is a possibility. Gams listed no bishop in
Aire between Asinarius in 788-791 and Gumbaldus who was called bishop of
Gascony in 977, followed by Arsias Racha listed also as bishop of
Bayonne from 980. A Hugo of Toulouse may have been bishop there before
Gumbaldus for all I know.
Another possibility may be that the younger Hugo was bishop of Tarbes,
that is not very far west from 'Garazo' (if this is Garaison) where his
brother Raimond was killed, south-west of Toulouse.

Gams listed no bishops of Tarbes between 878 and ca 1000, but this is
not proof of course that there were none.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-26 02:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
I thought Garsende the wife of Raymond Pons who appears with him in
his charters has been attached to the family of narbonne vicomtes.
Of course he could have had an earlier wife. But Roda annoyingly
doesnt name this daughter.
Like the old quip about a man with one watch always knowing exactly what time it is, but a man with two watches never knowing exactly what time it is, we have two watches - two different sources each individually believed to be reliable but giving mutually-incompatible derivations. The suggestion that there were separate wives is just one way of ad-hoc rationalizing the apparent conflict, but would break the identification of the 'nepotes' of Garsende in her will with the grandchildren of the Gascon wife in the Roda document, and forces us to make further rationalizations to make it all work again. (Just an elaborate way of saying that this whole reconstruction is a bit of a house of cards.)

If I remember correctly, Settipani speculated that the Roda genealogist had confused mother-and daughter-in-law, though I don't remember whether he put the Gascon as wife of the previous or successive generation.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-26 05:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
I thought Garsende the wife of Raymond Pons who appears with him in
his charters has been attached to the family of narbonne vicomtes.
Of course he could have had an earlier wife. But Roda annoyingly
doesnt name this daughter.
Like the old quip about a man with one watch always knowing exactly what time it is, but a man with two watches never knowing exactly what time it is, we have two watches - two different sources each individually believed to be reliable but giving mutually-incompatible derivations. The suggestion that there were separate wives is just one way of ad-hoc rationalizing the apparent conflict, but would break the identification of the 'nepotes' of Garsende in her will with the grandchildren of the Gascon wife in the Roda document, and forces us to make further rationalizations to make it all work again. (Just an elaborate way of saying that this whole reconstruction is a bit of a house of cards.)
The Narbonne connection is not drawn from an explicit medieval source,
but rather a conjecture based on onomastics and her testament - the
mother of Richelda, wife of Odo viscount of Narbonne, was another
Garsende and making the countess of Toulouse into her namesake
granddaughter seemed to fit with her bequests in 972 to Adelaide, widow
of Odo and Richelda's son Matfred, and her children.
Post by taf
If I remember correctly, Settipani speculated that the Roda genealogist had confused mother-and daughter-in-law, though I don't remember whether he put the Gascon as wife of the previous or successive generation.
Settipani offered two hypotheses, the first making Garsende the wife of
Raimond Pons the unnamed daughter of Garcie Sanche of Gascony said in
the Roda codex to have married him, and the second making this unnamed
Gascon princess into the first wife of Raimond Pons and Garsende into a
childless second wife, daughter of Ermengaud of Rouergue and
consequently an agnatic first cousin of her husband.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it would be easier to make a
cogent genealogy of tadpoles in a murky pond than of 10th-century
individuals in and around Toulouse.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-26 11:22:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
I thought Garsende the wife of Raymond Pons who appears with him in
his charters has been attached to the family of narbonne vicomtes.
Of course he could have had an earlier wife. But Roda annoyingly
doesnt name this daughter.
Like the old quip about a man with one watch always knowing exactly what time it is, but a man with two watches never knowing exactly what time it is, we have two watches - two different sources each individually believed to be reliable but giving mutually-incompatible derivations. The suggestion that there were separate wives is just one way of ad-hoc rationalizing the apparent conflict, but would break the identification of the 'nepotes' of Garsende in her will with the grandchildren of the Gascon wife in the Roda document, and forces us to make further rationalizations to make it all work again. (Just an elaborate way of saying that this whole reconstruction is a bit of a house of cards.)
The Narbonne connection is not drawn from an explicit medieval source,
but rather a conjecture based on onomastics and her testament - the
mother of Richelda, wife of Odo viscount of Narbonne, was another
Garsende and making the countess of Toulouse into her namesake
granddaughter seemed to fit with her bequests in 972 to Adelaide, widow
of Odo and Richelda's son Matfred, and her children.
wow. I notice that Garsende was also the name of the wife of Odo of Toulouse d918.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
If I remember correctly, Settipani speculated that the Roda genealogist had confused mother-and daughter-in-law, though I don't remember whether he put the Gascon as wife of the previous or successive generation.
Settipani offered two hypotheses, the first making Garsende the wife of
Raimond Pons the unnamed daughter of Garcie Sanche of Gascony said in
the Roda codex to have married him, and the second making this unnamed
Gascon princess into the first wife of Raimond Pons and Garsende into a
childless second wife, daughter of Ermengaud of Rouergue and
consequently an agnatic first cousin of her husband.
Thats very clever. But what if there were 2 Garsendes just like there
were 2 Bp Hugos. They both share the same longevity: the wife of RP appears with him
about 924, and her will is dated 972 so is it sure she is the same person?
Post by Peter Stewart
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it would be easier to make a
cogent genealogy of tadpoles in a murky pond than of 10th-century
individuals in and around Toulouse.
Peter Stewart
:) and I was going to ask about the first dynasty of Carcassonne
the one supposedly descended from Bello, because that seems full
of holes.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-04-27 00:14:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
I thought Garsende the wife of Raymond Pons who appears with him in
his charters has been attached to the family of narbonne vicomtes.
Of course he could have had an earlier wife. But Roda annoyingly
doesnt name this daughter.
Like the old quip about a man with one watch always knowing exactly what time it is, but a man with two watches never knowing exactly what time it is, we have two watches - two different sources each individually believed to be reliable but giving mutually-incompatible derivations. The suggestion that there were separate wives is just one way of ad-hoc rationalizing the apparent conflict, but would break the identification of the 'nepotes' of Garsende in her will with the grandchildren of the Gascon wife in the Roda document, and forces us to make further rationalizations to make it all work again. (Just an elaborate way of saying that this whole reconstruction is a bit of a house of cards.)
The Narbonne connection is not drawn from an explicit medieval source,
but rather a conjecture based on onomastics and her testament - the
mother of Richelda, wife of Odo viscount of Narbonne, was another
Garsende and making the countess of Toulouse into her namesake
granddaughter seemed to fit with her bequests in 972 to Adelaide, widow
of Odo and Richelda's son Matfred, and her children.
wow. I notice that Garsende was also the name of the wife of Odo of Toulouse d918.
The name Garsende was far from rare, and certainly frequent enough to
make this Narbonne argument fairly rickety.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
If I remember correctly, Settipani speculated that the Roda genealogist had confused mother-and daughter-in-law, though I don't remember whether he put the Gascon as wife of the previous or successive generation.
Settipani offered two hypotheses, the first making Garsende the wife of
Raimond Pons the unnamed daughter of Garcie Sanche of Gascony said in
the Roda codex to have married him, and the second making this unnamed
Gascon princess into the first wife of Raimond Pons and Garsende into a
childless second wife, daughter of Ermengaud of Rouergue and
consequently an agnatic first cousin of her husband.
Thats very clever. But what if there were 2 Garsendes just like there
were 2 Bp Hugos. They both share the same longevity: the wife of RP appears with him
about 924, and her will is dated 972 so is it sure she is the same person?
I don't see a substantial problem in their both being born ca 895 and
dying ca 973.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it would be easier to make a
cogent genealogy of tadpoles in a murky pond than of 10th-century
individuals in and around Toulouse.
Peter Stewart
:) and I was going to ask about the first dynasty of Carcassonne
the one supposedly descended from Bello, because that seems full
of holes.
Please start a different thread if you do - this one is already getting
remote from Emma of Provence.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-27 01:10:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The Roda codex author was interested in the connection between the
rulers of Gascony and Toulouse - on folio 192v he gave the genealogy of
the Gascon family down to the bottom of the sheet and then turned it
anti-clockwise to add the Toulouse family sideways in the left margin.
The URL for the digitisation of this (Madrid, Real Academia de la
Historia, codex 78) has been changed since I last looked - it is now at
https://bibliotecadigital.rah.es/es/consulta/registro.do?control=BRM20090000377.


As far as I can tell they have not yet digitised the later redaction in
their ms 9/4922 (formerly A-189) that was printed on the same pages of
the edition by Lacarra in *Estudios de edad media de la Corona de
Aragón* 1 (1945).

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-27 22:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The Roda codex author was interested in the connection between the
rulers of Gascony and Toulouse - on folio 192v he gave the genealogy of
the Gascon family down to the bottom of the sheet and then turned it
anti-clockwise to add the Toulouse family sideways in the left margin.
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
Post by Peter Stewart
The URL for the digitisation of this (Madrid, Real Academia de la
Historia, codex 78) has been changed since I last looked - it is now at
https://bibliotecadigital.rah.es/es/consulta/registro.do?control=BRM20090000377.
As far as I can tell they have not yet digitised the later redaction in
their ms 9/4922 (formerly A-189) that was printed on the same pages of
the edition by Lacarra in *Estudios de edad media de la Corona de
Aragón* 1 (1945).
Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-28 00:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-28 01:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.

I don't know if this has been mentioned in SGM discussions before, but
Frédéric de Gournay in his 2001 doctoral thesis (published as *Le
Rouergue au tournant de l'an Mil* in 2004) proposed that the Roda codex
author had mistaken political succession for biological lineage and that
the middle generation of the Toulouse line as presented is a mistake:
i.e. that Raimond III Pons was father not grandfather to Raimond the
husband of Adelaide of Anjou and his brother Hugo the bishop killed
hunting - see pp. 56-57:

'Dans les deux cas, le compilateur du Codex aurait intercalé un
Ruthénois entre deux Toulousains: Raimond II, présenté à tort comme le
fils de Raimond Pons. Obnubilé par son modèle biblique (A genuit B, B
genuit C...), il a présenté comme une filiation biologique la succession
politique des princes raimondins:

1. Raimond III Pons de Toulouse, mari de Garsende, mort vers 940–941;
2. Raimond II de Rouergue, mari de Berthe d'Arles, mort en 961;
3. Raimond IV de Toulouse, mari d'Adélaïde d’Anjou, tué vers 978 à Garazo

Il faut donc éliminer le fantomatique "Raimond IV, époux de Guidinilde"
qui s'interpose entre Raimond Pons et ses véritables fils: Raimond IV,
époux d'Adélaïde; Hugues, évêque de Toulouse. Raimond II de Rodez pris
pour un comte de Toulouse: cette confusion se retrouvera au XVIIe
siècle. Elle s'explique aisément: après la mort de Raimond Pons, le
Ruthénois devint le maître de l'ensemble territorial raimondin, et, très
probablement, le tuteur du futur Raimond IV de Toulouse. La succession
indiquée par le Codex de Roda traduit le va-et-vient de la prépondérance
entre les deux branches raimondines.'

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-28 03:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.

The only items I see in this version that look to be written differently than the rest, in addition to the Toulouse entry written up the side at the end, are 1) the last three words in the entry for Inigo Garces (191v, about halfway down), which seem to be in a different ink, and 2) the added superscripted word written above the entry for Gilelmo Garces (192v, second to last line).

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-28 03:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.
And this suggests a conscientious author who intended to fill gaps in
his knowledge later, or leave this to someone else.

His Latin was atrocious, but his evident concern for accuracy made up
for the rough morphology.

I should have added before that I don't find Frédéric de Gournay's
proposal about the middle Raimond in the Toulouse lineage of the codex
not belonging there genealogically - it seems more likely to me that
this Raimond really was son of Raimond III Pons and father of Adelaide
d'Anjou's husband, and that he perhaps ruled in Rouergue as tutor to his
namesake's young son from 961. If Liutprand is to be credited on the
marriage of Raimond II of Rouergue to Berta of Arles after 10 April 947,
their son Raimond would have been under 14 when his father was
assassinated before 7 September 961.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-28 10:29:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.
so this faint writing is actually on the other side 191v? i can even see the lines drawn by the scribe.
Post by Peter Stewart
And this suggests a conscientious author who intended to fill gaps in
his knowledge later, or leave this to someone else.
His Latin was atrocious, but his evident concern for accuracy made up
for the rough morphology.
I should have added before that I don't find Frédéric de Gournay's
proposal about the middle Raimond in the Toulouse lineage of the codex
not belonging there genealogically - it seems more likely to me that
this Raimond really was son of Raimond III Pons and father of Adelaide
yes its a strange idea because the text clearly intends as you said
earlier to show that the Counts of Toulouse were descended from
Garsie Sanchez. But dont you think the writer of the margin text was
different to the writer of the main text? Overwise he could have
just written on the other side. Its odd place to write these
2 lines as there seems plenty of space at the bottom of the page.

I cant read the original its so badly written, but the text of roda i have
seen translated just says

The names of the Counts of Toulouse

Pons married the daughter of Garcia Sanche and begat Raymond.
Raymond begat Raymond who they killed in Carazo and Bishop Ugo who was killed while hunting.
Post by Peter Stewart
d'Anjou's husband, and that he perhaps ruled in Rouergue as tutor to his
namesake's young son from 961. If Liutprand is to be credited on the
marriage of Raimond II of Rouergue to Berta of Arles after 10 April 947,
their son Raimond would have been under 14 when his father was
assassinated before 7 September 961.
I think Bertha who is called Countess by the grace of god in her charters
with her son was firmly in control of him while she lived.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-04-28 11:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.
so this faint writing is actually on the other side 191v? i can even see the lines drawn by the scribe.
Not necessarily - some sheets in the codex have a faint impression of
text on the reverse side of the same folio and some from the next folio.
For example, look at folio 195r and you can see a ghost image of the
rubric and design in the middle of the sheet both on 194r and on 195v. I
don't know how this came about.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
And this suggests a conscientious author who intended to fill gaps in
his knowledge later, or leave this to someone else.
His Latin was atrocious, but his evident concern for accuracy made up
for the rough morphology.
I should have added before that I don't find Frédéric de Gournay's
proposal about the middle Raimond in the Toulouse lineage of the codex
not belonging there genealogically - it seems more likely to me that
this Raimond really was son of Raimond III Pons and father of Adelaide
yes its a strange idea because the text clearly intends as you said
earlier to show that the Counts of Toulouse were descended from
Garsie Sanchez. But dont you think the writer of the margin text was
different to the writer of the main text? Overwise he could have
just written on the other side. Its odd place to write these
2 lines as there seems plenty of space at the bottom of the page.
It looks to me like the same hand using the same two inks. The
orthography is consistent and the letters are similarly formed.
Post by keri CA
I cant read the original its so badly written, but the text of roda i have
seen translated just says
The names of the Counts of Toulouse
Pons married the daughter of Garcia Sanche and begat Raymond.
Raymond begat Raymond who they killed in Carazo and Bishop Ugo who was killed while hunting.
The Latin text (with unwritten letters in square brackets) is:

"IT[EM] N[O]M[I]NA COMITU[M] TOLOSANENSIV[M] ∙ Pontio accepit uxor filia
garsie sanzionis ∙ et g[enuit] regimund[u]s
Regemu[n]d[u]s g[enuit] Regemundo qui occiderunt in garazo et d[om]n[u]s
ucus ep[iscopu]s qui se ipsu[m] occidit in uenatione"

The later redaction of this in the Lacarra edition (1945) is:

"Pontius accepit uxorem filiam Garsie Sancionis et genuit Regemmundum.
Rexmundus genuit Regemmundum quem occiderunt in Carazo et domnum Vicum
episcopum qui se ipsum in venationem occidit."

The author evidently wanted to keep the comital genealogies on the same
sheet, without risk of failing to fit all the text about Toulouse
between the Gascony section and the bottom of the folio.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
d'Anjou's husband, and that he perhaps ruled in Rouergue as tutor to his
namesake's young son from 961. If Liutprand is to be credited on the
marriage of Raimond II of Rouergue to Berta of Arles after 10 April 947,
their son Raimond would have been under 14 when his father was
assassinated before 7 September 961.
I think Bertha who is called Countess by the grace of god in her charters
with her son was firmly in control of him while she lived.
The charter for Nîmes cathedral dated 7 September 961 was principally
hers as a new widow, along with her son titled count - but this does not
mean she was necessarily ruling in Rodez on his behalf. In another
charter of hers for Nîmes cathedral, dated 18 August 965, her son is not
titled count. Between these dates a count Raimond occurs sitting in
judicial court with other noblemen ("ante Regimundum comitem, vel ante
alios nobilissimos viros") on 11 or 13 July in 962 (ascribed to 960 by a
mid-19th century editor). Since Berta's son was evidently born ca 950,
this is not likely to have been him but more probably his namesake of
Toulouse.

The title marquis of Gothia alternated between counts of Rouergue and
Toulouse, and it is not possible to be fully prescriptive about the
turns or exact about the chronology of one or other. In July 972 a
count-marquis Raimond was in dispute with the bishop of Agde over
property he had acquired there. This may be Raimond III of Rouergue
aged ca 22, or Adelaide of Anjou's namesake father-in-law or husband of
Toulouse. Historians purporting to know enough to determine for certain
which of these men it was at that date, and in other cases around the
same period, have given rise to endless muddle and twaddle.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-28 13:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.
so this faint writing is actually on the other side 191v? i can even see the lines drawn by the scribe.
Not necessarily - some sheets in the codex have a faint impression of
text on the reverse side of the same folio and some from the next folio.
For example, look at folio 195r and you can see a ghost image of the
rubric and design in the middle of the sheet both on 194r and on 195v. I
don't know how this came about.
I looked at several instances on 191r and all of the 'light' text I was seeing matched with 191v, but in other sections I do see other effects, particularly evident around 194v, which has little text of its own to compete/obscure the 'read-through'. In the case of r/v read-through it could be actual physical bleed-through of the ink as it was written, but also the vellum seems to be so thin/semi-transparent that there is an optical see-through effect where one can pick up the writing both on the opposite side of the same page and on the facing side of the page underneath - the same effect you used to get with onion-skin typing paper, where you could often see progressively fainter text from multiple pages down the stack. Thus on 194v we see a strong signal from 194r but also clearly 193v as well (same reason, per Peter's observation, that 195r's writing is particularly evident on 194r, without writing on 194v to partially obscure it).
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
And this suggests a conscientious author who intended to fill gaps in
his knowledge later, or leave this to someone else.
Regarding this idea, that the spaces were left to be filled in later, it is strongly supported by the length given the spaces. The scribe didn't just leave a short someone uniform space to indicate he lacked the information. He left blank space roughly proportionate to the amount of text that was missing (a short space if just a name is missing, a much longer space where the identity of parents would have to be fit in).
Post by Peter Stewart
The author evidently wanted to keep the comital genealogies on the same
sheet, without risk of failing to fit all the text about Toulouse
between the Gascony section and the bottom of the folio.
Agree here too. Been in the same situation myself, and used the same approach when copying wills that have one or two lines of text carried over to the next page of a ledger but not wanting to blow a whole additional page for so little content (in notebooks that are already overstuffed as it is), so I have tipped the spill-over text sidewise and slipped it onto the side margin of the prior page, not too dissimilar to what our scribe seems to have done here.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-28 22:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.
so this faint writing is actually on the other side 191v? i can even see the lines drawn by the scribe.
Not necessarily - some sheets in the codex have a faint impression of
text on the reverse side of the same folio and some from the next folio.
For example, look at folio 195r and you can see a ghost image of the
rubric and design in the middle of the sheet both on 194r and on 195v. I
don't know how this came about.
I looked at several instances on 191r and all of the 'light' text I was seeing matched with 191v, but in other sections I do see other effects, particularly evident around 194v, which has little text of its own to compete/obscure the 'read-through'. In the case of r/v read-through it could be actual physical bleed-through of the ink as it was written, but also the vellum seems to be so thin/semi-transparent that there is an optical see-through effect where one can pick up the writing both on the opposite side of the same page and on the facing side of the page underneath - the same effect you used to get with onion-skin typing paper, where you could often see progressively fainter text from multiple pages down the stack. Thus on 194v we see a strong signal from 194r but also clearly 193v as well (same reason, per Peter's observation, that 195r's writing is particularly evident on 194r, without writing on 194v to partially obscure it).
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
And this suggests a conscientious author who intended to fill gaps in
his knowledge later, or leave this to someone else.
Regarding this idea, that the spaces were left to be filled in later, it is strongly supported by the length given the spaces. The scribe didn't just leave a short someone uniform space to indicate he lacked the information. He left blank space roughly proportionate to the amount of text that was missing (a short space if just a name is missing, a much longer space where the identity of parents would have to be fit in).
Post by Peter Stewart
The author evidently wanted to keep the comital genealogies on the same
sheet, without risk of failing to fit all the text about Toulouse
between the Gascony section and the bottom of the folio.
Agree here too. Been in the same situation myself, and used the same approach when copying wills that have one or two lines of text carried over to the next page of a ledger but not wanting to blow a whole additional page for so little content (in notebooks that are already overstuffed as it is), so I have tipped the spill-over text sidewise and slipped it onto the side margin of the prior page, not too dissimilar to what our scribe seems to have done here.
The scribe seems to have been cautious about how much space he left
blank and then also about how much text he could fit into spaces when he
subsequently learned the missing information - for instance, he left a
half-line length lacuna after the wife of Raimond of Paillars on folio
192v (Regemondo accepit uxor et g[enuit] uernardo), then on
the second line below he gave her name and paternity (Istius uxor
d[o]m[n]a giniguentes asnari datvs filia fuit). This has been taken to
mean perhaps the wife of his last-named son Isarn, but the wording
doesn't convincingly support ambiguity and anyway the latter occurs in
947 with a wife named Adelaide and their son William.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-29 00:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.
so this faint writing is actually on the other side 191v? i can even see the lines drawn by the scribe.
Not necessarily - some sheets in the codex have a faint impression of
text on the reverse side of the same folio and some from the next folio.
For example, look at folio 195r and you can see a ghost image of the
rubric and design in the middle of the sheet both on 194r and on 195v. I
don't know how this came about.
I looked at several instances on 191r and all of the 'light' text I was seeing matched with 191v, but in other sections I do see other effects, particularly evident around 194v, which has little text of its own to compete/obscure the 'read-through'. In the case of r/v read-through it could be actual physical bleed-through of the ink as it was written, but also the vellum seems to be so thin/semi-transparent that there is an optical see-through effect where one can pick up the writing both on the opposite side of the same page and on the facing side of the page underneath - the same effect you used to get with onion-skin typing paper, where you could often see progressively fainter text from multiple pages down the stack. Thus on 194v we see a strong signal from 194r but also clearly 193v as well (same reason, per Peter's observation, that 195r's writing is particularly evident on 194r, without writing on 194v to partially obscure it).
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
And this suggests a conscientious author who intended to fill gaps in
his knowledge later, or leave this to someone else.
Regarding this idea, that the spaces were left to be filled in later, it is strongly supported by the length given the spaces. The scribe didn't just leave a short someone uniform space to indicate he lacked the information. He left blank space roughly proportionate to the amount of text that was missing (a short space if just a name is missing, a much longer space where the identity of parents would have to be fit in).
Post by Peter Stewart
The author evidently wanted to keep the comital genealogies on the same
sheet, without risk of failing to fit all the text about Toulouse
between the Gascony section and the bottom of the folio.
Agree here too. Been in the same situation myself, and used the same approach when copying wills that have one or two lines of text carried over to the next page of a ledger but not wanting to blow a whole additional page for so little content (in notebooks that are already overstuffed as it is), so I have tipped the spill-over text sidewise and slipped it onto the side margin of the prior page, not too dissimilar to what our scribe seems to have done here.
The scribe seems to have been cautious about how much space he left
blank and then also about how much text he could fit into spaces when he
subsequently learned the missing information - for instance, he left a
half-line length lacuna after the wife of Raimond of Paillars on folio
192v (Regemondo accepit uxor et g[enuit] uernardo), then on
the second line below he gave her name and paternity (Istius uxor
d[o]m[n]a giniguentes asnari datvs filia fuit). This has been taken to
mean perhaps the wife of his last-named son Isarn, but the wording
doesn't convincingly support ambiguity and anyway the latter occurs in
947 with a wife named Adelaide and their son William.
There is a 930 donation that appears to name this woman: ". . . ego Isarnus Paliarensis, Ripacurcensis et Coseranensis comes et marchia, et Senedundis comitissa, . . ."
https://books.google.com/books?id=2S1cp7fD7lEC&pg=PA406

(bottom)

The summary describes Senegunda was wife of Isarn, but Abadal in summarizing the same document does not give the relationship, making me think that this is an assumption of the editors of the cartulary. (I can't see the next page that has most of the text.) This has led to reconstructions showing Isarn marrying twice, first to Senegunda/Giniguentes and second to Adelaide.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-29 02:15:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
The scribe seems to have been cautious about how much space he left
blank and then also about how much text he could fit into spaces when he
subsequently learned the missing information - for instance, he left a
half-line length lacuna after the wife of Raimond of Paillars on folio
192v (Regemondo accepit uxor et g[enuit] uernardo), then on
the second line below he gave her name and paternity (Istius uxor
d[o]m[n]a giniguentes asnari datvs filia fuit). This has been taken to
mean perhaps the wife of his last-named son Isarn, but the wording
doesn't convincingly support ambiguity and anyway the latter occurs in
947 with a wife named Adelaide and their son William.
There is a 930 donation that appears to name this woman: ". . . ego Isarnus Paliarensis, Ripacurcensis et Coseranensis comes et marchia, et Senedundis comitissa, . . ."
https://books.google.com/books?id=2S1cp7fD7lEC&pg=PA406
(bottom)
The summary describes Senegunda was wife of Isarn, but Abadal in summarizing the same document does not give the relationship, making me think that this is an assumption of the editors of the cartulary. (I can't see the next page that has most of the text.) This has led to reconstructions showing Isarn marrying twice, first to Senegunda/Giniguentes and second to Adelaide.
Senegunda occurs as wife of Isarn in two false charters and a forged
testament - the first is the charter linked above dated 22 October 930,
labelled "fals" by the editor, and the second is dated 21 July 940 where
she is deceased - however, this is contradicted by a forged testament of
Isarn dated 13 September 953 where she is supposedly living ("Ego
Isarnus gratia Dei comes Paliarensis et marchio ... dono ... cum
consilio et voluntate Sinegentis comitissae").

It is possible, though not very likely, that there is a genuine basis
for giving Senegunda/Sinegentis as an alternative name for Isarn's wife
Adelaida, who was certainly married to him well before his death and who
occurs with him and their son in an authentic charter dated 947.

Perhaps the forger had read and misunderstood the Roda codex - whether
Senegunda/Sinegentis and/or Adelaida can be considered the same as
Giniguentes daughter of Asnar Dat is highly doubtful. Martin Aurell did
not even consider this in 'Jalons pour une enquête sur les stratégies
matrimoniales des comtes catalans', where he gave the wife of Raimond as
"Guinigenta ... la fille d'Asnar Dató, sur lequel on ne sait rien; il
s'agit probablement d'un noble du comté de Pallars", while of Adelaida
the (only-mentioned) wife of Isarn he wrote "Les origines de cette dame
sont inconnues".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-29 03:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 3:33:19 PM UTC-7,
Post by Peter Stewart
The scribe seems to have been cautious about how much space he left
blank and then also about how much text he could fit into spaces when he
subsequently learned the missing information - for instance, he left a
half-line length lacuna after the wife of Raimond of Paillars on folio
192v (Regemondo accepit uxor et g[enuit] uernardo), then on
the second line below he gave her name and paternity (Istius uxor
d[o]m[n]a giniguentes asnari datvs filia fuit). This has been taken to
mean perhaps the wife of his last-named son Isarn, but the wording
doesn't convincingly support ambiguity and anyway the latter occurs in
947 with a wife named Adelaide and their son William.
There is a 930 donation that appears to name this woman: ". . . ego
Isarnus Paliarensis, Ripacurcensis et Coseranensis comes et marchia,
et Senedundis comitissa, . . ."
https://books.google.com/books?id=2S1cp7fD7lEC&pg=PA406
(bottom)
The summary describes Senegunda was wife of Isarn, but Abadal in
summarizing the same document does not give the relationship, making
me think that this is an assumption of the editors of the cartulary.
(I can't see the next page that has most of the text.)   This has led
to reconstructions showing Isarn marrying twice, first to
Senegunda/Giniguentes and second to Adelaide.
Senegunda occurs as wife of Isarn in two false charters and a forged
testament - the first is the charter linked above dated 22 October 930,
labelled "fals" by the editor, and the second is dated 21 July 940 where
she is deceased - however, this is contradicted by a forged testament of
Isarn dated 13 September 953 where she is supposedly living ("Ego
Isarnus gratia Dei comes Paliarensis et marchio ... dono ... cum
consilio et voluntate Sinegentis comitissae").
It is possible, though not very likely, that there is a genuine basis
for giving Senegunda/Sinegentis as an alternative name for Isarn's wife
Adelaida, who was certainly married to him well before his death and who
occurs with him and their son in an authentic charter dated 947.
Perhaps the forger had read and misunderstood the Roda codex - whether
Senegunda/Sinegentis and/or Adelaida can be considered the same as
Giniguentes daughter of Asnar Dat is highly doubtful. Martin Aurell did
not even consider this in 'Jalons pour une enquête sur les stratégies
matrimoniales des comtes catalans', where he gave the wife of Raimond as
"Guinigenta ... la fille d'Asnar Dató, sur lequel on ne sait rien; il
s'agit probablement d'un noble du comté de Pallars", while of Adelaida
the (only-mentioned) wife of Isarn he wrote "Les origines de cette dame
sont inconnues".
I should have read through the false charters: the first, dated 22
October 930, actually does not call Senegundis the wife of Isarn as
misstated by the editor in his summary noted by Todd ("comte Isarn i la
seva esposa Senegunda"). In fact it specifies Adelaida as the wife of
Isarn (p. 409: "Adelaiz comitissa coniux prescripti Isarni").

Senegundis was presumably meant to be Isarn's mother joining with him in
the donation ("ego Isarnus Paliarensis, Ripacurcensis et Coseranensis
comes et marchio, et Senegundis comitissa ... Isarnus comes manu propria
et solita subscriptione confirmo +. Senegundis more solito confirmo +"),
so the forger had not misunderstood their relationship. The name
Senegundis was presumably his error for some form of Giniguentes seen in
an authentic document.

In the second charter, dated 21 July 940, where she is described as
deceased, the forger (presumably a different one or else the same man
with a very poor memory) did call her the wife of Isarn ("Ego Isarnus
Paliarensis, Ripacurcensis et Cosseranensis comes et marchio ..., ut
Dominus propitius sit peccatis meis et peccatis uxoris mee Senegundis
comitisse qui iam ex hoc seculo migravit ...").

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-04-29 10:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
its all very difficult to read. there seems to be a lot of shadow writing
in the gaps in the main text as if a lot has been rubbed out unless somehow the
the writing on the other side is showing through, but i dont think so
because it would be reversed, but its clearly written left to right but
very faint.
I am not seeing anything but lacunae where one can see readthrough from the other side. Perhaps if you give a specific example of where you think you are seeing this 'left-to-right' shadow writing it will help clarify.
It seems unlikely that there was ever more text than we can still read -
the later redaction, also edited by Lacarra, did not contain extra
material in these genealogies to substantiate this idea.
I agree with this - the gaps are not missing text, they are spaces left in the formulaic presentation where the information was not known.
so this faint writing is actually on the other side 191v? i can even see the lines drawn by the scribe.
Not necessarily - some sheets in the codex have a faint impression of
text on the reverse side of the same folio and some from the next folio.
For example, look at folio 195r and you can see a ghost image of the
rubric and design in the middle of the sheet both on 194r and on 195v. I
don't know how this came about.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
And this suggests a conscientious author who intended to fill gaps in
his knowledge later, or leave this to someone else.
His Latin was atrocious, but his evident concern for accuracy made up
for the rough morphology.
I should have added before that I don't find Frédéric de Gournay's
proposal about the middle Raimond in the Toulouse lineage of the codex
not belonging there genealogically - it seems more likely to me that
this Raimond really was son of Raimond III Pons and father of Adelaide
yes its a strange idea because the text clearly intends as you said
earlier to show that the Counts of Toulouse were descended from
Garsie Sanchez. But dont you think the writer of the margin text was
different to the writer of the main text? Overwise he could have
just written on the other side. Its odd place to write these
2 lines as there seems plenty of space at the bottom of the page.
It looks to me like the same hand using the same two inks. The
orthography is consistent and the letters are similarly formed.
Post by keri CA
I cant read the original its so badly written, but the text of roda i have
seen translated just says
The names of the Counts of Toulouse
Pons married the daughter of Garcia Sanche and begat Raymond.
Raymond begat Raymond who they killed in Carazo and Bishop Ugo who was killed while hunting.
"IT[EM] N[O]M[I]NA COMITU[M] TOLOSANENSIV[M] ∙ Pontio accepit uxor filia
garsie sanzionis ∙ et g[enuit] regimund[u]s
Regemu[n]d[u]s g[enuit] Regemundo qui occiderunt in garazo et d[om]n[u]s
ucus ep[iscopu]s qui se ipsu[m] occidit in uenatione"
"Pontius accepit uxorem filiam Garsie Sancionis et genuit Regemmundum.
Rexmundus genuit Regemmundum quem occiderunt in Carazo et domnum Vicum
episcopum qui se ipsum in venationem occidit."
The author evidently wanted to keep the comital genealogies on the same
sheet, without risk of failing to fit all the text about Toulouse
between the Gascony section and the bottom of the folio.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
d'Anjou's husband, and that he perhaps ruled in Rouergue as tutor to his
namesake's young son from 961. If Liutprand is to be credited on the
marriage of Raimond II of Rouergue to Berta of Arles after 10 April 947,
their son Raimond would have been under 14 when his father was
assassinated before 7 September 961.
I think Bertha who is called Countess by the grace of god in her charters
with her son was firmly in control of him while she lived.
The charter for Nîmes cathedral dated 7 September 961 was principally
hers as a new widow, along with her son titled count - but this does not
mean she was necessarily ruling in Rodez on his behalf. In another
charter of hers for Nîmes cathedral, dated 18 August 965, her son is not
titled count. Between these dates a count Raimond occurs sitting in
judicial court with other noblemen ("ante Regimundum comitem, vel ante
alios nobilissimos viros") on 11 or 13 July in 962 (ascribed to 960 by a
mid-19th century editor). Since Berta's son was evidently born ca 950,
this is not likely to have been him but more probably his namesake of
Toulouse.
Ok but I would expect a document which has 2 Count Raymonds in it
if one was exercising some kind of tutelage over the other.
Post by Peter Stewart
The title marquis of Gothia alternated between counts of Rouergue and
Toulouse, and it is not possible to be fully prescriptive about the
turns or exact about the chronology of one or other. In July 972 a
count-marquis Raimond was in dispute with the bishop of Agde over
property he had acquired there. This may be Raimond III of Rouergue
aged ca 22, or Adelaide of Anjou's namesake father-in-law or husband of
Toulouse. Historians purporting to know enough to determine for certain
which of these men it was at that date, and in other cases around the
same period, have given rise to endless muddle and twaddle.
Peter Stewart
So it seems there are 3 Raymonds but its not exactly clear from the
documents which is which. I understand one reconstruction suggests
Raymond [IV] of Toulouse dies c969, and his son Raymond [V] appears
in charters 972 and 978 although some believe this is actually Raymond
II of Rouergue. By 972 the roles would have been reversed perhaps
and Raymond II of Rouergue might have been the senior man.

To be clear about 1 thing:
Is this Raymond [IV] Count of Toulouse the one who is the son of Pons in Roda?
So his sons Raymond [V] and Hugo the hunting bishop are husband and brother
in law of Adelaide of Anjou and father and uncle of William Tailefer?

But there still isnt any answer to who was ruling Toulouse c978-1000, and although
there seem plenty of documents from other areas of Languedoc in this period, there
doesnt seem to be any from Toulouse. Is it just that they havnt been published, or
they are not in the HGL collection? Raymond II of Rouergue died about 1008 so its
tempting to believe he might have been in charge while WT was a child, but I havnt
seen proof of this. I havnt looked at all WT's docs, but does he ever mention his
father in them?

Was the family of Pallars also connected to that of Toulouse? Or is this just based
on the similar names which appear in their family, I think its called onomastics, rather
than documented relationships?

kerica
taf
2021-04-29 12:55:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Was the family of Pallars also connected to that of Toulouse? Or is this just based
on the similar names which appear in their family, I think its called onomastics, rather
than documented relationships?
Just names.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-29 23:41:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I think Bertha who is called Countess by the grace of god in her charters
with her son was firmly in control of him while she lived.
The charter for Nîmes cathedral dated 7 September 961 was principally
hers as a new widow, along with her son titled count - but this does not
mean she was necessarily ruling in Rodez on his behalf. In another
charter of hers for Nîmes cathedral, dated 18 August 965, her son is not
titled count. Between these dates a count Raimond occurs sitting in
judicial court with other noblemen ("ante Regimundum comitem, vel ante
alios nobilissimos viros") on 11 or 13 July in 962 (ascribed to 960 by a
mid-19th century editor). Since Berta's son was evidently born ca 950,
this is not likely to have been him but more probably his namesake of
Toulouse.
Ok but I would expect a document which has 2 Count Raymonds in it
if one was exercising some kind of tutelage over the other.
What we may expect and what extant contemporary sources definitely prove
are not going to align just from wishing it so.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
The title marquis of Gothia alternated between counts of Rouergue and
Toulouse, and it is not possible to be fully prescriptive about the
turns or exact about the chronology of one or other. In July 972 a
count-marquis Raimond was in dispute with the bishop of Agde over
property he had acquired there. This may be Raimond III of Rouergue
aged ca 22, or Adelaide of Anjou's namesake father-in-law or husband of
Toulouse. Historians purporting to know enough to determine for certain
which of these men it was at that date, and in other cases around the
same period, have given rise to endless muddle and twaddle.
Peter Stewart
So it seems there are 3 Raymonds but its not exactly clear from the
documents which is which. I understand one reconstruction suggests
Raymond [IV] of Toulouse dies c969, and his son Raymond [V] appears
in charters 972 and 978 although some believe this is actually Raymond
II of Rouergue. By 972 the roles would have been reversed perhaps
and Raymond II of Rouergue might have been the senior man.
This scenario is possible but once again there is no clear outcome to be
gained from spinning wheels in the dust of late-10th century Toulouse.
As Hélène Débax and Martin de Framond put it in *Le comte de l'an Mil*
(1996), the number of successive counts and even the number of comital
generations from 961 to 978 elude us. They canvassed several hypotheses,
including that Adelaide of Anjou's husband was "Raimond Hugonis", son of
Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo, and that his brother Hugo was count or
bishop. Others have identified Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo as an
abbot-count. The field is unfortunately open to hot-shots and wannabes,
who proliferate in university history departments.
Post by keri CA
Is this Raymond [IV] Count of Toulouse the one who is the son of Pons in Roda?
So his sons Raymond [V] and Hugo the hunting bishop are husband and brother
in law of Adelaide of Anjou and father and uncle of William Tailefer?
If you accept the Roda codex as accurate, this makes the most
straightforward sense. But Framond thought otherwise, and we could end
up back here yet again if it is not accepted that we simply don't know
for sure.
Post by keri CA
But there still isnt any answer to who was ruling Toulouse c978-1000, and although
there seem plenty of documents from other areas of Languedoc in this period, there
doesnt seem to be any from Toulouse. Is it just that they havnt been published, or
they are not in the HGL collection? Raymond II of Rouergue died about 1008 so its
tempting to believe he might have been in charge while WT was a child, but I havnt
seen proof of this. I havnt looked at all WT's docs, but does he ever mention his
father in them?
William Taillefer was the son of Adelaide of Anjou and we are told that
her (second) husband was a Raimond of Toulouse. He is assumed to be the
man killed at Garazo, probably in 978 when his son was still a child.
After that, in documents where a count of Toulouse would normally be
present, we can't pin one down for certain until 998 by when William
Taillefer had demonstrably taken up comital rule and residence in
Toulouse. The wider Raimondine kinship may have shared or alternated
responsibilities there, probably among one or two other Raimonds and a
Hugo in some pattern we can't clearly discern, maybe obscured from plain
view out of wariness over the trouble Adelaide of Anjou could summon if
they overstepped the rights of her young son. Not being prepared to
admit what we don't know is the cause of spilling wasted ink and blowing
stale hot air. Historians who compulsively do this should be barred from
genealogy discussions for the sake of sanity.
Post by keri CA
Was the family of Pallars also connected to that of Toulouse? Or is this just based
on the similar names which appear in their family, I think its called onomastics, rather
than documented relationships?
It has been speculated that the Raimond of Pallars at the head of the
Roda codex account of the dynasty may have been a grandson through his
mother of Raimond I of Toulouse who died in the 860s. But this is just
from onomastics as far as I recall, without much if any further
circumstantial evidence.

By the way, a problem that should be mentioned regarding the occurrence
of countess Senegunda with Isarn of Pallars when he was count and
married to Adelaida, whatever the relationship beween them, is that
Isarn's mother called Giniguentes in the Roda codex is though to have
died before her husband. Raimond of Pallars is reportedly said by Ibn
Hazm al-Andalusi in *Djamharat ansab al-‘arab* (edited by Évariste
Lévi-Provençal in 1948, not seen by me) to have married a daughter of
the Banu Qasi chieftain Mutarrif ibn Lubb. If this was a second marriage
rather than a first, or else bigamous, then Giniguentes apparently
predeceased Raimond and could not have occurred with Isarn as a widow.
However, there are more serious problems than this with the false Garri
abbey charter ostensibly dated 22 October 930, for instance that it
records the consent of a bishop of Urgell who was not consecrated until 942.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-30 02:28:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
It has been speculated that the Raimond of Pallars at the head of the
Roda codex account of the dynasty may have been a grandson through his
mother of Raimond I of Toulouse who died in the 860s. But this is just
from onomastics as far as I recall, without much if any further
circumstantial evidence.
This is not the only onomastic speculation. A 20th-century Spanish history (it has been three decades since I saw this, but I think it was in the Menendez Pidal Historia de Espana vol 6) suggested that Raymond I of Pallars was a son of Bernard of Toulouse (which, of course, is at odds with the Raymond, son of Lupe, thought to be Raymond I of Pallars).
Post by Peter Stewart
By the way, a problem that should be mentioned regarding the occurrence
of countess Senegunda with Isarn of Pallars when he was count and
married to Adelaida, whatever the relationship beween them, is that
Isarn's mother called Giniguentes in the Roda codex is though to have
died before her husband. Raimond of Pallars is reportedly said by Ibn
Hazm al-Andalusi in *Djamharat ansab al-‘arab* (edited by Évariste
Lévi-Provençal in 1948, not seen by me) to have married a daughter of
the Banu Qasi chieftain Mutarrif ibn Lubb. If this was a second marriage
rather than a first, or else bigamous, then Giniguentes apparently
predeceased Raimond and could not have occurred with Isarn as a widow.
This marriage is nothing but a confused fantasy. I don't know what Levi-Provencal was thinking when he wrote this, or what his source might have been, but Ibn Hazm says nothing of the sort. It apparently derives either via confusion or excess ingenuity from a relationship given by al-Udri. However, the Raymond (perhaps an error for 'ibn Raymond' - 'son of Raymond') to whom he referred was active in 929, after Raymond I of Pallars was dead, and the relationship given is very non-specific - a 'relationship by marriage' between Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi and this 'Raymond'. There may very well be a relationship-by-marriage with Bernard I of Ribagorza via his wife Toda, whose aunt might have been Muhammad's grandmother, but both generational links are far from certain.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-30 03:10:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
It has been speculated that the Raimond of Pallars at the head of the
Roda codex account of the dynasty may have been a grandson through his
mother of Raimond I of Toulouse who died in the 860s. But this is just
from onomastics as far as I recall, without much if any further
circumstantial evidence.
This is not the only onomastic speculation. A 20th-century Spanish history (it has been three decades since I saw this, but I think it was in the Menendez Pidal Historia de Espana vol 6) suggested that Raymond I of Pallars was a son of Bernard of Toulouse (which, of course, is at odds with the Raymond, son of Lupe, thought to be Raymond I of Pallars).
It's a pity 20th-century historians didn't have a forum like SGM where
they could vent such notions without spoiling a page of print. But now
that 21st-century historians do have one available, they mostly seem too
proud (or maybe shy of exposure) to use it ...
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
By the way, a problem that should be mentioned regarding the occurrence
of countess Senegunda with Isarn of Pallars when he was count and
married to Adelaida, whatever the relationship beween them, is that
Isarn's mother called Giniguentes in the Roda codex is though to have
died before her husband. Raimond of Pallars is reportedly said by Ibn
Hazm al-Andalusi in *Djamharat ansab al-‘arab* (edited by Évariste
Lévi-Provençal in 1948, not seen by me) to have married a daughter of
the Banu Qasi chieftain Mutarrif ibn Lubb. If this was a second marriage
rather than a first, or else bigamous, then Giniguentes apparently
predeceased Raimond and could not have occurred with Isarn as a widow.
This marriage is nothing but a confused fantasy. I don't know what Levi-Provencal was thinking when he wrote this, or what his source might have been, but Ibn Hazm says nothing of the sort. It apparently derives either via confusion or excess ingenuity from a relationship given by al-Udri. However, the Raymond (perhaps an error for 'ibn Raymond' - 'son of Raymond') to whom he referred was active in 929, after Raymond I of Pallars was dead, and the relationship given is very non-specific - a 'relationship by marriage' between Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi and this 'Raymond'. There may very well be a relationship-by-marriage with Bernard I of Ribagorza via his wife Toda, whose aunt might have been Muhammad's grandmother, but both generational links are far from certain.
Thanks Todd - I didn't realise that it was Lévi-Provençal who initiated
this, since Martin Aurell only reported that Philippe Sénac had told him
about it as coming from Ibn Hazm ("D'après des renseignements fournis
par Ph. Sénac, cette union est évoquée dans le Djamharat d'Ibn Hazm").

A Christian lady taken as wife by a Muslim seems far more plausible to
me than the other way round.

Without this complication, it seems a little more likely to me that the
forger of the 22 October 930 charter had perhaps seen an authentic
document of Isarn with his mother, read her name as Senegundis however
it may have appeared, and included other family members found there too
(Adelaida as Isarn's wife, William their son and Ermengardis their
daughter appointed as abbess of Sant Pere de Burgal, that we know from a
better source she was by October 948).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-04-30 05:31:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Without this complication, it seems a little more likely to me that the
forger of the 22 October 930 charter had perhaps seen an authentic
document of Isarn with his mother, read her name as Senegundis however
it may have appeared, and included other family members found there too
(Adelaida as Isarn's wife, William their son and Ermengardis their
daughter appointed as abbess of Sant Pere de Burgal, that we know from a
better source she was by October 948).
Actually this source is another false charter in a cartulary of Gerri
abbey, purportedly recording the sale to Ermengardis of properties given
to La Grasse abbey by her father Isarn and grandfather Raimond,
including her own abbey at Burgal. This document was printed without
suspicion in *Catalunya carolíngia*, III. Els comtats de Pallars i
Ribagorça (1955) but it is not included in vol. I of the charters of La
Grasse edited by Elisabeth Magnou-Nortier (1996).

However, there is an undated charter of Isarn giving Sant Pere del
Burgal and other churches to his brother Ato, bishop in the county of
Paillars, and offering his daughter Ermengardis as abbess, confirmed by
Ato. This is ascribed by Magnou-Nortier to ca 945. Then on 24 October
950 Ermengardis herself, titled abbess, gave to La Grasse properties in
Paillars, including her abbey, which she had received from her father
with the consent of bishop Ato.

The monks of Gerri were industrious forgers, but not very careful
historians. A charter represented as issued by Ermengardis as abbess on
24 August 949 was subscribed by Nantigis, bishop of Urgell - who had
died on 21 March 914.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-04-30 14:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Todd - I didn't realise that it was Lévi-Provençal who initiated
this, since Martin Aurell only reported that Philippe Sénac had told him
about it as coming from Ibn Hazm ("D'après des renseignements fournis
par Ph. Sénac, cette union est évoquée dans le Djamharat d'Ibn Hazm").
When I looked into this, the earliest I could find it was the genealogical table of the Banu Qasi that was included in Levi-Provencal's Histoire de l'Espagne musulmane, [1944-1953] (later translated to serve the Menendez Pidal-directed Historia de Espana as vol. IV: Espana Musulmana). Versions of the same chart appear in both editions. The body of the text makes no reference to this relationship, only mentioning Raymond I in an earlier episode involving the sale of Zaragoza. The chart largely recapitulates Ibn Hazm, citing him at the bottom, but it does have uncited additions that are not from Ibn Hazm's work, including this daughter of Mutarrif marrying Raymond I of Pallars. Nonetheless, I suspect that Senac was basing his report on Levi-Provencal's chart, falsely assuming that everything in it came from the sole cited source. (Indeed, I don't recall Levi-Provencal having edited Ibn Hazm - I suspect the 1948 work referred to is his Histoire.)

There is a separate version that has gotten into the American genealogical echo chamber. In an article in one of The Augustan Society's rags, there was a discussion predicated on the non sequitur that 'it was Isarn who married Giniguentes, not Raymond, so that means Raymond's only known wife, the bint Qasi, must be ancestor of Raymond's descendants'. It didn't even address why the author thought it must have been Raymond who married the sister of Muhammad and not the other way around (the author was, like Aurell, working several steps removed from the original source, via a Spanish translation that rendered the relationship given by al-Udri as 'brother-in-law' even though the Arabic is less precise than this. From there this version, with Raymond marrying the sister of Muhammad ibn Lubb (II), and hence daughter of Lubb ibn Muhammad, was picked up by the worse-than-useless Royalty for Commoners, and became deeply ensconced in the great online GEDCOM exchange.

[By the way, though there are full editions of both Ibn Hasm and al-Udri in the original Arabic, these can be daunting. Jesus Lorenzo-Jimenez, La Dawla de los Banu Qasi, with its extensive source Appendix on CD, is a more accessible gateway to the relevant Banu Qasi material (if these days you can find a CD reader), having the original text and parallel Spanish translation of the Arabic sources: Ibn Hayyan, al-Udri, Ibn Hazm, and many more, but only their Banu Qasi-related content.]
Post by Peter Stewart
A Christian lady taken as wife by a Muslim seems far more plausible to
me than the other way round.
This is something that Khalid Yahya Blankinship addressed in his evaluation of a supposed Muslim descent involving the Byzantine Skleros family. Basically, it was anathema for a Muslim to marry his daughter to an unbeliever, to the degree that as the Reconquista drew more dire, an al-Andalusi Muslim asked for a religious ruling because while it was a man's duty to remain in Iberia and fight for the faith, would that not put his daughters in danger of falling into the hands of the Christians. The judgment returned was that the greater responsibility was to keep one's females from heathen beds and an al-Andalusi father of daughters should flee across the straits lest they shamefully end up like the daughter-in-law of the Emir of Seville (i.e. Zaida and Alfonso VI were still remembered in infamy 350 years later). That is not to say it never happened, the best known cases occurring with the downfall of a dynasty and conversion prior to the marriage. Ibn Hazm's account gives just such a scenario with Fortun ibn Abdullah ibn Qasi and his sister Urraca bint Abdallah converting and the latter marrying Fruela I, so he wasn't too squeamish to mention a niece of Abdullah doing similar.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-04-30 22:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Todd - I didn't realise that it was Lévi-Provençal who initiated
this, since Martin Aurell only reported that Philippe Sénac had told him
about it as coming from Ibn Hazm ("D'après des renseignements fournis
par Ph. Sénac, cette union est évoquée dans le Djamharat d'Ibn Hazm").
When I looked into this, the earliest I could find it was the genealogical table of the Banu Qasi that was included in Levi-Provencal's Histoire de l'Espagne musulmane, [1944-1953] (later translated to serve the Menendez Pidal-directed Historia de Espana as vol. IV: Espana Musulmana). Versions of the same chart appear in both editions. The body of the text makes no reference to this relationship, only mentioning Raymond I in an earlier episode involving the sale of Zaragoza. The chart largely recapitulates Ibn Hazm, citing him at the bottom, but it does have uncited additions that are not from Ibn Hazm's work, including this daughter of Mutarrif marrying Raymond I of Pallars. Nonetheless, I suspect that Senac was basing his report on Levi-Provencal's chart, falsely assuming that everything in it came from the sole cited source. (Indeed, I don't recall Levi-Provencal having edited Ibn Hazm - I suspect the 1948 work referred to is his Histoire.)
The 1948 edition by Lévi-Provençal was my assumption of the source Sénac
would have meant - see the record here:

https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb32380562r
Post by taf
There is a separate version that has gotten into the American genealogical echo chamber. In an article in one of The Augustan Society's rags, there was a discussion predicated on the non sequitur that 'it was Isarn who married Giniguentes, not Raymond, so that means Raymond's only known wife, the bint Qasi, must be ancestor of Raymond's descendants'. It didn't even address why the author thought it must have been Raymond who married the sister of Muhammad and not the other way around (the author was, like Aurell, working several steps removed from the original source, via a Spanish translation that rendered the relationship given by al-Udri as 'brother-in-law' even though the Arabic is less precise than this. From there this version, with Raymond marrying the sister of Muhammad ibn Lubb (II), and hence daughter of Lubb ibn Muhammad, was picked up by the worse-than-useless Royalty for Commoners, and became deeply ensconced in the great online GEDCOM exchange.
[By the way, though there are full editions of both Ibn Hasm and al-Udri in the original Arabic, these can be daunting. Jesus Lorenzo-Jimenez, La Dawla de los Banu Qasi, with its extensive source Appendix on CD, is a more accessible gateway to the relevant Banu Qasi material (if these days you can find a CD reader), having the original text and parallel Spanish translation of the Arabic sources: Ibn Hayyan, al-Udri, Ibn Hazm, and many more, but only their Banu Qasi-related content.]
Thanks, I haven't paid sufficient attention to Arabic sources because I
can't easily read them in the writers' own language and I'm too lazy for
slogging through. I dislike using editions where the original or
earliest extant manuscripts can be viewed instead, and have a positive
aversion to trusting translators. But parallel text
editions+translations can be useful and I should put in more effort with
these.
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
A Christian lady taken as wife by a Muslim seems far more plausible to
me than the other way round.
This is something that Khalid Yahya Blankinship addressed in his evaluation of a supposed Muslim descent involving the Byzantine Skleros family. Basically, it was anathema for a Muslim to marry his daughter to an unbeliever, to the degree that as the Reconquista drew more dire, an al-Andalusi Muslim asked for a religious ruling because while it was a man's duty to remain in Iberia and fight for the faith, would that not put his daughters in danger of falling into the hands of the Christians. The judgment returned was that the greater responsibility was to keep one's females from heathen beds and an al-Andalusi father of daughters should flee across the straits lest they shamefully end up like the daughter-in-law of the Emir of Seville (i.e. Zaida and Alfonso VI were still remembered in infamy 350 years later). That is not to say it never happened, the best known cases occurring with the downfall of a dynasty and conversion prior to the marriage. Ibn Hazm's account gives just such a scenario with Fortun ibn Abdullah ibn Qasi and his sister Urraca bint Abdallah converting and the latter marrying Fruela I, so he wasn't too squeamish to mention a niece of Abdullah doing similar.
In general the certitude of zealots is in inverse proportion to the
plausibility of their beliefs, so it's a wonder the prohibition on
mixed-religion marriages wasn't equally strong
taf
2021-05-01 18:11:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
When I looked into this, the earliest I could find it was the genealogical
table of the Banu Qasi that was included in Levi-Provencal's Histoire de
l'Espagne musulmane, [1944-1953] (later translated to serve the Menendez
Pidal-directed Historia de Espana as vol. IV: Espana Musulmana). Versions
of the same chart appear in both editions. The body of the text makes no
reference to this relationship, only mentioning Raymond I in an earlier
episode involving the sale of Zaragoza.
Actually, this is wrong. The body or Lévi Provençal's text does mention a relationship, just not the same one. He refers (v. 1, p. 328) to an agreement reached in 884 (sic - the original source puts it immediately before a statement 'then in 261 H [874/5]') between general Hashim ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz and Muhammad ibn Lubb, through the intermediary role played by "comte Raimond de Pallars, propre beau-frère du rebelle." For this he cites a passage from al-Muqtabis. The cited passage is enigmatic: all it does is drop in the middle of its historical account of Zaragoza's leadership the statement "Raymond was lord of Pallars", with no attempt to link it to the rest of the chronicle narrative. No relationship is given, no mention is made of an intermediary role. Both Lévi-Provençal and Lorenzo Jiménez think that there is some flaw in the manuscript here, the loss of context for the relevance of Raymond.

As to Ibn Hazm and Mutarrif ibn Lubb, all it says of him is that Lubb's sons included Muhammad, . . . who succeeded his father; Isa and Mutarrif. That's is all we get for either of the younger sons.

So, though his chart and his text both give a relationship (different in each), and both cite a trusted primary source for the broader body of material being presented, in neither case does the source have the claimed kinship. As is too often the case, these were throw-away genealogical details not derived from the cited sources, but assumed by later scholars using Lévi-Provençal's work to have come from the sources.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-05-01 22:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
When I looked into this, the earliest I could find it was the genealogical
table of the Banu Qasi that was included in Levi-Provencal's Histoire de
l'Espagne musulmane, [1944-1953] (later translated to serve the Menendez
Pidal-directed Historia de Espana as vol. IV: Espana Musulmana). Versions
of the same chart appear in both editions. The body of the text makes no
reference to this relationship, only mentioning Raymond I in an earlier
episode involving the sale of Zaragoza.
Actually, this is wrong. The body or Lévi Provençal's text does mention a relationship, just not the same one. He refers (v. 1, p. 328) to an agreement reached in 884 (sic - the original source puts it immediately before a statement 'then in 261 H [874/5]') between general Hashim ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz and Muhammad ibn Lubb, through the intermediary role played by "comte Raimond de Pallars, propre beau-frère du rebelle." For this he cites a passage from al-Muqtabis. The cited passage is enigmatic: all it does is drop in the middle of its historical account of Zaragoza's leadership the statement "Raymond was lord of Pallars", with no attempt to link it to the rest of the chronicle narrative. No relationship is given, no mention is made of an intermediary role. Both Lévi-Provençal and Lorenzo Jiménez think that there is some flaw in the manuscript here, the loss of context for the relevance of Raymond.
As to Ibn Hazm and Mutarrif ibn Lubb, all it says of him is that Lubb's sons included Muhammad, . . . who succeeded his father; Isa and Mutarrif. That's is all we get for either of the younger sons.
So, though his chart and his text both give a relationship (different in each), and both cite a trusted primary source for the broader body of material being presented, in neither case does the source have the claimed kinship. As is too often the case, these were throw-away genealogical details not derived from the cited sources, but assumed by later scholars using Lévi-Provençal's work to have come from the sources.
This is the academia-bubble effect that can create a sheeny ecosystem
for false factoids.

It often starts with lazy PhD supervisors or journal reviewers who nod
sagely over some incidental point derived from secondary sources they
don't bother to check, pretending to have known it all along themselves.

I expected better from Sénac and Aurell, but apparently that was just
from my own laziness.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-01 06:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
So it seems there are 3 Raymonds but its not exactly clear from the
documents which is which. I understand one reconstruction suggests
Raymond [IV] of Toulouse dies c969, and his son Raymond [V] appears
in charters 972 and 978 although some believe this is actually Raymond
II of Rouergue. By 972 the roles would have been reversed perhaps
and Raymond II of Rouergue might have been the senior man.
This scenario is possible but once again there is no clear outcome to be
gained from spinning wheels in the dust of late-10th century Toulouse.
As Hélène Débax and Martin de Framond put it in *Le comte de l'an Mil*
(1996), the number of successive counts and even the number of comital
generations from 961 to 978 elude us. They canvassed several hypotheses,
including that Adelaide of Anjou's husband was "Raimond Hugonis", son of
Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo, and that his brother Hugo was count or
bishop. Others have identified Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo as an
abbot-count.
This is yet another puzzle. Jean-Pierre Poly identified the count Hugo
and his brother Pons who subscribed a charter for Psalmodi in 1003/04
along with Adelaide of Anjou and her son William Taillefer as belonging
to the Rouergue branch of the family, i.e. sons of Raimond II and Berta.

Their son Hugo is confidently identified as the man mentioned by Gerbert
in a letter to Gerald of Saint-Céré, abbot of Aurillac, written in the
spring of 984 asking for local news to pass on to the archibishop of
Reims including whether the abbot-count Hugo had married ("Pater meus
Adalbero Remorum archiepiscopus ... status regnorum penes vos sit, scire
cupit, et an Hugo quem vestra lingua abbicomitem dicitis uxorem
duxerit"). In another letter from Gerbert to Gerald, written in June
984, Hugo is described as son of Raimond ("Statum regni vestri, quidve
agat, vel moliatur ille Hugo Raimundi, per vos scire cupit").

A contemporary, Hugo of Chalon, was also called "abbicomes" in the 980s,
before he became bishop of Auxerre, but he lived closer to Reims than to
Aurillac and his father's name was Lambert. Hugo Capet was a lay abbot
and count in 984, but he was titled duke and already married well before
then and anyway his doings were undoubtedly better known in Reims than
in Aurillac.

In 1997 Christian Lauranson-Rosaz ('Entre deux mondes, l'Auvergne de
Gerbert', in *Gerbert l'Européen*) identified the abbot-count in
Gerbert's letters as abbot of Conques. I don't think this is correct,
but if accepted it rules out the son of Raimond II of Rouergue and Berta
(who were married in or after 947) because Hugo was abbot of Sainte-Foy
by September 958. He does coincidentally disappear after a last
occurrence in August 984, but it's hard to credit that this was due to
his marrying rather than dying after nearly 30 years in office - and in
any case, he was never called count in Conques charters and he was not a
lay abbot since he was described as holding regular office in August 962
("Hugono qui est abbas secundum regulam").

If he was not the son of Raimond II and Berta (who, if Poly is right,
was called count but not abbot in 1003/04, still living after the Roda
codex was apparently written), then I don't see another Raimond in the
Toulouse-Rouergue family who could have been abbot-count Hugo's father
unless he was the same man as the bishop killed hunting in the Roda
codex. In this case he could perhaps have held an abbacy first and then
ruled Toulouse as count after his brother was killed at Garazo, toying
with the prospect of marrying before becoming a bishop when Guillaume
Taillefer was old enough to take over as count and dying at his sport
very shortly before the Roda codex was written.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-01 11:07:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
So it seems there are 3 Raymonds but its not exactly clear from the
documents which is which. I understand one reconstruction suggests
Raymond [IV] of Toulouse dies c969, and his son Raymond [V] appears
in charters 972 and 978 although some believe this is actually Raymond
II of Rouergue. By 972 the roles would have been reversed perhaps
and Raymond II of Rouergue might have been the senior man.
This scenario is possible but once again there is no clear outcome to be
gained from spinning wheels in the dust of late-10th century Toulouse.
As Hélène Débax and Martin de Framond put it in *Le comte de l'an Mil*
(1996), the number of successive counts and even the number of comital
generations from 961 to 978 elude us. They canvassed several hypotheses,
including that Adelaide of Anjou's husband was "Raimond Hugonis", son of
Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo, and that his brother Hugo was count or
bishop. Others have identified Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo as an
abbot-count.
This is yet another puzzle. Jean-Pierre Poly identified the count Hugo
and his brother Pons who subscribed a charter for Psalmodi in 1003/04
along with Adelaide of Anjou and her son William Taillefer as belonging
to the Rouergue branch of the family, i.e. sons of Raimond II and Berta.
Could these two brother counts Pons and Hugo not be the grandsons
of Raymond and Berta, that is the sons of Raymond II/III [this numbering
is confusing - I thought Raymond who died 961 was Ray I!]. As Ray II/III
had been adult since the 970s his sons might already be adults and
called counts. I think his successor was called Hugo, but maybe he was
still a child as he died in 1054.
Post by Peter Stewart
Their son Hugo is confidently identified as the man mentioned by Gerbert
in a letter to Gerald of Saint-Céré, abbot of Aurillac, written in the
spring of 984 asking for local news to pass on to the archibishop of
Reims including whether the abbot-count Hugo had married ("Pater meus
Adalbero Remorum archiepiscopus ... status regnorum penes vos sit, scire
cupit, et an Hugo quem vestra lingua abbicomitem dicitis uxorem
duxerit"). In another letter from Gerbert to Gerald, written in June
984, Hugo is described as son of Raimond ("Statum regni vestri, quidve
agat, vel moliatur ille Hugo Raimundi, per vos scire cupit").
I dont understand this: is Raimundi being used as a patronymic like
Garsie Sanche. If so it seems there is a Abbot Hugo son of Raymund to
join the mysterious Bishop Hugo the hunter, son of Raymond.
Post by Peter Stewart
A contemporary, Hugo of Chalon, was also called "abbicomes" in the 980s,
before he became bishop of Auxerre, but he lived closer to Reims than to
Aurillac and his father's name was Lambert. Hugo Capet was a lay abbot
and count in 984, but he was titled duke and already married well before
then and anyway his doings were undoubtedly better known in Reims than
in Aurillac.
In 1997 Christian Lauranson-Rosaz ('Entre deux mondes, l'Auvergne de
Gerbert', in *Gerbert l'Européen*) identified the abbot-count in
Gerbert's letters as abbot of Conques. I don't think this is correct,
but if accepted it rules out the son of Raimond II of Rouergue and Berta
(who were married in or after 947) because Hugo was abbot of Sainte-Foy
by September 958. He does coincidentally disappear after a last
occurrence in August 984, but it's hard to credit that this was due to
his marrying rather than dying after nearly 30 years in office - and in
any case, he was never called count in Conques charters and he was not a
lay abbot since he was described as holding regular office in August 962
("Hugono qui est abbas secundum regulam").
If he was not the son of Raimond II and Berta (who, if Poly is right,
was called count but not abbot in 1003/04, still living after the Roda
codex was apparently written), then I don't see another Raimond in the
Toulouse-Rouergue family who could have been abbot-count Hugo's father
unless he was the same man as the bishop killed hunting in the Roda
codex. In this case he could perhaps have held an abbacy first and then
ruled Toulouse as count after his brother was killed at Garazo, toying
with the prospect of marrying before becoming a bishop when Guillaume
Taillefer was old enough to take over as count and dying at his sport
very shortly before the Roda codex was written.
Peter Stewart
Thankyou both for going into this in such detail.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-05-01 11:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
So it seems there are 3 Raymonds but its not exactly clear from the
documents which is which. I understand one reconstruction suggests
Raymond [IV] of Toulouse dies c969, and his son Raymond [V] appears
in charters 972 and 978 although some believe this is actually Raymond
II of Rouergue. By 972 the roles would have been reversed perhaps
and Raymond II of Rouergue might have been the senior man.
This scenario is possible but once again there is no clear outcome to be
gained from spinning wheels in the dust of late-10th century Toulouse.
As Hélène Débax and Martin de Framond put it in *Le comte de l'an Mil*
(1996), the number of successive counts and even the number of comital
generations from 961 to 978 elude us. They canvassed several hypotheses,
including that Adelaide of Anjou's husband was "Raimond Hugonis", son of
Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo, and that his brother Hugo was count or
bishop. Others have identified Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo as an
abbot-count.
This is yet another puzzle. Jean-Pierre Poly identified the count Hugo
and his brother Pons who subscribed a charter for Psalmodi in 1003/04
along with Adelaide of Anjou and her son William Taillefer as belonging
to the Rouergue branch of the family, i.e. sons of Raimond II and Berta.
Could these two brother counts Pons and Hugo not be the grandsons
of Raymond and Berta, that is the sons of Raymond II/III [this numbering
is confusing - I thought Raymond who died 961 was Ray I!]. As Ray II/III
had been adult since the 970s his sons might already be adults and
called counts. I think his successor was called Hugo, but maybe he was
still a child as he died in 1054.
This doesn't work, because Raimond III's son Hugo was not a count by
1003/04 when a count Hugo and his brother Pons subscribed the Psalmodi
charter - Raimond III himself lived until ca 1008/10 when he died on
pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Apart from that, the name Pons suggests descent from Raimond Pons of
Toulouse rather than from the Rouergue line descended from his paternal
uncle Ermengaud.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Their son Hugo is confidently identified as the man mentioned by Gerbert
in a letter to Gerald of Saint-Céré, abbot of Aurillac, written in the
spring of 984 asking for local news to pass on to the archibishop of
Reims including whether the abbot-count Hugo had married ("Pater meus
Adalbero Remorum archiepiscopus ... status regnorum penes vos sit, scire
cupit, et an Hugo quem vestra lingua abbicomitem dicitis uxorem
duxerit"). In another letter from Gerbert to Gerald, written in June
984, Hugo is described as son of Raimond ("Statum regni vestri, quidve
agat, vel moliatur ille Hugo Raimundi, per vos scire cupit").
I dont understand this: is Raimundi being used as a patronymic like
Garsie Sanche. If so it seems there is a Abbot Hugo son of Raymund to
join the mysterious Bishop Hugo the hunter, son of Raymond.
Yes, Raimundi appears to be a patronymic as commonly given in Languedoc
and Catalonia - it would be hard to explain what else Gerbert can have
meant by this usage, and it seems inescapable that he was speaking of
the same man whom he had called "abbicomes" a few months earlier.

Since no Hugo occurs elsewhere with this peculiar description, that
Gerbert acknowledged to be unusual by writing "quem vestra lingua
abbicomitem dicitis" (i.e. "whom in your parlance you call
abbot-count"), and since Hugo of Flavigny made a point of explaining
that Hugo of Chalon was called "abbicomes" because he ruled his father's
county by the king's order for lack of other male heirs, it can be taken
as implying that Hugo son of Raimond was a regular abbot who
subsequently became a count through some similar necessity. If he had
been a count who was also a lay abbot, like Hugo Capet, there would have
been no need for a portmanteau title referred to as if locally
idiomatic, since he would have been conventionally called "comes et
abbas" ("count and abbot") anywhere.

I think there is a fairly good case to be made that this abbot-count
Hugo son of Raimond was very probably the same man as the bishop Hugo
killed hunting, i.e. the brother-in-law of Adelaide of Anjou and son of
Raimond IV of Tolouse, rather than a younger son of Raimond II of
Rouergue as often supposed.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-01 23:50:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
So it seems there are 3 Raymonds but its not exactly clear from the
documents which is which. I understand one reconstruction suggests
Raymond [IV] of Toulouse dies c969, and his son Raymond [V] appears
in charters 972 and 978 although some believe this is actually Raymond
II of Rouergue. By 972 the roles would have been reversed perhaps
and Raymond II of Rouergue might have been the senior man.
This scenario is possible but once again there is no clear outcome to be
gained from spinning wheels in the dust of late-10th century Toulouse.
As Hélène Débax and Martin de Framond put it in *Le comte de l'an Mil*
(1996), the number of successive counts and even the number of comital
generations from 961 to 978 elude us. They canvassed several hypotheses,
including that Adelaide of Anjou's husband was "Raimond Hugonis", son of
Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo, and that his brother Hugo was count or
bishop. Others have identified Raimond I of Rouergue's son Hugo as an
abbot-count.
This is yet another puzzle. Jean-Pierre Poly identified the count Hugo
and his brother Pons who subscribed a charter for Psalmodi in 1003/04
along with Adelaide of Anjou and her son William Taillefer as belonging
to the Rouergue branch of the family, i.e. sons of Raimond II and Berta.
Could these two brother counts Pons and Hugo not be the grandsons
of Raymond and Berta, that is the sons of Raymond II/III [this numbering
is confusing - I thought Raymond who died 961 was Ray I!]. As Ray II/III
had been adult since the 970s his sons might already be adults and
called counts. I think his successor was called Hugo, but maybe he was
still a child as he died in 1054.
This doesn't work, because Raimond III's son Hugo was not a count by
1003/04 when a count Hugo and his brother Pons subscribed the Psalmodi
charter - Raimond III himself lived until ca 1008/10 when he died on
pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
Apart from that, the name Pons suggests descent from Raimond Pons of
Toulouse rather than from the Rouergue line descended from his paternal
uncle Ermengaud.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Their son Hugo is confidently identified as the man mentioned by Gerbert
in a letter to Gerald of Saint-Céré, abbot of Aurillac, written in the
spring of 984 asking for local news to pass on to the archibishop of
Reims including whether the abbot-count Hugo had married ("Pater meus
Adalbero Remorum archiepiscopus ... status regnorum penes vos sit, scire
cupit, et an Hugo quem vestra lingua abbicomitem dicitis uxorem
duxerit"). In another letter from Gerbert to Gerald, written in June
984, Hugo is described as son of Raimond ("Statum regni vestri, quidve
agat, vel moliatur ille Hugo Raimundi, per vos scire cupit").
I dont understand this: is Raimundi being used as a patronymic like
Garsie Sanche. If so it seems there is a Abbot Hugo son of Raymund to
join the mysterious Bishop Hugo the hunter, son of Raymond.
Yes, Raimundi appears to be a patronymic as commonly given in Languedoc
and Catalonia - it would be hard to explain what else Gerbert can have
meant by this usage, and it seems inescapable that he was speaking of
the same man whom he had called "abbicomes" a few months earlier.
Since no Hugo occurs elsewhere with this peculiar description, that
Gerbert acknowledged to be unusual by writing "quem vestra lingua
abbicomitem dicitis" (i.e. "whom in your parlance you call
abbot-count"), and since Hugo of Flavigny made a point of explaining
that Hugo of Chalon was called "abbicomes" because he ruled his father's
county by the king's order for lack of other male heirs, it can be taken
as implying that Hugo son of Raimond was a regular abbot who
subsequently became a count through some similar necessity. If he had
been a count who was also a lay abbot, like Hugo Capet, there would have
been no need for a portmanteau title referred to as if locally
idiomatic, since he would have been conventionally called "comes et
abbas" ("count and abbot") anywhere.
I think there is a fairly good case to be made that this abbot-count
Hugo son of Raimond was very probably the same man as the bishop Hugo
killed hunting, i.e. the brother-in-law of Adelaide of Anjou and son of
Raimond IV of Tolouse, rather than a younger son of Raimond II of
Rouergue as often supposed.
Peter Stewart
Interesting. I have just ploughed through Latours article and it seems his argument is not that Hugo bishop of toulouse 928-72
was 2 men but that he was succeeded by another Bishop Hugo who died c985 brother of Raymond [V] of Toulouse, and uncle of William Tailefer. But the more I read the less confidence I had in his assertions. In his table at the end he shows the sister of William Tailefer as the wife of Lambert of Chalon. Surely she was the daughter of the Count of Burgundy? Unless there is another Lambert of Chalon.

But on some of the questions I raised earlier:
He quotes Laurenson Rosaz who suggested that the Count William mentioned by Raymond I of Rouegue in his will c961 as
meo consanguineus was actually William the Younger Duke of Aquitaine d926. Does consanguineus mean cousin in our sense or just unspecified blood relation? He says they were related through Raymonds mother Adelaide [another Adelaide!] I think William Towhead of Poitou has also been suggested.

On the nepotes in Garsende's will
He says Count Hugo was her nephew, eldest son of Raymond of Rouergue d961 by an earlier marriage to an unnamed woman who was presumably Garsendes sister. He says he was Count in Limousin and southern Auvergne. He says this is the man that Aimoin calls one of the principal lords of Aquitaine, and that he had a son Raymond Hugo [the reverse of the Abbot of Conques]. I've never heard of this chap.
He says that nepos Raymond son of Gundinildis was her grandson that is Raymond [V] future husband of Adelaide Blanche, and thus
Gundinildis [other publications have Guidinildis] was the wife of his father Raymond [IV]. If so I find it suprising that the scribe who wrote this used the same term for 2 entirely different relationships.
There is also nepos Amelius who seems rather ignored in all this, but apparently Latour was working on an article discussing all the various Amels in the Midi. I wonder if this has been published?

He says the 2 brothers Hugo and Pons at Psalmodi 1004 were the brothers of Raymond I d961. Hugo was count of Quercy & Albi. I think this is the wrong generation. And as you say Pons suggests a Toulouse connection. Or perhaps there was a whole branch of the family in Quercy-Albi who have been misplaced to either Rouergue or Toulouse.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-05-02 04:55:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
I think there is a fairly good case to be made that this abbot-count
Hugo son of Raimond was very probably the same man as the bishop Hugo
killed hunting, i.e. the brother-in-law of Adelaide of Anjou and son of
Raimond IV of Tolouse, rather than a younger son of Raimond II of
Rouergue as often supposed.
Peter Stewart
Interesting. I have just ploughed through Latours article and it seems his argument is not that Hugo bishop of toulouse 928-72
was 2 men but that he was succeeded by another Bishop Hugo who died c985 brother of Raymond [V] of Toulouse, and uncle of William Tailefer. But the more I read the less confidence I had in his assertions. In his table at the end he shows the sister of William Tailefer as the wife of Lambert of Chalon. Surely she was the daughter of the Count of Burgundy? Unless there is another Lambert of Chalon.
This appears to have been a deep brain-fade on Latour's part - Lambert
of Chalon was dead in (most probably) 978 and his widow Adelais then
married Geoffrey Gisegonelle of Anjou. She was mother to at least two of
Lambert's children, the count-bishop Hugo who succeeded his father and
Matilda who was married before 978n to Geoffrey of Semur: plainly these
cannot have been born to a woman whose parents were married ca 975 as
shown in the same table.
Post by keri CA
He quotes Laurenson Rosaz who suggested that the Count William mentioned by Raymond I of Rouegue in his will c961 as
meo consanguineus was actually William the Younger Duke of Aquitaine d926. Does consanguineus mean cousin in our sense or just unspecified blood relation? He says they were related through Raymonds mother Adelaide [another Adelaide!] I think William Towhead of Poitou has also been suggested.
The identiy of this William and how he was related to Raimond is open to
speculation, but consanguineus means literally blood kinsman and could
be used for various connections from cousin to more distant relatives. A
first cousin was more often called consobrinus, literally meaning the
son of a maternal aunt but used more loosely for other first cousins as
well.
Post by keri CA
On the nepotes in Garsende's will
He says Count Hugo was her nephew, eldest son of Raymond of Rouergue d961 by an earlier marriage to an unnamed woman who was presumably Garsendes sister. He says he was Count in Limousin and southern Auvergne. He says this is the man that Aimoin calls one of the principal lords of Aquitaine, and that he had a son Raymond Hugo [the reverse of the Abbot of Conques]. I've never heard of this chap.
I would stop reading there, if not before. Once the first sod of a
conjectural hole is dug out, some historians (and some genealogists)
just keep going deeper until their ideas are crushed by atmospheric
pressure. They are too befuddled from lack of fresh air by then to
realise what is happening. When a series of conjectures depend on each
other, they are of NEVER of any more value than the pile of soil
displaced by the digging. Compulsive puzzle-meisters NEVER realise this.
Post by keri CA
He says that nepos Raymond son of Gundinildis was her grandson that is Raymond [V] future husband of Adelaide Blanche, and thus
Gundinildis [other publications have Guidinildis] was the wife of his father Raymond [IV]. If so I find it suprising that the scribe who wrote this used the same term for 2 entirely different relationships.
There is also nepos Amelius who seems rather ignored in all this, but apparently Latour was working on an article discussing all the various Amels in the Midi. I wonder if this has been published?
I don't think so - most of his publications since 1997 have been in
*Revue de Comminges* and I don't see one about Amels.
Post by keri CA
He says the 2 brothers Hugo and Pons at Psalmodi 1004 were the brothers of Raymond I d961. Hugo was count of Quercy & Albi. I think this is the wrong generation. And as you say Pons suggests a Toulouse connection. Or perhaps there was a whole branch of the family in Quercy-Albi who have been misplaced to either Rouergue or Toulouse.
Hugo of Quercy was a son of Ermengaud of Rouergue and so a brother of
the Raimond (I or II) assassinated in 961, but as far as I can recall
there was not another brother recorded in this family, whether named
Pons or anything else. Considering that Ermengaud was dead in the 930s,
it's not very likely that he had two sons living ca 70 years afterwards.
Albi had viscounts in the late-10th and early-11th centuries.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-02 06:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
There is also nepos Amelius who seems rather ignored in all this, but
apparently Latour was working on an article discussing all the various
Amels in the Midi. I wonder if this has been published?
I don't think so - most of his publications since 1997 have been in
*Revue de Comminges* and I don't see one about Amels.
Apologies, I didn't look carefully enough - it is published: 'La
dynastie Amélius, Xe–XIIe siècle', in *Revue de Comminges et des
Pyrénées centrales* 119 (2003) 399-418, available here:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9604148p/f81.item

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-02 05:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Interesting. I have just ploughed through Latours article and it seems his argument is not that Hugo bishop of toulouse 928-72
was 2 men but that he was succeeded by another Bishop Hugo who died c985 brother of Raymond [V] of Toulouse, and uncle of William Tailefer. But the more I read the less confidence I had in his assertions. In his table at the end he shows the sister of William Tailefer as the wife of Lambert of Chalon. Surely she was the daughter of the Count of Burgundy? Unless there is another Lambert of Chalon.
He quotes Laurenson Rosaz who suggested that the Count William mentioned by Raymond I of Rouegue in his will c961 as
meo consanguineus was actually William the Younger Duke of Aquitaine d926. Does consanguineus mean cousin in our sense or just unspecified blood relation? He says they were related through Raymonds mother Adelaide [another Adelaide!] I think William Towhead of Poitou has also been suggested.
On the nepotes in Garsende's will
He says Count Hugo was her nephew, eldest son of Raymond of Rouergue d961 by an earlier marriage to an unnamed woman who was presumably Garsendes sister. He says he was Count in Limousin and southern Auvergne. He says this is the man that Aimoin calls one of the principal lords of Aquitaine, and that he had a son Raymond Hugo [the reverse of the Abbot of Conques]. I've never heard of this chap.
On looking quickly at the article, this is at the bottom of p. 348 -
with no source reference for the whole paragraph "Ses enfants ensuite:
il semble avoir eu, d'une première femme inconnue, un fils Hugues,
deuxième du nom, qui paraît être comte en Limousin et dans le sud de
l'Auvergne. Il est signalé par Aimoin comme « l'un des principaux
seigneurs d'Aquitaine ». Ce Hugues semble avoir eu au moins un fils :
Raimond-Hugonis."

It's a useful time-saver to junk any article with paragraphs like this.
Aimoin can be checked, laboriously enough, but "il semble" is not
verifiable even by opening the author's skull and looking for a
contusion on the brain.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-02 10:30:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by keri CA
yes every piece seems to add to the confusion but its not helped by our learned
forebears making 2 men into one and 1 man into 2.
The trouble in establishing proof of one man or two without confusion is
https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1997_num_109_219_2563.
In the table on p. 354 bishop Hugo of Toulouse is shown as a brother of
Adelaide of Anjou's husband Raimond V and as dying ca 985.
But on p. 350 Hugo is said to have been most probably the prelate killed
in a hunting accident as related in the Roda codex, the son of count
Raimond IV named with the latter as executors in the testament written
ca 960 of his namesake and predecessor bishop Hugo (identified as a
younger son of count Odo who died in 918), whom he succeeded from ca 970
until the fatal accident in which he was killed in 974, a prodigious
event causing a single death on two occasions separated by ca 11 years.
Peter Stewart
Having read this article now, it seems full of internal contradictions.
However it seems that there was only 1 bishop Hugo 926/8-73.
There couldnt be another Hugo II after that as Cabau names the bishops
973-1019 and there doesnt seem any room or proof for a Hugo II, so as
you say the hunting bishop must have another see. As Hugo I never names
any relatives in his will or documents his relationship to the family of Toulouse must
remain unproven. He seems to be the same generation as Raymond Pons
and Garsende.

Hugo of Toulouse also names a Count Raymond and his son Hugo as executors
in his will. Cabau thought this was Count Raymond [IV] not the count of Rouergue.
Theres no way of knowing for certain, but if so this would mean that the Hugo
in this will would be the man who later became the hunting bishop.

But if so the 2 brothers counts Hugo and Pons in psalmodi 1004 would
have to be from a different generation or Raymond IV would have 2
sons called Hugo, 1 a count the other a bishop, and the bishop was
clearly dead when Roda was written which I believe was before 1004?

I wondered whether the Pons in 1004 was the same as the Pons Count of
Albi in 2 charters in HGL 142ab for bishop Amelius of Albi and Benedict
abbot of le Vieux. I think he has been suggested as the nepos Amelius
in Garsends will. They are concerned with le Vieux near Gaillac, which
was owned by the count and is also mentioned in both the wills of Raymond
of Rouergue and Garsende.

I cant remember the reference but I think I read in the Dictionaire de
Histoire et Geographie, referencing a study by Dufour perhaps, that
this referred to Pons in 1037 when the Bishop was Amelius 1019-40.
Has there been a study of the Bishops of Albi like Cabau's on Toulouse?

Most older works I've seen have Frotar Bishop of Albi in this time, if hes
not confused with Frotar of Nimes. The official diocesain page has both
Frotar and Amel. One charter is dated 987 the other is undated, but is the
dating accurate, because the abbots and the priors are different.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-05-02 12:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by keri CA
yes every piece seems to add to the confusion but its not helped by our learned
forebears making 2 men into one and 1 man into 2.
The trouble in establishing proof of one man or two without confusion is
https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1997_num_109_219_2563.
In the table on p. 354 bishop Hugo of Toulouse is shown as a brother of
Adelaide of Anjou's husband Raimond V and as dying ca 985.
But on p. 350 Hugo is said to have been most probably the prelate killed
in a hunting accident as related in the Roda codex, the son of count
Raimond IV named with the latter as executors in the testament written
ca 960 of his namesake and predecessor bishop Hugo (identified as a
younger son of count Odo who died in 918), whom he succeeded from ca 970
until the fatal accident in which he was killed in 974, a prodigious
event causing a single death on two occasions separated by ca 11 years.
Peter Stewart
Having read this article now, it seems full of internal contradictions.
However it seems that there was only 1 bishop Hugo 926/8-73.
There couldnt be another Hugo II after that as Cabau names the bishops
973-1019 and there doesnt seem any room or proof for a Hugo II, so as
you say the hunting bishop must have another see. As Hugo I never names
any relatives in his will or documents his relationship to the family of Toulouse must
remain unproven. He seems to be the same generation as Raymond Pons
and Garsende.
Hugo of Toulouse also names a Count Raymond and his son Hugo as executors
in his will. Cabau thought this was Count Raymond [IV] not the count of Rouergue.
Theres no way of knowing for certain, but if so this would mean that the Hugo
in this will would be the man who later became the hunting bishop.
But if so the 2 brothers counts Hugo and Pons in psalmodi 1004 would
have to be from a different generation or Raymond IV would have 2
sons called Hugo, 1 a count the other a bishop, and the bishop was
clearly dead when Roda was written which I believe was before 1004?
I wondered whether the Pons in 1004 was the same as the Pons Count of
Albi in 2 charters in HGL 142ab for bishop Amelius of Albi and Benedict
abbot of le Vieux.
Don't believe everything you find in HGL, including titles and dates -
for this see here:

https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/anami_0003-4398_1990_num_102_189_3297.pdf

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-02 23:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I wondered whether the Pons in 1004 was the same as the Pons Count of
Albi in 2 charters in HGL 142ab for bishop Amelius of Albi and Benedict
abbot of le Vieux.
Don't believe everything you find in HGL, including titles and dates -
https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/anami_0003-4398_1990_num_102_189_3297.pdf
Apart from the matter of the false late-12th-century document purporting
to be dated 987 and calling Pons II of Toulouse "count of Albi" at that
time, I think it's important when seeking to identify a person named in
a charter to start from the text exactly, to the letter: in this case,
the Pons who subscribed the 1003/04 Psalmodi charter was described only
as brother to a count Hugo, not as a count himself. Jean-Pierre Poly
also approximated this pair as "les comtes Uc et Pons", but that is not
what the evidence shows when they are named in the document ("S. Hugonis
comitis et Pontii fratris sui"). The search should be for a Pons who was
not a count in 1003/04, if ever.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-13 03:15:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I wondered whether the Pons in 1004 was the same as the Pons Count of
Albi in 2 charters in HGL 142ab for bishop Amelius of Albi and Benedict
abbot of le Vieux.
Don't believe everything you find in HGL, including titles and dates -
https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/anami_0003-4398_1990_num_102_189_3297.pdf
Apart from the matter of the false late-12th-century document purporting
to be dated 987 and calling Pons II of Toulouse "count of Albi" at that
time, I think it's important when seeking to identify a person named in
a charter to start from the text exactly, to the letter
It's also important to represent secondary sources accurately - in the
case of Hugo who was bishop of Toulouse by ca 926 until 973/74, a red
herring was introduced by Christian Settipani in *La noblesse du Midi
carolingien* (2004) p. 33 note 1, where he noted the occurrence of a
bishop Raimond Aton, supposedly of Toulouse, allegedly in 932, and
considered that either this man must have been bishop in a different
diocese or else, oddly, that the letter to Pope John co-written by Hugo
usually dated to ca 926 must have been written to John XI (931-935)
rather than to John X (914-ca 928): "La lettre n'est pas datée mais on
sait que c'est effectivement Jean X qui s'occupa de la mise en place
d'Aimeric. Le problème c'est qu'il semble qu'en 932 siégeait à Toulouse
un évêque Raimond Aton ... Il faut, soit attribuer à Jean XI (931-935)
la lettre papale où figure Hugues, soit, plutôt, écarter du siège de
Toulouse ce Raimond Aton".

This is misleading - the charter in which Raimond Aton occurs is not by
any logical means datable to 932 and John XI had nothing to do with the
installation of Aimeric as archbishop of Narbonne.

The charter is known only from a Lézat cartulary version of a lost
original written by the priest Eliseo, dated August in the 23rd year of
King Louis (no. 223, "in pago tholosanum, in ministerio Bolbestrense, in
loco ubi dicitur Caixano, in presentia Arnaldo, vicario, vir illuster,
vasso misso Raimundo, comite, seu et aliis pluris personis qui cum eo
ibidem aderant, id est Raimundus Ato, episcopus ... et aliorum
plurimorum bonorum hominum qui subter scripserunt vel adfirmaverunt ...
in mense augusto, anno .XXIII. regnante Lodovico rege ... Heliseus,
presbiter, rogatus scripsit").

There was no 23rd year of Louis IV (935-954), and the others involved in
the transaction if identified correctly cannot be placed in the reign of
Louis VI or VII (the option favoured by Devic & Vaisette in the original
*Histoire générale de Languedoc*) that each did last long enough for
23rd regnal years.

The secondary work cited by Settipani apparently giving him the
unhelpful idea of 932 only mentions that one of the men named occurs in
a different document of that year and in another of ca 950. The dating
obviously needs amending in some way, but 932 is not a cogent proposal.
Patrice Cabau suggested the 18th year of Louis IV (XVIII instead of
XXIII) ascribing it to 953/54 and concluding that Raimond Aton must have
been bishop somewhere else (despite placing Volvestre in the diocese of
Toulouse at that time - the text does not specify the diocese, just that
it was in the Toulousain pagus).

The editors of *Histoire générale de Languedoc* vol V (new edition,
1875) col. 1728 suggested 949, amending the 23rd regnal year to the 13th
(XXIII to XIII, "Vingt-troisième année de Louis; il faut corriger
treizième"). This makes good sense because the priest Eliseo also occurs
in a charter securely dated on 1 March in that year (no. 609 in the
cartulary of Lézat, "Facta carta traditio ista kal. marcii, anno .XIII.
regnante Lodovico rege. Vidente Eliseo, presbitero").

John XI was not pope in 949 or 953/54 and Settipani's alternative of 932
has no substance to it. The problem is illusory if Raimond Aton was
bishop in another diocese, which Settipani acknowledged as possible,
since he occurs decades into the episcopacy of Hugo in Toulouse and so
appears to have been his contemporary.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-13 06:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
There was no 23rd year of Louis IV (935-954)
There was no 20th year either - in a typo-free universe his regnal span
should read 936-954.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-13 15:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I wondered whether the Pons in 1004 was the same as the Pons Count of
Albi in 2 charters in HGL 142ab for bishop Amelius of Albi and Benedict
abbot of le Vieux.
Don't believe everything you find in HGL, including titles and dates -
https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/anami_0003-4398_1990_num_102_189_3297.pdf
Apart from the matter of the false late-12th-century document purporting
to be dated 987 and calling Pons II of Toulouse "count of Albi" at that
time, I think it's important when seeking to identify a person named in
a charter to start from the text exactly, to the letter
It's also important to represent secondary sources accurately - in the
case of Hugo who was bishop of Toulouse by ca 926 until 973/74, a red
herring was introduced by Christian Settipani in *La noblesse du Midi
carolingien* (2004) p. 33 note 1, where he noted the occurrence of a
bishop Raimond Aton, supposedly of Toulouse, allegedly in 932, and
considered that either this man must have been bishop in a different
diocese or else, oddly, that the letter to Pope John co-written by Hugo
usually dated to ca 926 must have been written to John XI (931-935)
rather than to John X (914-ca 928): "La lettre n'est pas datée mais on
sait que c'est effectivement Jean X qui s'occupa de la mise en place
d'Aimeric. Le problème c'est qu'il semble qu'en 932 siégeait à Toulouse
un évêque Raimond Aton ... Il faut, soit attribuer à Jean XI (931-935)
la lettre papale où figure Hugues, soit, plutôt, écarter du siège de
Toulouse ce Raimond Aton".
This is misleading - the charter in which Raimond Aton occurs is not by
any logical means datable to 932 and John XI had nothing to do with the
installation of Aimeric as archbishop of Narbonne.
The charter is known only from a Lézat cartulary version of a lost
original written by the priest Eliseo, dated August in the 23rd year of
King Louis (no. 223, "in pago tholosanum, in ministerio Bolbestrense, in
loco ubi dicitur Caixano, in presentia Arnaldo, vicario, vir illuster,
vasso misso Raimundo, comite, seu et aliis pluris personis qui cum eo
ibidem aderant, id est Raimundus Ato, episcopus ... et aliorum
plurimorum bonorum hominum qui subter scripserunt vel adfirmaverunt ...
in mense augusto, anno .XXIII. regnante Lodovico rege ... Heliseus,
presbiter, rogatus scripsit").
There was no 23rd year of Louis IV (935-954), and the others involved in
the transaction if identified correctly cannot be placed in the reign of
Louis VI or VII (the option favoured by Devic & Vaisette in the original
*Histoire générale de Languedoc*) that each did last long enough for
23rd regnal years.
The secondary work cited by Settipani apparently giving him the
unhelpful idea of 932 only mentions that one of the men named occurs in
a different document of that year and in another of ca 950. The dating
obviously needs amending in some way, but 932 is not a cogent proposal.
Patrice Cabau suggested the 18th year of Louis IV (XVIII instead of
XXIII) ascribing it to 953/54 and concluding that Raimond Aton must have
been bishop somewhere else (despite placing Volvestre in the diocese of
Toulouse at that time - the text does not specify the diocese, just that
it was in the Toulousain pagus).
The editors of *Histoire générale de Languedoc* vol V (new edition,
1875) col. 1728 suggested 949, amending the 23rd regnal year to the 13th
(XXIII to XIII, "Vingt-troisième année de Louis; il faut corriger
treizième"). This makes good sense because the priest Eliseo also occurs
in a charter securely dated on 1 March in that year (no. 609 in the
cartulary of Lézat, "Facta carta traditio ista kal. marcii, anno .XIII.
regnante Lodovico rege. Vidente Eliseo, presbitero").
John XI was not pope in 949 or 953/54 and Settipani's alternative of 932
has no substance to it. The problem is illusory if Raimond Aton was
bishop in another diocese, which Settipani acknowledged as possible,
since he occurs decades into the episcopacy of Hugo in Toulouse and so
appears to have been his contemporary.
Peter Stewart
Was the original beneficiary of Lezat 223 actually the abbey itself because
I thought it was founded by Viscount Ato of Albi in about 940, so 932
seems a bit unlikely, unless it was a deed that only came into the abbey
possession at a later date. Perhaps with a name like Raymond Ato this
bishop was a member of the same family which might explain if he wasnt
bishop of Toulouse what he was doing there, although since all these noble
families were so interconnected it could be any. There was also a bishop
of Pallars called Ato died 955 son of Count Raymond I but thats a long
way from Lezat on the other side of the mountains. There is a bishop Raymond
at Toulouse 1140-63 so are they sure its not 12th century?

Volvestre is quite a big area south of Toulouse, this charter sounds
like it was some kind of court judgement at an assembly, if both
a bishop and a viscount were present. Was the Arnald representing
Count Raymond, later Count of Carcassonne?

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-05-13 23:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
I wondered whether the Pons in 1004 was the same as the Pons Count of
Albi in 2 charters in HGL 142ab for bishop Amelius of Albi and Benedict
abbot of le Vieux.
Don't believe everything you find in HGL, including titles and dates -
https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/anami_0003-4398_1990_num_102_189_3297.pdf
Apart from the matter of the false late-12th-century document purporting
to be dated 987 and calling Pons II of Toulouse "count of Albi" at that
time, I think it's important when seeking to identify a person named in
a charter to start from the text exactly, to the letter
It's also important to represent secondary sources accurately - in the
case of Hugo who was bishop of Toulouse by ca 926 until 973/74, a red
herring was introduced by Christian Settipani in *La noblesse du Midi
carolingien* (2004) p. 33 note 1, where he noted the occurrence of a
bishop Raimond Aton, supposedly of Toulouse, allegedly in 932, and
considered that either this man must have been bishop in a different
diocese or else, oddly, that the letter to Pope John co-written by Hugo
usually dated to ca 926 must have been written to John XI (931-935)
rather than to John X (914-ca 928): "La lettre n'est pas datée mais on
sait que c'est effectivement Jean X qui s'occupa de la mise en place
d'Aimeric. Le problème c'est qu'il semble qu'en 932 siégeait à Toulouse
un évêque Raimond Aton ... Il faut, soit attribuer à Jean XI (931-935)
la lettre papale où figure Hugues, soit, plutôt, écarter du siège de
Toulouse ce Raimond Aton".
This is misleading - the charter in which Raimond Aton occurs is not by
any logical means datable to 932 and John XI had nothing to do with the
installation of Aimeric as archbishop of Narbonne.
The charter is known only from a Lézat cartulary version of a lost
original written by the priest Eliseo, dated August in the 23rd year of
King Louis (no. 223, "in pago tholosanum, in ministerio Bolbestrense, in
loco ubi dicitur Caixano, in presentia Arnaldo, vicario, vir illuster,
vasso misso Raimundo, comite, seu et aliis pluris personis qui cum eo
ibidem aderant, id est Raimundus Ato, episcopus ... et aliorum
plurimorum bonorum hominum qui subter scripserunt vel adfirmaverunt ...
in mense augusto, anno .XXIII. regnante Lodovico rege ... Heliseus,
presbiter, rogatus scripsit").
There was no 23rd year of Louis IV (935-954), and the others involved in
the transaction if identified correctly cannot be placed in the reign of
Louis VI or VII (the option favoured by Devic & Vaisette in the original
*Histoire générale de Languedoc*) that each did last long enough for
23rd regnal years.
The secondary work cited by Settipani apparently giving him the
unhelpful idea of 932 only mentions that one of the men named occurs in
a different document of that year and in another of ca 950. The dating
obviously needs amending in some way, but 932 is not a cogent proposal.
Patrice Cabau suggested the 18th year of Louis IV (XVIII instead of
XXIII) ascribing it to 953/54 and concluding that Raimond Aton must have
been bishop somewhere else (despite placing Volvestre in the diocese of
Toulouse at that time - the text does not specify the diocese, just that
it was in the Toulousain pagus).
The editors of *Histoire générale de Languedoc* vol V (new edition,
1875) col. 1728 suggested 949, amending the 23rd regnal year to the 13th
(XXIII to XIII, "Vingt-troisième année de Louis; il faut corriger
treizième"). This makes good sense because the priest Eliseo also occurs
in a charter securely dated on 1 March in that year (no. 609 in the
cartulary of Lézat, "Facta carta traditio ista kal. marcii, anno .XIII.
regnante Lodovico rege. Vidente Eliseo, presbitero").
John XI was not pope in 949 or 953/54 and Settipani's alternative of 932
has no substance to it. The problem is illusory if Raimond Aton was
bishop in another diocese, which Settipani acknowledged as possible,
since he occurs decades into the episcopacy of Hugo in Toulouse and so
appears to have been his contemporary.
Peter Stewart
Was the original beneficiary of Lezat 223 actually the abbey itself because
I thought it was founded by Viscount Ato of Albi in about 940, so 932
seems a bit unlikely, unless it was a deed that only came into the abbey
possession at a later date.
According to Paul Ourliac and Anne-Marie Magnou, editors of Lézat's
cartulary, the abbey was reputedly founded in 844 by Ato who has been
identified as a bishop of Béziers or a viscount of the region ("D'après
la tradition, l'abbaye aurait été fondée en 844 par un nommé Aton dans
lequel on a vu soit un évêque de Béziers, soit un vicomte de la région.")

It's better to forget 932 entirely, since this is merely a red herring -
no argumentation was offered for it by Christian Settipani and the only
citation he gave was to the introduction by the cartulary editors
stating that Catel and the compilers of Gallia Christiana (in the 17th
century) had accepted the existence of a bishop Raimond of Toulouse ca
887 or ca 932, going on to point out that identifying him with the
bishop Raimond Aton in n° 223 is problematic because Hugo was bishop by
926 and that it seems safer to assume Raimond Aton was bishop elsewhere
("Catel et les frères de Sainte Marthe ont admis l'existence d'un autre
Raimond (I), évêque vers 887 ou vers 932. On peut penser identifier ce
Raimond avec le Raimond Aton du n° 223 qui ainsi aurait été évêque après
Erimannus et avant Hugues. Cette identification fait pourtant difficulté
si Hugues est déjà évêque en 926. Mieux vaut admettre, semble-t-il, que
Raimond Aton n'a pas été évêque de Toulouse.")

In the comment for n° 223 they noted that one of the participants had
occurred in other Lézat charters of 932 and ca 950 ("Le prêtre Astare
paraît cité en 932 (n° 126) et vers 950 (n° 131).") This does not
provide a rationale for ascribing n° 223 to 932, when August was in the
10th regnal year of Raoul not the 23rd year (or however this is to be
amended) of Louis who did not become king until 936.

The charter in question, n° 223, is a notice of the compensated transfer
of Saint-Christaud church in Volvestre from Aico Raoul to Agnan Daton
and two priests named Daton ("Aico Radulfi sic se guarpivit in contra
alios homines nomen Agnano Datis, et in contra Datone, presbitero, et
Datone, presbitero").
Post by keri CA
Perhaps with a name like Raymond Ato this
bishop was a member of the same family which might explain if he wasnt
bishop of Toulouse what he was doing there, although since all these noble
families were so interconnected it could be any. There was also a bishop
of Pallars called Ato died 955 son of Count Raymond I but thats a long
way from Lezat on the other side of the mountains. There is a bishop Raymond
at Toulouse 1140-63 so are they sure its not 12th century?
This was suggested by Devic and Vaissette, but does not stand up to the
highly probable identification of parties involved. The supposed
implication that Raimon Aton was bishop of Toulouse is not nearly strong
enough to set against this circumstantial evidence.
Post by keri CA
Volvestre is quite a big area south of Toulouse, this charter sounds
like it was some kind of court judgement at an assembly, if both
a bishop and a viscount were present. Was the Arnald representing
Count Raymond, later Count of Carcassonne?
Arnald was the paternal grandfather of the Raimond who was later count
of Carcassonne - he was more probably representing Raimond (IV) of
Toulouse, the father-in-law-to-be of Adelais of Anjou. Arnald occurs in
his own charters dated April 945 and April 949 with no title, and in an
undated notice ca 940/50 mentioned in his official capacity with the
title count. He is usually assumed to have been count of Comminges but
this is not directly evidenced. At any rate, his appearance in n° 223
with bishop Raimond Aton allows for a guess that this man may have been
bishop of Comminges, not far from Volvestre. No bishop there appears to
be recorded by name between 880 and 990, so that Comminges appears a
possible diocese where any stray bishop in the region may have belonged
(including also the Hugo killed hunting for that matter).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-05-14 04:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Volvestre is quite a big area south of Toulouse, this charter sounds
like it was some kind of court judgement at an assembly, if both
a bishop and a viscount were present. Was the Arnald  representing
Count Raymond,  later Count of Carcassonne?
Arnald was the paternal grandfather of the Raimond who was later count
of Carcassonne - he was more probably representing Raimond (IV) of
Toulouse, the father-in-law-to-be of Adelais of Anjou. Arnald occurs in
his own charters dated April 945 and April 949 with no title, and in an
undated notice ca 940/50 mentioned in his official capacity with the
title count. He is usually assumed to have been count of Comminges but
this is not directly evidenced. At any rate, his appearance in n° 223
with bishop Raimond Aton allows for a guess that this man may have been
bishop of Comminges, not far from Volvestre. No bishop there appears to
be recorded by name between 880 and 990, so that Comminges appears a
possible diocese where any stray bishop in the region may have belonged
(including also the Hugo killed hunting for that matter).
It is worth adding that Volvestre in the late-10th century belonged half
with the county of Comminges and half with Couserans, both held in part
or whole by Arnald's son Roger le Vieux of Carcassonne - in his
testament written ca 1002 he left the moieties of Volvestre along with
his share of these counties respectively to his elder son Raimond and to
his widow and younger son Bernard ("Ego Rogerius comes facio brevem
divisionalem inter filios meos Raimundo et Bernardo ... Et ipsam
medietatem de Bulbastreso, et ipsa tertia parte de comitatu Cominico,
remaneat ad te filio meo Raimundo ... Dono ipsum comitatu de Cosoragno
cum ipso episcopato, et cum ipsa medietate de Bolbastreso ... dono ad
Adalais uxor mea et Bernardo filio meo insimul".)

The bishopric of Couserans controlled by Roger, apparently by
inheritance from his father Arnald, is another plausible diocese for
Raimond Aton in the mid-10th century - Gams (1931 edition) listed no
bishop there between Roger in 887 and Bernard in 973.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-05-14 09:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Volvestre is quite a big area south of Toulouse, this charter sounds
like it was some kind of court judgement at an assembly, if both
a bishop and a viscount were present. Was the Arnald representing
Count Raymond, later Count of Carcassonne?
Arnald was the paternal grandfather of the Raimond who was later count
of Carcassonne - he was more probably representing Raimond (IV) of
Toulouse, the father-in-law-to-be of Adelais of Anjou. Arnald occurs in
his own charters dated April 945 and April 949 with no title, and in an
undated notice ca 940/50 mentioned in his official capacity with the
title count. He is usually assumed to have been count of Comminges but
Yes this is what i was trying to mean but i wrote it badly. I think one of the
theories about the Raymonds suggests that it was a dispute over
control of this area - Carcassonne and Comminges - tarditionally
under Toulouse, with Roger the old was central to the story of what
happened in these obscure years of the late 10th century. Arnald
appears as a man of the Count of Toulouse not even a count, but his son is
independant and all powerful in the region, controlling even the
bishops and sees. As Roger first appears I think with his mother
Countess Arsinde, I wonder if she might be the key to all this. Was
she perhaps a member of the Toulouse or Rouergue family? I
think one of theories [Stasser?] suggests this.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
this is not directly evidenced. At any rate, his appearance in n° 223
with bishop Raimond Aton allows for a guess that this man may have been
bishop of Comminges, not far from Volvestre. No bishop there appears to
be recorded by name between 880 and 990, so that Comminges appears a
possible diocese where any stray bishop in the region may have belonged
(including also the Hugo killed hunting for that matter).
It is worth adding that Volvestre in the late-10th century belonged half
with the county of Comminges and half with Couserans, both held in part
or whole by Arnald's son Roger le Vieux of Carcassonne - in his
testament written ca 1002 he left the moieties of Volvestre along with
his share of these counties respectively to his elder son Raimond and to
his widow and younger son Bernard ("Ego Rogerius comes facio brevem
divisionalem inter filios meos Raimundo et Bernardo ... Et ipsam
medietatem de Bulbastreso, et ipsa tertia parte de comitatu Cominico,
remaneat ad te filio meo Raimundo ... Dono ipsum comitatu de Cosoragno
cum ipso episcopato, et cum ipsa medietate de Bolbastreso ... dono ad
Adalais uxor mea et Bernardo filio meo insimul".)
The bishopric of Couserans controlled by Roger, apparently by
inheritance from his father Arnald, is another plausible diocese for
Raimond Aton in the mid-10th century - Gams (1931 edition) listed no
bishop there between Roger in 887 and Bernard in 973.
Yes both Couserans and Comminges are both possible, especially if there
are big gaps in the lists of bishops. Comminges is now famous for
St.Bertrand built on a hill above the old city destroyed by Guntram
armys 585, and Bishop Bertrand was WTs grandson I think. Nice
connection.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-05-14 11:40:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Volvestre is quite a big area south of Toulouse, this charter sounds
like it was some kind of court judgement at an assembly, if both
a bishop and a viscount were present. Was the Arnald representing
Count Raymond, later Count of Carcassonne?
Arnald was the paternal grandfather of the Raimond who was later count
of Carcassonne - he was more probably representing Raimond (IV) of
Toulouse, the father-in-law-to-be of Adelais of Anjou. Arnald occurs in
his own charters dated April 945 and April 949 with no title, and in an
undated notice ca 940/50 mentioned in his official capacity with the
title count. He is usually assumed to have been count of Comminges but
Yes this is what i was trying to mean but i wrote it badly. I think one of the
theories about the Raymonds suggests that it was a dispute over
control of this area - Carcassonne and Comminges - tarditionally
under Toulouse, with Roger the old was central to the story of what
happened in these obscure years of the late 10th century. Arnald
appears as a man of the Count of Toulouse not even a count, but his son is
independant and all powerful in the region, controlling even the
bishops and sees. As Roger first appears I think with his mother
Countess Arsinde, I wonder if she might be the key to all this. Was
she perhaps a member of the Toulouse or Rouergue family? I
think one of theories [Stasser?] suggests this.
Stasser speculated that Arsinde was daughter of Ermengaud of Rouergue,
but his argument for this was far from convincing to me - it was based
on chronology that is not at all compellingly specific and on a pattern
of onomastics that (if it was as highly plausible as he supposed in the
first place) he failed to illustrate from any real and proven precedent.
His rationale for setting aside the conventional scheme with Arsinde as
heiress of the first dynasty of counts of Carcassonne was feeble: just
that maybe Carcassonne was granted to her husband Arnald because heirs
were lacking rather than passing to an heiress (again, failing to
provide a similar example in 10th-century Languedoc), or that perhaps he
was himself related to the former counts (but offering no onomastic
support whatever for this unappetising portion of his conjectural dish).

Paul Ourliac in 1955 suggested more persuasively that Arnald obtained
Carcassonne through Arsinde, as Devic and Vaissette proposed, and that
he had risen to comital rank in Comminges, like others elsewhere in the
region, at the expense of the over-extended Raimondines.
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
this is not directly evidenced. At any rate, his appearance in n° 223
with bishop Raimond Aton allows for a guess that this man may have been
bishop of Comminges, not far from Volvestre. No bishop there appears to
be recorded by name between 880 and 990, so that Comminges appears a
possible diocese where any stray bishop in the region may have belonged
(including also the Hugo killed hunting for that matter).
It is worth adding that Volvestre in the late-10th century belonged half
with the county of Comminges and half with Couserans, both held in part
or whole by Arnald's son Roger le Vieux of Carcassonne - in his
testament written ca 1002 he left the moieties of Volvestre along with
his share of these counties respectively to his elder son Raimond and to
his widow and younger son Bernard ("Ego Rogerius comes facio brevem
divisionalem inter filios meos Raimundo et Bernardo ... Et ipsam
medietatem de Bulbastreso, et ipsa tertia parte de comitatu Cominico,
remaneat ad te filio meo Raimundo ... Dono ipsum comitatu de Cosoragno
cum ipso episcopato, et cum ipsa medietate de Bolbastreso ... dono ad
Adalais uxor mea et Bernardo filio meo insimul".)
The bishopric of Couserans controlled by Roger, apparently by
inheritance from his father Arnald, is another plausible diocese for
Raimond Aton in the mid-10th century - Gams (1931 edition) listed no
bishop there between Roger in 887 and Bernard in 973.
Yes both Couserans and Comminges are both possible, especially if there
are big gaps in the lists of bishops. Comminges is now famous for
St.Bertrand built on a hill above the old city destroyed by Guntram
armys 585, and Bishop Bertrand was WTs grandson I think. Nice
connection.
Comminges is approximately as far from both Lézat and Volvestre as they
both are from Toulouse, and Volvestre is roughly half-way between
Commings and Couserans so that a partition between these counties under
the primacy of Toulouse when Arnald was still the viguier and missus of
a count Raimond is plausible enough. His assumption of the title count
evidently occurred fairly near the end of his life, as he was dead by
November 957 and perhaps some years before then. The only document
naming him as count was dated to ca 950 by the editors of the Lézat
cartulary in their introduction, to ca 940-50 in their note on the
charter itself (from memory Devic and Vaissette had placed it ca 945).
He used no title for himself in April 945 (not 944 as in HGL) or in
April 949, so ca 950 seems preferable on this uncertain basis.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-03 02:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Count William Taillefer [I] died without legit sons so Angouleme was seized
by his relatives in Perigord and one of these was Arnald Bourratio. He got this
name says Ademar because when he saw a wolf  attacking people he dashed
over in his armour and pinned it down until his men could kill it. But what does
bourratio mean? it doesnt seem latin is it romance term?
I haven't looked into it but I would assume it is derived from the Latin
'vorax' meaning voracious - the byname occurs as Voratio.
This was a bad guess on my part - the byname Bourratio seems to be
derived from "bourras", the flock stuffing of a haubergeon (the quilted
jacket worn under a mail coat).

According to Ademar of Chabannes, Arnald got it from the garment he was
wearing along with hauberk and helmet when he seized the man-eating wolf
("cogmomento Boirratio pro eo quia cum ipsa veste lupum diabolicum
homines devorantem, appetiit in campo loricatus et galeatus"). I'm not
sure that Ademar meant a natural wolf - by "diabolical wolf" he may have
meant a werewolf.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-06-04 23:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Count William Taillefer [I] died without legit sons so Angouleme was seized
by his relatives in Perigord and one of these was Arnald Bourratio. He got this
name says Ademar because when he saw a wolf attacking people he dashed
over in his armour and pinned it down until his men could kill it. But what does
bourratio mean? it doesnt seem latin is it romance term?
I haven't looked into it but I would assume it is derived from the Latin
'vorax' meaning voracious - the byname occurs as Voratio.
This was a bad guess on my part - the byname Bourratio seems to be
derived from "bourras", the flock stuffing of a haubergeon (the quilted
jacket worn under a mail coat).
According to Ademar of Chabannes, Arnald got it from the garment he was
wearing along with hauberk and helmet when he seized the man-eating wolf
("cogmomento Boirratio pro eo quia cum ipsa veste lupum diabolicum
homines devorantem, appetiit in campo loricatus et galeatus"). I'm not
sure that Ademar meant a natural wolf - by "diabolical wolf" he may have
meant a werewolf.
Peter Stewart
I actually came across this when I was reading about the Beast of Gevaudan
which terrorised the area attacking and killing people under Louis XV 1764-67,
and it said Ademar described the killing of a werewolf in Aquitaine with
reference to this passage. But Ademar only tells this story to explain the counts surname
and it does seem a rather odd explanation even if it was an ordinary wolf.
As I understand wolves rarely attack adults, but if Ademar meant by using lupum
diabolicum the equivalent of the french loup garou, it starts to sound a bit like the
Gevaudun tale.

kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-06-05 01:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Count William Taillefer [I] died without legit sons so Angouleme was seized
by his relatives in Perigord and one of these was Arnald Bourratio. He got this
name says Ademar because when he saw a wolf attacking people he dashed
over in his armour and pinned it down until his men could kill it. But what does
bourratio mean? it doesnt seem latin is it romance term?
I haven't looked into it but I would assume it is derived from the Latin
'vorax' meaning voracious - the byname occurs as Voratio.
This was a bad guess on my part - the byname Bourratio seems to be
derived from "bourras", the flock stuffing of a haubergeon (the quilted
jacket worn under a mail coat).
According to Ademar of Chabannes, Arnald got it from the garment he was
wearing along with hauberk and helmet when he seized the man-eating wolf
("cogmomento Boirratio pro eo quia cum ipsa veste lupum diabolicum
homines devorantem, appetiit in campo loricatus et galeatus"). I'm not
sure that Ademar meant a natural wolf - by "diabolical wolf" he may have
meant a werewolf.
Peter Stewart
I actually came across this when I was reading about the Beast of Gevaudan
which terrorised the area attacking and killing people under Louis XV 1764-67,
and it said Ademar described the killing of a werewolf in Aquitaine with
reference to this passage. But Ademar only tells this story to explain the counts surname
and it does seem a rather odd explanation even if it was an ordinary wolf.
As I understand wolves rarely attack adults, but if Ademar meant by using lupum
diabolicum the equivalent of the french loup garou, it starts to sound a bit like the
Gevaudun tale.
The main reason I wondered if he meant werewolf is that only one
man-eater is mentioned, and natural wolves of course hunt in packs.
Also, there were enough wolves around at the time that describing a
normal one as "diabolical" seems a bit over-the-top even for Ademar.

I would guess that the alleged struggle with this fantastic predator
tore the under-vest Arnald was wearing, so that its padding (bourras)
came out - otherwise giving him a byname from something so commonly worn
would be peculiar. Perhaps he had a dead wolf planted under cover, ready
for him to rip his own garment and become an instant hero.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-05 01:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The main reason I wondered if he meant werewolf is that only one
man-eater is mentioned, and natural wolves of course hunt in packs.
That is only one aspect of the social structure. Within a few years of whelping, young wolves (particularly the males) leave their natal pack and act as lone wolves until they are able to pair up with a lone wolf of the other gender to form a new group, carve off a cluster from a large pack by forming a mating bond with a pack daughter and leading her and some of the youngin's off, or are adopted by a pack that has lost one of the dominant males. Such lone wolves would be particularly prone to prey on sheep, because as singletons they could not bring down healthy stags, aurochs or wisents like wolf packs. The lone wolf would have been well known and despised by shepherds, and for this reason perhaps more likely to be described as diabolical than pack wolves.
Post by Peter Stewart
Also, there were enough wolves around at the time that describing a
normal one as "diabolical" seems a bit over-the-top even for Ademar.
Diabolical is indeed over the top, unless they were calling it a literal minion of Old Harry, but I am not sure a diabolical wolf is all that different from a Big Bad Wolf (and who's afraid of one of them?).

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-06-05 01:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
The main reason I wondered if he meant werewolf is that only one
man-eater is mentioned, and natural wolves of course hunt in packs.
That is only one aspect of the social structure. Within a few years of whelping, young wolves (particularly the males) leave their natal pack and act as lone wolves until they are able to pair up with a lone wolf of the other gender to form a new group, carve off a cluster from a large pack by forming a mating bond with a pack daughter and leading her and some of the youngin's off, or are adopted by a pack that has lost one of the dominant males. Such lone wolves would be particularly prone to prey on sheep, because as singletons they could not bring down healthy stags, aurochs or wisents like wolf packs. The lone wolf would have been well known and despised by shepherds, and for this reason perhaps more likely to be described as diabolical than pack wolves.
Post by Peter Stewart
Also, there were enough wolves around at the time that describing a
normal one as "diabolical" seems a bit over-the-top even for Ademar.
Diabolical is indeed over the top, unless they were calling it a literal minion of Old Harry, but I am not sure a diabolical wolf is all that different from a Big Bad Wolf (and who's afraid of one of them?).
Are there definite instances of lone wolves attacking humans, much less
in sight of a military formation?

Having subdued the "diabolical" beast, Arnald is supposed to have
proffered it to his soldiers for killing. I don't suppose they were too
picky about whether or not the creature was already deceased when their
master happened upon it.

Peter Stewart
lancast...@gmail.com
2021-06-05 12:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The main reason I wondered if he meant werewolf is that only one
man-eater is mentioned, and natural wolves of course hunt in packs.
That is only one aspect of the social structure. Within a few years of whelping, young wolves (particularly the males) leave their natal pack and act as lone wolves until they are able to pair up with a lone wolf of the other gender to form a new group, carve off a cluster from a large pack by forming a mating bond with a pack daughter and leading her and some of the youngin's off, or are adopted by a pack that has lost one of the dominant males. Such lone wolves would be particularly prone to prey on sheep, because as singletons they could not bring down healthy stags, aurochs or wisents like wolf packs. The lone wolf would have been well known and despised by shepherds, and for this reason perhaps more likely to be described as diabolical than pack wolves.
Post by Peter Stewart
Also, there were enough wolves around at the time that describing a
normal one as "diabolical" seems a bit over-the-top even for Ademar.
Diabolical is indeed over the top, unless they were calling it a literal minion of Old Harry, but I am not sure a diabolical wolf is all that different from a Big Bad Wolf (and who's afraid of one of them?).
Are there definite instances of lone wolves attacking humans, much less
in sight of a military formation?
Having subdued the "diabolical" beast, Arnald is supposed to have
proffered it to his soldiers for killing. I don't suppose they were too
picky about whether or not the creature was already deceased when their
master happened upon it.
Peter Stewart
If there were lots of soldiers about, perhaps the animal got cornered by accident. Otherwise even a pack of wolves would indeed run away.
Peter Stewart
2021-06-05 12:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
The main reason I wondered if he meant werewolf is that only one
man-eater is mentioned, and natural wolves of course hunt in packs.
That is only one aspect of the social structure. Within a few years of whelping, young wolves (particularly the males) leave their natal pack and act as lone wolves until they are able to pair up with a lone wolf of the other gender to form a new group, carve off a cluster from a large pack by forming a mating bond with a pack daughter and leading her and some of the youngin's off, or are adopted by a pack that has lost one of the dominant males. Such lone wolves would be particularly prone to prey on sheep, because as singletons they could not bring down healthy stags, aurochs or wisents like wolf packs. The lone wolf would have been well known and despised by shepherds, and for this reason perhaps more likely to be described as diabolical than pack wolves.
Post by Peter Stewart
Also, there were enough wolves around at the time that describing a
normal one as "diabolical" seems a bit over-the-top even for Ademar.
Diabolical is indeed over the top, unless they were calling it a literal minion of Old Harry, but I am not sure a diabolical wolf is all that different from a Big Bad Wolf (and who's afraid of one of them?).
Are there definite instances of lone wolves attacking humans, much less
in sight of a military formation?
Having subdued the "diabolical" beast, Arnald is supposed to have
proffered it to his soldiers for killing. I don't suppose they were too
picky about whether or not the creature was already deceased when their
master happened upon it.
Peter Stewart
If there were lots of soldiers about, perhaps the animal got cornered by accident. Otherwise even a pack of wolves would indeed run away.
If there were lots of soldiers near the wolf, presumably Arnald would
not have risked his own person manhandling it - unless their armourer
was having a very bad day, the soldiers were no doubt carrying weapons.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-06-05 12:56:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
If there were lots of soldiers about, perhaps the animal got cornered by accident. Otherwise even a pack of wolves would indeed run away.
If we are truly looking for a naturalistic explanation for a demonic wolf attacking a large group of men, it would be rabies.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-06-05 13:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by ***@gmail.com
If there were lots of soldiers about, perhaps the animal got cornered by accident. Otherwise even a pack of wolves would indeed run away.
If we are truly looking for a naturalistic explanation for a demonic wolf attacking a large group of men, it would be rabies.
Ademar doesn't say it was mauling a large group, just some people
("homines devorantem"). I suppose Arnald was meant to be in the
forefront of his troops and saw it first.

If it ever happened at all, the whole episode seems stagey to me. He
must have made a show of the stuffing torn from his undervest, as
otherwise the coat of mail worn over it would have obscured this. And it
appears contrived that such a minor circumstance as ripped padding stuck
to become a lifelong byname anyway.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-06-06 02:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by ***@gmail.com
If there were lots of soldiers about, perhaps the animal got cornered
by accident. Otherwise even a pack of wolves would indeed run away.
If we are truly looking for a naturalistic explanation for a demonic
wolf attacking a large group of men, it would be rabies.
Ademar doesn't say it was mauling a large group, just some people
("homines devorantem"). I suppose Arnald was meant to be in the
forefront of his troops and saw it first.
If it ever happened at all, the whole episode seems stagey to me. He
must have made a show of the stuffing torn from his undervest, as
otherwise the coat of mail worn over it would have obscured this. And it
appears contrived that such a minor circumstance as ripped padding stuck
to become a lifelong byname anyway.
On looking again at Ademar's account, I was perhaps misinterpreting him
- by "cum ipsa veste" he probably didn't mean that Arnald was still
wearing it under his coat of mail ("loricatus") when he subdued the
beast, but rather that he took off his undervest and used it to seize
hold. In modern French "bourre" is the flock used for padding, and
"bourrage" is the stuffing in upholstery, but Ademar evidently used
"boirratio" for the undervest itself rather than for its contents.

If so, the episode appears even more staged since Arnald would have
taken the time to disrobe while people were being mauled, with his
soldiers apparently standing by as spectators.

On the whole I suspect we are being told one of Ademar's porky-pies.

Peter Stewart

Loading...