Liber Historiae Francorum
wjhonson
Ansbertus this cited ancestor of the Carolingian's was a complete
mess.
Which then led me to Blithilde supposedly (but fictitiously) daughter
of Walderada the Princess from the Longobards with whom Chlothar
(Lothar) I "had intercourse" for a while.
More mess. More bizarre citations to bizarre "facts" which don't
exist.
At any rate, I have a copy of Gregory of Tours "The History of the
Franks" but noticed that there is reference to a later work supposedly
written under the last of the Merovingians called "The Book of the
History of the Franks". Apparently it's anonymous, written maybe
around 730 ish.
Would anyone know if there is an online version of the book complete?
I did see where there is a translation of ten of the chapters, but I'd
like to cite directly to where the author states that this Ansbertus
exists at all. Of course we all know the worth of a quote like that,
coming at *least* 100 if not 200 years after the man was dead. But
I'd like to see it anyway.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
I've now found a free online version of William of Malmesbury's
History of the Kings of England, which also quotes this fictitious
line, without specifying from where he got it. The editor points out
obliquely that there is a problem with it. I've already shown that
GoT does not (when he should) make any mention of children from the
union of Lothar I and Waldedrada. And now I shall shortly be pointing
out that William states plainly that the father of this Blithilde was
also father of Dagobert. Which completely defeats the idea that we're
here talking about Waldedrada whom William does not name, but rather
that William must be talking about Chlothar II not I, who did have a
son Dagobert.
Just more details to show that secondary and tertiary sources can
sometimes *really* screw things up.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
and there, I believe I have *finally* found an online version!
See
http://books.google.com/books?id=GBhoAAAAMAAJ&as_brr=1&pg=RA1-PA215#v=onepage&q=&f=false
So there you go. Another source trying to hide from me, finds it
cannot! I believe that this source, is supposed to be the most
primary source for the existence of the mythical couple Blithilde and
Ansbertus. All other sources naming them, being dependent on this
source.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
to "read" this Liber Francorum. As Jean Simonde-Sismondi has done an
excellent job of extracting the details from this, as well as Gregory
of Tours and some other works and presented them all collated in his
work here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=O-ZAAAAAYAAJ
I'm slowly reading through it and correcting my database details on
the Merovingians and their peers.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
> After a long fight with the general mis-identification of things here
> and there, I believe I have *finally* found an online version!
>
>
> So there you go. Another source trying to hide from me, finds it
> cannot! I believe that this source, is supposed to be the most
> primary source for the existence of the mythical couple Blithilde and
> Ansbertus. All other sources naming them, being dependent on this
> source.
>
> Will Johnson
A ghost popped up and privately informed me the following:
The work was written between 727 and 736
when a continuator of Fredegar used it.
And Ansbertus is _not_ mentioned in the work at all, except in a
misplaced marginal addition included in one manuscript. This has
caused the confusion of Blichildis with the children of Clothar I (NB
_not_ the same person as the conventional "Lothar I", a Carolingian
emperor - recasting the Merovingian name like this is only asking for
trouble).
The relevant text and [marginal addition] are as follows: "Clotharius
quoque rex de diversis mulieribus septem filios habuit, id est de
Ingunde Guntharium, Childericum, Guntramnum, Sighibertum et
Chlodsindam [Quam Blitchildim accepit Ansbertus nobilissimus genuitque
ex ea Arnoldum; post duos quaterniones et dimidium plenius invenies]
filiam; de Charegunde quoque, sororem Ingundis, habuit Chilpericum; de
Gunsinam habuit Chramnum."
Clearly the section in square brackets belonged to a different
genealogy from the rest as it makes no logical or grammatical sense in
this context. However, the manuscript in which it appears was widely
copied and the addition was interpolated into the main text so that
later writers (notably Witger who compiled an important genealogy of
the counts of Flanders) wrongly believed that Blichildis was a
daughter of Clothar.
The work is online in the standard edition (by Bruno Krusch) at
http://bsbdmgh.bsb.lrz-muenchen.de/dmgh_new/app/web?action=loadBook&bookId=00000749
with the text you want on pages 285-286.
[Author's name redacted as I'm not sure he would want to be made known
here]
wjhonson
to the wrong family.