Re: something high-medieval Italian

[Sjostrom]

Sirca de Policastro was a lady whose immediate ancestry included a lot of
most exalted Langobard families of souhern Italy. She lived in and around
the year 1100, just after the Normans had destroyed the Langobard power
there.
My reconstruction of her immediate ancestry:

1 Sirca/Sica, Sigelgarda de Salerno de Policastro (died before 1121; b
bef est 1085)

2 Landolfo de Salerno, lord of Policastro and San Severino (fl 1058; b
after
c1040; d after 1092)
3 Imilla de Aquino de Gaeta (d bef 1092; b bef c1060)

4 prince Gaimar IV, sovereign of Salerno, etc (bc 1111; death: murdered
in 1052)
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00120869&tree=LEO
5 (married before 1032) Gemma (fl 1032; d after 1070)
6 Atenolfo de Aquino, duke of Gaeta (mentioned in 1045; d 2 Feb 1062) held
Gaeta since 1045
7 (married before c1038) Maria de Capua, duchess-regent of Gaeta

8 prince Gaimar III, sovereign of Salerno (d 1127; b est 975)
9 (married in c1010) Gaitelgrima de Benevento de Capua, princess-regent of
Salerno (b bef c995; fl 1023; d after 1027)
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00303215&tree=LEO
10 count Laidolfo (fl 1028; d bef 1046)
12 Atenolfo de Aquino, magnate (d bef c1038)
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00050774&tree=LEO
14 prince Pandolfo, sovereign of Capua, etc, castellan of Sant'Agata,
'Wolf of Abruzzi' (fl 1016; d 20 Febr 1049; b est 990) ruled Capua
1016(/1014)-22, 1026-38 and 1047-49
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00546029&tree=LEO
15 (married bef 1017) Maria [de Sant'Agata] (fl 1017; d after 1038; b est
1000)


- - - - - -

why do we know that the Sirca with exalted Langobard ancestry, actually has
interesting progeny:

from Cava abbey a donation charter dated in March 1125:
"Henricus filius quondam Rogerii de S. Severino" donated, subscribed by
"Robertus de Medania uterinus frater".

from Cava abbey a donation charter dated in June 1121:
"Rogerius de Sancto Severino filius quondam Turgisii normanni" donated,
for the soul of "domine Sike quondam…conjugis nostre filiæ quondam domini
Landolfi filii domini Guaymarii principis", subscribed by "Enricus filius
et heres domini Roggerii".

from somewhere (Neapolitan archives) a donation charter dated in March 1116:
"Gaufridus qui vocor de Medania Suessolanorum et Acerranorum...senior"
donated, subscribed by "Sikelgarda sua conjux..., Robertus de Medania".

It is otherwise pretty convincingly known that the both uterine brothers
(thusly seem to be sons of Sirca = Sichelgarda, d bef 1121, by two
successive husbands), i.e the boys Arrigo/Enrico de Sanseverino (b bef
1121, my estimate c1119), and Roberto de Medania (b bef 1116, my estimate
c1105), (later) had children and then progeny to the present day.

[Leo van de Pas]

On 14/12/2013 5:05 PM, Sjostrom wrote:

> why do we know that the Sirca with exalted Langobard ancestry,
> actually has interesting progeny:
>
> from Cava abbey a donation charter dated in March 1125:
> "Henricus filius quondam Rogerii de S. Severino" donated, subscribed
> by "Robertus de Medania uterinus frater".
>
> from Cava abbey a donation charter dated in June 1121:
> "Rogerius de Sancto Severino filius quondam Turgisii normanni"

> donated, for the soul of "domine Sike quondam�conjugis nostre fili�

> quondam domini Landolfi filii domini Guaymarii principis", subscribed
> by "Enricus filius
>
> et heres domini Roggerii".
>
> from somewhere (Neapolitan archives) a donation charter dated in March
1116:
> "Gaufridus qui vocor de Medania Suessolanorum et Acerranorum...senior"
> donated, subscribed by "Sikelgarda sua conjux..., Robertus de Medania".
>
> It is otherwise pretty convincingly known that the both uterine
> brothers (thusly seem to be sons of Sirca = Sichelgarda, d bef 1121,
> by two successive husbands), i.e the boys Arrigo/Enrico de Sanseverino
> (b bef 1121, my estimate c1119), and Roberto de Medania (b bef 1116,
> my estimate c1105), (later) had children and then progeny to the present
day.

The chronology here is mistaken, resulting probably in the conflation of two
women - who may well have been sisters - named respectively Sica (married to
Ruggiero of Sanseverino and mother of his heir Enrico) and Sichelgarda (wife
of Geoffrey de Medania and mother of his heir Roberto). It may be that
"uterinus frater" in the charter of March 1125 noted above stood for
"maternal cousin", a solution proposed recently by Thierry Stasser.

However there was no charter of March 1116 - this misdating was patently a
misprint in the edition of 1861, for a charter clearly dated March
1118 and correctly placed in chronological sequence after one dated 1117.
Despite this 1116 has been misleadingly repeated by many historians,
including by Portanova in his sketchy study of the Sanseverino family that
is often cited and copied.

The trouble for the alleged remarriage of Geoffrey de Medania's widow to
Ruggiero of Sanseverino is that Geoffrey was still living in April 1119,
when he gave permission for a donation by his vassal, whereas Ruggiero's
wife Sica had given birth to at least two sons by him when she died by June
1121. Widows did not normally remarry within a year, and very rarely within
the gestation period, so that unless she gave birth to twin boys after a
second marriage taking place no later than September
1120 the scenario is inherently implausible anyway. But apart from that it
does not stand up against the fact that Enrico was not born as late as ca
1119, since he was already named as his father's heir in a charter of
Ruggiero's brother Silvano of Montefalcone dated May 1117, when Geoffrey was
still married to his wife named Sichelgarda.

The marriages can't be placed the other way round, as Sica was plainly still
married to Ruggiero when she died. There does not appear to be any cogent
way to justify the literal meaning of "uterinus frater" in order to make a
single Sica/Sichelgarda into the mother of both Enrico and Roberto.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Leo van de Pas]

This suggestion of Thierry Stasser does not withstand closer scrutiny - it
appears more likely that Landolf of Policastro's daughter Sica, if she even
existed and was married to Ruggiero of Sanseverino, was probably not the
mother of his heir Enrico or of the latter's "uterinus frater" Roberto de
Mediania, and that she had no recorded descendants except a son named
Tancredi who died without known issue.

The charter dated June 1121 that identifies Ruggiero's wife Sica as a
daughter of Landolf turns out to be a late-13th century forgery:
according to Joanna Drell it was identified as such by Carmine Carlone in
'Falsificazioni e falsari cavensi e verginiani del secolo XIII'
(1984). This does not necessarily mean that Sica was invented by the forger,
but the motive for such an invention is not far to seek since in the charter
Ruggiero donated in her memory lands that had been held by Landolf - the
forger was busy with the Sanseverino family and might have simply tacked on
the properties of Landolf at Cilento for convenience.

As to Enrico and Roberto, Stasser concentrated his argument solely on the
term "frater uterinus", showing a few examples where "frater" was used for
cousins and then supposing that "uterinus" might have meant "on the mother's
side". But oddly he did not even address the fact that other members of
Enrico's family occur in the same charter with relationship terms that by
contrast render this conjecture highly implausible.

The purpose of Enrico's 1125 charter (assuming it to be authentic - Drell
does not mention it and Carlone's work is unobtainbable at
present) was to confirm the gift of Ruggiero. If genuine then the line-up of
relatives, including a few called cousins according to Drell, could add
support to information in the forged 1121 charter. But if to be relied on
the 1125 document must be considered in full and not just by the isolated
term "uterinus frater". Portanova reported that Tancredi is described in the
charter as "consanguineus frater" to Enrico (or, as he put it in Italian,
"fratello consanguineo" in comparison to "fratello uterino" for Rorebto de
Medania). Stasser would presumably not propose a forced reading of
"consanguineus frater" as meaning "cousin on the father's side", especially
when men actually called cousins were also present.

Now since Enrico was described as heir to his father Ruggiero in 1117,
Tancredi can only have been his younger paternal half-brother, and since
Sica evidently died a few years before Ruggiero it is probable that she was
the mother of his youngest son surviving in 1125, Tancredi, but not of
Enrico.

This re-opens the possibility, touched on by Stasser, that Enrico's mother,
apparently the first wife of Ruggiero, had also been the mother of a Robert
de Medania who was a different man from the lord of Suessola in 1130,
perhaps an otherwise unrecorded uncle of his and brother rather than son to
Geoffrey whose wife in 1118 was named Sichelgarda.

[mqs...@gmail.com]

> the 1125 document must be considered in full and not just by the isolated
>
> term "uterinus frater". Portanova reported that Tancredi is described in the
>
> charter as "consanguineus frater" to Enrico (or, as he put it in Italian,
>
> "fratello consanguineo" in comparison to "fratello uterino" for Rorebto de
>
> Medania). Stasser would presumably not propose a forced reading of
>
> "consanguineus frater" as meaning "cousin on the father's side", especially
>
> when men actually called cousins were also present.

> ---
>

about those terms, (and isolated to pure terminological level):

in those times and under Aristotelic concepts,
it was believed that the blood (-> consanguineus) was inherited from the father and the mother was the carrier of the child. uterus.
Therefore the term uterine (precisely as we would understand it also today) there then indicated that the two persons came from the same womb, shared the mother. But not the father, a priori.

Whereas when they were consanguineus, they shared the same male blood, and was understood they shared the same father.
They could have been paternal half-brothers, or even full brothers.

I am saying that the term frater consanguineus may have meant full brother, too. In that document, also. Not only half-brotherhood. However, the minimum requirement for that term should in that context be that they shared the father.


(do not ask why almost the same people called all sorts of cousins as cousins, even if the kinship was through one or several women.... perhaps they did not grasp that the word cousin came from same root, consanguineous)

- - - - -

(there are some parallels in today genetic genealogy, where we talk about on one hand Y-DNA and on another hand matrilines - however in today world, there is no longer a belief in biology that the blood is inherited only through male line, that's nowadays Y-DNA)

- - - - -

in this document, the contrasts (expressed by those two distinct terms)
COULD actually have been the contrast between full brother and maternal half-brother. The terminological semantics does not preclude that.

Another alternative is that there those two terms contrasted
maternal half-brother and paternal half-brother.
And the bloke in the middle had no full brothers there...

[Leo van de Pas]

See http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/frater. The terms "uterinus frater"
(maternal half-brother) and "consanguineus frater" (paternal
half-brother) are both plainly enough distinct from "germanus frater"
(full-brother), though these standard terms were more commonly used in the
late 13th century, when the Cava abbey forger was at work on properties
connected to the Sanseverino family, than in the early 12th when the dubious
charter of Enrico was purportedly transacted.

[mqs...@gmail.com]

>
> married to Ruggiero when she died. There does not appear to be any cogent
>
> way to justify the literal meaning of "uterinus frater" in order to make a
>
> single Sica/Sichelgarda into the mother of both Enrico and Roberto.
>
>
>
> ---
>

An alternative is that the pretty precise term 'uterinus frater' is not wrong. And the continuity of the marriage is the thing which would be wrong in this case.

People have gotten used to the intransigence of the catholic church about marriage lasts until death. But that is not humanly necessarily so.

A way why the same woman may give birth to sons of two different husbands when both the husbands are alive, is divorce or equivalent.

We may construe a lady who is married with a man named Goffredo, one son is born, then that marriage ends and both spouses continue living,
and the lady marries with a man named Ruggero. One or two sons born.
That marriage ends and both spouses continue living.
The lady returns to be married with Goffredo, her earlier husband. The lady dies. Possibly Gofredo dies.

In usual circumstances, excommunications would hurl. But I have understood that at least one type of circumstance was such that it was excused and none got excommunicated, and the children of both marriages were usually recognized legitimate. The circumstance is the one where the first husband disappears and is presumed dead. Such as, in some (lost) battle, in some catastrophic accident, or sailing to seas and shipwreck is reported.
In such a case, the wife is genuinely believed to be widow and a new marriage is acceptable, sooner or later.
However, in those days, in that scenario, when the first husband returns alive, the church position I understand was that the first marriage continues and the second marriage dissolves (because it was against the existing sacramental bond). So, that explains why the second marriage in my construction gets to be ended and the lady returns to the found earlier husband.

Would this be a case which would have risen necessarily to 'news', i.e must be found in some chronicle ? yep, it presumably is interesting and newsworthy enough. But, information about those persons (and particularlt that lady) is very sketchy at best. It is quite possible that no such thing is preserved where the human interest story of that epoch was chronicled.... The donation documents are easy to understand why they are not reporting the lost marriage of the story.... their purpose was different and presumably a development against church teachings does not get explication easily reported in ecclesiastical donations.
So, nothing (and particularly not a valid refutation of the construction) can be argued on basis of absence of such a story from the contemporary material. The story (as I reconstrued the possibility) is still possible.

So, under this scenario, the lady is roughly from 1000 to 1010 married with Goffredo, gives birth to Robert, then Gofredo gets lost in some war situation or something.
The lady is married then roughly from 1012 to 1016 with Ruggero, gives birth to Enrico and Tancredo.
In c1116, Gofredo returns 'from dead', for example is released by an enemy captor, and the church explains that the lady's marriage, a sacrament, continues with Gofredo.
The lady dies in c1120, Gofredo dies too, and Ruggero with whom the lady was once living as married, and whose heir she was mother of, mourns her passing and refers to her as his now late wife.

In this way, we do not need to disbelieve the uterine brother record.

[mqs...@gmail.com]

>
> See http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/frater. The terms "uterinus frater"
>
> (maternal half-brother) and "consanguineus frater" (paternal
>
> half-brother) are both plainly enough distinct from "germanus frater"
>
> (full-brother), though these standard terms were more commonly used in the
>
> late 13th century, when the Cava abbey forger was at work on properties
>
> connected to the Sanseverino family, than in the early 12th when the dubious
>
> charter of Enrico was purportedly transacted.
>

I disregard that axiomatic claim.
That one is merely a dictionary.
Just like the variants in meanings of several other terms, such as nepos, also this consanguineus frater could have had, and had, a bit different meanings, in various times. People in those centuries were certainly not precise and unequivocal in their wordings and the language did NOT remain unchanged over time, contexts, persons and places, as to meanings of terms used.

I said, and I am still saying that in some cases and places, consanguineus frater could well have meant also the same as germanus frater.
It is impossible for you to prove that it was never so. Because you cannot reproduce all those people to life and get them to give testimony.


- - - -

By the way, earlier you claimed that the 1321 charter was forgery. Now, to have that uterinus frater under suspect treatment, you are oscillating to claim that now the 1325 charter would be forgery produced in the late 1200s.... is this changing the 1321 charter now as acceptable... :)
Well, anybody could label anything forgery if they do not like it, but to change midway the charter which was put under suspicion, tastes also like an expediency and not a truth.

If our all documents are claimed forgeries, then we will have absolutely nothing left.

[Leo van de Pas]

The many Cava forgeries from the 12th and 13th centuries are notorious.

Carmine Carlone, a distinguished paleographer, published a detailed study of
the forgeries produced in the second half of the 13th century, and
reportedly the charter dated June 1121 (not 1321) was one of those he
identified as false.
Without seeing his
work, and for that matter the more recent study of Sanseverino forgeries by
Maria Galante, there is little point in discussing it.

The charter dated 1125 (not 1325) directly relates to the 1121 gift, and may
also be a forgery. This is not oscillation, just caution.

There is no other evidence for Sica's existence, or her marriage to Ruggero
or her offspring, and only a supposition relying on a forgery from 150+
years after the time tries to make her into the same woman as Sichelgarda
who was married to Geoffrey de Medania. This is further stretched by the
unverifiable presumption that a Robert de Medania who was implied to be the
son of Sica must be identical with the son of Geoffrey and (probably)
Sichelgarda.

Inventing penny-dreadful biographies for these individuals in order to try
justifying speculations that are practically and linguistically convoluted
in the first place is a waste of time.

[Sjostrom]

It behooves for readers to observe that certain recent postings
particularly in this thread, are very uncharacteristic of the real
character and nature (which we have earlier gotten used to) of Leo van de
Pas. Although those postings are seemingly being sent by him and from his
own email address.
Wording style and style of expression in those messages is quite different
than what the real Leo does. And the tone.
And some details in the contents of those messages are such that reveal
that Leo van de Pas has not himself internalized what they mean to some
family trees, implying details more or less contrary to what certain
messages now should mean, in his current database.

Because such a character change is very unusual, and in this is rather
implausible, I have decided to treat those messages as ones using Leo van
de Pas as frontman. My understanding is that those messages have really
been originally written by a person who probably has gotten banned from
sending posts to this list as real self. Or should be. The Leo whom I think
I know, has now merely acted as re-sender of such texts from the
behindperson.

We have seemingly always had anonymous posters in this list. Now this is a
special form of anonymity, a person writing to the list behind one known
participant.

[mqs...@gmail.com]

current contents of
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00263403&tree=LEO
are:


Robert di Medania
Conte di Acerra [1]


Personal Information

Sex Male
Mentioned Abt 1134
Lived In Italy
Person ID I00263403 Leo
Last Modified 17 Jan 1997

Father Turgisio Sanseverino, b. est 1020
Family ID F00273719 Group Sheet

Family NN
Married
Children
> 1. NN di Medania
Last Modified 17 Jan 1997
Family ID F00111168

[mqs...@gmail.com]

current contents of
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00118297&tree=LEO
are:



Sichelgaita di Salerno[1]


Personal Information

Sex Female
Lived In Italy
Complete *
Person ID I00118297 Leo
Last Modified 18 Jul 1998

Father Paldolfo di Salerno, Lord of Capaccio
Mother Teodora, dei Palatini de Tusculo
Family ID F00232440 Group Sheet

Family 1 Asclettin de Sicignano, Lord of Polla
Married
Last Modified 20 Apr 2009
Family ID F00232441 Group Sheet

Family 2 Ruggiero Sanseverino, Lord of Rota
Married

Children
> 1. Enrico Sanseverino
Last Modified 18 Jul 1998
Family ID F00051490

[mqs...@gmail.com]

current contents of
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00118299&tree=LEO
are:



Enrico Sanseverino[1]

Personal Information
Sex Male
Lived In Italy
Person ID I00118299 Leo
Last Modified 18 Jan 1997

Father Ruggiero Sanseverino, Lord of Rota
Mother Sichelgaita di Salerno
Family ID F00051490 Group Sheet

Children
> 1. Guglielmo Sanseverino
Last Modified 18 Jan 1997
Family ID F00273720

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:14:29 PM UTC-5, Sjostrom wrote:
>
> Because such a character change is very unusual, and in this is rather
> implausible, I have decided to treat those messages as ones using Leo van
> de Pas as frontman. My understanding is that those messages have really
> been originally written by a person who probably has gotten banned from
> sending posts to this list as real self. Or should be. The Leo whom I think
> I know, has now merely acted as re-sender of such texts from the
> behindperson

I had been wondering if he was suddenly possessed, or god forbid, had a stroke that left him a totally changed (but yet eminently more knowledgeable in this area) man. This explanation makes it all make sense now.

--JC

[joe...@gmail.com]

I will add that I think it is obvious who the contributor is, but it is not someone who has been banned, and I'm more than happy to see his insight in whatever form or alias or front man it comes with. I'm also not going to unmask the person as I hope they return as themself directly now that the list has veered much more into the realm of sanity these last few months.

--Joe C

[mqs...@gmail.com]

....now that the list has veered much more into the realm of sanity these last few months.

my view upon this: It is not conducive for sanity, feel of sanity and continued keeping in the realm of sanity when readers are left with a clear impression of schizophrenia of a sender. Several people are right disturbed when one unitary sender shows a side of Mr Hyde and Dr Jekyll. It is known in psychology that many people get a feeling (and some act upon) that they can do similarly weird-feeling things and so....

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Joe

Thanks for your observations. I believed that Gen-Med was all about
knowledge and whoever supplies it is only secondary. I think knowledge when
questioned should be addressed, not the messenger.
Leo

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[mqs...@gmail.com]

>
> The many Cava forgeries from the 12th and 13th centuries are notorious.
>
>
>
> Carmine Carlone, a distinguished paleographer

Paleography has its limitations and sources of invalidity.

One such:
Particularly our readers (as this is medieval) should remember and note that charters were usually copied in another epoch. Often we are left with merely a version which is a copy of the original, or copy of copy of original, or even more copy versions in between. Copying was done often just because the owner of the document wanted that protection against losing the original.
In addition to typos, these copying processes also altered often slightly those things in the text which are the tools on which paleographers draw conclusions.
A copier a century or so later, did not generally copy letter by letter. Etc. Instead, a copier followed to some extent the ortography etc that the copier was used to, and some of the ortography and spellings in the original got mutated in that way.
It has been said that a lot of paleographical claims of forgeries are actually findings that a document has (presumably after alterations by copying) characteristics of a clearly later epoch than what the document originates from.

[mqs...@gmail.com]

>
> Thanks for your observations. I believed that Gen-Med was all about
>
> knowledge and whoever supplies it is only secondary. I think knowledge when
>
> questioned should be addressed, not the messenger.
>
> Leo
>
>
>
> ----

and that's why you deliver also those personal attacks against me to this list. Just because, as obvious exception to what you say, I am a messenger of ideas where the messenger (instead of idea) can be questioned by the spider who is behind your sendings.

May I request that when delivering the obviously-banned spider's future texts, you first take away all that person's such words and insinuations that are against any other people....

[Leo van de Pas]

Personal attacks? When knowledge is questioned? If you personalise questions
and call them attacks, you are turning yourself into a victim, when the real
victim is knowledge.

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of mqs...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, 20 December 2013 9:04 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: something high-medieval Italian



>

[mqs...@gmail.com]

> Personal attacks? When knowledge is questioned? If you personalise questions
>
> and call them attacks, you are turning yourself into a victim, when the real
>
> victim is knowledge.
>
>
>
> ----

I take you are incapable of seeing the insultive content in this matter in expressions such as "Inventing", "convoluted", "plainly", "penny-dreadful" and some others. They are not questions. In this matter, they do not attack ideas, they question a person.
A logical reader sees that they are in this context forming an argument against a person who presented on other matters some ideas, and they are acting as to destroy the person's credibility without actually dealing the ideas themselves.

Well, if those had been hurled under another name, such as some known lunatic, other sort of padded-cell-person, or one of anonymous writers here, their effect would have been negligible. But you have earlier requested politeness, etc, in this list, and now without any cautionary note about the other origin of that text, you send them under your name.

[marlow...@frontier.com]

I have one Italian line but I am not sure of the correct names.

Starting with Alasia di Saluzzo that married 8th Earl of Arundel, Richard Fitzalan, going to her parents, Tommaso I di Saluzzo and Aluigia del Vasto.  I have seen the surnames both as di Saluzzo and del Vasto.

Could someone tell me the correct lineage.

Marianne Dillow

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

I'm baffled. This wording is so much not Leo's way of writing that I'm completely lost.
Who is posting?
There are some clue-words that point to the one-and-only troll who's been absent from the forum. I wish he stayed away.
Best regards.

[mqs...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I disregard that axiomatic claim.
>
> That one is merely a dictionary.
>
> Just like the variants in meanings of several other terms, such as nepos, also this consanguineus frater could have had, and had, a bit different meanings, in various times. People in those centuries were certainly not precise and unequivocal in their wordings and the language did NOT remain unchanged over time, contexts, persons and places, as to meanings of terms used.
>
>
>
> I said, and I am still saying that in some cases and places, consanguineus frater could well have meant also the same as germanus frater.
>
> It is impossible for you to prove that it was never so. Because you cannot reproduce all those people to life and get them to give testimony.
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - -
>
>

As a testimony of a slightly different usage, related a bit to what we are discussing here:

In around 1120, this very same epoch, in another place, England, a certain John ("Florence") of Worcester wrote about a certain Agatha, reporting that Agatha was daughter of a "germanus" of the emperor Heinrich [" Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici".
In the 1150s, a certain Aildred of Rievaulx wrote about the same, and said "..Edwardo filiam germani sui Henrici imperatoris in matrimonium junxit..".
Learned researchers have told us that in that matter the said Emperor Henry did not have a full brother, "germanus frater". That it is impossible that there was a full brother of Henry to exist and be father of Agatha.
Still that text uses that term germanus.



Stewart Baldwin writes about this use of term:


Appendix 3: The meaning of germanus

One important issue in the Agatha controversy has been the meaning of the statement that "Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici, in matrimonium accepit." [John Worc. s.a. 1017 (1: 181)] In particular, what information does the word germanus (genetive singular germani) give us? As a noun, the classical Latin meaning of germanus is "full brother" (i.e., a brother having both parents in common), while the corresponding feminine form germana means "full sister". As an adjective, it can mean "of the same parents", "genuine", or "true", and capitalized, it can mean "German".

Grammatically, in the sentence in question, it is ambiguous whether germani is a genetive noun modifying filiam, or a genetive adjective modifying the genetive noun imperatoris. Thus, since there was no standard convention for capitalization in medieval manuscripts, the words "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici" have sometimes been interpreted as "daughter of the German emperor Heinrich." However, it would be extremely rare during that time for the "Roman" emperor to be referred to as the "German emperor". Such nomenclature is not used by John of Worcester. Also, there is no emperor Heinrich who would make a believable father for Agatha. Thus, the meaning "German" for this instance of the word germanus can be rejected with confidence.

In fact, it is widely agreed that the word germanus, as it appears in this sentence, refers to a genealogical relationship. But what relationship? The usage of medieval Latin often varies from that of classical Latin. Various opinions on the meaning of the word have been stated by authors writing on Agatha. Fest said that the word germanus could mean brother, but could also mean "brother-in-law" [Fest (1938), 125 (not seen by me), quoted by Herzog (1939), 33, n. 3]. Moriarty states that "(t)he word 'germani' is a vague one" [Moriarty (1952), 56]. Ritchie states that the term means "full brother" [Ritchie ((1954), 390]. Vajay, who was mainly concerned with eliminating the "brother-in-law" possibility mentioned by Fest, is not very clear about his definition of the word, but he cited an entry in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae indicating that the definition included siblings and half-siblings ["Germanus-a-um. ... I: spectat ad fraternitatem. A: ... sensu stricto de iis qui naturali fraternitatis vinculo continentur, plerumque de fratribus (sororibus), qui ex iisdem parentibus orti sunt ... de iis denique, qui ab eadem matre diversoque patre geniti sunt ..." Vajay (1962), 78 n. 27, citing Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig, 1919), 5: 1914 (not seen by me); (trans.: I: it refers to brotherhood. A: ... in the strict sense concerning those who are held together by bonds of natural (i.e., by birth) brotherhood, generally concerning brothers (sisters), who spring from the same parents ... finally concerning those, who are born of the same mother or father ...)]. Ronay regularly translates the word germanus as "kinsman", but states that "(i)n medieval Latin germanus meant brother or cousin, even in the vaguest formulation a close blood relation but never a relation by marriage." [Ronay (1989), 111, passim] Jetté does not discuss the word, but translates it as "brother" [Jetté (1996), 420]. Ingham follows Ronay in translating the word germanus from John of Worcester as "kinsman" [Ingham (1998b), 248 & n. 46], but then states that "John himself surely intended germanus to mean 'blood brother.' " [ibid., 249] He is right in stating that more evidence is needed on the subject [ibid., 260]. Humphreys translates germanus as "close male relation (brother?)" [Humphreys (2003), 32].

Since there appeared to be no studies on how the word germanus was used by John of Worcester, I decided to do such a study. With the assistance of the Google Books website, I searched for various declensions of the word germanus and of its corresponding feminine form germana in John of Worcester's work, turning up 55 examples [John Worc., i, 26 (2), 30, 32, 44, 58, 60, 65, 70, 101 (2), 117, 118 (2), 121, 130, 134, 137, 138, 144, 162, 180, 181 (2), 182, 193, 211, 212, 223, 226, 261, 265, 269, 272 (2), 273, 274 (3), 275; ii, 11, 19, 20, 21, 27, 34, 40 (3), 45, 49, 50 (2), 225]. I did a page-by-page search for the word for about fifty pages without finding any instances not found by the other search, so the list is likely to give a large majority of the occurrences of the word, although it is hard to rule out the possibility that a few examples were missed. The feminine form germana was included to increase the sample size, because it would have almost certainly been treated as analogous to the masculine form. Of the 55 occurrences, two concerned Agatha, one from the main body of the work and one from the genealogical appendix [ibid., 1: 181, 275]. This leaves 53 instances to study John's use of the word.

Of these 53 cases, all but one involve individuals who are stated to have been siblings by various secondary sources [mostly Searle (1899)]. This is strong evidence that John of Worcester considered germanus to mean "brother" and germana to mean "sister". In some of these cases, this reasoning could be considered circular, if, for example, John of Worcester's statement that A was a germanus of B is the primary source for the statement in a secondary source that A and B were siblings [e.g., "... clitonem Cinehardum, regis videlicet Sigeberti germanum, ..." John Worc., s.a. 784 (1: 60); Searle (1899), 339]. However, even in these cases, it shows that it has been common among scholars to translate germanus as "brother". In fact, some of John of Worcester's references to the word also give other information which directly verifies the sibling relation [e.g., "Ingels et Ine, ille famosus Occidentalium Saxonum rex, germani duo fuerunt; ... qui fuerunt filii Coenred, ..." John Worc. s.a. 849 (1: 70-1)], and some are evidently a direct translation of the Anglo-Saxon words bróðor (brother) or sweostor (sister) from a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [e.g., "Aþulf ealdormon Ealhswiðe broðor" ASC(A), s.a. 903; "dux Athulfus, Ealhswithæ reginæ, matris regis Eadwardi, germanus" John Worc., s.a. 903 (1: 118).

Other than the two references to Agatha, the one case not involving verified siblings occurs under the year 694, where a certain Mul, previously called a brother (frater) of the West-Saxon king Ceadwalla ["Ceadwallæ regis West-Saxonem fratrem Mul" John Worc., s.a. 687 (1: 40)], is called a germanus of Ine, Ceadwalla's successor ["Cantwarienses, facta pace cum Ine West-Saxonum rege, III.DCC.L. libras illi dedere; quia, ut prælibavimus, Mul germanum suum combussere." John Worc. s.a. 694 (1: 44)]. Now, assuming that the West-Saxon genealogies (perhaps not reliable) are accepted, Ceadwalla and Ine had different fathers, who were themselves distant cousins [see Searle (1899), 330-5]. Thus, in order to make Mul a brother of both Ceadwalla and Ine, one would have to conjecture either that Ceadwalla and Ine were half-brothers through their mother or that Mul was a half-brother of both Ceadwalla and Ine on different sides. This seems rather unlikely, and we would therefore appear at first glance to have a case in which distant cousins were called germani. However, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 694, John's probable source, has no mention of the relationship between Ine and Mul ["Her Cantware geþingodan wiþ Ine, & him gesaldon .xxx. m. forþon þe hie ær Mul for bærndon."ASC(A) s.a. 694], and it seems likely that the appearance of the word germanum in John's 694 entry is a result of a confusion (by either John or his source) between Ine and his predecessor Ceadwalla. Thus, except for this single example which is probably an error, there seems to be little reason to doubt that John of Worcester intended germanus to mean "brother", and we can reject the attempts to give germanus as used by John of Worcester a looser translation such as "relative".

Just as important for the Agatha controversy is the question of whether germanus/germana necessarily means "full sibling" or whether the meaning of "half-sibling" is allowed. Of the 52 occurrences of germanus/germana where siblings were involved, many were full siblings, and many of the cases are undetermined because only one parent is known. However, at least two of the occurrences involve individuals who were verifiably half-siblings. Under the year 672, John states that the abbess St. Æbbe was a germana of kings Osweald and Oswiu of Northumbria ["Sanctæ Æbbæ abbatissæ, videlicet sancti Oswaldi et Oswiu regum germanæ" John Worc. s.a. 672 (1: 30)]. However, in his life of St. Cuthbert, Bede states that Æbbe was a uterine sister of Oswiu ["Æbbe, ... erat soror uterina regis Osuiu." Vita S. Cudbercti, x, 16, Bede, Opera Minora, 68]. Now, John on an earlier occasion states that Osweald, Oswiu, and Æbbe (among others) were all children of Æthelfrith ["Æthelfrith ... XXIV. annis tenuit; cui sunt geniti VII. filii, Eanfrith, Oswald, Oslaf, Oswiu, Offa, Oswudu, Oslac, et una filia Æbbe nomine." John Worc. s.a. 593 (1: 9-10)]. Thus, it could be argued that John intended to make Æbbe a full sister of Osweald, due to his mistake in making Æbbe a daughter of Æthelfrith. Another example is that John makes Ludwig (Louis) the German a germanus of Charles (Karl) the Bald, whereas they were half-brothers ["... qui Karolus [Charles the Fat] Luduwici regis filius erat; ipse vero Luduwicus germanus fuit Karoli regis Francorum, patris Juthittæ prædictæ; qui duo germani fuerunt filii Luduwici; ..." John Worc. s.a. 885 (1: 101); for the relationship of these two half-brothers, see the page of emperor Louis the Pious]. Thus, it would appear that John was allowing the definition of germani to extend to half-brothers. In the other hand, it might be argued here that the word germanus means that John thought that Ludwig and Charles were full brothers. If so, it still illustrates how men who were only half-brothers could turn up as germani in the records.

In a long article on relationship terms in 1913, Joseph Depoin discussed the word germanus in some detail [Depoin (1913), 59-63]. He offers several examples where half-brothers with the same father are called germani. For example, Grifo, half-brother of Pépin "the Short", is called his germanus in the Annales Regni Francorum under the year 753, although the related so-called Annals of Einhard calls him a frater ["Pippinus rex ... Grifo ... germanus eius ..." Ann. Reg. Franc., s.a. 753, ARF 10; cf. "Pippinus rex ... fratris sui Grifonis ..." Ann. Einhard., s.a. 753, ARF 11; Depoin (1913), 60]. Also, a charter of Charles the Bald for the church of Nevers calls his half-brother Pépin of Aquitaine "germanus noster Pepinus" [Depoin (1913), 60]. Depoin's conclusion was that germanus meant specifically "brother having the same father". His main evidence for this was a tenth century piece from the cartulary of Cormery in which an abbot Robert refers to his full brother Gérard as his "frater germanus et uterinus" [Depoin (1913), 59]. The logic behind this is that since frater uterinus means "brother having the same mother", frater germanus must mean "brother having the same father". While this may be the meaning in this particular instance, Depoin does not make a convincing case that this practice was uniform.

In fact, there are cases in which the word germanus is evidently allowed to include cases where the individuals have only the same mother in common. An example of this comes from Adam of Bremen, where Cnut of England and Denmark and Olaf of Sweden are called germani fratres ["Eodemque tempore memorabiles aquilonis reges obierunt Chnut et Olaph, germani fratres." Adam of Bremen, ii, 71, MGH SS 7: 332]. It would be hard to argue here that Adam thought that Cnut and Olaf had the same parents, for elsewhere in the same work Adam states that after the death of Erik (Olaf's father), Svend married Erik's widow, the mother of Olaf, by whom he had Cnut ["Post mortem diu optatam Herici Suein ... accepit uxorem Herici relictam, matrem Olaph, quae peperit ei Chnut." Adam of Bremen, ii, 37, MGH SS 7: 319]. Thus, Adam thought that Olaf anf Cnut had only a mother in common, and yet he thought it appropriate to call them germani fratres. Another example comes from the tenth century life of abbot John of Gorze, where it is stated that bishop Adalbero I of Metz had several fratres ex matre, who are then referred to as germani. ["... quod fratres ei plures ex matre erant ... ipsis germanis ..." Vita Ioh. Gorz., c. 110, p. 139; also at MGH SS 4: 368]. This passage was noted by Depoin, who explained it by suggesting that Adalbero's father Wigeric had sons by another wife previous to his wife Cunégonde (Adalbero's mother), and that in this case fratres ex matre was being used to distinguish Adalbero's full brothers from his brother(s) who had only the same father [Depoin (1913), 60]. However, this explanation is undermined by the fact that there is no proof that Wigeric had a wife previous to Cunégonde, while Cunégonde is known to have had two husbands [see the pages of Cunégonde and Wigeric for furhter details]. Thus, the natural conclusion is that at least one of these fratres ex matre had a different father from Adalbero, for otherwise there is no clear need for the qualification ex matre.

One thing that needs to be emphasized is that there was no direct method of enforcement which would compel authors or scribes to use the "right" definition of such a word. Nevertheless, we generally expect that most authors having a reasonable reputation at least exercised some degree of care in their use of words. But how much care? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a hypothetical writer intends to use the strictly defined version of germanus (meaning full brother), and also uses the word frater (meaning either full brother or half-brother). How would this work in practice? If our author is very careful and diligent, but also wants to convey as much information as possible, he probably uses germanus for those cases in which he is certain that the individuals had two parents in common, and frater for all cases where they are half-siblings or he is uncertain. What happens if he doesn't remember if the two individuals were full brothers or half-brothers, but knows where to find out? Does he just play it safe and call them fratres, or does he check his sources to see if the word germanus is appropriate? Clearly, this might well depend on whether the information is easily at hand or requires significant effort to find. But would the typical author be that careful in all cases? If a moderately careful writer knew that two men had one parent in common, but had no specific information about the other parent(s), would such an author always avoid calling the individuals germani? If the answer to this last question is "no" (which seems to be the case), then we can see how in practice, germanus might be used as almost interchangeable with frater, so that half-brothers can appear as germani, as in the examples provided.

For the Agatha controversy, however, the most important question is how John of Worcester used the word germanus. We have already seen that he evidently considered germani/germanae to be siblings, for the one exception to this is more likely an error than a deliberate description of distant cousins as germani. But did he consider germani/germanae to be full siblings or did he consider the word to extend to half-siblings? If the former, how careful was he? We have already seen examples of John using the word germanus/germana for half-siblings, and there were other cases where he probably had no information whether or not siblings were full siblings and yet still used the word germanus or germana (e.g., the case cited above involing Cyneheard and Sigebert). Thus, either he intended the word germanus to extend to half-siblings or he was not always one hundred per-cent careful to distinguish between the words germanus and frater.

So, what should be concluded from John of Worcester's statement that Agatha was "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici". Taking the statement of John's genealogical appendix at face value that the Heinrich in question was the emperor Heinrich III, we run into the fact that Heinrich had no germani in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., no full brothers. However, he did have three known half-brothers through his mother [see Appendix 4]. This would seem to lead to four main possibilities:

The word germanus meant "brother" and Agatha was the daughter of a half-brother of Heinrich III.
The word germanus referred to a more distant relationship and Agatha was the daughter of some other relative of Heinrich III.
The statement was not referring to Heinrich III, and one of the first two possibilites holds for some other emperor.
The statement of John of Worcester about the origin of Agatha is inaccurate and/or unreliable.

Options number (2) and (3) have sometimes been preferred as a method for reconciling the evidence of John of Worcester with some other theory [e.g., Ritchie (1954), 392; Parsons (2002), 52-4; Mladov (2003), 56; Ravilious (2009), 73, 76]. However, as we have seen, John's typical use of the term germanus means a sibling, making item number (2) improbable. And John's explicit mention of Heinrich III in his genealogical appendix seriously undermines any attempt to argue item number (3). Thus, it is highly probable that one of the options (1) or (4) is true. Another way of stating the same conclusion would be as follows: If the statement of John of Worcester that Agatha was "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici" is reliable (a hypothesis which can be plausibly argued either way), then the likely conclusion is that Agatha is a daughter of one of the half-brothers of Heinrich III.

- - - - -

In the 1120s, the term germanus frater was evidently having slightly varying meanings and they did not always hold to the dictionary meaning of 'full sibling'. Because in a few cases, it is met used about half-siblings.

I am saying that in the 1120s, the term consanguineus frater did not necessarily always hold to the dictionary meaning, 'paternal half-brother'. To them, the blood brother could as well be full brother, and they were not always using the same dictionary as we (did they actually use any dictionary....).