Pelayo´s uncle?
maria emma escobar
I want to come back to the discussion about Pelayo,
his origins and his family.
In this point there is a problem with the different
versions and parts of the chronicles, because the
older one, the Albeldense, have different parts and
versions too.
The two versions of the Albeldense, named Emilianense
and Complutense have an insertion which is not in the
Manuscrito Albeldense. This insertion or interpolation
is the Ordo Gentis Gotorum. Is in this last part, in
this Ordo, in the paragraph about Vitiza where the
references about Pelayo´s family are. The
interpolation said Palayo was a son of the duke
Favila. The prince Vitiza, who lived in Tuy, killed
Favila in this city because of a woman. When Vitiza
became a king, he exiled Pelayo out of Toledo because
the problem with his father.
This interpolation forced to insert in the Emilianense
and Complutense versions a reference: ?ut supra
diximus? to explain Pelayo´s family, but the
interpolation was made times after by a person who
knows the Ovetense version of the Alfonso III
chronicle, which says that Vitiza was king in Tuy and
says that Pelayo was Duke Favila´s son.
This interpolation is in the same line of the other
made in the Albeldense version made by Florez, which
says that Pelayo was son of a Bermudo and nephew of
king Rodrigo. Probably there are only different
attempts to link the new monarchy with the old one by
the blood, by the family, because the blood gave the
rights.
But¿ what really says the Cronica about Pelayo? It
says he was the first king of Asturias and reigned in
Cangas. As Vitiza expulsed him from Toledo, he went
to Asturias and when the Muslims occupied Spain, he
was the first who rebelled against them in Asturias: {
Primum in Asturias Pelagius regnavit in Canicas? Iste
a Vitizane rege in Toleto expulsus, Asturias [est]
ingressus. Et postquam a sarrazenis Spania occupata
est, iste primum contra eos sumsit revellionem in
Asturias.} (version Gómez Moreno).
My opinion about Pelayo family is very restrictive,
very conservative. I believe that Pelayo was probably
a member of a local family which had represent the
gothic kingdom in Asturias before the invasion,
probably with a part of gothic blood by marriages, but
a local family who had the support of other local
families, and who knows very good the land, the
terrible asturians mountains, which was necessary to
fight the muslims.
I think in this problem the family names are very
important. Probably the name of Pelayo´s father was
Favila, but only because is the name of his son. But,
if they are from a Visigoth family, related of the
kings, why they didn?t use any of the names of this
kings? It could be the best proof of their legitimacy.
If the tradition was to give to the new members
family names, why this Pelayo, Favila, Vermudo,
Alfonso, Ramiro, Aurelio, Ordoño, etc. There are not
any of the old king?s names in the new family. It
seems there are names of a new tribe, a new group.
Mee
=====
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger
Comunicación instantánea gratis con tu gente.
http://messenger.yahoo.es
Marin-Guzman
the old Roman families and the ruling Visigoths.
Evidence of this is the fact Pedro (a Roman name) Duque de Cantabria, calls
his children Alfonso (Gothic) and Fruela (Gothic).
Alfonso I calls his children Fruela (Gothic), Adosinda (Gothic) and Aurelio
(Roman).
The Duque Fafila (Gothic) calls his son Pelayo (Roman) and he in turn calls
his son Fafila (Gothic).
However, although Pelayo is from a gothic family (his name is probably
Pelagius), I agree with you when you say he must have been a local man, with
real local knowledge, to be able to:
1. Be initially accepted by the dominating Musulman administration (the
moors regularly allowed conquered peoples a certain amount of autonomy with
forced imposts - a relationship not dissimilar to a protectorate - but
always with an indigenous leader)
2. Be elected, not just accepted, by the Asturians as King, specially when
the Visigoths were
a) responsible for the desolation of Spain and,
b) a bunch of despots.
3. Lead the remnants of the Spanish nation SUCCESSFULLY against the moors
in extremely treacherous territory.
(With all the hate the Asturs felt towards the Visigoths at the time, it was
also fortunate he had a Roman name although Pelayo was probably a way of
making it sound more Asturian - and a story to establish him as an enemy of
Witiza.)
But 60 or 70 years after beingl accepted by the local Asturs, it was OK to
be Visigoth again.
So, one of the tasks of these Alfonsin Chronicles then, was to make sure the
new ruling dynasty was well cemented into the preceding royalty. Continuity
was of the utmost importance to them, probably even at the expense of the
truth.
The creation of an "Epitome Historico Universal", including the "Chronica
Visegothorum" (now lost) and the "Ordo Gotorum Obetensium Regum" including
the new Spanish monarchy as part of this "Epitome", performed the task
perfectly, cemented the monarchy and re-created the Visigoth kingdom of
Spain in Asturias.
Pedro Marin-Guzman
============================================================================
Francisco Antonio Doria
My own guess is that one of the few lines that go back
to Visigothic times is that of the Counts of Coimbra,
even if the only document that backs it up is either a
forgery or something full of insertions.
Reason: the genealogy presented is onomastically and
chronologically sound.
chico
--- Marin-Guzman <mag...@bigpond.com> escreveu: > I
_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Encontros
O lugar certo para você encontrar aquela pessoa que falta na sua vida. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo!
http://br.encontros.yahoo.com/
Bryant Smith
<SNIP>
> This interpolation is in the same line of the other
> made in the Albeldense version made by Florez, which
> says that Pelayo was son of a Bermudo and nephew of
> king Rodrigo.
EUREKA!
Is this Florez version the first to use the Bermudo-Rodrigo
formula? Are there any other documents using that formula
independently of the Florez? Why do you say "nephew"?
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
Bryant Smith
Comments inserted seriatim
> I agree. In 711, Spain was caught by the moors in a state of fusion, between
> the old Roman families and the ruling Visigoths.
>
> Evidence of this is the fact Pedro (a Roman name) Duque de Cantabria, calls
> his children Alfonso (Gothic) and Fruela (Gothic).
>
> Alfonso I calls his children Fruela (Gothic), Adosinda (Gothic) and Aurelio
> (Roman).
>
> The Duque Fafila (Gothic) calls his son Pelayo (Roman) and he in turn calls
> his son Fafila (Gothic).
Why do you say Pelayo is a Roman name? I understood "Pelagius" to
be a latinized version used in cronicles etc. but not the fellow´s
original name. I know of no Roman precedent for "Pelagius."
>
> However, although Pelayo is from a gothic family (his name is probably
> Pelagius), I agree with you when you say he must have been a local man, with
> real local knowledge, to be able to:
>
> 1. Be initially accepted by the dominating Musulman administration (the
> moors regularly allowed conquered peoples a certain amount of autonomy with
> forced imposts - a relationship not dissimilar to a protectorate - but
> always with an indigenous leader)
>
Where is it written that Pelayo had an official position under the
moslem administration -- other than being sent as a messenger
by Munnuza to get him out of the way?
> 2. Be elected, not just accepted, by the Asturians as King,
My reading of the authorities ancinet and modern suggests that
(a) He was chosen "leader" of a revolt by the Asturs and (b)
later elected king by the Visigothic remnant which, of course,
had retreated into the mountains.
> specially when
> the Visigoths were
> a) responsible for the desolation of Spain and,
What is your authority for this "desolation?"
> b) a bunch of despots.
So were they all, all despots.
> 3. Lead the remnants of the Spanish nation SUCCESSFULLY against the moors
> in extremely treacherous territory.
This is _non sequitur_
>
> (With all the hate the Asturs felt towards the Visigoths at the time, it was
> also fortunate he had a Roman name although Pelayo was probably a way of
> making it sound more Asturian - and a story to establish him as an enemy of
> Witiza.)
>
> But 60 or 70 years after beingl accepted by the local Asturs, it was OK to
> be Visigoth again.
>
> So, one of the tasks of these Alfonsin Chronicles then, was to make sure the
> new ruling dynasty was well cemented into the preceding royalty. Continuity
> was of the utmost importance to them, probably even at the expense of the
> truth.
The remarkable thing about the "Alfonsin Chronicles" to me is that
they have so little of that. The Roda is for all I can see a
religious polemic and the Ovetense has only a little less preaching
and a little more genealogy but not enough to show an intent to
legitimize a new dynasty.
>
> The creation of an "Epitome Historico Universal", including the "Chronica
> Visegothorum" (now lost) and the "Ordo Gotorum Obetensium Regum" including
> the new Spanish monarchy as part of this "Epitome", performed the task
> perfectly, cemented the monarchy and re-created the Visigoth kingdom of
> Spain in Asturias.
>
A much later "source" ¿verdad?
I am attracted to the following alternative scenario:
The "state of [con]fusion" was not over the fading Roman
regime but a dynastic struggle within the visigothic
royal house. Ervig, Egica and Witiza were not direct
descendants of Chindaswinth but a cadet branch. Roderic,
as Chindaswinth´s grandson, represented the senior branch
which had been shunted aside as a result of Chindaswinth´s
"abandonment" of Theodoric. Córdoba was where Theodoric
went and probably where Pelayo followed when he in his turn
was exiled from the capital. Remember from the three oldest
cronicles that Akila II and his family, including his uncle
Bishop Oppa, went to Galicia when Witiza died; Roderic "rebelliously"
seized the crown; the Akila branch negotiated with the Arabs for
help in retaking the throne; Roderic offended his African general
Julian by seducing Florinda; and "treachery" of Akila and his
brothers and uncle are given part of the blame for the arabian
success (Roderic´s own army, or part of it, betrayed him when
he went into battle).
In this scenario it is entirely credible to me that Pelayo was
Roderic´s nephew (which would mean that his mother, his father
duke Fáfila´s wife, was Rodrigo´s sister) and a legitimate
claimant to the Chindaswinth heritage. This scenario offers,
I think, no serious chornological problems whereas making
Fáfila a son of Chindaswinth, or Pelayo a grandson of Roderic,
does.
Just a fugue.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
Francisco Antonio Doria
Pelagius is definitely Greek-Roman, from Gk. pélagos,
sea. We still have the word in Portuguese.
I´m pondering Maria Emma´s arguments. The onomastic
factor is nearly decisive, I fear. And this weighs in
favor of the Counts of Coimbra, as the great Mendo
Guterres was Hermenegildo.
chico
--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: >
=== message truncated ===
Robert S Baxter
> > his son Fafila (Gothic).
>
> Why do you say Pelayo is a Roman name? I understood "Pelagius" to
> be a latinized version used in cronicles etc. but not the fellow´s
> original name. I know of no Roman precedent for "Pelagius."
Pelagius is clearly a name of the later empire, Greek in origin.
Check Martindale, if you doubt it.
Bob
Marin-Guzman
> From: ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Date: 17 May 2002 06:23:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: Pelayo´s uncle?
>
> Marin-Guzman <mag...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:<B9088CBF.AB2A%mag...@bigpond.com>...
<snip>
> Why do you say Pelayo is a Roman name? I understood "Pelagius" to
> be a latinized version used in cronicles etc. but not the fellow´s
> original name. I know of no Roman precedent for "Pelagius."
--------------- I think others have already offered proof of that.
<snip>
> Where is it written that Pelayo had an official position under the
> moslem administration -- other than being sent as a messenger
> by Munnuza to get him out of the way?
--------------- Saavedra, "using reliable texts", claims Pelayo was elected
"desde el primer momento". My latin is not as good as it should be but,
quoting from the Spanish text that says this is the paragraph from the
chronicle that proves he was elected "from the first moment":
"maxima uero pars in hanc patriam Asturienseum intraverut, sibique Pelagium,
filium quodam Fafilani ducis ex semine regio, principem elegerunt"
The moors only formed pacts with a leader who was local, thus he would be
able to speak for the locals and get them to do as the Musulmans wanted.
The pact with the 'chiefs of Galicia' was much the same as the moors had
established in other parts of Spain and northern Africa. It was their way.
And it was only after Pelayo returned from Cordoba (and possibly aware of
the internal disorganisation of the invaders) that the Asturians decided to
rebel against the imposts and subordination.
So the relationship between Pelayo and the invading administration was
already in existance, for some years.
<snip>
> My reading of the authorities ancinet and modern suggests that
> (a) He was chosen "leader" of a revolt by the Asturs and (b)
> later elected king by the Visigothic remnant which, of course,
> had retreated into the mountains.
------------- Saavedra argues that although historians speak of 'other'
Asturian leaders, there was only one named, from the beginning, and it was
Pelayo, elected King from the first instance.
It's also interesting he was, in the "Libro de los Linajes" called "Pelayo
el Montesino", giving more credibility to his Asturian origins and his
knowledge of those impassable mountains.
>> specially when
>> the Visigoths were
>> a) responsible for the desolation of Spain and,
> What is your authority for this "desolation?"
------------- Menendez_Pidal, Historia de España, vol IV, España Musulmana;
Iosef Micheli y Marquez, El Fenix Catolico, D. Pelayo el Restuarador, pub.
1648 (ed. Oviedo 1980); Estudios sobre la Monarquia Asturiana, various,
Oviedo 1971.
All of them write of the demoralisation of the country. All of them
acknowledge the blame was laid at the feet of the visigoths. In the way they
fought each other and 'allowed' Spain to be invaded.
>> 3. Lead the remnants of the Spanish nation SUCCESSFULLY against the moors
>> in extremely treacherous territory.
> This is _non sequitur_
----------------- If you knew roughly the area where they chose to fight the
moors, one would have to say, categorically, that the leader had to be a
local man or have vast local knowledge.
I'd like to have seen who else (not of these parts) would have had the
confidence of the local chieftains to lead them into battle, against greater
numbers, in the mountains of Asturias!!
The more I think about it, the more Pelayo had to be a local noble.
Pedro Marin-Guzman
============================================================================
Bryant Smith
> Pelagius is definitely Greek-Roman, from Gk. pélagos,
> sea. We still have the word in Portuguese.
I stand corrected. As a matter of fact, I have a g-g-g-grandfather
named Peleg, but I think that´s a biblical name.
>
> I´m pondering Maria Emma´s arguments. The onomastic
> factor is nearly decisive, I fear.
<SNIP>
Her point is certainly telling, but maybe not decisive.
The early visigothic kings had no marked tendency to re-use
names. In the whole 350-year roster from Amalaric to Akila II
only five names (Alaric, Theodoric, Liuva, Reccared, Agila)
occur twice and none occurs more than twice. (see your post
of 15 July 2001).
The infamous Liebana document, said by TAF to be undated but 6th-
7th century in style -- and therefore clearly in the visigothic
period well before Pelayo´s time -- has a number of names, some
Roman, others Gothic, several of which **DO** appear later:
Benedicto, Ellesinda, Alvaro, Divigra, Osicia, Gulvira,
Diego-Didaco, Aquilo, Munio [! -- a basque name?], Nepesani,
Odoce, Fafila, Espina, Gulviria, Fruela, Pedro.
Theodofred, abandoned son of Chindaswinth, went to Córdoba,
a noble Roman city, married there a high-born lady named
Recilona, and named their son Rodrigo. It should not be too
surprising that Theodefred and Rodrigo made a "fresh start"
in the matter of naming children.
On the other hand, the occurrence of the names Fáfila, Fruela,
Neposani, Pedro in Liebana a hundred-odd years ahead of our
era of interest could be said to support a northern, non-Toledo,
branch of visigoth nobility and Marin-Guzman´s "local family"
picture of Pelayo.
But, I venture to suggest, both Maria Emma Escobar and Pedro
Marin-Guzman are using broad-brush history and onomastics to
sweep aside what little our oldest available documents have
to say.
Bryant Smith
<SNIP>
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
> > Where is it written that Pelayo had an official position under the
> > moslem administration -- other than being sent as a messenger
> > by Munnuza to get him out of the way?
>
> --------------- Saavedra, "using reliable texts", claims Pelayo was elected
> "desde el primer momento". My latin is not as good as it should be but,
> quoting from the Spanish text that says this is the paragraph from the
> chronicle that proves he was elected "from the first moment":
>
> "maxima uero pars in hanc patriam Asturienseum intraverut, sibique Pelagium,
> filium quodam Fafilani ducis ex semine regio, principem elegerunt"
I cannot find the source of this quotation in my meagre collection,
and more context is needed to fully explicate it, but "intraverut" is
singular, referring no doubt to Pelayo, and "elegerunt" is plural but
having no subject in the passage. "principem" does not mean anything
like "in the beginning -- that would be ¨"in principio" -- but rather,
it is the objective case of princeps, meaning they (whoever they were)
chose him (whoever he was) as their prince. Princeps is used in the
chronicles to mean, sometimes, king, sometimes caudillo, and the story,
or rather stories, in the two versions of the Alfonso chronicle are,
one, that the Asturians chose Pelayo to be their leader (caudillo), and
two, that the visigoths elected him king. What ever text Saavedra is
quoting looks to me like a variant of Pelayo´s elevation to leadership
by the rebelling Asturs & visigoths.
>
> The moors only formed pacts with a leader who was local, thus he would be
> able to speak for the locals and get them to do as the Musulmans wanted.
>
> The pact with the 'chiefs of Galicia' was much the same as the moors had
> established in other parts of Spain and northern Africa. It was their way.
>
> And it was only after Pelayo returned from Cordoba (and possibly aware of
> the internal disorganisation of the invaders) that the Asturians decided to
> rebel against the imposts and subordination.
I think the subsequent history of the Asturian kings, mentioning
repeatedly their supression of local revolts, gives a clear enough
picture of a general unhappiness with "foreign" rulers (separatism
is still alive and well in Galicia, the basque country, even Catalonia
in the XXI century) and it is implausible that Pelayo could have
aroused the rabble to avenge the rape of this sister, but you are
overlooking what I think mayh have been his battle-cry, to save
the Christian faith in Spain.
>
> So the relationship between Pelayo and the invading administration was
> already in existance, for some years.
>
See above: I think not. The two versions supported in the chronicles
are (1) he was sent to Córdoba as a hostage, and (2) Munnuza sent him
on an errand to get him out of the way while he (Munnuza) married his
(Pelayo´s) sister. Both of these suggest that Pelayo was "somebody"
in Asturias, but neither shows an established offical relationship.
>
> <snip>
>
<SNIP>
>
> ------------- Saavedra argues that although historians speak of 'other'
> Asturian leaders, there was only one named, from the beginning, and it was
> Pelayo, elected King from the first instance.
>
> It's also interesting he was, in the "Libro de los Linajes" called "Pelayo
> el Montesino", giving more credibility to his Asturian origins and his
> knowledge of those impassable mountains.
>
How old is the "Libro de los Linajes?" Was he called "el Montesino"
in his own time and before Covadonga, or might he not have earned
the soubriquet, later awarded, as a result of Covadonga?
>
> >> specially when
> >> the Visigoths were
> >> a) responsible for the desolation of Spain and,
> > What is your authority for this "desolation?"
>
> ------------- Menendez_Pidal, Historia de España, vol IV, España Musulmana;
> Iosef Micheli y Marquez, El Fenix Catolico, D. Pelayo el Restuarador, pub.
> 1648 (ed. Oviedo 1980); Estudios sobre la Monarquia Asturiana, various,
> Oviedo 1971.
>
> All of them write of the demoralisation of the country. All of them
> acknowledge the blame was laid at the feet of the visigoths. In the way they
> fought each other and 'allowed' Spain to be invaded.
OK -- "demoralization" si, "desolation" no. I´ve previously outlined
the dynastic struggle -- civil war if you like -- between the Rodrigo
branch and the Akila II branch. But I don´t know where that gets us.
>
<SNIP>
>
>
> ----------------- If you knew roughly the area where they chose to fight the
> moors, one would have to say, categorically, that the leader had to be a
> local man or have vast local knowledge.
I haven´t had the privilege of visiting the mountains of Asturias,
but I can´t accept that "vast local knowledge" figured importantly.
The cave is described in the chronicle as containing a shrine, and
must have been well-known throughout the area. It might even be said
that Pelayo chose his ground for this reason, that it was to defend
the faith that he rallied the people there.
>
> I'd like to have seen who else (not of these parts) would have had the
> confidence of the local chieftains to lead them into battle, against greater
> numbers, in the mountains of Asturias!!
>
> The more I think about it, the more Pelayo had to be a local noble.
>
>
As I´ve already said this morning, what little information we can
glean from the old documents has to be cast aside if you are right.
Robert S Baxter
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
Marin-Guzman
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 1:41 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Pelayo愀 uncle?
"maxima uero pars in hanc patriam Asturienseum intraverut, sibique Pelagium,
filium quodam Fafilani ducis ex semine regio, principem elegerunt"
"Truly the greatest part (of them) came into this fatherland of Asturia,
(and) for
themselves, Pelagius, once a son of the leader Favila from royal blood,
prince(leader)
they chose."
A pretty literal translation.
Bob
Francisco Antonio Doria
Just a remark: filium quondam...
son of the late...
chico
--- Robert S Baxter <rsba...@bellsouth.net> escreveu:
_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Encontros
O lugar certo para vocę encontrar aquela pessoa que falta na sua vida. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo!
http://br.encontros.yahoo.com/
Francisco Antonio Doria
Bryant,
There must be some misspelling here. intraverut should
in fact be intraveruNt.
From perfect intravi, verb intrare (infinitive)
chico
--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: >
_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Encontros
O lugar certo para você encontrar aquela pessoa que falta na sua vida. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo!
http://br.encontros.yahoo.com/
Francisco Antonio Doria
Bryant,
Maria Emma, in a private communication, essentially
dismounted the Liebana document. It's more likely to
be a 13th century concoction. So much for it.
As for onomastics, there is a clear Spaltung between
Baltung onomastics and Leodegild & Hermengild
onomastics. To sum it up: Spanish Baltung onomastics
uses Baltung names plus some Amahl names - I mean,
roots in the twofold Germanic system (e.g. Theude -
rich, and so on). Pelayo in fact inaugurates a new
onomastic series.
Let me tell you something about how rigid the Iberian
onomastic rules (better, usages) are: one Martinho
Afonso de Mendonça was *capitão-mor* (sort of local
military commander) in Itapicuru, Bahia, in the
Brazilian hinterland, in the first half on the 19th
century. He is a close kinsman of mine.
The first Martim Affonso in that line came to Brazil
in 1567; he was descended from an obscure branch of
the old and decayed Moreira family. You go back
upwards through several Afonsos and Martins to get the
first one in the 12th century - seven centuries before
the last documented bearer of that name. Also: my
father used to insist with me that my main name was
Antonio - my second name - and that I should keep it
because ``in every family generation there is an
Antonio.'' (I didn't.) Yes: the name Antonio goes all
the way back to the late 15th century in that same
line of the Martins Afonsos.
You may call this an insider's opinion, and as such
distorted, but I must say that I find Maria Emma's
onomastic argument quite compelling.
chico
--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: >
_______________________________________________________________________
Robert S Baxter
-----Original Message-----
From: Francisco Antonio Doria [mailto:dori...@yahoo.com.br]
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 11:09 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE:_Pelayo´s_uncle?
Yes an adverb, formerly the son, once the sona, literally, of (the
(demortui)( late)) Fafila....
Bob
Bryant Smith
were your "greatest part" -- of the visigoths -- and not of
the invaders. Whatever the original source, it includes
the "ex semine regio" tag for Fafila, father of Pelayo,
clearly marking him as not just a local yokel hired on by
the arabs. -- Which is part of why I argued that Marin-Guzman愀
interpretation of the ambient history would require the casting
aside of the oldest documents we have on the subject. And,
by the way, "ex semine regio" means more than royal blood, it
means royal _seed_, i.e. direct descent. And moreover "princeps"
means more than "leader," which might be _dux_. The word is used
at one point in the Alfonso chronicle to describe Alfonso I as I
recall, and in another (perhaps ambiguously) to refer to Vermudo.
The problem is in the one Vermudo vs two. The Vermudo described
as king in the chronicle was also the deacon; only in the Vajay
reconstrucion do we find a Vermudo prince, not king, as father
of Alfonso II.
Francisco Antonio Doria
Bryant,
I would translate ``ex semine regio'' as ``descended
from royalty'' (da semente régia, in Portuguese, a
good metaphor for ``of royal blood''). Nothing more
definite.
As for princeps, it is ``commander,'' ``chieftain.''
chico
--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: >
> Marin-Guzman´s
_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Encontros
O lugar certo para você encontrar aquela pessoa que falta na sua vida. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo!
http://br.encontros.yahoo.com/
Bryant Smith
Chico,
I hope Maria Emma will post publicly her views on
the Liebana document -- that is a *MAJOR* _un_discovery!
Digression: There seem to be three threads all about Pelayo´s
uncle, apparently separated by inconsistent Google interpretation
of various computers´apostrophe mark, and one with an accidental
opening blank space. Hence my opening note in *this* thread
has not got the context I intended for it, which was Maria Emma´s
citation of yet another edition of a chronicle.
But Chico, onomastics be damned, we still have the unequivocal
asseertions in the Alfonso chronicles, still in direct conflict
with the plain meaning of ALfonso´s Campòstela donation. If you
accept the donation then Pelayo was an ancestor of Alfonso II:
If you thereby reject the chronicles to the extent that they
insist Vermudo the Deacon was king, what becomes of the other
points in the chronicles? I don´t mean to quibble, but if you
buy the chronicles version Pelayo really didn´t start anything
because his progeny go nowhere; and it´s Pedro who started the
onomastic departure for the Asturian royalty.
Are we, in the end, then, to buy into the "local yokel" theory of
Pelayo on onomastic grounds? I hope not, and I offer an alternative:
Casariego argues at great length for a pattern of intermarriage of
the visigoths with the indegenes -- Munia a vascona, so also
Paterna -- and it seems plausible that the new naming pattern may
be related to a "melting pot" process in which the visigoths were
absorbed into the local populations of the north, using Roman names
as well as gothic, basque etc.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Coata Rica
Manoel Cesar Furtado
lost sources, doesn´t say Pelayo was of royal blood. The chronicle only says
that the "shadowy" duke Pedro of Cantabria was from the lineage of king
Recaredo (Et vinie el duc don Pedro del linnage del mui noble rey Recaredo).
One of the Chronicle of Alfonso III redactions known as "Rotense" doesn´t
link Pelayo to "royal blood" as well. It textually states: "Ipso quoque
prefecturam agente, Pelagius QUIDAM, spatarius Uitizani et Ruderici
regum...", "During his governoship a CERTAIN Pelayo, sword-bearer of Kings
Witiza and Roderick...".
As we are dealing with clerical chronicles and with a kind of an
apologetical propaganda the absence of "royal blood" for Pelayo in the
Rotense version and in the Primera Cronica writings seems to qualify them as
closer to the truth.
Um abraço,
Manoel César Furtado
Francisco Antonio Doria
Bryant,
Onomastics is something *very* strong in the Latin
(Iberian, mostly) tradition. A family can change
surnames, but some first names appear again and again
along some branches throughout the centuries. More
than that: they characterize those branches.
My branch in the Acciaioli has as typical names Simone
and Zanobi - the last Zanobi I knew about was in fact
an elderly lady, Zenóbia, who passed away some decades
ago. Also Francesco/Francisco: I got mine from my
ggfather, who got it from an uncle, who got it from
his ggfather... all the way up to the late 13th
century, when I think the first one was thus named
after St Francis (this first Francesco Acciaioli lived
in Tuscany).
I already gave you the example of the name
Martim/Martinho in my agnatic line; family name
changed three times along that line, but the obsession
with those particular first names went on and on
through several centuries.
That's why I'm convinced by Maria Emma's argument; I
bear it in my own name...
Best, chico
=== message truncated ===
Marin-Guzman
> From: ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Date: 18 May 2002 15:36:36 -0700
> Subject: Re: Pelayo?s uncle?
>
> dori...@yahoo.com.br (=?iso-8859-1?q?Francisco=20Antonio=20Doria?=) wrote in
> message news:<2002051816285...@web20105.mail.yahoo.com>...
>
> Chico,
<snip>
> Are we, in the end, then, to buy into the "local yokel" theory of
> Pelayo on onomastic grounds?
----------- I didn't say "local yokel", I said local noble.
> I hope not, and I offer an alternative:
> Casariego argues at great length for a pattern of intermarriage of
> the visigoths with the indegenes -- Munia a vascona, so also
> Paterna -- and it seems plausible that the new naming pattern may
> be related to a "melting pot" process in which the visigoths were
> absorbed into the local populations of the north, using Roman names
> as well as gothic, basque etc.
----------- I don't think that's unrealistic.
Pedro
===========================================================================
Marin-Guzman
> From: ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Date: 18 May 2002 06:13:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: Pelayo愀 uncle?
>
> Marin-Guzman <mag...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:<B90C349C.AD9A%mag...@bigpond.com>...
>
> <SNIP>
>> --------------- Saavedra, "using reliable texts", claims Pelayo was elected
>> "desde el primer momento". My latin is not as good as it should be but,
>> quoting from the Spanish text that says this is the paragraph from the
>> chronicle that proves he was elected "from the first moment":
>>
>> "maxima uero pars in hanc patriam Asturienseum intraverut, sibique Pelagium,
>> filium quodam Fafilani ducis ex semine regio, principem elegerunt"
>
> I cannot find the source of this quotation in my meagre collection,
> and more context is needed to fully explicate it,
------------------- It comes from the version published by the Padre Florez
of the Alfonsin text previously atributed to Sebastian de Salamanca.
> How old is the "Libro de los Linajes?" Was he called "el Montesino"
> in his own time and before Covadonga, or might he not have earned
> the soubriquet, later awarded, as a result of Covadonga?
---------------- Sorry, I am not sure of the date of the "Libro de los
Linajes", maybe Maria Emma will know.
> OK -- "demoralization" si, "desolation" no.
---------------- I扉e used the author's words.
> It might even be said
> that Pelayo chose his ground for this reason, that it was to defend
> the faith that he rallied the people there.
----------------- The faith did not necessarily need defending. The
christians were allowed to practice Christianism. The liturgy (and the
people) were called later "mozarabe".
> As I扉e already said this morning, what little information we can
> glean from the old documents has to be cast aside if you are right.
I don't think it has to be cast aside, but it can be evaluated against what
may be obvious political pressures of the day.
History is nearly always written from the point of view of the ruling party
of the country, and every item is not always true. If you doubt this, look
at the recent history of WWII that the Japenese teach in schools today.
Pedro Marin-Guzman
========================================================================
Bryant Smith
Onomastics can provide valuable clues on the positive
side -- in your case a name like "Zanobia" would ring a
bell and would reinforce any other evidence you found of
that woman´s belonging in your tree; in my mother´s family
her maiden surname "Wilson" has been used over and over
again as a middle name for generations -- but with rare
exceptions I cannot see how onomastics can be used to support
a negative. The fact that the lady´s name is not Zenobia
does not suggest that she is not related to you. One exception
I can think of is Todd´s point that it was almost unknown in
8th-9th century Iberia for a son to be given his father´s
name -- a point offered against the Vajay reconstruction.
Thus, whereas finding Reccareds, Chindas[winth]s etc. in the
Asturian royal line would be evidence tending to confirm descent
from earlier visigothic royalty, the absence of such continuity
argues (I submit) at most weakly against such descent, and perhaps
too weakly to overcome the evidence of the older chronicles.
What is stronger about the onomastic argument here, is the
abrupt intrusion of Roman names into the royal line, especially
on the Pedro-Alfonso side; I could palm off the Rodrigo-Pelayo
line as a natural result of Theodefred´s exile in Córdoba (as I
have done), but I´m at a loss to explain what happened in
Cantabria.
At bottom, I think the strongest point in favor of Maria Emma´s
argument is Maria Emma herself. Looking at the subject from a
lawyer´s point of view, it becomes apparent that the questions
here are proper subjects of expert opinion, and Maria Emma´s
opinion is the best-informed one I´ve seen so far. To learn
from experts is the reason why I am here.
Saludos
Bryant
dori...@yahoo.com.br (=?iso-8859-1?q?Francisco=20Antonio=20Doria?=) wrote in message news:<2002051902545...@web20102.mail.yahoo.com>...
> Bryant,
>
> Onomastics is something *very* strong in the Latin
> (Iberian, mostly) tradition. A family can change
> surnames, but some first names appear again and again
> along some branches throughout the centuries. More
> than that: they characterize those branches.
>
> My branch in the Acciaioli has as typical names Simone
> and Zanobi - the last Zanobi I knew about was in fact
> an elderly lady, Zenóbia, who passed away some decades
> ago. Also Francesco/Francisco: I got mine from my
> ggfather, who got it from an uncle, who got it from
> his ggfather... all the way up to the late 13th
> century, when I think the first one was thus named
> after St Francis (this first Francesco Acciaioli lived
> in Tuscany).
>
> I already gave you the example of the name
> Martim/Martinho in my agnatic line; family name
> changed three times along that line, but the obsession
> with those particular first names went on and on
> through several centuries.
>
> That's why I'm convinced by Maria Emma's argument; I
> bear it in my own name...
>
> Best, chico
<SNIP>
Marin-Guzman
Pedro
================================================
> From: ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Date: 19 May 2002 04:51:04 -0700
> Subject: Re: Pelayo?s uncle?
>
Manoel Cesar Furtado
(by Mattoso in "Portugal no reino asturiano-leonês
- História de Portugal, vol I, Antes de Portugal")
Pelagio(1) Pedro, duke of Cantabria
I I I
I
Fafila(2) Ermesenda = Afonso I(3)-- Fruela______
I I I
I I
Fruela I(4) Ausenda Mauregato(7) Aurelio(5) BermudoI(8)
I =
I
I Silo(6)
Ramiro I(10)
I
I
Afonso II(9)
Ordonho I(11)
I
Afonso III(12)
____________________________________________I
I I I I
I
Garcia(13) OrdonhoII(14) FruelaII(15) Ramiro Gonçalo
_______________I_______ I__________________
I I I I
I I
Sancho(17) AfonsoIV(18) RamiroII(19) Afonso(16) Ordonho Ramiro
_______________________I I
I I OrdonhoIV(22)
OrdonhoIII(20) SanchoI(21)
I I
BermudoII(24) RamiroIII(23)
I
AfonsoV(25)=Elvira
I I________
I I
BermudoIII(26) Sancha=Fernando(27)
_________I___________
I I I
SanchoII(28) AfonsoVI(29) Garcia
Bryant Smith
<SNIP>
>
> > It might even be said
> > that Pelayo chose his ground for this reason, that it was to defend
> > the faith that he rallied the people there.
>
>
> ----------------- The faith did not necessarily need defending. The
> christians were allowed to practice Christianism. The liturgy (and the
> people) were called later "mozarabe".
>
Yes BUT in the very next generation Alfonso I won the
soubriquet of "The Catholic" by making the reconquest
a long-term goal. In those days folks took their
religion seriously, and Catholicism was the "one true
faith" to be propagated everywhere. I cannot doubt that
a good part of that feeling was present in the previous
generation of Pelayo.
>
>
> > As I扉e already said this morning, what little information we can
> > glean from the old documents has to be cast aside if you are right.
>
>
> I don't think it has to be cast aside, but it can be evaluated against what
> may be obvious political pressures of the day.
>
> History is nearly always written from the point of view of the ruling party
> of the country, and every item is not always true. If you doubt this, look
> at the recent history of WWII that the Japenese teach in schools today.
>
Yes of course. My greatest difficulty with the Roda version of
ALfonso愀 chronicle is trying to see in it an effort to aggrandize
the ruling party, by knowingly-falsely tying it back to the older
visigoths or otherwise. Its flavor is didactic, like some of the
Old Testament: "See how bad things happen when the people turn
from God愀 way." Even Roderick, sometimes elsewhere said to
be Pelayo愀 uncle, takes his licks, bringing down the arabs to
destroy the kingdom. In terms of knocking the predecessors, both
branches of the family get their share. How, then, does one "evaluate,"
for example, the story of the almost-saintly Deacon Vermudo?
Bryant Smith
> > From: ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith)
> > Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> > Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> > Date: 18 May 2002 15:36:36 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Pelayo?s uncle?
> >
> > dori...@yahoo.com.br (=?iso-8859-1?q?Francisco=20Antonio=20Doria?=) wrote in
> > message news:<2002051816285...@web20105.mail.yahoo.com>...
> >
> > Chico,
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > Are we, in the end, then, to buy into the "local yokel" theory of
> > Pelayo on onomastic grounds?
>
>
> ----------- I didn't say "local yokel", I said local noble.
Please forgive my sometimes-ironic sense of humor. We´re dealing
here with a fellow who was at two centers of visigothic power --
Toledo under Egica/Witiza and Córdoba with Roderick -- before he
ended up in the mountains salvaging what he could of the Christian
kingdom, and your quotation of the greatest part of [the visigoths]
going into that fatherland after the Roderick disaster and there
electing Pelayo just seems to me to make Pelayo a part of the
remnant he was chosen to lead, and not just a noble who happened
to know the terrain. Surely he was with Roderick at the battle,
he was Roderick´s espadario; a critical -- unanswerable -- question
may be *when* the goths elected him. He appears to have "ordered"
the Asturians to gather -- a kingly thing to do -- and therafter
to have been chosen _by them_ as _their_ leader, a show of independence
perhaps by the indigenes, consenting to be led by the gothic king?
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
>
>
>
Bryant Smith
> Bryant,
>
> I would translate ``ex semine regio'' as ``descended
> from royalty'' (da semente régia, in Portuguese, a
> good metaphor for ``of royal blood''). Nothing more
> definite.
OK, dcescent from royaly is good enough in this context.
>
> As for princeps, it is ``commander,'' ``chieftain.''
Here I must beg to differ. "princeps" is one of those words which
can mean almost anything -- I think there was even a fairly long
thread about it a few months back -- but taken in the context
of the Alfonso chronicles, I think it has to be construed to suggest
kingship or son-of-kingship. In one place there is a reference to
a Vermudo princeps which opens to door to Vajay´s other Vermudo but
only if the word means king or heir to the throne, and of course
if the author was referring to the deacon it is clear that in that
chronicle the deacon was king. I think Alfonso I is credited with
invading areaa where no _other princeps_ had previously gone, and here
since Alfonso was a king, the context fairly means more than mere
chieftain.
>
<SNIP>
(Now we seem to have cloned this topic into four threads!)
Bryant Smith
Pelayo in the Rotense as "confrater et filius" as suggesting
an indication of relationship to Egica (Oppa´s father), and
speculates that this obscure reference may show an effort to
*conceal* a close relationship to that family. See Kenneth
Baxter Wolf, _Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval
Spain_ (2d Ed. 1999) p.49 n. 31. Gil´s conjecture dovetails
nicely with the idea that Pelayo was related to both branches
of the family and that the author, despite his criticism of
Roderick, wants to prefer that association for Pelayo. The
[later] Ovieto "ad Sebastianum" version, _possibly_ clerical,
omits the "et filius" and reduces "confrater" to plain "frater,"
reinforcing Gil´s conjecture. ("filius" could be a normal
form of address by a bishop to anyone, "confrater" could mean
merely "pal" or "buddy;" "frater" means brother or close relative.)
(2) I read below for the first time the suggestion that the Rotense
was a "clerical" work. Although flimsy, the reference to the
settlement of Viseo and its suburbs "by our order" has been cited
to suggest the author was indeed Alfonso III himself. Maria Emma
Escobar´s characterizaton of the Rotense as "horrible latin" casts
further doubt on any suggestion that the author was a cleric.
By the way, just curious, my Portuguese isn´t all that swift,
does your valediction "Um abraço" mean "a hug?" I´ve seen it used
by others too -- is it a standard form?
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
mcfu...@netsite.com.br (Manoel Cesar Furtado) wrote in message news:<001301c1fec0$9dbefd00$896afea9@w9k8p8>...
> Even the xiii c. "Primera Cronica General de España", also utilizing ancient
> lost sources, doesn´t say Pelayo was of royal blood. The chronicle only says
> that the "shadowy" duke Pedro of Cantabria was from the lineage of king
> Recaredo (Et vinie el duc don Pedro del linnage del mui noble rey Recaredo).
> One of the Chronicle of Alfonso III redactions known as "Rotense" doesn´t
> link Pelayo to "royal blood" as well. It textually states: "Ipso quoque
> prefecturam agente, Pelagius QUIDAM, spatarius Uitizani et Ruderici
> regum...", "During his governoship a CERTAIN Pelayo, sword-bearer of Kings
> Witiza and Roderick...".
> As we are dealing with clerical chronicles and with a kind of an
> apologetical propaganda the absence of "royal blood" for Pelayo in the
> Rotense version and in the Primera Cronica writings seems to qualify them as
> closer to the truth.
>
> Um abraço,
> Manoel César Furtado
<SNIP>
Bryant Smith
"intraverunt" is correct -- and it probably is,
although it could also be corrected to
"intraverit" (we are dealing with a collective
noun)-- then we are still only halfway home.
"Quodam" means "a certain [indefinite](one)" and would
have to be corrected to "quoNdam" to mean "the late" or
"the former." But the overall meaning is clear: The
greater part of the [remnant] of the goths went to the
Asturian homeland and _themsleves_ (sibi) elected Pelayo,
a son of the late duke Favila of royal blood, to
be their princeps. The "sibi" is important because the
context is plainly referring to the goths and not to
the indigenous Asturs (who are also said elsewhere to have
chosen Pelayo as their leader), and since Pelayo was son of
a duke of royal blood, and we´re talking about the goths whose
tradition was one of elected kings, a fair construction would
be that here "princeps" means "king."* This especially makes
sense if it is assumed that Roderick did not survive: The
Akila crowd were not likely to have been elected, having
treacherously aided the invasion. If the "quodam" is to
stand uncorrected, the meaning could be either a certain son,
or the son of a certain duke.
Hey folks, what´s really needed is a time-ordered collection
of everything that was written about Pelayo in the "olden days"
and I grudgingly include the XIII century rehash alleged to
be based on "lost" sources, provided something is known about
the dating and provenance of the "lost" sources.
_______
* Actually I believe they did not call themselves "king" as
early as the time in question, but by the time of Alfonso III
they were called kings.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
rsba...@bellsouth.net (Robert S Baxter) wrote in message news:<PDENJIDJFCOIMMNKHK...@bellsouth.net>...
> O lugar certo para você encontrar aquela pessoa que falta na sua vida.
Francisco Antonio Doria
Bryant,
9th and 10th century documents I've seen refer to the
king's sons as rex, not as princeps.
chico
--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: >
_______________________________________________________________________
Manoel Cesar Furtado
> (2) I read below for the first time the suggestion that the Rotense
> was a "clerical" work. Although flimsy, the reference to the
> settlement of Viseo and its suburbs "by our order" has been cited
> to suggest the author was indeed Alfonso III himself. Maria Emma
> Escobar´s characterizaton of the Rotense as "horrible latin" casts
> further doubt on any suggestion that the author was a cleric.
>
It is plain to see the ecclesiastical inspiration thoughout the text. The
essencial models are biblical: I Samuel 3.4, Mathew 13.31, the legend of
Saints Cosme and Damian, the ancient shrine of Covadonga, etc.
Besides, there was no "historian" outside the clergy in those iberian times.
And the historical reports are basically a "religious media". The "victory"
of Pelayo was an insignificant event in an insignificant place. Even the
visigothic conquerors have left the asturians aside. So after 150 years the
time was ripe for a "great" history. And only the church knew how to do it
in the benefit of its religious and political purpose.
> By the way, just curious, my Portuguese isn´t all that swift,
> does your valediction "Um abraço" mean "a hug?" I´ve seen it used
> by others too -- is it a standard form?
Yes, a friendly standard form among portuguese descendants of genealogical
lists. But I am also using it here as an advanced apology and warning for my
eventual errors in english language :)
Um abraço,
Manoel Cesar Furtado
Bryant Smith
Without doubtng your veracity or sagacity, I confess
great surprise and would like to see direct quotations
with citations, for I“ve never seen "rex" used for anyone
not-yet king.
Au contraire, I offer the Roda version on Ramiro:
Post Adefonsi discessum Ranemirum filius Veremudi principis
eligitur in regnum.
This is the passage I referred to yesterday, where Vermudo
is called princeps and was either Vermudo the Deacon-King,
most probable within the four corners of the Roda, or was
another Vermudo who became king (son of the Vajay Fruela
"missus"). Exactly the same sentence is repeated, only
changing "eligitur" to "electus est," in the Oviedo version
("ad Sebastianum). I suppose you could see princeps here as
son-of-king on the theory that Ramiro was born before this
Vermudo became king (and therefore started out in life as
son of the prince Vermudo) but I think rather clearly here
princeps means king.
It“s make-weight, but notice the contrast between dux and
princeps in the Oviedo-version passage on the election of
Pelayo:
"... Pelagium, filium quondam [notice the N in quondam!] Fafilani
ducis ex semene regio, principem elegerunt."
By the way, "confrater," which I rendered loosely as "pal"
or "buddy" in Oppa“s address to Pelayo before Covadonga (Roda
version), is used as "cousin" where the Roda chronicle describes
Aurelius as Fruela“s "confrater." The word is changed to
"consubrinus" in the Oviedo version (where, by the way, the
author goes out of his way to add that Aurelio was filius
Froilanis fratris Adefonsi -- interesting since in the Vajay
reconstruction Alfonso II has a brother Fruela ("missus")
who was the father of that other Vermudo; and yet the Vajay
chart leaves Aurelio in place as brother of the deacon).
I“m still looking for that other use of princeps as king. It
was not Alfonso I. When (if ever) I come across it again I“ll
be sure to let you know.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
dori...@yahoo.com.br (=?iso-8859-1?q?Francisco=20Antonio=20Doria?=) wrote in message news:<2002052112434...@web20105.mail.yahoo.com>...
Bryant Smith
myself argued, based upon it, that in the Roda at least --
the one commonly ascribed to Alfonso III -- the didactic
purpose negates the idea of an effort to glorify the ruling
family at the time of the writing. Wolf´s translation of it
is loaded with footnotes pointing to biblical sources of many
phrases beyond those openly quoted. Alfonso III´s reputation
as a scholar, said by TAF here to be on a par with that of
Alfred the Great of England, contradicts your assertions that
there was no "historian" outside the clergy in those days and
"only the church knew how to do it" and is, I think, some
evidence that education was afforded the ruling class as well
as the religious community in the VIII-IX century.
As for Codavonga: Take away the exaggerated numbers and
the self-righteous speech and you still have a battle in which
mere survival was a victory for the beleaguered goths/Christians.
One arab historian, cited by a XX century American historian,
lamented the failure of the moors to carry their mopping-up
operation to a conclusion -- had they but persevered rather than
retreated, all of Iberia might have come permanently under
muslim rule with the Pyrenees as a natural defensive frontier.
As it was, in the very next generation Alfonso I was able to
start a Reconquest which, while it took centuries, was ultimately
successful. Small events can have huge results. That is the lesson,
the minimal lesson, of Covadonga.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
mcfu...@netsite.com.br (Manoel Cesar Furtado) wrote in message news:<001e01c200f0$7b595bc0$896afea9@w9k8p8>...
Francisco Antonio Doria
Bryant,
No problem. Look for the files on the Abunazar
question, 98/99. I quoted several Lorvão documents
witnessed by Ramiro II and his sons. They are from
Herculano's DC collection.
I think princeps is too ambiguous. To me it means
commander, in the general case.
chico
--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: >
_______________________________________________________________________
Todd A. Farmerie
> Alfonso III愀 reputation
> as a scholar, said by TAF here to be on a par with that of
> Alfred the Great of England, contradicts your assertions that
I said analogous to, not on par with, and I was talking about
reputation, which, like George Washington's reputation for
truthfulness as a boy, may not be indicative of historical reality.
taf
maria emma escobar
Coming back once again to the Pelayo´s origins, I want
to remark other at least curious points that could
give us some clues about his possible asturian
origins.
The first point is the description of the fight
between Witiza and Favila, Pelayo´s supposed father:
in a quarrel because of Favila´wife, Witiza killed
Favila, hitting him in the head with a stick. But is
curious that this is exactly the method described in
the Carolingian “capitulares” of 801 and 813 to cut
the links of fidelity with a sir: a man could cut his
links with his sir when the sir wants to kill the man,
or tarnish his wife or daughter, or hit him with a
stick.
The second point is the succession in the line of the
first asturian kings. If we study carefully these
kings, we can see two lineages: Pelayo´s and Pedro´s,
and two tendencies: matrilineal and patrilineal.
Pelayo was succeeded by Favila and this one by Alfonso
I, because this one had married Ermesenda,
Pelayo´daughter. But Alfonso was a foreigner. His only
merit was his wife. And Favila had been married with
Froiloba and they had been sons, as we know. ¿Why one
of these sons was not the King? ¿Could Favila be the
king only in representation of his sister? And years
later, Silo was king, because he was the husband of
Andosinda, Alfonso and Ermesinda´s daughter, in spite
to be probably a semi foreigner. These two facts
suggest a semi matrilineal succession, typical of more
primitive groups.
This form of transmission was the used by the
“Vedinenenses”, a group who lives in the west
Cantabria in roman times, the same area of the first
asturian kings. This costum didn’t exist in the
Visigoth kingdom, when women could not transmit their
rights to their sons.
If we look for supports to this theory we must
remember at least three facts:
a) The “rotense” version of the Alfonso III´cronica
supports this matrilineal succession when tells that
Pelayo rebelled because Munuzza married Pelayo´s
sister and Pelayo didn’t approved this marriage. This
rebellion was logic if this marriage could give
politic power to a foreigner: Munuzza and weaken
Pelayo.
b) A document of 812 mentioned Alfonso II as the son
of Pelayo´s daughter, without any mention of his
father, Alfonso I.
c) When Alfonso II dead, Nepociano and Ramiro fighted
by the kingdom. And Nepociano was probably a brother
in law of Alfonso, husband of his sister. That could
be the last manifestation of the matrilineal tendency.
Once Ramiro is the king, the male line is the winner.
Mee.
=====
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger
Comunicación instantánea gratis con tu gente.
http://messenger.yahoo.es
Francisco Antonio Doria
Maria Emma,
Boa tarde. Thanks for the beautiful comment. A long
time ago I read an entry in the _Britannica_ were the
author said that Pedro duque de Cantabria was probably
a Basque chieftain. Later I found some mention that
his Roman(ized) name arose out of an usual practice
among the Basques, e.g., Otxoa = Lupus, wolf. (Cf.
also Arista/roble/carvalho, oak.) Pedro/Pedra/Piedra
is (or derives from) stone (I don't know the
corresponding word in Basque).
Would that fit in with your analysis?
chico
--- maria emma escobar <memae...@yahoo.es>
escreveu: >
_______________________________________________________________________
Todd A. Farmerie
> The first point is the description of the fight
> between Witiza and Favila, Pelayo´s supposed father:
> in a quarrel because of Favila´wife, Witiza killed
> Favila, hitting him in the head with a stick. But is
> curious that this is exactly the method described in
> the Carolingian "capitulares" of 801 and 813 to cut
> the links of fidelity with a sir: a man could cut his
> links with his sir when the sir wants to kill the man,
> or tarnish his wife or daughter, or hit him with a
> stick.
Hmm. This is good. Presumably "hit him with a stick" was not
meant literally in the capitulares, but that this is precisely
the language used in describing Witiza's treatment of Favila is
striking.
> The second point is the succession in the line of the
> first asturian kings. If we study carefully these
> kings, we can see two lineages: Pelayo´s and Pedro´s,
> and two tendencies: matrilineal and patrilineal.
> Pelayo was succeeded by Favila and this one by Alfonso
> I, because this one had married Ermesenda,
> Pelayo´daughter. But Alfonso was a foreigner. His only
> merit was his wife. And Favila had been married with
> Froiloba and they had been sons, as we know. ¿Why one
> of these sons was not the King? ¿Could Favila be the
> king only in representation of his sister? And years
> later, Silo was king, because he was the husband of
> Andosinda, Alfonso and Ermesinda´s daughter, in spite
> to be probably a semi foreigner. These two facts
> suggest a semi matrilineal succession, typical of more
> primitive groups.
I am not sure that a female inheritance is the only model that
fits here. The succession of Alfonso in preference to the
children of Favila would be an obvious step in a kingdom at war,
which could not afford to have children in charge. Likewise the
succession of Silo, Aurelius and Mauregato, could just represent
the different factions favoring different adults to not succeed
per se, but rather just to stand in during the minority of the
young Alfonso (II).
> If we look for supports to this theory we must
> remember at least three facts:
> a) The "rotense" version of the Alfonso III´cronica
> supports this matrilineal succession when tells that
> Pelayo rebelled because Munuzza married Pelayo´s
> sister and Pelayo didn't approved this marriage. This
> rebellion was logic if this marriage could give
> politic power to a foreigner: Munuzza and weaken
> Pelayo.
It sort of depends on the context. Henry I of England married
the sister of an English magnate to a Norman as a means to
justify disposessing the native in favor of the newcomer.
Certainly Alfonso would not have liked others taking away his
ability to formulate his own family alliances, if only because he
hoped to gain advantage himself from negotiating a marriage for her.
> b) A document of 812 mentioned Alfonso II as the son
> of Pelayo´s daughter, without any mention of his
> father, Alfonso I.
Pelayo, as founder of the nation, held special status in the eyes
of his successors, so it may have been the specific intent to
trace to the founder of the Kingdom in this instance, rather than
to highlight the female descent.
> c) When Alfonso II dead, Nepociano and Ramiro fighted
> by the kingdom. And Nepociano was probably a brother
> in law of Alfonso, husband of his sister. That could
> be the last manifestation of the matrilineal tendency.
> Once Ramiro is the king, the male line is the winner.
Assuming the traditional reconstruction, this represents conflict
between the closer kinsman, through a female line, vs. the more
distant but male-line successor. Even with male-line
inheritance, the end of the direct male line almost invariably
brings on a succession crisis, and until it happens the first
time, there is usually no basis for deciding between the options
- take the next nearer relative, independent of the male/female
split, or rather to a more distant male. (If one accepts the
Vajay reconstruction, then it would seem to be more of a question
of age and experience.)
taf
Bryant Smith
about cherry trees or any sort of reputation, but about actual
"position."
Here is what you wrote on November 21, 1996:
QUOTE
Let me just add that Alfonso III (who holds a position as a scholar and
historian king equal to that of Alfred the Great), grandson of Ramiro I,
described Alfonso II by a term which would fit the brother of an
ancestor but not someone so distant as a second cousin, which would be
the case were Fruela brother of Alfonso I rather than II.
UNQUOTE
I confess it was I, not you, who wrote of "reputation" only, putting
the word into your mouth. On March 26 of this year I asked you:
QUOTE
Todd, you have mentioned that Alfonso III enjoyed a reputation as
a scholar, comparing well with Alfred the Great. How was the
reputation acquired? If the earlier version of his cronicle is
in "horrible latin" as Maria Emma has said, and the later one is
propaganda (as she has implied), whence the reputation?
UNQUOTE
and you replied:
QUOTE
That is two more chronicles than are attributed to any other king
prior to Alfonso X. Although I have not gotten hold of the
originals, I wonder if the chronicle was not "horrible latin"
because it was drifting toward vernacular. At any rate, he also
brought the sources together from which the chronicle was compiled.
He really occupies a similar role in the mindset - living at the
same period, he combatted an invader people and engaged in
political policy that encompassed much of the christian portion
of what would later be Spain. He took an interest in the history
of his family and kingdom, and the earliest native chronicle
source owes its existance to his efforts. He became known in the
history of his nation as Alfonso 'el Mayor'. See the similarities?
UNQUOTE
Bryant Smith
only a few questions, perhaps merely quibbles,
interspersed below.
memae...@yahoo.es (=?iso-8859-1?q?maria=20emma=20escobar?=) wrote in message news:<2002052216192...@web13902.mail.yahoo.com>...
> Coming back once again to the Pelayo´s origins, I want
> to remark other at least curious points that could
> give us some clues about his possible asturian
> origins.
>
> The first point is the description of the fight
> between Witiza and Favila, Pelayo´s supposed father:
> in a quarrel because of Favila´wife, Witiza killed
> Favila, hitting him in the head with a stick. But is
> curious that this is exactly the method described in
> the Carolingian "capitulares" of 801 and 813 to cut
> the links of fidelity with a sir: a man could cut his
> links with his sir when the sir wants to kill the man,
> or tarnish his wife or daughter, or hit him with a
> stick.
>
If I read the above correctly, it should have been
Favila who hit Witiza with a stick, should it not?
> The second point is the succession in the line of the
> first asturian kings. If we study carefully these
> kings, we can see two lineages: Pelayo´s and Pedro´s,
> and two tendencies: matrilineal and patrilineal.
> Pelayo was succeeded by Favila and this one by Alfonso
> I, because this one had married Ermesenda,
> Pelayo´daughter. But Alfonso was a foreigner. His only
> merit was his wife. And Favila had been married with
> Froiloba and they had been sons, as we know.
How do we know this? I have only Casariego´s sketch
of a monumental stone, which I read as referring to
"children" without specifying their sexes.
¿Why one
> of these sons was not the King?
I´ve read [unsupported] assertions that King Favila´s
children were too young to be considered. This is
certainly possible in view of the likely age at which
Favila met his unusual death.
> ¿Could Favila be the
> king only in representation of his sister? And years
> later, Silo was king, because he was the husband of
> Andosinda, Alfonso and Ermesinda´s daughter, in spite
> to be probably a semi foreigner.
This is reinforced in Roda which says
Post cujus [Aurelio´s] obitum Silo Adefonsi filiam nomine
Adosindam in conjugio accepit, pro qua re etiam adeptus
est regnum.
-- He married Adosinda *after* Aurelio´s death, whereby
he came into the kingship. The connotation of "adeptus,"
used in conection with Silo and Nepotiano but not, as I
recall, elsewhere, might bear some study.
But the elevation of Aurelio, son of the brother of Alfonso,
ahead of Silo undercuts the matrilineal hypothesis.
> These two facts
> suggest a semi matrilineal succession, typical of more
> primitive groups.
> This form of transmission was the used by the
> "Vedinenenses", a group who lives in the west
> Cantabria in roman times, the same area of the first
> asturian kings.
How then was Alfonso a "foreigner?" And if a foreigner, did
he introduce te Vedinenses´custom, and if so isn´t that a
"bootstrap" argument?
> This costum didn't exist in the
> Visigoth kingdom, when women could not transmit their
> rights to their sons.
Your line of reasoning presupposes an established
*dynastic* mode of succession, which was contrary to
the Visigothic tradition of elected kings, and which
did not become firmly established until later; and
even as late as Isabella the cortez had at least a
perfunctory role in determining the succession. Also
we have the much older precedent of Cixillo.
> If we look for supports to this theory we must
> remember at least three facts:
> a) The "rotense" version of the Alfonso III´cronica
> supports this matrilineal succession when tells that
> Pelayo rebelled because Munuzza married Pelayo´s
> sister and Pelayo didn't approved this marriage. This
> rebellion was logic if this marriage could give
> politic power to a foreigner: Munuzza and weaken
> Pelayo.
This may be stretching things a bit. I read what
Munuzza did as nothing short of rape, and who wouldn´t
be upset at a man who had raped his sister? Munuzza
was not just a foreigner but an infidel -- can you imagine
the Christians accepting a moslem in the line of succession
merely by reason of a marriage?
> b) A document of 812 mentioned Alfonso II as the son
> of Pelayo´s daughter, without any mention of his
> father, Alfonso I.
I´d like to see more of this document, in light of the
donation you turned up, in which (I believe) it was
natural, quite apart from questions touching the
succession, to describe Alfonso II as a great-grandson
of Pelayo without mentioning Alfonso.
> c) When Alfonso II dead, Nepociano and Ramiro fighted
> by the kingdom. And Nepociano was probably a brother
> in law of Alfonso, husband of his sister.
The two main versions of the Alfonso III chronicle describe
Nepociano only as palatii comes. Where does his probable
relationship to a sister of Alfonso II come from?
> That could
> be the last manifestation of the matrilineal tendency.
> Once Ramiro is the king, the male line is the winner.
The male line, or the dynastic principle?
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
> Mee.
Bryant Smith
> Bryant,
>
> No problem. Look for the files on the Abunazar
> question, 98/99. I quoted several Lorvão documents
> witnessed by Ramiro II and his sons. They are from
> Herculano's DC collection.
>
> I think princeps is too ambiguous. To me it means
> commander, in the general case.
>
> chico
I have to tell you, though it proves nothing, that I had
a chuckle yesterday over "princeps." In Costa Rica they
give their autobuses quasi-personal names,, and yesterday
in San Jose I saw one named "Principe de Paz" -- Prince of
Peace, one of Jesus´many soubriquets. Of course princeps
is vague, in general, but in many contexts it can take on
definite meanings, as in the example in cited of the
princeps Veremundi. Or the Jesus bus. And I remember
vividly -- because it startled me -- a scene in the TV
mini-series _Elizabeth R_ in which Queen Elizabeth is made
to refer to herself as a "Prince."
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I beg to differ. You said "equal to" and you were not talking
> about cherry trees or any sort of reputation, but about actual
> "position."
'position' in a philosophical sense, in the sense of an analogy.
Please don't tell me what I meant to say.
taf
Bryant Smith
Weasling and graceless, but not unexpectedly so.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it
means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
' The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean
so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master
- that's all.'
-- Lewis Caroll, _Through the Looking Glass_