Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Spanish Visigoths - Is this line for real?

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Todd A. Farmerie

unread,
Dec 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/2/96
to

Peter E. Murray wrote:
>
> Chindaswind, K Visigoths 642-653
> by m to Rekiberga, was father of:
>
> Favila
> by unknown m was father of:
>
> Pelayo, K Visigoths
> by m. to Gaudiosa, was father of:
>
> Hermesinda (dtr)
> m. Alfonso I, K Asturias
>
> Todd Farmerie, citing a reinterpretation of original sources by
> Szabolca de Vajay, gave the following revised descent from

Actually, it is a reinterpretation by Jaime de Salazar Acha and David
Masnata, which is then presented in Szabolcs de Vajay's review charts.

> While there are good reasons to accept the reinterpreted descent
> from Pelayo and his son-in-law Alfonso I, there appears to be no
> support for the parentage of Fafila, father of Pelayo (if I
> understand recent comments by Todd Farmerie, Gen-Medieval
> newsgroup).


It should be understood that the identity of Pelayo's father comes from
a different source than his ancestry. There was a recorded tradition
which stated that Fafila was his father, and there seems to be general
support for this representing authentic tradition. To briefly
summarize, there are two reasons for this. First, by nomenclature, it
was extremely common for the eldest son to be named after the paternal
grandfather (note this pattern in the descent from Alfonso I, his son
Fruela, and grandson Alf II bearing the names of their paternal
grandfather), and Pelayo's eldest was anmed Fafila. The second is that
there is no particular reason to make it up, specifically because Fafila
is never claimed as heir to the royal Visigoth dynasty, and hence there
is no propaganda reason for inventing the connection.

It is a different tradition which claims that Pelayo and Pedro were
members of the old royal family. Sometimes this specifies the
relationship (i.e. Pelayo was a descendant of Recuerdo) and sometimes it
is left more ambiguous. This is unsupported, and suggests an attempt to
provide continuity with the dynasties of old. (Similar traditions make
Charlemagne descend from Clovis, make Robert the Strong marry a daughter
of Louis the Pious, and make Henry the Fowler a grandson of Arnulf,
etc.) The specific descent here looks simply to be an attempt to unite
the two traditions, and I know of absolutely no source within the first
1000 years which provides any suggestion of who the parents of Fafila
might have been. (That he was supposedly mayor of the palace might even
suggest that he was a member of the (high) nobility and not younger son
of a Visigoth king.)

taf

JOHN de CELIS

unread,
Dec 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/5/96
to

When I asked about Clodoveo, 1st Christian K. of the Franks, I did not give
any references. The following was gathered from the files of Paul Theroff and
the works of Salazar y Castro (who can be suspect). I don't know the sources
of Paul Theroff's presentation but I wanted to see if there was any
similarity. While I don't have all my notes at my present location, this is
how I summarized the information:

Leovigildo, m. Teodosia
1 San Hermenegildo, m. Ingunda
1.1 Atanagildo, m. Flavia Juliana
1.1.1 Ardavasto, m. ???
1.1.1.1 Eruigio, m. Luibigtohona
1.1.1.1.1 Pedro, D. of Cantabria (from Salazar y Castro)
1.1.1.1.1.1 Alonso I (who married 2.1.1.2.1.1)
2 Recaredo, m. Chlodoswintha
2.1 Suintila, m. Teodora
2.1.1 Suintila II, m. ??? (may be a duplication of 2.1)
2.1.1.1 Zindasiundo, m. Riciberga
2.1.1.1.1 Theodofred, m. Recilona
2.1.1.1.1.1 Rodrigo, m.Egilona
2.1.1.2 Fafila, D. of Cantabria
2.1.1.2.1 Pelayo, m. Gaudiosa
2.1.1.2.1.1 Hermesindo m. Alonso I

Paul Theroff shows Fafila 2.1.1.2 to be the brother of Theodofred 2.1.1.1.1
This works better from a generational point of view if we figure that Rodrigo
and Pelayo were born about the same time.

The one area that really stood out was Salazar y Castro showing the parents of
Leovigildo to be Amalarico and Clotilde (d, of Clodoveo "Clovis") while
Theroff did not address that issue. If this can be accepted, it opens up
another line back from Clovis.

I know Salazar y Castro is suspect but he got a lot of it right (well, at
least some of it) , why not the first part?

John
jdec...@msn.com

----------
From: Medieval Genealogy Discussion List on behalf of Peter E. Murray
Sent: Monday, December 02, 1996 12:20 AM
To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
Subject: Spanish Visigoths - Is this line for real?

John de Celis (Gen-Medieval Newsgroup 17 Nov 1996 gives the
following relationships:

Clodoveo, 1st Christian K of Franks, father of:
Clothild (his dau) married Amalarico, parents of:
Leovigildo (their son), king of West Goths.

My comment here is that the marriage of Clovis' dau Clothild to
Amalaric king of the Visigoths, appears in Gregory of Tours and
presumably other sources as well. But neither that source nor any
other that I have seen mention any issue of the marriage.
Wolfram's book "The Goths" p480 n.605/6 cites Claude and agrees
with him in assuming that Amalaric was born c502. Amalaric married
after 526 to the daughter of Clovis (cites Zollner, "Franken" and
directs the reader also to Jordanes "Getica" and Martindale's
"Prosopography"). Then on p481 n.621 he cites Claude in saying
"After the death of Amalaric there existed in 531 'no legitimate
member of the family of Theodoric I (recte Theodorid)' ". As for
Leovigild (and his brother and predecessor Athanagild), there is no
indication of their parentage, other than indications in Gregory of
Tours that Frankish kings Sigibert's and Chilperic's marriages to
Brunhild and Galswinth respectively were considered very
prestigious matches for the Frankish kings, suggesting that the
Ancestry of Athanagild and Leovigild was noteworthy (and presumably
kingly). If Amalaric did have children, they would have been very
young when he died.

ic

unread,
Dec 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/6/96
to

I think you've proved the point: Amalaric was the last, at least in the
male line.

> Brian Thomsett's Royal Genealogy Page has a section on the
> Visigoths in Spain from which the following information is
> extracted:
>

Presumably this is taken from ES II, 48 (which gives no source)

> Leodegild, K Visigoths 568-586
> by m to Theodosia, was father of:
>
> Reccared I, K Visigoths 586-601
> by m to Chodoswintha of Austrasia, was father of:
>
> Swinthila, K Visigoths 621-631 d633
> by m to Theodora, was father of:


>
> Chindaswind, K Visigoths 642-653
> by m to Rekiberga, was father of:
>
> Favila
> by unknown m was father of:
>
> Pelayo, K Visigoths
> by m. to Gaudiosa, was father of:
>
> Hermesinda (dtr)
> m. Alfonso I, K Asturias
>

snip>
> newsgroup). I was surprised to see a connected line from
> Chindaswind back to Leovigild complete with marriages and their
> issue and wonder if all this is well documented. Finally, the
> claim that Leovigild was son of Amalaric and his wife Clothild
> looks very much like wishful thinking. The standard view is that
> Amalaric and his brother Gesalec were the last of the Balth dynasty
> of Visigoths (see Wolfram "The Goths", citing Claude).
>
> So which connections are supported, probable or neither in the
> above lines?
>
> Peter
>

I share your scepticism: not one modern historian of this period
eg Collins "early medieval spain" or the Historia del l'espana
published by the Royal Academy of History, mentions the father
of Chindaswinth as Swintila. Indeed the feature of the Visigothic
regime in the 7th century is the short lived 'dynasties': to
suggest they were father and son, would be a major revision
of history: already in the 630's the church council of Toledo
under Sisenand was refering to the _morbus gothicus_, that is
their practice of regicide, and the failure of any king to
found a long dynasty.


Todd A. Farmerie

unread,
Dec 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/7/96
to

JOHN de CELIS wrote:
>
> When I asked about Clodoveo, 1st Christian K. of the Franks, I did not give
> any references. The following was gathered from the files of Paul Theroff and
> the works of Salazar y Castro (who can be suspect). I don't know the sources
> of Paul Theroff's presentation but I wanted to see if there was any
> similarity. While I don't have all my notes at my present location, this is
> how I summarized the information:
>
> Leovigildo, m. Teodosia
> 1 San Hermenegildo, m. Ingunda
> 1.1 Atanagildo, m. Flavia Juliana
> 1.1.1 Ardavasto, m. ???
> 1.1.1.1 Eruigio, m. Luibigtohona
> 1.1.1.1.1 Pedro, D. of Cantabria (from Salazar y Castro)
> 1.1.1.1.1.1 Alonso I (who married 2.1.1.2.1.1)

This, I suspect, is based on a tradition making Pedro nephew of a
previous king. This tradition lacks any contemporary support (and had
it been true, Pedro, and not Pelayo, would have been the likely choice
as leader) and is now thought to represent nothing more than an attempt
to present the new Asturian dynasty as the heirs in blood to the
Visigoth kings (and even connecting all of them in a single dynasty is
troublesome).

> 2 Recaredo, m. Chlodoswintha
> 2.1 Suintila, m. Teodora
> 2.1.1 Suintila II, m. ??? (may be a duplication of 2.1)
> 2.1.1.1 Zindasiundo, m. Riciberga
> 2.1.1.1.1 Theodofred, m. Recilona
> 2.1.1.1.1.1 Rodrigo, m.Egilona
> 2.1.1.2 Fafila, D. of Cantabria
> 2.1.1.2.1 Pelayo, m. Gaudiosa
> 2.1.1.2.1.1 Hermesindo m. Alonso I
>
> Paul Theroff shows Fafila 2.1.1.2 to be the brother of Theodofred 2.1.1.1.1
> This works better from a generational point of view if we figure that Rodrigo
> and Pelayo were born about the same time.
>

The only evidence for this claim is a non-contemporary statement that
Pelayo was of the lineage of Recaredo, and even were one to accept this,
any attempt to fill in the generations is nothing more than baseless
speculation.

> The one area that really stood out was Salazar y Castro showing the parents of
> Leovigildo to be Amalarico and Clotilde (d, of Clodoveo "Clovis") while
> Theroff did not address that issue. If this can be accepted, it opens up
> another line back from Clovis.
>
> I know Salazar y Castro is suspect but he got a lot of it right (well, at
> least some of it) , why not the first part?
>

What Salazar y Castro got right was the material for which he had
contemporary evidence. What he butchered was his attempts to fill in
the gaps, where he either relied on traditional, non-contemporary
pedigrees, and made educated guesses to fill in the gaps (never doubting
that some connection must exist). This represents one of the latter
cases, (and more recently Salazar y Castro's stock has even gone down
for the former type). Like Dugdale in England, he was thorough in
collecting his information and documenting his results, but lacked a
critical evaluation of the quality of sources, and assumed continuity of
dynasties long before there was any evidence to support this.

taf

0 new messages