Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-Parthois b. ca. 500, killed 532
Don Matson
killed by Thierry I in 532
a son of
Cloderic "the Parricide", King of Cologne, murdered 509
or
Clovis I "the Great", King of Salic Franks?
I have found it either way. Which is correct or more reliable?
Thanks
Don
David Paul Meyer
AR7, line 190, gives his father as Cloderic, the Parricide.
Yours truly,
David
Jon Meltzer
"Don Matson" <donm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f3ac78c.04031...@posting.google.com...
> Was Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-)Parthois b. ca. 500 wife Arthemia, &
> killed by Thierry I in 532
> a son of
> Cloderic "the Parricide", King of Cologne, murdered 509
> or
> Clovis I "the Great", King of Salic Franks?
David Kelley says he's Cloderic's son.
I personally would like to see references to the original sources. Munderic
appears in Gregory of Tours but his parentage isn't given; all Gregory says
is that he claimed to be a prince. (This raises an interesting question: if
Munderic's alleged son Gundulf was the same as Gregory's relative Gundulf,
why didn't Gregory mention it?)
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
asscribed to this person. Was there an actual locale (region, ville,
village, commune, chateau) called Vitry-en-Pathois in the early 6th
century or is this a retroactive title given by a non-contemporary
writer?
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Chris Bennett
"Jon Meltzer" <jonmeltzeratmi...@youknow.whattodo> wrote in
message news:7jO3c.170$GQ3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Don Matson" <donm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7f3ac78c.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > Was Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-)Parthois b. ca. 500 wife Arthemia, &
> > killed by Thierry I in 532
> > a son of
> > Cloderic "the Parricide", King of Cologne, murdered 509
> > or
> > Clovis I "the Great", King of Salic Franks?
>
> David Kelley says he's Cloderic's son.
I didn't realise David was that old ;-)
-- Chris
Don Matson
killed by Thierry I in 532
a son of
Cloderic "the Parricide", King of Cologne, murdered 509
or
Clovis I "the Great", King of Salic Franks?
Thanks
Don
Jon Meltzer
"Chris Bennett" <cjbe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:QfP3c.22593$aR4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
He's been in this field a long time. :-)
~Ford~
He's been in a lot of fields a long time. Perhaps that is why he is so
wise.
David Paul Meyer
Generally Munderic is not referred to as a Lord, except on web sites. My limited knowledge of that subject gives me the impression is that this title was a later fabrication.
In AR7, 190:5 it is stated that he was "of Vitry-en-Parthois..." the title being omitted.
There is, today, a Vitry-en-Parthoise in Marne, Champagne-Ardennes, France, near Vitry-le-Francois. This is in what was the pivotal areas of expansion of the Frankish and Merovingian territories by Clovis I, King of the Salic Franks, 481-511, a kinsman of Munderic.
That these two places are the same doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.
Yours truly,
David
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> From: David Paul Meyer [mailto:Ancestr...@verizon.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 14:04
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-Parthois b. ca. 500,
> killed 532
>
>
I thought this was the case, and I guess my real question is, does the
name "Vitry-en-Pathois" date from prior to the 6th century?
D.D.Meister
The Gundulfus, who was Gregor's relative (the dux), seems to be the
uncle of Gregor's mother Armentaria and not the son of Munderic. In the
web I found this table
http://www-droit.u-clermont1.fr/Recherche/CentresRecherche/Histoire/gerhma/GrTur.htm,
and here is an sample of Martin Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours
(http://assets.cambridge.org/0521631742/sample/0521631742WS.PDF).
Other works (Settipani, I think) assume the wife of Munderic as sister
of the dux Gundulfus - Munderics same named son then was a nephew of
Gregor's relative.
Detlef
ロイ・グレイディ
(though there ay be others). In Book III Chapter 14 Gregory writes: "Quod
ille cognuscens et se non praevalens defensare, Victuriaci castri murus
expetens cum rebus omnibus, in eo se studuet commonere, his secum quos
seduxerat adgregatis. " which means roughly that when he knew this and was
not so powerful as to defend himself, coming within the walls ot the
fortification of "Castra Victuriaci" with all his things (property) he
applied himself to [fortiying ] it and gathering to him they whom he had
brought to his side." Latin version from "The Latin Library" though I trust
it is authentic and the translation had a little help ("fortify") from
Brehaut, who translated the Historia Francorum, perhaps definitively, quite
some time back. Castra refers to camp though by this time I think the latin
meaning may tended to refer to fortified camps left over from Roman days.
Vituriaci means "of Vituriacus" or "Vituriacum"and I suspect since it seems
to end in an "ac" and is not a word otherwise present in Latin dictionaries
it refers to an estate of a person or the person themselves (Viturius). It
probably became Vitry some time in the early middle ages after the "castra"
was dropped from the name (as was also the case with Dijon).
As to the lordship of Munderic. There has long been the suggestion by
various writers (Kelley, Weiss, and recently Settipani) various places the
Munderic could be the son of Cloderic the Parricide of the royal house of
the Riparian Franks. Gregory says that Clovis was kin to ths house but not
how. It has also been suggested that the woman by whom Clovis had his first
son Theuderic may have been a woman of the Frankish Riparian family.
Unfortunately I do not at this point remember who exactly made that
suggestion. However, if true, from Munderic's viewpoint, Theuderic would
then be viewed as a relative on his mother's side and in a sense the old
Riparian territories were still in Riparian hands but Munderic might feel
his claim was more justified by a direct male dissent. Or it may have been
one of those situations where (as was so common with the Merovingians)
Munderic sensed that if he did not take some action Theuderic would
eventually have him killed on some pretext or other.
As to why Gregory related this story and knew in some detail who did the
killing, if as has been asserted (Kelley, Settipani with slightly different
interpretations) Munderics wife was Artemia and this Artemia was either
Gregory's ancestress or a near relative, this story would have come down to
him through his family. Some of Gregory's male relatives in earlier
generations were also taken hostage to the Austrasian Court to guarantee the
loyalty of Auvergne. Otherwise it might be doubtful that he would know the
name of the man who actually killed Munderic (Aregisel). Gregory, though he
does not hesitate to blow his own horn when it suits him was probably
understating the importance of his own family perhaps so as not to make
himself more succeotibe to political attack (as he was actually attacked and
very nearly destroyed by Queen Fredegund and Bishop Bertrand at one point.
Only the intervention by very powerful clerics, some with ties to his
attackers saved him) The appearance in Gregory's family of the names
Iustina, Gallus and Vettius (Epagathus) suggest he was related to that
complex of families who existed in both Italy and Gaul, who held the highest
imperial bureaucratic and senatorial positions, ad who intermarried with at
least the house of Constantine -Galla Placida was from this house on her
mother's side. It has long been held that when King Guntramn flattered
Gregory by saying his family was the best in Gaul he was referring to his
Great Granfather the Bishop of Langres but I suspect it may have been this
other relation he was referring to. In any case, Gregory was in a good
position to know about Munderic but as always whether because information
had not been transmitted to him, because he was not saying more than he
needed to or because he was cautious he did not tell everything about the
situation that one could want.
Best Regards
Grady Loy
""Richard C. Browning, Jr."" <bro...@anet-dfw.com> wrote in message
news:000b01c4086f$3e1f7ea0$8a0c020a@MyNotbook...
ロイ・グレイディ
have properly transctribed Victuriacus. I suppose there could
have been a person named Victur or Gregory or some later scribe could have
mispelled the common Roman name/word Victor. The other point is that I
wrote the nominative form of "castri" as "castra." It should be "castrum".
"Castrum" is fortification and "Castra" refers to "camp". The remainder of
my comments I maintain. as they were. My apologies.
G. E. Loy
"ロイ・グレイディ" <grad...@r9.dion.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:qlQ6c.752$yA2...@news1.dion.ne.jp...
Jon Meltzer
> In any case, Gregory was in a good
> position to know about Munderic but as always whether because information
> had not been transmitted to him, because he was not saying more than he
> needed to or because he was cautious he did not tell everything about the
> situation that one could want.
Thanks for an interesting and informative posting.
I hope someone with more than my meager French can summarize M.
Settipani's theories about Arnulf's origins. In particular, assuming
that the line back to Sigebert the Lame is valid (and I personally
want to see a lot more evidence, such as direct quotes from original
sources), is there any historical (let alone genealogical) evidence
for generations preceding him? I see alleged lines from "Clovis the
Riprurian" all over the Internet, copied uncritically from Moriarty
...
marshall kirk
adapted it from a much earlier French article (in the *Revue
Mabillon*?), and published it in English. The French writer, using a
very fine-spun analysis, teased it out of late, and quite garbled,
hagiography. I'd guess that Moriarty either couldn't read simple
French, or -- more likely, I think -- was relying on a defective
memory (for which I'm in no position to fault him!), since he gives as
father and son, in his article, two individuals that the *original*
article clearly asserted -- twice -- were brothers.
I've heard of no useful evidence as to the identities and pedigree of
the kings of the Riparian Franks prior to Sigebert, tho' I'd be
interested in learning of any.
As for the line from Sigebert downward, Settipani has published some
good analysis.
jonme...@mindspring.com (Jon Meltzer) wrote in message news:<3d0b76d4.0403...@posting.google.com>...
Don Stone
> "Jon Meltzer" <jonmeltzeratmi...@youknow.whattodo> wrote:
>>"Don Matson" <donm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Was Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-)Parthois b. ca. 500 wife Arthemia, &
>>>killed by Thierry I in 532 a son of
>>>Cloderic "the Parricide", King of Cologne, murdered 509 or
>>>Clovis I "the Great", King of Salic Franks?
>>
>>David Kelley says he's Cloderic's son.
>
> I didn't realise David was that old ;-)
I passed this comment on to Dave, who responded that his memory of Cloderic
has gotten quite foggy in recent times.
-- Don Stone
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:40648032...@verizon.net...
Don Stone
> As to the lordship of Munderic. There has long been the suggestion by
> various writers (Kelley, Weiss, and recently Settipani) various places the
> Munderic could be the son of Cloderic the Parricide of the royal house of
> the Riparian Franks. Gregory says that Clovis was kin to ths house but not
> how. It has also been suggested that the woman by whom Clovis had his first
> son Theuderic may have been a woman of the Frankish Riparian family.
> Unfortunately I do not at this point remember who exactly made that
> suggestion. However, if true, from Munderic's viewpoint, Theuderic would
> then be viewed as a relative on his mother's side and in a sense the old
> Riparian territories were still in Riparian hands but Munderic might feel
> his claim was more justified by a direct male dissent. Or it may have been
> one of those situations where (as was so common with the Merovingians)
> Munderic sensed that if he did not take some action Theuderic would
> eventually have him killed on some pretext or other.
>
> As to why Gregory related this story and knew in some detail who did the
> killing, if as has been asserted (Kelley, Settipani with slightly different
> interpretations) Munderics wife was Artemia and this Artemia was either
> Gregory's ancestress or a near relative, this story would have come down to
> him through his family.
In yesterday's mail I received a package from Prof. Kelley including a brief
comment on this. He says that he does not believe that Gundulf, son of
Artemia, is identical with Gundulf, son of Munderic, and therefore no longer
thinks that Artemia was Munderic's wife.
In a message to soc.genealogy.medieval dated 2001-05-07, Christian Settipani
said:
> Arnulf is a son of Bodogisel according to texts of 9th c. The Vita
> Gundulfi adds that he was the nephew of Gundulf, son of Munderic. This
> Gundulf, (great-)uncle of Arnulf, could be the nephew of a first
> Gundulf, son of Artemia, sister of Sacerdos, bishop of Lyons.
> For the value of these late texts and the confirmations they have in
> reliable sources, see now my paper in ' Onomastique and Parente ', p.
> 185-229.
These relationships are diagrammed on p. 229, Tableau 10: Conclusion: Les
ancêtres de Arnulf.
-- Don Stone
jl
JL
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:406D6894...@verizon.net...
jef...@iquest.net
possible Roman DFA for Charlemagne via a Gallo-Roman link?
Thanks.
Jeff Duvall
Quoting Don Stone <don....@verizon.net>:
Big Snip:
~Ford~
such studies? Not to detract from Him and His work, in any way, (his
seemingly limitless access to materials, and his impressively vast knowledge
of said materials, is truly enviable); but you do a grave injustice to Prof.
Kelley, (who was doing ground-breaking research in this field before M
Settipani could read), and a great disservice to the rest of the scholarly
community interested in these matters. Settipani's views were already cited
by Don. I think that Prof. Kelley's considered opinion, based on over a
half-century of study, can stand and be argued on its own merits.
My apologies if any feathers have been ruffled, here, but this is just the
sort of kowtowing to a few select individuals, (regardless of how deserving
they may be), that has hampered the researches of FAR too many disciplines.
It's also the sort of blind acceptance that catapulted Rush 'I got them all
legally' Limbaugh to his throne.
Hoping I'm misreading,
Ford
> > ancętres de Arnulf.
> >
> > -- Don Stone
> >
>
>
Phil Moody
Kelley to change his long standing position on this issue, and whether he has
considered an alternative supposition concerning the identity of Munderic's
spouse? I am curious to know why Prof. Kelley now believes Gundulf is two
distinct individuals, and perhaps someone can contact him and see if he is
willing to clarify his new position? I can appreciate his silence on the
matter if he is considering publishing his new findings, but I would be
grateful for clarification on this point as well.
Best Wishes,
Phil
> > > ancêtres de Arnulf.
> > >
> > > -- Don Stone
> > >
> >
> >
>
Don Stone
> Well said, Ford. I think a better question is - what evidence has caused
> Prof. Kelley to change his long standing position on this issue, and
> whether he has considered an alternative supposition concerning the
> identity of Munderic's spouse? I am curious to know why Prof. Kelley now
> believes Gundulf is two distinct individuals, and perhaps someone can
> contact him and see if he is willing to clarify his new position? I can
> appreciate his silence on the matter if he is considering publishing his
> new findings, but I would be grateful for clarification on this point as
> well.
I believe Prof. Kelley has a copy of Onomastique and Parente, and it could
well be that the material mentioned below is a factor in his new position.
I'll ask when I next communicate with him.
I don't think he is actively researching this cluster of people at present.
-- Don Stone
I wrote earlier:
Phil Moody
appreciated.
Cheers,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-Parthois b. ca. 500, killed 532
ロイ・グレイディ
apologies if I have created any confusion. I really should not have strayed
so far from the topic of the Latin Gregory used for Vitry. Viewing the
chart you refer to I see that it is suggested by Settipani that Artemia was
not Munderic's wife but (speculatively) possibly the mother of Munderic's
wife. Thank you also for the information from Professor Kelley. His
comments and ideas on the relationship between the Arnulfings and the
Syagrii (as I saw it in Ancestral Roots almost 20 years ago and also with
additional material cited in Moriarty's Book on Plantagenet Ancestry
concerning the Ruricii and the connections to the Anicii) seemed quite
extrordinary to me at the time and were what first made me interested in
this field. While the Anician connections of the Ruricii have no doubt
properly taken pride of place in the discussions of this era, I have
watched with great interest and considerable enjoyment in your newsgroup and
in various publications the development and refinement of hypotheses
concerning the details of possible Carolingian era nobility connections to
Gallo-Roman families of the late imperial era.
Best Regards
Grady Loy
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:406D6894...@verizon.net...
marshall kirk
here before, because this morning I seem to be using the Little Search
Engine That Couldn't; if so, never mind. That said, Jon has touched
on an interesting point, which could be extended, and raises
questions. Thorpe's translation of Gregory reads, "A man called
Munderic, who pretended to be of royal blood, was so swollen with
pride that he said: 'What is King Theuderic to me? My right to the
throne is as good as his. I will go out and gather my people
together, and I will persuade them to swear an oath of fealty to me,
so that Theuderic may realize that I am a king, too, just as he is.'
He went out and began to harangue the people. 'I am a prince of the
blood,' said he. 'Follow me and all will be well with you.' A crowd
of peasants did follow him, as so often happens, for people are so
gullible."
Altho' the whole story (which goes on for two more pages) seems to
suggest that Munderic really was of a royal house, Gregory's tone
suggests either that he didn't believe in Munderic's claim at all, or
that, for some reason or other, he wished to equivocate. I tend to go
with the first, or *prima facie*, interpretation. (Suggestions that
Gregory slanted his text to avoid offending the Merovingian royalty
seem improbable to me; I know of no reason to believe that his
manuscript was ever disseminated in any way during his lifetime, and
in any case he frequently lets fly with damning accusations.) The
point: if this Munderic were really his uncle Gundulf's father, would
Gregory speak of him in this distinctly pejorative and cynical way?
"Jon Meltzer" <jonmeltzeratmi...@youknow.whattodo> wrote in message news:<7jO3c.170$GQ3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Don Stone
> So, in Prof. Kelley's view, is there still a viable (at least in theory)
> possible Roman DFA for Charlemagne via a Gallo-Roman link?
Prof. Kelley still believes in a descent from Flavius Afranius Syagrius to
Charlemagne, which he explored in his article in volume 101 (1947) of the New
England Historical and Genealogical Register, outlining two different
possible descents, based on various different identifications. In relatively
recent times, he has told me that he concurs with the line from Syagrius to
Charlemagne given in Les Ancętres de Charlemagne by Settipani. For an
exploration of Syagrius's possible Roman (and non-Roman) ancestry, see
Settipani's Continuité Gentilice.
Prof. Kelley also still believes in Charlemagne's descent from the Anicii via
Ruricius or a close relative of Ruricius. This issue has been discussed in
this newsgroup, in a book chapter by Ford Mommaerts and Prof. Kelley (which I
believe also proposes an additional Roman connection, besides the Anicii, for
Ruricius), and by Settipani.
Prof. Kelley has done some work on other possible Roman connections, via
Gaul, but this has not been published.
-- Don Stone
ロイ・グレイディ
I am also fond of the Thorpe translation of the history of the Franks (my
Penguin copy is about to fall apart). The sentence you refer to
> Munderic, who pretended to be of royal blood, was so swollen with
> pride that he said: 'What is King Theuderic to me? My right to the
> throne is as good as his.
I have from "The Latin Library" on the web as
Mundericus igitur, qui se parentem regium adserebat, [multa] elatus
superbia, ait: 'Quid mihi et Theudorico regi? Sic enim mihi solium regni
debetur, ut ille.
[I am not sure but will inquire what the source of the Latin Library's text
of the Historia is. Thorpe of course specifies the origin of the texts he
was translating]
something like
Munderic, therefore, who was claiming for himself royal ancestors, with much
lofty pride, said Who is King Theodoric to me? So indeed is owed to me the
royal throne, as to him.
The verb "adserebat" which Thorpe tranlated as "pretended" is I think more
accurately rendered "was claiming" particularly something of value (Collins
Gem Latin Dictionary from adsero/adserere/adserui). If the meaning of
"pretend" is in the sense that Gundovald was Pretending to the throne then
that is a reasonable rendering. However the english verb "to predend" has
in it a sense of claiming or asserting something that is not true that I do
not think is present in "adserere"
I certainly do not mean to criticize Thorpe's translation but would only say
that I believe he was quite reasonably trying to take what was by modern
standards perhaps a rather exotic if fascinating narrative and make it more
comprehensible - a translator who is forced to focus his or her attention on
how someone in the future might take issue with their rendereing of every
word or phrase will never finish translating anything. However, for the
above reason I think the sense of "pretended to be of royal blood" language
may not exactly match what Gregory actually said of Munderic.
It is a fine point but I think that although Gregory makes Munderic out to
be overly proud (it is one of the quintessential characteristics of the
History of the Franks that wretched ends are invariably preceded by
significant moral failings and weaknesses even in otherwise estimable
people). Otherwise without even going back to the latin and relying on
Thorpe Gregory provides Munderic with a fairly positive persona: "Munderic
and his men resisted stoutly" and "Munderic then drew his sword and with his
own men around him slew one after another of the enemy troops. As long as
there was breath in his body he continued to cut down every man within his
reach." Gregory paints Aregisel, as almost Judaslike in betraying Munderic:
Munderic came out of the gateway of the fortress holding Aregisel's hand...
[Aregisel said] "Men why are you staring at Munderic so closely, have you
never seen him before." He is immediately avenged for both the betrayal and
his breaking of an oath made on the church altar (a particular Gregorian
Peeve) at the hand of Munderic himself.
There is also almost certainly a parallel between the story of Munderic and
that of the Pretender Gundovald later. Both men were betrayed by promises
that the King they were opposing would show them mercy if they laid down
their arms submitted. Gregory displayed a certain very subtle sympathy for
both men (unlike the contempt he showed the victims of Clovis) Gregory's
purpose in his use of parallels (though perhaps better understood with
continuing study) seems still a little murky. Gregory clearly deeply
respected King Guntram but he appears (in the Thorpe edition anyway) to be
very ambivalent about how he regards the way Guntram treated Gundovald.
There is a running theme in his description of Guntram of his intense
devotion to his family, the Merovingians, (which was unusual) coupled with
his, at times, irrational familial destructivenss (which if perhaps
overreported by Gregory was closer to the norm among the early
Merovingians). I cannot help but think that the way Gregory describes the
Munderic affair has somthing to do with what he was trying to say about
Guntramn. Thorpe suggests that Books II, III, and IV may have been
completed later than, perhaps much later than, books I and V (pp 24-25)
Other points: Munderic clearly had sons and Gregory pointedly says Munderic
feared they would be killed and again pointedly does not say that they were
killed (suggesting perhaps strongly that they survived-It is notable that
Theudebert refused to share many of his fathers animosities).
According to Thorpe, Gregory did show the History to Burgundian historian
Marius of Avenches during his lifetime and Marius clearly copied from it
from Books II to IV (p. 37 Penguin ed. All my references to Thorpe's
tranlation of the History of the Franks are to the Penguin edition reprinted
1983)
As to my comment that Munderic may have been trying to anticipate an attempt
at assaination by Theuderic, Theuderic was known to be fond of assasination
much in the way his father Clovis had been. He tried to have Lothar killed
in Thuringia (HF III 7) and he is said to have pushed Thuringian King
Hermanafrid off of a wall to his death (HF III 8)
The story immediately preceding the story of Munderic is that of the flight
of the Apolinarians Arcadius, Alchima and Placidina and the bishopric of St
Quintianus. [Thorpe pp. 169-173] Parts of this story may well have come
from Avitus of Clermont who knew Gregory well and was one of his mentors if
Ian Woods suggestion (The Merovingian Kingdoms 450-751) that Bishop Avitus I
of Clermont may have been Avitus son of Felix Bishop of Bourges [Testaentum
of Bertram of LeMans]. It has been suggested [I wish I remembered where]
that Felix Bishop of Bourges was son in turn of the Arcadius son of
Apollinaris and grandson of Sidonius. Arcadius fled Theuderic's anger from
Clermont to Bourges after he had tried to deliver Clermont to Childebert.
Gregory's uncle Gallus may also have proven a source of such stories. The
story following the Munderic story is the story of the hitage Attalus, one
of Gregory's relatives on his mother's side [nephew of Gregory of Langres]
who was taken as hostage to the Austrasian Court in the late 520's or early
530's. Thorpe suggests in a footnote that the length and detail of the
Attalus narrative [p. 175 footnote 18] were due to the fact that Attalus was
Gregory's kinsman. The sense that the accounts in this part of Book III
are coming from stories collected from people Gregory knew in his youth as
opposed to historical writers, Gregory's contacts during his episcopacy or
his own observations suggests that the Munderic story may be a part of this
pattern. The proximity of the Munderic story to the Attalus story and their
both being part of the wider Theuderic/Childebert/Arcadius drama make it not
unreasonable that Gregory's familiarity with Munderic's story was one of
these sources. If as is suggested in the Settipani chart [Onomastique et
Parente Dans L'Occident Medieval in the communication L'apport de
l'onomastique dans l'etudes des genealogies carolingiens p. 229] that
Munderic's wife was possibly a daughter of Florentius and Artemia, she would
have been a sister of Attalus' cousin' wife [Gregory's grandmother]
Additionally Gregory's paternal uncle Gallus was at the Austrasian Court
prior to his bishopric at Clermont and although he may have left prior to
Munderic's death (I am not sure how to date Munderic's death based on
Gregory whose chronological accuracy in Book III is far from perfect except
to say that it obviously preceded the death of Theuderic in 534) he would
certainly be well informed of events and people there.
In conclusion it is probably too much to say that Gregory's account of
Munderic's destruction is any kind of proof of a familial tie. Certainly if
Gregory heard the story from his uncle Gallus there would be no suggestion
in that of a tie to Munderic on Gregory's mother side. But the placement
and detail of the account together with Gregory's not entirely negative view
of Munderic are in no way inconsistent with such an understanding.
I would also suggest that in view of Gregory's harrowing experience at the
hands of Fredegund and Bishop Bertram of Bordeaux there was always the
severe danger that his manuscript would be confiscated. I believe that he
walked a careful line between getting down the sometimes damning records
that he wanted preserved and not saying so much as would certainly get he or
his sources and informants accused of treason. There is a little bit of the
sense of Procopius and the Secret History here except for the likelihood
that Gregory neve has the luxury to give free reign to his feelings as
Procopius did. Gregory was clearly far more involved in the service of
Kings Chilperic, Guntram and Childebert II than he makes clear. One might
even suspct that given the different parties he had to support in turn and
the different policies he had to help engineer for different Kings,
Gregory's avoidance of the fate of Bishop Aegidius was fortuitious. For
that reason I think he probably equivocates a great deal in his histories.
It is just often difficult after so many centuries to see where in his
history he does so and for what reasons.
Best Regards
Grady Loy
"marshall kirk" <mkk...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1c74a9e5.04040...@posting.google.com...
marshall kirk
Thorpe's Gregory *is* rather delightful, isn't it? I used it for
years as bedtime reading. For some reason, it simultaneously
horripilates and induces chuckles. (Which may have something to do
with my nightmares.) Its only real failing, IMO, is that it doesn't
have a parallel Latin text -- tho' that's not to be expected in a
Penguin edition. Is there a Loeb Library version?
Your analysis is thoughtful, and I think I agree with all of it.
Carrying on the story as you have *does* display the subtle sympathy
-- or at any rate ambiguity -- with which Gregory views Munderic, as
he does Gundovald. Your discussion is essentially what mine would be,
if written out in full, as to why (a) it seemed that Munderic probably
*was* of royal blood, and (b) I had the nagging sense that *perhaps*
Gregory was equivocating. (Even the remark about his followers being
gullible, it seems, could refer either to their belief in Munderic's
royalty, or in his assurance that if they followed him, the adventure
would turn out well.) Frankly (oh, what an awful pun!), I've always
had much the same feeling about the Gundovald story -- that he *was* a
Merovingian, or that Gregory may have thought so. I've often wondered
became of *his* sons (who, like Munderic's, go unnamed); I seem to
recall that they're last heard of in Spain, or some such place, and
are of marriageable age.
You're right, of course, that Gregory often attributes a moral failing
to someone slated to come to a "wretched end." (And so many do!) The
whole question of Gregory's sympathies (and otherwise) is a fertile
one. So is his tendency to drag in passages from the Bible --
sometimes, I've felt, quite out of context, and apparently selected
precisely because, taken out of context, they might seem to support
his immediate point.
Much of this question hinges on the circumstances under which
Gregory's manuscript was written, and the date at which, say, Marius
used it as a source for his own. Thorpe says, tho' I don't know if
this is a widely held position, that Marius wrote his "arid" chronicle
near the end of his life (and thus ~590). He also suggests that
Gregory wrote the _HF_ piece by piece, as events passed by and he
found a free hour or two, but also that he went back and interpolated
material. (And, I'm fairly sure, changed some of the already written
text, as very occasonally he intimates something that's *going* to
happen, or that he's going to discuss, later. He doesn't always
follow thru, tho'.) I know nothing of the state of this scholarly
question (tho' there almost certainly is one), so I've tended to
assume that Gregory wasn't writing for immediate dissemination, but as
a hobby. I must admit that I had Procopius' _Anecdota_ in mind ... I
can't begin to imagine what Justinian would have done to P. had a
smidgen of the content of that work come to his ears. Perhaps, after
all, Gregory's occasionally evasive or ambiguous manner *does*
indicate that the work was known, or that he feared it might become
known.
I've long supposed, as you apparently do, that the great detail with
which Gregory tells some of the tales that precede his own lifetime
may indicate that they were, in part, 'family stories,' and the
grouping often indicates that as well.
Google's about to time me out, so ... thank you again for a very
interesting reply!
--mk
???????? <grad...@r9.dion.ne.jp> wrote in message news:<MqGbc.243$G14...@news1.dion.ne.jp>...
DnhM...@aol.com
"Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne"?
Thanks,
Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, 03 April, 2004 13:11
Subject: Re: Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-Parthois b. ca. 500, killed 532
> jef...@iquest.net wrote:
>
> > So, in Prof. Kelley's view, is there still a viable (at least in theory)
> > possible Roman DFA for Charlemagne via a Gallo-Roman link?
>
The line that your (Jeffery's) full text implied replaced the ancestry of
Gundulf and Baudegisl merely shifted it.
> Prof. Kelley still believes in a descent from Flavius Afranius Syagrius to
> Charlemagne, which he explored in his article in volume 101 (1947) of the
New
> England Historical and Genealogical Register, outlining two different
> possible descents, based on various different identifications.
The last that I discussed it with him, (not as recently as you, Don), he
still stood by it; and I should think that he CERTAINLY would have mentioned
it to me had he shifted or changed his opinion.
> In relatively
> recent times, he has told me that he concurs with the line from Syagrius
to
> Charlemagne given in Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne by Settipani.
Whic means that the descenthas been suplemented, rather than replaced, or
dispalced.
> For an
> exploration of Syagrius's possible Roman (and non-Roman) ancestry, see
> Settipani's Continuité Gentilice.
>
> Prof. Kelley also still believes in Charlemagne's descent from the Anicii
via
> Ruricius or a close relative of Ruricius. This issue has been discussed
in
> this newsgroup, in a book chapter by Ford Mommaerts and Prof. Kelley
(which I
> believe also proposes an additional Roman connection, besides the Anicii,
for
> Ruricius),
Inded it does. It is from the Caeionii, second in prestige only to the
Anicii. If I may wax a little poëtical,
This is the city eternal -
Seven hills of imperial sod,
Where Caeonii speak only to Anicii,
And Anicii speak only to God
> and by Settipani.
>
> Prof. Kelley has done some work on other possible Roman connections, via
> Gaul, but this has not been published.
Yet
>
> -- Don Stone
Thanks, Don, for sharing.
Don't imminatize the eschaton!
Ford
Don Stone
> Can anyone advise on how to access M. Settipani's "Continuité Gentilice" and
> "Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne"?
For the former: http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/occpub.stm
I believe the latter is out of print.
-- Don Stone
Jeffery A. Duvall
half-hour, so I apologize for my tardiness in responding. Thanks for
addressing my question and for all the interesting information.
Jeff Duvall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-Parthois b. ca. 500, killed 532
> jef...@iquest.net wrote:
>
> > So, in Prof. Kelley's view, is there still a viable (at least in theory)
> > possible Roman DFA for Charlemagne via a Gallo-Roman link?
>
> Prof. Kelley still believes in a descent from Flavius Afranius Syagrius to
> Charlemagne, which he explored in his article in volume 101 (1947) of the
New
> England Historical and Genealogical Register, outlining two different
> possible descents, based on various different identifications. In
relatively
> recent times, he has told me that he concurs with the line from Syagrius
to
> Charlemagne given in Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne by Settipani. For an
Jeffery A. Duvall
Is this link to the Caeionii the same as that which appeared in your jointly
authored chapter (titled "The Anicii of Gaul and Rome") in Drinkwater's
*Fifth-century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?* (Cambridge University Press,
1991)? Or are the Caeionii different from the Ceionii which I'm guessing is
the plural for the name as it appears in that chapter (i.e. Ceionius)?
Thanks, by the way, for all the help in sorting through all this material.
It's quite fascinating.
Jeff Duvall
DnhM...@aol.com
Lee Denham