Arnulf of Metz is the earliest documented male line ancestor of Charlemagne.. In the late 90s, http://erwan.gil.free.fr/modules/freepages/pharaons/ramses_II.pdf, which discussed a descent from Antiquity through the Armenian route also mentioned an alternate descent from Antiquity for Arnulf of Metz from Antiochus II of Syria through Galatian and Roman nobility
"Generation 1 1. St. Arnulf of Metz, maiordomus in the kingdom of Austrasia
(c.582–16.8.640). He married Dode (–?–), daughter of Arnold of Schelde,
after 611.
Generation 2 2. Bodogisel, ambassador to Byzantium in 589.
Generation 3 4. Mummolin, maiordomus in 566 in Neustria.
Generation 4 9. NN. married to Munderic.
Generation 5 19. Artemie, married in 513to Florentinus, bishop of Geneve.
Generation 6 38. Rustique, bishop of Lyon between 494 and 501
Generation 7 76. Rurice de Limoges, bishop of Limoges c. 485-507
Generation 8 152. NN.
Generation 9 304. Adelphius.
Generation 10 609. Anicia, married to Pontius.
Generation 11 1219. Turrenia Anicia Iuliana, married to Quintus Clodius
Hermogenianus Olybrius, consul in 379.
Generation 12 2438. Anicius Auchenius Bassus, prefect in 382 in Rome, mar￾ried to Turrenia Honorata.
Generation 13 4876. Amnius Manius Cæsonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus
Honorius, consul in 334.
Generation 14 9752. Amnius Anicius Iulianus, consul in 322.
Generation 15 19504. Sextus Anicius Faustus, consul in 298.
Generation 16 39009. Asinia Iuliana Nichomacha, married to Quintus Ani￾cius Faustus.
Generation 17 78018. Caius Asinius Nicomachus Iulianus, proconsul in Asia
circa 250.
Generation 18 15603. Caius Asinius Quadratus Protimus, proconsul in A￾khaia circa 220.Generation 19 312072. Caius Asinius Quadratus, historian, c. 200.
Generation 20 624144. Caius Iulius Asinius Quadratus.

Generation 21 1248288. Caius Iulius Quadratus Bassus, consul in 105, mar￾ried to Asinia Marcella.
Generation 22 2496576. Caius Iulius Bassus, proconsul in Bithynia, 98.
Generation 23 4993152. Caius Iulius Severus, nobleman from Akmoneia in
Galatia.
Generation 24 9986304. Artemidoros, nobleman in Galatia.
Generation 25 19972608. Amyntas, tetrarcus of Trocmes.
Generation 26 39945217. NN., married to Brogitarix, king of Galatia c. 63–50
b.C.
Generation 27 79890435. Berenike, married to Deiotarix I, king of Galatia,
63–41 b.C.
Generation 28 159780871. NN. (daughter).
Generation 29 319561742. Attalos Philometor III, king of Pergamon, 138–133
b.C.
Generation 30 639123485. Stratonike of Kappadokia, married to Eumenes,
king of Pergamon, 197–159 b.C.
Generation 31 1278246970. Ariarathes IV Eusebes Philopator, king of Cap￾padokia, 220–163b.C.
Generation 32 2556493941. Stratonike, married to Ariarathes III.
Generation 33 5112987882. Antiochos II Theos I, king of Syria, 261–246 b.C.,
b. 290 b.C"
What do you think of this possible descent from Antiquity? It bypasses the problems of the Armenian route but certainly has its own problems.

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 6:50:22 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Arnulf of Metz is the earliest documented male line ancestor of Charlemagne. In the late 90s, http://erwan.gil.free.fr/modules/freepages/pharaons/ramses_II.pdf, which discussed a descent from Antiquity through the Armenian route also mentioned an alternate descent from Antiquity for Arnulf of Metz from Antiochus II of Syria through Galatian and Roman nobility
> "Generation 1 1. St. Arnulf of Metz, maiordomus in the kingdom of Austrasia
> (c.582–16.8.640). He married Dode (–?–), daughter of Arnold of Schelde,
> after 611.
> Generation 2 2. Bodogisel, ambassador to Byzantium in 589.
> Generation 3 4. Mummolin, maiordomus in 566 in Neustria.
> Generation 4 9. NN. married to Munderic.
> Generation 5 19. Artemie, married in 513to Florentinus, bishop of Geneve.
> Generation 6 38. Rustique, bishop of Lyon between 494 and 501
> Generation 7 76. Rurice de Limoges, bishop of Limoges c. 485-507
> Generation 8 152. NN.
> Generation 9 304. Adelphius.
> Generation 10 609. Anicia, married to Pontius.
> Generation 11 1219. Turrenia Anicia Iuliana, married to Quintus Clodius
> Hermogenianus Olybrius, consul in 379.
> Generation 12 2438. Anicius Auchenius Bassus, prefect in 382 in Rome, mar�ried to Turrenia Honorata.
> Generation 13 4876. Amnius Manius Cæsonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus
> Honorius, consul in 334.
> Generation 14 9752. Amnius Anicius Iulianus, consul in 322.
> Generation 15 19504. Sextus Anicius Faustus, consul in 298.
> Generation 16 39009. Asinia Iuliana Nichomacha, married to Quintus Ani�cius Faustus.
> Generation 17 78018. Caius Asinius Nicomachus Iulianus, proconsul in Asia
> circa 250.
> Generation 18 15603. Caius Asinius Quadratus Protimus, proconsul in A�khaia circa 220.Generation 19 312072. Caius Asinius Quadratus, historian, c. 200.
> Generation 20 624144. Caius Iulius Asinius Quadratus.
>
> Generation 21 1248288. Caius Iulius Quadratus Bassus, consul in 105, mar�ried to Asinia Marcella.
> Generation 22 2496576. Caius Iulius Bassus, proconsul in Bithynia, 98.
> Generation 23 4993152. Caius Iulius Severus, nobleman from Akmoneia in
> Galatia.
> Generation 24 9986304. Artemidoros, nobleman in Galatia.
> Generation 25 19972608. Amyntas, tetrarcus of Trocmes.
> Generation 26 39945217. NN., married to Brogitarix, king of Galatia c. 63–50
> b.C.
> Generation 27 79890435. Berenike, married to Deiotarix I, king of Galatia,
> 63–41 b.C.
> Generation 28 159780871. NN. (daughter).
> Generation 29 319561742. Attalos Philometor III, king of Pergamon, 138–133
> b.C.
> Generation 30 639123485. Stratonike of Kappadokia, married to Eumenes,
> king of Pergamon, 197–159 b.C.
> Generation 31 1278246970. Ariarathes IV Eusebes Philopator, king of Cap�padokia, 220–163b.C.
> Generation 32 2556493941. Stratonike, married to Ariarathes III.
> Generation 33 5112987882. Antiochos II Theos I, king of Syria, 261–246 b.C.,
> b. 290 b.C"
> What do you think of this possible descent from Antiquity? It bypasses the problems of the Armenian route but certainly has its own problems.

I think generations 2 through 9 are going to require evidence that probably doesn't exist. (And I wouldn't bet on generation 10, either.)

Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.

For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"

Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.

It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?

Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here

http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf

Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
>
> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
>
> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
>
> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
>
> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
>
> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>
> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.

Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >
> > For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
> >
> > Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >
> > It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >
> > Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >
> > http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >
> > Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.

I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.

Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.

On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
>>>
>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
>>>
>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
>>>
>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
>>>
>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
>>>
>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>>>
>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
>
> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
>
> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.

It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.

The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
after they had died.

As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:24:40 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >>>
> >>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
> >>>
> >>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >>>
> >>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >>>
> >>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >>>
> >>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> >> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
> >
> > I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
> >
> > Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
>
> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
> after they had died.

is this the same source that names Bodogisel as St.Arnulfs father?

Is this source preferred over Paul the deacon who wrote about
the bishops of Metz much earlier in the late 8th? Not that I'm saying
his version is the correct one, cos all the stories about St.Arnulfs
origins have problems, but according to the net Gundulf doesnt
appear in the bishops lists for Tongres.

it seems well accepted that Ansegisel was St.Arnulf's son, but I
notice that in many sources for this, it is spelt Anchisus, the name
of the father of Aeneas. I can see that Ansegis-Anchisus are similar,
so is Ansegisel not a frankish name but a take on a trojan hero?
There was a legend that the Franks were descended from the trojans,
and some bishops are called Aeneas and even Dido.

Mike

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >>>
> >>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
> >>>
> >>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >>>
> >>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >>>
> >>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >>>
> >>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> >> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
> >
> > I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
> >
> > Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
>
> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
> after they had died.
>
> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.

My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
Not whether Munderic had any children.

On 13-Jul-22 3:37 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
>>>>>
>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
>>>
>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
>>>
>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
>>
>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
>> after they had died.
>>
>> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
>> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
>> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
>> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> https://www.avg.com
>
> I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.
>
> My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
> Not whether Munderic had any children.

I was replying to your top-quoted statement "There is apparently no
evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was
connected to the family of Gregory of Tours". I don't think Gregory's
grand-uncle Gundulf can be safely identified with the namesake bishop of
Tongeren, but many do.

When a thread consists of a welter of brief opinions, it is easier to
reply to the latest one encompassing earlier postings rather than plod
through several. SGM readers are not all laser-focused on the last thing
you said.

Peter Stewart

On 13-Jul-22 12:09 AM, mike davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:24:40 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
>>>>>
>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
>>>
>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
>>>
>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
>>
>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
>> after they had died.
>
> is this the same source that names Bodogisel as St.Arnulfs father?

No, the earliest form of the Bodegisel paternity is a genealogy from
Saint-Wandrille abbey in which the name occurs as 'Buotgisus', here
(III, line 24) https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_13/index.htm#page/246/mode/1up.

> Is this source preferred over Paul the deacon who wrote about
> the bishops of Metz much earlier in the late 8th? Not that I'm saying
> his version is the correct one, cos all the stories about St.Arnulfs
> origins have problems, but according to the net Gundulf doesnt
> appear in the bishops lists for Tongres.

Some have doubted the existence of St Gundulf, others that he should be
identified with the grand-uncle of Gregory of Tours.

> it seems well accepted that Ansegisel was St.Arnulf's son, but I
> notice that in many sources for this, it is spelt Anchisus, the name
> of the father of Aeneas. I can see that Ansegis-Anchisus are similar,
> so is Ansegisel not a frankish name but a take on a trojan hero?
> There was a legend that the Franks were descended from the trojans,
> and some bishops are called Aeneas and even Dido.

This was discussed by Gerhard Lubich in 'Die Namen Ansegis(el),
Anschis(us) und Anchises im Kontext der Karolingergenealogien und der
fränkischen Geschichtsschreibung' (2014), available here:
https://www.namenkundliche-informationen.de/baende/download/13443/id13442/.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:27:27 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 13-Jul-22 12:09 AM, mike davis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:24:40 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> >>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
> >>>
> >>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
> >>>
> >>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
> >> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
> >> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
> >>
> >> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
> >> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
> >> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
> >> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
> >> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
> >> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
> >> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
> >> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
> >> after they had died.
> >
> > is this the same source that names Bodogisel as St.Arnulfs father?
> No, the earliest form of the Bodegisel paternity is a genealogy from
> Saint-Wandrille abbey in which the name occurs as 'Buotgisus', here
> (III, line 24) https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_13/index.htm#page/246/mode/1up.

AIUI Depoin favoured Bodegisel version becos Arnulf was a Frank, and a descent from
Munderic gave the Carolingians a link to the former Ripuarian Frankish kings. I think
Charlemagnes 'personal law' was the Ripuarian Code. Theres no proof to this descent,
but at least its a coherent argument, but giving Munderic gallo roman parents
destroys the point of the whole theory.

I notice that on the same page as the link is the start of the more famous version which
on p247 has:

Clothar [II] begat Dagobert [I] & Blithild
Bilichild begat Arnald with Ansbert illustrious man
Arnald begat Arnulf later Bp of Metz
Arnulf begat Flodulf, Walchisus & Ansegis
Ansegis begat lord Pippin with Begga daughter of Pippin the Mayor

This seems a short version of the longer 2 genealogies found on p245.
I'm not sure from the intro becos its all in latin, exactly which text they
are referring to, but 1 is called the Commemoratio Karoli dated c813 [or maybe
a bit later under Louis the Pious] and hailing from Wissembourg in Alsace, I think,
but the oldest text is from St Gall. The other is the longer Commemoratio Arnulfi,
presumably later but the longer version is a fabrication, Pertz and Bonnell agree,
from Fontenelle, St.Wandrille, well I think it says that in the footnotes.

I notice they all make Walchisus the father of Wandregisel [St.Wandrille]
into another son of St.Arnulf, whereas I think all his vita just say 2 sons..
So do they think the origin was Fontenelle becos of the Walchisus addition
or is there some other reason?

However I notice they all mispell Clodulf of Metz with an F. Is this another
reason they think that these all come from the same source? It seems a
strange error to make as Clodulf was quite well known to the carolingian
writers I would have thought.

'Flodulf' is said to be the father of Martin sometimes called Duke of Laon on
the net who was Pippin IIs ally at Lucofao and it says was murdered at the
palace of Ecry by Mayor Ebroin.

I believe that becos 1 of these genealogies gives Ansbert a son called Firminius,
Settipani or someone else connects this 'senatorial family' with that of Tonnantius
Ferreolus [d479] who was a real person in history.

> > Is this source preferred over Paul the deacon who wrote about
> > the bishops of Metz much earlier in the late 8th? Not that I'm saying
> > his version is the correct one, cos all the stories about St.Arnulfs
> > origins have problems, but according to the net Gundulf doesnt
> > appear in the bishops lists for Tongres.
> Some have doubted the existence of St Gundulf, others that he should be
> identified with the grand-uncle of Gregory of Tours.
> > it seems well accepted that Ansegisel was St.Arnulf's son, but I
> > notice that in many sources for this, it is spelt Anchisus, the name
> > of the father of Aeneas. I can see that Ansegis-Anchisus are similar,
> > so is Ansegisel not a frankish name but a take on a trojan hero?
> > There was a legend that the Franks were descended from the trojans,
> > and some bishops are called Aeneas and even Dido.
> This was discussed by Gerhard Lubich in 'Die Namen Ansegis(el),
> Anschis(us) und Anchises im Kontext der Karolingergenealogien und der
> fränkischen Geschichtsschreibung' (2014), available here:
> https://www.namenkundliche-informationen.de/baende/download/13443/id13442/.
> Peter Stewart
>
I only understood the abstract:

The first Carolingian genealogy Commemoratio Karoli names one Anschisus
as father of Pepin (“of Herstal”), thus connecting the Carolingians with the antique
myth of Troy – Aeneas’ father was named Anschises and Rome. In a later version
of the same genealogy, Commemoratio Arnulfi, this same person is mentioned with his
germanic spelling Ansegis(el) as the son of Arnulf of Metz, with whom the
genealogy begins, placing the family in the context of the Frankish aristocracy.
The article focuses on these mechanisms as well as on their relations to Carolingian
self-perception and their perception in 9th century historiography.]

It seems clear though that these genealogies and other evidence in texts of a similar
nature should be regarded as pieces of literature and not historical evidence, at least
I think thats what the author says or someone called Oexle. But the fact alone that
the original authors could take a germanic name Ansegisel and conjure up a
Trojan connection shows their intentions, if I'm not being too cynical.

Mike

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 1:08:29 PM UTC+1, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:27:27 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > On 13-Jul-22 12:09 AM, mike davis wrote:
> > This was discussed by Gerhard Lubich in 'Die Namen Ansegis(el),
> > Anschis(us) und Anchises im Kontext der Karolingergenealogien und der
> > fränkischen Geschichtsschreibung' (2014), available here:
> > https://www.namenkundliche-informationen.de/baende/download/13443/id13442/.
> > Peter Stewart
> >
> I only understood the abstract:
>
i should have made this clear i was quoting this section
> The first Carolingian genealogy Commemoratio Karoli names one Anschisus
> as father of Pepin (“of Herstal”), thus connecting the Carolingians with the antique
> myth of Troy – Aeneas’ father was named Anschises and Rome. In a later version
> of the same genealogy, Commemoratio Arnulfi, this same person is mentioned with his
> germanic spelling Ansegis(el) as the son of Arnulf of Metz, with whom the
> genealogy begins, placing the family in the context of the Frankish aristocracy.
> The article focuses on these mechanisms as well as on their relations to Carolingian
> self-perception and their perception in 9th century historiography.]

quote ends
>
> It seems clear though that these genealogies and other evidence in texts of a similar
> nature should be regarded as pieces of literature and not historical evidence, at least
> I think thats what the author says or someone called Oexle. But the fact alone that
> the original authors could take a germanic name Ansegisel and conjure up a
> Trojan connection shows their intentions, if I'm not being too cynical.
>
> Mike

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 13-Jul-22 3:37 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> >>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
> >>>
> >>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
> >>>
> >>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
> >> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
> >> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
> >>
> >> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
> >> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
> >> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
> >> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
> >> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
> >> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
> >> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
> >> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
> >> after they had died.
> >>
> >> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
> >> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
> >> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
> >> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >> https://www.avg.com
> >
> > I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.
> >
> > My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
> > Not whether Munderic had any children.
> I was replying to your top-quoted statement "There is apparently no
> evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was
> connected to the family of Gregory of Tours". I don't think Gregory's
> grand-uncle Gundulf can be safely identified with the namesake bishop of
> Tongeren, but many do.
>
> When a thread consists of a welter of brief opinions, it is easier to
> reply to the latest one encompassing earlier postings rather than plod
> through several. SGM readers are not all laser-focused on the last thing
> you said.
>
> Peter Stewart

When you say "grand-uncle...."
This reconstruction

http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf

puts St Gundulf as the son of Munderic, and cannot possibly be a grand-uncle to Gregory who lived before him

Did you mean to say that some people say that St Gundulf was the nephew to Gregory?
And therefore the only possibility is that Munderic married Gregory's sister?
That?

On 14-Jul-22 12:27 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 13-Jul-22 3:37 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
>>>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
>>>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
>>>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
>>>>
>>>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
>>>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
>>>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
>>>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
>>>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
>>>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
>>>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
>>>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
>>>> after they had died.
>>>>
>>>> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
>>>> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
>>>> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
>>>> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>> https://www.avg.com
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.
>>>
>>> My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
>>> Not whether Munderic had any children.
>> I was replying to your top-quoted statement "There is apparently no
>> evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was
>> connected to the family of Gregory of Tours". I don't think Gregory's
>> grand-uncle Gundulf can be safely identified with the namesake bishop of
>> Tongeren, but many do.
>>
>> When a thread consists of a welter of brief opinions, it is easier to
>> reply to the latest one encompassing earlier postings rather than plod
>> through several. SGM readers are not all laser-focused on the last thing
>> you said.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> When you say "grand-uncle...."
> This reconstruction
>
> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>
> puts St Gundulf as the son of Munderic, and cannot possibly be a grand-uncle to Gregory who lived before him
>
> Did you mean to say that some people say that St Gundulf was the nephew to Gregory?
> And therefore the only possibility is that Munderic married Gregory's sister?
> That?

No, I meant what I wrote.

For someone who ticks off posters for linking to websites without
specifics, citing a turgid screed by David Kelley as if it has enough
value to take up readers' time is rather dicey. You do realise that the
helpful materials for medieval genealogy are diplomatic, narrative and
other primary sources rather than scatter-brained modern opinions -
don't you?

Last week I attended the funeral of a cousin whose aunt had been present
at her 90th birthday party some years ago: generations do not follow
strict chronological rules, of course, and even by Kelley's datings it
is possible for St Gundulf (whose birth he placed ca 524) to have been
the grand-uncle of Gregory (who was born ca 538, not exactly the latter
living before the former by my rudimentary arithmetic). How is it
plausible to you that Gregory's sister was married to a man said to have
been murdered ca 532?

Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 14-Jul-22 12:27 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On 13-Jul-22 3:37 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria..[citation needed]"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> >>>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
> >>>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
> >>>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
> >>>>
> >>>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
> >>>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
> >>>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
> >>>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
> >>>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
> >>>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
> >>>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
> >>>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
> >>>> after they had died.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
> >>>> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
> >>>> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
> >>>> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Stewart
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>>> https://www.avg.com
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.
> >>>
> >>> My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
> >>> Not whether Munderic had any children.
> >> I was replying to your top-quoted statement "There is apparently no
> >> evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was
> >> connected to the family of Gregory of Tours". I don't think Gregory's
> >> grand-uncle Gundulf can be safely identified with the namesake bishop of
> >> Tongeren, but many do.
> >>
> >> When a thread consists of a welter of brief opinions, it is easier to
> >> reply to the latest one encompassing earlier postings rather than plod
> >> through several. SGM readers are not all laser-focused on the last thing
> >> you said.
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> >
> > When you say "grand-uncle...."
> > This reconstruction
> >
> > http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >
> > puts St Gundulf as the son of Munderic, and cannot possibly be a grand-uncle to Gregory who lived before him
> >
> > Did you mean to say that some people say that St Gundulf was the nephew to Gregory?
> > And therefore the only possibility is that Munderic married Gregory's sister?
> > That?
> No, I meant what I wrote.
>
> For someone who ticks off posters for linking to websites without
> specifics, citing a turgid screed by David Kelley as if it has enough
> value to take up readers' time is rather dicey. You do realise that the
> helpful materials for medieval genealogy are diplomatic, narrative and
> other primary sources rather than scatter-brained modern opinions -
> don't you?
>
> Last week I attended the funeral of a cousin whose aunt had been present
> at her 90th birthday party some years ago: generations do not follow
> strict chronological rules, of course, and even by Kelley's datings it
> is possible for St Gundulf (whose birth he placed ca 524) to have been
> the grand-uncle of Gregory (who was born ca 538, not exactly the latter
> living before the former by my rudimentary arithmetic). How is it
> plausible to you that Gregory's sister was married to a man said to have
> been murdered ca 532?
>
> Peter Stewart

I never said it was plausible.
My own argument is that if the man was Gregory's own brother in law he would certainly have known it and stated it when discussing Munderic. yet he didn't

I'm not posting David Kelley's work because I think it's true or plausible
Only that it exists, discusses this point, and has a chronological table, even if mostly guesswork
So it's a useful item, even if it's entirely incorrect

On 14-Jul-22 9:29 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 14-Jul-22 12:27 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> On 13-Jul-22 3:37 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>>>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
>>>>>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
>>>>>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
>>>>>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
>>>>>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
>>>>>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
>>>>>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
>>>>>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
>>>>>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
>>>>>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
>>>>>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
>>>>>> after they had died.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
>>>>>> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
>>>>>> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
>>>>>> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>>>> https://www.avg.com
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
>>>>> Not whether Munderic had any children.
>>>> I was replying to your top-quoted statement "There is apparently no
>>>> evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was
>>>> connected to the family of Gregory of Tours". I don't think Gregory's
>>>> grand-uncle Gundulf can be safely identified with the namesake bishop of
>>>> Tongeren, but many do.
>>>>
>>>> When a thread consists of a welter of brief opinions, it is easier to
>>>> reply to the latest one encompassing earlier postings rather than plod
>>>> through several. SGM readers are not all laser-focused on the last thing
>>>> you said.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>
>>> When you say "grand-uncle...."
>>> This reconstruction
>>>
>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>>>
>>> puts St Gundulf as the son of Munderic, and cannot possibly be a grand-uncle to Gregory who lived before him
>>>
>>> Did you mean to say that some people say that St Gundulf was the nephew to Gregory?
>>> And therefore the only possibility is that Munderic married Gregory's sister?
>>> That?
>> No, I meant what I wrote.
>>
>> For someone who ticks off posters for linking to websites without
>> specifics, citing a turgid screed by David Kelley as if it has enough
>> value to take up readers' time is rather dicey. You do realise that the
>> helpful materials for medieval genealogy are diplomatic, narrative and
>> other primary sources rather than scatter-brained modern opinions -
>> don't you?
>>
>> Last week I attended the funeral of a cousin whose aunt had been present
>> at her 90th birthday party some years ago: generations do not follow
>> strict chronological rules, of course, and even by Kelley's datings it
>> is possible for St Gundulf (whose birth he placed ca 524) to have been
>> the grand-uncle of Gregory (who was born ca 538, not exactly the latter
>> living before the former by my rudimentary arithmetic). How is it
>> plausible to you that Gregory's sister was married to a man said to have
>> been murdered ca 532?
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> I never said it was plausible.
> My own argument is that if the man was Gregory's own brother in law he would certainly have known it and stated it when discussing Munderic. yet he didn't

So when you write "And therefore the only possibility is ..." we are not
to take this as indicating you consider the thing plausible? How then
are we to make worthwhile sense of anything you post?

> I'm not posting David Kelley's work because I think it's true or plausible
> Only that it exists, discusses this point, and has a chronological table, even if mostly guesswork
> So it's a useful item, even if it's entirely incorrect

A vast number of websites that you dismiss outright do just as much. An
item is not useful just because it is available if the object is getting
at what can be proved rather than merely what can be supposed.

And anyway, if Kelley's chronology is thought useful why ignore it to
regard Gregory as living before Gundulf?

If you took a little more time and trouble - as you admonish others for
not doing - before posting you may be read with more patient interest by
SGM participants.

Peter Stewart

On 13-Jul-22 10:08 PM, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:27:27 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 13-Jul-22 12:09 AM, mike davis wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:24:40 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
>>>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
>>>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
>>>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
>>>>
>>>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
>>>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
>>>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
>>>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
>>>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
>>>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
>>>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
>>>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
>>>> after they had died.
>>>
>>> is this the same source that names Bodogisel as St.Arnulfs father?
>> No, the earliest form of the Bodegisel paternity is a genealogy from
>> Saint-Wandrille abbey in which the name occurs as 'Buotgisus', here
>> (III, line 24) https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_13/index.htm#page/246/mode/1up.
>
> AIUI Depoin favoured Bodegisel version becos Arnulf was a Frank, and a descent from
> Munderic gave the Carolingians a link to the former Ripuarian Frankish kings. I think
> Charlemagnes 'personal law' was the Ripuarian Code. Theres no proof to this descent,
> but at least its a coherent argument, but giving Munderic gallo roman parents
> destroys the point of the whole theory.
>
> I notice that on the same page as the link is the start of the more famous version which
> on p247 has:
>
> Clothar [II] begat Dagobert [I] & Blithild
> Bilichild begat Arnald with Ansbert illustrious man
> Arnald begat Arnulf later Bp of Metz
> Arnulf begat Flodulf, Walchisus & Ansegis
> Ansegis begat lord Pippin with Begga daughter of Pippin the Mayor
>
> This seems a short version of the longer 2 genealogies found on p245.
> I'm not sure from the intro becos its all in latin, exactly which text they
> are referring to, but 1 is called the Commemoratio Karoli dated c813 [or maybe
> a bit later under Louis the Pious] and hailing from Wissembourg in Alsace, I think,
> but the oldest text is from St Gall. The other is the longer Commemoratio Arnulfi,
> presumably later but the longer version is a fabrication, Pertz and Bonnell agree,
> from Fontenelle, St.Wandrille, well I think it says that in the footnotes.
>
> I notice they all make Walchisus the father of Wandregisel [St.Wandrille]
> into another son of St.Arnulf, whereas I think all his vita just say 2 sons.
> So do they think the origin was Fontenelle becos of the Walchisus addition
> or is there some other reason?
>
> However I notice they all mispell Clodulf of Metz with an F. Is this another
> reason they think that these all come from the same source? It seems a
> strange error to make as Clodulf was quite well known to the carolingian
> writers I would have thought.
>
> 'Flodulf' is said to be the father of Martin sometimes called Duke of Laon on
> the net who was Pippin IIs ally at Lucofao and it says was murdered at the
> palace of Ecry by Mayor Ebroin.
>
> I believe that becos 1 of these genealogies gives Ansbert a son called Firminius,
> Settipani or someone else connects this 'senatorial family' with that of Tonnantius
> Ferreolus [d479] who was a real person in history.

You may find useful discussion of some points raised here, and much
else, in Richard Gerberding's _The rise of the Carolingians and the
'Liber historiae Francorum'_ (Oxford, 1987) as well as in his 1977
University of Manitoba MA thesis, 'The Arnulfings before 687: a study of
the house of Pepin in the seventh century'
(https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/xmlui/handle/1993/14025).

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 14-Jul-22 10:06 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> You may find useful discussion of some points raised here, and much
> else, in Richard Gerberding's _The rise of the Carolingians and the
> 'Liber historiae Francorum'_ (Oxford, 1987) as well as in his 1977
> University of Manitoba MA thesis, 'The Arnulfings before 687: a study of
> the house of Pepin in the seventh century'
> (https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/xmlui/handle/1993/14025).

In case you find the 1987 book hard to get, you can download
Gerberding's 1983 Oxford DPhil thesis _A Critical Study of the ‘Liber
historiae Francorum'_ here:
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b62a7080-8344-42a2-8234-6b3f94435429.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 4:54:20 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 14-Jul-22 9:29 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On 14-Jul-22 12:27 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>>> On 13-Jul-22 3:37 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> >>>>>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
> >>>>>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
> >>>>>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
> >>>>>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
> >>>>>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
> >>>>>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
> >>>>>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
> >>>>>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
> >>>>>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
> >>>>>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
> >>>>>> after they had died.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
> >>>>>> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
> >>>>>> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
> >>>>>> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Peter Stewart
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>>>>> https://www.avg.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
> >>>>> Not whether Munderic had any children.
> >>>> I was replying to your top-quoted statement "There is apparently no
> >>>> evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was
> >>>> connected to the family of Gregory of Tours". I don't think Gregory's
> >>>> grand-uncle Gundulf can be safely identified with the namesake bishop of
> >>>> Tongeren, but many do.
> >>>>
> >>>> When a thread consists of a welter of brief opinions, it is easier to
> >>>> reply to the latest one encompassing earlier postings rather than plod
> >>>> through several. SGM readers are not all laser-focused on the last thing
> >>>> you said.
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Stewart
> >>>
> >>> When you say "grand-uncle...."
> >>> This reconstruction
> >>>
> >>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>
> >>> puts St Gundulf as the son of Munderic, and cannot possibly be a grand-uncle to Gregory who lived before him
> >>>
> >>> Did you mean to say that some people say that St Gundulf was the nephew to Gregory?
> >>> And therefore the only possibility is that Munderic married Gregory's sister?
> >>> That?
> >> No, I meant what I wrote.
> >>
> >> For someone who ticks off posters for linking to websites without
> >> specifics, citing a turgid screed by David Kelley as if it has enough
> >> value to take up readers' time is rather dicey. You do realise that the
> >> helpful materials for medieval genealogy are diplomatic, narrative and
> >> other primary sources rather than scatter-brained modern opinions -
> >> don't you?
> >>
> >> Last week I attended the funeral of a cousin whose aunt had been present
> >> at her 90th birthday party some years ago: generations do not follow
> >> strict chronological rules, of course, and even by Kelley's datings it
> >> is possible for St Gundulf (whose birth he placed ca 524) to have been
> >> the grand-uncle of Gregory (who was born ca 538, not exactly the latter
> >> living before the former by my rudimentary arithmetic). How is it
> >> plausible to you that Gregory's sister was married to a man said to have
> >> been murdered ca 532?
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> >
> > I never said it was plausible.
> > My own argument is that if the man was Gregory's own brother in law he would certainly have known it and stated it when discussing Munderic. yet he didn't
> So when you write "And therefore the only possibility is ..." we are not
> to take this as indicating you consider the thing plausible? How then
> are we to make worthwhile sense of anything you post?
> > I'm not posting David Kelley's work because I think it's true or plausible
> > Only that it exists, discusses this point, and has a chronological table, even if mostly guesswork
> > So it's a useful item, even if it's entirely incorrect
> A vast number of websites that you dismiss outright do just as much. An
> item is not useful just because it is available if the object is getting
> at what can be proved rather than merely what can be supposed.
>
> And anyway, if Kelley's chronology is thought useful why ignore it to
> regard Gregory as living before Gundulf?
>
> If you took a little more time and trouble - as you admonish others for
> not doing - before posting you may be read with more patient interest by
> SGM participants.
>
> Peter Stewart

On 13-Jul-22 10:08 PM, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:27:27 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

>>> Is this source preferred over Paul the deacon who wrote about
>>> the bishops of Metz much earlier in the late 8th? Not that I'm saying
>>> his version is the correct one, cos all the stories about St.Arnulfs
>>> origins have problems, but according to the net Gundulf doesnt
>>> appear in the bishops lists for Tongres.
>> Some have doubted the existence of St Gundulf, others that he should be
>> identified with the grand-uncle of Gregory of Tours.
>>> it seems well accepted that Ansegisel was St.Arnulf's son, but I
>>> notice that in many sources for this, it is spelt Anchisus, the name
>>> of the father of Aeneas. I can see that Ansegis-Anchisus are similar,
>>> so is Ansegisel not a frankish name but a take on a trojan hero?
>>> There was a legend that the Franks were descended from the trojans,
>>> and some bishops are called Aeneas and even Dido.
>> This was discussed by Gerhard Lubich in 'Die Namen Ansegis(el),
>> Anschis(us) und Anchises im Kontext der Karolingergenealogien und der
>> fränkischen Geschichtsschreibung' (2014), available here:
>> https://www.namenkundliche-informationen.de/baende/download/13443/id13442/.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
> I only understood the abstract:
>
> The first Carolingian genealogy Commemoratio Karoli names one Anschisus
> as father of Pepin (“of Herstal”), thus connecting the Carolingians with the antique
> myth of Troy – Aeneas’ father was named Anschises and Rome. In a later version
> of the same genealogy, Commemoratio Arnulfi, this same person is mentioned with his
> germanic spelling Ansegis(el) as the son of Arnulf of Metz, with whom the
> genealogy begins, placing the family in the context of the Frankish aristocracy.
> The article focuses on these mechanisms as well as on their relations to Carolingian
> self-perception and their perception in 9th century historiography.]
>
> It seems clear though that these genealogies and other evidence in texts of a similar
> nature should be regarded as pieces of literature and not historical evidence, at least
> I think thats what the author says or someone called Oexle. But the fact alone that
> the original authors could take a germanic name Ansegisel and conjure up a
> Trojan connection shows their intentions, if I'm not being too cynical.

Apologies, I overlooked this before - you may find useful an article on
the subject in English
https://www.academia.edu/38344808/From_Caesar_to_Charlemagne_The_Tradition_of_Trojan_Origins.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 4:54:20 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 14-Jul-22 9:29 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On 14-Jul-22 12:27 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>>> On 13-Jul-22 3:37 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:24:40 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12-Jul-22 12:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:41:11 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Well we *do* know that Florentius and "Artemie" existed, although her name is usually given as Armentaria. These were the parents of the famous writer Gregory of Tours.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For the closer generation, this is copied from "Munderic", Wikipedia "He married a daughter of Florentinus (born 485), a Roman senator, and his wife Artemia, daughter of Rusticus of Lyon. They were the parents of Gondulphus of Tongeren and Mummolin, possibly mayor of the palace of Neustria.[citation needed]"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not that citation needed at the end. That means this is questioned by someone (anyone) and a citation must be provided to prove that it's not a modern invention.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's curious that the history of this article mentions with a bit of disdain "a Portuguese genealogist...." I wonder who that could be scattering these nuggets about?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now David Kelley does mention this person Munderic, and why he might have had some kind of claim to something here
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Note there is no mention of any wife, which you think if some wife were the *sister* of a quite famous author might be worth mentioning.
> >>>>>>>> Since anyone can (and everyone should) strike passages marked citation needed from Wikipedia. I have done so. There is apparently no evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was connected to the family of Gregory of Tours. *Regardless* of what a thousand online family trees have gleefully copied. And suspect sites like Geni and Wikitree have followed along like blind hungry dogs, may they die of fleas.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I will also point out, that Since Gregory of Tours wrote a long, extensive, history of this time period, you might *think* that he would have mentioned, in his paragraph about Munderic, that the man was his own brother-in-law, if he were.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Clearly this is a modern, very lame, fabrication.
> >>>>>> It may be considered lame and even a fabrication, but it is not modern -
> >>>>>> your idea of 1,000 years after the event is out by roughly 500.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The genealogy in question was included in a lost 12th- or perhaps
> >>>>>> 13th-century copy of the late-10th century Vita of St Servatius written
> >>>>>> by Jocundus, which includes a digression about St Gundulf. The latter
> >>>>>> was allegedly the 22nd bishop of Tongeren and described as "filius
> >>>>>> deplorati Munderici" (son of the lamented Munderic). There is a legend,
> >>>>>> based on an inscription that can be interpreted in other ways, according
> >>>>>> to which Gundulf and his predecessor miraculously attended the
> >>>>>> dedication of Charlemagne's palace church at Aachen around two centuries
> >>>>>> after they had died.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for what Gregory of Tours knew about his own relatives, from memory
> >>>>>> we are told that he did not realise until it came up in conversation
> >>>>>> between them that Gundulf - a Merovingian magnate who may or may not be
> >>>>>> identical with the revenant bishop - was his mother's uncle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Peter Stewart
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>>>>> https://www.avg.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure how St Gundulf being a son of Munderic (if he was), is related to the question of Munderic being the brother-in-law of Gregory of Tours, which is how we get these errorneous parents for Munderic's wife.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point was that this unnamed wife of Munderic did not have these parents.
> >>>>> Not whether Munderic had any children.
> >>>> I was replying to your top-quoted statement "There is apparently no
> >>>> evidence (within say a thousand years of the event) that Munderic was
> >>>> connected to the family of Gregory of Tours". I don't think Gregory's
> >>>> grand-uncle Gundulf can be safely identified with the namesake bishop of
> >>>> Tongeren, but many do.
> >>>>
> >>>> When a thread consists of a welter of brief opinions, it is easier to
> >>>> reply to the latest one encompassing earlier postings rather than plod
> >>>> through several. SGM readers are not all laser-focused on the last thing
> >>>> you said.
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Stewart
> >>>
> >>> When you say "grand-uncle...."
> >>> This reconstruction
> >>>
> >>> http://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations1/issue6/425Nibelung.pdf
> >>>
> >>> puts St Gundulf as the son of Munderic, and cannot possibly be a grand-uncle to Gregory who lived before him
> >>>
> >>> Did you mean to say that some people say that St Gundulf was the nephew to Gregory?
> >>> And therefore the only possibility is that Munderic married Gregory's sister?
> >>> That?
> >> No, I meant what I wrote.
> >>
> >> For someone who ticks off posters for linking to websites without
> >> specifics, citing a turgid screed by David Kelley as if it has enough
> >> value to take up readers' time is rather dicey. You do realise that the
> >> helpful materials for medieval genealogy are diplomatic, narrative and
> >> other primary sources rather than scatter-brained modern opinions -
> >> don't you?
> >>
> >> Last week I attended the funeral of a cousin whose aunt had been present
> >> at her 90th birthday party some years ago: generations do not follow
> >> strict chronological rules, of course, and even by Kelley's datings it
> >> is possible for St Gundulf (whose birth he placed ca 524) to have been
> >> the grand-uncle of Gregory (who was born ca 538, not exactly the latter
> >> living before the former by my rudimentary arithmetic). How is it
> >> plausible to you that Gregory's sister was married to a man said to have
> >> been murdered ca 532?
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> >
> > I never said it was plausible.
> > My own argument is that if the man was Gregory's own brother in law he would certainly have known it and stated it when discussing Munderic. yet he didn't
> So when you write "And therefore the only possibility is ..." we are not
> to take this as indicating you consider the thing plausible? How then
> are we to make worthwhile sense of anything you post?
> > I'm not posting David Kelley's work because I think it's true or plausible
> > Only that it exists, discusses this point, and has a chronological table, even if mostly guesswork
> > So it's a useful item, even if it's entirely incorrect
> A vast number of websites that you dismiss outright do just as much. An
> item is not useful just because it is available if the object is getting
> at what can be proved rather than merely what can be supposed.
>
> And anyway, if Kelley's chronology is thought useful why ignore it to
> regard Gregory as living before Gundulf?
>
> If you took a little more time and trouble - as you admonish others for
> not doing - before posting you may be read with more patient interest by
> SGM participants.
>
> Peter Stewart

On 14-Jul-22 10:46 AM, Will Johnson wrote:

> When I wrote "therefore the only possibility is" I was trying to make sense out of what *you* were saying
> I was not positing any solution, only trying to interpret it.

This is the splutter of someone trying in vain to dig himself out of a
hole of his own making. What I wrote was perfectly straightforward and
only needed comprehending (at which you failed), not interpreting.

You were attempting to square it with some gibberish you had found on
Wikipedia but you made a bigger mess in the process.

Just stop.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 1:47:14 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 13-Jul-22 10:08 PM, mike davis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:27:27 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >>> Is this source preferred over Paul the deacon who wrote about
> >>> the bishops of Metz much earlier in the late 8th? Not that I'm saying
> >>> his version is the correct one, cos all the stories about St.Arnulfs
> >>> origins have problems, but according to the net Gundulf doesnt
> >>> appear in the bishops lists for Tongres.
> >> Some have doubted the existence of St Gundulf, others that he should be
> >> identified with the grand-uncle of Gregory of Tours.
> >>> it seems well accepted that Ansegisel was St.Arnulf's son, but I
> >>> notice that in many sources for this, it is spelt Anchisus, the name
> >>> of the father of Aeneas. I can see that Ansegis-Anchisus are similar,
> >>> so is Ansegisel not a frankish name but a take on a trojan hero?
> >>> There was a legend that the Franks were descended from the trojans,
> >>> and some bishops are called Aeneas and even Dido.
> >> This was discussed by Gerhard Lubich in 'Die Namen Ansegis(el),
> >> Anschis(us) und Anchises im Kontext der Karolingergenealogien und der
> >> fränkischen Geschichtsschreibung' (2014), available here:
> >> https://www.namenkundliche-informationen.de/baende/download/13443/id13442/.
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> > I only understood the abstract:
> >
> > The first Carolingian genealogy Commemoratio Karoli names one Anschisus
> > as father of Pepin (“of Herstal”), thus connecting the Carolingians with the antique
> > myth of Troy – Aeneas’ father was named Anschises and Rome. In a later version
> > of the same genealogy, Commemoratio Arnulfi, this same person is mentioned with his
> > germanic spelling Ansegis(el) as the son of Arnulf of Metz, with whom the
> > genealogy begins, placing the family in the context of the Frankish aristocracy.
> > The article focuses on these mechanisms as well as on their relations to Carolingian
> > self-perception and their perception in 9th century historiography.]
> >
> > It seems clear though that these genealogies and other evidence in texts of a similar
> > nature should be regarded as pieces of literature and not historical evidence, at least
> > I think thats what the author says or someone called Oexle. But the fact alone that
> > the original authors could take a germanic name Ansegisel and conjure up a
> > Trojan connection shows their intentions, if I'm not being too cynical.
> Apologies, I overlooked this before - you may find useful an article on
> the subject in English
> https://www.academia.edu/38344808/From_Caesar_to_Charlemagne_The_Tradition_of_Trojan_Origins.
> Peter Stewart
>
> --

thanks theres a mine of interesting articles here. But the specific thing q i had was if
the monks at Fontenelle kept or fabricated 2 different traditions concerning St.Arnulf.

1. he was the son of a Buotgisus
2. He was the son of Ansbert from a senatorial family etc

It wasnt clear to me cos the intro to the texts was in latin, whether this was the case.

Mike

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 6:53:52 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 14-Jul-22 10:46 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>
> > When I wrote "therefore the only possibility is" I was trying to make sense out of what *you* were saying
> > I was not positing any solution, only trying to interpret it.
> This is the splutter of someone trying in vain to dig himself out of a
> hole of his own making. What I wrote was perfectly straightforward and
> only needed comprehending (at which you failed), not interpreting.
>
> You were attempting to square it with some gibberish you had found on
> Wikipedia but you made a bigger mess in the process.
>
> Just stop.
> Peter Stewart
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

Not Correct.
Leo cites the Wikipedia article, on his page for Hugobert.
That article cites this alleged marriage as "some genealogists say" but solely citing the Addendum by Settipani
Which I then cited, and read, and which does not have this information in the first place.

I am not the person who created this mess.
I am merely citing the various portions of the mess.

On 14-Jul-22 8:40 PM, mike davis wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 1:47:14 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 13-Jul-22 10:08 PM, mike davis wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:27:27 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>>>>> Is this source preferred over Paul the deacon who wrote about
>>>>> the bishops of Metz much earlier in the late 8th? Not that I'm saying
>>>>> his version is the correct one, cos all the stories about St.Arnulfs
>>>>> origins have problems, but according to the net Gundulf doesnt
>>>>> appear in the bishops lists for Tongres.
>>>> Some have doubted the existence of St Gundulf, others that he should be
>>>> identified with the grand-uncle of Gregory of Tours.
>>>>> it seems well accepted that Ansegisel was St.Arnulf's son, but I
>>>>> notice that in many sources for this, it is spelt Anchisus, the name
>>>>> of the father of Aeneas. I can see that Ansegis-Anchisus are similar,
>>>>> so is Ansegisel not a frankish name but a take on a trojan hero?
>>>>> There was a legend that the Franks were descended from the trojans,
>>>>> and some bishops are called Aeneas and even Dido.
>>>> This was discussed by Gerhard Lubich in 'Die Namen Ansegis(el),
>>>> Anschis(us) und Anchises im Kontext der Karolingergenealogien und der
>>>> fränkischen Geschichtsschreibung' (2014), available here:
>>>> https://www.namenkundliche-informationen.de/baende/download/13443/id13442/.
>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>
>>> I only understood the abstract:
>>>
>>> The first Carolingian genealogy Commemoratio Karoli names one Anschisus
>>> as father of Pepin (“of Herstal”), thus connecting the Carolingians with the antique
>>> myth of Troy – Aeneas’ father was named Anschises and Rome. In a later version
>>> of the same genealogy, Commemoratio Arnulfi, this same person is mentioned with his
>>> germanic spelling Ansegis(el) as the son of Arnulf of Metz, with whom the
>>> genealogy begins, placing the family in the context of the Frankish aristocracy.
>>> The article focuses on these mechanisms as well as on their relations to Carolingian
>>> self-perception and their perception in 9th century historiography.]
>>>
>>> It seems clear though that these genealogies and other evidence in texts of a similar
>>> nature should be regarded as pieces of literature and not historical evidence, at least
>>> I think thats what the author says or someone called Oexle. But the fact alone that
>>> the original authors could take a germanic name Ansegisel and conjure up a
>>> Trojan connection shows their intentions, if I'm not being too cynical.
>> Apologies, I overlooked this before - you may find useful an article on
>> the subject in English
>> https://www.academia.edu/38344808/From_Caesar_to_Charlemagne_The_Tradition_of_Trojan_Origins.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>> --
>
> thanks theres a mine of interesting articles here. But the specific thing q i had was if
> the monks at Fontenelle kept or fabricated 2 different traditions concerning St.Arnulf.
>
> 1. he was the son of a Buotgisus
> 2. He was the son of Ansbert from a senatorial family etc
>
> It wasnt clear to me cos the intro to the texts was in latin, whether this was the case.

I don't have time to refresh my poor memory at present, but as far as I
recall the Buotgisus/Bodegisel version came from Saint-Wandrille
(Fontenelle) and the Ansbert version from Metz. What makes you think
both of these contradictory traditions may have originated from
Saint-Wandrille?

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com