On 15-Jul-22 12:24 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> 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.

There is (as so often) not enough information in your post to make sense
to someone who like me has not been paying close attention to the whole
of this dreary thread.

As far as I can see it went off the rails on this question because you
tried to "interpret" a post of mine by the misleading light of Wikipedia
- I'm not sure where Leo comes into it, and don't have time now to find out.

The problem seems to be that you took the nonsense about Munderic as
brother-in-law to Gregory of Tours as a basis for assessing any
information that didn't directly fit with it, making up a wonky
chronology of your own despite seeing a more reasonable one set out by
David Kelley.

If you had sensibly put the Wikipedia (or wherever it cam from)
assertion to one side and looked for what can be established from
primary sources, you would have found that Gregory's parents had three
recorded children - himself, his brother Peter and their sister of
unknown name whose only recorded husband was named Justinus not Munderic.

Another problem seems to be that others have simplistically assumed
Munderic's son Gundulf to be identical with Gregory's grand-uncle of the
same name, and you have not made allowance for this as a red herring.
There was a second Munderic, younger than Gundulf's father, who was
supported to become a bishop by Gregory's brother Peter - perhaps this
connection has been hyped into a false brother-in-law relationship, but
that is just a guess as I haven't checked further.

Peter Stewart

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:43:49 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 15-Jul-22 12:24 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > 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.
> There is (as so often) not enough information in your post to make sense
> to someone who like me has not been paying close attention to the whole
> of this dreary thread.
>
> As far as I can see it went off the rails on this question because you
> tried to "interpret" a post of mine by the misleading light of Wikipedia
> - I'm not sure where Leo comes into it, and don't have time now to find out.
>
> The problem seems to be that you took the nonsense about Munderic as
> brother-in-law to Gregory of Tours as a basis for assessing any
> information that didn't directly fit with it, making up a wonky
> chronology of your own despite seeing a more reasonable one set out by
> David Kelley.
>
> If you had sensibly put the Wikipedia (or wherever it cam from)
> assertion to one side and looked for what can be established from
> primary sources, you would have found that Gregory's parents had three
> recorded children - himself, his brother Peter and their sister of
> unknown name whose only recorded husband was named Justinus not Munderic.
>
> Another problem seems to be that others have simplistically assumed
> Munderic's son Gundulf to be identical with Gregory's grand-uncle of the
> same name, and you have not made allowance for this as a red herring.
> There was a second Munderic, younger than Gundulf's father, who was
> supported to become a bishop by Gregory's brother Peter - perhaps this
> connection has been hyped into a false brother-in-law relationship, but
> that is just a guess as I haven't checked further.
>
> Peter Stewart

Incorrect again.
I was *led* to the Wikipedia article about Hugobert because Leo cites this article in his website.
This is how Leo is related.

I did not base anything I said whatsoever (from a to z to outer space) on what the Wikipedia article said.
I have repeated this several times.
That Wikipedia article solely cited Settipani.
Set-ta-pa-ni. Set your panny.
Settipani.
Sett........

Got it yet?

I THEN read that article BY Settipani, and stated that it did NOT say what the Wikipedia article said.
I don't know how many times you want me to repeat that NOTHING I said, Not A Single Thing, is based on any belief in that Wikipedia article. Nothing. Not a Thing.

The article BY Settipani.
Is that clear now?

And again since you *constantly* want to attribute to ME that Munderic married the sister of Gregory.
I never said that.
This thread posted the OP said that. I only pointed out that it was highly UNlikely. Not likely. UNlikely.

I am NOT saying that it is likely
I am saying and have been saying that is it UNlikely.

Is that more clear?

> of this dreary thread.
>
> As far as I can see it went off the rails on this question because you
> tried to "interpret" a post of mine by the misleading light of Wikipedia
> - I'm not sure where Leo comes into it, and don't have time now to find out.
>
> The problem seems to be that you took the nonsense about Munderic as
> brother-in-law to Gregory of Tours as a basis for assessing any
> information that didn't directly fit with it, making up a wonky
> chronology of your own despite seeing a more reasonable one set out by
> David Kelley.
>
> If you had sensibly put the Wikipedia (or wherever it cam from)
> assertion to one side and looked for what can be established from
> primary sources, you would have found that Gregory's parents had three
> recorded children - himself, his brother Peter and their sister of
> unknown name whose only recorded husband was named Justinus not Munderic.
>
> Another problem seems to be that others have simplistically assumed
> Munderic's son Gundulf to be identical with Gregory's grand-uncle of the
> same name, and you have not made allowance for this as a red herring.
> There was a second Munderic, younger than Gundulf's father, who was
> supported to become a bishop by Gregory's brother Peter - perhaps this
> connection has been hyped into a false brother-in-law relationship, but
> that is just a guess as I haven't checked further.
>
> Peter Stewart

On 15-Jul-22 8:03 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> And again since you *constantly* want to attribute to ME that Munderic married the sister of Gregory.
> I never said that.
> This thread posted the OP said that. I only pointed out that it was highly UNlikely. Not likely. UNlikely.
>
> I am NOT saying that it is likely
> I am saying and have been saying that is it UNlikely.
>
> Is that more clear?

Of course not, since you are twisting yet again to avoid responsibility
for what you posted. You seem to think you have some sort of
provocateur's licence to say anything that comes into your head with no
accountability. You lambast others for posting links to websites without
sources and yet you boast of posting links to articles that may for all
you know be "ridiculously" wrong and baseless, just because they are there.

After reading my post clearly stating that a Gundulf was grand-uncle to
Gregory of Tours you replied asking

> 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?"

Of course I meant no such things.

St Gundulf of Tongeren was son of "the lamented Munderic" (an
unsuccessful throne pretender), and (I think another) Gundulf was
brother to Gregory's maternal grandmother. I still have no idea where
you came by the absurd notion of St Gundulf as nephew to Gregory.

If you took the trouble to top-quote whatever you are responding to, and
then to address it more cogently, whatever you do or do not mean might
be more readily understood.

Peter Stewart

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

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 3:26:28 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 15-Jul-22 8:03 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > And again since you *constantly* want to attribute to ME that Munderic married the sister of Gregory.
> > I never said that.
> > This thread posted the OP said that. I only pointed out that it was highly UNlikely. Not likely. UNlikely.
> >
> > I am NOT saying that it is likely
> > I am saying and have been saying that is it UNlikely.
> >
> > Is that more clear?
> Of course not, since you are twisting yet again to avoid responsibility
> for what you posted. You seem to think you have some sort of
> provocateur's licence to say anything that comes into your head with no
> accountability. You lambast others for posting links to websites without
> sources and yet you boast of posting links to articles that may for all
> you know be "ridiculously" wrong and baseless, just because they are there.
>
> After reading my post clearly stating that a Gundulf was grand-uncle to
> Gregory of Tours you replied asking
> > 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?"
> Of course I meant no such things.
>
> St Gundulf of Tongeren was son of "the lamented Munderic" (an
> unsuccessful throne pretender), and (I think another) Gundulf was
> brother to Gregory's maternal grandmother. I still have no idea where
> you came by the absurd notion of St Gundulf as nephew to Gregory.
>
> If you took the trouble to top-quote whatever you are responding to, and
> then to address it more cogently, whatever you do or do not mean might
> be more readily understood.
> Peter Stewart
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

And since you seem to constantly wish to reply *without* reading the *tedious* thread you clearly have no clue what I was saying and yet insisted to reply with vitriol to what you clearly did not understand.

I was NOT stating this as a fact, guess, hypothesis or anything else of my OWN
I was asking You if you had confused the two things since two prior claims in THIs thread stated that he was a nephew, or he was a brother in law.

IF you had bothered whatsoever to read the actual thread, you would have realized that I was asking for clarification on that point, to make sure that you had meant what you wrote. And I was NOT in the slightest stating a preferred position on anything at all.

I did not realize that you could not be bothered at all, with reading anything actually in the thread, to bring yourself up to speed with what was being discussed and yet wanted to throw more obsfucation into the mix. And heap ridicule upon people you think are not as erudite as your highness.

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 3:34:00 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 3:26:28 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > On 15-Jul-22 8:03 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > And again since you *constantly* want to attribute to ME that Munderic married the sister of Gregory.
> > > I never said that.
> > > This thread posted the OP said that. I only pointed out that it was highly UNlikely. Not likely. UNlikely.
> > >
> > > I am NOT saying that it is likely
> > > I am saying and have been saying that is it UNlikely.
> > >
> > > Is that more clear?
> > Of course not, since you are twisting yet again to avoid responsibility
> > for what you posted. You seem to think you have some sort of
> > provocateur's licence to say anything that comes into your head with no
> > accountability. You lambast others for posting links to websites without
> > sources and yet you boast of posting links to articles that may for all
> > you know be "ridiculously" wrong and baseless, just because they are there.
> >
> > After reading my post clearly stating that a Gundulf was grand-uncle to
> > Gregory of Tours you replied asking
> > > 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?"
> > Of course I meant no such things.
> >
> > St Gundulf of Tongeren was son of "the lamented Munderic" (an
> > unsuccessful throne pretender), and (I think another) Gundulf was
> > brother to Gregory's maternal grandmother. I still have no idea where
> > you came by the absurd notion of St Gundulf as nephew to Gregory.
> >
> > If you took the trouble to top-quote whatever you are responding to, and
> > then to address it more cogently, whatever you do or do not mean might
> > be more readily understood.
> > Peter Stewart
> >
> > --
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> And since you seem to constantly wish to reply *without* reading the *tedious* thread you clearly have no clue what I was saying and yet insisted to reply with vitriol to what you clearly did not understand.
>
> I was NOT stating this as a fact, guess, hypothesis or anything else of my OWN
> I was asking You if you had confused the two things since two prior claims in THIs thread stated that he was a nephew, or he was a brother in law.
>
> IF you had bothered whatsoever to read the actual thread, you would have realized that I was asking for clarification on that point, to make sure that you had meant what you wrote. And I was NOT in the slightest stating a preferred position on anything at all.
>
> I did not realize that you could not be bothered at all, with reading anything actually in the thread, to bring yourself up to speed with what was being discussed and yet wanted to throw more obsfucation into the mix. And heap ridicule upon people you think are not as erudite as your highness.

And mister all knowing genie, you may *think* that you can *post* a claim without any sources and not receive any argument because you are on your high pedestal, but I assure you that you cannot.

On 15-Jul-22 8:35 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 3:34:00 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 3:26:28 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>> On 15-Jul-22 8:03 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>> And again since you *constantly* want to attribute to ME that Munderic married the sister of Gregory.
>>>> I never said that.
>>>> This thread posted the OP said that. I only pointed out that it was highly UNlikely. Not likely. UNlikely.
>>>>
>>>> I am NOT saying that it is likely
>>>> I am saying and have been saying that is it UNlikely.
>>>>
>>>> Is that more clear?
>>> Of course not, since you are twisting yet again to avoid responsibility
>>> for what you posted. You seem to think you have some sort of
>>> provocateur's licence to say anything that comes into your head with no
>>> accountability. You lambast others for posting links to websites without
>>> sources and yet you boast of posting links to articles that may for all
>>> you know be "ridiculously" wrong and baseless, just because they are there.
>>>
>>> After reading my post clearly stating that a Gundulf was grand-uncle to
>>> Gregory of Tours you replied asking
>>>> 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?"
>>> Of course I meant no such things.
>>>
>>> St Gundulf of Tongeren was son of "the lamented Munderic" (an
>>> unsuccessful throne pretender), and (I think another) Gundulf was
>>> brother to Gregory's maternal grandmother. I still have no idea where
>>> you came by the absurd notion of St Gundulf as nephew to Gregory.
>>>
>>> If you took the trouble to top-quote whatever you are responding to, and
>>> then to address it more cogently, whatever you do or do not mean might
>>> be more readily understood.
>>> Peter Stewart
>>>
>>> --
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> https://www.avg.com
>> And since you seem to constantly wish to reply *without* reading the *tedious* thread you clearly have no clue what I was saying and yet insisted to reply with vitriol to what you clearly did not understand.
>>
>> I was NOT stating this as a fact, guess, hypothesis or anything else of my OWN
>> I was asking You if you had confused the two things since two prior claims in THIs thread stated that he was a nephew, or he was a brother in law.
>>
>> IF you had bothered whatsoever to read the actual thread, you would have realized that I was asking for clarification on that point, to make sure that you had meant what you wrote. And I was NOT in the slightest stating a preferred position on anything at all.
>>
>> I did not realize that you could not be bothered at all, with reading anything actually in the thread, to bring yourself up to speed with what was being discussed and yet wanted to throw more obsfucation into the mix. And heap ridicule upon people you think are not as erudite as your highness.
>
>
> And mister all knowing genie, you may *think* that you can *post* a claim without any sources and not receive any argument because you are on your high pedestal, but I assure you that you cannot.

If this is directed at me, I can't imagine what you think you are
talking about. Probably no-one in the past 20+ years has posted more
sources than I have, or for that matter fewer than you in proportion to
the number of postings you have made; and naturally anyone who is
interested in details (a diminishing group in SGM nowadays) can ask for
proof of whatever is said here.

There is no value in lashing out when you have made a conceited goof of
yourself.

Peter Stewart

On 12-Jul-22 2:24 PM, Peter Stewart 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.

The magnate Gundulf, great-uncle to Gregory of Tours, was definitely not
identical with St Gundulf of Tongeren the son of Munderic.

Some confusion may have stemmed from the similar names of the respective
parents of the great-uncle Gundulf and the grand-nephew Gregory.

Gundulf was a son of Florentinus, senator in Geneva at the beginning of
the 6th century, and his wife Artemia - or perhaps her son by an earlier
husband that may account for the Germanic name Gundulf, which is very
unlikely to have been given to the child of two Gallo-Roman aristocrats.
Florentinus and Artemia had two (if not three) children together:
Nicetius, bishop of Lyon, and a daughter who was the maternal
grandmother of Gregory. A half-blood connection may partly explain why
Gregory was unaware until told by the man himself that Gundulf was his
great-uncle, when he had spent part of his childhood in the home of
Nicetius.

Gregory's parents were named Florentius and Armentaria.

It is possible that his great-uncle Gundulf was related to the namesake
bishop of Tongeren, and perhaps a discreditable connection to the
latter's father Munderic (of whom Gregory wrote disparagingly) may have
caused the son of Armentaria to be kept ignorant of her part-Germanic uncle.

Peter Stewart

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

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 10:28:30 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> 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?

You are right, I misposted, I should have said, there seem 2 contradictory opinions from
Metz. I think the intro says it was Paul the deacon in his history of the bps of Metz, who
first said

Ansbert
| Arnoald
| Arnulf

whereas the intro on p242 seems to say that Pertz & co considered the
2 expanded versions of this descent which are printed on p245, to both
come from Fontenelle, St.Wandrille, presumably becos they make
Walchisus a 3rd son of Arnulf and mispell Clodulf as Flodulf.

The Buotgisus descent according to a fnote on p245 comes from
another codex from Metz now in Vienna. But it also says he is named
as the father of St.Arnulf in another Vita. A 17th historian called Meurisse
combined these 2 traditions and seems to think Buotgisus who he
calls Burtgisus was just another name for Arnoald. I dont know the
date for this tradition but I assume its later than Paul the Deacon,
but none of it is very convincing. I'm surprised that so many theories
have been based on such 'evidence'.

Mike

On 15-Jul-22 9:59 PM, mike davis wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 10:28:30 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> 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?
>
> You are right, I misposted, I should have said, there seem 2 contradictory opinions from
> Metz. I think the intro says it was Paul the deacon in his history of the bps of Metz, who
> first said
>
> Ansbert
> |
> Arnoald
> |
> Arnulf
>
> whereas the intro on p242 seems to say that Pertz & co considered the
> 2 expanded versions of this descent which are printed on p245, to both
> come from Fontenelle, St.Wandrille, presumably becos they make
> Walchisus a 3rd son of Arnulf and mispell Clodulf as Flodulf.

On p. 242 (here
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_13/index.htm#page/242/mode/1up) it says that
no. I (p. 245 lines 2-28) contains material of which only a small part
was present in older versions and some which was later interpolated at
Fontanelle - this does not mean that it was all incorporated into the
tradition there but refers particularly to the added text on p. 245
lines 23-25 where it says that Arnulf's eldest son Flodulf was father of
Martin who was murdered by Ebroin and that his second son Waltchis was
father of St Wandrille.

In any case, Paul the Deacon stated that Arnoald was bishop of Metz and
'nepos' to his predecessor Agiulf who was a grandson of Clovis, and that
Arnoald's next-but-one successor was Charlemagne's agnatic ancestor St
Arnulf - see here (p. 264 lines 7-10)
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_2/index.htm#page/264/mode/1up. Further down
the page he says that Arnulf's elder son was named Anschisus and that
this was believed to be derived from the name of Aeneas' father Anchises
(legendary ancestor of the Franks) who went from Troy to Italy (lines
37-39).

Paul's work was later used as a source by an anonymous writer who made
Arnoald into the father of Arnulf, here (p. 309, left column lines
15-18) https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_2/index.htm#page/309/mode/1up). This
genealogy, creating a Merovingian ancestry for Charlemagne's family that
was believed even by Hincmar, was long ago discredited as unreliable.

> The Buotgisus descent according to a fnote on p245 comes from
> another codex from Metz now in Vienna. But it also says he is named
> as the father of St.Arnulf in another Vita. A 17th historian called Meurisse
> combined these 2 traditions and seems to think Buotgisus who he
> calls Burtgisus was just another name for Arnoald. I dont know the
> date for this tradition but I assume its later than Paul the Deacon,
> but none of it is very convincing. I'm surprised that so many theories
> have been based on such 'evidence'.

Not edited from the Vienna codex - this is noted as another copy of the
text, which is edited from a codex in the Bibliothèque nationale that
once belonged to Jacques-Auguste de Thou ("ex codice Thuaneo", p. 243),
see here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10548489w/f133.

The Vita of Arnulf mentioned in footnote 45 would appear to be the
redaction that was wrongly attributed to "Umno" from a misreading of the
word "immo". This is printed in _Acta sanctorum_, July vol. 4 pp.
440-444. However, it does not name Arnulf's father Buotgisus as
suggested by the MGH footnote - it describes him namelessly as an
Aquitanian ("Natus est autem beatus Arnulphus Aquitanico patre"). Martin
Meurisse in _Histoire des évesques de l'église de Metz_ (1634) p. 86
printed an account, based in part on the pseudo-Umno story, according to
which Arnulf's father Burtgisus whom many call Arnoald was the third son
of Ansbert by a Merovingian princess and that he left Aquitaine for
northern parts where he was received by his mother's brother King
"Gunthar". This is quite worthless.

Peter Stewart

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

On 16-Jul-22 12:10 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 15-Jul-22 9:59 PM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

>> You are right, I misposted, I should have said, there seem 2
>> contradictory opinions from
>> Metz. I think the intro says it was Paul the deacon in his history of
>> the bps of Metz, who
>> first said
>>
>> Ansbert
>> |
>> Arnoald
>> |
>> Arnulf
>>
>> whereas the intro on p242 seems to say that Pertz & co considered the
>> 2 expanded versions of this descent which are printed on p245, to both
>> come from Fontenelle, St.Wandrille, presumably becos they make
>> Walchisus a 3rd son of Arnulf and mispell Clodulf as Flodulf.
>
> On p. 242 (here
> https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_13/index.htm#page/242/mode/1up) it says that
> no. I (p. 245 lines 2-28) contains material of which only a small part
> was present in older versions and some which was later interpolated at
> Fontanelle - this does not mean that it was all incorporated into the
> tradition there but refers particularly to the added text on p. 245
> lines 23-25 where it says that Arnulf's eldest son Flodulf was father of
> Martin who was murdered by Ebroin and that his second son Waltchis was
> father of St Wandrille.

Apologies, I was forgetting this before: the genealogy no. I in MGH vol
13 p. 245 (here:
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_13/index.htm#page/245/mode/1up), that was
ostensibly written by 768, is actually a 17th-century forgery by Jérôme
Vignier. Whether or not the part regarding sons of Arnulf's sons Flodulf
and Waltchis in lines 23-25 was drawn from an interpolation made at
Saint-Wandrille or based on some other material originating from there I
don't know, but it would seem a futile invention by Vignier if he had
not found it somewhere.

> In any case, Paul the Deacon stated that Arnoald was bishop of Metz and
> 'nepos' to his predecessor Agiulf who was a grandson of Clovis, and that
> Arnoald's next-but-one successor was Charlemagne's agnatic ancestor St
> Arnulf - see here (p. 264 lines 7-10)
> https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_2/index.htm#page/264/mode/1up. Further down
> the page he says that Arnulf's elder son was named Anschisus and that
> this was believed to be derived from the name of Aeneas' father Anchises
> (legendary ancestor of the Franks) who went from Troy to Italy (lines
> 37-39).
>
> Paul's work was later used as a source by an anonymous writer who made
> Arnoald into the father of Arnulf, here (p. 309, left column lines
> 15-18) https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_2/index.htm#page/309/mode/1up). This
> genealogy, creating a Merovingian ancestry for Charlemagne's family that
> was believed even by Hincmar, was long ago discredited as unreliable.
>
>> The Buotgisus descent according to a fnote on p245 comes from
>> another codex from Metz now in Vienna. But it also says he is named
>> as the father of St.Arnulf in another Vita. A 17th historian called
>> Meurisse
>> combined these 2 traditions and seems to think Buotgisus who he
>> calls Burtgisus was just another name for Arnoald. I dont know the
>> date for this tradition but I assume its later than Paul the Deacon,
>> but none of it is very convincing. I'm surprised that so many theories
>> have been based on such 'evidence'.
>
> Not edited from the Vienna codex - this is noted as another copy of the
> text, which is edited from a codex in the Bibliothèque nationale that
> once belonged to Jacques-Auguste de Thou ("ex codice Thuaneo", p. 243),
> see here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10548489w/f133.

I should have mentioned that this is not the original version from
Saint-Wandrille, but a copy from Saint-Bertin made in the first half of
the 11th century inserted at the end of Einhard's Vita of Charlemagne.

Peter Stewart

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

On 16-Jul-22 12:10 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 15-Jul-22 9:59 PM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

>> The Buotgisus descent according to a fnote on p245 comes from
>> another codex from Metz now in Vienna. But it also says he is named
>> as the father of St.Arnulf in another Vita. A 17th historian called
>> Meurisse
>> combined these 2 traditions and seems to think Buotgisus who he
>> calls Burtgisus was just another name for Arnoald. I dont know the
>> date for this tradition but I assume its later than Paul the Deacon,
>> but none of it is very convincing. I'm surprised that so many theories
>> have been based on such 'evidence'.
>
> Not edited from the Vienna codex - this is noted as another copy of the
> text, which is edited from a codex in the Bibliothèque nationale that
> once belonged to Jacques-Auguste de Thou ("ex codice Thuaneo", p. 243),
> see here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10548489w/f133.

I must have been half-asleep - the Vienna codex is not said to have
contained a copy of the Saint-Wandrille genealogy (no. III in the MGH
edition, to which the footnote is a gloss), but rather a copy of the
work full of fictitious tales ("in opere fabulis pleno" as the footnote
has it) of which a fragment was printed by Meurisse in the book cited
upthread.

This is where the name of Arnulf's putative father occurs as Burtgisus.
A copy (or pseudo-original) was in the library of Saint-Vincent at Metz.
I'm not certain where it came from but it may be the prologue "found"
and most probably forged by Jérôme Vignier (who also forged the
genealogy no. I) to the 'Vita altera' of Arnulf wrongly ascribed to
"Umno". This Vita itself, where Arnulf's father is not named but said to
have come from Aquitaine, is a loose redaction of the Merovingian Vita
(said to have been written by a young boy descended from Arnulf) with
some additional information that seems to have originated in Metz. For
instance, Arnulf is said to have been born at Lay in the Chaumontois:
Lay was purportedly given to Saint-Arnoul abbey at Metz (the
burial-place of St Arnulf) by a countess Eva - her charter for this
donation, anachronistically dated 950 in the cartulary of Saint-Arnoul
and more plausibly 965 in the copy printed in _Gallia christiana_ vol.
10, also states that Arnulf had been born at Lay. However, this was
forged or extensively falsified ca 1073.

The Saint-Vincent narrative printed by Meurisse, that I guess was forged
by Vignier, is an attempt to synthesise conflicting information from
Metz and from Saint-Wandrille. "Burtgisus" is said to have been called
"Arnoaldus" by many, and the pseudo-Umno's claim that he came from
Aquitaine is amplified into a story that when his childless maternal
uncle "King Guntharius" received him in the north he was made heir to
the throne. This crude fabrication of a Merovingian hereditary right for
the Carolingians was evidently not credible enough for most historians
even in the 17th century.

Peter Stewart

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

A quarta-feira, 13 de julho de 2022 à(s) 00:38:40 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
> 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
Dear Peter, Settipani's theory is not that Gregory of Tours's uncle was Bishop Gundulf of Tongeren. Instead, he believes he was Patrician Gundulf of Provence. He theorizes Gundulf of Tongeren was Gundulf of Provence's maternal nephew. See the genealogical table at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric. Note Gundulf of Provence was Roman while Gundulf of Tongeren was Frankish.

On 17-Jul-22 9:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A quarta-feira, 13 de julho de 2022 à(s) 00:38:40 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
>> 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
> Dear Peter, Settipani's theory is not that Gregory of Tours's uncle was Bishop Gundulf of Tongeren. Instead, he believes he was Patrician Gundulf of Provence. He theorizes Gundulf of Tongeren was Gundulf of Provence's maternal nephew. See the genealogical table at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric. Note Gundulf of Provence was Roman while Gundulf of Tongeren was Frankish.

Is this Wikipedia page an accurate reflection of Settipani's coverage of
the subject? It would need some convincing argument to explain why a
Gallo-Roman couple (Florentinus and Artemia) would give their son the
Germanic name Gundulf - it seems far more plausible to me that this was
a son of Artemia by a prior marriage, that also goes some way to
accounting for the ignorance of their sister's grandson Gregory when an
adult of his relationship to Gundulf although he had known Nicetius of
Lyon well since childhood. Also Florentinus was not bishop of Geneva, he
declined to take up his appointment to the bishopric at Artemia's
bidding when she was pregnant with Nicetius.

Peter Stewart

On 17-Jul-22 11:09 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Is this Wikipedia page an accurate reflection of Settipani's coverage of
> the subject? It would need some convincing argument to explain why a
> Gallo-Roman couple (Florentinus and Artemia) would give their son the
> Germanic name Gundulf - it seems far more plausible to me that this was
> a son of Artemia by a prior marriage,  that also goes some way to
> accounting for the ignorance of their sister's grandson Gregory when an
> adult of his relationship to Gundulf

This is poorly written - I was thinking of the sister of the brothers
Gundulf and Nicetius, but from the phrasing I should have written "their
daughter's grandson ..." referring instead to the lady's parents
Florentinus and Artemia.

Peter Stewart

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

On 17-Jul-22 9:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Dear Peter, Settipani's theory is not that Gregory of Tours's uncle was Bishop Gundulf of Tongeren. Instead, he believes he was Patrician Gundulf of Provence. He theorizes Gundulf of Tongeren was Gundulf of Provence's maternal nephew. See the genealogical table at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric. Note Gundulf of Provence was Roman while Gundulf of Tongeren was Frankish.

Apart from the question of a Germanic name for a Gallo-Roman, the
identification of Gregory of Tours' great-uncle Gundulf with the bishop
of Tongeren was made (among others) by Heike Grahn-Hoeck in 'Gundulfus
subregulus' - eine genealogische Brücke zwischen Merowingern und
Karolingern?, _Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters_ 59
(2003) 1-47.

According to her speculation, Gundulf may have been the son of Gregory's
great-grandmother Artemia by a marriage to "the lamented Munderic", the
defeated Merovingian throne claimant. She proposed that he was the
boyhood companion of Gunthar, the eldest son of Chlothar I, that he
broke a leg by falling from an apple tree and later the other leg in a
second accident - after which he was miraculously healed by St Martin in
Tours, where he subsequently took up a career in the church that did not
prevent him from pursuing a secular political role as 'dux' or military
leader and royal counsellor, in which capacity he visited Gregory in 581
when he revealed their relationship. She thought he became bishop of
Metz in a sort of pension scheme for important Merovingian officials,
that his name was later transferred to the neighbouring diocese of
Tongeren/Maastricht, and that as well as being Gregory's great-uncle he
was a paternal uncle of Arnulf whose father (Bodegisel in her view) was
also a son of Munderic.

I think she fudged some of the chronology supporting her conclusions,
but the idea that the Carolingians may have suppressed such an agnatic
ancestry, perhaps for the same reason that Gregory grew up not knowing
of his own maternal connection to Munderic, possibly has enough merit to
deserve a bit of reworking. Settipani's hypthesising is not the only
game in town.

Peter Stewart

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

On 18-Jul-22 2:10 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 17-Jul-22 9:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
>> Dear Peter, Settipani's theory is not that Gregory of Tours's uncle
>> was Bishop Gundulf of Tongeren. Instead, he believes he was Patrician
>> Gundulf of Provence. He theorizes Gundulf of Tongeren was Gundulf of
>> Provence's maternal nephew. See the genealogical table at
>> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric. Note Gundulf of Provence
>> was Roman while Gundulf of Tongeren was Frankish.
>
> Apart from the question of a Germanic name for a Gallo-Roman, the
> identification of Gregory of Tours' great-uncle Gundulf with the bishop
> of Tongeren was made (among others) by Heike Grahn-Hoeck in 'Gundulfus
> subregulus' - eine genealogische Brücke zwischen Merowingern und
> Karolingern?, _Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters_ 59
> (2003) 1-47.

On the question of a Germanic name for a Gallo-Roman, it appears that
Grahn-Hoek (not Hoeck) was at odds with quite a few other German
historians, though I think she had stronger case than any of those I
have seen. In their view that a Gallo-Roman couple in the 6th century
are likely to have chosen a Germanic name for their son there is a very
faint echo of the chauvinistic ideas of Wilhelm Kammeier, who thought
that history had been falsified by the popes because the ancestors of
the German people cannot have been illiterate tribal warriors when Rome
was producing poets such as Virgil.

Martin Heinzelman wrote of the problem posed by the "fact" that a large
number of sixth-century senatorial families would have adopted Germanic
names, but Grahn-Hoek cited the same work (Stroheker's prosopography in
_Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien_) for her finding that
Gundulfus was one of just three people with Germanic names among 411
members of the Gallo-Roman senatorial class up to the end of the 6th
century, and she reasonably thought it probable that these few Germanic
names were the result of mixed marriages.

Horst Ebling thought that Gundulfus was born to Florentinus and Artemia
but that it could not be determined whether his name was given to him at
birth or baptism or if it was changed later. Wolfgang Haubrichs
considered that the name represented a kind of spiritual affinity with
the Burgundian royal lineage of the Gibichungs, whose name elements were
also used by the Merovingians to assert rights after conquering the
Burgundian kingdom. It is scarcely credible that Florentinus had any
such motive, any more than that he was himself related to the Gibichungs
since Gundulf is the only Germanic name known in connection with his family.

Christa Jochum-Godglück proposed that the name Gundulf was chosen in
order to ingratiate the family of Florentinus with the Burgundian ruling
elite, and that a Gallo-Roman may have given his son a Germanic name to
signal his willingness to seek advantage through cultural assimilation.
However, Gregory tells us that he and Artemia chose the (Greek-derived)
name Nicetius with careful deliberation for their son evidently born
after Gundulf, so they would have been spoiling their own earlier effort
- and in any case, what use would it be to go round boasting of an
infant at home with a name that when the child eventually becomes known
to the world will show that his parents were once receptive to Germanic
ways. Either that, or Florentinus would have made himself a pushy bore
by nagging the people he sought to please with news about his baby and
the toadying sentiment behind the boy's naming.

Gregory does not tell us very much about his family, and when he says
that there were two children before the birth of Nicetius he used a
singular verb for one parent rather than a plural for both Florentinus
and Artemia. This may have been taken as referring to Florentinus as the
singular parent, since fathers were often mentioned solely, though it
could equally refer to Artemia allowing for a literally truthful report
on Gregory's part if Nicetius had been the only offspring of Florentinus.

The likelihood that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
Gundulf - and perhaps of Gregory's maternal grandmother - before she
married Florentinus (by whom she had a third child, Nicetius) seems
stronger to me than the alternatives. I don't think Grahn-Hoek made a
convincing case for Munderic as the father of Gregory's great-uncle
Gundulf, and consequently for the latter being identical with the bishop
of Tongeren who in turn was the paternal uncle of St Arnulf. I think it
is more plausible that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
Munderic, so that this mysterious and despised throne-pretender was
half-brother to her son Gundulf and father to a namesake of his.

Peter Stewart

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

Op zaterdag 23 juli 2022 om 08:30:30 UTC+2 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:
> On 18-Jul-22 2:10 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 17-Jul-22 9:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Peter, Settipani's theory is not that Gregory of Tours's uncle
> >> was Bishop Gundulf of Tongeren. Instead, he believes he was Patrician
> >> Gundulf of Provence. He theorizes Gundulf of Tongeren was Gundulf of
> >> Provence's maternal nephew. See the genealogical table at
> >> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric. Note Gundulf of Provence
> >> was Roman while Gundulf of Tongeren was Frankish.
> >
> > Apart from the question of a Germanic name for a Gallo-Roman, the
> > identification of Gregory of Tours' great-uncle Gundulf with the bishop
> > of Tongeren was made (among others) by Heike Grahn-Hoeck in 'Gundulfus
> > subregulus' - eine genealogische Brücke zwischen Merowingern und
> > Karolingern?, _Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters_ 59
> > (2003) 1-47.
> On the question of a Germanic name for a Gallo-Roman, it appears that
> Grahn-Hoek (not Hoeck) was at odds with quite a few other German
> historians, though I think she had stronger case than any of those I
> have seen. In their view that a Gallo-Roman couple in the 6th century
> are likely to have chosen a Germanic name for their son there is a very
> faint echo of the chauvinistic ideas of Wilhelm Kammeier, who thought
> that history had been falsified by the popes because the ancestors of
> the German people cannot have been illiterate tribal warriors when Rome
> was producing poets such as Virgil.
>
> Martin Heinzelman wrote of the problem posed by the "fact" that a large
> number of sixth-century senatorial families would have adopted Germanic
> names, but Grahn-Hoek cited the same work (Stroheker's prosopography in
> _Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien_) for her finding that
> Gundulfus was one of just three people with Germanic names among 411
> members of the Gallo-Roman senatorial class up to the end of the 6th
> century, and she reasonably thought it probable that these few Germanic
> names were the result of mixed marriages.
>
> Horst Ebling thought that Gundulfus was born to Florentinus and Artemia
> but that it could not be determined whether his name was given to him at
> birth or baptism or if it was changed later. Wolfgang Haubrichs
> considered that the name represented a kind of spiritual affinity with
> the Burgundian royal lineage of the Gibichungs, whose name elements were
> also used by the Merovingians to assert rights after conquering the
> Burgundian kingdom. It is scarcely credible that Florentinus had any
> such motive, any more than that he was himself related to the Gibichungs
> since Gundulf is the only Germanic name known in connection with his family.
>
> Christa Jochum-Godglück proposed that the name Gundulf was chosen in
> order to ingratiate the family of Florentinus with the Burgundian ruling
> elite, and that a Gallo-Roman may have given his son a Germanic name to
> signal his willingness to seek advantage through cultural assimilation.
> However, Gregory tells us that he and Artemia chose the (Greek-derived)
> name Nicetius with careful deliberation for their son evidently born
> after Gundulf, so they would have been spoiling their own earlier effort
> - and in any case, what use would it be to go round boasting of an
> infant at home with a name that when the child eventually becomes known
> to the world will show that his parents were once receptive to Germanic
> ways. Either that, or Florentinus would have made himself a pushy bore
> by nagging the people he sought to please with news about his baby and
> the toadying sentiment behind the boy's naming.
>
> Gregory does not tell us very much about his family, and when he says
> that there were two children before the birth of Nicetius he used a
> singular verb for one parent rather than a plural for both Florentinus
> and Artemia. This may have been taken as referring to Florentinus as the
> singular parent, since fathers were often mentioned solely, though it
> could equally refer to Artemia allowing for a literally truthful report
> on Gregory's part if Nicetius had been the only offspring of Florentinus.
>
> The likelihood that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
> Gundulf - and perhaps of Gregory's maternal grandmother - before she
> married Florentinus (by whom she had a third child, Nicetius) seems
> stronger to me than the alternatives. I don't think Grahn-Hoek made a
> convincing case for Munderic as the father of Gregory's great-uncle
> Gundulf, and consequently for the latter being identical with the bishop
> of Tongeren who in turn was the paternal uncle of St Arnulf. I think it
> is more plausible that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
> Munderic, so that this mysterious and despised throne-pretender was
> half-brother to her son Gundulf and father to a namesake of his.
> Peter Stewart
>
>> I think it is more plausible that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
Munderic, so that this mysterious and despised throne-pretender was half-brother to her son Gundulf and father to a namesake of his. <<

Would that not mean that Artemia married three times?
x (1) N.N. father of Munderic (throne-pretender).
x (2) N.N. father of Gundulf.
x (3) Florentius, father of Nicetius and a daughter (maternal grandmother of Gregory),

or

x (1) N.N. father of Munderic (throne-pretender).
x (2) N.N. father of Gundulf and a daughter (maternal grandmother of Gregory).
x (3) Florentius, father of Nicetius.

Hans Vogels

On 23-Jul-22 9:17 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Op zaterdag 23 juli 2022 om 08:30:30 UTC+2 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:
>> On 18-Jul-22 2:10 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On 17-Jul-22 9:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Peter, Settipani's theory is not that Gregory of Tours's uncle
>>>> was Bishop Gundulf of Tongeren. Instead, he believes he was Patrician
>>>> Gundulf of Provence. He theorizes Gundulf of Tongeren was Gundulf of
>>>> Provence's maternal nephew. See the genealogical table at
>>>> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric. Note Gundulf of Provence
>>>> was Roman while Gundulf of Tongeren was Frankish.
>>>
>>> Apart from the question of a Germanic name for a Gallo-Roman, the
>>> identification of Gregory of Tours' great-uncle Gundulf with the bishop
>>> of Tongeren was made (among others) by Heike Grahn-Hoeck in 'Gundulfus
>>> subregulus' - eine genealogische Brücke zwischen Merowingern und
>>> Karolingern?, _Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters_ 59
>>> (2003) 1-47.
>> On the question of a Germanic name for a Gallo-Roman, it appears that
>> Grahn-Hoek (not Hoeck) was at odds with quite a few other German
>> historians, though I think she had stronger case than any of those I
>> have seen. In their view that a Gallo-Roman couple in the 6th century
>> are likely to have chosen a Germanic name for their son there is a very
>> faint echo of the chauvinistic ideas of Wilhelm Kammeier, who thought
>> that history had been falsified by the popes because the ancestors of
>> the German people cannot have been illiterate tribal warriors when Rome
>> was producing poets such as Virgil.
>>
>> Martin Heinzelman wrote of the problem posed by the "fact" that a large
>> number of sixth-century senatorial families would have adopted Germanic
>> names, but Grahn-Hoek cited the same work (Stroheker's prosopography in
>> _Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien_) for her finding that
>> Gundulfus was one of just three people with Germanic names among 411
>> members of the Gallo-Roman senatorial class up to the end of the 6th
>> century, and she reasonably thought it probable that these few Germanic
>> names were the result of mixed marriages.
>>
>> Horst Ebling thought that Gundulfus was born to Florentinus and Artemia
>> but that it could not be determined whether his name was given to him at
>> birth or baptism or if it was changed later. Wolfgang Haubrichs
>> considered that the name represented a kind of spiritual affinity with
>> the Burgundian royal lineage of the Gibichungs, whose name elements were
>> also used by the Merovingians to assert rights after conquering the
>> Burgundian kingdom. It is scarcely credible that Florentinus had any
>> such motive, any more than that he was himself related to the Gibichungs
>> since Gundulf is the only Germanic name known in connection with his family.
>>
>> Christa Jochum-Godglück proposed that the name Gundulf was chosen in
>> order to ingratiate the family of Florentinus with the Burgundian ruling
>> elite, and that a Gallo-Roman may have given his son a Germanic name to
>> signal his willingness to seek advantage through cultural assimilation.
>> However, Gregory tells us that he and Artemia chose the (Greek-derived)
>> name Nicetius with careful deliberation for their son evidently born
>> after Gundulf, so they would have been spoiling their own earlier effort
>> - and in any case, what use would it be to go round boasting of an
>> infant at home with a name that when the child eventually becomes known
>> to the world will show that his parents were once receptive to Germanic
>> ways. Either that, or Florentinus would have made himself a pushy bore
>> by nagging the people he sought to please with news about his baby and
>> the toadying sentiment behind the boy's naming.
>>
>> Gregory does not tell us very much about his family, and when he says
>> that there were two children before the birth of Nicetius he used a
>> singular verb for one parent rather than a plural for both Florentinus
>> and Artemia. This may have been taken as referring to Florentinus as the
>> singular parent, since fathers were often mentioned solely, though it
>> could equally refer to Artemia allowing for a literally truthful report
>> on Gregory's part if Nicetius had been the only offspring of Florentinus.
>>
>> The likelihood that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
>> Gundulf - and perhaps of Gregory's maternal grandmother - before she
>> married Florentinus (by whom she had a third child, Nicetius) seems
>> stronger to me than the alternatives. I don't think Grahn-Hoek made a
>> convincing case for Munderic as the father of Gregory's great-uncle
>> Gundulf, and consequently for the latter being identical with the bishop
>> of Tongeren who in turn was the paternal uncle of St Arnulf. I think it
>> is more plausible that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
>> Munderic, so that this mysterious and despised throne-pretender was
>> half-brother to her son Gundulf and father to a namesake of his.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>>> I think it is more plausible that Artemia had been married to the unknown father of
> Munderic, so that this mysterious and despised throne-pretender was half-brother to her son Gundulf and father to a namesake of his. <<
>
> Would that not mean that Artemia married three times?
> x (1) N.N. father of Munderic (throne-pretender).
> x (2) N.N. father of Gundulf.
> x (3) Florentius, father of Nicetius and a daughter (maternal grandmother of Gregory),
>
> or
>
> x (1) N.N. father of Munderic (throne-pretender).
> x (2) N.N. father of Gundulf and a daughter (maternal grandmother of Gregory).
> x (3) Florentius, father of Nicetius.

This is not the scenario I meant to outline, which involved just two
marriages for Artemia:

x (1) NN father of Munderic by a prior wife, father of Gundulf and
probably of Gregory's maternal grandmother by Artemia
x (2) Florentinus, father of Nicetius by Artemia

Peter Stewart

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

Op zaterdag 2 juli 2022 om 03:50:22 UTC+2 schreef Paulo Ricardo Canedo:
> 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.

These two papers are very critical on anything beyond bishop Arnulf.

https://www.academia.edu/28031387/Die_Namen_Ansegis_el_Anschis_us_und_Anchises_im_Kontext_der_Karolingergenealogien_und_der_fr%C3%A4nkischen_Geschichtsschreibung_2014_pdf
https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/items/71314969-748b-441a-b8c1-7cd4110aa32a

Hans Vogels

Op vrijdag 3 november 2023 om 08:48:29 UTC+1 schreef Hans Vogels:
> Op zaterdag 2 juli 2022 om 03:50:22 UTC+2 schreef Paulo Ricardo Canedo:
> > 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.
>
>
> These two papers are very critical on anything beyond bishop Arnulf.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/28031387/Die_Namen_Ansegis_el_Anschis_us_und_Anchises_im_Kontext_der_Karolingergenealogien_und_der_fr%C3%A4nkischen_Geschichtsschreibung_2014_pdf
> https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/items/71314969-748b-441a-b8c1-7cd4110aa32a
>
> Hans Vogels

Sorry for bothering you. The ancestors of Charlemagne were an issue on a Dutch forum on which I linked to this discussion. I kind of forgot that this (inbetween) was were I got the information in the first place.

Hans Vogels

Op vrijdag 3 november 2023 om 09:14:48 UTC+1 schreef Hans Vogels:
> Op vrijdag 3 november 2023 om 08:48:29 UTC+1 schreef Hans Vogels:
> > Op zaterdag 2 juli 2022 om 03:50:22 UTC+2 schreef Paulo Ricardo Canedo:
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > These two papers are very critical on anything beyond bishop Arnulf.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/28031387/Die_Namen_Ansegis_el_Anschis_us_und_Anchises_im_Kontext_der_Karolingergenealogien_und_der_fr%C3%A4nkischen_Geschichtsschreibung_2014_pdf
> > https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/items/71314969-748b-441a-b8c1-7cd4110aa32a
> >
> > Hans Vogels
> Sorry for bothering you. The ancestors of Charlemagne were an issue on a Dutch forum on which I linked to this discussion. I kind of forgot that this (inbetween) was were I got the information in the first place.
>
> Hans Vogels

I found something recent (2023) via Google Scholar:
Rewriting Inconvenient Truths How Charlemagne Rewrote his Ancestry to Justify His Leadership.
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1084879/Doe_FinalDraft.pdf?sequence=1

Hans Vogels