1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim.
1. Arnulfing Descentd708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet fantasy.
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of Champagne [
1. Arnulfing Descent
I dont know if its settipani or someone else who bases this on a much later XIe legend of Godfrid of Flandelum and his wife Pomponia found in another text called the genealogy of St.Aredius. Not having seen Settipanis book only what french websitesshow in lines of descent, it seems Godfrid's sons establish a new family line in Aquitaine first at Bourges in the 8th and later also in Cahors in the 9th. In this version Godfrid had 2 sons Chunibert of Bourges 761-78 and Ct Drogo 753-62. I think this
work on Nevers 2000 or la midi noblesse 2004.
The epitaph of
Louis who died in Sens described him as "regali de stirpe", of the royal bloodline, i.e. as a grandson of king Louis IV rather than of his wife, Bruno's grandmother Gerberga
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 01:25:48 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of
I haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeed in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of /La préhistoire des Capétiens/.
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case
the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal
documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort. Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter StewartThanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet fantasy.
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of Champagne [
I haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeed
in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he
will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of
/La préhistoire des Capétiens/.
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case
the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former
pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the
Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal
documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a
royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort.
Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the
earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to
the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter Stewart
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:inherited Dagsburg through her. However in the 17th century, a historian at Moyenmoutier Jean de Bayon said he had found an entry in its archives which named Louis count of Dasburg _avus_ of St.Bruno who he perceived to be Heilwigs father. He went on to
<snip>
2. Dagsburg Origin
My 2nd query concerns Bruno's maternal ancestors. AFAIK nothing is known about his mother Heilwig of Dasburg from medieval sources, except she was a latin [romance speaker] but could also speak teuton the language of her husband Hugo of Eguisheim who
V]ariscourt to the monks. He says this is the same man, because Jean de Bayon also called him Louis comte aleman! I havnt seen this source so I dont know what to make of this, but there do seem a few other obscure Count Louis floating around at this timeMunier identifies this Louis of Dasburg with a story about a Louis 'Count of the alemans' he found in the chronicle of St.Pierre le Vif de Sens 1016/25, who as he was returning from a pilgrimage to Mont st.Michel, fell ill and died at Sens, and gave [
was a strong ally of Louis IV of France in the 940s, so the family must have changed sides abruptly when the king suddenly died leaving a boy of 13. The original Renaud de Roucy is usually marked as dying in 967, but Munier quotes St.Pierre le Vif againThere are obviously problems with this not least that Bruno of Langres says in 991 at Verzy synod that he had only one brother, so Louis of Dagsburg would have had to have died by then. Also AIUI the original Renaud de Roucy whoever he was, in fact
its a different Renaud.says 3 yrs after this the city was surrendered to Renaud count of Reims [945] but Fromond attacked and broke into the castel of st colombe and Renaud was killed in the rout 27 august.
AIUI Renaud was not really count of Reims but later built a castle at Roucy nearby sometime later, and this account or Muniers interpretation is different to what I see elsewhere, so I wonder if he has made a mistake with the date of this event or if
Renaud (or Ragenoldus) was repeatedly called count by Flodoard and he
was excommunicated by an archbishop of Reims for hanging on to property belonging to the cathedral, so his power evidently covered that area and some historians conclude that he was count of Reims.
As for the Louis "comes Alemannorum" who died as a monk at Saint-Pierre-le-Vif in Sens, probably ca 1023, he was not a brother but
a first cousin of bishop Bruno of Langres, a son of the latter's
maternal uncle Charles of Laon, duke of lower Lorraine. The notion that Louis of Dagsbourg was this man, a Carolingian, is far-fetched to say
the least. Munier returned to this hobby-horse subject seven years after
the article you mention, in 'A propos de Louis de Dabo, comes
Alemanorum, aieul du Pape Léon IX', /Revue de droit canonique/ 57 (2009)
- but the case didn't get any stronger in the interval. The epitaph of
Louis who died in Sens described him as "regali de stirpe", of the royal bloodline, i.e. as a grandson of king Louis IV rather than of his wife, Bruno's grandmother Gerberga: this is not a description that would be applied at Sens to someone whose nearest royal ancestor was Henry the Fowler, father of a maternal grandmother.
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 10:51:13 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:[d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet fantasy.
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 01:25:48 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that >>>> is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of Champagne
I haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeed >>> in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope heThanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ
will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of >>> /La préhistoire des Capétiens/.
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery
inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case
the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may
represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious
possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former
pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the
Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal
documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a
royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property. >>>
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort.
Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the
earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to >>> the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended >>> from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter Stewart
Did you remember the discussion?
On 02-Dec-21 5:05 AM, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:18:13 AM UTC,
pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
2. Dagsburg Origin
My 2nd query concerns Bruno's maternal ancestors. AFAIK nothing is
known about his mother Heilwig of Dasburg from medieval sources,
except she was a latin [romance speaker] but could also speak teuton
the language of her husband Hugo of Eguisheim who inherited Dagsburg
through her. However in the 17th century, a historian at
Moyenmoutier Jean de Bayon said he had found an entry in its
archives which named Louis count of Dasburg _avus_ of St.Bruno who
he perceived to be Heilwigs father. He went on to exult the virtues
of Bruno's mother Heilwig, who he said retired to Moyenmoutier and
lived there for the last 30 years of her life. In the 18th another
historian Schoepflin says he also found a reference to a Louis Otto
of Dasburg _avus_ of Pope Leo who in 966 founded the priory of
St.Quirinus in the Vosges. This evidence was rejected by both
Hlawitschka and Legl, but Charles Munier in his article _À propos du
millénaire de la naissance du pape Léon IX (1002-1054)_ uses it as
the starting point of his research into Brunos maternal descent.
Apparently jean de Bayon was a 14th century historian, my mistake.
Early-14th - his chronicle was written in 1326.
Renaud (or Ragenoldus) was repeatedly called count by Flodoard and he
Munier identifies this Louis of Dasburg with a story about a Louis
'Count of the alemans' he found in the chronicle of St.Pierre le Vif
de Sens 1016/25, who as he was returning from a pilgrimage to Mont
st.Michel, fell ill and died at Sens, and gave [V]ariscourt to the
monks. He says this is the same man, because Jean de Bayon also
called him Louis comte aleman! I havnt seen this source so I dont
know what to make of this, but there do seem a few other obscure
Count Louis floating around at this time such as Louis I of Chiny,
Louis de Mousson. He goes to to attach Louis of Dasburg to the
family of Rainald/Ragenold or Renaud de Roucy, whose origins are a
problem in itself and suggest this family was favoured by Bruno of
Koln and the Ottonians as they were descended from Gerberga sister
of Otto the Great and her husband Giselbert of Lorraine/Lotharingia
through their daughter Alberada. He names the siblings of Louis of
Dagsberg as Giselbert de Roucy, Renaud who became count of Hainault
when Bruno of Koln divided Lotharingia c959 and was killed at
peronne 973, Bruno bishop of Langres, Otto father of Louis of Chiny,
Hedwig who married Sigfrid of Luxemburg and Gerberga the wife of
Fromond of Sens, 5 of whom he notes took their names from their
maternal relatives.
There are obviously problems with this not least that Bruno of
Langres says in 991 at Verzy synod that he had only one brother, so
Louis of Dagsburg would have had to have died by then. Also AIUI the
original Renaud de Roucy whoever he was, in fact was a strong ally
of Louis IV of France in the 940s, so the family must have changed
sides abruptly when the king suddenly died leaving a boy of 13. The
original Renaud de Roucy is usually marked as dying in 967, but
Munier quotes St.Pierre le Vif again to the contrary to suggest
there were 2 separate Renauds. This chronicle says a famine occured
which Munier says is the one mentioned in 942 by Flodard, and the
Sens account
says 3 yrs after this the city was surrendered to Renaud count of
Reims [945] but Fromond attacked and broke into the castel of st
colombe and Renaud was killed in the rout 27 august.
AIUI Renaud was not really count of Reims but later built a castle
at Roucy nearby sometime later, and this account or Muniers
interpretation is different to what I see elsewhere, so I wonder if
he has made a mistake with the date of this event or if its a
different Renaud.
was excommunicated by an archbishop of Reims for hanging on to property
belonging to the cathedral, so his power evidently covered that area and >>> some historians conclude that he was count of Reims.
Not having access to this chronicle I dont know if Munier was correct
in his dating of the events to 945. If this Renaud died 27/8/945 as he
claims,
it must be a different Renaud who built Roucy c948 and died 967, although
it seems that Flodoard is refering to just 1 man not 2 under Louis IV.
There is uncertainty about who was who, one man or two - Flodoard
mentioned a Viking leader 'Ragenoldus, princeps Nordmannorum' a few
times in the 920s: in 924 he was devastating the lands of Hugo Magnus,
duke of the Franks, because he had not yet been given possessions of his
own within Francia; he made a pact with Hugo in the same year and went
off to pillage in Burgundy instead; by the end of that year (described
at the start of 925 by Flodoard) he was pursued by Hugo's brother-in-law Rodulf, by then king of the Franks, with a force including soldiers from Reims. After that, nothing is heard of him until early in 944 when Louis
IV gave the castrum of Montigny near Soissons (which had belonged to
Heribert II of Vermandois) to a Ragenold, whom Flodoard named without qualification. The upshot was a good deal of strife back and forth with Heribert's followers until 945 when Louis raised a force of Vikings to
ravage Vermandois.
On 02-Dec-21 5:05 AM, mike davis wrote:
Not having access to this chronicle I dont know if Munier was correct
in his dating of the events to 945. If this Renaud died 27/8/945 as he
claims,
it must be a different Renaud who built Roucy c948 and died 967, although
it seems that Flodoard is refering to just 1 man not 2 under Louis IV.
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
2. Dagsburg Origin
My 2nd query concerns Bruno's maternal ancestors. AFAIK nothing is
known about his mother Heilwig of Dasburg from medieval sources,
except she was a latin [romance speaker] but could also speak teuton
the language of her husband Hugo of Eguisheim who inherited Dagsburg
through her. However in the 17th century, a historian at Moyenmoutier
Jean de Bayon said he had found an entry in its archives which named
Louis count of Dasburg _avus_ of St.Bruno who he perceived to be
Heilwigs father. He went on to exult the virtues of Bruno's mother
Heilwig, who he said retired to Moyenmoutier and lived there for the
last 30 years of her life. In the 18th another historian Schoepflin
says he also found a reference to a Louis Otto of Dasburg _avus_ of
Pope Leo who in 966 founded the priory of St.Quirinus in the Vosges.
This evidence was rejected by both Hlawitschka and Legl, but Charles
Munier in his article _À propos du millénaire de la naissance du pape
Léon IX (1002-1054)_ uses it as the starting point of his research
into Brunos maternal descent.
Munier identifies this Louis of Dasburg with a story about a Louis
'Count of the alemans' he found in the chronicle of St.Pierre le Vif
de Sens 1016/25, who as he was returning from a pilgrimage to Mont
st.Michel, fell ill and died at Sens, and gave [V]ariscourt to the
monks. He says this is the same man, because Jean de Bayon also called
him Louis comte aleman! I havnt seen this source so I dont know what
to make of this, but there do seem a few other obscure Count Louis
floating around at this time such as Louis I of Chiny, Louis de
Mousson. He goes to to attach Louis of Dasburg to the family of
Rainald/Ragenold or Renaud de Roucy, whose origins are a problem in
itself and suggest this family was favoured by Bruno of Koln and the
Ottonians as they were descended from Gerberga sister of Otto the
Great and her husband Giselbert of Lorraine/Lotharingia through their
daughter Alberada. He names the siblings of Louis of Dagsberg as
Giselbert de Roucy, Renaud who became count of Hainault when Bruno of
Koln divided Lotharingia c959 and was killed at peronne 973, Bruno
bishop of Langres, Otto father of Louis of Chiny, Hedwig who married
Sigfrid of Luxemburg and Gerberga the wife of Fromond of Sens, 5 of
whom he notes took their names from their maternal relatives.
There are obviously problems with this not least that Bruno of Langres
says in 991 at Verzy synod that he had only one brother, so Louis of
Dagsburg would have had to have died by then. Also AIUI the original
Renaud de Roucy whoever he was, in fact was a strong ally of Louis IV
of France in the 940s, so the family must have changed sides abruptly
when the king suddenly died leaving a boy of 13. The original Renaud
de Roucy is usually marked as dying in 967, but Munier quotes
St.Pierre le Vif again to the contrary to suggest there were 2
separate Renauds. This chronicle says a famine occured which Munier
says is the one mentioned in 942 by Flodard, and the Sens account
says 3 yrs after this the city was surrendered to Renaud count of
Reims [945] but Fromond attacked and broke into the castel of st
colombe and Renaud was killed in the rout 27 august.
AIUI Renaud was not really count of Reims but later built a castle at
Roucy nearby sometime later, and this account or Muniers
interpretation is different to what I see elsewhere, so I wonder if he
has made a mistake with the date of this event or if its a different
Renaud.
Renaud (or Ragenoldus) was repeatedly called count by Flodoard and he
was excommunicated by an archbishop of Reims for hanging on to property belonging to the cathedral, so his power evidently covered that area and
some historians conclude that he was count of Reims.
On 02-Dec-21 7:34 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 02-Dec-21 5:05 AM, mike davis wrote:<snip>
the chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif - according to this, count Renaud escaped a counter-attack in Sens by viscount Fromond on 29 July in theNot having access to this chronicle I dont know if Munier was correct
in his dating of the events to 945. If this Renaud died 27/8/945 as he
claims,
it must be a different Renaud who built Roucy c948 and died 967, although >> it seems that Flodoard is refering to just 1 man not 2 under Louis IV. Munier's date of 27 July (not August) 945 comes from misunderstanding
third year after the famine that Flodoard had reported under 942.
Fromond slaughtered many of Renaud's men, who were resting around
midday, while the rest ran off. Munier wrongly thought that 'IIII
kalendas augusti' means 27 rather than correctly 29 July, and he did not
know enough Latin to realise that 'Rainaldus comes fuga lapsus est'
means that he slipped away, not that he passed away.
The interval of two decades whenh Ragenold/Renaud is not mentioned may
be just a period during which he settled with his followers in the Reims area, or it may be that Flodoard was writing about two different
namesakes, in that case probably father and son, on either side of the interval. However, if Renaud of Roucy was the man active in the early
920s he appears to have taken a long time to get married and have
children since his wife's son Bruno of Langres was aged 24 when ordained
in 981, i.e. born in 957. Also, if Bruno's first cousin Guy, count of Soissons, was son of a sister of Renaud then the latter more probably belonged to a generation born after Ragenold the Viking had invaded
Francia - unless of course he had brought along a sister raiding with
him who was (much later) thought a suitable bride for a Frankish count.
Peter Stewart
if Bruno of Langres was only born in 957, that does have implications for the rest of
the roucy family. Even if Giselbert and perhaps Louis were 10 years older than
Bruno, its hard to see how a man that young can be the "Louis Otto of Dagsburg"
who Schoepflin says he found referenced as the founder of St.Quirinus in the Vosges.
in 966. So either Schoepflin was mistaken, or Munier is wrong to attach him to the
Roucy family. I'm assuming that Jean de Bayon and Schoepflin didnt make Louis up
that is. I know that Renaud's wife Alberada is only assumed to be his wife from
other evidence rather than a definite statement, but if she is definitely the daughter of
Giselbert of LTR and Gerberga of Saxony [and not an earlier union] then she probably
was born after 928, so I assume she became the ward of her stepfather Louis IV and
he gave her to Renaud sometime in the 940s or at any rate before 954? Either way the
idea of Louis of Dagsburg coming from Roucy family despite the onomastic accord
that Munier cites, seems more unlikely.
<big snip>Flodoard's annals for about five years, then leads his host into a battle at Chaumont, is crushed, and utterly disappears. It's almost certain he's killed. Ragenold of Roucy shows up two decades later with the same name, but by the same token so does,
Beyond the fact they've got a version of the same name, there really is no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy. Rognvald's career is pretty straightforward - he shows up on the Loire c. 920, is omnipresent in
As for whether he's count of Roucy or Rheims: on one hand, he shows up in _Chartes de Cluny_, no. 730, as Rainaldus Remensis comitis [sic], which is as good by way of evidence as anything. However, I think getting hung up, like Vercauteren, on whetherperson X was count of 'place X' or 'place Y' rather misses the point. Counts - especially men like Ragenold whose status was so heavily tied to royal favour - didn't _have_ to be counts of anywhere in particular. (See on this Charles West, 'Principautés
Except that Aubusson is nowhere near Reims, the area in which both
Ragenolds appear within two decades of each other. Also the orthography
used for both by Flodoard (Ragenoldus, rather than Rainaldus that was
more frequent in the mid-10th century) has been taken to suggest that
the original Norse name may have been Ragnvald, following a pattern of baptism with a vaguely similar or alliterative name (e.g. Rollo/Robert). Flodoard distinguished between some namesakes, for instance by the use
of second names (such as Albus for Hugo Magnus, possibly a
mistranscription of Abbas), but gave no indication of this in the occurrences of Ragenold/s except in the change between calling one
leader of the Northmen ("princeps Nordmannorum") and the other "comes" without a territorial designation (that was anyway not usually stated
for counts in his time, as you point out).
Vercauteren would have rejected the Cluny charter evidence on the same
basis as the two chronicles calling Renaud count of Reims, that this was retrospective from a century or more later - in this case, a
semi-literate mention from the second half of the 11th century in the cartulary of abbot Aimard, here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10545027z/f307.item ("Rainald[us] REMENS[IS] COMITIS" at the end of no. 29 just above the red rubric for
no. 30).
A count who did not exercise authority in a particular place would not normally be found leading soldiery from a particular place to defend possessions of its prelate. Flodoard called Renaud (whom I think to be
the second namesake) "count of Louis [IV]", but this doesn't necessarily indicate a count palatine or some kind of roving commission.
I mentioned in an earlier post that under 925 Flodoard said King Rodulf pursued Ragenold in Burgundy with soldiers from Reims - I don't suppose
he took them via the Loire valley. Viking raiders were not confined to established bases.
These Reginars were father and son - your argument, to which I was
directly responding, was that "there really is no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy". As for
clarity, why do you think historians have debated whether Flodoard
referred to one Ragenold or two if his intention is clear?
Vercauteren didn't object to the Cluny charter - he didn't mention it:
that is why I wrote "would have rejected ...". He also did not notice
that the chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif (written 1108/9) had copied
the title "count of Reims" from the earlier Sens history (written
1015/34) in another passage that he omitted, and that this was also
copied in a third source written later at Sens. He thought that these authors were writing far from Reims and from their distance lumped Reims
and Roucy together, neglecting that Renaud had briefly held Sens in 945 before being chased out as misrepresented by Munier.
See my prior post about Gislebert and the viscountcy of Reims - this is evidence for jurisdiction in the city a generation after Renaud, not for interference there by a magnate from the vicinity.
Vercauteren offered no reason why Renaud, and explicitly titled count
and owning Roucy (approximately 25 kms from Reims) could not have been effectively advocate of the archdiocese and principal feudatory of the archbishop, whether or not he was ever formally titled count 'of Reims'.
In a similar way, for instance, Immed IV was diocesan count of Utrecht a
few decades later - arrangements such as this were more common in
Lotharingia than in Francia, but not unexampled as Vercauteren
arbitrarily supposed.
Bur thought that the elder Renaud was father (by a first wife) of count Waldric of Soissons and (by a second) of count Renaud of Roucy,
accounting for the cousin relationship between bishop Bruno of Langres
and count Guy of Soissons, and also that Waldric was perhaps related to
the counts of Anjou. The last is a weak case based only on his
subscribing, along with count Geoffroy Grisegonelle's uncle bishop Guy
of Soissons, an undated charter reforming an Angevin abbey apparently
issued on 19 June in either 966 or (more probably) 963.
On 03-Dec-21 5:58 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:
<big snip>
Beyond the fact they've got a version of the same name, there really
is no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with
Ragenold of Roucy. Rognvald's career is pretty straightforward - he
shows up on the Loire c. 920, is omnipresent in Flodoard's annals for
about five years, then leads his host into a battle at Chaumont, is
crushed, and utterly disappears. It's almost certain he's killed.
Ragenold of Roucy shows up two decades later with the same name, but
by the same token so does, say, Viscount Rainald of Aubusson.
Except that Aubusson is nowhere near Reims, the area in which both
Ragenolds appear within two decades of each other. Also the orthography
used for both by Flodoard (Ragenoldus, rather than Rainaldus that was
more frequent in the mid-10th century) has been taken to suggest that
the original Norse name may have been Ragnvald, following a pattern of baptism with a vaguely similar or alliterative name (e.g. Rollo/Robert). Flodoard distinguished between some namesakes, for instance by the use
of second names (such as Albus for Hugo Magnus, possibly a
mistranscription of Abbas), but gave no indication of this in the
occurrences of Ragenold/s except in the change between calling one
leader of the Northmen ("princeps Nordmannorum") and the other "comes" without a territorial designation (that was anyway not usually stated
for counts in his time, as you point out).
On 03-Dec-21 8:21 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 03-Dec-21 5:58 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:
<big snip>
Beyond the fact they've got a version of the same name, there really
is no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with
Ragenold of Roucy. Rognvald's career is pretty straightforward - he
shows up on the Loire c. 920, is omnipresent in Flodoard's annals for
about five years, then leads his host into a battle at Chaumont, is
crushed, and utterly disappears. It's almost certain he's killed.
Ragenold of Roucy shows up two decades later with the same name, but
by the same token so does, say, Viscount Rainald of Aubusson.
Except that Aubusson is nowhere near Reims, the area in which both
Ragenolds appear within two decades of each other. Also the
orthography used for both by Flodoard (Ragenoldus, rather than
Rainaldus that was more frequent in the mid-10th century) has been
taken to suggest that the original Norse name may have been Ragnvald,
following a pattern of baptism with a vaguely similar or alliterative
name (e.g. Rollo/Robert). Flodoard distinguished between some
namesakes, for instance by the use of second names (such as Albus for
Hugo Magnus, possibly a mistranscription of Abbas), but gave no
indication of this in the occurrences of Ragenold/s except in the
change between calling one leader of the Northmen ("princeps
Nordmannorum") and the other "comes" without a territorial designation
(that was anyway not usually stated for counts in his time, as you
point out).
Interestingly, Flodoard himself used the form Rainaldus for an earlier
count of this name, plainly a Frank, who had correspondence with
archbishop Hincmar (between 845 & 882) about property of the Reims archdiocese that had been recovered from plunderers, see here (lines
12-13): https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_36/index.htm#page/343/mode/1up.
So why would Raoul rely on soldiery of the Reims archdiocese ("militibus scilicet Remensis aecclesiae") if their home had not been menaced by Ragenold? I doubt that this was haphazard.
Unless you consider that the
first Ragenold was of such major concern throughout Francia that men
from anywhere might be called on to chase him down and therefore he
might be expected to show up in sources with a broader or different
purview than Flodoard's written at Reims
And Flodoard is so clear aout this that the Bernards have never been conclusively sorted out...
The identification of Ragenold the raider chief with Renaud the count
was made by Melleville before Moranvillé. You are arguing in an unbecomingly egocentric circle in asserting that Flodoard clearly meant
just what you take him to mean and nothing else.
Interestingly, Flodoard himself used the form Rainaldus for an earlier
count of this name, plainly a Frank, who had correspondence with
archbishop Hincmar (between 845 & 882) about property of the Reims archdiocese that had been recovered from plunderers, see here (lines
12-13): https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_36/index.htm#page/343/mode/1up.
According to the editor (note 90) nothing more is known about this count.
Reims of course had long been a favoured target of Vikings, and Hincmar
died in 882 while taking refuge from an attack on the city. Louis IV
while residing there in 945 raised a force of Normans to ravage
Vermandois, so they can't have been based too far away at that time.
Oise; he doesn't say they got anywhere near Rheims.So why would Raoul rely on soldiery of the Reims archdiocese ("militibus
scilicet Remensis aecclesiae") if their home had not been menaced by
Ragenold? I doubt that this was haphazard.
The church of Rheims owed the king military service. That's why they go to Burgundy; it's why, a little later on, they go to Eu under the command of Heribert of Vermandois. Flodoard is clear that Rognvald's raiders were going back and forth over the
- but not the area around Rheims.Unless you consider that the
first Ragenold was of such major concern throughout Francia that men
from anywhere might be called on to chase him down and therefore he
might be expected to show up in sources with a broader or different
purview than Flodoard's written at Reims
Yes, explicitly so: later in 925, Ralph issued the general call-out of the kingdom's army. This makes sense: at this point Rognvald is a threat to the kingdom's security who has menaced a fair chunk of the realm, including Artois, Neustria and Burgundy
As for expecting him to show up in other contemporary sources - it would be remarkable if he did, given Flodoard is the _only_ contemporary narrative from the West Frankish kingdom during these decades. In terms of near contemporary sources, though, hedoes actually appear in the _Miracula Sancti Benedicti_ of Aimoin of Fleury, where he seems to have left a memory as threatening as Flodoard shows him to have been at the time.
different Hughs all active at the same time.And Flodoard is so clear aout this that the Bernards have never been
conclusively sorted out...
Precisely - they're not clear to _us_. My point is part of the reason they're not clear to us is because a contemporary reader would have known who Flodoard was talking about without him having to distinguish in the way he does between, e.g., the
The identification of Ragenold the raider chief with Renaud the count
was made by Melleville before Moranvillé. You are arguing in an
unbecomingly egocentric circle in asserting that Flodoard clearly meant
just what you take him to mean and nothing else.
Speaking of unbecoming, let's leave out the personal attacks. There are plenty of good, scholarly reasons not to be convinced by this weak, weak identification.
uses 'Rain-' for that particular radical, as in his letter to Bishop Hildebold of Soissons or his Opuscules concerning Hincmar of Laon). Flodoard seems to do this with his orthography in the _Historia_ - so, for instance, the name 'Adalgar' is 'Interestingly, Flodoard himself used the form Rainaldus for an earlier
count of this name, plainly a Frank, who had correspondence with
archbishop Hincmar (between 845 & 882) about property of the Reims
archdiocese that had been recovered from plunderers, see here (lines
12-13): https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_36/index.htm#page/343/mode/1up.
According to the editor (note 90) nothing more is known about this count.
That's not strictly accurate. This part of Flodoard's _Historia Remensis Ecclesiae_ is a summary of a letter of Archbishop Hincmar, and so 'Rainaldus' is coming straight from the source (a quick check of Hincmar's work does indeed show that he normally
However, bringing in the _Historia_ isn't relevant to what Flodoard does in the _Annals_, which is the text under discussion. There, he uses 'Ragen-' or 'Ragin-' for that particular radical (thus, 'Ragenarius', 'Ragenardus') in every case. With that inmind, within his annals he makes relevant distinctions between people who could be confused (e.g. 939, where he does distinguish between 'Hugh son of Richard', 'Hugh son of Robert', and 'Hugh the Cisalpine' because it's important to know which Hugh is
the Great over which of them got to rule (what later became) Normandy. These particular Northmen come from his newly acquired Rouennais supporters and have no bearing on Ragenold's background.Reims of course had long been a favoured target of Vikings, and Hincmar
died in 882 while taking refuge from an attack on the city. Louis IV
while residing there in 945 raised a force of Normans to ravage
Vermandois, so they can't have been based too far away at that time.
Rheims had indeed been under attack from Vikings in the 880s, and that's about it. Not exactly a 'favoured target' for Northman fleets. As for Louis' Northman army in 945, at the time he had just taken control of Rouen, and was actively fighting Hugh
Let's bring this back to first principles. Being as even-handed as possible, here is the evidence for the Viking raider Rognvald being the same as Ragenold of Roucy:evidentially based to our understanding of the period.
1) They have the same name.
2) Flodoard does not explicitly say that they are different people.
Against the identification:
1) They lived decades apart.
2) They operated in different areas of the kingdom.
3) No source says they are the same person. This is especially significant because:
4) Flodoard had a chip on his shoulder about Normans - thus, the Romance-speaking, Christian, born-in-Gaul Counts of Rouen William Longsword and Richard the Fearless are always identified as 'Northmen' - but Ragenold isn't.
Quite frankly, points 3) and 4) against seems redundant when comparing points 1) and 2) against with point 1) for. Tenth-century figures can be arbitrarily combined or separated at leisure, but to do so on such a flimsy basis adds nothing useful or
<snip>from the Loire, then made peace with Hugh and William the Younger (south of the Loire) to go to Burgundy - i.e., continue down the Loire, from when he carried out the raids which ultimately led to the defeat at Chauont. Whether or not this supposition is
I mentioned in an earlier post that under 925 Flodoard said King Rodulf
pursued Ragenold in Burgundy with soldiers from Reims - I don't suppose
he took them via the Loire valley. Viking raiders were not confined to
established bases.
Ralph probably did lead them against a fleet based on the Loire, actually, or close enough to. The most obvious interpretation of Rognvald's activities in 924/5 is that the 'leader of the Northmen who dwelled on the Loire' raided Hugh the Great's lands
On 03-Dec-21 5:13 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
if Bruno of Langres was only born in 957, that does have implications for the rest ofBruno's birth in 957 is indicated in an obituary notice from
the roucy family. Even if Giselbert and perhaps Louis were 10 years older than
Bruno, its hard to see how a man that young can be the "Louis Otto of Dagsburg"
who Schoepflin says he found referenced as the founder of St.Quirinus in the Vosges.
in 966. So either Schoepflin was mistaken, or Munier is wrong to attach him to the
Roucy family. I'm assuming that Jean de Bayon and Schoepflin didnt make Louis up
that is. I know that Renaud's wife Alberada is only assumed to be his wife from
other evidence rather than a definite statement, but if she is definitely the daughter of
Giselbert of LTR and Gerberga of Saxony [and not an earlier union] then she probably
was born after 928, so I assume she became the ward of her stepfather Louis IV and
he gave her to Renaud sometime in the 940s or at any rate before 954? Either way the
idea of Louis of Dagsburg coming from Roucy family despite the onomastic accord
that Munier cites, seems more unlikely.
Saint-Bénigne de Dijon stating that he was in his 60th year when he died (in 1016), and according to the chronicle of the same abbey he was aged
24 when ordained in 981.
Munier is wrong in trying to identify any count Louis as a brother of Gislebert and Bruno, unquestionably. They were certainly sons of
Alberada, and if there had been a half-brother on their father's side disregarded in Bruno's "only brother" statement he would necessarily
have been older than Gislebert since Alberada outlived Renaud of Roucy. Gislebert disposed of half and kept half of the viscountcy of Reims according to a tract written at Saint-Remi ca 1100, that contradicts Vercauteren's idea about his (probable) son Ebles only acquiring comital rights there when elected archbishop. No Louis occurs as a successor to Renaud in either Reims or Roucy, and Renaud does not occur in Dagsbourg. Onomastics have misled better researchers than Munier.
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:41:33 PM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 03-Dec-21 5:13 AM, mike davis wrote:Yes I think Munier was convinced that because Bruno of Langres was
<snip>
if Bruno of Langres was only born in 957, that does have implications for the rest ofBruno's birth in 957 is indicated in an obituary notice from
the roucy family. Even if Giselbert and perhaps Louis were 10 years older than
Bruno, its hard to see how a man that young can be the "Louis Otto of Dagsburg"
who Schoepflin says he found referenced as the founder of St.Quirinus in the Vosges.
in 966. So either Schoepflin was mistaken, or Munier is wrong to attach him to the
Roucy family. I'm assuming that Jean de Bayon and Schoepflin didnt make Louis up
that is. I know that Renaud's wife Alberada is only assumed to be his wife from
other evidence rather than a definite statement, but if she is definitely the daughter of
Giselbert of LTR and Gerberga of Saxony [and not an earlier union] then she probably
was born after 928, so I assume she became the ward of her stepfather Louis IV and
he gave her to Renaud sometime in the 940s or at any rate before 954? Either way the
idea of Louis of Dagsburg coming from Roucy family despite the onomastic accord
that Munier cites, seems more unlikely.
Saint-Bénigne de Dijon stating that he was in his 60th year when he died
(in 1016), and according to the chronicle of the same abbey he was aged
24 when ordained in 981.
Munier is wrong in trying to identify any count Louis as a brother of
Gislebert and Bruno, unquestionably. They were certainly sons of
Alberada, and if there had been a half-brother on their father's side
disregarded in Bruno's "only brother" statement he would necessarily
have been older than Gislebert since Alberada outlived Renaud of Roucy.
Gislebert disposed of half and kept half of the viscountcy of Reims
according to a tract written at Saint-Remi ca 1100, that contradicts
Vercauteren's idea about his (probable) son Ebles only acquiring comital
rights there when elected archbishop. No Louis occurs as a successor to
Renaud in either Reims or Roucy, and Renaud does not occur in Dagsbourg.
Onomastics have misled better researchers than Munier.
related to Bruno of Koln [great nephew?] , so Bruno of Eguisheim must have been so named after his 'uncle' Bruno of Langres. Plus Heilwigs own name recalled the saxon dynasty, but there might be any number of reasons they chose these names. Also his father Hugo of Eguisheim was stated to be
the consobrinus or first cousin of Conrad II, because his mother Adelaide
was the sister of Hugos father. Do we know that for sure, or is it assumed because Hugo is called consobrinus of Conrad?
The only thing I liked about Muniers ramblings was the idea that 'Louis Otto count of Dagsburg' was named to honour Louis IV, Renaud's patron, and his wife Gerberga who was sister of Otto the Great, and then her brother Archbishop
Bruno found him an obscure lordship in the Vosges. Disregarding the half-bro idea,
any such individual must have died by 991, but the whole scheme is obviously too flimsy.
Another line I found on these web geni sites was that Louis of Dagsburg was a son of
Rudolf I of Burgundy, who some think married a sister of Aethelstan based on a confusion
with a Louis of Aquitaine mentioned by William of Malmesbury. I think this has been
discussed here many times before, but I've never seen this Welf chap id with Louis of
Dagsburg! It seems a generation too early anyway. Another fantastical suggestion was
that he was a son perhaps illegitimate of Charles Constantine, but he didnt call either
of his sons Louis, and Dagsburg is a long way from Vienne.
- but not the area around Rheims.Unless you consider that the
first Ragenold was of such major concern throughout Francia that men
from anywhere might be called on to chase him down and therefore he
might be expected to show up in sources with a broader or different
purview than Flodoard's written at Reims
Yes, explicitly so: later in 925, Ralph issued the general call-out of the kingdom's army. This makes sense: at this point Rognvald is a threat to the kingdom's security who has menaced a fair chunk of the realm, including Artois, Neustria and Burgundy
As for expecting him to show up in other contemporary sources - it would be remarkable if he did, given Flodoard is the _only_ contemporary narrative from the West Frankish kingdom during these decades. In terms of near contemporary sources, though, hedoes actually appear in the _Miracula Sancti Benedicti_ of Aimoin of Fleury, where he seems to have left a memory as threatening as Flodoard shows him to have been at the time.
On 01-Dec-21 9:52 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 10:51:13 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 01:25:48 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that >>>> is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of
I haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeed >>> in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he >>> will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of >>> /La préhistoire des Capétiens/.Thanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery
inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case >>> the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may >>> represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious >>> possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former >>> pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the
Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal
documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a >>> royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort.
Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the
earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to >>> the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended >>> from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter Stewart
Did you remember the discussion?No, Paulo - on a good day I have the memory capacity of a goldfish, and
even then past SGM discussions are a blank. Frequently in the time it
takes for a slowish lift mechanism to get me to my feet I've forgotten
why I wanted to get up in the first place.
This wikipedia page reflects a lapse in scholarship that I trust
Christian Settipani will correct - though it may be too late to get this misguided conjecture out of circulation now. The obvious place to check
for the authenticity of a papal bull and for references to follow about
the question is *Regesta Imperii*, where the problem with this forged document of Leo IX is set out (as summarised in my post above) by Karl Augustin Frech in *Papstregesten 1024-1058* part 2 (2011) pp. 236-237
no. †650.
Peter Stewart
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 20:04:26 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet
On 01-Dec-21 9:52 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 10:51:13 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 01:25:48 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that >>>>>> is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of
No, Paulo - on a good day I have the memory capacity of a goldfish, andI haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeed >>>>> in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he >>>>> will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of >>>>> /La préhistoire des Capétiens/.Thanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery >>>>> inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case >>>>> the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may >>>>> represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious >>>>> possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former >>>>> pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the
Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal
documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a >>>>> royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort.
Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the
earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to >>>>> the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended >>>>> from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter Stewart
Did you remember the discussion?
even then past SGM discussions are a blank. Frequently in the time it
takes for a slowish lift mechanism to get me to my feet I've forgotten
why I wanted to get up in the first place.
This wikipedia page reflects a lapse in scholarship that I trust
Christian Settipani will correct - though it may be too late to get this
misguided conjecture out of circulation now. The obvious place to check
for the authenticity of a papal bull and for references to follow about
the question is *Regesta Imperii*, where the problem with this forged
document of Leo IX is set out (as summarised in my post above) by Karl
Augustin Frech in *Papstregesten 1024-1058* part 2 (2011) pp. 236-237
no. †650.
Peter Stewart
I emailed Settipani about this and he said those conjectured were mentioned in a mere footnote and that he noted the author behind them was otherwise fanciful and had to be taken with all reservations. What author is that?
On 07-Dec-21 11:13 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 20:04:26 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 9:52 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 10:51:13 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 01:25:48 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of
Settipani might not have been aware they were forgeries at the time.No, Paulo - on a good day I have the memory capacity of a goldfish, and >> even then past SGM discussions are a blank. Frequently in the time itI haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeedThanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ
in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he
will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of
/La préhistoire des Capétiens/.
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery >>>>> inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case >>>>> the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may >>>>> represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious
possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former >>>>> pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the >>>>> Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal
documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a >>>>> royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort.
Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the >>>>> earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to
the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended
from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter Stewart
Did you remember the discussion?
takes for a slowish lift mechanism to get me to my feet I've forgotten
why I wanted to get up in the first place.
This wikipedia page reflects a lapse in scholarship that I trust
Christian Settipani will correct - though it may be too late to get this >> misguided conjecture out of circulation now. The obvious place to check >> for the authenticity of a papal bull and for references to follow about >> the question is *Regesta Imperii*, where the problem with this forged
document of Leo IX is set out (as summarised in my post above) by Karl
Augustin Frech in *Papstregesten 1024-1058* part 2 (2011) pp. 236-237
no. †650.
Peter Stewart
I emailed Settipani about this and he said those conjectured were mentioned in a mere footnote and that he noted the author behind them was otherwise fanciful and had to be taken with all reservations. What author is that?
Are you sure he understood your question and actually meant "a mere footnote"? Even if trying to brush off an unwelcome query, what kind of historian could seriously say such a thing or suppose it made any
difference where on the page in his own work the lapse I posted about
was printed?
The author in question who is "otherwise fanciful" is A. (Lieutenant-colonel) Larose, but he is definitely NOT responsible in any
way for Settipani's own ideas - in the main text of p. 162, about Drogo
of Champagne's son Arnulf, he wrote: "Peut-être laissa-t-il une posterérité fondue dans l'aristocratie lorraine?". To this in note 120
on the same page he added the first lapse I meant: "Ce qui pourrait le
faire croire c'est la mention dans une bulle du pape Léon IX de son ancêtre Arnulf et de ses parents" - NB this is before he noted Larose's "généalogie absolument fantaisiste" making Drogo the direct ancestor of Leo IX. Settipani then added another credulous lapse by suggesting:
"Dans cette hypothèse, on pourrait sous toute réserve rattacher à cette souche le comte Drogo connu en 753 et 762 ..., Hugo, comte de
Chaumonotis (c. 910), issu des Arnulfiens [mais non explicitement des Carolingiens!], père du comte Arnulf et de l'évêque Odalric de Reims († 969)".
The sources for both Leo IX's alleged ancestry claim and for deriving
Hugo of Chaumontois from the Arnulfians are forgeries. Omitting any
mention of that, in a footnote or anywhere else, needs explicitly
admitting and correcting by a self-respecting researcher.
Peter Stewart
A terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 02:17:06 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet
On 07-Dec-21 11:13 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 20:04:26 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 9:52 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 10:51:13 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 01:25:48 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that >>>>>>>> is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of
Settipani might not have been aware they were forgeries at the time.Are you sure he understood your question and actually meant "a mereNo, Paulo - on a good day I have the memory capacity of a goldfish, and >>>> even then past SGM discussions are a blank. Frequently in the time itI haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeedThanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ
in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he >>>>>>> will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of
/La préhistoire des Capétiens/.
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery >>>>>>> inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case >>>>>>> the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may >>>>>>> represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious >>>>>>> possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former >>>>>>> pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the >>>>>>> Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal >>>>>>> documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a >>>>>>> royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort. >>>>>>> Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the >>>>>>> earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to
the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended
from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter Stewart
Did you remember the discussion?
takes for a slowish lift mechanism to get me to my feet I've forgotten >>>> why I wanted to get up in the first place.
This wikipedia page reflects a lapse in scholarship that I trust
Christian Settipani will correct - though it may be too late to get this >>>> misguided conjecture out of circulation now. The obvious place to check >>>> for the authenticity of a papal bull and for references to follow about >>>> the question is *Regesta Imperii*, where the problem with this forged
document of Leo IX is set out (as summarised in my post above) by Karl >>>> Augustin Frech in *Papstregesten 1024-1058* part 2 (2011) pp. 236-237
no. †650.
Peter Stewart
I emailed Settipani about this and he said those conjectured were mentioned in a mere footnote and that he noted the author behind them was otherwise fanciful and had to be taken with all reservations. What author is that?
footnote"? Even if trying to brush off an unwelcome query, what kind of
historian could seriously say such a thing or suppose it made any
difference where on the page in his own work the lapse I posted about
was printed?
The author in question who is "otherwise fanciful" is A.
(Lieutenant-colonel) Larose, but he is definitely NOT responsible in any
way for Settipani's own ideas - in the main text of p. 162, about Drogo
of Champagne's son Arnulf, he wrote: "Peut-être laissa-t-il une
posterérité fondue dans l'aristocratie lorraine?". To this in note 120
on the same page he added the first lapse I meant: "Ce qui pourrait le
faire croire c'est la mention dans une bulle du pape Léon IX de son
ancêtre Arnulf et de ses parents" - NB this is before he noted Larose's
"généalogie absolument fantaisiste" making Drogo the direct ancestor of
Leo IX. Settipani then added another credulous lapse by suggesting:
"Dans cette hypothèse, on pourrait sous toute réserve rattacher à cette >> souche le comte Drogo connu en 753 et 762 ..., Hugo, comte de
Chaumonotis (c. 910), issu des Arnulfiens [mais non explicitement des
Carolingiens!], père du comte Arnulf et de l'évêque Odalric de Reims († >> 969)".
The sources for both Leo IX's alleged ancestry claim and for deriving
Hugo of Chaumontois from the Arnulfians are forgeries. Omitting any
mention of that, in a footnote or anywhere else, needs explicitly
admitting and correcting by a self-respecting researcher.
Peter Stewart
On 07-Dec-21 8:42 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet
A terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 02:17:06 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 07-Dec-21 11:13 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 20:04:26 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 9:52 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 10:51:13 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 01:25:48 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
1. Arnulfing Descent
Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of
Of course he wasn't aware of this, Paulo - are you posting in your sleep?Settipani might not have been aware they were forgeries at the time.Are you sure he understood your question and actually meant "a mereNo, Paulo - on a good day I have the memory capacity of a goldfish, and >>>> even then past SGM discussions are a blank. Frequently in the time it >>>> takes for a slowish lift mechanism to get me to my feet I've forgotten >>>> why I wanted to get up in the first place.I haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeedThanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ
in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he
will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of
/La préhistoire des Capétiens/.
There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery >>>>>>> inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case
the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may
represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious
possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former
pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the >>>>>>> Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal >>>>>>> documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a
royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.
Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort. >>>>>>> Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the >>>>>>> earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to
the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended
from Drogo of Champagne.
Peter Stewart
Did you remember the discussion?
This wikipedia page reflects a lapse in scholarship that I trust
Christian Settipani will correct - though it may be too late to get this
misguided conjecture out of circulation now. The obvious place to check >>>> for the authenticity of a papal bull and for references to follow about >>>> the question is *Regesta Imperii*, where the problem with this forged >>>> document of Leo IX is set out (as summarised in my post above) by Karl >>>> Augustin Frech in *Papstregesten 1024-1058* part 2 (2011) pp. 236-237 >>>> no. †650.
Peter Stewart
I emailed Settipani about this and he said those conjectured were mentioned in a mere footnote and that he noted the author behind them was otherwise fanciful and had to be taken with all reservations. What author is that?
footnote"? Even if trying to brush off an unwelcome query, what kind of >> historian could seriously say such a thing or suppose it made any
difference where on the page in his own work the lapse I posted about
was printed?
The author in question who is "otherwise fanciful" is A.
(Lieutenant-colonel) Larose, but he is definitely NOT responsible in any >> way for Settipani's own ideas - in the main text of p. 162, about Drogo >> of Champagne's son Arnulf, he wrote: "Peut-être laissa-t-il une
posterérité fondue dans l'aristocratie lorraine?". To this in note 120 >> on the same page he added the first lapse I meant: "Ce qui pourrait le
faire croire c'est la mention dans une bulle du pape Léon IX de son
ancêtre Arnulf et de ses parents" - NB this is before he noted Larose's >> "généalogie absolument fantaisiste" making Drogo the direct ancestor of >> Leo IX. Settipani then added another credulous lapse by suggesting:
"Dans cette hypothèse, on pourrait sous toute réserve rattacher à cette
souche le comte Drogo connu en 753 et 762 ..., Hugo, comte de
Chaumonotis (c. 910), issu des Arnulfiens [mais non explicitement des
Carolingiens!], père du comte Arnulf et de l'évêque Odalric de Reims (†
969)".
The sources for both Leo IX's alleged ancestry claim and for deriving
Hugo of Chaumontois from the Arnulfians are forgeries. Omitting any
mention of that, in a footnote or anywhere else, needs explicitly
admitting and correcting by a self-respecting researcher.
Peter Stewart
Failing to realise that the documents with ancestral claims regarding
Hugo of Chaumontois and Pope Leo IX were forgeries from late-11th and
early 12th centuries respectively is precisely the lapse I meant.
There is no suggestion that Settipani deliberately withheld this
information from readers, but rather that he ventured hazy speculation
about a possible descent from Drogo of Champagne without properly
assessing the flawed evidence behind it.
I can only assume that he did not follow what you were emailing him
about if his response implied that Larose's fantasy was somehow at issue
and not his own conjecture.
Peter Stewart
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 220:46:47 |
| Calls: | 6,623 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,318,035 |