06-15-2009, 03:53 PM
Hi Alan,
I agree with Agraes. The British genealogies are very difficult to use, but at least we know that some go back on the 8th or 9th century - to use them as primary evidence for historical theories before the 6th century cannot be recommended.
The Breton genealogies are far worse. When the material cannot be corroborated from other sources (such as gregory of Tours or similar material) they suffer from the fact that no primary sources such as charters and genealogies survived the Viking onslaught. All material dates from the 11th century or thereabouts, or later. Much of what individual genealogies contain seems to be taken (in a fanciful, often rearranged way) from earlier British genealogies. So is the otherwise unattested supposedly fifth-century St.Vortigern (St. Gurthiern) from Britanny ‘empowered’ with a paternal lineage stolen from the real Vortigern, and a maternal lineage stolen from St. Kentigern. And all contrived not earlier than the later 11th century.
To draw on this material for details about 4th and 5th century persons (without these persons and connections found in earlier sources) is useless.
Yes Alan, I know your perception is somewhat 'romantic'
But why 'that part of the genealogies' should not be fictional I just can't see.
Well… Erm… What can I say?
Aldrian (Aldroenus) is no Andrew (which comes from Andreas). 'John Riatam' is not Riothamus, it's a very late alteration, of possibly three characters. Riothamus as far as we know had no surname like Iohannis.
We have no evidence of Riothamus was the son of Aldroenus, who is connected to Brittany. Nor is there any connection between him and Illtud, or of Illtud to Aldroenus, or any of them to 'Ringulida'.
This woman, with a very Germanic name, is not connected to Saint Germanus, of whom we know but little. Her mother’s name, Germanilla, is actually not Germanic but Latin. That her brother is supposed to be St. Germanus (who no-one thinks of a being Germanic, which he probably wasn’t as far as we can tell) becomes telling: evidently we have medieval scribes lumping together a load of names of people who sound or seem Germanic, but in fact are not (apart from this ‘Rinegild’or whatever the original form of her name was.
Fraomar, who was indeed a king of the Alamanni, is never known to have carried the name 'Rusticus'. Nor was he known to have been the praefect of Gaul at any time. So a daughter of a 'Rusticus, praefect of Gaul' cannot be connected to Fraomar.
Illtud and Riothamus were not brothers. How could they? Riothamus was active in the 460s, Illtud died in 537. If their uncle was St. Germanus (who died at about 60 years c. 437). Their supposed ‘father’ Aldroen seems to be active in the time of Magnus Maximus, c. 380.
Which shows the impossibility of the construction: Aldroen (floruit 380s) cannot have a brother-in-law whose floruit was c. 410, and sons whose floruit are in the 460s and the 520s or thereabouts.
All a mirage I’m afraid.
Quote: By this means of cross-referencing, we can discover plausible historicity. When you add it all up, you begin to form a picture (depending upon your perception, and mine is rather romantic). These nuptials indicate alliences betrween the southern dynasties; and Theodoric's family marries into Andrew's twice, his sister to John (Riothamus?) and his grand-niece to John's grandson. I don't think this part of the genealogies is fictional. And I have no reason to believe that "Ringulida" could have been dreamed up by medieval scribes who had no clue that she was actually Germanic, that her mother's name was Germanilla, and that her father was the probable Fraomarius (as in Fraomarius Rusticus) the King of the Alamanni mentioned by Ammianus as seated by Valentinian and arriving in Britain in 372. Little links, viewed carefully, can shed bright light.
I agree with Agraes. The British genealogies are very difficult to use, but at least we know that some go back on the 8th or 9th century - to use them as primary evidence for historical theories before the 6th century cannot be recommended.
The Breton genealogies are far worse. When the material cannot be corroborated from other sources (such as gregory of Tours or similar material) they suffer from the fact that no primary sources such as charters and genealogies survived the Viking onslaught. All material dates from the 11th century or thereabouts, or later. Much of what individual genealogies contain seems to be taken (in a fanciful, often rearranged way) from earlier British genealogies. So is the otherwise unattested supposedly fifth-century St.Vortigern (St. Gurthiern) from Britanny ‘empowered’ with a paternal lineage stolen from the real Vortigern, and a maternal lineage stolen from St. Kentigern. And all contrived not earlier than the later 11th century.
To draw on this material for details about 4th and 5th century persons (without these persons and connections found in earlier sources) is useless.
Yes Alan, I know your perception is somewhat 'romantic'
But why 'that part of the genealogies' should not be fictional I just can't see. Quote:When we discover that Aldrian/Andrew ap Saloman (father of John and Illtyd) married a certain "Ringulida," it seems unimportant at first. Then we discover that her real name was "Rhineguilda" and she was the daughter of Rusticus (Praefect of Gaul). Her brother was Saint Germanus; and this shows laterally in Germanus' benificence toward Illtyd and the founding of Llanwit Major. In turn, Illtyd was recorded in Welsh tradition as one of "Arthur's" greatest knights. Now this may be legendary, but it places correctly when we move to the "Lifer St. Illtutus," where we hear much the same thing. The tale has all the characteristics of the later "Grail Knight," and it also places Illtyd as a proto-Lancelot... even the fact/legend that he came from France.
Well… Erm… What can I say?
Aldrian (Aldroenus) is no Andrew (which comes from Andreas). 'John Riatam' is not Riothamus, it's a very late alteration, of possibly three characters. Riothamus as far as we know had no surname like Iohannis.
We have no evidence of Riothamus was the son of Aldroenus, who is connected to Brittany. Nor is there any connection between him and Illtud, or of Illtud to Aldroenus, or any of them to 'Ringulida'.
This woman, with a very Germanic name, is not connected to Saint Germanus, of whom we know but little. Her mother’s name, Germanilla, is actually not Germanic but Latin. That her brother is supposed to be St. Germanus (who no-one thinks of a being Germanic, which he probably wasn’t as far as we can tell) becomes telling: evidently we have medieval scribes lumping together a load of names of people who sound or seem Germanic, but in fact are not (apart from this ‘Rinegild’or whatever the original form of her name was.
Fraomar, who was indeed a king of the Alamanni, is never known to have carried the name 'Rusticus'. Nor was he known to have been the praefect of Gaul at any time. So a daughter of a 'Rusticus, praefect of Gaul' cannot be connected to Fraomar.
Illtud and Riothamus were not brothers. How could they? Riothamus was active in the 460s, Illtud died in 537. If their uncle was St. Germanus (who died at about 60 years c. 437). Their supposed ‘father’ Aldroen seems to be active in the time of Magnus Maximus, c. 380.
Which shows the impossibility of the construction: Aldroen (floruit 380s) cannot have a brother-in-law whose floruit was c. 410, and sons whose floruit are in the 460s and the 520s or thereabouts.
All a mirage I’m afraid.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
