GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081029406


From: ロイ・グレイディ <>
Subject: Re: Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-Parthois b. ca. 500, killed 532
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 06:56:46 +0900
References: <7f3ac78c.0403101020.69a2c2b6@posting.google.com> <7jO3c.170$GQ3.36@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> <1c74a9e5.0404030538.62a26c1e@posting.google.com>


Dear Mr. Kirk:

I am also fond of the Thorpe translation of the history of the Franks (my
Penguin copy is about to fall apart). The sentence you refer to

> Munderic, who pretended to be of royal blood, was so swollen with
> pride that he said: 'What is King Theuderic to me? My right to the
> throne is as good as his.

I have from "The Latin Library" on the web as

Mundericus igitur, qui se parentem regium adserebat, [multa] elatus
superbia, ait: 'Quid mihi et Theudorico regi? Sic enim mihi solium regni
debetur, ut ille.

[I am not sure but will inquire what the source of the Latin Library's text
of the Historia is. Thorpe of course specifies the origin of the texts he
was translating]

something like

Munderic, therefore, who was claiming for himself royal ancestors, with much
lofty pride, said Who is King Theodoric to me? So indeed is owed to me the
royal throne, as to him.

The verb "adserebat" which Thorpe tranlated as "pretended" is I think more
accurately rendered "was claiming" particularly something of value (Collins
Gem Latin Dictionary from adsero/adserere/adserui). If the meaning of
"pretend" is in the sense that Gundovald was Pretending to the throne then
that is a reasonable rendering. However the english verb "to predend" has
in it a sense of claiming or asserting something that is not true that I do
not think is present in "adserere"

I certainly do not mean to criticize Thorpe's translation but would only say
that I believe he was quite reasonably trying to take what was by modern
standards perhaps a rather exotic if fascinating narrative and make it more
comprehensible - a translator who is forced to focus his or her attention on
how someone in the future might take issue with their rendereing of every
word or phrase will never finish translating anything. However, for the
above reason I think the sense of "pretended to be of royal blood" language
may not exactly match what Gregory actually said of Munderic.

It is a fine point but I think that although Gregory makes Munderic out to
be overly proud (it is one of the quintessential characteristics of the
History of the Franks that wretched ends are invariably preceded by
significant moral failings and weaknesses even in otherwise estimable
people). Otherwise without even going back to the latin and relying on
Thorpe Gregory provides Munderic with a fairly positive persona: "Munderic
and his men resisted stoutly" and "Munderic then drew his sword and with his
own men around him slew one after another of the enemy troops. As long as
there was breath in his body he continued to cut down every man within his
reach." Gregory paints Aregisel, as almost Judaslike in betraying Munderic:
Munderic came out of the gateway of the fortress holding Aregisel's hand...
[Aregisel said] "Men why are you staring at Munderic so closely, have you
never seen him before." He is immediately avenged for both the betrayal and
his breaking of an oath made on the church altar (a particular Gregorian
Peeve) at the hand of Munderic himself.

There is also almost certainly a parallel between the story of Munderic and
that of the Pretender Gundovald later. Both men were betrayed by promises
that the King they were opposing would show them mercy if they laid down
their arms submitted. Gregory displayed a certain very subtle sympathy for
both men (unlike the contempt he showed the victims of Clovis) Gregory's
purpose in his use of parallels (though perhaps better understood with
continuing study) seems still a little murky. Gregory clearly deeply
respected King Guntram but he appears (in the Thorpe edition anyway) to be
very ambivalent about how he regards the way Guntram treated Gundovald.
There is a running theme in his description of Guntram of his intense
devotion to his family, the Merovingians, (which was unusual) coupled with
his, at times, irrational familial destructivenss (which if perhaps
overreported by Gregory was closer to the norm among the early
Merovingians). I cannot help but think that the way Gregory describes the
Munderic affair has somthing to do with what he was trying to say about
Guntramn. Thorpe suggests that Books II, III, and IV may have been
completed later than, perhaps much later than, books I and V (pp 24-25)

Other points: Munderic clearly had sons and Gregory pointedly says Munderic
feared they would be killed and again pointedly does not say that they were
killed (suggesting perhaps strongly that they survived-It is notable that
Theudebert refused to share many of his fathers animosities).

According to Thorpe, Gregory did show the History to Burgundian historian
Marius of Avenches during his lifetime and Marius clearly copied from it
from Books II to IV (p. 37 Penguin ed. All my references to Thorpe's
tranlation of the History of the Franks are to the Penguin edition reprinted
1983)

As to my comment that Munderic may have been trying to anticipate an attempt
at assaination by Theuderic, Theuderic was known to be fond of assasination
much in the way his father Clovis had been. He tried to have Lothar killed
in Thuringia (HF III 7) and he is said to have pushed Thuringian King
Hermanafrid off of a wall to his death (HF III 8)

The story immediately preceding the story of Munderic is that of the flight
of the Apolinarians Arcadius, Alchima and Placidina and the bishopric of St
Quintianus. [Thorpe pp. 169-173] Parts of this story may well have come
from Avitus of Clermont who knew Gregory well and was one of his mentors if
Ian Woods suggestion (The Merovingian Kingdoms 450-751) that Bishop Avitus I
of Clermont may have been Avitus son of Felix Bishop of Bourges [Testaentum
of Bertram of LeMans]. It has been suggested [I wish I remembered where]
that Felix Bishop of Bourges was son in turn of the Arcadius son of
Apollinaris and grandson of Sidonius. Arcadius fled Theuderic's anger from
Clermont to Bourges after he had tried to deliver Clermont to Childebert.
Gregory's uncle Gallus may also have proven a source of such stories. The
story following the Munderic story is the story of the hitage Attalus, one
of Gregory's relatives on his mother's side [nephew of Gregory of Langres]
who was taken as hostage to the Austrasian Court in the late 520's or early
530's. Thorpe suggests in a footnote that the length and detail of the
Attalus narrative [p. 175 footnote 18] were due to the fact that Attalus was
Gregory's kinsman. The sense that the accounts in this part of Book III
are coming from stories collected from people Gregory knew in his youth as
opposed to historical writers, Gregory's contacts during his episcopacy or
his own observations suggests that the Munderic story may be a part of this
pattern. The proximity of the Munderic story to the Attalus story and their
both being part of the wider Theuderic/Childebert/Arcadius drama make it not
unreasonable that Gregory's familiarity with Munderic's story was one of
these sources. If as is suggested in the Settipani chart [Onomastique et
Parente Dans L'Occident Medieval in the communication L'apport de
l'onomastique dans l'etudes des genealogies carolingiens p. 229] that
Munderic's wife was possibly a daughter of Florentius and Artemia, she would
have been a sister of Attalus' cousin' wife [Gregory's grandmother]
Additionally Gregory's paternal uncle Gallus was at the Austrasian Court
prior to his bishopric at Clermont and although he may have left prior to
Munderic's death (I am not sure how to date Munderic's death based on
Gregory whose chronological accuracy in Book III is far from perfect except
to say that it obviously preceded the death of Theuderic in 534) he would
certainly be well informed of events and people there.

In conclusion it is probably too much to say that Gregory's account of
Munderic's destruction is any kind of proof of a familial tie. Certainly if
Gregory heard the story from his uncle Gallus there would be no suggestion
in that of a tie to Munderic on Gregory's mother side. But the placement
and detail of the account together with Gregory's not entirely negative view
of Munderic are in no way inconsistent with such an understanding.

I would also suggest that in view of Gregory's harrowing experience at the
hands of Fredegund and Bishop Bertram of Bordeaux there was always the
severe danger that his manuscript would be confiscated. I believe that he
walked a careful line between getting down the sometimes damning records
that he wanted preserved and not saying so much as would certainly get he or
his sources and informants accused of treason. There is a little bit of the
sense of Procopius and the Secret History here except for the likelihood
that Gregory neve has the luxury to give free reign to his feelings as
Procopius did. Gregory was clearly far more involved in the service of
Kings Chilperic, Guntram and Childebert II than he makes clear. One might
even suspct that given the different parties he had to support in turn and
the different policies he had to help engineer for different Kings,
Gregory's avoidance of the fate of Bishop Aegidius was fortuitious. For
that reason I think he probably equivocates a great deal in his histories.
It is just often difficult after so many centuries to see where in his
history he does so and for what reasons.

Best Regards

Grady Loy

"marshall kirk" <> wrote in message
news:...
> It's possible that the point I'm about to raise has been discussed
> here before, because this morning I seem to be using the Little Search
> Engine That Couldn't; if so, never mind. That said, Jon has touched
> on an interesting point, which could be extended, and raises
> questions. Thorpe's translation of Gregory reads, "A man called
> Munderic, who pretended to be of royal blood, was so swollen with
> pride that he said: 'What is King Theuderic to me? My right to the
> throne is as good as his. I will go out and gather my people
> together, and I will persuade them to swear an oath of fealty to me,
> so that Theuderic may realize that I am a king, too, just as he is.'
> He went out and began to harangue the people. 'I am a prince of the
> blood,' said he. 'Follow me and all will be well with you.' A crowd
> of peasants did follow him, as so often happens, for people are so
> gullible."
>
> Altho' the whole story (which goes on for two more pages) seems to
> suggest that Munderic really was of a royal house, Gregory's tone
> suggests either that he didn't believe in Munderic's claim at all, or
> that, for some reason or other, he wished to equivocate. I tend to go
> with the first, or *prima facie*, interpretation. (Suggestions that
> Gregory slanted his text to avoid offending the Merovingian royalty
> seem improbable to me; I know of no reason to believe that his
> manuscript was ever disseminated in any way during his lifetime, and
> in any case he frequently lets fly with damning accusations.) The
> point: if this Munderic were really his uncle Gundulf's father, would
> Gregory speak of him in this distinctly pejorative and cynical way?
>
>
>
> "Jon Meltzer" <> wrote in
message news:<7jO3c.170$>...
> > "Don Matson" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > > Was Munderic, Lord of Vitry-en-)Parthois b. ca. 500 wife Arthemia, &
> > > killed by Thierry I in 532
> > > a son of
> > > Cloderic "the Parricide", King of Cologne, murdered 509
> > > or
> > > Clovis I "the Great", King of Salic Franks?
> >
> > David Kelley says he's Cloderic's son.
> >
> > I personally would like to see references to the original sources.
Munderic
> > appears in Gregory of Tours but his parentage isn't given; all Gregory
says
> > is that he claimed to be a prince. (This raises an interesting question:
if
> > Munderic's alleged son Gundulf was the same as Gregory's relative
Gundulf,
> > why didn't Gregory mention it?)

This thread: