On Friday, January 5, 1996 at 11:00:00 PM UTC-9, Nathaniel Lane Taylor wrote:
> In article <v02120d00ad1351a0d4ac@[136.152.71.59]>, Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > A line of descent can be traced from Thierry
> > (Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
> > many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
> >
> > Anthony Wagner in "Pedigree and Progress" (1975) has a
> > brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
> > 76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
> > identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
> > with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
> > received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
> > David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
> > possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
> > await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
> > matters."
> >
> > I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
> > Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
> > fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
> > "authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
> > further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
> > there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
> > confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
> >
> Alan,
> To my knowledge the most committed adherent to this theory remains David
> H. Kelley, who has (I am told by a mutual acquaintance) done a
> considerable amount of onomastic research and theorizing on this question,
> and adheres to a modification of Zuckerman's original theory. However,
> his work in this area remains, perhaps deliberately, unpublished. You
> should at least read Kelley and Robert Charles Anderson, "Holy Blood,
> Holy Grail: Two Reviews," _The Genealogist_ 3 (1982), 249-263, where
> Kelley addresses this question briefly, presenting the theory as a much
> better idea than the crap dished up in the book _HBHG_ (much as I would
> like to add Jesus to my pedigree). An earlier piece by Kelley, "Who
> Descends from King David?," _Toledot: the Journal of Jewish Genealogy_
> (Flushing, N.Y., Toledot Press) 1/3 (1977-8), 3-5, is not particularly
> informative.
> Note that some of the connection between the Autun/Saint Guilhem family
> and later dynasties are over-optimistically presented in ES, although the
> descent through Wulgrin of Angouleme is accepted as well-supported and
> leads, of course, to the Plantaganets through Isabel.
> Nat Taylor
What is 'ES' in context?

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 7:51:40 PM UTC-7, adriancombe wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 1996 at 11:00:00 PM UTC-9, Nathaniel Lane Taylor wrote:
> > In article <v02120d00ad1351a0d4ac@[136.152.71.59]>, Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > > A line of descent can be traced from Thierry
> > > (Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
> > > many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
> > >
> > > Anthony Wagner in "Pedigree and Progress" (1975) has a
> > > brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
> > > 76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
> > > identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
> > > with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
> > > received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
> > > David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
> > > possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
> > > await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
> > > matters."
> > >
> > > I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
> > > Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
> > > fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
> > > "authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
> > > further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
> > > there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
> > > confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
> > >
> > Alan,
> > To my knowledge the most committed adherent to this theory remains David
> > H. Kelley, who has (I am told by a mutual acquaintance) done a
> > considerable amount of onomastic research and theorizing on this question,
> > and adheres to a modification of Zuckerman's original theory. However,
> > his work in this area remains, perhaps deliberately, unpublished. You
> > should at least read Kelley and Robert Charles Anderson, "Holy Blood,
> > Holy Grail: Two Reviews," _The Genealogist_ 3 (1982), 249-263, where
> > Kelley addresses this question briefly, presenting the theory as a much
> > better idea than the crap dished up in the book _HBHG_ (much as I would
> > like to add Jesus to my pedigree). An earlier piece by Kelley, "Who
> > Descends from King David?," _Toledot: the Journal of Jewish Genealogy_
> > (Flushing, N.Y., Toledot Press) 1/3 (1977-8), 3-5, is not particularly
> > informative.
> > Note that some of the connection between the Autun/Saint Guilhem family
> > and later dynasties are over-optimistically presented in ES, although the
> > descent through Wulgrin of Angouleme is accepted as well-supported and
> > leads, of course, to the Plantaganets through Isabel.
> > Nat Taylor
> What is 'ES' in context?
Europäische Stammtafeln
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ische_Stammtafeln

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 3:58:03 AM UTC+1, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 7:51:40 PM UTC-7, adriancombe wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 1996 at 11:00:00 PM UTC-9, Nathaniel Lane Taylor wrote:
> > > In article <v02120d00ad1351a0d4ac@[136.152.71.59]>, Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > > > A line of descent can be traced from Thierry
> > > > (Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
> > > > many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Wagner in "Pedigree and Progress" (1975) has a
> > > > brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
> > > > 76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
> > > > identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
> > > > with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
> > > > received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
> > > > David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
> > > > possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
> > > > await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
> > > > matters."
> > > >
> > > > I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
> > > > Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
> > > > fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
> > > > "authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
> > > > further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
> > > > there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
> > > > confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
> > > >
> > > Alan,
> > > To my knowledge the most committed adherent to this theory remains David
> > > H. Kelley, who has (I am told by a mutual acquaintance) done a
> > > considerable amount of onomastic research and theorizing on this question,
> > > and adheres to a modification of Zuckerman's original theory. However,
> > > his work in this area remains, perhaps deliberately, unpublished. You
> > > should at least read Kelley and Robert Charles Anderson, "Holy Blood,
> > > Holy Grail: Two Reviews," _The Genealogist_ 3 (1982), 249-263, where
> > > Kelley addresses this question briefly, presenting the theory as a much
> > > better idea than the crap dished up in the book _HBHG_ (much as I would
> > > like to add Jesus to my pedigree). An earlier piece by Kelley, "Who
> > > Descends from King David?," _Toledot: the Journal of Jewish Genealogy_
> > > (Flushing, N.Y., Toledot Press) 1/3 (1977-8), 3-5, is not particularly
> > > informative.
> > > Note that some of the connection between the Autun/Saint Guilhem family
> > > and later dynasties are over-optimistically presented in ES, although the
> > > descent through Wulgrin of Angouleme is accepted as well-supported and
> > > leads, of course, to the Plantaganets through Isabel.
> > > Nat Taylor
> > What is 'ES' in context?
> Europäische Stammtafeln
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ische_Stammtafeln

This is a very old post, but it seems nobody really answered the question
Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?

My amateur answer is no. Mainly because Theuderic was a real person, and we dont know if this Makhir
even existed. Is it a jewish name? There was an argument that a charter of Magnarius Count of Narbonne has a
squiggle which means its actually Makhir. Seems ridiculous. I believe that Zuckerman claims that Theuderic,
William of Toulouse, and his son Bernard of Septimania were all Nasi of the Jews at Narbonne. A much later
romance calls William court de nez, but that means crooked nose due to an injury when he fought a giant [!] and
his son Bernard was called Naso in a rather strange text called the Epitaph Arsenii describing the struggles at the
court of Louis the Pious, where all the participants have nicknames.

Zuckerman says that Isaac, a jew sent by Charlemagne to the Caliph, is the same as William of Toulouse,
who founded a monastery at Gellone and then retired to it where he died a monk. This seems a rather unlikely thing for a jewish exilarch. Despite this, this theory is still quite widespread on the net, and in printed
compendiums like David Hughes The British Chronicles 2007.

mike

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, mike davis wrote:

> Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
>
> My amateur answer is no.

That is also the answer of the vast majority of professionals who have bothered to look. This is a case of classic fringe - too obscure, weird and couterfactual for many serious scholars to give it the time it woudl take to refute it, which leaves it with a false sense of reliability.

> Zuckerman says that Isaac, a jew sent by Charlemagne to the Caliph, is the same as William of Toulouse,

He has a whole string of people with one name whom he concludes are identical to people with different names, based in large part simply on him wanting them to be.

> Despite this, this theory is still quite widespread on the net, and in printed
> compendiums like David Hughes The British Chronicles 2007.

Mr. Hughes used to participate here, and in those discussions he left clear his operating principles. He believed that it was doing a disservice to evaluate the accuracy of any such genealogical link, because were it to be found inaccurate, it would deprive descendants of fascinating stories about their ancestors (even if they weren't really their ancestors). That is not a sound basis for scholarship.

taf

On 16-Jun-22 12:04 AM, mike davis wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 3:58:03 AM UTC+1, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 7:51:40 PM UTC-7, adriancombe wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 5, 1996 at 11:00:00 PM UTC-9, Nathaniel Lane Taylor wrote:
>>>> In article <v02120d00ad1351a0d4ac@[136.152.71.59]>, Alan B. Wilson wrote:
>>>>> A line of descent can be traced from Thierry
>>>>> (Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
>>>>> many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Wagner in "Pedigree and Progress" (1975) has a
>>>>> brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
>>>>> 76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
>>>>> identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
>>>>> with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
>>>>> received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
>>>>> David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
>>>>> possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
>>>>> await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
>>>>> matters."
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
>>>>> Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
>>>>> fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
>>>>> "authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
>>>>> further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
>>>>> there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
>>>>> confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
>>>>>
>>>> Alan,
>>>> To my knowledge the most committed adherent to this theory remains David
>>>> H. Kelley, who has (I am told by a mutual acquaintance) done a
>>>> considerable amount of onomastic research and theorizing on this question,
>>>> and adheres to a modification of Zuckerman's original theory. However,
>>>> his work in this area remains, perhaps deliberately, unpublished. You
>>>> should at least read Kelley and Robert Charles Anderson, "Holy Blood,
>>>> Holy Grail: Two Reviews," _The Genealogist_ 3 (1982), 249-263, where
>>>> Kelley addresses this question briefly, presenting the theory as a much
>>>> better idea than the crap dished up in the book _HBHG_ (much as I would
>>>> like to add Jesus to my pedigree). An earlier piece by Kelley, "Who
>>>> Descends from King David?," _Toledot: the Journal of Jewish Genealogy_
>>>> (Flushing, N.Y., Toledot Press) 1/3 (1977-8), 3-5, is not particularly
>>>> informative.
>>>> Note that some of the connection between the Autun/Saint Guilhem family
>>>> and later dynasties are over-optimistically presented in ES, although the
>>>> descent through Wulgrin of Angouleme is accepted as well-supported and
>>>> leads, of course, to the Plantaganets through Isabel.
>>>> Nat Taylor
>>> What is 'ES' in context?
>> Europäische Stammtafeln
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ische_Stammtafeln
>
> This is a very old post, but it seems nobody really answered the question
> Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
>
> My amateur answer is no. Mainly because Theuderic was a real person, and we dont know if this Makhir
> even existed. Is it a jewish name? There was an argument that a charter of Magnarius Count of Narbonne has a
> squiggle which means its actually Makhir. Seems ridiculous. I believe that Zuckerman claims that Theuderic,
> William of Toulouse, and his son Bernard of Septimania were all Nasi of the Jews at Narbonne. A much later
> romance calls William court de nez, but that means crooked nose due to an injury when he fought a giant [!] and
> his son Bernard was called Naso in a rather strange text called the Epitaph Arsenii describing the struggles at the
> court of Louis the Pious, where all the participants have nicknames.

Zuckerman wrote in _A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ (192) p 263:

"Bernard was the most illustrious, but to some of his contemporaries the
most notorious, son of William of Toulouse and Gellone. In court circles
he was called 'Naso', not so much as a complimentary recollection of
Ovid but rather, as Dümmler assumes, in consequence of a prominent nose.
Calmette accepts this explanation because the medieval epics refer
consistently to his father as "William of the curved (or, clipped)
nose." It could of course not occur to either scholar that the
distinctive appellation of both father and son originated with the
Hebrew title 'Nasi' "Prince (of the Jews)." Bernard's relentless enemy
Paschase Radbert stigmatizes Bernard as "that villain Naso summoned (to
office) from the Spains," presumably a reference to Bernard's
association with the Spanish March".

So Bernard evidently had a prominent nose because his father was said to
have had a curved or clipped one - this illogical effusion from
crazytown was refuted by David Ganz in 'The "epitaphium Arsenii" and
opposition to Louis the Pious', _Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on
the Reign of Louis the Pious_ (1990)p. 542:

"Despite recent attempts to show that the name Naso, applied to Bernard
of Septimania, proves that he was a king of the Jews, it is clear that
the name refers to Ovid, who was known to have loved a queen and to have
been deservedly exiled. The oldest extant witness of Ovid's 'Tristia'
was copied at Corbie at the same time as our sole manuscript of the
'Epitaphium'."

Peter Stewart

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

On 16-Jun-22 10:12 AM, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, mike davis wrote:
>
>> Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
>>
>> My amateur answer is no.
>
> That is also the answer of the vast majority of professionals who have bothered to look. This is a case of classic fringe - too obscure, weird and couterfactual for many serious scholars to give it the time it woudl take to refute it, which leaves it with a false sense of reliability.

Bernard Bachrach took the trouble apply commonsense on this matter in
_American Historical Review_ 78 (1973) p 1441:

'It is not possible to ascertain why Zuckerman abandoned the canons of
historical method, or why he chose to accept as superior the evidential
value of fictional literary sources far removed in time from the events
under consideration and to relegate documentary evidence of a more
contemporary nature to inferior status ... It is tempting to speculate
that Zuckerman's vigorous though implicit reaction against the
"lacrymose interpretation" of Jewish history that dominates the
textbooks and his disdain for "majority historians" who have neglected
and degraded Jewish history overstimulated his imagination. More
fundamentally, however, Zuckerman seems to have become the victim of two
genres of source material from which it is very difficult to obtain the
kind of hard historical evidence that he sought. Efforts to secure sound
data about the course of events from 'chansons' and from 'responsa'
frequently lead to the pyramiding of conjectures. Zuckerman indulges in
this dangerous practice and then rejects more compelling evidence in
light of his previous conjectures.'

Peter Stewart

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

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 8:15:15 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 16-Jun-22 10:12 AM, taf wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, mike davis wrote:
> >
> >> Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
> >>
> >> My amateur answer is no.
> >
> > That is also the answer of the vast majority of professionals who have bothered to look. This is a case of classic fringe - too obscure, weird and couterfactual for many serious scholars to give it the time it woudl take to refute it, which leaves it with a false sense of reliability.
> Bernard Bachrach took the trouble apply commonsense on this matter in
> _American Historical Review_ 78 (1973) p 1441:

Other critiques:
Robert Chazan in _Jewish Social Sudies_ 35(1973): 163-164,
https://www.academia.edu/36866206/Robert_Chazan_Review_of_A_Jewish_Princedom_in_Feudal_France_768_900_by_Arthur_J_Zuckerman_Jewish_Social_Studies_35_2_April_1973_163_165

Aryeh Graboïs, "Une Principaute Juive dans la France du Midi a l'Époque Carolingienne?", _Annales du Midi_ 85(1973): 191-202.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1973_num_85_112_4805

Jeremy Cohen, "The Nasi of Narbonne: A Problem in Medieval Historiography" _AJS Review_ 2(1977): 45–76
https://www.academia.edu/36098098/Jeremy_Cohen_The_Nasi_of_Narbonne_A_Problem_in_Medieval_Historiography_AJS_Review_2_1977_45_76

Nathaniel L. Taylor, "Saint William, King David, and Makhir: a Controversial Medieval Descent", _The American Genealogist_, 72(1997): 205-223
http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Makhir.pdf

I am sure there are a few others as well. The only prominent supporters I recall coming across were Iain Moncreiffe and David Kelley, both of whom had a tendency to view exotic descents with beer goggles.

taf

On 16-Jun-22 1:04 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Zuckerman wrote in _A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ (192) p 263:
>
> "Bernard was the most illustrious, but to some of his contemporaries the
> most notorious, son of William of Toulouse and Gellone. In court circles
> he was called 'Naso', not so much as a complimentary recollection of
> Ovid but rather, as Dümmler assumes, in consequence of a prominent nose.
> Calmette accepts this explanation because the medieval epics refer
> consistently to his father as "William of the curved (or, clipped)
> nose." It could of course not occur to either scholar that the
> distinctive appellation of both father and son originated with the
> Hebrew title 'Nasi' "Prince (of the Jews)." Bernard's relentless enemy
> Paschase Radbert stigmatizes Bernard as "that villain Naso summoned (to
> office) from the Spains," presumably a reference to Bernard's
> association with the Spanish March".
>
> So Bernard evidently had a prominent nose because his father was said to
> have had a curved or clipped one - this illogical effusion from
> crazytown was refuted by David Ganz in 'The "epitaphium Arsenii" and
> opposition to Louis the Pious', _Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on
> the Reign of Louis the Pious_ (1990)p. 542:
>
> "Despite recent attempts to show that the name Naso, applied to Bernard
> of Septimania, proves that he was a king of the Jews, it is clear that
> the name refers to Ovid, who was known to have loved a queen and to have
> been deservedly exiled. The oldest extant witness of Ovid's 'Tristia'
> was copied at Corbie at the same time as our sole manuscript of the
> 'Epitaphium'."

Apologies for my stupidity - in reducing a long note about the satirical
alias Naso for Bernard to a short one for the post above, I carelessly
and illogically misrepresented Zuckerman on this point.

He did not cite the opinions of Dümmler and Calmette as sequential
supports for his own theory but rather to reject them both in favour of
his absurd notion that the title Nasi became the pseudonym Naso.

My long note was about the obvious allusion to Ovid (full name Publius
Ovidius Naso), whose poem 'Tristia' bemoaning his exile (perhaps for
advocating non-marital lovemaking) was doubtless in mind when Bernard
was accused of adultery with Empress Judith. In this context Louis I's
contemporary biographer Thegan tells us that Bernard was the emperor's
godson, and elsewhere reports that Louis had a long nose (using the
phrase "naso longo") - so that in disregarding the link to Ovid and the
later literary claim that Bernard's father had a shortened nose, a
better guess for the origin of Naso would be the alleged usurpation by
Bernard of the emperor's place in Judith's love-life.

Peter Stewart

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

On 17-Jun-22 9:08 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 16-Jun-22 1:04 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Zuckerman wrote in _A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ (192) p 263:
>>
>> "Bernard was the most illustrious, but to some of his contemporaries
>> the most notorious, son of William of Toulouse and Gellone. In court
>> circles he was called 'Naso', not so much as a complimentary
>> recollection of Ovid but rather, as Dümmler assumes, in consequence of
>> a prominent nose. Calmette accepts this explanation because the
>> medieval epics refer consistently to his father as "William of the
>> curved (or, clipped) nose." It could of course not occur to either
>> scholar that the distinctive appellation of both father and son
>> originated with the Hebrew title 'Nasi' "Prince (of the Jews)."
>> Bernard's relentless enemy Paschase Radbert stigmatizes Bernard as
>> "that villain Naso summoned (to office) from the Spains," presumably a
>> reference to Bernard's association with the Spanish March".
>>
>> So Bernard evidently had a prominent nose because his father was said
>> to have had a curved or clipped one - this illogical effusion from
>> crazytown was refuted by David Ganz in 'The "epitaphium Arsenii" and
>> opposition to Louis the Pious', _Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives
>> on the Reign of Louis the Pious_ (1990)p. 542:
>>
>> "Despite recent attempts to show that the name Naso, applied to
>> Bernard of Septimania, proves that he was a king of the Jews, it is
>> clear that the name refers to Ovid, who was known to have loved a
>> queen and to have been deservedly exiled. The oldest extant witness of
>> Ovid's 'Tristia' was copied at Corbie at the same time as our sole
>> manuscript of the 'Epitaphium'."
>
> Apologies for my stupidity - in reducing a long note about the satirical
> alias Naso for Bernard to a short one for the post above, I carelessly
> and illogically misrepresented Zuckerman on this point.
>
> He did not cite the opinions of Dümmler and Calmette as sequential
> supports for his own theory but rather to reject them both in favour of
> his absurd notion that the title Nasi became the pseudonym Naso.
>
> My long note was about the obvious allusion to Ovid (full name Publius
> Ovidius Naso), whose poem 'Tristia' bemoaning his exile (perhaps for
> advocating non-marital lovemaking) was doubtless in mind when Bernard
> was accused of adultery with Empress Judith. In this context Louis I's
> contemporary biographer Thegan tells us that Bernard was the emperor's
> godson, and elsewhere reports that Louis had a long nose (using the
> phrase "naso longo") - so that in disregarding the link to Ovid and the
> later literary claim that Bernard's father had a shortened nose, a
> better guess for the origin of Naso would be the alleged usurpation by
> Bernard of the emperor's place in Judith's love-life.

On the matter of Bernard's having been a godson of Louis I - obviously
not remotely credible in the heir to a Jewish dynasty - it should be
noted that Zuckerman indulged in deliberate obfuscation if not blatant
deceit. On p. 122 of _Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ he wrote:

"A contemporary describes Bernard as 'of royal stock' (de stirpe regali)
and adoptive son of the emperor."

The authority cited for this (in note 19) is Thegan, and the relevant
text is actually quoted although truncated as well as mistranslated -
this plainly states that Judith's accusers described Bernard as of royal
lineage and the emperor's godson, all lies (in the MGH edition here (p
222):
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_64/index.htm#page/222/mode/1up,
"dixerunt Iudith reginam violatam esse a quodam duce Bernhardo, qui erat
de stirpe regali et domni imperatoris ex sacro fonte baptismatis filius,
mentientes omnia"). Zuckerman quoted this indirectly, from Calmette
rather than from a full edition, but left off the last two words.

One manuscript gives "filiolus" (godson) instead of "filius" (son), but
whether or not the godson part was false the words "ex sacro fonte
baptismatis" (from the holy font of baptism) leave no doubt that this
was not about adoption, and of course it would never have been claimed
by any sane courtier about a Jewish prince in the first place.

Peter Stewart

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

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:12:06 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 17-Jun-22 9:08 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 16-Jun-22 1:04 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> Zuckerman wrote in _A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ (192) p 263:
> >>
> >> "Bernard was the most illustrious, but to some of his contemporaries
> >> the most notorious, son of William of Toulouse and Gellone. In court
> >> circles he was called 'Naso', not so much as a complimentary
> >> recollection of Ovid but rather, as Dümmler assumes, in consequence of
> >> a prominent nose. Calmette accepts this explanation because the
> >> medieval epics refer consistently to his father as "William of the
> >> curved (or, clipped) nose." It could of course not occur to either
> >> scholar that the distinctive appellation of both father and son
> >> originated with the Hebrew title 'Nasi' "Prince (of the Jews)."
> >> Bernard's relentless enemy Paschase Radbert stigmatizes Bernard as
> >> "that villain Naso summoned (to office) from the Spains," presumably a
> >> reference to Bernard's association with the Spanish March".
> >>
> >> So Bernard evidently had a prominent nose because his father was said
> >> to have had a curved or clipped one - this illogical effusion from
> >> crazytown was refuted by David Ganz in 'The "epitaphium Arsenii" and
> >> opposition to Louis the Pious', _Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives
> >> on the Reign of Louis the Pious_ (1990)p. 542:
> >>
> >> "Despite recent attempts to show that the name Naso, applied to
> >> Bernard of Septimania, proves that he was a king of the Jews, it is
> >> clear that the name refers to Ovid, who was known to have loved a
> >> queen and to have been deservedly exiled. The oldest extant witness of
> >> Ovid's 'Tristia' was copied at Corbie at the same time as our sole
> >> manuscript of the 'Epitaphium'."
> >
> > Apologies for my stupidity - in reducing a long note about the satirical
> > alias Naso for Bernard to a short one for the post above, I carelessly
> > and illogically misrepresented Zuckerman on this point.
> >
> > He did not cite the opinions of Dümmler and Calmette as sequential
> > supports for his own theory but rather to reject them both in favour of
> > his absurd notion that the title Nasi became the pseudonym Naso.
> >
> > My long note was about the obvious allusion to Ovid (full name Publius
> > Ovidius Naso), whose poem 'Tristia' bemoaning his exile (perhaps for
> > advocating non-marital lovemaking) was doubtless in mind when Bernard
> > was accused of adultery with Empress Judith. In this context Louis I's
> > contemporary biographer Thegan tells us that Bernard was the emperor's
> > godson, and elsewhere reports that Louis had a long nose (using the
> > phrase "naso longo") - so that in disregarding the link to Ovid and the
> > later literary claim that Bernard's father had a shortened nose, a
> > better guess for the origin of Naso would be the alleged usurpation by
> > Bernard of the emperor's place in Judith's love-life.
> On the matter of Bernard's having been a godson of Louis I - obviously
> not remotely credible in the heir to a Jewish dynasty - it should be
> noted that Zuckerman indulged in deliberate obfuscation if not blatant
> deceit. On p. 122 of _Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ he wrote:
>
> "A contemporary describes Bernard as 'of royal stock' (de stirpe regali)
> and adoptive son of the emperor."
>
> The authority cited for this (in note 19) is Thegan, and the relevant
> text is actually quoted although truncated as well as mistranslated -
> this plainly states that Judith's accusers described Bernard as of royal
> lineage and the emperor's godson, all lies (in the MGH edition here (p
> 222):
> https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_64/index.htm#page/222/mode/1up,
> "dixerunt Iudith reginam violatam esse a quodam duce Bernhardo, qui erat
> de stirpe regali et domni imperatoris ex sacro fonte baptismatis filius,
> mentientes omnia"). Zuckerman quoted this indirectly, from Calmette
> rather than from a full edition, but left off the last two words.
>
> One manuscript gives "filiolus" (godson) instead of "filius" (son), but
> whether or not the godson part was false the words "ex sacro fonte
> baptismatis" (from the holy font of baptism) leave no doubt that this
> was not about adoption, and of course it would never have been claimed
> by any sane courtier about a Jewish prince in the first place.
> Peter Stewart

I've been misled by these underhand tactics quite often. Many of these
pretend histories like the Holy Blood, which although probably not the first
is the most famous, often footnote a statement which begins with a
truth and then slides into fantasy, with a reputable source like Wallace Hadrills
Chronicle of Fredegar, which is clearly a deliberate ploy. The casual reader
will then believe that both the truth and the fantasy are supported by the quoted
source. Then this statement is referenced by later authors and so on, its a bit
like UFO writers.

mike

On 18-Jun-22 12:59 AM, mike davis wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:12:06 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 17-Jun-22 9:08 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On 16-Jun-22 1:04 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zuckerman wrote in _A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ (192) p 263:
>>>>
>>>> "Bernard was the most illustrious, but to some of his contemporaries
>>>> the most notorious, son of William of Toulouse and Gellone. In court
>>>> circles he was called 'Naso', not so much as a complimentary
>>>> recollection of Ovid but rather, as Dümmler assumes, in consequence of
>>>> a prominent nose. Calmette accepts this explanation because the
>>>> medieval epics refer consistently to his father as "William of the
>>>> curved (or, clipped) nose." It could of course not occur to either
>>>> scholar that the distinctive appellation of both father and son
>>>> originated with the Hebrew title 'Nasi' "Prince (of the Jews)."
>>>> Bernard's relentless enemy Paschase Radbert stigmatizes Bernard as
>>>> "that villain Naso summoned (to office) from the Spains," presumably a
>>>> reference to Bernard's association with the Spanish March".
>>>>
>>>> So Bernard evidently had a prominent nose because his father was said
>>>> to have had a curved or clipped one - this illogical effusion from
>>>> crazytown was refuted by David Ganz in 'The "epitaphium Arsenii" and
>>>> opposition to Louis the Pious', _Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives
>>>> on the Reign of Louis the Pious_ (1990)p. 542:
>>>>
>>>> "Despite recent attempts to show that the name Naso, applied to
>>>> Bernard of Septimania, proves that he was a king of the Jews, it is
>>>> clear that the name refers to Ovid, who was known to have loved a
>>>> queen and to have been deservedly exiled. The oldest extant witness of
>>>> Ovid's 'Tristia' was copied at Corbie at the same time as our sole
>>>> manuscript of the 'Epitaphium'."
>>>
>>> Apologies for my stupidity - in reducing a long note about the satirical
>>> alias Naso for Bernard to a short one for the post above, I carelessly
>>> and illogically misrepresented Zuckerman on this point.
>>>
>>> He did not cite the opinions of Dümmler and Calmette as sequential
>>> supports for his own theory but rather to reject them both in favour of
>>> his absurd notion that the title Nasi became the pseudonym Naso.
>>>
>>> My long note was about the obvious allusion to Ovid (full name Publius
>>> Ovidius Naso), whose poem 'Tristia' bemoaning his exile (perhaps for
>>> advocating non-marital lovemaking) was doubtless in mind when Bernard
>>> was accused of adultery with Empress Judith. In this context Louis I's
>>> contemporary biographer Thegan tells us that Bernard was the emperor's
>>> godson, and elsewhere reports that Louis had a long nose (using the
>>> phrase "naso longo") - so that in disregarding the link to Ovid and the
>>> later literary claim that Bernard's father had a shortened nose, a
>>> better guess for the origin of Naso would be the alleged usurpation by
>>> Bernard of the emperor's place in Judith's love-life.
>> On the matter of Bernard's having been a godson of Louis I - obviously
>> not remotely credible in the heir to a Jewish dynasty - it should be
>> noted that Zuckerman indulged in deliberate obfuscation if not blatant
>> deceit. On p. 122 of _Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ he wrote:
>>
>> "A contemporary describes Bernard as 'of royal stock' (de stirpe regali)
>> and adoptive son of the emperor."
>>
>> The authority cited for this (in note 19) is Thegan, and the relevant
>> text is actually quoted although truncated as well as mistranslated -
>> this plainly states that Judith's accusers described Bernard as of royal
>> lineage and the emperor's godson, all lies (in the MGH edition here (p
>> 222):
>> https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_64/index.htm#page/222/mode/1up,
>> "dixerunt Iudith reginam violatam esse a quodam duce Bernhardo, qui erat
>> de stirpe regali et domni imperatoris ex sacro fonte baptismatis filius,
>> mentientes omnia"). Zuckerman quoted this indirectly, from Calmette
>> rather than from a full edition, but left off the last two words.
>>
>> One manuscript gives "filiolus" (godson) instead of "filius" (son), but
>> whether or not the godson part was false the words "ex sacro fonte
>> baptismatis" (from the holy font of baptism) leave no doubt that this
>> was not about adoption, and of course it would never have been claimed
>> by any sane courtier about a Jewish prince in the first place.
>> Peter Stewart
>
> I've been misled by these underhand tactics quite often. Many of these
> pretend histories like the Holy Blood, which although probably not the first
> is the most famous, often footnote a statement which begins with a
> truth and then slides into fantasy, with a reputable source like Wallace Hadrills
> Chronicle of Fredegar, which is clearly a deliberate ploy. The casual reader
> will then believe that both the truth and the fantasy are supported by the quoted
> source. Then this statement is referenced by later authors and so on, its a bit
> like UFO writers.

In this instance, if Zuckerman had been open and honest about his
source, he would have been obliged to argue either that Thegan was wrong
about the royal lineage of Bernard being a lie but nonetheless somehow
right about his christening being one, or else that Judith's accusers
(including the imperial arch-chaplain Hilduin of Saint-Denis and the
bishop of Amiens) were crazy enough to fabricate the story that a Jewish
prince had been baptised and were believed by the court resulting in the
enforced cloistering of the empress and her brothers.

The misrepresentation of baptism as adoption, even apart from omitting
that it was called a lie, is an egregious lapse of scholarly decorum on
Zuckerman's part, and it is an embarrassment to many reviewers that he
was not called on this in order to prick his hot-air balloon long ago.

To my mind silence or unawareness in peer reviewers can be a more
serious problem than underhandedness in researchers. The latter is
usually due to zealotry for some misconceived theory combined with lack
of principle and incompetence in the gathering, assessment,
understanding and/or interpretation of evidence, whereas the former is
usually due to laziness combined with arrogant self-confidence and/or
sham expertise.

I long ago ceased to be surprised when secondary references given in
academic work turn out to be worthless in proving the point at issue, or
even in tracking down the primary evidence (if any exists) in question.

Peter Stewart

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