Version classiqueVersion mobile

Genèse médiévale de l'anthroponymie moderne. Tome V-1 : Intégration et exclusion sociale, lectures anthroponymiques

 | 
Monique Bourin
, 
Pascal Chareille

Généalogie commentée (xiie siècle)

Monasteries and Servile Genealogies Guy of Suresnes and Saint-Germain-des-Prés in the Twelfth Century

Nathaniel L. Taylor

Texte intégral

  • 1 «...ad diem statutum undequaque congregavimus in curia nostra utriusque sexus fere quinquaginta de (...)
  • 2 Paris, BN MS Lat 12194, f. 219r (the charter) and 219v (the genealogy). Ed. René Poupardin, Recueil (...)

1Sometime in the incumbency of Hugh V, abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés (1162-82), a certain Guy, who held the title of maior of the monastery's villa of Suresnes, denied he was in a state of servitude to the abbey, that is, that he was Saint-Germain's homo de corpore. The protesting Guy was hauled into the abbot's court, along with, the scribe tells us, «around fifty of his parentela of both sexes»1. Despite Guy's denials, other acknowledged homines de corpore of Saint-Germain agreed that Guy was one of them, and ultimately Guy was constrained to admit his status, do homage and swear fealty. A charter recording this scene, and the act of homage that ended it, was transcribed soon afterwards in a quire along with records of other efforts under Abbot Hugh V to regularize and record the monastery's patrimony and relationship with various functionaries and tradesmen. On the verso of the leaf containing the charter is a genealogy of the parentela of mayor Guy, naming one hundred and two people (one hundred in the parentela plus two husbands) and spanning five generations (see text, appended, and stemma, Figure 1)2.

Servile Lineages and Servile Genealogies

  • 3 For example, two eleventh-century genealogies from the monastery of Saints Flora and Lucille at Are (...)
  • 4 The best orientation remains Léopold Genicot's fascicle, «Les Généalogies», in the Typologie des so (...)
  • 5 See principally Georges Duby, «Structure de parenté et noblesse, France du nord, XIe-XIIe siècles», (...)
  • 6 I have begun a comparative study of these texts in general, not yet published, which was embodied i (...)
  • 7 Galbert of Bruges, De multro, traditione, et ocasione Gloriosi Karoli Comitis Flandiarum, ed. Jeff (...)
  • 8 The Arezzo genealogies have 35 to 55 persons; in fact, of all (non-royal) twelfth-century or earlie (...)

2A small number of such texts — genealogies of servile functionaries of monasteries — survive, mainly from the twelfth century, but with a few earlier examples3. Genealogies of various kinds from this period have been increasingly recognized as a complex genre encompassing many different kinds of texts4. Despite the diversity of the genre, historiographical fashion has remained focused on the genealogies of royal and princely lineages, with only a few well-known exceptions championed by Georges Duby and his followers5. In contrast to the more grandiose and paradigmatic dynastic princely genealogies or monastic celebratory genealogiae fundatorum, these genealogies of serfs or tenants were drafted with a legal goal in mind: the perpetuation of memory of a legal relationship (tenancy or servitude) which might be advantageous to the mother institution (usually a monastery or chapter) but disadvantageous to the subjects, whose descendants, particularly if they became prosperous, numerous, or pretentious, might wish to deny such origins6. The most famous example of such conflict over status in the twelfth century is that of the descendants of Erembald, castellan of Bruges, who murdered the count of Flanders in 1127 in a desperate attempt to affirm their free status against accusations of servile origins which had been encouraged or accepted by the count7. While lay lords like the count of Flanders could make an issue of servility by manipulating courts, perhaps ecclesiastical lords took to creating genealogical memorials of their subjects — a type of prescriptive account designed to be useful to forestall or combat such denials. At any rate, of all such genealogical texts which I have examined — indeed, of all known twelfth-century genealogical texts of any type—the genealogy of Guy of Suresnes is the largest8.

  • 9 Poupardin, nos. 226.2 (the genealogy of cooks and hospitalarii, relatives of the married couple Joh (...)
  • 10 Alietru (Figure 3), the daughter of a hospitalarius and the wife of a cocus, was noted as'feminam n (...)

3The scattered cartularies of Saint-Germain include three other such genealogies in addition to that of Guy, obviously dating from the same general period, both clearly designed to enumerate families of servile status (Figures 2 to 4)9. None of these three is as large as Guy's, and no accompanying charters survive to demonstrate their context. Two of the three others contain individuals with the titles cocus or hospitalarius — ancillary positions within the monastery itself which seem to have been held by serfs of the house10.

  • 11 In this context it is important to cite both major editions: that of B. Guérard, Polyptyque de l'ab (...)
  • 12 This added temporal dimension parallels the increasing complexity of purely fiscal texts in a simil (...)
  • 13 This point is not new; indeed it is the justification for the inclusion of papers around the topic (...)

4It is not surprising that Saint-Germain should yield us these documents, given the tradition of enumerating serfs represented by the peerless ninthcentury polyptich of Irminon, which enumerates over ten thousand individuals — servi, coloni, and, like Guy, maiores or villici11. In a fiscal as well as a genealogical sense, the polyptich provides a static snapshot of those individual tenants living at the time the survey was made, with a single valuation of their property and customary trade (if any). At the most, the polyptich shows nuclear families, two-generation groups of parents with children which have long been studied for the purposes of onomastics, family structure, and other social data. The major distinction of the (by comparison) infinitesimal twelfth-century servile genealogies lies in their longitudinal, multi-generational approach to the identification of serfs — in the goal of proving the status of the serfs by linking them to ancestors who had been of (or who had voluntarily entered into) servile condition12. For onomastic purposes, the genealogical text, which provides some continuity over several generations, can also yield certain insights that a static enumeration of names (or even of family groups) cannot13.

  • 14 Luke 1:50, 'a progenie in progenies'; cf. also Genesis 46: 7; Exodus 6:15, 34: 7; and Job 5: 25, 18 (...)
  • 15 The charter of Guy's submission (Poupardin, no. 214), names as a witness «ex parte Guidonis» his av (...)
  • 16 A third alternative, that all the individuals in the text are Guy's descendants (literally his prog (...)

5The genealogy of Guy itself presents remarkable peculiarities as a statement of genealogical memory designed for a specific legal purpose — the retention of the monastery's right over the individuals in it, who are all, by male or female descent, legally homines de corpore of the monastery. The text is introduced with an unexpected and misapplied term. It begins «Hec est progenies Guidonis maioris de Surinis». Progenies is a Biblical word: in the Vulgate it means almost exclusively'descendance'or successors, as in the Magnificat14. Unfortunately, the author of this genealogy cannot have had this sense in mind, because Guy is not the ancestor of the group covered by the text, nor does he figure prominently in it. The genealogy begins with Vitalis, Tiboldus and Heremburgis, who, the text says, «were brothers and sister, and homines de corpore of Saint Germain». The descendants of Vitalis, Tiboldus and Heremburgis are then traced in three parallel columns. Oddly, it is not even clear where mayor Guy fits into the genealogy. In the text there are two persons named Guido — one in the third generation and one in the fifth — but neither is qualified as the principal subject15. Either way, the text covers not Guy's descendants but his collateral kin16. The'nearly fifty'relatives Guy brought into court were probably most of the named living people in this genealogy.

  • 17 Jan Frederik Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus (Leiden, 1976), s.v.; while its use in Eng (...)
  • 18 Matt. 3: 7, 12: 37. The pejorative simile of vipers is also applied by the writer of the Gesta comi (...)

6The genealogist would have been more accurate to use the term used by the scribe of the charter recording Guy's submission: parentela, suggesting that the persons with Guy shared descent from a common ancestor17. However, there is another shade of meaning, less genealogically precise and more colorful, that the genealogist may have had in mind in calling Guy's collateral relatives his'progenies': aside from the Magnificat, progenies is found in the New Testament only twice, both times in the derogatory epithet progenies viperarum, 'brood of vipers', applied by first John the Baptist and then Christ to the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew18. It is not far-fetched to believe that the author of the genealogy might have found a shade of meaning here to match some distaste he felt for the pretentious and duplicitous Guy and his kin. After all, he was writing a memoir of specific utility to the monastery, and, in a legal sense, detrimental to Guy and his kin; his memory of Guy's strident denials may have been fresh and rancorous.

7One wonders further about the circumstances of the creation of this genealogy. The accompanying charter says that Guy himself came to court with nearly fifty of his parentela. Did these people come to show support for their kinsman, or were they gathered against their will by officers of the monastery? If they came willingly, perhaps they did not realize that their descent from servile ancestors would be recorded as well. Imagine members of the Guy's parentela, present at his submission, being asked by an enterprising monk to describe just how they were related to him. All who acknowledged kinship were essentially acknowledging their own bondage to the monastery — no matter that they were respectable people asserting pride in their family associations. For Guy's parentela was not without some distinction, as we shall see when we turn to considering the individuals in it, their names and titles.

Guy and his Parentela

  • 19 An instinct for ternary subdivision has affected genealogists since the creation of the Old Testame (...)
  • 20 Indeed, descent through women outnumbers descent through men (21 women with offspring vs. 15 men; p (...)
  • 21 I think it likely that this is the Guido maior of the caption, though the younger Guido cannot be r (...)

8How complete is the genealogy? In the earlier generations there is a preponderance of siblings enumerated in threes. Two of these nine grandchildren had no offspring; they may have been retained for rhythmic balance, either by the compiler or in the memory of his informants19. Here, however, women are not suppressed and descent through female lines is as prominent as descent through males20. Below the second generation the ternary rhythmic balance is not maintained. Some lines are pruned to only one representative in each generation, while others branch thickly. The pruned lines — such as that leading to'count Frodo' — may have been retained in a truncated form to link to a particular individual who was a source of pride or notoriety, but in a branch whose other members were not remembered. The only concrete indication that the genealogy is not a complete enumeration of the progeny of the original three siblings is the ambiguous listing of one of the two persons named Guy with unnamed siblings («et fratres et sorores eius»). Why did this Guy, alone of all in the genealogy, not have his brothers and sisters named? Is it possible that this Guy was the original subject of the genealogy, the maior of Suresnes, whose closest kin (siblings and offspring) would be especially well-known to the monks and advocates of Saint-Germain21?

  • 22 This assumes a masculine identification of the ambiguous «Hilderitis/Hilderio» and a feminine ident (...)

9The genealogy is also extremely closely pruned of anyone who does not belong in the blood descendancy of the original three siblings. Of the hundred descendants thirty-seven have offspring of their own, yet only two spouses are named in the entire genealogy (and they are young husbands, contemporary with the compilation of the genealogy: one marriage shows one child, the first of the fifth generation in that branch of the family; the other is still childless and is in the fifth generation). Not counting the two named husbands, the parentela contains exactly 49 women and 51 men22; of the women named, 22 have children of their own shown, while only 15 of the men do. Perhaps this shows that the women who do not have children are less likely to have been retained in the genealogy: in the sparser first three generations there are three childless men named (including a miles and a maior) and only one childless woman.

  • 23 Note that one of the priests, Andreas presbiter, constitutes the only interlinear addition to the e (...)

10By any modest reckoning the parentela appears successful as well as prolific. It includes one miles, two priests, three other maiores (in addition to Guy), and even one man called comes. While the maiores are to be expected among monastic bondsmen, the other offices are more clearly exceptions, and points of pride: the miles certainly, as he is one of two named siblings of Doda, in the third generation before the genealogical present, who had no children themselves. The priests, too, would be pointed out with pride by their kinsmen23. As celibates, they would not have perpetuated the family in subsequent generations, so their retention in the genealogy was not strictly necessary for the purpose of keeping track of the abbey's future bondsmen.

11The title of comes, found once, is more enigmatic. 'Frodo comes' appears a t the end of his own branch of the family, with no offspring, siblings, aunts, or uncles. Was he a truly important but now socially distant kinsman, proudly identified by some of Guy's relatives, but who may not have considered himself in the same parentela? This would account for his place at the end of an unusually narrow branch of the genealogy. But how many true twelfthcentury counts had a monastic serf as a great-grandmother? It is more likely that comes is a sobriquet — perhaps even a humorous or mocking sobriquet — having no relation to the aristocratic office, though Frodo could well have been considered an important man by his kin.

  • 24 Guérard, Polyptyque de l'abbé Irminon, 1: 450. Cf. also J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon (...)

12The office of maior, equivalent to the classical villicus, is an essentially rural, servile position: «Les maires [...] étaient ordinairement d'une condition plus ou moins engagée dans la servitude»24. Of the three maiores (other than Guy) who are mentioned, all are found in one branch of the family — the descendants of the sister Heremburgis (the branch which also boasts the miles): one in the third generation (Everardus) and two in the fourth (Hildoardus and Richardus). Everardus is merely called maior, and is not assigned to a villa. Belonging already to the third generation out of five, he was possibly already dead when the document was drawn up, and thus his assignment to a villa may have been less important than his remembered status. His nephews Hildoardus and Richardus were maiores, respectively, of Cachans and Arcueil, which are interestingly shown in two separate forms, one in the genitive (maior Caticanti) and the other in the form 'de + ablative' (maior de Arcolio), indicating the scribe's absolute indifference to these two forms. While not placed in the genealogy itself, Guy's title is used in the ablative (maior de Surinis) at the head of the text.

  • 25 I have not identified Tirannis (Poupardin's reading of a doubtful name, which I cannot make anythin (...)

13Aside from those toponymic attributions belonging with the title of maior, only five other people in the entire genealogy have surnames, and those are of the toponymic type (de + ablative). It is striking that the number should be so small, even in a genealogy of those of servile status. It is more striking that the names all occur in a single branch in a single generation, and are given to women: the sisters Hamelina de Castilione, Avelina de Tirannis, Hildeburgis de Monte Rubio, and Ligardis de Atrio, and their first cousin Ligardis de Nemore. The two brothers of the four sisters, Girelmus and Giroldus, did not bear surnames. All of these women had children, so the names may indicate the villages in which they settled as married women. They were remembered in this fashion by an informant who would identify his relatives not merely by name but by where they had settled. Montrouge and Châtillon, at least, lay only a short distance from the villae of Arcueil and Cachan where the sisters' kinsmen were maiores25.

  • 26 Newer single-root forms: Frodo, Garinus. Recombinations: Herdeburgis, Teoinus.
  • 27 Hugo.
  • 28 Avelina, Odelina, Hemelina, Aales, Helvisa, Hisabel, Matildis, Durandus, Vitalis (in addition to Fr (...)
  • 29 Latin-derived names: Brunellus, Grossa, Iacolina, Flandina, Senata. Frankish names: Bordinus, Rohes (...)

14The majority of the persons in the genealogy, however (88% of persons named), have only a name, and no sobriquet, toponymie, or distinction of office to identify them: only their place in the genealogy, passing on the servile blood to their own offspring. What names to they bear? It is a remarkably diverse set of names — considering the group is all one kin — with a stock of 72 names among 102 individuals, or a uniqueness of 72% (this count includes the two named husbands): see the table of names, Figure 5. The male stock is slightly more diverse than the female (39 names for 53 individuals, or 74%, versus 33 names for 49 individuals, or 67%). But what of the names? It is perhaps most instructive to compare them with names in use by local serfs a t the time of the polyptich of Irminon: undoubtedly many of the abbey's coloni of Irminon's day number among the ancestors of this parentela. Of the stock of 72 names from the genealogy, the vast majority are of traditional doublerooted Frankish origin. Virtually all of these, and an additional stock of Biblical or Roman names, were to be found among the coloni of Irminon's day. Forty-nine of the names (68%) were borne by coloni in the original polyptich. An additional four reproduce familiar roots in ways not found in the polyptich26; another one is found in a tenth-century interpolation (though not there borne by a serf)27; and nine are found in the interpolation for Beaugency from the end of the eleventh century28. Only nine of the names are not found in any form in the polyptich or its interpolations29.

  • 30 Robertus (5 times) Maria (4), Avelina (3) and Ingelrannus (3).
  • 31 Heremburgis (gen. 1) > Doda > Rohese > Heremburgis: a four-generation matriline.
  • 32 In the other texts, which are admittedly briefer, there are only three examples of grandchildren be (...)

15Twenty-three names are found more than once; however, only four are found more than twice30. Among the twenty-three repeated names, only one is found repeated by a direct descendant of an earlier owner of the name, and that is at a remote remove of four generations31. There is no instance in the genealogy of any child being named after a parent or grandparent (at least those parents and grandparents through whom the kinship with Guy is traced). Why is there less repetition of names — one phenomenon we are taught to expect in families in the early twelfth century? Of course, it is possible that in these descendants of Vitalis, Tiboldus and Heremburgis, we see a parentela which cuts obliquely through other, more homogeneous parentelae, either linked agnatically or in some other systematic way, where we might see more consistent transmission of names: but this is doubtful. In the genealogy we have several three-generation agnate lines (and one fourgeneration line) as well as several four-generation matrilines (and one fivegeneration line); and in none of these does any significant pattern of name repetition appear32.

  • 33 Four of the seven newest women's names (plus three of the seven introduced first in the Beaugency i (...)

16When the male and female names are considered separately (Figure 5), one discrepancy is evident: the men's names are more conservative by far. Eighty-seven percent of their names are identical or onomastically close to those found for coloni in the original portions of the polyptich of Irminon. Women on the other hand inherit only 61% of their names or name-roots from the original polyptich. While several of the newer men's and women's names appeared in later interpolations to the polyptich, only two men's names (5% of male stock) don't appear in any part of the polyptich at all; among women there are seven such new names (21% of female stock). Thus while the overall variety of names remained fairly equivalent between the sexes, women had discarded more old names and assumed more new ones, perhaps exercising their timeless aesthetic imperative33.

The Other Saint-Germain Genealogies

  • 34 Poupardin, no. 214, p. 299, line 14.

17The three other extant Saint-Germain genealogies seem to have had the same motivation for creation as that of maior Guy. While they are much smaller than the parentela of maior Guy, each has interesting characteristics which deserve mention. Only one specific link can be found between any two of these four texts, and it is indirect: Haimo the cook (cocus), whose (unnamed) wife is among the last generation of descendants of David and Robert (Figure 2), was also among the monastery's witnesses against Guy of Suresnes at the abbot's court, a fact which shows that the two genealogies must indeed be contemporary34. The parentela into which Haimo married was that of two brothers, David and Robert, who must have lived around the end of the eleventh century. David has four generations of descendants; Robert has only three: one son, and that son's eight children, the last of whom is named only as «the mother of Guibert the deacon». Three other female descendants are not named in this genealogy—only their husbands are named. Guy's parentela, in contrast, only gave a husband's name twice among twenty-one women with children—and the women of the parentela were always named. Within the monastery, of course, some of these husbands and sons would be well known—Guibert the deacon, Iohannes the hospitaler, and Haimo the cook—so perhaps it was not thought as important to record the names of their wives or mothers. In addition to these indications of office or trade, we see other surnames in this genealogy, of a type not found in the larger parentela of Guy: Anselm Avril, married to another unnamed descendant of David, has a distinctive, alliterative sobriquet as a surname. The other distinctive surname is the sobriquet which is actually inherited: Stephanus Capalu married David's daughter Hersendis and had a son, Robertus Capalu, as well as two daughters; however, Robertus'son Evrardus didn't inherit the surname. The only toponymic surnames here are found, as had been the case with Guy's parentela, in a clutch of sisters (and one brother) who must have settled in different villae and adopted — at least in the informant's recollection — the toponymics indicating their places settled (one sister has the Latin genitive Sancti Germani while her siblings bear the form de + ablative).

  • 35 Rinoldus Paganus: the spelling of the first name is doubtful (Poupardin gives 'Revoldus', which I d (...)

18The third genealogy (Figure 3), which with only eighteen persons is the briefest of the four, also begins with two coci (but not Haimo), who were brothers. One of them, Johannes, married a sister of two hospitalarii. One of their sons was also a cook, but their great-grandsons included an aulutarius and a clericus. Three interesting surnames here are striking. Two in the first generation are the brothers-in-law Rinoldus Paganus and Iocelinus diffidens Deum35. While 'Paganus' may also be used as a given name (it appears in the fourth genealogy), the sobriquet 'diffidens Deum' seems halfway between a name and an epigram. One wonders: were these sobriquets literally true for their holders? The third surname, 'Cratecul', borne by their nephew Evrardus, is obscure and may be akin to Lat. craticula (fine lattice-work); perhaps, though, it may have a coarser meaning (cratis-culis or even crassusculis)?

  • 36 I have not had the opportunity to inspect the manuscript of this fourth text and thus was not able (...)
  • 37 The only other example of this being Robert in Figure 2 (cf. n. 32).

19The fourth genealogy (Figure 4) treats the descendants of Theobald and Ursus. Though slightly larger than the third (naming 23 persons), it is the least informative in that it does not explicitly name any of the members as functionaries or serfs of the abbey, though one should assume that its purpose and provenance matches those of its fellows36. The shape of the genealogy is similar to that of David and Robert, though here the branch of descendants of the second brother, Ursus, is sparse indeed: one person in each generation until the unnamed two great-granddaughters, who are only shown for their husbands. The given names in this genealogy are unremarkable, though it is interesting that here are two grandsons bearing the same name as their grandfathers — one from a paternal grandfather, another from a maternal one37. And unlike the other three texts, no one here is named with rank, occupation or office, and only four out of the 23 names are accompanied by a toponymic surname. As elsewhere, they are clustered in one branch of the family, with three sisters bearing toponyms while a fourth sister does not. This fourth sister, however, was the mother of the only man in the entire corpus to bear a toponymic surname, Bartholomeus de Cella. Why was it unusual for a man to have been so designated in these texts?

  • 38 M. Bourin reflects on recent scholarship on social and regional distinctions of type and the advent (...)

20The variety in type of surname in the second and third genealogies is somewhat at odds with the uniformity of the larger text of Guy's parentela and the family of Theobald and Ursus. One might venture to suggest that the families of cooks and clerics were somewhat more sophisticated than their rural neighbors, and adopted more readily distinctive (and perhaps humorous) forms of surnames — namely those types of names which were making inroads among people of a higher social class and in different regions38. In the matter of given names, however, the three smaller genealogies tend only to reinforce some of the observations made for Guy's parentela: there is virtually no repetition of names among children or descendants, nor is there any systematic transmission of second names or surnames (aside from the inherited surname Capalu in Figure 2).

Summary of Observations

  • 39 Cf. Bourin, «France du Midi et France du nord... », p. 188-90.
  • 40 The table presented by Bourin, «France du Midi et France du Nord... », p. 197, shows a higher rate (...)

21What is one to make of these four genealogies, from an onomastic point of view? A preliminary overview of the names they contain suggests considerable onomastic conservatism, both in the retention of traditional Frankish names, and in the continued freedom to choose from a large stock of such names, in contradiction to the generally-marked trend of the shrinkage of acceptable name stocks and the greater tendency to use — and reuse — names made fashionable by aristocratic namesakes39. The obstinate variety of the name stock (72 different names for 100 individuals) is much higher than what has normally been found in other compiled data from aristocratic or socially mixed populations, from many regions of France from the tenth through twelfth centuries40. It is all the more striking that such extraordinary variety of names should be found among a group of individuals all of the same blood — where one would ordinarily expect the percentage of re-used names to be far greater than among any socially-defined stratum of the local population as a whole. While the Capetian aristocracy was following a more limiting fashion in names — choosing more and more frequently from among a small preferred list — it is understandable that the peasantry, under less swiftly-changing social pressures, may have remained freer to use older names, and perhaps thought it less important to adopt a smaller set of repeated proprietary names to identify themselves as belonging to a particular lineage. Nevertheless fashion may well account for the more frequent choice of new names among the women than among the men.

22As for titles and surnames, it is clear that the use of toponyms (or names of any other sort) was not considered important by the genealogies'scribes or by their informants, except perhaps to identify the maiores, or female cousins who married out of the home village. Other remarkable individuals in Guy's family—the knight, the priests, and the 'comes' — were curiosities and points of pride, while the 'pagan' (Rinoldus Paganus), the'agnostic' (Iohannes diffidens Deum), and the enigmatic Evrardus Cratecul, in the cooks'family, may have been eccentric uncles, remembered with a good-natured shock.

23In sum, these servile genealogies present a remarkable window into an onomastically conservative lower stratum of the population of the Île de France in the twelfth century. That Saint-Germain-des-Prés could yield such treasures is not surprising, given the tradition of the polyptich of Irminon. Concerning the study of the names themselves, these observations have only scratched the surface of the potential value of these documents, which may bear riper fruit under extended comparative scrutiny with the rest of the Saint-Germain charter collection, and with the benefit of closer comparisons with the polyptich itself.

24But when one turns to the surnames found (and not found) in such an unusual source, one caveat bears repeating: in any period, but particularly in this transitional period in the adoption of surnames among the lower social classes, it must be remembered that the names may have been created on the spot, or omitted, by the scribe or by his informants; and that their creation, retention or omission were largely dependent on the scribe's (or the copyist's) assessment of their value in the context of the document. In this case, we can be sure that the genealogies were created with an especially keen desire to keep track of the individuals who belonged to the servile lineages: the genealogies were meant to be used for the perpetuation of the memory and acknowledgment of that servile status. And for a while — perhaps for a generation, at least — one might imagine that these texts served that purpose. But how soon did the names and identities of these serfs fade beyond the recall of their descendants, or of the vigilant monks?

Figure 2. Descendants of David and Robert

Figure 2. Descendants of David and Robert

Figure 3. Coci and hospitalarii

Figure 3. Coci and hospitalarii

Figure 4. Descendants of Theobald and Ursus

Figure 4. Descendants of Theobald and Ursus
  • 49 An extremely doubtful reading of Poupardin's.
  • 50 The abbreviation here is definitely for the masculine 'us' loop, though the individual appears belo (...)
  • 51 Poupardin omits the following four names, having skipped from one 'Balduinus' to the next in transc (...)
  • 52 Note gender disagreement with 'Flandinus' above.
  • 53 A gap before this conjunction may indicate an erasure (or the expected inclusion) of one or possibl (...)
  • 54 Note disagreement with 'Hilderio' below.
  • 55 Interlineated above 'De Menaldi' in the same hand.
  • 56 Note gender disagreement with 'Hilderitis' above. As the ablative is totally unambiguous, I conclud (...)
  • 57 This group, though in an identical hand, begins a new line at the bottom of the column.

De Vitale exierunt Aalardus et Albertus et Aales.
De Aalardo Girelmus et Giroldus et Hemelina de
Castellione et Avelina de Tirannis49 et Hir
deburgis de Monte Rubeo et Ligardis de A
trio. De Alberto Legardis de Nemore. De Aales
Maria. De Maria Frodo comes. De Giroldo
Odelina. De Girelmo Menard
us. Maria. Heluisa.
Osanna. De Ligardi de Atrio Richildis uxor Guillelmi.
De Richildi Stephanus. De Hildeburgi Ingelrannus
et Gencelina et Rohes. De Emelina Gislebertus et Iohannes.
De Avelina Gislebertus. De Legardi de Nemore Durannus et Radulfus.

De Tiboldo exierunt Bordinus et Avelina
et Hisemburgis. De Bordino exierunt Guido
et fratres et sorores eius. De Avelina sorore Bordi
ni Brunellus et Osanna et Alburgis. De Osan
na Aubertus presbiter et Arraudus et Flandinus50.
De Alburgi Ingelrannus et Balduinus51 et Audegun
dis et Maria. De Hisemburgi Balduinus
et Aldonnus et Gibelina. De Brunello Ingel
burgis et Matildis. De Flandina52 Herbertus et Ma ria. De Balduino Hermundus et Heluis. De Hau donno Durandus et Avelina et Doda. De Gibelina Robert et Galterius et Ermengardis. De Auraudo Iacolina.

De Herenburgi Hugo miles.
Et53 Doda et Ermengardis.
De Doda Evrardus maior et Robertus
et Adelina et Menaldis et Rohes et Grossa. De Adelina Hilderitis54 et Gibelina. Hildeardis. Gerlent.
{Andreas presbiter}55.
De Menaldi Hildoardus maior Cati canti et Richardus maior de Arcolio. De Rohes Fulbertus et Stephanus et Se nata et Heremburgis. De Grossa Gi roldus et Henricus. De Giroldo Ingela rius et Hirdeburgis uxor Roberti. De Henrico Ingelrannus et Iosbertus et R obertus et Ermentrudis et Guntildis. De Gerlent Teoinus. De Hilderio56 Albur gis.
De57 Fulberto Herbertus. Garinus. Adalardus. Guido. De Senata Berta. Aletia. Robertus. Petrus. Hisabel.

Annexes

ANNEXE

Figure 1. The parentela of Guy, maior of Suresnes

Figure 1. The parentela of Guy, maior of Suresnes

Figure 5. Genealogy of Guy of Suresnes: Name Stock.

Figure 5. Genealogy of Guy of Suresnes: Name Stock.

Note 141
Note 2
42
Note 3
43
Note 4
44
Note 5
45
Note 6
46
Note 7
47
Note 8
48

Genealogy of Guy, maior of Suresnes.

ß. Paris, BN MS Lat 12196, f. 219v: a copy, inserted in a quire of charters of the late twelfth century. Presumably a copy (see below, note 9) of an original made at or shortly after the time of Guy's appearance in the abbey's court. All abbreviations are expanded in italics.

a. René Poupardin, Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, 2 vols. (Paris, 1909-30); vol. 1, no. 226.1. Implicitly connected to no. 214.

Hec est progenies Guidonis maioris de Sirinis. Vitalis et Tiboldus et Herenburgis fuerunt fratres et soror et fuerunt homines Sancri Germani de corpore.

Notes

1 «...ad diem statutum undequaque congregavimus in curia nostra utriusque sexus fere quinquaginta de parentela predicti Guidonis...». See next note.

2 Paris, BN MS Lat 12194, f. 219r (the charter) and 219v (the genealogy). Ed. René Poupardin, Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, 2 vols. (Paris, 1909-30), nos. 214 (the charter) and 226.1 (the genealogy; Poupardin's edition omits four individuals). I am indebted to my friend and former colleague Prof. Robert F. Berkhofer III, of Western Kentucky University, for bringing this document to my attention a couple of years ago, for his kind provision of photocopies of this and other Saint-Germain MSS, and for his collegial discussions of the documents'importance. Further consideration of their fiscal and patrimonial implications can be found in his dissertation, «Monastic Patrimony, Management and Accountability in Northern France, ca. 1000-1200», (Diss., Harvard University, 1997). I am further indebted to Prof. Berkhofer for recently pointing out to me te existence of another published study of Guy of Suresnes: Jean-Claude Lacroix, «Que savons-nous de Guy, "maire" de Suresnes au XIIe siècle?», Bulletin de la Société Historique de Suresnes, 9, whole no. 42 (1985), p. 67-73. While M. Lacroix there promised that a further study of the family of Guy would appear in a later issue of the Bulletin, one had not appeared as of 1993.

3 For example, two eleventh-century genealogies from the monastery of Saints Flora and Lucille at Arezzo, detailing the progeny of serfs or famuli who had been the subjects of past donations (Documenti per la storia della citta di Arezzo nel medioevo, ed. tibaldo Pasqui, vol. 1 [Firenze, 1899], nos. 292-3, p. 400-402; both studied by Cinzio Violante, «Quelques caractéristiques des structures familiales en Lombardie, Émilie et Toscane aux XIe et XIIe siècles», in Famille et parenté dans l'Occident médiéval: actes du colloque de Paris [6-8 juin 1974], ed. Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff [Rome, 1977], 89-90 and n. 6, with two stemmata hors texte). One traces seven generations of descendants of a serf, Maurus, fl. 937/47; another traces five generations of descendants of a serf, Petrus, with several other intermarried servile families. See also some of the texts edited by Maurits Gysseling, «Les plus anciennes généalogies de gens du peuple dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux», Bulletin de la commission royale de toponymie et de dialectologie, 21 (1947), 211-215; which probably concern ecclesiastical tenants or serfs, but which offer no explicit evidence of the exact status of the subjects. Finally, the rich narrative genealogy of the family of 'Za Era' from the Cartulaire noir of Auch has already been studied in this series (Benoit Cursente, «Les leçons d'une généalogie Auscitaine des XIe et XIIe siècles», in Genèse médiévale de l'anthroponymie moderne, vol. 3, Enquêtes généalogiques et données prosopographiques [Tours, 1995], 55-62 and table hors texte). While it is similar in tone and goal to some of these already cited, the issue lay in the title to the land of Za Era, rather than in any disputed claims to personal servility on the part of the genealogy's subjects (Cartulaires du chapitre de l’église métropolitaine Sainte-Marie d’Auch, ed. Charles Lacave La Plagne Barris [Paris & Auch, 1899], part 1, no. 108).

4 The best orientation remains Léopold Genicot's fascicle, «Les Généalogies», in the Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental (1975) with the «Mise à jour» (1985).

5 See principally Georges Duby, «Structure de parenté et noblesse, France du nord, XIe-XIIe siècles», in Miscellanea medievalia in memoriam Jan Frederik Niermeyer (Groningen, 1967), and «Remarques sur la littérature généalogique en France aux XIe et XIIe siècles», in Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1967 de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1967). See also the chapter by Dominique Barthélemy, «Parenté», in the popular Histoire de la vie privée, vol. 2, De l’Europe féodale à la Renaissance (Paris, 1985).

6 I have begun a comparative study of these texts in general, not yet published, which was embodied in a paper «Genealogical texts and contexts in the twelfth century», delivered at Harvard University in November 1996.

7 Galbert of Bruges, De multro, traditione, et ocasione Gloriosi Karoli Comitis Flandiarum, ed. Jeff Rider (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 131, Tournai, 1994), cap. 7. Note that in the two-hundred-page narrative Galbert offers no definitive agreement that Erembald and his descendants were serfs of the count. Galbert named some nineteen individuals in the Erembald clan.

8 The Arezzo genealogies have 35 to 55 persons; in fact, of all (non-royal) twelfth-century or earlier genealogical narratives or lists, the only one that comes closest in size is the stemma of his kin, the descendants of deacon Heimric, drawn by canon Lambert of Saint-Omer in the Liberfloridus, f. 154r (ed. and reproduced by Gysseling, op. cit.), which contains 80 persons.

9 Poupardin, nos. 226.2 (the genealogy of cooks and hospitalarii, relatives of the married couple Johannes and Alietru, AN LL 1024, f. 86v), naming 29 persons; 226.3 (descendants of brothers David and Robert, BN MS Lat. 13056, f. 125v), naming 18 persons; and 226bis (descendants of brothers Theobald and Ursus, BN MS Lat. 13882, f. 93v), naming 23 persons. See Figures 2-4.

10 Alietru (Figure 3), the daughter of a hospitalarius and the wife of a cocus, was noted as'feminam nostram de corpore'.

11 In this context it is important to cite both major editions: that of B. Guérard, Polyptyque de l'abbé Irminon: ou, dénombrement des manses, des serfs et des revenus de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-desPrés sous le règne de Charlemagne, publié d'après le manuscrit de la Bibliothèque du roi, 2 vols. (Paris, 1844); and that of Auguste Longnon, Polyptyque de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, redigé au temps de l'abbé Irminon, 2 vols. (Paris 1886-95); the onomastic study in Longnon's introduction (1: 254-382) is still rewarding to study.

12 This added temporal dimension parallels the increasing complexity of purely fiscal texts in a similar period. For this development in patrimonial accounting see, among others, T. N. Bisson, Fiscal Accounts of Catalonia, 2 vols. (Berkeley, 1990); for parallel developments in other kinds of personal financial charters (particularly wills and pious bequests), see my dissertation, The Will and Society in Medieval Catalonia and Languedoc, 800-1200 (Ph.D. diss., Harvard Univ., 1995), chap. 6.

13 This point is not new; indeed it is the justification for the inclusion of papers around the topic «Les récits généalogiques comme sources d'études anthroponymiques», in Genèse médiévale de l'anthroponymie moderne, vol. 3, Enquêtes généalogiques et données prosopographiques, ed. Monique Bourin (Tours, 1995).

14 Luke 1:50, 'a progenie in progenies'; cf. also Genesis 46: 7; Exodus 6:15, 34: 7; and Job 5: 25, 18:19, 31: 8. However, in Genesis 43: 7 it seems to have the sense of collateral kin (fathers and brothers).

15 The charter of Guy's submission (Poupardin, no. 214), names as a witness «ex parte Guidonis» his avunculus, magister Patrus. However, he is not in the genealogy himself, as both named Guys in the genealogy belong to the parentela through their fathers, so Petrus could not have belonged to the subject parentela.

16 A third alternative, that all the individuals in the text are Guy's descendants (literally his progenies), beginning with the first three siblings who would therefore be his children, can be discarded on grounds that the text cannot date from a period three to five generations after Guy's submission (i.e the latter 13th century).

17 Jan Frederik Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus (Leiden, 1976), s.v.; while its use in English is rare one can note that it has recently been revived in twentieth-century writings on sociology and genetics (cf. Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., s.v.).

18 Matt. 3: 7, 12: 37. The pejorative simile of vipers is also applied by the writer of the Gesta comitum barcinonensium to the troublesome sons of Ramon Berenguer I, (Berenguer Ramon I and Pere Ramon), 'like viper hatchlings who naturally kill their mother by bursting through the belly' (one killed his stepmother, the other his brother). Gesta comitum barcinonensium, ed. Lluis Barrau Dihigo and Jaume Massó Torrents (Barcelona, 1925), 7.

19 An instinct for ternary subdivision has affected genealogists since the creation of the Old Testament: think of Cain, Abel and Seth, or Shem, Ham and Japheth; similarly the basic notated rhythms of the end of the twelfth century (Notre-Dame conductus) were ternary.

20 Indeed, descent through women outnumbers descent through men (21 women with offspring vs. 15 men; plus one, Flandinus/Flandina, who was probably a woman despite the scribal inconsistency with the ending).

21 I think it likely that this is the Guido maior of the caption, though the younger Guido cannot be ruled out.

22 This assumes a masculine identification of the ambiguous «Hilderitis/Hilderio» and a feminine identification of the ambiguous «Flandinus/Flandina». See edited text.

23 Note that one of the priests, Andreas presbiter, constitutes the only interlinear addition to the extant text. It cannot be determined whether this is a copyist's correction or a factual addition.

24 Guérard, Polyptyque de l'abbé Irminon, 1: 450. Cf. also J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus (Leiden, 1954-76), s.v. maior, § 7-8, p. 628.

25 I have not identified Tirannis (Poupardin's reading of a doubtful name, which I cannot make anything other than the obviously nonsensical Titiaxiuis), Atrio, and Nemore.

26 Newer single-root forms: Frodo, Garinus. Recombinations: Herdeburgis, Teoinus.

27 Hugo.

28 Avelina, Odelina, Hemelina, Aales, Helvisa, Hisabel, Matildis, Durandus, Vitalis (in addition to Frodo).

29 Latin-derived names: Brunellus, Grossa, Iacolina, Flandina, Senata. Frankish names: Bordinus, Rohes. Uncertain forms: Gencelina, Gibelina.

30 Robertus (5 times) Maria (4), Avelina (3) and Ingelrannus (3).

31 Heremburgis (gen. 1) > Doda > Rohese > Heremburgis: a four-generation matriline.

32 In the other texts, which are admittedly briefer, there are only three examples of grandchildren bearing the name of a grandparent: Robert de Corceliis was paternal grandson of Robert (Figure 2); and the pairs Andreas and Theobaldus in Figure 4.

33 Four of the seven newest women's names (plus three of the seven introduced first in the Beaugency interpolation) end in the familiar or derivative ending -elina (or -ina as in Flandina). This element, not found in the original polyptich, clearly reflects a widespread new namebuilding device. See Figure 5.

34 Poupardin, no. 214, p. 299, line 14.

35 Rinoldus Paganus: the spelling of the first name is doubtful (Poupardin gives 'Revoldus', which I doubt). 'Paganus'could be a second individual rather than a second name, but the punctuation in the text suggests that it is a second name.

36 I have not had the opportunity to inspect the manuscript of this fourth text and thus was not able to investigate its paleographical relationship, if any, to the other texts. Unlike the other three texts, Poupardin did not attribute the act to the abbacy of Hugh V: but this was among the actes omis inserted at the end of the (posthumous) second volume, and may not have had the benefit of Poupardin's consideration.

37 The only other example of this being Robert in Figure 2 (cf. n. 32).

38 M. Bourin reflects on recent scholarship on social and regional distinctions of type and the advent of the surname in «France du Midi et France du Nord: deux systèmes anthroponymiques?», in L'anthroponymie, document de l'histoire sociale des mondes méditerranéens médiévaux (Rome, 1996), esp. 190-94.

39 Cf. Bourin, «France du Midi et France du nord... », p. 188-90.

40 The table presented by Bourin, «France du Midi et France du Nord... », p. 197, shows a higher rate only in the tenth-century Vendômois (80 names per 100), with 65 names per 100 in mid twelfth-century Toul.

49 An extremely doubtful reading of Poupardin's.

50 The abbreviation here is definitely for the masculine 'us' loop, though the individual appears below as a woman, 'Flandina'. Close inspection of the minims suggest a possible reading of the letters 'Flandni' finished by the 'us' loop, suggesting possibly a feminine nominative 'Flandinis', still not identical to 'Flandina' below.

51 Poupardin omits the following four names, having skipped from one 'Balduinus' to the next in transcription.

52 Note gender disagreement with 'Flandinus' above.

53 A gap before this conjunction may indicate an erasure (or the expected inclusion) of one or possibly two names, but the copy available to me is insufficient to determine it.

54 Note disagreement with 'Hilderio' below.

55 Interlineated above 'De Menaldi' in the same hand.

56 Note gender disagreement with 'Hilderitis' above. As the ablative is totally unambiguous, I conclude that the earlier 'Hilderitis' (of which the 'itis' is unambiguous) may be a copyist's error for 'Hilderius'.

57 This group, though in an identical hand, begins a new line at the bottom of the column.

41 polyptich has an Aldoinus

42 polyptich has an Adragaudus

43 original polyptich has only compounds with root Frod-, though hypochoristic Frodo is found in the Beaugency interpolation

44 polyptich has compounds with root Garin- / Warin- but not this hypochoristic form

45 polyptich has root Teud- in other compounds

46 polyptich has Herd- and -bergis / -berga as roots in other compounds

47 polyptich has an Autgudis

48 polyptich has a Magenildis

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 2. Descendants of David and Robert
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/16567/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 84k
Titre Figure 3. Coci and hospitalarii
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/16567/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 72k
Titre Figure 4. Descendants of Theobald and Ursus
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/16567/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 68k
Titre Figure 1. The parentela of Guy, maior of Suresnes
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/16567/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 196k
Titre Figure 5. Genealogy of Guy of Suresnes: Name Stock.
Légende Note 141Note 242Note 343Note 444Note 545Note 646Note 747Note 848
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/16567/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 324k
URL http://books.openedition.org/pufr/docannexe/image/16567/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 252k

Auteur

Harvard University

© Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, 2002

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search