The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
5 deleted 38 characters in body
source | link

It wasn't a kingdom. The idea is that there existed a Jewish principality in the Frankish realm, vassal to the Carolingian kings.led by a Their leader wasn't a king but rather a Nāśī as vassals of the Carolingian kings. It is mostly advocated by a certain Arthur Zuckerman,Arthur Zuckerman, as you have noted. His theory has however been widely dismissed by historians in general.

That a Jewish community headed by a Nāśī existed in Narbonne is not very controversial. Zuckerman's identification of those Jewish leaders as variouswith other established aristocratic lineages and persons, however,historically recorded nobles of the region is however widely discredited. Specifically, Zuckerman argues that Makhir (the alleged founder of the Jewish dynasty) is the same person as Count Magnario of Narbonne and Aymeri de Narbonne. From that, he argues that Magnario/Aymeri/Theoduric/Makhir fathered Saint Guilhelm of Toulouse, founder the House of Guilhelmides.

That is, he argues the (as most people read it) gn in the word is actually gh. There is however a partial word regna from the same document. Other historians generally took the visual similarity between the two gn's to mean that the one in Magnario is, well, also gn after all. In this they are backed up by Magnario being the Latin of a known Germanic name. The same name, actually, as the significantly better attested Meginarius, notary of Louis the Pious.

It wasn't a kingdom. The idea is that there existed a Jewish principality in the Frankish realm, vassal to the Carolingian kings. Their leader wasn't a king but rather a Nāśī. It is mostly advocated by a certain Arthur Zuckerman, as you have noted. His theory has been widely dismissed by historians in general.

That a Jewish community headed by a Nāśī existed in Narbonne is not very controversial. Zuckerman's identification of those Jewish leaders as various other established aristocratic lineages and persons, however, is widely discredited. Specifically, Zuckerman argues that Makhir (the alleged founder of the Jewish dynasty) is the same person as Count Magnario of Narbonne and Aymeri de Narbonne. From that, he argues that Magnario/Aymeri/Theoduric/Makhir fathered Saint Guilhelm of Toulouse, founder the House of Guilhelmides.

That is, he argues the (as most people read it) gn in the word is actually gh. There is however a partial word regna from the same document. Other historians generally took the similarity between the two gn's to mean that the one in Magnario is, well, also gn after all. In this they are backed up by Magnario being the Latin of a known Germanic name. The same name, actually, as the significantly better attested Meginarius, notary of Louis the Pious.

It wasn't a kingdom. The idea is that there existed a Jewish principality in the Frankish realm, led by a Nāśī as vassals of the Carolingian kings. It is mostly advocated by Arthur Zuckerman, as you have noted. His theory has however been widely dismissed by historians in general.

That a Jewish community headed by a Nāśī existed in Narbonne is not very controversial. Zuckerman's identification of those Jewish leaders with other historically recorded nobles of the region is however widely discredited. Specifically, Zuckerman argues that Makhir (the alleged founder of the Jewish dynasty) is the same person as Count Magnario of Narbonne and Aymeri de Narbonne. From that, he argues that Magnario/Aymeri/Theoduric/Makhir fathered Saint Guilhelm of Toulouse, founder the House of Guilhelmides.

That is, he argues the (as most people read it) gn in the word is actually gh. There is however a partial word regna from the same document. Other historians generally took the visual similarity between the two gn's to mean that the one in Magnario is, well, also gn after all. In this they are backed up by Magnario being the Latin of a known Germanic name. The same name, actually, as the significantly better attested Meginarius, notary of Louis the Pious.

4 added 94 characters in body
source | link

The problem is that contemporary records don't support Zuckerman's arguments. In the historical record, Makhir is only mentioned in a 13th century gloss13th century gloss of Abraham ibn Daud's 1161 Book of Traditions. No other source names Makhir at all. His supposed dynasty's continuity from its supposed founding up to ibin Daud's time is totally unrecorded, and there is no way to verify its claim of Davidic lineages. Moreover, it is directly contradicted by the contemporary (with the gloss) Gesta Karoli Magni ad Carcassonam et Narbonam. The Latin text states that the Jews of Narbonne had, when the city was captured from the Muslims in 759, an existing leader of the Davidic line. As opposed to one imported from Babylon by the Franks.

The problem is that contemporary records don't support Zuckerman's arguments. In the historical record, Makhir is only mentioned in a 13th century gloss of Abraham ibn Daud's 1161 Book of Traditions. No other source names Makhir at all. His supposed dynasty's continuity from its supposed founding up to ibin Daud's time, and there is no way to verify its claim of Davidic lineages. Moreover, it is directly contradicted by the contemporary Gesta Karoli Magni ad Carcassonam et Narbonam. The Latin text states that the Jews of Narbonne had, when the city was captured from the Muslims in 759, an existing leader of the Davidic line.

The problem is that contemporary records don't support Zuckerman's arguments. In the historical record, Makhir is only mentioned in a 13th century gloss of Abraham ibn Daud's 1161 Book of Traditions. No other source names Makhir at all. His supposed dynasty's continuity from its supposed founding up to ibin Daud's time is totally unrecorded, and there is no way to verify its claim of Davidic lineages. Moreover, it is directly contradicted by the contemporary (with the gloss) Gesta Karoli Magni ad Carcassonam et Narbonam. The Latin text states that the Jews of Narbonne had, when the city was captured from the Muslims in 759, an existing leader of the Davidic line. As opposed to one imported from Babylon by the Franks.

3 added 654 characters in body
source | link

There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence behind Zuckerman's claim that Aymeri was the same as Magnario and Makhir either. His primary evidence is that a certain Magnario was mentioned in Narbonne's 791 charter, the original of which having been long lost. Based on fragmentary facsimiles of engravings that survive in the 1681 De Re Diplomatica, Zuckerman claims the Magnario mentioned in it mentioned is actually Maghario. According to him, which he saysthe latter is Makhir in Latin.

That is, he claimsargues the (as most people read it) gn in the word is actually gh. There is however a partial word regna from the same document. Other historians generally took the similarity between the two gn's to mean that the one in Magnario is, well, also gn after all. In this they are backed up by Magnario being the Latin of a known Germanic name. The same name, actually, as the significantly better attested significantly better attested MeginariusMeginarius, notary of Louis the Pious.

Sources:

  1. Cosman, Madeleine Pelner, and Linda Gale Jones. Handbook to life in the medieval world. Facts on File, 2008. Page 316.
  2. Cohen, Jeremy. "The Nasi of Narbonne: A Problem in Medieval Historiography." AJS Review 2 (1977): 45-76.
  3. Taylor, Nathaniel L. "Saint William, King David, and Makhir: A Controversial Medieval Descent." American Genealogist 72 (1997): 205-224.

There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence behind Zuckerman's claim that Aymeri was the same as Magnario and Makhir either. His primary evidence is that a certain Magnario was mentioned in Narbonne's 791 charter, the original of which having been long lost. Based on fragmentary facsimiles of engravings that survive in the 1681 De Re Diplomatica, Zuckerman claims the Magnario mentioned in it is actually Maghario, which he says is Makhir in Latin.

That is, he claims the (as most people read it) gn in the word is actually gh. There is however a partial word regna from the same document. Other historians generally took the similarity between the two gn's to mean that the one in Magnario is, well, gn after all. In this they are backed up by Magnario being the Latin of a known Germanic name. The same name, actually, as the significantly better attested Meginarius, notary of Louis the Pious.

There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence behind Zuckerman's claim that Aymeri was the same as Magnario and Makhir either. His primary evidence is that a certain Magnario was mentioned in Narbonne's 791 charter, the original of which having been long lost. Based on fragmentary facsimiles of engravings that survive in the 1681 De Re Diplomatica, Zuckerman claims the Magnario it mentioned is actually Maghario. According to him, the latter is Makhir in Latin.

That is, he argues the (as most people read it) gn in the word is actually gh. There is however a partial word regna from the same document. Other historians generally took the similarity between the two gn's to mean that the one in Magnario is, well, also gn after all. In this they are backed up by Magnario being the Latin of a known Germanic name. The same name, actually, as the significantly better attested Meginarius, notary of Louis the Pious.

Sources:

  1. Cosman, Madeleine Pelner, and Linda Gale Jones. Handbook to life in the medieval world. Facts on File, 2008. Page 316.
  2. Cohen, Jeremy. "The Nasi of Narbonne: A Problem in Medieval Historiography." AJS Review 2 (1977): 45-76.
  3. Taylor, Nathaniel L. "Saint William, King David, and Makhir: A Controversial Medieval Descent." American Genealogist 72 (1997): 205-224.
2 added 654 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link