Latin word for cousins on the mothers side (and other terminology)

Cousins, whether the children of patruus/amita or avunculus/matertera are consobrinus and consobrina

https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2628/a-complete-family-tree

Hans Vogels

Post by Hans Vogels
There are a lot of Latin terms to indicate a relationship.
Matertera = aunt, sister of mother.
Avunculi = uncle, brother of mother.
Consobrini = sons of mothers sister (literally), loosely used as first cousins.
I'm in the midst of writing an article and am trying to explore a search direction.
I wondered if there was a different terminology for the sons of mothers brother? Loosely they can be seen as consobrini.
Or could consobrini be also first cousins from fathers side?
Is there a usefull online dictionary that I can use?
The Latin dictionary in my bookshelve translates only Latin into Dutch.
With regards,
Hans Vogels

Hans Vogels

2021-05-05 19:19:54 UTC

It looks like consobrini (consobrinus/consobrina) are used loosely for first cousins.

The proper terminology being:
patrueli for children of the patruus (fathers brother)
amitini for children of the amita (fathers sister)
consobrini for children of the avunculus (mothers brother)
matrueli for children of the matertera (mothers sister)

https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/latin.html

This confuses me as my Latin dictionary shows only two explanations:
consobrini for children of the matertera (literal meaning)
consobrini for first cousins (loosely meaning)

Can anyone enlighten me?
I want to make out or see
- the difference between the terminology on the children of the avunculus and matertera and
- to recognise the meanings of the consobrini.

What is right and what is wrong?

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Post by Hans Vogels
Cousins, whether the children of patruus/amita or avunculus/matertera are consobrinus and consobrina
https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2628/a-complete-family-tree
Hans Vogels

keri CA

2021-05-05 20:33:36 UTC

Post by Hans Vogels
It looks like consobrini (consobrinus/consobrina) are used loosely for first cousins.
patrueli for children of the patruus (fathers brother)
amitini for children of the amita (fathers sister)
consobrini for children of the avunculus (mothers brother)
matrueli for children of the matertera (mothers sister)
https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/latin.html
consobrini for children of the matertera (literal meaning)
consobrini for first cousins (loosely meaning)
Can anyone enlighten me?
I want to make out or see
- the difference between the terminology on the children of the avunculus and matertera and
- to recognise the meanings of the consobrini.
What is right and what is wrong?
With regards,
Hans Vogels

I dont know the answers but it might depend on whether you are using
a classical latin dictionary. Meanings and usage of words often change over time.
I think the dictionary recommended for medieval latin is J. F. Niermeyer's Mediae
Latinitatis Lexicon, but you probably will need access to a good library. You
wont want to buy it becos its about $800. There are a number of latin translation
sites, but I've found that they are not always that accurate.

kerica

lancast...@gmail.com

2021-05-05 20:36:00 UTC

Not sure if it helps, but I have used this in the past:

Anita Guerreau-Jalabert, ‘La désignation des relations et des groupes de parenté en latin médiéval’, Archivum latinitatis medii aevi, 46-47 (1986-87), pp. 65-108

It is available online.

pj.ev...@gmail.com

2021-05-05 21:12:40 UTC

I have a dictionary for classical Latin, which has patruelis as, more generally, cousin on the father's side, and on the mother's side, consobrinus/consobrina.

Peter Stewart

2021-05-06 05:41:59 UTC

Post by Hans Vogels
It looks like consobrini (consobrinus/consobrina) are used loosely for first cousins.

This is exactly what is stated in the digest of Roman law (Justinian
code) section on relationship terms, edited by Theodor Mommsen in
*Corpus iuris civilis* vol. 1 p. 579: "sed fere vulgus omnes istos
communi appellatione consobrinos vocant".

Post by Hans Vogels
patrueli for children of the patruus (fathers brother)
amitini for children of the amita (fathers sister)
consobrini for children of the avunculus (mothers brother)
matrueli for children of the matertera (mothers sister)
https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/latin.html
consobrini for children of the matertera (literal meaning)
consobrini for first cousins (loosely meaning)
Can anyone enlighten me?
I want to make out or see
- the difference between the terminology on the children of the avunculus and matertera and
- to recognise the meanings of the consobrini.
What is right and what is wrong?

By the same Roman code the children of two brothers were called
"fratres/sorores patrueles" to each other, the children of two sisters
were called "consobrini/consobrinae" and the children of a brother and
sister were "amatini/amatinae".

"Patrueles" and "matrueles" (not "patrueli" and "matrueli") mean
strictly the children of a paternal uncle (patruus) and maternal uncle
(avunculus) respectively, but "matrueles" is a rare usage that could be
extended to the children of a mother's sister as you note above.

However, the more common medieval usage by far was "consobrinus" for any
sort of first cousin.

The modern understanding of some medieval relationship terms has been
messed up by misprints in mind-numbingly dull explications - for
example, in the decretals of St Ivo of Chartres where he meant that the
paternal uncle of my father is called my great uncle and I to him am the
son or daughter of his brother's son ("patris mei patruus mihi patruus
magnus est, ego illi filii fratris filius aut filia") the whole thing
got screwed in Migne's *Patrologia latina* edition into saying that my
father's father is my great father ("patris mei pater mihi pater magnus
est" followed nonsensically by the collateral "I to him ..."). Printers
who do not understand the texts they are working on have created enough
trouble without worrying about precise technical terms that were hardly
ever used.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2021-05-06 06:10:09 UTC

Post by Hans Vogels
It looks like consobrini (consobrinus/consobrina) are used loosely for first cousins.

Post by Hans Vogels
patrueli for children of the patruus (fathers brother)
amitini for children of the amita (fathers sister)
consobrini for children of the avunculus (mothers brother)
matrueli for children of the matertera (mothers sister)
https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/latin.html
consobrini for children of the matertera (literal meaning)
consobrini for first cousins (loosely meaning)
Can anyone enlighten me?
I want to make out or see
- the difference between the terminology on the children of the
avunculus and matertera and
- to recognise the meanings of the consobrini.
What is right and what is wrong?

Isidore of Seville in his *Etymologies* defined an agnatic first cousin
as "frater patruelis", and a first cousin from a sister and brother or
from two sisters as "consobrinus". He gave "fratruelis" for the child of
a maternal aunt, and "sobrinus" for any kind of second cousin.

You could go into this until your head spins through 360 degrees and
still not know for sure what any individual writer meant by any specific
word on any particular day.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2021-05-06 23:26:18 UTC

I should have made clearer yesterday that the last two are the wrong way
round: consobrini are sons of sisters, matrueles are sons of maternal
uncles.

But, as noted by Hans upthread, first cousins were all called consobrini
regardless of strict definitions.

Peter Stewart

Hans Vogels

2021-05-07 07:31:07 UTC

I should have made clearer yesterday that the last two are the wrong way
round: consobrini are sons of sisters, matrueles are sons of maternal
uncles.
But, as noted by Hans upthread, first cousins were all called consobrini
regardless of strict definitions.
Peter Stewart

Thank you Peter,

That was the lead I needed.
The info in the chart from the university of Manitoba made me doubt:
https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/latin.html
Though visually clear presented it went against what I had picked up, heard and read everywere.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

2021-05-07 09:41:01 UTC

I should have made clearer yesterday that the last two are the wrong way
round: consobrini are sons of sisters, matrueles are sons of maternal
uncles.
But, as noted by Hans upthread, first cousins were all called consobrini
regardless of strict definitions.
Peter Stewart

Thank you Peter,
That was the lead I needed.
https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/latin.html
Though visually clear presented it went against what I had picked up, heard and read everywere.

The terms given in Brian Schwimmer's tree are even more unhelpful than
the oddly-coloured symbols - in common usage the children of a sister
and a brother are all called nepos/neptis, not sobrinus and fratruelis.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2021-05-08 02:52:34 UTC

I should have made clearer yesterday that the last two are the wrong way
round: consobrini are sons of sisters, matrueles are sons of maternal
uncles.

The term "matruelis" was so rare that it seems to have been unknown to
most medieval lexicographers, or at least escaped defining in their works.

The authoritative Roman jurist Ulpianus had clearly defined it as a
child of the mother's brother, and this is the only sense given in
classical dictionaries, for instance in *Thesaurus lingae latinae* as
"avunculi filius", son of a maternal uncle, in Lewis & Short "a mother's
brother's son, a cousin-german, first-cousin on the mother's side".

The child of a maternal uncle was also the principal meaning given by Du
Cange ("ex matris fratre natus"), though he also noted definitions as
pertaining to a maternal aunt or the child of a step-mother ("pertinens
ad marteram", glossed a "materteram", and "filz ou filles de marratre").
These are both given in a late-14th century glossary in the Bibliothèque
nationale that was edited by Mario Roques in *Recueil général des
lexiques français du Moyen âge* (1938), vol. ii p. 250. There is no
entry for "martera", presumably a scribal error as Du Cange pointed out
- the definition given for "matertera" (p. 249) is the usual, maternal
aunt ("tente, suer de la mere").

The word "matruelis" is not included in any of the other glossaries
edited by Roque. It was defined by Osbern of Gloucester in the late-12th
century as pertaining to a mother's sister ("matris mee soror, que etiam
matruelis dicitur"). This was understood by Hugutio of Pisa as extending
to the son or daughter of a maternal aunt ("matrueles dicuntur filii vel
filie matertere"). The editors of *Novum glossarium* in 1959 cited only
Hugutio's definitions derived from Osbern, as a noun: "a) tante du côté
maternel ... b) cousin germain" and as an adjective: "de la tante".

So the website Hans linked to is not wrong on this point, but just
following a medieval definition that was at odds with the strictly
correct one.

By the way, on the extension of "consobrinus" to cover any sort of
cousin this 1972 article by Archie Bush may be useful:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3295831.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2021-05-08 06:36:36 UTC

Post by Peter Stewart
The word "matruelis" is not included in any of the other glossaries
edited by Roque. It was defined by Osbern of Gloucester in the late-12th
century as pertaining to a mother's sister ("matris mee soror, que etiam
matruelis dicitur"). This was understood by Hugutio of Pisa as extending
to the son or daughter of a maternal aunt ("matrueles dicuntur filii vel
filie matertere").

In the 1280s this was copied by Giovanni Balbi in his *Catholicon*, that
became a standard reference work throughout Europe in the later medieval
period - "Matrueles eciam dicuntur filii matertere uel filie", see here:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012rosen0031/?sp=459

This is in a splendid digitisation of the Library of Congress' copy of
the original 1460 edition. Google Books only have messy scans of some
later reprints.

Peter Stewart

Hans Vogels

2021-05-08 21:20:53 UTC

In the 1280s this was copied by Giovanni Balbi in his *Catholicon*, that
became a standard reference work throughout Europe in the later medieval
https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012rosen0031/?sp=459
This is in a splendid digitisation of the Library of Congress' copy of
the original 1460 edition. Google Books only have messy scans of some
later reprints.
Peter Stewart

Whow, thank you Peter,
you continue to amaze me with such detailed information on such a broad horizon.
I propose a question and you provide me with a lecture.
Have you ever been a lecturer in history or is this a personal interest that grew out of proportion?

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

2021-05-08 22:43:17 UTC

No, I've never pursued an academic career - and if you mean out of
proportion to whatever else I could be doing, I'm afraid there's not
very much nowadays.

Due to increasing disability, my occupations are practically confined to
listening to music, watching television and reading. Of these the last
is the only pastime available to me that can be of the slightest use to
anyone else, by looking up bits of information in a large collection of
materials I gathered knowing that I would become limited to a very small
sphere of activity. So here I am today, with nothing better to do.

Peter Stewart

lancast...@gmail.com

2021-05-11 17:57:15 UTC

No, I've never pursued an academic career - and if you mean out of
proportion to whatever else I could be doing, I'm afraid there's not
very much nowadays.
Due to increasing disability, my occupations are practically confined to
listening to music, watching television and reading. Of these the last
is the only pastime available to me that can be of the slightest use to
anyone else, by looking up bits of information in a large collection of
materials I gathered knowing that I would become limited to a very small
sphere of activity. So here I am today, with nothing better to do.
Peter Stewart

I am sure I am not the only one who is very thankful for it Peter.

John Higgins

2021-05-11 21:55:58 UTC

No, I've never pursued an academic career - and if you mean out of
proportion to whatever else I could be doing, I'm afraid there's not
very much nowadays.
Due to increasing disability, my occupations are practically confined to
listening to music, watching television and reading. Of these the last
is the only pastime available to me that can be of the slightest use to
anyone else, by looking up bits of information in a large collection of
materials I gathered knowing that I would become limited to a very small
sphere of activity. So here I am today, with nothing better to do.
Peter Stewart

Peter, I've always been impressed by the range of resources you seem to have access to, particularly in areas which most of us have little knowledge of. You must have quite a large - and eclectic - collection in your library. Do you have particular areas of interest that you've specialized in while building your collection? Just curious...

Peter Stewart

2021-05-11 22:54:08 UTC

Post by John Higgins
Peter, I've always been impressed by the range of resources you seem to have access to, particularly in areas which most of us have little knowledge of. You must have quite a large - and eclectic - collection in your library. Do you have particular areas of interest that you've specialized in while building your collection? Just curious...

I don't think I can call myself a "collector", as that implies more
discrimination than applied in my choice of targets - I omnivorously
gathered medieval texts and modern studies relating to people living in
Europe between ca 750 and 1250, because their lives, thoughts and
relationships interest me. The world I was born into developed from the
broad direction set in this era, but not everything about it has engaged
me. For instance, I can't get even the least bit enthused over property
transactions so that the massive records of Anglo-Norman bureaucracy and
litigation are a fairly closed area for me. Ditto heraldry.

Happily there are far more expert contributors from whom I learn here,
although fewer post frequently now than in past years.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2021-05-05 22:56:07 UTC

Bear in mind that medieval writers might have asked the same questions -
they did not carry dictionaries in their heads and did not very often
need to think about such specific terms, or if they did would probably
just detail the connection by steps rather than seeking to define it in
one word.

There are many examples of rulers (or their notaries drafting charters)
using relationship terms in demonstrably inaccurate ways, for example
calling a first cousin twice removed "avunculus" or a maternal
half-brother "germanus". Taking specific terms too literally can be risky.

The primary authority for various usages is still the revised edition of
Du Cange's *Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis*, available to read
or download complete on Gallica. This is gradually being superseded by
*Novum glossarium mediae latinitatis* that is still far from complete
but has issued the M and P sections with the relevant terms you are
after. There are also numerous specialised medieval-Latin dictionaries
for different places that you can track down in libraires, for instance
*Lexicon latinitatis Nederlandicae medii aevi: Woordenboek van het
middeleeuws Latijn van de noordelijke Nederlanden*, *Thesaurus linguae
scriptorum operumque Latino-Belgicorum medii aevi*, *Dictionary of
Medieval Latin from British Sources*.

Peter Stewart

Hans Vogels

2021-05-06 04:56:25 UTC

Bear in mind that medieval writers might have asked the same questions -
they did not carry dictionaries in their heads and did not very often
need to think about such specific terms, or if they did would probably
just detail the connection by steps rather than seeking to define it in
one word.
There are many examples of rulers (or their notaries drafting charters)
using relationship terms in demonstrably inaccurate ways, for example
calling a first cousin twice removed "avunculus" or a maternal
half-brother "germanus". Taking specific terms too literally can be risky.
The primary authority for various usages is still the revised edition of
Du Cange's *Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis*, available to read
or download complete on Gallica. This is gradually being superseded by
*Novum glossarium mediae latinitatis* that is still far from complete
but has issued the M and P sections with the relevant terms you are
after. There are also numerous specialised medieval-Latin dictionaries
for different places that you can track down in libraires, for instance
*Lexicon latinitatis Nederlandicae medii aevi: Woordenboek van het
middeleeuws Latijn van de noordelijke Nederlanden*, *Thesaurus linguae
scriptorum operumque Latino-Belgicorum medii aevi*, *Dictionary of
Medieval Latin from British Sources*.
Peter Stewart

Thank you for all suggestions.
The problem with Covid 19 is that the usefull medieval lexicons are out of reach because of the closing of the libraries.

My problem lies is the direction of search.
Herbert II of Heeze, + after 1211 sold his allodium Sterksel around 1197. He is the second and likewise named generation known to be lord of Heeze. His father is mentioned in 1146. Before that history on Heeze is non-existent. His father Herbert I of Heeze is known to have sold a forest in the neighbourhood of Heeze along two other nobles from distant areas, Richwin om Kempenich (near the river Mosel an Rhine in Germany) and Reinard of Millen along de German-Dutch border in the modern Dutch province of Limburg. There are name indications that Richwin is married to a sister of Reinard. Reinard was a younger brother of a Floris of Millen that died umarried. The in that time unusual name Floris (householdname in the family of the counts of Holland) pops up in a son of Richwin and is probably the start of the name Floris popping up in later years in Rhineland. The question is how the three distant noblemen came in the possesion of something so fare away for two of them but near the Lords of Heeze but outside his 'known' sfere of possible possessions.

When son and successor Herbert II of Heeze sold Sterksel to the Luikse (Belgian Liege) archdiacon Otto of Heinsberg (near Millen) there were a few realtives present: the consobrini William and Rutger of Gemert and a Roelof dictus Rover of Rode (younger son of the Lords/counts of Rode) who was married to a niece of Herbert II (habens filiam sororis mee). These withnesses are noblemen from the near area. Its is my theory (1998) that some of the property (the village and later lordship Geldrop) of the Lords of Heeze came to be in the possession of the Lords of Gemert. Other property (the vilage and later lordship Mierlo) descended to the son of Roelof of Rode.

I am now revising my earlier articles and am playing with the Latin term 'consobrini' for the Gemertse brothers. My own dictionary and most others point to a relationship through the mother of Herbert II and that opens the possibility that father Herbert I became Lord of Heeze through marriage. Up until now my line of thought was that the in 1197 mentioned relatives were descended through the male 'Van Heeze' line, how unknown this familie may be.

There are a few other distractions in South East Brabants such as that the name Herbert pops up in other families like the Lords of Boxtel/Randerode and Lords of Gennep/Batenburg and the Lords of Millen. South East Brabant and the Belgian border seems to have been a playground for noble famlies with German roots.

Therefore my interest in the true usage of the term 'consobrini' and in learning the finer distinction between sons of a maternal uncle and maternal aunt.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

2021-05-06 05:57:47 UTC