Hello,
This bit from Ekkehard IV’s Casus Sancti Galli confused me when I read it months ago and, coming back to it now, I still can’t make much sense of it.
Grimaldi temporibus canonici abbatis, Hartmoto eius quasi proabbate, Marcus quidam Scotigena episcopus Gallum tamquam compatriotam suum Roma rediens visitat. Comitatur eum sororis filius Moengal, postea a nostris Marcellus diminutive a Marco avunculo sic nominatus. Hic erat in divinis et humanis eruditissimus. Rogatur episcopus loco nostro aliquandiu stare allecto nepote. Diu secum deliberantes vix tandem consenserant. > Dieque condicto partitur Marcellus nummos avunculi sui multos per fenestram, timens ne discerperetur ab eis. Fremebant enim in illum, quasi ipsius suasu episcopus restaret. > Equos autem et mulos, quibus ipse voluit, nominatim episcopus tradidit. Libros vero, aurum et pallia sibi et sancto Gallo retinuit. Stola tandem indutus abeuntes benedixit. Multis autem lacrimis utrimque discessum est. Remanserat episcopus cum nepote et paucis suae linguae apparitoribus.
The problem seems to lie in the sentences in bold and the fact that I do not see who is refered to by eis/fremebant, Marcus and Marcellus’ companions ? But then how would getting rid of his uncle’s money help in any way ?
My best try at this point is that their companions are angry at Marcellus (fremebant enim in illum) because they think his uncle is staying at the monastery because of him (quasi ipsius suasu episcopus restaret). Marcellus, fearing that they would try to harm him later because of that (timens ne discerperetur ab eis), gets rid of his uncle’s money so that they both have to remain at the monastery while their companions leave…