Frumet HaLevi

http://www.steinheim-institut.de/cgi-bin/epidat?id=ffb-7&lang=de

Ettlinger was struggling (as are we all) with the overlapping Gumprichts, and he decided that our Gumpricht (=22 V 1516 HO 151 Epidat ffb-716) was the one who was exclusively an innkeeper, which we have shown to be incorrect.

Ettlinger titles the page for our Gumpricht “Gompchen, der Wirt” which is unfortunate, because the Gumpricht who was of the family of innkeepers (Gumpel =15 VIII 1515  at an old age [HO 150]  Epidat ffb-2268) was more deserving of being called the Wirt.   Ettlinger quotes a reference where that Gumpel is called “son of Ruben and Bunlin”, which is absolutely correct – but not for our Gumpricht. So because Ettlinger knew that our Gumpricht was son of a Nathan, he assumed the reference to Ruben must mean Gumpricht was Ruben’s son-in-law.  This is why he gives Fromet (wife of our Gumpchen) Ruben and Bunlin as parents, in error.

Gumpricht and Fromet probably married in the early 1480s. Fromet appears in the 1486 house list (Andernacht #2850.7) just as she should: “Nathan, Joselin’s Sohn, und Frau Mennelin, sein Sohn Gumpchin und dessen Frau Fromut mit ihren unversorgten Kindern, im Haus zum schwarzen Ring”.

It then goes on to say that Gumpchin and his wife are being allowed to live in the Anwesen des Judenwirts (presumably the Affe), which shows that Gumpricht was trying his hand at being a Wirt.  In any case, the 1499 list (And.#3084.11) shows Seligman von Praunheim now as the Wirt, and states that Gumpchin, Nathan’s Sohn, und Fromund have moved next door into the Schwan. The 1502 list (And.#3471.9/14) once again speaks of a switching of houses by Gumpchin and Fromunt, still ending up in the Schwan.

The 1505 list (And.#3404.9) finds Gumpchin and Fromunt still in the Schwan. And the interesting 1508 list (And.#3552.1) shows them living once again with Nathan and Mennelin in the schwarzen Ring, but comments that they still technically are considered residents of the Schwan. The 1511 list (And.#3733.13) shows Gumpchin and Frommet back in the Schwan, and so does the 1512 list (And.#3768.13), but this time their son, Jacob, and his wife Dulce are with them (this doesn’t mean there are no other children, just that Jacob is already married). In the August 1514 list (And.#3909.14) Gumpchin and Fromet, Jacob and Dulce, are all back in the schwarzen Ring, presumably because Natan and Mamelin (Mannelin) had died earlier that year.

So, as you see, there is no problem at all with Fromet’s first name (she is mentioned by name in every single house list, which is amazing and very unusual), but the above-mentioned reference to a Gumpchin who is “son of Ruben and Bunlin” is the other Gumpchin. And he, too, appears in all of those house lists, but also in some earlier ones, always in the house of the Wolf and always (even after many years) called “Gumpchen, Rubin’s Enkel”: Andernacht numbers 2850.4, 3084.8, 3271.7, 3347.11, 3404.5, 3552.4, 3678.3, 3733.16, 3768.16, and 3909.16 show him in the same lists where we see our Gumpricht, clearly a different person. He also appears in house lists before the earliest one in which our Gumpricht appears, indicating that he is probably older than ours. It is in one of those lists (year:1475, Andernacht #1855.11) where Ettlinger saw him referred to as “son of Ruben and Bunlen” and assumed it was our Gumpricht and that the “son of” was really supposed to be “son-in-law of”. We now see in the original that it does NOT say son-in-law.

When Gumpchen/Gumpricht died in May of 1516 there was immediately a record mentioning his heirs. This is shown in Andernacht #4054 and dated 17 June 1516, and his widow is mentioned. This is significant, because there is a Fromet who dies just a few weeks later, on 13 Aug 1516, Epidat ffb-007 http://www.steinheim-institut.de/cgi-bin/epidat?id=ffb-007 She is extremely likely to be our Fromet. But that is all we know about her.