Theophano
Rafal Prinke
I have just subscribed and could not refrain from adding a bit to
the Theophano discussion.
"Paul M. Gifford" <giff...@LIB.FLINT.> wrote:
>This may not help, but I have the _Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium_ with me and
>here is the entry concerning her (3: 2065):
>
>Theophano (Lat. Theophanu), wife of the German emporer Otto II (973-83); born
>ca.955, died Nimwegen 15 June 991. Her grant of dowry from Otto II specifies
>that she was a niece of Emp. John I Tzimiskes, but M. Uhlirz attempted to show
>that she was descended from the Lekapenoi.
Don Stone <dons...@CPCN.COM> wrote:
>Lindsay L. Brook's "The Byzantine Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles,
>Prince of Wales," The Genealogist, vol. 2, 1981, gives (on p. 6) the
>information that Romanos m. (1) 943 Bertha (Eudokia), b. c. 927/30, d.
>949, dau. of Hugo, King of Italy, m. (2) 956 Theophano (Anastaso), dau.
>of Krateros, a bar keeper, and Maria, both of unknown ancestry. Brook
>doesn't specifically cite the source of his information about the first
>marriage.
In a recent article in the German "Genealogie", vol. 22, 3/4, 1995,
Walter Regula discards Romanos as her father (following P.E. Schramm's
argument of "impedimentum consaguinitatis" of the first degree; "Kaiser,
Basileos und Papst", Historische Zeitschrift 129, Muenchen 1924).
He also does not accept Schwennicke's (ES) choice of the dukes of Taron
of the Bagratids. He quotes: (a) G. Wolf, "Nochmals zu Frage: Wer war
Theophano?", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 81, Muenchen 1988,
(b) O. Kresten, "Byzantinische Epilegomena zur Frage: Wer war Theophano?",
in: Kaiserin Theophano, vol. 2, Koeln 1991, (c) H. Benrath, Die Kaiserin
Theophano, Muenchen 1978, as supportive of his choice, namely that
she was a daughter of Konstantin Skleros, patrikios, and Sophia Phokaina,
d. of Leon Phokas and niece of emperor Nikephoros II Phokas.
The whole article is a well documented lineage of three Byzantine
princesses back to ancient Persia (Darius I).
Best regards,
Rafal
_________________________________________________________________
Rafal T. Prinke The Kornik Library
raf...@vm.amu.edu.pl Polish Academy of Sciences
Poznan, POLAND http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~rafalp
________________________________________________________________
Stewart Baldwin
<snip>
>In a recent article in the German "Genealogie", vol. 22, 3/4, 1995,
>Walter Regula discards Romanos as her father (following P.E. Schramm's
>argument of "impedimentum consaguinitatis" of the first degree; "Kaiser,
>Basileos und Papst", Historische Zeitschrift 129, Muenchen 1924).
>He also does not accept Schwennicke's (ES) choice of the dukes of Taron
>of the Bagratids. He quotes: (a) G. Wolf, "Nochmals zu Frage: Wer war
>Theophano?", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 81, Muenchen 1988,
>(b) O. Kresten, "Byzantinische Epilegomena zur Frage: Wer war Theophano?",
>in: Kaiserin Theophano, vol. 2, Koeln 1991, (c) H. Benrath, Die Kaiserin
>Theophano, Muenchen 1978, as supportive of his choice, namely that
>she was a daughter of Konstantin Skleros, patrikios, and Sophia Phokaina,
>d. of Leon Phokas and niece of emperor Nikephoros II Phokas.
>The whole article is a well documented lineage of three Byzantine
>princesses back to ancient Persia (Darius I).
Although I have not seen the above article, I am extremely skeptical.
The discovery of such a descent from antiquity, if shown on careful
examination to be validly documented, would rank as an extremely
important genealogical discovery, and all attempts of which I am aware
have had _numerous_ (not just a few) weak links (thus my skepticism).
If the article claims to give a "well documented" descent (as opposed
to a conjectural descent which still needs more work) from Darius I of
Persia, then that is probably a good indication that the article
should not be taken too seriously.
Stewart Baldwin
Rafal Prinke
>>The whole article is a well documented lineage of three Byzantine
>>princesses back to ancient Persia (Darius I).
>
>Although I have not seen the above article, I am extremely skeptical.
>The discovery of such a descent from antiquity, if shown on careful
>examination to be validly documented, would rank as an extremely
>important genealogical discovery, and all attempts of which I am aware
>have had _numerous_ (not just a few) weak links (thus my skepticism).
I am sceptical, too. When I said "well documented", I actually meant
"with many serious scholarly references" (just as those I cited for
the case of Theophano are serious). The line goes, obviously, via
Armenia and relies mostly on the work of Toumanoff. Similar descents
(with numerous weak links, of course), were presented by Anthony Wagner
in "Pedigree & Progess" but the German author uses also other, more
recent, publications by Toumanoff.
>If the article claims to give a "well documented" descent (as opposed
>to a conjectural descent which still needs more work) from Darius I of
>Persia, then that is probably a good indication that the article
>should not be taken too seriously.
It does not claim that - that's why I take it seriously as a possibility :-)
On a more general level, it seems that most pre-modern genealogy
is bound to be conjectural to some degree. If there is no direct
and reliable evidence, all conclusions must be drawn from what is available.
Thus it becomes the art of convincing argumentation.
Best regards,
Rafal
Tom Camfield
<RAFALP%VM.AMU...@PLEARN.EDU.PL> wrote:
> On a more general level, it seems that most pre-modern genealogy
> is bound to be conjectural to some degree. If there is no direct
> and reliable evidence, all conclusions must be drawn from what is available.
> Thus it becomes the art of convincing argumentation.
Amen, Cousin. And wishful thinking so often comes into play as one
evaluates
the arguments.
Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
Stewart Baldwin
<snip>
>On a more general level, it seems that most pre-modern genealogy
>is bound to be conjectural to some degree. If there is no direct
>and reliable evidence, all conclusions must be drawn from what is available.
>Thus it becomes the art of convincing argumentation.
This is misleading. There are very many lines of prominent families
back to early medieval times (to Charlemagne, for example) which are
very solidly documented, as well documented as the lines of us common
folk back to the nineteenth century. It is a mistake to think that
there is something wrong with the documentation, just because it was
many years ago. The Middle Ages produced many contemporary
chronicles, charters, and other documents which often give excellent
proof of the genealogical relationships of members of prominent
families (and sometimes of not so prominent families). The _early_
Middle Ages are a different story, as the sources become so scarce (or
so noncontemporary that their testimony is dubious) that even the
prominent families often become obscure.
I guess it is the words "bound to be" which I disagreed with most. It
is true that there tend to be more gaps in knowledge in the earlier
times, and that much medieval genealogy which has been claimed is
wrong, due to a combination of inexperience, carelessness, wishful
thinking, use of bad sources, and occasionally even fraud, among other
reasons. However, that doesn't mean that medieval genealogy should
automatically be viewed as more suspicious than modern genealogy.
Regardless of the time period, each case needs to be judged on its own
merits, and there are plenty of modern families whose genealogies have
ridiculous errors in the published sources. (Incidently, there are
lot of ancient families which have a very well documented genealogy
for several generations. The problem is that no well documented line
has been found to link them with modern times.)
Stewart Baldwin
Rafal Prinke
>It is a mistake to think that
>there is something wrong with the documentation, just because it was
>many years ago. The Middle Ages produced many contemporary
>chronicles, charters, and other documents which often give excellent
>proof of the genealogical relationships of members of prominent
>families (and sometimes of not so prominent families).
That's true. But statistically, this is a small fraction of all
people who are mentioned in the sources and researchers are
tempted to link people on the basis of other clues than a clear
statement of parenthood in a reliable source. Theophano is a good
example.
>I guess it is the words "bound to be" which I disagreed with most.
Yes, that was a bit too strong :-)
>reasons. However, that doesn't mean that medieval genealogy should
>automatically be viewed as more suspicious than modern genealogy.
I would disagree on this point. In the case of Theophano, if several
serious academic scholars come to different conclusions, every one
of these conclusions is to be taken suspiciously. One can be _convinced_
by arguments put forward by one of those authorities - but this does
not mean that is "really so".
Best regards,
Rafal
Stewart Baldwin
>Stewart Baldwin <sb...@AUBURN.CAMPUS.MCI.NET> wrote:
I don't see how this supports your disagreement with my point. Giving
an example of a problem genealogy does not change the fact that there
are many well documented examples too. One can also find modern
examples of different conclusions using the same evidence, so modern
genealogy is no different from medieval in that respect. Although the
total percentages may be different, both medieval and modern genealogy
have a large number of very well documented genealogies, a large
number of genealogies which are completely ridiculous garbage, and
everything in between.
Stewart Baldwin
Rafal Prinke
>an example of a problem genealogy does not change the fact that there
>are many well documented examples too. One can also find modern
>examples of different conclusions using the same evidence, so modern
>genealogy is no different from medieval in that respect.
But the kind of evidence is different. With vital registry, the
evidence becomes close to perfection and leaves little to
argument (with many exceptions, of course).
>Although the
>total percentages may be different, both medieval and modern genealogy
>have a large number of very well documented genealogies, a large
>number of genealogies which are completely ridiculous garbage, and
>everything in between.
And the percentage is what makes it different. If you have a book
which is known to contain many errors, you treat ALL of its
information with justified suspicion (even though most of it may
be correct). On the other hand, a book that is generally regarded
as reliable, may contain some erronous information which would
then be readily accepted.
There was also another reason for my original observation: while
genealogical researchers use "real" sources for modern times
(and thus are themselves drawing conclusions from what is available),
it is customary to use published compilations based on the work of
many researchers for medieval times.
Best regards,
Rafal