Oda de Paris or von Sachsen ?
Alexander Agamov
In my datebase Oda de Paris was daughter of Eudes I king of France and
Theodorada(?).
She was married Zenthibold, king of Lorrain (870, king since 895, was
killed 13 Aug 900).
But according to another sources she might be daughter of duke Otto(n)
(Udo) v. Sachsen
(ab.840, king of Germany since 912, died 30 Nov 912) and Hedwige v. Frioul
(died 24 Dec 903).
What information is wrong ?
Alexander Agamov
Moscow, Russia
aga...@com2com.ru
William Addams Reitwiesner
Alexander Agamov <aga...@COM2COM.RU> wrote:
>In my datebase Oda de Paris was daughter of Eudes I king of France and
>Theodorada(?).
>She was married Zenthibold, king of Lorrain (870, king since 895, was
>killed 13 Aug 900).
>But according to another sources she might be daughter of duke Otto(n)
>(Udo) v. Sachsen
>(ab.840, king of Germany since 912, died 30 Nov 912) and Hedwige v. Frioul
>(died 24 Dec 903).
>
>What information is wrong ?
Beats me. Schwennicke's *Europaeische Stammtafeln* is no help -- Band I,
Tafel 2 says that Zwentibold's wife Oda was a daughter of "eines Grafen
Otto (in Sachsen)", whereas Band II, Tafel 1 has Oda, wife of Zwentibold,
as a possible daughter (dotted line) of Eudes, King of France. Take your
pick.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
D. Spencer Hines
Do you happen to know the identification of the parents of Rurik,
Prince of Kiev [c.800-879)? I am hoping there is some new Russian scholarship
on this issue.
I hope your winter in Moscow is shaping up as a mild one.
Za Mir e Druzhbu [To Peace and Friendship]
Spencer Hines
Kailua, Hawaii
ic
The confusion is because French and German historians differ. However the
German version is probably preferable, not least for the reason that Odo
was king in 897 when Oda married Zwentibald: to call her daughter of a
*count* Otto would suggest (to me) that the annalist meant someone
else!
The information about Z's marriage is given in the 'Chronicle of Regino of
Prum', who was writing at Mainz c.906. He says that Oda married
Zwentibold at Worms may 897. She was the daughter of a Count
Otto (Regino 897). In 900 Zwentibold was killed in a skirmish with Ct
Gerard and his brothers. Ct Gerard (sometimes called 'of Metz' by
historians etc) then married his widow Oda (Regino 900). Gerard was
exiled to Alemannia by Louis the Child at Metz in 906. He had died by
916. A german historian called Dummler whose works on the German
Carolingians remain the standard research books (I forget the full title,
something like 'Yearbook for Louis the German', III, 457), worked out
that this count Otto was Otto the Illustrious of Saxony (d.912 never
king of Germany by the way, just duke), and has been followed by
German historians (and many others) ever since, eg K.F.Werner 'Die
Nachkommen..', E.Hlawitschka 'Lotharingia und der Reich und der Schwelle
der Deutsche Geschichte' (sp?), T.Reuter 'Germany in the Early
Middle Ages 800-1056.
If Oda was the daughter of Otto, she would be the sister of Henry
the Fowler, and aunt of Otto the Great. A charter of Otto the Great
(no 159) dated December 952, grants everything that his aunt Uota
had in benefice at Deventer in Hamaland, which she had granted to
the church at Magdeburg. This aunt is seen as the widow of Zwentibald
and Gerard.
As well as the confusion in ES mentioned above, there is in another
part of ES, a line of descent for the Matfridinger, where Oda is
also mentioned. In this she has several children by Ct Gerard. This
was a hypothesis of a German genealogist called Kimpen in the 1930's:
not all historians (even German ones, ie Tellenbach) accept this.
In another part of the ES I think this Gerard is confused with
Gebhard uncle of Conrad I of Germany. Gebhard in a charter of
Louis the Child 903 is called duke of Lotharingia: he died fighting
the Hungarians in 910. Some genealogists have confused the two
and made Gerard (or Gerhard) duke instead.
Oda is also said to have had two children by Zwentibald: Cecily and
Benedicta who became abbesses of Susteren, where I think Zwentibald
was buried. This tradition is no older than the 13th century and
may have been invented by the convent.
hope this helps.
Stewart Baldwin
"D. Spencer Hines" <spe...@aloha.net> wrote:
>Do you happen to know the identification of the parents of Rurik,
>Prince of Kiev [c.800-879)? I am hoping there is some new Russian scholarship
>on this issue.
The problem is that there are no known sources which give the
parentage of Rurik (not even late sources, to my knowledge), so there
is no data to work from, which probably means that Rurik's parentage
will remain unknown unless some hitherto unknown early manuscript is
discovered which is relevant to the issue.
Some authors, through a very contrived series of arguments, claim that
Rurik was the same person as Rorik, the Danish Viking who had a fief
in Friesland, and who was a brother or "nepos" of Harald (accounts
vary), the Danish king who was baptized in 826. If you believe this
identification (I certainly don't), then various conjectures are
possible involving the parentage of this Rorik.
Stewart Baldwin
Alexander Agamov
> Do you happen to know the identification of the parents of Rurik,
> Prince of Kiev [c.800-879)? I am hoping there is some new Russian
scholarship
> on this issue.
>
>
> Za Mir e Druzhbu [To Peace and Friendship]
>
> Spencer Hines
> Kailua, Hawaii
Hi !
Really nowadays there are two important questions needed to be solved: th=
e
first is about identification of Rurik, the second is whether he was true
founder of the Rurikovichi House.
For a long time the problem of Ruruk's origin was rather political than
simply historical one. Have You heard anything about "Norman theory"? It'=
s
discussion that has lasted for almost 250 years in Russia. The heart of t=
he
problem is if Rurik was the founder of state organization in ancient Russ=
ia
(Kiev Russia) or aborigines had built it before. I am not going to dwell =
on
this question; I mentioned it only to say that an ideological aspect put
off the decision of Rurik problem for many years.
First of all about Rurik origin. Histotians base on the text of the most
early chronicle reached us: "The Nestor's Letopis". It was created in the
middle of XII c. by monk of Kievo-Pechorski abbey. According to this
document inhabitans of Novgorod, a city of Northen Russia, invited Rurik =
to
rule in this city to defend against other Norman sea-robbers. It was
happened in 862.
The chronicle informs that Rurik took Ladoga, a very small town near
Novgorod. After death of his two brothers, Sineus and Thruvor in 864, he
got their possessions, Beloozero ("White lake") and Izborsk. Novgorod
became Rurik's capital. There he died in 862. The chronicle says he gave
the government to his relative Oleg as his son Igor was child. Sach way, =
in
accordance with Nestor chronical the beginning of Rurikovichi shows as:
1 Ruri=EA I Pr.of Novgorod (not Kiev !!!) d. 879
Pr. of Belozerskiy and of Izborsk (864)
2 Igor I Rurikivich Pr. of Kiev d. 945
3 Svjatoslav I Igorevich Pr. of Kiev b. Jul 942 d. 972 m. Predslav=
a
of Ungarn(?)
4 Jaropolk I Svjatoslavich Pr. of Kiev b. 961 d. 980 m. ?
4 Oleg Svjatoslavich Pr.of Drevljanskiy b. 962 d. 977
4 Wladimir I Svjatoslavich Gr.Pr.of Kiev d. 15 Jul 1015
In XVIII century Russian historian Tatishev in his "History of Russian
State" named Rurik's wife, Efanda (sometimes Ingrid) of Urman. He informe=
d
also some interesting details about first Russian princes but unfortunate=
ly
the documents which he used didn't reached us: they were lost while
Napoleon's invasion in 1812.
The chronicle says that Rurik came with their brothers, Sineus and Thruvo=
r.
Now it's proves that their names are wrong-translated into Russian (by
Nestor or any of his predecessors) Scandinavian words "sine hus' (with hi=
s
hause) and "tru voring"(with loyal guard) [sorry for my possible mistakes
in spelling]. So Rurik was alone, without any brothers.
In 1920s it was expressed an opinion that Rurik of Kiev is the same Rorik
of Denmark (or of Friesland). That person was one of the three sons of
Halvdan, koning of Jutland. Halvdan had to leave his country ab. 782 and
then he received Frisie enfeoff from Charlemagne. Rorik had part in
christining of his brother Harald in Ingelheim upon Rhein, near Mainz
(826). Harald came with his family and maybe his family, and Rorik too,
were baptized. Halvdan had three sons: Harald, Rorik and Hemming and this
fact conforms to story about two brothers of Rurik of Kiev. The time of
action coincides (first half-middle of IX c.). There are also other
coincidences. At that time, in accordance with Snorry Sturluson "Royal
sagas" (begin.of XIII c.), we have in Norway konung Halvdan and his wife
Ragnhilde, who had son Harald Finehairs. Snorry says that before Harald w=
as
born his mother had a dream: she saw luxuriant tree (speaking about futur=
e
strong dynasty). The same legend said us Tatishev based on the losed
documents. Tatishev tells about a certain Russian Prince Gostomysl, whose
daughter Urmila was mother of Rurik of Kiev. She also had the such dream.
Probably the Russian chronicle based on any Scandinavian one, more earlie=
r.
Russian phililogist Sreznevskiy, an outstanding expert of Slav languages =
in
XIX c., considered that "Gostomysl" is neither Russian nor Eastslav name,
it was widespread where WestBaltic Slavs lived. We even know a certain
Gostomysl who was mentioned in "Fuld annales" in 844. The same time again=
!
Last time Rorik of Jutland was mentioned in 882 as dead and Russian
chronicle says that he died in 879. Quite really ! The difference is that
Western annales inform he died in Frisie, his fief received from Charles
the Bald, and Russian one in Novgorod. But we have real reasons to think
that Rurik of Kiev and Rorik of Jutland are the same.
But answering another question, if Rurik was the founder of the first
Russian dynasty, we have to say no. The story about Rurik gave his power =
to
Oleg is fantasy. Oleg and Igor (that time a child) didn't even try to sta=
y
in Novgorod, their native city, and at once moved to Kiev through Smolens=
k.
It was unlogical step, because Kiev and Novgorod were bitterest enemis. T=
he
most documents of XII-XV c. didn't know Rurik, they originate Rurikovichi
from Igor of Kiev. Name Rurik wasn't widespread in princely house, only a=
t
the close of XI c. we can see the first prince Rurik by name.
Thank You for attention,
D. Spencer Hines
At 01:05 PM 11/28/96 +0300, Alexander Agamov wrote from Moscow:
>Really nowadays there are two important questions needed to be solved: the
>first is about identification of Rurik, the second is whether he was true
>founder of the Rurikovichi House.
>
<snip>
>But answering another question, if Rurik was the founder of the first
>Russian dynasty, we have to say no. The story about Rurik gave his power to
>Oleg is fantasy. Oleg and Igor (that time a child) didn't even try to stay
>in Novgorod, their native city, and at once moved to Kiev through Smolensk.
>It was unlogical step, because Kiev and Novgorod were bitterest enemis. The
>most documents of XII-XV c. didn't know Rurik, they originate Rurikovichi
>from Igor of Kiev. Name Rurik wasn't widespread in princely house, only at
>the close of XI c. we can see the first prince Rurik by name.
I understand. So, you would consider Igor of Kiev to be the Founder
of the "House of Rurik" [Rurikovichi]?
Further, I understand you to be saying that "Rurik of Novgorod" was
either a later invention of chroniclers and historians of the "Norman School"
at the worst, or a relatively isolated figure whose heirs never made it to
Kiev, and certainly never ruled there. Correct?
Eliminating Rurik also devastates the "Norman Theory" and allows
the Kievan Rus to derive and flourish from indigenous Slavic Roots.
Cheers, Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines-----Exitus acta probat----President George Washington
(1732-1799)
Hope C. Lawless
Hi Alexander,
Your post on Rurik's origins is most interesting. You have presented
information that would probably be very difficult to find here in the United
States. Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. Wouldn't it be
nice if they found some truly anceint manuscript that gave us a clear
description of these pedigrees once and for all? It seems that the more
information we gather, the more questions we have. One question I have -
Do I understand your dates correctly? You write "The chronicle informs that
Rurik took Ladoga, a very small town near
Novgorod. After death of his two brothers, Sineus and Thruvor in 864, he
got their possessions, Beloozero ("White lake") and Izborsk. Novgorod
mistyped then Rurik took possession of his brothers' property after his own
death!
Thanks for your time and effort,
Kitsy Lawless
Framingham, MA., USA
HLAWL4@AOL
Tom Camfield
In article <32989D...@aloha.net>, "D. Spencer Hines"
<spe...@aloha.net> wrote:
> Do you happen to know the identification of the parents of Rurik,
> Prince of Kiev [c.800-879)? I am hoping there is some new Russian scholarship
> on this issue.
Never found anything on that. Best I can offer is Rurik's brothers: Sineus
(Signjotr, with the umlaut over the o) and Truvor (Thorvarthr). I obtained
this and other information from Durant's "Age of Faith"--for any lurkers
out there who might be interested. :-)
I also have that Rurik may have been "Rorik of Jutland", whose father (of
the clan of Skioldung) lost his Jutland fief in Denmark and entered the
service of Charlemagne--and that Louis the Pious, son of Charlie, granted
Rorik's eldest son Harald the district of Rustringen in Friesland as
compensation.
For whatever that's worth.
Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
Alexander Agamov
----------
> =CE=F2: Hope C. Lawless <HLa...@AOL.COM>
> =CA=EE=EC=F3: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
> =D2=E5=EC=E0: Re: RURIK, PRINCE OF KIEV
> =C4=E0=F2=E0: =E2=EE=F1=EA=F0=E5=F1=E5=ED=FC=E5 1 =E4=E5=EA 1996 17:58
>
>
> Do I understand your dates correctly? You write "The chronicle inform=
s
that
> Rurik took Ladoga, a very small town near
e
> got their possessions, Beloozero ("White lake") and Izborsk. Novgorod
or
you
> mistyped then Rurik took possession of his brothers' property after his
own
> death!
>
uses old Russian system of chronology, so 6387 year is alike 879). My
apologies.
Ulf Larsson
Alexander Agamov wrote:
> =
> ----------
> > =CE=F2: Hope C. Lawless <HLa...@AOL.COM>
> > =CA=EE=EC=F3: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
=
If I understood Alexander Agamovs earlier posting right,
Rurik could have been of west slavic decent. Reading the
finnish historian Matti Klinges book about the countries around
the Baltic, I found that his theory about Rurik is that Rurik was
from the island of Ru:gen, then a west slavic society called
"Vendel" by the scandinavians. He has a rather complicated
explanation about the name "Rurik" as derieved from Ru:gen.
Unfortunately no sources are given!
Ulf
D. Spencer Hines
The usually reliable sources seem to conflict as to identification of the
Mother of Hugh Capet,
Some say she was Edhilda of England. Others say she was Hedwig von Sachsen.
What is the consensus as to the Mother of the first King of France in the Capetian line?
Was she "English" or "German"----a not insignificant question?
--
Rodolphe Audette
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> The usually reliable sources seem to conflict as to identification of the
> Mother of Hugh Capet,
> Some say she was Edhilda of England. Others say she was Hedwig von Sachsen.
> What is the consensus as to the Mother of the first King of France in the Capetian line?
> Was she "English" or "German"----a not insignificant question?
She was a Saxon, daughter of Henry the Fowler and sister of Otto I the
Great, the first Holy Roman Emperor.
D. Spencer Hines
Many of the standard sources, including Herr Dr. Professor
Herbert von Stoyan's Database of German Nobility, at the University
of Erlangen, do indeed indicate that Hugh Capet's Mother was Hedwig
von Sachsen, daughter of Heinrich I Der Vogler and sister of Otto I
Der Gross. This is also the case with the *Grand Dictionnaire
Encyclopedique Larousse.*
However, *Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europaischen Staaten*
[European History Genealogical Tables] (Verlag von J.A. Stargardt, Marburg 1965)
Band II, Tafel 13 would seem to indicate that Hugh Capet's Mother was
Edhild, daughter of Koenig Edward I von England [Edward The Elder].
By the same token, Brian Tompsett, in his page at the University
of Hull, on Hugh Capet, The Great of Neustria, Count of Paris, indubitably
Hugh Capet's Father, in an artful hedge----says "It is not clear from the
sources which wife [Edhilda of England or Hedwig von Sachsen] is the mother
of which children. He also married a daughter of the Count of Maine."---and
then reports that the marriage between Hugh The Great of Neustria and Edhilda
took place in 926 and assigns Hugh Capet, King of France, as issue from that
marriage, circa 838.
So, this does not appear to be a genealogical slam dunk,
as you imply above. I would welcome any other evidence as to the maternal
parentage of Hugh Capet, first King of France in the Capetian line.
D. Spencer Hines
<snip>
By the same token, Brian Tompsett, in his page at the University
of Hull, on Hugh Capet, The Great of Neustria, Count of Paris, indubitably
Hugh Capet's Father, in an artful hedge----says "It is not clear from the
sources which wife [Edhilda of England or Hedwig von Sachsen] is the mother
of which children. He also married a daughter of the Count of Maine."---and
then reports that the marriage between Hugh The Great of Neustria and Edhilda
took place in 926 and assigns Hugh Capet, King of France, as issue from that
marriage, circa 838.
[This should, of course, read "circa 938" vice "circa 838." The error is mine,
not Brian Tompsett's and I will not attempt to slough it off as a "typo."]
ajenk...@aol.com
In article: <32AA15...@aloha.net> "D. Spencer Hines"
<spe...@aloha.net> wrote:
>>>
<snip>
>>>>
Interesting. I looked up my copy of Settipani/van Kerrebrouck "La
prehistoire des Capetiens" on this. Settipani is normally pretty good at
identifying controversies but this one appears to have slipped by him. He
has the mother of Hugh Capet as Hadwiga, which is what I have seen
everywhere else, listed without comment.
On the date of Hugh the Great's marriage to Hadwiga, he comments (p410,
n56) that Flodoard records it as 938, but a charter of September 14, 937
shows him as already married to Hadwiga.
He estimates Hugh Capet's birth date as 940, but the basis is unclear. He
is listed as the second child of Hugh the Great, between two daughters
(again, on what basis is unclear). The eldest, Beatrix, was engaged to
Frederic Comte de Bar in 951 and married to him in 954, whence her birth
date is estimated as 938-9, assuming a marriage age of 15-16. The younger
sister, Emma, was fiancee to Richard of Normandy in 956, marrying him in
960 -- by the same assumption, she was born c944-5, however the delay
between 956 and 960 could be due to other factors (see below). His
brother Odo was married and esconced with his wife in Burgundy in 958; he
died in 965. Combining this with the putative birth order, Settipani
suggests a birth c945 for Odo.
Hugh the Great died in 956. Hugh Capet did not assume his title of duke
of the Franks till 960, which certainly suggests he was young in 956.
This delay could explain the date of his sister Emma's marriage. The date
of Hugh's marriage to Adelais is unknown (and the ancestry of Adelais is a
subject of much discussion in Settipani) -- his eldest child, Robert II,
was born in 972, Settipani therefore suggests a marriage c970. This seems
rather late, in view of his (presumably) younger brother, unless it was a
second marriage (the first being unknown to us).
My conclusions from all this: If Hugh Capet was a son of Eadhild, then he
was at least 18 or 19 on his father's death. I find the 4 year delay in
assuming the title hard to explain on this basis. The marriage data re
Beatrix and Odo certainly supports the birth dates proposed for them.
Emma could have been born up to 4 years earlier than 944, if her marriage
was delayed by political circumstance rather than biological reasons. If
you believe the birth order then the case is clear -- Hugh was born
between c938 and 944 and most likely c939/40. If you don't then there is
room for doubt, but the balance of probability still seems to favour
Hadwiga.
Anyone have any other evidence on the matter?
Cheers,
CHris Bennett
Jake Kalyta
In article <1996120408...@main.com2com.ru> Alexander Agamov <aga...@COM2COM.RU> writes:
>Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:09:52 +0300
>From: Alexander Agamov <aga...@COM2COM.RU>
>Subject: Re: RURIK, PRINCE OF KIEV
>> Do I understand your dates correctly? You write "The chronicle inform=
>s
>that
>> Rurik took Ladoga, a very small town near
>> Novgorod. After death of his two brothers, Sineus and Thruvor in 864, h=
>e
>> got their possessions, Beloozero ("White lake") and Izborsk. Novgorod
>> became Rurik's capital. There he died in 862." Unless I misunderstood =
>or
>you
>> mistyped then Rurik took possession of his brothers' property after his
>own
>> death!
>>
>Sorry. Certainly it was my mistake. Rurik died in 879 (Nestor's chronicle
>uses old Russian system of chronology, so 6387 year is alike 879). My
>apologies.
>Alexander Agamov
>Moscow, Russia
>aga...@com2com.ru
Excuse my boldness for interupting this thread but this is my first time
scanning this group and I am unfamiliar with protocol.
I am researching my family surname Kalita. I do not know if there is a
genealogical link but the name first seems to appear as Kalita, Ivan I, Prince
of Lithuania born in 1301. His lineage traces back to Rurik, Price of Kiev,
born about 800. As my information is very scant any help in this regard would
be greatly appreciated.
Jake
Jake Kalyta
In article <1996121921...@main.com2com.ru> Alexander Agamov
<aga...@COM2COM.RU> writes:
>Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:23:48 +0300
>Jake Kalyta wrote:
>> Excuse my boldness for interupting this thread but this is my
>first time
>> scanning this group and I am unfamiliar with protocol.
>> I am researching my family surname Kalita. I do not know if there
>is a
>> genealogical link but the name first seems to appear as Kalita, Ivan I,
>Prince
>> of Lithuania born in 1301. His lineage traces back to Rurik, Price of
>Kiev,
>> born about 800. As my information is very scant any help in this regard
>would
>> be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Jake
> At the times of Ivan I Danielovich Gr.Prince of Moscovien
(1.Oct.1288-31
>Mar1340) 'Kalyta' meant bag or belt. They were symbols of riches and
>zealousness. Thus 'Kalita' is a nickname and any person in Russia or in
>Ukraine might have it. Maybe You have Slav roots ?
>Alexander Agamov
>Moscow, Russia
>aga...@com2com.ru
A genealogic link to Ivan I is unlikely but the history is interesting.
My
ancestors were known as the Rus. I attended a little country school by that
name, the historic account of the name was that it was a shortening of the
name Ruthenian . The Ukrainian reference to these people was "Rewsini".
History suggests that they migrated with Rurik from the Roslagen County in
Sweden. Blond and blue eyes is a family trait. I have not been able to find
historic references to the Rus before 800 AD.
According to family folklore the Kalita's were money couriers hence the
name.
(money bags) The Period Russian surname dictionary indicates its origin as a
name given to a peasant in, I believe, 1539. What is the likelyhood that other
people may have adopted this surname?
Jake
Matman
In article <1996121921...@main.com2com.ru>, Alexander says...
>
snip
I'm rather late again on this, but I noticed in an earlier very interesting
post of yours that you suggested Rurik of Novgorod might be the same
person as Roric of Frisia, who is mentioned in the Frankish histories.
I didn't see any come back on this so I'm posting now. I looked
in some of the Frankish sources, the Annals of St.Bertin, and
saw that Roric is attested in Frisia in 862, 862 and 867, as well
as meeting Charles the Bald at Maastricht in 872. As Rurik is
attested in Russia in 862 (I think you said) surely that makes
it unlikely that the two are the same.
thanks
Matt
(I'm posting this here as I don't have e-mail at the moment,
just a news server)
Alexander Agamov
Jake Kalyta wrote:
> Excuse my boldness for interupting this thread but this is my
first time
> scanning this group and I am unfamiliar with protocol.
> I am researching my family surname Kalita. I do not know if there
is a
> genealogical link but the name first seems to appear as Kalita, Ivan I,
Prince
> of Lithuania born in 1301. His lineage traces back to Rurik, Price of
Kiev,
> born about 800. As my information is very scant any help in this regard
would
> be greatly appreciated.
>
> Jake
At the times of Ivan I Danielovich Gr.Prince of Moscovien (1.Oct.1288-31
Mar1340) 'Kalyta' meant bag or belt. They were symbols of riches and
zealousness. Thus 'Kalita' is a nickname and any person in Russia or in
Ukraine might have it. Maybe You have Slav roots ?
Alexander Agamov
Moscow, Russia
aga...@com2com.ru