Heribert of Kinziggau, part 2c
Stewart Baldwin
One objection to this that has been put forward by some, including
Jackman, is chronological. Heribert and his brother Konrad both died
in 997, 48 years after the death of the supposed father Udo. I don't
see this is as a serious objection. It is known that Udo and his
brother Hermann were still boys when their father Gebhard died in the
year 910 [... Gebeardus comes interiit, relictus duobus filiis suis
pueris, Udone et Herimanno, ..., Regino's Continuator, MGH SS 1, 614],
so even if his sons were born as early as the 920's (and they may well
have been born later), they would still only be in their seventies in
997. Thus, I find it hard to put much weight in Jackman's
overstatement about "... three generations covering an enormous
duration of over one hundred and twenty years." [Jackman, p. 170]
Although somewhat more than average, it is insufficient to cause
serious concern.
More serious is another objection put forward by Jackman. In 950, the
year after reporting the death of count Udo, Regino's Continuator
reported that "... Udo, filius Udonis comitis ..." succeeded as Bishop
of Strasburg [MGH SS 1, 620], and he is apparently the same as the
Uodo, Bishop of Strasburg whose death was reported in the same source
in 965 [MGH SS 1, 627]. From the context, the count Udo who was
father of Bishop Udo would seem to be the man of the name whose death
was recorded in the previous year in the same source. This Bishop Udo
could then not be the same person as the Udo, brother of Heribert, who
died in 982 [Thietmar, as above]. Thus, since it is unlikely that
Bishop Udo and Duke Udo were brothers, supporters of count Udo as the
father of Heribert would have to adequately explain this problem,
which has apparently not been done.
Jackman's Theory
Although I agree that Jackman has a valid point about Bishop Udo, I
remain unconvinced by his alternative suggestion. The argument is
lengthy, but the upshot is that he identifies Heribert's brother Duke
Konrad with the second Cuno (son of Cuno, son of Gebhard) in the
Hammerstein genealogical notice, and also with the Kuno of Öhningen
who is stated in Genealogia Welforum [MGH SS 13, 734] and Historia
Welforum Weingartensis [MGH SS 21, 460] as the father of Ita, wife of
count Rudolf of Linzgau of the "first" house of Welf. While it seems
reasonable to accept Jackman's identification of Cuno son of Gebhard
in the Hammerstein genealogical notice with the "Chuonradus, filius
Gebehardi" who appears in Regino's Continuator under the year 950 [MGH
SS 1, 620], I do not see that the other identifications have been
backed up with sufficient evidence. In addition to the lack of
sufficient supporting evidence, I noticed a piece of negative evidence
that is not mentioned in the pages of Jackman that I copied. (Perhaps
somebody who has a copy of Jackman can tell me whether or not he
mentions this potential problem anywhere in the book.) If Jackman is
correct, it would mean that Rudolf's son Welf married a second cousin,
well within the prohibited degrees at that time:
____________________
| |
Konrad of Swabia Heribert
(same as Kuno of |
Öhningen according |
to Jackman} |
| NN m.
Ita Frederick of
m. Rudolf Luxemburg
| |
Welf--------m--------Imiza
Although not a decisive argument against Jackman's theory, the lack of
compelling positive evidence for Jackman's thesis gives the above
objection more weight.
The bottom line is that both the usual theory of Heribert's parentage
and Jackman's hypothesis are problematic, and I am therefore removing
Heribert's alleged ancestors from the ancestor table of Henry II on
the Hanry Project site, until such time (if any) that I am satisfied
that the matter has been cleared up. Of course, as supposed (if not
clearly proven) ancestors of Henry II, these individuals remain within
the scope of the project.
[End part 2c]
Stewart Baldwin
Andrew S. Kalinkin
>
> Jackman's Theory
>
> Although I agree that Jackman has a valid point about Bishop Udo, I
> remain unconvinced by his alternative suggestion. The argument is
> lengthy, but the upshot is that he identifies Heribert's brother Duke
> Konrad with the second Cuno (son of Cuno, son of Gebhard) in the
> who is stated in Genealogia Welforum [MGH SS 13, 734] and Historia
> Welforum Weingartensis [MGH SS 21, 460] as the father of Ita, wife of
> count Rudolf of Linzgau of the "first" house of Welf. While it seems
> reasonable to accept Jackman's identification of Cuno son of Gebhard
> in the Hammerstein genealogical notice with the "Chuonradus, filius
> Gebehardi" who appears in Regino's Continuator under the year 950 [MGH
> SS 1, 620], I do not see that the other identifications have been
> backed up with sufficient evidence. In addition to the lack of
> sufficient supporting evidence, I noticed a piece of negative evidence
> that is not mentioned in the pages of Jackman that I copied. (Perhaps
> somebody who has a copy of Jackman can tell me whether or not he
> mentions this potential problem anywhere in the book.) If Jackman is
> correct, it would mean that Rudolf's son Welf married a second cousin,
> well within the prohibited degrees at that time:
>
> ____________________
> | |
> Konrad of Swabia Heribert
> (same as Kuno of |
> to Jackman} |
> | NN m.
> Ita Frederick of
> m. Rudolf Luxemburg
> | |
> Welf--------m--------Imiza
>
> Although not a decisive argument against Jackman's theory, the lack of
> compelling positive evidence for Jackman's thesis gives the above
> objection more weight.
However, this problem is not directly related to the question of parentage
of Heribert. As Thietmar clearly states that Duke Conrad and Count Heribert
were brothers, the relationship between Welf and Imiza stands as long as
stands the identification of Konrad of Swabia with Kuno of Oehningen. This
identification, however, is not exactly Jackman's idea. It was proposed,
IIRC, by Armin Wolf in 1980 and seems to be generally accepted. Do you think
that this identification should be discarded? I am very interested in Kuno
of Oehningen because of misterious Russian marriage of one of his daughters.
Andrew
Stewart Baldwin
<kali...@dialup.ptt.ru> wrote:
>However, this problem is not directly related to the question of parentage
>of Heribert. As Thietmar clearly states that Duke Conrad and Count Heribert
>were brothers, the relationship between Welf and Imiza stands as long as
>stands the identification of Konrad of Swabia with Kuno of Oehningen. This
>identification, however, is not exactly Jackman's idea. It was proposed,
>IIRC, by Armin Wolf in 1980 and seems to be generally accepted. Do you think
>that this identification should be discarded? I am very interested in Kuno
>of Oehningen because of misterious Russian marriage of one of his daughters.
The specific point about consanguinity that I raised was based on
Jackman's scenario as a whole. However, you have a good point that my
own comment is tied to identification Kuno of Öhningen with Konrad of
Swabia, and that the parentage of Konrad is not directly relevant to
this comment.
Unfortunately, I only copied the pages from Jackman that discussed
Heribert's parentage, and this only includes some of the pages which
discuss the identification of Kuno with Konrad. Also, I have not seen
Wolf's work on Kuno. Of the pages of Jackman's argument that I did
copy, I found the arguments generally unconvincing. One obvious
negative point (which Jackman explains away as deliberate
falsification) is that no Hermann is included in the list of Kuno's
sons in the major sources (i.e., the Welf histories) that mention him.
Stewart Baldwin
Hans Vogels
> Unfortunately, I only copied the pages from Jackman that discussed
> Heribert's parentage, and this only includes some of the pages which
> discuss the identification of Kuno with Konrad.
This was from Jackmans earlier work if I can recall. Given some time I
can send you copies by post of his arguments on this subject from his
more recent "Critiscism and Critique". Interested? How's your Dutch by
the way?
Hans Vogels, h.vo...@chello.nl.