Konrad, Duke of Swabia, d. 997
Alan B. Wilson
Swabia, d. 997 (along with his siblings Judith and Herbert) as child(ren)
of Udo, Count in the Wetterau, d. 949 and a dau. of Herbert I, Count of
Vermandois. Udo is son of Gebhard, Count in the Wetterau, d. 910. This
is also found in Winkhaus, Ahnen Zu Karl Dem Grossen Und Widukind, p. 163
(who was cited by Moriarty); and also in Europaische Stammtafeln i, 11
(which did not include citations). (Settipani, La prehistoire des
Capetiens, p. 222, provides the name Cunegundis de Vermandois for the wife
of Udo.)
I recently acquired the new volume I.1 of Europaische Stammtafeln and
have started to scan it for new or conflicting information. In Table 8 I
ran across the following:
給給給給給給給給給給給給給給給
| |
Eberhard Gebhard
Count in the Niederlandgau Count in the Wettergau
d. 902/3 d. 910
| |
Gebhard Udo
Count in the Ufgau Count in the Wettergau
d. aft. 947 d. 949
|
Konrad
Count in the Rheingau
d. ca 982
|
Konrad
Duke of Swabia
d. 997
Konrad, Duke of Swabia, is identified with Kuno von Ohningen. I
remember seeing that identity asserted in Winfred Glocker, Die Verwandten
de Ottonen und ihre Bedeutung in der Polotik, Koln: Bohlau, 1989, on pp.
279, 292, 314, 334, and 341.
In table 9 of ES I.1 the children of Konrad, d. 997, are listed not
only as Hermann II, Duke of Swabia, d. 1003, but also include Ita of
Ohningen who m. Rudolf II, Count of Altdorf, a dau. who m. Vladimir I of
Kiev, Judith who m. Adalbert, Count of Metz, and Kunizza who m. Count
Friedrich I (of Diessen?). (See Winkhaus p. 135, and Moriarty p. 53.)
Can anyone help sort out the parentage of Konrad, Duke of Swabia, or
the validity of Konrad's identification with Kuno, Count of Ohningen?
--
Alan B. Wilson
abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
Richard Borthwick
Jackman books and some of the literature the first generated. I am now
persuaded (for what that is worth) that he and Wolf are basically correct.
The following are some of the key relevant works. I give them in debating
(and chronological) order. Actually, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Between the publication of [5] and [6] the debate got very heated (to put it
mildly). [6] gives the literature for this interval. Anyway, what I list
below is what I myself have read in detail. [6] answers (successfully in my
view) the critics of [5] but goes beyond [5] in the range of genealogical
and historical issues discussed.
[1] Karl Schmidt "Probleme um den 'Grafen Kuno von Oehningen' in *Dorf und
Stift Oehningen* (1966) edited by Herbert Berner, pp.43-93.
[2] Armin Wolf "Were war Kuno von 'Oehningen'?" in *Deutches Archiv*, 1980
vol.36, pp.25-81.
[3] Eduard Hlawitschka "Wer waren Kuno und Richlind von Oehningen? Kritische
Ueberlegungen zu einen neuen Identifitzierungsvorschlag" pp.1-49 in
*Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins* vol.128, 1980.
[4] Eduard Hlawitschka "Die Thronkandidaturen von 1002 und 1024: Gruendeten
sie im Verwandtenanspruch oder in Vorstellungen von freier Wahl?" in *Reich
und Kirche vor dem Inventiturstreit*(Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1985)
edited by Karl Schmidt, pp.49-64.
[5] Donald C Jackman *The Konradiner: A Study in Genealogical Methodology*
(Vittorio Klostermann: Frankfurt am Main, 1990).
[6] Donald C Jackman *Criticism and Critique: Sidelights on the Konradiner
(Prosopographica et Genealogica: Oxford, 1997).
The idea that Konrad (d.997) is identical with Kuno von Oehningen has
been around for some time. The sticking points have been:
(a) the difficulty in interpreting the *Historia Welforum* and the
*Genealogia Welforum* which are the only sources (apart from a spurious
charter founding the collegiate church at Oehningen) for the pair Kuno (a
hypochorism of Konrad) and Richlint. She is claimed to be a daughter of
emperor Otto I and yet there is no other evidence of an imperial daughter of
that name.
(b) A person called Judith is the attested wife of a duke Konrad (usually
taken to be Konrad duke of Swabia).
(c) that despite (a) and (b) all the evidence suggests that either Kuno
never existed (which does not seem plausible - why invent him?) or he is
identical with duke Konrad of Swabia.
(d) the debate about the extent to which ducal and comital rights were
heritable. Quite a bit turns on this for the Jackman reconstruction of the
Konradiner genealogy (the main elements of which have been adopted by ES
I.1). But Hlawitschka and others have contested any such heritability.
(e) that no marriage could be admitted that was within the degrees 3:4
following the canonical rules. Jackman shows that customary law permitted
3:3 marriages and that the Church reluctantly aquiesced.
Wolf [2] bit the bullet and presented an elaborate argument which made the
identification. Judth gets ditched and Richlint is identified as a
granddaughter of Otto I (daughter of Liudolf). Hlawitschka's reply [3]
suggested that this could not work but in [4] he too accepted the
identification of Kuno and Konrad but ditched Richlint. Jackman [5] shows
that there are two Konrads both dukes (one of Alsace and the second of
Swabia & Alsace). Judith is identified as wife of Konrad (I) duke of Alsace
and Richlint that of Konrad (II) duke of Swabia. On the reality of Richlint
see especially [6] ch.II. Jackman's discussion of the sources in [5] ch.II
is fascinating and instructive. I would suggest that [6] really does require
some familiarity with [5] - the methodology is crucial. Both are in print.
In [6] in a discussion of succession rights to the Holy Forest (sounds like
something out of germanic mythology!) Jackman revises his view in [5] that
Kunigunde von Oehningen m. Friedrich von Diessen and sees her as an
inferable ancestor of the Staufer (marrying Friedrich count palatine of
Swabia (d.1030). Also he in [5] makes (contrary to ES I.1) Konrad count in
the Ortenau ancestor of the counts of Rheinfelden rather than his sister
Judith (who is identified with the wife of Adalbert count of Metz).