GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-04 > 1018832869


From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Heribert of Kinziggau, part 2c
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:07:49 GMT


[Begin part 2c, continued from part 2b]

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 hningen
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 |
hningen 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


This thread: