Discussion:
Aelred of Rievaulx on Agatha
Add Reply
Peter Stewart
2017-07-18 05:58:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In earlier posts I mentioned a new edition of Aelred's 'Genealogia regum
Anglorum' that I hoped would shed light on the text as printed in
*Patrologia latina* vol 195 and in *Acta Sanctorum*, June vol 2. Daniel
Papebroch proposed an emendation to this text, making it refer to
Heinrich II as the emperor whose 'germanus' was Agatha's father.

Domenico Pezzini's edition was published this year, not in 2016 as I
wrongly thought before - I had to ask my library to release it from
cataloguing, hence the delay.

He collated four 12th-century copies, one from Rievaulx (a fifth from
this period was too delicate for him to scan), as well as two
late-12th/early 13th century and two 13th-century copies along with four
from the following centuries. These copies fall into two distinct
families, derived from two lost copies that were presumably made from
the autograph original. None of them includes the word 'sui' in the
passage that exercised Daniel Papebroch's ingenuity. This word was
inserted in the 16th-century transcript at Corpus Christi, Cambridge, to
which I provided a link (CCCC 101).

Also inserted into that late version was the entire sentence about David
of Scotland's mother St Margaret descending from the royal blood of
England and Hungary ("Hanc religiosa regina Margareta, huius regis
mater, que de semine regio Anglorum et Hungariorum extitit oriunda,
allatam in Scotia, quasi munus hereditarium transmisit ad filios"). As
Pezzini notes, the version in which this occurs is an abridgement made
in the 16th-century of the first part of Aelred's work, so that it is
not a statement of his own at all.

This early-modern interpolation is what misled Papebroch into trying to
rescue Aelred from making a king of Hungary into a 'germanus' of an emperor.

The 16th-century corruption of Aelred's text was based on the following
genuine passages as edited by Pezzini (with my fairly literal translations):

pp 50-51: "At pueros filios Edmundi ferire metuens, pre pudore, ad regem
Suauorum eos interficiendos transmisit. Rex uero Suauorum nobilium
puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos destinat
nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benignius fouit, benignissime
sibi in filios adoptauit. Porro Edmundo filiam suam dedit uxorem,
Edwardo filiam germani Henrici imperatoris in matrimonium iunxit" (But
fearing, from shame, to slaughter the young sons of Edmund, [Cnut] sent
them to the king of the Swedes to be killed. The king of the Swedes,
pitying the plight of the noble boys, sent them to the king of the
Hungarians to be fostered. He received them kindly, cherished them even
more kindly, and most kindly adopted them as his own sons. To Edmund he
gave his own daughter as wife, to Edward he joined in matrimony the
daughter of emperor Heinrich's brother.)

p 52: "Imperator autem regis nuntios gratanter excipiens, non paruo
tempore summo cum honore detinuit. Tandem paratis nauibus et omnibus que
nauigaturis necessaria uidebantur illatis, Edwardum cum uxore sua
Agatha, germani sui filia, liberisque eius Edgaro Ædeling, Margareta,
atque Cristina, cum magna gloria ac diuitis, sicut rex petierat, ad
Angliam mittit" (The emperor, receiving the king's [Edward the
Confesssor's] messengers graciously, kept them by him with great honour
for some time. Eventually, when ships were made ready and everything
needed for the sea voyage was at hand, he sent Edward with his wife
Agatha, daughter of his own brother, and his children Edgar Ætheling,
Margaret and Christina, with great splendour and treasures, to England
as the king had requested.)

It is clear from 'germani sui filia' in this passage that either Aelred
himself or both of his contemporary copyists (or possibly one, if both
principal lost copies were by the same hand) thought that Heinrich III
was Agatha's uncle. The emendation, if the need for it is justified at
all, would be required only in this one passage. The reasons for it are:

1. It is remarkably clumsy to use 'suus' twice a few words apart
referring to different men, first to Edward ('uxore sua') and then to
Heinrich ('germani sui'), and especially so given that the pronoun
'eius' was used instead for Edward when naming his children. Aelred used
many literary sources, especially Ovid and Virgil, and this kind of
lapse in style and sense would be highly unusual.

2. The resulting consanguinity between a granddaughter of St Margaret
and a son of the saintly queen's first cousin once removed Heinrich III
would have been very readily notable, but it is not mentioned at all.

The reason against amending the passage is that, however badly it was
written, Aelred probably would have known the facts and this is the best
evidence we have for what he believed.

So, no real advance in the state of the question - but anyway, we do now
have a very fine edition of Aelred's historical works.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-07-18 06:13:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
2. The resulting consanguinity between a granddaughter of St Margaret
and a son of the saintly queen's first cousin once removed Heinrich
III would have been very readily notable, but it is not mentioned at all.
Make that "... and a son of the saintly queen's first cousin once
removed Heinrich IV ...".

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-19 20:41:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
In earlier posts I mentioned a new edition of Aelred's 'Genealogia regum
Anglorum' that I hoped would shed light on the text as printed in
*Patrologia latina* vol 195 and in *Acta Sanctorum*, June vol 2. Daniel
Papebroch proposed an emendation to this text, making it refer to
Heinrich II as the emperor whose 'germanus' was Agatha's father.
Domenico Pezzini's edition was published this year, not in 2016 as I
wrongly thought before - I had to ask my library to release it from
cataloguing, hence the delay.
He collated four 12th-century copies, one from Rievaulx (a fifth from
this period was too delicate for him to scan), as well as two
late-12th/early 13th century and two 13th-century copies along with four
from the following centuries. These copies fall into two distinct
families, derived from two lost copies that were presumably made from
the autograph original. None of them includes the word 'sui' in the
passage that exercised Daniel Papebroch's ingenuity. This word was
inserted in the 16th-century transcript at Corpus Christi, Cambridge, to
which I provided a link (CCCC 101).
Also inserted into that late version was the entire sentence about David
of Scotland's mother St Margaret descending from the royal blood of
England and Hungary ("Hanc religiosa regina Margareta, huius regis
mater, que de semine regio Anglorum et Hungariorum extitit oriunda,
allatam in Scotia, quasi munus hereditarium transmisit ad filios"). As
Pezzini notes, the version in which this occurs is an abridgement made
in the 16th-century of the first part of Aelred's work, so that it is
not a statement of his own at all.
This early-modern interpolation is what misled Papebroch into trying to
rescue Aelred from making a king of Hungary into a 'germanus' of an emperor.
The 16th-century corruption of Aelred's text was based on the following
pp 50-51: "At pueros filios Edmundi ferire metuens, pre pudore, ad regem
Suauorum eos interficiendos transmisit. Rex uero Suauorum nobilium
puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos destinat
nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benignius fouit, benignissime
sibi in filios adoptauit. Porro Edmundo filiam suam dedit uxorem,
Edwardo filiam germani Henrici imperatoris in matrimonium iunxit" (But
fearing, from shame, to slaughter the young sons of Edmund, [Cnut] sent
them to the king of the Swedes to be killed. The king of the Swedes,
pitying the plight of the noble boys, sent them to the king of the
Hungarians to be fostered. He received them kindly, cherished them even
more kindly, and most kindly adopted them as his own sons. To Edmund he
gave his own daughter as wife, to Edward he joined in matrimony the
daughter of emperor Heinrich's brother.)
p 52: "Imperator autem regis nuntios gratanter excipiens, non paruo
tempore summo cum honore detinuit. Tandem paratis nauibus et omnibus que
nauigaturis necessaria uidebantur illatis, Edwardum cum uxore sua
Agatha, germani sui filia, liberisque eius Edgaro Ædeling, Margareta,
atque Cristina, cum magna gloria ac diuitis, sicut rex petierat, ad
Angliam mittit" (The emperor, receiving the king's [Edward the
Confesssor's] messengers graciously, kept them by him with great honour
for some time. Eventually, when ships were made ready and everything
needed for the sea voyage was at hand, he sent Edward with his wife
Agatha, daughter of his own brother, and his children Edgar Ætheling,
Margaret and Christina, with great splendour and treasures, to England
as the king had requested.)
It is clear from 'germani sui filia' in this passage that either Aelred
himself or both of his contemporary copyists (or possibly one, if both
principal lost copies were by the same hand) thought that Heinrich III
was Agatha's uncle. The emendation, if the need for it is justified at
1. It is remarkably clumsy to use 'suus' twice a few words apart
referring to different men, first to Edward ('uxore sua') and then to
Heinrich ('germani sui'), and especially so given that the pronoun
'eius' was used instead for Edward when naming his children. Aelred used
many literary sources, especially Ovid and Virgil, and this kind of
lapse in style and sense would be highly unusual.
2. The resulting consanguinity between a granddaughter of St Margaret
and a son of the saintly queen's first cousin once removed Heinrich III
would have been very readily notable, but it is not mentioned at all.
The reason against amending the passage is that, however badly it was
written, Aelred probably would have known the facts and this is the best
evidence we have for what he believed.
So, no real advance in the state of the question - but anyway, we do now
have a very fine edition of Aelred's historical works.
Peter Stewart
So Bruno Hyphotesis is going down.
Hans Vogels
2017-07-20 06:58:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
So Bruno Hyphotesis is going down.
Down but not out.
The lesson from the new edition of Aelred's 'Genealogia' is that he
evidently thought Agatha was a niece of the emperor who sent her family
to England, but not that he was brother to a Hungarian king.
Aelred of Rievaulx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelred_of_Rievaulx ) wrote his Genealogia regum Anglorum ("Genealogy of the Kings of the English"), in the period 1153–54.

John of Worcester was writing in 1095 at the behest of Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester. Wulfstan was in 1062 the successor of the famous and previously mentioned Ealdred, bishop of Worcester -1062, Archbishop of York 1060-1069. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Worcester

It looks to me that John had through Worcester and Wulfstan access to information (notes, papers, oral information) from Bishop Ealdred, a key player in getting Edward the Aetheling back. In my opinion, the statements of John of Worcester with regard to the consanguinity between the emperor and Agatha (thus the Brunswick alternative) should not be downplayed.
Post by Paulo Canedo
The emperor in question must have been Heinrich III, but this dos not
prove that Aelred realised which Heinrich he was talking about and had
not conflated two namesakes. We do not have evidence for Aelred's
knowledge of German history and the succession of Heinrichs on the
imperial throne.
There is a case to be made from what we know that a brother's daughter
to Heinrich II might have existed and could have been at the disposal in
marriage of a Hungarian king. No cogent case has been proposed as to how
this would have happened with a brother's daughter of Heinrich III, much
less how the consanguinity between her great-granddaughter and Heinrich
V would have escaped notice.
Armin Wolf came up with an explanation. I mentioned it earlier.
Post by Paulo Canedo
much less how the consanguinity between her great-granddaughter and
Heinrich V would have escaped notice.
Armin Wolf writes about his many differences in opinion with Hlawitschka. They involve problems on the consanguinity issue. Wolf states that everyday practice in family politics shows that even before the 4th Lateran Conciliation in 1215 stated it, marriages in 3:4 th grade were tolerated. Only in the short period of Heinrich II they were forbidden and active persecuted. In earlier and later moments this card of near consanguinity was played as part of party politics between the leading noble families. It goes too far to say or to argue that something could not happen as in reality a blind eye was turned.

Furthermore, there is a loophole by means of the Sachsenspiegel: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenspiegel

It states that when consanguinity was involved through means of half brothers/half-sisters an “extra generation” had to be counted. This was also mentioned by Wolf in his paper "Ahnen deutscher Könige und Königinnen. Alternativen zu dem Werk von Eduard Hlawitschka". See my post of May 11 th. Therefore there is “no consanguinity problem” between her great-granddaughter and Heinrich V.
Post by Paulo Canedo
I don't buy the Brunswick hypothesis. The current value of the Bruno
hypothesis is diminished, but still not below that of alternatives in my
view.
The Bruno hypothesis was a theoretical possibility but unlikely as it did not explain the warm reception of Edgar the Aetheling when he stayed in the court of Emperor Heinrichs IV in 1099/1100. At that time Edgar was a homeless and landless mercenary who traveled through Europe. Nevertheless, he received lots of rich gifts of the Emperor. The Bruno hypothesis does not provide a (close) relationship between Edgar and the royal German family. The Brunswick alternative does as his mother Agatha would be a daughter of Liudolf of Braunschweig, Thus Edgar was a great-grandson of Empress Gisela, the grandmother of Heinrich IV, and in this way a cousin of the Emperor. I mentioned this before in my post of July 14 th.

Hans Vogels
Post by Paulo Canedo
It is not admissable, however, that Aelred meant 'sancti' instead of
'sui' in the one passage where this emendation could support the Bruno
hypothesis. Without a preceding passage specifying 'sancti Henrici
imperatoris', the unqualified word 'sancti' would be as clumsy on
Aelred's part as repeating 'sui' for two different men.
Peter Stewart
Hovite
2017-07-20 17:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John of Worcester is believed to have been one of three scribes who
worked at redacting the text of a chronicle that finished in 1128, and
his additions probably ran to 1140. Like other sources, we don't know
where he got his information.
In this case the source is known. It is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version D, annal 1057, which states that Agatha was a relative of the emperor. It does not say which emperor, and it does not say how they were related.

The Chronicon ex Chronicis, now attributed to John of Worcester, is not a reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. It is just a translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into Latin, and the additional information that it provides is just invention.
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-20 20:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hovite
John of Worcester is believed to have been one of three scribes who
worked at redacting the text of a chronicle that finished in 1128, and
his additions probably ran to 1140. Like other sources, we don't know
where he got his information.
In this case the source is known. It is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version D, annal 1057, which states that Agatha was a relative of the emperor. It does not say which emperor, and it does not say how they were related.
The Chronicon ex Chronicis, now attributed to John of Worcester, is not a reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. It is just a translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into Latin, and the additional information that it provides is just invention.
I don't know who you are and I seriously doubt what you say since the historians highly regard John of Worcester but tell me what do you know about this do you have any credentials or are you just one of the people who come here talking nonsense about things they don't know?
The Hoorn
2017-07-20 22:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Agree with you, Paulo: John of Worcester was one of the highly regarded historians of that period.
Hans Vogels
2017-07-21 06:40:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Hovite
John of Worcester is believed to have been one of three scribes who
worked at redacting the text of a chronicle that finished in 1128, and
his additions probably ran to 1140. Like other sources, we don't know
where he got his information.
In this case the source is known. It is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version D, annal 1057, which states that Agatha was a relative of the emperor. It does not say which emperor, and it does not say how they were related.
The Chronicon ex Chronicis, now attributed to John of Worcester, is not a reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. It is just a translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into Latin, and the additional information that it provides is just invention.
I don't know who you are and I seriously doubt what you say since the historians highly regard John of Worcester but tell me what do you know about this do you have any credentials or are you just one of the people who come here talking nonsense about things they don't know?
This is unhinged rudeness - clearly you and Hans don't know what you are
talking about regarding John of Worcester.
Unnecessary rudeness it may be. It happens occasionally. I have seen you lash out towards Paulo in the message string Guy of Soissons.

If we are not up to date regards the quality of John of Worcester then enlighten us with the literature on the subject from which you have your knowledge. We are here to learn more on the "can's and the can not's". Otherwise, it stays on the level of "it is as I said so" and that is something that raises my hair.
As I said, he was one of three scribes believed to have worked on a
chronicle that had been compiled by someone else down to 1128. He named
himself in a section of his own work, and since the earlier ascription
(to Florence of Worcester) fell away his name got attached to the whole
work down to 1140 instead.
He was not one of the principal historians of his day and he was not
writing ca 1095. The chronicle redacted at Worcester priory is a very
important source for England at a later period, but not for events in
Hungary in the mid-11th century.
Enlighten us more. Who is your authority for this?
The assertions made in Wikipedia are not sufficient grounds to start
insulting other contributors on that basis.
It is quite correct, and useful to know, that this particular snippet
was taken from a version of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle,
To what do you refer? The John of Worcester seen in action in 1095?
which I failed to
recall or to check. When I am wrong I prefer to say so rather than to
defend my mistake by attacking the facts, much less demanding
"credentials" from someone who reports them.
Peter Stewart
I can not speak for Paulo, but as an interested researcher, I like to know where the information comes from so that I track it down too and broaden my horizon. I can not say I always agree with you but respect you for your in-depth knowledge and your analytical approach. Anyone can have assumptions but that does not mean that they have to be mine. I teach my pupils to be critical and to persuade with facts not opinions. If they don't understand then it was a failure on my part to be convincing.
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-21 09:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm sorry for being rude that happens to me from time to time especially when I'm angry I'm sorry I'll work in that. In another point Mr.Stewart wasn't the Chronicle written about 1118 Mike the Henry II Project says with a sign of question in the page of Agatha?
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-21 12:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'd like to use this opportunity to talk about the origin of the statements that Agatha was related to emperor Heinrich or was daughter of his germanus. The Henry II Project in the page of Agatha theorizes that there was a common source behind all of those sources that they call Worcester Source they theorize this because since the Worcester manuscript of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle and John of Worcester were from the same place they almost certainly used the same source. About Ailred they say it is more ambiguous but since he used the same words as John of Worcester he probably also used the same source.
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-21 13:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
I'd like to use this opportunity to talk about the origin of the statements that Agatha was related to emperor Heinrich or was daughter of his germanus. The Henry II Project in the page of Agatha theorizes that there was a common source behind all of those sources that they call Worcester Source they theorize this because since the Worcester manuscript of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle and John of Worcester were from the same place they almost certainly used the same source. About Ailred they say it is more ambiguous but since he used the same words as John of Worcester he probably also used the same source.
I wouldn't be so confident that there was one written source for any
writer using the word 'germanus' to link Agatha's father to an emperor -
if this was the fact, then there is no reason why it should not have
been widely known and remembered in the same terms. It is always
necessary to recall that medieval people did not come at genealogy in
the same way we do, and not to suppose that they learned things in the
same order that we do or surrounded by the same uncertainties that we
may have. Agatha must have been the object of widespread interest when
she arrived in England as the wife and mother of supposed future kings.
That she was niece to an emperor would not have been a state secret. It
may have been that 'frater' was deliberately intensified into 'germanus'
in order to consolidate an impression that she was better born than was
actually the case. If she was closely and legitimately related to the
current reigning imperial house, the Salian family of Heinrich III, the
matter would have been straightforward and important enough to detail
precisely. Yet this wasn't done.
From another angle, Armin Wolf would have us believe that kinship to
Heinrich III gave the emperor an obligation to assist in sending
Edward's family to England. In fact he dallied over this for quite a
while, but setting that aside Wolf's proposal also requires us to
believe that Heinrich as emperor would have voluntarily incurred that
obligation to an exiled princeling with poor prospects in the mid-1040s
by allowing his own niece (but not from a 'germanus') to marry him in
the first place. The Salians, having done this, then promptly forgot
that they were related to the English royal and prospectively ruling
family, and never again mentioned the connection or recalled it when
intermarrying with a descendant later. This is a pile of nonsense high
enough to build a new Brooklyn Bridge if anyone wants to buy into it.
To my mind, assuming the German imperial link is true, that leaves the
field to Heinrich II and his germanus Bruno.
Peter Stewart
But the combined testimony of John and Aelred strongly favours Heinrich III as Agatha's father and besides if Agatha was in another country she wouldn't have to listen to her uncle's ideas.
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-21 14:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
I'd like to use this opportunity to talk about the origin of the statements that Agatha was related to emperor Heinrich or was daughter of his germanus. The Henry II Project in the page of Agatha theorizes that there was a common source behind all of those sources that they call Worcester Source they theorize this because since the Worcester manuscript of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle and John of Worcester were from the same place they almost certainly used the same source. About Ailred they say it is more ambiguous but since he used the same words as John of Worcester he probably also used the same source.
I wouldn't be so confident that there was one written source for any
writer using the word 'germanus' to link Agatha's father to an emperor -
if this was the fact, then there is no reason why it should not have
been widely known and remembered in the same terms. It is always
necessary to recall that medieval people did not come at genealogy in
the same way we do, and not to suppose that they learned things in the
same order that we do or surrounded by the same uncertainties that we
may have. Agatha must have been the object of widespread interest when
she arrived in England as the wife and mother of supposed future kings.
That she was niece to an emperor would not have been a state secret. It
may have been that 'frater' was deliberately intensified into 'germanus'
in order to consolidate an impression that she was better born than was
actually the case. If she was closely and legitimately related to the
current reigning imperial house, the Salian family of Heinrich III, the
matter would have been straightforward and important enough to detail
precisely. Yet this wasn't done.
From another angle, Armin Wolf would have us believe that kinship to
Heinrich III gave the emperor an obligation to assist in sending
Edward's family to England. In fact he dallied over this for quite a
while, but setting that aside Wolf's proposal also requires us to
believe that Heinrich as emperor would have voluntarily incurred that
obligation to an exiled princeling with poor prospects in the mid-1040s
by allowing his own niece (but not from a 'germanus') to marry him in
the first place. The Salians, having done this, then promptly forgot
that they were related to the English royal and prospectively ruling
family, and never again mentioned the connection or recalled it when
intermarrying with a descendant later. This is a pile of nonsense high
enough to build a new Brooklyn Bridge if anyone wants to buy into it.
To my mind, assuming the German imperial link is true, that leaves the
field to Heinrich II and his germanus Bruno.
Peter Stewart
But the combined testimony of John and Aelred strongly favours Heinrich III as Agatha's uncle and besides the emperor wouldn't have influence on who Agatha married when she was in another country.
Hans Vogels
2017-07-21 06:42:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hovite
John of Worcester is believed to have been one of three scribes who
worked at redacting the text of a chronicle that finished in 1128, and
his additions probably ran to 1140. Like other sources, we don't know
where he got his information.
In this case the source is known. It is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version D, annal 1057, which states that Agatha was a relative of the emperor. It does not say which emperor, and it does not say how they were related.
The Chronicon ex Chronicis, now attributed to John of Worcester, is not a reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. It is just a translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into Latin, and the additional information that it provides is just invention.
If we are not up to date regards the quality of John of Worcester then enlighten us with the literature on the subject from which you have your knowledge. We are here to learn more on the "can's and the can not's". Otherwise, it stays on the level of "it is as I said so" and that is something that raises my hair.
Hovite
2017-07-31 18:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hovite
In this case the source is known. It is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version D, annal 1057, which states that Agatha was a relative of the emperor. It does not say which emperor, and it does not say how they were related.
The Chronicon ex Chronicis, now attributed to John of Worcester, is not a reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. It is just a translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into Latin, and the additional information that it provides is just invention.
John was not content with merely translating version D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but added extra details. Much of the additional information is trivial and has no known source. Most likely, John just made it up.

In the Agatha story, John says that Cnut sent Edward to Sweden, and from there he was sent to Solomon, King of Hungary. John places this tale under 1017, and Cnut died in 1035. Edward returned to England in 1057. Solomon became King of Hungary in 1063. Therefore the story is not true. John is a not reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. His statement that “Edward married Agatha, a daughter of the brother of the emperor Henry” is worthless. Consequently, any theory based upon this supposed clue is likely to be wrong.
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-31 19:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hovite
Post by Hovite
In this case the source is known. It is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version D, annal 1057, which states that Agatha was a relative of the emperor. It does not say which emperor, and it does not say how they were related.
The Chronicon ex Chronicis, now attributed to John of Worcester, is not a reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. It is just a translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into Latin, and the additional information that it provides is just invention.
John was not content with merely translating version D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but added extra details. Much of the additional information is trivial and has no known source. Most likely, John just made it up.
In the Agatha story, John says that Cnut sent Edward to Sweden, and from there he was sent to Solomon, King of Hungary. John places this tale under 1017, and Cnut died in 1035. Edward returned to England in 1057. Solomon became King of Hungary in 1063. Therefore the story is not true. John is a not reliable source for the Anglo-Saxon period. His statement that “Edward married Agatha, a daughter of the brother of the emperor Henry” is worthless. Consequently, any theory based upon this supposed clue is likely to be wrong.
The only wrong point is the Hungarian king's name if we follow that logic then William of Malmesbury can't be trusted as well because he gave Edward's brother Edmund the wrong name Eadwig that was actually their uncle's name. Giving people a wrong name was a common type of error in ancient sources so your point is not valid.
Peter Stewart
2017-07-21 02:31:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Apologies if this appears twice - I posted it to Gen-Med yesterday, but it appears to have fallen into the silent abyss where my posts occasionally go (and no doubt belong).
I'm not sure from memory if Armin Wolf referenced Patrick Corbet's 2001 book
(cited earlier) in the 2010 article you mention, but I can assure you that Wolf's
ideas and fact are not always one-and-the-same thing.
I've checked this and Wolf did not cite Corbert's work, which is the most detailed and thorough study of consanguinity prohibitions in Germany throughout the relevant period.

I have also refreshed my memory of the feebleness of some of Wolf's arguments - for instance, that the mistake in England of naming Solomon as the reigning king of Hungary in 1057 was not so much of a blunder because he had been crowned in his father's lifetime as a 5-year-old associate king before bishop Aldred of Worcester passed through on his way to Jerusalem in 1058. Therefore, according to Wolf, the chronology of Edward's exile coinciding with Solomon as king is not entirely wrong ("Die Annahme, Edward sei bei Salomon im Exil gewesen, ist also chronologisch gar nicht ganz falsch"). Golly. If ruling as and having a royal title amounted to the same status, man or boy, much of Wolf's other work would need to be rewritten.

As to the Bruno hypothesis, he skims over the question by stating that Eduard Hlawitschka had rightly (for once) referred to striking, indeed irrefutable arguments against this ("schlagende, ja unwiderlegbare Gegenargumente") presented by Szabolcs de Vajay in 1962. Here is the whole of Vajay's "irrefutable" treatment of the issue:

"G. de Manteyer tried to attach Agatha to Bishop Bruno, who was indeed the germanus of the Emperor Henry II. But, Bruno was sacred bishop [sic, he meant consecrated bishop] already in 1006, so even if we suppose that he was married before (there is no evidence for such a hypothesis!), his daughter should have been born previously to this date. This would make Agatha at least ten years older than Edward and older than 50 when Edgar the Aethling was born. - Thus Manteyer interpreted the meaning of germanus correctly, but he did not take into account the chronological impossibility of bearing such a suggestion."

But this is not necessarily the chronology in question, nor is marriage essential to the matter - Bruno went into exile after Christmas 1023, very probably to Hungary where his sister Gisela, who had supported him against Heinrich II in earlier contretemps, was queen (that he might have gone anywhere else outside his brother's empire is unlikely). Bruno was consecrated, but far from sacred as indicated by his reputation for devilry in episcopal office. Hungary was still in a rough phase of transition to Christianity at the time, and he might well have cut loose from celibacy. If he left a daughter behind him in the royal household, that would help to explain how the Hungarian king was able to give a brother's daughter of an emperor Heinrich in marriage to the exiled younger son of a dead English king. That a Hungarian ruler could have negotiated successfully on Edward's behalf for a niece of the reigning emperor in the 1040s, Heinrich III, is preposterous. That Agatha might have been floating around in Hungary as an unmarried daughter of Liudolf of Brunswick and married off to a near-nobody without a by-your-leave request to her uncle and brother in Germany is ridiculous. Young women did not roam abroad in search of mésalliance, and emperors did not throw away their nieces on exiled younger sons. Illegitimacy as regarded later in England would also help to explain the curious silence of Turgot on Margaret's maternal ancestry and relatives, when he extolled at length the glory she brought to her father's long-disempowered side of the family.

As for the argument that kinship obliged Heinrich III to send Edward and his family to England, they arrived there in 1057 as reported by Wolf - that is, after Heinrich had died in October 1056. Unless they rowed themselves very slowly all the way in the ships provided, I don't see how he could have been directly responsible for their journey rather than his widow Agnes, as regent for her son Heinrich IV.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-20 10:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It seems now usually agreed that the marriage took place in Russia not Hungary.
Peter Stewart
2017-07-20 11:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
It seems now usually agreed that the marriage took place in Russia not Hungary.
Perhaps - but in Rus' when the Hungarian royal family that had looked
after Edmund and Edward was in exile there, soon to return home. Anyway
there is no compelling reason to suppose they travelled so light as to
take no marriageable girls with them so that Edward's wife had to be a
native.

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-07-20 14:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Other versions of Turgot's work (written 1100/07) do not include any of
these details. The text printed in Acta Sanctorum, June vol 2, was taken
from a manuscript of Vaucelles abbey that is now lost, and the text
edited by Hodgson-Hinde in *Symeonis Dunelmensis opera et collectanea*
(1868) is from a manuscript in the British Library (Cotton Tiberius D iii).
Forbes-Leith in his 1884 2nd edition English translation describes this ms as a vellum folio "of the latter part of the 12th century, . . . much injured by the great fire in the British Museum," as was likewise the fate of an abridgment, Cotton Tiberius E i.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-07-21 06:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Other versions of Turgot's work (written 1100/07) do not include any of
these details. The text printed in Acta Sanctorum, June vol 2, was taken
from a manuscript of Vaucelles abbey that is now lost, and the text
edited by Hodgson-Hinde in *Symeonis Dunelmensis opera et collectanea*
(1868) is from a manuscript in the British Library (Cotton Tiberius D iii).
Forbes-Leith in his 1884 2nd edition English translation describes this ms as a vellum folio "of the latter part of the 12th century, . . . much injured by the great fire in the British Museum," as was likewise the fate of an abridgment, Cotton Tiberius E i.
There appear to be several abridgments of the Vita, it was clearly a
popular work for centuries after it was written.

Also there is debate about whether Turgot was its author, but I think
this is unnecessary. He was known to be her confessor, and the author
(who identified himself as T.) says that he was asked to write it
because he knew the secrets of her heart.

He was asked by her daughter Edith-Matilda, Henry I's queen, and it was
written mainly to give her a sense of what her mother - whom she could
have remembered only barely - had been like (Matilda was brought up by
her domineering aunt Christina, far away from the Scottish court).
Historians often criticise Turgot for the airiness of his prose and the
absence of hard facts, by which they mean I suppose that it was a work
of love instead of reportage. Anyway, it has inspired many generations
to love St Margaret, for instance for her feeding orphans with her own
spoons and pilfering coins from the royal treasury to give to the poor.
So very unlike the home life of our own dear queen...

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-07-22 17:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Mr. Vogels in an earlier thread you mentioned Wolf's explanation of a marriage in a Russia I am personally a follower of the German Hyphotesis but what about the explanation of a marriage in Hungary?
Loading...