Discussion:
The bad logics of Geni's Agatha page
Add Reply
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-27 17:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As everyone know the origin of Agatha wife of Eadweard the Exile is a hotly debated topic of the last decades, however I would like to point a very bad logics that Geni's page of her uses. It says that since the British Royal Family website says that she was a daughter of Solomon of Hungary and Gisela, sister of Heinrich II then this is perhaps the more accurate information. This is very bad logics since some primary sources give another filliations to her and as known this filliation of Agatha is now generally abandoned by good scholars since there are very good arguments against it. The British Royal Family Website probably just says it because it is one traditional theory.
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-27 17:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Comments are welcome.
taf
2017-04-27 19:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
As everyone know the origin of Agatha wife of Eadweard the Exile is a
hotly debated topic of the last decades, however I would like to point
a very bad logics that Geni's page of her uses. It says that since the
British Royal Family website says that she was a daughter of Solomon of
Hungary and Gisela, sister of Heinrich II then this is perhaps the more
accurate information. This is very bad logics since some primary sources
give another filliations to her and as known this filliation of Agatha
is now generally abandoned by good scholars since there are very good
arguments against it. The British Royal Family Website probably just
says it because it is one traditional theory.
Just to avoid confusion, it says she is daughter of Stephen, not of Solomon. The primary sources give (several) conflicting sets of relationships, and this solution is consistent with many of them (that she was niece of Emperor Henry, that she was daughter of a King of Hungary). That is why it was the predominant view for much of the 20th century. Why the royal family web site says so is hard to determine. It could be based on dated information, it could be that it is superficially in best agreement with the oldest sources (just not with the chronological or political frameworks). Anyhow, you are right that this appeal to (false) authority should not be considered weighty - the hidden subtext is that, being family, they know something others don't, but this is not the case. It looks like it is just an easy cop-out for a compiler who hates blank spaces - they have consulted several sources that give complete discussions of the connundrum, so they know it isn't that simple, but rather accepting that no certain answer is possible they rationalize a way to arrive at a definitive solution.

taf
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-27 20:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
As everyone know the origin of Agatha wife of Eadweard the Exile is a
hotly debated topic of the last decades, however I would like to point
a very bad logics that Geni's page of her uses. It says that since the
British Royal Family website says that she was a daughter of Solomon of
Hungary and Gisela, sister of Heinrich II then this is perhaps the more
accurate information. This is very bad logics since some primary sources
give another filliations to her and as known this filliation of Agatha
is now generally abandoned by good scholars since there are very good
arguments against it. The British Royal Family Website probably just
says it because it is one traditional theory.
Just to avoid confusion, it says she is daughter of Stephen, not of Solomon. The primary sources give (several) conflicting sets of relationships, and this solution is consistent with many of them (that she was niece of Emperor Henry, that she was daughter of a King of Hungary). That is why it was the predominant view for much of the 20th century. Why the royal family web site says so is hard to determine. It could be based on dated information, it could be that it is superficially in best agreement with the oldest sources (just not with the chronological or political frameworks). Anyhow, you are right that this appeal to (false) authority should not be considered weighty - the hidden subtext is that, being family, they know something others don't, but this is not the case. It looks like it is just an easy cop-out for a compiler who hates blank spaces - they have consulted several sources that give complete discussions of the connundrum, so they know it isn't that simple, but rather accepting that no certain answer is possible they rationalize a way to arrive at a definitive solution.
taf
We cannot say that for example John of Worcester's testimony supports the Hungarian Theory because he says she was a daughter of a germanus of Heinrich III not of a germana of Heinrich II.
taf
2017-04-27 21:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
We cannot say that for example John of Worcester's testimony supports the
Hungarian Theory because he says she was a daughter of a germanus of Heinrich
III not of a germana of Heinrich II.
No, he says that she was "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici". Historically this has been interpreted as Henry II, leading to two common hypotheses that were popular in the first half of the 20th century, that she was daughter of Bruno, bishop of Augsburg, brother of Henry II, or that she was daughter of Gisela, sister of Henry II and wife of Stephen. The second does not match 'filia germani', but advocates were either going from an English translation that just said 'niece', or alternatively, thoought that the Worcester chronicle was using an imprecise or overly-precise rendering of the niece relationship.

Vajay was the first recent genealogist I can think of to propose that 'Emperor Henry' meant Henry III instead of his distant cousin.

taf
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-27 21:45:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Actually if you don't know the genealogical appendix of John says specifically that it was Heinrich III who was intended.
taf
2017-04-28 00:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
Actually if you don't know the genealogical appendix of John says specifically
that it was Heinrich III who was intended.
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC MS it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit that I am going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing that as "III". Anyhow, has there been any discussion on how this disorganized collection of pedigrees, genealogies and lists of bishps relates to the rest of the manuscript - is it thought to have beeen compiled at the same time, or is this an add-on, and perhaps more removed that the chronicle portion?

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-04-28 01:52:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
Actually if you don't know the genealogical appendix of John says specifically
that it was Heinrich III who was intended.
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC MS it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit that I am going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing that as "III". Anyhow, has there been any discussion on how this disorganized collection of pedigrees, genealogies and lists of bishps relates to the rest of the manuscript - is it thought to have beeen compiled at the same time, or is this an add-on, and perhaps more removed that the chronicle portion?
See page 53 here:
http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=corpus&manuscript=ms157

"Agatham filia(m) germani imp(er)atoris Heanrici [sic] t(er)tii"

I'm not sure if the note on the main chronicle in the latest edition of
John of Worcester (Oxford, 1995-1998) has been discussed here: the
editors (Darlington and McGurk) suggest that Agatha may have been
daughter of an unknown sister of Heinrich II named Agatha - see vol ii p
504 note 1, "Whereas ASC D (1057) does not name the emperor whose
kinswoman Agatha was, W[illiam] [of] M[almesbury] ... describes Agatha
as sister of the queen ... Perhaps 'germani' is a slip for 'germane', so
that Agatha was niece to Henry II and his sister Gisela, queen of
Hungary. WM will then have conflated two generations (possibly Agatha,
like Gisela, bore the same name as her mother)."

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-04-28 02:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC MS
it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit that I am
going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing that as "III".
http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=corpus&manuscript=ms157
"Agatham filia(m) germani imp(er)atoris Heanrici [sic] t(er)tii"
Ah, that's much higher resolution that the Parker version where the t'tii just looked like four non-descript minims. It appears to have "Agatha' filia' g'mani imp[er]atoris Henricii t'tii"

https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/thumbnail_view.do?size=basic&ms_no=92&page=6V

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-04-28 02:38:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC MS
it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit that I am
going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing that as "III".
http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=corpus&manuscript=ms157
"Agatham filia(m) germani imp(er)atoris Heanrici [sic] t(er)tii"
Ah, that's much higher resolution that the Parker version where the t'tii just looked like four non-descript minims. It appears to have "Agatha' filia' g'mani imp[er]atoris Henricii t'tii"
https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/thumbnail_view.do?size=basic&ms_no=92&page=6V
According to Darlington & McGurk the greater part of Cambridge, Corpus
Christi College 92 (including this folio, 6v) was "probably written at
Abingdon by three later twelfth-century scribes".

By the way, regarding the highly implausible suggestion that "germani
imperatoris" was meant to indicate "the German emperor", where German
kings and emperors are given national designation in the chronicle this
is in the genitive plural, "rex Teutonicorum" (king of the Germans) and
"Romanorum imperator" (emperor of the Romans).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-04-28 02:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
Actually if you don't know the genealogical appendix of John says specifically
that it was Heinrich III who was intended.
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC MS it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit that I am going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing that as "III". Anyhow, has there been any discussion on how this disorganized collection of pedigrees, genealogies and lists of bishps relates to the rest of the manuscript - is it thought to have beeen compiled at the same time, or is this an add-on, and perhaps more removed that the chronicle portion?
According to Darlington and McGurk, vol iii page xvi: "Oxford, Corpus
Christi College 157 [as linked in my last posting] ... the chief
manuscript of the chronicle, was the source of all four other copies ...
It was written at Worcester by three scribes, C1, C2 and C3, all three
of whom corrected and added to the text, and tranformed a far copy into
a working one. The third scribe has been plausibly identified with John
of Worcester, and the date of his final writing here was presumably in
or after 1140. C1 wrote to p. 363 ('exercitus domum' in mid-1101) ..."

So the lists and genealogies placed first in this copy were apparently
not the work of John of Worcester, but of another monk working before him.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-04-28 03:22:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
Actually if you don't know the genealogical appendix of John says specifically
that it was Heinrich III who was intended.
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC
MS it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit
that I am going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing
that as "III". Anyhow, has there been any discussion on how this
disorganized collection of pedigrees, genealogies and lists of bishps
relates to the rest of the manuscript - is it thought to have beeen
compiled at the same time, or is this an add-on, and perhaps more
removed that the chronicle portion?
http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=corpus&manuscript=ms157
"Agatham filia(m) germani imp(er)atoris Heanrici [sic] t(er)tii"
The repetition of this in the chronicle proper, without "tertii" after
the emperor's name, is on page 328 of the Oxford manuscript (Corpus
Christi 157) and on fol 141r of the Cambridge version (CCCC MS 92).

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-28 14:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
Actually if you don't know the genealogical appendix of John says specifically
that it was Heinrich III who was intended.
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC MS it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit that I am going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing that as "III". Anyhow, has there been any discussion on how this disorganized collection of pedigrees, genealogies and lists of bishps relates to the rest of the manuscript - is it thought to have beeen compiled at the same time, or is this an add-on, and perhaps more removed that the chronicle portion?
taf
To clarify as said in Agatha's page in the Henry II Project the genealogical appendix says Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici III. So he is clearly identifying the emperator as Henry III undermining any attempt to use his testimony in favor of the Hungarian Hyphotesis as was often made.
taf
2017-04-28 20:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
To clarify as said in Agatha's page in the Henry II Project the genealogical
appendix says Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici III.
As we have been discussing, the 'preface' (not appendix) says "filiam germani imperatoris Henrici tertii"
Post by Paulo Canedo
So he is clearly identifying the emperator as Henry III undermining any
attempt to use his testimony in favor of the Hungarian Hyphotesis as was
often made.
It is a bit more complex than this: how did the pedigrees and genealogies vs the chronicle, come to be recorded as part of the same collection? Do they represent a single body of knowledge recorded two different ways, or were they two independent works that were combined, or most importantly, were the genealogies extracted from the chronicle (or vice versa). And just to be clear what I am suggesting, if some clerical genealogist decided to extract (and enhance) the relevant material from an earlier version of the chronicle he was about to copy, as a useful guide, might that person have assumed which Henry was being referred to, without knowing anything more than what is written in the chronicle?

Still, the politics and chronology seem to negate the Hungarian Hypothesis anyhow.

taf
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-28 21:05:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No John wouldn't make such deductions because he was the type cut and paste of chronicler he wrote exactly what he saw on his sources.
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-28 21:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But amyways Henry III is a more plausible candidate than Henry II because no sibling of Henry II seems a good candidate for Agatha's father.
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-28 21:36:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm personally convinced that it refers to Henry III and anyways he is of the two possible emperors the more plausible candidate since no brother of Henry II is a plausible candidate to be Agatha's father.
taf
2017-04-28 22:20:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
I'm personally convinced that it refers to Henry III and anyways he is of
the two possible emperors the more plausible candidate since no brother of
Henry II is a plausible candidate to be Agatha's father.
I am not disagreeing that he is the more likely to have been Agatha's uncle, although let's not forget the third option, that it is all confused and the correct answer is: none of the above.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 01:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
I'm personally convinced that it refers to Henry III and anyways he is of the two possible emperors the more plausible candidate since no brother of Henry II is a plausible candidate to be Agatha's father.
Heinrich III had no full-brother, or paternal half-brother, so that
calling Agatha 'filiam germani imperatoris' is a bit of a stretch for
him too.

Heinrich II had both a full-brother and a paternal half-brother, but
they were a bishop and an archbishop respectively.

The emendation to 'filiam germane' proposed by Darlington & McGurk
hasn't received much attention - I think it's unlikely that Heinrich of
Bavaria and Gisela of Burgundy had an otherwise unknown daughter, but if
they did the name Agatha would hardly be more exotic than that of their
daughter Brigida, also named after a saint (one from Ireland, the other
from Sicily, both of them venerated in Germany at the time).

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-29 09:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 09:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.

You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana was
a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly thought a
full-sister.

Not exactly conclusive.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-29 09:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.
You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana was
a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly thought a
full-sister.
Not exactly conclusive.
Peter Stewart
It seems unlikely John wouldn't know the maternity of the sons of Louis I the Pious a such important medieval figure.
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 10:57:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.
You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana was
a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly thought a
full-sister.
Not exactly conclusive.
Peter Stewart
It seems unlikely John wouldn't know the maternity of the sons of Louis I the Pious a such important medieval figure.
You might be surprised how many monks in 12th-century England didn't
know by heart the ins-and-outs of Carolingian genealogy in 9th-century
Francia.

But anyway it would prove nothing if he did know this detail - paternal
half-brothers were frequently called germani, as the classical meaning
was always siblings who had the same parents or at least the same father
(see Lewis & Short). It is uterine relationship that stretches this
usage, though not necessarily to breaking point. Darlington & McGurk's
suggestion that the word may have been 'germane' miscopied (this was
first suggested by Ernst Dümmler in the 19th century, I think) is just
as tenable as any theory involving maternal half-brothers.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-29 11:08:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.
You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana was
a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly thought a
full-sister.
Not exactly conclusive.
Peter Stewart
It seems unlikely John wouldn't know the maternity of the sons of Louis I the Pious a such important medieval figure.
You might be surprised how many monks in 12th-century England didn't
know by heart the ins-and-outs of Carolingian genealogy in 9th-century
Francia.
But anyway it would prove nothing if he did know this detail - paternal
half-brothers were frequently called germani, as the classical meaning
was always siblings who had the same parents or at least the same father
(see Lewis & Short). It is uterine relationship that stretches this
usage, though not necessarily to breaking point. Darlington & McGurk's
suggestion that the word may have been 'germane' miscopied (this was
first suggested by Ernst Dümmler in the 19th century, I think) is just
as tenable as any theory involving maternal half-brothers.
Peter Stewart
John seems to still have used the word germanus when he didn't had information on both parents.
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-29 11:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.
You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana was
a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly thought a
full-sister.
Not exactly conclusive.
Peter Stewart
It seems unlikely John wouldn't know the maternity of the sons of Louis I the Pious a such important medieval figure.
You might be surprised how many monks in 12th-century England didn't
know by heart the ins-and-outs of Carolingian genealogy in 9th-century
Francia.
But anyway it would prove nothing if he did know this detail - paternal
half-brothers were frequently called germani, as the classical meaning
was always siblings who had the same parents or at least the same father
(see Lewis & Short). It is uterine relationship that stretches this
usage, though not necessarily to breaking point. Darlington & McGurk's
suggestion that the word may have been 'germane' miscopied (this was
first suggested by Ernst Dümmler in the 19th century, I think) is just
as tenable as any theory involving maternal half-brothers.
Peter Stewart
But Adam of Bremen called Olaf of Sweden and Canut the Great germanus even though they were only maternal half brothers showing that the word can extend in such way.
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 11:42:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.
You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana was
a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly thought a
full-sister.
Not exactly conclusive.
Peter Stewart
It seems unlikely John wouldn't know the maternity of the sons of Louis I the Pious a such important medieval figure.
You might be surprised how many monks in 12th-century England didn't
know by heart the ins-and-outs of Carolingian genealogy in 9th-century
Francia.
But anyway it would prove nothing if he did know this detail - paternal
half-brothers were frequently called germani, as the classical meaning
was always siblings who had the same parents or at least the same father
(see Lewis & Short). It is uterine relationship that stretches this
usage, though not necessarily to breaking point. Darlington & McGurk's
suggestion that the word may have been 'germane' miscopied (this was
first suggested by Ernst Dümmler in the 19th century, I think) is just
as tenable as any theory involving maternal half-brothers.
Peter Stewart
But Adam of Bremen called Olaf of Sweden and Canut the Great germanus even though they were only maternal half brothers showing that the word can extend in such way.
I wrote "It is uterine relationship that stretches this usage, though
not necessarily to breaking point" - what does it add that Adam of
Bremen may have been one who stretched the usage?

We can't know whether the word 'germani' was correctly copied by the
scribe (C1, not John himself) at Worcester priory, not can we know
exactly what the scribe thought this meant. We can only proceed outwards
from the core of the word's correct usage, that is starting with full-
or paternal half-brothers. Since Heinrich III had none, and Heinrich II
had none with legitimate offspring, we have to stretch the point.

I think an emendation to 'germane' for a full-sister is about as
plausible as extending 'germani' to a uterine half-brother. There are
further problems with any of the maternal half-brothers of Heinrich
III. He had no full-sisters who can be considered, and in any case
these were daughters of an emperor so not very likely to be remembered
only as sisters of one. Heinrich II had apparently two married sisters,
whose father was a comparative nobody from a 12th-century English point
of view. One of these was Gisela, a queen of Hungary who had no children
surviving in the 1040s/50s when Agatha clearly was living; the other
evidently had a daughter named Mathilde who died in 1009, apparently not
as a child. But this Mathilde could hardly have been a sister of Agatha
the wife of Edward the Exile, who was having children in the 1040s/50s.

Ho hum, the puzzle is unsolved. Some people cling to a particular hunch,
even vehemently, while others prefer to say they can't know so why
bother unless some new angle or evidence comes to light.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 23:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
I think an emendation to 'germane' for a full-sister is about as
plausible as extending 'germani' to a uterine half-brother. There are
further problems with any of the maternal half-brothers of Heinrich
III. He had no full-sisters who can be considered, and in any case
these were daughters of an emperor so not very likely to be remembered
only as sisters of one. Heinrich II had apparently two married
sisters, whose father was a comparative nobody from a 12th-century
English point of view. One of these was Gisela, a queen of Hungary who
had no children surviving in the 1040s/50s when Agatha clearly was
living; the other evidently had a daughter named Mathilde who died in
1009, apparently not as a child. But this Mathilde could hardly have
been a sister of Agatha the wife of Edward the Exile, who was having
children in the 1040s/50s.
I overstated the last point - Mathilde who died in 1009 may have been a
young child at the time. It is difficult to tell why the Quedlinburg
annalist mentioned her death, but it could well be that she was sent to
the abbey as a small child to be raised and become a nun there. The
abbess in 1009 was Otto II's daughter Adelheid, who was a
born-in-the-purple child of an emperor and not someone who would
appreciate her higher status being mixed up with that of a mere king's
sister's daughter.

The suggestion by Darlington and McGurk that Heinrich II had an unknown
sister who was Agatha's mother is, I think, a slightly less weak German
hypothesis than the one popularised by Szabolcs de Vajay. Interestingly,
an actual daughter of Liudolf of Brunswick was described in similar
terms to Agatha in the John of Worcester genealogy - in the 13th century
Albert of Stade called Ida of Elsdorf "filia fratris imperatoris
Heinrici III". However, Albert went on to say that her mother was a
sister of Pope Leo IX (Bruno of Egisheim), that has been discounted by
historians.

Another sidelight worth noting relates to the Russian hypothesis - Vajay
thought it had been firmly established that Edward the Exile stayed in
Russia until at least 1046, when he moved to Hungary, but this may be
questionable. Chroniclers at the time in the West, not having access to
Google Maps and Wikipedia, may have confused Russia and Hungary as both
somewhere beyond the pale of old Christianity. The annalist of
Hildesheim abbey described Imré, the son of King Stephen and Gisela of
Bavaria, as "dux Ruizorum" in reporting his death in 1031 - this odd
title has been glossed by historians as indicating he was commander of
the royal guard to which mercenaries from Rus' were recruited, or from
confusing Rus' with Ruthenia.

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-04-30 01:37:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Another sidelight worth noting relates to the Russian hypothesis - Vajay
thought it had been firmly established that Edward the Exile stayed in
Russia until at least 1046, when he moved to Hungary, but this may be
questionable. Chroniclers at the time in the West, not having access to
Google Maps and Wikipedia, may have confused Russia and Hungary as both
somewhere beyond the pale of old Christianity. The annalist of
Hildesheim abbey described Imré, the son of King Stephen and Gisela of
Bavaria, as "dux Ruizorum" in reporting his death in 1031 - this odd
title has been glossed by historians as indicating he was commander of
the royal guard to which mercenaries from Rus' were recruited, or from
confusing Rus' with Ruthenia.
The chronology and migrations of Edward the Exile has been heavily influenced by the framework laid out by Ronay, which seems to be taken for granted by most recent accounts, but I have always been less than impressed. He almost certainly is far afield when he suggests that Edmund Ironside married the daughter of Swedish king Olaf, who would then be grandfather of Edward the Exile. No citation is given. I looked for the origin of this many years back, and only found it in a historical fiction novel from the early 1900s.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-04-30 02:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Another sidelight worth noting relates to the Russian hypothesis - Vajay
thought it had been firmly established that Edward the Exile stayed in
Russia until at least 1046, when he moved to Hungary, but this may be
questionable. Chroniclers at the time in the West, not having access to
Google Maps and Wikipedia, may have confused Russia and Hungary as both
somewhere beyond the pale of old Christianity. The annalist of
Hildesheim abbey described Imré, the son of King Stephen and Gisela of
Bavaria, as "dux Ruizorum" in reporting his death in 1031 - this odd
title has been glossed by historians as indicating he was commander of
the royal guard to which mercenaries from Rus' were recruited, or from
confusing Rus' with Ruthenia.
The chronology and migrations of Edward the Exile has been heavily influenced by the framework laid out by Ronay, which seems to be taken for granted by most recent accounts, but I have always been less than impressed. He almost certainly is far afield when he suggests that Edmund Ironside married the daughter of Swedish king Olaf, who would then be grandfather of Edward the Exile. No citation is given. I looked for the origin of this many years back, and only found it in a historical fiction novel from the early 1900s.
Ronay's book is "utterly unreliable" according to Mynors, Thomson &
Winterbottom in their 1998 edition of William of Malmesbury's 'Gesta
regum'. That comment is about as damning as any opinion expressed in an
Oxford Medieval Texts edition.

Vajay wrote: "Andrew married Anastasia, daughter of Jaroslaw, and went
to reconquer his Kingdom in 1046, defeating Peter Orseolo. He was
crowned as King Andrew I, in 1047. Edward and Edmund seem to have been
Andrew's comrades in arms in this undertakinq. Edward then aged 30, was
already married to Agatha: their wedding was celebrated in Russia, in
1943 [sic, recte 1043] or early in 1044", and in a note: "Karacsonyi's
final conclusions are erroneous, but his chronological demonstration [in
*Turul* 42 (1928)] of the English princes' arrival to Hungary In 1046 is
correct".

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-04-30 04:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Vajay wrote: "Andrew married Anastasia, daughter of Jaroslaw, and went
to reconquer his Kingdom in 1046, defeating Peter Orseolo. He was
crowned as King Andrew I, in 1047. Edward and Edmund seem to have been
Andrew's comrades in arms in this undertakinq. Edward then aged 30, was
already married to Agatha: their wedding was celebrated in Russia, in
1943 [sic, recte 1043] or early in 1044", and in a note: "Karacsonyi's
final conclusions are erroneous, but his chronological demonstration [in
*Turul* 42 (1928)] of the English princes' arrival to Hungary In 1046 is
correct".
At one point I had a copy of this 1928 article. I would love to confirm Vajay's characterizations of it but I couldn't read any more than isolated words here and there. ~~~~
Peter Stewart
2017-04-30 05:49:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Vajay wrote: "Andrew married Anastasia, daughter of Jaroslaw, and went
to reconquer his Kingdom in 1046, defeating Peter Orseolo. He was
crowned as King Andrew I, in 1047. Edward and Edmund seem to have been
Andrew's comrades in arms in this undertakinq. Edward then aged 30, was
already married to Agatha: their wedding was celebrated in Russia, in
1943 [sic, recte 1043] or early in 1044", and in a note: "Karacsonyi's
final conclusions are erroneous, but his chronological demonstration [in
*Turul* 42 (1928)] of the English princes' arrival to Hungary In 1046 is
correct".
At one point I had a copy of this 1928 article. I would love to confirm Vajay's characterizations of it but I couldn't read any more than isolated words here and there. ~~~~
If it's worth your while to subscribe for a month, you can read it here:

https://adtplus.arcanum.hu/hu/view/Turul_1928/

and copy-paste into a translator (Hungarian seems to work fairly well in
Google Translate).

There are also two relevant articles by József Herzog on the origins of
St Margaret, 'Skóciai Szent Margit származásának kérdése' *Turul* 53
(1939) 1-40:

https://adtplus.arcanum.hu/hu/view/Turul_1939/

and 'Skóciai Szent Margit származásának kérdéséhez' *Turul* 54 (1940) 36-46:

https://adtplus.arcanum.hu/hu/view/Turul_1940/

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-04-30 06:37:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
https://adtplus.arcanum.hu/hu/view/Turul_1928/
While we are at it, the hard-to-find Mladjov paper presenting the 'Bulgarian hypothesis' can be seen here:

https://www.academia.edu/5629765/I._Mladjov_Reconsidering_Agatha_Wife_of_Eadward_the_Exile_The_Plantagenet_Connection_11_2003_1-85

Also, there is another paper that provides a fuller discussion of the the hypothetical framework surrounding her parents' marriage (which I haven't had a chance to read yet):

https://www.academia.edu/21618048/THE_FIRST_HUNGARIAN_PRINCESS_IN_MEDIAEVAL_BULGARIA

taf
Hans Vogels
2020-03-14 16:20:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
https://adtplus.arcanum.hu/hu/view/Turul_1928/
https://www.academia.edu/5629765/I._Mladjov_Reconsidering_Agatha_Wife_of_Eadward_the_Exile_The_Plantagenet_Connection_11_2003_1-85
https://www.academia.edu/21618048/THE_FIRST_HUNGARIAN_PRINCESS_IN_MEDIAEVAL_BULGARIA
taf
Ian Mladjov gave an updated en revised conclusion in 2015 in:
https://www.academia.edu/14079156/I._Mladjov_Bulgarians_and_Magyars_as_Allies_and_Rivals_across_the_Early_Medieval_Frontier_in_V._Gjuzelev_and_G._N._Nikolov_eds._South-Eastern_Europe_in_the_Second_Half_of_the_10th-the_Beginning_of_the_11th_Centuries_History_and_Culture_Sofia_2015_63-84

There he presents - based on the Bulgarian and Hungarian interaction - a hypothesis in which Sámuel Alba, king of Hungary 1041-1044, becomes the 2e son of Gavril Radomir, Bulgarian emperor 1014-1015, born (1002-1004) of his repudiated pregnant Hungarian wife. Sámuel Alba (by an "anonyma") was the father of a Péter, born in the early 1020s, who died in battle in 1074. The well-known Agatha could have been Sámuels daughter.

Mladjov previously held the opinion that Agatha might have been de child of the send away pregnant Hungarian wife. This new hypothesis constitutes - according to himself - a significant improvement of his previous opinion.

Mladjov does not venture on the subject of Sámuels wife. He sees Sámuel as the son of Gavril Radomir, the son of Samuil, Bulgarian emperor 997-1014, and of his wife Agathe Khryselaine.

I'm not giving an opinion on what Mladjov constructs but - in this new line of thought - could the anonymous wife of Sámuel Alba not be a scion of a German noble family with distant ties to a German king/emperor?

Hans Vogels
taf
2020-03-15 03:11:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
There he presents - based on the Bulgarian and Hungarian interaction - a hypothesis in which Sámuel Alba, king of Hungary 1041-1044, becomes the 2e son of Gavril Radomir, Bulgarian emperor 1014-1015, born (1002-1004) of his repudiated pregnant Hungarian wife. Sámuel Alba (by an "anonyma") was the father of a Péter, born in the early 1020s, who died in battle in 1074. The well-known Agatha could have been Sámuels daughter.
Mladjov previously held the opinion that Agatha might have been de child of the send away pregnant Hungarian wife. This new hypothesis constitutes - according to himself - a significant improvement of his previous opinion.
Mladjov does not venture on the subject of Sámuels wife. He sees Sámuel as the son of Gavril Radomir, the son of Samuil, Bulgarian emperor 997-1014, and of his wife Agathe Khryselaine.
I'm not giving an opinion on what Mladjov constructs but - in this new line of thought - could the anonymous wife of Sámuel Alba not be a scion of a German noble family with distant ties to a German king/emperor?
To me, plucking a Hungarian king claimed to have Cuman ancestry out of his documented (eh, not very well documented, but still) context and making him a Bulgarian royal simply to make an onomastic argument regarding the obscure wife of an English prince just seems to me to be trying too hard.

taf
Hans Vogels
2020-03-15 09:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Hans Vogels
There he presents - based on the Bulgarian and Hungarian interaction - a hypothesis in which Sámuel Alba, king of Hungary 1041-1044, becomes the 2e son of Gavril Radomir, Bulgarian emperor 1014-1015, born (1002-1004) of his repudiated pregnant Hungarian wife. Sámuel Alba (by an "anonyma") was the father of a Péter, born in the early 1020s, who died in battle in 1074. The well-known Agatha could have been Sámuels daughter.
Mladjov previously held the opinion that Agatha might have been de child of the send away pregnant Hungarian wife. This new hypothesis constitutes - according to himself - a significant improvement of his previous opinion.
Mladjov does not venture on the subject of Sámuels wife. He sees Sámuel as the son of Gavril Radomir, the son of Samuil, Bulgarian emperor 997-1014, and of his wife Agathe Khryselaine.
I'm not giving an opinion on what Mladjov constructs but - in this new line of thought - could the anonymous wife of Sámuel Alba not be a scion of a German noble family with distant ties to a German king/emperor?
To me, plucking a Hungarian king claimed to have Cuman ancestry out of his documented (eh, not very well documented, but still) context and making him a Bulgarian royal simply to make an onomastic argument regarding the obscure wife of an English prince just seems to me to be trying too hard.
taf
I think this description does not do justice to Mladjovs hypothesis.

If you read the two papers in sequence you would have noticed that in the first one he gives a good inventory with their merits and downpoints of all the then known theories. He explains why he chooses for a Hungaryan origin and dives in the historical context and tries to find a plausble solution.

In the second one he comes back to the historical scene and the chronology of certain aspects. In the first he was kind of following the mainstream opinion. In the second he is more critical and he points out to a different explanation of a detail. That lead him to a simpler solution. He does not change the onomastics. Mladjov scetches a clear political scene on the years 1040-1056 in which the English prince had to manouver.

Tom me the descent for Agatha one way or another is not especially important. It interesting to read about the historical background and on what is sure or on what can be reconstructed with a certain degree.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2020-03-15 12:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by taf
Post by Hans Vogels
There he presents - based on the Bulgarian and Hungarian interaction - a hypothesis in which Sámuel Alba, king of Hungary 1041-1044, becomes the 2e son of Gavril Radomir, Bulgarian emperor 1014-1015, born (1002-1004) of his repudiated pregnant Hungarian wife. Sámuel Alba (by an "anonyma") was the father of a Péter, born in the early 1020s, who died in battle in 1074. The well-known Agatha could have been Sámuels daughter.
Mladjov previously held the opinion that Agatha might have been de child of the send away pregnant Hungarian wife. This new hypothesis constitutes - according to himself - a significant improvement of his previous opinion.
Mladjov does not venture on the subject of Sámuels wife. He sees Sámuel as the son of Gavril Radomir, the son of Samuil, Bulgarian emperor 997-1014, and of his wife Agathe Khryselaine.
I'm not giving an opinion on what Mladjov constructs but - in this new line of thought - could the anonymous wife of Sámuel Alba not be a scion of a German noble family with distant ties to a German king/emperor?
To me, plucking a Hungarian king claimed to have Cuman ancestry out of his documented (eh, not very well documented, but still) context and making him a Bulgarian royal simply to make an onomastic argument regarding the obscure wife of an English prince just seems to me to be trying too hard.
taf
I think this description does not do justice to Mladjovs hypothesis.
If you read the two papers in sequence you would have noticed that in the first one he gives a good inventory with their merits and downpoints of all the then known theories. He explains why he chooses for a Hungaryan origin and dives in the historical context and tries to find a plausble solution.
In the second one he comes back to the historical scene and the chronology of certain aspects. In the first he was kind of following the mainstream opinion. In the second he is more critical and he points out to a different explanation of a detail. That lead him to a simpler solution. He does not change the onomastics. Mladjov scetches a clear political scene on the years 1040-1056 in which the English prince had to manouver.
Tom me the descent for Agatha one way or another is not especially important. It interesting to read about the historical background and on what is sure or on what can be reconstructed with a certain degree.
The attempt on p. 79 to make Aba Sámuel into a sister's son of the first
Hungarian king St Stephen is highly doubtful.

The word 'sororius' can have this meaning, as Mladjov says, but the
source using this term for Aba Sámuel in relationship to St Stephen uses
the same term three times for other men when it necessarily means a
sister's husband.

Szabolcs de Vajay confused this question by rejecting sister's son as a
possible interpretation (relying on the first edition of Niermeyer's
dictionary, which had omitted this meaning for the word - though it was
later included in the second edition). György Györffy in his biography
of St Stephen (*István király és műve*, original edition 1977) took the
contrary view, and their opinions were discussed by Gyula Kristó in 1992
('Aba Sámuel és Károly Róbert családi kapcsolatairól' in *Acta
Universitatis Szegediensis: acta historica* 96). Kristó ended up with
the same conclusion as Vajay, but got there through better-informed
reasoning. He argued against Györffy's view that Aba Sámuel had a claim
by blood to the Hungarian throne and that he must have belonged to the
same generation as his rival Peter Orseolo.

If Agatha had been a daughter of Aba Sámuel (by the way, Wertner thought
that Aba was his pagan name and that he was baptised Sámuel on
conversion rather than named after a grandfather of this name) she would
have had a lot of close relatives, since most of the older Hungarian
nobility claimed descent from him - from memory there are supposed to be
29 main branches of his descendants, of which 28 are descended from sons
other than Peter who is the only one noted in Mladjov's article.

Peter Stewart



Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-03-16 10:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by taf
Post by Hans Vogels
There he presents - based on the Bulgarian and Hungarian interaction
- a hypothesis in which Sámuel Alba, king of Hungary 1041-1044,
becomes the 2e son of Gavril Radomir, Bulgarian emperor 1014-1015,
born (1002-1004) of his repudiated pregnant Hungarian wife. Sámuel
Alba (by an "anonyma") was the father of a Péter, born in the early
1020s, who died in battle in 1074. The well-known Agatha could have
been Sámuels daughter.
Mladjov previously held the opinion that Agatha might have been de
child of the send away pregnant Hungarian wife. This new hypothesis
constitutes - according to himself - a significant improvement of
his previous opinion.
Mladjov does not venture on the subject of Sámuels wife. He sees
Sámuel as the son of Gavril Radomir, the son of Samuil, Bulgarian
emperor 997-1014, and of his wife Agathe Khryselaine.
I'm not giving an opinion on what Mladjov constructs but - in this
new line of thought - could the anonymous wife of Sámuel Alba not be
a scion of a German noble family with distant ties to a German
king/emperor?
To me, plucking a Hungarian king claimed to have Cuman ancestry out
of his documented (eh, not very well documented, but still) context
and making him a Bulgarian royal simply to make an onomastic argument
regarding the obscure wife of an English prince just seems to me to
be trying too hard.
taf
I think this description does not do justice to Mladjovs hypothesis.
If you read the two papers in sequence you would have noticed that in
the first one he gives a good inventory with their merits and
downpoints of all the then known theories. He explains why he chooses
for a Hungaryan origin and dives in the historical context and tries
to find a plausble solution.
In the second one he comes back to the historical scene and the
chronology of certain aspects. In the first he was kind of following
the mainstream opinion. In the second he is more critical and he
points out to a different explanation of a detail. That lead him to a
simpler solution. He does not change the onomastics. Mladjov scetches
a clear political scene on the years 1040-1056 in which the English
prince had to manouver.
Tom me the descent for Agatha one way or another is not especially
important. It interesting to read about the historical background and
on what is sure or on what can be reconstructed with a certain degree.
The attempt on p. 79 to make Aba Sámuel into a sister's son of the first
Hungarian king St Stephen is highly doubtful.
The word 'sororius' can have this meaning, as Mladjov says, but the
source using this term for Aba Sámuel in relationship to St Stephen uses
the same term three times for other men when it necessarily means a
sister's husband.
Szabolcs de Vajay confused this question by rejecting sister's son as a
possible interpretation (relying on the first edition of Niermeyer's
dictionary, which had omitted this meaning for the word - though it was
later included in the second edition). György Györffy in his biography
of St Stephen (*István király és műve*, original edition 1977) took the
contrary view, and their opinions were discussed by Gyula Kristó in 1992
('Aba Sámuel és Károly Róbert családi kapcsolatairól' in *Acta
Universitatis Szegediensis: acta historica* 96). Kristó ended up with
the same conclusion as Vajay, but got there through better-informed
reasoning. He argued against Györffy's view that Aba Sámuel had a claim
by blood to the Hungarian throne and that he must have belonged to the
same generation as his rival Peter Orseolo.
If Agatha had been a daughter of Aba Sámuel (by the way, Wertner thought
that Aba was his pagan name and that he was baptised Sámuel on
conversion rather than named after a grandfather of this name) she would
have had a lot of close relatives, since most of the older Hungarian
nobility claimed descent from him - from memory there are supposed to be
29 main branches of his descendants, of which 28 are descended from sons
other than Peter who is the only one noted in Mladjov's article.
This was a memory that I should have checked first: the legend that the
"Aba" clan of noble families in Hungary are descended from King Aba
Sámuel is apparently just an old fiction. (This story is attached among
others to the Rhédey family, that of Queen Elizabeth II's maternal
grandmother Queen Mary's closest line of non-royal ancestors.)

It seems that the male lineage of these families cannot be traced beyond
a man named Aba who lived in the early-13th century, who has been
fancifully conflated with the 11th-century king of the same name.

Some people treat names as a kind of talisman that can cast magic over
genealogies. The wife of Aba Sámuel was thought to have been a sister of
St Stephen, so in the 18th century someone gave her the name Sarolta on
the (unproven) assumption that this was his mother's name and therefore
probably also hers. Someone else later believed that the wife's name was
definitely Sarolta and that consequently she must have been the daughter
of her father's presumed first wife Sarolta since his (assumed, not
proven) second wife was named Adelaide.

O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ...
ourselves.

Peter Stewart

taf
2020-03-15 15:31:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by taf
To me, plucking a Hungarian king claimed to have Cuman ancestry out of his documented (eh, not very well documented, but still) context and making him a Bulgarian royal simply to make an onomastic argument regarding the obscure wife of an English prince just seems to me to be trying too hard.
I think this description does not do justice to Mladjovs hypothesis.
Perhaps, but the motivation for making Aba Samuel Bulgarian is to solve the Agatha conundrum, not because there is any actual evidence for it. You have a Hungarian princess being sent away, pregnant, from Bulgaria, so this must be Petar Deljan . . . no, this must be Agatha . . . no, this must be Aba Samuel.

While he is free to argue that 'sororus' means that Aba Samuel could just as well be nephew rather than brother-in-law, that doesn't mean that is the preferred usage. Choosing to make him nephew, and further, choosing to make him Bulgarian, is entirely driven by the onomastics of the Agatha solution: Agathe-Agatha, Samuil-Samuel, Petar-Peter, QED (except it is not).
Post by Hans Vogels
If you read the two papers in sequence you would have noticed that in the first one he gives a good inventory with their merits and downpoints of all the then known theories. He explains why he chooses for a Hungaryan origin and dives in the historical context and tries to find a plausble solution.
In other words, this is about Agatha. Chronology prevented his original hypothesis that she was daughter of Gavril, so to solve _her_ chronological problem, the Cuman brother-in-law Aba alias Samuel must become the Bulgarian nephew Samuil Aba.

taf
taf
2020-03-15 19:59:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
In other words, this is about Agatha. Chronology prevented his original hypothesis that she was daughter of Gavril, so to solve _her_ chronological problem, the Cuman brother-in-law Aba alias Samuel must become the Bulgarian nephew Samuil Aba.
Just to be clear where I am coming from here, I am not arguing that established views on relationships are sacrosanct, nor that one must automatically give deference to iffy sourcing like we have on Aba Samuel. Sometimes, a well-founded chain of evidence tells you that what we think we know is wrong, and one has to tear down the house and start from scratch (for example, much of what has come down to us on Iberian nobility in the earlier periods had just layers and layers of misinformation and speculation disguised as knowledge that has to be cut through, an ongoing process). However, it is one thing to do so when you have an incontrovertible piece of evidence that tells you the traditional pedigree is wrong. It is another thing to do so when you have eight pieces of evidence that are all conflicting or even mutually exclusive, with more than a dozen different reconstructions on the table, but you decide that none of the sources are accurate, and go about reconfiguring other relationships just to produce a scenario that allows your latest additional Agatha pet theory to be possible.

Any change in the pedigree of Aba Samuel that is brought about in an attempt to achieve a desired placement for the enigmatic Agatha, as appears to be going on here, is a house built on quicksand.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-03-16 00:21:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
In other words, this is about Agatha. Chronology prevented his original hypothesis that she was daughter of Gavril, so to solve _her_ chronological problem, the Cuman brother-in-law Aba alias Samuel must become the Bulgarian nephew Samuil Aba.
Just to be clear where I am coming from here, I am not arguing that established views on relationships are sacrosanct, nor that one must automatically give deference to iffy sourcing like we have on Aba Samuel. Sometimes, a well-founded chain of evidence tells you that what we think we know is wrong, and one has to tear down the house and start from scratch (for example, much of what has come down to us on Iberian nobility in the earlier periods had just layers and layers of misinformation and speculation disguised as knowledge that has to be cut through, an ongoing process). However, it is one thing to do so when you have an incontrovertible piece of evidence that tells you the traditional pedigree is wrong. It is another thing to do so when you have eight pieces of evidence that are all conflicting or even mutually exclusive, with more than a dozen different reconstructions on the table, but you decide that none of the sources are accurate, and go about reconfiguring other relationships just to produce a scenario that allows your latest additional Agatha pet theory to be possible.
Any change in the pedigree of Aba Samuel that is brought about in an attempt to achieve a desired placement for the enigmatic Agatha, as appears to be going on here, is a house built on quicksand.
The suggestion that Aba Sámuel was Bulgarian first appeared in the 18th
century, before it was realised that the Hungarian king known until then
as Aba and the one known only from coins as Sámuel were one and the same
person. It was wrongly supposed that Samuel of Bulgaria might have
extended his rule to Hungary and minted coins as "king of Pannonia".

But the idea that any ruler after him with the same name must have been
descended from him is a new wrinkle in the literature.

Trying to solve puzzles in history from onomastics alone is an absurd
and wasteful effort. At the risk of prompting a screed from some
religious nutter, if everyone had to be named after an ancestor we would
all be called Adam or Eve. No custom in any culture is absolutely
mandatory, and every attempt to enforce such rules has been much more
likely to end the culture itself than diversity within it.

The over-simplifying methodology of Maurice Chaume and his unduly
enthused followers have a lot of mistakes to answer for. Human affairs
are not reducible to fixed patterns with predictable permutations, in
the naming of childr
Stewart Baldwin
2017-04-29 19:25:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of Worcester
allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and since Henry
III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and since John
uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the conclusion
is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was daughter of
one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.
You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana was
a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly thought
a full-sister.
Not exactly conclusive.
I agree. The study that I did on John of Worcester's use of the word(s)
"germanus/germana" does not prove that John of Worcester would have used
the words "germanus" and "frater" as somewhat interchangeable, only that
that interpretation is consistent with the known evidence. So, the
evidence that Agatha was a daughter of a half-brother of Heinrich III is
much weaker than it would have been if John of Worcester had
specifically called Agatha a daughter of a uterine brother of Heinrich
III. On the other hand, I think that this study shows that attempts by
the opponents of this hypothesis to rule it out by claiming that
"germanus" must mean "full brother" are not valid. In my opinion, the
evidence for the "German" hypothesis is rather weak, and can be
considered the "best" solution only in the sense that the others are all
weaker. The parentage of Agatha should be regarded as unknown, and all
attempts to "fill in the blank" with one of the suggested "solutions"
are misguided. I have serious doubts that a satisfactory solution to
the problem of Agatha's parentage will ever be found. If really
compelling new evidence for her parentage is ever discovered, I kind of
hope that it will be something bizarre that is completely different from
all of the "solutions" proposed so far. [Since the first day of this
month is now a few weeks in the past, I will have to wait more than
eleven months before I post my definitive solution to the problem. :-)]

With regard to the Agatha page at the "Geni" website, it is an
incoherent mess. Like many pages at Geni, most of it consists of
copy-pastes from other websites, with minimal connecting material by the
"author."

Stewart Baldwin
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-29 20:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Stewart Baldwin wrote
[Since the first day of this
month is now a few weeks in the past, I will have to wait more than
eleven months before I post my definitive solution to the problem. :-)]

What are you talking about Mr.Baldwin I didn't understand this sentence.
j***@gmail.com
2017-04-29 20:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That you will have to wait until April 1st next year to find out.
Stewart Baldwin
2017-04-29 20:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stewart Baldwin
[Since the first day of this
month is now a few weeks in the past, I will have to wait more than
eleven months before I post my definitive solution to the problem. :-)]
What are you talking about Mr.Baldwin I didn't understand this sentence.
The first of April is known as "April Fools Day" in some countries. I'm
not sure how widespread it is, but in general it means that pranks and
hoaxes tend to happen on that day. Doing a web search on "April Fools
Day" will give you more information.

Stewart Baldwin
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
2017-04-30 05:56:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Stewart Baldwin
[Since the first day of this
month is now a few weeks in the past, I will have to wait more than
eleven months before I post my definitive solution to the problem. :-)]
What are you talking about Mr.Baldwin I didn't understand this sentence.
The first of April is known as "April Fools Day" in some countries. I'm
not sure how widespread it is, but in general it means that pranks and
hoaxes tend to happen on that day. Doing a web search on "April Fools
Day" will give you more information.
Stewart Baldwin
Well, in Catholic countries it is 28 December when these pranks are done.
JL
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-30 15:11:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Stewart Baldwin
[Since the first day of this
month is now a few weeks in the past, I will have to wait more than
eleven months before I post my definitive solution to the problem. :-)]
What are you talking about Mr.Baldwin I didn't understand this sentence.
The first of April is known as "April Fools Day" in some countries. I'm
not sure how widespread it is, but in general it means that pranks and
hoaxes tend to happen on that day. Doing a web search on "April Fools
Day" will give you more information.
Stewart Baldwin
Well, in Catholic countries it is 28 December when these pranks are done.
JL
Not in all catholic countries just in Spain, Spanish America and Philipinnes.
Paulo Canedo
2017-04-30 09:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1th April is also fools' day in my country But I didn't remember.
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 23:09:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart as is discussed by the Henry II project John of
Worcester allowed the word germanus to extend to half siblings and
since Henry III had no full brothers or paternal half brothers and
since John uses the word always to siblings wheter full or half the
conclusion is that if his statement about Agatha is correct she was
daughter of one of the maternal half brothers of Henry III.
You are assuming that the word 'germani' was John of Worcester's own
usage rather than taken by him (or his anonymous colleague) from the
source of the information.
You are also taking Stewart Baldwin's remarks too far - he found two
cases where germanus/germana was used in the chronicle for known
half-siblings - the germanus involved was a paternal half-brother
(though the chronicler may not have known this), while the germana
was a uterine half-sister whom the chronicler may have mistakenly
thought a full-sister.
Not exactly conclusive.
I agree. The study that I did on John of Worcester's use of the
word(s) "germanus/germana" does not prove that John of Worcester would
have used the words "germanus" and "frater" as somewhat
interchangeable, only that that interpretation is consistent with the
known evidence. So, the evidence that Agatha was a daughter of a
half-brother of Heinrich III is much weaker than it would have been if
John of Worcester had specifically called Agatha a daughter of a
uterine brother of Heinrich III. On the other hand, I think that this
study shows that attempts by the opponents of this hypothesis to rule
it out by claiming that "germanus" must mean "full brother" are not
valid. In my opinion, the evidence for the "German" hypothesis is
rather weak, and can be considered the "best" solution only in the
sense that the others are all weaker. The parentage of Agatha should
be regarded as unknown, and all attempts to "fill in the blank" with
one of the suggested "solutions" are misguided. I have serious doubts
that a satisfactory solution to the problem of Agatha's parentage will
ever be found. If really compelling new evidence for her parentage is
ever discovered, I kind of hope that it will be something bizarre that
is completely different from all of the "solutions" proposed so far.
The newsgroup should have a set of principled statements carved in
stone, and Stewart Baldwin has provided one of these: "The parentage of
Agatha should be regarded as unknown". If only...

But since wishful belief is the most common and persistent of human
failings, some will no doubt go on persuading themselves that they have
hit on the answer.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 04:55:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
I'm personally convinced that it refers to Henry III and anyways he
is of the two possible emperors the more plausible candidate since
no brother of Henry II is a plausible candidate to be Agatha's father.
Heinrich III had no full-brother, or paternal half-brother, so that
calling Agatha 'filiam germani imperatoris' is a bit of a stretch for
him too.
Heinrich II had both a full-brother and a paternal half-brother, but
they were a bishop and an archbishop respectively.
The emendation to 'filiam germane' proposed by Darlington & McGurk
hasn't received much attention - I think it's unlikely that Heinrich
of Bavaria and Gisela of Burgundy had an otherwise unknown daughter,
but if they did the name Agatha would hardly be more exotic than that
of their daughter Brigida, also named after a saint (one from Ireland,
the other from Sicily, both of them venerated in Germany at the time).
There is some evidence that Heinrich II did have an unknown married
sister - in the annals of Quedlinburg under 1009 is reported:
"Machtildis regiae sororis filia obdormivit in domino" (Mathilde
daughter of the royal (or kingly) sister died).

In 1009 Heinrich II was the German king (he did not become emperor until
1014), and this Mathilde was not a daughter of his sister Gisela who was
then queen of Hungary.

Gerd Althoff made a convoluted attempt to interpret this entry as
meaning "an (unnamed) daughter of the royal sister Mathilde died", and
then identified Mathilde as a sister of Otto III who had died (as
emperor, not king) in 1002. The Quedlinburg annalist surely knew better
than this. Althoff further muddled the matter by identifying the unnamed
daughter as Adelheid, an abbess, who died before 1011 - but this was
almost certainly a different Adelheid from Otto III's niece, who
probably lived until the early 1050s.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 09:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
I'm personally convinced that it refers to Henry III and anyways he
is of the two possible emperors the more plausible candidate since
no brother of Henry II is a plausible candidate to be Agatha's father.
Heinrich III had no full-brother, or paternal half-brother, so that
calling Agatha 'filiam germani imperatoris' is a bit of a stretch for
him too.
Heinrich II had both a full-brother and a paternal half-brother, but
they were a bishop and an archbishop respectively.
The emendation to 'filiam germane' proposed by Darlington & McGurk
hasn't received much attention - I think it's unlikely that Heinrich
of Bavaria and Gisela of Burgundy had an otherwise unknown daughter,
but if they did the name Agatha would hardly be more exotic than that
of their daughter Brigida, also named after a saint (one from
Ireland, the other from Sicily, both of them venerated in Germany at
the time).
There is some evidence that Heinrich II did have an unknown married
"Machtildis regiae sororis filia obdormivit in domino" (Mathilde
daughter of the royal (or kingly) sister died).
In 1009 Heinrich II was the German king (he did not become emperor
until 1014), and this Mathilde was not a daughter of his sister Gisela
who was then queen of Hungary.
Gerd Althoff made a convoluted attempt to interpret this entry as
meaning "an (unnamed) daughter of the royal sister Mathilde died", and
then identified Mathilde as a sister of Otto III who had died (as
emperor, not king) in 1002. The Quedlinburg annalist surely knew
better than this. Althoff further muddled the matter by identifying
the unnamed daughter as Adelheid, an abbess, who died before 1011 -
but this was almost certainly a different Adelheid from Otto III's
niece, who probably lived until the early 1050s.
It was certainly a different Adelheid - the niece of Otto III was
buried, according to her own wish, at Brauweiler abbey with both parents
and two of her brothers, see the addition at * here:

http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000891.html?pageNo=130.

Brauweiler was founded by her father in 1024, so obviously Adelheid
could not have wished to be buried there before 1011 when her namesake
abbess of Nivelles had died. The rather sneering comment on the work of
Klaus Gereon Beuckers by the latest editor of the Quedlinburg annals
here (note 1279):

http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000719.html?pageNo=529

may be reasonable as regards the purported marriage of Adelheid, but not
as to her misidentification and the misdating of her death by Gerd
Althoff - "Unter Ignorierung der Annalen" is ridiculous, since the entry
in the annals patently has nothing to do with her.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-04-28 22:39:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
To clarify as said in Agatha's page in the Henry II Project the genealogical
appendix says Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici III.
As we have been discussing, the 'preface' (not appendix) says "filiam germani imperatoris Henrici tertii"
Post by Paulo Canedo
So he is clearly identifying the emperator as Henry III undermining any
attempt to use his testimony in favor of the Hungarian Hyphotesis as was
often made.
It is a bit more complex than this: how did the pedigrees and genealogies vs the chronicle, come to be recorded as part of the same collection? Do they represent a single body of knowledge recorded two different ways, or were they two independent works that were combined, or most importantly, were the genealogies extracted from the chronicle (or vice versa). And just to be clear what I am suggesting, if some clerical genealogist decided to extract (and enhance) the relevant material from an earlier version of the chronicle he was about to copy, as a useful guide, might that person have assumed which Henry was being referred to, without knowing anything more than what is written in the chronicle?
The Oxford manuscript is the source of the others that are extant (both
directly and indirectly for the Cambridge copy), so that is the starting
point to consider this question.

In it, the same scribe (C1 as identified by Darlington and McGurk)
compiled the genealogies placed at the start of the manuscript and the
relevant passage in the chronicle proper. The two passages ("Eaduuardus
uero Agatham ... clitonem Eadgarum suscepit") were clearly written by
the same hand, and are the same except for the following details:

1. The name 'Eaduuardus' has a capital E in the genealogy but not in the
chronicle
2. The emperor's name is spelled 'Heanrici' in the genealogy and
'Heinrici' in the chronicle
3. He is given the ordinal 'tertii' in the genealogy but this is omitted
in the chronicle
4. The words 'reginam' and 'scottorum' after Margaret's name in the
genealogy are reversed in the chronicle
5. The word 'sanctimonialem' is interpolated in the chronicle between
the words 'Cristina uirginem'.

From this it appears that the scribe was either inaccurate in copying
once from himself or inconsistent in copying twice from another source.
In any case he was not concentrating very well when he spelled Heinrici
(a name he wrote in this form frequently) as Heanrici in the genealogy.
Perhaps he was nodding when he added the ordinal 'tertii' at the same
time - at least this is a bit more likely than that it was a lapse when
he omitted it later, while yet picking up 'sanctimonialem' that had been
omitted earlier for Cristina. This additional word suggests that he was
not copying from himself but used another source on both occasions.

We can't be certain that 'tertii' was not an ad hoc assumption of his
own at the first time of writing that the scribe was not confident
enough to repeat at the second.

By the way, the question of Agatha's parentage was examined recently by
Maria Havrylyshyn in her 2015 Lviv University dissertation on the
political and marriage connections between British and Rurikid dynasties
from the 9th to 11th centuries. Not surprisingly, from a Ukrainian
perspective, she is inclined towards the Slavic solution that fits best
with her thesis, but she concludes that the puzzle can't be definitively
resolved.

Peter Stewart
The Hoorn
2017-04-29 21:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter: in your post, you said "In it, the same scribe (C1 as identified by Darlington and McGurk) compiled the genealogies placed at the start of the manuscript and the relevant passage in the chronicle proper. The two passages ("Eaduuardus uero Agatham ... clitonem Eadgarum suscepit")", what folio is this located in the manuscript?: http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=corpus&manuscript=ms157

Thanks!
taf
2017-04-29 21:43:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Hoorn
Peter: in your post, you said "In it, the same scribe (C1 as identified by Darlington and McGurk) compiled the genealogies placed at the start of the manuscript and the relevant passage in the chronicle proper. The two passages ("Eaduuardus uero Agatham ... clitonem Eadgarum suscepit")", what folio is this located in the manuscript?: http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=corpus&manuscript=ms157
He gave these earlier as p. 53 and p. 328, which I can confirm.

taf
The Hoorn
2017-04-29 21:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks. Kind of got lost in the bushes. lol. Appreciate it.
Peter Stewart
2017-04-29 23:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Hoorn
Thanks. Kind of got lost in the bushes. lol. Appreciate it.
Apologies for the scatter-shot nature of my posts in this thread - as in
others. I suppose newsgroup discussions are (to a degree inevitably)
thinking aloud by a tag-team, or by several tag-teams. I find the
quickest way to review a thread is via the Rootsweb archive,
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2017-04/1493314686.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-04-28 23:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
To clarify as said in Agatha's page in the Henry II Project the genealogical
appendix says Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici III.
As we have been discussing, the 'preface' (not appendix) says "filiam
germani imperatoris Henrici tertii"
Post by Paulo Canedo
So he is clearly identifying the emperator as Henry III undermining any
attempt to use his testimony in favor of the Hungarian Hyphotesis as was
often made.
It is a bit more complex than this: how did the pedigrees and
genealogies vs the chronicle, come to be recorded as part of the same
collection? Do they represent a single body of knowledge recorded two
different ways, or were they two independent works that were
combined, or most importantly, were the genealogies extracted from
the chronicle (or vice versa). And just to be clear what I am
suggesting, if some clerical genealogist decided to extract (and
enhance) the relevant material from an earlier version of the
chronicle he was about to copy, as a useful guide, might that person
have assumed which Henry was being referred to, without knowing
anything more than what is written in the chronicle?
The Oxford manuscript is the source of the others that are extant
(both directly and indirectly for the Cambridge copy), so that is the
starting point to consider this question.
In it, the same scribe (C1 as identified by Darlington and McGurk)
compiled the genealogies placed at the start of the manuscript and the
relevant passage in the chronicle proper. The two passages
("Eaduuardus uero Agatham ... clitonem Eadgarum suscepit") were
clearly written by the same hand, and are the same except for the
1. The name 'Eaduuardus' has a capital E in the genealogy but not in
the chronicle
2. The emperor's name is spelled 'Heanrici' in the genealogy and
'Heinrici' in the chronicle
3. He is given the ordinal 'tertii' in the genealogy but this is
omitted in the chronicle
4. The words 'reginam' and 'scottorum' after Margaret's name in the
genealogy are reversed in the chronicle
5. The word 'sanctimonialem' is interpolated in the chronicle between
the words 'Cristina uirginem'.
My fingers have a laziness as well as a stubborn mind of their own - I
was silently expanding the words as written, but left off the final 'm'
from 'Cristinam'.

Scribal errors in the Oxford manuscript are not as frequent as my typing
errors here, of course, but as with any human endeavour they are easily
made.

Peter Stewart
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
2017-04-28 22:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
Actually if you don't know the genealogical appendix of John says specifically
that it was Heinrich III who was intended.
That took me a while to find, particularly since at least in the CCCC MS it is not an appendix at all, it is a preface. I freely admit that I am going from a poor image, but I am having problem seeing that as "III". Anyhow, has there been any discussion on how this disorganized collection of pedigrees, genealogies and lists of bishps relates to the rest of the manuscript - is it thought to have beeen compiled at the same time, or is this an add-on, and perhaps more removed that the chronicle portion?
taf
To clarify as said in Agatha's page in the Henry II Project the genealogical appendix says Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici III. So he is clearly identifying the emperator as Henry III undermining any attempt to use his testimony in favor of the Hungarian Hyphotesis as was often made.
That is not the only statement in Agatha's page in the Henry II Project. The discussion of the different sources is quite lengthy and then there is a table analyzing each one of the theories and their feasibility. Which, as taf pointed out, lead to the conclusion, none of the above (i.e.: Bruno, Bulgarian, Byzantine, Cristinus, German, Hungarian, Polish, and Russian Hypotheses)
Loading...