• Early 11th-century counts of Louvain - part 1

    From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 12 17:11:07 2022
    According to an interpolation at the end of the entry for 1038 in
    manuscripts of Sigebert of Gembloux's chronicle, Henry (I) of Louvain
    was murdered in his own house by a captive (probably a hostage treated
    as his guest) and succeeded by his son Otto, who died prematurely and
    was in turn succeeded by a paternal uncle Baldric aka Lambert (II),
    here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_6/index.htm#page/357/mode/2up. This was copied, but placed under 1039 and with the uncle's names given in
    reverse, in a chronicle of Brabant written in or shortly after 1294,
    here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_25/index.htm#page/407/mode/1up.

    This succession (Henry I > Otto > Lambert II) was accepted without
    challenge until 2018, when Frans van Droogenbroeck argued - I think
    wrongly - that Otto did not exist and that Lambert II had directly
    succeeded his brother Henry I, here: https://www.academia.edu/36736769.

    The main evidence adduced for rubbing out Otto was that he is not
    mentioned in a Vita of St Gudila formerly thought to be a second
    recension from the 12th century but reasonably enough considered by Van Droogenbroeck to be the earlier version, ascribed by him to ca 1048 and attributed to Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's
    chaplain Odulf. Much work done on this source has in my view biased Van Droogenbroeck to think it more authoritative, and to take it more
    literally, than is warranted. In recording Lambert II's presence in
    Brussels on 16 November 1047 it says that he was successor to his
    brother Henry ("Lambertus uero, qui et baldricus comes, henrico fratri succedens"), p. 178 here: https://www.academia.edu/28937351.

    Van Droogenbroeck took this to mean that Lambert must have succeeded
    Henry directly, rather than becoming count after him but following the
    brief incumbency of a young nephew, Otto. However, there is other
    written evidence (though uncertain) for the existence of Otto that he disregarded and some fairly strong circumstantial evidence for another hereditary count between Henry and Lambert that in my view he
    misinterpreted. He also glossed over the problem that the Vita in
    question is not comprehensively reliable for genealogical details, since
    for instance Henry's and Lambert's maternal grandfather the Carolingian
    Charles of Laon is described as son of his brother Lothar IV ("karolus
    filius lotharii regis francorum"), p. 175 in the edition by Van
    Droogenbroeck linked above.

    In the late-14th century annals of Jacques de Guise some verses about
    the counts of Louvain are quoted from a lost history of Brabant written
    by a William abbot of Saint-Trond, probably William of Affligem (abbot 1277-1297 and reputed as a poet) or possibly William of Ryckel (abbot 1249-1272), here:
    https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_30_1/index.htm#page/184/mode/1up. The
    interest of this fragment for the question of Otto's existence is in the ninth–twelfth lines, meaning 'To him (Lambert I) succeeded Henry (I)
    whom a son Otto follows, to no avail since he (Otto) was without issue.
    The latter is succeeded by Lambert, his paternal uncle, who presently
    rules these lands and Louvain'.

    The present tense used for Lambert ("regit ... praeest"), contrasted
    with the forgoing perfect tense for Henry ("successit") suggests a
    source of this information written by a contemporary while Lambert was
    count. In the fifth-sixth lines the author claims to have personally
    seen either Henry's and Lambert's mother Gerberga or to have seen
    chronicles giving her as a sister to Charles of Laon's son Otto (from
    whom Brussels was probably inherited by the counts of Louvain, and after
    whom Henry's son Otto would be apparently named). Now obviously neither
    of the 13th-century abbots William can have seen Gerberga herself, so
    the editor suggested that the plural "dant chronica" (chronicles relate)
    in the fifth line should be amended to the singular "dat chronica" in
    order to agree with the end of the next line after Gerberga's name, "que
    michi visa fuit" (that was seen by myself). However, the use of "visa"
    rather than "lecta" implies having actually seen Gerberga rather than
    just reading about her, as does the ordering of phrases - the erratic
    syntax here may be due to clumsy versification by the 13th-century abbot
    of a mid-11th century prose source. Obviously this is not certain enough
    to refute Van Droogenbroeck's theory conclusively, but he entirely
    neglected to consider it.

    More definite circumstantial evidence can be found from the time at
    issue. In a charter dated 5 June 1040 the German King (later Emperor)
    Henry III restored the estate of Nivelles and its appurtenances to the
    nunnery of Sainte-Gertrude, as well as determining that there should be
    no count or advocate unless chosen by the abbess and that the nunnery
    should be free from all comital or advocatory power except by invitation
    in the cause of justice, here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/67/mode/2up. The counts
    of Louvain had held - and abused - the advocacy of Sainte-Gertrude since Lambert I at the beginning of the 11th century. Yet no count or advocate
    is specified by name in Henry III's charter, that was issued not long
    after the murder of Count Henry I in 1038 or 1039. Van Droogenbroeck interpreted this as an implicit proscription of Lambert II, but it could
    just as well be understood as preventing the young (and perhaps already
    ailing) Otto from emulating the abuses of his father and grandfather, or possibly to restrain Lambert acting on behalf of an underage Otto
    without holding the comital title himself or exercising the advocacy in
    his own right at that time.

    In the following summer Henry III issued another charter for
    Sainte-Gertrude abbey, dated 3 June 1041, again restoring the estate of Nivelles to the nunnery but this time with the consent of Lambert, who
    is to retain his hereditary benefice after the extinction of all his predecessors as hereditary advocates, i.e. apparently not long after the premature death of Otto, here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/105/mode/1up. It would
    make no sense whatever for the king to say that God had wiped out all
    who had held the hereditary advocacy ("omnes, qui hereditatem virginis
    pro hereditario beneficio tenebant, extinxit") if Lambert, who was
    plainly not yet subject to divine wrath and was to retain limited
    authority from then on, had been the incumbent ever since Henry's murder
    two or three years beforehand.

    The suggestion by Van Droogenbroeck that the interpolation in Sigebert's chronicle above was due to mistaking another Otto, Emperor Otto II's
    Ezzonid grandson, count palatine of Lorraine and subsequently duke of
    Swabia (killed in 1047), who in the mid-1040s campaigned in the region
    of Ename approximately 85 kms west of Louvain, for a count of Louvain
    and alleged son of Henry I is wholly unconvincing.

    I will post later about the sisters of Otto, who were relegated by Van Droogenbroeck to a later generation that I think imaginary.

    Peter Stewart






    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hans Vogels@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 12 22:56:50 2022
    Op vrijdag 12 augustus 2022 om 09:11:10 UTC+2 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:
    According to an interpolation at the end of the entry for 1038 in manuscripts of Sigebert of Gembloux's chronicle, Henry (I) of Louvain
    was murdered in his own house by a captive (probably a hostage treated
    as his guest) and succeeded by his son Otto, who died prematurely and
    was in turn succeeded by a paternal uncle Baldric aka Lambert (II),
    here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_6/index.htm#page/357/mode/2up. This was copied, but placed under 1039 and with the uncle's names given in
    reverse, in a chronicle of Brabant written in or shortly after 1294,
    here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_25/index.htm#page/407/mode/1up.

    This succession (Henry I > Otto > Lambert II) was accepted without
    challenge until 2018, when Frans van Droogenbroeck argued - I think
    wrongly - that Otto did not exist and that Lambert II had directly
    succeeded his brother Henry I, here: https://www.academia.edu/36736769.

    The main evidence adduced for rubbing out Otto was that he is not
    mentioned in a Vita of St Gudila formerly thought to be a second
    recension from the 12th century but reasonably enough considered by Van Droogenbroeck to be the earlier version, ascribed by him to ca 1048 and attributed to Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's
    chaplain Odulf. Much work done on this source has in my view biased Van Droogenbroeck to think it more authoritative, and to take it more
    literally, than is warranted. In recording Lambert II's presence in
    Brussels on 16 November 1047 it says that he was successor to his
    brother Henry ("Lambertus uero, qui et baldricus comes, henrico fratri succedens"), p. 178 here: https://www.academia.edu/28937351.

    Van Droogenbroeck took this to mean that Lambert must have succeeded
    Henry directly, rather than becoming count after him but following the
    brief incumbency of a young nephew, Otto. However, there is other
    written evidence (though uncertain) for the existence of Otto that he disregarded and some fairly strong circumstantial evidence for another hereditary count between Henry and Lambert that in my view he misinterpreted. Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's
    chaplain Odulf., p. 175 in the edition by Van
    Droogenbroeck linked above.

    In the late-14th century annals of Jacques de Guise some verses about
    the counts of Louvain are quoted from a lost history of Brabant written
    by a William abbot of Saint-Trond, probably William of Affligem (abbot 1277-1297 and reputed as a poet) or possibly William of Ryckel (abbot 1249-1272), here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_30_1/index.htm#page/184/mode/1up. The
    interest of this fragment for the question of Otto's existence is in the ninth–twelfth lines, meaning 'To him (Lambert I) succeeded Henry (I)
    whom a son Otto follows, to no avail since he (Otto) was without issue.
    The latter is succeeded by Lambert, his paternal uncle, who presently
    rules these lands and Louvain'.

    The present tense used for Lambert ("regit ... praeest"), contrasted
    with the forgoing perfect tense for Henry ("successit") suggests a
    source of this information written by a contemporary while Lambert was count. In the fifth-sixth lines the author claims to have personally
    seen either Henry's and Lambert's mother Gerberga or to have seen
    chronicles giving her as a sister to Charles of Laon's son Otto (from
    whom Brussels was probably inherited by the counts of Louvain, and after whom Henry's son Otto would be apparently named). Now obviously neither
    of the 13th-century abbots William can have seen Gerberga herself, so
    the editor suggested that the plural "dant chronica" (chronicles relate)
    in the fifth line should be amended to the singular "dat chronica" in
    order to agree with the end of the next line after Gerberga's name, "que michi visa fuit" (that was seen by myself). However, the use of "visa" rather than "lecta" implies having actually seen Gerberga rather than
    just reading about her, as does the ordering of phrases - the erratic
    syntax here may be due to clumsy versification by the 13th-century abbot
    of a mid-11th century prose source. Obviously this is not certain enough
    to refute Van Droogenbroeck's theory conclusively, but he entirely
    neglected to consider it.

    More definite circumstantial evidence can be found from the time at
    issue. In a charter dated 5 June 1040 the German King (later Emperor)
    Henry III restored the estate of Nivelles and its appurtenances to the nunnery of Sainte-Gertrude, as well as determining that there should be
    no count or advocate unless chosen by the abbess and that the nunnery
    should be free from all comital or advocatory power except by invitation
    in the cause of justice, here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/67/mode/2up. The counts
    of Louvain had held - and abused - the advocacy of Sainte-Gertrude since Lambert I at the beginning of the 11th century. Yet no count or advocate
    is specified by name in Henry III's charter, that was issued not long
    after the murder of Count Henry I in 1038 or 1039. Van Droogenbroeck interpreted this as an implicit proscription of Lambert II, but it could just as well be understood as preventing the young (and perhaps already ailing) Otto from emulating the abuses of his father and grandfather, or possibly to restrain Lambert acting on behalf of an underage Otto
    without holding the comital title himself or exercising the advocacy in
    his own right at that time.

    In the following summer Henry III issued another charter for
    Sainte-Gertrude abbey, dated 3 June 1041, again restoring the estate of Nivelles to the nunnery but this time with the consent of Lambert, who
    is to retain his hereditary benefice after the extinction of all his predecessors as hereditary advocates, i.e. apparently not long after the premature death of Otto, here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/105/mode/1up. It would
    make no sense whatever for the king to say that God had wiped out all
    who had held the hereditary advocacy ("omnes, qui hereditatem virginis
    pro hereditario beneficio tenebant, extinxit") if Lambert, who was
    plainly not yet subject to divine wrath and was to retain limited
    authority from then on, had been the incumbent ever since Henry's murder
    two or three years beforehand.

    The suggestion by Van Droogenbroeck that the interpolation in Sigebert's chronicle above was due to mistaking another Otto, Emperor Otto II's
    Ezzonid grandson, count palatine of Lorraine and subsequently duke of
    Swabia (killed in 1047), who in the mid-1040s campaigned in the region
    of Ename approximately 85 kms west of Louvain, for a count of Louvain
    and alleged son of Henry I is wholly unconvincing.

    I will post later about the sisters of Otto, who were relegated by Van Droogenbroeck to a later generation that I think imaginary.

    Peter Stewart

    Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's chaplain Odulf. <<

    Onulf was thus a contemporary of count Lambert and he does not mention Otto.

    He also glossed over the problem that the Vita in question is not comprehensively reliable for genealogical details, since
    for instance, Henry's and Lambert's maternal grandfather the Carolingian Charles of Laon is described as son of his brother Lothar IV ("karolus
    filius lotharii regis francorum" <<

    That was say 40 years prior to his contemporary writing so of that he can be excused.

    Another item that you seem to browse over is Van Droogenbroeck mentions that the tradition of an 'Otto' is newly introduced in the writings of the Brabant historians in the seventies of the 13th century. Does that not strike you as odd? You mention the
    writings of William abbot of Saint-Trond but that would at the most start the tradition in 1249.

    With friendly regards,
    Hans Vogels

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Hans Vogels on Sun Aug 14 16:42:41 2022
    On 13-Aug-22 3:56 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:
    Op vrijdag 12 augustus 2022 om 09:11:10 UTC+2 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:
    According to an interpolation at the end of the entry for 1038 in
    manuscripts of Sigebert of Gembloux's chronicle, Henry (I) of Louvain
    was murdered in his own house by a captive (probably a hostage treated
    as his guest) and succeeded by his son Otto, who died prematurely and
    was in turn succeeded by a paternal uncle Baldric aka Lambert (II),
    here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_6/index.htm#page/357/mode/2up. This was
    copied, but placed under 1039 and with the uncle's names given in
    reverse, in a chronicle of Brabant written in or shortly after 1294,
    here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_25/index.htm#page/407/mode/1up.

    This succession (Henry I > Otto > Lambert II) was accepted without
    challenge until 2018, when Frans van Droogenbroeck argued - I think
    wrongly - that Otto did not exist and that Lambert II had directly
    succeeded his brother Henry I, here: https://www.academia.edu/36736769.

    The main evidence adduced for rubbing out Otto was that he is not
    mentioned in a Vita of St Gudila formerly thought to be a second
    recension from the 12th century but reasonably enough considered by Van
    Droogenbroeck to be the earlier version, ascribed by him to ca 1048 and
    attributed to Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's
    chaplain Odulf. Much work done on this source has in my view biased Van
    Droogenbroeck to think it more authoritative, and to take it more
    literally, than is warranted. In recording Lambert II's presence in
    Brussels on 16 November 1047 it says that he was successor to his
    brother Henry ("Lambertus uero, qui et baldricus comes, henrico fratri
    succedens"), p. 178 here: https://www.academia.edu/28937351.

    Van Droogenbroeck took this to mean that Lambert must have succeeded
    Henry directly, rather than becoming count after him but following the
    brief incumbency of a young nephew, Otto. However, there is other
    written evidence (though uncertain) for the existence of Otto that he
    disregarded and some fairly strong circumstantial evidence for another
    hereditary count between Henry and Lambert that in my view he
    misinterpreted. Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's
    chaplain Odulf., p. 175 in the edition by Van
    Droogenbroeck linked above.

    In the late-14th century annals of Jacques de Guise some verses about
    the counts of Louvain are quoted from a lost history of Brabant written
    by a William abbot of Saint-Trond, probably William of Affligem (abbot
    1277-1297 and reputed as a poet) or possibly William of Ryckel (abbot
    1249-1272), here:
    https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_30_1/index.htm#page/184/mode/1up. The
    interest of this fragment for the question of Otto's existence is in the
    ninth–twelfth lines, meaning 'To him (Lambert I) succeeded Henry (I)
    whom a son Otto follows, to no avail since he (Otto) was without issue.
    The latter is succeeded by Lambert, his paternal uncle, who presently
    rules these lands and Louvain'.

    The present tense used for Lambert ("regit ... praeest"), contrasted
    with the forgoing perfect tense for Henry ("successit") suggests a
    source of this information written by a contemporary while Lambert was
    count. In the fifth-sixth lines the author claims to have personally
    seen either Henry's and Lambert's mother Gerberga or to have seen
    chronicles giving her as a sister to Charles of Laon's son Otto (from
    whom Brussels was probably inherited by the counts of Louvain, and after
    whom Henry's son Otto would be apparently named). Now obviously neither
    of the 13th-century abbots William can have seen Gerberga herself, so
    the editor suggested that the plural "dant chronica" (chronicles relate)
    in the fifth line should be amended to the singular "dat chronica" in
    order to agree with the end of the next line after Gerberga's name, "que
    michi visa fuit" (that was seen by myself). However, the use of "visa"
    rather than "lecta" implies having actually seen Gerberga rather than
    just reading about her, as does the ordering of phrases - the erratic
    syntax here may be due to clumsy versification by the 13th-century abbot
    of a mid-11th century prose source. Obviously this is not certain enough
    to refute Van Droogenbroeck's theory conclusively, but he entirely
    neglected to consider it.

    More definite circumstantial evidence can be found from the time at
    issue. In a charter dated 5 June 1040 the German King (later Emperor)
    Henry III restored the estate of Nivelles and its appurtenances to the
    nunnery of Sainte-Gertrude, as well as determining that there should be
    no count or advocate unless chosen by the abbess and that the nunnery
    should be free from all comital or advocatory power except by invitation
    in the cause of justice, here:
    https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/67/mode/2up. The counts
    of Louvain had held - and abused - the advocacy of Sainte-Gertrude since
    Lambert I at the beginning of the 11th century. Yet no count or advocate
    is specified by name in Henry III's charter, that was issued not long
    after the murder of Count Henry I in 1038 or 1039. Van Droogenbroeck
    interpreted this as an implicit proscription of Lambert II, but it could
    just as well be understood as preventing the young (and perhaps already
    ailing) Otto from emulating the abuses of his father and grandfather, or
    possibly to restrain Lambert acting on behalf of an underage Otto
    without holding the comital title himself or exercising the advocacy in
    his own right at that time.

    In the following summer Henry III issued another charter for
    Sainte-Gertrude abbey, dated 3 June 1041, again restoring the estate of
    Nivelles to the nunnery but this time with the consent of Lambert, who
    is to retain his hereditary benefice after the extinction of all his
    predecessors as hereditary advocates, i.e. apparently not long after the
    premature death of Otto, here:
    https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/105/mode/1up. It would
    make no sense whatever for the king to say that God had wiped out all
    who had held the hereditary advocacy ("omnes, qui hereditatem virginis
    pro hereditario beneficio tenebant, extinxit") if Lambert, who was
    plainly not yet subject to divine wrath and was to retain limited
    authority from then on, had been the incumbent ever since Henry's murder
    two or three years beforehand.

    The suggestion by Van Droogenbroeck that the interpolation in Sigebert's
    chronicle above was due to mistaking another Otto, Emperor Otto II's
    Ezzonid grandson, count palatine of Lorraine and subsequently duke of
    Swabia (killed in 1047), who in the mid-1040s campaigned in the region
    of Ename approximately 85 kms west of Louvain, for a count of Louvain
    and alleged son of Henry I is wholly unconvincing.

    I will post later about the sisters of Otto, who were relegated by Van
    Droogenbroeck to a later generation that I think imaginary.

    Peter Stewart

    Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's chaplain Odulf. <<

    Onulf was thus a contemporary of count Lambert and he does not mention Otto.

    Onulf was a hagiographer writing about St Gudila (if the attribution is corret), not a genealogy or gesta of the counts of Louvain. Any number
    of medieval sources don't happen to mention every recent collateral
    dead-end in the family of every person who happens into the narrative.
    The omission of Otto is not at all remarkable in this context.

    He also glossed over the problem that the Vita in question is not comprehensively reliable for genealogical details, since
    for instance, Henry's and Lambert's maternal grandfather the Carolingian Charles of Laon is described as son of his brother Lothar IV ("karolus
    filius lotharii regis francorum" <<

    That was say 40 years prior to his contemporary writing so of that he can be excused.

    Of course he can be "excused" in that genealogy was not his subject
    matter - the point is that he was writing about a translation of saintly
    relics in Brussels, which had evidently been inherited through Lambert's maternal grandfather whose relationship within the Carolingian family
    was flatly misstated. This is a detail of far more import than noting
    the existence of a short-lived and childless nephew of the current
    ruler. Other sources got it right.

    Another item that you seem to browse over is Van Droogenbroeck mentions that the tradition of an 'Otto' is newly introduced in the writings of the Brabant historians in the seventies of the 13th century. Does that not strike you as odd? You mention the
    writings of William abbot of Saint-Trond but that would at the most start the tradition in 1249.

    As I took some pains to explain, there is evidence that William was
    drawing information from an older source written by a contemporary of
    Lambert II who had perhaps seen the latter's mother Gerberga personally.
    This is not something off the top of my head and it is far from being
    new - see the information and citations here https://www.narrative-sources.be/naso_link_nl.php?link=1487. Van
    Droogenbroeck completely overlooked this, and although it is not certain
    enough to be fatal to his argument in itself the matter certainly needed
    to be discussed as possibly a survival in paraphrase of the earliest
    source for Otto.

    As to the supposed "introduction" of Otto in late-13th century sources
    from Brabant, I'm afraid you are not seeing the wood for the trees. The
    reason for Van Droogenbroeck's going over this material is to show how
    the existence of Otto came to be fixed in the record from then, not to misrepresent that it first occurred then. He acknowledges that its first occurrence in explicit and datable form was in the interpolation to
    Sigebert's chroncicle, that was attributed in the link I provided to
    Anselm of Gembloux who died in 1136. This assertion by Bethmann in the
    MGH edition is accepted (after some discussion of Gorissen's later
    findings) by Van Droogenbroeck, see p. 276: "In de huidige stand van het handschriftelijk onderzoek lijken we dan ook te moeten aannemen dat de
    summiere vertelwaardigheden over graaf Otto weliswaar al te Gembloers
    bekend waren tijdens het abbatiaat van Anselmus (1112-1136), doch
    aanzienlijk later via tussenkomst van de Affligemse geleerden in 1294 de Leuvense geschiedschrijvers hebben bereikt."

    The major shortcoming in Van Droogenbroek's study is his failure to
    account for - or even mention - Henry III's statement in June 1041 that
    God had manifested his formerly hidden vengeance by eliminating all who
    had held the hereditary advocacy of Nivelles. Without somehow making
    sense of this in the context of Lambert's having purportedly held the
    advocacy ever since the murder of his brother Henry in 1038 or 1039,
    rather than just claiming it more recently since the demise of another
    advocate two or three years after Henry, the argument falls over.

    Peter Stewart


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)