First wife of Svyatopolk II a Moravian princess ?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

First wife of Svyatopolk II a Moravian princess ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 mai 2005 17:53:03

Andrey Frizyuk wrote :

"I may add that it was recently demonstrated that the 1st wife of
Svyatopolk II (+1113) was most likely a daughter of Spitignev II of
Moravia by Hidda von Eilenburg, of Wettin family. This identification
may be important, because some of the Piasts and all of the Arpads
descend from their daughters, Sbyslava Queen of Poland and Predslava
Queen of Croatia."

Could youl please (or someone else) elaborate as to how it was
demonstrated and by whom. Has it been accepted in recent literature? In
advance, thank you kindly. Jean Bunot

Andrew S. Kalinkin

Re: First wife of Svyatopolk II a Moravian princess ?

Legg inn av Andrew S. Kalinkin » 12 mai 2005 13:52:49

magnusrufus@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrey Frizyuk wrote :

"I may add that it was recently demonstrated that the 1st wife of
Svyatopolk II (+1113) was most likely a daughter of Spitignev II of
Moravia by Hidda von Eilenburg, of Wettin family. This identification
may be important, because some of the Piasts and all of the Arpads
descend from their daughters, Sbyslava Queen of Poland and Predslava
Queen of Croatia."

Could youl please (or someone else) elaborate as to how it was
demonstrated and by whom. Has it been accepted in recent literature?
In
advance, thank you kindly. Jean Bunot

"Demonstrated" is probably a gross overstatement. This is a theory
proposed recently by a modern russian historian Alexander Nazarenko.
Nazarenko starts his analyze from the statement of Gallus, who tells
that Sbyslava and her husband Boleslaw III of Poland were related, and
the Polish court sought and got a dispensation for their marriage from
the pope. The usual explanation of this fact is that they were second
cousins, descended from Mieszko II of Poland (Mieszko II - Kazimierz I
- Wladislaw I - Boleslaw III and Mieszko II - Gertrude - Svyatopolk -
Sbyslava).
However this explanation is wrong, as Gertrude wasn't Svyatopolk's
mother (there is a contemporary source in which Gertrude explicitely
refers to his brother Yaropolk as "my only son"). Then Nazarenko notes,
that Russian church at that time considered marriages within 6th degree
of consanguinity (second cousins and closer) as forbidden, while
marriages within 7th degree were permitted (and not uncommon). So, he
claims, Sbyslava and Boleslaw should be at least second cousins. After
detaching Svyatopolk from Gertrude such relationship cannot be provided
through Sbyslava's paternal ancestry, so it should go through her
mother, who must be therefore granddaughter (or daughter) of Boleslaw's
great-grandparents (or grandparents). After reviewing three generations
of Boleslaw's ancestry Nazarenko identifies her as daughter of
Spitignev II of Bohemia (not Moravia). This again makes Sbyslava and
Boleslav second cousins (Brzetislav I - Vladislav I - Judita - Boleslaw
III and Brzetislav I - Spitignev II - NN - Sbyslava), the chronology is
very good, and the supposed connection fits well into political
situation of the time (Nazarenko notes that Svyatopolk's half-brother
Yaropolk married Kunigunda von Orlamunde, another Saxon noblewoman).
So it looks like a very attractive hypothese. Unfortunately there is a
major flaw in the proposed proof. The dispensation mentioned by Gallus
was sought by Polish side, not Russian, so the rules of Russian church
are obviously irrelevant. And in catholic Europe dispensations were
often sought and granted for the marriages between much more distant
relatives than second cousins. So the testimony of Gallus can be easily
explaned by couple's common descent from St. Vladimir (Vladimir -
Dobronega Maria - Wladislaw I - Boleslaw III and Vladimir - Yaroslav -
Izyaslav - Svyatopolk - Sbyslava). And then the whole house of cards
collapses.

Andrew

Gjest

Re: First wife of Svyatopolk II a Moravian princess ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2005 04:56:09

Dear Andrew, thank you for answering and for your precisions as well
which are very much appreciated. I thought that it might have been a
bit more speculative than "demonstrated". On the other hand, I must
confess that I find myself a bit surprised that Svyatopolk II, a major
rurikide ruler, would appear to be an illegitimate offsprig or maybe
born to a "lesser consort". Do you think that is so ? Is the
contemporary document you cite enough to imply his illegitimacy ? I
would indeed appreciate your impute on that question. In advance thank
you. Jean Bunot

Gjest

Re: First wife of Svyatopolk II a Moravian princess ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2005 11:51:16

Dear Andrew, and Jean,

There is a slightly closer, Polish relationship which
was evidently the reason for seeking this dispensation:

Miecsyzslaw II = Richeza of Lorraine
K of Poland 1025-1034 I
__________________I______________________
I I
Casimir = Dobronega Iziaslav = Gertrude
K of Poland I Grand Duke I
1034-1058 I 1054-1078 I
I I
I I
Wladyslaw 'Herman' Sviatopolk II
= Judith = NN
I ___________I
I I
Boleslaw III = Zybslava


By this common descent, the relationship was in the 3rd
degree (i.e., they were 2nd cousins) - slightly closer than
their common descent from the Grand Duke St. Vladimir.

Cheers,

John

Andrew S. Kalinkin

Re: First wife of Svyatopolk II a Moravian princess ?

Legg inn av Andrew S. Kalinkin » 14 mai 2005 09:59:12

magnusrufus@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Andrew, thank you for answering and for your precisions as well
which are very much appreciated. I thought that it might have been a
bit more speculative than "demonstrated". On the other hand, I must
confess that I find myself a bit surprised that Svyatopolk II, a
major
rurikide ruler, would appear to be an illegitimate offsprig or maybe
born to a "lesser consort". Do you think that is so ? Is the
contemporary document you cite enough to imply his illegitimacy ? I
would indeed appreciate your impute on that question. In advance
thank
you. Jean Bunot

Dear Jean,

In many areas of early medieval Europe legitimacy was of very little
importance. If a child was recognized by his father, this was enough.
(And in some extreme cases even this was not necessary, read some
examples from Norvegian history in Snorri). Svyatopolk himself had a
son by concubine who was not regarded in any way inferior to his
legitimate halfbrother.

As for maternity of Svyatopolk, there is a medieval iluminated
manuscript known as "Gertrude Psalter" (also Egbert Psalter or Trier
Psalter). It was originally created in late 10th century for archbishop
Egbert of Trier, in 11th century came into pocession of Gertrude and
then was expanded. This second part of the codex includes Gertrude's
prayer book. Here Gertrude (BTW this is the only source for her name,
she is anonymous everywhere else) in her prayers six times calls her
son Yaropolk "unicus filius meus". Looks pretty straitforward.

Andrew

Andrew S. Kalinkin

Re: First wife of Svyatopolk II a Moravian princess ?

Legg inn av Andrew S. Kalinkin » 14 mai 2005 11:01:06

therav3@aol.com wrote:
Dear Andrew, and Jean,

There is a slightly closer, Polish relationship which
was evidently the reason for seeking this dispensation:

Miecsyzslaw II = Richeza of Lorraine
K of Poland 1025-1034 I
__________________I______________________
I I
Casimir = Dobronega Iziaslav = Gertrude
K of Poland I Grand Duke I
1034-1058 I 1054-1078 I
I I
I I
Wladyslaw 'Herman' Sviatopolk II
= Judith = NN
I ___________I
I I
Boleslaw III = Zybslava


By this common descent, the relationship was in the 3rd
degree (i.e., they were 2nd cousins) - slightly closer than
their common descent from the Grand Duke St. Vladimir.

Dear John,

The whole point of Nazarenko theory is that this relationship is wrong
- Sviatopolk was not son of Gertrude. He then tries to find another
route for the same degree of relationship, and his proposal indeed
looks as the most likely possibility. However it is not necessary -
exact degree of relationship is not mentioned anywhere (well, it is
given by Dlugosz, but this is another story) and their common descent
from St. Vladimir, although it gives a slightly more distant
relationship, is still enough to explain the seeking for dispensation.

Andrew

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»