More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope Cali

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope Cali

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 okt 2006 18:02:47

Dear Newsgroup ~

Having read the comments of various fellow posters written this past
week in the thread regarding Blanche of Navarre's kinsfolk, I believe
it would be helpful if we once again explored the topic of acknowledged
kinsfolk among European royalty and nobility in the pre-1225 period.
To better understand how such kinships were acknowledged, examples of
such kinship will be presented which are specific to people in
Blanche's own family or that of her husband. My impression is that in
the pre-1225 period, virtually all kinships which were acknowledged
were within the 4th degree, or if you prefer within the range of third
cousins. The kinships were in blood, not marriage. Let's see what we
find.

The first example of kinship I set forth in the pre-1225 period is that
between Pope Calixtus II and Emperor Henry V. This kinship is
mentioned by William of Tyre, Caput XII, Caput VII, pg. 255, which
reads as follows:

Source: Guillelmus Tyrensis [MED], Historia rerum gestarum in partibus
transmarinis (Patrologia latina, vol. 201. J. P. Migne, ed. Parisiis:
excudebat Migne, 1855) [v201:GuiTyr,HiReGeI].

CAPUT VIII. Papa Gelasius defungitur; cui Calixtus succedit.

[p. 0527D]

Anno sequenti mortuus est dominus Gelasius papa secundus, domini
Paschalis successor, qui et Joannes Gaetanus dictus, vir litteratus;
qui fugiens domini Henrici imperatoris persecutionem, et aemuli sui
antipapae, qui cognominatus est Burdinus, declinans violentiam, in
regnum Francorum se conferens, apud Cluniacum diem clausit extremum,
ibidem etiam sepultus. Cui successit dominus Guido, secundum carnem
nobilis, Viennensis archiepiscopus, qui postea in papatum assumptus,
Calixtus appellatus est. Hic postmodum domini imperatoris Henrici,
cujus consanguineus erat, consecutus gratiam et ejus fretus auxilio, in

[p. 0528A]
Italiam cum cardinalibus et universa curia descendens, apud Sutrium,
urbem Romae conterminam, aemulum et haeresiarcham Burdinum violenter
cepit: insuper et camelo impositum, cute indutum ursina, ad Canense
coenobium, quod juxta Salernum situm esse dignoscitur, cum multa misit
ignominia, ubi usque in supremum senium, vitam compulsus est, lege
loci, ducere coenobiticam. Et ita sopitum est schisma, quod a tempore
domini Gregorii septimi, per tempora domini Urbani, domini Paschalis,
domini quoque Gelasii, praedecessorum ejus, quasi per triginta annos
Ecclesiam incessanter fatigaverat, domino imperatore Henrico ad ovile
Ecclesiae post multa tempora, quibus per excommunicationis sententiam a
coetu fidelium praecisus
[p. 0528B]
fuerat, revocato. END OF QUOTE.

As we can see above, William of Tyre indicates that Pope Calixtus II
was the kinsman ["consanguineus"] of Holy Roman Emperor Henry V.

Were the two men related within the 4th degree?

The answer is yes. Contemporary sources indicate that Pope Calixtus II
was originally Guy of Burgundy, the younger son of Guillaume I, Count
Palatine of Burgundy (died 1087), by his wife, Etienette. Thus, Pope
Calixtus II was the brother of Raymond, Count of Burgundy, the
great-grandfather of Blanche of Navarre, Countess of Champagne. I find
that Pope Calixtus II and Emperor Henry V were related in the 3rd and
4th degrees of kindred, by virtue of their common descent from Othon
Guillaume, Count of Burgundy (died 1026) as shown below.

1. Othon Guillaume, Count of Burgundy, died 1026.
2. Renaud, Count of Burgundy, died 1057.
3. Guillaume I, Count of Burgundy, died 1087.
4. Pope Calixtus II (Guy of Burgundy).

1. Othon Guillaume, Count of Burgundy, died 1026.
2. Agnes of Burgundy, married Guillaume, Duke of Aquitaine.
3. Agnes of Poitou, married Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor.
4. Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor.
5. Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor.

Were the two parties related in blood, or by marriage? They were
related in blood within the 4th degree.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 okt 2006 19:32:35

Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my post earlier today, I note that the book, A History
of Europe from 911 to 1198, by Z.N. Brooke makes a passing comment
regarding Pope Calixtus II's kinship to Emperor Henry V:

pg. 259

"The new Pope, who was of exalted birth (he could speak of the Emperor
as his kinsman), had already given proofs of his ecclesiastical
statemanship and proud bearing ..." END OF QUOTE

So far I've been unable to find a contempory document in which Pope
Calixtus II referred to Emperor Henry V as his kinsman. If anyone
knows of such a document, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope

Legg inn av taf » 27 okt 2006 19:38:17

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Having read the comments of various fellow posters written this past
week in the thread regarding Blanche of Navarre's kinsfolk, I believe
it would be helpful if we once again explored the topic of acknowledged
kinsfolk among European royalty and nobility in the pre-1225 period.
To better understand how such kinships were acknowledged, examples of
such kinship will be presented which are specific to people in
Blanche's own family or that of her husband. My impression is that in
the pre-1225 period, virtually all kinships which were acknowledged
were within the 4th degree, or if you prefer within the range of third
cousins. The kinships were in blood, not marriage. Let's see what we
find.

"Virtually all" apparently does not include the relationship under
discussion, that of Blanche to Henry of Brabant.

Were the two parties related in blood, or by marriage? They were
related in blood within the 4th degree.

Again, you are wasting people's time with the proposition that a
specific instance proves a general rule. It does not. No number of
isolated examples can prove such a rule, or even support it. As
already pointed out, the individuals in this example were also related
within the 5th, 6th, 7th or even 15th degree, and hence the example
provides no power of distinction among different possibilities. A rule
such as this is demonstrated by the absence of cases that violate it.
(And since you are parading out the old useless examples, I guess I
have to repeat this tedium . . . ) Further, in order to demonstrate
this absence, you must sample a statistically relevant sample size. To
be confident of absence, again as a 'rule of thumb', you should be
thinking about a sample size more than 10 times the level of
significance of the occurance limit. Simply put, to conclude that
something happens less than 10% (1/10) of the time, you need to survey
at least 100. To conclude that it happens lass than 1% (1/100), you
need to sample 1000.

Now let's look at what you have come to us with. So far we have seen
two examples. One, this one, satisfies your 'rule'. The other
contains relationships that fail to satisfy your rule. Based on this,
you want us to conclude that "virtually all" satisfy your rule? How
many more are you going to provide? 8 more? Great. That means that
you will be safe in concluding less than 100% violate your rule. 98?
Then we know that "virtually all" is greater than 90%.

That is just half of the question, though. The other is what you will
then do with the results. Clearly you intend to use this as a tool with
which you can reevaluate accepted pedigrees. If the rule is that they
must be related within the 4th degree, and the pedigrees do not show
this, then the pedigrees must be wrong. How close does "virtually all"
have to be to "all" in order to conclude that the exceptions must
represent error on the part of the pedigree rather than inaccuratecy or
imprecision on the part of the 'rule'. At this point, we are at a 50%
violation rate. Are, then, that half which fails the test errant, or
is the 'rule' bogus? If 10% violate the rule, are 10% of pedigrees
wrong, or is the rule wrong? 1%? 0.1%? This also ignores other
potential sources of error - maybe the scribe was in error. We then
find ourselves compounding the scribal error by 'correcting' and
accurate pedigree to conform with an inaccurate source.

And of course, as mentioned in the other post, this assumes uniformity
in usage. All of the compared examples must be from the same uniform
group (assuming such exists). If that group includes all of Europe,
then they can come from all fo Europe. If such uniformity does not
exist (and we know it doesn't) then these samples must all be taken
from the same specific pool in which you wish to draw such conclusions.
Unless you are going to give us 998 more examples, all from the same
place, then these single examples are a curiousity, but of no probative
value whatsoever.

Your argument is basically: "They are telling you that the Emperor has
no clothes, but look - here is a peasant, and he has clothes. And here
is a soldier, who has clothes. And here is a prostitute, and she too
is wearing clothes. And a schoolboy as well. Clearly, then, everyone
wears clothes, including the Emperor."

taf

CED

Re: More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope

Legg inn av CED » 28 okt 2006 10:59:31

taf wrote:

Todd:

Well said. Wish it were sufficient to teach a lesson; but I doubt that
this student can learn a well taught lesson.

CED

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Having read the comments of various fellow posters written this past
week in the thread regarding Blanche of Navarre's kinsfolk, I believe
it would be helpful if we once again explored the topic of acknowledged
kinsfolk among European royalty and nobility in the pre-1225 period.
To better understand how such kinships were acknowledged, examples of
such kinship will be presented which are specific to people in
Blanche's own family or that of her husband. My impression is that in
the pre-1225 period, virtually all kinships which were acknowledged
were within the 4th degree, or if you prefer within the range of third
cousins. The kinships were in blood, not marriage. Let's see what we
find.

"Virtually all" apparently does not include the relationship under
discussion, that of Blanche to Henry of Brabant.

Were the two parties related in blood, or by marriage? They were
related in blood within the 4th degree.

Again, you are wasting people's time with the proposition that a
specific instance proves a general rule. It does not. No number of
isolated examples can prove such a rule, or even support it. As
already pointed out, the individuals in this example were also related
within the 5th, 6th, 7th or even 15th degree, and hence the example
provides no power of distinction among different possibilities. A rule
such as this is demonstrated by the absence of cases that violate it.
(And since you are parading out the old useless examples, I guess I
have to repeat this tedium . . . ) Further, in order to demonstrate
this absence, you must sample a statistically relevant sample size. To
be confident of absence, again as a 'rule of thumb', you should be
thinking about a sample size more than 10 times the level of
significance of the occurance limit. Simply put, to conclude that
something happens less than 10% (1/10) of the time, you need to survey
at least 100. To conclude that it happens lass than 1% (1/100), you
need to sample 1000.

Now let's look at what you have come to us with. So far we have seen
two examples. One, this one, satisfies your 'rule'. The other
contains relationships that fail to satisfy your rule. Based on this,
you want us to conclude that "virtually all" satisfy your rule? How
many more are you going to provide? 8 more? Great. That means that
you will be safe in concluding less than 100% violate your rule. 98?
Then we know that "virtually all" is greater than 90%.

That is just half of the question, though. The other is what you will
then do with the results. Clearly you intend to use this as a tool with
which you can reevaluate accepted pedigrees. If the rule is that they
must be related within the 4th degree, and the pedigrees do not show
this, then the pedigrees must be wrong. How close does "virtually all"
have to be to "all" in order to conclude that the exceptions must
represent error on the part of the pedigree rather than inaccuratecy or
imprecision on the part of the 'rule'. At this point, we are at a 50%
violation rate. Are, then, that half which fails the test errant, or
is the 'rule' bogus? If 10% violate the rule, are 10% of pedigrees
wrong, or is the rule wrong? 1%? 0.1%? This also ignores other
potential sources of error - maybe the scribe was in error. We then
find ourselves compounding the scribal error by 'correcting' and
accurate pedigree to conform with an inaccurate source.

And of course, as mentioned in the other post, this assumes uniformity
in usage. All of the compared examples must be from the same uniform
group (assuming such exists). If that group includes all of Europe,
then they can come from all fo Europe. If such uniformity does not
exist (and we know it doesn't) then these samples must all be taken
from the same specific pool in which you wish to draw such conclusions.
Unless you are going to give us 998 more examples, all from the same
place, then these single examples are a curiousity, but of no probative
value whatsoever.

Your argument is basically: "They are telling you that the Emperor has
no clothes, but look - here is a peasant, and he has clothes. And here
is a soldier, who has clothes. And here is a prostitute, and she too
is wearing clothes. And a schoolboy as well. Clearly, then, everyone
wears clothes, including the Emperor."

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»