Op maandag 15 mei 2017 03:05:45 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:32:25 AM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote: > > On 10/05/2017 12:22 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > > > On 5/8/2017 4:15 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > >> One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since > > >> placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short > > >> chronology > > > > > > That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be > > > accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite > > > impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was > > > correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first > > > husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das > > > Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum > > > Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX. > > > (+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues > > > über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67. > > > Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted > > > occasional followers. > > > > This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram) > > as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it. > > This ascription to Herwig Wolfram was wrong, it was Hermann Jakobs in *Der Adel in der Klosterreform von St. Blasien* (1968), p. 184: 'Wer die Frage nach Idas Herkunft anpackt, greift aber gleichsam in ein Wespennest der Forschung, das zwar erst vor kurzem von H. Dobbertin zur Ruhe gebracht worden ist, in dem es aber immer noch recht unruhig summt.' > > Peter Stewart H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some topics continue to buzz. Hans Vogels

On 5/15/2017 12:26 AM, Hans Vogels wrote: > H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as > Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here > on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some > topics continue to buzz. The other piece of evidence which keeps Dobbertin's theory from being stopped dead in its tracks is Annalista Saxo, which incorrectly places Gisela's marriage to Ernst before her marriage to Bruno, consistent with what it necessary for Dobbertin's theory to work. The plaque and Annalista Saxo are both reasonable pieces of evidence that one should be reluctant to set aside without good reason, but there are so many pieces of evidence pointing in the other direction that their combined weight is sufficient to overturn the plaque and Annalista. However, when considered individually, none of these other pieces of evidence qualifies as a "smoking gun" by itself. Thus, someone who has already made up their mind based on the plaque and Annalista Saxo might very well believe that they could argue away the other pieces of evidence individually without considering their combined weight. So, it seems likely that some version of Dobbertin's theory will be making an appearance from time to time. Stewart Baldwin

On 16/05/2017 12:17 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 5/15/2017 12:26 AM, Hans Vogels wrote: > >> H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as >> Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here >> on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore >> some topics continue to buzz. > > The other piece of evidence which keeps Dobbertin's theory from being > stopped dead in its tracks is Annalista Saxo, which incorrectly places > Gisela's marriage to Ernst before her marriage to Bruno, consistent > with what it necessary for Dobbertin's theory to work. The plaque and > Annalista Saxo are both reasonable pieces of evidence that one should > be reluctant to set aside without good reason, but there are so many > pieces of evidence pointing in the other direction that their combined > weight is sufficient to overturn the plaque and Annalista. However, > when considered individually, none of these other pieces of evidence > qualifies as a "smoking gun" by itself. Thus, someone who has already > made up their mind based on the plaque and Annalista Saxo might very > well believe that they could argue away the other pieces of evidence > individually without considering their combined weight. So, it seems > likely that some version of Dobbertin's theory will be making an > appearance from time to time. I'm sure you are right that Dobbertin's theory won't go away - as with the Chippewa warrior analogy for Ida's alleged behaviour, some historians will try to find any angle that allows them to accept any source as true. There are compelling reasons to conclude that the plaque text is actually much weaker evidence than its provenance suggests. It is also reasonable to suppose that Annalista Saxo in the mid-12th century most probably assumed in error that Ernst's sons were older than Bruno's son Liudolf, since the latter did not inherit their mother's rights to the duchy of Swabia. However, when Gisela's brother died, Ernst was her husband while Liudolf was only a boy not more than 10 years old. There are other examples of inheritance bypassing a half-blood claimant in similar circumstances. Peter Stewart

On 15/05/2017 3:26 PM, Hans Vogels wrote: > Op maandag 15 mei 2017 03:05:45 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart: >> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:32:25 AM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote: >>> On 10/05/2017 12:22 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote: >>>> On 5/8/2017 4:15 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>>> >>>>> One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since >>>>> placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short >>>>> chronology >>>> That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be >>>> accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite >>>> impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was >>>> correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first >>>> husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das >>>> Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum >>>> Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX. >>>> (+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues >>>> über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67. >>>> Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted >>>> occasional followers. > > >>> This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram) >>> as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it. >> This ascription to Herwig Wolfram was wrong, it was Hermann Jakobs in *Der Adel in der Klosterreform von St. Blasien* (1968), p. 184: 'Wer die Frage nach Idas Herkunft anpackt, greift aber gleichsam in ein Wespennest der Forschung, das zwar erst vor kurzem von H. Dobbertin zur Ruhe gebracht worden ist, in dem es aber immer noch recht unruhig summt.' >> >> Peter Stewart > H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some topics continue to buzz. > Yes, I didn't recall Jakobs remark precisely. I just came across an amusing sidelight on this sidelight, showing how far some scholars have bent over backwards to take seriously Albert of Stade's story about Ida: in 1836, Anton Christian Wedekind cited "a similar case of this rare kind", an account from 1818 of a Chippewa warrior's widow ritually accepting her only son's killer in his place. Golly. Peter Stewart