Giselbert of Wallerfangen

A while back, I mentioned concerns about the parentage of Otgiva, wife
of Baldwin IV of Flanders (commonly thought to be a daughter of
Frederick, son of Siegfried of Luxemburg), because of the difficulty
in ruling out the possibility that she was a daughter of Frederick's
brother Giselbert, count of Wallerfangen. At first, I thought of this
as just a loose end that needed to be cleaned up, rather than a
necessary change in Otgiva's parentage. However, having looked at the
case more closely, I now think that the evidence is leaning in the
direction of making Otgiva a daughter of Giselbert.

Briefly, the case for making Otgiva a daughter of Frederick goes
something like this. The medieval sources (various versions of
"Genealogia comitum Flandriae" [GCF]) make her the daughter of a count
Giselbert of Luxemburg (with "of Luxemburg" missing in the earliest
version). However, she cannot have been a daughter of Frederick's son
Giselbert of Luxemburg (for straightforward reasons of chronology),
and a later version of GCF ["Flandria Generosa" ca. 1164] would
apparently make Otgiva a sister of men known to be sons of Frederick
(while still making her a daughter of Giselbert). If Frederick's son
Giselbert were the only known Giselbert in the family, this reasoning
would be OK, but I know of only one case in which the possibility of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen was even considered [Siegfried Hirsch,
Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 1: 538 n. 8, where
the idea is quickly set aside with the words "... und dem zu Pavia
gefallenen Giselbert kann man nicht leichthin Nachkommen andichten."],
so it is not clear that this alternate possibility has even been
considered by many scholars looking at Otgiva's parentage.

Not much is known about Giselbert of Wallerfangen. He appears in an
act of 996 (between 21 May and 23 September) in which a certain
Bertha, widow of count Volkmar, gave (to the abbey of St. Maximin,
Trier) Mutfort (Mudenfurt) in the pagus of Moselgau and countship of
Vaudrevange/Wallerfangen, ruled by count Giselbert ["Dedit in pago
Moselensi in comitatu Waldelevinga, cui Gisilbertus comes preesse
videtur, villam Mudenfurt nominatum, ..." C. Wampach, "Urkunden- und
Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur
burgundischen Zeit", I (Luxemburg, 1935), 292 (#207)], receiving the
village of Dalhem from the abbacy in exchange ["... Dedimus ei econtra
in precario per manum sepenominati advocati nostri comitis Henrici in
eodem pago et comitatu villam Dalheim nominatam ..." ibid., 293].
Another act, from 962 (the year before Giselbert's father Sigefroid
acquired the castle of Luxemburg), shows that Dalheim was acquired by
the abbacy in that year, as a donation from a certain Thiedo, and that
the countship of Wallerfangen was then ruled by a count Egilolf ["...
predium Dalaheim nominatum, quod est in Rezcenci pago in comitatu
Waldervinga, cui Egilolfus comes preesse videtur." Wampach (1935), 226
(#171); note that the pagus here is named as Rizzagau instead of
Moselgau]. Giselbert accompanied the emperor Heinrich II (his
brother-in-law) to Italy in 1004, and died of wounds received in Pavia
in a riot which occurred after the coronation of the emperor as king
of Italy ["Ibi tum quidam egreius iuvenis, Gisilbertus nomine, frater
reginae, a Longobardis vulneratus oppeciit, et consociorum tristiciam
vehementer adauxit." Thietmar, Chron., vi, 6, MGH SS 3: 806; "Tunc
iuvenis quidam, frater reginae, Gislebertus nomine, a Langobardis
vulneratur." Adelbold, Vita Henrici Imp., c. 39, MGH SS 4: 693]. As
Peter Stewart has already pointed out in a previous posting, the word
"iuvenis" would not rule out a birth of ca. 970 for Giselbert, making
it chronologically possible that Giselbert was Otgiva's father.

The case is complicated by the fact that the designation "of
Luxemburg" would probably not have been used as early as the early
eleventh century. For example, although Siegfried is documented as
obtaining the castle of Luxemburg, he is never actually called "of
Luxemburg" in a contemporary document. Also, this castle does not
appear to be explicitly documented as being in the posssession of any
of his sons, leaving scholars to use other evidence to try deducing
which son had that castle as a part of his inheritance. Wallerfangen
is in Saarland. However, Mutfort and Dalheim, which were mentioned as
being in Giselbert's countship, are very near to Luxemburg, just to
the southeast [Wampach, Map III]. Thus, although it is unlikely that
Giselbert of Wallerfangen would have been called "of Luxemburg" in his
lifetime, a writer of the early twelfth century (e.g., Lambert of St.
Omer, the earliest known writer to call Otgiva a daughter of count
Giselbert "of Luxemburg") could very well have referred to him
anachronistically as "of Luxemburg", just as a writer of the same
period anachronistically referred to Giselbert's brother Adalbero
["Huic successit Liudolfus. Eo Pontificante, praefuit in monasterio
sancti Paulini praepositus nomine Adelbero, de Lucelenburch ortus, vir
potens et dives, habens castella haec: Sarburch, Berencastel et
Rutiche, ..." Gesta Treverorum, c. 30, MGH SS 8: 171]. (None of
Saarburg, Berncastel, Roussy are as close to Luxemburg as Mutfort and
Dalheim.)

Since the earliest known account (evidently written when people who
knew Otgiva would still be alive) calls Otgiva a daughter of a count
Giselbert (with no location given), and a reasonable candidate of that
name is known, this seems preferable to a conclusion based on a source
(at least partly confused) of a hundred years later. On the other
hand, even though I am now leaning in that direction, the case is
still not conclusive. I am still looking for more evidence that might
be relevant.

The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?

Nathaniel Taylor...

I don't know the historiography here at all, but in a vacuum your
analysis seems perfectly appropriate and I would immediately try to find
the basis for Hirsch's doubts about any issue for the Pavia-slain
Giselbert. Certainly a 'iuvenis' could have had issue: Duby famously
showed how this could be and was applied to middle-aged men who were yet
to come into a landed position, or who were otherwise in the shadow of
elders or siblings. Even Prince Charles could still be called a 'youth'
in this sense.

Peter Stewart...

No, Nat - he was born an old woman.

Peter Stewart

The issue of the use or misuse of territorial designation is also
interesting and your take is plausible: 'of Luxemburg' is an accretion
that may well have been a product of anachronistic and misleading
application of toponymic surnames. On a related note, I'm interested
to see 'pagus' and 'comitatus' distinguished in these passages: in
Western contemporary Mediterranean documents with which I'm familiar,
'pagus' remains a neutral territorial unit, and 'comitatus' is used more
or less for fiscal or demesne properties belonging to a count; since
plenty of comital ambits were understood as encompassing more than one
pagus, such a scenario is perfectly plausible in those terms.

And what was the prior and subsequent history of the 'county' of
'Wallerfangen' anyway? It is not necessary, I suppose, to explain shy
Otgiva might not have brought an interest in these particular places to
her husband and issue?

Stewart Baldwin...

Of prior history, I know only of count Egilolf, already mentioned in
my previous posting. I know of no other reference to the "county" of
Wallerfangen.

Stewart Baldwin

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Stewart Baldwin