Nebi is mentioned as the maternal grandfather of Hildegarde, wife of Charlemagne, in Thegan's biography of Louis the Pious, written in the 830's ["Qui cum in iuventute erat, supradictus imperator desponsavit sibi nobilissimi generis Suavorum puellam, nomine Hildigardam, quae erat de cognatione Gotefridi ducis Alamannorum. Gotefridus dux genuit Huochingum, Huochingus genuit Nebi, Nebe genuit Immam, Imma vero genuit Hiltigardam beatissimum reginam." Thegan, Vita Hludowici, c. 2, MGH SS 2: 590-1]. There are several other records mentioning an eighth century man (or men) named Nebi, but since none of these explicitly mention the genealogical connections to Hildegarde and Imma or to the Alemannian ducal family, the natural question arises as to whether or not these records involve the same Nebi.
In the confraternity book of Reichenau, there is a long list of counts, in which the names of counts Nebi and Ruadbret are listed on consecutive lines, followed by a certain Kerolt in a later hand ["Nebi com. (*Uoto)/ Ruadbret com. / (*Kerolt)" MGH Libri Confrat. 1: 294, col. 465, lines 37-9]. This Ruadbret is undoubtedly the count Rotbert who on 9 August of a year between 770 and 773 mentions his late [condam, i.e., quondam] father Hnabi. ["Ego Rotbertus comes, filius Hnabi condam, ... . Signum Roadberto comite, ... . ... in anno II regni Carlo rege Franchorum, sub die V id. agust." UB Sanct Gallen 1: 56 (#57)]. Since the father of Hildegarde and husband of Imma was named Gerold, the presence of a Kerolt in the next line after Robert in the confraternity book supports the usual interpretation that Robert's father Hnabi and Imma's father Nebi were the same person. The connection is also supported by the appearance of a Robert as the grandson of Gerold and Imma [Among the witnesses to a St. Gall charter dated 6 January 800: "+ Odalrici comitis. + filiorum ejus Odalrici et Rodperti" UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 151 (#160); for the elder Udalrich as a son of Gerold and Imma, see the page of Gerold].
In Walafrid Strabo's redaction the Life of St. Gall, a certain Nebi appears as a dux during the time of Charles Martel, when the future saint Othmar was chosen as abbot of St. Gall on Nebi's advice ["Postmodo consilio cuiusdam ducis nomine Nebi persuasus, ad praefatum principem Carolum cum eodem duce properavit, ipsique eandem cellam proprietatis iure contradidit, et ut Otmarum presbyterum eidem loco praeficeret, exoravit." Vita S. Galli, ii, 11, MGH SS 2: 23; written 833×4, Borgolte (1986), 185]. This would appear to be about 720 ["Abbas hoc noster Othmarus ponitur anno." addition to Goldast's edition of Annales Sangallenses maiores, s.a. 720, see MGH SS 1: 73, note d]. The reliability of this information is uncertain. In particular, the title of dux given to Nebi is questionable. Writing a couple of centuries later, Hermann von Reichenau (1013-1054) states that in 724 a certain Berthold and Nebi took abbot Pirmin, the future saint, to Charles Martel, who put the abbot in charge of Reichenau ["Sanctus Pirminius abbas et chorepiscopus a Berhtoldo et Nebi principibus ad Karolum ductus, Augiaeque insulae ab eo praefectus, ..." Hermann von Reichenau, Chronicon, s.a. 724, MGH SS 5: 98]. Although there is no direct evidence which would identify this Nebi with the Nebi who was Hildegarde's grandfather, the geography is consistent with such an identification, and the name Nebi is a rare one, so it seems likely that the Nebi mentioned by Walafrid Strabo and Hermann von Reichenau was intended to refer to the same person as the Nebi in Hildegarde's genealogy [see, e.g., Borgolte (1986), 184-5]. Chronology is a minor problem. Of Gottfried's well documented sons, Lantfrid I died in 730 and Theodebald was still duke of Alemannia in 745 [see the page of Gottfried], which makes the 720's seem a bit early for the floruit of their nephew, but this is still not a serious problem. It is possible that Huoching was an older son of Gottfried who died relatively early, which would explain both Nebi's early floruit and the absence of Huoching in records other than the genealogy.
Nebi has also sometimes been wrongly identified with a Nebi/Nevi who donated at Lorsch and was married to a certain Hereswind, but the Lorsch benefactor was living on 29 June 774, and therefore cannot have been the same person as the Nebi who was the father of count Robert [see the further discussion below in the Commentary section under Hereswind]. For the same reason. Nebi cannot be the same person as the Nebo who donated to Lorsch ca. 782 ["In Christi nomine, anno XIIII Karoli regis, ego Nebo dono ad sanctum Nazarium &c. vineam unam in pago Wormat. in Mettenheimer marca &c." Codex Lauresh. 2: 307 (#1827)].
Date of birth: say 690×700??
Place of birth: Unknown.
The only direct clue that we have regarding his Nebi's of birth is that his granddaughter Hildegarde was apparently born in the period 758×761 [see the page of Hildegarde], and this does not help much. If Nebi was indeed active as early as the 720's, then he is likely to have been born before 700, but, as mentioned above, there are reasons to doubt that his floruit should be placed that early. Although a birth before 690 cannot be ruled out, it would appear to make the chronology tight in the other direction, since his supposed grandfather Gottfried lived until 709. The above estimate is subject to a large amount of uncertainty.
Date of death: before 9 August 773.
Place of death: Unknown.
Nebi is referred to as deceased in a donation of his son Robert on 9 August 770×3 [UB Sanct Gallen 1: 56 (#57), see above].
Probable father: Huoching.
["... Gotefridus dux genuit Huochingum, Huochingus genuit Nebi, Nebe genuit Immam, ..." Thegan, Vita Hludowici, c. 2, MGH SS 2: 590-1 (see above for fuller quote)]. For the theory that Nebi was a son of duke Gottfried, see the Commentary section below.
Spouse: Unknown (but not Hereswind).
See the Commentary section below.
Robert, d. 13 May?, 799 or later?, count of
Argengau and Linzgau.
Count Robert is listed immediately after his father in the Reichenau confraternity book, with his brother-in-law Gerold (or his nephew of the same name) listed immediately after in a different hand ["... Nebi. com., Ruadbret com., (Kerolt)" MGH Libri Confrat. 1: 294, col. 465, 37-9]. He also appears without the comital title in the St. Gall confraternity book, immediately followed by his nephews Udalrich and Gerold ["RODBERTUS, Odalricus, Kerolt" MGH Libr Confrat. 1: 20, col. 32, 5-7]. On 9 August 769×773, count Robert, son of the late count Hnabi, donated his land in Aulfingen to St. Gall ["Ego Rotbertus comes, filius Hnabi condam, ... . Signum Roadberto comite, ... . ... in anno II regni Carlo rege Franchorum, sub die V id. agust." UB Sanct Gallen 1: 56 (#57), with a long discussion of the date, which the MGH editor of Vita Sancti Galli gave as 774, MGH SS 2: 23 n. 2; Borgolte (1986), 216, gives the year as 769, 770, 772 or 773]. Count Robert appear on 3 May 778 ["... in villa, que vocatur Liutfridingas, ... . Nota die dominico, V nonas mad., sub Hroadberto comite" UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 79 (#83)], as count in Linzgau on 13 September 778 ["... in pago Linzcauvia ... . Notavi die dominico, id. sept., sub Hroadberto comite." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 80 (#84)], 1 May 783 ["in paco Lincauginsi ... . ... anno XV regnante domno Karlo, sub Rotperto comite, ... . Data sub die kal. maid." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 93 (#99)], 14 September 783 ["... in pago vel in sito Linzgauwa ... . Notavi die dominico, id. sept., anno XV Karoli regis, sub Ruadberto comite." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 94 (#100)], as count in Argengau on 25 April 784 ["Actum in loco, qui dicitur Wazzarburuc, cartula ista scripta. ... anno XVI regnante Carolo rege Francorum, et sub Roadberto comite, VII kal. mad." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 95 (#101); ibid., 1: 129 (#137), for location of Wasserburg in Argengau], in Linzgau on 29 March 786 ["... in pago Linzgauginse ... . In anno XVIII. regnante domno Carolo rege Francorum et sub Crodberto comite. ... Notavi sub die IIII kal. april." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 99 (#106)] and in 788 ["... in Linzgauia ... . ... anno XX rebnante domno nostro Carolo rege Franchorum, sub Ruadberto comite." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 112 (#119), in Argengau on 12 (or 9) June 794 ["... Argunensis ... in pago ipso ... anno XXVI regnante domno Karolo rege Francorum. Notavi sub die II [or V] idus junias, et in presente Ruadperto comite." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 129 (#137)], 9 June 798 ["... in pago Argunensis ... in anno XXX regnante domno nostro Karolo rege Francorum. Notavi diem V id. jun., sub comite Roadberto." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 144 (#152); also as a witness on 13 March 799 "Ruadperti comitis testis" UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 146 (#155)], and 23 June 799 ["... in pago Arconessa ... . Actum in loco, qui dicitur Wazzarburuc. Cartula ista scribta est in anno XXX regnante domno nostro Karolo rege Francorum, sub Roadberto comite. ... Notavi sub die non. kal. jun., sub die dominico." UB Sanct Gallen, 1: 148 (#156)]. He may have been the count Robert appearing under 13 May in the Reichenau necrology ["III id. Rodbertus com." Necr. Augiae divitis, MGH Nec. 1: 276]. There has been some doubt whether these references are to just one count Robert or to two different men. A duke Robert was killed at Botzen in 784 or 785, who may be the same Robert ["Pugna Baiowariorum cum Hrodperto ad Pauzana." Ann. S. Emmerammi Ratisponensis maiores, s.a. 785, MGH SS 1: 92; "Ad Pozanum pugna magna fuit inter Bawaros et Rodbertum ducem, et ipse Ruodpertus occisus est cum plurimus suorum." Auctarium Garstense, s.a. 784, MGH SS 9: 564; "Bawari ad Pozanum cum Roberto duce pugnantes, ipsum occiderunt." Ann. S. Rudberti Salisburgensis, MGH SS 9: 769] and Tellenbach thought that this may be the same as Robert son of Nebi [Tellenbach (1957), 67 (822)]. Siegwart thought that the references referred to two Roberts, son and grandson of Nebi, and placed Robert le Fort (the Strong), ancestor of the Capetian dynasty, as a grandson of the second Robert [Siegwart (1958)].
Imma, d. 798, daughter of Nebi, count
m. Gerold, d. 784×6, count.
Two Lorsch donations mention a Nebi/Nevi and his wife Hereswind ["In Christi nomine, sub die IV nonas Novembris, anno XXI Karoli regis, ego Gundi, pro anima Rebi & conjugis ejus Hersuindæ, dono ad sanctum Nazarium &c. unum mansum in pago Spirensi in Gunzinheimer marca, & jj hubas &c." Codex Lauresh. 2: 380 (#2101); "Gundi pro anima Nebi & Herswindæ conjugum in pago Spir. ..." Lamejus (1773), 238; "In Christi nomine, sub die III kalendas Julii, anno VI Karoli regis, ego Neui pro remedio animæ meæ, & pro anima conjugis meæ, dono ad ecclesiam sancti Nazarii &c. XXX jurnales de terra in pago Spirensi in Gunzinger marca perpetualiter ad possidendum &c." Codex Lauresh. 2: 380-1 (#2102)]. Siegwart identified Hereswind's husband with Nebi son of Huoching [Siegwart (1958), 170-1]. The main piece of evidence offered by Siegwart in support of this was the appearance in the confraternity book of Reichenau of the name Heresint immediately following individuals who were clearly members of the Alemannian and Bavarian ducal families ["Lantfridus dux, Deotpold, Liutfrid, Uatalo, Hiltrud, Tessilo, Heresint" MGH Libri Confrat. 1: 294 (col. 465)]. However, if this Heresint were Nebi's wife, it is difficult to explain why Nebi does not appear in the list [Borgolte (1986), 185; however, Lacher explained this by making Hereswind rather than Nebi a child of Huoching, Lacher (1974), 116, 118 (table)]. Even more important, Nevi, apparently living on 29 June 774, could not be the same person as the already deceased Nebi. Thus, the Nebi who married Hereswind was not the same man as the Nebi who heads this page.
Conjectured father: Gottfried, d.
709, duke of the Alemannians.
It has been conjectured that Huoching was a later insertion in the genealogy of Hildegarde, and that Nebi was in fact a son of Gottfried. See Scenario 3 below under Hnæf Hocing for the details.
Legendary counterpart?: Hnæf Hócing.
Hnæf Hócing appears in the Anglo-Saxon poem Widsith in a list consisting of a combination of historical and legendary rulers ["Hnæf Hocingum" Widsith 15]. In most cases, the names in the list are followed by the name of the people that they ruled. Thus, it would seem at first glance that Hnæf was considered by the Widsith poet to be the ruler of a people or tribe called the Hócings. However, Hnæf also appears in the poem Beowulf, where he called a half-Dane or Scylding, in an episode in the poem in which Hnæf is killed in a battle against king Finn of the Frisians ["Hæleð Healf-Dena, Hnæf Scyldinga" Beowulf 1069, Klaeber (1922), 40]. The poem describes how Hildeburh, Finn's wife and Hóc's daughter, lost her son and brother ("bearnum ond bróðrum") in the battle ["Né húru Hildeburh herian þorfte / Éotena treowe; unsynnum wearð / beloren léofum æt þám lindplegan / bearnum ond bróðrum; híe on gebyrd hruron / gáre wunde; þæt wæs geomuru ides / Nalles hólinga Hóces dohtor / ..." Beowulf 1071-6, Klaeber (1922), 40]. Another passage in the poem implies that this brother was Hnæf ["Hét ðá Hildeburh æt Hnæfes áde / hire selfre sunu sweoloðe befæstan, / bánfatu bærnan, ond on bæl dôn / éame on eaxle. ..." Beowulf 1114-7, Klaeber (1922), 42; for Finn as the husband of Hildeburh, ibid., line 1153, p. 44]. Hnæf also appears in the Finnsburg fragment describing the same episode, but is not called a Dane in that fragment ["... ðonne Hnæfe guldan ..." Finnsburg 40, Klaeber (1922), 233].
The interesting correspondence of the names Hnæf Hócing and Nebi/Hnabi son of Huoching was pointed out by John Mitchell Kemble in 1849 [Kemble (1849), 419]. Hnæf, Hnabi, and Nebi are all different spellings of the same personal name. The correspondence between Hócing and Huoching is less exact, because Huoching is a personal name, while Hócing is not a personal name but an epithet indicating a patronymic or tribal name. A number of alternate (and for the most part mutually exclusive) scenarios might be proposed to explain Kemble's observation:
Scenario 1: The correspondence
is a coincidence, and there is no real connection.
This is possible. After all, Nebi was a historical Alemannian leader, while Beowulf makes Hnæf a Danish king, and Hóc is not an exact match with Huoching. Still, the appearance together of such uncommon names is difficult to explain away as a coincidence.
Scenario 2: Nebi and Huoching
were descendants of Hnæf and Hóc and were named after them.
Although the relative chronological positions of Hnæf and Nebi may make this possibility seem attractive at first, this scenario can be dismissed without hesitation. There is no good evidence that a Danish ruler Hnæf ever existed.
Scenario 3: Nebi was named
after the poetic figure Hnæf.
This scenario assumes that Huoching was familiar with the legend of Hnæf Hocing, and that having noted that his own name matched the epithet of Hnæf, gave his own son that name ["Dass die Sage im achten Jh. auch in Oberdeutschland bekannt war beweist die Genealogie der Kaiserin Hildegard, ... . Wenn ein Alamanne Huohhing seinen Sohn Hnabi nannte, so meine ich muss man annehmen dass er die Sage von Hnäf dem Hôcing kannte." Müllenhoff (1859), 282 (capitalzation added, and the typo "kanute" corrected to "kannte"); "The popularity of the legend is attested not only by the preservation of two versions that are, in a measure, parallel, but also by the mention of certain of its names in Widsith ... and by the allusion to Hnæf, Hóc's son, which is implied in the use of the names Huochingus [father] and Nebi (Hnabi) [son] occurring in the Alemannic ducal line of the eighth century." Klaeber (1922), 222; Fulk-Bjork-Niles (2008), 276]. However, there are problems with this scenario. There is no evidence for the existence of a continental version of the Hnæf legend, and it is difficult to believe that the English version of the legend reached Alemannia as early as ca. 700. While the naming of children after legendary figures is not unknown, it was not a common practice. Also, the fact that Hócing is an epithet makes it harder to explain the connection, especially in this scenario.
Scenario 4: Huoching did not
exist, and his appearance in Thegan's account is the result of an
error or invention coming from the epithet Hócing.
Based on the assumption that Huoching was a lineage name ("Geschlechtsname") rather than a personal name, Baesecke proposed that the Huoching of Hildegard's genealogy was invented on the basis of the heroic poems, but did not elaborate further [Baesecke (1940-53), 2.1: 58-9]. On the other hand, although he acknowledged that no certain solution was possible, Mayer thought that it was very improbable that Thegan had borrowed the name Huoching from Beowulf, and thought it more likely that the borrowing went in the other direction (see Scenario 5) [Mayer (1953), 336-7 n. 77, mentioning Jänichen's forthcoming research on the problem]. Eckhardt proposed that Thegan's genealogy was ultimately based on an earlier genealogy which showed Imma as a daughter of Nebi and Nebi as a son of Gottfried, into which the name Huoching was later erroneously inserted. It is known that under Charlemagne many of the old Germanic heroic songs were written down ["Item barbara et antiquissima carmina, quibus veterum regum actus et bella canebantur, scripsit memoriaeque mandavit." Einhard, Vita Karoli imp., c. 29, MGH SS 2: 458], and this may have included some of the Anglo-Saxon heroic tales. Thus, as Eckhardt's theory goes, someone may have identified Hnæf Hócing with Nebi, and altered the genealogy to add an epithet for Nebi, giving Imma, daughter of Nebi Huoching, son of Gottfried. After this, another error could have changed Nebi Huoching into Nebi son of Huoching to give us the genealogy reported by Thegan [Eckhardt (1965), 62-4]. One advantage of this scenario is that it would explain why Hócing is an epithet while Huoching is a name. Also, Nebi's father Huoching is not attested in any source other than Thegan, although the name itself is attested for other individuals [e.g., "Hochinc" MGH Libri. Confrat. 1: 191, col. 124, line 8; this undermines Baesecke's variation of this scenario]. Eckhardt's scenario would require that the Hnæf-Finn legend was already current in England in the eighth century and that it was among the items transmitted to the Carolingian scholars. The main difficulty of the theory is that it would require that errors had been made in two successive stages: first, an error in which Hnæf was wrongly identified as Nebi and the epithet "Huoching" was inserted after his name, and second, an error in which the epithet was converted into an additional generation. (The alternative in which both of these errors occurred at the same time is even less likely.)
Scenario 5: Nebi son of
Huoching was the historical model for the legendary Hnæf Hocing.
This scenario suggests that a story about Nebi son of Huoching (perhaps lacking any geographical or chronological indicators) was projected back in time to the sixth century, where Hnæf was transformed into a Danish king and inserted into the stories of other legendary figures. This theory was discussed in detail by Jänichen in 1976 [Jänichen (1976)], but had been proposed years earlier, evidently being the preferred solution by Mayer [Mayer (1953), 336-7 n. 77, mentioning Jänichen's forthcoming research]. Such anachronisms and changes of nationality often occur in legendary accounts. If correct, Jänichen's theory would require that the Hnæf-Finn legend developed at the earliest in the late eighth century, but probably later, and that the episode was inserted into the Beowulf epic after then. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles dismiss Jänichen's theory without any discussion ["Note that Jänichen ... argues rather implausibly that these two dukes served as the model for the figures in the poem." Fulk-Bjork-Niles (2008), 276 n. 3]. However, I would disagree with the statement that the theory is implausible. Once an account involving obscure figures has lost its chronological and historical context, it is not difficult for the story to become chronologically misplaced, even by centuries, especially in legendary or poetic sources. In my opinion, the scenario is a very plausible alternative for explaining the coincidence which should be seriously considered. Still, Jänichen clearly presses his argument too far when he tries to use the Anglo-Saxon poetic sources to deduce genealogical relationships within the Alemannian ducal family [Jänichen (1976); for example, see the comments on page of Huoching about his alleged daughter Hildeburg].
The relative probability of these scenarios is affected considerably by the question of the date of composition of Beowulf, itself a matter of great controversy, with some opinions suggesting a date as early as the early eighth century, and others arguing that the poem in its current form was composed in about the year 1000, the approximate date of the sole surviving manuscript [see, e.g., Chase (1981) for a good selection of articles discussing both sides of the question]. The question is difficult and to some extent ambiguous, because the poem is not only likely to have had a long and complicated development, but was probably composed from various elements which themselves had long and complicated histories. Of course, the development of the Finn episode is crucial to the main question of concern to us, but too little of that can be deduced from the available scraps. However, the events in the Finn episode are of no real relevance to the main plot of Beowulf, which increases the likelihood that the episode was incorporated into the larger poem at the time of composition. If the composition of Beowulf in its current form was late (the direction in which my own view tends), then there would be no reason for the Finn episode to be regarded as an early legend, and that would increase the probability of Scenario 5, although it would not rule out the early development of the Finn Legend that would be needed for Scenarios 3 or 4 to be true. The earlier the composition of Beowulf, the more difficult it becomes to justify Scenario 5.
Of key relevance is how far the evidence of Thegan can be trusted regarding his information on the ancestry of Hildegard. Scenario 4 states that Thegan's information is based on a series of errors, and in fact that Huoching was a(n) (apparently unintentional) fabrication. On the other hand, Scenarios 3 and 5 imply that at least the link between Huoching and Nebi is correct. As noted, Scenario 2 is to be rejected anyway, and Scenario 1, if true, appears to imply nothing in either direction about the quality of Thegan's information. Thegan was writing in the 830's, about a century and a quarter after the time of Hildegard's supposed great-great-grandfather duke Gottfried. Thus, even though he is not a contemporary source, he was writing soon enough afterward that it is likely that many still knew the correct descent. Therefore, in my opinion, Scenario 5 is the most likely alternative, although Scenario 4 also has some good arguments going for it. To me, Scenario 1 seems improbable, and Scenario 3 even less likely.
Acta Acad. Theod. Palat. = Historia et Commentationes academiae electoralis scientiarum et elegantiorum laterarum Theodoro-Palatinae (vol. 3, 1773).
Baesecke (1940-53) = Georg Baesecke, Vor- und frühgeschichte des deutschen Schrifttums (2 vols., M. Niemeyer, 1940-53).
Borgolte (1986) = Michael Borgolte, Die Grafen Alemanniens in merowingischer und karolingischer Zeit: eine Prosopographie (Sigmaringen, 1986).
Chase (1981) = Colin Chase, ed. The Dating of Beowulf (Univ. of Toronto Press, 1981).
Codex Lauresh. = Codex principis olim Laureshamensis abbatiae diplomaticus, 3 vols., (Mannheim, 1768-70). I have not seen Glöckner's modern edition [K. Glöckner, ed., Codex Laureshamensis, 3 vols., (Darmstadt, 1929-36)].
Eckhardt (1965) = Karl August Eckhardt, Merowingerblut, 2 vols. (Witzenhausen, 1965). [I have only seen vol. 1]
Fulk-Bjork-Niles (2008) = Robert Dennis Fulk, Robert E. Bjork, John D. Niles, eds., Klaeber's Beowulf and The fight at Finnburg (University of Toronto Press, 2008). [A revised and updated version of Klaeber (1922)]
Jänichen (1976) = Hans Jänichen, "Die alemannischen Fürsten Nebi und Berthold und ihre Beziehungen zu den Klöstern St. Gallen und Reichenau", Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 112 (1976): 30-40.
Kemble (1849) = John Mitchell Kemble, The Saxons in England, 2 vols. (London, 1849).
Klaeber (1922) = Fr. Klaeber, Beowulf and the fight at Finnsburg (Boston, New York, Chicago, 1922). [see Fulk-Bjork-Niles (2008)]
Lamejus (1773) = Andreas Lamejus, "Pagi Spirensis qualis antiquis temporibus fuit, descriptio", Acta academiae Theodoro-Palatinae 3 (1773): 228-280.
Mayer (1953) = Theodor Mayer, "Die Anfänge der Reichenau", Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 101 (NF 62, 1953): 305-352.
Mayr (1974) = Gottfried Mayr, Studien zum Adel im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern (Studien zur bayerischen Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte, 5, München, 1974).
MGH Libri Confrat. = Paul Piper, ed., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libri Confraternitatum Sancti Galli Augiensis Fabariensis (Berlin, 1884).
MGH Nec. = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Necrologia series.
Müllenhoff (1859) = K. Müllenhoff, "Zur Kritik des angelsächsischen Volksepos", Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 11 (1859): 272-294.
Siegwart (1958) = Josef Siegwart, "Zur Frage des alemannischen Herzogsgutes um Zürich", Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte 8 (1958): 145-192.
Tellenbach (1957) = Gerd Tellenbach, "Der großfränkisches Adel und die Regierung Italiens in der Blütezeit des Karolingerreiches", in Gerd Tellenbach, ed., Studien und Vorarbeiten zur Geschichte des großfränkischen und frühdeutschen Adels (Freiburg, 1957), 40-70, reprinted in Gerd Tellenbach, Ausgewählte Abhandlungen und Aufsätze (Stuttgart, 1988), 3: 795-825.
UB Sanct Gallen = Hermann Wartmann, ed., Urkundenbuch der Abtei Sanct Gallen (Zürich, 1863-6).
Wagner (1977) = Norbert Wagner, "Chistesbrunno und Huohhobura. Zu den althochdeutschen Würzburger Markbeschreibungen", Beiträge zur Namenforschung 12 (1977): 372-397.
Wagner (1987) = Norbert Wagner, review of Borgolte (1986) (see above), in Beiträge zur Namenforschung 22 (1987): 329-331.
Widsith = Kemp Malone, ed., Widsith (Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1962).
Compiled by Stewart Baldwin
First uploaded 16 August 2012.
Return to Henry Project home page
Go to Henry Project index page
Go to Henry II ancestor table