Talk:Conon, Count of Montaigu

Count of Huy?

Srnec thanks for adding a source. It is interesting that Murray says Conon was "episcopal count" of Huy, but I wonder if he is misunderstanding something. He cites Kupper and Roland, and neither of them mention this. It would seem an important point, because I am not sure there was any such thing as a count of Huy in this period, apart from the prince-bishop himself. Of course Murray is a reliable source, but I am wondering in this case if we shouldn't be cautious about relying on this one statement which seems to differ from other sources. There was a count Gozelon of Huy in the 1020s but I don't think there is any consensus about him holding a comital jurisdiction corresponding to the episcopal county of Huy. There was an advocate in Huy though. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the article says only that he "held" the county of Huy. Perhaps as an advocate who also happened to have the title count? I can easily see a count of X who was also the advocate of the county of Y being called 'count of Y' both in medieval and modern sources. But Murray is explicit elsewhere that Cono succeeded his father as count of Huy, that his father had been enfeoffed with the county before 1028 and that Otto III had granted it to the bishop in 985. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec: Yes there is no doubt that the bishop himself was enfeoffed with the county of Huy, but I don't think Cono is recorded being advocate or castellan of Huy. In fact those positions were held by others, not counts, and the sources you show indicate that Murray is talking about lands out in the countryside in the comitatus (comital jurisdiction) of Huy. Conon and his family were advocates and castellans of Dinant, but not Huy. Thanks for the second source. Once again Roland appears to be the source. The wording in this second publication seems to confirm what I thought Murray might have been reading into Roland. He is extrapolating from something Roland said about a possible ancestor of Conon, named Gozelon "of Huy" in 1028 ("Gozelon de Montaigu peut être le même personnage que Gozelon de Huy et Gozelon d’Engis"). However, Roland changed his mind in a later article. See G. Roland, Un faux diplôme de Conrad II. "Étude diplomatique et historique" Bulletin de la Commission royale d'Histoire, Année 1907 76 pp. 548-567 https://www.persee.fr/doc/bcrh_0001-415x_1907_num_76_1_2088 ("Dans l'élude que j'ai consacrée en 1893 à Gozelon, comte de Montaigu et de Behogne, je l'ai reconnu dans le Gozelon, comte de Huy en 1028, et dans le comes Gozelon mentionné dans nombre de chartes liégeoises de 1034, 1035, 1043, 1046"). There had been a person referred to as "Gozelon of Huy" but it was apparently a member of the Ardenne clan. "Les domaines du Donceel et d'Engis se retrouvent quelques années après, non dans la maison de Montaigu, mais dans celle des comtes d'Ardenne qui a fourni Gozelon et Godefroid." Once again there is certainly no concern about whether Murray is a reliable source, but we do not need to repeat everything every reliable source says. We are allowed to leave out bits if we find that a specific publication contains an unusual opinion, that does not fit with the field (unless it is a notable debate). Murray appears not to be aware about the new information Roland explained in Roland's second publication on this topic. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I got a chuckle out of a paper from 1907 containing new information. I have removed the reference to him holding Huy. Do you have access to Joris's La Ville de Huy au Moyen Âge? I'd like to see what it says about this period, but not even a snippet is on Google Books. Srnec (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for better or worse historians of this period often take very old books as authorities, such as Vanderkindere. I find it quite interesting to be honest because I've traced relatively recent ideas back past Vanderkindere to people like Butkens. It is kind of funny, and sometimes (but not in this case) kind of worrying. The "new" article by Roland is just far less well-known than his big article about the counts of Montaigu, which is still one of the best works about them. I personally think it deserves that status, and I am not criticizing Murray. I agree that it would be interesting to read Joris, which is clearly a much newer authority, and very highly cited. I was also looking around but also found no online copy. I can probably find it in a Belgian library one day. If I do I'll try to remember.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)