It is apparent from the sources that Ingelramn, the chamberlain of
Charles the Bald who lost his lands between 870 and 875 due to the
infulence of Charles's second wife Richilde, was the historical
prototype of the Ingelramn who was (falsely) alleged by later Flemish
sources to be father of Audacer, father of Baldwin I "of Flanders".
In the very preliminary account of Baldwin I which I posted in June, I
indicated that Ingelramn was count of Flanders, following Bethmann in
accepting the first alternative of the two interpretations listed
below. Since then, during a couple of out-of-town trips, I have had
the chance to accumulate quite a few articles from the literature on
the subject of the early counts of Flanders that I had not seen
before, and I have changed my opinion regarding the districts over
which Ingelramn was count. Because of the relevance of this with
regard to the (not clearly documented) regions over which Baldwin I
was count, some discussion of this seems appropriate on the Henry
Project page for Baldwin I, and what follows is a start on this:
Over which regions was Ingelramn count?: the Capitulary of Servais.
The Capitulary of Servais was enacted by Charles the Bald in November
853, assigning "missi" over twelve districts to enforce measures from
an agreement between Charles and his brother Lothaire. Of the twelve
districts ("missicati"), the third "missicatum" is the one of interest
with regard to Ingelramn:
"III. Immo episcopus, Adalardus abba, Waltcaudus, Odelricus missi in
Noviomiso, Vermendiso, Adertiso, Curtrisco, Flandra, comitatibus
Engilramni et in comitatibus Waltcaudi." [MGH Leg. 1: 426].
The words "comitatibus Engilramni et in comitatibus Waltcaudi" have
been interpreted in different ways. Vanderkindere (1897), 98-100,
interpreted these words in such a way that Ingelramn and Waltcaud
would each be counts over some of the listed regions and some of the
unlisted regions, assiging Waltcaud as count of Noyon, Vermandois,
Artois, and Ostrevant, and Ingelramn as count of Gand, Coutraisis, and
Tournaisis. However, this interpretation takes significant libeties
with the language, and has been rejected by later authors. The two
interpretations which seem consistent with the language of the entry
would be the following:
1. the words "comitatibus Engliramni" are in apposition to the names
of the five preceding pagi, in which case Ingelramn would be count of
these five pagi, and Waltcaud would be count of the remaining pagi of
the missicatum. [L. C. Bethmann, in his edition of Genealogiae comitum
Flandriae, MGH SS 9: 305, n. 6; Sproemberg (1935), 19-20] (Note: The
"in" in the phrase "et in comitatibus Waltcaudi" would indicate that
these words would not be a part of such an apposition.)
2. The words "comitatibus Engilramni et in comitatibus Waltcaudi"
should be interpreted as referring to pagi distinct from the ones
listed earlier. [Ganshof (1937), 369-370, without specifying which
regions were those of Ingelramn; Grierson (1938), 249-250, assigning
the pagi of Mélantois, Caribant, Pevèle, and Ostrevant as those of
Ingelramn, and citing his earlier 1935 note, which I have not seen.]
If the first of these alternatives were true, it would then make it
likely that Ingelramn was still count of Flanders in 870 (when he was
still in favor), and it would then be difficult to regard Baldwin I as
being count of Flanders in 862. However, although the first
alternative would be gramatically acceptable, the arguments in favor
of the second alternative seem strong. If the first alternative were
true, one would expect to see a more uniform account by also listing
Waltcaud's pagi in apposition to his name, and it is more natural to
assume that all items on the list refer to separate regions. In
addition, if one looks at the probable additional regions which would
be a part of "missicatum" III, the first interpretation would result
in the regions assigned to Ingelramn and Waltcaud being disconnected
[see the map in Vanderkindere (1897), between pp. 91 & 92]. Thus, it
looks likely that Flanders was not among the regions over which
Ingelramn was count (even if the exact regions are not clear), and in
any case, as remarked by Ganshof (371), there is no good reason to
exclude the possibility that Baldwin I was already count of Flanders
at his first appearance in 862.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ganshof (1937) = François-Louis Ganshof, "Les origines du comté de
Flandre. À propos d'un ouvrage récent", Revue belge de philologie et
d'histoire 16 (1937): 367-385. [Review article of Sproemberg (1935)]
Grierson (1935) = Philip Grierson, "The capitulary of Servais in its
relations to Flanders", XXe congrès de la fédération archéologique et
historique de Belgique. Programme du Congrès. Résumés des
communications (Brussels, 1935), 84-6. [not seen by me]
Grierson (1938) = Philip Grierson, "La maison d'Evrard de Frioul et
les origines du comté de Flandre", Revue du Nord 24 (1938): 241-266.
Grierson (1939) = Philip Grierson, "The Translation of the Relics of
St. Amalberga to St. Peters of Ghent", Revue bénédictine 51 (1939):
292-315. [Argues that Ingelramn was not lay-abbot of St. Peter's of
Ghent, pp. 308-9]
MGH Leg. = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges series.
MGH SS = Monumenta Germnaiae Historica, Scriptores series.
Sproemberg (1935) = Heinrich Sproemberg, Die Entstehung der Grafschaft
Flandern, I. Die ursprüngliche Grafschaft Flandern (864-892) (Berlin,
1935).
Vanderkindere (1897) = "Le Capitulaire de Servais et les origines du
comté de Flandre", Compte rendu des séances de la commission royale
d'histoire (Bulletin de la commission royale d'histoire) 5th ser., 7
(1897): 91-138.
----------------
Stewart Baldwin
Count Ingelramn (supposed grandfather of Baldwin I "of Fland
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
joseph cook
Re: Count Ingelramn (supposed grandfather of Baldwin I "of F
Very Nice Information Analysis. Thank you for posting this.
Joe C
Joe C
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Count Ingelramn (supposed grandfather of Baldwin I "of F
I'm not able to check into this further at present, but it's worth noting
that Philip Grierson in his edition of Annales Blandinienses (Brussels,
1937) pointed out that in the entry under 856, "sub Inghelranno abbate vel
comite", the name Inghelranno was written in a 14th century hand over an
erasure. In a footnote Grierson remarked that the Liber Traditionum of St
Peter's abbey does not mention Ingelram at all, and that the later compiler
of the annals was almost certainly wrong here and under 875 ("suadente
Ingelranno abbate"). According to Grierson, Ingelram was count of Ostrevant
and some neighbouring pagi, and an important personage in northern France.
Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eh22d21viv8sk16hidc2vp9v6lkfgeh7ji@4ax.com...
that Philip Grierson in his edition of Annales Blandinienses (Brussels,
1937) pointed out that in the entry under 856, "sub Inghelranno abbate vel
comite", the name Inghelranno was written in a 14th century hand over an
erasure. In a footnote Grierson remarked that the Liber Traditionum of St
Peter's abbey does not mention Ingelram at all, and that the later compiler
of the annals was almost certainly wrong here and under 875 ("suadente
Ingelranno abbate"). According to Grierson, Ingelram was count of Ostrevant
and some neighbouring pagi, and an important personage in northern France.
Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eh22d21viv8sk16hidc2vp9v6lkfgeh7ji@4ax.com...
It is apparent from the sources that Ingelramn, the chamberlain of
Charles the Bald who lost his lands between 870 and 875 due to the
infulence of Charles's second wife Richilde, was the historical
prototype of the Ingelramn who was (falsely) alleged by later Flemish
sources to be father of Audacer, father of Baldwin I "of Flanders".
In the very preliminary account of Baldwin I which I posted in June, I
indicated that Ingelramn was count of Flanders, following Bethmann in
accepting the first alternative of the two interpretations listed
below. Since then, during a couple of out-of-town trips, I have had
the chance to accumulate quite a few articles from the literature on
the subject of the early counts of Flanders that I had not seen
before, and I have changed my opinion regarding the districts over
which Ingelramn was count. Because of the relevance of this with
regard to the (not clearly documented) regions over which Baldwin I
was count, some discussion of this seems appropriate on the Henry
Project page for Baldwin I, and what follows is a start on this:
Over which regions was Ingelramn count?: the Capitulary of Servais.
The Capitulary of Servais was enacted by Charles the Bald in November
853, assigning "missi" over twelve districts to enforce measures from
an agreement between Charles and his brother Lothaire. Of the twelve
districts ("missicati"), the third "missicatum" is the one of interest
with regard to Ingelramn:
"III. Immo episcopus, Adalardus abba, Waltcaudus, Odelricus missi in
Noviomiso, Vermendiso, Adertiso, Curtrisco, Flandra, comitatibus
Engilramni et in comitatibus Waltcaudi." [MGH Leg. 1: 426].
The words "comitatibus Engilramni et in comitatibus Waltcaudi" have
been interpreted in different ways. Vanderkindere (1897), 98-100,
interpreted these words in such a way that Ingelramn and Waltcaud
would each be counts over some of the listed regions and some of the
unlisted regions, assiging Waltcaud as count of Noyon, Vermandois,
Artois, and Ostrevant, and Ingelramn as count of Gand, Coutraisis, and
Tournaisis. However, this interpretation takes significant libeties
with the language, and has been rejected by later authors. The two
interpretations which seem consistent with the language of the entry
would be the following:
1. the words "comitatibus Engliramni" are in apposition to the names
of the five preceding pagi, in which case Ingelramn would be count of
these five pagi, and Waltcaud would be count of the remaining pagi of
the missicatum. [L. C. Bethmann, in his edition of Genealogiae comitum
Flandriae, MGH SS 9: 305, n. 6; Sproemberg (1935), 19-20] (Note: The
"in" in the phrase "et in comitatibus Waltcaudi" would indicate that
these words would not be a part of such an apposition.)
2. The words "comitatibus Engilramni et in comitatibus Waltcaudi"
should be interpreted as referring to pagi distinct from the ones
listed earlier. [Ganshof (1937), 369-370, without specifying which
regions were those of Ingelramn; Grierson (1938), 249-250, assigning
the pagi of Mélantois, Caribant, Pevèle, and Ostrevant as those of
Ingelramn, and citing his earlier 1935 note, which I have not seen.]
If the first of these alternatives were true, it would then make it
likely that Ingelramn was still count of Flanders in 870 (when he was
still in favor), and it would then be difficult to regard Baldwin I as
being count of Flanders in 862. However, although the first
alternative would be gramatically acceptable, the arguments in favor
of the second alternative seem strong. If the first alternative were
true, one would expect to see a more uniform account by also listing
Waltcaud's pagi in apposition to his name, and it is more natural to
assume that all items on the list refer to separate regions. In
addition, if one looks at the probable additional regions which would
be a part of "missicatum" III, the first interpretation would result
in the regions assigned to Ingelramn and Waltcaud being disconnected
[see the map in Vanderkindere (1897), between pp. 91 & 92]. Thus, it
looks likely that Flanders was not among the regions over which
Ingelramn was count (even if the exact regions are not clear), and in
any case, as remarked by Ganshof (371), there is no good reason to
exclude the possibility that Baldwin I was already count of Flanders
at his first appearance in 862.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ganshof (1937) = François-Louis Ganshof, "Les origines du comté de
Flandre. À propos d'un ouvrage récent", Revue belge de philologie et
d'histoire 16 (1937): 367-385. [Review article of Sproemberg (1935)]
Grierson (1935) = Philip Grierson, "The capitulary of Servais in its
relations to Flanders", XXe congrès de la fédération archéologique et
historique de Belgique. Programme du Congrès. Résumés des
communications (Brussels, 1935), 84-6. [not seen by me]
Grierson (1938) = Philip Grierson, "La maison d'Evrard de Frioul et
les origines du comté de Flandre", Revue du Nord 24 (1938): 241-266.
Grierson (1939) = Philip Grierson, "The Translation of the Relics of
St. Amalberga to St. Peters of Ghent", Revue bénédictine 51 (1939):
292-315. [Argues that Ingelramn was not lay-abbot of St. Peter's of
Ghent, pp. 308-9]
MGH Leg. = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges series.
MGH SS = Monumenta Germnaiae Historica, Scriptores series.
Sproemberg (1935) = Heinrich Sproemberg, Die Entstehung der Grafschaft
Flandern, I. Die ursprüngliche Grafschaft Flandern (864-892) (Berlin,
1935).
Vanderkindere (1897) = "Le Capitulaire de Servais et les origines du
comté de Flandre", Compte rendu des séances de la commission royale
d'histoire (Bulletin de la commission royale d'histoire) 5th ser., 7
(1897): 91-138.
----------------
Stewart Baldwin
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Count Ingelramn (supposed grandfather of Baldwin I "of F
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:07:06 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Grierson went into more detail on this in his article "The Translation
of the Relics of St. Amalberga to St. Peters of Ghent" [Revue
bénédictine 51 (1939): 292-315], where he also discussed the ninth and
early tenth century succession of abbots of St. Peter's of Ghent, and
suggested that the name under the above erasure was Robert, whom he
identified with the famous Robert the Strong. It is interesting to
note that Baldwin himself appears as abbot in the year 870.
[By the way, I have now been able to consult Grierson's edition of
Annales Blandinienses, so I will use that edition instead of
Bethmann's MGH edition in my Henry Project page on Baldwin I.]
Stewart Baldwin
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I'm not able to check into this further at present, but it's worth noting
that Philip Grierson in his edition of Annales Blandinienses (Brussels,
1937) pointed out that in the entry under 856, "sub Inghelranno abbate vel
comite", the name Inghelranno was written in a 14th century hand over an
erasure. In a footnote Grierson remarked that the Liber Traditionum of St
Peter's abbey does not mention Ingelram at all, and that the later compiler
of the annals was almost certainly wrong here and under 875 ("suadente
Ingelranno abbate"). According to Grierson, Ingelram was count of Ostrevant
and some neighbouring pagi, and an important personage in northern France.
Grierson went into more detail on this in his article "The Translation
of the Relics of St. Amalberga to St. Peters of Ghent" [Revue
bénédictine 51 (1939): 292-315], where he also discussed the ninth and
early tenth century succession of abbots of St. Peter's of Ghent, and
suggested that the name under the above erasure was Robert, whom he
identified with the famous Robert the Strong. It is interesting to
note that Baldwin himself appears as abbot in the year 870.
[By the way, I have now been able to consult Grierson's edition of
Annales Blandinienses, so I will use that edition instead of
Bethmann's MGH edition in my Henry Project page on Baldwin I.]
Stewart Baldwin
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Count Ingelramn (supposed grandfather of Baldwin I "of F
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:o813d2tg213t6p5mlfuerrad6lm7e87p9p@4ax.com...
This is in a diploma of Charles the Bald, preserved in the original, dated
13 April ("uir uenerabilis Balduinus abba monasterii quod uocatur
Blandinius...in uico Gandauo constructus"), leaving no doubt about the
matter at that time - I suppose Vanderkindere forgot about this document in
citing the later annals for Ingelram as abbot in 856 and 875.
The compiler may have been confused about who was abbot where. The lost 10th
century annals of Mont-Blandin were actually composed at Saint-Bertin, and
this led to a few mistakes over burials that were evidently said in the
earlier source to have occurred "here" or "in this monastery", meaning
Saint-Bertin, being ascribed in the later annals to the wrong place (for
Balduin I himself and for his grandson Adalulf). However, Ingelram was not
abbot of Saint-Bertin from 856 to 875 either, so the confusion in the 11th
century must have been more complicated in this instance.
Peter Stewart
news:o813d2tg213t6p5mlfuerrad6lm7e87p9p@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:07:06 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I'm not able to check into this further at present, but it's worth noting
that Philip Grierson in his edition of Annales Blandinienses (Brussels,
1937) pointed out that in the entry under 856, "sub Inghelranno abbate vel
comite", the name Inghelranno was written in a 14th century hand over an
erasure. In a footnote Grierson remarked that the Liber Traditionum of St
Peter's abbey does not mention Ingelram at all, and that the later
compiler
of the annals was almost certainly wrong here and under 875 ("suadente
Ingelranno abbate"). According to Grierson, Ingelram was count of
Ostrevant
and some neighbouring pagi, and an important personage in northern France.
Grierson went into more detail on this in his article "The Translation
of the Relics of St. Amalberga to St. Peters of Ghent" [Revue
bénédictine 51 (1939): 292-315], where he also discussed the ninth and
early tenth century succession of abbots of St. Peter's of Ghent, and
suggested that the name under the above erasure was Robert, whom he
identified with the famous Robert the Strong. It is interesting to
note that Baldwin himself appears as abbot in the year 870.
This is in a diploma of Charles the Bald, preserved in the original, dated
13 April ("uir uenerabilis Balduinus abba monasterii quod uocatur
Blandinius...in uico Gandauo constructus"), leaving no doubt about the
matter at that time - I suppose Vanderkindere forgot about this document in
citing the later annals for Ingelram as abbot in 856 and 875.
The compiler may have been confused about who was abbot where. The lost 10th
century annals of Mont-Blandin were actually composed at Saint-Bertin, and
this led to a few mistakes over burials that were evidently said in the
earlier source to have occurred "here" or "in this monastery", meaning
Saint-Bertin, being ascribed in the later annals to the wrong place (for
Balduin I himself and for his grandson Adalulf). However, Ingelram was not
abbot of Saint-Bertin from 856 to 875 either, so the confusion in the 11th
century must have been more complicated in this instance.
Peter Stewart