Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Stewart Baldwin

Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 30 des 2004 07:43:21

In the genealogy of the "Hugonid" dynasty of the counts of Maine,
there seem to be two basic points which cause a bit of trouble in the
line of descent leading from count Roger, son-in-law of Charles the
Bald, to Geoffrey of Anjou via Hélie de la Flèche. One of these is
the exact way in which Hélie de la Flèche, son of Jean de la Flèche,
had a claim to the count of Maine, due to the evident confusion of the
account of Orderic Vitalis. Latouche's "Historie du comté du Maine"
has a discussion of this on pp. 113-5, concluding that Hélie's mother
Paula was probably a daughter of count Herbert I. Although the
evidence is less than ideal, this does seem like the best solution,
and it has been generally accepted.

The other problem (and the main one which concerns me at the moment)
is the relationship between counts Hugh I and Hugh II. Not knowing of
a document which stated the relation between the two, Latouche gave
the cautious statement (p. 6) that Hugh II was perhaps a son or other
close relative of Hugh I. Those following Latouche have generally
made Hugh II a son of Hugh I, not surprisingly with the indication of
doubt often removed.

The only place I have seen a possible direct source for this
relationship in in Karl Ferdinand Werner's account of 8 generations of
descendants of Charlemagne in volume 4 of "Karl der Große - Lebenswerk
und Nachleben", on p. 461, where he states that a document of 936/7
(Bibl. Nat., Coll. Moreau 6, fol. 33) mentions both Hugh I and Hugh II
with the details apparently to appears in a future item perhaps titled
"Regesten der Robertiner-Urkunden". Can anybody shed further light on
the above, or indicate if and where the above details might have been
published?

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 des 2004 11:22:26

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0pc6t0hrdgo53bo5ga8l6alo327ukjgaqs@4ax.com...
In the genealogy of the "Hugonid" dynasty of the counts of Maine,
there seem to be two basic points which cause a bit of trouble in the
line of descent leading from count Roger, son-in-law of Charles the
Bald, to Geoffrey of Anjou via Hélie de la Flèche. One of these is
the exact way in which Hélie de la Flèche, son of Jean de la Flèche,
had a claim to the count of Maine, due to the evident confusion of the
account of Orderic Vitalis. Latouche's "Historie du comté du Maine"
has a discussion of this on pp. 113-5, concluding that Hélie's mother
Paula was probably a daughter of count Herbert I. Although the
evidence is less than ideal, this does seem like the best solution,
and it has been generally accepted.

The other problem (and the main one which concerns me at the moment)
is the relationship between counts Hugh I and Hugh II. Not knowing of
a document which stated the relation between the two, Latouche gave
the cautious statement (p. 6) that Hugh II was perhaps a son or other
close relative of Hugh I. Those following Latouche have generally
made Hugh II a son of Hugh I, not surprisingly with the indication of
doubt often removed.

The only place I have seen a possible direct source for this
relationship in in Karl Ferdinand Werner's account of 8 generations of
descendants of Charlemagne in volume 4 of "Karl der Große - Lebenswerk
und Nachleben", on p. 461, where he states that a document of 936/7
(Bibl. Nat., Coll. Moreau 6, fol. 33) mentions both Hugh I and Hugh II
with the details apparently to appears in a future item perhaps titled
"Regesten der Robertiner-Urkunden". Can anybody shed further light on
the above, or indicate if and where the above details might have been
published?

I'm unable to check at present, but I don't know of any document of the
Robertian family dated to the first year of Louis IV's reign (936/7), and
I'm pretty sure there are no documents from that time in which any count of
Maine can be certainly identified much less a father & son together.

If such a document has come to light, it should be mentioned by Katherine
Keats-Rohan in several papers, for instance 'Un vassal sans histoire?: Count
Hugh II (c 940/955-992) and the Origins of Angevin Overlordship in Maine',
_Family Trees and the Roots of Politics_ (Woodbridge, 1997) and especially
'Bilichildis: problèmes et possibilités d'une étude d'onomastique et de la
parenté de la France du nord-ouest', _Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident
médiéval_ (Oxford, 2000). In the latter she puts forward a hypothesis about
the transmission of the name Bilihild through Hugo II as a son of Hugo I and
a lady of this name.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 02 jan 2005 02:34:32

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:22:26 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

I'm unable to check at present, but I don't know of any document of the
Robertian family dated to the first year of Louis IV's reign (936/7), and
I'm pretty sure there are no documents from that time in which any count of
Maine can be certainly identified much less a father & son together.

Latouche, p. 137, cites two acts of Hugh the Great from not much
earlier, 929 and 931, in which count Hugh son of Roger is mentioned.

If such a document has come to light, it should be mentioned by Katherine
Keats-Rohan in several papers, for instance 'Un vassal sans histoire?: Count
Hugh II (c 940/955-992) and the Origins of Angevin Overlordship in Maine',
_Family Trees and the Roots of Politics_ (Woodbridge, 1997) and especially
'Bilichildis: problèmes et possibilités d'une étude d'onomastique et de la
parenté de la France du nord-ouest', _Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident
médiéval_ (Oxford, 2000). In the latter she puts forward a hypothesis about
the transmission of the name Bilihild through Hugo II as a son of Hugo I and
a lady of this name.

If I had thought more carefully about the time distance between
Werner's comment and the Keat-Rohan papers, I would have realized
that, as you say, it is unlikely that Werner would have published such
a followup piece without it being noticed in the later papers. Still,
since it also seems unlikely that Werner's brief comment (with a
manuscript citation) went unnoticed, one would think that somebody
might follow it up, as it would be worth a footnote even if it turned
out to be a mistake (and would be quite important if it provided clear
proof of Hugh II's parentage).

Without clear proof of a father-son connection between Hugh I and Hugh
II, it has me wondering about other possibilities. That is especially
the case here since some false acts composed at a later time refer to
Hugh II as Hugh son of David (Latouche pp. 167-70). Although false,
these acts are believed to be at least partly based on a genuine act
of Hugh II. Is it possible that Hugh II was the son of a man named
David (not necessarily a count) instead, and related to Hugh I in some
other way? There is even chronological room for another generation,
allowing enough time for Hugh II to be a grandson of Hugh I instead.
The region in the area most likely to produce a man named David would
have been Brittany, which is adjacent to Maine, which suggests the
(obviously conjectural) scenario of Hugh II being a maternal grandson
of Hugh I, in which case, if "David" were Breton of lesser status,
then the reason the name David is not found in later generations would
be easy to explain.

Of course, I am not suggesting that everyone go out and change their
genealogical tables to the above very hypothetical theory, which would
require more than what I have said above to be really taken seriously,
but it does seem to me that the "line" between Hugh I and Hugh II in
the genealogical charts needs to be a "dotted" line (preferably in
pencil) rather than a "solid" one.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 jan 2005 03:05:03

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:evdet0p6f91kv4cd8qk07drs11hjjk21i6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:22:26 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

I'm unable to check at present, but I don't know of any document of the
Robertian family dated to the first year of Louis IV's reign (936/7), and
I'm pretty sure there are no documents from that time in which any count
of
Maine can be certainly identified much less a father & son together.

Latouche, p. 137, cites two acts of Hugh the Great from not much
earlier, 929 and 931, in which count Hugh son of Roger is mentioned.

But that is not in the reign of Louis IV, at the start of which Hugo occurs
in a number of royal documents but not I think in any surviving charters of
his own - and (from memory) there are no known documents at all in which a
count of Maine occurs between 931 and around 950/5.

Werner referred a few times to his own list of Robertian diplomata, but this
has not been published apart from extracts. If he had come across an
otherwise unrecognised document naming Hugo II of Maine as the son of Hugo
I, he would surely have seen to it that this was published quite
prominently. There is no reference to such a document in Werner's earlier
'Untersuchungen zur Frühzeit des französischen Fürstentums (9-10
Jahrhundert)', III. Zur Geschichte der Grafen von Maine im 10 Jahrhundert,
_Die Welt als Geschichte_ 18 (1958) or in any of his papers after 1967 as
far as I can recall. What exactly did he say in the note you mentioned?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 jan 2005 03:48:07

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:evdet0p6f91kv4cd8qk07drs11hjjk21i6@4ax.com...

<snip>

Without clear proof of a father-son connection between Hugh I and Hugh
II, it has me wondering about other possibilities. That is especially
the case here since some false acts composed at a later time refer to
Hugh II as Hugh son of David (Latouche pp. 167-70). Although false,
these acts are believed to be at least partly based on a genuine act
of Hugh II. Is it possible that Hugh II was the son of a man named
David (not necessarily a count) instead, and related to Hugh I in some
other way? There is even chronological room for another generation,
allowing enough time for Hugh II to be a grandson of Hugh I instead.
The region in the area most likely to produce a man named David would
have been Brittany, which is adjacent to Maine, which suggests the
(obviously conjectural) scenario of Hugh II being a maternal grandson
of Hugh I, in which case, if "David" were Breton of lesser status,
then the reason the name David is not found in later generations would
be easy to explain.

Of course, I am not suggesting that everyone go out and change their
genealogical tables to the above very hypothetical theory, which would
require more than what I have said above to be really taken seriously,
but it does seem to me that the "line" between Hugh I and Hugh II in
the genealogical charts needs to be a "dotted" line (preferably in
pencil) rather than a "solid" one.

I would urge even greater caution in speculating from onomastics in this way
in this lineage: the father of Count Hugo I was Roger, and yet this name
does not occur amongst his known agnatic descendants; Count Roger's wife,
mother of Hugo I, was a daughter of King Charles the Bald, and yet the name
Charles does not occur in the comital family of Maine; Count Hugo II's sons
were named Hugo, Fulcoin and Heribert, so that on the slender evidence
available several different connections are more plausible in the previous
generation than one to an otherwise unknown Breton named David.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 jan 2005 05:52:18

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0pc6t0hrdgo53bo5ga8l6alo327ukjgaqs@4ax.com...

<snip>

The other problem (and the main one which concerns me at the moment)
is the relationship between counts Hugh I and Hugh II. Not knowing of
a document which stated the relation between the two, Latouche gave
the cautious statement (p. 6) that Hugh II was perhaps a son or other
close relative of Hugh I. Those following Latouche have generally
made Hugh II a son of Hugh I, not surprisingly with the indication of
doubt often removed.

The only place I have seen a possible direct source for this
relationship in in Karl Ferdinand Werner's account of 8 generations of
descendants of Charlemagne in volume 4 of "Karl der Große - Lebenswerk
und Nachleben", on p. 461, where he states that a document of 936/7
(Bibl. Nat., Coll. Moreau 6, fol. 33) mentions both Hugh I and Hugh II
with the details apparently to appears in a future item perhaps titled
"Regesten der Robertiner-Urkunden". Can anybody shed further light on
the above, or indicate if and where the above details might have been
published?

I think this was probably an error on Werner's part, or at any rate an
interpretaion that he hasn't been ready to justify since.

On checking the reference to p. 461 of his paper cited above, I note that in
the document allegedly proving Hugo II of Maine to have been the son of Hugo
I they are said to appear along with Viscount Radulf of Le Mans and Count
William of Poitou, and the date of this is 19 June 936/18 June 937 (that is,
the first year of Louis IV's reign).

Triangulation makes it easier to track down from the Antipodes, without
having to visit Paris thanks to Gallica: it seems very likely to me that the
document Werner had found (Coll. Moreau 6, fol. 33) is a copy of the charter
of Senegundis in _Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Cyprien de Poitiers_,
edited by Louis Rédet, Archives historiques du Poitou 3 (Poitiers, 1874),
no. 549 p. 325, attested and dated as follows:

"S. Willelmi comitis, Hugoni comitis, item Hugoni...Radulfi
vicecomitis...Anno I Ludovico regnante".

Just who this Count Hugo might be, as well as his namesake and the Viscount
Radulf, together in Poitou is the nub of the question. If Radulf was the
viscount of Le Mans it would be plausible enough that the two Hugos also
came from Maine.

There are alternative possibilities, however. Alfred Richard [_Histoire des
comtes de Poitou, 778-1204_, 2 vols (Paris, 1903) I 79 note 1] suggested
that this Radulf might have been a viscount of Brosse. Elsewhere in the
cartulary of St-Cyprien [p. 61, note 1], Rédet remarked that in _L'art de
vérifier les dates_ [(1818 edition) vol. III p. 138] it was deduced that
Hugo Magnus, duke of the Franks, had been adjudged count of Poitou by Louis
IV, so that in 936/7 he was acting jointly in this capacity with Count
William. Richard, loc cit note 2, considered that this solved the question.

I haven't followed up the matter further as yet, but if Hugo Magnus was the
Count Hugo of this charter (and assuming that Werner had not found something
else with the same combination of names and date but clearly indicating
Count Hugo I of Maine and his son) then the identity of the namesake
attesting with him is left in some doubt since Hugo Capet was probably not
born until a few years later according to most authorities - Christian
Settipani [_La préhistoire des Capétiens 481-987_ (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 1993)
p. 415] says ca. 940.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 02 jan 2005 06:42:26

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:52:18 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Triangulation makes it easier to track down from the Antipodes, without
having to visit Paris thanks to Gallica: it seems very likely to me that the
document Werner had found (Coll. Moreau 6, fol. 33) is a copy of the charter
of Senegundis in _Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Cyprien de Poitiers_,
edited by Louis Rédet, Archives historiques du Poitou 3 (Poitiers, 1874),
no. 549 p. 325, attested and dated as follows:

"S. Willelmi comitis, Hugoni comitis, item Hugoni...Radulfi
vicecomitis...Anno I Ludovico regnante".

Just who this Count Hugo might be, as well as his namesake and the Viscount
Radulf, together in Poitou is the nub of the question. If Radulf was the
viscount of Le Mans it would be plausible enough that the two Hugos also
came from Maine.

Thanks for the reference. Checking further, I found that Settipani
also discusses this in "La Noblesse du Midi Carolingien" (pp. 232-3),
confimring (p. 233 n. 2) that this was the item mentioned by Werner.
Settipani accepts the identification of the two Hughs as Hugh I and
Hugh (the future II) of Maine, and cites Brunterc'h and Prell as also
having previously accepted that identification.

Stewart Baldwin

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 02 jan 2005 07:51:21

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:48:07 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

I would urge even greater caution in speculating from onomastics in this way
in this lineage: the father of Count Hugo I was Roger, and yet this name
does not occur amongst his known agnatic descendants; Count Roger's wife,
mother of Hugo I, was a daughter of King Charles the Bald, and yet the name
Charles does not occur in the comital family of Maine; Count Hugo II's sons
were named Hugo, Fulcoin and Heribert, so that on the slender evidence
available several different connections are more plausible in the previous
generation than one to an otherwise unknown Breton named David.

Although it was certainly speculation, I don't think that the words
"from onomastics" apply here, since I was basically pointing out that
the only early documents giving a name to the father of Hugh II (as
poor as they might be) give a different name than the undocumented one
currently in favor. So, it was speculation "from bad sources" and not
"from onomastics" :-). I should also point out that I was not trying
to push the acceptance of an alternate tree (was my disclaimer
insufficient?), but was rather trying to test the strength of the
currently "accepted" tree by seeing to what extent it might be
undermined by a plausible alternate hypothesis.

Speaking of onomastic speculation, in another article which covers
some of the same ground as her other articles you cited (Politique et
Parentèle: Les Comtes, vicomtes et évêques du Maine c. 940-1050,
Francia 23/1 (1996), 13-30), Keats-Rohan suggests (p. 15, n. 12) that
the name of Herbert came from a link with the house of Vermandois (no
surprise there). She also points out that among the sons of Hugh II,
Herbert Bacon (still living 1046) was probably not by the same wife as
the older sons Hugh III and Fulcoin (who witness in 967), so that in
that case, neither wife of Hugh II would be an ancestor to both
Herbert Bacon and Hugh III's son Herbert I, in which case the origin
of the name Herbert would likely be among Hugh II's ancestors, his
maternal ancestors according to Keats-Rohan. However, since a wife of
Hugh I (and mother of Hugh II) has already been speculated on
onomastic grounds to be a daughter of a Rorgonid Gauzlin, this means
that the name Herbert would (at least according to that logic)
probably have to come from Gauzlin's wife. (Personally, I would like
to see the wording of the evidence for Hugh II's brother Gauzlin
(father of a Rorgo) who is the justification for the conjectured
marriage of Hugh I. Of the sources cited by Keats-Rohan, the only one
I have seen is Morice's Histoire ecclésiastic et civile de Bretagne
(Preuves) I, 350-1, which does not quote the entire item, and
evidently leaves out the part relevant to proving the claim.)

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 jan 2005 08:31:40

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tg1ft0dkjl0ao4hq6rk6mkaptusrqco8vm@4ax.com...
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:52:18 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Triangulation makes it easier to track down from the Antipodes, without
having to visit Paris thanks to Gallica: it seems very likely to me that
the
document Werner had found (Coll. Moreau 6, fol. 33) is a copy of the
charter
of Senegundis in _Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Cyprien de Poitiers_,
edited by Louis Rédet, Archives historiques du Poitou 3 (Poitiers, 1874),
no. 549 p. 325, attested and dated as follows:

"S. Willelmi comitis, Hugoni comitis, item Hugoni...Radulfi
vicecomitis...Anno I Ludovico regnante".

Just who this Count Hugo might be, as well as his namesake and the
Viscount
Radulf, together in Poitou is the nub of the question. If Radulf was the
viscount of Le Mans it would be plausible enough that the two Hugos also
came from Maine.

Thanks for the reference. Checking further, I found that Settipani
also discusses this in "La Noblesse du Midi Carolingien" (pp. 232-3),
confimring (p. 233 n. 2) that this was the item mentioned by Werner.
Settipani accepts the identification of the two Hughs as Hugh I and
Hugh (the future II) of Maine, and cites Brunterc'h and Prell as also
having previously accepted that identification.

This makes better sense than the suggestion accepted by Richard - it's hard
to see why two rivals would act jointly as counts, much less in a matter
initiated by a lady of small importance, when they were flatly at odds over
the rule of Poitou afterwards (purportedly settled by the marriage of
William's alleged daughter Adelaide to Hugo's son).

Philippe Lauer [_Le règne de Louis IV d'Outre-mer_, BEHE 127 (Paris, 1900),
p. 250 note 1] rejected the deduction in _L'art de vérifier les dates_
mentioned in my earlier post, and he also questioned the date of 1 Louiis IV
for this document, but he proposed another rationale for identifying Count
Hugo in the charter with Hugo Magnus: the husband of Senegundis was Cadelon,
and her charter may relate to possessions in Poitou held from Hugo Magnus
who had a vassal of that name. Not convincing to me - but then I'm sceptical
about other points that ARE generally accepted, for instance I'm not
satisfied that Hugo Capet's wife Adelaide actually came from Poitou.

I don't have access to the works of Brunterc'h and Prell cited by Christian
Settipani, both dissertations. A translation of Prell's, _Prosopographie,
Pouvoir et Politique en Poitou (fin IXe -début XI siècles)_, is due to be
published soon by the Propospography Centre at Oxford.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hugh I and II, counts of Maine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 jan 2005 08:45:02

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nd2ft0t9s0codli4ofp5ehtphj5lq0p68u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:48:07 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

I would urge even greater caution in speculating from onomastics in this
way
in this lineage: the father of Count Hugo I was Roger, and yet this name
does not occur amongst his known agnatic descendants; Count Roger's wife,
mother of Hugo I, was a daughter of King Charles the Bald, and yet the
name
Charles does not occur in the comital family of Maine; Count Hugo II's
sons
were named Hugo, Fulcoin and Heribert, so that on the slender evidence
available several different connections are more plausible in the previous
generation than one to an otherwise unknown Breton named David.

Although it was certainly speculation, I don't think that the words
"from onomastics" apply here, since I was basically pointing out that
the only early documents giving a name to the father of Hugh II (as
poor as they might be) give a different name than the undocumented one
currently in favor. So, it was speculation "from bad sources" and not
"from onomastics" :-). I should also point out that I was not trying
to push the acceptance of an alternate tree (was my disclaimer
insufficient?), but was rather trying to test the strength of the
currently "accepted" tree by seeing to what extent it might be
undermined by a plausible alternate hypothesis.

Yes, your disclaimer was sufficient - I was just being overly brief in using
"onomastics", from your suggestion about David not occurring later in the
family because the possible original holder of the name might not have been
important enough to commemorate, when Count Roger and King Charles the Bald
were known ancestors whose names also didn't get another run, as far as
records tell.

David was a name that literary fashion could have ruled out of popularity
amongst comital lineages with royal connections, especially from the early
11th century when Robert II was frequently compared to the biblical king
after repenting his adultery. This revived a commonplace from Carolingian
times, applied to several kings who had humiliated themselves, or had been
brought to heel by the Church, in similar ways.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»