Mathieu: Parentage of Ebles, Count of Roucy
Todd A. Farmerie
de l'an mil. Les origines de l'archeveque de Reims Ebles
(1021-1033). in Onomastique et Parente dans l'Occident medieval,
K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and C. Settipani, eds., (2000) pp. 75-84.
In 967, Renaud, Count of Roucy died, leaving four children:
Bruno, Gislebert, Ermentrude, and another daughter, name unknown,
who married Fromond II of Sens. Bruno (a name which by this time
seemed to mark those destined for the church) became Bishop of
Langres, while Gislebert succeeded his father as Count of Roucy,
dying about 1000. At this time (in fact, for a period before)
Roucy passes into a period of obscurity, which only resolves with
the appearance of Ebles, Count of Roucy, in the 1020s, who was
likewise made Archbishop of Reims. Ebles has traditionally been
placed in a direct line of succession, viewed as son of
Gislebert, but Gislebert is not known to have married or had
children, while several other factors raise red flags (i.e. the
name Ebles has no prior exemplar in this family, the time from
the death of Renaud to the appearance of Ebles seems long for
only one intervening generation). This leads Mathieu to conclude
that Ebles was not son of Gislebert, and came about his title
through a less direct route.
Ebles' family consisted of a brother, Eudes, known from
contemporary documents, and two siblings, Letaud of Marle and
Jutta, wife of Manasses of Rethel found in an ancient
genealogical source from Foigny. (Jutta is not discussed
further, but while Ebles apparently d. 1033, Manasses was not
even active until 1066, and was still living in 1081 - the
chronology doesn't work, so there must be some sort of error
here, as others have pointed out). This gives us a group of
names, Ebles, Eudes, and Letaud (leaving out Jutta because of the
chronological difficulties) that can be useful in identifying
their kinship. Also of use are the titles themselves. Rumigny,
Coucy (in the hands of the maternal grandson of Letaud, and
thought to have come through this line) and Reims itself have
links to the Blois counts, and specifically the descendants of
Thibaud with Liegarde of Vermandois. This is where the data
ends, and the hypotheses begin.
The name Ebles appears prominantly only in the family of Ebles
Manzer, Count of Poitou. His grandson William II (IV), Count of
Poitou, married Emma, sister of Eudes I, Count of Blois and son
of Thibaud and Liegarde, so a descent from this marriage would
seemingly explain not only the names Ebles and Eudes, but also
the descent of some of the smaller holdings of the family. The
chronology is a bit of a challenge because of the multiple
marriages and children of William III (V), but it would seem that
Ebles Count of Roucy would belong in the generation of his
grandchildren, and a possible candidate for his father is an
Ebles, brother of Count William III, who is known from only one
document dating from the reign on Robert II of France.
Such a solution leaves unaddressed the succession to Roucy
itself, as well as the name Letaud, and so provisionally
accepting Eudes as father, we turn to the maternal lineage. The
most obvious earlier occurance for Letaud is the father of Count
Aubri of Macon. This man married a woman named Ermentrude, and
from an early date, she has been identified with the daughter of
Renaud de Roucy, and subsequent wife of Otto-William, Count of
Burgundy. However, recently it has been argued that there are
difficulties with this identification, mostly chronological.
However, a closer look shows that these problems can be resolved,
and an early source specifically states that the widow of Aubri
married William, and from this marriage came Otto, Count of
Macon. Thus it would seem that the name Letaud and the Roucy
inheritance would have been united in a child of the marriage of
Aubri II with Ermentrude de Roucy.
(As an aside, this resolution of the chronological difficulties
with identifying Ermentrude as wife both of Aubri and
Otto-William requires the supposition that Aubri married twice,
and that Beatrice, wife of Geoffrey of Gatinais, ancestress of
the Anjou Counts, must have been by the earlier wife. The author
hypothesizes that she may have been a sister of Hugh Capet.
While not explained, the reasoning would seem to be based on the
name Beatrice, a name found in that family since Robert (I)
married Beatrice of Vermandois. Other writings in the same
compilation add a generation, making Beatrice daughter of Aubri
by a daughter of Geoffrey, Vicomte of Orleans, who in turn is
made brother-in-law, of Hugh Capet.)
By hypothesizing a marriage between Eudes of Poitou and a
daughter of Aubri II and Ermentrude, Mathieu brings together the
various names, Ebles, Eudes and Letaud, with the various titles,
Rumigny, Coucy, Reims, and most importantly Roucy. (It would
also recapitulate a common pattern, in which brothers William and
Ebles of Poitou married half-sisters daughters of Ermentrude.)
The solution is not without problems - most importantly, Ebles
and his wife Beatrice of Hainaut would both be
great-grandchildren of William I (III) (assuming the correct
identification of Adelaide, wife of Hugh Capet). Mathieu
suggests that this marriage, which produced just two daughters,
may have been ended in premature separation due to consanginity.
That, then, is the Mathieu hypothesis.
taf
Chris Phillips
> Ebles' family consisted of a brother, Eudes, known from
> contemporary documents, and two siblings, Letaud of Marle and
> Jutta, wife of Manasses of Rethel found in an ancient
> genealogical source from Foigny. (Jutta is not discussed
> further, but while Ebles apparently d. 1033, Manasses was not
> even active until 1066, and was still living in 1081 - the
> chronology doesn't work, so there must be some sort of error
> here, as others have pointed out).
Many thanks for posting that interesting summary of the article.
As you say, Manasses was still living in 1081 - as was Jutta - so clearly
making Jutta the sister of Ebles would require her to have lived to a ripe
age, even if were a much younger sister. If she were the daughter of
Gislebert (d.c.1000), she would need to have lived into her 80s. (The
suggestion that her father was not Gislebert would actually ease this
constraint.)
The problem I found when I was looking at this before, was that the
sparseness of the sources made it difficult to pin down the chronology
tightly enough to be sure about things like this. We do know that the
grandson of Manasses and Jutta was old enough to take a prominent role in
the First Crusade. So I'd guess that Manasses was probably active earlier
than 1066, even if the records don't survive.
Even so, perhaps Manasses' wife Jutta would fit in more naturally a
generation later than Ebles of Roucy and Letaud of Marle. When I was looking
at this previously I did notice an odd detail, which might be consistent
with retaining this Jutta as a member of the Roucy family, rather than
moving the Rethel-Roucy marriage back a generation to Manasses' parents.
"L'art de verifier les dates" (1818) mentions that Hugh of Rethel (the son
of Manasses and Jutta), a little after 1095, gave the abbey of St-Vincent of
Laon half the land of Erlon, of which the other half had already been given
by Enguerrand de Coucy.
Enguerrand was the husband of Ada, the daughter of Letaud of Marle, and
Erlon, like Roucy and Laon, is in Aisne, so it seems likely that this land
came originally from the Roucy family. But why should half have been held by
Letaud's sister, and half by his daughter's husband? In England, I think
this would naturally indicate the division of property between sisters, not
between a daughter and an aunt - but I know very little about 11th-century
Continental customs. But if Jutta were Letaud's daughter rather than his
sister, the chronology might be less strained.
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> "L'art de verifier les dates" (1818) mentions that Hugh of Rethel (the son
> of Manasses and Jutta), a little after 1095, gave the abbey of St-Vincent of
> Laon half the land of Erlon, of which the other half had already been given
> by Enguerrand de Coucy.
>
> Enguerrand was the husband of Ada, the daughter of Letaud of Marle, and
> Erlon, like Roucy and Laon, is in Aisne, so it seems likely that this land
> came originally from the Roucy family. But why should half have been held by
> Letaud's sister, and half by his daughter's husband? In England, I think
> this would naturally indicate the division of property between sisters, not
> between a daughter and an aunt - but I know very little about 11th-century
> Continental customs. But if Jutta were Letaud's daughter rather than his
> sister, the chronology might be less strained.
In England this would be more clear. The chronicler Aubri de
Trois-Fontaines (not the same source that wrongly names Jutta as
sister) apparently gives Letaud just the one daughter, Ada.
Bishop Ebles may simply have split this among the issue of his
siblings (Eudes d.s.p., Ada would have been the sole
representative of Letaud, and Hugh the sole representative a
paternal [or perhaps maternal] grandmother).
taf
Chris Phillips
> The chronicler Aubri de
> Trois-Fontaines (not the same source that wrongly names Jutta as
> sister) apparently gives Letaud just the one daughter, Ada.
I made only very brief notes about Letaud's offspring at the time, as I
didn't see the statement about Erlon until quite late on. Aubri does repeat
the statement that Jutta was the sister of Letaud and Ebles, doesn't he? My
impression was that these statements were from the 13th century, and as such
quite a bit later from the Foigny genealogy - whether they were independent
of it I don't know. (I must admit I couldn't make much of the 43-page
(folio) introduction, in Latin, of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica edition
in which I saw it.)
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
issue. I have not seen this one yet.
Mathieu, Jean-Noel. Sur les comtesses de Rethel aux XIe siecle.
Contribution a l'histoire des comtes de Rethel et des comtes de
Porcien. _Revue historique ardennaise_ 32 (1997): 3-19.
I suspect that this is the "separate study" that Mathieu mentions
in his Roucy article.
taf
Detlef Meister
"Todd A. Farmerie" schrieb:
>
> The name Ebles appears prominantly only in the family of Ebles
> Manzer, Count of Poitou. His grandson William II (IV), Count of
I have found another small evidence for that Poitou link. (Sorry, but it's
again:) Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (170:33) says he married N.N. de
Poitiers, possibly dau Aubri, Count of Macon.
Does it seems possible, that this was a double marriage between Poitou/Roucy:
Gislebert with NN de Poitiers, his niece with Eble?
Or is Stuart again wrong? The "possibly dau Aubri" is the same that Mathieu
"married" with Eble de Poitiers, The niece of Gislebert, so Stuart did confusing
here Gislebert with Ebles.
Detlef
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I have found another small evidence for that Poitou link. (Sorry, but it's
> again:) Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (170:33) says he married N.N. de
> Poitiers, possibly dau Aubri, Count of Macon.
>
> Does it seems possible, that this was a double marriage between Poitou/Roucy:
> Gislebert with NN de Poitiers, his niece with Eble?
> Or is Stuart again wrong? The "possibly dau Aubri" is the same that Mathieu
> "married" with Eble de Poitiers, The niece of Gislebert, so Stuart did confusing
> here Gislebert with Ebles.
According to Mathieu, there is no evidence that Giselbert ever
married. My guess would be that someone (or two people)
(certainly not Stuart, who did no original research himself)
needed a wife for Giselbert, and suggested either a Poitiers or a
Macon connection to explain, respectively, the names Ebles and
Letaud (the Letaud connection makes a Macon connection extremely
likely, and I and seen such a link suggested before). In a
second step (and here Stuart is the prime candidate) combined the
two in suggesting that NN de Poitiers could be a daughter of
Aubri of Macon.
taf