Etichonids

[Peter Stewart]

It may be useful to start a new thread for questions regarding early
ancestry of the Eguisheim-Dagsburg comital family - and to address
separately the various points raised so far, to avoid losing focus in a
welter of reply chevrons.

On 04-Nov-21 11:05 PM, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 1:11:39 AM UTC,
> pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 03-Nov-21 4:38 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

>>> As I understand it the wife of Lothar I, daughter of Hugh of Tours
>>> is said to be descended from Duke Etih in the 9th century by the
>>> chronicler Thegan. Hugh is seen as the ancestor of the later counts
>>> of Alsace and the Eguisheimers are in turn descended from them.

<snip>

>> As you say, Thegan wrote that Hugo of Tours, father of Lothar's wife,
>> belonged to the lineage of Eticho ("Hlutharius ... suscepit in
>> coniugium filiam Hugi comitis, qui erat de stirpe cuiusdam ducis
>> nomine Etih"), but there is not complete certainty about which
>> Etichonid descendant was Hugo's father.
>
> my latin is not that good. does this phrase clearly mean that Hugo was
> descended from Etih or just his daughter who married Lothar? In other
> words could Lothar's wife be descended from Etih through her mother?
> All the historians quoted on the net have taken it to mean that it was
> Hugo so I assume that is correct, but I just wanted to be sure.

There is no doubt at all that Thegan meant Hugo was agnatically
descended from Eticho - the use of the masculine pronoun "qui" rather
than the feminie "quae" refers what follows to Hugo himself rather than
to his daughter. The stock phrase "erat de stirpe" means literally "was
of the stem", very commonly used for male-line connections. If such an
ancestral reputation had been maintained and stated in this sort of
context for anyone descended through a female link, we would surely have
plenty of cases where the Carolingian family or aristocrats around them
were said to stem from Merovingian kings.

As for Hugo's wife Aba, we don't know her family for certain but various
circumstantial indicators tend to connect her with Matfrid, count of
Orléans, who may have been her brother - in particular the close
relationship mentioned by Hincmar (using the term "propinqua") between
Matfrid's daughter Engeltrude and Aba's grandson Lothar II.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 04-Nov-21 11:05 PM, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 1:11:39 AM UTC,
pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 03-Nov-21 4:38 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

>>> I expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but I
>>> just wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian duke
was mentioned again in the
>>> medieval period after the 9th century.
>> The mid-12th century chronicle of Ebersheim confused Eticho's father
>> Liuteric with Leudesius son of Erchinoald, making them blood relatives
>> of the Merovingians and describing Eticho's mother as a relative of
>> Burgundian kings - this was accepted by some, not all, historians until
>> the late-19th century. The 12th-century chronicle of Saint-Pierre de
>> Bèze made Adalric/Eticho into the son of a duke in Burgundy named
>> Amalgarius. In the 15th/16th-century cartulary of Honau abbey there is a
>> genealogy of Eticho's descendants. He reportedly killed his son with a
>> blow from a club for the boy's temerity in displaying Eticho's daughter
>> St Odilia to a crowd when she was being carried in a litter at
>> Hohenburg, so he and his immediate family figure in her hagiographies
>> from the 9th and 13th centuries.
>>
>
> I came across these later accounts too. The Honau genealogy is remarkably
> detailed for so late a source, but it is apparently a copy of an
earlier compilation
> from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted by
everybody
> it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accounts
concern
> the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18th
century and
> continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgar
version, while
> Medlands has Leudesius. I dont know enough to judge the merits of either,
> but the Amalgar version would push the male line back further to c600.

Apologies, I misremebered the 12th-century chronicle from Saint-Pierre
de Bèze, accordnig to which the Eticho we are discussing was a grandson
(not son) of Amalgarius - whether or not this is true, it is not
necessarily inconsistent with the 9th-century Vita of St Odilia which
states that Eticho's father was named Leuthericus.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?

[Peter Stewart]

Apologies for my apologies - the 12th-century chronicle from
Saint-Pierre de Bèze does indeed say that Adalric was son and heir, not
grandson, of Amalgarius ("Amalgarius ... habens uxorem nomine Aquilinam,
habuit ex ea filios, quorum uni Audalrico nomine ducatus sui regimina
post se dereliquit"). I looked for whatever Christian Settipani had to
say after you mentioned his view, and found that he called Adalric, duke
of Alsace in 673, grandson ("petit-fils") of Amalgarius, duke in
Burgundy in 629 - I hastily assumed that this would have been taken
directly from the source, which is hardly reliable enough to augment by
inserting an extra generation, but apparently some such sophistry has
been applied. This may be explained elsewhere than the mention I
happened upon, but I don't have the energy or interest to keep looking.

The statement that Amalgarius was succeeded as duke in Burgundy by his
son Adalric, if the latter is to be identified with the first Eticho, is
not consistent with the 9th-century Vita of St Odilia which names
Adalric's father as Liutheric, mayor of the palace under Childeric III
("Temporibus igitur Childerici imperatoris erat quidam dux illustris
nomine Adalricus, qui etiam alio nomine Etih dicebatur ... Pater vero
illius nomine Liuthericus in palacio praedicti imperatoris honore
maioris domus sublimatus erat").

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 05-Nov-21 11:34 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
> Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?

I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
enough to bother over in the first place.

There was once an equally weak proposal that the Capetians belonged to
the Etichonid lineage, based partly on the use of the name Hugo in both
families.

Historians wishing to make a splash are as ever-present as the poor.
Some of them will come up with preposterous ideas and quibbles for no
better reason than that these have not been put forward by anyone else.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 04-Nov-21 11:05 PM, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 1:11:39 AM UTC,
pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 03-Nov-21 4:38 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> To those who havnt looked at this before it should be stated that the
standard
> version has the duchy of alsace suppressed by Pippin III and divided
into 2
> counties, Nordgau and Sundgau which eventually came to be controlled by
> the descendants of Eticho. In Sundgau they are called the
Luitfridings and are
> descended from Hugo of Tours. In Nordgau they are called the Eberards and
> are descended from Eberard I who last appears in 777.
>
> When I looked at this line on the net I found a big gap between the
etichonids
> in the late 8th until the later 9th century when the family which
Christian Wilsdorf
> calls the Eberards appear in Alsace, usually called the Counts of
Nordgau in the
> 10th century. Understand that I havnt looked at the sources or
academic papers
> merely what others have put on the net, so there may be documentary
evidence
> that I havnt seen. Perhaps I should start a new post about this if it
interests
> people as its quite long?

I hope you will go ahead with a long post about this - it's a while
since this newsgroup has had detailed discussion of any genealogy much
more deeply medieval than the mid-15th century, that to me has the
roughly same general effect as Seconal.

> However do either of these Chronicles say that the Eguisheimers or
the nordgau
> were descended from Eticho? Both of these chroniclers were well aware
> of the legend of st.odile as was Bruno of Toul/Leo IX and the author of
> his Vita, Cardinal Humbert, but Eticho isnt mentioned among the Popes
> ancestors according to Christian Wilsdorf. He suggests that these
Eberards
> of Nordgau who gave rise to the Egisheimers were linked to the
Etichonids
> through marriage not by male line descent. I havnt seen an important
article
> by Vollmer on the subject so I dont know if he deals with the Eberards.

Wilsdorf's view is not much more elaborated than in your summary - his
main reason for doubting that the Eberhard lineage was a continuation of
the Etichonids is just that this was not mentioned in the Vita of Leo IX
("Il me paraît toutefois douteux que les Eguisheim descendent des
Etichonides en ligne masculine, car on s'étonnerait un peu de ne pas
trouver mention de cette ascendance dans la biographie du plus illustre
membre de cette famille: dans la Vie de ... Léon IX"). He thought a
relationship between what he considered two distinct families was highly
likely, in part because of documented links to the same monasteries. He
oddly remarked that it is difficult to conceive that a family (the
Eberhards) could have remained in the same region over three centuries
without becoming allied with several other families from the same and
neighbouring areas - but since the Eberhards had been around for nearly
as long as the Etichonids anyway (Eberhard I occurring in the 8th
century), this is not exactly a forceful argument. The reason for doubt
is of course that marriages are not fully recorded enough to trace the
parentage of spouses in every generation, so that deciding whether an
inheritance has passed by a male-line or distaff route can be litle more
than subjective guesswork. Not many scholars since Wilsdorf have
entirely agreed with his rather arbitrary scepticism on this point.

Franz Legl in 1998 interpreted family lists in the memorial book of
Remiremont as pointers to agnatic continuity from the Etichonids to the
Eberhards, but admitted that total certainty had eluded his research. I
don't think there has been any significant advance from that position since.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 05-Nov-21 3:54 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Wilsdorf's view is not much more elaborated than in your summary - his
> main reason for doubting that the Eberhard lineage was a continuation of
> the Etichonids is just that this was not mentioned in the Vita of Leo IX
> ("Il me paraît toutefois douteux que les Eguisheim descendent des
> Etichonides en ligne masculine, car on s'étonnerait un peu de ne pas
> trouver mention de cette ascendance dans la biographie du plus illustre
> membre de cette famille: dans la Vie de ... Léon IX"). He thought a
> relationship between what he considered two distinct families was highly
> likely, in part because of documented links to the same monasteries. He
> oddly remarked that it is difficult to conceive that a family (the
> Eberhards) could have remained in the same region over three centuries
> without becoming allied with several other families from the same and
> neighbouring areas - but since the Eberhards had been around for nearly
> as long as the Etichonids anyway (Eberhard I occurring in the 8th
> century), this is not exactly a forceful argument.

The Eberhard I occurring in the 8th century is securely documented as a
grandson of Adalric/Eticho - he was a son of the latter's son and ducal
successor Adalbert.

However, he is not the man whom Wilsdorf considered the progenitor of
the family designated by his name and distinct from the Etichonids. This
Eberhard (sometimes numbered III or I, depending on the agnatic lineage
attributed to him) occurs in the second half of the 9th century, and we
are told in a late-10th century hagiography that he was a blood relative
of Lothar II's concubine/second wife Waldrada. Franz Legl speculated
that their relationship may have come about through one of Eberhard's
parents (more probably his mother) with the other being perhaps a child
(son more likely than daughter) of Hugo Timidus of Tours and Aba.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The case for this filiation (Amalgarius > Adalric > Adalric/Eticho) was
originally proposed by Louis Dupraz in 1961. On a first reading I don't
find his argument compelling, but the evidence he adduced holds more
credit than solely a revisionist alternative to the 12th-century
chronicle of Saint-Pierre de Bèze.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:14:03 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 05-Nov-21 3:54 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> > Wilsdorf's view is not much more elaborated than in your summary - his
> > main reason for doubting that the Eberhard lineage was a continuation of
> > the Etichonids is just that this was not mentioned in the Vita of Leo IX
> > ("Il me paraît toutefois douteux que les Eguisheim descendent des
> > Etichonides en ligne masculine, car on s'étonnerait un peu de ne pas
> > trouver mention de cette ascendance dans la biographie du plus illustre
> > membre de cette famille: dans la Vie de ... Léon IX"). He thought a
> > relationship between what he considered two distinct families was highly
> > likely, in part because of documented links to the same monasteries. He
> > oddly remarked that it is difficult to conceive that a family (the
> > Eberhards) could have remained in the same region over three centuries
> > without becoming allied with several other families from the same and
> > neighbouring areas - but since the Eberhards had been around for nearly
> > as long as the Etichonids anyway (Eberhard I occurring in the 8th
> > century), this is not exactly a forceful argument.

Thats a pity, I thought he had perhaps examined the eberards as closely
as apparently he did for the Luitfridings.

> The Eberhard I occurring in the 8th century is securely documented as a
> grandson of Adalric/Eticho - he was a son of the latter's son and ducal
> successor Adalbert.

Yes this Count Eberard was the brother of Duke Luitfrid and founded Murbach
in i think in 727 and died 747, but his only son died young apparently. On the net he
is called Count of Sundgau. Apparently the 12 century chronicler of Ebersmunster
says that he built the castle of Eguisheim. Whether this is true or not, this is not
as you say or Wilsdorf does, the Eberard who is the supposed ancestor of the
Eberards in 10th century Alsace.

I'll deal with each generation here

1. Adalric/Eticho
Duke of Alsace, his death is unknown but from about 683 or after 692
depending on how the documentary material is interpreted.

The next 3 generations are based on the Honau genealogy [which I havnt seen myself
so I am a bit wary just in case what the net claims it says is actually different to the
source itself, plus some historians such as Levillain who wrote on the subject dont
seem to refer to it]

2. Haicho/Hecho [Eticho II on the web]
He makes a charter for Honau 723 but no title or office is mentioned. He had 2 sons
Hugo and Alberic who witness this charter.

3. Alberic
Son of Hecho 723, the Honau genealogy says he had 4 sons including an
Eberard, but there are no dates.

4. Eberard I
Son of Alberic, he has been seen as the Count Eberard who in 777
signs the testament of Abbot Fulrad of St.Denis who founded St.Hippolyte near
Colmar on his own property, and also the Eberard who gives his assent to
a charter of Huc [Hugo] for Fulda in 785 who gives property in Alsace.

Although I have seen nothing on the net to justify calling any of these last 3
as Counts of Nordgau, and as the division only occurred after 747, it
seems unlikely, but the descent seems possible. The next 3 generations
are more doubtfull.

5. Hugo I
A count Hugo makes a property exchange in 822 with Wissembourg abbey in
Alsace which is signed many counts plus another Etih. This Hugo could be
the man usually called Hugo of Tours or Hugh the Timid in Thegan, who
died in Italy 837. However there is nothing I've seen that suggest he is
the son of Eberard II. According to Wilsdorf's study Hugo of Tours was
descended from a different branch of the etichonids.

6. Eberard II d 864
There are any number of mentions of Eberards in the Frankish kingdoms
in the ninth century 816-94, but havnt seen any precise evidence that
links them to the earlier dynasty. However a count Eberhard died 864,
who is not the more famous Everard of Fruili, and Grandidier in the 18th
century thought he was a count in Alsace and this was the connection
with the earlier 8th century Etichonids. An alternative opinion says he
was Count of Zurich.

A whole host of heavyweight scholars have followed Grandidier,
including Levillain 1947 in an article which as Peter says aimed to
connect the Etichonids with the Carolingian kings. I believe it is
Chaume in his book on Burgundy 1925 who decided that this Eberard II
was a son of Hugo of Tours. Vollmer who also studied this family,
apparently just said that this Eberhard was a great-great-grandson
of one of Duke Eticho's sons : Batticho , Hugo or Haicho, without
fixing the generations in between.

However the 10th century Life of St.Desle from Lure has a story that
Lothar II gave the abbey of Lure to his mistress Walderada, and after
that kings death [869] gave the advocacy of Lure to her kinsman
Eberard who proceeded to despoil it of its property. On the net his deeds
are assigned to the next Eberard III.

Other versions perhaps following Chaume, have this Eberard II as a brother of a
Count Luitfrid [d866] an advisor of Lothar. This Luitfrid is considered by Wilsdorf as a
son of Hugo of Tours, who left Italy and returned to Alsace to serve Lothar II and
encouraged him to marry Walderada. However in one version I have seen, Walderada
is called sister of Gunther Archbishop of Koln, in another he is called her uncle,
while Theutgaud of Trier is called her brother. But her son by Lothar II was called
Hugo and was made Duke of Alsace in 867, which some have argued shows his
mother Walderada was related to the Etichonid family.

7. Eberard III
The Life of St.Desle [chap12] refers to this man as a count in Alsace, who with his son
Hugo pillaged Lure. He put aside his wife Adalsinda and lived with a nun from Ernstein
in Alsace. A number of Counts called Eberard appear in the charters of the east
Frankish or Germany kings at this time. One was count of Aargau 892-94 next to
Sundgau [I think] and another was Count of Ortenau opposite Strasbourg on the
German side of the Rhine.

8 Hugo II
Son of Eberard III. Here at last there is some solid evidence of a descent. As already stated
the Life of St.Desle calls him son of Eberard count of part of Alsace. He is usually seen as
Count of Nordgau although Lure lies east of Belfort at the southern end of the Vosges almost
300 km from Strasbourg and 100 km from Eguisheim. He may be the count Hugo who appears
in charters of the german kings from 903-12, later according to the Lure sources he became ill
and repented and became a monk himself there and died 940. His wife was Hildegarde, on the
net she is called of Ferrette. He had 3 sons Eberard, Guntram and Hugo. On French wiki 1 version
has this 3rd son as the ancestor of the Eguisheimers but no proof.

To answer Paolo' s question, this Guntram is often seen as the count Guntram who was condemned for
treason by Otto I in 952 and stripped of his royal benefices across Alsace and Alemannia. Some see
him as the Guntram the Rich mentioned by the abbey of Muri in the 11th century and think he was
an ancestor of the Habsburgs, but theres a whole host of candidates for that honor, and I havnt
looked at that subject.

9. Eberard IV
Son of Hugo II and his successor as Count of Nordgau 940-51. French wiki says he abdicated
in favour of his son and retired to Altorf west of strasbourg where he or his son later founded an
abbey 968 on the site of earlier community 787 and was buried, d972/3. I was surprised
to see that he is thought to have married Luitgarde widow of Adalbert of Metz daughter
of Count Wigeric. I assume she was the mother of his children.

10. Hugo III Raucus
Son of Eberard IV and successor as Count of Nordgau 951-68 he was dead by 986. I've seen
different translations of Raucus. I thought it meant rowdy, but I've also seen him called
Hugo the Harsh and even the Hoarse. He had 4 sons Eberard V 986-1004 who dc1016,
Gerhard, Matfrid and Hugo IV. According to a 19th French Genealogist called
Nicolas Vito de St Allais [d1842], Eberard V had by his wife Berta 2 sons, Eberard VI &
Hugo who both died childless, but I havnt seen any verification elsewhere.

11. Hugo IV of Eguisheim d1048.
Son of Hugo III Raucus. He married Heilwig heiress of Dasburg. In 1027 he was implicated
in the revolt of Ernest of Swabia, and had all his lands ravaged by an angry Conrad II. As the
result of this he divided his lands between his 2 sons Gerhard I [d1038] and Hugo V
and devoted himself to religious foundations. He was father of Bruno Bishop of Toul
who became Pope Leo IX 1049-54.

>
> However, he is not the man whom Wilsdorf considered the progenitor of
> the family designated by his name and distinct from the Etichonids. This
> Eberhard (sometimes numbered III or I, depending on the agnatic lineage
> attributed to him) occurs in the second half of the 9th century, and we
> are told in a late-10th century hagiography that he was a blood relative
> of Lothar II's concubine/second wife Waldrada. Franz Legl speculated
> that their relationship may have come about through one of Eberhard's
> parents (more probably his mother) with the other being perhaps a child
> (son more likely than daughter) of Hugo Timidus of Tours and Aba.

Yes I think this scenario is possible. In the schema above Eberard II d864 who
is just a name really could be this son in law of Hugo of Tours.

mike

[mike davis]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:57:36 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:
> 5. Hugo I
> A count Hugo makes a property exchange in 822 with Wissembourg abbey in
> Alsace which is signed many counts plus another Etih. This Hugo could be
> the man usually called Hugo of Tours or Hugh the Timid in Thegan, who
> died in Italy 837. However there is nothing I've seen that suggest he is
> the son of Eberard II.

i should have written Eberard I, generation 4.

Perhaps I should have included a summary although the post is already very long.

1 Adalric/Eticho d683
2 Hecho [Eticho II] 723
3 Alberic 723
4 Eberard I 777
5 Hugo 822
6 Eberard II d864
7 Eberard III 894
8 Hugo II d940
9 Eberard IV d972/3
10 Hugo III Raucus 968
11 Hugo IV of Eguisheim 1027

Mike

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

With regards to the Capetians, it does seem likely that there was a connection to Hugh the Abbot whose maternal grandfather was an Etichonid. I think Robert the Strong's wife was a sister of his, maybe named Emma.

[mike davis]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:57:36 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:

I have finally got a copy of Wilsdorfs 'Les Etichonides aux temps carolingiens et ottoniens',
so I am gradually going through it. One point he makes that touches on this Eberard line, is
that the notice of death for Eberard II in the Annals of the Alemans in 864 may be an error for
866. Eberard is one of many royal lords listed as having died that year, including Luitfrid
son of Hugo of Tours. But along with several of the others, Wilsdorf shows that he was
still alive the following year or so. The same list occurs in the later Annals of Weingarten,
but there they are called counts and the deaths occur in 866. The contemporary [?] Annals
of Xanten in Lotharingia say Luitfrid died 866. It seems likely that Eberard II died in 866
not 864.

mike

[mike davis]

With regards to the parents of Hugh the Abbot both Levillain 1947 and Wilsdorf 1967 articles
agree that Conrad [brother of Empress Judith] married Adelaide daughter of Hugo of Tours.
I think the basis for this is that he is called the son of Lothar IIs aunt in 864 [Annals of St.Bertin].
I think this Conrad [of Auxerre?] was also ancestor of the Welf Kings of Burgundy, but there
are other Conrads so I might have confused them.

I didnt know that Robert the Strongs wife was known for certain?

C Wilsdorf, 'Les Etichonides aux temps carolingiens et ottoniens', in Bulletin philologique et historique ...1967
L Levillain Alsace et origines lointaines de la rois de france Revue d'Alsace. 1947

mike

[mike davis]

>The case for this filiation (Amalgarius > Adalric > Adalric/Eticho) was
>originally proposed by Louis Dupraz in 1961. On a first reading I don't
>find his argument compelling, but the evidence he adduced holds more

>credit than solely a revisionist alternative to the 12th-century
>chronicle of Saint-Pierre de Bèze.

I put your posts on the origins of Adalric/Eticho together for convenience.
Thanks for going into this. I dont think there is any real mystery. The father
of Eticho is as you say Liutheric in the Vita Odila. That is the oldest source,
and given she was his daughter it would seem likely to be more authoritative,
such seems the belief of Wilsdorf.

However I thought Childeric IIs mayor was a man called Wulfoald. Perhaps
thats why the ebersmunster chronicler thought he was Leudesius rival of
Ebroin, who was mayor in Neustria for Childeric II when Ebroin was
imprisoned at Luxeuil.

Its seems from your post, the Chronicle of Beze doesnt identify the
Adalric son of Duke Amalgar with Eticho, and if the extra Adalric is a
theory of a modern historian, it seems easy enough to forget it. However
this theory seems to be the prevailing view on the net which is a
measure of the influence of Settipani's works.

I notice that based on this theory of Dupraz, Settipani has constructed an
entire ancestral tree for Eticho going back to the late roman empire.

There is a new edition of the cartulary and chronicle of Beze by Constance
Bouchard but I havnt yet seen it in the shops. I was hoping she might
have translated it all!

One of the early historians of Alsace Schoepflin decided on the Vita's
Liutheric, and trying to find such a person, he proposed a Duke
of the Alemans Leuthari who murdered Otto the rival of Grimoald c641.
I dont know if that has any validity but as the Etichonids seem to have property
and influence on both sides of the Upper Rhine, that seems just as possible
as a Burgundian origin.

Mike

[mike davis]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:57:36 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:

I see I misread your post and Wilsdorf/Legl. My initial conclusion is still
that a male line descent from the 8th century Etichonids, and specifically
Eberard I 777 is unproven. I think what you describe here, that is Legl and
Wilsdorf idea of a late 9th century marriage to a Luitfriding or a descendant
of Hugo of Tours such as a daughter or or grandaughter of Luitfrid I [d866]
is quite reasonable.

It may be that the shadowy figure of Eberard II is a red herring, and
the founder of the dynastys power in Alsace was as Wilsdorf says
Eberard III. The story in the vita has him also being powerful in
Burgundy, rather than Germany or Swabia, and I didnt think Lure
had any previous Etichonid connection. But the area is adjacent to
the Sundgau, so an alliance with the Luitfridings is quite possible.
However Eberard III the story goes put aside his wife Adalinde which
surely wouldnt have pleased his new relatives.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

After a short break from computers I have not yet had time to read
through the all latest posts in this thread, but clearly there is
something I don't get in yours above. Could you further explain the
substantive rationale for preferring a distaff rather than agnatic
connection from the Etichonids to the Eberhardines?

Wilsdorf published a half-baked hunch that Eberhard (I in his
unsubstantiated view, III in the opinion of others) was more probably
not an agnatic heir of Hugo Timidus, whom he did consider an agnate of
Eticho. He did not address the problem of the fact that Hugo Timidus
still had more than one son living to adulthood after the early death of
his namesake son, as we know this from the foundation charter of
Pothières and Vézelay abbeys. Of these two or more sons, only Liutfrid
can be identified.

We also know of three daughters who married very powerful men and left
offspring. So if Eberhard I/III is supposed to have transmitted his
descendants' patrimony in the Alsatian Nordgau through a fourth, yet
unrecorded, daughter of Hugo Timidus, how are we to account for the
silent deference of these powerful in-laws to having such a rich prize
denied to their own offspring in favour of a new man from a lesser
ancestry?

These sons-in-law of Hugo Timidus were Girart of Roussillon, count of
Paris & Vienne, Emperor Lothar I and Conrad I, count of Auxerre -
acquisitive and proud dynasts whose heirs were not very likely to sit on
their hands watching the winner-takes-all antics of an obscure
Eberhardine upstart, much less to do so according to the Wilsdorf
argument just because the writer of a Vita of one of his descendants in
the 11th century did not happen to specify his agnatic lineage in full.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

These articles can be read/downloaded online:

Wilsdorf:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6235796c/f58.item

Levillain:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9414573x/f15.item
and
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9414574b/f17.item

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 07-Nov-21 4:01 AM, mike davis wrote:

> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:32:11 AM UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>> A sexta-feira, 5 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:37:49 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
>>> On 05-Nov-21 11:34 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
>>> I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
>>> enough to bother over in the first place.
>>>
>>> There was once an equally weak proposal that the Capetians belonged to
>>> the Etichonid lineage, based partly on the use of the name Hugo in both
>>> families.
>>>
>>> Historians wishing to make a splash are as ever-present as the poor.
>>> Some of them will come up with preposterous ideas and quibbles for no
>>> better reason than that these have not been put forward by anyone else.
>>>
>>> Peter Stewart
>> With regards to the Capetians, it does seem likely that there was a connection to Hugh the Abbot whose maternal >grandfather was an Etichonid. I think Robert the Strong's wife was a sister of his, maybe named Emma.
>
> With regards to the parents of Hugh the Abbot both Levillain 1947 and Wilsdorf 1967 articles
> agree that Conrad [brother of Empress Judith] married Adelaide daughter of Hugo of Tours.
> I think the basis for this is that he is called the son of Lothar IIs aunt in 864 [Annals of St.Bertin].
> I think this Conrad [of Auxerre?] was also ancestor of the Welf Kings of Burgundy, but there
> are other Conrads so I might have confused them.

You have the right one - it is assumed that he was paternal grandather
of the Welfing count Eticho, father of Heinrich 'with the Golden Wain'
who had a son and a grandson also named Eticho.

> I didnt know that Robert the Strongs wife was known for certain?

This is among the more highly contentious puzzles in Frankish
historiography and genealogy. I noticed a post from Paulo giving one of
the better conjectures about Robert's unknown wife, and will reply to it
in detail when I can make time.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I said "I think". As Peter said, it's a conjecture.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

What a relief. I must admit I feared you had died and was considering posting a thread about that before reading your new posts.

[Peter Stewart]

On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> What a relief. I must admit I feared you had died and was considering posting a thread about that before reading your new posts.

When I do pop off, Paulo, I expect cheering will be heard here from some
quarters before the devil even knows I'm headed in his direction.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 08-Nov-21 8:36 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

> These sons-in-law of Hugo Timidus were Girart of Roussillon, count of
> Paris & Vienne, Emperor Lothar I and Conrad I, count of Auxerre -

An objection was raised off-list to my calling Conrad I count of Auxerre
- it's true that this title is not explicitly given to him in any
contemporary source but it is highly likely that he held the office
along with that of lay abbot of Saint-Germain d'Auxerre, as established
by Joachim Wollasch and Josef Fleckenstein in 1957.

The countship and lay abbacy of Auxerre were held in tandem (as
elsewhere, for instance in Tours with the lay abbacy of Saint-Martin).
Conrad's wife Adelais took charge of constructing a crypt at the abbey
in the 830s/40s, which she could not have done unless her husband
controlled it.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 08-Nov-21 8:36 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Wilsdorf published a half-baked hunch that Eberhard (I in his
> unsubstantiated view, III in the opinion of others) was more probably
> not an agnatic heir of Hugo Timidus, whom he did consider an agnate of
> Eticho. He did not address the problem of the fact that Hugo Timidus
> still had more than one son living to adulthood after the early death of
> his namesake son, as we know this from the foundation charter of
> Pothières and Vézelay abbeys. Of these two or more sons, only Liutfrid
> can be identified.

Actually we don't know this - I read too hastily. Liutfrid was living
and named in the charter, along with Gerard's own presumed brother
Alard. Apart from them, the sons and daughters referred to were not
necessarily all living at the time and not all children of Hugo Timidus
since Gerard's blood siblings are included in the anonymous group along
with his siblings-in-law.

However, there still is better reason in my view to suppose that Hugo
Timidus left two sons living when he died in 837 than only one. Liutfrid
is the only son documented as having survived his father, but his
Alsatian inheritance in the Sundgau was fairly evenly matched with
Eberhard I/III's countship in the Nordgau, Upper Aargau and Ortenau. It
seems very implausible to me that this would have come to Eberhard
through an unknown daughter of Hugo Timidus when the three known
daughters all received far less than Liutfrid.

Maurice Chaume as well as Levillain assumed that Eberhard I/III was a
son of Hugo Timidus. Another count named Eberhard died in 864, and
Gerard of Roussillon's charter for Pothières and Vézelay abbeys was
issued ca 863 so maybe not long before or after his death. Eberhard
I/III was possibly the namesake son of this man, and thereby perhaps a
grandson of Hugo Timidus.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On further reading I find the argument of Louis Dupraz less persuasive
than at first I thought it might be.

He calculated that the offspring of Amalgarius were born in the decade
from 595 to 605, placing ca 600 the birth of his son Adalric who was his
succcessor as duke according to the 12th-century chronicle of
Saint-Pierre de Bèze. (By the way, Constance Bouchard's 2019 edition
does not include a translation.)

Adalric was duke of Atuyer in Burgundy in 658 when his sister Adalsind
donated to Bèze abbey, but thereafter disappears by 663/64 when his
office was held by Sichelm. Dupraz thought he had probably died in that
interval, which seems reasonable. However, he was not certain of this
and suggested that he may have been identical with the man he otherwise
considered his namesake son, Adalric/Eticho who first appears as duke in
Alsace in a partly false precept of Thierry III dated 4 September 679
(Dupraz accepted 676 from an edition now obsolete) confiscating his
benefices for alleged disloyalty.

The question here boils down to name and rank the same, area of ducal
authority different, chronologically perhaps father and son - but at
least as possibly not. A duke Adalric in mid-7th century Dijon and
another in late-7th-century Strasbourg, across an interval of up to 21
years where neither man is mentioned, may or may not be closely related
to each other. However, the confidence that has been accruing since 1961
in the extra generation inserted into the Etichonid genealogy by Dupraz
seems to me excessive.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I should have added Constance Bouchard's comment on this document in her
2019 edition (dating it 679, as did Theo Theo Kölzer in the 2001 MGH
edition): "In spite of some anomalies in the signatures, most notably a
Carolingian-style monogram, and the unlikelihood that the king would
have granted all of a rebellious duke's property to the monastery, much
of the phrasing of this document is similar to that found in genuine
documents of seventh-century Frankish kings, making it likely that the
monks indeed had a genuine charter of Theoderic III on which this one
was based."

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

I have no preference. I am not trying to debunk 1 theory and replace it with
another. I leave that to the experts. my reason for posting this line was to
examine what evidence lay behind a male line stretching from the mid 7th
century to 1212.

> Wilsdorf published a half-baked hunch that Eberhard (I in his
> unsubstantiated view, III in the opinion of others) was more probably
> not an agnatic heir of Hugo Timidus, whom he did consider an agnate of
> Eticho. He did not address the problem of the fact that Hugo Timidus
> still had more than one son living to adulthood after the early death of
> his namesake son, as we know this from the foundation charter of
> Pothières and Vézelay abbeys. Of these two or more sons, only Liutfrid
> can be identified.
>
> We also know of three daughters who married very powerful men and left
> offspring. So if Eberhard I/III is supposed to have transmitted his
> descendants' patrimony in the Alsatian Nordgau through a fourth, yet
> unrecorded, daughter of Hugo Timidus, how are we to account for the
> silent deference of these powerful in-laws to having such a rich prize
> denied to their own offspring in favour of a new man from a lesser
> ancestry?
>
> These sons-in-law of Hugo Timidus were Girart of Roussillon, count of
> Paris & Vienne, Emperor Lothar I and Conrad I, count of Auxerre -
> acquisitive and proud dynasts whose heirs were not very likely to sit on
> their hands watching the winner-takes-all antics of an obscure
> Eberhardine upstart, much less to do so according to the Wilsdorf
> argument just because the writer of a Vita of one of his descendants in
> the 11th century did not happen to specify his agnatic lineage in full.
>

I dont know exactly how you define upstart in this period, but I wonder
whether either the aristocracy or noble patrimony was a such an unchanging
monolith. Howver that is not an argument I wish to have.

The Vita St.Desle account suggests that Eberard II or III acquired control
of Lure from Walderada just before she retired to Remiremont, that is about
869, so all but Gerard would have been dead by then. And Gerard, even if his
wife Berta was a daughter of Hugo of Tours, had no male heirs, and soon
fled south to Italy in 870 after the partition of Lotharingia. So he wasnt in
a position to claim anything.

To summarise so far. The line from Eticho to Eberard I in 777 seems OK.
The Honau 'genealogia' for the 8th Etichonids, that is generations 1-4,
is published in Wilsdorfs

Le "monasterium Scottorum" de Honau et la famille des ducs d´Alsace au VIII
siècle: Vestiges d´un cartulaire perdu´, Francia Band 3 1976 at p17-18.

Eberard III to Hugo of Eguisheim that is generations 7-11, seem reasonably
certain also.

While the line Eberard I 777 to Eberard III involves a gap of about 100 years
if it does not go through Hugo of Tours but some other etichonid branch,
making Eberard III a descendant of Hugo of Tours, is much easier, as it
only requires perhaps 1 generation which can be filled by an otherwise
unknown son of Hugo, perhaps Eberard II as Chaume said. However is this just
a conjecture or is there any documentary evidence to support it?

Mike

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?

[Peter Stewart]

No, I suppose they would get a happy intuition from my unexpected
absence here. My death will not be worth planning for in regard to SGM,
and I hope not to have advance notice anyway, so it can be a delightful
surprise to us all.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I agree with you - we know very little about hereditary continuity vs
upward social mobility through periods of upheaval, except that
conjecturing descents from antiquity is a predictably unrewarding chase
after wild geese and many of the assumptions based solely on onomastics
are a mirage that self-respecting geese would fly over blindly. It
puzzles me that someone with the brains of Christian Settipani would
expend a great deal of laborious wishful thinking in this quixotic
endeavour.

> The Vita St.Desle account suggests that Eberard II or III acquired control
> of Lure from Walderada just before she retired to Remiremont, that is about
> 869, so all but Gerard would have been dead by then. And Gerard, even if his
> wife Berta was a daughter of Hugo of Tours, had no male heirs, and soon
> fled south to Italy in 870 after the partition of Lotharingia. So he wasnt in
> a position to claim anything.

Hugo of Tours died in 837, leaving plenty of time for disputes over his
patrimony before any of his sons-in-law died or fled south. Gerard's
wife Berta was still living after Christmas 870 when she and her husband
were expelled from Vienne by Charles the Bald and set off in boats along
the Rhône. She is securely documented as a daughter of Hugo and his wife
Ava (aka Bava) in Gerard's charter mentioned in this thread ("Ego
Gerardus ... comitis honore sublimatus. Ex communi voto et desiderio
dilectissime coniugis meae atque amantissimae Bertae ... sed et dignam
rependentes genitoribus atque parentibus honorificentiam, id est
Leuthardi et Grimildis atque gratissimorum Hugonis et Bavae") that goes
on to name her brother Liutfrid and Girard's presumed brother Adalard.
Berta had lost her only recorded son in the lifetime of her father, but
she had a daughter, also named Ava, whose rights from her would have
been notionally equal to those of a putative sister of hers.

> To summarise so far. The line from Eticho to Eberard I in 777 seems OK.
> The Honau 'genealogia' for the 8th Etichonids, that is generations 1-4,
> is published in Wilsdorfs
>
> Le "monasterium Scottorum" de Honau et la famille des ducs d´Alsace au VIII
> siècle: Vestiges d´un cartulaire perdu´, Francia Band 3 1976 at p17-18.

This can be accessed online here:
https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/fr/article/view/48376.

>
> Eberard III to Hugo of Eguisheim that is generations 7-11, seem reasonably
> certain also.
>
> While the line Eberard I 777 to Eberard III involves a gap of about 100 years
> if it does not go through Hugo of Tours but some other etichonid branch,
> making Eberard III a descendant of Hugo of Tours, is much easier, as it
> only requires perhaps 1 generation which can be filled by an otherwise
> unknown son of Hugo, perhaps Eberard II as Chaume said. However is this just
> a conjecture or is there any documentary evidence to support it?

None that I know of, just the circumstantial indicator in transmission
of the Alsatian Nordgau and interest in monastic foundations of the
family. Some historians have suggested that Eberhard I/III may have been
the descendant of Adalric/Eticho through one of his sons other than
Eticho II to whose line Hugo of Tours probably belonged. I can't see any
substantial reason for this, given that the Eberhardines inheritance is
comparable to the Liutfridians - this hardly suggests that the former
were some back-woods collaterals who had kept themselves unnoticed for
around a century before Eberhard I/III appeared on the scene with the
possessions and prestige that might be expected for a direct agnatic
heir of Hugo.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Apologies, I inattentively distorted the argument of Louis Dupraz for
the sake of brevity.

The Adalric named as son and successor of Amalgarius perhaps died
between 658 when he was mentioned as living and 663/64 when Sichelm held
his post as duke in Burgundy, or he may have been the same as the
Adalric (Atticus) named in a spurious charter of Thierry III dated 4
September 679. Whether or not the latter personage actually existed was
unquestioned by Dupraz, who took the 679 document as genuine (ascribing
it to 676). The misleading aspect of my summary above is to imply that
this document was about a duke in Alsace rather than in Burgundy,
whereas the purpose of it was to confiscate his properties in Burgundy
and confer these on Saint-Pierre de Bèze abbey.

Bouchard thought that the king would not have given all the holdings of
a duke to an abbey, but at that time 'dux' (some historians prefer not
to translate the term as the title 'duke') was a regional military
commander (of a pagus), not yet a civil territorial governor (of a
duchy, often called a regnum) as the office developed in later
centuries. If the same man or more plausibly his namesake son (though I
disagree with Dupraz about the likelihood of this connection) could then
re-emerge - after being dismissed and dispossessed as duke in Burgundy -
as duke in Alsace, there is no compelling reason to assume that he had
deep roots or held vast possessions in either region. But just that two
men named Adalric held the same non-hereditary military appointment in
two different regions decades apart is also not a compelling reason to
identify them as father and son.

If an Adalric disappeared after 658 and then he or a namesake lost his
holdings in Burgundy in the late 670s for disloyalty, regaining his rank
and royal favour subsequently in Alsace, something peculiar has happened
that the 12th-century chronicler of Bèze evidently did not know about or
think worth telling. It seems much more credible to me that he wanted to
explain his abbey's entitlement to properties in Burgundy acquired long
before, up to 450 years earlier, and seized on the Adalric (son of
Amalgarius) who was allegedly brother of the first abbot (Waldelenus) as
a plausible individual from whom these could have come, but lacking any
written evidence for this he confected a royal document - perhaps based
on an actual charter about something else - without realising that its
regnal year was for 679 and practically inconsistent with Adalric's
ducal career ending in 658/64.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I'd like to know of your eventual death.

[Peter Stewart]

I would like even more to know of yours Paulo, since you are much
younger and healthier...

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

This is a subject that hasn't been aired here for some years, but then
not much more needs to be said given the comprehensive commentary by
Stewart Baldwin in the Henry Project page here
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/rober100.htm.

The one point I would add is to discussion of the contraction "frs",
with the "r" overlined, in the mid-11th century chronicle of
Saint-Bénigne de Dijon. As Stewart mentions, Anatole de Barthélemy
pointed out in 1873 that "frs" in the manuscript is used for "fratres",
so on this basis the straightforward reading is that Robert the Strong's
two sons were said to be brothers (fratres) of Hugo Abbas. Despite this,
several historians - including Régine Le Jan recently - have persisted
in expanding "frs" into "fratris", making Robert the Strong himself and
Hugo Abbas into (maternal half-)brothers. This is practically
inadmissible, for reasons clearly set out in the Henry Project page.

The extreme unlikelihood that "frs" stood for "fratris" can be
emphasized from any number of other manuscrits of the same period,
especially repeated often in monastic obituaries where "Ob. frs nri"
means "Obitus fratris nostri", the death of our (spiritual) brother,
when recording the death of a monk. (Paulo may wish to note my passing
one day as that of a "frater" in genealogical interests, though we may
be two generations apart in age - or if I should live half way to
forever I may do this for him).

I can think of only one place where the contraction "frs" was written
when "fratris" was indisputably meant, in the manuscript of Thietmar of
Merseburg's chronicle on folio 44r (Dresden, Sächsischen
Landesbibliothek, ms Dresd. R 147), and in that instance another hand
has carefully inserted the missing "i" correcting the contraction to
"fris". Latin is incomprehensible without case distinctions, and the
idea that readers can be left to make up their own minds about these is
borderline-Trumpian foolishness.

The writer of the Saint-Bénigne chronicle evidently made an error in
genealogy, not in orthography, by asserting that Hugo Abbas was brother
to the much younger sons of Robert. Sometimes correct terminology
slipped the mind of scribes, of course, and they occasionally resorted
to oversimplified approximations as a work-around. For example, in a
charter of Conrad I of Luxemburg's niece (his sister's daughter) Regina
of Oltigen, countess of Burgundy, dated 1088 her father Cono (i.e.
Conrad's brother-in-law) was called his "frater". Evidently the scribe
did not accurately state the relationship as this was presumably told to
him in the vernacular, perhaps because the conventional Latin usage
escaped him. In this case he should have written "sororis maritus" for
sister's husband, or else "levir" for brother-in-law (though the
connecting genders are not strictly observed in this word, which
literally means a husband's brother - however, it was used by Otto of
Freising for exactly the same relationship that Regina was describing).
Hugo Abbas was very possibly the brother of Robert the Strong's wife, as
Paulo suggested, so that the slip made by the chronicler was perhaps
absent-mindedly writing "frs" for "fratres" (brothers) of Hugo when he
should have called Robert's sons his "nepotes" (nephews).

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Nov-21 12:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

This slipped my mind - the wife of Robert was perhaps more probably
named Adelais, regardless of whether or not she was sister or mother to
Hugo Abbas.

In the memorial book of Remiremont there are two entries placing a count
Robert and presumably his wife Adelais in the immediate circle of Hugo
of Tours and Ava who head both lists. The first is on folio 5v ("ugo
co[mes] aua co[mitissa] oto co[mes] berta ruotbrect co[mes] adelacdis
...") and the second on folio 6v ("ugo comes aua comitisa ruotbertus
comes adelacdis comitisa ...").

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 09-Nov-21 2:14 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> The extreme unlikelihood that "frs" stood for "fratris" can be
> emphasized from any number of other manuscrits of the same period,
> especially repeated often in monastic obituaries where "Ob. frs nri"
> means "Obitus fratris nostri", the death of our (spiritual) brother,
> when recording the death of a monk.

Truly an idiotic typo to make in this context - I meant to write:

"Ob. fris nri" means "Obitus fratris nostri"...

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Do you think we would ever know for certain you had died?

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thanks for this. The Henry II Project page doesn't mention this. The conjecture that she was named Emma is thar the name is found in both Hugh the Abbot's family and Robert the Strong's family.

[Peter Stewart]

On 10-Nov-21 5:24 AM, mike davis wrote:

> Looking at the latin on the HP,
>
> Supererant duo filii Rotberti Andegavorum comitis, frs. Hugonis abbatis.
> Senior Odo dicebatur, Robertus alter patrem nomine referens.
>
> do the commas appear in the text? I just wonder if frs is short for fortis,
> the byname which began to be applied to Robert about 1100. Probably
> not grammatical, i would expect it after Roberti if it was meant to be
> fortis.

I have not seen the manuscript but the chronicle was written in the late
1050s when commas were almost never used - where these or similar
punctuation do (rarely) occur in monastic narrative sources they were
usually added later, probably by monks who were tasked to read the text
aloud at mealtimes.

The contraction "frs" must be a noun relating either Robert or his sons
to Hugo Abbas and cannot be an adjective applied to Robert himself. By
your suggestion it would be literally translated as "Two sons of Robert
count of Angers the strong of Hugo Abbas remained living, the elder
named Eudes, the younger Robert after his father". Instead of "the
strong" of Hugo is must mean his brothers (fratres, nominative plural),
referring to the two sons unless it could be a scribal error for "fris"
(fratris, genitive singular) referring to Robert meaning that he was
Hugo's brother.

>
> I notice that the article by Levillain 1947 [p179] mentions a charter from
> 921 where Charles the Simple calls Robert II his kinsman, as he had
> already in 917, but this time specifically says this kinship is via his mother
> Queen Adelheid. I believe this is the same charter for St.Maur des Fosses
> where she is said to be the great grand-daughter of Count Bego [d816],
> although I forget if that is actually the number of generations involved.
>
> I didnt see this 921 charter on the HP page, so I wondered if this evidence has
> been discussed before. There was a long debate about Queen Adelheids
> descent a while back, but it was chiefly focused on who she wasnt related too.

Both of these charters are extant in their original form, but
unfortunately MGH have recently "improved" their website so much that I
can't now find links to the images that luckily I had kept years ago
from the far better unimproved version (I may meet the webmaster in hell
one day, though I anticipate that such pests will be consigned to a
lower sphere of torment than mine).

The 917 charter was for Saint-Denis and twice describes Robert's
namesake son as a blood kinsman ("rotbertus consanguineus n[oste]r ...
consanguinei n[ost]ri rotb[er]ti abbatis"). Note that the contractions,
indicated by square brackets around the omitted letters, preserve the
case of the word (noster, nostri).

The 921 charter for Saint-Maur-des-Fossés does not mention Robert and
the point made by Levillain is just that the same term for blood kindred
("consanguinei") was used, in this case for ancestral relatives of the
king's mother who had restored the abbey, specifically her
great-grandfather Bego of Paris ("consanguinei ex n[ost]rae genitricis
parte adalleidis iam olim destructum item aedificantes restaurauerunt
... ipsum monasterium bego genitricis n[ost]rae proauus penitus
destructum restaurass[et] ad pristinum statum"). Again, note the
preservation of case (for "nostrae").

Not just any word could be contracted and still make sense. Certain
letters or syllables were routinely omitted after an indication of this
(for instance the letters "m" or "n" after overlined vowels, and "er"
after lined-through consonants in examples posted in this thread). An
adjective such as "fortis" would need to be written out in full in order
to be understood by readers. Karl Ferdinand Werner (who made a sorry
mess of trying to connect Adelaide to Bego) traced this as a byname for
Robert to the adverb "fortiter" used by the annalist of Fulda abbey in
describing his combat against Northmen in his last battle, erroneously
placed by the Loire, under 867 ("contra Nordmannos fortiter dimicans").

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Yes, Emma is another possibility - the Remiremont lists are not fully
explicable and the second one noted above is oddly headed "names of the
living" (nomina uiuorum) although inscribed in the memorial book long
after Hugo, Robert and their wives, who immediately follow this, were
dead. Go figure.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Maybe not, but I wouldn't worry about it. My death will be far too
insignificant for news of it to filter back to SGM, where no personal
acquaintance of mine is currently participating. Perhaps a fraudulent
Doppelgänger will appear here posthumously, as so clumsily happened
after Spencer Hines shuffled off this mortal coil. If so, I hope it will
be treated with the same disdain that was shown to the pseudo-Hines (and
earlier to the real one).

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 07-Nov-21 3:13 AM, mike davis wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:57:36 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:
>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:14:03 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>> On 05-Nov-21 3:54 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>

>>>> Wilsdorf's view is not much more elaborated than in your summary - his
>>>> main reason for doubting that the Eberhard lineage was a continuation of
>>>> the Etichonids is just that this was not mentioned in the Vita of Leo IX
>>>> ("Il me paraît toutefois douteux que les Eguisheim descendent des
>>>> Etichonides en ligne masculine, car on s'étonnerait un peu de ne pas
>>>> trouver mention de cette ascendance dans la biographie du plus illustre
>>>> membre de cette famille: dans la Vie de ... Léon IX"). He thought a
>>>> relationship between what he considered two distinct families was highly
>>>> likely, in part because of documented links to the same monasteries. He
>>>> oddly remarked that it is difficult to conceive that a family (the
>>>> Eberhards) could have remained in the same region over three centuries
>>>> without becoming allied with several other families from the same and
>>>> neighbouring areas - but since the Eberhards had been around for nearly
>>>> as long as the Etichonids anyway (Eberhard I occurring in the 8th
>>>> century), this is not exactly a forceful argument.
>> Thats a pity, I thought he had perhaps examined the eberards as closely
>> as apparently he did for the Luitfridings.
>>> The Eberhard I occurring in the 8th century is securely documented as a
>>> grandson of Adalric/Eticho - he was a son of the latter's son and ducal
>>> successor Adalbert.
>> Yes this Count Eberard was the brother of Duke Luitfrid and founded Murbach
>> in i think in 727 and died 747, but his only son died young apparently. On the net he
>> is called Count of Sundgau. Apparently the 12 century chronicler of Ebersmunster
>> says that he built the castle of Eguisheim. Whether this is true or not, this is not
>> as you say or Wilsdorf does, the Eberard who is the supposed ancestor of the
>> Eberards in 10th century Alsace.
>>
>> I'll deal with each generation here
>>
>> 1. Adalric/Eticho
>> Duke of Alsace, his death is unknown but from about 683 or after 692
>> depending on how the documentary material is interpreted.
>>
>> The next 3 generations are based on the Honau genealogy [which I havnt seen myself
>> so I am a bit wary just in case what the net claims it says is actually different to the
>> source itself, plus some historians such as Levillain who wrote on the subject dont
>> seem to refer to it]
>>
>> 2. Haicho/Hecho [Eticho II on the web]
>> He makes a charter for Honau 723 but no title or office is mentioned. He had 2 sons
>> Hugo and Alberic who witness this charter.
>>
>> 3. Alberic
>> Son of Hecho 723, the Honau genealogy says he had 4 sons including an
>> Eberard, but there are no dates.
>>
>> 4. Eberard I
>> Son of Alberic, he has been seen as the Count Eberard who in 777
>> signs the testament of Abbot Fulrad of St.Denis who founded St.Hippolyte near
>> Colmar on his own property, and also the Eberard who gives his assent to
>> a charter of Huc [Hugo] for Fulda in 785 who gives property in Alsace.
>>
>> Although I have seen nothing on the net to justify calling any of these last 3
>> as Counts of Nordgau, and as the division only occurred after 747, it
>> seems unlikely, but the descent seems possible. The next 3 generations
>> are more doubtfull.
>>
>> 5. Hugo I
>> A count Hugo makes a property exchange in 822 with Wissembourg abbey in
>> Alsace which is signed many counts plus another Etih. This Hugo could be
>> the man usually called Hugo of Tours or Hugh the Timid in Thegan, who
>> died in Italy 837. However there is nothing I've seen that suggest he is
>> the son of Eberard II. According to Wilsdorf's study Hugo of Tours was
>> descended from a different branch of the etichonids.
>>
>> 6. Eberard II d 864
>> There are any number of mentions of Eberards in the Frankish kingdoms
>> in the ninth century 816-94, but havnt seen any precise evidence that
>> links them to the earlier dynasty. However a count Eberhard died 864,
>> who is not the more famous Everard of Fruili, and Grandidier in the 18th
>> century thought he was a count in Alsace and this was the connection
>> with the earlier 8th century Etichonids. An alternative opinion says he
>> was Count of Zurich.
>
> I have finally got a copy of Wilsdorfs 'Les Etichonides aux temps carolingiens et ottoniens',
> so I am gradually going through it. One point he makes that touches on this Eberard line, is
> that the notice of death for Eberard II in the Annals of the Alemans in 864 may be an error for
> 866. Eberard is one of many royal lords listed as having died that year, including Luitfrid
> son of Hugo of Tours. But along with several of the others, Wilsdorf shows that he was
> still alive the following year or so. The same list occurs in the later Annals of Weingarten,
> but there they are called counts and the deaths occur in 866. The contemporary [?] Annals
> of Xanten in Lotharingia say Luitfrid died 866. It seems likely that Eberard II died in 866
> not 864.

The annals of Weingarten place the deaths of Eberhard and other counts
under 864, not 866 - see here
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_1/index.htm#page/66/mode/1up. This agrees
with the dating in the first St Gallen continuation of the Alemannian
annals here https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_1/index.htm#page/50/mode/1up.

The annals of Xanten were probably compiled in the 9th century in Ghent
or Cologne, and their dating is a year late at this time anyway. The
death of Liutfrid is not actually mentioned at all - maybe you are
thinking of the death of the Saxon Liudolf whose death along with that
of Eberhard of Friuli (who died in 864 or 865, or possibly later,
misnamed "Everwinus") is reported under 866, see here
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_12/index.htm#page/23/mode/1up.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 07-Nov-21 5:01 AM, mike davis wrote:

> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 3:18:01 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 05-Nov-21 9:14 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On 04-Nov-21 11:05 PM, mike davis wrote:

>>>> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 1:11:39 AM UTC,

>> Peter Stewart

>>
>> The case for this filiation (Amalgarius > Adalric > Adalric/Eticho) was
>> originally proposed by Louis Dupraz in 1961. On a first reading I don't
>> find his argument compelling, but the evidence he adduced holds more

>> credit than solely a revisionist alternative to the 12th-century

>> chronicle of Saint-Pierre de Bèze.
>

> I put your posts on the origins of Adalric/Eticho together for convenience.
> Thanks for going into this. I dont think there is any real mystery. The father
> of Eticho is as you say Liutheric in the Vita Odila. That is the oldest source,
> and given she was his daughter it would seem likely to be more authoritative,
> such seems the belief of Wilsdorf.
>
> However I thought Childeric IIs mayor was a man called Wulfoald. Perhaps
> thats why the ebersmunster chronicler thought he was Leudesius rival of
> Ebroin, who was mayor in Neustria for Childeric II when Ebroin was
> imprisoned at Luxeuil.
>
> Its seems from your post, the Chronicle of Beze doesnt identify the
> Adalric son of Duke Amalgar with Eticho, and if the extra Adalric is a
> theory of a modern historian, it seems easy enough to forget it. However
> this theory seems to be the prevailing view on the net which is a
> measure of the influence of Settipani's works.
>
> I notice that based on this theory of Dupraz, Settipani has constructed an
> entire ancestral tree for Eticho going back to the late roman empire.
>
> There is a new edition of the cartulary and chronicle of Beze by Constance
> Bouchard but I havnt yet seen it in the shops. I was hoping she might
> have translated it all!
>
> One of the early historians of Alsace Schoepflin decided on the Vita's
> Liutheric, and trying to find such a person, he proposed a Duke
> of the Alemans Leuthari who murdered Otto the rival of Grimoald c641.
> I dont know if that has any validity but as the Etichonids seem to have property
> and influence on both sides of the Upper Rhine, that seems just as possible
> as a Burgundian origin.

Apologies for overlooking this post before, Mike - in the reign of
Childeric II (662-675, not of course Childeric III as I mistyped
upthread) the mayor of the palace for the entire kingdom, Ebroin, was
banished and replaced by the Austrasian Wulfoald in 673. Leudesius, son
of Erchinoald, became mayor of the palace in the sub-kingdom of Neustria
in 675. Both Wulfoald and Leudesius were driven from office in that
year, and Leudesius went into exile in Aquitaine.

The origin and any descendants of Leuthar, who occurs in 643 as duke in
Alemannia but not as mayor of the palace anywhere, are unknown. The
reason Leudesius is thought by some to have been the father of
Adalric-Eticho is that he was a documented mayor of the palace with a
name similar enough to Leutheric, who according to the mid-9th-century
Vita of St Odilia was Adalric's father and mayor under Childeric II but
is otherwise unrecorded ("Temporibus igitur Childerici imperatoris erat

quidam dux illustris nomine Adalricus, qui etiam alio nomine Etih
dicebatur ... Pater vero illius nomine Liuthericus in palacio praedicti
imperatoris honore maioris domus sublimatus erat").

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I think you should make plans for us to learn of your death. The obituary for Spencer Hines here many years ago was apparently false. There was no doppelganger.

[joseph cook]

> I think you should make plans for us to learn of your death. The obituary for Spencer Hines here many years ago was apparently false. There was no doppelganger.

I'm sure whenever the (now 82 year old) D. Spencer Hines breaks free of his mortal trappings; the only question will be if talk.origins or soc.history.medieval will be the first to break the news.

--Joe C

[Peter Stewart]

On 11-Nov-21 12:58 AM, joseph cook wrote:
>
>> I think you should make plans for us to learn of your death. The obituary for Spencer Hines here many years ago was apparently false. There was no doppelganger.
>
> I'm sure whenever the (now 82 year old) D. Spencer Hines breaks free of his mortal trappings; the only question will be if talk.origins or soc.history.medieval will be the first to break the news.

Do you know for certain that Hines is still living, Joe? If so, is he
incapacitated? I haven't looked at the other groups you mention, but I
doubt that he would continue elsewhere abandoning this forum if he could
help it.

My recollection differs from Paulo's - after posting here tirelessly, in
later years almost always as a provocateur, Hines vanished. Subsequently
there were several unconvincing attempts to impersonate him, evidently
by someone who was crudely inaccurate in what passed for his style,
clueless about his idiosyncratic quotations and without his modicum of
talent for controversy.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I am basing myself on what Joe said almost 5 years ago at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/Kt9-DD7wvcs/m/bqnSNdHsEwAJ. However, Hines hasn't posted in about 4 years.

[Peter Stewart]

On taking another look at this, I suspect that part of the problem may
be a wrong identification of the count Robert occurring after Hugo and Ava.

The MGH editors of the Remiremont memorial book were confident, and have
convinced historians since, that this must be Robert the Strong on the
basis that the chronicle of Saint-Bénigne called his sons "brothers" of
Hugo Abbas, son of Adelaide whose parents Hugo of Tours and Ava head the
lists.

However, the two Remiremont lists quoted in my post above were both
inscribed in the memorial book in the reign of Adelaide's great-grandson
Raoul II of Upper Burgundy. Despite the second being headed 'names of
the living', the individuals at the top were clearly long dead at the
time of writing. The occasion for inscribing the names was presumably
commemoration of living Remiremont benefactors further down the lists,
whose donations were perhaps from inheritances going back to Hugo of
Tours and Ava. Whatever the reason, the lists do not include all
deceased members of their immediate family, but all three names of their
known daughters are included both times (Berta, Adelaide and Irmingard).
Adelaide's name follows count Robert in both lists, but in the first she
has no title and in the second she is called countess. Berta and
Irmingard are named without titles in both lists, although Berta became
a countess and Irmingard an empress. Since the scribe was punctilious
about titles for other dead people, this may indicate that she (assuming
it was a nun, who from the very rough writing may have been self-taught
in letters) copied from older lists made when these daughters of Hugo
and Ava were young - all three evidently unmarried in the first list and
only Adelaide married (ostensibly to count Robert) in the second, where
the names of Irmingard and Berta, both untitled, follow counts named
Stephen and Arnulf who were not their husbands. Conceivably these were
men to whom they were betrothed at the time of the original source, as
Adelaide may have been to count Robert in the first list, but whom they
did not marry - though this is a bit of a stretch, because marriages
arranged at this time were not readily set aside, and the reason (or
lack of reason) for the apparently higgledy-piggledy ordering may be
quite different.

In any event, if Adelaide was the first of the three to take a title
from her marriage and this was to a count Robert, then the latter would
have been her first husband rather than her second. If so, this was not
Robert the Strong, who was too young, but more probably the otherwise
unknown count Robert who occurs as missus in Tours in 825, see line 22
here https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_capit_1/index.htm#page/308/mode/1up
("Turones Landramnus archiepiscopus et Hruodbertus comes" - another
count Robert, on line 14, was missus in Mainz at the same time).

Possibly the author of the Saint-Bénigne chronicle knew that Adelaide
the mother of Hugo Abbas had been married to a count Robert and made the
same probably mistaken assumption that modern historians have settled
on, that this must be the most famous count of that name, Robert the Strong.

Peter Stewart

[joseph cook]

While the "de novo" D. Spencer Hines certainly had somewhat a different character and style than the former one; I still believe (without any evidence) that it was the same person.

However, I'll call his house today and report back if he or his family answers :). This is not an invitation to dox him here; I won't participate in that sort of thing at all, so please don't see this as an invitation to post his private information here.

--Joe C

[Peter Stewart]

Hugo of Tours concluded an exchange of properties in Alsace with
Weissenburg abbey during the assembly at Quierzy-sur-Oise on 2 September
820 - after Hugo's subscription to his charter, the next lay signatories
were Eticho, Lambert (count of Nantes), Robert then Gerold (count in
eastern Bavaria) followed by seven other counts.

The prominence of this Robert at the imperial court in company with Hugo
suggests that he may be the count Robert listed before Hugo's daughter
Adelais in the Remiremont commemorations, perhaps copied from a lost
source compiled around this time. In any event, he was certainly not
Robert the Strong, who would have been only a child in 820 if he was
even born by then.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 09-Nov-21 2:14 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

Apologies for misrepresenting Régine Le Jan - she has agreed with
Tellenbach, Schmid and many others who accept the addition in the
Saint-Bénigne chronicle as credible and read "frs" as "fratres" in it
(not "fratris"), making Robert the Strong step-father to Hugo Abbas as
second husband of the latter's mother Adelais.

The alternative reading, "fratris", making Hugo Abbas and Robert the
Strong themselves brothers, has fewer proponents largely because it has
been assumed that this would require Robert to be a son of Hugo's father
Conrad and therefore belonging agnatically to the Welf family rather
than to the older Robertian lineage.

However, if the count Robert occurring before Adelais (daughter of Hugo
of Tours and Ava) in the two Remiremont commemoration lists discussed in
this thread was not Robert the Strong but a namesake who was the first
husband of Adelais, perhaps ca 820/25, then it is possible that Robert
the Strong was son of this couple and thus a maternal half-brother to
Hugo Abbas.

We don't know the names of Robert the Strong's parents, and the
conjecture that he was a son of the count Robert whose widow Wialdrut(h)
occurs with her presumed son Guntram in February 834 is far from
rock-solid ("Ego in dei nomine Wialdruth et Guntram pariter mecum pro
remedio anime nostre et pro anima Ruotperti comitis, quondam uiri mei",
vol. 2 p. 49 no. 271 in the edition by Karl Glöckner). The fifth witness
named in her charter for Lorsch abbey was a Robert but this does not
suggest another son of hers, at least unless the four men witnessing
before him and perhaps the four after were also her sons. This of course
does not preclude that she may have had a son named Robert who was not
mentioned in the charter, but since this was a donation for the soul of
her late husband and Robert the Strong is supposed to have been a count
by April 837 when witnessing a donation by her presumed son Guntram's
widow, it is hard to explain why he was not old enough or important
enough in family business to be included in the 834 charter.

The old Robertian line may have produced a number of counts named Robert
living in the early decades of the 9th century, though these several men
may have received their given name through distaff connections for all
we know. It is possible that one of them married Adelais the daughter of
Hugo of Tours, leaving her a young widow with a son of his own name
(i.e. Robert the Strong) when she was remarried to the Welf count Conrad
the Elder, by whom she became mother of Hugo Abbas (probably born by the
late-820s).

If this scenario had been correct, then the chronicler of Saint-Bénigne
would have made a simple scribing error in omitting the "i" from "fris",
that has bamboozled readers ever since the mid-10th century (the
chronicler-cartularist of Bèze in the early-12th century and Alberic of
Troisfontaines in the 13th both understood it as "fratres") into
repeating an apparent genealogical error.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

Yes I was rather slack in my summary of wilsdorfs argument p22, where
he basically says as many of these men were alive after 864, and that Liudolf
died in 866 not 864, therefore the rest including Luitfrid I son of Hugo of
Tours and Eberard also died after 864. And as you say, if the date is 865 or 866 then
this Eberard could be the famous Marquis of Fruili, and son in law of Louis the Pious,
rather than an otherwise unknown count of nordgau who is not, as far I know, attested
elsewhere in the record.

Chaume like Grandidier is sure that the reference to Eberard in AA 864 is a count
of Nordgau and a son of Hugo of Tours but cites no evidence when he mentions
this in his book on the formation of the duchy of Burgundy [vol 1, p236]. Thus it could
be that Eberard II Count of Nordgau didnt actually exist. Certainly the Count Eberard
who appears at Ulm 858 as an envoy of Louis II of Italy is more likely Eberard of Fruili
not a count of Nordgau.

However there seems also some doubt, as you alluded to, when Eberard of Fruili died,
although Hlawitscka said 866, I was surprised that on wiki it is 16 december 867, even
though this seems a translation of the Italian wiki which has 866. I didnt know that
he was a canonised saint.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

Eberhard of Friuli was not canonised - the formal papal recognition of
sainthood in this way developed much later. A cult of his sanctity
existed at Cysoing, where he founded the abbey in which he was reburied
years after his death, but unlike a few other locally-venerated people
from his period he is not in the calendar of the Catholic church now.

As to when he died and who was the Eberhard heading the list of deaths
under 864 in the two annals cited above, there is not enough evidence to
settle either question definitively.

The Eberhard whose death in Italy is reported under 866 in the Xanten
annals was certainly the marquis of Friuli, despite his being called
"Everwinus". It specifies that he died in Italy and was son-in-law to
'king Louis' ("in Italia Everwinus, gener Ludewici regis"). We know from
a charter of his wife Gisla, daughter of emperor Louis I, that Eberhard
of Fiuli died in Italy and his remains were later brought to Cysoing by
his eldest son.

He was recorded on 16 December in the mid-15th century necrology of
Cysoing, and he probably died on that date in 865. Entries in the annals
of Xanten are frequently late by a year, and if he died on 16 December
865 the news would not have reached the compiler in Ghent or Cologne
until 866 anyway.

As for the Eberhard whose death was recorded under 864, this may have
been him or a different man. The list appears to be a misplaced catch-up
entry for five magnates ("Ebarhart, Liutolf, Erchanker, Liutfrid,
Ruodolf regni principes obierunt"). Liudolf, duke of the East Saxons,
died in 865 or 866, recorded under the latter year in the Xanten annals
along with Eberhard of Fiuli; Liutfrid was still alive in 865 according
to the more reliable annals of Saint-Bertin, where Rudolf is stated to
have died in 866 (on 6 January according to the necrology of
Saint-Riquier). If Eberhard of Friuli died on 16 December 865, just
three weeks before Rudolf, their deaths could well have been lumped
together into a group of deaths from 864-866 that were carelessly all
ascribed to 864 when perhaps Erchanger had actually died.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Historians have given various years for the death of Eberhard. Irmgard
Fees in /Dizionario biografico degli Italiani/ vol. 42 (1993) stated
that he died shortly after the drafting of his testament between 864 and
866, more-or-less agreeing with Eduard Hlawitschka in /Franken,
Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien/ (1960) who placed his
death in "(864 oder) 866". Régine Le Jan, in common with many others
before her, asserted that the testament was dated 867, while Stéphane
Lebecq in a 2015 essay in her honour revised this to ca 865.

The dating in question is: 'imperante domino Ludovico Augusto, anno vero
regni ejus, Christo propitio, XXIVo'. Louis was crowned co-emperor on 6
April 850, so that this ostensibly places the testament within the
twelve months from 6 April 873 - however, this is impossible since we
know that Eberhard was dead by the time of his widow's charter securely
dated 14 April 869. Some scholars assumed that 'imperante' in the
testament should be read as meaning 'regnante', allowing for the 24th
year to be counted from 15 June 844 when Louis became king of Italy and
consequently placing Eberhard's death on 16 December 867 as proposed by
Martin Tournan in a dissertation written in 1753 (this work is often
erroneously attributed to its editor in 1886, Ignace de Coussemaker).

Georg Heinrich Pertz in 1841 suggested that 'XXIIII' in the testament
should be read as 'XVIIII' - not the 24th but the 19th year - and
counting the imperial reign this would date it between 6 April 868 and 5
April 869. However, if Coussemaker's transcription is reliable the text
doesn't very readily allow for this, since 24th is printed as 'XXIV' and
not 'XXIIII'. Ernst Dümmler in 1861 disagreed with Pertz, although not
on these grounds (and incidentally demonstrated how easily even printed
numerals can be confused, by misreading 'XVIIII' as 'XVIII'). Instead he
preferred a different emendation, from 'XXIV' to 'XIV', placing the
testament between 6 April 863 and 5 April 864.

Cristina La Rocca and Luigi Provero in 2000 also dated the document to
863/64; however, they then identified Eberhard with a man of this name
active in March 865 as an imperial missus in Como ('missis directi
fuissemus nos quidem Aistulfus archidiaconus capelle sacri palatii et
Everardus vasso et senescallo domni imperatoris'), noting a possible
identification with a different Eberhard. This alternative was cited in
Hlawitschka's 1960 book, identifying the 865 missus with a younger man
who joined an embassy to Constantinople in the winter of 869/70 with
count Suppo III and Anastasius Bibliothecarius - in this case
Hlawitschka's proposal is far more plausible since a magnate of Eberhard
of Friuli's rank would hardly have served in March 865, when he was a
celebrated marquis and brother-in-law to the West Frankish king, as the
second-named missus along with an archdeacon of the palace chapel in
adjudicating a minor property dispute for a Milan monastery, or in the
unimposing court function of seneschal to the emperor a year or so after
he had apprehended his own death coming soon enough to record his will.

A safe conclusion seems to me that Eberhard probably died on 16 December
865.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

yes indeed and if Eberard of Fruili had died 16 December 865,
most writers would probably have recorded it under 866.

Another argument against this Eberard II as an otherwise unknown count
of Nordgau is that the man you mention here, Erchanger is usually called
Count of Nordgau on the net in the same time period. He is also called
an etichonid, but the main reason for this seems to be that his daughter
Richardis, wife since 862 of Charles the Fat, founded an abbey at Andlau
in the val d'Eleon south of Strasbourg on her own property, where after
her divorce in 887, she retired and where her neice Rotrude was abbess.

However German historians seem to label Erchanger as a member of
a Swabian family from Alemannia called the Alahofinger, and Charles
the Fats kingdom was Alemannia and didnt include Alsace until 882
when his brother Louis II died. Erchanger could have held property in
another kingdom, but it seems unlikely that he was in 862 count in
Alemannia and a count in Alsace in another kingdom, Lotharingia,
at the same time. And yet Richardis daughter of Erchanger the etichonid
count of Alsace is found all other the net.

When I was looking for sources on Richardis, who seems to have had
a truly unhappy marriage, I saw on Medlands a story that she had
later remarried Gauzlin a former bishop. The date of Richardis death
seems unknown, after 894 and before 909, it seems. I dont have access to
the source for this remarriage which is quoted to be Regino, SS I p597,
but surely this is incorrect?

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

In a way you have answered your own question - since it comes from
Medieval Lands, it is (all but) surely incorrect. In this instance
Cawley has gone beyond even his own abysmal habits of incomprehension
and presumptuous blundering.

On the page cited for his ludicrous fiction of Richgard's remarriage to
"Gauzlin a former bishop" Regino actually reported that Gauzlin died and
was replaced as bishop of Paris by Askeric ("Gozzilinus episcopus ...
migravit a seculo, in cuius loco substitutus est ab imperatore
Haschiricus episcopus") before going on to narrate the divorce of
Richgard from Charles the Fat on the grounds of non-consummation, when
she was supposedly still a virgin after more than a decade of marriage,
having been accused of adultery with the imperial arch-chancellor
Liutward, bishop of Vercelli. Regino ended this passage by stating that
Richgard retired to become a nun in the monastery she had built on her
own (inherited) estate ("Facto dissidio, in monasterio quod in
proprietate sua construxerat, Deo famulatura recessit").

In November 1049 pope Leo IX visited Andlau on his way back to Rome from
Mainz and presided over the translation of Richgard's sainted corpse
from her original tomb into the abbey church. She has been venerated as
a saint ever since, and her 14th-century reliquary tomb (in the choir of
the church) as well as her original sarcophagus (in the chapel of St
Richgard) are still in place (now the parish church of SS Peter and Paul
at Andlau in Alsace). This of course did not happen to an adulterous
divorced woman who had run off with a renegade bishop.

We don't know for certain when Richgard died, but it was definitely
before April 909 (so that Cawley's "before [906/11])" is misleading) and
probably between 893 and 896. We also don't know the family of her
father Erchangar, but he was very probably a close relative of his
namesake occurring in 828 with brothers Worad, Bernald and Bernard,
whose mother was named Rotrude. These names do not occur in the
Etichonid family.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Nov-21 9:15 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> We don't know for certain when Richgard died, but it was definitely
> before April 909 (so that Cawley's "before [906/11])" is misleading) and
> probably between 893 and 896. We also don't know the family of her
> father Erchangar, but he was very probably a close relative of his
> namesake occurring in 828 with brothers Worad, Bernald and Bernard,
> whose mother was named Rotrude. These names do not occur in the
> Etichonid family.

The question of Richgard's father has taken a backward step recently -
in the 2016 MGH edition of Louis I's charters the editor assumed that
she was daughter of the count Erchangar occurring in March 828, here
(lines 28-30): https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_ldf_2/index.htm#page/678/mode/1up.

The only authority cited for this is a 2009 article by Brigitte Merta,
where she actually wrote that the Erchangar taking part in the 828
exchange of possessions in Alsace with the abbot of Schwarzach was an
ancestor of Richgard ("Der weltliche Tauschpartner ... war Graf
Erchangar ... ein Vorfahre von Richardis/Richgard, der Gemahlin Karls
III. und Stifterin des Klosters Andlau").

Merta in turn cited Philippe Depreux's /Prosopographie de l'entourage de
Louis le Pieux/ (1997), where he proposed that Richgard's father,
occurring in 843, was probably son of the namesake count in 828 ("Il
semble qu'il faille attendre 843 pour avoir une nouvelle mention d'un
comte homonyme ..., qui pourrait bien être cette fois le fils
d'Erchangaire et le père de l'épouse de Charles le Gros"). In 843
emperor Lothar I granted property in Alsace to count Erchangar as
heritable provided he stayed loyal ("sicut et reliquis hereditatis sue
rebus, ita duntaxat, ut in nostra inmobiliter maneat devocione").

Depreux's view seems preferable to me - presumably the Erchangar in
March 828 (going by a date that was overwritten with apparent
uncertainty in the 18th century because the original had faded from
water damage) was the same count who occurs in June 823 ("vir inluster
Erkingarius comes") exchanging property in Alsace with the bishop of
Strasbourg, here
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_ldf_1/index.htm#page/544/mode/1up. The MGH
editor, Theo Kölzer, probably took his opinion that Richgard was the 828
Erchangar's daughter not from Merta but from the Böhmer/Mühlbacher
/Regesta imperii/ vol 1, p. 306 no. 773 about the 843 document
("Erkingar (Erchengar) ist der vater der stifterin von Andlau,
Richardis, der gemahlin Karls III").

Richgard was probably born in the late 840s so that a man who was
already active as count in 823 was perhaps more likely to have been her
grandfather than her father.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Nov-21 5:35 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Depreux's view seems preferable to me - presumably the Erchangar in
> March 828 (going by a date that was overwritten with apparent
> uncertainty in the 18th century because the original had faded from
> water damage) was the same count who occurs in June 823 ("vir inluster
> Erkingarius comes") exchanging property in Alsace with the bishop of
> Strasbourg, here
> https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_ldf_1/index.htm#page/544/mode/1up. The MGH
> editor, Theo Kölzer, probably took his opinion that Richgard was the 828
> Erchangar's daughter not from Merta but from the Böhmer/Mühlbacher
> /Regesta imperii/ vol 1, p. 306 no. 773 about the 843 document

I've become addled with too many dates - no. 773 is about the 823
document, not 843.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Nov-21 5:35 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Richgard was probably born in the late 840s so that a man who was
> already active as count in 823 was perhaps more likely to have been her
> grandfather than her father.

Michael Borgolte in /Die Grafen Alemanniens in merowingischer und
karolingischer Zeit: eine Prosopographie/ (1986) pp. 106-108 gave a
persuasive though not conclusive rationale for supposing that the count
Erchangar (I) in 823 had been already by 811 a count in high enough
esteem to witness the testament of Charlemagne, apparently successor in
the Breisgau to Udalrich (most probably from a different family) who had
been count there until ca 809. On this basis Borgolte calculated that
Erchangar (I) would not have been born after 780/90 and consequently
would have been aged 70 or 80 when Richgard married Charles the Fat.

Borgolte proposed that Richgard's father was an Erchangar (II), perhaps
son or nephew of the older namesake who may have died by 828 when he had
been replaced as count in the Breisgau by Liuthar. However, Borgolte
placed this change by 12 February 828, before the property exchange
dated 4 March in that year which he attributed unconvincingly to
Erchangar (II), in other words making Richgard the granddaughter of
Rotrud and niece of Worad, Bernald and Bernard rather than perhaps their
great-granddaughter and grand-niece respectively. Erchangar (II) may
have been too young to follow as count when Erchangar (I) ceased to hold
office in the Breisgau, for whatever reason, but in any case when he
does occur in that rank (from 843-ca 865) it is in Alsace on the
opposite side of the Rhine - and Charles the Fat himself subsequently
became count in the Breisgau.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Nov-21 9:15 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> We don't know for certain when Richgard died, but it was definitely
> before April 909 (so that Cawley's "before [906/11])" is misleading) and
> probably between 893 and 896.

I have been asked off-list to explain the rationale for Richgard's death
before April 909, because the Medieval Lands dating to "before [906/11]"
is apparently derived from Christian Settipani in /La préhistoire des
Capétiens/ (1993) p. 299 citing for this information Robert Folz in /Les
saintes reines du Moyen âge en Occident/ (1992) pp. 44-45, where her
death was placed unequivocally before 909 in the heading for her entry
on p. 44.

The indication in question is implicit in a forged charter of Louis the
Child, probably based on an authentic original written 906/09 in the
lifetime of Adalbero, bishop of Augsburg (died 28 April 909), who
requested confirmation of privileges granted by Pope John VIII and
Charles the Fat to Richgard's foundation at Andlau and was to take over
protection of the abbey in external affairs after her death.

According to Wilhelm Volkert in /Die Regesten der Bischöfe und des
Domkapitels von Augsburg/ (1985) p. 324, the only false content in this
forgery concerns the advocacy rights, i.e. not the request by Adalbero
for the confirmation of privileges, which would not have been needed in
the lifetime of Richgard.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Nov-21 2:52 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> However German historians seem to label Erchanger as a member of
> a Swabian family from Alemannia called the Alahofinger, and Charles
> the Fats kingdom was Alemannia and didnt include Alsace until 882
> when his brother Louis II died. Erchanger could have held property in
> another kingdom, but it seems unlikely that he was in 862 count in
> Alemannia and a count in Alsace in another kingdom, Lotharingia,
> at the same time. And yet Richardis daughter of Erchanger the etichonid
> count of Alsace is found all other the net.

There is not sufficient evidence to assign Richgard's father Erchangar
(II) to any specific lineage.

Erchangar (I) occurs as a count in 811, at an assembly where Charlemagne
enacted his testament, with no indication of where he served as count.
He was subsequently shown to be count in the Alpgau by May 816 and in
the Breisgau on the right bank of the Rhine definitely from June 817,
probably earlier following Udalrich who occurs in that capacity until 21
September evidently in 809. Comital office at that time was not
routinely hereditary, though often staying with the same kindreds. By
827 he was followed as count in the Breisgau by Liuthar, apparently from
a different family as Udalrich too may have been, and he probably died
after 4 March 828 when he occurs at Aachen with his mother Rotrude and
brothers Worad, Bernald and Bernard.

He may have been father of Erchangar (II) though the latter is never
documented as count in Alemannia and seems to have held this office on
the opposite side of the Rhine in Alsace - at any rate, both Erchangar
(I) and (II) had possessions on the Alsatian side, and since some of
these had once been held by Etichonids they have been ascribed to that
lineage. However, at least two of the former Etichonid properties came
to Erchangar (I) by the exchange with the abbot of Schwarzach in 828.
There are plenty of examples where Carolingian counts held property
outside their own sphere of authority, and the appearance of Erchangar
(I) in the Breisgau does not mean that his family origin was necessarily
from that side of the Rhine.

The uncommon name Worad (or Worald) belonging to one of his brothers is
found before their generation in a count palatine occirring a few times
in the 780s/90s. He may have been father to Erchangar (I) but this is
just speculation based on name, rank and proximity to the emperor.
Another Worad (or Warad) was count of Verona by 11 March 827 but this
was evidently not the brother of Erchangar (I) named in 828 without the
comital title accorded to the latter. Gerd Tellenbach identified the
count of Verona as uncle to empress Richgard, but this was just another
historian forgetting that all families could have collateral agnatic
branches as well as cognates sharing common onomastics, and
simplistically assuming that anyone coming to notice must be the sole
bearer of his name in his timeframe.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

On the net I saw Erchanger Count of Nordgau 828-64, that simple, but its
clear from your posts, that it is far more complicated. It seems possible from
the evidence you cite that there were at 2 different counts of this name,
unless Richgardis was born to a man quite late in life, if he first occurs in 811.
So it could be that Erchanger I is a count in Briesgau 811-28, on the german
side of the Rhine, while Erchanger II is count in alsace, perhaps Nordgau
843-64/5. From what I've read in Wilsdorf the Etichonids seem to have been
active of both sides of the rhine in the 8th century.

I notice that another Erchanger [d917] appears much later when he rebelled
against his brother in law Conrad I in Swabia or Alemannia, and his family
or kin is said on wiki to be alaholfinger, an Aleman family. On the net
he is called either the son of Berthold count palatine to Louis the German and
his daughter Gisela, or Count Erchanger. This seems the wrong generation.
Does Borgolte mention this Erchanger?

Is there is a more exact date to the 843 document where Lothar I seems to
be trying to ensure Erchangers loyalty? I mean was it before the Treaty of
Verdun, and are there any more docs that mention Erchanger in Alsace
or Lotharingia 843-64?

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

First I should mention that Borgolte did not consider that Richgard
belonged to the Etichonids - according to him the Erchangar family had
long competed with the Etichonids in Alsace but seem to have declined in
political power following her retreat to Andlau (p.99 in entry for
Eberhard (I), citing his own 1983 article 'Die Geschichte der
Grafengewalt im Elsaß' - I don't remember reading this but will do so
later when I can reach it down from the shelf.)

As for the Erchangar executed in January 917, Borgolte noted that
several sources describe him as brother to Bertold (V) who was executed
with him, adding that Erchangar's name call to mind that of Richgard's
father while the name Bertold is associated with the Bertoldians or
Alaholfings. Accordingly, it has been assumed that Erchangar came from
an Alsatian family or belonged to the Alaholfing family. The last view,
extensively reasoned by Franz Ludwig Baumann in 1878, has gained
acceptance although his argument that Erchangar's office of count
palatine was hereditary among the Alaholfings is ruled out as a
criterion - the count palatine Bertold (IV), documented in 892, could
have been the father of Erchangar and Bertold (V) but the former count
palatine Ruadholt occuring in 854 cannot easily be claimed as their
ancestor.

> Is there is a more exact date to the 843 document where Lothar I seems to
> be trying to ensure Erchangers loyalty? I mean was it before the Treaty of
> Verdun, and are there any more docs that mention Erchanger in Alsace
> or Lotharingia 843-64?

The charter of Lothar I is dated 17 February 843, six months before the
treaty of Verdun - the grant of the villa of Kinzheim in Alsace was
first said to be a reward for Erchangar's loyalty, then to be given as
heritable subject to his remaining loyal. I will post again after
reading Borgolte's 1983 article about references to Erchangar (II) in
Alsace after 843.

By the way, Christian Settipani (in /La préhistoire des Capétiens? p.
269 note 530) cited pp. 108-109 in Borgolte's 1986 book as authority for
asserting that Erchangar (I) was brother to Worad, count of Verona
(speculation that actually came from Tellenbach, as mentioned before)
and also to abbot Waldo of Schwarzach (with whom Erchangar and his
family exchanged properties in 828). Borgolte of course did not claim
any such things, only noting Tellenbach's idea as well as Hlawitschka's
scepticism about it and stating that when Charles the Bald received
homage from Alsatian magnates a Bernard, son of Bernard, was among them,
adding that Heinrich Büttner saw in this Bernard a son of Erchangar
(I)'s brother of that name, a participant in the exchange with abbot
Waldo of Schwarzach. And this from a man accusing me in print of
neglecting to read material that I had referenced!

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 19-Nov-21 11:07 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 19-Nov-21 5:16 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

>> Is  there is a more exact date to the 843 document where Lothar I
>> seems to
>> be trying to ensure Erchangers loyalty? I mean was it before the
>> Treaty of
>> Verdun, and are there any more docs that mention Erchanger in Alsace
>> or Lotharingia 843-64?
>
> The charter of Lothar I is dated 17 February 843, six months before the
> treaty of Verdun - the grant of the villa of Kinzheim in Alsace was
> first said to be a reward for Erchangar's loyalty, then to be given as
> heritable subject to his remaining loyal. I will post again after
> reading Borgolte's 1983 article about references to Erchangar (II) in
> Alsace after 843.

In his 1983 article Borgolte noted that a one-sided focus by researchers
on the Etichonids obscured that they were not the only comital family in
Alsace, and that descendants and relatives of count Erchangar (I) were
also able to assert themselves. The conflict between Etichonids and
Erchangars was intensified by strife between the Carolingian
sub-kingdoms down to the time of Charles the Fat and was not restricted
to lower Alsace but operated throughout - a regional division of the
Alsatian landscape is not reflected in sources from the mid-9th century,
which alternately speak of 'pagus', 'comitatus' or 'ducatus
Helisacensis' without any discernible shift in meaning.

Borgolte noted that Hugo of Tours gained some Alsatian possessions of
the Udalrichings (a count Udalrich had preceded Erchangar (I) in the
Breisgau). The Etichonids gained the advantage over their rivals in the
following year when Hugo's daughter Irmingard married Louis I's son and
co-emperor Lothar I. She received Erstein, where she later founded a
convent for canonesses and was herself buried - this subsequently became
a royal abbey and remained an imperial residence under the Ottonians.

With Erchangar (II)'s acquisition of Kinzheim from Lothar I in February
843 his family's possessions were extended from northern into central
Alsace. However, he later came into dissension with the emperor over his
attempt to take a forest at Kinzheim that Charlemagne had given to a
cell of Saint-Denis in 774. Lothar decided in favour of Saint-Denis and
the earliest (17th-century) copy of his charter confirming possession to
the abbey's cell (Leberau), dated 4 August 854, carried a final notation
that Erchangar had tried to annexe the forest to his own estate
("Confirmatio Hlotharii imperatoris de silva pertinente ad
Folradivillare [= Leberau], quam abstraxit Erkengarus comes").

After this Borgolte did not mention any record of Erchangar (II) until
the report of his death in 864 (more probably in 865 or 866 as discussed
upthread). In his view Erchangar gained influence in the Breisgau
through his daughter's marriage to Charles the Fat, who ruled there from
859, as did Charles in Alsace through his marriage to Richgard. He
remarked that Andlau did not become a royal abbey like Erstein, but only
a place of historical memory and liturgical commemoration for relatives
of the repudiated empress. He found that traces of the Erchangars are
faint, almost undetectable, in Alsatian history after Richgard.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 19-Nov-21 3:52 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> With Erchangar (II)'s acquisition of Kinzheim from Lothar I in February
> 843 his family's possessions were extended from northern into central
> Alsace. However, he later came into dissension with the emperor over his
> attempt to take a forest at Kinzheim that Charlemagne had given to a
> cell of Saint-Denis in 774. Lothar decided in favour of Saint-Denis and
> the earliest (17th-century) copy of his charter confirming possession to
> the abbey's cell (Leberau), dated 4 August 854, carried a final notation
> that Erchangar had tried to annexe the forest to his own estate
> ("Confirmatio Hlotharii imperatoris de silva pertinente ad
> Folradivillare [= Leberau], quam abstraxit Erkengarus comes").
>
> After this Borgolte did not mention any record of Erchangar (II) until
> the report of his death in 864 (more probably in 865 or 866 as discussed
> upthread).

Incidentally, the confirmation by Lothar I for the cell of Saint-Denis
dated 4 August 854 was repeated in similar terms by Lothar II on 12 June
866, with a similar notation in the early-17th century copy - maybe this
second confirmation was requested shortly after Erchanger (II) died.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Nov-21 5:57 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> I'll deal with each generation here

Apologies for taking so long to get back to this valuable post, Mike - I
will need to pace myself, breaking it down by generation.

> 1. Adalric/Eticho
> Duke of Alsace, his death is unknown but from about 683 or after 692
> depending on how the documentary material is interpreted.

There is actually no solid evidence that Adalric/Eticho was still living
even in 682, as is often asserted. This comes directly or otherwise from
Christian Pfister in 1890 arguing for the authenticity of a forged
charter of Thierry III, ostensibly dated 9 February 672 but with
indiction for 679, which Pfister dated 9 February 683 ("Tiedericus rex
Francorum vir illuster Attico duci ... Data mense Februario die nono,
anno decimo regni eius. Actum Suessonis civitate, anno dominice
incarnationis DCLXXII, indictione VII"). However, this is a forged
preudo-original produced at Ebersmünster in the mid-12th century and
lost after 1935. An extant version, in which the impossible dominical
year 672 was suppressed, is an 18th-century forgery by Philippe-André
Grandidier based on the 12th-century pseudo-original.

Léon Levillain in 1947 suggested that Eticho may have been identical
with the Adalric occurring as count in a charter of Clovis III dated 28
February written 692/94, and again in a charter of Childebert III dated
14 March 697, and also perhaps (as 'vir inluster', not count) in an
exchange of land at Marly with the abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés dated
25 April 697. Franz Vollmer in 1957 admitted the possibility of
Levillain's suggestion, though with more caution. I don't find this
apparent demotion and worldly career longevity convincing, since
Adalric/Eticho is supposed to have lived at Hohenburg abbey in his last
years after killing his son, still a boy, when his daughter Odilia
(probably born in the early 660s) was already a nun.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Nov-21 5:57 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> The next 3 generations are based on the Honau genealogy [which I havnt seen myself
> so I am a bit wary just in case what the net claims it says is actually different to the
> source itself, plus some historians such as Levillain who wrote on the subject dont
> seem to refer to it]

The genealogy is in a 16th-century cartulary of Honau abbey, and was
probably written in the 15th century - according to this Adalric/Eticho
(I) had four sons, Adalbert, Baticho, Hugo and Eticho (II) as well as
his daughter St Odilia (in Grandidier's edition: "HÆC est Genealogia
filiorum Adalrici Ducis, vel alio nomine Hettichonis. Hettich genuit
quatuor filios, Adelbertum, Battichonem, Hugonem, Hetichonem, & Sanctam
Otiliam").

> 2. Haicho/Hecho [Eticho II on the web]
> He makes a charter for Honau 723 but no title or office is mentioned. He had 2 sons
> Hugo and Alberic who witness this charter.

The charter for Honau signed by the donor Haicho is dated 17 September
723, not long after the death of Adalric/Eticho's son Adalbert ("Datum
sub die decimo quinto kalendarum Octobris, anno tercio regni domini
nostri Theoderici regis. Signum Haichonis, qui hanc donacionem fieri
rogavit"). It is one of a group of charters from around this time, all
considered authentic, in which the donors were part owners of Honau
island. Although these men do not expressly state a relationship to
Adalric/Eticho or to his son Adalbert (who had rebuilt Honau abbey in
720), as Franz Vollmer noted it would be unusual for a small Rhine
island to be split between two or more families.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I should have added that Adalbert's attested son Eberhard (I) founded
Murbach abbey, and this received consent from 'Hadalricus' who may have
been his paternal uncle Eticho (II), see the charter of Widegern, bishop
of Strasbourg, dated 13 May 728, here in line 39:
http://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/originaux/charte3871/.

Levillain suggested that this Adalric was a cousin of Adalbert's sons
Liutfrid and Eberhard ("un Adalric, que son nom et rang qu'il occupe
signalent comme un cousin de Liutfrid et d'Eberhard") But since he is
the only layman giving consent, along with an abbot and a bishop, there
is hardly enough reason to place him down a generation from being
perhaps Adalbert's surviving brother.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 20-Nov-21 11:41 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Levillain suggested that this Adalric was a cousin of Adalbert's sons
> Liutfrid and Eberhard ("un Adalric, que son nom et rang qu'il occupe
> signalent comme un cousin de Liutfrid et d'Eberhard") But since he is
> the only layman giving consent, along with an abbot and a bishop, there
> is hardly enough reason to place him down a generation from being
> perhaps Adalbert's surviving brother.

Correction - I should have written "the only layman giving consent,
along with an archdeacon, an abbot and two bishops ...".

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

I do not know if Borgolte is correct, but I think the traditional view that sees an unbroken line of
Etichonid counts in Alsace from the 8th to the late ninth when 2 lines appear that historians call
the Luitfridings and the Eberards in Sundgau and Nordgau, is a bit too simplistic and not really
supported by good evidence.

There seems more evidence for Erchanger in Alsace and Nordgau in the period 843-64
than the mysterious Eberard II [if he was not actually Eberard of Fruili]. Leberau which
is now Liepvre is near Colmar and may be part of Sundgau, but Andlach certainly lies
in Nordgau so he could have controlled both counties. There seems an assumption that if someone
is a count in alsace during the Carolingian period they must also be an etichonid. Maybe this
was the case but it seems a circular argument. A lot of the French websites which confirm
this view reference a recent book by Guy Perny, Adalric, duc d'Alsace, ascendants et
descendants [2004], plus Settipani, les Capetians.

There are as you say from Borgolte there seem other counts in Alsace from other families
during this period so lets look at how many Etichonids were counts in Nordgau after the
end of the Duchy c747.

1. Count Eberard 777
There is a count Eberard who signs the testament of Fulrad of St.Denis in 777
[who came from Alsace] which concerns another foundation of St.Hippolyte
near colmar which is near the supposed boundary of Sundgau and Nordgau. But none
of the other counts under Pippin III & Charlemagne have Etichonid names and as
much of the argument stems from onomastic association, this rather weakens
the idea of a single family dominating the areas officeholders.

2. Count Hugo 820
Then under Louis the Pious there is the Count Hugo who makes the charter
for Wissembourg in north Alsace which is dated as you say to 820 [not 822 on the net].
This takes place at a royal assembly at Quierzy and signed by many other counts. This is
most likely Hugo of Tours and although he was count of Tours in the Loire valley 811-28, it
seems that this 1 charter which takes place at the royal court miles away from Alsace is
usually cited to prove that he also had a hereditary post as count of nordgau or all Alsace
which he then passes on to his son or sons under Lothar I & Lothar II. Hugo lost his offices
when he sided with Lothar I against Louis the Pious and died in exile in Italy. However I notice
that when Louis the Pious was deposed by his sons in 833, it happened at a place near Colmar,
which might be just coincidence or a convenient place for the sons to combine against their
father, or it might suggest that Lothar I had strong support from his father in laws family in
Alsace at that time.

3. Count Erchanger 843-64
As discussed already, Erchanger appears under Lothar I, but its unclear if he was an
Etichonid; I think I prefer Borgolte view, but whatever the preference i think any Etichonid
connection has to remain unproven. As Erchanger died around the same time of the
shadowy Eberard [II], it seems likely to me that this reference in AA 864 is more likely
Eberard of Fruili.

4. Hugo son of Luitfrid

I think you mention him in another post with reference to Borgolte who seems to agree with
what I've read in Wilsdorfs article on the Luitfridings. Briefly Wilsdorf thinks that the 2 men who
Charles the Bald met when he marched into Alsace in late 869, that is Hugo son of Luitfrid and
Bernard son of Bernard were counts of Nordgau and Sundgau respectively. This Hugo is, as he
says, most likely the grandson of Hugo of Tours, but he makes Bernard an Etichonid too, as there
was a Bernard who was much later Count of Sundgau in 896.

Now this seems a very weak argument. Firstly theres a big gap between 869 and 896, and Bernard
son of Bernard is usually seen as an entirely different person, a problem in itself, which i dont wish to
examine in this thread. Neither of them are even called counts in 869, although this is quite possible
but Wilsdorf doesnt cite any evidence to attach Hugo son of Luitfrid to any county, and he doesnt
seem to appear again after Alsace was allotted to Louis the German at Meersen 870.

5. Eberard [III]
The next count Eberard the tyrant of Lure and relative of Walderada must be a different man to
whoever Eberard [II] was, as the events he is involved in clearly take place after 869, and the fact
he had a son Hugo II who died in 940, although I havn't verified that date. Whether Eberard [III]
was an upstart or related to the Etichonids or not, he certainly took the chance to enrich himself
while Lotharingia was in turmoil in the 870s and 880s and royal power was weak.

Even so the evidence that connects this Eberard III to Nordgau is pretty weak too. He was said to
be powerful in Burgundy and his main centre of activity is around Lure south west of Vosges, and
the only evidence of activity in Nordgau is that he abducted a nun from Ernstein which perhaps
means that he controlled that convent too. The Etichonid connection is that Ernstein was founded
by Ermengarde daughter of Hugo of Tours where she was buried. There is also mention in 888 of
property lying in Ortenau the county of Eberard. Ortenau is not properly alsace, but lies opposite
Strasbourg on the German side of the rhine [I think the text has mortonauua, which seems strange
for ortenau?]

So Eberard [III] is seen as an Etichonid and a count of Nordgau. Another Luitfrid also appears in the
Sundgau 884, who according to Wilsdorf, quoting a dubious cart for St.Trudbert was a brother of
Hugo, whom he thinks is the Hugo son of Luitfrid in 869. It is tempting to see Eberard [III] as another
brother and therefore grandson of Hugo of Tours. I think you mentioned this possible scenario early on.
Eberard [III] may also be the count who appears in the Aargau in the 890s. The advantage of accepting
this evidence and reasoning, is that the rather illusory Eberard [II] becomes unnecessary for an Etichonid
descent for the counts of Nordgau in the 10th century anyway. On the net, I've seen Eberard [III]s death
marked as 898 or given dates 898-910, but I've yet to find what they are based on. To summarise:

Duke Eticho
|
?some male descent
|
Hugo of Tours d837
|
Luitfrid I d 866
|__________________________________________
Hugo 869 Luitfrid II ?Eberard III
->Sundgau ->Nordgau

One other question: I had assumed that after 869, as Alsace went to Louis the German
at Meersen in 870, he and then his son Louis the Younger controlled it until 882. I believe
it was his men who defeated Hugo son of Lothar II at Verdun in 880. However did perhaps
Charles the Fat get Alsace in the share out at his fathers death in 876?

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

Mortinhauga, Morden(h)ova, Mortonauua were variants of an older name for
the Ortenau.

> So Eberard [III] is seen as an Etichonid and a count of Nordgau. Another Luitfrid also appears in the
> Sundgau 884, who according to Wilsdorf, quoting a dubious cart for St.Trudbert was a brother of
> Hugo, whom he thinks is the Hugo son of Luitfrid in 869. It is tempting to see Eberard [III] as another
> brother and therefore grandson of Hugo of Tours. I think you mentioned this possible scenario early on.
> Eberard [III] may also be the count who appears in the Aargau in the 890s. The advantage of accepting
> this evidence and reasoning, is that the rather illusory Eberard [II] becomes unnecessary for an Etichonid
> descent for the counts of Nordgau in the 10th century anyway. On the net, I've seen Eberard [III]s death
> marked as 898 or given dates 898-910, but I've yet to find what they are based on.

I agree that it's better not to identify the Eberhard reportedly dying
in 864, but perhaps really in 865/66, as an Etichonid when this was more
probably a chronologically inaccurate reference to Eberhard of Friuli.
The likelihood that Eberhard [III] was a son's son to Hugo of Tours,
rather than a daughter's son, seems fairly compelling to me, given that
the Welf and Carolingian daughters' sons did not vie for his countship
and property - nor did a Carolingian great-grandson, whose mother
Waldrada (not herself an Etichonid) was Eberhard's relative, when he
briefly became duke in Alsace.

As for the death of Eberhard [III], he was last recorded on 14 March 898
in Strasbourg ("Actum publice in civitate Strazbuurug presente
illustrissimo comite Eberhardo. Data pridie idus martias anno III
regnante Centiboldo rege, indictione I ... Signum Eberhardi comitis").
He may have been dead by 24 June 903, when he does not occur along with
his son Hugo among the counts at an assembly in Forchheim. However, this
is not certain because Hugo was made count in his father's lifetime
according to the late-10th-century vita of St Deicolus.

> To summarise:
>
> Duke Eticho
> |
> ?some male descent
> |
> Hugo of Tours d837
> |
> Luitfrid I d 866
> |__________________________________________
> Hugo 869 Luitfrid II ?Eberard III
> ->Sundgau ->Nordgau
>
> One other question: I had assumed that after 869, as Alsace went to Louis the German
> at Meersen in 870, he and then his son Louis the Younger controlled it until 882. I believe
> it was his men who defeated Hugo son of Lothar II at Verdun in 880. However did perhaps
> Charles the Fat get Alsace in the share out at his fathers death in 876?

Charles the Fat got Alemannia and part of Lotharingia, and kept Raetia.
As Borgolte and others have said, Louis the German sought to extend his
influence in Alsace by the marriage of Charles to Erchangar (II)'s
daughter Richgard, and that relationship (whether chaste or not) was
still operative in 876.

In /Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and
the End of the Carolingian Empire/ (2003) Simon MacLean wrote:

p. xv: "876 Death of Louis the German: east Francia divided between his
sons (Karlmann of Bavaria, Louis the Younger of Franconia/Saxony,
Charles the Fat of Alemannia and Alsace)."

p. 85: "In the early 860s, in order to entrench his sons in their
positions, Louis had each of them married to prominent members of the
aristocracy in their regions. Charles's bride was Richgard, daughter of
one of the leading counts of northern Alsace, a region in which Louis
had been canvassing support for several years and which had recently
been officially ceded to him by his nephew Lothar II."

p. 188: "Alsace was on the frontier of Charles's kingdom."

and in his PhD thesis (2000):

p. 24: "The political position of Louis the German's three sons during
his reign was anomalous by comparison to Carolingian practice elsewhere
... Each was ... given responsibility in a particular region, Karlmann
in Carinthia, Louis the Younger in Franconia and Saxony, and Charles the
Fat in Alemannia and Alsace. This arrangement was in place by the end of
the 850s, cemented in the early 860s by the sons' marriages into
important aristocratic families in their designated areas, and sealed by
public pronouncement in 865."

p. 206: "Due to links established during the period of his [Charles the
Fat's] 'subkingship' and the first three years of his reign proper, the
Alemannic regnum (including, in the broader sense, Alsace and Rhaetia)
was a major focus of his attention".

p. 218: "Schlettstadt was Charles's only palatium in Alsace, the prime
focus of his authority there".

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Nov-21 5:57 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> I'll deal with each generation here
>

> 1. Adalric/Eticho
> Duke of Alsace, his death is unknown but from about 683 or after 692
> depending on how the documentary material is interpreted.
>

> The next 3 generations are based on the Honau genealogy [which I havnt seen myself
> so I am a bit wary just in case what the net claims it says is actually different to the
> source itself, plus some historians such as Levillain who wrote on the subject dont
> seem to refer to it]
>

> 2. Haicho/Hecho [Eticho II on the web]
> He makes a charter for Honau 723 but no title or office is mentioned. He had 2 sons
> Hugo and Alberic who witness this charter.
>

> 3. Alberic
> Son of Hecho 723, the Honau genealogy says he had 4 sons including an
> Eberard, but there are no dates.
>
> 4. Eberard I
> Son of Alberic, he has been seen as the Count Eberard who in 777
> signs the testament of Abbot Fulrad of St.Denis who founded St.Hippolyte near
> Colmar on his own property, and also the Eberard who gives his assent to
> a charter of Huc [Hugo] for Fulda in 785 who gives property in Alsace.
>
> Although I have seen nothing on the net to justify calling any of these last 3
> as Counts of Nordgau, and as the division only occurred after 747, it
> seems unlikely, but the descent seems possible. The next 3 generations
> are more doubtfull.
>
> 5. Hugo I
> A count Hugo makes a property exchange in 822 with Wissembourg abbey in
> Alsace which is signed many counts plus another Etih. This Hugo could be
> the man usually called Hugo of Tours or Hugh the Timid in Thegan, who
> died in Italy 837. However there is nothing I've seen that suggest he is
> the son of Eberard II. According to Wilsdorf's study Hugo of Tours was
> descended from a different branch of the etichonids.

The Honau genealogy says: "Albericus [#3 above] autem genuit quatuor
filios, Hugbertum, Hebrohardum, Horbertum & Thetibaldum".

Nothing is certain about any descendants of these four sons. However,
the last-named son was probably identical with Theobald, abbot of
Ebermunster (or Ebersheim, founded by Adalric/Eticho I) who occurs in
803 and 810. In 803 he donated properties south of Strasbourg to Fulda
with the title abbot but without specifying his abbey, and in 810 he is
named as abbot of Ebermunster in a charter of Charlemagne. This was the
basis for two false charters of Lious I forged in the mid-12th century,
the second dated 13 June 829 that is often unreliably given as terminus
post quem for the death of abbot Theobald.

In his own charter dated 5 May 803 Theobald reserved from his donation
to Fulda some serfs on the two estates south of Strasbourg whom he had
already given to his 'nepos' Hugo. This may have been Hugo of Tours, in
which case he could be linked to the Etichonids as the son of one of
Theobald's three brothers - perhaps the most plausible candidate being
Eberhard ("Hebrohardus"), whose name may occur in descendants of Hugo of
Tours whereas none of the others do.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

I've put your posts together for convenience since I think the
evidence is coming together.

>> The next 3 generations are based on the Honau genealogy [which I havnt seen myself
>> so I am a bit wary just in case what the net claims it says is actually different to the
>> source itself, plus some historians such as Levillain who wrote on the subject dont
>> seem to refer to it]
>

>The genealogy is in a 16th-century cartulary of Honau abbey, and was
>probably written in the 15th century - according to this Adalric/Eticho
>(I) had four sons, Adalbert, Baticho, Hugo and Eticho (II) as well as
>his daughter St Odilia (in Grandidier's edition: "HÆC est Genealogia
>filiorum Adalrici Ducis, vel alio nomine Hettichonis. Hettich genuit
>quatuor filios, Adelbertum, Battichonem, Hugonem, Hetichonem, & Sanctam
>Otiliam").
>

>> 2. Haicho/Hecho [Eticho II on the web]
>> He makes a charter for Honau 723 but no title or office is mentioned. He had 2 sons
>> Hugo and Alberic who witness this charter.
>

>The charter for Honau signed by the donor Haicho is dated 17 September
>723, not long after the death of Adalric/Eticho's son Adalbert ("Datum
>sub die decimo quinto kalendarum Octobris, anno tercio regni domini
>nostri Theoderici regis. Signum Haichonis, qui hanc donacionem fieri
>rogavit"). It is one of a group of charters from around this time, all
>considered authentic, in which the donors were part owners of Honau
>island. Although these men do not expressly state a relationship to
>Adalric/Eticho or to his son Adalbert (who had rebuilt Honau abbey in
>720), as Franz Vollmer noted it would be unusual for a small Rhine
>island to be split between two or more families.
>

Yes if this Haicho and his sons is the same as Eticho [II] son of Adalric/Eticho, there is
a possible male line descent via Alberic to Eberard [I]

>
>The Honau genealogy says: "Albericus [#3 above] autem genuit quatuor
>filios, Hugbertum, Hebrohardum, Horbertum & Thetibaldum".
>
>Nothing is certain about any descendants of these four sons. However,
>the last-named son was probably identical with Theobald, abbot of
>Ebermunster (or Ebersheim, founded by Adalric/Eticho I) who occurs in
>803 and 810. In 803 he donated properties south of Strasbourg to Fulda
>with the title abbot but without specifying his abbey, and in 810 he is
>named as abbot of Ebermunster in a charter of Charlemagne. This was the
>basis for two false charters of Lious I forged in the mid-12th century,
>the second dated 13 June 829 that is often unreliably given as terminus
>post quem for the death of abbot Theobald.
>
>In his own charter dated 5 May 803 Theobald reserved from his donation
>to Fulda some serfs on the two estates south of Strasbourg whom he had
>already given to his 'nepos' Hugo. This may have been Hugo of Tours, in
>which case he could be linked to the Etichonids as the son of one of
>Theobald's three brothers - perhaps the most plausible candidate being
>Eberhard ("Hebrohardus"), whose name may occur in descendants of Hugo of
>Tours whereas none of the others do.

This evidence makes it very tempting to see Hugo of Tours as a son of this Eberard [I]
who might be the count Eberard of 777, although strictly speaking he should be the new
Eberard [II] to avoid confusing him with Count Eberard [I] the founder of Murbach who
was the brother of the last Duke. I think Hugo of Tours made a number donations
with his wife in Italy, but I assume he never said who his parents were or historians
would have discovered this long ago.

To summarise a possible male line descent:

Eticho I
|
Eticho II/Haicho
|
Alberic
|
Eberard [II]
|
?
|
Hugo of Tours
|
Luitfrid [I]
|_________________________________________________
Hugo son of Luitrid Luitfrid [II] Eberard [III]

I read somewhere, probably in Wilsdorf, that Lothar I mentions he or his wife is
related to Duke Adalbert in charter for St.Stephen of strasbourg 845 who founded it,
apparently a forgery but based it seems on a authentic one which was drawn up at
the request of his wife Irmingarde. Taken with Thegans statement about Hugo of
Tours descent, this suggests that the connection with the earlier ducal family
was a living memory in the mid 9th century.

>With Erchangar (II)'s acquisition of Kinzheim from Lothar I in February
>843 his family's possessions were extended from northern into central
>Alsace. However, he later came into dissension with the emperor over his
>attempt to take a forest at Kinzheim that Charlemagne had given to a
>cell of Saint-Denis in 774. Lothar decided in favour of Saint-Denis and
>the earliest (17th-century) copy of his charter confirming possession to
>the abbey's cell (Leberau), dated 4 August 854, carried a final notation
>that Erchangar had tried to annexe the forest to his own estate
>("Confirmatio Hlotharii imperatoris de silva pertinente ad
>Folradivillare [= Leberau], quam abstraxit Erkengarus comes").

Maybe its just a coincidence but just before this, Conrad of Auxerre, that is
Lothar I brother in law, had tried to get St.Denis to give him Leberau [=Liepvre] to hold
as a benefice of some sort but they refused, according to the synod of verberie 853
[MGH Capit II, p421]. Liepvre wasnt an etichonid foundation, it was founded by Fulrad of
St.Denis on his own property not far from Selestat, but I notice his mother was called
Irmingard and he had a sister Waldrada, and 1 of the witnesses of his will in 777 was
Count Eberard perhaps an Etichonid, perhaps count of nordgau and perhaps the father
of Hugo of Tours.

>After this Borgolte did not mention any record of Erchangar (II) until
>the report of his death in 864 (more probably in 865 or 866 as discussed
>upthread). In his view Erchangar gained influence in the Breisgau
>through his daughter's marriage to Charles the Fat, who ruled there from
>859, as did Charles in Alsace through his marriage to Richgard. He
>remarked that Andlau did not become a royal abbey like Erstein, but only
>a place of historical memory and liturgical commemoration for relatives
>of the repudiated empress. He found that traces of the Erchangars are
>faint, almost undetectable, in Alsatian history after Richgard.

I notice that Reuter in his translation of the Annals of Fulda sees Erchanger among the
Aleman supporters of Charles. Possibly Erchanger he didnt have a male heir, or his heirs
decided to focus on Alemannia/Swabia.

Well this does make Eberard [III] look a far more historical figure,
and its tempting to see the Eberards who appear in Ortenau 888, Aargau
a few years later and at Stasbourg in Nordgau 898 as all one person,
the same as the tyrant of Lure with his son Count Hugo.

>
>> One other question: I had assumed that after 869, as Alsace went to Louis the German
>> at Meersen in 870, he and then his son Louis the Younger controlled it until 882. I believe
>> it was his men who defeated Hugo son of Lothar II at Verdun in 880. However did perhaps
>> Charles the Fat get Alsace in the share out at his fathers death in 876?

>Charles the Fat got Alemannia and part of Lotharingia, and kept Raetia.
>As Borgolte and others have said, Louis the German sought to extend his
>influence in Alsace by the marriage of Charles to Erchangar (II)'s
>daughter Richgard, and that relationship (whether chaste or not) was
>still operative in 876.

Yes, despite what happened later in 887, in January 887 Richardis was still able to
intercede with Charles at Selestat where he lay ill for some time, for a charter for a
chap in Burgundy.

>In /Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and
>the End of the Carolingian Empire/ (2003) Simon MacLean wrote:

>p. xv: "876 Death of Louis the German: east Francia divided between his
>sons (Karlmann of Bavaria, Louis the Younger of Franconia/Saxony,
>Charles the Fat of Alemannia and Alsace)."

I think the Annals of St.Bertin says Charles got a few cities in LTR at first in 876, but
later in 877 there was a proper share out, and perhaps thats when he got all of Alsace,
and possibly part of Burgundy too.

It doesnt seem that the kin of Richardis and Erchanger benefited from his takeover. Instead
it seems it was the Etichonids, if Hugo son of Luitfrid, Luitfrid II and Eberard III were indeed
all brothers.

Mike

[mike davis]

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:40:17 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
<snip>

> >I agree that it's better not to identify the Eberhard reportedly dying
> >in 864, but perhaps really in 865/66, as an Etichonid when this was more
> >probably a chronologically inaccurate reference to Eberhard of Friuli.
> >The likelihood that Eberhard [III] was a son's son to Hugo of Tours,
> >rather than a daughter's son, seems fairly compelling to me, given that
> >the Welf and Carolingian daughters' sons did not vie for his countship
> >and property - nor did a Carolingian great-grandson, whose mother
> >Waldrada (not herself an Etichonid) was Eberhard's relative, when he
> >briefly became duke in Alsace.

A question has been put to me via email about the family of Walderada and her
descendants in the 10th century. Briefly that if Walderada was related to
Eberard III and he was a grandson of Hugo of Tours, wouldnt Lothar II and
Walderada be too closely related etc. I had overlooked this although it could be
used as an argument that either Eberard III or Walderada wernt related
to the Etichonids. Probably Lothar II and his advisors didnt care so long as
he had a legitimate heir. But if that was his only aim in marrying Walderada
its a bit puzzeling that he chose Hugo as his sons name, even if it was the
name of his maternal grandfather as it wasnt a usual name for a carolingian
who was expected to be a king. For example Louis II of Germany had a son
by a concubine and also named him Hugo, but called his son and heir [until he
fell out a window] by his legit wife, Louis.

Perhaps when Hugo was born Lothar wasnt planning on making him a king.
He claimed Queen Theutberga was barren, the woman his father had forced
him to marry just before he died, but as he repudiated her as early as 857, he
didnt give her much time. AIUI he later claimed he was already married to
Walderada before his marriage to Theutberga, but whatever the truth perhaps
his relationship with Walderada predated 855. So Hugo could have been born
before Lothar II became king.

Hugo is made Duke of Alsace in 867, which looks like an attempt to get support
from his grandmothers kindred the Etichonids. But in 869, Alsace falls to
Louis the German, and Hugo disappears from sight. He launches a rebellion
in 878 to seize Lotharingia but his followers dont seem to be from the Etichonids.

Two stand out: 1 is Count Wicbert his former praeceptor ['guardian'?] appointed by
his father and another is Theutbald the brother of Queen Theutberga, who had married
Hugos sister Berta [their son was another Hugo the infamous Hugo of Vienne later king
of Italy, but this line is well known]. Just after the death of Lothar II [870] this Count
Wicbert gives lands in the Ornois for the souls of his parents Lambert and Rotrude,
and also for King Lothar [II] who he says was like a father to him. Apparently Hlawitscka
identifys Wicberts parents as Lambert of Nantes [d852] and Rotrude of Pavia who was
Lothar II's sister. So Count Wicbert was Hugos cousin. I wonder if there is other evidence
for this id becos it seems a bit weak. Supposedly Hugo killed Wicbert in 883 because
he wanted to marry his wife Friderada [who had already had 2 other husbands, so
thats 4 in all, which must be a record for a ninth century noblewoman].

Hugo's forces are defeated near Verdun 880 and he submits and is treated fairly well, he
received I think an entire royal abbey of Lobbes and later the revenues of the vacant
see of Metz, and then Alsace again in 882, but after more revolts he conspires with the
viking Godfrid of Dorestadt who was married to his other sister Gisela, and is blinded
[885] and sent eventually to Prum where he died. There the story ends usually, but it
continues on certain net genealogy sites. AFAIK, Walderada's descendants only stem
from Berta and her 2 marriages. I dont think her other 2 daughters, Gisela [d907]
who seems to have retired to a convent after her Viking husband was murdered at
court, and Ermengarde who died at Lucca at another convent, had any known
children. However it seems that some websites have a descent from Hugo of Alsace.

However I think the documents concerning Hugos supposed descendants have
already been discussed on the Henry project in much better detail than i can manage,
so I will just post the relevant line with a few comments:

Hugo of Tours d837
|
Ermengard d851 m Lothar I d855
|
Lothar II d869 m Walderada
|
Hugo dc895 m Friderada 883
|
?
|
Hugo Count of Chaumontois 922 m Eva 950
|________________________________
Count Arnulf d by 950 Odelric Abp of Reims 962-69

Briefly, in 950 the widow Countess Eva wanted to found a priory on property at Lay
[now Lay St.Remy which is 5km west of Toul] which had been given to her as her dowry,
in memory of her husband count Hugo and her murdered son Count Arnulf, and give it to
St.Arnulfs of Metz because her husband was descended from St.Arnulf and the kings of
the Franks, and in addition says her late son Arnulf was a kinsman [consanguineus] of
Adelbero Bishop of Metz [who was descended via his mother from the Carolingians].
The french site i saw this on, said Arnulf was cousin of Adelbero of Metz, but does
_consanguineus_ have that specific meaning, i thought it just meant blood relation.
This might mean that Eva belonged to Wigerics family.

There is also a charter from Gorze dated 922 where the property clause says
some lands lay in chaumontois the county of Hugo, and on the net his death is
marked as 946, for what its worth, probably little. I believe Remiremont where
Walderada retired to after 869, was located in the southern part of Chaumontois,
but it is some way from Lay-St.Remy.

The references for this are M Bur, the formation of Champagne I, p140, n27, and an
article by Mathieu called the la comtesse Ermengarde, p558,and Settipani's book
on the Capetians 1993, p162 none of which I have access to ATM.

The question is do they discuss this descent and discard it or endorse it as valid?
As it doesnt seem to go any further its of little interest perhaps, but I thought i would post it
anyway. It seems that these documents of Eva are rather dubious not least becos she
names her other son as Odelric Archbishop of Reims [962-69] when he did not become
archbishop years later after 950 and the witnesses include Duke Frederic, who wasnt duke
until 959[?], although the family is confirmed in other mentions from St.Arnulfs and Gorze,
but not their royal descent. Flodoard also says Archbishop Odelric was son of a count Hugo.

According to the Henry Project, Depoin made this Hugo of Chaumontois a grandson of
Hugo of Alsace via another Hugo Count of Toul. Adding another generation seems
unnecessary, and the only way I can see that a son of Hugo of Alsace, who would
have been but a small child in 885, could have become a count, is if Friderada had a
powerful protector or married one [which would make 5 husbands] with power in this
region. I'm not sure which source adds this, but Friderada had a daughter by an earlier
husband called Engilram, who married Count Richwin, who some have seen as the
later Count of Verdun [d923]. He and his son Otto [d944] controlled the abbey of
Moyenmoutier which also lay in the Chaumontois. I believe Count Richwin did have
an earlier wife before he is assumed to have married Cunegunde widow of Wigeric,
somewhere I read that Richwin is alleged to have killed his first wife.

Mike

[Fraser McNair]

<snipped>

> The references for this are M Bur, the formation of Champagne I, p140, n27, and an
> article by Mathieu called the la comtesse Ermengarde, p558,and Settipani's book
> on the Capetians 1993, p162 none of which I have access to ATM.
>
> The question is do they discuss this descent and discard it or endorse it as valid?

I can help here, having access to all three of these as well as Hlawitschka's 'Zur Lebensgeschichte Erzbischof Odelrichs von Reims'. Whoever wrote those page numbers has managed to get all three of them wrong to greater or lesser extents, which is actually quite impressive, but in order:

Bur, Champagne, pp. 140-1, endorses but does not discuss a descent from Lothar II, turning the heavy lifting over to Hlawitschka.

Mathieu, Ermengard (available at https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_2007_num_85_3_5095), pp. 582-3, fn. 30, is bullish about the descent ('presque certain') but relies on the 950 charter of Countess Eva to Saint-Arnoul.

Settipani, Préhistoire des Capétiens, p. 273 doesn't mention any offspring from Hugh of Alsace.

Hlawitschka, 'Lebensgeschichte', doesn't, AFAICT, mention anything about a descent from Lothar II (although I admit that I'm scanning it because it's 11pm here!), but...

> As it doesnt seem to go any further its of little interest perhaps, but I thought i would post it
> anyway. It seems that these documents of Eva are rather dubious not least becos she
> names her other son as Odelric Archbishop of Reims [962-69] when he did not become
> archbishop years later after 950 and the witnesses include Duke Frederic, who wasnt duke
> until 959[?], although the family is confirmed in other mentions from St.Arnulfs and Gorze,
> but not their royal descent. Flodoard also says Archbishop Odelric was son of a count Hugo.

...he does say (pp. 2-3, fn. 5) that these documents were badly interpolated in the 11th/12th century; which, yep, seems legit for the reasons you mention. So far from being 'presque certain' this descent seems extremlely dubious.

<more snipped>

> I'm not sure which source adds this, but Friderada had a daughter by an earlier
> husband called Engilram, who married Count Richwin, who some have seen as the
> later Count of Verdun [d923].

That would be Regino of Prüm, Chronicon, s.a. 883, p. 121 (https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_50/index.htm#page/120/mode/2up): 'she [i.e. Friderada], before she married Berner, was joined to the powerful man Enguerrand, from whom she bore a daughter, whom Count Ricuin later took to wife, whom the same count also ordered to be beheaded because she committed adultery'.

[Peter Stewart]

Hugo is first mentioned on 18 May 863; he was probably born by and
perhaps a few years before 860 since he had rebelled by September 878
when he was excommunicated.

The name Hugo was repeatedly given to illegitimate sons of Carolingians
- Charlemagne also had a bastard son Hugo, who became abbot of
Saint-Bertin and arch-chancellor to his legitimate half-brother Louis I.

As for the unspecified relationship between Waldrada and Eberhard, your
correspondent has taken to the "agnatic" fallacy in supposing that the
most prominent (almost invariably male-line) ancestry of someone is the
default conduit for any stated kinship. Even if Waldrada and Eberhard
were full-blood first cousins, the likelihood that they were linked
through a common Etichonid grandfather is not by any means compelling -
for all that we are told about it, Eberhard's mother may have been
related to either of Waldrada's parents.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 27-Nov-21 10:16 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>> The references for this are M Bur, the formation of Champagne I, p140, n27, and an
>> article by Mathieu called the la comtesse Ermengarde, p558,and Settipani's book
>> on the Capetians 1993, p162 none of which I have access to ATM.
>>
>> The question is do they discuss this descent and discard it or endorse it as valid?
>
> I can help here, having access to all three of these as well as Hlawitschka's 'Zur Lebensgeschichte Erzbischof Odelrichs von Reims'. Whoever wrote those page numbers has managed to get all three of them wrong to greater or lesser extents, which is actually quite impressive, but in order:
>
> Bur, Champagne, pp. 140-1, endorses but does not discuss a descent from Lothar II, turning the heavy lifting over to Hlawitschka.

The assertion by Bur that Odalric was descended from Lothar II through
Hugo of Chaumontois came not from Hlawitschka but from Paul Lebel, see
here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5724383s/f362.item.

Hlawitschka's article on Odalric can be downloaded here:
https://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/cgi-bin/digilib.pl?ident=a089985&dir=a&img=0&tit=Hlawitschka%20Zur%20Lebensgeschichte.


Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 27-Nov-21 2:30 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> Hugo is made Duke of Alsace in 867, which looks like an attempt to get support
> from his grandmothers kindred the Etichonids. But in 869, Alsace falls to
> Louis the German, and Hugo disappears from sight. He launches a rebellion
> in 878 to seize Lotharingia but his followers dont seem to be from the Etichonids.
>
> Two stand out: 1 is Count Wicbert his former praeceptor ['guardian'?] appointed by
> his father and another is Theutbald the brother of Queen Theutberga, who had married
> Hugos sister Berta [their son was another Hugo the infamous Hugo of Vienne later king
> of Italy, but this line is well known]. Just after the death of Lothar II [870] this Count
> Wicbert gives lands in the Ornois for the souls of his parents Lambert and Rotrude,
> and also for King Lothar [II] who he says was like a father to him. Apparently Hlawitscka
> identifys Wicberts parents as Lambert of Nantes [d852] and Rotrude of Pavia who was
> Lothar II's sister. So Count Wicbert was Hugos cousin. I wonder if there is other evidence
> for this id becos it seems a bit weak. Supposedly Hugo killed Wicbert in 883 because
> he wanted to marry his wife Friderada [who had already had 2 other husbands, so
> thats 4 in all, which must be a record for a ninth century noblewoman].

Hugo's murder of Wigbert is not explained by Regino, whose report under
883 says that a few days afterwards Hugo murdered Bernarius because he
wanted to marry the latter's beautiful wife Friderada - she had
previously been married to Engelram, i.e. eventually having three
husbands in all, not four, see here:
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_50/index.htm#page/121/mode/1up ("Hoc
etiam tempore idem Hugo Wicbertum comitem ... interfecit; paucis dehinc
interpositis diebus Bernarium, nobilem virum sibique fidelissimum, dolo
trucidari iussit, pulchritudine illius captus uxoris, quam absque
momento sibi in matrimonium iungit. Vocabatur autem mulier Friderada.
Quae antequam Bernario sociaretur, copulata fuerat Engilrammo potenti
viro ...").

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

Yes I see thats the correct version;

Friderada m 1) Engilram; 2) Bernarius d883; 3) Hugo

In the same chapter Regino says that Count Richwin married the
daughter of Friderada and Engilram, and later ordered his wife beheaded
for adultery.

I think one source says that Hugo of Alsace recovered Alsace from Charles the
Fat before he made his final conspiracy which resulted in him being blinded and
imprisoned. If he had a son with Friderada, I would have expected the child
to be similarly confined, and maybe Friderada sent to a convent, rather than
left loose to become an obscure count in chaumontois?

Mike

[mike davis]

I dont read german, but Lebel has a neice of Archbishop Odalric or Oury,
called Emma becoming the ancestor of the Counts of Reynel who lasted
into the 13th century when their heiress married Joinville the biographer of
St.Louis. Apparently she used her family connection to get Odalric to give
Reynel which is just north east of chaumont as a lordship for her son.

Is the stuff about the descent from Arnulf etc also accepted as being
part of the original charter. I just wonder if perhaps it was inserted
later in the 12th century when the counts of Reynel, who seem to
use Odalric and Arnulf as their main comital names (later also Hugo too),
were lookig to establish a carolingian descent or confirm a family
tradition they had no proof?

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

I agree, the chances are nought if not less that an infant son of Hugo
would have been allowed to grow up as a layman, subsequently being made
a count and having a son (or grandson according to the earlier
creditless proposal of Depoin) become archbishop of Reims.

Hugo reportedly had Friderada's former husband killed in 883 so that he
could marry her. He was blinded and claustrated in the summer of 885,
when any son of his could have been no older than 2. The notion that
such a Carolingian by-blow as this putative child would leave behind a
widow and son - the latter a protégé of Otto the Great's brother Bruno
of Cologne - boasting of his descent from St Arnulf is preposterous.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

It is thought that the two forged charters of countess Eva dated 950 and
the one of her son Odelric dated 958 (inconsistently with the regnal
year given for Otto I) may have been based on some authentic document/s
in which Lay was donated to St Arnulf abbey. It is known from an
independent source that countess Eva owned Lay in 935 and the abbey had
possession by the 11th century.

Apart from that basis, the statements in the charters are unreliable.
The first one of Eva was considered problematic by Calmet in the early
18th century, when he noted that he would have excluded it from his
documentation if it had not been printed elsewhere already. However,he
mistakenly thought the second one was genuine as well as Odelric's. In
the 1880s Georg Wolfram proved that the two charters of Eva were
forgeries, but not Odelric's that also (though with less emphasis)
claimed he was a descendant of St Arnulf.

Hlawitschka noted a problem that Wolfram overlooked, in that Odelric had
ostensibly just come of age in 958 whereas his father Hugo died at least
23 years before. He also noted that the connection between St Arnulf
abbey and the Carolingians was particularly emphasized in the 11th and
12th centuries (the charters were forged ca 1073), and that St Arnulf
himself had been born at Lay.

I doubt that the Reynel family prompted the claim in the 12th century -
the 11th-century forgeries were submitted for confirmation by popes
Calixtus II in 1123 and Innocent II in 1139.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 27-Nov-21 2:30 AM, mike davis wrote:

I forgot to note before that Lothar I and his sons (Louis and Lothar,
probably not also their youngest brother Charles) had taken concubines
by 853, two years after the death of their mother in March 851 according
to Prudentius of Troyes in the annals of Saint-Bertin. It is not certain
that Waldrada was the concubine taken by the younger Lothar at this
stage - she was subsequently described as a noblewoman whereas the two
concubines of Lothar I himself in 853 were said to be lowlier
handmaidens - but in 863 Adventius of Metz claimed that Lothar I had
originally intended her as wife for his namesake son. The younger
Lother's tutor and Lothar I's brother-in-law Liutfrid, son of the
Etichonid Hugo of Tours, were cited for corroboration of the story, but
despite this it was not believed in Rome and pope Nicholas I
excommunicated Waldrada in February 866.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

Sorry I wrongly thought they were forged in the 12th, so perhaps it was
a concoction of the monks themselves. I didnt know that Hugo of Alsace was
castrated; it seems unlikely they would have spared any male chidren.

There is one more area I wish to examine but as its not strictly to do with the
Etichonids but with the possible descent from the Arnulfings i shall post a new
thread later.

Mike

[mike davis]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:14:15 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 27-Nov-21 2:30 AM, mike davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:40:17 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > <snip>

> > Perhaps when Hugo was born Lothar wasnt planning on making him a king.
> > He claimed Queen Theutberga was barren, the woman his father had forced
> > him to marry just before he died, but as he repudiated her as early as 857, he
> > didnt give her much time. AIUI he later claimed he was already married to
> > Walderada before his marriage to Theutberga, but whatever the truth perhaps
> > his relationship with Walderada predated 855. So Hugo could have been born
> > before Lothar II became king.
> I forgot to note before that Lothar I and his sons (Louis and Lothar,
> probably not also their youngest brother Charles) had taken concubines
> by 853, two years after the death of their mother in March 851 according
> to Prudentius of Troyes in the annals of Saint-Bertin. It is not certain
> that Waldrada was the concubine taken by the younger Lothar at this
> stage - she was subsequently described as a noblewoman whereas the two
> concubines of Lothar I himself in 853 were said to be lowlier
> handmaidens - but in 863 Adventius of Metz claimed that Lothar I had
> originally intended her as wife for his namesake son. The younger
> Lother's tutor and Lothar I's brother-in-law Liutfrid, son of the
> Etichonid Hugo of Tours, were cited for corroboration of the story, but
> despite this it was not believed in Rome and pope Nicholas I
> excommunicated Waldrada in February 866.
>
> Peter Stewart

Yes this is what I was thinking of, if Walderada and Lothar II had a relationship
prior to his fathers death, one can understand why he was so resistant to
being married to Theutberga. I think the story comes from Hincmars annals,
who seems well informed about the carolingian sexcapades. On the other
hand I think some historians argue that Lothar IIs move to marry Walderada
came only later when she bore him a son.

I think his fathers concubine Doda clearly was low born, Hincmar says he had
two servants at a royal estate as mistresses. Doesnt he free her from
serfdom or something soon after she had a son, Carloman? He doesnt seem
to have survived.

There is some suggestion online that Charles of Provence was
incapacitated in some way, as he was born quite late in his parents marriage,
and I think Lothar II made several attempts to deny him as king or covert his
territory. Although Charlemagne had appointed several child sub kings, I think
Charles of Provence was the first Carolingian child king [c10 years old] to actually
rule alone, sort of recalls the later Merovingians.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

Not castrated - in 885 Hugo was blinded and claustrated, i.e. shut up in
a monastery (at Fulda, later becoming a monk at Prüm. but still entire
as far as we know). But anyway, Friderada would not have had access to him.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The complex marital arrangments and derangements of Lothar II have
filled books. He married Tetberga in the mourning period after the death
of his father in September 855, allegedly after her brother Hubert
threatened him with the loss of his kingdom. He repudiated her in 857
and married Waldrada in 862, then was reunited with Tetberga in 865, yet
back with Waldrada in 867.

> I think his fathers concubine Doda clearly was low born, Hincmar says he had
> two servants at a royal estate as mistresses. Doesnt he free her from
> serfdom or something soon after she had a son, Carloman? He doesnt seem
> to have survived.

This is in the same passage of the annals of Saint-Bertin as the
information in my post above that Lothar I and his sons had concubines
in 863 - the annals at that time were compiled by Prudentius, bishop of
Troyes, and this task was not taken up by Hincmar until 861. In 860 the
latter wrote about the divorce of Lothar II but in doing so, as far as I
recall, he did not name Waldrada or refer at all to Doda. Lothar I's
illegitimate son by Doda was probably born by 853, perhaps a year or two
earlier: the choice of name for him is interesting, as until then
Carloman was given to legitimate sons of the family (Pippin III's elder
brother and Charlemagne's younger brother, who had both departed from
the scene of power to the benefit of their respective siblings). The
bastard sons had been named Hugo, Drogo, Arnulf, etc., and moreover
Lothar I had two legitimate nephews named Carloman living at the time so
that a purposeful degradation of the name may have been part of his
motive. Doda was given freedom from servitude and granted a property
formerly belonging to her father in April 851, within a month of the
death of Lothar's wife.

> There is some suggestion online that Charles of Provence was
> incapacitated in some way, as he was born quite late in his parents marriage,
> and I think Lothar II made several attempts to deny him as king or covert his
> territory. Although Charlemagne had appointed several child sub kings, I think
> Charles of Provence was the first Carolingian child king [c10 years old] to actually
> rule alone, sort of recalls the later Merovingians.

Charles was called 'puer' (normally meaning between 7 & 14 years old) in
856, and so is unlikely to have taken a concubine by 853. He may have
suffered from epilepsy. His reign in Provence started by October 856 but
precise date cannot be determined from charters that may contain
miscopied details - an extant original has date details missing that
were supplied from a 15th-century vidimus or 17th-century
transcriptions, going by which 22 August 861 fell in his 5th regnal year.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Aagh - exactly when it matters, another typo: this should read 853, not 863.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

I must read more carefully! Still I bet Hugo was relieved it was only claustration
and not castration, given he'd already lost his eyes.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-21 3:44 AM, mike davis wrote:

> I must read more carefully! Still I bet Hugo was relieved it was only claustration
> and not castration, given he'd already lost his eyes.

I'm not so sure - for a married man, involuntary celibate life might be
easier without a constant worldly distraction.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

i've been asked offline what was the alternative descent of Hugo of Tours
from Adalric/Eticho as suggested by Levillain and others, which i alluded to in
my earlier posts but maybe did not outline, as i was only then interested in
following the evidence for the eberardings.

I think wilsdorf [les Etichondes p5] mentions this briefly but basically I think he
follows the descent from Adalric/Eticho outlined in Vollmers article [Etichonen
p166-7] where he slightly modified Levillains schema.

Adalric/Eticho I
|
Eticho II [=Haicho 723]
|__________________________________________
Hugo 723-85 m Grimilde 774-85 Alberic 723
|
Haicho/Eticho III d by 785 m Engela d by 791
|
Hugo of Tours

I think they still consider Theobald abbot of Ebersmunster to be both
a son of Alberic and grandson of Eticho II, and also the uncle of Hugo of Tours,
but in this construction they use nepos to mean 2nd cousin not nephew which
might be a stretch too far.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

It is always a stretch to interpret 'nepos'/'neptis' as any more distant
relative than the standard meanings grandson/granddaughter or
nephew/niece - and without specific evidence it is an arbitrary exercise.

Some people on learning that these words could be used loosely for other
relationships get carried away into treating a mere possibility as a
probability, and some will interpret words to fit a preconceived idea
anyway. In the context of withholding serfs from a donation because they
had already been given to a 'nepos', suggesting a co-operative
inheritance in the locality, 2nd cousin is not a very plausible
alternative without circumstantial evidence.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Nepos was also often used for grandnephew. It wasn't to the same extent as grandson or nephew but still common.

[Peter Stewart]

It was NOT used often - it occurs, of course, but examples are
exceptional rather than common.

The terms for generational removes from grandchild or nephew/niece down
were set out by Isidore of Seville and repeated in many other reference
works held by monasteries throughout Europe, for instance in the decreta
of St Ivo of Chartres.

The terms in order were:

nepos/neptis
pronepos/proneptis
abnepos/abneptis
adnepos/adneptis
trinepos/trineptis

Peter Stewart