Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I
Stewart Baldwin
and Allies - Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c.
879-1160" (Leiden and Boston, 2004), in order to see what kind of
documentation appears for her genealogical table of the counts of
Boulogne between count Adalolf (d. 933, son of Baldwin II of Flanders)
and count Eustace I (d. 1047), from whose time the genealogy of the
counts of Boulogne is well documented. The earliest version of the
genealogy of the counts of Boulogne, written in the late eleventh
century, does not state the parentage of Eustace I, but instead traces
the Carolingian ancestry of Eustace's wife Matilda of Louvain [see MGH
SS 9: 299-301]. As I stated earlier, finding documentation in
Tanner's book for this difficult period is not easy, but I have found
a few citations which supply at least some of the raw data on which
her genealogy is partly based. Below is an outline of some of this
raw data, starting with evidence for the children of Adalolf, which is
less problematic then the rest of the chart, but still much less clear
than would be liked.
The following is the genealogy between Adalolf and Eustace I as it is
given by Tanner, but redone a bit to avoid the confusion of what
Tanner's "dotted lines" mean, and with the warning that I see no good
evidence to justify the relationships given by her for Arnulf I,
Baldwin I, Arnulf II, and Eustace I:
Adalulf, count of Boulogne (918-33)
| |
(by unknown wife)| |(illegitimate)
_____________|_______ |
| | |
Arnulf I (962-c. 988) brother (d. 961/2) Baldwin Balzo (d. 973)
|____________________________
| |
Baldwin I of Boulogne Arnulf II of Ternois
(c. 988-1024) (c. 988-1019)
m. Adelvie (of Gent?)
|
Eustace I (1024-47)
Count Adalofus of Boulogne and Ternois, also abbot of St. Bertin, died
on 13 November 933, according to Folcwine's history of the abbots of
St. Bertin [MGH SS 13:627; Guérard 141].
It is worth noting that Folcwine, reporting the arrival of king Louis
from England after the death of king Eudes (in 936, although Folkwine
does not state the year), states that the new king was met at Boulogne
by a number of individuals, including "Adalolfus markisus" [MGH SS
13:626; Guérard 138]. There is some mistake here (since Adalolf had
died three years earlier), and it is usually assumed that Arnulf (to
whom the title of marquis would be appropriate) was meant [see e.g.,
Tanner, 34, note 65], but is it possible that this is a mention (with
a careless title) of the son of Adalolf who was later killed by his
uncle Arnulf of Flanders (see below)? The usual explanation is
probably right, but I thought that the alternate possibility was at
least worth mentioning.
Baldwin/Balzo, illegitimate son of Adalolf.
Baldwin, nicknamed Balzo, was guardian of the young count Arnulf II of
Flanders, was called a "consaguineus" of both the king and Arnulf in a
charter of king Lothair of France in 967 [see RHF 9:630], and, as
already noted earlier by Peter Stewart in the "Tanner on the counts of
Boulogne" thread, was called a son of Adalolf in "De Arnulfo Comite"
[MGH SS 9:304]. The contradictory evidence would be the obituary of
Balzo son of count Rodulf (evidently intending Baldwin II's brother
Rodulf) reported in the year 973 [Ann. Bland.], but the general
consensus is that Balzo was an illegitimate son of Adalolf.
Arnulf and NN, [probable] sons of Adalolf.
The annals of Flodoard, under the year 962, state that king Lothair
made peace between "princeps" Arnulf (i.e., Arnulf I of Flanders) and
his nephew of the same name ("... nepotem ipsius omonimum eius ..."),
whose brother the elder Arnulf had killed for disloyalty [MGH SS
3:406]. It has generally been concluded, probably correctly, that the
younger Arnulf and his brother were sons of Adalolf, although the
primary sources do not state this, and it would be nice to see some
clear evidence that this Arnulf ("nepos" of Arnulf I of Flanders) was
different from an Arnulf of Tournai given by Tanner's table of the
counts of Flanders as a maternal nephew of Arnulf I of Flanders, and
that this Arnulf was different from count Arnulf of Valenciennes or
Cambrai, placed by Tanner as a maternal grandson of Arnulf I of
Flanders (without any clear evidence that I can see). Vanderkindere
1:291, citing "Van Lokeren I, no. 45, states that an "Arnulphus" count
of Boulogne signed a charter of Arnulf II of Flanders. If this
charter (to which I do not have access) gives the title of count of
Boulogne to this Arnulf, it would be the only evidence of which I am
aware that Adalolf's son Arnulf ever held the title of count of
Boulogne.
Baldwin I of Boulogne.
Although a count Baldwin of Boulogne is mentioned in late (and
suspicious) genealogies as the father of Eustace I, I have seen no
good contemporary or nearly contemporary sources which would confirm
his existence. The count Baldwin who signed a charter of 988 who has
already been discussed was not identified as a count of Boulogne in
that charter.
Arnulf, count of Ternois.
The Miracles of St. Bertha state that that an Arnulf was count of
Ternois under count Baldwin of Flanders during the time of king Robert
of France (996-1031), son of Hugh "the Great" (i.e., Hugh Capet).
Tanner identifies him with the count Arnulf who, along with Baldwin IV
of Flanders, was excommunicated in the 990's [see PL 137:850-2, which
does not identify Arnulf's territory]. Although Tanner makes him a
son of Arnulf (son of Adalolf), it is not clear what evidence there is
for this, nor is it clear why they must be regarded as a distinct
individuals if count Arnulf of "Ternois" was early in Robert's reign.
Countess Adelvie and Enguerrand of Ponthieu.
Hariulf, in his Chronicle of the abbey of St. Riquier, stated that
Hugh, advocate of St. Riquier, married "Gela", daughter of Hugh Capet,
that his son Enguerrand ("Anglerannus") succeeded with the title of
advocate, and that Enguerrand assumed the title of count [i.e., of
Ponthieu] after he had killed the count of Boulogne in battle and
married his widow Adelvie [RHF 10:195]. Since Enguerrand witnessed a
charter of Robert I as "count" between 1024 and 1027 [see Tanner 79;
RHF 10:611], Tanner dates the death of Enguerrand's foe (whom she
regards as count Baldwin I of Boulogne) prior to 1027, and since
Eustace I of Boulogne is not referred to as count in 1023 [source
possibly the "(Brunel 1930): no. 1" cited in a note by Tanner 79], she
dates the death of Eustace's father after that date, therefore placing
Baldwin's death between 1023 and 1027. It is not clear what evidence
(if any) is being used to prove that the count of Boulogne who was
killed by Enguerrand was the father (or even the immediate
predecessor) of Eustace, nor does there seem to be any clear evidence
providing a name for Adelvie's first husband.
CONCLUSIONS
So far, I have found little more than the above "house of cards" as
"documentation" for this difficult century. However, it seems to me
that two late sources, Lambert of Ardres and the thirteenth century
genealogy of the counts of Boulogne, have a much larger role in
forming the above genealogical table than one would guess from looking
at Tanner's footnotes. I will post more on what these sources say as
time permits.
Stewart Baldwin
Abbreviations:
Ann. Bland. = ed. Bethmann, ed., Annales Blandiniensis, in MGH SS
5:20-34.
Guérard = M. Guérard, Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-Bertin
(Collection des Cartulaires de France, III, Paris, 1840).
MGH SS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Series Scriptores.
PL = Migne, Patrologiae Latinae.
RHF = Recueil des Historiens de Gaule et France.
Vanderkindere = Léon Vanderkindere, "La Formation Territoriale des
Principautés Belges au Moyen Age" (Brussles, 1902).
Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
<snip>
Another possible explanation of this is a misreading, from the 11th
century onwards, of Folcwine - the text as given by editors is:
"Adalolphus, comes et abbas...obiit anno nativitatis Domini
DCCCCXXXIII., idibus novembris"
Depending on the legibility and angle of the penstrokes, reading "III"
at the end of the year could perhaps be a mistake for "VI", in which
case Adalulf would be reported as dying on 13 November 936 after the
arrival of Louis from England.
The compiler of Annales Blandinienses, writing shortly after 1060,
placed this event in 933, but he made an error about the burial of
Adalulf in the same entry, placing this at St Peter's abbey in Ghent
despite the fact that it was actually in his own monastery. I wonder if
historians ever since might not have been misled by him & other copyists
of Folcwine.
> Baldwin/Balzo, illegitimate son of Adalolf.
>
> Baldwin, nicknamed Balzo, was guardian of the young count Arnulf II of
> Flanders, was called a "consaguineus" of both the king and Arnulf in a
> charter of king Lothair of France in 967 [see RHF 9:630], and, as
> already noted earlier by Peter Stewart in the "Tanner on the counts of
> Boulogne" thread, was called a son of Adalolf in "De Arnulfo Comite"
> [MGH SS 9:304]. The contradictory evidence would be the obituary of
> Balzo son of count Rodulf (evidently intending Baldwin II's brother
> Rodulf) reported in the year 973 [Ann. Bland.], but the general
> consensus is that Balzo was an illegitimate son of Adalolf.
It's worth noting that Philip Grierson took a different view in his
edition of _Les annales de Saint-Pierre de Gand et de Saint-Amand_
(Brussels, 1937), p. 21 note 1. He relied on the same statement
appearing in Annales Blandinienses and Annales Formoselenses (op cit, p.
126), considering that this was adopted from a source written in the
10th century whereas the note 'De Arnulfo comite' was written in the
11th. However, any earlier original (unknown to us anyway) stating that
Balzo was son of Count Rodulf only had to be wrong on a name, while the
author of the note was deliberate in making Balzo the son of Count
Arnulf I's uterine brother Adalulf by a concubine. Chronology and the
transmission of Rodulf's countship of Cambrai are against the
alternative preferred by Grierson - Rodulf was killed in June 896, while
Balzo lived until 973 and was ruling Flanders on behalf of the young
Arnulf II from 964 when any son of Rodulf would have been an old man.
In the meantime Cambrai had passed from Rodulf to Isaac, perhaps his
son-in-law, who died in the late 940s. If Balzo had been the son of
Rodulf by a concubine, so as not to inherit rights to Cambrai, it is
hard to see why he would have been given undisputed precedence over
others to become the guardian of his first cousin twice removed. It
seems far more plausible to me that Count Arnulf I in extreme old age &
approaching death chose his younger nephew rather than his contemporary
first cousin to look after his grandson.
> Arnulf and NN, [probable] sons of Adalolf.
>
> The annals of Flodoard, under the year 962, state that king Lothair
> made peace between "princeps" Arnulf (i.e., Arnulf I of Flanders) and
> his nephew of the same name ("... nepotem ipsius omonimum eius ..."),
> whose brother the elder Arnulf had killed for disloyalty [MGH SS
> 3:406]. It has generally been concluded, probably correctly, that the
> younger Arnulf and his brother were sons of Adalolf, although the
> primary sources do not state this, and it would be nice to see some
> clear evidence that this Arnulf ("nepos" of Arnulf I of Flanders) was
> different from an Arnulf of Tournai given by Tanner's table of the
> counts of Flanders as a maternal nephew of Arnulf I of Flanders, and
> that this Arnulf was different from count Arnulf of Valenciennes or
> Cambrai, placed by Tanner as a maternal grandson of Arnulf I of
> Flanders (without any clear evidence that I can see). Vanderkindere
> 1:291, citing "Van Lokeren I, no. 45, states that an "Arnulphus" count
> of Boulogne signed a charter of Arnulf II of Flanders. If this
> charter (to which I do not have access) gives the title of count of
> Boulogne to this Arnulf, it would be the only evidence of which I am
> aware that Adalolf's son Arnulf ever held the title of count of
> Boulogne.
This charter dated 972 (actually 31 January 973) is not authentic - it
was copied from another (Van Lokeren I pp. 48-49 no. 51), dated 21
January 975 or 980, which does not include this Count Arnulf amongst the
witnesses. In any event, I don't know of any charters from around this
time & place that specify the countships of men accorded the title of count.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> The compiler of Annales Blandinienses, writing shortly after 1060,
> placed this event in 933, but he made an error about the burial of
> Adalulf in the same entry, placing this at St Peter's abbey in Ghent
> despite the fact that it was actually in his own monastery.
Careless again! I meant to write "despite the fact that it was not
actually in his own monastery" - as Folcwine and Wtger tell us, Adalulf
was buried in Saint-Bertin (Sithiu) abbey at Saint-Omer, rather than in
Ghent where the annalist of Saint-Pierre (Mont-Blandin) abbey was
writing about 130 years later.
Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The
name Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear
out of the blue.
Hans Vogels
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<ite9l0hg4v8pcir3o...@4ax.com>...
Peter Stewart
> Stewart,
>
> Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The
> name Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear
> out of the blue.
Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first.
The name was probably chosen at some arbitrary point, and for similar
reason to Hubert, without a series of family precedents. Both carried a
similar legend, where the saint was converted to Christianity in the
course of a hunt, due to encountering a stag with the crucifix shining
in its antlers.
Medieval people were entranced by these stories, and no doubt on
occasions they were happy to baptise a son & heir with a quite new name
in honour of such pleasing fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for
instance, the naming of Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed
here recently.
Peter Stewart