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:
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.
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.
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:
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian duke
earlier compilationmedieval 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
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted byeverybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accountsconcern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, 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.
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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>
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian duke
is amedieval 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
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 isremarkably
detailed for so late a source, but it is apparently a copy of anearlier compilation
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted byeverybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accountsconcern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, while
Medlands has Leudesius. I dont know enough to judge the merits ofeither,
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.
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:
To those who havnt looked at this before it should be stated that thestandard
version has the duchy of alsace suppressed by Pippin III and dividedinto 2
counties, Nordgau and Sundgau which eventually came to be controlled byLuitfridings and are
the descendants of Eticho. In Sundgau they are called the
descended from Hugo of Tours. In Nordgau they are called the Eberards and are descended from Eberard I who last appears in 777.etichonids
When I looked at this line on the net I found a big gap between the
in the late 8th until the later 9th century when the family whichChristian Wilsdorf
calls the Eberards appear in Alsace, usually called the Counts ofNordgau in the
10th century. Understand that I havnt looked at the sources oracademic papers
merely what others have put on the net, so there may be documentaryevidence
that I havnt seen. Perhaps I should start a new post about this if itinterests
people as its quite long?
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian duke
earlier compilationmedieval 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
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted byeverybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accountsconcern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, 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.the nordgau
However do either of these Chronicles say that the Eguisheimers or
were descended from Eticho? Both of these chroniclers were well awareEberards
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
of Nordgau who gave rise to the Egisheimers were linked to theEtichonids
through marriage not by male line descent. I havnt seen an importantarticle
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 - hisThe 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.
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.
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,pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 03-Nov-21 4:38 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian duke
relativesmedieval 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
untilof the Merovingians and describing Eticho's mother as a relative of
Burgundian kings - this was accepted by some, not all, historians
there is athe 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
with agenealogy of Eticho's descendants. He reportedly killed his son
daughterblow from a club for the boy's temerity in displaying Eticho's
remarkablySt 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
detailed for so late a source, but it is apparently a copy of anearlier compilation
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted byeverybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accountsconcern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, while
Medlands has Leudesius. I dont know enough to judge the merits ofeither,
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.
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").
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.
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.
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
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:
Thats a pity, I thought he had perhaps examined the eberards as closelyWilsdorf'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.
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 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 StewartWith 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.
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,pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 03-Nov-21 4:38 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian duke
is amedieval 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
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 isremarkably
detailed for so late a source, but it is apparently a copy of anearlier compilation
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted byeverybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accountsconcern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, while
Medlands has Leudesius. I dont know enough to judge the merits ofeither,
but the Amalgar version would push the male line back further to c600.
Apologies, I misremebered the 12th-century chronicle from Saint-PierreApologies for my apologies - the 12th-century chronicle from
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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: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.
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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 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
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:
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.
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.
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: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.
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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 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?
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.
With regards to the parents of Hugh the Abbot both Levillain 1947 and Wilsdorf 1967 articlesPeter StewartWith 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.
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
On 07-Nov-21 10:39 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:
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.
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, andAfter a short break from computers I have not yet had time to read
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.
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
What a relief. I must admit I feared you had died and was considering posting a thread about that before reading your new posts.
These sons-in-law of Hugo Timidus were Girart of Roussillon, count of
Paris & Vienne, Emperor Lothar I and Conrad I, count of Auxerre -
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.
On 05-Nov-21 2:17 PM, Peter Stewart 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,pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 03-Nov-21 4:38 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
duke was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian
relativesmedieval 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
untilof the Merovingians and describing Eticho's mother as a relative of >>> >> Burgundian kings - this was accepted by some, not all, historians
there is athe 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
with agenealogy of Eticho's descendants. He reportedly killed his son
daughterblow from a club for the boy's temerity in displaying Eticho's
hagiographiesSt Odilia to a crowd when she was being carried in a litter at
Hohenburg, so he and his immediate family figure in her
remarkablyfrom the 9th and 13th centuries.;
;
I came across these later accounts too. The Honau genealogy is
detailed for so late a source, but it is apparently a copy of anearlier compilation
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted byeverybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accountsconcern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, while
Medlands has Leudesius. I dont know enough to judge the merits ofeither,
but the Amalgar version would push the male line back further toc600.
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.
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").
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.
On 05-Nov-21 10:11 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 05-Nov-21 2:17 PM, Peter Stewart 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,pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 03-Nov-21 4:38 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
duke was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian
fathermedieval period after the 9th century.The mid-12th century chronicle of Ebersheim confused Eticho's
relativesLiuteric with Leudesius son of Erchinoald, making them blood
historians untilof the Merovingians and describing Eticho's mother as a relative of >>>> >> Burgundian kings - this was accepted by some, not all,
Saint-Pierre dethe late-19th century. The 12th-century chronicle of
there is aBèze made Adalric/Eticho into the son of a duke in Burgundy named >>>> >> Amalgarius. In the 15th/16th-century cartulary of Honau abbey
with agenealogy of Eticho's descendants. He reportedly killed his son
daughterblow from a club for the boy's temerity in displaying Eticho's
hagiographiesSt Odilia to a crowd when she was being carried in a litter at
Hohenburg, so he and his immediate family figure in her
remarkablyfrom the 9th and 13th centuries.;
;
I came across these later accounts too. The Honau genealogy is
detailed for so late a source, but it is apparently a copy of anearlier compilation
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its acceptedby everybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2accounts concern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, while
Medlands has Leudesius. I dont know enough to judge the merits ofeither,
but the Amalgar version would push the male line back further toc600.
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.
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").
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.
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.
On 07-Nov-21 10:39 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:
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.
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, andAfter a short break from computers I have not yet had time to read
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.
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.
On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?
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
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:07:18 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?
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
On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 9:36:45 PM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 07-Nov-21 10:39 AM, mike davis wrote:
On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:57:36 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:After a short break from computers I have not yet had time to read
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:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
On 09-Nov-21 7:18 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:07:18 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:No, I suppose they would get a happy intuition from my unexpected
On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?
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
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
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 21:08:39 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 09-Nov-21 7:18 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:07:18 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:No, I suppose they would get a happy intuition from my unexpected
On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?
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
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
I'd like to know of your eventual death.
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:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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.
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:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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.
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.
On 09-Nov-21 11:30 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Do you think we would ever know for certain you had died?
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 21:08:39 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 09-Nov-21 7:18 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:07:18 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:No, I suppose they would get a happy intuition from my unexpected
On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?
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
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
I'd like to know of your eventual death.
I would like even more to know of yours Paulo, since you are much
younger and healthier...
Peter Stewart
On 06-Nov-21 12:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote: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.
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:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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.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
On 06-Nov-21 12:32 PM, 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:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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.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.
A terça-feira, 9 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 04:21:17 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 06-Nov-21 12:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote: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.
A sexta-feira, 5 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:37:49 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:This slipped my mind - the wife of Robert was perhaps more probably
On 05-Nov-21 11:34 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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.
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
A terça-feira, 9 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 01:20:22 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 09-Nov-21 11:30 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Do you think we would ever know for certain you had died?
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 21:08:39 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:I would like even more to know of yours Paulo, since you are much
On 09-Nov-21 7:18 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:07:18 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:No, I suppose they would get a happy intuition from my unexpected
On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?
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
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
I'd like to know of your eventual death.
younger and healthier...
Peter Stewart
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 3:14:59 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 06-Nov-21 12:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A sexta-feira, 5 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:37:49 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:This is a subject that hasn't been aired here for some years, but then
On 05-Nov-21 11:34 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended from Etichonids?
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.
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.
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 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.
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:
Thats a pity, I thought he had perhaps examined the eberards as closely
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.
as apparently he did for the Luitfridings.
The Eberhard I occurring in the 8th century is securely documented as aYes 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
grandson of Adalric/Eticho - he was a son of the latter's son and ducal
successor Adalbert.
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.
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:Apologies for my apologies - the 12th-century chronicle from
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>
Eguisheimers back to Hugh of Tours, but II expect that historians can find other ways to trace the
was mentioned again in thejust wondered if this descent from a 7th century merovingian duke
is amedieval 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
remarkablygenealogy 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
detailed for so late a source, but it is apparently a copy of anearlier compilation
from 1079 presumably using the original documents. Its accepted byeverybody
it seems but the generations stop about c770. The other 2 accountsconcern
the origins of Eticho and have divided historians since the 18thcentury and
continue to do so today. I notice Settipani favours the Amalgarversion, while
Medlands has Leudesius. I dont know enough to judge the merits ofeither,
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.
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
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.
On 10-Nov-21 2:10 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 9 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 01:20:22 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu: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
On 09-Nov-21 11:30 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Do you think we would ever know for certain you had died?
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 21:08:39 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:I would like even more to know of yours Paulo, since you are much
On 09-Nov-21 7:18 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:07:18 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:No, I suppose they would get a happy intuition from my unexpected
On 08-Nov-21 11:22 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:How would they know of your death? Do you have any plans for us to learn of your death?
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
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
I'd like to know of your eventual death.
younger and healthier...
Peter Stewart
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
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 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.
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
On 10-Nov-21 2:33 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 9 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 04:21:17 UTC,
pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 06-Nov-21 12:32 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Thanks for this. The Henry II Project page doesn't mention this. The
A sexta-feira, 5 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 03:37:49 UTC,This slipped my mind - the wife of Robert was perhaps more probably
pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
On 05-Nov-21 11:34 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended >>>>>> from Etichonids?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
On 06-Nov-21 12:32 PM, 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:
I don't think the evidence adduced for these connections is strong
Do you think the Houses of Habsburg and/or Lorraine were descended
from Etichonids?
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.
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.
On 07-Nov-21 3:13 AM, 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.
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
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 4:06:05 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 07-Nov-21 3:13 AM, 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.
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
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.
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.
On 15-Nov-21 5:07 AM, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 4:06:05 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 07-Nov-21 3:13 AM, 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.
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
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,Eberhard of Friuli was not canonised - the formal papal recognition of sainthood in this way developed much later. A cult of his sanctity
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.
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.
On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 11:13:23 PM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 15-Nov-21 5:07 AM, mike davis wrote:
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 4:06:05 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:Eberhard of Friuli was not canonised - the formal papal recognition of
On 07-Nov-21 3:13 AM, 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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 16-Nov-21 2:52 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
However German historians seem to label Erchanger as a member ofThere is not sufficient evidence to assign Richgard's father Erchangar
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.
(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.
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 10:01:10 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 16-Nov-21 2:52 AM, mike davis wrote:
<snip>
However German historians seem to label Erchanger as a member ofThere is not sufficient evidence to assign Richgard's father Erchangar
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.
(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.
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?
On 19-Nov-21 5:16 AM, mike davis wrote:
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.
With Erchangar (II)'s acquisition of Kinzheim from Lothar I in FebruaryIncidentally, the confirmation by Lothar I for the cell of Saint-Denis
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 wasIn his 1983 article Borgolte noted that a one-sided focus by researchers
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.
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
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:52:12 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 19-Nov-21 11:07 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 19-Nov-21 5:16 AM, mike davis wrote:<snip>
In his 1983 article Borgolte noted that a one-sided focus by researchersIs 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.
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
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)."
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.
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.
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.
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].
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].
<snipped>actually quite impressive, but in order:
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
Bur, Champagne, pp. 140-1, endorses but does not discuss a descent from Lothar II, turning the heavy lifting over to Hlawitschka.
On 27-Nov-21 10:16 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:actually quite impressive, but in order:
<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
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.
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 byHugo's murder of Wigbert is not explained by Regino, whose report under
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].
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 ...").
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:27:01 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:actually quite impressive, but in order:
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
The assertion by Bur that Odalric was descended from Lothar II through
Bur, Champagne, pp. 140-1, endorses but does not discuss a descent from Lothar II, turning the heavy lifting over to Hlawitschka.
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.
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?
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:50:32 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 27-Nov-21 2:30 AM, mike davis wrote:Yes I see thats the correct version;
<snip>
Hugo is made Duke of Alsace in 867, which looks like an attempt to get supportHugo's murder of Wigbert is not explained by Regino, whose report under
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].
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 ...").
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?
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.
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:I forgot to note before that Lothar I and his sons (Louis and Lothar, probably not also their youngest brother Charles) had taken concubines
<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.
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
On 29-Nov-21 1:37 AM, mike davis wrote:actually quite impressive, but in order:
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:27:01 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
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
The assertion by Bur that Odalric was descended from Lothar II through
Bur, Champagne, pp. 140-1, endorses but does not discuss a descent from Lothar II, turning the heavy lifting over to Hlawitschka.
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.
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 beingIt is thought that the two forged charters of countess Eva dated 950 and
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?
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
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 10:58:43 PM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:actually quite impressive, but in order:
On 29-Nov-21 1:37 AM, mike davis wrote:
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:27:01 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
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
It is thought that the two forged charters of countess Eva dated 950 andThe 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.
Bur, Champagne, pp. 140-1, endorses but does not discuss a descent from Lothar II, turning the heavy lifting over to Hlawitschka.
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.
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?
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
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.
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:I forgot to note before that Lothar I and his sons (Louis and Lothar,
<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.
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.
On 29-Nov-21 11:57 PM, mike davis wrote:
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,I forgot to note before that Lothar I and his sons (Louis and Lothar,
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.
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.
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
On 29-Nov-21 11:37 PM, mike davis wrote:is actually quite impressive, but in order:
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 10:58:43 PM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 29-Nov-21 1:37 AM, mike davis wrote:
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:27:01 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
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
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 regnalThe 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.
Bur, Champagne, pp. 140-1, endorses but does not discuss a descent from Lothar II, turning the heavy lifting over to Hlawitschka.
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.
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?
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
Sorry I wrongly thought they were forged in the 12th, so perhaps it wasNot castrated - in 885 Hugo was blinded and claustrated, i.e. shut up in
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.
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
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'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 donationThis evidence makes it very tempting to see Hugo of Tours as a son of this Eberard [I]
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.
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]
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:09:21 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:
I've put your posts together for convenience since I think thei'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
evidence is coming together.
Yes if this Haicho and his sons is the same as Eticho [II] son of Adalric/Eticho, there isThe 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.
a possible male line descent via Alberic to Eberard [I]
This evidence makes it very tempting to see Hugo of Tours as a son of this 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.
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]
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.
On 02-Dec-21 4:23 AM, mike davis wrote:Nepos was also often used for grandnephew. It wasn't to the same extent as grandson or nephew but still common.
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:09:21 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:
I've put your posts together for convenience since I think thei'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
evidence is coming together.
Yes if this Haicho and his sons is the same as Eticho [II] son of Adalric/Eticho, there isThe 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.
a possible male line descent via Alberic to Eberard [I]
This evidence makes it very tempting to see Hugo of Tours as a son of this 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.
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]
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 bothIt is always a stretch to interpret 'nepos'/'neptis' as any more distant relative than the standard meanings grandson/granddaughter or
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.
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
A quarta-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 20:17:28 UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
Some people on learning that these words could be used loosely for otherNepos was also often used for grandnephew. It wasn't to the same extent as grandson or nephew but still common.
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
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:09:25 |
| Calls: | 6,646 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,327,306 |