David or Hugues du Maine, I

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MAINE.htm

HUGUES (-after [936/37]). "Willelmi comitis, Hugoni comitis, item Hugoni, Savarici vicecomitis, Kadeloni vicecomitis, Adraldi vicecomitis, Radulfi vicecomitis…" subscribed the charter dated [936/37] ("anno I Ludovico regnante") under which "Senegundis" donated "alodem suum in pago Alienense, in vicaria Basiacinse in villa…Fornax…" to St Cyprien, Poitiers[93]. If, as noted above, Settipani is correct in suggesting that "Hugonis comitis" in the list of subscribers in this charter can reasonably identified as Hugues [I] Comte du Maine[94], it is possible that "item Hugoni" was his son or other close relative. If this is correct, the chronology suggests that he may have been the same person as [David/Hugues] du Maine who is shown below.]

[DAVID/HUGUES] du Maine, son of --- ([915/30]-). The only reasonably certain information concerning the father of Comte Hugues [II] is his estimated birth date range, as explained further below, which indicates that he could have been the son of Comte Hugues [I] (see above). His name is the subject of controversy. A series of apparently spurious charters names "David" as the father of Hugues [II] Comte du Maine, for example "Hugo, David filius, comes Cenomannorum" donated property to the abbey of Saint-Pierre-de-la-Cour du Mans for the soul of "meique genitoris David et genitricis mee E" by charter dated to [971/997], subscribed by "Hugo filius meus"[98]. In addition, Robert de Torigny records that "Gaufridus comes Perticensis et David comes Cenomannensis" rebelled against "Roberto regi Francorum", after which the king granted Maine to "Gaufrido Grisagonella"[99]. According to Latouche[100], this alleged incident is based on a recital contained in De majoratu et senescalcia Franciæ[101], written in [1158] by Hugue de Clers possibly to add legitimacy to the possession of the county of Maine at that time by the counts of Anjou. The story is anachronistic as Geoffroy "Grisegonelle" was comte d'Anjou from 958 to 987, whereas Robert II King of France succeeded in 996 (installed as associate king in Dec 987). It is also difficult to identify "Gaufridus comes Perticensis". It is of course possible that the report contains some essence of truth but is garbled, and that the alleged rebellion (if it did take place) was against Hugues Capet King of France (father of King Robert II). In any case, it would be bold to assert the complete impossibility of the text being based on an earlier source, and insufficient detail is known about all events in Maine and Anjou during the 10th century to dismiss the report entirely. The existence of David has generally been treated with scepticism[102]. Charters dated 929, 931, 955, 960, 967, 971, 976 and 994 all name "Hugues" as comte du Maine[103], referring presumably to Comte Hugues [I] and Comte Hugues [II] although the date of the transition from the one to the other is not known. The intervals between any of these dates, during which a "Comte David" could have ruled Maine, are short, although it is not impossible that David died soon after succeeding to the county. The other difficulty is deciding the parentage of the father of Comte Hugues [II]. An interesting possibility emerges if we assign estimated birth date ranges to the known counts of Maine in the line from Hugues [I] (who was born in [890], a relatively certain date as shown above) to Hugues [IV] (born [1018/22], also relatively certain). Working backwards from Hugues [IV], his father must have been born in [990/1000], and his grandfather in [960/75]. The possible ranges widen the further back we work through Hugues [IV]'s ancestors, but it can be seen that Hugues [II], who was Hugues [IV]'s great-grandfather, could have been born during the period [930/50]. This is rather later than would be expected assuming that Hugues [II] belonged to the generation which followed Hugues [I]. A missing generation is therefore possible in the generally proposed genealogy of the 10th century counts of Maine. The supposed count David would fill this gap, possibly as the son either of Hugues [I] or of an otherwise unknown brother of the latter. If David did not exist, the generational gap still applies, which suggests the alternative possibility that there were three counts named Hugues during the period 929/994 not two as has been generally accepted. If the documentation relating to David is a complete fabrication, the name is an odd choice to convince contemporary readers of its authenticity, as "David" was unusual in France during the 10th century. Nevertheless, if David had existed, it would be expected that his name would be repeated among Hugues's descendants, which is not the case among those family members who can be identified from primary source documentation (although the same could also be said of the name "Roger", the name of Hugues [I]'s father). It is unlikely that this puzzle can ever be unravelled completely to everyone's satisfaction, but at least this discussion shows that something does not fit in the generally accepted genealogy of the 10th century counts of Maine, the existence of David as a historical individual being one solution to fill the gap. m [E---, daughter of ---]. "Hugo, David filius, comes Cenomannorum" donated property to the abbey of Saint-Pierre-de-la-Cour du Mans for the soul of "meique genitoris David et genitricis mee E" by charter dated to [971/997], subscribed by "Hugo filius meus"[104]. The authenticity of this document is dubious. [David/Hugues] & his wife had [one possible child]:

a) [HUGUES [II] du Maine ([930/50]-before Dec 992). The primary source which confirms his parentage has not yet been identified, apart from the probably spurious documentation highlighted above in relation to the alleged David Comte du Maine. He succeeded as Comte du Maine.]