I. > •*■■• *•
% i f ■'
; :? r r fe ^ i f I ^
'-• 4 ^ $. ^ ^ I ,. ^ .^ . . ? * > t I 'J^ •• =■■ % V ^ \ '^- ^ I % r
j' '!i«' r ^ > > i 1^
, .. J. . > ^ V' r ^ > 1 • t ■ > r ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ t .t
rr ^ ^ ■ ^ ^ i' *• ^' ? ^ V ■'Y f f^ • ■>,
•> > * -ill i? i:- f. ]■• 1^ i^ I ^ t $ f ^1
' t V ^i' >/ \: l' I t V ^^ .1 1- ? ^ -1 ) I •:' - - - - ' i '< i %. I ^' ' ■' ' ^ ■' ^'^ t T ? V ; ■ ^ -
'■ \ ■. V .V ^ ^T :• ■ %J' V i \ . !^ •:
•" I ■!:. t r i f I >■ 1 ^ ^ f ■] r t i
?'■ V r f ^ ^ ^' V V v > -^ ^ ^ ^ ?
t f I i f \ ? Is^ !■ V ? ^
^ -^ -^ - -^ 1 f i ^- > ! f ^, f 1 f
: -r y 9 ¥' !..1^ y I' f^ \^ I t ::
^^' v^ I \ ^ f I- I \ y } V ^ I ij
\ t I ^ V V i f r.r r^ j 'r P I i^ f
I' V i' V r V T )■ -v r ir I' I -I- ^^ = , . . . .... , . . t"f" ] I.' 11 ■? / I t I fjj- ^' '^ '
^-"i- i- r r V .IV' j' ^••' ^ I } r I- I 1^- $^ r ^ ^ t-
^■'t r ^' 1^ V Y 'i ] e f^ f '^ ) y f^ !■ ¥ -^ . ^ ;^ '
1 t f v'-' '' *' V" t ^ f i .V' f I r • I §? ii^ ? ^^ 1^ i- )
|- ^• VI:' I r 1^ t I, ?■ ^ ^ i r I' .!^- f i? 1 ■
^ ^*' V %'\' t n ^ % ? i ^! I i ^ I V- ,r ^ I I- ^ ■ ■
-■•'^" ./ .- -^ ^4-% X- X. I i I I I: !• V' )^ ir ^ J I . .,
^ f' ] ■ ;r ] ,r ^ I I' t I- :l l'"f y 'i" \' r %' if. ii I I
n *. .^ V fc i ...■ ^. ^*f ' i i ?• f f ^^ ^^^ i? :^ "^ ^^' ^ ':•' \' r t ^ y i '^ A \ i
■ ^ I h r i I ^' ^ H ^^ ■? ^'J'J'J-. ^J '
t t ^ t
- ■ - >
■V ; r > -
V r i I f I :|' i ^'
■' -'.r ,^ % % :f^ :|,i rill
i f r ■>■ ^' ?v i- 1- :r r' 1j i j^- ^ii' -r r I a I. I ;! ! ■ I
"■ \ \ ^ % t ' -k I ]■ '■
fe: '^^ \ r % I. ^ ^. I
f: H ^ !^ ^.- I' I ^1 ^ I.
? "v" ^' ^' ^^ ■!.• i i" i t |-
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE
THE EARLY HISTORY
OF THE
HOUSE OF SAVOY
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
ILonDon: FETTER LANE, E.G.
C. F. CLAY, Manager
«?tiinl)urgfj: loo, PRINCES STREET
Brrlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
Ittpjic: F. A. BROCKHAUS
i^cto gorfe: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
JSombaa anU Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
All rights reserved
THE EARLY HISTORY
OF THE
HOUSE OF SAVOY
(1000—1233)
d<'
'.' W. PREVITE-ORTON, M.A.
Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge
Cambridge :
at the University Press
1912
T7f
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PREFACE
THE following pages contain a study on the history of the House of Savoy until the year 1233. Although many works on portions or on aspects of this period have been written, and though it has formed a part of more than one history with wider scope, such as Cibrario's Storia della Monarchia di Savoia, yet there seemed to be room for a new investigation, which should at one and the same time treat the subject with a full discussion of its details and with a comprehensive view of the period as a whole.
In doing so I have put aside the idea of writing a history of the strictly literary kind. The story could be made connected only by missing out the long succession of isolated details, which yet form the greater part of our knowledge regarding it, and by relegating to appendices the endless discussions to which those details give rise. This could not be done satisfactorily save in a work dealing with a longer series of years and thus able to employ an ampler stride in the marshalling of events. That alternative being excluded, I have taken as my model in a general way the Jahrbiicher on the Holy Roman Emperors. That is, I have gone plainly on, discussing events and problems as the times brought them to light and endeavouring to be com- plete and omit nothing. An absolute chronological order I did not try to preserve, for, especially in the later chapters, the various aspects of a prince's reign fell into sections with too little organic connection for that, and to follow the sequence of time would be merely confusing. Here, too, the fragmentary character of the evidence would quite preclude any attempt to give a year-by-year account. On the other hand, one principal feature of the JahrbiicJier I have been careful to imitate. There will be found in the notes all the important passages of narrative or legal nature on which the text is founded', not merely references to them.
^ This statement does not apply to mere anecdotes, which do not establish facts of wider bearing, or to extra-Savoyard history which is taken from the Jahrbiicher or other authorities.
vi Preface
The reign of Count Thomas, however, which is far more fully known to us, gives greater opportunities for selection than the preceding period. The lines of social development are becoming specialized, and in particular the Count's gifts to religious foundations, mainly to the recluse Carthusians, have only an occasional interest for his history. I have therefore made no attempt at a complete commentary on these unpolitical documents of his. In like manner, since the narrative sources become here and there quite lengthy, a full transcript of the texts concerning Savoy has not been given for his reign. They are easy to find and no longer absolutely buried in other matter. Still even with these deductions I trust that everything essential to enable the reader to test the history has been provided.
The history of a country like Savoy, which owed its im- portance to its being on a border and traversed by two European highroads, is naturally in frequent connection with the general history of the Holy Roman Empire. Consequently, I have been obliged from time to time to insert fragments of the imperial annals ; but I have done so only when they coincided with those of Savoy, as seemed most advisable in a study with such a definite object as this. In fact, the history of surrounding lands has been introduced but in so far as it explains the events and conditions of Savoy.
The growth and decay of institutions have also offered many difficulties. Savoy doubtless varied very little from the neigh- bouring states in its development through and beyond feudalism. It seemed therefore permissible to interpret the scattered hints in Savoyard documents by the generalized statements given in other works. On the other hand, feudal institutions were as fluid in their nature as any others. In consequence, some advantage appeared to be gained, if those hints were grouped severally under the various reigns, in order to see what signs of change were detected by thus isolating the evidence ; and some- thing, I hope, may have been attained by this method. But with the richer material which is to hand regarding the condi- tions existing under Humbert III and Thomas, the positive results established from the evidence during former reigns seemed well to combine, and thus, while as little as possible of the evidence has been repeated, there has been some repetition of the inductions from it. Besides indulging the hope of throwing
Preface vii
a little light on the process of growth in a feudal state, it seemed to me that it was not possible to estimate the several reigns with- out a complete display of the evidence relating to each respec- tively, and that it was better to tolerate the defect of repetition, than to reserve all the institutional information till the end.
Our great lack in early Savoyard history is that of any con- nected narrative in the authorities. The Chroniqiies ^de Savoye were compiled in the fifteenth century out of a mere wreck of generally inaccurate traditions ; and an immense deal of twaddle, in the worst taste of knight-errant tales, inflated the mass. Even the list of rulers there is only complete from Humbert II ; and throughout this early period the Chroniqiies must be used with the utmost caution. Thus for contemporary narrative we are thrown back on one or two lives of ecclesiastics, a few letters and scattered notices in foreign chronicles. For genealogical and institutional history, with side lights on politics, we have of course the charters^ At the best, however, it has been making bricks without straw and with an inadequate supply of clay. But I ought to say that the chronicled notices we possess seem as a rule remarkably credible and for the most part accurate. Perhaps they do not say enough to go very far wrong. Yet I may mention — to take an instance which has been impugned — the vivid truth of Lampert's narrative of the crossing of the Mont Cenis Pass in 1077-. The monk of Hersfeld seems to have had the tale orally from some subordinate in Henry's suite, whose knowledge of the negotiations might be poor, but who did know the physical facts of the journey.
It is difficult to stop in giving a list of the more helpful of the works I have used. First and foremost comes Carutti's Regesta, which has saved me many a long and weary search, many omissions and many piecemeal views. That said, I must deplore the defects of his book, the misprints, inadequate sum- maries and some important omissions. It has been necessary practically to collate all the documents referring to my period.
^ In this connection the execrable Latin of the eleventh-century Piedmontese charters should be specially mentioned. The knowledge of the meaning of the case endings seems almost extinct among the local notaries, who show an interesting preference for the ablative, due partly to the influence of their Romance dialect, partly perhaps to the more pompous sound of, say, jugalibus as compared with jugales. Cf. pp. 1 10 n. 4, 137 n. 5, 140 n. i.
"^ See p. 239, n. i.
viii Preface
But the numbers it affixes to the several documents have served so well for a docket and brief title to each of them, that I have always used them, giving at the same time the reference to the best published full text. The Siipplemento, I should add, has few misprints and far more satisfactory summaries. Next I must mention the Biblioteca della societd storica subalpina, edited by Prof. Gabotto, a mine of documents and valuable monographs. Other works may be grouped according to their country of origin. Terraneo's Adelaide Illustrata, not yet antiquated, the works of Cibrario, Carutti, Count Cipolla, Prof. Gabotto, Count Baudi di Vesme and the modern Piedmontese school. Padre Savio, Count de Gerbaix-Sonnaz and Prof Pivano, represent Italy ; and to them my obligations are heavy. Of Swiss origin, I may note Gingins-la-Sarra and Wurstemberger. The latter's Graf Peter der Zweite is perhaps the most valuable book on Early Savoy which has been written, patient, exact, complete, and informed by a cautious, cool judgement. Among French scholars, Samuel Guichenon was the father of scientific Humbertine history; M. de Manteyer has lifted the study of Humbertine origins on to a new plane; without the documents published by Chevalier and the two Guigues, we should be in a bad case for evidence; and M. Poupardin's study on Burgundy is of the greatest service as regards that kingdom. Two German historians call for special mention ; Prof Bresslau, to whose share of the Jahrbilcher every one who treats of Savoy or Piedmont must owe an enormous debt ; and Herr Hellmann, who threw new light on the foreign relations of Savoy.
There remains the pleasant task of chronicling my personal obligations. To Prof. Tout I owe much valuable criticism and help. Like other researchers in the State Archives of Turin I met in my two visits there with the ready assistance of the officials in charge. My thanks are due to all, but especially to my friend, Signor Mario Bori, for his continual kindness and courtesy. To Signor Bori also I owe the transcript of No. xiv in the Ap- pendix of Documents as well as some collations in No. XI. Lastly, I wish to express my indebtedness to the officials of the Cam- bridge University Press. The proofs have been corrected and annotated by the readers with an admirable care and skill.
C. W. P. O.
26 June 191 2.
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I
HUMBERT I WHITEHANDS Section I. Burgundy, 888-1000 (1-7).
Jurane Burgundy under Rudolf I. Acquisition of Provence and the Aargau by Rudolf II (1-2). Name of Burgundy for the completed kingdom (2). General causes of Burgundy's weakness (2-3). Special causes. Decay of the State and growth of feudalism. Small royal power in Provence. The ravages and expulsion of the Saracens (3-6).
• Conrad the Peaceful's reign and his dependence on Germany (6). Rudolf III attempts to coerce the greater nobles and fails (6). Power of the local Counts c. 1000 (7).
Section II. Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian Politics (7-41).
Rudolf III begins to confer counties on the Bishops (7-9). He resides chiefly in Jurane Burgundy (9). The Empress Adelaide effects a reconciliation between him and his vassals (9-10). Rudolf III is supported by two great families, the Anselmids and the Humbertines (10): who possess several bishoprics (11). Otto-William of 'Tranche Comte" (11-12). Henry II becomes King of Germany and claims the Imperial succession (12-13). He occupies Basel (13).
Rudolf III marries Ermengarde (13-14): and grants her the counties of Vienne and Sermorens, etc. (14-15). Henry II renews his Burgundian schemes, and makes treaty of Strasburg (1016) with Rudolf III (15-17). Henry fails against Otto- William and the treaty of Strasburg is abrogated (17-18). Rudolf and Henry make a new treaty at Mayence (ioi8j, but Henry fails again against the Burgundians (18). Grant of county of Vaud to the Bishop of Lausanne (18-19). Eudes II of Troyes claims the succession in Burgundy (19). The county of Vienne is granted (1023) to the Arch- bishop of Vienne. Supposed similar grant of Aosta to its Bishop is baseless (19-20). The Humbertine Burchard becomes Bishop of Aosta. Humbert Whitehands is Count of Aosta in 1024 (20-1). The Peace of God is reestablished in the Second Council of Anse 1025 (21-2). The oath taken there (probably by a Humbertine) (22-4). Conrad IPs accession in Germany. He shares Henry IPs conception of the Holy Roman Empire and claims to be heir of Burgundy (24-5). He seizes Basel (25). He is crowned King of Italy (1026). Rudolf's embassy to him. Rudolf attends Conrad's imperial coronation, agreement with Cnut re the Great St Bernard, etc. (16-7). Conrad is recognized as heir of Burgundy at Basel (27).
Deaths of Burchard II of Lyons and Burchard of Vienne; Burchard of Aosta obtains the see of Lyons (28-9). Further Humbertine Bishops (29). Foundation of Talloires (29-30). Rudolf dies, Eudes HI invades Burgundy (30). Humbert
«5
X Table of Contents
Whitehands joins Conrad's party (31). Vienne surrenders to Eudes. Conrad is crowned at Payerne, but his campaign fails {31-2). Ermengarde and Whitehands meet Conrad at Zurich (32-3). Conrad attacks Burgundy from both Germany and Italy; Whitehands takes part; Eudes is driven out (33-6). Did Whitehands now become Count of Maurienne ? (36-7). Burchard III of Lyons deposed (37). Assembly of Soleure (37-8). Position of the Humbertines in 1039 (38). Henry III. The Truce of God (38-9). Whitehands' last years, Henry Ill's policy, Whitehands' death (39-41)-
Section III. The Problem of the two Humberts (41-74).
Gingins distinguished two contemporary branches of the Humbertines (41-2). Carutti's scheme of the two branches (42-3). Count di Vesme's ditto (43). Labruzzi and de Manteyer declare for the single family-tree (43-4). Method here adopted (44). Register of Humbertine documents relevant to the discussion (45-57). Data to be derived from these documents (57-65). Two Humbertine genealogies are easily derived from these data (65-7). Further fragments of Humbertine genealogies derived from these data (67). The Anselmid genealogy (67-8). Discussion of the rival Humbertine genealogies : (i) Topographical indications (68-70). (2) Chrono- logical ditto (70-2). (3) Indications from the titles of the homonyms (72-3). (4) Is it possible to isolate the homonyms? (73-4). Conclusions (74).
Section IV. The Possessions of Humbert Whitehands (74-100).
Plan of the inquiry (74-5): (i) The Lyonnais, Section A (75-7). (2) The Lyonnais, Section B (77-8). (3) Sermorens (78-80). (4) The Viennois proper (80-3). (5) The County of Belley (83-5). (6) Pagus Equestricus (85-6). (7) The Genevois (86-8). (8) Aosta (88-91). (9) The Vallais, the Abbey of St Maurice and Old-Chablais (91-4). (10) Savoy proper (94-6). (11) Maurienne (96-9). Tarentaise (99). Conclusions (100).
Section V. The Ancestry of Humbert Whitehands (100-20).
Difficulty of the problem ; Tale in the Chrouiques (loo-i). Four principal theories; method adopted in discussing them (101-2). Signor Labruzzi's scheme (102-4). The schemes of Gingins-la-Sarra, Count di Vesme and Count di Gerbaix- Sonnaz (104-9). Carutti's scheme (109-13). M. de Manteyer's scheme (i 13-19). Conclusion ( 1 1 9-20) .
Section VI. The Sons of Humbert Whitehands (120-4).
Amadeus I (120-2). Buichard III of Lyons (122-3). Aymon of Sion (123). Marquess Oddo I (123-4).
CHAPTER II
THE COUNTESS ADELAIDE OF TURIN Section I. North Italy under the Ottos (125-9).
Special conditions of Italy during the anarchy. Bishops, Towns and Marquesses (125-6). The Ottoman policy in regard to the Bishops and Marquesses (126-7). More peaceful condition of Italy (127-8). Changes among the nobles. Growth of the cities (128-9).
Table of Contents xi
Section II. The Rise of the Ardoinids of Turin (129-56).
Introductory (129-32). Tale of the acquisition of Aurade by the Ardoinids. Terraneo's conjecture of their ancestry (132-5). Aurade and the Ardoinid lands there (135-6). The Alineids. Roger II and his children (136-7). Ardoin III Glabrio. He obtains Turin. King Hugh's campaign against Freinet. Ardoin III becomes Marquess; structure of the mark of Turin (137-42). Otto the Great invades Italy and marries Adelaide; tale of Glabrio's share in these events (142-3). Otto the Great ends the Hungarian ravages (143). Otto the Great founds the Holy Roman Empire. Ardoin III and Breme Abbey. Ardoin III obtains county of Pavia ; Otto's attitude towards him (144-5). Expulsion of the Saracens; Ardoin III seizes the Val di Susa (145-7). Ardoin Ill's death and children, Manfred I, Oddo I and the new monastic policy (148-50). Methods of inheritance practised by the Ardoinids; mixture of equal inheritance and primogeniture (151-6).
Appendix: The evidence for the Ardoinid possessions (157-65).
Section III. The later Ardoinids (165-89).
Ulric-Manfred and his brothers (165-6). Growth of episcopal jurisdiction. Discontent of the secundi milites (166-7). Revolt of Ardoin of Ivrea. Ulric- Manfred's attitude (167-8). Ardoin crowned; war with Henry II; Ulric-Manfred pro-Henrician ; his war with Arnulf of Milan over Asti (168-70). Henry II crowned Emperor; death of Ardoin (170). Ulric-Manfred and the mark of Ivrea; he becomes a malcontent; local war (170-3). Henry II's return to Italy; Ulric- Manfred's fictitious sale of his lands (173-4). Henry IPs death; vain attempt to make William of Aquitaine king (174-6). Conrad II, King of Italy, reconciliation with Ulric-Manfred; his West- Alpine policy; capture of Ivrea; imperial coronation (176-8). Foundation of S. Michele della Chiusa (178-81). The Ardoinids and Fruttuaria and Breme; death of Ardoin V (181-2). Foundation of Caramagna and S. Giusto di Susa (182-4). Ulric-Manfred, Odilo of Breme and the Turinese (184-5). Ulric-Manfred and the heretics of Monforte (185-7). Ulric- Manfred's death and children (187-9).
Section IV. The Marriages of Countess Adelaide (185-213).
Problem of the single or two Adelaides (185-6). Method followed (186). Register of the relevant documents (187-98). The charter of Frossasco (186, 199-204). .Signori Provana's and Labruzzi's arguments discussed (204-9). ^^' Renaux's argu- ments discussed (209-1 1). Prof. Gabotto's arguments discussed (21 1-13). Conclusions (21.^)-
Section V. Countess Adelaide and her Husbands (213-23).
Adelaide succeeds to the mark. War between the capiianei and the secundi milites. Death of Bishop Alric (213-16). Adelaide's and Iminula's marriages. Duke Herman is made Marquess of Turin (216-17). Conrad II quarrels with Archbishop Aribert ; he makes the benefices of the secundi milites hereditary. Diploma for the Astigians (217-19). Aribert's treaty with Eudes II is frustrated by Bertha of Turin (219-20). Conrad's diploma for S. Giusto di Susa (220). Deaths of Duke Herman, Conrad II and Bertha of Turin (220-1). Adelaide mairies Henry of Montferrat (221). Adelaide mariies Oddo I of Savoy; Henry HPs approval (221). The Canons of Oulx (221-2). Henry III betrothes his son to Bertha of Savoy (222). Oddo I dies. The first Rectorate of Burgundy (222-3).
xii Table of Contents
Section VI. Countess Adelaide and her Sons (223-51).
Marquess Peter I and his brothers (223-4). The mint of Aiguebelle ; loss of Oulx to the Guigonids; acquisition of St Maurice (224-6). Foundation of Pinerolo (226-7). Adelaide and imperial politics; revolt of Asti (227-9) ' ^^ Peter Damian's letter (230-1). Marriages of Bertha, Peter I, Adelaide and Immula (231-3). Adelaide and Frattuaria (233). Cunibert and Chiusa; breach between Gregory VII and Henry IV (233-6). Henry IV's treaty with Adelaide (237-9). Canossa (239-40). Cunibert and Chiusa (240-1). Death of Peter I; reign of Amadeus II; death of Amadeus II; his children; Oddo II of Savoy (241-3). Frederick of Turin (243-4). Henry IV's second Vjreach with the Pope ; Benzo of Alba negotiates with Adelaide (244-6). The diploma to Cunibert of Turin (246-7). Adelaide, Henry IV and Benedict II of Chiusa (247-9). Deaths of the Empress Bertha and Adelaide of Swabia; second revolt of Asti (249-50). Deaths of Marquess Frederick and Adelaide (250-1).
Section VII. The Break-up of the Mark of Turin (251-60).
General decay of the Italian Marks into Marquessates; decay of the ptiblica potestas in the Turinese mark (251-3). Loss of patrimonial demesnes (253-4). Rise of the citizen-class (254-5). War of succession for the mark of Turin; Burchard of Montresor (255-7). Break-up of the mark, Aleramids, cities, etc. (257-9). FeudaHsm becomes full-grown in Piedmont (259-60).
CHAPTER III
THE ATTEMPT TO RECOVER THE MARK OF TURIN Section I. Humbert II (261-78).
Feudalism; divergences in its development in the West (261-3). Character of feudal development in Burgundy (263-4). Feudalism in Savoy (264-6). Humbert II is a Burgundian ; his relations with the Empire (266-7). I^is secular policy in Burgundy; acquisition of Tarentaise (267-71). His ecclesiastical policy in Burgundy (271-2). Humbert II in Italy; he claims the mark of Turin, Car. Reg. ccx.xvii. (271-4). Humbert's entry into Italy; negotiation with Asti; alliance with Chiusa and Pinerolo and Fruttuaria; foundation of the mint of Susa; extent of Humbert II's success in Italy (274-6). Humbert II's children and death (276-8).
Section II. Amadeus Ill's Early Life and Wars (278-93).
Arrangement adopted for Amadeus Ill's reign; Amadeus Ill's minority (278-9). The Emperor Henry V in Italy and West-Alpine policy (279-81). Amadeus Ill's purely Burgundian policy; his first crusade; marriages of his sisters; Concordat of Worms and its influence on Savoy (281-3). Probable war of Amadeus III with Aymon of the Genevois ; Amadeus Ill's first marriage (283-4). Lothar II revives the Rectorate of Burgundy; Amadeus III invades Italy; he obtains Turin, etc. (284-7). Lothar II captures Turin and subdues Amadeus III (287-9). Amadeus III probably recovers Turin; boundaries of Turin and Maurienne dioceses (289-91). Amadeus III and France; his war with the Dauphin; his daughter Matilda marries Affonso I of Portugal (291-3).
Table of Contents xiii
Section III. Amadeus Ill's Government and Death (293-315).
Amadeus Ill's religious foundations; his share in that of Abbondance (293-4). He founds St Sulpice-en-Bugey; birth and marriage of his daughter AHce (294-5). He founds Hautecombe, Chezery and Arvieres (296-7). He reforms St Maurice; his relations with Tamie and the Hospice de St Bernard (297-8). Feudal juris- dictions; grant to Maurienne; St Maurice Agaune v. the d'Allinges (298-300). Amadeus IH's dispute with the Bishop of Sion ; he surrenders the spolia of Tarentaise, Aosta and Maurienne (300-2). Amadeus Hi's curia\ the niinisteriales (302-3). The Liberties of Susa (303-6). Amadeus IH's entourage and residences; his titles (306-8). He joins the Second Crusade; he raises money from S. Giusto and St Maurice (309-10). His crusade and death (311-13). His children, and character; his assumption of a coat of arms. Summary (313-15).
CHAPTER IV
COUNT HUMBERT HI Section I. Humbert Ill's Early Rule (1148-68) (316-32).
Characteristics of Humbert's rule (316-17). Amadeus of Lausanne becomes Tutor ; Turin becomes independent ; affairs of St Maurice ; Humbert Hi's first two marriages (317-19). Frederick Barbarossa and Burgundy; the Rectorate of the Zahringen ; Humbert Hi's attitude (319-21). Barbarossa in Italy; state of North Italy; Barba- rossa in Piedmont; Dauphin Guigues V (322-3). Barbarossa acquires Tranche Comte ; restriction of the Rectorate; new turn of Burgundian politics (323-5). Siege of Milan ; Diet of Roncaglia ; Diplomas to S. Solutore and the Bishop of Turin (325-7). The Schism ; destruction of Milan (327-8). Barbarossa's power in Burgundy; Savoy is Alexandrine; Humbert III ransomed; Humbert HI wars with the Dauphine ; marries dementia of Zahringen (328-9). Decline of the Schismatics in Burgundy; Humbert Ill's quarrel with St Anthelm of Belley {329-31). The Lombard League; Barbarossa's army is destroyed by plague (331-2).
Section II. Humbert III as an Imperial Partizan (332-46).
Barbarossa's straits; he gains over Humbert III and escapes over the Mont Cenis (332-5). Humbert Ill's terms ; he reacquires the county of Turin ; he is at war with Asti (335-7). Humbert Ill's alliance with England ; general peace among the Burgundian seigneurs; the terms of the English treaty (337-41). Barbarossa re- invades Italy; he burns Susa; his diploma to St Anthelm of Belley; Humbert III is with the Emperor ; Legnano; Humbert Ill's wars in Piedmont (341-4). Barbarossa is crowned at Aries; Humbert III marries Beatrice of Macon; birth of his son Thomas; death of St Anthelm; Humbert's treaty with the Bishop of Sion (344-6).
Section III. Humbert Ill's Last Years and Death (346-52).
The Peace of Constance; Barbarossa becomes hostile to Humbert III; Milo Bishop of Turin; his war with Humbert III (346-7). Milo's legal proceedings against Humbert III ; decision against Humbert III (348-9). New Piedmontese settlement; war with Humbert III; parallel case of the Genevois; Barbarossa's diploma to the Archbishop of Tarentaise; Humbert III is put to the ban of the Empire; Henry VI takes Avigliana (349-51). Humbert III dies; his character and children (351-2).
xiv Table of Contents
CHAPTER V
COUNT THOMAS Section I. The Burgundian Phase (353-79).
Savoyard history becomes fuller and more continuous with Thomas; periods of his reign (353-5). Regency of Boniface of Montferrat and reconciliation with the Empire (355-7). Thomas of age; wars in progress in N. Burgundy; acquisition of Cornillon (357-9). Charter to Aosta (359-60). Death of Henry VI; state of Piedmont (360-4). The Piedmontese wars (i 190-1200) of Turin and Asti and the Marquesses; Thomas concerned (364-70). Thomas' first war with Saluzzo ; close of the war of Asti and the Marquesses (370-2). Thomas' war with the Duke of Zahringen, etc.; Combat de Chilian; acquisition of Moudon; Thomas adheres to King Philip ; renewed war ; Philip's murder ; final peace with Zahringen and the Bishop of Lausanne; results of Thomas' N. Burgundian policy (37'2-7). Civil War in Val d'Aosta ; Thomas' intervention; character of this period of the reign (377-9).
Appendix I. Thomas' first war with Saluzzo (379-81).
Appendix II. Thomas' war with the Duke of Zahringen (381-2).
Section II. Count Thomas' Italian Conquests (383-93).
Introductory; Otto IV's march to Rome; Asti deserts the small communes (38.?~5)- Otto IV's breach with the Pope ; Thomas acquires Vigone ; his second war and peace with Saluzzo (385-7). Lombard affairs; Saluzzo breaks the treaty; Thomas allies with the Lombard League; war with Montferrat and Saluzzo; new peace with Saluzzo; Thomas acquires territory south of the Po (387-90). Death of Otto IV ; Thomas' Burgundian schemes ; Geneva ; alliances with the Dauphine ; Provence and Kyburg (390-3).
Section III. Thomas' later Years and Decline in Power
(393-414).
Thomas' Italian ambitions ; state of Lombardy ; Thomas acquires Pinerolo, Carignano, etc. (393-5). War with his Piedmontese vassals, Turin and Saluzzo ; Peaces of 1223 (395-8). War and peace with Sion and Thoire (398-9). Power of Asti ; Saluzzo submits to her ; Thomas is again at war with the Piedmontese vassals, Turin and Pinerolo; he submits to Asti; general war in W. Lombardy; Thomas takes service under Genoa (399-403). Frederick IPs breach with the Lombard League ; Thomas joins the Emperor ; is made Vicar of Lombardy ; his Ligurian scheme and failure ; his negotiation with Marseilles (404-7). William of Savoy becomes Elect of Valence; Thomas' negotiations to the Pope; his alliance with Montferrat; renewed general war in W. Lombardy; the Dauphin joins Turin; so do the Romagnano ; foundation and revolt of Villafranca ; destruction of Testona (407-11). The Lombard League subdues Montferrat and refounds Cuneo and Mon- calieri; Thomas' share in the war; Asti and the others make peace (412-13). Thomas continues the war with Turin, etc.; his death (41 4).
Section IV. Epilogue; Thomas' Family (414-20).
Amadeus IV makes peace with the Dauphin, Turin, etc. ; results of Thomas' Italian wars (414-15). Thomas' marriage (415-17). His sons and daughters (417-18). General results of his reign ; his character and attitude to the monasteries (418-20).
Table of Contents xv
CHAPTER VI
THE SAVOYARD STATE UNDER HUMBERT HI AND THOMAS Section I. Territories (421-8).
Two main divisions of Humbert and Thomas' lands, shown in their titles (421-2). The Counts were Princes of the Empire (422-3). The Counts of Savoy exercise the royal prerogative in their lands; they practise primogeniture (423-4). The Savoyard dominions in Burgundy; the sees of Sion, Belley and Tarentaise (424-7). The Savoyard dominions in Italy (427). New elements in Burgundian politics; the policy of the Counts of Savoy (427-8).
Section II. The Savoyard Government (429-39).
The Count's travelling court; the Count's jurisdiction (429-31). The Count's financial rights (431-3). Local comital officials, mestrals and castellans, missi (433-5)- Chief officials of the household; special advisers of Humbert HI; the court of Count Thomas (435-7). The Count's Cnx'ia., proceres aiXidi others; tendency of the Curia to be localized ; probable origin of the Estates (437-9).
Section III. Vassals and Towns (439-51).
Classes in the Savoyard State; the nobles (439-40). The Viscounts; their powers ; sub-enfeoffment ; the Viscounts of Aiguebelle, Maurienne, Novalaise, Savoy, Tarentaise and Aosta (440-4). Baronial rights in general ; ecclesiastical landowners (444-5). C/ienies a.nd rus/ici (4.46-7). The townsmen; their privileges and charters ; Aosta and Susa ; classes of townsfolk ; town government (447-51).
Section IV. Summary (452-5).
General development; personal law changes to local law; feudalism becomes fiillgrown (452-3). Count's pre-eminent and public, not merely feudal, position (453). Unity and fortunate geographical position of Savoy (453-4). Princedom of the Empire and primogeniture; ability of the Counts (454-5).
Appendix of Documents (456-79).
Genealogy of the Ardoinids (212).
Genealogy of the Humbertines (between pp. 480 and 481).
Index (481).
Map I. The Savoyard Lands c. 1080 {in pocket).
Map II. The Savoyard Lands c. 1180 {m pocket).
CHRONICLES
Under this head I give a list of our meagre narrative sources for Savoyard History. Foreign chronicles, which merely give incidental notices of Savoy, are omitted ; as well as such Vitae Sanctorum as contain nothing secular.
Chronica Altacumbae abbaiiae {M.H.P. Script, il. 671 fif.).
[A Latin Genealogy of the Counts of Savoy, with short notices of them, composed under Amadeus VIII c. 1400. Until c. 1250 it is inaccurate, and deserves little credit, unless supported by other evidence.]
Chronica Sabaudiae Latina {M.H.P. Script. ll. 599 ff.).
[It contains an abstract of the French Chroniques, for the period under review ; but also adds a valuable Genealogy of the Dauphins from another source.]
Chroniques anciennes de Savoye {M.H.P. Script. ll. 5 ff-)-
[An inflated compilation c. 1420. It uses Chron. Alt. and repeats the latter's errors ; but also contains old traditions however grossly distorted. Much of it seems sheer invention.] Chronicon Novaliciense (ed. Cipolla, MoJiumetita Novaliciensia vettistiora, Fonti per la storia d' Italia 31, 32).
[Written c. 1060 by a monk of Breme. It is peculiarly legendary in character, but quite a work of good faith. Unhappily much is lost, and the author does not give contemporary history.] Fragmenta Chronicae Latinae Sabaudiae {Misc. star. ital. xxil. 305 ff.).
[It appears to be a Latin translation of a slightly older text of the French Chroniques. It contains the same kind of legends with little variation ; but has a more sober tone.]
Gaufridi Abbatis Altacumbae., Vita S. Petri Tarentasiensis, A A. SS. Mai II.).
[Contemporary.]
Giofifredo della Chiesa, Cronaca di Saluzzo. {M.H.P. Script. III. 841 ff.)
[Fifteenth-century account, which for our period is based on charters, some now lost, and on a small amount of genuine tradition. Un- fortunately Della Chiesa accepts some forged documents, and the sophisticated legends of the Chroniques de Savojye.]
Vita S. Anthehni Bellicensis {A A. SS. Jun. v.).
[Contemporary.] Willelmi monachi Clusensis, Chronicon monasterii S. Michaelis de Clusa 996-1046. {M.H.P. Script III. 249 ff)
[Composed c. 1060. Well-informed ; but "tendenzios." Hence not altogether trustworthy, even in non-miraculous parts. William is anxious to prove the abbey's complete independence of the Bishop of Turin.] Willelmi Monachi Clusensis, Vita S. Bene die ti II Abbatis Clusensis. {M.H.P. Script. III. 273 fif.)
[Contemporary. Composed c. 1095. " Tendenzios " against Bishop Cunibert of Turin ; but does not seem to invent facts.]
ABBREVIATED TITLES
[The abbreviated titles used in the notes are not given here unless they are necessary for easy identification.]
A A. SS.=Acta Sanctorum.
Arch. St. ital.=Archivio storico italiano. Florence.
Baudi di Vesme, B., // re Arduino e la riscossa italica contro Ottone III e Arrigo /, B.S.S.S. vii.
Bertano, L., Storia di Cuneo. Medioevo. Cuneo, 1898.
Besson, Memoires pour Phistoire ecclesiastique des dioches de Geneve, Tarentaise, Aoste et Maurienne et du Decanat de Savoie, ed. 1871.
B.S.S.S. = Biblioteca della Societct storica subalphia., diretta dal Prof. F. Gabotto. [The abbreviated titles of the separate volumes are not given here at length, since they are easily identifiable by their numbering in the series.]
Billiet, A., et Albrieux, Chartes du Diocese de Maurientie, Documents de I'Academie de Savoie, Vol. ll. Chambery.
Bollettino storico-bibliografico subalpino, ed. Prof. F. Gabotto, Pinerolo.
BoUea, L. C, Le prime relazioni fra la Casa di Savoia e Ginevra (926-121 1). Turin, 1901.
Bulletiino dell' Istituto storico italiano. Rome.
Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France (or Reruvt Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores).
Bresslau, H., Jahrbiicher des deutschen Reichs unter Konrad II. Leipzig, 1879-95. [See also under Hirsch, S.]
Car. 7?t;^. = Carutti, D., Regesta Comitum Sabaudiac.ad an. MCCLlii, in the Biblioteca storica italiana. Turin, 1889.
Car. ^?(r/. = Carutti, D., Supplonento ai Regesta Comitum Sabaudiae in Misc. stor. ital. (q.v.). Series ill. Tomo IX.
Carutti, D., // co7ite Umberto I {Biancamano) e il re Arduino, 2nd ed. Rome, 1888.
Carrard, H., Le combat de Chilian. M.D.R. New Series. I. (1887).
Chevalier, C. U. J., Collection de Cartulaires dauphinois. [This includes the Cartulaire de St Andrc-le-bas de Vienne, the Actes capitulaires de St Maurice de Vienne, the Diplomatique de Pierre de Rivaz, etc. There are ten volumes or fasciculi in all, some of which were never completed.]
xviii Abbreviated Titles
Chevalier, C. U. J., Docu7iients historiques inedits sur le Dauphine. [A collection similar in its method to the preceding. There are nine volumes or fasciculi.]
Cibrario, L., Storia della monarchia di Savoia. Turin, 1840-4.
Cibrario, L., Delle finanze della jnonarchia di Savoia in Memorie della r. Accademia di Scienze di Torino, xxxvi. (1833).
Cibrario, L., Delle storie di Chieri libri IV. Turin, 1827.
Cibrario, L., Storia di Torino. Turin, 1846.
Cibrario e Promis, Z'f?^. = Cibrario, L., and Promis, D., Docutnenti, Sigilli e Monete appartenenti alia storia della ftionarchia di Savoia. Turin, 1833. [It consists unfortunately of two sections, the Rapporto, w^ith its pages numbered thus : (i), and the Document! etc., with its pages numbered thus : i.]
Cipolla, C, Le pill antiche carte diplomatiche del Motiastero di S. Giusto di Susa, Bull, istit. stor. ital, No. 18.
Cipolla, C, Briciole di storia novaliciensia, Bull, istit. stor. ital. No. 22.
Cx^oWa..! C, Monumenta Novaliciensia vetustiora, Fonti per la storia d'ltalia, Nos. 31-32, published by the Istituto storico italiano.
Desimoni, C, Sulle tnarche d'ltalia e loro diramazione in marchesati. Atti
della Soc. Ligure di Storia Patria. xxviii. Du Bouchet, J., Preuves de Vhistoire de la tnaison de Coligny. Paris, 1662. Fonti per la Storia d^ Italia., published by the Istituto storico italiano.
Foras, Ct E. A. de, and Ct Mar^schal de Luciane, Armorial et Nobiliaire de Pancieti Duche' de Savoie. Vols. I. -IV. Grenoble, 1863-1902.
Fournier, P., Le Royaume d'' Aries et de Vienne. Paris, 1891. Gabotto, F., UAbazia ed il Coimine di Pinerolo e la riscossa sabauda in Pietnonte. B.S.S.S. I. (1899).
Gerbaix-Sonnaz, C. A. de, Studi storici sul contado di Savoia e marchesato in Italia. Three vols. Turin and Rome, 1 883-1902.
Gingins-La-Sarra, F. de, Mhnoire sur Vorigine de la maison de Savoie. M.D.R. XX.
Guichenon, S., Histoire g^nealogique de la royale maison de Savoye. Lyons, 1660. [Vol. II. contains the Preuves.^
Guichenon, S., Histoire de la Bresse et du Bugey. Lyons, 1650.
Hellmann, S., Die Grafen vo7i Savoyen und das Reich bis zujn Ende des staufischen Periode. Innsbruck, 1900.
Hirsch, S., and Bresslau, H., Jahrbiicher des deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II. Leipzig, 1862-74.
Jacob, L., Le Royaume de Bourgogne sous les Empdreurs Franconiens. Paris, 1906.
Jahrbuch fiir schweizerische Geschichte, published by the AUgemeine geschichtsforschende Gesellschaft fiir Schweiz from 1876.
Abbreviated Titles xix
Kallmann, R., Die Beziehungen des Kotiigreichs Biirgund zu Kaiser iind Reich von Heinrich III bis zur Zeit Friedrichs I. Jahrbuch fiir schweizerische Geschichte xiv. (1889).
Labruzzi, F., La mo7iarchia di Savoia dalle origini alV anno 1103. Rome, 19CX5.
M.D.G.=^Memoires et Documents publics par la Societe d'histoire et
d\xrcheologie de Geneve. M.D.R. = Mdmoires et Documents publics par la Societi d'histoire de la
Suisse romande. M.G.H. = Monumenta Gerttianiae Historica. M.H.P. = Mo?iumenta Historiae Patriae.
Manteyer, Origines=-Yi'\\X.o, G. de, Les Origines de la Maison de Savoie en Bourgogne 910-1060. (Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire de I'ecole frangaise de Rome, xix. (1899).)
Manteyer, Notes additionnelles ^D'lito^ G. de, Les Origines de la maison de Savoie en Bourgogne ()io-io6o. Notes additionnelles. {LeMoyenAge, Ser. II. Vol. V.)
Manteyer, Paix='D'\X.to, G. de, Les Origines de la maison de Savoie en Bourgogne 910-1060. La Paix en Viennois {A7ise {^17 jui?i\ 102^) et les additions a la Bible de Viennc {Ms. Berne A. g). Bulletin de la Societd statistique de I'ls^re, XXXlil. Grenoble, 1904.
Mayer, E., Deutsche und Franzosische Verfassungsgeschichte vom 9 bis zum \A, Jahrhundert. Leipzig, 1899.
Mayer, E., Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte von der Gothenzeit bis zum Zunftherrschaft. Leipzig, 1909.
Menabrea, L., Les origines feodales dans les Alpes occidentales. Turin, 1865.
Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus (Latinae).
Misc. St. ital. = Miscellanea di storia italiana. Turin.
Muratori, L., Rerum Italicarum Scriptores. Ed. I. Milan.
Oehlmann, E., Die Alpenpdsse im Mittelalter, Jahrbuch fiir schweizerische Geschichte, Vols. iii. and iv. 1878, 1879.
Philipon, E., Origines du diocise et du comtd de Belley. Paris, 1900.
Pivano, S., Stato e chiesa in Italia da Berengario ad Arduino 888-1015,
Turin, 1908. Poupardin, R., Le Royaume de Bourgogne (888-1038). Paris, 1907. Poupardin, R., Le Royaume de Provence sous les Carolingiens. Paris, 1901. Renaux, C., Le Marquis Odon /•"■ de Savoie, fits d'Htanbert /«"■. Mdmoires
de I'Acad^mie de Savoie. Ser. iv. T. Xl. (1909). RR. II. SS. = Rerutn Italicarum Scriptores, new edition of Muratori in
course of publication. Cittk di Castello.
Rondolino, F., Dei visconti di Torino. Boll. stor. bibl. subalp. vi. vii. and IX.
XX Abbreviated Titles
Savio, F., Gli antichi vescovi (V Italia. II Pienionte. Turin, 1899.
Savio, F., Bonifazio del Vasto- In Atti della r. Accademia delle Scienze di
Torino. XXII. Savio, F., I primi cotiti di Savoia. Misc. stor. ital. xxvi. (Ser. ll. T. xi.). Schiaparelli, L., // conte Umberio Bianca7iiano fu contestabile di Borgogna ?
Arch. St. ital. Ser. v. Tomo xxxvi. (1905). Schiaparelli, L., Charta Augustana. A?-ch. st. ital. Ser. v. Tomo xxxix.
(1907).
Sella, Q., Codex Astensis qui de Malabayla comniuniter mcncupatur. In Atti della r. Accademia dei Lincei, Ser. 11. Vols. ll., v., vi. and Vll. (1880-7). Scienze morali, storiche ecc.
Terraneo, G. B., La Pri7icipessa Adelaide. ..illustrata. Cf. below, p. 129, n. 2.
Terraneo, G. B., Dei primi conti di Savoia e della loro signoria sulla valle d'Aosta. Ed. Bollati. Misc. stor. ital. XVI. (1877).
Tinier, J. B. de, Historique de la Vallee d^Aoste. Aosta, 18S3 etc.
Wurstemberger, L., Graf Peter der Ziveite von Savoyen, Markgraf in Italien., sein Haus und seine Ldiider. Bern, 1856.
CHAPTER I
HUMBERT I WHITEHANDS
Section I. Burgundy, 888-1000.
The year 888 saw the final break-up of the Carolingian Empire into five fragmentary kingdoms. Three of these owed their origin in some measure to a racial feeling in embryo. The inhabitants of France, Germany and Italy naturally fell into separate states. But geographical convenience, particularism, the necessities of government, and family interests played a large part in the division ; and are very clearly to be seen in the formation of the two remaining kingdoms, Jurane Burgundy and Provence. The former of these was really a Duchy of the Frankish realm which under its ambitious Duke seized an easily defensible in- dependence. Rudolf I had been Duke of the country between the Jura and the Alps, and this land (the present Suisse romande) remained the source of his power. But in addition he ruled the ancient Burgundian counties between the Jura and the Saone, and the German-speaking Burgundian district to the west of the Aar and southwards from Basel. His southern frontier seems to have coincided with those of the pagus Genevensis and the Valley of Aosta. Thus the whole of the Lake of Geneva and both the approaches of the Great St Bernard Pass were under his sway. The kingdom taken as a whole was peculiarly fortified by Nature, and its parts had an ancient tradition of association. Nor was it lacking in a degree of linguistic unity. The greater part of its inhabitants spoke dialects of the same Romance language, the Franco- provengal or Mesorhodanic, which is still living in the districts originally settled in by the Burgundii when they crossed the Rhine^ Rudolf I's attempt to extend his new authority over all Lotharingia, which would have introduced heterogeneous elements, failed, and did not affect the character of the new realm.
^ See Grober, Grundriss der romanischen rhilologic, I. 550, 557-8, 755-6, and Ascoli, Archivio glottologico italiano. III. 60 ff. The F'ranco-provcn9al languages extended from the Rhone and Saone to the frontier of German speech and included Grenoble, Lyons, Aosta, Geneva, Lausanne, and Neuchatel.
P. O. I
2 Burgundy 888-1000
Somewhere about the year 933, Rudolf I's son, Rudolf II, more than doubled the extent of his kingdom by the acquisition of the neighbouring realm of Provence. Like Jurane Burgundy, this state, which stretched, roughly speaking, between the Rhone and the Alps from Lyons to the sea, represented an older administrative division of Francia which possessed defensible frontiers. If not forming a linguistic unity, its inhabitants were not far removed in language from one another. Its southern districts spoke some form of the Languedoc : its northerly the allied Franco-proven^al.
Lastly, it seems likely that Rudolf II also obtained the German territory between the Aar and the Reuss, apparently by cession from the German King ; and so completed the new kingdom. Its boundaries were never extended subsequently. For its name we may choose that of Burgundy among the several appellations which are provided us by the despair of contemporaries ; for at least it had a rough corre- spondence with the Kingdom of Burgundy of Gundobad, and the latter's edict, the loi Gombette, was the predominant racial Germanic law among those professed by its inhabitants, although Roman law seems to have claimed the greater part of the population.
As the kingdom thus pieced together was heterogeneous in language, so it was in geographical conformation. A certain kind of unity can indeed be claimed for it, in that the realm was nearly identical with the watershed of the Rhone. This fact at any rate secured some means of communication between the various parts, for the tributaries of the Rhone system, in working their way to the main river, link up the different regions. The roads can follow the river-courses. But after admitting this advantage, little else that favours unity is left. The slowly rising plateau which was to be called in the future Franche Comte was separated by the Jura range from the mountainous intra- Jurane home of the dynasty. The Lower Rhone valley had a character of its own in climate and configuration. And all to the west lay one sinuous, narrowing Alpine valley after another, divided each from each by the lateral mountain-ranges stretching from the main water-parting and often as difficult to cross. Two groups of these, that of the Vallais and Aosta, and that of Maurienne and Savoy, will require our special attention in the course of this inquiry. They form groups not so much because of an obvious geographical linking, as because they were each on a great high-road over the Alps, and therefore tended to have inter- communication and come under the same control. The human factor was predominant in their formation.
Made up of diverse fractions, small in extent, mountainous and therefore thinly populated, it was not likely that the Kingdom of Burgundy could be powerful. It had certain advantages of position, it
Causes of the kingdom's weakness 3
is true. It commanded the communications between France and Italy as well as the best routes from the north-west to the Mediterranean. Between the Rhineland and Italy a large body of traders and pilgrims proceeded over the Great St Bernard, while the commonly used route from and to the north-west led by Lyons, Chambery and Maurienne over the Mont Cenis. Lastly, the traveller who desired to journey by sea struck south from Lyons down the Rhone to Marseilles. Thus wealth from traffic and consequence from political and military reasons could not be denied to Burgundy. But on the whole they rather supplied incentives for its conquest by its neighbours than sources of native power. Perhaps, also, if it is not too fanciful, we may add that the new kingdom did not stand for anything peculiar or characteristic in European civilization. The Mesorhodanic dialects never formed a self-conscious literature of their own ; they remained dialects. Even the later county of Provence did not do more than form a subdivision of the Provencal culture ; and the existence of the Kingdom of Burgundy only served to keep the Provencal culture-lands disunited politically.
But there were also special causes for the weakness of Burgundy as a state. These were : (i) the general decay of the power of the State since Charlemagne, (2) the character of the annexation of Provence, (3) the Saracen invasions, (4) the incapacity of the last native king, Rudolf III (993-1032). They may be briefly described in the above order.
Perhaps, if we try to reduce to the simplest terms the process of decay which the State and the central power underwent after Charle- magne, we may say it was consequent on the decay of the barbaric social ties of the German races which settled within the Empire of the West. They entered the dying Empire as no iconoclasts. On the contrary they eagerly adopted the Roman administrative system as far as they understood it. A large and sprawling imitation was the result, in which the proportion of Roman-descended elements is remarkable. But naturally the elaborate ideas of the state and of society on which they had once been based could not survive the process of translation and degeneration, save in an almost legendary form. The real bond of the ruling society was the barbaric kindred, the solidarity of the kinship, the allegiance to the racial King. It was this bond that decayed with the growth of a new, settled condition of affairs. Obviously, too, the preponderance of the Roman population would not favour its con- tinuance west of the Rhine. Under the circumstances new local ties born of actual material conditions were sure to be evolved, and to gain strength rapidly when after Charlemagne's death the realm was unwieldy, the sovran incapable, the law of succession pernicious, and the centralized military system unequal to new emergencies. I need
1—2
4 Burgundy 888-1000
only refer to the process ; how the Kings' control over their realms became in great part restricted to their influence over their own personal sworn followers, their fideles ; how the latter included their very greatest subjects, but few beside ; how the grant of royal lands for the support oi\h^ fideles made them the rulers of their districts, in influence as well as in office ; how that influence was secured when these " benefices," lands as well as offices, became hereditary ; how the independent landholders became in increasing numbers vassals of the local great man and "alods" became rare outside a privileged circle; how the fighting force of the kingdom thus came more and more to be at the disposal, not of the King, but of his fideles ; how church-dignitaries practically held the same position as lay-landholders ; how it became more and more hard to distinguish the free peasant from the serf; how Northman, Hungarian and Saracen slaughtered, sacked and disintegrated ; and how the whole West sank back into the beast, still using the ancient names and forms. By the year 900 the anarchy seems almost complete, and is little exaggerated in the chivalrous romances of a century or two later. The mail-clad knight in his stronghouse or castle was a member of some feudal complex, with the mutual rights derived from homage and vassalage. Under its protection he carried on his private wars and tyrannized where he could ; and the wretched population, in their forest- circled villages, were too cowed by the long agony they had passed through, to grudge any rights, sometimes even the most iniquitous, to their fierce protectors.
Not that the King was powerless. In conservative Germany he retained great strength. Even in France he never forgot his claims as sovran of the realm ^ In some ways he could put them into practice and at any rate could rule his own domains, which became respectable in extent when Hugh Capet ascended the throne^. It was the same in Burgundy, even in the fact that the King enjoyed very unequal powers in the north and the south of his dominions. In Jurane Burgundy he was of native growth and the possessor of large estates. There he mostly lived ; there he could claim a considerable amount of obedience as King. His dynasty was rooted there. But Provence had been obtained by Rudolf II in a quite peculiar fashion. During the long blindness of the Bosonid monarch, the Emperor Lewis III, the greatest noble of the country, Count Hugh, was the real ruler. He and his relatives added county to county until all the south was in their hands. But Hugh's ambitions led him across the Alps to acquire the crown of Italy. Eventually he was successful ; but Rudolf II was
^ Luchaire, Hist, des Instit. mon. de la France, 2nd ed.. Vol. i. pp. 40 ff., 53 and 119.
2 op. cit. Vol. I. pp. 52 ff., 88 ff.
The Saracens 5
a dangerous competitor, and in fact had been his predecessor in the fickle allegiance of the Italian Counts. There resulted about 933 a bargain between the two kings. Lewis the Blind had died in 928, and his son Charles-Constantine had only contrived to keep the countship of Vienne, and that under the suzerainty of the King of France. No doubt the dethronement of the Bosonids was due to Hugh of Italy, who still retained his countships and vassals without a suzerain. Now, however, Hugh ceded to Rudolf of Jurane Burgundy his suzerain rights over Provence in return for security as to Italy. But he kept for himself and his kinsmen their domains and counties. Thus, even when Charles-Constantine finally submitted to Rudolf II's son, Conrad the Peaceful, about 943, the rule of the Burgundian King in the south had little significance, especially towards the Mediterranean. The royal demesnes there were few ; the great Counts were exceptionally powerful and accustomed to independence; and the chief event of the tenth century in Provence, the expulsion of the Saracens, was accomplished not by the King, but by the local barons.
Part of the rise of the later dynasties between the Rhone and the Alps may be attributed to the Saracens' devastations and the wars for their expulsion. While the Hungarians, who swept over the land from time to time during the first half of the tenth century, were after all only a transitory nightmare, the Saracens' occupation was permanent. At the close of the ninth century they had seized on Freinet, apparently a fortified stretch of hills and forest round the Golfe de St Tropez. With Freinet as base they ravaged both sides of the Alpine chain for eighty years. One may doubt whether many peoples have undergone so terrible an experience. Whole valleys, like that of Susa, were made deserts. The Saracens spread unchallenged over the country-side, sacked even some walled cities, and made, it seems, something like permanent forts in a few districts. The passes were almost held by them. They destroyed the great roadside abbeys of St Maurice and Novalesa. They once even reached St Gall. It seemed for long impossible to concert sufficient common action to expel them. King Hugh of Italy could have done so with Byzantine help in 942, but his private interests led him to prefer an alliance with them instead. Otto the Great intended to take up the task, but other affairs drew him off. Finally, St Maiolus of Cluny was held to ransom by the infidels in 972 ; and it seems likely that on his release he used his vast influence to make the local barons and bishops unite in a campaign against the marauders. The brother-Counts of Provence, Ardoin III of Turin and others at last made war in earnest, and it was not long before they had captured Freinet and extirpated the pest^
^ Cf. below, pp. 145-7.
6 Burgundy 888-1000
The profits of the war naturally went to the actual victors, not to Conrad the Peaceful ; and it cannot surprise us that the Counts of the border-districts, who had waged it, should be the founders of the chief medieval states of South Burgundy. The Counts of Provence, the Dauphins of Grenoble and the Counts of Savoy, all date from the war. It is very possible, too, that their power was increased by the amount of ravaged land that was appropriated or even resettled by them. All landholders would be their vassals. Probably they had already usurped the right of appointment to bishoprics.
Meanwhile Conrad the Peaceful was reigning, and reigning with some success, in the north. When Rudolf II died in 937, the restless Hugh of Italy had made an attempt to seize on the kingdom. He married the young heir, Conrad's, mother himself, and gave his new step-daughter Adelaide of Burgundy as wife to his co-regent son, Lothar II of Italy. But he had reckoned without his host. Otto the Great of Germany was not in the least minded to suffer the extension of Hugh's power. By some means or other he took possession of young Conrad, sent King Hugh hurrying back to Italy, and established a more or less effective suzerainty over the north of the country. Otto was not regardless of his vassal's welfare. In 942 he restored him to his kingdom, and probably had some share in securing the loyal sub- mission of the whole extent of it. In 943 Conrad could hold his court in the Viennois.
The rest of his reign, little known at best, may be passed over here. He became the brother-in-law of both the other rulers of the West ; for his sister Adelaide of Italy married Otto the Great in 951, and he himself about 965 married as his second wife Matilda, sister of Lothaire of France. On his death on the 19th October 993, he left as his heir his only surviving son by Matilda, Rudolf III.
The last King of independent Burgundy has received a bad name from the chroniclers as " the sluggard," and, making allowance for the depletion of the royal demesne and the consequent smallness of his means, the results of his reign too well accord with the character given him for us to disbelieve that in this case it was the King himself who gave the coup de grace to the royal power. Yet he began his reign with an act of vigour. He attempted to recover for the crown either some of the benefices which were still nominally non-hereditary or some lands and rights long before usurped. The nobles concerned looked on his action as a robbery of their inheritance, and revolted. In the war that followed Rudolf was easily defeated, and presumably made his submission and his peace ^
^ See for the two kingdoms Poupardin, Bourgogne and Provence. For the war with the barons see Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 1 13-16. The authority is Ann.
The Burofundian Counts
fe
It may have been partly a consequence of Rudolf's defeat that the Counts in the Kingdom of Burgundy acquired the great legal powers, which we find in their possession a few years later. They had probably long usurped them, of course, but legal confirmation may have been attained now. In his official rights and in his standing, now at any rate, the Burgundian Count was the equal of a German Duke'. Several pre- rogatives and sources of profit seem to be implied in this position. He received the entire judicial profits of his county, and not merely the comital third. He called out the entire armed force of his county. He could hold "at mercy" offenders against his commands and dignity, that is, he could create offences or make them entail a heavier punish- ment. He could exercise justice over the royal dependents in his county. Lastly, he possessed the right of making inquisitions, that is, of compelling his subjects to give evidence on oath on any matter at his pleasure. The three last powers were of especial importance, as they limited the intervention of the King, and decreased his control over his immediate dependants'. It is evident, too, that such matters as tolls, which remained formally subject to the royal authority, were really in the hands of the great nobles, and perhaps of the petty nobles as welP. In short, what with law and usurpation, the kingdom was in process of dissolution.
Section II. Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian
POLITICS.
Since the dominions of the House of Savoy had for their nucleus lands which formed fractions of the Kingdom of Burgundy and only obtained the rank of a feudal state through the break-up of the larger entity, their earlier history necessarily begins in the general history of the realm of which they were a part. Only by degrees does a soi- disant state emerge from the welter of events to have a separate history of its own. Our first task, therefore, is to trace the first appearance of its comital house and the latter's attainment of a semi-independent position in consequence of the practical dissolution of the Burgundian monarchy.
Sangall. viaj. 995 {M.G.H. Script. I. 81), "quosdani suorum patema hereditate private conatus."
^ Thietmar, Chron. vii. 21 {M.G.H. Script, in. 846), "In hiis partibus nullus vocatur comes, nisi is qui ducis honore possidet."
^ See on the German Dukes Mayer, Deut. u. Franz. Verfassungsgeschichte, II. pp. 361-72. These functions certainly belonged later to the Counts of Savoy.
* See below, pp. 26-7.
8 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
After his defeat in the war against his revolted barons Rudolf III appears to have embarked on a partly new policy. He could exercise little or no control over his lay vassals. There remained the ecclesi- astical ones. It is true that the appointment to bishoprics had largely fallen into the hands of the great vassals, and with that went the control of the extensive episcopal lands and immune jurisdiction^ But there remained some sees which still depended largely on the Crown, and it seems to have been Rudolf's object by strengthening them to strengthen a sort of official nobility as a counter-weight to the lay noblest In this he was pursuing much the same path as the Saxon Emperors in Germany and Italy ^; though he seems to have pursued it more rapidly considering the means at his disposal. Accordingly his method was to grant the countships to bishops wherever circumstances, such as the absence of great lay vassals, the extinction of an existing line of Counts* or the vacancy of the county^, allowed it to be done. Such a policy of course required for its success the retention in the royal hands of the power of nominating bishops to the favoured sees and also some con- siderable independent demesne retained by the Crown ; neither of which conditions appears from the sequel to have been in existence.
The first conferment of a county on a bishop which has come down to us is that of the county of Tarentaise on its Archbishop Amizo. Here the reason given is the depopulation caused by the Saracen in- cursions, from which the Archbishop Amizo was in course of attempting to bring about a recovery*^. This was followed in 999 by a similar grant of the county of the Vallais'' to Hugh, Bishop of Sion. But here it is possible, although not likely, that the ancient Counts were not extinct, and it is also just possible their claims passed to the future House of Savoy ^ Other similar grants were to come later.
It would however be a mistake to emphasize too much the personal intervention of Rudolf III in these acts. The grant to Archbishop Amizo, and that later (1022) to Archbishop Burchard of Vienne, had
1 See Thietmar, vii. 21 (1016) [M.G.H. Script. III. 845), " episcopatus (R.) hiis dat, qui a principibus hiis eliguntur...Unde liii (episcopi etc.) manibus complicatis cunctis primatibus velud regi suo serviunt, at sic pace fruuntur. "
- See Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 117.
^ See Pivano, Stato e Chiesa, pp. 275-6; Hauck, Kircheiigeschichte Detitschlands, III. 59-65, and below, Cap. il. Sect. I.
* As at Vienne; see below, pp. 14 and 19.
^ Lausanne ; see below, p. 1 8.
^ M-H.P. Chart, i. 304, " Archiepiscopatus Hyberinis incursionibus penitus de- populatus quern Amiso prout vires appetunt comitatu donamus."
^ M.D.R. xxix. 49; the Vallais stretched at this time from the sources of the Rhone to Martigny; the diocese of Sion included Old Chablais up to Lake Geneva.
8 See below, pp. 67-8 ; the doubt concerns the county of Count Ulric the Anselmid. See below, p. 64.
The episcopal Counts 9
parallels in Italy, due it seems largely to the break-up of the comital power there, often accompanied by the disappearance of the comital famiHes\ It might be in part a desperate attempt to restore a public authority, where it had quite or almost vanished, by investing the bishop with it. For the Counts, too, of the Carolingian Empire suffered their vicissitudes, and if in some cases, especially in France and Burgundy, they emerged triumphant at the last at the head of small feudal states, in others the power of the hereditary official faded away, and the county broke up into smaller fractions ruled by the lords of the soil. As we shall see, the Counts of Savoy succeeded, though with difficulty, in evading this fate, and not only so, but they were more fortunate than most of their competitors, in surviving the period of the great monarchical formations of the Later Middle Ages.
During these years, however, the unhappy Rudolf does not seem to have made any real progress in establishing his authority. The rem- nant of his domains lay chiefly- between the Jura and the Alps. We find him (January 999) at the abbey of St Maurice in the Vallais, where his natural brother. Archbishop Burchard of Lyons, was provost, at Basel (999)", Vevey (998), the abbey of Payerne (998) \ There is a suspicious fondness here for ecclesiastical foundations, reminding us of the later taunt of the German chronicler that he lived on the bishops' revenues*.
What the King himself could not do was partially accomplished for him by foreign intervention^ In the summer of 999 his aunt, the Empress Adelaide, widow of Otto the Great, then near the conclusion of her eventful history, entered Burgundy on his behalf. She went to Payerne, St Maurice, Geneva and Lausanne, and then to Orbe, all it may be noted in old Rudolfian territory, and did her best in the cause of peace. At Orbe there seems to have been an assembly".
^ Cf. Poupardin, Botirgogne, pp. 325-7, and for Italy Pivano, Stato e Chiesa, pp. 36-7. 67-8, 149-52. Thecounty of Astiofters a well-marked instance; v.C. Cipolla, Di Audace vescovo cTAsti, Misc. di stor. ital. XXVI. ; Di Brunengo vescovo if Asti, Misc. di stor. ital. xxviii.; Di Rozone vescovo cfAsti, Mem. della r. Accad. delle scienze di Torino, Ser. 11. Vol. XLii.
'•^ There were exceptions, e.g. the castle etc. at Vienne, in the Viennois, and lands in Savoy and the Genevois.
^ See Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 117, who points out the probable connection with Adelaide's visit.
■* See Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 114 and 117.
' Thietmar, vii. 21 {M.G.H. III. 845), "ad suani vero utilitatem pauca tenens, ex inpensis antistitum vivit."
* That Adelaide's intervention was a part of German policy is made probable by Emp. Otto Ill's previous diploma confirming its Alsatian domains to the abbey of Payerne, 6th Feb. 998 (Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. i i8j, besides the intrinsic likelihood of the fact.
^ " Cum rege et principibus patriae pacis et honestatis conferens negocia." Odilo, Epitaphiurn Adelheidae, i-j {M.G.H. Script, iv. 643).
lo Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
She was not altogether successful, we are told, but some of the King's quarrelling fideles she was able to induce to a peaces It seems Rudolf III went either with her, or a little later to Germany to Bruchsal in Swabia for a meeting with Otto IIP. Soon after, in the middle of December 999, the Empress Adelaide died.
Yet some effect resulted from her efforts for peace. It can hardly be an accident that for the rest of his reign we find Rudolf steadily supported by at least two houses of the great nobility. One of these may be styled the Anselmids. Anselm*, the head of the family, vir itiluster, had married Aldiud, concubine of King Conrad (c. 964). Thus Burchard II, Archbishop of Lyons, King Rudolf's natural brother, was also uterine brother to Anselm's three sons, Burchard, Archbishop of Vienne (looi (?)-io3i), Anselm, Bishop of Aosta and Arch- chancellor (994, 1025)^ and Ulric (1019, Advocate of Archbishop Burchard of Vienne). The second family on which the feeble King relied was that of the Humbertines, the later Counts of Savoy. The many difficult problems which arise as to the members of this family and their connection with the Anselmids will be dealt with in a subse- quent section ^ Here I need mention only two personages, Oddo, Bishop of Belley (995 (?), 1003)", and Count Humbert I Whitehands'', the admitted ancestor of the House of Savoy.
^ " Pacis ut semper arnica, pacis caritatisque causa paternum solum adiit, fidelibus nepotis sui Rodulfi regis inter se litigantibus, quibus potuit pacis foedera contulit, quibus non potuit, more sibi solito Deo totum commisit " (Odilo, 13, M.G.H. Script. IV. 642).
^ Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 1 19, based on the dating of a diploma of Rudolf III.
^ Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 270 and 386, n. i, following Manteyer, Origines, pp. 466-70, 480-1, identifies Anselm with Count Anselm who appears with his brother Count Ulric in a Viennese placitum of King Conrad in 943. But the dates are far apart. Anselm does not seem to have married Aldiud till c. 970; he was living in 1002 ; he is not called Count. No doubt however the two Counts were relatives of his.
* Anselm furnishes a much desired proof that Aosta belonged to the Burgundian Kingdom at this time and not to Italy. Besides being Arch-chancellor of Burgundy (see below, p. 11, n. i), he attended the Burgundian Synods of Anse (and no Italian ones at all) in 994 and 1025 (Savio, Gd aiitichi vescovi, p. 87 ; cf. Manteyer, Paix, p. 106, nn. I and 2); and witnesses Rudolf Ill's diplomas from loir (cf. below, p. 14, n. 2, and p. 18, n. 4). It is to be noted that the reputed Synod of Anse of 990 never took place (see Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 302, n. 1).
^ See Cap. i. Sect. in.
^ Perhaps it assumes too much to consider the bishop a Humbertine in this section; but it seems to be generally acknowledged.
'■ The surname Albamanus, aiix blanches mains, goes back only to the fourteenth century, but it is extremely convenient for distinction, and probably rests on true tradition. The proof of the identification of the Count Hupertus of Wipo, 30 and 32 (M.G.H. IV. 270), with Humbert Whitehands lies in their connection with the county of Aosta and with Queen Ermengarde. The earliest undisputed document
Anselmids, Humbertines, Anscarids ii
These two families, it will be noted, both owed part of their strength to the bishoprics held by their members, in the acquisition of which it would probably be a mistake to ascribe too great a share to the King's influence, although he must, one would think, have promoted his half- brother Burchard II of Lyons to the Abbacy (from the Provostship) of St Maurice' by his own initiative. Since the King held the abbot's domains the revival of the abbotship involved a diminution of Rudolfs own patrimony. Burchard of Vienne, too, whose family seems to have belonged to the intra -Jurane land only", would probably have the King's favour in attaining his see on the Rhone, where he might do something to maintain the royal authority. His connection with the Humbertines, however, would have considerable influence in his promotion, seeing that the earliest Humbertine possessions, so far as attested by their charters of donation, fall preponderantly in the counties of Belley, Savoy proper^, and Sermorens*, where they were close to the royal domains left in Savoy and its neighbour- hood^
More powerful than either of these family groups, and unlike them no supporter of Rudolf III, was Otto-William", Count of what was later called the Free county (Franche Comte) of Burgundy. It was in Rudolf Ill's day a collection of counties (Portois, Varais [Besangon], etc.) between the Saone and the Jura''. Otto-William was a member of that Anscarid House of Ivrea, which had been driven from the Italian throne by Otto the Great : he was son of King Adalbert and grandson of Berengar II. His mother was Gerberga, daughter of Lambert,
of Humbert Whitehands dates from Aosta, 19th Oct. 1024 (Car. /\t'o. lvii. Cibrario e Promis, Docmnenti ecc. p. 100) ; but there is a Humbertine Count Humbert at court in roo9 (Car. Reg. XXVin. Chevalier, Cartttlaire de St Andr^-le-bas de Vienne, No. 58*) and connected with Queen Ermengarde in 1022-3 (Car. Reg. LIII. Chevalier, op. cit. No. 154) who will be discussed in Section III.
' Burchard II of Lyons was promoted to the Abbacy between 26th May looo and 7th Nov. looi (Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 329, n. 7). Bishop Anselm of Aosta succeeded as provost by 2nd March 1002 and still held it c. 1014 {id. p. 330, n. i). It is important, as a proof of the position the Anselmids held in the royal favour, to note that Burchard II of Lyons was Arch-chancellor in 998 til! c. loio, and then Anselm of Aosta in loi i and 1018. See Manteyer, Origines, pp. 468-9.
2 See below, Sect. ill. pp. 67-8.
' i.e. roughly the deanery of Savoy ; see Map i. ; and see below, pp. 94-5.
* See below, Sect. iv.
* See Poupardin, Boitrgog/te, pp. 194-5, and cf. Car. Reg. cvn. (Cipolla, Monn- menla Novaliciensia, I. 161). See below, pp. 15 and 51-2.
* William seems to have been his original name. Perhaps Otto was added on his adoption by Duke Henry of Burgundy, whose elder brother and predecessor was Eudes (Otto).
^ Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 201-2, 231-3.
12 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
Count of Chaunois'. About 961-2, when her father-in-law's king- dom was falling before the Germans, she fied back to Burgundy, and thither her little son was cleverly smuggled to her by some monk. Our jejune chroniclers leave us ignorant of the way in which the child was conveyed from his enemies' hands. After Adalbert's death (c 971-2), she married again, this time Henry, Duke of French Burgundy, who also held the counties east of the Saone above mentioned. Otto-William had the good fortune to be adopted by his stepfather and was thus put on the way to greatness. By the Duke"s favour he married Ermentrude, the widow of Alberic II, Count of Macon, and had obtained the latter's county by the year 986, to the prejudice of Alberic IPs sons, not to mention other domains which he acquired in French Burgundy. When, on the 15th October 1002, Duke Henry died, Otto-William succeeded him in those counties (Portois, etc.) which lay to the east of the Saone and in Rudolf Ill's kingdom. At the same time he en- deavoured to seize the French Duchy of Burgundy, but here he was resisted by the Capetian monarch, Robert the Pious. It appears he had given up the struggle by 1005; the Duchy was lost to him, but he still retained Macon and his other French domains, which he handed over first to his eldest son Guy I (ob. c. 1005), and then to the latter's son Otto. Otto-William was not only powerful through his material possessions ; he had great allies. One daughter married Landry, Count of Nevers, another named Agnes, William V the Great, Duke of Aquitaine, and the third William II, Count of Provence. His second son Rainald, who was to succeed him in " Franche Comte " (to use an anachronous, but hardly dispensable name), had married Alice (Adela), daughter of Richard II, Duke of Normandy". They all in- creased the importance of the Count of the Burgundians, as Otto- William, possessor of several counties, began to style himself^
The Empress Adelaide's death occurred not long before that of her grandson, the Emperor Otto III. In June 1002 his cousin, the Duke of Bavaria, was crowned his successor as Henry II. The new monarch, who took occasionally the new title of King of the Romans*, thereby laying claim to the Imperial position in right of his German kingship, was the son of Gisela, Rudolf Ill's half-sister. As Rudolf had no legitimate children by his wife Agiltrude, Henry II was his next heir.
^ For Otto-William's maternal descent and marriage see Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 414-9-
" See for all this Poupardin, Boii7-gog7te, pp. 220-'/, and cf. Hirsch, Hemrich II, I. 383. William of Aquitaine's marriage to Agnes took place later than 1023; see Bresslau, Konrad II, p. 74.
^ Comes Btirguiidionian and the like; see Poupardin, Bottrgogne, p. 233.
■* See Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, p. 531, and below, p. 168, n. 4.
Henry II, Queen Ermengarde 13
This did not confer an absolute right to the succession in Burgundy, but it gave a strong claim, and there was a strong hand to back it. Hence it seems likely that Henry H aimed from early in his reign at securing his uncle's kingdom. That in itself, with its depleted royal demesne and insubordinate nobles, would not be a very profitable acquisition ; but it commanded all the western Alpine passes, the Great St Bernard, Little St Bernard, Mont Cenis and Mont Genevre, which led into Italy; and over Italy Henry was determined to rule as the Ottos had done. Yet under Ardoin, Marquess of Ivrea, Italy had revolted from the German domination at Otto Ill's death, and though Henry had been easily successful in a campaign in 1004^ which secured his coronation at Pavia, Ardoin almost immediately recovered much of his lost ground, and shared the country with his rival".
It is tempting to see a reflex of these events in Henry II's next action in Burgundy. He marched to Basel, the frontier Burgundian town, and took possession of it about July 1006. Part of the diocese was already in Germany and the Bishop Adalbero was probably a consent- ing party. Had Henry and Rudolf come to an agreement about the succession and was Basel the guarantee, the entrance to the kingdom being handed over to the heir ? There is no information on the point come down to us^
Some years now passed by with nothing more to signalize them than a transient revolt^ and Rudolf's second marriage. This last event in all likelihood took place early in loii. Agiltrude, Rudolf's first wife, died seemingly on or just before the 17th February 1009'. Neither of her nor of Ermengarde, her successor, do we know the family. But Ermen- garde was a widow and had two unnamed sons"; and she appears in the documents in connection both with the Anselmids and the
^ The statement of Ademar de Chabannes (ill. 37, M.G.H. iv. 133) that Rudolf besieged Pavia for Henry II in 1004 (1002?) must be due to some confusion, else there would be some other trace of the fact. See Hirsch, Hcinrich II, i. 310, and Poupardin, Bourgogyie, p. 120, n. i.
- For rienry II's claims see Hirs h, Heinrich II, pp. 388-92. On Italian affairs at this time see below, pp. 167 fiT.
^ For Henry II's occupation of Basel see Hirsch, Heinrich II, pp. 391-4. Cf. Poupardin, Botirgoi^ne, pp. 120-1. There had been a treaty of succession before 1016: " quod longe prius " Rudolf " ei sacramentis post mortem suam sanciorat. " Thietmar, VII. 20, M.G.H. III. 845.
* That of Tuto; see Hirsch-Bresslau, Heinrich II, iii. 35, and Poupardin, Bourgopte, p. 117, n. 3.
' See Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 125, n. i.
* Thietmar, vii. 20, and see below, p. 18. Bresslau's (Hirsch-Bresslau, Heinrich II, III. 35) view that their ambition added to Rudolf Ill's difficulties with his nobles lacks the support of any precept in their favour.
14 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
Humbertines^ It has been supposed she is identical with the Countess Ermengarde, wife of Manasse, Count (probably) of Geneva, who c. looo exchanged land at St Andre in Savoy for some in the Genevois with the Bishop Humbert of Grenoble ; but, though the date and district are suggestive, there is no further evidence ^
Presumably shortly after their marriage, Rudolf III proceeded to endow his wife with domains. On the 24th April loii he made two important grants at Aix-les-bains where the marriage may have taken place. The first gave Ermengarde, by the advice of the nobles of the kingdom, the city of Vienne with its castle Pupet (later called Eumedium), the county of Vienne with the alods and serfs there which he owned, and the county of Sermorens, likewise with his alods and serfs. Now these counties had been held by Charles-Constantine, son of the Emperor Lewis III the Blind, as late as 962. It is natural to suppose that his two sons, Richard and Upert (= Hubert, Humbert), were dead ; and one wonders whether Queen Ermengarde who repeats the name of Ermengarde, daughter of Emperor Lewis II, the grandmother of Charles-Constantine, had claims on the inheritance. No transfer of the publica poiestas is explicitly mentioned, but doubtless it is implied in the wording of the diploma. In any case Ermengarde can hardly have exercised it, and perhaps we may look on the grant as being from this point of view the seal of the dissolution of the county. What she got of course was the comital demesne, which went with the office'*,
^ See especially Car. Reg. xxxiv. (Ermengarde and the two Archbishops Burchard), id. XXXVii. ( = Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Andr^-le-bas, p. 253) (Archbishop Burchard of Vienne and Bishop Ansehn), XLIX. {— Cartulaire de Savigny, ed. Bernard, I. 317) (the two Burchards), Liii. ( = Chevaher, Cartulaire de St Andri-le-bas, p. 154) (royal house and Hurabertines), Lxxxiii., Lxxxiv. (^Bernard, Cartulaire de Savigny, i. 318) (Ermengarde, Count Humbert), Lxxxvi. { = AI.N.P. Chart, i. col. 499) ; and for Count Humbert Whitehands' advocacy of the Queen after Rudolf Hi's death see charters cited below, p. 38.
- Charter in Marion, Cartulaire de Grenoble, B. cxvni. p. 173. Their daughter was named Aniana. The identification was made by Cibrario and Promis, Doc. pp. 65-75 ff. and supported by Secretan, Observations sur les chartes relatifs a la fainille de Humbert aux Blanches Mains, M.D.G. xvi. 329.
•* The wording of the diploma has: "Ego jugali amore attractus primatumque regni mei consilio ammonitus, dono dilectissime sponse mee Irmingardi Viennam metropolim civitatem cum Pupet castello et comitatum Viennensem cum alodis et mancipiis que in ipso comitatu habere videor; et dono ei comitatum Saimoracensem cum alodis et mancipiis. Hec omnia, que supra nominata sunt, habeat et possideat sub libera potestate habendi, donandi, vendendi, commutandi vel quicquid illi placuerit inde faciendi " (Car. Reg. xxxil. Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Andri-le-bas, p. 310). Cf. for the meaning of comitatus Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 430-57. The Burgundian charters (those to bishops and that to Ermengarde) seem much less explicit than their analogues in Germany and Italy, as to the grant of public functions.
Queen Ermengarde, Henry II 15
along with the royal demesnes in the two districts. The second diploma of the same date granted Aix-les-bains, Annecy and other scattered royal properties to the Queen ^.
Two new grants were made by Rudolf III to his wife some years later. On the 21st February in his twenty-third year, the King being then at Loges in the Jurane district, he gave her St Pierre and St Jean d'Albigny, Miolans, Conflans [Albertville] and the Novum Castellum super Isaram fluminem, all in the county of Savoy^ The second, dated at Strasburg 1016, gave Aix-les-bains (again !), Lemenc, Chambery and St Cassin, all in the same county^ Thus Ermengarde possessed no inconsiderable portion of the then small county of Savoy*.
These gifts to Ermengarde perhaps stand in some relation to the King's recognition of his nephew Henry II as his heir. Were they part of the price which she and her connections exacted for their support of that policy, along with the "ineffabilis pecunia " lavished on them by Henry IT'? The immediate causes of that recognition appear to have been, on Henry II's side, the renewed unrest in West Lombardy after Ardoin's death ; on Rudolf's, the increasing difficulty he had in maintain- ing himself against his unruly vassals. As to the first it would seem the anti-German party in Italy had even invited Rudolf III himself to intervene, offering him as a bribe the Mark of Ivrea. No doubt the feeble King would only be a catspaw of some of his nobles, but whether
^ " Aquis villam, Anassiacum, Rouda, abbatiam Montis Jovensis S. Petri, Font regale Castellum, partem villae Evonant, Novum Castellum, Averniacum et Arinis.' The identifications are given by Bresslau, Konrad II, ii. 59, viz. Aix, Annecy, Rue, St Pierre des Monts Joux, Font in Fribourg, Yvonant, Neuchatel, Auvemier and St Blaise ; for text see Car. Reg. xxxiii. Cibrario and Promis, Doc. p. 17, and Musde des Archives Dipartmetitales , No. 20.
■■' " Quasdam cortes in comilatu Savogiensi, viz. Albiniacum maiorem cum ecclesia S- Petri, alium Albiniacum cum ecclesia S. Joannis, Meiolanum, Conflenz cum ecclesia S. Mariae, et Novum Castellum super Isaram fluminem " (Car. Reg. xxxvii. Chevalier, Carltdaire de St Andr^-le-bas, p. 253). The connection with the following charter of year xxiv. makes one inclined to think that Rudolf's reign began between February and June, and thus both would be of 1016. See next note.
•* " In comitatu seu in pago Gratianopolitano vel Savoiensi " (Car. Reg. XLi. Chevalier, Carhilaire de St Andrd-le-has, p. 253). The charter is dated 10 14/5 yr. xxiv. (which begins 1016). As the place of dating is Strasburg, the regnal year must be right and that of the Incarnation wrong. The originals are not preserved of this charter or the preceding. Cf Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 124, n. 8, and pp. 194-5. There is the further difficulty that Rudolf's xxiv. year would begin 19 Oct. — Nov. 1016 if he reckoned from his father Conrad's death, and the meeting at Strasburg was in June. Was he after all elected King earlier in 993?
* Cf. Carutti, Umberto I Biancamano, p. 81, and Menabrea, Origines fiodales, pp. 66-7, and cf. Gingins-la-Sarra, Aleinoire sur Vorigine de la Maison de Savoie, M.D.R. XX. 235.
' See below, p. 17, n. 4.
1 6 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
of the Humbertine-Anselmid group or of the great Otto- William, who belonged to the last Italian royal house and had extensive proprietary claims in the Mark of Ivrea, is not said in our sole source^ It would obviously be Henry II's policy to buy off Rudolf and to make renewed efforts to control the dangerous Alpine frontier. Rudolf, however, had as strong reasons, perhaps, for a rapprochement, connected with the same Otto- William. We are told that his vassals were endeavouring to dethrone him and that he thereupon begged aid of the Emperor I It is evident from the sequel that Otto-William must have been their leader.
Whichever party was most eager for the alliance, Henry II invited his uncle to meet him at Bamberg, where he held his Easter court on April I, 1016. Rudolf however was unable to proceed thither and asked the Emperor to come to the frontier for the interview^ This took place, probably early in June, at Strasburg'*. Rudolf was accom- panied by Queen Ermengarde and her two sons^ who it seems did homage to the Emperor. The subjects of the conference were two, the performance of Rudolf's old promise to make Henry his heir^ and the measures to be taken against their common enemy Otto- William. Now accordingly Henry's heirship was publicly declared, and Rudolf III obtained for him the homage of some Burgundian nobles, and promised that of the rest ; while at the same time he agreed that no important
^ Bishop Leo of Vercelli's letter to Henry II. Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. i2r-4, and H. Bloch, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des Bischofs Leo v. Vercelli u. seiner Zeit, Neues Archiv, xxil.,both consider this letter to be dated early in 1016. 'Bxesslz.Vi, Heinrich If, III. 120-5, gives the end of 1016 as date, but he had not all the letters before him. See below, Cap. 11. Sect. in. pp. 170-3. Henry IPs diploma 1014 Jan. — Sept. to Fruttuaria shows Otto- William had already made to that monastery large grants of possessions in the Mark of Ivrea {M.G.H. Dipl. in. 379); cf. Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 420-9.
2 Alpertus of Metz, De Diversitate Temporum, li. i^(M.G.H. iv.716), "Ruodoldus ...propter mansuetudinem et innocentiam vitae a quibus principibus suis conteniptus est, unde et de regno eum expellere temptaverunt. Qua necessitate compulsus ad imperatorem venit." That the rebels' leader was Otto-William is shown by the fact that Henry's first act after the treaty was to distribute (only of course in theory) Otto-William's benefices among supporters of his own (Thietmar, VII. 20) ; see below. The reading " Willehelmus Pictaviensis " of Thietmar must be a slip of the pen, Pictaviensis for Portuensis (O. W. being Count of Portois), made the more easily as Otto-William's son-in-law, Duke William of Aquitaine, was Willehelmus Pictaviensis. Otto-William would be the more active as his hopes of acquiring French Burgundy were finally dashed the year before (1015) by the appointment of a Capetian Duke. Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 123.
3 Thietmar, vii. 20 {M.G.H. Script. III. 845).
* See Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 121, Hirsch-Bresslau, Heinrich II, in. 26. 5 Thietmar, loc. cit. and Rudolf's diploma, cited above, p. 15, n. 3. 8 See above, p. 13 and n. 3 there.
Henry II and Otto-William 17
matter should be carried through without his advice'. This was not all; Otto-William's benefices were all ceded to the Emperor by his uncle, apparently as a foretaste of the succession and as a guarantee of it as well, not of course in fief, for the Roman Emperor could hold of no man, but in dominion. Henry portioned them out among vassals of his own^ ; and promptly made a nomination to a bishopric in Otto-William's lands'. There only remained the payment of the necessary bribes to Rudolf and his entourage. This was done'*, and the Burgundian King left for home.
It was now Henry's business to take possession of the lands ceded by his uncle. But Otto-William was in no mood to surrender. Henry's episcopal nominee barely escaped with his life. The Count fortified and held the north-Burgundian towns, and, when Henry at the end of June came to Basel at the head of an army, he could make no progress. In vain he summoned reinforcements and ravaged the open country. No town could be taken, though it seems some nobles did homage. His presence was required elsewhere; Rudolf was wavering; and at the end of August he abandoned the campaign and left Burgundy for the norths
While Henry's warlike measures against Otto-William came to grief, his diplomacy received a severe check at Rudolf's court. The latter on returning south made an attempt to carry out his engagements, but it was quickly checked. The power of the kingdom lay wholly in the hands of the great nobles, and they refused to exchange a nominal master for one with force at his back^ Racial and local sentiment would make them reluctant to be ruled by a foreigner of Teutonic tongue and the lesser nobles would sympathise with them. To this
^ Thietmar, loc. cit., " Omnem namque Burgundiae regionis primatum per manus ab avunculo suimet accepit, et de maximis rebus sine eius consilio non fiendis securitatem firmam." For the interpretation see Poupardin, Botirgogne, pp. 126-8, and Hirsch-Bresslau, Heinrich II, HI. 26, n. 3. Alpert of Metz, ll. 14 {M.G.H. iv.), says, "regnum imperatori tradidit." Possibly this refers to the "securitatem firmam" and to the special concessions re Otto-William's benefices.
"^ Thietmar, loc. cit., ''Dilectis sibi militibus hoc totum dedit in beneficium, quod sibi ab avunculo suimet tunc est concessum et quod Willehelmus Pictaviensis (see above, p. 16, n. 2) hactenus habuit regio munere praestitum." This is not quite the view of Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 129, who considers Henry was merely authorized to dispose of Otto- William's domains. Otto-William's benefices in Burgundy included of course the four or five counties which made up the later Franche Comte.
* Probably Besan9on; see Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 129, n. 2.
* " Cesar autem regi et contectali eius cunctisque suimet principibus (so Rudolf had many nobles in his train) ineffabilem pecuniam dedit, et firmata iterum antiqua iradicione, eos abire permisit." Thietmar, VII. 20 {M.G.H. Script. HI.).
* See Thietmar, loc. cit., Alpert of Metz, 11. 14, and Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 131-2, Ilirsch-Bresslau, Heinrich II, in. 37-8.
^ This is Thietmar's account, vii. 21 (M.G.H. Script, in. 845-6).
P. O. 2
1 8 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
skeleton of events we may, but with slightly less certainty, add the fact that the rebels to Rudolf's authority, i.e. Otto-William and his allies, sought the King out and submitted to him, but on the condition that the treaty of Strasburg was annulled and a foreign heir was not in- troduced. They could allege a legal ground for their plea, that the Burgundians had the right of electing their King \ which was no doubt the case. Rudolf consented — indeed unless he left the kingdom he could hardly act otherwise — and begged Henry to renounce his treaty rights. The Emperor too had little choice; he possessed hardly any of Burgundy; so he agreed to some kind of surrender'^.
It was not long before Rudolf appeared again at the German court. In February 1018 he came to Mayence, and again subscribed to the treaty of 10 16 with the consent of his w4fe, his step-sons and his nobles. This time he even handed over his crown and sceptre to his appointed heir as a symbol of his promise, to receive them back of course after the ceremony ^ The oaths were renewed as well: and then Rudolf turned homewards to play his trivial part. On his side the Emperor again prepared to take possession of his new realm. With his army he marched in June from Basel to the Rhone. But now Rudolf was hostile; for on his return the opponents of the pro-German policy had won the upper hand at his court. And Henry captured no town and obtained nothing. By September he was back at Ziirich profitless.
The ineffectual Rudolf cannot have gained much by these events. In 10 1 8 his staunch supporter, Bishop Henry I of Lausanne, to whom in accordance with his usual policy he himself had given the county of Vaud*, was murdered, although the King was able to get his bastard son Hugh appointed to succeeds The presence of this son with the
1 " Unum illud specialiter deprecari ne alterius gentis regem super populum suum dominari pateretur; legem hanc perpetuam Burgundionum esse, ut hunc regem haberent quem ipsi eligerent et constituerent." Alpert of Metz, De Div. 'Jetnp. II. 14. {M.G.H. Script, iv. 717.)
2 This is Alpert of Metz's account, De Div. Temp. 11. 14. Some doubt is cast on his details by his saying that the kingdom was given over to Henry II. Still this expression was not so very inaccurate for the combined effect of the oaths of homage, the right of counsel and the proposed occupation of 'Tranche Comie." See Poupardin, Butirgogne, pp. 132-3, Hirsch-Bresslau, Heinrich II, III. 38-9. It is not at all clear how much Henry II gave up.
3 See Poupardin, Boiirgogne, pp. \ 33-5, and Heinrich II, iii. 78-Si for these events. The Humbertine-Anselmid interest may have taken part ; but their main strength lay south of the Rhone, so we cannot conclude either pro or con for their possible policy. Henry never got past Otto-William and his allies who dominated Jurane Burgundy.
* Charter of 25 August ion. The concession of rights is the fullest in these charters, M.D.R. vii. i. One may note Ermengarde, Burchard II of Lyons, and Anselm Bishop of Aosta, were three of the four councillors advising the grant.
® See Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 135, n. 2, and p. 146.
The Anselmids and Humbertines rise in power 19
Emperor at the dedication of Basel Cathedral on the nth October 10 19 ought to show a rapprochement between the two sovrans. Yet a border-war was going on between the Bishop of Strasburg and Otto- William in io2o\
The little we know of Burgundy in the succeeding years seems to imply a decrease of Rudolf's power, and with it of the resources of the monarchy. To begin with, a new pretender to the succession came on the scene. This was Eudes II, Count of Tours, son of Rudolf's sister Bertha. He succeeded to the county of Troyes in 1021 and probably commenced his agitation in Burgundy about then, bribing many nobles to adhere to him and usurping some of his uncle's authority ^
Then further progress was made in the creation of episcopal Counts. On the 14th September 1023 the King, with Ermengarde's assent, gave her county of Vienne (not that of Sermorens) to Burchard, Arch- bishop of Vienne, and his successors who thus possessed the entire fiscus of the district*. But it seems that the supposed grant of the county of Aosta to Bishop Anselm must be put aside with the spurious charter'* which seemed to show it had taken place. In any case by the
^ See Poupardin, Bourgogne. pp. 135-6, p. 138, n. 3, and Hirsch-Bresslau, Heinrkh II, III. 82 and 85-6.
- That Eudes II had taken this course before Henry II's death in 1024 is implied by Ralph Glaber's words (ill. 9, M.G.H. Script, vii. 64): " quoniam regi Rodulfo, avunculo scilicet eius, non erat proles ulla, quae foret regni heres, prae- sumpsit ipso vivente, vi potius quam amore regni abenas praeripere ; conferens insuper multa donaria, ut ei assensum praeberent, primoribus patriae. Sed nequic- quain....Gens enim precipue regni eiusdem assertionem fidei floccipendit et foedus pro nihilo ducit. Extitit igitur post mortem Henrici imperatoris...Chuonradus." Perhaps the rise of Eudes' party is connected with the conferment of the county of Geneva on Rudolf Ill's great-nephew, Gerald I, c. 1020 (see Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 155 and 267), who was later Eudes' partizan.
^ " Letante dilectissima conjuge mea Irmingarda regina, dono...S. Mauritio Ecclesiae Viennensis patrono et episcopis eidem ecclesiae praetitulatis, atque deinceps in curricula seculorum praeordinandis, Viennensem comitatum cum omnibus ap- pendices suis infra ipsam civitatem Viennensem et extra dictam civitatem, cum castello...Pupet, et quicquid nostro usui, legis censura, per manus ministrorum nostrorum nunc usque solvebat " (quoted in Manteyer, Paix, p. 135, from I. a Bosco, Laevum Xyston, pp. 63-4, and in Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 431, from Hist, de France, xi. 549).
■• See the demonstration that this charter (Besson, Memoires etc., ed. 1870, p. 472, and Schiaparelli, / diplomi ital. di Lodovico III e di Rodolfo II, Fonti per la storia d'ltalia, p. 133) is a fabrication c. 1050, by Sig. Schiaparelli (loc. cit. and Arch. stor. ital. Series V. xxxix. (1907) pp. 334-6). He points out that the charter, which is a pseudo-original, contains undoubtedly the date 923, although its script is that of the eleventh century; and that the supposed name Katelmus, which would point to the date 1023, is written clearly Ratelmus. It also agrees with Rudolf II of Burgundy's itinerary, not with anything known of Rudolf Ill's. Sig. \'2i\.\\xcco {Miscellanea Valdostana, B.S.S.S. xvii. pp. Ivii., Iviii.), M.de Manteyer
20 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
grant of the Viennois the Anselmid house obtained a large, if temporary, increment of power. Their fortune was shared in by the Humbertines; for Anselm's nephew, the Humbertine Burchard, appears about this time (perhaps in 102 1) as Provost of St Maurice and coadjutor Bishop of Aosta\ In the one case Anselm himself, in the other Anselm's half-brother, Burchard II of Lyons, was his superior'.
Bishop Anselm of Aosta died on the i6th January 1026^ His nephew Burchard must then have become sole bishop, and at the same time we find the county in the possession of his connection Count Humbert I Whitehands, the ancestor of the House of Savoy, who thus
{Origines, pp. 388-9, 467-8), and M. Poupardin (Boiirgogne, pp. 43, n. 4, and 322) accept the charter as genuine, and correct the date to J 023. Herr Hellmann, Die Grafen von Savoyen tind das Reich, p. 4, accepts the charter as genuine, and dates it 923, but considers Bishop Ansehn a layman. He points out that the Bishop of Aosta in the twelfth century had an ancient right to a third of the Count's profits in the city, " tertiam partem tallearum exactionum...in ipsa urbe et sub- urbis...ex antiqua consuetudine " (Car. Reg. CCCLXXX. M.H.P. Chart. I. 980). See below, pp. 90-1.
^ Poupardin, Botirgogne, p. 320, n. 2. Burchard the younger was already Provost in 1021 (Car. Reg. LXiii. M.H.P. Chart. II. 114). This charter also makes him Bishop of Aosta. But see below, pp. 49 and 60. A Burcardus episcopus, son of a Count Humbert, appears in a charter of 1022 (Car. Reg. Lii. Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. (97); see below, pp. 47 and ;8). He must be the Bishop of Aosta and already appointed, since no other Bishop Burchard is known of the Humbertine family and translation was barely possible. The theory of a nickname used this once seems most unlikely. See Carutti, Ujnberto I Biancamano, p. 87, n. i, and cf. Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 64, n. i. Then in 1024 Burchard acts as Bishop of Aosta in a charter (Car. Reg. Lvii. Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. (100)) which exchanges some episcopal lands (of the Canons of St Ours) for other lands in the Val d' Aosta with a certain Katelmus. Besides the evidence of Car. Reg. Lii. that Burchard had already attained episcopal rank by 1022, the exactitude of three out of four dates in Car. Reg. LVii. for 1024 (day of week and month, and regnal year, only the Indiction being out) makes one reject Patrucco's {Misc. Valdost., B.S.S.S. XVII. p. Ixxiii.) tempting emendations (changing at least three out of the four dates), which would bring Car. Reg. LVII. down to 1026. The dating formula runs: "die lunis, xiiii. Kal. Nov. regnante Rodulpho rege anno xxxii. Ind. 11. feliciter"; i.e. Monday, 19 Oct. 1024. It is true that Rudolf's father and pre- decessor Conrad only died on the 19th Oct. 993 ; but Rudolf may well have been elected before that event (see above, p. 15, n. 3). The Indiction should be viii. Burchard, Bishop of Aosta and Provost of St Maurice Agaune, appears also with Burchard II of Lyons in a charter of 1026 (Car. Reg. LXii. M.H.P. Chart, i. 449). Cf. for his life Labruzzi, U7t figlio di Umbe/'io Bianca»mno, Arch. st. ital.. Series v. Vol. XVI. and below. Section vi.
- See above, p. 11, n. i.
^ See Obituary of St Ours, Aosta {M.H.P. Script. III. 519), "xvii. Kal. Febr. ob. Anselmus episcopus Augustensis qui nostram construxit ecclesiam." He was at the Council of Anse of 1025, so the evidence here fits together. See above, p. 10, n. 4.
The Peace of God 21
makes his first incontestable appearance in history^ It has been held by M. G. de Manteyer that Count Humbert must have obtained the Val d'Aosta by enfeoffment from the Bishop-Count Anselm, but there is no trace later of any superiority of the Bishops of Aosta over its Counts. On the other hand Count Humbert was certainly suzerain of part of the bishop's lands-, and in the twelfth century the Counts by long tradition took the bishops' revenues sede vacante, the action surely of a feudal superior, not of a tenant in chivalry ^ As we have seen, too, the evidence for Anselm's countship has broken down.
Meantime, while King Rudolf seems to have abandoned any attempt to rule his kingdom and to have contented himself with aiding the rise of those powerful families which were his personal allies, a serious attempt was again made by the bishops to give some respite from the prevailing anarchy by renewing the Peace of God. A synod had been held at Anse in the Viennois to establish it in mid-Burgundy in 994-5, at a moment when Rudolf's own efforts to restore the royal authority were disastrously failing. That was thirty years before, and a new generation now required binding to a modified Peace. Accord- ingly a council was held to take the necessary measures. As with the first Peace established in 994-5, the movement was not a local one, for all south and central France was implicated ; nor was it a step taken by the Kingdom of Burgundy as a whole. But provincial councils made independent, though connected, regulations. The earliest of the
^ The subscriptions of Car. Reg. LVii. (cited p. 20, n. i) run : " Signum domnus Brocardus episcopus, qui banc commutacionem fierit et manu sua firmavit, et ei rebctum est. Signum domnus Umbertus comes qui banc commutacionem firmavit." Count Humbert must intervene as feudal superior of Katelmus and perbaps of Burcbard as well. That this Count Humbert of Aosta is Count Humbert White- hands, ancestor of the Casa Sabauda, is shown specially by Car. Heg. cxx. (Bollati, Misc. star. ital. xvi. 635), where his grandsons, Oddo's and Adelaide's sons, appear as ruling the valley and confirming his grant (see below, p. 52, n. 3); by his Ardoinid daughter-in-law Adelaide's rule of the county (which was never Ardoinid) transmitted to later Savoyards (see below, p. 230, n. i) ; and by St Anselm's (b. c. 1030 at Aosta) statement (Car. ccxxxvii. Migne, CLix. 102) that his father and mother were vassals of Savoy. Humbert's Aostan charters, too, form a series, the one above (Car. Reg. LVii. (1024)), id. Lix. (1026), id. xc. (1032), id. cxx. (1040). The argument was first stated by Terraneo, Dei pritni conti di Savoia e delta loro sig- noria sulla valle d'Aosta, Misc. stor. ital. XVI., and has been, I think, universally accepted.
■■' See below, p. 91, n. i.
^ See below, Section iv. pp. 90-1. The earliest diploma giving up the spolia of the Aostan Bishops is of 1147 (Car. Reg. ccxcv. M.H.P. Chart, i. 794). The letters of St Peter Damian (Car. Reg. CLVii.) and St Anselm (_id. ccxxxvn.), mentioned above, also corroborate this view. For Manteyer's view see Origines, PP- 387-9. Besides the charter of Bishop-Count Anselm, which is a forgery, there is no evidence at all for his conclusion. Cf. below, pp. 90-1.
2 2 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
second series of these assemblies was the Council of Verdun-sur-le- Doubs, which adopted regulations for the borderland of France and Burgundy \ Then in 1025 in the preponderantly Burgundian Second Council of Anse, presided over by the three Archbishops of Lyons, Vienne and Tarentaise, new oaths were exacted from the feudal lords of mid-Burgundy ^ The provisions of the oath which have come down to us from this assembly show the condition of the land better than any account of private wars could do. A great feudal seigneur promises that he will not attack and plunder unprovoked any non-combatants, clergy, merchants, pilgrims, serfs, hunters or noblewomen^: nor will he shelter brigands, especially of the knightly sort^ Even an unarmed knight was to be safe from the beginning of Lent to the octave of Easter^ Of course in his demesne-lands or lands which were held of him, the lord reserved his full rights of tallage and the like, and feudal execution ^ Then, the actual conduct of private war was softened by regulations. The presence with either party of noblewomen, clergy and widows was to be a bar to any fighting in the open country: houses of the non-knightly
^ See Manteyer, Paix, pp. 102-3, Poupardin, Bourgog7ie, pp. 304-5.
- That the Peace of God was reestablished at Anse in 1025 is made highly probable by Manteyer, Paix, pp. 102-9. The only document we have is the oath of some great Viennois feudalist (published, op. cit. pp. 91-8) to keep the Peace (see text and notes below). It must have been taken before 1041, as there is no reference in it to the Truce of God (the later form of the Peace) which was introduced into BurgTindy at Montriond in that year at the latest. It belongs to the time subse- quent to Archbishop Theobald of Vienne's death in looi. And it established a 30 years' prescription against renewing claims of possession which agrees very well with the 30 years' interval between the two Councils of Anse : nor does there appear to have been any other south Burgundian Council at which it could have been taken.
^ The prescriptions of the oath are not in a very logical order. They were evidently put together as various loopholes in the earlier oaths were found out. For the above statements, the most salient passages (Manteyer, 0/. cit.) are: "Clericum aut monachum non portantem arma secularia non asaliam nee aprehendam, neque ambulantes cum eis sine lancea et scuto, nee caballos eorum rapiam (unless it was their fault) " (pp. 91-2), " villanum nee villam {sic) vel servientes aut mercatores non aprehendam nee denarios eorum tollam nee redimere eos faciam nee suum averum tollam ut perdant, etc." (92); " negociatorem vel peregrinum non asaliam nee res earum {sic) tollam nisi illorum culpa fuerit. Venatores nee piscatores nee aucellatores non aprehendam nee occidam nee res eorum tollam " (94). For women see p. 23, n. r.
•* " Latronem publicum et renominatum non consentiam nee eonducam ilium nee eius latroeinium me sciente" (93), " et ei meum beneficium tollam si facere potuero etc." (94).
^ "A capite Jejunii usque clusa Pascha caballarium non portantem arma secularia non asaliam nee substantiam tollam per exforcium quam secum duxerit " (96).
^ " Spolia villanorum non tollam ut perdant in drapis et ferramentis nee bestias eorum tollam nee occidam, nisi in illis terris que mihi pertinent" (94); " Vineas alterius non vindemiabo, neque alterius terram messionabo, nisi in illis terris que sunt de meo alodo " (96).
Humbert Whitehands and the Peace of God 23
classes were not to be destroyed unless a knight at feud with him were within: the land was not to be ravaged unless he had a claim to its possession'. Similar rules are adopted to-day at the Hague.
The vivid matter-of-fact of these regulations, so naively made, transports us back almost with surprise to the days whose picture be- come heroic is to be found in so many a chivalrous epic and romance. Here are the originals of Sir Turquine and Rainaud of Montauban. It requires no effort to discern the distressed damosel or even the knight- errant, for how easy it would be for a worthy knight, making his pilgrimage, as William V of Aquitaine did year after year, to achieve a rescue or to prevent some act of tyranny to the traveller. Complete anarchy seems to reign in this part of the ruined Carolingian Empire, where nothing is more striking than the permanent state of war which existed among the members of the knightly class. It was one of the most beneficial effects of the feudal tie that it placed large numbers of them in fixed relations of mutual alliance and thus conferred a new strength on the holders of the decayed piiblica potestas. And if the foreground of knight and baron which we find in the romances is here translated into reality, so does the background too appear. Round the villages, along the roads, up the mountain-sides stretches the forest, wooded or treeless, haunts of the hunter and the herdsman. Therein the thinly-peopled villages, scarcely less numerous than they are to-day, and their fields and vineyards, are strewn like islands; and to the surrounding waste the villein looked not only for pasturage and fuel, but for protection and concealment. His life was forest-hemmed.
We have a special interest in the particular oath which was taken at Ansa, for it adds further details which seem to point to the seigneur in question being a leading member of the Humbertines, if not White- hands himself. The territorial limits in which his oath was to take effect were the county and the diocese of Vienne, the county and the diocese of Belley, the rest of Bugey, that part of the diocese of Lyons which lay on the left of the Rhone, and the county of Ser- morens". Now this district, as will l)e seen in Section iv. of this
1 " Nobiles feminas non asaliam neque illos qui cum eas {sic) ambulaverint sine maritis suis...et si ego cum nobili femina ambulavero hominem non apprehendam nee occidam etc. Similiter et cum clericis adlendam. Similiter et de viduis adtendam " (95). " Mansiones non incendam nee destruam ex toto nisi inimicum meum cabal- larium aut latronem intus invenero etc....Vineas non truncabo nee saliceta neque arbores fructiferas neque flagellabo neque eradicabo propter werram, nisi in ilia terra que recte mea debet esse, me sciente " (93).
* " Haec omnia suprascripta adtendam in episcopatu \iennensi et comitatu et in episcopatu Belicensi sive comitatu et in episcopatu Lugdunensi sicut Rodanus currit usque ad episcopatum Viennense(m) et Belicense(m) et de Ulevio [Loyettes] usque ad Montem Altreium [Outriaz] et de Monte Altreio et Castellare que vocatur
24 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
chapter, was precisely that where the Humbertine possessions were most thickly scattered, and we do not know of a competing family which would exactly fall within its boundaries ^ While reserving, therefore, the discussion as to the nature and origin of these Hum- bertine domains till later-, we may note at present the great power and wealth of the family and the weakness of Rudolf III. Not even service in the King's host is mentioned as excepted from the Peace, although to enforce the Peace service was definitely allowed under the Bishop ^
Before the Council of Anse met, the Emperor Henry H had died on the 13th July 1024. His successor was a distant kinsman, Conrad H, the Salic, whose election in September begins a new German dynasty. Although the new King of the Romans was not, like his predecessor, Rudolf ni's next of kin, his wife Gisela of Swabia was niece of the Burgundian King through her mother Gerberga ; and it was soon seen that Conrad H intended to use the relationship, as well as the treaties of 1016 and 1018, to the utmost. He had good reason to strive for the control of Burgundy, for the Italian nobles were largely disaffected to the German monarchy and c. 1025 obtained the consent of Duke William V of Aquitaine to the election of the latter's son as King of Italy. Now William V was related both to Otto-William of "Franche Comte" and to Eudes of Troyes, who headed the anti-German party in Burgundy, and he began negotiations, certainly with Eudes and prob- ably with Otto-William, for joint action. In the summer of 1025 the Duke himself journeyed to Italy to ascertain what real support his son might gain there'*.
In these circumstances a complete difference of opinion, as to the import of the treaties of toi6 and 1018, appeared between the German
Dorcas [Dorclies] in ista parte, sicut aqua Saveria [Canal de Savieres] est que Lacurios [Lavours] exit et intrat in Rodanum, et Mcut Munitus [Mont du Chat] est et Ladisia [R. Leisse] usque ad Scaias [les Echelles] et sicut est Kalesius [Chalais] et Mons S. Martini [Mont St Martin] usque ad .S. Vincentium [St Vincent du Platre] usque in Isera, et Isera currit in Rodanum, et comitatu Salmoracensi " (Manteyer, Paix, p. 97). For a discussion of the passage and the tracing of the eastern border from somewhere near Seyssel down by the Lac du Bourget to the Isere between Grenoble and Voiron, see Manteyer, Paix, pp. 1 10-23. This passage rouses a suspicion that the county of Belley may have been larger than the diocese of the same name and thus have more closely corresponded to the later district of Bugey. See below, pp. 77 and 83.
^ Cf. Manteyer, Paix, pp. 124-5, and Poupardin, Boiirgogne, pp. 307-8.
- See below, Section iv. of this chapter.
^ " Teneo excepto per hostem quam episcopus fecerit per istam pacem fractam " (97).
* See for all this Poupardin, Boicrgogne, pp. 136-7, Bresslau, Konrad II, i. 73-9; and cf. below. Cap. 11. Sect. in. pp. 174-5.
Conrad II and Eudes of Troyes 25
and Burgundian Kings. Conrad II held that on Rudolf's death they guaranteed the union of the Kingdom of Burgundy with the Empire in which Germany was the leading state. Just in the same way he claimed to be ruler of the Italian kingdom immediately on his German election. The new title, King of the Romans, instead of King of the East-Franks and the like, although he seldom used it, expressed in fact his and Henry II's view of the indissoluble connection of the Empire and Italy with the German crown, and he now wished (as doubtless Henry II had also done) to establish the same kind of union between the German realm and Burgundy'. Rudolf III, however, considered Henry II merely as his personal heir, duly sanctioned by his nobles; and looked on Conrad II as having no status beyond that of a kinsman-by-marriage. This does not mean of course that he recognized Count Eudes' pre- tensions, but that he viewed the succession as an open question-.
Conrad II soon saw there was need and opportunity for action. On the 1 2th May 1025 Bishop Adalbero of Basel died, and it was impor- tant to secure that strategic town, the northern gate of Burgundy, for the Empire, and to prevent Eudes and Otto-William putting in a supporter of their own as Bishop. Coming from Ziirich, therefore, where he had been receiving some of his Italian partizans, Conrad entered Basel towards the end of June with a large force and reannexed the town. A certain Ulric was appointed Bishop by a frankly simoniacal transac- tion and an assembly was held, partly perhaps in sign of sovranty. But Conrad II did not stop there. Before departing he carefully garrisoned the frontier district of Burgundy in spite of King Rudolf's protests. Thus he had already made his military position better than Henry IPs. As for Rudolf, the death of Otto- William (September 1026) freed him from one potent influence; and his niece Gisela also entered into negotiations with him which resulted in a more friendly attitude on his part^
^ See Bresslau, A'onrad II, I. 82-4, Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 137. The text is Wipo, Vita Chuonradi Imp. {M.G.H. Script, xi. 264), Cap. viii.: "Chuonradus autem rex, magis augere quam minuere regnum intentus, antecessoris sui labores metere volens, Basileam sibi subjugavit, ut animadverteret si rex Ruodolfus promissa attenderet." The "promissa" are the treaties with Henry II. On the other hand there was the claim of kinship, which appears in a rather legendary form in Hugo Flaviniacensis {M.G.H. Script, viii. 364); and is stated by the Burgundian chronicle of Ralph Glaber, iv. 9 (M.G.H. Script, vn.), "post mortem Ileinrici Imp. qui fuit nepos regis Rodulfi, Chuonradus. ..habens in conjugio neptam prefali Rodulti ; ob hoc maxime valenter resistens contradicebat Odoni." Cf. iii. v. i. Henry III has Kingdom of Burgundy "quod illi a progenitoribus competebat."
"^ Wipo, Vita Chuonradi Imp. vni.: "defuncto Imp. Heinrico Ruodolfus rex promissa sua irrita fieri voluit."
3 See Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 138-9, Bresslau, A'otirad II, i. 84-5. The authority is chiefly Wipo, Vita Chuonraiii Imp. viii. {M.G.H. Script, xi.).
26 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
Nor was Conrad less successful in Italy. William V returned disillusioned from his journey and declined to engage his son further in the business. In 1026 Conrad II, entering the country, received the iron crown and enforced submission. About December he had marched to Ivrea and stormed that city^ It was while he celebrated Christmas there that ambassadors arrived to greet him from Rudolf III. They brought only a promise on the latter's behalf to attend Conrad's imperial coronation at Rome, but it betokened the Burgundian King's change of purpose-. The capture of Ivrea must have been an object-lesson to him ; and still more perhaps to the Count of Aosta, Humbert White- hands, who saw the value of the Great St Bernard route increasing, and would realize, then at least, if not before, how much better it was to be a well-rewarded and trusted ally than a vanquished enemy. The Alpine passes were then as later the means by which the House of Savoy rose to greatness ^
The legends of the later Chroniques narrate that Humbert was present at an imperial coronation and there received the county of Maurienne''. The latter statement has nothing to say for itself, but we may well believe that the Count accompanied King Rudolf to Rome for the Emperor Conrad's coronation at Easter, 26 March 1027^ At any rate his southern neighbour, Guigues III the Old, lord of Graisivaudan and Albon, ancestor of the later Dauphins, and Guigues' brother. Bishop Humbert of Valence, were at Rome for the ceremony* ; and King Canute, who took advantage of his meeting with the Emperor and King Rudolf to obtain promises for the free and safe passage of the Alps by English and Danish pilgrims and merchants, expressly mentions in his account the assent of several principes to his de- mands. The most important of the lesser rulers would be Humbert Whitehands, Count of Aosta, which commanded the two St Bernards, and perhaps already Count of Maurienne and therewith master of the approach to the Mont Cenis'. In any case, if the tolls over those
^ For these Italian events see Bresslau, Konrad II, i. 106-9, ^'^^~^i- The Ardoinids' share in them is told below, Cap. il. Sect. III. pp. 171-8.
2 See Bresslau, Konrad II, i. 135-6 and 201-2. Presumably about this time Rudolf forced Duke Ernest of Swabia, his great-nephew and Conrad's step-son, who was in revolt against Conrad and had seized a strong position near Soleure as a base of operations, to leave Burgundy.
■* Cf. Hellmann, Die Grafen von Savoyen u. das Reich, pp. 14-15.
^ Anciennes Chroniques de Savoie, M.H.P. Script. I. 81.
° Cf. Bresslau, op. cit. i. 139-48, and the account in Wipo, Vit. Chiion. Imp. xvi. Gisela was crowned Empress on the same day.
^ See Manteyer, Paix, pp. 144-5, from Bull of Pope John XIX, 28 March 1026 {Cartulaire de Chiny, No. 2798, Jaffe, Reg. No. 3101); cf. Bresslau, op. cit. i.
^ William of Malmesbury, Gesta Rcgum (Rolls Series), I. 222, " locutus sum igitur cum ipso imperatore et domino papa et principibus qui ibi erant de necessitatibus
The Alpine tolls. Treaty with Conrad II 27
passes were reduced, he must have been charged with the reduction on the Great St Bernard'.
He may have already been Count of Aosta when c. 1020 a struggle had taken place for the way over the latter pass. About that year a body of Normans with their wives and children came to the defiles on their way to join their new-settled kinsmen in Apulia. These hardy adventurers refused to pay the tolls demanded, rushed the barrier, slew the guards, and proceeded on their journey^. It must have been an object-lesson to Humbert Whitehands, to see his kinsmen's officers — for the abbey of St Maurice, then under the Anselmids, owned the valley of Entremont, leading up to the Great St Bernard — routed and killed. He would doubtless perceive that a gentler use of their rights would be more successful.
Soon both Emperor and King Rudolf had returned to their northern homes. Conrad was busy in suppressing Swabian rebels^ and in the course of his operations was led to Zurich about mid-August 1027. Thence he proceeded to Muttenz, just south of Basel, where he met Rudolf HI, and the two monarchs entered Basel itself together. The Empress Gisela was again the mediatress : and the result of their conferences was the formal renewal of the treaties of 1016-18, this time in favour of Conrad H. His son and heir-designate, the later Henry HI, was explicitly included ; thus the danger of the treaty lapsing in case the Emperor should predecease Rudolf was avoided and the hereditary descent of the crown was confirmed. With the usual bribes Rudolf HI then left for his kingdom'*.
totius populi mei, tarn Angli quam Dani, ut eis concederetur lex aequior et pax securior in via Romam adeundi et ne tot clausuris per viam arctentur et propter injustum tiieloneum fatigentur. Annuitque postulatis imperator et Rodulfusirex qui maxime ipsarum clausurarum dominatur cunctique principes edictum firmarunt, ut homines mei, tam mercatores quam alii orandi gratia viatores absque omni angaria
clausurarum et theloneorum cum firma pace Romam eant et redeant Cuncta enim
quae a domino papa et ab imperatore et a rege Rodulfo ceterisque principibus per quorum terras nobis transitus est ad Romam, pro meae gentis ulilitate postulabam, libenter annuerunt et concessa etiam sacramento firmaverunt." The clausiirae are the tolls at the defiles at the mouth of a pass, e.g. at Bard in Val d'Aosta and at S. Michele della Chiiisa in the Valle di Susa.
^ For the special importance of the Mont Cenis and the Great St Bernard in the Middle Ages, cf. Coolidge, Alps in Nature and History, pp. 164-9.
2 See Radulph Glaber, III. i (M.G.H. Script, vii. 63) : " Egredientes (Normanni) satis audacter, venerunt ad loca Alpium, qui et mons Jovis dicitur, ubi etiam in angustissimis semitis praepotentes regionis illius constituerant, imperante cupiditate, seras et custodes ad pretia transmeantium exigenda. At illi cum denegassent eis transitum, requisite primitus ex more pretio, indignatus Normannorum exercitus, confractis seris caesisque custodibus, per vim transitum fecerunt."
* That is Duke Ernest of Swabia and his adherents. See above, p. 26, n. 2.
■• See Poupardin, Boiirgogne, p^. 141-3, Bresslau, A77«ra<///, I. 221-2. Authority
28 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
The old King's position does not seem to have become any happier in his last years. Eudes of Champagne, and Rainald I, son and suc- cessor in " Tranche Comte " of Otto-William, were openly preparing to contest the claims of Conrad II' : he also lost two of his wonted sup- ports; for his brother Burchard II of Lyons died on the 22nd June 1030 or 1031^, and the latter's half-brother, the Anselmid Burchard of Vienne, on the 20th August 1031^ Burchard of Vienne's place was suppUed by Leger, who was clearly on good terms with the King and Queen''; but Lyons was seized on by the Humbertine Bishop Burchard of Aosta'. The latter perhaps was favoured by Rudolf and his rela- tives, but his bad character made him a most unsatisfactory substitute for Burchard II. Then his translation from one see and province to
Wipo, Vita Chuon. Imp. xxi., " Confirmata inter eos pace, Gisela imperatrice haec omnia mediante, regnoque Burgundiae imperatori tradito eodem paclo quemadmodum prius antecessori suo Heinrico imperatori datum fuerat, rex iterum donis ampliatus, cum suis reversus est in Burgundiam," and id. xxix., "regnum Burgundiae Chuonrado imp. et filio eius Heinrico regi a Ruodolfo rege, postquam ipse superstes non esset, per jusjurandum jamdudum confirmatum esset." For tiie hereditary character of Henry Hi's nomination see p. 25, n. x, above.
^ See above, p. 19.
2 Manteyer, Origines, pp. 470-3, and Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 156, n. i.
^ Manteyer, Origines, pp. 465-6, and Paix, p. 132.
* See Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 53. Leger appears as a royal councillor in Car. Reg. Lxxxiii. (Guichenon, Preuves, p. 4), Lxxxiv. (Cartulaire de Savigny, ed. Bernard, I. 318) and in several charters of Ermengarde after Rudolf's death, Car. Reg. XCII. (Chevalier, Carttil. St Andr^-le-bas, p. 172), XCIII. (id. p. 185), CVI. (Carutti, Umberto I Biaiicamano , p. 193), CXLIX. [Cartul. de Grenoble, ed. Marion, p. 99).
* I follow Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 55-8, and Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 156-7. Cf. Labruzzi, Un figlio di Umberto Biancamano, Arch. stor. ital., S. V. Vol. xvi. The text is: Ralph Glaber, v. <:^{M.G.H. Script, vii. 70): " Fuit igitur in suprataxatis diebus dissensio permaxima post mortem Burcardi archipraesulis Lugdunensis de praesulatu ipsius sedis, quam plures non justis appetebant meritis, sed instinctu superbae elationis. Primus omnium praedicti Burcardi nepos, eiusdem aequivocus, supramodum super- bissimus, relicta sede propria Augustanae civitatis, procaciter Lugdunensem arripuit. (Qui post multas perpetratas nequicias captus a militibus imperatoris, perpetuo est condemnatus exilio.) Post ipsum vero quidam comes Geraidus {al. Girardus) suum filium puerulum quendam arroganter ibidem sola praesumtione auctore substituit, et ipse post modicum, non ut pastor ovium, sed veluti mercennarius, in fugam versus delituit. " Then follows the Pope's election of Odilo and the latter's refusal. Bresslau {lac. cit.) pointed out that the capture of Burchard HI by the Emperor must be told in parenthesis, as it occurred in 1036 and the refusal of Odilo had taken place by 1033, i'^ which year Pope John XIX died. A Bull of the latter reproving the Abbot for his refusal exists (Migne, CXLI. 1150, Jaffe, 4095). Herimann. Augiensis, too, gives a bad character of Burchard HI {M.G.H. Script, v. 121), 1034, " Lugdunensem archiepiscopum Burghardum, hominem genere nobilem et strennuum, sed per omnia scelestum et sacrilegum," and 1036, " Burghardus Lugdunensis archiepiscopus, immo tyrannus et sacrilegus, aecclesiarum depraedator, adulterque incestuosus." Without defending Burchard, one may possibly attribute the last phrase to his being married.
Humbertine Bishops 29
others would give offence and loosen his hold on his clergy. A dispute for the see began at once ; a Count Gerald intruded a boy-son of his for a while, but was, it seems, driven out by Burchard III. The Pope John XIX was induced to intervene, and nominated a leader of the Church, Abbot Odilo of Cluny ; but the great Abbot refused the spe- cious honour, and Burchard III was left in possession.
Burchard III does not seem to have been succeeded by a Humber- tine in Aosta^ but about this time two other members of the family obtained bishoprics. One was Aymon, son of Amadeus, who appears in 1032 as Bishop of Belley and continues in office till c. 1055 -. The other was a second Aymon, Bishop of Sion, son of Humbert White- hands, who first appears as Bishop in 1037 and died in July 105 4 1 His appointment however is likely to be later than 1034''.
The last important acts of Rudolf III testify to the alliance of his Queen with the Humbertines. He had already given the villa of Talloires and its churches on the Lake of Annecy to the abbey of Savigny''. Now in 103 1-2 a fresh gift was made by the Queen to the
^ A certain Guigo or Gigo appears perhaps in 1034. See Savio, Gli antichi vescovi, p. 89.
■■' See Cartulaire de Cluny, iv. 78 and 79 (1032), Car. Keg. cxiii. {Cartulaire de Rommts, ed. Giraud, Preuves, i. 68-9) (1037), Car. Reg. CXLi. (Guigue, Petit Cartulaire de St Sulpice en Bugey, p. 26) (? 1055). The latter, combined with Car. Reg. cxxxviii. (Guigue, op. cit. p. 26), shows his father to have been Amadeus, Count of Belley ; concerning whom see below, Section ill.
^ He appears as Bishop, Car. Reg. cxiii. (Cartulaire de Rovians, ed. Giraud, Preuves, I. 68-9) (1037), Car. Reg. cxx. (Misc. di Storia ital. xvi. 635) (1040), Car. Reg. cxxiii. (Marion, Cartulaire de Grenoble, p. 31) (1042), Car. Reg. cxxvii. (Dunod, Histoire de PEglise de Besatifon, Vol. i. Preuves, p. xlix.) (1044), Gremaud, M.D.R. xviii. 338 (1043), Car. Reg. cxxxi. {M.H.P. Chart. 11. 142) (1046), Car. Reg. cxxxv. (Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Andre-le-bas, p. 156), Car. Reg. CXLII. {M.H.P. Chart. 11. 148) (1050), Car. Reg. CXLV. (Gremaud, M.D.R. xviii. 340) (1052), Gremaud, M.D.R. xviil. 346 (?), Car. Reg. CXLVI. (Mabillon, Annalcs Ord. S. Benedicti, iv. App. p. 742) (1053), Car. Reg. CXLVII. (Gremaud, M.D.R. xvni. 338) (1054), and Car. Reg. cxLVin. (Gremaud, Necrol. Sedun, M.D.R. xviii. 276). He was buried 13 July 1054. He appears too as Provost of St Maurice in 1046 (Car. Reg. cxxxi. M.H.P. Chart. 11. 142), Abbot in 1050 (Car. Reg. CXLII. M.H.P. Chart, n. 148). The mention of him as Abbot in 1037 is due to a mistake in Gallia Christiana (Car. Reg. CXIII.), where the real text is, " Sedunensis episcopus atque Octodurensis " (Giraud, Cartulaire de Romans, ed. I. I'reuves, I. 68-74), which must mean merely all the Vallais (Emmo of Tarentaise calls himself "Centronorum et Darantasiensium " just before). The see had been shifted once or twice (see Gams, p. 312).
* Else Count Humbert would hardly have needed to go round by Italy to reach Zurich in that year; see below, pp. 32-3. Bui Eudes' conquest of the Vallais and Aosta (below, p. 30, n. 4) may sufficiently account for the detour.
•' Car. Reg. XLix. {Cartulaire de Savigny, ed. Bernard, I. 317), " petitiones Irmengardis reginae, ...Burchardi archiepiscopi Lugdunensis fratris nostri et Burchardi Viennensis archiepiscopi." Iterius was Abbot.
30 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
new abbey of Talloires (subject to Savigny) by the counsel of four Bishops, with whom only one layman is named, viz. Count Humbert, who can scarcely be other than Whitehands in view of his later connec- tion with the Queen \
Rudolf III did not long survive the foundation of Talloires. On the 6th September 1032 he died and was buried at Lausanne^ His death gave the signal for war. The Emperor Conrad H was away warring in Poland, and, though the dying King had sent him his crown and insignia^, could take no immediate steps to enter his destined king- dom. This gave his chance to Count Eudes. He at once entered Burgundy, claiming the succession or perhaps only the royal domains at first. In any case he took possession of the latter by force or negotia- tion as far as the Great St Bernard, fortifying especially Neuchatel and Morat. He could hardly have got so far without the alliance of Count Rainald I of " Franche Comte." Other supporters were Gerard, Count of the Genevois, and the truculent Humbertine Burchard III of Lyons. But here his easy success stopped. Leger of Vienne showed no zeal for him : and it seems likely that Queen Ermengarde withdrew to her dower-lands in Sermorens and Savoy, there to plan with Count Humbert Whitehands, probably already her advocate, measures in favour of Conrad's succession'*.
^ Car. Reg. Lxxxiv. (Bernard, Cajiiiljit-e de Savigny, I. 318). Archbishops Leger and Emmo of Tarentaise were two of the prelates.
- Poupardin, Botirgogne, p. 144.
^ See Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 148-9, Konrad II, II. 9-10.
* For Eudes' measures see Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 13-15, Vow^'s.x^m, Bourgogne, pp. 15 1-8. With regard to his adherents, he could hardly have made the intra-Jurane land his centre of operations without Rainald's support as mentioned in the text. Gerard and Burchard III submitted to Conrad II in 1034. In view of Burchard Ill's (who was Provost of St Maurice) adhesion, we may accept Hugh of Flavigny's statement (sub anno 1037, M.G.H. Script. Vlil. 401), " optinuitque (Odo) civitates et castella usque ad Jurum et Montem Jovis." Wipo (xxix. M.G.H. Script. XI. 269) merely says, "magnam partem Burgundiae distraxit." Does Baldric (1050- [ 130), Cannina Historica (quoted M.D.R. XXIX. 60, and Bresslau, Konrad II, II. no, n. 4, cf. Molinier, Sources, il. 207-8), refer to Eudes' conquests in 1032 in his reference to him ?
" Addidit Octodurum (Martigny in the Vallais) sibi scilicet unus eorum (Odonuni), Augustamque suis viribus (text has juribus) obtinuit. Isque Theoh)aldum generavit pacis alumnum, Quo, Philippe, venis principe progenitus." According to this Eudes would conquer Aosta for the time from Humbert. But the latter had recovered it by 1034 (see below, p. 33, n. i, and p. 35, n. i). As to the opposition, Ermengarde and Humbert joined Conrad II at Zurich early in 1033 (see below). We find the Queen making two small grants by Leger's advice about this time (Car. Reg. xcil., xciii. Chevalier, Carlul. St Andri-k-bas, pp. 172, 185) which agrees with the latter's reluctance to recognize Eudes (see below). Humbert only
Whitehands leads the pro-German party 31
It may seem too purely speculative to discuss the possible motives of Humbert Whitehands in joining or rather heading the Imperial party; knowledge of his private feuds and circumstances is wanting to us. Still there are some general considerations which cast a little light upon them. To begin with, Eudes after all was not a Burgundian. This consideration does not carry much weight at the period and I should not mention it had not the Burgundian grandees raised the national question to Rudolf III in 1016^; still it was there. Far more important was Conrad's subjugation of Ivrea in 1026. That and the firm establishment of the Germanic Empire in Piedmont must have appealed to the Count of Aosta (and perhaps of Maurienne too) no less than to Rudolf III. Conrad, unlike Henry II, held Burgundy in a vice. And at this point I think we may credit Humbert with rather wider views. He can hardly have been blind to the unique position his house was gaining on the Alpine chain. Along the counties he con- trolled ran the main routes of war and religion and trade from France, from England and the Rhineland towards Rome, the centre of the world. For the due exploitation of his position friendly relations with the master of North Italy and a secure state of things there were essential. There were many ways to the Alpine defiles from the north — Eudes' hostility would mean little ; but few led from them south over the unbroken Lombard plain. With this would be linked the profit of the Imperial alliance. The Great St Bernard was a most important strategic point for the Emperors to control. By it they could take Lombardy between two fires in lieu of merely attacking by the North- East and the Brenner. A faithful ally might expect to be cherished and to receive a series of rewards. If Humbert was not already Count of Maurienne, it is possible as we shall see that the accjuisition of that valley and of the approach to the Mont Cenis was a firstfruits of his alliance with Conrad II. The Emperor would then be already concen- trating the control of the passes in trusty hands ; and in any case we shall find that the aggrandisement of, and a strict alliance with, the Humbertines was a cardinal point of the Emperor Henry Ill's Alpine policy ^
To return to Eudes. Though the intra-Jurane districts of Romance tongue joined him, he does not seem to have gained any success in the German-speaking north-east corner of Burgundy^; and we next find
actually ajipears as Ermengarde's advocate in c. 1039 (Car. J\eg. xci. Carttil. de Cluny, IV. 95, cf. Manteyer, Origines, pp. 397-8).
' See above p. 18, n. i.
* See below, Cap. II. Sect. iv. pp. 216-17, 221-2.
•' I gather this from Conrad's election at Payerne, where none of his southern supporters could come. German Burgundy lay between Fribourg and the river Reuss.
32 Humbert Whitehands in Burgunclian politics
him working down the Rhone. Here he besieged Archbishop Leger in Vienne. The latter was compelled to make a treaty, by which within some unmentioned term Eudes should be elected and crowned King in the city\ It is something of a puzzle why Eudes was not yet elected and crowned. He himself seems to have spoken at first equivocally of his ambitions. Then Conrad had of course the crown and insignia. Perhaps the real reason was that the magnates would only elect a King with overwhelming force to back him^
Meantime Conrad H, set free from his Polish entanglement, made all the speed he might to prosecute his claims. Christmas he kept with his son Henry III at Strasburg. In January 1033 he marched with his army in spite of the exceptionally severe winter into Burgundy via Soleure. The time chosen for his campaign was very novel, but Eudes had to be checked and his election forestalled. On the 2nd February 1033 Conrad held an assembly at the abbey of Payerne. We may suppose the German-speaking Burgundian nobility attended. There the Emperor was formally elected and crowned King of Burgundy. This did not mean much, but it gave him the start of Eudes. Burgun- dian customs on the accession of their Kings were at least observed in name. He could now claim allegiance legally^.
The next movement of the new-crowned Emperor-King was to attempt the expulsion of his rival from the intra-Jurane lands, that is from the chief remnant of the royal domains. Herein, however, Conrad II had little success. We are told of no castle he took : we know that his army suffered terribly from the extraordinarily bitter season at the vain siege of Morat. The Emperor found himself com- pelled to beat a retreat to Ziirich, presumably towards the end of March ^
At Ziirich he met his partizans from southern Burgundy headed by Queen Ermengarde and Count Humbert. They had been unable to reach him by the direct route, another sign that Eudes held the Vallais
^ See Bresslau, Kotirad II, 11. 16-17, and Poupardin, Bourgogne,-p-p. 158-9, both based on Hugh of Flavigny, Chron. Virdunense, s. a. 1037 {AI.G.H. Script, viii. 401).
* See Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 153-9.
^ See Bresslau, A owrarf //, II. 69-70, Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 159-60. Wipo's {M.G.H. Script, xi. p. 270, Cap. xxx.) account runs: " Et veniens ad Paterniacum monasterium, in purificatione S. Mariae a maioribus et minoribus regni ad regendam Burgundiam electus est; et in ipsa die...coronatus est." It is clear, from subsequent events, that only the seigneurs between Neuchatel and the Gern:ian frontier could have attended.
* Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 71, Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 161; the authorities are: Wipo, Cap. XXX., Ann. Sangallenses, 1033 [AI.G.H. Script, i. 83), Herimann. Augiensis, 1033 {M.G.H. Script, v. 121).
The war of succession t,^
and all Vaud as well as Geneva. But they crossed into Italy either by the Little St Bernard or the Mont Cenis, and came up to Zurich by one of the easterly passes. There they took the oath of fealty both to Conrad II and his son, and loaded with bribes returned by the way they earned Thus Humbert remained firm in his pro-German policy.
Conrad, however, appears to have been discouraged by the poor result of his campaign, and resolved to try new measures. By the 22nd April 1033 he was at Nijmegen on the Lower Rhine. There a treaty of alliance was negotiated with Henry I of France, which was completed at the end of May in a personal interview at Deville on the Meuse. Both monarchs had Eudes for an enemy, for he had supported the claims of Henry I's younger brother to the French crown. So we may assume Conrad II was now given a free hand by his ally to invade Eudes' French fiefs. At the same time he now knew his Burgundian plans would be morally supported by Henry I-.
But Conrad's chief difficulties arose from the vastness of the Empire. Called off to his eastern frontier again, he left the field clear for a ravaging incursion of Eudes into Upper Lorraine^. Then Conrad retaliated by a similar, but severer, invasion of Champagne about the end of August. Eudes was reduced to such straits that he submitted and promised to surrender his claims in Burgundy. Hostages were given by him, and the over-busied Emperor was forced anew to depart to his Slavonic border \ But Eudes did not keep his word. He held to the land he had seized in Burgundy ; and recommenced his ravages in Lorraine. Conrad II saw a great effort would have to be made to
1 See Wipo, op. cit. Cap. xxx. {M.G-H. Script, xi. 270): " Imperator reversus ad Turicum castrum pervenit ; ibi plures Burgundionum, regina Burgundiae iam vidua et comes Hupertus et alii qui propter insidias Odonis in Burgundia ad imp. venire nequiverant, per Italiam pergentes, occurrebant sibi, et, eftecti sui, fide pro- missa per sacramentum sibi et filio suo Heinrico regi, mirifice donati redierunt." Cf. Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 71 --2, Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 161-2; I think M. Poupardin goes too far in saying they were compelled to leave the Viennois by Eudes' capture of Vienne. We do not know that they were there. The Queen's and Humbert's lands lay largely further east. Nor do we know that Eudes held Tarentaise or Aosta now, even if he conquered the latter for a time (see p. 30, n. 4); one of which things would be necessary to close the Little St Bernard. Wipe's words seem to imply a quick return of the Burgundians to Burgundy from Zurich. Humbert appears to control Aosta in 1034 (see below, p. 35) : and in fact they would hardly be so bribed by Conrad if he had to restore them. The identity of Count Hupertus with Humbert W^hitehands is shown by his connection with Ennengarde and the Alpine passes (see above, p. 21, n. i, and below, pp. 58, 61-2); the variation of the form of the name presents no difficulty (see below, p. 53 (docs), and p. 1 16).
"^ See Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 74-6, Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 162-3.
^ This is evidence for the view that Eudes could make no further progress in Burgundy. Else why did he not get himself elected king in the breathing-space ?
* See Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 86-9, Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 163-5.
P. o. 3
34 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
conquer Burgundy, if he meant to have it. During his Easter (14 April 1034) court at Ratisbon he laid his plans'. While he himself with his Germans again assaulted the intra-Jurane territory, an Italian army was to attack Burgundy from the south under Aribert, Archbishop of Milan, and Boniface, Marquess of Tuscany. Thus the enemies' position would be turned.
In June Conrad II started from Basel. He marched through the county of Vaud, capturing Neuchatel and the other castles in his way, save Morat, which perhaps he masked with a detachment. Completely successful, he reached Geneva I The ease of his progress was no doubt largely due to the fact that the enemy were taken in the rear. The Lombard forces under Archbishop Aribert and Marquess Boniface of Tuscany had started earlier it seems than the Germans, about the beginning of May'^; and they reached Geneva before the Emperor ^
^ Bresslau, Konrad II, il. 102-5, Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 165-6.
- Wipo, Cap. XXXII. [M.G.H. Script, xi. 270), onlysays for this march : "Chuon- radus, expeditis Teutonicis et Italis, Burgundiam acute adiit. Teutones ex una parte, ex altera archiepiscopus Mediolanensis Heribertus et caeteri Italici ductu Huperti comite de Burgundia usque ad Rhodanum flumen convenerunt. " Arnulf of Milan says (Gesia Archiepiscoporum Mediolan. II. 8, M. G.H. Script. VIII. 14), " Ipse vero ex contigua sibi parte obstrusos irrumpens aditus municipia quaeque praeoccupat." Ann. Sangall. majores, sub 1034 {M.G.H. Script, i. 83), have: "Chuonradus imperator iterum Burgundiam cum exercitu intravit, et omnia municipia cum civil)us usque ad Rhodanum tiunien suae ditioni subegit Genevamque pervenit." Herimannus Augiensis, 1034 {M.G.H. Script, v. 121), "Imperator iterum Burgundiam cum magnis petens copiis, omnia cis Rodanum castella subjecit, Murtenam diruit, Genevensem urbem intravit." It will be noticed that Herim. Aug. places the capture of Morat before Conrad's entry in Geneva (therein perhaps supported by the "omnia municipia" of An7i. Sangall. maj.), but Wipo's evidence, supported as it is (see below, p. 36, n. i), is conclusive. The suggestion of Carutti ( Uinberto Biancamano, pp. 37 and 105) that the variant, with little, if any, MS. authority, in Herim. Aug.'s text, " Muriennam," is to be accepted, and a campaign in Maurienne deduced therefrom, lacks all probability in view of the order of events and the known course of the campaign : nor can the complaint of Bishop Theobald of St Jean de Maurienne in a charter of 1040 (Doc. Acad. Savoie, Charles de Maurienne, 11. 13), which grants some episcopal lands to the canons, " eo quod locus unde videor esse episcopus destructum mihi videtur," be evidence for it. See Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 160, who says the passage refers to the cathedral only. The state of anarchy of much of Burgundy is too well known: the supposed union of the rebellious diocese of Maurienne to that of Turin (see Savio, Gh antichi vescovi, pp. 230, 233, Manteyer, Origines, pp. 400-6) is based on a forged diploma of Conrad II (Car. Reg. civ.) ; see Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 475-6, and M.G.H. Dipl. IV. p. 411. See below, p. 97, n. 5.
^ See Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 109, n. i, and Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 166. Marquess Boniface made an appointment for 25 April at Masino (Maximum), south of Ivrea (Muratori, Ant. I. 589).
■* Ann. Sangall. maj. 1034 {M.G H. Script. I. 83), " Ibi (Geneva) vero ab Heriberto Mediol. archiepiscopo caeterisque Italiae et Burgundiae principibus honorifice susceptus (Chuonradus)." This statement is not contradicted by any other source and is made probable by the earlier start of the Italians.
Conrad II conquers Burgundy 35
Under the guidance of Humbert Whitehands they had passed the frontier by the defile at Bard into the Val d'Aosta, and crossed the Great St Bernard, apparently without fighting^ Thence they marched down to the Rhone valley and proceeded to Geneva. One would think from the absence of any mention of the Lake of Geneva, that they must have struck west from St Maurice, and crossed the eastern portion of the pagus Genevefisis held by Eudes' partizan Gerold". Eudes himself, as the two armies closed in on him, seems to have left his supporters to shift for themselves^; and when the Emperor entered Geneva, he found them ready to submit. Burchard III of Lyons and Gerold of the Genevois were the principal nobles who surrendered, a fact which shows how restricted Eudes' real sphere of power had been*. On the ist August 1034 Conrad solemnly wore his Burgundian crown and was acclaimed king by the Burgundian magnates. The election of Payerne was thus ratified by a more representative assembly^
Morat, however, still held out. Conrad marched back there in full force, and took the town by storm, in which Boniface of Tuscany
^ See Wipo, passage quoted p. 34, n. 2 ; Arnulf of Milan, Gesta Archiepiscoporum Mediolan. 11. 8 (M.G.ff. Script, viii. 14), "E vicino...Italiae cum optimatibus ceteris electi duces incedunt scilicet praesul Heribertus et...marchio Bonifatius, duo lumina regni, explorantes accessus illos, quos reddunt meabiles praecisa saxa inex- pugnabilis opidi Bardi. Per hos ducentes Longobardorum exercitum, Jovii montis ardua juga transcendunt ; sicque vehementi irruptione terrain ingredientes, ad Caesarem usque perveniunt. Cumque nequirent Burgundiones resistere, dedicionem accelerant, perpetua subjectionis condictione Chuonrado substrati. Et factum est ut in magna gloria reverterentur omnes ad propria." This seems to imply that Bard was held in their favour and that there was no fighting till they crossed the St Bernard, which is natural if Humbert led them through his own county into the hostile territory of St Maurice (cf. p. 30, n. 4). Even there ravaging seems to be implied more than a battle. Cf. Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 1 10, Poupardin, Bourgogne, pp. 166-7.
2 i.e. over the Pas de Morgins and either down the Drance to Thonon, or to the Arve at Cluses. Humbert's presence would make the country easier to march through. That the armies met at Geneva is stated by Ann. Sanga/l. ma;, (see p. 34, n. 4) and seems to be implied by Wipo (see p. 34, n. 2), unless we are to suppose that Conrad marched via Chillon and joined the Italians near there.
•* F"or his presence in the campaign, see Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. in.
•* Wipo, Cap. xxxn., " Augustus veniens ad Genevensem civitatem Geroldum principem regionis illius et archiepiscopum Lugdunensem et alios quam plures subegit." Herimannus Augiensis, 1034 [AI.G.H. Script, v. 121), "Lugdunensem archiepiscopum Burghardum (see p. 28, n. 5) — cum multis aliis principibus in dedicionem accepit." Arnulf. Mediol. n. 8, see above, n. i. If the above suggested route of the Italians is correct, Burchard III of St Maurice and Gerold of the Genevois would be the chief sufferers from their invasion.
' Ann. Sangall. maj. 1034 {M.G.H. Script. I. 83), "in festivitate S. Petri ad Vincula coronatus producitur, et in regnum Burgundionum rex eiigitur." Cf. Arnulf of Milan, above, n. 1. The phrasing of Ann. Sangall. maj. seems otilcially exact. It would have been absurd to let the sectional assembly at Payerne lack real confirmation. See Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 111-12, Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 168.
3—2
36 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
distinguished himself. The remnant of Eudes' partizans now fled the realm, and were deprived of their lands by the conqueror. On his side the cautious Emperor left nothing to chance ; he took hostages of the Burgundian magnates and made distributions of benefices to his fideles. Then he started for Germany \ Eudes' pretensions in Burgundy were over and there is no need to tell of his defeat and death in 1037.
One would like to know who were the beneficiaries and where were the benefices, with regard to whom and which Conrad took action. Most no doubt would be in the intra-Jurane pagi ; but it is possible that the marked Franco-Swabian settlement south of the Lake of Geneva was one result of Conrad's victory^, and we may note that two neighbouring dynasts, who were both early supporters of the Emperor, were making an advance in power, a step or so in which may well have happened now. Guigues III the Old, of Graisivaudan and Albon, ancestor of the Dauphins, appears for the first time authentically as Count in a charter of the 20th August 1034 just after the assembly at Geneva. Have we not here an imperial enfeoffment^.? As to what
^ Wipo, Cap. XXXII. {M.G.H. Script, xi. 270), " et reversus castnim Murat cum fortissimis militibus Odonis munitum obsidens vi cepit et quos intus invenerat, captivos duxit. Caeteri fautores Odonis hoc audientes solo timore Caesaris fugi- erunt; quos persecutus Caesar omnino exterminavit de regno et acceptis de principibus Burgundiae multis obsidibus, rediit etc." Herimannus Augiensis, 1034 (see p. 34, n. 2), doubtless by mistake, places the capture of Moral in the first part of the campaign, but his later evidence cannot weigh against the precise statement of Wipo. A legendary account of Boniface's exploits at Muroaltum (" High-wall"), followed by atrocities committed by him as he returned (probably in the Vallais), is given by Donizo, Vita Mathildis {M.G.H. Script, xii. 369).
- See Grober, Grundriss der ronianischen Philologie, I. 546.
^ See Manteyer, Paix, pp. 143-6. M. de Manteyer considers this promotion the result of the enfeoffment to Guigues the Old, by Archbishop Leger, of half the latter's county of Vienne (see above, p. 19, and n. 3), the other half being given to Humbert Whitehands. Thus the Bishop would create a Count by enfeoffing his comitatus to his advocate. Certainly the Dauphins did homage to the Archbishops of Vienne (see below, pp. 82-3) later, but the Savoyards (by the theory in a similar position) only did so for the late (thirteenth century) acquisition of Septeme, not for their other Viennois possessions (see below, p. 81, n. 5). Would there be anything to prevent the Emperor granting a comital districtiis to Guigues if he did not interfere with the Archbishop's fiscal claims and demesne ? Perhaps there was a joint an-angement. Manteyer (p. 143) points out that in Emperor Conrad H's diploma to the Archbishop of Vienne, 31 March 1038 (Chevalier, Cartul. St Andrtl-le-bas, App., 51*, p. 260), the county is not expressly mentioned. This may show the Archbishop had lost the county; but if he had merely enfeoffed it, it would surely appear in the diploma — he would hold it of the Emperor, the vassal Counts of him. c. 1037 there are traces of a considerable hostility to Conrad H in the entourage of Leger at Vienne (see Man- teyer, Paix, pp. 173-85). However, the diploma is studiously general in its terms, mentioning not even the right to strike money for the province of Vienne. It only says, " omnes res et possessiones scilicet mobiles et immobiles ac utriusque sexus
Humbert Whitehands' reward 37
Count Humbert Whitehands may have received we are reduced still more to conjecture. Does the Savoyard right to invest the Bishop of Sion with the regalia of Vallais go back to this epoch when Aymon, Humbert Whitehands' son, was bishop^? Then there is the acquisition of the county of Maurienne, of which in 1046 Humbert appears for the first time in the documents as Count, then of some standing^. Lastly, there is the lordship of " New " Chablais on the southern shore of Lake Geneva, the process by which its dominion came to Savoy being unknown. It might of course be a consequence of the march of the Italians under Humbert's guidance in 1034. There is no evidence to decide the question unless the German settlement there is to be regarded as such ; but it must be acknowledged that Humbert's appearance in Maurienne comes in very happily, and there is the tradition (unluckily quite untrustworthy) that Humbert had it by grant from an Emperor^.
Burchard HI, the truculent Archbishop of Lyons, did not long keep in the Emperor's grace. We do not know the cause of his revolt, but in 1036 he was captured by Ulric, son of Seliger, and then imprisoned by Conrad II. His captivity was not of long duration, but the Arch- bishopric he never recovered*. He seems to have been pardoned'^ (family influence would do much) at the Burgundian assembly held at Soleure about October 1038. At this four days' conference the Emperor attempted to restore some sort of public law in the anarchic kingdom®.
familias que imperatores et reges Francorum et Burgundiorum eidem episcopatui... concesserunt,...confirmanius." So no inference can really be made from it as to the Archbishop's claims. I think we may dismiss in any case the supposed enfeoffment by Leger to Whitehands.
^ This is unlikely owing to the important position of Bishop Ermenfrid at the court of Henry IV.
'^ Car. Reg. cxxxii. (Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. {95)). The date is doubtful, 1043, 1046, or 1047. Carutti [Umherto Biancamano, pp. 103-4) treats Car. Reg. cvii. (Cipolla, Monumenta Novaliciaisia, I. 161) as evidence for Humljert's possession of Maurienne in ro36, but Coise, etc., are therein expressly stated to be in Savoy. Cf. below, p. 61, n. 2.
'^ Anciennes Chroniques de Savoie {M.H.P. .Script. II. 81). The Emperor's name is given as Henry and the donation is made at Rome at the imperial coronation. See above, p. ■26.
* Herimannus Augiensis, 1036 (AI.G.H. Script, v. 122), " Burghardus Lugdun. archiepiscopus...(see p. 28, n. 5). ..cum Oudalricum Seligeri filium bello peteret, ab ipso victus et captus imperatorique adductus, ferro compeditus et custodia mancipatus multis annis detinetur in vinculis." Cf. also Ralph Glaber, quoted p. 28, n. 5. See Bresslau, Konrad II, 11. 421, and Poupardin, Bourgogne, p. 170.
* Archbishop Burchard appears as Abbot of St Maurice in a charter of 1057 (see below, p. 64, n. 2), Car. Reg. cxix. (M.H.P. Cart. Ii. 130).
* Wipo, Cap. XXXVIII., "convocatis cunctis principibus regni generale colloquium habuit cum eis et diu desuetam atque pene deletam legem tunc primum Burgundiam praelibare fecerat." Herimann. Aug. 1038 gives Soleure as the place of assembly. See Bresslau, op. cit. 11. 322-5, Poupardin, op. cit. pp. 173-5.
38 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
Of more real importance was the association at the same time of the young King Henry III with his father in the Burgundian kingdom, although how far Conrad surrendered any power to his son is doubtful.
The position of the Humbertines in central Burgundy was in 1039 extremely strong. Members of the family held the counties of Aosta^, Maurienne^, Belley and Savoy ^, the Count-Bishopric of Sion^, the similar Abbacy of St Maurice', the Bishopric of Belley", as well as im- mune demesnes and in cot?wiendams in the Genevois, Sermorens and the Viennois''. Humbert Whitehands was in addition advocate of Queen Ermengarde^ To this complex of hereditary official rights'* and benefices and alods, strengthened no doubt by the gradual enforcement of homage from the landowners in their counties and from weaker neighbours, and by the practical suzerainty over the Bishoprics of Belley, Maurienne and Aosta, they were now to add an Italian dominion, giving them a still more complete control of the West Alpine range.
After Conrad's death in 1039 Henry III appears as undoubted ruler, making vigorous efforts to introduce some sort of central adminis- tration. We find him supporting episcopal independence in order to check the lay seigneurs and appointing a Chancellor as well"*. In the winter of 1042 he enters the land in force, from Italy via Aosta, going to St Maurice and to Besangon". The old opponents of Conrad,
^ See p. 10 above. ^ See p. 37 above.
* See below, Sect, iv.; a Humbert seems to appear as Count of Savoy in 1036, Car. Jieg. cvii. (Cipolla, Monu?>ienta Novaliciensia, i. 161).
■* See p. 29 above.
* See pp. 20, 29, n. 3, and below, pp. 92 and 122-3. ^ See p. 29 above.
^ See p. 23, and below, Sect. iv.
8 See Car. Reg. xci. [Cartul. de Cluny, iv. 95, Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. 102) dated by Manteyer, Origifies, p. 397, q.v. for identifications, 4 June — 24 September 1039. Ermengarde gives to Cluny two mansi "in pago Genevensi," one "in villa Sibingiaco " (? Silingiaco = Sillingy near Annecy), the other "in villa Cicinlatis" (? Seysolaz near Sillingy), by her advocate Count Hubertus.
9 The belief of Gingins-la-Sarra, Origine de la R. Maison de Savoie {M.D.R. xx. 238-9), and Carutti, Umherto I BiuTuat/iano, pp. loo-i, that Humbert Whitehands was Constable of Burgundy, rested on a misinterpretation of the Aostan charter of 1032 (Car. Reg. xc. Schiaparelli, Archivio sto7-ico ital. 1905, Ser. v. xxxvi. 332, where facsimile) as shown by Bresslau, Konrad II, ii. 65, Manteyer, Origities, pp. 385-7, and conclusively by Schiaparelli, loc. cit. The words describing the lands given by Humbert in exchange to the monastery of S. Benigno, viz. "de suo comitatu et beneficio Costabile...de comitatu vel a beneficio Costabile...habet finis de una parte Costabile," mean that the field in question was sub-enfeoffed by the Count to a certain Costabilis, whose assent as tenant and party to the transfer is subscribed " Costabil[e] f[ir]mavit." These last words were (before Schiaparelli's article) misread " Constantinus."
1" Jacob, Bourgogne, pp. 39 ff. and 63.
" Herimann. Augien. 1042 (M.G.H. Script, v. 124).
Henry Ill's west- Alpine policy 39
however, were restive : Rainald I of "Franche Comte " and Ceroid I of the Genevois, after a revolt in 1045, submitted to Henry at Soleure^ In May 1048 and in May 1052 he held fresh diets at Soleure, and at the last of them there seems to have been a partial revolt, which was not altogether pacified^. In short, though Henry tried to rule Burgundy as a kingdom, he had little success. Order was far more effectually enforced — although even thus not to a great extent— by the Council of Montriond, held in 1041 in the Pays de Vaud, for the provinces of Besangon and Vienne. An absolute cessation of hostilities, " the Truce of God,'' was now added to the former Peace. The Truce was to extend from sunset on Thursday to dawn on Monday, from Advent to Epiphany and from Septuagesima to the Octave of Easter^ In some ways, of course, the Truce was a retreat from the more elaborate Peace, but it was probably more effectual. We need not doubt Humbert's concurrence ; it was to the interest of a seigneur, who had official authority over others, and who drew a revenue from the great trade-routes (the Aostan and Mauri- ennese tolls), to check petty private war*.
In fact it was the great lords who could enforce some kind of peace with the aid of the Church, the bishops, it will be remembered, being both seigneurs and ecclesiastics ; and among them the old Count of Maurienne was one of the most powerful. He was soon to quit the scene. His last dated charter is of the 14th June 1047 and is executed in Maurienne ^ By that time his youngest'' son Oddo had married Adelaide of Turin, and had received the Mark which is conveniently designated "of Turin ^" This marriage, with the enormous increase of
^ Herimann. Augien. 1044, 1045 (AI.G.H. Script, v. 124-5).
2 Herimann. Augien. 1048, 1052 {M.G.H. Script, v. 128, 131). See for these movements of Henry HI, Jacob, op. cit. pp. 41-9.
* Poupardin, Bours^ogne, pp. 310-1 (, Manteyer, Paix, pp. 103-5; the text M.G.H. Const. I. 599, " Treugas autem a nil. feria post occasum solis usque ad secundam post ortum solis et ab adventu Domini usque ad octavam epyphanie et a LX.\. usque ad octavam pasche ab omnibus inviolabiliter precepimus observari."
■* There is also a special Truce of Aosta, Uuc, Miscell. di Storia Hal. XXIV. 369, M.G.H. Const, i. 602.
' Car. Reg. CXXXii. Cilirario e Promis, Doc. p. (95). The dating-formula runs: " Regnante Henrico Imp. viii. xviii. Kal. Julii, Luna in." C. e P. placed it wrongly under Henry H 1007 or 1008, Carutti, Umbcrto Biancamano, p. 108, 14 June 1046, Manteyer, Origines, p. 400, 14 June 1043, to make the Luna hi. correspond with the day. This would seem conclusive, were it not that Henry is described as Emperor. Now he was crowned at Rome, Christmas 1046. As he became King of Burgundy c. Oct. 1038 (see above, p. 38) his eighth regnal year would run from c. October 1045 to 1046; but the year may be counted from Conrad's ileath, 4 June 1039, ^^^ 'h^ eighth year wcjuld then run from c. June 1046 to c. June 1047.
" In the Charters where some order in the names is observed, his name always comes last of Humberts sons.
' See below, Cap. 11.
40 Humbert Whitehands in Burgundian politics
power resulting from it, could only have taken place with the Emperor Henry Ill's concurrence^ Evidently Henry had decided to concen- trate the control of the north-western Alps in sure hands. As we shall see, he made alliance with the Humbertines a cardinal point of his policy". There was a purely Italian aspect of his measures ^ as there was a purely Burgundian one, viz. the control of the centre of that kingdom*; but perhaps more important was the imperial aspect, the security of the routes between Germany and Italy, and the closing if necessary of the routes between France and Italy^
The date of Count Humbert Whitehands' death is still uncertain. The legendary Chroniques place it in 1048®: the Necrology of the Abbey of Talloires that he helped to found gives the day of the month as the I St July'. The fact that his son Oddo had lands in Tarentaise between March and June 1 051, as well as the phraseology of his diploma concerning them, seems to imply Humbert was already deadl Perhaps the I St July 1048 is the real date^
Of his children we know four sons, Amadeus I, Burchard, Aymon and Oddo I. The personalities of the two elder will have to be dis- cussed in the next section. Aymon was Bishop of Sion and Abbot of St Maurice'": Oddo Marquess of Turin and ancestor of the later House of Savoy ^^
^ See below, Cap. 11. Sect. iv. - See helow, Cap. 11. .Sections iv. and v.
3 See Jacob, Bourgogne, pp. 60-2, Steindorf, Heinrich III, 11. 324-5.
* See Jacob, Bourgogne, pp. 60-2.
^ Cf. Bresslau, Konrad II, il. 117; and for the later period Hellmann, Die Grafen von Savoyen, pp. 67-71. Cf. Coolidge, The Alps in Nature and History, pp. 150-71.
^ M.H.P. Script. II. 88. They say he was buried in the cathedral of St Jean-de- Maurienne.
'' Neues Archiv, XI. 102, "Kal. Julii obiit Upertus amicus noster. " This doubtless refers to our Humbert. Car. Reg. cxxxvi. Sup. xii. I have not discovered whence Carutti obtains the date of the year 1048 unless it is from the Chroniques.
^ Car. Reg. cxLill. M.H.P. Chart, i. 572: it is dated 1051 (beginning 25 March) and I2th year of King Henr)' : i.e. 12th year after Conrad's death, running June 1050 — June 1051 (cf. Manteyer, Origines, ■p. 408). The grant is "pro remedio animae patris mei Humbertus comes et propter animam meam." No other Humbertines are signatories.
* Carutti (Reg. cxxxvi. and Sup. en.) has given up his former suggestion {Umberto Biancamano, pp. 11 3- 14) that the charter confirming Bishop Theobald's grant to the Canons of Maurienne (Car. Reg. cxxxili. Guichenon, Preuves, p. 6: Besson, ed. 11. p. 336) implied Theobald (ob. 1056) was already dead. The phrase is "omnia quae Theubaldus episcopus per meam donationem tenere videbatur " : and presumably alludes to the fact that Theobald had transferred his rights to the Canons. Then Savio, / Primi Conti di Savoia (Misc. stor. ital. XXVI. 462-4), proves that Humbert Whitehands had died well before 19 April 1054 (when Pope Leo IX died) as on that date his son Oddo had been reigning for some time in Maurienne. The document is Car. Reg. CLXXii.; cf. below, p. 122.
^^ See above, p. 29. 11 See below, Cap. 11. Section iv.
Summary of Whitehands' life 41
However much doubt remains over the details of Humbert White- hands' Hfe, the general course of events under which the Savoyard State was founded is pretty clear. About 1020 a.d. the Humbertines were possessors of wide lands and counties between the Lake of Geneva and Vienne. They continually improved their position by a strict alliance with the decaying royal house, from which they obtained further grants to be carried into effect by their own power. The claim of Conrad II to the succession found Humbert Whitehands Count of Aosta, and in view of the connection between Germany and Italy and of the whole Burgundian policy of the Emperor, he was therefore the most valuable ally obtainable among the Burgundian nobles. He was quick to make use of his advantage, and by his firm pro-German policy had a large share in the subjection of Burgundy to Conrad. The county of Maurienne may have been his reward. In any case the German conquest put no stop to the practical disintegration of the kingdom, and, like the other Counts and some of the greater barons south of Lake Geneva, Humbert at his death would be in possession of the regalian as well as the comital rights in his various counties and lands. If the multiple and heterogeneous character of his dominions forbids us to speak of them as more than the beginnings of a state, in actual independence Count Humbert would not be much inferior to a contemporary Duke of Aquitaine.
Section IH. The problem of the two Humberts.
Though many and diverse opinions have been held since the seven- teenth century as to the ancestors of Humbert, it was not till the middle of the nineteenth' that Baron Gingins-la-Sarra started a new opinion with regard to the documents (of which by that time more were known) attributed to Count Humbert Whitehands himself His view' was that two Count Humberts and their families had been con- fused together by historians. They were uncle and nephew ; the uncle was Count Humbert of Belley, husband of Auchilia, with three sons, Count Amadeus of Belley, Burchard (husband of Countess Ermen- garde) and Oddo, Bishop' of Belley; the nephew was Count Humbert Whitehands of Aosta and Maurienne, wife unknown, father of an Amadeus, who never became Count, a Burchard, Bishop of some unknown city and Abbot of St Maurice, Aymon, Bishop of Belley, and
^ There is also Carena's (ob. 1769) view (see Carutti, Umberto Biancamano, p. 149) which does indeed assign the earlier charters with name of Humbert to a supposed father of Whitehands, first husband of Queen Ermengarde. As the latter remarried in loii, however, this affects only two or three charters.
- Mdmoire stir rorigine de la maison de Savoie, M.D.R. xx.
42
The problem of the two Humberts
Marquess Oddo of Turin, as follows^:
We may thus arrange his genealogical tree
Auchilia= Humbert
I Ct of Belley I ?977, 1030
Amadeus = Count ?977
Adela = Amadeus
Ct of Belley 1030, 105 1 (?)
Humbert ob. vi. pat.
Burchard — Countess Ermen- garde 1023
Aymon
Oddo Humbert Whitehands = N.N.
Bp of Ct of Aosta and
Belley Maurienne
1000-3 1022, 1046
Amadeus
1022, 1042
never Count
Burchard
Bpof
Abbot of St Maurice 1022, 1068
Aymon Oddo
Bp of Belley Marquess
1032, io5i(?) of Turin
1030 (?) ob. 1060
Of these conclusions, I may here remark that the identification of the Bishop Aymon, who is evidently Humbert Whitehands' son in various charters, with Bishop Aymon of Belley is negatived by a docu- ment where the latter gives his father's name as Amadeus^. I think it is generally agreed that Whitehands' son must have been the Bishop of Sion. Some other parts of the scheme also do not seem happy : but the general idea was taken up by Baron Domenico Carutti and worked out by him in his treatise // Conte Umberto I Biancamano^, where with remarkable skill and clearness he argues for the two Count Humberts and the two branches of the House of Savoy. Carutti's results in their corrected form given in the Regesta Comttum Sabaudiae are as follows :
Amadeus Count 977
Adelania ist wife of Conrad, King of Burgundy
N.N. = Humbert Ct of Belley 977, 1022
Auchilia= Humbert I
Whitehands
Count 1024
ob. 1048
1
Burchard = Ermengarde 1023 I Countess
Aymon
of
Pierrefort
Oddo Bp of Belley 1000-3
Aymon 1024 etc.
Amadeus = Adela Burchard
Od'do
Amadeus I Count 1042
Burchard 1040
Aymon
Bp of
Sion
ob. 1054
Oddo
Ct of Belley 1022, 1048
Bp of Aosta 102
then Abp
of Lyons
Abbot of St Maurice
1022, 1048
Aymon Bp of Belley 1032, c. 1050
Marquess of Turin ob. 1060
i I
Humbert ob. vi. pat.
^ The dates underneath are those of the personages' appearance in charters. Gingins did not know all of them.
^ Car. Reg. CXLI. (Guigue, Petit Cartulaire de St Sulpice en Bugey, p. 26).
3 This work originally appeared in the Archivio storico italiano. Series v. Vols. I., II. (1878) and X. (1882); and was reissued separately with modifications to bring it up to date in 1884 and 1889.
The rival genealogies
43
His contention was accepted by Bresslau' and by the modern Pied- montese school of historians, headed by Professor Gabotto. Among them Count Benedetto Baudi di Vesme has introduced important modifications^. His scheme as shown by Professor Patrucco (1900) is as follows :
Auchilia: dau. of Conrad of Burgundy
I
Humbert Ct of Belley 971, 1003
N. N. = Amadeus dau. of I Count Anselm 977
Ulric Ct of
Vallais
L_
Oddo
Bp of
Belley
995. 1003
1
Adelania
= Conrad
King of
Burgundy
L_
Adela = Amadeus
Ct of Belley
1022, 1030,
1047
Humbert ob. vi. pat.
Burchard
Bp of Aosta
Abp of Lyons
Abbot of St Maurice
1025 etc.
1
Aymon
Bp of Belley
1032, 1050
Oddo 1030
Humbert Whitehands
Ct of Maurienne,
later of Savoy
1000, 1056
The study of Humbert Whitehands' life and ancestry was thus greatly advanced by Baron Carutti, but his main thesis of the two Humberts has met with criticism as well as acceptance. Signer Labruzzi^ has upheld the single personality and latterly M. G. de Manteyer* has brought new material to bear on the Humbertine history, besides re-examining the question of their original domains. He, too, and he is followed by M. Poupardin^, is for the single line of Hum- bertines. Thus his table is :
^ Bresslau, Konrad II, li. 60-5.
^ Count di Vesme has not yet published his work on I principi franco-sassoni nelP impero carolingico which is to appear in the Biblioteca delta Societh storica subalpina. I have endeavoured to represent his views, I trust with accuracy, as I gather them from Baron de Gerbaix-Sonnaz, Stiidi storici stil contado di Savoia e marchesato in Italia, Vol. I. (1884), and as modified in Professor C. Patrucco's Aosta dalle invasioni harha7-iche alia signoria sabauda in the Miscellanea Valdostana {B.S.S.S. Vol. XVII.) and in Professor Patrucco's Le Fatniglie Signorili di Saluzzo in Studi Saluzzesi, Vol. X. of the same Biblioteca. But it is possible that Count di Vesme, from his great knowledge of the charters of the date, is in possession of further evidence, besides that already known.
* Un Jiglio del Biancamano, Arch. stor. ital. Ser. V. xvi. and la monarchia di Savoia dalle origini alP anno iioj, Rome, 1900.
* Les Origines de la Maison de Savoie en Bourgogne (910-1060), Rome, 1899, extract from Mdanges d^archt'ologie et d'histoite de V Ecole frani^aise h Rome, XIX.; id. Notes additionnelles, Paris, 1901, extract from Moyen Age, Ser. II. T. V.; id. La Paix en Viennois (Anse [77 /uin] I02j) et les additions a la Bible de Vienne, Crenoble, 1906, extract from Bulletin de la Soc. de Statistique de risire, XXXIII.
^ Le royaume de Bourgogne (888-iojS), pp. 262-4.
44
The problem of the two Humberts
Ulric Count
Auchilia=: Humbert I
I Whitehands
I lOOO, IO46
Oddo
Bp of Belley
1000, 1003
I —
Adela = Amadeu.s I I Ct of Belley I ro22, 1051
1 1
Burchard III Aymon
Bp of Aosta Bp of Sion Abp of Lyons ob. 1054 Abbot of St Maurice 1022, 1042
Humbert ob. vi. pat.
1
Aymon Bp of Belley 1032, 105-
Burchard = Ermengarde 1023 Countess
Oddo Marquess of Turin
Aymon c. 1046
Although the questions of Humbert's personality and ancestry are closely bound up with one another, they are essentially distinct, and deal with different periods of Humbertine history. Therefore it seems best to treat of the personality first, for the consideration of which we have more material and tread on more certain ground. Until new documents come to light, his ancestry must be a very speculative matter. Here I hope to show that, on the evidence at present known, we must decide for a single Count Humbert in the various Humbertine docu- ments between 1000 and 1050, who is that same Whitehands the ally of Conrad H and Queen Ermengarde.
To proceed then with the inquiry as to the single or double Humbert, it seems best to give a register of the documents involved in order of date as far as that is possible, along with the names and localities which are of importance, then to give the short separate genea- logical statements to be derived from them, then the combined genea- logies which we may pretty certainly construct, and in the light thus obtained finally to discuss whether a double or a single family-tree is more likely. I arrange the register in three columns : (i) those charters which are admitted by Carutti and Di Vesme to belong to Whitehands and his branch, (2) those which are diversely referred to the White- hands' branch, or to that called by Carutti Savoy-Belley, (3) those unanimously referred by the exponents of the double family-tree scheme to Savoy-Belley. I should mention that this classification does not take account of those opinions of Gingins which appear to be universally rejected, such as the affiliation of Bishop Aymon of Belley to White- hands, and the assertion that Bishop Aymon of Sion was not even a Humbertine, and the similar dissociation of Archbishop Burchard HI of Lyons from them. On the other hand I note his view that the Bishop Burchard of 1022 belongs to the Whitehands' branch, since that rests, not so much on imperfect information, as on a peculiar characteristic of the documents, as will be seen.
I classify by the leading names where both presumed groups occur
Register of Humbertine documents
45
in the same document. The first two entries hardly belong to any of the three headings.
The register is as follows :
(1)
(2)
Documents claimed for Hum- Documents in dispute, whether bert Whitehands and his sons belonging to Whitehands'
by Carutti and Di Vesme. branch or to that of Savoy-
Belley ; also those of Arch- bishop Burchard III.
(3)
Documents of the Belley branch according to Carutti, Di Vesme and Gingins.
Car. Reg. xiii.i (May 957— July 974, see Man- teyer, Origines, p. 415 ; Carutti, 977), Conrad of Burgundy confirms some possessions of St Chaffre in Valentinois and Diois. Two of signatories Ante- deus comes and (Imbertus (al. Erubertus) cot/ies.
[Car. and Vesme : father and uncle of Whitehands ; Manteyer : Humbert, pro- bably Whitehands' father.]
Car. Reg. XI.2 (976), Amalfredus sacerdos gives to Cluny land at Aliens etc. near S( Syviphorien d'Ozon (Lyonnais) in pre- sence of Htitnhertus comes.
[Car. : Whitehands' grandfather; Vesme: Hum- bert of Belley ; Manteyer : Whitehands' father.]
Car. Reg. .xx.* (Jan. 1000), Oddo Bp (of Belley), being at Bocizellum castle (near La Cote St Andre in Viennois), grants land he holds by lease at Cha- tonnay (near St Jean de Boumay, id.). Among signatories Bttorchardus, Ubertus.
[Car. : (formerly) pro- bably H. of Belley, perhaps Whitehands (later vice versa) ; Gingins : H. of
.J, ... .f — ,..,..„. I have not been able to find in
Carutti's register or elsewhere the charter of 971 mentioned by Gingins, Origine etc., p. 226, with similar contents.
^ Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Chaffre, p. 108. 2 Bruel, Cliartes...de Cluny, 11. 480 (1424).
3 Marion, Cartulaires de Grenoble, p. 16.
46
The problem of the two Humberts
(I) (2) (3)
Belley; Manteyer: White- hands and brothers, Bp Oddo and Burchard.]
Car. Reg. xxiv.i (7 Oct. 995 — 28 Oct. 1000), Theo- bald Archbp of Vienne leases land at Traise (near Belley) to £f Oddo of Belley and one of his brothers in succession ; re- ceives a niansus also in Belley county.
[Gingins : three sons of H. of Belley ; Manteyer : Whitehands and brothers.] Car. Reg. XXI. ^ (Ap. 1003), OddoBp (of Belley), heingatBocissellum, makes grant of leased church-land in Chatonnay. Among signatories Ufnbertus co- mes et uxor stia,Borcardus. [Same comments as xx.] Car. Reg. xxviii.'' (6 June 1009), King Rudolf III at St Maurice makes a grant to the Guigonids of Albon by advice of Queen Agiltrude, Arch- bishop Burchard II of Lyons and Counts Rudolf and Uberttis.
[Manteyer : Whitehands ; Car. : (wrong date 995) H. of Belley^.] Car. Reg. XLIV.^ (20
Mar. 1018), Domnus Um-
bertus comes acts as agent
in transfer of land in
Equestricus (near Nyon)
to Romainmotier.
^ Chevalier, Documents inidits des ix., x., XI. siecles du Lyonttais, pp. 15-16.
^ Marion, Cartulaires de Grenoble, p. 17. See also for the correct text of this document and for a discussion of its meaning, Labruzzi, La protocarta comitate sabauda, Arch. stor. ital. Ser. v. Vol. XLV. p. 61 (1910).
* Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Andri-le-bas, Vienne, No. 38*.
* I omit Car. Reg. XL. { = M.H.P. Chart. 11. iii) as it really dates from 21 Feb. 912 (see Poupardin, op. cit. p. 269, n. 3, who forgets however that in 912 (being leap year) x. Kal. Mart, fell on 21 Feb. not 20 Feb.).
* Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p- 25.
Reeister of Humbertine documents
47
(t)
[Car. : probably White- hands, but it does not matter if H. of Belley.]
(2)
(3)
[Car. Reg. XLVi.i (19 Aug. 1019), Burchard Archbp of Vienna and Ulric his brother and ad- vocate give land in the Genevois to St Peter's of Vienne for souls of their father Anselm and mother Aaldiu. Among witnesses Amedetis.'\ [A. may bea Humbertine.]
Car. Reg. LII.2 (8 Ap. 1022), Lambert Bp of Langres leases to his friend Count Umhertus and his S071S Amedeus and Bur- cardus episcopus land at Ambilly (near Geneva), and receives church at Cuzy (near Alby).
[Car., etc. : H. of Belley and sons ; Manteyer : Whitehands and sons ; Gingins : Whitehands and sons.]
Car. Reg. Liii.^ (June 1023), Borchardus and his son Ayino give to St Andre of Vienne (Hugo being Abbot) church at St Ge7iix in county of Belley pro remedio animarum of King Gondradus, King Rudolf III and Queen Ermen- garde, Archbp Borchardus, donniis Ubertus corner, uxor ems Nauchila, seu pro re- medio patris et matris meae et comitissae Ermen- gardis uxoris meae.
[Car. : Whitehands and wife ; Aymon was nephew of Whitehands (see below), so Borchard is his brother ;
^ Chevalier, Cariulaire de St AndrJ-le-bas, Vienne, p. 256.
2 Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. (97).
^ Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Andr,!-le-bas, Vimne, p. 1 54.
48
The problem of the two Humberts
(I)
(2)
Gingins : B. son of H. of Belley and wife Nauchila, Aymon first cousin once removed of Whitehands (nepos ejus) ; Vesme : H. of Belley and wife ; Man- teyer : Whitehands, wife, brother and nephew.]
id. for Bp Burcardus.
[Car. : Bp Burchard son of H. of Belley ; Vesme : id. ; Gingins : Bp B. son of Whitehands; Manteyer: Whitehands and son.]
id. for Bp Brocardus. [Same comments.]
(3)
Car. Reg. LVii.i (19 Oct. 1024), Bp Burcardus of Aosta makes exchange of lands de suo episcopatu in Vald' Aosta with consent of Dominus Count Umbertus.
Car. Reg. Lix.^ (16 Nov. 1026), Bp Brocardus oj Aosta and Donnus Um- bertus comes exchange land of St John and de cotnitatu in Val d'Aosta for other land in Val d'Aosta with Frecius.
Car. Reg. Lxxili.^ (11 May 994-1049), Aymo of Petrafortis saecularem mi- litiam gerens gives to Cluny (where Odilo is Abbot) Monterminod in County of Savoy. Sig- natories Umbertus comes, Atnedeus filius ejus, Bur- cardus, Oddo, Aymo, Guif- fredus.
[H. Whitehands and sons ; ? what relation of theirs was Aymon of Pierreforte ?]
Car. Reg. LX.* (11 May 994— 1049). Um-
bertus comes and his sons, Amedeus, Aymo et Oddo give to Cluny (Odilo Ab- bot) "afe nostra kereditate" on and below Mont du
^ Cibraiio e Promis, Doc. p. (100). For date see Schiaparelli, Charta Augustana, Arch. stor. ital. Ser. V. Vol. xxxix. p. 336 (1907).
^ Bollati in Misc. di stor. ital. xvi. (1877) P- 676. For date see Schiaparelli, op. cit. p. 337.
2 Guichenon, Histoire de la viaison de Savoie, Preuves, p. 5.
* Guichenon, op. cit. Preuves, p. 5.
Regfister of Humbertine documents
49
(I) {*) (3)
Chat in county of Belley and in Mallacena (i.e. by LeBourget). Other donors also give.
[Same comment.] Car. Reg. lxl^u May 994 — \Qj,<)), Hiint-
bertus comes and his sons, Aniedeus, Aynio, and Uddo give to Cluny (Abbot Odilo being present) for benefit of the monks at Maltacena ( Le Bourget) fish-weir at mouth of R. Leisse and a mansus. [Whitehands and sons.]
Car. Reg. LXII.^ (9 Mar.
1026?), Burchard II Arch-
bp of Lyons and Abbot of
St Maurice and Burchard
Bp of Aosta and Provost
of St Maurice make a
grant.
[Carutti and Vesme : son
of H. of Belley ; Gingins :
son of H. Whitehands.] Car.j'?!?^. LXiii.^(i02i?).
The same make a grant. [Same comments.] Car. Reg. Lxxix.* (22
Oct. 1030), Amedeus son
of Count Ubertus and wife
Adaelgilda (Adila), being
in diocese of Grenoble (? in
^az/^y), give to Cluny (Odilo
being Abbot) church of St
Maurice in pago Malta- cena, with consent of Mal-
lenus Bp of Grenoble and
Humbert Bp (of Valence);
grant shared in by Ubertus
comes and Aucilia uxor
ejus. Other signatories
Rudolf III, Queen Ermen-
garde, Oddo, Antelmus.
' Guichenon, op. cit. Preuves, p. 6. * M.H.P. Chart. I. 449.
' M.H.P. Chart. II. 114. The date is "anno Rodolfi XX. et viii." This would be Nov. 1020 to Nov. 102 1, but the reading seems strange. Probably the true reading is XXXViii., i.e. Nov. 1050 to Nov. 1031.
* M.H.P. I. 490, Guichenon, op. cit. Preuves, p. 8. Charles de Cluny, ill. 815, where the various forms of dating are given. Cf. Manteyer, Paix, p. 146.
P. O. 4
50
The problem of the two Humberts
(I)
Car. Reg. Lxxxiii.' (1031-2), Rudolf III and Queen Ermengarde, by advice of Leger Archbp of Vienne, found priory of Lemenc in Savoy, depend- ency of Abbey of Ainay. Among signatories Count Umbertus, Oddo. [Car.: Whitehands.] Car. Reg. lxxxiv.* (19 Aug. 1031 — 6 Sept. 1032), Queen Ermengarde founds Abbey of Talloires, de- pendency of Abbey of Savigny, with the advice of Leger Archbp of Vienne and others, among whom Count Umbertus. [Car. : Whitehands.] Car. Reg. xc.^ (1032), Domnus Ubertus comes exchanges land of his
(2)
[Car. : Amedeus son of H. of Belley, and White- hands with wife ; Gingins : Amedeus and his father H. of Belley ; Vesme : do. ; Manteyer : Whitehands and son.]
Car. Reg. LXXX.' (20 Ap. \0},o), Burchard Pro- vost of St Maurice makes grant, assented to by Bur- chard II, Abbot of do.
Car. Reg. Lxxxvi.^ (?), Burchard II Archbp of Lyons and Abbot of St Maurice and Burchard Bp of Aosta and Provost of do. make a grant.
(3)
1 M.H.P. Chart. 11. 118. Manteyer, Origines, p. 471, dates this 20 April 1032, but he has to correct year of reign, day of moon and year A. D. (but latter is wrong in any case) ; 1030 needs the change from "die jovis" to "die lunae" [perhaps mis- written "lunis"] for the day of the week.
2 M.H.P. Chart. I. 499.
' Guichenon, op. cit. Preuves, p. 4. * Bernard, Cartulaire de Savigny, I. 318.
^ Schiaparelli, Archivio storico italiano, 1905, XXXVI. 332. Here there is a facsimile and a discussion of date and meaning of document.
Register of Humbertine documents
51
(I)
covtitatus (and of the bene- fice of Costabile) in Val d'Aosta with monastery of S. Benigno in Aosta. [Whitehands.]
(3)
(2)
Car. Reg. Lxxii.^ (?), some nobles give land in county of Belley to Abbey of Savigny (Iterius being Abbot) in presence of Aymo Bp of Belley and before Domimis Umbertus comes et filius ejus Ame- »
deus.
[Car. : in U. B. says Whitehands and son Ame- deus ; but in Reg. seems to consider them H. of Belley and son A. of Bel- ley.]
Cluny, IV. 2885, p. 79 (1032), Aymo Bp of Belley exchanges church in Isle (d^Abeati) in the Viennois, for one at Charencieu in Sermorens with Berlio.
Cluny, IV. 2884, P- 78 (25 Mar. — 6 Sept. 1032), Berlio gives church in Isle (d'Abeau) to Cluny. Among signatories Aymo Bp of Belley and Leger, Archbp of Vienne.
[This is the son of Ame- deus of Belley.] Car. Reg, cvi.2 (3 Nov, 1036), Queen Ermengarde and Count Humbertus present at synod held by Archbp Leger at Vienne. Car. Reg. cvii.' (Nov. 1036), Maria gives to
^ Bernard, Cartulaire de Savigny, i. 351. I may note that the Count Humbert here should be Count of Belley, both from the content of the document, and because he is entitled Domnus, which in these charters seems to refer almost exclusively to the Count or Bishop of the locality. Hence I imagine Baron Carutti would consider it necessarily refers to Count Humbert of Belley, unless he placed it after the death of all laymen of the Belley line.
* Carutti, Umberto I Biancaniano, p. 193.
' Cipolla, Monumenta Novaliciensia, i. 161.
4—2
52
The problem of the two Humberts
(I)
monastery of Novalesa land at Coise in pago Savogi- ense, which is bounded on east by terra regis sive Uberti comitis necnon Ota uxori Sigibodi, on south and west by terra regis et comi- tis, on north by river Isere.
Car. Reg. cxiii.i (2 Oct. 1037), Synod of Romans. Among Bishops present Aymo of Sion and Mar- tigny, Aymo of Belley and Theobald of Maurienne.
Zzx.Reg. XCI.2 (?io39), Queen Ermengarde for the remedium anime mee sive senioris mei Rodulfi, nec- non et patris matrisve, seu fratrum meonim vel ceterorum propinquorum gives to Cluny (Odilo being Abbot) two mansi in Genevois per advocatum meum cotnitetn Huviber- turn.
Car. Reg. cxx. (1040)^ Domnus Count Hubertus makes grant — to take effect
(2)
(3)
id. for Aymo of Belley.
^ Giraud, Cartulaire de Romatis, ed. I. Preuves, i. 68-9, "Sedunensis atque Octodurensis."
^ Bruel, Charles. ..de Cluny, iv. 95, Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. (102).
^ BoUati, Misc. star. ital. xvi. p. 635. The genuineness of this charter has been impugned by Patrucco, B.S.S.S. XVI I. Miscellanea Valdosta7ia, Aosta dalle invasiotii barbariche alia signoria sabauda, p. Ixxx. n. 2; specially for two reasons: (i) that the sons of Count Humbert subscribe without reference to the order of birth, and leaving a blank line between Aymon and Burchard : (2) that the confirmation by Marquess Peter, written before that of the scribe who wrote the document, is very strange, as he was not born at the date, and would have to subscribe on a visit to Aosta later. So too we must suppose the charter sent round for confirmation by absent sons to account for (i). These reasons are strong, but the kind of strangeness emphasized seems hardly to accord with forgery. Why should the ephemeral Peter be made so important? W^hy did not the forger place the eldest son Amedeus first? Why put the affiliation to Burchard's name alone ? Schiaparelli, Arch. stor. ital. 1907, XXXIX. 338-9, decides in favour of the genuineness of the charter; the subscriptions of Aymon, Burchard and Peter are written in different ink from that of the rest of the charter, Peter's being in different ink from the other two. Schiaparelli thinks that they are all three in different hands and possibly coeval with the charter. He does not seem inclined to the view that the charter was sent round for confirmation ; and says that the space between the officiating scribe's subscription and the body of the
Register of Humbertine documents
53
(^)
(3)
Same for Burchard III.
(I) after his death — to Canons of St Jean and St Ours, Aosta, confirmed by Oddo, AmeJeus comes, Ay mo Se- dunensis episcopus, Bro- chardus filius Huberti comitis, Petrus niarckio filius Oddonis marchionis et c 07m tissue Ataletdae.
Car. Reg. cxxiii.^ (21 Jan. 1042), Domnus Uper- tus comes gives to Abbey St Chaffre churches at Les £chelles ' ' de hereditate mea que michi ex conquisto obvenerunt." Signatories Brochardus archiepiscopus, Aimo episcopus, Ameeus (sic), Oddo and others.
[Manteyer : Whitehands and sons ; Gingins : do. ; Car. : Whitehands and sons except Burchard whose place is taken by Archbp Burchard III.]
Car. Reg. cxxv.^ (10 June 1042), Umbertus comes and his sons Amedeus and Oddo give churches and land at Les Echelles (taliter concedimus qualiter lex nostra concedere precipit) to Abbey of St Chaffre (and St Laurence at Grenoble). Signatories Brochardus archiepiscopus, Amedeus comes, Oddo and others.
[Same comments.]
charter has its parallels. Accepting his conclusions, I may remark that the evidence of the affiliation of Aymon and Burchard is not weakened, as the names, if not genuine, were inserted close to the time and would only be so inserted because of their relationship to Humbert.
' Marion, Cartulaires...de Grenoble, p. 31- The date is rather a puzzle, for in 1042, 21 Jan. was not the 25th but the 6th day of the moon, and then Jan. 1042 ab incarn. Dni. should usually mean Jan. 1043, ^^^ '" '043 ^^ moon was almost at new again. But I note that in 1041, 11 Jan. was exactly the 25th day of moon. Perhaps 1041 (or 1043) is the real date of the charter.
* Marion, op. cit. p. 29. Guichenon's text. Hist, de la maison de Savoie, Preuves, p. 7, adds Aymon, and Mallenus, Bp of Grenoble, before "Amedeus comes." No doubt they are erroneous insertions.
Same for Burchard III.
54 The problem of the two Humberts
<') (^) (3)
Car. Reg. cxxvii.' (26 Mar. 1044), Aymon Bp of Sion at Synod of Besan9on. Gremaud, M. D. R. XVIII. 338 (23 Dec. 1043), Aymon Bp of Sion makes grant through Oiidolricus advocate of bishopric.
Car. Reg. cxxxi.* (22 Feb. 1046), Aymon Bp of Sion, Provost of St Alau- rice, makes grant in latter capacity by Advocate Bozo.
Car. Reg. cxxxil.* (14 June 1043 (?) or i047(?)), Count Hutnbert'a.ViA Teobald Bp of Maurienne make grant of Cuines, etc., to the Canons of Maurienne. Count Humbert gives do- minicatura, Bp fetiotaria. Among signatories Aymo nepos ejus and Odo.
Car. Reg. cxxxill.* (?), Count Umbertus gives to Canons of Maurienne land at Cuines, etc., also omnia quae Theubaldus eps. per donationem comitis tenere videbatur. Among signa- tories Aymo nepos eius and Odo.
Car. Reg. cxxxv.^ (?), Aymo, very ill, gives \.o St . Genix (where h\s father is buried) land near St Genix for souls of his father and mother, Bp Odo, Count
1 Dunod's Hist, de V Eglise de Besan^on, I. Preuves, p. xlix.
2 M.H.P. Chart. II. 142.
•^ Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. (95). The date is difficult — 14 June, regnante Henrico Imp. viii. Luna iii. ; Manteyer, Origines, p. 400, places it in 1043, as Luna in. would agree with 14 June that year. Carutti, Umb. Bianc. p. 108 and Reg. dates it 1046, since if Henry Hi's reign is calculated from his election in October 1038, his eighth year in Burgundy ran from Oct. -Nov. 1045 — Oct. -Nov. 1046. But he is styled Emperor, a title he only obtained Christmas 1046; so it would seem we must reckon the reign here from Conrad's death, 4 June 1039 (they would hardly count from the exact day of death) : thus the eighth year ran from June 1046 to June 1047.
■* Guichenon, Preuves, p. 6: Besson, ed. II. p. 336.
* Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Andri-le-bas, Vienne, p. 156.
(I)
Aymon and his other rela- tions. Among signatories Domnus Huberttis comes, Domntts Amedeus comes, Domnus At mo Bp of Sion. Ego Odo marchio recog- novi et laudavi.
Register of Humbertine documents
(2) (3)
55
Car. Reg. cxxxvii.^ (?),
Aymo son of Burchard
and Countess Ermengarde
gives to St Genix, where
his father's grave is, in
county and diocese of
Beiley land near St Genix
ex hereditate sua.
[Placed here, as (if we
omit Gingins' mistake)
there is no mention of
either disputed line.] Cax.Reg. cxLii.2(io5o), Pope Leo IX reforms St Maurice Agaune, of which Aymon Bp oj Sion is Abbot.
Car. Reg. cxLiii.^ (Mar. — }wnQ \o^i)y Odo viarchio gives land in Tarentaise to Canons of Tarentaise pro remedio animae patris tnei Humberttis comes et prop- ter animam meam.
Car. Reg. cxxxviii.''
(i8 Dec. 105 1? or 1045?), Amedeus count of Beiley gives a mansus to Canons of Beiley.
Car. Reg. LXXXi.* (?), Domnus Count Amedeus and his wife Adela give to St Maurice land at foot of Mont du Chat in Malta- cena in episcopatu Grati- anopolitano, in comitatu
^ Chevalier, Cartulaire de St Andr^-le-bas, Vienne, p. 157.
2 M.H.P. Chart. 11. 148.
3 M.H.P. Chart, i. 572.
'' Guigue, Petit Cartulaire de St Sulpice en Bugey, p. 26 ; for date see Manteyer, Origines, p. 408. But if more stress is laid on Henry III being styled King and not Emperor, than on the correctness of the age of the moon, the year will be 1045.
" Guichenon, Hist, de la maison de Savoie, Preuves, p. 8.
The problem of the two Humberts
(0 W (3)
eomm pro requie Uberti filii.
Car. Reg. LXXiv.^ (?), Amedeus comes and his wife Adela give land in coitnty of Belley de heredi- tate sua to Cluny.
Car. Keg. CXLI.^ (?), Aymon Bp of Belley gives church-land leased to his father Amedeus in cotmty of Belley back to cathedral, St Jean, of Belley. Car. Reg. CXLV.^ (12 June 1052), Aymon Bp of
Sion gives to Canons of »
Sion, by advocate (ad hoc) Count Oudalricus, lands in Vallais inherited from late avunculus Count Oudal- ricus and other relatives.
Gremaud, M. D. R. XVIII. 346'', Count Odal- ricus of Lenzburg gives to A. Bp of Sion land bought by his father and mother at Chateau-neuf in Vallais.
Car. Reg. CXLVI.^ (13 Mar. 1053), Aymon Bp of Sion at Ravenna.
Car. Reg. CXLVii.^ (13 March 1054), Aymon Bp of Sion makes exchange through Upoldus advocate of the bishopric.
Guigue, Cartul. de St Sulpice en Bugey, p. 27 (?), Aymon restores forest of Rothone to Canons of Belley in presence of Odo marchio at demand of Bp Gosserannus of Belley and canons.
1 Chevalier, Diplomatique de Bourgogne de Pierre de Rivaz, p. 73.
- Guigue, Petit Cartulaire de St Sulpice en Bugey, p. 26.
'^ Gremaud, M.D.R. xviii. 340. The charter is dated at Rome.
* Could this charter really refer to Bishops Amedeus or Antelm in the eleventh century?
^ Mabillon, Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti, IV. App. p. 742.
* Gremaud, M.D.R. xviii. 338.
Register of Humbertine documents
57
(i)
Car.j?<?^.cxix.i (13 Oct. 1057), Biircardus archie- piscopus et S. Alauritii abbas grants lease in the Genevois by his advocate Goto.
(3)
Car. Reg. CL.- (6 Mar. 1058), Pope Stephen X con- firms grant of Le Bourget to Cluny made by Count Amedeits with consent of his brothers., Burcardus and Odo.
Car. Reg. CXLIV.* (1067 -8), Burcardus abbas et prepositus S. Mauritii makes grant per manura Ottonis advocati S. Mau- ritii.
Car. Reg. CLXVIII.* (3 Jan. 1069), Burcardus Agaunensis abbatiae abbas and Anselm the Provost make a grant to Otto, advocate of St Maurice.
Car. Reg. CCCLXXII.^ (n June 1 189), Thomas, Count of Maurienne, con- firms grants of his ancestors to Canons of Maurienne, among them that of Count Humbert his abavus.
We have now completed the series of relevant documents. The first, as we shall see later, is of importance as showing a Count Hum- bert and a Count Amadeus living c. 970. The second (Car. Reg. xi., above, p. 45) shows a Count Humbert apparently in a position of authority at Mions by Chandieu in the Lyonnais. A block of later Savoyard property was later round this very spot^ We may therefore accept the statement that this Count Humbert was a " Humbertine." No more precise relationship appears from the document.
^ AI.H.P. Chart. 11. 130: for the date see below, p. 64, n. 1.
''■ Migne, Patrologia, CXLIII. 879.
' M.H.P. Chart. 11. 153: for the date see Manteyer, Origines, pp. 524-5.
* Cibrario e Promis, Doc. p. 34 : for the date see Manteyer, loc. cit.
* Billet et Albrieux, Charles de Maurienne, p. 38.
* See below, p. 76.
58 The problem of the two Humberts
Next we come to a group of three charters (pp. 45-6) of Bishop Oddo of Belley (1000, 1003). The Bishop has brothers (Car. Reg. XXIV.); he resides at Bocozel (near La Cote St Andre); he has lands at Chatonnay (id. xx., xxi.) and in the county of Belley {id. xxiv.) where he also obtains a very profitable lease. These are all in then and later Humbertine land^ As to who his brothers were, Humbert (who in 1003 has a wife and is a Count) and Burchard appear at the head of the signatories in both Oddo's own charters. There is therefore a sus- picion that they were the brothers. Thus the conjectural result is :
I 1 1
Oddo Burchard Humbert
Bp of Belley (?) Count
1000, 1003 (?)
That they were Humbertines admits of but little doubt in view of the localities involved.
The next document (Car. Reg. xxviii., above, p. 46) only shows a Count Humbert as influential at court in 1009. The next (Car. Reg. XLiv., above, p. 46) shows a Count Humbert officiating as agent near Nyon (north of Geneva) and presumably holding land there. The next again (Car. Reg. xlvi., above, p. 47) tells us nothing of the Humbertines.
The next (Car. Reg. lii., above, p. 47) shows us a Count Humbert
with his sons Amadeus and Bishop Burchard, owning land in the south,
and obtaining land in the north, of the Genevois in 1022. Thus
we have :
Humbert Count 1022
r ^ n
Amadeus Burchard
Bishop
Then there comes forward in Car. Reg. Liii. (above, p. 47) a Burchard, with his son Aymon and wife Countess Ermengarde, possessed of land at St Genix in the county of Belley. He is connected with the royal house, and with a Count Humbert who has a wife Nauchila (i.e. Auchila with an honorific prefix), who should be Count of Belley, as he is called donnus, which in these charters seems mostly reserved for the Count of the locality of the charter'. Burchard's favourite monastery is St Andre- le-bas, Vienne. There results :
^ Cf. Carutti, Umberto 1 Biancamano, p. 93 ; Manteyer, Notes additioimelles, pp. 287-8, and see below for later charters. See below, Section iv. of this chapter under Sermorens and Belley.
- Cf. the Aostan charters (Car. Reg. LVii., Lix., xc, cxx.), but Humbert could hardly have been Count of Equestricus (Car. Reg. XLIV., above, p. 46), cf. below, p. 85.
Genealogical data from the documents 59
Burchard = Ermengarde I Countess Conrad = | Ubertus = Nauchila
King Aymon Count
>
Burchard II
Archbp of
Lyons
Rudolf III = Ermengarde King
We now remove to Aosta. On the 19th October 1024 (Car. Reg. Lvii., above, p. 48) Bishop Burchard exchanges episcopal land, with the consent of the Aostan Count, Domnus Umbertus comes. The latter, as we know, was Humbert Whitehands. It would be tempting to con- sider the Bishop the same as the Bishop Burchard of 1022. On the i6th November 1026 the same Bishop and Count make a similar exchange (Car. Reg. Lix., above, p. 48).
Then the scene shifts to the district of the Belley charters. Aymon of Pierreforte (Car. Reg. lxxiii., above, p. 48) makes a grant of Monter- minod in the county of Savoy to Cluny. Among the signatories are Count Humbert and his son Amadeus, and also Burchard, Oddo, Aymon and Geoffrey. The latter name occurs frequently in the Hum- bertine charters and may possibly be that of a kinsman or dependant (e.g. seneschal), or both. Though only Amadeus is called Humbert's son, we need not hesitate to consider the others as such : in fact owner- ship was as much a matter of family as personal right and it was as well to get the agnates' signatures to a grant. Thus we have :
Aymon Humbert Whitehands
of Pierreforte Count
r -r ^ r 1
Amadeus Burchard Oddo Aymon
(?) (?) (?)
These must be Whitehands and his four sons. Let us note that we find them and their connection Aymon in Savoy proper. It is a pity that there is no date, but perhaps 1020-30 cannot be far out. None of the sons has a title given him in the charter.
The next charter comes from the borders of Savoy proper and Belley (Car. Reg. lx., above, pp. 48-9). Count Humbert and his three sons, Amadeus, Aymon and Oddo, give to Cluny land etc. " de nostra hereditate " on and below Mont du Chat, part being in Belley and part in Savoy. Other nobles of the district contribute land to the great Abbey. Here again by common consent we have Humbert White- hands ; Aymon's presence as a son being the criterion.
Humbert Whitehands
, -H -,
Amadeus Aymon Oddo
6o The problem of the two Humberts
Again the same genealogy appears in Car. Reg. lxi. (above, p. 49) dealing with property at the mouth of R. Leisse in Savoy proper. One would like to know on what journey of Abbot Odilo to Rome this was transacted. The Cluniac priory of Le Bourget was founded by now.
Car. Reg. lxii. and lxiii. (above, p. 49) merely show us Burchard, Bishop of Aosta, as Provost of St Maurice, while his uncle Burchard II, Archbishop of Lyons, is Abbot.
Of quite special importance is Car. Reg. lxxix. (above, p. 49). Herein Count Amadeus and his wife Adalegilda or Adela make a gift of the church St Maurice of Maltacena (Matassine by Le Bourget) to Cluny. This was not the actual foundation of Le Bourget Priory (see below, p. 64), but it can hardly be far removed in date since this seems to be the Priory Church. Amadeus calls himself the son of Count Humbert, and a Count Humbert, with his wife Auciha, shares in the grant. It is done in Rudolf Ill's court and the latter and Queen Ermengarde sign. That Humbert and Aucilia are the connections of Burchard in Car. Reg. liii. (above, pp. 58-9) one cannot doubt. I will leave the question of the identity with Humbert Whitehands or not till later ; but here I must state that I cannot accept Carutti's view that the Count Humbert, father of Count Amadeus, is a different person from the signatory Count Humbert. Not only is the former not styled quondam or bonae memoriae, as he would be if dead (and Carutti's view demands that his death should have already occurred); but Humbert and Aucilia join in the grant at the end — " Hii et hae (i.e. Amadeus and Adela, Humbert and Aucilia) banc donationem fecerunt"; although they are not mentioned in the body of the grant as grantors \ This is natural for the father and mother of the grantors, but surely no head- ship of the family would account for such an exercise of authority. Thus we have on the 22nd October 1030 the following genealogy:
Humbert = Aucilia Count I
, \
1
Adela = Amadeus Oddo
Count (?)
I may remark that Le Bourget continued to be a favourite founda- tion of the Savoyards, even after Amadeus III erected Hautecombe on the Lac du Bourget as the family Abbey.
^ Even if the charter, only known through a false original, has been rehandled later (see Cibrario e Promis, Sigilli dd principi di Savoia, p. 5), this is most unlikely to be an interpolation.
Genealogical data from the documents 6i
Car. Reg. lxxx. and lxxxvi. (above, p. 50) have an interest, as in one Burchard II and Burchard III receive their episcopal titles and in the other not.
Car. Reg. lxxxiii. (above, p. 50) shows us a Count Humbert closely connected with the court c. 103 1-2 and interested in Savoy.
Car. Reg. Lxxxiv. (above, p. 50) shows a Count Humbert again as a person of great weight with Queen Ermengarde and specially interested in dealings on the borders of the Genevois and Savoy.
If these are presumably mentions of Humbert Whitehands, Car. Reg. xc. (above, pp. 50-1) introduces him certainly in his office of Count of Aosta. Its date is 1032.
Car. Reg. Lxxii. (above, p- 51) gives us a little genealogy again. In
this fragment (for it forms the conclusion of another charter [? Lxxxiv.] ')
several nobles give La Burbanche in the county of Belley to Savigny
Abbey c. 103 1-2, They do it in the presence of Bishop Aymon of
Belley and before domnus Count Humbert and the latter's son Ama-
deus. The inference is that Humbert here is Count of Belley, Thus
we have :
Humbert Aymon
Ct of Belley Bp of Belley
c. 1031-2
I Amadeus
Aymon, Bishop of Belley, appears again in Cluny iv. 2885 and 2884 (above, p. 51), where he exchanges churches in the Viennois and Sermorens with Berlio, whose name is found elsewhere in Humbertine documents. The date is 1032.
In Car. Reg. cvi. (above, p. 51), we find Count Humbert with the widowed Queen Ermengarde at a Synod of Vienne in 1036,
In Car. Reg. cvii. (above, pp. 51-2), dated November 1036, we find Count Humbert owning land, next to that of the King (Conrad II), at Coise, then in Savoy proper'. Presumably he was Count of Savoy,
• See Manteyer, Origines, p. 392.
* So in charter. Cf. Manteyer, Origines, p. 395. Carutti, Umberto Biancatnano, p. 104, states that it was land in Maurienne which was bounded by Count Humbert's. But I cannot find authority for this in the text. His reason probably is that Coise lay in the diocese, though not in the ancient county of Maurienne.
62 The problem of the two Humberts
Car. Reg. cxiii. (above, p. 52) only shows us Aymon Bishop of Sion and Martigny\ Aymon Bishop of Belley and Theobald Bishop of Maurienne present at the Synod of Romans in October 1037.
Car. Reg. xci. (above, p. 52), dated c. 1039, gives us Count Hum- bert as advocate of Queen Ermengarde in the Genevois.
Car. Reg. cxx. (above, pp. 52-3) is the remarkable 1040 grant of Humbert Whitehands in Aosta. Here we find Oddo, Count Amadeus and Aymon Bishop of Sion, all evidently on the same footing as sons of the grantor, while an untitled Burchard is expressly styled so. The following genealogy results :
Humbert Whitehands 1040
(?) (?) I (?)
I 1 ^ 1 1
Adelaide = Oddo Amadeus Aymon Burchard
Ctess I Mqss Count Bp of Sion
Peter, Mqss
The next charter, Car. Reg. cxxiii. (above, p. 53), dated 21 January 1042^, takes us back to Sermorens. In it " Domnus" Count Humbert gives the church of St Marie of Les Echelles etc. to the monastery of St Chaffre, for the latter's dependency St Laurence of Grenoble. They are described as " de hereditate mea quae mihi ex conquisto obvene- runt." The charter is subscribed by Archbishop Burchard (HI), Aymon Bishop (of Sion), Ameeus (sic) and Oddo in the order named as well as by others. It is admitted in both genealogical schemes that Humbert Whitehands and some of his sons occur here; but according to Carutti and Di Vesme Burchard III is Whitehands' first cousin. No relation- ships are actually mentioned.
After a few months, on the 10 June 1042 (Car. Reg. cxxv., above,
P- 53)) Count Humbert Whitehands and his sons Amadeus and Oddo
give the churches of Les Echelles and a mansus to St Chaffre and
St Laurence. The signatories are headed by Archbishop Burchard ;
and among them Amadeus takes the style of Count. Thus from these
two charters we have in admitted relationships :
Humbert Whitehands Count (? of Savoy) (?)
^ ,
Burchard HI Amadeus Oddo Aymon
Archbp Count Bp (of Sion)
(of Lyons, deposed)
^ " Sedunensis atque Octodurensis." There had been some shifting of the see (cf. Gams, p. 312). The reference of Gallia Christiana (see Car. Reg. cxiii.) to St Maurice is due to an erroneous supposition that Octodurensis meant the Abbey. See p. 52, n. I, and p. 29, n. 3 above.
- For discussion of possible real date, see above, p. 53, n. i.
Genealogical data from the documents 63
Next come two grants of Aymon of Sion. In Gremaud, M.D.R. xviii. 338 (above, p. 54), 23 December 1043, he makes a grant through Ulric the advocate of the Bishopric of Sion. In Car. Reg. cxxxi. (above, p. 54), 22 February 1046, he, being Provost of St Maurice as well as bishop, makes a grant in the former capacity through his advocate Bozo.
In Car. Reg. cxxxii. (above, p. 54), in June 1047', Humbert White- hands appears for the first time as Count of Maurienne, from whom the Bishop of Maurienne, Theobald, holds a benefice". He adds to the