Early 11th-century counts of Louvain - part 1

[Peter Stewart]

According to an interpolation at the end of the entry for 1038 in
manuscripts of Sigebert of Gembloux's chronicle, Henry (I) of Louvain
was murdered in his own house by a captive (probably a hostage treated
as his guest) and succeeded by his son Otto, who died prematurely and
was in turn succeeded by a paternal uncle Baldric aka Lambert (II),
here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_6/index.htm#page/357/mode/2up. This was
copied, but placed under 1039 and with the uncle's names given in
reverse, in a chronicle of Brabant written in or shortly after 1294,
here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_25/index.htm#page/407/mode/1up.

This succession (Henry I > Otto > Lambert II) was accepted without
challenge until 2018, when Frans van Droogenbroeck argued - I think
wrongly - that Otto did not exist and that Lambert II had directly
succeeded his brother Henry I, here: https://www.academia.edu/36736769.

The main evidence adduced for rubbing out Otto was that he is not
mentioned in a Vita of St Gudila formerly thought to be a second
recension from the 12th century but reasonably enough considered by Van
Droogenbroeck to be the earlier version, ascribed by him to ca 1048 and
attributed to Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's
chaplain Odulf. Much work done on this source has in my view biased Van
Droogenbroeck to think it more authoritative, and to take it more
literally, than is warranted. In recording Lambert II's presence in
Brussels on 16 November 1047 it says that he was successor to his
brother Henry ("Lambertus uero, qui et baldricus comes, henrico fratri
succedens"), p. 178 here: https://www.academia.edu/28937351.

Van Droogenbroeck took this to mean that Lambert must have succeeded
Henry directly, rather than becoming count after him but following the
brief incumbency of a young nephew, Otto. However, there is other
written evidence (though uncertain) for the existence of Otto that he
disregarded and some fairly strong circumstantial evidence for another
hereditary count between Henry and Lambert that in my view he
misinterpreted. He also glossed over the problem that the Vita in
question is not comprehensively reliable for genealogical details, since
for instance Henry's and Lambert's maternal grandfather the Carolingian
Charles of Laon is described as son of his brother Lothar IV ("karolus
filius lotharii regis francorum"), p. 175 in the edition by Van
Droogenbroeck linked above.

In the late-14th century annals of Jacques de Guise some verses about
the counts of Louvain are quoted from a lost history of Brabant written
by a William abbot of Saint-Trond, probably William of Affligem (abbot
1277-1297 and reputed as a poet) or possibly William of Ryckel (abbot
1249-1272), here:
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_30_1/index.htm#page/184/mode/1up. The
interest of this fragment for the question of Otto's existence is in the
ninth–twelfth lines, meaning 'To him (Lambert I) succeeded Henry (I)
whom a son Otto follows, to no avail since he (Otto) was without issue.
The latter is succeeded by Lambert, his paternal uncle, who presently
rules these lands and Louvain'.

The present tense used for Lambert ("regit ... praeest"), contrasted
with the forgoing perfect tense for Henry ("successit") suggests a
source of this information written by a contemporary while Lambert was
count. In the fifth-sixth lines the author claims to have personally
seen either Henry's and Lambert's mother Gerberga or to have seen
chronicles giving her as a sister to Charles of Laon's son Otto (from
whom Brussels was probably inherited by the counts of Louvain, and after
whom Henry's son Otto would be apparently named). Now obviously neither
of the 13th-century abbots William can have seen Gerberga herself, so
the editor suggested that the plural "dant chronica" (chronicles relate)
in the fifth line should be amended to the singular "dat chronica" in
order to agree with the end of the next line after Gerberga's name, "que
michi visa fuit" (that was seen by myself). However, the use of "visa"
rather than "lecta" implies having actually seen Gerberga rather than
just reading about her, as does the ordering of phrases - the erratic
syntax here may be due to clumsy versification by the 13th-century abbot
of a mid-11th century prose source. Obviously this is not certain enough
to refute Van Droogenbroeck's theory conclusively, but he entirely
neglected to consider it.

More definite circumstantial evidence can be found from the time at
issue. In a charter dated 5 June 1040 the German King (later Emperor)
Henry III restored the estate of Nivelles and its appurtenances to the
nunnery of Sainte-Gertrude, as well as determining that there should be
no count or advocate unless chosen by the abbess and that the nunnery
should be free from all comital or advocatory power except by invitation
in the cause of justice, here:
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/67/mode/2up. The counts
of Louvain had held - and abused - the advocacy of Sainte-Gertrude since
Lambert I at the beginning of the 11th century. Yet no count or advocate
is specified by name in Henry III's charter, that was issued not long
after the murder of Count Henry I in 1038 or 1039. Van Droogenbroeck
interpreted this as an implicit proscription of Lambert II, but it could
just as well be understood as preventing the young (and perhaps already
ailing) Otto from emulating the abuses of his father and grandfather, or
possibly to restrain Lambert acting on behalf of an underage Otto
without holding the comital title himself or exercising the advocacy in
his own right at that time.

In the following summer Henry III issued another charter for
Sainte-Gertrude abbey, dated 3 June 1041, again restoring the estate of
Nivelles to the nunnery but this time with the consent of Lambert, who
is to retain his hereditary benefice after the extinction of all his
predecessors as hereditary advocates, i.e. apparently not long after the
premature death of Otto, here:
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_dd_h_iii/index.htm#page/105/mode/1up. It would
make no sense whatever for the king to say that God had wiped out all
who had held the hereditary advocacy ("omnes, qui hereditatem virginis
pro hereditario beneficio tenebant, extinxit") if Lambert, who was
plainly not yet subject to divine wrath and was to retain limited
authority from then on, had been the incumbent ever since Henry's murder
two or three years beforehand.

The suggestion by Van Droogenbroeck that the interpolation in Sigebert's
chronicle above was due to mistaking another Otto, Emperor Otto II's
Ezzonid grandson, count palatine of Lorraine and subsequently duke of
Swabia (killed in 1047), who in the mid-1040s campaigned in the region
of Ename approximately 85 kms west of Louvain, for a count of Louvain
and alleged son of Henry I is wholly unconvincing.

I will post later about the sisters of Otto, who were relegated by Van
Droogenbroeck to a later generation that I think imaginary.

Peter Stewart






--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[Hans Vogels]

Op vrijdag 12 augustus 2022 om 09:11:10 UTC+2 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:

> misinterpreted. Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's
> chaplain Odulf., p. 175 in the edition by Van

>> Onulf of Hautmont who was a friend of Lambert II's chaplain Odulf. <<

Onulf was thus a contemporary of count Lambert and he does not mention Otto.

>> He also glossed over the problem that the Vita in question is not comprehensively reliable for genealogical details, since

for instance, Henry's and Lambert's maternal grandfather the Carolingian Charles of Laon is described as son of his brother Lothar IV ("karolus
filius lotharii regis francorum" <<

That was say 40 years prior to his contemporary writing so of that he can be excused.

Another item that you seem to browse over is Van Droogenbroeck mentions that the tradition of an 'Otto' is newly introduced in the writings of the Brabant historians in the seventies of the 13th century. Does that not strike you as odd? You mention the writings of William abbot of Saint-Trond but that would at the most start the tradition in 1249.

With friendly regards,
Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

Onulf was a hagiographer writing about St Gudila (if the attribution is
corret), not a genealogy or gesta of the counts of Louvain. Any number
of medieval sources don't happen to mention every recent collateral
dead-end in the family of every person who happens into the narrative.
The omission of Otto is not at all remarkable in this context.

>>> He also glossed over the problem that the Vita in question is not comprehensively reliable for genealogical details, since
> for instance, Henry's and Lambert's maternal grandfather the Carolingian Charles of Laon is described as son of his brother Lothar IV ("karolus
> filius lotharii regis francorum" <<
>
> That was say 40 years prior to his contemporary writing so of that he can be excused.

Of course he can be "excused" in that genealogy was not his subject
matter - the point is that he was writing about a translation of saintly
relics in Brussels, which had evidently been inherited through Lambert's
maternal grandfather whose relationship within the Carolingian family
was flatly misstated. This is a detail of far more import than noting
the existence of a short-lived and childless nephew of the current
ruler. Other sources got it right.

> Another item that you seem to browse over is Van Droogenbroeck mentions that the tradition of an 'Otto' is newly introduced in the writings of the Brabant historians in the seventies of the 13th century. Does that not strike you as odd? You mention the writings of William abbot of Saint-Trond but that would at the most start the tradition in 1249.

As I took some pains to explain, there is evidence that William was
drawing information from an older source written by a contemporary of
Lambert II who had perhaps seen the latter's mother Gerberga personally.
This is not something off the top of my head and it is far from being
new - see the information and citations here
https://www.narrative-sources.be/naso_link_nl.php?link=1487. Van
Droogenbroeck completely overlooked this, and although it is not certain
enough to be fatal to his argument in itself the matter certainly needed
to be discussed as possibly a survival in paraphrase of the earliest
source for Otto.

As to the supposed "introduction" of Otto in late-13th century sources
from Brabant, I'm afraid you are not seeing the wood for the trees. The
reason for Van Droogenbroeck's going over this material is to show how
the existence of Otto came to be fixed in the record from then, not to
misrepresent that it first occurred then. He acknowledges that its first
occurrence in explicit and datable form was in the interpolation to
Sigebert's chroncicle, that was attributed in the link I provided to
Anselm of Gembloux who died in 1136. This assertion by Bethmann in the
MGH edition is accepted (after some discussion of Gorissen's later
findings) by Van Droogenbroeck, see p. 276: "In de huidige stand van het
handschriftelijk onderzoek lijken we dan ook te moeten aannemen dat de
summiere vertelwaardigheden over graaf Otto weliswaar al te Gembloers
bekend waren tijdens het abbatiaat van Anselmus (1112-1136), doch
aanzienlijk later via tussenkomst van de Affligemse geleerden in 1294 de
Leuvense geschiedschrijvers hebben bereikt."

The major shortcoming in Van Droogenbroek's study is his failure to
account for - or even mention - Henry III's statement in June 1041 that
God had manifested his formerly hidden vengeance by eliminating all who
had held the hereditary advocacy of Nivelles. Without somehow making
sense of this in the context of Lambert's having purportedly held the
advocacy ever since the murder of his brother Henry in 1038 or 1039,
rather than just claiming it more recently since the demise of another
advocate two or three years after Henry, the argument falls over.