Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c. 850-c.1100 9789048550586

Citation preview

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Italy in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages The enduring culture of Italy has sustained and transformed human life and experience throughout its long history. Undoubtedly the transformations of the peninsula in the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods are redolent of change and challenge for societies and individuals. This series aims to bridge the gap between Anglophone and Italian scholarship, and more broadly to make works of Italian scholars better known throughout Europe. The series aims to present the best high quality research on the Italian peninsula and the Central Mediterranean in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. It covers the period from the end of the Western Roman Empire to the Ottonians in Italy encompassing Ostrogothic, Lombard and Carolingian Italy. An important aim of this series is to encourage cross-disciplinarity in research associated not only with history, but also archaeology, art history, religious studies and all cognate disciplines. In publishing scholarship from the Anglophone world and from Italy and beyond the series will encourage and deepen knowledge of the central Mediterranean in this fascinating formative period. Series editors Dr Christopher Heath, Manchester Metropolitan University Dr Edoardo Manarini, Università di Torino Editorial Board Prof Ross Balzaretti, University of Nottingham Prof François Bougard, Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes/Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris Dr Clemens Gantner, Austrian Academy of Sciences Prof Tiziana Lazzari, Università di Bologna Prof Edward Schoolman, University of Nevada, Reno

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100

Edoardo Manarini

Amsterdam University Press

Cover illustration: Legislatores gentis Alamannorum, Archivio Storico Diocesano di ModenaNonantola, Biblioteca Capitolare, O.I.2, fol. 110v (digital copy purchased for publication purposes). Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 582 8 e-isbn 978 90 4855 058 6 doi 10.5117/9789463725828 nur 398 © E. Manarini / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2022 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.

For Alda and Clavio, Emilia, Elena, and Laerte



Table of Contents

Prefatory Note 9 Acknowledgements 11 Maps and Tables 13 Abbreviations 15 Preface by Simon MacLean 19 Introduction 21

Part I  Kinship and Political Relations 1. The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Strugglesof the Kingdom of Italy (847–945) 45 Hucpold, Count Palatine of Louis II 48 Faction and Endeavour: Hubald I 57 The Aristocratic Career of Boniface dux et marchio between Rudolf II and Hugh of Arles 64 Bibliography 72 2. Family Patterns and Political Affirmation (945–1012) 83 The Duchy of Spoleto and Tuscany 87 Eastern Emilia and the Exarchate of Ravenna 95 The March of Tuscany 106 Bibliography 115 3. The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Network (1012–1116) 125 Hugh II and His Lineage in Bologna and Ferrara 130 The Ties that Bind: Boniface of Canossa and Kinship Networks across the Apennines 140 The Counts of Romena-Panico 148 Bibliography 152

Part II  Properties and Patronage 4. The Exarchate Land Possession and Relations in the Ninth Century The Troubled Years, c.960–c.1000 Persistence in the comitatus Faentinus and the 1034 Pact Bibliography

165 167 174 178 181

5. The March of Tuscany The Family Group Estates in the Ninth Century Marchisal Fisc and Monastic Foundations Centres of Power, Patronage Networks Bibliography 6. Ruling on the Border : Landed Possessions from the Po Valley to the Apennines in Bononia’s Diocese Acquisitions, Exchanges, Organization of Lands in the Tenth Century Landed Wealth and Hegemony Lands, People and Castles (900–1100) Estate Management: Between Territorial Consolidation and Dispersal Bibliography

185 187 192 201 212 217 221 229 238 247 256

Part III  Power, Relationships, Memory 7. Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory 267 Onomastic Choices 272 The lex Ribuaria profession 277 The Role of Monastic Foundations: Family Memory, Politics and Identity 284 Kinship Representations between Perceptions and Self-awareness 290 Evolution and Hierarchy of Kinship Cohesion 300 Bibliography 302 8. Features and Practices of Power: From Officials to Lords 311 Firsts Steps at Court: Offices and Responsibilities in the Kingdom of Italy 313 The Marchisal Achievement and the Gaining of Ecclesiastical Offices 319 Dinastizzazione of the Title of comes and the Development of Seigneurial Rule in a Border Region 327 Bibliography  331 9. Discontinuity between Public Powers and Private Seigneurial Rule 335 Bibliography 340 Genealogical Tables 343 Bibliography 353 Index 385



Prefatory Note

Almost all personal names in this book are rendered into modern English from Latin, thus Boniface for Bonifacius or Adalbert for Adelbertus. In cases when names are not present in modern English, I chose a regularized Latin form, like Cuniza or Winizus. Ecclesiastical names of churches and religious institutions are rendered in Italian for the sake of clarity. When using Latin expressions or phrases in sentences a translation can be found in either the main text or in the relevant footnote.

Acknowledgements This monograph re-elaborates materials I have been studying and elaborating on for more than a decade now. This opportunity given by Amsterdam University Press has allowed me to approach it all once again, reorganize my assumptions, and make changes and corrections on previous theories I have proposed and published before. In embarking on this new effort, I had two aims: first, for this book to be an updated version of my research on the topic as complete and current as possible; second, to bring to the attention of an anglophone readership, from both inside and outside academic circles, themes and historiography associated with early medieval Italy, which, apart from a few valuable exceptions, are often difficult to attain and ultimately relegated to the wings rather than the forefront of early medieval history. My commitment to this research benefitted from the substantial help of Professor Luigi Provero (Turin), whom I wholeheartedly thank for his frank and sincere discussion, advice and many corrections. Special thanks go also to Professor Tiziana Lazzari (Bologna) who, since my graduation dissertation, has supported and encouraged me in this problematic and fascinating research into the Hucpoldings; I owe her many of the suggestions which made it possible. I would like to thank Professor Giuseppe Sergi (Turin) for his recommendations and impressions, ever precious for enriching my work. My thanks also go to the Medieval Studies section of the Department of Historical Studies of Turin for engaging and animated debates surrounding my work during my years in Turin. I express gratitude to Professor François Bougard (Paris), Professor Paolo Cammarosano (Trieste), Professor Simone Collavini (Pisa), Dr. Clemens Gantner (Vienna), Professor Vito Loré (Roma) and Professor Maria Elena Cortese (Genua) for their advice, thoughts and critique – all advanced with the positive intention of improving my research. I also wish to thank Professor Simon MacLean (St. Andrews) for the interest shown in my research and for writing the insightful preface that presents the book. A special thanks is reserved for Dr. Christopher Heath (Manchester), the real artificer of the Italy in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages collection and strong supporter of this book, and to Dr. Erin T. Dailey (AUP) for showing his care and attention to my work and for its publication with AUP. I also wish to thank Dr. Edward Schoolman (Reno) for his careful review and very useful advice on improving the book. I benefitted from invaluable help in designing maps using GIS software from Marco Panato (Tubingen) and Lorenzo Tabarrini (Bologna), and I am truly thankful for their aid. Naturally, none of the mistakes in this book would be attributable to any

12 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

of the people now acknowledged, but only to myself. Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues and friends who have assisted and supported me over the years, especially Dr. Paolo Buffo (Bergamo), Dr. Giovanni Isabella (Bologna), Dr. Paolo Tomei (Pisa) and Dr. Giacomo Vignodelli (Bologna). Edoardo Manarini Bologna, November 2020



Maps and Tables

Maps Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5

Monasteries cited 31 Places related to the iudiciaria Mutinensis (c.890–c.950)67 Places mentioned in Romagna and in the Apennines 173 south of Faenza Places mentioned in the march of Tuscia 196 Places mentioned in the plain north of Bologna and in 237 the mountains to the south

Tables Table 1 Table 2

The Hucpoldings’ charters: a general overview (847–1130) 27 The Hucpoldings’ charters in the territory of Bologna: lay people and religious houses (c.900–1130)220

Genealogical Tables Table G1 The Hucpoldings and the elites of the kingdom of Italy (c.850–c.930)346 Table G2 Boniface I’s descendants (c.900–c.1050)347 Table G3 Kinship ties among the marquises of Tuscia (c.950– c.1050): Hucpolding women and the legitimation of the Adalbertings348 Table G4 Marquis Almericus II’s ancestry (c.850–c.950)349 Table G5 Kinship ties in Romagna (c.900–c.1050)350 Table G6 Hucpolding lineages in the Bolognese (c.1030–c.1130)351 Table G7 The descendants of Count Adimarus (c.990–c.1130)352

Abbreviations AAN ASBo ASFi ACAFe BNF Bologna 10 Bologna 11 CdC Firenze CdM Badia ChLA 54 DD C II DD F I DD H II

DD H III DD H IV DD H V

Archivio Abbaziale di Nonantola Archivio di Stato di Bologna Archivio di Stato di Firenze Archivio della Curia Arcivescovile di Ferrara Bibliothèque nationale de France Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti (Roma, 1977) Le carte bolognesi del secolo XI, 2 vols., ed. by Giovanni Feo (Roma, 2001) Le carte della canonica della cattedrale di Firenze (723–1149), ed. by Renato Piattoli (Roma, 1938) Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), 2 vols, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli and Anna Maria Enriques (Roma, 1990) Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, vol. 54, Italy XXVI, Ravenna I, ed. by Giuseppe Rabotti and Francesca Santoni (Zurich, 2000) Conradi II diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover, 1909) Frederici I diplomata 1158–1167, ed. by Heinrich Appelt, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 10.2 (Hannover, 1979) Heinrici II et Arduini diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, Hermann Bloch and Robert Holtzmann, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 3 (Hannover, 1900–3) Heinrici III diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau and Paul Fridolin Kehr, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 5 (Berlin, 1931) Heinrici IV diplomata, ed. by Dietrich von Gladiss and Alfred Gawlik, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 6 (Weimar Hannover, 1941–78) Die Urkunden Heinrichs V und der Königin Mathilde, ed. by Matthias Thiel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 7, digital pre-edition https://data.mgh.de/databases/ddhv/index.htm

16 

DD K III

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Karoli III diplomata, ed. by Paul Fridolin Kehr, MGH Diplomata regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 2 (Berlin, 1937) DD L II Ludovici II diplomata, ed. by Konrad Wanner, MGH Diplomata regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 4 (Münich, 1994) Die Urkunden und Briefe der Markgräfin Mathilde DD Mat von Tuszien, ed. by Elke Goez and Werner Goez, MGH Laienfürsten- und Dynastenurkunden der Kaiserzeit 2 (Hannover, 1998) I diplomi italiani di Ludovico III e Rodolfo II, ed. by DD R II Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma, 1910) Conradi I, Heinrici I et Ottonis I diplomata, ed. DD O I by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1 (Hannover, 1879–84) Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed. by Theodor DD O II Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2 (Hannover, 1893) Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed. by Theodor DD O III Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2 (Hannover, 1893) Epitome chronicorum Casinensium, ed. by Ludovico ECC Antonio Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.1 (Milano, 1723), pp. 347–70 Monumenta Germaniae Historica MGH Ravenna 8–9 Le carte ravennati dei secoli ottavo e nono, ed. by. Ruggero Benericetti (Faenza, 2006) Ravenna 10.1 Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 900–957), ed. by. Ruggero Benericetti (Ravenna, 1999) Ravenna 10.2 Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 957–976), ed. by. Ruggero Benericetti (Imola, 2002) Ravenna 11.1 Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1001–1024), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola, 2003) Ravenna 11.2 Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1025–1044), ed. by Massimo Ronchini (Faenza, 2010)

Abbreviations

RI I.3.1

RI I.3.2

RI I.3.3

RI II.1

RI II.2

RI II.3 RI II.4

RI III.1.1

RI III.3.2

17

Die Karolingier im Regnum Italie 840–887 (888), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.1 (Köln, 1991) Das Regnum Italiae in der Zeit der Thronkämpfe und Reichsteilungen 888 (850)–926, ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.2 (Köln, 1998) Das Regnum Italiae vom Regierungsantritt Hugos von Vienne bis zur Kaiserkrönung Ottos des Großen (926–962), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.3 (Köln, 2006) Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I. und Otto I 919–973, ed. by Emil von Ottenthal, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1 (Innsbruck, 1893) Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto II 955 (973)–983, ed. by Hans Leo Mikoletzky, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 2 (Wien, 1950) Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto III, ed. by Mathilde Uhlirz, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3 (Wien, 1956) Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich II 1002–1024, ed. by Theodor von Graff, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 4 (Wien, 1971) Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Konrad II 1024–1039, ed. by Heinrich von Appelt, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1.1 (Wien, 1971) Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich IV 1065–1075, ed. by Tilman von Struve, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.2 (Köln, 2010)

18 

RI III.3.4

RI IV.2.2

RI IV.3

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich IV 1086–1105/06, ed. by Gerhard von Lubich, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.4 (Köln, 2016) Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Friedrich I 1158–1168, ed. by Ferdinand Opll and Hubert Mayr, in Regesta Imperii IV: Lothar III und ältere Staufer 1125–1197, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 2.2 (Wien, 1980) Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich VI 1165(1190)–1197, ed. by Gerhard von Baaken, in Regesta Imperii IV: Lothar III und ältere Staufer 1125–1197, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3 (Köln, 1972)

Preface This book offers us the history of one family as a microcosm of huge changes in Western European society between the ninth and twelfth centuries. This was a period in which the broadly post-Roman world of Late Antiquity gave way to a distinctively medieval landscape dominated by lords, castles, an ever-more tightly controlled peasantry and the growing power of aristocratic families and other elites. Historians have long debated the nature and chronology of these changes: did they happen slowly? suddenly? violently? Some even doubt that they happened at all in the ways traditionally understood. Italian historians have made vital contributions to the debates surrounding the centuries separating Charlemagne from Frederick Barbarossa, the Carolingian Empire from the communes, but the works of scholars such as Cinzio Violante and Giovanni Tabacco were rarely translated into English. For a variety of reasons (and of course with some notable exceptions), anglophone historiography of the period has traditionally been conducted within paradigms constructed from French (rather than German or Italian) building blocks. While Italian history and its modern historiography are hardly unknown, they are not nearly as familiar to anglophone students of the period as they ought to be. This is particularly the case in light of the rich collections of documentary evidence that survive from south of the Alps in greater numbers than most other parts of Europe in the same period, and which have the potential to cast light on all manner of issues in social, economic and political history. Meticulous analysis of these documents forms the bedrock of the arguments presented in this book, along with careful dissection of the fascinating narrative sources. The book builds on and responds to the work of Violante, Tabacco and other prolific and influential twentieth-century historians; but it also represents a burgeoning renewal of interest in early and central medieval Italy in the hands of a new generation of Italian scholars over the last few decades. The so-called ‘Hucpoldings’ are unusual in several ways – not least the extensive traces members of the family left in the surviving sources across several regions and several centuries, as they sought to accommodate their status to the often bewildering succession of Frankish, German and Italian rulers who fought to control the kingdom of Italy. This evidence permits surprisingly detailed analysis of how these wealthy aristocrats manipulated the resources available to them in their pursuit of social and political power: the control of land and churches, the pursuit of marriages and alliances, the acquisition of political offices. It can also show us how those strategies

20 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

and options changed across the period in response to evolving political, social and economic conditions. Accordingly, Manarini’s study of this family takes us to the heart of what was distinctive about the exercise of power in Italian society between the ninth and twelfth centuries – and also helps us understand what Italian history can tell us about the transformation of medieval Europe more generally between the ninth and twelfth centuries. Simon MacLean University of St. Andrews, Scotland

Introduction Abstract The introduction outlines the subject of the research. One of the most relevant early medieval elite kinship groups of the Italian kingdom were the Hucpoldings, named after that Hucpold who had held the office of count palatine under Louis II. Key features of the research are the long chronological range and the wide geographical area investigated. The chapter then retraces the main historiographical steps taken in investigations of early medieval kinship groups from the second half of the twentieth century until the latest developments. A specific section is dedicated to the presentation and analysis of the documentary and narrative sources used in this research. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; prosopography; archival collections; historiography

This book investigates the Hucpoldings, a group of individuals united by a blood lineage, who all, either directly or indirectly, lead back to Hucpold. He lived during the central decades of the ninth century and was a member of the Carolingian Reichsadel and count palatine during the rule of Louis II in Italy (844–875). This study will focus on a detailed examination of the prosopographical, political and patrimonial aspects of each known member of his lineage, according to classic methods of early medieval kin history. Through a thematic analysis of the distinctive elements of the Hucpolding group, we shall identify not only the members of the kin group but also consider the powers they attained, their relationship networks and their collective memory and self-cohesion. Chronologically, this research commences in the mid-eighth century, with the first records of Hucpold in Italy, and continues well into the latter part of the twelfth century, when, after thirteen generations, the various branches of the lineage had followed separate routes. Its geographical focus will be on three regional blocks within which the leading figures of the group operated: first, the Romagna, particularly the city of Ravenna; second, the

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_intro

22 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

eastern Po valley between Modena and Bologna; third, Tuscany, especially the city of Florence together with the north and east Tuscan Apennines. Although Spoleto and Camerino were also a field of Hucpolding activity, the paucity of surviving documentation renders detailed discussion unfeasible. A comprehensive understanding of an historical subject such as the Hucpoldings is a significant historiographic necessity, as they were one of the main kinship groups of Frankish origin who settled in Italy with the aim of achieving the rank of marquis. The Hucpoldings should be added to the four key affinities identified by Paolo Cammarosano at the end of the ninth century in the Italian kingdom.1 Instead, they have remained on the margins of studies on the Carolingian period. Furthermore, the evolution of the group is marked by two peculiarities of notable interest, which together constitute a unicum of the Italian aristocratic milieu: first, the early development of lordship in a territory, which did not coincide with the areas of official appointments; and second, the persistent use of symbolic elements signifying an awareness and collective memory to preserve active blood-related connections within the extended kinship group. Although they were leading figures in several areas of the kingdom, the different branches of the group have never been critically compared,2 thus impeding an effective overall picture of Hucpolding activities. The Bolognese branch alone has been studied more consistently, at the beginning of the 1900s, under the name of counts of Bologna. Overly severe historiographical categorization, however, has significantly distorted the reconstructions. As a result, kinship activities have been forced into a widespread administrative structure attributed to the whole Carolingian kingdom, including the Bolognese territory which was never completely a part of it – at least administratively speaking.3 Thanks to recent historiographical achievements,4 we can move beyond the local Bolognese dimension more easily, first and foremost through the collective name Hucpoldings, as opposed to the traditional label of counts of Bologna (conti di Bologna): by shifting attention from the geographical area onto single individuals of the group. This has meant broadening the field of investigation to consider kinship presence and activity over the greater part of the kingdom of Italy. To overcome the 1 Cammarosano, Nobili e re, pp. 175–9. On the main Reichsadel’s groups of the Carolingian Empire see Werner, ‘Bedeutende Adelsfamilien’. 2 A few of studies have referred to the kinship group as a whole – and thus should be noted – even if they did not engage closely with Hucpolding developments: R. Rinaldi, ‘Le origini dei Guidi’; R. Rinaldi, ‘Esplorare le origini’; Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’. 3 See Chapter 3. 4 See Lazzari, Comitato.

Introduc tion

23

difficulties created by this considerable geographical dispersion, which becomes evident through the examination of archive sources, it has been necessary to consider kinship connections in the widest possible sense, thus conferring importance on each and every horizontal cognatic tie we find. This study engages with the historiographical responses to aristocracy and elites which attained its most productive point in the last two decades of the last century.5 Its start cannot therefore avoid comparison with interpretative models of that time,6 which are still unsurpassed on the Italian landscape even when compared with more recent progress in other European historiographies. The first two sections build on the work of Giovanni Tabacco and Cinzio Violante: the former proved to be more sensitive to institutional themes; the latter was more attentive to the elements of patrimony and kinship.7 Initially antithetical, the positions of these two schools of thought gradually drew closer together over later generations, finally reaching a common historiographical sensitivity that became the fundamental method for the more developed studies in this line of research in the first half of the 1990s.8 Nonetheless, the application of the Italian method to a research topic such as the Hucpoldings, characterized by a patrimony spread across most of the kingdom of Italy, brings complications at times insurmountable, as illustrated by the scarce historiographical work the topic has received thus far. To overcome the impasse, and go beyond the kinship framework offered by patrimonial evidence alone, it has been necessary to reconsider the original criteria of the Personenforschung of Gerd Tellenbach,9 as adjusted by the approach of Tiziana Lazzari.10 The approach of isolating single individuals and rebuilding each one’s political career, official roles, property and family ties has enabled considerable expansion of our understanding of the kinship group as a whole, and as a bloodline. In this way, it has been possible to establish, or presume, ties and solidarities between a number of individuals of a wide, extended kinship group up until at least the beginning of the eleventh century.11 5 Collavini, ‘Vito Fumagalli e le aristocrazie’, pp. 268, 278–82. 6 Such as Sergi, I confini del potere; Cammarosano, Nobili e re. 7 See Tabacco, Struggle for Power; Violante, Atti privati e storia medievale. 8 Results from that time were collected in the series Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti. 9 See Tellenbach, ‘Zur Bedeutung der Personenforschung’. 10 See Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’. 11 Not all the historiography agrees on this method, assuming that it is a projection of historians: Bouchard, Those of My Blood; Hummer, Visions of Kingship. See also the recent and comprehensive account of the transformation of Italian elites and aristocratic groups by Schoolman, ‘Aristocracies in Early Medieval Italy’.

24 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The investigation has been further enriched thanks to encounters with recent historiographical achievements in other European countries, primarily France, where the careful use of anthropological instruments in historical analyses has even enabled a reanalysis and redrafting of the general framework of the institutional history of early medieval Europe.12 Specific attention has been placed on female actors and on the complexity of horizontal relationships in broad groups.13 This perspective allows us as never before to put together an overall picture of Hucpolding development and history. On the theme of political relationships established by early medieval aristocracies, one must consider the lack of studies in family history dedicated to aristocratic networks and cognatic ties, both features essential to these kind of social groups.14 Recently, British historiography has developed effective models for understanding the policies and tactics applied to relationships of individuals at the top of Carolingian society: Janet Nelson and Simon MacLean have analysed, in a new light, the behaviours and above all the political relationships moulded by the last Carolingian emperors, Charles the Bald (875–877) and Charles the Fat (881–888);15 Stuart Airlie has closely investigated the relations and power-building networks of the Carolingian and Frankish aristocracies;16 Barbara Rosenwein has reconsidered the behaviour and munificent activities of Berengar I of Italy (888–924), who, despite widespread historiographical prejudice,17 can be followed back to a coherent and effective political strategy;18 and finally, Constance Bouchard has focused on the transformation of medieval aristocratic groups in an extensive study on the Bosonids.19 Along with the significant emergence of gender studies also applied to the early medieval period,20 these dissertations brought about the recent investigation by Tiziana Lazzari into the political and patrimonial influence of the queens of the kingdom of Italy.21 A new gender analysis thus devised has 12 See Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir; Le Jan, Femmes, pouvoir; Bougard et al., ‘Les élites du haut Moyen Âge’. 13 Crucial to these perspectives are Bougard, ‘Les Supponides’, and Lazzari, Le donne nell’alto medioevo. 14 Rare examples in Italian historiography are Delogu, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia’, pt. 3; Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’; Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo. 15 Nelson, Charles the Bald; MacLean, Kingship and Politics; MacLean, ‘After his death a great tribulation came to Italy …’. 16 Airlie, Power and Its Problem. 17 See for example Tabacco, Struggle for Power, pp. 172–3. 18 Rosenwein, ‘Family Politics of Berengar I’. 19 Bouchard, Those of My Blood, pp. 74–97. 20 See Wood, ‘Genealogy Defined by Women’. 21 Il patrimonio delle regine, ed. Lazzari.

Introduc tion

25

also meant that the queens’ kinships have had to be reconsidered and therefore the behaviour of the kingdom’s magnates has had to be redefined, both within the aristocracy and towards the royal power. This is an approach which Lazzari had herself developed in her study of Supponid women.22 Although these lines of research are not specifically focused on examining the whole development of each aristocratic group, the overall view obtained from this historiographic perspective has also proven to be fundamental to an analysis applied to a much broader period, as in the case of the relations shaped by the Hucpoldings. Property analysis and reconstruction of patronage networks alone occupy our attention for most of the second part of the book due to the quantity and complexity of the data. Primary importance should be given to patrimonial investigations because of patrimony’s dispersion and abundance: it is precisely the land assets which indicate the territorial frameworks of the kinship group’s political concerns. Properties are the better documented elements of the lineage history, thus they become both the focus of and the basis for an overall reconstruction of the Hucpolding issue. The third part is composed of two chapters which form the conclusions of the whole study and the culmination of our prosopographical investigation and reconstruction of the group’s patrimony. The book here moves away from interpretative models mentioned so far and proposes, through thematic analysis, the diachronic reconstruction of the evolution of group’s powers and awareness of their relations of kinship. Indeed if in the first two sections, the objective is to identify, deconstruct and understand each single genealogical, political and patrimonial detail, this last section aims to lift into an overall framework the specific peculiarities that bond those individuals known as Hucpoldings. Before proceeding to Chapter 1, a few words must be said about the documentary and narrative sources considered for this study.

Documentary Evidence: Dispersal of Properties, Archival Geography Both the issues of political mobility and the dispersal of assets has affected in turn the conservation of pertinent documentary sources. The case of the Hucpoldings’ archival holdings is representative of the way in which early medieval aristocracies operated within the kingdom of Italy: active in three different regional areas, the members of the group established relationships with a wide variety of both religious and lay associates, making it impossible 22 Lazzari, ‘Una mamma carolingia’.

26 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

to concentrate on documents in a single archival centre, where continuous selections of their charters might have been gathered. This geographical spread is remarkable because it covers three different regions of the kingdom. Further, it also corresponds to an equally considerable documentary fragmentation, resulting in the majority of cases in differing amounts of evidence for each area of activity, even over a short to medium time span. To overcome the difficulties posed by this documentary situation for an overall framework, it is necessary to consider each archival document beyond its immediate content. The aim here is to reconstruct the pathway by which each single item of evidence was preserved, thereby identifying the original collection and the religious institution to which it originally belonged. In this way, by giving importance to the geography of the archival fonds, it has been possible to reflect on each single area of property asset in a wider historical context, taking advantage of the great care taken by the religious houses to preserve these documents.23 This methodology offers good opportunities to recognize and highlight long-standing political and patrimonial connections long hidden in surviving documentation between these collectors and individual representatives of the group. In the abbey of Nonantola for example,24 a single document dated 936 certifies a direct patrimonial relationship between the powerful abbey and the Hucpoldings active in the same area, perhaps even in direct opposition to the coenobium. The absence of further documentation among the Nonantolan charters from the eleventh and twelfth centuries would appear to bear witness to the lack of any other direct relationship between these figures, each hegemonic, in regard to a portion of land between Modena and Bologna. In any case, the conservation in the abbatial archive of some Hucpolding documents, written between 1094 and 1130 and regarding third parties, enables a patrimonial relationship to be established between them culminating in the final success of Nonantola. From a numerical point of view, the charters relating to members of the Hucpoldings as leading and acting figures, witnesses or even just named, amount to 162: 12 dating to the ninth century, 59 to the tenth century, 67 to the eleventh, and finally, 24 for the early decades of the twelfth century. While the majority of the deeds are property transactions, there are 28 public documents, one part imperial diplomas, the other part placita, distributed as follows: 10 for the ninth and tenth centuries and 4 for the eleventh century. 23 At least until the twelfth century, any documentary collection was preserved by religious institutions: Cammarosano, Italia medievale, pp. 53–5. 24 For a close analysis see Chapter 6.

27

Introduc tion

Table 1. The Hucpoldings’ charters: a general overview (847–1130) 70

53

35

18

0 847-899

900-999 Private Charters

1000-1099

1100-1130

Public Charters

As far as the origin of the collections is concerned, the documentation Private Charters Public Charters comes from numerous religious houses situated in the three4 geographical 8 847-899 areas where the Hucpoldings were active. In Romagna, the19archiepiscopal 40 900-999 62 group from5the end of the 1000-1099 archive of Ravenna collected acts relating to the 22 2 1100-1130 ninth century until the end of the eleventh.25 This archive, however, does not represent the only archive of the exarchate area: albeit in lesser quantities, the archives of the Pomposa abbey and of S. Andrea Maggiore of Ravenna also preserve some charters concerning the group.26 Highly fragmented preservation in Tuscany is a faithful reflection of 1 the various spheres of activity of the kinship group over the centuries. The most continuous and considerable archives are to be found within Florence and surrounding area, where the group operated uninterruptedly from the middle of the ninth century. The archive of S. Giovanni’s cathedral exclusively preserved the only surviving acts from the monastery of S. Andrea of Florence,27 the first monastic associate of the group.28 In the archive of S. Giovanni there are also acts dating from the eleventh and twelfth century 25 On the development and on the types of document in the archiepiscopal archive of Ravenna see Ravenna 10.1, pp. xvi–xxxvi. 26 On the Pomposa archive see Regesta Pomposiae, pp. 9–43. A hundred charters from S. Andrea Maggiore’s archive are currently preserved at the BNF in Paris, bound in a single codex named Codex Parisinus; on the codex history and on its contents see Vespignani, La Romània italiana, pp. 116–20. 27 Most of S. Andrea’s archive was probably merged with that of S. Miniato al Monte at the beginning of the eleventh century, when the latter institution was granted property rights on the former see Le carte del monastero di S. Miniato al Monte, p. 8. 28 See Chapter 5, pp.  187–90.

28 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

which relate to Adimarus’ descendants, who were involved with the cathedral clergy milieu of Florence for a considerable length of time.29 Also in Florence, there is the archive of S. Maria – the so-called Badia fiorentina – the first monastic foundation ascribable to the group.30 In the countryside, we can add the archive of S. Salvatore a Settimo,31 a rural church which benefitted from the patrimony of the Hucpoldings from the ninth century where later the Cadolings established a Benedictine foundation. A little further into the Apennines towards the north in the Mugello area, we also consider the nunnery of S. Pietro a Luco, founded at the end of the eleventh century.32 Coinciding with the group’s attainment of the office of marquis of Tuscany, we can observe a wider archival fragmentation, a clear consequence of the significant spread of relations the group entered into in that area. The tenthcentury charters relating to Willa I, Hugh I and Boniface II are preserved in various monastic, episcopal and ecclesiastical archives all over Tuscany. In addition to the collection belonging to the Badia fiorentina, copies or originals of deeds are preserved in the monastic archives of S. Michele di Marturi, S. Salvatore a Fontana Taona and S. Salvatore al Monteamiata, in the episcopal archives of Lucca and Volterra and in the chapter archives of Pisa and of Florence, already mentioned. The archives of the monastery of Camaldoli and of S. Fedele di Strumi, on the other hand, preserve a good number of acts relating to the leading figures of the kinship group and their descendants who operated in the more eastern sector of the Tuscan Apennine area in direct contact with the valleys of Romagna.33 The two monasteries were privileged beneficiaries of both the Guidi and of individuals representing the Bologna branch of the group, who were united in marriage with the former in the eleventh century. Documentation from the wealthy abbey of Polesine, S. Maria della Vangadizza, closely connected with Marquis Hugh I outside Tuscany, is also collated with the same Camaldoli archive. Indeed, it is likely that with the transfer of the abbey to Camaldoli determined by Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) in 1213,34 monastic charters also arrived there, where they were consulted and transcribed for the Annales Camaldulenses. Nonetheless, in 29 See Chapter 3, pp. 144-48. 30 Badia fiorentina’s archive is now preserved in the Diplomatico of the Archivio di Stato of Florence; see CdM Badia, vol. 1, p. xi. 31 Now kept together with the collection of S. Frediano in Cestello also in the Florence Diplomatico; on the archival path see Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, pp. xiii–xv. 32 S. Pietro a Luco’s archive is also preserved in the Florence Diplomatico. 33 These two monastic archives were also gathered in the Florence Diplomatico. 34 See Vedovato, ‘L’inizio della presenza’, pp. 97–107.

Introduc tion

29

the new location of the same archive at the Archivio di Stato of Florence it does not appear possible to trace any of the acts from the Vangadizza abbey, probably because they began at some point to follow another, unknown path of conservation. Again, within Tuscan borders, one might expect to find a significant number of charters pertaining to any member of the kinship group in the archives of Arezzo, particularly for Eberhard, bishop of the city from c.963 to 979 (at least), but in actual fact there is no evidence at all.35 Here there is a gap in documentation which repeats itself for the whole Marche region controlled on no less than four occasions by members of the Hucpoldings between the tenth and eleventh centuries. Despite undeniable political control, certified by the notarial custom of dating according to the years of ducal rule,36 the archives of the religious houses in Spoleto and Camerino do not preserve any concrete evidence of the Hucpoldings. For the western part of Emilia, the Bolognese territory is the richest area of evidence, thanks to a lengthy patrimonial presence recorded as early as the end of the ninth century, but more so thanks to the foundation of the private monastery, S. Bartolomeo di Musiano. The archive of the coenobium, which merged with that of the abbey of S. Stefano of Bologna in 1307,37 preserves the majority of the charters of the group, both those drawn up with private individuals and naturally those in favour of the monks themselves. This collection of acts relates to the Apennine area south of Bologna and the plains to the north. Document survival from Musiano is, however, both fragmentary and insubstantial. In the more eastern sector of the Bolognese Apennines, the archive of S. Cristina of Settefonti is also relevant,38 since the nunnery collected a part of the documentation of the Bolognese branch of the group from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In the area across the plains to the west, the monastery of S. Benedetto in Adili must have been a reference point for the first kinship members; however, its archive appears to be lost.39 The only 35 The only charter by Eberhard which has survived was written in Bibbiena (Arezzo) and now preserved through an eleventh-century copy in Faenza, a section of the Archivio di Stato of Ravenna; see Bologna 10, no. 26. The copy was made at the abbey of Nonantola, which succeeded in establishing its hegemony over some of the landholdings the charter mentioned; see Chapter 6, pp.  227–28, 255. 36 These are acts belonging to monasteries and abbeys, such as Farfa, Casauria, S. Vittore sul Sentino, Chiaravalle of Fiastra and Fonte Avellana; see Chapters 2, pp.  87–88, and 3, p. 136. 37 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 15. 38 These charters are preserved in the Archivio di Stato of Bologna; acts between 1104 and 1230 are edited in synoptic form in Di Pietro, Monasteri e chiese, pp. 265–83. 39 On the monastery see Bottazzi, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto in Adili’.

30 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

sketchy evidence is contained in a breviarium preserved at the abbey of Montecassino, 40 which owned the coenobium and occasionally undertook inspections of its asset administration.41 While yet cursory, the information is sufficient to outline the important relationships between Adili and the first Hucpoldings who settled in the Bologna area. For the same region, acts preserved in the archive of Nonantola are also fundamental, as they certify a substantial number of the group’s properties in the area over a long period of time: initially in the plains of Saltusplanus and then, between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in the lower belt of hills along the valleys of the Reno and Lavino rivers. Lastly, evidence of the group’s presence on the eastern plains of Bologna and Ferrara can be found in a number of archives in these cities: a good number of documents are preserved in the Bologna cathedral chapter’s archive, in the archive of S. Stefano and in the one of S. Giovanni in Monte; others are kept in or are traceable to the archives of the archiepiscopal see of Ferrara and the town monasteries, S. Romano and S. Guglielmo. 42 For the first decades of the twelfth century, in addition to the documentation preserved in the monastic collections, mention must also be made of the older acts preserved by the city comune for the Bolognese: the pardon and the privilege of 1116 which Emperor Henry V (1111–1125) conceded to the people of Bologna, transcribed at the beginning of the Registro Grosso.43 The typology of this source separates it from the patrimonial tenor of previous documentation, as it contains a selection of the acts in the first affirmation of the comune of Bologna, particularly in relation to the expansion into the surrounding countryside. The Registro, however, is just outside the chronological limits of this study, except for the first two charters issued by imperial power, which, as proof of the existence of an initial structure for a town council, mark a final reshaping of the political power of the Hucpolding lineage across a large part of the district of Bologna. 44 40 The breviarium of John of Montecassino – probably an interpolated text – is included in Peter the Deacon’s Registrum: Registrum Petri diaconi, pp. 1541–3. 41 See Chapter 6, pp.  221-23. 42 For a general overview on Ferrara monastic and ecclesiastical archives see Le carte ferraresi, pp. 7–14. 43 The Registro Grosso was composed around 1220 by bringing together transcriptions of charters from the period 1116–1223, which were considered particularly relevant for the comune institution; see the edition in I libri iurium del comune di Bologna. On the medieval comune of Bologna see also the essays in A Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Bologna. 44 See Chapter 3.

Map 1. Monasteries cited

Introduc tion

31

32 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Narrative Sources The contribution of narrative sources is important to the study of the Hucpoldings, despite its notable paucity. 45 In evaluating each literary contribution on the affairs of the first generations in Italy, one needs to consider its specific time and place, thereby permitting insight into how the group was perceived by its contemporaries. Three literary works written over the tenth century prove the presence and activity of the kinship group: Gesta Berengarii imperatoris and Liutprand of Cremona’s Antapodosis are sources which might be described as unrelated to the group, since they deal with Hucpolding representatives in so far as they were involved in royal politics throughout the ninth and tenth centuries; 46 the so-called Epitome chronicorum Casinensium – a much lesser-known source which focused on the history of Montecassino abbey – contains in its last part a distinctive narrative sequence isolated from the context, whose particular characteristics allow us to attribute its elaboration to a monastic environment very close to the Hucpoldings. It is this text, less familiar to scholars, that warrants a little more introduction. As the later title would suggest, the Epitome Chronicorum Casinensium chronicles the history of the Benedictine abbey from its establishment until its second destruction at the end of the ninth century, and includes a notable quantity of document transcriptions useful in authenticating the monks’ properties. 47 It is a complex text both in its composition and its tradition, which today still lacks a detailed analysis. 48 Furthermore, as with all historical compositions relating to medieval Montecassino, it is necessary to take into account Peter the Deacon’s reworking – and in some cases out-and-out falsification – over the twelfth century.

45 Beyond tenth-century narratives, one has to consider also briefer accounts from later sources: dated to eleventh century, Hucpolding notices are to be found in two letters by Peter Damian (Die Briefe des Petrus, nos. 51, 68) and a passage from the Vita Mathildis by Donizo of Canossa (Donizone, Vita di Matilde di Canossa, vv. 452–3, p. 46); to the thirteenth century with Magister Tolosanus’ chronicle, which includes some relevant passages concerning the kinship branch that settled in Romagna. 46 On these sources see Bougard, ‘Le couronnement impérial’; Duplessis, ‘Les sources des gloses’; Albertoni, ‘La f ine dell’impero’; Sutherland, Liudprand of Cremona; Gandino, Il vocabolario politico; Buc, ‘Italian Hussies’. 47 On Montecassino’s early history see Bloch, Monte Cassino; Dell’Omo, ‘Montecassino altomedievale’; Marrazzi, ‘Pellegrini e fondatori’. 48 A first attempt, with Latin transcription and English translation of the Hucpoldings’ episode, in Manarini, ‘Sex, Denigration’.

Introduc tion

33

The episode that portrays the Hucpoldings as protagonists, however, is hard to attribute to the work of the Cassinese monk; indeed, it is precisely its inclusion at the end of the ECC which signif icantly complicates the unambiguous opinion of falsehood which the German academic Erich Caspar expressed on the whole text in the early 1900s;49 indeed, it is the version of the ECC printed by Ludovico Muratori that includes the story of the affairs of Hucpold, his wife and his son, Hubald I.50 At the time of the Modenese historian, that manuscript of the chronicle could be found in the library of the Cassinese monastery of S. Giorgio Maggiore of Venice;51 later, along with most of the books owned by the Venetian monasteries, it was moved to Padua, first to the former monastery of S. Anna and finally to the current university library where it is still housed today.52 Along with its allusive attribution to a certain librarian of the Holy See, Anastasius, who lived in the eighth century,53 many distinguishing features make the ECC’s origin and analysis quite difficult. Nonetheless, a passage concerning the Hucpoldings in one version of the ECC permits the hypothesis that that version, or at least some parts of it, came from monastic institutions of Emilia that had been in contact with the kinship group between the ninth and tenth centuries. This passage needs some explanation before we delve further. The attempt at seduction and the subsequent clash provide the backdrop to the rigorous rivalry that ran between the Hucpolding and Supponid groups for control of the public districts of Emilia, particularly those in the area of Modena.54 Indeed, the comitatus Mutinensis is the only district to be mentioned explicitly within a total list of nine countships described in the ECC.55 Linguistic analysis of the Latin text allows the composition of the work to be dated to the central decades of the tenth century,56 the period when the Hucpoldings settled more permanently in the Emilian sector. Lastly, we can observe that the only copy of this particular version so far 49 See Caspar, Petrus diaconus, pp. 111–21; following Caspar’s analysis the ECC is commonly placed among Peter the Deacon’s forgeries: Repertorium fontium, pp. 123–5; see also Meyvaert, ‘Peter the Deacon and the Tomb’, pp. 24–41. 50 ECC, p. 370. 51 ECC, p. 347. 52 Padova, Biblioteca Universitaria di Padova, ms. 1607. 53 The supposed author’s name is mentioned at the end of the first part of the text dated to 780: ECC, p. 363. The reference to this Anastasius bibliothecarius is a plausible hint of forgery: Caspar, Petrus diaconus, p. 120. 54 Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’, pp. 110–11; Manarini, ‘Sex, Denigration’. 55 ECC, p. 370. 56 Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’, p. 117, n. 76.

34 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

discovered was preserved in the library of the monastery of S. Giorgio, which from the tenth century had properties in the lowlands of Bologna.57 It would seem, therefore, that there was a connection between the Cassinese institution in Venice and the other monasteries of Emilia, also controlled by the same mother house in Montecassino. Among them, S. Benedetto in Adili had a certain relationship with the first Hucpoldings at the end of the ninth century. Despite the ECC needing more complete and in-depth study, we can put forward a hypothesis concerning the birth and development of the passage that interests us here: the historical memoirs of the affairs of the Count Palatine Hucpold and his family may have been reinterpreted in a narrative style at one of the Cassinese houses in Emilia, maybe even S. Benedetto in Adili, itself. The text of the ECC, on the other hand, was composed at Montecassino over a period that falls between its second destruction in 883 and the middle of the twelfth century, when Peter the Deacon was librarian of the abbey. The work was then probably sent from the main institution to its various dependencies, including those in Emilia. Perhaps it was at this point, maybe indeed in the scriptorium of Adili, that the episode of Hucpold, whose lineage had long been dominant in territories between Modena and Bologna, was added to the Cassinese account.

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Padova, Biblioteca Universitaria, Manoscritti, 1607.

Printed Primary Sources Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. by Kurt Reindel, vol. 2, MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 4.2 (München: MGH, 1988). Donizone, Vita di Matilde di Canossa, ed. by Paolo Golinelli (Milano: Jaca Book, 2008). Epitome chronicorum Casinensium, ed. by Ludovico A. Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.1 (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1723), pp. 347–70. I libri iurium del comune di Bologna: Registro Grosso I, Registro Grosso II, Registro Nuovo, Liber iuramentorum; Regesti, ed. by Anna Laura Trombetti Budriesi and Tommaso Duranti (Selci Lama, Perugia: Pliniana, 2010). 57 Pozza, ‘Per una storia dei monasteri veneziani’, p. 31.

Introduc tion

35

Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1990; orig. ed., Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913). Le carte del monastero di S. Miniato al Monte: secoli IX–XII, ed. by Luciana Mosiici (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1990). Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo e della Badia del Buonsollazzo nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (998–1200), ed. by Antonella Ghignoli and Anna Rosa Ferrucci (Firenze: SISMEL/Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004). Le carte ferraresi più importanti anteriori al 1117, ed. by Italo Marzola (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 900–957), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Ravenna: Società di studi ravennati, 1999). Regesta Pomposiae, vol. 1: (874–1199), ed. by Antonio Samaritani (Rovigo: Deputazione provinciale ferrarese di storia patria, 1963). Registrum Petri diaconi (Montecassino, Archivio dell’abbazia, reg. 3), ed. by JeanMarie Martin, Pierre Chastang, Enrico Cuozzo, Laurent Feller, Giulia Orofino, Thomas Aurélie and Matteo Villani, vol. 3 (Roma: École française de Rome, 2015).

Secondary Sources Airlie, Stuart, Power and Its Problem in Carolingian Europe (London: Routledge, 2016). Albertoni, Giuseppe, ‘La fine dell’impero carolingio e i conflitti per il regno italico nei Gesta Berengarii’, Reti Medievali Rivista 17.2 (2016), pp. 281–99. Bloch, Herbert, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, vol. 1 (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1986). Bottazzi, Gianluca, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto in Adili: un profilo di ricerca archeologico-topografica nel Pago Persiceta’, Strada Maestra: Quaderni della Biblioteca Comunale G.C. Croce di San Giovanni in Persiceto 28 (1990), pp. 87–113. Bouchard, Constance B., ‘Those of My Blood’: Constructing Noble Family in Medieval Francia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Bougard, François, ‘Les Supponides: echec à la reine’, in Les élites au haut Moyen Âge; crises et renouvellements, ed.by François Bougard, Laurent Feller and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), pp. 381–402. –––, ‘Le couronnement impérial de Bérenger Ier (915) d’après le Gesta Berengarii imperatoris’, in Rerum gestarum scriptor: histoire et historiographie au Moyen Âge; hommage à Michel Sot, ed. by Magali Coumert, Marie-Céline Isaïa, Klaus Krönert and Sumi Shimahara (Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2012), pp. 329–44.

36 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Bougard, François, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Régine Le Jan, ‘Les élites du haut Moyen Âge: identités, stratégies, mobilité’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 68.4 (2013), pp. 1079–1112. Buc, Philippe, ‘Italian Hussies and German Matrons: Liutprand of Cremona on Dynastic Legitimacy’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 29 (1995), pp. 209–25. Cammarosano, Paolo, Italia medievale: struttura e geografia delle fonti scritte (Roma: NIS, 1991). –––, Nobili e re: l’Italia politica dell’alto medioevo (Roma Bari: Laterza, 2009). Caspar, Erich, Petrus diaconus und die Monte Cassineser Fälschungen: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Italienischen Geistesleben in Mittelalter (Berlin: Springer, 1909). Collavini, Simone M., ‘Vito Fumagalli e le aristocrazie del regno italico’, in Il Medioevo di Vito Fumagalli: atti del Convegno di studio (Bologna, 21–23 giugno 2007), ed. by Bruno Andreolli, Paola Galetti, Tiziana Lazzari and Massimo Montanari (Spoleto: CISAM, 2010), pp. 265–88. A Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Bologna, ed. by Sara Rubin Blanshei (Leiden: Brill, 2018). Dell’Omo, Mariano, ‘Montecassino altomedievale: i secoli VIII e IX; genesi di un simbolo, storia di una realtà’, in Il monachesimo italiano dall’età longobarda all’età ottoniana (secc. VIII–X); atti del Convegno di studi storici sull’Italia benedettina (Nonantola, 10–13 settembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Spinelli (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2006), pp. 165–92. Delogu, Paolo, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia carolingia in Italia III: Vescovi, conti e sovrani nella crisi del Regno italico’, Archivio della Scuola Speciale per Archivisti 8 (1968), pp. 3–72. Di Pietro, Adriana, ‘Monasteri e chiese dipendenti da enti monastici a Bologna e nel territorio bolognese nei secoli XI–XII: contributo allo studio dei rapporti patrimoniali’, Tesi di Laurea, Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica dell’Università di Bologna, 1984/85. Duplessis, Frédéric, ‘Les sources des gloses des Gesta Berengarii et la culture du poète anonyme’, Aevum 89 (2015), pp. 205–63. Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del primo convegno di Pisa (10–11 maggio 1983) (Roma: ISIME, 1988). Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996). Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003).

Introduc tion

37

Gandino, Germana, Il vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona (Roma: ISIME, 1995). Hummer, Hans Josef, Visions of Kingship in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 123–298. Lazzari, Tiziana, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami di parentela e il ruolo delle donne nell’alta aristocrazia del regno italico (secc. IX–X): l’esempio di Berta di Toscana’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 129–49. –––, ‘Una mamma carolingia e una moglie supponide: percorsi femminili di legittimazione e potere nel regno italico’, in ‘C’era una volta un re …’: aspetti e momenti della regalità; da un seminario del dottorato in Storia medievale (Bologna, 17–18 dicembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Isabella (Bologna: CLUEB, 2005), pp. 41–57. –––, ‘La creazione di un territorio: il comitato di Modena e i suoi “conf ini”’, in Distinguere, separare, condividere: confini nelle campagne dell’Italia medievale, ed. by Paola Guglielmotti, Reti Medievali Rivista 7.1 (2006), pp. 101–18. –––, Le donne nell’alto medioevo (Milano: Mondadori, 2010). Le Jan, Règine, Famille et pouvoir dans le mond franc (VIIe –Xe siècle): essai d’anthropologie sociale (Parigi: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1995). –––, Femmes, pouvoir et société dans le haut Moyen Âge (Parigi: Picard, 2001). MacLean, Simon, Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and the End of the Carolingian Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). –––, ‘“After his death a great tribulation came to Italy …”: Dynastic Politics and Aristocratic Factions after the Death of Luis II, c.870–c.890’, Millennium–Jahrbuch 4 (2007), pp. 239–60. Manarini, Edoardo, ‘Sex, Denigration and Violence: A Representation of Political Competition between Two Aristocratic Families in 9th Century Italy’, in Conflict and Violence in Medieval Italy 568–1154, ed. by Christopher Heath and Robert Houghton (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming). Marrazzi, Federico, ‘Pellegrini e fondatori: rapporti fra monasteri e politica nel Meridione altomedievale’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 118 (2016), pp. 49–108. Meyvaert, Paul, ‘Peter the Deacon and the Tomb of St. Benedict’, in Paul Meyvaert, Benedict, Gregory, Bede and Others (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977), pp. I:3–70. Nelson, Janet L., Charles the Bald (London: Longman, 1992).

38 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Pallavicino, Alessandro, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 233–320. Pozza, Marco, ‘Per una storia dei monasteri veneziani dei secoli VIII–XII’, in Il monachesimo nel Veneto medievale (atti del convegno di studi, Treviso 30 novembre 1996), ed. by Francesco G.B. Trolese (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1998), pp. 17–38. Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi, vol. 9.1–2 (Roma: ISIME, 2002). Rinaldi, Rossella, ‘Le origini dei Guidi nelle terre di Romagna (secoli IX–X)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996), pp. 211–40. –––, ‘Esplorare le origini: note sulla nascita e l’affermazione della stirpe comitale’, in La lunga storia di una stirpe comitale: i conti Guidi tra Romagna e Toscana; atti del convegno di studi organizzato dai Comuni di Modigliana e Poppi (ModiglianaPoppi, 28–31 agosto 2003), ed. by Federico Canaccini (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2009), pp. 19–46. Rosenwein, Barbara H., ‘The Family Politics of Berengar I, King of Italy (888–924)’, Speculum 71 (1996), pp. 247–89. Sergi, Giuseppe, I confini del potere: marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Torino: Einaudi, 1995). Schoolman, Edward M., ‘Aristocracies in Early Medieval Italy, ca. 500–1000 ce’, History Compass 16.11 (2018), pp. 1–13. Sutherland, Jon Nicholas, Liudprand of Cremona, Bishop, Diplomat, Historian. Studies of the Man and His Age (Spoleto: CISAM, 1988). Tabacco, Giovanni, Struggle for Power, trans. by Rosalind Brown Jensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Tellenbach, Gerd, ‘Zur Bedeutung der Personenforschung für die Erkenntnis des früheren Mittelalters’, in Gerd Tellenbach, Ausgewählte Abhandlungen Aufsätze, vol. 3 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1988), pp. 343–62. Vedovato, Giuseppe, ‘L’inizio della presenza camaldolese nel Veneto (1186–1250)’, in Il monachesimo nel Veneto medievale (atti del convegno di studi, Treviso 30 novembre 1996), ed. by Francesco G.B. Trolese (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1998), pp. 97–107. Vespignani, Giorgio, La Romània italiana dall’Esarcato al ‘Patrimonium’: il Codex Parisinus (BNP, N.A.L., 2573) testimone della formazione di società locali nei secoli IX e X (Spoleto: CISAM, 2001). Vignodelli, Giacomo, Il filo a piombo: il Perpendiculum di Attone di Vercelli e la storia politica del regno italico (Spoleto: CISAM, 2012).

Introduc tion

39

Violante, Cinzio, Atti privati e storia medievale: problemi di metodo (Roma: Il Centro di Ricerca, 1982). Werner, Karl Ferdinand, ‘Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls des Großen’, in Karl Ferdinand Werner, Vom Frankenreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs: Ursprünge, Strukturen, Beziehungen; ausgewählte Beiträge; Festgabe zu seinem 60 Geburtstag (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1984), pp. 22–81. Wood, Ian N., ‘Genealogy Defined by Women: The Case of the Pippinids’, in Gender in the Early Medieval World: East and West, 300–900, ed. by Leslie Brubaker and Julia Mary H. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 234–56.

Part I Kinship and Political Relations

Kinship and Political Rel ations

43

Individuals identified with the collective name Hucpoldings constituted one of the most important kindred groups among the Frankish aristocracies, who were active at the very centre of the Italian kingdom in their role as marchiones and comites. Arriving in Italy during the middle of the Carolingian era in the wake of Lothar I, the leading figures of the groups were adept at holding eminent political positions well into the eleventh century. They were in constant dialogue with both kings and the archbishops of Ravenna. The various figures operated and entertained relationships across a wide portion of Italy, spanning the Po valley and the Apennines. Indeed, in order to overcome the difficulties imposed by significant geographical dispersion of archival sources, it has been necessary to consider familial connections in the widest possible way, thus conferring importance on each single horizontal cognatic tie as it is brought to light. For this reason, to clear the field of conceptual misunderstandings, when referring to the Hucpolding group from the ninth to eleventh centuries it would seem appropriate to adopt the expression ‘kinship group’, rather than that of ‘family’.1 The latter refers markedly to family links of an agnatic nature, those characteristic of a later period and very different from the horizontal kinship ties of the germanic Sippen.2 The term ‘kinship group’, on the other hand, is more suited to representing the inherently inclusive character of the group’s wide cognatic ties, typical of early medieval Frankish elites. At the same time, upon historical reconstruction, the character and efficacy of each horizontal connection discovered will be verified one by one. Finally, it is opportune to acknowledge how the notable chronological depth of the documentation – unusual in the study of early medieval aristocracies – permits reflection on long historical developments, thus setting the whole Hucpolding issue within the wider picture of the kingdom of Italy. In fact, the prosopography of the kindred group covers a chronological span of almost three centuries. From the first reference to the eponymous founder, Hucpold, in 847, all the way to the initial references to the counts of Panico, lords of large areas of the Bolognese Apennines at the beginning of 1 On the difference between Hausaltsfamilie (family group) and Verwandschaftsfamilie (kinship group) see Goetz, ‘Coutume d’héritage et structures familiales’, pp. 203–6. 2 A distinction between a horizontal cognatic structure of kinship group and a vertical agnatic family is to be found in Duby, Medioevo Maschio, pp. 132–3.

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_partI

44 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the twelfth century. Twelve generations have been identified in all, totalling sixty individuals.3 Taking genealogical reconstruction beyond 1100 has enabled the composition of two different kinds of problem: on the one hand, the lengthy chronological span has made it possible to fully understand the transformation of Hucpolding power from a traditional official vocation in the Carolingian era to a concrete noble pre-eminence over patrimonial sectors during the last decades of the eleventh century; and on the other, the extensive genealogical scheme assures easier verification of the different reconstructions proposed by local historiographies, particularly those of Bologna and Florence whose attempts to find ancestries of late medieval noble families are at times bedevilled with both prosopographical error and loose interpretation.

3 To avoid confusion and to help orientate the reader, each anthroponym which is repeated through subsecutive generation has been allocated a successive ordinal number.

1.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Strugglesof the Kingdom of Italy (847–945) Abstract The first part of the book is dedicated to the prosopographic reconstruction of the kinship group, and to the political context and relationships in which the members, both men and women, operated from the second half of the ninth century to the beginning of the twelfth. The first chapter examines the first century of the Hucpoldings in Italy. Fundamentally, it suggests that the criteria for the inclusion into the ranks of Carolingian elite in the Italian kingdom were a relationship with the royal power and the attainment of public offices in different areas of the kingdom, such as in the palace of the capital Pavia, eastern Emilia, the duchy of Spoleto or the marchese of Tuscany. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; Italian kingdom; officials; Königsnähe

As members of the Adelsaristocratie, the Hucpoldings were connected to the Carolingian dynasty at the highest level. The first known member of the kindred group, Hucpold, was associated with Lothar I (817/840–855) and came to Italy with the Frankish army. There he set about to establish his kindred through political and matrimonial alliances. Spreading their political and patrimonial horizons was a common practice of Frankish aristocracies in the Carolingian period.1 Nonetheless, the case of Hucpold and of his kindred can be almost totally linked to the Italian territory. They even had the admiration of Liutprand of Cremona, who depicts Hucpold’s son, Hubald, as defender of Italian pride against Bavarian

1

See Costambeys et al., Carolingian World, pp. 304–23.

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch01

46 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

invaders in the last decades of the ninth century.2 The fragmentary sources that survive to this day allow us, however, to identify the region, which corresponds to Roman Alamannia (now Switzerland and adjacent parts of France and Germany) as both the origin of Hucpold and even that of his ancestors.3 Furthermore, their long-standing practice of Ripuarian Frankish law permits us to retrace the origins of the kin group further back in time and to place it in the lands traversed by the Rhine where the Ripuarian Franks had already established themselves in Roman times. The history of the Hucpoldings in Italy starts in the first half of the ninth century in the context of the military expeditions organized by Lothar I and his son, Louis II, against the ‘Saracens’. This first chapter deals with the first three generations of the group and pertains to a relatively small number of individuals, nine of which are definitely attested in the sources. Kinship lines are marked by a substantial monogamous exogamy and by an accentuated hypergamy:4 the social position and rank of the consorts were superior to those of the Hucpolding males. These lines are also distinguished by modest numbers of offspring, consisting of an average of two or three children. Accordingly, their marital unions were designed to augment the group’s social prestige and to control new political and patrimonial spaces in diverse areas of the kingdom. The so-called Epitome chronicorum Casinensium provides the only evidence regarding the actual name of Hucpold’s wife, as Andabertha.5 We have knowledge regarding three of the couple’s children: Bertha, Hubald and Engelrada. Probably born north of the Alps, Bertha had no offspring, since she became abbess of the Florentine monastery of S. Andrea. Hubald, who attained his majority around twenty years after his father’s arrival in Italy, had two children with a woman who we can reasonably suppose belonged to the Adalbertings of Tuscany: Bertha II, abbess after the aunt of same name, and Boniface, a prominent figure in the kingdom for the entire first half of the ninth century. Engelrada had been active at the end of the century and married Martin of the Duchi family of Ravenna. She had two children as well: Peter, who became a deacon in Ravenna, and Engelrada II, who married Tegrimus, whose descendants founded the Guidi lineage. 2 Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 1, c. 21, p. 20; significantly the title chapter (at p. 4) reads: ‘qualiter in duello Langobardus Bagoarium occiderit’ (how a Lombard killed Bagoarius in a duel). 3 ECC, p. 370. 4 See Aurell, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales’, p. 187. 5 ECC, p. 370. On the episode see Chapter 7; on the source, beyond the introduction, see Manarini, ‘Sex, Denigration’.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

47

The genealogical summary proposed clarifies the areas in which Hucpold was active when he arrived in Italy, and which would be maintained afterwards by his first-generation descendants. After crossing the Alps and becoming comes palatii, Hucpold tried to extend his own group’s influence wherever political alliances allowed him to acquire substantial property. This happened in Florentine territory and in the exarchate of Ravenna. When the Widonids ascended to the Italian throne, Hucpold’s son Hubald became one of their supporters and one of their most valued leaders. The Hucpoldings probably entered Emilia at this time, despite the active opposition of the Supponids. The authority Boniface gained afterwards, during the brief reign of his brother-in-law, Rudolf II of Burgundy (924–926), also allowed him to consolidate his own prominence in this new area of influence.6 This new territory, specifically in its Bolognese part, joined the two previous patrimonial areas, and over the whole the group tried afterwards to establish seigneurial rule. It is possible, therefore, to place the introduction of the group into a new district instituted by royal authority at the time of second and third generations. Its introduction into this territory modified the group’s nature, widening its influence and promoting its power to the rank of marchio. The kin’s main strategy for establishing itself in its f irst century in Italy was to constantly attempt to acquire and establish its ownership of property, not only through access to public honores and through a strong Königsnähe (proximity to the king), but also through relationships, mainly marital ones, with the aristocracies of the highest level in Italy. The moment a faction of the Italian aristocracy gained access to the crown, the Hucpoldings acquired prominent positions, aligning themselves definitively with the community of those who governed. In the first half of the tenth century, the group ultimately acquired a decisive political presence in two different marches of the kingdom: – the march of Spoleto and Camerino, obtained by Boniface I together with his son Tebaldus, and the march of Tuscany – through the marriage of Boniface’s daughter, Willa, with Marquis Hubert of Tuscany. At the same time in Romagna, the descendants of Engelrada and Martin managed to threaten the hegemonic position of the archbishop of Ravenna. The third and fourth generations of the kin achieved then the peak of their power in the Italian kingdom, bringing to fruition both the relationships and power processes that Hucpold inaugurated after his arrival in Italy. 6 See Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’.

48 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Hucpold, Count Palatine of Louis II As mentioned earlier, the story of the Hucpoldings in the Italian Peninsula starts in the middle of the ninth century with the political and military activity of Hucpold, the founder of the group.7 To provide a proper context for reference to his activities, it is necessary to describe briefly the political situation of those years. In 840 Lothar I was at the centre of ongoing conflict with his younger siblings over his title as imperator.8 For this reason, Lothar made his eldest son Louis Unterkönig (minor king) in Italy,9 reproducing a kingship of second level that he himself had experienced in relation to his father, Louis the Pious. At the beginning of his reign, Louis II had therefore to deal with a political environment mostly constituted by individuals appointed and associated with his father’s regime.10 Even after the official crowning of Louis at Rome in 844,11 the aristocracy that formed in their turn the administrative lines of the Italian kingdom could not disregard Lothar’s supremacy.12 Although he resided north of the Alps, this dialectic was necessary due to the aristocracy’s attempts to establish a dynasty in the kingdom. Until his resignation, the emperor maintained a great influence over his son and over the representatives of the Italian aristocracy.13 Hucpold entered the Italian scenario precisely in the context of a significant military operation planned by Lothar in 847 and announced by the capitulary so-called De expeditione contra Sarracenos facienda (About the mission to be performed against the Saracens).14 The reason for the expedition was a serious incursion of the ‘Saracens’, who in August 846 invaded Latium and sacked Rome, even causing great damage to the church of S. Pietro.15 The emperor moved in two directions in 7 Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 204–6. 8 On Lothar I’s rule in Italy see Screen, ‘Lothar I in Italy’; on political and military events that led to the treaty of Verdun (843) see Nelson, ‘Le partage de Verdun’. 9 See Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, pp. 250–1. Probably Louis the Pious himself installed Louis as king of Italy in 840; see Screen, ‘Carolingian Fathers’, p. 153. 10 See Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, pp. 253–4. 11 See Gantner, ‘King in training?’ 12 See Screen, ‘Importance of the Emperor’, pp. 31–43; on the establishment of a Frankish Italy under the reign of Lothar I see Gantner, ‘Brief Introduction’, pp. 7–10. 13 Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, p. 255. 14 Capitularia regum Francorum, no. 203; RI I.3.1, no. 46. According to Zielinski, the meeting was held in spring 847, rather than autumn 846, as the MGH editors stated: Zielinski, ‘Ein unbeachteter Italienzug Kaiser Lothar I’, and Zielinski, ‘Reisegeschwindigkeit und Nachrichtenübermittlung’; see also Gantner, ‘Our Common Enemy’, pp. 305–7. 15 See Lankila, ‘Saracen Raid of Rome’.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

49

order to respond to this raid: first, he organized levies for the restoration of the church and for construction of a surrounding wall, known as the Leonine Walls after Pope Leo IV (847–855). Second, he undertook the organization of a fleet to expel the Muslim forces from their bases in southern Italy. He ordered the dukes of Venice and Naples to support his endeavour – though without much result.16 He also raised an army to solve, once and for all, the question regarding the succession of the Beneventan duchy, which had been torn apart by a civil war between Radelchis of Benevento (839–851) and Siconulf of Salerno (840–851) since 839.17 By then, the matter had developed into a source of instability and insecurity for both the kingdom of Italy and the papal city.18 Trusting operational command to his son Louis, the emperor designated the bishops Peter and Anselm, and Count Guy as his missi, charged them to go to Benevento and, once there, to solve the long-standing civil war before the beginning of the joint military effort against the ‘Saracens’.19 Lothar not only enlisted the entire Italian army for this expedition, but also part of the troops of West Francia, Burgundy and Provence. He also established timelines, routes, components and dispositions of battle.20 The capitulary presents entire lists with the names of those the emperor called on personally. Among these, Hucpold appears in the second list, among those who nihil habent in Italia (did not possess anything in Italy),21 and as signifer (standard-bearer) of the military transalpine contingent. The important position and command inside the ranks of the scara francisca (the West Frankish army) place Hucpold in the first rank of lay and ecclesiastic figures loyal to Lothar,22 unified among themselves by relationships and solidarity recognizable beyond the military effort in Italy. A considerable number of these individuals participated in a great assembly hosted in Sermorens in the bishopric of Vienne between 858 and 860,23 in which ‘religiosissimi et venerabiles patres illustrissimaque societas comitum’ (very 16 Gantner, ‘Our Common Enemy’, p. 311. On Muslim presence in southern Italy see, with further bibliography, Di Branco and Wolf, ‘Hindered Passages’. 17 Kreutz, Before the Normans, p. 24; Gantner, ‘Our Common Enemy’, pp. 307–8; Zornetta, Italia meridionale, pp. 211–31. 18 Kreutz, Before the Normans, pp. 31–2. 19 Peter could be identified either with the bishop of Arezzo or of Spoleto; Count Guy is the first with that name of the Widonid group of Spoleto; the identity of Bishop Anselm is unknown. Another envoy on the Beneventan mission had been – surprisingly enough – Sergius magister militum of Naples. On the Beneventan situation see Kreutz, Before the Normans, pp. 23, 29–32. 20 Gantner, ‘Our Common Enemy’, p. 306. 21 Capitularia regum Francorum, pp. 67–8. 22 On the scarae see Verbruggen, ‘L’armée et la stratégie de Charlemagne’, pp. 421–2. 23 Poupardin, Le royaume de Provence, p. 4, n. 2.

50 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

religious and venerable fathers with a group of very illustrious counts) gathered together to solve a patrimonial dispute between the old and powerful archbishop of Vienne, Agilmarus, archchaplain of Lothar I between 843 and 848,24 and a certain Count Wigericus.25 The presence of Hucpold demonstrates the persistence of the relationship network he had created before arriving in Italy, especially the connections he had established with important lay figures that intervened in that situation, such as Gerard and Fulcrad, counts of Vienne and Arles respectively,26 and previously in charge of the scara to which Hucpold served as standard-bearer. It is not wise to go further with hypotheses based solely on the juxtaposition of names contained in the lists in these two sources. Nonetheless, the study conducted thus far allows us to place Hucpold among those Franks who built their social careers on the relationship of fidelitas with Emperor Lothar. Besides, it is also possible to establish with a good degree of certainty that he did not possess any honor of public character in his place of origin in the second half of the ninth century. The prestigious charge of standard-bearer inside the imperial army ranks in the Italian expedition of 848 allowed Hucpold to attain a place in the hierarchy of Italian aristocracy. It also allowed him to expand his own relationships north of the Alps among the proceres regni (the most prominent figures of the kingdom) of the southern part of Lotharingia. The 848 expedition ended positively for the Carolingians with the division of the Beneventan principality (849) and the temporary defeat of the ‘Saracens’.27 Then began a crucial period of some years in which Louis acquired a greater degree of autonomy in Italy while associating himself with the imperial power of his father north of the Alps. If these efforts took place after the anointment and imperial coronation in 850 and became concrete through a strong legislative commitment in promulgating a new capitulary of clear programmatic value,28 they also had to depend upon those individuals who were both loyal to Lothar and present in Italy. Louis II was unable at this time to disassociate himself from this group.29 24 See Nimmegeers, Èvêques entre Bourgogne et Provence, p. 338. 25 The placitum had been transcribed in a manuscript of the church of Vienne, but without its chronological date: Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 18.1B, no. 80, cols. 971–2; see also Chevalier, Description analytique du cartulaire du chapitre de Saint-Maurice de Vienne, no. 99, p. 29. 26 Poupardin, Le royaume de Provence, pp. 3–14. 27 Wickham, Early Medieval Italy, p. 62. 28 Bougard, ‘Ludovico II’, p. 388. 29 Delogu, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia’, pt. 2, pp. 150–1.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

51

The career of Hucpold perfectly coincides with the scenario just described: from a standard-bearer of the scara francisca, composed of Lothar’s vassals and counts, he became the comes sacri palatii in Louis’ reign.30 This charge granted him an important position inside the court as a direct representative of the king and responsible for the royal palace of Pavia, the capital of the kingdom, including specific functions regarding the administration of justice.31 There are traces from the decade of 851 to 860 of two judicial cases in which he had been the head of the officers of the palatine court. On the first occasion, Hucpold, Count Adelgis, Count Achedeus32 and other palace judges approved the placitum designed to resolve a dispute between the inhabitants of Cremona and their bishop, Benedict.33 The second placitum in which Hucpold played a significant role preceded, and perhaps facilitated, the rebellion against the emperor promoted by Lambert, duke of Spoleto, and Idelbert, count of Camerino.34 Between the autumn of 859 and autumn 860,35 the whole staff of the palatine court followed the emperor in an expedition through the Romagna to the duchy of Spoleto ‘pro iustitiarum commoditate et malignorum astutia deprimenda’ (with the aim of dispensing justice and repressing the cunning of criminals).36 In March 860, the entire entourage took part in a placitum presided over in Spoleto by the Bishop Wibod and by Adalbert, comes stabuli (count of the royal stable), most probably of Tuscany.37 On this occasion, on behalf of the emperor, Hucpold summoned Ildebert of Camerino38 before the judges, demanding reasons for the improper possession (malo ordine) of a few royal properties legitimately assigned to Adalbert himself. The development of 30 On administrative offices of the Carolingian empire see Werner, ‘Missus-Marchio-Comes’, especially on the count palatine duties, p. 126. 31 Fasoli, I re d’Italia, p. 207. Great experience in the field of law was mandatory, although in Hucpold’s case we are not informed of it; see Depreux, ‘Le rôle du comte du Palais’. 32 On Count Adelgis I of Parma of the Supponids see Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 110–1; on Count Achedeus see Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, p. 99. 33 I placiti, vol. 1, no. 56; RI I.3.1, no. 82. 34 On the rebellion see Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘Lamberto’, p. 206. 35 The expedition in Romania took place after the meeting Louis had with his brother Lothar II in autumn 859 and Engelberga’s dotalicium, endorsed 5 October 860. 36 I placiti, vol. 1, no. 65, p. 234. 37 I placiti, vol. 1, no. 65; RI I.3.1, no. 183. Wibod was bishop of Parma between 857 and 892: Provero, ‘Chiese e dinastie’, pp. 52–6. Probably, Count Adalbert is to be identified with Adalbert I of Tuscia, Count Boniface II’s son, already in the service of Louis II since 855; on his biography see Fasoli, ‘Adalberto di Toscana’. 38 Ildebert had been count of Camerino since at least 844, as another placitum held in 850 witnesses: I placiti, vol. 1, no. 54; RI I.3.1, no. 70.

52 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the case allows us to grasp and to trace the attempts of Louis II to impose his own imperial authority on the Italian kingdom.39 Even though the charge Hucpold occupied in court did not comprise any territorial base in which he could consolidate his own power, he explored the relationship opportunities that his prominent office allowed him to establish. First of all, he obtained the position of abbess for his daughter Bertha I in the monastery of S. Andrea in Florence already described in 852 as a parvam congregationem puellarum (small congregation of girls).40 Louis had entrusted this small monastery – property of the Florentine Church – to the Bishop Radingus a few years before,41 a part of the royal properties inside the city.42 With the permission of Radingus and the consent of Louis, Hucpold involved himself in the management of the female community and its properties through his daughter. In doing so, he set down a first support base for the group in Tuscany in an area situated – even if only marginally – in the territories under the influence of Adalbert I, marchio Tuscie. 43 The marquis was well aware of the initiative. He appeared to be content that one of his allies in the imperial camp could develop a power base here.44 Taking into consideration the fact that Adalbert was trying to consolidate a domain ever more independent of royal interference when he put his kinship group in control of the Lucca comitatus, 45 the hypothesis of an alliance between the two groups, even acquired by matrimony, becomes ever more plausible. In this scenario, both Adalbertings and Hucpoldings formed in the first half of the ninth century a strong block of power, which, once allied to the Widonids, would have acquired a crucial predominance over political and military affairs after the death of Louis II. Hucpold’s efforts cannot be linked solely to his initiatives in establishing his kindred in Tuscany. He was also able to create connections of great political importance and of substantial property value thanks to the marital 39 These years proved to be a turning point in Louis’ power in the kingdom; see Bougard, ‘Ludovico II’, p. 390. 40 CdC Firenze, no. 2; RI I.3.1, no. 98. 41 RI I.3.1, no. 97. An imperial charter which granted the monastery to the bishop is mentioned in the text. Royal property of the church is also confirmed by the annual tax the nuns had had to pay until then: a woolen garment each year to be brought to the royal palace in Florence. 42 Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, p. 321. 43 See Nobili, ‘Le famiglie marchionali’, pp. 131–3. 44 Alarus vicecomes and Adalgausus vassal of Marquis Adalbert witnessed the election of Bertha. Among the audience, we found also the signature of a certain Bishop Peter, maybe the same bishop who were imperial missus in the 848 expedition, although it is uncertain if he was of Spoleto or Arezzo. 45 See Wickham, Early Medieval Italy, p. 59.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

53

union of his second daughter, Engelrada, with Duke Martin, nephew of the archbishop of Ravenna John VII (850–878).46 The Romagna region, where the archbishop of Ravenna played a hegemonic role, had remained on the fringes of the Carolingian kingdom, technically belonging to the patrimonium of the church of Rome.47 Hucpold saw in the exarchate and its administrative uncertainties a favourable opportunity to expand the influence and the heritage of his kin. Furthermore, the troubled pontificate of Archbishop John – marked by persistent conflict with the Roman popes – found in this period and in the figure of Louis II a precious ally. According to political convenience, Louis II supported the cause of the archbishop – fearless supporter of Ravenna’s autonomy – or, on the contrary, urged him to respect Rome. Accordingly, a marital union of the highest levels of Frankish and exarchal society seemed to respond to the political desire of intertwining the two aristocracies.48 This was an initiative guided by the royal power of Pavia that aimed to attach the exarchate to the kingdom proper.49 Engelrada and Martin contracted their marriage during the beginning of Charles III’s reign in the first years of the 880s, at a time when the couple seems to have been very active in economic transactions and in the management of their property. According to Tiziana Lazzari, the union between these two representatives of the Carolingian aristocracy, on one side, and the Ravenna, on the other, followed a precise political directive of the last Carolingian sovereign.50 In this marital perspective, Hucpold’s trip through Romagna following Louis II between 859 and 860 could have represented an important occasion for the two aristocratic groups to meet. Indeed, Duke Gregory, Martin’s father, was present in the assembly gathered to judge Count Ildebert. The placitum of March 860 is the last evidence of Hucpold’s presence and activity in Italy. Even though there is no information regarding his kin for almost a decade after this date, it is possible to offer further reflections on some aspects of Louis’ reign. The structure and function of Louis’ court 46 John was the brother of Duke Gregory, father of Duke Martin (see Scaravelli, ‘Giovanni’); on his pontificate see Herbers, ‘Der Konflikt’; examining the marriage in the context of Carolingian aristocracy settled in Italy, Lazzari, ‘Tra Ravenna e regno’. 47 See Cosentino, ‘Ravenna’; on exarchal aristocracy in the ninth century see Brown, ‘Byzantine Cuckoo’; Schoolman, ‘Nobility, Aristocracy’; Heath, ‘Contested Identities’. 48 These exogamic marriages were also connected to the archbishop’s policy; see Betti, ‘Incestuous Marriages’. 49 The process had been accomplished a century later with the Ottonian dynasty; see Savigni, ‘I papi e Ravenna’, pp. 358–60. 50 Lazzari, ‘Tra Ravenna e regno’, p. 168.

54 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

changes constantly after 860.51 After his imperial coronation in 855, Louis substantially increased his direct control in both operative centres of his court, the chapel and the chancery, restructuring charges and tasks by then still occupied by Lothar’s men and trusting them to individuals specialized in judicial activities.52 The prominent role of the arch-chancellor, embodied in the lasting careers of individuals such as Dructemirus,53 was diminished by explicit references to iussus imperatoris (imperial orders) which the notaries inserted in their signature and official recognition.54 The arch-chaplain no longer headed the royal chapel after the death of Joseph, bishop of Ivrea,55 but instead the entire personnel of the chapel merged with those of the chancery, composed by priest-notaries, sometimes called chaplains.56 One can find traces of a stronger connection between the palace officers and the imperial persona when the emperor decided to send the same chaplains and chancellors as missi to preside over placita or to conduct diplomatic missions, underlining Louis’ preference for use of his close collaborators.57 The royal consiliarii was another group of imperial agents that distinguished themselves from the comital group.58 Probably recruited from the imperial vassi, they represented another of Louis’ attempts to assert his political position regardless of the counts’ support.59 Boderadus,60 the first to be attributed count palatine in 865 after Hucpold’s disappearance, saw his own influence reduced by the appointment of two vice-counts in 871 and 874.61 51 Delogu, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia’, pt. 2, pp. 170–1; Bougard, ‘Ludovico II’, p. 388. 52 Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, p. 255. Between 850 and 875, twenty-six officials of the palace are attested; fifteen had specific juridical duties. See Bougard, La justice dans le royaume d’Italie, pp. 193–4, 375–8. 53 Dructemirus was a notary of Lothar I since 833, he was in charge of Louis II’s chancery between 851 and 861, and from 863 he was bishop of Novara: I placiti, vol. 1, no. 65, p. 235. 54 Bougard, ‘Engelberga, Imperatrice’, p. 670; Delogu, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia’, pt. 2, p. 170. 55 After 855: Settia, ‘Cronotassi’, p. 251. 56 Delogu, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia’, pt. 2, p. 170. According to Fleckenstein, the vacancy of the head of the chancery was directly connected with a more attentive intervention of Louis II himself in palace affairs: Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige, pp. 130ff., 144, n. 3. 57 Eventually, these clergymen became bishops or abbots of the kingdom: Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, pp. 256–7, n. 40. 58 Keller, ‘Zur Struktur der Königsherrschaft’, pp. 141–2. 59 Theoderic missus et dilectus consiliarius, who played a leading role in the placitum of 851/2, is a f ine example of these off icials. Among them the most brilliant career is represented by Suppo III, consiliarius, archiminister, missus, and duke of Spoleto; see Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 271–3. 60 His name was already inserted in the list of 847 capitulary; see his biography in Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 154–6. 61 Meyer, ‘Die Pfalzgrafen der Merowinger’, p. 462.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

55

All the alterations described up to this point, implemented in favour of Louis’ clear political project, find an important turning point in October 860 when the emperor married Engelberga,62 member of the Supponids and daughter of Adelgis I, count of Parma.63 This union represented the summit of the group’s relevance in the court of the Italian kingdom, allowing various members of the kin direct access to Louis.64 Egifredus and Ardingus I, Engelberga’s brothers, became part of the imperial entourage and took part in the expedition against the south of Italy in 872; Suppo III, cousin to the empress, was a royal missus and after 869 duke of Spoleto, replacing for almost a decade the rival group of the Widonids.65 Meanwhile, another son of Adelgis I, Suppo II, inherited the comitatus of Parma from his father and gained control over Turin and Asti, where the empress retained fiscal estates.66 Her nephews Adelgis II and Wifred II became instead counts of Piacenza. Nonetheless, the most important person of the entire dynasty was the empress herself, Engelberga, consors regni (consort of the kingdom),67 whose exceptionally strong institutional power created difficulties among the great families of the kingdom that eventually opposed her.68 A passage from the already mentioned ECC clearly attests these rivalries, displaying them in a narrative of vivid antagonism between the Empress Engelberga and the Palatine Count ‘Tucpaldus’,69 an evident misspelling of Hucpold’s name. Leaving aside all the literary topoi that ornate and certainly distort the narrative,70 the reference of a strong rivalry between Engelberga and Hucpold finds a plausible equivalent in the competition sustained by both groups in Emilia, an area where both were established.71 62 Officially, the union is sanctioned by the dotalicium (dower) addressed to Engelberga 5 October 860 and backdated to 851 to solve any issue of marriage legitimacy: Bougard, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, pp. 668–9. On the use of dowers in medieval Italy see Bougard, ‘Dot et douaire’. 63 Engelberga was the second Supponid queen of Italy after Cunegonde, wife of Bernard of Italy (813–817), and before Bertilla, wife of Berengar I; see Lazzari, ‘Una mamma carolingia’, pp. 41–5; on Engelberga see also MacLean, ‘Queenship, Nunneries’, pp. 26–32. 64 Bougard, ‘Les Supponides’, pp. 388–92. 65 Duke Lambert was among the rebels who imprisoned Louis II and Engelberga in August 871; once freed, Louis did not respect the pact and attacked the duke. On the whole episode see Granier, ‘La captivité de l’empereur Louis II’. 66 On the Supponids and on Engelberga’s patrimonial strategy see Cimino, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto’, pp. 145–50. 67 On the title of consors regni in the Carolingian empire and on the first specific use made by Engelberga see Delogu, ‘“Consors regni”: un problema carolingio’. 68 Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, p. 263, Bougard, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, p. 671. 69 ECC, p. 370. 70 See Chapter 7. 71 Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’, pp. 110–11.

56 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The policy of renewal of Louis and the hostility of the Supponids could explain the ten-year gap one finds in the sources regarding Hucpold and his kindred after 860. Even though it is impossible to consider reasonable the execution of the count and the ordeal of the burning ploughshares suffered by his wife Andabertha in order to recover the honour of her husband and son,72 it seems realistic to consider that there was an actual deterioration of their relations with the emperor. The place of almost absolute irrelevance occupied by the group in the last fifteen years of Louis II’s reign seems to justify such an assumption. To offer, even if only cautiously, a hypothesis to date the rupture of relations with the emperor and possibly shed new light on the ECC’s narrative, one should focus one’s attention north of the Alps and on one of the entries written in the Annals of Xanten in 861: ‘Ludewicus impium Hughardum comitem constituit, quod dampnum pene suis omnibus visus est’ (Louis pronounced Count Hughardus impious, because the offence caused by his lust is clear to everyone).73 Even though scholars have never doubted the identification of the king of the passage as Louis the German,74 Louis’ name is not followed by the title rex orientalis, which used to appear in previous notations of the same source. Besides, the fact that the name of the Count Hughardus, easily identified as Hug/Huc-paldus, does not appear in any contemporary source could suggest that the narrator was describing Italian events on this occasion, thus referring to the affair between Louis II and Hucpold. This impression could find confirmation in the conclusion of the text corresponding to that year and directed to the entire Carolingian world: ‘iam enim dissensio regum nostrorum et desolatio paganorum per regna nostra fastidiosum est enarrare’ (at this point, indeed, it is tedious to describe the disunity of our kingdoms and the desolation pagans brought on us). A wider perspective is common to the Frankish annals of this period, so much so that it is not unreasonable to think that, just like the Annales Xanteses, also the Annals of S. Bertin, written in the far north of Francia Occidentalis, generally mentioned this event: when narrating the turbulent events of the Italian kingdom, the author of the Annals describes sub anno 860 the repression promoted by Louis II against part of his own court and against the Beneventan citizens.75 In the contents of the narrative, one 72 The narrative is the only source for Hucpold’s wife’s name, Andabertha; on the typology of the ordeal of the burning ploughshares see Bougard, ‘Le feu de la justice’, pp. 410–12. 73 Annales Xantenses, p. 19. On the source, probably written at the abbey of Lorsch, see Löwe, ‘Studien zu den Annales Xantenses’. 74 See Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches, vol. 2, p. 30. 75 Annales Bertiniani, p. 54. See Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘Lamberto’, p. 206.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

57

may find a concise description of the revolt of Lambert of Spoleto, and it is possible to see references to the estrangement of Hucpold from Louis’ court, probably associated with the same revolt.

Faction and Endeavour: Hubald I There are no certainties regarding the relationship between Louis II and Hucpold after 860. However, his son Hubald remained connected to the king and to the highest ranks of his court, exercising the role of royal missus.76 Before 871, Hubald took part in a survey of the properties of the Lucchese church, demanded by the king and requested by the Bishop Gerard.77 Louis entrusted the undertaking to three bishops close to the see of Lucca, Oschisus of Pistoia (850–877), Plato II of Pisa (866–876) and Andrew of Florence (869–893), and to three laymen, the marquis of Tuscany, Adalbert I, the comes Hildebrand II of the Aldobrandeschi and Hubald himself, mentioned in the source under the epithet fidelis noster (our loyal man). The reshaping of the charge is evident. Deprived of the title of comes, Hubald did not manage to achieve the degree of political prominence of his father inside the kingdom. First, the bond of trust and the charge of missus appear nonetheless to be coherent with Louis’ politics, that is, a preference to nominate men directly tied to him by a relationship of fidelitas as new off icers.78 Second, it is also relevant to note that Hubald, as his father, maintained connections with people at the highest levels of power in the march of Tuscia. The cooperation with the bishop of Florence confirms the central role this city played in the first decades of the Hucpolding presence in Italy, which concentrated itself in this northern part of Tuscia. In 893, the same Bishop Andrew ordained Hubald’s daughter, Bertha II, as the successor of her namesake aunt in the role of abbess of the monastery of S. Andrea in Florence.79 An action that confirmed the first political engagements Hucpold 76 The ECC alone mentioned the imperial concession to Hubald of nine countships, including that of Modena. 77 Details of the survey are reported in the placitum held in 871, but without the eschatocol and therefore the date: DD L II, no. 55; RI I.3.1, no. 339; I placiti, vol. 1, no. 71. On Bishop Andrew see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, vol. 1, pp. 131–2. 78 Delogu, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia’, pt. 2, pp. 166–7; Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, pp. 258–9. 79 CdC Firenze, no. 6. Andrew himself may have been the intermediary between Hubald and Louis II, given his position – perhaps before becoming a bishop – as imperial missus in Tuscany

58 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

took in accordance with the bishop of Florence and the support of his powerful ally, Marquis Adalbert I. The connection to the Adalbertings and the first establishment of assets in the Florentine area allow us to theorize a marital union celebrated in the second generation of the group between Hubald and a daughter of Adalbert I, whose name is unknown.80 Beyond political and property proximity, the onomastic choices the Hucpoldings made after the group’s third generation clearly reference names typical of the Adalbertings. They even indicate, with all probability, the intention to link future lineage to the political space of Tuscany,81 as happened afterwards. It is difficult to retrace and contextualize Hubald’s presence in the period following the death of Louis II. One cannot overcome the complete absence of sources during the reigns of Charles the Bald and Carloman of Bavaria between 875 and 879 simply by generically inscribing Hubald in the disputes of political relationships and aristocratic factions described up to this point, themselves very unstable.82 Only in the years of Charles III does evidence of Hubald’s activity resurface, proving his service under the royal power. Once again, he was connected with the king through a bond of trust, but now he also held the title of comes. His presence in the Piacenza territory should therefore be understood in light of the politics that Charles III developed during his rule in Italy.83 The Po valley was the main area of imperial might inside the Italian kingdom because Charles could never extend his full authority beyond the Apennines84 where Adalbert I and Guy II consolidated their influence in central Italy. Reinforcing his own power meant the emperor’s dealing with the presence and assets of Engelberga. Even after her husband’s death, the former queen was still prominent in the heart of the kingdom, regardless of all the difficulties she faced after losing the protection of Carloman and the bad light shed on her by her son-in-law, Boso, usurper in Provence.85 Even though Charles III, after his coronation in 880, had confirmed and assured the widow of her properties, at the end of the same year Engelberga with the task of recruiting troops for the Benevento expedition in 866: Capitularia regum Francorum, no. 218; RI I.3.1, no. 249. 80 Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. 81 On marriage strategies and onomastic choices see Chapter 7. 82 See MacLean, ‘After his death a great tribulation came to Italy …’. 83 See MacLean, Kingship and Politics, pp. 91–6. 84 MacLean, Kingship and Politics, p. 96. 85 Bougard, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, p. 673. On Boso of Vienne see Bouchard, Those of My Blood, pp. 76–80; Bougard, ‘En marge du divorce de Lothaire II’; MacLean, ‘Carolingian Response to the Revolt of Boso’, pp. 21–48.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

59

was conducted north of the Alps and perhaps confined in the monastery of St Verena of Zurzach.86 The opposition between Charles III and the former queen lasted almost a couple of years and concluded in 882, perhaps at the same time as the capitulation of Boso in Vienne in September of that year.87 In this same period, Charles III took care of the religious institutions present in the Placentine territory, granting goods to the episcopal church, the monastery of Tolla in the countryside and the ancient burial church of S. Antonino88 situated in the nearby suburbs. The emperor initially took no action regarding S. Sisto, a monastic foundation central to Engelberga’s assets.89 Among all these activities, one can include the letter the king sent to Hubald requesting him to defend the priests of Piacenza who officiated in the church of S. Antonino. The matter regarded their property rights in regard to the goods Teutberga – Lothar II’s (855–869) legitimate wife – offered to the church in order to arrange for her husband’s burial and prayers.90 After granting his own tuitio (protection) to the burial church of Piacenza,91 Charles III supported further clerical requests in May 881, appointing an inquisitio (investigation) of all church properties in order to re-establish and confirm their rightful ownership.92 The king therefore charged Hubald with the task of guaranteeing the property rights of S. Antonino’s priests in regard to those disputed assets, probably intervening in the internal conflicts of the Piacentine clergy which had erupted after the division of the canonical body.93 From the kinship’s perspective, the most significant element of this matter was the royal wish to assign Hubald to a territory long associated with the Supponids. Suffice it to say that Engelberga’s group largely controlled the function of comes in the city and, in those years, also occupied the bishopric with a certain Paul, a nephew of the empress.94 86 Cimino, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto’, p. 153. 87 Bougard, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, p. 673. 88 DD K III, nos. 26, 27, 35, 39; RI I.3.1, nos. 634, 635, 660, 665. 89 On S. Sisto relevance in the Italian kingdom see Cimino, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto’, pp. 152–60. The diploma on behalf of the monastery was granted only in April 882: DD K III, no. 56; RI I.3.1, no. 695. 90 DD K III, no. 40; RI I.3.1, no. 666. On Lothar II’s rule see Hartmann, ‘Das Reich Lothars II’; on the divorce affair see Heidecker, Divorce of Lothar II. 91 DD K III, no. 27; RI I.3.1, no. 635. 92 DD K III, no. 39; RI I.3.1, no. 665. 93 On the disputes between S. Antonino and S. Giustina communities see Galetti, Una campagna e la sua città, pp. 21–4. 94 Bougard, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, p. 674. On Bishop Paul, already deacon of the same church, see Canetti, Gloriosa civitas, pp. 36–8.

60 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

In the years following the death of Charles III (888), Hubald supported the claims of Guy of Spoleto, alongside Adalbert II of Tuscia, who was probably his brother-in-law, as noted above. The so-called western faction headed by Guy opposed the eastern formation organized around Berengar I, marquis of Friuli.95 In 889, Hubald fought in the battle of Trebbia, leading 300 men. This information is provided in the Gesta Berengarii imperatoris,96 a source connected to Berengar, which offers useful indications for assessing the size of Hubald’s army. Indeed, the same source quantifies the armies of Adelgis II, Wifred II and Boso, the so-called tria fulmina belli Supponide (three lightnings of war, sons of Suppo),97 at 1,500 horsemen, the core of Berengar’s troops.98 Hubald we are told could muster 300 men alone against the 1,500 that the Supponids could gather from both west Emilia and east Lombardy.99 In this sense the comparative weight and depth of Hubald’s power is significant because he only effectively operated in parts of Tuscia. With no certainties regarding the effective power of these connections inside a public district, it is not possible to give them any territorial dimension. The little information regarding Hubald’s assets leads to the Florentine context, which identifies his persistent presence inside Florence as head of the coenobium of S. Andrea.100 The documentation does not allow us to speculate further. The positive outcome of the battle allowed Guy to be recognized king in the greater part of the kingdom. In February 889, the assembly of Italian magnates, lay and clergy, gathered in Pavia and elected Guy as king of Italy (889–894).101 On 21 February 891, Pope Stephen V (885–891) crowned him emperor in Rome. None of these events, however, discouraged Berengar, who, strengthened with troops sent by Arnulf of Carinthia (894/896–899), resumed his attack and forced Guy to take shelter behind the walls of Pavia in the summer of 893.102 The assault of the Bavarian troops, unified with those of the Friulan march, did not take place, because Guy paid Zwentibold, son of Arnulf and commander of his army, a great sum in silver to convince him to go back to Francia Orientalis.103 Among the besieged troops stood 95 See Cammarosano, Nobili e re, p. 209. 96 Gesta Berengarii, in particular p. 373. On the poem see Duplessis, ‘Les sources’. 97 Gesta Berengarii, pp. 374–5. 98 On Suppo II’s three sons see Bougard, ‘Les Supponides’, pp. 391–2, 395. 99 See Bougard, ‘Les Supponides’, pp. 395–6. 100 On the exiguous patrimonial documentation of S. Andrea and, in general, on kinship patrimonial presence in the Florentine territory see Chapter 5. 101 Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘Guido’, p. 358. 102 On Berengar I’s reign see Bougard, ‘Charles le Chauve, Bérenger’, pp. 65–74. 103 For an overview of these events see Sergi, ‘Kingdom of Italy’, pp. 346–8.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

61

Hubald, to whom Liutprand of Cremona dedicated a special mention on this occasion. In the Antapodosis, he describes Hubald as a champion of Italian pride risen against foreign troops, and narrates his epic duel to death with a Bavarian warrior. The victory of Hubald against the Bavarian responsible for warning Zwentibold of Italian bravery prompted Zwentibold to accept the money from Guy and to return north.104 Hence, Hubald emerges as a valiant warlord on the side of Guy. Both these narratives evidence a strong political alliance between Hubald with the Spoletan dynasty. These connections also help us to identify the origins of some crucial processes that marked the kin’s development in the following century. In order to prevent and defend against new external attacks, Guy and his son Lambert modified the districts of the kingdom, creating two new marches: one northeast of Lago di Garda, entrusted to Conrad, Guy’s uncle, and the second one northwest, centred in Ivrea and entrusted to Anscar of Oscheret.105 This latter march was created in the areas in which the Supponids had established their influence in the second half of the ninth century. There, Suppo II and his descendants tried to establish their seignorial authority by gathering more territories together with the support of Berengar. Eventually, the area became organized and took an institutional form under Guy, who favoured a man loyal to him from outside the kingdom with the clear intention of weakening his opponents and protecting his power.106 Having reinforced his northern position, Guy turned his attention to the Po valley, the economic centre and pathway from Pavia to the duchy of Spoleto. Also in this area, the Supponids consolidated their presence, particularly in the region between Piacenza and Parma. Guy’s response benefitted from the support of both Bishop Wibod of Parma and Leodoin of Modena and consisted in reorganizing all the adjacent areas – comprised mostly of the territories of Reggio and Modena107 – in a wide administrative district. This new territory encompassed those rural districts that had developed around the castra on the frontier between Langobardia and Romania in the plain and in the Bolognese Appenines.108 A placitum of 898 104 Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 1, c. 21, p. 20. On the episode see Chapter 7. 105 See Settia, ‘“Nuove marche” nell’Italia occidentale’, pp. 47–52; on Anscar and his group see Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 43, 66–71. 106 Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 65–6. 107 On Bishop Wibod’s policies and relations see Provero, ‘Chiese e dinastie’, pp. 52–6; Lazzari, ‘Tra Ravenna e regno’; and Manarini, ‘Politiche regie e conflitti’, pp. 139–45; in particular on his activities in eastern Emilia see R. Rinaldi, ‘A ovest di Ravenna’, pp. 155–63. 108 Lazzari, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche’, p. 386.

62 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

provides a first glimpse of this new district, which in later charters – up until roughly 1039 – was known as the iudiciaria Mutinensis.109 Perhaps in view of this ambitious political endeavour, Guy executed another one, on a smaller scale, designed to coordinate a strategic area of the Bolognese Apennines set between four castles: Brento, Montecerere, Barbarolo and Gesso.110 Towards the end of 891, the emperor granted Thietelm – a vassal of Adalbert II of Tuscany – the public estates located within the territory of the four castra, thus creating a new district known as iudiciaria de quattuor castellis.111 Although this new Appennine district was not to endure long,112 in the 898 placitum held at Cinquanta it was included in the iudiciaria Mutinensis.113 A certain Count Guy, active in the last years of the century and probably connected to the Widonids, received jurisdiction over this new comitatus.114 After Count Guy, the Hucpoldings and the Supponids contested the district,115 both groups already established in Emilia and willing to take over the administrative creation of the Widonid kings. Even though the sources are silent regarding the presence of Hubald – the ECC is the sole source to establish a connection between him and the comitatus of Modena – his commitment to the Piacentine territory, his close proximity to the Widonid kings and especially the estates acquired and the political success of his lineage in parts of these territories allow us to assume his probable involvement in this area. Another element that assists this assumption is the donation of rural estates Bertha I, sister of Hubald, bestowed on the monastery of S. Benedetto in Adili, located at the centre of the Bolognese plain included in the iudiciaria Mutinensis.116 One can trace back to the Widonids rule the first Hucpoldings approach in this Bolognese area, which would become one of the main heartlands of seignorial domain of the group in the following centuries.117 109 Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’, pp. 105–6. 110 See Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’, pp. 106–7. For the identification of these toponyms see Chapter 6. 111 I diplomi di Guido, no. 12; RI I.3.2, no. 918. 112 Padovani, Iudicaria motinensis, p. 33. 113 At the placitum, also persons from the district of Brento were present. On subsequent connections between the two districts see Chapter 6. 114 Bonacini, Terre d’Emilia, p. 109, n. 57. 115 See Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’. 116 See Chapter 6. 117 According to Rossella Rinaldi, Hubald would also have owned properties in Bologna. The assumption is based on a 918 emphyteosis where his name (ad iura quondam Ubaldi) is mentioned among the boundaries of the lands in question; see R. Rinaldi, ‘Le origini dei Guidi’, p. 219, n. 20.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

63

In Romagna, the political choices of Guy and Lambert favoured the connections which Hucpold and his descendants established, benefitting from them in their turn. The importance Ravenna gained as an ideal centre of the Widonids royal power allowed the Hucpoldings to value their close connection to the local aristocracy, especially through Engelrada.118 Following the imperial coronation of February 891, Guy travelled towards the exarchate aiming to extinguish the influence Berengar still exercised in the eastern part of the Po valley. The most significant part of this expedition occurred in Ravenna in Easter of the following year when Pope Formosus crowned Lambert co-emperor.119 The loyalty of the Hucpoldings in the Ravenna context was essential to the Widonids, who could also count upon the support of Duke Martin. His political influence extended over a great part of the exarchate far beyond the city of Rimini,120 a place where perhaps he inherited the public prerogatives of his maternal uncle of the same name.121 With the direct intervention of Guy and Lambert in the exarchate, Duke Martin received the title of comes,122 an sign of the royal effort to impose a direct control also over territories that were theoretically under the papal domain. More than granting public prerogatives he did not possess, Guy also tried to expand his influence in those parts of the exarchate that Martin already controlled, through the connections Hubald had put at his disposal. The charge of comes granted to Engelrada’s husband proves once more the durability of Hucpolding political connections with royal power. This time by offering a point of efficient association for the expansion of royal authority on a local level in a territory that up until then was at the fringes of the kingdom.123 However, this only hypothetical evidence seems too thin to demonstrate the presence of the Hucpoldings in Bologna at the beginning of the tenth century, where the kinship group is never attested even in subsequent sources. 118 See Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 107–8. 119 Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘Guido’, p. 359. 120 According to Magister Tolosanus, a thirteenth-century chronicler, around 889–896, Martin ‘ducatum Romanie a Romano habuerat pontifice’ (received the duchy of Romagna by Archbishop Romanus): Tolosanus, Chronicon, pp. 19–20. 121 On Martin’s maternal family see R. Rinaldi, ‘Le origini dei Guidi’, pp. 223–5. Duke Martin also had been recipient of a letter by Pope John VIII, which condemned the illegitimate bishop of Bologna Maimbertus and ordered his arrest by a group of exarchal dukes: Codice, ed. Fanti and Paolini, no. 20; on the non-execution of the papal order see R. Rinaldi, ‘A ovest di Ravenna’, p. 159. 122 Martin used the comes title in 893 in a private charter written by a tabellio of Ravenna: ChLA 54, no. 17. 123 Bonacini, ‘L’assetto territoriale di San Marino’, p. 116.

64 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Due to the wealth and prominence achieved through the constant search for connections at the highest levels, Hubald and Engelrada exploited the political relationships they obtained and ensured that their descendants retained a solid political network with a wide estate base, a promising foundation for the future.

The Aristocratic Career of Boniface dux et marchio between Rudolf II and Hugh of Arles The only known descendants of Hubald are Boniface and Bertha II.124 We have already mentioned that the latter became abbess in 893, following her aunt of the same name as abbess of S. Andrea of Florence. Apart from this information, Bertha has not left any traces behind. Boniface instead played a decisive role in the political events of the Italian kingdom for the first half of the ninth century. His deeds definitely placed his kinship group among the proceres regni,125 a social group that after the death of Louis II became a decisive political force essential to the balance of power in the kingdom.126 Boniface became involved in politics with the military expedition of King Rudolf II of Burgundy, requested in 922 by a significant number of Italian principes, among whom Adalbert I of Ivrea had a distinguished place. According to Liutprand of Cremona, the main source on these events,127 when Rudolf arrived in Italy, Boniface was already married to the king’s sister, Waldrada.128 Evidently the union was part of a marital allegiance designed to prepare for the king’s Italian endeavours,129 and this relationship 124 Probably, a second daughter of Hubald – though never mentioned in our sources – married Marquis Almericus I, nephew of Bishop Wibod of Parma; see with further bibliography Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, p. 114. Another hypothesis suggests a third daughter of Hubald’s would have married Count Suppo IV of Modena: Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 256–61. Possibly, even another son is attributable to Hubald in the person of Count Angilberth mentioned in a Bolognese act of 922: Bologna 10, no. 1. 125 A focus on Boniface’s career is in Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’. 126 See Delogu, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia’, pt. 3. 127 Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 2, pp. 31–64. 128 RI I.3.2, no. 1385. Possibly, even this marriage was part of Bertha of Tuscany’s political strategy: Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, p. 249. 129 This marriage can hardly be explained by the rather limited Italian politics of Rudolf I (888–912), the father of Rudolf II and Waldrada. It is much more likely that after his father’s death in 912, Rudolf II arranged a marriage for his sister that also constituted a political alliance. The same had happened before in the case of his mother Willa and his sister Willa II, who after the death of Rudolf I were given in marriage respectively to Hugh of Arles and probably to the latter’s brother Boso. On the Rudolfings’ matrimonial choices see Ripart, ‘Le royaume rodolphien de

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

65

placed Boniface among Rudolf’s close supporters. Liutprand suggests that this association was crucial to the victory obtained in the bloody battle of Fiorenzuola d’Arda on 17 July 923. An ambush conducted by Boniface and by a certain Gariardus changed the outcome of the conflict, which Berengar’s faction was winning up until that point.130 Despite the bloody and non-decisive character of the battle,131 this conflict forced Berengar to shelter behind the walls of Verona, where he was betrayed and murdered the following year.132 With his rival’s death, Rudolf managed, even if only for a little while, to consolidate his power in a great part of north-western Italy and in the Po region, thanks mainly to the collaboration of the Milan Archbishop Lambert, the Anscarids, marchiones of Ivrea, and Boniface, who became his consiliarius. The year of 924 was the most intensive of Rudolf’s brief reign in terms of the number of diplomas produced: eight in the period of five months, all of them written between Pavia and Verona. Boniface intervened in two of these documents regarding fiscal estates in the Emilia area, thus demonstrating a capacity to reinforce the kin’s interests there. Even though his presence in the first document does not directly relate to the contents of the act – issued for the Bishop Aicardus of Parma – what draws our attention in this case is his role of royal consiliarius, which Boniface shared with Ermengarde of Ivrea.133 The second charter offers a crucial lead in tracing clearly the political weight Boniface achieved at this time in Emilia. Again with the archbishop of Milan and with the bishop of Bergamo, Boniface asked the king to confirm the estates donated to the monastery of S. Sisto of Piacenza and to the abbess Bertha, daughter of the former king Berengar I.134 The substantial properties of the monastery were a direct result of Empress Engelberga’s operations, who, by granting its foundation with vast fiscal estates, created a strategic reserve for the royal power in the heartland of the kingdom.135 Bourgogne’, p. 443, and Bouchard, Those of My Blood, p. 417; for an overview of Rudolf I’s reign see Poupardin, Le royaume de Bourgogne, pp. 1–28. 130 Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 2, c. 66, p. 61; RI I.3.2, no. 1388. Gariardus was loyal to Adalbert I of Ivrea and then to Berengar I: Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 67; Bougard, ‘Gariardo (Gaddo)’, pp. 311–12; Vignodelli, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles’. 131 Liutprand spoke of a massacre of milites: Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 2, c. 66, p. 61; according to Flodoard of Reims, the battle caused 1,500 casualties: Flodoardus, Annales, a. 923, p. 373. 132 Sergi, ‘Kingdom of Italy’, p. 349. 133 DD R II, no. 6; RI I.3.2, no. 1422. On Bishop Aicardus and the Anscarids’ interest in Parma see Bonacini, Terre d’Emilia, pp. 269–70; Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 209–10. 134 DD R II, no. 8; RI I.3.2, no. 1424. 135 See Cimino, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto’, pp. 150–2.

66 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The greatest section of the lands acquired were situated along the course of the Po river, thus enabling control of the main artery of communication in the valley, the primordial area for control of Pavia.136 S. Sisto had from its own foundation a decisive role for the Italian kings, because controlling it meant extending their own influence over a great part of northern Italy. When the time came to replace the abbess in 917, King Berengar assigned the coenobium for life to his daughter Bertha, already head of the Brescia monastery of S. Giulia.137 Bertha continued to guide the abbey for more than thirty years, long surpassing the political presence of her own father and necessarily dealing with subsequent Italian sovereigns. Not even one of the successors of the Friulan marchio – nor even Rudolf who defeated and deprived him of the kingdom – refrained from giving diplomas of confirmation to Bertha and the coenobium, maintaining almost completely the integrity of the estate as it was at its foundation.138 Rudolf’s diploma, however, omits from the list of estates those of Campo Migliacio and Cortenuova, located in the district of the iudiciaria Mutinensis.139 This omission could perhaps be read as the sign of a wish to favour Boniface and his kinsmen,140 whose presence in those territories represented a crucial source of stability for the kingdom of Rudolf. Immediately at the beginning of his successor’s rule, we find confirmation of this hypothesis. In 926, directly after Hugh of Arles (926–947) had replaced the Burgundian king on the throne of Italy, he entrusted both curtes again to S. Sisto and to Bertha,141 since he aimed to limit the power of the Hucpoldings. Königsnähe was fundamental to any attempt to consolidate the group’s territory, which, particularly in these years, prevailed in the Emilia area in substantial continuity with the last traces of Hubald I. One can also trace the brief reign of Rudolf II back to the beneficium of the royal estate of Antognano, situated in the plain between Modena and Bologna.142 The 136 Cimino, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto’, p. 152. 137 I diplomi italiani di Berengario I, no. 115; RI I.3.2, no. 1329. See Sereno, ‘Bertilla e Berta’, pp. 195–7. 138 Sereno, ‘Bertilla e Berta’, pp. 196–7; see also Cimino, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto’, pp. 155–7. 139 Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’. The curtes confirmed were Guastalla, Suzzara, Litora Paludiana, Villola and Pegognaga. The curtis of Campo Migliacio occupied what is now the area of Fiorano in the province of Modena, while Cortenuova was located near Novellara in the province of Reggio Emilia: Tiraboschi, Dizionario topografico, vol. 1, pp. 104–5, 245–8. 140 Lazzari, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’, p. 134. 141 Sereno, ‘Bertilla e Berta’, p. 197. 142 The beneficium is mentioned in Otto I’s diploma of 962: DD O I, no. 249; RI II.1, no. 331. On the royal estate of Antognano see Chapter 6.

Map 2. Places related to the iudiciaria Mutinensis (c.890–c.950)

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

67

68 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

estate constituted a significant part of the same district juridically oriented to the Modena territory which in the diocese of Bologna received the name of iudiciaria Mutinensis – as we noted above. Apart from possessing fiscal estates, the Hucpolding prominence in the first half of the tenth century also had to consolidate itself through marital unions forged with the most powerful aristocratic kinship in Emilia. One sister of Boniface I probably married Almericus I of the Didonid group.143 Perhaps another of Boniface’s sisters married the comes Suppo IV of the Supponids, their former antagonists.144 Even if these unions are hypothetical, they acquire a certain degree of probability when one examines property data.145 In the first case, even though Almericus’ groups supported Berengar I, his kinship ties with the powerful Bishop Wibod of Parma constituted a vital element for those who, like Boniface, desired to establish power in Emilia. The firm positions the groups supporting Berengar obtained – mostly those of the Supponids with the help of the abbess Bertha 146 – left little space for the insertion of other political groups, which possibly preferred to proceed through marital alliances instead of military force. Probably it was because of Boniface’s strong connections obtained through his sister’s wedding with the Didonids that he could intervene with the king in 924 to confirm the estates of Bertha, while excluding the fiscal estates in the Modena territory.147 Possibly, this plan went to his own advantage since in all likelihood he was in charge of that very district. The decade of 920 represented a turning point in terms of the quality of power exercised by the Hucpoldings. Besides his prominent position at Rudolf’s court, Boniface obtained also the title of marchio, first to do so among the Hucpoldings.148 But what territory could be associated with this charge? The sources available do not present a secure identification, but they nonetheless allow us to propose some hypotheses. Among all four marches of the kingdom of Italy, the only one from which there is no information available for that decade is the march of Spoleto and Camerino.149 That this march is connected to Boniface is therefore a proposition historian 143 Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 265, 304, 307–10. 144 Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 256–61. 145 Such is the case of Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’. 146 On her political role see Sereno, ‘Bertilla e Berta’, pp. 190–201. 147 Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’, pp. 296. 148 On the particular cases of officials using the rank of marquis but without a specific jurisdiction in Carolingian and post-Carolingian Italy see Nobili and Sergi, ‘Le nuove marche del regno italico’, pp. 399–405, in particular p. 400. 149 Gasparrini Leporace, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi’, pp. 31–2.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

69

still maintain to this day.150 However, this attribution is supported by no concrete evidence, due to the impossibility of retracing Boniface and his kin’s presence and interests in Spoleto during this period. If instead one allocated the title of marchio to the Emilia area, all the reasoning presented up to this point would be seen in a new perspective: there would be proof of the final development of the process initiated by the Widonid dynasty with the creation of the iudiciaria Mutinensis that now acquired the status of a new march of the kingdom.151 In the following political developments, Boniface would remain adversely affected by Rudolf’s disgrace and by the ascension to the throne of Hugh of Arles.152 He and his kinship group were excluded from court and thus leave no trace of their activities during the entire reign of the new king. Hugh’s political strategy was tidy and methodical, designed to weaken and eliminate the higher aristocracies of the kingdom. The Hucpoldings were the only ones, together with the Giselbertings, to preserve their life at the cost of losing their public charges.153 Crucial for their survival was the fact that they had no direct blood ties with the sovereign. Moreover, in the case of Boniface, he was married to a member of the Rudolfings, a group to which King Hugh always remained favourable.154 The more the power of Hugh grew, the worse Boniface’s situation became, so much so that it forced him into a substantial land transaction with the abbey of Nonantola, by far the most solid monastic institution situated in the Emilia territory he controlled.155 This was a monastery with which the group had never established any connections before, always preferring to deal with the nearby monastery of S. Benedetto in Adili. In 936 Boniface exchanged with the Abbot Ingelbert more than 1,100 iugeres (c.277 hectares) of cultivated land and woods in the plain between the Bolognese and the Ferrara territory for a single estate of the same extension in the Florentine Apennines.156 150 Sansi, Degli edifici e dei frammenti storici, pp. 100–1; lastly, Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 211–12. 151 Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’, pp. 304. As a matter of fact, it was in this specific area where perhaps Hubald and Boniface addressed many of their ambitions of establishing their power. 152 Main source for Hugh’s reign – Liutprand of Cremona aside – is Atto of Vercelli’s Perpendiculum; on the source see Vignodelli, ‘Politics, Prophecy and Satire’. On Hugh of Arles’ reign see Bougard, ‘Charles le Chauve, Bérenger’, pp. 74–83. 153 Vignodelli, ‘Politics, Prophecy and Satire’, p. 212. 154 Sergi, ‘Istituzioni politiche e società nel regno di Borgogna’, pp. 207–8. 155 On the royal abbey of Nonantola, its patrimony and its political relationships with kings and magnates see Manarini, ‘Politiche regie e attivismo’; Manarini, ‘Politiche regie e conflitti’. 156 The permuta is examined in Chapter 6.

70 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Choosing Nonantola for a large land transaction in a moment of great difficulty for the group could be understood both for the prestige the royal abbey possessed, regardless of the sovereign in power, and for the particular presence of the Abbot Ingelbert, head of the monks since 929. Son of an imperial judge of Berengar I’s reign, Ingelbert, who was monk and deacon before the election, had good relations with Hugh’s comes palacii.157 It is not clear if he became abbot according to an election by the monks or by direct intervention of the king. Nevertheless, the archbishop of Ravenna, Peter IV (927–971), consecrated him, reflecting the inclination of Ingelbert to deal with the potentes of eastern Emilia as opposed to those of Pavia and western Emilia.158 Accordingly, Ingelbert represented for Boniface a fundamental agent of compromise who could offer him the opportunity to trade for estates he struggled to maintain control of, obtaining lands more concentrated and protected in an area that had been linked to his group for some time. In the following period, after years of absence,159 many individuals of comital rank emerge with specific authority in the territories of Reggio and Modena, most likely favoured by the royal power in view of some antiHucpolding policy. A placitum written in the Modenese diocese of 931 depicts a dispute involving Maginfred, count of Parma, Raimundus, count of Reggio, and Suppo IV, count of Modena.160 Hugh’s policy favoured the promotion of parvenus directly loyal to him, together with those of comital rank who remained loyal. In this way he opposed the kingdom magnates, rewarding his most devoted affiliates with public offices.161 This also aimed to weaken potential opponents such as the marchiones of Tuscia,162 who compared with Boniface, possessed a stronger foundation of power. There is no information available regarding the group and its activities for the following decade. The isolation they suffered during Hugh’s rule ended in 945, when Boniface and his son, Tebaldus, became dukes of Spoleto and 157 In 930 Abbot Ingelbert filius bone memorie Petri iudicis granted to Count Samson some goods of Nonantola placed near Brescia: Tiraboschi, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro, vol. 2, no. 81. On Count Palatine Samson and his bond with King Hugh see Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, p. 210. 158 See Bonacini, ‘Relazioni e conflitti’, p. 645. 159 Fumagalli, ‘Vescovi e conti’, pp. 138–9. After Count Guy in 898, we f ind a Count Rudolf active in the Modenese at the beginning of the tenth century, but a specific mention of a count of Modena appeared only in 931 with Suppo IV: Bonacini, Terre d’Emilia, pp. 112–23. 160 I placiti, vol. 1, no. 134; RI I.3.3, no. 1637. On Count Maginfred of Parma see Schumann, Authority and the Commune, pp. 38–9; on the placitum see Bonacini, Terre d’Emilia, p. 122. 161 See Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 75–80. 162 On Hugh’s policies see Vignodelli, ‘Berta e Adelaide’, p. 276–7.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

71

marquises of Camerino.163 Their return to prominence is certainly due to a change in the upper ranks of the kingdom decided by the conspiracy of the proceres who survived Hugh’s purges. Nevertheless, aid came also via minor vassals, who feared losing their power and place even though they were favoured by the king himself.164 A central role in the conspiracy was played by Hubert, son of Hugh himself, who was comes palacii and marchio of Tuscany and Spoleto until 945.165 Probably due to the rigid politics of his father with regard to dismantling of the marquis’ power in Tuscia in favour of his heir, Lothar II (931–950),166 Hubert abandoned his father and allied himself with the faction of Berengar II of Ivrea.167 At the same time, he married Willa, daughter of Boniface, preserving the office of Tuscia and transferring Spoleto to his father and brother-in-law.168 The role Boniface played must have been decisive considering the central position he and his kinship group occupied in the new bond established between Tuscany and Spoleto, so much so that it renewed the association between the Adalbertings and the Widonids created the century before.169 The initiative gave the kin an unprecedented position of influence in a great part of central Italy, although, at least in regard to the duchy of Spoleto, it has left no consistent traces. Finally, Boniface died in 953 according to notices produced under the governance of Tebaldus.170 In the last years of his life, Boniface managed to regain a prominent position among the proceres of the kingdom, though not being able to recover his role in central-western Emilia. This area became a solid territorial base for other emerging groups such as the Canossa, the Riprandings and the Obertenghi.171 Perhaps also due to his diversion towards the ancestral Florentine area, forced upon him by Hugh, Boniface managed to impose himself during the rule of Berengar II (950–961), obtaining then the control of a crucial area of the kingdom that would prove essential to the longevity of the group. Thanks to Boniface fecundity – he had at the least five sons and a 163 Their names are mentioned, for the year 946, in the list placed at the bottom of the catalogue of Farfa’s abbots: Il regesto di Farfa, p. 16. 164 The dynamics of the conspiracy are closely narrated in Bishop Atto’s Perpendiculum: Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 99–105, 220–3. 165 Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 90, 113. 166 Vignodelli, ‘Berta e Adelaide’, p. 281. 167 Nobili, ‘Le famiglie marchionali’, p. 142. 168 Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, p. 113–14. 169 See Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. 170 Iohannes Berardi, Chronicon Casauriense, col. 954. See also Chapter 2. 171 On the Ripranding kinship group see Fumagalli, ‘Vescovi e conti’, pp. 165–6; on the Canossa and the Obertenghi see Provero, ‘Il sistema di potere’, pp. 58–64.

72 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

daughter – the Hucpoldings blessed with vigour now had the opportunity to take on a broad range of activity. Also thanks to him, the Hucpoldings were the only kin group of Carolingian origins capable of preserving their position at the height of the Italian kingdom for a period of almost two centuries.

Bibliography Printed Primary Sources Annales Bertiniani, ed. by Georg Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi V (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1883). Annales Xantenses et Annales Vedastini, ed. by Bernhard E. Simson, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 12 (Hannover Lipsia: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Capitularia regum Francorum, vol. 2, ed. by Alfred Boretius and Victor Krause, MGH Leges (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897). Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, vol. 54, Italy XXVI, Ravenna I, ed. by Giuseppe Rabotti and Francesca Santoni (Zurich: Graf, 2000). Codice diplomatico della chiesa bolognese: documenti autentici e spuri (secoli IV–XII), ed. by Mario Fanti and Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: ISIME, 2004). Conradi I, Heinrici I et Ottonis I diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani,1879–84). Die Karolingier im Regnum Italie 840–887 (888), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.1 (Köln: Böhlau, 1991). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I und Otto I 919–973, ed. by Emil von Ottenthal, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1 (Innsbruck: Wagner’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1893). Das Regnum Italiae in der Zeit der Thronkämpfe und Reichsteilungen 888 (850)–926, ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.2 (Köln: Böhlau, 1998). Epitome chronicorum Casinensium, ed. by Ludovico A. Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.1 (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1723), pp. 347–70. Flodoardus, Annales, ed. by Georg H. Pertz, in MGH Scriptores 3 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1838), pp. 363–408. Gesta Berengarii imperatoris, in Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, ed. by Paul Winterfeld, in MGH Poetae Latini medii aevi 4.1 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1809), pp. 354–403.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

73

I diplomi di Guido e di Lamberto, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1906). I diplomi italiani di Berengario I, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1903). I diplomi italiani di Ludovico III e Rodolfo II, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1910). I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. by Cesare Manaresi, 3 vols. (Roma: ISIME,1955–60). Il regesto di Farfa di Gregorio di Catino, ed. by Ignazio Giorgi and Ugo Balzani, vol. 2 (Roma: ISIME, 1879). Iohannes Berardi, Chronicon Casauriense, ed. by Ludovico A. Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.2 (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1726), pp. 767–1018. Karoli III diplomata, ed. by Paul F. Kehr, MGH Diplomata regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 2 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1937). Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte della canonica della cattedrale di Firenze (723–1149), ed. by Renato Piattoli (Roma: ISIME, 1938). Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, in Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia, ed. by Paolo Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum continuatio mediaevalis 156 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 1–150. Ludovici II diplomata, ed. by Konrad Wanner, MGH Diplomata Karolinorum 4 (München: MGH, 1994). Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. by Johannes Dominicus Mansi, vols. 18.1, 18.1B (Venezia: Zatta Veneti, 1773). Tolosanus, Chronicon Faventinum, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Giuseppe Rossini, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptorum, n. ed., vol. 28.1 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1936), pp. 1–176.

Secondary Sources Aurell, Martin, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales de l’aristocratie (IXe–XIIIe siècle)’, in Mariage et sexualité au Moyen Âge: accord ou crise? Actes du colloque (Conques, 15–18 octobre 1998), ed. by Michel Rouche (Parigi: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2000), pp. 185–202. Betti, Maddalena, ‘Incestuous Marriages in Late Carolingian Ravenna: The causa Deusdedit (878–81)’, Early Medieval Europe 24.4 (2015), pp. 457–77. Bonacini, Pierpaolo, ‘L’assetto territoriale di San Marino tra Langobardia e Romània: dal Riminese al Montefeltro nei secoli VI–X’, in Il territorio sammarinese tra età romana e primo medioevo: ricerche di topografia e storia, ed. by Pierpaolo Bonacini and Gianluca Bottazzi (San Marino: Centro di studi storici sanmarinesi, 1994), pp. 49–134.

74 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

–––, Terre d’Emilia: distretti pubblici comunità locali e poteri signorili nell’esperienza di una regione italiana (secoli VIII–XII) (Bologna: CLUEB, 2001). –––, ‘Relazioni e conflitti del monastero di Nonantola con i vescovi di Modena (secc. VIII–XII)’, in Il monachesimo italiano dall’età longobarda all’età ottoniana (secc. VIII–X); atti del Convegno di studi storici sull’Italia benedettina (Nonantola, 10–13 settembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Spinelli (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2006), pp. 643–77. Bouchard, Constance B., ‘Those of My Blood’: Constructing Noble Family in Medieval Francia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Bougard, François, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 42 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1993), pp. 668–76. –––, La justice dans le royaume d’Italie de la fin du VIIIe siècle au début du XIe siècle (Roma: École française de Rome, 1995). –––, ‘La cour et le gouvernement de Louis II, 840–875’, in La royauté et les élites dans l’Europe carolingienne (début IXe siècle aux environs de 920), ed. by Règine Le Jan (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Centre d’histoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest, 1998), pp. 249–67. –––, ‘Gariardo (Gaddo)’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 52 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1999), pp. 311–12. –––, ‘En marge du divorce de Lothaire II: Boson de Vienne, le cocu qui fut fait roi?’, Francia 27.1 (2000), pp. 33–51. –––, ‘Dot et douaire en Italie centro-septentrionale (VIIIe–XIe siècle): un parcours documentaire’, in Dots et douaires dans le haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Laurent Feller and Régine Le Jan (Roma: École française de Rome, 2002), pp. 57–95. –––, ‘Les Supponides: echec à la reine’, in Les élites au haut Moyen Âge: crises et renouvellements, ed.by François Bougard, Laurent Feller and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), pp. 381–402. –––, ‘Ludovico II, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 66 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2007), pp. 387–94. –––, ‘Charles le Chauve, Bérenger, Hugues de Provence: action politique et production documentaire dans les diplômes à destination de l’Italie’, in Zwischen Pragmatik und Performanz: Dimensionen mittelalterlicher Schriftkultur, ed. by Christoph Dartmann, Thomas Scharff and Friederich C. Weber (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 57–83. –––, ‘Le feu de la justice et le feu de l’épreuve, IVe–XIIe siècle’, in Il fuoco nell’alto Medioevo (Spoleto: CISAM, 2013), pp. 389–432. Brown, Tom, ‘A Byzantine Cuckoo in the Frankish Nest?’, in After Charlemagne: Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 185–97.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

75

Cammarosano, Paolo, Nobili e re: l’Italia politica dell’alto medioevo (Roma: Laterza, 2009). Canetti, Luigi, “Gloriosa civitas”: culto dei santi e società cittadina a Piacenza nel Medioevo (Bologna: Patron, 1993). Cimino, Roberta, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto e il corso del fiume Po’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 141–62. Chevalier, Ulysse, Description analytique du cartulaire du chapitre de Saint-Maurice de Vienne, suivie d’un appendice de chartes et d’une Chronique inédite des évêques de Valence et de Die (Valence: Céaset, 1891). Cosentino, Salvatore, ‘Ravenna from Imperial Residence to Episcopal City: Processes of Centrality across Empires’, Rechtsgeschichte-Legal History 23 (2015), pp. 54–67. Costambeys, Marios, Matthew Innes and Simon Maclean, The Carolingian World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Davidsohn, Robert, Storia di Firenze, vol. 1 (Firenze: Sansoni, 1977; orig. ed., Berlin: Mitter and Sohn, 1896). Delogu, Paolo, ‘“Consors regni”: un problema carolingio’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 76 (1964), pp. 47–98. –––, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia carolingia in Italia II: Strutture politiche ed ideologia nel regno di Ludovico’, Bullettino per l’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 80 (1968), pp. 137–89. –––, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia carolingia in Italia III: Vescovi, conti e sovrani nella crisi del Regno italico’, Archivio della Scuola Speciale per Archivisti 8 (1968), pp. 3–72. Depreux, Philippe, ‘Le rôle du comte du Palais à la lumière des sources relatives au règne de l’emperor Luis le Pieux (814–840)’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 34 (2000), pp. 94–111. Di Branco, Marco and Kordula Wolf, ‘Hindered Passages: The Failed Muslim Conquest of Southern Italy’, Journal of Transcultural Medieval Studies 1 (2014), pp. 51–74. Di Carpegna Falconieri, Tommaso, ‘Guido, conte marchese di Camerino, duca marchese di Spoleto, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 61 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2004), pp. 354–61. –––, ‘Lamberto’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 63 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2004), pp. 206–8. Duby, Georges, Medioevo maschio: amore e matrimonio (Roma: Laterza, 1988; orig. ed., Paris: Flammarion, 1988). Dümmler, Ernst, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Dunder und Humblot, 1887).

76 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Duplessis, Frédéric, ‘Les sources des gloses des Gesta Berengarii et la culture du poète anonyme’, Aevum 89 (2015), pp. 205–63. Fasoli, Gina, ‘Adalberto di Toscana’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 1 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1960), pp. 217–20. –––, I re d’Italia (888–962) (Firenze: Sansoni, 1949). Fasoli, Gina, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi di Ravenna fra l’VIII e l’XI secolo’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 87–140. Fleckenstein, Josef, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1959). Fumagalli, Vito, ‘Vescovi e conti nell’Emilia occidentale da Berengario I a Ottone I’, Studi medievali 14.1 (1973), pp. 137–204. Galetti, Paola, Una campagna e la sua città: Piacenza piacenza e territorio nei secoli VIII–X (Bologna: CLUEB, 1994). Gantner, Clemens, ‘“Our Common Enemy Shall Be Annihilated!” How Louis II’s Relations with the Byzantine Empire Shaped His Policy in Southern Italy’, in Southern Italy as Contact Area and Border Region during the Early Middle Ages: Religious-Cultural Heterogeneity and Competing Powers in Local, Transregional, and Universal Dimensions, ed. by Kordula Wolf and Klaus Herbers (Köln: Bölhau, 2018), pp. 298–314. –––, ‘A King in Training? Louis II of Italy and His Expedition to Rome in 844’, in After Charlemagne: Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 164–81. –––, ‘Brief Introduction to Italian Political History until 875’, in After Charlemagne: Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 5–16. Gasparrini Leporace, Tullia, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi di Spoleto (569–1230)’, Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria 35 (1938), pp. 5–68. Goetz, Hans-Werner, ‘Coutume d’héritage et structures familiales au haut Moyen Âge’, in Sauver son âme et se perpétuer: transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Cristina La Rocca and Régine Le Jan (Roma: École française de Rome, 2005), pp. 203–37. Granier, Thomas, ‘La captivité de l’empereur Louis II à Bénévent (13 août–17 septembre 871) dans les sources des IXe–Xe siècles’, in Faire l’événement au Moyen Âge, ed. by Claude Carozzi and Huguette Taviani-Carozzi (Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires de Provence, 2007), pp. 13–39. Hartmann, Wilfried, ‘Das Reich Lothars II: zwischen Karl dem Kahlen und Ludwig dem Deutschen’, in De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée: Francia Media; une région au cœur de l’Europe (c.840–c.1050), ed. by Michèle Gaillard, Michel Margue, Alain Dierkens and Hérold Pettiau (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 2011), pp. 275–300.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

77

Heath, Christopher, ‘Contested Identities in the Byzantine West c.540–c.865’ in Routledge Handbook of Identity in Byzantium, ed. by David Parnell, Michael E. Stewart, and Conor Whately (London: Routledge, forthcoming). Heidecker, Karl, The Divorce of Lothar II: Christian Marriage and Political Power in the Carolingian World, trans. by Tanis M. Guest (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010). Herbers, Klaus, ‘Der Konflikt Papst Nikolaus’ I mit Erzbischof Johannes VII von Ravenna (861)’, in Diplomatische und chronologische Studien aus der Arbeit an den Regesta Imperii, ed. by Paul-Joachim Heinig (Köln: Böhlau, 1991), pp. 51–66. Hlawitschka, Eduard, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien (774–962) (Freiburg im Breisgau: Albert, 1960). Keller, Hagen, ‘Zur Struktur der Königsherrschaft im karolingischen und nachkarolingischen Italien: der “consiliarius regis” in den italienischen Königsdiplomen des 9 und 10 Jahrhunderts’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 47 (1967), pp. 123–223. Kreutz, Barbara M., Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Century (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1996). Lankila, Tommi P., ‘The Saracen Raid of Rome in 846: An Example of Maritime ghazw’, in Travelling through Time: Essays in honour of Kaj Öhrnberg, ed. by Sylvia Akar, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila and Inka NokSo-Koivisto (Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2013), pp. 93–120. Lazzari, Tiziana, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche e aree di affermazione signorile: il territorio bolognese fra VIII e XI secolo’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 379–400. –––, ‘Una mamma carolingia e una moglie supponide: percorsi femminili di legittimazione e potere nel regno italico’, in ‘C’era una volta un re …’: aspetti e momenti della regalità; da un seminario del dottorato in Storia medievale (Bologna, 17–18 dicembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Isabella (Bologna: CLUEB, 2005), pp. 41–57. –––, ‘La creazione di un territorio: il comitato di Modena e i suoi “conf ini”’, in Distinguere, separare, condividere: confini nelle campagne dell’Italia medievale, ed. by Paola Guglielmotti, Reti Medievali Rivista 7.1 (2006), pp. 101–18. –––, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 123–39. –––, ‘Tra Ravenna e regno: collaborazione e conflitti fra aristocrazie diverse’, in Coopétition: rivaliser, coopérer dans les sociétés du haut Moyen Âge (500–1100), ed. by Régine Le Jan, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Stefano Gasparri (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), pp. 167–86. Löwe, Heinz, ‘Studien zu den Annales Xantenses’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 8 (1951), pp. 59–99.

78 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

MacLean, Simon, ‘The Carolingian Response to the Revolt of Boso, 879–887’, Early Medieval Europe 10.1 (2001), pp. 21–48. –––, ‘Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian Europe’, Past & Present 178 (2003), pp. 3–38. –––, Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and the End of the Carolingian Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). –––, ‘“After his death a great tribulation came to Italy …”: Dynastic Politics and Aristocratic Factions after the Death of Luis II, c.870–c. 890’, Millennium–Jahrbuch 4 (2007), pp. 239–60. Manarini, Edoardo, ‘Politiche regie e attivismo aristocratico nell’Emilia carolingia: il monastero di S. Silvestro di Nonantola’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 30 (2017), pp. 7–74. –––, ‘Politiche regie e conflitti nell’Emilia orientale: la fisionomia del fisco regio, San Silvestro di Nonantola e le lotte per il regno dopo l’875’, Reti Medievali Rivista 20.1 (2019), pp. 121–56. –––, ‘A Marriage, a Battle, an Honor: The Career of Boniface of the Hucpoldings during Rudolf II’s Italian Reign, 924–26’, Early Medieval Europe 28.2 (2020), pp. 289–309. –––, ‘Le madri dei marchesi: la legittimazione al potere marchionale nella marca Tusciae’, in Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). –––, ‘Sex, Denigration and Violence: A Representation of Political Competition between Two Aristocratic Families in 9th Century Italy’, in Conflict and Violence in Medieval Italy 568–1154, ed. by Christopher Heath and Robert Houghton (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming). Meyer, Hans-Eugen, ‘Die Pfalzgrafen der Merowinger und Karolinger’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Germanistische Abteilung 42 (1921), pp. 380–463. Nelson, Janet L., ‘Le partage de Verdun’, in De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée: Francia Media; une région au cœur de l’Europe, ed. by Michèle Gaillard, Michel Margue, Alain Dierkens and Hérold Pettiau (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 2011), pp. 241–54. Nimmegeers, Nathanaël, Èvêques entre Bourgogne et Provence: la province ecclésiastique de Vienne au haut Moyen Âge (Ve–XIe siècle) (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2014). Nobili, Mario, ‘Le famiglie marchionali nella Tuscia’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 125–50. Nobili, Mario and Giuseppe Sergi, ‘Le nuove marche del regno italico: un programma di ricerca’, Nuova Rivista Storica 65 (1981), pp. 399–405. Padovani, Andra, ‘Iudicaria motinensis’: contributo allo studio del territorio bolognese nel Medioevo (Bologna: CLUEB, 1990).

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

79

Pallavicino, Alessandro, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 233–320. Poupardin, René, Le royaume de Provence sous les Carolingiens (855–933) (Paris: Boullion, 1901). –––, Le royaume de Bourgogne (888–1038): étude sur l’origine du royaume d’Arles (Paris: Champion, 1907). Provero, Luigi, ‘Il sistema di potere carolingio e la sua rielaborazione nei comitati di Parma e Piacenza’, in Studi sull’Emilia occidentale nel Medioevo: società e istituzioni, ed. by Roberto Greci (Bologna: CLUEB, 2001), pp. 43–64. –––, ‘Chiese e dinastie nel mondo carolingio’, in Storia di Parma, vol. 3.1: Parma medievale: poteri e istituzioni ed. by Roberto Greci (Parma: Monte Università Parma, 2010), pp. 41–67. Rinaldi, Rossella, ‘Le origini dei Guidi nelle terre di Romagna (secoli IX–X)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996), pp. 211–40. –––, ‘A ovest di Ravenna: itinerari di conti, di vescovi e di giovani donne’, in Storia di Bologna, vol. 2: Bologna nel Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Bologna: BUP, 2007), pp. 151–86. Ripart, Laurent, ‘Le royaume rodolphien de Bourgogne (fin IXe–début XIe siècle)’, in De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée: Francia Media; une région au cœur de l’Europe, ed. by Michèle Gaillard, Michel Margue, Alain Dierkens and Hérold Pettiau (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 2011), pp. 429–52. Sansi, Achille, Degli edifici e dei frammenti storici delle antiche età di Spoleto, app.: I duchi di Spoleto (Foligno: Sgariglia, 1870). Savigni, Raffaele, ‘I papi e Ravenna: dalla caduta dell’esarcato alla fine del secolo X’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 331–68. Scaravelli, Irene, ‘Giovanni’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 55 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2001), pp. 519–22. Schoolman, Edward M., ‘Nobility, Aristocracy and Status in Early Medieval Ravenna’, in Ravenna: Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, ed. by Judith Herrin and Janet Nelson (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2016), pp. 211–38. Schneider, Fedor, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana von der Gründung des Langobardenreiches bis zum Ausgang der Staufer (528–1268) (Roma: Loescher, 1914). Schumann, Reinhold, Authority and the Commune, Parma 833–1133 (Parma: Deputazione di storia patria per le province parmensi, 1973).

80 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Screen, Elina, ‘The Importance of the Emperor: Lothar I and the Frankish Civil War, 840–843’, Early Medieval Europe 12.1 (2003), pp. 25–52. –––, ‘Lothar I in Italy, 834–40: Charters and Authority’, in Problems and Possibilities of Early Medieval Charters, ed. by Jonathan A. Jarrett and Allan S. McKinley (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 231–52. –––, ‘Carolingian Fathers and Sons in Italy: Lothar I and Louis II’s Successful Partnership’, in After Charlemagne: Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 148–63. Sereno, Cristina, ‘Bertilla e Berta: il ruolo di Santa Giulia di Brescia e di San Sisto di Piacenza nel regno di Berengario I’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 187–202. Sergi, Giuseppe, Istituzioni politiche e società nel regno di Borgogna, in Il secolo di ferro: mito e realtà del secolo X (Spoleto: CISAM, 1991), pp. 205–42. –––, I confini del potere: marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Torino: Einaudi, 1995). –––, ‘The Kingdom of Italy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3: c.900– c.1024, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 346–71. Settia, Aldo A., ‘“Nuove marche” nell’Italia occidentale: necessità difensive e distrettuazione pubblica fra IX e X secolo; una rilettura’, in La contessa Adelaide e la società del secolo XI: atti del Convegno (Susa, 14–16 novembre 1991), Segusium 32 (1992), pp. 43–60. –––, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi d’Ivrea (sec. V–1198)’, Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 93.1 (1995), pp. 245–63. Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro di Nonantola, vol. 2 (Modena: Società tipografica di Modena, 1785). –––, Dizionario topografico-storico degli Stati Estensi, vol. 1 (Modena: Tipografia camerale, 1824). Verbruggen, Jan-Frans, ‘L’armée et la stratégie de Charlemagne’, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, ed. by Helmut Beuman and Wolfgang Braunfels, vol. 1 (Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1965), pp. 420–36. Vignodelli, Giacomo, ‘Berta e Adelaide: la politica di consolidamento del potere regio di Ugo di Arles’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 247–94. –––, Il filo a piombo: il Perpendiculum di Attone di Vercelli e la storia politica del regno italico (Spoleto: CISAM, 2012). –––, ‘Politics, Prophecy and Satire: Atto of Vercelli’s Polipticum quod appellatur Perpendiculum’, Early Medieval Europe 24 (2016), pp. 209–35.

The Hucpoldings’ Involvement in the Political Struggles

81

–––, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles e le aristocrazie del regno italico (926–945)’, in Acquérir, prélever, contrôler les resources en compétition (400–1000), ed. by Régine Le Jan, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Vito Loré (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 151–69. Werner, Karl Ferdinand, ‘“Missus-Marchio-Comes”: entre l’administration centrale et l’administration locale de l’Empire carolingien’, in Karl Ferdinand Werner, Vom Frankenreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs: Ursprünge, Strukturen, Beziehungen; ausgewählte Beiträge; Festgabe zu seinem 60 Geburtstag (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1984), pp. 108–56. Wickham, Chris, Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400–1000 (London: Macmillan Press, 1981). Zielinski, Herbert, ‘Ein unbeachteter Italienzug Kaiser Lothar I im Jahre 847’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 70 (1990), pp. 1–22. –––, ‘Reisegeschwindigkeit und Nachrichtenübermittlung als Problem der Regestenarbeit am Beispiel eines undatierten Kapitulars Lothars I von 847 Frühjahr (846 Herbst?)’, in Diplomatische und chronologische Studien aus der Arbeit an den Regesta Imperii, ed. by Paul-Joachim Heinig (Köln: Böhlau, 1991), pp. 37–49. Zornetta, Giulia, Italia meridionale longobarda: competizione, conflitto e potere politico a Benevento (secoli VIII–IX) (Roma: Viella, 2020).

2.

Family Patterns and Political Affirmation (945–1012) Abstract With the fourth generation, the kinship group reached its maximum horizontal cognatic extension. Extensive parental relationships and the achievement of the rank of marquis allowed a wide-ranging capacity for action in a large part of the kingdom. The relationship with the royal power was then always fundamental, even in the Ottonian period. Political and relational developments are therefore investigated in the different areas of activity of the Hucpoldings, namely the duchy of Spoleto, march of Tuscany, exarchate of Ravenna and eastern Emilia, especially the territory of Bologna. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; march of Tuscany; cognatic ties; private monasteries

The first half of the tenth century would be central to the survival of the Hucpoldings and to the redefinition of their areas of interest in the Italian kingdom. The group gave up their uncertain defences, assumed during King Hugh’s reign, and involved themselves in the uprising against the king himself and his son Lothar in 945. Despite not being able to restore the prominent position they once held in Emilia due to new forces established over time, Boniface and his son Tebaldus acquired the offices of duke of Spoleto and marquis of Camerino. This half of the century represented without doubt a turning point for the group, well represented by the cognatic line originating from Boniface, a branch that followed a completely different path than the previous three generations. With certainty, one can establish five men and at least one woman as following in direct descent from him, which allowed the insertion of the kin into new and diverse political spaces in these decades of troubles. Just like their father, each of them appears with high-ranking titles in the

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch02

84 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

documentation, as counts or as marquises, sometimes pertaining to the government of a public district. It is interesting to note, in this sense, that the acquisition of an office by one of the siblings does not result in an automatic concentration of all the others in a certain territory. Quite the contrary: the kin’s strategy seems to involve a diversified and extensive attempt to establish territory through multiple angles that according to the situation emphasized the acquisition of a public office or of assets. The march of Tuscany, the duchy of Spoleto – ancient and prestigious institutions – always remained among the group’s goals, but without prompting the interest of the whole kin group. Duke Tebaldus is the first son of Boniface to appear in the sources. He governed the duchy of Spoleto before, alongside his father, and later by himself from 945 until circa 959. His sister Willa married the Bosonid Hubert, son of King Hugh and marquis of Tuscia, possibly as part of a group of Italian potentes aligned against the king. After the arrival of Otto I (962), she did not seem to follow her husband into exile, playing rather a central role in the ascent of their son, Hugh. Thanks to the power-base in the Florentine area, Hugh could strengthen his position in the march despite the suspicious of the Ottonians. Marquis Hugh had become by many means a distinctive and powerful figure among the whole group. In particular, his political career reached an apex in the time of Otto III’s reign. Although an outstanding figure, Hugh must be considered a component of the Hucpoldings, even though it is important to bear in mind his paternal Bosonid ancestry. Noticeable, however, is the great difficulty faced by the only Bosonid still alive in Italy in the second half of the tenth century. After the conspiracy against Hugh, and the establishment of the Ottonian power in 962, the influence of Hubert in Tuscany diminished radically, if not disappearing completely, under the threat of new emergent comital groups. At the beginning of his political career, Hugh could only count on the relationships and allodial assets of his maternal kin, which were held at this time by Eberhard as bishop of Arezzo. As the third son of Boniface I, we possess evidence of his actions from 963 to 979. He is the only known representative of the entire kin to serve as a bishop. His political alignment with Otto I (962–973) suggests an imperial involvement in his election, a significant point since the emperor showed little consideration for the rest of the group. The last descendant of Boniface in Tuscany is Count Adimarus, active in the area of Florence. Most of the available information regarding him comes from the fourteenth-century registrum of S. Salvatore a Settimo, a Benedictine abbey near Florence. More precisely, the first entry concerns

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

85

the confirmation Adimarus granted in 988 of kin estates his grandfather Hubald had transferred to the church.1 The record also attests that his father Boniface had made the same grant. Apart from this late evidence, Adimarus remains rather obscure in tenth-century sources. Nevertheless, a few later references connect him to a specific branch of descent that established itself near Florence, in Mugello and the Bolognese Apennines in the eleventh century.2 The relationships and interests Hubald I had acquired in the Settimo area, possibly of fiscal nature, entered the sphere of influence of the Cadolings, a comital group which emerged in Tuscany around the second half of the tenth century.3 Count Aldabert I is the fifth attested descendant of Boniface, active in the Bolognese area in the second half of the tenth century until circa 970. His presence in the plain northwest of Bologna is connected directly to the territories his father had previously owned, the iudiciaria Mutinensis. Regardless of royal hostility and the strong competition of other relatives, the Hucpoldings managed to maintain a portion of the assets acquired previously with royal assent, mainly in those sectors of the Bolognese territory included in the iudiciaria which later were excluded from the countship of Modena. In the Bolognese Apennines – another portion of the same iudiciaria4 – one may find traces of the descendants of another of Boniface’s sons, Hubald II dux et marchio, the most obscure and least known of his offspring. There are only two late mentions of Hubald II, which makes it rather hard to identify the nature of the titles he bore and to determine a specific area for his political and landholding activities. The main evidence of his existence remains the foundation of the monastery of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano by his son Adalbert II. The institution of the coenobium and the establishment of his offspring in the Bolognese Apennines represents an indication of how this branch of the kin group aimed to manage their estates and power, which can be attributed to the same Hubald II. Among Aldabert II’s sons, Boniface II was active between 981 and 1012 and succeeded his cousin Hugh as the marquis of Tuscia. Despite the institutional and regnal instability caused by the claims of Arduin of Ivrea (1002–1004), the support of the Ottonian emperor Henry II (1004–1024) allowed Boniface II to impose himself on the march, especially on those territories where his kin were long present. 1 Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, app. 1, no. 1. 2 See Chapter 3. 3 On the tranformation of the church of Settimo into a monastery by Lothar of the Cadolings around the year 1000 see Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, pp. 88–9. 4 Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’, p. 303.

86 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

From the political difficulties faced from 930 on, the group managed to invert the wheel of its fortune successfully, establishing itself in the widest and most important public districts of the kingdom: the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Tuscany. The relationship of loyalty and collaboration with the Ottonian imperial dynasty demonstrates how fundamental the imperial imprimatur was for the establishment of the group’s power in Tuscany. There, at the same time, the group also invested in the remembrance of a particular public tradition of the march which linked Boniface I and his offspring to the only direct line of descent from the Adalbertings.5 They were one of the most prestigious and powerful kinship groups among the Carolingian aristocracies, whose male branch had been eliminated by their half-brother Hugh of Arles.6 In fact, taking into consideration the genealogical schemes of the marquises of Tuscany that succeeded the Bosonid Hubert up until the end of the eleventh century, it is significant that all of them had kin relations via Hucpolding women, in their turn descendants of the Adalbertings through Boniface I.7 These kin connections better highlight the mechanisms of succession and of power acquisition used by individuals of this rank, in which the role played by the royal power – now established generally north of the Alps – consisted more in providing political support to a strict circle of descendants of the marchiones active during the Carolingian period than in directly promoting homines novi. The relationship with other kin groups was often established through marital union. In this phase, they were marked by a substantial isogamy between the spouses, that however could turn towards a more exogamic (i.e. outside the group) character, or on the contrary, more endogamic (i.e. within the group) according to political circumstances. Thanks to a sudden horizontal cognatic development in the fourth generation that strengthened cognatic bonds between individuals, the group could overcome its current political difficulties. It was then able to maintain its estates in different territories and finally perfect its own domain in seigneurial terms, as the events of the following century attest. The marital solution was doubtless a privileged instrument for them to reinsert themselves into Emilia and the exarchate of Ravenna, that is, in sectors where the group had its main landholdings. 5 Adalbertings’ blood was a crucial feature of identity for tenth- and eleventh-century candidates to the march of Tuscany; see Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. 6 King Hugh’s fierce strategy towards his own kin group is examined in Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo. 7 See Chapter 7 and Table G3, and also Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

87

The marriage between Adalbert I and Anna, widow of Count Guy of the Berthaldings, was an attempt to achieve new and different relationship networks. Thanks to these and to a new emphyteutic bond with the Archbishop Peter IV of Ravenna, Adalbert managed to impose himself on the Bolognese plain and to establish valuable relationships with the most prominent urban groups. This was a new dynamic that produced – as we will see – controversial results for the group in the Bolognese territories where it managed to find in the Apennines sector a solid base of territorial lordship. Finally, the marriage between Tegrimus II and Gisla, daughter of the Marquis Hubald II – cousins in the third degree – would have originated from negative political circumstances. The branch of descendants settled in Romagna went through a time of great difficulty following their armed conflict with Archbishop Peter, which ended with defeat and the confiscation of the whole of the patrimony the group had gathered in the ninth century. The kin thus opted for an endogamic union, attempting to close its ranks and to overcome its political isolation. The couple thus moved the groups’ asset core towards the Apennines of the Casentino valley between Faenza and Arezzo by founding the monastery of S. Fedele of Strumi, profiting from the protection of Bishop Eberhard. The project was successful, with the descendants acquiring an ever-growing power in these same Apennine valleys, even establishing significant relationships with the Canossa in the eleventh century. It also represented a true point of departure for the branch that through the same century distinguished itself as the Guidi lineage.

The Duchy of Spoleto and Tuscany The involvement in the conspiracy against King Hugh allowed Boniface to restore his influence, marrying his daughter Willa to Hubert, marquis of Tuscia and obtaining for himself and for his son Tebaldus the titles of dux of Spoleto and marquis of Camerino. In the second half of the tenth century, the Hucpoldings controlled, more or less directly, the greatest part of central Italy, becoming after the death of the ‘puppet’ King Lothar II important supporters of the Anscarid Berengar II and Adalbert in their rise to the throne. However, there is no concrete evidence of his actions as head of the duchy in the years following 945. The only concrete evidence of any degree of influence the Hucpolding dukes exercised in the territories they controlled comes from the dating of private documents using years of royal and ducal government.

88 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

A series of eleven acts produced from 946 until 957 allow us to reflect on the concrete authority that Boniface and his son exercised in the territories of Camerino and Spoleto. Ten documents are contained in the cartulary of the monastery of Farfa, and another one is from that of Causaria. The first group is composed of four Farfa documents between 946 and 948, all of them regarding the territory of Camerino.8 In two of these the dating is expressed solely by the ducal years of these two Hucpolding members, while in the two documents that follow there are also references to the regnal years of King Lothar II. The second group of six charters dated from 953 to 957 provide evidence of the government of Tebaldus,9 even though one Camerinense act from 954 only uses royal dating.10 The administrative nature of these acts stipulated by the abbots in order to exploit the monastic properties shed no light on the head of public circumscription. Nevertheless, this notarial practice allows us to attribute spheres of influence to the titles of marquis and duke used by these two individuals in the district. One should also notice that in two acts among those mentioned in the territory of Camerino, there are references to a Rodald vicecomes and a Count Atto.11 The fact that two figures of comital rank, possibly in charge of public offices, applied to their own private acts a royal and ducal dating testifies to the existence of a recognized public power structure. The last document dated using the years of government of Tebaldus is from July 957.12 In the previous autumn, the Italian kingdom under Berengar II had witnessed the appearance of Liudolf son of Otto I, who had been sent to support the Ottonian party and perhaps to acquire the Italian kingship for himself.13 However, thanks to the sudden death of his adversary in September 957, Berengar II and his son Adalbert retained their kingship enough to orchestrate a new and violent repression against laymen and clergy who supported the Ottonians.14 Probably, Tebaldus was among those rebels, since he suffered a military attack from Berengar in the summer/autumn of 8 Liber largitorius, nos. 222, 223, 235; Il regesto di Farfa, no. 354. 9 Liber largitorius, nos. 224, 227, 228, 229, 231; Iohannes Berardi, Chronicon Casauriense, cols. 952–4. 10 Liber largitorius, no. 225. 11 Rodald vicecomes appeared in Il regesto di Farfa, no. 354; Count Atto in Iohannes Berardi, Chronicon Casauriense, cols. 952–4. 12 Liber largitorius, no. 229. 13 Müller-Mertens, ‘Ottonians as Kings’, p. 251. 14 On Berengar II’s aristocratic repression, valuable sources are Bishop Atto of Vercelli’s main work, the Perpendiculum, and his letters. On Atto’s legitimation of regnal behaviour see Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 124–32.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

89

959, aimed ‘ad Spoletensem seu Camerini marchiam debellandam’ (to quell the march of Spoleto and Camerino).15 It seems appropriate to conclude that this date marks the end of Tebaldus’ duchy, from whom there are no other traces in the Spoletan area.16 The loss of Spoleto placed the Hucpoldings back in a difficult situation, due mostly to the hostile attitudes of Berengar II. Nevertheless, the group maintained its major role in the kingdom, thanks to actions taken by Marquis Hubert, to whom Willa connected the fate of the kin in Tuscany. During the rule of Berengar II, the couple sought to consolidate their power in the march, mindful of the events that had occurred among their predecessors after Marquis Adalbert II (c.889–915), who had all been killed or dispossessed by royal power. Already with the marriage, Willa became a protagonist of the couple’s patrimonial strategies: through her dower, she obtained control of at least four entire fiscal curtes in the Florentine area where her kinship group already had its assets from the mid-ninth century. Similarly to what happened between the Italian kings and their queens,17 the allocation of assets of a fiscal nature within the private patrimony of the marchionissa had the purpose of reserving the marquises and their children exclusive access to precise shares of the march estates, probably the easiest to maintain over time. In this way, they weakened the institutional basis of material power of any other candidate for the march proposed by the kings of Pavia. The operation emerges at least in part from the foundation and endowment charter of the abbey of S. Maria of Florence – so-called Badia fiorentina – which Willa founded in 978.18 In order to understand the basis of their future political position, it is now necessary to examine closely the episodes occurring around 959 that caused the second appearance of Otto. The expedition against Tebaldus seriously worsened Berengar and his son’s position, whose situation was completely compromized in two years: after taking control of the ducal territories, Adalbert pressed his military actions against the Roman territory, managing to threaten even Pope John XII. The pressure was so intense that in the second half of 960 the pope decided to summon the intervention of Otto I to solve the matter.19 Hubert’s position in relation to his brother-in-law 15 Iohannes diaconus Venetus, Chronica, p. 137. 16 A limited trace of Tebaldus after 959 is perhaps given by a 960 charter where Tebaldus – now only comes – requests with his wife Richilde of Archbishop Peter IV of Ravenna some lands around Osimo: Ravenna 10.2, no. 102. 17 Lazzari, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’. 18 The charter as well as the general patrimonial situation in Tuscany are analysed in Chapter 5. 19 Liudprandus Cremonensis, De Ottone rege, c. 1, p. 169.

90 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Tebaldus is unclear because the Venetian chronicle of Deacon John mentions nothing regarding the subject.20 Regardless, his loyalty to Berengar is still probable, despite the exclusion of his wife’s brother. Peter IV Candiano (959–976) participated in the same expedition against Spoleto after being exiled by his father the Doge Peter III (942–959) at the beginning of 959. Peter IV – the main protagonist of John the Deacon’s tale – ended up being expelled from the duchy for plotting against his father, despite his recent association with the throne. Accompanied by a small entourage of servants, he took shelter at the court of Marquis Guy of Ivrea, son of Berengar II. The marquis introduced him to the king, who, when inviting Peter to the expedition into Spoletan territory, promised to help him once back in his homeland. Therefore, by the end of 959, the king of Italy gave Peter ships and troops in order to get back to Venice and impose himself as duke, occupying the place of his recently deceased father.21 Once he had taken Venice, probably between 960 and 961, Peter sought an excuse to repudiate both his wife Giovanna – confining her to the monastery of S. Zaccaria – and her son Vitale, forcing him into the clergy.22 He was now at liberty to marry again. He married Waldrada, daughter of Hubert and Willa, who brought him a dowry composed of a great number of properties and even exteros milites de Italico regno,23 that is soldiers coming from Lombardy and Tuscany.24 Perhaps already agreed in 959 during Peter’s exile, this union consolidated both the external and internal position of the new duke, 25 but Hubert also benefitted from it as well. He managed thus to relaunch his political activities, long limited by the influence of Berengar II and his family in central Italy. Thanks to his daughter, he reactivated ancient interests that the owners of the march of Tuscany had had in the Venetian area in the past.26 Furthermore, Hubert was able to broaden his network and thus escape the sole relationship with Pavia. The union of their daughter with the doge allowed Hubert and his wife to project their political strategies beyond 20 This tenth-century chronicle is our main source on these events; on John the Deacon see Berto, ‘Giovanni Diacono’, pp. 8–10. 21 Iohannes diaconus Venetus, Chronica, p. 137. 22 Iohannes diaconus Venetus, Chronica, p. 138. Subsequently, Peter’s first son, Vitale, became Patriarch of Grado: Bertolini, ‘Pietro Candiano’, p. 765. On Peter IV Candiano’s marital unions see Provesi, ‘Le due mogli di Pietro IV Candiano’, pp. 21–51, even if, strangely enough the essay does not take into consideration the Hucpolding ancestry of Peter’s second wife, Waldrada. 23 Iohannes diaconus Venetus, Chronica, p. 138. 24 Andreas Danduli, Chronica, p. 182. 25 Bertolini, ‘Pietro Candiano’, pp. 765–6. 26 Bonacini, ‘Il marchese Almerico’, p. 250.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

91

the borders of the regnum: the alliance created a privileged relationship between the marquises of Tuscany and the Venetian kin of the Candiano, one of the main aristocratic groups of Venice which for generations had supplied candidates for the office of dux Veneticorum. Berengar II was aware of the marital alliance between the Tuscan Hucpoldings and the Venetian Candiano. Probably threatened by the power Hubert had gained, the king replaced him as the head of the march with a Supponid descendent, Hugh, probably son of Count Suppo IV of Modena.27 Besides reviving the rivalry between Supponids and Hucpoldings,28 Hugh allowed the Anscarids a certain security in the most southern part of the kingdom, thanks to his solid patrimonial bases in the Arezzo area.29 Anyway, apart from the royal nomination, it is impossible to determine how much of the march the new marquis effectively controlled, especially considering that Hubert remained in his position until the arrival of Otto I, as we are going to see below. In May 961, the Marquis Hugh I of Tuscany was in Verona, in the entourage of Berengar II and Adalbert, who tried to organize the resistance to the forthcoming Ottonian expedition.30 On this occasion, Hugh appealed to the kings to obtain secure fiscal control of Polesine, comprising rights to a monastery called Wangadicensis.31 The formula qualiter interventu ac peticione (for intervention and request) present in the beginning of the diploma indicates Hugh’s explicit initiative in what seems to be his first attempt at creating connections to southern Veneto. The enduring interest the Tuscan marquises retained in this particular territory re-emerges once again at the end of the tenth century, when Marquis Hugh II, son of Hubert, and his sister Waldrada granted another set of lands to the same monastic institution. The monastery’s foundation in 961 was probably part of the fiscal complex of Legnago in the Veronese area,32 and in the same 27 On the identification of two different subsequent marquises of Tuscia named Hugh, with further bibliography, see Manarini, ‘Ugo’. 28 Probably Hugh was son of Suppo IV, who descended from Suppo III – duke of Spoleto under King Louis II – through Unroch. In order to justify appointment in Tuscia, Hugh of Suppo IV could boast a direct link with the Adalbertings through his mother, maybe a daughter of Hubald I of the Hucpoldings; see Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. 29 As a matter of fact, Berengar II chose as his last refuge against Otto I the fortress of San Leo in Montefeltro, close to Aretine territory. On the patrimony of the Supponid Arezzo branch see Delumeau, ‘Equilibri di potere ad Arezzo’, pp. 93–5; on his later descendents see Tiberini, ‘Origini e radicamento’, pp. 489–90, 496–7. 30 Castagnetti, Il Veneto nell’alto medioevo, pp. 98–9. 31 I diplomi di Ugo e di Lotario, di Berengario II, no. 16; RI I.3.3, no. 2448. 32 Casazza, Il territorio di Adria, p. 244.

92 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

period, abbot Martin received a portion of this same estate from Berengar II himself.33 In 993 and 996, Hugh son of Hubert decided to reorganize his properties in the area, trusting them to that same monastic institution, which however he transferred further south, close to the river Adige.34 There, his cousin Almericus II – who we shall consider at length below – had founded the church of S. Maria della Vangadizza, which became the location of the new monastery.35 The monastic archive remained the same as the first Wangadicensis abbey and thus witnessed this change: more precisely, the documentary continuity demonstrates that the monks in the new institution preserved both the early fiscal assets received in the 960s and the portion of allodial properties Hugh and Waldrada donated to them in the 990s. Between 959 and 961, Hubert and Tebaldus lost control over Tuscany and Spoleto, and in the last years of Berengar II and Adalbert’s reign, they have left no trace of their actions. Not even the arrival of Otto altered their position. Hubert, who up until that moment would have stayed in Tuscany, was constrained to withdraw and move into exile, perhaps in Pannonia. Two sources inform us of the event, but in different terms. The Chronicon written by the monk Benedict of S. Andrea del Soratte clearly described Hubert’s expulsion from Italy, a fate he shared with Berengar II and Adalbert.36 Almost a century later, Peter Damian described instead how Hubert had escaped, wishing to avoid Otto I.37 Both narratives therefore agree on Hubert’s departure from Italy. Considering, however, that Benedict was contemporary to the events he discussed, the first version seems to be the more trustworthy of the two, even though the Chronicon is the only one to mention Pannonia as Hubert’s place of exile. Perhaps, despite Berengar’s destitution, Hubert suffered the consequences of not helping Liudolf’s expedition a few years earlier: this was a campaign whose failure brought defeat to his brother-in-law, Tebaldus, who most likely had become an Ottonian supporter.38 We are not certain if his wife Willa and son Hugh remained in Tuscany after Hubert’s exile. Considering the 33 Castagnetti, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’, pp. 64–5. 34 Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 1, nos. 53, 57. 35 See Bonacini, ‘Il marchese Almerico’. 36 Benedetto di S. Andrea, Chronicon, p. 176: ‘De regibus Langobardis, et de Hubertus marchiones, qualiter fuga capti a regno Italico expulsi, modo sileamus’. (We will not tell how the two Lombard kings and the Marquis Hubert had been exiled from Italy after being caught while escaping.) 37 Die Briefe des Petrus, no. 68, p. 294: ‘Hic [Hubertus] non multo post indignationem primi Ottonis imperatoris incurrit, ac subinde relicta coniuge Panoniam profugus exulavit’. (After a while, he [Hubert] incurred Otto I’s resentment and leaving his wife he fled to Pannonia in exile.) 38 On this point, the positive views of Liutprand of Cremona on the Hucpoldings are relevant; see Chapter 7.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

93

data regarding his assets, which we shall comment on below, probably Willa remained with her son in the Florentine area, where she directly controlled the biggest part of the fiscal estates. Meanwhile, the Saxon emperor also deprived the newly appointed Marquis Hugh I of his authority in Tuscany. In the first years of Otto’s reign, the march of Tuscany remained unassigned to any of his off icers.39 The march, however, did not disappear, despite the vacancy of the marchio. The constant presence of the emperor and the juridical activity of his Count Palatine Otbert, and of his imperial envoys, accounted for the absence of the head of the march. Besides, Adelheid, once again queen of the kingdom, acquired ever more authority in the region: thanks to Otto’s victory, her dower, which gave her control over a great quantity of fiscal estates in the march, could find new legitimacy and new fulfilment after Berengar’s hostile reign. 40 The dismantling of the march orchestrated by Hugh of Arles against his brother Boso and his son Hubert,41 the ever-growing autonomy acquired by comital groups, 42 and the political choices taken by Otto – which aimed to favour his wife and the episcopal and urban aristocracies43 – substantially changed the power of the marquis of Tuscany. When Hugh, son of Willa, managed to regain a central role and a consistent leeway during the reign of Otto II (973–983), he had to adapt to the new situation, which placed him as an intermediary between the king and the local powers. As Hagen Keller highlighted, with Hugh the marquis of Tuscia became both ‘the representative of the central power in Tuscany and the personification of Tuscany for the royal power’. 44 With this new balance of power, the Hucpoldings lost both marches they possessed in the second half of the century. The kin nevertheless managed to maintain its prominent political position, especially through the activity Willa developed between Florence and Arezzo. 45 The first Ottonian imperial period witnessed the elevation of Eberhard, another son of Boniface. Eberhard was elected bishop of Arezzo at the 39 Nobili, ‘Le famiglie marchionali’, p. 142; see also Tomei, ‘Coordinamento’. 40 Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. On Adelheid’s dower see Vignodelli, ‘Berta e Adelaide’; on Adelheid’s queenship see MacLean, Ottonian Queenship, pp. 95–126. 41 See Chapter 1. 42 A good example of this process is the placitum of 9 August 964, where all comital groups of Tuscany attended the assembley, though the head of the march was still vacant: I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 152; RI II.1, no. 360; see also Fumagalli, ‘Vescovi e conti’, pp. 174–82. 43 Capitani, Storia dell’Italia, pp. 168–74. On Tuscan aristocracy see Cortese, L’aristocrazia toscana, and Cortese, ‘Between the City and the Countryside’. 44 Keller, ‘La marca di Tuscia’, p. 135: ‘il rappresentante del potere centrale in Toscana ed al tempo stesso la personificazione della Tuscia di fronte al potere regio’. 45 See Chapter 5.

94 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

beginning of 960 and was certainly already active in November 963. 46 The election of one of the group’s members to the Aretine bishopric seems to confirm the allegiance of a part of Boniface’s descendants to the Ottonian faction.47 Furthermore, it is worthwhile to remember that the same Boniface was uncle of Queen Adelheid through his wife Waldrada. Eberhard’s relations and election may also explain the rather light repression suffered by the members of the group hostile to the Saxon king. The territory of Arezzo constituted a fundamental crossroads for whoever wished to travel the peninsula in any direction. 48 From the Hucpolding perspective, it linked all the areas of interest to the kin, from Emilia and Romagna to Tuscany, all the way up to the duchy of Spoleto. Since Eberhard retained a relevant amount of group assets in the Bolognese Apennines, 49 he was able to guarantee a safe passage to the emperor through the via Cassia towards Rome. In 962, Otto I granted to a priest of Arezzo, Erulfus – possibly a representative of his bishop – the royal estate of Antognano, located in the Bolognese plain, which Boniface I once owned and which was still controlled by the Hucpoldings.50 In this manner, the emperor could rely on an accessible and strategic route, which went from the riverbed of the Po past the Trasimeno river and quickly onward to Rome. The route proved to be very efficient already in autumn of 963, when Otto managed to reach Rome promptly after besieging Adalbert in San Leo castle in order to suppress the controversy concerning Pope John XII and to elect Leo VIII in his place.51 Bishop Eberhard was present at the synod. He would have joined the emperor in his passage through Arezzo and continued travelling with him towards Rome.52 Eberhard also joined the emperor during his second trip to Italy, meeting him in Ravenna for the council of April 967,53 even though he was not present at the great placitum held on 17 April against Deacon Ranieri,54 his second cousin. In the same year, on 12 June, Eberhard attended another imperial placitum in Monte Voltraio, in 46 See a brief biography in Schwartz, Die Besetzung der Bistumer Reichsitaliens, pp. 199–200. 47 See Delumeau, Arezzo: espace et société, pp. 236–7; and also Bougard, ‘I vescovi di Arezzo’. 48 Delumeau, ‘Equilibri di potere ad Arezzo’, p. 90. 49 On the bishop’s estates see Chapter 6. 50 DD O I, no. 249; RI II.1, no. 331. 51 A close analysis of Otto’s itinerary and entourage is in Fumagalli, ‘Vescovi e conti’, pp. 174–82. 52 During the siege of San Leo, Otto bestowed the Aretine canons upon Bishop Hubert of Parma’s request: DD O I, no. 253; RI II.1, no. 341. There is no evidence, though, for Eberhard’s presence. 53 RI II.1, no. 443b; Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 18.1, cols. 499–501. 54 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 155; RI II.1, no. 445.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

95

the Volterra area, because it regarded the possessions of the monastery of S. Fiora and S. Andrea of Arezzo,55 and also because he found himself once again in the emperor’s entourage travelling to Rome for the coronation of Otto II. In fact, in January 968, Eberhard appears among the participants of the subsequent Roman council.56 We possess no further information regarding Eberhard’s activities, who nevertheless should have remained in charge until the beginning of 980.57 The complete lack of news regarding his relationship with the city for which he was bishop is in perfect congruence with the traces left from Eberhard’s ancestors, who never approached Arezzo nor its countryside. Even though his father’s title of duke of Spoleto meant he had a significant influence over the cities of Arezzo and Chiusi,58 the election of Eberhard does not seem to divert from predominantly pro-Ottonian politics, as continually confirmed by the prelate’s behaviour. One should remember the long-standing rivalry his kin had had with the Supponid branch rooted in the Arezzo area, who sought to keep and broaden the marquis rank they attained briefly in the last months of Berengar II’s reign. The Ottonian dispositions favouring Eberhard seem therefore to aim at finding a balance between the demands of the new imperial power and the need the Hucpoldings felt to maintain their presence alive and significant in a crucial territory.

Eastern Emilia and the Exarchate of Ravenna In the same years, the kin’s situation north of the Apennines assumed different patterns, leaving no trace of investitures or involvement in public offices. Once Boniface’s exceptional experience in eastern Emilia came to an end, the relationship the group sustained with the royal power weakened. During most of the tenth century, the focus of the Hucpoldings was on establishing relationships with other groups with the aim of attaining actual power through landholding and intra-elite recognition. But before directing our attention to Emilia, we will need to trace the activities of the Hucpolding branches in Romagna, a rather more straightforward task thanks to the remarkable number of sources available. 55 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 156; RI II.1, no. 451. 56 Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 18.1, cols. 529–34. 57 His successor Helmempert was already in charge around 986–987: Schwartz, Die Besetzung der Bistumer Reichsitaliens, p. 200. 58 Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma, p. 209.

96 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The marriage between Engeralda I and Duke Martin placed the group at the apex of exarchate society, granting the kin access to relationships and wealth possessed by the groom’s paternal and maternal ancestry.59 The substantial estate Engeralda administered independently after her husband’s death was mainly gathered to the detriment of the Ravenna church, and thanks to the interventions of Archbishop John VII, Martin’s paternal uncle, and of Archbishop Romanus of Calcinaria (878–888). The huge inheritance was the object of Engeralda’s donation to her son, Deacon Peter.60 The act seemed to constitute a rich dowry necessary for the deacon to impose himself on the urban ecclesiastical hierarchies and so to compete for the position of archbishop. Even though this project did not seem to have been successful, the descendants of his sister, Engeralda II, inherited the grandmother’s assets, as stated in her donation document,61 renewing ambitions for ecclesiastical positions and following in the steps of their uncle Peter. Between 915 and 920 the second daughter of Engeralda and Martin, Engeralda II, married Tegrimus,62 who was of Tuscan origin and perhaps a member of a rich Pistoia family loyal to the bishop of Lucca.63 Following the useful classification Simone Collavini proposed,64 Tegrimus can be placed among the aristocracy of second and third level, marked by political and asset strategies at a diocesan or, at most, a regional level. Tegrimus was therefore the one to benefit the most from his union with Engeralda II, a woman related to the exarchate aristocracy of Frankish origin and to the Carolingian Reichsadel, being thus of higher social status. If his advantages from the union are evident, Engeralda’s motivation should perhaps be found 59 See Chapter 4. 60 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54; see also Chapter 4. 61 The formula Engelrada took care to repeat in the text, ‘concedo absque hereditario nomine et veluti extranee persone’ (I grant it as if the recipient is a stranger to me, without any hereditary right), suggests the concern to subvert the normal inheritance right, which would have allowed the Ravenna church to claim – as it later happened – the assets inherited by Deacon Peter. See also Chapter 4. 62 Civale, ‘I conti Guidi’, p. 9, also for previous bibliography on the date’s marriage; however, the first documented proof of the union dated back to 941, when both spouses were already dead: Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 4. According to Tolosanus, the marriage was solemnized in 925: Tolosanus, Chronicon, pp. 19–20. 63 In 887 Bishop Gerard of Lucca granted to a certain Teudelgrimus from Pistoia all the Lucchese church estates in the territory of Florence, Fiesole and Pistoia: Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 1. The homonymy and patrimonial proximity have led to an assumed kinship bond between this Teudelgrimus and Tegrimus husband of Engelrada II: Documenti, ed. Rauty, p. 1. Recently, a German origin has been proposed for Tegrimus I by Schoolman, ‘Nobility, Aristocracy’, p. 233. 64 See Collavini, ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale’.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

97

in the political and asset strategies the group employed in those years. By choosing an outsider to the exarchate, the descendant of the two most powerful groups in Ravenna and Pentapolis took political objectives into consideration, or at least considered the troublesome exarchal situation at the beginning of the tenth century.65 Furthermore, a significant part of the assets her mother Engeralda I administered were situated in the Faenza valleys of Montone and Acerreta up to the Apennine peaks towards Tuscany – the path evidently connecting her assets with those of her brother Hubald, and perhaps with those around Pistoia belonging to her son-in-law Tegrimus.66 In 927, the same Tegrimus received from King Hugh the right to manage the monastery of S. Salvatore in Agna quod dicitur Regine in the comitatus of Pistoia.67 The royal grant increased both the prestige and the estates of Tegrimus, thus situating him among a group of new wealthy milites loyal to Hugh alone.68 By obtaining the loyalty of Tegrimus, the king approached a branch of the Hucpoldings, allowing him to fracture the formost line of the kinship group and to separate politically Boniface from his kin in Romagna. At the same time, the position of Tegrimus contributed to maintaining his and his wife’s interests as widely as possible in both the value and spread of core assets. Considering these facts, one can understand the king’s decision to continue to favour the Cadolings in the same Pistoiese territory – a group that had already acquired the comital title, perhaps over Pistoia, thanks to Berengar I.69 By favouring the advancement of Tegrimus and confirming the power the Cadolings had just acquired, Hugh wanted to weaken the marchisal power of his half-brothers Guy and Lambert in the Pistoia area. Meanwhile, he also prevented his new loyal men, particularly Tegrimus who married a Hucpolding woman, from acquiring too much power. Even though Tegrimus’ name appears in his descendants’ acts with the comital title, we are not certain whether or when he obtained the title, and most importantly whether it meant he received public offices. Considering his origins and the asset presence of his lineage for a decade in Pistoia and in its territory, it is possible to imagine he ruled the comitatus alternately with

65 See Savigni, ‘I papi e Ravenna’, pp. 355–6. 66 R. Rinaldi, ‘Esplorare le origini’, p. 31. 67 I diplomi di Ugo e di Lotario, di Berengario II, no. 9; RI I.3.3, no. 1524. 68 Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 217–18; see also Vignodelli, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles’. 69 Civale, ‘La formazione e l’evoluzione del “comitatus pistoriensis”’, pp. 33–4.

98 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

representatives of the Cadolings,70 a situation that his son Guy might also have experienced in 950s. The activities of Deacon Ranieri and Count Guy followed the same pattern established by their parents, since both continued to administer the Romagna assets and consolidated their own presence in the Pistoia area.71 After 940, they both acted together in these two environs: in 941, by means of a donation, they strengthened their position in Pistoia among the citizenship connected to the cathedral;72 and in 943, they granted some estates in the vicinity of Rimini to two groups of tenants.73 Raineri must have been the one of his kin who tried to recover the prominent position of his maternal uncle Peter in the Ravenna area, probably the oldest of the two – at least considering his habit of signing before of his brother – he followed an ecclesiastic career, becoming a deacon, even though there is no specific evidence of the seat of such office.74 From the second half of the tenth century, we can detect a greater differentiation of interests between the two brothers. Guy, who held the comital title since 943, secured his political base in Tuscany by associating himself – at least from 952 on75 – with those loyal to Marquis Hubert of Tuscany, who married his second cousin, Willa. Reconnecting with the other members of the Hucpolding group, Guy’s political ascent in Pistoia reached its peak around 957, when his generous testamentary dispositions to the church of Pistoia attests his prominence in the city.76 It is thus plausible that he attained the comital role over the city in these years.77 Once he supported the marquis’ faction in the rebellion against King Hugh, Guy had nevertheless to remain faithful to the Anscarid kings after the political event concerning his cousin, Tebaldus of Spoleto, and also after the expulsion of Hubert from the march. In order to guarantee his loyalty, Berengar II and Adalbert donated to Guy some fiscal lands situated in various parts of Tuscany, particularly in the Pistoia and Casentino areas.78 The diploma 70 Civale, ‘I conti Cadolingi’, pp. 13–14. 71 On the group’s estates and their management in Romagna see Chapter 4. 72 Documenti, Rauty, no. 4. 73 Ravenna 10.1, no. 49. 74 Perhaps, Ranieri became part of the church of Pistoia around 940s: Civale, ‘I conti Guidi’, p. 18; on the contrary, Schoolman has inclined towards Ravenna: Schoolman, ‘Nobility, Aristocracy’, p. 233. 75 Count Guy witnessed a sale by Marquis Hubert in that year: Memorie e documenti, no. 1347. 76 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 6. 77 Rauty, ‘Fonti documentarie’, p. 68; Civale, ‘I conti Guidi’, p. 27. 78 I diplomi di Ugo e di Lotario, di Berengario II, no. 13; RI I.3.3, no. 2415. On the lands’ location see Civale, ‘I conti Guidi’, p. 26.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

99

was granted in April 960, during the rupture with Hubert when both kings were in Ravenna. Otto’s return to Italy marked a sudden loss of the position Guy acquired in Tuscany, specifically in Pistoia.79 In Romagna likewise the situation was difficult; once, in 963, Raineri and his nephew, Tegrimus II (underage son of his already dead brother Guy), had to return many assets and rents to Archbishop Peter IV, owed to his church due to some former concessions Engelrada I had obtained.80 The new powerful position of the archbishop allowed him to obtain the dissolution of generations-old pending contracts on his behalf. This new strength came from the political and military supremacy of Emperor Otto I, who from the beginning turned the exarchal capital and its metropolitan area into the focal point of his presence in the kingdom.81 The departure of the emperor to Germany in June 964 allowed opponents to rebel. Even Ravenna served as a theatre for these rebellions. Leading a raiding force, Raineri entered the archbishop’s palace, stealing its treasure and putting the archbishop in chains. 82 The deacon’s military action, however, failed to counter the reaction of those loyal to Peter IV, and he was punished by Otto when he returned to Italy. The solemn placitum of 17 April 967 settled the affair. In the new imperial palace of Classe near Ravenna – in the presence of Emperor Otto I, Pope John XII and numerous bishops and counts – Rainieri was condemned for contumacy and had all his properties and assets confiscated. By imperial order, all his patrimony was granted to Archbishop Peter. The verdict marked an evident crisis for the descendants of Engeralda II and Tegrimus. Their fate only changed by the end of the tenth century, as one can deduce from the interruption of the documentary silence that had begun after the placitum. Tegrimus II was not directly involved in the revolt or in the sentence condemning his uncle. Nevertheless, he must have suffered from the confiscation and from the hostile political environment in the kingdom now firmly controlled by those loyal to the Ottonians. Necessity constrained him to strengthen his ties with the main Hucpolding branch, that is, the descendants of Boniface I, and probably to renew their kinship 79 In the 964 placitum, Cadolus of the Cadolings named himself as count of the city; see Fumagalli, ‘Vescovi e conti’, p. 203. 80 Ravenna 10.2, no. 109; see also Chapter 4. 81 Savigni, ‘I papi e Ravenna’, p. 358. 82 The tale is told by Archbishop Peter himself during the assembly of 967, which aimed to judge Ranieri’s conduct: I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 155; RI II.1, no. 445. Also Tolosanus gave an account of the event, in which he placed the archbishop’s captivity in Modigliana castle: Tolosanus, Chronicon, pp. 19–20.

100 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

ties around 970s with an endogamic marriage with Countess Gisla; she was the daughter of Marquis Hubald II, another son of Boniface.83 Reinforced by new and stronger connections inside the kin, Tegrimus managed to maintain a significant presence in some of the ancient Hucpolding properties in the Faenza area. Likewise, it also allowed him to pursue his interest in Casentino, the Apennines sector in the north of the Arezzo bishopric ruled at that point by Gisla’s uncle, Eberhard. This is the same area where his father Guy had already had fiscal estates. To reinforce his assets there, a few years before 992 Tegrimus funded a monastery in his estate of Strumi close to the castle of Poppi and dedicated it to Saint Fidelis.84 This became the new patrimonial centre for his descendants,85 enabling him to make up for the loss of the royal monastery of S. Salvatore in Agna.86 The Countess Gisla appears in one single donation act to the monastery of Strumi, stipulated in June 992 together with her son, Guy II, and written in the castle of Modigliana.87 This castle had been the property of the group since the times of Engeralda I and subsequently the base of the Guidi lineage.88 This continuity in ownership allows us to consider a substantial asset continuity between the Hucpolding branches and the Guidi descendants, a continuity enriched and developed through various generations and facilitated by repeated endogamic unions.89 Let us turn our attention to the situation of the Hucpolding group in Emilia, in the heart of the Italian kingdom in the second half of the tenth century. The first thing to consider is that neither Boniface I nor his sons managed to regain the prominent positions the group once held in this area before the ascent of King Hugh. Despite playing an important role in the uprising of 945, Boniface could focus his interests on the Spoletan duchy, probably thanks to Marquis Hubert’s support. In Emilia, none of his sons managed to substantiate their comital title with effective involvement in public offices, which remained in the hands of groups and individuals 83 Tegrimus II and Gisla were third cousins, that is the fourth degree of kinship following the Germanic calculation; see Table G5. 84 The information is given by a later charter of his son Guy II: Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 14; see also Chapter 7. 85 On the relationship between the monastery and the Guidi dynasty see Repetti, Dizionario, vol. 1, pp. 188–9. 86 Probably, the control of S. Salvatore in Agna was subtracted to Tegrimus by imperial confiscation; in 982, Otto II granted it again to the bishop of Fiesole: DD O II, no. 277; RI II.2, no. 876. 87 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 12. 88 In 1164, Modigliana and other estates were confirmed to the Guidi by Frederick I Barbarossa: DD F I, no. 462; RI IV.2.2, no. 1405. 89 Another union was contracted in the eleventh century; see Chapter 4. On endogamic unions as aristocratic strategy see Aurell, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales’, pp. 189–91.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

101

favoured by King Hugh. In particular, the broader Modena district remained under the control of Bishop Guy of Modena and of the Berthaldings, who dominated the Reggio area in particular.90 Perhaps fearing the power of Bishop Guy91 close to the Hucpolding properties in the Bologna area,92 Count Adalbert I, son of Boniface, decided to marry Countess Anna, widow of Guy of the Berthaldings from 944.93 The union should not be seen as pertaining only to the assets of the wife, which remained separate and inviolate, but as a mechanism for Adalbert to take advantage of his new familial contacts and relationships. The main purpose here would have been to insert himself into relationship networks newly formed in Emilia. The most tangible results date from 958, when Adalbert managed to establish a new emphyteutic relationship with Archbishop Peter IV of Ravenna, ignoring contemporary dissonance between the same archbishop and the Romagna branch of the group. Through this new connection with the Ravenna church, Adalbert consolidated the group’s assets in the Bolognese Saltusplanus and obtained the administration of the great massa (i.e. estate) of Funo in the city’s north.94 Even though his wife had to mediate, obtaining thus half of the asset in question, the count profited by favourable succession clauses that benefitted only his kin.95 By the first half of the following century, in fact, his descendants disposed of the same asset in its entirety and without any involvement of the Ravenna church.96 Adalbert’s presence in this context helps us to ascertain the patrimonial re-emergence inside this sector of the iudiciara Mutinensis, situated inside the Bolognese diocesan territory. The most peripheral part of the lands Boniface controlled in the first half of the tenth century remained thus available to his descendants. In time, thanks to more favourable political conditions, they worked to regain some of their father’s previous positions. They concentrated their efforts on sectors of the plain north and west of 90 On Count Berthaldus see Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 151–4; Bonacini, Terre d’Emilia, pp. 110–11; on his descendants see Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 274–9. 91 On his ancestry from Bishop Wibod of Parma see Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 270–1; on his key role in the coup see Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, p. 221. 92 As reward for his betrayal, Bishop Guy obtained the abbotship of S. Silvestro di Nonantola, becoming the most influential bishop of the whole kingdom; see Fumagalli, ‘Vescovi e conti’, pp. 182–4. 93 Countess Anna’s first marriage is known by a sale dated March 944, when she was already a widow and with her son Berthaldus: Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, no. 37. 94 Ravenna 10.2, no. 96. 95 The assets objects of the act are closely examined in Chapter 6. 96 See Chapter 6.

102 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Bologna, being unable to politically oppose Bishop Guy, or afterwards the rising power of the Canossan group.97 Some decades later, in 973, a synod and a placitum took place in Marzaglia, a fiscal estate near Modena. On this occasion, the archbishop of Ravenna was able to reassert his influence throughout the entire territory of Bologna, as part of the broader Ottonian settlement in the kingdom.98 The highest ranks of the clergy and laymen from the exarchate reunited around the prelate, among whom Count Adalbert I was also present. His name stands out among all the laymen – as we shall soon see – thanks to an emphyteutic bond to the Ravenna church and by virtue of his kin legacy in the area since the beginning of the century. The main argument under debate was the substantial quantity of properties inside the Bolognese territory acquired by the church of Parma through the inheritance of Bishop Wibod’s family. The synod was considered the legitimate domain of the Bolognese church, particularly six suburban monasteries that the bishop of Parma had received from the illegitimate bishop of Bologna, Maimbertus (884–898).99 The placitum dealt with the inheritance of Vulgunda, consanguinea of Wibod, and of her husband Duke Peter, collected by the Parma church and claimed by Peter and Lambert as descendants of the couple.100 Bishop Hubert of Parma (961–980) – at that time archchancellor of Otto II’s kingdom and abbot of Nonantola101 – was therefore summoned by Archbishop Honestus (971–983) and asked to justify these properties. This had to be done, first, in front of the bishops’ assembly, and later in the placitum presided over by the iudices of Ravenna.102 Hubert failed to demonstrate his legal possession of the properties, due, he claimed, to the complete destruction of the archives of the church in a fire.103 Archbishop Honestus seems to have been the political mastermind behind the operations described above. First and foremost, he reduced the influence of Parma in this part of Bolognese territory. Second, the archbishop favoured both siblings, Peter and Lambert, who were active in the Bolognese 97 On the rise of the Canossa see Fumagalli, Le origini, pp. 4–29. 98 Savigni, ‘I papi e Ravenna’, p. 359. On the archbishop role in Otto’s Italian policy see Brown, ‘Culture and Society’. 99 See Bacchi, ‘Il vescovo Uberto’, pp. 79–80. 100 See Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, pp. 603–4. 101 A biography of Bishop Hubert can be found in Tomei, ‘Coordinamento’. 102 The synod’s acts are edited in Codice, ed. Fanti and Paolini, no. 33; the placitum has been recently re-edited in Ravenna 10.2, no. 178. 103 The dispute with the church of Bologna was settled with the exchange of the contested properties in return for the church of S. Maria di Monteveglio and also some other lands. The placitum proclaimed the full victory of Peter and Lambert, since Hubert could not prove legitimate possession of any of the contested lands.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

103

area from 966, and were managing assets in the Ravenna area.104 Thanks to the support of Honestus, their position improved consistently in the years around 970. The numerous assets they accumulated in the Bolognese countryside allowed them to assume a dominant role in the city,105 which peaked with the election to the bishopric of their brother, John, perhaps the youngest of the three and already a cleric of the cathedral.106 In this regard, that is in regard to the developments that link the churches of Bologna and Ravenna with the urban aristocracy of Bologna, the prominence of Adalbert I is noticeable. He was present in the first line of the record of the Marzaglia placitum with the title of ‘Adalbertus gracia Dei comes filius quondam Bonifacii’ (Adalbert count for the grace of God and son of the late Boniface). His name appears right after that of ecclesiastical figures, preceding a group of exarchal nobles who afterwards forged relationships with the Hucpoldings.107 To be precise, Duke Lambert married Ratilda, maybe daughter of Tebaldus I and niece of Adalbert I, while Count Arardus united himself with Engelrada Ingiza, most likely Tegrimus II’s sister.108 His relationships with the archbishop and the public origins of his authority – a memory of the offices his father exercised – turned Adalbert into a fundamental connection for Peter’s descendants who desired to expand their influence by establishing ties to the highest levels of society. The placitum offers the first connections between the Hucpoldings and the urban aristocratic environments of Bologna, which would not last long, however. Even though there are no direct sources available, we have sufficient evidence to consider plausible the marital union between the only known descendant of Adalbert I, Ermengarde, with Bishop John (c.997–c.1012) himself.109 A man called Lambert was the fruit of this union. He had been active in Bologna since 1015, but it seems he had no relationship with other 104 Ravenna 10.2, no. 167. They had been active between 966 and 983, always in Bologna and its territory; see Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, pp. 601–4. 105 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 114. 106 Perhaps, Iohannes archidiaconus Bononiensis, who signed the act of the Marzaglia placitum, was the future bishop and brother of Peter and Lambert: Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, p. 607. 107 After the clerics’ signatures, the signum manuum of Count Adalbert I appears, who together with Count Arardus was called as a witness. The use of signum seems in contradiction with the previous deed of 958, in which the same Count Adalbert affixed his own autograph signature. 108 On the first union see Chapter 3; on the second see Fasoli, ‘I conti e il comitato di Imola’, p. 124. 109 See Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, pp. 605–8; on 20 July 1017, Lambert, still underage son of Ermengarde daughter of Count Adalbert, granted lands to S. Stefano abbey in Bologna on behalf of his soul and ‘pro anima quondam domni Iohanni episcopus Sancte Bononiensis Ecclesie et de quondam parentorum meorum’ (on behalf of the late Bishop John of Bologna’s soul, as well as those of all my deceased relatives): Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 20.

104 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Hucpolding branches.110 The new offspring embodied by Lambert, inherited tangible assets from his father i.e. land and wealth and rank and title from his maternal side.111 This is exemplified by the use of the matronymic de Ermengarda. We can notice then some early evidence of the social practice of women being separated from their kin of origin and included through marriage in their husband’s kin. This practice would become ever more frequent between the eleventh and the twelfth centuries, due to the introduction of the pecuniary dowry.112 To complete the table of Boniface’s direct descendants, it is now essential to analyse the rather obscure individual Hubald II.113 He is only attested indirectly twice. He is mentioned as dux et marchio in the first instance dating to 981, when Count Adalbert II bestowed the Eigenkloster (private monastery) of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano, which he had founded ‘pro donna Gualdrada que fuit gloriosa comitissa et pro domno Ubaldo qui fuit dux et marchio, genitore et genitrice mea’ (for the souls of my parents, Waldrada, glorious countess, and Hubald, duke and marquis).114 The second reference pertains to the already mentioned endowment made in 992 by Countess Gisla, widow of Tegrimus II and daughter of the late Hubald marchio.115 Despite their indirect character, each of these sources allows us to assume the existence of another son of Boniface, who bore the Leitname (guide-name) of the group and was active in the middle of the tenth century. Even though it is hard to assert much more, thanks to the act of 992 we can at least affirm that he had a continuity of interests with his kin between Emilia and the Romagna Apennines. Hubald’s children continued to use the titles of dux and marchio, although in the years in which Hubald II might have lived, it is not yet possible to talk of the systematic or generalized inheritance of comital and marquis titles through cognatic ties. At this stage, the process could not yet be disconnected from royal mediation116 or from previous mechanisms of public office endowment. Nevertheless, the genealogical scheme presents a complete cognatic uniformity in the use of the comital title by the generations that follow on from Boniface. There are exceptions, such as those like Eberhard who exercised an ecclesiastical role or like Tebaldus and Willa who were in 110 See Chapter 3. 111 Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, p. 611. 112 Aurell, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales’, pp. 198–200. 113 On the identification of this individual see Manarini, I due volti, pp. 93–5. 114 Bologna 10, no. 11. 115 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 12. 116 Provero, L’Italia dei poteri locali, pp. 32–3.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

105

charge of a march or duchy. Accordingly, the use of the titles of duke and marquis still responded to criteria connected to the direct exercise of public functions depending on royal power. The difficulty in Hubald II’s case consists in the total absence of references to trace his specific centre of investiture. If one broadens the inquiry to the Emilian aristocracy, it is possible to find three other individuals who lived between the ninth and eleventh centuries and possessed similar titles to those of Hubald. The three are: Peter, dux et marchio, Almericus, comes et marchio, and his son Almericus II, dux et marchio. Even in these cases we are unable to reveal their district of office. We have already located Peter in the Bolognese area as a representative of the exarchal ruling aristocracy of military origin, who still exercised a ducal power in that area in the middle of the ninth century.117 His acquisition of a marchisal title – to be found only in later family documents – can be explained by his entry into the Carolingian aristocracy through marriage with Vulgunda, a relative of Bishop Wibod of Parma.118 It is difficult to gather details of the Almerici – father and son. Despite limited evidence and some later forgeries,119 the interests of Almericus II can be associated with the Polesine and Ferrara areas, where he directly mentions his inheritance from a Duke Adalbert, his bisavus (great-grandfather),120 convincingly identified with Adalbert I of Tuscia.121 First, this ancestry implies a connection to the Hucpoldings through one of Hubald’s daughters – of unknown identity – a wife of Almericus I and mother of Almericus II.122 Second, the reference to properties inherited from Adalbert I in the Veneto recalls the attempt of emperor Louis II ‘to unite under his control [i.e. of the duke] the counties of Monselice and Gavello, together with the territory of Adria, in order to create a Carolingian march […], between Langobardia and Romania as a mainly defensive policy’.123 We are unable to say if Almericus possessed the titles of dux et marchio because of being a blood descendant of Adalbert I, and thus the owner of a portion of the Adalberting assets in 117 Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, p. 598. 118 See Lazzari, ‘Tra Ravenna e regno’. 119 See Bonacini, ‘Il marchese Almerico’, pp. 248–9; Bottazzi, ‘Il marchese Almerico’, pp. 207–17. 120 The information is mentioned in Almericus’ donation to the monastery S. Michele di Brondolo: SS. Trinità e S. Michele di Brondolo, no. 2. 121 Bonacini, ‘Il marchese Almerico’, p. 251; Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, p. 242. 122 See Table G4. See also Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 247–8. 123 Bonacini, ‘Il marchese Almerico’, p. 250: ‘di riunire sotto il controllo unitario [del duca] i comitati di Monselice e Gavello assieme al territorio adriese per dar vita a una formazione territoriale di confine, ossia una marca di stampo carolingio […], insinuata tra Langobardia e Romania con compiti di difesa militare’. See Castagnetti, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’, pp. 44–54.

106 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

that particular area of the Pianura Padana.124 Nevertheless, there is evidence in terms of kin, assets and politics which suggests links between Marquis Almericus II and his cousin Hubald II and his descendants.125 This kind of relationship between broad kin groups of high rank and of solid and exclusive land base allowed them to acquire and use the marchisal title in areas within the borders of the Italian kingdom without proper royal consent and without any public prerogatives.

The March of Tuscany Following Otto I’s intervention,126 Tuscia remained without a marchio for the most part of 960s. We are unable to establish with certainty the actions Willa and her son Hugh took to regain their political power. Hubert only reappears in the narrative of Peter Damian, who tells of his return to imperial grace and how he proved the conjugal loyalty of his wife and the legitimacy of his son.127 His account has been interpreted as an encomiastic reading of disputes between father and son at the time of succession to the office.128 According to contemporary sources such a perspective is hardly acceptable. Further, nothing allows us to assume his marchisal power was restored after exile. The key point of Peter Damian’s letter, then, is rather the relevance the author gives to Willa in the transition between the loss of her husband’s power and the gain of that power by her son. Both lines of his inheritance played a role in Hugh’s installation in the march: his paternal Bosonid descent and his maternal HucpoldingAdalberting ancestry.129 Thanks to these aspects, Hugh could present himself as a strong candidate for the march. After the violent fate of the Adalbertings at the hands of King Hugh, in order to conquer the march it became fundamental to display a female bloodline connection with the 124 According to Castagnetti, the Almerici would have also inherited public prerogatives through the Adalbertings: Castagnetti, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’, pp. 48–51. 125 Almericus II’s estates in Polesine were inherited by Marquis Hugh of Tuscia, see the patrimonial analysis in Castagnetti, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’, pp. 64–8; other goods around Ferrara were managed by Count Hugh III in the eleventh century: see Chapter 6. Almericus II married Franca, daughter of Count Palatine Lanfrancus of the Giselbertings; see Menant, ‘Les Giselbertins’, pp. 124–8. Even they had ties with Archbishop Peter IV of Ravenna: Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 2, col. 145. 126 See Tomei, ‘Coordinamento’. 127 Die Briefe des Petrus, no. 68, pp. 294–5. 128 Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, p. 171. 129 See Table G3.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

107

Carolingian marquises of Tuscia. The only way to acquire that bond was through the Hucpolding kin, a blood connection which we find in every candidate for head of the march throughout the eleventh century.130 Hugh’s mother, Willa is the one to reappear in the documentation on 967.131 Her title of excellentissima marchionissa and the constant presence of imperial judges among the witnesses in those years in which there is no evidence of a marquis allow us to assume her persistent influence in the territories of the march, at least where the Hucpolding presence had been more continuous, such as in the Florentine and Arezzo areas. Her brother Eberhard also exercised the role of bishop there. The circumstances regarding Hugh’s appointment are unknown: he appeared with the title of marquis around 970, though in a private charter. The first evidence of his activity are two contracts, one from Volterra and the other from Siena.132 Probably, Hugh disposed both transactions to obtain private control over lands which previously belonged to the marchisal fisc. Further, they were located in territories up until that time never touched by his ancestors, especially the maternal ones. Then again, a second purpose would be to expand the territorial base for his exercise of power. Hugh’s influence in the march increased over time as the arrangement Otto I during the conquest started to shift. In the beginning, Hugh could only act indirectly, as he did in Lucca in 970 through an envoy sent to supervise two permutae (exchanges) sanctioned by the city bishop,133 following a common practice at the time of the Adalbertings.134 Likewise, the presence of vicecomites in the cities of Lucca, Pisa and Florence, of whom it is impossible to establish precise connections of subservience towards the marquis,135 prevent us from fully understanding the level of effective control Hugh exercised on the marchisal administrative structure during the first years of his power. Furthermore, imperial envoys and judges domni imperatoris – directly nominated by the emperor – presided over juridical 130 Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. 131 CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. For their description and analysis see Chapter 5. On the march patrimonial fisc see Bianchi and Collavini, ‘Public Estates and Economic Strategies’. 132 His f irst act is dated between 969 and 975: Falce, Il marchese Ugo, no. 1, pp. 169–71. The second document is surely dated March 971: Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Ospedale degli Innocenti, March 970; see the discussion on the chronological issue in Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 99. 133 Memorie e documenti, nos. 1421, 1424, 1625. In the Arezzo territory in 977, the Gastald Orso was Hugh’s envoy: Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo, no. 76. 134 Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, p. 157. 135 The only vicecomes close to the marquis was Roland of Florence, since he attended Willa’s foundation of the Badia fiorentina in 978: CdM Badia, vol. 1, p. 17. On Roland see also Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, p. 166.

108 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

cases. The reference to the emperor implies the existence of a juridical apparatus directly connected to the empire and not to the march, even if the greatest part of the missi belonged to a group of officers in the entourage of Hugh.136 He thus had to adapt to the new situation and to attempt to fully exercise the powers of his office and ancestry in continuous interaction with comital forces previously intermediate between local and marchisal power. Taking this scenario into consideration, the relationship of trust and communication Hugh managed to build with the imperial power – the only one capable of giving him legitimacy – represented the primary element in his hegemonic success. But to more fully understand Hugh’s ascent, it is necessary to widen our view. The situation inside the Tuscan march seems to have changed in the first half of the 970s, following a reorganization of the forces at play in the southern Veneto. Initiator of this entire process was Empress Adelheid, who acted after the assassination of Duke Peter IV Candiano and his underage son. The empress seems to have played the role of mediator between the factions involved in the political and asset disputes, which a placitum of 976 allow us to reconstruct. In the assembly of October 976 the protagonists were Waldrada, widow of Peter IV, and Hugh’s sister, and the issue was the assets she obtained after marrying the duke.137 Summoned before Adelheid and other magnates, Waldrada showed the charta securitatis, whose redaction she had ordered the previous month when the new Doge Peter Orseolo gave back her morgengabe and a quarter of her husband’s estate, assets that had been confiscated directly after the revolt. Orseolo did this perhaps to prevent Hugh from intervening in any matter in the name of his sister, and also to make peace with the supporters of the late duke still very powerful in Venice.138 The political relevance of this manoeuvre is also indicated by the presence in the placitum of Hugh’s own vassals, Waldrada’s advocate and two registrars of the placitum. Meanwhile, by showing the charta securitatis, Orseolo safeguarded himself against ulterior demands and attacks Waldrada and her kin could initiate against him.139 Adelheid was present on both occasions, and mediated and provided warranties for both parties until they reached an agreement.140 In this manner, even securing a share of the estate of her second cousin, Waldrada, 136 Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, p. 24; see Chapter 5. 137 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 181. See also Provesi, ‘Le due mogli di Pietro IV Candiano’, pp. 24–5. 138 Provesi, ‘Le due mogli di Pietro IV Candiano’, pp. 43–4. 139 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 181, p. 174. 140 On the dispute of another portion of Peter IV’s inheritance see Provesi, ‘Le due mogli di Pietro IV Candiano’, pp. 35–6.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

109

the empress could overcome the Tuscan-Venetian alliance created more than a decade earlier through her union with Peter IV Candiano.141 Perhaps, in that time of political reconfiguration of the Veneto area, an opportunity appeared to favour the promotion of those directly loyal to her, such as the Giselbertings, who possessed the office of count palatine.142 In fact, Count Lanfrancus, who belonged to this kin and attended the placitum of 976, appears as the first count of Padua and Vicenza in 1001.143 The change of political balance within the Venetian lagoon did not mean, however, the expulsion of Hugh from the region. On the contrary, he and his sister actually inherited some land and a church in Polesine from their second cousin Almericus II. Alongside many other goods, a great part of these assets ended up in the monastic foundation of S. Maria della Vangadizza, which Hugh re-established in 993.144 Returning to Tuscia, the relationship between Hugh and the Ottonian dynasty must have improved considerably by the attenuation of Hugh’s direct connections with Venice. Despite the absence of evidence regarding the marquis during the reign of Otto II, a later diploma of Otto III granted in 994 rewarded Marquis Hugh ‘ob devotum ac frequens servitium quod sepius beate memorie genitori et aequivoco nostro Ottoni imperatori augusto et care genitrici nostre Teophanu imperatrici auguste ac nobis pio animo exibuit’ (for his faithful and constant service which he performed with a devout attitude towards his father Otto II’s memory, to his mother Theophanu, and himself). This gave him an estate close to the imperial palace of Ingelheim in which the marquis was to build his own abode.145 The rule of Otto II therefore witnessed the beginning of the tight collaboration that marked Hugh’s fortune in Tuscia and in the entire Italian kingdom. The activity of his mother Willa with regard to monasteries dates back to these years: the refoundation of S. Ponziano in Lucca before 983 and the institution of

141 On Otto I’s relationships with Duke Peter IV Candiano see Castagnetti, I conti di Vicenza, pp. 21–3. 142 Count Palatine Giselbertus held the placitum, while his nephew Lanfrancus, son of Franca and Riprand of the Riprandings, attended the assembly; for a genealogy of this group see Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 290–1. 143 Castagnetti, I conti di Vicenza, p. 18; Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 288–9. 144 In 993, Marquis Hugh re-established the monastery, and in 996, he granted to the monks other properties. In 997, he acquired from his sister Waldrada the estate, the castle and all the goods annexed and donated to the abbey: Annales Camaldulenses, nos. 53, 57, 58, 59. See also Vedovato, ‘Ugo di Tuscia’. 145 DD O III, no. 147; RI II.3, no. 1117.

110 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

S. Maria of Florence in 978.146 Especially the latter became the new political and asset centre of the group in Florence. Inside the city, they had already controlled the nunnery of S. Andrea since mid-ninth century. Anyway, in 977 Otto II granted the abbey to the Florentine church, thus excluding any the possibility of direct hegemony.147 Perhaps we may suggest that the foundation of the Badia had been a response to the imperial interventions regarding S. Andrea. The initial coolness of the Saxon dynasty was gradually overturned through the years and became – due also to contingent needs – a real collaboration, which peaked after the death of Otto II in 983. The difficult position of Theophanu and Otto III (983–1002), still underage, was consistently defended by the trustworthy servitium of Hugh, especially for central Italy. In 986 he received the office of the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Camerino,148 like his uncle Boniface some decades before. The marquis thus also obtained a stronger influence over the Tuscan cities traditionally connected to the Spoletan duchy, such as Arezzo, Siena and Chiusi. The most evident action of Hugh’s government in Spoleto concerned the administration of justice149 through his missi, such as Bishop Helmempert of Arezzo,150 successor of his uncle Eberhard, and Count William.151 Both agents acted explicitly in the name of the marquis in these years, unlike the genuine officials of the march, such as judges and notaries, who were directly linked to the emperor.152 Hugh’s envoy possessed the right to dispense justice – alongside an assembly composed of prominent local people – and even to dispose the bannum, generally speaking the imperial prerogative. A camera of the marquis completed this structure, which, like the imperial one, collected the earnings through judicial fines.153 In the Spoletan duchy, Hugh thus tried not to appear a representative of imperial power, but managed to nonetheless absorb some of its prerogatives.154 146 On S. Ponziano’s foundation see Collavini and Tomei, ‘Beni fiscali’, p. 206 147 Only the regest survives of the diploma in Firenze, ASFi, Manoscritti, 48bis, p. 7, doc. 8. 148 Gasparrini Leporace, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi’, pp. 39–40; Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 18–19. 149 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 222, 223; ‘I placiti del “Regnum Italiae” (secc. IX–XI)’, no. 12. 150 On Bishop Helmempert of Arezzo (c.986–c.1010) see Schwartz, Die Besetzung der Bistumer Reichsitaliens, p. 200; Delumeau, Arezzo: espace et société, pp. 498–501. 151 Count William had been loyal to Marquis Hugh II and to Marquis Boniface II as well, as testified by his donation to Passignano monastery in 1009 on behalf of the souls of both marquises: Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, S. Maria di Vallombrosa, 18 December 1009. 152 Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, p. 175. 153 Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, pp. 156–7. 154 D’Acunto, ‘Nostrum Italicum regnum’, p. 77.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

111

Following the visit of the empress to Rome in 989, aimed at putting off a revolt by Roman senator Crescentius, Hugh accompanied the imperial court possibly to Ravenna and definitely in Germany. He celebrated Easter in Quedlinburg with the empress and remained there until 991, when in June he witnessed her sudden death.155 The regency passed once again into the hands of old Adelheid, who trusted Hugh to keep the imperial presence alive in the kingdom, especially in central Italy. In this context, in 993 the marquis, missus ab imperatore, could take charge to some degree despite the Capuan crisis, caused by the murder of Prince Landenolf.156 Probably in this period, Hugh attained the highest level of Königsnähe, marrying Judith, a woman belonging to the Ottonian-Salic group who shared blood ties with the future emperor, Conrad II. It is hard to trace her ancestry; possibly she was the daughter of Otto I, duke of Carinthia.157 Immediately after he attained his majority in 996, Otto III came to Italy. The renewed imperial activity in the kingdom prompted Hugh’s loss of the Spoletan duchy,158 and more generally, a restriction of the spaces in which he could act politically. Hugh then concentrated his efforts once again on Tuscia, decisively imitating the imperial model when negotiating with the comital dynasties which had asserted themselves in the years of his absence.159 Accepting the presence of these groups, Hugh acted to reinforce his own influence on the greatest part of the march. He revived political connections with the churches and their network of relationships in mutual agreement with Otto.160 He also sponsored those loyal to him as public officials (those to whom the emperor granted goods from the royal fisc), especially in the region between Lucca and Pisa.161 Lastly, he developed a monastic policy of great relevance, which went far beyond his religious motivations.162 Following his mother’s efforts to found two abbeys, Hugh put together a network of monasteries meant to redefine the structure of the march and the power of the marquis. Hugh concentrated both his own kindred 155 Annales Quedlinburgensis, p. 68. 156 Chronica monasterii Casinensis, p. 188. See also Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 14–21. 157 A diploma of 1026 by Conrad II himself attested the kinship tie with Judith: DD C II, no. 63; RI III.1.1, no. 65. On the hypothesis of Judith’s ancestry from Duke Otto I of Carinthia see Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 20, n. 5. 158 According to Peter Damian, Hugh gave up the off ice willingly because he felt unable to ensure a proper administration to both circumscriptions: Die Briefe des Petrus, no. 68, p. 293. 159 D’Acunto, ‘Nostrum Italicum regnum’, p. 79. 160 The case of the church of Pisa is examined in Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, p. 161. 161 See Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, pp. 43–9; Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, p. 161; D’Acunto, ‘Nostrum Italicum regnum’, p. 89–90. 162 Kurze, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà’, p. 308.

112 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

assets and the marchisal fiscal estates in the abbeys’ patrimony.163 In that way, he ensured the safety of these consecrated walls against the rise of the comital families. The marquis did not establish a classic Eigenklöster, but instead founded marchisal abbeys, which necessarily became recipients of the effective power of the marquis of Tuscia, a power that came from the actual control of fiscal lands.164 Thus, as noted by Wilhelm Kurze, it is not random that all Hugh’s monastic foundations became imperial abbeys only after his death.165 The time frame and the individuals involved in the monastic politics of the marchio indicate that he acted with Otto III’s consent, who placed the imperial monasteries at the foundation of his ecclesiastical reform.166 The swiftness with which Otto III issued a diploma (in less than a month after Hugh’s death) on behalf of the Badia fiorentina – the most ‘private’ of Hugh’s abbeys – reveals the emperor’s interest in replacing the marquis at the top of the political-administrative structure Hugh had created. This action reasserted the central role of the empire in the government of the march. The most evident result of this policy was the absence in the greatest part of Tuscany of a seigneurial development similar to the rest of Italy in the following two centuries.167 The phenomenon also reached the groups that followed Hugh in holding office. Despite all three invoking a common ancestry to the highest representatives of public power in Tuscia – which through the Hucpoldings connected them directly to the Adalbertings168 – they were entitled to office thanks to the imperial will, without ever managing to compose a dynasty connected to the title. Quite the contrary, they had to rely completely on the German emperors.169 163 See also Chapter 5. 164 On fisc management through monasteries see Lazzari, ‘Sugli usi speciali dei beni pubblici’. Recently, the northern Italian f isc has recaptured scholarly attention, especially regarding the political and economic role played by fiscal resources in the dialectic between kings and aristocrats; see also, for a more comprehensive bibliography, Il patrimonio delle regine; Vignodelli, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles’; Loré, ‘Spazi e forme’; Rao and Santos Salazar, ‘Risorse di pubblico uso’; Tomei and Vignodelli, eds, Dark Matter. 165 Kurze, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà’, p. 308. 166 D’Acunto, ‘Nostrum Italicum regnum’, p. 84; Tomei, ‘Da Cassino alla Tuscia’. 167 D’Acunto, ‘Nostrum Italicum regnum’, p. 86. According to Chris Wickham, in Tuscany the seignorial phenomenon occurred especially in the southern part, where the Aldobrandeschi ruled: see Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’. 168 After Marquis Hugh, the march was held by Boniface II of the Hucpoldings (1004–1012), by Ranieri son of Guy of the Supponids from Arezzo (1014–1027) – and possibly great-grandson of a daughter of Hubald I of the Hucpoldings –, and by Boniface of Canossa (1027–1052) son of Willa II, niece of Boniface I of the Hucpoldings; see Table G3. 169 Nobili, ‘Le famiglie marchionali’, p. 146.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

113

After the death of Marquis Hugh on 21 December 1001,170 the march went through a period of crisis that spread through the rest of the Italian kingdom due to the abrupt death of Otto III, on 23 January 1002. The Italian elites divided themselves once again into two factions, one aligned with Arduin of Ivrea, and the other remaining loyal to the new king of Germany, Henry II.171 On 15 February 1002, Arduin was elected king of Italy in Pavia, profiting from the absence of the Saxon. Among Arduin’s main supporters, the Obertenghi saw a chance to realize their ancient aspirations towards Tuscia, where they also possessed allodial assets.172 On the Hucpolding side, Boniface II, second cousin of Hugh I, strengthened his kin’s claims to the march. With the essential support of Henry II, he managed to impose himself as marquis, remaining in charge for almost a decade. The political context we just described allowed us to identify the year 1004 as the most probable date of Boniface’s investiture to the title of marquis of Tuscia, when Henry II crossed the Alps and was crowned king of Italy in Pavia.173 Despite the turbulent political situation and the prolonged absence of the king, Boniface’s actions followed those of his cousin, giving particular attention to the monastic foundations of the territory under his direct control. In fact, Boniface’s influence never reached the same level as Hugh’s, only gaining real dominance where the Hucpoldings had already had properties since the ninth century. Two donations by Boniface II bear out his areas of major influence. In the region of Pistoia, he supported the monastery of S. Salvatore in Fontana Taona; meanwhile in the Florentine area he granted lands to the Badia fiorentina.174 Even if behind the donations lay the same interests as Hugh’s, Boniface experienced difficulties that emerged from his cousin’s system of loyaties, since previously Hugh had clearly profited from favourable political conditions under Otto III. Boniface’s devastation of the Marturi abbey is in this sense emblematic. The contrast appeared when the marquis tried to establish his power by activating the institutional structure of the march,175 in other words, when he tried to directly control 170 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 162–4. On the identification of a certain Willa marchionissa – who lived in Pisa at the beginning of the eleventh century and founded the monastery of S. Maria di Quiesa – as the only daughter of Marquis Hugh see Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, pp. 78–81. 171 On Henry II’s election see Sergi, ‘Kingdom of Italy’, pp. 367–71; specifically on the Italian situation see Capitani, Storia dell’Italia, pp. 237–63. 172 Nobili, ‘Le terre obertenghe’, p. 222. 173 The first appearance of Boniface II as marquis dates back to 24 September 1004/5: Monastero di San Salvatore, no. 1. 174 Monastero di San Salvatore, no. 1; CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 19. See also Chapter 5. 175 Nobili, ‘Le famiglie marchionali’, p. 145.

114 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the fiscal assets donated by his predecessor to the monks of Marturi. But the monks resisted, since they did not recognize any obligation either towards the march or the royal fisc. Consequently, Marquis Boniface II felt obliged to use violence against his cousin’s allies in order to reassert his authority over the abbey of S. Michele and the surrounding fiscal estate.176 Boniface II’s power never encompassed the whole of Tuscany and he never managed to involve himself completely in the wide network of relations his cousin Hugh had maintained only a few years earlier. There is no evidence of Boniface in Lucca, a city that perhaps sided with the Obertenghi faction.177 Further, he seems to have had no connections with the circle of imperial judges that earlier formed the fixed entourage of Marquis Hugh. Instead, Boniface had ties with a gastald named John (attested in a juridical oath held in 1008 near Florence)178 and with two groups of people of non-specified social rank who signed the marquis’ acts. It is hard to find connections among these people. Probably those present at the donation to the Badia fiorentina belonged to the relationship networks created by Boniface’s ancestors in the Bologna area, since the act was redacted in loco Planoro territurio Motinense. Interestingly enough, the marquis did not abandon his kinship connections and patronage, regardless of his office in Tuscia. The reference to Pianoro (a key castle for the group in the Bologna Apennines) confirms that Boniface was active on both sides of the Apennines. Those places became crucial zones of the marquis’ interests and those of his kin all through the eleventh century. An imperial diploma of 14 May 1012 provides us with indications concerning the death of Marquis Boniface.179 It is a document issued to confirm the assets of the Badia fiorentina, and indicates the marquis was already dead by that time. One can cautiously assume that Boniface died in the clashes caused by Arduin’s new uprising, which in 1013 brought Henry II to descend on Italy a second time for an imperial coronation in Rome. With Boniface’s death, the emperor allotted the march of Tuscany to Ranieri, a direct descendant of Marquis Hugh of Suppo, which is attested in 961.180 Again – if our hypothesis is correct – he was linked through a Hucpolding woman and then directly to the Adalbertings. From that moment, the march of Tuscia escaped the control of the Hucpoldings, since 176 The whole affair is recounted by the so-called narratio of Marturi, written by the monks in 1075: Carte della Badia di Marturi, no. 11; on Boniface’s violence see Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, pp. 165–79. 177 Nobili, ‘Le terre obertenghe’, pp. 221–2. 178 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. XI. 179 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 22; DD H II, no. 246; RI II.4, no. 1760. 180 See Collavini, ‘Ranieri’; Tiberini, ‘Origini e radicamento’, pp. 497–517.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

115

they would never again manage to obtain a marchisal title signif icant enough to determine the balance of power in the kingdom. Nevertheless, other branches of the kindred kept assets, interests and relationships in Tuscia for some time.

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Ospedale degli Innocenti. Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, S. Maria di Vallombrosa. Firenze, ASFi, Manoscritti, 48bis.

Printed Primary Sources Andreas Danduli, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. by Ester Pastorello, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, n. ed., vol. 12.1 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1942), pp. 1–327. Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Anselmo Costadoni, 9 vols. (Venezia: Pasquali, 1755–73). Annales Quedlinburgensis, ed. by Georg H. Pertz, MGH Scriptores 3 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1838), pp. 22–90. Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, by Ludovico A. Muratori, 6 vols. (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1738–42). Benedetto di S. Andrea, Chronicon, ed. by Giuseppe Zucchetti, in Il Chronicon di Benedetto, monaco di S. Andrea del Soratte e il ‘Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma’ (Roma: ISIME, 1920), pp. 3–187. Carte della Badia di Marturi nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (970–1199), ed. by Luciana Cambi Schmitter (Firenze: Polistampa, 2009). Chronica monasterii Casinensis, ed. by Hartmut Hoffmann, MGH Scriptores 34 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1980). Codice diplomatico della chiesa bolognese: documenti autentici e spuri (secoli IV–XII), ed. by Mario Fanti and Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: ISIME, 2004). Conradi I, Heinrici I et Ottonis I diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani,1879–84). Conradi II diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Das Regnum Italiae vom Regierungsantritt Hugos von Vienne bis zur Kaiserkrönung Ottos des Großen (926–962), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die

116 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.3 (Köln: Böhlau, 2006). Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. by Kurt Reindel, vol. 2, MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 4.2 (München: MGH, 1988). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Friedrich I 1158–1168, ed. by Ferdinand Opll and Hubert Mayr, in Regesta Imperii IV: Lothar III und ältere Staufer 1125–1197, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 2.2 (Wien: Böhlau, 1980). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I und Otto I 919–973, ed. by Emil von Ottenthal, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1 (Innsbruck: Wagner’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1893). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich II 1002–1024, ed. by Theodor von Graff, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 4 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Konrad II 1024–1039, ed. by Heinrich von Appelt, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1.1 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto II 955 (973)–983, ed. by Hans Leo Mikoletzky, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 2 (Wien: Böhlau, 1950). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto III, ed. by Mathilde Uhlirz, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3 (Wien: Böhlau, 1956). Documenti per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana: le origini e i primi secoli (887–1164), ed. by Natale Rauty (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2003). Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo nel Medio Evo, ed. by Ubaldo Pasqui, vol. 1 (Firenze: Vieusseux, 1899). Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al mille, ed. by Roberto Cessi, vol. 2 (Padova: Gregoriana, 1942). Frederici I diplomata 1158–1167, ed. by Heinrich Appelt, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 10.2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1979). Heinrici II et Arduini diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, Hermann Bloch and Robert Holtzmann, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 3 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1900–3). I diplomi di Ugo e di Lotario, di Berengario II e di Adalberto, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1924). I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. by Cesare Manaresi, 3 vols. (Roma: ISIME, 1955–60). ‘I placiti del “Regnum Italiae” (secc. IX–XI): primi contributi per un nuovo censimento’, ed. by Raffaello Volpini, in Contributi dell’Istituto di storia medioevale, vol. 3 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1975), pp. 245–520.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

117

Il regesto di Farfa di Gregorio di Catino, ed. by Ignazio Giorgi and Ugo Balzani, vol. 2 (Roma: ISIME, 1879). Il regesto di Farfa di Gregorio di Catino, ed. by Ignazio Giorgi and Ugo Balzani, vol. 2 (Roma: ISIME, 1879). Iohannes Berardi, Chronicon Casauriense, ed. by Ludovico A. Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.2 (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1726), pp. 767–1018. Iohannes diaconus Venetus, Chronica, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, ed. by Giovanni Monticolo, vol. 1 (Roma: Forzani, 1890), pp. 59–171. Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte bolognesi del secolo XI, ed. by Giovanni Feo, 2 vols. (Roma: Accademia delle scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, 2001) Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1990; orig. ed., Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913). Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo e della Badia del Buonsollazzo nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (998–1200), ed. by Antonella Ghignoli and Anna Rosa Ferrucci (Firenze: SISMEL/Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004). Le carte ravennati dei secoli ottavo e nono, ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Faenza: BUP, 2006). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 900–957), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Ravenna: Società di studi ravennati, 1999). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 957–976), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2002). Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma, ed. by Giuseppe Zucchetti, in Il Chronicon di Benedetto, monaco di S. Andrea del Soratte e il ‘Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma’ (Roma: ISIME, 1920), pp. 193–210. Liber Largitorius vel notarius monasterii Pharphensis, ed. by Giuseppe Zucchetti, vol. 1 (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913). Liudprandus Cremonensis, De Ottone rege, ed. by Paolo Chiesa, in Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia, Corpus Christianorum continuatio mediaevalis 156 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 167–83. Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del ducato di Lucca, ed. by Domenico Barsocchini, vol. 5.3 (Lucca: Bertini, 1841). Monastero di San Salvatore a Fontana Taona: secoli XI e XII, ed. by Vanna Torelli Vignali (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1999). Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1893).

118 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. by Johannes Dominicus Mansi, vols. 18.1, 18.1B (Venezia: Zatta Veneti, 1773). SS. Trinità e S. Michele di Brondolo (800–1229), ed. by Bianca Lanfranchi Strina, vol. 2: Documenti 800–1199 (Venezia: Comitato per la pubblicazione delle fonti relative alla storia di Venezia, 1981). Tolosanus, Chronicon Faventinum, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Giuseppe Rossini, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptorum, n. ed., vol. 28.1 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1936), pp. 1–176.

Secondary Sources Aurell, Martin, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales de l’aristocratie (IXe–XIIIe siècle)’, in Mariage et sexualité au Moyen Âge: accord ou crise? Actes du colloque (Conques, 15–18 octobre 1998), ed. by Michel Rouche (Parigi: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2000), pp. 185–202. Bacchi, Giuseppina, ‘Il vescovo Uberto e le relazioni tra Parma e la pieve di Santa Maria di Monteveglio (secoli IX–X)’, in Monteveglio e Nonantola: abbazie e insediamenti lungo le vie appenniniche; atti della Giornata di studio (14 settembre 2002), ed. by Domenico Cerami (Nonantola: Centro studi storici nonantolani, 2003), pp. 77–92. Berto, Luigi Andrea, ‘Giovanni Diacono’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 56 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2001), pp. 8–10. Bertolini, Margherita Giuliana, ‘Pietro Candiano’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 17 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1974), pp. 764–72. Bianchi, Giovanna and Simone M. Collavini, ‘Public Estates and Economic Strategies in Early Medieval Tuscany: Towards a New Interpretation’, in Origins of a New Economic Union (7th–12th centuries): Preliminary Results of the EU-MED Project; October 2015–March 2017, ed. by Giovanna Bianchi and Richard Hodges (Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2018), pp. 147–59. Bonacini, Pierpaolo, ‘Il marchese Almerico: patrimoni e ascendenze familiari nell’antica Provincia Ecclesiastica Ravennate’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 247–64. –––, Terre d’Emilia: distretti pubblici comunità locali e poteri signorili nell’esperienza di una regione italiana (secoli VIII–XII) (Bologna: CLUEB, 2001). Bottazzi, Gianluca, ‘Il marchese Almerico: aspetti storico-topografici’, in Forme di volontariato nella chiesa: atti del Convegno di Rovigo (1993), Ravennatensia 17 (1999), pp. 207–29. Bougard, François, ‘I vescovi di Arezzo nei secoli IX–XI: tra le responsabilità locali e i destini “nazionali”’, in Arezzo nel Medioevo, ed. by Giovanni Cherubini (Roma: L’Erma Di Bretschneider, 2012), pp. 63–71.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

119

Brown, Tom, ‘Culture and Society in Ottonian Ravenna: Imperial Renewal or New Beginning?’, in Ravenna: Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, ed. by Judith Herrin and Janet Nelson (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2016), pp. 335–44. Capitani, Ovidio, Storia dell’Italia medievale (Roma: Laterza, 2004). Casazza, Lorenzo, Il territorio di Adria tra VI e X secolo (Padova: CLEUP, 2001). Castagnetti, Andrea, I conti di Vicenza e di Padova dall’età ottoniana al comune (Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice, 1981). –––, Il Veneto nell’alto medioevo (Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice, 1990). –––, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’: il Veneto meridionale nell’alto medioevo e i domini del marchese Almerico II (Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice, 1991). Civale, Biagio, ‘La formazione e l’evoluzione del “comitatus pistoriensis” nella marca di Tuscia dall’età carolingia agli ultimi re d’Italia’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 110 (2008), pp. 11–42. –––, ‘I conti Cadolingi e i ceti eminenti nella “iudiciaria pistoriensis” del X secolo’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 112 (2010), pp. 9–44. –––, ‘I conti Guidi tra Tuscia e Romagna nei secoli IX–X’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 114 (2012), pp. 7–40. Collavini, Simone M., ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale delle élites laiche intermedie (Italia centrale, secolo VIII–X)’, in Les élites et leur espaces: mobilitè, rayonnement, domination (du VIe au XIe siècle), ed. by Philippe Depreux, François Bougard and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 319–40. –––, ‘Ranieri, marchese di Toscana’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 86 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2016), pp. 419–22. Collavini, Simone M. and Paolo Tomei, ‘Beni f iscali e “scritturazione”: nuove proposte sui contesti di rilascio e falsificazione di D O. III. 269 per il monastero di S. Ponziano di Lucca’, in Originale-Fälschungen-Kopien: Kaiser- und Königsurkunden für Empfänger in ‘Deutschland’ und ‘Italien’ (9–11 Jahrhundert) und ihre Nachwirkungen im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter (bis ca. 1500), ed. by Nicolangelo D’Acunto, Sebastian Roebert and Wolfgang Huschner (Leipzig: Eudora Verlag, 2017), pp. 205–16. Cortese, Maria Elena, Signori, castelli, città: l’aristocrazia del territorio fiorentino tra X e XII secolo (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2007). –––, L’aristocrazia toscana: sette secoli (VI–XII) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2017). –––, ‘Between the City and the Countryside: The Aristocracy in the March of Tuscia (Late Tenth–Early Twelfth Centuries)’, in Italy and Early Medieval Europe: Papers for Chris Wickham, ed. by Ross Balzaretti, Julia S. Barrow and Patricia Skinner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 140–54. D’Acunto, Nicolangelo, Nostrum Italicum regnum. Aspetti della politica italiana di Ottone III (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 2002).

120 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

A ‘Dark Matter’: History and Archaeology of Fiscal Estates in Medieval Italy (8th–11th c.) , ed. by Paolo Tomei and Giacomo Vignodelli (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). Delumeau, Jean-Pierre, ‘Equilibri di potere ad Arezzo dal periodo tardo carolingio al primo periodo comunale’, in Arezzo e il suo territorio nell’Alto Medio Evo: atti del Convegno (Arezzo, 22–23 ottobre 1983) (Cortona: Calosci, 1985), pp. 87–110. –––, Arezzo: espace et société, 715–1230; recherches sur Arezzo et son contado du VIIIe au début du XIIIe siècle, vol. 1 (Roma: École française de Rome, 1996). Falce, Antonio, Il marchese Ugo di Tuscia (Firenze: Bemporad, 1921). Fasoli, Gina, ‘I conti e il comitato di Imola (secc. X–XIII)’, Atti e Memorie della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie di Romagna 8 (1943), pp. 120–92. Fumagalli, Vito, Le origini di una grande dinastia feudale: Adalberto-Atto di Canossa (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1972). –––, ‘Vescovi e conti nell’Emilia occidentale da Berengario I a Ottone I’, Studi Medievali 14.1 (1973), pp. 137–204. Gasparrini Leporace, Tullia, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi di Spoleto (569–1230)’, Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria 35 (1938), pp. 5–68. Hlawitschka, Eduard, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien (774–962) (Freiburg im Breisgau: Albert, 1960). Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 123–298. Keller, Hagen, ‘La marca di Tuscia f ino all’anno Mille’, in Atti del 5º Congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto medioevo (Lucca, 3–7 ottobre 1971) (Spoleto: CISAM, 1973), pp. 117–40. Kurze, Wilhelm, ‘Gli albori dell’abbazia di Marturi’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 165–201. –––, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà nella Tuscia altomedievale’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 295–317. Lazzari, Tiziana, ‘I “de Ermengarda”: una famiglia nobiliare a Bologna (secc. IX–XII)’, Studi Medievali 32 (1991), pp. 597–657. –––, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 123–39. –––, ‘Tra Ravenna e regno: collaborazione e conflitti fra aristocrazie diverse’, in Coopétition: rivaliser, coopérer dans les sociétés du haut Moyen Âge (500–1100), ed. by Régine Le Jan, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Stefano Gasparri (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), pp. 167–86.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

121

–––, ‘Sugli usi speciali dei beni pubblici: i dotari delle regine e i patrimoni dei monasteri’ in Biens publics, biens du roi: les bases économiques des pouvoirs royaux dans le haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard and Vito Loré (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 443–52. Loré, Vito, ‘Spazi e forme dei beni pubblici nell’alto medioevo: il regno longobardo’, in Spazio pubblico e spazio privato tra storia e archeologia (secoli VI–X), ed. by Giovanna Bianchi, Maria Cristina La Rocca and Tiziana Lazzari (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), pp. 59–88. MacLean, Simon, Ottonian Queenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). Manarini, Edoardo, I due volti del potere: una parentela atipica di ufficiali e signori del regno italico (Milano: Ledizioni, 2016). –––, ‘A Marriage, a Battle, an Honor: The Career of Boniface of the Hucpoldings during Rudolf II’s Italian Reign, 924–26’, Early Medieval Europe 28.2 (2020), pp. 289–309. –––, ‘Ugo’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 97 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2020), pp. 391–95. –––, ‘Le madri dei marchesi: la legittimazione al potere marchionale nella marca Tusciae’, in Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). Menant, François, ‘Les Giselbertins, comtes du comté de Bergame et comtes palatins’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del primo convegno di Pisa (10–11 maggio 1983) (Roma: ISIME, 1988), pp. 115–86. Müller-Mertens, Eckhard, ‘The Ottonians as Kings and Emperors’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3: c.900–c.1024, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 233–66. Nobili, Mario, ‘Le famiglie marchionali nella Tuscia’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 125–50. –––, ‘Le terre obertenghe delle contee di Pisa, Lucca e Volterra’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 215–28. Pallavicino, Alessandro, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 233–20. Provero, Luigi, L’Italia dei poteri locali: secoli X–XII (Roma: Carocci, 2011). Provesi, Chiara, ‘Le due mogli di Pietro IV Candiano (959–976): le donne e i loro gruppi parentali nella Venezia di X secolo’, Reti Medievali Rivista 16.2 (2015), pp. 21–51. Puglia, Andrea, La marca di Tuscia tra X e XI secolo: impero e società locale e amministrazione marchionale negli anni 970–1027 (Pisa: Il campano, 2004).

122 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

–––, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi sul marchese Ugo di Tuscia (970–1001)’, in Dalle abbazie l’Europa: i nuovi germogli del seme benedettino nel passaggio tra primo e secondo millennio (secoli X–XII); atti del Convegno di Studi (Badia a Settimo, 22–24 aprile 1999), ed. by Alessandro Guidotti and Graziella Cirri (Firenze: Maschietto, 2006), pp. 151–86. Rao, Riccardo and Igor Santos Salazar, ‘Risorse di pubblico uso e beni comuni nell’Italia settentrionale: Lombardia 569–1100’, Studia Historica/Historia Medieval 37.1 (2019), pp. 29–51. Rauty, Natale, ‘Fonti documentarie e narrative per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana’, in La lunga storia di una stirpe comitale: i conti Guidi tra Romagna e Toscana; atti del convegno di studi organizzato dai Comuni di Modigliana e Poppi (Modigliana-Poppi, 28–31 agosto 2003), ed. by Federico Canaccini (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2009), pp. 61–70. Repetti, Emmanuele, Dizionario geografico fisico e storico della Toscana, 5 vols. (Firenze: Presso l’autore e editore, 1833–46). Rinaldi, Rossella, ‘Esplorare le origini; note sulla nascita e l’affermazione della stirpe comitale’, in La lunga storia di una stirpe comitale: i conti Guidi tra Romagna e Toscana; atti del convegno di studi organizzato dai Comuni di Modigliana e Poppi (Modigliana-Poppi, 28–31 agosto 2003), ed. by Federico Canaccini (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2009), pp. 19–46. Savigni, Raffaele, ‘I papi e Ravenna: dalla caduta dell’esarcato alla fine del secolo X’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 331–68. Schoolman, Edward M., ‘Nobility, Aristocracy and Status in Early Medieval Ravenna’, in Ravenna: Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, ed. by Judith Herrin and Janet Nelson (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2016), pp. 211–38. Schwartz Gerhard, Die Besetzung der Bistumer Reichsitaliens: unter den Sachsischen und Salischen Kaisern mit den Listen der Bishofe (951–1122) (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913). Sergi, Giuseppe, ‘The Kingdom of Italy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3: c.900–c.1024, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 346–71. Tiberini, Sandro, ‘Origini e radicamento di un lignaggio umbro-toscano nei secoli X–XI: i “Marchesi di Colle” (poi “Del Monte S. Maria”)’, Archivio Storico Italiano 152 (1994), pp. 481–559. Tomei, Paolo, ‘Coordinamento e dispersione: l’arcicancelliere Uberto di Parma e la riorganizzazione ottoniana della marca di Tuscia’, in Europäische Herrscher und die Toskana im Spiegel der urkundlichen Überlieferung (800–1100), ed. by François Bougard, Antonella Ghignoli and Wolfgang Huschner (Leipzig: Eudora Verlag, 2015), pp. 77–86.

Family Pat terns and Political Affirmation (945–1012)

123

–––, ‘Da Cassino alla Tuscia: disegni politici, idee in movimento; sulla politica monastica dell’ultima età ottoniana’, Quaderni Storici 51 (2016), pp. 355–82. Vedovato, Giuseppe, ‘Ugo di Tuscia e il monastero di Santa Maria della Vangadizza’, in Dalle abbazie l’Europa: i nuovi germogli del seme benedettino nel passaggio tra primo e secondo millennio (secoli X–XII); atti del Convegno di Studi (Badia a Settimo, 22–24 aprile 1999), ed. by Alessandro Guidotti and Graziella Cirri (Firenze: Maschietto, 2006), pp. 187–203. Vignodelli, Giacomo, Il filo a piombo: il Perpendiculum di Attone di Vercelli e la storia politica del regno italico (Spoleto: CISAM, 2012). –––, ‘Berta e Adelaide: la politica di consolidamento del potere regio di Ugo di Arles’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 247–94. –––, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles e le aristocrazie del regno italico (926–945)’, in Acquérir, prélever, contrôler les resources en compétition (400–1000), ed. by Régine Le Jan, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Vito Loré (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 151–69. Wickham, Chris, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, in Strutture e trasformazioni della signoria rurale nei secoli X–XIII: atti della XXXVII settimana di studio (12–16 settembre 1994), ed. by Gerhard Dilcher and Cinzio Violante (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996), pp. 343–409.

3.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Network (1012–1116) Abstract The third chapter deals with the dynamics of seignorial affirmation and strategies of power implemented locally by the descendant branches of the group in their respective areas of influence: the low Apennines and the plain around the city of Bologna, the area of Faenza in Romagna, the countryside around Florence and the Apennines between Tuscia and Emilia. Specific attention is devoted to kinship ties with the Canossa, demonstrated by a cluster of charters kept by the church of Pisa. The chapter proposes that despite the progressive affirmation and the development of each seigneurial rule in different patrimonial areas, the kinship network remained active, vital and connected until at least the beginning of the twelfth century. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; seigneurial rule; landed possessions; western Emilia

At the beginning of the eleventh century, the kinship group’s pattern of self-promotion proceeded in substantial continuity with previous decades, as outlined above. Close relationships with imperial power and a stronger relationship of vassalage with the archbishop of Ravenna enabled them to maintain prominence within the upper aristocratic circles of the kingdom, despite the loss of the march of Tuscia following the death of Boniface II. The group maintained a considerable and efficient operational capacity for some time, albeit without dynastic control of a wide public district. In the 1030s, for example, the most senior member of the Hucpoldings at that time, Hugh II, son of Walfredus, regained the title of marchio associated with the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Camerino. The starting point of Hugh II’s notable political career was in achieving the highest position in the area of Faenza, probably attained thanks to his father Walfredus’ marriage to a

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch03

126 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

woman from the exarchal aristocracy. The assets of the kindred in Bologna and authority in the Faenza area – all territories under the authority of the archbishop of Ravenna – brought to Hugh a decisive role in the new organizational structure given to the exarchate by imperial command. Later, in 1037, Hugh II obtained the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Camerino. He was the last person in the group’s lineage to maintain a marchisal rank within the context of a well-defined public district. Hugh built his power in the same ways as his ancestors, above all thanks to a close relationship with the emperor outside sectors of kinship patrimony. An unstable imperial presence in Italy, however, did not allow Hugh to develop a firm dynasty in the duchy of Spoleto, where the group had never had solid patrimonial or religious foundations. Following the death of Marquis Hugh (c.1056), one can observe a more decisive tendency to settle in a specific area in keeping with the progressive development of the patrimonial interests of the various branches of the fourth and fifth generations of the group. So, from the broad kinship group typical of the Reichsadel of Carolingian tradition, the kin structure transformed into clearly patrilineal bloodlines, each building a seignorial domain in restricted territorires corresponding to their patrimonial shares. The two branches of the group established in the plain and Apennine valleys of Bologna are directly connected to the descendants of the founder of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano, Adalbert II: on the one side the offspring of Walfredus, the aforementioned Hugh II and Hubald III; on the other, the descendants of Adalbert III, who settled in the Reno valley, and who also had substantial interests on the Tuscan side of the Apennines through their connection with the Guidi lineage. Hugh II is known to have had five children: Albert I, Hubald IV, Hugh III, Boniface III and Adelheid. They had all been active within the territorial contexts previously controlled by their father (from Romagna to the plains between Bologna and Ferrara), never achieving, however, the same authority and prestige. Towards the end of the century – when the new emperor Henry V (1111–1125) turned his attention once again to the kingdom of Italy – the repercussions of the investiture controversy and the new economic and political impulses of Bologna deprived the members of the ninth generation, Hubert son of Albert I and Beatrix daughter of Hubald IV, once and for all of any political aspirations. Even if they continued to present themselves as authoritative and legitimate brokers of public power, Count Hubert could but witness passively the imperial grant to the people of Bologna in 1116, as being the first evidence of the existence of an institutional city structure. As early as the end of the eleventh century, descendants of Hugh II directed their

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

127

activities towards the more easterly valleys of the Bolognese Apennines between the Idice and Sillaro rivers. They established their household in a castle still known today as Casalecchio dei Conti. The settlement of one branch of the group in this area is recorded in charters of the nearby monastery of S. Cristina di Settefonti. In particular, a specific clause of exclusion from the alienation of monastic property was systematically used to the detriment of the Hucpoldings, despite their munificence towards the institution.1 The descendants of Adalbert III, on the other hand, developed their domain across the Apennines along the Reno river, particularly around the castles of Panico and Petrosa. His son Guy was married to a daughter of Count Guy II of the Guidi lineage, thus obtaining for himself and his sons, Walfredus II, Albert II and Hugh IV, a substantial power base in the Casentino mountains, with the castle of Romena at its centre. Notwithstanding sustained relationships with the monastery of Camaldoli in regard to land assets, the Casentino experience quickly died out in the successive generation, with Count Milo, son of Albert II, who was occupied exclusively on the Bologna side. Here, from the earliest years of the twelfth century, this line of descendants was identified with the name of the counts of Panico after the principal family residence. Other lineages of the kinship group analysed below are traceable to the descendants of Count Adimarus, son of Boniface I. They were active in the same areas of the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines, in the city of Florence and its contado in the eleventh century. Among the rare documents concerning Count Adimarus, a posthumous one dating to 1034 enables us to reconstruct two generations of his descendants and more importantly to prove the marriage between his daughter Willa II and Tedald of Canossa. The act reports that disputes took place between Adimarus’ grandchildren, Boniface of Canossa, Maginfred son of Hubald and Boniface son of Henry about the reconstitution of his inheritance, which had been formed from lands and castles across the Bolognese Apennines along the valley of the river Idice. The last ascribable descendent of Adimarus is Bernard, active in Florence in the middle of the eleventh century. Though none of the representatives of this minor branch of the kinship group ever actually held the comital rank, they controlled the properties the group owned in the Florentine territory before they attained the march of Tuscia. In the city, the most significant and most long-lasting relationships were struck with the episcopal church (particularly with canons), where Bernard son of Bernard had been archdeacon for many years. Further to these important inner-city relationships, 1

See Chapter 6.

128 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the ownership of a quota of Hucpolding property atop the Casentino peaks provided, especially to Bernard I’s two grandchildren, a way of establishing lasting relationships with counts Guy IV and Guy V of the Guidi, becoming their vassals as well as stable recipients of their monastic patronage. This branch of the lineage is traceable in Tuscan sources up until the first quarter of the twelfth century; it is built up through four generations, as illustrated (for the sake of simplicity) by the family tree of Table G7.2 Over the course of the eleventh century, relationships with other kinship groups entered into through marriage connected particularly the Canossa and the Guidi lineage. The former provides interesting findings of both political and ecclesiastical nature in the districts of Emilia and Tuscia, and in the central see of Arezzo. The marriage between a granddaughter of Boniface I of the Hucpoldings and Tedald of Canossa addressed the need of the latter to raise his social status through union with one of the few remaining families of direct Carolingian origin. Fortified by this connection, the lineage of Canossa appropriated to themselves the title of marquis for Tedald, who nonetheless never became a marquis. The political fortunes of Boniface of Canossa and his daughter Matilda revolved around the patrimonial and political relationships of the two groups, which until the investiture controversy were positive. Connections with the Guidi lineage however were of a stable endogamic nature, because the Guidi bloodline which settled in Casentino and later spread across northern Tuscany had originated from the first Hucpolding generations in Italy. In addition to responding to contingent political convenience, this practice of uniting in marriage within the same extended kinship group must also have avoided disadvantageous loss of wealth in favour of other groups. The political relevance of the Hucpolding members petered out over the eleventh century until, in the early decades of the twelfth, it reached almost completely irrelevant proportions, except those within the areas of seignorial domain. During the final decades of the century, most of their properties on the plains were either taken or given to private individuals or to religious houses: a sort of selection was performed on possessions and on the safest and most beneficial centres of power, with a view to favouring the concentration of property around the castles of the central and northern Tuscan and Emilian Apennines.3 The gradual withdrawal from dialogue with royal authority, along with complete exclusion from the developing new urban political institutions, forced descendent branches of the kinship 2 3

See Table G7. See Chapter 6.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

129

group to turn to territories where their authority was more stable and more deeply rooted, thus achieving a true territorial dominion, particularly in the case of the counts of Panico between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The pre-eminence in Bolognese territory sparked a real historiographic myth, which soon crystallized in local histories and those farther afield. Since the 1700s, some leading members of the bloodline had attracted the attention of erudite and academic circles, especially with reference to Emilia, the city of Bologna and its alleged countship. The name that quickly entered the more general historiography was in fact that of the counts of Bologna. This development placed them inextricably within a specific binary institutional and urban paradigm. More than anything else shaped the reconstruction of their overall affairs on the assumption that, in the Carolingian and post-Carolingian periods, all cities of some importance had to have been centres of comital districts. 4 The association of a branch of the Hucpoldings with the presumed Bolognese comitatus began in the historic treatises of the eighteenth century to then become an unquestionable certainty of modern historiography up to the final decades of the last century. The extensive recovery and study of private documents was decisive and permitted eighteenth-century Bolognese scholars to fill in significant gaps in city chronicles, despite a total absence of historical works prior to the twelfth century.5 The innovations introduced into the field of methodology by Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750)6 inspired Ludovico Savioli’s work on the history of Bologna.7 In his reconstruction, the year 1116 was of primary importance, a perfect watershed between the ‘feudal’ past and the birth of the commune. During the former, the city was only governed by figures who bore the title of count in local documents. Then the historiographic myth of the counts of Bologna was established, by which Hucpolding members were unquestioningly accredited with being the proxy for public authority over the supposed Bolognese countship from the middle of the tenth to the beginning of the twelfth century. Later, the treatises on the history of the city written at the beginning of the 1900s failed to correct the mistaken interpretation.8 Nevertheless, they 4 The assumption was first proposed by Ludovico Antonio Muratori; see Antiquitates Italicae, ed. Muratori, vol. 1, cols. 61–74. 5 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 55; where one can find also an overview on Bolognese chronicles from communal to the modern period, see pp. 55–9. 6 On Muratori see Tabacco, ‘Muratori medievista’, pp. 3–20. 7 Savioli, Annali bolognesi. On Savioli’s work see Fasoli, ‘Sugli “Annali Bolognesi”’. 8 See Hessel, Geschichte der Stadt Bologna. See Vicinelli, ‘La famiglia dei Conti’.

130 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

can be credited with placing city events within the political framework of the exarchate of Ravenna rather than of the Italian kingdom of Pavia.9 Recently, some scholars have returned to the problem of the family of the so-called counts of Bologna, in particular questioning the possibility of confining public authority and administration of justice to within the city and its hypothetical countship. At the beginning of the 1980s, Vito Fumagalli noted how weak the grounds were for attributing the term countship in a traditional sense to the city of Bologna and its surrounding area.10 Lastly, in the mid-90s, Tiziana Lazzari elaborated the first convincing and coherent map of Bolognese districts during the early Middle Ages, boldly denying the existence of one governed by counts of the city of Bologna.11 These new theories have even permitted the correction of the previously unquestioned attribution of the comital public authority to the Bologna branch of the Hucpoldings, as happened in the seventeenth century onwards due to excessive conceptual rigidity.

Hugh II and His Lineage in Bologna and Ferrara Hucpolding affairs from the end of the tenth century well into the eleventh requires us once again to turn an eye to Ravenna; for the connections formed with the archbishop and the exarchal aristocracy there strongly characterize both the activities and the quality of power achieved by the main branch of the group. Also, the foundation of the monastery of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano just a few kilometres from Bologna consolidated the kinship group across the territories of Bologna, which fulfilled the function of certain deposits of wealth. On the political front, Hucpolding representatives never undertook efforts disloyal to the German emperors or contrary to the relationship of vassalage with the archbishop of Ravenna, negotiated through emphyteutic contracts.12 The Ottonian choice to renew the imperial function of Ravenna made it essential for the descendants of Marquis Boniface I in Bologna to maintain a dialogue with the prelate and to link with exarchal society.13 We have already identified the prominence acquired by Adalbert I, witnessed in 9 See Hessel, Geschichte der Stadt Bologna, pp. 3–22; Vicinelli, ‘L’inizio del dominio pontificio’. 10 Fumagalli, ‘La geografia culturale’, p. 18. 11 Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 183–5. 12 See Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 134–8; and also Carile, ‘La società ravennate’, pp. 395–8. 13 On Ottonian policy towards Ravenna see Brown, ‘Culture and Society’.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

131

the placitum of Marzaglia, and the political and matrimonial relationships which bound him to one of the most influential groups in the Bolognese.14 Descendants of his brother, Hubald II, followed a similar course: at the beginning of the eleventh century, being in substantial agreement with institutional powers, they reached considerable patrimonial and political hegemony across an extensive area of the western exarchate. This development, however, cannot be traced back to the typical model of Carolingian countships, which never matured completely in Romagna.15 Grandson of the founder of S. Bartolomeo, Count Hugh II expanded the group’s pre-eminence across Bolognese territories, paying particular attention to property administration and sound control of the land through seignorial prerogatives. The title of count, held indistinctly by every member of the group, was therefore an expression of rank and kin prestige and in Bologna it never reached its full expression in official public roles, although on occasion activated in the context of public authority.16 The first testimony of Count Hugh with his brother Hubald III dates from a Bolognese placitum held in June 1030. On this occasion, the two brothers assisted the imperial envoy, Alexander, at the judicial assembly held in Bologna in order to settle a property dispute between the church of Ravenna and Jeremiah of Bologna and his brothers.17 This document has often been adopted as clear evidence of Hugh’s having undertaken public functions in Bologna.18 Upon scrutiny, however, it contains indications of a more complex political situation. The judgement was also attended by Archbishop Gebeardus of Ravenna himself, Bishop Adalfredus of Bologna, a certain Count Guy 19 and a number of dukes and various other figures – all of whom are difficult to ascribe to the city of Bologna. The judge who was called upon to pass sentence was Tassemannus of Faenza, and having established the contumacy of the citizens summoned, fully accepted the petitions of Ravenna, had probably, as we will see, been brought by the two Hucpoldings. The involvement in Bologna of the four most powerful political figures of the whole region attributes a peculiar characteristic to the assembly, which 14 See Chapter 2. 15 Rabotti, ‘Dai vertici dei poteri medievali’, pp. 135–8, 155. 16 See Chapter 8. 17 I placiti, vol. 3.1, no. 333. 18 Vicinelli, ‘La famiglia dei Conti’, pp. 173–4; Pio, ‘Poteri pubblici’, p. 563. 19 Probably he belonged to an exarchal aristocratic group rooted in Imola, possibly tied with the Guidi and therefore with the Hucpoldings; see Table G5. On this Count Guy and his family see Fasoli, ‘I conti e il comitato di Imola’, pp. 125–37.

132 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

makes it appear to go beyond the bounds of a property issue. The dispute appears to have become a rather favourable opportunity to reassert the authority of the individuals in attendance.20 The lack of any recognizable urban element underlines a neat division between the city, particularly its eminent classes, and traditionally active local powers. Clearly, not even the bishop of Bologna, despite his recent election and Germanic origins,21 was able to adjudicate the interests of the citizens, and had to place them within the juridical competence of superior authorities. So, the role of Hugh and Hubald was to assist the emperor’s representative and the archbishop in reclaiming property rights, which implied a political intent of containment vis-à-vis the town environment. A desire to more efficiently control Bolognese territory is also evidenced by the bannum imposed over the goods which were objects of the placitum: if the judgement was violated, a fine would be collected directly by the imperial chamber and the archiepiscopal one.22 Second, the two brothers were in the most favourable position of any of the archbishop’s vassals to activate the judge’s sentence in view of the location of the disputed assets in the area of Brento.23 This was a portion of the old iudiciaria Mutinensis, which had been under their authority for some time. Just a few years later, the archbishop of Ravenna’s aim of political hegemony also involved Count Hugh himself, when on 30 April 1034, Emperor Conrad II (1027–1039) assigned to Archbishop Gebeardus the jurisdiction and fiscal rights relating to the countship of Faenza.24 In that area, the count appears to hold possessions and rights of a public nature, which just two months later he placed back into Gebeardus’ hands.25 Hugh then received the investiture in beneficio of half of that countship with all connected rights. It is difficult to trace how Count Hugh might have obtained such a dominant position in Faenza, which had been founded on strict territorial control through the possession of various kinds of fiscal rights. From the middle of the tenth century, these public rights were entrusted explicitly to the metropolitan of Ravenna for most of the exarchal area. The Ottonian 20 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 71. 21 On Bishop Adalfredus see Capitani, ‘Adalfredo’; Pio, ‘Fermenti religiosi’, pp. 374–5. 22 I placiti, vol. 3.1, no. 333, p. 30. 23 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 71, n. 73: the lands disputed were placed near Ronco and Varignana on the hills immediately south of the via Aemilia. 24 DD C II, no. 208 (RI III.1.1, no. 216): the archbishop received powers of districtus, placitum and iudicium, together with the rights to collect publicae functiones, such as teloneum, fodrum and ripaticum. 25 Ravenna 11.2, no. 157.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

133

purpose was to stabilize the exarchate once and for all inside the Italian kingdom by granting public authority to the most hegemonic player in the area and thus legitimacy.26 Ducal and countship families27 were longstanding owners of large expanses of land through emphyteosis over which they exercised a tenuous authority.28 Their subsequent disputes would be resolved through their restitution, peacefully or by force,29 of those fiscal rights between the tenth and eleventh centuries.30 In this context, the power exercised by Hugh represents the culmination of his kinship group’s hegemony over the territory of Faenza, initiated from the early processes of centralizing property by the first Hucpoldings in Italy, with particular reference to the Apennine area around the castle of Modigliana and the plains to the north of the city.31 This power was significantly strengthened later, thanks to the group’s relationships with the family of Count Lambert.32 In the second half of the tenth century, Peter dux et comes, Lambert’s father, attained a dominant patrimonial position in many territories of the exarchate;33 a dominance that was also used to his benefit politically, above all at the most important public assemblies.34 Use of the dual title displayed by Peter and his son Lambert is not otherwise seen in Romagna at this

26 On diplomas and papal privileges received by the church of Ravenna see Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 112–29; Rabotti, ‘Dai vertici dei poteri medievali’, pp. 135–8. 27 The issue of exarchal aristocrats of comital rank is still unsolved; see an overview in Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 114–16; Vasina, Romagna medievale, pp. 153–4, n. 47; Vespignani, La Romània italiana, pp. 55–60, 71–81, 148–56. 28 Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, p. 135. 29 This was the case of Deacon Ranieri in the 960s; see Chapter 2; at the end of the century, Count Lambert also rebelled against the archbishop: Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 114–17; Vespignani, La Romània italiana, pp. 57–60. See also Rabotti, ‘Il placito di Bertinoro’. 30 See Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 131–2; Rabotti, ‘Dai vertici dei poteri medievali’, p. 143. 31 See also Chapter 4. 32 On Lambert’s group see Vespignani, La Romània italiana, pp. 57–9; Rabotti, ‘Il placito di Bertinoro’, pp. 9–11, 21–2. 33 Regesto di S. Apollinare, no. 2: the donation on behalf of S. Apollinare Nuovo of Ravenna shows the property of a great amount of curtes, salt pans and vineyards in the territories of Forlimpopoli, Forlì, Cesena, Cervia and Ravenna. Moreover, Peter’s second son, Hubert, had been bishop of Forlì (c.962). 34 Peter attended with his brother Severus at the synod in Ravenna in 955: Ravenna 10.1, no. 86; together with his brother Severus and his son Lambert, he attended the placitum against Deacon Ranieri in 967: I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 155 (RI II.1, no. 445); probably, he attended the placitum held by Emperor Otto I in aula regia in 971: DD O I, no. 405 (RI II.1, no. 530); finally, he attended with his son the placitum of Marzaglia in 973, as well: Ravenna 10.2, no. 178.

134 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

time.35 Interestingly enough, this use followed different forms depending on the context: in imperial gatherings, Peter only used the comital title of comes;36 in Ravenna, on private occasions, he used both of the titles.37 This peculiarity is a clear clue to the frequent intermingling between the exarchal and Frankish aristocracies, which, though active beyond the territories of the regnum, also used women to seal ties with the most influential player in their areas of activity. Set against this background is the marriage between Lambert and Countess Ratilda, where the woman’s anthroponym and title indicate with reasonable certainty an ancestry within an aristocratic family of Frankish origin. The couple’s adoption of the names Hubald and Boniface for their children makes a family connection with the Hucpoldings quite likely.38 The relationship between the two groups, possibly struck in the last decades of the tenth century, was probably reinforced in the following generation thanks to the union between Walfredus, the father of Hugh II, and a daughter of Lambert. This further union thus laid the groundwork for later placement of their son, Hugh II of the Hucpoldings, at the forefront of authority in the Faenza territories, alongside Lambert’s offspring. This would explain the repetition of names pertaining to Hucpolding elements in the lineage of Hubald, the eldest son of Lambert, whose children, Walfredus, Hugh and Hubald II, laid claim to public rights over the city of Cesena again in 1021.39 It would also explain the close property and political relationships between Hugh II and Count Boniface, himself a son of Lambert, and therefore uncle to Hugh in our proposed reconstruction of the family. 40 How Hugh acquired public rights in the Faenza area – which he returned to the archbishop – still remains largely obscure. Nonetheless, presuming family, political and patrimonial relations with one of the main exarchal groups helps to outline and better identify the methods adopted by the main figures of the Hucpolding group. Being unable to re-establish themselves in 35 Vespignani, La Romània italiana, p. 77. Comparing with the whole kingdom of Italy, we have added also Almericus II and Peter dux et marchio, from Bologna; see Chapter 2. 36 Ravenna 10.1, no. 86; I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 155; DD O I, no. 405; Ravenna 10.2, no. 178. 37 Regesto di S. Apollinare, no. 2; Rabotti, ‘Il placito di Bertinoro’. 38 This Ratilda comitissa could have been born from Richilde and Tebaldus son of Boniface I: Ravenna 10.2, no. 102. 39 Ravenna 10.1, nos. 66, 67; see also Vespignani, La Romània italiana, pp. 58–9. 40 On the Hucpoldings name stock see Chapter 7. Count Boniface also possessed rights on the castle of Pietramora in the Faentino – probably the same place held in the ninth century by Engelrada I – as witnessed by an investiture of 1021: Ravenna 11.1, no. 69; furthermore, the same Boniface together with his nephew Hugh, son of his brother Hubald, attended the refuta of 1034 of Count Hugh II.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

135

any march within the kingdom, they attempted to become part of Romagna’s wider political sphere. The introduction of Frankish elements into exarchal society probably led to higher resistance from local aristocratic groups – particularly those characterized by their use of the title of count – against the archiepiscopal and imperial projects for hegemony.41 They sometimes obtained in beneficio reinvestiture of assets that they had been obliged to reliquish. This was what happened in the case of Hugh II, who must have possessed significant contractual powers, which permitted him to reacquire half of the countship of Faenza. The agreement with the archbishop of Ravenna took place at an unidentified location in Romagna in the archiepiscopal military camp. 42 It took place during preparations for the expedition announced by Conrad II for the conquest of the kingdom of Burgundy, against Odo, count of Blois and Champagne. 43 The Italian army, composed of laymen and members of the clergy, was entrusted to the command of Boniface of Canossa and the Archbishop Aribert of Milan; and among the laymen we can also reasonably include Count Hugh II. 44 Once the Burgundy campaign was over, 45 and a relationship of trust had been reinstated with the archbishop of Ravenna, Hugh’s political career took a significant turn for the better: in around 1037, he was made duke of Spoleto and marquis of Camerino, 46 replacing his namesake Hugh, son of the Marquis Ranieri of Tuscia (1014–1027) and a descendant of the Supponids, who were already established in the Aretine area. 47 In other words, once again antagonism and reversals of fortune arose between the leaders of the two kinship groups competing to control the public districts of central Italy. Thus, after Marquis Boniface II of the Hucpoldings 41 On Conrad II’s ecclesiastical policy see Wolfram, Conrad II, pp. 249–54; on his effort in supporting the authority of the archbishops of Ravenna in Romagna see Samaritani, ‘Gebeardo di Eichstätt’. 42 The act was written ‘in loco qui dicitur Stornatianus, in tentorio domni Gebeardi’ (in the place called Stornatianus, in Archbishop Gebeardus’ military camp). It is difficult to identify this place; we can find similar toponyms to Stornatianus, like Stornara and Stornarina, which are to be found near Copparo (Ferrara), or in the Apennine area around Tredozio south to Faenza. 43 See the main account by Wipo of Burgundy, Conrad’s biographer: Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris, pp. 47–51. 44 Pio, ‘Fermenti religiosi’, pp. 367–8. 45 See Wolfram, Conrad II, pp. 239–46. 46 Vicinelli, ‘La famiglia dei Conti’, pp. 159–66; Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 82–3. 47 Tiberini, ‘Origini e radicamento’, pp. 520–3, 544–6. However, Tiberini did not recognize two different and consequent dukes with the name Hugh, assuming only the existence of Duke Hugh of Ranieri: Tiberini, ‘Origini e radicamento’, p. 554.

136 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

had taken office in Tuscia, Ranieri replaced him in 1014. 48 Previously the same Ranieri had held the charge of duke of Spoleto from around 1012. 49 After a decade, his son Hugh took over the duchy,50 which eventually was assigned to Hugh II of the Hucpoldings after 29 May 1037. The latter held the office in Spoleto until 1056.51 Imperial intervention seems to be the main cause of the return of the marquisal title to the kinship group. While maintaining no explicit patrimonial interests in the area of the duchy, the group could nonetheless put itself forward for the office thanks to its rank as one of the most prestigious elements of the Italian aristocracy. In May 1038, Hugh participated again at the service of the emperor in military operations in southern Italy that led to the defeat and flight of Pandulf IV of Capua (1016–1049).52 We have no other news of any activities carried out in the areas of Spoleto and Camerino over the following years. In a similar way to his ancestors, the only indications of his authority derive from the notarial habit of dating documents according to years of ducal government: for the period of Hugh II we possess seven documents, of which six pertain to the march of Camerino and relate to both the monastery of S. Vittore sul Sentino and to the abbey of Chiaravalle of Fiastra;53 in addition to one in the region of Spoleto related to the monastery of Fonte Avellana.54 Operations of direct patrimonial administration undertaken in the Bolognese, on the other hand, are better recorded,55 and they illustrate the attention given by the duke to seignorial and fiscal rights on the land that he possessed.56 Among these property regulations, we also find evidence of the group’s first real relationship with the town’s religious institutions,57 with the group’s first grant for the Bolognese chapter. The first time Henry III (1039–1056) appeared in Italy between 1046 and 1047, Marquis Hugh was 48 See Collavini, ‘Ranieri’. 49 Gasparrini Leporace, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi’, pp. 41–2. 50 Gasparrini Leporace, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi’, p. 43. 51 The limit ante quem is July 1056, when the duchy of Spoleto was already controlled by Pope Victor II: Gasparrini Leporace, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi’, p. 44. 52 Pio, ‘Poteri pubblici’, p. 565. 53 Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 2, nos. 43, 45, 52, 53; these are all patrimonial acts, stipulated between 1040 and 1043, see also Le carte del monastero di S. Vittore, nos. 36, 37, 39, 41, 42. The act from Fiastra is dated to 1042: Le carte dell’abbazia di Chiaravalle, no. 4. 54 Carte di Fonte Avellana, no. 6 (dated to February 1053). 55 See also Chapter 6. 56 In particular, our sources refer to the collection of tolls (ripaticus) upon the Gaibana river in the plain between Bologna and Ferrara: Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo, Perg., ser. A, no. 1. 57 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 210: the grant disposed by Count Albert in 1074 followed a previous one by his father Hugh, during the bishopric of Adalfredus.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

137

a member of the imperial entourage; on 7 April 1047 he attended a judicial assembly held by the emperor in Ravenna on the rights to the castle of Polenta in the Apennines south of Forlì.58 Hugh’s political fortune therefore appears to be securely linked to the presence of Henry in Italy but, following the death of his father in 1039, the emperor-in-waiting’s long absence from the peninsula cannot have helped the rather superficially rooted public authority that Hugh held in the area of Spoleto and Camerino. Although news of the death of Marquis Hugh II dates from January 1056, he can be presumed to have died slightly prior to that time. After his death the family remained united. Indeed, at the manumission of a servant residing at the castle of Pianoro, we find Hugh’s widow, Willa and the couple’s sons, Hugh III, Albert I, Hubald IV and Boniface III, convened at the monastery of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano for the liberation ceremony, alongside other distinguished figures close to the group including a vicecomes and a comessarius.59 The unity demonstrated by the descendants of the marquis in this circumstance was the dominant feature of family behaviour until the middle of the eleventh century. However, the prominence attained by Marquis Hugh II at the highest levels of the kingdom was never a likelihood for his children. Indeed, although they maintained their father’s relationships with the archbishop of Ravenna and the church of Bologna,60 they never increased their political importance beyond their own patrimonial areas and never substantiated the countship title which, although held by everyone, did not bring any public prerogatives. Each of Hugh’s descendants acted in the group’s traditional territorial and patrimonial spheres, which corresponded to the Apennine areas of Bologna and those of the plains between Bologna and Ferrara.61 Particularly in the latter sector, the most active was Hugh III. Between the 1060s and 1070s, and thanks to a close relationship with bishops Roland and Gratian of Ferrara, Hugh obtained control of a number of parishes and tithe rights to two villages, as well as successfully regaining in inheritance dating from the previous century.62 The fiduciary relationship built with 58 I placiti, vol. 3.1, no. 374. 59 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 1, cols. 853–5; Savioli, Annali bolognesi, vol. 1.2, no. 57. On the manumissio act procedure see Chapter 7. 60 See the already mentioned donation to the Bolognese cathedral chapter of 1074 and the emphyteosis requested by Adelheid of Albert I to Archbishop Wibert: Paris, BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latines, 2573, fol. 22, no. 23. 61 On the Hucpolding patrimonial situation in the second half of the eleventh century see Chapter 6. 62 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 5, cols. 615–16; the inheritance mentioned is that of Marquis Almericus II.

138 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the bishops of Ferrara gave Count Hugh access to the circle of counts to whom the Canossa entrusted administrative duties over the city and surrounding area.63 Among these, Count Hugh attended a placitum presided over by Countess Matilda in the city of Ferrara between September and November 1079 (in reference to a property dispute between the monastery of Pomposa and the bishopric of Ferrara).64 Hugh’s presence at a placitum chaired by Matilda at the height of the investiture disputes does not, however, seem to be a useful factor in delineating Hugh’s support for the papacy. Persistent use of the years of Henry IV’s reign (1056–1106) to date documents, however, makes traditional support for the imperial faction very likely,65 as this also held a clear majority on Bolognese territory,66 at least until 1096.67 An indication of probable contrast between pro-Gregorian bishops and the Hucpoldings can be found in the patrimonial grants contained in the privilege issued by the pope to Bishop Lambert in March 1074.68 Although the tradition and tone of the text provoke a number of doubts as to its complete authenticity,69 a genuine document by Gregory VII can be supposed for at least a part of the assets listed, and acknowledgement of this is found in a prior imperial decree. A portion of the possessions recalled in the privilege included the estates of Brento and Iola close to Pianoro, and the fiscal rights of teloneo and ripatico on the Gaibana stream.70 All these settlements are found within an area which had been the focus of the patrimonial interests of Bolognese cathedral canons from the middle of the eleventh century, as stated in Henry III’s diploma for them.71 The patrimonial inclusion of the pro-Gregorian bishop might have been intended as an anti-imperial exploitation of the chapter’s patrimonial position in those areas of the ancient district of Brento, in other words, in key locations of Hucpolding presence in the Bologna area since the previous century. Seen in this perspective, the grant that Count Albert I made in favour of the cathedral chapter barely a month later72 would acquire 63 Castagnetti, Società e politica a Ferrara, pp. 49–51. 64 I placiti, vol. 3.1, nos. 452, 453. 65 Santini, ‘La contessa Matilde’, pp. 413–4. 66 Pio, ‘Poteri pubblici’, p. 568. 67 Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 169–70; Paolini, ‘La Chiesa e la città’, p. 661. 68 Codice, ed. Fanti and Paolini, no. 52. 69 The issue of authenticity of the privilegium is still open: Codice, ed. Fanti and Paolini, p. 139. 70 Places and properties mentioned in the privilegium are identif ied in Benati, ‘Possessi e diritti’, pp. 35–6. 71 DD H III, no. 346. The diploma survived through a twelfth century copy without any datatio; see also Lazzari, Comitato, p. 124. 72 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 210.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

139

a major political importance in opposing or at least reducing the effect that the papal privilege might have had within the episcopal curia. Albert’s grant was a confirmation of a previous donation issued by his father Hugh and openly neglected the figure of the bishop. The count clearly wanted to reinforce relationships with those representatives of episcopal vassals well established in the chapter and influential among city aristocracy.73 In the final decades of the century, counts Albert I and Hubald IV had to face the unfavourable political situation caused by the success of the papal side and by the renewed influence of Canossa over Bologna.74 They alienated a large part of their landed assets spread across the plains, preferring instead to concentrate on fortified settlements in the Apennines.75 The position of Count Hubert, son of Albert, did not alter the trend. If, through a pledge contract dated 1070, the father was still able to include payment of half of the total amount of the fine to be collected by his own chamber,76 his son Hubert appears to have been patrimonially excluded from that same plains area near Funo. At the beginning of the twelfth century, even the family possessions inside the castle of Pianoro were put up for sale, perhaps in order to realize some of the landed wealth.77 The notable patrimonial reduction and political isolation were both the cause and the effect of the kinship group’s situation from the middle of the eleventh century. The most active branch of the group in the Bologna area and closest to imperial power – the branch represented by the children of Marquis Hugh II – was the most damaged by the unrest caused by the investiture controversy. The failure of direct dialogue with the imperial powers, Matilda of Canossa’s definitive ascent to power, and the political affirmation achieved by the citizens of Bologna (with no possibility of appeal) decreed the irrelevance of the lineage on the political stage. A draft diploma was composed by the citizenry of Bologna in 1116 to stipulate an agreement with Emperor Henry V,78 following the death of the Countess Matilda and the destruction of the city’s imperial fortress.79 73 On the social composition of the cathedral chapter see Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 105–6. 74 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 99. 75 See Chapter 6. 76 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 177. This act has been considered as evidence of Albert’s public power over the Bolognese: Vicinelli, ‘La famiglia dei Conti’, pp. 173–4; Pio, ‘Poteri pubblici’, p. 567. On the contrary, it witnesses a seignorial development upon family properties. 77 Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 189. 78 DD H V, no. 179. The only surviving copies of the Henry V’s documents for the citizens of Bologna are included in the early thirteenth-century commune register, the Registro Grosso. Both charters are edited and commented in Spagnesi, Wernerius, pp. 71–8. 79 See La rocca imperiale di Bologna.

140 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

This diploma demonstrates the existence of an initial form of institutional urban structure.80 It envisages imposing strong discipline on the seignorial forces dominant in the area between the city and the river Po, especially through impositions on the mobility of goods and people.81 Among the counts, marquises and vassals of Canossa present at the imperial assembly in Governolo (Piacenza) on 15 May was Hubert comes Bononie. On that occasion, the representative of the Hucpolding group must have witnessed the new political prominence acquired by the Bolognese cives, who in a few decades and to his detriment had been able to claim and purchase effective jurisdictional rights over the contado surrounding the city.82

The Ties that Bind: Boniface of Canossa and Kinship Networks across the Apennines Earlier, we included among the children of Boniface I the elusive figure of Count Adimarus. This man, about whom we possess little documentation, was active during the second half of the tenth century. He played a decisive role in the management of a number of patrimonial sectors belonging to the group while, thanks to his descendants, pursuing new alliances with important figures in the Italian aristocracy, including the Canossa. The only known event of Adimarus’ life is the previously mentioned property confirmation in favour of the monastery of Settimo, dated approximately 988, which assured, generaliter, the donations previously arranged by his father, Boniface, and his grandfather, Hubald.83 The deed, though lacking in detail, bears witness to a continuity of interest and economic presence – going well back in time and relevant to the Florentine area – then maintained with the same intermediaries by Bernard of Adimarus and by his kin. Furthermore, the document also enables us to double-check the use of the title of count by this son of Boniface I, who nevertheless cannot have enjoyed any concomitant powers of a public nature, as did his brothers. In addition to safeguarding the patrimony in the area of Florence, Adimarus also took charge of significant properties in the Apennine area of Bologna in the furthest western portion of the iudiciaria Mutinensis. 80 See Wickham, ‘Sulle origini del comune’, pp. 218–21. 81 Spagnesi, Wernerius, p. 73. 82 On the Bologna commune institution see Lazzari, ‘Società cittadina’; Wickham, ‘Sulle origini del comune’. 83 Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, app. 1, no. 1. See the analysis in Chapter 5.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

141

These were formerly controlled by his father and remained for a long time within the seignorial sphere of the group. The deed that advises of these possessions, and the situation of the kinship group in these areas is a notitia recordationis of an agreement stipulated between the heirs of Adimarus on 17 March 1034:84 Boniface of Canossa, Maginfred son of Hubald and indirectly Boniface son of Henry. They decided to remit to a judicial assembly, presided over by their cousin Hugh II, the resolution of the disputes which had arisen over the division of the patrimony inherited by their common ancestor.85 Over the early decades of the eleventh century, castles and lands held by Adimarus in the area of Bologna had become the assets of his three grandsons: Maginfred son of Hubald, who appears to have owned the largest part; Boniface of Canossa, clear promoter of the new property split, as it favoured his interests; and Boniface son of Henry, owner of a smaller part. Descent from Adimarus via the male lineage can be presumed for Maginfred and for this Boniface, given that care was taken in the deed to mention the names of their fathers, Hubald and Henry, respectively. In the case of Marquis Boniface on the other hand, whose paternal ancestry is unquestionable, the parental connection had to depend on his mother, Willa,86 who, despite not being mentioned in the deed, was nonetheless among the children of Adimarus. It was Hubald, as another of the offspring of Adimarus (perhaps even the first-born), who kept the principal name of the kin and the most conspicuous part of the paternal inheritance, and passed down to his son, Maginfred. Boniface of Canossa’s attention must have been drawn to his portion of inheritance at the moment he attained the Tuscan march, when control of movement between the two sides of the Apennines acquired substantial strategic value. Thanks to his eminent political position, Boniface of Canossa sought – successfully87 – to renegotiate his hereditary rights, which perhaps had formerly been weakened by his mother’s distance from the Bolognese Apennine. At the root of the affair therefore lay the union of the two dominant kinship groups in the kingdom of Italy between the tenth and eleventh centuries. The matrimonial strategy previously adopted by Adalbert Atto, which sought access to new estates through hypergamic matrimony with a 84 Carte dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Pisa, vol. 1, no. 102. 85 On the judicial procedure see Bougard, ‘Falsum falsorum judicum consilium’, pp. 301–2. On the patrimony involved see Chapter 6. 86 Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 79, 97. 87 On this patrimonial issue, which would end later with the donation Matilda of Canossa granted to the church of Pisa, see Manarini, ‘Ai confini con l’Esarcato’.

142 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

woman of higher rank,88 was also taken up by his son Tedald. By marrying the ducatrix Willa – as noted by Donizo89 – he was able to consolidate his position in Emilia between the areas of Modena and Bologna,90 while expanding his influence in Romagna towards the Tuscan side.91 This was an area then extensively travelled by Tedald, who became bishop of Arezzo in 1023, and by Marquis Boniface. Despite imperial favour sitting openly on the side of the Canossas,92 matrimony guaranteed both groups peaceful, autonomous activity in distinct sectors of the iudiciaria, especially in the territories of the ancient iudiciaria Mutinensis. It also permitted Willa’s kindred to maintain their own patrimony and seignorial domains which had developed from public powers exercised over the old district of Brento and the northern plains of Bologna. The systematic union with spouses of higher social rank was one of the winning strategies adopted by the Canossa kinship group. Although the origins of Ildegard, wife of Adalbert Atto, are uncertain – she might have belonged to the Supponid group93 – she enabled her husband to enter Emilian aristocracy more easily. He was thus able to accentuate his patrimonial hegemony, especially in the public districts entrusted to him by royal power.94 In turn, his son Tedald, already comes like his father, obtained further elevation of rank thanks to his wife Willa, granddaughter of Marquis Boniface I, who could boast an illustrious ancestry as far back as the Carolingian period and counted among her cousins, two marquises of Tuscia, Hugh I and Boniface II. As further confirmation of the eminent lineage of this woman, superior to that of her husband, we find Donizo’s reference identifying Willa as ducatrix, and confirming that her description and quality were based on family rank alone with no moral implication whatsoever. This was preponderant in the case of the docta and prudens Ildegard.95 Tedald, therefore, could honour himself with the rank and title 88 Fumagalli, Terra e società, p. 129. 89 Donizone, Vita di Matilde di Canossa, v. 452, p. 46. Willa is also remembered in 1007, when Tedald founded ‘pro anima mea et quondam Vuillie conius mee’ (on behalf of my soul and that of the late Willa, my spouse) the monastery of S. Benedetto in Polirone: Codice diplomatico polironiano, no. 14. 90 See Chapter 6. 91 Lazzari, ‘Aziende fortificate’, pp. 105–7. 92 Lazzari, ‘Aziende fortificate’, pp. 103–5. 93 Lazzari, ‘Aziende fortificate’, pp. 99–101; Golinelli, Matilde e i Canossa, p. 35; a Berthalding ancestry is proposed by Pallavicino, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, pp. 276–7. 94 Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 232. 95 On the descriptions of Canossan spouses by Donizo see Bertolini, ‘Note di genealogia’, pp. 132–40. Especially on Willa see Chapter 7.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

143

of marquis, acquiring it through matrimony from the kinship group of his wife, despite never having gained control of any public district of that sort. The titles with which Tedald is indicated as the main authority of a placitum near Brescia are somewhat illustrative: ‘in iudicio resideret domnus Teudaldus marchio et comes ipsius comitatus Bresianense’ (Marquis Tedald and count of Brescia presides over the assembly), where the comital title is expressly linked to the countship of Brescia, while the marquisal one seems to refer to the person of Tedald himself and thus to his social rank.96 Tedald of Canossa also borrowed a name associated with the kin of his wife for his son: Boniface, probably his second born, who would continue his line of descent. The Canossa onomastic strategy dictated that names be varied – the only exception being Tedald – according to opportunities and specific circumstances. The choice of the name Boniface clearly links back to the marquisal rank of Adalberting/Hucpolding blood and explicitly to the public district of Tuscia, which in the early years of the eleventh century was led by Tedald’s Hucpolding cousin, Boniface II. Once Boniface of Canossa’s participation in the agreement of 1034 had been clarified, the figure of Maginfred son of Hubald, primary counterpart to the marquis, gained an importance that was anything but irrelevant within the wider kinship group. Despite the absence of a dignitary title, he held a strong position within the kinship. The same agreement demonstrates his abilities to negotiate even with such a powerful figure as the marquis of Tuscia. Although in itself in the interests of all concerned, keeping patrimonial clauses in writing, unquestionably constituted a further guarantee for Maginfred, who did not possess the coercive power of his two marchisal cousins, Hugh II and Boniface of Canossa. He must have had significant power to act, and therefore to negotiate, as he had solid seignorial bases within his considerable assets entirely integrated within the group’s patrimonial area. In addition to the castles in the Bolognese Apennine, Maginfred possessed plots of land in the plains of Faenza97 owned by the group since the ninth century and controlled by his cousin Hugh II, and further to these, castles and territories in the mountains of the Florentine Mugello.98 Control of a number of fortified structures on the Apennine peaks between Emilia and Tuscany permitted legitimate opportunities for him to interact with 96 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 259. On Tedald’s titles and attestations see R. Rinaldi, Tra le carte di famiglia, pp. 59–72. Since Tedald’s first mention using the title of marchio is dated 989, that year could be assumed as a limit before which we can place his marriage with Willa; on this act, kept at Nonantola, see R. Rinaldi, Tra le carte di famiglia, p. 63. 97 On Maginfred’s properties in the territory of Faenza see Chapter 4. 98 See Chapter 5.

144 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the various branches of the extended kinship group that had settled to the north and south of the Apennine ridge; his marriage to a certain Gisla may also have led to this network of relations. Patrimonial proximity and significant clues in names lead us to cautiously emplace this Gisla within the Guidi lineage. She was a daughter of Count Guy II, who was in turn the son of a woman named Gisla and probably the brother of another Gisla.99 The couple had a son named Guy, dominus of the castle of Bisano, located in the same Apennine area referred to in the agreement of 1034. Over the early part of the twelfth century, that locality was still home to Guy son of Maginfred’s three children, Maginfred, Hubald and Guy, which is a clear indication of this line of descendants belonging to the wider kinship group.100 Indeed, the three brothers controlled a part of the Bologna side of the Apennines to the west, very close to the branch which had originated from Count Hugh II,101 who would establish their main fortified residence there in Casalecchio dei Conti. Maginfred son of Hubald therefore held an important position within the kinship group in the eleventh century. Although not directly involved in the great political issues of the kingdom – a possible explanation of his lack of a dignitary title – he succeeded in establishing his dominion over a large portion of the Apennine territory next to other areas of the group’s influence. The descendants of Count Adimarus taken into consideration thus far were active north of the Apennine ridge. To the south of the Emilian Apennines in Florentine territory where the Hucpoldings had early and long-standing asset interests, it would appear plausible to identify a further line of ancestry which originates from the same individual and therefore known as the Adimari.102 They inherited the possessions and relations of loyalty that the group had in Florence and its territory. Although the genealogical transition is not entirely clear in available documentary sources, in the middle of the eleventh century prosopographical 99 See Table G5. 100 Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 3, no. 151: in 1109 Maginfred, Hubald and Guy donated lands on behalf of the monastery of Settefonti. Futhermore, Pope Alexander III’s privilege granted in 1177 to Settefonti mentions explicitly the familial links between Guy of castrum Bixani and Maginfred son of Hubald: Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 4, no. 52. 101 In 1118, the three brothers received a part of the Scanello estate from the church of Pisa: Carte dell’Archivio capitolare di Pisa, no. 88; on the relationship – at some points perhaps even hostile – between them and Pisa see Manarini, ‘Ai confini con l’Esarcato’. 102 A general overview on this lineage, though it is not considered to be a branch of the Hucpoldings, is to be found in Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, pp. 261–5. It is worth noting that Count Adimarus’ descendants are not to be confused with the family of the same name, the Adimari, who were notable among the Florentine urban aristocracy from the end of the tenth century.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

145

elements converge on Bernard, son of Adimarus comes. The peculiarity of the name Adimarus in the area of Florence permits us to associate, with a fair degree of certainty, this count with the son of Boniface I with the same name, who was active in the Florentine area around 988. Nevertheless, as the only document which refers to Bernard is dated 1046,103 only with some care can we establish a direct relationship between the two, given the broad time gap between the two documents. Since it has been determined that Boniface I died in 953, Adimarus must have been at least 35 in 988. We are faced, then, with two main possibilities. If we identify Bernard as Adimarus’ son, we have to infer a lifespan of not less than 50 years for both father and son. The second option is to presume an intermediate generation between Count Adimarus and Bernard, that is, a homonymous Adimarus, also displaying the title of count like his father. This hypothesis could be supported by the same document of 1046 since two brothers also figure among the witnesses to the refuta (restitution act) executed by Bernard: Eppo and Hugh, sons of a certain Adimarus, who could also be the same Adimarus as Bernard’s father. The patrimonial value of the document and the eminent position in the order of appearence of the two brothers compared with the other witnesses would confirm the theory that they were close relations of Bernard.104 Finally, the comparison with the periods of activity of Adimarus’ other grandchildren around the third decade of the century would likewise allow us to consider the second hypothesis more plausible. A theoretical inclusion among Count Adimarus’ children – Willa, Hubald and Henry – of a homonymous Adimarus II, also comes, acquires therefore important grounds for plausibility. The use of family names is in line with that of the original Hucpolding group: in the generation that succeeds Bernard, son of Adimarus II, we find the names Hubald, Adimarus, Bernard, Boniface and Albert – all of whom were sons of Eppo, son of Adimarus II. In the twelfth century, the leading name of the group, modified as Hubaldinus, still remained an important distinctive feature of this branch of the family, along with the more unusual names of Adimarus and Bernard. Albeit without preserving the public title of count belonging to the original aristocratic group, descendants of Adimarus I established their presence in Florentine territories. This was due, first, to their close patrimonial 103 Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, no. 7. 104 See also Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, pp. 261–2. Another issue is posed by a donation dated 1077 (CdC Firenze, no. 93) issued by Adimarus son of Bernard, among the witnesses is attested Fulco bone memorie Ademari. He could be then included among Count Adimarus II’s sons with Bernard, Eppo and Hugh.

146 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

connections with the town chapter; second, to their dynastic interlinkage with other aristocratic groups; and finally, to their good relationships with representatives of public power in Tuscia, at that time appanage of the Canossa dynasty. Bernard, son of Adimarus II, introduced his son Bernard II into the chapter of the cathedral of S. Giovanni of Florence, where he held the office of archdeacon from 1036.105 This office, which he held for over sixty years,106 enabled him to acquire a number of castles and land owned by the chapter itself.107 At the beginning of the twelfth century, the lineage still had important representatives in the chapter, and the help of the Florentine Bishop Ranieri (1071–1113) who, despite accusations of unfair and compulsory tax levies, permitted them to control the churches of S. Martino and S. Angelo di Gangalandi.108 The situation was probably taken up by the town, using it as a pretext to deploy the Florentine army to destroy the castle of Gangalandi,109 the core of family power along the Arno to the west of Florence near the abbey of Settimo. With the demolition of the castle, the group’s noble pre-eminence in the area suffered a heavy blow; nevertheless, with the interest and consensus of Bishop Ranieri and Archdeacon Peter and through the restitution of an arbitrary tax collection, the descendants of Bernard and Eppo were permitted to reform the administration of the two churches into a single body. They were permitted to put the chapters of both under the control of a single prior, a complete settlement which was accompanied by a suitable endowment of property. The area of Gangalandi later came under the control of Eppo’s descendants who reinforced their seignorial domain. Until as early as the twelfth century, they bestowed upon themselves the title of counts of Gangalandi.110 The favourable position occupied by Bernard and his offspring within Florence in the eleventh century also gave them a close relationship with the gastalds of Countess Matilda.111 They were able to establish profitable neighbourly relations with the Cadolings and particularly with the Guidi. 105 His first mention is his signature in a Florentine episcopal deed on behalf of the chapter: CdC Firenze, no. 98. 106 His last mention is a contract agreed in 1098 about lands in Florentine territory: CdC Firenze, no. 150. On his other acts between 1036 and 1098 see CdC Firenze, ad indicem. 107 CdC Firenze, no. 168. 108 CdC Firenze, no. 156. 109 Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 237. 110 Pescaglini Monti, ‘La famiglia dei Visconti’, p. 81 and n. 47. 111 CdC Firenze, no. 93: also Guy and Bonofantinus, gastalds of the countess, attended the donation act in 1077.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

147

In the case of the Cadolings, sources limit us to supposing that the contacts between the two groups commenced from significant adjacent properties,112 which, as well as being in Florentine territory, are also recorded in the areas of Pistoia, Lucca and Fucecchio.113 Relationships with the Guidi, on the other hand, are well documented, especially during the period of activity of Guy IV and Guy V Guerra, spanning the decades which bridged the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The closeness of properties in the Florentine territory of the Apennines called Pratomagno lay at the root of the connections between the Guidi lineage and Adimarus IV and Hildebrand sons of Hubald, which are the most frequently mentioned in Guidi deeds between 1098 and 1114, always in a position of superiority compared with others assembled there.114 The shares of property, which from the early decades of the eleventh century were already associated with the lineage of the first Adimarus,115 must have derived from the considerable possessions that the Hucpoldings seized in the Apennine area between Tuscany and the lands of Bologna and Faenza. This is where the Guidi also gained a part of their initial patrimony, thanks to Gisla daughter of Hubald II. The only documents which provide evidence to this effect fail to prove beyond doubt the existence of real relationships of loyalty more formal than those of family solidarity, which remained noteworthy despite the relevant generational gap. The most striking result achieved, thanks to the Guidi influence, was the introduction of the Adimari into social circuits for them unprecedented, depending on a number of monastic establishments such as S. Fedele of Strumi, S. Salvatore of Fucecchio, S. Mercuriale of Pistoia and S. Maria of Vallombrosa. The latter abbey was an important intermediary for Adimarus IV and Hildebrand, given its proximity to the family property located in Pratomagno: in 1096, after Count Guy IV had supported Vallombrosa,116 the two brothers then transferred lands and woods to the monks, seeking to be buried in the monastery in exchange.117 Adimarus IV’s sons, Bernard and Hubaldinus, represent the fourth known generation in the Adimari lineage. When the archpriest for the church and 112 Especially in Mugello, where in 1091/2 Purpure daughter of the late Bernard – likely Bernard son of Adimarus II – and her son Bernard sold to Count Hugh of the Cadolings their parts of the church of S. Martino Adimari: Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, nos. 19, 20. 113 On Eppo’s descendants and their presence in the territory of Lucca see Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 264. 114 Documenti, ed. Rauty, nos. 98, 121, 136, 143, 146, 150, 152. 115 Already in 1039, a terra Adimari emerges among boundaries in a donation to Vallombrosa: Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. XIII. 116 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 91. 117 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 92.

148 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Florentine chapter awarded the two brothers received the property held by their great-uncle Archdeacon Bernard,118 the deed for the exchange of lands (permuta) dating to 1124 is the last document relating to this branch of the group. After the clash in Gangalandi, they were perhaps unable to maintain a significant position within the city, thus preferring to retreat to their fortified castles in the Florentine countryside and in the Apennines.

The Counts of Romena-Panico Prosopographical observations made thus far have permitted us to outline the affairs and ancestral structures of the Hucpoldings until the beginning of the twelfth century. However, for the genealogical diagram to be as complete as possible, it is necessary to take a step back and reconsider one of the group’s most important documents: the establishment of the monastery of Musiano in 981.119 In addition to the authors of this act, Adalbert II and Bertilla, the couple’s three children also participated: Boniface II, Walfredus and Adalbert III. Whereas we have previously accounted for the first two, the figure of Adalbert III has until now remained on the margins. Interestingly enough, he is the genealogical link between the Hucpoldings and the forefathers of the Romena-Panico branch, a lineage that between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries played a primary role among the power brokers of the Bologna commune.120 The document of 981 is the only trace leading directly to Adalbert III, about whom we know nothing substantial other than his name and that, at the time the document was written, he was still a minor.121 These snippets of information, however, allow us to attribute paternity to a Count Guy, who, in a donation relating to the Casentinese in 1055, declared himself to be the son of a late Albert and to be living according to the lex Ripuaria.122 Precisely the singularity of the stated law strongly corroborates the hypothesis that places this Count Guy within the kinship group: not too common in the kingdom of Italy, it is clearly distinctive of the Hucpolding group at least from the tenth century.123 The Tuscan area of interest mentioned in this 118 CdC Firenze, no. 168. 119 Bologna 10, no. 11. 120 See Manarini, ‘I conti di Panico’. 121 Adalbert III was the only one among Adalbert II’s sons who did not sign the act. He should have been still underage by then: Ammannati, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico’, p. 159. 122 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 280. 123 See Chapter 7.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

149

document must not be allowed to mislead us, as the Casentinese property area was certainly no stranger to the group; furthermore, from the second part of the tenth century it was one of the zones within which the Guidi lineage – whose strong links to the Hucpoldings have already been ascertained several times – built their aristocratic prominence. How Count Guy son of Adalbert III came to have such a high number of properties in Casentino, specifically in the pieve of Romena, and why he entertained patrimonial relationships with the monastery of S. Maria di Sprugnano, is not known exactly. Despite this, a probable explanation is provided by the close family relationship that seems to unite this Count Guy son of Adalbert III and the Count Guy II of the Guidi. A Ravennate document dated 1029 in which Count Guy II appears before the Archbishop Gebeardus reports that the first among Guy’s followers was another Count Guy gener eius (his son-in-law).124 That most probably was Guy son of Adalbert III. Probably thanks to his wife’s dowry, he therefore had the opportunity to enlarge his jurisdiction over the Tuscan side of the Apennines.125 Count Guy son of Adalbert III had three sons: Hugh IV, Albert II and Walfredus II. As far as Count Walfredus is concerned, he is remembered in an exchange of lands drawn up with Prior Martin of Camaldoli in 1093.126 Hugh and Albert, on the other hand, maintained their father’s supraregional interests, gravitating particularly towards two fortified centres of control and becoming active in both of these territories: Panico, along the valley of the river Reno, and Romena, in Pratovecchio Casentinese. In both areas, the comital rank of the two brothers was associated with the dominance of these two pivotal localities in complete contrast to the other members of the group. Despite the traceability of the title of comites de Panigo only being more certain for the following generation,127 the title of counts of Romena is documented as early as the end of the eleventh century. This is in a document of Camaldoli written at the request of Bishop Gebizo of Fiesole.128 Following the support granted by their father Guy in 1055 to the monastery of Sprugnano, which evidently, at that time, came under the control of this 124 Rossi, Historiarum Ravennatum, p. 278. See Delumeau, Arezzo: espace et société, pp. 394–5 and n. 291. 125 Ammannati, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico’, pp. 164–5. 126 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 569. 127 The first mention of the name is a document of 1068, though with a debated tradition: Le carte ferraresi, no. 52; see Lazzari, Comitato, p. 94, n. 161. In 1108, it appears again in a Bolognese act: Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 164. 128 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 622.

150 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

branch of the kindred, Hugh IV and Albert II transferred and refounded the institution in the nearby locality of Poppiena.129 After the request of Bishop William of Fiesole, they entrusted the monastery to the prior of Camaldoli in 1099,130 together with the four dependent churches located in the surrounding area.131 Interestingly enough, a provision in the donation text explicitly interdicted the bishop of Arezzo or any other person in the diocese intercepting the donated goods. The whole affair is also reported in two missives preliminary to the final grant, which have survived to the present day. A letter from Bishop William to Count Hugh invited the count to donate the monastery of S. Maria, perhaps out of respect for the new canonical regulations concerning the ownership of churches and monasteries by the laity.132 A subsequent letter sent by Count Hugh to his brother Albert.133 At the time, Hugh was residing at the castle of Panico and dictated the missive to his parish priest, begging his brother, then in Tuscany, to carry out the requests of the bishop of Fiesole.134 This exchange of correspondence primarily enables us to consider the management methods adopted by the two brothers for their properties (no mention is made of Walfredus), while striving to maintain their presence on both sides of the Apennines: since Count Hugh was unable to deal with Tuscan properties, he entrusted to his brother – who at that time must have been in Romena – the task of contacting the prior of Camaldoli to draft the grant. Also, there was a considerably closer relationship between the counts and the priest of the pieve of S. Lorenzo di Panico, situated just in front of their castle beyond the river Reno.135 Judging by the writing and linguistic expertise exhibited by the prelate, the counts must have had an important administrative, as well as religious, centre in S. Lorenzo for the Bolognese sector of their territories. After 1099, there are no more documents supporting the presence of the Romena-Panico in Casentino. Although the patrimonial donations discussed did not directly undermine the counts’ estate, it probably was 129 Wickham, La montagna e la città, p. 216. 130 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 620. 131 S. Maria in Pietrafitta, S. Michele Arcangelo in Poppiena, S. Egidio di Gaviserre and S. Niccolò di Lago; on their localization see Ammannati, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico’, p. 155, n. 11. 132 See Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’, pp. 49–50. Also in 1085, his third cousin Hubert granted to Musiano the church of Migarano, close to Budrio; see Chapter 6. 133 Lettere originali del Medioevo latino, nos. 11, 12. See also Ammannati, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico’, pp. 149–5. 134 Just few days after Albert’s donation, Bishop Gebizo of Pistoia confirmed the count’s act on behalf of Camaldoli: Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 622. 135 See Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, pp. 370–7.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

151

eventually weakened by the donation of the abbey of Poppiena and almost all its numerous properties to the monastery of Camaldoli, excluding only those relating to the pieve of Romena. Their position was made more critical when, at the beginning of the twelfth century, the priors of Camaldoli began to support the Guidi more assertively. They received permission to found a nunnery at the church of Poppiena, where, in 1132, one of Guy Guerra’s daughters became abbess.136 Finally, to conclude the presence of the Hucpoldings in Casentino, among the possessions conf irmed to the Guidi in the diploma of 1164 by Frederick I there is also the castle of Romena.137 Once interests in the mountains of Casentino had faded, the descendants of Hugh IV and Albert II concentrated on the Bologna side of the Apennines, demonstrating firm stability in the positions that had by then been acquired by the kinship group throughout a number of centuries. Count Albert himself had in 1094 endeavoured to strengthen control over the castle of Petrosa and the surrounding land.138 This is in that area of the lower Bologna Apennines nowadays around Zola Predosa, where at that time the estate of the abbey of Nonantola was flourishing with the decisive help of the Canossan authority.139 The son of Albert, Count Milo, was active in the first two decades of the twelfth century and maintained control over the family patrimony along the valleys of the river Reno and the river Setta, entertaining – perhaps for anti-Nonantola purposes – patrimonial relationships with the nearby coenobium of S. Elena of Sacerno.140 We note that the evocation of the aristocratic rank of count also runs in this branch of the kinship group, with the only doubt being over the forefather Adalbert III, who never appears directly in sources. So, despite a constant use of the title of count for three generations, there are no clues as to the performance in some public office or even recognizable interactions with imperial authorities. It is only with Count Hugh V di Panigo, whose ancestry cannot be identified with any degree of certainty,141 that 136 Ammannati, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico’, p. 165. 137 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 226. 138 Tiraboschi, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro, vol. 2, no. 198; where Albert bestowed lands in the castle surroundings to Ragimbertus of Petrosa, where the man represented the count’s power. 139 Cerami, ‘Strategie patrimoniali’, pp. 88–90. 140 The monastery was located in modern Sacerno, in the western plain close to Anzola dell’Emilia (Bologna). On Milo’s patrimonial activity see Chapter 6. 141 We could prudently include Hugh V in the generation of Count Milo, possibly as son of Count Hugh IV son of Guy.

152 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the lineage had access to the court of Emperor Henry V (on the occasion of a placitum held in 1116 in Quarneto, near Faenza).142 It is difficult to identify the reasons underlying this marked difference in behaviour by one branch of the group compared with the rest of their relations, where connections with the imperial authority always represent an indispensable and qualifying element in obtaining land and power. Perhaps that branch of the group that settled in the western portion of the Bologna Apennines did not need to entertain legitimizing relationships with the emperor. Perhaps because of the sharp rise of communal power, the Panico lineage only needed the emperor at the beginning of the twelfth century.

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo, Perg., ser. A, no. 1 Paris, BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latines, 2573.

Printed Primary Sources Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Anselmo Costadoni, 9 vols. (Venezia: Pasquali, 1755–73). Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, by Ludovico A. Muratori, 6 vols. (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1738–42). Carte dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Pisa: Fondo Arcivescovile, vol. 1: 720–1200, ed. by Antonella Ghignoli (Pisa: Pacini, 2006). Carte dell’Archivio capitolare di Pisa, vol. 4: 1101–1120, ed. by Matilde Tirelli Carli (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1969). Carte di Fonte Avellana, vol. 1: 975–1139, ed. by Celestino Pierucci and Alberto Polverari (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1972). Codice diplomatico della chiesa bolognese: documenti autentici e spuri (secoli IV–XII), ed. by Mario Fanti and Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: ISIME, 2004). Codice diplomatico polironiano, ed. by Rossella Rinaldi, Carla Villani and Paolo Golinelli, vol. 1: 961–1125 (Bologna: Patron, 1993). Conradi I, Heinrici I et Ottonis I diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1879–84). 142 DD H V, no. 195; Spagnesi, Wernerius, pp. 79–84.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

153

Conradi II diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Konrad II 1024–1039, ed. by Heinrich von Appelt, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1.1 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I. und Otto I 919–973, ed. by Emil von Ottenthal, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1 (Innsbruck: Wagner’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1893). Die Urkunden Heinrichs V und der Königin Mathilde, ed. by Matthias Thiel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 7, digital pre-edition, https:// data.mgh.de/databases/ddhv/index.htm (accessed 26 March 2021). Documenti per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana: le origini e i primi secoli (887–1164), ed. by Natale Rauty (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2003). Donizone, Vita di Matilde di Canossa, ed. by Paolo Golinelli (Milano: Jaca Book, 2008). Heinrici III diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau and Paul F. Kehr, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germanie 5 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1931). I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. by Cesare Manaresi, 3 vols. (Roma: ISIME, 1955–60). Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte bolognesi del secolo XI, ed. by Giovanni Feo, 2 vols. (Roma: Accademia delle scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, 2001) Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano di Bologna e di S. Bartolomeo di Musiano (1001–1125), ed. by Rossella Rinaldi and Carla Villani (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1984). Le carte del monastero di S. Vittore delle Chiuse sul Sentino: regesto con introduzione e note, ed. by Romualdo Sassi (Milano: Giuffrè, 1962). Le carte dell’abbazia di Chiaravalle di Fiastra, vol. 1:1006–1180, ed. by Attilio De Luca (Spoleto: CISAM, 1997). Le carte della canonica della cattedrale di Firenze (723–1149), ed. by Renato Piattoli (Roma: ISIME, 1938). Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo e della Badia del Buonsollazzo nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (998–1200), ed. by Antonella Ghignoli and Anna Rosa Ferrucci (Firenze: SISMEL/Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004). Le carte ferraresi più importanti anteriori al 1117, ed. by Italo Marzola (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 900–957), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Ravenna: Società di studi ravennati, 1999). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 957–976), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2002).

154 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1001–1024), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2003). Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1025–1044), ed. by Massimo Ronchini (Faenza: BUP, 2010). Lettere originali del Medioevo latino (VII–XI sec.), vol. 1: Italia, ed. by Armando Petrucci, Giulia Ammannati, Antonino Mastruzzo and Ernesto Stagni (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 2004). Regesto di Camaldoli, vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli and Francesco Baldasseroni (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907). Regesto di S. Apollinare Nuovo, ed. by Vincenzo Federici (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907). Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris, ed. by Harry Bresslau, in Die Werke Wipos, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 61 (Hannover Lipsia: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1995), pp. 1–62.

Secondary Sources Ammannati, Giulia, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico: personaggi e luoghi da una coppia di lettere di fine XI secolo’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 6.1 (2001), pp. 149–69. Benati, Amedeo, ‘Possessi e diritti feudali del vescovo di Bologna nella montagna’, in Signori feudali e comunità appenniniche nel Medioevo: atti delle giornate di studio (Capugnano, 3–4 settembre 1994), ed. by Claudio Cappelletti and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo studi alta valle del Reno, 1995), pp. 31–8. Bertolini, Margherita Giuliana, ‘Note di genealogia e di storia canossana’, in I ceti dirigenti in Toscana nell’età precomunale: atti del I convegno (Firenze, 2 dicembre 1978) (Pisa: Pacini, 1981), pp. 111–49. Bougard, François, ‘“Falsum falsorum judicum consilium”: l’écrit et la justice en Italie centro-septentrionale au XIe siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 155 (1997), pp. 299–314. Brown, Tom, ‘Culture and Society in Ottonian Ravenna: Imperial Renewal or New Beginning?’, in Ravenna: Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, ed. by Judith Herrin and Janet Nelson (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2016), pp. 335–44. Capitani, Ovidio, ‘Adalfredo’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 1 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1960), pp. 223–4. Carile, Antonio, ‘La società ravennate dall’Esarcato agli Ottoni’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.2: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: ecclesiologia, cultura e arte, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1992), pp. 379–404.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

155

Castagnetti, Andrea, Società e politica a Ferrara dall’età postcarolingia alla signoria estense (Sec. X–XIII) (Bologna: Patron, 1985). Cerami Domenico, ‘Strategie patrimoniali e relazioni politiche dei monasteri modenesi nel territorio bolognese occidentale (secc. X–XII)’, Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia patria per le Province di Romagna 61 (2012), pp. 77–104. Collavini, Simone M., ‘Ranieri, marchese di Toscana’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 86 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2016), pp. 419–22. Cortese, Maria Elena, Signori, castelli, città: l’aristocrazia del territorio fiorentino tra X e XII secolo (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2007). Delumeau, Jean Pierre, Arezzo: espace et société, 715–1230: recherches sur Arezzo et son contado du VIIIe au début du XIIIe siècle, vol. 1 (Roma: École française de Rome, 1996). Fasoli, Gina, ‘I conti e il comitato di Imola (secc. X–XIII)’, Atti e Memorie della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie di Romagna 8 (1943), pp. 120–92. –––, ‘Sugli “Annali Bolognesi” di Ludovico Savioli’, in Gina Fasoli, Scritti di storia medievale, ed. by Francesca Bocchi, Antonio Carile and Antonio Ivan Pini (Bologna: La fotocromo emiliana, 1974), pp. 733–41. –––, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi di Ravenna fra l’VIII e l’XI secolo’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 87–140. Foschi, Paola, Renzo Zagnoni, and Paola Porta, Le pievi medievali bolognesi (secoli VIII–XV): storia e arte, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: BUP, 2009). Fumagalli, Vito, Terra e società nell’Italia padana: i secoli IX e X (Torino: Einaudi, 1976). –––, ‘La geografia culturale delle terre emiliano-romagnole nell’Alto Medioevo’, in Le sedi della cultura dell’Emilia Romagna: l’alto Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Milano: Silvana editoriale, 1983), pp. 11–27. Gasparrini Leporace, Tullia, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi di Spoleto (569–1230)’, Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria 35 (1938), pp. 5–68. Golinelli, Paolo, Matilde e i Canossa (Milano: Mursia, 2004). Hessel, Alfred, Geschichte der Stadt Bologna vom 1116 bis 1280 (Berlin: Ebering, 1910). La rocca imperiale di Bologna: archeologia romana del sito, assetto urbano, documenti medievali, ed. by Jacopo Ortalli, Carlo De Angelis and Paola Foschi (Roma: Deputazione di storia patria, 1990). Lazzari, Tiziana, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘Società cittadina e rappresentanza cetuale a Bologna (secoli X–XII)’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 106.2 (2004), pp. 71–105.

156 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

–––, ‘Aziende fortificate, castelli e pievi: le basi patrimoniali dei poteri dei Canossa e le loro giurisdizioni’, in Matilde e il tesoro dei Canossa tra castelli, monasteri e città, ed. by Arturo Calzona (Milano: Silvana editoriale, 2008), pp. 96–115. Manarini, Edoardo, ‘Ai confini con l’Esarcato: proprietà, possessi e giurisdizioni dei Canossa nel Bolognese orientale’, in Matilde di Canossa e il suo tempo: 31˚ congresso internazionale di studio del CISAM (San Benedetto Po, Revere, Mantova, Quattro Castella, 20–24 ottobre 2015) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2016), pp. 459–80. –––, ‘I conti di Panico e la prima espansione del comune di Bologna nel territorio appenninico (XII–XIII secc.)’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 31 (2018), pp. 11–48. Pallavicino, Alessandro, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 233–320. Paolini, Lorenzo, ‘La Chiesa e la città (secoli XI–XIII)’, in Storia di Bologna, vol. 2: Bologna nel Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Bologna: BUP, 2007), pp. 653–760. Pescaglini Monti, Rosanna, ‘La famiglia dei Visconti di Fucecchio (1096–1254)’, in La Valdinievole tra Lucca e Pistoia nel primo Medioevo: atti del convegno (Fucecchio, 19 maggio 1985) (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1986), pp. 65–91. Pio, Berardo, ‘Fermenti religiosi, riforma ecclesiastica e riforma gregoriana: conti e vescovi a Bologna nell’età della Riforma fino a Gregorio VII’, in Storia di Bologna, vol. 2: Bologna nel Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Bologna: BUP, 2007), pp. 359–86. –––, ‘Poteri pubblici e dinamiche sociali a Bologna nel secolo XI’, in Bologna e il secolo XI: storia, cultura, economia, istituzioni, diritto, ed. by Giovanni Feo and Francesca Roversi Monaco (Bologna: BUP, 2011), pp. 551–72. Rabotti, Giuseppe, ‘Dai vertici dei poteri medievali: Ravenna e la sua chiesa fra diritto e politica dal X al XIII secolo’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2: Dal Mille alla fine della signoria polentana, ed. by Augusto Vasina (Venezia: Marsilio, 1993) pp. 129–68. –––, ‘Il placito di Bertinoro del secolo decimo’, Studi Romagnoli 47 (1996), pp. 9–30. Rinaldi, Rossella, Tra le carte di famiglia: studi e testi canossani (Bologna: CLUEB, 2003). Rossi, Girolamo, Historiarum Ravennatum libri decem (Venezia: Guerrea, 1589). Samaritani, Antonio, ‘Gebeardo di Eichstätt, arcivescovo di Ravenna (1027–1044) e la riforma imperiale della chiesa di Romagna’, Analecta Pomposiana 3 (1967), pp. 109–40. Santini, Giovanni, ‘La contessa Matilde, lo “Studium” e Bologna “Città aperta” dell’XI sec.’, in Studi Matildici: atti e memorie del II convegno di studi matildici (Modena-Reggio Emilia, 1–3 maggio 1970) (Modena: Aedes muratoriana, 1971), pp. 409–28.

The Local Basis of Power in a Wide Political Net work (1012–1116)

157

Savioli, Ludovico Vittorio, Annali bolognesi, 3 vols. (Bassano del Grappa: Remondini, 1784–95). Sergi, Giuseppe, I confini del potere: marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Torino: Einaudi, 1995). Spagnesi, Enrico, Wernerius bononiensis iudex: la figura storica d’Irnerio (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1970). Tabacco, Giovanni, ‘Muratori medievista’, in L.A. Muratori Storiografo: atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Muratoriani (Modena, 1972), vol. 2 (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1975), pp. 3–20. Tiberini, Sandro, ‘Origini e radicamento di un lignaggio umbro-toscano nei secoli X–XI: i “Marchesi di Colle” (poi “Del Monte S. Maria”)’, Archivio Storico Italiano 152 (1994), pp. 481–559. Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro di Nonantola, vol. 2 (Modena: Società tipografica di Modena, 1785). Vasina, Augusto, Romagna medievale (Ravenna: Longo, 1970). Vespignani, Giorgio, La Romània italiana dall’Esarcato al ‘Patrimonium’: il Codex Parisinus (BNP, N.A.L., 2573) testimone della formazione di società locali nei secoli IX e X (Spoleto: CISAM, 2001). Vicinelli, Augusto, ‘L’inizio del dominio pontif icio in Bologna (774–876) ed il passaggio dell’Esarcato dal governo papale a quello dei re d’Italia (876–1073)’, Atti e Memorie della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie di Romagna 10 (1920), pp. 139–76, 220–45; 11 (1921), pp. 39–76, 217–58; 12 (1922), pp. 63–100, 235–51. –––, ‘La famiglia dei Conti di Bologna’, in Atti e Memorie della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie di Romagna, 15 (1925), pp. 153–206. Violante, Cinzio, ‘Alcune caratteristiche delle strutture familiari in Lombardia, Emilia e Toscana durante i secoli IX–XII’, in Famiglia e parentela nell’Italia medievale, ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1977), pp. 19–82. Wickham, Chris, La montagna e la città: gli Appennini toscani nell’alto medioevo (Torino: Scriptorium, 1997). –––, ‘Sulle origini del comune di Bologna’, Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 119 (2017), pp. 209–38. Wolfram, Herwig, Conrad II, 990–1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2006).

Part II Properties and Patronage

Properties and Patronage

161

Let us now discuss the patrimonial development made by the Hucpoldings from the moment they settled in Italy to the beginning of the twelfth century, when the relevance of the various branches of the group reduced dramatically as a result of land distribution and contemporary prominence of new political figures. The main outcome of this analysis and of our reconstruction of the kinship patrimony is the extensive dispersion of the group’s possessions and interests across each of the three territorial environments in which it has been possible to retrace their activities. The geography of archival fonds obtained from exploring the archives is, in fact, formed of multiple documentary hubs which differ from one another not only by distinct regional areas, but also within the property areas themselves. To facilitate the full appreciation of the specificity of each series of documents and the patrimonial relationships they certify, the analysis has been split into three chapters. Each chapter corresponds to one of the following three geographical areas: Romagna, where a strong relationship with the archbishop of Ravenna constantly underlies kinship operations; the march of Tuscia, where the relevance of kinship patrimony depended significantly on the ownership of the marchisal rank, which gave access to fiscal assets; and finally, the Bologna territory, a border area between the kingdom and the exarchate where, thanks to a brief period of being public officials at the beginning of the tenth century, the group established its patrimony and later its seignorial domain. The considerable wealth in landholdings that the Hucpoldings acquired and managed between the ninth and eleventh centuries was, in the majority of cases, foreign to the districts where leading group members exercised their marchisal office. Indeed, the patrimony administered in the Tuscan area came in decisive quantities from fiscal assets, whereas there are no specific patrimonial indications at all for the large area of Spoleto and Camerino. The only exception to this rule is the first marquis’ affirmation achieved by Boniface I within the wider district of Modena. On that occasion only, and for just a few years, we can detect the alignment of public office and patrimonial presence, above all in the Bologna area which was later at the centre of the seignorial presence of Boniface’s descendants. Furthermore, the analysis of the Hucpolding centres of power is the starting point for the investigation of the nature and purpose of the relationships

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_partii

162 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

and patronages woven by the kinship. This synergic organisation of people and places constituted the singular element of the group’s dominion, a combination determining the power acquired and managed in practice at local levels. Both these components varied according to substantial differences in the three patrimonial areas occupied by the group. Relationships negotiated in the exarchal territory were mainly based in the city of Ravenna. Excluding agricultural contracts managed through the curtes, relationships of solidarity and patronage were confined to the city where the interests and dominance of the aristocracy of exarchal tradition blended with the wealth and power of the archbishops and the church of Ravenna. By contrast, the march of Tuscia presents a completely different situation. This public title enabled control over most of the Tuscan territory, put into effect by the group, on the one hand, through the influence of many fortified fiscal centres, which over time had been entrusted to monastic foundations closely connected to marchisal power; on the other, by means of an entourage made up of individuals with personal links to the marchio. An initial group was formed by missi and by faithful servants of the marquises, whose function was that of guaranteeing the marquis’ presence at a local level. A second, more numerous group, was formed from people in the marchisal entourage, who joined the marquis particularly when he was in the cities of Pisa and Lucca, or who followed him in his travels. Lastly, in Bolognese territory, the group’s notable landholdings quickly developed into a seignorial demesne, whose specific features are examined in detail in the third part. These did not, however, become clearly appreciable until at least the middle of the twelfth century. The documentation in our possession, which is largely patrimonial, provides information relating mainly to land management, which was carried out through fortified centres of power and large-scale patronage. It provides no opportunities to determine either the timing or the functions of various aspects of authority, such as the fundamental function of administering justice. With the exclusion of the urban environment within which Hucpolding interests and interventions are never recorded, a substantial difference can be seen in the protocols governing relationships and settlements adopted in the northern plains and the Apennine valleys to the south of Bologna. In the first of these sectors, where fortified centres were fewer, the group established connections with eminent local families through emphyteosis or vassalage, clearly highlighted by the title of viscount. The intent of these relationships must have been to impose their aristocratic supremacy by way of significant figures at an intermediate social level who were already

Properties and Patronage

163

rooted in a variety of territorial environments and rose above the rest of local society. The Bolognese Apennines were undoubtedly the most developed area of Hucpolding domain. In this sector, the system of power was based on a private monastery, the possession or the construction of a good number of fortified centres and relationships of vassalage made according to the plan previously outlined. The situation in Pianoro exemplifies the role that the castle played: a residence for the group for over a century, where fortifications represented their true power over the territory. Further to the castle, however, Pianoro was also an essential centre of relationships which, thanks to its centrality to the surrounding area, took on great importance when recruiting milites, vassals and faithful supporters.

4. The Exarchate Abstract The second section is dedicated to the analysis of patrimonial data that the examination of private charters has generated. It is divided into the three chapters following geographically the areas of affirmation of the group. Starting from the actual places of landed wealth, the investigation then deals with the reconstruction of the patronage networks and local loyalties on which the Hucpoldings based their hegemony. The fourth chapter concerns the exarchal area. In this context, relations with the archbishops of Ravenna were always fundamental because their church always represented a valuable basis for their acquisition of landed wealth though emphyteosis. It proposes that thanks to the relevance of these bonds the group could link with exarchal elites. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; landed possessions; Ravenna; endogamic marriages

In the geographical area of modern-day Romagna, all patrimonial activity developed through the relationships that the kinship group established with the church and the archbishops of Ravenna, as well as the aristocracy upon which it depended. Relationships with the Ravennate archbishop, unquestionably the wealthiest landowner in the exarchal lands and the Pentapolis,1 were maintained in fact throughout the whole period between the ninth and eleventh centuries. The changes these relationships underwent can be described in three phases. The first, at the height of the second generation, was that of patrimonial acquisition: in the final decades of the ninth century, Engelrada I benefitted from the extensive patrimony bequeathed to her by her husband, incorporating it with other properties obtained from private individuals and through direct contact with the archbishops of Ravenna. By associating herself with 1

See Fasoli, ‘Il patrimonio della chiesa’.

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch04

166 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

them through emphyteosis,2 she built great wealth in estates while activating relationships of patronage in such a way as to rapidly insert herself into the local elite. For the second phase, in the middle of the tenth century, we find a substantial split between Engelrada’s descendents and Peter, the archbishop of the time. This patrimonial conflict culminated in a violent military clash which terminated in 967, when Emperor Otto I requisitioned all the assets causing the controversy. These were equivalent to most of the patrimony of the deceased Engelrada, and the emperor allocated them, by law, to the church of Ravenna. Finally, the third and last phase sees the stable patrimonial presence of the group in the Apennine sector of the territory of Faenza, in all probability brought about by intense, deep connections with the exarchal aristocracies rooted there. In fact, the notable importance still maintained by the group in this area in the eleventh century allowed Hugh II to return to archiepiscopal vassalage and to obtain half the countship of Faenza as beneficium. The patrimony in this area was principally characterized by landownership aimed at agricultural exploitation, with great connection and proximity to the church of Ravenna. The group’s bearing within this specific territorial environment depended on their initial relationship with the latter, mediated by relationships formed with a well-established exarchal group of the archiepiscopal environment. Relationships and prestige therefore allowed the first generations, who possessed nothing in Italy, to connect with the principal institutions of Ravenna in order to accumulate a significant nucleus of landed assets. Once one the acknowledges the evident uniformity of this region’s records, this archive data gives a clear indication of the patrimonial outcome of kinship assets in this area. The absolute majority of Hucpolding agreements relating to this region, both those between private individuals and those stipulated with the church of Ravenna, are preserved in the archiepiscopal archive. As a matter of fact, here charters moved according to the general path of land possessions. In the case of Ravenna, the relationships that the Hucpoldings formed with other religious bodies, particularly those of a monastic nature, have in fact left scant archival traces. Indeed, relationships arranged with S. Maria di Pomposa and with the foundations in Rimini, S. Tommaso and S. Eufemia remain in the background, suffering the absolute centralizing power of the archiepiscopate.3 2 On the uses of emphyteosis by the church of Ravenna see Andreolli, ‘Le enfiteusi’, pp. 163–8. 3 Among these monasteries, Strumi is not included, even if it is cited in this chapter. The monastery belonged, in fact, to the Casentino territory inside the sphere of influence of the Guidi branch.

The Ex archate

167

Land Possession and Relations in the Ninth Century The kinship patrimony in exarchal territories lay within five large areas that coincide with the whole geographical region of Romagna: some were in areas of more concentrated and stable patrimonial presence, whereas others do not appear to have been controlled by the group beyond the ninth century. A key source of the whole reconstruction is the donation of 8 September 896, when Engelrada I donated most of her lands to her son Peter, deacon of the Ravenna church. 4 It is due to this one act that we are aware of the majority of the properties we shall discuss in this chapter. In view of the large quantity of estates and lands, we will first seek to present the patrimonial entities as a whole by giving a description of their layout across the regional area concerned. Then, we will be able to consider methods of land acquisition, which saw Engelrada I in a leading role. The first patrimonial area is that stretching across the plains to the north of the via Aemilia in the territories of Faenza, Forlì and in the Decimano south of Ravenna. In this sector, which was characterized by extensive agriculture,5 Engelrada possessed and personally managed a good number of assets and estates: in the plains of Faenza one of the principal estates must have been the curtis of Axcigata, from which the pieve S. Giovanni in Axcigata6 also took its name. It was from here that in 889 Engelrada arranged a labellum relative to the nearby massa Prada.7 The curtis of Cassanigo and the Domicilio and Batarciolo estates were part of the adjacent district of the pieve of S. Andrea in Panicale,8 while the ronco (newly ploughed plots of land) named Sancto Archangelo sat within the pieve of S. Stefano in Teguria.9 Moving east, following the trajectory marked by the via Aemilia,10 the kinship group owned the curtis Auriliacus and the curtis de Ronco in the district of the pieve of S. Paolo ducati Traversarie,11 north 4 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54. 5 See Mancassola, L’azienda curtense, pp. 9–11, 88. 6 It corresponds to modern Pieve Cesato (Ravenna). 7 ChLA 54, no. 9; it was probably located close to the church of S. Maria in Prada, situated to the east of Pieve Cesato. 8 Cassanigo is located to the north of Faenza, where there was also the pieve of S. Andrea. Domicilio is adjacent to via Donesilio, a road that now leads to Pieve Cesato; finally, it has not been possible to locate Batarciolo. Engelrada received these two assets from Lucia ancilla Dei in 893: ChLA 54, no. 17. 9 Probably this place was located in the pieve of S. Stefano, situated near Godo (Ravenna). We find mention of these properties in a charter of July 963: Ravenna 10.2, no. 109. 10 Among the unlocated places in the territory of Faenza, we have also to cite the curtis Spatanno. 11 Thanks to a Ravennate document of 973 (Regesto di S. Apollinare, no. 2), it is possible to identify the curtis Auriliacus with the area where the church of S. Maria in Acquedotto now

168 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

of Forlì. A little further north, within the boundaries of the territory of Ravenna named Decimano was the large estate of Casale in the pieve of S. Cassiano.12 The Apennine sector of the territory of Faenza is the second patrimonial area, centred in the castle of Modigliana. Here, the assets were located between the valleys of the rivers Lamone and Marzeno, towards Tuscany.13 To the north of Modigliana we find the curtis of Bubiano,14 on the way to Brisighella, while on the eastern side of the Marzeno valley we find the Petra castle.15 Continuing southwards, in the pieve of S. Valentino of Tredozio,16 we find the curtis of Sinciano and the locality of Valeriaula.17 Further south, in modern-day Tuscany, we can identify curtis Acrieta in the valley of the Acerreta stream.18 The next area covers the lands located in the territories of Ferrara, Gavello and Comacchio. In this area, where cultivation of the land accompanied exploitation of the extensive marshes of the Po delta,19 we can point to the masse Fiscalia, Cornacervina, Finale and Quinto maiore and of the vico Aventino.20 It is highly probable that these lands had been inherited by Engelrada following the death of her husband, Martin, as this sector is home to a concentration of emphyteutic grants obtained by her father-in-law, Duke Gregory. A member of one of the most important groups of local aristocracy, he held under emphyteosis a part of the patrimony of the nearby and prosperous monastery of Pomposa. The contracts relating to the aforementioned masse were therefore inherited by Engelrada, who in turn, in 896, donated them to her son Peter stands (Forlì-Cesena). Curtis de Ronco is in present-day Ronco, near Forlì, while the pieve of S. Paolo was located in modern Pievequinta (Forlì-Cesena); see Mazzotti, Le pievi ravennati, p. 57. 12 On this curtis see Castagnetti, ‘Le strutture fondiarie’, pp. 66–8. 13 In addition to the toponyms mentioned below, the curtis Arcudis was also to be located in the territory of Faenza, but it has not been possible to propose any more specific location. 14 We could perhaps find traces of the curtis of Bubiano in the modern toponym Ca’ Bubano in the municipality of Brisighella (Ravenna), or, according to Enrico Cirelli, it should be located on a hill between Tredozio and Modigliana: Ferreri and Cirelli, ‘Le trasformazioni della vallata del Lamone’, p. 102. 15 Nowadays Pietramora (Ravenna) in the Marzeno valley: Ferreri and Cirelli, ‘Le trasformazioni della vallata del Lamone’, p. 102. 16 Present San Valentino close to Tredozio (Forlì-Cesena). 17 The first toponym can be identified with the locality of Senzano near Trebbio, a hamlet near Modigliana between the Montone valley and the valley traced by the Ibola stream. It is difficult to provide the location for the second settlement, of which, judging by the toponym, we can recognize a Roman origin. 18 It is not possible to identify the exact location of the curtis, donated in 896 as well. In the same valley, however, the Camaldolese abbey of Acereto would later be founded during the eleventh century; see Repetti, Dizionario, vol. 1, pp. 1–2. 19 See Mancassola, L’azienda curtense, pp. 63–8. 20 Present-day Massa Fiscaglia, Cornacervina, Finale di Reno and Voghenza in the province of Ferrara. The toponym Quinto maiore has not been identified.

The Ex archate

169

with a commitment to ask the abbey to renew the grant. This had perhaps reached the recognized expiry date of three generations.21 Again, from her deceased husband, Hucpold’s daughter received saltworks in Comacchio,22 along with undetailed lands in the territories of Ferrara and Gavello.23 The two remaining patrimonial areas centre on property assets owned in the cities of Rimini and Ravenna. The city of Rimini and its territory was linked to the kinship group of Valbesinda, mother of Duke Martin, who held in emphyteosis from the archbishop of Ravenna’s estates and uncultivated lands close to the city and in the contado.24 A part of these assets were also subject to a sale that Valbesinda made directly to her son Martin,25 assets which were eventually passed on to Engelrada upon the death of her husband. It is indeed some of these lands, notably some fractions of the Tricenta which still remained under the management of his descendants in the tenth century.26 Over the course of the last decade of the ninth century, Engelrada therefore came into possession of many assets that had already been held in this area by her husband’s kindred for two generations, with particular reference to the two city monasteries, S. Tommaso and S. Eufemia.27 This inheritance was additional to the property that she herself held in localities near to those controlled by her husband’s maternal family. This is illustrated by the request she made to Archbishop Romanus for some parts of the fundus Virginis, of which Valbesinda and her brothers already owned half.28 21 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54, p. 145: ‘in vico Cumiaclo et territorio et ducatu eius in omnibus generibus et speciebus, […] et quatuor [saline] que fuerunt quondam bone memorie Gregorio duce, socero meo, et Quinto Maiore quod ad iura S. Marie in Pomposia videor habere et duas partes in Corna Cauma ac aliam partem in Finale, quae omnia innovanda sunt a suprascripto monasterio’ (in the settlement of Comacchio and within its territory and duchy with all chattels and things, […] and four saltworks which the late Gregory of good memory and my father-in-law possessed, and what he had of the lands of S. Maria di Pomposa in Quinto Maiore, two parts in Corna Cauma and another in Finale di Reno, whose contracts have to be renewed from the same monastery). 22 Duke Martin acquired some salt pans in Comacchio from his mother Valbesinda: Ravenna 8–9, no. 14. Further, he owned other salt pans in the fondamentum of Suallo, which his family had held from the Ravenna church since the tenth century: Ravenna 10.2, no. 109. 23 There, Martin owned lands in the fundus Sereniana: ChLA 54, no. 4. 24 Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis, no. 76. 25 Ravenna 8–9, no. 14. 26 Ravenna 10.1, no. 17. 27 On S. Tommaso of Rimini see Negrelli, ‘Topograf ia e luoghi di culto’, pp. 316–17. Of the monastery of S. Eufemia, which is attested from the seventh century, no traces remain: Donati and Masetti Zannini, Santa Maria di Scolca, p. 16. 28 Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis, no. 78. It was not possible to locate the toponym, but from the indication of the boundaries of a previous annotation, it can be assumed that it was located close to Coriano (Rimini): Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis, no. 76.

170 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

In the Ravenna area, on the other hand, property management was shared by the couple or attributed to Engelrada alone. In the territory to the east of the city, she owned some uncultivated lands, called prata Teguriensis,29 which comprised meadows, ponds for fishing and woods along the banks of the river Lamone. Inside the city, Engelrada and Martin owned two domus with vegetable gardens and outbuildings, including a monasterium founded by the couple in honour of the Virgin Mary.30 In the immediate vicinity of the walls extra portam S. Victoris,31 the couple owned a number of mansi not otherwise defined, whose features included, amongst other things, an accesso ripa fluminis, a detail that cannot be ignored when assessing the quality of the properties from a productive and commercial point of view. Undoubtedly, the exarchal capital was the political and social centre of this branch of the kindred, which, having united with a group at the head of exarchal aristocracy, could not fall short of maintaining a stable presence in the city and close contacts with the archbishops and the aristocraticofficial class of exarchal tradition. Although a number of relationships of adjacency and solidarity can be identified in the margins of patrimonial deeds, the element that defines relations in this sphere remains that of estate administration of landed wealth. In the patrimonial documentation considered thus far, in fact, landholders and leaseholders do not represent Engelrada I’s only contacts: on two occasions she was the beneficiary of two considerable donations made by two consular families in Ravenna.32 A few years after her death, her daughter, Engelrada II, also arranged two contracts, respectively for Adam vir inluster and for Mammo vir venerabilis.33 Naturally, we might assume close connections between Engelrada II and these men, but it is impossible to expand upon the relationship set out in those contracts. Other partial indications in this sense are retraceable thanks to the notitiae testium at the bottom of these patrimonial deeds, which infer the wider social compositional relationships enjoyed by the members of the group within the city environment: in addition to Romaldus, son of Duke 29 The area should have been close to modern Prati, hamlet of Bagnacavallo (Ravenna). The already mentioned pieve of S. Stefano in Teguria stood close by. In the same sector, Engelrada I received a donation of goods placed in Teularia, intra prata Teguriensis by Consul Aldus in 901: Ravenna 10.1, no. 2. See also Cirelli, Ravenna, p. 26. 30 The church of S. Maria in domo ferrata was located in what was called strada Cul del Sacco, present-day via Negri; it was demolished in 1702: Baldini Lippolis, ‘Sepolture privilegiate’, pp. 26–7, n. 39; Cirelli, Ravenna, pp. 153, 239. 31 Nowadays porta Serrata, called also porta of S. Vittore guercinorum; see Gardini, ‘Le porte urbiche’, pp. 247–53. 32 ChLA 54, no. 17; Ravenna 10.1, no. 2. 33 Ravenna 10.1, nos. 15, 17.

The Ex archate

171

Sergius,34 in all probability cousin of Duke Martin,35 we can also include within the highest exarchal aristocracy, the dukes Natale and Peter;36 whereas, within the consular rank we have Martin,37 Anastasius son of the Consul Constantine,38 Gregory son of the Consul Peter39 and Leo son of the Consul Constantine;40 lastly, of high social standing, albeit with no honorific title, we can identify John son of the late Leo magister militum,41 a certain Deacon Peter and the Frankish Adelengus known as Atto. 42 To this list of figures close to the Hucpoldings we can add judge Cunipert, who in the donation of 896 represented the beneficiary Peter, son of Engelrada I, and Domenicus tabellio. 43 Domenicus was the material author of most of the deeds mentioned, 44 and exceptor, or head, of the tabelliones of the city curia. 45 For this branch of the kinship group, the only explicit certification of a vassalage connection dates to 963 when, on the occasion of a transfer of lands, Deacon Ranieri and Tegrimus II are represented before Archbishop Peter by Solzus, their missus and fidelis. 46 The quantity of properties and the quality of the relationships described so far outline the breadth of activity and interests that Engelrada I was able to organize and acquire throughout her lifetime, the only Hucpolding active in Romagna over the ninth century. We are unable to identify with any precision the initial patrimony available to her; we can only presume that her presence was due to the political involvement of her father Hucpold in this particular geographical area. It was also possible in this region to strike up considerable interaction with the most eminent exarchal aristocracy. Her matrimony with Duke Martin, nephew of Archbishop John VII, enabled her to access two distinct patrimonies, which merged with her husband’s inheritance. The great landed wealth possessed by the exarchal aristocracy often derived from emphyteutic connections with the principal religious institutions 34 ChLA 54, no. 17. 35 Buzzi, ‘Ricerche per la storia di Ravenna’, p. 198. 36 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54. 37 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54. 38 ChLA 54, no. 17. 39 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54. 40 Ravenna 10.1, no. 2; it is difficult to say whether it is the Consul Constantine already mentioned. 41 ChLA 54, no. 17. 42 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54. 43 Domenicus tabellio served between 901 and 915: Buzzi, ‘La Curia arcivescovile’, p. 62; see also to correct the end date of his activity Ravenna 10.1, p. 5. 44 Ravenna 10.1, nos. 2, 3, 15, 17. 45 Buzzi, ‘La Curia arcivescovile’, pp. 55–6. 46 Ravenna 10.2, no. 109.

172 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

in the region, which entrusted to these kinship groups full management of a great number of estates. We find therefore that dux Gregory, father of Martin, had owned lands of the monastery of Pomposa in the territory of Comacchio for at least a generation; while in the far south, in the areas of Rimini and Montefeltro, we can ascertain that many landed estates were possessed by Valbesinda, mother of the duke, and by her brothers – one of whom bears the same name Martin dux civitatis Ariminensis. The sales contract in which the mother transferred to Martin a good number of units of land, including those received in emphyteosis, could be testimony to a maternal plan to assist her son by selling him some of the assets that he would have been able to inherit later. This way she may have sought, on the one hand, to control the property of her brothers and, on the other, to avoid an excessive dispersion of her matrimonial patrimony. Engelrada I later became the principal beneficiary of this strategy when, upon the death of her husband, she was able to manage her own patrimony (obtained through direct emphyteutic relationships with the archbishops) and possessions that Martin had inherited from both his parents. The document of 896 portrays this arrangement precisely, since it presents an almost complete list of Engelrada’s landholdings. This deed was written no more than seven years before her death.47 It bears witness to the attempt to impede the dispersion of the patrimony and thereby avoid its appropriation or recovery by the church of Ravenna. Through this transaction, Engelrada meant to arrange for her son Peter’s livelihood. Nonetheless, the document, which seems only to anticipate a normal transmission of inherited assets, sets out special instructions through the reiterated formula absque hereditario nomine, veluti extranee persone (outside the usual right of inheritance, as if he were a stranger). Engelrada wanted then to treat the patrimony Peter would have to receive not as a normal inheritance but rather as a donation of assets acquired from a stranger. In other words, Peter would have the sole authority and unchallenged possession of his mother’s estates without any duty of splitting it with other heirs. Furthermore, the large quantity of assets forming the transaction solely into Peter’s hands might have constituted a sort of great dowry usable by the deacon to advance his career within the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the city. This might have culminated in his attainment of the archiepiscopal seat, following in the footsteps of his great-uncle John VII. Although this project does not seem to have left any traces, 48 it remains clear that by resorting to 47 Engelrada I was already dead in 903: Ravenna 10.1, no. 3. 48 On political engagement by Deacon Peter see Chapter 2.

Map 3. Places mentioned in Romagna and in the Apennines south of Faenza

The Ex archate

173

174 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

a donation, the intention was to subvert the normal transference of assets established by inheritance rights.49 From the beginning, Engelrada therefore aimed to maintain the solidity of the acquired patrimony, projecting into the long term to assist its preservation within the lineage and discourage any contrary claim, above all from the church of Ravenna – which was, in fact, what occurred later.50

The Troubled Years, c.960–c.1000 At the beginning of the tenth century, one perceives no continuity in Engelrada I’s strategy for increasing her estate. Indeed, it is difficult to affirm that her descendants had been able to access or manage the patrimony in its entirety, as she and Martin had done until a few decades earlier. Estate management was now mainly concentrated in the Rimini area, in addition to a coastal area close to the territory of Pesaro. Primarily, the details of boundaries of lands close to Rimini on the coastal side confirm uniformity of possessions in this sector,51 where the presence in the city and its surroundings was just as strong as inland. At the foot of the lower hills of Rimini, bridging the course of the river Marecchia, we find the pieve of S. Arcangelo in Acerbuli.52 Within this district we can identify the Tricenta estate, formerly held partly in emphyteosis by Martin’s mother’s family and leased out by Engelrada II.53 In the Apennine portion further to the south than the territory of Rimini, amid the elevations of Mount Tauro and in the pieve district of S. Innocenza,54 we find the lands of Valliano and Liargo which Deacon Peter arranged in emphyteosis in 903.55 The patrimonial picture over the early years of the tenth century is finally completed by adding the ownership of the monastery of S. Ermete in the

49 See R. Rinaldi, ‘Le origini dei Guidi’, pp. 231–2. 50 See Provero, ‘Progetti e pratiche dell’eredità’, p. 122. 51 Ravenna 10.1, no. 4: the land object of the request was adjacent to the properties of Duke Martin’s heirs. 52 It is the pieve of S. Michele Arcangelo in Acerbolis, close to Santarcangelo di Romagna (Rimini); see Curradi, Pievi, pp. 66–78. 53 Ravenna 10.1, no. 17. 54 The ancient building was located close to modern Pian della Pieve, municipality of Coriano (Rimini); see Curradi, Pievi, pp. 150–6. 55 Ravenna 10.1, no. 3.

The Ex archate

175

territory of Pesaro56 in the pieve of S. Cristoforo.57 Even though it is the only reference in our possession to properties located in this territory, the coastal position of the monastery and its proximity to Rimini mark substantial continuity with that patrimonial core. It could nevertheless also be a more recent acquisition that Engelrada II herself obtained from the archbishops of Ravenna, also important landowners in that area.58 The few documents available to us indicate therefore that both heirs of Engelrada I participated in the management of kinship properties. So, we can suppose, judging at least from the continuity of activities in the Rimini area, that the patrimony was passed on as a whole to descendants active in the early decades of the tenth century. We also have proof of the enduring presence of a fourth generation in the same sector, particularly in the Canava plot in the pieve of S. Savino, close to the Apennine area mentioned earlier.59 In the same document of 943, there is also another reference to the urban monastery of S. Tommaso, described on this occasion as a dependency of the church of Rome albeit without clarifying how Count Guy and Deacon Ranieri, and earlier still their parents, might have acquired its control. In the middle of the tenth century, the group’s patrimonial situation underwent a radical change. Strengthened by Ottonian support, Archbishop Peter began a vigorous campaign to recover lands and to redefine relationships to the detriment of the exarchal aristocracy. The group had, over the course of time, come into possession of a large part of the estates belonging to the church of Ravenna.60 In 963 Ranieri and Tegrimus II had to returntwo possessions in the form of a donation,61 a piece of cleared land with a church in the Faenza area and saltworks in Comacchio. The management of these assets had belonged to the kinship group for at least two generations.62 The purpose of the enforced donation was to rectify some out-of-date rents and leases that Ranieri and his nephew owed to the church through contracts 56 Ravenna 10.1, no. 15; it is the present parish church of S. Ermete in Gabicce Monte (Pesaro-Urbino). 57 Recent archaeological excavations have brought to light the site of the pieve, built on the structure of a Roman villa, in present Colombarone (Pesaro-Urbino); see La pieve di San Cristoforo ad Aquilam. 58 Vasina, ‘Possedimenti della chiesa ravennate’, pp. 344–5. 59 Ravenna 10.1, no. 49; maybe the toponym here is Canepa, close to Monte Colombo (Rimini). 60 Savigni, ‘I papi e Ravenna’, p. 357. 61 Although the act is described as a cartula donationis, the key verb donamus does not appear in the text: Civale, ‘I conti Guidi’, p. 31; see also R. Rinaldi, ‘Esplorare le origini’, p. 41; a certain mocking tone in this on the archbishop’s part is seen by Schoolman, ‘Nobility, Aristocracy’, p. 236. 62 Ravenna 10.2, no. 109.

176 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

stipulated by their ancestors. A good part of the assets were then renewed in emphyteosis to the same people, so as to reassert their juridical obligations and their subordination to the power of the archbishop. In the absence of support from Otto I, who returned to Germany in 964, the opposing interests of the archbishop and the group blew up into open armed conflict.63 Between 965 and 966,64 Ranieri stormed the archiepiscopal palace, kidnapped the metropolitan, put him in chains and pillaged the treasure of the archbishopric.65 Such turbulent events led Peter, once freed by troops loyal to him, to take refuge in Rome with Pope John XIII and later, upon his return to Ravenna, to ask both the pope and the Emperor Otto for justice. So, in the placitum of 17 April 967 Ranieri was convicted of contumacy. The assembly then imposed the confiscation of all the deacon’s property, assigning it in turn to Archbishop Peter. After the armed conflict and the imperial intervention, the archbishops wanted the assets back from the disputed patrimony, and to safeguard themselves by denying the group any opportunity to manage the wealth. Reassured by the imperial confiscation, the archbishops could redistribute the possessions of the group to a number of different representatives of the exarchal aristocracy. They entered, in this way, into a new network of dependencies, and were likely to oppose any patrimonial claims from the Hucpoldings. A document dating to 975 clearly shows the mechanism as applied both to peripheral possessions and to more central and prestigious ones: in addition to granting a number of Hucpolding lands in the Rimini area, Peter’s successor, Honestus, also granted through emphyteosis a third part of the two domus owned by Engelrada I in Ravenna to the members of a consular family of Ravenna, including the third part of the monastery honouring the Virgin Mary that she herself founded.66 We also have traces of this decisive patrimonial decline owing to some lexical indicators contained in livello contracts and emphyteosis stipulated between 967 and 975, which indirectly confirm the execution of the sentence of confiscation. In January 967, around three months prior to judgement, a livello in the Rimini area reports among its descriptions of assets ‘ab uno latere possidente Petronia ad iura heredes quondam Ingelrada’ (on one 63 See Chapter 2. 64 R. Rinaldi, ‘Le origini dei Guidi’, p. 237. 65 The episode is narrated during the placitum of 967: I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. 155, p. 50. Tolosanus also gives an account of the tale, expanding the details of the violence committed by Ranieri and casting the castle of Modigliana as the place of confinement for the archbishop: Tolosanus, Chronicon, pp. 19–20. 66 Ravenna 10.2, no. 189.

The Ex archate

177

side, it bordered the land Petronia had from the heirs of Engelrada).67 As early as February 968, the recording changes to ‘a quarto latere terra que fuit de quondam Ingelrada’ (on the fourth side, it bordered the land which the late Engelrada had owned).68 A second reference, contained in the aforementioned document of 975, uses the same mode of expression ‘a quarto latere terra que fuit de quondam Ingelrada comitissa’ (on the fourth side, it bordered the land which the late Countess Engelrada had owned).69 The significant grammatical change, from the present to the past, in identifying the confines may be an indicator therefore of the patrimonial upheaval of that period, which weakened the economic solidity of the group in the exarchal social sphere. Finally, the archiepiscopal claims found space and definitive legitimization in imperial diplomas and in the papal privileges obtained by the church of Ravenna at the end of the century.70 Albeit with the odd variation, the formula adopted had assumed a pattern without substantial changes in meaning: confirmation was expected of the Riminese monasteries of S. Tommaso and S. Eufemia to the church of Ravenna, more explicitly of ‘all the properties that Deacon Peter, son of Duke Martin, donated by a cartula donacionis to the church of Ravenna and all that was owned by Countess Engelrada, which was legally assigned to Archbishop Peter in placitum’.71 In this way, the patrimonial entity created over the course of the ninth century was preserved as a single unit, even when it became necessary to cede control to the church of Ravenna. From the middle of the tenth century, most of the places described slipped out of the Hucpolding area of influence and the group was obliged to turn its attention to other territories. The only sector in which the group was able to maintain some control, and where important patrimonial and political developments were made, was in the territory of Faenza.

67 Ravenna 10.2, no. 126. 68 Ravenna 10.2, no. 138. 69 Ravenna 10.2, no. 189. 70 Confirmation is included in three papal privileges: two granted by Pope Gregory V (996–999), one in 997 to Archbishop John X (983–998) and one in 998 to Archbishop Gerbertus (998–999): Italia Pontificia, vol. 5, nos. 164, 166; and one by Antipope Clement III in 1086: Italia Pontificia, vol. 5, no. 187; and also in two imperial diplomas, one granted by Otto III in 999: DD O III, no. 330; and one by Henry IV in 1080: DD H IV, no. 322. 71 DD O III, p. 758: ‘seu omnes res quascumque diaconus Petrus filius Martini ducis per cartulam donacionis in sanctam Ravennatem Ecclesiam tradidit, et quascumque Ingelrada comitissa detinuit, sicuti avus noster in placito Petro Ravennati archiepiscopi legaliter investivit et in perpetuo confirmavit’.

178 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Persistence in the comitatus Faentinus and the 1034 Pact After the year 967, no new evidence from any member of the kinship group can be found in Romagna until the year 992. At that time Gisla, daughter of Marquis Hubald II and widow of Count Tegrimus II, with her son Guy, arranged a donation in favour of the Casentinese monastery of Strumi. Although the second part of the tenth century is characterized by a notable documentary dispersion, a gap of twenty-five years would appear too long to be attributable solely to the randomness of archival events. The verdict and consequent expropriation of assets ordered jointly by the pope and the emperor could have borne rather significant weight in the reduction of patrimonial activities of the group in Romagna.72 Returning to the cited document, this was written in castro qui dicitur Modiliana by Countess Gisla and her son Guy II, and addressed to the monastic foundation formerly established by the late Tegrimus II,73 and had the intent of expanding patrimonial assets into the surrounding area of the castle of Poppi.74 The settlement of Modigliana therefore still held great relevance in the context of the group’s dwellings and, we presume, economics, above all in contrast to the Tuscan patrimonial areas pertinent to the Guidi lineage. It is indeed from Modigliana that the widow Gisla managed, in conjunction with her son (probably still at that time a minor),75 important portions of the patrimony in Casentino. These had presumably been bequeathed by her husband. In writing the deed she was very careful, however, to remember her family of origin, declaring herself to be daughter of the quondam bone memorie Ubaldus marchione and only afterwards, widow of the quondam bone memorie Teudigrimo comes. Finally, it is very significant that her son Guy has been presented as domnus Vuido comes filio eius, in reference to her husband. We therefore observe a distinct demarcation between the 72 Documenti, ed. Rauty, pp. 6–8. 73 The monastery was founded by Count Tegrimus II before 992 in his estate of Strumi. Benefitting several times from donations from members of the Guidi lineage, the monastery grew in importance and at the end of the twelfth century it was moved inside the castle of Poppi, see Repetti, Dizionario, vol. 1, pp. 188–9. 74 The act, a simple and incomplete copy of the twelfth century, is now kept in Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Santa Trinità, 8 June 992; it is edited in Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 12. The donation, in the surviving part, concerns a villa called Tannano, located in the pieve of S. Maria di Bubiano near Poppi. 75 The loss of the lower part of the parchment containing the signatures prevents this kind of enquiry, suggesting caution on this point. On the other hand, the long period of activity of Guy II, who died shortly before 1034, can lead to the hypothesis that in 992 he was a minor; see Documenti, ed. Rauty, p. 19.

The Ex archate

179

specificity of the place of stipulation and Gisla’s residence. It is in fact the second time that the castrum of Modigliana is certified as the residence of a member of the kinship group, furthermore female: at the beginning of the tenth century, it was Engelrada II, whereas at the end of the same century it was the widow Gisla who lived there. The continuity of the female Hucpolding component in reference to the property of Modigliana suggests that the fortified estate was controlled continuously by the Hucpoldings in the ninth and tenth centuries, and only when various branches of the group separated cleanly did it become exclusively part of the Guidi patrimony. At the end of the ninth century, Modigliana was simply described as a curtis;76 later, it must have been an essential reference point for the various branches of the group that were active across Romagna and Tuscany, above all in the crisis period experienced by the exarchal side of the lineage during the reign of Otto I. Perhaps fortified in those years of conflict and insecurity,77 the castle remained under Hucpolding control despite the patrimonial confiscation imposed on Ranieri. With matrimony between Gisla daughter of Hubald and Tegrimus II, the castle became one of the pivotal locations in the domain of the couple’s son and the lineage originating from him.78 Only over the course of the eleventh century, however, was Guy II’s lineage able to consolidate possession of the castle, after they could re-define themselves as counts of Modigliana.79 At least in this portion of the Faenza territory therefore we can affirm continued ownership by and the presence of the Hucpoldings for the central decades of the tenth and the first decades of the eleventh century. Over the same period, the position of the kinship group within that area must have consolidated notably, as we have traces of the presence of two other members of the group, third cousins to each other: Maginfred son of Hubald and Count Hugh II.80 The first possessed significant portions of the kinship patrimony on both sides of the Apennines between the cities of Bologna and Florence. Anyway, a document from Pomposa dating to 1031 76 Ravenna 8 –9, no. 54. 77 According to Tolosanus, Modigliana was already a castrum at the beginning of the tenth century when Engelrada II and Tegrimus I were married: Tolosanus, Chronicon, pp. 19–20. The first documentary attestation of the castle dates back to the act of 992: Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 12. See also Ferreri and Cirelli, ‘Le trasformazioni della vallata del Lamone’, 102. 78 On the relevance of the Modigliana castle in the Guidi domain see Collavini, ‘Comites palatini’, pp. 72–7. 79 Monastero di San Salvatore, no. 48; where Guido comes de Mutilgnano attended Matilda of Canossa’s donation. 80 See Chapter 3.

180 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

attests that he must also have inherited possession of some agricultural estates belonging to the group since the ninth century.81 His name appears among the boundaries of the lands positioned in the Domicilio estate in the plains to the north of Faenza, previously owned by his ancestor Engelrada I. Despite scant information, the clear patrimonial continuity in the Faenza area indicates, with all probability, a concealed persistence of interests. These interests had to go beyond those of mere landownership, as also seen in the events surrounding Hugh II. On 30 April 1034, Conrad II entrusted the Faenza comitatus to Archbishop Gebeardus, referring for the first time to rights of public origin in this territory.82 Since the Ottonians, imperial politics had provided for the establishment and arrangement of countships in Romagna in favour of the Ravenna archbishops.83 Conrad therefore conferred on Archbishop Gebeardus the authority to hold the placita and allowed him every public function in the countship of the city of Faenza.84 On the following 25 June, in the military camp that the archbishop had erected in Stornatianus – an unknown location85 – Count Hugh II renounced the whole countship of Faenza on behalf of Gebeardus, together with all the public revenues that the Hucpoldings had evidently been able to collect up to that point.86 Immediately, however, he received in return half of the same countship in beneficio.87 This is the only document which reports the investiture of countship rights in exarchal territory, and it appears to be ‘a solution of compromise, aimed at recovering the availability of a countship without damaging the interests of those who had benefitted from it thus far’.88 How Count Hugh II had come to possess what he had renounced to the archbishop is very difficult to say. Nevertheless, the age-old presence of the kinship group in that precise area of the exarchate and the considerable political and matrimonial relationships entered into by some of Hugh ancestors with leading figures of the exarchal aristocracy might indicate the patrimonial pathway 81 Le carte dell’archivio di Santa Maria di Pomposa, no. 155. 82 See the discussion of the source in Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 131–2. 83 Capitani, ‘Politica e cultura a Ravenna’, p. 169. 84 DD C II, no. 208; RI III.1.1, no. 216. 85 Probably the act was enacted on the way towards Burgundy, see Chapter 3. 86 Ravenna 11.2, no. 157: ‘angariis atque portaticis seu ripaticis sive fodris nec non publicis funcionibus atque tolloneis’ (corvée-works and various tolls and army taxes, together with every public prerogatives). 87 Ravenna 11.2, p. 139. 88 Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 132–3: ‘una soluzione di compromesso, rivolta a recuperare la disponibilità di un comitato senza ledere troppo gli interessi di chi ne aveva fino allora goduto’.

The Ex archate

181

extended to him in the central decades of the eleventh century.89 At any rate, the situation that the document of refuta reports is that of a significant empowerment of patrimonial structures owned in the Faenza area. Through these structures, strong authoritative control was soon established, and recognized by the archbishop of Ravenna. Considering the arrangement of kinship possessions, which for that area in the ninth century consisted of a good part of the Apennine sector, we can assume it likely that the portion received by Hugh was precisely that in the Apennines.90 Of this, however, after 1034, there is no further mention in later patrimonial developments of the kinship group.91

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Santa Trinità.

Printed Primary Sources Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis (Codice Bavaro) secoli VII–X, ed. by Giuseppe Rabotti (Roma: ISIME, 1985). Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, vol. 54, Italy XXVI, Ravenna I, ed. by Giuseppe Rabotti and Francesca Santoni (Zurich: Graf, 2000). Conradi II diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Konrad II 1024–1039, ed. by Heinrich von Appelt, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1.1 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Documenti per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana: le origini e i primi secoli (887–1164), ed. by Natale Rauty (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2003). Heinrici IV diplomata, ed. by Dietrich von Gladiss and Alfred Gawlik, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 6 (Berlin: Weidemann; Weimar: Böhlaus, 1941–78). 89 On the hypothesis of marital unions see Chapter 3. 90 See Lazzari, Comitato, p. 75. 91 Some places in the Faenza territory held by Hucpoldings had to be inherited – or claimed – by the Guidi, since they appear in the list of possessions Emperor Frederick I confirmed for them in 1164: Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 226.

182 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. by Cesare Manaresi, 3 vols. (Roma: ISIME, 1955–60). Italia Pontificia, vol. 5: Aemilia sive provincia Ravennas, ed. by Paul F. Kehr (Berlin: Weidemann, 1911). Le carte dell’archivio di Santa Maria di Pomposa (932–1050), ed. by Corinna Mezzetti (Roma: ISIME, 2016). Le carte ravennati dei secoli ottavo e nono, ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Faenza: BUP, 2006). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 900–957), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Ravenna: Società di studi ravennati, 1999). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 957–976), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2002). Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1025–1044), ed. by Massimo Ronchini (Faenza: BUP, 2010). Monastero di San Salvatore a Fontana Taona. Secoli XI e XII, ed. by Vanna Torelli Vignali (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1999). Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1893). Regesto di S. Apollinare Nuovo, ed. by Vincenzo Federici (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907). Tolosanus, Chronicon Faventinum, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Giuseppe Rossini, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptorum, n. ed., 28.1 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1936), pp. 1–176.

Secondary Sources Andreolli, Bruno, ‘Le enfiteusi e i livelli del “Breviarium”’, in Ricerche e studi sul ‘Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis’ (Codice Bavaro) (Roma: ISIME, 1985), pp. 163–77. Baldini Lippolis, Isabella, ‘Sepolture privilegiate nell’Apostoleion di Ravenna’, Felix Ravenna 153–4 (2004), pp. 15–80. Buzzi, Giulio, ‘La Curia arcivescovile e la Curia cittadina di Ravenna dall’850 al 1118 (Studio diplomatico preparatorio dell’edizione delle Carte Ravennati)’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 35 (1915), pp. 7–188. –––, ‘Ricerche per la storia di Ravenna e di Roma dall’850 al 1118’, Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 38 (1915), pp. 107–213. Capitani, Ovidio, ‘Politica e cultura a Ravenna tra Papato e Impero dall’XI al XII secolo’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 3: Dal Mille alla fine della signoria polentana, ed. by Augusto Vasina (Venezia: Marsilio, 1993) pp. 169–98. Castagnetti, Andrea, ‘Le strutture fondiarie ed agrarie’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 55–72.

The Ex archate

183

Cirelli, Enrico, Ravenna: archeologia di una città (Borgo San Lorenzo: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2008). Civale, Biagio, ‘I conti Guidi tra Tuscia e Romagna nei secoli IX–X’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 114 (2012), pp. 7–40. Collavini, Simone M., ‘Comites palatini/paladini: ipotesi sulle forme di legittimazione del principato dei Guidi’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 110 (2008), pp. 57–104. Curradi, Currado, Pievi del territorio riminese nei documenti fino al Mille (Rimini: Luise, 1984). Donati, Andrea and Gian Ludovico Masetti Zannini, Santa Maria di Scolca abbazia olivetana di Rimini: fonti e documenti (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2009). Fasoli, Gina, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi di Ravenna fra l’VIII e l’XI secolo’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 87–140. –––, ‘Il patrimonio della chiesa’, in Storia di Ravenna, : Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 389–400. Ferreri, Debora and Enrico Cirelli, ‘Le trasformazioni della vallata del Lamone e dei passi Appenninici tra Esarcato e Regno d’ltalia nel Medioevo (Vl–Xll secolo)’, in Memorie dell’assistenza: istituzioni e fonti ospedaliere in Italia e in Europa (secoli XIII–XVI), ed. by Salvatore Marino and Gemma Teresa Colasanti (Ospedaletto, Pisa: Pacini, 2019), pp. 101–18. Gardini, Gabriele, ‘Le porte urbiche moderne’, in Maurizio Mauro, Mura, porte e torri di Ravenna (Ravenna: Adriapress, 2000), pp. 210–63. La pieve di San Cristoforo ad Aquilam: atti del convegno di Gradara (ottobre 1980) (Gradara: Cassa rurale e artigiana, 1983). Lazzari, Tiziana, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). Mancassola, Nicola, L’azienda curtense tra Langobardia e Romania: rapporto di lavoro e patti colonici dall’età carolingia al Mille (Bologna: CLUEB, 2008). Mazzotti, Mauro, Le pievi ravennati (Ravenna: Longo, 1975). Negrelli, Claudio, ‘Topografia e luoghi di culto: tra tarda antichità e alto medioevo’, in Storia della chiesa riminese, vol. 1: Dalle origini all’anno Mille, ed. by Raffaele Savigni (Rimini: Guaraldi, 2010), pp. 291–321. Provero, Luigi, ‘Progetti e pratiche dell’eredità nell’Italia settentrionale (secoli VIII–X)’, in Sauver son âme et se perpétuer: transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Cristina La Rocca and Régine Le Jan (Roma: École française de Rome, 2005), pp. 115–30. Repetti, Emmanuele, Dizionario geografico fisico e storico della Toscana, 5 vols. (Firenze: Presso l’autore e editore, 1833–46).

184 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Rinaldi, Rossella, ‘Le origini dei Guidi nelle terre di Romagna (secoli IX–X)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996), pp. 211–40. –––, ‘Esplorare le origini: note sulla nascita e l’affermazione della stirpe comitale’, in La lunga storia di una stirpe comitale: i conti Guidi tra Romagna e Toscana; atti del convegno di studi organizzato dai Comuni di Modigliana e Poppi (ModiglianaPoppi, 28–31 agosto 2003), ed. by Federico Canaccini (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2009), pp. 19–46. Savigni, Raffaele, ‘I papi e Ravenna: dalla caduta dell’esarcato alla fine del secolo X’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 331–68. Schoolman, Edward M., ‘Nobility, Aristocracy and Status in Early Medieval Ravenna’, in Ravenna: Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, ed. by Judith Herrin and Janet Nelson (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2016), pp. 211–38. Vasina, Augusto, ‘Possedimenti della chiesa ravennate nella Pentapoli durante il Medioevo’, Studi Romagnoli 18 (1967), pp. 333–67.

5.

The March of Tuscany Abstract The growth of Hucpolding landed possessions in Tuscia is marked by two distinct phases. The first covers the second half of the ninth century, when key elements of their presence included two monasteries in the Florentine area and close relationships with the Adalbertings; the second, the second half of the tenth century after the group achieved the marchisal office, when the full resources of the fisc became available to them. Chapter 5 examines the evolution of parental assets in the march, aligned with the pathway to marchisal authority. It proposes that the marchisal office was fundamental to the expansion of their power in the region – a power that proved transitory, however, after the loss of the public office. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; march of Tuscany; monasteries; officials; properties

Analysis of landholdings in the march of Tuscany is substantially founded on relationships with some of the wealthier and more significant monastic institutions in the region. Behind these were the relationships attained in the institutional sphere essential for the kindred to settle in this area of the kingdom. Bonds built with the Florentine bishops and the Adalbertings stand out above all others. Once the Hucpoldings had, however, reached their paramount political and social dominance, it was the Benedictine monasteries which were the main patrimonial intermediaries in all territorial environments across the march. The city of Florence and its territory represented the centre of reference from as early as the middle of the ninth century. In the city centre the abbadiola of S. Andrea was controlled for at least three generations with the blessing of the city’s bishop. The final decades of the tenth century saw the independent foundation of the monastery of S. Maria, the so-called Badia fiorentina, which became one of the most powerful monasteries in the whole of Tuscany, due to the consistent endowment of Willa and the Marquises Hugh and Boniface II.

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch05

186 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Also in the Florence area, we find traces of the almost century-old relationships with the church of S. Salvatore a Settimo to the west of Florence. Control of the march, together with Hugh I’s prestigious ascendancy gave him the opportunity to increase his power and influence over the whole Tuscan territory, thus playing a key role during the reign of Otto III. In the last decade of the tenth century, Hugh implemented a specific administrative policy of fiscal estates, which aimed at involving monasteries (either pre-existing or newly founded) in every area of the march, pressing well beyond the religious fervour usually attributed to him. The marquis therefore transferred significant portions of fiscal and private assets to S. Ponziano in Lucca to the abbey of Sesto located outside the city walls, to the Badia fiorentina, to S. Gennaro of Capolona at the gates of Arezzo, to S. Michele in Marturi in Valdelsa, to S. Antimo and to S. Salvatore al Monte Amiata in the southern area of Siena. Each one of these monasteries was located to the centre of patrimonial fiscal complexes fundamental to the power of the marquises in each territory. His successor, Boniface II, tried in turn to continue with this policy, but he was unable to control an area as great as his cousin had before him; in fact, of the aforementioned institutions, documentation only exists of a continuing relationship with the Badia fiorentina, which for the whole of the eleventh century continued to play a central role in Hucpolding relationships and their territorial presence. On the other hand, we still have traces of interactions between Boniface and the monastery of S. Salvatore in Fontana Taona in the Pistoiese Apennines, whose foundation cannot be attributed with any certainty to the marquis, however. The position of the abbey within the Pistoia area is of great relevance, as it was orientated towards the Apennine passes which led to the Bologna and Emilia sectors, the place where Boniface’s parents had settled. With the influence deriving from the honor of the marquis title, the descending branches of the group returned to concentrate their presence in the Florentine territory which had initially seen the activity of their ancestors. So, we find them in the south of Florence along the river Arno and in the Apennine area of Mugello. No longer able to use the title of count, Adimarus’ descendants sought new political outlets through patronage from the Cadoling and Guidi lineages, both members of the wider kinship group and already dominant in this area of eleventh-century Tuscany. The descendants of Adalbert III settled in Bologna, linked to the latter through marriage. Thanks to this union they also acquired property and possessions on the Tuscan side of the Apennines, particularly at Romena. The patrimonial presence, maintained for a good part of the eleventh century, also led to substantial relationships with the neighbouring monastery of Camaldoli.

The March of Tuscany

187

From an archival point of view, documentary records follow three distinct and precise directions, corresponding to the three chronological periods into which it seemed appropriate to divide this analysis: the documents from the ninth century belong exclusively to the Florentine area, preserved in copies in the archives of the chapter of the cathedral of Florence and the abbey at Settimo; the sources for the tenth century and the beginning of the eleventh are almost entirely gathered in various monastic archives, the principal intermediaries of the leading figures of the group who retained the marquis title; finally, for testimony relating to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the canonical archive of Florence is once again predominant, joined by the archive of Camaldoli with the charters of Romena. This archival data provides clear validation of the relationships and activities promoted by the group in the region over these time periods. On the margins is the episcopal see of Arezzo. Despite its Hucpolding Bishop Everard and his successor Helmempert, trusty supporter of Marquis Hugh I, the episcopal see of Arezzo displays an almost total archival silence where the patrimonial activities of the Hucpoldings in the diocese are concerned. To conclude, the high quality of Hucpolding patrimonial presence in Tuscany was connected essentially to the public office of the marquis of Tuscia, and therefore to the political proximity that the leaders of the group were able to reach and maintain with those who held royal power. When the marquis title was entrusted to others, the exceptional significance reached by the group just a few years earlier couldn’t in fact be remotely matched. Probably, therefore, the kinship presence in this area originated and depended almost exclusively on the relationships that the group had been able to seal in both a variety of situations and between different social levels, rather than by developing a tangible lordship in a smaller sector of the march.

The Family Group Estates in the Ninth Century The year 852 marks the first indication of the group’s introduction of itself into the urban environment of Florence, with the involvement of two of the most influential public representatives: the Florentine bishop and the marquis of Tuscia. On 19 October, Bertha I was ordained abbess of the abbatiola honouring Saint Andrew,1 controlled by the Florentine Bishop Radingus. On the wishes of Emperor Louis II,2 Radingus held the church 1 2

CdC Firenze, no. 2; RI I.3.1, no. 98. Louis II’s diploma is lost and only quoted in the document concerning Bertha: CdC Firenze, p. 7.

188 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

and attended to the community of nuns. Upon the death of the bishop’s sister Radburga, the daughter of Hucpold became abbatissa and rectrix with the authority to command, govern, use and do anything else she wished with the monastery, including libellarios mittere or any other conscriptiones emittere, without, however removing the dominium of the monastery from the bishops and the cathedral of S. Giovanni. Overseeing all this was Hucpold himself and Adalgausus, vassal of Marquis Adalbert I of Tuscia. We are unable to establish in any way which lands were under the control of Bertha I. Because of significant archive dispersion and demolition of the church itself in the modern period, information concerning patrimony of the abbey is almost totally unknown. Nonetheless, the prominence of the protagonists interested in the abbey and its central position within the urban fabric allow us to presume a certain importance at least on an urban level. First, the origin of the land upon which the monastery was founded appears to be ascribable to the sizeable complex of fiscal assets located in and around the city of Florence.3 Described by Giovanni Villani (1280–1348) at the centre of the old city, 4 the private acts are more precise in indicating the church as prope forum domni regis or de mercado or again de foro veteri.5 These are all names of the great square, whose public nature was likely to hark back to the contour of the Roman civitas which, in that area, probably housed the forum and the administrative and religious buildings.6 Furthermore, an unusual feature of the church fabric was its contiguity with an arch, which nineteenth-century demolition of the church revealed was of Roman construction. The arch had been associated with the town’s road system, which at that particular point must have cut across one of the principal thoroughfares connecting the city from north to south, linking the Domus gate to the southern one of Sancta Maria.7 The Hucpolding women maintained their roles within the abbey until at least the end of the ninth century. As Bishop Andrew established in 893, upon her death Bertha I would be replaced by her niece, Bertha II, daughter 3 Around the city, we find places, such as pratum regis and campum regis, clearly ascribable to fiscal estates, see Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, pp. 256–7. 4 Cronica di Giovanni Villani, p. 13 5 A more accurate location is to be found in a later act of 1018, that reports ‘cenobium Sancti Andree, quod est positum in civitate Florentia prope forum domni regis et prope arcum’ (the monastery of S. Andrea, located in the city of Florence near the king’s square and close to an arch); see also Cocchi, Le chiese di Firenze, p. 62. 6 The church fabric must have been where the Piazza della Repubblica now stands, see S. Rinaldi et al., Firenze romanica, pp. 197–8. 7 Cocchi, Le chiese di Firenze, pp. 63–4.

The March of Tuscany

189

of her brother Hubald.8 Also in this case, there is no explicit patrimonial information of any kind, though we can ascertain that while benefitting from the abbacy of Bertha I, the group was unable, or unwilling, to oust the Florentine bishop from full possession of the nunnery, preferring instead to elect a new abbess with the consent of the bishop. Documentation from the tenth century shows continued interest in the institution from the same three agents mentioned so far: Otto II for the imperial part who in 977 was asked to reconfirm the donation of S. Andrea and all its assets to the Florentine diocese;9 Marquis Hugh of Tuscany, who must have received control over its lands, the same that his female ancestors had obtained from the Florentine Bishop Sichelmus (964–989); and Bishop Podus (989–1002) who, having reobtained the abbey from the marquis, granted it in turn to the Florentine cathedral chapter.10 Also, in the same way as his predecessors, on this occasion Bishop Podus was careful to maintain control over the institution to prevent the fragmentation of patrimony. With this purpose in mind, he explicitly prohibited the chapter from in any way donating or transferring the lands of S. Andrea. Consequently, the centrality of the monastery and its patrimony is clear within the city environment, as well as the consequent relevance of those who could control and administer its patrimony. Due to the almost total dispersion of the monastic archive,11 however, we are unable to reconstruct a full picture of landed wealth of the community of S. Andrea. The only trace of some of the lands that belonged to the monastery, those in the south-eastern sector outside the city, is a document that is central to abbatial affairs over the course of the eleventh century: the charter of ordination of the church of S. Miniato al Monte dating to 1018.12 Among the considerable number of assets listed, Bishop Hildeprand (1008–1024) also included the abbey with all its appurtenances and properties both inside and outside Florence, referring 8 CdC Firenze, no. 6. Both documents were copied in the eleventh century over the same piece of parchment. Most likely, the two acts were used by the Florentine cathedral canons to demonstrate their control upon the church of S. Andrea, which was the subject of controversies in that century. On the verso of the parchment, we find the explicative note ‘Domnus Vivianus habuit unam cartam de ratione eclesie Sancti Andree, scilicet de istitutione’ (Lord Vivianus possessed a charter describing the condition of S. Andrea, that means its foundation): CdC Firenze, p. 7. 9 Only the regest survives of the diploma in Firenze, ASFi, Manoscritti, 48bis, p. 7, no. 8. 10 We infer Marquis Hugh’s control over the monastery from Bishop Podus’ concession: CdC Firenze, no. 24. Some elements of the text were probably added by canons in order to boost rights of the chapter: Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, pp. 178–84. 11 The only documents ascribable to S. Andrea’s original archive are the two ordination acts mentioned above. 12 Le carte del monastero di S. Miniato, no. 5.

190 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

particularly to several units of land located in the contado between Ripoli and the river Ema.13 This mention is a valuable one because it proves at least a part of the institution’s patrimony to be in that area, which was probably for the use of leading figures of the Hucpoldings. Although this trace of activity and patrimonial roots in the Florentine countryside is ultimately quite weak, the lasting control over the patrimony of the abbatiola of S. Andrea of Florence shows considerable similarity to the patrimonial activity of the descending branch of the Adimari. They were settled in the same areas of Florentine territory, as we shall see in the third section of this chapter (pp. 208–10, below). The second portion of the Florentine territory, which experienced Hucpolding presence and activity from the ninth century, was to the west of the city. Here, beyond the river Arno, the church and then the abbey of S. Salvatore a Settimo became an important religious centre on the path to Pisa and Lucca.14 To its benefit, in 988–989 Count Adimarus conferred on the priest Gubert, custodian of the same church, all lands that had been granted to it by his father Boniface I dux et marchio and earlier still by his grandfather Hubald.15 We are led to presume that in these circumstances, Hubald I and his descendants, who had maintained a more or less century-old relationship with the church of S. Salvatore, exploited the solidity of the ecclesiastical institution to favour the protection of a certain patrimonial entity.16 While we may not know, we might suppose it had been of public origin. Although there is no information which allows us to attribute the foundation of the church to Hucpold or to his son during the ninth century, the religious institution without doubt obtained its preservation and patrimonial administration from the Hucpoldings over three generations. Later, the church came under Cadolingian ownership, and was transformed into a Benedictine monastery soon after the beginning of the eleventh century and became a centre of power to oppose the Florentine bishop’s political interests.17 Although no patrimonial documentation is conserved for this century, an indication provided by a rare entry in the abbatial register may support some other useful hypotheses. The brief fourteenth-century memoria, which 13 Hildeprand excepted a plot of land belonging to S. Andrea close to modern Bagno a Ripoli (Florence). In the following conf irmation of 1024, Hildeprand did not specify any exception concerning S. Andrea’s lands, see Le carte del monastero di S. Miniato, no. 6. 14 Now Badia a Settimo, in the municipality of Scandicci (Florence). 15 Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, app. 1, no. 1. Reference to Adimarus’ act is included in a fourteenth century abbatial register. 16 Purposes of this practice are outlined in Tabacco, Struggle for Power, pp. 166–70. 17 Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, pp. 88–9.

The March of Tuscany

191

conserves traces of Adimarus’ confirmation, indicates generaliter all the possessions that first Hubald and then Boniface transferred to the church through a cartula iudicati. The only named properties are the oratory of S. Martino qui dicitur Palma and the church of S. Donato qui dicitur Luchardo. The particular references to these two churches has been convincingly interpreted as the fruit of interpolations.18 This operation is in fact traceable from a late authentic copy of a diploma granted by Otto III, dated 998. In this document, the emperor took under his protection a certain priest Ghubert, a certain Deacon Azzo and the church of S. Salvatore with all its appurtenances.19 This diploma, and the charter recalled in the memoria, must have formed the juridical documentary basis of the ownership of these churches used by the monastery of Settimo to lay claim to them. It now remains to identify the counter-claimant in this controversy. While there is no mention of disputes or quarrels over these two churches between Settimo and other parties, documentation reveals a patrimonial conflict between the complete ownership of the church of S. Donato by the abbey of S. Salvatore and the ownership of half of the same church by the abbey of Marturi. That would have come into the abbey’s possession in the same year of 998 by virtue of a donation from Marquis Hugh I, the second in favour of the abbey, but usually now said to be a forgery.20 While opting for the first hypothesis, put forward by Antonella Ghignoli,21 two remarks can be added. The first considers the juridical nature of the two churches at the centre of the falsifications which, for both, can be traced to that of fiscal assets belonging to royal and marchisal patrimony. The construction of the oratory of S. Martino alla Palma, which later became a church, should with all probability be placed within the development of the curtis in loco et fundo Palme, donated to Emperor Louis II in 864 by the court chaplain Deacon Farimund and his brothers.22 Whereas the first reference to Lucardo, a Florentine locality in Valdelsa, is contained in a donation of Marquis Hugh, the authentic charter dated 10 August 998 only confers unspecified assets to the abbey of Marturi.23 It is quite probable that the assets held in Lucardo by the marquis came from the 18 See Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, pp. 3–7, 252–5. 19 Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, no. 1; RI II.3, no. 1286. 20 See Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, pp. 169–72. 21 See Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, p. 7. 22 We learn of this transaction from DD L II, no. 64 (RI I.3.1, no. 394), in which the emperor granted the same estate to the Casauria abbey; see also the register of the first lost diploma: RI I.3.1, no. 214. 23 Carte della Badia di Marturi, no. 3. The explicit reference to the possession of S. Donato in Lucardo is contained in the false donation of 25 July 998, preserved in a copy of the eleventh century: Carte della Badia di Marturi, no. 2.

192 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

fiscal patrimony of the march.24 Indeed, this parallel may signal the common thread that moved the petition between the two opposing monastic bodies in the claim for patrimony. Both chose the documents with care in order that the interpolation should favour them, and both drew from the archival resources that would most support their claims to the fiscal assets. Now, and this is the second of our considerations, both chose to link their petitions to members of the Hucpolding kinship group: the case for Settimo was sustained upon the ancient possession of these lands, which referred to the first benefactors of marchisal rank of whom memory was preserved, whereas the case of the falsification of Marturi relied on one of the most powerful figures of the late tenth century, the previous author of the reorganization of the monastery.25

Marchisal Fisc and Monastic Foundations The quality of the patrimonial presence of the Hucpoldings in Tuscia changed dramatically upon the abdication of Hugh of Arles in 945. Following the conspiracy hatched by the proceres, Willa, daughter of Boniface I married Marquis Hubert of Tuscia, son of the deposed King Hugh.26 For over fifty years, from the middle of the tenth century, three members of the group had access to the fiscal patrimony of the march. This very quickly became central to the patrimonial activities of the Hucpoldings in this part of the kingdom. The most significant activities were in favour of the monasteries, both those existing and those newly founded, To these monasteries the marquises wanted to assign large portions of often strategic estates belonging to the marchisal patrimony. This is confirmed by donations of allodial property. The reasons behind this munificence towards the monastic institutions should be sought beyond the religiosity of the protagonists, however.27 In fact, the relationships established by Marquis Hugh with some of the wealthiest and most influential Tuscan abbeys are central to his politics as the head of the march. He meant these great monastic foundations to serve also as administrative centres of fiscal estates to avoid dispersion and consequent alienation of conspicuous patrimonial structures from the marquis’ public patrimony.28 Naturally the 24 See Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, pp. 263–5; Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 3. 25 Kurze, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà’, p. 307. 26 See Chapter 1. 27 For an analysis of religious purposes see Tomei, ‘Da Cassino alla Tuscia’. 28 In these foundational acts, the clause prohibiting the alienation of assets by the abbot is firmly stressed; see Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, pp. 87–8. On fisc management through monasteries see Lazzari, ‘Sugli usi speciali dei beni pubblici’.

The March of Tuscany

193

distinction between allodia and fiscal assets is somewhat complicated and not always easy to understand, as the texts of the donations rarely clarify the juridical significance of the assets transferred. The only bases for understanding the judgements are imperial confirmations obtained by the institutions over the years. These reveal with all probability which of the donated patrimonial centres belonged to the treasury and which to the allodia of the marchisal groups.29 The acquisitions of the monastic institutions took place mainly towards the end of the century, and coincided the ecclesiastical reforms pursued by Emperor Otto III.30 In the 60s and 70s of the tenth century, a number of sales and purchases took place that can be described as preparatory, as they were undertaken by marquises whose probable objective was to recover control over the fiscal structures where the monasteries had been founded. Between 967 and 972, Willa purchased several assets in the eastern part of the city of Florence,31 in the Marturi area – today Poggibonsi32 – and in the vicinity of the castle of Capolona near Arezzo.33 Also, on two consecutive occasions, her son Hugh extended his personal patrimony into the territory of Marturi across the valleys of the rivers Elsa and Pesa and on to the boundary between the lands of Florence and those of Siena.34 These properties were not included in subsequent donations to monastic institutions. Evidently, that part of these assets that remained under Willa and Hugh’s direct management bore the specif ic political function of control, which proceeded alongside the usual economic activity. 29 Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, p. 176; Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 4. 30 Tomei, ‘Da Cassino alla Tuscia’ 31 CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 1, 2. The two acts were enacted respectively in 967 and 969; they concerned two plots of lands with buildings for a total value of 230 denarii. 32 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 3; the act was agreed in 972 and concerned seven plots of lands along with houses in Collina, Tavernelle and Bibbiano for a price of 100 denarii. All these localities are close to Poggibonsi (Siena). 33 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 4; in July 972, Willa bought from a certain Alfridus a piece of land in Agilone, an unidentified locality but close to some properties of the churches of Arezzo and Chiusi. The act seems to have been preparatory to the subsequent foundation of the monastery of S. Gennaro: Kurze, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà’, pp. 310–1 and n. 69. 34 In 971 Hugh acquired from a certain Winizus his portion of the castle and estate of Papaiano, together with the church of S. Andrea, and a portion of the estate of Buliciano with the church of S. Giorgio for a price of 100 solidi: Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Ospedale degli Innocenti, March 970; on the right date of 971 see Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 99. Papaiano is in the area of Poggibonsi (Siena), while Buliciano is a locality of Valdelsa close to Colle di Val d’Elsa (Siena). In 988 the marquis acquired four casalini from a certain Gerard son of the late Gotizius: Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 171–4, no. 2. These assets were located in modern Borgo di Cortefreda and Bariano, between Florentine and Sienese territories.

194 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The two monastic foundations attributable to Willa marchionissa can be placed around the 970s.35 As recorded in a diploma issued by Conrad II, the first is the reconstitution of S. Ponziano in a suburb of Lucca, which without doubt was before 983.36 This imperial confirmation tells us that Willa had refounded the monastery – moving it to the pratum marchionis – and reconstituted its patrimony, thanks to the donation of fiscal assets within the localities of Arena and Fiesso along the course of the river Serchio.37 On the other hand, the foundation of the monastery of S. Maria, later named Badia fiorentina, within the city of Florence can be placed to approximately 978. The initial patrimony of the abbey was established and developed for a period spanning twenty years across the tenth and eleventh centuries, owing to the donations of Marquis Hugh and his successor Boniface II who noticeably implemented the already conspicuous endowment of Willa. Comparison with later imperial conf irmations, starting from the f irst bestowed by Otto III, highlights quite clearly that the donated assets were largely public in origin. The abbey’s original patrimony must have represented a substantial part of the dower Willa received from her husband Hubert upon their marriage.38 The assets were included within the four sectors of the Florentine territory, sometimes even reaching the areas of Fiesole and Siena. In addition to lands and buildings in and around the city centre of Florence, the areas concerned were Valdelsa in the territories of modern Colle di Val d’Elsa, Poggibonsi and San Gimignano; the entire Chianti region, particularly from San Casciano in Val di Pesa to Gaiole in Chianti; and the Valdarno Superiore between Pratomagno and Val di Sieve where now stand the villages of Pelago, Reggello, Pian di Scò, Montemignaio and Castel San Niccolò.39 The first substantial endowment was arranged by Willa in 978, in all probability at the same time as the abbey’s establishment. 40 Later, it was Hugh who then donated to the 35 In a letter of 1057 sent to Beatrix of Lorraine, Peter Damian reports the news of a third foundation, an unspecified church of S. Maria in the territory of Arezzo: Die Briefe des Petrus, no. 51, pp. 136–7. 36 DD C II, no. 25; RI III.1.1, no. 25. 37 See Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, pp. 307–9. Arena is a locality of San Giuliano Terme (Pisa); Fiesso could be placed in the municipality of Lucca; on this last hypothesis see Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, p. 232, n. 4. 38 Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. 39 A general overview on abbatial lands is to be found in Clement III’s privilege of 1188: CdM Badia, vol. 2, no. 225; see also Ninci, ‘Le proprietà della Badia’, pp. 320–1. 40 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 5. Willa donated lands and buildings in Florence where the monastery had been built, and in the Florentine and Fiesolano territories, in localities such as Monte Domini, Gingnori, Bibbione in Val di Pesa, Villamagna close to Bagno a Ripoli (Florence), Montemignaio. Willa also donated the estates of Greve (now Scandicci), Signa, Bibiano and Gariperghe.

The March of Tuscany

195

Badia on two different occasions, in 995 and 997. 41 Following the death of the marquis in 1002, the monastery attained imperial confirmation for all the properties obtained until that time. 42 Otto III’s diploma enabled an assessment of the most significant properties obtained by the Badia, as it bore a complete list of the fiscal assets transferred by the two Hucpoldings in the first two decades of its foundation, also naming therefore those for which the deeds of donation have not been conserved. Hence, we see the castles of Signa, Greve, Bibiano in Val di Sieve and Luco – all mentioned in previous charters – and those of Vicchio in Val di Greve and Cetica in Val d’Arno in the Casentino which, in contrast, do not appear in surviving documents. 43 Also included in the same way are the estates of Monte Domini, Bibbione in Val di Pesa, Monte Molinario and Francilione, 44 about which information was already available; and two estates in Foci in the upper Valdelsa and the estates of Fagise and Radda, 45 which conversely had never been mentioned before. The document of 12 August 1009 arranged by Marquis Boniface II, Hugh’s successor, enables us to further define the juridical nature of the assets the marquises transferred to the abbatial patrimony. 46 Contrary to his predecessor in fact, Boniface meant to specify the nature of the various properties: the estate and castle of Broilo and the lands in the localities of Pesella and Boianum were allodial properties of Boniface, as they had been inherited from his father. 47 The remaining property was part of the assets of the marchisal fisc: the estate of Radda and the castle of Vicchio – already mentioned in earlier donations – and the curtes and castles of Tignanum and Seianum, both located in Val d’Elsa, 48 added for the first time by Boniface. 41 CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 8, 11. In 995, Hugh granted the marchisal castle of Luco in Valdarno, and in 997, he enlarged his mother’s donation of the estate of Bibiano. 42 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 15; RI II.3, no. 1437. 43 See CdM Badia, vol. 1, p. 25; Ninci, ‘Le proprietà della Badia’, pp. 332–3. 44 The mention of this last estate had been included only in a coeval copy of Willa’s donation; see CdM Badia, vol. 1, p. 14, n. h. 45 These lands are granted by a certain Ermengarde daugther of Odalgarius in 1036: CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 40. They were located south of Poggibonsi: Radda is modern Radda in Chianti (Siena), though Fagise is not identifiable. 46 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 19. 47 The castle of Broilo is close to modern Gaiole in Chianti (Siena): Repetti, Dizionario, vol. 1, pp. 362–3; Pesella is perhaps Pestello in the locality of Montevarchi (Arezzo), and Boianum is perhaps modern Bugialla of Radda in Chianti (Siena): Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 6. 48 The castle of Tignanum must have been located near Barberino Val d’Elsa (Florence) in the pieve of S. Donato al Poggio; Seianum was near Certaldo (Florence) in the pieve of S. Gerusalemme; on both places see Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 3, n. 9.

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Map 4. Places mentioned in the march of Tuscia

196 

The March of Tuscany

197

The monastic foundations that we have described so far were positioned centrally, and especially in towns, in contrast to the overall territorial environment of the march of Tuscany. On one side, we have seen the attempt to integrate and recover control of the city of Lucca – the capital of the march – after the events of the second half of the century; on the other, we have observed consolidation of the century-old position of dominance occupied by the group within and around the city of Florence, building and endowing great monastic institutions, this time independently from the city bishop. The reach of Marquis Hugh’s hegemony across a large part of the kingdom of Italy, particularly during the regency of Theophanu and the reign of Otto III, allowed him to control a broad portion of Tuscan territory. Thus, he managed whole patrimonial areas which previously the kinship group had been unable to access. Continuing to maintain the monastic institutions as principal proxies for his politics, Hugh continued to endow them with land and buildings belonging to the fisc and, by so doing, demonstrated the extent of his influence and administrative activity, which also stretched to the territories of Siena, Pisa, Arezzo and Volterra. 49 Where the marquis did not identify monastic environments favourable to him, because of either an effective lack of foundations or an incapacity to control the existing ones, he instituted new communities, transforming existing churches into monasteries or reconstituting ruined coenobia, without having any intention to ‘found family monasteries, but marchisal abbeys or perhaps even imperial ones’.50 In the most northern portion of Sienese territory, the upper Valdelsa, Marquis Hugh decided to restore an ancient monastic foundation perhaps dating to the eighth century, situated at the centre of several fiscal properties. Around 997, Hugh entrusted to the anchorite Bononius the task of restoring the monastery of S. Michele di Marturi.51 Already in August 998, Hugh had arranged a monastic patrimony that was concentrated in the upper Valdelsa, 49 Marquis Hugh also made donations outside Tuscia and in areas that did not concern the group’s landholdings, at least not directly. In 996, he granted the large fiscal estate of Caresana in the comitatus of Tortona to the bishop and cathedral chapter of Vercelli; see Vignodelli, ‘Prima di Leone’. He also acted at least three times on behalf of the abbey of S. Maria della Vangadizza, which he himself founded: Regesto dell’Abbazia della Vangadizza, pp. 8–9. See also Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 106–7, 130–3; Castagnetti, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’, pp. 65–9; Bonacini, ‘Il marchese Almerico’, pp. 250–1. 50 Kurze, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà’, p. 308: ‘fondare monasteri di famiglia, ma abbazie marchionali o forse addirittura imperiali’. 51 Kurze, ‘I reperti d’argento’, p. 230.

198 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

in Chianti and in Val di Pesa.52 The donation was probably followed by a second transfer of less certain tradition, whose contents were fiscal assets in the Bologna area, and will be considered in the next chapter.53 Although we know of some of Hugh’s allodial possessions from the sales and purchase agreements considered earlier for some of the localities donated, there is a very high probability that – starting from the locality of Marturi itself – the majority of the assets granted belonged to fiscal patrimony. As proof of this hypothesis, the claims made upon these same estates by Hugh’s successors clearly considered them to be of marquisal purview. Boniface II himself, years later, became the target of a narratio written by the monks to lay claim to and legitimize the original endowment:54 the monks wanted to present Boniface’s legitimate demands as violence and extortion in order that they could maintain that the localities in question originated from the allodia of Marquis Hugh and, as such, were donated to S. Michele in Marturi. Still in the territory of Siena, we have records of two other patrimonial transfers to the two imperial abbeys of S. Antimo in the valley of the river Starcia and of S. Salvatore al Monte Amiata. Only the original deed of the latter has survived:55 in December 995 Hugh donated the curtis domnicata in the locality of Bagnum to the abbey of S. Salvatore, including the church and all its appurtenances; he also granted the hamlet Rotacardosa with a church.56 For these too, which must have been mainly fiscal assets,57 Hugh placed a permanent alienation ban on the abbot of the monastery. In the most-western sector of the Siena territory and the area of Volterra, in 996 we see Hugh’s transactions in favour of the church and cathedral of S. Maria of Volterra,58 where he must have owned private assets adjacent to 52 Carte della Badia di Marturi, no. 3. Lands and places donated were Hugh’s house and estate inside Marturi’s castle, the same castle, the castle of Colle de Monte, the estate of Tenzanum, lands in Foci, Luco, Anclanum, Megognanum e Lucardo, and the castles of Papaiano and Talcione. All these were located around Marturi, modern Poggibonsi (Siena); see Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 3, n. 6. 53 See Chapter 6. 54 Carte della Badia di Marturi, no. 11; see Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, pp. 165–8, 173–5. 55 The donation on behalf of S. Antimo is lost. It is mentioned in the diploma the abbey received by Henry III in 1051: DD H III, no. 271; see Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 157. 56 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 174–7, no. 3. The estate of Bagnum is identifiable with San Casciano dei Bagni (Siena); the hamlet of Rotacardosa called Borgoricum is Borgoricco in the locality of the same pieve of S. Casciano; see Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 116–17. 57 Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, p. 105, had no doubt about all these assets; perhaps, the estate of Bagnum was part of Hugh’s personal inheritance (ex hereditario iure sui), as an uncompleted diploma attested: DD O III, no. 425; RI II.3, no. 1436; see also Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 116–17. 58 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 177–81, no. 4. On this charta donationis see Tomei, ‘Una nuova categoria documentaria’.

The March of Tuscany

199

the castle of Monte Voltraio. These were acquired by means of a purchase agreement, of which we find mention in a document dated 969.59 Despite there being no explicit confirmation, it can be supposed that the properties purchased were then the objects of a donation60 amounting to twenty-two leaseholds situated between Volterra and San Gimignano.61 Identifying fiscal estates amid these properties is rather complicated, particularly when one bears in mind that they were the objects of confirmation only in 1186 by Emperor Henry VI (1191–1197).62 Over this longer time frame, we can identify the active and peaceful management of the donated assets and thus the absence of any need for imperial intervention to protect such assets.63 The picture thus far described of Marquis Hugh’s patrimonial activities is completed with the areas of Arezzo and Pisa through information extrapolated from the only coeval and successive documents preserved.64 In the Pisa territory no royal abbeys are known but, despite a rather intricate and patchy tradition,65 we can attribute to Hugh the foundation of the small monastery honouring archangel Michael. This was at the already existing church of S. Angelo close to the castle of Verruca in the city surroundings.66 Although we are unable to define the means by which the marquis came to have the fortress, Hugh donated it to the imperial abbey of Sesto,67 at that time negotiating with Otto III who in 996 confirmed its possession by the abbey of Lucca.68 At the same time, Bishop Gerard II of Lucca, who must have maintained possession of the small monastery on the Verruca, leased it to Maio, Abbot

59 It is a promissio given by the seller to Hugh: Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 169–71, no. 1. On its date of composition see also Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, pp. 56–7, and Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Il castello di Montevoltraio’, p. 115. 60 Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, p. 268. 61 These assets were located in Casale San Gimignano (Siena), Lamule close to Casale and Monte Voltraio (Pisa), Cerreto near Elmo (Pisa), Settimana, Metato near Casale (Pisa), Poggio Ripi near Monte Voltraio (Pisa), Montegabbro near Castel San Gimignano (Siena) and Colina: Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 117–18. 62 RI IV.3, no. 14. 63 We can add to the list also a donation for the chapter of the cathedral of Volterra: Regestum Volaterranum, no. 91; see also Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 157–9. 64 A much-debated donation of 993 – most probably a forgery – to the monastery of S. Sepolcro in Acquapendente is ascribed to Marquis Hugh; see the critical edition in Riant, La donation de Hugues, pp. 14–16, and Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 107–13. 65 See Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 118–20. 66 The castle was built on Monte Verruca, to the east of Pisa; see Repetti, Dizionario, vol. 5, pp. 700–1. 67 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 123. 68 DD O III, no. 219; RI II.3, no. 1201; and it was confirmed by Henry II: DD H II, no. 425; RI II.4, no. 1966.

200 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

of Sesto.69 Relationships between the marquis and the abbey, which were an important control point for Lucca and the whole Tuscan territory to the north,70 also continued later when Maio himself and Hugh traded some churches in the area, as reported in a diploma issued by Conrad II.71 The Aretine territory was the last focus of Hugh’s activities. We have already mentioned the patrimonial transfers enacted by Willa during the initial years of her son’s government. At the end of the century, following in the direction traced by his mother, the marquis founded the monastery of S. Gennaro inside the castle of Capolona. This became part of the fiscal patrimony of the march to which all the appurtenances of the curtis of the same name were assigned.72 With this transaction, Hugh organized the fiscal estates in the surrounding territory and strengthened his control over Arezzo, already ensured by the marchis’ relationship with the bishops of that see. Everard, bishop of Arezzo from 963 to some point in the 980s, was in fact his maternal uncle, while his successor, Helmempert, was Hugh’s missus outside Tuscany. Later, when Helmempert founded the monastery of Prataglia in the Casentino as his Eigenkloster,73 endowing it with a part of the inheritance left to the cathedral chapter of Arezzo by his predecessor Everard,74 marquis Hugh transferred to him some properties that he held in the Casentino between Bibbiena and Arezzo.75 Hugh’s successor, Boniface II, despite his intention to perpetuate his cousin’s monastic policy, was unable to extend his influence beyond the territories already controlled by the kindred before his marchisal promotion. The marquis’ influence extended predominantly over the Florentine territory, where he could count on good relationships with the Badia, and as far as Valdelsa, where however the monks of Marturi refused him access to the assets obtained, leading him to attack the abbey itself.76 Boniface II also had property and interests in the Pistoia area, particularly in the Apennines towards Bologna, an area where his parents had settled. Between 1004 and 1005, Marquis Boniface II 69 Memorie e documenti, no. 1708; see Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, p. 323. 70 See Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, pp. 301–7. 71 DD C II, no. 80; RI III.1.1, no. 83. 72 Mention of Hugh’s foundation is to be found in Otto III’s diploma of 997: DD O III, no. 263; RI II.3, no. 1247. On another subsequent donation by Hugh and his wife Judith, see Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 151–4. On the fiscal estate of Capolona see Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, pp. 285–6. 73 Prataglia was probably founded in 999: Italia Pontificia, vol. 3, p. 170. 74 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 12. The whole fiscal estate of Orgia – close to modern Castel San Niccolò (Arezzo) – was confirmed to the chapter by Otto III in 998: DD O III, no. 295; RI II.3, no. 1284. 75 This information is included in Otto III’s diploma of 1002: DD O III, no. 423; RI II.3, no. 1438; see Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 154–5. 76 Nobili, ‘Le famiglie marchionali’, p. 145.

The March of Tuscany

201

made a donation in favour of Abbot John and the monastery of S. Salvatore in Fontana Taona,77 which enabled the institution to consolidate and to become an imperial abbey a decade later. We are unable to attribute the foundation of the abbey itself to Boniface,78 though the relevance that the monastery decisively assumed after the marquisal donation remains clear, followed within a few years by the confirmations of both emperors Henry II and Conrad II.79 The concession included the grant of estates to the north of Pistoia in Val di Bure, on the side of the Apennines facing the Bologna territories.80 Most of the donated assets were probably fiscal in origin,81 as implied by the imperial confirmation mentioned. Also the caphadio Bonifacingo, a wood that the marquis possessed as allodium from his parents, most probably had a fiscal origin when it came into Hucpolding hands. Accordingly, it was situated near another caphadio owned by the episcopal church of the city. Boniface had therefore at his disposal the assets inherited from his parents in the Pistoia area of the Apennines adjacent to the territories in Emilia. The wood, identified by one of the principal names of Hucpolding stock, must have been part of a large zone of the kinship’s property. A document in Pistoia dated 1023 shows moreover the presence of a piece of land named Bonifatinga, situated between the confines of a land donated to the church of Pistoia.82 Despite these items of proof, the Apennine area of Pistoia does not seem to return among the kinship’s places of activity, as it had been previously. Patrimonial evidence suggests Marquis Boniface II remains the only one attributable to the Hucpoldings in the area of likely origin from the Guidi lineage.83

Centres of Power, Patronage Networks The patrimonial and political presence of the Hucpoldings in the march then grew in quality with the acquisition of the marchisal office which, particularly through control of fiscal estates, permitted the composition of a large system of power centres and relationships of vassalage. The estates 77 Monastero di San Salvatore, no. 1. 78 On the monastery’s origins see Monastero di San Salvatore, pp. 2–6. 79 Monastero di San Salvatore, nos. 2, 6. 80 The estates were in the localities of Staggiano, close to Forra al Pitta (Pistoia), and of Baggio (Pistoia). 81 Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, pp. 318–19. 82 Canonica di S. Zenone, no. 45. 83 See Documenti, ed. Rauty, pp. 1–3.

202 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

were generally formed from a fortified centre, a church and a curtis with cultivated lands (mansi), thereby representing both economic centres coordinating the surrounding countryside, and military and political control points. From the sources in our possession, the most developed area was unquestionably the Florentine territory where we can count at least ten fortified centres spread around Florence in Mugello and the upper Valdelsa, corresponding to the localities of Scandicci, Signa, Bibbiano, Luco, Vicchio, Cetica, Broilo, Tignanum and Seianum. In the most northern sector of the Siena part of Valdelsa, the four castles of Marturi, Monti, Papaiano, Talcione and the hamlet of Foci can be included as key organizational cores. In the territory of Arezzo, interests were concentrated around the castle and estate of Capolona, at the edge of Arezzo, while, for the area of Pisa, patrimonial presence was represented by the castle of Verruca positioned immediately adjacent to the city. Over the course of the last decade of the tenth century, administrative management of the lands and the people living there (tied to these estates) was often entrusted to monastic foundations, instituted or pre-existing, near these same fiscal centres. As we have previously remarked, the objective of Hugh I’s monastic policy was to assure continued administration of the lands and to avoid their dispersion, which would be detrimental to the marchisal power. The monasteries therefore acquired a fundamental role, placing themselves at an intermediate level between the marquis and the areas he controlled. As a result, the monastic contribution strengthened the direct presence of the marchio over the territory which, from the beginning of Hugh’s activities, availed itself of people who could be included in a wide marchisal entourage, active on different social levels and all positioned under his patronage. This group of people in direct relationship with Hugh was formed in one part by the missi delegated to represent and perform administrative and judicial tasks across the various territories of the march, often where the presence of the marquis was less usual. Into this circle it is appropriate to add individuals who stipulated land purchase transactions directly with Hugh and Willa. In the rural community of the tenth and twelfth centuries no transfer of land could be considered purely for its economic value but had to be an instrument to redistribute resources to either affirm or consolidate relationships.84 The second, considerably more numerous group was composed of professionals of law and writing, members of the marchisal entourage. 84 Provero, L’Italia dei poteri locali, pp. 70–1.

The March of Tuscany

203

In the city of Lucca in 970, the first year of Hugh’s government, two of his missi, Ingefred iudex domni imperatoris and Eliazar, known as Erizus, supervised two exchanges by Bishop Adelongus.85 In 973 city charters mention activities of a certain Fraolmus vicecomes, a member of the family who had held the same position since the beginning of the century,86 but whose precise relationship with Marquis Hugh and his kinship group we are unable to establish.87 Active control was nonetheless assured over city events by the monastery of S. Ponziano, refounded by Hugh’s mother Willa before 983, and again by missi employed to attend to the prelate’s patrimonial instructions.88 In this same territorial environment Maginfred must have been operating, a loyal servant to Hugh, for whom the marquis himself interceded with Otto III in 996 to grant him properties in Lucca and the area around the city walls of Pisa.89 Another of the faithful servants of the marquis, Ciolo, was also active in the same territory of Pisa, and in turn in 1001 received a massaricium from the emperor belonging to the imperial treasury to the north of Pisa, at Rigoli.90 We also have news of a particularly close relationship – probably anti-episcopal in nature91 – between Hugh and the city’s canons as certified by another imperial diploma.92 Once again, however, precise connections with the vicecomes Hildebrand, active in Pisa between 973 and 984, cannot be established with any certainty.93 In the territory of Arezzo, we have already considered the patrimonial relationship that Willa established with a certain Alfridus son of the deceased Alfridus.94 In the same sector the presence of a castaldus et missus loyal to Marquis Hugh is documented in April 977, who was engaged in protecting a number of patrimonial interests of the monastery of S. Fiora and S. Lucilla.95 Finally, the presence of marchisal power, materially expressed 85 Memorie e documenti, nos. 1421, 1424. 86 On Fraolmus see Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, pp. 157–8. 87 Around 983, Hugh agreed to a purchase act with Cuneradus Cunitio (Memorie e documenti, no. 1573), most likely a cousin of Fraolmus: Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, pp. 20–1, 100. 88 Memorie e documenti, no. 1625, though the envoy’s name is illegible. 89 DD O III, no. 223; RI II.3, no. 1206. On Maginfred and his family so-called Da Ripafratta see Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, pp. 43–8. 90 DD O III, no. 410; RI II.3, no. 1424. 91 In the second half of the tenth century, bishops of Pisa were probably close to the Obertenghi who did not align with the anti-Ottonian faction; see Nobili, ‘Le terre obertenghe’, pp. 218–19. 92 DD O III, no. 224. 93 See Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, pp. 162, 164. 94 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 4. 95 Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo, no. 76.

204 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

by the castle of Capolona near the city, was shown essentially through the direct and close connection with Aretine prelates notably the uncle of Hugh, Eberhard. Unfortunately, we do not possess any details of his activities, nor those of his successor Helmempert, who was so close to Hugh as to become his missus. The bishop was in fact charged with the administration of justice in the duchy of Spoleto, territory for which Hugh obtained governorship in 986.96 The bishop shared this duty with a certain Count William,97 who, as we will see, also had a central role in the Florentine area. For Volterra, on the other hand, there is no explicit mention of either activity or presence of the marchisal missi. Despite this absence, the previously mentioned deed of purchase of 969 between Marquis Hugh and Winild son of the late Camarinus acquires significance.98 The purchase, in all probability, addressed the twofold objective of allowing Hugh a patrimonial foothold in a territory that had never previously involved his kinship’s activities, and sealing a direct relationship with a representative of an influential local family. They were well established in episcopal patronage and on good terms with the city chapter.99 The same procedure was repeated in 971 in Sienese territory, where the marquis purchased and then granted some significant properties in usufruct to a certain Winizus, including a part of the estate and the castle of Papaiano.100 This castle would become one of the centres of power under the control of the abbey of Marturi. In the Florentine area, a primary role was occupied by the monastic foundation of the Badia fiorentina, established by Willa in 978. In preparation, between 967 and 972 Willa stipulated a number of purchase agreements with individuals of the intermediate society of the city and the contado, namely Zenobius son of the late Ingalrad, Adanald son of the late Atripert, and Tebaldus son of the late Gualtieri de comitato et territorio fiorentino.101 Again in 988, in the most southern sector of the same territory, Marquis Hugh sealed notable patrimonial relationships with Gerard son of the late Gotizius, also a wealthy landowner de comitato fiorentino, probably a member of the Gotizi group.102 The considerable size of this transaction demonstrates 96 See Chapter 2. 97 See I placiti, vol. 2.1, nos. 222, 223; ‘I placiti del “Regnum Italiae” (secc. IX–XI)’, no. 12. 98 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 169–71, no. 1. 99 On Winild’s family see Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, pp. 159–60; Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, pp. 56–9. 100 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 99, 149. 101 CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 1, 2, 3. 102 See Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, pp. 325–33.

The March of Tuscany

205

clearly how the value of these operations was not merely economic. Through them, Willa and Hugh aimed at sealing relationships with individuals from the intermediate strata of society, composed of wealthy estate owners who were politically active and ready to support the superior power by virtue of local control.103 Relationships tied to the urban environment are less evident, being supported by rather fragmentary documentation. The interactions that emerged from the ninth century with the prelates and city canons must have continued over the course of the next century – again in relation to the small monastery of S. Andrea. From the men attending the previously mentioned foundation act of the Badia, a connection emerges between Willa and Roland vicecomes who was active in Florence in the second half of the tenth century.104 His participation at the deed’s drafting which furthermore was stipulated in Pisa, is a clear indication of the proximity between the vicecomes and members of the Hucpolding group who managed to link him to their network of patronage in the Florentine area – presumably thanks to their status in the city. We can also trace to that territorial sector the activity of John, gastald to Marquis Boniface II who, in 1008, participated in a legal oath within the context of a patrimonial controversy.105 The presence in the same territory of a public official directly connected to Marquis Boniface appears to be consistent with Boniface’s effective control over areas of the march of Tuscia. Evidently, Boniface II had been able to establish and to further promote a large networks of relationships built by his cousin, though only in some areas of the march. This is especially true of those closest to the Bolognese sector and where the patrimonial presence of the group was firmer and more enduring. Lastly, the Badia fiorentina also represented a considerable connection with the local lineages of a high social level who failed to enact a direct union through marriage with the holders of marchisal power. For example, on the occasion of the institution of a hospice at the Badia, in addition to the Hucpoldings those for whom prayers were to be included two sisters significantly related to the monastery and the daughters of a certain William, who can be identified as the missus of the same name of Marquis Hugh I.106 The two women, Waldrada and Atalasia, were the wives, respectively, of 103 Intermediate levels of Tuscan society are analysed in Collavini, ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale’. 104 Puglia, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi’, p. 166. 105 I placiti, vol. 2.1, no. XI. 106 CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 35, 63.

206 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Marquis Ranieri, who obtained the march after the death of the Hucpolding Boniface II, and Count Lothar, a leading figure of the Cadoling group.107 So, in this case, the network of relationships was organized according to a previously unknown structure: at the centre we find the monastic foundation, still in the eleventh century very close to the founding kinship group,108 while as a cohesive connection we find relationships between the kin and the people of Marquis Hugh’s entourage. If for Ranieri this relationship meant his entry into the leading society of the march, which would later pave the way to his appointment by Henry II; for Count Lothar, we perceive additionaly reasons that are more patrimonial in nature. It was perhaps thanks to this indirect link to the Hucpoldings that the count could establish the church of S. Salvatore in Settimo as a family monastery at the end of the tenth century, whose patrimonial relevance can be observed from Hubald I’s generation. The second group of people directly related to leading figures of the group with the rank and office of marquis were composed of professional figures in law and in writing who formed the marquis’ entourage.109 These people, who defined themselves as judges or notaries domni imperatoris, participated in the drafting and authentication of the deeds of the marquis, whose typical form assumed the presence and therefore the signature of at least four of them.110 In the nineteen documents considered here, seventy people including notaries and judges domni imperatoris are named. Despite it being rather complicated to identify them individually, when cross-checking the recurrence of names and document chronology, the number of people making up the entourage in the Hucpolding period is around thirty-five, of whom only six had the double title of judge and notary domni imperatoris. Considering where the documents were written, most of the judges must have joined the marquis when he was in town, particularly in Pisa and Lucca.111 Their participation clearly varied according to contingencies and perhaps even to marchisal direction. With this in mind, the donation arranged by Hugh in 997 at the hamlet of Foci in the contado at Marturi is significant: only two simple notaries participated, who were probably resident in the 107 Waldrada was Ranieri’s second wife; see Collavini, ‘Ranieri’; on Count Lothar’s marriage see Pescaglini Monti, ‘I conti Cadolingi’, pp. 195–6. 108 The relationship with the founders, however, cannot be classif ied within the classic Eigenkloster typology; see Chapter 7. 109 On a detailed analysis of marchisal documentation by Hugh and Willa see Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, pp. 183–6. 110 Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, p. 185. 111 Twelve from Pisa were attested and fourteen from Lucca.

The March of Tuscany

207

area.112 On the contrary, in 996, some of the busiest members of the entourage followed Hugh on his journey to the abbey of Vangadizza, well beyond the confines of the Tuscan march.113 The only surviving document for Bishop Eberhard reports a large number of vassals at the hamlet of Bibbiena at the formal agreement of an important deed of sale, even though it referred to the Emilian side of the Apennines.114 Of the various people there, we see four judges domni imperatoris and a notary and judge sacri palaci, all of whom are otherwise unknown and whose signatures never appear on any marchisal deed. The relationship between the Aretine bishop and these professional legal representatives is not altogether clear; more to the point, it is impossible to establish whether this concerned the public sphere of his magisterium or a more private dimension, that of his kinship with Marquis Hugh. In this connection, a document of his successor Helmempert seems to indicate that the first solution is the correct one, as among the signers appears a certain Liutard ‘iudex domni imperatoris et avocato ipsius ecclesie’ (judge of the emperor and lawyer of that church),115 highlighting the direct relationship that these people had with the church of Arezzo, rather than with the prelate himself. Finally, in the only two charters arranged by Marquis Boniface II there is no mention of any individual bearing titles characteristic of the entourage of his predecessor. The two lists of witnesses, largely without any implication beyond patronymic, seem in fact to lead back to the circle of the marquis’ vassals rather than prove the existence of an active and numerous marchisal entourage as in the years of Hugh. Probably, the limited propagation of Boniface’s power across the territory of the march did not allow him to catalyse within his patronages that class of legal expert who sat at the pinnacle of culture and prestige in local society. Another group of individuals for whom it is possible to perceive a relationship, albeit tentatively, with the holders of marchisal power is composed of those following Frankish law who intervened at Willa and Hugh’s deeds of donation. These were mainly Salic natio116 and formed a fixed component among the witnesses, f ive in number, of the marquis’ donations, and their presence must have been believed to be testimonial, necessary to 112 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 11. 113 Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 1, no. 57: John notary and imperial judge and Sigefredus and Teupertus imperial judges. 114 Bologna 10, no. 26. 115 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 12. 116 Willa and Hugh lived according to Salian law. Only once their witnesses claimed to follow the Ripuarian law, which was the Hucpolding original law; see Chapter 7.

208 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the validation of the deed.117 The occasional intervention of these people is not enough to consider them part of an organized group of followers. Moreover, they represented less explicit relationships of solidarity, only brought to light by their personal legal significance, from which Hugh and Willa however were able to benefit on a local level in the various places they moved to from time to time. The various localities in which the documents were written gives us a general idea of the spatial concentration of these relationships within the march: we find them particularly in the area of Pisa, in the Valdelsa between Foci and Marturi, around Volterra and lastly at Sovana to the south of Monte Amiata.118 The great abundance of patrimonial evidence in Tuscany is interrupted by the lack of confirmation of the marquis office for the Hucpolding descendants. The great leap that access to fiscal patrimony gave Hugh’s and Boniface II’s activities and politics, particularly monastic ones, left no relevant traces over the following decades. Over the course of the eleventh century a return of the lineage can be noted in the areas surrounding Florence. Indeed these were the areas that first saw the Hucpolding presence from the ninth century: the lands crossed by the river Ema, the areas surrounding Ripoli, and the area downstream from Florence near Settimo. A new element, although in continuity with previously known areas, is the proof of their presence in Mugello on the mountains of Pratomagno and in the Casentino area, where new relationships tied with a branch of the Guidi lineage played a fundamental role.119 From the first decades of the eleventh century, the only presence in Tuscany of members of the kinship group are those of the son of Boniface I, Count Adimarus, and his descendants. There are two branches born to this man who have left traces in document sources: the Adimari, documented until the middle of the twelfth century, and the lineage through Maginfred, son of Hubald and grandson of Adimarus. The Adimari branch had important relationships with the city of Florence for almost the whole of the eleventh century, particularly with the canons of S. Giovanni. They formed an important group in the clergy of the city exemplified by Archdeacon Bernard II who was a member of this lineage. In the area to the south-east, therefore, continuity was not random between possessions of the cathedral chapter and the Florentine bishop and the same places outlined for the lands of the badiola of S. Andrea. 117 See Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, p. 185. 118 See the already mentioned donations agreed in Pisa in 978 and 997, in Foci in January 997, in Marturi in August 998, and finally in Sovana in 995 and in Volterra in 996. 119 The endogamic marriage between Gisla and Tegrimus and the foundation of S. Fedele of Strumi were key patrimonial and dynastic developments for the kinship branch of the Guidi; see Chapters 2 and 7.

The March of Tuscany

209

In the pieve of S. Pietro in Quarto, now Bagno a Ripoli, Bernard, son of the late Count Adimarus, returned a number of lands located in the vicinity to the church of S. Pietro a Ema.120 The deed, dated 1046, was witnessed in the presence of a number of Bernard’s family members. We do not know precisely how he had come to own the lands linked to this church; but can say that in all likelihood his daughter-in-law, Gasdia was the daughter of Raimbertus known as Cicio. The latter belonged to the founding family of the church of S. Pietro itself in the ninth century.121 Later, in 1077, Gasdia and her brother-in-law Adimarus gave all their assets in Rovezzano and Varlungo to the Florentine cathedral chapter,122 also situated in the pieve of S. Pietro in Quarto just across the river Arno.123 In light of what has been presented thus far, it cannot be ignored that both deeds were stipulated in Florence, specifically at the cathedral of S. Reparata. At the beginning of the twelfth century the Adimari attempted to establish their lordship around the castle of Gangalandi.124 Their purpose was to control and to collect taxes from the people of the churches of S. Martino and S. Angelo built inside the settlement of Gangalandi (dependant upon the pieve of S. Lorenzo a Signa), which had in turn been controlled by the city chapter for about 150 years.125 Although the Florentine army had tried to destroy the castle,126 the family found support in the cathedral chapter and in Bishop Ranieri, who granted them the churches upon the authority to reform their administration into a single body and place the canons of both under the control of a single prior.127 The Adimari also donated to the two churches the hospitale, which was built on mount Politano – reserving its patronage for themselves. Despite military defeat,128 their lordship over the area around Gangalandi was never questioned as long as it did not interfere with Florentine interests. A few years later, in 1124, a controversy was resolved between Archpriest John, appointed by the cathedral chapter, and Hubaldinus and Bernard son of Adimarus regarding assets held by their ancestor, Archdeacon Bernard.129 120 Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, no. 7; the church that later became S. Piero is located in Ponte a Ema in the municipality of Bagno a Ripoli (Florence). 121 Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 262, n. 5. 122 Modern Rovezzano e Varlungo, near Florence. 123 CdC Firenze, no. 93. 124 Modern Lastra a Signa, in the Florentine area. 125 Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 185. 126 See Chapter 3. 127 CdC Firenze, no. 156. 128 Described in terms of the submission of the family in Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 237. 129 CdC Firenze, no. 168.

210 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The document does not provide precise indications of the property in question: reference is generally made to castellis et terris et vineis et rebus (castles and lands and vineyards and other things) held by feud or lease by the Adimari, without any topographical collocation. The dispute was resolved by the exchange of the contended assets for others, quantified as two modia of land and woods and 10 librae of Lucca denarii. Exercising seignorial authority over Gangalandi (to the west of Florence near the abbey of Settimo) led to important patrimonial contiguity with the Cadolings, a comital group that was dominant in the area at that time.130 Between 1091 and 1092, Purpure, son of the late Bernard de Campi, and his own son Bernard sold their whole share in the church of S. Martino Adimari in Mugello and its assets to Count Hugh of the Cadolings.131 Both localities are in the Apennines near the Futa pass, very close to the Bolognese side. The last traceable patrimonial area for the Adimari is the Florentine Pratomagno. In this area, Adimarus and Hildebrand, sons of Hubald, owned a number of estates, particularly around the abbey of Vallombrosa, very close to the lands of the Guidi.132 In 1096, following the example of Count Guy IV, Adimarus and Hildebrand renounced all the lands and woods possessed on the Alpe known as Vallombrosa in favour of the abbey, adding their desire to be buried in the same monastery.133 The boundaries of the assets renounced are relevant, since ‘de tertjia parte habet terminum eiusdem terra Adimari, de quarta parte habet terminum terra Adimari et alia terra Sancti Illari’ (on the third side [these assets] adjoined the same Adimari’s land, on the fourth adjoined the Adimari’s land and another land owned by S. Ellero). Evidence of this terra Adimari already emerges in a boundary demarcation of 1039 which, with some caution, allows us to ascribe the patrimonial area to the first Count Adimarus,134 forefather of this Hucpolding branch. On the other hand, the continuous and lasting presence of the Adimari in this area suggests the existence of a solid relationship of patronage between the Adimari and the Guidi. This must have reached its height between the eleventh and twelfth centuries when Hildebrand and Adimarus appeared on a number of occasions among the Guidi vassals.135 130 Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, pp. 23–4. 131 Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo, nos. 19, 21. 132 On Guidi’s possessions in Pratomagno and in Casentino see Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung, pp. 260–1. 133 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 92. 134 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. XIII. 135 See Chapter 3.

The March of Tuscany

211

The second kinship branch that originated from Count Adimarus extends through his son Hubald to Maginfred. This man was active towards the middle of the eleventh century on both sides of the Tuscan-Romagnolo Apennines, particularly in the territories of Bologna and Florence.136 As far as the Tuscan area is concerned, a single document provides evidence of Maginfred’s property in the Florentine area of Mugello. In 1044 John son of Tazzo of the Gotizi kinship alienated from a certain Adica, daughter of Henry, all the assets that had previously been purchased by Maginfred son of Hubald and by Gisla his wife.137 This was in all likelihood the fortifications and lands spread across the Apennine tract to the south of Borgo San Lorenzo on the southernmost extremities of Val di Sieve-Mugello. It can be noted especially that the settlement of Lutiano Vecchio rises on the road which, once beyond Borgo San Lorenzo, climbs the Apennine passes, goes through Brisighella or through one of its variants Modigliana and finally reaches Faenza. These are territories which, as we have seen, were controlled in the same period by other Hucpoldings and where Maginfred owned assets as well.138 In this same patrimonial area, for a good part of the eleventh century, descendants of Adalbert III can also be considered better placed than the Adimari as they were aligned through matrimony with the Guidi. The union between one of Guy II’s daughters and Guy I, son of Adalbert III, must have brought into the patrimonial sphere of the Tuscan side of the Apennines, particularly in the pieve of Romena.139 In 1055, Count Guy transferred the church of S. Egidio di Gaviserre and a number of plots of land in the pievi of Stia and Romena to the monastery of S. Maria di Sprugnano.140 The donation probably allowed the count and his children to control the monastery, which was in fact later transferred to their curtis of Poppiena.141 At the end of the century, the patrimonial activities of Guido’s descendants were concentrated particularly towards the monstery of Camaldoli: in 1093 they exchanged lands in Stia with Prior Martin;142 in 1099 they entrusted the aforementioned monastery of Poppiena and its four dependant churches to the monastery.143 136 On Bolognese Hucpolding landholdings see Chapter 6. 137 Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Luco del Mugello (S. Pietro), July 1044. 138 See Chapter 4. 139 S. Pietro di Romena is located close to Pratovecchio (Arezzo). 140 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 280; all localities mentioned are located near Pratovecchio. 141 Wickham, La montagna e la città, p. 216. 142 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 569. 143 Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 620: S. Maria di Pietrafitta, S. Michele Arcangelo di Poppiena, S. Egidio di Gaviserre and S. Niccolò di Lago, all were located close to Poppiena.

212 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

After this date we have no other news concerning the Romena-Panico branch of the group for the Casentino side of the Apennines. One of the reasons behind the loss of the patrimonial base that had been acquired at the beginning of the eleventh century was a change in behaviour of the Guidi: the castle of Romena, their main residence in the area, must have soon been restored to the direct dominion of the Guidi dynasty as recorded by the diploma issued by Emperor Frederick I in 1164.144

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Ospedale degli Innocenti. Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Luco del Mugello (S. Pietro). Firenze, ASFi, Manoscritti, 48bis.

Printed Primary Sources Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Anselmo Costadoni, 9 vols. (Venezia: Pasquali, 1755–73). Canonica di S. Zenone: secolo XI, ed. by Natale Rauty (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1995). Carte della Badia di Marturi nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (970–1199), ed. by Luciana Cambi Schmitter (Firenze: Polistampa, 2009). Conradi II diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Cronica di Giovanni Villani: a miglior lezione ridotta coll’aiuto de’ testi a penna, vol. 1, ed. by Ignazio Moutier and Pietro Massai (Firenze: Moutier, 1823). Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. by Kurt Reindel, vol. 2, MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 4.2 (München: MGH, 1988). Die Karolingier im Regnum Italie 840–887 (888), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.1 (Köln: Böhlau, 1991). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Friedrich I 1158–1168, ed. by Ferdinand Opll and Hubert Mayr, in Regesta Imperii IV: Lothar III und ältere Staufer 1125–1197, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 2.2 (Wien: Böhlau, 1980).

144 DD F I, no. 462; RI IV.2.2, no. 1405.

The March of Tuscany

213

Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich II 1002–1024, ed. by Theodor von Graff, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 4 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich VI: 1165(1190)–1197, ed. by Gerhard von Baaken, in Regesta Imperii IV: Lothar III und ältere Staufer 1125–1197, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3 (Köln: Böhlau, 1972). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Konrad II 1024–1039, ed. by Heinrich von Appelt, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1.1 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto III, ed. by Mathilde Uhlirz, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3 (Wien: Böhlau, 1956). Documenti per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana: le origini e i primi secoli (887–1164), ed. by Natale Rauty (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2003). Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo nel Medio Evo, ed. by Ubaldo Pasqui, vol. 1 (Firenze: Vieusseux, 1899). Frederici I. diplomata 1158–1167, ed. by Heinrich Appelt, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 10.2, (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1979). Heinrici II et Arduini diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, Hermann Bloch and Robert Holtzmann, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 3 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1900–3). Heinrici III diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau and Paul F. Kehr, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germanie 5 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1931). I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. by Cesare Manaresi, 3 vols. (Roma: ISIME, 1955–60). ‘I placiti del “Regnum Italiae” (secc. IX–XI): primi contributi per un nuovo censimento’, ed. by Raffaello Volpini, in Contributi dell’Istituto di storia medioevale, vol. 3 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1975), pp. 245–520. Italia Pontificia, vol. 3: Etruria, ed. Paul F. Kehr (Berlin: Weidemann, 1908). Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1990; orig. ed., Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913); vol. 2, ed. by Anna Maria Enriques (Roma: ISIME, 1990). Le carte del monastero di S. Miniato al Monte: secoli IX–XII, ed. by Luciana Mosiici (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1990). Le carte della canonica della cattedrale di Firenze (723–1149), ed. by Renato Piattoli (Roma: ISIME, 1938). Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo e della Badia del Buonsollazzo nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (998–1200), ed. by Antonella Ghignoli and Anna Rosa Ferrucci (Firenze: SISMEL/Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004).

214 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Ludovici II diplomata, ed. by Konrad Wanner, MGH Diplomata Karolinorum 4 (München: MGH, 1994). Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del ducato di Lucca, ed. by Domenico Barsocchini, vol. 5.3 (Lucca: Bertini, 1841). Monastero di San Salvatore a Fontana Taona: secoli XI e XII, ed. by Vanna Torelli Vignali (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1999). Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1893). Regesto dell’Abbazia della Vangadizza dal 953 al 1659, ed. by Antonio E. Baruffaldi, Badia Polesine 4 (Badia Polesine: Zuliani, 1908). Regesto di Camaldoli, vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli and Francesco Baldasseroni (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907). Regestum Volaterranum, ed. by Fedor Schneider (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907).

Secondary Sources Bonacini, Pierpaolo, ‘Il marchese Almerico: patrimoni e ascendenze familiari nell’antica Provincia Ecclesiastica Ravennate’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 247–64. Castagnetti, Andrea, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’: il Veneto meridionale nell’alto medioevo e i domini del marchese Almerico II (Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice, 1991). Ceccarelli Lemut, Maria Luisa, ‘Il castello di Montevoltraio nel quadro del primo incastellamento del territorio volterrano’, Quaderno del Laboratorio Universitario Volterrano 6 (2003), pp. 115–18. Cocchi, Arnaldo, Le chiese di Firenze dal secolo IV al secolo XX, vol. 1: Quartiere di San Giovanni (Firenze: Pellas, 1903). Collavini, Simone M., ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale delle élites laiche intermedie (Italia centrale, secolo VIII–X)’, in Les élites et leur espaces: Mobilitè, rayonnement, domination (du VIe au XIe siècle), ed. by Philippe Depreux, François Bougard and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 319–40. –––, ‘Ranieri, marchese di Toscana’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 86 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2016), pp. 419–22. Cortese, Maria Elena, Signori, castelli, città: l’aristocrazia del territorio fiorentino tra X e XII secolo (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2007). Falce, Antonio, Il marchese Ugo di Tuscia (Firenze: Bemporad, 1921). Kurze, Wilhelm, ‘Gli albori dell’abbazia di Marturi’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici,

The March of Tuscany

215

genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 165–201. –––, ‘I reperti d’argento di Galognano come fonti di storia’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 203–42. –––, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà nella Tuscia altomedievale’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale; studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 295–317. Lazzari, Tiziana, ‘Sugli usi speciali dei beni pubblici: i dotari delle regine e i patrimoni dei monasteri’, in Biens publics, biens du roi: les bases économiques des pouvoirs royaux dans le haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard and Vito Loré (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 443–52. Manarini, Edoardo, ‘Le madri dei marchesi: la legittimazione al potere marchionale nella marca Tusciae’, in Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). Ninci, Renzo, ‘Le proprietà della Badia Fiorentina: problemi di identificazione’, in Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 2, ed. by Anna Maria Enriques (Roma: ISIME, 1990), pp. 319–48. Nobili, Mario, ‘Le famiglie marchionali nella Tuscia’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 125–50. Pescaglini Monti, Rosanna, ‘I conti Cadolingi’, in I ceti dirigenti in Toscana nell’età precomunale: atti del I convegno (Firenze, 2 dicembre 1978) (Pisa: Pacini, 1981), pp. 191–205. Provero, Luigi, L’Italia dei poteri locali: secoli X–XII (Roma: Carocci, 2011). Puglia, Andrea, La marca di Tuscia tra X e XI secolo: impero e società locale e amministrazione marchionale negli anni 970–1027 (Pisa: Il campano, 2004). –––, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi sul marchese Ugo di Tuscia (970–1001)’, in Dalle abbazie l’Europa: i nuovi germogli del seme benedettino nel passaggio tra primo e secondo millennio (secoli X–XII); atti del Convegno di Studi (Badia a Settimo, 22–24 aprile 1999), ed. by Alessandro Guidotti and Graziella Cirri (Firenze: Maschietto, 2006), pp. 151–86. Repetti, Emmanuele, Dizionario geografico fisico e storico della Toscana, 5 vols. (Firenze: Presso l’autore e editore, 1833–46). Riant, Paul E.D., La donation de Hugues, marquis de Toscane, au Saint-Sépulcre et les établissements latins de Jérusalem au Xe siècle (Parigi: Imprimerie nationale, 1884).

216 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Rinaldi, Sara, Aldo Favini and Alessandro Naldi, Firenze romanica: le più antiche chiese della città, di Fiesole e del contado circostante a nord dell’Arno (Empoli: Editori dell’Acero, 2005). Schneider, Fedor, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana von der Gründung des Langobardenreiches bis zum Ausgang der Staufer (528–1268) (Roma: Loescher, 1914). Tabacco, Giovanni, Struggle for Power, trans. by Rosalind Brown Jensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Tomei, Paolo, ‘Da Cassino alla Tuscia: disegni politici, idee in movimento: sulla politica monastica dell’ultima età ottoniana’, Quaderni Storici 51 (2016), pp. 355–82. –––, ‘Una nuova categoria documentaria nella Toscana marchionale: la donazione in forma di mandato; culture grafiche e strutture politiche in una società di corte’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 99 (2019), pp. 116–49. Vignodelli, Giacomo, ‘Prima di Leone: originali e copie di diplomi regi e imperiali nell’Archivio Capitolare di Vercelli’, in Originale-Fälschungen-Kopien: Kaiser- und Königsurkunden für Empfänger in ‘Deutschland’ und ‘Italien’ (9–11 Jahrhundert) und ihre Nachwirkungen im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter (bis ca. 1500), ed. by Nicolangelo D’Acunto, Sebastian Roebert and Wolfgang Huschner (Leipzig: Eudora Verlag, 2017), pp. 53–80. Wickham, Chris, La montagna e la città: gli Appennini toscani nell’alto medioevo (Torino: Scriptorium, 1997).

6. Ruling on the Border: Landed Possessions from the Po Valley to the Apennines in Bononia’s Diocese Abstract The sixth chapter deals with the Bolognese territory, an area located at the edges of the Emilia region between the Italian kingdom and the exarchate of Ravenna. After having acquired fiscal lands and thanks to the emphyteutic bond with the Ravenna archbishops, the group established there a broad seigneurial rule between the plain and the Apennines. Although it never touched the city of Bologna, their hegemony extended over the plain to the north towards the course of the Po and the Apennine valleys to the south. Fundamental elements of their power were the many castles and the foundation of the private monastery of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano. Keywords: Hucpoldings; seigneurial rule; Bologna; landed possessions; monasteries

The territorium civitatis of Bononia represented the core of the Hucpoldings’ patrimonial presence in Italy. From early attestations dating to the end of the ninth century, we find persistent traces of group possessions and activities more or less uniformly spread across the territories of the diocese, both over the plains and the mountains. The nuclei around which Hucpolding wealth had been accumulated was above all landholdings managed through emphyteosis, often with castles which frequently were group residences. Conversely, there are no attestations of properties within Bologna, an environment that seems to have remained alien to the kinship group’s roots. The framework of the Hucpolding lordship can therefore be more clearly considered in the Bologna area, based on various fortified centres of power and widespread vassalage. Sources enable us to trace three distinct phases of patrimonial development in this area. The first is the construction of the patrimony, about which

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch06

218 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

however there are only rare and brief snippets of information. The donation to the monastery of S. Benedetto in Adili and Boniface I’s acquisition of the fiscal estate of Antognano, both located on the Bolognese Saltusplanus to the north-west of Bologna, permit a patrimonial area to be outlined and assessment to be made of a link to the kingdom as a fundamental requirement for these acquisitions. Relations sealed with Nonantola refer to the same period as do those with Archbishop Peter of Ravenna. The Apennine sector remains almost completely hidden in these first documents until the second phase from the middle of the tenth century to the middle of the eleventh, when it emerged as one of the centres of property management. In the area to the south of Bologna, Adalbert II founded the family monastery of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano, which for almost two centuries had been a fundamental patrimonial focal point for a large portion of kinship properties in proximity to the public district of Brento. The foundation of Musiano was essential to the second phase of the group’s patrimonial affairs in the maintenance and management of their assets, which lasted for approximately a century. During the same period, the political position in the Bologna area, consolidated by the pre-eminence of Marquis Hugh II, flourished through new profitable relationships with the cathedral chapter of Bologna, with the bishops of Ferrara and again with the archbishop of Ravenna. The political upheavals brought about by the investiture controversy – reignited, particularly in Bologna due to the episcopal schism – bore a certain importance in moving to the final and third phase. From the 1080s, we find an exceptional frequency of patrimonial transfers by way of sales and donations which did not concern solely the monastery of Musiano. The recipient was also the monastery of S. Stefano – despite always being hostile to the kinship group – and again the recent foundation of S. Cristina di Settefonti which from the outset stayed mainly independent of Hucpolding control. Faced with a noticeable reduction in overall landed wealth at the beginning of the twelfth century, a branch of the group concentrated their landholdings in the valley of the river Reno using the castle of Panico as their pivot. The same situation is traceable in the eastern part of the Bolognese Apennines in the valley of the Idice and Sillaro where, around the castle of Casalecchio dei Conti and other fortifications towards Mugello in Tuscany, other descendants of the kinship group organized their own lordships. The dossier obtained from analysing various archives attests primarily to a signif icant dispersion of parchments relating to the Hucpoldings. The reason is intrinsic to the development of the kinship group’s presence across this territory: the widespread patrimonial reach and substantial

Ruling on the Border

219

autonomy in property management, performed well beyond the middle of the eleventh century, made it very difficult for most documentation to coalesce into a single archive. Even the private monastery of Musiano, which only received a part of the patrimony, was only able to preserve a limited quantity of the total documentation. There are therefore three central archival points that can be deduced, all of which are religious in nature. The first and most important is the archive of the Bolognese monasteries, of which S. Bartolomeo stands out,1 followed by S. Cristina and the archive of S. Stefano. The second of these is represented by the Nonantolan archive whose documents, though few in number, are considerable in importance. The third and last preservation hub consists of the archive of the church of Ravenna – with just two charters preserved – and the archive of the church of Ferrara; the latter would appear to have been an accidental depositary of a number of parchments relating to Bologna, which probably originated from the archive of Musiano. The archival geography described presents the problem of understanding and contextualizing this peculiar documentary structure as a fundamental element in the study of the Hucpolding wealth management in this territory. Having ascertained that the great documental dispersion spanned no fewer than thirteen different collections,2 the fact that 41.2 per cent of deeds preserved in religious archives were agreed with private individuals is of great relevance3 but leaves the true nature of the majority of the group’s patrimonial activity to intuition. Since the religious institutions preserved documents addressed specifically to themselves with greater attention, the figure above suggests that the Hucpoldings did not discriminate, here or elsewhere, in favour of the religious foundations, preferring to organize relationships aimed at a more direct control of territory. Studied as a whole, the Bolognese documentation also permits consideration of the group from an external point of view, by investigating how a part of local society reacted to the Hucpolding presence and, more so, to its seignorial domain. This analysis is made possible by a juridical element unique to the Italian landscape, and specific to the territorial environment 1 I refer here to documents ascribable to the monastic archive of Musiano before its union with S. Stefano of Bologna. This took place in 1307, when the two monastic communities had been unified, along with their archives. 2 Namely the archives of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano, S. Stefano di Bologna, S. Francesco di Bologna, S. Maria dei Servi di Bologna, S. Cristina di Settefonti, S. Silvestro di Nonantola, S. Benedetto in Adili, S. Maria di Pomposa, the Archivio Segreto Estense, the private archive of the Panico (now in Archivio di Stato of Padua), and of the churches of Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna. 3 Fourteen acts out of thirty-four.

0

3

5

8

10

13

S. Stefano di Bologna

2

0

Church of Bologna

Church of Bologna

0

1

S. Francesco di Bologna

S. Francesco di Bologna

3

5

S. Bartolomeo di Musiano

0

5

Charter with religious houses

S. Bartolomeo S. Stefano di di Musiano Bologna

Charters with lay people

Description

S. Silvestro di Nonantola

1

4

Charters with lay people

S. Cristina di Settefonti

2

0 2

0

Church of Ravenna

S. Benedetto in Adili

1

0

S. Cristina di S. Silvestro di S. Benedetto Nonantola in Adili Settefonti

Church of Ravenna

0

1

S. Maria di Pomposa

Church of Ferrara

1

0

S. Maria dei Servi

0

1

Panico’s Archive

Archivio estense Charter with religious houses

1

1

Archivio estense

S. Maria di Pomposa

2

1

Church of Ferrara

Table 2. The Hucpoldings’ charters in the territory of Bologna: lay people and religious houses (c.900–1130)

S. Maria dei Servi

Panico’s Archive

220  Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Ruling on the Border

221

of Bologna: in most emphyteosis stipulated in this area between the tenth and twelfth centuries the standard availability clause was modified to prevent the possibility of assets being sublet to a member of the kinship group. In all likelihood, this legal expedient was the local answer to a rather aggressive patrimonial policy implemented by the group between the tenth and eleventh centuries, from the time of their initial settlement in the Bologna area. The most active members of local society (primarily in the sphere of the monastery of S. Stefano), in this way, sought to constrain Hucpolding power – soon to be demonstrated here by the group – through a judicial device that established among those who used it a sort of solidarity that counteracted the group’s hegemony.

Acquisitions, Exchanges, Organization of Lands in the Tenth Century The f irst evidence refers to assets owned and managed by the kinship group in the Bologna area concentrated on the plains between Modena and Bologna to the north of the via Aemilia, named the Saltusplanus. The expression saltus in Roman terminology is defined as a very large land used for woodland or pasture, generally owned by the imperial fisc, which enjoyed autonomous management but responded to central administration. Over the centuries it lost that original legal meaning of solid land structure, becoming simply a topographic label. 4 The f irst patrimonial trace consists of a donation made in favour of the monastery of S. Benedetto in Adili. This was brought to our attention through a breviarium attributed to a certain priest John of Montecassino, who at the end of the ninth century undertook a patrimonial investigation into the Emilian monasteries controlled by the Cassinese mother house.5 S. Benedetto in Adili was founded by Ursus dux and his wife Ariflada, members of the Ravenna kinship of the dukes of Persiceta,6 and in the final Lombard period became a dependency of Montecassino alongside other monasteria 4 Benati, ‘Il Saltopiano’, pp. 340–1. 5 Registrum Petri diaconi, vol. 3, no. 566. On this source and on the monasteries Montecassino possessed in Emilia see Bloch, Monte Cassino, vol. 1, pp. 407–10. 6 Adili is mentioned in a donation to Nonantola by Duke John and his sister Orsa, offspring of Duke Ursus. In 776 they donated a number of estates to Nonantola, with the exception of those already donated by their father to S. Benedetto in Adili. The act has been published in Gaudenzi, ‘Il monastero di Nonantola’, no. 2, pp. 19–24; see Bottazzi, ‘Il monastero’, pp. 90–1; Benati, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto’, pp. 92–4.

222 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

located in the Bolognese plains between the rivers Muzza and Reno.7 Its transferral under the powerful influence of the Cassinese abbey may easily be interpreted as part of the anti-Nonantolan policy of King Desiderius (757–774) to limit the rise of S. Silvestro di Nonantola, which had been founded previously thanks to large endowments by King Aistulf (749–756).8 During the following century it can be assumed that the dependencies in Emilia suffered from the difficult events befalling the mother house. Devastated and destroyed by the ‘Saracens’ in 883,9 it was probably no longer able to control its large, widespread patrimony. To overcome the difficulties that had arisen at the end of the century, in around 899 Abbot Ragemprandus granted to Empress Ageltrude – in seeking her protection – two dependent celle of Montecassino located in the north. One of these was in Persiceta, i.e. Adili.10 It is to those same years that can be placed the donation of 18 iugera (c.4,5 hectares) of land from the Berselio estate made by abbess Bertha I,11 daughter of Hucpold, to S. Benedetto in Adili. The donation must have been registered during priest John’s inspection, as he tells how, together with the monks of Adili, ‘cepimus inter nos colloqui de rebus et possessionibus Casinensi cenobi pertinentibus, que Desiderius rex et Carolus una cum filiis suis Pipino et Carulo huic loco dederant’ (we discussed Montecassino’s properties, which King Desiderius, Charlemagne, his sons Pepin and Carloman – i.e. his brother Carloman I – had granted to the abbey in that area).12 An account or a list obtained from John’s investigation must have reached the archive of Montecassino; there it was conserved until such time as, two centuries later, Abbot Oderisius (1087–1105) used it to reclaim Montecassino’s Emilian dependencies before Matilda of Canossa.13 At that moment therefore the breviarium was written, perhaps by Peter the Deacon himself, author of the register in which the text is contained. It is a rewriting the genuine documentation relating to the possessions that the abbey had owned across the plains lying between Bologna and Modena since the Lombard and Carolingian periods. Although the text preserved in the 7 The territory between these rivers marked the boundary between Modenese and Bolognese since Lombard time; see Benati, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto’, p. 94. 8 See Manarini, ‘Politiche regie e attivismo’, pp. 18–24. 9 See Dell’Omo, ‘Montecassino altomedievale’. 10 Chronica monasterii Casinensis, p. 128. 11 Adili stood in the cultivated area north of modern Sant’Agata Bolognese (Bologna), where now we find the locality of San Benedetto. Recently, the area has also been studied through archaeological excavations: Un Villaggio di pianura. 12 Registrum Petri diaconi, vol. 3, no. 566. 13 Registrum Petri diaconi, vol. 3, nos. 565, 568; see Benati, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto’, p. 112.

Ruling on the Border

223

register is likely to be fictitious, the forgeries can be limited to chronological indications and the more or less uninterrupted list of royal and imperial diplomas received by Montecassino, which was the true interest of the writer.14 Yet the document would appear to be substantially correct in those parts where the list of assets is more precise and detailed: of these we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the donation arranged by Bertha, particularly because they relate to lands in an area that for decades remained central to the patrimony of the Hucpoldings. It is nonetheless difficult to establish by which means Bertha had had the donated lands made available to her, and it is curious to note her choice of the monastery of Adili to assure the saving of her soul, rather than donating to the monastery of S. Andrea of which she herself was abbess.15 Even though in this circumstance the political link with the Widonids is represented by a single fragile joint-presence of patrimonial interests, for the nephew, Boniface, the political component and the fiscal origin of the possessions in the area is proven, as we will see, with more clarity. A more substantial transaction in favour of S. Silvestro di Nonantola provides a precise indication of the possessions of the kindred, despite a much-debated tradition. This is an exchange of assets, dating to 936, between Boniface I and the abbot of Nonantola, Ingelbert.16 In the hamlet (vico) of Lucoleta,17 in the pieve of S. Giovanni di Persiceto, Boniface exchanged a total of 1,162 iugera, equal to approximately 293 hectares, of agricultural land located in the plains between Modena and Bologna18 (corresponding

14 Benati, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto’, pp. 106–7. 15 See Chapter 7. 16 Tiraboschi, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro, vol. 2, no. 86. 17 The toponym is hardly traceable. It could be identified with modern Lovoleto in the municipality of Granarolo dell’Emilia (Bologna), which is later mentioned several times among the Hucpolding properties. The difficulty of this recognition, though, is the indication of the pieve to which Lovoleto must have belonged from the middle of the tenth century, i.e. S. Marino, which is specifically called in Lovelito. Nevertheless, in 936 there are no sources on this church, which appeared twenty years later. The only pieve attested then is S. Giovanni in Persiceto; see Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, p. 8. 18 In the plain around Persiceto we find these cultivated units: Riolo and Recovato (Archoatum: Tiraboschi, Dizionario topografico, vol. 1, p. 25) are plots of land located in the municipality of Castelfranco Emilia (Modena); the fundus Rusti is unidentified; the fundus Gavile was close to the modern locality of Manzolino (see Angiolini, ‘Fonti per la storia’); other plots of lands called Gebolini and a terra que dicitur regia part of the Persiceta estate were close to San Giovanni in Persiceto. Finally, in the first Modenese Apennines we found the fundi of Gaiolo (close to modern Baggiovara: Tiraboschi, Dizionario topografico, vol. 1, p. 325) and Vignola. The last fundus mentioned is Corticella to the north of Bologna.

224 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

mainly to the territorium of Persiceto19) and in the area of Ferrara20 beyond the river Po. This was in return for equal areas of land possessed by the abbey in Tuscany, namely the whole curtis of Funzano.21 The Nonantolan archive conserves the document through a copy that can be dated to the eleventh century. It is written in imitation of a librarian writing at some point in the ninth–tenth century; the eschatocol is missing entirely and liturgical passages have been written on the back. Castagnetti describes the act as a falsification, to be linked, on the one hand, to the forgeries produced for the disputes over the diocesan boundaries between Modena and Bologna from the second half of the tenth century, and, on the other, to the false royal and imperial diplomas concerning abbey’s possessions in Tuscia. 22 It is indisputably a document that has later been interpolated or modif ied. Many elements of the text, however, allow us to accept the source as authentic overall. The patrimonial cohesion of Boniface’s lineage expressed by the document is in fact unquestionable in the light of the attestations of his heirs. We can also perceive that both players in the exchange had already acquired possessions in Tuscany, particularly in the areas of Florence and Pistoia.23 In consideration of the political situation that Boniface had to face at that time, 24 it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that this was a defensive strategy aimed at strengthening and stabilizing the group’s patrimonial presence in the areas of both longest settlement and closest to the Apennine passes.25 It is also important to observe that this is the only document to survive that certifies a direct relationship between the Hucpoldings and Nonantola, despite many neighbouring properties and coinciding areas of influence. To this end the meagre patrimonial indication just mentioned in favour of the nearby monastery of Adili – ever an antagonist of the abbey of Nonantola

19 See Lazzari, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche’, pp. 386–90, 399. 20 Namely, the pagus Ficarolo, now in the municipality of Rovigo, the fundi Badriniana (Castelnovo Bariano), and Fabrica, and the estate of Settepolesini near di Bondeno (Ferrara). 21 For his part, Abbot Ingelbert gave to Boniface 1,164 iugera which belonged to the estate of Funzano in the Florentine comitatus, most probably of fiscal origin. The location of the curtis could be situated around Badia a Cerreto, just few kilometers north of the other kinship estate of Marturi, now Poggibonsi. 22 Castagnetti and Ciaralli, Falsari a Nonantola, p. 143. On Nonantola’s archive and its documentations see also Manarini, ‘Politiche regie e attivismo’, pp. 13–18. 23 See R. Rinaldi and Villani, Nonantola, pp. 92–3. 24 See Chapter 1. 25 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 88.

Ruling on the Border

225

– can tell us whose interests the kinship group took it upon itself to first promote in these territories.26 It was the close relationship that Boniface had with Rudolf II that permitted him to consolidate his first possessions in the Bologna area, receiving from his brother-in-law the concession of the large royal estate of Antognano in loco Saltusplanus, in the pieve of S. Vincenzo in Galliera.27 The estate with its dependencies covered a considerable sector of the plains between Bologna and Ferrara. It combined agricultural activities with the control of river traffic, an essential economic and social component of this portion of the flatlands.28 The political relevance of this organized fiscal estate must therefore have certainly been considerable as, further to material income, it permitted control of a large portion of rural territory and its residents. The estate of Antognano remained under the influence of the kinship group for some time as they preserved a significant portion of their patrimony in this area of the plains. The diploma of Otto I, dated 3 November 962,29 which informs us of the donation formerly obtained by Boniface I, granted the same estate with the same appurtenances to the priest Erulfus from the cathedral chapter of Arezzo.30 Although how Antognano later became part of the patrimonial assets of Marquis Hugh I of Tuscia cannot be explained, we cannot ignore the fact that Hugh’s uncle and Boniface I’s son, Eberhard, held the seat of Arezzo and that the connection that had developed between the two must have been a solid one. So, Hugh managed to combine the estate of Antognano with the already conspicuous amount of property he held in that area between Ferrara and Gavello31 and then donated it together with the rest of his appurtenances to the monastery of Marturi at the end of the tenth century. The endeavour of elaborating and falsifying documents 26 See Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’, pp. 303–4. 27 The pieve is the only topographical element for the curtis locality; see Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, p. 310. 28 The estate also included public rights of ripaticus on two navigable waterways in Galliera and Concenno; the latter was near modern Poggio Renatico (Ferrara): Benati, ‘Confine ecclesiastico’, p. 41, n. 21. Further, it included rights of way for a bridge nearby and also for Gaibana on the river Po di Primaro to the south of Ferrara, together with twelve fishermen of the villa que nuncupator Veterana. 29 DD O I, no. 249; RI II.1, no. 331. 30 He is also mentioned in another diploma dated 10 May 963, which Otto I granted to the chapter of S. Donato of Arezzo: DD O I, no. 253; RI II.1, no. 341. 31 Eleventh-century imperial diplomas mentioned lands and rights owned by two marchiones named Hugh, who supported the abbey of Pomposa: DD C II, no. 240 (RI III.1.1, no. 250); DD H III, nos. 145, 193; DD H IV, nos. 177, 450 (RI III.3.2, no. 436; RI III.3.4, no. 1394). One of them was most likely Hugh of Tuscia: Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 160–1.

226 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

carried out by the Tuscan monks over the course of the following century later made it the oldest recorded property in the abbey archive. Although the text of the donation survived through three documents that were certainly falsified and interposed,32 Kurze has shown how the juridical content is authentic, as in substance it has been repeated identically in all three documents.33 A detailed analysis of the three descriptions of the donated assets is helpful in profiling the morphology and progressive development of the estate.34 The two donations of 998 describe the structure of the curtis as it must have been at the end of the tenth century, the probable time of the actual donation.35 Its manorial structure does not stray far from that illustrated by the first diploma issued by Otto I: the description this time identifies a single right of ripaticus, that of Concenno, but it specifies other appurtenances including two navigable canals in the vicinity of modern-day Poggio Renatico, a piece of land located close by, and the presence of two fortifications and a gastald probably appointed to control the area. This information is therefore coherent from both a territorial viewpoint and from the point of view of the manner of progressive organization of a seignorial presence in the area, of which the introduction of new transit fees and the presence of fortifications are a clear signs. The characterization of the curtis of Antognano is even more detailed in the donation dated 12 July 970 which, despite the clear chronological falsification, provides very precise data on the conditions of the estate that can be traced back to around the middle of the eleventh century.36 The first part of the list loosely follows the first description of 962; a substantial addition is the church of S. Maria in Arçiclo, close to the modern-day Castello d’Argile in the Bolognese Saltopiano, unknown until that time. The real developments are in the second part where, on the one hand, the many fisheries listed give us a reasonably good idea of the economic activities carried out in the area, while on the other, the conspicuous number of castles permits the theory of an intricate lordship system that was very active across the territory. Supplying precise indications on each toponym mentioned would be quite difficult in view of the instability of a territory where the swamps and flooding from the water courses had for centuries marked the 32 33 34 35 36

Carte della Badia di Marturi, nos. 1, 3. Of the three, the most reliable is no. 3. Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, pp. 168–71. See Falce, Il marchese Ugo, pp. 185–9. Carte della Badia di Marturi, nos. 2, 3. Carte della Badia di Marturi, no. 1.

Ruling on the Border

227

predominant features of this landscape.37 Nevertheless, we might assume that most of the indications are coherent from a territorial point of view, referring them to the same sector of the Bolognese and Ferrarese territories where the hegemonic role of the kinship group was to be decisive for the whole of the eleventh century. The analysis conducted so far has permitted the activity and patrimonial presence of the kinship group to be anchored in the plains between Modena and Bologna, stretching to the north as far as the territory of Ferrara. Their demesne was very unstable at the end of the ninth century, then consolidated and widened over the first decades of the tenth, thanks to the dominant figure of Marquis Boniface I. He must have received grants of notable portions of land from the royal fisc, as the Ottonian diploma testifies.38 The entirety of these lands and rights were included in the iudiciaria Mutinensis that Boniface controlled during the reign of his brother-in-law Rudolf.39 It was aimed administratively at the city of Modena, but included a much wider area that stretched even to important sectors of the dioceses of Bologna and Ferrara. It was not only in the Saltopiano that Marquis Boniface I held land. As the Nonantolan charter suggests, he must have also controlled various localities in the Bologna area situated in the first Apennine belt to the south of the city. Counting on another mention in the breviarium of Montecassino as reliable, 40 we can also add Count Adalbert I’s possession of the curtis of Rigosa, 41 which is an important indication of the patrimonial presence in the area to the west of Bologna, linked to his father. 42 A sale carried out by Bishop Eberhard, another of Marquis Boniface’s sons, allows a more accurate patrimonial picture to be traced in this sector, too. We are, however, unable to fully clarify and understand the underlying reasons behind the sale, given the scant information about the buyer, a certain Mauringus. 43 The document nonetheless depicts Eberhard in the act of ceding his portion of his paternal inheritance. 37 Manarini, ‘Paesaggio ed edifici di culto’, pp. 212–13. 38 DD O I, no. 249, p. 357: ‘sicut Bonifacius dux et marchio ad beneficium tenuit’ (likewise Duke and Marquis Boniface got as benefice). 39 See Chapter 1. 40 Benati, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto’, pp. 105–6. 41 Rigosa is a locality of the municipality of Bologna. 42 At the end of eleventh century, Matilda of Canossa controlled that estate; later, in 1102 she granted it to Nonantola, but in 1108 she assigned personally its plots: DD Mat, nos. 71, 110. 43 Most likely, a member of a family already tied with the Hucpoldings: Lazzari, Comitato, p. 91.

228 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

On 4 August 979, Eberhard sold a relevant quantity of his land, which he himself describes as being situated between the rivers Reno, Po and Panaro, 44 to a certain Mauringus from Prada. 45 It is immediately clear from the geographical delimitation given by the bishop that it coincided more or less to the patrimonial area associated with the figure of Boniface I. 46 In particular, the estate involved in the sale counted a number of manorial settlements placed mainly on the foothills to the western Bologna side of the Apennines and was arranged around the castle Cellola, a fortification to the west of Bologna where the group owned a number of properties. 47 Patrimonial acquisitions, however, did not occur in this phase simply because of relationships with royal power. One of Boniface I’s sons, Count Adalbert I, sealed patrimonial relationships with one of the wealthiest landowners of the area: Archbishop Peter of Ravenna.48 Despite the relationship between the prelate and the Romagna branch of the group being in open conflict at that time,49 in 958 Peter granted Adalbert half of the massa (exarchal term for curtis) of Funo with the chapel of S. Lorenzo and with all its appurtenances, situated in the pievi of S. Giorgio and S. Marino in Lovoleto.50 Although she was not present at the enactment of the deed, the remaining half was bestowed on Countess Anna, wife of the count, with the specification and emphasized provision to establish that, upon her death, her half would be passed to her husband or to his descendants. The provision is primarily aimed at avoiding dispersion of the assets obtained, and then to obstruct the children of the wife’s first marriage and their kinship group in that territory from becoming stronger.51 44 Bologna 10, no. 26. 45 It is difficult to identify this toponym: it could be Prada nearby Gaggio Montano (Bologna), or Prada close to Pavullo (Modena). It could also be located with Prada in the territory of Faenza, possessed by the group in the ninth century. In any case, Mauringus descended by John from Carolio, a locality which Cencetti retraced in Garzoleto nearby San Giovanni in Persiceto: Bologna 10, p. 92 46 Managing allodial assets, Eberhard had professed the Ripuarian law and not the Roman law of his episcopal office; see Chapter 7. 47 The most conspicuous estate was the domocoltile in Civiciano and Paliana, nearby Zola Predosa (Bologna). Other assets were sold in Tignano, in the municipality of Sasso Marconi (Bologna); Guiglia; Marconiaula (unidentified); Casola, nearby Zola Predosa; Castelione, maybe a locality close to Zola Predosa as well; and finally Fagnano, locality of Castello di Serravalle (Bologna). 48 Fasoli, ‘Il patrimonio della chiesa’, p. 399. 49 See Chapter 1. 50 Ravenna 10.2, no. 96. Funo is close to modern Argelato (Bologna). The two pievi mentioned are modern San Giorgio di Piano (Bologna) and San Marino, a hamlet of Bentivoglio (Bologna). 51 On Countess Anna’s first marriage see Chapter 2.

Ruling on the Border

229

We are unable to establish whether the Berthaldings, a kinship group originating in the area of Reggio Emilia,52 represented an effective threat to the assets that the Hucpoldings had accumulated in this sector. We do know, though, of their effective and separate patrimonial presence in the vicinity of the localities mentioned so far, in the second half of the tenth century: in an emphyteosis of 986 relating to lands in the Saltopiano,53 we find traces of the heredes quondam domne Anna. The descendants of Berthaldus, Anna’s first husband, therefore owned estates adjacent to those of the Hucpoldings but despite the union through matrimony of the two groups, the patrimonies stayed separate. The patrimonial attestations of the tenth century illustrate therefore a decisive presence in the Bolognese territory, both in the area of the plains to the north-west of the city and in the Apennine sector to the south. Boniface I, in particular, managed to procure most of his assets during the time that he was politically active; these would then be managed by his children and their descendants in the course of the eleventh century.

Landed Wealth and Hegemony For a period of around a century, considerable patrimonial stability characterized the same areas marked by the acquisitions of the tenth century. Between the fourth and eighth generations, a good number of Hucpolding members alternated property management, which remained directly under authority of the group for the whole of this period. Sources show that this came about by way of two primary instruments: the foundation of a private monastery and emphyteutic contracts. The Apennine sector to the south of Bologna constituted a central and strategic point for the group, where Adalbert II decided to establish his own Eigenkloster.54 In 981, the count and his wife, Bertilla, in the presence of their sons Boniface II, Walfredus and Adalbert III founded the monastery of S. Bartolomeo in the locality of Musiano55 situated along the road to 52 Bonacini, ‘Il marchese Almerico’, p. 258. 53 Bologna 10, no. 15. 54 On the symbolic and identity meaning of the foundation in the development of the group see Chapter 7. 55 Bologna 10, no. 11. S. Bartolomeo di Musiano is included in modern Pian di Macina, close to Pianoro (Bologna). All the monastic buildings suffered devastation after a World War II bombing. Later only the church has been rebuilt according to its ancient Romanic style; see Fantini, Antichi edifici, vol. 2, pp. 238–41.

230 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Tuscany and crossed by the river Savena.56 Thanks to the right of election of the abbot firmly in their hands,57 the act established the portion of the kinship patrimony which was designated to the foundation and which had to remain under the close control of Adalbert and his heirs. The first portion of assets donated to the monks included the buildings which were adjuncts to their daily lives, an oratory, which was probably the original premises of worship, and the various plots of land that made up almost all of the Musiano estate. The second portion of lands could be found in a number of different fundi situated between Musiano and the close castle of Pianoro,58 a key centre of power for the group in this Apennine sector.59 The last part was composed of the entire estate of Linare, located in the pieve of S. Marino in Lovoleto on the plains to the north of Bologna. To all this the count also added the rights over the market held in Musiano.60 We have already seen the advantageous position of the monastic foundation located in the valley of the river Savena, around 10 or so kilometres to the south of Bologna. It held a position intermediate between the two main routes in this part of the medieval Apennine: the via dello Stale and the Flaminia minor, converging in the direction of the Tuscan side near Barberino del Mugello and Borgo San Lorenzo respectively, then descending towards Florence.61 We also know of the existence of a connecting route between the two sides passing through Musiano.62 This stretch of road was therefore important to where the group decided to establish its physical and spiritual presence: physically through the monastic complex, the market and the nearby castles of Pianoro and Gorgognano,63 and spiritually 56 See Foschi, ‘La viabilità medievale’, pp. 131–4. 57 Bologna 10, p. 53: ‘in nostra potestate sit regendi et agregandi et ordinandi, omnia qualiter supra legitur in honore monachorum servientium; et post nostrum obitum […] deveniat in potestate heredum nostrorum similiter gubernandi et regendi in honore monachorum’ (the power of managing, organizing and giving orders will be in our hand, all this will be done for the monks’ honour; and after our death […] the same power of governance will pass into the hands of our heirs, always for the honour of the monks). 58 These plots of lands were part of the fundi Vinti and Cignano, both close to Pianoro (Bologna), and in Casigno, a mile south of Musiano. 59 See Lazzari and Monti, ‘Il castello di Pianoro’, pp. 115–41. 60 On market rights bestowed to religious institutions see Settia, ‘Per foros Italiae’, pp. 197–200. 61 Foschi, ‘Il patrimonio fondiario’, pp. 99–102; see also Dall’Aglio and Franceschelli, ‘La viabilità del territorio bolognese’, pp. 450–4. 62 Foschi, ‘Il patrimonio fondiario’, p. 102. 63 The castle of Panicale was near to the pieve of S. Giovanni Battista di Gorgognano, close to modern Pianoro.

Ruling on the Border

231

through the monks’ prayers and donations of the pilgrims that the abbey welcomed.64 The donation included arable lands, vines, olive groves and pastures, as well as assurance of sustenance for the monks and the essentials for liturgical rites. It put the abbey in direct control of a significant portion of Apennine territory that served as a fixed point for the kinship group and remained substantially unchanged over the centuries. In the 1700s, the area which comprised the monastery’s assets still corresponded to the patrimonial sector that the Hucpoldings granted to S. Bartolomeo for management in the localities of the Musiano, Pieve del Pino, Pizzocalvo, Monte Calvo and Riosto in the foothills of the Bolognese Apennines.65 As we have already seen in reviewing the assets within the Saltopiano plains, in this area we also find an ancient jurisdictional district connected to the iudiciaria Mutinensis and named iudiciaria de quattuor castellis, constructed by the Widonids at the end of the ninth century.66 As far as this analysis is concerned, suffice it to mention the proximity of the foundation of Musiano to the four castles of Brento, Barbarolo, Montecerere and Gesso,67 political and jurisdictional centres and propagators of influence into the surrounding territory. Founding and controlling a Benedictine abbey thus meant attempting with economic, political and religious means to improve the foundations of the group in this particular territorial environment. In all likelihood, this path also originated from temporary public offices obtained between the ninth and tenth centuries, specifically in this area of the Bolognese.68 From the moment of patrimonial endowment, the monastery of Musiano played a primary role in the estate policy of the kinship group for the territories to which it was assigned.69 We do not find, however, new patrimonial transfers by the group for around a century, a lengthy time period which cannot be explained solely by accidental losses that the archive of the 64 Bologna 10, p. 53: ‘ubi pauperes et peregrini refectionem habeant’ (where the needy and pilgrims would have found shelter). 65 All these localities are now within the municipalities of Pianoro and San Lazzaro (Bologna). On eighteenth-century possession lists of Musiano see Foschi, ‘Il patrimonio fondiario’, pp. 150–1. 66 See Chapter 1. 67 Brento is close to modern Monzuno, Barbarolo to Loiano; Montecerere is now Frassineto in the municipality of Castel San Pietro Terme, and Gesso is close to Casalfiumanese – all are in the Bolognese Apennines. 68 See Chapter 8; see also Lazzari, Comitato, p. 91. 69 In 1001/2, for example, Abbot Peter renewed a contract in the same fundus Musiano: Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 2. Later evidence of land management is Bologna 11, vol. 1, nos. 133, 185; vol. 2, nos. 218, 233, 384.

232 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

monastery must have suffered over the centuries. In actual fact, the act of foundation of 981 is the only charter dating back to the tenth century, and it survived through a twelfth century copy of a previous one of the eleventh century.70 This shows clearly the great care the monks took over the material conditions of the most important documents that their archive contained. It therefore seems difficult to attribute the complete lack of other donations until the year 1085 to chance alone. An explanation may be suggested by the emphyteosis documents granted by Hucpolding representatives over the course of the eleventh century, up to the 1060s. The contracts are actually spread out across all the patrimonial assets identified within Bolognese territory and illustrate both the will and the ability of the group to manage their assets directly. Throughout this period, the kinship must have securely maintained their presence across the territory, and managed to administer their lands efficiently without needing to aggregate most of their wealth safely within the consecrated walls of S. Bartolomeo. In 1011 Countess Bertilla, by then a widow, granted the fundus Nibano, perhaps situated nearby, to people from the castle of Pianoro.71 In 1042 Marquis Hugh II granted in emphyteosis all the properties that had once been owned by their ancestor, Azo de Robiano,72 to Farolfus, Teuzo and Gaidulfus. It must therefore have been the third-generational renewal of assets that Azo of Robiano obtained in emphyteosis around the final decades of the tenth century from the aforementioned grandfather of Marquis Hugh, Adalbert II. These long-standing relationships enshrined by emphyteosis depict the interests and dominant position that the kinship group also had in this area. Similarly, twelve years later, Hugh organized the portion of his properties located in the pieve of S. Martino in Gorgo, a more northern sector of the Saltopiano within the Ferrara area.73 In addition to plots of land, the asset included the key elements of fisheries and navigable canals and waterways. The contract also allowed for the settlers to control this type of appurtenance, apart from the ripa de Madrara,74 and the ripa of Gaibana. These were two communicating ripae (channels) across the various lands, which must have also generated income from transit taxes that the marquis did not want to 70 Bologna 10, p. 51. 71 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 12. Most likely, once a widow, Bertilla resided in the same monastery: Lazzari, Comitato, p. 91. 72 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 50. The lands granted were in fundus Robiano and in Caselle; both places could be situated in the pieve of S. Maria in Montecerere. 73 Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo, Perg., ser. A, no. 1. 74 Possibly it was modern Marrara, near to Gaibana.

Ruling on the Border

233

forego. Finally, in 1064, Count Albert I granted the Siviratico estate in the Saltopiano,75 which – as we have already seen – was Hucpolding patrimony from the middle of the tenth century. He conceded an emphyteosis contract to Peter known as Paganus, son of the late Gotofredo da Sancto Venanzio.76 He was representative of an important family with landed estates in the Saltopiano and holder of rights to the pieve of S. Venanzio in Galliera.77 As mentioned earlier the patrimony of the monastery of Musiano was not enlarged by the founders in any significant way until the later decades of the eleventh century, which saw an inversion of the trend. A donation dated 17 February 1061, however, appears to consider assets that had belonged to the group but which from that day became part of the monastic patrimony. The five children of the late Bonandus from Caprara78 – Lambert, Bonvicinus, Hugh, Raginerius and Azo – donated to the church of S. Salvatore of Betholetho their part of the tithes, first fruits, cultivated and uncultivated lands, vineyards and chestnut orchards, oblations and burial rights relating to it.79 Although the donators do not state explicitly under which title these assets were held, the invocation for clemency of the soul of Marquis Hugh II, a connection between Bonandus and the marquis, probably of vassalage, is indicated by the patrimonial presence of the heirs of Count Adalbert within the boundaries,80 and the castle of Pianoro as the place of stipulation of the deed. We can therefore add to the patrimonial picture outlined thus far that this sector of the Bolognese mountains between the valleys of the rivers Reno and Setta would prove to be central to the territorial settlement of the counts of Panico from the end of the eleventh century. As an important factor of continuity and patrimonial solidity it can also be observed that from that moment S. Bartolomeo maintained control of the church of S. Salvatore delle Bedolete for a number of centuries until the modern era.81 To complete the description of the patrimony in around the central decades of the eleventh century, we must again spend some time on the 75 Again in 1078, an emphyteosis attests Albert’s properties in the area: Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 242. Other properties were managed in the locality of Casignano in 1075: Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 223. 76 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 122. We also found that those lands were near the properties of a brother of Albert; San Venanzio is a locality of Galliera (Bologna). 77 On this lineage see Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 164–5, 202. 78 Caprara is near Panico in the low hills between the valleys of Setta and Reno in the modern municipality of Marzabotto (Bologna). 79 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 101. The toponym Bedolete is modern Piandisetta, near Grizzana Morandi (Bologna). 80 It is diff icult to identify this count: it could be either Adalbert II or either his son Adalbert III. 81 See Zagnoni, ‘Il monastero’, pp. 84–5.

234 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

most eastern sector of the plains and the Bolognese mountains, and then turn to the north towards the plains and waterways of the Ferrara area. Let us begin by considering the eastern Apennine valleys between the rivers Reno and Santerno,82 which we have already seen to be central to the interests of the kinship group. During our prosopographic analysis we have already considered the document dated 27 March 1034.83 On that date an agreement was signed in Mantua between Marquis Boniface of Canossa and Maginfred, son of Hubald, to solve a dispute over the inheritance from their common ancestor Adimarus.84 On this occasion, these two agreed to submit two sales to present on the following 25 April in the castrum of Massumatico, before an assembly of judges over whom their cousin Hugh II presided. That day, the judges were to have established which sales document should be considered valid. The third protagonist of the understanding was Boniface, son of Henry, also grandson of Adimarus and therefore a recipient of a share of the inheritance.85 Overall, the patrimony covered an extensive zone within the five Apennine valleys of Bologna, which largely coincided with the administrative area named iudiciaria Mutinensis or district of Brento,86 whose importance we have already observed in the group’s patrimonial constitution. In particular, the most precious assets that appear most attractive to the parties involved are the castles of Scanello and Monterenzio with the lands they controlled between the valleys of the rivers Savena and Idice.87 Moving again to the north to the border on the Saltopiano between the Bologna and Ferrara areas, we can consider the results attained by the kinship group after the middle of the eleventh century. On 13 February 1062, Bishop Roland of Ferrara bestowed upon Count Hugh III in beneficium rights to two pievi in the area and to the tithes to be collected from the nearby settlements.88 Added to all this, the bishop also conferred the assets donated that same day by the count (for which no linked document has survived), 82 Namely, the Apennine portion which included the valleys of the rivers Reno, Setta, Savena, Idice, Sillaro and Santerno. 83 Carte dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Pisa, vol. 1, no. 102. See Chapter 3. 84 See also Manarini, ‘Ai conf ini con l’Esarcato’. The act had arrived in the archiepiscopal archive of Pisa together with the following donation of Matilda of Canossa to that church of 1077, which allows us to understand which share of Adimarus’ inheritance in the Bologna Apennines she gained: DD Mat, no. 23. 85 Mainly focused on the castle of Monterenzio. 86 Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 97–8. 87 For later disputes on the same assets see Manarini, ‘Ai confini con l’Esarcato’. 88 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 5, cols. 615–16. The pievi were S. Giorgio in Tamara, to the east of Ferrara and near Copparo (Ferrara), and half of S. Maria in Gaibana.

Ruling on the Border

235

which came to him from the inheritance of a certain Almericus in the countships of Ferrara and Gavello.89 Count Hugh III himself also enjoyed positive relationships with the subsequent bishop of Ferrara, Gratian, who in 1077 granted him the fiefdom of the pieve of S. Giorgio in Lavino,90 just received from a minor vassal named Ardizzo.91 These localities had already been included in the group’s area of activities for some time. Over these decades, the kindred’s rule over them had been both recognized and accepted by the most influential institution in the area itself. In the margin of these patrimonial developments, we can place the emphyteutic relationship that Adelheid, daughter of Marquis Hugh II, and her son Adalbert IV sealed with the archbishop of Ravenna, Wibert, in 1074.92 Adelheid and her son received an enormous sum of mainly agricultural assets in the countships and dioceses of Bologna and Ferrara from the prelate, equal to the amount that a certain Frederone held from the same church of Ravenna. Apart from the vagueness of the assets granted, a peculiarity of the contract is the presence of a formula of exclusion from subletting to heirs of Adalbert II. This must have been added by the archbishop as a precaution against possible usurpation by Adelheid’s relatives.93 The lack of any reference to the woman’s husband prevents his position from being clarified. Nonetheless, the close emphyteutic relationship with the archbishop, and Adelheid’s presence in Ravenna for agreement to the contract, might indicate her introduction into exarchal circles and, following the model of her ancestors, her marriage to a member of Ravennate aristocracy. It is clear that in this specific area, in contrast to the rest of the territory of Bologna, the group’s patrimonial intermediaries were always ecclesiastical.94 Indeed, as the decades passed, while the figures of reference changed, the Hucpoldings never ceased to pursue the legitimization of their presence in the same place, helping themselves where possible with the social dominance that they were able to achieve within the royal court. Over the decades in which the Hucpoldings worked on the management of their landed wealth, members of the wider group were not all actively involved 89 Perhaps, this Almericus was the marquis who lived in the tenth century and was tied with the Hucpoldings; see Chapter 2. 90 The pieve was close to modern Trecenta, in the province of Rovigo: Castagnetti, L’organizzazione del territorio rurale, p. 126. 91 Le carte ferraresi, no. 60. 92 Paris, BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latines, 2573, fol. 22, no. 23. 93 In this same period, an imperial diploma granted by Henry IV on behalf of Ravenna recorded the affair of Engelrada I and her descendants; see Chapter 4. 94 Namely, the archbishops of Ravenna, the abbey of Nonantola and, lastly, the bishops of Ferrara.

236 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

in running the properties, remaining substantially excluded. This is the case of Lambert, son of Ermengarde and grandson of Adalbert I. Most probably born from the union of the count’s daughter with Bishop John of Bologna,95 he held a number of estates near the assets of his maternal kinship group. Active at the beginning of the eleventh century, Lambert oversaw properties situated close to the Bolognese monastery of S. Stefano and across the plains facing the city. The two clusure of lands donated in 1017 to the same abbey are ascribable with reasonable certainty to the patrimony that he must have inherited from his paternal kinship: the donation was arranged, in fact, not only for the benefit of Lambert’s soul and those of his relatives and Bishop John, but also for the restoration of the church of S. Stefano itself.96 The Bolognese monastery had already, since the previous century, been at the centre of the interests of the kinship group that had originated from Duke Peter,97 who then proved to be openly hostile towards the Hucpoldings over the course of the eleventh century.98 Despite this, we can assert on the basis of data between 1015 and 1021 that Lambert also managed landed wealth inherited from his maternal kinship. Both plots granted in emphyteosis in the localities of Arcoveggio and Marano are included among the properties ‘fratris et consortibus meis [i.e. of Lambert] qui supra dominacionis’ (of my brothers and consorts, who possessed the things mentioned above).99 The Hucpoldings held lands to the north of Bologna in Funo and on the plains to the north-east around Budrio. Given the vicinity of these lands, the brothers and consorts mentioned may even be identif ied with the relatives of his mother Ermengarde, towards whom Lambert remained distant and probably alienated.100 Nevertheless, considering the dislocation of Lambert’s descendants’ assets, a considerable patrimonial proximity can be found (albeit never confirmed explicitly by documents), particularly in the plains to the north of the city. Indeed, Tiziana Lazzari’s research into Lambert’s lineage highlights the joint patrimonial presence in localities thus far mentioned, such as Lovoleto, the pieve of S. Maria in Duno, Argelato, Fiesso and Zola Predosa.101 95 See Chapter 2. 96 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 20. 97 Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, pp. 604–6. 98 S. Stefano used widely the clause concerning the ban to subgrant the asset in favour of members of the Hucpoldings in its emphyteosis contracts. 99 Le carte dell’archivio di Santa Maria di Pomposa, no. 101; Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 26. 100 The use of the clause concerning the ban to subgrant the asset in his emphyteosis of 1021 is a strong indication of the hostile position Lambert had towards his maternal group. 101 Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, p. 602, see especially the map.

Map 5. Places mentioned in the plain north of Bologna and in the mountains to the south

Ruling on the Border

237

238 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The lack of relationships with the monastery of Musiano is without doubt confirmation of Lambert’s isolation and that of his descendants from the maternal group. For this reason, a patrimonial transfer dated 1089 presents some interpretative difficulty, above all because of genealogical uncertainty. That year, Pasquale, son of the late Remengarda, and some of his relatives granted to S. Bartolomeo a number of assets located in the pieve of S. Ansano del Pino and in the curtis of Sesto, especially their part of the church of S. Andrea and the castle built there.102 The elusive indications provided by the document do not allow us to include Pasquale among Lambert’s descendants without some doubt. The economic and military importance of the donated assets, and their notable vicinity to Musiano and to Hucpolding centres of power, cannot be underestimated however. One may therefore assert the maternal origin of these properties that were then transmitted through inheritance by Lambert to his descendants. Furthermore, the donation of his portion of the patrimony by Pasquale to Musiano may be interpreted, on the one hand, as mitigation of the relationship between Lambert’s descendants and the abbot, at that time already more independent of the group; on the other hand, as the recovery of a part of the possessions of the founders acted on by the abbot. Despite this hypothetical convergence with S. Bartolomeo, we cannot but consider the specific patrimonial and political choice made by Lambert and his descendants as being grounded in the desire to favour S. Stefano, as it already lay at the centre of interests of the kinship group of Duke Peter and was a reference point for the bishops of both the church of Bologna and aristocratic groups close to them.103

Lands, People and Castles (Tenth–Twelfth Centuries) The analysis presented thus far clearly displays a number of elements upon which it is opportune to formulate some conclusions. Surviving archival material shows a substantial continuity of patrimonial presence, which cannot have suffered significant increase or major loss for at least a century following the last acquisition of 958. Furthermore, after the diploma of 962, we do not possess any legitimizing deed issued by the public authorities for the Bologna area in favour of the Hucpolding’s possessions. Clearly this did not result in real difficulties for some time. However, during the unsettled years of King Hugh of Arles,104 there emerge both practices and strategies that 102 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 391. 103 See Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”’, pp. 615–17. 104 See Chapter 1.

Ruling on the Border

239

define the vitality and the geographical scope of the group in the succeeding period. The situation must have changed with the transformation of the general political outlook commencing from the 1070s.105 The group’s patrimonial presence in the Bolognese plains meant having estates, transit rights, control of river traffic and possession of fortified rural centres, often adjacent to religious buildings. Their presence in the western sector, between S. Giovanni in Persiceto and S. Vincenzo in Galliera, the so-called Saltopiano, was probably both an expression and an evolution of royal interventions in that territory. While for a fraction of the plains to the south of Persiceto between Modena and Bologna we have no documents on the exchange with S. Silvestro di Nonantola or the relationships established with the Canossa, landed possessions in the cultivated lands and marshland along the Po between Bologna, Ferrara and Rovigo often derived from positive relationships with the most important religious institutions in the territory. A good part of the properties identified to the north of Bologna between the pievi of S. Marino di Lovoleto and S. Giorgio must have come from the patrimony of the church of Ravenna. Its emphyteosis of 958 bears witness to a relation of vassalage which lasted into the following century. Then over the course of the eleventh century, a part of these lands was donated by Marquis Hugh II and then confirmed by his son Albert in favour of the Bolognese cathedral chapter.106 From the second half of the tenth century to 1074, kinship presence in the zone must have developed with the precise intent of control and management of both material assets and people who worked on the land. Indeed, although the confirmation of the six plots of the estate of Funo in favour of the canons had an explicitly religious purpose, Albert I also included a clause for the renewal of the same concession: a juridical contradiction that, borrowing a characteristic from emphyteosis, aimed at protecting the Hucpoldings’ ownership of their assets. In this way Count Albert affirmed his authority while still affording to the group a tangible influence over those assets.107 In this area to the north of the via Aemilia, the group never controlled a coherent network of power centres in order to affirm and consolidate its hegemony.108 With the exclusion of limited transfers to religious institu105 See Chapter 3. 106 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 210. 107 See also Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 177, in which in 1070 an envoy of Count Albert gave as pledge a plot of land close to Funo, probably for past transactions. 108 Although a false donation of Marquis Hugh I of 970 to Marturi claimed the existence of many fortifications, the only one plausible and ascribable to the group is the castrum of Massumatico mentioned in 1034: Carte dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Pisa, vol. 1, no. 102.

240 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

tions, the Hucpoldings aimed at the management of their many estates by coordinating a close group of vassals and local intermediaries. In this situation, therefore, emphyteutic relationships constituted a valid instrument for directly controlling considerable portions of patrimony. In this way, they imitating the policy of the archbishops of Ravenna, who built large and solid social networks with local aristocratic groups, including the Hucpoldings, between the tenth and eleventh centuries.109 Alongside the emphyteutic relationships previously considered, we can also observe more explicitly vassalic solidarities marked by the use of the title of vicecomes, intended however to be free from public implications and to be in line with the use made by the Hucpoldings of the title of count.110 So, it is mainly patrimonial attestations that indicate the connections between these vassals and the members of the group, particularly in the central decades of the eleventh century at the time of Marquis Hugh II.111 In the area of Galliera and close to the castle of Budrio, kinship possessions appear congruent with the patrimonial interests of vicecomes Binbus, of whom we have no additional information other than the continuity of his heirs.112 In the other patrimonial sectors the figure of vicecomes Ungarus also emerges, the only one of these people to be more regularly documented: five patrimonial demarcations which refer back to him allow us to localize his patrimony and that of his heirs within the pievi of Budrio, S. Giovanni in Triario and S. Vincenzo in Galliera.113 In the same sector again, within the pieve of S. Stefano in Claterna, we observe the interests of two other people, both in connection with the massa Ellerario. This is where Hubald IV held onto a number of properties which will be discussed shortly. Henry vicecomes fulfilled the role of investitor in the contract agreed by the count,114 whereas Walfredus comessarius, son of the late Hildebrand, was among the Hucpolding followers in attendance at Musiano in 1056,115 and owned some assets in that locality with his brother Bennus.116 109 See Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 134–8. 110 See Chapter 8. 111 For the eleventh century, seven individuals are attested with the title of vicecomes; two of them are not tied with the Hucpoldings. On these two, Atto and Rainbertus vicecomites, see Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 162–3. 112 Bologna 11, vol. 1, nos. 42 (1038, near Budrio), 93 (1059, close to S. Venanzio). 113 Bologna 11, vol. 1, nos. 65, 119, 158, 212; vol. 2, no. 283. Ungarus attended also the Bolognese placitum in 1037: ‘I placiti del “Regnum Italiae” (secc. IX–XI)’, no. 33. 114 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 437. 115 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 1, col. 855. On this document see also Chapter 7. 116 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 94.

Ruling on the Border

241

Only in this specific place can we find fortifications for the entire area of the Bolognese plains that are unquestionably ascribable to the group. The castrum of Migarano situated slightly to the south of Budrio was still owned by the group for the whole of the eleventh century, taking on a certain local importance thanks to the church of S. Nicola and to the notaries active there.117 One boundary near the locality of Castellioni to the north of Budrio permits us to suppose that the members of the group also possessed those fortified structures.118 As far as the castle of Budrio is concerned, we have no basis to establish its ownership by the Hucpoldings or by any of the vicecomites mentioned. Nonetheless, the notable quantity of patrimonial evidence relating to its surroundings allows us to carefully hypothesize control of the fortified settlement by the kinship group, or by others on their behalf.119 Kinship intervention in this area does not appear to lead back to the sphere of the public offices; moreover, it might connect back to the efforts of control relating particularly to transit routes in the lower plains and above all towards the Apennine passes. It was here, close to Budrio, where the via Flaminia minor must have transited, connecting the eastern Bolognese plains to the Tuscan side.120 By that route, across the Idice valley and the Casentino, and past the monastery of Capolona founded by Marquis Hugh of Tuscia, it was possible to reach Arezzo,121 a centre fundamental to the group for the whole of the tenth century. The influence that radiated from this area di strada (area of thoroughfare),122 added to the extensive landownership, and to the expansion of the area of power under Hucpolding control spanning Tuscany and Emilia. The forms of settlement in the territory and the methods used to impose their lordship were structured very differently in the Apennine sector to the south of Bologna. There, in the eastern portion, the patrimonial presence in all probability had a public form, originating from royal interventions between the ninth and tenth centuries. Later, their lordship was mainly shaped by bringing together their many estates – inescapable bases of power 123 – with a broad fortification system located between the lower and mid-Apennines. In addition to the four castles of Brento, Barbarolo, Montecerere and Gesso, 117 We know of tabellio Peter Migaranenses: Feo, ‘Per l’edizione delle carte bolognesi’, p. 39. 118 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 342. 119 Bologna 11, vol. 1, nos. 42, 176, 187; vol. 2, nos. 342, 407. 120 Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 85–6. 121 See Alfieri, ‘La via Flaminia “minore”’; Dall’Aglio, ‘Un nuovo documento’. 122 See Sergi, ‘“Aree” e “luoghi” di strada’, pp. 11–15. 123 Provero, L’Italia dei poteri locali, pp. 53–61.

242 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

keystones of the Post-Carolingian public district, we can also cite ownership of the castles of which we are sure: Gorgognano, Pianoro, Scanello, Monterenzio and Pizzocalvo, the latter being closest to the city of Bologna. This area constituted the territory of the most pronounced seignorial dominion, where many fortified centres along the Apennine valleys represented the fundamental element in the Hucpolding construction of lordship. Around them, widespread networks of relationships wove across the territory, formed of both vassals and followers. The picture is completed by placing alongside the fortifications the other fundamental organizational element given to the territory by the Hucpoldings: the monastery of Musiano, a pivotal point for the Bolognese branch for at least two centuries. The documentation in our possession shines a light particularly on the situation of the river valleys of the Reno, the Savena and the Idice, attributing great importance to the thoroughfares which climbed towards Tuscany from the Bolognese plains in the direction of Florence and Arezzo. We have already considered how, from the fortified centre of Budrio, the old Flaminia minor reached Arezzo across the valley of the Idice and the Casentino. Furthermore, S. Bartolomeo was established along one of the linking routes between the Flaminia and the parallel via dello Stale,124 where an abundance of people were attracted to the market there. A notable density of castles controlled directly by the group identified the territorial setting where the monastery stood. As a result, this area between the Savena and the Idice was one of intense control over the inhabitants. It is interesting to note that, at least as far as concerns the dislocation of the power centres, the territorial organization provided by these castles did not follow the preceding territorial structure conceived by the kings of Italy in the Apennine sector of the iudiciaria Mutinensis. Only two of the four centres defined pagi at the end of the ninth century, namely Barbarolo and Montecerere, continued to be relevant to the Hucpolding holdings into the following centuries as locations of two pievi.125 Conversely, the group preferred to settle in fortified centres further up the valley, close to the principal routes which permitted a more direct connection with the Tuscan side. The first fortified settlement of which we have information is the castle of Panicale in the pieve of S. Giovanni di Gorgognano, situated in the hills between the rivers Savena and Zena.126 The first mention of the castle dates 124 Foschi, ‘Il patrimonio fondiario’, p. 102. 125 On these two pievi see Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, pp. 396–400, 432–6. 126 The castle of Panicale was located nearby modern Pianoro. On the pieve of S. Giovanni Battista di Gorgognano see Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, pp. 349–52.

Ruling on the Border

243

to 976 when it hosted the agreement of a libellus, relating to a piece of land in monte super castello (on the hill inside the castle), granted by a certain Bernard and his wife.127 Thanks to the information available,128 a connection can be established between the couple and Count Adalbert II who, five years later, in the same castle, arranged the foundation of Musiano.129 The fortified settlement must have been an important residential centre for the group from the second half of the tenth century. Later, although the castle had lost importance in favour of nearby Pianoro, the area of Gorgognano and its pieve remained under Hucpolding control for some time, as the presence of Winibaldus de Gargognano among the followers who attended at Count Hubert’s side in 1085 attests.130 The castle of Pianoro, slightly further up the valley after Musiano, had already become the true centre of the dominatus loci in this area at the end of the tenth century. Over the course of the eleventh century, the castle was, in fact, the preferred residence for the members of the group, as well as the central hub for relationships with those of the Hucpolding entourage. Bishop Eberhard first showed interest in Pianoro in his act of 979, in which he excluded what had previously been given per cartulam to a certain Liutard, called Azo, of Pianoro.131 The bishop therefore had land in that area and entrusted its management to a member of local society. In 1009, Marquis Boniface II, son of the founder of Musiano, licensed a donation in favour of the Badia fiorentina from that castle.132 The signatures of the deed attest therefore to the presence of some of those in the marchisal entourage who in all probability were resident and active in the vicinity of Pianoro: the first original signature is that of Thomas dativus – a qualification of Latin tradition in use in the exarchal areas of the iudiciaria Mutinensis used to indicate the scabini or juridical expert 133 who probably also performed judicial functions within the circuitus castri; the second original signature is that of Peter of Acio, followed by four signa manuum of otherwise unknown people. Among the followers of the group, we can 127 Bologna 10, no. 9. 128 Among the witnesses to the act, we also find a certain Teuzo son of Bonizo from Civiciano, who came from an estate, Civiciano close to modern Zola Predosa, owned by the group: see Bologna 10, p. 48. 129 Bologna 10, no. 11. 130 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 352. Another Winibaldus – maybe father or avus of this Winibaldus – had properties close to the Hucpolding castle of Pizzocalvo, since a document of 1054 mentioned lands of heredes quondam Guinibaldo (heirs of the late Winibaldus): Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 78. 131 Bologna 10, no. 26. 132 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 19. 133 Benati, ‘Il Saltopiano’, p. 343.

244 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

count also a whole family from Pianoro, composed of Albert of Lambert de Planorus and his three children Garardus, Aldrevandus and Lambert, who in 1011 received in emphyteosis from Countess Bertilla various plots of land near the castle.134 We can conclude that the people living inside the Apennine fortification were often part of Hucpolding patronage, whatever their exact political activity may have been. The vicecomes Peter son of the late Hugh, who was in attendance at Musiano at the liberation of 1056,135 was probably part of this group of people. Despite the absence of information about him, his title and proximity to Countess Willa and her children permits the hypothesis that he had some sort of responsibility over the most important Hucpolding castle in the zone, also the residence of a servant freed on that occasion. Performing his tasks with Peter must also have been the tabellio Sichizo son of the late Azo, writer of that same document of 1056, who was active exclusively in Pianoro between the 1040s and 1070s.136 It was he who wrote the deed for the descendants of Bonandus from Caprara, who in 1061 arrived at the castle of their deceased lord, Hugh II, to make a donation on behalf of his soul.137 It is probable that that Sichizo was originally of Vinti, a locality near Pianoro that was part of the first endowment of Musiano. This is indicated by the completio (signature) of his son: Raginerius filius Sichizi de Vinti, who would write the charters of the monastery over the course of the last two decades of the century.138 Among the various documents written by him we can also see the first copy of the foundation act of S. Bartolomeo requested by the monks in 1097.139 Again, at the end of the eleventh century, another notary, John of Pianoro, was closely linked to Countess Beatrix: as her envoy for a sale with Musiano, he assessed the price of the asset under transaction with his counterpart.140 John may also have been the writer of the sales document, although upon signing it he defined himself ego Iohannes tabellio. It was not unusual at this time for the same person to define himself as both notarius and tabellio.141 We can then identify this notary with the homonymous tabellio, who worked exclusively in Pianoro in the 1080s.142 134 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 12. 135 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 1, col. 855. 136 Feo, ‘Per l’edizione delle carte bolognesi’, p. 40. 137 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 101. 138 Feo, ‘Per l’edizione delle carte bolognesi’, p. 39. 139 Bologna 10, p. 54. 140 Petracchi, Della insigne abbaziale basilica di S. Stefano, pp. 97–8. 141 It is the case of the same Raginerius, already mentioned. 142 Feo, ‘Per l’edizione delle carte bolognesi’, p. 29.

Ruling on the Border

245

Close to Pianoro, along the course of the river Zena, we can identify two more castles.143 Not far from the pieve of S. Maria di Zena,144 the group must have owned a castle from which another notary came, who was active in the middle of the twelfth century.145 Positioned on the lower slopes of the Apennines, and thus much closer to the city, was one of Marquis Hugh II’s residences: the castle of Pizzocalvo.146 In the second half of the eleventh century this castle was managed by a family named domini de Poiocalvuli probably connected to the marquis and his descendants.147 The family maintained patrimonial interests at the castle for some time, as is attested by a charter of Count Hubert of 1130.148 The same family of domini is recorded in 1074 with the title of vicecomes in relation to the ownership of some woodland situated in a massa in the pieve of Budrio.149 The patrimonial indication and the attestation of the title of viscount, once again in the sector of Budrio, appear to give weight to the theory of notable proximity between this lineage and the Bolognese branch of the Hucpoldings. Again, in the eastern Apennines between the valleys of the river Idice and the Sillaro, the Hucpoldings owned the castles of Monterenzio, Scanello and the fortified locality of Scorticheto, which later took from them the name of Casalecchio dei Conti.150 Similarly to developments in the plain, in this area too the group adopted the instrument of emphyteosis to incorporate under their patronage the most prominent representatives of local society, as illustrated by the relationship between Marquis Hugh II and de Robiano family in the pieve of Montecerere.151 Two generations after Hugh II, the same territory became of primary interest to kinship members who sought to establish a more defined aristocratic domain, and founded a stable centre in the castle of Casalecchio, as well as establishing patrimonial and political relationships with the recent foundation of S. Cristina di Settefonti. The last sector of the Bolognese Apennines in which the Hucpoldings owned assets, and mostly castles, was that furthest west between the valleys 143 Sesto could have been a third castle possessed by the group in the tenth century. It was where the church of S. Andrea stood, close to Musiano. It is mentioned in a donation to Musiano by a descendant of Lambert son of Ermengarde: Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 391. 144 See Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, p. 419. 145 Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 189: Teucio de castro Gene. 146 The emphyteosis of 1054 was granted in castro qui dicitur Pigicalvoli: Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo, Perg., ser. A, no. 1. 147 For these descendants see Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 200–1. 148 Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene, IX 75. 149 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 205. 150 A locality close to modern Castel San Pietro (Bologna). 151 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 50. On the de Robiano family see Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 172, 203–4.

246 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

of the river Setta, the Reno and the Lavino. There, however, because of the scarcity of remaining documents for the tenth and eleventh centuries, we must observe a number of opaque spots that are difficult to elucidate. Just some evidence of group members from Ceretolo and Pontecchio loosely indicates the character of the Hucpolding’s domain in this area.152 The biggest clue to the existence of kinship possessions to the southwest of Bologna is provided by a sales contract of Bishop Eberhard in 979, which concerned allodial assets in that part of the Apennines. Among these properties was also the castle Cellola, which was the fortified sector of the estate by that name.153 Not until 1094 do we find Albert II in the same hamlet for the purpose of consolidating landed wealth that one of his men, Ragimbertus, held near the castle of Petrosa.154 Nonetheless, Hucpolding descendants were gradually excluded from the Bolognese foothills by the close estates of Matilda of Canossa – perhaps acquired by virtue of her Hucpolding ancestry 155 – and the consequent appearance of Nonantola into that patrimonial area.156 The key point of power in the Reno valley was without doubt the castle of Panico. Situated on a rocky outcrop along the course of the river, it was in all likelihood the main residence of this branch of the group, which originated from Adalbert III who began to use that toponym in the twelfth century. Despite unquestionable relevance, Panico was never mentioned in the patrimonial sources of the eleventh century, thus impeding its systematic inclusion in the seigneurial development of this branch of the group. A document of 1116 alone throws a faint light on the area of influence gravitating around this fortified structure: attending Count Milo’s donation as witnesses were a resident from Panico, one from Montepastore, and Bernard vicecomes of Amola.157 The combination of these two localities together with Ceretolo and Pontecchio, mentioned earlier, suggests the approximate extension of the area. It must have spread from the castle of Panico out across a good part of the mid-west Bolognese Apennine, where this branch of the lineage built its hegemony. 152 Namely, Fuschizo from Ceretolo was with Count Albert I in 1074 and Sarracino from Pontecchio was with Count Hubert in 1085: Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 210; vol. 2, no. 352. 153 Castle and curtis were located nearby modern Zola Predosa (Bologna). 154 Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene, VIII 43bis. 155 See Chapter 3. 156 It should be noted that, although it is now kept in the Biblioteca Civica di Faenza, the copy of the 979 charter of Eberhard was originally kept in the archive of Nonantola, clearly showing the path those properties followed. 157 Savioli, Annali bolognesi, vol. 1.2, no. 100.

Ruling on the Border

247

Estate Management: Between Territorial Consolidation and Dispersal Hucpolding patrimonial policies underwent a sharp change over the last twenty years of the eleventh century. While until the 1070s we observe constant direct activity over the same patrimonial areas, whose purpose it was to administrate and, in some cases, to increase landed wealth; later, perhaps in part due to the political upheavals at the time,158 the Hucpoldings must have had to face a substantial weakening of their patrimonial positions, and sought to resist or monetize the loss of some of their possessions. At the end of the century, we record f ive donations and three sales which attest to a rather significant inversion of the trend in patrimonial management, particularly when compared with the activity of the previous decades. Furthermore, on these occasions the descendants of the group interacted with some Bolognese monasteries previously unrelated to the group. Apart from interventions in favour of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano, we see donations to benefit the monastery of S. Stefano and the recently founded female institution of S. Cristina di Settefonti. Note, S. Stefano was the most powerful religious institution connected to the urban aristocracy of Bologna.159 Despite the transfer in its favour, however, it later continued its hostility towards the kinship group. Musiano continued to be the patrimonial and political hub for the Bolognese branch even over these years of conflict and for a good part of the twelfth century. As time went on, however, the abbots were able to earn a conspicuous autonomy in the management of their patrimony. Abbot Rudolf (1065–1078), in particular, was able to include in each of his emphyteosis a specific clause to ban subgranting to the heirs of Boniface I or of Adalbert II,160 the latter being the founder of the same abbey. Again, the purpose of this clause was to avoid the dispersion and uncontrolled transferral of significant parts of monastic patrimony, thus averting a potential attempt at property recovery even by the founders themselves. Although the later abbots, Ingezo (1088–1108) and Augustine (1124–1136), did not use this formula to any particular extent;161 they adopted another expedient to reach the same objective. They introduced into some emphyteosis 158 See Chapter 3. 159 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 133. 160 Bologna 11, vol. 1, nos. 133, 160, 185; vol. 2, nos. 218, 233, 252. 161 Ingezo used the clause in two emphyteosis out of six. Augustine used it two times out of two until at least 1125.

248 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

a total restriction on alienating the assets received towards anybody. The transferral of the assets received in emphyteosis was admitted only into the hands of the abbot in exchange for the payment of the right price; only if the abbot refused to pay an adequate sum was it allowed to turn to other buyers, but only to those belonging to the districtus of the monastery,162 who would not therefore have suffered any patrimonial losses anyway. These juridical precautions enacted to avoid losing control of the lands given in emphyteosis were unnecessary to prevent a complete split between monastery and patrons. As of 1111, in fact, patrimonial adjacency between the groups and the monastery appears to be solid: when the abbot of Musiano granted a plot of cultivated land located in the estate of Monte Calvo,163 this delineated ‘a tribus lateribus iura comitis et supradicto monasterio’ (on three sides with counts’ properties and the same monastery’s possessions as well).164 This proximity could almost be confused, given the circumstances of the foundation of the monastery, and that certainly was not perceived as threat. The transactions arranged over these same years by representatives of the group in favour of Musiano were, indeed, further proof of the persistent quality of the relationship between the two parties. In 1085 Count Hubert donated the church of S. Nicola, situated inside the castle of Migarano, to S. Bartolomeo.165 The donation was probably done in observance of the new regulations introduced by the ecclesiastical reform promoted by the Roman church, banning laymen from holding property of churches and monasteries.166 The renunciation of rights over the church by Hubert, who seems to have given an unprecedented position of superiority to Abbot John, is completed by the grant of four land plots located inside the castle itself. Although the strictly economic significance of the enterprise was to supply the means necessary for the maintenance of the church and for performing liturgical duties, the emphyteosis permitted Hubert to preserve a fragile position of pre-eminence which emphasized, by means of a corresponding yearly rent, his landed wealth. Around a decade later in 1099, Countess Beatrix, cousin of Hubert, transferred a great quantity of unspecified property in the space of a few 162 The text reads: ‘licentia sit vobis de dare in talis hominibus qui de districta ipsius monasterio fuerit’ (it is allowed to grant lands only to men belonging to the monastery’s district). With the term districtus the abbot likely meant the area where the monastery’s landholdings stood. 163 The plot of land was in the locality of Colonne, near Monte Calvo, San Lazzaro di Savena (Bologna). 164 Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 171. 165 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 352. 166 See Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’, pp. 49–50.

Ruling on the Border

249

months to the monastery of S. Bartolomeo and to Abbot Ingezo. The first transaction took place on 7 February when the countess, in the presence of her husband Albert son of the late Ursus, donated a third of a certain property that she had inherited from her parents Hugh III and Matilda. The remaining two portions had already been transferred to her husband.167 We are unable to establish whether in this case they were religious buildings held by the countess, though we have already observed how her parents had obtained through donation a number of Ferrarese pievi, which may therefore have been included in their daughter’s inheritance.168 In any case, Beatrix relinquished a perhaps conspicuous part, of her properties by donating them to the monastery closest to the kinship group. The countess’s activity continued in September of the same year when, finding herself in the castle of Pianoro, she sold all her possessions lying approximately between Monte Calvo and Pianoro to Ingezo, including land, pasture, meadows and woodland.169 Furthermore, such transfer attracted a potential amercement of 3 golden librae, should there be any interference or spoliation by her heirs. Although the alienation of some portions of the family patrimony is evident upon analysis of these documents, the ongoing relationship between the Hucpoldings and the monks of Musiano does not permit us to consider these grants as a full detachment from the group’s habitual areas of influence. These activities do represent a change, however, compared with former patrimonial management. From the final decades of the century, the monastery and its abbots appear to have enjoyed more patrimonial freedom, combined with autonomous organizational policies on possessions that had as it happens grown considerably over the years. These repeated donations towards the abbey afford us a glimpse of the donors’ awareness of increasing difficulties in maintaining continuous and profitable control over all their lands and the better patrimonial solidity guaranteed by the monastery. The drawback to this trend would appear to be obvious: that of vigorously favouring the monastic institutions which over time must have succeeded in their attempt to redirect relationships of power with the founders’ descendants to their own benefit. Proof of this outcome can be found in the convenientia written in 1176, where Count Ranieri made agreements with the abbot of Musiano concerning rights and profits linked to the castle of 167 Now lost, the only edition of the act is in Savioli, Annali bolognesi, vol. 1.2, no. 85. 168 This trail could also explain the odd conservative path these charters had followed, from Musiano to the archive of the cathedral of Ferrara. 169 Petracchi, Della insigne abbaziale basilica di S. Stefano, pp. 97–8.

250 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Pianoro and to the vassals residing in its vicinity, which they both clearly claimed as their own.170 On this occasion, the abbot managed to obtain a public renunciation of the patronage over the monastery that Count Traversarius must have enjoyed only a few decades before.171 The abbot also obtained recognition of half the profits and expenditure for assets and over rights of placitum in the castle of Pianoro. In exchange, Ranieri received half of the possessions and the rights held by the same Traversarius and half of the vassals of Pianoro and half of the pertinent territory. Around the middle of the twelfth century, therefore, the abbots of Musiano managed to free themselves from the dominance of their founders and to partially substitute their seigneurial prerogatives in one of the most important areas of their lordship. In addition, it would not appear coincidental that the second copy of the charta dotis of 981 had been written in that period of time172 and drafted by the same notary Girardinus, writer of the agreement just described. The desire for autonomy and the need to keep the memory of the first endowment alive seem to combine in these initiatives undertaken by the monks, who knew how to exploit to their benefit the difficult situation into which the founders had run at the end of the eleventh century. Throughout the same years, the Bolognese branch of the Hucpoldings also maintained relationships with the monastery of S. Stefano. These interactions represented a completely isolated case in the group’s patrimonial affairs, even though they are emblematic of these particular decades. We have already seen how the Benedictine abbey just outside the city walls of Bologna had been a vigorous opponent of the presence and politics of the Hucpoldings towards the city itself and towards that part of the city territory where the monastery held interests.173 Rediscovering therefore, for this time span, attestations of two patrimonial donations in favour of this monastic institution allows us to revise our perceptions of Hucpolding activity. Probably in 1082, Count Hubald IV and his first wife Mansilda donated various assets to S. Stefano in the massa Ellerario, including an ospitale.174 Despite the poor condition of the document’s parchment, the few surviving 170 Petracchi, Della insigne abbaziale basilica di S. Stefano, pp. 99–100. 171 Count Traversarius belonged probably to the twelfth generation of the kinship; he lived in the second half of the twelfth century. He had assets near Pianoro: Bologna, ASBo, Demaniale, S. Stefano, 10/946, no. 10. 172 Bologna 10, p. 51: Cencetti supposed the second copy was realized in 1174. 173 On S. Stefano’s landholdings see Bocchi, ‘L’“Azienda” Santo Stefano’. 174 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 437. Being an uncertain date, the year 1082 appears the most likely according to Hubald’s chronological activity, as well as S. Stefano’s activity in the area. The

Ruling on the Border

251

snippets of information are enough to interpret this donation in the context of the wider and more significant patrimonial activity of the monastery. Indeed, from 1057 onwards, with a series of six successive patrimonial acquisitions,175 S. Stefano considerably increased its estates in the area of the massa just cited, in the sector between the via Aemilia and Budrio. Abbot Guinizus (1059–1100) was able to appropriate into monastic patrimony, in particular, through emphyteosis, lands and possessions of a number of private landlords.176 So, over a span of twenty years he obtained a hegemonic position in the area, which culminated finally with the donation, in some ways forced, by Count Hubald of his possessions included in that massa. The few lines remaining of the deed clearly indicate the subordination and pressure that the count must have had to endure. Despite the fact that the deed was witnessed at his own castle of Migarano, with the use of his resident notary,177 four out of nine of the witnesses were associated with the monastery.178 We can also place the second donation of 1090 into the same context, which was made in favour of S. Stefano by Hubald himself, this time with the complicity of five other people with no title and otherwise unidentified in Bolognese documents.179 The assets donated must have been distributed across the vicinity of the place of agreement, Medicina, in the pieve of S. Maria in Buda,180 therefore contiguous with the assets that S. Stefano acquired from the preceding donation of Count Hubald alone. These are the last main patrimonial attestations of the kinship group in this area and generally speaking the last in the plains of the Bolognese territory. Imagining a sudden and unexpected loss of the great quantities of possessions and landed estates described thus far would not seem plausible; nonetheless, we note for this area, as well as for others, a constant process of patrimonial fragmentation that began in the last decades of the eleventh century. Over these difficult years, the kinship group also turned its attention to a recently founded female coenobium, S. Cristina di Settefonti, located in the massa Ellerario was located in the territory of the ancient pieve of S. Stefano in Claterna in the area of modern Ozzano dell’Emilia (Bologna) towards Budrio. 175 Bologna 11, vol. 1, nos. 83, 91, 94; vol. 2, nos. 299, 387. 176 As was the case of Amelfredus son of Ildizus and his sons Seniorittus and Rainardus, who in 1048 could dispose emphyteosis on his own: Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 61. 177 The act is written by Peter Migaranenses tabellio. 178 Namely, Gerard and Hugh sons of Adescalcus, Peter Rusticani and Rudolf son of Rusticus, which we found in other documents of the abbey: Bologna 11, vol. 1, nos. 194, 205; vol. 2, nos. 439, 461. 179 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 399. 180 The locality of Buda is included in the municipality of Medicina.

252 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

mid-Apennine area to the east of Bologna. The place where the monastery stood had been fortified for at least half a century and constituted without doubt a relevant point of interest in the territorial settlement and organization across the Apennines181 between the valleys of the river Idice and the Sillaro. In that environment, descendants of the group had a reliable stronghold in the nearby castle of Casalecchio dei Conti. In the patrimonial donation agreed in the first few months of the monastic community’s existence, we can glimpse, in addition to the usual pious motivations, an attempt at collaboration and reciprocal support that nevertheless did not find an intermediary available to reciprocate. Even before the institution of the Camaldolese community there, Count Hubald IV benefitted the church of S. Cristina.182 In September 1099, a few months after the probable arrival of the nuns,183 Countess Beatrix also transferred to the abbey a number of assets in the vicinity.184 Ten years later in 1109 the monastery received a further donation of another 20 tornaturae (approximately 40 acres) in the nearby locality of Sassonero of the castle of Bisano. This land was donated by Maginfred, Hubald and Guy, sons of domnus Guy son of Maginfred.185 They belonged to the branch of the kinship group founded by Maginfred son of Hubald. The three men donated these lands for the salvation of their mother Acta’s soul, demonstrating once again significant kinship solidarity which went beyond mere patrimonial proximity. These people were also connected with the Tuscan side of the Apennines, as indeed had been their ancestor Maginfred son of Hubald, whose patrimonial presence in the Bologna territories and in the Tuscan area of Mugello has been described.186 It was to this particular part of the Florentine 181 Settefonti is attested for the first time in 1051: Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 67. 182 The donation concerned cultivated lands near the church of S. Giovanni in Fontana, in the pieve of Buda; a part of the wood of Meleto close to Villa di Sassonero, in the Idice valley; lastly, that which a certain Hugh son of Adalbert held as feud. We know about this donation since it is mentioned in the privilege the monastery received from Pope Alexander III in 1177: Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 4, no. 52; see also Italia Pontificia, vol. 5, pp. 288–9. With fewer details, the act is also included in the patrimonial confirmation granted by Bishop Gerard of Bologna in 1154: Codice, ed. Fanti and Paolini, no. 120. 183 Their arrival to Settefonti had to happen between 1097 – when the church had been donated to Luco – and August 1099, when the Abbess Matilda is first mentioned: Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 458. 184 Bologna 11, vol. 2, no. 459; namely, a plot of land in Meleto. On the pieve of S. Giovanni in Pastino, where the act was agreed, see Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, pp. 357–61. 185 Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 3, no. 151. This was the Villa di Sassonero and Bisano, close to Monterenzio (Bologna). 186 See Chapter 5.

Ruling on the Border

253

area where the nuns were sent from the nunnery of S. Pietro a Luco to establish a female Camaldolese community in the church of S. Cristina, donated in 1097 to the same monastery of Luco.187 They did this under the guidance of Matilda, daughter of Abbess Cuniza. The listed patrimonial donations constituted a good part of the endowment that Abbess Matilda could manage for the maintenance and initial development of her coenobium. The abbess, however, was able to initiate her own patrimonial policy, substantially independent from interference and free from any sort of subjective relationship with the donors. A constant feature of emphyteutic contracts such as S. Stefano’s from 1104 to 1204 was clause excluding subletting the asset to kinship group members.188 As we have seen from the patrimonial management behaviour adopted by the abbots of Musiano, by the end of the eleventh century the kinship group was no longer able to entirely control the use of those assets that they had donated. The same occurred with S. Cristina, which never permitted the Hucpoldings to manage their former possessions. Consequently, it never became the kind of point of reference that Musiano had been for about a century. The Bologna branch had probably lost so much prestige by that time that they were no longer able to dictate the policies of a monastic community, even though it lay in the nearby castle of Casalecchio dei Conti. In the early decades of the twelfth century, we again have news of two transfers of assets made by Count Hubert in the vicinity of Pianoro and Pizzocalvo, formerly key centres of the Bologna branch’s domain. In 1114 Hubert sold to Peter, cleric of Pianoro, and to his wife everything that the two already held in vassalage from the same count in the estate of Pianoro.189 Later, in October 1130, he enacted another alienation of lands in favour of the church of S. Croce of Pizzocalvo.190 Although this last patrimonial transfer does not appear to be of great importance, the agreements underlying all the transactions performed by Hubert and Beatrix once again seem to suggest the purpose of assigning management to private or religious institutions of a good part of the landed wealth, abandoning the use of emphyteutic instruments. The money obtained would now seem itself to be the main reason, again accompanied 187 Sources on these events are missing from either archives of S. Cristina and Camaldoli; these documents are partially summarized in Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 3, pp. 86–7. 188 See Di Pietro, Monasteri e chiese, pp. 265–83. 189 Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 189; for its right chronology see Modesti, Studi per l’edizione critica, p. 127. 190 Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene, IX 75. The act concerns a plot of land located close to the river Idice, in Poio de Vico.

254 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

by their desire to concentrate all their energies on fortified residences and presumably on the prof its linked to them. The reasons for this turn in patrimonial management were likely to be found in the progressive political decline suffered by the Hucpoldings, obvious if we consider the progressive loss of their eminent position in regard to royal power. Conversely, it cannot be forgotten how the cives Bononienses emerged as a new political subject. As early as the initial years of the twelfth century, they became the primary brokers of imperial power, effectively outflanking and seriously weakening the position of the Hucpoldings.191 The patrimonial pathway that we have outlined for the areas of Bolognese territory typified by the kinship group’s presence must now be completed with the analysis of Hucpolding patrimony in the western Apennines, formed mainly from the valley of the river Reno. This area, which has already been associated with the activities of some representatives of the group over the course of the tenth century. By the middle of the eleventh century, it then became the main stage for the activities of the descendants of Adalbert III, later known as ‘di Panico’, who, with Count Guy I, owned assets and appurtenances both in the Bologna area and in Casentino around Romena. The patrimonial interests on both sides of the Apennine must have functioned together for almost a hundred years, until that is, at the beginning of the twelfth century, with the donation of various churches and assets in the Tuscan part by Counts Hugh IV and Albert II in favour of Camaldoli. This marked a crucial passage towards an orientation to the Bolognese area alone,192 with what at most were assertive impulses towards the Pistoia territory.193 Here the management of the patrimony followed the lines traced for the rest of the group over the course of the eleventh century, in other words, through relationships with monastic institutions and through those of patronage. The close presence of Nonantola, with which this lineage never had any relationship, must have represented a serious obstacle to the maintenance and management of their assets. Their presence would particularly evident in this area of plain lands towards the via Aemilia, which thanks to the intervention of the Canossa became a space closely controlled by the abbey.194 191 See Chapter 3. 192 On the donation of 1099 to Camaldoli see Chapter 5. 193 On political relationships with Pistoiese bishops during twelfth and mainly thirteenth century see Ammannati, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico’, p. 166 and Foschi, ‘La famiglia dei conti di Panico, una signoria’, pp. 15–17. 194 DD Mat, no. 71.

Ruling on the Border

255

Nonetheless, at the beginning of the twelfth century in the plains to the west of Bologna, the Panico branch owned lands close to the properties of the monastery of S. Maria in strada.195 In 1106, however, Count Milo donated two pieces of land to the monastery of S. Elena di Sacerno, probably in the same area to the north of the via Aemilia near the Lavino river.196 Between the valleys of the rivers Reno and Samoggia, in 1068 Count Albert had already donated to the abbey of S. Lucia di Roffeno the church of SS. Trinità, founded in the locality of Prato Baratti.197 Although the tradition of the deed poses some doubt as to its authenticity,198 we can consider it to be a reliable attestation of their presence in that part of the Apennines, as it also happens to be close to Hucpolding centres of power such as the castle of Panico and the modern Zola Predosa. In this same agricultural area in 1094, Count Albert was engaged in strengthening the landed wealth of one of his vassal, Ragimbertus of Petrosa, endowing him with several properties adjacent to his own.199 The assets were situated in three localities near the castle of Petrosa,200 which was highly likely to have been located near the estate of Zola, an important economic and military centre for the kinship group since the end of the tenth century. Again in 1102, Count Milo granted an emphyteosis to three brothers for five plots of land located in the vicinity included in the pieve of S. Lorenzo in Collina in curte castro Cerule.201 One of the plots, situated in the locality of Castiluni – a place that had long been associated with the kinship patrimony – was adjacent to a terra domnicata owned by Countess Matilda. This detail should not be ignored if we consider that the Countess of Canossa’s activities in those same places culminated in 1102 with the donation of the castle of Cellula to the abbey of Nonantola.202 Again in 1116 Count Milo is focused on his possessions in that same portion of the Bologna Apennines, this time donating to one Matilda,203 probably a member of the influential Bolognese family of the Carbonesi.204 The deed 195 Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 164. On S. Maria in strada see Cerami, ‘S. Maria di strada’. 196 Bologna, ASBo, Demaniale, Servi di Maria, 2/6092, no. 2. 197 This area may be found in the parish of S. Prospero in the town of Savigno (Bologna). 198 Le carte ferraresi, no. 52. 199 Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene, VIII 43bis. 200 Namely, the localities of Cursio, Roncathelle and Calvanella, which are described as prope castellario Petroze, therefore located nearby modern Zola Predosa. 201 Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene, IX 4. On the pieve of S. Lorenzo in Collina, located near Zola Predosa, see Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, pp. 378–82. 202 DD Mat, no. 71. 203 Savioli, Annali bolognesi, vol. 1.2, no. 100. 204 Spagnesi, Wernerius, p. 90, n. 3; see also Milani, ‘Lotte di fazione’, p. 93.

256 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

may form the provision of a substantial part of the patrimonial share of Milo (of whom no heirs are known) to Matilda, daughter of Witernus. Despite this appearing to be a dangerous patrimonial fragmentation, the descendants of the Panico bloodline always firmly controlled this part of the Bolognese mountains, continuing to make that castle their main seigneurial residence. As counts of Panico in fact, in 1221 they received confirmation of all their possessions in the valley of the rivers Setta, Sambro and Reno from the legate of Emperor Frederick II (1220–1250), Conrad of Metz.205

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Bologna, ASBo, Demaniale, S. Stefano. Bologna, ASBo, Demaniale, Servi di Maria. Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo. Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene. Paris, BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latines, 2573.

Printed Primary Sources Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Anselmo Costadoni, 9 vols. (Venezia: Pasquali, 1755–73). Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, by Ludovico A. Muratori, 6 vols. (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia,1738–42). Carte dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Pisa: Fondo Arcivescovile, vol. 1: 720–1200, ed. by Antonella Ghignoli (Pisa: Pacini, 2006). Carte della Badia di Marturi nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (970–1199), ed. by Luciana Cambi Schmitter (Firenze: Polistampa, 2009). Chronica monasterii Casinensis, ed. by Hartmut Hoffmann, MGH Scriptores 34 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1980). Codice diplomatico della chiesa bolognese: documenti autentici e spuri (secoli IV–XII), ed. by Mario Fanti and Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: ISIME, 2004). Conradi I, Heinrici I et Ottonis I diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1879–84).

205 Savioli, Annali bolognesi, vol. 3.2, no. 511. See Manarini, ‘I conti di Panico’.

Ruling on the Border

257

Conradi II diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I und Otto I 919–973, ed. by Emil von Ottenthal, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1 (Innsbruck: Wagner’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1893). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich IV 1065–1075, ed. by Tilman von Struve, in Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich IV 1056 (1050)–1106, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.2 (Köln: Böhlau, 2010). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich IV 1086–1105/06, ed. by Gerhard von Lubich, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.4 (Köln: Böhlau, 2016). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Konrad II 1024–1039, ed. by Heinrich von Appelt, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1.1 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Urkunden und Briefe der Markgräfin Mathilde von Tuszien, ed. by Elke Goez and Werner Goez, MGH Laienfürsten- und Dynastenurkunden der Kaiserzeit 2 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1998). Heinrici III diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau and Paul F. Kehr, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germanie 5 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1931). Heinrici IV diplomata, ed. by Dietrich von Gladiss and Alfred Gawlik, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 6 (Berlin: Weidemann; Weimar: Böhlaus, 1941–78). ‘I placiti del ‘Regnum Italiae’ (secc. IX–XI): primi contributi per un nuovo censimento’, ed. by Raffaello Volpini, in Contributi dell’Istituto di storia medioevale, vol. 3 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1975), pp. 245–520. Italia Pontificia, vol. 5: Aemilia sive provincia Ravennas, ed. by Paul F. Kehr (Berlin: Weidemann, 1911). Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte bolognesi del secolo XI, ed. by Giovanni Feo, 2 vols. (Roma: Accademia delle scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, 2001) Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1990; orig. ed., Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913); vol. 2, ed. by Anna Maria Enriques (Roma: ISIME, 1990). Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano di Bologna e di S. Bartolomeo di Musiano (1001–1125), ed. by Rossella Rinaldi and Carla Villani (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1984). Le carte dell’archivio di Santa Maria di Pomposa (932–1050), ed. by Corinna Mezzetti (Roma: ISIME, 2016).

258 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Le carte ferraresi più importanti anteriori al 1117, ed. by Italo Marzola (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 957–976), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2002). Registrum Petri diaconi (Montecassino, Archivio dell’abbazia, reg. 3), ed. by JeanMarie Martin, Pierre Chastang, Enrico Cuozzo, Laurent Feller, Giulia Orofino, Thomas Aurélie and Matteo Villani, vol. 3 (Roma: École française de Rome, 2015).

Secondary Sources Alfieri, Nereo, ‘La via Flaminia “minore”’, in La viabilità appenninica dall’Età Antica ad oggi: atti delle giornate di studio (12 luglio, 2, 8, 12 agosto, 13 settembre 1997), ed. by Paola Foschi, Edoardo Penoncini and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo studi alta valle del Reno, 1998), pp. 95–101. Ammannati, Giulia, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico: personaggi e luoghi da una coppia di lettere di fine XI secolo’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 6.1 (2001), pp. 149–69. Angiolini, Enrico, ‘Fonti per la storia del locus ubi dicitur Gavile’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 157–73. Benati, Amedeo, ‘Confine ecclesiastico e problemi circoscrizionali e patrimoniali fra Ferrara e Bologna nell’alto medioevo’, Atti della Deputazione Ferrarese di Storia Patria 27 (1980), pp. 29–80. –––, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto in Adili e la politica antinonantolana del re Desiderio’, in Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Province di Romagna 34 (1983), pp. 77–129. –––, ‘Il Saltopiano fra antichità e medioevo: incognite, considerazioni, ipotesi’, in Romanità della pianura: l’ipotesi archeologica a S. Pietro in Casale come coscienza storica per una nuova gestione del territorio; giornate di studio (S. Pietro in Casale, 7–8 aprile 1980) (Bologna: Lo Scarabeo, 1991), pp. 337–56. Bloch, Herbert, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, vol. 1 (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1986). Bocchi, Francesca, ‘L’“azienda” Santo Stefano’, in 7 colonne e 7 chiese: la vicenda ultramillenaria del complesso di Santo Stefano di Bologna, ed. by Francesca Bocchi (Casalecchio di Reno: Grafis, 1987), pp. 183–209. Bonacini, Pierpaolo, ‘Il marchese Almerico: patrimoni e ascendenze familiari nell’antica Provincia Ecclesiastica Ravennate’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 247–64.

Ruling on the Border

259

Bottazzi, Gianluca, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto in Adili: un profilo di ricerca archeologico-topografica nel Pago Persiceta’, Strada Maestra: Quaderni della Biblioteca Comunale G.C. Croce di San Giovanni in Persiceto 28 (1990), pp. 87–113. Castagnetti, Andrea, L’organizzazione del territorio rurale nel Medioevo: circoscrizioni ecclesiastiche e civili nella ‘Langobardia’ e nella ‘Romania’ (Torino: Giappichelli, 1979). Castagnetti, Andrea and Antonio Ciaralli, Falsari a Nonantola: i placiti di Ostiglia (820–827) e le donazioni di Nogara (910–911) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2011). Cerami, Domenico, ‘S. Maria di strada: un monastero tra due f iumi’, Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia patria per le Province di Romagna 59 (2009), pp. 163–203. Dall’Aglio, Pier Luigi, ‘Un nuovo documento sulla via Flaminia “minore”’, Ocnus 16 (2008), pp. 123–30. Dall’Aglio, Pier Luigi and Carlotta Franceschelli, ‘La viabilità del territorio bolognese nelle carte del secolo XI’, in Bologna e il secolo XI: storia, cultura, economia, istituzioni, diritto, ed. by Giovanni Feo and Francesca Roversi Monaco (Bologna: BUP, 2011), pp. 441–83. Dell’Omo, Mariano, ‘Montecassino altomedievale: i secoli VIII e IX: genesi di un simbolo, storia di una realtà’, in Il monachesimo italiano dall’età longobarda all’età ottoniana (secc. VIII–X): atti del Convegno di studi storici sull’Italia benedettina (Nonantola, 10–13 settembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Spinelli (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2006), pp. 165–92. Di Pietro, Adriana, ‘Monasteri e chiese dipendenti da enti monastici a Bologna e nel territorio bolognese nei secoli XI–XII: contributo allo studio dei rapporti patrimoniali’, Tesi di Laurea, Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica dell’Università di Bologna, 1984/85. Falce, Antonio, Il marchese Ugo di Tuscia (Firenze: Bemporad, 1921). Fantini, Luigi, Antichi edifici della montagna bolognese, vol. 2 (Bologna: Carisbo, 1972). Fasoli, Gina, ‘Il patrimonio della chiesa’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 389–400. –––, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi di Ravenna fra l’VIII e l’XI secolo’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 87–140. Feo, Giovanni, ‘Per l’edizione delle carte bolognesi del sec. XI: il censimento dei notai’, Nuovi Annali della Scuola Speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari 12 (1998), pp. 7–47. Foschi, Paola, ‘La viabilità medievale tra Bologna e Firenze’, in La viabilità tra Bologna e Firenze nel tempo: problemi generali e nuove acquisizioni; atti del convegno (Fiorenzuola-San Benedetto Val di Sambro, 28 settembre–1 ottobre 1989) (Bologna: Costa, 1992), pp. 131–48.

260 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

–––, ‘La famiglia dei conti di Panico, una signoria feudale fra Toscana ed Emilia’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 28 (1993), pp. 3–22. –––, ‘Il patrimonio fondiario dell’abbazia di S. Bartolomeo di Musiano in rapporto all’insediamento e alla viabilità nel valle del Savena nel Medioevo’, in San Bartolomeo di Musiano: giornata di studi (Pianoro, 15 ottobre 2005) (Bologna: Deputazione di storia patria, 2008), pp. 97–164. Foschi, Paola, Renzo Zagnoni and Paola Porta, Le pievi medievali bolognesi (secoli VIII–XV): storia e arte, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: BUP, 2009). Gaudenzi, Augusto, ‘Il monastero di Nonantola, il ducato di Persiceta e la chiesa di Bologna’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano 36–7 (1916), pp. 77–214. Kurze,Wilhelm, ‘Gli albori dell’abbazia di Marturi’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 165–201. Tiziana Lazzari, ‘I “de Ermengarda”: una famiglia nobiliare a Bologna (secc. IX–XII)’, Studi Medievali 32 (1991), pp. 597–657. Lazzari, Tiziana, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche e aree di affermazione signorile: il territorio bolognese fra VIII e XI secolo’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: Terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 379–400. Lazzari, Tiziana and Alberto Monti, ‘Il castello di Pianoro: le fonti scritte e alcune considerazioni sulle evidenze archeologiche’, in Castelli medioevali e neomedievali in Emilia-Romagna: atti della giornata di studio (Bologna, 17 marzo 2005), ed. by Maria Giuseppina Muzzarelli and Antonella Campanini (Bologna: CLUEB, 2006), pp. 115–41. Manarini, Edoardo, ‘Paesaggio ed edifici di culto nel comparto Reno-Galliera’, in Il territorio di pianura della diocesi di Bologna: identità e presenza della Chiesa; urbanistica, socio-demografia, edifici di culto e pastorale di un paesaggio in trasformazione, ed. by Claudia Manenti (Bologna: Compositori, 2011), pp. 212–13. –––, ‘Ai confini con l’Esarcato: proprietà, possessi e giurisdizioni dei Canossa nel Bolognese orientale’, in Matilde di Canossa e il suo tempo: 31˚ congresso internazionale di studio del CISAM (San Benedetto Po, Revere, Mantova, Quattro Castella, 20–24 ottobre 2015) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2016), pp. 459–80. –––, ‘Politiche regie e attivismo aristocratico nell’Emilia carolingia: il monastero di S. Silvestro di Nonantola’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 30 (2017), pp. 7–74. –––, ‘I conti di Panico e la prima espansione del comune di Bologna nel territorio appenninico (XII–XIII secc.)’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 31 (2018), pp. 11–48.

Ruling on the Border

261

–––, ‘A Marriage, a Battle, an Honor: The Career of Boniface of the Hucpoldings during Rudolf II’s Italian Reign, 924–26’, Early Medieval Europe 28.2 (2020), pp. 289–309. Milani, Giuliano, ‘Lotte di fazione e comunità montane nella documentazione giudiziaria bolognese tardoduecentesca’, in Signori feudali e comunità appenniniche nel Medioevo: atti delle giornate di studio (Capugnano 3–4 settembre 1994), ed. by Claudio Cappelletti and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo Studi Alta Valle del Reno, 1995), pp. 91–100. Modesti, Maddalena, Studi per l’edizione critica delle carte bolognesi del secolo XII: prosopografia dei notai ed edizione critica di due cartulari notarili (Bologna: BUP, 2012). Petracchi, Celestino, Della insigne abbaziale basilica di S. Stefano (Bologna: Guidotti e Mellini, 1747). Provero, Luigi, L’Italia dei poteri locali: secoli X–XII (Roma: Carocci, 2011). Rinaldi, Rossella and Carla Villani, Nonantola, in Lanfranco e Wiligelmo: il Duomo di Modena (Modena: Panini, 1985), pp. 90–116 Savioli, Ludovico Vittorio, Annali bolognesi, 3 vols. (Bassano del Grappa: Remondini, 1784–95). Sergi, Giuseppe, ‘“Aree” e “luoghi” di strada: antideterminismo di due concetti storico geografici’, in La viabilità appenninica dall’Età Antica ad oggi: atti delle giornate di studio (12 luglio, 2, 8, 12 agosto, 13 settembre 1997), ed. by Paola Foschi, Edoardo Penoncini and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo studi alta valle del Reno, 1998), pp. 11–16. Settia, Aldo A., ‘“Per foros Italiae”: le aree extraurbane fra Alpi e Appennini’, in Mercati e mercanti nell’alto Medioevo: l’area euroasiatica e l’area mediterranea (Spoleto: CISAM, 1993), pp. 187–237. Spagnesi, Enrico, Wernerius bononiensis iudex: la figura storica d’Irnerio (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1970). Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro di Nonantola, vol. 2 (Modena: Società tipografica di Modena, 1785). –––, Dizionario topografico-storico degli Stati Estensi, vol. 1 (Modena: Tipografia camerale, 1824). Un villaggio di pianura: ricerche archeologiche in un insediamento medievale del territorio di Sant’Agata Bolognese, ed. by Sauro Gelichi, Mauro Librenti and Marco Marchesini (Borgo San Lorenzo: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2014). Violante, Cinzio, ‘Alcune caratteristiche delle strutture familiari in Lombardia, Emilia e Toscana durante i secoli IX–XII’, in Famiglia e parentela nell’Italia medievale, ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1977), pp. 19–82. Zagnoni, Renzo, ‘Il monastero di San Bartolomeo di Musiano nel medioevo (981–1307)’, in San Bartolomeo di Musiano: giornata di studi (Pianoro, 15 ottobre 2005) (Bologna: Deputazione di storia patria, 2008), pp. 31–96.

Part III Power, Relationships, Memory

Power, Rel ationships, Memory

265

Defining the aspects that characterized the kinship group as a whole means taking into consideration all those elements both intrinsic and extrinsic to the documentation that can contribute to outlining particular features of the group, such as self-awareness and -memory. We shall also examine the organization of the power enjoyed by the Hucpoldings, their qualities, their relationships and the strategies they adopted to build their seigneurial hegemony in the local communities affected by their presence. Finally, from this perspective we will observe the peculiarity of their lordship, achieved in a way that is eminently different from the evolution of other kindred groups of the Italian aristocracy. After having dealt with the genealogical and patrimonial enquiry, this third part seeks to go beyond the classic model of family history. It considers instead the various facets of the kinship evolution, placing each one into both a unitary and comprehensive diachronic vision. The analysis will focus predominantly on the characters and developments of kinship cohesion which might go beyond solely the practical element of transmitting landed patrimony. Each chapter deals with a specific aspect that characterized and bonded various Hucpolding individuals. Elements considered include: the sense of belonging to the Reichsadel and the Königsnähe; the onomastic uses; the practice of the lex Ripuaria; the role of the monastic foundations; and finally, kinship self-awareness and the variety of perceptions that peers reported about members of the group.1 This approach makes clear a comparison between the Italian historiographic model, elaborated primarily by Cinzio Violante,2 and the results attained by French historiography for some time now committed to a programmatic dialogue with anthropological conceptions of horizontal kinship groups and extended families.3 These differing starting models, antithetic and therefore mutually corrective, have permitted an analysis that aims to be free from over-interpretation. The tangibility given by the real element of landownership has been combined with an attention to that symbolic capital of family honour and group prestige that is present, but often hidden, in our sources. The purpose is to gain as full as possible an image of all those 1 It is useful to bear in mind criticisms raised of Karl Schmid’s method by Bouchard, Those of My Blood, pp. 59–73. 2 See Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’; Violante, ‘L’immaginario e il reale’, pp. 133–42. 3 A starting point was the Parisian conference published in Famille et parenté.

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_partiii

266 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

elements and characteristics that the early medieval Italian aristocracies preserved, cultivated and transmitted to all their members. Conversely, for the discussion of power and relationships with royal institutions, comparison must be made with the historiographic interpretations proposed by Giovanni Tabacco in the analysis of the power of aristocratic groups and their evolution from public officials to territorial lords.4 To these interpretative models of a general nature, we can add Tiziana Lazzari’s research into the territorial districts of the Carolingian and postCarolingian periods, particularly with reference to the areas of Emilia and Bologna.5 The persuasive negation of the existence of a Carolingian comitatus centred in Bologna, proposed in the mid-nineties,6 cleared the field of much of much of the misunderstanding of prior historiography, which accepted the association of the Hucpoldings with the rule of the city of Bologna, thus impeding any coherent assessment of the kinship group’s overall developments. At this stage it should be underlined that overall considerations of this sort make sense in so far as the members of the kinship group maintained political and social pathways as a whole, including significant symbolic elements. It is for this reason that the following analysis concentrates on the period between the middle of the ninth century and the last decades of the eleventh, the period in which kinship structures maintained regular and active, widespread cognatic horizontality. It is only later that we observe a definite change in kinship structure from cognatic to agnatic, which led to the formation of distinct family branches, epigones of the Hucpolding group.

4 Key studies for this research perspective are Tabacco, Struggle for Power; Sergi, I confini del potere; Provero, ‘Apparato funzionariale’; Provero, L’Italia dei poteri locali. 5 Lazzari, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche’; Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’; Lazzari, ‘Campagne senza città’. 6 Lazzari, Comitato.

7.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory Abstract The third part of the research proposes the diachronic reconstruction of the evolution of powers and awareness of the relations of kinship through a thematic analysis. The seventh chapter aims at defining the aspects that characterized the kinship group as a whole, such as self-awareness and memory through onomastic choices and monastic foundations. It shows that, in the Hucpolding case, the patrimonial possessions came to be the main cohesive feature of the group only in the years spanning the tenth to eleventh centuries. Only at that time did the switch from cognatic to agnatic structures occur. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; consciousness; monasteries; personal law; memory

The collective name of Hucpoldings was recently introduced into historiography in order to designate the descendants of Hucpold,1 count palatine in Italy under Louis II’s rule from approximately 850 to 860. Formerly, local Bolognese scholars referred to this kinship group as the counts of Bologna, coining an expression that linked them inseparably to the city’s medieval institutions. The fundamental assumption was that every city of any importance that had survived the early medieval centuries must have been under the jurisdiction of a count in Carolingian and Post-Carolingian periods. Nevertheless, this designation concluded by nullifying, within civic institutional circles, the entire kinship issue, which therefore lost its historic significance. Moving the field of investigation from the civic point of view, we can engage with an analysis that focuses on the kinship group as a whole and on the particular features recognizable for at least nine generations, that is the individuals who lived from the 1 Jean Pierre Delumeau first used the collective name in 1983: Delumeau, ‘Equilibri di potere ad Arezzo’, p. 92. On this naming method see Werner, ‘Important Noble Families’, pp. 152–3.

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch07

268 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

middle of the ninth century to the beginning of the twelfth century for whom it would appear appropriate to attribute the collective name of Hucpoldings. In response to the anthropological opening supported by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff in their research into medieval family structures,2 Cinzio Violante assertively stated the peculiarity of the Italian groups which, in his opinion, always had a prevalent point of family cohesion in the hereditary transmission of property: ‘this is explained by the enormous importance that the royal element, and especially land ownership, had in Italy and with the fact that the memory of the lineages and, therefore, familial self-awareness derived from documents that concerned the transmission of the patrimony’.3 In fact, in Italy, Violante did not attribute any notable development to the Reichsaristokratie, which was characterized by large cognatic kinship structures that were not widely settled in local environments, because of the particular weakness of the royal power. Due to this structural weakness, therefore, those Frankish kinship groups that arrived in the wake of the Carolingians were unable to put down deep roots and establish themselves for any length of time in the Italian political landscape. 4 All this was resolved, however, to the advantage of lineages of the middle-ranking aristocracy, which was organized in well-defined vertical structures and achieved success in building longer lasting family dynasties particularly because of their careful attention to land.5 Violante’s reconstruction relies on the great quantity of private charters that the Italian archives have preserved.6 By nature, this type of patrimonial documentation places the transmission of the properties at the centre of family memories and self-awareness, but it struggles to gather elements that clearly refer to the extended kinship structure, those of the Reichsaristokratie. Widening the investigation to all the sources and elements in our possession, and also considering therefore narrative sources, permits us to acquire a more complete vision of this type of horizontal kinship group. In addition to patrimonial reconstruction, it allows us to appreciate features of kinship awareness and how the mechanism of memory worked in order 2 Famille et parenté. 3 Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’, pp. 33–4: ‘ciò si spiega con l’importanza enorme che l’elemento reale, e specialmente il possesso fondiario, aveva in Italia e con il fatto che il ricordo delle discendenze e, quindi, la coscienza familiare derivavano dai documenti che riguardavano appunto la trasmissione del patrimonio’. 4 Violante, ‘L’immaginario e il reale’, p. 138. 5 Violante, ‘L’immaginario e il reale’, pp. 139–40. 6 Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’, p. 22.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

269

to transmit the symbolic capital of kinship prestige, this too at the base of the organization of early medieval aristocratic groups.7 A first element to be considered is how the Hucpolding kinship group was part of that Reichsadel which interacted with the Carolingian rulers through the Königsnähe,8 achieving participation in the management of the empire.9 Their close relationship with kings permitted them to attain power and prestige over others, two prerogatives that formed the basis of the self-awareness of these kinship groups of Frankish aristocracy.10 In short, the members of the Reichsadel formed a community of people who, practising a type of Königsnähe more or less intensely,11 gained from royal authority the concrete power of official roles and in addition developed a sense of belonging to the group of those in command.12 Of all the members of this community, the identifying element of group membership was a person’s given name alone. Although it could seem an element of individuality, in truth each single individual disappeared within the continuous repetition of the same anthroponyms, each one characteristic of its own kinship group. During this early period, therefore, it was proximity to the king and the official tradition within the structure of the empire that constituted the element identifying kinship awareness of the various aristocratic groups.13 It is from this perspective that the Hucpoldings emerge in public sources of the ninth and tenth centuries: thanks to official roles and to stable relations at court, their proximity to rulers increased over the next three generations until reaching its height with Boniface I, through his marriage to the sister of King Rudolf II of Burgundy. Direct kinship with a member of a royal lineage, although by now no longer directly connected to Carolingian blood, was the best way to guarantee an enduring presence inside the Reichsadel.14 7 See also Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 48–80. 8 A concept (originally German) that def ines close relationships with the royal or imperial family in early medieval kingdoms: Tellenbach, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility’, pp. 207–8; Schmid, ‘Structure of the Nobility’, p. 50. See also Wickham, ‘Changing Composition of Early Elites’, pp. 10, 13–14. 9 See Tellenbach, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility’, pp. 203–8; Collavini, ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale’, pp. 320–1; on the predominant Austrasian component of these aristocracies see Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, pp. 401–4. 10 Symbolic wealth given by kinship prestige was not of lesser value compared with landed wealth: Le Jan, Femmes, pouvoir, p. 109; see also Guglielmotti, ‘Esperienze di ricerca’, p. 262. 11 See for example the case of the Welfs of Bavaria: Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, pp. 36–8; and the Italian case of the Supponids: Lazzari, ‘Una mamma carolingia’, pp. 41–57. 12 Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’, p. 134. 13 Schmid, ‘Structure of the Nobility’, pp. 54–5; Tellenbach, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility’, p. 208. 14 Tellenbach, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility’, p. 208.

270 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

In recognition of military value, Hucpold also received the eminent position of count palatine of the kingdom of Italy from Emperor Lothar. Despite the probable disgrace that befell his father with Louis II,15 Hucpold’s son Hubald I in turn also maintained a close relationship with the new emperor, and was later to become one of the most loyal followers of Charles III in Italy. Boniface I, who was consiliarius to Rudolf II when he became king of Italy, held the same position as his father in the royal patronages, which was also strengthened by his military successes. Thanks to the great prestige inherited from his parents, Boniface was also able to reach the highest level of Königsnähe through his marriage to the daughter of King Rudolf I of Burgundy, Waldrada. She was sister of King Rudolf II and above all related to the Bavarian Welfs, who for some generations had been direct relatives of the Carolingians.16 Boniface’s choice of marriage with a woman foreign to the kingdom of Italy, following in the footsteps of his uncle Adalbert II of Tuscia – married to Bertha of Provence – conf irms the degree of prestige and influence acquired within the still wide post-Carolingian Reichsadel by Boniface and by his group at the beginning of the tenth century.17 Just a few years later, the rise of Hugh of Arles in Italy (926) constituted a substantial setback to Boniface’s political ascent. In the 920s, because of the king’s strong hostility, he remained excluded from royal patronage and was therefore removed from his office in Emilia. In that very same territory, however, his descendants shaped their presence through an indiscriminate use of the title of comes across the whole cognatic line, probably in this way preserving the memory of both the tradition of the office and of their former relationship with the royal institution. As early as the middle of the tenth century, we can then observe the acquisition of the public title taking place alongside specific traits of kinship awareness18 together with certain onomastic choices, as we will see below. The dinastizzazione of the comes title may perhaps be attributed to the considerable chronological precocity of the process itself, but not that of marchio, which would have been a more complete representation of the rank and the administrative tradition of the group. According to our sources, it 15 See Chapter 1. 16 See Le Jan, ‘Adelheidis’, pp. 32–7. 17 Tellenbach, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility’, p. 208. At the end of the tenth century, it may also be noted that Marquis Hugh I married Judith, a woman belonging to the Ottonian group: Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 20, n. 5. 18 On the identity meaning behind the generalized use of the comital title in the case of the Aldobrandeschi; see Collavini, Honorabilis domus, pp. 93–4.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

271

had been elaborated and activated when the royal authority was clearly still able to control attempts at autonomous use of such prestigious public titles as those of marchio.19 The title of comes must have represented an element of notable social significance in a territory at the margins of the kingdom of Italy and briefly conjoined by Carolingian local organization.20 As proof of this, it was precisely the comes title of public authority and the kinship onomastics that principally interested the exarchal aristocracies who sealed unions through marriage with members of the group21 between the tenth and eleventh centuries. They managed in this way to acquire the particular features of rank and prestige of Hucpolding kinship. Consequently, two distinct moments are experienced in kinship awareness based on relations with royal power in Italy and therefore with the kingdom itself. In the ninth century, the group’s awareness was built on military engagement and on belonging to the Reichsadel, which was in turn structured around kings and their families. Later, over the course of the tenth century, the Hucpoldings elaborated specific elements of memory shared across all the members of the kinship group. One of these was the indiscriminate use of the comes title, which was founded on the memory of the imperial aristocracy’s own official tradition. Although it would appear to be a rather generic claim of Königsnähe across the kingdom, the title of comes was nonetheless an original and identifying feature of the kinship group in the territory of Bologna, as this was where it had its principal patrimonial bases and where it developed its lordship. Considering the close founding relationship with the royal dynasty, we will now examine onomastic customs, juridical practices, relationships with monastic institutions and the perception and self-representation of the group within the whole historical evolution of the Hucpoldings. The purpose will be to determine in the most complete way possible the elements and pathways adopted to create and then strengthen the dynastic self-awareness of the group. Sense of belonging, memory of ancestors, awareness of the kinship and wide social recognition were the fundamental prerequisites

19 Hubald II dux et marchio and the two marquises named Almericus reveal, however, the first signals of institutional weakness in the most marginal portions of the kingdom. A weakness that would then be intensified in the eleventh century, when we find for the daughter of the Marquis Hugh I the dinastizzazione of the title of marchionissa, even if the woman had always been on the margins of the kinship group; see Chapter 2. 20 See Chapter 8. 21 See Chapter 3.

272 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

of a self-consciousness unique to the kin,22 and therefore distinctive of the members of the group from their arrival in Italy until at least the end of the eleventh century.

Onomastic Choices Early medieval sources usually define people by their given name alone, that is without indicating a surname, or by means of an accurate use of a patronymic. A custom so distant from the modern forma mentis deeply complicates attempts by scholars to attribute individuals to the various families and Sippen.23 Nonetheless, due to the importance acquired in an overall outlook of the single name, we can attribute a particular significance to the onomastic choices and the use of family names, which in this way become fundamental for the investigation of the value of the memory of ancestors, of the consciousness of belonging to the kinship group and of the solidarities developed within it.24 Indeed, the Sippe held the upper hand over single dynasties from the eighth to the tenth centuries and until well into the eleventh, and names that identified and were specific to them were passed down through a family nucleus from one individual to another.25 Throughout the period considered for this analysis of the ‘onomastic text’ of the Hucpolding group,26 that is from the middle of the ninth century until the end of the eleventh, we observe that the ancient custom of varying elements of the name is abandoned (this is only recorded in the case of Engel-rada for the second generation) in favour of the repetition of the whole name, described as Nachbenennung.27 Furthermore, in the Hucpolding case, the custom of the single name was the only enactment by the group, since our sources lack double names or nicknames. Here, we can trace a 22 See Goetz, ‘Coutume d’héritage et structures familiales’, p. 205; in German the concept is expressed as Wir-Gefül (‘us-ness’); see Eggert and Pätzold, Wir-Gefühl. 23 Early medieval aristocratic clans are defined with the German term Sippen, which reveals their peculiarity of extended cognatic family units. Between the seventh and tenth centuries, the Sippen followed a path of progressive vertical and hierarchical structuring, which eventually led to their disaggregation in favour of vertical family units strongly based on landed properties; see Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, pp. 387–426. 24 Nobili, ‘Formarsi e def inirsi dei nomi di famiglia’, p. 271; see also Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 73–77. 25 Fumagalli, Terra e società, p. 124. 26 On the concept of ‘onomastic text’ see Nobili, ‘Formarsi e definirsi dei nomi di famiglia’, p. 270. 27 Le Jan, Femmes, pouvoir, p. 224.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

273

general tendency to protect the onomastic tradition and a clear inclusion into the kinship Sippe, where there could have been no perception of a need to disambiguate through onomastic choices. The name of the kinship group’s ancestor is attested in the Frankish form of Hucbald.28 The anthroponym is composed of Germanic morphemes Hugu-balda,29 which, in Lombard Italy, adopted the form of Huc-pald through the softening of the bilabial sound ‘b’ to ‘p’.30 The original meaning of the f irst morpheme is ‘spirit’,31 and refers back to the ancient name of the Frankish population documented in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon narrative sources in the forms of Hocingas/Hugun/Huga/Hugos.32 The second is constituted from the old Germanic adjective baltha, which corresponds to the modern-day English ‘bold’,33 belonging to the semantic field of war, a natural distinctive mark of the early medieval Frankish aristocracies. The Leitname (guide-name)34 of the kinship group then appears for the only known male individual for the second generation, namely in the Latinized form: Ubaldus. For the third generation, defined similarly to the two preceding ones by the presence of a single male individual, the onomastic choice moves away from a logic strictly within the kinship patrimony – a decision firmly linked to the group’s political aims.35 The stable proximity to the Adalbertings must have deepened through the marriage of Hubald to a woman of that kin, probably a daughter of the same Adalbert I. Following the idea that the name given to the child reflected the context of relationships into which he was born, their son was named Boniface. In general, within these elites, individuals’ names referred to kinship groups, the Sippen, in which those specific names were dominant and telling politically.36 28 A certain Hucpold count of Verona is also attested at the beginning of the ninth century. However, his connection to the Hucpoldings is quite uncertain, especially due to his professio legis of the natio Alamannorum; on him see Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 203–4. 29 See the list of Germanic morphemes forming the individual names in Codex diplomaticus Amiatinus, vol. 3.2, p. 178. 30 Violi, ‘Monaci nonantolani’, p. 537. 31 Lazard, ‘Studio onomastico’, p. 40. 32 Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, p. 39. In Norse mythology, Hugin was one of the two ravens who sat on the shoulders of Odin, the other one Munin. They represented ‘Thought’ and ‘Memory’; see Lindow, Norse Mythology, pp. 186–8; Sturtevant, ‘Comments on Mythical Name-giving in Old Norse’, 68–9. 33 Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, p. 45, ad vocem. 34 See Werner, ‘Liens de parenté’, pp. 25–34. 35 On political strategies behind onomastic choices see Fumagalli, Terra e società, p. 129. 36 Guglielmotti, ‘Esperienze di ricerca’, p. 243.

274 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

So, the anthroponym was acquired by the female side of the prestigious Adalberting onomastic stock, simultaneously representing a notable signal of the desire to link the kinship’s destinies to the Tuscan political sphere, as indeed then happened. Similarly, the same Adalberting group adopted onomastic choices in a higher political sense, selecting for the children of Adalbert II and Bertha, the names Guy and Lambert in accordance with an alliance with the Widonids, at that time on the throne of the Italian kingdom.37 At the beginning of the tenth century, the Hucpoldings remained the only custodians of the onomastic stock of the Carolingian marchiones of Tuscia.38 After the violent acts of repression that Hugh of Arles carried out towards his stepbrothers,39 Boniface and his descendants were the only survivors in his kingdom who could boast Adalberting blood and who could therefore enjoy a hefty dose of legitimization in propelling their own leadership of the march of Tuscany: all the marchiones of the Tuscan march after Hubert, son of King Hugh, were either direct descendants of the Hucpolding group, such as Hugh I and Boniface II, or belonged to the extended Sippe, as in the case of the Supponid Ranieri and the Canossan Boniface who both descended from Hucpolding women. 40 Political use of kinship onomastics can be observed on a number of levels according to the choices of the various kinship groups active in the kingdom between the ninth and tenth centuries. The Hucpoldings are a model example of the middle course between onomastic conservation and innovation: between the two extremes of maximum rigidity, exemplified by the case of the Widonids, and extreme mutability, highlighted in the case of the Canossa. In the first extreme, we observe that across the five generations bearing honores in Italy, the Widonids exhibited the names Guy and Lambert exclusively, demonstrating the view that stable names were a founding value of their consciousness of belonging to a group which, by continuous reiteration, gained recognition and unity of action. 41 On the other hand, the onomastic choices of the Canossa dynasty were dictated by political convenience and by the continual tendency by successive generations to seek social promotion to the apex of the kingdom. 42 Through ever more prestigious matrimonial unions, names for their offspring were regularly 37 Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’, pp. 138–9. 38 Manarini, ‘Le madri dei marchesi’. 39 See Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 207–14. 40 For an overview of these kinship ties see Table G3. 41 See the scheme of Widonid choices in Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, p. 188; on the name transmission linked to the honor within Frankish elites see Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, pp. 215–17. 42 Lazzari, ‘Aziende fortificate’, pp. 101–7.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

275

obtained (with the one exception of the repetition of the name Tedaldus) from the onomastic patrimony of the consorts’ kinship groups: Ildegard, Willa II and Beatrix, all of higher rank compared with Canossan members themselves. 43 Hucpolding choices are placed therefore on a median level between these two extremes because, although they acquired Adalberting anthroponyms, they did not abandon their original Leitname. The generation after Boniface marks the greatest cognatic expansion of the group, which saw no less than six individuals – five males and one female – active between the 1040s and the 1070s. The f ive male names included the usual principal family of Hubald, with a further derivation in the Frankish name Tebaldus, the Adalberting legacy with Adalbert, and the new choices of Eberhard and Adimarus. They were singular anthroponyms for the Hucoldings, but probably led back to relationships with other kinship groups that are unknown to us. 44 Specifically, in the case of Adimarus, a rather unusual name within the boundaries of the kingdom of Italy,45 we can presume a connection with the Lombard aristocracies of southern Italy where Boniface I ruled the duchy of Spoleto in the middle of the tenth century. 46 Upon reaching the fifth generation, with the acquisition by marriage of the name Hugh characteristic of the Bosonids, the group’s onomastic patrimony stabilized definitively, and from the end of the tenth century was codified for every branch descending from the wider Sippe in the names Hubald, Hugh, Boniface and Adalbert/Albert. With the rare exceptions of Walfredus and Guy (the latter more closely linked to Guidi lineage), from that moment onwards these were the names included in the Hucpolding onomastic tradition, the same ones that the group managed to offer in external matrimonial relationships. 47 In Romagna, for example, Frankish names were introduced such as Hugh, Hubald, Walfredus and Boniface, which then spread widely among the local aristocracy of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Having established the kinship onomastic stock in a small number of anthroponyms, we find the exceptional use of the name Hubert and Henry 43 Bertolini, ‘Note di genealogia’, p. 132. 44 The name Eberhard perhaps originated from the maternal kinship, the Bavarian Welfs in turn related to the Unruochings, of which Eberhard was a prestigious name. 45 Only two individuals are known with the name Hadumar, who were active respectively in Genoa and in Verona at the beginning of the ninth century: Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 194–6. 46 Adimarus Prince of Capua also ruled the duchy of Spoleto at the end of the tenth century: Gasparrini Leporace, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi’, p. 41. 47 See Nobili, ‘Formarsi e definirsi dei nomi di famiglia’, p. 275.

276 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

for the sons of Albert I, that is for the generation which lived between the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Despite being a departure from the kinship onomastics, the choice of the name Henry is perhaps testimony to the particularity of the age in the context of the investiture controversy, which encouraged the Bolognese branch to strongly emphasize their loyalty to the German emperor. The female anthroponomic patrimony should also be added to the male onomastic landscape, even though it presents greater difficulties in its analysis due to the general scarcity of available information. Both documentary and narrative sources are scarce, but the latter is usually a much more useful instrument for acquiring information about the women of aristocratic kinship groups.48 We know for the most part just the Hucpolding women who lived between the ninth and tenth centuries.49 They received predominantly the Carolingian names of Bertha and Willa/Gisla – also very common in the Rudolfing branch of the Welfs of Bavaria50 – and, in one case only, of Ermengarde. Yet the name Engelrada would appear to bear a significant resemblance to the root Angel-, which is also contained in the name Engelberga, consort of Louis II. If this onomastic choice was effectively decided in honour of the empress, we might think of it as proof of the close relationship that Hucpold had with the emperor and his court, at least for the first decade in Italy. If in the male names, therefore, the old origins of the Sippe were echoed, and the group’s political-dynastic orientation declared,51 the female names constituted a straightforward expression of the kinship rank, which found a strong reinforcing motive in imitation of royal onomastics. The woman’s role was indeed central ‘in marking the politics and social pre-eminence of a kinship’,52 since in that aristocratic society, belonging to a noble bloodline depended on the personal quality of the mother rather than that of the father.53 From the father, instead, originated the tangible power of the lineage.54 The only two names known for the eleventh century also bear this out: Adelheid and Beatrix were both present in German imperial dynasties. 48 Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’, pp. 134–5. 49 In the genealogical analysis, I proposed the existence of two daughters of Hubald I never mentioned in sources; see Table G2. 50 See Le Jan, ‘Adelheidis’, p. 33. 51 Guglielmotti, ‘Esperienze di ricerca’, p. 255. 52 Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’, p. 148: ‘nel segnare la politica e la preminenza sociale di una parentela’. 53 Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’, p. 148; Vignodelli, ‘Per stemmata regum’. 54 Le Jan, Femmes, pouvoir, p. 28.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

277

Already in the eleventh century, the paucity of noted female figures is perhaps a revealing sign of the changes occurring over that time within Italian aristocracies, where agnatic relationships slowly took the upper hand, increasingly marginalizing the female role within families, which had become more distinctly patrilineal.55 Upon completion of this fundamental mutation, over the course of the twelfth century kinship awareness, also expressed by the onomastic choices, moved away from the usual onomastic stock with the adoption of the castle of residence as a striking outcome of the new kinship structure – as seen in the branches of the Panico and the Casalecchio.56

The lex Ribuaria profession Among the Frankish aristocracies that had settled in Italy between the eighth and ninth centuries, the Hucpoldings were the only documented case of representatives of the natio Francorum professing the lex Ripuaria.57 In addition to providing testimony of common juridical practices and an approximate geographical origin of the group,58 the professio of this peculiar Frankish law, much rarer in Italy compared with Salic law,59 permitted the Hucpoldings both to embody a specific ethnicity and to protect and preserve the memory of their origins for a long time. In Italy, both of these objectives involved firm alterity with the remaining Frankish group, and a clear contrast with the local populations. From the kinship group’s inception in Italy until the beginning of the eleventh century, the lex Ripuaria was a peculiarity that brought together the members of the group across quite different territories. Not only did the professio of this specif ic law signify the ethnic-juridical autonomy of the group,60

55 From this moment on, the various descending branches of the group are characterized by parental structures closely linked to landed properties as described in Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’, pp. 18–80. 56 See for example the case of the counts of Calw in Schmid, ‘Structure of the Nobility’, pp. 43–4, 48. 57 See Laws of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks, pp. 7–11. On early medieval professio iuris in the Italian kingdom see Calasso, Medio evo del diritto, pp. 110–8, 137. 58 Around the eighth century, Ripuarian Franks inhabited the area between Trier and Cologne: Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni, p. 85; on the concept of leggi territoriali mobili, more appropriate than personalità della legge, see p. 168. 59 See Chiappelli, ‘La formazione storica del comune’, pp. 187, 193–203. 60 Bordone, ‘Un’attiva minoranza etnica’, p. 18.

278 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

materializing in the practice of Frankish symbolism, but also strongly distinguished the group within broader society.61 In our sources, declarations of legal professio are found only in deeds of patrimonial alienation, that is to say in donations or in land purchase acts. Between the ninth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries there were five Hucpoldings who promoted this kind of juridical transaction. The legal professio appears in all of them, albeit in different ways. Engelrada I’s significant donation in 896,62 drafted in Ravenna, records the passage of property and vestitura through the Frankish use of presenting symbolic objects – an inkwell, a knife, a wooden stick ( festuca), an earthenware pot with the branch of a tree and a vine – which were all emplaced on the parchment resting on the ground, then lifted in the act of levatio and finally given to the notary, thus integrating the Roman use of traditio chartae.63 Two generations later, Bishop Eberhard of Arezzo arranged a sale,64 where he explicitly practised the Ripuarian law coherent to his natio rather than the Roman law to which his episcopal office belonged.65 The contract was validated on a juridical level by way of the exchange of the same symbols of investiture and property and again by way of the levatio and the traditio chartae. For the same time span, in Tuscany, we have access to the juridical customs adopted by Willa I and her son Hugh, marquis of Tuscia. Their practices move slightly away from those analysed thus far as common to the kinship group, as both acted in Tuscany as custodians of marchisal power. At the time of their marriage, Willa I adopted the Salic law of her husband Hubert and passed it down to her son.66 Furthermore, despite the references to the traditional Frankish ritual of symbolic objects, we found many insertions of solemn and bombastic biblical references in her donation documents – particularly in the arenga and the clause of spiritual sanctio – closely reflecting imperial diplomas.67 This practice, inaugurated by Willa when bequeathing to the Badia fiorentina in 978,68 was formalized by her son Hugh, in whose documentation this habit became commonplace. 61 See an overview on various Germanic laws in Goetz, ‘Coutume d’héritage et structures familiales’, pp. 212–16. 62 See Chapter 4. 63 See Bordone, ‘Un’attiva minoranza etnica’, pp. 18–19. 64 Bologna 10, no. 26. 65 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 90. 66 Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, p. 158. 67 An analysis of Hugh and Willa’s donations is in Kurze, ‘Gli albori’, pp. 183–5. 68 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 5

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

279

Furthermore, despite the change in law that brought about the testamentary presence of Salic witnesses and the use of formulae of religious inspiration, Hugh still maintained close relationships with individuals belonging to the natio Ripuaria69 who were evidently primarily connected with Hucpolding kinship rather than to single individuals.70 The last document bearing a legal professio for the tenth century is that of Adalbert II and his wife Bertilla in the endowment deed for the monastery of Musiano.71 In this specific act, for the first time signs can be seen of the changes in juridical customs of the group, which occurred overwhelmingly in the next century and particularly in Bolognese territory. In the solemn constitutive deed of the private monastery, Adalbert and Bertilla did not explicitly declare their loyalty to the lex Ripuaria until the very end of the text in the clauses of assurance, with a single reference ‘nos […] secundum nostram lege Rubuaria facere nitimur defensionem’ (we […] assure protection according to our Ripuarian law).72 A lower awareness of the protagonists and the lack of attention by the notary can be perceived by the fact that the only witness of Frankish origin who attended the draft is indicated generically as of natio Francorum, with no specification of which law he practised. In the Bologna area, therefore, where the development of Hucpolding lordship took place as early as the end of the tenth century, Germanic symbols and the same Frankish Ripuarian ethnic awareness lost relevance. Probably, they were not necessary at that level of political activity where the influence of Roman law and local customs were unquestionably extensive. Juridical practices adopted by Boniface II, marquis of Tuscia and the son of the founders of Musiano, are very interesting from this perspective: the conventions implemented seem to bring together both the customs of his cousin Hugh, his predecessor at the head of the march, and those of his parents in line with the kinship tradition. The donation in favour of Fontana Taona, in fact, echoes the tone of the deeds bestowed by Marquis Hugh: there is no reference to the law practised by Boniface, the sequences of Latin verbs with juridical meaning maintain greater significance than symbols, as do the biblical references contained in the formulary of the 69 In the donation Hugh granted to the Badia in 997, he did not mention his usual professio legis and only Ripuarian Franks signed the act; see CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 11. 70 On these Tuscan groups of fideles see Chapter 5. 71 Bologna 10, no. 11. 72 However, the Carolingian version of the lex Ribuaria did not mention any defence towards monasteries; see Lex Ribuaria.

280 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

same text.73 Thus, in a document where Boniface II not only wanted to appear as the benefactor, but above all as the embodiment of the marchisal power and therefore privileged representative of the monastic community, he placed himself in perfect continuity with the juridical models elaborated by his cousin. In contrast, the donation in favour of the Badia fiorentina made shortly after the first one appears substantially different, as the juridical procedure adopted follows the lex Ripuaria used by his ancestors. In this case the statement of practice of his parents’ law was included as a definitional element, immediately after the patronymic statement. Furthermore, in the ruling (dispositivo) part of the text, the Latin words are limited to just dare et offerrere atque tradere, supported a little later by the complete list of the symbolic objects of Frankish tradition – this time reproducing the Salic tradition, clearly recalled from the first document of Willa – and by the gestures of the levatio and the traditio.74 Contrary to the preceding deed, the latter was enacted near Bologna in the castle of Pianoro. In addition to considerations of the knowledge of each notary of various law codes, a connection can be established between the Ripuarian juridical procedure and the place where it was adopted, that is to say, where the kinship group’s eminence had reached a substantial hegemony. It is indeed significant that for these same environs we find no further reference to the professio legis and to its specific juridical formula. This issue may be surpassed if we pay attention to the fact that the deed, though written in Pianoro on Bolognese territory, was addressed to the Florentine monastery of S. Maria. This place was still very close to the kinship group during the years of Boniface II and, despite intervention by Otto III,75 might be still considered an Eigenkloster by the marquis in office, or at least to be a family monastery. Specifically aimed at the Tuscan area, where the professio of law had been a characteristic element for a longer time, the purpose of the call to the Ripuarian origin was probably to intensify the patrimonial relationship between the marquis and the Badia. In this way, it was possible to activate a channel of interaction more in keeping with the private dimension, rather than an institutional one. Marquis Boniface II was the last representative of the group to articulate free legal transactions declaring the Frankish law of his ancestors on Bolognese territory. In later patrimonial alienations we observe a clear slide 73 Monastero di San Salvatore, no. 1. 74 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 19. 75 On imperial interventions towards the monasteries founded by Willa and Hugh see Chapter 2.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

281

towards local juridical customs founded on Romano-Lombardic models, which in juridical action assigns a central role to the charta and to its compiler.76 To this end, a clear example is given by the act of manumission of a servant at Pianoro carried out in 1056 by the comitissa Willa, widow of Marquis Hugh II.77 The ritual of liberation was celebrated by drawing inspiration from dispositions laid out by Kings Rothari and Liutprand’s Lombard legislation: initially, the servant was entrusted to the priest of S. Ansano, pieve of the area,78 so that he would lead her into the church of S. Bartolomeo di Musiano and, with a lit candle in her hands, she would walk around the altar three times, as prescribed in title 23 by King Liutprand;79 led out of the church, the servant was then accompanied to a quadrivium where she could freely choose the route to take according to the formula ‘ecce quatuor vie, ite et ambulate in quacumque partem tibi placuerit, tam tu suprascripta Cleriza, quam quoque tui heredes, qui ab ac hora in antea nati vel procreati fuerint utriusque sexus’.80 This harks back to the so-called passaggio in quarta mano called for by the Edict of Rothari in the title De manomissionibus.81 Over the eleventh century, local juridical influence, characterized by Christian-Lombard practices and more so by a renewed diffusion of the lex Romana, became increasingly prevalent over the juridical procedures adopted by the group, which also aimed at a new juridical homogeneity heavily promoted on an institutional level by the German emperors.82 By now, with the ancestors’ laws long since forgotten, Count Hubert, a member of the ninth generation, could in 1115 declare himself living according to the Roman law: ‘ex nacione mea legem vivere Romana’.83 Although this professio is documented only once in the three alienations carried out by the same count, it is contained in a sales contract written at the castle of Pianoro, the same as where a century earlier Boniface II had reaffirmed the importance of the lex Ripuaria. This is indicative of the strong loss of 76 Leicht, Il diritto, pp. 21–2, 136–7. 77 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 1, cols. 853–5. 78 See Foschi et al., Le pievi medievali bolognesi, pp. 329–36. 79 Leggi dei Longobardi, p. 155, title 23: ‘Si quis servum aut ancillam suam in ecclesia circa altare a modo liberum vel liberam demiserit, sic ei maneat libertas’. 80 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 1, col. 854: ‘here, there are four roads, go and take whatever direction you please, you, aforementioned Cleriza, as well as all your descendants which were born before or will be born from now on’. 81 Leggi dei Longobardi, pp. 68–70, title 224: ‘Et ipse quartus ducat in quadrubium et thingit in gaida et gisil, et sic dicat: de quattuor vias, ubi volueris ambulare, liberam habeas potestatem’. 82 Calasso, Medio evo del diritto, p. 260. 83 Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 189.

282 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

interest by the Hucpolding descendants in what had previously been an authentic discerning feature of the kinship group. Attestations by individuals belonging to the group outside the Bolognese territory provide a different chronology for the disappearance of their memory of Frankish Ripuarian origins. In Tuscany, again in the second half of the eleventh century, we count three attestations of the practice and adoption of the lex Ripuaria and of its usual symbolic practices in their more ancient version, which moves away from the formulae attested in marchisal documents discussed above. A sales document dated 1044 carries a cursory but rather significant mention: the transaction, written on Florentine territory, concerns a number of assets that the seller had previously bought from Maginfred son of Hubald and from his wife Gisla.84 Beyond the patronymic for Maginfred, the two are identified as Ribuarii. Again, Count Guy I declared himself to profess the lex Ripuaria in a donation of 1055 relating to the same Apennines sector, and validated the donation through the traditional handing over of symbolic objects and the actions of the levatio and traditio chartae.85 Already with the next generation, however, the Ripuarian tradition disappeared for this branch of the group, which in 1094 showed more interest in characterizing themselves as descendants of the late Count Guy de civitate Bononia.86 The title of count in reference to the area of Bologna, adopted almost simultaneously by Count Hubert,87 clearly constituted a more advantageous connotative predicate, as it is tightly anchored to the consolidated pre-eminence in the area of Bologna, therefore legitimizing more directly their seignorial domain.88 Finally, the last attestation of the Ripuarian professio appears in the only donation of the eleventh century, preserved by the Florentine branch of the Adimari. In 1077, in a document in favour of the Florentine cathedral chapter, Adimarus III and his sister-in-law Gasdia (widow of his brother Hubald) declared themselves as living according to the lex Ribuariorum. Through that law they consistently adopted the traditional symbols of investiture, leaving out however the usual rituals of levatio and traditio.89 Furthermore, among the witnesses attending the deed were three people 84 85 86 87 88 89

Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Luco del Mugello (S. Pietro), July 1044. Regesto di Camaldoli, no. 280. Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene, VIII 43bis. Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano, no. 189; Spagnesi, Wernerius, p. 77. See Chapter 8. CdC Firenze, no. 93.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

283

professing the same law, one of whom was probably the uncle of the authors of the document. The professio of the lex Ripuaria was therefore an important element in the memory of the ethnic origins of the Hucpoldings for over a century following their settlement in Italy. This also implied strong alterity towards the other Franks in the retinue of the Carolingian kings, thus increasing internal awareness of the kinship group towards both the dominating class and the local populations subject to their domain. The longevity of these original practices differed according to the settlement area of the various branches, eventually ceasing everywhere at the end of the eleventh century. In the Bologna area, where the Roman juridical tradition was stronger and, even further, where distinctive features of the group were notable in other ways, it disappeared at the beginning of the eleventh century, while the last documents in Tuscany date to 1077. In the charters where the Hucpolding members adopted the Ripuarian professio, among the signatures are those of other people professing the same law, evidently connected to the group. As the name alone means very little, we might go back to the relationships between the group and the ancestors of these people to the period prior to their arrival in Italy, and cautiously advance the hypothesis of long-standing networks of relationships that they then maintained once they set foot on Italian soil. In the juridical customs described thus far, the notary who had to validate the practices intended by the professio held a central role. Not only was his function that of a professional writer, but more so that of expert on the juridical customs practised by different individuals. In the case of the Hucpoldings, therefore, drafting a document provided for particular juridical competence in the Frankish rituals which served to authenticate the transaction. The attention of the notary to this tradition of Germanic nature lasted until the rediscovery and application of Roman law reaffirmed the absolute pre-eminence of notarial authority. The notarial authority’s legitimizing function, based on publica fides, became once again the essential element for validating juridical transactions over the course of the eleventh century.90 The Hucpoldings’ progressive loss of their consciousness of belonging to the Ripuarian natio must have also been due to the new notarial role. In the Bologna area, where the change took place91 as early as the first decades of the eleventh century, we no longer find any trace of the original professio. 90 Leicht, Il diritto, p. 22. 91 See Tamba, Una corporazione per il potere, pp. 57–61.

284 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The Role of Monastic Foundations: Family Memory, Politics and Identity From the beginning of their Italian experience monastic foundations played a central role for the Hucpoldings. Further, from the second half of the tenth century, they became a specific instrument for strengthening kinship cohesion and consolidating the dynastic concept within the group.92 Overall, relationships between the monastic foundations and the kinship group can be placed in two different chronological moments, recognizable by the change of the kinship group’s practices specifically from the middle of the tenth century. In around the first century of their arrival in Italy, the Hucpoldings had both political and economic relationships with a number of monasteries that had already been active in their areas of interest. In stating this, we should observe that this was the period in which kinship structures reached their highest point of diffusion in a cognatic sense, thus obtaining wide possibilities for activity on a political level, thanks also to the absolute trust they placed in the royal power. It was a way of conceiving territorial settlement which slowed down, or did not even pursue, appreciable attempts to lay down local connections.93 The abbatial office attained by the female community of S. Andrea of Florence is illustrative. This office, which was maintained for two consecutive generations, must be placed against the political context in which the first representatives of the group were active upon arrival in Italy:94 allies of the Adalberting marchiones of Tuscia, Hucpold and his son created an initial territorial foothold, in cooperation with Florentine bishops. This was not in the form of property acquisition, but via the patrimonial availability that the concession of the Florentine abbey afforded two Hucpolding women, Bertha I and Bertha II. The relationship that the group established with this female foundation was not expressed through a common dialectic between founders and monastery, even when the monastery came under the patronage of Hugh I.95 Indeed, the dominatio over the institution never left the hands of the Florentine bishop until the beginning of the eleventh century.96 Even Bertha I, who became abbess of the institution, turned 92 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, p. 76. 93 Still in the mid-tenth century, extensive solidarities within the kinship group were prevalent compared with single families; see Fumagalli, Terra e società, pp. 124–30. 94 See Chapter 1. 95 See Chapter 5. 96 In Bertha I’s breve ordinationis (CdC Firenze, no. 2; RI I.3.1, no. 98), the election procedure is also prescribed: ‘et post te abbatissas elegere debeas una per consensu pontifici, qui in hanc

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

285

elsewhere when the moment came to worry about saving her own soul – at least to our knowledge. Evidently, it was not a particularly significant place to be remembered; while, on the contrary, she entreated prayers from the Bolognese abbey of S. Benedetto in Adili,97 for reasons still widely unknown. In this phase again, only the patrimonial relationship the group shaped with Nonantola can be identified. Albeit an isolated episode, the great exchange of lands stipulated between Boniface I and Abbot Ingelbert, must have drawn on consistent political relationships established in an endeavour to restrain the aggressive policies of King Hugh of Arles.98 Then, from the second half of the tenth century, we observe a considerable religious initiative common to various members of the group, which culminated in the foundation of a number of private monasteries. These private monasteries were founded in those areas where there were conspicuous Hucpolding lands. Indeed, one can see that their political predominance in these areas had assumed a hegemonic character over the local society. Such initiatives were typical of the families already partly established in a territory, who sought in this way to accentuate their presence,99 and to seal their separateness from the other branches of the group connected to them but only by collateral line.100 Between the fourth and fifth generations, within the short space of a few decades, Willa I, Hugh I, Tegrimus II and Adalbert II had founded a good number of monastic institutions of differing types and function. The most numerous and important were without doubt those established by Willa I and her son Hugh, whose religious initiatives cannot, however, overshadow the eminence they held in Tuscia and in the case of Hugh his role as highest public official of the kingdom for about thirty years. Hugh’s foundations stood at the centre of his fiscal properties which were then used to incorporate his landholdings and prevent any dispersion of assets.101 As these were fiscal assets, the inalienability clause on donated assets provided for by Hugh did not belong to the prerogatives of the founding group over the abbeys, but was meant to avoid the dispersion of assets of public relevance.102 sanctam hecclesiam tunc tempore ordinatus fuerit’ (and after you, abbesses should be chosen with the consent of the bishop, which at that time will head that holy church). 97 See Chapter 6. 98 See Chapter 1. 99 Sergi, L’aristocrazia della preghiera, p. 7. 100 Sereno, ‘Monasteri aristocratici subalpini’, p. 399. 101 See Chapter 5. 102 Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, p. 88.

286 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

His mother Willa’s most important foundation, the Badia fiorentina, while following the same planning, had, instead, at least at the beginning of its existence, a generally ambiguous status. Its ambiguous status is well documented by the foundation charter, the only one for all this group of foundations to be preserved intact.103 Whereas inheriting the dominatio was not contemplated, nor was there any interference with the election of the abbot by the group, Willa was moved to specify ‘edificavit ecclesia monasterium ad fundamentis in proprio territorio meo’ (built the church [and] the monastery from the foundations on my own property), with all the symbolic significance that this implied.104 We do not therefore find before us the foundation of an entirely private family monastery,105 but neither do we observe in this case that detached relationship, eminently political and institutional. This lay at the base of her son Hugh’s other Tuscan foundations. The privileged tie between the new foundation and active group members in Florence can be seen not only in the manner of foundation, as just explained, but also in the fact that the Hucpoldings had already been present in that environment for a century.106 The Badia foundation was therefore a perfect point of arrival for the symbolic and definitive consolidation of the kinship group’s rise to prominence in that area, a dominance that Willa took to a new level thanks to the acquisition of the marchisal title. The ambiguity between the institutional dimension and the kinship group’s dynastic project can be perceived in the abbey’s foundation deed, in which Willa is the only person to appear as protagonist and addressee of the monks’ perpetual prayers. The only familiar feature is the rather bombastic form of patronymic: ‘Willa filia bone memorie Bonefatii qui fuit marchio, obtimum duxit’ (Willa daughter of the late Boniface of good memory, who had been marquis and lived well). Although without a proper juridical value, the marchio title was present and crucial to Hucpolding memory and prerogatives towards the monastery,107 materialized once again with regard to Hugh I and his cousin Boniface II. The donations of Hugh are part and parcel of his general monastic policy, but they also emphasize the pious deeds of his parents in the deeds of foundation.108 103 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 5. 104 See Tabacco, Struggle for Power, pp. 166–9. 105 Kurze, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà’, p. 309. 106 See Chapter 5. 107 On the active role played by women in keeping the kinship memoria see Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 51–73. 108 In 995 Marquis Hugh presented himself as son of Marquis Hubert, while he commemorated his mother Willa through the memory of the foundation: CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 8. Donations

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

287

Whereas Boniface II sought to approach the Badia under the ambiguous guise of Willa, his great-aunt, imperial interests in the same period aimed at formalizing the status of the imperial abbey. In the donation of 1009,109 however, the marquis transferred both fiscal estates to the abbey, in perfect continuity with the method of his cousin, along with paternal allodial assets. His intention was probably to restore relationships to their former nature, when the monastery carried out functions of economic coordination and those of political and symbolic links between the branches of the group in Tuscany. In the meantime, the direct connection with imperial power had strengthened. This is shown by numerous extant diplomas.110 In 1031, for instance, in one solemn deed, we see that in addition to the founders Willa and Hugh, Counts Hugh II, Hubald III, active members of the kinship group in Bologna were also included in the dedication.111 Although we have no trace of any sort of relationship between the two counts and the Badia, this evidence reveals the existence of some kind of collaboration that must have developed in time between the founding kinship group and the abbey, even once the group could no longer occupy the position of Tuscan marchiones. Conversely, the foundations of Tegrimus II and Adalbert II were arranged in a very different way: S. Fedele of Strumi, situated on the boundaries between the dioceses of Arezzo and Fiesole near the homonymous castle; and S. Bartolomeo di Musiano, in the hills south to Bologna close to the castle of Pianoro. Both were Eigenklöster112 at the base of the identity construction of the two different kinship branches, which at that time were firmly rooted in the territories where they enjoyed a stable political and social hegemony.113 The foundation of S. Fedele occurred before 992, arranged by Tegrimus II, who by that time had already died, and probably his wife Gisla.114 Her central role is confirmed by the donation recorded that same year for the soul of her husband, where Gisla was the only participant, while her son Guy merely attended and consented.115 The couple formed within the kinship group in a that most distinctly provide for prayers for the marquis’ kinship group are those made outside Tuscany, on behalf of the Vangadizza Abbey: Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 1, nos. 53, 59. 109 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 19. 110 The abbey received one diploma from Otto III in 1002, two from Henry II in 1012, one from Conrad II in 1030, and one from Henry IV in 1074: CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 15, 21, 22, 28, 64, 106. 111 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 35. 112 On the Eigenklöster typology see Sereno, ‘Monasteri aristocratici subalpini’, pp. 401–6. 113 See Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’, pp. 25–6. 114 The foundation by Tegrimus II is mentioned in the donation of his son Guy II granted to S. Fedele in 1027: Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 14. 115 Documenti, ed. Rauty, doc. 12.

288 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

purposefully endogamic way,116 and was meant to fix through the monastic foundation a solid patrimonial and spiritual centre for its descendants. Those from the following generation can be described as Guidi. Whereas for S. Fedele the first available items of information are scarce and incomplete,117 a copy of the foundation deed can be considered for Musiano.118 Its analysis allows us to ascertain whether or not the monastic institution had over time carried out the functions prescribed at the time of its foundation. Following the dedication to Saint Bartholomew the Apostle and to the martyr Sabinus,119 the founders ordered the appointment of the first abbot of the community they had established there. Despite there being no mention of a proper clause on the right of nomination by the founders and their heirs, it may be inferred from the direct election of the first abbot, the gaps in the parchment and the admission of the notary himself drafting the first copy, which reads ‘I copied as much as I could understand’.120 These observations may lead us to the theory that such a formula must have been present in the original draft but later, intentionally or accidentally, was no longer included in the copies.121 After that, the non-alienation clause of the donated patrimony was included, then followed by the explicit statement of the dominatio and the potestas gubernandi (the power of management) by the founders to transmit to their heirs. As essentially an Eigenkloster, therefore, the foundation of Musiano became the main economic and political centre of the kinship branch that had settled in Bologna. Through the non-alienation clause of donated possessions, Adalbert II, in fact, arranged a stable estate coordination point for his family nucleus, which would always have been able to count on the assets assigned to the monks.122 From a symbolic and religious point of view, it should also be considered that the monastery was at that time the only abbey in that area of the Bolognese Apennines.123 In this way the kindred group enhanced its own social pre-eminence among the inhabitants of that area. 116 See Table G5. See also Aurell, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales’, pp. 189–91. 117 The 992 act is mutilated for most of the text. It is preserved as a copy of the eleventh century and is the oldest archival remnant of the monastery. 118 Bologna 10, no. 11. 119 Dedications to Saint Bartholomew were frequent in churches especially aimed at the care of wayfarers: Porta, ‘Abbazie medievali’, pp. 4–5. 120 Bologna 10, p. 54. 121 The prerogative of the abbot’s election by the founders is the defining feature of the monastery as private (Eigenkloster) or more simply, of the family: Sereno, ‘Monasteri aristocratici subalpini’, p. 410. 122 See Chapter 6. 123 See Foschi, ‘Gli ordini religiosi medievali’, pp. 464–6, 480.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

289

Consolidation of the lineage was, instead, assured by the prerogatives of dominatio and the appointment of the abbot, also maintained later within the Hucpolding branch. For the same project of family cohesion, the list of people Adalbert II submitted for the attention of the monks acquires great relevance:124 in addition to the obvious mention of the two founders, also included are the male sons of the couple, Boniface II, Walfredus I and Adalbert III, and the parents of Adalbert II, Hubald II and Waldrada. The delineation of these three generations of the kinship group, limited to the family of Adalbert II, represents the first affirmation of dynastic memory inside the group which, fixed at the foundation of Musiano, would also stay alive for generations to come. It is not possible to tie the two ancestors mentioned to the Bolognese territory in any particular way;125 however, the operation of memory carried out by Adalbert II was based on the choice of his own parents alone, among all his ancestors, as forefathers of the kinship branch that belonged to that specific area. S. Bartolomeo remained a centre of reference for that branch of the group for the whole of the eleventh century, a place where generation after generation the social recognition and dynastic cohesion (Zusammengehorigkeit) of the Bolognese line took shape. Bertilla, once a widow, probably withdrew within the walls of the monastery she herself had founded to lead a life of seclusion.126 Later, almost eighty years from its foundation, at the manumission of the servant Cleriza, Musiano was once again vividly the religious and ritual centre of the Bolognese branch. It became in absolute terms more significant than the nearby pieve of the area, which just sent its priest. Over the final decades of the century, moreover, the number of donations made by members of the group increased considerably.127 The act which more than any other testifies to the function of identity and embodiment of memory fulfilled by the monastery is a donation carried out in 1061. This is a donation by people who were not directly related by blood to the Hucpoldings, but probably their vassals. On that occasion the late Bonandus from Caprara’s five sons arranged a patrimonial transfer in favour of Musiano and, further to seeking prayers for the souls of their relatives, they also asked intercession for the soul of Marquis Hugh II, deceased more than five years earlier and possibly even buried there.128 124 Unfortunately, we do not have S. Bartolomeo’s libri memoriales. On these texts as historical sources see Schmid, ‘Structure of the Nobility’, pp. 42–4. 125 See Chapter 2. 126 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 91. 127 See Chapter 6. 128 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 101.

290 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

The symbolic and spiritual significance of S. Bartolomeo for the surrounding territory is proven by the object of the donation itself: the church of S. Salvatore delle Bedolete. Despite controlling a church of unquestionable importance in the Apennine area for the burial of their family members, the five brothers opted for Musiano. This was further away from Caprara but a prestigious place for laying to rest the bodies of their relatives, as they would be closer to the tomb of their lord and supported by the precious prayers of the monks during their celestial journey.129 The role of the private monastery of Musiano also continued later, even though the Hucpolding domain experienced a serious reduction over the course of the twelfth century. Progressively, the abbot managed to obtain more freedom of action over the patrimony that he himself administered, until he had taken over a substantial portion of seignorial prerogatives on his assets, effectively subtracting them from the founders’ descendants. So, after almost two centuries from its foundation, S. Bartolomeo reached substantial autonomy from the Hucpolding group, which nonetheless, again with its descendants – by now of a less important profile – continued to consider it an irreplaceable spiritual reference point and a necessary patrimonial intermediary.130

Kinship Representations between Perceptions and Self-awareness The ways society perceived the Hucpolding group and how the members of the group represented themselves within society are both certainly founding elements of the awareness constituted by a precise group of individuals. Despite the absence of genealogies, stories and family chronicles – which are the most fully self-commemorative displays of elite self-awareness – they had other criteria of identity. Narrative sources that report or mention some of the Hucpolding members, together with specific honorific expressions contained in public and private documentation, enable us at least to comprehend the criteria adopted in the tenth and eleventh centuries for referring to or being included in the specific community of the Hucpoldings. The perception of the kinship group that narrative sources from the tenth century provide includes various facets: military peculiarities and solidity of kinship bonds within the group undoubtedly both play a predominant role. 129 On these localities see Chapter 6. 130 Still in the thirteenth century, we find a certain Ranieri son of Andalus comes de Casaliclo having relations with Musiano: Zagnoni, ‘Il monastero’, pp. 52–3.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

291

The episode included in the ECC attests the notable cohesion of the first family nucleus, as soon as it had arrived in Italy.131 What transpires, apart from the acute rivalry with the Supponids represented by Empress Engelberga, is the solidarity and tenacity of family ties, particularly between husband and wife and then towards the only male son. He was the heir of the honour of the paternal name, prestige and kinship patrimony through his mother. This is a clear case of how women were central to the more lasting tradition of memoria within early medieval elite kinship groups.132 In the face of these elements, whose genesis is difficult to trace back to Montecassino, the most likely hypothesis is that of composition in Emilia around the middle of the tenth century, in other words in the period immediately following the events reinterpreted according to legend and fantasy. The writer of the narrative perhaps belonged to one of the Emilian monastic communities controlled by Montecassino with which the Hucpoldings had already made contact at the end of the ninth century.133 The author adopts the literary topos of the adulteress queen,134 following the biblical story of Joseph and the seduction by Potiphar’s wife.135 The element which sparks the pleasures of the empress, as well as the natural beauty of the count palatine, is the prestigious rank of the Hucpolding kinship group. According to the tale, it was second only to the emperor himself, since it was of royal blood.136 Embellished by this substantial celebratory component, the purpose of the story is to initiate and legitimize a process of political and material empowerment favourable to Hucpolding protagonists, particularly with reference to the environs of Emilia. The literary artifice was performed thanks to the ordeal withstood by Andabertha, widow of Hucpold, after being rewarded with the emperor’s generous and extensive donations in favour of her son, Hubald. Thanks to the tenor of the text, dated to approximately the middle of the tenth century,137 we can attribute the conservation and the re-elaboration of the historical memory to the monastic environments close to the group. It is therefore also due to the collective imagination of the Hucpolding descendants connected to them. In particular the significance of this episode was to enforce a conceptualization of a precise kinship nucleus of those 131 See Manarini, ‘Sex, Denigration’. 132 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, p. 54. 133 Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’, p. 117. 134 Lazzari, Le donne nell’alto medioevo, pp. 170–1; see also Bührer-Thierry, ‘La reine adultère’. 135 Bührer-Thierry, ‘Reines adultères et empoisonneuses’, p. 155. 136 ECC, p. 370. 137 Lazzari, ‘La creazione di un territorio’, p. 117, n. 76.

292 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

descended from Hucpold. At the same time, it also suggested a draconian legitimization of authority and power. The brief mention contained in the pro-Berengar poem of Gesta Berengarii imperatoris includes Hubald among the supporters of the Widonids who opposed the claims of Berengar I.138 It answers for the military commitment provided to flank the Widonid allies. Nevertheless, the fact that the author used the collective patronymic Supponides to indicate the three brothers of Queen Bertilla, leading members of the Berengarian formation, allows us to glean how the author must have perceived the cohesion and kinship connections of the aristocracy. As no use is made in the Hucpolding case of any epithet of this sort, it can be presumed likely that the only member of the group present and active at that time was Hubald. Let us now come to the main historical work on the kingdom of Italy of the tenth century, the Antapodosis. Liutprand of Cremona dedicated two whole chapters to Hubald I and Boniface I respectively. The bishop’s attitude towards them was noticeably positive, even adulatory. The reasons for this behaviour can be found within the viewpoint and final objectives of the bishop, who by means of historical narration intended to celebrate, justify or more often ridicule and undermine individuals he opposed by narrating situations in which he could vent his apparent enmity.139 In his account, Liutprand presented Boniface I, as comes potentissimus essential to the victory of Rudolf II in 923. Careful observation of the public titles used by the bishop in this circumstance can help us to retrace ties otherwise hidden and difficult to comprehend. Together with Boniface, a certain Gariardus was also nominated as a champion of the Rudolfing victory, identified by historians with a count of Novara who lived in the first decades of the tenth century.140 By describing Gariardus as a count, Liutprand slipped into the common mistake of flattening his memory: at the time of writing, he referred to Gariardus, already dead for a decade, as count, a title which in reality he could only have acquired after the battle or later still, during the rule of Hugh of Arles.141 This was a mistake, however, that the bishop of Cremona did not commit towards Boniface: remembered as comes at the time of the battle, he was then correctly ascribed the titles of dux et marchio for his final years of life, 138 Gesta Berengarii, p. 373. 139 See Buc, ‘Italian Hussies’; La Rocca, ‘Liutprando da Cremona e il paradigma femminile’; Vignodelli, ‘Per stemmata regum’. 140 See Bougard, ‘Gariardo (Gaddo)’, p. 311–12. 141 Vignodelli, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles’.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

293

which coincided with Liutprand’s period of writing. The author demonstrates therefore an accurate knowledge of the situation and the political results of Boniface’s career. The fact that we cannot then attribute any official content to that title of count around the second decade of the century might suggest a particular use of it by Liutprand in a more encomiastic than actual sense, perhaps with reference to Boniface’s Königsnähe. This interpretation aside, the main factor when characterizing the Hucpolding f igure in a positive way was especially through their close relationship with the Rudolf ing royal dynasty to which the future Empress Adelehid also belonged. With these words, Liutprand described the union with the king’s sister Waldrada, a marriage which warranted an emphatic description, using almost encomiastic tones: ‘Dederat rex Rodulfus Waldradam sororem suam, tam forma quam sapientia quae nunc usque superest honesta matrona, coniugem Bonefatio comiti potentissimo’ (King Rudolf gave his sister Waldrada, so beautiful and wise, who is now a respectable matron, in marriage to the mighty Count Boniface).142 From the bishop’s point of view, the marital and political connection with the Rudolfings was in fact central because, on the political stage contemporary to him, it led straight to the Ottonian front. Furthermore, in precisely those decades when the author was drafting his work, Boniface’s sons Tebaldus and Eberhard were among the Italian proceres siding with the Saxon king against Berengar II and Adalbert.143 They were the main targets of Liutprand’s barbed gibes.144 In an earlier passage of his narrative relating to the struggles at the end of the ninth century between the Widonid faction and that of Berengar I, Liutprand included the tale of a duel between Hubald I and a Bavarian warrior. On this occasion, Hubald is depicted as a valorous champion of Italian pride who, while facing and defeating his rival, brought the siege of Pavia to an end. From the account given by Liutprand, the position of Boniface’s father in clashes between contenders for the Italian crown is unquestionably worthy of note: he presents Hubald’s duelling victory as a crucial turning point in the events of the 893 military campaign, since, according to the bishop, it was the defeated Bavarian himself who convinced his leader Zwentibold of the courage of the Italian soldiers and therefore to accept the money offered to him by King Guy to leave Italy.145 142 Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 2, c. 66, p. 61. 143 See Chapter 2. 144 Vignodelli, ‘Per stemmata regum’. 145 Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 1, c. 21, p. 20.

294 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Furthermore, Liutprand provided his readers with the identification of Hubald through the figure of his son Boniface; this implies awareness at the highest social levels of the various family connections that linked the different kinship groups. Although Hubald had already been dead for around half a century, the bishop demonstrates knowledge of the political outcomes of the group through the indication of the actual position occupied by his son, Boniface. So the author turned to the figure of Boniface I, recently deceased but still present in the collective memory of his time, to explain to his reader the political context of Hubald and therefore of his lineage. Thanks to the unquestionable partiality of Liutprand’s historical account, the episodes of the Antapodosis dedicated to the Hucpoldings may be said to reflect the self-perception of the kinship group in the royal court environment. They also confirm the elements of kinship awareness which connected the first generations to each other, and their lasting dominance at the summit of the Italian kingdom. Now considering narrative sources after the tenth century, the picture that emerges from the occasional mentions of kinship group representatives is one of an exclusively encomiastic nature, where the social heights reached by the Hucpoldings is celebrated to embellish, if not even to inspire, the gestures and behaviours of individuals or of other kinship groups at their side. This practice, gave female members a primary role, representing as it does a privileged medium for passing prestigious rank from one group to the other. In a letter addressed in c.1060 to Godfrey III, who had recently become marquis of Tuscia (1054–1069),146 Peter Damian elaborated a lengthy eulogy for his predecessor Hugh I who, in his eyes, was an edifying model for the marquis of Lower Lorraine to emulate in all aspects.147 To introduce Hugh to the reader before presenting the episodes intended to illustrate his greatness, Peter Damian began with a rapid but significant genealogical profile of the marquis himself: ‘Obertus marchio pater eius Hugonis regis naturalis filius extitit, qui nimirum Guillam maioris Bonifacii marchionis filiam coniugalis ibi federe copulavit’ (His father Marquis Hubert, natural child of King Hugh, indeed married Willa, daughter of Marquis Boniface, the elder [in respect of the subsequent Marquis Boniface II]).148 146 On the marriage between Beatrix of Lorraine, widow of Boniface of Canossa, and Godfrey, and on the latter government of Tuscany see Tabacco, ‘Northern and Central Italy in the Eleventh Century’, p. 79. 147 See Die Briefe des Petrus, no. 68. Peter Damian also dedicated a letter to Willa I as an example of sanctity for Godfrey’s wife, Beatrix of Lorraine; see D’Acunto, I laici nella chiesa, pp. 316–17; on Peter Damian’s letters for rulers see Creber, ‘Mirrors for Margraves’. 148 Die Briefe des Petrus, p. 294.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

295

These few words illustrate the way the author’s genealogical awareness reconstructs both of the group pathways preceding the subject of his narrative, going so far as to attribute equal importance to each.149 Indeed, going back two generations means linking King Hugh and Marquis Boniface I, whose respective children Hubert and Willa married within the context of the plot against the king himself. Subsequently, Marquis Hugh was born as the son of Hubert and Willa.150 Furthermore, the adjective maior used in combination with the marchisal title of Boniface I demonstrates how the author was aware of the Hucpolding kinship connections and careful not to confuse his reader: the purpose of the adjective is in fact to identify Boniface I and avoid confusion with his great-grandson of the same name, also marquis, but active in the early eleventh century. Peter Damian’s significant genealogical knowledge is in this case based on oral tradition, as he himself indicated.151 This reveals the existence of a process of elaboration of kinship memory to place alongside the elements of dynastic self-awareness taken thus far into consideration. As the letter to Marquis Godfrey is dated around 1060,152 the oral tradition of which Peter Damian had taken advantage must refer up to a century and half before then; also taking into consideration his activities at Fonte Avellana, the tradition must have circulated extensively in the march of Tuscia as well as in the exarchal lands, where Boniface I’s descendants were considerably influential at that time. Therefore, extensive knowledge of the genealogy of the principal Hucpolding members spans qualitative and extensive operations of collective memory by the kinship group itself at the highest echelons of the kingdom of Italy. Also the specific encomiastic use for which Peter Damian exploited the Hucpolding memory attests a significant loss of pre-eminence for the group for those same years. By then, their relevance was determined only in models of behaviour – quasi speculum statuae153 – placed in a distant past between history and legend, attested perfectly by the miraculous anecdotes of the life of Hugh I. A few decades later, we can again observe the celebratory use of Hucpolding pre-eminence in the Vita Mathildis by Donizo. Though brief, the reference of just two verses to the bond between the Canossa and the Hucpoldings is vital to the exaltation that the author offers to his protectors. 149 Lazzari, ‘Fondare una dinastia’. 150 See Chapter 2. 151 Die Briefe des Petrus, p. 294: ‘quod audivi de puerili eius aetate, non taceo’ (I will refer also what he told me about his youth). 152 D’Acunto, ‘L’aristocrazia del Regnum Italiae’, p. 340. 153 Die Briefe des Petrus, p. 297.

296 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

In his first book, Donizo described Willa II, the wife of Tedald of Canossa and a Hucpolding, in eulogistic terms as ‘uxor Tedaldi fit Guillia dicta ducatrix. Haec placuit parvis pietate placebat et altis’ (Willa, called duchess, was Tedald’s wife; who because of her devotion, was liked by the poor and powerful).154 Beyond her moral rectitude, Donizo’s intention was to underline her illustrious rank – dicta ducatrix – with which Willa enabled her groom to rise in rank from count to marquis,155 according to an exact strategy adopted by all members of the Canossa group.156 The fact that, even a century after that union, Matilda’s paternal grandmother was still represented and identified through the recollection of the pre-eminence of her kinship group of origin testifies once again to the persistence of specific elements of Hucpolding memory still alive in the collective imagination of the kinship groups related to them. Detailed investigation of the modalities of self-representation adopted by Hucpolding members is not possible, because of the lack of sources more fully self-celebratory, such as chronicles or genealogies, from which the qualities of the self-consciousness of aristocratic groups between the ninth and twelfth centuries could emerge distinctly. Nonetheless, some useful indications in this sense can be gleaned from a comprehensive analysis of customs in attributing rank titles included in public and private documentation and developed in parallel with the dinastizzazione of official entitlement. Prestigious epithets of Roman origin such as excellentissimus, gloriosissimus and inclitus, and predicates of religious origin prefixing official titles such as gratia Dei or misericordia Dei became standard practice for various members of the kinship group between the ninth and tenth centuries.157 As the eleventh century proceeded, original elements of kinship membership were constituted which, combined with the familial use of count as a title, demonstrated a unique social pre-eminence of the group in whichever territory its branches had risen to prominence. In an initial phase, at the end of the ninth century, Engelrada I, her husband Martin and their children showed off epithets of Roman exarchal tradition of both religious kinds and those modelled on the titles of the imperial senatorial class. In their charters include reference to the aristocratic titles of dux and comes, the latter shown as an original and early import to 154 Donizone, Vita di Matilde di Canossa, vv. 452–3, p. 46. See also Lazzari, ‘Miniature e versi’. 155 See Chapter 3. 156 See Bertolini, ‘Note di genealogia’, pp. 132–40. 157 See Werner, Nascita della nobiltà, pp. 308–14. On the symbolic language of the Carolingian kinship group see Garipzanov, Symbolic Language.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

297

the exarchal area of the Frankish official title, albeit emptied of its public significance.158 They also appear with the epithets of clementia Dei (for God’s mercy), Christo ausiliante omnipotenti (with almightily Christ’s help) and Dei misericordia comitissa (countess for God’s benevolence),159 misericordia Dei dux and gloriosa femina ducarissa (glorious duchess),160 domna nobilissima femina comitissa (most noble lady countess),161 and finally gloriosa comitissa domnissima genetricis (glorious lady countess and mother).162 Over the course of the tenth century, the two typologies of entitulature took on a different characterization according to the dynastic or official nature of the title that the individual held. In two royal diplomas portraying Boniface I, he is said to be marchio strenuissimus (powerful marquis),163 and inclitus (eminent),164 therefore described with attributes of Roman origin that we might understand institutionally as they were linked in the first place to service to the king; they were obtained according to the traditions of high officials belonging to the proceres regni.165 In the following generation, the titles adopted by Willa I in private deeds are emblematic: when the title exhibited is that of marquis, derived simultaneously from paternal rank and her husband’s official position, we find titles of institutional origin such as ‘excellentissima marchionissa coniux Uberti gloriosi marchionis’ (most excellent marquess wife of the glorious Marquis Hubert),166 whereas in the acts Willa exhibits her dynastic title alone of comitissa,167 thus leaving aside all references to the public power held by the men connected with her, and no institutional attribution is added. Finally, on the occasion of the settlement of the Badia fiorentina, she is called in Dei nomine comitissa (countess in the name of God).168 158 See Chapter 1. 159 Ravenna 8–9, no. 54. 160 ChLA 54, no. 9. 161 Ravenna 10, vol. 1, no. 2. 162 Ravenna 10, vol. 1, no. 3, where the couple’s son Peter appears as ‘domnus Petrus gracia Dei venerabilis diaconus’ (lord Peter revered deacon for God’s grace). In 909 and 910, Engelrada II is called domna gloriosissima comitissa: Ravenna 10, vol. 1, nos. 15, 17. In 963, Ranieri and Tegrimus II, son and nephew of Engelrada II, are called respectively divina auxiliante providentia diaconus (deacon with the Providence assistance), and inlustrissimus vir (most eminent lord): Ravenna 10, vol. 2, no. 109. 163 DD R II, no. 6; RI I.3.2, no. 1422. 164 DD R II, no. 8; RI I.3.2, no. 1424. 165 See Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, pp. 136–41. 166 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 1. 167 CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 2, 5. 168 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 5.

298 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Conversely, the members of the group who were based in Bolognese territory adopted titles that were more in keeping with the religious and devotional epithets widely used in exarchal lands. In only the case of Adalbert I – first exponent remembered in that environment with the title of count adopted by the family group – the particular form of gratia Dei comes (count for God’s grace) was exhibited on two occasions.169 Formerly, it had been an exclusively royal prerogative, as it was an epithet linked to royal anointment.170 Both the attestations came from the archiepiscopal environment of Ravenna; these are notable indications therefore of the perception held of the Hucpolding social pre-eminence in exarchal lands. The breve of the placitum of 973 is even more explicit in this sense: in the assembly overseen by Archbishop Honestus, Adalbert I gratia Dei comes is the first of the laymen to be listed,171 followed by five members of the exarchal aristocracy identified with the titles of count.172 This is exhibited in place of the more common title of dux of Ravenna tradition. The particular epithet attributed to Adalbert I therefore represents acknowledgement that the social eminence of the Hucpolding was of a superior nature compared with that of the local aristocracy. On the more often private and domestic occasion of foundation of the monastery of Musiano, members of the following generation Adalbert II and his wife Bertilla returned to the more ordinary epithets of Dei misericordia comes and Christi clementia comitissa,173 due perhaps to the piety of their actions. Nevertheless, on that occasion, Adalbert II did not wish to renounce his mother’s gloriosa comitissa, perhaps wishing to raise her rank over gloriosa, clearly inferior to that of his father Hubald II dux et marchio. A notable point of synthesis of the uses of the two types of accolade observed so far is achieved by Marquis Hugh I. Given the strength of his power and relevance of his eminence within the Ottonian kingdom, he could have the title of marchio, indistinctly in public and private deeds, with gloriosissimus,174 strenuissimus,175 and illustrissimus,176 for the institutional 169 Ravenna 10, vol. 2, nos. 96, 178. 170 Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, p. 138. 171 Ravenna 10, vol. 2, no. 178. 172 Peter son of Severus, Gerard and Arardus, Lambert maybe a son of the same Peter, and Marinus comes Ferrariensis. In all likelihood, the kinship groups of the first four individuals established relations with the Hucpoldings in the second half of the tenth century; see Chapter 3. 173 Bologna 10, no. 11. 174 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 172, no. 2; p. 175, no. 3; CdM Badia, vol. 1, nos. 8–11; and the peculiar form of ‘gratia Dei gloriosus dux et marchio’ in Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 1, no. 53. 175 DD O III, no. 223. 176 DD O III, no. 324.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

299

type; gratia Dei marchio,177 and in nomine Dei marchio,178 for the religious and devotional one. The wide discretion illustrated here, which in the case of Hugh was certainly amplified by the substantial freedom which his notaries enjoyed,179 bears witness to the appropriation in a dynastic and familial sense of both types of title as early as the end of the tenth century. The laconic testimonies of Marquis Boniface II attest to the usual institutional features of gloriosus,180 and inclitus.181 Yet with Gisla daughter of Hubald II, who sees herself as nobilis comitissa,182 with her daughter Gisla, as clarissima femina (most eminent lady), nobili comitissa,183 and finally with Hugh II we can already observe the crystallisation of the institutional attributes. These are by now fully exhibited in a dynastic sense by Marquis Hugh II and later by his descendants. In 1034 in the presence of the archbishop of Ravenna, he is said to be nobilissimus comes to stress his social superiority over other witnesses distinguished by their title of count alone.184 In private deeds, Hugh is named more specifically gloriosissimus,185 and inclitus.186 This latter attribute also characterized the entitlements of his descendants and those of collateral groups. Indeed, they exhibited the same title Along with Hugh II’s widow, Willa inclita comitissa,187 the same title is exhibited by his son Hugh III, on the occasion of a placitum,188 and his daughter Adelheid who, despite not using the title of comitissa, described herself as inclita femina,189 thus using an attribute originally of institutional character to express her purely social pre-eminence. In her case, we can also observe the diverse choice between the various elements constituting the Hucpolding dynastic self-awareness, and therefore the opportunity to use the title of count and other elite titles according to convenience: in asking the Archbishop Wibert for a conspicuous emphyteosis, 177 Annales Camaldulenses, vol. 1, nos. 53, 58, 59. 178 Falce, Il marchese Ugo, p. 178, no. 4. 179 See Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, p. 140. On these groups among Hugh’s followers see Chapter 5. 180 Monastero di San Salvatore, no. 1. 181 CdM Badia, vol. 1, no. 19. 182 Documenti, ed. Rauty, no. 12. 183 Cavarra et al., ‘Gli archivi come fonti’, p. 536, no. 408. On this branch see Table G5. 184 Ravenna 11.2, no. 157. 185 Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo, Perg., ser. A, no. 1; Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 1, col. 854. 186 Bologna 11, vol. 1, no. 210. 187 Antiquitates Italicae, vol. 1, col. 854. 188 I placiti, vol. 3.1, no. 452. 189 Paris, BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latines, 2573, fol. 22, no. 23.

300 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Adelheid attributed to her father Hugh the title of count possessed by the kindred for four generations – purposely leaving aside the title of marquis – and chose for herself the epithet of inclita femina, rather than comitissa. Finally, although collateral to the kinship branch more solidly settled in Bolognese territory, the descendants of Adalbert III – known as the counts of Romena-Panico190 – used the same aristocratic titles, thus confirming their relevance as elements of recognition and belonging to the wider kinship group. Furthermore, the letter between Albert II and Hugh IV attests directly this use, showing its relevance to the personal awareness of these individuals. Rewritten by a certain priest of Panico upon dictation from Count Hugh IV son of Guy at the end of the eleventh century, the missive is directed to his brother Albert II, who is addressed with the dynastic titles of gratia Dei inclitus comes.191 While for the religious attribute we can also imagine the intervention of the priest himself closely linked to the two men and to their lineage, the use of the attribute inclitus is probably traceable to the dynastic character that such qualification assumed in the customs of their cousins as descendants of Hugh II. Over the course of the centuries, therefore, the attributes of public power deduced from both the religious and institutional spheres and emptied of their original honorific meaning – formerly an exclusive prerogative of the prestige and sacredness of imperial power 192 – were intentionally privatized by the Hucpoldings, parallel to official designations. The use of these titles appreciably exemplifies the social pre-eminence attained, but above all represents the only appreciable element of the awareness of belonging to the Hucpolding kinship group, which allows us to grasp something of the category of self-representation conceived within the group.

Evolution and Hierarchy of Kinship Cohesion At the end of this analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic features indicative of the degree of cohesion within the Hucpoldings, we can affirm that this type of large, pre-eminent kinship group was not only organized through the transmission of landed patrimony. Even though landownership constituted the foundation of their power, early medieval aristocracies preserved, grew and transmitted to all their members kinship honour and prestige, which put 190 See Chapter 3. 191 Lettere originali del Medioevo latino, no. 12. 192 Werner, Nascita della nobiltà, p. 307.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

301

together intangible symbolic capital to place alongside the tangible element of landownership.193 As a result, it was these two elements together that defined the fundamental principles of group member’s own self-awareness. They were transmitted from generation to generation in the ways and times explained above. As members of the Reichsadel, the Hucpoldings sought legitimization of their power in their assiduous relationship of proximity to kings, strengthening it through their participation in the management of fiscal estates via official roles. Deriving from this behaviour and undertaken as early as the tenth century, the early dynastic transmission of the title of count was an important element of self-awareness, of notable impact in the particular area of patrimonial activity and later of seigneurial development. The original system of the transmission of the whole name – the Leitname Hucpold/Hubald – as the distinctive patrimony of every kinship group at the beginning of the tenth century changed due to political purposes. Over the course of two generations, a specific onomastic stock was established, bringing instances of kinship memory and awareness. So, the lex Ripuaria professio was a considerable specific element for the group, particularly from the middle of the tenth century. The professio of this law and the practice of its juridical rituals significantly set the group apart from both the local population and the rest of the Franks of natio Salica. Over the course of the eleventh century, however, particularly for the Bologna area, few traces can be observed of this element of belonging that in the twelfth century was completely forgotten by all the branches of the lineage. Relationships formed with monastic institutions did not go beyond exclusive political and patrimonial interests until the second part of the tenth century. During those years, the most active individuals established a good number of foundations, of which two particularly are explicitly Eigenklöster. These foundations accentuated the process of territorial connection, as a result of specific characteristics that simultaneously facilitated memory and kinship prestige and anchored and consequently projected them onto local society. Contextually, this led to a change towards distinctly agnatic kinship structures which, over the course of the eleventh century, departed from the wider Hucpolding collective and finally expressed itself in a number of independent lines of descendance. In the case of the Hucpoldings, therefore, for the first century and a half, the elements that enable the transmission of the awareness of belonging to the kinship group were principally based on original mechanisms such 193 Le Jan, Femmes, pouvoir, p. 109.

302 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

as the Leitname and the professio of the lex Ripuaria, soon reinforced by the dinastizzazione of official and honorary titles belonging to the group members’ institutional sphere. As long as kinship structures remained fluid, the monastic element did not play a primary role. On the contrary, it was over the final decades of the tenth century that, through a number of religious foundations, the various branches of the group substantially reinforced their roots in the territories of wider landownership, thus assuring greater stability in assets and long-lasting prestige deriving from the memory of distinguished ancestors. In conclusion, when the patrimonial possessions became predominant among cohesive features of the group, especially in the years spanning the tenth and eleventh centuries, substantial change can be observed from a cognatic to agnatic kinship structure.

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo. Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Luco del Mugello (S. Pietro). Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene. Paris, BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latines, 2573.

Printed Primary Sources Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Anselmo Costadoni, 9 vols. (Venezia: Pasquali, 1755–73). Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, Ludovico A. Muratori, 6 vols. (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1738–42). Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, vol. 54, Italy XXVI, Ravenna I, ed. by Giuseppe Rabotti and Francesca Santoni (Zurich: Graf, 2000). Codex diplomaticus Amiatinus: Urkundenbuch der Abtei S. Salvatore am Montamiata; von den Anfängen bis zum Regierungsantritt Papst Innozenz III. (736–1198), vol. 3.2, ed. by Wilhelm Kurze and Maria Giovanna Arcamone (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1998). Das Regnum Italiae in der Zeit der Thronkämpfe und Reichsteilungen 888 (850)–926, ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.2 (Köln: Böhlau, 1998). Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. by Kurt Reindel, vol. 2, MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 4.2 (München: MGH, 1988).

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

303

Die Karolingier im Regnum Italie 840–887 (888), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.1 (Köln: Böhlau, 1991). Documenti per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana: le origini e i primi secoli (887–1164), ed. by Natale Rauty (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2003). Donizone, Vita di Matilde di Canossa, ed. by Paolo Golinelli (Milano: Jaca Book, 2008). Epitome chronicorum Casinensium, ed. by Ludovico A. Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.1 (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1723), pp. 347–70. Gesta Berengarii imperatoris, in Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, ed. by Paul Winterfeld, MGH Poetae Latini medii aevi 4.1 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1809), pp. 354–403. I diplomi italiani di Ludovico III e Rodolfo II, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1910). I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. by Cesare Manaresi, 3 vols. (Roma: ISIME, 1955–60). Laws of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks, ed. by Theodore J. Rivers (New York: AMS Press, 1986). Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte bolognesi del secolo XI, ed. by Giovanni Feo, 2 vols. (Roma: Accademia delle scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, 2001) Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1990; or. ed. Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913). Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano di Bologna e di S. Bartolomeo di Musiano (1001–1125), ed. by Rossella Rinaldi and Carla Villani (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1984). Le carte della canonica della cattedrale di Firenze (723–1149), ed. by Renato Piattoli (Roma: ISIME, 1938). Le carte ravennati dei secoli ottavo e nono, ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Faenza: BUP, 2006). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 900–957), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Ravenna: Società di studi ravennati, 1999). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 957–976), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2002). Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1025–1044), ed. by Massimo Ronchini (Faenza: BUP, 2010). Leggi dei Longobardi: storia, memoria e diritto di un popolo germanico, ed. by Claudio Azzara and Stefano Gasparri (Roma: Viella, 2005). Lettere originali del Medioevo latino (VII–XI sec.), vol. 1: Italia, ed. by Armando Petrucci, Giulia Ammannati, Antonino Mastruzzo and Ernesto Stagni (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 2004).

304 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Lex Ribuaria, ed. by Franz Beyerle and Rudolf Buchner, MGH Leges nationum Germanicarum 3.2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1946). Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, in Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia, ed. by Paolo Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum continuatio mediaevalis 156 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 1–150. Monastero di San Salvatore a Fontana Taona: secoli XI e XII, ed. by Vanna Torelli Vignali (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1999). Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1893). Regesto di Camaldoli, vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli and Francesco Baldasseroni (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907).

Secondary Sources Althoff, Gerd, Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Aurell, Martin, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales de l’aristocratie (IXe–XIIIe siècle)’, in Mariage et sexualité au Moyen Age: accord ou crise? Actes du colloque (Conques, 15–18 octobre 1998), ed. by Michel Rouche (Parigi: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2000), pp. 185–202. Bertolini, Margherita Giuliana, ‘Note di genealogia e di storia canossana’, in I ceti dirigenti in Toscana nell’età precomunale: atti del I convegno (Firenze, 2 dicembre 1978) (Pisa: Pacini, 1981), pp. 111–49. Bordone, Renato, ‘Un’attiva minoranza etnica nell’alto medioevo: gli Alamanni del comitato di Asti’, Quellen und Foschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 54 (1974), pp. 1–57. Bouchard, Constance B., ‘Those of My Blood’: Constructing Noble Family in Medieval Francia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Bougard, François, ‘Gariardo (Gaddo)’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 52 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1999), pp. 311–12. Buc, Philippe, ‘Italian Hussies and German Matrons. Liutprand of Cremona on Dynastic Legitimacy’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 29 (1995), pp. 209–25. Bührer-Thierry, Geneviève, ‘La reine adultère’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 140.4 (1992), pp. 299–312. –––, ‘Reines adultères et empoisonneuses, reines injustement accusées: la confrontation de deux modèles aux VIIIe–Xe siècles’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 151–70. Calasso, Francesco, Medio evo del diritto, vol. 1: Le fonti (Milano: Giuffrè, 1954).

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

305

Cavarra, Berenice, Giovanni Gardini, Giovanni Battista Parente and Giorgio Vespignani, ‘Gli archivi come fonti della storia di Ravenna: regesto di documenti’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 401–547. Chiappelli, Luigi, ‘La formazione storica del comune cittadino in Italia (territorio lombardo-tosco)’, Archivio Storico Italiano 7 (1927), pp. 182–208. Collavini, Simone M., ‘Honorabilis domus et spetiosissimus comitatus’: gli Aldobrandeschi da ‘conti’ a ‘principi territoriali’ (secoli IX–XIII) (Pisa: ETS, 1998). –––, ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale delle élites laiche intermedie (Italia centrale, secolo VIII–X)’, in Les élites et leur espaces: mobilitè, rayonnement, domination (du VIe au XIe siècle), ed. by Philippe Depreux, François Bougard and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 319–40. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, ed. by Terry F. Hoad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Cortese, Maria Elena, Signori, castelli, città: l’aristocrazia del territorio fiorentino tra X e XII secolo (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2007). Creber, Alison, ‘Mirrors for Margraves: Peter Damian’s Models for Male and Female Rulers’, Historical Reflections 42.1 (2016), pp. 8–20. D’Acunto, Nicolangelo, I laici nella chiesa e nella società secondo Pier Damiani: ceti dominanti e riforma ecclesiastica nel secolo XI (Roma: ISIME, 1999). –––, ‘L’aristocrazia del Regnum Italiae negli scritti di Pier Damiani’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 321–42. Delumeau, Jean-Pierre, ‘Equilibri di potere ad Arezzo dal periodo tardo carolingio al primo periodo comunale’, in Arezzo e il suo territorio nell’Alto Medio Evo: atti del Convegno (Arezzo, 22–23 ottobre 1983) (Cortona: Calosci, 1985), pp. 87–110. Eggert, Wolfgang and Barbara Pätzold, Wir-Gefühl und regnum Saxonum bei frühmittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibern (Wien: Böhlau, 1984). Falce, Antonio, Il marchese Ugo di Tuscia (Firenze: Bemporad, 1921). Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval: actes du colloque de Paris (6–8 juin 1974), ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Roma: École française de Rome, 1977). Foschi, Paola, ‘Gli ordini religiosi medievali a Bologna e nel suo territorio’, in Storia della Chiesa di Bologna, ed. by Paolo Prodi and Lorenzo Paolini, vol. 2 (Bergamo: Bolis, 1997), pp. 463–99. Foschi, Paola, Renzo Zagnoni and Paola Porta, Le pievi medievali bolognesi (secoli VIII–XV): storia e arte, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: BUP, 2009). Fumagalli, Vito, Terra e società nell’Italia padana: i secoli IX e X (Torino: Einaudi, 1976).

306 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Garipzanov, Ildar H., The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World (c.751–877) (Brill: Leiden, 2008). Gasparri, Stefano, Prima delle nazioni: popoli etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (Roma: Carocci, 2002). Gasparrini Leporace, Tullia, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi di Spoleto (569–1230)’, Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria 35 (1938), pp. 5–68. Geary, Patrick, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Goetz, Hans-Werner, ‘Coutume d’héritage et structures familiales au haut Moyen Âge’ in Sauver son âme et se perpétuer: transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Cristina La Rocca and Régine Le Jan (Roma: École française de Rome, 2005), pp. 203–37. Guglielmotti, Paola, ‘Esperienze di ricerca e problemi di metodo negli studi di Karl Schmid’, Annali dell’Istituto Storico Italo-Germanico di Trento 13 (1987), pp. 209–69. Hlawitschka, Eduard, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien (774–962) (Freiburg im Breisgau: Albert, 1960). Kurze, Wilhelm, ‘Gli albori dell’abbazia di Marturi’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 165–201. –––, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà nella Tuscia altomedievale’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 295–317. La Rocca, Maria Cristina, ‘Liutprando da Cremona e il paradigma femminile di dissoluzione dei Carolingi’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 291–308. Lazard, Sylviane S., ‘Studio onomastico del “Breviarium”’, in Ricerche e studi sul ‘Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis’ (Codice Bavaro) (Roma: ISIME, 1985), pp. 33–61. Lazzari, Tiziana, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche e aree di affermazione signorile: il territorio bolognese fra VIII e XI secolo’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 379–400. –––, ‘Una mamma carolingia e una moglie supponide: percorsi femminili di legittimazione e potere nel regno italico’, in ‘C’era una volta un re …’: aspetti e momenti della regalità; da un seminario del dottorato in Storia medievale (Bologna, 17–18 dicembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Isabella (Bologna: CLUEB, 2005), pp. 41–57.

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

307

–––, ‘La creazione di un territorio: il comitato di Modena e i suoi “conf ini”’, in Distinguere, separare, condividere: confini nelle campagne dell’Italia medievale, ed. by Paola Guglielmotti, Reti Medievali Rivista 7.1 (2006), pp. 101–18. –––, ‘Miniature e versi: mimesi della regalità in Donizone’, in Forme di potere nel pieno medioevo (secoli VIII–XI): dinamiche e rappresentazioni, ed. by Giovanni Isabella (Bologna: CLUEB, 2006), pp. 57–92. –––, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami di parentela e il ruolo delle donne nell’alta aristocrazia del regno italico (secc. IX–X): l’esempio di Berta di Toscana’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 129–49. –––, ‘Aziende fortificate, castelli e pievi: le basi patrimoniali dei poteri dei Canossa e le loro giurisdizioni’, in Matilde e il tesoro dei Canossa tra castelli, monasteri e città, ed. by Arturo Calzona (Milano: Silvana editoriale, 2008), pp. 96–115. –––, ‘Campagne senza città e territori senza centro’, in Città e campagna nei secoli altomedievali, vol. 2 (Spoleto: CISAM, 2009), pp. 621–52. –––, Le donne nell’alto medioevo (Milano: Mondadori, 2010). –––, ‘Fondare una dinastia’, in ‘Fondare’ tra antichità e medioevo: atti del convegno di studio (Bologna, 27–29 maggio 2015), ed. by Paola Galetti (Spoleto: CISAM, 2016), pp. 331–48. Le Jan, Règine, Famille et pouvoir dans le mond franc (VIIe –Xe siècle): essai d’anthropologie sociale (Parigi: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1995). –––, Femmes, pouvoir et société dans le haut Moyen Âge (Parigi: Picard, 2001). –––, ‘Adelheidis: le nom au premier millénaire: formation, origine, dynamique’, in Adélaïde de Bourgogne: genèse et représentations d’une sainteté impériale; actes du colloque international du Centre d’Études Médiévales – UMR 5594 (Auxerre, 10–11 décembre 1999), ed. by Patrick Corbet P., Monique Goullet and Dominique Iogna-Prat (Dijon: Editions universitaires de Dijon, 2002), pp. 29–42. Leicht, Pier Silverio, Il diritto privato preirneriano (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1933). Lindow, John, Norse Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Manarini, Edoardo, ‘Le madri dei marchesi: la legittimazione al potere marchionale nella marca Tusciae’, in Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). –––, ‘Sex, Denigration and Violence: A Representation of Political Competition between Two Aristocratic Families in 9th Century Italy’, in Conflict and Violence in Medieval Italy 568–1154, ed. by Christopher Heath and Robert Houghton (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming).

308 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Nobili, Mario, ‘Formarsi e definirsi dei nomi di famiglia nelle stirpi marchionali dell’Italia centro-settentrionale: il caso degli Obertenghi’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 267–90. Porta, Paola, ‘Abbazie medievali del territorio bolognese: S. Bartolomeo di Musiano’, in San Bartolomeo di Musiano: giornata di studi (Pianoro, 15 ottobre 2005) (Bologna: Deputazione di storia patria, 2008), pp. 1–30. Provero, Luigi, ‘Apparato funzionariale e reti vassallatiche nel Regno Italico (secoli X–XII)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 175–232. –––, L’Italia dei poteri locali: secoli X–XII (Roma: Carocci, 2011). Schmid, Karl, ‘The Structure of the Nobility in the Earlier Middle Ages’, in The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979), pp. 37–59. Sereno, Cristina, ‘Monasteri aristocratici subalpini: fondazioni funzionariali e signorili, modelli di protezione e di sfruttamento (secoli X–XII) (parte prima)’, Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 96 (1998), pp. 397–448. Sergi, Giuseppe, L’aristocrazia della preghiera: politica e scelte religiose nel medioevo italiano (Roma: Donzelli, 1994). –––, I confini del potere: marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Torino: Einaudi, 1995). Spagnesi, Enrico, Wernerius bononiensis iudex: la figura storica d’Irnerio (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1970). Sturtevant, Albert M., ‘Comments on Mythical Name-giving in Old Norse’, Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory 29 (1954), pp. 68–71. Tabacco, Giovanni, Struggle for Power, trans. by Rosalind Brown Jensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). –––, ‘Northern and Central Italy in the Eleventh Century’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4: c.1024–c.1198, pt. 2, ed. by David E. Luscombe and Jonathan S.C. Riley-Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 72–93. Tamba, Giorgio, Una corporazione per il potere: il notariato a Bologna in età comunale (Bologna: CLUEB, 1998). Tellenbach, Gerd, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility to the German Estate of Imperial Princes’, in The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979), pp. 203–42. Vignodelli, Giacomo, Il filo a piombo: il Perpendiculum di Attone di Vercelli e la storia politica del regno italico (Spoleto: CISAM, 2012).

Kinship, Self-awareness and Memory

309

–––, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles e le aristocrazie del regno italico (926–945)’, in Acquérir, prélever, contrôler les resources en compétition (400–1000), ed. by Régine Le Jan, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Vito Loré (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 151–69. –––, ‘Per stemmata regum: discendenza femminile e legittimazione nel regno italico post-carolingio (888–962)’, in Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). Violante, Cinzio, ‘Alcune caratteristiche delle strutture familiari in Lombardia, Emilia e Toscana durante i secoli IX–XII’, in Famiglia e parentela nell’Italia medievale, ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1977), pp. 19–82. –––, ‘L’immaginario e il reale: i “da Besate” una stirpe feudale “vescovile” nella genealogia di Anselmo il Peripatetico e nei documenti’, in Nobiltà e chiese nel Medioevo e altri saggi: scritti in onore di Gerd G. Tellenbach, ed. by Cinzio Violante (Roma: Jouvence, 1993), pp. 97–157. Violi, Franco, ‘Monaci nonantolani nelle carte dell’Abbazia di San Gallo nel secolo IX’, Atti e Memorie: Accademia Nazionale di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, Modena 7.2 (2004), pp. 529–40. Werner, Karl Ferdinand, ‘Liens de parenté et noms de personne’, in Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval; actes du colloque de Paris (6–8 juin 1974), ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Roma: École française de Rome, 1977), pp. 25–34. –––, ‘Important Noble Families in the Kingdom of Charlemagne – A Prosopographical Study of the Relationship between King and Nobility in the Early Middle Ages’, in The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Amsterdam: North–Holland, 1979), pp. 137–202. –––, Nascita della nobiltà: lo sviluppo delle élite politiche in Europa (Torino: Einaudi, 2000). Wickham, Chris, ‘The Changing Composition of Early Elites’, in Théorie et pratiques des élites au haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Hans–Werner Goetz and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 5–20. Zagnoni, Renzo, ‘Il monastero di San Bartolomeo di Musiano nel medioevo (981–1307)’, in San Bartolomeo di Musiano: giornata di studi (Pianoro, 15 ottobre 2005) (Bologna: Deputazione di storia patria, 2008), pp. 31–96.

8. Features and Practices of Power: From Officials to Lords Abstract In this chapter, analysis is directed to the power enjoyed by the Hucpoldings, their unique qualities, their relationships and the strategies they adopted to build their seigneurial hegemony in the local communities affected by their presence. From this perspective, the particularities of their lordship are investigated. Their hegemony was achieved in a novel way when compared with other Italian elites. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; seigneurial rule; officials; Carolingian aristocracy; marquis

After having considered the nature of identity cohesion exhibited and practised by the Hucpoldings, we will now strive to trace the process of territorial settlement and social affirmation they performed. All these developments were coordinated with royal power, from the arrival of their forefather Hucpold to the consolidation of seigneurial hegemony in the area of Bologna with Hugh II. From the beginning in Italy, the features qualifying their conduct were military commitments and a close relationship of Königsnähe with Italian rulers, particularly with Rudolf II of Burgundy. Thus, the group acquired a position of superiority among the most illustrious aristocracies of marquis rank in the kingdom. Later, upon conclusion of the brief marchisal affirmation of Boniface I in Emilia, and having survived the reign of Hugh of Arles who had been hostile to them, the Hucpoldings obtained the marches of Tuscia and Spoleto with royal support. Nonetheless, they did not succeed in anchoring their lineage in any of those environments. The development of their seigneurial pre-eminence and the early dinastizzazione of the title of count came about, instead, in those areas of the Bolognese territory in the public district controlled by Boniface I for a short time at the

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch08

312 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

beginning of the tenth century. A good part of the group’s landed wealth was concentrated there, divided between allodia and beneficia belonging to the fisc. The vassalage relationship established with the archbishops of Ravenna contributed to accentuating kinship pre-eminence in that region, and was then reinforced by the foundation of the monastery of Musiano in the Apennine valley of the river Savena. The group never pursued with determination the accession of its members into ecclesiastical hierarchies as a further means to increase and vary its hegemonic position. We only count two active deacons, across Romagna and Tuscany, and a bishop in the seat of Arezzo, whose relationship with Otto I was central to rebalancing the uncertain situation of the kinship group over the first years of Ottonian rule in Italy. Throughout the Hucpoldings’ power building we do not therefore observe the pattern ‘public office’ – dinastizzazione – or ‘territorial lordship’ found elsewhere, 1 whereas we do f ind a particular and uncommon trend of seigneurial establishment, realized mostly in areas located at the margins of the public districts controlled between the tenth and eleventh centuries.2 Especially when new kings took over kingship, we notice a frequent turnover of public offices that the Hucpoldings had obtained previously. On the other hand, these discontinuities also certify the permanent pre-eminence of the group, whose freedom of action worried new rulers when they set about trying to establish their own networks with the kingdom’s elite. Retracing briefly the events of Hucpolding members who obtained the position of marchio, the impossibility of applying the above mentioned formula becomes clear, as each time public powers were attained, royal influence appeared central to determining the kinship group’s subsequent political developments: the duchy of Spoleto was obtained thanks to agreements stipulated to frustrate King Hugh and was lost years later upon the impulse of the newly crowned King Berengar II; the same also happened in the case of Hugh II’s return to the same duchy attained in the mid-eleventh century thanks to imperial policy. In Tuscia, Marquis Hugh I was able to consolidate his marchisal power with the compliance of the Ottonian dynasty and even made the marchisal office inheritable for a short time with his cousin Boniface II taking on the title and role. Boniface II was unable, however, to replicate the power and hegemony of his predecessor. Finally, upon the death of Boniface II, all Hucpolding interest in the marquis office 1 See Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 230–3. 2 On the similar case of the Aleramici see Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 46, 53–4; Provero, ‘Terre e case dell’aristocrazia’, p. 852.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

313

of Tuscia disappeared. Only in Emilia, where the function was attained by Boniface I thanks to his brother-in-law, King Rudolf II of Burgundy, was seigneurial establishment possible across the more peripheral Bolognese sectors. That area was traditionally part of exarchal lands but no longer included in the Modena comitatus shaped by King Hugh. It then remained outside territorial boundaries explicitly dependent on the Italian crown until at least the eleventh century. We f ind ourselves therefore facing a process of dinastizzazione performed in areas of strong patrimonial character, separated from those which were ruled on behalf of the kingdom. The Hucpolding descendants built a hegemony of various lordships at the margins of the kingdom while obtaining districts to rule from royal power which did not however coincide with nor include those same lordship zones. So, these seignorial powers can be assumed to have been instruments of centralizing relationships and power sought after to achieve control over the kingdom’s marches as a regal imprimatur. Consequently, the Hucpoldings emphasized their tradition as officers of the kingdom as a means to reach hegemonic and social recognition – according to the fundamental spirit of the Reichsadel3 – until the first decades of the eleventh century, that is as long as it maintained a superior position among the Italian aristocracy. Observations made thus far allow us to consider the Hucpoldings as unique among the principal kinship groups of the Frankish Reichsadel who survived the decades of clashes of the early tenth century. Only a branch of Supponids survived, albeit in a greatly reduced state. 4 The Hucpoldings found renewed stability and a new way of life in their relationships with the Ottonian dynasty.

Firsts Steps at Court: Offices and Responsibilities in the Kingdom of Italy Hucpolding interests in Italy began in the middle of the ninth century with the involvement of their forefather Hucpold in a military campaign organized by Emperor Lothar in the southern sector of the peninsula.5 Two elements above all others help to outline his role within the Frankish aristocracy: military duties, probably leading back to vassalage that tied 3 4 5

Analogous is the case of the Supponids: Provero, L’Italia dei poteri locali, p. 33. See Delumeau, ‘Dal conte Suppone’, pp. 272–9. On political developments see Chapter 1.

314 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

aristocracy to the royal dynasty;6 and the role of signifer (standard-bearer), which qualifies the presence of Hucpold within the transalpine contingent and marks, in all likelihood, a closer position towards the emperor himself. At the conclusion of the military campaign, Hucpold was installed at the summit of the Italian court as comes palacii. Although Louis II was crowned king of Italy in 844,7 the highest personages of the Italian court, and therefore in all probability the office of comes palacii, may lead back to the political choices of Emperor Lothar. Until his death, he carefully supervized his son’s political activities.8 The introduction into public hierarchies of the kingdom of Italy occurred as a result of the direct relationship of fidelitas towards the emperor, who marginalized his own son’s power. His office at court enshrined Hucpold at the administrative and judicial apex of the kingdom. This post required both specific ability and a certain political dexterity, although our detailed knowledge of the day-to-day responsibilities is lacking.9 At the same time, however, this prevented him from taking the opportunity to securely establish his power over a specific administrative district.10 He had instead, an opportunity at the base of the power structure attained by the principal members of the Reichsadel, by then in Italy for at least two generations. Adalbertings, Widonids, Unruochings and Supponids are described by Cammarosano as having marchisal rank, in opposition to the other Frankish groups of comital rank, as they had more circumscribed territorial interests.11 They founded their power mainly on close relationships with the Carolingian dynasty and consequently on the great opportunities for territorial consolidation that political control of regional and multiregional spaces allowed them.12 His military career and appointment as count palatine demonstrated that Hucpold belonged to this pre-eminent aristocratic environment. Despite this, he appeared on the political chessboard of the kingdom at a time that was not wholly favourable to securing a fixed territorial powerbase, the first step in attaining dynastic affirmation of his kinship group. In the middle of the ninth century, the wider marches at the four corners of the 6 Tabacco described vassalage as an innovation imported in Italy by Carolingians: Tabacco, Struggle for Power, pp. 119–21. 7 Imperial coronation followed in 850: Bougard, ‘Ludovico II’, pp. 387–8. 8 Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, pp. 250–1. 9 See Werner, ‘Missus-Marchio-Comes’, p. 126. 10 A century later, Count Palatine Otbert I of the Obertenghi gained power in the same way: Nobili, ‘Alcune considerazioni circa l’estensione’, pp. 261–2. 11 Cammarosano, Nobili e re, p. 175. 12 See Costambeys et al., Carolingian World, pp. 304–6.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

315

kingdom were already under the more or less stable control of the groups listed above; 13 at the same time the strength of the Supponids at Louis’ court increased considerably thanks to the marriage between the emperor and Engelberga, a member of that lineage.14 So, from his very first years in Italy, Hucpold had to seek alternative routes to the benefits distributed by royal power, as his position at court did not favour him in any territorial context and on the contrary excluded him in some ways from the kingdom’s traditional channels of political advancement.15 The count palatine tried therefore to exploit the relationship opportunities allowed him by his office at court, introducing his children to two particular areas of the peninsula: his eldest daughter Bertha I was invested as abbess of the monastic community of S. Andrea of Florence, with the backing of the bishop of that city and of Marquis Adalbert I, an early ally of Hucpold; and Engelrada I was married to Duke Martin, a member of one of the leading ducal kinship groups of Ravennate aristocracy. There are two notable aspects to the behaviour adopted by Hucpold. The first is the cross-regional reach that, barely in their first generation in Italy, the kinship structures supported, without losing control of cognatic connections. On the contrary, they survived for the whole of the second generation, particularly in Romagna and Tuscany, and had a significant impact on the patrimonial conduct of the protagonists.16 Second, both of these territorial horizons can be placed in marginal and weakly structured positions: one on the edge of the march controlled by the Adalbertings,17 the other even further away beyond the boundaries of the kingdom of Italy.18 These elements attest to the range of viable solutions available to 13 Cammarosano, Nobili e re, pp. 176–9: the Adalbertings held their marchisal power over most of Tuscia, the Unruochings controlled the march of Friuli, and the Widonids were based in the duchy of Spoleto. 14 On the Supponid group and on the rise of their power during Louis II’s rule see Bougard, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, pp. 668–76; Bougard, ‘Les Supponides’, pp. 388–92. 15 Vassallage and remuneration through beneficia were the customary ways in which royal power coordinated the kingdom: Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 25. 16 Within the vast landed wealth held by Engelrada I, the landholdings in the Faenza area – located along the Apennine routes towards Tuscia – emerge in number and for precise military purposes; see Ferreri and Cirelli, ‘Le trasformazioni della vallata del Lamone’; see also Chapter 4. 17 There is no agreement among scholars about the areas of Tuscia controlled by the Adalbertings during the ninth century. Hagen Keller stated Boniface II controlled Lucca, Pisa, probably Pistoia and perhaps Luni and Volterra, as well as the Tyrrhenian coasts and Corsica; only Adalbert I would have added the areas of Fiesole and of Florence – where perhaps the contribution of Hucpold and his sons was important: Keller, ‘La marca di Tuscia’, pp. 122, 129. 18 The exarchate of Ravenna was theoretically part of the patrimonium of the bishop of Rome: Settia, ‘“Nuove marche” nell’Italia occidentale’, p. 45.

316 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

individuals at the height of society, but are also evidence of the difficulties that aristocrats encountered as they operated outside the usual mechanisms used to acquire territorial bases in agreement with royal power. After the death of Emperor Lothar in 855, Hucpold’s position at the court of Louis II became steadily more complicated, losing the fundamental link of fidelitas with the most prestigious figure within the Carolingian group, who had assured the count palatine of his position and permitted his initial integration into the Italian context. The participation as part of a societas comitum in a placitum held close to Vienne in 858 perhaps bears witness to his intention to return politically to his territory of origin – a prospect common to Frankish aristocracy, as the later royal attempt of the Widonids clearly demonstrates.19 This intention nevertheless in all likelihood had no follow up in the case of Hucpold. After March 860, the last certain date of the count palatine’s judicial duties in Italy, it is difficult to establish the destiny of the first members of the Hucpolding kinship group. Political initiatives undertaken by Louis II, assertively initiated in that particular period, and the tale bequeathed to us by the ECC converge in highlighting a probable conflict between the count palatine and court circles represented by the Supponid Empress Engelberga. This hostility perhaps accompanied the previous revolt carried out by Lambert of Spoleto in April 860.20 Tormented relationships, which seem to feature throughout Hucpold’s Italian experience in the 850s, did not completely compromise the position of his son Hubald, who successfully gained a bond of direct loyalty towards Emperor Louis, although without public offices, and indeed he suffered a noticeable reduction in his role at court compared with that of his father. The Königsnähe connection that brought the Hucpolding group closer to the Carolingian dynasty was not lost but must have acquired a much more detached profile than before. Despite this, even just the relationship of vassalage allowed Hubald a purposeful path of social and political affirmation.21 As a loyal servant and missus of Louis II, Hubald took part in an enquiry into the patrimonial state of the church of Lucca, thus concentrating his 19 See Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘Guido’, pp. 356–7. 20 It is not possible to establish a direct link between these two conflicts. Certainly, Engelberga acquired more institutional power from 860 onwards, causing frustration among the kingdom’s elites; see Bougard, ‘La cour et le gouvernement’, p. 263. 21 See Cammarosano, Nobili e re, pp. 180–1, who described royal patronage as one of the two possible options through which aristocrats could achieve political affirmation, the granting of a countship being the second.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

317

political activity in Tuscany in continuity with his father’s orientations and furthermore supported by the presence of his sister Bertha in Florence. The connection with the marchisal kinship group of Tuscia established some time earlier by Hucpold intensified, probably through the marriage of Hubald with one of the daughters of Adalbert I.22 This union must have represented a turning point in Hubald’s political career, as he could then establish a relationship of loyalty with the new emperor and king of Italy Charles III. Hubald was, on his own behalf, involved in the territory of Piacenza – thus far an area of the kingdom unknown to the Hucpoldings – still in opposition to the widow Engelberga and the Supponid kindred. With renewed proximity to imperial power, Hubald attained the title of comes, using it on two occasions.23 Due to our scant information, Hubald’s appointment to count cannot be placed with any certainty within any particular public district, and may even have to be traced back to the persistent ‘inheritance of the status of comes as a social rank and not strictly administrative, as a title pointing to someone in the king’s service […] with varied possibilities of local attribution and with possible phases of uncertainty and suspension before a thorough functional and local definition’.24 Considering the secure control of the position of count over Piacenza by the Supponids,25 the only feasible clue is found in the group’s decade-old presence in the city of Florence. Perhaps also favoured by the close connection with the Adalbertings, Florence became for Hubald the principal centre of his patrimonial and political power.26 At the end of the rule of Charles III, Hubald sided with his brother-in-law Adalbert II of Tuscia amid the ranks of the Widonid faction led by Duke Guy who, in brutal military conflicts, opposed Berengar of Friuli for the crown of Italy. In addition to his military virtues – a quality that characterized his father and for which his son Boniface would also be praised 27 – Hubald must have also played an important role in the political consolidation that the Widonid sovereigns undertook once they had conquered the kingdom. 22 See Chapter 1. 23 The first occasion is the letter addressed by Charles III to Hubald; the second is in 893 when Hubald’s daughter Bertha II was ordained abbess of S. Andrea of Florence; see Chapter 1. 24 Cammarosano, Nobili e re, p. 181: ‘retaggio di una qualifica di comes come qualifica sociale e non rigorosamente funzionariale, qualifica di persona al seguito del re […] con variegate possibilità di attribuzione locale e con possibili fasi di indeterminatezza e sospensione prima della salda definizione funzionariale e locale’. 25 Bougard, ‘Les Supponides’, pp. 391–2. 26 See Chapter 5. 27 See Chapter 7.

318 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

His sister Engelrada’s eminent position at the height of exarchal aristocracy constituted a strategic bridge for the renewed interests that the Widonids displayed towards Ravenna and exarchal lands.28 These represented a political space of vital importance that could not be left to their rival Berengar, already in control of the Veneto side of the Po river. Evidence of the title of count for Engelrada and her husband Martin are therefore to be retraced to the attempts of King Guy to expand his influence into Romagna too, where Widonid authority evidently used relationships provided by their closest allies, including Hubald. We are also bound to identify a Hucpolding presence in the new structures of public authority operated by the Widonids in the Po valley. This is due to both the role given to Hubald in the Piacentine lands under Charles III, and to the knowledge we possess of successive kinship group developments for that part of the kingdom. In opposition to a solid Supponid presence in the territories of western Emilia, King Guy established a comitatus across the large area facing them, including the territories of Reggio, Modena and in part also those of Bologna. The district was entrusted to his nephew – also called Guy. Nonetheless, we cannot exclude a new appointment to Hubald in an anti-Supponid role, considering the fact that his group already held patrimonial shares in that sector of the kingdom, particularly in Bolognese territory.29 Habitually pursued by members of the Reichsadel, the Königsnähe took on a decidedly more marked value for the Hucpoldings’ endeavour to establish a concrete patrimonial foundation. Indeed, together with first-rate marital relationships and military expertise, the direct relationship that initially tied Hubald to Charles III and then to the Widonid kings marked the final affirmation of the group in the upper echelons of the kingdom among the aristocrats of marchisal rank. While opposed to each other in two factions, they decided the fate of the holders of the Italian crown from the death of Louis II until the arrival of Otto I of Saxony in the middle of the tenth century.30 It was his son Boniface, who benefitted from Hubald’s political initiatives, despite the royal power of King Berengar I being already established for a number of decades. Boniface was one of the most powerful people in the kingdom at the beginning of the tenth century. He was among those who 28 Fasoli, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi’, pp. 107–8. 29 Namely, through his sister Bertha I; see Chapter 6. 30 Acknowledged as members of the Italian Reichsadel in Collavini, ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale’, p. 320.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

319

promoted the arrival in Italy of Rudolf II, king of Burgundy, whose sister Waldrada he married, probably in preparation for the military expedition that won Rudolf the Italian throne between 922 and 923.31 During the brief rule of Rudolf, Boniface exploited family proximity with the king, acquired so as to obtain the position of royal consiliarius and more than anything else the rank of marchio, which represented a real turn for the better in the quality of power exercised by the Hucpolding kinship group in the kingdom’s ongoing political history.

The Marchisal Achievement and the Gaining of Ecclesiastical Offices A close relationship with royal power was therefore fundamental to the political behaviour of the first three generations of Hucpoldings directed to introducing the group into elite circle of the kingdom. Nevertheless, associating their power with a specific territory – where public offices might be available to them – remains for these first generations rather problematic. Even the first attestation of the marquis title for Boniface I presents a certain difficulty in contextualization, though it offers possibly the first concrete evidence of hegemonic power building.32 Before approaching the analysis of the group’s marchisal attestations, it must be remembered that it was only the title of marchio that would qualify for public powers obtained by royal mandate. In other words, if by the middle of the tenth century the title of count seems to be acquired and transmitted indistinctly on a cognatic level with no precise territorial reference, every time a member of the group obtained an assignment for public office from royal power – or occasionally official legitimization of their concrete hegemony33 – it would always and only ever be conferred through the title of marchio.34 The appointment of marchio that Boniface I obtained, thanks to the acquisition of the Italian throne by his brother-in-law Rudolf II, seems to 31 See Chapter 1. 32 Boniface is called marchio in two royal diplomas, we can therefore exclude a propagandistic use of the title by him or his descendants; useful for the precautions to be observed in handling such documentations is Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 42. 33 On the certifying character of post-Carolingian and Ottonian policies see Tabacco, Struggle for Power, p. 158; Provero, ‘Apparato funzionariale’, p. 186. 34 The only exception is Willa, most likely daughter of Marquis Hugh I, who inherited from her father the title of marchionissa; see Puglia, La marca di Tuscia, p. 79.

320 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

proceed continuously with paternal initiatives towards territories in Emilia, a vital sector for any pretender who proclaimed to be at the pinnacle of the kingdom.35 It is likely for that reason therefore that Rudolf arranged the definitive introduction of Boniface as public official into the extensive area of Modena, formerly created by the Widonids.36 Boniface then received from his brother-in-law a solid patrimonial base within and around the same administrative district,37 collating the properties that were already held by the group. The convergence of a public district and a large concentration of lands decisively motivated the Hucpldings’ seigneurial and dynastic establishment, however short-lived, in these sectors of Bolognese territory.38 Within the borders of the kingdom of Italy, Boniface was named marchio of a ‘new march’ created by royal power. The power acquired by the new marquis ‘not only originated from the development of a kinship group, as it responded to a necessity of the kingdom but was also the attribution of a specif ic political and military responsibility’.39 In the case of the iudiciari Mutinensis, the formation dissolved as a public district within the space of a few years. As far as the precariousness of the new formation is concerned, however, the determinative power acquired by the marquis served as a counterweight as it carried the possibility of a decisive transfer of authority from the territorial body of the march empowered by kings to the single institutional figure of the marquis himself. 40 The marquis would be effectively at the root of the Hucpolding group’s power and rank awareness. Although the marchisal affirmation in the district of Emilia did not survive long after the fall of Rudolf, 41 from the middle of the tenth century to the first years of the eleventh century the kinship group embodied no less than four marchiones: following the coup to overturn Hugh of Arles, Boniface and his son Tebaldus became the duke of Spoleto and the marquis of 35 Fumagalli, Terra e società, pp. 73–4. 36 Especially on this district from Guy’s rule to Boniface’s appointment, see Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’. 37 See Chapter 6. 38 On different patterns of affirmation followed by descendants of Frankish officials see Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 26–30. 39 On the concepts of Carolingian march and ‘new march’ see Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 56–62, the quotation in p. 61: ‘non nasceva soltanto dallo sviluppo di un gruppo parentale, poiché rispondeva a un’esigenza del regno ed era attribuzione di una specifica responsabilità politica e militare’. 40 See Settia, ‘“Nuove marche” nell’Italia occidentale’, p. 55. 41 See Chapter 1.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

321

Camerino; and sometime after the exile of his father Hubert, Hugh obtained the march of Tuscia, followed upon his death by his cousin Boniface II. 42 It is easier to reflect on the quality of marquisate power expressed by the members of the Hucpolding group in the case of the Tuscan march. Evidence concerning the duchy of Spoleto is obtained rather from rare recordings of events of the ducal years. We cannot therefore appreciate the circumstances that returned Boniface and his son Tebaldus to marchisal power: in the context of the plot organized by the proceres against the king, Boniface gave his daughter Willa’s hand in marriage to the marquis of Tuscia, Hubert. He then obtained for himself and his son, in agreement with the pretender to the throne, Berengar II, his appointment as duke of Spoleto, where however the Hucpoldings did not possess any relevant territorial power base. Boniface therefore seemed to prefer a district unknown to him – a district that had always however been an important crossroads at the centre of the peninsula – rather than attempt to re-establish his hegemony in the Emilian sector. King Hugh had in the meantime replaced the large iudiciaria Mutinensis with a more constrained countship, favouring the territorial base of new groups that in those areas had managed to form solid territorial foundations in a short space of time. 43 Clearly an effort to redefine politically a crucial area of the kingdom like Emilia required the commitment of strong royal power, which in those years was still in the hands of Hugh and his son Lothar, albeit only nominally. From a territorial perspective, the choice was coherent if one considered that Boniface’s authority over Spoleto, combined with the notable patrimonial remnants in Emilia, enabled a single marchisal group to control the entire perimeter of these exarchal lands, lands that, notwithstanding brief periods of control by Liutprand and Aistulf, had remained extraneous to both Lombard domination and Carolingian administrative structures. 44 Matters were different for the march of Tuscia. After the first years of Ottonian power, during which Hubert was exiled for resisting the new ruler, the marchisal position remained vacant. The Hucpolding group attained the lead of the march with Hugh I son of Hubert, grandson of both King Hugh and Boniface I. In him the legitimizing strength of a history of acting as an official 42 To this four marchiones, we could also add another son of Boniface, Hubald II, though this figure is rather obscure, since he is called dux et marchio just in two posthumous deeds; see Chapter 2. 43 On the rise to power of the Canossa and the Obertenghi in western Emilia see Provero, ‘Il sistema di potere’, pp. 58–64. 44 See Savigni, ‘I papi e Ravenna’, pp. 331–42.

322 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

of his father and the bases of allodial power held for years by his maternal ancestors found an effective synthesis. Over the years of Hugh’s rule, the power of the march of Tuscia increasingly took shape as intermediary between the Germanic king and local powers: the undermining of the power of the marchio undertaken systematically by Hugh of Arles, the emergence of new comital kinship groups, and the intervention of Otto in favour of episcopal and urban aristocracies greatly modified the configuration of marquisal power. Marquises now became simply representatives of the central power in Tuscany, on a sovereign model, 45 and, when able to exercise power, merely functionaries of the political and judicial coordination of new emerging local powers. To influence effectively the political reality of the march, Hugh sought to restore the autonomous structure of the marchisal f isc through the constitution or the creation of monastic foundations established at or near the main fiscal estates. The two monasteries founded by his mother Willa were fundamental to Hugh’s project, namely S. Ponziano in Lucca and S. Maria of Florence, the first in the traditional capital of the dukes of Tuscia and the second in the city that had seen the Hucpolding presence for over a century. From these, Hugh also consolidated his position in the areas of Lucca, Arezzo, in Valdelsa at Marturi, and in the southern territory of Siena.46 Ottonian policies were congruent with the development of territorial control by Hugh,47 and indeed relied upon him strongly for control of central Italy throughout the most difficult periods for the Saxon dynasty. Three years after the death of Otto II and with his son Otto III still a minor, the empress charged Hugh with the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Camerino, thus returning that compact block of power to him that had belonged to his father for Tuscia and to his grandfather Boniface for Spoleto. Once again, thanks to the Königsnähe with the imperial dynasty, the group obtained the territories of Spoleto and Camerino where they were given total freedom of activity. Not only could Hugh act as a representative of imperial authority, but also absorb imperial judicial and military prerogatives. 48 Finally, with Otto III’s descent to Italy to 996, Hugh lost, perhaps by choice, 49 control of the duchy and more generally suffered a considerably reduced ability to foster his own territorial policies. 45 Keller, ‘La marca di Tuscia’, p. 135. 46 See Chapter 6. 47 Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 31. 48 D’Acunto, ‘Nostrum Italicum regnum’, p. 77. 49 Die Briefe des Petrus, vol. 2, no. 68, p. 293.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

323

After Hugh’s death, the rise to the head of the march of his second cousin, Boniface II, represents the most explicit example of dinastizzazione of public office expressed by the Hucpoldings who, with it, displayed effective hegemony over a great area of the kingdom, with good chances of continued success, both political and military. If, however, in the case of Hugh, his marquisal authority stretched over a large part of Tuscia, sometimes even seeping over its boundaries, in the case of Boniface II his actual power was limited mainly to the areas where the kinship group had consolidated its own allodial possessions over time. This unprecedented separation between office and actual power experienced by Boniface II is ascribable to two factors: the long conflict with the Obertenghi for control of the march in the context of royal struggles between Arduin of Ivrea and Henry II of Saxony, and the monastic policy adopted by his predecessor. All the monasteries with which Hugh established a patrimonial relationship after his death appear to be imperial abbeys. Therefore, in the absence of his cousin’s full authority, Boniface II was never able to access most of the fiscal assets of the march distributed among various monastic patrimonies. The case of the abbey of Marturi is emblematic. Towards this abbey, the marquis even used violence to overcome the monks’ resistance. Considering a more limited territorial affirmation – which extended to western Tuscia between the territories of Pistoia, Florence and Arezzo – a lesser importance can be attributed to the direct intervention of Henry II who, perhaps on the occasion of his first visit to Italy in 1004, did no more than recognize Boniface II’s claims, granting him the official appointment to the marquis title, which however only corresponded nominally to the whole of Tuscany.50 In short, the dynastic acquisition of the marquis title cannot be denied, albeit it lasted for just two generations, and the two successive occasions of their marquisal power equated to two entirely different political and territorial achievements. Mainly in the experience of Boniface II, we find an intensified separation between the presence within the march of the marquis as public official and the simultaneous dynastic consolidation of the group in specific areas of the march. This ambivalence was inherent in all public district holders’ power in the tenth and eleventh centuries51 and materialized, with notable differences, for Hugh and Boniface II. The situation of the latter was also complicated by 50 Nonetheless, imperial support was always essential to obtaining and maintaining governance of the march: Nobili, ‘Le famiglie marchionali’, p. 146. 51 Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 25–30.

324 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the struggle for royal succession and above all by the assertion of so many seigneurial powers – including his rivals the Obertenghi.52 Towards these new forces it had become difficult to sustain the role of intermediary that Hugh had managed to perform for about thirty years. With what was perhaps a violent conclusion to Boniface II’s marchisal experience, the march of Tuscia stopped being such an attractive option for the Hucpolding group. It maintained its presence in that region for many years to come, although limiting it to the areas of seigneurial establishment. Despite this, their tradition of acting as officials of the kingdom and the ambitions of the kinship group did not wane and again over the course of the eleventh century the group obtained the duchy of Spoleto and Camerino with Hugh II, the most eminent member of the group in the middle of the century.53 The marquisate affirmation of Hugh II in Spoleto presents many analogies with the preceding cases of his ancestors Boniface I and Tebaldus. On this occasion too, royal intervention was decisive: the Hucpoldings obtained office in the duchy in the years following the successful Burgundian expedition, in which it is reasonable to imagine that Hugh too took part. It is, however, probable that Hugh held little or no patrimonial base in the march, where documentation left no other tangible trace apart from again the notarial custom of dating private deeds with the ducal years. Divorced from ducal governance in this way, therefore, Hugh’s most noticeable political inclination was that of consolidating direct relationships with imperial power through court visits and participation in military campaigns. Ultimately, the marquisal office opened no new territorial perspectives for Hugh, who continued to manage the kinship’s patrimony in the territories of Emilia – nor did it for any other member of the group. After the death of Hugh II other activities of the Hucpoldings are no longer documented in Spoleto and Camerino. In the Carolingian, post-Carolingian and Ottonian periods, ecclesiastical roles, particularly those of bishops, were considered by the Italian aristocracy to be an important pathway to social and political promotion,54 equal to the route opened by the title of count.55 Some groups emplaced bishops in important sees to compete with other kinship groups,56 thus also 52 See Nobili, ‘Le terre obertenghe’, pp. 221–2. 53 On political events see Chapter 3. 54 On historiographical interpretations of the temporal power of bishops see Sergi, ‘Poteri temporali dei vescovi’. 55 Albertoni, L’Italia carolingia, p. 76. 56 Fumagalli, ‘Il potere civile dei vescovi’, pp. 78–9.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

325

perfecting their hegemonic projects in specific territorial environments. By contrast, the Hucpoldings never assertively introduced themselves into the ecclesiastical hierarchies of the territories where they established their hegemony, preferring instead to seek tangible royal support for their marquisal rank. In just three cases, during the third and fourth generations, members of the kinship group were ordained into ecclesiastic life: two deacons, Peter and Ranieri, and a bishop, Eberhard, in the see of Arezzo. While the deacons’ offices were tightly linked to schemes and behavioural patterns of the groups with which the Hucpoldings were in contact, the appointment of the bishop of Arezzo must have derived mainly from the eminent political position of his father Boniface I and his brother Tebaldus in the Tusco-Spoletan area. As a son of Countess Engelrada and Duke Martin, who was himself nephew of Archbishop John VII of Ravenna, Deacon Peter was one of the wealthiest and most influential figures of the ecclesiastical environment of the exarchate between the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth. At the origin of his probable attempt to acquire the archiepiscopal throne were his position within the church of Ravenna, his immense landed wealth – thanks to direct intervention of his mother to guarantee him full access to most of the group’s exarchal patrimony57 – and the eminence of his father’s group, one of ducal rank and formerly holders of the archiepiscopal see. Having escaped traditional chronotaxis (list of bishops) and being only recorded in a controversial account by Liutprand of Cremona,58 Peter’s project must have failed within the space of a few years at the end of the ninth century, and must have also been affected by the intricate political situation at that time.59 Apart from its actual success or failure, events surrounding the deaconship can be placed right at the centre of the exarchal aristocracies’ political horizon, where the paternal group undoubtedly played an important role. Indeed, Peter detached himself from pathways followed by the rest of the Hucpolding kinship group which, with the exclusion of his own sister’s progeny, no longer took any interest in the majority of Engelrada I’s patrimony. In the following generation, Ranieri, born from the marriage between Countess Engelrada II and Tegrimus of Pistoia, and therefore the nephew of Deacon Peter, was also appointed deacon, although it is unclear to which 57 See Chapter 5. 58 Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, lib. 2, c. 48, p. 55. 59 See Savigni, ‘Giovanni IX da Tossignano’.

326 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

church he belonged, Pistoia or Ravenna.60 The proximity of Ranieri to the ecclesiastical hierarchies of both these cities nonetheless presents interesting prospects for the political conduct and hegemonic construction of both his immediate family and the extended kinship group. In the first case, the deacon’s office within the church of Pistoia would have coincided with the political interests of his paternal ascendancy. His father’s position in the Pistoia area grew a great deal thanks to the direct involvement of King Hugh,61and might therefore give further evidence of his paternal family’s orientation towards the Tuscan area. In the second case, his maternal kinship tradition and large patrimony which Ranieri and Guy still held might have constituted a substantial basis for a fresh attempt at the archiepiscopal throne, with which Deacon Ranieri was in close contact, albeit violently and forcefully. Indeed, both prospects offer convincing solutions, due to the range of possibilities that the marriage between Engelrada II and Tegrimus bequeathed their offspring. Finally, the central theme, which transcends the question of Ranieri’s ecclesiastical position, is that of the ability of a relative to gather the outcomes of their parents’ cross-regional policy which, in all probability, responded to the Hucpoldings’ long-standing desire of hegemonic prominence. Bishop Eberhard, son of Marquis Boniface I, of the same generation of Ranieri and Guy but only active in the second half of the tenth century, is the only known prelate of the whole kinship group.62 He held the office of bishop of Arezzo for about twenty years between the 950s and the 970s, at a time when the group was facing difficulties following the duchy of Spoleto’s loss and Ottonian establishment in Italy. Despite his election being a completely blank slot, his conduct depicts him as a staunch supporter of the new Ottonian power and a firm connecting point between the Hucpolding kinship group and the new ruler. Although Eberhard never appears in relation to the city of Arezzo, as indeed is true for his Hucpolding ancestors before him, control of that large diocese allowed him to directly integrate the group’s entire area of seigneurial influence: from Bologna, where Eberhard himself held a considerable portion of paternal inheritance; to Tuscany, where his sister Willa and nephew Hugh established their power in the 960s to then regain the marchisal office; and lastly, to Romagna where, especially in 60 Biagio Civale is inclined to Pistoia, even if the timing poses some issues: Civale, ‘I conti Guidi’, p. 18. 61 See Chapter 2, pp. 97–98. 62 On Eberhard’s policy, see Chapter 2.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

327

Casentino, Engelrada II’s descendants chose to lay their territorial base following conflicts with the archbishop of Ravenna. Upon his nephew Hugh’s attaining the march, Eberhard came decidedly close to the Tuscan march, inaugurating a policy also followed by his successor Helmempert, another faithful supporter of Marquis Hugh,63 and naturally by Tedald, a significant figure in the prominence of the Canossan kin.64 Obtaining the bishopric in a diocese so central to the political chess board of the kingdom helped to promote the group’s interests at a time of great uncertainty. Although the office was still at that time under the influence of the duchy of Spoleto, Eberhard could reap all the benefits of political value from his position thanks to his close vicinity to the new Emperor Otto I, reviving strategies already enacted by other members of the kinship group: the office attained acquired real political value and thus amplified the effects of the power he already had over the territory, but only where it was part of an active dialogue with royal power.

Dinastizzazione of the Title of comes and the Development of Seigneurial Rule in a Border Region Boniface I’s achievement across the large district of Modena represented a substantial turnaround in Hucpolding development in Italy. For the first time since their forefather Hucpold, in fact, a member of the group was able to officially obtain public functions within a territory where the group already held substantial estates,65 succeeding in increasing them even further thanks to royal beneficia.66 Consolidation of their territorial bases in this new political space motivated Boniface and his descendants to make this border territory crucial to the kingdom’s balance between the powers of the Tuscan Apennines and the exarchate, the centre of their patrimonial power. Although King Hugh of Arles had already taken steps to limit the influence of the Hucpoldings within the district of Modena, favouring instead the affirmation of a number of comital kinship groups – including the Supponids67 – Boniface managed 63 Bougard, ‘I vescovi di Arezzo’, p. 68. 64 Fumagalli, ‘Il potere civile dei vescovi’, p. 78. 65 Beginning in the area of the usual process of dinastizzazione of authority typical of elites seignorial development; see Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 26. 66 See Chapter 6. 67 Between 930s and 940s, Supponid members were appointed both bishop and count of Modena: Bonacini, Terre d’Emilia, pp. 120–3.

328 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

to preserve his power within the dioceses of Bologna. This was traditionally part of the exarchate of Ravenna, which had been included in the Widonids’ establishment.68 It was in the Saltopiano and the ancient Apennine district of Brento where the group concentrated its assets.69 There, the Hucpolding group marshalled their foundations, together with the dynastic transmission of power and social prestige70 which the gaining of office enabled them to acquire and consolidate.71 Despite having been stripped of all public office, Boniface continued to operate within his Bolognese estates using the title of count.72 Formerly acquired by his father Hubald, the title of comes did not fully express the rank and social status reached by the group, which as has already been observed, reacquired the authority of a marchio as soon as political conditions permitted. Nonetheless, in this period, it must have represented the most accessible element of the memory of his personal relationship with the king, emphasizing the acquisition of public powers.73 Possessing the title of count – a title of public origin – in short, corresponded to the desire to develop a specific seigneurial hegemony in the places where the group’s landed wealth was concentrated, in order to complete the process of dinastizzazione.74 The use of the title of count as a claim to seigneurial power as early as the middle of the tenth century may be considered peculiar to the group’s original territory.75 For a long time, Bolognese territory sat at the margins of the kingdom of Italy as part of the exarchate of Ravenna, over which territorial hegemony was contended between the church of Rome and powers of Ravenna. In this fragmented institutional context, gaining the recognized title of count and dinastizzarlo must have been easier since 68 A border region between the Italian kingdom and the Ravennate church’s territory, see Lazzari, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche’, pp. 380–6. 69 See Chapter 6. 70 Lazzari, ‘ Circoscrizioni pubbliche’, p. 395. 71 Lazzari, Comitato, p. 63. 72 Tiraboschi, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro, vol. 2, no. 86: in 936 Boniface is told ‘comes filius bone memorie domni Ubaldi comitis’ (count son of the good lord and count Hubald). 73 Reaching about f ifty years earlier the process as described in Sergi, I confini del potere, pp. 381–2. On memories of relations with the kingdom as a founding behaviour of medieval elites, see Provero, ‘Apparato funzionariale’, p. 232. 74 Different ways of dinastizzazione are described in Provero, L’Italia dei poteri locali, pp. 30–8. 75 In the Hucpolding case, the dinastizzazione of the public title appears completed roughly fifty years earlier compared with other groups in Northern Italy: Lazzari, ‘Società cittadina e rappresentanza cetuale’, p. 77, n. 28; for an interesting comparison with Southern elites, see Loré, ‘L’aristocrazia salernitana’.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

329

the kingdom intervened only marginally in the region. Furthermore, close relationships with Archbishop Peter of Ravenna, who throughout his lengthy pontificate strengthened his power in a territorial sense,76 supplied further legitimization for the group. The group could also benefit from relevant emphyteutic contracts from their immense Ravennate landed wealth, thus becoming economically, militarily and politically hegemonic in the territory of Bologna in the second half of the tenth century.77 Finally, the foundation of the monastery of Musiano constituted a conclusive step in crystallizing the Hucpolding hegemony, so as to better organize the territory controlled by the group and expand their influence over the people who resided there.78 Seigneurial power attained by the Hucpoldings in Bologna was supported by a firm patrimonial base as well as active mechanisms for controlling the territory, which cannot however be appreciated with explicit clarity until the end of the twelfth century. Valuable indicators are the relationships of patronage reported in patrimonial documentation, the existence of notaries and tabelliones who were directly linked to members of the group, and finally the solid relationship with the pievi located across the Bolognese hills.79 Administration of justice is not reported clearly until the second half of the twelfth century, with specific, precise reference to the castle of Pianoro et eius castellantia.80 Looking beyond the scant actual contents, the most significant detail of seigneurial consolidation activated by the lineage was without doubt the early achievement and uninterrupted possession of the title of comes. This was the concrete memory of official tradition in public structures of the kingdom and therefore represented the main form of legitimization. In Bologna it was further reinforced by the emphyteutic connection with the archbishop of Ravenna, the most powerful territorial lord of the region. From the middle of the tenth century and then for the whole of the eleventh, the title of count was used in a dynastic sense indistinctly on all levels of the 76 See Savigni, ‘I papi e Ravenna’, pp. 357–8. 77 This broad hegemony over the Bolognese territory, however, cannot be interpreted as the acquisition of the comitatus of Bologna, which until the communal period never existed as an administrative unit: Lazzari, Comitato, pp. 183–5. 78 On churches as instruments of political power and social hegemony, see Tabacco, Struggle for Power, pp. 206–18; Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 391. 79 See Chapter 6. 80 As reported the convenientia act of 1176: Petracchi, Della insigne abbaziale basilica di S. Stefano, pp. 99–100. On the relevance of the judicial engagement in lordship hegemony, see Provero, L’Italia dei poteri locali, pp. 136–8.

330 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

kinship for males and for females, so as to become devoid of any significance on a public level, but a true element of social recognition common to all individuals of the group in the area of Bologna and in all Romagna. Most of the people in prominent positions of the exarchal aristocracy who, from the middle of the tenth century, showed the title of count of Carolingian origin, can actually be traced to have married with women of the Hucpolding group or those very close to it.81 The rapid and deliberate process of acquiring and dinastizzazione of the title of count outlined thus far was never questioned by royal authority, not even when, along with the German dynasties, it renewed its interest in the exarchal region. Despite supporting the authority of the archbishops of Ravenna, the emperors never hindered Hucpolding hegemony, provided that it complied with the superior authority of the prelate as in the clear case of the territory of Faenza. Over the course of the eleventh century, the relationship with the bishop of Bologna also acquired a different nuance, as on the occasion of a placitum concerning a number of Bolognese citizens; not only did the Hucpoldings play a leading role in judicial procedures, but they also acted as direct emissaries of archiepiscopal and imperial authority. Clearly, there had been times – such as in this case – when they could ‘activate’ their comes title in an official perspective, thus drawing on the kinship group’s strong tradition as officials of the kingdom.82 A feature of the way that the Hucpolding kinship group passed on the title of count dynastically is the enduring lack of characterization of the title of count, which was only formalized for one branch of the group and only with reference to the castle of Panico over the course of the twelfth century.83 Even with seigneurial empowerment already widely secured, the Hucpoldings did not resort to any specif ic toponymic reference to castles or other places owned by them. Both lordship hegemony and kinship recognition were sufficiently assured by the title of count alone, which also permitted the group to maintain widespread and interchangeable cognatic relationships, avoiding the concentration of most of the power in the agnatic succession in a single couple. In the case of one of the lineage’s branches that established itself in the western Bolognese Apennines it was the title of count itself that characterized the name of the castle of residence becoming a part of the toponym, crystallizing in the form of Casalecchio dei Conti. 81 See Chapter 3. 82 The role played by the counts Hugh and Hubald in the placitum is in all likelihood related to the status of pre-eminent vassals of the archbishop of Ravenna; see Chapter 3, pp. 130–33. 83 On seignorial family names, see Sergi, I confini del potere, p. 237.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

331

Bibliography Printed Primary Sources Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. by Kurt Reindel, vol. 2, MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 4.2 (München: MGH, 1988). Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, in Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia, ed. by Paolo Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum continuatio mediaevalis 156 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 1–150.

Secondary Sources Albertoni, Giuseppe, L’Italia carolingia (Roma: NIS, 1997). Bonacini, Pierpaolo, Terre d’Emilia: distretti pubblici comunità locali e poteri signorili nell’esperienza di una regione italiana (secoli VIII–XII) (Bologna: CLUEB, 2001). Bougard, François, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 42 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1993), pp. 668–76. –––, ‘La cour et le gouvernement de Louis II, 840–875’, in La royauté et les élites dans l’Europe carolingienne (début IXe siècle aux environs de 920), ed. by Règine Le Jan (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Centre d’histoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest, 1998), pp. 249–67. –––, ‘Les Supponides: echec à la reine’, in Les élites au haut Moyen Âge: crises et renouvellements, ed. by François Bougard, Laurent Feller and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), pp. 381–402. –––, ‘Ludovico II, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 66 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2007), pp. 387–94. –––, ‘I vescovi di Arezzo nei secoli IX–XI: tra le responsabilità locali e i destini “nazionali”’, in Arezzo nel Medioevo, ed. by Giovanni Cherubini (Roma: L’Erma Di Bretschneider, 2012), pp. 63–71. Cammarosano, Paolo, Nobili e re: l’Italia politica dell’alto medioevo (Roma: Laterza, 2009). Civale, Biagio, ‘I conti Guidi tra Tuscia e Romagna nei secoli IX–X’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 114 (2012), pp. 7–40. Collavini, Simone M., ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale delle élites laiche intermedie (Italia centrale, secolo VIII–X)’, in Les élites et leur espaces: mobilitè, rayonnement, domination (du VIe au XIe siècle), ed. by Philippe Depreux, François Bougard and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 319–40. Costambeys, Marios, Matthew Innes and Simon Maclean, The Carolingian World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

332 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

D’Acunto, Nicolangelo, Nostrum Italicum regnum. Aspetti della politica italiana di Ottone III (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 2002). Delumeau, Jean-Pierre, ‘Dal conte Suppone il Nero ai marchesi di Monte Santa Maria’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996), pp. 265–86. Di Carpegna Falconieri, Tommaso, ‘Guido, conte marchese di Camerino, duca marchese di Spoleto, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 61 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2004), pp. 354–61. Ferreri, Debora and Enrico Cirelli, ‘Le trasformazioni della vallata del Lamone e dei passi Appenninici tra Esarcato e Regno d’ltalia nel Medioevo (Vl–Xll secolo)’, in Memorie dell’assistenza: istituzioni e fonti ospedaliere in Italia e in Europa (secoli XIII–XVI), ed. by Salvatore Marino and Gemma Teresa Colasanti (Ospedaletto, Pisa: Pacini, 2019), pp. 101–18. Fasoli, Gina, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi di Ravenna fra l’VIII e l’XI secolo’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 87–140. Fumagalli, Vito, Terra e società nell’Italia padana: i secoli IX e X (Torino: Einaudi, 1976). –––, ‘Il potere civile dei vescovi italiani al tempo di Ottone I’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 77–86. Keller, Hagen, ‘La marca di Tuscia f ino all’anno Mille’, in Atti del 5º Congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto medioevo (Lucca, 3–7 ottobre 1971) (Spoleto: CISAM, 1973), pp. 117–40. Lazzari, Tiziana, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche e aree di affermazione signorile: il territorio bolognese fra VIII e XI secolo’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 379–400. –––, ‘Società cittadina e rappresentanza cetuale a Bologna (secoli X–XII)’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 106.2 (2004), pp. 71–105. Loré, Vito, ‘L’aristocrazia salernitana nell’XI secolo’, in Salerno nel XII secolo: istituzioni, società e cultura; atti del congresso internazionale (Raito di Vietri sul mare, 16–20 giugno 1999), ed. by Paolo Delogu and Paolo Peduto (Salerno: Incisivo, 2004), pp. 61–102. Manarini, Edoardo, ‘A Marriage, a Battle, an Honor: The Career of Boniface of the Hucpoldings during Rudolf II’s Italian Reign, 924–26’, Early Medieval Europe 28.2 (2020), pp. 289–309.

Features and Pr ac tices of Power: From Officials to Lords

333

Nobili, Mario, ‘Alcune considerazioni circa l’estensione, la distribuzione territoriale e il significato del patrimonio degli Obertenghi (metà secolo X–inizio secolo XII)’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 255–66. –––, ‘Le famiglie marchionali nella Tuscia’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 125–50. –––, ‘Le terre obertenghe delle contee di Pisa, Lucca e Volterra’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 215–28. Petracchi, Celestino, Della insigne abbaziale basilica di S. Stefano (Bologna: Guidotti e Mellini, 1747). Provero, Luigi, ‘Il sistema di potere carolingio e la sua rielaborazione nei comitati di Parma e Piacenza’, in Studi sull’Emilia occidentale nel Medioevo: società e istituzioni, ed. by Roberto Greci (Bologna: CLUEB, 2001), pp. 43–64. –––, ‘Apparato funzionariale e reti vassallatiche nel Regno Italico (secoli X–XII)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 175–232. –––, ‘Terre e case dell’aristocrazia: distribuzione sul territorio e usi sociali (secoli VIII–XI)’, in Città e campagna nei secoli altomedievali, vol. 2 (Spoleto: CISAM, 2009), pp. 843–62. –––, L’Italia dei poteri locali: secoli X–XII (Roma: Carocci, 2011). Puglia, Andrea, La marca di Tuscia tra X e XI secolo: impero e società locale e amministrazione marchionale negli anni 970–1027 (Pisa: Il campano, 2004). Savigni, Raffaele, ‘I papi e Ravenna: dalla caduta dell’esarcato alla fine del secolo X’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 331–68. –––, ‘Giovanni IX da Tossignano, arcivescovo di Ravenna (papa Giovanni X) e i suoi rapporti con la corte ducale spoletana’, in Ravenna e Spoleto: i rapporti tra due metropoli; atti del XXVIII convegno del Centro Studi e Ricerche Antica Provincia Ecclesiastica Ravennate (Spoleto, 22–24 settembre 2005), ed. by Maurizio Tagliaferri (Imola: BUP, 2007), pp. 215–46. Sergi, Giuseppe, I confini del potere: marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Torino: Einaudi, 1995). –––, ‘Poteri temporali dei vescovi: il problema storiograf ico’, in Vescovo e città nell’alto Medioevo: quadri generali e realtà toscane (Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Pistoia 16–17 maggio 1998), ed. by Giampaolo Francesconi (Pistoia: Centro italiano di studi di storia e d’arte, 2001), pp. 1–16. Settia, Aldo A. ‘“Nuove marche” nell’Italia occidentale: necessità difensive e distrettuazione pubblica fra IX e X secolo; una rilettura’, in La contessa Adelaide e la società del secolo XI: atti del Convegno (Susa, 14–16 novembre 1991), Segusium 32 (1992), pp. 43–60.

334 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Tabacco, Giovanni, Struggle for Power, trans. by Rosalind Brown Jensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro di Nonantola, vol. 2 (Modena: Società tipografica di Modena, 1785). Werner, Karl Ferdinand, ‘“Missus-Marchio-Comes”: entre l’administration centrale et l’administration locale de l’Empire carolingien’, in Karl Ferdinand Werner, Vom Frankenreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs: Ursprünge, Strukturen, Beziehungen; ausgewählte Beiträge; Festgabe zu seinem 60 Geburtstag (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1984), pp. 108–56.

9. Discontinuity between Public Powers and Private Seigneurial Rule Abstract The conclusion summarizes the key features of the Hucpoldings as a wide kinship group. Beyond assessing once more the legitimacy of such prosopographic effort by placing this research in the proper historiographical context, it underlines that the specific attention given to the women of the kindred and to their cognatic ties allows us to draw a varied and striking picture of the Hucpoldings, and in general of early medieval elites kinship groups, compared with previous studies. Keywords: kinship; Hucpoldings; seigneurial rule; consciousness; aristocracy; family

In conclusion, we can affirm that the Hucpoldings were one of the principal kinship groups of marchisal rank of the Carolingian and post-Carolingian kingdom of Italy. The overall investigation dedicated to them has enabled a reconstruction of important elements of the political history of the kingdom and particularly of the history of aristocratic power development. Of all these groups, the Hucpoldings set themselves apart in at least three particular aspects: primarily, the exceptional biological longevity, which developed in a dimension of assiduous political relevance characterizes them amid the few lineages of marquis rank that are traceable with continuity from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. Second, the dynastic transmission of the official title emerged quite early in the Italian landscape, even though it was the title of count that was associated with the kindred, not the public function of a marquis actually performed. Finally, seignorial development was always sought outside the areas of official control, thus displaying an unusual and particular feature in contrast to the standard model for Italian aristocracies. Their marked aptitude for official roles, but mainly oriented towards the kingdom’s marches, was in fact always pursued by a number of individuals

Manarini, E., Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy: The Hucpoldings, c.850–c.1100. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi 10.5117/9789463725828_ch09

336 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

in the group even to the disadvantage of their own dynastic interests. Lordship, in contrast, was developed exclusively in the patrimonial areas which, in a single brief case, was matched with the territorial environs of the group’s exercise of public power. For the Hucpoldings we cannot therefore observe that ambivalence between official function and seigneurial vocation central to the transformation of most of the post-Carolingian aristocracies in seigneurial dynasties. Indeed, it was such a clear demarcation between official roles and the interests of seigneurial development and the uncommon behaviour in dynastic transmission of the public title that led to a considerable consciousness of kinship rank (Wir-Gefühl) and a strong impulse for service to the kingdom. The primary objective has been to consider these individual elements as a whole and to build a suitable interpretative model to permit us to rethink and re-elaborate the cognitive architecture of these social groups. This way it has been possible to overcome the standard concept of family history and introduce a more serviceable instrument and groundwork for successive research. The key feature of this new approach is to attribute primary importance to the female component of the kinship and to horizontal cognatic lines within the group, thus placing agnatic relations and hereditary succession of assets in the background. This approach is shared with other historians of kinship groups in late- and post-Carolinginan Europe such as Patrick Geary, Tiziana Lazzari, Jonathan Lyon, David Crouch and Amy Livingstone.1 It has allowed this study to overcome the criticisms raised by Constance Bouchard and Hans Hummer regarding the concept of extended and horizontal kinship and the heuristic possibilities of the prosopographic research.2 Although their criticisms are methodologically accurate when dealing with the traditional concepts of family and kinship, which until the last decades of the last century were wrongly applied tout court to early medieval kinship groups, the solutions they offered end up falling into the same mistakes they pointed out, precisely because of the persistent lack of women in their reconstructions. Emblematic, in this sense, is the reasoning of Bouchard who cites precisely the case of the Hucpoldings in order to corroborate her thesis that early medieval aristocratic relationships needed to be already structured in a purely agnatic form ab origine.3 But Bouchard’s theory could only operate were she to call the Hucpoldings 1 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance; Lazzari, ‘Una mamma carolingia’; Lyon, Cooperation; Crouch, Birth of Nobility; Livingstone, Out of Love for My Kin. 2 Bouchard, Those of My Blood; Hummer, Visions of Kingship. 3 See Bouchard, Those of My Blood, pp. 13–38.

Discontinuit y be t ween Public Powers and Private Seigneurial Rule

337

‘counts of Bologna’, thus echoing the rigid agnatic reconstruction of Cinzio Violante. 4 If we overcome the misleading orientation of our sources, eminently of patrimonial and ecclesiastical nature, it can be realized that the structure of the early medieval kinship was certainly not that of the patrilineal lineage, which in reality was established much later. The early medieval kinship structure is very difficult to describe through modern concepts precisely because it is elusive in our sources.5 From what we can identify, the kinship had the features of an enlarged group of individuals of both sexes, characterized by broad horizontal cognatic ties and by a strong internal cohesion. The attempts to apply concepts of the family led by the source material itself rather than a teleological approach which endeavours to fit the evidence into a pre-conceived straitjacket is more satisfactory in methodological terms. Our analysis of the Hucpoldings has shown that kinship in these centuries existed in a vital, yet different form than today. The thematic analysis proposed in the third section has the precise aim of better understanding what we can hardly know from our sources, that is, how early medieval elites thought of themselves as wide and horizontal kin. Thanks to this study, we have obtained a framework of specific characteristics of the kinship group and we have checked how these influenced and directed their development over the entire time span from their arrival in Italy up to the settlements of the descending family branches. It is now possible to draw up a final evaluation, taking into consideration the results of the first two parts and of the transformation of kinship cohesion considered earlier. The starting point was the genealogical reconstruction and the reconstruction of political events involving the Hucpoldings upon their arrival in Italy and up until the beginning of the twelfth century when successive family branches had become distinctly separate from one another. Over the span of around three centuries, thirteen generations have been identified, giving a total of almost a hundred individuals. For the first seven generations, the structure of the kinship group was characterized by a substantial cognatic dimension following the horizontal solidarities of the Germanic Sippen and Frankish kinship groups. In short, with Hucpold’s arrival in Italy, a triggering can be noted of the process of the re-creation of wide kinship connections of the Frankish groups on Italian soil: whereas it was inevitable that at the beginning the structure should have a patrilinear character, 4 Bouchard, Those of My Blood, pp. 7–8. 5 See Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’, Lazzari, ‘Gli spazi delle famiglie’.

338 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

the lines would shortly widen horizontally, growing considerably until the beginning of the eleventh century. In this way, in barely four generations from the arrival of their forefathers, the number of members placed on the same horizontal line had reached at least nine. These wide kinship ties were reflected in the strong super-regionality of the group, actuated by all these individuals with no regard for gender. For the whole of this initial period, kinship peculiarities were based above all on the elements that we might describe as original, such as the Leitname and the profession of lex Ripuaria: the Germanic system of transmission of the Leitname Hucpold/Hubald was, over the course of time, re-elaborated for programmatic political events. Thanks to the central role played by the female component, this led to a specific onomastic stock of typical instances of kinship memory and self-consciousness. From the middle of the tenth century onwards, even the particular lex Ripuaria profession took on a specific definition that the group exploited to differentiate itself, not only from the customs of the local population but also from the same juridical rituals of most of the other Franks of the Salic natio. The evolution of the group towards strictly vertical forms of kinship occurred in the second half of the eleventh century, when the lines of descendants split distinctly into three main lineages, epigones of the counts of Panico, the Adimari and the counts of Casalecchio. In the areas of concrete territorial foundations, the role played by the monastic element was of great importance, essential to the rapid development of seigneurial prerogatives. Although the numerous monastic institutions donated and instituted in Tuscia and in the Bologna area acquired a good portion of the real patrimony, they projected onto local society the symbolic component of Hucpolding power that are the kinship memory and its social pre-eminence. Dealing with the prosopographic reconstruction, particular attention has been paid to relationship networks, to the female component and with verification of cognatic relationships kept active more than any other of those between the Bologna branch and the Guidi lineage. This has enabled a positive complexity of kinship genealogy, in contrast to the limited vision of earlier historiography. A wide overall picture of matrimonial relationships has helped the reconstruction of Hucpolding involvement in the political events of the kingdom, particularly from the middle of the ninth century to the beginning of the eleventh, when different members of the group held positions of absolute importance. From their very f irst moments on the peninsula, a unique military commitment and tight relationships of Königsnähe enabled the group to consolidate their tradition of office amid the lines of aristocracy of the

Discontinuit y be t ween Public Powers and Private Seigneurial Rule

339

marquis rank within the kingdom. With the third generation, Boniface was the first to hold the title of marchio, associated in all probability with the new public district in Emilian territory. The plot against Hugh of Arles led to Boniface I attaining the marquis role once again, this time over the duchy of Spoleto and Camerino. Later, his grandson, Hugh II, became marquis of Tuscia during the final years of the kingdom of Otto I. After Hugh’s death, Boniface II succeeded him in the only case of dynastic transmission of the official charge ever attained by the group. The last marquisate achievement was that of Hugh II who, in the 1030s, obtained the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Camerino again with the emperor’s decisive involvement. Although control of the districts of Tuscia and Spoleto had lasted a relatively long time, and a son of Boniface I had reached the episcopal seat of Arezzo, the kinship group was unable to create sufficient patrimonial foundations to anchor its lineage in any of those wide territorial environs. The development of seigneurial presence and early, generic use of the title of count came about, on the contrary, in those areas of the Bolognese territory included within the iudiciaria Mutinensis and controlled for a short period at the beginning of the tenth century. It was precisely in this territory where a good part of group’s possessions were concentrated, held as allodia or in beneficium. Unusually, the public title transmitted dynastically was that of count, even though it had never been held via public office by any member of the group, particularly in a territory such as Bologna that had never been organized in a countship in the early Middle Ages. A likely explanation for this incongruence might be found in the group’s exceptionally early incorporation of their public titles within their symbolic patrimony, already in the second half of the tenth century when royal authority was clearly still able to control the attempts at autonomous use of such prestigious public offices such as the marchio. The territory where the Hucpoldings built their lordship was also significant: for a long time, the Bologna area remained on the margins of the kingdom of Italy as it was included in the exarchate of Ravenna where the archiepiscopal church based its social hegemony eminently on land dominion. In this fluid institutional situation, it must have been easier to seize and maintain the publically derived title of count, where the kingdom had limited control. In contrast to aristocracies that still looked to Ravenna and to Byzantine honorific titles, in the tenth century the Hucpoldings were the only ones to display the comital title, spreading it to the groups in Romagna who had relationships with them. Furthermore, the relationship of vassalage started with the archbishop of Ravenna, funded to accentuate

340 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

kinship’s pre-eminence in that region and strengthened more effectively by the foundation of the monastery of Musiano in 981. The considerable presence of estates achieved in the Bologna area was rapidly organized into seigneurial domains based on fortified centres of power and a wide-reaching patronage, while for the urban environment neither interests nor interventions were ever certified. On the plain, the Hucpoldings connected to pre-eminent people and families of local society through emphyteosis or vassalage. The Bologna Apennine sector was the main area of their seigneurial development. The power system was built by the foundation of an Eigenklöster, the possession or the construction of a good number of fortified centres and widespread vassalage. The sources in our possession do not allow us, however, to clearly outline the judicial dimension, without doubt among the main characteristics of medieval seigneurial domain. Placitum rights and revenues from the administration of justice are in fact only named explicitly in the middle of the twelfth century, by which time the proportion of territory controlled by the kinship’s branches had already suffered a considerable reduction in size. The impression is therefore that of a rare propensity to create a coherent and compact system of power affecting every aspect of the life of people residing in the different areas of their hegemony. In the specific environment of Bologna, there were enough political and social prerogatives at the disposal of the Hucpoldings to support their memory and their great landed wealth. In this way, they made the best use of exarchal and Carolingian models, and worked to ensure their remarkable persistence across many centuries.

Bibliography Secondary Sources Bouchard, Constance B., ‘Those of My Blood’: Constructing Noble Family in Medieval Francia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Crouch, David Bruce, The Birth of Nobility: Continuity and Aristocracy in England and France 900–1300 (London: Routledge: 2005). Geary, Patrick, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Hummer, Hans Josef, Visions of Kingship in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Lazzari, Tiziana, ‘Una mamma carolingia e una moglie supponide: percorsi femminili di legittimazione e potere nel regno italico’, in ‘C’era una volta un re …’:

Discontinuit y be t ween Public Powers and Private Seigneurial Rule

341

aspetti e momenti della regalità: da un seminario del dottorato in Storia medievale (Bologna, 17–18 dicembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Isabella (Bologna: CLUEB, 2005), pp. 41–57. –––, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami di parentela e il ruolo delle donne nell’alta aristocrazia del regno italico (secc. IX–X): l’esempio di Berta di Toscana’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 129–49. –––, ‘Gli spazi delle famiglie fra dimensione privata e rappresentazione pubblica’, in Spazio pubblico e spazio privato tra storia e archeologia (secoli VI–XI), ed. by Giovanna Bianchi, Cristina La Rocca and Tiziana Lazzari (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), pp. 213–31. Livingstone, Amy, Out of Love for My Kin: Aristocratic Family Life in the Lands of the Loire, 1000–1200 (Ithaca: Cornwell University Press, 2010). Lyon, Jonathan Reed, Cooperation, Compromise and Conflict Avoidance: Family Relationships in the House of Andechs, ca. 1100–1204 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2005).



Genealogical Tables A Graphic Representation of Kinship

Portraying the structure and every individual of the kinship group in a consistent graphic representation is necessary when investigating an early medieval kinship. It’s importance goes beyond that of a simple genealogical compilation to support the analysis of sources. The representation of each generation of the group can become a real ‘text’ made up of names, relations and titles: 1 a ‘text’ that collects many of the characteristics of a group of individuals and that becomes appreciable thanks to the overall vision obtained only when drawing up the same scheme. All the studies that previously dealt with the Hucpoldings show trees and diagrams more or less organized and reliable, whose main purpose is to reconstruct the succession of generations only in regard to the alleged comital authority over Bologna.2 This interpretation results in a representation that mainly favours the vertical line of father-son connections. This is further emphasized by the limited space-time depth of that approach. Following this perspective, both cognatic ties and the female component remains obscure, indeed it is completely neglected.3 The following tables instead consider and add to each generation of the group the individuals that were linked to them through marriages. Broad horizontal relationships and the primary role played by women as kinship connections thus become immediately visible elements in the tables and find effective correspondence in the social configuration of the Frankish aristocratic Sippen. As long as they deal with extended kinship and cognatic ties (Tables G1–G5), the schemes portray many of the elite kinship groups active in Italy between the ninth and eleventh centuries. The aim, however, is not to prepare a ‘complete’ genealogical scheme of the Hucpoldings and each of the individuals connected with them over four centuries, but preserve the intelligibility of the representation. Instead, the tables here delineate the main parental, and therefore political and patrimonial, bonds initiated by the various members of the kinship group through time. 1 On the concept of ‘onomastic text’ see Nobili, ‘Formarsi e definirsi dei nomi di famiglia’, p. 270. 2 The most reliable genealogical table, although drawn following the agnatic perspective, is in Violante, ‘Alcune caratteristiche’, p. 81; see also Rinaldi, ‘Le origini dei Guidi’, table 4. 3 A f irst attempt to draw genealogical tree following a cognatic perspective is in Lazzari, Comitato, p. 79.

344 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

To facilitate the understanding of the patterns, originally a different color has been assigned to each kinship group, which, when applied to the lines of affiliation, indicate the links of men and women to each kinship. Each individual is consequently represented by the combination of the colors of the two kin of origin: for the female one is shown in the frame of the shape containing their name, while for the male the background of the shape itself is coloured. It should be noted that for printing reasons the original colours of the following tables have been converted to grayscale; in any case, the principle proposed is still appreciable. 4 In the majority of cases, the two colors corresponding to the two most significant ancestry have been used, since they immediately identify the political and patrimonial actions of each individual. Only on two occasions, in Tables G3 and G4, have all four colors of paternal and maternal ancestry been adopted, with the intention of displaying the relevance obtained by birth by the individuals in question: Marquis Hugh I of Tuscia, who was through his parents both a Bosonid and a Hucpolding, could claim Adalberting and even Carolingian blood, and Almericus II dux et marchio, descendant of the Wibodings, Didonids, Adalbertings and Hucpoldings. The relationship between shape and frame – therefore the association of colors – is not univocal, but rather gives ample choice to the editor of the scheme, who can in this way model the representation of kinships to the ability to establish relationships of early medieval elites. This system of representation was proposed for the first time by Tiziana Lazzari at the conference Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche di rappresentazione nell’alto medioevo europeo, for the case of Bertha of Tuscia: it is precisely the marriage ties of the woman and the choices adopted towards the various descendants that allowed an understanding and a demonstration of the relationship mechanisms underlying these social interactions.5 The method was then applied with remarkable heuristic results to all the Italian elites of the tenth century by Giacomo Vignodelli in his study of the Perpendiculum of Atto bishop of Vercelli.6 Finally, the system of representation was formalized with precise guidelines by Lazzari when coordinating the study of the heritage of the queens of the Italian kingdom, applying this system to a historiographical theme traditionally anchored to the verticality of the agnatic relationships, like the succession of royal office. It has demonstrated 4 A colorful edition of the following tables is available in Manarini, ‘Marriage, a Battle’, and Manarini, I due volti, pp. 324–8. 5 Lazzari, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami’, p. 136. 6 Vignodelli, Il filo a piombo, pp. 290–7.

Genealogical Tables

345

its usefulness in revealing the importance of horizontal solidarity and the logic of the different legitimation paths undertaken by the various pretenders to the throne.7 The most immediate and evident result has been to enable the inclusion in a single genealogical table of all the kings and queens to succeed to the control of the Italian kingdom over the course of a century.8

Bibliography Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). Lazzari, Tiziana, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami di parentela e il ruolo delle donne nell’alta aristocrazia del regno italico (secc. IX–X): l’esempio di Berta di Toscana’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 129–49. –––, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 123–39. Manarini, Edoardo, I due volti del potere: una parentela atipica di ufficiali e signori del regno italico (Milano: Ledizioni, 2016). –––, ‘A Marriage, a Battle, an Honor: The Career of Boniface of the Hucpoldings during Rudolf II’s Italian Reign, 924–26’, Early Medieval Europe 28.2 (2020), pp. 289–309. Nobili, Mario, ‘Formarsi e definirsi dei nomi di famiglia nelle stirpi marchionali dell’Italia centro-settentrionale: il caso degli Obertenghi’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 267–90. Rinaldi, Rossella, ‘Le origini dei Guidi nelle terre di Romagna (secoli IX–X)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996), pp. 211–40. Vignodelli, Giacomo, Il filo a piombo: il Perpendiculum di Attone di Vercelli e la storia politica del regno italico (Spoleto: CISAM, 2012). Violante, Cinzio, ‘Alcune caratteristiche delle strutture familiari in Lombardia, Emilia e Toscana durante i secoli IX–XII’, in Famiglia e parentela nell’Italia medievale, ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1977), pp. 19–82. 7 Lazzari, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’, pp. 127–9. 8 Lazzari, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’, p. 128. This system of representation has been also employed in Lazzari, ed., Figli delle donne.

Table G1.  The Hucpoldings and the elites of the kingdom of Italy (c.850–c.930)

346  Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Table G2.  Boniface I’s descendants (c.900–c.1050)

Genealogical Tables

347

348 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Table G3. Kinship ties among the marquises of Tuscia (c.950–c.1050): Hucpolding women and the legitimation of the Adalbertings

Genealogical Tables

Table G4.  Marquis Almericus II’s ancestry (c.850–c.950)

349

Table G5.  Kinship ties in Romagna (c.900–c.1050)

350  Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Iuli�a

comes

Hubald

Hugh

?

Hugh

Counts of Panico Counts of Casalecchio

X

comes

comes (1132)

comes

Walfredo

comes (1139)

comes

Henry

comes

Hubert

Ma�lda comtissa (1074)

Albert

comes (1119)

(c.1050)

Frederone

X

Hugh

(1074)

comtissa

(1074)

Adelaide

Adalbert

comes

Beatrice

(1052)

Ma�lda

comes (1030)

Guidi

Hugh

Albert

Boniface

Guy comes

Hubald

VII

Albert

?

Mansilda

Hugh comes, dux et marchio (1030-1054)

Willa

comtissa (1066)

Hucpoldings

Table G6.  Hucpolding lineages in the Bolognese (c.1030–c.1130)

(1116)

Ma�lda

Witernus

Carbonesi Milo

IX Bertha

(1068)

Imelda

comes (1102-1106) (1068-1116)

comes (1068-1099)

Albert

VIII

Genealogical Tables

351

Table G7.  The descendants of Count Adimarus (c.990–c.1130)

352  Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Bibliography Archival Primary Sources Bologna, ASBo, Demaniale, S. Stefano. Bologna, ASBo, Demaniale, Servi di Maria. Ferrara, ACAFe, Monastero di S. Guglielmo, Perg., ser. A, no. 1. Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Ospedale degli Innocenti. Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Luco del Mugello (S. Pietro). Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, S. Maria di Vallombrosa. Firenze, ASFi, Diplomatico, Santa Trinità. Firenze, ASFi, Manoscritti, 48 bis. Nonantola, AAN, Pergamene. Padova, Biblioteca Universitaria di Padova, Manoscritti, 1607. Paris, BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latines, 2573.

Printed Primary Sources Andreas Danduli, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. by Ester Pastorello, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, n. ed., vol. 12.1 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1942), pp. 1–327. Annales Bertiniani, ed. by Georg Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 5 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1883). Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Anselmo Costadoni, 9 vols. (Venezia: Pasquali, 1984–85). Annales Quedlinburgensis, ed. by Georg H. Pertz, MGH Scriptores 3 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1838), pp. 22–90. Annales Xantenses et Annales Vedastini, ed. by Bernhard E. Simson, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 12 (Hannover Lipsia: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, by Ludovico A. Muratori, 6 vols. (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1738–42). Benedetto di S. Andrea, Chronicon, ed. by Giuseppe Zucchetti, in Il Chronicon di Benedetto, monaco di S. Andrea del Soratte e il ‘Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma’ (Roma: ISIME, 1920), pp. 3–187. Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis (Codice Bavaro) secoli VII–X, ed. by Giuseppe Rabotti (Roma: ISIME, 1985). Canonica di S. Zenone: secolo XI, ed. by Natale Rauty (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1995).

354 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Capitularia regum Francorum, vol. 2, ed. by Alfred Boretius and Victor Krause, MGH Leges (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897). Carte dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Pisa: Fondo Arcivescovile, vol. 1: 720–1200, ed. by Antonella Ghignoli (Pisa: Pacini, 2006). Carte dell’Archivio capitolare di Pisa, vol. 4: 1101–1120, ed. by Matilde Tirelli Carli (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1969). Carte della Badia di Marturi nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (970–1199), ed. by Luciana Cambi Schmitter (Firenze: Polistampa, 2009). Carte di Fonte Avellana, vol. 1: 975–1139, ed. by Celestino Pierucci and Alberto Polverari (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1972). Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, vol. 54, Italy XXVI, Ravenna I, ed. by Giuseppe Rabotti and Francesca Santoni (Zurich: Graf, 2000). Chronica monasterii Casinensis, ed. by Hartmut Hoffmann, MGH Scriptores 34 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1980). Codex diplomaticus Amiatinus: Urkundenbuch der Abtei S. Salvatore am Montamiata; von den Anfängen bis zum Regierungsantritt Papst Innozenz III (736–1198), vol. 3.2, ed. by Wilhelm Kurze and Maria Giovanna Arcamone (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1998). Codice diplomatico della chiesa bolognese: documenti autentici e spuri (secoli IV–XII), ed. by Mario Fanti and Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: ISIME, 2004). Codice diplomatico polironiano, ed. by Rossella Rinaldi, Carla Villani and Paolo Golinelli, vol. 1: 961–1125 (Bologna: Patron, 1993). Conradi I, Heinrici I et Ottonis I diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1984–85). Conradi II diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1909). Cronica di Giovanni Villani: a miglior lezione ridotta coll’aiuto de’ testi a penna, vol. 1, ed. by Ignazio Moutier and Pietro Massai (Firenze: Moutier, 1823). Das Regnum Italiae in der Zeit der Thronkämpfe und Reichsteilungen 888 (850)–926, ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.2 (Köln: Böhlau, 1998). Das Regnum Italiae vom Regierungsantritt Hugos von Vienne bis zur Kaiserkrönung Ottos des Großen (926–962), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.3 (Köln: Böhlau, 2006). Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. by Kurt Reindel, vol. 2, MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 4.2 (München: MGH, 1988). Die Karolingier im Regnum Italie 840–887 (888), ed. by Herbert Zielinski, in Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918 (926/962), ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.1 (Köln: Böhlau, 1991).

Bibliogr aphy

355

Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Friedrich I 1158–1168, ed. by Ferdinand Opll and Hubert Mayr, in Regesta Imperii IV: Lothar III und ältere Staufer 1125–1197, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 2.2 (Wien: Böhlau, 1980). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I und Otto I 919–973, ed. by Emil von Ottenthal, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1 (Innsbruck: Wagner’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1893). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich II 1002–1024, ed. by Theodor von Graff, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 4 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich IV 1065–1075, ed. by Tilman von Struve, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.2 (Köln: Böhlau, 2010). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich IV 1086–1105/06, ed. by Gerhard von Lubich, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3.4 (Köln: Böhlau, 2016). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich VI 1165(1190)–1197, ed. by Gerhard von Baaken, in Regesta Imperii IV: Lothar III und ältere Staufer 1125–1197, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3, (Köln: Böhlau, 1972). Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Konrad II 1024–1039, ed. by Heinrich von Appelt, in Regesta Imperii III: Salisches Haus 1024–1125, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 1.1 (Wien: Böhlau, 1971). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto II 955 (973)–983, ed. by Hans Leo Mikoletzky, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 2 (Wien: Böhlau, 1950). Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto III, ed. by Mathilde Uhlirz, in Regesta Imperii II: Sächsisches Haus 919–1024, ed. by Johann F. Böhmer, vol. 3 (Wien: Böhlau, 1956). Die Urkunden Heinrichs V und der Königin Mathilde, ed. by Matthias Thiel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 7, digital pre-edition, https:// data.mgh.de/databases/ddhv/index.htm (accessed 26 March 2021). Die Urkunden und Briefe der Markgräfin Mathilde von Tuszien, ed. by Elke Goez and Werner Goez, MGH Laienfürsten- und Dynastenurkunden der Kaiserzeit 2 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1998). Documenti per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana: le origini e i primi secoli (887–1164), ed. by Natale Rauty (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2003). Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo nel Medio Evo, ed. by Ubaldo Pasqui, vol. 1 (Firenze: Vieusseux, 1899). Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al mille, ed. by Roberto Cessi, vol. 2 (Padova: Gregoriana, 1942). Donizone, Vita di Matilde di Canossa, ed. by Paolo Golinelli (Milano: Jaca Book, 2008).

356 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Epitome chronicorum Casinensium, ed. by Ludovico A. Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.1 (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1723), pp. 347–70. Flodoardus, Annales, ed. by Georg H. Pertz, MGH Scriptores 3 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1838), pp. 363–408. Frederici I diplomata 1158–1167, ed. by Heinrich Appelt, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 10.2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1979). Gesta Berengarii imperatoris, in Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, ed. by Paul Winterfeld, MGH Poetae Latini medii aevi 4.1 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1809), pp. 354–403. Heinrici II et Arduini diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau, Hermann Bloch, and Robert Holtzmann, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 3 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1900–3). Heinrici III diplomata, ed. by Harry Bresslau and Paul F. Kehr, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germanie 5 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1931). Heinrici IV diplomata, ed. by Dietrich von Gladiss and Alfred Gawlik, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 6 (Berlin: Weidemann; Weimar: Böhlaus, 1941–78). I capitolari italici: storia e diritto della dominazione carolingia in Italia, ed. by Claudio Azzara and Pierandrea Moro (Roma: Viella, 1998). I diplomi di Guido e di Lamberto, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1906). I diplomi italiani di Berengario I, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1903). I diplomi italiani di Ludovico III e Rodolfo II, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1910). I diplomi di Ugo e di Lotario, di Berengario II e di Adalberto, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1924). I libri iurium del comune di Bologna: Registro Grosso I, Registro Grosso II, Registro Nuovo, Liber iuramentorum; Regesti, ed. by Anna Laura Trombetti Budriesi and Tommaso Duranti (Selci Lama, Perugia: Pliniana, 2010). I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. by Cesare Manaresi, 3 vols. (Roma: ISIME, 1955–60). ‘I placiti del “Regnum Italiae” (secc. IX–XI): primi contributi per un nuovo censimento’, ed. by Raffaello Volpini, in Contributi dell’Istituto di storia medioevale, vol. 3 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1975), pp. 245–520. Il regesto di Farfa di Gregorio di Catino, ed. by Ignazio Giorgi and Ugo Balzani, vol. 2 (Roma: ISIME, 1879). Iohannes Berardi, Chronicon Casauriense, ed. by Ludovico A. Muratori, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 2.2 (Milano: Società Palatina nella Regia Curia, 1726), pp. 767–1018. Iohannes diaconus Venetus, Chronica, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, ed. by Giovanni Monticolo, vol. 1 (Roma: Forzani, (1890), pp. 59–171. Italia Pontificia, vol. 3: Etruria, ed. Paul F. Kehr (Berlin: Weidemann, 1908). Italia Pontificia, vol. 5: Aemilia sive provincia Ravennas, ed. by Paul F. Kehr (Berlin: Weidemann, 1911).

Bibliogr aphy

357

Karoli III diplomata, ed. by Paul F. Kehr, MGH Diplomata regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 2 (Berlin: Weidemann, (1937). Laws of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks, ed. by Theodore J. Rivers (New York: AMS Press, 1986). Le carte bolognesi del secolo X, ed. by Giorgio Cencetti, in Giorgio Cencetti, Notariato medievale bolognese, vol. 1: Scritti di Giorgio Cencetti (Roma: Consiglio nazionale del notariato, 1977), pp. 1–132. Le carte bolognesi del secolo XI, ed. by Giovanni Feo, 2 vols. (Roma: Accademia delle scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, 2001) Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli (Roma: ISIME, 1990; orig. ed., Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913); vol. 2, ed. by Anna Maria Enriques (Roma: ISIME, 1990). Le carte del monastero di S. Miniato al Monte. Secoli IX–XII, ed. by Luciana Mosiici (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1990). Le carte del monastero di S. Stefano di Bologna e di S. Bartolomeo di Musiano (1001–1125), ed. by Rossella Rinaldi and Carla Villani (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1984). Le carte del monastero di S. Vittore delle Chiuse sul Sentino: regesto con introduzione e note, ed. by Romualdo Sassi (Milano: Giuffrè, 1962). Le carte dell’abbazia di Chiaravalle di Fiastra, vol. 1: 1006–1180, ed. by Attilio De Luca (Spoleto: CISAM, 1997). Le carte dell’archivio di Santa Maria di Pomposa (932–1050), ed. by Corinna Mezzetti (Roma: ISIME, 2016). Le carte della canonica della cattedrale di Firenze (723–1149), ed. by Renato Piattoli (Roma: ISIME, 1938). Le carte di S. Salvatore a Settimo e della Badia del Buonsollazzo nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze (998–1200), ed. by Antonella Ghignoli and Anna Rosa Ferrucci (Firenze: SISMEL/Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004). Le carte ferraresi più importanti anteriori al 1117, ed. by Italo Marzola (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983). Le carte ravennati dei secoli ottavo e nono, ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Faenza: BUP, 2006). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 900–957), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Ravenna: Società di studi ravennati, 1999). Le carte ravennati del decimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 957–976), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2002). Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 1: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1001–1024), ed. by Ruggero Benericetti (Imola: BUP, 2003). Le carte ravennati dell’undicesimo secolo, vol. 2: Archivio Arcivescovile (aa. 1025–1044), ed. by Massimo Ronchini (Faenza: BUP, 2010).

358 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Leggi dei Longobardi: storia, memoria e diritto di un popolo germanico, ed. by Claudio Azzara and Stefano Gasparri (Roma: Viella, 2005). Lettere originali del Medioevo latino (VII–XI sec.), vol. 1: Italia, ed. by Armando Petrucci, Giulia Ammannati, Antonino Mastruzzo and Ernesto Stagni (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 2004). Lex Ribuaria, ed. by Franz Beyerle and Rudolf Buchner, MGH Leges nationum Germanicarum 3.2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1946). Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma, ed. by Giuseppe Zucchetti, in Il Chronicon di Benedetto, monaco di S. Andrea del Soratte e il ‘Libellus de imperatoria potestate in urbe Roma’ (Roma: ISIME, 1920), pp. 193–210. Liber Largitorius vel notarius monasterii Pharphensis, ed. by Giuseppe Zucchetti, vol. 1 (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1913). Liudprandus Cremonensis, Antapodosis, in Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia, ed. by Paolo Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum continuatio mediaevalis 156 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 1–150. Liudprandus Cremonensis, De Ottone rege, in Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia, ed. by Paolo Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum continuatio mediaevalis 156 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 167–83. Ludovici II diplomata, ed. by Konrad Wanner, MGH Diplomata Karolinorum 4 (München: MGH, 1994). Monastero di San Salvatore a Fontana Taona: secoli XI e XII, ed. by Vanna Torelli Vignali (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1999). Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del ducato di Lucca, ed. by Domenico Barsocchini, vol. 5.3 (Lucca: Bertini, 1841). Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed. by Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2 (Hannover: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1893). Regesta Pomposiae, vol. 1: 874–1199, ed. by Antonio Samaritani (Rovigo: Deputazione provinciale ferrarese di storia patria, 1963). Regesto dell’Abbazia della Vangadizza dal 953 al 1659, ed. by Antonio E. Baruffaldi, Badia Polesine 4 (Badia Polesine: Zuliani, 1908). Regesto di Camaldoli, vol. 1, ed. by Luigi Schiaparelli and Francesco Baldasseroni (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907). Regesto di S. Apollinare Nuovo, ed. by Vincenzo Federici (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907). Regestum Volaterranum, ed. by Fedor Schneider (Roma: Loescher e Regenberg, 1907). Registrum Petri diaconi (Montecassino, Archivio dell’abbazia, reg. 3), ed. by Jean– Marie Martin, Pierre Chastang, Enrico Cuozzo, Laurent Feller, Giulia Orofino, Thomas Aurélie and Matteo Villani, vol. 3 (Roma: École française de Rome, 2015). Girolamo Rossi, Historiarum Ravennatum libri decem (Venezia: Guerrea, 1589).

Bibliogr aphy

359

Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. by Johannes Dominicus Mansi, vols. 18.1, 18.1B (Venezia: Zatta Veneti, 1773). SS. Trinità e S. Michele di Brondolo (800–1229), ed. by Bianca Lanfranchi Strina, vol. 2: Documenti 800–1199 (Venezia: Comitato per la pubblicazione delle fonti relative alla storia di Venezia, 1981). Tolosanus, Chronicon Faventinum, ed. by Giovanni B. Mittarelli and Giuseppe Rossini, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptorum, n. ed., vol. 28.1 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1936), pp. 1–176. Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris, ed. by Harry Bresslau, in Die Werke Wipos, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 61 (Hannover Lipsia: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1995), pp. 1–62.

Secondary Sources Airlie, Stuart, Power and Its Problem in Carolingian Europe (London: Routledge, 2016). Albertoni, Giuseppe, L’Italia carolingia (Roma: NIS, 1997). –––, ‘La fine dell’impero carolingio e i conflitti per il regno italico nei Gesta Berengarii’, Reti Medievali Rivista 17.2 (2016), pp. 281–99. Alfieri, Nereo, ‘La via Flaminia “minore”’, in La viabilità appenninica dall’Età Antica ad oggi: atti delle giornate di studio (12 luglio, 2, 8, 12 agosto, 13 settembre 1997), ed. by Paola Foschi, Edoardo Penoncini and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo studi alta valle del Reno, 1998), pp. 95–101. Althoff, Gerd, Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Ammannati, Giulia, ‘Fiesole, Romena, Panico: personaggi e luoghi da una coppia di lettere di fine XI secolo’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 6.1 (2001), pp. 149–69. Andreolli, Bruno, ‘Le enfiteusi e i livelli del “Breviarium”’, in Ricerche e studi sul ‘Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis’ (Codice Bavaro) (Roma: ISIME, 1985), pp. 163–77. Angiolini, Enrico, ‘Fonti per la storia del locus ubi dicitur Gavile’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 157–73. Arnaldi, Girolamo, ‘Anastasio bibliotecario’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 3 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1961), pp. 25–37. –––, ‘Liutprando e la storiografia contemporanea nell’Italia centro-settentrionale’, in La storiografia altomedievale (Spoleto: CISAM, 1970), pp. 497–520. Aurell, Martin, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales de l’aristocratie (IXe–XIIIe siècle)’, in Mariage et sexualité au Moyen Âge: accord ou crise? Actes du colloque (Conques,

360 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

15–18 octobre 1998), ed. by Michel Rouche (Parigi: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2000), pp. 185–202. Bacchi, Giuseppina, ‘Il vescovo Uberto e le relazioni tra Parma e la pieve di Santa Maria di Monteveglio (secoli IX–X)’, in Monteveglio e Nonantola: abbazie e insediamenti lungo le vie appenniniche: atti della Giornata di studio (14 settembre 2002), ed. by Domenico Cerami (Nonantola: Centro studi storici nonantolani, 2003), pp. 77–92. Baldini Lippolis, Isabella, ‘Sepolture privilegiate nell’Apostoleion di Ravenna’, Felix Ravenna 153–4 (2004), pp. 15–80. Bellani, Sara, ‘Politiche familiari e rapporti di fedeltà nel secolo X: un approccio prosopografico ai regni di Ugo di Provenza e di Berengario II’, Ricerche storiche 27 (1997), pp. 127–48. Benati, Amedeo, ‘Confine ecclesiastico e problemi circoscrizionali e patrimoniali fra Ferrara e Bologna nell’alto medioevo’, Atti della Deputazione Ferrarese di Storia Patria 27 (1980), pp. 29–80. –––, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto in Adili e la politica antinonantolana del re Desiderio’, in Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Province di Romagna 34 (1983), pp. 77–129. –––, ‘Il Saltopiano fra antichità e medioevo. Incognite, considerazioni, ipotesi’, in Romanità della pianura: l’ipotesi archeologica a S. Pietro in Casale come coscienza storica per una nuova gestione del territorio. Giornate di studio (S. Pietro in Casale, 7–8 aprile 1980) (Bologna: Lo Scarabeo, 1991), pp. 337–56. –––, ‘Possessi e diritti feudali del vescovo di Bologna nella montagna’, in Signori feudali e comunità appenniniche nel Medioevo: atti delle giornate di studio (Capugnano, 3–4 settembre 1994), ed. by Claudio Cappelletti and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo studi alta valle del Reno, 1995), pp. 31–8. Berto, Luigi Andrea, ‘Giovanni Diacono’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 56 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2001), pp. 8–10. Bertolini, Margherita Giuliana, ‘Pietro Candiano’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 17 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1974), pp. 764–72. –––, ‘Note di genealogia e di storia canossana’, in I ceti dirigenti in Toscana nell’età precomunale: atti del I convegno (Firenze, 2 dicembre 1978) (Pisa: Pacini, 1981), pp. 111–49. Betti, Maddalena, ‘Incestuous Marriages in Late Carolingian Ravenna: The causa Deusdedit (878–81)’, Early Medieval Europe 24.4 (2015), pp. 457–77. Bianchi, Giovanna and Simone M. Collavini, ‘Public Estates and Economic Strategies in Early Medieval Tuscany: Towards a New Interpretation’, in Origins of a New Economic Union (7th–12th centuries): Preliminary Results of the EU-MED Project; October 2015–March 2017, ed. by Giovanna Bianchi and Richard Hodges (Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2018), pp. 147–59.

Bibliogr aphy

361

Bloch, Herbert, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, vol. 1 (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1986). Bocchi, Francesca, ‘L’“azienda” Santo Stefano’, in 7 colonne e 7 chiese: la vicenda ultramillenaria del complesso di Santo Stefano di Bologna, ed. by Francesca Bocchi (Casalecchio di Reno: Grafis, 1987), pp. 183–209. Bonacini, Pierpaolo, ‘L’assetto territoriale di San Marino tra Langobardia e Romània: dal Riminese al Montefeltro nei secoli VI–X’, in Il territorio sammarinese tra età romana e primo medioevo: ricerche di topografia e storia, ed. by Pierpaolo Bonacini and Gianluca Bottazzi (San Marino: Centro di studi storici sanmarinesi, 1994), pp. 49–134. –––, ‘Il marchese Almerico: patrimoni e ascendenze familiari nell’antica provincia ecclesiastica ravennate’, in Per Vito Fumagalli: terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 247–64. –––, Terre d’Emilia: distretti pubblici comunità locali e poteri signorili nell’esperienza di una regione italiana (secoli VIII–XII) (Bologna: CLUEB, 2001). –––, ‘Relazioni e conflitti del monastero di Nonantola con i vescovi di Modena (secc. VIII–XII)’, in Il monachesimo italiano dall’età longobarda all’età ottoniana (secc. VIII–X): atti del Convegno di studi storici sull’Italia benedettina (Nonantola, 10–13 settembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Spinelli (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2006), pp. 643–77. Bordone, Renato, ‘Un’attiva minoranza etnica nell’alto medioevo: gli Alamanni del comitato di Asti’, Quellen und Foschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 54 (1974), pp. 1–57. Bottazzi, Gianluca, ‘Il monastero di S. Benedetto in Adili: un profilo di ricerca archeologico-topografica nel Pago Persiceta’, Strada Maestra: Quaderni della Biblioteca Comunale G.C. Croce di San Giovanni in Persiceto 28 (1990), pp. 87–113. –––, ‘Il marchese Almerico: aspetti storico-topografici’, in Forme di volontariato nella chiesa: atti del Convegno di Rovigo (1993), Ravennatensia 17 (1999), pp. 207–29. Bouchard, Constance B., ‘Those of My Blood’: Constructing Noble Family in Medieval Francia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Bougard, François, ‘Engelberga, imperatrice’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 42 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1993), pp. 668–76. –––, La justice dans le royaume d’Italie de la fin du VIIIe siècle au début du XIe siècle (Roma: École française de Rome, 1995). –––, ‘“Falsum falsorum judicum consilium”: l’écrit et la justice en Italie centroseptentrionale au XIe siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 155 (1997), pp. 299–314. –––, ‘La cour et le gouvernement de Louis II, 840–875’, in La royauté et les élites dans l’Europe carolingienne (début IXe siècle aux environs de 920), ed. by Règine

362 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Le Jan (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Centre d’histoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest, 1998), pp. 249–67. –––, ‘Gariardo (Gaddo)’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 52 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1999), pp. 311–12. –––, ‘En marge du divorce de Lothaire II: Boson de Vienne, le cocu qui fut fait roi?’, Francia 27.1 (2000), pp. 33–51. –––, ‘Dot et douaire en Italie centro-septentrionale (VIIIe–XIe siècle): un parcours documentaire’, in Dots et douaires dans le haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Laurent Feller and Régine Le Jan (Roma: École française de Rome, 2002), pp. 57–95. –––, ‘Les Supponides: echec à la reine’, in Les élites au haut Moyen Âge: crises et renouvellements, ed.by François Bougard, Laurent Feller and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), pp. 381–402. –––, ‘Ludovico II, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 66 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2007), pp. 387–94. –––, ‘Charles le Chauve, Bérenger, Hugues de Provence: action politique et production documentaire dans les diplômes à destination de l’Italie’, in Zwischen Pragmatik und Performanz: Dimensionen mittelalterlicher Schriftkultur, ed. by Christoph Dartmann, Thomas Scharff and Friederich C. Weber (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 57–83. –––, ‘Le royaume d’Italie (jusqu’aux Ottons), entre l’empire et les réalités locales’, in De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée: Francia Media, une région au cœur de l’Europe, ed. by Michèle Gaillard, Michel Margue, Alain Dierkens, and Hérold Pettiau (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 2011), pp. 487–510. –––, ‘I vescovi di Arezzo nei secoli IX–XI: tra le responsabilità locali e i destini “nazionali”’, in Arezzo nel Medioevo, ed. by Giovanni Cherubini (Roma: L’Erma Di Bretschneider, 2012), pp. 63–71. –––, ‘Le couronnement impérial de Bérenger Ier (915) d’àpres les Gesta Berengarii imperatoris’, in Rerum gestarum scriptor: histoire et historiographie au Moyen Âge; hommage à Michel Sot, ed. by Magali Coumert, Marie-Céline Isaïa, Klaus Krönert and Sumi Shimahara (Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2012), pp. 329–44. –––, ‘Le feu de la justice et le feu de l’épreuve, IVe–XIIe siècle’, in Il fuoco nell’alto Medioevo (Spoleto: CISAM, 2013), pp. 389–432. –––, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Régine Le Jan, ‘Les élites du haut Moyen Âge: identités, stratégies, mobilité’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 68.4 (2013), pp. 1079–1112. Brown, Tom, ‘Culture and Society in Ottonian Ravenna: Imperial Renewal or New Beginning?’, in Ravenna: Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, ed. by Judith Herrin and Janet Nelson (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2016), pp. 335–44.

Bibliogr aphy

363

–––, ‘A Byzantine Cuckoo in the Frankish Nest?’, in After Charlemagne: Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 185–97. Buc, Philippe, ‘Italian Hussies and German Matrons: Liutprand of Cremona on Dynastic Legitimacy’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 29 (1995), pp. 209–25. Bührer-Thierry, Geneviève, ‘La reine adultère’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 140.4 (1992), pp. 299–312. –––, ‘Reines adultères et empoisonneuses, reines injustement accusées: la confrontation de deux modèles aux VIIIe–Xe siècles’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 151–70. Buzzi, Giulio, ‘La Curia arcivescovile e la Curia cittadina di Ravenna dall’850 al 1118 (Studio diplomatico preparatorio dell’edizione delle Carte Ravennati)’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 35 (1915), pp. 7–188. –––, ‘Ricerche per la storia di Ravenna e di Roma dall’850 al 1118’, Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 38 (1915), pp. 107–213. Calasso, Francesco, Medio evo del diritto, vol. 1: Le fonti (Milano: Giuffrè, 1954). Calindri, Serafino, Dizionario corografico, georgico, orittologico storico della Italia, vol. 4: Montagna e collina del territorio bolognese (Sala Bolognese: Forni, 1972). Cammarosano Paolo, La famiglia dei Berardenghi: contributo alla storia della società senese nei secoli XI–XIII (Spoleto: CISAM, 1974). –––, Italia medievale: struttura e geografia delle fonti scritte (Roma: NIS, 1991). –––, Nobili e re: l’Italia politica dell’alto medioevo (Roma: Laterza, 2009). Canetti, Luigi, “Gloriosa civitas”: culto dei santi e società cittadina a Piacenza nel Medioevo (Bologna: Patron, 1993). Capitani, Ovidio, ‘Adalfredo’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 1 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1960), pp. 223–24. –––, ‘Politica e cultura a Ravenna tra Papato e Impero dall’XI al XII secolo’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 3: Dal Mille alla fine della signoria polentana, ed. by Augusto Vasina (Venezia: Marsilio, 1993) pp. 169–98. –––, Storia dell’Italia medievale (Roma: Laterza, 2004). Carile, Antonio, ‘Terre militari, funzioni e titoli bizantini nel “Breviarium”’, in Ricerche e studi sul ‘Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis’ (Codice Bavaro) (Roma: ISIME, 1985), pp. 81–94. –––, ‘La società ravennate dall’Esarcato agli Ottoni’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.2: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: ecclesiologia, cultura e arte, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1992), pp. 379–404. Casazza, Lorenzo, Il territorio di Adria tra VI e X secolo (Padova: CLEUP, 2001). Caspar, Erich, Petrus diaconus und die Monte Cassineser Fälschungen: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Italienischen Geistesleben in Mittelalter (Berlin: Springer, 1909).

364 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Castagnetti, Andrea, L’organizzazione del territorio rurale nel Medioevo: circoscrizioni ecclesiastiche e civili nella ‘Langobardia’ e nella ‘Romania’ (Torino: Giappichelli, 1979). –––, I conti di Vicenza e di Padova dall’età ottoniana al comune (Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice, 1981). –––, Società e politica a Ferrara dall’età postcarolingia alla signoria estense (Sec. X–XIII) (Bologna: Patron, 1985). –––, Il Veneto nell’alto medioevo (Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice, 1990). –––, Tra ‘Romania’ e ‘Langobardia’: il Veneto meridionale nell’alto medioevo e i domini del marchese Almerico II (Verona: Libreria universitaria editrice, 1991). –––, ‘Le strutture fondiarie ed agrarie’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 55–72. –––, ‘Feudalità e società comunale, II: Capitanei a Milano e a Ravenna fra XI e XII secolo’, in La signoria rurale in Italia nel Medioevo: atti del secondo Convegno di studi, (Pisa, 6–7 novembre 1998), ed. by Cinzio Violante and Maria Luisa Ceccarelli Lemut (Pisa: ETS, 2006), pp. 117–216. Castagnetti, Andrea and Antonio Ciaralli, Falsari a Nonantola: i placiti di Ostiglia (820–827) e le donazioni di Nogara (910–911) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2011). Cavarra, Berenice, Giovanni Gardini, Giovanni Battista Parente and Giorgio Vespignani, ‘Gli archivi come fonti della storia di Ravenna: regesto di documenti’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 3.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 401–547. Ceccarelli Lemut, Maria Luisa, ‘Il castello di Montevoltraio nel quadro del primo incastellamento del territorio volterrano’, Quaderno del Laboratorio Universitario Volterrano 6 (2003), pp. 115–18. Cencetti, Giorgio, ‘Diplomatica dell’enfiteusi bolognese’, Rivista di Storia del Diritto Italiano 13 (1939), pp. 438–55. Cerami, Domenico, ‘S. Maria di strada: un monastero tra due f iumi’, Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia patria per le Province di Romagna 59 (2009), pp. 163–203. –––, ‘Strategie patrimoniali e relazioni politiche dei monasteri modenesi nel territorio bolognese occidentale (secc. X–XII)’, Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia patria per le Province di Romagna 61 (2012), pp. 77–104. Chevalier, Ulysse, Description analytique du cartulaire du chapitre de Saint-Maurice de Vienne, suivie d’un appendice de chartes et d’une Chronique inédite des évêques de Valence et de Die (Valence: Céaset, 1891). Chiappelli, Luigi, ‘La formazione storica del comune cittadino in Italia (territorio lombardo-tosco)’, Archivio Storico Italiano 7 (1927), pp. 182–208. Chiesa, Paolo, ‘Liutprando di Cremona (Liuto, Liuzo)’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 65 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2005), pp. 298–303.

Bibliogr aphy

365

Cimino, Roberta, ‘Angelberga: il monastero di San Sisto e il corso del fiume Po’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 141–62. Cirelli, Enrico, Ravenna: archeologia di una città (Borgo San Lorenzo: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2008). Civale, Biagio, ‘La formazione e l’evoluzione del “comitatus pistoriensis” nella marca di Tuscia dall’età carolingia agli ultimi re d’Italia’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 110 (2008), pp. 11–42. –––, ‘I conti Cadolingi e i ceti eminenti nella “iudiciaria pistoriensis” del X secolo’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 112 (2010), pp. 9–44. –––, ‘I conti Guidi tra Tuscia e Romagna nei secoli IX–X’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 114 (2012), pp. 7–40. Cocchi, Arnaldo, Le chiese di Firenze dal secolo IV al secolo XX, vol. 1: Quartiere di San Giovanni (Firenze: Pellas, 1903). Collavini, Simone M., ‘Honorabilis domus et spetiosissimus comitatus’: gli Aldobrandeschi da ‘conti’ a ‘principi territoriali’ (secoli IX–XIII) (Pisa: ETS, 1998). –––, ‘Spazi politici e irraggiamento sociale delle élites laiche intermedie (Italia centrale, secolo VIII–X)’, in Les élites et leur espaces: mobilitè, rayonnement, domination (du VIe au XIe siècle), ed. by Philippe Depreux, François Bougard and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 319–40. –––, ‘Comites palatini/paladini: ipotesi sulle forme di legittimazione del principato dei Guidi’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 110 (2008), pp. 57–104. –––, ‘Vito Fumagalli e le aristocrazie del regno italico’, in Il Medioevo di Vito Fumagalli: atti del Convegno di studio (Bologna, 21–23 giugno 2007), ed. by Bruno Andreolli, Paola Galetti, Tiziana Lazzari and Massimo Montanari (Spoleto: CISAM, 2010), pp. 265–88. –––, ‘Ranieri, marchese di Toscana’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 86 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2016), pp. 419–22. Collavini, Simone M. and Paolo Tomei, ‘Beni f iscali e “scritturazione”: nuove proposte sui contesti di rilascio e falsificazione di D O. III. 269 per il monastero di S. Ponziano di Lucca’, in Originale-Fälschungen-Kopien: Kaiser- und Königsurkunden für Empfänger in ‘Deutschland’ und ‘Italien’ (9–11 Jahrhundert) und ihre Nachwirkungen im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter (bis ca. 1500), ed. by Nicolangelo D’Acunto, Sebastian Roebert and Wolfgang Huschner (Leipzig: Eudora Verlag, 2017), pp. 205–16. A Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Bologna, ed. by Sara Rubin Blanshei (Leiden: Brill, 2018). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, ed. by Terry F. Hoad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

366 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Cortese, Maria Elena, Signori, castelli, città: l’aristocrazia del territorio fiorentino tra X e XII secolo (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2007). –––, L’aristocrazia toscana. Sette secoli (VI–XII) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2017). –––, ‘Between the City and the Countryside: The Aristocracy in the March of Tuscia (Late Tenth–Early Twelfth Centuries)’, in Italy and Early Medieval Europe: Papers for Chris Wickham, ed. by Ross Balzaretti, Julia S. Barrow and Patricia Skinner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 140–54. Cosentino, Salvatore, ‘Ravenna from Imperial Residence to Episcopal City: Processes of Centrality across Empires’, Rechtsgeschichte/Legal History 23 (2015), pp. 54–67. Costambeys, Marios, Matthew Innes and Simon Maclean, The Carolingian World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Creber, Alison, ‘Mirrors for Margraves: Peter Damian’s Models for Male and Female Rulers’, Historical Reflections 42.1 (2016), pp. 8–20. Crouch, David Bruce, The Birth of Nobility: Continuity and Aristocracy in England and France 900–1300 (London: Routledge, 2005). Curradi, Currado, ‘I conti Guidi nel X secolo’, Studi Romagnoli 28 (1977), pp. 17–64. –––, Pievi del territorio riminese nei documenti fino al Mille (Rimini: Luise, 1984). D’Acunto, Nicolangelo, I laici nella chiesa e nella società secondo Pier Damiani: ceti dominanti e riforma ecclesiastica nel secolo XI (Roma: ISIME, 1999). –––, Nostrum Italicum regnum. Aspetti della politica italiana di Ottone III (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 2002). –––, ‘L’aristocrazia del Regnum Italiae negli scritti di Pier Damiani’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 321–42. Dall’Aglio, Pier Luigi, ‘Un nuovo documento sulla via Flaminia “minore”’, Ocnus 16 (2008), pp. 123–30. Dall’Aglio, Pier Luigi and Carlotta Franceschelli, ‘La viabilità del territorio bolognese nelle carte del secolo XI’, in Bologna e il secolo XI: storia, cultura, economia, istituzioni, diritto, ed. by Giovanni Feo and Francesca Roversi Monaco (Bologna: BUP, 2011), pp. 441–83. A ‘Dark Matter’: History and Archaeology of Fiscal Estates in Medieval Italy (8th–11th c.), ed. by Paolo Tomei and Giacomo Vignodelli (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). Davidsohn, Robert, Storia di Firenze, vol. 1 (Firenze: Sansoni, 1977; orig. ed., Berlin: Mitter and Sohn, 1896). Dell’Omo, Mariano, ‘Montecassino altomedievale: i secoli VIII e IX; genesi di un simbolo, storia di una realtà’, in Il monachesimo italiano dall’età longobarda all’età ottoniana (secc. VIII–X): atti del Convegno di studi storici sull’Italia benedettina (Nonantola, 10–13 settembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Spinelli (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2006), pp. 165–92.

Bibliogr aphy

367

Delogu, Paolo, ‘“Consors regni”: un problema carolingio’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 76 (1964), pp. 47–98. –––, ‘Berengario II, marchese d’Ivrea, re d’Italia’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 9 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1967), pp. 26–35. –––, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia carolingia in Italia II: Strutture politiche ed ideologia nel regno di Ludovico’, Bullettino per l’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 80 (1968), pp. 137–89. –––, ‘Ricerche sull’aristocrazia carolingia in Italia III: Vescovi, conti e sovrani nella crisi del Regno italico’, Archivio della Scuola Speciale per Archivisti 8 (1968), pp. 3–72. Delumeau, Jean-Pierre, ‘Equilibri di potere ad Arezzo dal periodo tardo carolingio al primo periodo comunale’, in Arezzo e il suo territorio nell’Alto Medio Evo: atti del Convegno (Arezzo, 22–23 ottobre 1983) (Cortona: Calosci, 1985), pp. 87–110. –––, ‘Dal conte Suppone il Nero ai marchesi di Monte Santa Maria’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII): atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996), pp. 265–86. –––, Arezzo: espace et société, 715–1230; recherches sur Arezzo et son contado du VIIIe au début du XIIIe siècle, vol. 1 (Roma: École française de Rome, 1996). Depreux, Philippe, ‘Le rôle du comte du Palais à la lumière des sources relatives au règne de l’emperor Luis le Pieux (814–840)’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 34 (2000), pp. 94–111. Di Branco, Marco and Kordula Wolf, ‘Hindered Passages: The Failed Muslim Conquest of Southern Italy’, Journal of Transcultural Medieval Studies 1 (2014), pp. 51–74. Di Carpegna Falconieri, Tommaso, ‘Guido, conte marchese di Camerino, duca marchese di Spoleto, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 61 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2004), pp. 354–61. –––, ‘Lamberto’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 63 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2004), pp. 206–8. Di Pietro, Adriana, ‘Monasteri e chiese dipendenti da enti monastici a Bologna e nel territorio bolognese nei secoli XI–XII: contributo allo studio dei rapporti patrimoniali’, Tesi di Laurea, Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica dell’Università di Bologna, 1984/85. Donati, Andrea and Gian Ludovico Masetti Zannini, Santa Maria di Scolca abbazia olivetana di Rimini, Fonti e Documenti (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte (2009). Duby, Georges, Medioevo maschio: amore e matrimonio (Roma: Laterza, 1988; orig. ed., Paris: Flammarion, 1988). Dümmler, Ernst, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Dunder und Humblot, 1887).

368 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Duplessis, Frédéric, ‘Les sources des gloses des Gesta Berengarii et la culture du poète anonyme’, Aevum 89 (2015), pp. 205–63. Eggert, Wolfgang and Barbara Pätzold, Wir-Gefühl und regnum Saxonum bei frühmittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibern (Wien: Böhlau, 1984). Faini, Enrico, ‘Aspetti delle relazioni familiari nel Fiorentino: il mutamento tra i secoli XI e XIII’, Mélanges de l’École de Rome 121.1 (2009), pp. 137–57. Falce, Antonio, Il marchese Ugo di Tuscia (Firenze: Bemporad, 1921). Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval: actes du colloque de Paris (6–8 juin 1974), ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Roma: École française de Rome, 1977). Luigi Fantini, Luigi, Antichi edifici della montagna bolognese, vol. 2 (Bologna: Carisbo, 1972). Fasoli, Gina, ‘I conti e il comitato di Imola (secc. X–XIII)’, Atti e Memorie della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie di Romagna 8 (1943), pp. 120–92. –––, I re d’Italia (888–962) (Firenze: Sansoni, 1949). –––, ‘Il patrimonio della chiesa’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 389–400. –––, ‘Adalberto di Toscana’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 1 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1960), pp. 217–20. –––, Scritti di storia medievale, ed. by Francesca Bocchi, Antonio Carile and Antonio Ivan Pini (Bologna: La fotocromo emiliana, 1974). –––, ‘Sugli “Annali Bolognesi” di Ludovico Savioli’, in Gina Fasoli, Scritti di storia medievale, ed. by Francesca Bocchi, Antonio Carile and Antonio Ivan Pini (Bologna: La fotocromo emiliana, 1974), pp. 733–41. –––, ‘Il dominio territoriale degli arcivescovi di Ravenna fra l’VIII e l’XI secolo’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 87–140. Federici, Placido, Rerum Pomposianarum historia monumentis illustrata (Roma: Fulgonio, 1781). Feo, Giovanni, ‘Per l’edizione delle carte bolognesi del sec. XI: il censimento dei notai’, Nuovi Annali della Scuola Speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari 12 (1998), pp. 7–47. Ferreri, Debora and Enrico Cirelli, ‘Le trasformazioni della vallata del Lamone e dei passi Appenninici tra Esarcato e Regno d’ltalia nel Medioevo (Vl–Xll secolo)’, in Memorie dell’assistenza: istituzioni e fonti ospedaliere in Italia e in Europa (secoli XIII–XVI), ed. by Salvatore Marino and Gemma Teresa Colasanti (Ospedaletto, Pisa: Pacini, 2019), pp. 101–18. Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming).

Bibliogr aphy

369

Fleckenstein, Josef, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1959). Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del primo convegno di Pisa (10–11 maggio 1983) (Roma: ISIME, 1988). Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996). Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003). Foschi, Paola, ‘La viabilità medievale tra Bologna e Firenze’, in La viabilità tra Bologna e Firenze nel tempo: problemi generali e nuove acquisizioni; atti del convegno (Fiorenzuola-San Benedetto Val di Sambro, 28 settembre–1 ottobre 1989) (Bologna: Costa, 1992), pp. 131–48. –––, ‘La famiglia dei conti di Panico, una signoria feudale fra Toscana ed Emilia’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 28 (1993), pp. 3–22. –––, ‘Gli ordini religiosi medievali a Bologna e nel suo territorio’, in Storia della Chiesa di Bologna, ed. by Paolo Prodi and Lorenzo Paolini, vol. 2 (Bergamo: Bolis, 1997), pp. 463–99. –––, ‘Il patrimonio fondiario dell’abbazia di S. Bartolomeo di Musiano in rapporto all’insediamento e alla viabilità nel valle del Savena nel Medioevo’, in San Bartolomeo di Musiano: giornata di studi (Pianoro, 15 ottobre 2005) (Bologna: Deputazione di storia patria, 2008), pp. 97–164. Foschi, Paola, Renzo Zagnoni and Paola Porta, Le pievi medievali bolognesi (secoli VIII–XV): storia e arte, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: BUP, 2009). Fumagalli, Vito, Le origini di una grande dinastia feudale: Adalberto-Atto di Canossa (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1972). –––, ‘Vescovi e conti nell’Emilia occidentale da Berengario I a Ottone I’, Studi Medievali 14.1 (1973), pp. 137–204. –––, Terra e società nell’Italia padana: i secoli IX e X (Torino: Einaudi, 1976). –––, ‘Il potere civile dei vescovi italiani al tempo di Ottone I’, in I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), pp. 77–86. –––, ‘La geografia culturale delle terre Emiliano-Romagnole nell’Alto Medioevo’, in Le sedi della cultura dell’Emilia Romagna: l’alto Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Milano: Silvana editoriale, 1983), pp. 11–27. Galetti, Paola, Una campagna e la sua città: Piacenza e territorio nei secoli VIII–X (Bologna: CLUEB, 1994).

370 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Gandino, Germana, Il vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona (Roma: ISIME, 1995). Gantner, Clemens, ‘“Our Common Enemy Shall Be Annihilated!” How Louis II’s Relations with the Byzantine Empire Shaped His Policy in Southern Italy’, in Southern Italy as Contact Area and Border Region during the Early Middle Ages: Religious-Cultural Heterogeneity and Competing Powers in Local, Transregional, and Universal Dimensions, ed. by Kordula Wolf and Klaus Herbers (Köln: Bölhau, 2018), pp. 298–314. –––, ‘A King in Training? Louis II of Italy and His Expedition to Rome in 844’, in After Charlemagne. Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 164–81. –––, ‘Brief Introduction to Italian Political History until 875’, in After Charlemagne. Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 5–16. Gardini, Gabriele, ‘Le porte urbiche moderne’, in Maurizio Mauro, Mura, porte e torri di Ravenna (Ravenna: Adriapress, 2000), pp. 210–63. Garipzanov, Ildar H., The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World (c.751–877) (Brill: Leiden, 2008). Gasparri, Stefano, Prima delle nazioni: popoli etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (Roma: Carocci, 2002). Gasparrini Leporace, Tullia, ‘Cronologia dei Duchi di Spoleto (569–1230)’, Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria 35 (1938), pp. 5–68. Gaudenzi, Augusto, ‘Il monastero di Nonantola, il ducato di Persiceta e la chiesa di Bologna’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano 36–7 (1916), pp. 77–214. Geary, Patrick, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Goetz, Hans-Werner, ‘Coutume d’héritage et structures familiales au haut Moyen Âge’, in Sauver son âme et se perpétuer: transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Cristina La Rocca and Régine Le Jan (Roma: École française de Rome, 2005), pp. 203–37. Golinelli, Paolo, Matilde e i Canossa (Milano: Mursia, 2004). Granier, Thomas, ‘La captivité de l’empereur Louis II à Bénévent (13 août–17 septembre 871) dans les sources des IXe–Xe siècles’, in Faire l’événement au Moyen Âge, ed. by Claude Carozzi and Huguette Taviani-Carozzi (Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires de Provence, 2007), pp. 13–39. Guglielmotti, Paola, ‘Esperienze di ricerca e problemi di metodo negli studi di Karl Schmid’, Annali dell’Istituto Storico Italo-Germanico di Trento 13 (1987), pp. 209–69. Hartmann, Wilfried, ‘Das Reich Lothars II: zwischen Karl dem Kahlen und Ludwig dem Deutschen’, in De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée: Francia Media; une

Bibliogr aphy

371

région au cœur de l’Europe (c.840–c.1050), ed. by Michèle Gaillard, Michel Margue, Alain Dierkens and Hérold Pettiau (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 2011), pp. 275–300. Heath, Christopher, ‘Contested Identities in the Byzantine West c.540–c.865’, in Routledge Handbook of Identity in Byzantium, ed. by David Parnell, Michael E. Stewart and Conor Whately (London: Routledge, forthcoming). Heidecker, Karl, The Divorce of Lothar II: Christian Marriage and Political Power in the Carolingian World, trans. by Tanis M. Guest (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010). Herbers, Klaus, ‘Der Konflikt Papst Nikolaus’ I mit Erzbischof Johannes VII von Ravenna (861)’, in Diplomatische und chronologische Studien aus der Arbeit an den Regesta Imperii, ed. by Paul-Joachim Heinig (Köln: Böhlau, 1991), pp. 51–66. Hessel, Alfred, Geschichte der Stadt Bologna vom 1116 bis 1280 (Berlin: Ebering, 1910). Hlawitschka, Eduard, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien (774–962) (Freiburg im Breisgau: Albert, 1960). Hummer, Hans Josef, Visions of Kingship in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 123–298. Keller, Hagen, ‘Zur Struktur der Königsherrschaft im karolingischen und nachkarolingischen Italien: der “consiliarius regis” in den italienischen Königsdiplomen des 9 und 10 Jahrhunderts’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 47 (1967), pp. 123–223. –––, ‘La marca di Tuscia fino all’anno Mille’, in Atti del 5º Congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto medioevo (Lucca, 3–7 ottobre 1971) (Spoleto: CISAM, 1973), pp. 117–40. Kreutz, Barbara M., Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Century (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1996). Kurze, Wilhelm, ‘Gli albori dell’abbazia di Marturi’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 165–201. –––, ‘I reperti d’argento di Galognano come fonti di storia’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 203–42. –––, ‘Monasteri e nobiltà nella Tuscia altomedievale’, in Wilhelm Kurze, Monasteri e nobiltà nel Senese e nella Toscana medievale: studi diplomatici, archeologici, genealogici, giuridici e sociali (Siena: Ente provinciale per il turismo di Siena, 1989), pp. 295–317. La pieve di San Cristoforo ad Aquilam: atti del convegno di Gradara (ottobre 1980) (Gradara: Cassa rurale e artigiana, 1983).

372 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

La Rocca, Maria Cristina, ‘Liutprando da Cremona e il paradigma femminile di dissoluzione dei Carolingi’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 291–308. La rocca imperiale di Bologna: archeologia romana del sito, assetto urbano, documenti medievali, ed. by Jacopo Ortalli, Carlo De Angelis and Paola Foschi (Roma: Deputazione di storia patria, 1990). Lankila, Tommi P., ‘The Saracen Raid of Rome in 846: An Example of Maritime ghazw’, in Travelling through Time: Essays in Honour of Kaj Öhrnberg, ed. by Sylvia Akar, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila and Inka NokSo-Koivisto (Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2013), pp. 93–120. Lanzoni, Francesco, Cronotassi dei vescovi di Bologna dai primordi alla fine del secolo XIII (Bologna: La grafica emiliana, 1932). Lazard, Sylviane S., ‘Studio onomastico del “Breviarium”’, in Ricerche e studi sul ‘Breviarium Ecclesiae Ravennatis’ (Codice Bavaro) (Roma: ISIME, 1985), pp. 33–61. Lazzari, Tiziana, ‘I “de Ermengarda”: una famiglia nobiliare a Bologna (secc. IX–XII)’, Studi Medievali 32 (1991), pp. 597–657. –––, Comitato senza città: Bologna e l’aristocrazia del territorio nei secoli IX–XI (Torino: Paravia, 1998). –––, ‘Circoscrizioni pubbliche e aree di affermazione signorile: il territorio bolognese fra VIII e XI secolo’, in Per Vito Fumagalli. Terra, uomini, istituzioni medievali, ed. by Massimo Montanari and Augusto Vasina (Bologna: CLUEB, 2000), pp. 379–400. –––, ‘Società cittadina e rappresentanza cetuale a Bologna (secoli X–XII)’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 106.2 (2004), pp. 71–105. –––, ‘La creazione di un territorio: il comitato di Modena e i suoi “conf ini”’, in Distinguere, separare, condividere: confini nelle campagne dell’Italia medievale, ed. by Paola Guglielmotti, Reti Medievali Rivista 7.1 (2006), pp. 101–18. –––, ‘Una mamma carolingia e una moglie supponide: percorsi femminili di legittimazione e potere nel regno italico’, in ‘C’era una volta un re …’: aspetti e momenti della regalità: da un seminario del dottorato in Storia medievale (Bologna, 17–18 dicembre 2003), ed. by Giovanni Isabella (Bologna: CLUEB, 2005), pp. 41–57. –––, ‘Miniature e versi: mimesi della regalità in Donizone’, in Forme di potere nel pieno medioevo (secoli VIII–XI): dinamiche e rappresentazioni, ed. by Giovanni Isabella (Bologna: CLUEB, 2006), pp. 57–92. –––, ‘La rappresentazione dei legami di parentela e il ruolo delle donne nell’alta aristocrazia del regno italico (secc. IX–X): l’esempio di Berta di Toscana’, in Agire da donna: modelli e pratiche della rappresentazione (secoli VI–X); atti del convegno (Padova 18–19 febbraio 2005), ed. by Cristina La Rocca (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 129–49.

Bibliogr aphy

373

–––, ‘Aziende fortificate, castelli e pievi: le basi patrimoniali dei poteri dei Canossa e le loro giurisdizioni’, in Matilde e il tesoro dei Canossa tra castelli, monasteri e città, ed. by Arturo Calzona (Milano: Silvana editoriale, 2008), pp. 96–115. –––, ‘Campagne senza città e territori senza centro’, in Città e campagna nei secoli altomedievali, vol. 2 (Spoleto: CISAM, 2009), pp. 621–52. –––, Le donne nell’alto medioevo (Milano: Mondadori, 2010). –––, ‘Dotari e beni fiscali’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 123–39. –––, ‘Fondare una dinastia’, in ‘Fondare’ tra antichità e medioevo: atti del convegno di studio (Bologna, 27–29 maggio 2015), ed. by Paola Galetti (Spoleto: CISAM, 2016), pp. 331–48. –––, ‘Tra Ravenna e regno: collaborazione e conflitti fra aristocrazie diverse’, in Coopétition. Rivaliser, coopérer dans les sociétés du haut Moyen Âge (500–1100), ed. by Régine Le Jan, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Stefano Gasparri (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), pp. 167–86. –––, ‘Gli spazi delle famiglie fra dimensione privata e rappresentazione pubblica’, in Spazio pubblico e spazio privato tra storia e archeologia (secoli VI–XI), ed. by Giovanna Bianchi, Cristina La Rocca and Tiziana Lazzari (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), pp. 213–31. –––, ‘Sugli usi speciali dei beni pubblici: i dotari delle regine e i patrimoni dei monasteri’, in Biens publics, biens du roi: les bases économiques des pouvoirs royaux dans le haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard and Vito Loré (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 443–52. Lazzari, Tiziana and Alberto Monti, ‘Il castello di Pianoro: le fonti scritte e alcune considerazioni sulle evidenze archeologiche’, in Castelli medioevali e neomedievali in Emilia-Romagna: atti della giornata di studio (Bologna, 17 marzo 2005), ed. by Maria Giuseppina Muzzarelli and Antonella Campanini (Bologna: CLUEB, 2006), pp. 115–41. Le Jan, Règine, Famille et pouvoir dans le mond franc (VIIe –Xe siècle): essai d’anthropologie sociale (Parigi: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1995). –––, Femmes, pouvoir et société dans le haut Moyen Âge (Parigi: Picard, 2001). –––, ‘Adelheidis: le nom au premier millénaire; formation, origine, dynamique’, in Adélaïde de Bourgogne: genèse et représentations d’une sainteté impériale; actes du colloque international du Centre d’Études Médiévales – UMR 5594 (Auxerre, 10–11 décembre 1999), ed. by Patrick Corbet P., Monique Goullet and Dominique Iogna-Prat (Dijon: Editions universitaires de Dijon, 2002), pp. 29–42. Leicht, Pier Silverio, Il diritto privato preirneriano (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1933). Lindow, John, Norse Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

374 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Livingstone, Amy, Out of Love for My Kin: Aristocratic Family Life in the Lands of the Loire, 1000–1200 (Ithaca: Cornwell University Press, 2010). Loré, Vito, ‘L’aristocrazia salernitana nell’XI secolo’, in Salerno nel XII secolo: istituzioni, società e cultura; atti del congresso internazionale (Raito di Vietri sul mare, 16–20 giugno 1999), ed. by Paolo Delogu and Paolo Peduto (Salerno: Incisivo, 2004), pp. 61–102. –––, ‘Spazi e forme dei beni pubblici nell’alto medioevo: il regno longobardo’, in Spazio pubblico e spazio privato tra storia e archeologia (secoli VI–X), ed. by Giovanna Bianchi, Maria Cristina La Rocca and Tiziana Lazzari (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), pp. 59–88. Löwe, Heinz‚ ‘Studien zu den Annales Xantenses’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 8 (1951), pp. 59–99. Lyon, Jonathan R., Cooperation, Compromise and Conflict Avoidance: Family Relationships in the House of Andechs, ca. 1100–1204 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2005). MacLean, Simon, ‘The Carolingian Response to the Revolt of Boso, 879–887’, Early Medieval Europe 10.1 (2001), pp. 21–48. –––, Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and the End of the Carolingian Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). –––, ‘Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian Europe’, Past & Present 178 (2003), pp. 3–38. –––, ‘“After his death a great tribulation came to Italy …”: Dynastic Politics and Aristocratic Factions after the Death of Luis II, c.870–c.890’, Millennium–Jahrbuch 4 (2007), pp. 239–60. –––, Ottonian Queenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). Manarini, Edoardo, ‘Paesaggio ed edifici di culto nel comparto Reno-Galliera’, in Il territorio di pianura della diocesi di Bologna: identità e presenza della Chiesa; urbanistica, socio-demografia, edifici di culto e pastorale di un paesaggio in trasformazione, ed. by Claudia Manenti (Bologna: Compositori, 2011), pp. 212–13. –––, ‘Ai confini con l’Esarcato: proprietà, possessi e giurisdizioni dei Canossa nel Bolognese orientale’, in Matilde di Canossa e il suo tempo: 31˚ congresso internazionale di studio del CISAM (San Benedetto Po, Revere, Mantova, Quattro Castella, 20–24 ottobre 2015) (Spoleto: CISAM, 2016), pp. 459–80. –––, I due volti del potere: una parentela atipica di ufficiali e signori del regno italico (Milano: Ledizioni, 2016). –––, ‘Politiche regie e attivismo aristocratico nell’Emilia carolingia: il monastero di S. Silvestro di Nonantola’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 30 (2017), pp. 7–74. –––, ‘I conti di Panico e la prima espansione del comune di Bologna nel territorio appenninico (XII–XIII secc.)’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 31 (2018), pp. 11–48.

Bibliogr aphy

375

–––, ‘Politiche regie e conflitti nell’Emilia orientale: la fisionomia del fisco regio, San Silvestro di Nonantola e le lotte per il regno dopo l’875’, Reti Medievali Rivista 20.1 (2019), pp. 121–56. –––, ‘A Marriage, a Battle, an Honor: The Career of Boniface of the Hucpoldings during Rudolf II’s Italian Reign, 924–26’, Early Medieval Europe 28.2 (2020), pp. 289–309. –––, ‘Ugo’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 97 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2020), pp. 391–5. –––, ‘Le madri dei marchesi: la legittimazione al potere marchionale nella marca Tusciae’, in Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). –––, ‘Sex, Denigration and Violence: A Representation of Political Competition between Two Aristocratic Families in 9th Century Italy’, in Conflict and Violence in Medieval Italy 568–1154, ed. by Christopher Heath and Robert Houghton (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming). Mancassola, Nicola, L’azienda curtense tra Langobardia e Romania: rapporto di lavoro e patti colonici dall’età carolingia al Mille (Bologna: CLUEB, (2008). Marrazzi, Federico, ‘Pellegrini e fondatori: rapporti fra monasteri e politica nel Meridione altomedievale’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 118 (2016), pp. 49–108. Mazzotti, Mauro, Le pievi ravennati (Ravenna: Longo, 1975). Meyer, Hans-Eugen, ‘Die Pfalzgrafen der Merowinger und Karolinger’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Germanistische Abteilung 42 (1921), pp. 380–463. Menant, François, ‘Les Giselbertins, comtes du comté de Bergame et comtes palatins’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del primo convegno di Pisa (10–11 maggio 1983) (Roma: ISIME, 1988), pp. 115–86. Meyvaert, Paul, ‘Peter the Deacon and the Tomb of St. Benedict’, in Paul Meyvaert, Benedict, Gregory, Bede and Others (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977), pp. 3–70. Milani, Giuliano, ‘Lotte di fazione e comunità montane nella documentazione giudiziaria bolognese tardoduecentesca’, in Signori feudali e comunità appenniniche nel Medioevo: atti delle giornate di studio (Capugnano 3–4 settembre 1994), ed. by Claudio Cappelletti and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo studi alta valle del Reno, 1995), pp. 91–100. Modesti, Maddalena, Studi per l’edizione critica delle carte bolognesi del secolo XII: prosopografia dei notai ed edizione critica di due cartulari notarili (Bologna: BUP, 2012). Müller-Mertens, Eckhard, ‘The Ottonians as Kings and Emperors’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3: c.900–c.1024, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 233–66.

376 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Negrelli, Claudio, ‘Topografia e luoghi di culto: tra tarda antichità e alto medioevo’, in Storia della chiesa riminese, vol. 1: Dalle origini all’anno Mille, ed. by Raffaele Savigni (Rimini: Guaraldi, 2010), pp. 291–321. Nelson, Janet L., Charles the Bald (London: Longman, 1992). –––, ‘Le partage de Verdun’, in De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée: Francia Media, une région au cœur de l’Europe, ed. by Michèle Gaillard, Michel Margue, Alain Dierkens and Hérold Pettiau (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 2011), pp. 241–54. Nimmegeers, Nathanaël, Èvêques entre Bourgogne et Provence. La province ecclésiastique de Vienne au haut Moyen Âge (Ve–XIe siècle) (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2014). Ninci, Renzo, ‘Le proprietà della Badia Fiorentina: problemi di identificazione’, in Le carte del monastero di S. Maria in Firenze (Badia), vol. 2, ed. by Anna Maria Enriques (Roma: ISIME, 1990), pp. 319–48. Nobili, Mario, ‘Alcune considerazioni circa l’estensione, la distribuzione territoriale e il significato del patrimonio degli Obertenghi (metà secolo X–inizio secolo XII)’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 255–66. –––, ‘Formarsi e definirsi dei nomi di famiglia nelle stirpi marchionali dell’Italia centro-settentrionale: il caso degli Obertenghi’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 267–90. –––, ‘Le famiglie marchionali nella Tuscia’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 125–50. –––, ‘Le terre obertenghe delle contee di Pisa, Lucca e Volterra’, in Mario Nobili, Gli Obertenghi e altri saggi (Perugia: CISAM, 2014), pp. 215–28. Nobili, Mario and Giuseppe Sergi, ‘Le nuove marche del regno italico: un programma di ricerca’, Nuova Rivista Storica 65 (1981), pp. 399–405. Padovani, Andrea, ‘Iudicaria motinensis’: contributo allo studio del territorio bolognese nel Medioevo (Bologna: CLUEB, 1990). Pallavicino, Alessandro, ‘Le parentele del marchese Almerico II’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 233–320. Paolini, Lorenzo, ‘La Chiesa e la città (secoli XI–XIII)’, in Storia di Bologna, vol. 2: Bologna nel Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Bologna: BUP, 2007), pp. 653–760. Pescaglini Monti, Rosanna, ‘I conti Cadolingi’, in I ceti dirigenti in Toscana nell’età precomunale: atti del I convegno (Firenze, 2 dicembre 1978) (Pisa: Pacini, 1981), pp. 191–205. –––, ‘La famiglia dei Visconti di Fucecchio (1096–1254)’, in La Valdinievole tra Lucca e Pistoia nel primo Medioevo: atti del convegno (Fucecchio, 19 maggio 1985) (Pistoia: Società pistoiese di storia patria, 1986), pp. 65–91.

Bibliogr aphy

377

Petracchi, Celestino, Della insigne abbaziale basilica di S. Stefano (Bologna: Guidotti e Mellini, 1747). Pio, Berardo, ‘Fermenti religiosi, riforma ecclesiastica e riforma gregoriana: conti e vescovi a Bologna nell’età della Riforma fino a Gregorio VII’, in Storia di Bologna, vol. 2: Bologna nel Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Bologna: BUP, 2007), pp. 359–86. –––, ‘Poteri pubblici e dinamiche sociali a Bologna nel secolo XI’, in Bologna e il secolo XI: storia, cultura, economia, istituzioni, diritto, ed. by Giovanni Feo and Francesca Roversi Monaco (Bologna: BUP, 2011), pp. 551–72. Porta, Paola, ‘Abbazie medievali del territorio bolognese: S. Bartolomeo di Musiano’, in San Bartolomeo di Musiano: giornata di studi (Pianoro, 15 ottobre 2005) (Bologna: Deputazione di storia patria, 2008), pp. 1–30. Poupardin, René, Le royaume de Provence sous les Carolingiens (855–933) (Paris: Boullion, 1901). –––, Le royaume de Bourgogne (888–1038): Étude sur l’origine du royaume d’Arles (Paris: Champion, 1907). Pozza, Marco, ‘Per una storia dei monasteri veneziani dei secoli VIII–XII’, in Il monachesimo nel Veneto medievale (atti del convegno di studi, Treviso 30 novembre 1996), ed. by Francesco G.B. Trolese (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1998), pp. 17–38. Provero, Luigi, ‘Il sistema di potere carolingio e la sua rielaborazione nei comitati di Parma e Piacenza’, in Studi sull’Emilia occidentale nel Medioevo: società e istituzioni, ed. by Roberto Greci (Bologna: CLUEB, 2001), pp. 43–64. –––, ‘Apparato funzionariale e reti vassallatiche nel Regno Italico (secoli X–XII)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del terzo convegno di Pisa (18–20 maggio 1999), ed. by Amleto Spicciani (Roma: ISIME, 2003), pp. 175–232. –––, ‘Progetti e pratiche dell’eredità nell’Italia settentrionale (secoli VIII–X)’, in Sauver son âme et se perpétuer: transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Cristina La Rocca and Régine Le Jan (Roma: École française de Rome, 2005), pp. 115–30. –––, ‘Terre e case dell’aristocrazia: distribuzione sul territorio e usi sociali (secoli VIII–XI)’, in Città e campagna nei secoli altomedievali, vol. 2 (Spoleto: CISAM, 2009), pp. 843–62. –––, ‘Chiese e dinastie nel mondo carolingio’, in Storia di Parma, vol. 3.1: Parma medievale: poteri e istituzioni, ed. by Roberto Greci (Parma: Monte Università Parma, 2010), pp. 41–67. –––, L’Italia dei poteri locali: secoli X–XII (Roma: Carocci, 2011). Provesi, Chiara, ‘Le due mogli di Pietro IV Candiano (959–976): le donne e i loro gruppi parentali nella Venezia di X secolo’, Reti Medievali Rivista 16.2 (2015), pp. 21–51.

378 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Puglia, Andrea, La marca di Tuscia tra X e XI secolo: impero e società locale e amministrazione marchionale negli anni 970–1027 (Pisa: Il campano, 2004). –––, ‘Vecchi e nuovi interrogativi sul marchese Ugo di Tuscia (970–1001)’, in Dalle abbazie l’Europa: i nuovi germogli del seme benedettino nel passaggio tra primo e secondo millennio (secoli X–XII); atti del Convegno di Studi (Badia a Settimo, 22–24 aprile 1999), ed. by Alessandro Guidotti and Graziella Cirri (Firenze: Maschietto, 2006), pp. 151–86. Rabotti, Giuseppe, ‘Dai vertici dei poteri medievali: Ravenna e la sua chiesa fra diritto e politica dal X al XIII secolo’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 3: Dal Mille alla fine della signoria polentana, ed. by Augusto Vasina (Venezia: Marsilio, 1993), pp. 129–68. –––, ‘Il placito di Bertinoro del secolo decimo’, Studi Romagnoli 47 (1996), pp. 9–30. Rao, Riccardo and Igor Santos Salazar, ‘Risorse di pubblico uso e beni comuni nell’Italia settentrionale: Lombardia 569–1100’, Studia Historica/Historia Medieval 37.1 (2019), pp. 29–51. Rauty, Natale, ‘Fonti documentarie e narrative per la storia dei conti Guidi in Toscana’, in La lunga storia di una stirpe comitale: i conti Guidi tra Romagna e Toscana; atti del convegno di studi organizzato dai Comuni di Modigliana e Poppi (Modigliana-Poppi, 28–31 agosto 2003), ed. by Federico Canaccini (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2009), pp. 61–70. Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi, vol. 9.1–2 (Roma: ISIME, 2002). Repetti, Emmanuele, Dizionario geografico fisico e storico della Toscana, 5 vols. (Firenze: Presso l’autore e editore, 1833–46). Riant, Paul E.D., La donation de Hugues, marquis de Toscane, au Saint-Sépulcre et les établissements latins de Jérusalem au Xe siècle (Parigi: Imprimerie nationale, 1884). Rinaldi, Rossella, ‘Le origini dei Guidi nelle terre di Romagna (secoli IX–X)’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. IX–XII); atti del secondo convegno di Pisa (3–4 dicembre 1993) (Roma: ISIME, 1996), pp. 211–40. –––, Tra le carte di famiglia: studi e testi canossani (Bologna: CLUEB, 2003). –––, ‘A ovest di Ravenna: itinerari di conti, di vescovi e di giovani donne’, in Storia di Bologna, vol. 2: Bologna nel Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani (Bologna: BUP, 2007), pp. 151–86. –––, ‘Esplorare le origini: note sulla nascita e l’affermazione della stirpe comitale’, in La lunga storia di una stirpe comitale: i conti Guidi tra Romagna e Toscana; atti del convegno di studi organizzato dai Comuni di Modigliana e Poppi (ModiglianaPoppi, 28–31 agosto 2003), ed. by Federico Canaccini (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 2009), pp. 19–46. Rinaldi, Rossella and Carla Villani, Nonantola, in Lanfranco e Wiligelmo: il Duomo di Modena (Modena: Panini, 1985), pp. 90–116.

Bibliogr aphy

379

Rinaldi, Sara, Aldo Favini and Alessandro Naldi, Firenze romanica: le più antiche chiese della città, di Fiesole e del contado circostante a nord dell’Arno (Empoli: Editori dell’Acero, 2005). Ripart, Laurent, ‘Le royaume rodolphien de Bourgogne (fin IXe–début XIe siècle)’, in De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée. Francia Media, une région au cœur de l’Europe, ed. by Michèle Gaillard, Michel Margue, Alain Dierkens and Hérold Pettiau (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 2011), pp. 429–52. Rosenwein, Barbara H., ‘The Family Politics of Berengar I, King of Italy (888–924)’, Speculum 71 (1996), pp. 247–89. Samaritani, Antonio, ‘Gebeardo di Eichstätt, arcivescovo di Ravenna (1027–1044) e la riforma imperiale della chiesa di Romagna’, Analecta Pomposiana 3 (1967), pp. 109–40. Sansi, Achille, Degli edifici e dei frammenti storici delle antiche età di Spoleto, app.: I duchi di Spoleto (Foligno: Sgariglia, 1870). Santini, Giovanni, ‘La contessa Matilde, lo “Studium” e Bologna “Città aperta” dell’XI sec.’, in Studi Matildici: atti e memorie del II convegno di studi matildici (ModenaReggio Emilia, 1–3 maggio 1970) (Modena: Aedes muratoriana, 1971), pp. 409–28. Savigni, Raffaele, ‘I papi e Ravenna: dalla caduta dell’esarcato alla fine del secolo X’, in Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana: territorio, economia e società, ed. by Antonio Carile (Venezia: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 331–68. –––, ‘Giovanni IX da Tossignano, arcivescovo di Ravenna (papa Giovanni X) e i suoi rapporti con la corte ducale spoletana’, in Ravenna e Spoleto: i rapporti tra due metropoli; atti del XXVIII convegno del Centro Studi e Ricerche Antica Provincia Ecclesiastica Ravennate (Spoleto, 22–24 settembre 2005), ed. by Maurizio Tagliaferri (Imola: BUP, 2007), pp. 215–46. Savioli, Ludovico Vittorio, Annali bolognesi, 3 vols. (Bassano del Grappa: Remondini, 1784–95). Scaravelli, Irene, ‘Giovanni’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 55 (Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 2001), pp. 519–22. Schmid, Karl, ‘The Structure of the Nobility in the Earlier Middle Ages’, in The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979), pp. 37–59. Schneider, Fedor, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana von der Gründung des Langobardenreiches bis zum Ausgang der Staufer (528–1268) (Roma: Loescher, 1914). Schoolman, Edward M., ‘Aristocracies in Early Medieval Italy, ca. 500–1000 ce’, History Compass 16.11 (2018), pp. 1–13. –––, ‘Nobility, Aristocracy and Status in Early Medieval Ravenna’, in Ravenna: Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, ed. by Judith Herrin and Janet Nelson (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2016), pp. 211–38.

380 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

Schumann, Reinhold, Authority and the Commune, Parma 833–1133 (Parma: Deputazione di storia patria per le province parmensi, 1973). Schwartz, Gerhard, Die Besetzung der Bistumer Reichsitaliens: unter den Sachsischen und Salischen Kaisern mit den Listen der Bishofe (951–1122) (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913). Screen, Elina, ‘The Importance of the Emperor: Lothar I and the Frankish Civil War, 840–843’, Early Medieval Europe 12.1 (2003), pp. 25–52. –––, ‘Lothar I in Italy, 834–40: Charters and Authority’, in Problems and Possibilities of Early Medieval Charters, ed. by Jonathan A. Jarrett and Allan S. McKinley (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 231–52. –––, ‘Carolingian Fathers and Sons in Italy: Lothar I and Louis II’s Successful Partnership’, in After Charlemagne: Carolingian Italy and Its Rulers, ed. by Clemens Gantner and Walter Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 148–63. Sereno, Cristina, ‘Monasteri aristocratici subalpini: fondazioni funzionariali e signorili, modelli di protezione e di sfruttamento (secoli X–XII) (parte prima)’, Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 96 (1998), pp. 397–448. –––, ‘Bertilla e Berta: il ruolo di Santa Giulia di Brescia e di San Sisto di Piacenza nel regno di Berengario I’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 187–202. Sergi, Giuseppe, ‘Istituzioni politiche e società nel regno di Borgogna’, in Il secolo di ferro: mito e realtà del secolo X (Spoleto: CISAM, 1991), pp. 205–42. –––, L’aristocrazia della preghiera: politica e scelte religiose nel medioevo italiano (Roma: Donzelli, 1994). –––, I confini del potere: marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Torino: Einaudi, 1995). –––, ‘“Aree” e “luoghi” di strada: antideterminismo di due concetti storico geografici’, in La viabilità appenninica dall’Età Antica ad oggi: atti delle giornate di studio (12 luglio, 2, 8, 12 agosto, 13 settembre 1997), ed. by Paola Foschi, Edoardo Penoncini and Renzo Zagnoni (Porretta Terme: Gruppo studi alta valle del Reno, 1998), pp. 11–16. –––, ‘The Kingdom of Italy’, inThe New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3: c.900– c.1024, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 346–71. –––, ‘Poteri temporali dei vescovi: il problema storiograf ico’, in Vescovo e città nell’alto Medioevo: quadri generali e realtà toscane (Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Pistoia 16–17 maggio 1998), ed. by Giampaolo Francesconi (Pistoia: Centro italiano di studi di storia e d’arte, 2001), pp. 1–16. Settia, Aldo A., ‘“Nuove marche” nell’Italia occidentale: necessità difensive e distrettuazione pubblica fra IX e X secolo; una rilettura’, in La contessa Adelaide e la

Bibliogr aphy

381

società del secolo XI: atti del Convegno (Susa, 14–16 novembre 1991), Segusium 32 (1992), pp. 43–60. –––, ‘“Per foros Italiae”: le aree extraurbane fra Alpi e Appennini’, in Mercati e mercanti nell’alto Medioevo: l’area euroasiatica e l’area mediterranea (Spoleto: CISAM, 1993), pp. 187–237. –––, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi d’Ivrea (sec. V-1198)’, Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 93.1 (1995), pp. 245–63. Spagnesi, Enrico, Wernerius Bononiensis iudex: la figura storica d’Irnerio (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1970). Sturtevant, Albert M., ‘Comments on Mythical Name-Giving in Old Norse’, Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory 29 (1954), pp. 68–71 Sutherland, Jon Nicholas, Liudprand of Cremona, Bishop, Diplomat, Historian: Studies of the Man and His Age (Spoleto: CISAM, 1988). Tabacco, Giovanni, ‘Muratori medievista’, in L.A. Muratori Storiografo: atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Muratoriani (Modena, 1972), vol. 2 (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1975), pp. 3–20. –––, Struggle for Power, trans. by Rosalind Brown Jensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). –––, ‘Northern and Central Italy in the Eleventh Century’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4: c.1024–c.1198, pt. 2, ed. by David E. Luscombe and Jonathan S.C. Riley-Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 72–93. Tamba, Giorgio, Una corporazione per il potere: il notariato a Bologna in età comunale (Bologna: CLUEB, 1998). Tellenbach, Gerd, ‘Zur Bedeutung der Personenforschung für die Erkenntnis des früheren Mittelalters’, in Gerd Tellenbach, Ausgewählte Abhandlungen Aufsätze, vol. 3 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1988), pp. 343–62. –––, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility to the German Estate of Imperial Princes’, in The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979), pp. 203–42. Tiberini, Sandro, ‘Origini e radicamento di un lignaggio umbro-toscano nei secoli X–XI: i “Marchesi di Colle” (poi “Del Monte S. Maria”)’, Archivio Storico Italiano 152 (1994), pp. 481–559. Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia dell’augusta badia di S. Silvestro di Nonantola, vol. 2 (Modena: Società tipografica di Modena, 1785). –––, Dizionario topografico-storico degli Stati Estensi, vol. 1 (Modena: Tipografia camerale, 1824). Tomei, Paolo, ‘Coordinamento e dispersione: l’arcicancelliere Uberto di Parma e la riorganizzazione ottoniana della marca di Tuscia’, in Europäische Herrscher

382 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

und die Toskana im Spiegel der urkundlichen Überlieferung (800–1100), ed. by François Bougard, Antonella Ghignoli and Wolfgang Huschner (Leipzig: Eudora Verlag, 2015), pp. 77–86. –––, ‘Da Cassino alla Tuscia: disegni politici, idee in movimento; sulla politica monastica dell’ultima età ottoniana’, Quaderni Storici 51 (2016), pp. 355–82. –––, ‘Una nuova categoria documentaria nella Toscana marchionale: la donazione in forma di mandato; culture grafiche e strutture politiche in una società di corte’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 99 (2019), pp. 116–49. Un villaggio di pianura: ricerche archeologiche in un insediamento medievale del territorio di Sant’Agata Bolognese, ed. by Sauro Gelichi, Mauro Librenti and Marco Marchesini (Borgo San Lorenzo: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2014). Vasina, Augusto, ‘Possedimenti della chiesa ravennate nella Pentapoli durante il Medioevo’, Studi Romagnoli 18 (1967), pp. 333–67. –––, Romagna medievale (Ravenna: Longo, 1970). Vedovato, Giuseppe, ‘L’inizio della presenza camaldolese nel Veneto (1186–1250)’, in Il monachesimo nel Veneto medievale (atti del convegno di studi, Treviso 30 novembre 1996), ed. by Francesco G.B. Trolese (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 1998), pp. 97–107. –––, ‘Ugo di Tuscia e il monastero di Santa Maria della Vangadizza’, in Dalle abbazie l’Europa: i nuovi germogli del seme benedettino nel passaggio tra primo e secondo millennio (secoli X–XII); atti del Convegno di Studi (Badia a Settimo, 22–24 aprile 1999), ed. by Alessandro Guidotti and Graziella Cirri (Firenze: Maschietto, 2006), pp. 187–203. Verbruggen, Jan-Frans, ‘L’armée et la stratégie de Charlemagne’, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, ed. by Helmut Beuman and Wolfgang Braunfels, vol. 1 (Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1965), pp. 420–36. Vespignani, Giorgio, La Romània italiana dall’Esarcato al ‘Patrimonium’: il Codex Parisinus (BNP, N.A.L., 2573) testimone della formazione di società locali nei secoli IX e X (Spoleto: CISAM, 2001). Vicinelli, Augusto, ‘L’inizio del dominio pontif icio in Bologna (774–876) ed il passaggio dell’Esarcato dal governo papale a quello dei re d’Italia (876–1073)’, Atti e Memorie della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie di Romagna 10 (1920), pp. 139–76, 220–45; 11 (1921), pp. 39–76, 217–58; 12 (1922), pp. 63–100, 235–51. –––, ‘La famiglia dei Conti di Bologna’, in Atti e Memorie della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie di Romagna 15 (1925), pp. 153–206. Vignodelli, Giacomo, Il filo a piombo: il Perpendiculum di Attone di Vercelli e la storia politica del regno italico (Spoleto: CISAM, 2012).

Bibliogr aphy

383

–––, ‘Berta e Adelaide: la politica di consolidamento del potere regio di Ugo di Arles’, in Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del fisco e politica regia fra IX e X secolo, ed. by Tiziana Lazzari, Reti Medievali Rivista 13.2 (2012), pp. 247–94. –––, ‘Politics, prophecy and satire: Atto of Vercelli’s Polipticum quod appellatur Perpendiculum’, Early Medieval Europe 24 (2016), pp. 209–35. –––, ‘La competizione per i beni fiscali: Ugo di Arles e le aristocrazie del regno italico (926–945)’, in Acquérir, prélever, contrôler les resources en compétition (400–1000), ed. by Régine Le Jan, Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Vito Loré (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 151–69. –––, ‘Prima di Leone: originali e copie di diplomi regi e imperiali nell’Archivio Capitolare di Vercelli’, in Originale-Fälschungen-Kopien: Kaiser- und Königsurkunden für Empfänger in ‘Deutschland’ und ‘Italien’ (9–11 Jahrhundert) und ihre Nachwirkungen im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter (bis ca. 1500), ed. by Nicolangelo D’Acunto, Sebastian Roebert and Wolfgang Huschner (Leipzig: Eudora, 2017), pp. 53–80. –––, ‘Per stemmata regum: discendenza femminile e legittimazione nel regno italico post-carolingio (888–962)’, in Figli delle donne: forme di identità familiare in un mondo senza cognomi (secoli IX–XI), ed. by Tiziana Lazzari (Roma: Viella, forthcoming). Violante, Cinzio, ‘Alcune caratteristiche delle strutture familiari in Lombardia, Emilia e Toscana durante i secoli IX–XII’, in Famiglia e parentela nell’Italia medievale, ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1977), pp. 19–82. –––, Atti privati e storia medievale: problemi di metodo (Roma: Il centro di ricerca, 1982). –––, ‘L’immaginario e il reale: i “da Besate” una stirpe feudale “vescovile” nella genealogia di Anselmo il Peripatetico e nei documenti’, in Nobiltà e chiese nel Medioevo e altri saggi: scritti in onore di Gerd G. Tellenbach, ed. by Cinzio Violante (Roma: Jouvence, 1993), pp. 97–157. Violi, Franco, ‘Monaci nonantolani nelle carte dell’Abbazia di San Gallo nel secolo IX’, Atti e Memorie: Accademia Nazionale di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, Modena 7.2 (2004), pp. 529–40. Werner, Karl Ferdinand, ‘Liens de parenté et noms de personne’, in Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval: actes du colloque de Paris (6–8 juin 1974), ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Roma: École française de Rome, 1977), pp. 25–34. –––, ‘Important Noble Families in the Kingdom of Charlemagne – A Prosopographical Study of the Relationship between King and Nobility in the Early Middle Ages’, in The Medieval Nobility. Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. by Timothy Reuter (Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1979), pp. 137–202.

384 

Struggles for Power in the Kingdom of Italy

–––, ‘Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls des Großen’, in Karl Ferdinand Werner, Vom Frankenreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs: Ursprünge, Strukturen, Beziehungen; ausgewählte Beiträge; Festgabe zu seinem 60 Geburtstag (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1984), pp. 22–81. –––, ‘“Missus-Marchio-Comes”: entre l’administration centrale et l’administration locale de l’Empire carolingien’, in Karl Ferdinand Werner, Vom Frankenreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs: Ursprünge, Strukturen, Beziehungen; ausgewählte Beiträge; Festgabe zu seinem 60 Geburtstag (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1984), pp. 108–56. –––, Nascita della nobiltà: lo sviluppo delle élite politiche in Europa (Torino: Einaudi, 2000). Wickham, Chris, Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 400–1000 (London: Macmillan Press, 1981). –––, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, in Strutture e trasformazioni della signoria rurale nei secoli X–XIII: atti della XXXVII settimana di studio (12–16 settembre 1994), ed. by Gerhard Dilcher and Cinzio Violante (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996), pp. 343–409. –––, La montagna e la città: gli Appennini toscani nell’alto medioevo (Torino: Scriptorium, 1997). –––, ‘ The Changing Composition of Early Elites’, in Théorie et pratiques des élites au haut Moyen Âge, ed. by François Bougard, Hans-Werner Goetz and Régine Le Jan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 5–20. –––, ‘Sulle origini del comune di Bologna’, Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 119 (2017), pp. 209–38. Wolfram, Herwig, Conrad II, 990–1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2006). Wood, Ian N., ‘ Genealogy Defined by Women: The Case of the Pippinids’, in Gender in the Early Medieval World: East and West, 300–900, ed. by Leslie Brubaker and Julia Mary H. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 234–56. Zagnoni, Renzo, ‘Il monastero di San Bartolomeo di Musiano nel medioevo (981–1307)’, in San Bartolomeo di Musiano: giornata di studi (Pianoro, 15 ottobre 2005) (Bologna: Deputazione di storia patria, 2008), pp. 31–96. Zielinski, Herbert, ‘Ein unbeachteter Italienzug Kaiser Lothar I. im Jahre 847’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 70 (1990), pp. 1–22. –––, ‘Reisegeschwindigkeit und Nachrichtenübermittlung als Problem der Regestenarbeit am Beispiel eines undatierten Kapitulars Lothars I von 847 Frühjahr (846 Herbst?)’, in Diplomatische und chronologische Studien aus der Arbeit an den Regesta Imperii, ed. by Paul-Joachim Heinig (Köln: Böhlau, 1991), pp. 37–49. Zornetta, Giulia, Italia meridionale longobarda: competizione, conflitto e potere politico a Benevento (secoli VIII–IX) (Roma: Viella, 2020).

Index Modern placenames where identifiable are listed within their current province. Where it has not been possible to identify them exactly, the Latin toponym has been used together with the modern province (if known). Acereto see Acerreta Acerreta, stream 97, 168 S. Giovanni Battista in Acereto (Florence), abbey 168 n. 18 Achedeus, count 51 see also Supponids Acio 243 Acrieta (Florence) 168 Acta, wife of Guy of Bisano 252 Adalbert I, count 87, 101–03, 130, 227–28, 236, 298 see also Hucpoldings Adalbert I, marquis of Ivrea 64, 65 n. 130 see also Anscarids Adalbert I, marquis of Tuscany 51–52, 57–58, 105–06, 188, 273, 315, 317 see also Adalbertings Adalbert II, marquis of Tuscany 60, 62, 89, 270, 274, 317 see also Adalbertings Adalbert II, count 85, 104, 126, 148, 218, 229–30, 232, 233 n. 80, 235, 243, 247, 279, 285, 287, 289, 298 see also Hucpoldings Adalbert III, son of Adalbert II 126–27, 148–49, 151, 186, 211, 233 n. 80, 246, 254, 288, 289, 300 see also Hucpoldings Adalbert IV, son of Adelheid 235 see also Hucpoldings Adalbert, king of Italy 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 98, 293 see also Anscarids Adalbert Atto, count 141, 142 see also Canossa Adalbert 252 n. 182 Adalbert/Albert, anthroponym 275 Adalbertings, kinship group 46, 52, 58, 71, 86, 91 n. 28, 106, 107, 112, 114, 185, 273–74, 284, 314, 315, 317, 344 blood 86 n. 5, 143, 274, 344 see also Adalbert I, marquis of Tuscany; Adalbert II, marquis of Tuscany; Boniface II of Tuscany, count of Lucca; Ermengarde of Ivrea; Guy; Lambert Adalfredus, bishop of Bologna 131, 132 n. 21, 136 n. 57 Adalgausus 52 n. 44, 188 Adam 170 Adanald, son of Atripert 204

Adelengus Atto 171 Adelgis I, count of Parma 51, 55 see also Supponids Adelgis II, count of Piacenza 55, 60 see also Supponids Adelheid, anthroponym 276 Adelheid, empress 93, 94, 108, 111 dower 93 Adelheid 126, 137 n. 60, 235, 299–300 see also Hucpoldings Adelongus, bishop of Lucca 203 Adescalcus 251 n. 178 Adica, daughter of Henry 211 Adige, river 92 Adili see San Benedetto Adimari, noble family of Florence 144 n. 102 Adimari, lineage 144, 147, 190, 208–11, 282, 338 see also Adimarus III; Adimarus IV; Bernard I; Bernard II; Bernard III; Bernard, son of Purpure; Eppo; Fulco; Hildebrand; Hubald, son of Hugh, son of Adimarus II; Purpure Adimarus I, count 144–45, 186, 190–91, 208, 210, 211, 234 see also Hucpoldings Adimarus II, count 145–46, 147 n. 112 see also Hucpoldings Adimarus III, son of Bernard 145, 282 see also Adimari Adimarus IV, son of Hubald 147, 209–10 see also Adimari Adimarus, anthroponym 145, 275 Adimarus, prince of Capua 275 n. 46 Adria (Rovigo) territory 105 Aemilia, via 132 n. 23, 167, 225, 239, 251, 254, 255 Ageltrude, empress 222 Agilmarus, archbishop of Vienne, arch-chancellor 50 Agilone 193 n. 33 Agna see S. Salvatore in Agna Aicardus, bishop of Parma 65 Aistulf, king of the Lombards 222, 321 Airlie, Stuart 24 Alamannia 46 Alarus, viscount 52 n. 44 Albert I, count 126, 136 n. 57, 137–39, 233, 239, 246 n. 152, 276 see also Hucpoldings

386 Index Albert II, count 127, 149–51, 246, 254–55, 300 see also Panico Albert, anthroponym 145 Albert, son of Lambert 244 Albert, son of Ursus 249 Aldobrandeschi, kinship group 57, 112 n. 167, 270 n. 18 see also Hildebrand II Aldrevandus, son of Albert 244 Aldus, consul 170 n. 29 Aleramici, kinship group 312 n. 2 Alexander III, pope 144 n. 100, 252 n. 182 Alexander 131 Alfridus, son of Alfridus 193 n. 33, 203 Alfridus 203 Almerici, kinship group 105, 106 n. 124 see also Almericus I; Almericus II Almericus I, marquis 64 n. 124, 68, 105, 271 n. 19 see also Almerici; Didonids Almericus II, marquis 92, 105–06, 109, 134 n. 35, 137 n. 62, 235, 271 n. 19, 344 see also Almerici; Didonids Alps 19, 46, 47, 48, 50, 56, 59, 86, 113 Amelfredus, son of Ildizus 251 n. 176 Amola (Bologna) 246 Anastasius, alleged librarian of the Holy See 33 Anastasius, consul 171 Anclanum 198 n. 52 Andabertha, wife of Hucpold 46, 56, 291 see also Hucpoldings Andalus 290 n. 130 see also Casalecchio dei Conti Andrew, bishop of Florence 57, 188 Andrew, saint 187 Angilberth, count 64 n. 124 Anna, countess 87, 101, 228–29 Anscar of Oscheret, marquis 61 see also Anscarids Anscarids, kinship group 61 n. 105, 65, 91 see also Adalbert, king of Italy; Anscar of Oscheret; Arduin of Ivrea; Berengar II; Guy Anselm, bishop 49 Antognano (Bologna) 66, 94, 218, 225–26 Anzola dell’Emilia (Bologna) 151 n. 140 Apennines 22, 28, 29, 43, 58, 62, 69, 85, 87, 94, 95, 100, 104, 114, 125, 126, 127, 128, 137, 139, 140, 141, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 163, 179, 181, 186, 200, 201, 207, 210, 211, 212, 217, 218, 223 n. 18, 228, 231, 234 n. 84, 241, 245, 246, 252, 254, 255, 282, 288, 327, 330 Arardus, count 103, 298 n. 172 see also Gerard’s Family Archivio Segreto Estense 219 n. 2 Archoatum see Recovato Arcoveggio (Bologna) 236 Arcudis 168 n. 13 Ardingus I, count 55 see also Supponids

Arduin of Ivrea, king of Italy, marquis of Ivrea 85, 113, 114, 323 see also Anscarids Ardizzo 235 Arena (Pisa) 194 Arezzo 29, 49 n. 19, 52 n. 44, 84, 87, 91, 93–95, 107, 110, 112 n. 168, 142, 150, 186, 193, 195 n. 47, 197, 199, 200 n. 74, 202, 207, 211 n. 139, 241, 242, 278, 322, 325, 326 bishopric 94, 100, 128, 187, 225, 287, 312, 325, 339 bishops see Eberhard; Helmempert; Tedaldus cathedral chapter 94 n. 52, 200, 225 SS. Fiora, Andrea e Lucilla, abbey 95 territory 91 n. 29, 94, 194 n. 35, 135, 200, 202, 203, 323 Argelato (Bologna) 228 n. 50, 236 Aribert, archbishop of Milan 135 Ariflada, wife of Ursus 221 Arles (France) 50, 64, 66, 69, 86, 192, 238, 270, 274, 285, 292, 311, 320, 322, 327, 339 counts see Fulcrad Arno, river 146, 186, 190, 209 Arnulf of Carinthia, emperor 60 see also Carolingians Asti 55 Atalasia, wife of Lothar 205 Atto, bishop of Vercelli 69 n. 151, 71 n. 164, 88 n. 14, 344 Atto, count 88 Atto, viscount 240 n. 111 Augustine, abbot of Musiano 247 Auriliacus see S. Maria in Acquedotto Axcigata see Pieve Cesato Azo of Robiano 232 Azo see Liutard, called Azo Azo, son of Bonandus 233 Azo 244 Azzo, deacon 191 Badia a Cerreto (Florence) 224 n. 21 Badia Prataglia (Arezzo) SS. Maria e Benedetto, abbey 200 Badia a Settimo see Settimo Badia fiorentina see Florence Badriniana see Castelnovo Bariano Baggio (Pistoia) 201 n. 80 Baggiovara (Modena) 223 n. 18 Bagnacavallo (Ravenna) 170 n. 29 Bagno a Ripoli (Florence) 190, 194 n. 40, 208, 209 S. Pietro in Quarto, pieve 209 Bagnum see San Casciano dei Bagni Bagoarius 46 n. 2 Barbarolo (Bologna) 62, 231, 241, 242 Barberino del Mugello (Florence) 230 Barberino Val d’Elsa (Florence) 195 n. 48 Bariano (Florence) 193 n. 34 Bartholomew, saint 288

Index

Batarciolo (Ravenna) 167 Bavaria (Germany) 58, 269 n. 11, 276 Beatrix, anthroponym 276 Beatrix, countess 126, 244, 248–49, 252, 253 see also Hucpoldings Beatrix of Lorraine, duchess 194 n. 35, 275, 294 nn. 146–147 Bedolete (Bologna) 233 n. 79 S. Salvatore, church 233, 290 Benedict, bishop of Cremona 51 Benedict, monk of S. Andrea del Soratte, chronicler 92 Benevento 49, 58 n. 79 princes see Radelchis Bennus 240 Bentivoglio (Bologna) 229 n. 50 Berengar I, king of Italy, emperor 24, 55 n. 63, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 97, 292, 317, 318 see also Unruochings Berengar II, king of Italy 71, 87–92, 95, 98, 293, 312, 321 see also Anscarids Bergamo 65 Bernard I, son of Adimarus II 127–28, 140, 145–46, 209 see also Adimari Bernard II, archdeacon of Florence 127, 146, 148, 208–09 see also Adimari Bernard III, son of Adimarus IV 145, 147, 209–10 see also Adimari Bernard de Campi see Bernard III Bernard, anthroponym 145 Bernard, king of Italy 55 n. 63 see also Carolingians Bernard, son of Purpure 147 n. 112, 210 see also Adimari Bernard, viscount 246 Bernard 243 Berselio (Bologna) 222 Bertha I, abbess of S. Andrea 46, 52, 62, 187–89, 222–23, 284, 315-317, 318 n. 28 see also Hucpoldings Bertha II, abbess of S. Andrea 46, 57, 64, 188, 284, 317 n. 23 see also Hucpoldings Bertha of Tuscany, marquise 64 n. 127, 270, 274, 344 see also Carolingians Bertha, abbess of S. Sisto and S. Giulia 65–68 see also Unruochings Bertha, anthroponym 276 Berthaldings, kinship group 87, 101, 229 see also Berthaldus; Guy Berthaldus, count of Reggio 101 n. 90, 229 see also Berthaldings Bertilla, countess 148, 229, 232, 244, 279, 289, 298 see also Hucpoldings

387 Bertilla, queen of Italy 55 n. 63, 292 Betholeto see Bedolete Bibbiano (Siena) 193 n. 32, 202 Bibbiena (Arezzo) 29 n. 35, 200, 207 Bibbione in Val di Pesa (Florence) 194 n. 40, 195 Bibiano in Val di Sieve (Florence) 194 n. 40, 195 Bisano (Bologna) 144, 252 Blois (France) 135 Boderadus, count palatine 54 Boianum 195 Bologna 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 44, 62 n. 117, 63 n. 121, 66, 85, 102–04, 125–40, 142, 144, 147, 151, 162, 179, 186, 217–56, 266, 267, 280, 287, 288, 326, 329, 330, 337, 338, 339–40, 343 Archivio di Stato 29 n. 38 bishopric 68, 227, 235, 328 bishops see Adalfredus; Gerard; John III; Lambert; Maimbertus cathedral chapter 30, 136, 137 n. 60, 138, 218 commune 30, 139, 140 n. 82, 148 episcopal church 102, 103, 137, 219 n. 2, 238 S. Francesco, monastery 219 n. 2 S. Giovanni in Monte, church 30 S. Maria dei Servi, church 219 n. 2 S. Stefano, abbey 29, 103 n. 104, 219 nn. 1–2 abbots see Guinizus territory 22, 29, 30, 34, 43, 47, 61–62, 69, 83, 85, 87, 94, 101–03, 105, 114, 125–42, 143, 150–52, 161, 162, 163, 186, 198, 200, 201, 205, 210, 211, 217–56, 271, 279, 280, 282, 283, 288, 289, 298, 300, 301, 311, 313, 318, 320, 327–30, 338, 339–40 Bonandus 233, 244, 289 Binbus, viscount 240 Bondeno (Ferrara) 224 n. 20 Boniface I, marquis and duke of Spoleto 46, 47, 64–72, 83–88, 93, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 110, 112 n. 168, 127, 128, 130, 134 n. 38, 140, 145, 161, 190, 191, 192, 208, 218, 223–29, 247, 269-270, 274, 275, 285, 286, 292–95, 297, 311, 313, 317–22, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 339 see also Hucpoldings Boniface II of Tuscany, count of Lucca 51 n. 37, 315 n. 17 see also Adalbertings Boniface II, marquis of Tuscany 28, 110 n. 151, 112 n. 168, 113–15, 125, 135, 142, 143, 148, 185, 186, 194, 195, 198, 200, 201, 205–08, 229, 243, 274, 279–81, 286, 287, 289, 294, 299, 312, 321, 323–24, 339 see also Hucpoldings Boniface III 126, 137 see also Hucpoldings Boniface of Canossa, marquis of Tuscany 112 n. 168, 127, 128, 135, 140–48, 234, 274, 294 n. 146 see also Canossa Boniface, anthroponym 134, 145, 273, 275 Boniface, count 134 see also Severus’ Family

388 Index Boniface, son of Henry 127, 141, 234 Bonifacingo, caphadio 201 Bonizo 243 n. 128 Bonofantinus, gastald 146 n. 111 Bononius, abbot of Marturi 197 Bonvicinus, son of Bonandus 233 Borgo di Cortefreda (Florence) 193 n. 34 Borgo San Lorenzo (Florence) 211, 230 Borgoricco (Siena) 198 n. 56 Borgoricum see Borgoricco Boso of Tuscany, marquis 64 n. 129, 93 see also Bosonids Boso, king of Provence 58–59 see also Bosonids Boso, marquis 60 see also Supponids Bosonids, kinship group 24, 84, 106, 275 see also Boso of Tuscany; Boso, king of Provence; Hubert; Hugh of Arles; Lothar II, king of Italy Bouchard, Constance 24, 336 Brento (Bologna) 62, 132, 138, 142, 218, 231, 234, 241, 328 Brescia 66, 70 n. 157, 143 S. Giulia, abbey 66 abbessess see Bertha, daughter of Berengar I Brisighella (Ravenna) 168, 211 Broilo (Siena) 195, 202 Brondolo see S. Michele di Brondolo Bubiano 168 Budrio (Bologna) 150 n. 132, 236, 240–42, 245, 251 SS. Giovanni e Protasio, pieve 240, 245 Bugialla (Siena) 195 n. 47 Buliciano (Siena) 193 n. 34 S. Giorgio, church 193 n. 34 Burgundy 47, 49, 64, 135, 180 n. 85, 269, 270, 311, 313, 319 kings see Rudolf I of Burgundy; Rudolf II of Burgundy Ca’ Bubano (Ravenna) 168 n. 13 Cadolings, kinship group 28, 85, 97, 98, 99 n. 79, 146, 147, 186, 206, 210 see also Cadolus; Hugh; Lothar Cadolus, count of Pistoia 99 n. 79 Calcinaria (Ravenna) 96 Calvanella (Bologna) 255 n. 200 Calw (Germany) 277 n. 56 Camaldoli see S. Salvatore di Camaldoli Camarinus 204 Camerino (Macerata) 22, 29, 47, 51, 89, 110, 125, 126, 135–37, 161, 321, 322, 324, 339 counts see Ildebert dukes see Boniface I; Tedaldus; Hugh, son of Ranieri; Hugh II Cammarosano, Paolo 22, 314 Campo Migliacio (Modena) 66

Canava (Rimini) 175 Candiano, kinship group 91 see also Peter III; Peter IV; Vitale Canepa (Rimini) 175 n. 59 Canossa (Reggio Emilia) 32 n. 45, 112 n. 168, 127, 128, 135, 139, 140, 141, 143, 179 n. 79, 222, 227 n. 42, 234, 246, 255, 294 n. 146, 296 kinship group 71, 87, 102, 125, 128, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 146, 239, 254, 274, 275, 295, 296, 321 n. 43, 327 see also Adalbert Atto; Boniface of Canossa; Matilda of Canossa; Tedaldus of Canossa; Tedaldus, bishop of Arezzo Capolona (Arezzo) 193, 200 n. 72, 202, 204 S. Gennaro, abbey 186, 200, 241 Caprara (Bologna) 233, 244, 289, 290 Capua (Caserta) 136, 275 n. 46 princes see Adimarus; Landenolf; Pandulf IV Carbonesi, lineage 255 see also Matilda; Witernus Caresana (Vercelli) 197 n. 49 Carinthia (Austria) 60, 111 Carloman I, king of the Franks 222 see also Carolingians Carloman of Bavaria, king of Italy 58 see also Carolingians Carolingians, kinship group 45, 50, 268–70, 283, 296 n. 157, 314, 316 blood 269, 343 see also Arnulf of Carinthia; Bertha of Tuscany; Carloman I; Carloman of Bavaria; Charlemagne; Charles II the Bald; Charles III the Fat; Lothar I; Lothar II; Louis I the Pious; Louis II; Louis the German; Pepin Carolio (Bologna) 228 n. 45 Casale San Gimignano (Siena) 199 n. 61 Casale (Pisa) 199 n. 61 Casale (Ravenna) 168 Casalecchio dei Conti (Bologna) 127, 144, 218, 245, 252, 253, 290 n. 130, 330 lineage (count of) 277, 338 see also Andalus; Ranieri Casalfiumanese (Bologna) 231 n. 67 Casaliclo see Casalecchio dei Conti Casauria see S. Clemente di Casauria Caselle (Bologna) 232 n. 72 Casentino 87, 98, 100, 127, 128, 149–51, 166 n. 3, 178, 195, 200, 208, 210 n. 132, 212, 241, 242, 254, 327 Casignano (Bologna) 233 n. 75 Casigno (Bologna) 230 n. 58 Casola (Bologna) 228 n. 47 Caspar, Erich 33 Cassanigo (Ravenna) 167 Cassia, via 94 Castagnetti, Andrea 106 n. 124, 224 Castel San Gimignano (Siena) 199 n. 61

Index

Castel San Niccolò (Arezzo) 194, 200 n. 74 Castel San Pietro (Bologna) 231 n. 67, 245 n. 150 Castelfranco Emilia (Modena) 223 n. 18 Castelione (Bologna) 228 n. 47, 255 Castellioni (Bologna) 241 Castello d’Argile (Bologna) 226 Castello di Serravalle (Bologna) 228 n. 47 Castelnovo Bariano (Rovigo) 224 n. 20 Castiluni see Castelione Cellola/Cellula see Zola Predosa Cencetti, Giorgio 228 n. 45, 250 n. 172 Ceretolo (Bologna) 246 Cerreto (Pisa) 199 n. 61 Cervia (Ravenna) 133 n. 33 Certaldo (Florence) 195 n. 48 Cesena 133 n. 33, 134, 168 nn. 11–16 Cetica (Arezzo) 195, 202 Champagne (France) 135 Charlemagne, emperor 222 Charles II the Bald, emperor 24, 58 see also Carolingians Charles III the Fat, emperor 24, 53, 58, 59, 270, 317, 318 see also Carolingians Chianti 194, 198 Chiaravalle di Fiastra see S. Maria di Chiaravalle di Fiastra Chiusi (Arezzo) 95, 110, 193 n. 33 Cicio see Raimbertus, called Cicio Cignano (Bologna) 230 n. 58 Cinquanta (Bologna) 62 Ciolo 203 Cirelli, Enrico 168 n. 14 Civale, Biagio 326 n. 60 Civiciano (Bologna) 243 n. 128, 228 n. 47 Classe (Ravenna) 99 Claterna see S. Stefano in Claterna Clement III, antipope 177 n. 70 Clement III, pope 194 n. 39 Cleriza 281, 289 Codex Parisinus see manuscripts (cited) Colina 199 n. 61 Collavini, Simone 96 Colle de Monte 198 n. 52 Colle di Val d’Elsa (Siena) 193 n. 34, 194 Collina (Siena) 193 n. 32 Colombarone (Pesaro-Urbino) 175 n. 57 Colonne (Bologna) 248 n. 162 Comacchio (Ferrara) 168, 169, 172, 175 Concenno (Ferrara) 225 n. 28, 226 Conrad II, emperor 111, 132, 135, 180, 194, 200, 201, 287 n. 110 see also Salians Conrad, bishop of Metz 256 Conrad, marquis 61 see also Widonids Constantine, consul, father of Anastasius 171 Constantine, consul, father of Leo 171

389 Copparo (Ferrara) 234 n. 88, 135 n. 42 Coriano (Rimini) 169 n. 28, 174 n. 54 Cornacervina (Ferrara) 168 Corsica 315 n. 17 Cortenuova (Reggio Emilia) 66 Corticella (Bologna) 223 n. 18 counts palatine see Boderadus; Giselbertus; Hubert; Hucpold; Lanfrancus; Otbert; Samson Cremona 32, 45, 51, 61, 64, 69 n. 152, 92 n. 38, 292, 325 bishops see Benedict; Liutprand Crescentius, Roman senator 111 Crouch, David 336 Cul del Sacco, strada see Negri, via Cunegonde, queen of Italy 55 n. 63 see also Supponids Cuneradus Cunitio 203 n. 87 Cunipert, judge 171 Cursio (Bologna) 255 n. 200 Cuniza, abbess of S. Pietro a Luco 253 Da Ripafratta, family 203 n. 89 Decimano 167, 168 Delumeau, Jean Pierre 267 n. 1 Desiderius, king of the Lombards 222 Didonids, kinship group 68, 344 see also Almerici; Almericus I; Almericus II Domenicus, notary 171 Domicilio (Ravenna) 167, 180 see also Donesilio, via Donesilio, via 167 n. 8 Donizo of Canossa, monk 32 n. 45, 142, 295–96 Dructemirus, arch-chancellor, bishop of Novara 54 Duby, Georges 268 Duchi of Ravenna, family 46 see Gregory, duke; Martin, duke; Romaldus; Sergius Duchi of Rimini, family 63 n.121, 169 see Martin, duke Eberhard, bishop of Arezzo 29, 84, 87, 93, 94, 95, 100, 104, 107, 110, 204, 207, 225, 227, 228, 243, 246, 278, 293, 325-27 see also Hucpoldings Eberhard, anthroponym 275 Egifredus, count 55 see also Supponids Eliazar, called Erizus 203 Ellerario (Bologna) 240, 250, 251 n. 174 Elmo (Pisa) 199 n. 61 Elsa, river 193 Ema, river 190, 208 Emilia 29, 33, 34, 45, 47, 55, 60, 61 n. 107, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 83, 86, 94, 95, 100, 101, 104, 125, 128, 129, 142, 143, 186, 201, 217, 221 n. 5, 222, 241, 266, 270, 291, 311, 313, 318, 320, 321, 324, 339

390 Index emperors see Arnulf of Carinthia; Charlemagne; Charles II the Bold; Charles III the Fat; Conrad II; Frederick I; Frederick II; Guy II of Spoleto; Henry II; Henry III; Henry IV; Henry V; Henry VI; Lambert II of Spoleto; Lothar I; Louis I the Pious; Louis II; Otto I; Otto II; Otto III empresses see Adelheid; Ageltrude; Engelberga; Theophanu Engelberga, anthroponym 276 Engelberga, empress 51 n. 35, 55, 58, 59, 65, 291, 315, 316, 317 see also Supponids Engelrada I, duchess 46, 47, 53, 63, 64, 96 n. 61, 99, 134 n. 40, 165–77, 180, 235 n. 93, 278, 296, 315, 318, 325 see also Hucpoldings Engelrada II, countess 46, 96 n. 63, 170, 174–75, 179, 297 n. 162, 325–27 see also Hucpoldings Engelrada Ingiza 103 see also Hucpoldings Engelrada, anthroponym 276 Eppo, son of Adimarus II 145–46, 147 n. 113 see also Adimari Erizus see Eliazar, called Erizus Ermengarda, de, lineage 104 see also Lambert; Pasquale; Remengarda Ermengarde of Ivrea, marquise 65 see also Adalbertings Ermegarde, anthroponym 276 Ermengarde, daughter of Adalbert I 103, 236, 245 n. 43 Ermengarde, daughter of Odalgarius 195 n. 45 Erulfus, priest 94, 225 Europe 24, 336 Fabrica 224 n. 20 Faenza (Ravenna) 29 n. 35, 87, 97, 100, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133–35, 143, 147, 152, 166–68, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 211, 228 n. 45, 315 n. 16, 330 Biblioteca Civica 246 n. 156 Fagise 195 Fagnano (Bologna) 228 n. 47 Farfa see S. Maria di Farfa Farimund, deacon 191 Farolfus, son of Azo 232 Ferrara 30 n. 42, 106 n. 25, 126, 130, 135 n. 42, 136 n. 56, 137, 138, 218, 234, 235, 239 bishopric 138, 227, 235 bishops see Gratian; Roland counts see Marinus episcopal church 30, 219, 249 n. 168 S. Guglielmo, monastery 30 S. Romano, monastery 30 territory 30, 69, 105, 168, 169, 224, 225, 227, 232, 234 Ficarolo (Rovigo) 224 n. 20

Fidelis, saint 100 Fiesole (Florence) 100, 149, 150 bishopric 287 bishops see Gebizo; William territory 96 n. 63, 194, 315 n. 17 Fiesso (Bologna) 236 Fiesso (Lucca) 194 Finale di Reno (Ferrara) 168, 169 n. 21 Fiorano (Modena) 66 n. 139 Fiorenzuola d’Arda (Piacenza) 65 Flaminia minor, via 230, 241, 242 Fleckenstein, Josef 54 n. 56 Flodoard of Reims, chronicler 65 n. 131 Florence 22, 27, 28, 44, 52 n. 41, 57, 58, 60, 84, 85, 93, 107, 110, 114, 125, 127, 144, 145, 146, 179, 185–89, 190 nn. 13–14, 193–94, 197, 202, 205, 208–11, 230, 242, 286, 317, 323 Archivio di Stato 28 n. 30, 29 Diplomatico 28 n. 30–31–32–33 bishopric 189 bishops see Andrew; Hildeprand; Podus; Radingus; Ranieri; Sichelmus campum regis 188 n. 2 cathedral chapter 28, 146, 148, 187, 189, 204, 208, 209, 282 city gates 188 episcopal church 52, 110 pratum marchionis 194 pratum regis 188 n. 2 Repubblica, piazza della 188 n. 6 S. Andrea, abbey 27, 46, 52, 57, 60, 64, 110, 185, 189–90, 205, 208, 223, 284, 315, 317 n. 23 abbesses see Bertha I; Bertha II; Radburga S. Frediano in Cestello, church 28 n. 31 S. Giovanni/S. Reparata, cathedral 27, 146, 188, 208, 209 S. Maria (Badia fiorentina), abbey 28, 89, 107 n. 135, 110, 112, 113, 114, 185, 186, 194–95, 200, 204, 205, 243, 278, 279 n. 69, 280, 286, 287, 297, 322 S. Miniato al Monte, abbey 27 n. 27, 189 territory 47, 58, 60 n. 100, 69, 71, 84, 89, 93, 107, 140, 144, 145, 146 n. 106, 147, 148, 185–87, 190, 193 n. 34, 194, 200–05, 208, 224, 252, 282, 315 n. 17 Foci in Valdelsa (Siena) 195, 198 n. 52, 202, 206, 208 Fonte Avellana see S. Croce di Fonte Avellana Forlì 133 n. 33, 137, 168 bishops see Hubert territory 133 n. 33, 167 Forlimpopoli (Forlì-Cesena) 133 n. 33 Formosus, pope 63 Forra al Pitta (Pistoia) 201 n. 80 Franca, wife of Riprand and Almericus II 106 n. 125, 109 n. 142 see also Giselbertings

Index

France 24, 46 Francia 49, 56, 60 Francilione 195 Fraolmus, viscount 203 Frassineto (Bologna) 231 n. 67 Frederick I, emperor 100 n. 88, 151, 181 n. 91, 212 Frederick II, emperor 256 Frederone 235 Friuli 60, 315 n. 13, 317 Fucecchio (Florence) 147, S. Salvatore, monastery 147 Fulco, son of Adimarus II 145 n. 104 see also Adimari Fulcrad, count of Arles 50 Fumagalli, Vito 130 Funo (Bologna) 101, 139, 228 n. 50, 236, 239 S. Lorenzo, church 228 Funzano (Florence) 224 Fuschizo 246 n. 152 Futa, pass 210 Gabicce Monte (Pesaro-Urbino) 175 n. 56 Gaggio Montano (Bologna) 228 n. 45 Gaibana (Ferrara) 228 n. 28, 232 n. 74 fiume 136 n. 56, 138, 232 S. Maria, pieve 234 n. 88 Gaidulfus, son of Azo 232 Gaiole in Chianti (Siena) 194, 195 n. 47 Gaiolo (Modena) 223 n. 18 Galliera (Bologna) 225 n. 28, 233 n. 76, 240 S. Venanzio, pieve 233 S. Vincenzo, pieve 225, 239, 240 Gangalandi (Florence) 146, 148, 209–10 S. Angelo, church 146, 209 S. Martino, church 146, 209 Garardus, son of Albert 244 Gariardus, count of Novara 65, 292 Gariperghe 194 n. 40 Garzoleto (Bologna) 228 n. 45 Gasdia, wife of Hubald 209, 282 Gavello (Ferrara) 105, 168, 169, 225, 235 Gavile (Modena) 223 n. 18 Geary, Patrick 336 Gebeardus, archbishop of Ravenna 131, 132, 135 n. 42, 149, 180 Gebizo, bishop of Fiesole 149, 150 n. 134 Gebolini 223 n. 18 Gena see Zena Genoa 275 n. 45 Gerard I, bishop of Lucca 57, 96 n. 63 Gerard II, bishop of Lucca 199 Gerard, bishop of Bologna 252 n. 182 Gerard, count of Vienne 50 Gerard, count 298 n. 172 see also Gerard’s Family Gerard, son of Adescalcus 251 Gerard, son of Gotizius 193 n. 34, 204 see also Gotizi

391 Gerard’s Family, kinship group 298 n. 172 see also Arardus; Gerard Gerbertus, archbishop of Ravenna 177 n. 70 Germany 46, 99, 111, 113, 176 Gesso (Bologna) 62, 231, 241 Ghignoli, Antonella 191 Gingnori 194 n. 40 Giovanna, first wife of Peter IV Candiano 90 Giovanni Villani, chronicler 188 Girardinus, notary 250 Giselbertings, kinship group 106 n. 125, 109 see also Francia; Giselbertus; Lanfrancus I; Lanfrancus II Giselbertus, count palatine 109 n. 142 Gisla I, countess 87, 100, 104, 144, 147, 178–79, 208 n. 119, 287, 299 see also Hucpoldings Gisla II, countess, wife of Arardus 144, 299 see also Guidi Gisla III, wife of Maginfred 144, 211, 282 see also Guidi Gisla, anthoponym see Willa Godfrey III of Lower Lorraine, marquis of Tuscany 294, 295 Godo (Ravenna) 167 Gorgognano (Bologna) 230, 242, 243 S. Giovanni Battista, pieve 230 n. 63, 242 n. 126 Gotizi, kinship group 204, 211 see also Gerard; Gotizius; John; Tazzo Gotizius 193 n. 34, 204 see also Gotizi Gotofredus 233 Governolo (Piacenza) 140 Granarolo dell’Emilia (Bologna) 223 n. 17 Gratian, bishop of Ferrara 137, 235 Gregory V, pope 177 n. 70 Gregory VII, pope 138 Gregory, counsul 171 Gregory, duke 53, 168, 169 n. 21, 172 see also Duchi of Ravenna Greve see Scandicci Grizzana Morandi (Bologna) 233 n. 79 Gualtieri 204 Guastalla (Reggio Emilia) 66 n. 139 Gubert/Ghubert, priest 190 Guidi, lineage 28, 46, 87, 100, 126, 127, 128, 131 n. 18, 144, 146, 147, 149, 151, 166 n. 3, 178, 179, 181 n. 91, 186, 201, 208, 210, 211, 212, 275, 288, 338 see also Gisla II; Gisla III; Guy II, count; Guy IV; Guy V Guiglia (Modena) 228 n. 47 Guinizius, abbot of S. Stefano 251 Guy I, count son of Adalbert III 127, 148–49, 151 n. 141, 211, 254, 282, 300 see also Panico Guy I, count, son of Tegrimus I 98–100, 175, 178, 326 see also Hucpoldings

392 Index Guy I, count 49 see also Widonids Guy II, count 100, 127, 144, 149, 178–79, 211, 287 see also Guidi Guy II, king of Italy, emperor 58, 60–3, 293, 317–18 see also Widonids Guy IV, count 128, 147, 210 see also Guidi Guy V Guerra, count 128, 147, 151 see also Guidi Guy of Bisano, son of Maginfred 144, 252 Guy, anthroponym 274–75 Guy, bishop of Modena 101, 102 Guy, count of Imola 131 Guy, count of Modena 62, 70 n. 159, 318 see also Widonids Guy, count, son of Hugh 112 n. 168 see also Supponids Guy, count 87, 101 see also Berthaldings Guy, gastald 146 n. 111 Guy, marquis of Ivrea 90 see also Anscarids Guy, marquis of Tuscany 97 see also Adalbertings Guy, son of Guy of Bisano 144, 252 Hadumar, anthroponym 275 n. 45 Helmempert, bishop of Arezzo 95 n. 57, 110, 187, 200, 204, 207, 327 Henry II, emperor 85, 113, 114, 199 n. 68, 201, 206, 287 n. 110, 323 see also Ottonians Henry III, emperor 136, 137, 138, 198 n. 55 see also Salians Henry IV, emperor 138, 177 n. 70, 235 n. 93, 287 n. 110 see also Salians Henry V, emperor 30, 126, 139, 152 see also Salians Henry VI, emperor 199 Henry, anthroponym 275–76 Henry, son of Adimarus I 127, 141, 145, 234 Henry, son of Albert I 275 see also Hucpoldings Henry, viscount 240 Henry 211 Hildebrand II, count 57 see also Aldobrandeschi Hildebrand, viscount 203 Hildebrand 147, 210 see also Adimari Hildebrand 240 Hildeprand, bishop of Florence 189, 190 n. 13 Honestus, archbishop of Ravenna 102, 103, 176, 298 Hubald I, count 33, 45, 46, 47, 57–64, 66, 69 n. 151, 85, 91 n. 28, 97, 104, 105, 112 n. 168,

140, 189–91, 206, 271, 273, 276 n. 49, 291–94, 316–18, 328 see also Hucpoldings Hubald I, count 134 see also Severus’ Family Hubald II, count 134 see also Severus’ Family Hubald II, marquis 85, 87, 100, 104–06, 131, 147, 178–79, 271 n. 19, 289, 298, 299, 321 n. 42 see also Hucpoldings Hubald III, count 126, 131–32, 287, 330 n. 82 see also Hucpoldings Hubald IV, count 126, 137, 139, 240, 250–52 see also Hucpoldings Hubald, anthroponym 134, 145, 275, 301, 338 Hubald, son of Adimarus I 127, 141, 143–45, 179, 208, 211, 234, 252, 282 see also Hucpoldings Hubald, son of Bernard I 147, 210, 282 see also Adimari Hubald, son of Guy of Bisano 144, 252 Hubaldinus, anthroponym 145 Hubaldinus, son of Adimarus IV 147, 209 see also Adimari Hubert, anthroponym 275 Hubert, bishop of Forlì 133 n. 33 Hubert, bishop of Parma 94 n. 52, 102 Hubert, count 126, 139–40, 150 n. 132, 243, 245, 246 n. 152, 248, 253, 281, 282 see also Hucpoldings Hubert, count palatine, marquis of Tuscany 47, 71, 84, 86–87, 88–93, 98–99, 100, 106, 192, 194, 274, 278, 286 n. 108, 294–95, 297, 321 see also Bosonids Hucbald/Hucpald/Hucpold, anthroponym 273, 338 Hucpold, count of Verona 273 n. 28 Hucpold, count palatine 21, 33, 34, 43, 45–57, 63, 169, 171, 188, 190, 222, 267, 270, 276, 284, 291–92, 301, 311, 313–17, 327, 337 see also Hucpoldings Hucpoldings, kinship group passim blood 143 see also Adalbert I, count; Adalbert II, count; Adalbert III; Adalbert IV; Adelheid; Adimarus I; Adimarus II; Albert I; Beatrix; Bertha I; Bertha II; Bertilla, countess; Boniface I; Boniface II, marquis of Tuscany; Boniface III; Eberhard; Engelrada I; Engelrada II; Engelrada Ingiza; Gisla I; Guy I, count, son of Tegrimus I; Henry, son of Albert I; Hucpold; Hubald I; Hubald II; Hubald III; Hubald IV; Hubald, son of Adimarus I; Hubert; Hugh I; Hugh II; Hugh III; Maginfred; Ranieri; Ratilda; Tebald; Tegrimus II; Waldrada II; Walfredus I; Willa I, marquise; Willa II, duchess

Index

Hugh I, marquis of Tuscany 28, 84, 85, 91–93, 106–14, 141, 185–87, 189, 191–95, 197–200, 202–08, 225, 239 n. 108, 241, 270 n. 17, 271 n. 19, 274, 278–79, 280 n. 75, 284, 285–87, 294–95, 298, 299, 312, 319 n. 34, 321–24, 326, 327, 339, 344 see also Hucpoldings Hugh II, duke of Spoleto 110 n. 151, 125–26, 130–37, 139, 141, 143, 144, 166, 179–81, 218, 232–34, 235, 239, 240, 244, 245, 281, 287, 289, 299, 311, 312, 324, 330 n. 82, 339 see also Hucpoldings Hugh III, count 106 n. 125, 126, 137–38, 234–35, 249, 299 see also Hucpoldings Hugh IV, count 127, 149–151, 254, 300 see also Panico Hugh V, count 151 see also Panico Hugh of Arles, king of Italy 64, 66, 69–71, 83, 84, 86, 87, 93, 97, 98, 100, 101, 192, 238, 270, 274, 285, 292, 294–95, 311, 312, 313, 320, 321–22, 326, 327, 339 see also Bosonids Hugh, anthroponym 134, 275 Hugh, count 147 n. 112, 210 see also Cadolings Hugh, count 134 n. 40 see also Severus’ Family Hugh, duke of Spoleto, son of Ranieri 135–36 see also Supponids Hugh, marquis of Tuscany, son of Suppo IV 91, 93, 114 see also Supponids Hugh, marquis 225 n. 31 see also Obertenghi Hugh, son of Adalbert 252 n. 182 Hugh, son of Adescalcus 251 n. 178 Hugh, son of Adimarus II 145 see also Adimari Hugh, son of Bonandus 233 Hugh 244 Hughardus, count 56 Hugin 273 n. 32 Hummer, Hans 336 Ibola, stream 168 n. 17 Idice, river 127, 218, 234, 241, 242, 245, 252, 253 n. 190 Ildebert, count of Camerino 51, 53 Ildegard, wife of Adalbert Atto 142, 275 Ildizus 251 n. 176 Imola (Bologna) 131 n. 19 Ingalrad 204 Ingefred, judge 203 Ingelbert, abbot of Nonantola 69, 70, 223, 224 n. 21, 285 Ingelheim 109 Ingezo, abbot of Musiano 247, 249

393 Innocent III, pope 28 Iola (Bologna) 138 Italy passim kings see Adalbert; Arduin of Ivrea; Berengar I; Berengar II; Bernard; Carloman of Bavaria; Guy II of Spoleto; Lambert II of Spoleto; Louis II; Pepin; Rudolf II of Burgundy; Hugh of Arles Ivrea 55, 61, 64, 65, 71, 85, 90, 113, 323 bishops see Joseph marquises see Adalbert I; Arduin; Berengar II; Guy Keller, Hagen 93, 315 n. 17 kings of the Lombards see Aistulf; Desiderius; Liutprand; Rothari kinship groups see Adalbertings; Aldobrandeschi; Aleramici; Almerici; Anscarids; Berthaldings; Bosonids; Cadolings; Candiano; Canossa; Carolingians; Didonids; Gerard’s Family; Giselbertings; Gotizi; Hucpoldings; Obertenghi; Ottonians; Persiceta; Riprandings; Rudolfings; Salians; Severus’ Family; Supponids; Welfs; Wibodings; Widonids Kurze, Wilhelm 112, 226 Jeremiah 131 John III, bishop of Bologna 103, 236 see also Wibodings John VII, archbishop of Ravenna 53, 96, 171, 172, 325 see also Duchi of Ravenna John VIII, pope 63 n. 121 John X, archbishop of Ravenna 177 n. 70 John XII, pope 89, 94, 99 John XIII, pope 176 John of Carolio 228 n. 45 John of Pianoro, notary 244 John the Deacon, chronicler 90 John, abbot of Fontana Taona 201 John, abbot of Musiano 248 John, archpriest 209 John, duke 221 n. 6 see also Persiceta John, gastald 114, 205 John, notary and judge 207 n. 113 John, priest of Montecassino 30 n. 40, 221–22 John, son of Leo magister militum 171 John, son of Tazzo 211 see also Gotizi Joseph of the Book of Genesis 291 Joseph, bishop of Ivrea 54 Judith, wife of Hugh I 111, 200 n. 72, 270 n. 17 see also Ottonians/Salians Lago di Garda 61 Lambert I, duke of Spoleto 51, 55 n. 65, 57, 316 see also Widonids

394 Index Lambert I, duke and count 103, 133–34, 298 n. 172 see also Severus’ Family Lambert II of Spoleto, king of Italy, emperor 61, 63, 97 see also Widonids Lambert of Pianoro 244 Lambert, anthroponym 274 Lambert, archbishop of Milan 65 Lambert, bishop of Bologna 138 Lambert, marquis of Tuscany 274 see also Adalbertings Lambert, son of Albert 244 Lambert, son of Bonandus 233 Lambert, son of Ermengarde 103–04, 236–38, 245 n. 143 see also de Ermengarda Lambert 102–03 see also Wibodings Lamone, river 168, 170 Lamule (Pisa) 199 n. 61 Landenolf, prince of Capua 111 Lanfrancus I, count palatine 106 n. 125 see also Giselbertings Lanfrancus II, count of Padua and Vicenza 109 see also Giselbertings Langobardia 61, 105 Lastra a Signa (Florence) 209 n. 124 Latium 48 Lavino, river 30, 246, 255 S. Giorgio, pieve 235 Lazzari, Tiziana 23, 24, 25, 53, 130, 236, 266, 336, 344 Le Goff, Jacques 268 Legnago (Verona) 91 Leo IV, pope 49 Leo VIII, pope 94 Leo, consul 171 Leo, magister militum 171 Leodoin, bishop of Modena 61 Liargo (Rimini) 174 Linare (Bologna) 230 lineages see Adimari; Carbonesi; Casalecchio dei Conti; Ermengarda, de; Guidi; Panico; Romena Litora Paludiana 66 n. 139 Liudolf, duke of Swabia 88, 92 see also Ottonians Liutard, called Azo 243 Liutard, judge 207 Liutprand, bishop of Cremona 32, 45, 61, 64–65, 69 n. 152, 92 n. 38, 292, 293–94, 325 Liutprand, king of the Lombards 281, 321 Livingstone, Amy 336 Lombardy 60, 90 Lorraine (France) 194 n. 35, 294 Lorsch see St Peter of Lorsch Lothar I, emperor 43, 45, 46, 48–51, 54, 270, 313–14, 316

see also Carolingians Lothar II, king of Italy 71, 83, 87, 88, 321 see also Bosonids Lothar II, king of Lotharingia 59 see also Carolingians Lothar, count 85 n. 3, 206 see also Cadolings Lotharingia 50 Louis I the Pious, emperor 48 see also Carolingians Louis II, king of Italy, emperor 21, 46, 48–58, 64, 91 n. 28, 105, 187, 191, 267, 270, 276, 314–16, 318 see also Carolingians Louis the German, king of East Francia 56 see also Carolingians Lovoleto (Bologna) 223 n. 17, 236 S. Marino, pieve 228, 230, 239 Lovelito see Lovoleto Lucardo (Florence) 191, 198 n. 52 S. Donato, church 191 Lucca 28, 96, 107, 111, 114, 162, 190, 194 n. 37, 197, 199, 200, 203, 206, 210, 315 n. 17 bishops see Adelongus; Gerard counts see Boniface II of Tuscany episcopal church 57, 96 n. 63, 316 S. Ponziano, abbey 109, 186, 194, 322 S. Salvatore di Sesto, abbey 199 territory 52, 147, 322 Luchardo see Lucardo Lucia 167 n. 8 Luco in Valdarno (Siena) 195, 198 n. 52, 202 Luco nel Mugello see Mugello Lucoleta (Bologna) 223 Luni (La Spezia) 315 n. 17 Lutiano Vecchio (Florence) 211 Lyon, Jonathan 336 MacLean, Simon 24 Madrara 232 Magister Tolosanus, chronicler 32 n. 45, 63 n. 120, 96 n. 62, 99 n. 82, 176 n. 65, 179 n. 77 Maginfred, count of Parma 70 Maginfred, son of Guy of Bisano 144, 252 Maginfred, son of Hubald 127, 141, 143–44, 179, 208, 211, 234, 252, 282 see also Hucpoldings Maginfred 203 Maimbertus, bishop of Bologna 63 n. 121, 102 Maio 200 Mammo 170 Mansilda, wife of Hubald IV 250 Mantua 234 Manzolino (Modena) 223 n. 18 Marecchia, river 174 manuscripts (cited) Firenze, ASFi, Manoscritti, 48bis 110 n. 147, 189 n. 9 Padova, Biblioteca Universitaria di Padova, Manoscritti, 1607 33 n. 52

395

Index

Paris, BNF, Nouvelle Acquisitions Latines, 2573 (Codex Parisinus) 27 n. 26, 137 n. 60, 235 n. 92, 299 n. 189 Marano (Bologna) 236 Marche 29 Marconiaula 228 n. 47 Marinus, count of Ferrara 298 n. 172 Marrara (Ferrara) 232 n. 74 Martin, abbot of S. Maria della Vangadizza 92 Martin, consul 171 Martin, duke, husband of Engelrada I 46, 47, 53, 63, 96, 168–72, 174, 177, 296, 315, 318, 325 see also Duchi of Ravenna Martin, duke of Rimini 172 see also Duchi of Rimini Martin, prior of Camaldoli 149, 211 Marturi 193, 198, 202, 206, 208, 224 n. 21, 322 S. Michele, abbey 28, 113, 114, 186, 191–92, 197, 198, 200, 204, 225, 239 n. 108, 323 abbots see Bononius Marzabotto (Bologna) 233 n. 78 Marzaglia (Modena) 102–03, 131, 133 n. 34 Marzeno, river 168 Massa Fiscaglia (Ferrara) 168 n. 20 Massumatico (Bologna) 234, 239 n. 108 Matilda of Canossa, duchess 128, 138, 139, 141 n. 87, 146, 179 n. 79, 222, 227 n. 42, 234 n. 84, 246, 255, 296 see also Canossa Matilda, abbess of Settefonti 252 n. 183, 253 Matilda, daughter of Witernus 255–56 see also Carbonesi Matilda, wife of Hugh III 249 Mauringus, son of John 227–28 Medicina (Bologna) 251 Megognanum 198 n. 52 Meleto (Bologna) 252 n. 182–184 Metato (Pisa) 199 n. 61 Metz (France) 256 bishops see Conrad Michael, archangel 199 Milan 65, 135 archbishops see Aribert; Lambertus Milo, count 127, 151, 246, 255 see also Panico Migarano (Bologna) 241, 248, 251 S. Nicola, church 150 n. 132, 248 Modena 22, 26, 61, 64, 66, 85, 91, 101, 102, 221, 222, 223, 227, 228 n. 45, 239 bishopric 70, 224 bishops see Leodoin; Guy counts see Guy; Suppo IV territory 33, 34, 76, 61, 62, 68, 70, 101, 142, 161, 222 n. 7, 223 n. 18, 313, 318, 320, 327 Modigliana (Ravenna) 99 n. 82, 100, 133, 168, 176 n. 65, 178, 179, 211 Monselice (Padua) 105 Monte Amiata (Siena) 208 S. Salvatore, abbey 186, 198 Monte Calvo (Bologna) 231, 248, 249

Monte Colombo (Rimini) 175 n. 59 Monte Domini 194 n. 40, 195 Montegabbro (Siena) 199 n. 61 Monte Molinario 195 Monte Verruca see Verruca Monte Voltraio (Pisa) 94, 199 Montecassino see S. Benedetto di Montecassino Montecerere (Bologna) 62, 231, 241, 242 S. Maria, pieve 232 n. 72, 245 Montefeltro 91 n. 29, 172 Montemignaio (Arezzo) 194 Montepastore (Bologna) 246 Monterenzio (Bologna) 234, 242, 245, 252 n. 185 Montevarchi (Arezzo) 195 n. 47 Monteveglio see S. Maria di Monteveglio Monti (Siena) 202 Montone, river 97, 168 n. 17 Mugello (Florence) 28, 85, 143, 147 n. 112, 186, 202, 208, 210, 211, 218, 252 Luco 252 n. 183 S. Pietro a Luco, abbey 28 n. 32, 253 abbesses see Cuniza Vicchio del Mugello 202 Munin 273 n. 32 Muratori, Ludovico Antonio 33, 129 Musiano (Bologna) 229–31, 238, 240, 244, 245 n. 143 S. Bartolomeo, abbey 29, 85, 104, 126, 130, 137, 148, 150 n. 132, 217–19, 229, 231, 233, 238, 242–44, 245 n. 143, 247–50, 253, 279, 281, 287–90, 298, 312, 329, 340 abbots see Augustine; Ingezo; Peter; Rudolf Mutilgnano see Modigliana Muzza, river 222 Naples 49 Natale, duke 171 Negri, via see Ravenna Nelson, Janet 24 Nibano (Bologna) 232 Nonantola see S. Silvestro di Nonantola Novara 54 n. 53, 292 bishops see Dructemirus counts see Gariard Novellara (Reggio Emilia) 66 n. 139 Obertenghi, kinship group 71, 113, 114, 203 n. 91, 314 n. 10, 321 n. 43, 323, 324 see also Otbert; Hugh, marquis Odalgarius 195 n. 45 Oderisius, abbot of Montecassino 222 Odin 273 n. 32 Odo, count of Blois and Champagne 135 Orgia (Arezzo) 200 n. 74 Orsa, daughter of Ursus 221 n. 6 see also Persiceta Oscheret 61 Oschisus, bishop of Pistoia 57

396 Index Osimo (Ancona) 89 n. 16 Otbert, count palatine 93 see also Obertenghi Otto I, duke of Carinthia 111 see also Salians Otto I, emperor 66 n. 142, 84, 88, 89, 91–94, 99, 106, 107, 109 n. 141, 133 n. 34, 166, 176, 179, 225, 226, 312, 318, 322, 327, 339 see also Ottonians Otto II, emperor 93, 95, 99 n. 86, 100 n. 86, 102, 109–10, 189, 322 see also Ottonians Otto III, emperor 84, 109–13, 177 n. 70, 186, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199, 200 nn. 72–74–75, 203, 280, 287 n. 110, 322 see also Ottonians Ottonians, kinship group 53 n. 49, 84, 86, 88, 99, 109, 111, 180, 270 n. 17, 312 see also Henry II; Judith; Liudolf; Otto I; Otto II; Otto III Padua 33, 109 Archivio di Stato 219 n. 2 count see Lanfrancus S. Anna, monastery 33 Paganus see Peter, called Paganus Paliana (Bologna) 228 n. 47 Palme (Florence) 191 S. Martino alla Palma, church 191 Panaro, river 228 Pandulf IV, prince of Capua 136 Panicale (Bologna) 230 n. 63, 242 Panico (Bologna) 127, 149, 150, 218, 233 n. 78, 246, 254, 255, 300, 330 lineage (counts of) 43, 127, 129, 148, 150, 152, 219 n. 2, 233, 255–56, 277, 300, 338 S. Lorenzo, pieve 150 see also Albert II; Guy I, son of Adalbert III; Hugh IV; Hugh V; Milo; Ranieri; Traversarius; Walfredus II Pannonia 92, Papaiano (Siena) 193 n. 34, 198 n. 52, 202, 204 S. Andrea, church 193 n. 34 Paris (France) 27 n. 26 Parma 51 nn. 32–37, 55, 61, 64 n. 124, 65, 68, 70, 94 n. 52, 101 n. 91, 102, 105 bishops see Aicardus; Hubert; Wibod counts see Adelgis I; Maginfred; Suppo II episcopal church 102 Pasquale, son of Remengarda 238 Passignano see S. Michele di Passignano Paul, bishop of Piacenza 59 see also Supponids Pavia 45, 51, 53, 60, 61, 65, 66, 70, 89, 90, 113, 130, 293 Pavullo nel Frignano (Modena) 228 n. 45 Pelago (Florence) 194 Pentapolis 97, 165 Pepin, king of Italy 222

see also Carolingians Persiceta/Persiceto see San Giovanni in Persiceto Pesa, river 193 Pesaro (Pesaro-Urbino) 175 nn. 56–57 territory 174–75 Pesella (Arezzo) 195 n. 47 Pestello (Arezzo) 195 n. 47 Peter III Candiano, doge 90 see also Candiano Peter IV Candiano, doge 90, 108–09 see also Candiano Peter IV, archbishop of Ravenna 70, 87, 99, 101, 106 n. 125, 166, 171, 175–77, 218, 228, 329 Peter Damian, monk of Fonte Avellana 31 n. 45, 92, 106, 111 n. 158, 194 n. 35, 294–95 Peter Orseolo, doge 108 Peter Rusticani 251 n. 178 Peter the Deacon, chronicler 30 n. 40, 31, 32, 33 n. 49, 34, 222 Peter, abbot of Musiano 231 n. 69 Peter, archdeacon of Florence 146 Peter, bishop 49, 52 n. 44 Peter, called Paganus 233 Peter, cleric 253 Peter, consul 171 Peter, deacon of Ravenna 46, 96, 98, 167–68, 171–72, 174, 177, 297 n. 162, 325 see also Hucpoldings Peter, deacon 171 Peter, duke 171 Peter, duke 133–34, 298 n. 172 see also Severus’ Family Peter, duke, husband of Vulgunda 102–03, 105, 236, 238 Peter, judge 70 n. 157 Peter, notary 241 n. 117, 251 n. 177 Peter, son of Acio 243 Peter, viscount 244 Peter 102–03 see also Wibodings Petra see Pietramora Petrosa (Bologna) 127, 151, 246, 255 Petronia 176, 177 Piacenza 55, 59, 61, 140, 317 bishopric 59 bishops see Paul cathedral chapter 59 counts see Adelgis II; Wifred II episcopal church 59 S. Antonino, church 59 S. Giustina, cathedral church 59 n. 93 S. Sisto, abbey 65 abbess see Bertha territory 58, 62, 317 Pian della Pieve see S. Innocenza Pian di Macina (Bologna) 229 n. 55 Pian di Scò (Arezzo) 194 Piandisetta (Bologna) 233 n. 79

Index

Pianoro (Bologna) 114, 137, 138–39, 163, 229 n. 55, 230, 231 n. 65, 232–33, 242–45, 249–50, 253, 280–81, 287, 329 Pianura Padana 106 Pietramora (Ravenna) 134 n. 40, 168 n. 15 Pieve Cesato (Ravenna) 167 nn. 6–7–8 S. Giovanni, pieve 167 Pieve del Pino (Bologna) 231 S. Ansano, pieve 238, 281 Pievequinta (Forlì-Cesena) 168 n. 11 S. Paolo ducati Traversarie, pieve 167 Pisa 28, 57, 107, 111, 113 n. 170, 125, 144 n. 101, 162, 190, 194 n. 37, 197, 199, 203, 205, 206, 234 n. 84, 315 n. 17 bishops see Plato episcopal church 111 n. 160, 141 n. 87, 144 n. 101 territory 199, 202, 203, 208 Pistoia 57, 96–99, 150 n. 134, 201, 325, 326 n. 60 bishops see Oschisus counts see Cadolus episcopal church 98, 326 S. Mercuriale, monastery 147 territory 97–98, 113, 147, 186, 200, 201, 224, 254, 315 n. 17, 323, 326 Pizzocalvo (Bologna) 231, 242, 243 n. 130, 245, 253 S. Croce, church 253 Planoro see Pianoro Po di Primaro, river 225 n. 28 Po, river 22, 43, 58, 61, 63, 65, 66, 94, 140, 168, 217, 224, 228, 239, 318 Poggibonsi (Siena) see Marturi Poggio Renatico (Ferrara) 225 n. 28, 226 Poggio Ripi (Pisa) 199 n. 61 Poio de Vico (Bologna) 253 n. 190 Polenta (Ravenna) 137 Polesine 28, 91, 105, 106 n. 125, 109 Politano, mount (Florence) 209 Pomposa see S. Maria di Pomposa Ponte a Ema (Florence) 209 n. 120 S. Pietro a Ema (now S. Piero), church 209 Pontecchio Marconi (Bologna) 246 Poppi (Arezzo) 100, 178 Poppiena (Arezzo) 150, 151, 211 S. Maria, monastery 211 S. Michele Arcangelo, church 150 n. 131, 211 n. 143 Potiphar of the Book of Genesis 291 Prada (Ravenna) 167, 228 n. 45 S. Maria, church 167 n. 7 Prada (Bologna) 228 prata Teguriensis see Prati Prataglia see Badia Prataglia Prati (Ravenna) 170 n. 29 S. Stefano in Teguria, pieve 167, 170 n. 29 prata Teguriesis 170 Teularia 170 n. 29 Prato Baratti (Bologna)

397 SS. Trinità, church 255 Pratomagno 147, 194, 208, 210 Pratovecchio Casentinese (Arezzo) 149, 211 nn. 139–140 Provence (France) 49, 58, 270 kings see Boso; Hugh of Arles Purpure, son of Bernard de Campi 147 n. 112, 210 see also Adimari Quarneto (Ravenna) 152 Quedlinburg see St Servatius of Quedlinburg queens of Italy see Bertilla; Cunegonde Quiesa see S. Maria di Quiesa Quinto maiore 168, 169 n. 21 Radburga, abbess of S. Andrea 188 Radda in Chianti (Siena) 195 Radelchis, prince of Benevento 49 Ragemprandus, abbot of Montecassino 222 Ragimbertus of Petrosa 151 n. 138, 246, 255 Raginerius, notary 244 Raginerius, son of Bonandus 233 Raimbertus, called Cicio 209 Rainardus, son of Amelfredus 251 n. 176 Rainbertus, viscount 240 n. 111 Raimundus, count of Reggio 70 Ranieri, bishop of Florence 146, 209 Ranieri, count of Casalecchio dei Conti 290 n. 130 see also Casalecchio dei Conti Ranieri, count 249–50 see also Panico Ranieri, deacon 94, 98–99, 133 nn. 29–34, 171, 175–76, 179, 297 n. 162, 325–26 see also Hucpoldings Ranieri, marquis of Tuscany 114, 135–36, 206, 274 see also Supponids Ratilda 103, 134 see also Hucpoldings Ravenna 21, 43, 46, 47, 53, 63, 70, 87, 89 n. 16, 94, 97, 98 n. 74, 99, 101, 102, 106 n. 125, 111, 125, 126, 130–35, 137, 161, 162, 165, 167, 168 nn. 14–15, 169, 170, 175–76, 180, 181, 217, 218, 219 n. 2, 221, 228, 235, 240, 278, 298, 299, 312, 318, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330, 339 archbishops see Gebeardus; Gerbertus; John VII; John X; Honestus; Peter IV; Romanus; Wibert archiepiscopal church 27, 96, 101, 103, 131, 133 n. 26, 162, 166 n. 2, 167, 172, 174–75, 177, 219, 235, 239, 325, 326, 328 Archivio di Stato 35 exarchate 27, 47, 53, 63, 83, 86, 95–97, 130–33, 161, 162, 165, 167, 180, 217, 243, 295, 297, 298, 313, 315 n. 18, 318, 321, 325, 327–28, 330, 339 Negri, via 170 n. 30 S. Andrea Maggiore, monastery 27

398 Index S. Apollinare Nuovo, monastery 133 n. 33 S. Maria in domo ferrata, monastery 170 Serrata (S. Vittore guercinorum), porta 170 n. 331 territory 98, 103, 168, 170 Recovato (Modena) 223 n. 18 Reggello (Florence) 194 Reggio Emilia 66 n. 139, 70 counts see Raimundus territory 61, 70, 101, 229, 318 Reno, river 30, 126, 127, 149, 150, 151, 218, 222, 228, 233, 234, 242, 246, 254, 255, 256 Remengarda 238 see also Ermengarda, de Repubblica, piazza della see Florence Rhine, river 46 Richilde, wife of Tebaldus 89 n. 16, 134 n. 38 Rigoli (Pisa) 203 Rigosa (Bologna) 227 Rimini 63, 98, 169, 174, 175 S. Eufemia, monastery 166, 169 n. 27, 177 S. Tommaso, monastery 166, 169 n. 27, 177 territory 172, 174, 175, 176 Rinaldi, Rossella 62 n. 117 Riolo (Modena) 223 n. 18 Riosto (Bologna) 231 Ripoli see Bagno a Ripoli Riprand, count 109 n. 142 see also Riprandings Riprandings, kinship group 71, 109 n. 142 see also Riprand Ripuarian law 148, 207 n. 116, 228 n. 46, 265, 277–83, 301, 302, 338 Robiano (Bologna) 232, 245 Rodald, viscount 88 Roffeno see S. Lucia di Roffeno Roland, bishop of Ferrara 137, 234 Roland, viscount 107 n. 135, 205 Romagna 21, 27, 28, 32 n. 45, 47, 51, 53, 61, 63, 87, 94, 95, 97–99, 101, 104, 105, 125, 126, 131, 133, 135, 142, 161, 165, 167, 171, 178–80, 228, 275, 312, 315, 318, 326, 330, 339 Romaldus 170 see also Duchi of Ravenna Romania see Romagna Romanus, archbishop of Ravenna 63 n. 120, 96, 169 Rome 48, 60, 94, 95, 111, 114, 176, 315 n. 18 episcopal church 53, 175, 248, 328 Leonine Walls 49 popes see Alexander III; Clement III; Formosus; Gregory V; Gregory VII; Innocent III; John VII; John XII; John XIII; Leo IV; Leo VIII; Stefano V; Victor II S. Pietro, church 48 Romena (Arezzo) 127, 149–51, 186, 212, 254 lineage (count of) 148–50, 187, 212, 300 S. Pietro, pieve 149, 151, 211 see also Panico

territory 89 Roncathelle (Bologna) 255 n. 200 Ronco (Bologna) 132 n. 23 Ronco (Forlì-Cesena) 167, 168 Ronco, curtis de see Ronco (Forlì-Cesena) Rosenwein, Barbara 24 Rotacardosa see Borgoricco Rothari, king of the Lombards 281 Rovezzano (Florence) 209 Rovigo 224 n. 20, 235 n. 90, 239 Rudolf I of Burgundy 64 n. 129, 65 n. 129, 270 see also Rudolfings Rudolf II of Burgundy, king of Italy 47, 64–69, 225, 227, 269–70, 292–93, 311, 313, 319–20 see also Rudolfings Rudolf, abbot of Musiano 247 Rudolf, count 70 n. 159 Rudolf, son of Rusticus 251 n. 178 Rudolfings, kinship group 64 n. 129, 69, 276, 293 see also Rudolf I; Rudolf II; Waldrada I Rusti (Modena) 223 n. 18 Rusticus 251 n. 178 S. Andrea del Soratte (Rome), abbey 92 S. Andrea di Sesto see Sesto S. Andrea of Florence see Florence S. Angelo della Verruca see Verruca S. Angelo di Gangalandi see Gangalandi S. Andrea di Papaiano see Papaiano S. Andrea in Panicale (Ravenna), pieve 167 S. Anna see Padua S. Ansano del Pino see Pieve del Pino S. Antimo in Val di Starcia (Siena), abbey 186, 198 S. Antonino di Piacenza see Piacenza S. Apollinare Nuovo of Ravenna see Ravenna S. Bartolomeo di Musiano see Musiano abbots see Augustine; Ingezo; John; Peter; Rudolf S. Benedetto di Montecassino (Frosinone), abbey 30, 32, 34, 221–23, 227, 291 abbots see Oderisius; Ragemprandus S. Benedetto in Adili see San Benedetto S. Benedetto in Polirone (Mantua), abbey 142 n. 89 S. Casciano, pieve see San Casciano dei Bagni S. Cassiano (Ravenna), pieve 168 S. Clemente di Casauria (Pescara), abbey 29 n. 36, 191 n. 22 S. Cristina di Settefonti (Bologna), abbey 29, 127, 144 n. 100, 218, 219 n. 2, 245, 247, 251, 252 nn. 181–183 abbesses see Matilda S. Cristoforo (Pesaro-Urbino), pieve 175 S. Croce di Fonte Avellana (Pesaro-Urbino), monastery 29 n. 36, 136, 295 S. Croce di Pizzocalvo see Pizzocalvo S. Donato al Poggio (Florence), pieve 195 n. 48 S. Donato in Lucardo see Lucardo

Index

S. Egidio di Gaviserre (Arezzo), church 150 n. 131, 211 S. Elena of Sacerno see Sacerno S. Ellero (Florence), monastery 210 S. Ermete (Pesaro-Urbino), monastery 174, 175 n. 56 S. Eufemia of Rimini see Rimini S. Fedele di Strumi see Strumi S. Francesco di Bologna see Bologna S. Frediano in Cestello see Florence S. Gennaro di Capolona see Capolona S. Gerusalemme (Florence), pieve 195 n. 48 S. Giorgio, pieve see San Giorgio di Piano S. Giorgio Maggiore see Venice S. Giorgio in Buliciano see Buliciano S. Giorgio in Lavino see Lavino S. Giorgio in Tamara (Ferrara), pieve 234 n. 88 S. Giovanni Battista di Gorgognano see Gorgognano S. Giovanni in Axcigata see Pieve Cesato S. Giovanni in Fontana (Bologna), church 252 n. 182 S. Giovanni in Monte see Bologna S. Giovanni in Pastino (Bologna), pieve 252 n. 184 S. Giovanni in Triario (Bologna), pieve 240 S. Giovanni of Florence see Florence S. Giustina di Piacenza see Piacenza S. Guglielmo di Ferrara see Ferrara S. Innocenza (Rimini), pieve 174 S. Lorenzo a Signa see Signa S. Lorenzo di Funo see Funo S. Lorenzo in Collina (Bologna), pieve 255 S. Lucia di Roffeno (Bologna), abbey 255 S. Maria de Servi di Bologna see Bologna S. Maria della Vangadizza (Rovigo), abbey 28, 29, 92, 109, 197 n. 49, 207, 287 n. 108 abbot see Martin S. Maria di Bubiano (Arezzo), pieve 178 n. 74 S. Maria di Chiaravalle di Fiastra (Macerata), abbey 29 n. 36, 136 S. Maria di Farfa (Rieti), abbey 29 n. 36, 71 n. 163, 88 S. Maria di Monteveglio (Bologna), pieve 102 n. 103 S. Maria di Pomposa (Ferrara), abbey 27, 138, 166, 168, 169 n. 21, 172, 179, 219 n. 2, 225 n. 31 S. Maria di Quiesa (Pisa), monastery 113 n. 170 S. Maria di Sprugnano see Poppiena S. Maria di Zena see Zena S. Maria of Florence see Florence S. Maria of Vallombrosa see Vallombrosa S. Maria of Volterra see Volterra S. Maria in Acquedotto (Forlì-Cesena), church 167 n. 11 S. Maria in Arçiclo (Bologna), church 226 S. Maria in Buda (Bologna), pieve 251, 252 n. 182 S. Maria in domo ferrata of Ravenna see Ravenna

399 S. Maria in Duno (Bologna), pieve 236 S. Maria in Gaibana see Gaibana S. Maria in Montecerere see Montecerere S. Maria in Pietrafitta (Arezzo), church 150 n. 131 S. Maria in Prada see Prada S. Maria in strada (Bologna), abbey 255 S. Maria, church 194 n. 35 S. Marino di Lovoleto see Lovoleto S. Martino Adimari nel Mugello (Florence), church 147 n. 112, 210 S. Martino alla Palma see Palme S. Martino di Gangalandi see Gangalandi S. Martino in Gorgo (Ferrara), pieve 232 S. Mercuriale of Pistoia see Pistoia S. Michele Arcangelo in Acerbolis (Rimini), pieve 174 n. 52 S. Michele Arcangelo in Poppiena see Poppiena S. Michele della Verruca see Verruca S. Michele di Brondolo (Brondolo), abbey 105 n. 120 S. Michele di Marturi see Marturi S. Michele di Passignano (Florence), abbey 110 n. 151 S. Miniato al Monte see Florence S. Niccolò di Lago (Arezzo), church 150 n. 131, 211 n. 143 S. Nicola of Migarano see Migarano S. Paolo ducati Traversarie see Pievequinta S. Pietro a Ema see Ponte a Ema S. Pietro a Luco see Mugello S. Pietro di Romena see Romena S. Pietro in Quarto see Bagno a Ripoli S. Pietro of Rome see Rome S. Ponziano of Lucca see Lucca S. Prospero see Savigno S. Reparata of Florence see Florence S. Romano di Ferrara see Ferrara S. Salvatore a Fontana Taona (Pistoia), abbey 28, 113, 186, 201, 279 abbots see John S. Salvatore a Settimo see Settimo S. Salvatore al Monte Amiata see Monte Amiata S. Salvatore delle Bedolete see Bedolete S. Salvatore di Camaldoli (Arezzo), monastery 28, 127, 149–51, 186, 187, 211, 253 n. 187, 254 priors see Martin S. Salvatore di Sesto see Lucca S. Salvatore of Fucecchio see Fucecchio S. Salvatore in Agna (Pistoia), monastery 97, 100 S. Sepolcro in Acquapendente (Viterbo), monastery 199 n. 64 S. Silvestro di Nonantola (Modena), abbey 26, 29 n. 35, 30, 69–70, 101 n. 92, 102, 143 n. 96, 151, 218, 219, 221 n. 6, 222–24, 227 n. 42, 235 n. 94, 239, 246, 254, 255, 285 abbots see Ingelbert S. Sisto di Piacenza see Piacenza S. Stefano di Bologna see Bologna

400 Index S. Stefano in Claterna (Bologna), pieve 240, 251 n. 174 S. Stefano in Teguria see Prati S. Tommaso of Rimini see Rimini S. Valentino of Tredozio see Tredozio S. Venanzio in Galliera see Galliera S. Vincenzo in Galliera see Galliera S. Vittore guercinorum, porta see Ravenna S. Vittore sul Sentino (Ancona), monastery 29 n. 36, 136 S. Zaccaria of Venice see Venice SS. Fiora, Andrea e Lucilla of Arezzo see Arezzo SS. Trinità of Prato Baratti see Prato Baratti St Verena of Zurzach (Germany), abbey 59 Sabinus, martyr 288 Sacerno (Bologna) 151 n. 140 S. Elena, monastery 151, 255 Salerno 49 princes see Siconulf Salians, kinship group 111 see also Conrad II; Henry III; Henry IV; Henry V; Judith; Otto I, duke of Carinthia Saltopiano 30, 101, 218, 221, 225–27, 229–34, 239, 328 Saltusplanus see Saltopiano Sambro, river 256 Samson, count palatine 70 n. 157 San Benedetto (Bologna) 222 n. 11 S. Benedetto in Adili, abbey 29–30, 34, 62, 69, 218, 219 n. 2, 221–24, 285 San Casciano in Val di Pesa (Florence) 194 San Casciano dei Bagni (Siena) 198 n. 56 S. Casciano, pieve 198 n. 56 San Gimignano (Siena) 194, 199 San Giorgio di Piano (Bologna) 228 n. 50 S. Giorgio, pieve 228 San Giovanni in Persiceto (Bologna) 223 n. 18, 228 n. 45 Persiceta/Persiceto 222, 223 n. 18, 239 kinship group 221 territory 224 see also John, duke; Orsa; Ursus S. Giovanni, pieve 223, 239 San Giuliano Terme (Pisa) 194 n. 37 San Lazzaro di Savena (Bologna) 231 n. 65, 248 n. 163 San Leo (Rimini) 91 n. 29, 94 San Marino (Bologna) see Lovoleto San Valentino (Forlì-Cesena) 168 n. 16 Sant’Agata Bolognese (Bologna) 222 n. 11 Santarcangelo di Romagna (Rimini) 174 n. 52 Santerno, river 234 Saracens 46, 48–50, 222 Sarracino 246 n. 152 Sasso Marconi (Bologna) 228 n. 47 Sassonero (Bologna) 252 Savena, river 230, 234, 242, 312 Savigno (Bologna) 255 n. 197 S. Prospero, parish 255 n. 197

Savioli, Ludovico 129 Saxony (Germany) 318, 323 Scandicci (Florence) 190 n. 14, 194 n. 40, 202 Scanello (Bologna) 144 n. 101, 234, 242, 245 Schmid, Karl 265 n. 1 Seianum (Florence) 195, 202 Seniorittus, son of Amelfredus 251 n. 176 Senzano (Ravenna) 168 n. 17 Serchio, river 194 Sereniana (Ferrara) 169 n. 23 Sergius, duke 171 see also Duchi of Ravenna Sergius, magister militum of Naples 49 n. 19 Sermorens (France) 49 Serrata, porta see Ravenna Sesto (Bologna) 238, 245 n. 143 S. Andrea, church 238, 245 n. 143 Setta, river 151, 233, 234 n. 82, 246, 256 Settefonti see S. Cristina di Settefonti Settepolesini (Ferrara) 224 n. 20 Settimana 199 n. 61 Settimo (Florence) 85, 208 S. Salvatore, church/abbey 28, 84, 140, 146, 186–87, 190–92, 206, 210 Severus, count 298 n. 172 see also Severus’ Family Severus, count, son of Severus 133 n. 34 see also Severus’ Family Severus’ Family, kinship group 133 n. 32, 298 n. 172 see also Boniface, count; Hubald, count; Hugh, count; Lambert I, duke; Peter, duke; Severus, count; Severus, count, son of Severus; Walfredus, count Sichelmus, bishop of Florence 189 Sichizo, notary 244 Siconulf, prince of Salerno 49 Siena 107, 110 territory 186, 193, 194, 195 nn. 45–47, 197, 198, 199 n. 61, 202, 322 Sigefredus, judge 207 n. 113 Signa (Florence) 194 n. 40, 195, 202 S. Lorenzo, pieve 209 Sillaro, river 127, 218, 234 n. 82, 245, 252 Sinciano see Senzano Siviratico (Bologna) 233 Solzus 171 Soratte see S. Andrea del Soratte Sovana (Grosseto) 208 Spatanno (Faenza) 167 n. 10 Spoleto (Perugia) 22, 29, 45, 47, 49 n. 19, 51, 52 n. 44, 54 n. 59, 55, 57, 60, 61, 68–71, 83, 84, 86–95, 98, 100, 110, 111, 125, 126, 135–37, 161, 204, 275, 311, 312, 315 n. 13, 316, 320–22, 324–27, 339 dukes see Boniface I; Guy II of Spoleto; Lambert I; Lambert II of Spoleto; Hugh II; Hugh, son of Ranieri; Tedaldus; territory 89, 90 St Peter of Lorsch, abbey 56 n. 73

Index

St Servatius of Quedlinburg, abbey 111 Staggiano (Pistoia) 201 n. 80 Stale, via dello 230, 242 Starcia, river 198 Stephen V, pope 60 Stia (Arezzo) S. Maria, pieve 211 Stornara 135 n. 42 Stornarina 135 n. 42 Stornatianus 135 n. 42, 180 Strumi (Arezzo) 100, 178 n. 73 S. Fedele, monastery 28, 87, 100, 147, 166 n. 3, 178, 208 n. 119, 287 Suallo 169 n. 22 Suppo II, count of Parma 55, 60, 61 see also Supponids Suppo III, duke of Spoleto 54 n. 59, 55, 91 n. 28 see also Supponids Suppo IV, count of Modena 64 n. 124, 68, 70, 91, 114 see also Supponids Supponids, kinship group 25, 33, 47, 51 n. 32, 55, 56, 59–62, 68, 91, 95, 112 n. 168, 135, 142, 269 n. 11, 291, 313, 314–15, 317, 327 see also Achedeus; Adelgis I; Adelgis II; Ardingus I; Bertilla, queen; Boso, marquis; Cunegonde; Egifredus; Engelberga; Guy, son of Hugh; Hugh, son of Ranieri; Hugh, son of Suppo IV; Paul; Ranieri; Suppo II; Suppo III; Suppo IV; Unroch, son of Suppo III; Wifred II Suzzara (Mantua) 66 n. 139 Switzerland 46 Tabacco, Giovanni 23, 266, 314 n. 6 Talcione (Siena) 198 n. 52, 202 Tannano (Arezzo) 178 n. 74 Tassemannus, judge 131 Tauro, mount 174 Tavernelle (Siena) 193 Tazzo 211 see also Gotizi Tebaldus, anthroponym 275 Tebaldus, duke of Spoleto 47, 70–71, 83–84, 87–90, 92, 98, 103, 105, 134 n. 38, 293, 320–21, 324–25 see also Hucpoldings Tebaldus, son of Gualtieri 204 Tedald of Canossa, count 127–28, 142–43, 296 see also Canossa Tedaldus, anthroponym 275 Tegrimus I 46, 96–97, 99, 179 n. 77, 325, 326 Tegrimus II, count 87, 99–100, 103–04, 171, 175, 178–179, 208 n. 119, 285, 287, 297 n. 162 see also Hucpoldings Tellenbach, Gerd 23 Tenzanum 198 n. 52 Teucio, notary 245 n. 145 Teudelgrimus 96 n. 63

401 Teularia see Prati Teupertus, judge 207 n. 113 Teutberga, queen of Lotharingia 59 Teuzo, son of Azo 232 Teuzo, son of Bonizo 243 n. 128 Theoderic, consiliarius 54 n. 59 Theophanu, empress 109–10, 197 Thomas, dativus 243 Tiberini, Sandro 135 n. 47 Tignano (Bologna) 228 n. 47 Tignanum (Florence) 195, 202 Tolla (Piacenza) SS. Salvatore e Gallo, abbey 59 Tortona (Alessandria) 197 n. 49 Trasimeno, river 94 Traversarius, count 250 see also Panico Trecenta (Rovigo) 235 n. 90 Trebbia, river 60 Trebbio (Ravenna) 168 n. 17 Tredozio (Forlì-Cesena) 135 n. 42, 168 nn. 14–16 S. Valentino, pieve 168 Tricenta 169, 174 Tucpaldus see Hucpold Turin 55 Tuscany 22, 27, 28, 45, 46, 47, 51–52, 57–58, 62, 64 n. 128, 70, 71, 83–87, 89–94, 97–99, 105, 106–15, 125, 127–28, 135–36, 141–43, 146–50, 161–62, 168, 179, 185–212, 218, 224, 225, 230, 241, 242, 252, 270, 274, 278–80, 282–283, 284–285, 287, 294–95, 311, 312, 313, 315, 317, 321–24, 326–27, 338, 339, 344 marquis see Adalbert I; Adalbert II; Boniface II of Tuscany; Boniface of Canossa; Boso of Tuscany; Godfrey of Lower Lorraine; Guy; Hugh I; Hugh, son of Suppo IV; Lambert; Ranieri Tuscia see Tuscany Ubaldus, anthroponym 273 Ungarus, viscount 240 Unroch, son of Suppo III 91 n. 28 see also Supponids Unruochings, kingship group 275 n. 44, 314, 315 n. 13 see also Berengar I, Bertha, abbess of S. Sisto and S. Giulia Ursus, duke 221 see also Persiceta Ursus 249 Val d’Arno/Valdarno 194, 195 Val di Bure 201 Val di Greve 195 Val di Sieve 194, 195, 211 Valbesinda 169, 172 see also Duchi of Rimini Valdelsa 186, 191, 193 n. 34, 194, 195, 197, 200, 202, 208, 322

402 Index Valeriaula 168 Valliano (Rimini) 174 Vallombrosa (Florence) Alpe 210 S. Maria, abbey 147, 210 Varignana (Bologna) 132 n. 23 Varlungo (Florence) 209 Veneto 91, 105, 108–09, 318 Venice 34, 49, 90, 91, 108, 109 lagoon 109 S. Giorgio Maggiore, monastery 33 S. Zaccaria, monastery 90 territory 90 Vercelli 69 n. 152, 88 n. 14, 344 bishops see Atto cathedral chapter 197 n. 49 Verdun (France) 48 n. 8 Verona 65, 91, 273 n. 28, 275 n. 45 counts see Hucpold Verruca (Pisa) 199, 202 S. Angelo, church 199 S. Michele, monastery 199 Veterana 225 n. 28 Vicchio del Mugello see Mugello Vicchio in Val di Greve (Florence) 195 Vicenza 109 counts see Lanfrancus vico Aventino see Voghenza Victor II, pope 136 n. 51 Vienne (France) 50, 58 n. 85, 59, 316 archbishopric 49 archbishops see Agilmarus archiepiscopal church 50 n. 25 counts see Gerard Vignodelli, Giacomo 344 Vignola (Modena) 223 n. 18 Villa di Sassonero (Bologna) 252 nn. 182–185 Villamagna (Florence) 194 n. 40 Villola (Reggio Emilia) 66 n. 139 Vinti (Bologna) 230 n. 58, 244 Violante, Cinzio 23, 265, 268, 337 Virginis (Rimini) 169 Vivianus 189 n. 8 Vitale, patriarch of Grado 90 see also Candiano Voghenza (Ferrara) 168 n. 20 Volterra (Pisa) 28, 107, 199, 204, 208 cathedral chapter 199 n. 63 episcopal church 198 S. Maria, cathedral 198 territory 95, 197, 198 Vulgunda 102, 105 see also Wibodings Walfredus I, count 125, 126, 134, 148, 229, 289 see also Hucpoldings Walfredus II, count 127, 149, 150 see also Panico Walfredus, anthroponym 275

Walfredus, count 134 see also Severus’ Family Walfredus, son of Hildebrand 240 Waldrada I, sister of Rudolf II 64, 270, 293, 319 see also Rudolfings Waldrada II, daughter of Willa I 90–92, 94, 108–09 see also Hucpoldings Waldrada, wife of Hubald II 104, 289 Waldrada, wife of Ranieri 205, 206 n. 107 Wangadicensis see S. Maria della Vangadizza Welfs, kinship group 269 n. 10, 270, 275 n. 44, 276 Wibert, archbishop of Ravenna 137 n. 60, 235, 299 see also Clement III, antipope Wibod, bishop of Parma 51, 61, 64 n. 124, 68, 101 n. 91, 102, 105 see also Wibodings Wibodings, kinship group 102, 344 see also John III, bishop of Bologna; Lambert; Peter; Vulgunda; Wibod Widonids, kinship group 47, 49 n. 19, 52, 55, 62–63, 69, 71, 223, 231, 274, 292, 314, 315 n. 13, 316–18, 320, 328 see also Conrad; Guy I, count; Guy II of Spoleto; Guy, count of Modena; Lambert I; Lambert II of Spoleto Wifred II, count of Piacenza 55, 60 see also Supponids Wigericus, count 50 see also Supponids Willa I of Burgundy, wife of Rudolf I and Hugh of Arles 64 n. 129 Willa I, marquise 28, 47, 71, 84, 87, 89–90, 92, 93, 98, 105, 106–07, 109, 185, 192–94, 195 n. 44, 200, 202–205, 206 n. 109, 207–08, 278, 280, 285–87, 294, 295, 297, 299, 321, 322, 326 see also Hucpoldings Willa II of Burgundy, wife of Boso of Tuscany 64 n. 129 Willa II, duchess 110 n. 168, 127, 141–42, 143 n. 96, 145, 275, 296 see also Hucpoldings Willa III, marquise, daughter of Hugh I 113 n. 170, 319 n. 34 Willa, countess, wife of Hugh II 137, 244, 281 Willa, anthroponym 275, 276 William, bishop of Fiesole 150 William, count 110, 204, 205 Winibaldus of Gorgognano 243 Winibaldus 243 n. 130 Winild, son of Camarinus 204 Winizus 193 n. 34, 204 Wipo of Burgundy, chronicler 135 n. 43 Witernus 256 see also Carbonesi

Index

Zena 245 n. 145 river 242, 245 S. Maria, pieve 245 Zenobius, son of Ingalrad 204 Zielinski, Herbert 48 n. 14

403 Zola Predosa (Bologna) 151, 228 n. 47, 236, 243 n. 128, 246 n. 153, 255 Cellola/Cellula 228, 246, 255 Petrosa 127, 151, 246, 255 Zurzach see St Verena of Zurzach Zwentibold, son of Arnulf of Carinthia 60–61, 293