LIBRARY 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 SANTA BARBARA 
 
 FROM THE LIBRARY 
 OF F. VON BOSCHAN
 
 WHO WAS ITA?
 
 COUNTESS OF HAPSBURG, 
 
 WHO FOUNDED THE MONASTERY OF MURI IN SWITZERLAND, 
 IN 1018, AND DIED 1026? 
 
 ON THIS QUESTION DEPENDS THE DEVELOPEMENT OF 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF THE 
 IMPERIAL HOUSES OF HAPSBURG AND LORRAINE, 
 
 ON WHICH NEW LIGHT IS HERE THROWN. 
 
 BY SIR EGERTON BRYDGES, BART., ETC., ETC. 
 
 PARIS: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. SMITH, RUE MONTMORENCY. 
 MDCCCXXVI.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 THE following pages are but an extract of a large folio 
 volume, entitled STEMMATA ILLUSTRIA, not jet finished at 
 the press. They are given in the present form, because 
 the author has deemed them of sufficient general interest 
 to have them separated from a set of genealogies, in 
 which they would otherwise, perhaps, be buried. 
 
 It may be difficult to persuade the general reader, 
 that there can be a strong or solid interest in any ques- 
 tion of mere ancient pedigree : it is necessary, therefore, 
 to point his attention to a few particulars in the present 
 Case. 
 
 The claims of descent here discussed were the hinge 
 of a great historical crisis : no less than the succession of 
 the illustrious and amiable HENRY IV. to the throne of 
 France ! The Leaguers set up against him the HOUSE OF 
 LORRAINE, on the absurd pretence that these were the 
 true heirs of Charlemagne in strict male line, and that 
 all the HOUSE OF CAPET were usurpers ! For this purpose 
 the infamous FRANCIS DE ROSIERES published in 1 580 his 
 Stemmatd Lotharirigice, a work full of false documents^
 
 which was judicially suppressed, and subjected the au- 
 thor to imprisonment. But, notwithstanding this, the 
 partisans of the same cause did not abandon their weak 
 pretensions till the middle of the subsequent century, as 
 may be seen set out fully by CHANTEREAU LE FEBURE, in 
 his Considerations Historigues sur la Gdnealogie de la Maison 
 de Lorraine. Paris, 1642, fol. 
 
 The alledged descent of the House of Lorraine was 
 this : it was asserted that Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine- 
 Mosellane, who succeeded 1070, was son of WILLIAM, stated 
 to- have been brother of the famous GODFREY OF BOULOGNE, 
 and son of Eustace, Count of Boulogne, whom they called 
 great great grandson of SIFRID, alledged to have been son 
 of EBRARD, Due DE WORMES, son of Conrad, Due de 
 Franconie, pretended to have been son of the Emperor AR- 
 WOUL, of the male line of CHARLEMAGNE.* 
 
 It is at this day unnecessary to expose the numerous 
 falsehoods of this pedigree. No fact is more demon- 
 strable than that Theodoric s father was Gerard of Alsace, 
 Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, who died 1070. This 
 William, brother of Godfrey of Boulogne, was an ima- 
 ginary person. The Counts of Boulogne were not de- 
 scended in the male line from Sigfrid, but, (according 
 to the most credible authorities,) from the Counts of 
 Ponthieu. SIGFRID was a Dane, and no relation to Ebrard, 
 Due de Wormes; and Ebrard's father was not Conrad, 
 but Rodolfc; nor was Conrad son of the Emperor Arnoul, 
 nor of the same male line; and Arnoul himself was a 
 bastard. 
 
 * Considerations par Chantereau Le Feburc, pref. v..
 
 Vll 
 
 The rejection of this system, therefore, as soon as the 
 political purpose which engendered and supported it had 
 ceased, was not very difficult. But the materials of dis- 
 cussion which it raised, caused perplexities which it was 
 much more difficult to allay. The question was now 
 stirred, as to what, (since this descent was not true,) was 
 the true descent of the House of Lorraine? Now came 
 forward the system of Le Pere Vignier, 1649, deriving 
 them in the male line from ATHIC, Due d 'Alsace ', OP 
 d'Allcmagne, who died 720. This is the system which 
 has been adopted by Calmet, and all genealogists up to 
 this day.* 
 
 If this last system had settled the question, curious as 
 it might have been in an historical light to have revived 
 the memory of a dispute once entertained on grounds so 
 extraordinarily weak, I would bave left it to be sought in 
 the books where it would have been found already de- 
 cided. But it is easy to demolish, not equally easy to 
 rebuild. Small ingenuity suffices to object ; to propose, at 
 least on solid grounds, requires very different powers ! 
 
 Being led in the course of my greater work to exa- 
 mine this question by the test of original authorities, on 
 two accounts; first, to judge of the dispute between 
 Chifflet and his opponents, as to the Houses of HAPSBURG 
 and FRANCE ; and secondly ', to understand the pretensions 
 of the House of LORRAINE against France ; and, when 
 those were confuted, what was its actual male origin, I 
 
 * Calmet, in his Origine de la Maison de Lorraine, prefixed to vol. i. of 
 his Histoire de Lorraine, Nancy, 1728, fol. has stated the six different 
 systems, which have been set up, regarding this Genealogy.
 
 Vlll 
 
 soon fixed on the Muri Genealogy, as my pole-star to the 
 elucidation of both objects. 
 
 I feel assured that it has not failed me. The result 
 is different from that to which other genealogists have 
 come, and which is to be found in other works : on which 
 account I think myself justified to obtrude it on the 
 public in the following pages. 
 
 The great curiosity of this contest is that, when many 
 men of such acknowledged learning and talent were en- 
 gaged in it, both sides should have committed such gross 
 and demonstrable errors ! 
 
 Both branches of this controversy, not only as it re- 
 gards HAPSBURG but as it regards LORRAINE, are involved 
 in the simple question, " Who was Ita, Countess of Haps- 
 burg ?" Chifflet, and the flatterers of the House of Haps- 
 burg, contended that she was sister of Theodoric, who 
 succeeded to the Dukedom of Lorraine-Mosellane in 
 4070, solely for the purpose of deriving an immediate 
 and near descent to the House of Hapsburg, from Theo- 
 doric's mother Hadvige, daughter of Ermengarde de 
 Namur, whose father was Charles of Lorraine, last of the 
 House of Charlemagne ! The fact is, that this Theodoric 
 was a little boy in 1070, and that Ita founded the Monas- 
 tery of Muri in 1018! It was easy, therefore, to crush 
 Chifflet on this point ! The Muri Genealogy records Ita 
 to have been sister of a Theodricus, Dux Lotharingorum, 
 and Chifflet's opponents, assuming that there could be no 
 Other person to answer this description than Theodoric de 
 BAR, Duke of Lorraine, and finding his wife to have been 
 Beatrix^ sister of Hugh Capet, conclude this Beatrix to 
 have been Itas mother! And from that time this as-
 
 IX 
 
 sumption has run through every work of genealogy, even 
 the most critical, to this day. But I have shewn in this 
 tract that it is quite as impossible, as the absurd assump- 
 tion of Chifflet. I have gone farther : I have not only 
 shewn that Beatrix was not Ita^s mother: I have esta- 
 blished by positive evidence who was Ita's mother ! 
 
 Thus, if I am right, the inquiry here pursued has ended 
 in a result different from that which was contended for 
 by either of the parties in the Chifflet controversy. Nei- 
 ther of them were in that case contending for Lorraine : 
 and both concurred in giving to that ancient and illus- 
 trious House an erroneous male line, the House of BAR ! 
 
 Upon the question of the identity of ITA depends the 
 question of the identity of her brother THEODORIC : and 
 on this latter identity depends the male descent of the 
 House of LORRAINE! The last branch of this double 
 controversy must, therefore, follow in part the fate of 
 the first! ,* 
 
 I think that I have been as successful in shewing who 
 Ita's MOTHER was, as who she was not: but I cannot ven- 
 ture to go quite so far as to her father ! I have demon- 
 strated who he was not: I have not succeeded farther 
 than to shew by strong probability who be ivas I If, in- 
 deed, JVassebourg and Henninges were adequate autho- 
 rity, the proof would be not merely conjectural; it would 
 be direct and positive. If, however, all the probabilities 
 are strongly in favour of it, arguing from facts totally 
 independent of these authors, the coincidence is extra- 
 ordinary, and gives great weight to their assertion, by 
 raising the inference that they did not speak lightly and 
 without good authority.
 
 Let it be recollected, that I always assume the Muri 
 Genealogy to be, as far as it goes, incontrovertible. It 
 is strict evidence, and the credit due to it is of the highest 
 kind, because it speaks of facts, which it had the best 
 means of knowing accurately. The system of Fignier, 
 adopted by Calmet, is inconsistent with it: Calmet, there- 
 fore, feeling this, endeavours to attack its credit; but 
 his objections being all futile, and the chief of them 
 being so weak, a* s to be founded on a fallacious assumption 
 of its contents, only tend to confirm its strength. " The 
 Muri Genealogy," says he, " states that Ita was sister of 
 Thierri, Duke of Lorraine," and by CONSEQUENCE daughter 
 of Frederic I. Duke of Lorraine * and of Beatrix sister to 
 Hugh Capet: but the authentic Genealogy of St. Arnoul 
 proves that the son of Beatrix was Thierri, father of 
 Duke Frederic; and, therefore, not the father of Gerard, 
 as this Muri Genealogy makes him. Therefore this Muri 
 Genealogy is not true !" Such is Caluiet's reasoning, 
 but his " consequence' is a most false assumption. There 
 is not a word in the Muri Genealogy to identify Duke 
 Thierri, the brother of Ita, with that Duke Thierri who 
 was husband of Beatrix. On the contrary, it furnishes 
 evidence directly the reverse! 
 
 When, after the appearance of the work of Chantereau 
 Le Febure in 1642, the fashion of deriving the House of 
 Lorraine from Charlemagne by the most ridiculous of all 
 descents had passed away, and critical eyes perceived 
 that the derivation from the House of BAR by Beatrix 
 sister of [Hugh Capet, was equally untenable, another 
 source was naturally searched for. Le Pere Vignier then 
 (1649) hit upon certain Counts, whom he calls COUNTS
 
 OP ALSACE, whom he places in the tenth century, and 
 whom he derives from DUKE ATHIC, (or ETHICO,) of the 
 eighth centurj. His choice was probably made in good 
 faith : I see no reason to suspect motives of flattery ; 
 and I suspect it the less, because that which appears to 
 me to be the truth would have done more honour to the 
 family. Right or wrong, however, whether originating 
 from good or bad motives, this pedigree has had the 
 good fortune to be adopted from that day by all genea- 
 logists and historians: an adoption, at which my surprise 
 augments the more, the more I think of it ; because the 
 clue which was more obvious, was at once more easily 
 proved, and more honourable. 
 
 I cannot guess why F'ignier should have looked to cer- 
 tain Counts of Alsace, rather than to Dukes of Lorraine. 
 For this purpose, a certain Count EBERHARD is first made 
 Count of Alsace, without adequate proof: he is then 
 made son of an HUGH, Comte de Ferrette, son of another 
 Count EBERHARD, who is stated to be the same Eberhard, 
 who was son of Comte Alberic, nephew of St. Odilie; 
 but which could not be, since the latter lived in 750, 
 and the former died in 890, an objection which annihi- 
 lates the alledged descent from Duke Ethico. Lastly, 
 this certain Count Eberhard is made father of ADALBERT, 
 the founder of Bousonville Priory; and the said Adalbert 
 is made father of GERARD I. father of Gerard II. (of 
 Alsace,) Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, who died 1070, all 
 which steps of descent are demonstrably false. 
 
 Gerard I. was not son of Adalbert, but brother ; and 
 these brothers were distinct persons from Gerard and 
 Adalbert, whom Vignier falsely makes sons of Eberhard,
 
 XII 
 
 but who were probably uncles of the former. And 
 here Vignier gets into an additional entanglement, by 
 finding that these last were Comtes de Metz; and he, 
 therefore, confounds these Comtes de Metz with his Counts 
 of Alsace. This, however, was a new impediment in 
 Vignier's way; for if there really existed Counts of Alsace, 
 they certainly were not the same as the Comtes de Metz. 
 On the other hand, it is easy to reconcile the Comtes de 
 Metz with Duke Tlieodoric, the brother of Ita of Haps- 
 bourg. 
 
 Without resorting, therefore, to any other system, it is 
 clear that the system of Vignier is, in right of itself alone, 
 impossible. Against the system which I here substitute 
 for it, I am not only not aware of any disproof, but not 
 even of any inference of improbability! 
 
 The Muri Genealogy proves that Theodoric, Duke of 
 Lorraine, (Ita's brother,) was grandfather of Gerard of 
 Egisheim; and the identity of Gerard of Egisheim with 
 Gerard of Alsace, Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, who died 
 in 1070, does not seem to be questioned, and, according 
 to the opinion which I entertain of proofs of identity, 
 ought not to be questioned. But this Duke Theodoric 
 was clearly not Theodoric de BAR. Then, what other 
 Duke of Lorraine of this name could there be at this 
 period? We find a Conrad le Sage, Duke of Lorraine, 
 (of the House of Franconia,) who died 955, from whom, 
 (according to Wassebourg and Henninges,) came, by 
 younger sons, two or three generations, who answer well 
 this description : can we doubt that these were the an- 
 cestors of this Duke Theodoric? If Gerard and Adal- 
 bert, the brothers of Aleyda, mother of the Emperor
 
 X1I1 
 
 Conrad le Saliqm, are admitted to be of the same stock 
 with this Duke Theodoric, then we have the positive 
 testimony of Wipon, that Theodoric was (t ex nobilissimd 
 gente Lotharingorum ;" and as this does not apply to the 
 House of BAR, it must apply to the House of Conrad le 
 Sage ! 
 
 Thus it is that Wassebourg deduces the descent down 
 to Duke Gerard, who died 1 070, and his son Duke Theo- 
 doric, who died 1115; but at this point, whence the 
 present Imperial House of Lorraine is notoriously and 
 demonstrably descended, he falls into the strangest and 
 most unaccountable error. He here supposes the male 
 stock of the elder branch to fail, and the descent to be 
 carried on only by the Counts of Vaudemont, for the pur- 
 pose of giving to the SUCCEEDING Dukes of Lorraine-Mo- 
 sellane the fabulous descent from William, the alledged 
 brother of Godfrey of Boulogne, according to the system 
 adopted and still aggravated by the fictions of De Ro- 
 siercs. 
 
 All this is the more wonderful, because the truth, (if 
 the system I advocate be correct,) would have been far 
 more illustrious for the venerable antiquity and grandeur 
 of this House. 
 
 Taking the upper part of the pedigree, as it is drawn 
 with great skill and critical knowledge in Cliazod's Ge- 
 nealogies Historiques, Paris , 1738, [\to. vol. iv. p. 191, it 
 stands briefly thus : 
 
 1. RODOL.FJE, Comte en Franconie, Avoue of Fulde, in 852, probably 
 son of Lcidrat, Comte and Avoue of Fulde, and grandson of 
 Beggon, Comte de Paris, by Alpais, daughter of Louis le De-
 
 XIV 
 
 bonnaire, had issue, 1. Conrad, Comte en Weteravie and Hesse, 
 slain 905, father of Conrad I. King of Germany in 912, and 
 four other children. 2. Gebhard, Comte en Franconie and 
 Weteravie, father of Herman I. Due de Souabe, and great grand- 
 father of Herman II. Due de Souahe, who died 1004. 3. Rodolfe 
 Bishop of Bamherg. 4. Eherhard. 
 
 2. EBERHARD, (fourth son of Comte Rudolfe,) " Comte en Franconie 
 
 et de Worms," was slain in 902, in a contest with Adelberg 
 de Bamberg. He had issue, 1. Conrad Curcipolus. 2. Wer- 
 ner, Comte en Franconie et de Worms. 3. Jlnonyme, perhaps 
 ancestor of the Comtes de Solms. 
 
 3. W T EHNEH, (second son,) Comte en Franconie et de Worms, died 
 
 913, having had three sons: 1. Conrad le Sage. 2. Werner, 
 Abbe de Fulde, in 968, died 982. 3. Adelbert, Avoue de Fulde, 
 in 973. 
 
 4. CONRAD le Sage, (eldest son,) was appointed Duke of Lorraine in 
 
 944, and slain in battle with the Hungarians, August 10, 955. 
 He married in 947 Luitgarde de Saxe, who died 953, daughter 
 of the Emperor Otto I. By her he had Otho, and, according to 
 Wassebourg and Henninges, a younger son THEODORIC,* Prteses 
 Jllsatice. 
 
 Otho, eldest son, was Comte de Worms, Dux de Carinthie, 
 and Marquis de Verone, and died 1020, having espoused Judith, 
 by whom he had four sons : 1. Henry, Due de Franconie, who 
 died before his father, 989, having espoused Aleyda d'Egisheim, 
 sister of Counts Gerard and Adelbert, by whom he had issue 
 Conrad le Salique, elected Emperor 1024, who died 1039. 
 2. Bruno, (afterwards Pope Gregory V.) died 998. 3. Cuno, 
 or Conrad, Due de Carinthie et Franconie, who died Dec. 
 12,1012, having married Mathildede Suabe, (widow of Theodoric, 
 Duke of Lorraine,) by whom he had, first, Conrad le Jeune, 
 
 * Chazod does not name this younger sou.
 
 XV 
 
 Comte de Rinfelden, and Due de Carinthie 1024, and de 
 Worms, 1034, who died 1039, father of the Emperor Rodolphe, 
 1077, (Anti-Caesar.) Secondly, Brunon, Bishop of Wirtzbourg, 
 1034, who died 1045. 
 
 5. THEODORIC I. younger son of Conrad le Sage, Duke of Lorraine, 
 
 who died 955, is called by Wassehourg Prceses Alsatiae. It is 
 prohahle that he is the same person whom others call Richard, 
 and who married the heiress of Adalbert, Comte de Metz, and 
 that he was not only father of another Theodoric, but also 
 father or grandfather of Gerard and Adalbert, and Aleyda mother 
 of the Emperor Conrad le Salique. 
 
 6. Theodoric IF: son of Theodoric I. married Matilde, daughter of 
 
 Herman II. Due de Suabe, by Gerberge, daughter of Conrad, 
 Ring of Burgundy-Transjurane, which Matilde remarried Con- 
 rad, Due de Carinthie and Franconie, who died in 1012, (by 
 whom she was mother of Cuno, Comte de Rinfelden.) By this 
 Mathilde Theodoric had issue, 1. Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine. 
 2. Vernher, Bishop of Strasbourg. 3. ITA, wife of Radeboto, 
 Comte d'Hapsbourg.* 
 
 7. THEODOBIC III. Duke of Lorraine, had issue by , 
 
 1. Adelbert, Co. de Melz, founder of the Priory of Bou- 
 
 sonville, and died 1034, leaving issue by Jutta Gerard, 
 
 who died 1046, leaving by Gisele , Gerard and Theodo- 
 ric, who both died young. 2. Gerard, (younger son of Theo- 
 doric III.) 
 
 8. GBRABD II. called Dux Gerardus, son of Theodoric III. probably 
 
 married the heiress of the Comtes d'Egisheim, (perhaps a 
 daughter of Adalbert I. brother of Aleyda, and sister of another 
 Gerard.) 
 
 * " Idem vero Radeboto cum sibi congruum visum est, ut uxorem 
 duceret, accepit de partibus Lotharingorum, uxorem nomine Itam, sororem 
 Theodrici Ducis, ac Vvernherii Argentina? civitatis Episcopi." Acta Mu- 
 rensis Monasterii, p. 5.
 
 XVI 
 
 9. GERARD III. d'Egisheim et <V Alsace, (son of Gerard II.) ap- 
 
 pointed Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane 1048, died 1070, married 
 Hadvige de Namur by Ermengarde of France, and had issue, 
 1. Theodoric. 2. Gerard, Comte de Vaudemont. 
 
 10. TIIEODORIC, (eldest son,) Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, died 1115, 
 leaving issue by Gertrude, daughter of Robert le Prison, Comte 
 de Flandres, 1. Simon. 2. Theodoric d' Alsace, Comte de Flan- 
 dres. 
 
 11. SIMON, (eldest son,) Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, died 1149, 
 
 leaving by Adelaide, sister to the Emperor Lothaire, male pos- 
 terity, Dukes of Lorraine, now Emperors of Austria. 
 
 I have already said, that the following ARGUMENT is 
 an extract of a larger Work. In preparing it for a se- 
 parate publication I have thought it necessary to add a 
 Preface; and thus have been drawn to anticipate much 
 of what is to be found in the ARGUMENT itself. But I 
 hope that this will not be considered as an useless repe- 
 tition. In going over the ground again, I have per- 
 suaded myself that I could make it more clear and for- 
 cible by shaping it in different forms, and putting it in 
 other words : as well as by additional attempts to draw a 
 strict attention to the points on which the question hinges. 
 
 After so many learned men have in the two last cen- 
 turies employed on this topic all the industry and acute- 
 ness excited by the heat of contest when the dispute 
 engaged the passions of rival nations, I cannot but feel 
 somewhat anxious to justify an opinion, which differs 
 from them all! I may seem, therefore, to have over- 
 laboured points, which may appear in themselves sufficiently
 
 xvn 
 
 clear; but though they may seem clear to those who 
 are not conversant with the voluminous controversy 
 through which I have waded, it has been natural to me 
 to dwell prolixly on the elucidation of points in which so 
 many authors of erudition and ability have erred. 
 
 In the present state of the public mind, leading, (not 
 led by,} the public press, I can easily believe that such 
 discussions as this will be deemed among the difficiles 
 nugce which ought to be cast away. But that cannot be 
 a very idle question, which has not only occupied the 
 toils and ingenuity of accomplished authors, but roused 
 the passions of rival nations, and affected the political 
 pretensions of mighty thrones! The claims here dis- 
 cussed operated as a powerful instrument in the hands of 
 the Leaguers against Henry IV. ; and were again made 
 the colour of ambitious views on the part of Austria and 
 Spain against Louis XIII. 
 
 The claim of one family in the sixteenth century, in 
 right of heirship of blood by male descent, (even if such, 
 descent had been true and demonstrable], to a throne pos- 
 sessed by another family from the middle of the tenth 
 century, seems at this day to be almost too ridiculous to 
 be stated! What an aggravation, when the alledged 
 descent was incontestably false into the bargain ! 
 
 In another point of view the relation of this^dispute is 
 curious. It is an exhibition of human folly, and of the 
 strange inequalities of human learning and talent! Who- 
 ever will look into the best Biographies of France, will 
 find that the major part of the authors engaged in this 
 controversy were men of eminence, *not merely as anti- 
 quaries and genealogists, but for their talents and general
 
 XVI 11 
 
 learning, and their works, which enjoy fame in other 
 branches. 
 
 A. friend* observes to me, that " it is not the taste of 
 the age, (all the worse,) to consider it of much conse- 
 quence, 
 
 " To whom related, and by whom begot " 
 
 and that I shall excite little attention by this laboured 
 inquiry. I know it well ; but I will not be driven from 
 an examination of historic facts, which seems to me at 
 least rational and innocent, even though I may not engage 
 the interest or perusal of ten readers. 
 
 There is nothing more venerable than an ancient fa- 
 mily, where it does not disgrace itself by false pride, or 
 trifling self-consequence. Bacon, one of the most pro- 
 found of moral and political philosophers, has recorded 
 his opinion to this effect, in his admirable Essays, in a 
 passage too often cited to be repeated here. 
 
 I need scarcely say, that I have no other object than 
 the investigation of truth in this Argument. I have no 
 passions, or prejudices, or interests, on the subject. The 
 
 * The Rev. MONTAGU PENNINGTON, of Deal, in Kent, (the nephew, executor 
 and biographer of the very learned, eloquent, and profound poetess, Mrs. 
 ELIZABETH CARTER, who died in January, 1806, aged 86) a man of general 
 literature ; of great intelligence, always digested and ready ; of the clearest 
 memory ; of a calm and steady judgment ; an accomplished divine : an 
 indefatigable magistrate; the friend and protector of the poor; the adviser 
 in their difficulties ; the arbitrator in their disputes : one whom, in an 
 uninterrupted correspondence of more than two-and-twenty years, on every 
 passing topic, as well literary as of private friendship, I have always found 
 prompt and rich in knowledge, and calm and firm and comprehensive in 
 counsel. He was of Trinity College, Oxford; bora in December, 1762.
 
 XIX 
 
 question arose necessarily last September, out of the re- 
 searches to which I was led (in the correct compilation of 
 certain genealogical tables, to which I have already al- 
 luded), upon finding an absence of all explanation of 
 the near alliance of Ckuno, Comte de Rinfelden, to the 
 Countess ITA, though the Muri Genealogy expressly calls 
 him her uterine brother. I instantly saw that any pedigree 
 inconsistent with this positive fact must be false! My 
 mind was at this time turned to the volumes of the ori- 
 ginal controversialists; it was not, therefore, till some 
 months afterwards that I consulted the genealogy in Cat- 
 met's History of Lorraine. This laborious author could 
 not avoid to be struck with the difficulty : but he has en- 
 deavoured to escape it by a feeble sophistry, so evasive 
 that it looks almost like dishonesty ! 
 
 It happens to be important to me, not to commit my 
 credit on subjects of genealogy to slight proof, or weak 
 argument. If I had any hesitation as to the force and 
 validity of the proofs and arguments here produced, I 
 most certainly should be stultified to venture them. 
 Thirty-five years of cruel experience on such subjects 
 have taught me a tact and severity of skill, of which I 
 would not in my latter days throw away the moral in- 
 fluence by lightly sporting with a speculative subject in 
 
 which nothing is valuable but truth. 
 
 
 PARIS, Dec. 1, 1825.
 
 WHO WAS ITA? EH 
 
 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 I AM not so ignorant as to suppose that any genealogical question 
 can convey much interest to the generality of readers, and more 
 especially a question of so remote a date. But to antiquaries and 
 historians the present question, not only in itself, hut in the mode 
 in which it has been treated, is singularly curious. It has heen a 
 topic of discussion with many authors who hold a place of some 
 name in the annals of literature, for more than two centuries. It 
 has had volumes written on it, even in folio-, hut it has never yet 
 been cleared up. "Wassehourg, Henninges, Theodore Godefroy, Du- 
 chesne, Chifllet, Dominicy, Le Tenneur, Labbe, Blondel, Chantereau 
 Le Febure, Le P. Vignier, Imhoff, Toul, Anselme, Chazod,* Calmet, 
 the Benedictine authors of PArt die Verifier les Dates, etc. etc. have 
 all touched it, but have all left it in perplexity and error. 
 
 But the most surprising thing is, that many of them have furnished 
 the documents that have convicted themselves. Mere compilers mav 
 be expected to do no more than repeat the single author who is at 
 the moment before them, without criticism or examination. Some- 
 thing better is due from men of talent and erudition: yet even the 
 
 * Genealogies Hisloriqucs. Paris, 1736> 1738, 4 vols. 4to.
 
 22 
 
 celebrated DOM CALMET,* a profound scholar, only Copied (in 1728, 
 1745,) the weak arguments of Le P. Vignier (1649,) on this sub- 
 ject, in his predecessor's own words, and in spite of accompanying 
 documents which falsified the statements at almost every step. 
 
 Let us take only two instances regarding Gerard of Alsace, Duke 
 of Lorraine-Mosellane, who died in 1070 ; the admitted ancestor of 
 the present Imperial House of Austria! 
 
 First, he is made to be the same Gerard, who was son of Gerard 
 who died 1046, and grandson of ADALBERT who died 1034, though 
 the very two documents which are brought to prove it, prove in 
 express terms that this very Gerard, the grandson of Adalbert, died 
 young, " immaturd morte ;" and that Gerard of Alsace was not 
 grandson of Adalbert, but great nephew ; (for he calls Adalbert his 
 propatruus,} and that in consequence of this immature death of Ge- 
 rard the grandson, and his brother Theodric, he succeeded collaterally 
 to the possessions of that branch. 
 
 Then the mother of Chuno, Comte de Rinfelden, (the half-brother 
 of Ita de Hapsburg, 1018,) is stated by all these authors up to this 
 day to have been Beatrix sister to Hugh Capet, when they them- 
 selves produce the unimpeachable testimony of WIPPO, a cotempo- 
 rary, which asserts in express terms that she was MATHILDA of Soua- 
 bia, whose mother Gerberge was daughter of Conrad, King of Bur- 
 gundy-Transjurane ! 
 
 It would have appeared incredible that DucJiesne, a genealogist 
 remarkable for his deep knowledge and critical judgment on these 
 subjects, could have been guilty of such hallucinations as he has 
 here fallen into ! The famous Muri Genealogy was published at Spi- 
 remberg in 1618. It had drawn forth the pen of the learned jurist 
 Theodore Godefroy in 1624; yet in 1631 Duchesne, in his Histoire 
 de la Jllaison de Bar-le-Duc, marries this MATHILDA de Souabe, the 
 mother of Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine, and of his sister Ita de 
 llapsburgh, (who founded the Muri Monastery 1018, and died, cer- 
 tainly not young, in 1026,) to Frederic II. de Bar, Duke of Lor- 
 raine, who died young in 1027 ! He states that Mathilda's first hus- 
 
 * Born 1672 ; ob. 1757.
 
 23 
 
 hand was Conrad (or Cuno), Duke of Frariconia j* but this Conrad 
 did not die till 1012; therefore Ita de Hapshurg, if the issue of thii 
 second marriage, could not he more than five yeors old when she 
 founded the Monastery of Muri in 1018 ! ! ! ! 
 
 The multitude, even including the greater part of literati, con- 
 sider enquiries of this kind to he trifling and useless. If it he worth 
 while to publish these histories of minutiae, it is worth while to he 
 correct. But I may add that, so far as regards princely and illus- 
 trious houses, history can he no more understood without them, than 
 geography can be understood without maps ! 
 
 On the present occasion the mind is exercised in many nice dis- 
 tinctions : the proofs of identity require to be canvassed with much 
 industry and subtlety of thought ; and the comparative value of do- 
 cuments to be weighed with calmness and precision. 
 
 A lesson is here taught us with what carelessness successions of 
 authors take facts for granted, even when the statements confute 
 themselves : in short, how little talent and criticism is exercised, even 
 among authors of reputation ! It is the more surprising in the pre- 
 sent case, because the question was the subject of fierce controversy, 
 which almost always sharpens human wits ! 
 
 The trite remark that there are often strong motives of flattery 
 or malice, which shut the eyes of genealogists to the truth, does 
 not apply here. Here were two opposite parties: if it was the bu- 
 siness of one to deceive, it was the business of the other to delect! 
 They whose business was to elevate, would have elevated more by 
 the discovery of the truth : they whose purpose was to deny, would 
 have had their best triumph by bringing the most decisive proofs of 
 the errors and ignorance of those who undertook to confer honour ! 
 A controversialist will surely not use weak arguments, if strong ones 
 are at his command ! 
 
 It is well known that, in 1580, FRANCIS DE ROSIERES, Archdeacon 
 of Toul, composed and published a book, entitled Stemmata Lotha- 
 ringice ac Barri Ducuni db Antcriore Trojanorum reliquiamm ad 
 Paludes Mceotidas rcgc, ad Caroli III. Ducis Lolhartngite tempora> 
 
 * Maison dc Bar, p. 7.
 
 in which he endeavoured to prove that the Crown of France be- 
 longed to the House of Lorraine, as the issue of Pharamond and of 
 the House of Charlemagne; and for this purpose he inserted many 
 false titles : in consequence of which the hook was condemned, and 
 he was committed to the Bastille, and was compelled to make his 
 recantation in the presence of Henry III. and his Council, on the 26th 
 of April, 1583. He died 1607. 
 
 The object also of the dispute about ITA, forty years afterwards, 
 was to elevate the Imperial House of HAPSBTJRG above that of FRANCE, 
 through the medium of that of LORRAINE. The French Genealo- 
 gists took fire at this; and shewed the absurdity of the title on 
 which Chifflet, the Champion of Austria, placed it. Who could 
 have believed, that in the face of the JHuri Genealogy, he should 
 place it on the assumption that Ita, Countess of Hapsburg, who, 
 having founded a monastery in 1018, died in 1026, was sister of 
 Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine, who died 1115, son of Gerard, Duke 
 of Lorraine, by Hadwige de Namur and Ermengarde of France it 
 being on record that the said Theodoric was a little boy at his father's 
 death in 1070? 
 
 And what follows? His opponents, to confute him, set up another 
 system equally disproved, even by their own evidence ! They make 
 Beatrix sister of Hugh Capet the mother of ITA ! Where then was 
 the acuteness of the Hapsburg champions ? How could they miss the 
 triumphant reply, which was furnished for them ? Why did they 
 not retort thus? " True it is that you have found an insuperable 
 " objection to my former allegation ; but you have supplied me with 
 11 another in refutation of yourselves, which will answer my pur- 
 " pose as well! I give up Hadwige de Namur: but certainly you 
 " cannot support Beatrix sister of Hugh Capet in face of your own 
 " proofs! It is now demonstrated that Mathilda de Souabe was the 
 t( mother of ITA: and the House of Souabe, the ancestors of this 
 " Mathilda, were, from the time of the Emperor^Conrad le Salique, 
 ft universally admitted to be among the first of those who were 
 " distinguished in right of Carlovingian blood!" Such might have 
 been their triumphant retort. 
 
 It is equally extraordinary that the House of Lorraine did not
 
 25 
 
 now take up the clue thus furnished them ! To them it opened not 
 only a female descent thus illustrious ; but a male descent also much 
 more splendid and certain than that for which they were contending 
 on very feeble evidence ! Did it arise from the volubility and in- 
 constancy of the celebrated, romantic, and various- fortuned life of 
 Charles (V.) who was now the heir of this dukedom ; who was 
 driven from his hereditary dominions, and died in exile in 1675, 
 aged 7 1; but for whose ill fortunes full amends were made to his 
 brother's grandson, by his succession to the German Empire? 
 
 Yet it could not be indifference to his descent; for, in 1649, Lie 
 P. N. Vignier de VOratoire published a laboured folio of 256 pages, 
 to prove the male descent of the House of Lorraine from ETHICO, 
 and the ancient Counts and Dukes of ALSACE ! and all this when he 
 had a more illustrious descent for them within reach ! It has gone 
 down, however, (unsatisfactory as it is,) and occupies all printed works 
 of genealogy to this day ! 
 
 To rely on a broken reed in perilous paths, when a strong staff 
 is put into our hands, is a sort of voluntary folly not a little won- 
 derful ! The descent set up from ETHICO to EBERHARU is all con- 
 jectural: all about the identity of GONTRAM the Rich, is covered 
 with clouds : there is no proof that Eberhard descended from Count 
 Hugh, whose daughter Ermengarde married the Emperor Lothaire.* 
 That Eberhard was male ancestor of the House of Lorraine, Vignier 
 admits to be no more than an argumentative deduction : and it ap- 
 pears to me that no man of learning and talent ever ventured a 
 weaker and more fallible train of arguments, than this author then 
 proceeds to urge. Yet the famous Calmet has adopted these argu- 
 ments, and in Vignier's very words. -{ 
 
 But the deficiency does not end here : not only does the first step 
 of proof fail in the descent from Eberhard to Gerard, Comte de Metz ; 
 but it is demonstrable that the Dukes of Lorraine are not descended 
 in direct male line either from this Gerard, Comte de Metz, or his 
 brother Adalbert: I have little doubt that they are descended col- 
 
 * See Nithartfs Hist. b. 1. 
 
 fSee bis Histoire de Lorraine, 1728, fo I. vol. 1,
 
 26 
 
 laterally from the same common ancestor; hut that that ancestor 
 was CONRAD of Franconia, called le Sage, Duke of LORRAINE:* not 
 Eberhard, Comic $ Alsace! -\ 
 
 This first step of my own theory is itself, (I allow,) in some small 
 degree conjectural; hut it is fortified hy facts, which scarcely are 
 short of direct proof! 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CASE. 
 
 The origin of the House of HAPSBURG had heen the subject of 
 controversy at least from 1564, when Wolfgang Lazius published his 
 Commentaria in Genealogiam Austriacam, Basitece., foL 
 
 But new light was thrown upon it in 1618 by the publication of 
 Origines Murensis Monasterii in Helvetiis, cum Comitum Habs- 
 burgensium antiqua Genealogia; autorc Monacho ejusdem Ccenobii; 
 Mo. Spirembergii 1618, ibidem 1627. 
 
 The flatterers of the House of Hapsburg brooded in discontent on 
 this discovery; more especially as it drew forth against them the 
 pen of a very powerful author, Theodore Godefroy, a celebrated jurist 
 and profound antiquary, who published (though anonymously) a 
 little tract, De la vraye Origine de la Jllaison d'Autriche, centre 
 I 'opinion de ceux qui la font descendre en ligne masculine des Roys 
 de France de la Race Merovingienne, 4fo. Paris, 1624. 
 
 In 1643, Jean-Jacques Chijflet, who had been appointed Physician 
 to Philip IV. of Spain, and was then Chief Physician to Cardinal 
 Ferdinand, Governor of the Low Countries, took up the gauntlet in 
 favour of the Austrian genealogy, by publishing the first edition of 
 his Vimlicice Hispanicce : Anvers, 1643, 4 to. Here he argues that 
 the race of HUGH CAPET did not descend in the male line from 
 CHARLEMAGNE ; and that in the female descent from that celebrated 
 Emperor, the House of AUSTRIA preceded the House of CAPET. 
 
 * Ditmar, a cotemporary, calls Herman, the father of Matilda, not only 
 Cue de Souabe, but Due d' Alsace, 1002. 
 
 f There is, on the contrary, nothing to prove that Everhard was Comic 
 d Alsace: Le might be Comtc en Alsace, which makes a wide difference.
 
 27 
 
 Marc-Antoine Dominicy answered this by his Assertor Gallicus? 
 1646, 4to. and Chijflet replied in his Lampades Historicce, 1643, and 
 his Commentarius Lothariensis. 
 
 Jacques-Alexandre Le Tenneur rejoined hy his Veritas Vindicata, 
 Paris, 16bl,fol. and David Blondel by his Plenior Assertio, Paris, 
 1651, fol. 
 
 Le P. Nich. Vignier de I'Oratoire also treated this subject inci- 
 dentally in La veritable Origine des Maisons d' Alsace, de Lorraine, 
 d'Jlutriche, de Bade, etc. Paris, 1649, fol. 
 
 Numerous authors, up to the present day, have continued to agi- 
 tate the subject. At the end of the present argument, I will insert 
 a catalogue of the principal. 
 
 THE QUESTION. 
 
 Having thus given a short history of the question, I shall re- 
 sume it on the ground from which it started j the Muri Ge- 
 nealogy. 
 
 I must begin, therefore, with stating the facts, which that docu- 
 ment testifies. 
 
 It records that ITA OF HAPSBURG, the foundress, (the word is re- 
 paratrix,) of the Muri Monastery, (1018,) was sister of Theodric, 
 Duke of Lorraine, and of Chuono, Count of Rinfelden: that THEO- 
 URIC was father of Duke Gerhard, who was father of Gerhard ofEgis- 
 heim, who had issue Ulric and Stephen. 
 
 That CHUONO, Count of Rinfelden, had issue Rodolph the King, who 
 had issue Agnes, the mother of Duke Conrad. 
 
 That ITA OP HAPSBURG was mother of Count WERNHER and of Ri- 
 chenza of Lentzburg. 
 
 That WERNHER was father of OTTHO, and of ITA OF THIERSTF.IN. 
 
 That ITA OF THIEHSTEIN, or HOMBERG, was mother of WERNIIER, 
 who was father of ALBERT, the admitted male ancestor of the Im- 
 perial House of Hapsburg. 
 
 I shall not enter into the proof of the authenticity of this Genea- 
 as ^ was originally registered, because no rational critic can
 
 28 
 
 doubt it. And inasmuch as it claims to have been written by a Monk 
 regarding the foundress of his own Monastery, only one hundred 
 and sixteen years after her death, I shall consider the facts to have 
 been such as may fairly be taken to have been within the memory of 
 his own time, on which, therefore, he could not be mistaken, and 
 which he had no temptation to falsify. It must be recollected, that 
 at any rate it cannot ascend to more than three generations above the 
 parties then living. We are bound, therefore, to take ike facts of 
 this pedigree as data not to be disputed ! 
 
 From ITA, the foundress of the Muri Monastery, 1018, it is ad- 
 mitted on all hands that the Imperial House of HAPSEURG was de- 
 scended: but, according to the authority of this genealogy, not in 
 the male line, but from her son's daughter Ita, by a Conite de 
 Thierstem, whose male posterity assumed their mother's name, De 
 Hapsburg. 
 
 This, however, did not form the sole, nor the main ground of dis- 
 pute on the part of the Hapsburg advocates. These assertors con- 
 tended for a different mother to ITA OF HAPSBURG than their oppo- 
 nents admitted: and this for the purpose of shewing that the Em- 
 peror partook more nearly, more by primogeniture, and at an earlier 
 period, of the blood of Charlemagne, than the CAPETS ! 
 
 The mode which Chifflet took to effect this last purpose was this : 
 he contended that the Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine, here named, 
 was Theodoric who succeeded to the Dukedom of Lorraine- JMosel- 
 lane in 1070, and who was son of Gerard (appointed to this Dukedom 
 in 1048), and of Hadwige de Namur, daughter of Albert I. Count of 
 Namur, by Ermengarde, daughter and coheir of Charles of France, 
 Duke of Lorraine, uncle of Lothaire, King of France, the last mo- 
 narch of the Carlovingian line. Unfortunately for this theory, this 
 Theodoric lived till 1115, and was a boy (puer parvulus} when ho 
 succeeded to the Dukedom in 1070, whereas ITA DE HAPSBURG, the 
 sister of the true Theodoric, founded the Monastery in 1018, and 
 died in 1026, certainly not a young woman. Here then was ai> 
 anachronism of a century ! But Chifflet was obstinate, and persisted 
 long in the face of this disproof. However, all rational judges aban- 
 doned him on this point.
 
 29 
 
 His opponents were not content with thus refuting him : they set 
 up a theory of their own, which has been followed to this clay, hut 
 ^vhich it is part of the business of this ARGUMENT to shew is equally 
 open to refutation. 
 
 They contended that this Theodoric was Theodoric DE BAB, Duke 
 of Lorraine-Mosellane, who is stated to have died in 1024, son of 
 Frederic I. de Bar, Duke of Lorraine, who died in 984, by BEATRIX, 
 sister of HUGH CAPET! That this Beatrix was the wife of this Duke 
 Frederic, and long lived his widow, the celebrated ancient Genea- 
 logy of St. Arnoulj and other indisputable documents, put beyond 
 all question ! But every one of these controversialists, and every 
 subsequent writer, seem, with a blindness utterly unaccountable to 
 me, or almost as if by design, to have neglected another fact of 
 the M uri Genealogy, which in itself, (independent of all other ob- 
 jections,) falsities this theory. 
 
 It is admitted that CHUONO, Count of Rinfelden, was uterine bro- 
 ther to ITA and THEODORIC ! How happens it, that when the question 
 arose, no attempt was made to ascertain the mother of CIIUONO ? 
 As soon as I entered on this point, I instantly perceived that there 
 lay the clue ! But what was my surprise, when at last I found 
 that on this fact there was the most positive cotemporary evi- 
 dence ! 
 
 WIPOK, the Chaplain of Conrad II. le Salique, has written the Life 
 of that Emperor ; and in that memorial h^s told us in express terms 
 who was the mother of Chuno de Rinfelden ! To understand this, 
 the reader must be informed that Chuno and Conrad are the same 
 name : and that Chuno de Rinfelden is admitted to have been Cuno 
 or Conrad, Duke of Carinthia and Worms, the father of Rodolph, 
 elected Emperor (or Anti-Ccesar) 1077, whose daughter Jlgnes was 
 mother of Conrad, Duke of Zeringen: and further, that this first 
 Cuno de Rinfelden was son of another Conrad, Duke of Carinthia, 
 who was paternal uncle to Conrad le Salique. 
 
 And now we come to WIPON'S own words : 
 
 <l Prtedicti duo CHUNONES, (the Emperor and his cousin,) cum 
 essent, ut dictum est, ex parte genitorum nobilissimi, hand secus ex 
 materno genere claruerant. JUNIORIS CHUNONIS mater, MATHILDA, DE
 
 30 
 
 CONHADI REGIS BURGUNDY NATA FuiT. Mttjoris CJiitnonis ma- 
 ter Adelberta, vel Adelbera, vel Adeleyda, ex nobilissimd gente Lo- 
 tharingorum oriunda, fuerunt. Quce Jldeleyda soror erat Comitum 
 Gerardi et Adelberti qui semper cum Regibus et ducibus confli- 
 gentcs ad extremum causa propinqui sui Conradi Regis via? acquies- 
 cebant." 
 
 This MATHILDA was daughter of Herman II. Due de Suabe, by 
 Gerberge, daughter of Conrad, Ring of Burgundy-Transjurane: and 
 her sister Gisele de Suabe was wife (by a third marriage) of Conrad 
 the Emperor, who was nephew to her own husband. 
 
 Here then is positive evidence that the mother of Chuno de Rin- 
 felden was not sister of Hugh Capet; therefore, the mother of ITA 
 was not sister of Hugh Capet, nor was Frederic I. de Bar, Duke of 
 Lorraine, her father! 
 
 After this positive and express refutation, it may seem scarcely 
 worth while to notice minor and circumstantial objections: but there 
 are enough to be decisive in themselves. 
 
 Conrad } the husband of Mathilda de Suabe, died in 1012. ITA 
 DE HAPSBtTHG, the daughter of Matilda by another husband, founded 
 the Monastery of Muri in 1018, and died in 1026. Therefore ITA 
 must have been the daughter of a former husband, and her mother 
 could not have been a first wife of Frederic, the husband of Beatrix, 
 the sister of Hugh Capet, which Beatrix survived Frederic. She 
 could not have for a first husband Theodoric de Bar, (son of Fre- 
 deric,) because he survived till 1024: still less Frederic II." son of 
 the last, because he died 1027, which date Duchesne assigns on the 
 authority of ff^tpo, his cotemporary : as well as that he died without 
 issue male, leaving Beatrix and Sophia his daughters and heirs. 
 
 In short, the discrepancies of the Ji/tm Theodoric, either with Theo- 
 doric de Bar, or Frederic II. de Bar, are insurmountable. 
 
 It will not appear credible to those who have not gone through 
 the original works, as I have done, that these difficulties should 
 
 * Duchesne, most absurdly, and unlike his usual accuracy, gives Mathilda 
 to this Frederic II. who died without male heir, whereas, in that case, the 
 Theodoric of the Muri Genealogy would have been his son.
 
 31 
 
 have been passed over from author to author for two hundred years ; 
 and that, taking for granted, hecause the opponents of Chifflet 
 had confuted his theory, therefore, that the theory which they sub- 
 stituted for it, was right, future genealogists should repeat what on a 
 little examination furnishes the proofs of its own falsity ! 
 
 I cannot but consider that up to this point my arguments are 
 quite unanswerable : and I. believe that I am now qualified, by the 
 extent of my enquiry up to this day, (25th Oct. 1825,) to add that 
 they are quite new ! I admit that they have cost me some labour ; 
 and that I did not bring them into their present state without days 
 of research, and nights of thought! 
 
 I have thus shewn who the Muri Theodoric was not ! My business 
 is now to shew who he was ! My difficulty on this subject has not 
 been small. 
 
 The Muri Genealogy proves that there was another Theodoric, 
 Duke of Lorraine in 1028, or 1026, besides Theodoric de Bar! It 
 does not say which Lorraine, whether High or Low! 
 
 The List of Dukes of Lorraine, as commonly given, is this : 
 
 HIGH LORRAINE, On LORRAlNE-MOSEI.- LOW LORRAINE, OR BRABANT. 
 
 LANE. 
 
 950. Frederic I. de Bar. 1004. Otto, son of Charles of 
 
 984. Theodoric, his son. France. 
 
 . 1024. Frederic II. de Bar. 1026. Gozelo, son of Godfroy, Co. 
 
 1027. Gozelo, Duke of Low-Lor- de Verdun, 
 
 raine. 1044. Gozelo II. 
 
 1044. Albert d' Alsace. 1046. Frederic de Luxemburg. 
 
 1048. Gerard d' Alsace. 1065. Godefroy IV. Barbatus. 
 
 1070. Theodoric, his son. 1070. Godefroy V. le Bossu. 
 
 Now I believe that all these Dukes of both Lorraines were Bene- 
 ficiary, (or removeable,) not hereditary dukes: the greater part of 
 them certainly were so. And I think that the evidence of the 
 Muri Genealogy is alone sufficient, that Theodoric, ITA'S brother, 
 was interposed between some of this family of Bar: probably be-
 
 32 
 
 tween Frederic I. DE BAR, 984, and his soil Theodoric: because 1^ 
 for the same reasons, feel assured that he had also a. father Theodoric > 
 Duke of Lorraine, who must have died some time before 1012, when 
 Conrad, the second husband of Matilda de Suabe, died! 
 
 The question which now arises is this: of what family were these 
 intervening Theodorics ? 
 
 After long search, I have found whom Wassebourg in his Antiqui- 
 ties de la Gaule Belgique, 1549 , and Henninges in his Tabellce Ge- 
 nealogies, 1598, took them to be! I acknowledge that neither Was- 
 sebourg nor Henninges are to be believed on their own dicta;* and 
 that the authorities ought to have been cited by them: but we 
 cannot rationally doubt that they had authorities : and did not make 
 their assertions on mere conjecture. As it is, we must try these as- 
 sertions by their own intrinsic value. 
 
 "Wassebourg derives the Dukes of Lorraine -Mosellane, of whom 
 GEUARD died in 1070, and THEODORIC his son in 11^5, from Theo- 
 doric Prases Alsatice, whom he states to have been a younger son of 
 Conrad le Sage, Duke of Franconia, appointed beneficiary Duke 
 of all Lorraine in 944, who fell in battle 955, and who married 
 Luitgarde, daughter of the Emperor Otho I. This Conrad had an 
 elder son Otho, Count of Worms, Duke of Carinthia, and Marquis 
 of Verona j who was grandfather of the Emperor Conrad le Salique, 
 and of Cuno, Count de Binfelden. 
 
 Henninges also (vol. IV. p. 42,) names this Theodoric, whom he 
 calls Landgrave of Alsace, a younger son of Conrad le Sage. It 
 will be seen that Wassebourg gives the name of RICHARD (not Theo- 
 doric) to his grandson, whom he makes father of Albert, Comte de 
 Longcastre, and of Gerard, Comte de Castinach, which Gerard he 
 makes father of Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, and of Gerard, 
 Comte de Vaudemont, (/. 211, 244.) 
 
 I cannot at present establish every step of this pedigree by posi- 
 tive testimony, but it seems to me that I can go very near it. I 
 
 * I will take an opportunity to examine the degree of credit due to these 
 Antiquaries. I have since found that Chantereau Le Febure, in his Consi- 
 derations sur VOrigine de la Maison de Lorraine, etc. Paris, 1642,,/b/. 
 adopts these Theodorics.
 
 33 
 
 find in L'Origine de la Maison de Lorraine., (by Bcnoit de Toul,) 
 printed at Toul, 1704, 8vo. certain proofs collected to establish a 
 very different system the system of Le P. F'ignier, (viz. a male 
 descent from ETIIICO, or Attic, Duke or Prince of ALSACE,) but which 
 it seems to me are confirmatory of the descent stated by Wassebourg 
 and Henninges. 
 
 It appears that, in 971, there existed in these parts a powerful 
 Count, named RICHARD, who had enriched himself by marriage with 
 the heiress of ADALBERT, Count of METZ, who thus conveyed to her 
 husband the title of that province. It seems that this Adalbert* was 
 slain in 944, and that he had two brothers, Gerard and Matfrid. I 
 can scarcely question that this Richard was the THEODOHIC of Wasse- 
 bourg and Henninges. When 1 add that the Chronicle of Metz 
 gives us Gerardus Comes nostrce civitatis, filius Ricardi potentis ; and 
 further add, that Duke Gerard, who died 1070, had a great uncle 
 Gerard, (brother of Adalbert,) who was Cointe de Metz, the cir- 
 cumstances of identity surely become very strong. If also we admit, 
 what seems generally to be left undisputed, that this Gerard of Metz, 
 and Adalbert his brother, were sons of Adalbert, who was brother 
 of Aleyda mother of the Emperor Conrad le Salique, who is some- 
 times called Adelaide of Alsace, and sometimes Adelaide of Egis- 
 heim, we may confirm these circumstantialities by the testimony of 
 Wippo, who says that Aleyda was lt ex nobilissimd gente Lotha- 
 ringorum oriunda." Now what gens Lotharingorum could this be ? 
 To whom could it better apply than to the posterity of CONRAD le 
 Sage, the last Duke of all Lorraine 7 
 
 It could not apply to the House of BAR ; for it is not pretended 
 that the House of Egisheim, or that of Metz, or that of Jllsace, 
 came from the House of Bar ! But branches of the House of Conrad, 
 le Sage, were not only Dukes of Suabia, but Dukes of Alsace, about 
 this very time, as may be seen in La Guille's History of that So- 
 vereignty : whereas the family of Eberard, from whom Vignier, Toul, 
 Calmet, etc. deduce the descent, were not Counts of Alsace, but only 
 Counts in Alsace! on important difference! 
 
 * There was a former Adalbert, Co, de Mets et Due d' Austrasie, a roan 
 of consideration, slain in 841. See Nithard's Hist., etc.
 
 34 
 
 That Gerard, Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, 1048, who married 
 Hadwige de Naraur, and died 1070, was Gerard, son of Gerard, son 
 of the Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine, of the Muri Genealogy, can, I 
 think, admit no rational doubt. It is true that his son Theodoric is 
 not named ; and two unknown sons, Ulric and Stephen, are named ; 
 but these might have died infants, and Theodoric, who was a little 
 boy at his father's death, 1070, might not be born when the first 
 links of the pedigree were noted. 
 
 In 1090, Duke Theodoric records that his father was Duke Gerard; 
 that his grandfather's brother, (propatruusj was Adalbert, Duke of 
 Lorraine, the husband of Jutta; and that his brother was Gerard, 
 Count of Vaudemont. 
 
 Yet in defiance of this express proof given by themselves, Vig- 
 nier, Toul, Calmet, etc. state him to be grandson, not grandnephew, 
 of Duke Adalbert. True it is that other documents given by the 
 same authors prove that Adalbert had a son Gerard, who had two 
 sons named Gerard and Theodoric; but these are said to have been 
 taken off wnmaturd morte. 
 
 These same Genealogists assume that this Adalbert was the same 
 who was brother of Gerard, whose sister was Aleyda, mother of the 
 Emperor Conrad le Salique; but he was clearly either nephew, or 
 more probably first cousin once removed of that Adalbert; for Ge- 
 rard, the brother of that Adalbert, had an only son Sigfrid, who 
 was slain in his father's lifetime, 1014 or 1017, and, therefore, he 
 could not be the same Gerard whose son Gerard was the father of 
 Theodoric, who died 1115. 
 
 My opinion is this, that Theodoric (or Richard,) Comte de Metz, 
 had two sons: Gerard, Comte de Metz, and Theodoric; 
 
 That Gerard, Comte de Metz, had Adalbert, Gerard, and Aleyda ; 
 and that Theodric was Duke of Lorraine, and married Mathilde de 
 Souabe.
 
 EXTRACT. 
 
 Genealogia Families Hahsburgicce, ex Originibus Murensis Mo- 
 nasterii in Helvetia, editis Spirenibergii anno 1618. 
 
 I. Ista est Genealogia nostrorum Principum : THEODRICUS, Dux Lotha- 
 
 ringorum, et CHUONO, Comes de Rinfelden, fratres fuerunt: 
 eorum soror fuit ITA, Comitissa de Habsburg, reparatrix hujus 
 MTJRENSIS Coenobii. 
 
 Genuit autem Theodricus GERHARDUM Ducem ; ille vero 
 genuit GERHARDUM de Egisheim patrem VDALRICI et STE- 
 PHANI. 
 
 II. CHUONO, Comes de Rinfelden, genuit RUDOLPHUM Regem; et ille 
 
 genuit AGNETEM matrem CONRADI Ducis. 
 
 III. ITA de Hapsburg genuit VERNHERUM Comitem ; et Richenzam so- 
 
 rorem ejus de Lentzburg. 
 
 IV. VERNHERUS genuit OTTHONEM et ITAM DE THIERSTEIN. 
 
 V. OTTO genuit VERNIIERUM et Adelheidem de Huneburg. 
 
 RICHENZA de Lentzburg genuit ARNOLDUM. 
 
 Here ends the first author, who wrote in 1152, or 1153. 
 Tbe continuator brings it down to 1218, to this effect: 
 
 VERNHER (son of Ita de Thierstein,} was father of 
 ALBERT, who, by Ita, Countess of Pfullendorf, was father of 
 RoooLi'Hj who, by Agnes de Stouffen, was father of 
 ALBERT, who, by Helwige de Kiburg, was father of 
 ALBERT, with whom the pedigree ends. 
 
 This Albert III. died in 1260, without issue: he had two younger 
 brothers, Hartman, who died young; and RODOLVH, not then born, 
 elected EMPEROR in 1273, who obtained the territories of the Houses 
 of Kiburg, Egisheim, etc. by his marriage with Gertrude de Ho- 
 hemberg. 
 
 c 2
 
 TABLE. 
 
 1. CUNO, sen CONRADTJS, Sapiens, Dux 2. Lutgardis, filia Othonis 
 Lotharingiae universae, (Othonis I. I. Imperat. 947, et Ed- 
 Imp, gener,) successit in Ducatu gidaa uxoris j (soror 
 944 Othoni, (Ricuini filio,) a quo Luidolfi.) 
 Ducatu Otho Imp. eum removet ann. 
 953 ; restoratus est 954. Occubuit in 
 praelio contra Hungaros 955. Rcg- 
 num Lothariense Otho tune fratri 
 suo Brunoni, Archiepiscopo, com- 
 misit, qui Frederico de Bar, anno 
 959 vice sud pra?fecit. 
 
 Otto, filius natu maximus, Comes Wormensis, Dux Carinthice, 
 
 MarcJiio Veronce^ ob. 1020, duxit Juditham et pater 
 
 fuit duor. fil. 1. Henrici, Duds Franconice, qui ob. v. p. 
 989, et genuit ex Jldelaida d'Egisheim, sorore Gerardi ct 
 Alberti) Conradum II. Salicum, Imperat. ; et 2. Cunonis, vel 
 Conradi, Ducts Carinthice et Franconice, qui ob. 1012, maritus 
 secundus Mathilda filice Hermanni II. Duds Suavice, ex 
 Gerbergd filid Conradi Regis Burgundite Transjuran.^ ex 
 qua genuit Ctmonem seu Conradum Com. de Rinfslden, et Du- 
 cem Carinthice, patrem Rudolfi, elect. Imperat. 1077. 
 
 (Matilda supmdicta mdua fuit Theodorici Duds Lotharingice, ex 
 quo genuit Theodericum II. Ducem Lotharingice, et Itam 
 Comitissam Hdbsburgensem, Fundatricem Monasterii Muren- 
 sis in Helvetia.) 
 
 3. TIIEODOHICUS, filius junior Conradi, 4. . . > . . filia, (ut vide- 
 Saptentis, Ducis Lotharingiae, ex tur) et hacres Adalberti 
 Luitgarda filia Othonis I. Impe- Comitis Metensis.- 
 ratoris, nominatus Presses Jll&atice 
 ah Ottone Imp. (vid. ffasseburgum, 
 211, Henningsium IV. &%,} quern 
 alii appellunt Ricardum. 
 
 Gerardus Comes Metensis, unus filiorum Theodorici Prcesidis Al- 
 satice genuit Aleydem, Adalbertum, et Gerardum qui ex Eva 
 Luxeniburgense, sorore Cunegondce Imperatricis, genuit Sige- 
 fridum filium umcum, ocdsum in prcelio 1017, s. p.
 
 S.TuEODOiiicusII.DuxLotharhigise, films 
 Theodorici I. Ducis Lotharingiae, 
 (ex haerede Adalberti, Comitis Me- 
 tensis,) et f rater Gerardi Comitis 
 Metensis (patris Gerardi, Adalberti, 
 et Aleydae.) 
 
 Matilda filia Herman- 
 ni II. Ducis Suevia?, 
 ex. Gerberga filia Con- 
 radi Regis Burgundiae 
 Transjuranae, (renupta 
 Conrado, Duci Caria- 
 ihix, ex quo genuit Cu- 
 nonem Co. Kinfelden- 
 sem, etc.) 
 
 Ita filia Theodorici II. Ducis Lotharingice, uxor Radebotonis Co- 
 mitis Habsburgensis, Fundatrix Monasterii Murensis in Hel- 
 vetia 1018, ob. 1026. 
 
 7. Theodoricus III. Dux Lotharingiae, 8. N. 
 frater Itse Comitissse Habsburgensis. 
 
 Jldalbertus Comes, Marchio, ob. 1034, fundator Monasterii Bouson-^ 
 villce; duxit Juditham, ex qua genuit Gerardum, mortuum 
 1036. 
 
 9. Gerardus II. Dux, filius Theodorici 
 III. Legitur in Genealogia extr. ex 
 Actis Murensibus (Impr. Spirem- 
 berg, 1618.J Nepos ejus Dux Theo- 
 doricus 1090 appellat Adalbertum, 
 qui obiit 1034, propatruum suum. 
 
 11. Gerardus III. dictus d'Egisheirn in 
 Genealogia Murensi, filius Gerardi 
 II. nominatus Duso LotJiaringice 
 1048, ob. 1070. 
 
 10.N. 
 
 12. Hadviga filia Alberti 
 I. Comitis Namurcensis, 
 et Ermengardse iiliae 
 Caroli Ducis Lothariii- 
 giaa, fratris Ijotharii 
 Praucias Regis. 
 
 Gerardus filius junior, Comes Vademontis. 
 
 13. Theodoricus, Dux Lotharingiae, filius 14. Gertruda Roberti Fri- 
 Gerardi III. Ducis Lotharingiae, ob. sti, Flandriae Comitis, 
 1115. filia. 
 
 Theodoricus Alsatiensis, filius junior Theodorici Ducis } Flandrifc 
 Comes, ob. 1168. 
 
 15. Simon I. Dux Lotharingiae, filius natu 16. Adelais soror Lotharii 
 maximus Theodorici Ducis, ob. Imperatoris. 
 1149.
 
 38 
 PROOFS OF THE TABLE. 
 
 The first part of this pedigree, from Conrad le Sage, to Conrad le 
 Salique, is not disputed. He was grandson of Eberhard, " Comte en 
 Franconie et de Worms" slain 902, brother to Conrad, Due de Thu- 
 ringe, who was father to Conrad I. elected King of Germany in 912. 
 Henninges calls these Franconian Emperors lt exposteris CaroliMagni 
 oriundi," and says of Conrad le Sage, " de Clodovei vel Caroli Magni 
 posteris liunc ortum esse dubium non est," (IV- 30, 39.) and it is 
 ohservable that Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, son of Duke 
 Gerard by Hadwige de Namur and Ermengarde of France, speaks 
 of his father as " ex antiqud Caroli Magni progenie geniti."* The 
 descent from Charlemagne, therefore, had taken place before the 
 marriage with Hadwige de Namur. 
 
 I/Histoire de la translation de S. Arnou porte: " Breviliacam vil- 
 lam quam Richardus, Comes Metensis beneficii jure possidebat, Mo- 
 somensi ccenobio legaliter concessit VII. Idis Novemb. 971." 
 
 La seconde Chronique de Metz dit que Gerard, Comte de cette ville, 
 
 futfils de Richard. 
 
 . 
 
 GerarduSy Comes nostrce civitatis, filius Ricardi potentis. Toul, 
 p. 153. 
 
 La Chronique MS. de Melz dit que 1'Eveque Theodoric etablit ce 
 Richard, Comte de Metz, et plus has, elle ajoute qu'il avait etc 1'he- 
 ritier, par sa femme, des grands biens du Comte Adalbert, d'oii elle 
 lui donne 1'epithete de riche, Gerardus comes nostrte civitatis filius 
 Ricardi potentis. Ib. p. 154. 
 
 Wassebourg, Antiq. de la Gaule Belgique, 1549,, fol. p. 211, says, 
 
 Ann. 1014. " Entreprinse de Lambert, Comte de Louvain, pour 
 recouvrir la Duche de Lorrain Gerard de Castinach, cousin 
 
 * Vignicr, p. 109, etc.
 
 tie Lambert Godfrey, Due de Lorraine, assiege Lambert en, 
 
 son Chateau de Louvain. Lambert print le Chateau de Huz sur 
 
 1'Evesque du Liege L'Empereur envoye Gozelo en Lorraine 
 
 pour defendre la duche avec son frere Godefroy Gerard 
 
 de Castinach vaincu, et son ills tue par Godefroy, Due de Lor- 
 raine, 1014." This is the marginal Note. The Text is: 
 
 " Or avant que passer oultre, les lecteurs noteront, que de cestuy 
 Gerard d' Alsace, premier du nom, et de ses predecesseurs, sont des- 
 cenduz les Comtes de Vaudemont a present regnans, pour intelli- 
 gence de quoy fault reduire en memoire ce que nous avons escript, 
 au livre precedent, d'un noble Prince nomme Conradus le Sage, 
 Seigneur de Wormatre et Jllsatie, descendu de 1'ancien lignage de 
 Charlemagne, qui cut espouse Lutgarde fille de 1'Empereur Otho 
 premier-, defendit 1'Empereur en plusieurs batailles, et soubz luy 
 fut constitue gouverneur de la portion de Lorraine apres la mort 
 d'Otho fils de Gislebert. Ainsi qu'amplement avons diet cy-dessus, 
 parlaut de 1'annee neuf cens quarante troys, soubz laquelle Sigebert 
 escript ce que s'ensuit. Otho dux Lothariensium obiit. Conradus 
 gener regis Otthoni succedit, etc. 
 
 "Si trouvons que cestuy Conrad, entre aultres enfans cut un fils 
 nomme THEODOB.IC, qui cut son partage en Alsatie; il fut appelle 
 des hystoriens Presses Alsatice. Et engendra cestuy Gerard d' Al- 
 satie premier du nom, qui tenoit deux Comtes en Alsatie, 1'un nomme 
 Longcastre, 1'autre Castinach. II entrepreint guerre en faveur de 
 son cousin Lambert de Lovain , son fils nomme Richard d' Alsatie, 
 fut tue ceste dicte annee mille et quatorze, comme avons diet, et 
 ainsi 1'escript le diet hystorien Sigibert. Or laissa cestuy Richard 
 de sa femme, sceur de 1'Empereur Conrad II. deux Ills, a scavoir 
 Albert, Comte ou Due de Longcastre, et Gerard, Comte de Castinach. 
 Duquel sont descenduz les Comtes de Vaudemont, comme nous es- 
 crirons selon 1'ordre du lemps."
 
 40 
 OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 THE GERARDS. 
 
 Great perplexity arises in distinguishing all the Gerards and Adal- 
 berts, unless we examine the proofs with the most minute attention. 
 Hitherto they have been grossly confounded by every genealogist 
 whom I have examined, (a) 
 
 The first is Gerard I. Comte de Metz, whom I assume not to be 
 the same as Gerard the brother of Adelaide, the mother of the Emperor 
 Conrad le Salique, but her father. 
 
 Gerard II. (b] I take to be that brother ; and to be the same who mar- 
 ried Eve de Luxemburg, and to have had an only son, Sigfrid, (c) slain 
 in 1014 or 1017, and to have been living in 1020. 
 
 A third Gerard (e] was son of Adalbert,, the founder of Bousonville 
 Priory, who died 1034, and survived till 1046, leaving two sons, 
 Theodoric and Gerard, who appear to have died young. 
 
 Then comes a fourth Gerard, Comes Castinensis, (Castinach,) named 
 by Wa&sebourg as son of Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine. 
 
 Last comes a fifth Gerard, his son, (/) called also in Hist. MS. Lau- 
 rentii Leodiensis* Comes Castinensis, called also Gerardus Alsatice, 
 et Gerardus de Egisheimfi who was appointed Duke of Lorraine- 
 Mosellane 1048, and died 1070, and who had a younger son Gerard, 
 Comte de Vaudemont. 
 
 Besides these, there was a Gerard, Comte d'Egisheim, brother of 
 Pope Leo IX. 
 
 THE ADALBERTS. 
 
 Adalbert I. I place as the brother of Gerard II. Comte de Metz, 
 and of Adelayde mother of Conrad le Salique. 
 
 Adalbert II. Comes de Longuicastro, the founder of Bousonville 
 Priory, (d] is commonly confounded with Adalbert I. ; but inasmuch 
 
 * Vignier, 104, and Wassebourg, 211. 
 f Muri Genealogy.
 
 41 
 
 as lie was propatruus, (great uncle on the father's side,) to Duke 
 Theodoric, who died 1115, and was, therefore, hrother to Gerard, 
 Comte de Castinach, son of Duke Theodoric hrother of Ita, he could 
 not be the same who was son or brother of Gerard, Comte de Metz. 
 This Adalbert died 1034. 
 
 Adalbert III. Comes de Longuicastro, (so he is called in Hist. 
 MS. Leodiensis,*) appointed Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, 1046, slain 
 1048, probably son of Adalbert I. brother of Adelaide. 
 
 This distinguishes the Counts of Longcastre and Castelnach suf- 
 ficiently from the Counts of Metz, to confirm the assertion of Wasse- 
 bourg and Henninges, and the Muri Genealogy, that the latter, 
 including the founder of Bousonville Priory, were the issue of Duke 
 Theodoric, not of Gerard, the maternal uncle of Conrad le Salique. 
 
 But to let the reader judge, I will now give the words in proof of 
 each position, referring to it by letters. 
 
 (a) I have already cited the words of the Chronique de Metz, (from 
 Tonl, p. 153,) to prove Gerard, Comte de Metz, the son of Comte 
 Richard. 
 
 (b) Ex Chronico Ditmari, Lib. VII. " Adjiciam Godefridi Ducis et 
 Gerardi Comitis congressum, etc. Sigefridus ejusdem (Comitis) filius 
 captus est, etc." 
 
 Ex Chronico Cameracensi, Lib. III. cap. XI. " Gerardo fugato, 
 et unico filio vulnerato capto, postmodum vero defuncto." 
 
 Ex Chronico Sigeberti I. Anno MXIF. 
 
 Dux Gotefridus Gerardum Comitem multis modis regnum inquie- 
 tantem hello vicit. In quo filius ejus cum multis occisus, complices 
 
 ejus deterruit." Vide Vignier, 96. 
 i 
 
 Ex Chronico Hermanni Contracti quod edidit Canisius. 
 
 " Anno MXV. Ernestus, Dux Alemannia?, in venatu ab Adalberone 
 Comite feram appetente, sagitta vulneratus interiit, et Ducatum ejus 
 
 Vignier, 104.
 
 42 
 
 filius aequivocus; viduara vero Giselam Conradus filius Henrici, fiiii 
 Ottonis ducisj futurus postea Imperator, accipit. 
 
 "Anno MXVII. Godefridus dux partis Lotharingorum, Gerardum 
 Comitem, Conrardi postea Imperatoris avunculum, commisso praelio 
 vicit." Jb. p. 97. 
 
 (c) " Notum sit omnibus, etc. quomodo quidara vir illustris, et 
 magnae opinionis Comes, memor fragilitatis suae, suadente sua con- 
 juge Eva, pro se et anima filii sui Sigifridi defuncti, et consilio paren- 
 tum suorum, etc. Actum Metis 3 Nonas Febr. 1020." 
 
 Toul, pp. 155, 156. 
 
 His brother Adalbert became his heir. 
 
 Ex Chronico Alberici. " Anno 1036. Bruno Episcopus Tul- 
 lensis, Albertus Comes Metensis, et Gerardus filius ejus, multa contu- 
 lerunt Ecclesiis." Vignier, p. 106. 
 
 It seems that Mathilda, a sister of this Gerard the son, married 
 Fulmar, who became (jure uxoris} Comte de Metz ; and that Jutta 
 the wife of Adalbert, the founder of the Priory of Bousonville, was 
 another daughter ; and that this Gerard, son of Adalbert, Comte de 
 Metz, was the same whom Gerard, the founder's son, calls avun- 
 culus. 
 
 v * * 
 
 (d) Fondation de VAbbaye de Bousonville. 
 
 lt Anno 1033. Rogante glorioso Comite AD ALBERTO una cum op- 
 tima et christianissima conjuge sua JUDITHA." 
 
 See it more at large in Vignier, p. 97. 
 
 Suite de la Fondation. 
 
 (e) " His ita dispositis, Comes supradictus post annum moriens, in 
 choro Sanctae Crucis est sepultus, et uxor sua JUDITHA in medio Mo- 
 nasterii sepulta. 
 
 " Successit eis Gerardus Comes et Marchio, filius, qui cum uxore 
 sua Giselia locum praefaturn, etc. 
 
 " Tali ergo moderamine curam disponens ejusdem familiac duode- 
 cimo anno post mortem patris defuncto, uxorque sua Giselia in
 
 43 
 
 choro Sancti-Petri est sepulta. Succedentibus sibi iiliis DEODERICO 
 scilicet Comite, et GERARDO Duce. Isti namque parentum suorum 
 liberalitatem sequuti, fratres et familiam eis datam, benevolentia cus- 
 todire, omni conati sunt. Sed immature ambo mortem vita muta- 
 vere. Et dominium Bousonville suscepit Dux Theodericus, puer par- 
 vulus, Gerardi Duels filius." Vignier, p. 102. 
 
 (/) " Anno 1090. Ego THEODERICUS filius GERARDI Ducis Lotha- 
 ringiae, ex antiqua Caroli Magni progenie geniti, Dux Lotharingia?, 
 pace habita per misericordiam Dei cum fratre meo Domino Gerardo 
 primo Comite Vadani Montis, do, etc. eadem forma secut pater noster 
 Gerardus, et propatruus noster Adelbertus seu Jllbertus Dux Lotha- 
 ringiae, et uxor ejus Jutta dederunt. Data an. MXC." 
 
 Vignier, p. 109. 
 
 Thus have I clearly separated the Comtes de Metis, (from whom 
 came the mother of Conrad le Salique,) from the Comtes de Long- 
 castre and Castelnach, the descendants of Duke Theodoric, the bro- 
 ther of Ita of Hapsburg ! 
 
 I have already said that the train of arguments produced by Vig- 
 nier, and adopted by Calmet, to prove the descent of the Imperial 
 House of Lorraine from the Dukes and Counts of Alsace, (of the 
 stock of Duke Ethzco,} is singularly weak and inconclusive in itself, 
 setting aside the counter-evidence ! 
 
 It begins (p. 92,) at the point where he undertakes to shew that 
 Gerard, Adalbert, and Adelaide, (mother of the Emperor Conrad le 
 Salique,) were children of a certain Eberhard, Count of Alsace. 
 He assumes that he has already proved that this Eberhard was the 
 male descendant of Duke Ethico ; (a descent of which his proof is 
 really the reverse of satisfactory.) 
 
 Vignier builds his system oil the fact of the alliance between 
 Pope Leo IX. and Conrad le Salique. He then assumes as incontro- 
 vertible six propositions, whence he draws his conclusion; but un-
 
 luckily he fails in the proof of at least four of these propositions ; 
 and the other two, if admitted, are quite nullities. 
 
 1. He assumes that Pope Leo IX. was himself descended in the male 
 line from these Counts of Alsace, by which he begs the whole 
 question ; and of which he gives no approximation to proof; 
 unless the next proposition be a proof that Leo's father Hugh 
 was a Count in Alsace ! 
 
 2dly. That the patrimony of Leo's father lay in Alsace : which proves 
 nothing to the purpose. 
 
 3dly. That the relationship to Conrad could only be on the side of 
 the Emperor's mother Adelaide, or Aleyda ; which does not 
 follow : but, if true, signi lies nothing, unless the first proposition 
 be admitted. 
 
 4thly. That Adelaide was sister of Gerard, Come de Metz, and of 
 Adalbert, Comte d' Alsace, and founder of Bousonville Priory; 
 of which the latter part is false, for the founder of Bousonville 
 Priory was a subsequent Albert, the son of Theodoric Duke of 
 Lorraine, Ita's brother. 
 
 5thly. That Pope Leo and Conrad being AVITA COGNATIONS, were, 
 therefore, the children of first cousins; which does not at all 
 follow. 
 
 6thly. That the ancestors of Pope Leo finished their lives as monks, 
 and that Count Hugh, the son of Count Eberhard, did the same: 
 a most ridiculous proof of identity, at a period when these acts of 
 piety at the close of life were so frequent ! 
 
 Yet Vignier, assuming that he has established these propositions, 
 cries out, that " he must be an enemy to truth, who will not admit 
 the conclusion, that Gerard, Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, (1048) 
 sprung in the male line from Count Eberhard, and, therefore, (as he 
 farther assumes,) from the ancient Dukes and Counts of Alsace! ! !" 
 
 I think that I cannot be wrong or censorious in pronouncing these 
 arguments to the last degree futile.
 
 I am ready to admit that, HUGH, father of Pope Leo IX. was in fact 
 first cousin to Conrad le Salique, viz. nephew of Aleyda, which 
 renders it probable that lie was son of Comte Adelbert. I found 
 this admission on an extract which Vignier himself gives ex Alberici* 
 Chronico. 
 
 But I do not admit that this HUGH was son of another Comte 
 HUGH, who was brother of Eberhard, the alledged father of Gerard, 
 Adalbert, and Adelaide, (or Aleyda,) which would make Conrad 
 second cousin to Pope Leo, not first cousin to his father Hugh. In 
 the first place, dates are fatal to it: Pope Leo died 1049, therefore 
 his grandfather must be supposed to have died about 989. Eber- 
 hard, the alledged grandfather of this lasl, was the favourite of 
 Walclrade, the wife or mistress of Lothaire II. King of Lorraine, 
 wbo died 869; which would bring Hugh his son to about 900, and 
 Hugh and Eberhard, his grandsons, to 930, instead of 989. 
 
 I have a strong persuasion that in fact Leo's father Hugh was one 
 of the sons of Adalbert, brother of Adelaide; if not, he was son of a 
 sister. Le Mire, in his Chron. Belg. p. 276, makes Adalbert and 
 Hugh of the same male stock : but he makes Gerard, (not Adalbert,) 
 the father of Hugh, which is a clear error. I suspect that Hugh had 
 a brother Gerard, and a sister who was mother of Gerard III. d'Egis- 
 heirn, appointed Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, 1048. I further con- 
 jecture that the heiress of the above Adalbert, (probably his son's 
 daughter,) was no other than " Mathildis Comitissa Lotharingice," 
 named by Henninges, IV. 71, as wife of Folmar III. Comte de Metz, 
 which will settle many difficulties that Calrnet and others could not 
 reconcile, as to the Comics de Metz. 
 
 Thus have I shewn that not only do not Vignier's proofs and ar- 
 guments support his system, nor invalidate mine, but, wherever they 
 apply at all, even strengthen mine ! 
 
 * Albericus floruit 1241 . Vide Fabricii Bibl. Med. el Inf. Lat. I. p. 98.
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 My purpose has been to make the following confutations, and 
 corrections. 
 
 1. To confute the assertion of Chifflet that Ita, Countess of Hapsburg, 
 
 was daughter of Hadwige de JVamur, (whose mother was Ermen- 
 garde of France,) by Gerard, Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, who 
 died 1070. 
 
 2. To confute the assertion of Le Tenneur, Blondel., Chantereau le 
 
 Febure, Vignier, and all subsequent genealogists, that Ita's mother 
 was Beatrix sister of Htigh Capet, by Frederic I. DE BAB, Duke of 
 Lorraine, who died 984. 
 
 3. To establish that Ita's mother was Mathilde de Suabe, daughter of 
 
 Herman II. Duke de Suabe, by Gerberge de Bourgogne-Trans- 
 jurane. 
 
 4. That this Mathilde's second husband was Conrad, Duke of Carin- 
 
 thia, first cousin to the Emperor Conrad le Salique, by whom 
 she had Conrad, Comte de Rinfelden and Duke of Carinthia, 
 who was uterine brother to Ita. 
 
 5. That Theodoric, Duke of Lorraine, the first husband of Ma- 
 
 thilde, and father of Ita, was of a totally different family from 
 the House of BAR ; and of the male line of the Imperial House 
 of Franconia, descended from a younger son of Conrad le Sage, 
 Duke of Lorraine, who died 955. 
 
 6. That Duke Theodoric, whole brother to Ita, was father of Duke 
 
 Gerard, father of Gerard d'Egisheim; and that this last was the 
 same Gerard who was appointed Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, 
 1048, whose wife was Hadvige de Namur, and who died 1070. 
 
 7. Consequently that his father was not Adalbert, founder of Bou- 
 
 sonville Priory, who died 1034, but Gerard, brother of Adalbert. 
 
 8. That these brothers Gerard and Adalbert were not the same as 
 
 Gerard and Adalbert, brothers of Adelaide, mother of the Em- 
 peror Conrad le Salique, but of a subsequent date. 
 
 9. That Gerard, the son of Adalbert, the founder of Bousonville, and 
 
 husband of Gisele, was not the same Gerard who was father
 
 47 
 
 of Gerard, Duke of Lorraine-Mosellane, abovesaid, hut nephew 
 to the said father. 
 
 10. That Gerard, Adalbert, and Adelaide, were not children of 
 Eberhard Count of Alsace, hut of a Gerard Comte de JMetz, 
 who was probably brother of Theodoric, first husband of Ma- 
 thilde de Suabe, daughter of Duke Herman II. 
 
 11. That Gerard, the brother of Adelaide, had only one son, Sigfrid, 
 
 who died before him. 
 
 12. That Hugh, the father of Pope Leo IX. was one of the sons of 
 Adalbert, the other brother of Adelaide; and perhaps Albert, 
 who was appointed Due de Lorraine-Mosellane, in 104S, was 
 another son, though others believe this Duke to have been Albert 
 de Namur, father of Hadvige. 
 
 13. That Duke Gerard, husband of Hadvige, had a maternal uncle* 
 
 Gerard, who was probably son of Hugh, and brother of Leo IX. 
 who also had a brother Hugh, Comte tfdgsburg, according to 
 Le Mire, Chron. Belg. 276. 
 
 14. That the grandfather and heiress of Adalbert, Adelaide's brother, 
 
 seems to have been married to Folmar, (juxe uxoris,) Comte de 
 Metis. 
 
 15. That Alberic, in his Chronicon, expressly states Adelaide to be 
 
 tc de genere FRANCORUM," and Wippo calls her te ex. nobilissima 
 gente LOTIIARINGORUM," which precisely applies to a descent 
 from Conrad le Sage, who was of the House of Franconia, and 
 Duke of Lorraine; and inasmuch as Adelaide's brothers are also 
 proved to have been Corntes de Metz, and closely connected at 
 the same time with Ita's brother Theodoric, " Dux Lotharin- 
 gorum," the whole are thus strongly bound together, as being 
 sprung from Dukes of Lorraine, who were of the House of Fran- 
 conia ! 
 
 IB, and lastly. That the Imperial House of HAFSBURG, were sprung 
 from ITA and COUNT RADEBOTO, her husband, not in the male 
 line, but in the female line through the Counts of TIUERSTEIN. 
 
 * Avunculus.
 
 MURI MONASTERY. 
 
 It seems that the scite and demesne on which the Monastery of 
 JMuri was built, had been an usurpation of Lanzelin the father of 
 Count Radeboto, and son of Gontram the Rich, and the usurpation 
 had been renewed and extended by Radeboto, who, when he mar- 
 ried /to, settled it on her in dower in preference to his own more 
 rightful possessions. Ita's conscience was afterwards struck at this 
 unjust title, and she became anxious to restore it to the rightful 
 heirs ; but finding many difficulties in the way of this, she resolved 
 to dedicate it to God, and build here a religious house. For this 
 purpose she consulted her brother Wernher, the Bishop, who en- 
 couraged her design, and promised her all his aid and interest, and 
 advised her to convey the place and its appurtenances to some power- 
 ful man, who might obtain the Pope's confirmation. Accordingly 
 they chose her half-brother Count* CHUNO for this purpose. 
 
 " Mortuo Comite Radeboto, corpus ejus translatum est hue, ac se- 
 pultum ante altare sanclae crucis."-j- 
 
 In confirmation of my theory, I request the reader to keep in mind 
 the following important extract, regarding the mole descent of the 
 Emperor Conrad le Salique : 
 
 Ex Alberici Chronico. 
 
 " Anno MXXIV. Fuit autem iste CONRARDUS ex parte matris de 
 genere FRANCORUM. Item Hugo, Comes de Daburg, Pater Sancti 
 LEONIS Papae, de quo suo loco dicetur, el Imperator iste CONRARDUS, 
 fuerunt consobrini." 
 
 But more especially this decisive passage from Wippo, already 
 cited : 
 
 * " Ad hoc Coraitem Chrno fratrem suum de matre, palrem autem Ru- 
 dolfi Regis elegerunt." 
 
 f P. 11. Calmet pretends that this volume of Acta Murensia, was really 
 printed at Paris by the celebrated Peiresc vnder the false name of Spirem- 
 berg.
 
 49 
 
 Wippo de Vita Chunmdi Salici. 
 
 "Praedicti duo CHUNONES, cum essent, ut dictum est, ex parte 
 genitorum nobilissimi, haud secus ex materno genere claruerant. 
 Junioris Chunonis mater, Machilda, de filia Gonradi, Regis Burgun- 
 diae, nata fuit; Majoris Chunonis mater, Adelberta, vel Adelbera, vel 
 Adeleyda, ex nobilissima gente Lotharingorum oriunda, fuerunt* 
 Quoe Adeleyda soror erat Comitum Gerardi et Alberti, qui semper 
 cum Regibus et ducibus confligentes ad extremum causa propinqui sui 
 Conradi Regis vix acquiescebant."* 
 
 The last of the French Branch of Lorraine, the Due dElbceuf, died at 
 Yienna, \vhile this sheet was passing the presst But see Moreri VI- 406.
 
 50 
 
 Catalogue of Books on the Hapsburg and Lorraine Genealogies 
 alluded to in this Question, p. 26. 
 
 1. Origines Murensis Monasterii. Spiremberg, 1618, 4fo. 76. 1627. 
 
 2. De la vraie Origine de la Maison d'Autriche. Paris, 1624, 4to. 
 
 (par Theodore Godefroy.) 
 
 3. Joan. Jac. Chiffletii Vindiciae Hispanicse. Jlntverpia, 1647, foL 
 
 4. M. Antonii Dominic! Assertor Gallicus, contra Chiffletii Vindicias 
 
 Hispanicas. Paris, kto. 
 
 5. J. J. Chiffletii Lempades Hispanicae. Antverpice, 1649, 4J0. 
 
 6. J. J. Chiffletii, ad Vindicias Hispanicas Lumina Nova Praerogativa, 
 
 hoc est, de Origine Domus Austriacae, adversus Marcum Ant. 
 Dominicy. Jlntverpice, 1647, fol. 
 
 7. Stemma Austriacum millenis abhinc annis. Hieron. Vignier, Cong. 
 
 Orat. Presb., priores novem gradus adumbravit. J. J. Chiffletius 
 asseruit atque illustravit. Antverpi<B> 1650, fol. 
 
 8. La veritable Origine des Maisons d' Alsace, de Lorraine, d'Autriche, 
 
 etc. Paris, 1649, fol. (par L.-P. Vignier, de POratoire.) 
 
 9. Veritas vindicata 'adversus J. J. Chiffletii Vindicias Hispanicas, 
 
 Lumina Nova, et Lampades Historicas, etc. Opera et studio 
 Jacobi Alexandri Tenneurii. Parisiis, 165 1, fol. 
 
 10. Tenneuriusexpulsus; ejus Calumniae palam repulsae : auctore J. J. 
 
 Chiffletio. Jlntverpice, 1651,,/oJ. 
 
 11. J. J. Chiffletii Commentarius Lothariensis, quo praesertim Lo- 
 
 thariensis Ducatus Imperio asseritur, etc. Antverpice, 1649, fol. 
 
 12. Barrum Campano-Francicum Commentarium Lotharingicum J. 
 
 J. Chiffletii, auctore Davide Blondello. Amstelod. 1652,/o/. 
 
 13. Genealogie des Dues de Lorraine, fidelement recueillie de plu- 
 
 sieurs histoires et litres authentiques : par Theodore Godefroy, 
 Avocat en Parlement. Parts, 1624, 4/o. 
 
 14. L'Origine de la tres-illustre Maison de Lorraine, etc. par Benoit 
 
 (Picard) de Toul, Capucln. Toul, 1704, 800.
 
 51 
 
 15. Les Genealogies Historiques des Rois, Dues, etc. de Bourgogne, 
 
 (suite des Geneal. Hist, des Maisons Souveraines.) Paris, 1738, 
 4to. (par Chazod.) 
 
 16. Histoire de Lorraine parDom. Augustin Calmet. Nancy, 1729, 
 
 ivols.fol. seconde edition 17 45 . 
 
 17. Histoire d' Alsace, par L.-P. La Guille. Strasbourg, 1726, foh 
 
 18. J. W. ImhofF Notitia Procerum Imperii Germanici Heraldico- 
 
 Genealogica. Tubinga, 1693, fol. 
 
 19. Origines Habsburgo-Austriacoe a Joan. Georg. Eccardo. Lipszce, 
 
 1721, fol. 
 
 20. Genealogia Diplomatica Domus Habsburgicae, a Patre Marquardo 
 
 Herrgott, etc. Viennce Austriacorum, 1737, 3 vols.fol. 
 
 21. Joan Hiibner CCCXXXII. Genealogische Tabellen. L/eipsic, 
 
 17 12, fol. 
 
 22. Hieron. Henninges Theatr. Genealog. Magdeburg, 1598, 6 
 
 vols. foL 
 
 23. Eliae Reusneri Opus Genealogicum. Francof. 1612, fol. 
 
 24. N. Ritterbusii Geneal. Imperatorum, etc. 1664, 3 volsfol. 
 
 25. P. J. Speneri Theatrum Nobilitatis Europae. Francofurti, 1668, 
 ' fol. 
 
 26. Les Affaires qui sont aujourd'huy entre les Maisons de France et 
 
 d'Austricbe. Cologne, 1648, 12wo. 
 
 The different systems of many of tbese Genealogists are stated 
 witb critical acumen by Chazod, in his Genealogies Historiqties de 
 Bourgogne, Livre IV. Art. VII. (Comtes de HabsbourgJ p. 228, 
 ct scq. 
 
 The following are the full titles of some of the works already 
 mentioned : 
 
 Commentariorum in Genealogiam Austriacam Libri duo : in quibus 
 praeter vetustatem Nobilitatem atque arborem recta ascendentem in- 
 clyta gentis Habsburgicse propagenes etiam ad latera diilimduntur eo-
 
 52 
 
 rum, qui et ipsi non minus quam Austriades ex Habsburgicis egress! 
 sunt, Burgundiae regum, Zaringiae ac Teccensium ducum, Hurgundia: 
 Palatinorum et Advocatoruin Arelatensium, Comitumque cum de 
 Lauflenburgo turn vero de Kyburgo ac Fryburgo. Quorum slirpe 
 omnium desinente, Austria? Arcbiduces, non rerum gestarum modo, 
 verum opum affluentia, ditione ad Columnas usque Herculis, a supero 
 mari usque ad infernum extenta, et in Maesiam ac Scythiam usque 
 perseverant, fascesque Rom. summa cum laude retinent. 
 
 Autore Wolgango Lazio, Viennen. S. Rom. Imp. M. Consiliario, 
 Hislorico, ac Gymnasii Viennen. primario Professore et Superinten- 
 dente. 
 
 Accessit rerum et verborum memorabilium locupletiss. Index. 
 
 Cum Caes. Majest. privilegio ad decennium. 
 
 Basileae, apud Nicolaum Episcopium, etc._/bA 
 
 MDXLVI. mense Septembr. 
 
 Francisci Guillimanni Habsburgica^ sive de antiqua et vera origine 
 Domus Austriacae, Vita et rebus gestis Comitum Vindonissensium, sive 
 Altenburgiensium ia primis Habsburgiorum, Libri septem. 
 
 Ad Rudolfum II. Habsburgi-Austriacum Imperatorem semper 4u- 
 gustum. 
 
 Cum S. Caesarea? Majestatis privilegio, Mediolani, ex officina regia 
 Pandulphi, et M. Tullii Malatestas, 1605. Superiorum permissione. 
 
 4ito. pp. 544. 
 
 Francisci Ouillimanni, Consiliarii et Historiograpbici Caesarei Aus- 
 triaci, de vera origine et stemmate Cunradi II. Imp. Salici Syntagma. 
 
 Ad Fridericum Alstetterum S. Caes. Majestatis et Sereniss, Archi- 
 ducis Maximiliani HI. Consiliarium Intimum. et amplissimum Aulae 
 Cancellarium. 
 
 Cum Sac. Caes. Majestatis privilegio perpetuo, Friburgi Brisgoiae 
 apud Joannem Strasserum. Anno MDCIX. 
 
 4to. pp. 32. 
 
 Origines Murensis Monasterii in Helvetiis, atque adeo Europa Uni- 
 versa celeberrimi, Ordinis S. Benedict!: seu Acta Fundationis, qum
 
 53 
 
 brevi Chronico saeculi undecimi, quo major scriptoruru penuria fuit. 
 Cumque variis privilegiis Apostolicis, ac Caesareis, aliorumque fidelium 
 antiquis largitionibus, et aliis authenticis ejusdem Coenobii monu- 
 mentis . Atque imprimis antiquissima Principura Fundatorum Genea- 
 logia: hactenus desiderata eta nonnullis laudata ac summopere com- 
 jnendata, nunc demum ex vetustissimo codice Murensi edita, etc, 
 Spirembergi, in Bihliopolio Brucknausenio. MDCXVUI. 
 4#o. pp. 65, besides Index. 
 
 Memoires SUT 1'Origine des Maisons et Ducbez de Lorraine et de 
 Bar-le-Duc. Divisez en trois parties, avec des Pieces Justificatives. 
 Considerations Historiques sur la Genealogie de la Maison de Lor- 
 raine. Premiere partie des Memoires redigez par Louis Chantcreau 
 le Febure. Paris, MDCXVII. fol.
 
 54 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I AM fully apprised that in the present state of literature, and of 
 political thinking, at least in England, the question here discussed 
 will not seem worthy of the labour spent in it. It is, indeed, impos- 
 sible in these days to guess what may be deemed important or amus- 
 ing, and what dull or trifling. Caprice in part directs, yet not 
 entirely caprice. There is something of principle or design in it; 
 but a principle difficult to be analysed, and dangerous to be ex- 
 pressed. - 
 
 Did we, indeed, live in an age of grave and inflexible wisdom, 
 by the dictates of a profound moral and political philosophy of the 
 highest class, in which nothing idle or unnecessary ever obtruded 
 itself; where nothing of mere curiosity could any longer be allowed 
 to occupy men's intellects, then the question of the source whence 
 two great Imperial Houses sprung eight hundred years ago, might be 
 a wasteful and foolish study! But when the most superficial, the 
 most meretricious, and the most sophistical volumes receive un- 
 bounded favour and applause from the public, the charge of a fruit- 
 less exercise of the intellect could never be made by the living public, 
 had they any shame of inconsistency ! 
 
 The love of history is almost innate in the mind of Man; in every 
 age but the present it has been read for itself, for the mere pleasure 
 of gratifying an indefinable curiosity; it is now taught to be con- 
 sidered as childish gossip or dry rubbish, except so far as it may be 
 warped to contribute to the factious politics of the day. Let those 
 who are engaged in the duties of politics, pursue them with ardour 
 and skill ; but it is not necessary for the whole reading public to be 
 exclusively engaged in them. Yet at present there is no literature 
 untainted with politics; no criticism, of which politics are not the 
 real motive: and these not abstract politics, not political science, 
 which is a branch of literature ; but party politics ! We have not at 
 present in England one critical journal, of which literature is the 
 primary object! 
 
 In England, the members of literature are now as much orga-
 
 55 
 
 nized, and the business conducted with as much management, and 
 finesse, and underhand movement, as the most intriguing cahinets 
 conduct affairs of state. Notes, arguments, and parts are given out 
 from head-quarters, and all the bearings near and remote are duly 
 weighed by a combination of minds, before a work is to be praised, 
 or condemned, or kept out of sight ! or before an author, living or 
 dead, is to be set up, or cast down ! just as a manager of the House 
 of Commons settles among his creatures how a measure in Parlia- 
 ment is to be treated! Thus the individual is nothing: it is all com- 
 bination-, and he is only the single stick in the faggot! Thus, as 
 Office makes men, Party makes men who have no strength of their 
 own ! 
 
 There were times when men of honest and independent literature 
 could be heard, and carry authority with them. Those times are 
 utterly past ! The universal vanity of ambition and political power ; 
 the cupidity of lucre; the strange inebriating poison which has 
 poured dissolution into all the links of society, the piquant epigram- 
 matic, malignant raillery adopted by venal criticism to flatter the 
 multitude's passion for the degradation of genius, have extinguished 
 independent studies, and the esteem for individual eminence of 
 wisdom, talent, and erudition! All is become a system of selfish 
 artifice, by which factitious means are directed to produce, unduly, 
 temporary effects ! The calm voice of unaffected genius is rendered 
 mute; and the simple colours of nature are eclipsed, and become 
 impotent ! 
 
 Let us look into old libraries, and see what gained the esteem of 
 past ages ! Are we alone endowed with force of intellect and cor- 
 rectness of taste ? Are we advanced by such gigantic steps, that all 
 which delighted them can justly appear like folly or dulness ?
 
 56 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 DECEMBER 18, 1825.. 
 
 WHILST this sheet was in the compositor's hands, I obtained Mr. 
 Charles Butler's delightful Reminiscences, (<ith edition, London, 
 1824, 8vo.} I have there found mention of another work of the 
 learned author, probably appurtenant to the subjects discussed by me 
 in this tract, which unluckily I have never seen; and which not 
 being in the Bibliotheque du Roi, I cannot procure in time for this 
 publication. It is entitled " Germanic Empire; being a succinct His- 
 tory of the Geographical and Political Revolutions of the Empire of 
 Germany ; or the principal States which composed the Empire of 
 Charlemagne, from his coronation in 800 to its dissolution in 1806. 
 'With some account of the Genealogies of the Imperial House of 
 Hapsburg, and the six secular Electors of Germany ; and of Roman, 
 German, French, and English Nobility." 
 
 The amiable and able author says, that " the composition of this 
 work involved the Reminiscent in the abyss of German and Italian 
 genealogists; but his grand resource was Anderson! $ Genealogical 
 Tables, a work of the most profound and extensive erudition. A 
 new edition of it, corrected, enlarged, and brought down to the 
 present time, would be an invaluable present to the literati of every 
 nation: but such a work is too expensive to be printed, otherwise 
 than by a large subscription; and for such subscriptions this is not 
 the hour!" 
 
 Anderson's Book the present author has not seen since he left 
 England in 1818, and indeed had forgot it till Mr. Lodge men- 
 tioned it to him with praise last autumn. He will take an early 
 opportunity of re-examining it, and forming anew his own opinion 
 on it. 
 
 As it happens that a page or two is yet vacant in the present 
 sheet, the author will insert a few remarks suggested by the Remi- 
 niscences, though they will be blamed as totally irrelevant to the 
 subject of Who was Ita ?
 
 57 
 
 Mr. Butler's Reminiscences is a golden book. Its whole matter 
 is full of the deepest interest ; and it is treated with an integrity, a 
 candour, an originality, a profundity of research and learning, and a 
 talent, which have very rarely indeed been combined. I do not 
 exactly agree with the views he takes of several public characters: 
 but I am not the less interested in them on that account. His ex- 
 treme candidness of heart makes him, I think, estimate the talents 
 of some of his deceased co temporaries a little too high: it would be 
 invidious to point out names, where I cannot have space to give my 
 reasons. Qn the contrary, though Burke is highly praised, he is not 
 set as much above his cotemporaries as he is entitled to be. In 
 poetical taste my opinions and feelings on many points differ essentially 
 
 from Mr. Butler's. 
 
 
 
 T have announced, in a NOTE published in September last, as in 
 preparation for the press, my own Memoirs of my own Times, and 
 Characters of my Cotemporaries. I find that it will require more 
 leisure, and a longer period of labour, than I had anticipated, and it 
 is probable that in the mean time I may put forth some LOOSE 
 LEAVES from this voluminous work. In the last age there shone in 
 public life some of the most extraordinary men in native gifts of 
 intellect who ever adorned the British annals: but there were also 
 men who attained very high political and professional power, with 
 very mean and contemptible talents, and very sordid hearts. And 
 in this period of mingled splendor and gloom, like a stormy night, 
 where the blaze of the lightning is surrounded and succeeded by 
 massy darkness, that political aristocracy which had formed an es- 
 sential intermediate balance in the constitution, was utterly changed 
 in its elements, and reversed in its order.* Pitt's profuse additions 
 to his aristocracy arose from his contempt of it : but this shews that 
 his contempt was not the fruit of profound views : his own feeling 
 of personal superiority to rank and honours could not overcome the 
 effects resulting to others, from the abuse of an excessive and indis- 
 criminate enlargement of its privileges. Let us look at any court- 
 
 * See the sagacious John Wilkess opinion on this subject in Butlers Re- 
 miniscences, p. 7%. Butler's character of Wilkes shews exquisite tact.
 
 58 
 
 capital in Europe, which the English frequent, and see what is the 
 fruit of the seeds sown by Mr. Pitt's upstart aristocracy ! There is 
 not birth, talent, education, manners, character, or even decency ! 
 Not merely a brutal apathy to the past splendors of England ; but a 
 blind and unconscious ignorance of it ! 
 
 These Memoirs shall be written with a fearless frankness : I will 
 give no man just ground to tax me with personal animosities ; but I 
 will not compromise. I am above the influence of dazzle, as I am 
 above the motives of flattery or favour: I have seen things at a 
 distance " through the loop-hole of retreat," but not perhaps the 
 less accurately on that account: nothing is more certain, than that 
 persons may be too near, as well as too remote, to discern with 
 justice. There is a mist from the heat of proximity, as well as from 
 the interval of long space. Actors commonly see less than standers- 
 by. They are too much engaged in their own partial interests; 
 and enveloped in the, clouds of their own passions. Few great states- 
 men have written accurately and powerfully the history of their 
 own experiences, except Lord Clarendon. We owe to the retired 
 study of the learned CAMDEN the best History of the glorious Qwen 
 Elizabeth: and the best intelligence regarding the State-affairs of 
 England during the first half of the last century has come from the 
 secluded industry of Archdeacon COXE. What did GIBBON gather of 
 his inexhaustible historical wealth from high practical offices, from 
 ministers, or chancellors, or ambassadors ? 
 
 As to my living cotemporaries, delicacy must necessarily impose 
 restraint. We have no right, except in extraordinary cases, to 
 wound another's self-love. We have a right to criticize a man's 
 public works, and to use the results drawn strictly and exclusively 
 from them! But so far as the opinions are mixed of what is extrinsic 
 to those public works, it is necessary to be very cautious. 
 
 If I choose to criticize Mr. Thomas Moore's Life of Sheridan, it is 
 a game which he has put at my mercy j it is public property : if I 
 feel that he has sacrificed to the living a natural and justifiable re- 
 gard to the memory of him, whose Life he has undertaken to write, 
 I am not only entitled to give my opinion, but should be mean to sup- 
 press it! The biographer has related facts, which all but party-men,
 
 59 
 
 (and who so odious, or so stultified as a party-man ?) must feel to 
 have exalted Sheridan's political character above the former estimate 
 of him, and which must at the same time condemn to inextinguish- 
 able detestation those leaders of factions, who now call themselves 
 the great and the fashionable mushrooms, whose names are unknown 
 in history, sprung from i( the little tyrants of a village," to the 
 usurped dominion over the minds of a deluded people ! rich in the 
 spoils of the public purse, yet haughty as if their wealth sprung 
 from the merits of themselves and their ancestors ! 
 
 There is one most manly and independent remark of Mr. Butler, 
 worthy of his accomplishments and his virtuous mind, which I cannot 
 forbear to cite from page 86: 
 
 " How much the learned man and elegant scholar lowers himself 
 by frequenting the tables or the conversazioni of the great, may be 
 seen in a work of d'Alembert, which should lie on the desk of every 
 scholar."* 
 
 Among the most odious of literati, are those metrical scribblers, 
 whom Bishop Hall, (I think,) in his satires, called " trencher-poets" 
 There was, however, a dignity in POPE'S association with the great, 
 considering the times in which he lived, which elevates the mind 
 as a proof of the ascendency of genius. I know that Dr. J. Warton 
 censures his scorn of rank and title as too often on his lips, and too 
 much like affectation. But the great did in fact bow to him, and 
 tremble at his frown. His address to Bolingbroke, 
 
 " Awake, my St. John I" etc. 
 is very grand : and in no moral poetry is any thing to be found so 
 
 * ' ' His ' Essay on the intercourse of Men of Letters with Persons high 
 in rank or office.' The same subject is treated in an agreeable and interest- 
 ing manner in ' the Literary Character' of Mr. d'Israeli, now in its third 
 edition." Butler. 
 
 I must add, that which I am surprized escaped Mr. Butler's notice, that 
 Gray contemplated an Ode on this very subject; and that he greatly admired 
 this Essay of (CAlembert. See Mason's Narrative appended lo Grays Letter 
 to Dr. Ffharton, of the 9lh of March, 1755.
 
 60 
 
 perfect and so touching, as his Dedication of Parnell's Poems to 
 Lord Oxford. The solemnity of its flow; the unaffected depth of 
 its melancholy, the (t soher certainty" of its genuine feeling, are 
 quite unequalled, and perhaps inimitahlel Four lines of that short 
 composition are worth tenfold more than the whole Rape of the 
 Lock (which is a mere piece of art,) and the Dunciad put to- 
 gether. I do not helieve that Pope would have flattered, or for a 
 moment even have bent ! But nothing less than Pope's magnificent 
 talents, and that high power of moral exaltation which was at his 
 command, could preserve the independence and dignity of a man of 
 his obscure birth and station from the insolence and dominion of 
 new nobles like Bolingbroke and Oxford, at once so proud of their 
 venerable descent, and so vain of their new honours! Look at the 
 characters and habits of Milton, Gray, Collins, Cowper, and Burns ! 
 Did one of them truckle at the tables of those, whom the world, 
 with liberty on its lips, and the basest servility in its heart, calls 
 the great? The two proudest of modern English nobles are by 
 universal consent two new Peers, whose motto ought to befrangas, 
 non flectes ; but of whom neither in fact, I believe, uses that motto ; 
 it happening that nothing is so unluckily assorted as mottos, too many 
 of the peers bearing on their scrolls a memento, which they woukl 
 most wish to keep out of sight !
 
 61 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT; 
 
 A multitudinous author may be a very silly person ; and exercise 
 no faculty but memory, and scarce any labour but that of the pen. 
 He, therefore, who carries through the press many volumes which 
 are the fruit of his own literary occupations, must incur the hazard 
 of this censure. The tests which ought to be applied to him, are 
 very simple : the tests which will be applied, depend mainly on the 
 honesty and candour of those who apply them* 
 
 First. Do they convey any thing new, either in the particulars, or in 
 the combination ? 
 
 Secondly. If new, is it of sufficient importance and correctness, to be 
 worth knowing ? 
 
 Thirdly. Is it told with sufficient ability and skill? 
 
 If all these cannot be answered in the affirmative, the author had 
 done better not to have made the attempt to fatigue the public 
 attention ; and the type, the paper, and the compositor's time, had 
 better have been saved. 
 
 The novelty of ignorance is worse than the stalest truth ; and the 
 disguise of painful transposition and a changed language is disgusting 
 for its fraud, as well as for its stupidity. There is a tact in real 
 taste, which instantly acknowledges what is genuine : it has a stream
 
 G2 
 
 of life beneath the surface, which breathes through : it speaks from 
 its own fulness, and borrows nothing from without. "When the 
 mind, as when the heart, is loaded, it must find vent. No one is 
 sure that he is master of his thoughts or sentiments, till he has 
 cloathed them in language. When an author stands continually in 
 the public eye, and not in a borrowed dress, he has an excitement 
 to correctness and truth in his opinions and sentiments, which the 
 mere private indulgence of thinking can never give. He lives in the 
 glare of day, and every spot and aberration will be marked.
 
 63 
 
 WORKS OF SIR EGERTON BRIDGES, 
 
 PRINTED ON THE CONTINENT, FROM MARCH 1819, TO 
 DECEMBER 1825. 
 
 1. Coningsby, a Tragic Tale. Geneva, 1819, 12mo. 
 
 2. Lord Brokenhurst, a Tragic Tale, Geneva, 1819, 12mo. 
 
 3. Sir Ralph Willoughby, a Tragic Tale. Florence, 1820, 12mo. 
 
 4. Odo, Count of Lingen ; a Poem, in six Cantos. Geneva, 1824, 16mo. 
 
 5. Gnomica; Detached Thoughts. Geneva, 1824, 8vo. 
 
 6. The Population and Riches of Nations considered together. Geneva, 
 
 1819, 8vo. 
 
 7. What are Riches? Geneva, 1821, 8vo. 
 
 8. The Anti-Critic. Geneva, 1822, 8vo. 
 
 9. The Green-Book : a Fragment. Geneva, 1822, fol. 
 
 40. Inquiry into the Law of Peerage Descents. Geneva, 1823, fol. 
 11. Impartial Portrait of Lord Byron. Paris, 1825, 12mo. 
 
 42. Note on Suppressed Memoirs. Paris, Sept. 1825, 12mo. 
 
 43. Res Literariae, vol. 1. Naples, 1820, 8vo. 
 
 , vol. 2. Rome, 1821, 8vo. 
 
 , vol. 3. Geneva, 1822, 8vo. 
 
 44. Polyanthea Librorum Vetustiorum. Geneva, 1822, 8vo. 
 
 45. Cimelia: (Excerpta Cntica). Geneva, 4823, 8vo. 
 
 46. Theatrum Poetarum Anglicanorum, (originally compiled by Ed\v. 
 
 Philips,) 3d edition. Geneva, 1824, 8vo. 
 
 47. Ataviae Regisc. Florence, 1820, 4to. 
 
 48. Libellus Gebeusis : (Carmina Selecla). Geneva, 1822, 12mo. 
 
 19. Valerianus, de Infelicitate Lileratorum. Geneva, 1821, 8vo. 
 
 20. Carmina Brugesiana. Geneva, 1822, 8vo.
 
 fi/l 
 
 21. Lamenlo di Strozzi. Geneva, 1822, 8vo. 
 
 22. Pellegrini Oratio in Obitum Torquati Tassi. Geneva, 1822, 4to. 
 
 23. Who was Ita, Countess of Hapsburg? Paris, 1826, 8vo. 
 
 24. Stemraata Illustria. Paris, 1826, fol. 
 
 WORKS OF SIR EGERTON RRYDGES, 
 
 PRINTED IN ENGLAND DURING THE SAME PERIOD. 
 
 25. Letters from the Continent. Lee Priory, 1822, Svo. 
 
 26. Hall of Hellingsley, a Tale. 3 vols. 1821, 8vo. 
 
 27. Letters on the Character and Genius of Lord Byron, (July) 1824, 8vo. 
 
 28. Recollections of Foreign Travel. 2 vols. 1825, 8vo. 
 
 Paris, printed by J. Smith, 16, rue Montmorency,
 
 UCSB 
 
 X-
 
 uc SOUTHER' 
 
 7 000589509 9