Freed Salzburg Ministeriales

7/28/2019 Freed Salzburg Ministeriales

1/38

Medieval Academy of America

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knights in the Archdiocese of SalzburgAuthor(s): John B. FreedSource: Speculum, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 575-611Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2846383

Accessed: 15/10/2009 07:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2846383?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacadhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacadhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2846383?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/38

SPECULUM 62/3 (1987)

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knightsin the Archdiocese of SalzburgBy John B. Freed

The medieval conception of knighthood remains controversial because theword knight still has romantic connotations for us and, more important, be-cause medieval writers and scribes employed miles and its vernacular equiva-lents in various, often contradictory ways. The relationship between literaryworks and social reality is far from clear. The problem is further complicatedin Germany by the existence of the ministerials and the role that knighthoodis alleged to have played in their ennoblement. One solution is situationalanalyses of the use of the word milesin specific regions, that is, examinationsof who was called a miles by whom, when, and in what context in particularareas, in this case the archdiocese of Salzburg.The archdiocese stretched from the Inn River and its tributary the Isen insoutheastern Bavaria across the modern Austrian provinces of Salzburg,Carinthia, and Styria as far south as the Drava, which formed the boundarywith the patriarchate of Aquileia, in what is now northern Yugoslavia. South-eastern Bavaria and most of the medieval duchies of Carinthia and Styriawere thus under the archbishops' spiritual jurisdiction. The ecclesiastical prin-cipality of Salzburg was largely the creation of Archbishop Eberhard II in thefirst half of the thirteenth century and consisted not only of the present-dayprovince of Salzburg but also of the Rupertiwinkel, the area on the left bankof the Salzach between the Saalach and Tittmoning as far west as the Alz,which was assigned to Bavaria in 1816. It was the largest ecclesiastical princi-pality south of the Main. In addition, the archbishops had extensive holdingsthroughout the archdiocese and were the temporal lords of Miihldorf inBavaria, Friesach, the most important city in medieval Carinthia, and Pettau,now Ptuj, Yugoslavia, in what was until 1918 southern Styria. The archbish-ops' noble vassals, ministerials, and knights lived throughout this vast archdio-cese in the eastern Alps.Studies of knighthood have long been dominated by the work of PaulGuilhiermoz and Marc Bloch, who contended that a true nobility, a heredi-

I am grateful to my colleagues, Roy A. Austensen and Lawrence D. Walker, for their criticalcomments. This article is based on a paper delivered at The Twelfth New England MedievalConference, Wesleyan University, October 20, 1985.The following abbreviations will be employed in the article: MGSL, MitteilungenderGesellschaftfur SalzburgerLandeskunde;Regesten, Die RegestenderErzbischofeund desDomkapitelsvon Salzburg1247-1343, ed. Franz Martin, 3 vols. (Salzburg, 1926-34); and SUB, SalzburgerUrkundenbuch, d.Willibald Hauthaler and Franz Martin, 4 vols. (Salzburg, 1898-1933).575


3/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightstary, legally privileged class, did not exist in France until the twelfth century,when the descendants of the Carolingian imperial aristocracy, their vassals,and local landowners coalesced with warriors of diverse social origins into asingle class of knights. The major factors that prompted this change were thechurch's emphasis upon the knights' obligation to defend Christendom andthe threat posed by the growing wealth and aspirations of the burghers.1Bloch himself applied his thesis to Germany, but he conceded that the accep-tance of the knights as nobles occurred somewhat later in Germany than inFrance because German law emphasized the concept of freedom, becauseGermans were too conscious of hierarchical distinctions, and because therewere simply too many servile ministerials, the German counterpart of theFrench rear vassals, for all of them to be absorbed imperceptibly into theranks of the nobility.2An investigation of the applicability of the Guilhiermoz-Bloch model toGermany has become urgent since the publication of Maurice Keen's Chivalry(1984) and Benjamin Arnold's GermanKnighthood,1050-1300 (1985), thebooks most likely to be read by English-speaking scholars and students. Keendefines a knight as "a man of aristocratic standing and probably of nobleancestry, who is capable, if called upon, of equipping himself with a war horseand the arms of a heavy cavalryman, and who has been through certain ritualsthat made him what he is. .. ." He admits, like Bloch, that the German nobilityof the Hohenstaufen period was "peculiarly stratified," but adds:

asin France,we findallalike,highandlow,beginningfromsometime in the twelfthcenturyto call themselvesmilites ... That the ministerialesnd theirilk should haveembracedenthusiasticallyhe Frenchcultof chivalry hould... occasionno wonder.... For the ministeriales,heir knighthoodand their cult of knighthoodwas the signthat, free or unfree, their servitude was an ennobling servitude.3Arnold's book should more properly be titled TheGermanMinisterialage.Hesays that "the Latin word ministerialiswas a scribal experiment of the eleventhcentury which prevailed early in the twelfth as the label for 'unfree knight'everywhere in Germany."4 Scribes preferred the term ministerialisbecause itavoided confusing the servile knights with the much smaller group of freemilites. Members of both groups were being called militesby the end of thethirteenth century because most of the free knights had died out and the fewsurvivors had intermarried with the ministerials.5 Like Bloch, Arnold believesthat Germany lacked a legally defined nobility before the twelfth century andthat knighthood bridged the gap between the old nobility and the ministerials.

1Guilhiermoz, Essai sur l'origine de la noblesseen France au moyendge (Paris, 1902; repr. NewYork, 1960), and Bloch, Feudal Society,trans. L. A. Manyon (Chicago, 1964), pp. 283-331.2 Bloch, Feudal Society,p. 344.3 Keen, Chivalry(New Haven, 1984), pp. 1-2, 36-37.4 Arnold, GermanKnighthood(Oxford, 1985), p. 20.5 Ibid., p. 26.

576


4/38

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knights 577Arnold writes:

Legallyministeriales ere unfree persons,but during the twelfthcentury they cameto be reckoned as noblemen, and began to be called nobles personally.This waspossiblebecausenobilitywas a socialquality,not technicallya legal status like per-sonal freedom and servitude. Since the knightlyfunction was so highly regardedinthe twelfth century, it is not difficult to see why ministerialesained acceptanceasnobles.6While most German scholars have never doubted the existence of a free

nobility before the Hohenstaufen period,7 they too believe that the survivingmembers of the old nobility merged with the ministerials in the thirteenth orearly fourteenth centuries to form a single estate of knights. The Guilhier-moz-Bloch model does fit some imperial territories, particularly in the LowCountries, western Germany, and east of the Elbe, reasonably well. For ex-ample, the division between liberi and ministeriales n the witness lists disap-peared in the margraviate of Baden in the course of the thirteenth century,and members of both groups came to be identified as nobles or knights,apparently because membership in the margrave's vassalage was more impor-tant than the old legal distinctions. The last time anyone was called a ministe-rial in Baden was in 1289.86 Ibid., p. 69.7 Leopold Genicot, "Les recherches relatives a la noblesse medievale," Academieroyalede Bel-

gique.Bulletin de la classe des lettreset des sciencesmoralesetpolitiques,5th ser. 61 (1975), 59-63. Thishas been reprinted with the original pagination in Genicot, La noblessedans l'Occidentmedieval(London, 1982).8 Werner R6sener, "Ministerialitat, Vasallitat und niederadelige Ritterschaft im Herrschafts-bereich der Markgrafen von Baden vom 11. bis zum 14. Jahrhundert," in Josef Fleckenstein, ed.,

Herrschaftund Stand: Untersuchungen urSozialgeschichten 13. Jahrhundert,Ver6ffentlichungen desMax-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte 51 (G6ttingen, 1977), pp. 60-61. The model applies reason-ably well to most of the territories in the Low Countries, Alsace, and the dioceses of Cologne andWorms. See Paul Bonenfant and G. Despy, "La noblesse en Brabant au XIIe et XIII siecles:Quelques sondages," Le moyendge 64 (1958), 27-66; Henri Dubled, "Noblesse et f6odalite enAlsace du XIe au XIIIe siecle," TijdschriftvoorRechtsgeschiedenis8 (1960), 129-80; Francois-L.Ganshof, Etude sur les ministerialesen Flandre et en Lotharingie,Memoires, Acad6mie royale deBelgique, Classe des lettres, 2nd ser. 20 (Brussels, 1927), pp. 320-31, 373-75; Leopold Genicot,L'economie uralenamuroiseau basmoyen-dge,2: Leshommes,a noblesse,Recueil de travaux d'histoireet de philologie de l'Universit6 de Louvain, 4th ser. 20 (Louvain, 1960); Wilhelm Potter, DieMinisterialitit derErzbischifevon Kiln, Studien zur kolner Kirchengeschichte 9 (Diisseldorf, 1967),pp. 115-55; and Thomas Zotz, "Bisch6fliche Herrschaft, Adel, Ministerialitat und Burgertum inStadt und Bistum Worms (11.-14. Jahrhundert)," in Fleckenstein, Herrschaftund Stand, pp. 92-156. An estate of knights formed rather quickly also in such eastern colonial territories asBrandenburg and Meissen, but there were never many nobles of free ancestry in these princi-palities. See Hans K. Schulze, "Territorienbildung und soziale Strukturen in der Mark Branden-burg im hohen Mittelalter," in Fleckenstein, Herrschaftund Stand, pp. 254-76; and Harald Schiec-kel, Herrschaftsbereichnd Ministerialiitt derMarkgrafenvon Meissen:Untersuchungeniber Stand undStammortderZeugenmarkgraflicherUrkunden,Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 7 (Cologne, 1956). Formore general applications of the Guilhiermoz-Bloch model, see Fleckenstein, "Die Entstehungdes niederen Adels und das Rittertum," in Fleckenstein, Herrschaftund Stand, pp. 17-39; Alfred


5/38

578 Nobles, Ministerials,and KnightsThere are, on the other hand, territories where the Guilhiermoz-Blochmodel is inappropriate. For instance, documents drafted in the Dutch prov-ince of Gelderland distinguished carefully until the end of the fifteenth cen-tury between knights of noble and ministerial birth, and it was only in theseventeenth century that knights were generally accepted as nobles in Gelder-land.9 Nobles, ministerials, and knights were still being listed separately in thediocese of Halberstadt at the end of the thirteenth century; militesreferred inthis context to the ministerials of other lords who were also episcopal vassals.10The rapidity with which the ministerials were accepted as nobles seems tohave depended upon proximity to France, the power of the prince, and, inthe case of the eastern colonial lands, the absence of the old free nobility. Ingeneral, there was a direct correlation between a prince's ability to eliminaterival nobles and to gain effective control of his territory and the speed withwhich his ministerials were ennobled. 1 Variations in the use of the word milesare thus symptomatic of fundamental differences in the political and socialstructures of the individual territories.The chief German critic of the Guilhiermoz-Bloch model has been JoachimBumke, who challenged the widespread belief among Germanists that theknights of the Hohenstaufen period shared a common, lay chivalric culturewhich found its expression in poetry and that they belonged to a single class ofheavily armed cavalrymen which embraced everyone from the emperor to aministerial. By no stretch of the imagination was every knight a noble. It wasthe words miles and Ritter that rose in value as French chivalric customs wereintroduced into Germany, not the men who were described as knights.'2

Haverkamp, Aufbruchund Gestaltung:Deutschland,1056-1273, Die neue deutsche Geschichte 2(Munich, 1984), pp. 288-90; and Werner R6sener, "Bauer und Ritter im Hochmittelalter: As-pekte ihrer Lebensform, Standesbildung und sozialen Differenzierung im 12. and 13. Jahrhun-dert," in Lutz Fenske, Werner Rosener, and Thomas Zotz, eds., Institutionen, Kultur undGesellschaft m Mittelalter:Festschrift iir Josef Fleckenstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag(Sigmaringen,1984), pp. 665-92.9Johanna Maria van Winter, Ministerialiteiten Ridderschapn Gelreen Zutphen,Bijdragen van hetInstituut voor middeleeuwse Geschiedenis der Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht 31 (Groningen, 1962),pp. 229-33.10Lutz Fenske, "Ministerialitit und Adel im Herrschaftsbereich der Bisch6fe von Halberstadtwahrend des 13. Jahrhunderts," in Fleckenstein, Herrschaftund Stand, pp. 157-206. Another areawhere the old nobility remained separate from the ministerials was Westphalia. See Otto Forst-Battaglia, VomHerrenstande:Rechts- und stindegeschichtlicheUntersuchungenals Erginzung zu dengenealogischenTabellen zur GeschichtedesMittelalters,1 (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 67-101.1 John B. Freed, "The Origins of the European Nobility: The Problem of the Ministerials,"Viator7 (1976), 228-37.12Studien zumRitterbegriff m 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,Beihefte zum Euphorion: Zeitschrift furLiteraturgeschichte 1 (Heidelberg, 1964; revised ed. Heidelberg, 1977). I cite the English transla-tion of the second edition: The Conceptof Knighthood n the MiddleAges, trans. W. T. H. Jacksonand Erika Jackson, AMS Studies in the Middle Ages 2 (New York, 1982). See my review in TheAmericanHistorical Review 88 (1983), 1258. Fleckenstein argued that Frederick Barbarossa's mar-riage to Beatrice of Burgundy introduced French chivalric culture into Germany: "Friedrich


6/38

Nobles,Ministerials,and Knights 579Bumke pointed out in passing that miles referred in southeastern Germany tothe servile retainers of free lords or of ministerials,13 a phenomenon that wasfirst studied by Otto von Zallinger more than a century ago.l4 Arnold isfamiliar with Zallinger's work, but dismisses it in a footnote: "Knights belong-ing to ministerialesmight indeed be called milites . ., but this cannot have beensystematically employed in Zallinger's sense to distinguish them from minis-teriales,because the latter were very often called milites,as were free knights, inthe llth-13th cc."15This article will demonstrate that Zallinger was right and that Arnold iswrong because he failed to observe how the use of the word miles changedbetween the eleventh and early fourteenth centuries in the archdiocese ofSalzburg. While miles was employed on rare occasions for a free vassal beforethe Investiture Contest, it actually declined in value during that conflict andbecame the standard term in the twelfth century for the servile retainers offree noblemen of noncomital rank and of the greater ministerials (ministerialesmaiores), hat is, ministerials who had their own vassals. The lesser ministerials(ministerialesminores),that is, ministerials who did not have their own vassals,16began to be styled milites around 1180, probably because they had receivedfiefs from the greater ministerials. Not until the late thirteenth century, whenchivalric ideals and customs, Christian and secular, had thoroughly pene-trated the archdiocese, was the word miles - now clearly meaning knightin Keen's sense of the word, that is, "aman of aristocratic standing ... capable... of equipping himself with a war horse and the arms of a heavy cavalryman,and who has been through certain rituals"- applied to prominent archiepis-copal ministerials in documents originating within the archdiocese itself.

Barbarossa und das Rittertum: Zur Bedeutung der grossen Mainzer Hoftage von 1184 und1188," FestschriftfiirHermannHeimpelzum 70. Geburtstag m 19. September 971, 2 vols., Veroffent-lichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte 36 (Gottingen, 1972), 2:1023-41. This hasbeen reprinted in Arno Borst, ed., Das Rittertum m Mittelalter,Wege der Forschung 349 (Darm-stadt, 1976), pp. 392-418. Bumke thought that the princes rather than the Hohenstaufen werethe chief promoters of courtly culture: Conceptof Knighthood,pp. 143-44. More recently, C.Stephen Jaeger has contended that courtliness was a creation of the Ottonian court clergy: TheOrigins of Courtliness:Civilizing Trends and the Formationof Courtly deals, 939-1210 (Philadelphia,1985). Finally, Karl Schmid has portrayed Henry IV as promoting the cult of the imperial knightin opposition to the papacy: "Salische Gedenkstiftungen fur fideles, servientes und milites," inFenske, R6sener, and Zotz, Institutionen,Kultur und Gesellschaft see above, n. 8), pp. 245-64.13 Conceptof Knighthood,pp. 61-62.14 Ministerialesund Milites: Untersuchungenueberdie ritterlichenUnfreien zunaechstin baierischenRechtsquellendes XII. und XIII. Jahrhunderts (Innsbruck, 1878). See also the comments of PaulKluckhohn, Die Ministerialitdt n Siidostdeutschland om zehntenbiszum Ende desdreizehntenJahrhun-derts,Quellen and Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des Deutschen Reiches 4/1 (Weimar, 1910),pp. 129-32.

15 Arnold, GermanKnighthood,p. 33, n. 52.16 On the distinction between greater and lesser ministerials, see Heinz Dopsch, Geschichte

Salzburgs:Stadtund Land, 1: Vorgeschichte, ltertum,Mittelalter,3 pts. (Salzburg, 1981-84), 1/1:370,399, 1/2:874.


7/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and KnightsThis last change in usage is crucial evidence that the few surviving lineagesof greater ministerials in the ecclesiastical principality were combining withthe lesser ministerials and their own servile retainers to form a single estate,the weak and politically insignificant Ritterstandof the later Middle Ages. Theoutcome was different in the duchy of Styria, itself part of the archdiocese.There two estates developed: the Herrenstand,the estate of the lords, com-posed of the few surviving noblemen and the greater ministerials; and theknights, consisting of the lesser ministerials and the ministerials' own vassals.Knighthood did not bridge the chasm between the old nobility and theministerials in Salzburg or Styria for the simple reason that most of the oldnoble lineages either had died out by 1300 or had entered the princely minis-terialages in a medieval form of mediatization. Only three of the twenty-fivelineages who belonged to the Styrian Herrenstand n 1300 were still of noblestatus, and they belonged to the estate of lords, not the estate of knights, whilethe Walchens, the last noble family in the ecclesiastical principality of Salz-burg, had been mediatized by 1250.17 The concept of knighthood did help thefew surviving lineages of prominent ministerials in Salzburg to combine withtheir own retainers into a single estate of knights, but scholars like Keen andArnold who have tried to apply the Guilhiermoz-Bloch model to Germanyhave been talking about the ennoblement of the ministerials, not about theunion of the ministerials with their own servile vassals.We can examine now in greater detail the changing meaning of the wordmiles in the archdiocese between the tenth and fourteenth centuries and the

relationship between nobles, ministerials, and knights. Lest our own assump-tions about knighthood obscure the basic meaning of miles in the sources, Ihave deliberately chosen not to translate miles as knight unless it was employedas a mark of distinction or to designate a member of the Ritterstand.Since fewcharters were written in German before the fourteenth century, we need notbe concerned here with the use of the word Ritter.

17 Heinz Dopsch, "Ministerialitat und Herrenstand in der Steiermark und in Salzburg,"Zeitschriftdes Historischen Vereines iir Steiermark62 (1971), 3-31; idem, "Probleme standischerWandlung beim Adel Osterreichs, der Steiermark und Salzburg vornehmlich im 13. Jahrhun-dert," in Fleckenstein, Herrschaftund Stand, pp. 207-53; Peter Feldbauer, HerrschaftsstrukturndStandebildung:Beitrige zur Typologieder isterreichischenLinder aus ihren mittelalterlichenGrundlagen,1: Herrenund Ritter,Sozial- und wirtschaftshistorische Studien (Munich, 1973), pp. 62-119, 168-96; and Herbert Klein, "Salzburg und seine Landstande von den Anfangen bis 1861," BeitrdgezurSiedlungs-, Verfassungs-und Wirtschaftsgeschichteon Salzburg:GesammelteAufsdtzevon HerbertKlein.Festschrift um65. Geburtstag on HerbertKlein, MGSL, 5th suppl. vol. (Salzburg, 1965), pp. 115-36.On the Walchens, see Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:395-96. Although the division betweenministerials and knights was most pronounced in the Austro-Bavarian area, it can be found alsoin Lower Saxony. See Lutz Fenske, "Soziale Genese und Aufstiegsformen kleiner niederadligerGeschlechter im suid6stlichen Niedersachsen," in Fenske, Rosener, and Zotz, Institutionen,Kulturund Gesellschaft see above, n. 8), pp. 693-726.

580


8/38

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knights1. 923-1077The Miles as a Free Vassal and the

Emergence of the FamiliaIn eleventh-century Salzburg miles meant a free vassal, as was the caseelsewhere in medieval Germany.'8 But the word was rarely used in the Salz-burg sources before the Investiture Contest, and the evidence is too limited todetermine whether militeswere considered to be nobles.The most important social development during the tenth and eleventh

centuries was the emergence of servile vassals out of the ranks of the archi-episcopal familia. These servile vassals were the functional precursors andprobably ancestors of the later ministerials. The militia (the free vassals) andthe familia (the archbishops' servile retainers) were different social classes,and it is evident that scribes were careful to maintain the terminological dis-tinction between them.Except for some papal and imperial charters, the chief sources for thehistory of the archdiocese before the Investiture Contest are the Traditions-biicherof five archbishops, spanning the period between 923 and 1060, and

the codex of traditions of the abbey of St. Peter in the city of Salzburg, whichwas started after the monastery received its own endowment in 987.19 Thesesources contain only three possible references to men who may have beenmilites.On March 5, 927, the deacon Erchanfred, his wife (?) Ellanhilt, and theirson Alprih gave Archbishop Odalbert (923-35) the Upper Bavarian village ofLampolding with eight serfs and received in return as an alod the village ofThannhausen in Upper Bavaria and fifteen serfs, with which Erchanfred hadpreviously been enfeoffed. They were to retain Thannhausen in their

18 Johann Johrendt, " 'Milites' und 'Militia' im 11. Jahrhundert in Deutschland," in Borst, DasRittertum m Mittelalter(see above, n. 12), pp. 419-36. See also Arnold, GermanKnighthood,p. 31;Karl Bosl, "Das ius ministerialium: Dienstrecht und Lehnrecht im deutschen Mittelalter,"Friihfor-men der Gesellschaft m mittelalterlichenEuropa: AusgewdhlteBeitrdgezu einer Strukturanalyse er mit-telalterlichenWelt (Munich, 1964), p. 281; Bumke, Conceptof Knighthood,p. 36; Wilhelm Stormer,FriiherAdel: Studien zur politischenFiihrungsschichtemfrdnkisch-deutschenReich vom 8. bis 11. Jahr-hundert, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 6 (Stuttgart, 1973), p. 162; and Zotz,"Bischofliche Herrschaft" (see above, n. 8), pp. 95-96.19 For information about the Traditionsbiicher,ee Wilhelm Erben, "Untersuchungen zu demCodex traditionum Odalberti," MGSL 29 (1889), 454-80; Heinrich Fichtenau, Das Urkunden-wesen in Osterreichvom 8. bis zum friihen 13. Jahrhundert, Mitteilungen des Instituts fur oster-reichische Geschichtsforschung (hereafter, MIOG), suppl. vol. 23 (Vienna, 1971), pp. 73-87,100-106, and 174-79; Willibald Hauthaler and Eduard Richter, "Die salzburgischen Traditions-codices des X. und XI. Jahrhunderts," MIOG 3 (1882), 63-95 and 369-85; Oswald Redlich,"Ueber bairische Traditionsbiicher und Traditionen," MIOG 5 (1884), 1-82; and Josef Wide-mann, "Die Traditionen der bayerischen Kloster," Zeitschrift iir bayerischeLandesgeschichte1(1928), 225-43.

581


9/38

582 Nobles,Ministerials,and Knightslifetimes on the condition that Alprih, as long as he lived, "ad sedem Iuuauen-sem militet."20 This is the only one of the 102 entries in the CodexOdalbertithat includes such a stipulation. It is thus not absolutely clear whether Alprihwas expected to fight for the archbishop or, possibly, like his father, to embarkon a clerical career, that is, whether militowas being employed in a secular or areligious sense. Perhaps the possible irregularities surrounding Alprih's birthinspired the agreement and the conditions about Alprih's service.In the second case, Countess Hemma endowed in 1043 the convent she hadfounded in Gurk. She stipulated that if Archbishop Baldwin (1041-60) or anyof his successors enfeoffed their milites with any of the properties that be-longed to the nuns, her kinsman Ascwin would have the right to redeem theproperties for fifteen pennies. Among other things Hemma gave Gurk themarket in Friesach, Carinthia, and her alods in the vicinity of Friesach, but sheexcluded the fief that her milesEngildeo held near Friesach.21Miles is clearlyemployed in this context as a synonym for vassal, but the charter, thoughbased on an authentic notice of tradition, was forged in 1170/71. Questionscan thus be raised about the accuracy of its content, particularly its ter-minology.The only certain reference to a miles n the extant archiepiscopal sources forthis period occurs in an addendum to the CodexBalduuini. Around 1050Count Chadalhoh exchanged various properties with Archbishop Baldwin.Among other things the count gave the archbishop whatever his milesDietrichheld in fief along the Geratskirchner Bach, a tributary of the Rott, on thecondition that Dietrich retain the fief in his lifetime and that after his deaththe archbishop grant the fief to one of Dietrich's sons who was willing tobecome the archbishop's miles and to perform the required service, presum-ably of a military nature, for the fief.22 The notice provides no indication ofDietrich's legal status, but Count Chadalhoh also referred to unnamed ministriand their fiefs, men living on his domains whose status apparently differedfrom Dietrich's. Since minister s used in the CodexBalduuini as a synonym forserviens,23we can conclude that Dietrich, unlike the ministri,was a free vassal.References to the militia as a group are nearly as rare as unambiguousreferences to individual milites.Somewhat more common are references to thefamilia, for which various terms are used. Their occurrence allows us to follow

20 SUB 1:94-95, no. 31. The entry does not specifically state that Ellanhilt was Erchanfred'swife, and Abbot Hauthaler, the editor, was not certain that she was (SUB 1:1002), but it is worthremembering that Archbishop Odalbert had been married. See Heinz Dopsch, "Der bayerischeAdel und die Besetzung des Erzbistums Salzburg im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert," MGSL 110/11(1970-71), 129-32.21 SUB 2:141-44, nos. 82a, 82b.22 SUB 1:245-46, Anhang: "Eidem etiam traditioni addiderunt, quicquid beneficii Dettricusmiles suus iuxta Tiufstada fluviolum habet, ita ut quamdiu vivat Dietricus idem beneficiumhabeat, post vitam vero suam unus de filiis suis, quicunque de illis miles archiepiscopi fieri etdebitam pro eodem beneficio agere velit servitutem."23SUB 1:239, no. 17.


10/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightswith considerable precision the emergence of the servile vassals from theranks of the familia.24Archbishop Odalbert was surrounded in the first half of the tenth centuryby an entourage of nobles and/or vassals,25and he consulted with hisfideles.26Archbishop Frederick I (958-91), on the other hand, traded property withhis servi27and sought the advice in 976 of his clergy, militia, and familia.28 Bythe middle of the eleventh century, members of the familia had largely re-placed nobles and/or free vassals as transactors, witnesses, and archiepiscopaladvisers in the codices of traditions.The juxtapostion of militia and familia in the CodexFridaricirequires closerscrutiny. A similar phrase occurs in the Traditionsbuch f Archbishop Hartwig(991-1023),29 and Bishop Ellenhard of Freising (1052-78) obtained the ap-proval of his clergy, milites,and servienteswhen he reached an agreement withArchbishop Gebhard (1060-88) in 1072 about the tithes Freising owed Salz-burg from its Carinthian properties.30 The phrase, "cum consilio ... miliciaefamiliaeque," was the equivalent of consent clauses that stated that the arch-bishop had consulted with both noble and ignoble laymen,31 with laymen ofeither condition,32 with the familia and the fideles,33and with the fideles ofeither condition.34 Whilefidelis, the most frequently used word in the archdio-cese for a vassal, could thus be employed for a servile retainer, miles and militiawere seemingly reserved for the archbishop's free vassals and used in opposi-tion to familia.Considering the relative abundance of the documentation, the really strik-ing thing is how rarely the words milesand militia were employed at all in theperiod before the Investiture Contest. There is only one certain reference to amiles in any source. There are only two references to the militia in the 228notices in the five archiepiscopal Traditionsbiicher nd none in the 59 entries inthe abbatial Traditionsbuch.Although free vassals (the milites)and servile vas-sals (members of thefamilia) alike owed military service to the archbishop, thetwo groups remained separate. What mattered was the legal distinction be-

24John B. Freed, "The Formation of the Salzburg Ministerialage in the Tenth and EleventhCenturies: An Example of Upward Social Mobility in the Early Middle Ages," Viator9 (1978), 67-102.25 The seven men who were identified as archiepiscopal vassi were all powerful noblemen.Freed, "Formation of the Salzburg Ministerialage," p. 76.26See, for instance, SUB 1:126, no. 65.27SUB 1:173-74, no. 8; 183-84, no. 19.28 SUB 1:180-81, no. 15. The consent clause states: "cum consilio tocius cleri tociusque miliciae

familiaeque omnis."29 SUB 1:203-4, no. 28. The consent clause states: "consilio, consensu et petitione cleri, militieac familie."30SUB 2:173-74, no. 104b.31SUB 1:168-70, no. 2; 177-78, no. 13.32SUB 1:173-74, no. 8.33SUB 1:215, no. 7; 222-23, no. 25.34SUB 1:219, no. 16.

583


11/38

584 Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightstween a free man and a serf, and not the common military obligations of thearchbishop's vassals.The best explanation for this is that the tenth and eleventh centuries were arelatively peaceful period for Bavaria, which has been called the Salian royaldomain in the eleventh century. Even the Magyar incursions had lasted onlyhalf a century, and there were long truces between the raids.35 In Salzburgduring this period an elite group, the precursors of the ministerials, began todevelop within the familia, but there was no fundamental change in socialstructure.

2. 1077-1121The Beginnings of the Miles as a Servile Warrior

Salzburg became a major center of opposition to the Salians during theInvestiture Contest, and the archbishops spent much of the time between1077 and 1121 in exile.36 During this period the meaning of milesbegins toshift. Sometimes milites are free vassals, as before - men whose status isdistinct from that of servile members of the familia. But sometimes they aresimply soldiers of unspecified rank, a change in usage that foreshadows laterdevelopments. If burghers of servile status who manned the castle of Hohen-salzburg could be called milites, t is evident that the word had begun to declinein value.The extant sources from this period in Salzburg's history are not overlyabundant. The major ones are the Traditionsbuch f St. Peter's; the codex oftraditions of Admont, which was reworked in the twelfth century; and thelives of the archbishops, which were written for the most part in Admontduring the Alexandrine Schism. The Admont sources not only are biasedagainst the monarchy, but at times are also clearly anachronistic. For instance,the VitaGebehardi tsuccessorum ius,which was written after 1181,37 states thatthe clergy and ministerials elected Archbishop Gebhard in 1060.38 While theministerials participated in the election of every archbishop between 1147 and1256, except for Conrad III (1177-83),39 there is no reason to ascribe such arole to them before the Investiture Contest, particularly since the word minis-terialis did not come into use until the twelfth century. Gebhard's reform-minded biographer was simply trying to suggest that his hero had been se-

35Max Spindler, ed., Handbuch der bayerischenGeschichte,1 (Munich, 1967), pp. 204-21, 227,235-36.36Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:232-61.37Walter Steinb6ck, ErzbischofGebhard von Salzburg (1060-1088): Ein Beitrag zur GeschichteSalzburgsim Investiturstreit,Veroffentlichungen des Historischen Instituts der Universitat Salz-burg (Vienna, 1972), pp. 3-5.38MGHSS 11:35.39John B. Freed, "Diemut von Hogl: Eine Salzburger Erbtochter und die erzbisch6flicheMinisterialitat im Hochmittelalter," MGSL 120/21 (1980-81), 589-90. I overlooked the referencein the Annales sancti RudbertiSalisburgenses,MGH SS 9:793, which described the participation ofthe ministerials in the election of Archbishop Ulrich in 1256.


12/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knights 585lected in canonical fashion and not at the instigation of the imperial court.40The late date of the Admont sources must always be taken into considerationin evaluating their terminology and information.A passage in the older Vita GebehardiarchiepiscopiSalisburgensis,writtensometime after 1088,41 indicates that miles continued to be used to identify afree vassal, as opposed to a servile member of the familia. The author de-scribes Archbishop Gebhard's return to Salzburg in 1086: "Post haec nonoexulationis suae anno ab Engilberto comite et ab aliis quibusdam ecclesiaesuae militibus,etiam a compluribus servitoribus uis reductus est in episcopiumsuum. ..."42 The author of the Annales Admuntenses,who incorporated thispassage into his own work sometime after 1146,43 provided definitions of thewords miles and servitor. He wrote: "anno exulationis suae nono ab Engilbertocomite ab aliis fidelibus suis et ministerialibusecclesiae reductus est in sedemsuam. ...."44 In the second author's view the militeswere free vassals, and theservitoreswere the later ministerials.The same usage can also be found in an entry in the TraditionsbuchofAdmont. It tells how a Dietmar gave Archbishop Gebhard an alod, for whichhe received twelve pounds and was immediately made a miles - that is, avassal - by the archbishop in the accustomed manner through the clasping ofhands. The transaction was witnessed by men who were identified elsewhereas nobles, by their milites, and by various archiepiscopal ministeriales.45Thelatter word is almost certainly an anachronistic reworking of the text. There isno contemporary evidence that the archbishop's servile retainers were calledministerials during Gebhard's archiepiscopate.The archiepiscopal lives also record a new meaning for miles,alongside theold: when describing military scenes, the authors sometimes use milites todesignate soldiers of unspecified rank. A thousand milites are said to haveaccompanied Archbishop Conrad I (1106-47) when he entered Salzburg onJanuary 25, 1106, along with his brothers, Count Otto and Count Wolfram.Conrad is also reported to have taken many outstanding and vigorous militeswith him on Henry V's expedition to Rome in 1110-11.46The tone of the references to these milites s often hostile. The VitaChunradiarchiepiscopi,written in the 1170s,47 portrays Conrad I as a man of peace. If

40 Steinbock, ErzbischofGebhard,pp. 40-42; and Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/3:1255, n. 42.41 Steinbock, ErzbischofGebhard,p. 3.42 MGH SS 11:26 (italics added).43 The annals made extensive use of Otto of Freising's Chronica ive historiade duabuscivitatibus,

which was completed in 1146. Gebhardt:Handbuch derdeutschenGeschichte,1, ed. Herbert Grund-mann, 9th ed. (Stuttgart, 1970), p. 422.44MGH SS 9:576 (italics added).45 SUB 2:174-175, no. 105. The description of Dietmar's enfeoffment reads: "et statim ar-chiepiscopus decipiens eum per manus solito more militem sibi fecit."46 Vita Chunradiarchiepiscopi,MGH SS 11:66, 68. For another example see the Passio Thiemonisarchiepiscopi,MGH SS 11:60.47 MGH SS 11:62.


13/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and KnightsConrad had trusted to arms, says the author, he had so many distinguishedrelatives that he could have disturbed the whole kingdom. He preferredinstead to endure persecution, because he knew that friends are a greaterburden than enemies in wartime.48 The obvious question is how much suchcomments reflect the clerical authors' bitter experiences during the Alexan-drine Schism, when Salzburg became once again a major center of oppositionto the monarchy. The author of the newer Vita Gebehardi, or example, de-scribes how the antiarchbishop, Berthold of Moosburg (1085-1106), squan-dered the treasures of the church. Among other things Berthold gave hismilites a loros,an ecclesiastical vestment of gold brocade, studded with jewelsand worth nearly a thousand marks, that Gebhard had received from theByzantine emperor. Twelve of the greedier milites started to fight for it, andeight of them were killed.49 The same author explains later on how Arch-bishop Conrad II (1164-68), who was outlawed by Frederick Barbarossa in1166, was forced to obtain militesto defend the church, but without loss to itspossessions.50 Milites meant in this context essentially mercenaries.The need for fighting men was obviously great during the Investiture Con-test. Archbishop Gebhard began building in 1077 the castles of Hohensalz-burg, Werfen, and Friesach, which Conrad I completed after his return in1121.51 Men who were assigned to the garrisons of these castles can already bedetected during the Investiture Contest. The nobleman Frederick of Hauns-berg, who served as the burgrave of Hohensalzburg in 1111,52 appears as awitness with his miles Ozi in 1104/16.53 Frederick was apparently succeeded inoffice by another nobleman, Dietmar of the Lungau, who appears as a witnessin 1121 with his milites:Gisilheri and his brothers Hartunch, Dietmar, Rupert,and Ozi.54 Ozi and his brothers seem thus to have belonged to the permanentgarrison of Hohensalzburg. They were the sons of Dietmar, a bailiff of St.Peter's, and are identified as abbatial servitoresand as burghers of Salzburg.55Similarly, a Timo was called in 1125/47 both a miles of the archiepiscopalministerial who served as the vidame and burgrave of Salzburg56 and a mer-chant.57 Since Timo is mentioned only in the abbatial Traditionsbuch, e proba-

48 MGH SS 11:64. See a similar passage on p. 68.49 MGH SS 11:39. On the loros, see Steinbock, ErzbischofGebhard,pp. 34-35.50MGH SS 11:46.51MGH SS 11:39, 74-75. See Heinz Dopsch, "Burgenbau und Burgenpolitik des ErzstiftesSalzburg im Mittelalter," in Hans Patze, ed., Die Burgen im deutschenSprachraum: hre rechts-undverfassungsgeschichtliche edeutung, Vortrage und Forschungen 19/2 (Sigmaringen, 1976), pp.390-94.52MGH SS 11:69.53SUB 1:322, no. 149.54SUB 1:327-28, no. 156b. See Freed, "Diemut von Hogl," pp. 593-94, n. 63.55 John B. Freed, "Die Dienstmannschaft von St. Peter," FestschriftSt. Peter zu Salzburg,582-1982, Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 93(1982), pp. 75-78.56SUB 1:338, no. 168. See also pp. 418-19, no. 308.57SUB 1:337-44, nos. 166, 170, 176, 180.

586


14/38

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knightsbly belonged to the familia of St. Peter's. As was the case in other Germancities in the twelfth century,58 the urban elite in Salzburg was recruited at leastin part from among members of the familia who had been assigned garrisonduties. Such men could be called, therefore, milites, a term that had beenreserved hitherto for free vassals. It is quite probable that such servile war-riors were among the milites who accompanied Conrad I in 1106 and 1110-11.One other use of the word miles during the Investiture Contest requiresinvestigation. In 1104-16 Witilo, an archiepiscopal servitor- that is, a pro-toministerial - gave St. Peter's an alod through the hand of a fellow miles.Sometime before he became the duke of Carinthia in 1124, Margrave Engel-bert claimed that he had enfeoffed Witilo with the property and had thenconferred it on his own miles,Warmunt of Tettelham,59 who is subsequentlyidentified as a ministerial of Engelbert's son.60 This is the first reference to aministerial as a miles. However, it should be noted that two other prominentfamilies of Kraiburg-Ortenburg ministerials, the Truchtlachings and Tor-rings, had originally been nobles.61 It is thus possible that Warmunt was a freevassal, the original meaning of miles, and that he entered the Kraiburg-Ortenburg ministerialage only as a result of his enfeoffment. This use of theword miles for a ministerial remained for a long time an isolated instance, butmileswas clearly being applied during the Investiture Contest to men of servilestatus, like Ozi and Witilo, as well as to free vassals.

3. 1121-1200Miles as the Standard Designation fora Servile Vassal of a Count, Noble, or MinisterialThe Investiture Contest caused fundamental changes in the social andpolitical structure of the archdiocese. The ministerials, now clearly identifiedas such, belonged to a distinct order by the 1120s and became by 1200 the defacto nobility of Salzburg. Miles was after 1121 the standard designation forthe servile vassal of a count, noble, or ministerial. These milites were obscuremen who were usually mentioned only in the company of their lord. Nonobleman was ever identified in the twelfth century as a miles.Scribes began torefer around 1180 to the greater or better ministerials and to designate someof the other ministerials as milites,apparently because these lesser ministerials,like the servile milites, had entered the service of the greater ministerials.Chroniclers occasionally called one of the greater ministerials a miles in de-

58See the literature cited by Arnold, GermanKnighthood,pp. 204-8, and Freed, "Origins of theEuropean Nobility" (see above, n. 11), pp. 233-37. In addition, see Zotz, "BischoflicheHerrschaft" (see above, n. 8), pp. 118-36; and idem, "Stadtisches Rittertum und Burgertum inKoln um 1200," in Fenske, Rosener, and Zotz, Institutionen,Kulturund Gesellschaftsee above, n. 8),pp. 609-38.59SUB 1:316-17, no. 137.60MonumentaBoica, 3 (Munich, 1764), p. 53, no. 155.61 Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:379-84.

587


15/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightsscribing his military exploits, and distinguished outsiders like the emperor orpope sometimes addressed a greater ministerial as a miles. However, thegreater ministerials were never identified in this fashion in charters originat-ing in the archdiocese itself. Still, such designations of greater ministerials inexternal sources as milites are one indication that chivalric culture was gradu-ally penetrating the archdiocese, and we are justified in translating miles n thiscontext as knight. Such external identifications of greater ministerials as militesprepared the way for the acceptance of the designation within the archdiocesein the thirteenth century.The archiepiscopal servitores ook advantage of the chaos during the Investi-ture Contest to sell their loyalty to the highest bidder or simply seized churchproperty. They even complained to the emperor about Archbishop Conrad'sconduct.62 Around 1100 they assumed toponymic surnames, which were insome cases the names of castles they had presumably built in the archbishops'absence.63 The change in the social status of the servitores s revealed by theadoption of the word ministerialis,which placed less emphasis on their servilelegal status than servitordid, as the standard technical term to describe them.The first certain documentary use of ministerialis- as we have seen, theearlier appearances of the word in the Admont sources may be anachronistic- occurred in 1110.64 Count Manegold was already able to stipulate in 1125that a serf whom he gave to the church of Salzburg was to enjoy the right andlaw of the ministerial dignity,65 and a Salzburg cathedral canon was identifiedin 1146 as belonging to the ordo ministerialium.66Archbishop Conrad ex-plained at the end of his archiepiscopate that an exchange of property re-quired the approval of his clergy and ministerials to be valid,67 and for acentury after Conrad's death the cathedral canons and ministerials elected thearchbishops.Miles retained its basic meaning of vassal, but, as an analysis of the notices inthe Traditionsbuch f St. Peter's indicates, the word was reserved almost exclu-sively for the servile retainers of the nobles and ministerials. The followingtable lists all the individuals who were identified as milites n the approximately569 dated entries between 1125 and 1199. Although many of the notices canbe dated more exactly, the entries have been divided according to the timeperiods in which the codex itself is divided.

62 MGH SS 11:66-67, 69, 73.63 Freed, "Diemut von Higl," pp. 636-37.64 SUB 2:184-85, no. 117. See Freed, "Formation of the Salzburg Ministerialage" (see above,n. 24), pp. 90-93.65 SUB 1:591-92, no. 12.66 SUB 1:609, no. 5 la. The Traditionsbuch f Admont referred to a court that had been held inSalzburg before April 9, 1147, where members of the ordoof the nobles and the ministerials hadbeen present: SUB 2:385-86, no. 271a.67 SUB 2:357-59, no. 248.

588


16/38

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knights 589Milites in the Traditionsbuch f

St. Peter's, 1125-9968Miles of Miles of Miles of MinisterialCount Noble Ministerial as Miles

1125-47 4 11 17 01147-67 8 7 17 01167-88 0 26 22 01188-93 0 1 8 21193-99 0 0 1 0

Contrary to what Keen has said - namely, that knight "denotes a man ofaristocratic standing and probably of noble ancestry" - no noble wasidentified in the abbatial Traditionsbuchas a miles between 1125 and 1199.While it is true that two ministerials were described as militesin the period1188-93, they were not, as we shall see, prominent ministerials. The evidenceshows that miles was reserved almost exclusively for the servile retainers ofcounts, nobles, and ministerials.69Counts had ministerials as well as milites.70For instance, Henry of Stefling, aministerial of Count Gebhard of Burghausen, was not identified as a milesinentries where some of the count's other men were so designated, and Henryin fact was listed ahead of these milites in the witness lists.71 Although thecomital ministerialages require additional investigation, the difference seemsto be that comital ministerials, including the Steflings, had their own militesand were thus assigned a higher place than the milites in the Heerschildord-nung.72The Heerschildordnung, r military order of precedence, was a theoreti-cal legal construct that prohibited a man from being enfeoffed by an inferiorwithout losing his place in the Heerschildordnung.A milesin this context was a

68 The entries that contain references to militesare: 1125/47: counts, SUB 1:335-568, nos. 245,264a, 267b, 488; nobles, nos. 162, 163, 176, 183a, 201, 228, 269, 277, 484; ministerials, nos. 166,204, 220b, 231, 271, 280, 290a, 487, 493; 1147/67: counts, nos. 313a, 316a, 319, 367a; nobles,nos. 300, 314, 317, 325, 527; ministerials, nos. 299, 308, 313b, 346, 538, 551, 555, 568, 598; 1167/88: nobles, nos. 383, 387, 401, 403; ministerials, nos. 372, 374c, 378, 380b, 384, 387, 392, 396a,400, 404, 405, 587, 599; 1188/93: nobles, no. 622; ministerials, nos. 407, 409, 426, 436, 608, 611,620, 621, 626, 632, 644, 645; ministerials as milites,nos. 414, 426; 1193/99: ministerials, no. 657.

69 There is one reference to a milesof Duke Engelbert of Carinthia in 1125/35: SUB 1:520, no.487.70 See, for instance, SUB 1:394 444, nos. 270a, 276, 283a, 288b, 309, 312, 348, 350, 355.71 SUB 1:381-82, no. 245; 388-89, no. 261a; 391-92, no. 267b. On the Steflings, see Dopsch,GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:384-85.72SUB 1:464, no. 387. Other examples are: Henry of Albenau, a Kraiburg-Ortenburg ministe-rial (p. 545, no. 585), and his miles Conrad (p. 538, no. 555); Gerbirgis of Roding, a Lebenauministerial (pp. 811-12, no. 84), and her militesAlbrecht (p. 473, no. 404) and Frederick (p. 546,no. 587); and Conrad of H6gl, a Plain ministerial (p. 724, no. 291), and his milesEverhard (pp.689-90, no. 221b).


17/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightsman at the bottom of the Heerschildordnungwho did not have his own vassals.As the example of the Steflings shows, its prescriptions were often observed inpractice. This was the rigid system of social stratification to which both Blochand Keen allude.73Placement in the Heerschildordnungprobably explains why the vassals ofnobles of noncomital rank were called militesrather than ministerials. Untitlednoblemen and ministerials, both of whom could be the vassals of counts,occupied the same position in the military order of precedence. Vassals ofboth nobles and ministerials were described in turn, therefore, as milites,menwho did not have vassals of their own, the lowest rank in the Heerschildord-nung. This concern with rank order also explains why the archbishops werewilling to grant retainers of a count the status of archiepiscopal ministerials,74but were apparently unwilling to confer the same rights on the militesof anobleman.75 A noble could, however, have many such retainers. For instance,twenty proprii milites (twenty of the twenty-six men listed in the table undernobles in the period 1167-88) witnessed the donation of their lord, Conrad ofPuchheim, to St. Peter's.76The first reference I have found to militesof an archiepiscopal ministerialoccurs in 1122, when Henry and Conrad of Seekirchen witnessed a notice inthe abbatial Traditionsbuchalong with two of their milites.77 n 1131 Henry ofSeekirchen became the burgrave of Hohensalzburg, the first ministerial tohold this important office.8 While serving in this capacity, Henry wasidentified in the abbey's codex of traditions as the lord of eight milites.79Theyincluded the brothers Hartunch, Gisilheri, and Rupert, who had previouslybeen identified as the milites of Henry's noble predecessor, Dietmar of theLungau,80 and who were also called the militesof Henry's successor Liutwin.81As has already been indicated, these men formed part of the permanentgarrison of Hohensalzburg and were under the command of the burgrave.A good many of the milites of ministerials who appear in the abbatialTraditionsbuchwere the vassals of the castellans of the major archiepiscopalfortresses.82 No fewer than twenty-eight men were specifically identified in

73 See Julius Ficker, Vom Heerschilde: Ein Beitrag zur deutschenReichs- und Rechtsgeschichte(Innsbruck, 1862).74SUB 2:303-5, no. 207; 3:310-12, no. 783; 3:639-40, no. 1095.75 SUB 3:149-50, no. 646.76 SUB 1:472, no. 403.77 SUB 1:511, no. 476. The first reference to a milesof a ministerial of the bishop of Freisingoccurs already in 1098/1104: Giinther Flohrschiitz, "Die freisinger Dienstmannen im 12. Jahr-hundert," Oberbayerischesrchiv 97 (1973), 49.78 Freed, "Diemut von Hogl," pp. 593-94.79SUB 1:359-60, no. 204; 522, no. 493.80 SUB 1:327-28, no. 156b.81 SUB 1:337, no. 166. Another example is Meginhart, who was a retainer both of Henry ofSeekirchen (p. 522, no. 493) and of Liutwin (p. 409, no. 290a).82 The burgraves and their milites were: During of Werfen (SUB 1:533, no. 538); Engelschalkof Friesach (pp. 400-401, no. 280); Kuno of Werfen (p. 557, no. 632); Liutwin of Hohensalzburg

590


18/38

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knights 591various sources as milites of Megingod II of Surberg (burgrave of Hohensalz-burg from 1166/67 to 1193 and the dominant figure in the archdiocese dur-ing the 1170s), his wife, and/or his brother; another twenty-one individualswho bore the same surnames as Megingod's known retainers and who usuallyappeared in the Surbergs' entourage can probably also be classified as Megin-god's milites.83Megingod's position was undoubtedly exceptional, but it shouldbe stressed that ministerials who were not known as archiepiscopal office-holders also had militesof their own. For example, six of Liutpold of Wald'smiliteswere present in 1167/88 when he executed the deathbed bequest of hismaternal uncle to St. Peter's.84That the basic meaning of miles in twelfth-century Salzburg was vassal isshown by the facts that the militeswere almost always identified in conjunctionwith their lord and that the word was employed as a synonym for homoand vir.For instance, Volcholt of Hogl was identified as both a homo85and a miles86ofMegingod II of Surberg, and a Berthold was called the vir of the archiepis-copal ministerial Liutold of Siegsdorf87 and the milesof Liutold's son Henry.88This explains how a man could be identified simultaneously in the abbatialTraditionsbuch s a servitor,presumably a ministerial, of the church of Passauand as a miles, presumably a vassal, of the nobleman Hartwig of Hagenau.89Some documents emphasized the servile character of the militesby referringto them as propriimilites.90Karl, who was identified in the abbatial Traditions-buch as the homo and miles of Burgrave Hartnid of Hohensalzburg and hisbrother Markwart of Itzling, prominent archiepiscopal ministerials,91 wascalled in the codex of traditions of Herrenchiemsee simply the propriusof thearchbishop.92 Some militeswere even called servi. Dietrich and Baldwin, whowere described in the abbatial Traditionsbuch s the militesof Henry of Siegs-dorf,93 were identified in the Schenkungsbuchf Berchtesgaden merely as Hen-ry's servi.94The latter source also identified the witnesses in one entry as the

(pp. 337-520, nos. 166, 231, 290a, 308, 487); and Megingod of Surberg (pp. 456-554, nos. 374c,396a, 400, 407, 620, 621).83 Freed, "Diemut von H6gl," pp. 609-10.84 SUB 1:459-60, no. 378.85 SUB 1:446-47, no. 359.86 SUB 1:456-58, no. 374c.87 SUB 1:528, no. 521.88 SUB 1:462-63, no. 384.89 SUB 1:423, no. 314. On Hartwig's status, see SUB 1:802-3, no. 68.90SUB 1:472, no. 403; 546, no. 587; 2:294-96, no. 202; 336-37, no. 234; 694-96, no. 515.91SUB 1:442-43, no. 352; 467, no. 392.92 SUB 2:514, no. 366. Karl was an unusual name in the archdiocese, and he followed Mark-wart of Itzlingen as a witness.93SUB 1:462-63, no. 384.94Schenkungsbuch erehemaligengefirstetenProbsteiBerchtesgaden, d. Karl August Muffat, Quel-len und Erirterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte 1 (Munich, 1856), pp. 333-34,no. 159.


19/38

592 Nobles, Ministerials, and Knightsmiliteset servi of Megingod of Surberg.95 Two of the militesare known to havebeen the illegitimate sons of the archiepiscopal ministerials Liutold of Siegs-dorf and Megingod II of Surberg96 (the bastards of noblemen becameministerials).97 Illegitimate birth thus lowered a man's position in theHeerschildordnungby one rank.References to the milites n several twelfth-century charters provide a goodindication about their place in Salzburg society. A forged charter from Sec-kau, purportedly drafted in 1141, stated that its founder, Adalram of Wal-deck, had granted that collegiate church all of his possessions south of theSemmering except for "proprii sui milites" and their fiefs.98 In 1152 theStyrian noblewoman Juta and her son Liutold of St. Dionysen gave the churchof Salzburg two castles, the church of St. Dionys, and all her possessions andserfs in the Empire except for the "militari familia" if Liutold died without anheir.99 Megingod II of Surberg and his wife, Diemut of Hogl, conditionallyconferred on the cathedral canons in 1170 the castle of Hogl with all itsappurtenances, including all the proprii homines,except the milites.'00Thesecharters indicate that the milites were considered to be members of thefamilia,l0 but that they formed a separate elite group among the unfreepopulation.102The change that occurred in the twelfth century in the meaning of the wordmiles is graphically illustrated by the passage in the newer Vita Gebehardi,written sometime after 1181, describing Gebhard's return to Salzburg in1086. It says: "anno exulationis suae nono, prefatus noster domnus Gebehar-dus ab Engilberto comite et ab aliis quibusdam ecclesiae ministerialibus t con-

95 Ibid., pp. 326-27, no. 150. A garbled version of the text is published in the SalzburgerUrkundenbuch s SUB 2:552-53, no. 402.96 Dietrich, who was called a miles and servusof Henry of Siegsdorf, was identified as the son ofHenry's father, Liutold: SUB 1:444-45, no. 356b. About Megingod's illegitimate son Hermann,

see Freed, "Diemut von Hogl," p. 615, n. 175. In both cases, the disposition of the family propertymakes it clear that Dietrich and Hermann were illegitimate: ibid., pp. 604-5, 613-15. The use ofmiles for the illegitimate son of a ministerial persisted in the thirteenth century. For instance, in1280 Viktring granted the knight Lord Frederick, the brother of the archiepiscopal ministerialFrederick V of Pettau, the lifelong use of four hides. MonumentahistoricaducatusCarinthiae,5, ed.Hermann Wiessner (Klagenfurt, 1956), pp. 274-75, no. 428.97Arnold, GermanKnighthood,p. 46; and John B. Freed, The Countsof Falkenstein:Noble Self-Consciousnessn Twelfth-CenturyGermany,Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 74/6(Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 20-21, 30, 51-52.98 SUB 2:294-96, no. 202.99SUB 2:409-11, no. 294.100SUB 2:546-48, no. 397.101The milesWipoto was listed around 1185 as a witness among the members of the familia ofAdmont: SUB 2:605-6, no. 443. The miles Perenger was included around 1190 among themembers of the familia of Raitenhaslach: SUB 2:638, no. 470.102 Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs,1/1:416, says that the knights were separated from the remain-der of the servile population only in the thirteenth century and cites a document of 1278 (SUB4:107, no. 100) as proof. The documents cited above suggest that the distinction was alreadybeing made in the twelfth century.


20/38

Nobles,Ministerials, and Knights 593pluribus militibusreductus est in episcopium suum .. ."103The Admont monkturned the servitoresof the older vita into ministeriales,but he could not con-ceive of free milites, the word used in the older vita, or fideles, the word theauthor of the Annales Admuntenseshad employed, because the nobility hadvirtually disappeared from the archdiocese by 1200. For instance, the charterin which Archbishop Adalbert II (1168-77, 1183-1200) confirmed Admont'spossessions in 1195 was witnessed by seventeen prelates, twenty-six archiepis-copal ministerials but only two noblemen.104 Since the only milites n the arch-diocese were the servile vassals of the nobles and ministerials, the Admontmonk listed the milites after the ministeriales.Medieval plagiarism is of somevalue to the social historian. In short, miles,which had meant a free vassal inthe eleventh century, referred to a servile retainer after the Investiture Con-test.Not surprisingly, such lowly men are rarely mentioned in the documents.The number of militeslisted in the table is deceiving, because thousands ofindividuals were named in the abbatial Traditionsbuch s transactors or witnes-ses. Most of the milites ncluded in the table appeared in the witness lists in theretinue of their lords. In only six of the approximately 569 entries datedbetween 1125 and 1199 did a man identified as a miles serve as a transactor.Two of them were archiepiscopal ministerials who were called milites,and athird involved the Passau servitorwho was identified as a milesof the noblemanHartwig of Hagenau. In the other three cases, Frederick, a retainer of thenobleman Kuno of Modling, sold an alod to the monks for half a pound;105Diethart, a vassal of the nobleman Gottschalk of Haunsberg, gave the abbeyhalf a hide with the consent of Gottschalk's wife and daughter;106 and Albnoof Plosau, a miles of Megingod of Surberg, gave the monastery an alod he hadpurchased from a neighbor before leaving with the burgrave's nephew on theThird Crusade.'07 These are the petty transactions of obscure men.The militesare even more inconspicuous in the approximately 292 notices inthe Traditionsbuchof the cathedral chapter dated between 1122 and 1196.Only fourteen individuals are specifically identified in it as milites, thoughindividuals who were identified elsewhere as militesdo appear in the chapter'scodex of traditions.108 The first man who is called a milesin the canons' codexis Azeli, who served in 1151/67 as the proctor for Sigiboto of Thann, a vassal

103 MGH SS 11:39 (italics added).104 SUB 2:670-75, no. 497. On the extinction of the nobility, see Freed, The Countsof Falken-stein, pp. 62-67.105 SUB 1:393, no. 269.106 SUB 1:415-16, no. 300.107 SUB 1:471, no. 400. See Freed, "Diemut von Hogl," pp. 613-14.108 For instance, Wezil of Pfongau, who was called a miles of Liutpold of Wald (SUB 1:459-60,no. 378), witnessed a donation of Wernhard of Wald to the cathedral chapter (p. 638, no. 106);Baldwin of Siegsdorf, who was called a miles of Henry of Siegsdorf (pp. 462-63, no. 384),appeared in 1151/67 (p. 641, no. 112); and Karl, who was called a miles of Burgrave Hartnid (p.467, no. 392), followed him as a witness (p. 642, no. 115).


21/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightsof the lords of M6dling.109 The other milites who appear between 1167 and1196 include one vassal of a count,110 two militesof nobles, nine retainers ofministerials,112 and one ministerial who was identified as a miles"1 - the sameuse of the word miles that we find in the abbatial Traditionsbuch.The archiepiscopal charters paint a similar picture of men at the fringes offeudal society. Milites appear as witnesses for the first time in an archiepis-copal charter in 1159, but it involves a gift of a burgher of Bad Reichenhall tothe collegiate church of St. Zeno in the same town,114where militeswere clearlymen of some distinction. A document of 1160 listed as witnesses the count ofthe Tyrol and those of his unnamed militeswho had been present; in contrast,the ministerials of the archbishop of Salzburg and of the bishop of Freisingand even the young sons of prominent archiepiscopal ministerials werenamed individually. The document was, admittedly, of no great interest to thecount, but it did not concern the bishop of Freising either.115 Men identifiedas militeswitnessed only five other archiepiscopal charters before 1200.116As has already been indicated, two ministerials are identified as milites n theabbatial Traditionsbuchn the twelfth century, both in the period 1188-93. Inthe first case, the milesOtto of Engolding gave Engolding to St. Peter's on hisdeathbed. Otto's maternal uncle, the prominent archiepiscopal ministerialOtto of Goldegg, executed the bequest.117 Although the Engoldings are neverspecifically identified as archiepiscopal ministerials, Otto's father Kuno118 islisted on several occasions in groups of known archiepiscopal ministerials.119In the second instance, the milesBurchard, who is identified in the entry as anarchiepiscopal ministerial, conferred an alod on the monks but retained thelifelong use. He was to pay the monks five pennies a year as a token of theirproprietary rights, while they were to give him annually eight pecks of rye andsixty pennies.120 The comparable case in the chapter's Traditionsbuchnvolvedthe miles Pabo of Englham, who gave the canons in 1183/96 a serf as an altar

109SUB 1:666, no. 174. On Sigiboto of Thann, see Gunther Flohrschiitz, "Die V6gte vonModling und ihr Gefolge," Zeitschriftfiir bayerischeLandesgeschichte 8 (1975), 86-89.l0 SUB 1:715-16, no. 276.1" SUB 1:687-88, no. 217; 715-16, no. 276.112 SUB 1:667-68, no. 217; 689-90, no. 221b; 710-11, no. 268; 720-21, no. 285; 721-22, no.287.113 SUB 1:706, no. 258.114 SUB 2:478-79, no. 342.115 SUB 2:483-84, no. 347. The archbishop's pueri, Riidiger, Rudolph, and Gerhoch, were

undoubtedly the nephews of Burgrave Hartnid who witnessed the charter and often appearedwith him as witnesses. For further information about them, see Freed, "Diemut von Hogl," pp.638-40.116 SUB 2:530-626, nos. 382, 432, 438, 445, 461.117 SUB 1:478, no. 414. Otto of Goldegg was called Otto of the Pongau in the entry. On Otto'sidentity, see Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:387.118 SUB 2:476-78, no. 341.119SUB 1:647-48, no. 128; 653, no. 142; 2:317, no. 217; 428-29, no. 306.120 SUB 1:484, no. 426.

594


22/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knights 595dependent (censualis) in the presence of his sons Henry and Pabo.121 This isthe only reference to Pabo and his sons. An archiepiscopal ministerial'22named Megingod of Englham appears between ca. 1140123and 1180,124 andhe had two sons, Gerhard and Kuno.125 It is thus not certain whether Pabowas a member of the ministerial lineage or simply one of its milites.Clearly, we are not dealing here with prominent ministerials who adoptedthe designation milesto conceal their servile origins, but rather with the firstevidence for the existence of the group who would be called in 1262 lesserministerials and squires (ministerialeset militaresminores).126The Wiesbachs,archiepiscopal ministerials who are identified in this fashion in 1262, werementioned for the first time in 1170,127about seventy years after the ancestorsof the prominent ministerials appeared; in the late thirteenth century they areusually described as milites rather than as ministerials.l28The division between greater and lesser ministerials can be traced to thefirst half of the twelfth century. Archbishop Conrad I is alleged to haveuncovered upon his return from Rome in 1111 a conspiracy led by one of theless noble ministerials,'29 but the passage in the Vita Chunradi,written in the1170s, may be anachronistic and deliberately derogatory. The same cannot besaid of a description of a benefactor of the cathedral canons in 1122/47 as oneof the nobler ministerials'30 and of references in the 1130s to honorable'31and illustrious'32 ministerials who served as witnesses. It was, however, in the1180s and 1190s - that is, precisely at the moment that the entries in theTraditionsbiicherbegan to identify minor ministerials as milites that the docu-ments started to stress that Archbishops Conrad III and Adalbert II hadconsulted with the greater (maiores)and better (meliores)ministerials.133

121 SUB 1:706, no. 258.122 SUB 1:413-14, no. 296.123 SUB 1:601-2, no. 35.124 SUB 2:584-85, no. 424a.125 SUB 1:672, no. 188.126 MGH SS 9:796.127 SUB 2:546-48, no. 397.128 Necrologias. RudbertiSalisburgensis, d. Sigismund Herzberg-Frankel, MGH Necrologia Ger-maniae 2 (Berlin, 1894), p. 111; Regesten 1:123, no. 959; 133-34, nos. 1041 and 1042; and DieUrkundendes KlostersRaitenhaslach, 1034-1350, ed. Edgar Krausen, Quellen und Erorterungenzur bayerischen Geschichte, n.s. 17, 2 pts. (Munich, 1959-60), 1:242-43, no. 301. On the Wies-bachs, see Helga Reindel-Schedl, "Die Herren von Wispeck," MGSL 122 (1982), 253-86.129 MGH SS 11:69: "quidam ex ministris, non tamen nobilioribus, Albwinus nomine." The onlyministerial family to employ the name Albwin in the twelfth century was the Gomings, who livednorth of the city and who were classified in the thirteenth century as knights rather than ministe-rials. See Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs,1/1:401. I suspect, therefore, that the leader of the conspir-acy was a Goming.130 SUB 1:620-21, no. 77. The donor was described as "quedam e nobilioribus beati Rvdbertiministerialibus."131 SUB 2:229-30, no. 153. The document is dated 1132-42, but Henry of Seekirchen, whodied in 1139, was among the witnesses.132 SUB 2:236-37, no. 159.133 SUB 1:693-94, no. 226; 2:690-91, no. 512; 706-7, no. 520.


23/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and KnightsIt is easy to find an explanation for the sharpening of the division amongthe ministerials in the late twelfth century. Archiepiscopal authority collapsedduring the Alexandrine Schism,134 and the ensuing chaos revealed the differ-ence between powerful ministerials, like Megingod II of Surberg, who hadtheir own armed retainers, and petty ministerials who did not and who joinedthe retinue of their more powerful coministerials to survive. For instance, theVoggenbergs, who had been called archiepiscopal ministerials in the 1130s,135were listed in 1171 among Megingod's "milites et servi,"136 and the Wiesbachsusually appeared in the entourage of Megingod or his successor, BurgraveConrad of Hohensalzburg.137 Miles, the standard designation for a servilevassal of a noble or ministerial, could thus easily be applied to a minor ministe-rial who served a more powerful ministerial.Prominent ministerials like Megingod could, however, be described as mi-lites under certain circumstances, but these uses of the word said nothingabout their legal status or place in the Heerschildordnung.First of all, chroniclesemployed the word in military scenes. Provost Gerhoch of Reichersberg(1132-69) describes in the Annales Reicherspergenses ow milites, particularlyMegingod II of Surberg, bravely and courageously defended the archbish-opric after Barbarossa outlawed Archbishop Conrad II and the clergy ofSalzburg at Laufen on March 29, 1166.138 Needless to say, Megingod, whohad dozens of milites at his command, is never described as a miles in thedocuments. Similarly, the Vita Chunradi recounts how a certain mileswho wasnoted for his wealth and physical strength, namely, the archiepiscopal butlerMegingod, prompted by a youthful ardor for combat, broke the command ofArchbishop Conrad I not to fight during Henry V's Roman expedition in1110-11.139 This bold miles was undoubtedly the father of Megingod II, whoserved in the 1140s as the archiepiscopal butler.140It is quite possible that theauthor, writing in the 1170s, had Megingod II in mind when penning thesewords and that miles meant knight in this context.This seems almost certainly to have been the case in other references toprominent ministerials as milites. Emperor Henry VI ordered ArchbishopAdalbert II in 1193/94 to defend St. Peter's against the militesof Voitsch.'41

134 Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:284-96.135 SUB 1:589-90, no. 7a.136 SchenkungsbuchBerchtesgaden see above, n. 94), pp. 333-34, no. 159.137 Reindel-Schedl, "Die Herren von Wispeck," p. 257.138 MGH SS 17:473: "... militibus tamen archiepiscopi, precipueque Megingozo de Surberc, secontra violencias iniquorum hominum fortiter et viriliter opponentibus."139 MGH SS 11:68: "Unde et contigit militem quendam opibus et viribus insignem, Megin-godum nomine, pincernam videlicet suum, iuvenili ardore pugnandi egressum, vulnus accepissein crure."140 SUB 2:307-8, no. 209; 330-32, no. 230; 333-35, no. 232. Whether Megingod I was reallythe archiepiscopal butler in 1110-11 is open to question, but the author of the VitaChunradi,whowas writing from personal experience after 1131 (MGH SS 11:62), would have rememberedMegingod I as the butler.141 SUB 2:663-64, no. 489.

596


24/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knights 597No miles is known to have employed this surname in the late twelfth century,but the Pettaus, a prominent lineage of archiepiscopal ministerials who pro-vided Rudolph of Habsburg in 1276 with 200 men,142 claimed Voitsch fordecades.143 Sometime after May 30, 1198, Duke Leopold VI of Austria wroteto Kuno III of Schnaitsee-Gutrat, an archiepiscopal ministerial who was theburgrave of Werfen, appointing him the protector of Admont's lands border-ing on his own.144 Leopold referred to Kuno as strenuusmiles,and Pope Ho-norius III referred to him in 1217/19 as a noble and a miles.'45All of these references to prominent archiepiscopal ministerials as milites,except for the one in Leopold's letter, occur in sources that originated outsidethe archdiocese and, as Henry VI's mandate indicates, may show some igno-rance about conditions within the archdiocese. The better-informed LeopoldVI may not have wanted to draw attention to the fact that he had granted thesubadvocacy over Admont's property to the ministerial of a rival prince. Thephrase strenuus miles in the duke's letter suggests that he was calling Kuno aknight rather than a vassal. The first reference to a prominent ministerial as amiles in an archiepiscopal charter occurs only in 1233, when ArchbishopEberhard II (1200-1246) called Eckart of Tann a ministerial and a knight.146Interestingly enough, Eckart referred to himself simply as a milesin 1243.147As far as I know, Eckart is the only prominent ministerial to be described inthis fashion in the first half of the thirteenth century, but the use of the wordmilesin the sense of knight by prestigious outsiders must have contributed toits gradual acceptance within the archdiocese as a designation for a prominentministerial.

4. 1200-1246The Rise of the KnightsArchbishop Eberhard II (1200-1246) was the creator of the ecclesiasticalprincipality of Salzburg. During his long rule, miles remained the standarddesignation for a servile vassal, many of whom were humble men. Others,especially the urban milites,were men of considerable means, and some militesbegan to receive the title dominus.There was a perceptible rise in the status ofmilites n this period, and most important, the estate of knights began to take

142 Hans Pirchegger, "Die Herren von Pettau," Zeitschriftdes HistorischenVereinesfiir Steiermark42 (1951), 12.143 SUB 2:523-25, no. 375; 3:505-6, no. 955. Otto of K6nigsberg, who is mentioned in no.955, was the grandson of the Frederick of Pettau mentioned in no. 375. See Pirchegger, "Herrenvon Pettau," genealogical table following p. 199.144 SUB 2:681, no. 502. On the Schnaitsee-Gutrats, see Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:390-93.145 SUB 3:209-10, nos. 698a, 698b. The papacy could also use the correct terminology. See, for

example, SUB 3:124-25, no. 625, where Innocent III referred to Frederick III of Pettau as aministerial.146 SUB 3:438-39, no. 888. On the Tanns, see Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:373.147SUB 3:556, no. 1004a.


25/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightsshape. Its constituents were lesser ministerials, retainers of extinguished no-ble lineages that had entered the archbishop's service, and servile vassals ofthe ministerials.Miles continued to be employed in the first half of the thirteenth centuryprimarily for the servile vassals of the few surviving nobles'48 and of theministerials,149 and occasionally also for the armed retainers of variouschurches.150 The documents often stressed their servile status. Henry ofSchnaitsee was identified before 1230 as a milespropriusof Kuno III of Gut-rat;151 Ortolf was described in 1219/34 as a miles who belonged to the ar-chiepiscopal familia;'52 and Ulrich of Breitbrunn was called in 1242/59 amiles and a homoproprius of St. Peter's.153 When Archbishop Eberhard IIpurchased the castle of Haunsberg in 1211 from its last noble lord,Gottschalk's "hominibus suis propriis militaribus sexus videlicet utriusque"were included in the sale.154 Count Hermann of Ortenburg sold the LessachValley in the Lungau to the archbishop in 1242, but the count specificallyexcluded among the serfs (mancipia) "quibusdam hominibus militaris con-ditionis" who possessed fiefs and alods in the valley.'55 Among the appurte-nances that were included in Archbishop Eberhard's purchase of the Carin-thian castle of Reisberg in 1245 were "quatuor personis de genere militari."156Another charter that was drafted in conjunction with the same purchasereferred to "omnibus hominibus operibus servilibus deputatis et quatuormilitaribus." 57 As late as 1255, the dowry of Margaret of Steinkirchen, whomarried the archiepiscopal ministerial Conrad V of Kalham-Wartenfels, in-cluded "XII personas de genere militari etatis equalis et XII feoda mi-litum."158 It may be that the scribes adopted such circumlocutions to distin-guish servile milites from knights like the archiepiscopal ministerial Eckart ofTann. Still, such stipulations also show that the servile milites formed an elitegroup among the serfs.These servile militeswere often humble individuals whose way of life wouldhave been barely distinguishable from that of other peasants. Sometime be-

148 SUB 1:498, no. 452; 3:532-34, no. 984.149SUB 1:497, no. 451; 509, no. 473a; 732, no. 306; 734, no. 311; 735, no. 313; 750, no. 342;753, no. 348; 754-55, no. 351; 755, no. 353; 3:18-19, no. 548; 174-76, no. 669; 177, no. 672;196, no. 690; 213-14, no. 700c; 411-12, no. 868; 509-11, no. 961; 631-32, no. 1086.150SUB 1:507-8, no. 470 (St. Peter's); 734, no. 311 (cathedral chapter); 3:162-63, no. 657(Frauenchiemsee); 472-73, no. 923 (bishopric of Chiemsee).151SUB 1:509, no. 473a.152 SUB 1:747-48, no. 336.

153 SUB 1:507-8, no. 470.154 SUB 3:149-50, no. 646.155 SUB 3:540-42, no. 991a.156 SUB 3:624-26, no. 1079.157 SUB 3:631-32, no. 1086.158 SUB 4:30-31, no. 33. She was called Margaret in SUB 4:42-43, no. 42. Margaret's fatherwas an Ortenburg ministerial and her mother an archiepiscopal ministerial: SUB 3:425-27, nos.882a, 882b.

598


26/38

Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightsfore his death around 1216, the archiepiscopal ministerial Markwart of Berg-heim had procured for his miles Heinrich Vole the lifelong use of a hide thatbelonged to St. Peter's. After Markwart's death the abbey agreed to extendthe same privilege to Heinrich Vole's wife.'59 Between 1242 and 1259 the milesUlrich of Breitbrunn, an abbatial serf, conferred his alod of half a hide inBreitbrunn on St. Peter's with the consent of his seven sons. The sons thengave the monastery the other half and received it back in fief.160 Ulrich'sfamily might have done better if he had prevented the fragmentation of hissmall fief among so many heirs.Other militeswere men of more substance than Ulrich of Breitbrunn. LordAlbert, a miles of the archiepiscopal ministerial Kuno III of Gutrat, gave St.Peter's in 1199/1214 eight serfs whom he held in fief from the Kalhams asaltar dependents.161 Before his death in 1231, Kuno III of Gutrat had en-feoffed his milites Conrad and Eckart Garr, who had married Kuno's serfs(propriaemulieres),with two forested hides that they subsequently exchangedwith St. Peter's for another property and an additional eight pounds.'62 Theirdescendants amassed considerable property and seignorial rights in the upperEnns valley. The Garrs are thus a remarkable example of the rise of a peasantfamily into the ranks of the lower nobility during the later Middle Ages.163The miles Werner of Lengfelden, master of the archiepiscopal kitchen, hadbuilt a church, St. Jakob am Turm, near his tower (turris)and had endowed itwith a property he had purchased in the Tyrol. He gave both to St. Peter's in1238 on the condition that the monks use one hundred cheeses from theTyrolese property to provide for the illumination of the church and to pay theparish priest of Hallein to say a mass in the church once a week. The other twohundred cheeses from the Tyrolese property were to belong to the monks.'64Werner, who is identified elsewhere as a ministerial,'65 was one of the lesserministerials.Urban militesappear to have been especially wealthy. Isingrim is identifiedas a miles,166as a burgher of Salzburg, and as an official involved with theproduction and trade in salt (salinator).167Lord Heinrich Chlozo, a miles andburgher of Salzburg, gave the cathedral canons in 1242/64 four serfs and

159SUB 3:196-97, no. 690.160 SUB 1:507-8, no. 470.161 SUB 1:497, no. 451. The entry is dated 1199/1231, but Ulrich II of Kalham was dead by1214. SUB 1:735-36, no. 314. In addition, one of the witnesses, Heitfolch of Felben, was men-tioned for the last time in a datable document in 1206. Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:393.162 SUB 1:509, no. 473.163Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:401, 415.164SUB 3:489, no. 936. On Werner, see my forthcoming article about the Lengfelden-Thurnlineage, "Devotion to St. James and Family Identity: The Knights of Thurn," Journal of MedievalHistory 13 (September 1987).165SUB 3:187-88, no. 680.166 SUB 3:523-42, no. 974.167 SUB 3:352, no. 819.

599


27/38

600 Nobles, Ministerials,and Knightstheir children as altar dependents.168 Ortolf of Kai, who witnessed archiepis-copal charters in 1214169 and 1224170 and is identified as a knight who be-longed to the archiepiscopal familia,l71 was a particularly wealthy urbanknight. Innocent III indicated in 1216 that Archbishop Eberhard II hadpurchased from Ortolf vineyards in Arnsdorf, Lower Austria, and a house inthe city of Salzburg.'72 Ortolf gave the cathedral canons in 1222 a vineyardand an orchard in Arnsdorf.173 Of course, the wealth of even the richest milescould not compare with the wealth of one of the great ministerial lineages. Forexample, Diemut of H6gl, the widow of Megingod II of Surberg, and her lasthusband, Burgrave Conrad of Hohensalzburg, had four castles of their ownand their own chaplain, chamberlain, and seneschal.l74Such donations are one indication that the status of the militeswas rising inthe first half of the thirteenth century. Another was the use of the title dominusfor a miles. The earliest designations of this type that I have found are fromthe first decade of the thirteenth century.175 In contrast, the first references toministerials as domini are from around 1150.176 It is by no means clear whyand under what circumstances specific militesor for that matter ministerialswere styled lords. For example, only two of the four persons of militarycondition who were included in the sale of the Carinthian castle of Reisberg in1245 were called lords.177Why not the other two? Several things seem to be atwork. The first references to ministerials as lords occur in descriptions of aministerial's relationship to another person, for example, Berthold, a vir ofLord Liutold of Siegsdorf. 178A lord was by definition a person who exercisedrights over other people. This may explain why the sons of an archiepiscopalministerial who witnessed an archiepiscopal charter in 1205 were not calledlords, while their father was.179Second, transactors, especially donors, weremore likely than witnesses to be styled lords. For example, while Megingod IIof Surberg and his brother Sigiboto are called lords after 1165 in documents

168SUB 1:763-64, no. 371.169SUB 3:178-81, no. 674; 197-200, no. 691. The editors, SUB 1:966 and 3:R 62, were notcertain whether Kay, southwest of Tittmoning, Upper Bavaria, or Kai, a section of the city ofSalzburg, was meant. Since these two charters involved the estate of Diemut of Hogl, who hadbeen the wife of two burgraves of Hohensalzburg, the latter seems more likely. In addition,Ortolf owned a house in the city itself. SUB 3:200-202, no. 692.170SUB 3:321, no. 793.171SUB 1:747-48, no. 336.

172 SUB 3:200-202, no. 692.73 SUB 1:747-48, no. 336.174 Freed, "Diemut von H6gl," pp. 611, 643.175 SUB 1:497, no. 451 (on the date, see n. 161 above); 733, no. 309 (Ulrich was called a miles nno. 311); 3:18-19, no. 548.176 Freed, "Diemut of H6gl," pp. 644-45. For a reference in 1145/47, see SUB 2:336-37, no.234.177SUB 3:624-26, no. 1079.178SUB 1:528, no. 521. Other examples are 2:336-37, no. 234; 476-78, no. 341.179SUB 3:66-67, no. 586.


28/38

Nobles, Ministerials, and Knightswhere they appear as transactors,180the first reference that I have found to aministerial by himself as a lord in the witness list of an archiepiscopal charteroccurs only in 1197/1200.181 Such designations appear to have been mostcommon in documents of urban origin and to have become fairly standard forboth ministerials and militesonly during the 1240s.This leaves unexplained why some witnesses in the same document werecalled lords and others were not. For example, a charter issued by the abbot ofSt. Peter's in 1236 refers to Eckart of Tann as a lord, but does not bestow thesame courtesy on Conrad of Truchtlaching, Henry of Teisendorf, who wasthe vidame of Salzburg, and Ulrich of Wiesbach.182 Since Henry and Ulrichbelonged to families of lesser ministerials that were classified in the secondhalf of the thirteenth century as knights,183 it is possible that the scribe wasdifferentiating between greater and lesser ministerials, but this does not ex-plain why Conrad of Truchtlaching, who belonged to a powerful ministerialfamily,184was not styled a lord. Perhaps the scribe was distinguishing in thiscase between a ministerial who had been girded with a sword and one whohad not undergone this initiation ceremony (Eckart of Tann happens to havebeen the only prominent archiepiscopal ministerial who was called both aministerial and a knight in the first half of the thirteenth century).185 If thiswas indeed the case, it provides evidence for the growing importance of suchchivalric customs in the archdiocese, which made it possible to call a servilemiles a lord and to deny the same courtesy to a prominent ministerial. Itshould be stressed that this is simply an educated guess; we have no definiteevidence that Eckart of Tann had been girded and that Conrad ofTruchtlaching had not been. The use of the designation dominus for bothministerials and militesrequires additional investigation.There are also indications that an estate of knights, composed of the lesserministerials, the militesof extinguished noble lineages who had entered thearchbishop's service, and the ministerials' own servile retainers, was beginningto form in the archdiocese in the first half of the thirteenth century. Mostarchiepiscopal charters merely indicate that many other witnesses were pres-ent besides the clerics and ministerials who are mentioned by name,186 but a

180SUB 1:451-52, no. 367a; 2:548-49, no. 398.181 SUB 2:684-86, no. 507.182 SUB 3:463-64, no. 913.183 Henry's surname is not indicated in no. 913, but it is given in SUB 3:352, no. 819. He wasthe father of Gottschalk of Unzing (SUB 3:414-15, no. 871), who had adopted his mother'ssurname (SUB 1:746, no. 333) and who also employed the surname Neuhaus (SUB 3:352, no.819; Urkunden Raitenhaslach [see above, n. 128], 1:294-95, no. 367). Gottschalk of Unzing-Neuhaus and the Wiesbachs were identified as knights rather than as ministerials in Regesten1:91, no. 702; 96-97, no. 738; SUB 4:153-55, no. 130.184 Dopsch, GeschichteSalzburgs, 1/1:379-80. Conrad's brother Henry appeared as a witnesswith his miles: SUB 3:213-14, no. 700c.185 SUB 3:438-39, no. 888; 556, no. 1004a.186 See, for instance, SUB 3:309-10, no. 782; 312, no. 784; 328-29, no. 800; 332-34, no. 805.

601

Documents

Freed Salzburg Ministeriales