Note 207 — BOOK IV. (continued 2)

Guichenon, in his History of the House of Savoy, expresses himself thus: “William Paradin relates that this prince ’Humbert, second count of Savoy) went to the Holy Land in the crusade which was determined on at the council of Clermont, under Godfrey of Bouillon,” which the greater part of the historians have confirmed after him ’such as Pingon, Vanderb, Dogliani, Chiesa, Balderan, Buttel, and Henning). Papyrus Masson has rejected this, because neither the manuscript chronicle, nor the authors of the crusades, who name many lords of less consequence, have mentioned him. Botero has said nothing of him. “Nevertheless we cannot doubt this voyage; for about that time this prince gave the monks of the Bourget in Savoy a property called Gutin, for the health of his soul, of that of count Amé, his father, and of his ancestors. This donation, dated at d’Yenne in Savoy ’and not Jena in Thuringia, as is said in the Art of Verifying Dates), imports that the count bestowed this liberality to obtain from God a fortunate establishment ’consulat) in his voyage beyond sea. Now this word consulat then signified a principality, government, or sovereignty. Oderic Vital gives to Roger, count of Sicily, the title of consul of Sicily.” Guichenon adds here many other examples of the same kind. That which created doubts of the voyage of Humbert is the silence of the historians of the first crusade, as well as all the acts of this prince that have been preserved, and which prove that he was in Europe in the year 1100; but all these doubts vanish, when we know that he went in the second expedition.