Otto III's Regency, Part 1

Otto III (980 - 23 January 1002) became King of Germany at the age of three on the death of his father, Otto II. He was in line to be Holy Roman Emperor, but had to go through a regency period until he was older. He was able to claim the title King of Italy in April 996, and Holy Roman Emperor in May.

Otto's closest male relative after the death of his father was Henry the Quarrelsome (pictured here, who claimed the regency. Henry had tried to usurp Otto II's position and had been imprisoned for it, but was released upon Otto II's death. Against the objections of Otto III's mother, Theophanu, and Theophanu's mother-in-law, Adelaide of Italy, Archbishop of Cologne Warin granted Henry the regency. The two women had had their differences in the past (and probably in the present), but each was a Holy Roman Empress, and neither wanted to see someone else have control of the kingdoms.

The women's concerns were well-founded. Henry ruled less on behalf of Otto and more (according to Gerbert of Aurillac) in a style of joint kingship. Henry took (abducted) Otto to Saxony where he campaigned for the German throne for himself. Not everyone supported this, and some of the nobles removed themselves to a place where they could plan to oppose him. The civil war that would have resulted led to Henry backing down from his claims so long as he was restored as Duke of Bavaria (a title he had lost when he first opposed Otto II).

In 984 the regency then passed to Theophanu. She kept much of her husband's court intact, and Archbishop of Mainz Willligis, technically by his office the chancellor of Germany, handled a lot of the administration. In 986, at an Easter celebration, Theophanu managed to see the major dukes of Germany (Henry the Quarrelsome, Conrad I of Swabia, Henry III of Carinthia, and Bernard I of Saxony) pay tribute to the five-year-old king of Germany, taking roles in the ceremony as steward, chamberlain, cupbearer, and marshal.

When he turned six, Otto began being tutored by Gerbert of Aurillac and four chaplain Bernward of Hildesheim.

Things were relatively calm (although Adelaide found some of her previous authority lessened). The first real challenge came when the Great Gandersheim Conflict broke out, involving two of the loyal servants we have already met as well as Otto's great aunt whom we have not. I'll tell you about that tomorrow.

Theophanu and Adelaide

Odilo of Cluny (c.962 - 1049) wrote a life of Holy Roman Empress Adelaide of Italy (to whom he was supposedly related). It is from Odilo that we learn Adelaide was very happy when "that Greek woman died."

The "Greek woman" was Theophanu, who in 972 married Adelaide's son, Otto II, who became Holy Roman Emperor a year later when his father and Adelaide's husband, Otto I, died.

Part of the issue between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law may have been simply that Adelaide, the first woman to be crowned Holy Roman Empress, who was deeply involved in the empire's administration, was unwilling to relinquish her authority and step away during her son's reign. She may also have been (this is not unlikely) unhappy with a foreigner marrying her son (there was some hostility between the East and West of the Roman Empire).

There were more overt reasons, however. In 972, Adelaide's niece married a man known as Henry the Quarrelsome, who was the son of Otto I's younger brother Henry I of Bavaria. Henry wanted to oust Otto II in 974. Otto imprisoned Henry in 976, but when Otto II died in 983 Henry was released and tried to take the throne from the successor, Otto III. Henry kidnapped the three-year-old Otto III, but he lost the support of the German nobility and was forced to submit to the authority of Empress Theophanu. Adelaide's early friendly association with Henry made Theophanu unhappy.

Otto II had even felt it necessary to exile Adelaide from court in 978 because of her interference with his administration, spending her time between Pavia and with her brother Conrad I, King of Burgundy, in Arles. Conrad helped reconcile mother and son.

Peter Damian (c.1007 - 1072), although writing later, claimed that Theophanu had an affair with John Philagathos (c.945 - c.1001), a Greek monk who was Theophanu's chaplain and Otto's chancellor 980-982 and briefly became Antipope John XVI.

When Otto II died, Otto III was only three, so Theophanu was regent, but Adelaide would have had a difficult time not being involved in government with her son gone. Both women held the title Empress. Adelaide had dowry lands and wanted to dispose of those rents/taxes as she saw fit, but Theophanu now (as regent for the young Emperor Otto III), had the authority to direct many of those finances. Theophanu pre-deceased Adelaide, who then became regent for Otto III. Let's see how that went, next time.

Adelaide of Italy

Yesterday I mentioned the need to explain Adelaide of Italy to understand how she affected the marriage of her son.

Adelaide was born to King Rudolph II of Upper Burgundy (now Switzerland) and Bertha of Swabia. Her parents became king and queen of (northern) Italy after the death of Berengar I. Later, after her father's death, Adelaide was married to the new King of Italy, Lothair II. She was 15 years old. They had a daughter, Emma of Italy, who married King Lothair of France.

After Lothair died, his successor Berengar II tried to force a marriage between Adelaide and Berengar's son, Adalbert. Adelaide refused and fled, but was caught and imprisoned for four months. She managed to escape and (we believe) found while in hiding by a priest who took her to a safe refuge. From there she wrote to Otto I asking for protection, for which he had an idea. They met and married on 23 September 951. (See the two at Meissen Cathedral in the illustration.)

Otto had been married before, but when his son from that wife, Liudolf Duke of Swabia, led a revolt  that was quelled, Otto dispossessed Liudolf of his title. This was a good sign for any future children of Otto's and Adelaide's. They had a couple sons who died while young, but they continued producing children, including Otto II.

Otto I was crowned Holy Roman Emperor on 2 February 962 by Pope John XII, whom Otto (accompanied by Adelaide) had come to Rome with an army to protect against John's enemies. In a first for the Holy Roman Empire, John crowned Adelaide as Holy Roman Empress.

Adelaide's influence in the Empire was significant. She was named alongside Otto in papal bulls. She was involved in 75 charters. She received requests for help and protection separate from requests to her husband. Her daughter Emma wrote, asking for help against enemies, as did future Pope Sylvester II, Gerbert of Aurillac.

After a later expedition to Rome to support Pope John XIII, Adelaide remained in Rome with her son Otto for six years. In 967, Otto II was crowned co-emperor, and in April 972 Otto married Theophanu, daughter of a former Byzantine Emperor. When Otto I died in 973 and Otto II became Holy Roman Emperor in his own right, Adelaide did not relinquish any of the authority she was accustomed to wield, which interfered with her son's rule and clashed with her daughter-in-law.

Tomorrow we'll go back to Theophanu and see how things were between her and her mother-in-law.

Otto and Theophanu

Holy Roman Emperor Otto I was looking for a suitable bride for his son, Otto, and thought the daughter of a Byzantine Emperor was a good choice. The Byzantine Emperor, however, saw themselves as the emperors of the Roman Empire, West as well as East, and so disliked Otto styling himself as Holy Roman Emperor and Pope John XIII referring to him as "Emperor of the Greeks." This caused the breakdown of initial attempts to arrange a marriage with Anna Porphyrogeneta, daughter of former Emperor Romanus II, as recorded by Liudprand of Cremona.

There was more than one attempt to get a Byzantine bride for young Otto. The later ruler, Emperor John I Tzimiskes, had been treated a little differently. He had been referred to as Roman Emperor and so was not insulted. A round of negotiations was led by Archbishop Gero of Cologne. (Liudprand might have been involved, since he spoke and wrote Greek and was familiar with Constantinople, but his previous encounter might have made him a detriment to diplomacy.)

John chose his niece Theophanu, who was 14. There were some concerns in the West. For one, she was not "Porphyrogeneta," which means "born to the purple," so she was less royal than Anna. Also, she was even "less royal" because she was the emperor's niece through his brother-in-law by marriage and not actually a member of there powerful Macedonian dynasty.

John I Tzimiskes had come to power by overthrowing Nicephorus II Phocas, and the Ottonians were concerned that John's status as a usurper would invalidate Theophanu's suitability and standing as a link to the Byzantine Empire. Otto was advised to send her back to Constantinople, but for whatever reason he was persuaded otherwise. They were wed by Pope John XIII on 14 April 972. (You can actually see the marriage charter here.) She was also crowned Holy Roman Empress on the same day. The illustration is of Christ blessing the young couple.

One historian claims that Otto I, her father-in-law, was very supportive until his death a year later. Theophanu was later very involved in the running of the empire: she is mentioned in one quarter of the imperial documents. Although she was from a different culture, which made many of Otto's subjects wary of her, the only serious difficulty was with her mother-in-law, Adelaide of Italy. Before we go on to see what kind of ruler Theophanu was, let's take a look at Adelaide starting tomorrow.

Liudprand in Constantinople

When Liudprand of Cremona went to Constantinople a second time, it was specifically to arrange a marriage between the son of Holy Roman Emperor Otto I and Anna Porphyrogeneta, daughter of former Emperor Romanus II.

The atmosphere in Constantinople was not as welcoming as his first visit there, and he described it in a letter to Otto:

On the day before the Nones of June (June 4) we came to Constantinople, and there, as a mark of disrespect to yourselves, being shamefully received, we were harshly and shamefully treated. We were shut up in a palace large enough, indeed, but uncovered, neither keeping out the cold nor warding off the heat. Armed soldiers were made to stand guard who were to prevent all of my companions from going out and all others from coming in. This dwelling, into which we alone who were shut up could pass, was so far removed from the palace that our breath was taken away when we walked there - we did not ride. To add to our calamity the Greek wine, on account of being mixed with pitch, resin, and plaster was to us undrinkable - The house itself was without water, nor could we even for money buy water to still our thirst. To this great torment was added another torment - our warden namely, who cared for our daily support. If one were to look for his like, not earth. but perhaps hell, would furnish it; for he, like an inundating torrent, poured forth on us whatever calamity, whatever plunder, whatever expense, whatever torment, whatever misery he could invent.- Nor among a hundred and twenty days did a single one pass without bringing us groaning and grief. [source]

Why such a different reception?

The current Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phocas, still lay claim to Benevento and Capua in Italy, and Byzantine forces had clashed recently with Otto's forces. Nicephorus, as the Eastern Emperor, also objected to Otto calling himself Holy Roman Emperor. Nicephorus was also annoyed that, in a letter from Pope John XIII, Nicephorus had been called "Emperor of the Greeks," when technically he was Emperor over the entirety of the Roman Empire, including the western parts.

The "insult" went both ways. Liudprand was brought before the emperor's brother, who (he says in the letter to Otto):

...called you not emperor, which is Basileus in his tongue, but, to insult you, Rex, which is king in ours. And when I told him that the thing signified was the same although the terms used to signify it, were different, he said that I had come not to make peace but to excite discord;

Liudprand was not the most diplomatic of diplomats. He relates how, after he purchased purple cloth, and it was confiscated because (they told him) it was reserved for royals because it is unique, he replied:

"Such a garment can hardly be called unique," I answered, "when with us the street-walkers and conjurers wear them."

A marriage between Otto II and Anna never took place. Liudprand might have gone to Constantinople one more time after that, during the negotiation that led to Otto getting a Byzantine bride, but there is no account of it.

A new bishop of Cremona was installed in 973, so Liudprand must have died by then. But we have no other stories from him except his histories. How Otto got his Byzantine bride, however, will come next. See you tomorrow.

Liudprand of Cremona

We are grateful that some people in the past chose to record what they saw and heard, or what they were told by others. Surviving histories help to build a picture of what life was like centuries ago. Unfortunately, many wrote with an agenda. Liudprand of Cremona certainly had opinions he wanted to get across with his writings, along with his histories.

He was born c.920 in Pavia, in northern Italy, and was a page to Hugh of Arles who was styled King of (northern) Italy and married Marozia of Rome. Hugh died in 947, after which Liudprand became confidential secretary and then chancellor to Berengar II, King of Italy from 950 - 961.

Liudprand, by then a deacon, was sent by Berengar to the court of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus where he learned Greek and became one of the first Western writers to use the lettering style called Greek minuscule. Liudprand's father and stepfather had both visited Constantinople as ambassadors, and Liudprand praised Byzantine hospitality.

Liudprand also brought gifts to the emperor. In his account of Constantinople in his work Antapodosis ("Retribution"), he says:

I offered, therefore, nine excellent breastplates, seven excellent shields with gilt bosses, two gilt silver cups, swords, spears, skewers, and four carzimasia slaves, to this emperor the most precious of all these things. For the Greeks call a child-eunuch, with testicles and penis cut off, a carzimasium. The merchants of Verdun do this on account of the immense profit they can make, and they are accustomed to bring them to Spain.

Back in Italy, Liudprand and Berengar had a falling out, so Liudprand joined Holy Roman Emperor Otto I, who became king of Italy after the death of Berengar's son Lothair. In 961 Liudprand went to Italy with Otto. A year later he became Bishop of Cremona.

While with Otto he met Recemund, a Mozarabic Bishop of Elvira and ambassador for Abd al-Rahman III. Recemund persuaded Liudprand that he should write a history of his times. The result was the Antapodosis.

In 963, Liudprand attended the Synod of Rome that deposed Pope John XII. His account of the events around that Synod is the only source we have.

In 968 he went to Constantinople again, this time to arrange a marriage between Otto I's son, Otto, and Anna Porphyrogeneta, daughter of (former) emperor Romanus II. This visit was not as happy as his first, for many reasons, and I'll share those and some of his account tomorrow.

Marozia

The daughter of Theophylact I and Theodora, Marozia, was wedded to Alberic I of Spoleto in 909. Alberic's link to the counts of Tusculum (who were the chief power in Rome) was advantageous for him. With the death of Theophylact in 924 or 925, Alberic (via Marozia) became the ruler of Rome.

Their first child, John, was born in 910, shortly after they were married, but Liudprand of Cremona claimed John was the result of an affair between Marozia and Pope Sergius III, whom Alberic and Theophylact had put on the throne after ousting an antipope.

Marozia would have known Sergius for years as her father's cousin, and the story of the affair is found not only in Liudprand but also in the Liber Pontificalis ("Book of the Popes"). Another historian of the time, Floduard, refers to John as the brother of Alberic II, another of Marozia's sons (but that to me does not mean they could not have different fathers).

After Alberic I died in 924, Marozia married Guy of Tuscany, who was an enemy of the then-Pope John X. John had been supported by the counts of Tusculum, especially Marozia's mother, Theodora. John's dream of a unified Italy meant supporting powerful lords who might assume that role. This did not sit well with Marozia and Guy. They imprisoned Pope John in 928. He either died in a dungeon due to its horrible conditions, or was smothered with a pillow.

Marozia made sure the next two popes were under her control, Leo VI and Stephen VII.

Guy of Tuscany died in 929, and Marozia planned to marry Guy's half-brother Hugh of Arles (seen in the illustration). Hugh was considered King of Italy (which at the time was the northern part of the Italian Peninsula and Corsica). This marriage would be illegal under canon law because of their affinity.* The teenaged Alberic II was opposed to this. There are two stories that explain his hostility to Hugh. One is that during the wedding banquet Alberic spilled some water on Hugh, who slapped the boy in public. The other is that Alberic discovered a plot by Hugh to have him blinded and therefore disqualify him from ruling when his time came. In either case, Alberic raised troops and prevented the wedding, causing Hugh to flee and imprisoning Marozia.

Marozia spent five years in prison. In 931, Marozia's son became Pope John XI. Several more popes were descended from her. Alberic II's son Octavian became Pope John XII in 955. Popes Benedict VIII, John XIX, and Benedict IX, and antipope Benedict X were also descended from her.

We should probably take a closer look at Liudprand of Cremona, from whom we may be getting lots of (mis?)information. But that's for tomorrow.

*This was the same case as Henry VII and Catherine of Aragon, who was his brother's widow.

The Theophylact Family

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon (1737 - 1794) wrote of two "sister prostitutues" whose beauty and wealth was such that they wielded great influence. Their names were Theodora and Marozia, the daughters of Count of Tusculum Theophylact I (pre-864 - 924/250 and his wife, Theodora. (The illustration is the emblem of the Counts of tusculum.)

We (as did Gibbon) are currently exploring a time and place (as so often) when records were scarce and the chroniclers (as so often) had their own agendæ. Much of what I am about to tell you comes from Liudprand of Cremona. Bishop Liudprand (c.920 - 972) was around for the actions of Theophylact and his descendants, but was certainly personally and politically opposed to them.

Theodora the mother (c. 870 – 916) was so influential that she was given the titles senatrix and patricia of Rome. Their daughters Marozia and Theodora II were also titled senatrix omnium Romanorum  ("senators of all Romans"). This was a time in Rome that is called the Saeculum obscurum ("the dark age/century"), also known as the Rule of the Harlots or the Pornocracy. Liudprand called Theodora a "shameless harlot" and claimed that Pope John X (914 - 928) was appointed pope because he was her lover.

Theophylact and Alberic I of Spoleto were instrumental in the overthrow of the antipope Christopher and putting Sergius III (possibly Theophylact's cousin) on the Chair of Peter. Alberic I married Theophylact's daughter Marozia and had five children (Alberic II among them). It is suggested by Liudprand that Marozia's eldest, who became Pope John XI, was actually the son of Marozia and Pope Sergius. Gibbon wrote that John's birth coming after Marozia's marriage to Alberic I indicates that Alberic was the father. Was Gibbon being naive or was Liudprand simply too ready to create a reason to condemn?

(Gibbon also points out that it may be the influence of Theodora and her daughters over Rome in the 9th century that led to the story—not created until the 11th century—that there was a female pope in the 9th century. This makes much more sense than believing that a woman rose to become pope within two years and was discovered when she gave birth during a procession.)

Tomorrow we'll take a closer look at the next generation, specifically Marozia, who retained the power in Rome after the death of her husband.

Alberic II of Spoleto

The House of Theophylact (the counts of Tusculum) ruled Rome for four generations. A grandson of the founding Theophylact I was Alberic II of Spoleto.

His parents were Alberic I and Marozia (Theophylact's daughter). Their eldest son, John, was Pope John XI as of 931. (According to Liudprand of Cremona, John was the son of Marozia and her lover, Pope Sergius III.)

Alberic I died when Alberic was young, and Marozia retained power in Rome, marrying a couple more times. According to one historian, Benedict of Soracte, Marozia's third husband (seen here between the young Alberic and Marozia) intended to have Alberic blinded (disqualifying him from being a ruler). When Alberic found out, he raised a mob that stormed the palace, drove the man out of Rome and imprisoned Marozia, allowing him to rule unencumbered.

His reign from 932 to 954 was peaceful. He styled himself princeps ("prince") of Rome, a title that was twice used in official documents by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII. He controlled Rome firmly, and the popes. When his brother Pope John XI died, Alberic pressured Leo VII to become pope. Leo did not want the position, but Alberic wanted someone pliable. After Leo died (in 939), Pope Stephen VIII succeeded him.

After a number of bishops were involved in an assassination attempt against Alberic, he (it is reported) imprisoned and tortured Stephen. Stephen was succeeded by Pope Marinus II (sometimes called Martin III) on 30 October 942. Marinus supported many monasteries. Alberic was also in favor of restoring monasteries that had been devastated by Muslim attacks. The two got along, but it was said Marinus did nothing without Alberic's approval.

After Marinus came Pope Agapetus II. Alberic's hold on the papacy was so complete that in 951 he was able to prevent the coronation of Otto the Great as Holy Roman Emperor (which needed a pope as celebrant) until after Alberic died.

Before Alberic died in 954, he had made the nobles of Rome promise to make his son the next pope. Agapetus was succeeded in 955 by Alberic's son Octavian, who took the name John XII. Otto the Great was finally crowned Holy Roman Emperor by John in 964.

Several more popes were descended from or related to Alberic, which means they were descended from Marozia, and we really ought to find out more about her and her family before perhaps exploring her descendants. See you tomorrow.

Pope Agapetus II

In 946, Rome was an independent republic ruled by Alberic II of Spoleto (and we'll be taking a closer look at his whole family soon), who prevented the popes from exercising any secular power. This was during a period called the Saeculum obscurum ("the Dark Age"), which was also known by less-polite names.

At the death of Pope Marinus II, Albert nominated Agapetus (born c.901) as Bishop of Rome. Agapetus II had very little authority in anything other than religious matters. The See of Reims was being fought over by two bishops, so he sent a legate, Marinus of Bomarzo, to oversee a synod there. Agapetus showed his support for King Louis IV of France by appointing Louis' favorite to Reims.

Agapetus also intervened in a dispute between an archbishop and a bishop who each wanted to declare himself the metropolitan of Pannonia, a province of the old Roman Empire that includes the modern regions of western Hungary, western Slovakia, eastern Austria, northern Croatia, north-western Serbia, northern Slovenia, and northern Bosnia and Herzegovina. Agapetus pointed out that, because of historical invasions and subsequent divisions, Pannonia was logically split into two regions, and each man could be metropolitan of his own half of old Pannonia.

He argued with dukes of Beneventum and Capua to turn over possession of monasteries to the monks who lived there. He also wanted to revive one of the monasteries outside the Vatican walls and requested for some monks from the Gorze Abbey in the Lorraine to come and live there. Even this needed the support of Alberic, however.

When Agapetus died in 955, he was succeeded by John XII, who began life as Octavian, the son of (drum roll) Alberic II of Spoleto. It sounds like we really ought to look at Alberic and his influence on the papacy.Turns out it was very much a family affair for him. I'll explain next time.

Rotbert of Trier

In 931, Archbishop Rudgar of Trier died, and by the end of the year his successor, Rotbert, was in place. If we assume the usual age of 30 when becoming a bishop, we can assume Rotbert was born c.900.

Rumor has it he had a sister (Mathilda) who was queen to King Henry I of Germany, which helped the appointment. Further scholarship has led to the conclusion that this family connection was highly unlikely, which means we don't have much information on Rotbert prior to his appointment that would explain why he was a suitable candidate. He is known to have had a brother, Count Ansfried the elder, who held 15 counties in Lotharingia, so Rotbert apparently came from an influential family.

Rotbert was part of the coronation ceremony of King Henry' successor, Otto I. Rotbert supported Otto, and became his arch chancellor, dealing with royal petitioners on the king's behalf.

In 942 Rotbert consecrated the newly built church of St. Maximin at the Abbey of St. Maximin, where Israel the Grammarian was educating Otto's youngest brother, Bruno. A duke wanted to control the abbey, and tried to take possession of it from Rotbert's jurisdiction. As part of the plan, the duke accused Rotbert of disloyalty to Otto. Not only was Otto not buying it, but Pope Agapetus II confirmed Rotbert's jurisdiction of the abbey. (The illustration shows St. Maximin Abbey in a later century.)

Rotbert had a keen interest in rebuilding and reforming monasteries, and in getting their possession out of the hands of the laity. He traveled to Italy with Otto, bringing back relics of Saint Severus, the 4th-century bishop of Ravenna. He was a patron of scholars such as Israel the Grammarian, who dedicated a book to Rotbert. The historian Flodoard dedicated more than one work to Rotbert.

Rotbert died of plague while attending a royal assembly. Although writers about his life claimed he was buried at the church of St. Paulinus in Trier, in 1950 his tomb was discovered at the Liebfrauenkirche in Trier, a cathedral consecrated by Rotbert in 955.

Rotbert was not alone in wanting to get monasteries into clerical possession. Pope Agapetus II shared that goal, which we'll talk more about tomorrow.

Israel the Grammarian

A mistranslation of the word "Israel" in a record from the court of King Æthelstan made it sound that there was a Jew working in the court, but evidence shows that the man's name was actually Israel, and he was one of the foremost scholars of the 10th century.

Living from approximately 895 - 965 CE, Israel benefitted from the Carolingian Renascence (to distinguish it from the historical Renaissance), when Charlemagne in the 8th century sponsored scholars and promoted education. Although the Carolingian Empire collapsed in the late ninth century, King Alfred the Great invited scholars from the continent, a trend that was continued by his grandson, Æthelstan. (It is possible that Israel knew the recently discussed Æthelwold and Dunstan.)

Israel was one of those continental scholars. We know little of his early life, except that he was at Rome for a while as a student of "Ambrose" (whoever that was). He probably had a Celtic origin, because it was a 10th-century habit to give Celtic children Old Testament names.

Israel produced the Gospel book that contains the explanation (and diagram) of the board game Alea Evangelii, the "Game of The Gospels." A note in the manuscript claims:

Here begins the Gospel Dice [or Game] which Dub Innse, bishop of Bangor, brought from the English king, that is from the household of Æthelstan, King of England, drawn by a certain Franco [or Frank] and by a Roman scholar, that is Israel.

He also wrote Versus Israhelis de arte metrica super nomen et uerbum, "Verses from Israel on the metrical art of the noun and verb." This was dedicated to Bishop Rotbert of Trier. It is assumed that this was written around the time (or right after) Æthelstan's death, and Israel was looking for a new patron.

He found one. From 940 Israel was in Trier. He was the tutor of the future archbishop of Cologne, Bruno, brother of the Holy Roman Emperor Otto the Great. At a synod in Verdun in 947, Israel is referred to as "bishop." An Israel is mentioned as Bishop of Aix-en-Provence, but it is not definitively known to be "our" Israel. A bishop in Aachen between 948 and 950 debated religion with a Jew named Salomon. It is tempting to equate that bishop with Israel, since he would have been an important figure at the school in Aachen.

He was apparently a rare thing of his time and place: a man who knew Greek. Israel wrote on theology, and he produced a major teaching text when he edited the Ars Minor of Donatus and redacted everything he thought was too sensitive, an edition that could still be found in print in the 20th century. He also wrote commentary on the works of John Scottus Eriugena, and a commentary in the Isagoge of Porphyry (illustration).

Israel retired to become a monk at a Benedictine monastery in Saint-Maximin in Trier.

We know quite a bit about Archbishop Rotbert of Trier; I'll share some of it with you. See you tomorrow.

The Game of the Gospels

The popularity in the Middle Ages of tafl, a type of table game, led someone to develop a version of it that could be used as a teaching tool about Christianity.

It was found in an 11th-century Irish manuscript that includes the Vulgate Latin version of the four Gospels with St. Jerome's prologue, the Eusebian Canons that lay out the differences and similarities between them, the diagram of the game Alea Evangelii (seen here), and two pages of description of the game.

The instructions tell us that it was created at the court of the 10th-century King Æthelstan (ruled 924 - 939) by two men, Israel the Grammarian and an unnamed Frank, and brought to Ireland by the Bishop of Bangor, Dub Innse (who died in 953, so this manuscript was an Irish copy made later).

The game is called Alea Evangelii, the "Game of The Gospels," and is far more elaborate than the strategy game of tafl from which it derives. You can see from the illustration that it was a much larger board than the original, with many more pieces. The manuscript mentions:

If any one would know this game fully, before all the lessons of this teaching he must thoroughly know these seven: to wit, dukes and counts, defenders and attackers, city and citadel, and nine steps twice over.

It acknowledges that the current as well as the source game are about attacking and defending, but it is not clear from the diagram which is the offensive and which the defensive position. Also, tafl has only two kinds of pieces: a king and the rest. Alea Evangelii has more differentiations between pieces. Also, the pieces in Alea Evangelii are placed on the intersections of lines, not inside the squares. This makes it resemble the modern game of Go.

The four corners are each assigned to a different Gospel. A total of 67 pieces represent the Eusebian Canons. The pieces are black except for four red pieces, two for John and two for Mark (nothing for Mathew and Luke?). One black piece represents the unity of the Trinity. Each of Eusebius' Canons have a different number of pieces assigned to them, from the 16 pieces assigned to Canon I to the single piece assigned to Canon X.

Trying to figure out how it was played makes my head spin. A 1951 book, A History of Board-Games Other than Chess. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) by H.J.R.Murray tries to re-create it, or you can read the original ms. yourself.

Instead, I'm going to ask myself about one of the creators, Israel the Grammarian, who was considered one of the 10th-century's leading scholars. Tomorrow I'll tell you what I found out.

Table Games

Yesterday's post mentioned two people playing tafl. This was one of several versions of Northern European board games that emphasized strategy.

"Tafl" (pronounced tavl) is the Old Norse word for "table," which is where English got the modern word.

Scandinavia used the term Hnefatafl (pronounced nevatavl) to distinguish from other games played with boards on a. table, such as chess. Old Norse hnefi means "fist" may be the origin of the term, so the whole name refers to the "board game of the fist." The suggestion of its origin is that the "king piece" was known as the fist.

It starts with a king piece in the center of the board. He needs to move to a corner or a side. The opponent who does not have the king has more pieces, and moves them one by one to try to capture the king or simply prevent him from achieving his objective. The king player can try to block the blocking of the opponent. The king player only has half the number of tokens used by the opponent.

There were several variations of the game. Ard Ri (Gaelic: "High King") was a Scottish version played on a 7x7 board. From what little we know of it, this version went fast with the advantage to the king's side, even though the king had half the number of defenders. The goal was to move to any side, not just a corner, which was a real advantage for the king.

Two Irish poems mention Brandubh ("black raven"), the Irish version, also on a 7x7 board, with five pieces against eight. Several ancient boards have been found.

When the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus traveled to Lapland in the 18th century, he observed the Sámi people playing a board game they called tablut, played on a 9x9 grid. He wrote down the rules as he understood them and sketched the board, showing the pieces on the two sides having a different appearance (not colored differently, but one smooth and the other notched).

Then these games fell out of use. Examining references in poems and Linnaeus' account have led to a re-creation of the rules of the game, tested and refined for fairness. You can purchase sets on Amazon and other places, and learn Hnefatafl here.

But notice the layout of the pieces above. Looks vaguely like a cross, doesn't it? Hmm, I wonder if someone in the Middle Ages would look at that and turn it into something religious. There are four arms to the cross, and there are four Gospels, aren't there? Could this possibly be turned into a game about the Gospels?

Could and was. Tomorrow I'll introduce you to Alea evangelii, the "game of the Gospels."

Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye

When Sigurd was three years old, two half-brothers were killed by the Swedish King Eysteinn Beli. His mother asked Sigurd's older brothers to avenge the deaths, but they (including Ivar the Boneless) feared that the Swedish king's magic was too powerful (they heard that he had a magic cow!). Three-year-old Sigurd wanted to attack, however, which encouraged the others to gather ships and men. They succeeded in killing Eysteinn.

In his Gesta Danorum ("Deeds of the Danish People"), Saxo Grammaticus writes that Sigurd was close to his father, Ragnar Lodbrok, traveling with Ragnar in Scotland and being named sub-ruler of conquered territories. We also learn that Sigurd went with Ragnar through the Kievan Rus all the way to the Hellespont.

When Ragnar died (killed by Ælla of Northumbria, prompting Ragnar's sons to launch the Great Heathen Army), Sigurd inherited the island of Zealand, the province of Scania and Halland, the Danish islands, and Viken (the strait between Norway, Sweden, and Jutland). He is also referred to in many records as the co-ruler of Denmark with his older brother Halfdan (who was away most of the time with the Great Heathen Army).

The "evidence" of co-rulership comes from Frankish sources that mention Sigfred and Halfdan as rulers in 873 (The names "Sigfrid" and "Sigurd" were often mixed up in literature). The known Danish King Harthacanute (not this one in England, but an earlier designated with a "I" in Denmark) was the son of "Sigurd" in the proper time frame.

What about Sigurd's nickname? It is said he was born with a mark in his left eye that looked like a snake. You might spot the difference in the 1670 engraving pictured above.

Some of the above comes from  Ragnarssona þáttr, "The Tale of Ragnar's sons." It mentions that, when word came of Ragnar's death, two of Ragnar's son, Björn Ironside and Hvitserk ("white shirt," believed to be a nickname of Halfdan) were playing tafl. That reference got me looking into tafl, a table game several forms of which have been played for centuries. I'll tell you more tomorrow.

Halfdan Ragnarsson

Son of the legendary Ragnar Lodbrok and leader of the Great Heathen Army, Halfdan Ragnarsson went on to become King of Jorvik, of Dublin, and co-ruler of Denmark.

In 866, just a year after the Great Heathen Army had arrived on the shores of East Anglia, it had moved northward and invaded Northumbria, which at the time was caught up in a battle between Ælla of Northumbria and King Osberht of Northumbria. Halfdan's army captured Jorvik (York). An alliance between Ælla and Osberht to recapture York failed. A 12th-century monk, Symeon of Durham, wrote of the result:

Nearly all the Northumbrians were routed and destroyed, the two kings being slain; the survivors made peace with the pagans. After these events, the pagans appointed Egbert king under their own dominion; Egbert reigned for six years, over the Northumbrians beyond the Tyne.

Halfdan had less success further south: he battled the West Saxons nine times, unable to conquer them. He eventually made a truce with the King of Wessex, Alfred the Great. The army then retreated to London for the winter, during which time (871/72) coins were minted with Halfdan's name on them.

In 874 he conquered Mercia and its king, Burghred, and a puppet was put in place, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:

And the same year they gave Ceolwulf, an unwise king's thane, the Mercian kingdom to hold; and he swore oaths to them, and gave hostages, that it should be ready for them on whatever day they would have it; and he would be ready with himself, and with all those that would remain with him, at the service of the army.

The Annals of Ulster say the king of Dublin, Eystein Olafsson, was "deceitfully" killed by Albann, a name recognized to be Halfdan. His time as King of Dublin lasted only a couple years; he lost the spot when he returned to Northumbria. Records list him as King of Jorvik starting in 876.

Attempting to regain Dublin, he was opposed by the "Fair Heathens," Vikings who had established Ireland as their home long before the "Dark Heathens" which were Halfdan's interlopers. The fair Heathens defeated him, and he was killed.

So that explains Jorvik and Dublin, but how was e co-ruler of Denmark, and with whom? Tomorrow you will meet Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye!

The Great Heathen Army

There was an invasion in England in 865 by a coalition of Scandinavian warriors referred to in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the Great Heathen Army or the Viking Great Army. It was supposedly commanded by Halfdan Ragnarsson, Ivar the Boneless, and Ubba, who were three of the five sons of the legendary Ragnar Lodbrok. For 14 years they fought the resident Anglo-Saxons, starting from their landing spot in East Anglia and moving north to York and then south through Nottingham and Cambridge down to London. Let's talk about the three brothers.

Ivar the Boneless was actually discussed over a decade ago in this post. Although "Boneless" (see the link, although there are several theories) he was considered wise and cunning, and a master of battle strategy. Ivar and Ubba are credited with killing Edmund the Martyr when the army returned to East Anglia in 869. Ivar died in 870.

Ubba's existence and role in the Great Heathen Army are fairly sketchy. From the Historia de sancto Cuthberto ("History of Saint Cuthbert") we are told that he was a dux ("leader, duke") of the Frisians, but that the army was Scaldingi, meaning they were either Scyldings (an ancient designation mentioned in the poem Beowulf from which the kings of Denmark claimed descent), or they were from the river Scheldt, meaning Ubba was from an island in the mouth of the Scheldt in Northern France that was granted to a Viking named Herioldus in 841 by King Lothair I.

The Battle of Arx Cynuit, mentioned by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Vita Alfredi, was a loss for the Heathen Army. The army's leader was killed according to the chronicles, but not named; he is only designated the brother of Ivar and Halfdan. Contemporary records do not say that Ivar and Ubba were brothers; that link comes later in the 11th-century Annals of St. Neots.

Halfdan is better attested in history, because he became King of Jorvik (York), King of Dublin, and co-ruler of Denmark. I'll explain how he managed all that tomorrow.

Oda the Good

Lately the name Oda has come up as the Archbishop of Canterbury during the time of Dunstan, Æthelwold, and Oswald. 

According to Oswald's biographer, Byrhferth of Ramsey (writing years later), Oda's father was a Dane who arrived in 865 with a Viking army and settled in East Anglia. Byrhtferth writes that Oda was a member of a nobleman's household, and accompanied the man on a pilgrimage to Rome, during which Oda cured the man's illness. We don't know his date of birth, but he was old enough to become Bishop of Ramsbury by 928. 

William of Malmesbury (c.1095 - c.1143) tells a different story, about Oda as a soldier under the Saxon king Edward the Elder and becoming a priest later. Biographers erroneously call him Bishop of Wilton, but evidence doesn't exist for that appointment.

It was likely King Æthelstan who appointed Oda Bishop of Ramsbury, and made him a royal advisor. Oda's name is on a lot of royal charters as witness. Another historian, Richer of Rheims, tells us that Æthelstan sent Oda to France to help King Louis IV (whose queen was Æthelstan's granddaughter through Edward the Elder) to return to the throne. (This story has no contemporary evidence.) Oda was also said to be with Æthelstan at the Battle of Brunanburh, but there is no contemporary evidence of this. These later accounts that ascribe so much to his life tell you that there was a desire to increase his standing because he was considered important to history.

What did happen for certain is that he was made Archbishop of Canterbury after the death of Wulfhelm in 941. In either 945 or 946, at Easter, new law codes were proclaimed by King Edmund that included new ecclesiastical laws developed by Oda and Edmund. Oda also established his own set of rules for clergy, in a work called Constitutions. In it, he dropped any references to dealing with pagans.

As archbishop he supported Dunstan's monastic reforms, and would have been helpful to Oswald, who was Oda's nephew and became Archbishop of York.

Other actions by Oda: renovating Canterbury Cathedral by raising the walls and installing a new roof, building several churches, translating the relics of St. Wilfrid. He also acquired relics of 7th-century Frankish bishop St. Ouen. He was nicknamed both "the Good" and also "the Severe."

He is venerated in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches with a feast day on 4 July. That's him in the illustration holding a chalice.

Let's make a change away from religious figures for a bit and take a look at the invasion that brought Oda's father to England, the Viking army of Ubba and Ivar. See you tomorrow.

Oswald of Worcester

We now come to Oswald of Worcester who, along with the recently explored Æthelwold and Dunstan, was considered one of the "Three English Holy Hierarchs."

Oswald was actually Danish, and a nephew of Archbishop of Canterbury Oda (mentioned during the clash between Dunstan and Eadwig). Oswald was taught by the Frankish scholar Frithegod, a clergyman who served Oda, then was sent to an abbey at Fleury in France to become a monk. Oda called Oswald back to England, but died (2 June 958) before Oswald arrived.

Oswald looked for a mentor, and found it in the Archbishop of York, Oskytel. Oswald worked at York until he was made Bishop of Worcester in 961, succeeding Dunstan. One of his acts as bishop was to invite to England a monk he knew at Fleury, Germanus of Winchester. He wanted Germanus to be prior of a new monastic community at Westbury-on-Trym.

The continent had experienced a revival of Benedictine Rule that was much more strict than what was going on in England's monasteries. Oswald (along with the efforts of Æthelwold and Dunstan) wanted to bring that stricter lifestyle to the island. He also wanted to expunge the secularism he saw in the English Church, where indulgences were sold and positions were given to lay people for the monetary advantage instead of to clergy.

There were married clergy at the time, and one tradition states that Oswald expelled any priests who would not give up their wives and replaced them with monks. An alternate story is that he established monasteries near the cathedrals, allowing the secular priests to maintain their duties until he had enough properly trained monks to take over the cathedral duties, pushing out the priests.

He founded Ramsey Abbey, and in 985 invited Abbo of Fleury to run its school. Abbo taught computus, the method used to calculate the dates of Easter.

Oswald was named Archbishop of York in 972 but stayed Bishop of Worcester, an unusual arrangement that applied to the Archbishops of York for the next 50 years. It aided York financially to have a very wealthy diocese added to its holdings.

Oswald's daily custom during Lent was to wash the feet of the poor. On 29 February 992, while doing so at Worcester, he died. He was buried at the Church of St. Mary at Worcester. Miracles were reported at his funeral and tomb. Ten years later, his remains were translated to a spot at Worcester Cathedral. 

The man who started him on his rise to fame, Archbishop Oda, has been named a few times in recent days, and we'll see what else he did, tomorrow.

Dunstan post-Edgar

Unfortunately, St. Dunstan could never stop himself from speaking truth to power, even when power was more, um powerful than he. (I suppose that was the point.) He only survived after his clash with Eadwig thanks to the accession to the throne of Edgar the Peaceable.

Dunstan as Archbishop of Canterbury and Edgar as King of England made a terrific pair for 16 years, but Edgar's death in 975 led to a dispute over succession. Edgar had more than one son by more than one wife, and the most recent wife, Ælfthryth, wanted her son Æthelred to succeed. Dunstan (and others) supported the candidacy of the older son Edward. Both boys were in their minority, but Edward won.

This turned out to be a bad move by Dunstan, since Edward's reign was characterized by anti-monastic and anti-reform views. The link on Ælfrthryth above will give you a taste of what happened. Edward was assassinated a few years later (some say Ælfthryth was involved), and Æthelred became king.

This is where speaking truth to power again shows how risky it is for the speaker. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Dunstan was the chief celebrant at the coronation, during which he lectured Æthelred about the evils about to visit themselves upon the kingdom because of the evil act that led to Æthelred's succession.

Dunstan then wisely went back to Canterbury and stayed there, teaching at the school. His name rarely appears in any official records. In 980, Dunstan was part of the "translation" of the relics of Edward. His remains were moved from their original burial place to a shrine at Shaftesbury Abbey. (Edward's death had gained him the nickname "the Martyr"; the moving of the relics was a step toward declaring him a saint.)

Dunstan apparently persuaded Æthelred to appoint Ælfheah of Mercia as Bishop of Winchester, and bribed the king with 100 pounds (lbs., not £) of silver to stop persecuting the See of Rochester. (Æthelred was taking land from the diocese to give grants to a retainer.)

Dunstan led a quiet retirement, saying Mass, visiting shrines, teaching. On 19 May 988 he assembled the clergy and had Mass said. He knew he was dying, and asked for Extreme Unction (Last Rites). He died right after. He was considered a saint, and formally canonized in 1029. He was England's favorite Archbishop-turned-saint until Thomas Becket overshadowed him.

His feast day is 19 May. He is patron saint of goldsmiths and silversmiths because of how he occupied himself at Glastonbury. The monks of Glastonbury used to say that his relics were taken there for safekeeping from Canterbury during a 1012 Danish invasion, but a 16th-century Archbishop of Canterbury opened Dunstan's tomb and proved the monks wrong.

Tomorrow we'll get to the third of the Three Holy Hierarchs of English Reform, Oswald of Worcester.