Hildebert of Lavardin

He didn't want the titles he got, he didn't write the things people said he wrote, he wasn't the saint that some said he was, he didn't get what he asked for from the pope.

Hildebert was born c.1055 to poor parents in Lavardin in central France. Intended for an ecclesiastical life, he was probably tutored at Tours, possible under Berengar of Tours. He became a master at the school of Le Mans, where possibly he crossed paths with Gallus Anonymus. Around 1096 or 1097 he became bishop of Le Mans, but was taken hostage by William II and carried to England for about a year as part of the frequent England-France conflict started by the 1066 Conquest.

Not all his clergy agreed with his management, and he went to Rome to ask Pope Paschal II if he could resign as bishop. Paschal refused. While he was in Rome, back in Le Mans trouble was brewing. A former Benedictine named Henry of Lausanne was in Le Mans preaching against church hierarchy. The people were attracted to his preaching and had admiration for his style: he went bare foot, slept on the ground, and lived on donations. Hildebert was able to force Henry out of Le Mans, but the population was still wary of church authority and willing to disregard it at will.

In 1125, against his will, Hildebert was made archbishop of Tours by Pope Honorius II. Now it was a French king he had to contend with: he and Louis VI clashed over ecclesiastical rights, a conflict Hildebert no doubt wished to avoid from all the way back when he asked to not be a bishop anymore.

He wrote, but he was given credit for many writings that were not his. Old editions of his writings ascribe to him things written by Peter Lombard and others. He was praised after his life for the work Tractatus theologicus, but this is now attributed to Hugh of St. Victor.

He was referred to as a saint by some writers, but there is no record of him being canonized. In fact, his familiarity with Latin classics like Cicero and Ovid give his writings a style more similar to pagan authors than Christian ones. The only two serious works that are still attributed to him are a life of Hugh of Cluny and of St. Radegunda. He was known for poems. The illustration shows a piece of a 12th-century edition of his poetry.

Hildbert remained archbishop of Tours until his death on 18 December 1133.

After he ejected Henry of Lausanne from Le Mans, Henry went elsewhere to preach. A different archbishop seized him and took him before the pope to deal with him. We'll see how that went tomorrow.

Gallus Anonymus

In the past few days we've been looking at some early history of Poland. Although there are other chronicles, the person recognized as Poland's first historian is called Gallus Anonymus, or Gall Anonim in Poland. The illustration is a copy of the first folio held in the National Library of Poland of his work, the Gesta principum Polonorum ("Deeds of the Princes of the Poles"). The Gesta was written between 1112 and 1118.

The name comes not from a signature on the work itself, but from a comment made centuries later by a 16th-century Polish historian who was bishop of Warmia (a region in northern Poland). In the margin of one copy of the Gesta, this man wrote:

Gallus hanc historiam scripsit, monachus, opinor, aliquis, ut ex proemiis coniicere licet qui Boleslai tertii tempore vixit 

"Gallus wrote this history, some monk, in my opinion, who lived in the time of Boleslaus III Wrymouth, as can be conjectured from the preface."

To be frank, we don't know if the bishop meant that the author's name was Gallus, or if he was saying the author was Gallic (French). Arguments for his having been French are that the writing shows a style and level of education more consistent with that part of Europe than with early 12th-century Poland. Similarities to the style of Hildebert of Lavardin suggest that the two were educated at the same place, Le Mans. 

More recent Polish historians have suspected that Gallus may have also been the author of the Gesta Hungarorum ("Deeds of the Hungarians") and the Translatio Sancti Nicolai ("The Transfer of St. Nicholas"), about the moving of the relics of St. Nicholas to Bari in 1087. This would also suggest a strong Italian influence in his upbringing.

Because Gallus writes so much about Bolesław III, Duke of Poland, it is conjectured that he may have traveled with the Duke. The tone of Gallus' history emphasizes that the ruler's authority is superseded by God's. We see a hint of this in yesterday's post about Bolesław's blinding of Zbigniew and his subsequent excommunication, how he lost the support of the people so thoroughly. It is said that this influenced Poland's historical tendency to question authority.

Since I'm on the subject of historians, let's turn to Hildebert of Lavardin next.

Bolesław's Excommunication

I wanted to offer more detail—some of it quite grisly—on yesterday's mention of the blinding of Zbigniew of Poland by his younger brother, Duke Bolesław. Blinding someone was an efficient way of incapacitating them and rendering them ineligible for a position as a ruler. (It was okay if someone who was already a ruler went blind: no one was going to remove the efficient and crafty Enrico Dandolo from his position as Doge of Venice just because his eyesight eventually failed). Blinding an enemy and rival was quite common, as can be seen here, here, and here.

It was usually done with simply bring a red-hot poker to the eyes of the victim; the heat was damaging. The examples given above are from Western Europe and Byzantium. Zbigniew's was a little different. Medieval Poland actually removed the eyes with pliers. Sometimes the eyelids were also removed. This was not necessarily a more or less brutal method than the red-hot method, but it was just as effective. (The illustration is of a Biblical story from a Byzantine manuscript.)

Bolesław's act outraged the population. Zbigniew had done nothing wrong in their eyes.  It is thought that Archbishop Martin I of Gniezno excommunicated Bolesław, which meant not only was he unable to participate in the Sacraments, but his subjects' oaths of loyalty to him were void. A popular rebellion against the ruler was not unknown in Poland, so he had to take steps to regain his authority. That meant penance; serious penance.

Gallus Anonymus records that he fasted for 40 days and nights, and "slept in ashes and sackcloth, among the streams of tears and sobs, as he renounced communion and conversation with people." Gallus reports that Bolesław asked Zbigniew for forgiveness, and received it. That was not enough, however.

The duke then made pilgrimages to Hungary and the Abbeys of St. Giles (the Hermit) and St. Stephen I (first king of Hungary). He also went to do penance in Gniezno at the tomb of St. Adalbert of Prague, offering gifts to poor people as well as clergy (probably including Archbishop Martin). Finally the excommunication was lifted.

I keep mentioning Gallus Anonymus; since I appreciate medieval historians, I'd like to talk more about what he provides in the study of the history of Poland. See you tomorrow.

Zbigniew of Poland

Zbigniew of Poland was the first-born son of Władysław I Herman, Duke of Poland, but because he was born out of wedlock he was not considered a proper successor to Władysław. Once Władysław got himself a son, Bolesław, from his marriage to Judith of Bohemia, Zbigniew was destined for a career in the Church (the Church was a way to provide noble children with privilege without royalty).

Although at the time too young to be a priest, Zbigniew was sent to the canonry of Kraków. His first teacher was Otto, who became bishop of Bamberg.

From the chronicle of Gallus Anonymus, however, we learn how things went differently. A powerful Polish count named Sieciech forced Władysław to recognize Zbigniew as his heir while Bolesław was still very young. Sieciech had more power and control in the country than the duke, and could get support for his plans from others. Zbigniew was returned from the canonry.

As it happened, Zbigniew and Bolesław became allies and did not become pawns of Sieciech. The brothers persuaded their father to split the country between them, Zbigniew taking the north half.

Although sharing the country, Zbigniew annoyed Bolesław because, as the older of the two, he acted like he was the more important ruler and was "allowing" the younger son to rule. The two went to war against each other from 1102 - 1106. Bolesław had the greater support due to his legitimacy in the eyes of many, and Zbigniew rendered him homage and went into exile in Germany.

A few years later, Bolesław yielded to pressure from others to allow Zbigniew to return. Zbigniew started claiming the privileges of his former status, however, which did not sit well with Bolesław. Zbigniew tried to take the place at a ceremony to which only the ruler had a right. Bolesław declared this an act of treason and had Zbigniew blinded in 1112.

This act outraged the population. Archbishop Martin I excommunicated the duke. Bolesław made public penance to try to get back into the good graces of the Church and the people, and even asked (according to Gallus Anonymus) Zbigniew's forgiveness.

How and when Zbigniew died is a mystery. At the Benedictine Tyniec Abbey there is an obituary listing of 3 July 1113 of a "Brother Zbigniew." Many modern historians agree that Zbigniew was sent to live out his remaining years...that is, year.

Bolesław was now sole ruler of Poland, but did not have an easy time of it. Getting past his actions toward Zbigniew was the first hurdle, as I'll explain in more detail next time.

Duke Bolesław III

Władysław I Herman (c.1044 - June 1102) had a problem known to many nobles: he needed an heir who could succeed him as Duke of Poland. He had a son, Zbigniew (c.1073 - July 1113), who had been born out of wedlock and was ineligible for the position unless nothing better came along.

Władysław and his wife, Judith of Bohemia (c.1056 - 25 December 1086), were not producing a legitimate heir, and this was a concern. The two had been married as part of a Bohemia-Poland alliance, but five years after the wedding there was still no child. They did the only logical approach available to them: they made an offering to St. Giles the Hermit in the form of valuable gifts including a life-sized statue of a baby made of gold to the Benedictine sanctuary Saint-Gilles in Provence.

The "result" of this was Bolesław, born on...well, you would not believe how much ink has been spent on this topic. Tied to this is the date of his mother's death, and theories abound. Why? His birth had to take place before she died, but different more-or-less contemporary accounts are interpreted differently.

The first "straightforward" account that creates confusion was by a Latin account, the Gesta principum Polonorum, ("Deeds of the Princes of the Poles") by Gallus Anonymus [sic]. Composed between 1112 and 1118. Gallus says Judith gave birth on the day of St. Stephen, King of Hungary, but died on the night of Nativity. Gallus does not mention the year, but the night of Nativity should be 24-25 December. The feast of St. Stephen King of Hungary was 20 August.

Another chronicler of Bohemia, Cosmas of Prague, writes that Judith died on 24 December 1085 and Bolesław was born three days before. The Obituary List of Saint-Gilles in Provence, recipient of the couple's donation, clearly states that Judith died on 24 December 1086.

A modern historian declares that Bolesław was born on 26 December 1085 and Judith died two days later. This man claims that Gallus confused the day of Stephen King of Hungary with St. Stephen's Day (26 December).

Bolesław was lucky to be born at all—first because his parents had trouble conceiving, and second because his birth might have been so close to his mother's death that if it weren't childbirth that led to her death but illness, he might not have survived her pregnancy.

He did survive, however (that's a commemorative coin above), and ruled for just over 30 years. They weren't easy years, however, and one of the sticking points was the existence of his half-brother, Zbigniew. But that's a story for tomorrow.