The Patriarch and the Pope

Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople was vaulted to his position (which he held at two different times, 858–866 and 877–886 CE) because of his brilliance as a religious scholar and his family connection to the current emperor, Michael III. He wasn't even a priest, but in less than a week was ordained and promoted so that he could "properly" become patriarch. This irregular appointment caused trouble among the local Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Roman Catholic Church.

Shortly after his Christmas 858 elevation to patriarch, a local council was held in 859 to confirm his appointment formally (rather than risk the ire of the emperor). Supporters of his predecessor Ignatios, however, appealed to Rome for support. Ignatios had been removed and incarcerated solely on the will of the emperor, without trial. These "Ignatians" declared Photios' appointment as patriarch illegitimate.

Pope Nicholas I sent papal legates to Constantinople to conduct an inquiry. By the time they arrived, however, and with the 859 council's confirmation, Photios was firmly established in his role; trying to depose him and restore Ignatios would be difficult and disruptive in its own way. At a synod in Constantinople in 861 they re-affirmed Photios' appointment. Then the legates returned to Rome.

Upon their return, they discovered that Pope Nicholas had wanted an entirely different outcome. In an 863 synod in Rome Nicholas declared Photios deposed and Ignatios restored. Photios held his own synod in which he declared the pope excommunicated for the Filioque heresy. This synod also discussed who had authority over the recently converted Bulgarians, the Eastern Orthodox Church who did the work, or the Roman Church, which felt it had authority over all Christians?

Then in 867 Emperor Michael III was assassinated by a rival who became Emperor Basil I. Basil wanted an alliance with the West, so he sided with the pope, deposed Photios, and reinstated Ignatios. The Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870 condemned Photios, officially ending what was considered the "Photian Schism." This council did more than that, however, and deserves its own entry, which it will get next time.

Photios I of Constantinople

Poor Photios! One of the most powerful and influential church leaders in Eastern Orthodox history, tutor of a future emperor whom he tried to protect from a vengeful father, and then replaced by that same emperor with an unqualified teenage boy. His time as Patriarch of Constantinople was broken into two periods because of imperial fickleness, 858–866 and 877–886 CE. He accomplished so much more than being mistreated by the imperial family, however.

One example was his role in the Christianization of Bulgaria. Bulgaria in the early 9th century wanted to ally and trade with the Byzantine and Frankish Empires, but because it was pagan there were barriers to equal treatment. Photios in 864 went to the Bulgarian capital and converted Khan Boris, who took the Christian name Michael. Photios also baptized the Khan's family and high-ranking dignitaries. (The illustration shows him preaching to the Bulgarians.)

He had enemies outside of any upset emperors. His ethnicity is uncertain because chroniclers called him many different things that sound like they intended to demean him: he was Armenian, a Greek Byzantine, or Khazar-faced. He also antagonized people. In his younger years he was a scholar and teacher with a large library. He was the tutor of the sons of Emperor Basil I. He wrote texts analyzing and explaining earlier theological writings.

His brilliance sometimes put him in opposition to other religious leaders. He once proposed the fanciful theory to the Patriarch Ignatios that people had two souls. Once Ignatios tried to argue in earnest against this, Photios embarrassed him by telling him he wasn't serious, and just wanted to see if Ignatios would fall into his trap.

It was the conflict between Patriarch Ignatios and Emperor Michael III that catapulted Photios into the top position in the Church. Michael's uncle, Bardas, was refused entry into the Hagia Sophia by Ignatios because Bardas was thought to be having an affair (more shockingly, with his widowed daughter-in-law). Bardas and Michael accused Ignatios of treason, imprisoned him, and chose Photios (related to Bardas), as his replacement.

At this point, Photios was a scholar and teacher, not a cleric. Photios was tonsured as a monk on 20 December 858, then on the next four days was ordained a lector, then a sub-deacon, then a deacon and priest, and on Christmas Day was consecrated a bishop and made the new Patriarch.

This was disputed by other church leaders, and the pope in Rome himself, but that's a story for tomorrow.

Leo VI the Wise, Part 2

Emperor Leo VI (shown here in a mosaic at the Hagia Sophia, prostrate before Christ) interfered with the state religion, even though it meant disrespecting a one-time ally, Photios. Photios I was the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople (known now as St. Photios the Great), and was considered one of the most powerful, influential, and intellectual church leaders of his time. He had also been Leo's tutor, and when Leo's father Basil I imprisoned Leo on the suspicion of an assassination attempt, Photios persuaded Basil not to further punish Leo by blinding him. Despite all this support of Leo, Leo sent Photios into exile in Armenia after forcing him to resign.

He was replaced as patriarch by Stephen I of Constantinople, Leo's younger brother. The 19-year-old Stephen was, like Leo, conceived when their mother, Eudokia, was the mistress of Basil's predecessor Michael III, and so it is possible that, like Leo, Stephen was not a biological son of Basil. In fact, Basil had Stephen castrated and destined for life as a monk. Stephen died in 893, aged only 25, having accomplished nothing historically notable.

Leo's foreign policy was marked with mostly unsuccessful battles, losing a war with Bulgaria, losing the last Byzantine outpost on Sicily to a Muslim emirate, failing to recover Crete, and being attacked by the Kievan Rus, whom he paid off at first (they did eventually establish a trade treaty).

After the death of Zoe Zaoutzaina, his mistress who had become his second wife, he had a problem. He had produced no male heir, and marrying a third time was forbidden by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Just the same, he took another wife, Eudokia Baïana, in 900. She died in 901 while giving birth to a son. A book of ceremonial protocol lists a son of Leo named Basil, but there is no other information, suggesting that he did not live long.

Desperately needing a son, and wanting to avoid the scandal of an unprecedented and illegal fourth marriage, he again took a mistress, Zoe Karbonopsina ("Zoe of the Coal-Black eyes"). Fourth time's a charm, and Zoe gave birth to a son. Leo named him Constantine, and wanted him baptized. By this time, his brother Stephen had died and was replaced as patriarch by Nicholas Mystikos, a friend of Photios who had retired to a monastery after Photios was dismissed. Leo pulled him out of the monastery and elevated him to patriarch. Nicholas was reluctant to baptize this child born outside of wedlock, but he did, cautioning Leo that he could not marry Zoe and therefore legitimize the child, and stating that in fact a condition of the baptism was that Leo would have to get rid of his mistress.

So Leo married Zoe, and in the ensuing struggle with the Church over the impropriety of his decision he dismissed Nicholas, replacing him with Euthemios, who at one time seems to have been the spiritual mentor to Leo and his brothers. Ultimately, his fourth marriage was allowed in exchange for suffering a long penance and the assurance that he would enshrine in law the absolute illegality of fourth marriages.

Leo crowned Constantine as co-emperor at the age of two in May 908. Leo himself died in 912, and was succeeded by his younger brother, Alexander, who had been co-emperor with Basil. Unfortunately, Alexander died a little more than a year later, and the seven-year-old Constantine VII had a very long reign dominated at first by regents and later by self-serving advisors. Perhaps some day we will come back to him.

Next, however, I want to turn to the Patriarch Photios and the other ups and downs of fortune that he endured.

Leo VI the Wise, Part 1

Emperor Leo VI (866 - 912) had a rocky relationship with his father, or did he? It all depends on whom you think his father was. In the records, his father was Basil I, but Basil was absolutely not a loving father.

No one disputes that Leo's mother was Eudokia Ingerina (c.840 - 882), but prior to marrying Basil she was the mistress of Michael III, emperor from 842 until 867. Michael was assassinated by Basil, who assumed the imperial throne.

So many historians believe that Leo was actually the son of Eudokia and Michael, as clearly did Basil, so he treated his "son" poorly. To be fair, Leo was different from Basil's other sons, preferring bookish education over imperial management, hence his nickname of "Leo the Wise."

When Basil died in 886 and Leo became Emperor Leo VI, his first official action was to remove Michael III's remains from a monastery on the far side of the Bosphorus and re-inter them in the imperial mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. For historians (and no doubt for Leo's contemporaries), this confirmed not only that Leo was Michael's son, but that Eudokia had made sure Leo knew his proper parentage.

He then elevated Stylianos Zaoutzes, the father of Leo's mistress, Zoe Zaoutzaina, to the position essentially of a prime minister, running administrative affairs. Not only was Stylianos the father of Leo's mistress, but when Basil imprisoned Leo on suspicion of an assassination attempt, Stylianos had argued for Leo's release. Leo even created a new title for Stylianos, basileopator ("father of the emperor"). There were no known duties attached to the title, but it seemed clear that it was Leo's way of honoring the father of his mistress.

There is a story offered by Bishop Liudprand of Cremona that Leo would disguise himself and walk around Constantinople looking for injustice and corruption. At times he would be accosted by the city guards, who did not recognize him. One time, he bought off two patrols, but a third arrested him and put him in jail overnight. The next morning, he was recognized by a panicked guard. The company that arrested him was rewarded; the two patrols that accepted bribes to let a wandering stranger go were found and dismissed from service.

Tomorrow we'll look at how he interfered with religion, and dismissed someone who had been his tutor and ally.

Leo, Son of Basil

As Byzantine Emperor Basil I (811 - 886) reached his later years, his mood and health declined. He was depressed at the death of his eldest son, Constantine, who was also his favorite. He chose to make his youngest son, Alexander, his co-emperor to prepare him for the succession. A middle son, Leo, was more interested in books, which annoyed his father, who occasionally beat Basil over his frustration with a son he considered unsuitable for the royal dynasty. (Basil and his preferred child, Constantine, are seen in the gold coin to the left.) There was another reason Basil was suspicious of Leo, but I'll save that for part two.

In fact, after Basil learned of a plot against him, he suspected Leo of involvement and had his son imprisoned. He wanted to blind Leo, which would not only punish him but would render him completely unsuitable to ever become emperor. He was persuaded not to do this by the Orthodox Patriarch, Photios.

Basil was also unhappy when Leo ignored his wife Theophano in favor of a mistress, Zoe Zaoutzaina. Basil married her off to a minor official to get her out of the way. In 882, after the death of Basil's wife, Eudokia, the relationship between father and son deteriorated further. Basil died in a bizarre hunting accident when his belt got caught in the antlers of a deer and he was dragged for several miles through a forest. Someone caught up and cut him loose, but Basil claimed the man also tried to assassinate him, and on his deathbed ordered the man executed.

Leo's brother Alexander was only 16 years old, so it was agreed that Leo should succeed his father. His first official act as emperor was to re-bury a man his father had killed. Not just any re-burial, either. He did it in a very grand ceremony, and that man might have been part of the reason why Basil had such difficulty with Leo. I'll go into that more tomorrow.

Zoe Zaoutzaina, Consort

Emperor Leo VI "the Wise" became Byzantine emperor in 886. He had married, in 883, the daughter of a dynasty that had been emperors from 820 to 867. Supposedly, the marriage was forced on him by the then-Emperor Basil I, Leo's father. The wife was Theophano Martinakia, and there was little love between the couple. They had one child, a daughter, who died young.

In the third year of Leo's reign as emperor, he came to know the daughter of one of his retainers. The woman was Zoe Zaoutzaina; her father, Stylianos Zaoutzes, was a Macedonian-born official whose surname refers to him having a dark complexion. In contemporary records, he is referred to as "the Ethiopian" because of his color. Stylianos was well-respected in the imperial court. Leo was interested in Zoe.

Zoe, however, was married to a lower-grade court official named Theodore, of whom we know very little. History says that Theodore was poisoned, and the suggestion hinted at by chroniclers was that Leo was somehow involved. At any rate, contemporary historians say that Leo started an affair with Zoe in his third year, although Leo denied it.

In the seventh year of Leo's reign, Theophano retired to a monastery outside of Constantinople. She was known to be very devout, and the choice may well have been hers, but the chroniclers hint that it may have been deliberate on Leo's part. The marriage was not dissolved, but Zoe was now officially considered (and treated as) Leo's mistress and a royal consort.

Her new status benefitted her father. Leo "promoted" him with the title basileopator, "father of the emperor," a grand title for someone who was technically not even a father-in-law. She bore Leo a daughter, Anna, who was married to the king of Provence, Louis the Blind, who became Holy Roman Emperor.

Zoe died in 899 and was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles, where Theophano and Leo himself were buried, as well as Leo's third wife. Oh yes, Leo got over his grief at losing Zoe. He needed a son, so marrying again was imperative. Whether he succeeded in having someone to whom he could leave the empire will be tomorrow's topic, after we talk about his relationship with his father.

More Holy Girdles

I do not know if the Girdle of Thomas in the Prato Cathedral inspired the others, or if the stories of others in the East inspired a Girdle of Thomas for the West, but there are a few out there that purport to be a cincture worn by the Virgin Mary.

One is the Cincture of the Theotokos. The "Theotokos" is the Blessed Virgin. The story is the same as with the one in Prato. At the time of Mary's death, the remaining Apostles were with her except for Thomas, who was traveling on his mission to India. Thomas arrived three days later and asked to pay his respects to the body. He is led to the tomb, where they find that the body is missing. The conclusion is that she has been bodily taken to Heaven. She suddenly appears and offers her girdle/belt/cincture to Thomas. Thomas is singled out because of his "doubting nature": he did not believe that Jesus had resurrected and appeared until he was able to put his finger into the nail holes in Christ's hands and feet.

This would have happened in the 1st century CE, but the object does not surface in history until the 6th century, when it was brought from Jerusalem to Constantinople (with Mary's robe as well; no knowing if she also tossed that to Thomas). It had gold thread embroidered into it by Zoe, wife of Byzantine Emperor Leo VI. It even has its own feast day, 31 August, established by Emperor Manuel I Comnenos.

The Syriac Orthodox Church has its own Holy Girdle of Mary. In this case, Thomas was brought from India through the sky by the Holy Spirit as Mary lay dying. Even with this miraculous mode of transportation, he was late, but he saw a vision of Mary being taken to Heaven by angels. He asked her to give him a sign, and the chariot in which she was being taken to Heaven stopped so she could give him her belt. Thomas, reversing his reputation for doubt, showed the belt to others to convince them that it was real, then carried it back with him on his travels, creating miracles for those who touched it or even saw it.

This girdle was brought from India in 394 CE and placed in the Saint Mary Church of the Holy Belt. That is the story. It wasn't actually discovered until 1953 when the church was being renovated and this was "found" in the altar. Orthodox tradition celebrates an eight-day Lent in September to commemorate Mary; the belt is brought out for viewing on the last day. The belt/girdle has been cut into almost a dozen parts and distributed to other churches.

The woman who had the Byzantine girdle embroidered with gold thread, Zoe Zaoutzaina, had an interesting rise to power, from a humble first marriage to becoming an empress. I'll tell you about her tomorrow.

The Girdle of St. Thomas

Speaking of relics you can find in Tuscany, let's turn to Prato Cathedral where we can find a knotted woven cord in a golden reliquary (see illustration). It is the Girdle of Thomas; that's the "Doubting Thomas" who would not believe that Jesus was resurrected until he was allowed to put his fingers in the nail wounds on the hands and feet of Jesus.

The girdle is a cincture used to tie around a tunic or robe at the waist. It wasn't worn by Thomas; it is called by his name because it was a gift to him. Thomas is also known for his mission to India, during which he missed another important event from the Bible: the Assumption of Mary.

The Assumption of Mary is when she was taken bodily to Heaven because of her innate holiness. I've covered the Assumption and Thomas' absence here. Because Thomas was not present when Mary died/disappeared, his skeptical nature was countered by Mary appearing to him in a vision and dropping her girdle to him as evidence. Another version has him miraculously transported from India to the Mount of Olives to be present for the actual Assumption, and she drops her girdle to him in front of everyone.

The Girdle is supposed to be beneficial for pregnant women. It is reputed to have other protective powers. In 1402, the Duke of Milan, Gian Galeazzo Visconti, invaded Florentine territory. The girdle was carried around Prato as protection, and given credit for Visconti not attacking the city.

The image of Mary rising above the apostles—or Mary above Thomas alone—and dropping her girdle became a popular Italian art subject. But the story itself inspired other examples of Mary's girdle, and tomorrow we will look into just how many belts she carried and dropped to Thomas, so that they could be in different locations in the Modern Era. See you then.

The Holy Face of Lucca

King William II of England was known to curse by saying "By the face of Lucca!" In a 1970 book from Margaret A. Murray, The God of the Witches, she suggests it was mis-recorded from "by the face of Loki." This was an unnecessary re-interpretation, however, because the "Face of Lucca" exists. Moreover, it existed long before William II, and had a reputation that would have spread, so it is perfectly plausible that his reported oath of preference really was about the Face of Lucca.

The Holy Face of Lucca refers to a wooden carving that has been radio-carbon dated to 770-880 CE, making it the oldest wooden sculpture in Europe. It is an 8-foot-tall statue of the crucified Christ in the Cathedral of San Martino in Lucca in northern Italy. Although likely carved in the 9th century CE, legend says it was carved by Nicodemus, who assisted Joseph of Arimathea to place Jesus in the tomb.

It is unusual in that the figure of Christ wears an ankle-length tunic, with a belt around its waist. The tunic was more common in eastern sculpture, but the belt is unique.

The legend says it was discovered in a cave by a bishop who followed a dream. Put on a boat, the boat sailed without any crew to Luni on the Tuscan coast. When men tried to approach the boat, it moved away from them. In a dream, the bishop of Lucca learned where the boat was. He and some citizens went to Luni, and the boat opened its gangplank to the bishop. The carving was put in a wagon, which traveled to Lucca without the help of men or animals.

Miracles supposedly took place in its presence. One legend tells of a poor fiddler who played before the statue. The statue dropped a shoe and kicked it over to the fiddler, who found it was filled with gold.

Holy images and relics were, of course, big business in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, bringing visitors and donations to the place where they were kept. Another that can be found in Tuscany is the Girdle of Thomas, and we'll talk about that next time.

Death in the New Forest

When he was in his 40s, King William II "Rufus" of England had successfully dealt with rebellions, been pretty successful in dealing with the clergy and asserting his own authority in the area of investiture, and ruled Normandy (finally, though temporarily) while its duke, his brother Robert Curthose, was on the First Crusade.

One day, he decided to go hunting in the New Forest. This was not unusual. Hunting was a sport of kings, and the New Forest was a great place to do it. Even now it is one of the largest tracts of unenclosed land in England. William's father had declared it a royal forest (today, 90% is still owned by the Crown). William II's older brother Richard had died in the New Forest, colliding with an overhanging branch while riding.

On 2 August 1100, while hunting with companions, he was found with an arrow through his lung. That's all that was recorded. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records only that he was  "shot by an arrow by one of his own men." Later records report the name of the bowman: Walter Tirel. A generation later, William of Malmesbury offered more detail:

The day before the king died he dreamt that he went to hell and the Devil said to him "I can't wait for tomorrow because we can finally meet in person!" He suddenly awoke. He commanded a light to be brought, and forbade his attendants to leave him. The next day he went into the forest... He was attended by a few persons... Walter Thurold remained with him, while the others were on the chase. The sun was now declining, when the king, drawing his bow and letting fly an arrow, slightly wounded a stag which passed before him... The stag was still running... The king, followed it a long time with his eyes, holding up his hand to keep off the power of the sun's rays. At this instant Walter decided to kill another stag. Oh, gracious God! the arrow pierced the king's breast.

On receiving the wound the king uttered not a word; but breaking off the shaft of the arrow where it projected from his body... This accelerated his death. Walter immediately ran up, but as he found him senseless, he leapt upon his horse, and escaped with the utmost speed. Indeed there were none to pursue him: some helped his flight; others felt sorry for him.

Thurold was another version of the name—Walter Tirel was a real noble connected to the royal family by marriage—and the idea of the king's dream is fantasy. It is true that Tirel fled the scene: having killed the king, his life was forfeit, so he wisely fled to France, where he was sheltered by Abbot Suger, who later confused the issue when he wrote:

It was laid to the charge of a certain noble, Walter Thurold, that he had shot the king with an arrow; but I have often heard him, when he had nothing to fear nor to hope, solemnly swear that on the day in question he was not in the part of the forest where the king was hunting, nor ever saw him in the forest at all.

And supposedly Tirel/Thurold was an excellent marksman, so would he have "accidentally" hit the king? When investigating a crime, the question often asked is cui bono, "to whose good?" Who would benefit from William's death? Also in the hunting party was his younger brother, Henry. With William's death and Robert Curthose off on the First Crusade (he would only return a month after the death), Henry quickly declared himself king.

Did Henry arrange it? He certainly benefited. Did Henry manage to put the blame on Tirel? Who can tell?

Before we leave William Rufus, I want to latch onto one other trivial point about him. Contemporaries noted he was not a particularly nice person, and that his language was "rough." He had a favorite curse, which was "By the Face of Lucca!" What was the "Face of Lucca"? Let's find out next time.

Rufus versus Anselm

The professional relationship between Anselm of Bec (later "of Canterbury") and King William II of England was as rocky as any similar pairing through England's Middle Ages. The ongoing debate over lay investiture—secular lords appointing priests and bishops—was ripping apart the continent as well, leading to rival popes. Anselm, like those before and after in his position as Archbishop of Canterbury, wanted the clergy to be independent.

Even as Anselm was being invested as archbishop and it seemed he and William had reconciled their differences, William made a move that caused the first big clash. William's father, William the Conqueror, had left him England, but William senior's original possession of Normandy on the continent went to his elder son, Robert Curthose. William junior wanted to rule Normandy as well, so planned a takeover. Plans like this required soldiers and supplies, and those required money. The quickest way for a king to raise cash was to tell everyone to give you some.

So William sent to Anselm, asking for £1000. Anselm offered £500. William felt he was owed money for Anselm's new position (something called annates, which maybe we'll go into someday). Anselm decided to pursue his own agenda. He asked William to fill all the vacant church positions and allow Anselm to enforce canon law. William refused. Anselm withdrew any offer of funds, saying "that he [Anselm] disdained to purchase his master's favor as he would a horse or ass." William was said to reply that he didn't want Anselm's money or blessing for the endeavor, because "I hated him before, I hate him now, and shall hate him still more hereafter."

Anselm really wanted to make his appointment official by receiving a pallium from the pope; William had refused Anselm's travel for this purpose earlier. A meeting of nobles and bishops gathered to discuss this. William ordered the bishops not to treat Anselm as their archbishop, and they caved to the king. The nobles, however (many of whom did not approve of William's rule) supported Anselm. Secretly, Anselm asked two men to travel to Pope Urban II and request the pallium. They were Bishop of Exeter William of Warelwast and Archbishop Gerard of York.

They persuaded Urban to send a papal legate with the pallium. The legate met with the Bishop of Durham, who represented the king (and had argued against allowing Anselm to go get the pallium himself). William agreed that he would support Urban (over Antipope Clement III), in exchange for the right to block papal legates and intercept any papal letters to clerics. This was unacceptable, so William tried to sell the pallium to anyone who would take it and replace Anselm. No one would take it (or the price was too high). He tried to get money from Anselm for the pallium; Anselm refused. William then wanted to personally put the pallium on Anselm, but Anselm refused again: this act would suggest that the king had the authority of a pope over the archbishop.

Finally, the pallium was placed on the altar at Canterbury Cathedral, and on 10 June 1095 Anselm placed it on himself (seen above in a 20th century representation by E.M.Wilmot-Buxton).

A few months later, Urban would declare the First Crusade. William continued to deny Anselm's attempts at reform and church independence, and Anselm even had to go into exile. But it was around this time that he wrote the most consequential piece of Christian theology in the Middle Ages, an essay titled Cur Deus Homo.

Anselm had a better relationship with William's successor, his younger brother Henry. For that to happen, however, William had to die, and the circumstances of his death have inspired a conspiracy theory that has never died. I'll tell you that story next time.

William Rufus

Technically, he was King William II of England but was called "Rufus" for his reddish beard, William was the third eldest son of William the Conqueror. The eldest was Robert Curthose (given the title Duke of Normandy after his father's death), and the second son Richard died early. This left William junior to succeed as King William II of England. (The youngest, Henry, would ultimately become king as well.)

Born about 1057, he might not have been raised from early on with the thought that he would have to rule some day, but when the second son Richard died in a hunting accident in the New Forest in 1070, Rufus' destiny altered course. He would have made an odd-looking person, never mind a king. According to William of Malmesbury, Rufus was 

...well set; his complexion florid, his hair yellow; of open countenance; different colored eyes, varying with certain glittering specks; of astonishing strength, though not very tall, and his belly rather projecting.

He was also given to mischief as a child. Orderic Vitalis, a contemporary historian, wrote that the younger sons William and Henry, in a moment of great boredom and little discretion, emptied a chamberpot from an upper story onto Robert. Their father had to break up the ensuing fight.

After becoming king, he had to deal with the Rebellion of 1088 (led partially by his uncle, Bishop Odo), which he defeated. In 1091 he decided to invade Normandy and successfully captured some lands from Robert. He made it up to Robert by promising to help him recover some of his land that had been taken by France. (Their joint venture failed.)

In 1097 he initiated the construction of Westminster, the largest Hall in England.

He took the secular side (naturally) of the Investiture Controversy. In the case of England, bishops and abbots were feudal subjects of the king, and so he was less concerned about clashing with them over the subject of investing clerics. He then made a tactical error in this regard: he nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury the greatest theologian of the age, Anselm of Bec. Their conflict would mirror one between a future king of England and his archbishop, but I'll talk about William and Anselm's conflict tomorrow.

The Rebellion of 1088

When William the Conqueror died, he had already made his wishes clear about the division of his lands. His older son, Robert Curthose, became Duke of Normandy, a large and prosperous province on the continent. A younger son, William Rufus, became king of England. (A third surviving son, Henry, was left with nothing.)

Sibling rivalry was a problem between the two older boys, even if they were willing to accept their father's decision, but it was not the two who started the rebellion. It was the land-owning nobles under them. Some of those nobles owned land on both sides of the English Channel. Facing the possibility that they would have to please two different lords with different demands, they decided the best option for the future of the kingdom was to bring both locations under one rule again, as they were under the Conqueror.

William senior died in September 1087, and around Easter 1088, the rebellion began. It was led by the two arguably most prominent members of William's family: Bishop Odo of Bayeux and Robert of Mortain, the Conqueror's half-brothers. They chose to support the elder brother Duke Robert as the rightful heir to England and Normandy instead of King William II Rufus. There were, however, those who supported William. All the bishops of England as well as the Earl of Surrey and other nobles. Many of the largest land-holding barons supported Robert.

William II proved to be a clever strategist. He promised as much money and land as they wanted to his supporters. For the populace of England, he promised the best law code that had ever been. Then he led his own army against the rebels.

Odo was captured, and Robert, leading forces from Normandy, was blown off-course by bad storms. With the continental reinforcements, many of the English rebels surrendered. Orderic Vitalis recorded the arguments of those barons loyal to William when dealing with those who opposed him:

If you temper your animosity against these great men, and treat them graciously here, or permit them to depart in safety, you may advantageously use their amity and service, on many future occasions. He who is your enemy now, may be your useful friend another time.

Odo was stripped of any remaining belongings (he had already suffered previously due to indiscretions) and banished to Normandy. Robert Curthose was forced to acknowledge William as king, and had to stay in England (so that he could not raise an army in Normandy).

What sort of king was William II "Rufus"? I'll tell you next time.

Odo's Downfall

After the Trial in 1076 that re-apportioned some of the property (and therefore income) of Odo of Bayeux, he was quiet for a few years. As Earl of Kent (granted to him by his half-brother, William the Conqueror), he still had impressive resources and a comfortable living. He wanted more, however, and made a step that proved detrimental to his freedom.

Over in Rome, Pope Gregory VII was embroiled in the Investiture Controversy with Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. Although Henry's penance was made prior to 1082, there were still arguments over who gets to invest clerics, the Church or the secular powers.

Odo gathered his Kentish forces and planned a military expedition to Italy. Why would he do this? The following is conjecture. Perhaps it was the Holy Roman Emperor's hostility to the pope that gave Odo an idea. Historians writing a couple decades later said Odo wanted to be pope. Either he would take an army to support Henry, who might then support Odo as pope, or possibly he thought he could bring his own army to Gregory's defense and be named his successor for the effort. In 1080, Henry declared Gregory deposed and installed his own pope, Antipope Clement III.

All we know is that Odo was prepared to take a large number of English—Saxon and Norman—subjects out of the country and march across other countries to engage in war with someone, and William wasn't having it.

In 1082, William had Odo imprisoned on the continent, where he spent the next five years. He remained Bishop of Bayeux (his seal is depicted above), but William took back all lands in England and the title Earl of Kent.

In 1087, William was on his deathbed. William's other half-brother, Robert of Mortain, persuaded William to forgive Odo, who was allowed to return to England. Unfortunately, he made another choice to back the wrong horse. William had made his eldest son Robert Curthose, the Duke of Normandy, and the second son William Rufus was made King of England. (Normandy was far larger than England.) Robert also wanted England, and Odo decided to support him.

The rivalry between William and Robert turned into the Rebellion of 1088, and that's where we will pick up the story tomorrow.

As for Odo, he joined the First Crusade and died on the way, in Palermo in early 1097. He was buried in Palermo Cathedral.

The Trial of Penenden Heath

Odo of Bayeux had it all. He was the half-brother of Duke William of Normandy (they shared a mother), who made him a bishop. When William took over the throne of England in 1066, Odo provided ships and support and fought in the battles. He was a close advisor to King William, was made Earl of Kent, and was given the responsibility to act as regent in England when William went back to the continent. You can see him in the illustration at a feast from the Bayeux Tapestry, under the Latin term for bishop, episcopus.

Not all went smoothly for Odo, however.

Ten years after the Norman Invasion of England, he was on trial, though not necessarily because of his own actions. The accusation was brought by Lanfranc. In 1070, Lanfranc had become the Archbishop of Canterbury, and decided to look into both Odo and the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand. Lanfranc (who was pretty strict: he had denied William's marriage to Matilda on the grounds of consanguinity), suspected the two had defrauded Kent and the Crown in order to enrich themselves.

While it seems that lands belonging to Canterbury (and their revenues) were being possessed by the Earl of Kent, it is also likely that this transfer of land was not initiated by Odo, but had taken place prior to the Invasion by the powerful Earl Godwin, taken from his enemy, Robert of Jumièges, the previous archbishop. Odo had simply inherited the lands appropriated by his unscrupulous predecessor. The king decided to throw the decision onto the nobles of Kent, and declared a trial on Penenden Heath (now a suburb of Maidstone in Kent). The Trial brought in current lords as well as those who had knowledge of the Saxon laws and history. The Trial showed respect for English history prior to William's reign.

(Penenden remained a useful gathering place. The Domesday Book recorded it as a place where Kent landowners gathered to discuss matters. Wat Tyler used it as a staging place for a mob during the Peasants' Revolt.)

After three days, it was determined that certain properties did not belong to Odo, or rather, did not belong to the Earl of Kent. He subsequently lost a lot of the revenue he had previously taken in. This was not a reflection on Odo or his governance of Kent; it simply restored and re-apportioned properties appropriately according to what was considered historical.

How Odo took the judgment, we cannot say. A few years later, however, he initiated a project that would cause him to fall out of his half-brother's favor, and ultimately lead to imprisonment and disgrace. I'll share that story with you next time.