Was Ermengard Married?

King Louis II of Italy was the emperor of the Carolingian Empire. He did not have a son to succeed him, but only a single surviving daughter, Ermengard, named for her grandmother, Ermengarde of Tours. In her youth she was educated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the archivist/librarian.

In 869, the Carolingian and Byzantine Empires started discussing an alliance to defeat the Saracens in southern Italy. During these discussions, the notion of a stronger alliance came up, by marriage of Ermengard to Constantine, the eldest son of Emperor Basil I. Constantine had been named co-emperor with his father, and was being groomed for that position.

But now we enter highly suspect territory. To start with, we do not know the birth years of either Ermengard or Constantine. Were they old enough to truly marry? Or was this a more of a "child engagement" plan as we have seen in other political alliances through marriage? Some historians claim they were married; some claim there is no evidence for it and the plan never went beyond announcing the betrothal.

The Annales Bertiniani (Annals of Abbey of St. Bertin, covering years up to 882) referred to Ermengard in 879 as filia imperatoris Italiae et desponsata imperatori Greciae ("daughter of the emperor of Italy and engaged to the emperor of Greece"), but they also say she was engaged to Basil, so we aren't sure how accurate the writer was. Also, 879 is the year that Constantine died unexpectedly, with no chronicle suggesting that he had heirs and no suggestion that Ermengard was a widow.

In fact, by 879 she was already married to someone else, despite what other chronicles may have recorded. Some time in the first half of 876, she was married to Boso of Provence (pictured above; there are no reliable images of Ermengard). Boso (c.841 - 887) was a Frankish nobleman who, in 879, became King of Lower Burgundy and Provence.

In 878, Ermengard and Boso sheltered Pope John VIII when he had to flee Rome because of Saracens. In papal correspondence between Pope John and Ermengarde's mother, Engelberga, he mentions the good impression the couple made on him. They had three children. A daughter named Engelberga after Ermengarde's mother married William I, Duke of Aquitaine, founder of Cluny Abbey. There was another daughter of whom we are not certain, but some believe she was Guilla of Provence, who was consort first to Rudolf I of Upper Burgundy (making her possibly the mother of King Rudolf II of Burgundy) and later to Hugh of Arles, border count of Provence.

They also had a son, Louis the Blind, whose story includes a marriage link that become as confusing to historians as his mother's, if not more so. We'll check that out tomorrow, and lament how inaccurate our historical records truly are once we go back a millennium. See you then.

Anastasius Bibliothecarius

Anastasius Bibliothecarius was born about 810CE, a nephew of Bishop Arsenius of Orte. At some point in his youth he learned Greek, which made him a valuable scholar and later earned him a prized position as papal archivist.

In his 40s, he was a monk, the abbot of Santa Maria in Trastavere, but was used by the popes for various missions and tasks. He translated many Greek works into Latin, and his style of writing shows up in several documents that were supposedly written by popes. (It is possible that he took their dictation and put his own style into what they wanted to say rather than taking it down verbatim.)

Holy Roman Emperor Louis II sent him to Constantinople to help negotiate a marriage between Louis' daughter Ermengard and Constantine, eldest son of Eastern Emperor Basil I. This was in 869, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople was taking place when they arrived. Anastasius attended the final session and defended the papal demands to have more jurisdiction over Bulgaria and the East. The marriage negotiations failed, or maybe they didn't; historians argue about that.

As the papal legates returned from that Council, the document with all the decisions was stolen from them. A copy of the declarations in Greek was in the possession of Anastasius, however, who was able to deliver his copy to Rome and translate it into Latin. The original Greek version is lost. The Council had deposed patriarch Photios, but Anastasius kept in touch with him.

After Pope Nicholas died and Adrian II became pope, Anastasius was named official papal librarian, hence the epithet Bibliothecarius. Anastasius was implicated in a plot that killed Adrian's wife and daughter, but Adrian's successor, Pope John VIII (872 - 882) confirmed him as librarian and encouraged him to write. The illustration shows an early vellum page with part of Anastasius' history of the Byzantine Church.

(A contemporary, Archbishop Hincmar of Reims, writing a history of the time, claims that Anastasius was the same Anastasius who was briefly an anti-pope at the time of Pope Benedict III (855 - 858). That Anastasius was driven from Rome in 848, excommunicated in 850 by the Roman synod, nd deposed by another synod in 853. It seems unlikely that he would have been welcomed into the papacy a couple decades later.)

In 879, a new librarian appears in papal records, Zacharias of Anagni, so by that time Anastasius had probably died or simply retired.

So what happened to poor Ermengard, daughter of the emperor, who was looking for a husband and did not find one in Constantinople? We'll see what happened to her tomorrow.

Pope Adrian II

Adrian (792 - 872; shown here in a detail from a fresco in the San Clemente basilica in Rome) was a member of a noble Roman family, related to two popes: Stephen IV and Sergius II. He married a woman named Stephania and had a daughter.

Later in life he decided to become a priest. The subject of priests getting married had been quashed by popes centuries earlier, but an already married man joining the priesthood turned out to be something of an allowable loophole. He was known to be a gentle and amiable man, respected by all. After Pope Nicholas I died on 13 November 867, Adrian was chosen to replace him on 14 December, becoming Pope Adrian II (also called Hadrian II).

He did not want the position—perhaps partially out of humility, but also likely because he was 75 years old and it was a demanding job—but was pressured into it as an obligation. He moved into the Lateran Palace with his wife and daughter. Other popes had been married, but none were married at the time they became pope.

Nicholas had been a very forceful leader of the papacy, but Adrian was not as strong-willed. King Lothair II of Lotharingia died in 869 and Adrian was asked to mediate between claimants to the succession which contributed to chaos. Charles the Bald of France ignored the pope. Adrian's legates to Constantinople at the council that condemned Photios failed to bring jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church under Rome.

Louis II, descendant of Charlemagne and emperor of the Carolingian Empire, distrusted Adrian and kept him "under surveillance" by a trusted advisor, Bishop Arsenius of Orte (Central Italy). Arsenius' nephew was Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the papal archivist. Arsenius' son, Eleutherius, married Adrian and Stephania's daughter, but this seems purely a calculated political move to cause trouble for Adrian.

Why do we think this? Because Eleutherius was already engaged. In 868, Stephania and the daughter were kidnapped, removed from the Lateran, and killed. Eleutherius was condemned to death. Anastasius was accused of being part of his cousin's plot, and excommunicated.

Adrian died on 14 December 872, five years exactly after becoming pope, which I'm sure he wished he had refused more firmly.

But how about this Anastasius, who had a privileged position in the papacy? What was he like, and how did he get to be appointed to manage the papal archives? Let me tell you about his life and career tomorrow.

Fourth Council of Constantinople

Technically, there were two of these synods, both held in Constantinople. One of them was called by Emperor Basil I, with the cooperation of Pope Adrian II, whose support Basil wanted after his recent coup (he had assassinated the previous emperor, Michael III).  So although it was held in Constantinople, it is considered a council of the Roman Catholic Church, not of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The catalyst for calling this council (October 869 - February 870) was to depose Patriarch Photios I, who was appointed inappropriately by Michael III, and to reinstate his predecessor, Ignatios. Clergy who were supporters of Photios were defrocked. Photios himself was incarcerated in a monastery.

There were over two dozen other decisions laid down as canons from this council that carried great weight doctrinally, even thought it was poorly attended; the first meeting had only 12 bishops, and the total in the few months it was held barely exceeded 100 clerics. The council was held in the Hagia Sophia (the illustration is a 16th century depiction by Cesare Nebbia). 

One of its statements was a re-affirmation of the Second Council of Nicaea's support of the use of icons and holy images. It even declared that an image of Jesus was to be venerated equally as the Gospel itself:

We decree that the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator and Savior of all people, must be venerated with the same honor as is given the book of the holy Gospels. For as through the language of the words contained in this book all can reach salvation, so, due to the action which these images exercise by their colors, all wise and simple alike, can derive profit from them. For what speech conveys in words, pictures announce and bring out in colors.

It went further to declare that holy images of subjects other than Jesus were also considered worthy of veneration:

The image of his all-pure Mother and the images of the holy angels as well as the images of all the saints are equally the object of our homage and veneration.

The Roman Catholic popes were pleased to have the Eastern Orthodox Church looking to it for guidance, and Pope Adrian II got the credit, though he was not a particularly powerful pope, serving exactly five years. I'll tell you more about him tomorrow and his good luck with family connections and his bad luck with temporal authority.

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.