The Bewcastle Cross

The Bewcastle Cross is one of two stone monuments from the same era with similar iconography. Standing 14.5 feet high (it would be higher, but the actual cross top has broken off), it dates from the 7th or early 8th century, like the Ruthwell Cross (see the previous post).

Also like the Ruthwell Cross, it is covered with fine carving, Christian symbols, and runic inscriptions.

Images include John the Baptist holding a lamb, and Christ with a halo being held up by two beasts, similar to Christ being recognized as dominant over beasts on the Ruthwell Cross.

One difference from Ruthwell is that we have some idea of who made the Bewcastle Cross. A heavily weathered inscription has been interpreted by some to say "This slender pillar Hwætred, Wæthgar, and Alwfwold set up in memory of Alcfrith, a king and son of Oswiu. Pray for their sins, their souls". This may refer to Egfrid, who was king of Northumbria from 670 until 685. Presumably this dates the pillar to after 685.

One feature of the Cross that distinguishes it from Ruthwell is the earliest known English sundial. We will delve into that tomorrow.

The Ruthwell Cross

In a part of southwest Scotland that used to be in Northumberland stands a stone cross 18 feet high, the Ruthwell Cross, carved with runic inscriptions and Christian imagery. Anglo-Saxon runes on a work of Christian art are highly unusual, but these runic inscriptions are also significant for their link to poetry.

Some of the runes are lines from the Anglo-Saxon poem The Dream of the Rood, giving us an opportunity to date the poem. The cross dates from the 8th century, which lets us know that the poem must have been well-known enough by then to be considered appropriate for carving.

Sadly, it was smashed in 1642 by Presbyterian iconoclasts. Fortunately, after smashing it, the destroyers left the pieces lying there, enabling a Scottish minister to re-assemble it 1818. Weathering and the destruction has obscured the carvings a little.

Besides traditional vine-scroll designs of leaves and birds, scenes show Mary Magdalene washing Christ's feet, Christ having dominion over the animals, Saints Paul and Anthony breaking bread in the desert (that one has a carved inscription that makes it clear), the healing of a blind man from the Gospels, and more.

The Ruthwell Cross is not completely unique, in the sense that there is another "cross" of similar vintage and style. We will talk about that next.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthwell_Cross#Runic_inscription

https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/ruthwell-cross

The Dream of the Rood

The imagery of the cross on which Jesus was crucified is common in religious writings. It even made its way into an Old English poem.

The Dream of the Rood, like many Anglo-Saxon poems, is unsigned, and exists in a single copy, found in the Vercelli Book. The Vercelli Book is one of only four known collections of Old English poetry, most of whose entries are anonymous. It was discovered in 1822 in the city of Vercelli Library in Italy.

In the poem, the poet dreams in vivid imagery of a tree and the rood/cross. ("Rood" is from the Old English rōd meaning "pole" and is usually used to mean the crucifix.) He imagines a bejeweled cross that transforms into the plain wooden crucifix representing Christ's suffering. The cutting down and cutting up of the tree to make a rood is compared to the suffering of Christ. The rood itself speaks in the dream, telling how it received the body of Christ, saw his suffering, then was cut down and buried, only to be dug up and adorned with gems.

This story seems to be tied to the idea that Helena dug up the True Cross. Coincidentally, the Vercelli Book includes a poem, Elene, which tells the same story.

The date of them poem isn't certain, but there is a carved stone cross, the Ruthwell Cross, on which are inscribed lines reminiscent of several lines from the poem. The Ruthwell Cross was erected in the 8th century. If the lines were not carved at a later date than the creation of the Cross, then we know the poem was around prior to that, and known to people.

We should probably take a closer look at the Ruthwell Cross next. In the meantime, if you wish to read the poem (in Modern English, that is), here's a link.

The True Cross—Found!

Empress Helena of Constantinople went to Palestine from 326-328CE to find Christian relics, consistent with her recent conversion to Christianity. Among other acts, she tore down a temple built by Emperor Hadrian in the 130s. Excavating under it, she found three wooden crosses.

As excited as she may have been to find three crosses, Helena wanted absolute proof of their authenticity. She tested the crosses by having a dying woman brought to the site, having her touch the crosses. Touching the first two produced no change in her condition, but touching the third cross resulted in a sudden recovery. This provided Helena the proof she wanted, and she declared the third cross the True Cross, used to crucify Jesus Christ.

On the site was built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a version of which exists today.

This story of the dying woman comes down to us from a monk Rufinus (344-411CE), who was a translator of Greek Christian writings into Latin. He tacks this story onto his translation of an Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius. Strictly speaking, there is no contemporary account of this. Eusebius, who died in 339CE and was therefore a contemporary of Helena, wrote a Life of Constantine (Helena's emperor son) in which he mentions the destruction of Hadrian's temple and the construction of the church on the site, but does not mention anything about the finding of the True Cross.

Nevertheless, many later records purporting to be accurate histories of the finding tell variations of the above story. Relics of the True Cross were spread all over Christendom, and even inspired a well-known Old English poem. I'll tell you about it tomorrow.

Empress Helena of Constantinople

 Helena was a common name for Greek females all over the Mediterranean. One Helena, born to a lower-class family c.246CE, became anything but common in her lifetime. We know hardly anything of her origins and early life. Geoffrey of Monmouth's tale that she was a British princess and the daughter of "Old King Cole" is one of the more colorful theories.

Her lowly origins, even if they were known at the time, were glossed over after she became linked to Emperor Constantius Chlorus, either as his wife or concubine. Their son, Constantine I, was the first emperor to stop the harassment of Christians. His Edict of Milan in 313 stated that Christians—and, in fact, all religions—should be allowed to practice their faith openly. Constantine later in life declared himself a Christian, although he did not get baptized until he was on his deathbed.

Helena converted to Christianity after her son became emperor in 306. Constantine gave Helena the title of Augusta Imperatrix, a very high honor, and with it gave her an unlimited budget to find and retrieve Christian relics. She undertook a pilgrimage to Palestine where she built churches.

Various sites in the area had been identified as being significant to Christians. Supposedly, Helena built the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem at the site of Christ's birth, and the Church of Eleona on the Mount of Olives, from which Christ ascended to Heaven. There was already a temple on the site of Jesus' tomb, built after 130 by the Emperor Hadrian dedicated to Venus (or Jupiter).

Helena had this temple torn down, and began excavating. What happened next is a story for tomorrow.

The True Cross

 The "True Cross" refers to the cross upon which Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Although it would have been of ordinary wood, Classical and Medieval and Renaissance legends decided it had to be something more than that.

The Golden Legend by Jacob de Voragine has several different origin stories for the wood of the Cross. In one, the Cross was made from the wood of three trees which grew from three seeds that had been planted by Seth in the mouth of his father's, Adam's, corpse. Seth had taken the seeds from the "Tree of Mercy" (which is not part of the Biblical story).

Another version related by Voragine explains that the wood came from a cutting from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, also planted by Seth on Adam's grave.

From either of these origins, an elaborate provenance was created to get the wood from Eden to Golgotha. The wood was made into the rod of Moses, which was planted by King David in Jerusalem, from which grew a tree that enabled Solomon to carve a beam for his temple. Eventually, the tree was cut down for wood that was used to build a bridge used by the Queen of Sheba to visit Solomon. The Queen had a vision that a piece of wood from the bridge would lead to the replacing of God's covenant with the Jews (this would be Jesus and his message). Solomon, thinking this a tragedy, had the wood buried. It was exhumed years later and some was used to make the True Cross.

How did it come to be discovered after the crucifixion? For that, we must talk about a remarkable woman, the Empress Helena of Constantinople, which we will do next.

The Battle of Hattin

 The Horns of Hattin is an extinct volcano whose twin peaks overlook Hattin in the Lower Galilee. In 1187, a battle took place between the forces of Saladin and Crusaders that was devastating for the Crusaders.

At the time, there were many Western European forces in the Middle East, due to the Second Crusade, and Jerusalem was in Christian hands, with Guy of Lusignan currently the King of Jerusalem. Still, the desire was to have the entirety of the Holy land under Christian control, which meant further conflict. Likewise, Muslim forces wanted the Christians to withdraw.

Saladin controlled much of the territory surrounding the Crusader forces and promised his people that he would drive the Christians from Jerusalem. Saladin had made a private treaty with the Franks in 1185 to give them Jerusalem if the Crusaders would stop waging further battles. There was peace until 1187 when a Muslim caravan was raided by Raynald of Châtillon. Saladin swore he would kill Raynald and sent a force to raid an area held by the Franks. The Templars lost about 150 knights and 300 foot soldiers in this battle (the Battle of Cresson), which was a severe blow to Frankish morale.

Guy was advised to move against Saladin, and on 3 July 1187, his forces started marching towards the Sea of Galilee (known at the time as Lake Tiberias). They were harried constantly nay Muslim archers, and along the way found little fresh water to replenish their supplies. The Muslim forces prevented them from reaching Lake Tiberias and fresh water, and set fires to the dry grass to annoy the Franks further with smoke and heat.

Three times the Frankish forces charged Saladin's, and three times they were beaten back, the third time being definitive. Many European nobles were taken captive that day. Guy of Lusignan and Raynauld of Châtillon were taken to Saladin. Saladin offered water to Guy, a sign that Guy would be treated well; Guy offered the water to Raynauld, but Saladin slapped it from his hand, charging Raynauld with breaking the truce. Raynauld was executed.

Guy of Lusignan was taken to Damascus as a prisoner (released in 1188). Two-hundred Templars and Hospitallers were beheaded, as were many others. A piece of the True Cross was taken from the Crusaders and sent to Damascus, about which I will have more to say next time.

Pelagio Galvani

 Cardinal Pelagio Galvani (c.1165 - 30 January 1230) was the papal legate leading the Fifth Crusade. He hailed from the Kingdom of León, and became a canon lawyer. Pelagio was not a tolerant man: on a two-year mission to Constantinople, he tried to close Greek Orthodox churches and imprison their priests, and action that created so much chaos that the Martin Emperor of Constantinople, Henry of Flanders, reversed Pelagio's acts.

Crusades needed religious leaders as well as military ones, and Pelagio was sent to lead the Fifth Crusade by Pope Honorius III (Pope Innocent II, who had called for the Crusade, had died July 1216, before the Crusade had started out).

During the Siege of Damietta, while the Crusading army made some inroads in to Egypt, intending to use it as a staging area from which to conquer Jerusalem (see yesterday's post), the sultan al-Kamil made a peace offering: he would ensure the handover of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to the Crusaders, if they would depart completely from Egypt.

Given the main goal of the Crusades—to control Jerusalem—this would seem to be a win-win, and the secular leaders wanted to accept it. Pelagio, however, along with the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Venetians, wanted to keep what they had taken. The Templars and Hospitallers would have shared Pelagio's religious reasons for converting the whole world to Christianity. In the case of the Venetians, I suspect they were more interested in the value of Damietta and the Nile as trade routes for their merchant fleets.

The Siege continued to attack Damietta under Pelagio's orders, and a further deal was offered by al-Kamil: this time he included to release any prisoners they had taken and to return the piece of the True Cross that had come into Muslim hands. Pelagio turned this and subsequent offers. Despite arrivals of more Crusader forces, the western army never gained a permanent foothold in Egypt. Finally, on 28 August, even Pelagio realized the Egyptian route was a lost cause. A nighttime attempt to use a canal to make further progress into Egypt on 26 August 1221 resulted in disaster for the Crusaders when the Egyptians detected them and attacked. The defeat was so demoralizing that even Pelagio decided to admit defeat. Two days later, he sent an envoy to al-Kamil. On 8 September 1221, the Crusading army left Egypt, abandoning the Fifth Crusade, having never come close to Jerusalem.

But how is it that sultan al-Kamil had a piece of the True Cross to offer? He got it at the Battle of Hattin, which I'll tell you about tomorrow.

The Fifth Crusade

Were the Crusades successful? If the objective as stated was to put Jerusalem under Christian rule and maintain that rule, then the Crusades were a failure. Some of them never even made it to Jerusalem.

The Fifth Crusade was called by Pope Innocent III during the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, intending it to start in 1217. It lasted until 1221, but although it was carefully organized and well-staffed, its strategy was flawed.

To be fair, the strategy seemed like a good idea at the time: sail to Egypt and attack, conquering what they believed to be an easier Muslim-controlled target. The Crusaders could then use Egypt as a staging area to attack the Holy Land. To make a long story short, the first of the Crusading fleet reached the Nile harbor town of Damietta on 27 May, 1218, and waited a few days for others to catch up. (It was not unusual that storms separated the ships, and so they did not all arrive simultaneously.) The most dynamic defender of that part of the world, Saladin, had died in 1193; his brother al-Adil took up the role of defender. al-Adil preferred to manage non-Muslims with treaties rather than jihad, and was disappointed in the Crusaders' next action.

The Siege of Damietta began on 23 June, but the town of Damietta had strong stone walls and a large stone tower that secured a chain across the mouth of the harbor to defend against ships. The first assault failed when scaling ladders collapsed and the town defended itself with a barrage of stones. The next day, however, the main tower was breached, the chain was cut, and ships could enter the Nile. al-Adil's son, al-Kamil, scuttled several ships upriver from the mouth of the Nile, preventing the Crusader ships from sailing further.

The Crusaders then built a floating fortress to use on the river, but a storm on 9 November blew it toward the Egyptian camp, whereupon the Egyptians overtook it and slaughtered all but two Crusaders. The two survivors were executed by the Crusade leaders for cowardice, having managed to escape the assault.

At this point, al-Adil's sons, al-Kamil and al-Mu'azzam, made an offer: we will give up Jerusalem to you (with two small exceptions) if you evacuate Egypt. You would think this was a direct route to their goal, but something—or rather someone—stood in the way. I will address that next.

The Holy Land Decrees

Desiring with an ardent desire to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the ungodly, we decree with the advice of prudent men who are fully familiar with the circumstances of the times, and with the approval of the council, that all who have taken the cross and have decided to cross the sea, hold themselves so prepared that they may, on June 1 of the year after next (1217), come together in the Kingdom of Sicily, some at Brundusium and others at Messana, where, God willing, we (the Pope) will be present personally to order and to bestow on the Christian army the divine and Apostolic blessing. [link, bottom of the page]

Thus begins the Holy Land Decrees at the end of the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Pope Innocent was extremely motivated to call for a Crusade, not only because he was the pope, and restoring Jerusalem to Christian rule was important to him, but also because of the disaster that was the Fourth Crusade that got sidetracked and ransacked Constantinople in 1204. The Crusade effort needed to be carefully organized to avoid that outcome. The Decree continues:

Moreover, that nothing connected with the affairs of our Lord Jesus Christ be omitted, we wish and command that patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and others who have the care of souls, diligently explain the meaning of the crusade to those committed to them...

The Council wanted to make sure the Crusaders were absolutely committed to the goal, in order to prevent being sidetracked. The Decree went a little further, and you have to give them credit for thinking ahead. Getting to the Holy Land from Europe meant going by water (an overland march would take many months), and travel by water had its own dangers:

Since the corsairs and pirates too vehemently impede assistance to the Holy Land by capturing and robbing those who go there and those returning, we excommunicate them and their principal abetters and protectors, 

...and because no one wants any global distractions:

But, since for the success of this undertaking it is above all else necessary that princes and Christian people maintain peace among themselves, we decree with the advice of the holy council that for four years peace be observed in the whole Christian world,

So...with all this preparation, why does the graphic above show no Crusade taking place in 1217? What happened to the Fifth Crusade? See you tomorrow.

Jews and the Fourth Lateran

The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages did not invent persecution of the Jews, but it worked hard to perfect it. The final four of the 70 Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 dealt specifically with Jews (and Saracens; pagans also get an honorable mention).

Canon 67 intended to protect "Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews," by which they meant being charged interest. The charging of "immoderate interest" would result in being denied the custom of Christians. Christians would likewise be compelled by "ecclesiastical censure" from doing business with Jews.

Canon 68 insisted that Jews and Saracens wear clothing that distinguishes them, so that there could be no mistake of a Christian, say wooing a non-Christian. The Synod of Narbonne in 1227 ruled:

That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. [link]

This was also justified by quoting Numbers 15:37-41, the rule to wear tassels with blue cords on the corners of garments as a constant reminder of the Lord's commandments.

Canon 69 forbade a Jew from holding any office that would give him authority over Christians.

The final Canon addresses Jews who have converted, declaring that they must not be allowed to return to their former lives. It "cleverly" quoted the Old Testament in junction against wearing clothing made from two different fibers [Deuteronomy 22:2], comparing it to the converted trying to live two lives by not completely abandoning the old one.

And that wrapped up the Fourth Lateran, except for an "Epilogue"—a series of decrees about the Holy Land—which was of particular importance to Pope Innocent because of what happened a decade earlier; but that's for tomorrow.

Consanguinity

The word "consanguinity" comes from Latin consanguinitas ["blood relation"], and refers to having a close kinship with someone through a common ancestor. Laws of consanguinity—determining the degree of consanguinity allowed for marriage—varied from time to time and place to place

The early Catholic Church followed Roman civil law, which stated that couples within four degrees of consanguinity were forbidden to wed. This was determined by generations: you would count up the family tree to a common ancestor, and then down to the intended spouse. In the 800s this was changed to seven degrees by the church, and was determined by counting back seven generations. This meant that you could not marry if you had the same grandfather (or grandmother), great-grandfather, g-g-grandfather, etc., back seven generations. You could not marry a cousin, second-cousin, third-cousin, right up to seventh-cousin.

This made finding. spouse increasingly difficult, and dispensations by the church were becoming more and more frequent. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 decided to deal with this by pulling back so that fourth cousins could marry at will.

Which brings me to Canon 50 of the Fourth Lateran, where the above change is stated and defended. But here's the funny part. In order to make a change to the rules of consanguinity, the Canon begins by stating that human statutes change over time, and after all God Himself changed things in the New Testament from what had been decreed in the Old Testament. With this reasoning, they state the change in the rules, after which it is stated:

Since therefore the prohibition of conjugal union is restricted to the fourth degree, we wish that it remain so in perpetuum, notwithstanding the decrees already issued relative to this matter either by others or by ourselves [Canon 50]

So...statutes can change, and that's why we can change this one, but it better never change again!

And speaking of laws that have changed, they also made some laws concerning Jews, which we will look at next.

The Fourth Lateran

Debate during the 4th Lateran Council

Despite Peter Lombard's Sententiæ making the case for marriage not needing an officiant or consummation, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 changed all that.

Pope Innocent III spent years arranging the Council. His purpose was to make necessary reforms, and to commit to liberating the Holy Land from non-Christian rule. Innocent wanted to make sure that the changes made were disseminated across all of Christendom, so hundreds of representatives were invited from all dioceses and abbeys. Seventy Canons resulted, covering topics from Jews not holding office to marriage to not appointing competent persons to the priesthood. The decisions on marriage are today's topic.

It is not until Canon 50 (of a total of 70) that marriage is first discussed, regarding consanguinity. Canon 51 is our focus today, however, since it addresses the idea of clandestine marriage. A brief summary says:

Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages ... must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up. [link]

The canon declares that any children of a union not properly contracted/announced/witnessed be considered illegitimate. Also, a priest who performs such a union without first assuring that no impediment to the union exists should be suspended for three years. On the other hand, if someone were to try maliciously to create or falsify an impediment, the perpetrator should be punished.

Tomorrow we will go back to Canon 50 and the consideration of consanguinity.

Clandestine Marriage

Peter Lombard (c.1096 - July 1160) was the Bishop of Paris and the author of Four Books of Sentences which became the standard theological textbooks for centuries. It was a compilation of sententiæ, authoritative statements on biblical passages. I'd like to talk about his conclusions on marriage.

Marriage customs varied among countries and cultures, and modern christian marriage requires an officiant (priest) and public statements about the intent to marry (banns) so that reasons why the marriage should not take place could be brought forth (such as a previous marriage, but yesterday's post made clear that more danico was not concerned about marriage being to only one person). Also, consummation was important, partially as a proof of the bride's prior status as a virgin.

Lombard had a different take on marriage, from his understanding of the Bible. Mary was married to Joseph, but she remained a virgin her entire life, rendering the need for consummation with a husband unnecessary. Pope Alexander III supported this notion.

Moreover, there was no priest to perform a ceremony in the Garden of Eden; it was sufficient for that marriage to take place in the sight of God. Therefore, what was the need for a priest? According to Lombard, the husband and wife need only profess their intent to marry. They could exchange the words "I take you as my husband" and "I take you as my wife" and their marriage ceremony was complete!

This was very liberating for young romantic couples (and older ones, I suppose), but this freedom was only to last for a couple generations. Innocent III would put a stop to it in 1215. Stay tuned.

More Danico

I mentioned yesterday that, although Richard and Gunnor had several children, when one of them as an adult and Richard tried to make him Archbishop of Rouen, the church refused because Robert was considered illegitimate until his parents wed in a Christian ceremony. This does not mean that Richard and Gunnor were having children "out of wedlock"; just that their marriage was of a different form, in this case more danico.

The phrase simply means "in the Danish manner" ("Danish" in this case meaning Norse, not just what transpired in Denmark). Germanic culture did not immediately adopt Roman law, but more danico marriages were not the same as modern common law marriage, which requires the couple to start living as and presenting themselves to the community as married. More danico usually involved a powerful male ruler taking a highborn (but lesser) woman and required the consent of the parents. (The consent could be gained later, in the event of, say, an elopement.) It also, we believe, involved a ceremony or ritual of some kind, maybe a simple handfasting. The children of such a union were not considered (in German culture) as illegitimate or non-inheritors. 

More danico also allowed polygyny, the practice of a man to have more than one spouse, or to dismiss a wife with a word in order to take another; she had no say in the "divorce." The Roman Church increasingly discouraged any other ceremony than Christian marriage.

I'll tell you about one of my favorite christian marriage historical facts tomorrow.

Gunnor

I mentioned that Emma of Normandy's mother was an interesting character. Gunnor (c.950 - c.1031) was a countess of Normandy by virtue of her marriage to Count Richard the Fearless. How they met is an interesting story—assuming it is true. Supposedly, Gunnor was living with her sister Seinfreda, who was married to a local forester. Richard heard of the beauty of the forester's wife and ordered that she be brought to his bedchamber. Seinfreda sent her unmarried sister, Gunnor, instead, saving Seinfreda's virtue and introducing Richard to the woman he would eventually marry. Besides Emma of Normandy, they had two other daughters and three sons. Gunnor was very active in the kingdom. She had the authority to certify ducal charters, she performed as regent of Normandy when Richard went on tours, and she was often used as a judge. She knew several languages, and had such a good memory that she was an important source of details for a history of the Normans written by Dudo of St. Quentin.

After Richard's death, she gave in a charter two alods to the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel for the soul of her husband. (An alod is a feudal property with no superior; that is, it did not owe a tithe to a higher lord, so any wealth of the property was the property of the owner, which was now the abbey.) The picture here is of her granting the charter.

Above, I said "the woman whom he would eventually marry." They originally lived together with Gunnor as his concubine. The Normans were fine with this, but when Richard nominated their son Robert as Archbishop of Rouen, the church would not recognize his legitimacy. Richard and Gunnor married "according to the Christian custom" in order to legitimize their children in the eyes of the church. The Norman custom of ... let's say "cohabitation" was called more danico, and I'll explain that a little more tomorrow.

Emma of Normandy

Emma of Normandy (c.984 - 6 March 1052) was queen of England, Denmark, and Normandy. As the daughter of Richard the Fearless of Normandy, she was a desirable marriage prospect for King Æthelred to form better relations between England and Normandy. Æthelred hoped the union would help stave off Viking raids on England, which were often staged from Normandy.

Her wedding gift included properties in Devonshire, Oxfordshire, Rutland, Suffolk, and Winchester, as well as the city of Exeter. Her children by Æthelred were sons Edward the Confessor and Alfred Ætheling, and daughter Goda of England. Upon her husband's death in 1016, she remained prominent in politics.

This made her a valuable prospect for marriage when Cnut of Denmark went looking for a bride. Actually, Cnut was looking to conquer England, and Emma may have had a hand in saving her sons' lives by agreeing to marry Cnut. She became Queen of Denmark and England with Cnut starting in 1018. When Cnut conquered Norway in 1028, she became queen likewise of Norway.

She was not, however, just a pretty face or a way to link kingdoms peacefully through matrimony. As the richest woman in England in her time, she also held significant authority over ecclesiastical offices in the lands she owned. She is also one of the first medieval queens to have her likeness portrayed in documents. Pictured here is a page from the Encomium Emmæ Reginæ, or "Praise for Queen Emma." The title is clearly meant to flatter her, since the three-part history within discusses the conquest of England by Sweyn Forkbeard, the defeat of England by Cnut and his reign, and the events after Cnut's death (which do involve Emma's seizing of the royal treasury to keep it safe from Earl Godwin of Wessex, who disputed the choice of Cnut's successor).

She was buried alongside Cnut in the Old Minster in Winchester, but parliamentary forces during the English Civil War disinterred and scattered the remains. They were eventually recovered; Winchester has a mortuary chest that contains the remains.

Emma's life was eventful and influential, which may have been luck or a trait she got from her mother, Gunnor. We'll take a look at Gunnor next.

The Book of Life

In the previous post, I mentioned that a certain name showed up in the Liber Vitae, a title which literally means "Book of Life" but was actually a list of names associated with a monastery or convent. There are several of these, also known as confraternity books.

Confraternity books exist for the Abbey of St. Gall, for Reichenau Abbey, and for Durham Abbey, among others. The Durham book was recorded as early as 840, and continued into the later 11th century. A reorganization in the 12th century seems to have resulted in the loss of some pages. Recovered from the Cotton Library, it now resides in the British Library. Despite the incomplete nature of what we have, confraternity books still have value in helping us understand more about the past.

One of the values of the confraternity books is to linguists and historians, who can make surmises about culture and language from the names. The New Minster Liber Vitae is arranged in columns, with typical Anglo-Saxon names—Dunstan, Leofric, Ethelred, Wulfgar—in the center. To the left, however, are added names that were common after the Conquest in 1066: Baldwin, Simon, Richard, William. In it we see the cultural shift from the Germanic roots of the Anglo-Saxons to the new Norman French/Latin language shifts.

The picture here is from the New Minster Liber Vitae, produced in Winchester in 1031. It portrays King Cnut and Queen Emma, here called Ælfgifu. I'll tell you about her tomorrow.

An Unknown Medieval Bishop

So far as medieval records go, we usually have good lists of rulers and church personnel, especially since churches/abbeys are most likely to keep records. Every once in awhile, however, a chance archaeological find brings us new and unexpected data.

A metal detectorist in 2014 turned up a collection of Viking-age objects from around the tenth century, now called the Galloway Hoard. This hoard includes objects gathered from Britain and Ireland, mostly silver bullion, but also some unique relics.

One such relic took years to examine, because it was wrapped in a textile pouch. The decayed nature of the fabric stymied the researchers until they managed to use 3-D X-ray imaging to see what was inside without destroying the pouch.

The pouch contained a 2-inch tall jar made from rock crystal artfully wrapped with gold wire. The bottom of the jar has a gold base with delicate designs and the Latin inscription "Bishop Hyguald had me made." The name suggests a Northumbrian bishop, and is unknown in any existing records.

Martin Goldberg, senior curator for the National Museum Scotland, calls it unique: 

“The ones that I have seen are in the Vatican collection, where there are different forms of carved crystal columns. And so it was maybe 500 years old by the time it was transformed in the late eighth or early ninth century into a gold-wrapped jar.”

So the medieval relic could even be a classical Roman crystal jar, originally designed to hold perfume, but came into the hands of a Bishop Hyguald at some point who had the gold added for his own purposes. Although we have no specific record of a Bishop Hyguald, the name does show up in the Liber Vitae, but that's a story for tomorrow.

Why January 1?

It seems obvious to Westerners that the new year should start on the first of January, which we then named New Year's Day. This is fairly arbitrary, however. If it is truly a "new year" why do we start it in the middle of winter? Why not in Spring when things truly seem "new"? Or, if you like another astronomical reason, why not after the winter solstice (usually 21-22 December) after which nights shorten and more light returns to our waking day?

The Romans named the first month starting after the winter solstice after Janus, the god of doorways, and therefore of openings and beginnings. His two-headed demeanor was appropriate for looking back at the old year and forward to the new. Roman consuls chose 1 January as the start of their term in office as of 153 BCE.

Not everyone was attached to the January date, however. The Babylonians celebrated their new year on the first new moon following the vernal equinox (the date on which night and day are of equal length in Spring). In Egypt, the new year started with the annual flooding of the Nile in Spring.

Christians in medieval Europe frequently used dates of religious significance, celebrating Christmas, or 25 March (the Feast of the Annunciation), which also coincided with the return of Spring, since it would have been shortly after the vernal equinox. It was Pope Gregory XIII who reestablished our modern New Year's Day in 1582, when he reformed the calendar.

Of course, we don't celebrate the start of the new year so much as we celebrate the end of the old year. Celebrations begin in the waning hours of the old year, on the final day of December, extend briefly into the hours of the new year, and then the celebrants usually fall asleep and spend the 1st of January recovering!

Muslim Massacre

I have written about Muslim-Christian relations before (here and here). Conflict between the forces of Western European culture and the Arab world has been going on for centuries, with atrocities on both sides. One of the earliest atrocities was committed by King Richard I, called Lionheart.

Ayyadieh
After the fall of Acre during the Third Crusade, there was an agreement between Richard and his opponent, Saladin, to exchange prisoners.  Richard was willing to give up about 2700 hostages (men including soldiers, women, children) taken in Acre for 1600 Christian hostages held by Saladin. Richard also demanded 100,000 gold pieces and the True Cross.

Richard was an impatient man at best, and he wanted Saladin to release the Christian hostages first. Saladin, a powerful and proud man in his own right, of course demanded in turn that Richard release the citizens of Acre. Negotiations broke down. Richard decided to teach Saladin a lesson in delaying the fulfillment of Richard's demands.

On either August 16th or 20th, 1191, Richard had his captives to a hill called Ayyadieh, where they were in sight of Saladin's army. He had them all put to death. This enraged the watching army, who charged the Crusaders. Richard, however, had plenty of forces there, and they were able to retreat safely into the city.

An eyewitness Kurdish chronicler in Saladin's army, Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, claimed in his chronicle that many Crusaders did not approve of this particularly callous treatment of prisoners. Christian chroniclers do not mention that there were women and children, leading the reader to assume that only soldiers were massacred.

Saladin, outraged, and also know for harsh treatment of his hostages, had his Christian prisoners executed. The True Cross was sent to "Damascus, where it was said to be buried under the portals of the chief mosque." (The Dream and the Tomb: A History of the Crusades, by Robert Payne, p.239)

Poor Alice de Lacy, Part 1

Recent posts on the Tutbury Hoard led to a discussion about Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, who is the likeliest candidate for losing such an enormous amount of coinage. His wife was Alice de Lacy, whose fortunes were potentially as high but ultimately as low as his.

Alice was born on Christmas Day in 1281. She was the only surviving child of the Earl of Lincoln, Henry de Lacy, and the Countess of Salisbury, making her an heiress to two sizable estates who would be greatly desirable on the marriage market. When she was nine years old, she was betrothed to the 14-year-old nephew of King Edward I, Thomas (whose father the Earl of Lancaster made him potentially rich and powerful as well). They married when she was thirteen.

Alice's father chose to allow his titles to pass, upon his death, to his son-in-law rather than his daughter. Perhaps her father was sexist. Perhaps the king pushed this arrangement to bring those lands into the royal family in exchange for a prominent husband. At any rate, Henry could expect that his grandchildren would enjoy significant inheritances.

But there were to be no grandchildren. Either Alice was barren, or Thomas was not interested in procreating with her. He had other children: two sons out of wedlock. Alice and Thomas started to live separate lives. It was easy, therefore, for her to be abducted from her own manor of Canford, Dorset. This abduction, carried out by knights under John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, seems not to have been for romance, but to insult Thomas, who had done Warenne wrong in an earlier matter. Thomas went to war with Warenne (settled by the king), but never asked for Alice's return.

When Thomas was executed (see here), Alice could have become wealthy since he had no legitimate heirs, but her titles were confiscated by the Crown and the king (now Edward II) imprisoned her at York as the wife of a traitor. Alice was not released until she handed over much of her inheritance and the sum of £20,000. She was given the Constableship of Lincoln Castle and allowed to remarry.

That next marriage, the second of three, was happier than the first. But then came another abduction, and a rape, and another marriage. We will continue her story next.

Thomas Lost a Treasure

This is about Thomas, the 2nd Earl of Lancaster. He was born about 1278 to Edmund Crouchback (the second son of King Henry III). His life was not without problems.

He had an unsuccessful marriage to Alice de Lacy. They had no children, although Thomas fathered two illegitimate sons. Alice was abducted in 1317 by a knight under the Earl of Surrey. Thomas divorced Alice and started a conflict with Surrey which was ended by King Edward II. During the coronation of King Edward II, Thomas carried the royal sword Curtana in the procession. Like many nobles, however, he turned against Edward when Edward showed favor to Piers Gaveston, reputed to be the king's male lover.

Thomas led two revolts against Edward. One, in 1310, led to Parliament putting limits on Edward's spending. The second, in 1321, led to defeat and his execution for treason on 22 March, 1322.

Thomas had been given Tutbury Castle, which he renovated and made into his primary residence. His presence benefitted the surrounding countryside, stimulating the local economy. The famous Tutbury Hoard—the largest collection of found coins in history—was so large it must have come from his treasury. Historians assume he had gathered it to pay his allies and Scottish mercenaries, probably during his second revolt against the king. It was lost while crossing the River Dove, however, leaving it to be found by workmen in 1831.

But poor Alice! In her life she was married three times, abducted, widowed twice, imprisoned, raped, and had her in hesitance stolen. I'll tell you more about her next.

The Staffordshire Hoard Conflict

Some of the pieces from the Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire Hoard.

The largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold and silver coins was uncovered in Staffordshire, England in 2009. The 3500 metal pieces added up to 5.1 kilograms of gold and 1.4 kilograms of silver.*

The hoard dates from the 7th century when the area was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia. The items are all of high quality and appropriate for a military man—swords, helmets, hilts, pommels, buckles, scabbard loops, etc. Commonly, Anglo-Saxon finds include jewelry, cooking vessels, and eating utensils—items related to a household or suitable for a woman. The few items that break this pattern are three crosses. This hoard seems likely to have been the collected possessions of a soldier or military leader who stashed it away for safekeeping and then failed to live long enough to retrieve it.

Another piece of evidence that these were the possessions of a military man is a small golden strip, approximately 7" x 0.6"; it is inscribed with a passage from the Old Testament: "Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee." [KJV, Numbers 10:35]

The Hoard is now on display at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. You can see more stunning pictures here.

Next, we return to the Tutbury Hoard and talk about, not the finder, but the person who likely lost it.

*The farmer on whose land it was discovered agreed to split the value with the man who found it with a metal detector. They split the £3,300,000 value, but other issues turned them into enemies. You can read about it here.

The Tutbury Hoard, Part 2

Part of the Tutbury Hoard

The sudden acquisition of wealth can change people. When coins started to be found in. the River Dove in 1831—ultimately amounting to 360,000 medieval coins uncovered by scores of treasure seekers—some lucky people found themselves in possession of silver worth more than they'd ever held before.

John Blackburn was one such person. Rather than turn the coins in to the Crown for monetary reward, however, he cashed in only enough to buy a horse and trap, and a gun to protect the rest. He then returned to his farm with his wife, Jane. They started living off their own private stash now, neglecting the farm and letting their hired labor go. They avoided people, even their own sons, Thomas and Henry.

Then, in October of 1852, would-be rescuers rushing to the Blackburns' burning house found John and Jane murdered. For the Staffordshire police, suspicion fell on the sons, who might have wanted an inheritance. Evidence was lacking, however, until a scrawled anonymous letter, written by someone who knew unpublished details about the murder, implicated Henry Blackburn.

Henry would not have implicated himself, so the police made inquiries to find the scribe. They found Charles Moore, a former laborer on the Blackburn farm. He had talked several times about the treasure hidden away on his former employer's land, and had also mentioned being hired by Henry Blackburn to kill the old couple in return for a share of the silver. Four men were taken into custody: Charles Moore, Henry Blackburn, and two Irish associates of Moore, Edward Walsh and Peter Kirwan. A three-day trial included a witness who heard Moore discussing how to start a fire with resin and pitch. It was determined that Henry Blackburn's name in the letter was designed to throw suspicion off the real culprit, Moore. Kirwan and Blackburn were declared innocent. Walsh was declared a conspirator, and sentenced to transportation for life (being sent out of the country, likely to Australia).

Moore went to the gallows, proof that (in the words of Chaucer's pardoner, Radix malorum est cupiditas. [Latin: "The root of evil is love of money"]

The Blackburns' silver hoard was never found.

Tomorrow I'll talk about the largest Anglo-Saxon find in modern history, which also happened to end a friendship.

The Tutbury Hoard, Part 1

The coins were found in casks in the River Dove

Workers in 1831, while repairing a mill-race on the Dove River, found a chunk of mud-caked coins from the 13th and 14th centuries. Curiosity was piqued, folk flocked to the area, and searches of the river turned up 360,000 silver coins in total. It would be impossible to put a value on a hoard that huge. When only 26 were sold at auction in 2010, they were evaluated at £3000.

More and more people with picks and shovels descended on Tutbury, digging in and around the river. One contemporary account claimed about 300 people at any one time could be seen wading through the river. Digging in and around the river was declared off-limits and the coins designated Crown property by King William IV. That law is still in force.

The Duchy of Lancaster ultimately stepped in to maintain control over the area. Tutbury Castle was owned by the Duke of Lancaster, and it was assumed that the treasure had once belonged to Thomas, Earl of Lancaster (more on him in the near future). Approximately 100,000 coins were turned over to the Crown, but the majority remained in the hands of the finders.

Two of the finders, neighbors John Blackburn and Hugh Barber, had located a large cache. Barber cashed his part in immediately, receiving £100. Blackburn sold enough to buy himself a horse and cart, and a gun. But he kept a lot of the coins. He and his wife became reclusive, even from their own sons. They stopped working their farm, and kept people away.

In 1852, the Blackburns were found murdered. We'll take a 19th century side-trip next to talk about that.

Coin Hoards

Edward I penny from the Colchester Hoard

Among the treasures found accidentally by digging or deliberately by people wielding metal detectors are hoards of old coins, jewelry, and other ornamentation.

Why were these hoards hidden in the first place? Valuables get stashed away for several reasons. In times of political or economic uncertainty, it might be prudent to hide wealth to avoid confiscation. One might also bury a hoard due to the lack of a banking system (see below re: the Colchester Hoard). In any case, the owner presumably intended to recover his wealth but was prevented by death or an inability to return to his land due to occupation by hostile forces.

Some of the notable finds are:

The Abergavenny Hoard, consisting of 199 silver pennies from the 11th century reigns of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror. It was found in 2002 and currently is owned by the National Museum in Cardiff.

In 2000, 448 pennies and 27 half pennies were found in Beverley, East Yorkshire. The Beverley Hoard dates from the mid 13th century and sits in the British Museum.

The British Museum is also home to the Colchester Hoard, dug up from the High Street in Colchester during routine public maintenance work in 1902. Workers found a lead canister holding about 12,000 silver pennies from the time of Edward III. That area was the Colchester Jewry, where Jews congregated to live. One theory is that the lead canister was intended as a safe, built into the floor.

The largest hoard ever discovered in England was found in 1831, long before there were any laws governing the disposition of such things. It was found in Tutbury, Staffordshire, and the 360,000 silver coins were widely dispersed. The discovery of so much value in one place caused the nearest thing England ever experienced to a "gold rush."

I think it's worthwhile to go into detail on the Tutbury Hoard. Stay tuned.

Found Treasure

Roman hoard found at St. Albans

Speaking of digging up old things...

Every once in awhile we hear of someone finding a hoard of coins or other treasure from centuries past. The Treasure Act of 1996 in England was created to answer the question: to whom does this find belong? How should it be handled? The Act applies to England, Ireland, and Wales; Scotland has its own laws regarding found treasure.

The rules for a find are simple: within 14 days, you must report your find to the local coroner. The coroner will conduct an inquest to determine if the find is, in fact, "treasure." The legal definition of treasure is based on whether it has real world (not just sentimental) value. The presence of a large number of items and the presence of a certain percentage of gold or silver figures into the definition. Also, the find must be at least 300 years old.

If the find is determined to be treasure, it must be offered for sale to a museum after being evaluated by a board of experts, called the Treasure Valuation Committee. If no museum wants the treasure, then the finder/owner can retain it or sell it to someone else.

What if I use a metal detector and find a hoard of coins in a farmer's field? Does it belong to the finder or to the property owner? The Treasure Act declares that the finder(s) and land owner(s) share the wealth in a ratio (usually 50/50) determined by the Treasure Valuation Committee.

Next I'll share some of the most notable treasures that were hoards of coins.

Finding Bodies in Peat Bogs

Tollund Man, found in a bog in Denmark

You have no doubt seen articles of bodies and artifacts found in peat bogs, such as the Gundestrup cauldron from the previous post. What exactly is a peat bog, and why is it suited for preserving things, especially bodies?

Peat is a brown, soil-like material that forms from decaying plant matter in a wetland whose water is acidic. The acidic environment inhibits  nutrients and therefore limits the flora and fauna usually found in either bodies of water or fields. Peat can be cut into blocks, dried, and burned as fuel. Peat bogs are found in temperate latitudes. Some of the largest peat bogs are found in Siberia (1,000,000 square km), souther South America (44,000 square km), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (130,000 square km).

The acidic and oxygen-poor environment, and the tannic acids that develop from the slowly decaying plant matter (usually mosses), helps to preserve organic material—so much so, that over 500 bodies have been found in bogs, remarkably intact (not just skin, but also hair and stomach contents) and ready for analysis. Tollund Man, found in Denmark in 1950, still has a three-days growth of beard. (Ironically, the "tougher" teeth and bones are more susceptible to being dissolved by acid.)

Even their clothing is preserved. Huldremose Woman, found in Denmark in 1879, had a leather cape and woolen scarf that clearly were not made in Denmark.

Many of these are assumed to have been human sacrifice, especially because so many are found with slashed throats, or with rope around their necks. Of course, they could also simply be the end result of treating criminals. A bog body found in Donegal, Ireland dates to the 1500s, and is believed to be a suicide. Because suicide was forbidden by the Church, perhaps her body was thrown into the bog because proper Christian burial was denied to her for her sin.

Not all finds in the ground are bodies, however. Next we will talk about some of the medieval treasures that have been dug up.

The Gundestrup Cauldron

On 28 May, 1891, a worker digging in a peat bog near Gundestrup in Denmark made an extraordinary find: a shallow bowl holding a dozen curved panels (five large and seven smaller) and a couple short metal strips. Analysis showed the material to be 97% silver and 3% gold.

A Danish archaeologist realized that the pieces could be assembled into a deeper bowl, the silver strips forming a rim. Originally thought to be Celtic, careful examination of the figures carved on the silver panels revealed a mixture of images from different cultures. One of the images—an antlered male figure holding a torc in one hand and a serpent in the other—is identified as Cernunnos, the "Horned God" of Celtic folklore.

Who would have created something like this? The work resembles that of Thracian (Thrace included Bulgaria and parts of Turkey and Greece) craftsmen from the 2nd century BCE. Thracian metalworking would have been happening at that time in the Balkans. It is assumed that someone with Celtic leanings created the artwork. How it made its way to northern Denmark is anyone's guess.

The images on the Cauldron represent several themes: fertility, destruction, life and death. One of the most intriguing images is a bull hunt, depicted on an oval medallion. Three dogs are part of the hunt, and above the bull is a woman warrior, leaping to strike the bull with a sword.

Another panel shows two rows of warriors, one of which is mounted on horses with horse tack seen in Eastern Europe. The other row is followed by three men playing a Celtic musical instrument. A giant appears to be dipping a man into a cauldron, possibly representing rebirth.

Was the Cauldron a gift to a warrior or ruler? Was it created to be part of some magical ritual? A great deal of wealth and effort went into creating it; it is unlikely it was used as a fruit bowl. And why was it disassembled and buried in the peat bog? To hide it from enemies? As a sacrifice to gods? We will never be sure.

Actually, sacrificing by throwing things into peat bogs was a common occurrence up through the 2nd century CE. We should look at some of the things that archaeologists have recovered from peat bogs.

Cernunnos

From the Gundestrup Cauldron

The figure to the left—a man with antlers, often holding or wearing a torc, often holding a snake—is not unique. It is considered a representation of a Celtic deity, called "The Horned God," who is possibly the god of nature, wilderness, animals, fertility, the underworld, wealth, etc. The earliest images were found in Northern Italy and on the Gundestrup Cauldron in Denmark from the 1st century BCE. We call him Cernunnos because of a single recorded reference on a carved stone called the Pillar of the Boatmen, referred to in the previous entry.

Looking for the origin of the name has led to some curious theories.

In the Ulster Cycle of Irish folklore, the hero Cuchulainn has a foster brother named Conall Cernach. One story of Conall involves him attacking a castle that is guarded by a serpent. The serpent does not attack Conall; rather, it drapes itself around his waist and is worn by him afterward. The odd relationship between Conall and the snake is linked by some to the image of the snake in Cernunnos iconography.

Another depiction of Cernunnos, a bronze figurine from Autun in France, shows two serpents around his waist, similar to the Irish story. Stories of Conall Cernach-Cernunnos may be a rarity: memories in literature of Celtic deities, of whom we otherwise have no details.

The Gundestrup Cauldron needs its own entry, which I will talk about next.

The Pillar of the Boatmen

The figure shown here is called Cernunnos. He is  the "horned god" of ancient Celtic culture, representing fertility, the natural world, the underworld, and wealth. (Deities of the underworld are linked to wealth because precious things are dug up from the earth; Greek Hades was the same.) The image of the male figure with horns/antlers is found in over 50 carvings, one of which is on a stone pillar linked with the location of Notre Dame.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame of Paris was built over the site of an earlier church of St. Stephen (actually, since this was in France, "St. Etienne"). St. Etienne was built on the site of a Gallo-Roman temple. A carved stone pillar with the image to the left—and several other images—was found in 1710 while excavating a crypt under the nave of Notre Dame. The pillar had been broken into pieces, the blocks used to reinforce foundations. When reassembled, it was clear that it had been part of a much earlier pagan temple on the site.

It is now called the Pillar of the Boatmen because it was erected by a guild of Gaulish sailors, who dedicated it to Emperor Tiberius (which dates it between 14 and 37CE). The carvings show sailors and several deities.

One interesting fact about the pillar and the horned figure is that this is the only recorded use of the name Cernunnos in any early source. The name is unusual, and next we will see if we can figure out whence it comes.

A Note on Notre Dame

Artist's conception on what buttresses
would have looked like early on.

On 15 April, 2019, a fire ravaged Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. There was no question that re-building was necessary. The important question, however, was how it should be re-built? Should they use recent 3D scans of the structure to restore it to the same look as just before the fire? Or should it be altered to reflect current culture? After all, all buildings are a reflection of their times. Even without the benefit of a class in architecture, we can tell if a building is "old" as in outdated or "old" as in historic or antique.

So how should Notre Dame be rebuilt? Re-designed for a new age? Or restored to an earlier version; if so, which version? Because it hasn't always looked the way it did on 14 April, 2019.

Before it was Notre Dame, the site (rather, right next to it) in the 7th century held an Early Christian basilica dedicated to St. Stephen. There is evidence that a church had existed there since the 4th century, but we are not certain if St. Stephen's was that church, or if it replaced the earlier building. It was 230 feet long—large for that time. This building was renovated in 857 and became a cathedral; that is, the residence of a bishop. After that, a Romanesque-style renovation and enlargement took place; even that was soon deemed too small, given the speed with which Paris was growing.

In 1160, therefore, Bishop Maurice de Sully decided to demolish the Romanesque structure, recycling the stone for his plan of a cathedral in the Gothic style. This new style had already been put into service in St.-Denis, and de Sully was keen on it. The cornerstone was laid 25 April, 1163, but the cathedral was not completed until many decades later, after several phases.

Even so, the new cathedral's transepts were already being remodeled in the mid-1200s, and separately in 1240 the north transept received a gabled portal with a rose window. The flying buttresses were not part of the original plan, being added in the 1200s. They were replaced with larger ones a hundred years later.

1699 saw the decision by King Louis XIV to make extensive modifications. The French Revolution claimed Notre Dame for the public, and removed much of its artwork. In 1801 Napoleon returned it to the Catholic Church, which then began restoration. By 1831, it was in such need of repair that Victor Hugo wrote a novel, now called The Hunchback of Notre Dame, to raise interest and funds for the restoration.

The building has always been changing, and will again. What it looks like after the next round of restoration will be eagerly awaited (and no doubt criticized).

Even before the basilica to St. Stephen, however, there was a pagan temple on the site. There is no record of this; its existence has been extrapolated from a single sculptural find connected with Notre Dame. I'll tell you about it tomorrow.

Medieval Architecture

7th c. Asturian Church of Santa Cristina de Lena, Spain

This will be a brief introduction to the styles of medieval architecture that existed over the centuries. They are given names to represent the eras, but keep in mind that there was no firm dividing line between the different eras. In order to compare apples to apples, we will look at church architecture for examples of the evolution of building styles.

Early Christian
Prior to a uniform style of architecture for churches, christian churches often simply appropriated pagan temples of worship. One of the most famous buildings of antiquity, the Parthenon, was converted to a christian church just before 600CE, becoming the Church of the Parthenos Maria [Greek: "Virgin Mary"]. A common style was the basilica [Greek "royal"], which was originally a large building for public gatherings. Basilicas had a long main aisle (the nave), supported by columns and flanked by side aisles. A wide area at one end, the apse, became the location of the altar. A basilica often had a dome. This basic floor plan became popular for churches, especially in the Eastern Empire. The most famous basilica is the Hagia Sophia [Greek: "Holy Wisdom"] in Istanbul (was Constantinople).

Pre-Romanesque
This term is often used to denote the collection of different styles that arose during certain dynasties or in different cultures, such as Merovingian, Carolingian, Ottonian, Asturian, Norse; it is a catch-all term that includes the Early Christian as well.

Romanesque
Romanesque is a modern term that describes the style that was prevalent in the 11th and 12th centuries throughout Europe. Brought to England by William the Conqueror, there we call it "Norman." Romanesque buildings are known by their massive stone structure with barrel vaults and round (or sometimes slightly pointed) arches. Tourists can experience Thanksgiving in a Romanesque building described here.

Gothic
Gothic architecture has appeared here. Its chief elements are soaring height, large glass windows allowing more light than previous styles, pointed arches, (often) flying buttresses to support the thin walls. The first church to combine several of these elements into the first truly "Gothic" church was the Abbey of St.-Denis. This style is what folk most often picture when they think of medieval churches.

About eight miles south of St.-Denis is the world's most recognizable Gothic cathedral, Notre Dame, which suffered from a devastating fire a couple weeks ago. I want to say something about that next.

Saints, Obscure and Otherwise

One purpose of the Daily Medieval blog is to bring to light knowledge of characters and events that do not reach the mainstream culture. Everyone has heard of King Arthur, Merlin, jousts, etc. There was so much more, so many more lives and events and customs, that made up that time we romanticize as the Middle Ages.

Columbanus, discussed in the previous post, set sail with 12 companions to preach to the world. Their names are known, and some of their stories.

Saint Attala was one. He was dissatisfied with the less-than-strict discipline at the abbey at Lérins, and joined the monastery of Luxeuil, which had just been founded by Columbanus and had a much more rigid discipline. He succeeded Columbanus as abbot of Bobbio in Italy and maintained a strict rule. Several monks rebelled against his rules and left. After some died in the outside world, the rest thought it a punishment from God and returned to his monastery. He died in either 622 or 627, depending on your source; his feast day is 10 March.

Saint Deicolus (born c.530) followed Columbanus all over western Europe. Even at 80 years old, he was determined to follow Columbanus on further travels, but age and infirmity forced him to give up the wandering life and settle in Lutre in Besançon, where he was the apostle of his district until his death in 625 at the age of 95.

Deicolus' younger brother was not quite so obscure, having appeared in this blog many times already. He is known as St. Gall, or Gallus. You can search this blog for him, but my personal favorite historical link to him is here, with the only known architectural plan (such as it is) extant from centuries of medieval buildings.

I think we will have a few things to say about medieval architecture in general in the next post.