Richard the Justiciar

Long before a unified France, there were minor nobles always looking to expand into their neighbors' territories.  In 9th century Western Europe, the first time the majority of land we think of as Burgundy was brought together was under one man, Richard the Justiciar (858 - 921).

Born to Bivin of Gorze, he was the brother of Boso, who married Ermengard and was the father of Louis the Blind. Richard and Boso had a sister, Richilde of Provence, who married Charles the Bald, King of West Francia.

In 875, Richard and his brother went with Charles the Bald when he was to be crowned by Pope John VIII on Christmas Day as Emperor of the Carolingian Empire. Richard was 17; Boso was about 34. Boso was named by the pope Duke and Viceroy of Italy and Duke of Provence.

When Charles died two years later, Boso asked Richard and Hugh the Abbot to manage Italy and Provence while Boso went to France. Two years after that, however, on the death of Charles the Bald's son Louis the Stammerer (King of West Francia), Boso promoted himself King (not Duke) of Provence. Richard did not support his claim, and instead decided to take over Boso's territory of Autun (and then styled himself Count of Autun). Carloman II, son and successor of Louis the Stammerer, confirmed Richard in that position, snubbing Boso.

Richard continued expanding, besieging Boso's capital of Vienne with the support of Carloman and others, including the new emperor Charles the Fat. Richard ultimately drove Boso into exile in 882 and captured Ermengard and his children. Richard called himself Duke of Burgundy (virtually creating the title). Boso never regained power, but his son Louis the Blind did succeed him (with Richard's support).

In 888, Charles the Fat died and Richard supported Duke Rudolph I as King of Upper Burgundy and married Rudolph's sister Adelaide. Of their children, Rudolph became king of Francia, Hugh the Black became Duke of Burgundy; their daughters married counts and dukes.

On his deathbed, supposedly Richard was asked by a bishop if he wanted to ask for absolution for all the bloodshed he had caused, and his response was that he saved good men by eliminating bad men, and felt no remorse whatsoever.

There have been several Charles's mentioned in this blog, with various epithets (Bald, Fat, Good, Simple, Younger), but we haven't given Charles the Fat his own entry yet. Allow me to rectify that tomorrow.

Louis the Blind

When King Boso of Provence died on 11 January 887, the only heir of his was the seven-year-old Louis III. Boso had ruled Provence, Upper Burgundy, and French Burgundy, but the last two had been taken over by Rudolph I of Burgundy and Richard the Justiciar, respectively, leaving Louis with a much smaller territory. Louis' mother, Ermengard, was appointed his regent, with help from Richard the Justiciar.

Needing more support, Ermengard took Louis to the court of Charles the Fat, her first cousin once-removed, a great-grandson of Charlemagne, and emperor of the Carolingian Empire at the time. Charles recognized Louis as the rightful ruler after his father, adopted him as his own son, and promised Louis and Ermengard his protection. 

Less than a year later, Charles was dead. Ermengard brought Louis to his successor, Arnulf of Carinthia, who had succeeded his uncle Charles. She wanted to make sure the child Louis would be protected in his birthright. She also requested help from Pope Stephen V.

In August 890, a council of bishops and noble vassals proclaimed Louis the rightful king of Arles, Provence, and Lower Burgundy (below the Rhine Valley). They were inspired to do so by the recommendation of the pope and by Charles the Fat's long-ago support.

In 896, now 16 years old, Louis waged war on Saracen pirates who had been raiding the coast of Provence since 889. In 900, hje was asked to come with military support to Italy where he overthrew King Berengar I of Italy. Louis went to Pavia and was crowned with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. He then descended to Rome where Pope Benedict IV crowned him Emperor of Italy. (He was, after all, the grandson of Louis II, former emperor, through Ermengard.) Unfortunately, Berengar returned and defeated Louis' armies, forcing him out of Italy, making him promise that he would never return to Italy.

In 899, a plan to unite with the Byzantine empire to fight Saracens led to Louis being betrothed to Anna of Constantinople, daughter of Emperor Leo the Wise and his second wife, Zoe. A letter of the Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos mentions Leo's daughter being allied with a Frankish prince. There is no evidence that the two ever met, and certainly no wedding took place. Louis did father a son, Charles-Constantine, but no mother is named in any documents. The second half of the name does suggest, however, that the son (who later became Count of Vienne) was a uniting of the two empires. On the other hand, no contemporary Byzantine chroniclers make any mention of a marriage of an emperor's daughter.

In 905 he made another attempt (with local Italian support) to oust Berengar. He succeeded, again, but only temporarily. Going to Verona, he was ambushed by Berengar loyalists and captured. For breaking his oath and returning to Italy, Berengar had Louis blinded.

I have left out a part of Louis III's younger days, because I'm saving it for tomorrow, when I'm going to tell you about Richard the Justiciar, who was mentioned above and who was terrible to Louis.

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.

William Rufus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rebellion of 1088

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odo's Downfall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trial of Penenden Heath

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

Not all went smoothly for Odo, however.

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

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

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

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

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

Odo of Bayeux

William the Conqueror had two half-brothers, due to his father having an affair with Herleva of Falaise, who later had two sons after marrying. One half-brother was Robert of Mortain; the other was Odo of Bayeux.

We don't know when he was born, but William made him a bishop in 1049, when we assume he was at least 18 years old (a stretch, yes, but William could do what he liked in Normandy as its duke). A "best guess" for his birth is c.1030.

Being made a bishop was often a way for a lord to reward a subject with a respectable title and the revenues from tithes and property values of the diocese, so there is no reason to assume Odo was a priest in anything more than name. His time in the historical record is more about being an advisor to William and a warrior who took part in the Norman Invasion of England and following battles. The illustration from the Bayeux Tapestry shown here has him wielding a club against the Saxons at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Why a club? Some say that as a priest he was forbidden the use of a sword, but the club was a cheaper and common weapon, capable of doing great damage to an opponent. William himself is shown with a club later in the tapestry. He also had with him a retinue that would have surrounded him and kept him safer than a typical soldier.

After the Conquest, the time came for rewards. William valued his half-brothers, granting them titles and lands. Odo became Earl of Kent in 1067 and remained a royal advisor, sometimes acting as regent when William was out of the country.

Unfortunately, he got a little too big for his mitre and did something that caused him to lose some lands. After that, he made an even bolder move that led to imprisonment. Tomorrow we'll look at how the mighty can fall.

Herleva of Falaise

There have been many references in this blog to the children of lords by their mistresses, but we've given very little attention to the women. Let's look at the reason William the Conqueror was called "the Bastard."

Herleva of Falaise was a Norman woman who was the mother of William by his father, Duke of Normandy Robert I. Orderic Vitalis writing a generation or two later said that her father was Fulbert, Robert's chamberlain. William of Malmesbury wrote that Herleva and Robert were later married, but if that had actually happened in William's lifetime then he would have been legitimized and not called Bastard.

Supposedly Robert was high atop one of his towers when he looked down and saw Herleva. She was engaged in the process of dyeing leather by trampling on it barefoot in a tub filled with dye. The story goes that she looked up and saw him watching her, so she lifted her skirts a little more than necessary to show off her legs. Robert ordered that she brought through the back door to meet him, but she refused such a humiliating method, and insisted she would have to enter the castle on horseback through the front gate.

The duke was too anxious to have her join him that he agreed, and a few days later, cleaned up and dressed well, she rode on a white horse through the front gate of the castle. His son William was born in 1027 or 1028.

More realistically, she married Herluin de Conteville in 1031, viscount of Conteville (although that title may have come later, granted him by his step-son, William, after William came to the dukedom). With Herluin she had two sons, Robert of Mortain and Odo, the bishop of Bayeux. They also had two daughters, Emma and another, both of whom made good marriages to nobles.

Robert de Torigni claimed that she was buried at the Abbey of Grestain, a Benedictine monastery founded by Herluin. The statue above of her is in Huy, Belgium, which claims to be her country of origin.

Her other son was Odo, who (like Robert of Mortain) was highly valued by their famous half-brother. Odo became a bishop, and may be the person who instigated the creation of the Bayeux tapestry, which is not a tapestry, but we'll explain that tomorrow when we talk about him.

Robert of Mortain

When William of Normandy decided to conquer England, he planned carefully. This was going to be a big undertaking, and he needed help and advice. A large amount of that help came from his half-brother, Robert, Count of Mortain (c.1031 - c.1095).

William of Malmesbury (writing decades later, to be fair) described him as crassi et hebetis ingenii, "thick and dull of character." There is also his reputation for having physically abused his wife, mentioned in the biography of Vitalis of Savigny. Vitalis either threatened him with dissolution of the marriage, or left his service which so bothered Robert that he repented of his ways.

Robert and William shared a mother, Herleva of Falaise, who was also the mother of Odo of Bayeux, who became a bishop. As Duke of Normandy, William had jurisdiction over the county of Mortain. A 12th century poet, Benoît de Sainte-Maure, wrote that Duke William exiled a prior Count of Mortain named William Werlenc and replaced him with Robert. When the planning for the Norman Invasion of England began, Count Robert was part of the council and promised 120 ships, a larger number than any other source.

Robert is also included among the definitively known companions of Duke William in the Battle of Hastings. Trying to identify from records those who were present—and those who appear on the Bayeux Tapestry—has been a pastime for historians (fewer than two dozen have been "confirmed"). In the scene above one can see "Rotbert" at William's left side and Odo on his right, showing the importance of his half-brothers to the duke.

For his participation, Robert received from William an enormous amount of land. By the time the Domesday Book recorded all real estate and ownership, Robert held 797 castles, mostly in Cornwall where he held so much that he was functionally "Earl of Cornwall" even though he did not formally hold the title (the first Earl of Cornwall was officially Brian of Brittany, who also was a supporter of Duke William).

In 1069, Robert led a force northward that slaughtered many Danes in Lindsey, after which he drops out of the records except for the mention in Domesday. He was succeeded as count by his only son William, the 2nd Earl of Cornwall, who was offered Mary of Scotland, the daughter of King Malcolm III of Scotland, for his bride, but turned her down. He had three daughters.

Speaking of women and wives, let's turn to Robert's mother, Herleva, for tomorrow's post. See you then.

Vitalis of Savigny

In the 1170s, a canon of the Church of Saint-Evroult in Mortain (in northwestern France) wrote about a man who had died 50 years prior but whose legend lived on and needed to be recorded. The author was Stephen de Fougères, and the subject was Vitalis of Savigny.

Drawing from details in the mortuary roll (a monastery's record of prominent members who died), we learn little of Vitalis' origin except that he was born c.1060 and had a brother and a sister in a family that was not very prominent. At some point he was ordained and became chaplain to Robert of Mortain.

Robert of Mortain had founded the Church of Saint-Evroult in 1082, and made Vitalis a canon there. After a time, however, Vitalis felt the need for a more purely ascetic life. In 1095 he left Saint-Evroult and began a hermit colony with two others, Bernard of Thiron (who had already been a hermit for a time) and Robert of Arbrissel, the founder of Fontevraud Abbey.

Vitalis became known for his preaching to those who came to hear and/or join the hermitage, and for helping locals. One of his known activities was persuading prostitutes to enter proper marriages. He also traveled, apparently concentrating on Normandy but also visiting England. He tried to reconcile Robert Curthose with his brother, Henry I of England, whom it could be argued "stole" the kingship from the elder Curthose.

One of the incidents that was sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned in the mortuary roll was his influence on his first patron, Robert of Mortain. The story goes that Robert was physically abusing his wife (probably Matilda, his first wife), and that Vitalis ended that behavior in one of two ways. One version of the incident had Vitalis threatening Robert with dissolving the marriage. A different version says that Vitalis cut ties to Robert and left over his disgust at Robert's behavior. Robert repented, and sent people to bring Vitalis back and begged his forgiveness (and presumably mended his ways).

Between 1105 and 1120, Vitalis founded a nunnery called Abbaye Blanche ("White Abbey"; possibly so-called because they wore habits of undyed wool) at Mortain and set up his sister, Adeline, as abbess. She was later canonized by the Catholic Church.

Between 1112 and 1122 (the year of his death) he founded the Savigny Abbey (see the remains above), a necessity because his life and works as a hermit drew so many people who wished to stay that some organizing principle was needed to manage so many. The Benedictine Rule was initially followed, but by 1150 it became Cistercian.

Vitalis' own sainthood was established in 1738 by the Cistercians, but his canonization by the Catholic Church was never recognized.

His first patron, Robert of Mortain, has a connection that is worth mentioning. Not just some ordinary nobleman, he was half-brother to William the Conqueror, and has some significance in history, which I'll explore further tomorrow. See you then.

Dalon Abbey

In 1114, the ruler of Salles in France—Gerald de Salles, a French monastic reformer—wanted to found an abbey in the town of Sainte-Trie. He was a friend of the founder of Fontevraud (in French, Fontevrault) Abbey (where nobles like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard I would be interred), and wanted a Benedictine monastery there. In fact, he wanted several: he founded many Benedictine houses as well as communities of hermits.

The abbey was initially supported by donations from a couple knights, some other nobles, and the bishop of Limoges. Gerald's successor, a hermit named Roger, expanded into a "chain" of monasteries under the umbrella term "Order of Dalon," named for the Dalon River Valley.

In 1142, several monasteries in France and abroad were reforming themselves by adopting the more strict Cistercian Rule. Dalon Abbey in Saint-Trie and its daughter houses joined the Cistercian Order in 1162 under the command of its third abbot. Dalon opted to be a daughter house of the Cistercian Pontigny Abbey (also founded in 1114 as a Benedictine Abbey by a relative of Bernard of Clairvaux). This brought it to the attention of the Plantagenets, and Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Richard I all became patrons and offered it their protection.

The well-known lord of Hautefort and troubadour Bertran de Born retired there as a monk after the death of his second wife. A son from that second wife, also named Bertran, joined him.

Much of the abbey compound has fallen into ruin. It is now private property, and the surviving structure has been adapted into a private dwelling (see above).

I mentioned that Gerald de Salles set up "communities" of hermits, which seems like a contradiction. Gerald was a follower of Vitalis de Savigny, whose simple lifestyle was an inspiration. Vitalis is venerated in the Catholic Church as a saint, who is not listed as a patron saint of anything in particular, but if he were, it would be of preventing wife abuse. I'll explain tomorrow.

Baron Bertran de Born

When Henry the Young King attacked his brother Richard in 1183, he had the support of a lord of Hautefort. Hautefort was surrounded by provinces in the hands of Henry II of England or his sons, and so was affected by their politics.

In 1183, the lord of Hautefort was Baron Bertran de Born, son of Baron Bertran de Born. Bertran junior had two brothers with whom he co-ruled the area, but like the sons of Henry II, the brothers did not necessarily get along. While Bertran supported Henry junior against Richard, Bertran's brother Constantine sided with Richard. For this reason, Bertran drove Constantine out of the castle they shared.

After young Henry's death in June 1183, Richard sought retribution against those who sided with Henry. With the help of Alfonso II of Aragon, Richard returned Hautefort to Constantine. Henry Ii stepped in, however, and gave the castle back to Bertran.

Why would Henry II have a side in this fight? Perhaps because Bertran was also a troubadour. He wrote love songs and political songs. He wrote songs criticizing Richard I and Philip Augustus of France when they delayed setting out for the Third Crusade.

Bertran loved fighting s much as the two Henrys. One of his poems, translated by Ezra Pound, reads

I tell you that I find no such savor in eating butter and sleeping, as when I hear cried "On them!" and from both sides hear horses neighing through their head-guards, and hear shouted "To aid! To aid!" and see the dead with lance truncheons, the pennants still on them, piercing their sides.

As a friend and supporter of Young King Henry—they probably spent time together on the "tournament circuit" (that's Bertran jousting in the illustration from a 13th century manuscript)—Bertran wrote a lament for him that was very moving. It is possibly this that made Henry II choose to return Hautefort to him, since Henry really wanted his son to thrive and succeed him, despite the rebellions.

Bertran (born in the 1140s) married twice, with children from each marriage; when his second wife died in 1196, he retired to a Cistercian abbey. One son, Constantine, joined him there. Another son, Bertran, also became a troubadour.

His legacy is three dozen manuscripts that are certainly his and a handful of others that might be attributable to him. In later years, a rumor started that he egged Young Henry on to rebel, and so his name became connected with creating discord. Dante even puts him in Hell, beheaded.

The abbey he joined, Dalon, had a history of change, and was special to the Plantagenets. I'll tell you about it next time.