The Forge of Christendom (65 page)

20
Ibid.

21
The testimony of a Muslim, Ibn al-Athr. Quoted by Canard, p. 18

22
Matthew 12.40

23
Or possibly early 1008: the dating depends on the evidence of a Muslim historian, Ibn al-Qalanisi.

24
Adémar, 3.47. The description derived from the eyewitness account of the Bishop of Périgueux, who had been in Jerusalem at the time, and subsequently related what he had seen to Adémar.

25
Again, on the evidence of Ibn al-Qalanisi. See Assad, p. 107

26
Adémar, 3.46

27
Ibid.
, 3.35

28
Ibid.
, 3.46

29
Ibid.
, 3.47

30
For a definitive statement, see Moore (1987), p. 89

31
For a powerful statement of this argument, see Landes (1996).

32
Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 41

33
Glaber, 3.24

34
The testimony of a Persian traveller, Nasir-i-Khusrau, who visited the church in 1047. Biddle (p. 79) quotes it as evidence that the restoration project must have been begun long before the traditional date of 1048, which derives from the much later chronicle of William of Tyre. As Biddle also points out (p. 81), the speed with which the church was rebuilt offers the likeliest explanation for the silence of Western writers about the destruction of 1009 in the decades that preceded the First Crusade. “The event of 1009 was not mentioned, not because it had passed out of memory, nor because men did not care, but rather because architectural history was not relevant.”

35
Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 45. For a brilliant explication of how and why Adémar sought to obscure the apocalyptic tenor of his times, see
ibid.
, pp. 144–53 and 287–308. Anyone who writes on Adémar must be for ever in Landes’s debt.

36
Glaber, 2.22

37
The precise date of Vilgard’s heresy is unknown.

38
Adémar, 3.143

39
Andrew of Fleury,
Miraculi Sancti Benedicti
, p. 248

40
The degree to which mass heresy existed, or was a nightmare conjured up by its chroniclers, is intensely controversial. For the view that it was a reflection of faction battles among a clerical elite, see Moore’s essay (2000). For a strongly stated – and, in my opinion, thoroughly convincing – counter-view, see Landes (1995), pp. 37–40

41
It is true that one heretic, a theologian by the name of Priscillian, had been executed back in 383 – but even then on an official charge of sorcery. One intriguing theory holds that it was his tomb which subsequently came to be venerated at Santiago. See Fletcher (1984), p. 59

42
Adémar, 3.138

43
From a letter by a monk named Heribert. Quoted by Lobrichon (1992), p. 85

44
Adémar, 3.138

45
Wazo of Liège, p. 228

46
Landulf Senior, p. 65

47
Adam of Bremen, 4.8

48
John of Salerno,
Life of Odo
, 2.3

49
Wazo of Liège, p. 228

50
From “The Miracles that Happened at Fécamp”: van Houts, p. 78

51
Liber Miraculorum Sancte Fidis
, 2.12

52
Glaber, 3.19

53
Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 177. See also Landes (1991).

54
For the full extraordinary story of Adémar’s forgeries, see
ibid
.

55
Glaber, 4.1

56
Ibid.
, 4.21

57
Ibid.
, 4.18

58
Arnold of Regensburg, p. 563.

59
Glaber, 4.18

60
Quoted by Landes (1995), p. 322

61
Glaber, 4.14

62
Ibid.
, 4.17

63
Arnold of Regensburg, p. 547

64
Ibid.

65
Wipo, p. 40

66
Wido of Osnabrück, p. 467

67
From the anathema against the Eastern Church delivered by Cardinal Humbert. Ironically, he appears to have regarded the practice of depicting Christ dead upon the Cross as a peculiarly Greek one.

68
Arnulf of Milan, 3.4

69
Hildebrand’s precise origins are controversial. The claims that are repeated here – that they were humble – were so widespread as to seem to me irrefutable; but some scholars have argued that Hildebrand was in fact Gregory VI’s nephew, either by marriage or by blood. If the latter, then the foremost steward of the Catholic Church in the eleventh century was the grandson of a Jew. The biographies of Cowdrey (pp. 27–8) and Morghen (pp. 10–11) represent the opposite poles of opinion on this. That Hildebrand became a monk while still a boy is, again, the expression of a consensus rather than a certainty.

70
Acts of the Apostles 8.23

71
Peter Damian,
Vita Romualdi
, p. 33

72
Desiderius of Monte Cassino, p. 1143

73
Life of Pope Leo IX
, 1.2

74
Ibid.
, 1.15

75
Ibid.
, 2.3

76
Hildebert, col. 865

77
John of Fécamp, col. 797

78
From the notorious letter written by Humbert to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and published under Leo’s name:
PL
143, col. 752

79
Humbert,
De Sancta Romana Ecclesia
. Quoted by Schramm 2 (1929), p. 128

80
Otto of Freising,
The Two Cities
, 6.33

81
Desiderius of Monte Cassino, 1.2

82
Amatus of Monte Cassino, 3.7

83
Ibid.
, 3.16

84
Blickling Homilies
, p. 137

85
Liudprand,
The Mission to Constantinople
, 3.34

86
Revelation 12.9. The prophecy that Michael would kill the Antichrist dates back to the late fourth century.

87
Hermann of Reichenau, p. 132

88
William of Apulia, 2.240–1

89
Michael Psellus, p. 116.

90
Ibid.
, p. 269

91
Orderic Vitalis, 5.27.

1
Miracula S. Wulframni
. Quoted by Haskins, p. 259

2
According to the tradition preserved by William of Apulia, at any rate. Amatus of Monte Cassino tells a different story, but in his account too, the first Normans recruited as mercenaries in southern Italy are described as originally having been pilgrims.

3
Amatus of Monte Cassino, 1.2

4
Dudo, 269. He is referring to Richard I.

5
The theory is Bachrach’s. See
Fulk Nerra
, pp. 228–9

6
Not, as is conventionally alleged, a tanner. See Van Houts (1986).

7
See Searle (1986).

8
Glaber, 4.22

9
Adam of Bremen, 4.21

10
William of Poitiers, 1.44

11
William of Jumièges, vol. 2, p. 92

12
Encomium Emmae Reginae
, 2.16

13
Geoffrey of Malaterra, 1.3

14
Orderic Vitalis, 4.82

15
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(Abingdon Manuscript), entry for 1042

16
William of Poitiers, 1.7

17
Ibid.
, 1.48

18
Snorri Sturluson,
The Ynglinga Saga
, 1

19
From an epitaph inscribed on a rune stone, memorialising adventurers who had travelled to “Serkland.” Quoted by Page, p. 89

20
The derivation of the name is widely, but not universally, accepted. The socalled “Normanist controversy” – the question of whether the Rus were predominantly Scandinavian or Slavic – has been a point of issue between Western and Russian scholars for two hundred years. See Franklin and Shepherd, pp. 28
passim
, for a concise overview.

21
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, p. 94

22
Snorri Sturluson,
Heimskringla. The Saga of Olaf Haraldsson
, chapter 238

23
Ibid.
, chapter 199

24
Snorri Sturluson,
King Harald’s Saga
, chapter 2

25
Ibid.

26
Russian Primary Chronicle
, p. 111

27
Michael Psellus, p. 33

28
Snorri Sturluson,
King Harald’s Saga
, chapter 5

29
Ibid.
, chapter 12. One plausible suggestion is that Harald’s undoubted presence in Jerusalem related to the restoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. See Ellis Davidson, p. 219

30
Snorri Sturluson,
King Harald’s Saga
, chapter 16

31
Ibid.
, chapter 17

32
Laxdaela Saga
, chapter 77. The description of the hero’s return from service with “the King of Miklagard” would surely have served for Harald’s as well.

33
Adam of Bremen, 2.61

34
From a Mass for St. Olaf found in an English missal, dated to 1061. See Iversen, p. 405

35
Snorri Sturluson,
King Harald’s Saga
, chapter 17

36
Ibid.
, chapter 1

37
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(Worcester Manuscript), entry for 1051

38
Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster
, pp. 58–9

39
Although, according to Orderic Vitalis, it was Tostig himself who arrived in Norway to make the proposal.

40
Such, at any rate, is what appears to be implied by the scene that appears below the illustration of Halley’s Comet in the Bayeux Tapestry.

41
Snorri Sturluson,
King Harald’s Saga
, chapter 22

42
Encomium Emmae Reginae
, 2.9

43
Adam of Bremen, 3.17

44
Snorri Sturluson,
King Harald’s Saga
, chapter 87

45
Henry of Huntingdon, 2.27. The story was also interpolated into a version of
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
, and may conceivably be authentic, for it is evident that the English were indeed briefly held up at the bridge. I include the story as a tribute to my first history teacher, Major Morris, whose blackboard drawing of the Viking being skewered through his privates first served to awaken me to the joys of medieval history.

46
Snorri Sturluson,
King Harald’s Saga
, chapter 91

47
Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster
, p. 53

48
Battle of Maldon
, p. 294

49
Regino of Prüm, p. xx.

50
Widukind of Corvey, 2.1

51
The Life of King Edward
, the Bayeux Tapestry, and even William of Poitiers, a gungho Norman, all imply that Harold had been nominated by the dying Edward.

52
William of Poitiers, 1.41

53
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(Worcester manuscript), entry for 1066

54
Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster
, p. 51

55
William of Poitiers, 1.38

56
Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster
, p. 81

57
William of Poitiers, 1.48

58
Orderic Vitalis, vol. 2, p. 143

59
Peter Damian. Quoted by Cowdrey (1998), p. 42.

60
Gregory VII,
Register
, 7.23

61
William of Poitiers, 2.7

62
Ibid.
, 2.9

63
Ibid.
, 2.15

64
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 46

65
This seems to me the likeliest interpretation of Harold’s tactics, but it is not the only one. It is possible, of course, that he had always intended to fight a defensive battle – or indeed to blockade William inside Hastings, and not fight a battle at all. For an eclectic range of opinions, see Morillo. For a scythingly sceptical analysis of how little we know about the precise details of the battle, see Lawson (2007).

66
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
, entry for 1003

67
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 46

68
Though no source specifically names them as being present at Hastings, the description of them in contemporary accounts of the battle leaves little room for doubt.

69
William of Poitiers, 2.21

70
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 49

71
That Harold was struck in the eye by an arrow is one of the most celebrated details of English history – but its fame derives principally from the Bayeux Tapestry, a hugely problematic piece of evidence. Other sources, however, some of them near contemporary, do lend credence to the tradition. See Lawson (2007), pp. 226–33

72
William of Poitiers, 2.25

73
Thorkill Skallasson. Quoted by Van Houts (1995), p. 836

74
Milo Crispin, 13.33

75
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(Worcester manuscript), entry for 1066

76
Orderic Vitalis, 2.232

77
Hugh of Cluny, p. 143

78
William of Poitiers, 2.42.

1
Lampert of Hersfeld, p. 80

2
Sigebert of Gembloux, p. 360

3
Rudolf’s kinship to Henry is probable but not absolutely certain. See Hlawitschka.

4
Lampert of Hersfeld, p. 92

5
Ibid.
, p. 81

6
Cited in Struve (1984), p. 424

7
Peter Damian,
Letters
, vol. 4, p. 151

8
Ibid.
, vol. 3, p. 27