Novel thoughts

So, I have been toying with the idea of a short novel based on the execution of heretics at Orleans in 1022, which was the center of my Master's thesis. The events of 28 December 1022 are described in five primary accounts, which differ in details, some significantly. The narrator is a monk named Heribert, who appears (sort of) in two of these accounts. He is, perhaps, the only one of the heretics to recant and be spared the flames, though one of the accounts mentions a monk and a nun recanting. In this short passage, the differences between two of the accounts begin to be explained. There is a dispute over which of the accounts is most reliable, and one's position on this matter tends to depend on whether one believes the heretics in France were home-grown or had been proselytized by Bogomil heretics from Bulgaria. The accounts, in chronological order:

1. Jean of Ripol (early 1023): John was an eyewitness. His account is judged reliable by all, but is prized by those favoring a home-grown heresy. I judge him most reliable.
   
2. Ademar of Chabannes (c. 1027): Ademar receieved information from a distance. His account is favored by those favoring Bogomil missionary activity on the strength of his identification of the heretics as "Manichaeans." Referred to in the text below as "that dolt from Limoges." I judge him least reliable, as his account lacks important detail and trades in tropes.
   
3. Rodolphus Glaber (c. 1037): Ralph the Bald- "the bald monk"- may have learned some details of the heretics from the prosecuting bishop in the case. His placement varies most from author to author. I think he is the third most reliable witness to the account.
4. Andre of Fleury (before 1042): Andre was also an eyewitness, who recorded his story in two works. "The Life of Gauzlin" tells the tale of his abbot, who participated in the synod that prosecuted the heretics. "The Miracles of Saint Benedict" tells of the blessings bestowed upon the monastery of Saint-Benoit sur Loire, his monastery. Andre may have witnessed the proceedings. I think he is about as reliable as John of Ripol.
5. Paul of Saint-Pere de Chartres (c. 1075): Paul's account may have been based on the recollections of the nobleman Arefast who, according to this tale, infiltrated and exposed the group. Contains lurid details suggestive of dualist heresy. This account takes pride of place for those seeking Bogomil influence. I find it only slightly more reliable than Ademar.

The bald monk from Bèze who writes so feverishly has been studiously avoiding me. I have little desire to interact with him, but it seems inevitable. Caught up in the enthusiasm for the recently passed millennium of the Crucifixion, he writes in incomprehensible Latin of the events surrounding the year 1000 and of the so-called prodigies in the years immediately before and after. In love with his own words, he speaks of Gaul being covered in a mantle of white churches as the people turned to God with the turning of the years and with the expectation of the approaching end.

Among the prodigies he writes of is a peasant from Vertus, who thought he had been entered through the genitals by a swarm of bees and who entered the church, destroying the cross and spreading heresy before ultimately throwing himself in a well. In another piece, he writes of a scholar in Ravenna who, visited in a dream by demons disguised as Vergil, Juvenal and Horace, preached their works as Christians preach the Gospel. Reason argues against the truth of these stories, but I am told he actually believes them.

And indeed, some months after his arrival I am told by the abbot to speak to the bald monk, his name is Rodolphus, of my experiences at Orléans. He wants me to help this Rodolphus with his history, as I did that dolt from Limoges. When we finally meet, he claims to have met Odolric at Bèze, as the bishop returned from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. This was likely enough, and I am interested to learn from him what Odolric has told him of our sect. If he learned anything from the bishop, it will consist of lies, either those I told Odolric or those he invented himself.

It was not hard to take the measure of this man. This was what one did as principal of the church school, especially when one had something to hide, and I evaded detection for nearly five years. He was not truly interested in what we believed; he said as much when he admitted to believing we practiced the same religion as some sectarians he had heard of from Italy. I encouraged this, expressing shock and admiration that he had realized that connection, one that none had made before. We had been taken in, I reluctantly informed him, by a woman from Italy who, diabolically possessed, spread the poison with her sex.