- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
1 comment:
I think if you wrote it in the form of a neocon, feel-good novel, you would establish yourself as a choice candidate for an interview on the Rush Limbaugh show, or The View.
Post a Comment