74 NOTES AND QUERIES. [i2S.ix.juLY23.i92i.
The Year 1000 a.d. (12 S. viii. 369, 438, 455.) It seems a pity that Mr. T. Percy Armstrong (12 S. viii. 438) should state so boldly that "there is no truth" in M. de Pas's views on this question, for his note indicates that he possesses neither acquaintance with the recent literature of the subject nor ability to distinguish between primary and secondary historical authorities.
During the last fifty years considerable attention has been paid to this story by continental scholars, among whom may be mentioned P. Orsi in 'Rivista Storica Italiana,' vol. 4 (1888), H. von Eicker in 'Forschungen zur deutscher Geschicht,' vol. 23 (1883) and F. Plain in 'Revues des Questions historiques' (1873). The gist of the conclusion at which they have independently and unanimously arrived is as follows: The statement that as the thousandth year from the Incarnation approached a universal panic swept over Western Europe is first found in Baronius' 'Annales Ecclesiastici,' 1605. It was extensively propagated, partly for controversial purposes, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by Michelet, Sismondi, Hallam, and others, and William Robertson's 'Table of the Progress of Society' in his history of Charles V. (1769) is probably chiefly responsible for the widespread nature of the error. In point of fact the story is not found in the Middle Ages at all. None of the great universal histories, such as Vincent of Beauvais's 'Speculum historiale' (thirteenth century), or even 'Herimannus Augiensis' (× 1054) 'Chronicon de Sex Aetatibus Mundi' mentions it. Nor do any of the chroniclers of the late tenth or early eleventh centuries in Italy, Germany, or France. It is not found in any of the contemporary lives, i.e., those written by persons intimate with their hero, such as Thangman's ' Vita S. Bernwardi, Episcopi Hildesheimensis Ecclesise ' ( X 1022), or Hel- gaudus' * Vita Roberti regis' (X 1031) ; nor in any papal Bull, though some 150 are extant for the period 970-1000; nor in any of the acts of general or provincial Councils of the late tenth century, num- erous though these are, nor in any legal documents, leases, wills, &c. But let us turn to the evidence which Mr. Armstrong produces in favour, of the story. In view of the fact that no late tenth cen- tury Council mentions it (why did the Council of Rome in 998 inflict a ten years penance on. King Robert of France ?) the vague statement attributed to this unnamed Council of 909 is valueless. In any case it has nothing to do with the year 1000 in particular, but with the idea of the Second Advent, which has occupied the minds of all earnest Christians, from St. Paul down- wards, in general. This is also the case with the Hermit of Thuringia : here again vague foreboding is all that can be dis- cerned and the year 1000 is not so much as hinted at. Add to this the Hermit appears for the first time in Tritheim's 'Annales Hirsaugiensium,' which saw the light in 1514. It is as if one quoted Mr. Armstrong .as a contemporary authority for the Battle of Agincourt ! 'YA sermon preached in Paris in 990." This is vague indeed and shows clearly that Mr. Armstrong has taken all his autho- rities at second or third hand. I presume, however, that the sermon is that mentioned by Abbo, Abbot of Fleury (X 1004) in his ' Libra Apologeticus ' (Migne. ' Patrologia latina, ' vol. cxxxix.). Here Abbo says that as a youth (i.e., before 970) he heard a sermon on Antichrist. His words are : " De fine quoque mundi coram populo sermonem in Ecclesia Parisiorum adole- scentulus audivi quod statim finito mille annorum numero Antichristi adveniret et noil longo post tempora universale judi- cium succediret." Even taking for granted that the preacher was basing his remarks on Revelations xx. 3 and 4 (though Abbo does not say so) there is nothing to show that he was referring to the year 1000 from the Incarnation, nor is there any exact state- ment either here or in the Bible (e.g., Rev. xx. 3) as to when the thousand years began. The reference to Godellus is an unfortunate one. In the first place the chronicle which goes under his name did not appear till 1173. I have not examined the original manuscript (Bibl. Nat.man. lat. 4893), neither, I suppose, has Mr. Armstrong. But the extracts which Bougent prints ('Receuil des historiens des Gaules et de la France' X262) gives not M. but MX. as the year of anxiety. This, of course, knocks Mr. Armstrong's case on the head. I suppose that " Godellus " was quoting from Radul- phus Glaber, whose history extends from 987 to 1044, which shows that the year 1010 marked an epoch because it was that in which the Holy Sepulchre was rifled by the Mad Caliph"! A mere, reference to Glaber's work would show that the building
