Communicating the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Sophia Menache 9781138068193, 9781315158211 - DOKUMEN.PUB

Communicating the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Sophia Menache 9781138068193, 9781315158211

339 82 2MB

English Pages 309 Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Communicating the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Sophia Menache
 9781138068193,  9781315158211

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
Title......Page 4
Copyright......Page 5
Contents......Page 6
Sophia Menache: an appreciation......Page 9
Preface......Page 13
Sophia Menache: publications......Page 17
List of abbreviations......Page 27
List of illustrations......Page 29
List of contributors......Page 30
PART I The military orders......Page 32
1 “Blood-Brothers” in the thirteenth-century Latin East? The Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Templar Matthew Sauvage......Page 34
2 The Templars as peacemongers......Page 46
3 On Hospitaller initiatives in the western Mediterranean, 1291–1307......Page 55
4 Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly......Page 70
5 Evidence of the Templars’ religious practice from the records of the Templars’ estates in Britain and Ireland in 1308......Page 81
6 Economic, social and political aspects of the trade of the Teutonic Order in Prussia......Page 95
7 Written communication in the later middle ages – the letter registers of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia......Page 107
PART II The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Latin East......Page 120
8 Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant in the twelfth century......Page 122
9 Urban soundscape: defining space and community in twelfth-century of Jerusalem......Page 134
10 Frankish bathhouses: Balneum and furnus – a functional dyad?......Page 152
11 Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East......Page 172
12 A rough guide to the Holy Land: Pilgrims’ use of the Mount Zion library in the fifteenth century......Page 188
13 First officer of the crown of France and his legacy in the Latin East: Imbert de Beaujeu......Page 200
14 The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages......Page 210
PART III Ideology, propaganda and communication......Page 224
15 The ideology of Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia: the “Book of Deeds,” Bernat Desclot and the conquest of Majorca......Page 226
16 Thomas Ebendorfer and crusading past and present......Page 246
17 Philip II and Antwerp: the limits of representation......Page 259
18 The contested seed of Abraham......Page 270
19 Letters home: British crusaders in Flanders, France, Gallipoli and Palestine during World War I......Page 285
Index......Page 296

Citation preview

Communicating the Middle Ages

This volume is a collection of nineteen original essays by leading specialists on the history, historiography and memory of the Crusades, the social and cultural aspects of life in the Latin East, as well as the military orders and inter-religious relations in the Middle Ages. Intended to appeal to scholars and students alike, the volume honours Professor Sophia Menache of the Department of History, University of Haifa, Israel. The contributions reflect the richness of Professor Menache’s research interests – medieval communications, the Church and the Papacy in the central and later Middle Ages, the Crusades and the military orders, as well as the memory and historiography of the Crusades. Iris Shagrir is associate professor of Medieval History at the Open University of Israel. Her research focuses on crusade history, religious, cultural history of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, pilgrimage, liturgy in the Latin East, medieval anthroponymy and interreligious relations in the Middle Ages. Benjamin Z. Kedar is professor emeritus of Medieval History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the founding and active editor of the journal Crusades. Formerly president of the international Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (1995–2002), chairman of the board of the Israel Antiquities Authority (2000–12) and vice-president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (2010–15). Author of 40 books and 250 articles. Michel Balard is professor emeritus of Medieval History, University Paris 1 – Sorbonne, president of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (2001–8), chairman of the Federation of the historical Societies of Paris and Ile-de-France (1999–present). Author of 43 books and 280 articles.

Crusades – Subsidia Series Editor: Christoph T. Maier University of Zurich, for The Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East

This series of ‘Subsidia’ to the journal ‘Crusades’ is designed to include publications deriving from the conferences held by the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East along with other volumes associated with the society. The scope of the series parallels that of the journal itself: Crusades covers seven hundred years from the First Crusade (1095–1102) to the fall of Malta (1798) and draws together scholars working on theatres of war, their home fronts and settlements from the Baltic to Africa and from Spain to the Near East and on theology, law, literature, art, numismatics and economic, social, political and military history. Recent titles in the series: La Papauté et les croisades/The Papacy and the Crusades Michel Balard On the Margins of Crusading Helen J. Nicholson Contact and Conflict in Frankish Greece and the Aegean, 1204–1453 Nikolaos G. Chrissis and Mike Carr Deeds Done Beyond the Sea Susan B. Edgington and Helen J. Nicholson Crusading and Warfare in the Middle Ages Simon John and Nicholas Morton The Crusade in the Fifteenth Century Norman Housley The Fifth Crusade in Context E.J. Mylod, Guy Perry, Thomas W. Smith, and Jan Vandeburie The Templars and their Sources Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand and Helen Nicholson

Communicating the Middle Ages Essays in Honour of Sophia Menache

Edited by Iris Shagrir Benjamin Z. Kedar Michel Balard

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Iris Shagrir, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Michel Balard individual chapters, the contributors The right of Iris Shagrir, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Michel Balard to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-06819-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-15821-1 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC


Sophia Menache: an appreciation






Sophia Menache: publications List of abbreviations List of illustrations List of contributors

xvi xxvi xxviii xxix


The military orders 1 “Blood-Brothers” in the thirteenth-century Latin East? The Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Templar Matthew Sauvage




2 The Templars as peacemongers



3 On Hospitaller initiatives in the western Mediterranean, 1291–1307



4 Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly



5 Evidence of the Templars’ religious practice from the records of the Templars’ estates in Britain and Ireland in 1308 H E L E N J . N I C HOL S ON




6 Economic, social and political aspects of the trade of the Teutonic Order in Prussia



7 Written communication in the later middle ages – the letter registers of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia




The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Latin East 8 Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant in the twelfth century

89 91


9 Urban soundscape: defining space and community in twelfth-century of Jerusalem



10 Frankish bathhouses: Balneum and furnus – a functional dyad?



11 Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East



12 A rough guide to the Holy Land: Pilgrims’ use of the Mount Zion library in the fifteenth century



13 First officer of the crown of France and his legacy in the Latin East: Imbert de Beaujeu



14 The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages




Ideology, propaganda and communication


15 The ideology of Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia: the “Book of Deeds,” Bernat Desclot and the conquest of Majorca



Contents 16 Thomas Ebendorfer and crusading past and present

vii 215


17 Philip II and Antwerp: the limits of representation



18 The contested seed of Abraham



19 Letters home: British crusaders in Flanders, France, Gallipoli and Palestine during World War I





Sophia Menache: an appreciation

Born in 1948 in Buenos Aires to a Jewish family of proud Damascene descent, Sophia Menache was active in a Zionist youth movement in Argentina until making Aliyah (immigration) to Israel soon after the Six Day War of 1967. Under the supervision of Professors Joshua Prawer and Aryeh Grabois, she wrote her doctoral dissertation on the early Avignonese papacy and its historical image, and earned her PhD degree from the Hebrew University in 1981. Ever since, she has been a professor and an academic leader at the University of Haifa, an esteemed teacher dedicated to research, markedly involved in scholarly activities in Israel and abroad, as well as in voluntary community work. In her first published article, “Les Hébreux du XIVeme siècle: La formation des stéréotypes nationaux en France et en Angleterre” (Ethno-psychologie, 1980), Menache investigated issues that – together with the history of the papacy, the medieval monarchy and the development of medieval communication – were to be henceforth at the focus of her prolific scholarship and impact. In this early paper, Menache approached the daunting issue of national identity through examining the notion of the ‘chosen people.’ She argued that the French kings, who saw themselves as leaders of the new chosen people, developed a sense of alterity and uniqueness of the French that enhanced the formation of early national and religious stereotypes, especially of the Jews. This led her to an original interpretation of the late-medieval expulsion of the Jews from France and England. The issues of stereotypes, image, propaganda and national sentiments formed the core of her early scholarship, and through these lenses she examined the history of the military orders, European kingship, the papacy, holy war and crusade. In 1990 Sophia Menache summoned the voice of God to late-twentieth century communication research. In her groundbreaking study of media and propaganda in the Middle Ages she has shown how modern studies of communication systems, advertising and the manipulation of public opinion can interact with medieval studies. The Vox Dei: Communication in the Middle Ages1 examines the

Sophia Menache: an appreciation ix formation of communication systems in England and France from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries through an analysis of case studies such as crusade propaganda, the spread of heretical movements, and the nationalizing monarchies. Her study persuasively exposes a medieval ‘communication revolution’ and – combined with a long-time interest in the power-building and power-wielding of medieval political leaders – proved to be a wellspring of future research. Clement V 2 marked the culmination of three decades of Menache’s interest in this shrewd and controversial pope, an interest that led her to reassess his critically important pontificate. Utilizing insights from her previous work on political and religious propaganda, Menache analyzed Clement’s policy and the reactions to it and offered a new coherent picture of his pontificate within the context of medieval publicity and image building. The book has made scholars attentive to overlooked yet significant issues. L’humour en chaire: Le rire dans l’Eglise médiévale,3 co-authored with Jeannine Horowitz, is a scholarly work that takes amusement seriously. Addressing the engaging topic of laughter and its social role, this study of numerous medieval exempla traced a turning point in the role of laughter and its use by preachers to manipulate the sentiments of lay listeners. Showing that the preachers’ increased attention to their audience’s feelings included not only intimidation and reproach but also delightful tales and comic relief, Menache and Horowitz touched on the study of emotions and performance, psychological theories of humor, and medieval sermon studies. Asking an original question – how, why, when, and at whose expense did medieval people laugh – the book identified the parole nouvelle of the thirteenth century pulpit. In her Communication in the Jewish Diaspora: The Pre-Modern Period,4 a collection of articles she edited in 1996, Menache pointed out that while the communication process is a universal human experience, communication in the pre-modern Jewish diaspora was unique. The studies Menache assembled disprove previous assumptions about the haphazard and unintentional nature of communication systems in the pre-modern world. Building on Menache’s previous studies of medieval communications, the book offers a set of methodological premises for better understanding the unique features of communications systems among Jews. In her introduction to this collection Menache noted that current theories of communication hold that “to communicate on the highest level is regarded as a demarcation line between human beings and animals.” Yet in her subsequent work she turned to human-animal interactions. Taking as a starting point the basic hostility towards dogs in the main religious traditions, she explored in numerous articles (e.g., “Dogs: God’s Worst Enemies?”, “Dogs: A Story of Friendship”) the roots of the canine image and stereotype in pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslim cultures. These studies introduced into the historical discourse ample insights on human/non-human communication in all its ambiguity, on the concepts of liminality and pollution, as well as on the affection and rapport that characterize daily routine and its depictions in literature. Crusades and military orders (notably the Order of Calatrava) have been a further focus of Menache’s studies. Her study of medieval communication led to exploration of issues like the transmission of Pope Urban II’s Clermont Address, interaction among


Sophia Menache: an appreciation

First Crusaders of various ethnic origins, the role of bilingual skills in contacts with Muslims and Byzantines, information transfer between Outremer and the West, and much more.5 Her studies of propaganda led to the investigation of calls for crusades and of attitudes toward the Templars in medieval times, as well as to a study of public relations strategies adopted during the First Gulf War.6 Also, she surveyed the research on the crusades done by Israeli historians from the 1940s onward, and gave her view on the perennial Crusader/Zionist analogy, drawing attention to its remarkable prefiguration in a letter Moses Mendelssohn had written in 1760.7 And she co-edited a volume honoring Aryeh Grabois, her primus magister in matters medieval.8 Menache made significant contributions to the academic life in her country. Two series she has written for the Open University of Israel, namely the fourvolume The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages: Ideology and Politics and The Emergence of Parliaments in the Middle Ages, as well as her Selected Chapters in Medieval Political Philosophy based on a radio series,9 have become part of the medieval studies curriculum in Israeli universities and colleges. Sophia Menache has felt also the urge to write the history of her family and produced a touching account of the survival struggles and conflicted identities of her ancestors and siblings in twentieth-century Buenos Aires. She devoted the book Un retazo del olvido: De Damasco a Buenos Aires (2014) to the memory of her brother (Moaded Salvador Nestor, “Kiké”), an alleged political dissident who disappeared in 1976 during the dictatorship of the military junta. Her sympathy for people struggling with life in a new country led to a lifelong endeavor to facilitate the integration of immigrant students at Haifa University, a voluntary activity that earned her in 2004 a special distinction from The Jewish Agency for Israel. In a ceremony in her honour at Haifa University held in January 2016, former students described Sophia as a beloved and inspiring mentor from 1981 down to her retirement, a teacher who opened heart and home to many of those who, like herself, chose in their youth Israel as their new homeland. Throughout her career, Sophia has been involved in academic life in Israel and abroad. She served as a member of many academic committees and editorial boards, and held leading positions in the University of Haifa: she chaired the Department of History and The University of Haifa Honors Program, and served as Dean of Advanced Studies. In addition, she was the Coordinator of Israeli UniversitiesUNESCO Joint Masters Degree Program for Palestinian and Israeli students; in this capacity she was granted in 2009 an audience with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. From 2002 to 2009 Menache served as Secretary of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. During this period she organized, in close cooperation with Michel Balard, the SSCLE president at the time, two international conferences: the first, in Istanbul in 2004 commemorated the Fourth Crusade; the second, in Avignon in 2008, focused on papal crusading policy and on the Albigensian crusade. The success of these well-attended meetings is much to the credit of Menache’s efforts to engage SSCLE members, in particular to encourage the participation of younger scholars who were making their first steps in the field. During her tenure SSCLE membership grew, and her dedication, kindness and benevolence was appreciated by all.

Sophia Menache: an appreciation xi We are proud to offer this book to Sophia, a short time after her retirement from teaching, but by no means from researching the crusades. Iris Shagrir, Benjamin Z. Kedar, Michel Balard

Notes 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994. Leiden: Brill, 1996. See especially “The Communication Challenge of the Early Crusades, 1099–1187,” in Autour de la Première Croisade. Actes du Colloque de la ‘Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East,’ Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995, ed. Michel Balard (Paris, 1996), 293–314. See the paper, co-authored with Daniel Gutwein, “Just War, Crusade and Jihad: Conflicting Propaganda Strategies During the Gulf Crisis (1990–1991),” Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 80 (2002), 385–400. “Una historia que no se repite: El Reino Cruzado y el Estado de Israel,” Majshavot 24–3 (1985), 81–6. Michael Goodich, Sophia Menache and Sylvia Schein, ed., Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays Presented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (New York: Peter Lang, 1995). Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense, 2007.


The triple themes of this volume neatly reflect Sophia Menache’s interconnected historical interests. My first contact with her arose through a mutual interest in the Templars, and these rightly take centre-stage in the opening section on the military orders. Four papers illustrate the many facets of an Order which has so often been presented as simply a machine for combatting Muslim warriors, but in the crusader states displayed subtlety and restraint as well as fighting prowess. In the thirteenth century – and probably well before – there were always what today’s diplomats would call back channels, that is, contacts with the ‘enemy’ in which negotiation, often discreet and even secret, was a central element in the conduct of policy. Jochen Burgtorf’s examination of the close links between the Templar Matthew Sauvage and the Mamluk sultan Baybars shows that Matthew had developed a special relationship with the sultan which might have been able to offset, albeit partially, the weakness of the Latins in the East in the later thirteenth century [Chapter 1]. During this period, the Templars entered into their own negotiations in order to make peace treaties and truces. It may not have expressed itself in so dramatic a form as ‘blood brotherhood,’ but was nevertheless firmly established, ultimately enabling William of Beaujeu, the last Grand Master on the Palestinian mainland, to become the best-informed of the Latins. His warnings and advice were not heeded, but this does not diminish the importance of Templar diplomacy. Such a policy was possible because it was solidly based on past experience, developed when, with little central authority to control them, the Templars began to negotiate their own treaties and truces, as well as assisting distraught relatives to ransom their imprisoned crusaders or recover their bodies for Christian burial. As Yvonne Friedman shows, they were only restrained when Louis IX was in the kingdom of Jerusalem, but his punishment of Hugues de Jouy, the Order’s Marshal, for engaging in such activity, was only a brief interlude in a period of increasing Christian fragmentation [Chapter 2]. High-end diplomacy catches the eye, but the Order equally needed to function on a day-to-day basis, and here research into local houses is fundamental. Most of these preceptories were created and sustained by the local nobility, but this could be a two-way process. Alain Demurger’s case study demonstrates how these interconnections could work [Chapter 4]. In 1296 Othon de Grandson was rewarded by Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master, with a rent of 2,000 l.t. in return for the property and services he had provided over the years. At the time Othon refers to Molay and his colleagues as ‘dear friends,’ but just over a decade later these

Preface xiii arrangements were abruptly overturned by the arrests and sequestrations carried out by Philip the Fair’s officials. Among the many effects of this action was the infringement of the rights of other parties and, in 1308, following his appeal, Othon de Grandson was compensated by the king and the pope with an equivalent rent taken on the houses of Thors, Epailly and Coulours. Disruptive as it was, the trial nevertheless does offer new sources of information on the local activities of the Order. Helen J. Nicholson’s analysis of the inventories of Britain and Ireland made in 1308, shows the extent of the Order’s possession of religious artefacts [Chapter 5]. None of these offer evidence of heresy or blasphemy, but it is evident that some Templar churches and chapels were quite opulent. In 1260 the Grand Master, Thomas Bérard, proposed offering the Order’s church plate as collateral for a loan to help operations in the Holy Land. Both these papers illustrate the interdependent nature of the Templar network in the thirteenth century, a network which operated right up to the eve of the trial. However, the context inevitably changed after the loss of Acre in 1291, posing new practical problems not only for the Templars but also for the other great military orders. Karl Borchardt demonstrates the difficulties faced by both the Temple and the Hospital in their search for a new headquarters [Chapter 3]. The Hospital established itself on Rhodes and it is probable that the Templars would have settled for Cyprus had not the trial intervened. Even so, there was a case for moving to the western end of the Mediterranean, where, in Iberia, the Christians had achieved so much more than their brethren in the East. Both orders directed resources into north-east Spain – seen most notably in the work put in by the Templars on the fortress of Peñíscola – but, in the end neither opted for a main base in the region. Powerful secular rulers would have restricted any incipient state building and distance from the East at a time when it was not realised that the Holy Land was lost for ever, made for formidable obstacles. In contrast, the Teutonic Knights, who were much less rooted in the Holy Land, already had a viable alternative in Prussia, where, in the later Middle Ages they played a major role in the politics and economy of the region. Detailed analysis of local sources by Roman Czaja [Chapter 6] and Jürgen Sarnowsky [Chapter 7] is, as with the Templars, an effective means of understanding their wider roles. The letters examined by Sarnowsky over a limited period of three years are especially illuminating, both for their material content and for their form and structure. The crusader states came to depend upon the military orders for many reasons, but the Italian maritime cities were equally important (although just as flawed) as allies. The two cities described here are Pisa and Genoa. Both understood the economic opportunities offered by Palestine and Syria, although the Genoese established a more solid presence, since, until 1160, the Pisans were more interested in booty than privileges. David Jacoby’s paper shows that, even before the First Crusade the Pisans had already established themselves in Egypt, largely through private initiatives rather than through state policy [Chapter 8]. In the 1160s, when King Amalric was trying to conquer the country, they took advantage of the evolving situation to support the king, although they were the only Italian maritime city to do so. The Latin failure in the face of the rising power of Saladin meant that, by the 1190s, there was little left of this brief Pisan supremacy. In contrast, Michel



Balard’s description of the more structured approach of the Genoese leads him to consider whether this could be seen as more in the nature of an imperial venture [Chapter 14]. However, Genoese ambition was almost exclusively devoted to economic exploitation and lacked the political and cultural dimensions of the sixteenth-century Spanish or the nineteenth-century British. The history of the Italian maritime cities in the crusader states has long been a subject of detailed investigation, but work on internal conditions within these states is, in some ways less advanced, for the documentation is uneven and archaeological work is still proceeding. Three papers evoke the sights and sounds of the twelfth century. Iris Shagrir discusses the ‘acoustic transformation’ of Jerusalem [Chapter 9]. After the First Crusade the city came to be dominated by the new sound of bells, apparently manufactured in the area. The bells provided an essential structure for the day, as well as emphasising that the city was now under the control of Latin Christians, whose families originated from a world in which bells had been the norm since the ninth century. On a public level, bells also helped to cement Christian communal feeling, but this similarly found expression in more private gatherings, most importantly, in bath-houses. Benjamin Z. Kedar makes the important point that they were especially valued by women, for whom outlets for self-expression were limited, even in Christian society [Chapter 10]. The baths were places where, as in Muslim countries today, both mental and physical inhibitions could be shed. This communality might well have been reinforced by the close proximity of ovens, which shared a common heat source. Bells, baths and ovens were undoubtedly very familiar to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and other cities, but so too were hospitals and hospices, vital as refuges for the sick and indigent, as well as charnel houses, for the death rate among the poor appears to been high. The very nature of the state as protector of the holy places attracted the presence of pilgrims, some of whom were impoverished or ill by the time they arrived, while disasters like that of the fall of Edessa in 1144, created an influx of refugees, many of whom had no means of support. Adrian J. Boas examines the evidence for such poverty, which he believes has not yet been properly researched [Chapter 11]. Susan B. Edgington’s paper is set in the fifteenth century, but nevertheless relates closely to the period in that it concerns the collective memory of what the twelfth century was thought to be like by later generations. [Chapter 12]. In the Franciscan library at Mount Zion visiting pilgrims could read and copy accounts of the First Crusade, as well as study the topography of the Holy Land, a valuable if less obvious service than the care and shelter offered by the hospitals. The existence of this collection suggests that other religious houses may have made similar provision, possibly at an earlier date, especially as so many institutions validated themselves though history, real or imagined. Communication represents a third central theme of Sophia Menache’s work and, in various ways, many the other papers in this volume reflect this. Templar negotiators, the letter-writers of the Teutonic Knights, Italian merchants and Latin bell-founders and ringers were all communicators, while the emphasis on collective memory in the later Middle Ages was in itself an important manifestation of the Christian self-image. Anna Sapir Abulafia’s analysis of the different ways the

Preface xv three great Abrahamic religions have interpreted their common past underlines this [Chapter 18]. The past was essential to them all but it only actually existed in the versions in the minds of its most recent heirs. Seculars were no different. As Luis García-Guijarro Ramos shows, both James I of Aragon and Ferdinand III of Castile and León presented their conquests as ‘the work of God which the king had been entrusted to accomplish’ [Chapter 15]. In his own account and in that of Bernat Desclot, writing slightly later, James I is presented in this way, despite the foundering of the king’s expedition to the East. In the fifteenth century, the theologian, Thomas Ebendorfer (died 1464) had a wider vision and thus a more difficult task if he was to promote the crusade in a convincing fashion [Chapter 16]. Norman Housley explains how for Ebendorfer mounting a crusade against the looming threat of the Ottomans could only be effective when the Church was reformed and narrow secular interests were subordinated to the common cause. In retrospect, neither seems very likely. More limited goals – such as the conquest of Majorca – were more achievable. James I learned this from practical experience: his grand expedition to the East was abandoned before he had left the western Mediterranean and his appeal for a concerted effort at the council of Lyon in 1274 was ignored. Visual imagery could be as tendentious as written propaganda. The so-called ‘Lusignan shield,’ exhibited perhaps in the cathedral at Acre or possibly in the Templar convent, which is examined by Vardit Shotten-Hallel, was actually intended to emphasise the outstanding service given to Louis IX by Imbert de Beaujeu, the Constable of France [Chapter 13]. The entry of the Habsburg, Philip II, into Antwerp in 1549 was more grandiose [Chapter 17]. Teofilo F. Ruiz shows how the nature of the procession, with its formidable array of armaments and the display around it in the form of arches and set-piece spectacles, was designed for maximum impact, although nobody could control the leaden skies which delivered pouring rain all day. Here was a lineal descent from past visual symbolism, much used on the gates of the city-states of late medieval Europe. The last paper, by Elizabeth Siberry is set in a totally different historical context, yet, remarkably, the continuities remain [Chapter 19]. Many of the letters sent from the front in the First World War have a descriptive power and a reflective depth which perhaps even their writers had not previously known they possessed. Some used crusade imagery, a choice which reveals a type of education largely confined to the upper and middle classes. While religious references in workingclass letters are more likely to relate to life centred on parish churches and nonconformist chapels, the ‘crusade’ letters are testimony to the extent to which the late nineteenth-century revival of interest in crusades and the Middle Ages had penetrated the more privileged sectors of the English educational system. Malcolm Barber

Sophia Menache: publications

Ph.D. dissertation The Status of the Papacy and the Image of the Popes in the Early Avignon Period (1305–1334), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1981), Supervisors: Joshua Prawer and Aryeh Grabois. 1980 1 “Les Hébreux du XIVeme siècle: La formation des stéréotypes nationaux en France et en Angleterre,” Ethno-psychologie 35, pp. 55–65. 1982 2 “Contemporary Attitudes Concerning the Templars’ Affair: Propaganda Fiasco?” Journal of Medieval History 8, pp. 135–47. Translated into Russian: 3 “La naissance d’une nouvelle source d’autorité: L’université de Paris,” Revue historique 268–2, pp. 305–27. 1983 4 “Vers une conscience nationale: Mythe et symbolisme au début de la Guerre de Cent Ans,” Le Moyen Age 89, pp. 85–97. 1984 5 “Isabelle of France, Queen of England: A Reconsideration,” Journal of Medieval History 10, pp. 107–24. 6 “Philippe le Bel: Genèse d’une image,” Revue Belge de philologie et d’histoire 62, pp. 689–702. 1985 7 “ ‘Un peuple qui a sa demeure à part’: Boniface VIII et le sentiment national français,” Francia 12, pp. 193–208.

Sophia Menache: publications xvii 8 “Faith, Myth and Politics: The Stereotype of the Jews and their Expulsion from England and France,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 75, pp. 351–74. 9 “Una historia que no se repite: El Reino Cruzado y el Estado de Israel,” Majshavot 24–3, pp. 81–6. 1986 10 “Holy Wars and Sainted Men: Christian War Propaganda in the Middle Ages,” Journal of Communication 36–2, pp. 52–62. [with Esther Cohen]. 11 “The Expulsion of the Jews in the Late Middle Ages,” Zion [Hebrew] 51–3, pp. 319–32. 12 “La Orden de Calatrava y el Clero Andaluz (siglos XIII–XV),” En la España Medieval: Estudios en memoria del Profesor D. Claudio Sánchez Albornoz, 5–1, vol. 1, pp. 633–53. 13 “Réflexions sur quelques papes français du bas Moyen Age: Un problème d’origine,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 81, pp. 117–30. 14 “The Failure of John XXII’s Policy Toward France and England: Reasons and Outcomes, 1316–1334,” Church History 55–4, pp. 423–37. 15 “The Story of a Queen: Isabelle of France, Queen of England,” Zmanim 21, pp. 32–9. [Hebrew]. 1987 16 “The King, the Church and the Jews: Some Considerations on the Expulsions from England and France,” Journal of Medieval History 13, pp. 223–36. 17 “A Juridical Chapter in the History of the Order of Calatrava: The Mastership of Don Alonso de Aragón (1443–1444),” The Legal History Review 55, pp. 321–34. 18 “Una personificación del ideal caballerezco en el medioevo tardío: Don Alonso de Aragón,” Revista de la Universidad de Alicante 6, pp. 9–29. 19 “The Two Swords: Genesis and Decline of a Myth,” in Priesthood and Monarchy: Studies in the Historical Relationship of Religion and State, ed. I. Gafni and G. Motzkin (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center), pp. 123–39 [Hebrew]. 20 “Religious Symbols and Royal Propaganda in the Late Middle Ages: The Crusades,” in Idéologie et Propagande in France, ed. Myriam Yardeni (Paris: Picard), pp. 55–61. 1988 21 “Clément V et le royaume de France: Un nouveau regard,” Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France 74, pp. 23–38. 1989 22 “The Military Orders: Hospitallers and Templars,” in Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of the Wars Between Christianity and Islam, ed. Elizabeth Hallam (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson), p. 254.

xviii Sophia Menache: publications 23 “Bernard of Clairvaux,” Ibid., p. 124. 24 “The Children’s Crusade,” Ibid., p. 242. 25 “The Albigensian Crusade,” Ibid., p. 230. 1990 26 The Vox Dei: Communication in the Middle Ages (New York: Oxford University Press), 353 pp., 30 plates and 6 maps. 27 “A Propaganda Campaign in the Reign of Philip the Fair: 1302–1303,” French History 4, pp. 427–54. 1992 28 “Au commencement était le Verbe: Propagatio Fidei et propagande au Moyen Age,” Revue Belge de philologie et d’histoire 70, pp. 330–56 (with Jeannine Horowitz). 29 “The Transmission of News in the Period of the Crusades,” Medium Aevum Quotidianum 27 (Krems: Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, 1992), ed. Gerhard Jaritz, pp. 116–18. 1993 30 “The Templar Order: A Failed Ideal?” The Catholic Historical Review 79, pp. 1–21. Translated into Russian: E%26696HdljEBfDEIli10 31 “The Humorous Stereotype of Women in Medieval Sermons,” Massachusetts Journal of Communication 11–1, pp. 34–42 [with Jeannine Horowitz]. Book review: 32 J. M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1992), in The Catholic Historical Review (1993): 519–20. 1994 33 L’humour en chaire: Le rire dans l’Eglise médiévale, with Jeannine Horowitz (Genève: Labor et Fides), 287 pp., 14 plates. 34 “The Crusades and Their Impact on the Development of Medieval Communication,” in Kommunikation zwischen Orient und Okzident: Alltag und Sachkultur, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, Internationaler Kongress Krems an der Donau (6. bis 9. Oktober 1992), ed. Harry Kühnel, vol. 17 (Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), pp. 69–90.

Sophia Menache: publications xix 35 “Man and His Dog in the Middle Ages,” The World of Dogs (July), pp. 32–3; (August), pp. 32–3 [Hebrew]. 1995 36 “Medieval Literacy and Media,” in Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, eds. David Crowley and Paul Heyer, second edition (New York: Longman), pp. 72–9. 37 “Dogs in Medieval Islam,” The World of Dogs (January), pp. 32–3 [Hebrew]. 38 “Dogs in Christian Theology,” The World of Dogs (February), pp. 8–10 [Hebrew]. 39 “Dogs, Their Image and Status in Rabbinical Sources,” The World of Dogs (March), pp. 8–10 [Hebrew]. 1996 40 Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays Presented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (New York: Peter Lang), ed. with Michael Goodich and Sylvia Schein, 333 pp., 1 map. 41 Communication in the Jewish Diaspora: The Pre-Modern Period, ed. (Brill: Leiden), 426 pp., 8 maps. 42 “Rhetoric and Its Practice in Medieval Sermons,” Historical Reflections 22–2, pp. 321–50 [with Jeannine Horowitz]. 43 “Tartars, Jews, Saracens, and the Jewish-Mongol Plot of 1241,” History 81, pp. 319–42. Published also in [102] 44 “Quand le rire devient grinçant: la satire politique aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles,” Le Moyen Age 102, pp. 437–63 [with Jeannine Horowitz]. 45 “Rewriting the History of the Templars According to Matthew Paris,” in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays Presented to Aryeh Grabois (New York: Peter Lang), pp. 183–213. Translated to Russian: 9zHIFjryvDKcl2Fk 46 “The ‘Pre-History’ of Communication,” in Communication in the Jewish Diaspora: The Pre-Modern Period (Brill: Leiden), pp. 1–13. 47 “Communication in the Jewish Diaspora: A Survey,” in Communication in the Jewish Diaspora: The Pre-Modern Period (Brill: Leiden), pp. 15–57. 48 “The Communication Challenge of the Early Crusades, 1099–1187,” in Autour de la première croisade, Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. Michel Balard (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne), pp. 293–314. 49 “Matthew Paris and the Jews: A Reconsideration,” in Die mittelalterliche Chronik, ed. Hans van Dijk (Utrecht: Utrecht University Press, 13–16 July 1996), pp. 69–70.


Sophia Menache: publications

Book review 50 Ivan G. Marcus, Rituals of Childhood: Jewish Acculturation in Medieval Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), in Patterns of Prejudice 30, pp. 90–2. 1997 51 “Dogs: God’s Worst Enemies?” Society and Animals 5–1, pp. 23–44. 52 “Matthew Paris’s Attitudes Toward Anglo-Jewry,” Journal of Medieval History 23, pp. 139–62. Book review 53 David Nirenberg, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), in Patterns of Prejudice 31, pp. 66–9. 1998 54 Clement V (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 351 pp., 4 maps. 55 “The Hospitallers During the Pontificate of Clement V: The Spoiled Sons of the Papacy?” in The Military Orders: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 153–62. 56 “Dogs: A Story of Friendship,” Society and Animals 6–1, pp. 67–86. 1999 57 “The Military Orders in the Crusader Period,” in Knights of the Holy Land: The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum), pp. 136–41; in Hebrew: pp. 116–21. Book reviews 58 Norman Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy: A Social and Intellectual History (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1998), Speculum, pp. 468–70. 59 Charles F. Briggs, Giles of Rome’s De Regimine Principum: Reading and Writing Politics at Court and University, c. 1275-c. – c. 1525 (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1999), Church History 69–4, p. 989. 2000 60 “Hunting and Attachment to Dogs in the Pre-Modern Period,” in Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships Between People and Pets, eds. Anthony L. Podberscek, Elizabeth Paul and James A. Serpell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 42–60. 61 “Dogs in the Classical Tradition,” “Couched as a lion . . . who shall rouse him up,” Depictions of Animals from the Leo Mildenberg Collection (Museum Hecht, Haifa), pp. 53–57, 63–7.

Sophia Menache: publications xxi Book review 62 Marco Mostert, ed., New Approaches to Medieval Communication (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), The Medieval Review [online]. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 4 November 2000. 2001 Book review 63 Robin R. Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution: Experiment and Expulsion. 1262–1290 (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1998), Speculum 76–3, pp. 765–6. 2002 64 “Just War, Crusade and Jihad: Conflicting Propaganda Strategies During the Gulf Crisis (1990–1991),” Revue Belge de Philologie et d’histoire 80, pp. 385–400 [with Daniel Gutwein]. Book review 65 Les origines de la féodalité: Hommage à Claudio Sanchez Albornoz, eds. Joseph Pérez et Santiago Aguadé Nieto (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2000), Mediterranean Historical Review 17–2, pp. 86–8. 2003 66 “Pope Clement V,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 15 vols., ed. Berard L. Marthaler (Detroit, 2003), vol. 3, pp. 778–80. 67 “Pope Honorius IV,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, pp. 85–6. 68 “Pope John XXII,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, pp. 931–2. 69 “Pope Nicholas III,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 10, pp. 365–6. 70 “Pope Nicholas IV,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 10, pp. 366–7. Book reviews 71 Helen Nicholson, The Knights Hospitaller (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2001), The Medieval Review [online]. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University. 72 The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences, eds. Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hoch (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), The Medieval Review [online]. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 12 September. 2005 73 “A Clash of Expectations: Self-Image Versus the Image of the Knights Templar in Medieval Narrative Sources,” Analecta Turonensia 13, pp. 47–58. 74 “Animals in the Bible and Qur’an,” Encyclopedia or Religion and Nature, eds. Bron R. Taylor and Jeffrey Kaplan, 2 vols. (Bristol), vol. 1, pp. 76–8.


Sophia Menache: publications

75 “Dogs in the Abrahamic Traditions,” Encyclopedia or Religion and Nature, vol. 1, pp. 497–8. 2006 76 The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages: Ideology and Politics, 4 vols. (Tel Aviv: Open University) [Hebrew]. 77 The Birth of Parliaments in the Middle Ages (Tel Aviv: Open University) [Hebrew]. 78 “Chronicles and Historiography: The Interrelationship of Fact and Fiction,” Journal of Medieval History 32–4 (2006): 333–45. 79 “Philip the Fair,” The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, ed. Alan V. Murray, 4 vols. (Santa Barbara), pp. 952–3. 80 “Matthew Paris,” The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, pp. 807–8. 81 “Communications,” The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, pp. 265–9. 82 “Vienne, Council of” The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, pp. 1230–1. 83 “Clement V,” The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, pp. 262–3. Book review 84 Piers D. Mitchell, Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds, and the Medieval Surgeon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), in The International History Review 28–2, pp. 378–80. 2007 85 Selected Chapters in Medieval Political Philosophy (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence). 86 Human Beings and Other Animals, ed. with Benny Arbel et Iosi Terkel. (Jerusalem: Carmel) 87 “Violence Against Dogs: Religion and Ecology in Medieval Western Christendom,” in Human Beings and Other Animals, pp. 193–209. 88 “Jacques de Molay, the Last Master of the Temple,” in Knighthood of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar presented to Malcolm Barber on his 65th Birthday (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 229–40. Book review 89 Karsten Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes: The Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford: Legenda, 2005), The Medieval Review [online]. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University. 2008 90 “Medieval States and Military Orders: The Order of Calatrava in the Late Middle Ages,” in In Laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in Crusades and

Sophia Menache: publications xxiii

91 92 93 94 95

Medieval Culture in Honour of Benjamin Z. Kedar, eds. Iris Shagrir, Ronnie Ellenblum, and Jonathan Riley-Smith (Adershot: Ashgate, 2008), pp. 457–68. “Elections in the Military Orders in the Late Middle Ages: An Achilles’ Heel?” Analecta Turonensia 14 (2007), pp. 1–15. “When Jesus met Mohammed in the Holy Land: Attitudes Toward the “Other” in the Crusader Period,” Medieval Encounters 14 (2008), pp. 218–37. “Israeli Historians of the Crusades and Their Main Areas of Research, 1946– 2008,” Storia della Storiografia, 53 (2008), pp. 3–24. “Communication in the Jewish Diaspora,” Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, 3 vols., ed. M. Avrum (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO), vol. 1, pp. 38–42. “Iglesia y Monarquía en la Edad Media Tardía: Conflictos y Semejanzas,” Acta Mediaevalia Historica et Archaelogica 29 (2008), pp. 497–516.

Book review 96 Michel Balard, Les Latins en Orient: XIe–XVe siècle (Paris: Presses universitaires de France – Nouvelle Clio, 2006), in Crusades 7 (2008), pp. 223–5. 2009 97 “Written and Oral Testimonies in Medieval Chronicles: Matthew Paris and Giovanni Villani,” The Medieval Chronicle 6 (2009), pp. 1–30. 98 “Ustnaya tradicia v chronikah: texti i istoricheskie contexti,” in: Odysseus. Man in history. Script/Oralia: the Written and the Oral in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times (Moscow, 2008), pp. 89–115. [English version in 101]. Book review 99 Sebastian Coxon, Laughter and Narrative in the Later Middle Ages: German Comic Tales 1350–1525 (Oxford: Legenda, 2008), The Medieval Review [online]. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 26 September 2009. 2010 100 “O amor de Deus ou o ódio ao seu inimigo? As vozes emocionais das Cruzadas,” Mirabilia 10 (2010), pp. 1–20 [online]. 101 “Orality in Chronicles: Texts and Historical Contexts,” in Homo Legens (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 161–93. [Russian version in 97]. 102 “Tartars, Jews, Saracens, and the Jewish-Mongol Plot of 1241,” [no. 43] in Travellers, Intellectuals, and the World Beyond Medieval Europe, in The Expansion of Latin Europe, 1000–1500, eds. James Muldoon and Felipe Fernández-Armesto (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010), pp. 247–70.


Sophia Menache: publications

2011 103 “When Ideology Met Reality: Clement V and the Crusade,” La papauté et les croisades: The Papacy and the Crusades Crusades – Subsidia 3, ed. Michel Balard (Farnham: Ashgate), pp. 105–16. 104 “Obraz sebia i obraz Drugogo v Ierusalimskom korolevstve” [Self-Image and “the Other” in the Second Crusader Kingdom: 1187–1291], in Obrazi proshlogo (Images of the Past) – Studies in Medieval Culture in Honour of Aaron Gurevitch, eds. Svetlana Luchitskaya, Kirill Levinson, et al. (San Petersburg), pp. 56680 [Russian]. 2012 105 “Papal Attempts at a Commercial Boycott of the Muslims During the Crusader Period,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63–2, pp. 1–24. 106 “Political Propaganda in Papal Documentation: The Gelasian Theory from a Communication Perspective,” Edad Media: Revista de Historia 13, pp. 57–76. 107 “Isabella of France, Queen of England: A Postscript,” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 90–2, pp. 1–20. 108 “From Unclean Species to Man’s Best Friend – Dogs in the Biblical, Mishnah, and Talmud Periods,” In A Jew’s Best Friend?: The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History, eds. Rakefet Zalashik and Philip Ackerman Lieberman (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2012), pp. 36–51. Book review 109 Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson, eds., The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314) (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), H-France Review 12 (2012), no. 78 [online]. 110 Femmes de pouvoir, femmes politiques durant les derniers siècles du Moyen Âge et au cours de la première Renaissance, eds. Eric Bousmar, Jonathan Dumont, Alain Marchandisse and Bertrand Schnerb (Brussels, Éditions De Boeck Université, 2012), Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 90–4 (2012). 2013 111 Un retazo del olvido: De Damasco a Buenos Aires (CreateSpace). 2014 112 “Emotions at the Service of Politics: Another Perspective of the Experience of Crusading (1095–1187),” in Jerusalem the Golden: The Origins and Impact of the First Crusade, ed. Susan B. Edgington and Luis GarcíaGuijarro Ramos (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 235–54.

Sophia Menache: publications xxv 113 “Netherworld Envoys or Man’s Best Friends? Attitudes to Dogs in the Ancient World,” in Routledge Handbook of Human Animal Studies, eds. Garry Marvin and Susan McHugh (Routledge), pp. 114–23. 2015 114 “Frente a la desaparición: Un testimonio,” (Universidad 3 de Febrero), 8. 115 “After twenty-five Years: Joshua Prawer’s Contribution to the historiography of the Crusades and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem Reconsidered,” in The Crusader World, ed. Adrian J. Boas (Routledge), 675–87. 2016 116 “Cultural Hero: From Damascus to Buenos Aires,” Sharsheret Hadorot 3 (July), pp. 26–33 [Hebrew]. 117 “Regnum, Sacerdotium and Studium in the Late Middle Ages: The University of Paris,” Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte 19 (2016), pp. 127–44. 2018 118 “Pursuit of Peace in the Service of War: Papal Policy between 1198–1334,” in Yvonne Friedman, ed., Religion and Peace: Historical Aspects (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), pp. 115–28. Forthcoming (1976 – 1900) ‫ תלאותיה של משפחה מדמשק לבואנוס איירס‬:‫עם חילופי התקופות‬ 119 “In Pursuit of Peace in a Conflicted Area: The Israeli Contribution to the Study of the Crusades,” Proceedings of the Terruel Conference, ed. Luis García-Guijarro Ramos. 120 “Communications,” European Dictionary of the Military Orders. 121 “Clement V,” European Dictionary of the Military Orders.




Archives nationales de France Chronica Austrie, ed. Alphons Lhotsky, MGH SS NS 13 (Berlin, 1957) Cartulaire général de l’ordre des Hospitaliers de St Jean de Jérusalem, ed. Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris, 1894–1906) Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis Chronica pontificum Romanorum, ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS NS16 (Munich, 1994) Chronica regum Romanorum, ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS NS 18 (Hanover, 2003) Diarium sive Tractatus cum Boemis (1433–1436), ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS NS 25 (Hanover, 2010) Historia Jerusalemitana, ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS NS 21 (Hanover, 2006) Monumenta Germaniae Historica Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores MGH SS nova series Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, XX. Hauptabteilung (Historisches Staatsarchiv Königsberg), Ordensfolianten Virtuelles Preussisches Urkundenbuch, online at: www. Regesten zu den Briefregistern des Deutschen Ordens II: die Ordensfolianten 8, 9 und Zusatzmaterial, ed. Sebastian Kubon, Annika Souhr-Könighaus, Jürgen Sarnowsky, Beihefte zum Preussischen Urkundenbuch, 2 (Göttingen, 2014) Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Historiens occidentaux Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Historiens arméniens Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens orientaux Regesta Regni Hierosoymitani (Innsbruck, 1893) Revised Regesta Regni Hierosoymitani Database The National Archives of the UK

Abbreviations xxvii UKJ WT

Die Urkunden der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Diplomata regum latinorum hierosolymitanorum, 4 vols. (Hanover, 2010) Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, CCCM 63, 63A, (Turnhout, 1986)


Figures 9.1 Medieval bell found in Temple Mount, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Hall K 10.1 The ‘Atlit bathhouse 10.2 The Acre bathhouse 10.3a–b The Damascene baths of Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh and al-Surūjī 10.3c–d The baths of ‘Atlit and Bustān Nassīf in Baalbek 10.4 ‘Atlit: Angle of piping 10.5 Bustān al-Khān (Baalbek): Angle of piping 13.1 The shield on display at The Israel Museum 13.2 A copy of the report in the IAA archives. The notes are probably those of Levi Rahmani 13.3 Arms of Ymbert de Biajeu and his brother Loys de Biajeu, as they appear in the Wijnbergen armorial. Drawing after manuscript in The National Library of Scotland 13.4 Comparison of the arms from The Israel Museum and the Wijnbergen armorial 18.1 Illustration of the Jacob and Esau narrative in the Bible Moralisée, Codex 2554 fol. 6r of the National Library of Vienna (c. 1220s) 18.2 Depiction of Rebecca giving birth, ‘The Sarajevo Haggadah’, National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, fol. 9v

113 124 125 127 128 129 130 170 171 173 174 244 246

Tables 6.1 6.2 6.3

The trade of the officials (Großschäffer) of Königsberg 1400–1406 The commodity structure of commerce by trade officials of the Teutonic Order with the Prussian towns The monetary loans of the trade official (Großschäffer) of Königsberg to residents of the largest Prussian towns

66 67 68


Anna Sapir Abulafia is Professor of the Study of the Abrahamic Religions at the University of Oxford. Michel Balard is Professor Emeritus of Medieval History at Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Malcolm Barber is Professor Emeritus of Medieval History at the University of Reading. Adrian J. Boas is Professor of Archaeology at the Departments of Archaeology and Israel Studies at the University of Haifa. Karl Borchardt is Professor and Research Fellow at the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Munich. Jochen Burgtorf is Professor of Medieval World History at California State University, Fullerton. Roman Czaja is Professor of History at the Faculty of Historical Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń. Alain Demurger is Professor Emeritus of Medieval History at Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Susan B. Edgington is a Teaching and Research Fellow at Queen Mary University of London. Yvonne Friedman is Professor of General History and Land of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan University. Luis García-Guijarro Ramos is Professor of Medieval History at the University of Zaragoza. Norman Housley is Professor of History at the University of Leicester. David Jacoby is Professor Emeritus of Medieval History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Benjamin Z. Kedar is Professor Emeritus of Medieval History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.



Helen J. Nicholson is Professor of Medieval History at the School of History, Archaeology and Religion at the University of Cardiff. Teofilo F. Ruiz is Distinguished Professor & Robert and Dorothy Wellman Chair in Medieval History at the University of California, Los Angeles. Jürgen Sarnowsky is Professor of Medieval History at the University of Hamburg. Iris Shagrir is Associate Professor of Medieval History at the Department of History, Philosophy and Judaic Studies at the Open University of Israel. Vardit Shotten-Hallel is a PhD candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority. Elizabeth Siberry is an Independent Scholar, UK.

Part I

The military orders


“Blood-Brothers” in the thirteenth-century Latin East? The Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Templar Matthew Sauvage Jochen Burgtorf

Among the most colorful depositions made during the proceedings against the Templars (1307–14) is that of the Italian notary Antonio Sici di Vercelli. In the 1270s, Antonio had rendered legal services to the Templars in the Latin East where he had heard that the Order’s commander of Sidon, Brother Matthew Sauvage ( frater Matheus dictus le Sarmage), was “the brother of the Sultan of Babylon who was then reigning, because each had drunk from the blood of the other in turns, wherefore they were called brothers” ( frater illius soldani Babilonie qui tunc regnabat, quia unus eorum de sanguine alterius mutuo potaverat, propter quod dicebantur fratres).1 This “Sultan of Babylon,” the contemporary title given by Western Christians to the Sultan of Egypt, was none other than Baybars. Considering the bizarre accusations leveled against the Templars, it is not surprising that this alleged bloodbrotherhood has attracted only limited scholarly attention.2 However, it is worthy of consideration. It is indicative of a time and place which saw Holy War as well as peaceful cohabitation and, consequently, generated a discourse that occasionally had to explain what might otherwise have seemed inexplicable, namely a close, personal relationship between a Christian and a Muslim. While such discourse was certainly inspired by cultural constructs, the actual relationship between Baybars and Matthew Sauvage did not just exist in the realm of fiction. Blood-brotherhood is not discussed in separate entries in the Lexikon des Mittelalters, the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, or the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Klaus Oschema’s recent articles demonstrate that this is a curious oversight.3 The phenomenon does not appear to be on the radar of most medievalists, except for those studying Nordic sagas, Germanic epics, the Holy Grail, or Piers Plowman.4 Meanwhile, it does seem to fascinate anthropologists and ethnographers.5 Harry Tegnæus has defined blood-brotherhood as “a pact or alliance established between two, or occasionally several, persons by a ritual act in which the participants usually mix and swallow each other’s blood. . . . It may entail certain obligations for the two participants only; it may also involve the social groups of which they are members.” It may, Tegnæus continues, not just be established between former enemies; even friends or people who already share significant interests can use the ritual to intensify their connection.6 Tegnæus cites a number of cases from ancient, medieval, and modern texts, including those by Herodotus, Tacitus, Matthew Paris, and Ibrahim Peçevi, which contain descriptions of a wide range of blood-rituals. While


Jochen Burgtorf

discussing the wider phenomenon of adelphopoiesis (“the making of brothers”), Elizabeth Brown warns that “it is dangerous to assume without specific proof that any particular ritual was employed in any particular ceremony.”7 The anonymous Gesta Hungarorum (c.1200), for example, relate that seven Hungarian leaders in the ninth century elected one Álmos as their principal leader and sealed their oath of fidelity “in a pagan manner” (more paganismo) by pouring some of their blood into a vessel.8 Yet, it is unclear whether they drank the mix, and we should not automatically assume that they did. With regard to the practices of the twelfth-and thirteenth-century Latin East, blood-brotherhood is briefly discussed in Hans Prutz’s cultural history of the Crusades, as well as Reinhold Röhricht’s history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.9 Prutz claims that the Franks initially objected to the practice as an Oriental custom, but that it was eventually accepted and well established.10 One of the earliest examples of a mere brotherhood between a Muslim and a Frank, albeit without any mention of blood, comes from the chronicle of Matthew of Edessa. In 1111, Seljuk troops led by the Emir Ahmad-Il laid siege to the fortress of Turbessel (Tell Bashir) in the county of Edessa which was defended by Joscelyn of Courtenay.11 According to Matthew’s account, the Turkish assault was not successful, and thus “Ahmad-Il, who previously had heard of Joscelyn’s bravery, made peace with him, and both men became brothers.”12 Robert Nicholson has labeled Matthew’s account “vague and refreshingly naïve in its implication that Ahmad-Il’s decision to depart sprang from disinterested motives,”13 and lends more credence to Ibn al-Qalanisi’s contemporary version of the events, according to which the attackers had already begun to breach the walls when Joscelyn sent to Ahmad-Il, “bribing him with money and gifts and promising to be with him and to take his part,” whereupon Ahmad-Il, seeing that Joscelyn had “humbled himself to him, . . . consented . . . in spite of the disapproval of the other emirs.”14 As Monique Amouroux-Mourad has pointed out, Joscelyn was able to convince Ahmad-Il to abandon the siege, and he apparently had no difficulty doing so.15 Thus, while they are competing discursive strategies, both Matthew’s “romantic” brotherhood-emplotment and Ibn al-Qalanisi’s “satirical” bribery-emplotment16 explain what might otherwise have seemed inexplicable, namely an amicable arrangement between a Muslim and a Frank. This does not mean, however, that we can positively rule out an actual fraternal alliance between the two. Another brotherly pact between a Christian and a Muslim is mentioned in William of Tyre’s chronicle, again without any reference to blood, but this did not stop Röhricht from describing it as a “Blutsfreundschaft” (“blood-friendship”), thereby suggesting that blood was the medium used to establish this fraternal bond.17 In 1150, the Franks evacuated the former county of Edessa. While doing so, they were harassed by Muslim attacks. Humphrey II of Toron, the future constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, took it upon himself to repel these attacks and, while a little further away from the army and pursuing the retreating Muslims, was approached by a soldier from the ranks of the enemy, who laid down his arms and put his hands together, first on one side, then on the other, as a sign of reverence. The soldier, so William tells us, was a member of the household and

“Blood-Brothers” in the Latin East? 5 familiar (i.e., close associate) of a most powerful Turkish prince who had been bound to the constable in a brotherly pact, and very closely so (qui eidem constabulario fraterno foedere iunctus erat et in eo tenacissimus), and had been sent by the latter to greet Humphrey on his behalf and to provide him with knowledge about the opposing army, namely that their supplies were exhausted, and that they were about to retreat. Following this exchange, both Humphrey and the Muslim soldier returned to their respective camps.18 While William does not mention blood, his wording suggests a very close relationship. Yet, why had the Turkish prince, assuming that he was nearby, not approached Humphrey himself? Had his participation in the attacks on the departing Franks violated the terms of their “brotherly pact?” Was William, in mentioning the fraternal alliance, employing a narrative strategy to make the Muslims, at least some of them, look bad? We do not know. What we do know is that William had no reason to slander Humphrey’s reputation; after all, the latter was probably one of his informants.19 Saladin was, at least allegedly, the blood-brother of Count Raymond III of Tripoli, Isaac Ducas Comnenus of Cyprus, and the Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelus. The respective sources, namely the chronicle of Alberic of Troisfontaines (in this case excerpting an earlier work by Guy of Bazoches, a participant of the Third Crusade), the Itinerarium Peregrinorum, and the annals of the Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates, are rather slanderous in tone, and in the latter case the contempt seems to have been directed at those who believed these allegations.20 The claim that the Byzantines were forging alliances with barbarians based on blood-brotherly rituals was repeated by Westerners well into the thirteenth century.21 Thus, according to Jean de Joinville, even the Latin Emperor Baldwin II of Constantinople and the Cumans entered into a blood-brotherly alliance against the Greek Emperor John III Ducas Vatatzes.22 Oschema argues that these stories reveal “discriminatory narrative strategies,” and that the “literary transmission of the related information unfortunately does not allow us to prove the actual existence of the described rites with any certainty.”23 However, does that mean that medieval blood-brotherhoods are purely fictional? Was there only literary smoke, but no fire? Can, for example, the Islamic prohibition against the consumption of blood (Qurʼan, surah 5, al-Maʼidah, verse 3) really be taken as evidence that there could not have been any blood-brotherhoods in the world of Islam or, for that matter, between Muslims and non-Muslims, which would assume perfect obedience on the part of all Muslims? As we return to the specific relationship between the Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Templar Matthew Sauvage, we should note that, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Turks, Ayyubids, Latins, and Greeks were at least rumored to be familiar with the ritual of blood-brotherhood. How did Matthew and Baybars meet? Matthew entered the historical stage in February 1261 when he was already commander of the Temple, one of the highestranking officers in the Order’s convent at Acre.24 Apart from the fact that he originated from Picardy, and that he held the rank of knight, nothing is known about Matthew’s personal or familial background.25 His cognomen could mean “the wild one,” but such an epithet would do little justice to this individual.26 Since his predecessor as commander of the Temple, Guy of Bazainville, had taken a post in Europe


Jochen Burgtorf

by 1258, Matthew may have been in office as early as 1260.27 This brings us to a first opportunity when Matthew and Baybars could have met. In the summer of 1260, the Franks rejected a military alliance with the Mamluks, but allowed them free passage to proceed against the Mongols; shortly thereafter, a group of Mamluks visited Acre.28 According to Ibn ‘Abd al-Zahir, “[Baybars] entered ‘Akka [Acre] in disguise to reconnoitre. I [i.e., the author, Baybars’s secretary] had entered it beforehand . . . and heard some of the Franks say: ‘O Muslim, we wish we had such a person,’ meaning [Baybars].”29 The Templar of Tyre records the incident somewhat differently: the Sultan [i.e., Qutuz] arrived with his entire host before Acre, and he made camp in the plain very close to the town of Acre; and they entered [the town] to entertain themselves. And among the others was a great emir who was named Bendocdar [i.e., Baybars], who later was the Sultan and did much damage to the Christians, as you will hear later; and because so many Saracens entered [Acre] that those of Acre feared to be betrayed, . . . They pushed them out by force and by pleading.30 Whether the experience was a pleasant one or not, Baybars apparently visited Acre in 1260. It was not unusual for the city of Acre, and for the Templars in particular, to host Muslim dignitaries. In 1244, just before the battle of Forbie, al-Mansur Ibrahim, the ruler of Homs, had stayed at the Order’s house in Acre.31 During the proceedings against the Templars, a number of Brothers freely admitted that strangers were frequently housed in their Order’s commanderies.32 Even if Baybars did not stay with the Templars he could have met Matthew in Acre in 1260, and this would have been shortly before Baybars served as a military leader in the decisive Mamluk victory over the Mongols at ‘Ayn Jalut.33 In late October 1260, Qutuz was murdered and Baybars ascended to power, but it would take him two more years to deactivate all his Muslim opponents.34 According to Peter Jackson, “the dominant mood during these years was one of seeking to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Muslim Syria and of appealing to the West for reinforcements for this purpose. It was unfortunate that their [i.e., the Franks’] first attempt to take the field unaided resulted in disaster.”35 This “first attempt” was made in February 1261, when “a significant force from Acre, assisted by Templar contingents drawn from the Order’s principal strongholds . . . launch[ed] an ambitious . . . raid on the Jawlan (Golan) region.”36 Their target were “Turcoman tribesmen who had apparently taken refuge from the Mongols” in these parts to the east of the Sea of Galilee.37 According to the contemporary Templar of Tyre, the [Templar] convent at Acre and Safad and Château Pèlerin and Beaufort, and my lord John of Ibelin, ruler of Beirut, . . . and John of Giblet [i.e., Jubayl], marshal of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and many knights from Acre set out and went to destroy a great camp of Turcomans near Tiberias; and they were badly defeated, and [there] were captured my lord John of Ibelin . . . and John of Giblet . . . and the commander of the Temple, Brother Matthew Sauvage [Mahé Sauvage], and many other knights from Acre; and many of the sergeants

“Blood-Brothers” in the Latin East? 7 on horse and on foot were [either] killed or captured; and the [Order of the] Temple lost all its equipment. . . . The ruler of Beirut was captured by the Turcomans, as you have heard; and [there] were captured Brother William of Beaujeu, who later was master of the Temple, and . . . Theobald Gaudin . . . who later was the commander of the land of the Temple [Order] for a long time, and some other Brother.38 It is fair to assume, given the text’s initial statement about the prisoners taken, that this “other Brother” was Matthew Sauvage. The negotiations for the release of the prisoners began fairly shortly thereafter. The Templar of Tyre’s account spells out the ransom paid for the secular knights, namely 20,000 Saracen besants, and then continues, without any mention of money: “Brother William of Beaujeu was delivered [i.e., freed] by his friends, and one [who was] his companion, and Brother Theobald Gaudin, and another thirteen Brothers, because more were not found [to be] alive.”39 The unnamed “companion” was probably Matthew Sauvage, for we know he was one of the captives, he was prominent, and he survived. Yet, who were the “friends” who had freed these Templars? Alan Forey has pointed out that “[it] is not clear that Templar funds were used.”40 Could Baybars have had a hand in this ransoming or releasing operation? According to the later Egyptian chronicler Ibn al-Furat (1334–1405), the Franks . . . planned to raid the Turcoman encampment [i.e., the camp of those fleeing from the Mongols at the time] and to surprise them at night. However, the Turcomans got wind of their design . . . fought with them and broke them decisively, capturing a number of their counts. These men offered them ransom money, and this the Turcomans accepted from them, after which they released them. But they did not tell any of the Sultan’s na‘ibs [i.e., deputies] of that, thinking that the affair could be kept hidden and would not come out. However, the Sultan found out about it, and when the Turcomans knew of this, they left for Rum, fearing that he might do them a mischief.41 The Sultan mentioned here was none other than Baybars. It appears that the secular knights obtained their freedom by paying a ransom to the Turcomans, that Baybars heard about it and disapproved, and that the Turcomans took the ransom money and ran. It is conceivable that their Templar prisoners were left behind, and that it fell to Baybars and his fellow Mamluks to free them, perhaps even establish an alliance with them. Assuming that Antonio Sici di Vercelli’s above-mentioned statement is not completely fictional, this may have been the point in time at which Matthew Sauvage and Baybars established their special bond, which may or may not have been a blood-brotherhood. If Baybars was the one who freed Matthew the latter would have been indebted to him. Baybars, at this stage in his career, was still in need of powerful allies, and the Templars’ conventual commander was certainly an influential figure in the Crusader states. Jonathan Riley-Smith has argued that, “it is perhaps best to compare . . . [Baybars] with that other great conqueror, Saladin”; both operated from Egypt, and both


Jochen Burgtorf

almost managed to eliminate the Crusader states.42 However, despite all medieval and modern jihad-rhetoric, neither Saladin nor Baybars objected to the Christian presence in the Middle East on principle, as long as this presence occurred under Muslim control and to the benefit of the Muslim population. Why, for example, would Saladin otherwise have permitted a small group of Hospitallers to continue their charitable work in Jerusalem for one year beyond his conquest of the city?43 Baybars, for his part, never launched a serious attack on Acre, even though he could have done so easily, because the “economic well-being of a large part of his dominions depended”44 on the existence of this city and its increasingly important Mediterranean trade connections. Just like today, the relationship between Christians and Muslims was governed by ideological, pragmatic, and personal considerations. Ideologically speaking, medieval Christians and Muslims had to disapprove of each other, but pragmatism repeatedly brought them into situations of cooperation and mutual assistance, and there were individual cases in which human sympathies turned opponents into friends, perhaps even friends who acted as if they were brothers. The Rule of the Templars stipulated that anyone who would abandon the house to go to the Muslims should be expelled.45 According to the records of the Cypriot proceedings against the Templars, there had been individual Templars in the thirteenth century who had, in fact, “become renegades and converts to the Saracen faith.”46 Matthew, however, had done no such thing. He had been captured. The Order’s Catalan Rule, written after 1268, sheds a fascinating light on such a scenario: “It is customary in the house that, when Brothers are taken into the power of the Saracens, they should not wear the habit. . . . And when it pleases God that any of those Brothers be released . . . they should wear their habits to the hours and to meals, but they should refrain from wearing them during the day until they have spoken to the master,”47 which means, presumably, until they had been debriefed by the master about their captivity. Captivity was a different world, a world outside of the Order’s rigorous discipline. The Catalan Rule also relates an incident from the Latin East in which Templars in a Muslim prison in Aleppo had confessed crimes to one another: But because they were in prison and had enough pain and discomfort, they let the things pass, so that they were not judged to have committed another fault. And when they returned from the prison, none of the Brothers spoke about it because the Brothers . . . were worthy men.48 If Matthew and Baybars entered into a fraternal alliance or even a blood-pact during or immediately after Matthew’s captivity, there is a chance that the Templar would not have faced repercussions for it upon his return to his Order. Officially, the Order would have had no reason to publicize such an arrangement. Unofficially, it may have served the Order well, as will be shown below. The first explicit connection between Baybars and Matthew Sauvage is made in the work of Ibn al-Furat who, for his account of the Sultan’s life, excerpted several thirteenth-century sources, including the writings of the Sultan’s private

“Blood-Brothers” in the Latin East? 9 secretary, Ibn ‘Abd al-Zahir.49 In 1263, Baybars sent “a verbal message delivered by Frère Sauvage (Ifrir Safaj), the commander of the Templars in Cyprus,” to the Hospitaller Master Hugh Revel, asking him to justify the construction that was then being done at the Hospitaller castle of Arsuf.50 Hugh Revel did send a response, but it did not satisfy Baybars, and two years later the Sultan conquered Arsuf.51 Since it is fairly rare that a Christian is mentioned by name in a Muslim source, this account indicates that Matthew must have made an impression on his Mamluk contemporaries. That Baybars used him as his personal, “verbal” messenger, a task for which Matthew had to temporarily leave his post on Cyprus, further underlines the special connection that Matthew and Baybars seem to have enjoyed. All this is even more noteworthy when we consider that the relationship between the Sultan and the military orders had actually just hit a roadblock. In February 1263, John of Jaffa visited Baybars near Mount Tabor, and they discussed the exchange of prisoners. However, while John accepted the respective terms, namely two Muslims for one Christian, the military orders refused.52 According to Benjamin Z. Kedar (who quotes Maqrizi), Baybars was “perfectly aware of the Franks’ motives, and rebuked them . . . for retaining the Muslim prisoners in order to exact labor from them, rather than showing pity for the Frankish prisoners held by the Mamluks.”53 The Templar of Tyre confirms this impression: “the Temple and the Hospital did not give their consent, saying that their slaves were their great profit since they were all craftsmen, and that it would cost them too much to maintain other salaried craftsmen.”54 Considering his own past as a Mamluk slave, Baybars must have been rather irritated by this attitude. It did, however, not end his appreciation for Matthew Sauvage. Their next encounter, according to Ibn al-Furat, took place in 1266, the year of the conquest of the Templar castle of Safad: At the capture of Safad (Saphet), when Sultan Baybars came to Syria, he was met by Frère Sauvage (Ifrir Mahi Safaj). . . . Frère Sauvage asked for protection for Safitha (Chastel Blanc) and Antartus (Tortosa), and as a condition for this the Sultan required him to surrender Jabala and its lands. He deferred his assent . . . [until he could go to Acre and talk with the master and the Brothers. He went to them, and it was decided to surrender Jabala], and [he] wrote to tell the Sultan of that [however, only the Templars surrendered their half of the city; the Hospitallers who owned the other half refused].55 It must have taken courage on Matthew’s part to approach Baybars after Safad’s fall. The latter had apparently intended to allow the castle’s garrison to just surrender.56 According to the Templar of Tyre, he had “sent to those of the said castle his gift, in keeping with the Saracens’ custom; but those of the castle threw back to him his present via [their] mangonels [i.e., catapults], about which the Sultan was very upset, and he swore by his Mahomet that he would put them all to the sword.”57 The castle almost certainly fell through treachery because Baybars was able to coerce and bribe the Templars’ chief negotiator, one Brother Leo “who knew the Saracen language very well” (savoit moult bien la lengue sarazineze).58


Jochen Burgtorf

According to the records of the proceedings against the Order, Baybars offered to the eighty Templars captured at Safad to renounce their faith to save their lives, but they refused and were executed.59 As for Leo, “he did renounce [his faith] and became [a] Saracen” (se regnea et devint Sarazin).60 And yet, when Matthew Sauvage came to Safad, Baybars was willing to listen to his overtures. In 1268, Baybars took Jaffa, the Templar castle of Beaufort, and Antioch. Between the conquest of Beaufort and Antioch, the Mamluks appeared outside of Tripoli.61 It was here that Matthew Sauvage sought out Baybars once again. Ibn al-Furat tells us that, when Frère Sauvage (Ifrir Mahi Safaj), the lord of Safitha (Chastel Blanc) and Antartus (Tortosa), learned that the Sultan was making for these parts [i.e., Homs], he met the Muslim armies to present his services, and he traveled in attendance on them. As a result of this, his lands were kept from harm. When the Sultan camped against Tripoli, he came with presents and asked for an escort of troops to go with him to guard Safitha (Chastel Blanc) and Antartus (Tortosa). He produced the Muslim prisoners whom he had, to the number of three hundred, and he left in gratitude, his lands being protected.62 This may help us to better understand the 1111 interaction between Joscelyn of Courtenay and Ahmad-Il: Joscelyn, too, appears to have brought gifts, perhaps as a token of their “brotherhood.” Clearly, Matthew’s relationship with Baybars was special. Just one year earlier, in 1267, Baybars had come to Acre, “carrying banners of the Temple and of the Hospital and of Tyre, and surprised the poor, common people in the plain of Acre, who had come out to tend to the fields; and [he] rode to the gates of the town, and killed of the common people whom he had captured five hundred or more.”63 The fact that Baybars was using the banners of the two military orders for this deception indicates that his relationship with them as corporate entities had reached an all-time low. Within days of the incident, the Hospitallers asked Baybars for a truce.64 Peter Thorau has pointed out that Baybars was not just showing leniency for leniency’s sake. Rather, he was compensated by the Templars for not attacking their holdings.65 Yet, the accounts on both sides suggest that Baybars, at least when it came to Matthew Sauvage, was not just playing a pragmatist’s game. In 1271, Baybars laid siege to Chastel Blanc, whereupon the “commander of Antartus (Tortosa)” intervened on behalf of the garrison and promised to give orders to them to surrender, which then happened.66 The successful negotiator was probably Matthew Sauvage. Even though his name is not mentioned here, there is no evidence that he had lost his post as commander of Tortosa. Alternatively, Baybars may have waited with this attack on Chastel Blanc until it was no longer under Matthew’s command. The Sultan continued his exploits by conquering the Hospitallers’ Krak des Chevaliers and the Teutonic Knights’ castle of Montfort.67 Between those two Mamluk victories, the Hospitaller Master Hugh Revel and the commander of Tortosa (once again no name is given by Ibn al-Furat) proposed a truce to Baybars.68 Because of Matthew Sauvage’s track-record with the Sultan, it is likely that he was (still) commander of Tortosa at this time. Baybars died in

“Blood-Brothers” in the Latin East? 11 1277,69 and nothing else is known about Matthew Sauvage until the proceedings against his Order. To conclude: Sophia Menache has argued that, “though images are not an integral part of the historical process, they are still much affected by it and, as such, are not immune to change.”70 That our image of the relationship between Baybars and Matthew Sauvage has long been affected by the discourse concerning the Templars’ ignominious fall is an understatement. We may, however, want to reconsider this image. Oschema has interpreted Antonio Sici di Vercelli’s blood-brotherhood story as a reflection of “their [i.e., the Templars’] adversaries’ desire to construct a most effective and monstrous image of them in the context of the process that led to their suppression.”71 Yet, Antonio had actually worked for the Templars in the 1270s.72 He was a notary by papal and imperial authority, and his testimony probably carried considerable weight. About two months after his deposition, the Templar Sergeant Hugh of Narsac was interrogated. He stated that the Order’s errors had originated in Outremer where its members had frequently interacted with the Saracens. The Templar Master William of Beaujeu and the Templar Knight Matthew Sauvage (frater Matheus lo Sauvacge miles) had “contracted a great friendship with the Sultan and the Saracens” (contraxerunt magnam amicitiam cum soldano et Sarracenis). Matthew had “conversed among them” (dictus frater Matheus conversabatur inter eos), and William had employed Saracens. They had claimed that they were doing so for their Order’s greater security, but others had disagreed.73 Hugh of Narsac’s reference to William as the Templar master does not necessarily mean that this interaction took place during William’s mastership (1275–91). It simply means that William was involved, as was Matthew. After all, both had been captured by the Turcomans in February 1261. The deposition’s use of the verb contractare (“to contract”) with regard to the friendship between Templars and Muslims is particularly noteworthy. A formal friendship between former enemies can be established by means of an agreement. A “brotherhood” between individuals who are not biologically related can also be established by means of a contract (fraternities do this on a regular basis). A contract can be accompanied by a ritual, and such a ritual can involve the drinking of blood. Peter Holt has argued that the Mamluk jihad against the Franks did not really take off until 1263.74 The close relationship between the Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Templar Matthew Sauvage pre-dated 1263, but their bond continued even when Mamluks and Templars were increasingly facing each other as enemies. To some of their contemporaries, this bond must have appeared unfathomable, and they may have employed narrative strategies to explain what might otherwise have seemed inexplicable. Yet, there must have been something powerful at work to sustain this bond against all odds. Whether that “something” was an actual bloodbrotherhood we will never know, but we cannot rule it out.

Notes 1 Jules Michelet, ed., Le procès des Templiers, 2 vols. (Paris, 1841–1851), 1: 645: Tempore vero quo hoc audivi, erat preceptor illius loci frater Matheus dictus le Sarmage,






6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Jochen Burgtorf Picardus, et de Picardia dicebatur natus fuisse, et frater illius soldani Babilonie qui tunc regnabat, quia unus eorum de sanguine alterius mutuo potaverat, propter quod dicebantur fratres. Hans Prutz, Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge (Berlin, 1883), 512, incorrectly understood this to mean a “Blutsfreundschaft zwischen einem Tempelherrn und dem Bruder des Sultans von Aegypten”. See Alain Demurger, Vie et mort de l’ordre du Temple 1120–1314, rev. ed. (Paris, 1993), 308; Jochen Burgtorf, “Die Ritterorden als Instanzen zur Friedenssicherung?,” in Jerusalem im Hoch-und Spätmittelalter: Konflikte und Konfliktbewältigung, Vorstellungen und Vergegenwärtigungen, ed. Dieter Bauer, Klaus Herbers, and Nikolas Jaspert (Frankfurt, 2001), 165–200, at 196–7; Pierre-Vincent Claverie, L’Ordre du Temple en Terre Sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle, 3 vols. (Nicosia, 2005), 2: 105; Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2006), 210; Klaus Oschema, “Blood-Brothers: A Ritual of Friendship and the Construction of the Imagined Barbarian in the Middle Ages,” Journal of Medieval History 32 (2006), 275–301, at 297; Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden, 2008), 451–2, 593–4. Oschema, “Blood-Brothers”; Klaus Oschema, “Das Motiv der Blutsbrüderschaft: Ein Ritual zwischen Antike, Mittelalter und Gegenwart,” in Riten, Gesten, Zeremonien: Gesellschaftliche Symbolik in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. Edgar Bierende, Sven Bretfeld, and Klaus Oschema (Berlin, 2008), 41–71. See, for example, John C. Hodges, “The Nibelungen Saga and the Great Irish Epic,” Modern Philology 19 (1922), 383–94; Clair Hadyn Bell, “The Call of the Blood in the Mediaeval German Epic,” Modern Language Notes 37 (1922), 17–26; Percy J. Heather, “Sworn-Brotherhood,” Folklore 63 (1952), 158–72; Elizabeth A. R. Brown, Claudia Rapp, and Brent D. Shaw, “Ritual Brotherhood in Ancient and Medieval Europe: A Symposium,” Traditio 52 (1997), 259–381; Bettina Bildhauer, Medieval Blood (Cardiff, 2006). See, for example, Harry Tegnæus, Blood-Brothers: An Ethno-Sociological Study of the Institutions of Blood-Brotherhood with Special Reference to Africa (New York, 1952); Leopold Kretzenbacher, Rituelle Wahlverbrüderung in Südosteuropa: Erlebniswirklichkeit und Erzählmotiv (Munich, 1971); Leopold Hellmuth, Die germanische Blutsbrüderschaft: Ein typologischer und völkerkundlicher Vergleich (Vienna, 1975); Filomeno V. Aguilar, “The ‘Pacto’ de Sangre in the Late Nineteenth-Century Nationalist Emplotment of Philippine History,” Philippine Studies 58 (2010), 79–109; Wendy Bracewell, “Ritual Brotherhood across Frontiers in the Eastern Adriatic Hinterland, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,” History and Anthropology 27 (2016), 338–58. Another insightful study is Gil Anidjar, Blood: A Critique of Christianity (New York, 2014). Tegnæus, Blood-Brothers, 19–20. Brown, Rapp, and Shaw, “Ritual Brotherhood,” 267. Die Gesta Hungarorum des Anonymen Notars: Die älteste Darstellung der ungarischen Geschichte, ed. Gabriel Silagi (Sigmaringen, 1991), 40; see ibid., 144. I would like to thank Professor József Laszlovszky for drawing my attention to this incident. Prutz, Kulturgeschichte, 68; Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (1100–1291) (Innsbruck, 1898), 89 n. 4; 266 n. 5; 420 n. 3; 493 n. 1. Prutz, Kulturgeschichte, 68. Robert Lawrence Nicholson, Joscelyn I, Prince of Edessa (Urbana, 1954), 36–7. Armenia and the Crusades (Tenth to Twelfth Centuries): The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. Ara Edmond Dostourian (Lanham, 1993), 207. Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 37 n. 202. The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades: Extracted and Translated from the Chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (London, 1932), 115. Monique Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d’Edesse 1098–1150 (Paris, 1988), 69. See Hayden White, “Historical Emplotment and the Problem of Truth,” in The Postmodern History Reader, ed. Keith Jenkins (London, 1997), 392–6. Röhricht, Geschichte, 266.

“Blood-Brothers” in the Latin East? 13 18 Guillaume de Tyr, Chronicon 17.17, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 63–63a, 2 vols. (Turnhout, 1986), 2: 784. See Prutz, Kulturgeschichte, 68, 512. The Old-French translation of William of Tyre mentions that the soldier had been sent by un grant amiraut des Turs qui estoit amis au connestable, ausint comme sil fust ses freres: Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens occidentaux (Paris, 1844), 1: 788. 19 Peter W. Edbury and John Gordon Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East (Cambridge, 1988), 55. 20 Count Raymond III of Tripoli: “Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium a monacho novi monasterii Hoiensis interpolata,” ed. Paul Scheffer-Boichorst, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores (Hanover, 1874), 23: 859–60; Isaac Ducas Comnenus: Itinerarium Peregrinorum, ed. William Stubbs, Rolls Series 38.1 (London, 1864), 183; Isaac II Angelus: O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984), 225. I would like to thank Professor Benjamin Kedar for drawing my attention to the respective passage pertaining to Saladin and Raymond III in a fourteenth-century copy of Guy of Bazoches’ work, namely Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Manuscrit Latin 4998 (Scripta de historiis diversis), fol. 63v (just below the middle of the right column): ut sup(er) hoc alt(er) alteri fac(er)ent fide(m) alt(er) alt(er)ius bibe(n)do sanguine(m) fedo fede(re) su(n)t co(n)iu(n)cti, a phrase repeated verbatim by Alberic of Troisfontaines. Prutz, Kulturgeschichte, 68, mentions the incident, albeit without a reference. 21 Tegnæus, Blood-Brothers, 25; Oschema, “Blood-Brothers,” 287–8. 22 Jean de Joinville, Vie de Saint Louis, ed. Jacques Monfrin (Paris, 1995), 244, 246. 23 Oschema, “Blood-Brothers,” 276, 300. 24 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314): La caduta degli Stati Crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples, 2000), 84 (§ 305–6). 25 Michelet, Procès, 1: 645; 2: 209. There is no evidence that he was related to the surgeon Hugh Sauvage who participated in the English Crusade of 1270–1272; see Simon D. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, 1216–1307 (Oxford, 1988), 124. 26 Medieval Latin: salvaticus, silvaticus, salvagius, silvagius; Old French: salvage; Middle English: sauvage. 27 See Burgtorf, Central Convent, 274–5, 551, 593. 28 Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410 (Harlow, 2005), 117–18. 29 Syedah Fatima Sadeque, Baybars I of Egypt [including an English translation of the “Sirat al-Malik al-Zahir” by al-Qadi Muhi al-din b. ‘Abd al-Zahir] (Dacca, 1956), 92–3. 30 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 86 (§ 308). 31 Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders: Selections from the Tarikh al-Duwal wa’l-Muluk of Ibn al-Furat, ed. and trans. Ursula C. Lyons and Malcolm C. Lyons, historical introduction and notes by Jonathan Riley-Smith, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1971), 2: 5. 32 Anne Gilmour-Bryson, ed., The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus: A Complete English Edition (Leiden, 1998), 67–8, 71, 198, 202, 287, 299, 303, 306, 310, 313, 369. 33 Jackson, Mongols, 118. 34 Peter M. Holt, The Crusader States and Their Neighbours (Harlow, 2004), 89. 35 Peter Jackson, “The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260,” English Historical Review 95 (1980), 418–513, at 509. 36 Jackson, Mongols, 122. 37 Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge, 1994), 158. 38 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 84 (§ 305–6). 39 Ibid., 84, 86 (§ 307). 40 Alan J. Forey, “The Military Orders and the Ransoming of Captives from Islam (Twelfth to Early Fourteenth Centuries),” Studia monastica 33 (1991), 259–79, at 265. 41 Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders, 2: 49. 42 See ibid., 2: ix.


Jochen Burgtorf

43 Burgtorf, Central Convent, 30. 44 See Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders, 2: xii (Jonathan Riley-Smith’s historical introduction). 45 La règle du Temple, ed. Henri de Curzon (Paris, 1886), 154 (§ 230). 46 Gilmour-Bryson, Trial, 433–4. 47 The Catalan Rule of the Templars: A Critical Edition and English Translation from Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Cartas Reales, MS 3344, ed. and trans. Judith M. Upton Ward (Woodbridge, 2003), 20–1 (§ 39). 48 Ibid., 80–1 (§ 179). 49 Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders, 1: vii–viii. 50 Ibid., 2: 54. 51 Ibid.; Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 96, 98 (§ 328). 52 Peter W. Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Woodbridge, 1997), 98. 53 Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The Subjected Muslims of the Frankish Levant,” in The Crusades: The Essential Readings, ed. Thomas F. Madden (Oxford, 2002, first published 1990), 233–64, at 248. 54 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 90 (§ 318–19). 55 Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders, 2: 128. 56 Ibid., 2: 88–96. 57 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 108 (§ 346). 58 Ibid., 108, 110 (§ 347). 59 Michelet, Procès, 1: 170. 60 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 108, 110 (§ 347). 61 Peter Thorau, Sultan Baibars I. von Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Vorderen Orients im 13. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1987), 187–92. 62 Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders, 2: 117–18. 63 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 112, 114 (§ 350). 64 Peter M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 1260–90: Treaties of Baybars and Qalawun with Christian Rulers (Leiden, 1995), 32–41. 65 Thorau, Sultan Baibars, 223–5. 66 Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders, 2: 143. 67 Thorau, Sultan Baibars, 204–6. 68 Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders, 2: 146. 69 Holt, Crusader States, 91. 70 Sophia Menache, “A Clash of Expectations: Self-Image versus the Image of the Knights Templar in Medieval Narrative Sources,” in Selbstbild und Selbstverständnis der geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares, Colloquia Torunensia Historica 13 (Toruń, 2005), 47–58, at 55. 71 Oschema, “Blood-Brothers,” 297. 72 Burgtorf, Central Convent, 98. 73 Michelet, Procès, 2: 209. 74 Holt, Crusader States, 89.


The Templars as peacemongers Yvonne Friedman

As a military order, the Templars were assuredly dedicated to Holy War and served as a special unit in the Frankish army. However, as a pragmatic organization functioning in the East, where treaties and alliances with the “infidel” were a common phenomenon, we find the Templars of the Latin Kingdom also participating in negotiations and peace processes. In honor of Sophia, who has contributed to the rewriting of the history of the Templars and has addressed many of its non-military aspects,1 this article surveys some of those peacemaking efforts, framing them as stemming not from a shift in their ideology of Holy War or in the concept of their task as milites Christi, but from realpolitik – their desire to accrue power and revenues. Because the Templars viewed their fighting and willingness to be martyrs in the name of the Prince of Peace as another facet of peace, no ideological shift was necessary to provide a rationale for making peace.2 But, as the Templars became great warlords and rulers of vast territories they showed increasing independence of royal policy in the Latin East. As the making of war and peace were essentially royal prerogatives, Templar efforts to reach peace agreements with the Muslim enemy led to a negative perception of the Templars as “peacemongers,” whose peacemaking efforts undermined royal authority or were motivated by the quest for economic or political gain. The Templars played varied roles in twelfth- and thirteenth-century peace processes in the Latin East. One function was as diplomats in the king’s name. A second was as recipients of tribute from enemies who were willing to buy periods of peace, for example, their private treaty with the Assassins; in this, they behaved like a sovereign power that sought a ceasefire in exchange for economic profit. We also find the Templars negotiating independent treaties with the enemy in order to save themselves. But in the final days of the kingdom, they also displayed responsibility for the kingdom of Jerusalem’s fate. In the first capacity as negotiators, they served the king; in the second, in which they received tribute or made independent agreements, they acted in their own economic or political interests; in the third, in which they tried to warn the rulers of the kingdom of the impending Muslim attack, they assumed responsibility for the kingdom’s fate. The initial step in negotiating peace in the East usually involved the exchange or ransom of captives. Although Templar knights were supposed to fight to the death and Templar customs did not allow a member to be ransomed if taken captive, the


Yvonne Friedman

Military Orders, including the Templars, did negotiate terms for other captives and eventually for their own captives too.3 Although they were not allowed to surrender castles or territory in order to ransom their leaders, apparently the Templars occasionally did take part in such transactions.4 When William of Beaujeu, subsequently the last Master of the Order in Outremer, was taken captive in 1265 (before becoming Master), his trusted chronicler, the so-called Templar of Tyre, made a point of noting that William was ransomed by “his friends” (par ses amis fu delivré), together with thirteen other brothers, but did not specify whether the funding came from the Order’s resources.5 Another indication of regular Templar diplomatic contacts and negotiations with the Saracens comes from the mention of an escrivain sarazinois, i.e., a scribe who knew Arabic in the list of the retinue of the high officers of the Order in the Templar Rule.6 Similarly, Usama ibn Munqidh, the warrior diplomat from Shayzar, had friends among the Templars who allowed him to pray at the Aqsa Mosque, which at that time served as the central headquarters of the Templars. When a hotheaded newcomer tried to disturb Usama’s prayers, a more seasoned Templar defused the situation and apologized, saying that the other Templar was not yet acquainted with the local mores. Apparently, veteran Templars knew how to treat a foreign diplomat.7 It therefore seems natural that King Amalric sent the Templar Geoffrey Foucher as his messenger to Caliph al-ʿĀḍid in Egypt in 1167, together with a highborn noble, Hugh of Caesarea.8 William of Tyre’s account assigns all the credit for the truce between Amalric and the caliph to Hugh of Caesarea and mentions Geoffrey Foucher only in passing.9 Although the Templar emissary may have only played a secondary role, this perhaps also reflects William’s dislike for the Templars because of their independence from ecclesiastical control.10 It is possible that this ecclesiastical independence also played a role in their later assumption of political independence from the king. But at this juncture, the king’s choice of two messengers from the nobility reflects his assessment of what would be acceptable to the caliph; the Templar brother was therefore a worthy diplomat. In this case, the Templars were instrumental in negotiating peace in the name of the king, as seen from their reaction a year later, when the king broke the truce and started another offensive against Egypt. Then the Templars refused to take part, evidently because they felt committed to the prior truce.11 During the last days of Acre in 1291 similar principles evidently governed the choice of the members of the delegation sent by “all the men of Acre” to the sultan al-Ashraf Khalil: The messengers were Sir Philip Mainebeuf, a knight of Acre, who knew the Saracen language very well; and a Templar brother, a knight named Bartholomew Pisan who had been born in Cyprus; and a Hospitaller brother, and a scribe named George.12 This delegation was unsuccessful and its members were imprisoned in Cairo. But it nevertheless seems to have included the customary mix of great lords as diplomatic envoys: a lay knight, brothers from the military orders, and a scribe. This

The Templars as peacemongers


suggests that the Templars may have been called on to participate in the diplomatic delegations sent by the rulers to negotiate with the enemy.13 Such cooperation could not always be taken for granted. In 1173 King Amalric conducted negotiations with the Old Man of the Mountain, the leader of the Assassins, regarding a truce between him and the kingdom, which supposedly included the Assassins’ conversion to Christianity. William of Tyre says that the Assassins were willing to convert, but asked to be freed from paying tribute to the Templars.14 It thus appears that prior to the negotiations with the king, they had entered into an earlier agreement with the Templars, who were the overlords of the northern territories that bordered on the Assassins’ territory. In other words, the Templars had a private truce with the Assassins. That this was not out of the ordinary can be seen from the matter-of-fact way the Rule states that the Master of the Temple has to consult the convent when making a truce: Nor should he start a war or make a truce on land or in a castle of which the House holds the seigniory, without the consent of the convent; but if it happens that truces are broken, the Master may extend them with the advice of the brothers who are in that country.15 In this case, the Templars, who in my opinion saw the royal negotiations as a threat to their economic profits, intercepted and killed the Assassin messenger, thus infringing the king’s safe conduct.16 William of Tyre provides no such explanation and notes that it was said that the king was willing to compensate the Templars. But the Templars would have lost more than an annual tribute even if the king had indeed paid the compensation. Walter Map tells the same story but more disapprovingly. According to Map, the chief of the Assassins applied to the patriarch for a Gospel and clearly wanted to convert, but his messenger was intercepted and killed by the Templars ne fides euacuaretur infidelium ad pacis unitatem (“lest the belief of the infidels should be done away and peace and unity reign”). His version is clearly biased, but shows how unpopular the Templars were at the time although he ends his tirade with a caveat: Similia uero predictis de dominis Templaribus forte menciuntur multi; queramus ab ipsis et quod audierimus credamus. Quid agant Ierosolimis, nescio; nobiscum satis innocenter habitant (“Perhaps many lie when they tell those stories about the lords Templars: let us ask them themselves and believe what we hear. How they behave at Jerusalem I do not know: here with us they live harmlessly enough”).17 In this instance, the Templars were undoubtedly warmongers and infringed on royal prerogatives. We can compare their conduct to that of Renaud de Châtillon, who broke the truce with Saladin before the battle of Hattin, claiming that as lord of his land, as Guy was of his, he was entitled to act independently.18 The king made a point of punishing the transgressing Templar brother, and “had them give up that man guilty of treason and had him moved forcibly from the house and sent in chains to Tyre, to be cast into prison.”19 The rather mild punishment of the brother in question, Gautier de Maisnilio, demonstrates both the weakness of the king vis-à-vis the Templars and also William of Tyre’s hostility toward them. He describes the


Yvonne Friedman

perpetrator as “a one-eyed man of evil repute” and the answer of the master Eudes de Saint Amand who refused to send him to the king as “dictated by the spirit of pride which he was full of.”20 In any event, the Master himself was not punished by the king in spite of the crime being defined as treason lese maiestatis crimen.21 As noted above, the advice and consent required by the Templar master to make a treaty were those of the convent, not necessarily that of the king. Indeed, during the Third Crusade, the crusaders criticized the Templars for having too close relations with the Muslims: The army of the pilgrims at Acre was so shocked by the way of the life of the Templars, Hospitallers and the other barons of the land, and greatly disliked their trade with, and the way in which they were, to some extent anyway, secretly friendly with, the pagans, and so they cast off their authority and guidance, and began to act independently under their own leadership. They [the crusaders coming from abroad] had many fights with the pagans, both in open battle and in raids, in which they were usually victorious, and they strove to perform great deeds.22 [emphasis mine] An example of a sovereign who took steps to combat the Templars’ private peace overtures in order to strengthen his authority was King Louis IX. While in Cyprus in 1248 on his way to the crusade in Egypt, Louis IX ordered the Templar master not to negotiate with the Muslims without his permission.23 On his arrival in Acre four years later, the defeated king received a royal welcome. But, on learning that the Templars had conducted private negotiations for a truce with the Muslims of Damascus, the saintly king reacted with fury. He viewed the Templars’ deed as an infringement of the king’s sole authority to decide on matters concerning peace. Because the Templar marshal Hugues de Jouy had encroached on these rights, he had to be punished publicly: the king insisted on his expulsion from the kingdom, a harsh punishment normally meted out to traitors.24 Thus, in the mid-thirteenth century such initiatives had to be nipped in the bud to clarify that the king, and he alone, possessed the right to enter into peace negotiations with the enemy. Although he was not king of Jerusalem, Louis was unwilling to tolerate independent negotiations for peace. Louis’s harsh treatment of the marshal concealed the fact that the king was unable to control the master or prevent him from sending an envoy to Damascus. This show of royal power did not last long. Although he was not the king of Jerusalem, Louis’s personal authority as king of France and prestige as holy warrior were sufficient to restrain other factions, despite his military failure. However, Mamluk ascendance, coupled by the fact that the kings of Jerusalem were then absentee kings, sparked desperate efforts by factions in the dwindling kingdom to save themselves by entering into truces with the Mamluk sultan Baybars and his heirs. In the 1270s and 1280s Baybars and Qalawun entered into numerous truces with separate entities in the Latin Kingdom: the Hospitallers (1271), the Templars (1282), individual cities like Tripoli (1281), and Lady Margaret of Tyre (1285). These entities also made short-term private truces where each tried to save its own skin without much thought for the overall good of the kingdom. These treaties illustrate the disintegration of the kingdom into petty political and

The Templars as peacemongers


geographical entities, which enabled the Mamluks to dictate ever more humiliating terms.25 This Mamluk policy of divide and rule exploited the weakness of the central government, but also demonstrates how independent entities employed the power vacuum to their own advantage. Even though they persisted in espousing their warlike ideology and fought the Mamluks, the Templars continued to seek self-advantage through their financial dealings with the Mamluk rulers throughout the final decades of the thirteenth century. These dealings with both Muslims and Christians gave them a vested interest in peace treaties. A comparison of the last Templar master of the First Kingdom, Gerard de Ridefort, to the last master of the Second Kingdom, William of Beaujeu, is instructive. The comparison between Gerard, with his sometimes foolhardy heroism, and William, who used his diplomatic relations with the Mamluks in an attempt to prevent the final attack on Acre, illustrates the evolution of the Templar attitude toward war and peace from their beginnings to the end of the Latin Kingdom. The Continuation of William of Tyre places on Gerard the responsibility for the great defeat at the Springs of Cresson in May 1187, when he led ninety Templars, ten Hospitallers, and forty secular knights against 7,000 Saracens (the numbers seem inflated) to certain defeat.26 Overriding the objections raised by his marshal Jacques de Mailly, according to a particularly hostile account, Gerard accused him of being too fond of his blond head to risk it in battle.27 Jacques died a heroic death on the battlefield whereas Gerard himself survived. He played a similar disastrous role when he pushed King Guy to leave the safety of the springs of Sepphoris and to march to the fateful battle at the Horns of Hattin. Although Saladin personally ordered the execution of all Templar and Hospitaller knights, Gerard again managed to survive. He was ransomed, against the rules of the Order, together with the king, by the capitulation of Ascalon.28 Matthew Bennett thinks that Gerard was given “bad press” in the contemporary chronicles. But note that Gerard was not forced to give up his habit and was apparently accepted as Master of the Templars. He continued to hold that status after his release and return.29 In the end he died on 4 October 1189 outside the walls of Acre, according to Ambroise, in a heroic battle against the Saracens.30 Whereas the chroniclers describing his conduct before and after Hattin convey a very negative picture, Gerard’s fighting at Acre together with Guy de Lusignan, the king who lost the kingdom, rehabilitated both of them on account of their early participation in the Third Crusade. Modern historians, who tend to underscore the military folly and foolhardiness of the Templar master and his king and their fateful results, find this unconvincing.31 Gerard’s death in battle made him a martyr in the eyes of the troubadour of the Third Crusade.32 Note also that Gerard’s former negative characterization as a foolhardy knight whose ideal of Holy War led him and the kingdom to disastrous results did not diminish his image as a bold, fearless fighter.33 A century later, William of Beaujeu used all the resources and connections at his disposal to warn the Franks in Tripoli of Mamluk plans to wage war against them, but he was not believed. But there was an old emir, one of the four who governed Paynimie, he made my lord the master of the Temple aware of these developments. This emir


Yvonne Friedman was called the Emir Silah,34 and he was accustomed to notify the master of the Temple of matters of interest to Christendom, when the sultan wished to injure Christianity in any manner. The contract cost the master fine presents each year, which he sent to him. When the sultan had left for al-Salihiyah with all his host, the master sent a man of his own household to the people of Tripoli, warning them that the sultan was coming down on them in Tripoli. They did not want to believe this, and said rather that the sultan was coming to take Nephin castle.35

His previous financial connections with the Mamluks made him untrustworthy in Frankish eyes: They did not want to believe this. . . . Others said ugly things about the master, to the effect that he wanted to alarm them so that they would need him as an intermediary between them and the sultan, so that it would seem as though the master had induced the Saracens to go back, but that in fact they were not coming at all.36 When the sultan al-Ashraf Khalil prepared his final attack on Acre in 1291, William Beaujeu tried to warn the Franks, again in vain.37 However, the Templars, who had to counter suspicion of collaboration with the enemy, fought at Acre, and William de Beaujeu died a martyr’s death there. Thus, the earlier Master who incited to battle twice escaped death on the battlefield in 1187 (and subsequently died in battle near Acre), whereas the peacemonger William of Beaujeu was killed during the last attack on Acre. Templar “peacemongering” efforts illustrate how, given the weakness of the central government, different entities assumed autonomy in the waning days of the Latin Kingdom. As bankers, they enjoyed economic advantages; as warriors, they enjoyed the ability to enter into independent peace treaties – but not the admiration of their compatriots. Even their heroic deaths at Acre did not erase the criticism that was directed at them. Perhaps this attitude set the stage for the trial of the Templars some ten years later.38

Notes 1 Sophia Menache, “Rewriting the History of the Templars According to Matthew Paris,” in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period, ed. Michael Goodich, Sophia Menache, and Sylvia Schein (New York, 1995), 183–213. 2 Joachim Rother, “Embracing Death, Celebrating Life: Reflections on the Concept of Martyrdom in the Order of the Knights Templar,” Ordines Militares: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 19 (2014), 169–92, at 175–7. 3 Yvonne Friedman, Encounter between Enemies: Captivity and Ransom in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Leiden, 2002), Ch. 7. 4 Alan Forey, “The Military Orders and the Ransoming of Captives from Islam (Twelfth to Early Fourteenth Centuries),” in Alan Forey, Military Orders and Crusades (Aldershot, 1994), 6, 259–79.

The Templars as peacemongers


5 Laura Minervini, ed. and trans., Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314) (Naples, 2000), ch. 71, pp. 84–5; Paul Crawford, trans., The ‘Templar of Tyre’: Part III of the ‘Deeds of the Cypriots’, Crusade Texts in Translation 6 (Aldershot, 2003), 37. 6 The Master, the Seneschal, the Commander of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Commander of the City of Jerusalem and the Commanders of the lands of Tripoli and Antioch all had an escrivain sarazinois in their retinue: La règle du Temple, ed. Henri de Curzon (Paris, 1886, repr. 1977), § 77, p. 75; § 99, pp. 86–7; § 110, p. 94; § 120, p. 100; and § 125, p. 102. 7 Usama ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation: Islam and the Crusades, trans. Paul M. Cobb (London, 2008), 147. 8 Jochen Burgtorf, “The Templars and the Kings of Jerusalem,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen Nicholson (Abingdon, 2017), 25–37, at 28 describes Geoffrey Foucher as an “éminence grise” in the Latin Kingdom at the time. See also Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden, 2008), 430–1; 532–4. 9 Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, CCCM 63, 63A, (Turnhout, 1986) [hereafter WT], here: 63A, 19.18, p. 887. See also Helen Nicholson, “Before William of Tyre: European Reports on the Military Orders’ Deeds in the East, 1150–1185,” in The Military Orders, vol. 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 1998), 111–18, at 116–17. 10 For Geoffrey Foucher’s role as a diplomat, see also Jochen Burgtorf, “Die Ritterorden als Instanzen zur Friedessicherung,” in Jerusalem im Hoch und Spätmittelalter, ed. Dieter Bauer, Klaus Herbers, and Nikolas Jaspert (Frankfurt/Main, 2001), 166–7, 191–2. 11 WT 20.5, 917–18. See Alan Forey, “The Participation of the Military Orders in Truces with Muslims in the Holy Land and Spain during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Ordines Militares 17 (2012), 41–52; Alan Murray, “The Designs of Gilbert of Assailly: The Order of the Hospital in the Projected Conquest of Egypt by King Amalric of Jerusalem (1168–1169),” Ordines Militares 20 (2015), 7–25, at 12, claims that the Templars did join the campaign in the end (“Domini vero de Templo cum suis ex alia parte iter proprium arripuerant” [Lambert de Waterlos, Annales Cameracenses, ed. G. H. Pertz, MGH SS, 16 (Hanover, 1859), 547; see also Abu-Shama, Le livre des deux jardins, Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens orientaux (RHC Or.), vol. 4 (Paris, 1898), 135]. 12 Minervini, Cronaca del Templare, ch. 249.1; trans., 104. 13 Burgtorf, “Die Ritterorden als Instanzen zur Friedenssicherung,” 165–200; Burgtorf, Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars, 430–5. 14 WT 20.29, 953–4. 15 La règle du Temple, ed. H. de Curzon, § 85, p. 79. Translated by Judith M. UptonWard as The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar, Studies in the History of Medieval Religion 4 (Woodbridge, 1992), 40 (slightly revised). Forey, “Participation of the Military Orders in Truces” (note 11), 7 dates this to the twelfth century. 16 WT 20.30, 954–5. 17 Walter Map, De nugis curialium: Courtiers Trifles, ed. and trans. M. R. James (Oxford, 1983), 66, quote at 69. Walter’s sources are clearly hearsay and his explanation that the Old Man of the Mountain was the religious head of all “the pagans” shows how little he knew about the situation in the Latin East. The purported desire of the Old Man of the Mountain to convert may well have been wishful thinking on the Christians’ part. Even if he were sincere, this would not have ended Holy War in the East. (Compare the events a century later when the saintly King Louis IX sent a costly tent – probably a chapel – to the Mongols and they understood it as tribute without any thoughts of



19 20 21


23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33

Yvonne Friedman converting to Christianity. Jean de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis: texte original ramené à l’orthographe des chartes XXIX.134, XCV.490, ed. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1888), 57, 206). La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. M. L. De Mas Latrie (Paris, 1871), 96–7; L’Estoire de Eracles Empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer, RHC Occ., vol 1.2 (Paris, 1859). For a discussion of the relation between the texts, and a modern edition, see Peter Edbury, “Gerard de Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 May 1187): The Developing Narrative Tradition,” in On the Margins of Crusading: The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World, ed. Helen Nicholson (Farnham, 2011), 45–60. WT 20.30, 955. Ibid. Cf. Bernard Hamilton, “The Templars, the Syrian Assassins and King Amalric of Jerusalem,” in The Hospitallers, the Mediterranean and Europe: Festschrift for Antony Luttrell, ed. Karl Borchardt, Nikolas Jaspert, and Helen J. Nicholson (Aldershot, 2007), 13–24. Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, ed. Adolf Hofmeister, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 7 (Hanover, 1912), 42.68; translated by Graham A. Loud, as “The Chronicle of Otto of St. Blasien 1187–1197,” in The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa: The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts, Crusade Texts in Translation 19 (Farnham, 2001), 173–91, at 190. Guillaume de Nangis, Vita Sancti Ludovici, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet, vol. 20 (Paris, 1840), 366–9. Jean de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis: Credo et Lettre á Louis IX, ed. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1888), ch. 511–14; For expulsion as a punishment for traitors, see my article, “Peacemaking in an Age of War: When Were Cross-Religious Alliances in the Latin East Considered Treason?” in The Crusader World, ed. Adrian J. Boas (Abingdon, 2016), 98–110. Peter M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290): Treaties of Baybars and Qalawun with Christian Rulers (Leiden, 1995), 33–41, 49–57, 66–8. Edbury, “Gerard of Ridefort,” shows how the different versions of the Continuation of William of Tyre paint a different picture of Gerard. According to Edbury, “Gerard of Ridefort,” this story was an interpolation added by a later, anti-Gerard version. Margaret Ruth Morgan, La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184–1197) (Paris, 1982), § 49, p. 54. Matthew Bennett, “La Règle du Temple as a Military Manual or How to Deliver a Cavalry Charge,” in The Rule of the Templars, trans. Upton-Ward (note 15), 187–8. The History of the Holy War: Ambroise’s Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ed. and trans. Marianne Ailes and Malcolm Barber (Woodbridge, 2003), 1, lines 3016–3030; see also Das Itinerarium Peregrinorum: Eine zeitgenössische englische Chronik zum dritten Kreuzzug in ursprünglicher Gestalt, ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer, Schriften der MGH 18 (Stuttgart, 1962), 313–14. See Malcolm Barber, “The Reputation of Gerard of Ridefort,” in The Military Orders, vol. 4: On Land and Sea, ed. Judith Upton-Ward (Aldershot, 2008), 111–20. In addition to the abovementioned historians, see Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2000). History of the Holy War, lines 3016–3030. Compare the chroniclers’ treatment of Etienne de Blois who shamefully deserted outside Antioch during the First Crusade and returned in 1101 and died at the Battle of Ramla 1102. His death as a martyr did not wipe out the earlier story, but it did ameliorate his negative image. See Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, ed. and trans. Susan B. Edgington (Oxford, 2007), 4.13: 266–8; 4.37: 304–6; 9.6: 645; Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. Rosalind

The Templars as peacemongers

34 35 36 37 38


Hill (London, 1962), 8.27, 63; The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 6 vols., ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall, vol. 5 (Oxford, 1979), 10.1: 260–8. The Old French has: “amirail Hemir Salah,” but Minervini also translates “Amir Silah.” Minervini, Cronaca del Templare, ch. 238.2; trans., 99. Ibid. Ibid., ch. 245.2 and 245.5; trans., 102, 103; ch. 249, trans., 104. Burgtorf, “Die Ritterorden als Instanzen zur Friedenssicherung,” 196–8.


On Hospitaller initiatives in the western Mediterranean, 1291–1307 Karl Borchardt

The papacy, the Mediterranean and the Iberian Peninsula figure prominently in the scholarly work of Sophia Menache. Suffice it here to mention her great book on Clement V,1 and her many articles on crusades and military-religious orders.2 What follows is very much indebted to this research. Following the Mamluk conquest of Acre in 1291, the Latin Christians, or Franks as they were called in the Levant, lost their last strongholds on the coasts of Palestine and Syria but were loath to accept this as irreversible. Plans for reconquering the Holy Land were proposed well into the fourteenth century.3 The broader question as to why the crusades could not be continued in the traditional way has been seen as a problem of communication, of being unable to convince people about the usefulness of crusading, and as a problem of modernisation, which implies that there was some momentum for giving up crusades. Less controversially, it can be seen as a problem of changing structures. Naturally, the military-religious orders continued to be champions of crusade initiatives. Liberating and protecting Jerusalem had always been their major raison d’être. At Acre, they had lost their traditional headquarters. Could they carry on by themselves, relying only on the papacy, or would they have to cooperate with great powers in the Latin west such as France, Sicily, Aragon, Genoa or Venice? The Hospitallers and the Templars retired to Cyprus and the Teutonic Order to Venice. In 1306 the Hospitallers initiated the acquisition of Rhodes,4 which they held until 1522. The Teutonic Order eventually moved its Convent to Prussia, where it stayed until 1525. The Templars favoured an alliance against the Mamluks, that is with the Mongols – with the Ilkhans Ghazan (d. 1304), who campaigned in Syria from 1299 to 1303, and with his brother and successor Öljaitü (d. 1316), who sent embassies to the west in 1305, 1307 and 1313.5 However, the Templars lost the tiny Isle of Ruad on the coast near Tortosa, and their strategy failed. Under pressure from Philip IV of France, Clement V suppressed their order in 1312. The loss of Acre certainly came as a shock but probably not as a surprise. There had been reasons to fear this for at least two or three decades before. The last great crusade had been launched by King Louis IX of France in 1270. Louis IX’s brother Charles I of Anjou, King of Sicily and Count of Provence, continued to protect the Latins in the Holy Land. The Sicilian Vespers of 1282, however, sparked off intensive warfare in the western Mediterranean that rendered futile any serious

On Hospitaller initiatives in the Mediterranean 25 attempt to intervene in the Levant. This was alarming and embarrassing especially for the military-religious orders. Their members must have started to think what they could do if Acre were lost. The Teutonic Order had a clear alternative since it had been fighting on the Baltic since about 1230. Originally, Prussia and Livonia may not have been intended to replace the Holy Land but now they were acceptable centres for a new Ordensstaat, especially as heathen Lithuanians, schismatic Russians and Muslim Tatars threatened Latin Christians in Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, the Teutonic Order did not go to Prussia at once. For almost twenty years, its headquarters stayed in Venice, the major western port of succour from which men, armour and money could be sent from Germany to the Levant. On the other hand, the new Master Fr. Konrad von Feuchtwangen (r. 1291–6) had already begun to enlarge the big castle of Marienburg which replaced an older structure in Zantir, a place nearby at which the Vistula and the Nogat separate. Konrad’s next but one successor and relative Fr. Siegfried von Feuchtwangen (r. 1303–11) was elected in Elbing, not in Marienburg, and immediately left for Venice. In 1309, probably for the annual chapter to be held in September, Siegfried moved to Marienburg because in June Clement V had launched a “crusade” against Venice because it had attacked Ferrara.6 Yet in 1312 the Convent was still in Venice and had a lieutenant of the master. Only the next but one Master Fr. Werner von Orseln (r. 1324–30) finally established the order’s headquarters at Marienburg.7 Different opinions on what to do were not confined to the Teutonic Order. Among the Hospitallers, Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana, who had close ties with the Aragonese court, and Fr. Guillaume de Villaret, Prior of Saint-Gilles, who was close to Charles II of Anjou, were in 1295 at odds with the Master Fr. Odo des Pins in the East. Moreover, in 1299 Fr. Guillaume de Villaret, who had been elected Master (r. 1296–1305) but had stayed in his priory, quarrelled with the Convent in the East.8 For some Templars and Hospitallers, the western Mediterranean may have suggested an alternative as was the Baltic for the Teutonic Order. There were Muslims to fight in Africa, and monarchs on the Iberian Peninsula might support this. In 1291 James II of Aragon and Sancho IV of Castile agreed upon their zones of influence and possible future conquest in Africa. There were Christian fleets to protect, and naval cities such as Barcelona, Marseille, Genoa, Pisa or Venice might support such actions, especially as merchant ships began to travel between the Mediterranean and the Low Countries through the Straits of Gibraltar on a regular annual basis.9 A continuation of the Reconquista in Africa appeared to be possible, given the constant warfare among Muslims there, in which paid Christian mercenaries participated, and the importance of sub-Saharan gold. Furthermore, the western Mediterranean had to be the starting-point for any serious crusade to the Levant. In 1305 for example, Ramon Lull advocated a crusade from Spain through Africa and Egypt to Jerusalem.10 On the other hand, warfare between the Crown of Aragon and the house of Anjou as well as between Genoa and its rivals made it difficult for either the Templars or the Hospitallers to find a suitable place in the western Mediterranean in which to establish a new headquarters. As it turned out, the Sicilian question was a major obstacle to any solution.


Karl Borchardt

Both the treaties of Anagni in 1295 and of Caltabellotta in 1302 failed to restore a lasting peace. On the contrary, James II’s brother Frederick III and his Sicilian supporters continued to fight after 1296 and after 1312 respectively.11

The Templars at Peñíscola For what some Templars thought on the western Mediterranean, there is late and shaky but plausible evidence in Ottokar’s Rhymed Chronicle, which related events until 1309. Writing in the second decade of the fourteenth century, Ottokar von der Gaal stated that in 1291 the Templars were persuaded to leave Acre in the hope that they could take revenge on the infidel king of Morocco.12 According to both Ottokar and his source, Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Willehalm,13 this king was one of the vassals of the sultan. When the sultan attacked Acre, the king of Morocco excused himself on the grounds that he could muster only 50,000 men, because on the other side of the sea the king of Spain threatened him and he had to keep 40,000 men in reserve.14 Ottokar’s story that some Templars wanted to go to Spain may not be pure fiction. Ottokar’s lord, Duke Frederick of Austria, was married to a daughter of James II of Aragon. There is no evidence that Ottokar himself participated in the embassy that fetched the bride from Barcelona in 1313,15 but the two courts stayed in contact. For his chronicle, Ottokar claims to have had reliable information from Templars.16 In 1294, when peace between Aragon and the Angevins seemed imminent, the Templar Master Fr. Jacques de Molay17 visited James II. At the same time, the Templars ceded their possessions at Tortosa to the crown in return for Peñíscola, Ares and Coves de Vinromà in the kingdom of Valencia. In a sense, this imitated the Hospitallers’ exchange of Amposta for Onda and Gallur in 1280, which will be discussed below. In both cases, the king aimed at a closer control of the lower Ebro. On the other hand, both orders were themselves in search of better placed strongholds in northern Valencia. After 1294, the Templars started to build an impressive castle at Peñíscola, to house important relics there and to acquire other possessions in the northern part of the kingdom of Valencia. In 1303, the Templars bought Culla in northern Valencia for 500,000 solidi of Jaca.18 Several brethren from Catalonia and Aragon were appointed to high-ranking posts in the order.19 Taken together, this is strong, though not conclusive, evidence that some important Templars seriously contemplated moving to the lands of James II and supporting him against the Muslims. Of course, this does not mean that the Templar leaders ever formally decided to move their general headquarters to Peñíscola.20

The Hospitaller passagium to Rhodes Neither the Templars nor the Hospitallers formally renounced the liberation of the Holy Land as their ultimate goal. To the public even the Hospitaller occupation of Rhodes was justified in 1308, whilst the Templars were already on trial, as a passagium particulare designed for the liberation of the Holy Land and for supporting the kingdoms of Cyprus and Armenia. The participants received crosses and the

On Hospitaller initiatives in the Mediterranean 27 usual privileges of crusaders.21 The Teutonic Knights, whose Convent was then still in Venice, were ordered to aid the Hospitallers.22 The Hospitaller Master Fr. Foulques de Villaret reported on the preparations to Philip IV of France. The Hospitallers gathered about sixty galleys and other ships from Catalonia, Narbonne, Marseille, Genoa, Pisa and Venice. Horses were bought on markets in Spain,23 as were salted meat, wine, oil, cheese, legumes, arms and biscuit produced in Sicily, Apulia, Provence and Catalonia. Together with three galleys which the Hospital itself had in the East, and with galleys provided by the kings of Cyprus and Armenia, the order hoped to defeat the Muslims.24 Charles II of Anjou permitted the Hospital to export from Apulia without paying customs 150 horses and foals to be sent beyond the sea, plus the necessary grain for these horses and foals.25 James II of Aragon was not happy with all this. Instead, he wanted to use the Hospitallers and their soldiers in his war against Granada. The pope, however, feared that this might inspire the kings of Castile, Portugal and Mallorca to do the same and asked James II to refrain from impeding the eastern passagium.26 Accordingly, James II dispensed the Hospitallers from contributing to the expedition against Granada.27 In the autumn of 1309, however, it had become clear that the passagium had to be postponed until 1310. In this situation, James II ordered Fr. Pere de Soler, Castellan of Amposta, to hand over the biscuit prepared for the eastern campaign to the host that the king planned to send against Granada.28 The Master Fr. Foulques de Villaret had borrowed a lot of money to finance the eastern passagium. To repay the Bardi of Florence, the Hospitallers were permitted to export from Apulia 2,000 salme of wheat, 2,500 salme of barley and 150 salme of legumes.29 For the same reason the Master instituted a five year tallia on all western priories and houses of the order. The revenues were not to exceed 20,000 florins of gold. The money was to be sent to the East each year together with the annual responsions and with other usual dues. Fr. Dragonet de Montdragon, then Prior of Saint-Gilles, was charged with the collection of all these moneys.30

Earlier Hospitaller plans in the Crown of Aragon All these preparations highlight the importance of the western Mediterranean for the Hospitallers. Even before the loss of Acre, they did something extraordinary in the Crown of Aragon. In 1280 Fr. Ramon de Ribells, Castellan of Amposta,31 ceded the nominal centre of their order in the Crown of Aragon, the castle and town of Amposta on the Ebro River not far from its mouth, to King Peter III. From then on, all succeeding castellans of Amposta retained only an empty title but did not have a house or commandery in Amposta.32 In exchange, the Hospitallers got the castle and village of Onda along with the castle of Gallur.33 Gallur was situated on the Ebro some 20 kilometres northwest of Zaragoza. Onda, however, was situated in the northern part of the kingdom of Valencia, some 40 kilometres inland from Castellón where later the Hospital had possessions. In 1298 James II confirmed this exchange.34 At the same time, he sold to the Hospital the merum et mixtum imperium (major or high justice) at Onda and Gallur retained by his predecessor in the 1280 exchange, and the merum et mixtum imperium at Aviñonet in


Karl Borchardt

Catalonia, some 30 kilometres north of Girona near a major road to France. For all these concessions, the Hospitallers paid 15,000 solidi of Barcelona to the king. In sum, the Hospitallers received a compensation for Amposta south of the Ebro River that they could use to build up a future in the western Mediterranean. Less than a year later, James II, however, complained that the price had been too low. He argued that when he came back from Italy he had been in dire need of money and the Hospitallers had taken advantage of his predicament. James asked the pope to revoke the 1298 sale. Boniface VIII commissioned the two bishops of Valencia and Tortosa to investigate the case. If they found the royal arguments to be true, the Hospitaller Fr. Ramon de Ribells, Castellan of Amposta and Lieutenant of the Master in Spain, was to the repaid the money and the sale was to be invalid.35 The king was still pursuing the matter in November 1300.36 In 1304 there was a quarrel about possessions of the order in the territories of Onda and Castellón. At this time, Fr. Pere de Soler was Lieutenant of the Castellan of Amposta. Earlier on, as Commander of Zaragoza, Fr. Pere de Soler had been involved in plans for gaining control of the Straits of Gibraltar.37 At Pere’s request, James II now ordered the royal procurator in the kingdom of Valencia to impose a settlement.38 In 1305 Clement V finally confirmed the annulment of the 1298 sale.39 The acts of 1280 and of 1298 resemble the exchange between the Templars and the crown in 1294, as both orders moved into northern Valencia, closer to fighting the Muslims in the south. One of the reasons why Hospitallers such as Fr. Ramon de Ribells moved to the south was possibly the war against Morocco.40 The Crown of Aragon had to suppress Muslim resistance in the kingdom of Valencia. At the same time, there was rivalry with Castile over the Straits of Gibraltar and Granada.41 Castile reaped the profit, Tarifa in 1292 and Gibraltar in 1309. In order to establish a common border with Granada, however, Aragon claimed the kingdom of Murcia until in 1304 a compromise was reached with Castile.42 The Nasrid rulers of Granada sometimes feared the Marinids of Morocco more than the Christians and occasionally changed sides. All this naturally presented opportunities to the military-religious orders. Therefore, the idea of forming a new centre of activities in the western Mediterranean may have been attractive for some of their members. In 1298 James II had made peace with Muhammad II of Granada. One condition was that all Muslim captives had to be returned. Especially, the king of Granada demanded the return of a certain Fahad Aben Maymo. A citizen of Valencia had taken him prisoner and had sold him to the Hospitaller commander of Valencia. Now the king ordered his iusticiarius in Valencia to repay the money to the commander Fr. A. de Romaner.43 When his successor Muhammad III of Granada prolonged an existing truce, the royal procurator for Murcia, Pere de Montagut, informed King James II that he had written to Eriman de Ponz, Lieutenant of the Castellan of Amposta, and to the Hospitallers at Cella to tell them to stay at home.44 What happened in the Crown of Aragon can of course also be seen in the more general context of obtaining possessions in the west for supporting the Holy Land in the East. Such purchases had begun before 129145 and continued after the loss of Acre. In 1297 Boniface VIII passed on the hospital of Aubrac, in the diocese of Rodez, to the Order of St. John. This was justified by the need for horses on

On Hospitaller initiatives in the Mediterranean 29 Cyprus that the Hospitallers were unable to obtain from Spain because of the wars there.46 In the same year, the pope added the two Benedictine monasteries of Sant’Angelo del Palazzo47 and of Venosa,48 both of them in Apulia. In 1299 and 1301 there followed the incorporations of the Hospital of St. Samson at Douai in 1299/130149 and at Corinth in 1309.50

Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana In the 1290s, Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana was an important figure among the Hospitallers in the west. He came from a place some 20 kilometres southeast of Asti in Piedmont. Moreover, he was related to Bianca Lancia, mother of Emperor Frederick II’s son Manfred and grandmother of the sons of Peter III of Aragon; Alfonso III called him his consanguineus. He began his career in the East, serving from 1268 to 1271 and again in 1277 as Grand Commander of the Hospital. At this time, it was not unusual for a grand commander to be replaced.51 Fr. Boniface, however, had personal enemies, against whom Alfonso III interceded with the master in 1288,52 and so did James II in 1295.53 After the fall of Acre in 1291, Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana became Grand Preceptor of the Hospital in the West, an office he held until his death in the summer of 1298.54 In 1293 he was involved in James II’s plans for an alliance with Castile designed to counter the Muslim control of the Straits of Gibraltar.55 Reforms in the Hospital that he along with others suggested to Boniface VIII in 1295 did not mention any new headquarters but, as far as we know, only advocated restrictions on the master’s autocracy, apparently in reaction to his experiences with the anti-Aragonese Master Fr. Jean de Villiers; they proposed government of the Hospital by representatives of the seven langues.56 Despite his Aragonese connections, Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana clearly belonged to a group of Hospitallers who wanted to retain some kind of independence for their order from the great western powers. On the other hand, the Hospitallers were inevitably dependent on the good will of the great western powers. This posed the problem of what the Hospital could do in case of wars between these powers. Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana helped negotiate the peace of Anagni in 1295. Both the Templars and the Hospitallers pledged all their possessions in the kingdoms of Aragon and Valencia and in the county of Barcelona for the dowry of Bianca of Anjou, James II’s bride and Charles II’s daughter, a pledge amounting to 75,000 marks of silver that were to be paid within three years. Boniface VIII guaranteed the payment with all the possessions of the Roman Church.57 Fr. Ramon de Ribells paid James II, as part of the dowry of Queen Bianca, 50,000 solidi of Barcelona. In return, the king gave up any claims to the goods of the Castellany of Amposta that had been pledged to him by the pope until St. John’s Day, 24 June 1300.58 When the dowry had been paid, Boniface VIII ordered James II to return all pledged possessions to the Hospitallers and the Templars.59 After the 1295 peace treaty, Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana appeared to be the appropriate person to deal with Giovanni da Procida, a famous Ghibelline partisan who had to leave Sicily by May 1296. If Giovanni were to do this, he would be restored to his possessions in the kingdom of Naples.60 In the same way Fr. Boniface


Karl Borchardt

of Calamandrana was also the right person to appease the Italian admiral Ruggero di Lauria (d. 1305), one of the most renowned Ghibelline champions. In 1295, the pope charged Fr. Boniface to receive the oath of vassalage to the Holy See that Ruggero had to swear for the islands of Djerba and Kerkennah on the African coast between Tunis and Tripoli. Ruggero had conquered Djerba in 1284 and had built a castle there in 1289. Each year Ruggero was to pay 50 ounces of gold to the supreme pontiff and his legitimate successors. After swearing the oath of ligium homagium, Ruggero was to receive investiture as a papal vassal by Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana.61 Clearly, Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana was here involved as a person, not as a Hospitaller. Nevertheless, the island in the western Mediterranean was intended to serve as a base to fight Muslims. Similarly, when James II started to negotiate about the Templar possessions in his dominions after 1312, there was the idea that the Hospitallers might receive Sardinia and Corsica. In 1323/24, still under James II, there was a plan to give Sardinia to the Hospitallers that eventually came to nothing because they did not have the manpower to conquer that large island.62 Meanwhile, James II had found a new way to influence the Hospital. He began to further his illegitimate half-brother Fr. Sancho of Aragon, a son of Peter III and Inés Zapata. In 1301 the king decreed that Sancho should receive 5000 solidi of Barcelona either from royal taxes or from the Hospitaller bailiwicks of Aliaga, Caspe and Samper de Calanda, as if the monarch had any right to interfere with these Hospitaller possessions. Later on, Fr. Sancho took sides with his other halfbrother Frederick III of Sicily and served on Sicilian ships against Byzantium and in support of the Catalan Company in 1305. In 1306, he was the Hospital’s admiral and witnessed the agreement to conquer Rhodes between the Master Fr. Foulques de Villaret and the Genoese Vignolo de’Vignoli. In 1313, he was in Nicosia as one of the envoys who negotiated a marriage alliance between James II of Aragon and Henry II of Cyprus. Between 1315 and 1318 Sancho acted as Prior of Messina. Between 1323 and his death in 1346, however, he was Castellan of Amposta.63

Cervo, the Doria family, and Genoa Concerning Hospitaller activities in the Western Mediterranean, the order’s relations with Genoa deserve further research. Embarrassed by the conflict between Aragon and the Angevins, both Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana and Fr. Guillaume de Villaret apparently sought collaboration with Genoa whose Ghibelline leaders Oberto Spinola and Oberto Doria had secured resounding naval victories against the Pisans at Meloria in 1284 and against the Venetians at Curzola/Korčula in 1298. Undoubtedly, Genoa was the third leading power broker in the western Mediterranean in about 1300. Peace between Aragon and the Angevins was also vital for Genoese trade. Traditionally, Genoa strove to control its Ligurian neighbours. Liguria may have been attractive for the Hospitallers, too. Together with the Genoese Niccolò Babilani Doria, some Hospitallers established a maritime stronghold at Cervo, in the diocese of Albenga some 80 kilometres west of Genoa. The people there lived not only from agriculture but also from fishing in the Corsican and Sardinian seas. Through Cervo, the Roman Via Julia Augusta followed the coast from

On Hospitaller initiatives in the Mediterranean 31 Italy to Gaul and Spain. A castle on a mountain spur above the houses protected the settlement. For decades, the Hospitallers had held rights there. Yet Genoa coveted the important place. As early as 1251, the Genoese pope Innocent IV asked the Hospitallers to sell the castle of Cervo to Genoa at a price that the abbot of Sant’Andrea in Sestri Ponente, six Roman miles to the west of Genoa, would fix.64 In 1299, the castle of Cervo, its rights and appurtenances still belonged pleno iure to the Hospital. Yet after the death of Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana, the Hospitaller Master Fr. Guillaume de Villaret agreed to lease it to Niccolò Doria for fifteen years. Niccolò Doria asked Boniface VIII to ratify the agreement.65 The pope permitted that the fifteen years might be prolonged to twenty years if that suited both sides. Somewhat vaguely, the papal letter declared that the Hospital would profit from the help of Niccolò and his family.66 According to canon law agreements could be annulled if they were clearly detrimental to the church. Therefore, it is remarkable that Boniface VIII added such a clause to defend the agreement between the Doria and the Hospital. On the other hand, the agreement hints at possible joint endeavours of the Hospital and Doria. One should remember that later, in 1306, the Hospitaller occupation of Rhodes began as a joint venture with some Genoese.67 The Master Fr. Guillaume de Villaret refused to accept the prolongation of the lease. This shows that he was reluctant to give up Cervo for good. The pope, however, insisted. The only change he granted was that Niccolò Doria, and probably also his heirs, although the papal letter did not expressly say so,68 agreed to pay the same amount of revenues to the Hospital that the Hospital so far used to receive from Cervo.69 The new owner of Cervo was a son of Babilano Doria (d. 1296), an active merchant and a territorial lord from Genoa. Together with his brother Federico (d. 1298), Niccolò leased the iron production on Elba in 1290. In 1298, the two brothers bought a vast territory on the Ligurian coast, Oneglia and surrounding villages, from the bishop of Albenga. Oneglia was situated some 120 kilometres west of Genoa, on the coast and on the Via Julia Augusta. The acquisition of Cervo intensified Niccolò’s hold on Liguria west of Genoa. His branch of the Doria family also held large estates on Sardinia.70 The exact context of the Cervo deal remains unclear so far. Yet it is well known that Genoese nobles pursued their personal aims sometimes without considering the wishes to the government in Genoa and in collaboration with foreign powers.71 The Hospitallers kept rights at Cervo as late as 1330. One year later they sold it to Lazzaro Doria. Neither the Hospitaller nor the Doria schemes at Cervo are known so far.72 Further research may unveil possible aims of both Niccolò Doria and his Hospitaller partners.

Conclusions Already by 1280, the Hospitaller Fr. Ramon de Ribells had conceived the idea of upgrading his order’s activities on the Iberian Peninsula by moving from Amposta southwards into the Kingdom of Valencia. Naval wars against Granada and Morocco could easily justify that. After the fall of Acre, the Templars apparently tried to imitate this when in 1294 they began to fortify Peñíscola. Plans to continue the Reconquista into Africa and to secure Christian control of the Straits


Karl Borchardt

of Gibraltar were around. The Iberian monarchies and naval cities such as Genoa welcomed initiatives of the military orders in the western Mediterranean. Meanwhile, the Hospitaller Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana eagerly mediated between Aragon and the Angevins, both on behalf of his order and of Genoa. Clearly, there were schemes to establish island bases in the western Mediterranean for fighting Muslims. The plans also concerned Djerba and Kerkennah under Ruggero di Lauria, a papal vassal from 1295 onwards. This also concerned Sardinia and possibly Corsica. These two islands proved too large to conquer, whereas Djerba and Kerkennah were too small and too close to the African coast for effective defence. Further research should clarify the relations between the Hospital and the Doria family at Cervo on the Ligurian coast. Contrary to Peñíscola, Cervo was too far north to serve as a base against Muslim “pirates.” In the end, all these initiatives came to nothing. There is no evidence that either the Templars or the Hospitallers ever seriously contemplated moving their central convents to the western Mediterranean. Although some Hospitallers did collaborate with Aragon and with some Genoese, the order in general could not afford open conflict with the Angevins, France and the papacy. Yet securing Christian lines of communication was not only an objective for the western Mediterranean. It was also one of the challenges that inspired some Genoese and Hospitallers to choose to conquer Rhodes, a stronghold that controlled routes not only between Constantinople and Egypt but also between Italy and the Holy Land. Any new crusade to Palestine and Syria would profit from a base on Rhodes. Moreover, the Egyptian Mamluks obtained slaves who became their troops from the Black Sea regions via Constantinople and Rhodes, often on Genoese ships. Seen against this background, the Hospitaller initiatives in the western Mediterranean in the decades before and after 1300 can throw some light on the question why this military-religious order decided to found its new headquarters on Rhodes. From a structural perspective, one might add that the military-religious orders were in a similar situation as the papacy and the Kirchenstaat in the decades before and after the year 1300. They were in search of a new permanent seat and power base. And they had to compete with secular powers, which proved to be increasingly difficult because many contemporaries thought that the secular powers were the more convincing alternative for maintaining social peace and justice. Prussia and Rhodes were distant enough; the western Mediterranean was not. Therefore, not only Clement V but also the military-religious orders may have learnt their lessons “and, instead of fighting a hopeless battle against secular princes”73 tried to build their own Ordensstaat.

Notes 1 Sophia Menache, Clement V, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 36 (Cambridge, 1998). 2 Sophia Menache, “Papal Attempts at a Commercial Boycott of the Muslims in the Crusader Period,” in The Eastern Mediterranean Frontier of Latin Christendom, ed. Jace Andrew Stuckey (Farnham, 2014), 419–42 = Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63 (2012): 236–59; Sophia Menache, “The Last Master of the Temple: James of Molay,”

On Hospitaller initiatives in the Mediterranean 33

3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10 11


in Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. Norman Housley (Aldershot, 2007), 29–240; Sophia Menache, “Medieval States and Military Orders: The Order of Calatrava in the Late Middle Ages,” in In laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in Crusades and Medieval Culture in Honour of Benjamin Z. Kedar, ed. Iris Shagrir, Ronnie Ellenblum, and Jonathan Riley-Smith, Crusades Subsidia 1 (Aldershot, 2007), 457–68. Sylvia Schein, Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land (Oxford, 1991); Norman Housley, The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1305– 1378 (Oxford, 1986). At Poitiers, 5 September 1307, Clement V confirmed the possession of Rhodes to the Master Fr. Foulques de Villaret, “insulam Rodi, quam scismaticorum Grecorum infidelitas detinebat”: Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jérusalem (1100– 1310), ed. Joseph Delaville le Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris, 1894–1906), 4: 144–5, no. 4751 from Reg. Vat. 54, fol. 127r; Regestum Clementis Papae V, 11 vols. (Rome, 1884–1957), 2: 134, no. 2148. The Hospital’s Genoese partners were not mentioned in this document. Sylvia Schein, “Gesta Dei per Mongolos 1300: The Genesis of a Non-Event,“ English Historical Review 94 (1979), 805–19. Avignon, 28 June 1309: Regestum Clementis, 4: 459–67, nos. 5081–5085. Venice was defeated in 1310 and submitted in 1313: Menache, Clement V, 142–8; Norman Housley, The Italian Crusades. The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay Powers, 1254–1343 (Oxford, 1982), 24–5. Klaus Militzer, “Die Übersiedlung Siegfrieds von Feuchtwangen in die Marienburg,” in Die Ritterorden in Umbruchs-und Krisenzeiten, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares 16 (Toruń, 2011), 47–61, here 53–5, 58. Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of the Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310), History of Warfare 50 (Leiden and Boston, 2008), 151–61. Luisa Chiappa Mauri, “Il commercio occidentale di Genova nel XIV secolo,” Nuova rivista storica 57 (1973), 571–612. Anthony Leopold, How to Recover the Holy Land: The Crusade Proposals of the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (Aldershot, 2000), 164–7. Andreas Kiesewetter, Die Anfänge der Regierung König Karls II. von Anjou (1278– 1295). Das Königreich Neapel, die Grafschaft Provence und der Mittelmeerraum zu Ausgang des 13. Jahrhunderts, Historische Studien 451 (Husum, 1999), 240–97; Corrado Mirto, “La guerra del Vespro e la pace di Caltabellotta,“ Archivio storico siciliano 28 (2002), 53–72; Francesco Giunta, “Federico III di Sicilia e le repubbliche marinare tirreniche,” in Genova, Pisa e il Mediterraneo tra Due e Trecento. Per il VII centenario della battaglia della Meloria, Genova, 24–27 ottobre 1984, Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria 24/2 (Genoa, 1984), 479–97; Michele Granà, “Il trattato di Caltabellotta,” Atti della Reale Accademia di Scienze Lettere e Arti di Palermo 2, Lettere 4/35 (1975/1976), 291–334. Ottokar, Österreichische Reimchronik, ed. Joseph Seemüller, MGH Deutsche Chroniken 5/1 (Hanover, 1890), lines 44, 579–553, 866 on Acre, including lines 51, 824–919 on the Templars, here lines 51, 888–895 and 51, 900–903: “swaz uns widerdriez / ist von den heiden widervarn, / daz muoz von uns garn / der kunic von Marroch. / Wir haben sô vil noch / in Yspani dem lant, / daz uns zeigen ist benant, / êren unde guotes: / . . . / der kunic von Yspani mouz / haben an siner marc / ein her grôz unde starc / tegenlichen gegen den heiden:” What happened to us, has been caused by the heathens, and the king of Morocco has to repay this to us. We still possess many honours and goods in the land of Spain . . . The king of Spain has to have a big and strong army at his border every day against the heathens . . . [my translation]. Bettina Hatheyer, Das Buch von Akkon. Das Thema Kreuzzug in der Steirischen Reimchronik des Ottokar aus der Gaal. Untersuchungen, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 709 (Göppingen, 2005), 365; Ursula Liebertz-Grün, Das andere Mittelalter. Erzählte Geschichte



14 15

16 17 18 19


21 22

Karl Borchardt und Geschichtserkenntnis um 1300. Studien zu Ottokar von Steiermark, Jens Enikel, Seifried Helbling, Forschungen zur Geschichte der älteren deutschen Literatur 5 (München, 1984), 147–50; Otacher oûz der Geul, Steirische Reimchronik, www.geschichtsquellen. de/repOpus_03768.html (accessed on 7 March 2017). Ottokar borrowed twelve of twenty heathen kings from Willehalm: Hatheyer, Buch von Akkon, 497. See Wolfram von Eschenbach, Willehalm, Nach der gesamten Überlieferung kritisch herausgegeben von Werner Schröder (Berlin and New York, 1978); Wolfram von Eschenbach, Text der Ausgabe von Werner Schröder, Völlig neu bearbeitete Übersetzung, Vorwort und Register von Dieter Kartschoke (Berlin and New York, 1989). Five studies by Paul Kunitzsch on the oriental names are mentioned Schröder, XIV–XV. Ottokar, lines 47, 068–090. See also ibid., lines 33, 872–909, on the war between France and Castile that involved the king of Morocco. Interestingly, Ottokar mentions kings of Spain and of Castile but not of Aragon. Frederick’s envoys Abbot Otto of St. Lamprecht, Rudolf von Liechtenstein, Heinrich von Walsee and Hervord von Simaning arrived at Barcelona early in September 1313: Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen, zur Kirchen-und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II (1291– 1327), ed. Heinrich Finke, 3 vols. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1908–1922), 1: 346. Ottokar had close relations with the Liechtenstein family from Styria. Charters do not mention him between 6 July 1313 and 25 February 1315: Hatheyer, Buch von Akkon, 23, 30–1. Lines 44, 595–596, 47, 915–918, and especially 48, 393–395: “die mich verrihten der mære / daz wâren brüeder êrbære / von der Tempelære orden . . .” Anthony Luttrell, “The Election of the Templar Master Jacques de Molay,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars, ed. by Jochen Burgtorf, Paul Crawford, and Helen Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), 21–31. Alan Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón (Oxford, 1973), 59–60. Alain Demurger, Jacques de Molay: le crépuscule des Templiers, rev. ed. (Paris, 2014), 114–15, 192–5; Anthony Luttrell, “The Templars’ Archives in Syria and Cyprus,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen Nicholson, Crusades Subsidia 10 (2017), 38–45, here 41–2; Luis García-Guijarro, “The Growth of the Temple in the Northern Area of the Kingdom of Valencia at the Close of the Thirteenth Century: A Puzzling Development,” in Knighthoods of Christ, 165–181; Luis García-Guijarro, “The Extinction of the Order of the Temple in the Kingdom of Valencia and Early Montesa,” in Debate on the Trial, 199– 211, here 202–5; Sebastián Salvadó, “Icons, Crosses and Liturgical Objects of Templar Chapels in the Crown of Aragon,” in ibid., 183–97, here 185–7, 192–5; Joan Fuguet Sans, “De Miravet (1153) a Peñiscola (1294): Novedad y persistencia de un modelo de fortaleza templaria en la provincia catalano-aragonesa de la Orden,” in Acri 1291: La Fine della presenza degli Ordini Militari in Terra Santa e i nuovi orientamenti nel XIV secolo, ed. Francesco Tommasi (Perugia, 1996), 44–67; Vera Hofbauerová and Carme Plaza, “Dos castillos templarios en el norte del reino de Valencia: Xivert y Peñíscola,” in Castelos das Ordens Militares, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes, 2 vols. (Lisbon, 2013), 2: 45–66. Some scholars dismiss this idea, especially Alan Forey, “A Templar Lordship in Northern Valencia,“ in Die Ritterorden als Träger der Herrschaft: Territorien, Grundbesitz und Kirche, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares 14 (Toruń, 2007), 59–68, here 61–5; Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “The Military Orders and the Escape of the Christian Population from the Holy Land in 1291,” Journal of Medieval History 19 (1993), 201–27, here 209 n. 22. Poitiers, 11 August 1308: Cartulaire, 4: 178–82, no. 4807 from Toulouse, AD H 33, no. 2 and Reg. Vat. 55, fol. 124, no. 626; Regestum Clementis 3: 155, no. 2988. Saint-Emilion, 20 September 1308: Cartulaire, 4: 104, no. 4821 from Reg. Vat. 55, fol. 171r.

On Hospitaller initiatives in the Mediterranean 35 23 Anthony Luttrell, “Il Cavallo nell’Ordine dell’Ospedale a Rodi dopo il 1306,” in Cavalli e Cavalieri: Guerra, Gioco, Finzione, ed. Franco Cardini and Luca Mantelli (Pisa, 2011), 205–15. Not by chance it was a Hospitaller who presented to Boniface VIII in October 1299 some horses on behalf of King Ferdinand IV of Castile and his mother Mary: Acta Aragonensia, 1: 71. 24 “Facimus nempe, princeps serenissime, in Catalonia galeas septem, Narbone tres, Massilie sexdecim, Ianue duodecim et navem unam, ultra aliam magnam, quam ibidem emimus, Pisis quattuor, Veneciis sex fabricari et fieri; et ultra has Ianua de presenti armari quinque et Venetiis duas, destinandas ad partes predictas in proxime vernali tempore vel antea, si possibile fuerit. Per quas galeas cum tribus, quas habemus ibidem, et aliis, que per reges illarum partium armari poterunt, . . .” Pisa, 27 January 1309: Cartulaire, 4: 203–4, no. 4841 from Paris, AN, M 1, no. 11. 25 Naples, 24 March 1309: Cartulaire, 4: 304, no. 4855bis from Naples, Reg. 177, fol. 174r. 26 Avignon, 14 May 1309: Cartulaire, 4: 212–13, no. 4860 from Barcelona, papal bulls 25, no. 37; Butllari de Catalunya, ed. Tilmann Schmidt and Roser Sabanés i Fernández, vol. 2 (Barcelona, 2016), 864–5 no. 654. 27 Barcelona, 11 June 1309: Cartulaire, 4: 216–17, no. 4866 from Barcelona, Reg. 144, fol.73v. 28 Almeria, 22 October 1309: Cartulaire, 4: 226, no. 4883 from Barcelona, Reg. 344, fol. 109r. 29 Naples, 3 April 1309: Cartulaire, 4: 306, no. 4855quinquies from Naples, Reg. 177, fol. 176r. 30 Avignon, 23 May 1310: Cartulaire, 4: 233–4, no. 4895 from Reg. Vat. 57, fol. 74r; Regestum Clementis, 5: 105, no. 5384. See Schein, Fideles, 220–33; Menache, Clement V, 122–4; Anthony Luttrell, “The Hospitallers and the Papacy, 1305–1314,” in Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst-und Landesgeschichte, ed. Karl Borchardt and Enno Bünz, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1998), 2: 595–622; Ludger Thier, Kreuzzugsbemühungen unter Papst Clemens V. (1305–1314), Franziskanische Forschungen 24 (Werl/Westfalen, 1973), 82–93. 31 Burgtorf, Convent, 630–4. He was Castellan of Amposta since 1276, lost this office during the war between Aragon and France in the 1280s, was sent to Acre in 1290 and returned as Grand Commander of Spain. In this office he was mentioned from 1295 to 1300, from 1298 onwards also as Castellan of Amposta again and as Lieutenant of the Master in Spain. In 1303, however, he was on Cyprus as Grand Preceptor of the Convent; by 1305, he was dead. 32 Arrangements of 1317/19 blur this, because the Hospitallers were given the Templar houses of Ascó, Miravet, Horta and Ulldecona which comprised territories between the lower Ebro and the Valencian border next to Amposta: Pierre Bonneaud, Le prieuré de Catalogne, le couvent de Rhodes et la couronne d’Aragon 1415–1447, Milites Christi 2 (Millau, 2004), 173 and 232 n. 366 plus the map on p. 9. 33 Valencia, 7 December 1280: Cartulaire, 3: 399–403, no. 3735 from Barcelona, Reg. 35, fol. 172r. See also ibid. fol. 193v and 194r for the mandates of execution dated 8 December. 34 Palamos, 20 June 1298: Cartulaire, 3: 745–6, nos. 4423–4424 from Barcelona, Reg. 265, fol. 45v and 49r. 35 Anagni, 8 June 1299: Cartulaire, 3: 781, no. 4466 from Reg. Vat. 49, fol. 185; Georges Digard, Les Registres de Boniface VIII, 4 vols. (Paris, 1904–1939), 2: col. 435, no. 3112. 36 Valencia, 15 and 22 November 1300: Cartulaire, 3: 816–17, nos. 4517–4518 from Barcelona, Reg. 116, fol. 243r, 267r. 37 James II’s letters to Muhammad II of Granada, Calatayud, 16 October 1300 and Barcelona, 16 September 1302: Àngels Masià i de Ros, Jaume II: Aragó, Granada i Marroc. Aportació documental (Barcelona, 1989), 108–11, 131–3 from Barcelona, Reg. 252, fol. 64v, Reg. 334, fol. 36r and 439v.


Karl Borchardt

38 Valencia, 12 January 1304: Cartulaire, 4: 73, no. 4627 from Barcelona, Reg. 131, fol. 9r. 39 Montpellier, 17 October 1305: Cartulaire, 4: 119, no. 4701 from Barcelona, royal charters no 2559, copy inserted in a document of 16 April 1306, Cartulaire, 4: 128–29, no. 4718, and from Reg. Vat. 52, fol. 37r; Regestum Clementis, 1: 34, no. 224. The money had been deposited with three moneychangers in Valencia, Bernardus Planelli, Johannes and Bartholomeus Çeriol. 40 For the war against Morocco, Fr. Ramon was ordered to go to the kingdom of Valencia, Zaragoza, 27 April 1283: Cartulaire, 3: 443, no. 3827. 41 Joseph F. O’Callaghan, The Gibraltar Crusade: Castile and the Battle for the Strait, The Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia, PA, 2011), 95–136; Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, L’Espagne catalane et le Maghrib aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles, de la bataille de les Navas de Tolosa de 1212 à l’avènement du sultan mérinide Abu-l Hassan 1331 (Paris, 1966); Andrés Giménez Soler, La Corona de Aragón y Granada. Historia de las relaciones entre ambos reinos (Barcelona, 1908). 42 See Juan Manuel Estal, Murcia bajo Aragón 1296–1305 (Alicante, 1925). 43 Valencia, 12 March 1298: Cartulaire, 3: 736, no. 4410 from Barcelona, Reg. 110, fol. 3v. 44 Lorca, 16 June 1304: Cartulaire, 4: 85–6, no. 4656 from Barcelona, royal charters no. 2041. 45 See Judith Bronstein, The Hospitallers and the Holy Land: Financing the Latin East, 1187–1274 (Woodbridge, 2005). 46 “cum vobis, pensata . . . moderni temporis qualitate, in insula Cipri potissime, ad cuius custodiam salubriter intendatis, laboribus et sumptibus non parcendo, sit vobis equorum suffragium opportunum, et propter gravia guerrarum discrimina de Yspanie partibus equos extrahere nequeatis, dictumque Hospitale Ierosolimitanum, pro equis commode nutriendis, huiusmodi silvis et pascuis noscatur non modicum indigere . . .“ Vatican, 31 January 1297: Cartulaire, 3: 695–6, no. 4334 from Reg. Vat. 48, fol. 225r; Digard, Registres, 1: col. 676, no. 1784. 47 Orvieto, 22 September 1297: Cartulaire, 3: 721–2, no. 4386 from Reg. Vat. 48, fol. 317v; Digard, Registres, 1: col. 819, no. 2137; August Potthast, Regesta pontificum Romanorum. Inde ab a. post Christum natum 1198 ad a. 1304, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1874– 1875), 2: no. 24, 575. See also 1302: Cartulaire, 4: 31, no. 4566, and 1310: Cartulaire, 4: 306–7, no. 4903bis. 48 Orvieto, 22 September 1297: Cartulaire, 3: 722–3, no. 4387 from Reg. Vat. 48, fol. 308v; Digard, Registres, 1: col. 812, no. 2112; Potthast no. 24576. See also Torre Sant’Elmo, 23 February 1298: Cartulaire, 3: 733–4, no. 4406. Naples, 15 July 1299: Cartulaire, 3: 768, no. 4472 from Naples, Reg. 96, fol. 164v. Order by Charles II of Anjou, Lateran, 20 March 1304: Cartulaire, 4: 80–1, no. 4644 from Naples, Reg. 136, fol. 91v and Reg. 138, fol. 318r. 49 Mont S. Eloi, 14 November 1299: Cartulaire, 3: 788–9, no. 4477 from Paris, AN S 5042, no. 20. – 1301: Cartulaire, 4: 3–7, nos. 4529–4532. 50 Avignon, 8 August 1309: Cartulaire, 4: 221–2, no. 4875. 51 Burgtorf, Convent, 266–7. 52 Alfonso III to the Hospitaller Marshal and Convent, Barcelona, 22 July 1288: Cartulaire, 3: 518–19, no. 4007; Acta Aragonensia, 3: 3–5, no. 2. Fr. Boniface had been sent to Armenia where bad weather was about to kill him, and Fr. Ramon had been returned to Aragon ignominiously: “Ipse [the Master Fr. Jean de Villiers] enim duos [not dominos as in Finke] fratres vestri ordinis, fratrem scilicet Bonifacium de Calamandrana, consanguineum nostrum karissimum, ac fratrem R[aymundum] de Ripellis, dilectum nostrum, viros utique magne nobilitatis, magne discretionis ac magne religionis, per quorum discretionem, laudabilem conversationem ac fame serenitatem ordini vestro multum accrevisse credimus, non propter ipsorum culpam, set in nostri dedecus et inimicorum nostrorum favorem, eo ipso quod consanguinitate, naturalitate et amoris sinceritate eos nobis noverat esse coniunctos, ipsorum alterum in Armeniam, cito moriturum propter illius regni infectionem aeris, destinavit, alium vero ad nos cum ambaxiata seu legatione frivola duxit cum eius quadam ignominia remitendum.”

On Hospitaller initiatives in the Mediterranean 37 53 James II to his envoys at the papal curia, end of March 1295: Acta Aragonensia, 3: 33–42, no. 20, here 39 complaining “de ço, qel maestre del Espital ha fet contra frare Bonifaci.” 54 Jochen Burgtorf, “A Mediterranean Career in the Late Thirteenth Century: The Hospitaller Grand Commander Boniface of Calamandrana,” in The Hospitallers, the Mediterranean and Europe: Festschrift for Anthony Luttrell, ed. Karl Borchardt, Nikolas Jaspert, and Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 2007), 73–85; Burgtorf, Convent, 500–4. His death occurred between 23 February and 25 October 1298. 55 James II to Muhammad II of Granada, Guadalajara, 6 February 1293: Masià, Jaume II, 17–18 from Barcelona, Reg. 252, fol. 49r. 56 Cartulaire, 3: 655–7, no. 4267, pp. 672–3, no. 4293, both from Paris, BnF, franç. 6049, fol. 244v and 255r. 57 Anagni, 2 July 1295: Cartulaire, 3: 664–5, no. 4281, from Reg. Vat. 47, fol. 51v; Digard, Registres, 1: col. 80, no. 212. 58 Barcelona, 4 March 1300: Cartulaire, 3: 798–9, no. 4490 from Barcelona, Reg. 117, fol. 128r, copied into an order of James II dated 26 May 1300. Mandate of execution to Bernart de Sarrià, procurator of the kingdom of Murcia, Lérida, 26 May 1300: Cartulaire, 3: 805–6, no. 4504 from Barcelona, Reg. 117, fol. 128r. Mandate to pay to the Hospital whatever the crown had to pay in the kingdoms of Valencia and Aragon, Cella, 28 June 1300: Cartulaire, 3: 807, no. 4509 from Barcelona, royal charters no. 1130. Mandate to reach a composition about the 50,000 solidi with Fr. Ramon de Ribells, Valence, 22 November 1300: Cartulaire, 3: 817, no. 4520 from Barcelona, royal charters no. 779. 59 Lateran, 11 April 1300: Cartulaire, 3: 802–3, no. 4498 from Barcelona, bulls 22, no. 5 and Vatican, Reg. Vat. 49, fol. 304r; Butllari de Catalunya, vol. 1 (Barcelona, 2016) 750–1 no. 602. 60 Commission for Guillem de Montcada, Bishop of Urgel, and for Fr. Boniface of Calamandrana to negotiate about this, Vatican, 2 January 1296: Cartulaire, 3: 677, no. 4299 from Reg. Vat. 47, fol. 205v; ed. Digard, Registres, 1: col. 288, no. 854. 61 Anagni, 11 August 1295: Cartulaire, 3: 670–2, no. 4290 from Reg. Vat. 47, fol. 194v; Digard, Registres, 1: col. 272, no. 810. 62 Alan Forey, The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (Aldershot, 2001), 180–2; García-Guicharro, “Extinction,” in Debate on the Trial, 210–11. For the background, see Francesco Cesare Casula, “La Sardegna dopo la Meloria,” in Genova, Pisa e il Mediterraneo, 499–515; Salvatore Fodale, “Il regno di Sardegna e Corsica feudo della Chiesa di Roma (dalle origini al XIV secolo),” in ibid., 515–67, here 523–31. For a similar but later project, see Anthony Luttrell, “Gli ospedalieri e un progetto per la Sardegna, 1370–1374,” in Società, istituzioni, spiritualità. Studi in onore di Cinzio Violante (Spoleto, 1994), 1: 503–8 = idem, in The Hospitaller State on Rhodes (Aldershot, 1999), no. XVI. 63 Burgtorf, Convent, 651–4. Lérida, 26 July 1301: Cartulaire, 4: 11, no. 4541 from Barcelona, royal charters no. 1563. Anthony Luttrell, “The Aragonese Crown and the Knights Hospitallers of Rhodes: 1316–1350,” in English Historical Review 76 (1961), 1–19, here 11–13 = idem, in The Hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and the West 1291–1440 (London, 1978), no. 11. Pierre Bonneaud, Els hospitaliers catalans a la fi de l’edat mitjana. L’ordre de l’Hospital a Catalunya i a la Mediterrània, 1396–1472, traducció de Josep Tarragona i Castells (Lleida, 2008), 88, 105, 112. The somewhat garbled data for Fr. Sancho merit to be checked. There may have been two persons called Fr. Sancho of Aragon, a younger one who served with the Catalan Company in 1305 and an older one who was the Hospital’s admiral in 1306. 64 Genoa, 5 June 1251: Cartulaire, 2: 710–11, no. 2567 from the Genoese Libri iurium; Potthast no. 14309. Cervo was a Genoese fief of the Hospitallers since 1198: Lorenzo Tacchella, Cervo e Rocchetta di Cairo, due feudi liguri nella storia del sovrano militare ordine di Malta (Genova, 1996); Giovanna Petti Balbi, “I Gerosolimitani in


65 66 67

68 69

70 71



Karl Borchardt Liguria in età medievale tra tensioni politiche e compiti istituzionali,” in Cavalieri di San Giovanni e territorio. La Liguria tra Provenza e Lombardia nei secoli XIIIXVII. Atti del Convegno Genova – Imperia – Cervo, 11–14 settembre 1997, ed. Josepha Costa Restagno (Bordighera, 1999), 165–90, here 169. Lateran, 28 February 1299: Cartulaire 3: 755–6, no. 4444 from Reg. Vat. 49, fol. 162v; Digard, Registres, vol. 2, col. 380, no. 2995. “. . . considerantes attente, quod per eum et suos multa bona Hospitali prefato, faciente Domino, poterunt provenire . . .” Vignolo de’Vignoli and his nephews, the brothers Andrea and Lodovico Moresco: Anthony Luttrell, “The Genoese at Rhodes, 1306–1312,” in Oriente e Occidente tra Medioevo ed Età Moderna. Studi in onore di Geo Pistarino, ed. Laura Balletto (Acqui Terme, 1997), 2: 737–61 = idem, in The Hospitaller State on Rhodes (Aldershot, 1999), no. I; on Genoa and Cyprus see now Julius Leonhard, Genua und die päpstliche Kurie in Avignon (1305–1378). Politische und diplomatische Beziehungen im 14. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main, 2013), 276–84. “cum idem [Niccolò Doria] tibi [magistro] et fratribus dicti Hospitalis tantum sit annis singulis pro dicto castro exhibere paratus, quantum vos hactenus consuevistis percipere ex eodem . . .” Lateran, 18 December 1299: Cartulaire, 3: 790–1, no. 4480 from Reg. Vat. 49, fol. 226r; Digard, Registres, 2: col. 515, no. 3273. On the background, see Georg Caro, Genua und die Mächte am Mittelmeer 1257–1311. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des XIII. Jahrhunderts, vol. 2 (Halle/Saale, 1899, repr. Aalen, 1967), 268–72, esp. p. 270 note 1. Giovanni Nuti, s. v. Babilano Doria, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani 41 (Rome, 1992), 290–1. Examples are Cristiano Spinola and Brancaleone Doria, see “Corona d’Aragona e Mediterraneo. Strategie d’espansione, migrazione e commerci nell’età di Giacomo II, Medioevo,” Saggi e rassegne 20 (1995), here: Giovanna Petti Balbi, “Un ‘familiare’ Genovese di Giacomo II: Cristiano Spinola,” 113–33; Enrico Basso, “Alla conquista di un regno: l’azione di Brancaleone Doria fra la Sardegna, Genova e l’Oltregiogo,” 135–60. In 1527, the Chapter General at Viterbo discussed the French suggestion to establish the Convent at Nice: Anthony Luttrell, “The Rhodian Background of the Order of Saint John on Malta,” in The Order’s Early Legacy in Malta, ed. John Azzopardi (Malta, 1989), 3–14, here 6–7 = idem, in The Hospitallers of Rhodes (Aldershot, 1992), no. XVIII. Menache, Clement V, 306. Hendrik Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change (Princeton, 1994) discusses the city-states and the commercial leagues as alternatives to monarchs or princes, but not the Kirchenstaat or the Ordensstaat.


Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly Alain Demurger

Fils ainé de Pierre de Grandson et d’Agnès de Neufchâtel, Othon, né vers 1238, devint seigneur de Grandson à la mort de son père en 1258.1 À peu près à la même date il accompagna en Angleterre Pierre de Savoie qui avait noué des liens étroits avec la cour d’Angleterre à la suite du mariage de sa nièce, Aliénor de Provence, avec le roi Henri III. Il fut principalement attaché au service du fils de Henri III, le prince Édouard qu’il continua à servir lorsque, en 1272, il devint roi sous le nom d’Édouard 1er. Ce fut le point de départ d’une longue carrière, militaire et diplomatique (il effectua de nombreuses missions en France, à Rome, en Guyenne, dans les Pays-Bas), mais aussi administrative: il se vit confier le gouvernement de la Guyenne, parfois, et surtout celui des îles anglo-normandes dès 1275 et jusqu’à la fin de sa vie. Cela sans avoir jamais rompu les liens avec son pays natal, sa famille et ses seigneuries de Grandson et du pays de Vaud.2

Othon de Grandson en Terre sainte À deux reprises Othon fit le voyage de Terre sainte. Il partit d’abord en 1270–1 avec le prince Édouard. Celui-ci pensait rejoindre Saint Louis à Tunis mais il n’arriva qu’en novembre 1270, après la mort du roi de France. Le prince et ses compagnons partirent alors pour la Terre sainte où ils arrivèrent en mai 1271. La légende veut qu’Othon ait sauvé de la mort le prince Édouard empoisonné par un sicaire de la secte des “Assassins”.3 Le prince Édouard rentra en Angleterre en novembre 1272, toujours accompagné d’Othon de Grandson. Il faut corriger l’erreur, encore souvent reproduite,4 qui veut qu’en quittant la Terre sainte, le prince ait laissé sur place un important corps de chevaliers avec Othon de Grandson comme capitaine.5 En réalité c’est un autre familier du prince, un quasi compatriote d’Othon, le genevois Jean de Grilly, (Grilly, c. Gex, Ain, France) qui fut laissé sur place comme sénéchal du royaume de Jérusalem.6 À peine 20 ans plus tard, Othon de Grandson repart en Terre sainte, peut-être comme “éclaireur” de son roi qui n’a pas abandonné l’idée d’une croisade. En réalité Othon part sans grande assurance et son passage n’est même pas financé par le roi. Il prend la croix en juillet 1290 avant de quitter l’Angleterre. Il passe par Paris, rend visite à sa famille à Grandson, puis va en Italie d’où il embarque pour la Terre sainte: il arrive à Acre fin 1290 avec un faible contingent anglais. Là

40 Alain Demurger encore il faut rejeter la version de la Chronographia qui fait toujours d’Othon le gardien et capitaine nommé par le roi d’Angleterre et qui laisse à penser qu’il a séjourné continument en Terre sainte de 1272 à 1290.7 Il retrouve Jean de Grilly et va collaborer avec lui: les deux hommes se voient confier la défense d’un des quatre secteurs des remparts d’Acre lorsque le sultan mamelouk al-Ashraf Khalil vient y mettre le siège en avril 1291. La ville tombée aux mains des mamelouks, le château du Temple résista encore dix jours avant de s’écrouler sur ses défenseurs et ses assaillants.8 Othon de Grandson ne quitta la ville qu’avec les derniers survivants et gagna Chypre. Il fut accusé d’avoir dilapidé le trésor que lui avait remis le roi d’Angleterre pour son futur passage outremer. En réalité il avait tout perdu et il dut solliciter ses sujets d’Angleterre pour qu’ils lui envoient chevaux, vêtements et diverses choses pour compenser ses pertes.9 Il a sûrement alors croisé le chemin de Jacques de Molay, le futur grand maître du Temple. Il va rester à Chypre jusqu’au printemps 1294. Étant parti en juin 1290 avec un sauf-conduit du roi d’Angleterre pour trois ans, le sauf conduit du 24 mai 1293 l’autorisant à “aller en Terre sainte” pourrait laisser penser qu’il était retourné en Angleterre avant cette date. En réalité il s’agit plutôt d’un renouvellement du document existant.10 En 1294 il se rend au royaume d’Arménie de Cilicie pour assister à la cérémonie au cours de laquelle le roi Thoros “rend le royaume et la seigneurie” à son frère Héthoum, qui avait déjà exercé la charge de roi auparavant.11 Et c’est probablement au retour de cet événement qu’il s’efforce de jouer les médiateurs entre les Génois et les Vénitiens dont les flottes menacent de s’affronter au large des côtes de Cilicie. Il échoue et l’affrontement a lieu lors de la bataille de Laias le 28 mai 1294.12 Ce n’est qu’après ces événements qu’il repart en Occident, probablement sur un navire génois, à l’automne 1294 ou au printemps 1295. Il ne reparaîtra plus en Orient, même si un passage de l’historien arménien Hayton, mal interprété, pourrait laisser croire qu’il était à nouveau en Arménie en 1299.13 Indiquons enfin que c’est de façon arbitraire que lui a été attribuée la rédaction de deux traités de croisade.14

Othon de Grandson et Jacques de Molay Il n’est pas impossible, Othon de Grandson ayant débarqué à Chypre au lendemain de la chute d’Acre démuni de tout, qu’il ait été secouru par les templiers qui ont, avec les hospitaliers, contribué à aider les réfugiés de Syrie. Pourrait en témoigner les formules très laudatives utilisées par Othon de Grandson dans le préambule de sa donation de rente au Temple en 1296 que l’on va examiner dans ce paragraphe. Un document – problématique il est vrai – attesterait des rapports cordiaux entre les deux hommes au moment de l’élection de Jacques de Molay comme grand maître. Il s’agit de la déposition faite le 12 mai 1311 devant la commission pontificale chargée d’enquêter sur l’ordre par le templier Hugues de Faur:15 il est présent à Chypre en 1292 et son récit révèle des tensions internes dans l’ordre et fait intervenir dans le processus électoral Othon de Grandson et le maître de l’Hôpital:

Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly 41 Comme il y avait discorde dans le chapitre qui se tint outremer pour la création du maître et que les frères de la province de Limousin et d’Auvergne qui constituaient la majeure partie du couvent voulaient avoir comme maître frère Hugues de Pairaud et la minorité le dit maître [c’est-à-dire, en 1311, le maître actuel Jacques de Molay], le dit maître jura devant le maître des hospitaliers qui alors était et devant le seigneur Otton de Granson, chevalier, et de plusieurs autres, que lui-même consentait au choix du dit frère Hugues et qu’il ne voulait pas être maître. Et comme cette majorité avait consenti qu’il fut fait grand commandeur, ce qu’il était d’usage de faire après la mort du maître, le dit maître [Jacques de Molay], comme il y eut des tractations après pour faire le dit frère Hugues maître, leur fit savoir que, du moment qu’il l’avait fait “cape”, c’est-à-dire grand commandeur, ils le feraient “capuchon” c’est-à-dire grand maître, parce que, qu’ils le veuillent ou non il serait maître; et ainsi, par pression, il en fut fait. Je renvoie aux exégèses de ce texte – pas très clair il faut bien le constater – faites dans les ouvrages de Claverie, Frale, Luttrell et moi-même pour ne considérer ici que le problème posé par la présence d’Othon de Grandson.16 Il est totalement invraisemblable qu’il ait participé de manière directe à l’élection; ni lui, ni le maître de l’Hôpital. La réunion du chapitre général (ou du couvent, c’est-à-dire un organe plus restreint) n’était ouverte qu’aux seuls templiers. Si Jacques de Molay a pris l’engagement de respecter le verdict des électeurs et de renoncer à être maître devant Othon et le maître de l’Hôpital, ce ne peut être qu’en dehors de la procédure normale de l’élection. Tout au plus peut-on penser que Jacques de Molay, templier peu connu et que seule la situation créée par la déroute de 1291 a mis en avant, a pu compter sur le soutien de poids d’Othon de Grandson dans les préparatifs de l’élection: on a vu son rôle dans la défense d’Acre aux côtés des trois ordres militaires. Le fait que Molay soit, comme lui, originaire du comté de Bourgogne a certainement facilité leur relation. Jacques de Molay par la suite s’appuiera sur un réseau comtois pour gouverner l’ordre du Temple. Jacques de Molay est élu avant le 20 avril 1292. Dans les mois qui suivent, il prépare un voyage en Occident dont l’objectif est de renouer les liens entre le front oriental et l’arrière occidental templier et de tenter de mobiliser les secours en faveur de la Terre sainte. Personne ne se résigne à la perte des États latins et la reconquête de Jérusalem reste d’actualité. Il quitte Chypre au début du printemps 1293. Quant à Othon de Grandson il revient en Occident en 1294–5. C’est donc en Occident que les deux hommes vont se croiser de nouveau. À quelle date et où? Il est possible de le déterminer en recoupant les itinéraires de l’un et l’autre homme en 1295–7. Jacques de Molay débarque en Provence en mai 1293.17 Il fait une brève incursion à Nantes puis revient dans le Midi: en août il tient un chapitre général de son ordre à Montpellier. Il devait ensuite se rendre en Aragon et il avait obtenu les sauf-conduits nécessaires (le royaume de France était alors en guerre avec la couronne d’Aragon) mais le voyage fut repoussé d’un an. Jacques de Molay part alors en Angleterre où sa présence est attestée en novembre-janvier et sans

42 Alain Demurger doute au-delà. Il revient sur le continent et en juillet-septembre 1294 se rend en Aragon pour régler avec le roi Jacques II l’importante question de Tortosa et des bouches de l’Ebre. L’accord est conclu le 27 août à Lerida: le Temple cède à l’Aragon le contrôle de ces territoires; en échange Jacques II remet au Temple Peñiscola, située dans le royaume de Valence.18 De là Molay se rend en Italie: il est présent à Naples lors du conclave qui élit Boniface VIII comme pape après la “démission” de Célestin V. Il a passé semble-t-il l’année 1295 en Italie, avec peutêtre un séjour en France à la fin de printemps-début été pour assister au chapitre général de la province de France les 24–9 juin. Cela reste hypothétique même si trois témoignages de templiers interrogés durant leur procès peuvent attester de cette présence en 1295.19 Il est encore à Rome au début de l’année 1296 lorsqu’il annonce à Pierre de Saint-Just (lettre datée du 21 janvier 1296) son intention de tenir un chapitre général à Arles à la saint Jean-Baptiste prochaine, soit le 24 juin, puis de rentrer à Chypre.20 Il revient en France, mais ne se rend pas à Arles, le chapitre n’ayant eu lieu finalement que le 15 août 1296. L’itinéraire d’Othon de Grandson prouve la présence à Paris de Jacques de Molay en juin-juillet 1296. Othon de Grandson en effet a quitté Chypre en 1294, voire 1295, année où sa présence est attestée en Occident: il passe par Grandson et le pays de Vaud durant l’été 1295. Le roi d’Angleterre le sait qui l’envoie en mission en Allemagne en novembre. Aussi ne rejoint-il l’Angleterre qu’au printemps 1296: le 16 mai il est auprès d’Édouard 1er à Roxburgh. Il n’a pas le temps de se poser qu’il est envoyé en France pour négocier une trêve entre Édouard, allié au roi des romains Adolphe de Nassau, et Philippe le Bel. Il est accompagné du trésorier du royaume, Walter Langton et d’Amédée de Savoie, deux cardinaux jouant les médiateurs. Il est à Paris en juillet et est mentionné le 14 septembre à Moulins; puis il se rend en Bourgogne, ensuite en Lorraine et enfin dans les Pays-Bas: Édouard 1er, en même temps qu’il négocie avec le roi de France, ménage ses alliances avec les princes de la région dans le cas d’une reprise du conflit. Revenu quelques mois en Angleterre il repart en Flandres, avec les mêmes collègues au printemps et à l’été 1297.21 Dans ces années-là, Othon de Grandson n’est donc de passage en France et plus précisément à Paris qu’au début de l’été 1296. C’est à ce moment et en ce lieu que Jacques de Molay a pu le rencontrer. Un acte atteste du passage en Bourgogne du grand maître en avril 1296;22 il a assisté au chapitre général de la province de France à la Saint Jean-Baptiste 1296 et c’est de Paris qu’il est allé à Arles pour tenir le chapitre général prévu, en août 1296. Deux actes attestent de cette rencontre à Paris alors. L’un est dû à Othon de Grandson: il donne aux templiers une rente perpétuelle de 200 livres tournois assise sur les biens qu’il possède à Salins, dans la comté de Bourgogne; l’acte est daté du 14 juillet 1296 à Paris.23 Le second est de Jacques de Molay qui concède à Othon une rente de 2000 livres tournois à prendre sa vie durant en deux termes (Purification de la Vierge et SaintPierre-et-Paul) sur les caisses des maisons du Temple de Paris ou de Lyon. Le document est daté de Paris (Factas in mansione nostra apud Parisius) au mois de juillet, le dimanche après la fête des apôtres Pierre et Paul 1287 (sic). Cette lettre du grand maître est interpolée dans des lettres du pape Clément V datée du 17 août 1308 à

Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly 43 Ligugé, près de Poitiers. On verra pourquoi dans la suite de cette étude.24 La date de la concession de la rente de 2000 livres pose problème. L’original porte le millésime de 1287; l’éditeur des registres de Clément V a reproduit 1277. Aucune de ces deux dates n’est compatible avec le fait que l’auteur de la donation soit Jacques de Molay, puisqu’il n’est devenu grand maître qu’en 1292; et il est impossible qu’il y ait eu erreur sur le nom: Jacques de Molay au lieu de Guillaume de Beaujeu, grand maître de 1273 à 1291, comme j’ai pu le suggérer dans mes écrits antérieurs.25 De plus, ni en 1277, ni en 1287, Othon de Grandson ne pouvait rencontrer à Paris Guillaume de Beaujeu. Marie-Luise Bulst-Thiele pense qu’il y a eu erreur de copiste sur la date: 1277, 1287, au lieu de 1297? Mais, fait-elle observer, en 1297, la fête des apôtres Pierre et Paul tombe le samedi 29 juin et donc le dimanche suivant cette fête est le 30 juin, et non en juillet. En revanche, en 1295, ce serait le 3 juillet et en 1296 le 1er juillet;26 or, on l’a vu, juillet 1296 est la seule période possible pour une rencontre, à Paris, de Jacques de Molay et Othon de Grandson. C’est donc cette date qu’il faut retenir. Les motifs exposés dans le préambule de chacune des deux donations sont assez similaires et plaident pour cette quasi-simultanéité de ces actes: “En considération des grands biens et services que noble et puissant seigneur notre très cher et aimé en Dieu Othon de Grandson a fait aux maisons de notre ordre et continuera à faire tout le temps de sa vie”, écrit Jacques de Molay;27 Othon de Grandson quant à lui s’adresse “à ses très chers amis en Dieu frères Jacques de Molay” (. . .) pour l’aide “que li freres de celle meismes Religion ont fait à mes anccesseurs e a moi de ça mer et de la mer en la sainte terre”.28 Il eût été intéressant d’avoir un document prouvant que cette rente a bien été versée à Othon de Grandson dans les années suivantes. Malheureusement, le fragment du “journal du Trésor du Temple” que Léopold Delisle a édité, s’arrête au 4 juillet 1296.29 Rassurons-nous, la rente a bien été versée, puisqu’à l’été 1308 Othon de Grandson se plaignait auprès du pape et du roi de l’interruption de paiement de sa rente à cause de l’arrestation des templiers et de la saisie de leurs biens et avoirs.

La conversion de la rente en 1308 Le 13 octobre 1307 les templiers étaient arrêtés en France et leurs biens saisis. Cela s’entend des biens meubles comme des biens immobiliers. Les avoirs (propres aux templiers) du Trésor du Temple de Paris (il s’agit du Trésor de la province de France) furent donc saisis. Désormais les agents royaux avaient la charge d’administrer ces biens et de veiller à ce que leur exploitation se poursuive normalement. Au profit du Trésor royal bien sûr, mais il faut préciser que ces biens et ces revenus ne furent jamais annexés au Domaine royal: ils dépendirent toujours d’une organisation distincte. Le roi et son gouvernement prélevaient les revenus mais ne préjugeaient pas de la future destination des biens. Bien entendu, s’il y avait sur ces biens des recettes, il y avait aussi des charges: les frais de gestion bien sûr mais aussi des rentes établies sur les revenus de ces biens et sur les caisses des trésoriers templiers. Il n’y eut sans doute pas de problèmes pour les rentes assises

44 Alain Demurger sur les revenus des domaines agricoles de l’ordre et, sauf exceptions, ces rentes continuèrent à être versées à leurs ayant-droits. En revanche, les rentes établies sur le Trésor du Temple de Paris ne furent pas honorées. La démarche d’Othon de Grandson en 1308 en témoigne. En 1307 Othon a dû percevoir sa rente (par des procureurs s’il ne pouvait se présenter lui-même) aux deux termes de la purification Notre Dame (le 2 février) et de la saint Pierre et Paul (le 29 juin): cela se situe avant l’arrestation des templiers. En revanche, en 1308, ce n’est plus possible. Ces années 1307–8 marquent un grand changement dans la vie d’Othon de Grandson. Le 7 juillet 1307 son mentor, le roi Édouard 1er meurt. Ses liens avec son successeur Édouard II seront beaucoup plus distants. Othon de Grandson quitte le royaume d’Angleterre pour ne plus y revenir et va s’établir dans ses terres natales à Grandson. Il continue cependant à accomplir quelques missions et ambassades au profit du roi d’Angleterre. C’est le cas en 1308, et précisément à la fin du printemps (après le 25 mai) et à l’été 1308 (jusqu’au 8 septembre au moins) où il est à Poitiers et peut donc y rencontrer le pape et le roi de France.30 Du pape il obtient quelques lettres en faveur de parents et d’établissements religieux de sa région natale (Église de Grandson, prieuré de Lausanne, monastère du lac de Joux, etc.31). Surtout il plaide sa cause auprès du pape et du roi au sujet de sa rente de 2000 livres tournois. Le 17 août 1308, de Ligugé (à côté de Poitiers) où il s’est retiré, Clément V écrit une lettre rappelant la donation faite jadis par Jacques de Molay (la lettre de celui-ci est interpolée dans l’acte pontifical) et fait part des “supplications” d’Othon: “parce que, du fait de certains empêchements intervenus concernant le maître et l’ordre, tu ne peux plus recevoir du maître cet argent, tu nous as humblement supplié de trouver un remède à cela”.32 Le remède consista à transférer la rente de 2000 livres tournois sur les revenus de trois maisons templières: Thors (diocèse de Troyes), Épailly (diocèse de Langres), Coulours (diocèse de Sens). Othon sait bien que ces maisons templières sont sous séquestre royal; aussi s’est-il adressé également au roi de France lequel a répondu à sa supplique de la même façon que le pape. La lettre du roi est antérieure à celle de Clément V: la réponse du roi est contenue dans un mandement au bailli de Sens daté du 30 juillet 1308 (alors que le roi avait déjà quitté Poitiers, le 21 juillet), lequel est interpolé, avec d’autres documents, dans un acte du 26 novembre 1308.33 Le roi rappelle aussi la concession de la rente de 2000 livres tournois faite jadis à Othon de Grandson et ajoute que le pape, ayant requis sur ce point l’assentiment du roi, a assigné la rente sur les trois maisons templières indiquées ci-dessus.34 Les deux lettres – du pape et du roi – portent sur la même rente et sont complémentaires. C’est à tort que l’on a vu dans la lettre du roi la concession à Othon de Grandson d’une rente royale pour récompenser les bons et fidèles services faits par Othon au roi de France.35 Soulignons qu’il y a eu entente préalable du roi et du pape: ce dernier a demandé l’accord du roi, qui a accepté. Aussi, que la lettre du roi précède celle du pape importe peu; ce qui compte c’est que la décision que portent ces deux lettres a été prise en application du compromis élaboré entre le roi et le pape à Poitiers en juillet, concernant les templiers et leurs biens; ces derniers sont replacés sous la coupe de l’Église, même si dans les faits ils continuent d’être administrés par les agents du roi.36 La mainmise pontificale

Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly 45 n’est pas que de pure forme puisque Clément V dit expressément à Othon: “le surplus des fruits et revenus (au-delà de la somme de 2000 livres donc) reviendront à nous en général et aux prélats particulièrement qui, dans leurs diocèses sont administrateurs et gouverneurs des biens dudit ordre”.37 En réalité la rente n’a été établie que sur la maison d’Épailly, les revenus des biens et droits de cette commanderie s’étant révélés suffisants pour asseoir la rente. Nous le savons par l’ensemble de textes qui accompagne la lettre du roi de France au bailli de Sens du 30 juillet 1308. La chronologie de ces différents textes s’établit ainsi: 1 2 3 4


Le 26 novembre 1308, de Fontainebleau, le roi fait savoir qu’il a vu des lettres de Gilles de Laon, son panetier et commissaire dont la teneur s’ensuit: C’est l’assiette de la terre que Gilles de Laon à fait à Othon de Grandson, en vertu de la commission du roi, dont la teneur est telle: Lettre du roi adressée le 30 juillet au bailli de Sens pour lui demander d’organiser le transfert de la rente de 2000 livres sur les trois commanderies de Thors, Épailly et Coulours. Le bailli de Sens étant occupé à d’autres tâches, le roi délègue à Gilles de Laon le soin de procéder à l’assiette de la rente et fait part de cette décision à Renaud Minard, garde et administrateur des biens du Temple outre Seine; cette lettre est datée du 18 octobre, le roi résidant alors à Saint-Jean du Bois. Prisée de la maison d’Épailly réalisée par Gilles de Laon et achevée le 25 novembre 1308.

C’est cette prisée que le roi valide le 26 novembre. Le texte même de la prisée est rédigé en français; les autres textes sont en latin. Cette prisée révèle l’emprise territoriale de la commanderie d’Épailly qui forme une seigneurie comprenant le domaine d’Épailly avec sa maison, ses annexes de l’Hôpital et du verger des Fay et les 4 terroirs de Courban, Bissey-la-Côte, Louesme et Layer, avec leurs habitations, terres et dépendances. Les revenus, les droits, les redevances montent à la somme de 2194 livres, 3 deniers tournois. Là-dessus, Othon de Grandson prenait 2000 livres; le reste, 194 livres 3 deniers, devait servir à payer des rentes jadis établies par les templiers sur les revenus de leur maison au profit de quelques établissements religieux voisins (abbaye du Val des Choux, prieuré de Louesme, etc.). Othon de Grandson fut mis assez rapidement en possession des revenus d’Épailly puis qu’il y est installé le 16 janvier 1309, date à laquelle il adresse une lettre à John Langton, chancelier d’Angleterre: “Données Espalli le XVI iour de jenvier”.38 La commanderie d’Épailly restait un bien templier sous séquestre. Lorsqu’au concile de Vienne le sort du Temple fut scellé, ses biens furent remis à l’Hôpital; la maison d’Épailly le fut aussi, Othon de Grandson, comme rentier, n’en ayant que l’usufruit. La documentation est muette sur sa gestion. Il meurt le 5 avril 1328; son héritier – son neveu Pierre de Grandson – prétend alors conserver la rente. Un complexe procès intervient qui déboute naturellement Pierre: la rente étant viagère, il ne

46 Alain Demurger pouvait en hériter. Épailly fit donc retour à l’administration des frères de l’Hôpital, en l’occurrence du commandeur Jean de Montagny.39 De 1308 à 1328, Othon de Grandson ne quitta guère ses terres de Grandson et des environs. Peut-être vint-il occasionnellement à Épailly, pas trop éloignée de ses possessions du comté de Bourgogne. Mais de cela, personne ne sait rien.

Conclusion Au-delà de l’aspect personnel de la rente concédée par Jacques de Molay à Othon de Grandson, la documentation qui permet d’en suivre l’histoire entre 1296 et 1328 nous livre deux enseignements. 1


La prisée faite en 1308, un an après l’arrestation des templiers et la saisie de leurs biens, nous donne une description des revenus d’une maison templière dont on peut estimer qu’elle vaut pour les dernières années de la vie du Temple. C’est un document différent des inventaires après saisie faits par les agents royaux le 13 octobre 1307 et dans les jours ou semaines qui ont suivi et dont nous possédons maints exemples en France, en Angleterre ou ailleurs:40 ceux-ci sont une description du fonds, de ses bâtiments, des objets, des armes, des outils, du cheptel, des réserves, etc., alors que la prisée est une estimation annuelle des revenus escomptés de l’exploitation de ce qui est une seigneurie ecclésiastique, sous son double aspect de seigneurie foncière et de seigneurie banale ou justicière. Elle est un exemple concret de ce qu’était la “richesse”, essentiellement foncière, du Temple alors.41 C’est aussi l’illustration très concrète des problèmes posés par la saisie des biens du Temple opérée par le roi de France à partir du moment où il lui a fallu transiger avec le pape et se résoudre à lui remettre – au moins formellement – leur gestion et leur administration. Clément V n’a pas subi l’affaire du Temple; il a réagi et a su, au moins un temps, faire prévaloir ses vues.

L’histoire de la rente d’Othon de Grandson ajoute une petite pierre à l’édifice patiemment construit par Sophia Menache qui a tant contribué à rétablir la vérité d’un personnage, Clément V, complètement défiguré par sa légende d’homme faible et soumis, entièrement inféodé au roi de France.

Notes 1 Au bord du lac de Neuchâtel. La ville est surtout connue pour avoir été le théâtre le 2 mars 1476 de la bataille de Grandson qui vit les piquiers suisses infliger une première défaite à Charles le Téméraire. 2 Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, “Sir Otho de Grandson, 1238?–1328,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Third series, 3 (1909), 125–95; Esther Rowland Clifford, A Knight of Great Renown: The Life of Othon de Grandson (Chicago, 1961); Bernard Andematten, La maison de Savoie et la noblesse vaudoise (XIIIe-XIVe siècles): Supériorité féodale et autorité princière, Société d’histoire de la Suisse romande (Lausanne, 2005).

Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly 47 3 Kingsford, “Grandson,” 125–6, citant Jean d’Ypres dans MGH Scriptores 25 (Hanovre, 1880), 856. 4 Y compris par moi dans Alain Demurger, Jacques de Molay. Le crépuscule des Templiers, 3e éd. (Paris, 2014), notamment 37, 88, 110, 117, 127. Par la suite, toutes les références à cet ouvrage le seront à cette édition de 2014. 5 Chronographia regum Francorum, éd. Henri Moranvillé, 2 vols., (Paris, 1891), 2: 5 est à l’origine de cette erreur: Edouard, alors qu’il quittait la Terre sainte, relinquit, loco sui, capitaneum Othonem de Grandisono, militem probum ac in armis strenuum, cui dimisit ad manutenendum guerram contra Saracenos. 6 Voir L’Estoire de Eraclès empereur et la conqueste de la terre d’Outremer, RHC OC 2 (Paris, 1859), 463: “Et fu fait seneschal du roiaume de Jherusalem sire Johan de Grely”. Revenu en Occident ce Jean de Grilly fut envoyé en Guyenne comme sénéchal en 1278; accusé de malversations il fut destitué en 1287 (Grandson siégeait dans la commission!). II passa alors au service du roi de France qui le chargea effectivement en 1288 du commandement du “régiment français” d’Acre. Othon de Grandson le retrouve à Acre en 1290. Précisons que, établi en Guyenne pour le compte du roi de France, Jean de Grilly y fit souche et sa famille devint, sous le nom de Grailly, une figure de proue de la noblesse de Guyenne. 7 Chronographia, 2–35: “In Acon vero tunc erat Otho de Grandissone quem dudum, ut dictum est supra, custodem seu capitaneum reliquerat rex Anglorum Edowardus cum magna milicia”. 8 Cf. Antonio Musarra, Acri 1291. La caduta degli stati crociati (Bologna, 2017), 202. 9 Charles Kohler, “Deux projets de croisade en Terre sainte (XIIIe-XIVe siècle),” dans Charles Kohler, Mélanges pour servir à l’histoire de l’Orient latin et des croisades (Paris, 1906), 535–44; Kingsford, “Grandson,” 150; Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 1095–1598 (London, 1988), 237. Je remercie Xavier Hélary qui m’a aimablement communiqué le texte d’une communication – non publiée – sur ces épisodes: Othon de Grandson au siège d’Acre (avril-mai 1291). 10 Kingsford, “Grandson,” 150–1, n. 6. 11 Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 118–21; Hayton de Korykos, Flos Historiarum Terre Orientis, RHC Arm 2 (Paris, 1906), 327. 12 Kingsford, “Grandson,” 150–1; Laura Minervini, ed. Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314). La caduta degli stati crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare (Naples, 2000), 262; Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 119. 13 Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 118–19. 14 Kohler, “Deux projets,” repris par Clifford, A Knight, 131–2, n. 41; Via ad terram sanctam, dans Jacques Paviot, éd., Projets de croisade (v. 1290–v. 1330), Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades publiées par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, n° 20 (Paris, 2008), 21, 171–81. 15 Jules Michelet, éd., Le Procès des Templiers, 2 vols. (Paris, 1841, rééd. 1987), 2: 224–5. 16 Barbara Frale, L’ultima battaglia dei Templari (Rome, 2001), 17–19; Pierre-Vincent Claverie, L’ordre du Temple en Terre sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle, 3 vols. (Nicosie, 2005), 1: 151–7; Anthony Luttrell, “The Election of the Templar Master Jacques de Molay,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), 21–31; Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 104–11. 17 Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 121–8. 18 Laurea Pagarolas i Sabate, Els Temple de les Terres de l’Ebre (Tortosa). De Jaime I fins a l’abolicio de l’orde (1212–1312), 2 vols. (Tarragona, 1999), 2: 197–215. 19 Interrogé le 27 février 1311, Raoul de Taverny a assisté à la réception de Raoul de Frémicourt par le grand maître “qui maintenant est” il y a 16 ans (Michelet, Procès, 1: 627); Jacques de Dommarien, interrogé à Chypre le 19 mai 1310, a été reçu par le grand maître à Dijon, il y a 15 ans (Konrad Schottmüller, Der Untergang des TemplerOrdens, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1887), 2: 173, 192–3, 216); Jean de Ville également interrogé

48 Alain Demurger

20 21 22


24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31 32

33 34 35

à Nicosie le 28 mai 1310 a été reçu par le grand maître à Paris il y a 15 ans à la SaintJean-Baptiste (Ibid., 2: 16–62, 208–9). Heinrich Finke, Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen, zur Kirchen und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II (1291–1327), 3 vols. (Berlin, 1908–1922), 3: 31. Kingsford, “Grandson,” 151–5. Archives Départementales (AD) Côte-d’Or, 111 H 1156: il s’agit d’une lettre d’avril 1296 dans laquelle le grand maître approuve l’accord passé entre Hugues de Pairaud, alors maître de la province de France avec Guillaume de Grancey, un seigneur bourguignon, au sujet des droits de justice sur la terre de Bure en juin 1295; c’est parce qu’il était présent en Bourgogne alors que l’accord lui a été soumis pour confirmation. Pour le texte de l’accord de juin 1295 voir Jean-Baptiste de Vaivre, La commanderie d’Épailly et sa chapelle templière durant la période médiévale, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 2005), 24, 184–6. AD Rhône, 48 H 2944, pièce 2; Luttrell, “Election . . . Molay,” 30, n. 52. Il s’agit d’un vidimus établi par le garde de la prévôté de Paris en 1300, “le dimanche après la fête Sainte Croix en septembre”. Il est possible qu’Othon soit passé à Paris alors, étant en effet en mission auprès du pape à Rome entre juin 1300 et mai 1301, il a sans doute fait quelques voyages en Angleterre pour rendre compte; suggestion faite par Kingsford, “Grandson,” 155. Regestum Clementis papae V ex Vaticanis archetypis editio, cura et studio monachorum ordinis sancti Benedicti, 9 vols. (Rome, 1885–1892), 3: 137, n° 2938; publié par de Vaivre, La commanderie d’Épailly, 197–8. Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 126–7; références à la 1ère édition (Paris, 2002), 122–3. Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens, 1118/9–1314 (Göttingen, 1974), 307. “. . . inspicientes et considerantes et diligenter advertentes grandia bona et profectus, quos nobilis vir (. . .) fecit et facit mansioni sive domui nostre et faciet toto tempore vite sue . . .,” de Vaivre, La commanderie d’Épailly, 198. Je remercie Philippe Josserand de m’avoir procuré sa transcription de l’acte de Othon de Grandson. Léopold Delisle, Mémoires sur les opérations financières des templiers (Paris, 1889, rééd. Genève, 1975), 162–210; voir Alain Demurger, “Les ordres religieux-militaires et l’argent: sources et pratiques,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karola Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson, Crusades-Subsidia 10 (London, 2017), 166–83. Ce journal traite d’opérations financières propres à l’ordre du Temple, opérations qui ne doivent pas être confondues avec celles concernant le Trésor royal, dont le trésorier du Temple de Paris est le gestionnaire. Alain Demurger, La persécution des templiers. Journal (1307–1314) (Paris, 2015), 111–30. Regestum Clementis papae V, 3: nos. 2785, 2844, 2885–2886, 2930–2934, 3123, 3141, 3154–3156, 3161–3166. De Vaivre, La commanderie d’Épailly, 197: “Et quia ex certis impedimentis provenientibus magistro et ordinis supradictis eiusdem pecunie summam ab eodem magistro iuxta promissionem huiusmodi habere non potes, nobis humiliter supplicasti, tibi super hoc apostolice sedis providentiam de oportuno remedio provideri”. Archives nationales de France (AnF), Série JJ 40, n° 64; Robert Fawtier, Registres du Trésor des Chartes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1958), 1: n° 406. “ac sanctissimus pater C., divina providentia summus pontifex pro illis duobus milibus libris eidem Ottoni reddendis assensu nostro super hoc requisito et ad hoc interveniente ordinaverit assignare domos de Turribus”. Ibid. Cela n’aurait rien eu d’impossible: il y a bien eu l’autorisation donnée à Othon de Grandson, gratifié pour le coup du titre de “chevalier du roi,” d’acquérir dans le royaume une

Othon de Grandson et les templiers d’Épailly 49

36 37

38 39 40


rente de 200 livres tournois. Voir AnF, JJ 37, n° 66. Le roi de France savait reconnaître les mérites et talents de négociateur d’Othon! Demurger, Persécution, 133; L’accord s’est fait le 9 juillet et plusieurs lettres du pape, datée du 12 juillet en portent témoignage. Voir AnF, JJ 40, no. 29–32. De Vaivre, La commanderie d’Épailly, 197–8: “Volumus autem quod reliquum fructum predictorum vel pecunie percipiendum ex ipsis ex generalibus per nos vel specialibus per singulos prelatos Francie in singulis eorum diocesibus administratoribus et gubernatoribus bonorum ipsius ordinis in eodem regno seu diocesibus consistentium deputatis annis singulis facias exhiberi”. Kingsford, “Grandson,” 192–3. De Vaivre, La commanderie d’Épailly, 195–6. Pour les maisons du baillage de Caen, voir Léopold Delisle, “Inventaire du mobilier des Templiers du bailliage de Caen (AnF, J 413, n° 29),” dans voir Léopold Delisle, Etudes sur la condition de la classe agricole et l’état de l’agriculture en Normandie au Moyen Âge, (Évreux, 1851), 721–8; Helen J. Nicholson and Philip Slavin, “The ‘Real Da Vinci Code’: The Accounts of Templars’ Estates in England and Wales during the Suppression of the Order,” in The Templars and Their Sources, 237–47; Jochen Burgtorf, “The Trial Inventories of the Templars’ Houses in France: Select Aspects,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars, 105–15. Demurger, “Les ordres religieux-militaires et l’argent,” notamment 175–83.


Evidence of the Templars’ religious practice from the records of the Templars’ estates in Britain and Ireland in 1308 Helen J. Nicholson

Sophia Menache observed in her article “Contemporary attitudes concerning the Templars’ affair” (1982) that local chroniclers in England “supported the French version of the Templars’ heresy,” although King Edward II and his prelates did not.1 The chroniclers in question included a continuation of Matthew Paris’s Flores Historiarum written at Tintern Abbey, near to the Templars’ commandery of Garway in the Welsh March, which the chronicler accurately describes as ‘next to Grosmont’ (juxta Grossum montem), indicating local knowledge.2 Another continuation of the Flores written by Robert of Reading at Westminster Abbey, where the Templars would have been a familiar sight as servants of the king, also treats the charges as true.3 This raises the question of whether these local chroniclers could have been aware of irregularities in the Templars’ religious beliefs. The records of the Templars’ estates in Britain and Ireland made at the time of the Templars’ arrests early in 1308 include inventories of their chapels drawn up by the local sheriff, other local men of good reputation and the relevant Templar commander.4 Scholars have analysed the inventories of the Templars’ property in France, Italy and the Iberian Peninsula as evidence for the Templars’ religious practices in these regions, concluding that “they are well suited for the task of mapping the devotional landscape of Templar communities at the time of the order’s demise.”5 This article will explore how far the inventories from Britain and Ireland can be used for this purpose, and whether they suggest any substance behind the charges against the Templars here in 1307–12. In all, I have identified records of chapel contents from sixty Templar chapels and churches in England and Ireland.6 Nevertheless, the inventories are not complete. The records do not include inventories of every church that the Templars possessed: for example, there is no inventory for the chapel at Temple Bruer in Lincolnshire, nor of the parish churches at Llanmadoc on the Gower in Wales, Rothley in Leicestershire, Garway in Herefordshire, Temple Guiting in Gloucestershire, Shipley or Sompting in Sussex. Presumably the contents of parish churches were not included in the royal inventories because these were ecclesiastical property. Despite the omissions, these records cover a wide area of England, from Kent, Sussex and Somerset in the south, through East Anglia, the Midlands and the Welsh March, to Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Northumberland. Inventories also cover Templar chapels in Counties Dublin, Louth and Wexford in Ireland. In geographical

Evidence of Templars’ religious practice 51 coverage alone, these records are unparalleled in medieval Britain and Ireland. Although some evidence of the contents of royal and noble chapels has survived, records of the religious practices of non-noble society are very rare.7 As the majority of Templars were not from the high nobility, the contents of their chapels may indicate what non-nobles expected to find in a place of worship in the early fourteenth century.8 As the inventories were made on the day of the Templars’ arrests they should record the material evidence for Templar spirituality as it stood on that day.9 Yet it would have been possible for heretical items to have been removed from the chapels by the Templars before the arrests, or by the sheriff afterwards. Although the king’s instructions to arrest the Templars were intended to be confidential, when the sheriff’s officials arrived at Bisham in Berkshire to arrest Brother Thomas de Wonhope, the commander, they discovered that Lord John de Ferrers, descendant of the original donor Robert de Ferrers, had already taken possession and Brother Thomas was at the neighbouring Benedictine priory of Hurley.10 Clearly there was opportunity to remove items from the commandery, and in fact at an investigation during Easter week 1309 into debts due to the Templars of Bisham the jurors stated that Brother Thomas had entrusted to the prior of Hurley for safekeeping specified valuables, which the prior still held.11 Likewise, at a similar investigation at Hartburn in Northumberland on 20 March 1309 the jurors complained that Robert of Fandon, who administered the Templars’ manor at nearby Thornton for the king until 16 November 1308, had taken a substantial volume of wool, lambs, milk and eggs from the manor.12 However, the fact that the local jurors knew what had been removed from Bisham and reported it at the official investigation indicates that assets could not be removed without detection. Likewise, the report on activities at Thornton indicates that if the sheriff or his officials took anything, local people reported it at their first opportunity. Later accounts showed that the initial inventories missed livestock (which does not concern us here) and also some items in the chapels, such as the vestments, three towels and silken cover that were initially missed at the Templars’ small house at Millbrook in Bedfordshire. Yet as the royal Exchequer officials were anxious to maximise income from the Templars’ estates, they probably checked the sheriff’s returns carefully to minimise omissions and error.13 Forty of the inventories considered here assigned monetary values to the chapel ornaments, and twenty did not. If an item had no resale value or no clear monetary worth, it was left without a valuation, so relics were normally listed as priceless. Some books had no valuation: at Shipley in Sussex the jurors were unable to agree a value for a book of kings and a book of beasts, while liturgical books listed at Ewell in Kent and Dunwich in Suffolk as non de usu had no monetary value, presumably because they were no longer in liturgical use. Valuations were sometimes disputed: at the chapel of Temple Mill in York the golden chalice was valued on 10 January 1308 at 100 solidi (five pounds), an exceptionally high value for this item in a Templar chapel in England and Ireland, but an inventory on 1 December 1311 declared it was not worth so much.14


Helen J. Nicholson

The Templars were proud of their chapels. In March 1260 Grand Master Thomas Bérard had proposed to use the Order’s church plate to secure a loan to support its operations in the East – indicating that this was the Order’s most valuable possession.15 In November 1309 Grand Master Jacques de Molay, under interrogation during the proceedings against the Templars, declared to the papal commissioners that he did not know of any Order that had better or more beautiful ornamentation and relics and everything necessary for divine worship or whose priests and clerics performed the divine service better than the Templars. His view was substantiated by Parseval de Mar, one of the lay witnesses during the proceedings in Cyprus, who stated that the Templars’ chapels were better decorated than those of any other religious order.16 Evidence from elsewhere in Europe supports these claims that Templar chapels were outstandingly beautiful. The inventories taken in the Crown of Aragon when the Templars were arrested record a huge variety of beautiful, valuable objects: over three hundred of them according to Sebastián Salvadó, who observes: “what springs forth from these pages is the utter sumptuousness of Templar chapels. . . . Templar chapels were so full of colour, ornament and opulence that they rivalled the most extravagant of Benedictine monasteries.”17 Most chapels in England and Ireland had a collection of altar cloths and some also had “tapets,” carpets or hangings, and lenten veils.18 Bisham had a silk cloth for the altar with golden stripes, a white silk cloth, a linen sheet with a red cross, a golden cloth which the initial inventory described as “Damaskyne” and the enrolled account called “Baudekin,” and two banners. New Temple church in London had an altar frontal of cloth of gold and canvas and two cloths, one of silk and the other of gold, a metal cross with a banner in the great church, and twenty-two banners stored in the vestry. Like neighbouring Bisham, Sandford in Oxfordshire had a “baudekin,” and four banners. Generally the inventories gave no details of colour or design, but even the little house at Templeton in Berkshire had a silk frontal for its altar, Denny in Cambridgeshire had a silk cloth, Combe in Somerset had a silk veil, a silk cushion cover and silk chasubles, and Temple Mill in York had a silk frontal and fine cloths for the sacraments. The Templars’ commandery of Villasirga, close to the pilgrimage route to Santiago, owned a fine statue of Santa María la Blanca, which was credited with various miracles involving both pilgrims and more local people.19 In contrast, the English and Irish chapels contained few images: at Bisham there was a board with a silvered image of the Blessed Mary and a precious stone; at Kilsaran in County Louth there was a tiny ivory image of the Blessed Mary; in the vestry of New Temple church in London were two boards with ivory images and at Temple Bulstrode in Buckinghamshire there was a painted panel. Some chapels contained holy relics, although the inventories seldom specify what these were. Bisham had a “piece of precious wood” and other relics, relics of Saints Cosmas and Damian and a metal vessel for holding relics. Temple Bulstrode had a board with relics, which was taken to the king’s chapel along with a silver censer gilded with gold. New Temple in London held numerous fine reliquaries of gold gilt, silver and crystal, vials in glass and ivory coffers, but the only relics which were specifically described

Evidence of Templars’ religious practice 53 were the sword which killed the blessed Thomas of Canterbury “as it is said,” two crosses “with the wood on which Jesus Christ was crucified,” and a silver vessel “with a paten of the head of a certain saint.” Dunwich had a small chest with relics of saints and another small chest with other relics; Denny had “various relics,” Eagle had “relics of various saints,” there was a phylactery or reliquary at Sandford and a box of relics at Sotherington in Hampshire. There were very few crosses in these chapels. Bisham chapel had a cross of goldgilt silver with a “certain piece of precious wood” and three processional crosses; Templeton in Berkshire had a processional cross, Temple Bulstrode had two copper crosses, and Dunwich in Suffolk had a cross covered in silver. New Temple church held a metal cross with a banner, a cross with the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint John, two crosses “with the wood on which Jesus Christ was crucified” and two silver crosses. There was a cross at Sotherington in Hampshire and at Temple Hirst in the West Riding of Yorkshire, two at Sandford, four crosses with an image of the crucified Christ and two without at Foulbridge in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and an unspecified number of honeste crosses at Eagle, of which more later. The Cross of Christ was the focus of the Christian faith at this period and the centre of Templar devotion, so its absence elsewhere requires explanation.20 It is possible that a cross or crucifix would have been painted or fixed on the wall of the chapel. A wooden cross attached to the chapel wall would not have been included in the inventory because – like the altar – it was part of the fabric of the building. There should also have been a portable cross on the altar, but it is possible that where there was no resident Templar priest, the priest who served the chapel brought his own portable cross. As we will see below, this was a common situation. These chapels contained some fine church plate. Gold, silver or silver gilt chalices are recorded at all but the four most poorly equipped chapels (Millbrook, Swanton, Togrynd and Chiriton, where no Templars were living in January 1308). There were also silver censers, phials, basins, and cruets, and at New Temple in London silver candlesticks, stoops, incense-boats and crystal candlesticks with silver feet. New Temple also had a pastoral staff with a silver head, two ivory horns, a copper horn and a vessel of Limoges work.21 A few chapels had “pax boards” to pass around for the congregation to kiss at the passing of the peace, suggesting some active involvement from the congregation.22 Fine clerical vestments would have impressed onlookers. At eight of the forty chapels where all items were assigned a value, the vestments were significantly the most valuable item.23 New Temple and Bisham (where nothing was valued) outshone the rest. In the vestry of the New Temple were eleven chasubles (the outermost vestment) of various colours, twenty-eight copes worn in choir, forty-eight other liturgical garments of various types, and two mitres; in addition to further liturgical garments of various types in the great church, at the altar of St John, the altar of St Nicholas, and the church of St Mary outside the door of the hall (extra hostium aule), including vestments for deacon and boys. Bisham had silk copes, tunics embroidered with silk, and vestments for Sundays and for feast days. Other chapels varied in their provision, but the majority were adequately supplied with at least “a pair of vestments.” The chapel of Kilcloggan commandery in County


Helen J. Nicholson

Wexford was particularly well equipped with a pair of vestments for the altar for important feast-days and a second pair of festive vestments, while the church had an alb (a white vestment) and a chasuble. Perhaps the fact that the Irish Templars’ only priest-brother was in residence lay behind this fine provision. Sandford, which also had a Templar priest in residence, had four pairs of vestments and sixteen other liturgical garments. On the other hand, Combe, which had no Templar priest, was also well supplied with four pairs of vestments and six other liturgical garments including a silk choir cope. Faxfleet, where the Yorkshire Templars’ priest-brother resided, had five sets of vestments and two surplices; nearby Hirst was also well-equipped with one complete vestment, one vestment for Sunday and one for feast days, and five other liturgical garments. However, at over half of the forty chapels where all items were given a monetary value, the books comprised the most valuable category. At a few small houses where no Templars lived in January 1308 – Millbrook and Swanton in Bedfordshire and Chiriton in Wiltshire – there were no books. At Lannock in Hertfordshire, Faxfleet and Hirst the vestments and the books were of similar value. At Rockley in Wiltshire the most valuable item was the chalice, at Sibson in Huntingdonshire the chalice and books were of equal value, and at Gislingham in Norfolk the bells were the most valuable item – comprising fortyfour percent of the total value – while vestments and books comprised only five and seven percent respectively. In contrast, books comprised half or more than half of the total value at Cooley, Kilsaran, Kilcloggan church, Sotherington, Rothley, Upleadon in Herefordshire, Dinsley in Hertfordshire, Lydley in Shropshire, Saddlescombe in Sussex, Cowley and Sibford Gower in Oxfordshire and Penhill in the North Riding of Yorkshire. These books were almost exclusively liturgical books. Almost every chapel had a missal, and many also had antiphoners and graduals. There were also legendaries and martyrologies. Denny had almost twenty books; Bisham had twentythree; New Temple in London at least twenty-five. These were similar numbers to the Templars’ houses elsewhere. The commandery at Arles possessed almost sixty books, and Jochen Schenk has pointed out that this was not the only commandery with a substantial book collection by the beginning of the fourteenth century: in addition to the English houses discussed here, San Vitale in Verona had forty-one books and Sainte-Eulalie de Cernon twenty-one.24 A few books were not liturgical, or unidentified. At Clontarf, there was a “book of the gospels and the Brut of England written in French.” The ‘Brut’ was a legendary history of Britain named after Brutus, a refugee from the fall of Troy who (supposedly) founded Britain: the best-known version in French is the verse reworking by Wace of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Latin legendary history of Britain.25 At Shipley there was a “book of kings,” which could have been a copy of the Book of Kings in the Old Testament, or a history like the Brut at Clontarf; and there was also a “book of beasts,” a bestiary. Some books were related to pastoral care and parish work rather than to theology. The inventory of St Mary’s church “outside the door of the hall” at New Temple, London, mentions a book called Cabeham or Chabeham, which was probably Thomas

Evidence of Templars’ religious practice 55 of Chobham’s very influential Summa de penitentia et officiis ecclesiae, described by Chobham’s modern biographer as a “handbook containing almost everything a thirteenth-century priest needed to know for the pastoral care of souls.”26 Although this was not a parish church, perhaps the clergy employed by the Templars here were undertaking pastoral work outside the house, as Templar clergy did elsewhere in Europe.27 At Temple Combe in Somerset there was a liber infirmorum, a “book of the sick,” which could have been a book of cures for the sick, or a list of sick people. There were no such books recorded at Denny or Eagle, where elderly and sick Templars lived, although Piers Mitchell has noted that in Aragon the Templars had a copy of a famous Latin work on surgery (the Chirurgia of Theodoric Borgononi), translated into Catalan.28 The inventories present no evidence of the heresy and blasphemy alleged against the Templars. The inventory of Denny in Cambridgeshire points out that there were two missals de usu Templar’ (sic), indicating that the Templars had their own liturgy here – the Templars’ liturgy has been examined by Cristina Dondi.29 Elsewhere no comment was made, indicating that the Templars were following the diocesan liturgical use, although (as noted above) in two houses they also had some liturgical books that did not contain the current “use.” The fact that these books were non de usu did not mean that there was anything doubtful about them: they could have been old volumes which had been replaced by the most recent liturgy.30 At Eagle in Lincolnshire the inventory recorded four books in the chapel which contained services for the whole year ‘good and well recorded’ (bonos et bene notatos), and that ‘honest crosses’ (crucibus honestis) were stored in a chest with vestments, and relics of various saints.31 The reference to “good and well recorded” and “honest” (honourable or beautiful) crosses indicates that everything was of sound doctrine and as it should be in a Latin Christian religious order, in contrast to the charges against the Templars, which alleged that they did not perform the Mass correctly and dishonoured the Cross.32 However, the majority of these chapels were not served by Templar priestbrothers. In January 1308, there were only eleven Templar priest-brothers in Britain and Ireland. William de Kilros was the only Templar priest in Ireland in 1308. He was probably the “Willelmus le Chapeleyn” whose bed was at the Templars’ house of Kilcloggan in County Wexford.33 In England only Brothers Ralph of Barton, John of Stoke and Thomas of Burton (New Temple), John of Waddon and Robert of Bernewelle (Eagle), Randulph of Evesham (Temple Bruer), Ralph of Ruston (Faxfleet), William of Warwick (Sandford), William of Winchester (Balsall) and Roger of Stowe (location uncertain) were priests.34 The testimonies taken during the proceedings against the Templars in Britain and Ireland indicate that the mendicant friars performed priestly functions for the Templars.35 For some of their houses and parish churches the Templars employed priests and vicars through the corrody system.36 When the Templars appointed their own priests to their parish churches, these priests had to be approved by the diocesan bishop and would have followed local practice; and if the Templars employed a local priest in their own chapel, they would also follow local practice.37


Helen J. Nicholson

The lack of Templar priest-brothers reflected the lack of Templars. Only thirtysix of the sixty inventories under discussion here come from locations where Templars were resident in January 1308.38 In short, twenty-four of these inventories relate to chapels that were maintained by the Templars but which did not serve Templars. At Denny and Eagle, the English Templars’ houses for old and sick brothers, the Templars maintained chapels containing holy relics. In January 1308 there were eleven brothers living at Denny and eight at Eagle: at the latter house they included one healthy and one sick priest.39 The fact that both houses which cared for infirm brothers had relics in their chapels suggests that the Templars regarded them as a possible aid in cures. Further evidence of this comes from outside Britain and Ireland. Jochen Schenk has noted that a Templar commander of Tomar, Brother Laurentius, was recorded to have used dust from the tomb of the Blessed Gil de Santarém to heal a young man of fits.40 A collection of miracles of St Vincent of Saragossa tells how Don “Galdinus,” Master of the Templars in Portugal, and many of his knights held a vigil one night for the healing of a demonpossessed man, who was healed when he touched a reliquary holding the saint’s relics.41 Other Templar chapels housing holy relics were not necessarily attached to commanderies where Templars were in residence. There were no Templars at Temple Bulstrode, Dunwich or Sotherington in January 1308, although priests were employed here to perform divine service. The Order may have maintained these chapels because their patrons demanded it: for example, at Bulstrode Edmund the chaplain was paid 15 pence a week for performing divine service for the souls of the ancestors of Richard Turville.42 Relics could attract pilgrims and potential donors. Dunwich also provided other services that benefitted local people: here Robert de Seffeld, parson of Brampton, had deposited over £100 with the Templars for safekeeping. Other well-equipped Templar chapels did serve resident Templars, who might include Templar priests, but the employment of additional priests points to a wider function than simply serving the Templar community. At the beginning of January 1308, New Temple in London was the residence of eight brothers including three Templar priests, but in addition six priests were employed at 15.5 pence a week to celebrate mass for the souls of King John, Henry III, the whole Christian people and the faithful departed.43 As well as holy relics, the church contained the tombs of important patrons, notably the Marshal family.44 There were two chaplains employed at a rate of 5 marks a year in the Templars’ chapel at Rothley (where one Templar was resident), saying mass for the soul of past benefactors: King Henry III and William Knocte.45 At Temple Bruer (where four Templars lived, including a priest-brother) a priest was employed at a rate of 5 marks for nine months, to say mass for the soul of Andrew Le Marshal and his ancestors in exchange for property he had given the Templars at Kirkby.46 There was only one Templar brother in residence at Bisham, who was not a priest; Sandford had four resident brothers, including a priest-brother. In 1308 two additional chaplains were employed at Sandford at a rate of 5 marks a year and three at Bisham at a

Evidence of Templars’ religious practice 57 rate of 15 pence a week: perhaps they were needed to perform divine service for the souls of past patrons. Other beneficiaries of these chapels would have been the numerous corrodians living in or attached to Templar houses, and the Templars’ employees and tenants.47 Priests were also employed at houses where there were no Templars resident. At Lannock in Hertfordshire a priest was employed at a rate of 15 pence a week to say mass for the souls of the Earl Marshal’s ancestors (the famous William, who had confirmed the Templars’ possessions in this area).48 At “Wythefeld” in Surrey a chaplain was paid around 3 pence a day to celebrate divine office for the soul of the late Matilda, queen of England, as established “from antiquity”: presumably this was Matilda of Boulogne, who had given the Templars most of their property in Essex and Cowley in Oxfordshire.49 At Temple Mill in York a chaplain was paid 6 marks (4 pounds) a year to celebrate “divine office for the souls of the lord king and his progenitors.”50 Apparently these chapels were maintained for the benefit of the Templars’ patrons rather than the brothers.

Conclusion The Templars maintained a wide network of chapels, even at properties where there were no resident Templars, and employed priests for this purpose. This would have meant that priests in Templar chapels, hired locally and approved by the diocesan bishop, followed local diocesan liturgies and practice. At some locations (for example, at Lannock and “Wythefeld”), the wishes of past patrons required divine service to be maintained even when no Templars were resident; at other locations where no Templars lived (such as Bulstrode, Dunwich and Sotherington) the presence of holy relics in the chapels suggests that they could have formed centres for local pilgrimage. Some of the Templars’ chapels contained very valuable and beautiful ornaments; others contained simply what was necessary to maintain divine service. Although the inventories of 1308 do not give full details of the decorations in these chapels, it is likely that the most beautiful chapels were those with a “public face,” such as New Temple in London, and those maintained for the benefit of the patron’s family. Although New Temple was outstanding for its fine vestments and valuable plate, in the majority of cases the most valuable category of chapel equipment in monetary terms was the liturgical books. Just as in the surviving inventories from elsewhere in Europe, there was nothing in the British or Irish inventories to suggest any heretical practice at any of these chapels: as the sheriff noted at Eagle in Lincolnshire, the liturgy and the crosses – which the charges against the Templars suggested should have been corrupted – were good and honourable. Yet as almost half of these chapels were maintained for the benefit of non-Templars rather than Templars, and most were served by employed priests rather than by Templar priests, their contents would have reflected general religious practice rather than any particular Templar religious practice.


Helen J. Nicholson

This raises the question of what the Templars in Britain and Ireland regarded as their most important function. In theory, the purpose of the Order’s houses in the West was to maintain its defence of Christendom in the Holy Land. But the considerable expense of maintaining chapels and parish churches and their equipment and employing priests even where there were no Templars to serve, suggests that in Britain and Ireland at least the maintenance of divine service for the Order’s dependents and patrons had become as important as the defence of the East. Perhaps what aroused the ire of the English chroniclers was the Order’s success in attracting wealthy patrons for its chapels, and its apparent change of focus from protecting the Holy Land to providing post-mortem care for those patrons.

Notes 1 Sophia Menache, “Contemporary Attitudes Concerning the Templars’ Affair: Propaganda’s Fiasco?,” Journal of Medieval History 8 (1982), 135–47, at 139. 2 Flores Historiarum, vol. 3, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series 95 (London, 1890), 331–4, at 333; the section written by Robert of Reading at Westminster also treats the charges as true: xvii, 143, 144–5, 147–8. 3 Flores Historiarum, 3: xvii, 143, 144–5, 147–8. 4 The Irish inventories are published in Gearóid MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents relating to the Suppression of the Templars in Ireland,” Analecta Hibernica 24 (1967), 183–226. The inventories and accounts from England and Wales are preserved at Kew, The National Archives of the UK (henceforth “TNA”). The appendix to this article contains a list of the inventories used for this article. 5 Sebastián Salvadó, “Icons, Crosses and the Liturgical Objects of Templar Chapels in the Crown of Aragon,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2010), 183–97; Sebastián Salvadó, “Templar Liturgy and Devotion in the Crown of Aragon,” in On the Margins of Crusading: The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World, ed. Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham, 2011), 31–44; Jochen Schenk, “Aspects and Problems of the Templars’ Religious Presence in Medieval Europe from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Traditio 71 (2016), 273–302, at 297, 302; Jochen Schenk, “The Documentary Evidence for Templar Religion,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson (London, 2017), 199–211: quotation at 205. 6 For all references to the inventories cited in this article, see the appendix. 7 For example, Rita Costa-Gomes, “The Royal Chapel in Iberia: Models, Contacts and Influences,” Medieval History Journal 12 (2009), 77–111; William Chester Jordan, “Liturgical and Ceremonial Cloths: Neglected Evidence of Medieval Political Theology,” in Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and the Jews (Aldershot, 2001), article V; Paul Webster, King John and Religion (Woodbridge, 2015), 10–11, 24, 26–7. 8 Alan Forey, “Recruitment to the Military Orders (Twelfth to Mid-Fourteenth Centuries),” Viator 17 (1986), 139–71, at 143–8. 9 Clarence Perkins, “The Trial of the Knights Templars in England,” English Historical Review 24 (1909), 432–47, at 432. 10 TNA: E 142/13 m. 2; David Knowles and R. Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales, 2nd ed. (Harlow, 1971), 293. 11 TNA: E 142/119 m. 19. 12 TNA: E 142/119 m. 37.

Evidence of Templars’ religious practice 59 13 For discussion of such problems see Christopher Dyer, “Changes in Diet in the Late Middle Ages: The Case of Harvest Workers,” Agricultural History Review 36 (1988), 21–37, at 24. 14 E 142/117 m. 9; “Original Documents relating to the Knights Templars,” The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Review, by Sylvanus Urban, new series 3 (1857), 273–80, 519–27, at 520. 15 “Annales monasterii de Burton, 1094–1263,” in Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series 36 (London, 1864), 1: 494. 16 Georges Lizerand, ed., Le dossier de l’affaire des Templiers (Paris, 1923), 166; Anne Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus: A Complete Edition (Leiden, 1998), 67. 17 Salvadó, “Icons, Crosses,” 184. 18 Tapets at Bisham, Strood in Kent, the Great Church of the New Temple in London and Rockley in Wiltshire. 19 Philippe Josserand, “Le temple et le culte marial au long du chemin de Saint-Jacques: la commanderie de Villalcàzar de Sirga,” in Religion et Société urbaine au moyen âge. Études offertes à Jean-Louis Biget par ses anciens élèves, ed. Patrick Boucheron and Jacques Chiffoleau (Paris, 2000), 313–31, at 324–6; Joan Fuguet and Carme Plaza, Los Templarios en la Península Ibérica (Barcelona, 2005), 158–9. 20 John Munn, Cross and Culture in Anglo-Norman England (Woodbridge, 2016); Salvadó, “Icons, Crosses,” 188–93; Alain Demurger, Les Templiers: une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen Âge (Paris, 2005), 179; Jochen Schenk, “The Cult of the Cross in the Order of the Temple,” in As Ordens Militares. Freires, Guerreiros, Cavaleiros Actas do VI Encontro sobre Ordens Militares, ed. Isabel Christina Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela, 2012), 1: 207–19. 21 See the inventories for Bisham, Temple Bulstrode, Denny, Duxford, Cambridgeshire, Cressing and Sutton in Essex, Ewell and Strood in Kent, Combe in Somerset, Temple Mill in York, Faxfleet and Ribston in Yorkshire, London and Clontarf in Co. Dublin, Ireland. 22 Pax boards were at Bisham, possibly Cressing in Essex (reading unclear), Strood, the church of St Mary outside the door of the hall at New Temple, London, and Togrynd in Norfolk. 23 Balsall, Chiriton, Dunwich, Ewell, Kilcloggan chapel, New Temple, Warpsgrove in Oxfordshire, and Westerdale in the North Riding of Yorkshire. 24 Schenk, “The Documentary Evidence,” 201–3. 25 See, for example, Wace’s Roman de Brut: A History of the British, ed. Judith Weiss (Liverpool, 2005). For another French Brut see An Anglo-Norman “Brut”, ed. Alexander Bell, Anglo-Norman Text Society 21–22 (Oxford, 1969). 26 Joseph Goering, “Chobham, Thomas of (d. 1233x6),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); online edn ed. Lawrence Goldman, May 2005, 5007 (accessed on 6 May 2016). 27 Schenk, “Aspects and Problems,” 288–302. 28 Piers Mitchell, “The Infirmaries of the Order of the Temple in the Medieval Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in The Medieval Hospital and Medical Practice, ed. Barbara S. Bowers (Aldershot, 2007), 225–34, at 229. 29 Cristina Dondi, “Manoscritti liturgici dei templari e degli ospedalieri: le nuove prospettive aperte dal sacramentario templare di Modena (Biblioteca Capitolare O. II. 13),” in I Templari, la guerra e la santità, ed. Simonetta Cerrini (Rimini, 2000), 85–131; Cristina Dondi, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem: A Study and a Catalogue of the Manuscript Sources (Turnhout, 2004), 39, 40–1. 30 For liturgical books in England described as non sunt de usu but still with a small value in the 1320s see, for example, Richard W. Pfaff, The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History (Cambridge, 2009), 390–1. 31 TNA: E 358/18, rot. 39 verso and E 358/19, rot. 31.


Helen J. Nicholson

32 Proceedings against the Templars in the British Isles, ed. Helen J. Nicholson, 2 vols. (Farnham, 2011), 1: 12–13, 2: 12–13. 33 Proceedings, ed. Nicholson, 1: 323; 2: 358; MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents,” 200. 34 Proceedings, ed. Nicholson, 1: 23, 58, 66, 94, 103, 221, 227, 228, 265, 323; 2: 26, 56, 63, 85, 93, 245, 253, 254, 297, 358; Helen J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311 (Stroud, 2009), 208–10, 212, 217; Eileen Gooder, Temple Balsall: The Warwickshire Preceptory of the Templars and Their Fate (Chichester, 1995), 149; TNA: E 358/18, rot. 18v. 35 Proceedings, ed. Nicholson, 2: xxxvi. 36 Henry Cole, ed., “Corrodia petita de domibus Templariorum, annis Io & IIo Edwardi I,” in Documents Illustrative of English History in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Selected from the Records of the Department of the Queen’s Remembrancer of the Exchequer (London, 1844), 139–230, at 145 (New Temple, London), 154 (Garway), 160 (Dinsley), 165 (Sotherington, Hampshire), 166 (Aslackby, Lincolnshire), 177 (Guiting, Gloucestershire), 186 (Bisham), 203–4 (Sompting), 205 (Reyndon, Essex), 208 (Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire), 208 (Dunwich; see also TNA: E 358/18, rot. 3v), 223–4 (Ewell), 225–6 (Donington church, Lincolnshire), 227–8 (Sompting), 229 (Sherbourne, Warwickshire). 37 Salvadó, “Templar Liturgy,” 37–9; Schenk, “Aspects and Problems,” 298, 301. 38 Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 72; MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents,” 191, 193, 199. 39 Proceedings, ed. Nicholson, 2: 586, 589–91; 595, 597. 40 Jochen Schenk, “Some Hagiographical Evidence for Templar Spirituality, Religious Life and Conduct,” Revue Mabillon, n.s. 22 (2011), 99–119, at 108. 41 Schenk, “Some Hagiographical Evidence,” 109; Acta Sanctorum, ed. Joannes Bollandus SJ and Godefridus Henschenius SJ, Januarii II (Antwerp, 1643), 413 (miracle 21). 42 TNA: E 358/18, rot. 6. 43 Helen J. Nicholson, “At the Heart of Medieval London: The New Temple in the Middle Ages,” in The Temple Church in London: History, Architecture, Art, ed. Robin GriffithJones and David Park (Woodbridge, 2010), 1–18, at 10; Webster, King John and Religion, 183. 44 David Park, “Medieval Burials and Monuments,” in The Temple Church, ed. GriffithJones and Park, 67–91; Philip J. Lankester, “The Thirteenth-Century Military Effigies in the Temple Church,” in ibid., 93–134. 45 TNA: E 358/19, rot. 27. 46 TNA: E 358/18, rot. 19; E 358/20, rot. 15. 47 For example, there were eight corrodians, in addition to clerks and servants, living at New Temple: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 7; Cole, ed., “Corrodia petita,” 145, 146–7, 159, 170, 185, 188, 194; and eleven corrodians at Bruer: TNA: E 358/18, rots 19, 16; Cole, ed., “Corrodia petita,” 148–9, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 168–9, 175–6, 177, 190. 48 TNA: E 358/18, rot. 24. 49 TNA: E 358/20, rot. 13v. 50 Helen J. Nicholson, “The Military Religious Orders in the Towns of the British Isles,” in Les Ordres Militaires dans la Ville Médiévale (1100–1350), ed. Damien Carraz (ClermontFerrand, 2013), 113–26, at 121.


The inventories on which this article is based, in county order within country: England Bedfordshire Millbrook: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 24 Swanton: Henry Cole, Documents Illustrative of English History in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries selected from the Records of the Department of the Queen’s Remembrancer of the Exchequer (London, 1844), xi – xii Berkshire Bisham: TNA: E 142/13 m. 9 verso; E 358/18 rot. 9v Templeton: TNA: E358/20, rot. 20v. Buckinghamshire Temple Bulstrode: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 6v. Cambridgeshire Denny: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 10(2)v Duxford (Dokesworth): TNA: E 358/18, rot. 10v Wilbraham: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 9 Essex Cressing: TNA: E358/19, rot. 52v Sutton: TNA: E358/19, rot. 52v Hampshire Sotherington: TNA: E 358/19, rot. 51v Herefordshire Upleadon: TNA: E358/18, rot. 2 Hertfordshire Chelsing: TNA: E 358/19, rot. 52


Helen J. Nicholson

Dinsley: TNA: E 358/19, rot. 52 Lannock: TNA: E 358/19, rot. 52 Huntingdonshire Sibson: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 9v Kent Ewell: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 1 Strood: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 8 Leicestershire Rothley: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 42 Lincolnshire Aslackby: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 39, E 358/19, rot. 30v Eagle: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 39 verso; E 358/19, rot. 31 Willoughton: TNA: E 358/19, rot. 31v London New Temple: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 7; E 358/20, rot. 3 Middlesex Lisson: TNA: E 358/20, rot. 3v Norfolk Gislingham: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 3 Togrynd: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 3v Northumberland Thornton: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 6v Oxfordshire Cowley: TNA: E 358/19, rot. 26 Merton, TNA: E 358/19, rot. 26v Sandford: ibid. Sibford Gower: TNA: E 358/19, rot. 26 Warpsgrove: ibid. Shropshire Lydley: TNA: E 358/20, rot. 5v Somerset Combe: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 35

Evidence of Templars’ religious practice 63 Staffordshire Keele: TNA: E 358/20, rot. 5v Suffolk Dunwich: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 3 Sussex Saddlescombe: TNA: E 358/20, rot. 14 Shipley: TNA: E 142/15 m. 5 Warwickshire Balsall: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 43 Wiltshire Chiriton: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 52(1), E 358/20, rot. 38. Rockley: TNA: E 358/18, rot. 52(2), E 358/20, rot. 38. Yorkshire Allerthorpe: TNA: E 142/18 m. 3 Coupmanthorpe: TNA: E 142/18 m. 12 Cowton: TNA: E 142/18 m. 16 Etton: TNA: E 142/18 m. 9 Faxfleet: TNA: E 142/18 m. 13 Foulbridge: TNA: E 142/18 m. 14 Hirst: TNA: E 142/18 m. 17 Newsam: TNA: E 142/18 m. 7 Penhill: TNA: E 142/18 m. 4 Ribston: TNA: E 142/18 m. 15 Temple Mill, York: TNA: E 142/18 m. 6 Westerdale: TNA: E 142/18 m. 10 Wetherby: TNA: E 142/18 m. 11 Wythele: TNA: E 142/18 m. 8 Ireland Co. Dublin Clontarf: MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents,” 215

Co. Louth Cooley: MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents,” 191 Kilsaran: MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents,” 195 Co. Wexford Kilcloggan, chapel: MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents,” 200; church: ibid., 202.


Economic, social and political aspects of the trade of the Teutonic Order in Prussia Roman Czaja

Among the many elements of economic activity associated with the Teutonic Order in Prussia, trade did not take a prominent place. Quite to the contrary: Jürgen Sarnowsky has shown that trade contributed only about 10% of the revenues of the central authorities.1 By contrast, the social and political consequences of the involvement of the Teutonic Knights in commercial activity appear to have been rather significant. For example, in the first half of the fifteenth century, the larger Prussian towns utilised complaints about the Teutonic Order’s commercial activities in their political conflicts with it to construct an image of a bad ruler.2 The 1450s saw the rise of the notion that it was the trade policies of the Order which were responsible for the rebellion of the Prussians against Teutonic rule. This thesis was endorsed in the late nineteenth century by Carl Sattler, who pioneered research on the trade activity of the Teutonic Knights, and it was recapitulated in twentieth-century scientific literature.3 The trade policies of the Order were subsequently re-examined only at the end of the twentieth century.4 This article will analyse the activities of two state officials whose duties involved engagement in long-distance trade, that is, the trade officials of the Teutonic Order – the Großschäffer of Königsberg and of Marienburg – at the turn of the fifteenth century. The chronological framework of this study is defined by the state of preservation of the account books in which these trade officials recorded their agreements with their business partners as well as details of trade and monetary credit agreements. These records include information both about new transactions and about payments relating to existing credit arrangements, concerning goods and money. The oldest preserved book of the trade official of Marienburg entered into use shortly before 25 June 1404 and remained in use until the end of that year. As annual deadlines for the payment of debts were the rule, this book likely contains a wealth of detail concerning transactions made by officials of the Teutonic Order between mid-1403 and the end of 1404. The next extant book of this office was in use between 1410 and 1418.5 Better preserved are the books of debts owed to the Königsberg trade official. The oldest of these surviving books was in use from 1400 to June 1402.6 The next three books concern affairs from mid-1402 to November 1406. Taken together, these sources record transactions from 1400 to the end of 1406.7 The account books of 1407–9 have not survived. The next book of the trade official of Königsberg covers the years 1410–23.8

The Teutonic Order in Prussia


Statistical analysis of the information about trade and lending and the identification of the social partners of the trade officials, as conveyed by these books, should enable us to assess the economic efficiency of the trade activities of the Teutonic Order and their relation to the Order’s social and political goals. In medieval Europe, monastic institutions, hospitals and chivalric orders were involved in trade. Thus, we find convents of the Teutonic Order in the Holy Roman Empire, southern Italy and Sicily engaged in lively trading activities. This trade, however, tended to be limited to the nearest local markets, which sold surplus goods produced on the estates of the Teutonic Order. Among the various products, wheat, wine and wool were the main commodities.9 The particular trade engaged in by the Teutonic Order in Prussia stemmed from the fact that, as rulers of the territory, they obtained a large income from regalia as well as from agricultural products produced on their own estates.10 Possession of adequate resources was, however, only a starting point for the creation of a commercial organisation. Local conditions contributed to the quality of the trade and enabled participation in wider markets; suitable economic and social conditions in the towns were of primary importance. In Prussia, the organisaion of the trade of the Teutonic Order developed alongside the establishment of trading activities by the townsfolk, and only through cooperation with the latter was it possible to incorporate the trade activities of the rulers of the country into the Hanseatic economic system.11 The early collaboration of Prussian and Hanseatic merchants with the authorities of the Teutonic Order is confirmed by sources dating to 1315, 1326 and 1330. The oldest surviving accounts of the trade official of Königsberg (dating to 1356/1357 and 1379) indicate that his most important trade partners were merchants of the larger Prussian towns, namely Elbing (Elbląg), Thorn (Toruń) and Danzig (Gdańsk).12 Thanks to cooperation with the merchants of Prussian cities as well as the economic and administrative support of the Grand Master and the Grand Marshal (the superior of the Komturship of Königsberg), in the fourteenth century the two Großschäffer built a trade organisation with contacts spanning the full geographical range of Hanseatic trade. The trade contacts of the officials of the Teutonic Order in Eastern and Central-Eastern Europe included Novgorod, Lviv, Livonia, Scandinavia, Polish lands (Mazovia, Kujavia), the lands of the Czech Crown and Brandenburg. They also had trade representatives in the most important centres of Hanseatic trade in the West, that is, in Lübeck, Bruges and London.13 This image of the business contacts of the Teutonic Order, as obtained from an analysis of records of debts from the beginning of the fifteenth century, is somewhat skewed, in so far as most of the entries relating to the interests of the trade officials in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Central-Eastern Europe concern payment defaults by debtors from those parts.14 At the beginning of the fifteenth century, then, it seems that the long-distance trade of the Teutonic Order was limited to Prussia, the border with Mazovia and Kujavia, Bruges and Lübeck. Thus, countering Sattler, I suggest that it was not political reasons that spurred the Teutonic Order to renounce business contacts with defaulting partners in the Polish-Lithuanian hinterland.15 The genesis of this phenomenon must be sought in the political determinants of the economic activity of the Teutonic Order, and


Roman Czaja

in a general crisis of long-distance trade, a monetary crisis and a weak demand for luxury goods in the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe at this time.16 At the beginning of the fifteenth century, about 90% of the trade turnover of the Teutonic Order derived from the Prussian towns. The largest share of business dealings with trade officials was in the largest Prussian cities, namely, Danzig (Gdańsk), Thorn (Torun) and Elbing (Elbląg). The remainder consisted of business transactions concluded with the Prussian knights and with other partners, mainly the townspeople of Kujavia and Mazovia (see Table 6.1). The business contacts of the Teutonic Order with the inhabitants of the large towns consisted mainly of wholesale transactions concerning goods imported from the West (especially cloth, spices, salt and herring) as well as the sale of goods destined for export (wood, grain and wax). The economic collaboration of the trade officials with the residents of the small and medium-sized Prussian towns was of a more varied nature. As to the range of goods involved, we can distinguish between three groups of towns. The first consisted of small and medium-sized ones, situated on the Drwęca and Vistula rivers – namely, Graudenz, Schwetz, Neuenburg, Marienwerder and Mewe – in which the Teutonic Order bought grain. Generally speaking, the trade officials of the territorial ruler made advance payments for future deliveries. As the corn purchased was intended mainly for export, the townspeople were often obliged to deliver the goods to Danzig. The second group included the towns of Neidenburg, Soldau and Lautenburg which, because of their proximity to the border with Mazovia, were favourable markets for the purchase of wood and other forest products such as wax, ash and potash. The trade officials of the Teutonic Order also used the small towns (the third group, of about twenty-five towns) to sell imported cloth from the West.17 The vast majority of commercial transactions between the officials of the territorial ruler and their partners were concluded on credit. Townspeople usually had a year to pay for goods received from the Teutonic officials. Analysis of records in the three oldest account books of the trade official of Königsberg reveals that in the early fifteenth century there was a sharp drop in turnover, mainly due to the insolvency of trading partners. The drop, observable in the years 1400–6, involved only goods imported from the West, mainly cloth. Thus, while in the first years of the fifteenth century 90% of the goods Prussian burgesses bought from the officials of Königsberg and Marienburg were imported from the West, a

Table 6.1 The trade of the officials (Großschäffer) of Königsberg 1400–1406 (in Pr. Marks) Years

with the largest cities

with the small towns

with other partners


1400–2 1402–4 1405–6 Total

54 560 = 100% 29 380 = 54% 22 890 = 42% 106 830

8 750 = 100% 2 980 = 34% 1 330 = 15% 13 060

6 950 = 100% 1 500 = 22% –––– 8 450

70 260 = 100% 33 860 = 48% 24 220 = 34% 128 340

Sources: Schuldbücher, vols. 1–2.

The Teutonic Order in Prussia


few years later the importance of local articles (corn and wood) increased, as an element of trade between the towns and the Teutonic Order (see Table 6.2). Analysis of the oldest surviving account books of the trading office of Königsberg shows that at the beginning of the fifteenth century Prussian townspeople had amassed a significant backlog of debts in arrears stemming from trade transactions. From entries in the book made in 1418, we learn that 14% of the old debts recorded in 1400 were still outstanding. The growing number of overdue debts led the Großschäffer Konrad von Muren (1400–2) and Michael Küchmeister (1402–4) to undertake a more careful selection of trade partners and to be more ruthless in enforcing repayments. Consequently, after 1410, the arrears of transactions concluded in the years 1400–4 in large cities amounted to only 3%. A different picture emerges from the records of debt settlement for the trading activities of small town residents. In 1406, these townsmen had defaulted on the repayment of 57% of their transactions concluded in the years 1402 to 1404, and it transpired that, in 1418, 38% of these debts still remained unpaid. The trade officials of the Teutonic Order were faced with a choice: to continue incurring loss or to give up trade with the inhabitants of small and medium-sized towns. A few years later, however, the people of Danzig, Thorn and Elbing were also finding it difficult to repay the debts they owed to the officials of the Teutonic Order. In the large towns, among the transactions of the trading office of Königsberg in the years 1405–6, some 17% had not been repaid in 1418, and for business arrangements entered into in the years 1407–9, the percentage of bad debts rose to 27%.18 Cooperation with the trade officials of the Teutonic Order also offered the burgesses of Prussia the possibility of obtaining cash loans, which was vital for Table 6.2 The commodity structure of commerce by trade officials of the Teutonic Order with the Prussian towns Town









1402 1404 1404M 1406 1402 1404 1404M 1406 1402 1404 1404M 1406 1402 1404 1404 M

80% 88% 96% 67% 49% 54% 54% 32% 73% 65% 78% 43% 42% 40% 96%

2% 4% 4% – – 3% 40% 6% 9% 20% 10% 10% – – –

1% 3% – – 23% – 1% – 1% 1% – – 2% 9% 4%

– 1% – 23% 4% 26% 2% 26% 2% 12% 7% 42% 52% 29% –

13% 4% – 10% 22% 10% 2% 28% 13% – – 5% – 22% –

4% – – – 2% 7% 1% 8% 2% 2% 5% – 4% – –



The small towns

Sources: Schuldbücher, vols. 1–3. M – the trade officials (Groβschäffer) of Marienburg


Roman Czaja

business during the monetary crisis that evidently struck the Baltic Sea zone in the 1390s. It should be noted, however, that the trade officials of the Teutonic Knights gave monetary loans only to residents of large towns (see Table 6.3). At the beginning of the fifteenth century, the value of cash advances accounted for about 30% of their trade contacts. The rate of decline in credit turnover, however, considerably exceeded the decline in the value of trade. The proportion of monetary credit among the old, overdue debts owed to trade officials grew, relative to that of commercial transactions. These data reflect the worsening financial situation of the Prussian burgesses in the first decade of the fifteenth century. This phenomenon occurred in the three largest Prussian towns to varying degrees. The largest decrease in the value of credit granted, and the largest backlogs in its repayment, occurred in Thorn and Elbing. In Danzig, a rapid decrease in the value of monetary credit can be observed at the beginning of the fifteenth century. In the following years, the turnover of credit increased, and the percentage of debts repaid by the townspeople was much higher than in other towns. The social network of the economic contacts of the Teutonic Order in the Prussian towns depended on the volume of trade and credit. In the years 1400–10, trade officials had the largest number of partners in the large towns: in Danzig 278 individuals, in the Old Town of Thorn 207 residents, and in the Old Town of Elbing 135 persons. The vast majority of the townspeople (82% in Danzig, 75% in Thorn and 63% in Elbing) concluded one or two transactions with the officials of the territorial ruler. We can assume that four or five transactions indicate systematic dealings with the Teutonic Order, and six or more indicate permanent relationships. Hence, it seems that business contacts and credit transactions recorded in the account books of the trading offices of Königsberg and Marienburg played an important role only for 5% to 14% of townspeople, who had systematic dealings (depending on the towns), and that for only 7% to 9% of townspeople, who had permanent relationships, could they have impacted significantly on their economic position. In the large towns, a relatively small number of individuals had a decisive impact on the volume of trade and credit turnover with the Teutonic Order. Those townspeople who concluded transactions with trade officials totalling more than 500 Prussian Marks (in Danzig there were twenty-eight, in Thorn twenty-four and in Elbing ten) accounted for about two-thirds of the trade and credit turnover of the Teutonic Order in large towns.

Table 6.3 The monetary loans of the trade official (Großschäffer) of Königsberg to residents of the largest Prussian towns (in Pr. Marks)

1400–2 1402–4 1405–6 Total





7 340 = 100% 2 270 = 31% 2 200 = 30% 11 810

5 900 = 100% 2 470 = 42% 1 140 = 19% 9 510

2 660 = 100% 460 = 17% 500 = 19% 3 620

15 900 = 100% 5 200 = 33% 3 840 = 24% 24 940

Sources: Schuldbücher, vols. 1–2.

The Teutonic Order in Prussia


The most important group of trade partners with the officials of the Teutonic Order in the large Prussian towns were merchants who participated in Hanseatic trade. An important role was also played by merchants conducting the retail sale of cloth, the so-called Gewandschneider. Finally, a third very large group of customers of the trade officials of the Teutonic Order was comprised of stall holders, vendors and pharmacists who bought mainly spices, sugar and tropical fruits. In Danzig and Elbing, ship owners also collaborated with the trade officials of Königsberg and Marienburg. They not only transported the goods of the Teutonic Order but also bought or leased their ships from them. Artisans also engaged in trade with the Teutonic Order, although in the main, the transactions in which they were involved were much lower in value than the purchases made by people engaged in trade. In small towns, Teutonic Order trade officials mostly sold imported goods from the West, such as cloth or spices, and buying wood or wax. Typically, one townsperson received large amounts of cloth on credit and purchased wood after a prepayment. The value of completed transactions often exceeded 1000 Prussian Marks, which was a very large sum, particularly on the scale of the small-town economy. For a modest group of small town residents, collaboration with the officials of the territorial ruler must have been a significant source of income. This is shown by the property owned by such individuals. For example, David of Liebstadt possessed two breweries, four hufen (Germ. Hufen = 16,8 ha) of fields, a farm, stables, barn, two houses, three plots in the town, and a fish pond. The trade officials of the Teutonic Order employed another social strategy in the buying of flour and cereals. The social status of the relatively large number of persons who received prepayments for the purchase of these goods (in Graudenz forty-six, in Marienwerder twenty-three and in Schwetz twenty-seven) was diverse. Among them were wealthy merchants, artisans, millers and representatives of the knightly and peasant classes19 The trade conducted by the trade officials of the Teutonic Order was perceived by the townsfolk as part of the economic activities of the state; as such, its impact ought to be considered on the political plane as well. Yet the question, ‘To what extent did economic cooperation influence the attitudes of the inhabitants of the towns towards the Teutonic Order?’ can only be answered after we determine what share of that trade involved municipal councillors – the group ruling the towns and thus determining urban policies. Of the townspeople who sat on the councils of the large Prussian towns in the years 1400–10, only about 28% had business contact with the Teutonic Order. There were noticeable differences between the towns in this respect: in Danzig nine persons had such contacts, in Thorn thirteen did, and in Elbing the number was twelve. Of the total value of economic cooperation with the Großschäffer in these towns, the share of transactions concluded by such individuals was 12% in Danzig, 22% in Thorn and 29% in Elbing.20 In all three major towns, it was most commonly the younger councillors who had business contact with the officials of the Teutonic Knights. Among the trading partners of the officials of the territorial ruler, we find several representatives of the authorities of the small Prussian towns (mayors from Neumark, Marienwerder and Schwetz, the Jungstadt of Danzig, councillors from Strassburg, the Neustadt of Thorn and Liebstadt and the Schultheiß of Soldau).21 The extant sources do not


Roman Czaja

allow the identification of the social position of the majority of the small-town inhabitants mentioned in the account books of the trading offices of Königsberg and Marienburg, and thus it is impossible to gauge the participation of these small towns’ ruling elites in trade with the Teutonic Order. Some information on the impact of economic contacts with the Teutonic Order on the burgesses’ political attitudes may be gleaned from an analysis of personnel changes in the government of the Main Town of Danzig and the Old Town of Thorn, as introduced by the territorial ruler in 1411 in the wake of its defeat in the war against Poland and Lithuania. Grand Master Heinrich von Plauen removed from the town council of Thorn, and from the town council and court of Danzig, individuals who, during the war, had pursued policies favourable to the Polish king, and replaced them with townspeople believed to have been supporters of the Teutonic Order. As many as six of the seven new councillors in Thorn had cooperated economically with trade officials of the Teutonic Order before 1409, whereas among the councillors removed from office only two had done so.22 In Danzig, among the twenty-nine people considered to have been supporters of the state authorities, nine had economic contacts with officials of the Teutonic Order.23 Among the most important members of this fraction, considered most loyal to the Teutonic Order and among the most active commercial partners of the trade officials of Königsberg and Marienburg, were Heinrich von Putzig (commercial transactions worth 5600 Pr. Mark), Albrecht Dodorf (3400 Pr. Mark), Peter Krummow (1900 Pr. Mark), Heinrich von Dalen (920 Pr. Mark) and Gerhard von der Beke (ca. 600 Pr. Mark). Another active supporter of the Teutonic Order was Christoph Lobeschitz, whom the commander of Danzig had unsuccessfully attempted to include in the council in 1410. In the years 1400–02 he was a trade representative of Johann Tiergarten, Großschäffer of Marienburg, and he also collaborated with his successor as well as with the trade officials of Königsberg.24 The Teutonic Order conducted business with only two councillors (Johann Kruckemann, Nicolaus Thomas) belonging to the camp of the opponents of the territorial rulers in Danzig. And, among the councillors of Elbing, Johann Werner, who maintained lively trade relations with the Teutonic Knights amounting to a value of approximately 1200 Pr. Marks, was appointed to the land council in 1412.25 In view of the widespread use of credit in the dealings of the trade officials with the Prussian burgesses – especially in a period that witnessed an accumulation of payment arrears – the effective execution of outstanding debts had a significant impact on the economic balance of the business enterprise of the Teutonic Order. After 1400, although debts owed to the Teutonic Order by the residents of the large towns increased significantly, we do not observe a clear increase in the number of executions of debts by way of the seizure of assets. The trade officials of Königsberg and Marienburg exhibited great patience in waiting for the return of debts from some of their partners in the large Prussian towns. They also postponed the date of payment or split the repayment of a large outstanding debt into instalments, thus creating better conditions to facilitate the return of the money.26 Some changes in the procedure of the Teutonic Order towards debtors in the large towns occurred in the second decade of the fifteenth century. Indeed, while the

The Teutonic Order in Prussia


financial situation of the Teutonic Order rapidly deteriorated after its defeat in the war with the Poles and Lithuanians, the trade officials, the Grand Master and the Grand Marshal waived the repayment of debts by some merchants from Danzig, Elbing and Thorn, most of whom supported the policy of the Teutonic Order.27 The officials of the Teutonic Order were much more ruthless in collecting debts owed by their business partners in the small and medium-sized towns. Already in the 1390s, Konrad von Muren, the Großschäffer of Königsberg, had begun to seize the assets of his debtors. Confiscation of properties belonging to the townspeople continued under his successors in the early fifteenth century, even in the case of minor arrears. A good illustration of the vicissitudes of small town business partners engaged in trade with the Teutonic Order is provided by the career of the merchant David of Liebstadt. His assets and debts suggest that he maintained intensive business relationships with the Teutonic Order. Due to difficulties in paying off his debt, in October 1398 Konrad von Muren obtained in pledge all of the merchant’s real property. From a settlement reached in January 1399, we learn that David owed the trade official of Königsberg 764 Pr. Marks. The extension of the debt and the purchase of cloth on credit for the sum of 628 Pr. Marks meant that by December 1401 David’s debt to the Teutonic Order had increased to 1030 Pr. Marks. The Order managed to recover 615 Pr. Marks from the sale of his estate, leaving a debt of 526 Pr. Marks. And a settlement of 1411 reveals that David of Liebstadt had still not yet managed to repay that sum.28 The same elements visible in the financial downfall of David (such as the seizure and sale, or renting out of a debtor’s property) were repeated in the majority of instances in which trade partners of the officials of the territorial ruler suffered bankruptcy in other small towns.29 The strict trade policies of the officials of the Teutonic Order towards small town merchants produced relatively meagre financial results, as the new owners who purchased the estates of bankrupt parties were also in arrears with repayments. The social and political balance of cooperation with the inhabitants of the small and mediumsized towns also proved unfavourable to the Teutonic Order. The bankruptcies and ruthlessly carried-out sales of assets belonging to debtors, who were the richest (and therefore well-known) persons in the area, tarnished the image of the Order as a good ruler. The dramatic collapse of the financial careers of persons cooperating with the trade officials of the Teutonic Order was probably incomprehensible to the residents of small towns, ignorant of the details of the settlements recorded in the account books. Perhaps it was in such circumstances that suspicions about the integrity of the trade officials of Königsberg and Marienburg arose, eventually becoming the basis for the financial claims put forward against the Teutonic Order. Hans David (the son of David of Liebstadt) was engaged from the 1420s in a fortyyear legal battle with the Teutonic Order, conducted in various courts throughout the Holy Roman Empire, concerning their illegal seizure of his father’s property. In the 1430s, the family of the Schultheiß Hans Grans of Neidenburg lodged similar accusations against the rulers of the Teutonic state.30 In the context of the social and political aspects of the trading activities of the officials of Königsberg and Marienburg, the question arises: Did the Teutonic Knights use trade to garner support among social and political elites outside


Roman Czaja

Prussia? The sources provide, however, only limited data on non-economic types of cooperation with the trading partners of the Teutonic Order. Two such cases are well known. At the turn of the fifteenth century, Paul Quentin, Mayor of Frankfurt an der Oder, maintained trade relations with the trading office of Königsberg. At the same time, he collaborated with the Teutonic Order in other areas. He sent the Grand Master information about the political situation in the Mark of Brandenburg and on the border of Greater Poland and Brandenburg, and he acted as a broker in the payment of the salaries of mercenaries.31 Business contacts with the Teutonic Order were the starting point for the financial and political career of the burgher David Rosenfeld of Kulm, who in the 1390s maintained trading contacts with the trade official of Königsberg and in 1399–1404 is mentioned as his trade representative. In 1406, he was elected to the council of the Old Town of Thorn. After returning to his home town, he held the office of councillor of Kulm from at least 1411. In 1415, he settled in Breslau, where two years later he was elected mayor. During his stay there, Rosenfeld kept the Grand Master informed about the political situation in Silesia and also brokered contacts between the Teutonic Order and the Silesian nobility, burgesses and clergy.32 The surviving account books show the trade of the officials of Königsberg and Marienburg in its declining phase. In light of the above analysis, there is no basis for the claim that the commercial activities of the territorial ruler adversely affected the economic development of Prussian towns. No such complaints were advanced before 1410 by the delegates of the large Prussian towns in their meetings with the Grand Master. The towns protested only against the use, in trade, of the privileges of the sovereign government by representatives of the trade officials of the Teutonic Knights.33 During the crisis of Hanseatic trade and concomitant decrease in demand for goods imported from the West, the trade of the Teutonic Order was more adversely affected than the general trade of Prussian cities because, beyond its economic pursuits, the Order had to take into account its social and political goals. After 1404, the trade officials of the Teutonic Order gave up their economic cooperation with small towns, and in the second decade of the fifteenth century they also broke off their credit and trade relations with the inhabitants of the large towns. In the following decades, the officials of Königsberg and Marienburg limited their activities to selling amber and grain in Lübeck and Bruges. The contemporary social and political conditions exerted a negative impact on the economic outcomes of the trading activities of the Teutonic Order. The ruling authorities used trading contacts and the extension of credit to create social networks and to mobilise political support in the Prussian towns. The collapse of the internal trade of the officials of Königsberg and Marienburg thus deprived the Teutonic Order of an important tool for influencing urban ruling groups in Prussia.

Notes 1 The article was prepared under the project “The State of the Teutonic Order in Prussia. Economy and Culture”: no. 2102/05/B/HS3/03708 funded by the National Science

The Teutonic Order in Prussia







8 9


Centre, Poland. Jürgen Sarnowsky, Die Wirtschaftsführung des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen (1383–1454) (Cologne-Weimar-Vienna, 1993), 440, 449; Marian Dygo, “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit des Deutschen Ordens in Preuβen im 14.-15. Jahrhundert,” in Die Ritterorden in der europäischen Wirtschaft des Mittelalters, ed. Roman Czaja, Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares 12 (Toruń, 2003), 155. Roman Czaja, Miasta pruskie a zakon krzyżacki. Studia nad stosunkami między miastem w władzą terytorialną w późnym średniowieczu [Prussian Towns and the Teutonic Order: Studies on the Relationship between the Town and Territorial Authority in the Late Middle Ages] (Toruń, 1999), 191–6; Jürgen Sarnowsky, “Die ständische Kritik am Deutschen Orden in der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Das Preußenland als Forschungsaufgabe. Festschrift für Udo Arnold zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Bernhart Jähnig, Georg Michels (Lüneburg, 2000), 408–11. Carl Sattler, “Der Handel des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen zur Zeit seiner Blüte,” Altpreussische Monatsschrift 16 (1879): 242–69; Fritz Renken, Der Handel der Königsberger Großschäfferei des Deutschen Ordens mit Flandern um 1400 (Weimar, 1937), 10; Joseph Leinz, “Die Ursachen des Abfalls Danzigs vom Deutschen Orden unter besonderen Berücksichtigung der nationalen Frage,” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel-und Ostdeutschlands 13/14 (1965), 17; Henryk Samsonowicz, “Der Deutsche Orden als Wirtschaftsmacht des Ostseeraumes,” in Zur Wirtschaftsentwicklung des Deutschen Ordens im Mittelalter, ed. Udo Arnold, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 38 (Marburg, 1989), 109. Roman Czaja, “Der Handel des Deutschen Ordens und der preußischen Städte – Wirtschaft zwischen Zusammenarbeit und Rivalität,” in Ritterorden und Region – politische, soziale und wirtschaftliche Verbindung im Mittelalter, ed. Zenon Hubert Nowak, Ordines Militares Colloquia Torunensia Historica 8 (Toruń, 1995), 111–24. Schuldbücher und Rechnungen der Großschäffer und Lieger des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen, vol. 3: Großschäfferei Marienburg, ed. Christina Link, Jürgen Sarnowsky (Cologne-Weimar-Vienna, 2008), 5–7; Christina Link, “Stetig und genau oder lückenhaft und uneinheitlich? – Die Rechnungsführung der Marienburger Großschäfferei des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen,” in Von Nowgorod bis London. Studien zu Handel, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im mittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Marie-Luise Heckmann, Jens Röhrkasten (Göttingen, 2008), 297–315. Schuldbücher und Rechnungen der Großschäffer und Lieger des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen, vol. 1: Großschäfferei Königsberg 1 (Ordensfoliant 141), ed. Cordelia Heß, Christina Link, and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Cologne-Weimar-Vienna, 2008), 19–23; Cordelia Heß, “Pragmatische Schriftlichkeit in Preußen – Die Schuldbücher des Deutschen Ordens, Großschäfferei Königsberg,” in Die Rolle der Schriftlichkeit in den geistlichen Ritterorden des Mittelalters; innere Organisation, Sozialstruktur, Politik, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares Colloquia Torunensia Historica 15 (Toruń, 2009), 236. Schuldbücher und Rechnungen der Großschäffer und Lieger des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen, vol. 2: Großschäfferei Königsberg II (Ordensfolianten 142–149 und Zusatzmaterial), ed. Joachim Laczny, Jürgen Sarnowsky unter Mitarbeit von Cordelia Heß (Cologne-Weimar-Vienna, 2013), Ordensfolianten 143, 145, 146. Ordensfoliant 147, Schuldbücher, vol. 2. Ursula Braasch-Schwersmann, “Das Deutschordenshaus Marburg und seine Niederlassungen in hessischen Städten im Mittelalter,” Hessisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 42 (1992): 56, 59, 61; Klaus Militzer, “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit ländlicher und städtischer Deutschordenshäuser. Ein Überblick,” in Zur Wirtschaftsentwicklung, 17–19; Raffaele Licinio, “I Teutonici in terra di Bari: aspetti di storia economica,” in L’Ordine Teutonico tra Mediterraneo e Baltico. Incontri e scontri tra religioni, popoli e culture, ed. Hubert Houben and Kristjan Toomaspoeg, Acta Teutonica 5 (Galatina, 2008), 71–3; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “L’economia dei Teutonici in Italia,” in San Leonardo di Siponto. Cella monastica, canonica, domus Theutonicorum, ed. Hubert



11 12


14 15 16


18 19 20

21 22


Roman Czaja Houben, Acta Theutonica 6 (Galatina, 2006); Hubert Houben, “Die Wirtschaftsführung der Niederlassungen des Deutschen Ordens in Süditalien und auf Sizilien,” in Die Ritterorden in der europäischen Wirtschaft, 94. Renken, Der Handel, 20–2; Sarnowsky, Die Wirtschaftsführung, 92, 106; Klaus van Eickels, “Wein, Zölle, Kredite: Wirtschaftliche Struktur, Verwaltungsaufgaben und Funktion der Deutschordensballei Koblenz für den Hochmeister,” in Die Ritterorden in der europäischen Wirtschaft, 136–8. Sattler, “Der Handel,” 261–3; Udo Arnold, “Die Hanse und Preussen,”Die Hanse und der Deutsche Osten, ed. Norbert Angermann (Lüneburg, 1990), 85; Sarnowsky, Die Wirtschaftsführung, 286. Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. 1, part 2, ed. August Seraphim (Königsberg, 1909), no. 710, p. 443; Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. 2, ed. Max Hein and Erich Maschke (Königsberg, 1932–1939), nos. 566, 883, pp. 370, 596; Kurt Forstreuter, “Die ältesten Handelsrechnungen des Deutschen Ordens in Preussen,” Hansische Geschichtsblätter 74 (1956), 21–7. Die Handelsrechnungen des Deutschen Ordens, ed. Carl Sattler (Leipzig, 1887), XI– XVIII, XXV; Walter Böhnke, “Der Binnenhandel des Deutschen Ordens in Preuβen und seine Beziehungen zum Auβenhandel um 1400,” Hansische Geschichtsblätter 80 (1962), 26–95. Schuldbücher, 1: 328–37; 3: 59, 100. ”Doch hörte diese Verbindung etwa mit dem Jahre 1400 wohl in Folge der politischen Stellung Polens und Litauens zu dem Ordenstaat auf.” Sattler, Die Handelsrechnungen des Deutschen Ordens, XXXIII. Dygo, “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit des Deutschen Ordens in Preuβen im 14.-15. Jahrhundert,” 155; Roman Czaja, “Der preußische Handel um die Wende zum 15. Jahrhundert – zwischen Krise und Expansion,” in Städtische Wirtschaft im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Franz Irsigler zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Rudolf Holbach and Martin Pauly (Cologne-WeimarVienna, 2011), 93–108; Ivar Leimus, “Die spätmittelalterliche groβe Wirtschaftskrise in Europa – war auch Livland davon betroffen?,” Zeitschrift zur Baltischen Geschichte 1 (2006), 56–67. Roman Czaja, “Handelsbeziehungen der Großschäffer des Deutschen Ordens zu den preußischen Städten am Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in “kopet uns werk by tyden” Walter Stark zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Nils Jörn, Detlef Kattinger, and Horst Wernicke (Schwerin, 1999), 207–8. Czaja, “Handelsbeziehungen,” 204–5; Sarnowsky, Die Wirtschaftsführung, 289. Roman Czaja, “Znaczenie gospodarcze Grudziądza w średniowieczu [The Economic Significance of Graudenz in the Middle Ages],” Rocznik Grudziądzki 24 (2016), 65–76. Jürgen Sarnowsky, “Die Elbinger Kaufleute und der Deutschordenshandel um 1400,” in Preußische Landesgeschichte. Festschrift für Bernhart Jähnig zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Udo Arnold, Mario Glauert, and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Marburg, 2001), 328–9; Roman Czaja, “Kontakty handlowe Elbląga z Zakonem Krzyżackim na początku XV w. [The Trade Contacts of Elbing with the Teutonic Order at the beginning of the 15th c.],” in 750 lat praw miejskich Elbląga [750 Years of Municipal Rights of Elblag], ed. Andrzej Groth (Elblag, 1996), 68–77. Schuldbücher, vol. 1, nos. 45, 477, 449, 458, 478, 479, 527, 613, 734, 1523, 1154, 1568, 1781, 2312; 2: 267, 337, 382, 415. Roman Czaja, “Das Verhältnis der führenden Schichten der preuβischen Groβstädte zur Landesherrschaft in vergleichender Sicht im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert,” in Der Deutsche Orden in der Zeit der Kalmarer Union 1397–1521, ed. Zenon Hubert Nowak, Ordines Militares 10 (Toruń, 1999), 80; Karl Graske, “Der Hochmeister Heinirch von Plauen im Konflikt mit den Städten des Ordenslandes Preussen,” Zeitschrift des Westpreuβischen Geschichtsvereins 35 (1986), 10–12. Joachim Zdrenka, Główne, Stare i Młode Miasto Gdańsk i ich patrycjat w latach 1342–1525 [Old, Main and Young Town of Danzig and Their Patriciate in the Years 1342–1525] (Toruń, 1992), 162–6; Czaja, Miasta pruskie, 147–8.

The Teutonic Order in Prussia


24 Paul Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig, vol. 1 (Danzig, 1913), 130; Erich Maschke, “Schäffer und Lieger des Deutschen Ordens in Preuβen,” in Erich Maschke, Domus Hospitalis Theutonicorum. Europäische Verbindungslinien der Deutschordensgeschichte, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 10 (Bonn–Bad Godesberg, 1970), 98, 101. 25 Dieter Heckmann, “Zwischen Tannenberg und Thorn: Krisenbewältigung des Rates der Altstadt Elbing i. J. 1410,” Ordines Militares: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 18 (2013), 57–9; Markian Pelech, “Die hochmeisterliche Räte vom 1412: Ihre Tätigkeit und Bedeutung. Ein Beitrag zur Personengeschichte des Deutschordenslandes Preussen,” Altpreußische Geschlechterkunde 13 (1982), 81–2. 26 Czaja, Miasta pruskie, 139–41. 27 Schuldbücher, 2: 361–4, 367, 388, 395, 398; 3: 151 no. 593. 28 Schuldbücher, 1: nos. 1871–1876, 1892–1902, 1904–1906, 1919; 2: 178–80, 330, 410. 29 Schuldbücher, 1: nos. 1673–1676, 1743, 1745, 1747, 1751, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1944–1971. 30 Schuldbücher, 2: 520, 521, 526, 531; Hartmut Boockmann, “Die Rechtsstudenten des Deutschen Ordens,” in Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel (Göttingen, 1972), 2: 347; Sławomir Jóźwiak, “Dzieje miasta i okolic w średniowieczu [The History of the Town and of the Vicinity in the Middle Ages],” in Historia Nidzicy i okolic [The History of Nidzica and its Vicinity], ed. Waldemar Rezmer (Nidzica, 2012), 45–50. 31 Schuldbücher, 1: nos. 2072–2080; Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, Zakon Niemiecki jako “corporatio militaris” [The Teutonic Order as “corporatio militaris”] (Toruń, 2012), 431. 32 Schuldbücher, 1: nos. 30, 51, 187, 204, 227, 236, 237, 275, 336, 424, 747, 1473, 2222; 2: 42, 94, 96, 114, 212; Krzysztof Kopiński, “Mieszczanin Dawid Rosenfeld w dyplomatycznej i gospodarczej służbie zakonu krzyżackiego w Prusach w pierwszej połowie XV wieku [Townsman David Rosenfeld in the Diplomatic and Economic Service of the Teutonic Order in Prussia in the first Half of the 15. c.],” Zapiski Historyczne 66: 2/3 (2001), 39–56. 33 Czaja, Miasta pruskie, 188–90; Sarnowsky, “Die ständische Kritik,” 408.


Written communication in the later middle ages – the letter registers of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia Jürgen Sarnowsky

Medieval means of communication were limited.1 Oral exchange was the most important form and therefore assemblies, meetings, and delegations offered the best opportunities for intensive discussions. Even most letters would have been complemented by oral messages. Nevertheless, letters were the only means of communication at a distance, and consequently the art of letter-writing was highly esteemed and cultivated, with the ars dictandi or ars dictaminis becoming a discipline in its own right.2 Thus, letters are important sources for the study of medieval history, not only insofar as they offer insights into oral communication which is otherwise lost, but also because they attest to various forms of diplomatic, economic and social exchange.3 There was always a chance, albeit a small one, that individual letters might be preserved, either separately or even as part of a collection.4 They were read, taken into account for necessary actions, answered, put away somewhere, and then most likely forgotten and lost. This holds true not only for most private letters, of which only a few examples or collections have been preserved,5 but also for the letters of rulers and other authorities kept in archives. Both incoming and outgoing letters have survived in letter registers rather than as originals, yet registers of incoming letters are quite rare. The Papal archives and those of the Kings of England and France held registers of outgoing correspondence from the early thirteenth century onwards, but other archives followed only slowly. One later example is to be found in the letter registers of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia, preserved among the Ordensfolianten of the Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin,6 starting from 1389 and continuing with many gaps well into the sixteenth century. With some exceptions, they contain the outgoing correspondence of the Grand Masters (or their lieutenants during vacancies). Incoming letters as well as the correspondence of other officials were kept separately, but not many such documents survive. Nevertheless, it is quite often possible to reconstruct exchanges between the Teutonic Knights and their correspondents, since letters regularly mention earlier missives from the recipients. In 2008, a project to calendar these registers was started, and two volumes of calendars have been published.7 The following considerations, based on the results of this project, will focus on the reign of Grand Master Heinrich von Plauen (1410–13).8

Written communication in later middle ages 77 Heinrich von Plauen’s time in office was overshadowed by the consequences of the Order’s defeat at the battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald in July 1410. His successful defense of Marienburg Castle against the siege by King Władysław Jagiełło of Poland led to his election as Grand Master in November 1410. He concluded the (First) Peace of Thorn between the Order and the Polish-Lithuanian alliance in February 1411, but further intensive diplomatic activities were required since both sides had problems with the Treaty’s provisions: the Order had difficulties paying the indemnities of 100,000 schocks of groschen,9 and the Polish king and his allies did not obtain the territorial gains they had hoped for. Even the results of the arbitration conducted by the Hungarian and Roman King Sigismund at Buda in August 1412 did not ease the situation. Several open points, including the exact demarcation of the border between Lithuania and Prussia, complicated things further. Finally, in October 1413, when war seemed inevitable, Heinrich von Plauen was deposed by the Order’s grand officials (Grossgebietiger) led by the Marshal Michael Küchmeister, who was to be elected Grand Master in January 1414.10 Though the first letters of the grand officials stressed the desire for peace and proposed personal negotiations between King Władysław, Duke Vytautas of Lithuania and the new Grand Master after his election, the situation did not improve, and a new round of hostilities started with a Polish-Lithuanian attack on Prussia in the summer of 1414. These events are reflected in the letters of which a selection will be analyzed in this paper, with an emphasis on five key themes.11

The interrelationship between oral and written communication Most of the letters are closely related to oral communication. A typical example is a letter of Heinrich von Plauen to an unspecified king, written probably in 1411.12 The Grand Master confirmed the receipt of the king’s letter, delivered by his messenger Gadfryd. Having provided information on the Order’s conflict with Poland and requested protection, Plauen announced that he would soon send his own envoy to the king. Announcing an upcoming dispatch of messengers was quite common. Thus, the Grand Master wrote letters announcing the forthcoming departure of envoys to King Henry IV of England in August 1411 and to King Charles VI of France and Duke John of Burgundy in September 1412, to report on the situation in Prussia.13 In October 1412, Plauen reported that he was delaying his messenger to Henry IV because he wished to wait for the return of his own embassy to King Sigismund, then already on its way back to Prussia.14 The letters were quite often only one link in a chain of messages and oral exchanges. In November 1412, the Grand Master wrote a letter to the officials of the Teutonic Order in the Empire, in which he first mentioned the mission of Georg Eglinger, Vice-Commander of Thorn, to inform them on the situation in Prussia. He then referred to the arbitration award by King Sigismund and announced the mission of Wilhelm von Eppingen, Commander of Schönsee, asking that he should be accorded a benevolent reception.15


Jürgen Sarnowsky

The messengers and bearers of letters were quite often members of the Order or persons related to it. Thus, one of the main trading officials, the Grossschäffer of Königsberg, Gerhard Voisan, who had become a member of the Order only shortly before,16 traveled to the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy in 1412,17 and in 1413, the Archbishop of Prague asked him to send a canon of the Cathedral of Marienwerder, Nicclos Bergaw, a priest-brother of the Order.18 But letters were also conveyed by officials or messengers from the rival side. In December 1412, the Grand Master informed King Władysław through the royal Vice-Chancellor, Donyn, that he would pay the remaining indemnities in accordance with the Peace of Thorn.19 In February 1413, the Grand Master answered the bishop of Würzburg through the bishop’s servant Conrad who had conveyed the original letter,20 and about the same time replied to the Counts of Hoya, Delmenhorst, and Oldenburg through Heinrich von Herlinkhusen, probably one of their knights.21 Sometimes the original message had only been communicated orally as in the negotiations with Duke Kasimir V of Pomerania-Stettin, conducted by his counselor Dythlef of Sweryn.22 When the Grand Master sent out personal messengers, explicit stress was often laid on their reliability. Thus, in March 1413, Plauen chose the Bailiff of Brathean, Albrecht von der Duba, and members of the Hungarian Court for a mission to King Sigismund. In the accompanying letter, he asked for them to be accorded a kind reception, adding that the king should “believe them as if I were speaking myself”.23

References to previous letters and other documents As mentioned, the letters often start with references to earlier ones, spelling out their date and contents. In May 1412, Heinrich von Plauen wrote to Bishop Janusz Kropidło of Włoczławek, answering his letter of 29 April 1412 about the negotiations of the Order’s Marshal Michael Küchmeister with King Sigismund, and explaining the delay in replying to his request for a personal meeting with the Grand Master. Plauen answered that he had already sent the Commander of Thorn to him, who had had to excuse the Grand Master because he was too far away for a meeting, and that he could meet the bishop at Marienburg on 8 May 1412. He also sent him a safe conduct to allow him to do so.24 From time to time, the sender also mentioned his own earlier letters. In November 1412, the chancery of the Order in Prussia sent two letters to Lübeck in which the Grand Master asked for assistance with regard to two knight-brothers, Johann von Daman and Witzleven, who were fugitives from Prussia and had been granted safe conducts by the city.25 Referring to one or two earlier letters, he demanded the revocation of the safe conducts out of respect for the Order. In another case, in January 1413, the Grand Master enclosed a copy of another letter of his in order to let the recipient, the Administrator of the Diocese of Kammin, Conrad Bonaw, know what he had written to the Roman Curia on his behalf.26 Other documents mentioned in the letters are a register of the Neumark, the eastern part of Brandenburg held as a pledge by the Order,27 or are missives from earlier Grand Masters.28 Thus, the texts are quite often closely related.

Written communication in later middle ages 79

Forms of address The salutations are important parts of the letters and follow certain patterns.29 A typical address to a king is found in a letter of March 1413 to King Władysław of Poland, announcing Plauen’s personal messenger, Paul von Wisseyn. The letter starts with the salutation: “Most Serene Prince, Mighty King and Dear Gracious Lord, first of all my humble submission and willing service at your royal convenience”.30 The text then continues with a direct address to the “Mighty and Dear Gracious Lord”, before going on to present the substance of the letter. The appeal for a kind reception of the messenger is combined with many thanks and the offer of a reward to “Your Royal Majesty” for a positive response.31 The salutation of a letter to a possible ally of the Order, King Wenceslas IV of Bohemia, starts with the formula: “Most Serene Prince, Mighty King and Dear Gracious Lord, first of all my devout prayers with most sincere submission of my Order to Your Royal Grace”.32 Similar formulas begin letters to other rulers such as the Dukes of Silesia-Oppeln, even when losses sustained by Prussian merchants are to be discussed,33 or to Burgrave Friedrich of Nuremberg.34 A tone of familiarity marks letters written to Plauen’s relatives. In June 1413, another Lord of Plauen is addressed as “Noble Lord and especially dear Cousin” in a letter concerning the recruitment of mercenaries.35 Equally friendly are the rare letters to the Order’s subjects.36 About the same time Plauen also wrote to the knights, esquires, towns and all subjects of the Neumark, in a letter to be transmitted by the new bailiff. They are addressed as “Dear Faithful Servants”, with “friendly greetings [and with the wish for] the increase of all good things”. The Grand Master reminds his subjects of “the loyalty and love which you owe to us and our Order”, and with which they would earn his special gratitude.37 The tone changes when letters are addressed to officials or subjects of the opponents. A letter written to one of the neighboring Polish captains who had many conflicts with the Order might start without any formality: “Lord Hans, we have well received your letter which you have sent to our loyal citizens in the town of Thorn;”38 this letter was sent to Janusz Brzozogłowy, Captain at Bydgoszcz, in August 1413. Likewise, a letter from June 1413 to the Pomeranian towns of Stolp, Schlawe and Rügenwalde, which had guaranteed a loan granted to their duke, opens as simply as: “You Mayors and Town Councilors [. . .]”.39 Nevertheless, a letter of the same day to all subjects of Duke Bogislaw VIII of Pomerania-Stolp that deals with restoring peace between the two territories begins by offering “friendly greetings with all convenience, special dear friends [. . .]”.40 A letter from the Commander of Thorn to high ranking Polish officials, the Voivodes Jakub of Koniecpole, Mateusz of Labeschau and another voivod called Syvod and the Polish Marshal Zbigniew, which explains the failure of negotiations held shortly before at Inowroczław, is equally friendly: “Our friendly greetings, to begin with, Noble [and] Dearest Lords [. . .]”.41 Interestingly, as a diplomatic strategy, this letter, though drawn up in the Order’s chancery in Marienburg, is not presented as a missive from the Grand Master to the Polish king, but as one from the official present at the negotiations to the Polish representatives.


Jürgen Sarnowsky

Quest for peace as a diplomatic strategy The most common argument advanced in the letters in support of the Order’s diplomatic objectives is the love of or the quest for peace, following the well-known peace ontology of Saint Augustine, who depicted the commitment to peace as a part of natural law.42 In a short letter of January 1413 to Benedict of Macra, who had been commissioned as a mediator by King Sigismund, the Grand Master excused himself for not being able to participate personally in the negotiations, and then added: “Thus, the only thing we want from them [the opponents] is peace and harmony and that our borders should be preserved”.43 In general, upholding the Peace of Thorn became an important political objective. In November 1412, writing to the bishops of Livonia, Plauen tried to explain his consent to the payment of the indemnities to Poland-Lithuania, with the ensuing burden on the Order’s subjects, by his wish to uphold the Peace: Nevertheless, we have accepted, on the advice and at the wish of our whole country, to readily pay the above mentioned sum of money [. . .]. In this, the only thing we wish and seek is peace and grace and flourishing prosperity, not only for our Order and our subjects in this country, but also for those in Livonia and your subjects. Because it is clear that failure to pay these sums of money on time would undoubtedly result in the loss of both this land and Livonia.44 A similar argument could readily be employed against opponents. In March 1413, a Polish captain was admonished to return goods seized on the highway. He was reminded about the Peace of Thorn, and the Grand Master expressed the hope that the Peace would be observed.45 Similar appeals were addressed to other princes. On the same day, Plauen turned to Duke Bernhard of Silesia-Oppeln to ask for the return of goods stolen from the citizens of Thorn and exhorted him to “take it to heart that between you and us we only know of peace, love and friendship”.46 Here, as elsewhere, the love of peace was also employed as an element of propaganda. During conflicts, both sides turned to a wider European public to highlight their own peaceful intentions. For example, in August 1412, during the negotiations in Hungary, King Władysław wrote an open letter to all ecclesiastical and secular rulers, dukes, margraves, counts, lords, towns and other authorities, which was also, being of special interest, inserted into the registers of the Order. In it, the Polish king upbraids the Order for not paying the agreed sums, himself maintaining that it could in fact do so, while at the same time preparing for war. He stresses his own love for peace and declares that he will only go to war if he is forced to do so.47 The maintenance of peace is also the main theme of the letters which the grand officials of the Order sent out after the deposition of Heinrich von Plauen. The first letter copied into the register, dated 10 October 1413, is directed to the Polish king. The grand officials expressed in it their expectation that the king would already have been informed,

Written communication in later middle ages 81 that we have acted completely seriously, diligently, and with great care and that we have faithfully intended that the peace agreed between your Royal Grace, your kingdom, lands and supporters on the one side, and us and our Order and the Order’s lands etc. on the other side, should remain unchanged and be kept in the sweetness of peace and the harmony of love”.48 They stressed that the actions of the deposed Grand Master were contrary to their wishes and the wishes of the people of Prussia. They had often implored him to keep the peace with the king, but he had remained obdurate, and had therefore been deposed. In consequence, they asked the king to accept the deposition of the old Grand Master as a way of making amends for what had happened, and offered to start negotiations as soon as possible, once a new Grand Master had been elected. A letter with the same wording was sent to Duke Bogislaw VIII of Pomerania-Stolp,49 and soon afterwards other European rulers were also informed about the developments in letters invoking the Peace of Thorn.50

Other rhetorical and diplomatic strategies A number of other rhetorical strategies were repeatedly employed, especially in letters to the Order’s traditional supporters in Germany and western Europe. The Grand Masters very often pointed out to the recipients of letters that their ancestors long ago had supported or even fought for the Order and that by their blood they had contributed to the Christianization of Prussia. Thus, a loss of Prussia would make their sacrifice futile. For example, when Plauen wrote to the Dukes Heinrich, Ludwig, and Ernst, Counts Palatinate of the Rhine, in April 1413, he reminded them of their ancestors’ support, especially “when the Empire was governed by them”.51 In a general letter to all princes, counts, lords etc., Plauen, after a long description of the situation in Prussia, implores the princes to realize “that the Order does not belong to us but to all, and [that] until now a peaceful shield for the whole of Christendom has been in this place [Prussia], with and through the aid and advice of your older ancestors and much bloodshed”.52 Therefore, they should support the Order, and the Order would resume its tradition of the Table of Honor (Ehrentisch) at which successful participants in the crusades against the Lithuanians had been received.53 This illustrates the perception of the Teutonic Order as the defender of the eastern frontiers of Christendom. Thus, in a letter to the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy in April 1413, Plauen pointed out that the difficult situation for the Order in Prussia might lead to immense dangers for Christianity, because Poland would form an alliance with the Lithuanians, Russians, Mongols, and Pagans; he also reminds them of the French achievements in the past, especially those of Charlemagne in his battles against the heathen.54 A similar argument is used in a letter to King Wenceslas of Bohemia in May 1413. The Grand Master referred to the Livonian Master, who had reported that Duke Vytautas was concluding alliances with Pskov, Novgorod, and “the whole Russian tongue”, while pretending that he was merely preparing for war in Belarus.55 This would pose a threat not only to all his neighbors but to all Christendom.


Jürgen Sarnowsky

Other diplomatic strategies included an appeal to justice and the offer of diplomatic gifts. In March 1413, Plauen wrote to Dukes Johann of Münsterberg and Heinrich of Sagan with regard to Johann’s demands for compensation for expenditures during the war against Poland and Lithuania. Addressing Heinrich as “our dear generous lord and uncle”, he asked him to take the situation of the Order to heart “according to God and justice” and to prevail upon Johann to show compassion and abstain from troubling the Order any further.56 A similar appeal appears in a letter to the Archbishop of Gniezno and to all the bishops, the Marshal, and the nobility of Poland, also dating from March 1413, which concerns the restoration of the goods of Prussian subjects seized in Masovia.57 Intended for the improvement of diplomatic relations, grants or gifts also formed a part of epistolary communication. For a long time, these grants included hunting privileges in the extensive Prussian forests. During the negotiations on the Prussian-Lithuanian borders after the arbitration award of Buda in 1412, Plauen granted hunting rights in the Order’s territories to King Władysław and Duke Vytautas, albeit under the condition that they should participate in the hunt in person.58 Other letters were accompanied by gifts, such as paternosters, drinking vessels, or falcons,59 even though request for falcons could also be rejected.60 To sum up, late medieval letters like those of the Teutonic Order as the territorial overlord in Prussia were multifunctional. They were a means of exchange, of transmitting information, and of promoting propaganda, in a network of political, diplomatic, and personal relationships. They were products of a chancery following established models and using stylistic tools intended to achieve the political goals of the sender. In a period of conflict, this meant that they contributed to furthering negotiations and preserving peace, but could also serve to prepare for war by gaining allies or mobilizing mercenaries. Even if the precise wording depended on the scribe or notary, these goals were pursued by more general elements of rhetorical figures and topoi, such as different formulaic salutations, or by an emphasis on the desire for peace-or the Order’s role as a defender of Christianity. An awareness of the interplay between written and oral communication might lead to change in the way letters are approached in the auxiliary sciences of history. Traditionally, letters have been analyzed as stand-alone documents, contextualized merely by the known information on the sender. This may be more or less sufficient for private letters, but official letters cannot be separated from previous and subsequent correspondence, and they are related to various forms of oral communication. They should rather be interpreted as records which can only be understood properly in the light of background information on the whole communication process, especially on diplomatic procedures and strategies. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of a letter register in its entirety can contribute significantly to the interpretation of a single missive.

Notes 1 See the survey by Sophia Menache, The Vox Dei: Communication in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1990); an overview of the research is to be found in Marco Mostert,

Written communication in later middle ages 83



4 5 6



9 10 11

A Bibliography of Works on Medieval Communication, Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy, 2 (Turnhout, 2012). – I would like to express my gratitude to Anthony MellorStapelberg for his diligent and careful revision of the text. See e.g. Martin Camargo, Ars dictaminis ars dictandi, Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental, 60 (Turnhout, 1999); Florian Hartmann, Ars dictaminis. Briefsteller und verbale Kommunikation in den italienischen Stadtkommunen des 11. bis 13. Jahrhunderts (Ostfildern, 2013). For some recent examples see Medieval Letters: Between Fiction and Document, ed. Christian Høgel and Elisabetta Bartoli (Turnhout, 2015); Briefe aus dem Spätmittelalter. Herrschaftliche Korrespondenz im deutschen Südwesten, ed. Peter Rückert (Stuttgart, 2015); Christopher David Fletcher, “Understand, delight, and obey”. Religious thought and the letter form, c.1030-c.1200 (Chicago, 2015); Kuriale Briefkultur im späteren Mittelalter. Gestaltung – Überlieferung – Rezeption, ed. Tanja Broser, Andreas Fischer, and Matthias Thumser (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 2015). For a survey see Giles Constable, Letters and Letter-Collections, Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental, 17 (Turnhout, 1976). The quite rare exceptions include letters of some noble families in England (like the Pastons, Stonors, and Plumptons), of one Hanseatic merchant, Hildebrand Veckinchusen, and of the Italian merchant Francesco di Marco Datini. Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, XX. Hauptabteilung (Historisches Staatsarchiv Königsberg), Ordensfolianten [henceforth: OF] 2a, 2aa, 2c, 3, 5–6, 8–11, 13ff., mixed with different materials from negotiations and diplomatic exchanges. Some of these, namely OF 5, 8–11, were lost during World War II and have to be reconstructed from other sources. Regesten zu den Briefregistern des Deutschen Ordens [I]: die Ordensfolianten 2a, 2aa und Zusatzmaterial, ed. Sebastian Kubon and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Beihefte zum Preussischen Urkundenbuch, 1 (Göttingen, 2012); Regesten zu den Briefregistern des Deutschen Ordens II: die Ordensfolianten 8, 9 und Zusatzmaterial, ed. Sebastian Kubon, Annika SouhrKönighaus, and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Beihefte zum Preussischen Urkundenbuch, 2 (Göttingen, 2014), hereafter cited as RBDO I-II. Further calendars from OF 5 and 6 (to become RBDO III) can be found online at Virtuelles Preussisches Urkundenbuch, URL: www. (last accessed on 13 February 2017). For him see e.g. Markian Pelech, The Question of Representation under the Grand Master Heinrich von Plauen (PhD dissertation, Fordham University, New York, 1980); Markian Pelech, “Heinrich von Plauen 1410–1413,” in Die Hochmeister des Deutschen Ordens 1190–2012, ed. Udo Arnold, Veröffentlichungen der Internationalen Historischen Kommission zur Erforschung des Deutschen Ordens, 6 = Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 40 (Weimar, 2014), 118–21. – Concerning the letters, some relevant materials from OF 8 and 9 have already been calendared in RBDO II; OF 5 (for 1410–1414) has been completely calendared by Markian Pelech, “Der verlorene Ordensfoliant 5 (früher Hochmeister-Registrant II) des Historischen Staatsarchivs Königsberg, mit Regesten (nach Rudolf Philippi und Erich Joachim),” in Beiträge zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 1, ed. Udo Arnold, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 36 (Marburg, 1986), 123–80; and OF 6 (for 1411–1414) is calendared in the Virtuelles Preussisches Urkundenbuch, URL: Urkundenbuch (last accessed on 13 February 2017). The Bohemian groschen were counted in units of 60, called schock; cf. Peter Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange, Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 13 (London, 1986), 273. Wilhelm Nöbel, Michael Küchmeister, Hochmeister des Deutschen Ordens 1414–1422, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 5 (Bad Godesberg, 1969); Bernhart Jähnig, “Michael Küchmeister 1414–1422,” in Die Hochmeister, 122–5. There have already been some studies on communication by letter in Prussia, e.g., Annika Souhr, “Relacje zakonu krzyżackiego z Toruniem w czasie wypraw gotlandszkich na


12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27

28 29

Jürgen Sarnowsky przelomie XIV/XV wieku,” Rocznik Toruński 36 (2009), 7–38; Annika Souhr, “‘Von jeher fredeschilt der Christenheit’. Rückgriffe auf die eigenen Ursprünge im auswärtigen Schriftverkehr des Deutschen Ordens in Krisenzeiten,” in La mémoire des origines dans les ordres religieux-militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Philippe Josserand and Mathieu Olivier (Berlin, 2012), 237–68; Roman Czaja, “Die preussischen Städte und ihr Hinterland. Ein Beitrag zu Wegen und Methoden der Kommunikation im Ordensland in der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Mobilität und regionale Vernetzung zwischen Oder und Memel, ed. Olga Kurilo (Berlin, 2011), 85–93. Pelech, “Ordensfoliant,” nos. 66, 156; based on Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, XX. Hauptabteilung, Ordensfoliant [hereafter: OF] 5, 53–5 [the register was lost during World War II]. Pelech, “Ordensfoliant,” nos. 48, 103, 150, 167, dated 10 August 1411 and 29 September 1412; OF 5, 63, 188. Pelech, “Ordensfoliant,” nos. 107, 168; OF 5, 187–8. Letter dated 27 November 1412, OF 6, 79–80, calendared in PrUB1412.11.27.a, online (at Virtuelles Preussisches Urkundenbuch): Urkundenbuch/pub/orden1412.html (accessed on 13 February 2017). See Erich Maschke, “ Die Schäffer und Lieger des Deutschen Ordens in Preussen,” repr. in Erich Maschke, Domus Hospitalis Theutonicorum. Europäische Verbindungslinien der Deutschordensgeschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1931–1963, ed. Klemens Wieser and Udo Arnold, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 10 (Bonn-Godesberg, 1970), 69–103, at 78–9. As n. 12. In a letter dated 18 January 1413, OF 6, 157–8, see PrUB1413.01.18, online (at Virtuelles Preussisches Urkundenbuch): pub/orden1413.html (accessed on 13 February 2017). Mentioned in a letter to an unknown recipient dated 29 December 1412, OF 6, 148, calendared in PrUB1412.12.29, as n. 15. Letter to be dated February 1413, OF 6, 182, see PrUB1413.02.00.a, as n. 18. Letter of 4 February 1413, OF 6, 173–4, calendared as PrUB1413.02.04, as n. 18. – Heinrich von Herlinkhusen is not mentioned in any other documents of the Order, nor, as far as I can see, in the edited collections for Oldenburg and Hoya. See the letter of the Grand Master dated 14 March 1412, Pelech, “Ordensfoliant,” nos. 74, 158–9, referring to OF 5, 153. Dated 29 March 1413, OF 6, 214, see PrUB1413.03.29.c, as n. 18: [. . .] Demuticlichen bittende, das ir, gnediger here, sie gutlichen ufnemen, gnediclichen vorhoren und in czu deszem als mir selben gelowben und mit behaldenem willen trostlichen von euch wellet wysen [. . .]. A similar formula is to be found in the following letter of 30 March 1413, OF 6, 215, see PrUB, SK 3 / PrUB1413.03.30 (calendar with full text), as n. 18. Dated 1 May 1412, Pelech, “Ordensfoliant,” nos. 87, 162, referring to OF 5, 165b-166. Both from the same day, 15 November 1412, OF 6, 45–6, calendared as PrUB1412.11.15.a and PrUB1412.11.15.b, as n. 15. – The document mentions no first name for the second brother. Letter dated 6 January 1413, OF 6, 161–2, cf. PrUB1413.01.06.b, as n. 18. Discussed in letters to Burgrave Friedrich VI of Nuremberg as Administrator of Brandenburg and to his Chancellor Johannes Waldow, Provost in Berlin, claiming an urgent need for the register, dated 6 January 1413, in OF 6, 158–61, calendared as PrUB, JS 72–73 / PrUB1413.01.06 and PrUB1413.01.06.a, as n. 18. In a letter dated 28 January 1413 to the Voivode of Transylvania, Stibor, with the insertion of a copy of a letter of Grand Master Konrad von Jungingen, OF 6, 169–70, calendared as PrUB1413.01.28, as n. 18. For the Teutonic Order see Dieter Heckmann, “Vom eraftigen zum erwirdigen. Die Selbstdarstellung des Deutschen Ordens im Spiegel der Anreden und Titulaturen (13.16. Jahrhundert),” in Selbstbild und Selbstverständnis der geistlichen Ritterorden, ed.

Written communication in later middle ages 85


31 32


34 35 36


38 39 40

41 42 43 44

Roman Czaja, Jürgen Sarnowsky, and Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia Historica, XIII (Toruń, 2005), 219–25. Letter dated 30 March 1413, OF 6, 215, calendar and full text in PrUB, SK 3 / PrUB1413. 03.28, as n. 18. The text starts: Allerdurchluchster forste, grosmechtiger konig und liber gnediger herre demutege befelunge und willigen dinst czu euwern koniglichen behegelicheit czuvor. Grosmechtiger liber gnediger herre, wir senden czu euwern koniglichen kegenwertikeit unsern liben getruwen dyner und howfgesinge Paueln von Wisseyn. [. . .] The Grand Master asks, desem selben bewyser eyn gnedige antwort czu empiten dor an euwir konigliche maiestat uns sundirliche behegelicheit irczeyget[e] und wellens mit unserm ganczen orden noch unserm besten vormogen vorschulden, Ibid. Dated 23 July 1413, OF 6, 314, calendar and full text in PrUB1413.07.23, as n. 18; starting with: Allirdurchluchtster furste, grosmechtiger koning, gnediger lieber herre, mein andachtigs gebete mit inniger befelunge gancz meynes ordens sey euwer[er] koniglichen gnaden voran geschr[ieben]. See e.g. the letters to Dukes Bolko and Bernhard of Silesia-Oppeln dated 28 March and 24 June 1413, OF 6, 208, 282, calendar (and full text) in PrUB1413.03.28 and PrUB1413. 06.24, as n. 18, in which Bernhard is addressed as hochgeborner forste, grosmechtiger, besunder lieber herre and called grosmechtekeit, hirlichkeit or irluchtekeit in the body of the letter. See for example the letter dated 13 August 1413, from OF 6, 322–3, calendared as PrUB1413.08.13, as n. 18. Letter of 15 June 1413, OF 6, 275, calendar and full text in PrUB1413.06.15, as n. 18. It starts with the address: Edler herre und besunder liber vettir, with instructions for the recruitment of troops with 30 horses. Regularly the Grand Masters would travel around in Prussia to visit their subjects, so that the letter to the subjects in the Neumark is an exception, see Klaus Neitmann, Der Hochmeister des Deutschen Ordens in Preussen. Ein Residenzherrscher unterwegs, Untersuchungen zu den Hochmeisteritineraren im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, Veröffentlichungen aus den Archiven Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 30 (Cologne, Vienna, 1990). Letter of 13 June 1413, OF 6, 270, starting with: [Wir] enpiten unsern liben getruwen, der manneschaft, rittern und knechten, steten und gemeynlich allen inwonern der Nuwen Marke unsern fruntlichen grus mit merunge alles gutes [. . .], reminding them of the obedience to the new bailiff by euwir truwe und libe, die ir uns und unserm orden siet verpflichtet [. . .], and with it they thut uns sunderlichen czu danke. Dated 16 August 1413, OF 6, 324, calendar and full text in PrUB1413.08.16, as n. 18: Her Hans euwern briff, den ir gesant habt unsern liben getruwen burgern unser stad Thorun, habe wir wol vornomen. Letter of 22 June 1413, OF 6, 281, in PrUB1413.06.22b, as n. 18: Ir burgermeistere and rathmanne [. . .]. Also dated 22 June 1413, from OF 6, 279–80, calendar and full text in PrUB1413.06.22.a, as n. 18: Entpiten wir [. . .] frundlichen grus mit allir behegelichkeit; besundern lieben frunde [. . .]. – This friendly form of address is used even though the letter contains complaints about the Pomeranian attack on the Neumark. Letter of 17 September 1417, OF 6, 344, calendar and full text in PrUB1413.09.17, as n. 18; starting: Unsern fruntlichen grus czuvor. Edlen besundern lieben hern [. . .]. Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Bernhard Dombart and Alfons Kalb, vol. 2, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina XLVIII = Opera XIV, 2 (Turnhout, 1955), especially Book 19, 12, 675–7. Dated 10 January 1410, OF 6, 153–4, calendared in PrUB1413.01.10, as n. 18, closing with the remark: So begerete wyr doch andirs nicht von in denne fride und eintrechtikeit und daz wir gelassen bi unsern grenitczen, and asking for Benedict’s support in this. Letter of 28 November 1412, OF 6, 93–5, calendared in PrUB1412.11.28.a, as n. 15. The sentence on p. 94 reads: Dennoch haben wir uns noch unsers ganczan landes rathe und wille doryn gegeben, das wir [. . .] die vorbenumpte summe geldes gerne


45 46



49 50 51 52

53 54 55


Jürgen Sarnowsky beczalen wellen. Dorynne wir getruwlich nicht anders begeren noch suchen denn frede und gnade und eyn creftig gedyen nicht alleyne unsers ordens und der unsern hier in deszen landen, sunder ouch der in Lyfflandt und der euwern, went is doch clar ist, wo semelichir summen geldes beczalunge uf die selbe tage nicht gefyle, das dese landt und Lyffland gedegen unczivelich czu eyme vorterben [. . .]. Letter to the Captain of Welin of 28 March 1413, OF 6, 207, calendared in PrUB1413. 03.28, as n. 18. Dated 28 March 1413, OF 6, 208–9, calendar and full text as PrUB, SK 8 / PrUB1413. 03.28.b, as n. 18. The letter ends: Nemet czu herczen liber herre, das wer anders nicht czwisschen euch und uns wissen denne frede, libe und fruntschaft, der wir uns ouch genczlichen czu euch vorseen hoffende unczwylichen, das ir anders nicht an uns noch an den unsern begeret noch suchet denne das sulch frede, gnade, libe und eyntracht czwisschen uns, unser beyder landen und undirsassen moge futen und generen und bitten des mit der wederkerunge desselben gut[is] uns czu scr[eben] ein gutin entwort. Two possibly identical letters in German translation dated 21 August 1412 were copied into the registers, into OF 6, 41–2, calendared as PrUB1413.08.21, as n. 18, and into OF 5, 41–42, see Pelech, “Ordensfoliant,” no. 99, 166. – The loss of OF 5 makes it impossible to compare the texts, but it is even more confusing that the page nos. are identical and that Johannes Voigt, Geschichte Preussens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens, vol. 7 (Königsberg, 1836), 178, n. 3, also refers to OF 6, not to OF 5. OF 6, 363–4, calendared in PrUB1413.10.10, as n. 18, starting without naming the senders: Euwer konicliche grosmechtikeyt hat, als wir hoffen, wol vornomen, das wir alle mit ganczem ernste und fleisse in grosser sorgfeldekeit haben gearbeytet und getruwlich dornoch gestanden, das der gemachte frede czwischen euwern koniclichen gnaden, euwerm reiche, landen und helffern von eynem, uns und unserm [orden] und des ordens landen etc. vom andern teyle in sussekeyt des fredes und eyntrachtekeyt der liebe unvorrucket blebe und wurde gehalden. Dated 11 October 1413, from OF 6, 365–6, calendar and full text in PrUB, SK 11 / PrUB1413.10.11, as n. 18. E.g. King Wenceslas of Bohemia, already on 10 October 1413, OF 6, 378–80, calendared in PrUB1413.10.10.a, as n. 18. Letter dated 6 April 1413, in OF 6, 219, calendared as 1413.04.06.b, as n. 18, reminding the princes of the time als das keysertum durch sie geregiret. Dated 3 July 1413, OF 6, 283–4, calendared in 1413.03.07.a., as n. 18, see Souhr, “Fredeschilt,” 252. The last part of the letter starts with the appeal: [. . .] Geruchen euwir grosmechtigen herlichkeit [. . .] anczuseen, das der orden nicht unsir, sundir euwir allir ist und mit und durch euwir eldirn vorfarn hulffe und rat bis her in vorgissung vil bluetis ein fredeschild der ganczen Cristenheit an disem orth ist gewesen [. . .]. See Werner Paravicini, Die Preussenreisen des europäischen Adels, vol. 1, Beihefte der Francia, 17, (Sigmaringen, 1989), 316–33. Dated 25 April 1413, in OF 6, 231–3, calendared as PrUB1413.04.25, as n. 18. Letter not clearly dated, probably May 1413, from OF 6, 245–6, calendared in PrUB1413.05.00.a, as n. 18; pointing out, wie sich herczog Witawt mit den Pleskouwern und den grossen Nougardern und der ganczen Russchen czungen voreyneget hat [. . .]. Two letters dated 29 March 1429, OF 6, 209–11 (to Heinrich) and 211–12 (to Johannes), calendar and full text in PrUB, SK 9–10 / PrUB1413.03.29 and PrUB1413.03.29.a, as n. 18; the appeal to Heinrich reads: Hir[um]me liber besundrer herre bitten wir euch als unsern liben gunstigen heren und omen, das ir noch gote und noch rechte eyn sulches czu herczen nemet und weget, denselben unsern herren fruntlichen undirwyset, das her uns nicht hoger bekommer umb semelicher schaden willen, der wir im nicht pflichtig sind, ansehnde den grossen schaden, den wir entfangen haben. Und bittet in, das her mitelydunge mit uns habe [. . .].

Written communication in later middle ages 87 57 Letter of 27 March 1413, OF 6, 205–6, calendared in PrUB1413.03.27, as n. 18. 58 In a letter to the Polish King dated 28 November 1412, OF 6, 86–7, calendared as PrUB1412.11.28, as n. 15. 59 For paternosters sent to Silesian authorities see the letters of 1 December 1412, OF 98–100, calendared in PrUB1412.12.01.a-b; a drinking vessel made of horn for King Wenceslas is mentioned in 6 June 1413, OF 6, 218, calendared in PrUB1413.04.06.a, as n. 18; for the falcons in general see Dieter Heckmann, “Preussische Jagdfalken als Gradmesser für die Außenwirkung europäischer Höfe des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts,” Preussenland 37 (1999), 39–62. 60 Letter to Jakub of Konieczpole, Voivode of Sieradz and Starost of Cujavia, dated 11 October 1412: Pelech, “Ordensfoliant,” nos. 110, 169, from OF 5, 189; see also the refusal of a demand for stallions by Duke Heinrich of Silesia-Brieg, 7 February 1413, OF 6, 176, calendared PrUB1413.02.07, as n. 18.

Part II

The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Latin East


Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant in the twelfth century David Jacoby

Pisa was deeply involved in the Levant in the period extending from the First Crusade to the fall of the Frankish states in 1291. Yet its presence evolved in a rather puzzling way in the twelfth century, especially when compared to those of Genoa and Venice. Despite its strong naval support for the Christian conquest of coastal cities in the Levant from 1099 to 1108, Pisa was granted almost no territorial, fiscal or judicial concessions in them until the 1150s.1 It acquired privileges and some assets in the following decades. Then, according to a French continuation of the chronicle of William of Tyre, at the time of the Third Crusade “the Pisans were more powerful than the Genoese in Syria, so that at that time one only spoke of the Pisans”. This assessment appears in a text compiled in the 1240s, based on an earlier one of the 1220s.2 In this short article, I shall limit myself to analyzing the major features of Pisa’s relations with the Frankish states and the various factors and processes that impacted upon them. I shall abstain from dealing in detail with the concessions Pisa obtained in the region, since they have been repeatedly examined.3 However, the paucity of extant twelfth-century Pisan documentation regarding the Eastern Mediterranean and its fragmentary nature present major obstacles to the reconstruction of the Pisan role in the twelfth-century Frankish Levant. Onomastics offer sparse indirect evidence regarding Pisan trade with Egypt before the First Crusade. Three members of the Pisan Casalei clan, a father and his two sons, bore the surname de Babilonia, the western appellation for Old Cairo, which suggests that they repeatedly sailed to Egypt. Hugo, son of Leo, is attested in 1074; his son Leo died in 1089; and the latter’s son Guido, Leo’s brother, is attested from around 1080 to 1103.4 They were presumably not the only Pisans trading in Egypt at that time. It is likely that some of these merchants brought the Egyptian ceramics of that period decorating buildings in Pisa, the so-called bacini. Trade with Egypt involved sailing across the Aegean and along the Levantine coast and yielded knowledge of these regions’ resources and business opportunities. However, it was only after the First Crusade that Pisa gradually extended its commercial operations and presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. The military and naval power acquired by Pisa over the eleventh century was an important factor in that respect, although not as crucial as commonly argued. The Pisan naval expedition in support of the crusader forces in 1099, like earlier eleventh-century expeditions against the Muslims in the Central and Western


David Jacoby

Mediterranean, was partly motivated by religious considerations, stimulated by the policy of various popes and by the city’s bishop Daimbert in the late 1090s. Yet economic interests and the pursuit of profit were the most powerful incentives, expressed in the glorification of the city and its military achievements.5 It is noteworthy that the Pisans did not hasten to send ships in support of the First Crusade. Their departure was delayed until the spring of 1099 and, instead of rushing to the Levant, the Pisan fleet, supposedly comprising 120 ships, engaged along the way in attacks on several Byzantine islands in the Aegean. It only arrived at destination n Jaffa five months after the conquest of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099.6 This naval expedition, as well as others in the Eastern Mediterranean until 1110 were neither financed nor conducted by the city’s government, contrary to those of Genoa and Venice in that period. They were in fact private piratical enterprises, similar to the Pisan naval expeditions carried out in the Western Mediterranean in the late eleventh century, as against al-Mahdiya in Tunis in 1087. This is illustrated by the attacks on Byzantine islands in 1099, and explains why the commanders of the Pisan fleets, who participated in the conquests of Acre in 1104, Tripoli and Gibelet in 1109, and Beirut in 1110, were content to divide the booty with other participants and did not request commercial or other privileges.7 After the early phase of Christian conquest in the Levant there were no more opportunities for Pisa to obtain privileges in return for naval support until the 1160s. For the conquest of Tyre, which occurred in 1124, Warmund, Patriarch of Jerusalem, preferred to enlist Venetian naval forces. The absence of Pisan naval involvement in the Frankish Levant after 1111 has been ascribed to the city’s new policy of expansion in the Western Mediterranean, with its major operations directed toward Corsica, Sardinia and the Balearic islands.8 Without dismissing these considerations, we must also take into account the Pisan priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean in that period, which have been largely overlooked so far. The slow pace at which Pisa obtained concessions in the Frankish states and their geographic distribution are largely related to these priorities. They contradict the assertion that the Pisan expedition under Daimbert paved the way for Pisa’s long-term presence in the Levant.9 In the three decades following the First Crusade, Genoa and Venice acquired ample commercial privileges and territorial concessions in some ports of the three Frankish states situated along the Mediterranean shore, namely the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Tripoli and the Principality of Antioch. In contrast, the achievements of Pisa were rather meagre. In 1108, Tancred, regent of the Principality of Antioch, granted Pisa the buildings along a street and tax exemption both in Antioch and Laodicea, following naval support in the capture of Laodicea from the Byzantines who had occupied the city in 1104.10 However, Pisa considered the Byzantine market far more important and obtained commercial and fiscal privileges in the Empire in 1111.11 These privileges account for Pisa’s support of the Byzantine political and territorial ambitions toward the Principality of Antioch, which resulted in the abrogation of the concessions obtained in 1108 before 1119, whether by Tancred or by his successor, the regent Roger of Salerno.12 The priority of the Byzantine market and its political implications excluded for several

Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant 93 decades any Pisan institutional presence in the Principality of Antioch. Significantly, the agreement with Byzantium was obtained in the same year Pisa’s military and naval involvement ceased in the Frankish Levant. Except for privileges in Tyre, to which I shall soon return, Pisa did not obtain any further concessions in the Frankish states in the first half of the twelfth century. Rather than a refusal of Frankish rulers to grant privileges and assets, it is Pisa’s trade with Egypt that provides an explanation for their absence. This trade rapidly expanded in the first half of the twelfth century. Pisan merchants sailing to Egypt around 1100 have already been mentioned. In Egypt, they competed with those of Amalfi, Genoa and Venice for a share of the market. The supply of timber and pitch for the Egyptian fleet, as well as iron, weapons and ships were the main commodities furthering western purchases of precious oriental goods in Egypt. Pisa had easier access than its competitors to forested areas and to iron mines. It was also fairly close to textile industries requiring alum, a mineral used for the fixing of colorants on fibres, in which importers were partly paid by the Egyptian authorities for their deliveries of war materials.13 By the mid-twelfth century Pisa had supplanted the other western maritime nations in trade with Egypt.14 The Muslim geographer alZuhri, who was writing about that time, referred to the large Pisan shipments of timber and to the manufacture of excellent swords in Pisa. He also stressed that most ships anchoring in Alexandria came from Pisa.15 Not surprisingly, Pisa was the first western nation to obtain a funduq or caravanserai in Alexandria before 1153 and another one in 1154 in Cairo, Egypt’s largest market.16 Venice appears to have been granted a funduq in Alexandria in 1172 and Genoa only around 1200.17 To be sure, Pisan ships sailing to or returning from Egypt called in Frankish ports, as implied by the occasional confiscation of iron, timber, arms and pitch intended for Egypt, carried out by the authorities of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as mentioned in 1156.18 However, Pisa’s continuous trade with Egypt in the first half of the twelfth century apparently did not require intermediate commercial stations for the transshipment of goods, urban quarters, or fiscal and commercial privileges to the same extent as for Genoa and Venice. Tyre was the only port in the Kingdom of Jerusalem in which Pisan merchants were attested in the first half of the twelfth century. Within the years 1124–29 Pisa obtained from Baldwin II fiscal exemptions in Tyre, yet only five houses in the vicinity of the harbour.19 These meagre assets suggest that the number of Pisan merchants visiting the city or settled there was small. The absence of a Pisan national church until the late 1160s confirms this assessment.20 The Pisan support for the Byzantine policy regarding the Principality of Antioch in 1136–37 induced the king of Jerusalem, Fulk of Anjou, to rescind Pisa’s privileges in Tyre in 1143 at the latest.21 Pisans nevertheless traded in the city in 1138, as revealed by the Vita of Ranieri, patron saint of Pisa.22 Their trading, thus, did not entirely depend on the possession of real estate or privileges by their mother-city. Pisa’s attitude regarding assets and privileges in the Frankish states changed after the 1150s. Growing Pisan interest in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was primarily generated by developments in Egypt. In 1153, Caliph al-Zafir imprisoned all Pisan merchants present in his country and abolished Pisa’s privileges, in reprisal


David Jacoby

for the murder of Muslim passengers by a Pisan pirate. In order to obtain the restoration of its privileges, Pisa promised in the following year to abstain from participation in Frankish military operations against Egypt and to pursue the delivery of timber, iron and pitch.23 However, in 1156, two years after that commitment, under pressure from King Baldwin III, Pisa agreed to interrupt the supply of war materials to Egypt, in return for privileges in the Kingdom of Jerusalem that will be examined below. It has been suggested that Pisa’s contradictory engagements reflected a conflict of interest between Pisan travelling merchants trading in Egypt and Pisan settlers in the Frankish states, disposed to support military operations against Egypt. Such a conflict is rather doubtful, since the members of both groups were involved in trade with Egypt, whether directly or as middlemen providing services to Pisan citizens and ships in transit in Frankish ports. In any event, it is clear that, despite their promise to Baldwin III, after 1156 the Pisans pursued the delivery of military material to Egypt, which was indispensable to the maintenance of their trade with that country. The short crisis of 1153–4 in Egyptian-Pisan relations illustrates how precarious Pisa’s position in Egypt was. Therefore, from a long-term perspective Pisa considered it necessary to establish more secure and permanent rear-guard bases in order to ensure the continuation of its trade with Egypt and offer business alternatives. In 1154, Pisa obtained some land in Laodicea, a house in Antioch and the renewal of its commercial privileges, yet only obtained half the exemption from the comerchium, the trade tax, which had been granted in 1108. Pisa was also granted jurisdiction in cases involving Pisans.24 In 1170–1 Pisa was granted a second piece of land in Laodicea and in 1178 was given a house adjacent to its property in Tripoli . In 1182, it further enlarged its property in this city by purchasing houses.25 Tyre was the principal Pisan base in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1156 Baldwin III confirmed the privileges granted to Pisa by Baldwin II and added some property, both in the city and in the countryside.26 The following year, the king’s brother Amalric awarded the Pisans some assets in Jaffa and restricted by half the taxes due for trade in the city, regardless of whether goods were brought by land or by sea.27 Pisan settlers may have been the major force inducing Pisa to consolidate its position in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. They were clearly aware of the profit to be gained from rural resources and from commercial exchanges with the Frankish and Muslim hinterland. Indeed, the charter of 1156 regarding Tyre mentions the grant of “bona terra” in the city’s fertile countryside, which grew sugar cane on a large scale.28 This property would have been leased out to Pisan citizens, in return for payments, as practiced by Venice in its rural possessions.29 The charter of 1157 regarding Jaffa refers to overland trade, as noted above. Pisan interest in this city may have also been prompted by an attempt to divert from Acre some of the pilgrim traffic dominated by Venice. Though devoid of a secure harbour, Jaffa enabled a shorter overland journey to Jerusalem, and occasionally pilgrims sailing on Pisan ships disembarked there, as documented in 1139 and 1154.30 However, Acre remained the main destination of ships carrying pilgrims.31

Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant 95 King Amalric’s expeditions into Egypt in 1163 and 1164 did not involve any naval operations. However, the king’s grant to Pisa of a piece of land close to the harbour of Tyre in 1165 may have been aimed at enlisting its naval support.32 The prospect of Frankish rule over Egypt and improved conditions for Pisa’s trade in that country account for Pisa’s decisive participation in Amalric’s siege of Alexandria in 1167. Its contribution resulted in the following year in a royal grant of a small piece of land extending its quarter in Acre, on which to build a house and a church. It was also granted judicial privileges.33 Pisa’s naval support seems to have also been prompted by the prospect of eliminating its western competitors from Egypt, especially Genoa. These considerations may explain Pisa’s promise of 1169 to further assist Amalric, suggested by his grant of property to Pisa in Fustat (or Old Cairo), Cairo and Rosetta once Egypt would be conquered.34 It is noteworthy that Pisa was the only western maritime power actively backing the king’s Egyptian policy. These developments did not prevent the strengthening of Pisa’s relations with the Egyptian sultan Saladin, once he had consolidated his rule over Egypt in 1169. Pisa recovered in 1173 its funduq and privileges in Alexandria, yet not in Cairo, in return for the resumption of war material imports.35 In the same year Pisan pirates captured a Genoese ship carrying alum belonging to Saladin’s elder brother. The crisis resulting from this event was overcome in the following year.36 In a letter of 1174 or 1175 sent to the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad, Saladin boasted that the Pisans, Venetians and Genoese were delivering to him their arms and riches, which clearly included war materials and ships.37 Pisa’s ambiguous policies are again illustrated in 1182. While Pisans pursued the delivery of war materials, Pisan ships participated in naval warfare against Saladin. In August of that year, King Baldwin IV requisitioned western ships anchoring in Frankish harbours to breach Saladin’s naval siege of Beirut.38 The Pisan contribution to this successful operation must have been particularly important, because Pisa is the only western maritime power benefiting afterwards from a royal grant. On 25 August 1182, it obtained a further enlargement of its quarter in Acre.39 The factors prompting Pisa to obtain assets and privileges in the Kingdom of Jerusalem from the 1150s became even more important in the period of crisis following the Frankish defeat at the battle of Hattin in 1187. Saladin conquered the entire kingdom except Tyre, and trade with Egypt was interrupted until the spring of 1192.40 In addition, Pisa’s trade with Byzantium was extremely limited, with no clear prospects of full resumption, following the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in April 1182.41 The conjunction of local, regional and extraregional factors induced Pisa to provide continuous military and naval support to the war against Saladin, far more determined than the assistance offered by other western nations. Pisa’s political position in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was particularly enhanced in the years 1187–91. Its massive naval and military contribution in 1188 began with the siege of Acre in late August, strengthened by Tuscan crusaders. In this period, Pisa adopted a flexible policy in the intense political struggle for the throne


David Jacoby

opposing Conrad of Montferrat, who ruled over Tyre, and King Guy of Lusignan, who had been freed from captivity by Saladin in June 1188. Pisa switched sides several times, and by astute and aggressive manoeuvring acquired from both parties extensive judicial and fiscal privileges, as well as assets, confirmed by King Richard I of England, who supported Guy of Lusignan. Pisa’s substantial extension of its jurisdiction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was its most important achievement in these years, because it endured throughout the thirteenth century. In October 1187 Conrad granted Pisa jurisdiction over all Pisan laymen, whether local residents or visiting ships’ crewmen, except in cases relating to feudal land or feudal sources of income held from lords throughout the kingdom.42 Pisa also secured recognition of its broad concept of Pisan nationality. In addition to its citizens, foreigners “qui Pisanorum nomine censentur”, or considered to be Pisans by Pisa’s own officials, would also enjoy Pisa’s protection and privileges.43 Conrad’s charter further stipulated that Pisa was entitled to place representatives at the cathena or port customs, markets and city gates, so as to ensure that all those recognized as Pisans would fully enjoy the tax exemptions and jurisdiction to which they were entitled. Pisa’s quarters in Acre and Tyre acquired a quasi-exterritorial status.44 The grant of Pisan status calls for some remarks. From 1157 at the latest, Pisa awarded that status on an individual basis to some foreigners, most likely Tuscans, sailing on Pisan ships.45 In 1171 it granted to all Florentines collectively the same treatment as to Pisans, and undertook to ensure them the benefit of its privileges overseas.46 The measure was later extended to the citizens of other Tuscan cities. This was a space and time-limited Pisan naturalization, restricted to the Mediterranean and lands overseas, which lapsed once the travelling merchant disembarked in Pisa on the way to his home town. Not surprisingly, the Frankish rulers strongly objected to the Pisan naturalization of their subjects, since it limited their own fiscal and judicial authority, as well as the revenue accruing from its exercise. Moreover, this naturalization was hereditary, contrary to that enjoyed by travelling merchants. In 1187 Count Raymond III of Tripoli acknowledged only Pisan status obtained outside his territory, while refusing to recognize the naturalization of his own subjects. In 1202, the Pisan Plebano, lord of Batrun, adopted a similar attitude regarding the naturalization of his subjects and those of the county of Tripoli. Fourteen years later Prince Raymond-Roupen of Antioch acted likewise regarding his own territory.47 Pisa was more successful in Acre. In 1200, it obtained from Bishop Teobald of Acre recognition of the local Pisan church of San Pietro’s ecclesiastical authority over all Pisan nationals, without distinction between citizens and those who had acquired Pisan status.48 Pisa achieved some modest gains of property between 1187 and 1191. In Tyre, it obtained houses and various installations, and in the countryside of Tyre, known for the lucrative cultivation of sugar cane, land, irrigation installations and mills.49 In 1188 the Pisan Societas Vermiliorum, a military association created in Tyre during the city’s siege by Saladin, was granted eleven villages in the countryside occupied by the sultan.50 Venice had been entitled to one-third of the revenue in some of them. It is unclear whether it had already lost its portion of these villages before 1187, or whether Conrad disregarded Venice’s rights because it failed to

Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant 97 support him.51 In any event, the grant remained meaningless, since the villages were situated in the countryside occupied by Saladin at that time, and the Societas Vermiliorum is not attested after the Christian forces recovered that territory, presumably because it disbanded once Tyre’s siege ended.52 Conrad of Montferrat promised the recovery of Pisan property in Jaffa and awarded Pisa a village in its countryside.53 His grant of property in Acre covered a large section of the city, yet was never implemented. This was likely also the case of the grant of villages in Acre’s rural hinterland.54 We have little information regarding Pisan settlers in the Frankish states before 1187 and have no quantitative data regarding them. Merchants were clearly the first to establish themselves in the region. They were joined by artisans, practitioners of liberal arts, relatives of all these, and by a small number of priests and monks, some of whom acted as notaries.55 In the Frankish Levant Pisans also married Latins who did not enjoy Pisan status. In common parlance Latins born in the region were called pullani. A chronicle refers to fishermen who were poulains Pisanz, captured by the Genoese outside Acre’s harbour in 1287.56 Pisan settlers are not documented in Antioch, yet some charters refer to those in Tripoli from 1179 to 1198.57 The Pisan settlement in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was more important. A comparison of the charters in favour of Pisa regarding Acre, Tyre and Jaffa delivered in 1156 and 1168 not only suggest an increase in the number of settlers, but also reveals that some of them held fiefs or money fiefs and burgess property from the king, barons or ecclesiastical institutions.58 Charters issued in Tyre in 1187 by Count Raymond III of Tripoli and by Conrad of Montferrat mention the houses owned there by two Pisan settlers.59 Significantly, the small Pisan quarter of Acre could not accommodate all Pisan settlers in the city.60 As a result, some of them resided in the suburb of Montmusard, both before 1187 and after the recovery of the city in 1191, and others in the Genoese quarter, despite continuous tension between Pisa and Genoa in Acre from 1194.61 Indeed, a Pisan woman resided in the Genoese quarter for many years prior to 1212.62 The residence of Pisan settlers outside their commune’s quarter in Acre gave rise to a conflict between the city’s bishop and the local Pisan church, which ended in Pisa’s favour in 1200, as noted above. Pisan settlers engaged in regional or long-distance maritime trade. They also clearly acted as middlemen in commercial exchanges between Alexandria and Constantinople. The Liber abaci of Leonardo Pisano, composed in 1201 or 1202, which faithfully reflects contemporary conditions, mentions in one of its mathematical problems two business partners, one established for more than five years in Alexandria and the other in Constantinople.63 Pisano does not refer to the origin of these merchants, yet it is likely that he obtained the information from fellow Pisans operating in or between the two cities and taking advantage of the logistic infrastructure of Frankish ports along the way. There is good reason to believe that the Pisan settlers who purchased or obtained rural property did not abandon trade. Some of them amassed substantial fortunes, presumably thanks to the conjunction of maritime commerce and trade in export-oriented rural products. In 1180, a Pisan resident of Tripoli paid no less than 10,000 bezants or gold coins to


David Jacoby

ensure the marriage of his nephew Plebano to the heiress of the fief of Batrun and, thereby, the latter’s insertion within the ranks of the Frankish nobility.64 Pisans also practiced moneylending. Probably in 1190, during the siege of Tyre by Saladin, some of them provided Conrad with a loan, apparently never repaid.65 In 1192 a Pisan of Tripoli lent Guy of Lusignan money to enable him to acquire Cyprus from King Richard I.66 Most territorial concessions obtained from Conrad of Montferrat, Guy of Lusignan and King Richard I in Acre, Tyre, Jaffa and their rural hinterland never materialized. Moreover, in May 1193 Henry II of Champagne, who ruled over the Kingdom of Jerusalem, overlooked the property grants obtained from these rulers and determined a return to the situation in 1174 as far as Pisa’s holdings were concerned. His partial revocation of Pisan fiscal privileges in Tyre and Acre also weakened Pisa’s standing in the kingdom. In addition, he imposed upon Pisans holding burgess property from him the choice between relinquishing it so as to enjoy Pisan privileges, or else to be considered royal subjects. He also limited to thirty the number of Pisan settlers allowed to stay in Tyre in the following year.67 Thus, Henry II of Champagne administered the final blow to Pisa’s power in the Kingdom of Jerusalem because of its support of Guy of Lusignan. This support and the operations of Pisan pirates along the Levantine shore also induced Henry II of Champagne to expel the Pisans from Acre in 1193, yet he had to readmit them the following year.68 The pirates’ activity clashed with the interests of Frankish rulers and affected those of Pisan travelling merchants and settlers.69 In 1197, Henry II of Champagne exempted these Pisans from reprisals, but not the Pisan pirates operating with two specific vessels.70 Count Bohemond IV of Tripoli adopted in 1199 a much firmer attitude toward Pisan settlers and merchants in his territory because of Pisan piracy. He apparently confiscated their houses and abolished their privileges. In order to recover them, the Pisans were compelled to pay a considerable sum in compensation for the damage they had inflicted upon the count and his subjects.71 It has often been asserted that in 1192 Pisa reached the peak of its power in the Frankish Levant and had become the dominant western maritime nation in the region. This proposition is largely based on the passage of the French continuation of William of Tyre, quoted at the beginning of this article, and on the grants Pisa obtained in the years 1187–91. It is striking that, while referring to Genoa, the chronicle’s statement completely overlooks the Venetian presence in the Frankish Levant. Its bias is also obvious when confronted with actual conditions on the ground. The resolute policies of Henry II of Champagne and Count Bohemond IV of Tripoli put an end to the brief and temporary nature of Pisa’s apparent supremacy and reveal the precarious nature of its standing in the Frankish Levant shortly after the Third Crusade.

Notes 1 The territorial concessions of Godfrey of Bouillon to Bishop Daimbert of Pisa in 1100 should not be mistaken for grants to the city of Pisa. Anyhow, they did not last beyond

Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant 99


3 4


6 7


9 10 11

12 13

Daimbert’s departure for Italy in 1104. Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im Heiligen Land vom ersten Kreuzzug bis zum Tode Heinrichs von Champagne (1098– 1197) (Amsterdam, 1989), 55–61, 84–6. Margaret Ruth Morgan, ed., La continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184–1197) (Paris, 1982), 159. “Il avint que en cel tens les Pisans estoient de plus grant poeir en Surie que les Geneveis nen estoient.” For the dating, see Peter W. Edbury, “The Lyon Eracles and the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre,” in Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jonathan RileySmith, and Rudolf Hiestand (Aldershot, 1997), 139–53, at 140–4. For the Kingdom of Jerusalem, most recently by Hans E. Mayer, ed., Die Urkunden der lateinische Könige von Jerusalem (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomata regum latinorum hierosolymitanorum), 4 vols. (Hanover 2010); hereafter: Mayer, Urkunden. Adolf Schaube, Handelsgeschichte der romanischen Völker des Mittelmeergebiets bis zum Ende der Kreuzzüge (Munich, 1906), 58 and n. 3; Enrica Salvatori, “Il corsaro pisano Trapelicino: un’avventura mediterranea del XII secolo,” Bollettino Storico Pisano 56 (2007), 31–56, at 39–40 and n. 38. Enrica Salvatori, “Gens Saracenorum perit sine laude suorum: L’idée de guerre sainte dans les sources pisanes du XIe au XIIe siècle,” in Regards croisés sur la guerre sainte. Guerre, religion et idéologie dans l’espace méditerranéen, de la fin du XIe au XIIIe siècle: Atti del Convegno internazionale (Madrid, 11–13 aprile 2005) (Madrid, 2006), 229–50; also Enrica Salvatori, “Lo spazio economico di Pisa nel Mediterraneo: dall’XI alla metà del XII,” Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 115 (2013), 119–52, yet this study deals only with the Western Mediterranean. Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 53–4. On these expeditions and the booty, see ibid., 51–61, 96–7, 102–7, 112–13, 129–30. Following Acre’s conquest in 1104 Baldwin I exempted the Genoese and the inhabitantts of a few cities in its vicinity from paying the commercium or trade tax. This exemption was also granted in the same charter to the family of Gandulf the Pisan, son of Tropia: Mayer, Urkunden, nos. 29, 143. The family presumably participated in the Genoese expedition to the Levant, either by funding it or by sending a ship. The grant was specific to this family, not to the Pisans in general. Marco Tangheroni, “Pisa e il Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme,” in I comuni italiani nel regno crociato di Gerusalemme (Collana storica di fonti e studi, diretta da G. Pistarino, 48), ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar and Gabriella Airaldi (Genoa, 1986), 497–521, at 514–15, considers that the Pisans opted for expansion in the Western Mediterranean, a region of weak economic development more suitable to Pisa’s economy at that stage, rather than in the Eastern Mediterranean with its robust economic development. The argument is not convincing, since 1111 is precisely the year in which Pisa concluded an agreement with Byzantium; see below. As claimed by Michael Matzke, “Pisa, l’arcivescovo Daiberto e la I Crociata,” in Pisa e il Mediterraneo: Uomini, merci, idee dagli Etruschi ai Medici, ed. M. Tangheroni (Milan, 2003), 145–50. Giuseppe Müller, Documenti sulle relazioni delle città Toscane coll’Oriente Cristiano e coi Turchi fino all’anno MDXXXI (Rome, 1879), 3, doc. 1; Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 111–15. David Jacoby, “Italian Privileges and Trade in Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade: A Reconsideration,” Anuario de estudios medievales, 24 (1994), 349–69, at 351–2, 357–9, repr. in David Jacoby, Trade, Commodities and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean (Aldershot, 1997), no. II. Pisa‘s negotiations with the Empire possibly began in 1109, and on 18 April 1110 its envoys took an oath of fealty to Alexius I: Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096–1204 (Oxford, 1993), 87–90. Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 112–15, 422. Roger died in 1119. David Jacoby, “Production et commerce de l’alun oriental en Méditerranée, XIe–XVe siècles,” in L’alun de Méditerranée, ed. Philippe Borgard, Jean-Pierre Brun et Maurice




16 17 18 19 20 21 22


24 25

26 27 28 29 30


David Jacoby

Picon, Collection du Centre Jean Bérard, 23 (Naples/Aix-en-Provence, 2005), 219–67, at 223, 226–9. David Jacoby, “The Supply of War Materials to Egypt in the Crusader Period,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 25 (2001), 102–32, at 102–7, repr. in David Jacoby, Commercial Exchange across the Mediterranean: Byzantium, the Crusader Levant, Egypt and Italy (Aldershot, 2005), no. II. Mahammad Hadj-Sadok, ed., “Kitab al-Dja’rafiyya. Mappemonde du calife al-Ma’mun, reproduite par Fazari (IIIe / IXe s.), rééditée et commentée par Zuhri (VIe / XIIe s.),” Bulletin d’études orientales 21 (1968), 7–312, at 229, par. 202 (Arabic text), and for the dating, ibid., 25. David Jacoby, “Byzantine Trade with Egypt from the Mid-Tenth Century to the Fourth Crusade,” Thesaurismata 30 (2000), 25–77, at 33, 61, repr. in Jacoby, Commercial Exchange, no. I. David Jacoby, “Les Italiens en Égypte aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles: du comptoir à la colonie?,” in Coloniser au Moyen Age, ed. Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier (Paris, 1995), 76–89, 102–7 (notes), at 78–9, 81. Mayer, Urkunden, 1: 446–9, no. 242. Mayer, Urkunden, 1: 263–5, no. 106. On the Pisan church, built in 1168 or somewhat later, see David Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence in the Crusader Lordship of Tyre: A Tale of Decline,” in The Crusader World, ed. Adrian Boas (Abingdon, 2016), 181–95, at 185. Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 157; Mayer, Urkunden, 1: 265. King Fulk died in 1143. “Vita sancti Rainerii confessoris de civitate pisana,” in San Ranieri di Pisa (1117–1160) in un ritratto agiografico inedito del secolo XIII, ed. Réginald Grégoire (Ospedaletto, 1990), 120–4; Benjamin Z. Kedar, “A Second Incarnation in Frankish Jerusalem,” in The Experience of Crusading, vol. 2: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. Peter Edbury and Jonathan Phillips (Cambridge, 2003), 79–92, at 80. Michele Amari, ed., I diplomi arabi del R. Archivio Fiorentino (Florence, 1863), 241–5, doc II; correct dating by Wilhelm Heyd, Histoire du commerce du commerce du Levant au moyen-âge, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885–1886), 1: 394 n. 1. On the crime of the Pisan pirate, see Salvatori, “Il corsaro pisano Trapelicino,” 31–5. Müller, Documenti, 6, doc. IV. Müller, Documenti, 15–16, 17–18, and 24, respectively nos. XIII, XV, and XX. For the dating, see Hans E. Mayer, Varia Antiochena. Studien zum Kreuzfahrerfürstentum Antiochia im 12. und frühen 13. Jahrhundert, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Studien und Texte, 6 (Hanover, 1993), 43, RRH, no. 478. Mayer, Urkunden, 1: 446–9, no. 242. The charter is the only document referring to what seems to be Pisa’s property in Caesarea and Jerusalem. Mayer, Urkunden, 1: 449, no. 243. On Tyre’s countryside, see Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions (Oxford, 1980), 143–200. Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence,” 187–8, 191–2. “Vita sancti Rainerii confessoris de civitate pisana,” 157–8; Enrica Salvatori, “Il Mediterraneo di Ranieri: alcune considerazioni su una fonte agiografica pisana del XII secolo,” in Profili istituzionali della santità medioevale: culti importati, culti esportati e culti autoctoni nella Toscana occidentale e nella circolazione mediterranea ed europea, ed. Cesare Alzati and Gabriella Rossetti (Pisa, 2008), 317–44, at 324, 330–1, and n. 45. David Jacoby, “Ports of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Eleventh-Fourteenth Century: Jaffa, Acre, Alexandria,” in The Holy Portolano – Le portulan sacré: The Sacred Geography of Navigation in the Middle Ages. Fribourg Colloquium 2013. La géographie religieuse de la navigation au moyen âge. Colloque fribourgeois 2013, ed. Michele Bacci and Martin Rohde, Scrinium Friburgense 36 (Berlin, 2014), 51–72, at 52–6; David Jacoby, “The Economic Impact of Christian Pilgrimage on the Holy Land, Eighth-Sixteenth Century: A Long-Term Overview,” in Religione e istituzioni religiose nell’economia europea: 1000–1800 [Religion and Religious Institutions in

Pisa and the Frankish states of the Levant 101

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

the European Economy: 1000–1800], ed. Francesco Ammannati, Atti della Quarantatreesima Settimana di Studi, 8–12 maggio 2011, (Fondazione Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini,” Prato) (Florence, 2012), 697–712, at 703. On the grant: Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 541–4, no. 311. Pisa bought a house standing on that land to ensure its jurisdiction over the entire surface. Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 564–8, no. 327. Pisa’s purchase of a fondaco or caravanserai from one of the kings of Jerusalem, mentioned in the report compiled by Marsilio Zorzi in the 1240s, may have possibly occurred in the same year: Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence,” 184–5. Mayer, Urkunden 2: 596–9, no. 343. Amari, Diplomi, 262–3, doc. VII. Ibid., 257–61, doc. VIII–IX; Jacoby, “Production et commerce de l’alun oriental,” 228. Jacoby, “The Supply of War Materials,” 108–9. Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 212–13. Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 736–8, no. 432. Jacoby, “Les Italiens en Égypte,” 80. David Jacoby, “Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1187– 1192),” in Dai feudi monferrini e dal Piemonte ai nuovi mondi oltre gli Oceani: Atti del Congresso (Alessandria, 2–6 Aprile 1990), ed. Laura Balletto (Alessandria, 1993), 187–238, at 222, repr. in Jacoby, Trade, no. IV. Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 859–65, no. 519, in Tyre; 2: 869–72, no. 521, in Jaffa, no cathena or harbour customs are mentioned; 2: 872–7, no. 522, in Acre. For an overview, see Jacoby, “Conrad,” 190–201. Jacoby, “Conrad,” 197. Ibid., 197–8. Pisa’s treaty of 1157 with Tunis refers to Pisans and those declaring to be Pisan, their identity being proven by official documents or by witnesses. Amari, Diplomi, 255–6, no.VI. Jacoby, “Conrad,” 197, 230 n. 38. Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 189–90, argues that Tuscan merchants started operating under Pisa’s banner and enjoying Pisan privileges in 1165, based on her interpretation of the charter granting property in Tyre in that year. Her interpretation is not convincing and, moreover, she has overlooked the evidence adduced here. Müller, Documenti, 25–6, 83–4, respectively nos. XXII, LIII. Müller, Documenti, 82–3, no. LII; Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “Die italienischen Kirchen im Heiligen Land (1098–1291),” Studi veneziani NS 13 (1987), 15–102, at 33–7. Mayer, Urkunden, 3: 1343–5, no. *770; 2: 859–65, no. 519; 2: 882–8, no. 524. See also Mayer, Urkunden, 1316, no.*758. Ibid., 2: 882–5, no. 524. They would have been leased out: see above, p. 94. Their exploitation did not require settlement in the countryside and, therefore, the contention of FavreauLilie, Italiener, 527, that Pisan rural settlement was envisaged may be safely dismissed. Jacoby, “Conrad,” 216–17, on Venice’s attitude. Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence,” 186. Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 869–72, no. 521. Ibid., 2: 872–7, no. 522; 2: 877–82, no. 523. On some of these notaries, see Hans E. Mayer, Die Kanzlei der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Schriften, 40 (Hanover, 1996), 2: 1015, Index, s. v. Pisa, Pisaner. Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314): La caduta degli Stati Crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples, 2000), 180–2, par. 218. Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 513–15. Ibid., 515–28; Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 861. Mayer, Urkunden 3: 1343–5, no. 770; 2: 859–65, at 863, no. 519. David Jacoby, “Crusader Acre in the Thirteenth Century: Urban Layout and Topography,” Studi medievali, 3a serie, 20 (1979), 1–45, at 19–20, 24–5, repr. in David Jacoby, Studies on the Crusader States and on Venetian Expansion (Northampton, 1989), no. V.


David Jacoby

61 David Jacoby, “Montmusard, Suburb of Crusader Acre: The First Stage of Its Development,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, Presented to Joshua Prawer, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar, Hans E. Mayer, and Raymond C. Smail (Jerusalem, 1982), 205–17, at 210, repr. in Jacoby, Studies, no. VI. 62 Müller, Documenti, 439–40, no. 63; Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “Friedenssicherung und Konfliktbegrenzung: Genua, Pisa und Venedig in Akkon, ca. 1200–1224,” in I comuni italiani, 429–47, at 433–4. 63 Scritti di Leonardo Pisano: I, Il liber abbaci di Leonardo Pisano, ed. Baldassare Boncompagni (Rome, 1857), 274–6. 64 Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 237, 514. 65 Jacoby, “Conrad,” 201. 66 Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 306 and n. 240. 67 Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 929–32, no. 568. 68 Favreau-Lilie, Italiener, 312–15, 318–22. 69 Marie-Luise Favreau, “Die italienische Levante-Piraterie und die Sicherheit der Seewege nach Syrien im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 65 (1978), 476–7, 481–3; David Jacoby, “Diplomacy, Trade, Shipping and Espionage between Byzantium and Egypt in the Twelfth Century,” in Polypleuros nous. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed. Cordula Scholz und Georgios Makris, Byzantinisches Archiv, Band 19 (Munich, 2000), 83–102, at 101, repr. in David Jacoby, Latins, Greeks and Muslims: Encounters in the Eastern Mediterranean, Tenth-Fifteenth Centuries (Farnham, 2009), no. II. 70 Mayer, Urkunden, 2: 964–6, no. 581. 71 Müller, Documenti, 79–80, no. 49; Marie-Luise Favreau, “Die italienische LevantePiraterie und die Sicherheit der Seewege nach Syrien im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 65 (1978), 461–510, at 494–6.


Urban soundscape Defining space and community in twelfth-century of Jerusalem Iris Shagrir

The First Crusade was imagined by a twelfth-century author as carrying a pleasant sound that resonated throughout the world;1 The sonus et amor – the sound and love – of the pilgrims’ way to Jerusalem was to become the sound of victory and hope of perpetual happiness when the first crusaders established their kingdom and gave thanks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Soon after the conquest of Jerusalem, in July 1099, Duke Godfrey of Bouillon ordered bells to be cast for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre – for the religious, so that they could pray and celebrate masses, and for the faithful who would hasten to attend religious services. This act was among the earliest signals of the liturgical appropriation of the city, at the very beginning of the grand process of the Christian renewal of Jerusalem. Godfrey’s act was one of the first undertaken to ordain the city as a Latin Christian one, to designate the church as the city’s cathedral and transform the way the city sounded under its new rulers in the capital of their new kingdom.2 Bells had many functions in a medieval city, but first and foremost – and especially in the context of Jerusalem in 1099 – they made the city sound Christian. Sound is an element that can make a city magnificent; as Emma Dillon reminds us, the word ‘magnificent’ in this context should be thought of as recalling its Latin root, magnum facere: the act of enlarging, making grander, more impressive. Magnificence was to be one of the characteristics of the medieval city, and sound – a celebratory, liturgical sound – had a major role to play.3 Moreover, “magnificence was not just an aesthetic judgement, it was a moral virtue”.4 By its very nature a city possesses an abundance of sounds: the sounds of commerce: of merchants advertising their goods, craftsmen at work, the lively exchanges of money changers, etc. Urban everyday life produces noise in abundance and, significantly, creates a sense of community. The study of sounds as an important component in the shaping of medieval cities contributes greatly to representing the diversity of activity in the medieval public sphere. In the medieval city, sounds often gave the urban space a particular meaning in the cycle of the year, month, week or day. Sounds, especially the ringing of church bells, were also obeyed – as in the words of the 12th-century theologian Honorius of Autun: Cum campanae sonantur, quasi per classica milites ad praelium incitantur (when bells ring, it is as if soldiers are incited by trumpets into battle).5 Together with other sensory activators like the smell of burning incense,


Iris Shagrir

the shuffling sound of liturgical chant and processions, Christians in Jerusalem have engaged in a mood for worship, in a city renown for being a theatre for liturgy and religious devotion. Recent research on the medieval auditory landscape has become attuned to the sounds and silences produced and experienced by medieval city dwellers.6 Auditory signals, especially bells, were vital in regulating both public and private time, in structuring a public as well as an individual timetable by serving as alarms and reminders. Particularly in its liturgical capacity, the sound of church bells echoing through the streets served as a call to religious services, and thus carried a reminder of God’s rule and order, an awareness of community and religious cohesion. Paying attention to its sounds reminds us that the medieval city had an active public sphere: Markets and streets were the places where information was spread and exchanged in a more direct and ‘egalitarian’ way than today, since sound was a principal mode of public communication: it addressed all those who happened to be within hearing distance. Thus, in the premodern world, street-cries, the market hum, regular bell-ringing and the sounds of carefully arranged civic and religious ceremonies – were all essential components of urban life. They communicated information necessary for an active participation in community life, alerting the public to danger, announcing festivals or the arrival of important visitors, inviting the poor for the distribution of alms. In its basic capacity, sound incorporates; it creates, within its reach, a sense of connection and communitarian living. Sound also enhances an affinity with space, defining the centre and the margins of the city, resounding most strongly in areas and quarters where important events, processions and festivities take place, where people gather and where power is displayed. Hence sound in its capacity to articulate and demarcate social space, is also related to power and control – bells and their towers are instruments of publicity, and publicity means power – as is clearly shown in the careful regulation of the possession and employment of bells in medieval towns. And sound should certainly be reflected upon within a more general sensory context, as aptly put by S. Brent Plate: “The human body feels the world, engages the sights and sounds, tastes and smells of one’s setting, incorporating (literally, ‘bringing into the body’) the environment around”.7

The soundscape of 12th-century Jerusalem The installation of church bells in Jerusalem by Godfrey’s early command exemplifies many of the attributes of bells just mentioned, but this was just one sound among many others that refashioned Jerusalem’s soundscape in the early 12th century. The arrival of the crusaders changed significantly the soundscape of Jerusalem. It was probably different from contemporaneous cities in the West, and certainly vastly different from the sounds of present-day Jerusalem. Twelfth-century Jerusalem was possibly quieter than other capital cities in the West in its day. Throughout the 12th century, the city’s population remained small, whereas at that time European cities were growing rapidly and becoming more densely populated. While in Europe cities had to cope with increasing migration from the countryside, in Jerusalem potential settlers had to be tempted with various

Urban soundscape


economic incentives. Throughout the century, no significant migration replenished the city’s small population, and the construction of new buildings remained rare.8 While the economy of Jerusalem relied heavily on tourism and pilgrimage from Christian Europe, traffic in the streets was mostly pedestrian, as the movement of wheeled vehicles was hampered by the narrowness of the streets and the steep topography.9 Nevertheless with the arrival of pilgrims in distinct seasonal waves, the population increased, producing the sounds of greater crowds shuffling around the city, busier markets and increased religious and ritual activity citywide. Sound is almost absent from the accounts of the 12th-century pilgrims. These accounts give a lifeless and rather static image of the city. The only people normally mentioned by pilgrims are biblical and historical figures interwoven with scriptural memories at the relevant sites. Rare glimpses of live crowds occur on the occasion of major feasts, especially during Holy Week. Most notable was the annual ceremony of the Holy Fire, which drew a large attendance and created much commotion in the streets. The Russian Abbot Daniel, who was present at the Holy Fire ceremony in 1106-07, describes the great multitudes congregating around the Sepulchre aedicule, weeping, praying and loudly beseeching God’s mercy. A similar lively picture of the crowds in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre during the Easter festivities emerges from the liturgical manuscripts of Jerusalem. There were other extraordinary occasions. Jerusalem was a royal city where kings and magnates paraded in pomp. The city witnessed several royal coronations as well as a plethora of ceremonies throughout the 12th century. Coronation ceremonies normally included an audible component with a composite liturgical sequence that included praying, singing, psalming and the celebration of Mass, and ending with a threefold acclamation by the public “Vive le roy en bon prosperité!” – as described by John of Ibelin;10 the vox populi thus expressing solidarity and unanimity. Grandiose liturgical and civic impact was achieved by aligning most of the royal coronation ceremonies that took place in Jerusalem with the major feasts of the liturgical calendar, including Christmas, Easter, the Exultation of the Cross and the feast of the Liberation of Jerusalem. For example, the coronation ceremony of King Baldwin IV on 15 July 1174 coincided with two important Jerusalem feasts plus a minor one: the Liberation of Jerusalem, the consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the feast of Divisio apostolorum.11 Integrating coronation festivities into the liturgical calendar on its most significant feast days linked the secular ceremonies to the divine order and God’s will. Coordinating the ceremonies of royalty with liturgical events also had practical motivations. The major feasts promised greater attendance in Jerusalem, with the gathering of many important nobles and general public acclamation. This not only augmented the magnificence of the ceremony, but presented an occasion for a king to pronounce himself as equal to European monarchs, to present Jerusalem kingship as being on a par with European kingship and even competing with it, backed by the stronger Christic allusions embodied in Jerusalem – civitas regis regum omnium, as written on the seal of the kings of Jerusalem. Dozens of churches and monasteries operated within Jerusalem, celebrating their liturgy with their own bells, processions and singing; The thousands of pilgrims produced a confusing mixture of sounds, languages and dialects, and often


Iris Shagrir

carried as insignia noise-making instruments such as small bells.12 The acoustic panorama of 12th-century Jerusalem also included the distinctive sounds generated by the headquarters of the military orders: the Templars settled on the Temple Mount, and the Hospitallers across from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Benjamin of Tudela speaks of 300 knights, and John of Wurzburg mentions “many soldiers”. These military forces residing in the city added the clattering of horses’ hooves on the paved streets and the rattle of swords. And in the background was the usual urban hum of everyday life: human noise,13 children playing, sounds of music,14 household animals, industrial activity and more.

The liturgy Since to perform the Latin liturgy in Christendom’s most sacred city was the foundational reason for the Franks’ conquest and rule of Jerusalem, liturgical sound, including verbal and nonverbal sounds, was an ongoing, everlasting accompaniment of life in the city, with overwhelming significance for its urban socio-cultural landscape. On every day of the year, the chanting of hymns and psalms spilled out from the city’s many churches and monasteries and shaped its soundscape. Then there were the great bells of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which rang on Ash Wednesday and great and small bells on Maundy Thursday; and on Good Friday, which was generally kept quiet, some signals of knocking-on-wood sounded, perhaps in continuity with the pre-1099 monastic customs. To these ordinary sounds must be added special feasts and celebratory occasions, such as the coronation ceremonies mentioned above, the reception of important visitors to the city and special Jerusalem feasts, foremost among them being the annual celebration of the conquest celebrated on 15 July. The surviving liturgical manuscripts of Latin Jerusalem provide the most detailed evidence for the liturgy of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. These texts help us to reconstruct how the liturgy was celebrated indoors, within the physical and temporal space of the Church, and show a recurring awareness of the use and meaning of various sounds and voices. For example, in the ceremony of Visitatio Sepulchri, celebrated in the church of the Holy Sepulchre on Easter morning, alterations of sound and silence are noted: instructions for singing and proclaiming in a loud voice (alta voce cantando) were interspersed with directions for “the cantors and the others to remain silent (cantores et ceteri silent)”.15 Many examples from the liturgy of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre show how space was employed to enrich the vocal aspects of ceremonies. On Palm Sunday, the instructions include antiphonal singing alternating between the subcantor (succentor), the magister schole, and the children of Jerusalem who stand at the top of the Golden Gate and those on the ground.16 Within the church alternate singing was frequent, alternating from the centre and the corners of the choir, as in this example from Holy Tuesday: The boy standing on the left says: Xpiste eleyson, and that on the right: Xpiste eleyson, then the one on the left: Xpiste eleyson. Those who are near the altar

Urban soundscape


say the verse Qui prophetice. Those at the center of the choir [say] Domine miserere nobis. Chorus: Xpistus dominus. Then the boy on the right [says] Kyirrieleyson as the former who is near the altar. . . . A boy with a high voice says Mortem autem crucis.17 The liturgical texts also provide information on how the cathedral’s liturgy cohered and interacted with the wider urban space and its auditory environment. First, the liturgical manuscripts show that liturgical cooperation among the churches was necessary. The need for cooperation was naturally large due to the plurality of the cathedral’s functions as well as to the special circumstances of Jerusalem. In particular, the canons of the Holy Sepulchre had extensive obligations in Jerusalem. The frequent absences from Jerusalem of church personnel is often noted in the liturgical manuscripts and in ordinances pertaining to the chapter of the Holy Sepulchre:18 Some persons journeyed on business within the Holy Land or to Europe, went out on military campaigns, or served as private chaplains or guides to pilgrims or at the royal palace. That the main monastic houses of Jerusalem were Augustinian facilitated their cooperation and even promoted it.19 The collaboration in liturgical-musical activities was a likely result of this reality, as indeed is evident from the description of certain celebrations, such as Palm Sunday, with its distinct structure of two contingents composed of various urban congregations, exemplifying the shared nature of the ceremony as explicitly declared in the words illa ebdomada comunis est.20 Collaboration also took place in funerals for deceased priests and canons, symbolizing the fraternity among the Augustinian establishments in the city. Between 1130 and 1136 the patriarch of Jerusalem set certain stipulations on funeral processions to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for members of the Templum Domini, Mount Zion, and Mount of Olives religious communities.21 On these occasions the ringing three times of the church’s big bells signalled the beginning of the funeral liturgy outside, and later inside the church. An interesting example of how vocality was transformed within one ceremony is provided by the case of Baldwin I’s funeral on 7 April 1118, which combined the dead king’s Adventus into the city with the Palm Sunday celebration that was already under way. In the words of Albert of Aachen: The lord patriarch Arnulf had come down from the Mount of Olives with his clergy after the consecration of palms, and his brothers came out from the Temple of the Lord and from all the churches to meet him for the festival, with hymns and songs of praise in celebration of the holy day on which Lord Jesus, riding on a donkey, deigned to enter the holy city of Jerusalem. So, with all the Christian congregations gathered together for the festival in praise of God, suddenly the dead king was borne into the middle of the people as they sang. At the sight of him their voices were hushed and their praises were brought low, and a very great weeping was heard from the clergy and people alike.22 The coronation ceremonies, the Palm Sunday and 15 July festivities, funerals and other liturgical occasions are examples of how the liturgy operated within the


Iris Shagrir

church buildings and citywide, transmitting multiple powerful messages through sight and sound, and creating varying patterns of movement on the streets.23 Stational prayers and sermons held at different sites and processional chanting intoned through the narrow streets were dynamically accompanied by the tolling of bells of various sizes and shapes; maior campana/ maiora signa campanula, or classicum, sometimes meaning all bells pealing at once vibrated in the city on multiple occasions and were conducted in wide collaboration of various religious and social groups, with distinct spatial and auditory implications for the population at large.24

Bells: the new sound of Frankish Jerusalem The use of bells in Western Europe has been widening from the 9th century on, and they figured in ceremonies of all kinds. The installation of new bells in the existing Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was one of the earliest acts of Godfrey of Bouillon, and part of the earliest ecclesiastical organization of the newly conquered city. Albert of Aachen, in a short chapter on clerics and the signals of the bells in the Lord’s Sepulchre, relates: It seemed a good idea to Duke Godfrey, the highest priest of Jerusalem, and likewise to all the rest, that twenty brothers in Christ should be appointed to observe the divine office in the Temple of the Lord’s Sepulchre, who, at every hour would sing praise and hymns to the living Lord God, would piously offer up the sacrifice of Jesus Christ’s body and blood, then would undertake the daily upkeep arranged from the offering of the faithful. While divine observance had thus been honourably restored by the Catholic duke and the Christian princes, they ordered bells to be made from bronze and other metals, and soon when the brothers heard the signal and sound of these they would hurry to the church to celebrate the praises of the psalms and the prayers of masses, and the faithful people would as one make haste to hear these things. For there were no sounds or signals of this sort seen or heard in Jerusalem before these days.25 Clearly, bells were new – and were perceived as new in Latin Jerusalem. During the period of Muslim rule of the city, and according to the Pact of Umar, the local Oriental Christians were allowed to sound their nâqûs at any time, day and night, except at the time just before or during Muslim prayer. Christians were also allowed to conduct their processions with raised crosses in their feasts (perhaps not only on Palm Sunday processions). Bells however were not part of the soundscape of Muslim Jerusalem. They began to spread in Western Europe only in the ninth century, and would obviously introduce an unwanted novelty in Muslim lands and within Muslim-Christian existing state of affairs – both because of their sound and the architectural structures they require. Thus, apart from the Muezzin’s live call for prayer, there was no distinctly-Muslim sound resonant in the Islamic urban context.

Urban soundscape


Godfrey ordered bells to be cast from bronze, a high-quality alloy, that requires a large quantity of copper and “other materials”. For bells to be cast, not only an awareness of their importance was necessary; it required materials and technological skills. Due to their heavy weight, church bells were unlikely to have been carried over on the first crusaders’ long journey from Europe on to Jerusalem. In Europe, bells were usually manufactured in proximity to the church or monastery that used them, and this presumably was the case here. The production process could take anywhere from one month to a whole year. According to Fulcher of Chartres already in 1105 there was a set of bells in use in Jerusalem, including larger and smaller ones, and apparently fitted with a way to hang and ring them.26 But it is noteworthy that the existence of a bell tower attached to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is documented only in the latter part of the 12th century; until then, the bells had to be suspended at a height sufficient so that their sound could be heard throughout the city.27 But their most crucial value was in the symbolic realm. The bells were the sign of a community having been created; and in Jerusalem of 1099 they were an instrument of conversion, instilling the city with the new Christian rhythm by signalling weekly and annual prayers and feasts. Indeed, Godfrey’s early order anticipates the later affirmation by Pope Innocent III in 1215 (directed at another community in Outremer) that bells have a crucial role in the establishment of a new Christian community.28 Godfrey’s act thus immediately established the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the city’s cathedral, spiritually situated at the heart of the new community. And just as the horns and trumpets which, according to the First Crusade chroniclers, the crusaders brought with them and played in celebration of their conquest in addition to the singing and clapping,29 so the new bells were now the salvific sound of Christian victory, as reaffirtming 1 Corinthians 15:52: “For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed”. In their emblematic capacity, bells signalled the service and worship of God, i.e. the liturgy. Twelfth-century theologians interpreted the tolling of bells as a phonic reminder of the alliance between God and the Christians, and their sound as signifying the divine presence within the community; each time a bell rang, its symbolic meaning was reactivated and its sound addressed not only the people, but also God. Bells were thus perceived as mediating between heaven and earth. In their liturgical-spatial function, they were perceived to expand the sacred space of the church to the outdoors, and in this capacity served as protectors of a territory.30 The blessing formula of bells from 12th-century Roman Pontifical reaffirms the bells’ spiritual and protective significance, their capacity to repel evil and their allusion to the trumpets of heaven.31 They could therefore be perceived as having a comforting effect in defining a secure place for the Christians of Jerusalem while warding off their enemies, the enemies of Christ, and while supporting the idea of Jerusalem as a paradise prevalent in Christian imagery and in crusader imagery in particular.32 The new sound of Jerusalem, bells replaced the sound of the muezzin’s call to prayer of the Muslim period, and surpassed in resonance and magnificence


Iris Shagrir

the older church signals used by the Oriental communities of pre-crusade Jerusalem. During the four-and-a-half centuries of Muslim rule, the local Christians were allowed to use only the nâqûs (Greek semantron; one or two wooden planks struck by a hammer or against one another to produce a knocking sound) to signal their liturgical practice.33 The semantron, furthermore, was the normal and possibly the only way of announcing services in the Byzantine capital up to the ninth century, when a set of twelve bells were shipped there as a gift from the Venetians.34 The semantron had a more humble sound and connotation, and with its deep tone and long intervals was more suited to monastic settings.35 In Latin Jerusalem, monastic ringing normally used cymbala (or campanula/ tintinnabula, and tabule percussione) in the refectory, e.g. on Maundy Thursday (In hac die pulsatur cimbalum in refectorium fratres ut conveniant ad prandium, et pulsata campanula),36 sometimes used knocking on wood-sounded on Good Friday in the monastery, while bells were rung in the church. The bells’ primary function was to summon people – clergy the laity to attend the divine office. In the priory of the Holy Sepulchre, the Little Hours were announced with the sounding of cymbals, while bells tolled for the celebration of Mass. The Barletta Ordinal of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, like many other Latin European liturgical manuscripts, clearly describes the basic function of ‘auditory activation’ in congregating people for service: et interim pulsetur unum de maioribus signis, donec omnis populus conveniant.37 The canons also used a variety of codified sounds within their chapter – such as beating on a wooden board three times – with which the patriarch summoned his community (helemosinarius trina tabule percussione fratres convocat),38 perhaps in imitation of local practices, since, as indicated striking on wood as a call for religious services was characteristic of eastern monasticism and rare in western practice. During Holy Week, bells signalled the launching of the many processions conducted around the city, e.g.: Post tertiam pulsetur maior campana ad congregandum congregationes canonicorum, monachorum, clerichorum, laicorum. Facto conventu, processione parata.39 As elsewhere in the Latin world, bells were not rung from Maundy Thursday to Holy Saturday in honour of the passion and crucifixion of Christ. However Holy Saturday was a magnificent day in auditory terms, with loud crying and singings before the arrival of the miracle spilled from the church out onto the streets. With the appearance of the longed-for miracle of the Holy Fire, the two big bells of the church rang in rejoicing: Quo miraculo viso patriarcha per gaudio lacrimando incipit. Te deum laudamus duobus maioribus signis pulsantibus.40 The tolling of bells resounded throughout the whole city, “per totam civitatem persolvebantur”, relates the pilgrim Theoderich in c.1170.41 Just as in former Muslim times, the miracle served as a reminder of the alliance between God and the Christians of Jerusalem, now under the Latins, who adopted the Greek ceremony and incorporated it into their liturgy, a phonic reaffirmation was added to this propagation of divine support. Whereas the miraculous flame was a dramatic visual sign, the big bells added their sonic and symbolic resonance of Vox Domini. Bell ringing was not restricted to liturgical functions. Fulcher of Chartres notes that after the arrival of the messengers reporting the approach of the Egyptians in

Urban soundscape


the third battle of Ramla in 1105, the larger bell was rung by the order of Patriarch Evremar, so that the people of Jerusalem would gather. This reference implies that already by then there was a set bells in use, of larger as well as smaller ones.42 The tolling of bells was also used to greet and honour important guests to the city, and the protocol for this civic ceremony was entered into the liturgical Ordinal. In the chapter on the “Reception of Important Persons” (De recipienda personas), the Jerusalem ordinal instructed that when high church officials, dukes or other magnates came from afar, the community was to gather and dignify them with a ceremonial ritual that started with the ringing of the two big bells and continued with a special liturgy including processional singing and the ringing of all bells (or blowing of trumpets).43 For a while at least the tolling of bells must have remained relatively rare, until other churches and monasteries in Jerusalem could produce, acquire or import bells for their own use.44 The archaeological evidence from the Latin East (which is discussed below) suggests that bells came in all shapes, sizes and sounds. In the 14th century, the Italian Franciscan friar and pilgrim Niccolò da Poggibonsi recorded in St. Anne, then used as a Muslim madrasa, a bell tower similar to that of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which stood to the right of the church façade. There may have been a bell tower in the Church of St Mary the Great, not far from the Holy Sepulchre, where massive foundations seem to indicate the position of a medieval bell tower.45 Archaeological evidence in the Church of Saint Mary Latin suggests that there may have been a bell tower attached to the medieval church, though its existence appears to be, according to Pringle “beyond absolute proof”.46 Indeed the absence of a bell tower in itself does not disprove the use of bells. A specific mention of the bells of the Church of Mount Zion is found in a bull of Pope Alexander III from 1179.47 In the thirteenth century the Muslim author Ibn Wasil al Hamawi (d. 1298), who visited Jerusalem in 1243–4, noticed a bell hanging in the al-Aqsa Mosque, the Latins’ Temple of Solomon, that might have remained there from before 1187, or have been reinstated. Ibn Wasil al Hamawi records: “On my way to Egypt I entered Jerusalem, the noble city, and I saw the monks and the priests of the Holy Rock (Templum Domini). On it were bottles of wine used for Mass, and a bell had been hung in the Aqsa mosque”. (Ibn Wasil’s report belongs to the period when Jerusalem had returned to Christian hands in 1229–44). By 1187 the crosses and bells that had adorned Jerusalem’s churches had been torn down; but one might assume with relative certainty that if the Latin clergy returned to the Temple Mount for a brief period in the thirteenth century, they might have installed a bell there, as surely bells would have been hanging there before 1187.48 With greater certainty, coming from the written testimony of William of Tyre, we know of the involvement of the Hospital of St. John in the polyphony of the city, and perhaps of the need to regulate it. William reports a dispute that broke out between the patriarch of Jerusalem and the Hospital of St. John in 1153–4, when the Hospital rang its numerous bells (pulsatis campanis tot) in such a way as to interfere with the activities at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to which it stood in close proximity.49 The Hospital’s bell tower may have stood at the northern end of the Hospitaller compound, thus directly facing the Holy Sepulchre.50


Iris Shagrir

Incidentally this incident exemplifies how sound may reflect the identity of an institution, and how it can be used as a symbol of power, both hegemonic and subversive. Evidence from crusader Acre in the 13th century reinforces this notion. In 1230s-40s, the bells of the Commune of Acre symbolized exactly that – hegemony and power – in the conflict between the barons, knights and citizens of Acre – and the Roman Emperor Frederick II.51 In the absence of liturgical books pertaining to the churches of Jerusalem – except for the Templar use represented in Barberini 659 and based closely on the ordinal of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre – there is no way to reconstruct the frequency and impact of bell tolling in the other churches of the city. Yet it seems that throughout the 12th century church bells had an important role in the process of acculturation of the city, and the din of bells gradually became a fact of life. The appearance of more bells not only infused the city with their sound, but had a special impact on how it looked, with bells hanging from newly erected bell towers – or perhaps from other, less permanent structures – thus transforming the city visibly and audibly.

Bells: material remains from Jerusalem and the Holy Land Bells of different shapes, for various functions and producing different sounds have survived from the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As noted earlier, bell production was evidently one of the crafts the crusaders, perhaps especially monks, brought with them from the West; and as bells required bell towers, these would also spread quickly throughout the Holy Land. Bells were also liturgical objects, with formulas of blessing and baptism attached to them. They were perceived, as were monumental crosses, as representing Christianity, and therefore, as mentioned above, were torn down and demolished as one of Saladin’s first actions after taking over Jerusalem in October 1187.52 Few bells have therefore survived. Camille Enlart (1862– 1927), the French archaeologist and art historian of the medieval Mediterranean, asserted that not all the bells of the Church of the Holy sepulchre were demolished; rather they were buried by the canons, whether in 1187 or later. However, none of these were ever found.53 A recent exciting discovery in the Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount is a large bell (about 50 centimetres in diameter) that might be related to the Templar precinct in the south of the compound (figure 9.1).54 Indirect evidence of the number of the bells that hung in the bell tower of the Holy Sepulchre comes from later observations of pilgrims to Jerusalem: Bernardino Amico and Eleazar Horn counted, respectively 18 and 23, holes for bell ropes in the vault of the bell tower.55 Other indirect evidence comes from the publication by Geneviève Bautier-Bresc and Henri Bresc of a large bell, 1.2 m in diameter, bearing an inscription testifying that it was cast by two Italian craftsmen in Acre in 1266. The bell was transferred to Messina, probably at the time of the fall of Acre in 1291. This ‘bell of Šibenik’ (in Croatia) is probably the only surviving bell cast in the Holy Land.56 Bautier-Bresc and Bresc suggest that it was taken to Europe as a relic, “as a memory of the Holy Land and as a promise for its re-conquest”.57 Its creation in 1266 evidently reflects

Urban soundscape


Figure 9.1 Medieval bell found in Temple Mount, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Hall K Photo: IAA Archives, No. 21.087. By kind permission of The Israel Antiquities Authority.

confidence in the continued existence of the Christian presence in the East; but it also suggests that the technology and skill required to make it had already been developed in the Latin East. We also have much later evidence of a carillon of 13 bronze bells, consisting of three sets of bells of different sizes that were uncovered in Bethlehem in the early 20th century, along with 251 organ pipes, all preserved in the museum of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.58 According to Paul Chéneau, who examined these bells shortly after they were found, they were buried by the Franciscans of Bethlehem in 1452, following Sultan Mehmet II’s ban on using bells by Christians in the Holy Land. Chéneau also suggested that the smaller set of five bells in the carillon of Bethlehem, could have originated in Frankish times. This set of 13 bells produced distinct notes, creating the effect of an organ. Five bells have musical notes inscribed on them, and the smallest bell is inscribed “Vox Domini”, a frequent


Iris Shagrir

inscription on European bells at the time.59 Recently, Manuel Castiñeiras has suggested that the 13 bells and a 251 pipes organ originated in the 12–13th centuries, and he linked them to the liturgical celebrations in the Nativity church presided over by the patriarch of Jerusalem in the 12th century. They were described in the Barletta ordinal of the Holy Sepulchre, and this allowed Castiñeiras to reconstruct a specific context for playing the bells and the organ in the Church of the Nativity, as part of the liturgical orchestration of the patriarch and canons of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.60

Conclusion The picture that emerges from the material remains is of a rich polyphonic soundscape, although some of it is only partly recoverable with the help of our imagination. The soundscape was inextricably tied to the religious order of life and to the palpable presence of the divine in the Latin Holy Land. This compliments what we know from the liturgical texts. The church bells of Jerusalem undoubtedly produced the loudest and most regular sounds, which was also the most versatile type of sound, with varying notes for different liturgical, royal or civic occasions, allowing the people of Jerusalem, including the pilgrims, to recognize the tones and distinguish among the different signals. An examination of the soundscape provides us with a richer grasp of Jerusalem’s daily existence, religious life and perceptions of identity. That the right to sound the loudest bells was a sonic articulation of power is clear from the need to regulate them, as was the case in Europe from the Middle Ages on,61 as seen in the dispute between the Patriarch and the Hospital of St. John – naturally, the cathedral bells needed to be kept the loudest. The role of bells as a sign of authority in the Holy Land is also evident in another incident involving the church of the Hospital of St. John in Jaffa: In 1168, Pope Alexander III decreed that the Hospitallers were forbidden to build an additional church in Jaffa without the consent of the patriarch and the canons of the Holy Sepulchre, to whom the parish of Jaffa belonged; he also forbade the Hospital to ring its bells when an interdict was laid on that city.62 Notwithstanding the internal politics of sound in Jerusalem, bells always had an inter-religious polemic significance. As Arnold and Goodson have asserted, “When we find bells figured as central to Christianity in the early middle ages, it is particularly in the context of the conflict with Islam”.63 The soundscape of Jerusalem caused it to be perceived as a Western Christian city, signalling the Christians’ victory over Islam. This had a particular resonance in the early twelfth century, since at least in the first years, the city did not have the appearance of a Christian city: it had been a Muslim city for over 400 years, and the important new Latin institutions on the Temple Mount inhabited Muslim buildings. Its appearance could have been rather disappointing for pilgrims and crusaders expecting a heavenly city. One may even surmise that Jerusalem became a Christian city first-of-all audibly and only later – and gradually – visibly. That its sounds were in fact a major aspect in making it a Christian

Urban soundscape


city is reflected in one of Saladin’s first orders – that the crosses and the bells be taken down64 – in an action similar to that of the Muslim general al-Mansur in his raid on Santiago de Compostela in 997. For Muslim writers in the Middle Ages the sound of church bells has been a defining element of ChristianMuslim rivalry in an urban context, and church bells have always been one of the sounds of victory.65 As symbols of authority and resistance, as a mechanism of power and as sites of social and political struggle, soundscapes were inevitably markers of identity – first and foremost, a Christian identity. Studies of medieval European soundscapes show that in urban environments, institutions interacted musically, and often in cooperation. Given the known liturgical collaboration between religious institutions in Jerusalem, a coordination of bell ringing could have been the case in Latin Jerusalem as well. On the role of bells in 19th-century rural France, Alain Corbin observes perceptively: The rural peals of the 19th century, which have become for us the sound of another time were listened to, and evaluated according to a system of affects that is now lost to us. They bear witness to a different relation to the world and to the sacred as well as a different way of being inscribed in time and space, and of experiencing time and space. The reading of the auditory environment would then constitute one of the procedures involved in the construction of identities, both of individuals and of communities. Bell ringing constituted a language and founded a system of communication that has gradually broken down. It gave rhythm to forgotten modes of relating between individuals and between the living and the dead. It made possible forms of expression. It is possible to think of the sounds of Latin Jerusalem as creating a familiar and comforting sense of the daily habits of the Franks’ homelands, even of social harmony – an obviously welcome ambience for Western pilgrims coming to a foreign part of the world, outremer, the ‘other side of the sea’. But these sounds also created a sense of belonging, and stimulated the idea of a spiritual community, of corporate Catholic identity, and perhaps helped create a communitarian identity shared by the permanent residents with the pilgrims. Liturgical rhythm, canonical rhythm, was the rhythm of life – especially in a city known to be lacking in other communitarian urban institutions, civic or ethnic-national, as was the case in Acre and elsewhere in Europe. A collective pace of public life in a small Latin community living in a relatively small city infused with so many religious institutions had its special tone.66 Church bells were recognized as expanding sacred space to the city as a whole, defining it as an urban centre, a Latin Christian centre, and symbolically creating a territory under divine protection. To the many meanings of Jerusalem for medieval Christians, crusaders and pilgrims especially, its new auspicious soundscape signalled its freedom and triumph.


Iris Shagrir

Notes I thank Professor Emma Dillon for inspiring me to write about sounds, and Professor Miri Rubin for discussing an earlier version of this paper. This research project was supported by the Israel science Foundation, grant no. 663/14, and by the Mandel-Scholion Interdisciplinary Research Center in the Humanities and Jewish Studies at The Hebrew University. 1 Chronicon S. Andreae Castri Cameracensii, cap. 3, MGH SS 7: 54. 2 Albert of Aachen, History of the Journey to Jerusalem, 6.40, trans. Susan B. Edgington, 2 vols. (Farnham and Burlington, 2013), 1: 235. 3 Emma Dillon, Sense of Sound: Musical Meaning in France, 1260–1330 (New York and Oxford, 2012), 56. 4 Peter Howard, Creating Magnificence in Renaissance Florence, Essays and Studies 29 (Toronto, 2012), 10. 5 Honorii Augustudonensis Operum pars tertia liturgica, Migne PL 172, col. 567. 6 Jacques Le Goff, “Merchant’s Time and Church’s Time in the Middle Ages,” in Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages (Chicago and London, 1980), 29–42; David Garrioch, “Sounds of the City: The Soundscape of Early Modern European Towns,” Urban History 30 (2003): 5–25; John Arnold and Caroline Goodson, “Resounding Community: The History and Meaning of Medieval Church Bells,” Viator 43 (2012), 99–130; Carol Symes, “Out in the Open, in Arras: Sightlines, Soundscapes, and the Shaping of a Medieval Public Sphere,” in Cities, Texts, and Social Networks, 400–1500: Experiences and Perceptions of Medieval Urban Space, ed. Caroline J. Goodson, Anne E. Lester, and Carol Symes (Aldershot, 2010), 279–302. 7 S. Brent Plate, A History of Religion in 5 ½ Objects: Bringing the Spiritual to Its Senses (Boston, 2014), 5. 8 Anna Gutgarts, “The Early Landscape of the Heavenly City: A New Framework for the Examination of the Urban Development of Frankish Jerusalem,” Al Masaq 28 (2016), 265–81. 9 Adrian J. Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape and Art in the Holy City Under Frankish Rule (London and New York, 2001), 134. 10 John of Ibelin, Le Livre des Assises, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Leiden, 2003), 570–6, at 574. See also Ernst H. Kantorowitz, Laudes Regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship (Berkeley, 1946), 24; And Andrew Hughes, “Antiphons and Acclamations: The Politics of Music in the Coronation Service of Edward II, 1308,” The Journal of Musicology 6.2 (1988), 150–68. 11 Simon John, “Royal Inauguration and Liturgical Culture in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1187,” Journal of Medieval History (2017), forthcoming; Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus und die Krönung der Lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Forschung über Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik,” Dumbartrom Oaks Papers 21 (1967), 141–232, at 160, 232; Svetlana I. Luchitskaya, “Pictorial Sources, Coronation Ritual, and Daily Life in the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in Ritual, Images, and Daily Life: The Medieval Perspective, ed. Gerhard Jaritz (Zürich and Berlin, 2012), 49–74. 12 Jean-Pierre Gutton, Bruits et sons dans notre histoire. Essai sur la reconstitution du paysage sonore (Paris, 2000), 23; Musée national du Moyen âge-Thermes et Hôtel de Cluny (Paris), “Insignes et souvenirs de pélerins et autres ‘menues choseites’ de plomb trouvées dans la Seine,” Le Petit Journal des Grandes Expositions, numero hors-serie, (Paris, 1997). 13 Were there any glass windows in private houses? Most probably in important buildings and occasionally in domestic construction. Shutters were also used. Adrian J. Boas, Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East (London and New York, 1999), 150, 219.

Urban soundscape


14 The Italians in 13th century Tyre had a musical market: Merav Mack, “The Italian Quarters of Frankish Tyre: Mapping a Medieval City,” Journal of Medieval History 33.2 (2007), 147–65, at 152, 164. 15 Iris Shagrir, “The Visitatio Sepulchri in the Latin Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem,” Al-Masāq 22.1 (2010), 57–77, at 67, 73–4. 16 Iris Shagrir, “Adventus in Jerusalem: The Palm Sunday Celebration in Latin Jerusalem,” The Journal of Medieval History 41 (2015), 1–21, at 7–8. 17 Sebastián Salvadó, Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre and the Templar Rite: Edition and Analysis of the Jerusalem Ordinal (Rome, Bib. Vat., Barb. Lat. 659) with a Comparative Analysis of the Acre Breviary (Paris, Bib. Nat., Ms. Latin 10478) (PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford 2011), 580 (feria III post dominicam in ramis palmarum): Puer qui erit in sinistra parte dicit: Xpiste eleyson, et qui in dextera: Xpiste eleyson, deinde qui in sinistra: Xpiste eleyson. Qui iuxta altare sunt dicunt Vers. Qui prophetice. Qui in medio choro Domine miserere nobis. Corus: Xpistus dominus. Deinde puer qui in dextra Kyirrieleyson sicut prius qui iuxta altare . . . puer alta voce dicit Mortem autem crucis. 18 For example in 1170–80, Pope Alexander III informs the abbots of Templum Domini, Mount Zion and St Mary of the Valley of Jehoshaphat and the prior of the Mt of Olives that at times when the patriarch of Jerusalem is absent or ill, or the patriarchate is vacant, the prior and brothers of the Holy Sepulchre should be received in solemn procession and should celebrate Mass in the patriarch’s place. Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Kirchen im Heiligen Lande 119 (Göttingen, 1985), 293–4 (Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani 486, ed. Röhricht, 128). 19 Wolf Zöller, “The Regular Canons and the Liturgy of the Latin East,” The Journal of Medieval History (2017), forthcoming. 20 Shagrir, “Adventus in Jerusalem,” 15. 21 Salvadó, Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, 482; Ch. Kohler, “Un Rituel et un Bréviare du Saint-Sépulchre de Jérusalem (XIII–XIII siècle),” Revue de l’orient latin 8 (1900– 1901), 383–469, at 434–5; RRH no. 145. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, Le cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem (Paris, 1984), 349–50, App. no. 2. 22 Albert of Aachen, History of the Journey to Jerusalem, 12: 29, 2: 871. 23 On the use of sound as a major vehicle of meaning in coronation ceremonies, see Eduardo Henrik Aubert, “Le son et ses sens. L’Ordo ad consecrandum et coronandum regem (v. 1250),” Annales Histoire, Sciences sociales 62.2 (2007), 387–411. 24 Sible De Blaauw, “Campanae supra urbem: Sull’uso delle campane nella Roma Medievale,” Rivista Storica della chiesa in Italia 47 (1993), 367–414, at 388, 391. 25 Albert of Aachen, History of the Journey to Jerusalem 6.4: 1, 235. 26 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 1095–1127, vol. 2: 31.7, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), 492; also “pulsate majori campana” in Bartolf of Nangis, Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, RHC Occ. 3 (Paris, 1866), ch. 70, p. 540. And see further below. 27 In 1154 the Muslim traveller Al Idrisi (1100–1165) noted the bell tower above the gate of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Denys Pringle remarked that it could possibly have been “a bell-cote erected on the south-east corner of the Anastasis to hold the bells that had been cast for the canons in 1099”. Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1993), 3: 22. See also Melchior de Vogüé, Les églises de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1860), 206. 28 In a papal bull of 1215 the pope instructed the Maronite church in Lebanon, also in Outremer regarding dogmas, rites and practices and speaks of the necessity of bells (campanas) to regulate time and to summon the community: “et in altaris Sacrificio non vitreis, ligneis aut aereis, sed stagneis, argenteis, vel aureis vasis utamini; habentes campanas ad distinguentes horas, et populum ad ecclesiam convocandum” Innocent refers to the bell immediately after specifying the Mass vessels, which indicates their




31 32


34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42


Iris Shagrir

importance in his view. See Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198–1216) 216, ed. Theodosius Haluscynskyj (Vatican City, 1944), 458–62, at 459. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 1.29.2, 1.30.4, pp. 301–2, 310; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, ed. and trans. John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill (Philadelphia, 1968), 128; cf John H. Hill et Laurita L. Hill, ed., Le “Liber” de Raymond d’Aguilers (Paris, 1969), 151. See the discussion of the writings of Honorius of Autun, Hugh of St. Victor and Sicard of Cremona in Elisabetta Neri “Les cloches: construction, sens, perception d’un son. Quelques réflexions à partir des témoignages archéologiques des ‘fours à cloches’,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 55 (2012), 473–96, esp. 488–96. Blaauw, “Campanae supra urbem,” 382; Ittai Weinryb, The Bronze Object in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2016), appendix 3, 205. Giles Constable, “The Cross of the Crusaders,” in Giles Constable, Crusades and Crusading in the twelfth century (Farnham and Burlington, 2008), 45–91; Sylvia Schein, Gateway to the heavenly City (Burlington, 2005), 109–40 (ch. 7: “Jerusalem in the Believer’s Plan of Salvation”). Milka Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence (Cambridge, 2011), 73–8; Arthur S. Tritton, The Caliphs and the NonMuslim Subjects: A Critical Study of the Pact of Umar (Oxford, 1930), 100–6. See also Olivia Remie Constable, “Regulating Religious Noise: The Council of Vienne, the Mosque Call and Muslim Pilgrimage in the Late Medieval Mediterranean World,” Medieval Encounters 16 (2010), 64–95. In his Chronicon Venetum John the Deacon writes that Ursus, Doge of Venice, sent the basileus twelve bells “quas imperator in ecclesia noviter ab eo constructa posuit, et ex tempore illo Greci campanas habere ceperunt,” MGH SS 7, 21. Only a few examples of striking on wood as calls for services are known from western Europe; the use of the semantron was predominant in the Christian east whereas in the west bells were clearly preferred. See Ali Asgar H. Alibhai, From Sound to Light: The Changing Symbolism of Bells in Medieval Iberia in Christian and Muslim Contexts (Thesis, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, 2008), 12. Bells came to wide use in the West in the 6th century, and were gradually incorporated into wider liturgical and secular celebrations, religious, royal and civil ceremonies. Bell towers began to appear in the 8th century. See Edward V. Williams, The Bells of Russia: History and Technology (Princeton, 1985), 10–11. Ms. Barberini 659, in Salvadó, Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, 152, 583, Kohler, “Un Rituel,” 417. Salvadó, Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, 562, Kohler, “Un Rituel,” 411. Salvadó, Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, 582. Ms. Barberini 659, in Salvadó, Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, 581 (Holy Thursday). Ibid., 587 (Holy Fire ceremony). Theodericus, in Peregrinationes tres, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, CCCM 139 (Turnhout, 1994), 152. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 2: 31.7, 492. Commenting on this, Hagenmeyer added in note 22 a few unverified details about two old church bells in the form of ‘Tyrolean hats’, supposedly cast in Jerusalem in 1122, which were brought to Vienna in October 1887 by a bell-maker who had recently visited Jerusalem. Hagenmeyer refers to a notice he read in the daily Schwäbischer Merkur of 26 October 1887, no. 253. Ms. Barberini 659, in: Salvadó, Liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, 486. Sancte ecclesie mos est iste a maioribus contenditus ut rectoribus ecclesiarum ut ducibus populorum de remotis partibus, post diuturna tempora redeuntibus totus grex fidelium si comissus letus occurrat eosque cum dignis honoribus et obsequis triumphalibus in sancta ecclesia hoc modo suscipiat. Duo maiora signa pulsantur . . . Tunc accipies manum eius in ecclesiam et universam processionem. Procedentibus candelabris et maioribus minores

Urban soundscape

44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61



in ordem subsequentibus vadunt omnes usque in chorum.[fol. 16v] eisque precedentibus: cantor incipit Resp. Deum time cum Vers. et regressu, sonatque totum classicum, donec omnes ingrediantur chorum. Interea suscepta persona ante altare supertapetum causa orationis simile qui cum eo venerit sed retro aliquantulum prostiniuntur. Finito uno quantu: rector ecclesie si episcopus, fuerit orat pro eo antequam ab oratione surgat. Capitulum Salvum fac servuum. Mitte ei domine Esto ei deo. Domine et Dominus vobiscum. Oremus. Deus humilium visitator. Paola Ericoli, “Campane,” in Il medioevo Europeo di Jacques Le Goff, ed. Daniela Romagnoli (Milan, 2003), 168–9; Elisabetta Neri, De campanis fundendis: la produzione di campane nel Medioevo tra fonti scritte ed evidenze archeologiche (Milan, 2006), 15. Pringle, Churches, 3: 257. Ibid., 245. RRH no. 576, 154; Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Kirchen, no. 113, pp. 280–7. Quoted by al-Furat, in Ursula and Malcolm Cameron Lyons, Ayyubids, Mamlukes and Crusaders: Selections from the “Tarikh al-duwal wa’l-Muluk” of Ibn al-Furat, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1971), 2: 1–2, and 171 n. 9, where the possibility is suggested at this time it was the Templars rather than Augustinian canons who occupied the building. WT 18.3, ed. R. B. C. Huygens CCCM 63A (Turnhout, 1986), 813. Pringle, Churches, 3: 194, 198. Joshua Prawer, “Estates, communities and the constitution of the Latin Kingdom,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II: 6 (1966), 1–42, at 23–7. ʻImâd ad-Dîn al İṣfahânî mentions the silencing of the bells on the Haram a Sharif four times in his chronicle. See ʻImâd ad-Dîn al İṣfahânî, Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine: par Saladin (al-Fatḥ al-qussî fî l-fatḥ al-qudsî), trans. Henri Massé (Paris, 1972), 51, 53, 60, 98. Camille Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés dans le Royaume de Jérusalem: architecture religieuse et civile, 2 vols. (Paris, 1925–1928), 1: 181–7. Benjamin Z. Kedar, “Vestiges of Templar Presence in the Aqsa Mosque,” The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson (Crusades–Subsidia, 2017), 3–24. Pringle, Churches, 3: 57. See above for the comment by Heinrich Hagenmeyer added on two old church bells supposedly cast in Jerusalem in 1122. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 492, n. 22. Geneviève Bautier-Bresc and Henri Bresc, “La cloche de Šibenik qui sonne pour la libération de la patrie (Acre, 1266),” in Come l’orco della fiaba: studi per Franco Cardini, ed. Marina Montesano (Florence, 2010), 49–72, at 54. For a detailed description of the bells’ appearance see Enlart, Monuments des Croisés, 1: 181–7; Paul Chéneau, “Chronique: L’ancien carillon de Bethléem,” Revue Biblique 32 (1923), 602–7. Cheneau, “L’ancien carillon,” 605–7. Manuel Castiñeiras, “Vox Domini: el órgano medieval del Museo del Studium Biblicum Franciscanum de Jerusalén y la perdida Sibila de la iglesia de la Natividad de Belén,” Ad Limina 5 (2014), 63–82. Jean-Pierre Gutton has sketched a history of sound in France since the Middle Ages, stressing among other aspects of sound, the growing control of sound by the state and the church. Gutton, Bruits et sons. Alain Corbin in his study of the history of bells in nineteenth-century France observes that disputes over bells reflect a form of attachment to symbolic objects, and that “to control the voice of authority radiating from the centre of a territory was a much coveted form of domination . . . numerous disputes hinged upon this privilege, which had so many ramifications,” Alain Corbin, Village Bells: Sound and Meaning in the 19th-Century French Countryside (New York, 1998 [1994]), xx. Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Kirchen, nos. 94, 249–50; RRH no. 440.


Iris Shagrir

63 John Arnold and Caroline Goodson, “Resounding Community: The History and Meaning of Medieval Church Bells,” Viator 43 (2012), 99–130, at 112. See also Constable, “Regulating Religious Noise”. 64 ʻImâd ad-Dîn al İṣfahânî mentions the silencing of the bells on the Haram a Sharif four times in his chronicle. See ʻImâd ad-Dîn al İṣfahânî, Conquête de la Syrie, 51, 53, 60, 98. 65 John Tolan, “Affreux vacarme: sons de cloches et voix de muezzins dans la polémique interconfessionnelle en péninsule ibérique,” in Guerre, pouvoirs et idéologies dans l’Espagne chrétienne aux alentours de l’an mil, Actes du Colloque international organisé par le Centre d’Etudes Supérieures de Civilisation Médiévale, Poitiers-Angoulême (26, 27 et 28 septembre 2002), (Turnhout, 2005), 51–64. See also Tom Nixon, “The Sound of Conversion in Medieval Iberia,” Resounding Images: Medieval Intersections of Art, Music, and Sound, ed. S. Boynton and D. Reilly (Turnhout, 2015), 91–107. 66 The population estimate of Jerusalem in 1160 is approximately 30,000 at most, of them three-quarters were non-Franks; see Meron Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 1970), 27.

10 Frankish bathhouses Balneum and furnus – a functional dyad? Benjamin Z. Kedar

The lure of Eastern Mediterranean bathhouses appears to have mesmerized many Europeans long before the era of the Crusades. Already in the first decade of the tenth century, when the Scandinavian Rus’ of Kiev made peace with the rulers of Byzantium, they insisted on making sure that when Rus’ came henceforth to Constantinople, baths would be prepared in any volume they might require.1 These Rus’ were to dwell in a specific quarter of the city, that of St. Mamas, but they did not own it. Two centuries later, however, the Venetians, the Genoese and the Pisans obtained from the Frankish kings of Jerusalem the privilege of owning entire quarters in the kingdom’s main ports – and royal grants underlined their right to possess a bathhouse (balneum) in these quarters. The inclusion of bathhouses in the demands for privileges that the Italian communes submitted to the Frankish rulers should be regarded as a further testimony of the pre-crusade familiarity of Italian merchants – especially Venetian, Amalfitan and Genoese – with the attractions of Byzantine and Muslim cities.2 The Pactum Warmundi of 1124, drawn up between the Franks of Jerusalem and the Venetians on the eve of their joint conquest of Tyre, spells out this grant in general terms. The Venetians were granted the right to a bathhouse in every town of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, whether it belonged to the king or to one of his barons; the agreement, concluded in Acre, specified that the Venetians might build a bathhouse in their quarter in Acre and use it freely.3 It is highly probable that the Genoese, who helped the Franks to conquer Acre in 1104, obtained thereby the right to a bathhouse in their quarter of that town; yet this was specifically documented only in 1192 (or 1193), when Henri of Champagne confirmed to the Genoese the right to possess a bathhouse in Acre, as well as in all maritime towns of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, in return for having assisted in their conquest.4 Similarly, the Pisan bathhouse in Acre is mentioned for the first time in 1187, when Conrad of Montferrat promised the Pisans that they would regain it, alongside their other possessions, should the Christians succeed in wresting the town from the Muslims.5 The patchy documentation on the Genoese and Pisan bathhouses of Acre should alert us to a fact that too many historians of the Frankish Kingdom are insufficiently aware of – namely, that the records about this short-lived entity, which ended in total collapse, are fragmentary and haphazard, and should by no means be equated with reality.


Benjamin Z. Kedar

The extant documentation suggests nevertheless that there were bathhouses in many towns of the Frankish Levant. There is specific evidence for their existence in Beirut,6 Tyre,7 Acre,8 Paneas (Belinas, Bāniyās),9 Jerusalem,10 Jaffa11 and Ascalon,12 as well as in Antioch,13 Latakia14 and Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘mān15 – all three in the Principality of Antioch, in Rafanīya in the County of Tripoli,16 and in Limassol17 and Nicosia18 in Cyprus. Moreover, the promise of the right to a bathhouse in still unconquered Muslim cities served as bait for a ruler intent on ensuring cooperation in their conquest. In 1169, King Amaury of Jerusalem promised the Pisans a bathhouse as well as other possessions in Fustāt, Cairo and ‘Rassit’ (Rashīd, Rosetta);19 and in 1190, an envoy of King Philip II Augustus of France promised the Genoese a bathhouse, among other desirables, in all Muslim towns to be conquered during the crusade on which the king was about to embark.20 Indeed, some Christian merchants were eager to obtain the right to a bathhouse in Muslim-ruled cities that the crusaders never conquered: Thus, in 1208 Sultan al-Zāhir Ghāzī granted to the Venetians the right to a bathhouse in Aleppo.21 In Jerusalem, most of the bathhouses mentioned in the sources belonged to Frankish ecclesiastical institutions. The Baths of the Patriarch gave their name to the street, ruha [sic!] balneorum patriarche,22 that led from the Gate of David (today’s Jaffa Gate) to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The abbey church of Templum Domini – the christianized Dome of the Rock – possessed baths in its walled court.23 The Abbey of Mount Zion owned baths in Jerusalem’s southwestern corner24 and the abbey of St. Mary of the Valley of Josaphat likewise owned a bath within the city walls.25 This ecclesiastical ownership of baths probably continued practices of the local, pre-crusade Greek churches and monasteries, which – as in contemporary Byzantium – possessed baths that served also the general public, providing a part of these institutions’ revenue.26 Bathhouses were not limited to towns. A charter issued by King Baldwin III in 1153 that spells out the rights and obligations of the Franks who recently settled at Casal Imbert (Hebrew, Akhziv; Arabic, al-Zib), a village north of Acre, lays down that the settlers had to pay one-half of a denarius, “not more,” each time they made use of the local bathhouse;27 it appears to have been a negligible sum.28 Thus, even Franks who decided to live in a rural settlement were not willing to deny themselves the pleasures of a bath; similarly, there were bathhouses in the rural areas of Byzantium29 and in villages in the vicinity of Damascus.30 The military orders also owned baths. The pilgrim Theoderich, who visited Jerusalem in about 1169, mentions the baths (lavacra) the Knights Templar had at their headquarters in and around the christianized Aqsa Mosque.31 There is also reason to believe that there was a bathhouse in the Templar castle at Vadum Jacob on the Upper Jordan, destroyed by Saladin during its construction in 1179.32 Bernard of Clairvaux, who passionately celebrated the early Templars as warriors who “never combed, rarely bathed,”33 may have been disheartened to learn about the recourse to baths of their successors. The Knights Hospitaller, too, had bathhouses in their headquarters in Jerusalem and Acre, although their statutes, as well as those of the Teutonic Knights, attempted to restrict recourse to them;34 such restrictions were in line with the regulations on limited bathing in medieval monasteries.35 At

Frankish bathhouses


Belvoir, the Hospitaller castle overlooking the Jordan Valley, the excavator initially reported to have uncovered, near the northeastern corner of the outer bailey, a bath, brick-made ovens and pipes for conveying the steam;36 subsequently he wrote that “the sign-board pointing to a bath in that place is based on a mistake,” and maintained that the brick-made ovens served a forge.37 Outside the kingdom, a circular steam bath with its stoking chamber was unearthed in the Frankish castle of ‘Saranda Kolones’ near Paphos (Cyprus), erected after 1191;38 and at the Hospitaller castle of Margat in the Principality of Antioch, no less than six bathing areas were recently excavated: one of them, situated in the central courtyard, served as the main bathhouse, while two small ones apparently served for the private use of important persons.39 Frequent use of baths was a characteristic of the Pullani, the Franks born in the Levant. Usāma ibn Munqidh, the Syrian emir to whom we owe so many vignettes of Frankish life, mentions the bath that a Muslim established in Frankish Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘mān and that served (perhaps not exclusively) a Frankish clientele, as well as his own visit to a Frankish bathhouse in Tyre.40 Jacques of Vitry, bishop of Acre in the years 1216 to 1227, denounced the Pullani, claiming inter alia that they were more habituated to bathhouses than to battles (balneis plusquam preliis assueti);41 here as elsewhere he was following in the footsteps of William of Tyre, who censured the crusaders who in 1178 rushed to Antioch, “addicted to its baths, banquets, drunkenness and other lewd pleasures,” instead of persevering in the siege of Harenc (Hārim).42 Jacques also stated that the Pullani confined their wives to their houses, and asserted – probably with much exaggeration – that they hardly permitted them to go to church once a year yet some allowed them to frequent the baths three times a week.43 The good bishop would have been surprised to learn that among the Muslims, whose religion he so vehemently condemned,44 there were hardliners who denounced the bathhouses even more severely than he did.45 Two Frankish baths of the Kingdom of Jerusalem have been excavated so far. In the early 1930s Cedric Norman Johns unearthed a well-preserved bathhouse just inside the eastern wall of the thirteenth-century faubourg that adjoined the huge Templar castle of Château Pèlerin (‘Atlit). The hot room, measuring about 50 square meters and partitioned into two compartments, was situated in the center of the bath’s southern part (see no. 2 on Figure 10.1). The hot room’s floor was finished with scraps of marble, laid in lime, to provide greater comfort. East of this room was the furnace [no. 3], while the cool room [no. 1] was to its west. Earthenware vents located at the far corners of the hot and the cool rooms forced a draught from the furnace; water heated by it ran in earthenware pipes around the walls of the hot room, while another pipe carried cold water to the cool one. In the northern part of the bath, a large hall [no. 5] served as a common undressing room, with a wide plastered bench along three of its walls and a cold-water basin at its center. As no glass finds were made, Johns assumed that light came in through pipes that pierced a brick-made vault.46 A second, much less well conserved bathhouse came partially to light in 1997 during a salvage excavation undertaken by Howard Smithline, Edna Stern and Eliezer Stern in what had been Montmusard, Frankish Acre’s northern suburb. Ceramic


Benjamin Z. Kedar

Figure 10.1 The ‘Atlit bathhouse. Source: Johns, “Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit),” 126.

wares enable dating the bathhouse to the thirteenth century. A paved hot air channel led from the furnace to a roughly square northern hot room (H1 on Figure 10.2), while another, much longer channel was unearthed in two other poorly preserved hot rooms (H2 and H3). Still, it would appear that the hot rooms measured about 35 square meters and were thus smaller than the hot room Johns uncovered in ‘Atlit. West of the furnace (F) a room that may have served for stoking (S?) was excavated, but no cool room was found, possibly because of the constraints of the salvage operation. A well-built channel that carried water into the complex was also unearthed. Many floor-and wall-tiles of marble or marblized limestone were found in the debris – some white, others gray, green, red or purple – recalling the scraps of marble laid in lime on the floor of ‘Atlit’s hot room. More than 700 fragments of multicolored glass panes indicate that in the Acre bathhouse daylight entered through several windows, possibly rounded and forming part of a dome. The numerous cooking and baking dishes found in the debris led the excavators to conjecture that “food was served somewhere in the bathhouse.”47 The bathhouses of the Franks were either hammāmāt they took over upon the conquest of Muslim towns, or – as in ‘Atlit – new structures that they, or the indigenous craftsmen who worked for them, modeled on Muslim bathhouses that existed elsewhere (and which, like the Byzantine ones, were influenced to some extent by those of classical antiquity).48 The Franks who settled in the Levant originated in areas that were mostly devoid of such installations,49 whereas in the realm of Islam – as William Marçais famously claimed back in 1928 – the hammām was one of the three essential features of a Muslim town, alongside the Friday mosque and

Source: After Smithline, Stern and Stern, “A Crusader-Period Bathhouse in ‘Akko (Acre),” 72.

Figure 10.2 The Acre bathhouse.


Benjamin Z. Kedar

the market50 and whereas in the Byzantine world – as Paul Magdalino aptly put it in 1986 – “church and bath were not only compatible; they were often closely associated.”51 The dependence of the Frankish balneum on the Muslim hammām becomes evident when one juxtaposes the plan of the ‘Atlit bathhouse, constructed in the thirteenth century and excavated by Johns in the early 1930s,52 with the plans, prepared a decade later by Michel Écochard and Claude Le Coeur, of the Damascene hammāmāt of Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh, constructed between 1154 and 1172, and al-Surūjī, erected before the end of the twelfth century,53 and with the plan of the recently excavated bathhouse of the Bustān Nassīf in Baalbek, Lebanon, which has been dated to the Ayyubid period (see Figures 10.3a, 10.3b, 10.3c and 10.3d).54 The similarities of layout are striking. On all four plans we see an undressing hall (A), with a cold water basin (B) at its center. The hall is by far the largest room of the entire complex; it is its only component devoid of steam,55 since a thick wall separates it from the bath proper. In all four cases, a single door (D), at the far end of the complex – in three cases, at the far right end, in Baalbek at the far left end – gives access to the bath units situated beyond that thick wall. This door leads invariably into the cool room (C) of the bath. From this room one reaches, in the Damascene baths and in Baalbek, first the warm room (W) and then the hot room (H), whereas in ‘Atlit one apparently reaches the hot room directly from the cool one. Yet when we examine closely Johns’s plan of the ‘Atlit bathhouse, we notice that the hot room is divided into two parts, and arguably the part adjoining the cool room may have served as the warm room. Again, in all four cases the furnace (F), and the boiler above it, are situated close to the hot room’s far end. The juxtaposition of the plans allows the conjecture that Johns’s Room 8, which he regarded as a spare room, contained latrines – like the ones marked at the same location on the reconstruction of Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh (L); the corresponding room on the plan of the al-Surūjī bathhouse (which I marked: L?) probably served the same purpose. We may also assume that the bathhouse keeper (hammāmī), or one of his employees, sat near the entrance (E) and collected fees from incoming customers. The room in ‘Atlit that Johns marked as no. 4 without advancing a hypothesis as to its purpose, has exact parallels in the al-Surūjī and Bustān Nassīf (Baalbek) bathhouses – and the excavator of the latter observes that its function (see Figures 10.3a, 10.3b, 10.3c and 10.3d) remains unclear. The two lines of earthenware piping in ‘Atlit that supplied hot and cold water and were situated 0.50 m above the floor, have their exact counterparts in the pipelines of hot and cold water at Bustān Nassīf, located at a height of 0.58, 0.57 and 0.60 m,56 and in the pipeline at Bustān al-Khān in Baalbek (probably of the twelfth century), located at the height of 0.59 m.57 When the installations at ‘Atlit, Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh, al-Surūjī and Bustān Nassīf are drawn to the same scale (see Figures 10.3a and 10.3.b), it transpires that the ‘Atlit bathhouse (23 × 19 m) is somewhat smaller than that of Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh (26 × 20), but larger than those of al-Surūjī (17 × 16.6) and Bustān Nassīf (21 × 14). Yet the size of the bath proper is considerably smaller at ‘Atlit, and its undressing room (A) occupies a much larger part of the complex than elsewhere. Still, the similarity of the Frankish bath to the three Islamic ones is striking. Incidentally, the Muslim origins of

Figure 10.3a–10.3b The Damascene baths of Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh and al-Surūjī Source: Écochard and Le Coeur, Les bains de Damas, 1:20, 2:27.

Figure 10.3c–10.3d The baths of ‘Atlit and Bustān Nassīf in Baalbek Source: (c) Johns, “Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit),” 126; (d) after Mathyschok, “The Medieval Bath of the Bustan Nassif in Baalbek,” 207.

Frankish bathhouses


Figure 10.4 ‘Atlit: Angle of piping Source: Israel Antiquities Authority Archives: British Mandate Record Files: file No. 17, #4740.

one Frankish bath are revealed in writing, when a grant made in Antioch in 1140 mentions “the baths called in Arabic Omar.”58 As for the heating systems of the two Frankish baths, that of Acre displays hot-water channels which are typical of Muslim hammāmāt in Syria.59 The ‘Atlit bath appears to have been of the hypocaust type; if so, it may have amounted to a latter-day filiation of the hypocaust baths of the Umayyad period60 that are – as of now – undocumented for subsequent periods; or it may have been influenced by Italian hypocaust baths, two of which are documented in the tenth and eleventh centuries.61 In the mid-twelfth century, there were forty bathhouses within the walls of Damascus and seventeen outside of them; a century later, these numbers had risen to eighty-five and thirty-two, respectively.62 None of our sources lists the bathhouses of a Frankish town or spells out their number, and our knowledge about them depends on sporadic references in the written sources. All we know about thirteenth-century Acre, the town about which the documentation is relatively abundant, is that the Venetians, Genoese and Pisans each had a bathhouse.63 We know too that the Knights Hospitaller owned baths (bains),64 and that in 1232 Queen Alice of Cyprus promised them preemption rights over her balneum as well as some other possessions.65 As one of the gates of Acre was called porta balnei,66 some


Benjamin Z. Kedar

Figure 10.5 Bustān al-Khān (Baalbek): Angle of piping Source: Courtesy Dr. Natascha Mathyschok, Frankfurt/M.

bathhouse must have been located close to it. The number of bathhouses mentioned in documents pertaining to Frankish Tyre is about the same: Pisa’s bathhouse is repeatedly referred to in grants conferred at the time of the Third Crusade;67 according to Marsilio Zorzi’s report of 1243, Venice owned three bathhouses in Tyre at that time, while the Balneum Saladini outside the city walls, also mentioned in the report, did not belong to the commune;68 and an inventory of 1250 spells out that Genoa possessed in Tyre two balnea, both of them in the goldsmiths’ street.69 Only future excavations may throw light on the frequency and density of the bathhouses of Frankish Acre and Tyre. What little we read in the sources about the functioning of Frankish bathhouses ties in with the information about those of the Byzantine and Islamicate realms. Usāma ibn Munqidh relates that the Muslim owner of a bathhouse in Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘mān shaved the pubic hair of a Frankish knight and his wife;70 and ‘Abd al-Rahmān b. Nasr al-Shayzarī, a twelfth-century author – who, if he really hailed from Shayzar, may have known Usāma – spells out the duties of the bathhouse attendant who works as a barber, to the point of calling upon him to abstain from

Frankish bathhouses


eating “anything which makes his breath smell, such as onions, garlic and leeks, lest he offend the people when he is shaving them.”71 Bishop Jacques of Vitry complains that the Pullani do not permit their wives to go to church, join processions or listen to sermons, and keep them under close surveillance while on their way to the bathhouse;72 and Byzantine literary works describe women who set out for the bathhouse, accompanied and watched over by numerous servants of both sexes.73 However, the fiery bishop who deprecated the Pullani for allowing their wives to go to the bathhouse three times a week, does not appear to have fathomed the importance of these visits for the wives’ mental health. Joint visits to the bathhouse afforded the women, confined to their houses as they were, an opportunity for enjoyable, relaxed gatherings among themselves. In contemporary Jewish practice, the visit to a bathhouse was considered a woman’s right, to the point that a husband was not allowed to move with his spouse to a locality devoid of bathhouses;74 and it stands to reason that Muslim women, who frequented bathhouses for ritual purification,75 may have had similar expectations.76 Archaeological finds made in the excavated Frankish bathhouses also tie in with information about bathhouses in the Islamicate realm. The hot room floor in ‘Atlit finished with scraps of marble and the floor tiles made of marble or marblized limestone found in Acre recall the bathroom floor in a large private house in Fustāt, described in a Geniza document of ca. 1190, that was entirely paved with marble.77 Likewise, the varicolored marble floor of a Cairene bathhouse that ‘Abd al-Latīf al-Baghdādī admired a decade later, averring that it was especially exquisite in the inner bath. The hundreds of multicolored glass fragments found in the Acre bathhouse evoke the openings in the domes that, according to ‘Abd al-Latīf, were sealed with bright glass of many colors that allowed in much light and rendered the bath well illuminated.78 The vessels for storing, cooking and serving food that were found in the Acre bathhouse tie in with the testimony of the written sources on eating in Byzantine and Muslim bathhouses;79 also, they tie in with the recommendation of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Sirr al-asrār – translated into Latin in the thirteenth century by Philip of Tripoli as Secretum Secretorum – that a bather should drink rose water and apple juice, and later take his meal and drink his wine with moderation.80 Yet some features appear to have been peculiar to Frankish bathhouses. While the mixed bathing of men and women gradually disappeared in Byzantium under ecclesiastical censure,81 and was always anathema to Muslims, Frankish Tyre had bathhouses in which men and women bathed together (balneas . . . in quibus viri et mulieres una balneantur); in 1190 Conrad of Montferrat granted these bathhouses to the Genoese.82 Possibly it was in one of these Tyrian baths that a surprised Usāma ibn Munqidh saw a Frankish widower who brought his daughter to wash her hair.83 Could it be that Tyre was one of the places where Greek ecclesiastical censure failed to fully eradicate mixed bathing,84 and the custom survived among local Christians down to the twelfth century? Or was it a Frankish innovation imported from the West, where the Church struggled against mixed bathing in the eleventh century and beyond?85 In any case, the wording of the 1190 charter suggests that mixed bathing was exceptional. On the other hand, while the Sirr al-asrār


Benjamin Z. Kedar

recommends that the bather, having had his drink, should “stretch himself a little while looking at some beautiful picture, well fashioned, or if possible, at some beautiful human being, which is better still”86 (indeed, a private bath in thirteenthcentury Baghdad is said to have had on its floor depictions of such beings, kissing and embracing in various postures so as to arouse a male beholder’s lust for a male or female partner),87 Philip of Tripoli’s Latin translation recommends only that the bather should stretch himself a little, and skips the sensuous continuation altogether!88 Again, while ‘Abd al-Rahmān b. Nasr al-Shayzarī prescribes that the owner of a hammām “must have some bathrobes to hire out or lend to the people, because strangers and poor people need this,” and calls on the muhtasib to chastise both those who reveal their nakedness and those who witness it,89 the Muslim bathhouse keeper at Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘mān told Usāma that the Franks disapprove of people who in the bathhouse wear a towel about their waist90 – in other words, they prefer to bathe in the nude. The story ties in with evidence from medieval and post-medieval Europe for nude or semi-nude bathing.91 Let us turn once again to the ‘Atlit bathhouse. In an annexe adjoining it from the west (see no. 10 on Figure 10.1), Johns unearthed, according to his report of 1931, “two domed ovens, one of cut-stone, the other of flat brick.”92 Sixteen years later he claimed, however, that the annexe contained “two stone ovens and a smaller brick oven, all three domed originally.”93 South of this annexe he uncovered a rotatory mill made of basalt (see no. 9 on Figure 10.1). Johns assumed that the annexe was the local bakery, which shared the heat and fuel supply from the bathhouse’s furnace.94 In later years, bathhouses and ovens were mentioned in conjunction in accounts of two excavated sites of the Frankish Levant. At Saranda Kolones, Cyprus, the furnace that “probably heated a steam bath . . . . may also have been used as a bake oven” – so writes one of the castle’s excavators, John Rosser.95 Another, Peter Megaw, observes that “above the bakehouse oven” there are “traces of a small circular chamber, probably a steam bath.”96 At Margat, the bakery area with two huge ovens adjoined the castle’s largest bathhouse, which however lacked a hypocaust system;97 next to one of the huge bread-making ovens, two small areas were uncovered that may have served for bathing and have used the same source of heat as the oven.98 In 2006, several years before the Margat data came to be known, Adrian J. Boas contended on the basis of the finds at ‘Atlit and Saranda Kolones that some Frankish bathhouses shared a heat source with a bakery, thus saving fuel.99 The Frankish bathhouse excavated in Acre’s Montmusard quarter may have been one of these, as the baking dishes found among its debris100 suggest that this balneum, too, may have adjoined a bakery that was served by its furnace. In sum, it is possible to hypothesize that in many cases Frankish bathhouses and ovens were components of the same complex, sharing the same source of heat; and when we remember the mill that Johns found in ‘Atlit next to the ovens and the bathhouse, we may conjecture that a mill was sometimes a further constituent. When, armed with these archaeology-derived insights, we turn to the privileges granted by Frankish rulers, we may look afresh at the well-known fact that bathhouse and oven are often listed in them together, with the mill often mentioned

Frankish bathhouses


alongside them.101 Arguably these were not distinct structures lumped together by chance, but a functionally linked dyad, or perhaps even triad. And when we read that in some cases a bathhouse, in the singular, is listed alongside ovens, in the plural,102 we may recall that in ‘Atlit there were two (or three) ovens in the annexe that adjoined the bathhouse.

Notes An earlier version of this paper formed part of a lecture read at the conference in honor of Denys Pringle, entitled “The Archaeology of the Latin East” and held in Cardiff on 17–18 September 2016. My thanks to Professor Adrian J. Boas of Haifa University, Professor David Jacoby of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dr. Robert Kool and Dr. Hervé Barbé of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Dr. Natascha Mathyschok of Johann-WolfgangGoethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, and Mr. Zsolt Vágner of Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Esztergom, for their comments and help. 1 The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text, trans. Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, MA, 1953), 64–5. 2 Back in 1977, Joshua Prawer presented this linkage between pre-crusade familiarity and the later demands as a hypothesis: Joshua Prawer, “Crusader Cities,” in The Medieval City [Studies in Honor of Robert S. Lopez], ed. Harry A. Miskimin, David Herlihy, and A. L. Udovitch (New Haven and London, 1977), 187. Nowadays, when this familiarity is far better known – the linkage may be taken for a fact. See B. Z. Kedar, “Mercanti genovesi in Alessandria d’Egitto negli anni Sessanta del secolo XI,” in Miscellanea di studi storici 2, Collana storica di fonti e studi diretta da Geo Pistarino, 38 (Genoa, 1983), 19–30; Bruno Figliuolo, “Amalfi e il Levante nel Medioevo,” in I comuni italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme. Atti del colloquio di Gerusalemme, 24–28 maggio 1984, ed. Gabriella Airaldi and Benjamin Z. Kedar, Collana storica di fonti e studi diretta da Geo Pistarino 48 (Genoa, 1986), 571–677; B. Z. Kedar and Reuven Amitai, “Franks in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1047,” in Quel mar che la terra inghirlanda. In ricordo di Marco Tangheroni, ed. Franco Cardini and Maria Luisa Ceccarelli Lemut (Rome, 2007), 465–8; David Jacoby, “Venetian Commercial Expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean, 8th–11th Centuries,” in Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries: The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Trade, ed. M. M. Mango (Farnham, 2009), 371–91; David Jacoby, “Commercio e navigazione degli Amalfitani nel Mediterraneo orientale: sviluppo e declino,” in Interscambi socio-culturali ed economici fra le città marinare d’Italia e l’Occidente dagli osservatori mediterranei, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi in memoria di Ezio Falcone (1938–2011), Amalfi, 14–16 maggio 2011, ed. Bruno Figliuolo and Pinuccia F. Simbula (Amalfi, 2014), 89–131. 3 UKJ 3: 1333–4, no. 764. 4 UKJ 2: 934–5, no. 569. Mayer, however, deems this charter a forgery. 5 UKJ 2: 875–7, no. 522; see also 2: 962, no. 579 (a. 1195/1196). 6 I Libri Iurium deIla Repubblica di Genova, ed. Antonella Rovere and Dino Puncuh, vol. 1/2 (Rome, 1996), 175, 177, nos. 349–50. 7 See for instance UKJ 2: 811, no. 477. 8 See for instance notes 2–4 above. 9 WT, 15.11, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 63–63A [hereafter cited as WT] (Turnhout, 1986), 689. 10 See below. 11 UKJ 2: 871, no. 521. 12 Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Kirchen im Heiligen Lande, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius III (Göttingen, 1985), 382, no. 190. For the hypothesis that the


13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25



Benjamin Z. Kedar hypocaust bathhouse near Mary’s Well in Nazareth dates from the times of the Kingdom of Jerusalem see Tzvi Shacham, “Bathhouse from the Crusader Period in Nazareth,” in Spa. Sanitas per Aquam. Tagungsband des Internationalen FrontinusSymposiums zur Technik-und Kulturgeschichte der antiken Thermen. Aachen, 18.-22. März 2009, ed. Ralf Kreiner and Wolfram Letzner (Leuven, 2012), 319–25. UKJ 1: 299, no. 129; Le Cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, ed. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier (Paris, 1984), 177, no. 76. See also WT 15.3, 18.25, 21.24, 677, 848, 995. Cartulaire général de l’ordre des Hospitaliers de St Jean de Jérusalem, ed. Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris, 1894–1906) [hereafter cited Cart Hosp], 1: 209, 224–5, nos. 280, 311. Usāma ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation, trans. Paul M. Cobb (London, 2008), 149. Cart Hosp 1: 77, no. 82. Cart Hosp 2: 121–2, no. 1354. I Libri Iurium deIla Repubblica di Genova, vol. 1/2: 181, no. 351. UKJ 2: 599, no. 343. UKJ 3: 1488, App. III/3. Gottlieb L. F. Tafel and Georg M. Thomas, eds., Urkunden zur älteren Handels-und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, vol. 2 (Vienna, 1856; repr. 2012), 2: 65, no. 185: “Deue de auer baigno et fontigo et glexia ad Alapo.” UKJ 2: 632, no. 364. These baths should appear to be identical to the lacus balneorum mentioned in a 1137 grant by Patriarch William I, recently re-edited by Hans Eberhard Mayer, Von der Cour des Bourgeois zum öffentlichen Notariat. Die freiwillige Gerichtsbarkeit in den Kreuzfahrerstaaten, MGH Schriften 70 (Wiesbaden, 2016), 237. UKJ 2: 552, no. 316. UKJ 1: 201, no. 67; the editor, Mayer, doubts that these possessions were donated by King Baldwin I. The 1179 confirmation of the grant in question has been pronounced a forgery: Hiestand, Papsturkunden, 280–3. Hiestand, Papsturkunden, 207, no. 70 (a. 1154). Hiestand observes (apparatus, 4–4) that the passage in question repeats almost in toto the 1130 grant by King Baldwin II. However, in that earlier grant the balneum goes unmentioned: UKJ 1: 278, no. 116. Félix-Marie Abel, who was the first to gather data on the subject, mentioned also a bath in the vicinity of the Church of Saint Martin, without citing his source: “L’État de la Cité de Jérusalem au XIIe Siècle,” Jerusalem 1920–1922: Being the Records of the Pro-Jerusalem Council during the First Two Years of the Civil Administration, ed. C. R. Ashbee (London, 1924), 39. Another Jerusalem bath, apparently unconnected to an ecclesiastical institution, is mentioned in a grant of 1229 as located near the old bucheria: UKJ 3: 1152, no. 677. For a hypocaust built of stone pillars, with a few pottery flues within the walls that served for ventilation, that was excavated in the eastern part of the large Frankish building near Jerusalem’s southern city-wall see Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville and Tennessee, 1983), 250. See also Adrian J. Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades (London and New York, 2001), 161–3. On the baths of Constantinople, with remarks on all periods of the Byzantine world, see Paul Magdalino, “Church, Bath and Diakonia in Medieval Constantinople,” in Church and People in Byzantium, ed. Rosemary Morris, Twentieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Manchester, 1986 (Birmingham, 1990), esp. 167–78. On baths as source of income for monasteries see Ulrika Kiby, Bäder und Badekultur in Orient und Okzident. Antike bis Spätbarock (Cologne, 1995), 52. On the income of the baths of Paneas see WT 15.11, 689. UKJ 1: 421, no. 228. For a discussion of the Frankish colonization of Casal Imbert see Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions (Oxford, 1980), 140–2 (article originally

Frankish bathhouses


29 30


32 33 34





published in 1951); Ronnie Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 1998), 65–8. Mayer corrects Prawer, who believed that the entrance fee amounted to one-half of a gold dinār, not one-half of a denarius. The buying power of half a denarius must have been very limited: In 1176, King Baldwin IV confirmed to Guillelmus Louellus the chaplaincy of two royal chapels in the castle of Jaffa, granting him inter alia 9 denarii a week, which should have allowed him to illuminate a relic of the Holy Cross and two candles: UKJ 2: 672, no. 391. Goitein, on the basis of an Egyptian petition from the years 1127–38, posits an entrance fee of one dirham: Shelomo D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, 6 vols. (Berkeley, 1967–1993), 3: 186, 5: 533 n. 266. In the relevant period, the value of a dirham expressed in denarii may have fluctuated between 3 and 7.5 according to the silver content of the specific coins in question; in any case, the dirham was worth much more than one-half of a denarius (personal communication, Dr. Robert Kool). In twelfthcentury Byzantium, the entrance fee amounted to one drachma: Adolf Lumpe, “Zur Kulturgeschichte des Bades in der byzantinischen Ära,” Byzantinische Forschungen 6 (1979), 157. Albrecht Berger, Das Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit, Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 27 (Munich, 1982), 70. Heinz Grotzfeld, Das Bad im arabisch – islamischen Mittelalter. Eine kulturhistorische Studie (Wiesbaden, 1970), 7 (the evidence adduced dates from ca. 1300). Apparently there was no bathhouse in the village near Nablus in which a Muslim, having had intercourse with his wife, attempted to wash himself with water drawn from the pits of cisterns: Daniella Talmon-Heller, “The Cited Tales of the Wondrous Doings of the Shaykhs of the Holy Land by Diyā’ al-Dīn Abū ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wāhid al-Maqdisī (569/1173–643/1245): Text, Translation and Commentary,” Crusades 1 (2002), 125 (text), 146 (translation). Peregrinationes tres. Saewulf, Iohannes Wirziburgensis, Theodericus, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, CCCM 139 (Turnhout, 1994), 165; cf. Adrian J. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlement and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c. 1120–1291) (London and New York, 2006), 25. It has recently been claimed that, according to Theoderich, the Templar compound “contained a wonderful number of baths:” Balász Major, “Bathing in the Medieval Latin East: A Recently Discovered 13th Century Bathhouse in al-Marqab Citadel,” Hungarian Archaeology (Winter 2013), 1. “The platform and pool beside the bakery oven certainly have the appearance of a bathhouse.” Personal communication, Prof. Adrian J. Boas. “Liber ad milites Templi de laude novae militiae,” iv, in S. Bernardi Opera, ed. Jean Leclercq et al., 9 vols. (Rome, 1957–1998), 3: 220. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders, 43, 57, 202–3, 245, and Fig. 8 on p. 44. For the Teutonic Order, see Max Perlbach, ed., Die Statuten des Deutschen Ordens nach den ältesten Handschriften herausgegeben (Halle, 1890), Gesetze, 69, c. 11: “Nullus frater audebit in civitate sine superioris licencia balneari”; see also 134. On these regulations see Georg Zappert, “Über das Badewesen mittelalterlicher und späterer Zeit,” Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen 21 (1859), 12–14; Johannes Zellinger, Bad und Bäder in der altchristlichen Kirche. Eine Studie über Christentum und Antike (Munich, 1928), 73–7. Meir Ben-Dov, “The Excavations at the Crusader Fortress of Kokhav Hayarden (Belvoir),” Qadmoniot 2.5 (1969), 26 and plan on p. 25 (Hebrew); he was followed by Meron Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 1970), 296 (no. 11 on plan), 299; he was followed by Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders, 159, 203, 229. Meir Ben-Dov, “Kokhav Hayarden,” Sal’it 1.4 (June–July 1972), 166–7 (Hebrew); see also Meir Ben-Dov, “Belvoir,” in Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah, 2 vols (Jerusalem, 1975–1976), 1: 184.


38 39

40 41 42 43 44 45




Benjamin Z. Kedar Ben-Dov’s reconsideration was noted by Shacham, “Bathhouse from the Crusader Period in Nazareth,” 323. Arthur H. S. Megaw, “Supplementary Excavations on a Castle Site at Paphos, 1970– 171,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972), 324; John Rosser, “Excavations at Saranda Kolones, Paphos, Cyprus,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985), 81. Gergely Buzás and Balász Major, “Crusader and Mamluk Ḥammāms in al-Marqab,” in Acts of the International Balnéorient Symposium, 2–6 November 2009, ed. Thibaud Fournet (Damascus, 2014), 1–7; Major, “Bathing,” 1–10. The Hospitallers at Crac des Chevaliers appear to have built simple bathing installations, for one of the first edifices the Mamluks constructed there after the 1271 conquest was an imposing, multi-sectional hammām: John Zimmer, Werner Meyer, and Letizia Boscardin, Krak des Chevaliers in Syrien. Archäologie und Bauforschung 2003–2007 (Braubach, 2011), 320–1.On bathhouses in contemporary Muslim castles see Antonio Battista and Bellarmino Bagatti, La fortezza saracena del Monte Tabor (AH. 609–15: AD. 121–18) (Jerusalem, 1976), 57–66; Martin Dow, The Islamic Baths of Palestine (Oxford, 1996), 48. Usāma ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation, 149–50. Jacques de Vitry, Histoire orientale/Historia orientalis, 73, ed. and trans. Jean Donnadieu (Turnhout, 2008), 290. WT 21.24, 994–5. Jacques de Vitry, Histoire orientale, 73, 290. Ibid., 104–58. William Marçais, “L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine,” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 72.1 (1928), 96–7, reprinted in his Articles et Conférences (Paris, 1961), 66–7. On Muslim attempts to prevent in the hammām behavior deemed immoral, see Ronald P. Buckley, The Book of the Market Inspector. Nihāyat al-Rutba fī Talab al-Hisba (The Utmost Authority in the Pursuit of Hisba) by Abd al-Rahmān b. Nasr al-Shayzarī (Oxford, 1999), 106–7, 178–9. On Muslim objections to the attendance of the hammāmāt and especially to female bathing that might lead to disrobing in front of dhimmī women, exposure to foreign religious customs, and even same-sex relationships, see Alexandra Cuffel, “Polemicizing Women’s Bathing among Medieval and Early Modern Muslims and Christians,” in The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathing, and Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance, ed. Cynthia Koss and Anne Scott (Leiden, 2009), 171–82. Cedric N. Johns, “Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit): The Faubourg and Its Defences,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 1 (1931), 124–6, reprinted in C. N. Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), David’s Tower (Jerusalem) and Qal‘at ar-Rabad (‘Ajlun). Three Middle Eastern Castles from the Time of the Crusades, ed. Denys Pringle (Aldershot, 1997), Study II; C. N. Johns, Guide to ‘Atlit: The Crusader Castle, Town and Surroundings (Jerusalem, 1947), 88–9, reprinted in C. N. Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle, Study I. For parallels in Margat’s bathhouse no. 1 to the draught from the furnace and the earthenware pipes see Buzás and Major, “Crusader and Mamluk Ḥammāms,” 3. A re-examination of the ‘Atlit bathhouse remains a desideratum. Howard Smithline, Edna J. Stern, and Eliezer Stern, “A Crusader-Period Bathhouse in ‘Akko (Acre),” ‘Atiqot 73 (2013), 71–108, quotation appearing on p. 100; Yael Gorin-Rosen, “Glass Tools from the Crusader-Period Bathhouse in ‘Akko (Acre),” ibid., 109–16. The authors did not compare their finds to those made by Johns. The paved hot-air channel leading from the furnace finds its parallel in the stone-lined tunnel of Margat’s bathhouse no. 1, and in contemporary Islamic baths. See Lumpe, “Zur Kulturgeschichte des Bades,” 156; Michel Écochard and Claude Le Coeur, Les bains de Damas. Monographies architecturales, 2 vols. (Beirut, 1942–1943), 2: 125–8 and Fig. CXXXVIII; Dow, The Islamic Baths of Palestine, 32–7. On the impact of classical bathhouses on Early Islamic ones see Oleg Grabar et al., City in the Desert. Qasr al-Hayr East (Cambridge, MA, 1978), 1: 94–6; Hugh

Frankish bathhouses


50 51 52 53


55 56

57 58 59


Kennedy, “From Polis to Madina – Urban Change in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria,” Past & Present 106 (February 1985), 8–10; on the renovation of the RomanByzantine baths of Gadara under the caliph Mu‘āwiyah in 662/3 and their functioning until the ninth or tenth centuries see Yizhar Hirschfeld and Giora Solar, “The Roman Thermae at Hammat Gader,” Israel Exploration Journal 31 (1981), 199–205. For a recent overview of baths in the region see Thibaud Fournet, “The Ancient Baths of Southern Syria in the Near Eastern Context: Introduction to the Balnéorient Project,” in Spa. Sanitas per Aquam, 327–36. For a general overview see Kiby, Bäder und Badekultur in Orient und Okzident; for a lucid if brief outline of Islamic baths see Adriana de Miranda, L’Hammam nell’Islam occidentale fra l’VII e il XIV secolo (Rome, 2010), 9–23. In parts of southern Italy influenced by Byzantium there were baths in pre-crusade times, especially in Amalfi; almost all were private: Jean-Marie Martin, “Les bains dans l’Italie méridionale au Moyen Âge (VIIe–XIIIe siècle),” in Bains curatifs et bains hygiéniques en Italie de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, Collection de l’École Française de Rome 383, ed. Marie Guérin-Beauvois and Jean-Marie Martin (Rome, 2007), 67–73. For Amalfi, one may assume also an impact of its early contacts with the Muslim world, on which see Bruno Figliuolo, “Amalfi e il Levante,” 571–608. On two collective baths constructed in Rome in the first half of the eleventh century and discovered during excavations at the Crypta Balbi see Étienne Hubert, “Les bains à Rome et dans le Latium au Moyen Âge,” in Bains curatifs, 136. Marçais, “L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine,” 95–7, reprinted in his Articles et Conférences, 65–7. Magdalino, “Church, Bath,” 167. Johns, “Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit),” 126. Écochard and Le Coeur, Les bains de Damas, 1: 20 (reconstruction of the original plan of al-Bzūriyyeh); 2: 16–19, 26–8. For a detailed discussion of a contemporary Damascene bathhouse with a different layout see Verena Daiber, “Hammām al-Safī. An Ayyubid Bath in Damascus,” Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 3 (2010), 142–61. Natascha Mathyschok, “The Medieval Bath of the Bustan Nassif in Baalbek,” BAAL – Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 13 (2009), 205–14, with the plan appearing on p. 207. For a further bathhouse of the same type, originally constructed in 1238, see John Phillips, “A Thirteenth-Century Ismā‘īlī Hammām at Qal‘at al-Kahf,” The Antiquaries Journal 63 (1983), 64–78, with the plan appearing on p. 66. The Hammām al-‘Ayn and the recently discovered hammām to its south, both erected in Jerusalem by Sayf al-Dīn Tankiz before 1327, also conform to this type. See Tawfiq Da‘adli and Hervé Barbé, “The Development of the Sūq al-Qattānīn Quarter in Jerusalem,” Der Islam 94 (2017), 69–82. In the newly excavated southern bath, the channel starting at the furnaces runs to the centre of an octagonal room and thence branches off in three directions. Personal communication, Dr. Hervé Barbé, 3 July 2017. Écochard and Le Coeur, Les bains de Damas, 1: 19. Natascha Mathyschok, Badekultur in Baalbek (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 2009), 47–8, 51–2; briefly mentioned in Mathyschok, “The Medieval Bath of the Bustan Nassif in Baalbek,” 211, 213. Personal communication, Dr. Natascha Matyschok, 6 February 2017. In the Nazareth bathhouse, the horizontal pipelines are at 0.475 m above the floor: Shacham, “Bathhouse from the Crusader Period in Nazareth,” 321. Le Cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, 177, no. 76: “ante balnea que arabice nominantur Omar.” The same charter mentions also the “balnea domini Tancredi.” See for instance Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 56–8. The hot-water channels amount to a residue of the classical hypocaust.


Benjamin Z. Kedar

60 See Grabar et al., City in the Desert, 1: 95–6; Ghazi Bisheh, “Qasr Mshash and Qasr ‘Ayn al-Sil: Two Umayyad Sites in Jordan,” in The IVth International Conference on the History of Bilad al-Sham during the Umayyad Period, 24–29-October 1987, ed. Muhammad ‘Adnān Bakhīt and Robert Schick (Amman, 1989), 2: 85–6, 91–2; Mohammad al-Asad and Ghazi Bisheh, Les Omayyades. Naissance de l’art islamique (Aix-en-Provence, 2000), 133–5 [al-Fudayn]. 61 Martin, “Les bains dans l’Italie méridionale,” 73. On hypocausts that served to heat the dormitory of St. Gallen monastery in the ninth, the refectory of the Dominican house in Bern in the thirteenth and a chamber of the town-hall of Göttingen in the fourteenth century, see Jakob Hunziker, “Zur Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Hypokausts,” Anzeigen für schweizerische Altertumskunde NF 2 (1900), 182–7. Klaus Bingenheimer, Die Luftheizungen des Mittelalters. Zur Typologie und Entwicklung eines technikgeschichtlichen Phänomens, Antiquitates – Archäologische Forschungsergebnisse 17 (Hamburg, 1998), NON VIDI. 62 Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 14, quoting Ibn ‘Asākir and Ibn Shaddād. 63 See notes 3–5 above. 64 UKJ 1: 353, no. 175, and Esgarts de l’Ordre de l’Hospital, vers 1239, § 102, in Cart Hosp 2: 551, no. 2213. 65 UKJ 3: 1232, no. 784. 66 UKJ 2: 876, no. 522. 67 See for instance UKJ 2: 811, no. 477. 68 See Oliver Berggötz, Der Bericht des Marsilio Zorzi. Codex Querini – Stampalia IV3 (1604), ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer, vol. 2, Kieler Werkstücke, Reihe C: Beiträge zur europäischen Geschichte des frühen und hohen Mittelalters (Frankfurt/M, 1991), 146, 152. 69 “Inventario dei beni immobili spettanti al comune di Genova in Tiro,” ed. most recently by Antonio Musarra in his In partibus ultramaris. I Genovesi, la crociata e la Terrasanta (secc. XII–XIII), Istituto Storico italiano per il Medio Evo, Nuovi studi storici 102 (Rome, 2017), 336. These two bathhouses ay have been identical with the balnea Conrad of Montferrat granted to the Genoese in 1190: UKJ 2: 893, no. 526. 70 Usāma ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation, 149. 71 Buckley, The Book of the Market Inspector, 106. See also Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 74 and 143, App. 2. 72 Jacques de Vitry, Histoire orientale/Historia orientalis, 73, 290. 73 Berger, Das Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit, 69–70. 74 Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 5: 43, 97–8. The “women’s bathhouse known as the Bath of the Cook,“ mentioned in a Geniza document of 1156 (Goitein 4: 22), must have served women exclusively. Women’s bathhouses existed in large cities: Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 97. For rich Byzantine women, confined to their houses except for visits to bathhouse and church (Berger, Das Bad, 114), the bathhouse must likewise have allowed for a pleasurable get-together. 75 Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 8–9. In Byzantium, the custom of cleansing oneself after sexual intercourse by going to a bathhouse persisted into the eleventh century: Lumpe, “Zur Kulturgeschichte des Bades,” 163. 76 Luigi Bassano, who visited Constantinople in the 1530s, wrote that the baths offered to Turkish women the excuse for going outside their homes and, for some, an opportunity for same-sex relationships; Bassano’s account was virtually plagiarized by Nicolas de Nicolay, who arrived in Constantinople in 1551 in the retinue of François I’s envoy: Luigi Bassano, Costumi et i modi particolari de la vita de Turchi (Rome, 1545; repr. Munich, 1963), 5r-6r; Nicolas de Nicolay, Dans l’empire de Soliman de Magnifique, ed. MarieChristine Gomez-Géraud and Stéphane Yérasimos (Paris, 1989), 137–40. In 1717, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who visited a bathhouse for women in Ottoman Sofia, reported: “In short, ‘tis the women’s coffee house, where all the news of the town is told, scandal invented etc. They generally take this diversion once a week, and stay there at least four

Frankish bathhouses

77 78 79


81 82 83 84 85 86

87 88


or five hours.” Mary Wortley Montagu, Turkish Embassy Letters, ed. Malcolm Jack (London, 1993), 59. S. D. Goitein, “A Mansion in Fustat: A Twelfth-Century Description of a Domestic Compound in the Ancient Capital of Egypt,” in The Medieval City (note 2, above), 170 (translation), 176 (text). Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 145, App.3. Berger, Das Bad, 25; Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 82. On Western, late medieval instructions for eating and drinking right after bathing see Johanna Maria van Winter, “Medieval Opinions about Food and Drink in Connection with Bathing,” in her Spices and Comfits: Collected Papers on Medieval Food (Blackawton [Devon], 2007), 389–98. For slightly diverging translations of the relevant passage of the Arabic original see (a) the one by Ismail Ali (ed. A.S. Fulton), based on five manuscripts, which is appended to Secretum Secretorum cum glossis et notulis. Tractatus brevis et utilis ad declarandum quedam obscure dicta Fratris Rogeri, ed. Robert Steele, Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconis 5 (Oxford, 1920), 210–11, and (b) the translation by Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 142–3, App. 1, based on ‘Abdarrahmān Badawi’s edition of 1954. The relevant passage of Philip of Tripoli’s translation, as presented by Roger Bacon, appears in Secretum Secretorum, ed. Steele, 97. It is noticeable that both the original and the Latin translation present the bath as consisting of four parts, paralleling the four seasons of the year. Lumpe, “Zur Kulturgeschichte des Bades,” 157–8; Berger, Das Bad, 41; Magdalino, “Church, Bath,” 170. UKJ 2: 893, no. 526. When Henri of Champagne re-issued the charter in 1192 or 1193, the word una (alongside many other words) was omitted: UKJ 2: 939–40, no. 570. Usāma ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation, 149–50. On this failure see the (undocumented) remark by Lumpe, “Zur Kulturgeschichte des Bades,” 158. Berger maintains, however, that after the seventh century mixed bathing is no longer heard of: Berger, Das Bad, 45. For examples of atonement for mixed bathing stipulated by penitential books down to the eleventh century see Zellinger, Bad und Bäder, 45–6. Ismail Ali’s translation in Secretum Secretorum, 211; cf. Grotzfeld’s translation in his Das Bad, 142. The physician-philosopher al-Rāzī (d. 925) praised the philosophers of old who invented the bath and, understanding that people who enter it lose a part of their strength, made them regain it by depicting there lovers accusing and embracing one another: Thomas W. Arnold, Painting in Islam: A Study of the Place of Pictorial Art in Muslim Culture (Oxford, 1928), 88; Franz Rosenthal, The Classical Heritage of Islam, trans. Emile and Jenny Marmorstein (Berkeley, 1975), 266. Al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) condemned objectionable pictures on the door of the bath or inside it, but permitted depictions of animals and trees: Buckley, The Book of the Market Inspector, 178–9. On nude and semi-nude women painted on the walls of an Umayyad bath see Claude Vibert-Guigue and Ghazi Bisheh, Les peintures de Qusayr ‘Amra. Un bain omeyyade dans la bâdiya jordanienne (Beirut, 2007), 15. One of the authors observes that in two panels “love degenerates into what looks like actual love-making.” Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 147, App. 4. “Deinde tendat brachia sua aliquantulum, deinde post modicam horam sumat paucum cibum bene paratum cum tranquillitate.” Secretum Secretorum, ed. Steele, 97. On the other hand, Philip calls on the bather to comb himself (pectinet se) – a recommendation that does not appear in the original as it came down to us. Steele assumed that Philip misunderstood the Arabic: ibid., 275. Combing did however take place in a hammām: Buckley, The Book of the Market Inspector, 106. See also the Secretum secretorum as copied for Albert Behaim, which has “. . . sumat paratum cibum cum tranquillitate:” Das Brief-und Memorialbuch des Albert Behaim, ed. Thomas Frenz and Peter Herde, MGH. Briefe des späteren Mittelalters 1 (Munich, 2000), 303. We have to remember, however, that Philip’s Arabic exemplar differed from the Arabic text established by ‘Abdarrahmān Badawi: see Steven J. Williams, The Secret of



90 91

92 93 94 95

96 97 98

99 100 101


Benjamin Z. Kedar Secrets: The Scholarly Career of a Pseudo-Aristotelian Text in the Latin Middle Ages (Ann Arbor, 2003), 181. Therefore it is possible that Philip’s exemplar did not contain the recommendation to look at a beautiful picture or being. Buckley, The Book of the Market Inspector, 106–7. [Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 13, uses a French translation of this text made in 1861, when the author’s identity was still unknown]; see also al-Ghazālī, trans. in Buckley, The Book of the Market Inspector, 179. Bathrobes figure prominently in the trousseau lists of Geniza women: Goitein, A Mediterranean Society 5: 97. Usāma ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation, 149. It may be noted that in Baghdad some Muslims bathed in the nude: Grotzfeld, Das Bad, 93. See illustrations 1 to 18 in C. M. Kaufmann, The Baths of Pozzuoli: A Study of the Medieval Illuminations of Peter of Eboli’s Poem (Oxford, 1959); Poggio Bracciolini’s letter of 18 May 1416 from the baths of Baden: Poggio Bracciolini, Lettere, vol. 1, ed. Helene Harth (Florence, 1984), 130–5; Zappert, “Über das Badewesen,” 75–6; Kiby, Bäder und Badekultur in Orient und Okzident, 25–6, 28, 31, 37. Johns, “Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit),” 127. Johns, Guide to ‘Atlit, 89. In the plan on p. 88 (identical with the one published in 1931 on p. 126), only two ovens are visible. Johns’ confidence grew over the years. While in 1931 he wrote: “Probably it was the local bakehouse” (“Excavations,” 128), in 1947 he squarely asserted: “Annexed to the west side of the building was a bakery” (Guide, 89). John Rosser, “Crusader Castles of Cyprus,” Archaeology 39.4 (July–August 1986), 47. In an article published a year earlier, Rosser was more reserved, drawing attention to the fact that “in what little remains of the upper chamber, no trace of a piped water supply has survived, and certainly for a steam bath water would have been necessary.” Rosser, “Excavations at Saranda Kolones, Paphos, Cyprus,” 91. The disparity between Rosser’s two statements has been noted by Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders, 284 n. 46. Peter Megaw, “A Castle in Cyprus Attributable to the Hospital?,” in The Military Orders, vol. 1: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick, ed. Malcolm Barber (Aldershot, 1994), 44, with a photo of the bakehouse on p. 46. Major, “Bathing in the Medieval Latin East,” 1–2, 6. Buzás and Major, “Crusader and Mamluk Ḥammāms,” 7. The authors draw attention to the ‘Atlit parallel. For an oven adjacent to the bath of Bustān Nassīf in Baalbek, see Matyschok, “Badekultur in Baalbek,” 55–5. On baths next to bakeries or kitchens in the West see Kiby, Bäder und Badekultur in Orient und Okzident, 21, 23, 189–90. In about 1388, a Roman church possessed a balneum et furnum: Etienne Hubert, “Les bains à Rome et dans le Latium au Moyen Age. Textes et archéologie,” in Bains curatifs, 139. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders, 159. He states that at Belvoir the bathhouse shared the heat supply with a forge (see also p. 229). Smithline, Stern and Stern, “A Crusader-Period Bathhouse in ‘Akko (Acre),” 94–5. E.g., UKJ 3: 1334, no. 764 (a. 1124); Cart Hosp 1: 77, no. 82 (a. 1127); UKJ 2: 599, no. 343 (a. 1169); UKJ 2: 876 line 7, no. 522 (a. 1187); UKJ 2: 881, no. 523 (a. 1188); UKJ 3: 1488, App.III/3 (a. 1190); UKJ 2: 910, no. 533 (a. 1192); UKJ 2: 962, no. 579 (a. 1195); Cart Hosp 2: 442, no. 2033. See also I Libri Iurium deIla Repubblica di Genova, 1/2: 170, no. 346 (Tarsus, 1215). In two instances, however, bathhouse and oven are situated in different locations: UKJ 2: 864, no. 519 (a. 1187), repeated in 2: 811, no. 477, (a. 1189); UKJ 2: 893, no. 526 (a. 1190), repeated in 2: 939–40, no. 570 (a. 1192/93). E.g., UKJ 2: 876 line 2 and 877 line 1, no. 522 (a. 1187) repeated in 2: 807–8, no. 476 (a. 1189). In 2: 871 lines 9 and 36, no. 521 (a. 1187), both oven and bathhouse appear in the plural, but later in that grant (2: 872, line 5) the bathhouse appears in the singular, the oven in the plural. The molendinum, too, appears in several cases in the plural, apparently for the same reason.

11 Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East Adrian J. Boas

In the eyes of some medieval Europeans, Outremer may have seemed rather like latter-day Europeans’ idyllic vision of America – a land whose pavements were lined with gold. In a hyperbolic portrayal of what it was like to settle in the East, Fulcher of Chartres wrote: “Those who were needy have here been enriched by God. Those who had a few coins, here possess countless bezants.”1 Whereas opportunities for gaining wealth certainly existed for some of those who joined crusades or emigrated from feudal Europe, many others – soldiers, pilgrims and settlers – were either unable to shake off the state of poverty which they had known in the West or now found themselves descending into it through circumstance. Adjustment to the new surroundings was difficult, and the hardships of war took a high toll even on those who had previously been of means.

Causes of poverty in the Latin East Poverty was experienced by the participants of the First Crusade and was present among the settlers in the towns and countryside.2 To some extent, its roots can be traced to the spontaneous and unorganised manner in which the crusade set out in 1096. Many people who joined the crusade were already poor. This was certainly true regarding those who participated in the so-called Peasants’ Crusade, which appears to have been largely comprised of serfs. Whatever provisions they might have received from their lords or from the local parish church would not have carried them far. Charity, then, and when that was not available, plunder, were their only means of survival. Indeed, along with pogroms, pillage appears to have been a main activity of these crusaders. Even the organised crusade which followed in the summer lacked a proper structure for provision of supplies, leaving many of the participants, soldiers and non-combatants alike, without basic necessities. According to Albert of Aachen, early in the First Crusade, when the armies were just a few days out from Dorylaeum, 500 men and women died from thirst.3 By the time the army reached Nicaea, many more were dying from starvation.4 As the army continued on the long march through central Anatolia, these problems only increased. The situation improved briefly when the Crusaders took Antioch in June 1098 and restocked on whatever that found in the city, but the supply shortages soon returned, increasing when they found themselves under siege. Nor do

142 Adrian J. Boas these problems appear to have eased after the siege was lifted. At the end of 1098, during the siege of Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘man, conditions became so bad that according to some accounts the crusaders resorted to cannibalism, eating the corpses of the slaughtered Muslims.5 After the army left Antioch for Jerusalem in January 1099, efforts were made to relieve the suffering of the increasing number of poor crusaders. A common fund was set up from the tithes, and the leaders who could do so came to the aid of some of the many knights who, through the loss of horses and other possessions had fallen to the rank of foot-soldier.6 Upon reaching the Holy Land and taking Jerusalem, the occupiers could make use of whatever had been left behind.7 A great deal of wealth was gained from the ransoming of captives and from the spoils taken, both in Jerusalem and a month later, following the Crusader victory at Ascalon.8 This, however, would not have been the case for everyone. Among those crusaders who chose to remain in the East, many found it difficult to acclimatise, and gradually sank into a state of destitution. In Jerusalem, the poor of the army were offered a daily wage for participation in the clean-up operation carried out subsequent to the slaughter of the non-Christian inhabitants.9 It was necessary to remove as quickly as possible the numerous corpses, the “headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions” as William of Tyre describes them, and to wash away the stench which, according to Fulcher, was so bad that he and his companions were obliged to hold their noses and cover their mouths.10 Apparently, this was too heavy a burden for the prisoners of war to accomplish on their own, the onerous and unpleasant task made more urgent because of the summer heat. Only those crusaders who had no alternative would have willingly participated in so repugnant a commission.11 If warfare was one factor that could plunge people into a state of poverty, natural disaster was another. Disease, pestilence, drought, flooding and earthquakes – all these could have had a devastating long-term effect, and in the East there was no shortage of them. Leprosy was rife and knew no social boundaries, drought was not an infrequent occurrence and much property was destroyed by earthquakes of great magnitude. In 1120 plagues of locusts and swarms of mice devoured crops, and the powerful earthquake of 1202 left thousands homeless in Acre, Tyre and Tripoli.12 In 1267 Cyprus suffered from earthquakes, plague and swarms of locusts.13 Flooding of the Pedieos River in 1330 ruined many houses in Nicosia, and according to the Chronicle of Amadi, “A large part of the people lost both their property and their possessions and those able to escape did so naked.”14 When the Black Death reached Cyprus in 1348, it depleted between one-half and two-thirds of the population.15 Such disasters, which always loomed, mainly affected the lower echelons of society. A major contributor to poverty, particularly in urban locations, was pilgrimage. Pilgrims were at first a fluctuating presence, arriving in certain seasons and concentrating in certain locations, most notably in Jerusalem which they came to visit, and Acre, the place of their arrival and departure. As the rate of pilgrimage increased through the twelfth century, the number of destitute arriving and remaining in the cities would have risen accordingly. Many of those who arrived at the ports of the Kingdom of Jerusalem possessed few resources when they set out. By

Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East 143 the time they arrived in the Holy Land they likely had even fewer – having paid for food, lodging and transport, and perhaps having suffered from piracy along the way. These destitute individuals would have placed a significant strain on the administration and institutions of the cities and on the rest of the population. Impoverished pilgrims, however, would have constituted only a portion of a city’s poor. A substantial part of the permanent urban populace, too, experienced poverty. Unfortunately, there are no reliable statistics that would allow us to estimate the number of poor in the towns or countryside. The only case where we might attempt a calculation of the poor in a given location is a problematic one because it represents a time of crisis. Following the defeat at the Battle of Hattin in 1187 and the subsequent rapid disintegration of the kingdom, refugees from across the kingdom and beyond it flooded into Jerusalem. By the time the Ayyubid army arrived and laid siege to the city at the end of September, the number of poor would have been substantial. When Saladin reached an agreement with Balian of Ibelin, Patriarch Eraclius and the Frankish leadership for the surrender of the city, terms were set which included the payment of a ransom by each citizen to enable his or her departure. The terms were 10 dinars per man, 5 per woman and 1 per child.16 According to Ernoul, when the ransom dues were agreed upon, Eraclius and Balian made a real effort to come to the aid of those citizens of Jerusalem who could not afford to pay. They allocated 30,000 besants from funds the Hospitallers had received from King Henry II of England to cover the ransom payments of 7,000 of the poor.17 At Eraclius’ request, Saladin released 500 more citizens. Eraclius and Balian then appealed to the military orders and the burghers to cover the remaining ransoms. The response was poor. In addition to the above-mentioned 7,000, there were others who could not afford to pay the ransom, and even after more people were released, some 11,000 remained. This gives us a total of well over 18,500 poor persons. Other evidence suggests that the number of impoverished was considerably higher. Forty days after the terms were reached, according to ‘Imad al-Din, 7,000 men and 8,000 women who were unable to pay the ransom were taken into slavery.18 Added to the above-mentioned 7,500 who were released, this brings us to well over 22,500 poor people in the city out of a population which ‘Imad al-Din estimated as more than 100,000 at the time the city fell.19 Based on these figures, the poor made up at least 22% of the population – and their number may have been higher. Yet, we have no means of knowing whether this was similar to the proportion of the impoverished in less desperate times. And these were indeed desperate times. The refugees inundating the cities that remained under Frankish rule would have included both the long-term poor and the newly impoverished, who in their flight had lost their possessions. Earlier, in 1148, Jerusalem had experienced a similar influx of refugees. On that occasion, following the fall of Edessa in 1144 and the failure of the Second Crusade armies of Conrad III and Louis VII, Christians had fled south and many arrived in Jerusalem and other Frankish towns. An account of that event is found in a colophon in a gospel lectionary, dated 1149 and preserved in the library of the Convent of Saint Mark in Jerusalem.20 It records that with the failure of the crusade, so many refugees from Syria flooded into Jerusalem that the convents in the city were unable

144 Adrian J. Boas to meet their material needs. The suffering was such that, according to this source, “Many of those who were poor in Jerusalem were dying of hunger and many were also attacking the various convents in search of a means of livelihood.”21 In the case recorded in this manuscript, Ignatius III, head of the Jerusalem convent of Saint Simon the Pharisee and Saint Mary Magdalene and metropolitan of Jerusalem and Palestine, requested royal aid to alleviate the suffering of the Jacobite refugees. The collapse of the mainland states at the end of the thirteenth century also saw refugees increasing the level of poverty. At that time, the influx of impoverished refugees into Cyprus and the accompanying price inflation took time and a major effort to overcome.22 The Templar of Tyre noted: Those who escaped from Acre and the other places in Syria retreated to this island, but they were in great poverty. Even if there was anyone there who had been able to bring away something of his own and carry it to Cyprus with him, it was worth less than half of what it had been, because foodstuffs were in great scarcity. Even houses which had been renting for ten bezants a year went up to a hundred bezants a year.23 In an effort to assist the destitute knights and sergeants, King Henry put them on his payroll, and with his mother set up a relief fund to aid the poor arrivals.24

Dealing with poverty If in Jerusalem in 1148/9 and 1187 and in Cyprus in 1291 there were some attempts to help the poor, in similar circumstances elsewhere they were left to fend for themselves. According to the Templar of Tyre, when Tyre was under siege in 1291 the bailli Adam of Caffran, along with the knights and the wealthy citizens, abandoned the city by ship, and the poor – men, women and children – remained behind and were taken prisoner by the Moslems.25 The alleviation of poverty required a major effort, and it was not before the establishment of the military orders in the early twelfth century that any large-scale attempts were made to do so, although the Church had long tried to ease the burden of the poor. As an offshoot of a movement established in Western Europe in the early Middle Ages, hospitals were set up for the care of the poor, travellers and in some cases, the infirm.26 The larger cities of the Latin East might have had several such establishments. Although these are designated in documents as hospitals, even when not specifically mentioned as hospicium pauperum, they were by and large hospices or hostels for pilgrims and paupers rather than institutions providing the infirm with medical care.27 Hospitals serving pilgrims and the poor were to be found in the cities of the eastern Mediterranean since the fourth century, and in the West they were frequently associated with monasteries. In Jerusalem, most renowned hospitals were those of the Order of St. John and the smaller German hospital of Saint Mary of the Germans but many monastic institutions had their own hospitals. The Benedictine houses of Saint Mary Latin and Saint Mary Magdalene, established by Amalfitan merchants

Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East 145 in the eleventh century, had hospices for Latin pilgrims which continued to function in the twelfth century when they were absorbed into the Hospitaller Order of Saint John.28 Saint Mary Latin catered to male pilgrims, Saint Mary Magdalene to female ones, and eventually an additional hospital was set up to cope with their growing numbers.29 According to Jacques of Vitry, the German hospital was established to care for the poor and infirm.30 In 1135, the prior and canons of the Holy Sepulchre sold two neighbouring houses to a Hungarian woman named Petronilla so that a hospital (St Stephen) for Hungarians could be established.31 There was indeed a charity-supported Hungarian hospital (domus hospitalis) in Jerusalem and one in Acre, perhaps replacing the Jerusalem one after 1187.32 A hospital dedicated to Saint Saviour was established in 1112 by the abbot of Saint Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, on the abbey grounds.33 In 1216 the abbey of Saint Theodosius is recorded as possessing hospitals in Jerusalem (not then in Frankish hands), Ascalon, which was probably largely derelict at the time, Jaffa, Zevel (Giblet) and Nicosia.34 In Bethlehem a hospital was attached to the Church of Nativity, and a letter of 1245 records the services rendered by the chapter of the church in receiving pauperes advenae et peregrini.35 Acre also had several hospitals in addition to those of the military orders.36 One dedicated to Saint Anthony probably belonged to the order of Saint Anthony of Vienne, an order which provided hospitality for the poor and pilgrims.37 Others were the Armenian hospital,38 the hospital of the Holy Spirit,39 Sainte Brigid,40 Sainte Catherine in Montmusard41 and Saint Martin of the Bretons.42 Some of these, such as the last-named are specifically referred to as hospitals for the poor. In Tripoli the Hospitallers had a hospitale pauperum on Mount Pèlerin,43 and the Templars had a hospital in the County of Tripoli where they were required to provide the poor with basic needs of lectus, ignis et aqua.44 The royal hospital of Saint John the Baptist in Nablus received an annual royal eleemosynary grant of 100 quintari/cantaria of raisins “for the needs of the poor.”45 The Hospitallers of Saint John held the hospital (domus hospitalis) of Saint Julian in Tiberias.46 In 1157 the royal constable Humphrey of Toron gave the Hospitallers, along with other properties, a hospital in Toron.47 Documents dated 1126 and 1127 refer to the building of a hospicium pauperum in the city of Rafanīya.48 Hospitals were established in rural settlements as well. In 1134 Joscelin II, count of Edessa, confirmed the gift made by his father (and confirmed by King Baldwin II) of a hospital (hospitale) in the casale of Turbascellum (Turbessel, Tell Bāshir) in the County of Edessa.49 Special days were set aside for almsgiving. In 1100 Godfrey of Bouillon decreed an annual almsgiving to be made in Jerusalem to commemorate the liberation of the city, and later a commemorative almsgiving was established for the anniversary of his death, the alms to be collected and distributed by the church of the Holy Sepulchre.50 The hospital of Saint Savior in Jerusalem fed a limited number of the poor on feast days, on the death of a confrater and on the anniversary of the death each year.51 In 1149 Queen Melisende made an eleemosynary property grant to the Hospitaller church of Saint John the Baptist in Jerusalem to augment the refreshment (refectio) of the poor, requiring that while she lived her gift would be remembered with a feast at Easter for the poor and those who served them. In

146 Adrian J. Boas addition, the anniversary of her death was to be commemorated each year during Eastertide, presumably with almsgiving.52 Donations to the poor and to institutions caring for the poor took the form of money, property or food, clothing and other items. In Jerusalem two ovens were transferred to the Hospital of Saint John and one to the abbey of Saint Mary of the Latins for the use of the poor.53 In 1159 Melisende gave the Great Laura of Saint Sabas a gift of three gastinae and their villani in order to provide the money to buy 24 loaves of alms-bread every Saturday.54 In a grant of 1160, Baldwin III gave the Hospital of Saint John in Jerusalem 50 Bedouin tents (i.e. families) for the use and service (ad usum et servitium) of the poor.55 In 1167 in order to obtain part of a marriage portion for her son, a certain Petronilla gave a shop in the rua Surianorum in Jerusalem as an alms-gift to the Hospital of Saint John.56 On occasion, it seems that some remuneration was expected for such grants to institutions. An Armenian monk called Abraham granted to the leper hospital of Saint Lazarus a cistern he had received from Patriarch Warmund for the use of the poor, on condition that he should retain use of it during his lifetime and would receive food and clothing from the order.57 Alongside royal aid and that of the various church and monastic institutions, the military orders took on the main burden of housing and feeding the poor, caring for the ill, and burying the dead. This charitable work became one of the principal functions of the military orders, especially in the case of the Hospitallers of Saint John whose master, Raymond of Puy, even used the term paupertatis professores, “experts on poverty” to denote his and his brothers’ role in welfare.58 As stated in Pope Paschal II’s bull, Pie postulatio voluntatis of 1113, the Order aimed to support the pilgrims and care for the poor, and Pope Alexander III reminded them again in his bull, Piam admodum et jugem of 1178–80, that their primary responsibility was to care for the poor.59 If this commitment was less salient in the Templar Order, it was still a mandatory one, and the Templars’ earliest compilation of statutes, the so-called Primitive Rule based on that of the Cistercian order, gave an important place to caring for the poor and giving alms. Statute 29 noted that although the reward of the poor was the Kingdom of Heaven, they should be given “without hesitation” the remains of broken bread.60 The statute specified that a tenth part of the bread be given to the Almoner. Statute 199 of the Hierarchial Statutes stated that on the election of the Grand Master, for the sake of the soul of the deceased former Grand Master, one hundred paupers should be fed at dinner and supper and the Grand Master’s clothes and night clothes should go to the Almoner and be given entirely to the lepers.61 The Templars, however, invested much effort in enabling safe passage for travellers on the roads, which would have included many poor pilgrims, rather than in only caring for the poor in the towns or rural areas. The Hospitaller Rule includes a number of statutes relating to the collecting and giving of alms. In the Rule of the Blessed Raymond de Puy, dating to 1120–60, Statute 5 stipulates that both clerical and lay brethren were to seek alms for the poor.62 How the accounting of collected alms should take place is mentioned in Statute 6, which decrees that brothers were to deliver the alms in their entirety to the Master, who was to distribute them to the poor, and supply a written account.63

Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East 147 A third of the bread and wine and all surplus food was to be added to the alms. Statute 7 of the Statutes of Fr. Roger des Moulins records that once every day thirty poor persons were to be fed at table, and, according to Statute 8, on three days of the week the brothers gave bread, wine and cooked food to all who came and asked for it.64 Every Saturday in Lent Maundy was celebrated with the washing of the feet of thirteen of the poor. Each received a shirt, new breeches, new shoes and three deniers to three chaplains or clerics out of the thirteen, and two deniers to the others.65 The impoverishment experienced by the lower levels of urban society led to a growing practice of children being abandoned by their parents. It is hard to believe that parents would forsake their children unless they had no alternative, and in twelfth-century Jerusalem, it appears this was a common occurrence. Here, and perhaps elsewhere, the Hospitallers provided a solution by establishing an orphanage to care for these children, who became known as filii beati Iohannis. The socalled Munich text records that small children abandoned by their mothers were brought to the Hospital by those who found them, or by the mothers themselves, with their faces covered.66 The Statutes of Fr. Roger des Moulins dating to the year 1181 or 1182 state that the hospital was to receive and nourish all such foundlings.67 The welfare undertakings of the military orders were systematised with the establishment of officials whose specific role was to collect and distribute alms. In the administration of the Order of Saint John, it was the task of the hospitaller (hospitalarius), a title which existed from 1155, to oversee the order’s charitable activities.68 Under him was the Almoner (Custos elemosine) who, with the aid of brothers called Elemosinarii, had old clothes and shoes repaired and distributed to the needy.69 Royal and other patronage of certain favoured welfare institutions, including certain convents and the leper hospital of the Order of Saint Lazarus, is well known. The leper hospital in Jerusalem received grants of produce, money and property, and the kings and queens of Jerusalem, princes of the other Crusader states, foreign institutions and Church leaders aided the poor, particularly but not only, in times of crisis. A reference to the activities of the canons of the Holy Sepulchre in “the feeding and refreshment of the poor” is made in 1129.70 Patriarch Aimery of Antioch provided famine relief during a drought in 1178.71 As noted above, in 1187 when the ransom demanded by Saladin proved beyond the means of the city of Jerusalem’s poor, the patriarch Eraclius together with Balian made an effort to aid the poor in the payment of ransoms. In 1199, not long after the loss of Jaffa to al-‘Ādil in September 1197 during which thousands of Franks were killed, and the mixed success of the German Crusade of 1197–8, Pope Innocent III informed the patriarch of Jerusalem, the bishop of Lydda and the masters of the Temple and Hospital that he would send a shipment of wheat and funds to be distributed by them to the poor.72 In the Cypriot floods of 1330 the archbishop of Nicosia, John del Conte, opened his house and the churches to the homeless and fed them with grain from his granaries.73 The numerous religious orders carried out similar functions to the military orders albeit on a smaller scale. In the West, organised poor relief was established in most parishes before the crusades, and at least since the eleventh century parish churches and monastic houses held registers

148 Adrian J. Boas called matricula, which recorded aid given to the parish poor. As in monastic houses in the West, in those in the Latin East the almoner dealt with welfare of the destitute. The chapter of the Holy Sepulchre had a fund for the poor. In 1228–9 the prior made use of the “alms fund” to purchase a vineyard outside Mahumeria. Presumably this purchase was in some way for the benefit of the poor.74 There is less evidence for lay charitable institutions. Royal or baronial support for the poor is sporadic. Occasionally individual nobles, wealthy philanthropists and burgesses made efforts to assist the poor. The author of the French Continuation of William of Tyre records an occasion when the burgesses of Jerusalem got together and carried out such a communal effort: They had basins carried to the spring [of Siloam] and they had them filled with wine. They loaded pack animals with bread and wine, and they brought so much that all the poor people who came to that place had bread and wine a plenty, and they also had money.75 A Frankish burgess named Germain (Germanus) carried out charitable work in Jerusalem for the benefit of the population in general and the impoverished in particular, mainly in providing water supply available to all.76 As noted above, in the first half of the twelfth century, a wealthy German pilgrim and his wife established the Ospital des Alemans for the German pilgrims in Jerusalem.77 The prince of Galilee, William I of Bures, founded the hospital of St. Julian in Tiberias, which later was granted to the Hospitallers of Saint John.78 Caring for the impoverished could take the form of exemptions from demands made on the general populace. The general tax of 1183 levied on all subjects in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, including townspeople and peasants, required the payment of one bezant for every 100 movable items and two for revenues. Those who did not possess 100 bezants were taken into account79 by being allowed to pay one bezant for their house or hearth, or, if they were unable to pay that, were levied half a bezant or a quarter of a bezant according to their ability.

Archaeological evidence of poverty Poverty is difficult to identify using archaeological evidence. The most common material finds are ceramics. In the Crusader period, the types of ceramics in use range from the simplest vessels – undecorated, plain of form and low in technological quality – to opulent and expensive wares such as imported porcelain from China or the sophisticated and technically refined lustre ware vessels from Egypt and Mesopotamia. The latter would certainly be absent in the houses of the poor as would be many of the better quality, though more commonplace, imported ceramics from Italy, the Aegean, Cyprus and Syria. Local glazed wares would probably not be beyond the means of people of comparatively few resources. Their presence, alone, or together with the locally produced hand-made pottery which had come into vogue in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and which was a low-tech village industry, might certainly be an indication of people living at the lowest social scale.

Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East 149 Another possible indicator of poverty among material finds concerns numismatic evidence. Cast lead token money has been found in numerous locations in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. What Robert Kool has called “ersatz money” was widespread during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, used only for the smallest local transactions as a means of making payments in cash “at the bottom of the kingdom’s economy”.80 It was apparently intended “for simple domestic transactions involving foods or clothing or utilized as alms tokens for visiting pilgrims to enable the procurement of a simple pre-cooked meal”.81 One area in which we might expect to observe material evidence for poverty is in the remains of domestic buildings. Textual sources are full of references to houses of all types, from the opulent palace in Beirut with its marble walls and floors described by Wilbrand of Oldenburg, to the large apartment buildings of Acre and Tyre that housed multiple merchants and families, down to houses located in undesirable locations such as those adjacent to the pig or cattle markets, shanty houses constructed in city moats, and even reed huts.82 Records of purchase and rental costs indicate that the value of houses in Frankish cities varied widely.83 When it comes to actual remains, however, we run into difficulty, as the material evidence is not easy to interpret. House size, for example, is not necessarily an indication of poverty. Destitution, that is, a lack of the means to provide one’s basic needs, including shelter, would generally leave no archaeological record at all, as the destitute had no houses and no possessions. Yet poverty is a relative state, and while we may be tempted to think that the tiny dwellings we encounter in Frankish towns and villages belonged to the impoverished, that might not have been the case. The residents of the few Frankish street villages near Jerusalem, most if not all of whom were tenants of the chapter of the Holy Sepulchre, certainly lived in cramped conditions. Their houses measured on average four to five metres in width and eight to ten metres in depth (Plate 1). Even allowing for a second storey, which apparently was not unusual, the presence of wine and oil presses, cooking areas, fireplaces, cisterns and settling tanks – some of which took up almost the entire ground floor – left remarkably little actual living space. Such living arrangements were not limited to rural settings. There were many houses in Acre of similar proportions.84 Yet restricted living quarters were common in the Middle Ages, and what would be considered today as impoverished conditions would have then been regarded as quite reasonable. It is doubtful that a peasant living in a tiny house, but nonetheless a free man working his own land, would be regarded a pauper. The town poor would have lived in the less desirable locations, which may have been particularly crowded, exposed or polluted. Pollution was far from exceptional in medieval cities, and sewage running in the streets was not, as it is today, a certain sign of poverty. Nevertheless, the extent of filth in some Frankish towns and particularly in certain areas in those towns might be seen as evidence of poverty, and indicate the location of poorer neighbourhoods. The areas in close proximity to the cattle markets and industrial installations, and specifically the tanners’ yards, such as those in the southeast of Jerusalem and in Acre’s Montmusard, were undesirable due to the smells and the waste produced there. In Acre, the houses and properties located near the pig market in the Genoese quarter were

150 Adrian J. Boas among those with the lowest rents.85 Other locations possibly occupied by the poor were the areas encroached upon as the city became overcrowded, such as the open fields adjacent to the inner side of fortifications, open spaces such as courtyards in the crowded parts of the city, the open areas in the moats between the walls and the areas immediately outside the town walls. Evidence from human remains, which can point to the effects of a poor diet and diet-related disease, can be expected to shed light on the topic of poverty. However, this is an area that has only recently begun to be examined and no such evidence has been recovered to date.86 Perhaps the one place we can find clear material evidence for poverty is a burial site. In death as in life, the poor would be segregated. Charnel pits were a solution for the burial of poor pilgrims and destitute locals who lacked the means of paying for a regular interment. How expensive was a burial? In 1219, a gravely ill crusader from Bologna named Barzella Merxadrus made out a will in which he left five bezants to be spent on his funeral, burial in the cemetery of the Hospital of Saint Mary of the Germans in Acre and requiems.87 Five bezants was a considerable sum for the poor. As we have seen, in 1187 not a few Frankish women in Jerusalem were unable to come up with that sum to purchase their freedom. Penniless pilgrims would have had no money at all to cover a burial, let alone a funeral service. Concerning mass burial installations, we have some archaeological as well as textual evidence. In Jerusalem there were at least two, and perhaps three charnel pits and charnel houses. One of these was located east of the lepers’ hospital outside the northern city wall, north-east of Saint Stephen’s Gate. Discovered and briefly excavated at the end of the nineteenth century,88 it contained numerous burials over an extended period dating from the Byzantine to the Crusader periods. A flagstone pavement covered graves in fifteen rows arranged north to south, each about 50 cm wide and 2.75 m long, separated from one another by thin walls. Many of these contained eight to ten articulated corpses, oriented with their heads to the west and their feet to the east. In view of its close proximity to the Lepers’ House, this structure may have been the burial place of the Order of Saint Lazarus. A large charnel house is located south-west of Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom and is historically identified with Akeldama, the Field of Blood, a traditional burial place of pilgrims.89 It consists of a massively constructed barrel vault of c. 22 by 9 metres, about 10 m in height, built of marginally drafted stones and partly incorporating earlier burial caves (Plate 2). Originally, the roof had nine openings, of which four survive, through which bodies of the dead could be cast or lowered into the chamber. Its use in the Crusader period for burial of the impoverished is recorded right at the beginning of the twelfth century by Daniel of Kiev (1106–8): “Here are interred travellers from abroad without any payment.”90 The charnel house was granted to the Hospitallers in 1143 by the patriarch, William of Malines.91 There appears to have been a chapel above it, although no trace of it can be seen today.92 According to Ernoul, it was here that pilgrims who died in the Hospital of Saint John were brought for burial.93 As no doubt many of the pilgrims in the hospital were without means, a charnel house would have been an expedient solution for the Hospitallers, especially if the hospital’s daily death toll

Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East 151 was anything like the fifty recorded by John of Würzburg.94 Medieval descriptions claimed that the bodies decomposed in only three days. Located outside the city walls to the west, the parish cemetery of Saint Mamilla, which belonged to the canons of the Holy Sepulchre, contained a mortuary chapel located over a charnel pit.95 In Acre, too, there was at least one charnel pit. In 1166, a certain Manso, son of Leo Curialis, built a charnel pit (carnarium ad ossa mortuorum) in a section of the cemetery of Saint Nicholas used for Amalfitan burials.96 However, it is not clear whether it was for private use or for burials of Amalfitan pilgrims, and Riley-Smith points out that the charnel-house may have been an ossuary for disfleshed skeletons rather than a regular charnel pit.97 He notes also that the church of Saint Michael in Acre may have been built over a charnel pit.98 It seems that entire cemeteries – or at least plots in cemeteries – were designated for the poor. On 13 February 1303, Guy of Ibelin, titular count of Jaffa, was buried according to his wishes in a pauper’s grave in the cemetery of Nicosia, and on 18 August 1309, John II of Ibelin, titular lord of Arsuf, followed suit and was buried in the same cemetery “with the poor, in front of the sea where they preach”.99 Future research on bio-archaeology and grave goods may shed light on the burial of the poor.

Concluding remarks Poverty is an aspect of life that has been largely overlooked by scholars of the Crusader states. If you leaf through the indexes of books on the Latin East you will hardly come upon entries for “poor” or “poverty”. One might almost be led to believe that it was not a very commonplace condition under Frankish rule. This is of course far from the truth, though it is perhaps not surprising that the topic has eluded examination. There is not very much discussion of poverty in the chronicles and pilgrimage itineraria; you have to look for it between the lines. But it is there, and there are references to poverty in documents, in military order rule books and in records of the Church and State. There is no doubt that the poor were a prominent element in urban and rural Frankish society, one worthy of a deeper examination than this brief survey provides.

Notes 1 “Qui enim illic erant inopes, hic facit eos Deus locupletes. Qui habuerant nummos paucos, hic possident bisantios innumeros,” Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 3.37, ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), 749. 2 Most easily observed in descriptions of the First Crusade and in the documentation of urban sites, poverty was of course present in villages as well. In 1179 [possible date] Constance, daughter of King Louis VI of France and sister of King Louis VII, made an eleemosynary gift to the Hospital and the poor of the casale of Betheras on the plain of Ascalon, which she had bought with all its rights. See Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jérusalem, 4 vols. (Paris, 1894–1906), 1: no. 551; Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter (Göttingen, 1984), 2: no. 41; Reinhold Röhricht, ed., Regesta Regni Hierosoymitani (Innsbruck, 1893) (henceforth RRH), no. 503; Revised Regesta Regni Hierosoymitani Database (henceforth RRR), no. 1045.

152 Adrian J. Boas 3 Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, ed and trans. Susan B. Edgington (Oxford, 2009), 138, 139. 4 Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. and trans. Rosalind Hill (Oxford, 1967), 17; Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere, trans. John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill., (Philadelphia, 1974), 33. 5 Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (Philadelphia, 1994), 66 and n. 45. 6 Ibid., 68. 7 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 1.29, 304. 8 Riley-Smith, First Crusade, 122. 9 William of Tyre, Chronicon, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, Hans E. Mayer, and Gerhard Rösch, CCCM 63–63A (Turnhout, 1986) (henceforth WT), 8.24, 417. According to Fulcher of Chartres, squires and the poorer foot soldiers took part in the burning of Muslim corpses and the chronicler Bartolf of Nangis records this as carried out by the Provençals. See Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The Jerusalem Massacre of July 1099,” Crusades 3 (2004), 20. 10 WT 8.20, 412; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 1.33, 332 (first redaction). 11 There was, however a motivation other than the receiving of a daily wage to participate in the burning of corpses. The possible recovery of gold coins swallowed by the Muslims was a prospect which would have motivated even those who were not destitute to participate in this highly unpleasant task. See Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, 1.28, 302. 12 On the plagues of 1120 see WT, 12.13, 563. On the earthquake of 1202 see Hans E. Mayer, “Two Unpublished Letters on the Syrian Earthquake of 1202,” in Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies in Honour of S.A. Atiya (Leiden, 1972), 295–310; Nicholas N. Ambraseys and Charles P. Melville, “An Analysis of the Eastern Mediterranean Earthquake of 20 May 1202,” in History of Seismography and Earthquakes of the World, ed. W. H. Lee (San Diego, 1988), 181–200. 13 Nicholas Coureas and Peter Edbury, trans., The Chronicle of Amadi, Cyprus Research Centre Texts and Studies in the History of Cyprus LXXIV (Nicosia, 2015), no. 417, p. 205. 14 Ibid., no. 797, p. 369. 15 George Hill, The History of Cyprus, vol. 2: The Frankish Period (Cambridge, 1948), 307. 16 Malcolm C. Lyons and David E. P. Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of Holy War (Cambridge, 1997), 274. If we wish to know what the value of this ransom was in real terms, and thereby attempt an estimate of how poor a person might be who could not afford to pay it, we seem to run into difficulties when examining the sources. Imād a-Din and Ibn Shaddād gives the ransom in dinars whereas in Frankish sources the ransom is given in besants. There is, however, no discrepancy, as the terms “dinar” and “besant” are interchangeable, the besant being the term used in Frankish sources for the dinar – bisancios Sarracenos, and not the Frankish-minted besant – an imitation of the gold Fatimid dinar, but of lesser purity and weight and worth 20–30% less than a genuine dinar (Dr. Robert Kool, personal communication). On this see Oren Tal, Robert Kool, and Issa Baidoun, “A Hoard Twice Buried: Fatimid Gold from Thirteenth Century Crusader Arsur (Apollonia-Arsuf),” The Numismatic Chronicle 173 (2013), 272–4. To date there is no comprehensive study of the actual purchasing power of the dinar in the late twelfth-century Kingdom of Jerusalem. As a minor indication of its value in contemporary Egypt (c.1183) a dinar (at that time consisting of 36–40 dirhems) would constitute the wages of seven to eight days’ work of a skilled labourer such as a mason or floor tile layer – see Shelomo Dov Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, vol. 1: Economic Foundations (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967), 96, 360. Thus, if wages were similar in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a man who qualified as a skilled worker would have to work for seventy to eighty days to raise the ten dinars. As many of the poor would not

Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East 153


18 19


21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

be qualified as skilled labourers, their ransom would have taken a considerably longer time to gather. L’Estoire de Eracles Empereur et la conqueste de la terre d’outremer, RHC Occ 2 (Paris, 1859), 88–100; Louis de Mas Latrie, ed., Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier (Paris, 1871), 217–31. See Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The Patriarch Eeraclius,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar, Hans E. Mayer, and Raymond C. Smail (Jerusalem, 1982), 200–1. Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, 277, n. 58. ‘Imād ad-Din and Ibn Shaddād give very different estimates for the amount of ransom the Muslims actually received. According to ‘Imād ad-Din it was 100,000 dinars, and according to Ibn Shaddād it was 220,000 dinars; see Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, 277. William R. Taylor, “A New Syriac Fragment Dealing with Incidents in the Second Crusade,” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 11 (1929–1930), 120–30. I thank Iris Shagrir for calling my attention to this. See also Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2007), 3: 327; Andrew Palmer, “The History of the Syrian Orthodox in Jerusalem,” part 2, “Queen Melisende and the Jacobite Estates,” Oriens Christianus 76 (1992), 85, n. 45. Ibid., 123. King Henry II made an effort to alleviate the situation by aiding the new arrivals and the Pope sent out twenty galleys to support Cyprus from the Muslim threat. These moves helped to stabilise the situation. Paul Crawford, ed. and trans., “The Templar of Tyre”: Part III of the “Deeds of the Cypriots” (Aldershot, 2003), 516, p. 119. Ibid., 516, p. 120. Ibid., 504, p. 116. See Jean Richard, “Hospitals and Hospital Congregations in the Latin Kingdom during the First Period of the Frankish Conquest,” in Outremer, 90. Even the hospital of the Order of Saint John began as a hospice for paupers and pilgrims before evolving into a hospital for the poor and infirm. See Susan Edgington, “The Hospital of Saint John in Jerusalem,” in The Military Orders, vol. 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 1998), 32–3. WT 18.4–6. See also Pringle, Churches, 3: 236, 253. Jacques de Vitry, Histoire orientale, Historia orientalis, ed. and trans. Jean Donnadieu (Turnhout, 2008), cap. LXVI, 270–1. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, (Paris, 1984), no. 101; RRH, no. 160; RRR, no. 335. See Pringle, Churches, 3: 380–1; 4: 160–1. Henri-François Delaborde, Chartes de Terre-Sainte provenant de l’Abbaye de N.-D. de Josaphat, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 29 (Paris, 1880), no. 19, pp. 47–9; Hans E. Mayer, UKJ, 1: no. 50. See Pierre-Vincent Claverie, Honorius III et l’Orient (1216–1227): Étude et publication de sources inédites des Archives vaticanes (ASV) (Leiden, 2013), no. 5; RRH, no. 909; RRR, no. 1738. See Richard, “Hospitals,” 95 and n. 23. The hospitaller orders of Saint John the Baptist, Saint Mary of the Germans, Saint Lazarus and Saint Thomas all would have possessed such welfare institutions. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général 3: no. 3105. See Pringle, Churches (2009), 4: 71; Bernard Dichter, The Orders and Churches of Crusader Acre (Acre, 1979), 103–5. RRH, nos. 696, 701; Ernst Strehlke, ed., Tabulae ordinis Theutonici (Berlin, 1869), nos. 25, 27. Mayer, UKJ, 3: 1495–6, no. App. III/7; Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 3: 3105; RRH, nos. 982, 1334.

154 Adrian J. Boas 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Ibid., Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général; RRH, no. 1334. Ibid., Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général; RRH; Strehlke, nos. 86, 104. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 2: 2737; RRH, 1216. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 1: nos. 79, 82; RRH, nos. 108, 118. Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer, no. 45; RRH, no. 614b; RRR, no. 1098. The formula of “bed, fire and water” is curious. Bed and water are straightforward enough. Fire may have stood for “hearth,” i.e. the provision of food and heat. This grouping possibly had a Jewish origin. In the eleventh century the Hebrew commentator, Rashi (Tractate Sotah 10.1) refers to the Hebrew word for the Tamarisk tree – “eshel” (‫)אשל‬ as an acronym for eating (‫)אוכל‬, drinking (‫ )שתיה‬and board/companionship (‫לינה‬/‫)לוויה‬, cf. Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak), commentary on Genesis 21.33. The first occurrence of this interpretation appears in Midrash Tehillim 37.1. The tamarisk mentioned in Genesis 21.33 as planted by Abraham in Beersheba, but unexplained in the Bible, was in later discourses given various interpretations. One of these, found in Bereshit Rabba 54: 6 is that it represents Abraham’s hospitality and therefore refers to a hostel, or rather, what one should expect to receive in a hostel. Mayer, UKJ, 1: nos. 100, 125, 131, 152, 156; RRR, nos. 250, 336. See below, note 76. Mayer, UKJ, 1: nos. 192, 244; 2: no. 293; RRH, no. 325; RRR, no. 603. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 1: nos. 79, 82; RRH, nos. 108, 118; RRR, nos. 246, 247. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 1: no. 104. See Mayer, UKJ, 1: no. 121; RRH, no. 151; RRR, no. 320. John of Würzburg in Peregrinationes tres, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, CCCM 139, (Turnhout, 1994), 124; Mayer, UKJ, 1: no. 15; RRR, nos. 37, 855. Delaborde, Chartes, 47–9, no. 19; Mayer, UKJ, 1: no. 50. Mayer, UKJ, 1: nos. 177, 220; 2: no. 275, RRH, no. 262; RRR no. 499. Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire du Chapitre, no. 23; RRH, no. 172. Mayer, UKJ, 1: no. 200; RRR, no. 632. Three years later the abbot of the laura sold these properties to the Holy Sepulchre in order to purchase another royal casale (see Bresc-Bautier, Cart St-Sépulcre, no. 133; RRH, no. 409; RRR, no. 729). Mayer, UKJ, 1: no. 260; 2: no. 304; RRH, no. 355; RRR no. 659. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 4: no 372; RRH, no. 434a; RRR, no. 778. RRH, no. 136. Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, c. 1070–1309 (London, 2012), 23; Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 1: 138, no. 177. Ibid. (Riley-Smith), 36; Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général, 1: 360–1, no. 527. Judith Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars (Woodbridge, 1992), Statute 29, p. 27. Ibid., Statute 199, p. 67. Edwin J. King, The Rule, Statutes and Customs of the Hospitallers 1099–1310 (London, 1981), “The Rule of Blessed Raymond de Puy,” Statute 5, p. 21. Ibid., Statute 6, p. 22. Ibid. (Confirmation by Master Roger), Statute 8, p. 39. Ibid., Statute 9, p. 39. Benjamin Z. Kedar, “A Twelfth Century Description of the Jerusalem Hospital,” in The Military Orders, vol. 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot and Brookfield, 1998), 6. King, The Rule, “Statutes of Fr. Roger des Moulins 1177–87,” Statute 3, p. 38. Riley-Smith, The Knights Hospitaller, 145. King, The Rule, “Statutes of Fr. Roger des Moulins 1177–87,” Statute 4, p. 38. Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire du Chapitre, no. 58; RRH, no. 126. Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London, 1980), 364.

Some evidence for poverty in the Latin East 155 72 Innocent III, Die Register Innocenz’ III, ed. Othmar Hageneder, Anton Haidacher, and Alfred A. Strnad (Graz, Cologne, Rome and Vienna, 1964), 2: no. 180; RRH, no. 760, RRR, no. 1450. 73 Hill, The History of Cyprus, 306. 74 Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire du Chapitre, 161–2, no. 66; RRH, no. 129. 75 The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, in Peter Edbury (trans.), The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade (Aldershot, 1998), 18. 76 Ibid., 16. 77 On this institution see Pringle, Churches, 3: 228–36. 78 Hamilton, The Latin Church, 364, n. 4; Pringle, Churches, 2: 358–9. See Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général 1: no. 219; RRH, no. 283; RRR, no. 550. 79 Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The General Tax of 1183 in the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem: Innovation or Adaptation?,” English Historical Review 89 (1974), 342, repr. in his in The Franks in the Levant, 11th to 14th Centuries (Aldershot 1993), Study VII. 80 Robert Kool, “Lead Token Money in the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” The Numismatic Chronicle 173 (2013), 312. 81 Ibid., 302. 82 For Wilbrand’s description of the Beirut Palace see “Wilbrand of Oldenburg, Journey in the Holy Land (1211–12),” in Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (Farnham and Burlington, 2012), 65. On reed huts in Acre see WT 12.25, pp. 69–70. 83 Adrian J. Boas, Domestic Settings: Sources on Domestic Architecture and Day-to-Day Activities in the Crusader States (Leiden and Boston, 2010), 221–39 (tables 6, 8–12); Denys Pringle, “A Rental of Hospitaller Properties in 12th-Century Jerusalem,” in Susan B. Edgington and Helen J. Nicholson, Deeds Done Beyond the Sea: Essays on William of Tyre, Cyprus and the Military Orders Presented to Peter Edbury, CrusadesSubsidia 6 (Farnham, 2014), 193. 84 See for example Boas, Domestic Settings, house 1: 11, 275, 277. 85 Ibid., 234, table 9. 86 On the state of research on human remains see the studies of Piers Mitchell, “Pathology in the Crusader Period: Human Skeletal Remains from Tell Jezreel,” Levant 26 (1994), 67–71; “Further Evidence of Disease in the Crusader Period Population of ‘Le Petit Gérin’ (Tel Jezreel),” Tel Aviv 24 (1997), 169–79; Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds and the Medieval Surgeon (Cambridge, 2004). 87 Hans E. Mayer, “Bologna und der Fünfte Kreuzzug,” Crusades 14 (2015), 165–6; RRR, no. 1835. 88 Franz Dunkel, “Excavations at Jerusalem,” trans. James E. Hanauer, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1902), 403–5. 89 The late sixth century Piacenza Pilgrim refers to it as: ager sanguinis, in quo sepeliuntur omnes peregrini, “the field of blood in which they bury all strangers”. See Itinerarium 26, CCSL CLXXV, (Turnhout, 1965), 143. 90 William F. Ryan, trans., The Life and Journey of Daniel, Abbot of the Russian Land, in John Wilkinson, J. Hill and William F. Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185 (London, 1988), 142. 91 Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire Général 1: 121–2, no. 150; RRH, no. 215; RRR, no. 436. 92 See Pringle, Churches, 3: 222–7. 93 Janet Shirley, trans., Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century: The Rothelin Continuation of William of Tyre (Aldershot, 1999), 20. 94 John of Würzburg, Peregrinationes tres, 131. Jonathan Riley-Smith suggested that this high number of daily dead may point to John of Wurzburg’s pilgrimage having taken place during an epidemic: Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Knights Hospitaller, 77. Alternatively, this may be another of the frequent examples of exaggerated numbers found in medieval pilgrimage accounts.

156 Adrian J. Boas 95 Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Death and Burial of Latin Christian Pilgrims to Jerusalem and Acre, 1099–1291,” Crusades 7 (2008), 165–79, at 165. See also 167 and n. 14 regarding a possible charnel pit located in the cemetery of the Templar Knights adjacent to the Golden Gate. If such an installation existed, it was used for the burial of crusaders killed in 1099 rather than as a burial place for the poor. 96 RRH, no. 372; RRR, no. 767. 97 Riley-Smith, “Death and Burial,” 176. 98 Ibid., 178. 99 Chronicle of Amadi, no. 501, p. 234; no. 594, p. 279.

12 A rough guide to the Holy Land Pilgrims’ use of the Mount Zion library in the fifteenth century Susan B. Edgington

The pilgrimage route from Germany to the Holy Land was a well trodden one in the fifteenth century, as the number of surviving travel accounts attests.1 The best known of these pilgrim records today is probably that of Friar Felix Fabri, but here we shall concentrate on the comparatively neglected Reisebuch of Hans Tucher. Tucher was born in Nuremberg on 10 April 1428. He came from a family prominent in the public life of the city and was himself a town councillor before his pilgrimage and Bürgermeister after his return. He set off for the Holy Land from Nuremberg on 6 May 1479 in the company of a fellow town councillor, Sebald Rieter the Younger, who belonged to a family of serial pilgrims, and Valentin Scheurl, merchant of Breslau.2 They took ship, as was usual, from Venice, leaving on 10 June. They disembarked at Jaffa on 23 July. Their travels took them from there to Jerusalem to Sinai to Cairo to Alexandria, and they arrived back in Venice on 17 March 1480. They were away from Nuremberg a little short of a year (49 weeks). Tucher kept a journal of his travels, and this enabled him to publish them very quickly. Before he died on 24 February 1491, he was able to oversee the dissemination of his book – there are 14 surviving manuscripts – and its printed publication in Augsburg, Nuremberg and Strasbourg.3 Two of the early printed editions have been digitised by the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich. The 1482 copy, published in Nuremberg, was marginally annotated and also has a hand-written note recording the dimensions of the Holy Sepulchre and dated 6 August 1479 bound in at the appropriate point.4 This strongly suggests that it was Tucher’s own personal copy. After Tucher’s death it was in the possession of another prominent Nuremberger, Hartmann Schedel, a medical doctor and world historian, who wrote a short obituary of Tucher after the end of the printed text. It should be appreciated that the Reisebuch functioned not only as a record of Tucher’s pilgrimage, but also as a practical travel guide for others, and this explains the inclusion of a range of practical advice such as distances and places to stay, food prices in the markets, remedies for minor ailments and much more.5 Notably, Friar Felix carried a copy of Tucher’s Reisebuch with him on his travels.6 The added interest of the 1482 edition is a number of hand-written pages both before and after the text, some in German like the printed text and others in Latin. These manuscript additions are almost certainly the work of the author Hans Tucher and will be the focus of the second part of this essay.


Susan B. Edgington

While in Jerusalem, pilgrims stayed, as was customary at the time, in lodgings belonging to the Franciscan house on Mount Zion, and they came and went there freely. It was there that Hans Tucher claimed to have spent time in the library and copied a chronicle: Below is written which Christian princes won the holy city Jerusalem and the Holy Land and held it and at what time that happened, as it is actually written in Jerusalem in the monastery on Mount Zion in their library in their chronicle, from which they let me copy while I was with them, after the other pilgrims were away with the galley.7 In fact, Tucher’s travelling companion Sebald Rieter, who wrote a Reisebericht about the same pilgrimage, also stayed in Jerusalem while the rest of the pilgrims went off in the galley and he recorded the exact date of their departure as 10 August 1479. Rieter too included “a short extract taken from the Latin chronicle in Jerusalem” (ein cleinē außzug begriffen auß der latteinischen koronick Jn Jerusalem) that described which Christian princes took Jerusalem and how one duke and eight Christian kings held it one after another.8 This is certainly the same chronicle that Tucher saw and adds the valuable detail that it was written in Latin.9 It is unlikely either copied from the other since Tucher translated the “chronicle” into German and Rieter did not. There is ample evidence in the Reisebuch that Tucher had a good knowledge of Latin, so it is probable that Tucher was responsible for the German translation, but did he also summarise or amend his exemplar? The short history of the First Crusade is followed immediately by an account of the kings of Jerusalem, through to Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem in 1187. Was this taken from the same manuscript or a different one? Did it draw on the same source or sources? Notably, the modern edition of Tucher’s Reisebuch, by Randall Herz (2002), though admirable in many respects, showed no particular interest in this section of the book. The editor assumed that Tucher used an abbreviated version of Robert the Monk’s Historia Iherosolimitana, which is plausible in view of its wide dissemination in southern Germany, but belied by the actual content of Tucher’s brief account.10 Herz’s historical notes are references to Runciman.11

The history of the First Crusade The History begins with the Emperor Heraklios and it points us immediately towards William of Tyre’s chronicle. The forms of the names Eraclius and Homar are the same as in the Latin William of Tyre, but Tucher’s is a drastically abridged version of the seventh-century capture of Jerusalem by the forces of Islam and of the exiled Christians’ longing to recapture it, which occupies ten chapters in William of Tyre’s chronicle. The date of the capture of Jerusalem given by Tucher, but not by William, is 536: exactly one hundred years too early, indicating that one link in the chain of transmission added numerals, probably Roman, and a later link in the chain lacked facility in reading them. The narrative then jumps to the time of Urban II and the Council of Clermont, omitting entirely the Jerusalem

A rough guide to the Holy Land 159 pilgrimage of Peter the Hermit that occupies chapters 11 to 13 of William of Tyre’s book I. None of the versions of William in Latin or in medieval translation skips the role of Peter before Clermont.12 Some other features of the account of the First Crusade may be diagnostic. Firstly, the dates are inaccurate. The conquest of Jerusalem is dated 1029 (Tausent .xxix. iar), and the council of Clermont is dated 1026 (Tausent .xxvi. iar). It looks as if xcix and xcvi (for xcv) were misread at some point. Secondly, Urban II’s role in the council of Clermont is not recognised. Instead, Tucher writes that “they” had a council and that “they” advised. It is implied that all the leaders listed in the same paragraph were present at Clermont. The Latin place name “apud clarum montem” is repeated from the Latin but glossed in German. Like William of Tyre the chronicle lists the leaders, but there are differences: Godfrey and the first two King Baldwins of Jerusalem were brought to the top and there is some confusion, for example about Stephen (of Blois) and Raymond (of Toulouse), and a lack of knowledge that resulted in “Burgo” (for Baldwin of Bourcq) being expanded as Burgundy. However, the “lords” are described broadly in the same terms, and Bohemond and Tancred were given a new sentence, suggesting that the selection of the more prominent leaders from the less important ones was done by someone who knew the history better than Tucher. The total number of crusaders is given as 600,000. This is the number given by Fulcher of Chartres for the combined army at Nicaea and, following Fulcher, William of Tyre.13 However, they did not all travel together but through “Hungary, Greece and Asia”; the prominence given to Hungary echoes Albert of Aachen, another author used by William of Tyre.14 The depletion of the forces was conveyed in a couple of sentences: men were killed or captured by the enemy; they died from illness, hunger and thirst. Ultimately, the brief chronicle records, there were 40,000 survivors, comprising 5,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry plus 5,000 women and children. William of Tyre also had 40,000, but his army comprised 20,000 infantry and just 1,500 knights; the rest were “unarmed or sick and feeble.”15 The 1,500 knights were recorded also by Raymond of Aguilers.16 Jerusalem was captured “with God’s help,” and following worship at the holy places, Godfrey was elected to rule, although he refused to be called king.17 The section on the First Crusade ended with a brief account of Godfrey’s conquests. The chronicler identified Jaffa correctly as Ioppe, but then wrote that it was “Porphiria, under Mount Carmel,” i.e., Haifa. William of Tyre is the only writer who gave the name “Porfiria” as an alternative to “Cayphas.”18 However, William did not add the location, nor name “Porfiria” anywhere in juxtaposition to Jaffa, so this is an error introduced by a copyist. Because “Porfiria” is named in close proximity to Tiberias and Galilee, the abridger (whoever he was) clearly intended Haifa, which, William wrote, was granted to Tancred at the same time.19 The entry on Godfrey concluded with a reference to the battle of Ascalon and his death and burial after 11 months.

The list of kings This section covers eight reigns and 87 years very briefly. This is achieved by presenting very eclectic fragments of information about most of the kings and,


Susan B. Edgington

ultimately, at the expense of clarity. Baldwin I ruled for 18 years and defeated an Egyptian army of 22,000. This was one of the battles of Ramla: William said the Egyptians numbered 11,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry in 1101; 20,000 in 1102; 15,000 in 1105.20 Baldwin II is credited wrongly with the capture of “Gasa” (i.e., Ilghāzi). His captivity and the capture of Tyre with Venetian assistance are the other concrete details reported. Fulk’s expeditions against the infidel are mentioned in vague terms, but his death while hunting is described in more detail. This sentence is worth careful attention because it may provide more clues as to Tucher’s exemplar. The German version reads: “Und in einer zeit als er in der art archanensy am geiagde einem hasen nach rant viel er sich mit einem pferd zu tod.” [“And on one occasion when he was riding in this way {archanensy} for hunting a hare he fell to his death with his horse.”]21 The probable ur-text by William of Tyre is much longer: Accidit autem illis diebus quod cum dominus rex una cum domina regina, transcurso autumpno, in civitate Acconense moram faceret . . . [A]ccidit casu ut qui agmina et comitatum preibant pueri leporem in sulcis iacentem excitarent, quem fugientem clamor prosequutus est universorum. Rex autem, arrepta lancea, ut eundem leporem insectaretur . . . equum ad illas cepit urgere partes et cursui vehementer instare. Tandem inconsulte festinans, equus in preceps agitur corruensque in terram regem dedit precipitem iacentique, pre casus dolore attonito, sella caput obtrivit, ita ut cerebrum tam per aures quam per nares etiam emitteretur.22 The Old French translation of William of Tyre reads: En cele seson qui vint après, ne demora guères, porce que li païs estoit sanz guerre, li Rois et la Roine sejornoient en la cité d’Acre. . . . Tuit ensemble chevauchoit li Rois et la Roine et leur genz: vallet et enfant s’espandirent parmi les chans, tant qu’il firent saillir un lievre qui se gisoit en un garet: tuit s’escrierent ensemble. Li Rois le vit, qui séoit sur un mout bon destrier et tost corant: si prist un glaive por ocire le lievre. Des esperons feri durement après por ataindre; mès, quant il s’en aloit si tost, li chevaus mist le col entre les jambes et chéi; li Rois jut iluec blesiez, et li chevaus vola par desus lui tout envers, si que li arçons derrieres de la sele l’aconsut en la teste et l’escervela tout . . . la cervelle li sailloit par les narilles et par les oreilles.23 If we did not have Sebald Rieter’s evidence, then it could be deduced that the list of kings was in Old French, and that the word archanensy was related to the arçons later, as a style of riding with a saddle bow. This is plausible but there is no extant version in Old French that supports it. An alternative conjecture that refers to the Latin William of Tyre, is that “Acconense,” probably not capitalised, was displaced at some point and inserted a few lines later where a copyist tried to make sense of it. If this was the case, then one may speculate that the stray acconense may have been rationalised as arcu et ense (or arcu ac ense). This could

A rough guide to the Holy Land 161 explain the change in Fulk’s weapon of choice for hunting down a running hare. William said he seized a lancea, or light spear; all the translations say he seized a less likely glaive, or sword. The Old French William of Tyre quoted above dates from c.1220. If arcu et ense or some similar phrase was corrupted in Tucher’s exemplar then it is witness to a stage in the transmission of William of Tyre that pre-dates the earliest Old French version, that is c.1220. Returning to the list of kings, Baldwin III performed “many laudable deeds” and ruled for 24 years. Amalric waged great battles and defeated the Egyptians; he reigned 12 years and died. The account of Baldwin IV’s reign is comparatively detailed, covering his leprosy, his defence of the kingdom, and victory over Saladin – presumably at Montgisart, though the numbers given by Tucher are not those of William.24 There is also an accurate account of the marriages of Queen Sibilla. The entry concludes after her marriage to Guy of Lusignan: “This same man roused the king in his illness to a great rage, and so the king no longer wanted him near him or in his kingdom. Shortly after this the king himself died.” There is little about the very short reign of Baldwin V. William of Tyre’s Chronicon ended in 1184, the year before the death of Baldwin IV, but the copyist evidently had another source, for Tucher has a paragraph on the reign of Guy of Lusignan. However, it has a number of lacunae, lacks proper names of the key characters, and is seriously confused: Afterwards Sibilla, the mother of the young deceased king, was the heir.25 So quite a number of [lords?]26 and guardians of the kingdom, particularly the patriarch [who all held the belief that Guy should rule, and therefore?],27 that her second husband, Guy of Lusignan, was crowned king. Such an action annoyed a powerful lord28 in the kingdom to whom the rule of the kingdom was also entrusted, and this same man began a war against the appointed King Guy, and when he decided that he did not want to break away from the king and his power was too weak, so he made an agreement29 and covenant with the Sultan and other infidels and married a rich widow,30 who was a lady and who ruled the entirety of Galilee, hoping therefore to offer more resistance against the appointed king of Jerusalem. When the Sultan heard of31 this disunity between the king and the aforesaid lord and counts, so he raised himself with great power and took the city of Jerusalem with force, where the king wanted to give him no more resistance, because he had fought with the aforesaid lords and had weakened his kingdom and soon died32 on account of the Sultan’s power. This was therefore the time that the kingdom of Jerusalem and the Holy Land was estranged from the power of the Christians, and may God from heaven deliver it soon back into the hands of Christians. Amen. A detailed examination and comparison of this document with other accounts of the First Crusade and the first Latin Kingdom, seems to suggest that it was a digest loosely based on a version of William of Tyre that was probably written before 1220, with an addendum covering the end of the First Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem for which no exemplar has been identified. This section of the Reisebuch


Susan B. Edgington

contains no information of historical value and represents a drastic abridgment (less than five pages) that Tucher translated from Latin into German for the use of future travellers. An obvious deduction is that the convent on Mount Zion held such documents in its library specifically for the use of pilgrims.33 This is borne out by Tucher’s travelling companion, Sebald Rieter, who included in his Reisebericht the same short extract, albeit his was copied in Latin.34

A topography of the Holy Land A second document explicitly copied in the library of Mount Zion is among the manuscript pages that follow the printed content of the Reisebuch. This is a topography of the Holy Land comprising seven pages and a few lines in all (fos 126r – 129v). Significantly, the elaborate initial T (for Terre) on folio 126r is very evidently by the same hand that handpainted the equally decorative initial capitals on some of the printed pages. On folio 129v the document ends very abruptly with an et reliqua, and the rest of the page is – unusually – left blank. The whole text is in a very clear fifteenth-century hand. The manuscript is closely related to the section of Marino Sanudo Torsello’s: Liber secretorum fidelium crucis (book 3 chapter 3 of the 1611 Bongars edition)35 entitled “Continet situationem locorum notabilium Sanctae Terrae Promissionis,” and it begins with the same words: “Terrae Promissionis longitudo.” Sanudo’s treatise is extant in 19 complete texts, all of them produced within his lifetime (1260–1338), and nine of these copies contain maps. The maps are now recognised as the work of a master cartographer, Pietro Vesconte (fl. 1310–30). The nine maps of Palestine are all versions of the same map and they were copied from two exemplars, one in Venice and one in Naples.36 Vesconte’s original map does not survive, but it can be shown to have been a much reduced version of the very large map of Burchard of Mount Zion (c.1300).37 The copy made in Naples in 1329 or soon after is the most carefully drawn.38 A cartographic innovation was to superimpose a grid, 83 × 28 squares, on the map that could be used to locate places and natural features. The Sanudo chapter did exactly this, proceeding “systematically strip by strip east to west.”39 Since east was at the top of the map, as was customary at the time, it was read like a written page from the top left hand corner (north-east) to the bottom right hand corner (southwest). The left to right squares (north to south) Sanudo called spatia; the top to bottom squares (east to west) he called quadra. Peter Lock translated these accurately as “spaces” and “squares”; more freely they may be viewed as rows and columns. In his magisterial Medieval Maps of the Holy Land, P. D. A. Harvey reproduced the grid maps and discussed them in detail. Harvey also noted two 15th-century descriptions which evidently once accompanied such maps; however, in neither case has the map survived. John Poloner, who was probably German, wrote a description in 1421–2 that now survives in seven manuscript copies. He named and described successive places on the map and identified most with a grid reference. Because he used the first person singular, it appears that he either copied or adapted an existing map.40 He said, “I painted” (“pinxi”) Galilee green and Judaea yellow (ed. Tobler, 254) while he “made Bethany white” (“albam feci,” 257). He

A rough guide to the Holy Land 163 marked a battle site with a sword (“signavi cum gladio,” 259). Lydda had an arch (“signavi cum arcu testudinis,” 261) because “it is seen there.” Poloner also made it apparent that he was not merely recording the making of a map; he had personally travelled in the Holy Land: he said that he did not see a single man in Jaffa (“non vidi quemquam hominem,’ 262), a circumstance that he ascribed to the activities of the kings of France and England on the Third Crusade. As for Beirut, Poloner spent a fearful night (“pernoctavi non sine timore,” 266) in its horrible harbour in 1422. He heard (“audivi,” 267) about the silk trade in Tripoli. Finally, and for the elimination of all uncertainty, he recorded of Bethel (formerly Luz) that “I, John Poloner, recently saw (‘vidi’) the story of this [i.e. Christ’s] sacrifice in that place, depicted in mosaic work” (p. 275). Despite the abundance of detail about other aspects of his pilgrimage as well as biblical and more recent history, Poloner did not say where he had seen and copied the grid-map, though he certainly visited the convent on Mount Zion. The second description is extant as a single manuscript included in a collection of fragments now in the Munich Staatsbibliothek.41 It is titled “Declaracio mappe terre sancte per magistrum Mauricium Parisiense” (“an explanation [or clarification] of the Holy Land map by Maurice Paris”). The identity of the author, beyond his name, is not known. This version goes straight into the reading of the map grid, “In primo enim quadro,” Sanudo’s preliminary paragraph, “Ista est longitudo terre sancte siue promissionis . . . ” follows the identification of places; the whole is very concise and with biblical references only. There is no hint of personal experience of travel in the Holy Land until after the “explanation” where the concluding sentence ends: “que omnia clarent in figura presenti quam pinxi in sancto monte syon etcetera.” (“All these things are clear in the present drawing that I painted in holy Mount Zion, etc.”) A note at the end of the fragment explains that waterways are coloured green and road routes red, confirming the author’s personal involvement in the copying. For our present discussion, the location of the copying is significant, and together with Poloner’s and Tucher’s texts provides clear evidence that a version of the grid map was available for copying in the library at Mount Zion. This raises the question whether the three pilgrim authors – John Poloner, Maurice of Paris and Hans Tucher – were working only from the map and individually using it to locate towns and other features, or if they had a common exemplar text. The first possibility can be rejected: there is definitely a common source for the text, and it was either the chapter from Sanudo’s Liber secretorum fidelium crucis or a document adapted from it. The authors’ explanations of the grid may be compared with one another. Sanudo’s is, beyond doubt, the ultimate source for the copies: their wording is close and in some places identical with Sanudo’s wording: e.g. Sanudo’s: “tractis lineis super priores transuersaliter ab Occidente in Oriens.” (Maurice reversed this and put “ab oriente in occidens” but this was an error that he rectified with “vel equo,” or, as we might say, “or vice versa.”) The three copyists share some differences from Sanudo, for example all preferring “austrum” to “meridiem” for “south.” Both John Poloner and Maurice of Paris added to the description of the eastern extent of the map “ad fimbriam montium arabie,” but Tucher did not.


Susan B. Edgington

The most striking area of comparison, though, is to do with their expressions of distance. Sanudo merely wrote that one league was two miles: “quantitatem unius leucae siue duorum milliarum.”42 Both Poloner and Paris gave a conversion rate for German and Italian miles, although they did not express the equivalencies in precisely the same way: Poloner said that 42 German miles were the same as 210 Italian miles, and that 14 “great miles” were equivalent to 70 Italian miles. The ratio in both cases is 1:5, and therefore one German mile was the same as a great mile. Maurice of Paris appears to have confused himself. He equated 83 leagues to 42 “long” or German miles or 220 Italian miles. Then, more credibly, he made 28 leagues into 14 German or “great” miles, or 70 Italian, explaining with reference to the map that 1 league was 2 maritime miles and 2 leagues was one German mile, i.e. 1 German mile equalled 4 maritime miles. Tucher was not interested in Italian miles. He gave the dimensions of the Holy Land as 83 leagues by 28 leagues, then explained for his German readership that this was 166 maritime miles by 56; thus 1 league was 2 maritime miles, and 2 leagues made one German mile: the same ratio as Maurice of Paris. The conclusion that may be drawn from this is that the brothers on Mount Zion had customised Sanudo’s description of the map specifically for the use of pilgrims to Jerusalem, who could choose whether to express distances in leagues, in maritime miles, in Italian miles, in German miles, or in all four. Tucher’s truncated version of the description comprises just under 1,500 words in Latin (fewer than 2,000 in English translation). John Poloner’s is nearly three times as long as this (about 4,000 words). As described above, Poloner included a fair number of personal experiences and observations. While Tucher referred only to biblical history, with very few exceptions – one of which was very obviously taken from Sanudo – Poloner seems to have shown a lively interest in more recent history. In particular he investigated and recorded accurately the building and former ownership of several castles, including Ibelin, Arsuf, Sidon, Athlit, Marqab, Karak and Shawbak. Castrum Peregrinorum came from Sanudo (p. 249), but not the rest. It is only possible to speculate as to whether Poloner saw exactly the same document as the two later pilgrims; one conjecture, based on the first-person references in his work, is that he copied the map and its accompanying notes and wrote up his description after his pilgrimage, possibly but not certainly at Mount Zion. To recapitulate Tucher’s travels: he arrived in the Holy Land towards the end of July 1479. He came to Jerusalem on 2 August. We know exact dates because Tucher’s travelling companion Sebald Rieter’s Reisebericht started with a journal.43 They had quite a heavy sight-seeing programme until 10 August when the rest of the pilgrims “went off in the galley” and then Rieter and Tucher stayed in and around Jerusalem.44 There was then a period of a fortnight during which, Tucher said, he wrote out the history of the First Crusade and the kings of Jerusalem, then the pilgrimage resumed on 24 August with trips to the Jordan and other places. As Rieter recorded meticulously, they were in the holy city for five weeks less a day, leaving on 5 September for Egypt and St Catherine’s in Sinai.45 Even during the fortnight when he was able to use the Mount Zion library there were daily church services and other distractions making it impossible to estimate how much time Tucher actually spent there. The historical text apparently

A rough guide to the Holy Land 165 required translation from Latin into German. The map itself was a major undertaking if Tucher copied that too. If so, then the map and the topographical notes were copied, we have to assume, and accompanied Tucher to Egypt and then back to Nuremberg where the notes were eventually re-copied to put with the map as a manuscript appendix to his personal copy of the printed volume. A further conjecture, however, is that the copy of the notes Tucher made in Jerusalem was rushed and unfinished, accounting for the “et reliqua” at the end. Perhaps he hoped to be able to locate another exemplar to copy into the rest of that page. A straightforward copying job explains why there are only two apparent references to personal experience: “Some say that the water of the Jordan is not mingled with the Dead Sea but sinks into the ground, but I do not believe this because I saw the Jordan entering this sea in the mountains of Bethany.”46 And: “In this city [Beirut] the holy virgin Barbara was beheaded by her father; I saw her passion in the aforesaid city, painted in a little hidden chapel belonging to the Greeks.”47 The observation about the Jordan is an echo, but not a verbal replication of a statement by Sanudo;48 I have not found the second elsewhere, though Denys Pringle has identified two chapels in Beirut, one of which could be the one referred to.49 In fact, the reference is compelling evidence that Tucher was copying an exemplar verbatim, because he did not go to Beirut. He stated explicitly that they only had five weeks in Jerusalem and that it was too hot to travel, therefore he included brief notices of the churches and the indulgences to be found in cities he was unable to visit.50 These notices were, presumably, also copied from information in the Mount Zion library. Further evidence, if needed, is found on the first page of his description: “hanc tabulam quam ego N peregrinus in Ierusalem repinxi in sancto monte Syon,” where “N” marks the spot where the copyist was meant to substitute his own nomen. In the absence of the sort of information that Maurice of Paris gave about paint colours and his own observation, there is considerable doubt that Hans Tucher copied the map at all; in fact, in the absence of any vestige of personal experience there is also doubt that he did any more than produce an incomplete copy of the exemplar text. There is a precedent for this: the question whether descriptions were necessarily accompanied by a copy of the grid map was addressed by the editors of Giovanni di Fedanzola’s copy of Sanudo’s description, and they were not persuaded that he included a copy of the map since there is no indication in the text itself that such a map existed.51

Conclusion The Franciscan brothers on Mount Zion who provided a centre for pilgrims in the later middle ages evidently kept a collection of documents not only for the use of pilgrims, but also specifically for them to copy. Tucher’s Reisebuch contains evidence that this included a short account in Latin of the First Crusade and the twelfth-century kings of Jerusalem and notes on churches and indulgences in the Holy Land. The manuscript topography found in the 1482 edition of the Reisebuch is revealing of another document held in the library: Sanudo’s description of the Holy Land that was originally part of the very long Liber secretorum and


Susan B. Edgington

accompanied by the innovative grid map by Vesconte. By the fifteenth century this had apparently been extracted and adapted by the friars and made available for use and copying in their library. Tucher copied the first part of the description more-or-less verbatim, but there is no evidence that he copied the map, nor would he have had time to do so. What survives, therefore, is rather different from the John Poloner and Maurice of Paris texts which have indications of personal experience as well as evidence of a lost accompanying map. However, together Tucher and his fellow pilgrims show clearly the great service provided by the convent of Mount Zion to 15th-century pilgrims.

Notes 1 An early version of this chapter was given at the congress of the SSCLE in Odense, 2016, and I profited from Sophia Menache’s observations concerning the Mount Zion library. I also thank Drs Mark Whelan and Alan Murray for help with German, both medieval and modern. 2 Das Reisebuch der Familie Rieter, ed. Reinhold Röhricht and Heinrich Meisner (Tübingen, 1884), 1–2. 3 Randall Herz, Die, Reise ins Gelobte Land’ Hans Tuchers des Älteren 1479–1480: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung und kritische Edition eines spätmittelalterlichen Reiseberichts, Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter 38 (Wiesbaden, 2002). See also: Randall Herz, “From Manuscript Copy to the Printed Book: Hans Tucher’s Palestine Account of 1482: A Case Study of the Use of ‘Printer’s Copy’ in Two Early Southern German Printing Houses,” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 69 (2014), 1–19, background to Tucher and his writing at 2–3. 4 Hans Tucher, Reisebuch (Nuremberg, 1482) digitized by the Bayerische StaatsBibliothek at html (accessed on 13 February 2017). References below are to this edition unless otherwise specified. 5 For the conversion from journal to travel guide, see Herz, “Manuscript Copy,” 3–4. 6 Kathryn Beebe, Pilgrim and Preacher: The Audiences and Observant Spirituality of Friar Felix Fabri (1437/8–1502) (Oxford, 2014), 86–8. 7 Tucher, Reisebuch, 1482 edition, fol. 40r-40v. [All folio references below are to this book and edition.] “Hie nach ist geschriben welich cristenlich fursten die heiligen stat Jherusalem und das heylig landt gewunnen, und innen gehabt haben, und zu welcher zeit das geschehen ist, als das zu Jherusalem im closter monte syon in irer liberey in irer kronica eigentichen steet, dar auß sy mich das schreyben liessen die weyl ich da bey in was, nach dem die andern pilgram weck waren mit der galem.” 8 Tucher, Reisebuch, ed. Herz, 472, n. 2. 9 The information and the chronicle extract were given in only one manuscript of Rieter’s account and the extract was omitted from their edition by Röhricht and Meisner, but they were confident that it was the same as Tucher’s. 10 Tucher, Reisebuch, ed. Herz, 472–6. For the dissemination of Robert the Monk’s Historia in southern Germany, see The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, ed. Damien Kempf and Marcus Bull (Woodbridge, 2013), xliii–xlv. 11 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1951–1954). 12 Peter Edbury by email dated 30 May 2016. 13 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 1095–1127, 1.10.4, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), 183; William of Tyre, Chronicon 8.5, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, CCCM 63 (Turnhout, 1986), 390–1; Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana 2.25, ed. and trans. Susan B. Edgington (Oxford, 2007), 102, has “over 400,000.”

A rough guide to the Holy Land 167 14 Albert of Aachen, Historia, book 2, ed. Edgington, 60–137; William of Tyre, Chronicon, book 2, ed. Huygens, 159–94. 15 William of Tyre, Chronicon 8.5, ed. Huygens, 390; at Ascalon 1,200 cavalry and 9,000 infantry: 9.12, p. 434. 16 Raymond Aguilers, Liber, ed. John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill, Documents rélatifs à l’histoire des croisades 9 (Paris, 1969), 136: “1,500 knights and no great number of infantry.” 17 The golden crown / crown of thorns argument was widely reported in relation to Baldwin’s coronation (Christmas 1100), including by Fulcher of Chartres and William of Tyre: Fulcher, Historia 2.6.1–4, ed. Hagenmeyer, 384–7; William, Chronicon 9.9, ed. Huygens, 431. 18 William of Tyre, Chronicon 9.13, ed. Huygens, 438: “Caypham, que alio nomine dicitur Porfiria.” 19 Ibid. 20 William of Tyre, Chronicon 10.16(17), ed. Huygens, 472; 10.19(20), p. 476; 11.3, p. 498. 21 fol. 42r. 22 William of Tyre, Chronicon 15.27, p. 710. 23 Guillaume de Tyr et ses continuateurs, texte français du 13e siècle, ed. Paulin Paris, 2 vols. (Paris, 1879–80), 2: 86–7. 24 Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. Louis de Mas-Latrie, Société de l’histoire de France 157 (Paris, 1871), 34. NB Ernoul gives a total figure of 600 knights in the kingdom in the autumn of 1177 as the Tucher translation does. See also Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2000), 133 and n. 15. 25 verfuget. 26 lacuna. 27 a phrase, including the main verb, has been omitted. 28 Raymond III of Tripoli. 29 In 1186. 30 Eschiva, widow of Walter of Saint-Omer (though he married her in 1174 when Baldwin IV was still alive and before Sibylla married Guy of Lusignan). 31 vername. 32 Guy did not die until 1194. Raymond died 1187. 33 I am far from the first to reach this conclusion. See for example Michele Campopiano, “Islam, Jews and Eastern Christianity in Late Medieval Pilgrims’ Guidebooks: Some Examples from the Franciscan Convent of Mount Sion,” Al-Masaq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean 24.1 (2012), 75–89. I am very grateful to Dr Campopiano for information and advice. 34 Reisebuch, ed. Herz, 472, n. 2. 35 Marino Sanudo, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis super Terrae Sanctae recuperatione et conservatione, repr. (Jerusalem, 1972), 246–9; Marino Sanudo Torsello, The Book of the Secrets of the Faithful of the Cross, trans. Peter Lock (Farnham, 2011), 392–8. 36 P. D. A. Harvey, Medieval Maps of the Holy Land (London, 2012), ch. 10, “The Grid Maps 1320–39,” 107–27, at 114. 37 Harvey, Medieval Maps, ch. 9, pp. 94–106. 38 Ibid., plate 61. 39 Ibid., 116. 40 Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex Saeculo VIII, IX, XII, XV, ed. Titus Tobler (Leipzig, 1874), 225–81, at 253–78 for the grid-map description. 41 Clm. 18736, fos 201r-211r, “Declaracio” at 201r-204v. See Tobler, notes to Descriptiones, p. 505. Ed. by Harvey as an appendix to the grid-map chapter, 126–7. 42 A medieval Italian mile was 1856m: Fra Giovanni di Fedanzola da Perugia, Descriptio Terræ Sanctæ: Ms. Casanatense 3876, ed. Ugolino Nicolini and Renzo Nelli (Jerusalem, 2003), editors’ introduction, xx, n. 34.

168 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Susan B. Edgington

Reisebuch der Familie Rieter, ed. Röhricht and Meisner, 36–149. Rieter, Reisebuch, 58–9. Rieter, Reisebuch, 86. fol. 127v. fol. 129v. Sanudo, ed. Bongars, 252. Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1993), no. 49, p. 118 or no. 54, p. 119. 50 fol. 38v; Beirut at 39v. See also Campopiano, “Islam, Jews and Eastern Christianity,” 77. 51 Fedanzola, Descriptio Terræ Sanctæ, ed. Nicolini and Nelli, xx.

13 First officer of the crown of France and his legacy in the Latin East Imbert de Beaujeu1 Vardit Shotten-Hallel A magnificent shield carved in limestone, currently exhibited as part of the Crusader exhibition in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, was attributed in previous scholarship to the House of Lusignan (Figure 13.1).2 It has been suggested that the shield was presented in honour of King Henry II of Cyprus, after his visit to Acre. The lion rampant depicted on the shield resembles that of the Lusignans, who kept the title roi de Jérusalem et de Chypre long after the fall of the Latin Kingdom in 1291 and well into the fifteenth century, when King Janus (1398–1432) was titled king of Cyprus, Jerusalem, and Armenia. Close examination of a few key features of the shield has however, has led to the conclusion that it represented not a Lusignan monarch, but an eminent French official. Thus, the shield can be dated accordingly to the mid-thirteenth century (c.1251). On 17 February 1921 a local inspector, acting on behalf of the Department of Antiquities, reported a visit to a house known as “Dār Waqf” in Acre (Figure 13.2).3 The report included a brief description of the location of the shield. It was embedded in a wall of a liwān (assembly room), placed on its side instead of in an upright position. The lion thus appeared to be walking, as if it was the panther passant representing Sultan Baybars (1260–77): On the back wall of the liwan is inserted a shield about 30 ins high bearing a lion rampant in high relief. The shield has now no trace of colour and has unfortunately been whitewashed. Around the lion are projecting studs which do not appear to be part of the insignia [sic]. These last may possibly represent nails. According to the report there were two shields, the second described as uncharged and of the same shape as the first and its traces unfortunately lost. The report’s author summarised its contents as follows:4 This shield would be of no interest in a museum unless some history could be procured regarding it. The work however, is very good of its kind. The limestone shield assumes a shape characteristic of the end of the twelfth century.5 It presents a lion rampant facing left, on a background of 13 billets


Vardit Shotten-Hallel

Figure 13.1 The shield on display at The Israel Museum Courtesy of IMJ.

dispersed throughout, with four billets at the chief (top of the arms), one inside the crook of the lion’s tail and one between its front paws, another two billets on each side of its body (dexter and sinister), and three billets around the back legs.6 The lion has no tongue or crown. Despite secondary use during the Ottoman period, the shield remained intact with no evidence of alterations. Diagonally cut grooves on both sides of the shield, probably for metal rods inserted for reinforcement, suggest that it was embedded into a pre-existing wall. These grooves were presumably part of the original arrangement, as the report of 1921 indicates a secondary use when the lion was rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise. Placing the shield on its side in this way would not require these grooves. As for the remark about the colour of the shield, this indeed prevents a definite conclusion of ownership, as tincture is an important component of heraldry.

First officer of the crown of France and his legacy 171

Figure 13.2 A copy of the report in the IAA archives. The notes are probably those of Levi Rahmani

In 1971 Levi Rahmani suggested that the shield represented the coat of arms of King Henry II of Jerusalem:7 It would seem that the panel represents the coat-of-arms of Cyprus as prepared for Henry of the Lusignan family. . . . It would have been used in the


Vardit Shotten-Hallel “King’s Tower” at Acre, strengthened by this ruler after his visit to the city in June 1286.

It is important to note here that lions played an important role in the heraldic lexicon of the Middle Ages and were usually depicted in the rampant position.8 Consequently, the interpretation so far relied only on one feature of the shield, the lion rampant, while ignoring the rest, namely the missing features of the crown, tongue, and barry, all irreplaceable features of the Lusignan coat of arms (see below).9 On 24 June 1286 King Henry II indeed landed with his fleet at Acre, and was received at the cathedral church of the Holy Cross.10 The festivities following his coronation in Tyre lasted 15 days and would certainly have created an atmosphere conducive for introducing such a conspicuous piece of self-glorification. The shield in the Israel Museum however, differs from the various shields of the Lusignans in more than one feature. The Lusignan coat of arms is composed of a crowned rampant lion facing left, its tail turning inward in the same direction, and showing its tongue. It is placed on a barry of twelve (argent and azure). It appears on numerous artefacts and structures including coins, vessels, and architectural elements. As far as the coins are concerned, the Lusignan arms appeared on the coins minted by the Cypriot sovereigns as late as 1269: the deniers of Hugh III (1267–84), who resumed the minting of white bezants (from 1269 onward they also bear the Jerusalem title); and those of Henry II, king of Jerusalem (1285–91) and Cyprus (1285–1324). The deniers show a lion facing left, tail inward and a crown adorned with three pellets.11 The coat of arms of the Lusignans appears on two water basins dated to the 14th century: the first piece is exhibited in the Musée du Louvre and bears the name of Hugh IV of Lusignan (1324–59), titular sovereign of Jerusalem and king of Cyprus; it carries two pointed shields, one representing the arms of the Ibelin family, and the other those of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.12 The second basin, now in the collection of the L.A. Mayer Museum for Islamic Art in Jerusalem, is incised with the arms of the Lusignan kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus: on a pointed shield, slightly rounded due to the shape of the basin, the Jerusalem arms were quartered with the rampant lion (first/fourth and second/third quarters respectively).13 In Cyprus, the Lusignan lion was introduced on many stone-carved elements throughout the island.14 Notable examples include the Lusignan arms in the refectory of Bellapais, constructed during the reign of King Hugh IV.15 The arms of the Lusignans appear on the lintel of the main entrance portal: on the right, the lion rampant of the Lusignans; the Jerusalem Cross in the middle; and on the left the quartered arms of Cyprus and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Furthermore, they are mounted on the eastern façade of Kolossi Castle, where a cross-shaped depression houses the arms of the Lusignans in the centre, the arms of the Hospitaller Grand Master Jean de Lastic (1437–54) on the left, those of Grand Master Jacques de Milly (1454–61) on the right, and the arms of Preceptor Louis de Manhac below.16 On the foundation inscription of the Cathedral of Saint John in Nicosia, the arms of the Lusignans take centre place. A marble fragment in the collection of the

First officer of the crown of France and his legacy 173 Pierides Museum – Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation in Larnaca also combines the shield containing the rampant lion on a barry field (probably of 10) with the Jerusalem Cross (in the same arrangement as in the metal basin described above).17 The shield discussed here, however, displays very different features that lead to the conclusion that it represented an owner other than the Lusignans. The lion indeed faces left, and its tail turns left as well; however, the background is of 13 billets (conforming to no discernible system) and there is no barry. Additionally, crown and tongue are absent. In order to be able to suggest a possible owner for the shield, we must consider the conservative nature of both heraldry and coinage that allows no deviation in form or in content. In other words, the arms of the true owner of the shield must conform in all details and arrangement to those currently in the Israel Museum. One shield recorded in the Wijnbergen Armorial appears to be identical to our shield. The armorial, now kept by the Royal Dutch Association for Genealogy and Heraldry in The Hague, is the earliest extant French original roll, dating from 1265–70. It is composed in two parts, the first containing 256 arms of vassals of the Île-de-France, and the second containing 1056 arms, i.e. 1312 painted shields in total. Research on this manuscript began in 1951 and was published in 1954 in Lausanne.18 The arms documented on fol. 2r are in the part of the armorial dedicated to the shields from the Île-de-France. On the top row are two shields of great importance to our discussion. The two shields on the right are attributed to two brothers: Ymbert de Biaugeu and Loys de Biaugeu, that is, Humbert and Louis of Beaujeu (Figure 13.3).19

Figure 13.3 Arms of Ymbert de Biajeu and his brother Loys de Biajeu, as they appear in the Wijnbergen armorial. Drawing after manuscript in The National Library of Scotland Drawing by Sharon J. Ben-Yehuda


Vardit Shotten-Hallel

Humbert’s coat of arms presents a lion rampant, facing left on a background of 13 billets arranged very closely to the arrangement of the billets on our shield (Figure 13.4). Humbert is first mentioned in the records of Meillonnas (commune du canton de Treffort) as a donor to the parish church there: “Par son testament, daté de juillet 1248, Humbert, sire de Beaujeu, légua 60 sous forts à l’église paroissiale.”20 Meillonnas is located some 70-km distant from Beaujeu, and it seems very likely that Humbert himself was preparing to go on crusade with King Louis IX of France. As part of his preparation, he wrote his will and granted the sum of 60 sous, the equivalent of 720 deniers or 3 livres, to the church.21 Most of what we know about Humbert of Beaujeu comes from one source: the chronicle of Jean de Joinville, seneschal of Champagne and biographer of Louis IX.22 Humbert is mentioned numerous times in the chronicle, and when his name is absent it possibly indicated his death. When Joinville writes about the voyage to Cyprus, he describes how, after receiving his pilgrim’s staff and wallet, he went barefoot to visit the relics of Blécort and Saint-Urbain (as well as other places).23 After a long journey starting in Joinville, he went through Auxonne, down the Saône to Lyon, and on the Rhône to Arles le Blanc and to Marseille, the point of departure for the Holy Land. According to Joinville, this was in August 1248, and since Humbert of Beaujeu’s will was drawn up in the church of Meillonnas in July 1248, presumably this occurred before he embarked on the crusade along with Joinville and the king of France. Humbert of Beaujeu was the constable, namely, the chief officer of the royal household responsible for the French army. In 1249 Joinville mentioned him as

Figure 13.4 Comparison of the arms from The Israel Museum and the Wijnbergen armorial Drawing by Sharon J. Ben-Yehuda

First officer of the crown of France and his legacy 175 one of the eight knights who were of special attendance on the king: Geoffroy de Sargines, Mathieu de Marly, Philippe de Nanteuil, and Imbert de Beaujeu, Constable of France. During their time in captivity, Joinville reported on the serious illness (April–May 1250) of the count of Brittany, the constable, and Joinville himself. All three were too ill to go with the others to meet the emirs. Once having landed at Acre, we hear nothing about Humbert of Beaujeu, even when it would be reasonable to expect his presence: the constable was not present during the entire period of time preceding the departure for Egypt, nor did he take part in the negotiations with the Muslims. When the king boarded ship to leave Damietta, he was escorted by his brother the Count of Anjou, Geoffroy of Sargines, Philip of Nemours, Henry du Mez, Marshal of France, the Master of the Trinity, and Joinville himself. But while Joinville took notice of the death at sea of Count Peter of Brittany, he makes no mention of the fate of Humbert de Beaujeu. Following their arrival at Acre, Humbert was once again absent from the reports, and on the event of the king summoning his brothers and barons, he is again not listed. We only hear about his death when Joinville reports about Giles le Brun, whom the king made constable of France after his predecessor’s passing.24 Humbert of Beaujeu probably died in Egypt before the king’s release from captivity, although it is not unthinkable that he would have been brought to Acre as an ill man and died there. However, the shield bearing his arms must have been produced in Acre to commemorate his brave service to the king. It may have been the king himself who commissioned the carving of the shield, but it is also possible that this would have been initiated by a fellow official who was close to Beaujeu or to his family in France. In the thirteenth century, it was customary among the nobility at Acre to be buried in the churches of the military orders. This was the case with the church of the Order of the Hospital. In addition to grand masters of the order and members of the higher clergy, scions of comital families from Acre were buried in the crypt of the conventual church.25 When Count Guigues III of Forez died in Acre in 1215, he was buried in the church of Saint John.26 During Louis IX’s stay in Acre, the bones of Count Walter of Brienne were transferred to the city together with all the knights who had been released from captivity in Egypt. The count’s remains were buried in the Hospitaller church with the appropriate ceremony.27 Joinville laid particular stress on the unusual gift of one gold bezant offered by the king to the service attendees.28 As for the building in which the shield was originally placed, we are left in the dark. The locations of Louis IX’s building projects in Acre are unknown. Jonathan Riley-Smith suggested, based on the 1976 excavation conducted by Moshe Dothan and the interpretation put forth in 1997 by Benjamin Z. Kedar, that “the eastern line of the walls of the old town appears to have been completed by the time he [Louis IX] left. The “quality seems to be of those [walls] Louis had already constructed in Caesarea.”29 It may be assumed that the king commissioned the shield, which was then executed in a local atelier. It is possible that it was ordered to be placed in one of Acre’s many churches, conceivably the cathedral of the Holy Cross, or in one of the wall’s segments or new buildings. Yet, as other members of the Beaujeu family also took part in the Crusades, and were present at Acre,


Vardit Shotten-Hallel

another patron may be considered. A notable member of this family was William (Guillaume de) of Beaujeu, grand master of the Order of the Temple (1273–91), who died during the final siege of Acre. Like Imbert, William was also “related to the king of France.”30 Was it the Templar master who commissioned the coat of arms to be carved in stone? Was it adorning the walls of Templar convent at Acre, manifesting William of Beaujeu own heritage? We will probably never be able to answer these questions, but we can state that the arms evidently belong to the family of Beaujeu, and not to the Lusignan dynasty.31

Notes 1 I am grateful to IAA head of Archive Silvia Krapiwko, and to Na’ama Brosh, Senior Curator of Islamic Art and Archaeology of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, for allowing me to study the documents and shield. An earlier version of this paper was read at the conference “The Art and Archaeology of Lusignan and Venetian Cyprus (1192–1571)” held at the Department of History and Archaeology at the University of Cyprus. Travel to Nicosia was funded by the Israel Antiquities Authority. 2 The shield is exhibited in the Muslims and Crusaders Collection, Archaeology Wing at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (H: 71; W: 44; D: 54 cm. Israel Antiquities Authority, accession number: IAA 1936–2200). 3 The inspector unfortunately provided no further details or the accurate location. The report is filed under: Dar Waqf House & Jamia Rasul Mosque: 17.02.1921. Israel Antiquities Authority Scientific Record Files (SRF) 5, 1919–1948. Access: 20%2c6%2c7%2c8 (last accessed on 22 April 2017). 4 The report was filed under: “Dar Waqf House & Jamia Rasul Mosque Sites visited: 17.02.1921” in the Israel Antiquities Authority Scientific Archive 1919–1948. Access: 20%2c6%2c7%2c8 (last accessed on 22 April 2017). 5 For the development of heraldic shapes, see Hubert Alcock, Heraldic Design: Its Origins, Ancient Forms and Modern Usage (Mineola, New York, 2012), 14. 6 Billets are flat oblong squares. See Arthur C. Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry (London, 1909), 89, 108, 155. 7 Levi Y. Rahmani, “On Some Medieval Antiquities from the Holy Land,” Israel Exploration Journal 21.1 (1971): 55–9. 8 Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry (New York, 2007), 172. 9 Stephen J. Lucey. “Intercessory Identity: Heraldry and Portraiture in the Royal Chapel at Pyrga, Cyprus,” in Imagining the Self, Constructing the Past: Selected Proceedings from the 36th Annual Medieval and Renaissance Forum, ed. Robert G. Sullivan and Meriem Pagès (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2016), 22–43 at 25–9. 10 George Hill, A History of Cyprus, vol. 2/4 (Cambridge, 2010 [1948]), 180. 11 For the Lusignan coinage in Cyprus see: David M. Metcalf and Andreas G. Pitsillides. Corpus of Lusignan Coinage: The silver coinage of Cyprus, 1285–1382, vol. 2 (Nicosia, 1996), 134–9, plates 4–5. 12 Musée du Louvre, Salle 9, Vitrine 2. MAO 101. See Sharon Kinoshita, “How to Do Things in the Medieval Mediterranean,” in Philippe de Mézières and His Age: Piety and Politics in the Fourteenth Century, ed. R. Blumenfeld-Kosinski and K. Petkov (Leiden, 2011), 41–60, at 57–8. 13 Luitgard Mols. “Arabic Titles, Well-Wishes and a Female Saint: A Mamluk Basin in the Rijkmuseum, Amsterdam,” In Metalwork and Material Culture in the Islamic World: Art, Craft and Text, ed. V. Porter and M. Rosser-Owen (London and New York, 2012), 200–13, at 209–10.

First officer of the crown of France and his legacy 177 14 George E. Jeffery. The Heraldry of Cyprus: Proceedings of the Royal Society of Antiquaries (London, 1920), 204–26; Jean-Bernard de Vaivre, “Le décor héraldique sur les monuments médiévaux,” in L’Art gothique en Chypre, ed. Jean-Bernard de Vaivre, Philippe Plagnieux, and Christian Corvisier, vol. 34 (Paris, 2006), 425–72 at 428–9, 435–9. 15 Lucey, “Intercessory Identity,” 28. 16 Claude Delaval Cobham, Excerpta Cypria (Cambridge, 1908), 289–90. See Michalis Olympios, “Rummaging through Ruins: Architecture in Limassol in the Lusignan and Venetian Periods,” in Lemesos: A History of Limassol in Cyprus from Antiquity to the Ottoman Conquest, ed. Angel Nicolaou-Konnari and Christopher Schabel (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2015), 362–500, esp. 424–31, with earlier bibliography]. 17 See for example the resemblance between the Lusignan coat of arms and that of Luxemburg: Pit Péporté, Constructing the Middle Ages: Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building of Luxemburg (Leiden, 2011), 80–1. 18 The armorial was published by Paul Adam-Even and Léon Jéquier, “Un Armorial francais du XHIe siecle, L’armorial Wijnberghen,” Archives heraldiques suisses, Annuaire LXVUI (1954). L’Armorial Wijnbergen. Neuchâtel Archives héraldiques suisses, fol. 2 R. Manuscript consulted at the National Library of Scotland, Clan.Cam.170. The arms of Humbert de Beaujeu, with the remark describing a lion on a background of billets (un lion sur champ orné de billettes), appears also in Emmanuel de Boos et al. L’Armorial Le Breton (Paris, 2004), 21 no. 203. The arms depicted on the walls of the Crusader Hall at Versailles as belonging to Ymbert are the common Beaujeu arms. I am Indebted to Jean-Michel Poisson of the CNRS – Université Lyon 2, for his invaluable help. 19 For the coat of arms of the Beaujeu family, see also Pierre-Vincent Claverie, L’ordre du Temple dans l’Orient des Croisades (Brussels, 2014), 211. 20 Marie-Claude Guigue, Topographie historique du département de l’Ain ‎ (Lyon–Paris: Bourg-en-Bresse, 1873), 226, at: (accessed on 19 December 2017). 21 I thank Robert Kool for the conversion of this sum. For the conversion of deniers, see also our discussion in Vardit Shotten-Hallel and Robert Kool, “What Does It Take and Exactly How Much? Building a Church in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century,” in Crusader Landscapes in the Medieval Levant: The Archaeology and History of the Latin East: Festschrift for Denys Pringle, ed. Micaela Sinibaldi, Kevin J. Lewis, Balázs Major, and Jennifer A. Thompson (Melksham and Wiltshire, 2016), 289–304. 22 Jean de Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, ed. Jacques Monfrin (Paris, 1995), 94, 173, 175, 215, 233–4, 236, 238, 243–4, 357, 438. 23 Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, 120–8. 24 This was reported after more than a month of the king’s stay at Acre: Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, 438. 25 For the epigraphy of several tomb inscriptions found during the clearance of the crypt of the church of Saint John at Acre, see Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1993–2009), 4: 109–10. 26 Joseph Delaville le Roulx, Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jérusalem (1100–1310), vol. 2 (Paris, 1906), 168, no. 1431 (. . . Guigonis, comitis Forensis, die obitus sui, qui sepultus fuit.apud Acon, in ecclesia Hospitalis). 27 Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, 466. See also Vardit Shotten-Hallel, “Ritual and Conflict in the Hospitaller Church of St John in Acre: The Architectural Evidence,” in Military Orders 6: Culture and Conflict, ed. Jochen Schenk and Mike Carr (New York and Abingdon, 2017), 70–81. 28 Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, 466. 29 Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Crown of France and Acre 1254–1291,” in France and the Holy Land: Frankish Culture at the End of the Crusades, ed. Daniel H. Weiss and Lisa Mahoney (Baltimore, 2004), 45–62. The fortification project of Louis IX in Caesarea, as opposed to those of Acre, is traceable. See a detailed survey of considerable segments


Vardit Shotten-Hallel

of the walls and towers forming the Frankish fortifications of Caesarea in Jean Mesqui, Césarée maritime: Ville fortifiée du Proche-Orient (Paris, 2014). 30 The “Templar of Tyre” ed. and trans. Paul Crawford (New York and Abingdon, 2003), 383. 31 While the Templar connection of the shield might be uncertain, my study of heraldry as a visual language [of signs and symbols] and as a mode of communicating identity draws its inspiration from the research of Sophia Menache, to whom this modest contribution is dedicated.

14 The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages Michel Balard

“E tanti sun li Zenoexi e per lo mondo si destexi che und’eli van o stan un’ atra Zenoa ge fan”1

These verses by an anonymous Genoese poet of the thirteenth century remind us of the early and extensive overseas expansion of Ligurian sailors, merchants and emigrants, who, wherever they settled, sought to recreate Genoa. Yet can we speak about a Genoese empire in the Middle Ages? An empire is characterized by three principal elements:2 firstly, a political domination of the colonizing power on a subjugated or granted country, which is subject to the laws and customs of a western metropolis; secondly, an economic domination, in which the land is removed from those who owned it or farmed it, and production is directed according to the interests of the colonizing power; and thirdly, a cultural domination through which the colonizing entity imposes its own morals, language and often religion. Did these features obtain in the case of the Genoese overseas expansion? In order to answer this question, we must render an account of the stages of this expansion, which created a network of colonies and of ports of call in the broader Mediterranean, then determine how this domination impacted upon the granted or subjugated countries, and finally assess the economic exploitation effected by the Genoese merchants.

Stages of the expansion Egypt Several documents found in the Cairo Geniza indicate the presence of Genoese in Egypt from the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty in 969.3 In all likelihood, some of these were the victims in 996 of the slaughter of western merchants, accused by the local populace of having set fire to the Fatimid fleet commissioned against Byzantium. In 1060, a Geniza letter mentions the arrival in Alexandria of ships from the West, and among them Genoese ships. Another letter sent to


Michel Balard

the caliph al-Amir quotes a Genoese merchant named Buonsignore.4 These were businessmen in the midst of a seasonal stay in Egypt, doubtless in Dar el-Manak, the state warehouse built by the caliph, but we cannot speak yet about a permanent trading colony, which was only established at the end of the twelfth century.5 While commercial relations were already intense at that time, neither party trusted the other. The Muslim authorities required from the Genoese captains that upon arrival they deliver their tillers and anchors, to be returned at the time of departure, after custom duties had been paid. They did extend a gracious welcome to the merchants, who carried with them much-needed wood, pitch, metals and arms. The volume of this exchange got to such a point that the popes of the twelfth century threatened with excommunication those involved with such traffic.6 However the edicts of the Genoese consuls in that matter were never enforced. Relations between Genoa and Egypt remained stable, save in the time of the crusades. Genoa also maintained good relations with Saladin: in 1177, the Commune sent him an ambassador, Rosso della Volta, and Saladin’s brother bartered a freight of alum for western products carried by a Genoese merchant.7 In the thirteenth century, the Genoese were granted a funduq (lodging house for merchants) but the part they played in the crusades slackened the trading exchanges.8 In 1219, a Genoese contingent laid siege to Damietta, and thirty years later the greater part of Saint Louis’ fleet was commissioned from the Genoese.9 Nonetheless, diplomatic records show that relations between Genoa and the Mamluk sultan were not interrupted: in 1290 a treaty of peace and of trade was signed granting to the Genoese possession of a church and a warehouse, freedom of trade, and different customs rights, according to the nature of the wares.10 The fall of Acre and of the Frankish states in the Levant, however, disrupted trading relations during the first half of the fourteenth century. After 1350, when other routes for transporting Oriental products were closed to western merchants, relations were resumed. Yet in the Egyptian markets the Genoese could not compete with the Venetians, who were at the close of the Middle Ages the true masters of the Levant trade.11 The Holy Land and the eastern Mediterranean The preaching of the First Crusade had important consequences for Genoa. The formation of the so-called Compagna and then of the Commune was linked with the preparation of fleets sent to the Orient to assist the crusader armies: six naval expeditions sailed from Genoa between 1098 and 1110.12 The first of these arrived to Saint-Simeon Harbour, not far from Antioch, and helped the crusaders lay siege to that city. After its conquest, Bohemond granted to the Genoese their first funduq in the Holy Land, namely, thirty houses, a church and a well.13 Other Genoese, among them the Embriaci, dismantled their ships and used the recovered wood for the building of a siege tower in Jerusalem in 1099.14 One year later, another expedition helped King Baldwin gain hold of Caesarea. Caffaro, the famous Genoese chronicler, describes the plunder, distributed at the rate of 48 silver coins and two pounds of pepper per soldier. Genoa’s cathedral, according to William of Tyre and corroborated in the thirteenth century by Jacopo of Varazze, received the “sacro

The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages 181 catino”.15 In 1104 the Genoese helped King Baldwin seize Acre and were granted a third of the city, customs rights and tax exemption in the whole of the kingdom of Jerusalem.16 Other grants in Caesarea, Beirut and Arsuf complemented the network of the Genoese colonies, which extended to the city of Gibelet and to a third of Tripoli in the county created by the descendants of Count Raymond of Toulouse. The twelfth century saw the Genoese struggle to maintain these grants, challenged as they were by the Latin kings and by their western rivals.17 For the defense of their rights, the Commune appointed two consuls or vicecomites in the Holy Land and, because of lack of funds, called powerful citizens, among them the Embriaci, to govern its Syrian colonies, in Gibelet, Laodicea, Antioch, and for a brief time also in Acre.18 In the thirteenth century, Acre was a model of colonial organization. The Genoese quarter of the city was the largest and earliest among those assigned to the maritime republics, but it did not offer direct access to the harbour. Fortified on every side, the quarter was traversed by narrow streets and flanked by low wooden houses. The sole broad place was the plaza, where one could find public palaces built of stone, the palatium that served as centre of the Genoese administration in Syria, a church consecrated to Saint Lawrence, and the Mint, protected by the huge tower Lamongioia. During the War of Saint Sabas (1256–8), competition between the Pisans and the Venetians forced the Genoese to leave Acre. They were able to return only a few years prior to the fall of the city to the Mamluks.19 In the thirteenth century, the Genoese Commune resumed its direct governance of the colony, through appointed consuls and at the end of the century through a podestà, like the famous Admiral Benedetto Zaccaria, sent to the Levant to reorganize the colonial administration and prevent the loss of Genoa’s Syrian colonies.20 These efforts were to no avail.21 Following the fall of the Holy Land to the Mamluks the Genoese were able to return to Syria in the second half of the fourteenth century and trade in Beirut. However, they established no new colonies. In Cyprus, though, already from the beginning of the thirteenth century the Genoese were granted important privileges, and they established small settlements in Famagusta, Paphos, Limassol and Nicosia. During the second half of the century, particularly, Famagusta received refugees from the Holy Land. In the first decades of the fourteenth century it became a meeting-point between East and West22 and the biggest Eastern Mediterranean market for Oriental wares, replacing Alexandria and Acre. In 1373, after a serious clash between Genoese and Venetians on the occasion of the feasts celebrating King Peter II’s coronation, Genoa sent a fleet and forced the defeated Cypriot crown to cede the city of Famagusta, from which the other western nations had been mostly removed. From 1373 to 1464, Famagusta, under the direct administration of the Commune, and then of the Bank of Saint George, was the largest Genoese emporium in the Eastern Mediterranean.23 Byzantium While from 992 on the Venetians, former subjects of the Byzantine Empire, were granted special privileges in Constantinople,24 the Genoese, more interested in


Michel Balard

trade with the Holy Land and Egypt, arrived in the Byzantine capital later than the Venetians and Pisans. In fact, the first treaty, or chrysobull, granted to Genoa by Manuel I Comnenos is dated 1155: the Genoese received a small establishment on the coast of the Golden Horn and the benefit of reduced custom duties or kommerkion. The Venetians, for their part, had already been exempted from that payment. The growth of the Genoese colony in the capital city was hampered by its Pisan and Venetian rivals, who twice destroyed its buildings, and then by the xenophobic slaughter of 1182, which removed the Genoese from Constantinople for a decade.25 Scarcely had they reconstructed their settlement (chrysobull of 1201) when the Fourth Crusade, in which the Genoese did not take part, led to the creation of the Latin Empire, controlled by the Venetians, and to a war between the two republics. The Genoese, then, lost their entire quarter in the capital of the new empire. In 1261, thanks to their alliance with Michael VIII Palaeologus, who aimed at restoring Byzantine power in Constantinople, the Genoese were granted a fine settlement on the shore of the Golden Horn, the quarter of Pera-Galata. This settlement became a state within the Empire, which was unable to withstand the economic and military power of the Genoese. Until the Ottoman conquest in 1453, Pera, well-fortified and dominated by the Galata tower, remained the most dazzling jewel of the Genoese network in the Orient.26 The alliance between Genoa and Byzantium had two consequences for the Genoese merchants: the occupation of important islands in the Aegean Sea and the opening of the Black Sea to their trade and colonization. The grant to the Genoese of several Aegean islands was the combined result of the weakness of the imperial power vis-à-vis the western republics and the Ottoman progress in Anatolia. Between 1265 and 1270, Admiral Benedetto Zaccaria received from Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus the area around Phocea, famous for its alum, a product vital to the process of dyeing fabrics. For the protection of his ships which carried the alum to Flanders, Benedetto Zaccaria was granted in 1304 by Andronicus II the island of Chios, not far from the mines.27 Owing to the arrogance of Benedetto’s heirs, Byzantium managed to recover the island, but in 1346 Genoa sent a fleet which obtained the surrender of Chios and Phocea. These territories, under the management of a private association, the Maona, remained for two centuries the hub of Genoese interests in the Aegean Sea along with the islands of Lesbos, Lemnos and Samothrace, granted by the emperor to the Genoese family of Gattilusio.28 Genoese possessions in the Black Sea In 1261, the treaty of Nyphaeum established an alliance between Genoa and Byzantium and granted Genoese merchants freedom of trade in the Black Sea. Sometime after 1270, the Genoese settled down in an ancient Greek colony on the coast of Crimea, Theodosia, from then-on called Caffa. This city became the heart of a new colonial territory,29 including Tana, at the mouth of the river Don, La Copa at the mouth of the Azov Sea, Trebizond, Simisso, Sinope and Samastri on the northern shores of the Anatolia, Vicina, Kilia and Licostomo on the arms

The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages 183 of the Danube, and Moncastro in the north. In Crimea, the Genoese in 1365 took hold of Soldaïa, the first Venetian settlement in the Black Sea region, and of the small port of Cembalo, and shared inharmoniously with the Venetians the colonies of Tana and Trebizond.30 Three “colonial” wars opposed both powers during the fourteenth century, leading to the weakening of Byzantium and of the western forces that strove against the Turkish advance towards Constantinople and the Balkan Peninsula.31 Tana and Trebizond held vital importance as the starting-points of two routes that allowed western merchants to travel to Central Asia and China. Caffa, however, was without question the nexus of this network of Genoese colonies in the Black Sea region. Rebuilt at the beginning of the fourteenth century following a Tatar assault, it was well fortified and, in 1344 and 1346, resisted two attacks by the Mongols, who, infected by the plague, were obliged to retreat after having thrown over the walls of the city the bodies of their deceased. The result was the spread of the Black Death in the West, through the channel of the Genoese ships that carried the deadly pestilence to western harbours. A great city, inhabited by a diverse ethnic population – Greeks, Armenians, Tatars, Russians, Hungarians, Caucasian slaves along with a minority of Ligurian immigrants – Caffa underwent a decline in the fifteenth century. This decline was especially salient after the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, which reduced commercial relations with the West. In 1475, just as the other Genoese settlements in the Black Sea region fell to the Ottomans, the city succumbed to the forces of Sultan Mehmet II.32 Prior to these losses in the Levant, however, Genoa had turned westwards, where its interests were without doubt stronger than those of the Venetians.33 The expansion towards the West From the twelfth century on, Genoese merchants engaged in business in the Maghreb and on the Iberian Peninsula, establishing commercial communities in the major ports of Tunis, Ceuta, Sevilla, Cadiz and Lisbon.34 Yet the great mercantile push took place at the end of the thirteenth century, when a regular sea route was opened between Genoa and the harbours of Flanders and England. In Bruges, London and Southampton, Genoese merchants formed strong nationes that sold Oriental commodities, such as spices, silk, furs, and alum, but also metals and wheat, and bought English wool and Flemish fabrics.35 The Genoese in Spain became the bankers of the Spanish kingdom, as soon as the discovery of America carried to the West the Potosi silver. As such, the Levant and the West stand as two complementary poles of Genoese economic expansion.

Ethnic, political and cultural domination The territorial domination of Genoa of these colonies depended on western emigration to the Levant, administrative centralization, and close relations with the native elites.


Michel Balard

Demography Throughout the Genoese colonies in the Levant, the Latin population was a minority. The small settlements of the Black Sea region – Simisso, Sinope, Samastri, Kilia, Moncastro – hosted a handful of officers and soldiers, to whom were added for some weeks merchants travelling on ships which twice a year linked Genoa with its possessions overseas. But even in the largest colonies, the Latin immigration remained weak. In the fourteenth century, the number of Latins settled in Pera did not exceed a thousand;36 in Chios, according to a 1395 report, 400 Latin families were in residence, though the administration of the Maona was divided between the island and the headquarters of the Giustiniani in Genoa.37 Caffa, a large city of about 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants, hosted perhaps 2,000 Latins, but by the fifteenth century their number had been reduced.38 This Latin population had a particularly national character: the Ligurians constituted 85% of the Westerners in the three large colonies of Genoa. We can add to that group those coming from the great cities of the Po Valley that had commercial relations with Genoa, and some southerners from Catalonia and Languedoc, but very few Venetians. Hence the emigration towards the Genoese overseas colonies enhanced the so-called inurbamento (urbanization) through which, from a demographic point of view, the metropolis grew to the detriment of its own contado. Moreover, this floating population was comprised of young men learning the art of commerce, of peasants or craftsmen cut adrift from their homes, and of sailors awaiting a levy. Women were very few, and only at the end of the fourteenth century did an actual colonial society appear, with some great family-clans: the Demerodes and the Draperiis in Pera and the Giustiniani in Chios.39 As against this Latin minority, the natives amounted to a very heterogeneous population. In the Byzantine territories, the Greeks predominated. Refusing subjection, they developed, especially after the Fourth Crusade, a nationalism based on a sentimental bond towards the basileus and on their allegiance to orthodoxy; the Roman Church was considered the church of the conquerors. Genoese policy attempted to maintain the conditions, the obligations and the taxes that had been previously laid upon the peasants, while respecting the ancient privileges of the great owners, or archontes, with whom many commercial and private contracts were drawn up. At Chios and Pera, the tiny Jewish communities participated in artisanal production, in the money-trade and also in Genoese business.40 The Black Sea colonies were striking in their ethnic diversity. At Caffa, for instance, the Greeks constituted the greater part of the Orientals till the end of the fourteenth century, but after that Armenians, refugees from the cities taken by Tamerlane’s army, exceeded them in number.41 The Tatars, whose main occupations were crafts and trade, showed an inconsistent commitment towards the Genoese authorities, against whom they revolted from time to time. Syrians, Russians, Georgians, Goths, Cumans, Circassians, Bulgarians, Hungarians and slaves from the Caucasus filled out the ethnic list. With all these, the Genoese implemented an artful and tolerant policy of governance.

The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages 185 Social life Intercommunal relations prompted linguistic exchange. Latin was the main language of the Genoese administration, which hired interpreters for Greek, Armenian and Cuman in the largest colonies. The Genoese language was enriched with Oriental words, while some natives acquired a knowledge of Latin. One can easily understand how the trilingual dictionary (Latin, Persian and Cuman), the famous Codex Cumanicus, came to be written in Caffa at the beginning of the fourteenth century.42 With regard to living quarters, there was no spatial division between ethnic groups. Latins and natives dwelt in the same quarters, often in the same houses. An exception was Chios, where, after the conquest of 1346, the conquerors requisitioned 200 houses in the citadel, but the notarial deeds reveal that the castrum of Chios was inhabited by Latins, Greeks and Jews.43 Marriage between Ligurians and natives was rare. It was more frequent between Latin men and native women, especially in the higher social ranks, which were ready to establish good relations with the Greek nobility. In the lower ranks, one finds concubinage between Genoese and Oriental women or slaves, a fact which explains the high number of illegitimate children in the overseas colonies. From the religious point of view, these contacts did not lead to a rapprochement, especially in Greek countries where orthodoxy intermingled with Hellenic nationalism. Understandably, then, the Genoese authorities did not favour proselytizing by Latin clerics. The mendicant orders that settled in Pera, however, introduced to Byzantium the teachings of the Latin Fathers, and solidified bonds between the two Churches, through the conversion to Catholicism of some Greek thinkers.44 In the Black Sea region, the Roman Church was more dynamic. The missionaries, Franciscan and Dominican, came along with the merchants and established Catholic churches in the Mongol-ruled countries all the way to China.45 The Genoese presence did not alter the distribution of wealth in its colonial territories. Genoese authorities were careful not to meddle in the natives’ possessions, the exceptions being the rebels’ possessions in Chios after the revolt of 1347, or those of the Tatars of Caffa who rebelled in 1386. Yet only Ligurians enjoyed the exclusive privileges of Genoese citizenship in the colonies. The lower classes, primarily Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Tatars, in both the cities and the countryside, especially in Chios, could only acquiesce, pay taxes and take part in the defence of their city. The native elites alone were able to preserve their wealth and make the best of collaboration with the Latins.46 Colonial administration The colonial administration was governed by consuls or podestà appointed by the metropolis for a one-year period. They were assisted by local councils comprised of Genoese residents and by commissions which dealt with provisions, and with problems of defence, arms supply, civil works and income from the various colonies. The colonial administration was under the control of sindicatores sent by the metropolis; their registers record abuse of power, extortion and mishandling of


Michel Balard

justice. Officers could be sentenced to pay a fine, but the extant documents do not reveal whether these penalties were actually enforced.47 The budgets of the colonies often exhibited liabilities. Assets came from customs duties, and from taxes on consumption commodities, above all wine, but also wheat, meat, herbs and coal. All the shortcomings of Genoese finances can be found in the overseas colonies.48 To finance defence, the three largest colonies, namely, Pera, Caffa and Chios, were obliged to borrow money from the colonies’ inhabitants, thus creating a public debt which grew over time. Interest payments were funded by a fiscal income that decreased over time. In the event of serious danger or war, the authorities had recourse to private associations, the maone, which levied the income of the colonies in Chios and Cyprus, Genoa preserving only its sovereignty. In the fifteenth century, the Bank of Saint George replaced the Commune in managing Famagusta and the colonies of the Black Sea region.49 This explains the strained relations between the metropolis and its colonies, especially when the foreign policy of the Commune fluctuated as it passed from one foreign domination to another, France or Milan. The colonies refused to participate in military efforts related to the colonial wars between Genoa and Venice, the more so as they had at the same time to deal with rebellious natives. Attempts at administrative centralization failed, as slow communication left initiative to the local authorities, to the detriment of the Genoese metropolis.50

Economic exploitation In spite of these impediments, Genoa sought to continue at all costs the exploitation of its overseas colonies. The exchange of spices and luxurious oriental products with western fabrics has long been considered the basis of Levant trade. In fact, the Genoese trade traffic was markedly diversified and required everrenewed naval, juridical and monetary means. Tools of commercial activity The whole of Genoese society contributed to its commercial activity. Not only the mercantile aristocracy, the members of the great familial clans, participated, but also the lower strata that took the risk of investing their pennies in the maritime trade. Notarial deeds disclose the part taken by craftsmen, widows and sailors, who entrusted their paltry savings to merchants. Genoese naval logistics underwent continual improvement thanks to the crusades and the Levant trade. Genoa signed an agreement with the French kingdom for commissioning the fleets of Philip II Augustus and later of Louis IX, resulting in the profusion of arsenals and ship-yards on both of its two Rivieras (east and west of the city), and an increase of tonnage of ships and galleys. At the end of the thirteenth century, Genoa was ahead of the other maritime republics in the so-called “nautical revolution”, which replaced the cog with a square sail and a stern rudder for the Latin navis. These innovations meant a formidable increase of maritime productivity, thanks to a decrease in crews and a concomitant decrease

The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages 187 in expense.51 The Genoese fleet spearheaded construction of the massive vessels required for the transport of heavy raw materials, such as alum, wheat and salt. Fourteenth-century maritime laws regulated the convoys towards the Levant and the North Sea, but without the sharply delineated obligations of the Venetian mude composed of state galleys, let out on hire to the merchants. Maritime trade remained in Genoa a private business.52 Genoese commercial techniques developed apace, thanks to notaries who found better and better juridical solutions for their customers. The commenda or accomendacio, which connects a sedentary investor with a merchant who carries money or goods overseas, permitted the common people to invest their money in the maritime trade, as well as the big businessmen to spread investments between different persons or destinations. At the end of the thirteenth century, the invention of the bill of exchange offset the lack of metallic means, and, some fifty years later, the introduction of maritime insurance in Genoa reduced the risks of maritime traffic.53 The growing need for ready cash compelled the maritime republics to mint coins more valuable than the penny, which originated in the monetary reform of Carolingian times. Genoa minted the silver grosso and then, in 1252, the gold genovino, which, unable to compete with Florence’s florin and the Venetian ducat, did not make its way to the forefront of international trade. In the Black Sea region, trade was conducted solely with white metal and the barter of goods.54 Traditional trade The historiography of the nineteenth century has considered the traffic of spices and luxury products of the Levant as the prime mover in the commercial revolution of the medieval West. The term “spices” subsumes a great variety of products, used for cooking, pharmacopoeia and industrial purposes, all of them originating from the Far East – China, Indonesia, India and the Horn of Africa – through wholesale Muslim or Tatar merchants.55 Until 1250, these goods arrived to the coasts of the Mediterranean through the Red Sea and the Nile, or through the Persian Gulf and the caravans of the Euphrates valley to Damascus, Aleppo and the Syrian harbours. After 1250, the Mongol invasion of Mesopotamia, the Mamluk domination in Egypt and the papal prohibition of trade with the Saracens shut down these routes. The two Mongol silk-ways, which led to Tana, at the mouth of the Don, or to Trebizond, on the southern shore of the Black Sea,56 provided alternate paths to trade. Established in these two cities, the Genoese merchants ventured along these routes to China, buying silk at very low prices. The disorders in the Mongol khanates after 1340 and the fall of China under the rule of the Ming dynasty gave rise to a new transfer of the great intercontinental conduits to the benefit of Alexandria and the Syrian harbours, which once again became the great markets for the wares of the Far East. On these, Genoese investments were lower than those of the Venetians, ships dedicated to this trade did not number more than three or four per year, and the total amount for spice and silk traffic did not surpass that dedicated to the wheat and raw materials traffic, in which the Genoese took the lead.57


Michel Balard

The diversity of the Levantine trade Scattered throughout the Black Sea region and the Aegean, the Genoese colonies exported local goods: wax, hides, furs of the Russian hinterland, wheat of the Danubian plain and of the Crimea (indispensable for the victualling of Genoa), as well as the Sicilian wheat exported through the tratte granted by the Aragonese authorities of Palermo. The island of Chios held a monopoly on mastic, a gum that issued from a small tree, the lentisk, which grows in the southern part of the island, and which was used for fumigations and for dental hygiene. The Maona of Chios held the monopoly of it, controlling production and exports, upholding prices no matter how big or small the yield might have been.58 The alum, necessary for the dyeing of fabrics, was the exclusive domain of the brothers Zaccaria and then the Maona, which could collect all the products of the Anatolian mines and export them all the way to Flanders and England. The alum traffic spurred ship-building, created new naval routes straight from the Levant to the North Sea and allowed the growth of the cloth and linen industry, counterpart of the alum trade. This was true colonial traffic: raw materials in return for industrial products.59 The Genoese domination in the Black Sea region led our merchants to take part in one of the most lucrative traffics of this area, the slave trade.60 Slavery developed in the north-eastern part of the Black Sea, where tribes rid themselves of the young they could no longer feed. The Genoese bought young men and women for export to Mamluk Egypt, or to Italian cities for domestic slavery, or to the Iberian Peninsula for agricultural or domestic slavery. Western labour demand increased after the Black Death of 1348, and gave rise to higher slave prices and to a preference for the Tatars, who constituted the majority of the servile population during the second half of the fourteenth century, amounting up to 6% of the population of Genoa and of other Italian cities.61 These imports from the Levant were balanced with linen and cloth which the Genoese bought in Flanders and in Lombardy, with metal products much appreciated on Egyptian markets, and also with wine and oil, loaded in southern Italy and in Spain. Neither should one overlook lucrative services. The Genoese fleet carried pilgrims – not only Christians, but also Muslims of the Maghreb, on their way to the sacred sites of Arabia. The interregional trade in the Black Sea region and in the eastern Mediterranean, provided income that offset their commercial balance deficit in Beirut and Alexandria. The exploitation of the agricultural and mining wares helped to offset the decline of the traditional spices and silk trade, but could not prevent the decline of Chios, which survived the Ottoman pressure until 1566.62

Conclusion In light of the above, how might we characterize the Genoese colonial system during the Middle Ages? It was neither a settlers’ colony nor an agricultural one. The Latin emigration was limited and the Italian-born population in the colonies amounted to a very small minority. Genoa’s Outremer consisted of ports of call and trading posts along the main axes of trade, the first of leading toward Constantinople and the Black Sea, the second toward Alexandria and Syria.

The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages 189 What was the nature of the Genoese domination in these trading posts? From the political point of view, it was less stable than the Venetian one. Cultural domination was light, in as much as the Genoese cleverly treated the natives with tolerance. The economic domination, by contrast, was rather harsh. Although the natives’ possessions were generally respected, production was geared to favour the interests of Genoa, which monopolized all commercial traffic. What mattered most for the Genoese was the control of the sea, the creation of a thalassocracy which would force itself upon the Byzantines and compete with that of the Venetians. Did, then, the Genoese anticipate the colonialism of modern times? If we compare their expansion with that of the Portuguese of the sixteenth century, a commercial enterprise devoid of any real territorial occupation, the answer to that question would be “yes.” However, if the comparison were to be made with the Spanish empire or the colonial empires of the nineteenth century, the answer would be “no.” However, as Charles Verlinden noted some sixty years ago, the Officum Gazarie, created by the Genoese government at the beginning of the fourteenth century, might have been a model for the establishment of Spain’s Casa de Contratacion in 1503 in the wake of a report made by the Genoese Francesco Pinelli.63 The Genoese colonization was first and foremost an economic exploitation based on command of the sea. Yet we may admire above all the Genoese ability to adapt to economic changes, particularly at the close of the fifteenth century. The loss of the eastern colonies, the competition with foreign navies in the Mediterranean and the opening of new worlds, America and India, shifted Genoese attention westwards, transforming the merchants into the financiers of the West and launching in the sixteenth century the golden age of Genoese finance.

Notes 1 “So many are the Genoese, spread around the world; wherever they go and settle, another Genoa they make,” Anonimo genovese, Le poesie storiche, ed. Jean Nicolas (Genoa, 1983), 29. 2 Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, De la colonisation chez les peuples modernes (Paris, 1882). 3 Gabriella Airaldi, “Groping in the Dark: The Emergence of Genoa in the Early Middle Ages,” Miscellanea di Studi storici, II, Collana storica di Fonti e Studi diretta da Geo Pistarino, 38 (Genoa, 1983), 7–18. 4 Benjamin Z. Kedar, “Mercanti genovesi in Alessandria d’Egitto negli anni sessanta del secolo XI,” in Miscellanea di Studi storici, II, (Genoa, 1983), 19–30, repr. in Benjamin Z. Kedar, “Mercanti genovesi in Alessandria d’Egitto negli anni sessanta del secolo XI,” The Franks in the Levant, 11th to 14th centuries (Aldershot, 1993), no. 1. 5 David Jacoby, “Les Italiens en Égypte aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles: du comptoir à la colonie?,” in Coloniser au Moyen Age, ed. Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier (Paris, 1995), 76–89, 102–7. 6 Jean Richard, “Le royaume de Chypre et l’embargo sur le commerce avec l’Égypte (fin XIIe – début du XIVe siècle),” in Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 128 (1984), 120–34. 7 David Jacoby, “The Supply of War Materials to Egypt in the Crusader Period,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 25 (2001), 102–32; Anne-Marie Eddé, Saladin (Paris, 2008), 524, 529. 8 Jacoby, “Les Italiens en Égypte,” 81. 9 Luigi Tommaso Belgrano, Documenti riguardanti le due crociate di S. Ludovico IX, re di Francia (Genoa, 1859).


Michel Balard

10 Luigi Tommaso Belgrano, “Trattato del sultano d’Egitto col comune di Genova nel 1290,” Atti della Società ligure di Storia patria 19 (1887): 163–75; see Steven A. Epstein, Genoa and the Genoese 958–1528 (Chapel Hill, 1996), 180; Dino Puncuh, Storia di Genova: Mediterraneo, Europa, Atlantico (Genoa, 2003), 210. 11 Eliyahu Ashtor, Levant Trade in the later Middle Ages (Princeton, 1983), 433–512. 12 Raoul Manselli, Italia e Italiani alla prima crociata (Rome, 1999); Geo Pistarino, “Genova e il Vicino Oriente nell’epoca del Regno latino di Gerusalemme,” in I Comuni italiani nel Regno crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. Gabriella Airaldi and Benjamin Z. Kedar (Genoa, 1986), 57–67; Elena Bellomo, “‘Galeas . . . armatas strenue in Syriam direxerunt’. La prima crociata e il regno gerosolimitano del XII secolo nella cronachistica genovese sino al Duecento,” in Mediterraneo medievale. Cristiani, musulmani ed eretici tra Europa e Oltremare, ed. Marco Meschini (Milan, 2001), 108–13; Elena Bellomo, A servizio di Dio e del Santo Sepolcro. Caffaro e l’Oriente latino (Padua, 2003); Michel Balard, “Genova e il Levante (secc. XI–XII),” Atti della Società ligure di Storia patria 42.1 (2002), 529–32; Michel Balard, “I Genovesi in Siria-Palestina (secc. XI–XV),” in Genova, una “porta” del Mediterraneo, ed. Luciano Gallinari, 2 vols. (Genoa, 2005), 1: 1–6; Antonio Musarra, Genova e il mare nel Medioevo (Bologna, 2015), 29–44. 13 Claude Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l’époque des croisades et la principauté franque d’Antioche (Paris, 1940), 490–500. 14 Gabriella Airaldi, Blu come il mare. Guglielmo: e la saga degli Embriaci (Genoa, 2006), 12. 15 Caffaro di Caschifellone, “De liberatione civitatum Orientis liber,” in Annali genovesi di Caffaro e de’ suoi continuatori, ed. Luigi Tommaso Belgrano and C. Imperiale di Sant’ Angelo, 5 vols. (Rome, 1890–1929), 1: 9–13, 106–10; see Airaldi, Blu come il mare, 38–50. 16 Hans-Eberhard Mayer and Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “Das Diplom Balduins I für Genua und Genuas Goldene Inschrift in der Grabeskirche,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 55–56 (1976), 22–95; Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im Heiligen Land vom ersten Kreuzzug bis zum Tode Heinrichs von Champagne (1098–1197) (Amsterdam, 1989), 328; Hans-Eberhard Mayer, “Genuesische Fälschungen. Zu einer Studie von Antonella Rovere,” Archiv für Diplomatik 45 (1999), 21–60, authors who call into question the authenticity of this act, recognized as genuine by Benjamin Z. Kedar, “Genoa’s Golden Inscription in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: A Case for Defense,” in I comuni italiani, 317–35; Antonella Rovere, “‘Rex Balduinus Ianuensibus privilegia firmavit et fecit’. Sulla presunta falsità del diploma di Baldovino I° in favore dei Genovesi,” Studi medievali 3, s. 37 (1996), 95–133; and most recently Benjamin Z. Kedar, “Again: Genoa’s Golden Inscription and King Baldwin I’s Privilege of 1104,” in Chemins d’outre-mer. Études d’histoire sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, ed. Damien Coulon, Catherine Otten-Froux, Paule Pagès, and Dominique Valérian, 2 vols. (Paris, 2004), 495–502, repr. in his Crusaders and Franks: Studies in the History of the Crusades and the Frankish Levant (Abingdon, 2016), Study XI. 17 Michel Balard, “Les républiques maritimes italiennes et le commerce en Syrie-Palestine (XIe–XIIIe siècles),” Anuario de estudios medievales 24 (1994), 320–5. 18 Franco Cardini, “Profilo di un crociato. Guglielmo Embriaco,” Archivio storico italiano 136 (1978): 405–36; Balard, “Genova e il Levante,” 534–37; Airaldi, Blu come il mare, 80–3. 19 David Jacoby, “Crusader Acre in the Thirteenth Century: Urban Layout and Topography,” Studi Medievali 3.20 (1979), 19–39, repr. in David Jacoby, Studies on the Crusader States and on Venetian Expansion (London, 1989), Study V; Antonio Musarra, Acri 1291. La caduta degli stati crociati (Bologne, 2017), 72–8. 20 Robert Sabatino Lopez, Benedetto Zaccaria, amiraglio e mercante nella Genova del Duecento, 2nd ed. (Genoa, 2004), 170–7. 21 Pistarino, “Genova e il Vicino Oriente,” 113–14.

The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages 191 22 David Jacoby, The Rise of a new Emporium in the Eastern Mediterranean: Famagusta in the Late Thirteenth Century, Iidryma archiepiscopou Makariou III (Nicosia, 1984), 143–79, repr. in Jacoby, Studies on Crusader States, Study VIII. 23 Michel Balard, “Les Génois dans le royaume médiéval de Chypre,” in Michel Balard, Les marchands italiens à Chypre (Nicosia, 2007), 13–81. 24 Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au Moyen Age: le développement et l’exploitation du domaine colonial vénitien, XIIe-XVe siècles (Paris, 1959), 34; Philippe Braunstein and Robert Delort, Venise: portrait historique d’une cité (Paris, 1971), 44; Elisabeth Crouzet-Pavan, Venise triomphante. Les horizons d’un mythe (Paris, 1999), 93–5; JeanClaude Hocquet, Venise au Moyen Age (Paris, 2003), 84–5. 25 Michel Balard, La Romanie génoise (XIIe- début du XVe siècle), 2 vols. (Rome and Genoa, 1978), 1: 22–33. 26 About the expansion of the Genoese in the Byzantine Empire, see Deno John Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaelogus and the West 1258–1282: A Study in ByzantineLatin Relations (Cambridge, MA, 1959), 81–91; Michel Balard, “Les Génois dans l’Empire byzantin,” in Le saint, le moine et le paysan. Mélanges d’histoire byzantine offerts à Michel Kaplan, ed. Olivier Delouis, Sophie Métivier, and Paule Pagès (Paris, 2016), 59–69. 27 Lopez, Benedetto Zaccaria, 253–8; Philip P. Argenti, The Occupation of Chios by the Genoese and Their Administration of the Island (1346–1566), 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1958), 1: 55; Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 119–20, 167. 28 Argenti, The Occupation of Chios, 1; Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 119–26, 165–75; Andréas Mazarákīs, Oi Gatelouzoi tis Lesvou (Athens, 1996). 29 Michel Balard, “Continuité ou changement d’un paysage urbain? Caffa génoise et ottomane,” in Le paysage urbain au Moyen Age: Actes du XIe Congrès de la Société des Historiens médiévistes (Lyon, 1981), repr. in Michel Balard, La mer Noire et la Romanie génoise (London, 1989), no. XII. 30 Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 130–62. 31 Michel Balard, “La lotta tra Genova e Venezia per il dominio del Mediterraneo,” in Storia di Venezia: dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, ed. Girolamo Arnaldi, Giorgio Gracco, and Alberto Tenenti (Rome, 1997), 87–126. 32 Balard, “Continuité ou changement”. 33 Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 114–18, 130–42, 150–62. 34 Georges Jehel, Les Génois en Méditerranée occidentale ( fin XIe – début XIV e siècle). Ébauche d’une stratégie pour un empire (Amiens, 1993). 35 Enrico Basso, Genova: un impero sul mare (Cagliari, 1994), 197–261; Giovanna Petti Balbi, Comunità forestiere e nationes nell’Europa dei secoli XII–XVI (Naples, 2001). 36 Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 235–45. 37 Argenti, The Occupation of Chios, 2: 146–9; Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 263. 38 Balard, “Continuité ou changement d’un paysage urbain,” 82–3; Andrey L. Ponomarev, “Territorija i naselenie genuezskoj Kaffy po dannym buhgalterskoj knigi – massarii kaznacejstva za 1381–1382 g.,” in Pričernomor’e v srednie veka, ed. S. P. Karpov, 4 vols. (Moscow and Saint Petersburg, 2000), 317–443. 39 Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 229–54. 40 Ibid., 1: 269–89. 41 Michel Balard, “The Greeks of Caffa under Genoese Rule in the XIVth and XVth Centuries,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), 23–32. 42 Dagmar Drull, Der Codex Cumanicus. Entstehung und Bedeutung (Stuttgart, 1979). 43 Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 312–20. 44 Claudine Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque aux XIV e et XV e siècles (Rome, 1997). 45 Jean Richard, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age (XIII e–XV e siècles) (Rome, 1977), 227–55; Thomas Tanase, “Jusqu’aux limites du monde”: La papauté et la


46 47

48 49 50

51 52 53

54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63

Michel Balard

mission franciscaine de l’Asie de Marco Polo à l’Amérique de Christophe Colomb (Rome, 2013). Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 327–34. Ibid., 1: 357–86. See Silvana Fossati-Raiteri, Genova e Cipro. L’inchiesta su Pietro di Marco, capitano di Genova in Famagosta (1448–1449) (Genoa, 1984); Catherine Otten-Froux, Une enquête à Chypre au XV e siècle. Le “sindicamentum” de Napoleone Lomellini, capitaine de Famagouste (Nicosia, 2001). Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 392–430. Michel Balard, “Il Banco di San Giorgio e le colonie d’oltremare,” in La Casa di San Giorgio: il potere del credito, ed. Giuseppe Felloni (Genoa, 2006), 63–73. Michel Balard, “L’amministrazione genovese e veneziana nel Mediterraneo orientale,” in Genova, Venezia e il Levante nei secoli XII–XIV: atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Genova-Venezia, 10–14 marzo 2000, ed. Gherardo Ortalli and Dino Puncuh (Venice and Genoa, 2001), 201–12. Balard, La Romanie génoise, 2: 533–85; Frederic C. Lane, “Progrès technologiques et productivité dans les transports maritimes de la fin du Moyen Age au début des temps modernes,” Revue historique 510 (1974), 277–302. Giovanni Forcheri, Navi e navigazione a Genova nel Trecento (Genoa, 1974). Federigo Melis, Origini e sviluppo delle assicurazioni in Italia (Secoli XIV–XV), vol. 1: Le Fonti (Rome, 1975); Michel Balard, “Assurances et commerce maritime à Gênes dans la seconde moitié du XIVe siècle,” in Les transports au Moyen Age. Actes du VII e Congrès des Historiens médiévistes de l’Enseignement supérieur public. Annales de Bretagne et des pays de l’Ouest 85.2 (1978), 273–82; Giulio Giacchero, Storia delle assicurazioni marittime. L’esperienza genovese dal Medioevo all’età contemporanea (Genoa, 1984), 31–4. Balard, La Romanie génoise, 2: 599–621; Giuseppe Felloni and Giovanni Pesce, Le monete genovesi. Storia, arte ed economia delle monete di Genova dal 1139 al 1814 (Genova, 1975); Giuseppe Lunardi, Le monete delle colonie genovesi (Genoa, 1980). See the list given by Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, La pratica della mercatura, ed. Allan Evans (Cambridge, MA, 1936), 293–7. Balard, La Romanie génoise, 2: 719–33. Ibid., 2: 849–68. See Ashtor, The Levant Trade, 433–512. Michel Balard, “Le mastic de Chio, monopole de la Mahone génoise,” in Res Orientales VI: Hommages à Claude Cahen (Paris, 1994), 223–8. Michel Balard, La Romanie génoise, 2: 734–82; Philippe Borgard, Jean-Pierre Brun, and Maurice Picon, L’alun de Méditerranée (Naples and Aix-en-Provence, 2005). Robert Delort, “Quelques précisions sur le commerce des esclaves à Gênes à la fin du XIVe siècle,” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome 78 (1966), 215–50; Domenico Gioffrè, Il mercato degli schiavi a Genova nel secolo XV (Genoa, 1971); Charles Verlinden, L’esclavage dans l’Europe médiévale, vol. 2: Italie Colonies italiennes du Levant – Levant latin – Empire byzantin (Gand, 1977); Balard, La Romanie génoise, 1: 289–310; Jacques Heers, Esclaves et domestiques au Moyen Age dans le monde méditerranéen (Paris, 1981); Michel Balard, “Giacomo Badoer et le commerce des esclaves,” in Milieux naturels, espaces sociaux. Études offertes à Robert Delort, ed. Elizabeth Mornet, Franco Morenzoni, Danielle Millioud, Jacques Le Goff, and Robert Delort (Paris, 1997), 555–64; Evgeny A. Khvalkov, “The Slave Trade in Tana: Marketing Manpower in the Black Sea to the Mediterranean in the 1430s,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 18 (2012), 104–18. Gioffrè, Il mercato degli schiavi, 79. Balard, La Romanie génoise, 2: 833–48. Charles Verlinden, Précédents médiévaux de la colonisation en Amérique (Mexico, 1954), 20.

Part III

Ideology, propaganda and communication

15 The ideology of Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia The “Book of Deeds,” Bernat Desclot and the conquest of Majorca Luis García-Guijarro Ramos Chronicles have long ceased to be considered mere reservoirs of data or facts. They are evidently so, but their value as ideological manifestations of a certain period and of specific social or political standpoints has gained ground and is now one of their main assets for historians. The Iberian Peninsula is rich in that type of source in the Central Middle Ages, specifically Castile-León. The Peninsula’s eastern states took time to produce chronicles. The final decade of James I of Aragon’s long reign (1213–76) ushered in a brilliant phase of such type of historical writing. The only existing work until that point was the Gesta Comitum Barcinonensium, commissioned by James I’s grandfather, King Alfonso II of Aragon (1162–96) to enhance the prestige of the comital house of Barcelona, outshone by the superior status of the kingship of Aragon that had been grafted on to it when Count Raymond Berenguer IV was betrothed to the infant Petronila of Aragon in 1137. But these Gesta fell far short of being chronicles. They simply traced the genealogical continuity of the counts of Barcelona up to Wilfred the Hairy (878–97); while they formed a new historiographical genre which substantially differed from monastic annals, their terse Latin, concise form and limited information linked them more to the latter – in fact they were composed at Ripoll – than to flowing historical narratives.1 They were closer to the monumental collection of charters, the Liber Feudorum Maior, which Alfonso II also ordered to be assembled to form a royal cartulary, as part of his policy of reinforcing the Catalan comital background of the Aragonese monarchy.2 The decades between the 1270s and the end of the fourteenth century produced what Catalan historiography has labelled “The Four Great Chronicles.”3 The first of these, James I’s Llibre dels feits, “The Book of Deeds,” will be the main subject of this article, with occasional references made to Bernat Desclot’s chronicle composed between 1283 and 1288. Desclot’s work overlaps with the reign of King Peter III (1276–85), whose aspirations and conception of the monarchy it depicted.4 It is difficult to overstate the importance of the first of these books, “one of the most remarkable historical productions of the thirteenth century,” as Pascual de Gayangos wrote in the preface to John Forster’s English translation of 1883.5 The “Book of Deeds” is thus a most adequate vantage point from which to examine the ideology of Christian warfare against Iberian Muslims at the height of the Reconquista and to deal with two key questions: the pertinence of relating eastern,


Luis García-Guijarro Ramos

or western (though not dealt with here) Iberian campaigns to crusades, and the similarities or differences between James I’s approach to the spasmodic struggle with the Saracens to that of other Iberian monarchs,6 such as Ferdinand III of CastileLeón (1217/1230–52), who started an ambitious project of conquests roughly at the same time as James I was engaged in efforts to seize the Almohad kingdom of Valencia. The ideological nature of James I’s campaigns is of paramount importance from a historical point of view, but also from the perspective of regional politics in modern Spain. This is so because if the principles of Aragonese and Catalan expansion are related to a pan-Christian movement, and are thus detached from any common Iberian features, the idea of a specific Catalan identity without roots in the Reconquista and thus with medieval origins independent from the rest of present-day Spain is reaffirmed. Since the nineteenth century, the “Book of Deeds” has produced all sorts of controversies about many of its aspects, but consensus – albeit an unstable one in some issues – seems to have been reached on all of them.7 Authorship was debated, but it is now accepted that James I was not only the instigator but the author of the work, who dictated it to scribes. Arguments concerning the date of composition have led to disregard the idea of a gradual formation of the text at several periods of James I’s life in favour of a more-or-less continuous elaboration in the 1270s.8 The king’s motives for devoting time to a written reappraisal of his life while still having to face at the very end of it Muslim rebellions, family quarrels and aristocratic uneasiness, key problems which had always been there in one form or another, have to be addressed. It is obvious that James I looked at himself as a great king who had readjusted the balance in Iberia in favour of the Aragonese monarchy. He was surely acquainted with the second version of the Gesta Comitum Barcinonensium, which had been updated down to his reign and above all translated into Catalan in 1268–9.9 This was certainly an effort to reach a wider public than just monastic or learned circles, but it came short of showing how the counts of Barcelona, prestigious as they were, evolved into potent monarchs dominant in Iberia and greatly influential in Latin Christendom. A few years earlier, Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada’s Historia de Rebus Hispaniae, one of the pearls of Castilian historiography, had been translated into Catalan.10 James I either read it or was told about it. At the height of his power, he must have been annoyed by the peripheral part Aragon and Catalonia played in the archbishop’s work. The king must have been prompted to compensate for the insufficiencies of the Gesta and to redress what he might have considered unjust treatment in Jiménez de Rada’s Historia by writing his own account.11 The first words of the Prologue of the “Book of Deeds” brilliantly sum up the content of the whole work by borrowing a scriptural sentence from the Epistle of St. James: “faith without works is dead.”12 The meaning of this phrase is made clear in the rest of the introductory part and is summarily repeated later in the book.13 The apostle was explaining one of the most basic tenets of Christian belief; the king, or someone else recapitulating his thoughts, was expressing the nature of his monarchical power: his authority meant little without deeds to support and enhance it. And, as the title clearly suggests, the purpose of the king was to show how his policies,

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 197 his feits, had strengthened monarchical authority, based not on despotic power but on a subtle balance between king and nobility nowhere expressed better than in territorial expansion. This is the main argument – I would say the only argument – of the chronicle. It was clearly expressed in thematic blocks bound together in a coherent sequence. After preliminaries geared to highlight the problematic – miraculous according to James I – beginnings and his early access to the throne as a minor in 1214,14 the narrative concentrates on several partial or general rebellions of the Aragonese and Catalan nobilities, starting at the time when he was tutored by the Templars at the castle of Monzón and continuing after he left the care of the Temple in 1217.15 Two general uprisings of the high nobility of both territories in 1225 and 1226, which were supported by almost all Aragonese cities, left the king’s power on the brink of collapse.16 This first block, composed of a multitude of episodes, showed James I at his lowest. The break-up of an understanding between king and nobles weakened all parties and prevented any project of territorial expansion in alAndalus, which was also enfeebled by the crisis of Almohad power in Muslim Iberia. The uncertainties of a minority which would last for several years and the weakness of the Saracen opponents had driven both parties to sign a ten-year truce in 1214.17 It was punctiliously observed by James I, who did not even allow a Castilian knight of the Order of Santiago to get provisions in Aragon, as a disapproving letter from Pope Honorius III attests.18 The accord of March 1227 put an end for the moment to the last and bitterest of baronial rebellions and allowed for projects of expansion, made feasible by peace and cooperation between king and nobles; these plans also preserved political stability by providing outlets for noble ambitions to increase their patrimonies. The “Book of Deeds” then delves into the heart of its content: the conquest or vassal submission of Majorca, Minorca and Ibiza in 1229–35,19 the capture of the Muslim Kingdom of Valencia and its subsequent difficult government dotted with rebellions of the new Muslim vassals,20 and finally the intervention in Murcia to help James I’s son-in-law Alfonso X of Castile-León (1252–84), who had lost the kingdom as a result of the Mudejar revolt of 1264.21 The book, which concludes with a final Moorish uprising just when James I was about to die,22 makes clear that territorial expansion was the main expression of monarchical authority which could not be put into effect without fruitful cooperation with the nobility; again and again the benefits of collaboration were stressed by king and nobles in speeches that express the needs of monarchy and nobility rather than strict historical accuracy.23 The feits or deeds of James I could thus be centred on two related aspects: peace with the nobility over which the king should have the upper hand; territorial expansion as a sign of monarchical might and aristocratic strength, both the result of cooperative work. The two great noble rebellions of 1225 and 1226–7 were full of hard episodes for the king, but nothing as humiliating as the events of February-March 1225, when James I and his first wife Eleanor were lured into Zaragoza and kept under arrest by the leading nobles.24 The only way out of such a tricky situation was to comply with the demands of the privileged, especially with those of Guillem de Montcada, and to let them partition at will the honors of Aragón which were


Luis García-Guijarro Ramos

reserved for the king by exclusive right.25 This de facto surrender must have taken place in the second half of March. By the early days of April James I was in Tortosa, where a general court was assembled on 28 April with the purpose of approving new statutes of Peace and Truce limited to Catalonia in the wake of the preparation of a campaign against the Muslims, centred on their castle at Peñíscola. The previous truce with them had ended in 1224, and this was the first military action against the Saracens to take place in James I’s reign. Two main aspects have to be brought to attention in relation to this expedition. The Cortes were assembled to establish a Peace decree which would make possible the campaign, a project which seemed to have a distinct crusading character. The king had taken the cross (“crucem sumpserimus ad expugnandas barbaras naciones”) and was seeking help to undertake the crusade at the soonest possible time because any delay was dangerous (“omnes pariter convenerint daturi nobis consilium et iuvamen ad crucis negotium promovendum . . . quia tempus instabat nostri exercitus faciendi et mora periculum generabat”).26 The information provided by the charter appears to amount to irrefutable evidence that the campaign was a crusade.27 But the historical setting does not support this conclusion. The king had to surrender to noble petitions only a few weeks earlier in Zaragoza. He might have thought of organizing a crusade to try to redress the balance, but there was simply no time to prepare procedures and inform the pope (it is easily forgotten that such type of war was a papal prerogative); there is in fact no bull nor any other apostolic reference to this campaign. The situation after the events at Zaragoza in March that year, which had concluded with a triumph of the nobles over the king, may offer a different explanation. The idea of a military action against the Muslims might have come from the nobility, and specifically from Catalan nobles who would most clearly profit from the elected target, which was set on the strategic route of Catalan expansion southwards.28 The figure of Guillem de Montcada, the main winner at Zaragoza, must have been very relevant. We may even reckon that the campaign might have been imposed on James I as part of the final deals ending the conflict. If this had been the case, the king would have had no other alternative but to take the initiative by converting a project which was not his own into a crusade. That would have given him a lead. If my assumption is correct, the campaign was never a crusade; that purported character amounted only to crusading trappings that were used for other purposes, in this case as additional tools in the struggle between king and nobles which obviously could not have vanished completely after they reached an agreement so favourable to the nobility at Zaragoza. The campaign was hastily organized and doomed from the start. Several charters of August–September 1225 were drafted during the siege of Peñíscola, but no further mention of the crusade is made in them; the pre-conquest grants were given in appreciation “to services offered to God and to the king,” a vague clause which cannot be related to a crusading scenario.29 The castle proved to be too strong for a Christian attack which lacked thorough preparation and complete unity among its leaders. The king left unawares in early October,30 strange behaviour for a supreme leader who had taken crusade vows and was committed to

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 199 his first feat of arms against the Muslims. He acted as if Peñíscola were not his campaign. He certainly did not act as a crusader, because he was not. He had used crusading terminology as an effort to redirect the campaign in his favour. When he realized that he could not do so and that the goal was unachievable, he just quit. It is thus not surprising that the “Book of Deeds” omits Peñíscola completely (this is the second relevant aspect to reflect upon).31 His feits were described in detail as manifestations of royal success and power. The campaign of 1225 did not serve his purposes and was very unsuccessful: therefore, his memoirs silenced it. But James learned from this experience. When he started the conquest of the Kingdom of Valencia, he left Peñíscola untouched and struck from the northwest. This allowed him to reach the sea at Burriana further south, and to leave the strong castle isolated in the north, an easy target which soon surrendered. The “Book of Deeds” described the plan some time before it took place.32 The chronicler Bernat Desclot had a somewhat different ideological agenda than the king, and his criteria for selecting items for inclusion thus differed as well. After stating that this king’s “heart and will was set entirely on warring the Saracens,” he then explained the Peñíscola campaign as a monarchical enterprise which failed because the position was too strong to storm.33 No mention of the nobility’s interest in it nor of the crusade. Desclot was free of James I’s preconceived intentions when dictating his memoirs, but he was moulded by his own historical surroundings. It is inconceivable that at the time Peter III, the hero of his chronicle, was assailed by a crusade that led to a Capetian invasion of Catalonia, Desclot would attribute the first campaign against the Muslims in the thirteenth century to papal stimulus even had it been so. This is one among many instances of how information given by chronicles cannot be taken at face value. Majorca and the rest of the Balearic Islands had been a strategic goal of the counts of Barcelona and later of the king-counts since the brief conquest of 1114– 15 in which Pisa had a leading part.34 That project lay dormant until further Christian advances along the Iberian Mediterranean coast secured the control down to the borders of the Muslim Kingdom of Valencia with the final settlement of Tarragona in the 1120s and the seizure of Tortosa and the regions south of it in the middle of the twelfth century.35 The area of expansion at the time of Alfonso II (1162–96) and Peter III (1196–1213) was centred on the extreme south of Aragon once Teruel was founded in 1170. When Aragon and Catalonia reached their further limits, the Majorca project revived. Two letters of Pope Innocent III showed that Peter III had in mind in 1204 and 1205 an expedition to control Majorca. On 8 August 1204, the pope expressed his willingness to work for peace or truces with Genova and Pisa so that the king could concentrate on the Majorca enterprise.36 Nearly a year later, on 16 June 1205, he agreed to the king’s petition for a bishopric when the island could be conquered.37 Turmoils in the Midi and the Albigensian crusade ruined any possibility of developing that plan. James I’s careful preparation for the expedition in 1228, perhaps devised a year earlier after a significant degree of internal peace was established in the early spring of 1227,38 brought to life old strategic plans of expansion in the Mediterranean. This clearly illustrates the fact that targets did not emerge out of a


Luis García-Guijarro Ramos

Rome-directed religious zeal but were part of long-conceived lines of territorial expansion, although Iberian eastern polities had not yet been in a position to put them in practice. Tortosa was an earlier significant example of this.39 It may be said that the main lines of the great expansive period in Iberia during the reigns of Ferdinand III and James I were already drawn in the previous century out of indigenous political impulses and obviously not of crusading zeal; different partition treaties between Christian Iberian polities since Tudillén (1151) clearly depict this basic fact. Projects came into action when favourable social and political circumstances were positively imbued with Reconquista ideology in a way that made Christian advance after the late 1220s unstoppable for Muslim kingdoms in serious decline after the reinvigorating influence of Almohad power had vanished. This has nothing to do with crusade.40 The above-mentioned ideas are manifested neatly in the preparation and execution of the Majorca campaign. The “Book of Deeds” is a good guide to many of its aspects, or rather to the view James I wished to transmit of these events at the end of his life; Bernat Desclot offers insights into some specific points. He disclosed recent piracy activities, possibly dated to 1226, by two Catalan ships in Ibiza and the capture of two merchant vessels by the ruler of Majorca as reprisal; he added that James I’s envoys requiring satisfaction were haughtily dismissed and that subsequently the Aragonese monarch proposed military action against Majorca.41 The information must have been real because James I’s chronicle referred to part of these incidents later in the narrative in another context.42 Al-Makkarī’s excerpt of al-Maḫzūmī’s “History of Majorca,” and now the full text available after the discovery in 2001 of the only extant copy found at a library in Tindouf, confirm many of the details revealed by Desclot,43 who may have known al-Maḫzūmī’s work written in the immediate decades after these events took place, certainly before 1256–60, when the author died.44 So Christian and Muslim sources attest their veracity.45 But corsair actions were common at the time and they would have probably not unleashed such a big operation had the campaign not already been in the king’s mind. No further mention of these piratical actions and counteractions appear in the Christian sources, at least in the official ones; but they might have come as a useful excuse to move the nobility into action.46 It is true that a person present at the sessions of the Cortes in Barcelona recorded at trial proceedings decades later that the king based his inaugural speech on the affront of Muslims taking Christian ships and on the imperative for a military response, providing thus full trust to Desclot’s account and to al-Maḫzūmī.47 This in no way means that the deepest reasons for the campaign are to be found in these incidents. There are no references to them in the lengthy chapters that the “Book of Deeds” devoted to the preparations at Barcelona in late December 1228 nor in the charters related to these arrangements. This was one among many instances in which James I revealed in the chronicle the real motives beneath original speeches and remodelled them to openly display reasons which had been hidden or not plainly brought to light at the time of events. There is thus no contradiction, no “sharp contrast,”48 between the two versions which might drive modern readers to discard the chronicle’s account as a purely literary recreation. What the men who

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 201 attended the Cortes heard and what the king wrote almost fifty years later were complementary parts of a discourse which is properly understood when the two pieces are stuck together. There are no signs at the time of papal favour either, apart from a very vague bull in which Gregory IX admonished the archbishop of Genoa to press merchants not to traffic with the Muslims under the threat of excommunication.49 It is very doubtful that he meant specifically the Saracens of Majorca. He must have been unaware of the king’s intentions in early December 1228 when the letter was issued. James I’s keen desire to conquer Majorca and Valencia appears as resulting from casual and convivial meetings; these look rather more like literary creations to support the king’s view of events than strict facts. The chronicle tells that the idea of attacking Valencia sprang from a talk of the king in Alcañiz with the Hospitaller provincial master Hugues de Forcalquier and with Blasco de Alagón in January 1232.50 The latter knew the kingdom well; he had been specifically allowed by James I to make raids at will there, and he had resided in Valencia as an exile or as a royal agent on the spot for some time.51 He must have provided valuable information to the king, but most probably not in the way presented in the chronicle; the fact that James I was at that time in Alcañiz does not necessarily mean that events took place as narrated.52 In the case of Majorca, the scenario was a meal in Tarragona at the lodgings of the merchant Pere Martell,53 attended by members of the high nobility, who suggested to James I the convenience of a campaign against the Balearic Islands, inflamed as they were by the news Pere Martell had given of this Muslim kingdom.54 According to the king, the initiative was in both cases, Majorca and Valencia, in the hands of eminent nobles, although he soon took an undisputed lead. It looks as if James I wanted to heal past wounds by making the most privileged protagonists and not merely sheepish followers of what were meant to be glorious actions, and certainly were so to him when recalled decades later. This perspective of reconciliation and collaboration runs throughout the chronicle when it describes the Cortes assembled at Barcelona in late December 1228 and other procedures related to the careful preparation of the expedition to Majorca. Narrative and charters convey a sense of a common enterprise under the king’s direction. If his view of the origins and proceedings of the campaign was not a mere readjustment of events in old age and basically held true, then the nature of the expansion lay internally, as internal were the ideological tools to express it. A detailed analysis of how James I reported in the “Book of Deeds” the sessions of the Cortes is highly revealing. James I was in Barcelona on 19 December 1228.55 The Cortes probably started the following day with a well-structured royal speech, describing recent internal struggles and their evil effects, followed by a proposal to overcome the situation by engaging in a project dear to God. The noble rebellions had marked all participants with an opprobrium that could only be erased through great deeds that pleased God. The king was seeking divine protection, as well as counsel and help owed to him by nobles on two specific aspects at that particular time: peace in the land, and service to God in the conquest of Majorca.56 As it was stated by other


Luis García-Guijarro Ramos

chronicles and by an eye witness, all this apparently had nothing to do with the speech James I delivered, but actually was what lay beneath all the exhortations for retaliation to punish Muslim behaviour. The perspective of decades allowed the king to put his case neatly, perhaps too neatly, but this in no way changes the fact that these well-ordered ideas were the main impulse of the campaign. Later that day, at a private meeting of the high nobles with the king, the count of Émpuries insisted on the idea that evil fame would vanish after such a prestigious and difficult conquest was achieved.57 James I was eager to show that the nobility, who had confronted him in the past, shared his position. A major feat of arms was a common enterprise of king and nobility, benefitting both. After a time of upheavals, this was a return to the necessary balance of medieval politics in Aragon and Catalonia with God at its forefront: “For we wish to speak of good, and good works proceed from and belong to Him.”58 No sign of crusade in any of this; only stark medieval ideology religiously permeated throughout; this sounds like a truism, but it is not redundant to insist on the religious character of all thought at the time. If God-favoured campaigns against any sort of infidels in the Central Middle Ages were all to be regarded as crusades, then this concept is deprived of any meaning.59 Nobles, clergy and citizens responded to the king the following day. Guillem de Montcada spoke first, asserting that the campaign was a joint action of monarchy and nobility,60 and that the proposed project had great value due to the insular character of Majorca, whose conquest was worth three times more in terms of fame than any other possible land goal.61 He also agreed to the three petitions of the king: peace and truce in Catalonia – this proclamation was issued on the very same day;62 financial help through an extraordinary second collection of the bovatge, which could only be received by a reigning monarch once and it had been already levied; and the contribution of a certain number of knights, who would remain on the island until the end of the campaign. It was now the turn of the higher ecclesiastics to express their opinion. The archbishop of Tarragona’s address was the most relevant. He extended the increased secular honour derived from the campaign to the spiritual sphere: the king’s salvation linked to the conquest would imply the salvation of his people: “in seeing your salvation we see our own.”63 He excused himself from personal participation in the campaign on account of his age, but allowed any bishop or abbot to do so if he wished. The bishops of Barcelona and Girona’s speeches as well as that of the abbot of St. Feliu de Guíxols centred on military contributions. The citizen who represented Barcelona (James I mistook his name) offered all the ships of the city.64 This structure of ideas put forward in the chronicle had two basic features. First, an understanding between the king and the nobles was the cornerstone of any successful project of expansion. The second aspect dwells on how common ground was reached. Social and political disruption had been followed by a compromise which made territorial enlargement possible, in the double sense of greater wealth and also of the greatest spiritual well-being. No sign of crusade anywhere. Charters drafted in the last days of December 1228 dealt further with aspects raised in the Cortes or made its resolutions widely known. New clauses were

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 203 added to the peace and truce decree on 22 December, while on 27 December a Catalan version of the original constitution was produced so that its content could reach those not familiar with Latin.65 Partition of the conquered lands in the islands according to the contribution of each of the participants was agreed to on 23 December, and the number of warriors to be supplied by each magnate specified; there are differences in the amount promised by each noble at the Cortes and what is set out in the chronicle, but this disparity is minor and not significant.66 James I announced in the charter the time of departure for the last week of May 1229;67 this date matched the information in the chronicle.68 Finally, the king allotted to the bishop of Barcelona on 30 December all churches and revenues in the Balearic Islands, in Denia and Orihuela, when conquered, following in this way the Visigothic diocesan division but also with a view to prevent any claims from the archbishop of Toledo.69 The way the military expedition was described here had again no relation to crusade: “the land of the Saracens which, God willing, we will bring war to and capture in the journey and campaign which we shall make there.”70 Bernat Desclot’s narrative of the Cortes at Barcelona was substantially different from James I’s account. The king’s inaugural address was in Desclot very brief and based only on the evils that the king of Majorca inflicts daily on my people” and on the need of an action dear to God, the conquest of the island, for which he demanded help.71 Desclot stuck to what may have been said by James I, but, as mentioned earlier, this short version of the king’s words in no way contradicted his reasoning which was developed in the “Book of Deeds. James the Conqueror was anxious to get down to what he considered the roots of his actions; Desclot was certainly not. The previous king was not the centre of Desclot’s chronicle, and he regarded his deeds, brilliant as they were, as background to Peter III’s reign. A second aspect reaffirms this impression. Desclot made the high ecclesiastics answer first to the king, while the “Book of Deeds” gave priority to secular nobles, thus inverting the natural order which gave precedence to the ecclesiastical nobility.72 James I wished to show the end of strife and the new mutual accord which made conquests in al-Andalus feasible. And nothing could show this clearer than to allow Guillem de Montcada, one of his sternest contenders, to speak first and in a highly cooperative mood. In Desclot’s account he only addressed the audience following the counts of Roussillon and Émpuries who had spoken after ecclesiastics, although he also wished to blot out previous “great disloyalties.”73 The three secular nobles showed, according to Desclot, a willingness to lead the expedition on account of the king’s youth and lack of military experience.74 This justification did not quite hold true, as the king was almost twenty-one years old and had been engaged in feats of arms against his own nobles, although in no great confrontation with Muslims apart from the failed siege of Peñíscola; it denoted a wish to control the campaign which James I was not ready to accept in his account and revealed the delicate balance of power


Luis García-Guijarro Ramos

between monarchy and nobility, the latter always ready to profit from any weakness of the king. Desclot wrote from a different standpoint than James I.75 His perspective in the 1280s was Mediterranean and not focused in general on an internal peace which could favour conquests in al-Andalus. His repeated distaste of Genoese and Pisans, whom he accused of having induced the Muslim king of Majorca to ignore James I’s demands and threats and whom he made responsible for the need of a conquest they had not been able to maintain in 1115, derived from the new political setting in the western Mediterranean area after Peter III’s intervention in Sicily.76 Desclot was also keen on “catalanizing” the monarchy as part of the process of coating the Aragonese kingship with a Catalan varnish which had begun with the Gesta comitum a century earlier.77 It is significant that he made the archbishop of Tarragona, and also the count of Émpuries, view on the project of expansion as stemming from the comital lineage of Barcelona.78 But despite these peculiarities which were partly the product of new times, aspects common to James I’s narrative appear: the expedition to Majorca was God’s project which, when finished, would increase His honour and benefit the king, his immediate or indirect vassals and all Christians.79 This is again common medieval ideology and it is not a sign of crusade per se. Chapter XXX of Desclot’s chronicle has traditionally been used as the main argument in favour of the crusading character of the Majorca campaign, but this conclusion derives from a modern misinterpretation of Desclot’s narrative.80 It is worthwhile to read attentively what the chronicler wrote. James I was in Lleida at the end of March 1229 where he met “a cardinal whom the pope had sent to the king.”81 The object of that meeting has been traditionally related to the taking of crusading vows by the monarch and some nobles, but the sequence of events that day and the previous pope’s letters to his legate and to some Italian and French maritime cities do not uphold this view. On 6 February Gregory IX ordered his envoy to proceed to dissolve James I’s marriage to Eleanor of Castile on account of their canonically forbidden family relationship (both were great-grandchildren of Alfonso VII of Castile-León).82 This must have been the reason for their encounter at Lleida and not the bestowing of the cross; on 20 March the king had shown his readiness to accept the legate’s decision on the divorce.83 The pope had delegated to his representative on 12 February the faculty of granting the usual spiritual privileges on those participating on campaigns against the Iberian Muslims if any were organized.84 This sounds like a general permission to grant indulgences with no specific expedition in mind. On the following day, 13 February, Gregory IX admonished Pisans, Genoese and Marseillais not to trade with Muslims, especially those from Iberia, according to the resolutions approved at the Third Lateran Council.85 This warning seems again too general to refer to the projected expedition to Majorca, about which neither the pope nor his representative were probably aware at that time. That is what Desclot’s narrative appears to suggest when the king, being politely asked in Lleida about his affairs by the legate, told him about the project that was being prepared. The pope envoy’s answer denoted surprise when “he looked at him [James I] and seeing him so young was full of admiration for him having begun such a great deed” and in no way

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 205 mentioned the crusade as integral part of this enterprise, but rather referred to it in the usual way as God’s work: “Son, certainly such a deed has not been promoted just by you, young as you are, but by God who has inspired you and sent His grace to you. And be His wish that you finish it the way your heart desires.”86 The following day, the king ordered “knights, and citizens, secular and regular members of the Church” to assemble at the palace to listen to his plans about the campaign of Majorca. The Aragonese nobles and citizens of Lleida persuaded the papal legate to try to convince the king to divert the expedition to Valencia; only in that case “they would fully cooperate, because they did not care about Majorca.”87 James I, who had previously announced that his hearty wish and his will was to go to Majorca with all his power to the honour of God and all Christianity” to punish the Muslim ruler who had done such great harm,88 insisted on the island as final goal of this offensive. He then made a cross out of a cord he produced and asked the legate “to sew it on, give his benediction and grace to him and grant great forgiving to all those who followed him.”89 After this was done, all the ecclesiastical and secular nobles who had travelled from Barcelona with the king took the cross from the cardinal-legate. This move baffled the Aragonese nobles and the citizens of Lleida, but they made no offer to help the king. The narrative is absolutely clear. The campaign was not a crusade in itself; a subsidiary crusading character was only added to overcome Aragonese and western Catalan reluctances, a goal which the king did not achieve, and to make the enterprise stronger by adding the most popular ideological tool in western Christendom: the crusade. But this does not in any way mean that it was converted into one.90 It strengthened previous commitments, but it did not produce them. The most obvious case was Guillem de Montcada who, not being at Lleida and informed of developments by the bishop of Barcelona, took the cross later, as did his friends.91 His will to participate in the campaign had been shown months earlier at the Cortes of Barcelona; the ritual of crusading only added strength and glamour to an already-taken decision. In other words, the crusade did not promote the expedition ideologically, but only reinforced the Reconquista which was throughout the basic set of principles fostering expansion. The fleet assembled at Salou and set sail on 5 September 1229. Between that date and, once landed, the battle of Portopi on 12 September, the “Book of Deeds” reproduced two prayers recited by the king on occasions of difficulties at sea, one by the bishop of Barcelona before the engagement and a fourth by the monarch at the burial of Guillem and Ramon de Montcada, both killed during that action. The basic content of all these prayers is very similar: persistent mentions of the expedition as God’s work through the king, who required His protection to accomplish His deed without any hint to its crusading character.92 At the beginning of the siege of the city


Luis García-Guijarro Ramos

of Majorca, captains and sailors from Marseille offered to build engines out of the wood of their own ships; they told the king that they had come to the host “to serve God and you.”93 When James I presented to his nobles the favourable offer made by the king of Majorca to end the war, he added that “our intention in coming to this land was to conquer it and serve God.”94 These are some examples of how the king and other participants conceived of the campaign in the midst of it, according to the chronicle. There is a mention of “taking the cross” in Desclot’s summary of a bishop’s preaching before the final attack on the city, immediately before or after Christmas Day 1229 “a bishop told them how they had come here to serve God and to destroy Christ’s enemies; and he pressed them to reckon why they had taken the cross.”95 This reference may relate to crusade vows or not, may have been metaphorical or real. But even if it directly alluded to a crusading ritual, it does not change the nature of the campaign. The crusade did only reinforce previous commitments, which, as it occurred in many earlier and future instances in Iberia, had been planned and gathered military momentum long before a crusading status was added, as was the case of the long campaign to take control of the Muslim kingdom of Valencia.96 On 29 November 1229, at a time when the Christian contingent was laying siege to the city of Majorca, Pope Gregory IX ordered two prominent Dominicans to seek help for the besiegers from the faithful of the provinces of Arles and Narbonne. This bull may be considered another proof of the crusading character of the campaign. Gregory IX declared that James I had received the cross from the legate.97 This undoubtedly refers to the events which had taken place at Lleida in March of that year. Desclot’s narrative clearly shows that the taking of the cross was a tactical device by James I to bolster a project agreed upon months earlier, which was questioned by the Aragonese and western Catalan nobilities. The pope had summed up this subtle question in a manner which benefited the Church most, and made the Apostolic See the main backer of the expedition, if not the promoter of it, which was not the case either way. Historians frequently forget that papal bulls were as politically oriented as kings’ charters or chronicles. The city of Majorca was taken on 31 December 1229. The king stayed in the island until the end of October 1230. Partition of lands and spoils, and seizure or control of the remaining Muslim enclaves, were his tasks at that time. In the information relating to these months, there is one aspect relevant to the nature of the campaign which put an end to Muslim power in Majorca. The “Book of Deeds” informs that the Hospitaller provincial master Hugues de Forcalquier reached the island with fifteen knights around February 1230: “And he came to us, . . ., when he heard news that Majorca was taken, because he had not taken part in the conquest of Majorca.”98 He asked James I for a share in the partition of lands and goods, despite the fact that the order had not participated in the campaign. There was understandably noble opposition to the claim, but the king managed to give the order a share.99 Petition and concession are not as important as the fact that Hospitallers seemed to have been absent from the whole process of conquest. It is really strange that one of the main military orders in Eastern Iberia had decided not to take part in such a momentous project. It would have been inconceivable for it to have acted in such a way had the campaign been a crusade; an exempt order could not remain aloof

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 207 towards a papally stimulated military campaign against Iberian Muslims. This is certainly a strong argument against the prevailing crusading character of the conquest. But information given by Desclot suggests that Hospitallers were present at the siege of the city of Majorca; the order’s tent was specifically mentioned by the chronicler.100 The discrepancy between James I and Bernat Desclot raises thus a question which goes beyond mere detail. It seems difficult to believe that the king could make up a story about Hospitaller non-collaboration and about claims of a share of the profits. It was such a big issue that contemporaries would have known precisely what had happened; the king would not have been willing to twist the past in a way that could compromise the trustworthiness of his whole message. So, I am ready to accept the veracity of the king’s account and Desclot’s error on this point. That would explain why Hugues de Forcalquier was, according to the king, one of the instigators of the conquest of the kingdom of Valencia.101 He might have felt that active participation from the start could compensate for the order’s previous lack of commitment to the biggest campaign led by the king so far. It was not without difficulty that the rest of the island of Majorca was controlled in later years. The other major centres of the archipelago, Minorca and Ibiza, were also subdued in the 1230s though not by way of kingly-led campaigns. Christian control of the Balearic Islands was achieved both through conquest, namely Majorca and Ibiza (the latter undertaken in 1235 by the archbishop of Tarragona which kept it as a fief from the king),102 and through feudal submission as in the case of Minorca. This double way of dealing with expansion is characteristic of the Reconquista and has obviously nothing to do with crusade, although its rituals, as has been pointed out, might have been used on occasion. The strictly Iberian nature of the ideology by which James I came to control the Balearics was shared by Ferdinand III of Castile-León when he began his great thrust southward into Andalusia in the 1230s. Castilian chronicles described Ferdinand’s conquest of Córdoba in 1236 in much the same way as James I presented the Majorca campaign in the “Book of Deeds”: a work of God which the king had been trusted to accomplish.103 Successful military actions and feudal submission of Iberian Muslims stemmed both from Reconquista ideas which articulated mature feudal societies in Christian Iberia and gave them ideological consistency. James I frequently mentioned Espanya in his chronicle (thirteen instances in all). That word had mostly lost any association with al-Andalus or with a mere geographical setting;104 rather, it denoted a specific purpose common to all Iberian Christian rulers which was clearly unconnected to the crusade. It was a shared ideological setting which provided the Reconquista with unmistakable distinctiveness. It was certainly a medieval distinctiveness and not an early trait of modern Spanish nationalism, whose essentialist view in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries anchored the origins of Spain in the long Christian struggle with the Muslims.105

Notes 1 Gestes dels comtes de Barcelona i reis d’Aragó-Gesta comitum Barchinone et regum Aragonie, ed. Stefano M. Cingolani and Robert Álvarez Massalias (Santa Coloma de


2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



14 15 16 17

Luis García-Guijarro Ramos Queralt, 2012). This edition includes all the additions to the original late twelfth century Gesta made down to the early fourteenth century. For a general view on Catalan monastic annals and the Gesta, see Stefano M. Cingolani, La memòria dels reis: Les quatre grans croniques i la historiografía catalana, des del segle X fins al XIV, 2nd ed. (Barcelona, 2008), 11–30; Jaume Aurell, Authoring the Past: History, Autobiography and Politics in Medieval Catalonia (Chicago, 2012), 114–27. Liber Feudorum Maior, ed. Francisco Miquel Rosell, 2 vols. (Barcelona, 1945). Llibre dels feits del rei En Jaume, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, Crònica de Ramon Muntaner and Crònica de Pere III el Ceremoniós. Ferran Soldevila edited them jointly: Les Quatre Grans Cròniques (Barcelona, 1971). The Institut d’Estudis Catalans has reissued and updated this edition in four separate volumes, one for each chronicle, published between 2007 and 2014. Cingolani, La memòria dels reis, 97–135; Aurell, Authoring the Past, 55–70; Maria Teresa Ferrer i Mallol, “Les quatre grans cròniques: una visió de conjunt,” in Les quatre grans Cròniques, V. Apèndix i índex (Barcelona, 2016), 13–73 (here, 35–43). The Chronicle of James I of Aragon, Surnamed the Conqueror [hereafter The Chronicle of James I of Aragon], trans. John Forster, introd. Pascual de Gayangos, 2 vols. (London, 1883), 1: V. The word ‘spasmodic’ was used by Derek W. Lomax to qualify the Reconquista: The Reconquest of Spain (London and New York, 1978), 176. A full and updated bibliography on these aspects in Ferrer i Mallol, ‘Les quatre grans cròniques: una visió de conjunt’, 19–26. For the traditional opinion of the chronicle’s composition at several periods, see Soldevila, Les Quatre Grans Cròniques, 35; Jaume Aurell still stands in favour of a gradual production of the text, between 1244 and 1276: Authoring the Past, 7 and 45. Cingolani, La memòria dels reis, 26–7. Ibid., 36. Ibid., 37–42. Apart from Jiménez de Rada’s strong pro Castilian-Leonese attitude, the fact that his chronicle ended in the early 1240s and had scanty information for the years following 1236 must have still further diminished the treatment of James I’s achievements which are limited to a short chapter in book VI: Roderici Ximenii de Rada Historia de Rebus Hispanie sive Historia Gothica, ed. Juan Fernández Valverde (Turnhout, 1987), 6.5: 182–3; see also the introduction to the Spanish translation of the chronicle by Juan Fernández Valverde, Historia de los hechos de España (Madrid, 1989), 49–50. “fe sens obres morta és,” in Les quatre grans Cròniques. I. Llibre dels feits del rei En Jaume [hereafter Llibre dels feits], ed. Ferran Soldevila, revisions by Jordi Bruguera and M. Teresa Ferrer Mallol (Barcelona, 2007), 47. The standard English translation of the chronicle is now The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon: A Translation of the Medieval Catalan Llibre dels Fets [hereafter, The Book of Deeds], trans. Damian Smith and Helena Buffery (Aldershot, 2003), 15. I prefer here John Forster’s version who sticks to the Catalan text and translates ‘works’ and not ‘good works’: The Chronicle of James I of Aragon, 1: 1. For example, “For we wish to speak of good works, and good works proceed from and belong to Him: These words that we say will concern good works,” in Damian Smith and Helena Buffery trans., The Book of Deeds, 71; the Catalan original in Ferran Soldevila, Jordi Bruguera and Maria Teresa Ferrer Mallol eds., Llibre dels feits, ch. 48, p. 130. Llibre dels feits, ch. 1–11, pp. 49–63. Ibid., ch. 12–16 and 20–21, pp. 64–74, 76–85; ch. 17–9, pp. 74–6, are devoted to the king’s first marriage to Eleanor of Castile. Llibre dels feits, ch. 22–46, pp. 85–127. The Innocent III’s bull of 23 January 1216, which dealt with the minority councils in Aragon and Catalonia, pressed the authorities to maintain the existing truce with the

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 209

18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25

26 27


29 30 31

32 33 34 35

Muslims for the time which had been stipulated: Demetrio Mansilla, La documentación pontificia hasta Inocencio III (965–1216) (Rome, 1955), no. 537, pp. 566–8 (here, 568). Demetrio Mansilla, La documentación pontificia de Honorio III (1216–1227) (Rome, 1965), no. 419 (22 November 1222), 309–10. Llibre dels feits, ch. 47–126, pp. 127–218. Ibid., ch. 127–377, pp. 218–402. Ibid., ch. 378–456, pp. 402–54. Ibid., ch. 554–560, pp. 519–23. Just one instance: Guillem de Montcada’s approval of the king’s proposal to campaign to Majorca at the cortes of Barcelona in late December 1228 is based among other reasons on the fact that ‘we will not serve you well or loyally unless we exalt your good name and your honour as much as is possible, because your good reputation is an honour for us and your good benefits us. So then it is reasonable that if the two goods accord, we should desire them’, The Book of Deeds, 73; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 50, p. 133. The Book of Deeds, 39–41; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 22–24, pp. 85–88; Ferran Soldevila, Els primer temps de Jaume I (Barcelona, 1968), 211–19. “And Don Ferdinand and Guillem de Montcada and Don Nunó Divided the Honors of Aragon; and They Deceived Us by Asking our Advice on the Matter, Whilst Really They Were Dividing Them Up as They Pleased,” in The Book of Deeds, 41; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 24, pp. 88–9. Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón. I. 1216–1236, [hereafter Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón], ed. Ambrosio Huici Miranda and María Desamparados Cabanes Pecourt (Valencia, 1976), no. 67, pp. 139–44 (here, 139). Pedro López Elum, “La conquesta,” in Història del País Valenciá, vol. II, De la conquesta a la federació hispánica, ed. Ernest Belenguer (Barcelona, 1989), 57–85 (here, 61); O’Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade, 89; Stefano Maria Cingolani, Jaume I. Història I mite d’un rei (Barcelona, 2007), 126–7. Ferran Soldevila has suggested that the nobility might have even proposed to the king this impossible military objective to abate his youthful enthusiasm: Els primer temps de Jaume I, 223. Although Soldevila mentioned the key crusading words delivered at the Cortes of 1225, he did not admit that the campaign was a crusade: Els primer temps de Jaume I, 221–24. Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 70 (13 August), pp. 147–8; no. 71 (3 September), 148–51; no. 72 (5 September), 151–2; no. 73 (10 September), 153. On 14 October James I was at Quinto by the Ebro, south east of Zaragoza: Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 74, pp. 154–5. There is a gap of nearly a year in the chronicle. James I mentioned his stay in Tortosa of April 1225 and then jumped to events preparing his projected chevauchée to Valencian territory bordering Aragon which can be dated to the spring of 1226 (The Book of Deeds, 42; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 25, pp. 89–90). He mentioned his departure from Tortosa ‘without their knowledge.’ It makes no sense to leave secretly a place where an important gathering, which had dealt with preparations of the upcoming campaign, had just taken place. This unexpected leaving fits the failed siege of Peñíscola much better. It will thus relate to an event that took place five months later. The Book of Deeds, 139–40; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 130, pp. 221–2. Les quatre grans Cròniques. II. Crònica de Bernat Desclot [hereafter Crònica de Bernat Desclot], ed. Ferran Soldevila, revisions by Jordi Bruguera and M. Teresa Ferrer Mallol (Barcelona, 2008), ch. XII–XIII, pp. 68–69. For the consideration of this early twelfth century campaign as a crusade, see mainly José Goñi Gaztambide, Historia de la bula de la cruzada en España (Vitoria, 1958), 68–9; O’Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade, 35–6. Luis García-Guijarro, “Reconquest and the Second Crusade in Eastern Iberia: The Christian Expansion in the Lower Ebro Valley,” in The Second Crusade: Holy War on the


36 37 38

39 40


42 43



Luis García-Guijarro Ramos Periphery of Latin Christendom, ed. Jason T. Roche and Janus Møller Jensen (Turnhout, 2015), 219–55. Butllari de Catalunya: documents pontificis originals conservats als arxius de Catalunya (1198–1417) [hereafter Butllari de Catalunya], ed. Tilmann Schmidt and Rosera Sabanés y Fernández, vol. 1 (Barcelona, 2016), no. 28, pp. 81–2. “Cum ad obtinendam Maioricarum insulam viriliter te accingas,” Butllari de Catalunya, no. 31, p. 84. Aurembaix, claimant to the county of Urgel, referred to the Majorca campaign as a well-developed plan on the point of implementation when pressing the king to conquer two castles on her behalf on 23 October 1228: ‘Et post reversionem istius exercitus quem facitis contra Maiorichas, statim elapsis tringinta diebus, guerram ad meam voluntatem facere incipiatis pro dictis duobus castris mihi reddendis’, Soldevila, Els primer temps de Jaume I, appendix to ch. 17, pp. 298–300 (here, 298). See note 35 above. For conceptual treatment of all these questions see Luis García-Guijarro Ramos, “Reconquista and Crusade in the Central Middle Ages: A Conceptual and Historiographical Survey,” in Crusading on the Edge: Ideas and Practice of Crusading in Iberia and the Baltic Region, 1100–1500, ed. Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen and Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt (Turnhout, 2016), 55–88. Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XIV, pp. 69–72. Desclot attributed the king of Majorca’s defiant answer to the advice given to him by Genoese, Pisan and Provençal merchants staying on the island who were unimpressed by a king who had been unable to take Peñíscola; the Muslim chronicle which related these events and was nearer in time to them mentioned nothing of this; it might thus be considered an addition by Desclot which suited the situation in the western Mediterranean in the 1280s. See also note 76 below. The Book of Deeds, 100; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 77, p. 170. Ahmed Ibn Mohammed al- Makkarī, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, trans. Pascual de Gayangos, 2 vols. (London, 1840–43), 2: VIII.IV, 329–30; Ibn ‘Amīra al-Maḫzūmī, Kitāb Tārīḫ Mayūrqa: Crónica árabe de la Conquista de Mallorca, ed. Muḥammad ben Ma’mar, trans. Nicolau Roser Nebot and Guillem Rosselló Bordoy (Palma, 2009), 57–66. Pascual de Gayangos, “Al-Makhzumi,” in The Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 4 vols. (London, 1842–4), 2: 232–3 for the writer’s death in 1256; Muḥammad ben Ma’mar for the years 1259–60. Muḥammad ben Ma’mar dates the work to the 1240s: Kitāb Tārīḫ Mayūrqa, 42. Al- Makkarī summed up al-Maḫzūmī in this way: ‘. . . the Christians would not fail to take ample vengeance for the injury they had received. And so it happened; for the people of Barcelona had no sooner heard of the capture of their vessel, that they said to their king, who was of the posterity of Alfonso, “How does the king like to see his subjects used in this manner? We are ready to assist thee with our persons and our money to revenge this insult”. The king, taking them at their word, immediately raised an army . . .’, al- Makkarī, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, VIII.IV, 330. The alluded Alfonso may refer to James I’s grandfather king Alfonso II or to the more distant Alfonso the Battler (1104–1134). Historical proximity and direct familiar link to James I makes the first possibility far more plausible. However, it cannot be ignored that the memory of Alfonso the Battler, who had conquered Zaragoza (1118) and territories south of the Ebro, must have been vivid among thirteenth-century Iberian Muslims. The long excerpt, which includes the quoted sentences and covers pp. 329–32, significantly ends with the assertion ‘The above is borrowed from the work of Ibn ‘Omayrah Al-makhzúmí’, but this author does not mention King Alfonso when introducing the comments of people from Barcelona (Kitāb Tārīḫ Mayūrqa, 62–3). This is strange, mainly because it is difficult to see al-Makkarī inserting such a precise comment three and a half centuries later. He might have used a different

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 211

46 47

48 49 50 51 52

53 54

55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66

version of al-Maḫzūmī’s work. It can always be asked if the copy which emerged in 2001, the only one preserved of that work, is absolutely faithful to the original text. Alvaro Santamaría considered that corsair actions served as a ‘temporary pretext’ to arouse feelings in favour of the campaign: Determinantes de la conquista de Baleares (Palma de Mallorca, 1972), 82–5. Donald Kagay, “The Emergence of ‘Parliament’ in the Thirteenth-Century Crown of Aragon: A View from the Gallery,” in On the Social Origins of Medieval Institutions: Essays in Honour of Joseph F. O’Callaghan, ed. Donad Kagay and Theresa Vann (Leiden, 1999), 223–41 (here, 237). The Book of Deeds, 100, n. 110 (the editors used those words when confronting the recollection of a witness, which was in concord with Desclot, and James I’s report in the ‘Book of ‘Deeds’). Butllari de Catalunya, no. 126 (9 December 1228), 184–5. The Book of Deeds, 137–40; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 127–31, pp. 218–22. Bernat Desclot omitted this information altogether; he also skipped the first stages of the Valencian campaign. Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón. I. 1216–1236, no. 85 (14 July 1226), 173. Also The Book of Deeds, 137–8, n. 3; Llibre dels feits, 219–20, n. 926. Joaquim Miret i Sans, Itinerari de Jaume I ‘El Conqueridor’ [hereafter Itinerari de Jaume I] (Barcelona, 1918), 100–1. Miret thought that the charter had followed the year of the Incarnation and so dated the document to 1233. Ferran Soldevila reverted it to 1232 (Llibre dels feits, 218, n. 922). Vicente García Edo and Pedro López Elum have set the meeting at Alcañiz in late 1231: V. García Edo, Blasco de Alagón, ca. 1190–1239 (Castelló, 2008), 42, 61 and 63; Pedro López Elum, “La conquesta,” 69. The king was in Tarragona on 17 November 1228: Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 108, pp. 202–3; Miret, Itinerari de Jaume I, 73 (he mistakenly dated the charter to 16 November). The Book of Deeds, 69–70; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 47, pp. 127–9. Bernat Desclot left out all information related to the meal at Tarragona; he concentrated on the seizure of merchant ships by the king of Mallorca as the main incident which triggered off the campaign: Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XIV, pp. 69–72. Miret, Itinerari de Jaume I, 73–4. The Book of Deeds, 70–71; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 48, pp. 130–1. The Book of Deeds, 72–73; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 49, p. 132. ‘Car nós volem parlar de bones obres, car les bone obres vénen d’ell e són’, Llibre dels feits, ch. 48, p. 130; The Book of Deeds, 71. An example of what I have myself called the ‘crusadization’ of the Reconquista is the following study on the subject I am dealing with: Martín Alvira Cabrer, “Guerra e ideología en la España del siglo XIII: la conquista de Mallorca según la crónica de Bernat Desclot,” En la España Medieval 19 (1996), 37–50. Any reference to the campaign as God’s works is related to crusade, as if Reconquista ideology had not autonomously developed such doctrine over centuries of confrontation with the Iberian Muslims. ‘e no us porem servir bé ne lleialment, si vostre prets e vostra honor no pujàvem a tot nostre poder, car lo vostre pujament és pujament de nós, e el vostre bé aconsic a nós [italics are mine]’, Llibre dels feits, ch. 50, p. 133; The Book of Deeds, 73. ‘lo regne de Mallorques, qui és dins mar, que ens serà major honrament que si en conqueríets tres en terra’, Llibre dels feits, ch. 50, p. 133; The Book of Deeds, 73. Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 111 (21 December 1228), 206–11. ‘pus nós veem la vostra [salut], veem la nostra’, Llibre dels feits, ch. 52, p. 135; The Book of Deeds, 75. The Book of Deeds, 76–7; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 53–4, pp. 136–8. Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 112, pp. 211–13; no. 114, pp. 215–18. Ibid., no. 113, pp. 213–5.

212 67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77


79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86

Luis García-Guijarro Ramos Ibid., pp. 214. The Book of Deeds, 78; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 55, p. 139. Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 115, pp. 219–20. ‘quam [terram sarracenorum], domino Deo opitulante, debellaturi atque capturi sumus, in viatico et in exercitu quod illuc facturi sumus’, Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 115, p. 219. ‘Barons: ben sabets lo mal e el dan que el rei mallorquí fa tots jorns a les mies gents . . . per què jo he en cor e en volentat que, a plaer de Déu e per tal que son serviï hic sia encara feit, que, si vosaltres m’hi volets ajudar, que vaja pendre la ciutat de Mallorques ab tota l’illa’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XIV, pp. 71–2. Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XV–XXII, pp. 72–5 (ecclesiastics), XXIII–XXIX, pp. 75–9 (secular nobles). ‘Que ço he trobat ara que tant havia cercat, com pogués servi a mon senyor e tornar en sa amor e en sa gràcia, on hom m’havia gitat a gran deslleialtat’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXV, p. 76. ‘per ço cor vós sots tan jove e no sots usat de les armes a portar e de colps a sofrir: que vós que romangats, e nós irem a Mallorca e conquerrem la terra, e puis vós porets-hi anar’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXIII, p. 75. Cingolani, La memòria dels reis, 113–15; he writes about ‘a petrocentric [Peter III] orientation’ of the chronicle’, 117. Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XIV, pp. 70–71, XXIX, pp. 78–9. See also note 41 above. Bernat Desclot ‘produced a monarchic myth and, I would say, a national myth in a strictly Catalan sense’, Cingolani, La memòria dels reis, 107. The myth of the ‘good count’, an idealized mixture of Ramon Berenguer III and Ramon Berenguer IV, was part of that imaginary past to create and support the notion of a Catalan monarchical present: Cingolani, La memòria dels reis, 107–12. ‘e par bé del llinatge on vós movets del prous comte de Barcelona e de sos hereus, . . ., e vós, sényer, volets ells ressemblar’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XV, p. 72 (archbishop of Tarragona), ‘ço que vós havets començat no sembla gens que de vós sia mogut, . . ., mas fets atreit al bon llinatge d’on vós sóts eixit’, ch. XXIV, pp. 75–6 (count of Émpuries). ‘E sia plaer de Déu, que aquest tan ric ardit vos ha mes en cor de començar, que ell lo us lleix acabar a honor sua e a profit vostre e nostre e de tota crestiandat’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XV, p. 72. ‘Conversion into crusade’, that is the title given by Martín Alvira Cabrer to a section of his article ‘Guerra e ideología en la España del siglo XIII: la conquista de Mallorca según la crónica de Bernat Desclot’, 41–2; José Luis Villacañas, Jaime I el Conquistador (Madrid, 2003), 128, 130–1; Cingolani, Jaume I. Història i mite d’un rei, 178. The standard crusading interpretations of the Reconquista campaigns stick to the idea that the papal legate proclaimed the crusade in Lleida: Goñi Gaztambide, Historia de la bula de la cruzada en España, 158–9; O’Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain, 90–1. Miret, Itinerari de Jaume I, 76. Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXX, p. 81. Les registres de Grégoire IX, ed. Lucien Auvray, 2 vols. (Paris, 1896–1910), 1: no. 267, cols. 159–60. Documentos de Jaime I de Aragón, no. 116, pp. 220–1. Les registres de Grégoire IX, 1: no. 268, col. 160. Butllari de Catalunya, no. 127, pp. 185–6. ‘E el rei contà-li tot son feit, e, en qual guisa havia ordonat de pasar a Mallorques. E el cardenal guardà-lo e viu-lo tant enfant e donà’s gran meravella com tan gran feit havia començat. – Fill -ço dix lo cardenal-, certes, aital feit com és aquest no és mogut de vós, segons l’edat que en vós és, ans ho ha de Déu, qui us ha espirat e tramesa la sua gràcia.

Christian expansion in Muslim Iberia 213

87 88 89


91 92

93 94

95 96

97 98 99 100 101

E plàcia a ell que us ho lleix acabar així com vostre cor desitja, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXX, p. 82. ‘que degués pregar lo rei que mudàs lo viatge a València; que aquí farien tot llur poder, que del feit de Mallorca no havien cura’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXX, p. 82. ‘Per què és mon cor e ma volentat que pas a Mallorca ab tot mon poder a honor de Déu e de la crestiandat’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXX, p. 82. ‘Ab tant, lo rei pres un cordonet que tenia e féu-ne una crou e dix al cardenal que la li cosís; e el cardenal cosí-la-li, e beneí-lo e donà-li sa gràcia, e donà gran perdó a tots aquells qui el seguirien. E puis lo bisbe de Barcelona e l’artica e el sagristà e d’altres rics hòmens que ab lo rei eren venguts de Barcelona croaren-se de la mà del cardenal’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXX, p. 82. Martín Alvira Cabrer has summed up the dominant interpretation at this moment: ‘With this symbolic gesture, James I converted the royal campaign against the Balearic islands into an expedition sanctioned by the Church, and into a Christian official war, that is to say, into a crusade’, “Guerra e ideología en la España del siglo XIII: la conquista de Mallorca según la crónica de Bernat Desclot”, 42 (my translation; italics in the text); José Goñi Gaztambide expressed this view much earlier: “[The papal legate] then declared officially open the crusade and gave the external sign of it to James I,” Historia de la bula de la cruzada en España, 158 (my translation). Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXXI, p. 83. ‘E nós anam en est viatge en fe de Déu e per aquells que no el creen . . . E, pus en nom d’ell anam, havem fiança en ell que ell nos guiarà’ (James I, Llibre dels feits, ch. 56, p. 141; The Book of Deeds, 79); ‘que tan bon feit con jo he començat no es pusca perdre, car no el perdria jo tan solament, mas vós [Senyor Déus] lo perdríets majorment’ (James I, Llibre dels feits, ch. 57, p. 143; The Book of Deeds, 81); ‘. . . car aquest feit en què el rei nostre senoyr és, e vosaltres, és obra de Déu, que no és pas nostre . . . E conhortats-vos bé e alegrats-vos, que ab senyor bo e natural anam, e Déu, qui és sobre ell e sobre nós, ajudar-nos ha’ (Bishop of Barcelona, Llibre dels feits, ch. 62, pp. 149–50; The Book of Deeds, 86); ‘Barons, aquests rics hòmens són morts en servei de Déu e el nostre,. . .; mas, pus Déus nos ha aduits aquí a nós e a vosaltres en tan gran serviï seu, no és mester que negú faça dol ni plor’ (James I, Llibre dels feits, ch. 68, p. 158; The Book of Deeds, 92). ‘nós som venguts aquí a servici de Déu e al vostre’, Llibre dels feits, ch. 69, p. 159; The Book of Deeds, 93. ‘la manera era nostra de venir en aquesta terra per servir a Déu e per conquerir-la’, Llibre dels feits, ch. 79, p. 172; The Book of Deeds, 103. The English translation inverts the order of words, placing conquest before God’s service, and changes the meaning of the sentence. James I stated clearly that ‘servir a Déu’ was the ultimate reason for the conquest. ‘un bisbe ha’ls preïcats e ha-llur dit con són venguts aquí per servir Déu e per destruir los enemics de Jesucrist; e que regoneguen per què han presa la crou’, Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XLV, p. 106. Morella and Ares, The Book of Deeds, 140–5; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 132–7, pp. 223–9. Burriana, The Book of Deeds, 155–70; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 153–78, pp. 241–60. Puig, The Book of Deeds, 187–90; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 206–12, pp. 282–6. “signo crucis de mano venerabilis fratris nostri Episcopi Sabinensis, tunc Appostolice Sedis Legati, suscepto,” in Jaime Villanueva, Viage Literario a las Iglesias de España, vol. 21 (Madrid, 1851), Appendix no. 6, p. 252. The Book of Deeds, 114; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 95, p. 189. The Book of Deeds, 114–16; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 95–7, pp. 189–92. Crònica de Bernat Desclot, ch. XXXVII, p. 94. See note 50 above.


Luis García-Guijarro Ramos

102 The Book of Deeds, 134–5; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 125–6, pp. 217–18. Vassals could be Christians (Ibiza) or Muslims (Minorca). James I’s reasons for not taking part in the campaign of Ibiza were clearly stated in the chronicle: ‘we had other things to do’ (The Book of Deeds, 134). The other royal commitment was the expedition to Valencia which was then half way through its route to the city of Valencia. 103 Crónica latina de los reyes de Castilla, ed. Luis Charlo Brea (Cádiz, 1984), 93–9; Roderici Ximenii de Rada Historia de Rebus Hispanie sive Historia Gothica, VIIII.16, 297–99; Primera Crónica General de España, 2, ch. 1046, pp. 729–33. For the consideration of the conquest of Córdoba as a crusade, see Goñi Gaztambide, Historia de la bula de la cruzada en España, 155; O’Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain, 92–98; Carlos de Ayala Martínez, “Fernando III, significado y contexto en tiempo de cruzada,” in Fernando III, tiempo de cruzada, ed. Carlos de Ayala Martínez and Martín Ríos Saloma (Madrid, 2012), 17–91 (here, 72–6). 104 None of the five references to Espanya in the chronicle down to the end of the narrative of the conquest of Majorca stuck to the so-far traditional meanings, but rather expressed a sense of belonging to a lax and ill-defined common Iberian Christian community: ‘Our father, King Peter, was the most generous king there ever was in Spain’, The Book of Deeds, 21, the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 6, p. 54; ‘and since the fortress [of Montcada] is one of the best in Spain’, The Book of Deeds, 38; the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 21, p. 83; ‘because no king of Spain has any vassal as honoured as you have in his person [Guillem de Montcada] nor any that can serve him so well’, The Book of Deeds, 53, the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 33, p. 106; ‘as he [Guillem de Cervera] was an old man and one of the wisest in Spain’, The Book of Deeds, 54, the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 34, p. 108; ‘And since God has done such grace to us that He has given us a kingdom inside the sea, a thing that no king of Spain has ever achieved before’, The Book of Deeds, 121, the Catalan original in Llibre dels feits, ch. 105, p. 198. Ferran Soldevila agreed that in these cases ‘Espanya’ referred to the entire peninsula and not only to al-Andalus, but only in a geographical Roman sense, thus not conveying a message of a loose Iberian Christian community, Llibre dels feits, 106 (n. 335) and 108–09 (n. 347). No wonder that such a distinguished Catalan nationalist historian thought that way. 105 For the Reconquista ideological backing to liberal and conservative Spanish nationalism, see García-Guijarro Ramos, ‘Reconquista and Crusade’, esp. 57–63.

16 Thomas Ebendorfer and crusading past and present Norman Housley

Thomas Ebendorfer (1388–1464) was a professor at the University of Vienna, a theologian and active participant in political and ecclesiastical affairs. His prolific writings – “an amazingly large Oeuvre” as a recent commentator put it1 – include lengthy histories of his native Austria and of the Holy Roman Emperors and Popes, as well as a detailed diary of his role in two of the embassies that were dispatched by the council of Basel to negotiate with the Hussites. Conservative in outlook and pre-humanist in training, he remained loyal to the conciliar cause and was deeply sceptical about both the revived Papal monarchy and those contemporaries – notably Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini and Nicholas of Cusa – who crossed over from the conciliar to the Papal side. Ebendorfer was very interested in crusading. His history of the crusades, the Historia Jerusalemitana, was edited in 2006 by the doyen of Ebendorfer scholars, Harald Zimmermann. The circumstances behind its composition are unknown, though it is apparent from the prologue that it was intended to function as an excitatorium. He started the work a matter of months after the fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II, and it is likely that he ended it just two months before Belgrade was saved from the Sultan’s army in 1456. Past and present were thus thoroughly interwoven. Ebendorfer concluded his Chronica regum Romanorum with an appeal to Frederick III to lead a crusade, and his Chronica pontificum Romanorum with the comment that at the time of writing (1463), Pope Pius II was trying to bring another great crusade into being. He could not be unaware of the Turkish threat to his native land. Ebendorfer’s writings give us an insight into the relationship between early crusading and that of his own times, and they show how a range of political and ecclesiastical obstacles were impeding the resurgence of crusading which the Austrian hoped to see. Equally, they demonstrate that advocacy of crusade in Ebendorfer’s time could be combined with a variety of opinions about other leading issues of the day, such as conciliarism, union and reform. *** The main events of Ebendorfer’s life were established by Alphons Lhotsky in his 1957 biography of the man.2 He was born on 10 August 1388 at Haselbach, a town about 25 km north of Vienna, and attended the University of Vienna, graduating as MA in March 1412. He began teaching at Vienna and by 1421 had acquired


Norman Housley

credentials in theology as well as entering the priesthood. In 1427, he became canon of St Stephen’s Cathedral and in the following year doctor of theology. Lhotsky charted a career of dedicated service to his colleagues, faculties and university, the broader and daunting context for which was the disastrous series of Hussite expeditions to which Austria was a major contributor.3 Vienna was known to strongly favour conciliarism, and Ebendorfer was among those who hosted a fact-finding visit by the Sorbonne in 1429, as academics began to exert pressure on Pope Martin V to honour the commitment to call another council in accordance with the Constance decree Frequens.4 Over the next few years conciliarism – together with its strong reform aspirations – and the Hussite crisis combined to shape Ebendorfer’s life. Due to his experience and credentials he was selected to represent the University at the council of Basel, where he arrived in June 1432. The following January saw the momentous arrival in Basel of the Hussite delegation, the crucial opening act in the painfully protracted movement towards a negotiated settlement of the crisis. Ebendorfer was chosen as one of the council’s delegates to go to Prague for the second round in the negotiations, and he reached the Czech capital in the spring of 1433. A further delegation followed in August 1434, this time to Regensburg. But towards the end of 1434 the University recalled him, and although there were talks at Vienna itself in 1435, Ebendorfer was no longer acting as a conciliar delegate, nor was he any longer his University’s representative. Ebendorfer recorded his experience of the Hussite discussions in a diary, and this is the first text in which we encounter views about crusading.5 The diary exists in a sole manuscript held in the Austrian National Library and at the start there are two short texts which set out clearly the premises of Ebendorfer’s approach towards the negotiations. The first is the heavily revised draft of a sermon intended for a congregation in Prague’s New Town in Pentecost Week of 1433, i.e. at the start of his sojourn in the city. Harald Zimmermann, the diary’s most recent editor, doubts that it was actually delivered. This is followed by an oration by Ebendorfer dated 15 June. The sermon addresses Christ’s dual injunction of peace and charity. Wholly in accordance with the spirit of the Basel legation, Ebendorfer combines this with praise for his hosts: “Seeking therefore the gifts of charity, grace, peace, union and concord in all things, and in you, great kingdom of Bohemia, and in your renowned capital, the city of Prague . . ., my opening words are these: may grace and peace be yours in abundance [2 Peter 1:2].” He then links Christendom’s internal discords – “the miserable condition of Christianity and the Christian people” – with the rise of Turkish power. Christian believers had already been “driven into a corner,” and unless peace was restored the faithful had nothing to look forward to but expulsion and death.6 Clearly Ebendorfer subscribed to the consensus view that peace and charity were not just precious divine gifts in themselves, but were essential if the Christian community (Christianitas) was to resist the Turks.7 It was a theme as old as the crusades themselves but had been invested with urgency by Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini since his arrival at Basel, constituting a major element in his policy reversal towards the Hussites. Ebendorfer borrowed the corner (angulum) metaphor

Thomas Ebendorfer


from Cesarini, and its appeal is obvious: like the idea of frontier territories acting as Christendom’s bulwark (antemurale Christianitatis), it was one of the most popular images in fifteenth-century crusading discourse.8 Ebendorfer returned to the subject in his oration. The times were evil, and “in these most savage days,” the benefits of peace were numerous. The Saraceni again feature, but this time in a more schematic way: they are attacking the faith while the Jews mock it and the heretics tear it asunder. The reference to heretics could be seen as insensitive given the setting but more likely it shows that Ebendorfer, like the council that he represented, had moved on from the condemnation of the Hussites and was addressing the Czechs as fellow Christians. One of the gains of restored union would be to “terrify the gentiles, silence the Jews, alarm the heretics and confuse the demons.”9 But could union between Catholics and utraquists be restored? Ebendorfer’s account of the discussions at Prague in the summer of 1433 offers ample testimony to the difficulties involved. Even among men who were determined to work towards union, tempers could snap. The diary records one such occasion, late in the evening of 23 June 1433, when Prokop the Bald interpreted a cautious willingness on the part of the Basel envoys to allow the practice of utraquism as a wholesale climb down on the practice. An unnamed envoy responded furiously, “I have put up with hearing a lot for the sake of peace, both here and in Basel, but now my conscience is forcing me to speak out. Listen to me!,” before setting out as clearly as he could the much more qualified position of the envoys.10 In practice, the limited tolerance of utraquism in the Czech lands proved to be too much for Ebendorfer himself. Following his return from Prague in 1433 the council asked him to set down his views, and the two texts he wrote, the Motiva Thome and the Deliberacio Thome, reveal his pessimism about the chances of resolving the dispute and restoring union. The Motiva afford a clear picture of shock on the part of a conservative but devout university theologian. The same man who a few weeks earlier had extolled the benefits of peace arising from union with the Hussites now saw the same union – if achieved under the proposed terms – provoking even greater discord. In the first place, the Moravian and Polish utraquists would follow suit, and schism would ensue in the shape of “a perpetual division from the western Church, greater and more dangerous than that of the Greeks,” since these schismatics would be surrounded by Catholics. The radicals would view the concession as a vindication of all their efforts and of the sanctity of their warfare. Just as serious would be the effect on neighbouring Catholic communities which had fought, year after year, in defence of the Church. They would reject crusading, in fact “how would they ever again take up arms in response to the preaching of the cross?” They would indulge in violent outbursts against the preachers of the crusade: “Thanks to their preaching I lost brothers, kinsmen and belongings; I suffered exile and wounds. Surely I should avenge myself on these lying priests?” All in all, the consequences would be disastrous: heresy, schism, scandal, turmoil, warfare, rebellion and disobedience. “How can we view that as an honourable outcome for the Church?”11 The Deliberacio Thome added little but nuances to this uncompromisingly negative verdict. One was animosity towards the radical brotherhoods, whom Ebendorfer accused of


Norman Housley

being Waldensians. Another was to remind Basel of its growing division with Pope Eugenius IV, who might well use the concession to the Hussites to condemn it and summon his own council. And in addition to the major challenges of Hussite triumphalism and Catholic demoralization that Ebendorfer highlighted in the Motiva, he did not neglect the problem of individuals and groups – merchants and foreigners – travelling to Bohemia, and Czechs who went abroad, as well as Czech monks who chanced to worship in their Orders’ churches elsewhere: the difference in sacramental practice would cause incessant friction.12 This formidable list of religious and practical obstacles undoubtedly became familiar to those, headed by Cesarini, who were prime movers in the promotion of union talks. Ebendorfer’s reservations arose from a sound knowledge of Church history, good observational skills, and – of course – an expert command of theology. The fact that he was asked to write down his opinions in the first place shows that the fathers at Basel recognized his credentials and tried to use them to their advantage. Contemporaries, including the Augustinian Andreas of Regensburg, shared Ebendorfer’s concern about Catholics who had borne the brunt of the war becoming demoralized, although Andreas wrote about defeat rather than concessions; because he did not carry the burdens of office of a man like Cesarini, the Austrian could assess the situation with academic objectivity.13 But for a number of reasons his views did not prevail. The first was war weariness, and the resulting lack of appetite for yet another crusade. This meant that there was simply no alternative to a negotiated settlement, and this had to include the toleration of utraquism in the Bohemian crown lands. The second reason was the defeat of the radicals at Lipany in 1434, which meant that Ebendorfer’s worst fears regarding utraquist missionary activity could be set aside.14 The radical brotherhoods which he had condemned in his Deliberacio Thome were now brought to heel and the moderates took charge. The third reason – and arguably the most important one – was the determination of Emperor Sigismund to conclude the process of securing union. Ebendorfer himself was asked by Basel’s envoys to act as advisor at the crucial talks that took place at Brno in the summer of 1435. Switching roles from envoy and theologian to historian and reporter, he provided an outstanding first-hand description of one of Sigismund’s most renowned and important tirades. This was delivered on 24 July in response to the conciliar envoys’ foot dragging over the addition to the peace terms of the telling phrase “excepting the privileges and liberties of the kingdom of Bohemia.” This had the effect of subordinating religious conditions to political ones and made it much harder to safeguard the position of Czech Catholics and recover their property. Ebendorfer’s version of Sigismund’s comment – delivered in German – is particularly useful because he was a native speaker and the other reporter, Gilles Charlier, deliberately kept his account short so as to spare blushes. “By the living God,” Ebendorfer reports the king exclaiming, “there are some people who don’t want me to hold power, but I will hold power and I will secure control over this kingdom.” The Pope had warned him of the council’s machinations against the Empire and he would deal with it. The following day a clumsy solution

Thomas Ebendorfer


was reached on the contentious wording – “for the sake of peace,” Ebendorfer remarked – and a year later the Compactata of Basel were ratified at Jihlava.15 *** Eighteen years after that ratification, Ebendorfer – now 66 years old – began his Historia Jerusalemitana. The reason he wrote is clear from the prologue, in which “each and every Christian, but especially those girded with knighthood’s belt,” are called upon to avenge the injuries inflicted on God and his Church, “until that which was lost is recovered, or at least those who took it are paid back in kind.”16 Ebendorfer wrote of the loss of Jerusalem, desecrated and polluted by the Saracens, but the context was the Imperial diet planned to assemble at Frankfurt in the autumn of 1454. We would expect him to highlight not the loss of Jerusalem – which had most recently been seized over two centuries earlier – but that of Constantinople which, as he would later comment in his text, had occurred “last year” (elapso anno).17 It was after all Constantinople’s fall which would be lamented at the Frankfurt diet in Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini’s Constantinopolitana clades, one of the century’s most brilliant orations, whose bravura delivery on 15 October 1454 has a claim to be celebrated as the moment when humanism first penetrated the consciousness of Germany’s elite. Ebendorfer concluded his prologue by quoting from Alexios Comnenos’s alleged letter describing Turkish atrocities, which the Austrian’s main source, Robert the Monk, had included in his narrative of the First Crusade. This was ironic since it related to misdeeds perpetrated against Byzantines, and the sorts of injuries described could easily have come from Constantinopolitana clades or a text by the Byzantine Cardinal Bessarion. Probably the least imaginative feature of the humanists’ treatment of the 1453 sack was their recounting of Ottoman atrocities. Why emphasize Jerusalem rather than Constantinople? The answer is likely to be a mixture of Ebendorfer’s historical approach to his subject and his own negative feelings about the Byzantines. In the first place, as Ebendorfer states in his prologue, he proposes using the great deeds of Christian princes “in the two most proximate passages (in proximis duobus passagiis) . . . to recover the Holy Land” to inspire their successors to turn from “intestinal wars” to fighting for a righteous cause. In this way “the bravery of the Germans, which nobody has ever succeeded in subduing, should flower again under the stimulus of these examples from the history.”18 In other words, he wanted to use the past to inspire and invigorate the present, the motive which since the early twelfth century had propelled so much historical writing about crusading in the east. There was nothing in recent crusading history which would serve that purpose, given the disasters at Nicopolis (1396) and Varna (1444), though in 1456 victory at Belgrade would fill the vacuum, as lobbyists like Piccolomini would quickly and enthusiastically realize. Then there was the problem of the Byzantine Empire’s negative image. Arousing sympathy for conquered and sacked Constantinople was not an easy task because the Greeks were viewed by many as duplicitous, hardened schismatics (despite the recent achievement of union at Florence), and cowardly – people who had refused to fight even in defence of their own city. Ebendorfer provides a personal perspective on this when dealing with the Greeks in the Historia. At Basel,


Norman Housley

he recalls, “a certain man of no small authority” had told him that the Greeks used to surpass all other peoples in strength, wisdom and eloquence. But since withdrawing obedience from the Roman Church they had forfeited the first and second qualities – their potencia of course had been eroded by the Sarracenorum gens impia – and now they had only eloquence left.19 The anecdote is revealing on several counts. First of all, it highlights the intrinsic difficulty of using the Holy Land expeditions as material for an exhortatorium to crusade against the Ottoman Turks. Not only had earlier crusading armies set out to achieve a very different objective from Christian warriors in the 1450s,20 while marching to the Holy Land they experienced repeated collisions with the Byzantine Imperial authorities, thereby fashioning the very stereotype which Ebendorfer’s anonymous Basel source continued to voice generations later.21 Secondly, the sceptical remark of Ebendorfer’s Basel colleague was in tune with the feelings of many of the conciliar fathers towards the Greeks. For all the problems thrown up by the discussions with the Hussites, the council was more at home with the issues they involved than they were with the schism with the Orthodox Church – which as some of them complained, had lasted 300 years.22 As for Ebendorfer, while he subscribed to the four-point programme – peace, union, reform and crusade – which lay at the heart of the agenda Basel was pursuing in the 1430s, in practice he displayed a tendency towards inflexibility, not just in the texts he composed à propos the Hussite negotiations, but also, decades later in his Historia. In 1987 Ludwig Schmugge demonstrated the extent of the interest shown in the crusades by Renaissance humanists, and since then a number of scholars have explored the new values, methodology and language which they brought to the subject.23 Perhaps most importantly, the Florentine jurist and chancellor Benedetto Accolti penned a beautifully crafted new account of the First Crusade in which its leaders are portrayed in a thoroughly classical guise, and their struggle is viewed as a war for civilization against barbarism.24 Ebendorfer was not a member of this pioneering group.25 He had no interest in investing the people about whom he was writing with new outlooks or describing what they did in Ciceronian terms. On the contrary, he was content to rely on a small number of existing historical accounts to which he made mostly minor additions and changes.26 These accounts were, for the First Crusade, Robert the Monk, and for the Third and Fifth, the anonymous Itinerarium peregrinorum and Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum historiale. Ebendorfer made no attempt to conceal this technique, openly admitting that for information he turned to “histories of the Holy Land, the Speculum Historiale and similar.”27 The structure of the Historia is puzzling and may have evolved during its composition. We have already noted the author’s stated intention to describe what happened in proximis duobus passagiis, and the term proximus (nearest, closest: presumably to each other rather than to the author) would lead us to expect treatment of the first two crusades. The fact that Ebendorfer has already mentioned the upcoming Frankfurt diet and goes on to reference the reigniting of Germany’s crusading zeal, strengthens the reader’s expectation that the first and second crusades to the East will form the subject of the phrase: Germans had after all played significant roles in both. Following his short prologue the author moves immediately

Thomas Ebendorfer


into Pope Urban II’s Clermont sermon and the familiar events that followed, ending with the Christian victory over the Fatimid army at Ascalon in August 1099. Ebendorfer opens his second book by declaring that he proposes treating the secundum passagium famosum but following another short prologue he moves into the disastrous events of 1187. The prologue is no help in explaining the omission of the Second Crusade, because it is a defence of the author’s credentials for writing about events he had not observed.28 It is likely that his decision to move straight from 1099 to 1187 can be ascribed to two related considerations, the fact that the Second Crusade’s multiple disasters were the exact opposite of an inspiring example for present-day readers, and the absence of a substantial narrative about those same events. The Third Crusade, on the other hand, placed centre stage one of Germany’s greatest medieval rulers, Frederick Barbarossa. By taking the cross at Mainz in 1188 Barbarossa had set an example of leadership that Ebendorfer hoped that his namesake Frederick III would follow. Hence the reader is given a slightly expanded version of the Itinerarium, until Barbarossa’s antagonistic encounter with the Byzantines leads the Austrian to interpolate the digression about the decline of the Greeks which we considered above. Following Barbarossa’s death in the river Saleph, Ebendorfer offers his readers the Itinerarium’s account of the siege of Acre, but he then thoroughly muddies the narrative waters by introducing a passage – based on Vincent of Beauvais – relating the siege of Damietta by the forces of the Fifth Crusade. This generates confusion, because once he has described the difficulties of that siege and its eventual success, he has to backtrack to Richard I’s return to England after the end of the Third Crusade.29 This includes a brief account of the king’s imprisonment, which as an Austrian Ebendorfer naturally found interesting. The Historia does not so much end as grind to a halt, with a highly eclectic final paragraph that covers the Castilian defeat at Alarcos in 1195, the death of Henry VI and the outbreak of war between England and France. *** For Ebendorfer as for his source Robert the Monk – and indeed for all historians since – the First Crusade provided a relatively clear narrative trajectory, taking the reader from early success at Nicaea and Dorylaeum through epic suffering and victory at Antioch to triumph at Jerusalem and Ascalon. In contrast, it is hard to imagine the crusading zeal of Germany’s fighting elite being reignited by the second book of the Historia, with its sequence of disasters and setbacks (Hattin, Saleph, Damietta, Alarcos), and its downbeat concluding sentences: Henry VI’s plotting against the Roman Church to secure his son’s succession to the Empire, and gravia bella between France and England. It is almost as if Ebendorfer was giving a hint of the retreats, defeats and recriminations which would ensue in the East, though as we have seen it was never his intention to take his subject as far as 1291.30 There is considerable irony here, because at the time Ebendorfer wrote, the greatest single Christian success of the century – the relief of Belgrade – was almost certainly gestating. It is not possible, however, to be certain about this. He ends his treatment of the First Crusade with an explicit including the useful information that he is writing at his parish of Perchtoldsdorf, on 24 May 1456.31 This would place the composition


Norman Housley

of the second book later, but the reference in that book to Constantinople’s loss iam elapso anno (a year ago) persuaded Zimmermann that Ebendorfer’s explicit was added later and marks the completion not just of book one but of the entire Historia.32 If Zimmermann is correct, Ebendorfer’s entire text bears a start date some time before October 1454 – the anticipated Frankfurt diet – and an end date of 24 May 1456. By 1456 the sequence of three diets that registered the Empire’s response to Constantinople’s fall (Regensburg, Frankfurt and Wiener Neustadt) had come to a fruitless close.33 The hopes set out in the Historia’s prologue had therefore been disappointed, in terms of both the political elite that assembled at Frankfurt, and more generally “those girded with knighthood’s belt.” It is safe to say that men who were not stirred into action by the brilliant oratory in Piccolomini’s Constantinopolitana clades were unlikely to respond to the Historia;34 but the key point is that many thousands did respond to the preaching of Giovanni of Capistrano, and that the crusaders who fought alongside the charismatic Franciscan at Belgrade in July 1456 included not just many of Ebendorfer’s compatriots but a large number of students – 600 and 700 are the figures reported in two sources35 – from Ebendorfer’s own university.36 The problem is that Ebendorfer’s pastoral duties at Perchtoldsdorf – which he took very seriously – placed a distance of 13 km between him and what was happening at Vienna, though his professorial responsibilities must surely have entailed frequent journeys back and forth. To gain a full view of Ebendorfer’s views on crusading against the Turks we need to complement the Historia’s brief comments with the attention he devotes to the subject in his other historical works. In his histories of Austria, the Empire and the Papacy, past and present crusading are equally present. In the Cronica Austrie, concluded at the end of his life, naturally enough regional and local perspectives dominate. So the Austrian imprisonment of Richard I by Duke Leopold and its origins in the Third Crusade are treated more fully than in the Historia,37 while Ebendorfer supplies a colourful anecdote about an Austrian cleric in relation to the popular crusade of 1309. Given the alarm which we have seen Ebendorfer express about the disruption of religious practice by the Hussites, it is not surprising that he disapproved of the crucesignati of 1309; that said, the language he uses about them is strikingly severe. These individuals had assumed the cross outside the prescribed rituals and they included parasites, whores, imbeciles and renegade clerics. They wandered from place to place, surviving on alms extorted with menace, and they threatened violence against any clerics who would not assist them. After four months, when the flow of alms dried up, they discarded their crosses and dispersed like smoke (tamquam fumus).38 With this short passage Ebendorfer aligned himself firmly with the hostile majority of commentators on such revivalist outbursts, of whose dismissive accounts Gary Dickson provided a comprehensive analysis.39 The sort of crusade favoured by Ebendorfer becomes clear much later in the Cronica Austrie when its author provides a notably full account of the relief of Belgrade in 1456. He recalls the arrival in Vienna early in 1456 of the legate Juan Carvajal and his reception by a procession of the city’s clerics and academics – including the author – with the dual brief of preaching the crusade and settling the contested Hungarian succession.40

Thomas Ebendorfer


The victory won in 1456 against Mehmed II was a glorious one in which the Sultan himself was thoroughly humiliated, but it cannot escape notice that the victors were civilians and commoners, “Unarmed [sc. untrained?] farmers, metalworkers, fullers, tailors, cobblers, artisans, and students.” These heroes of the hour were clearly not to be compared with the riffraff of 1309, but Ebendorfer precedes this description with five separate rhetorical questions which for convenience can here be rolled into one: where, he demands to know, were the Holy Roman Empire, its electoral princes, the Most Christian king of France, the kings of England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland and Bohemia, and the great men of Germany? The thinking here is exactly the same as in the prologue to the Historia. High office and social privileges brought with them responsibility for the defence of Christendom. This naturally takes us to the Chronica regum Romanorum and the Chronica pontificum Romanorum, Ebendorfer’s most ambitious and complementary historical works. The former he wrote in 1449–50 at the request of Frederick III, in preparation for Frederick’s coronation trip to Rome in 1451–2, on which the historian accompanied him. In 1453, he added a few pages to the end of the work dealing with recent events, most importantly the fall of Constantinople. He was writing just months before he composed the Historia, so it is unsurprising that his comments replicate the views expressed in that work. So, the city’s fall was a lamentable event, the worst blow since Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem. The Greeks, who formerly gloried in their power, wisdom and eloquence, now faced slavery; they had exchanged obedience to Rome for subjugation by the Sultan. Frederick must show himself to be “the father of Christian knighthood” and avenge the injuries inflicted on the faith. And the Emperor must start acting this part at the forthcoming Frankfurt diet, quelling internal discord for the sake of the common good.41 The later part of the Chronica regum dealt in detail with the politics of the 1440s, especially Frederick’s relations with the estates, the Pope and the council of Basel, and the dispute over the Hungarian succession. Ebendorfer was familiar with this because following his return from Basel he had played a significant role in public affairs, and he knew as well as anybody the numerous obstacles that stood in the way of Frederick’s leadership of a crusade. For example, in the Epitome or abbreviated version of the Chronica regum the author included a rich tranche of material on Bessarion’s unsuccessful attempt at Vienna in 1460 to persuade the Germans to honour the commitment they had made to Pope Pius II at the congress of Mantua. Few events in Ebendorfer’s last years were so revealing about the unwillingness of the Empire’s princes to come to the assistance of the Hungarians, and the intense frustration this caused to enthusiasts like Bessarion.42 When he came to write his last major work, the Chronica pontificum Romanorum, in 1458, Ebendorfer’s belief in the conciliarist cause proved an insuperable obstacle to praising the range of crusading initiatives pursued by Pope Eugenius IV and his successors. He gave attention to the efforts of past popes on behalf of the Holy Land,43 and the work ends with a neutral reference to Pope Pius II’s summoning Christendom’s envoys to meet in 1463 to discuss a response to Mehmed II’s success in the Peloponnese, which offered hope of a Veneto-Burgundian alliance.44 But what resonates most clearly is the disgust of the author, now in his


Norman Housley

70s, with what he considered the Papal betrayal of conciliarism and the hopes of reform which it had encapsulated. He revealed his contempt for Pius’s bull Execrabilis (1460), the formal condemnation of appeals to future councils. The bull was a scandal which God permitted so that popular outrage would accelerate the calling of another council, and Ebendorfer devoted several pages to a demolition of the bull on historical and theological grounds.45 Narrating the long history of the Papal office gave Ebendorfer many opportunities to draw comparisons between the corruption of the past and that of the present day, without affecting his perception that some of the worst abuses currently being perpetrated by the recreated Papal machinery only dated back as far as the fourteenth century.46 No recent pope except Nicholas V – who had been kind to Ebendorfer – emerged well from his writing. Martin V shamelessly reinstated a host of abuses following the schism; Eugenius IV was the man who destroyed Basel and with it hopes for reform; Calixtus III favoured his countrymen and promoted his relatives.47 Pius II presented particular problems for Ebendorfer. In addition to his distaste for Execrabilis, the Austrian had known Piccolomini since the latter’s humble days as an episcopal secretary at Basel and there was personal animosity between the two men. It is hard to imagine a meeting of minds between the age’s greatest humanist and this scholastic theologian. Piccolomini poured ironic scorn on Ebendorfer in one of his most-quoted letters, damning him with faint praise as a “not uncelebrated theologian” (non incelebratus theologus) and the author of “histories of some value” (historias non inutiles), conjuring up the image of a plodding mediocrity.48 There is evidence that following several years of diplomatic service to Frederick III, Ebendorfer was marginalized in 1443 by a group that included Piccolomini.49 Most importantly, Piccolomini had deserted and denounced Basel, as had Nicholas of Cusa. Ebendorfer took pleasure in including in his Chronica pontificum the full text of Gregor of Heimburg’s excoriating attack on Cusa, the Cancer Cusa of 1461. As Lhotsky observed, the author was fascinated by the conflict between Heimburg and Archduke Sigismund on the one hand, and Cusa and Pius II on the other. Amongst other offences that Cusa was alleged to have committed, Heimburg accused him of using his Jubilee legation of 1451–2 to extract over 200,000 florins from the Germans by means of “trifles and vanities.”50 This had not been a legation to preach the crusade – Constantinople had not yet fallen – but it is hard not to imagine a similar response on Ebendorfer’s part to the intensive preaching of indulgences that by the early 1460s had already become a hallmark of the Papacy’s crusading programmes.51 Cusa’s legation has received a mixed press over the years, but as an exercise in grassroots reform it was at best partially successful and confirmed the views of conciliarists like Ebendorfer, that only reform instituted and monitored by a general council could be truly effective.52 Ebendorfer was as mentally distant from Renaissance Rome as he was geographically, a trait he shared with many people living north of the Alps.53 *** Because Thomas Ebendorfer died in January 1464 he experienced neither the failure of Pius II’s crusading plans, nor the escalating Turkish raids on Austrian

Thomas Ebendorfer


territories which would help bring about a dramatic resurgence of crusading rhetoric at the Große Christentag of Regensburg in 1471.54 He was similarly spared the second sequence of attempts to suppress utraquism by force of arms, when Pope Paul II followed through on Pius II’s revocation of the Compactata of Basel by granting King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary crusading privileges for his war against King Jiří of Poděbrad.55 Ebendorfer’s interest in crusade was consistent and spanned several decades of his life, and it sprang from his engagement with both the Hussite and Turkish threats and his fascination with history. But what mainly shaped it was the experience of living his early years during the trauma of the schism and his middle years during the crisis of the Hussite wars. His overriding concern was the unity of Christendom. This entailed the avoidance of further schism but – equally importantly – the pursuit of a programme of reform by Church councils. As for the Turks, who constituted the biggest external threat, mobilizing the human and financial resources needed was a task for the ecclesiastical and secular authorities, and it could only prove effective if they worked for the common good and did not use their office in the interests of dynasty (like Sigismund at Brno in 1435), family or group. Dissimulation – acting sub fuco – was one of his pet targets.56 He is open to the charge of being dogmatic and impractical: it is not surprising that Frederick III, the consummate political fixer, grew impatient with Ebendorfer and finally dispensed with his services. It was only by being flexible that Cesarini managed to push forward talks with the Hussites and that Pius II drove his ambitious crusade project as far as he did. Ebendorfer would probably have said that in both cases the remedy was worse than the disease.

Notes 1 Historia Jerusalemitana [hereafter HJ], ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS nova series [hereafter MGH SS NS] 21 (Hanover, 2006), vii. 2 Alphons Lhotsky, Thomas Ebendorfer: Ein österreichischer Geschichtschreiber, Theologe und Diplomat des 15. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1957). 3 Ibid., ch. 1. 4 Ibid., 15. 5 Diarium sive Tractatus cum Boemis (1433–1436) [hereafter DTB], ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS NS 25 (Hanover, 2010). 6 Ibid., 1–7. 7 Ebendorfer refers to barbarica Saracenorum feritate but it is hard to believe that he means the Mamluks at this point. The Ottomans on the other hand had recovered from their dynastic wars and captured Thessalonica in 1430. 8 Juan of Segovia, “Historia gestorum synodi basiliensis,” bk 4, ch. 9, in Monumenta conciliorum generalium saeculi decimi quinti, 4 vols (Vienna, 1857–1935), 2: 315; trans. John Jefferson in his The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad: The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438–1444, 36. 9 DTB, 7–18. 10 Ibid., 63. 11 Ibid., 82–93, quotes at 88, 90–1, 92. 12 Ibid., 93–100. 13 It may not be coincidental that Ebendorfer was taught by a prominent preacher of the Hussite crusades, Nikolaus of Dinkelsbühl.


Norman Housley

14 “. . . victoriam Deus contulit parti obediencium ecclesie,” as Ebendorfer expressed it: DTB, 115. 15 Ibid., 182–3. 16 HJ, 1. 17 Ibid., 96. 18 Ibid., 3. 19 Ibid., 96–8. 20 Ebendorfer describes the campaign which would be discussed at the 1454 Frankfurt diet in thoroughly traditional terms as a passagium contra hostes crucis Christi, which could reflect his assimilation of the two types of crusade, but it would be wrong to read too much into a single phrase. 21 For one example in Ebendorfer’s own oeuvre see Chronica Austrie [hereafter CA], ed. Alphons Lhotsky, MGH SS NS 13 (Berlin, 1957), 83. 22 Juan of Segovia, “Historia gestorum synodi basiliensis,” bk 2, ch. 15, in Monumenta conciliorum, vol. 2, 105. 23 Ludwig Schmugge, Die Kreuzzüge aus der Sicht humanistischer Geschichtsschreiber (Basel, 1987); James Hankins, “Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literature in the Age of Mehmed II,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), 111–207; Dieter Mertens, “Claromontani passagii exemplum: Papst Urban II. und der erste Kreuzzug in der Türkenkriegspropaganda des Renaissance-Humanismus,” in Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance, ed. Bodo Guthmüller and Wilhelm Kühlmann (Tübingen, 2000), 65–78; Nancy Bisaha, Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks (Philadelphia, 2004); Margaret Meserve, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought (Cambridge, MA, 2008). 24 Benedetto Accolti, “De bello a christianis contra barbaros gesto,” in Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens occidentaux, vol. 5 (Paris, 1895), 529–620; Norman Housley, Crusading and the Ottoman Threat, 1453–1505 (Oxford, 2012), 163. 25 For example, Zimmermann referred to Ebendorfer’s “vom Humanismus noch unberührte Gelehrsamkeit,” in Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 3 (Munich, 1986), col. 1511, while Johannes Helmrath referred to his four diet speeches as “unequivocally scholastic orations,” in “The German Reichstage and the Crusade,” in Crusading in the Fifteenth Century: Message and Impact, ed. Norman Housley (Basingstoke, 2004), 53–69, 191– 203, at 62. 26 Some were dictated by patriotism, such as the addition of Otto I to Robert’s list of the rulers whose names Urban II supposedly cited as exemplars for fighting the pagans: HJ, 5. 27 Ibid., 4. 28 Ibid., 74–6. 29 “Usque ad hec, que predixi, Richardus rex Anglie non permansit:” HJ, 121, implying that readers may erroneously think that Richard was still in the Holy Land during the Fifth Crusade! 30 He provided a strikingly detailed account of the fall of Acre in CA, 225–32, placing the blame for the disaster on the military Orders, the Venetians and the Pope. 31 HJ, 73. 32 Ibid., xvi, 73, including apparatus (“Nachtrag am unteren Seitenrand”). On the Historia Zimmermann’s views are preferable to Lhotsky, Thomas Ebendorfer, 107–8. 33 On these diets see now Europa, das Reich und die Osmanen. Die Türkenreichstage von 1454/55 nach dem Fall von Konstantinopel: Johannes Helmrath zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Marika Bacsóka and others (Frankfurt, 2014). 34 Though Piccolomini’s own commentary on their lukewarm response must be treated with care: Housley, Crusading, 160. 35 Norman Housley, “Giovanni da Capistrano and the Crusade of 1456,” in Crusading in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Housley, 94–115, 215–24, at 99, 217–18 nn. 41–2 (600); Housley, Crusading, 114 (700).

Thomas Ebendorfer


36 The exterior pulpit used by Capistrano to preach at St Stephen’s can still be seen, though I am aware of no evidence that he preached the crusade from it. There is some evidence that Ebendorfer might have heard Capistrano preach against vanity: CA, 434 note. 37 CA, 94–6. 38 Ibid., 233–5. For the episode see Sylvia Schein, Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land 1274–1314 (Oxford, 1991), ch. 7. 39 Especially in his treatment of the crusade of the pueri: Gary Dickson, The Children’s Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory (Basingstoke, 2008). 40 Ebendorfer personally heard this from the legate, whom he suspected of partisanship: CA, 426. 41 Chronica regum Romanorum [hereafter CRR], ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS NS 18 (Hanover, 2003), 622–5. 42 CRR, 2.876–84; Norman Housley, “Robur imperii: Mobilizing Imperial Resources for the Crusade against the Turks, 1453–1505,” in Partir en croisade à la fin du Moyen Âge: financement et logistique, ed. Daniel Baloup and Manuel Sánchez Martínez (Toulouse, 2015), 287–306, esp. 292–7. 43 E.g. Chronica pontificum Romanorum [hereafter CPR], ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SS NS16 (Munich, 1994), 344–5, 383–4, 397–8, for the first three crusades. 44 Ibid., 552–3. 45 Ibid., 510–13. 46 Harald Zimmermann, “Romkritik und Reform in Ebendorfers Papstchronik,” in Reformatio Ecclesiae: Beiträge zu kirchlichen Reformbemühungen von der Alten Kirche bis zur Neuzeit, ed. Remigius Bäumer (Paderborn, 1980), 169–80. 47 Lhotsky, Thomas Ebendorfer, 42. 48 Cit. ibid., 27. 49 Ibid., 41. 50 CPR, 514–37, esp. 516 (the legation). 51 Housley, Crusading, ch. 6. 52 Erich Meuthen, “Die deutsche Legationsreise des Nikolaus von Kues, 1451/1452,” in Lebenslehren und Weltenwürfe im Übergang vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit: Politik – Bildung – Naturkunde – Theologie, ed. Harmut Boockmann and others (Göttingen, 1989), 421–99. 53 Erich Meuthen, “Reiche, Kirchen und Kurie im späteren Mittelalter,” Historische Zeitschrift 265 (1997), 597–637. 54 On this see now Dan Ioan Mureşan, “Bessarion’s Orations against the Turks and Crusade Propaganda at the Große Christentag of Regensburg (1471),” in Reconfiguring the Fifteenth-Century Crusade, ed. Norman Housley (Basingstoke, 2017), 207–43. 55 Frederick G. Heymann, George of Bohemia: King of Heretics (Princeton, 1965). 56 E.g. CA, 426.

17 Philip II and Antwerp The limits of representation1 Teofilo F. Ruiz

It seems odd that in book dedicated to Sophia Menache, a renowned scholar of the Middle Ages and of the Church, my contribution focuses on Brabant, a region far away from the balmy shores of Eastern Mediterranean Haifa where Professor Menache has made enduring contributions to scholarship and pedagogy. It seems to be even odder that my modest attempt to honour her has as its chronological boundaries the mid-sixteenth century, almost three hundred years after the temporal setting for her own research. Nonetheless, Antwerp, the main city of the region of Brabant, as well the festivals sponsored there by the Mediterranean Spanish Crown, are directly linked to medieval religious and festive traditions. Moreover, the city’s far-flung trade served as the economic locomotive for the Habsburg economy. Antwerp’s vast commercial network tied the city and the region to the medieval Mediterranean and to the wider world. Notwithstanding these preliminary caveats, I am honoured to submit this modest article to this much-deserved collection, honouring Sophia’s many contributions to the field and to all of us. In a recent book, A King Travels: Festive Traditions in Late Medieval and Early Modern Spain (Princeton, 2012), I focus on Prince Philip’s sojourns throughout Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Low Countries and the festivities that accompanied royal or princely travel.2 As the expected heir to the throne of the Spanish composite monarchy – the Spanish realms, Flanders, and the Spanish territories in the New World and Italy – he made his way through the Habsburg lands that were to be his inheritance (though only partly) after his father, Charles V’s resignation in 1556. A great deal of my research centred on his long voyage through the Crown of Aragon, Italy, Germany, and Flanders in 1548–50, with special attention granted to his princely entry into Brussels and to the elaborate and symbolically-rich chivalrous festival at Binche. At that later location, the young prince, under the observant gaze of his imperial father, re-enacted passages of the chivalry novel Amadis of Gaul (Amadís de Gaula, written before 1508) to his delight and that of his royal relatives. Juan Cristobal Calvete de Estrella’s elaborate eye-witness account of Philip during those two years, published in two volumes as El felicísimo viaje del muy alto y poderoso principe Don Felipe, also contains, after the loving account of the festivities at Binche, a detailed description of Philip’s entry into Antwerp in 1549.3 That description is the longest of all of his other accounts of festivals and entries during Philip’s sojourn through the Spanish territories. It favourably compares in

Philip II and Antwerp 229 length to Calvete de Estrella’s narrative of the festival at Binche, the other central passage of his extensive travel narrative. The account of Philip’s entry into Antwerp takes more than one hundred printed pages in his second volume or almost one quarter of the entire book.4 In fact, Binche and Antwerp take more than half of the printed second volume. In 2012, I chose not to focus on Antwerp because Philip’s “Joyful Entry” there, scripted as it was along a long tradition of medieval Flemish “Joyful Entries” or “Advents,” presented numerous historiographical and methodological difficulties, and interrupted the thrust of my narrative.5 We all know about Antwerp’s later history and its relations with the Spanish monarchy, and, thus, to have examined this entry then would have committed me to exploring the Dutch revolt, an important topic by itself but not pertinent then to the thrust of my book. Nonetheless, since one of the central arguments of my book was to reject a functionalist view of festivals or the proclivity of some scholars to read them as top down exercises, articulating and re-affirming royal power, I am delighted to return to Antwerp and, while exploring the structure of this particular entry point, once again, to the limits – one could almost say – failure of some festive representations.6

Prince Philip in Antwerp During his 1548–50 sojourns, Philip enjoyed some elaborate receptions in the Crown of Aragon, especially at Girona though neglected at Barcelona. He also endured through a full-blown riot in Genoa (Spain’s supposedly faithful ally in Italy), where Spanish soldiers’ heavy-handed behaviour turned the enthusiastic crowd into a raging mob.7 He came into Milan with all the pomp and ceremony that the Spanish imperial administrators could muster for their soon-to-be king. Other princely entries followed in Italy as he made his way to Germany. In Germany, a land already torn by religious strife, there were no entries, just a few dinners and semi-private receptions. German neglect, however, was more than compensated by his elaborate entry into Brussels and other Flemish cities, and the splendid chivalrous interlude, already mentioned above, at Binche. Hard work however lay ahead. After Binche, the young prince, aged 22, under the guidance of his imperial father, moved north to Brabant and to cities that were far more partial to the Protestant Reformation than was the case with urban centres in Flanders in the mid-sixteenth century. Rebellion was in the air, though Calvete de Estrella gives us no hint of the coming storm. Yet, a bit more than a decade after Philip’s entry into Antwerp, the first stirring of the Dutch rebellion led to a conflict that would prove the undoing of the Spanish Monarchy: its armies bogged down in an unwinnable war, a veritable quagmire.8 At the head of the northern Brabant towns was Antwerp. Even though it is today in Belgium, Antwerp was, and remains, part of the Flemish speaking community and, culturally and linguistically, closer to the Netherlands than it is to the French speaking regions to the south. When Philip entered Antwerp, the main city in the region of Brabant, in 1549, he came to one of the leading economic centres in Western Europe. Braudel, in fact, described it as the economic capital of the world.9 After Bruges (another of the cities where Philip received a splendid reception) declined as


Teofilo F. Ruiz

a trading center because of the silting up of the river that gave it access to the North Sea, Antwerp, with its magnificent harbour, came to dominate the commercial life of the region. A trading center for sugar from the emerging Spanish and Portuguese plantation systems in Africa and the New World, Antwerp’s manufacturers also processed raw sugar, one of the most important commodities in early modern Europe, for distribution in Germany and elsewhere throughout northern Europe. A banking centre, a market for spices, especially pepper, the terminus for the influx of American silver, and a formidable textile producer, Antwerp was one of, or probably, the richest city in Western Europe, and a hub for Spanish trade, serving as a link for the movement of capital and commodities from the Americas and Asia. Philip’s entry into Antwerp, because of city’s growing turn toward Protestantism, its proximity to the growing unrest in the Netherlands, and, most of all, because of its wealth and economic significance within the Spanish Empire, carried with it enormous political and symbolic valence. What about Philip’s actual entry into Antwerp?

Philip enters Antwerp For Philip and his father Charles V, the entry into Antwerp represented an important stage in the round of festivities that introduced Philip as the soon to be heir to the Low Countries. It confirmed the Habsburgs’ rights over Flanders, Brabant, and other regions in the area as direct descendants of Philip I “The Fair” of Castile (husband of Joanna of Castile “The Mad”) and Philip’s grandfather. Antwerp was also the economic capital of the region and, as noted already, of the Spanish Empire. The city’s municipal officials or senate sought to project not only Antwerp’s loyalty for its future ruler, but to show, through festive displays and martial events, the Habsburgs’ magnificence and power, as well as the city’s economic and military might. That this “joyful entry” came after the great knightly performances and fictitious warfare at Binche, a respite for Philip and his royal father from the tedious and hard task of “public” festive performances, signaled the political significance of Antwerp and of the heightened expectations that Philip and Charles V had for these elaborate and highly scripted programs of entries and festivities. As was the case in many other early modern entries and princely pageantry, Philip’s ceremonial procession into the city could be seen as the aggregate of a series of intertwined events. They consisted of artificial constructions (mostly ephemeral arches and other temporary buildings), of elaborate spectacles, of the actual procession into the town, the order of those marching in the formal procession which was always hierarchical, of the status of those welcoming the king and escorting him to the civic center of the cities, and of the different martial events: tournament, jousts, and the like, that were a necessary part of every royal or princely entry in this period. For the sake of clarity, it may be useful to examine briefly these different, multi-vocal, yet formal elements of the entry as discreet categories. Let’s begin with the many arches, ephemeral ones that, with the exception of one permanent arch, were built especially for the occasion.

Philip II and Antwerp 231 Ceremonial arches To describe every arch erected (or, in one specific case an already built and permanent one) through which Philip’s entry into Antwerp took place would be a tedious exercise. Building ephemeral commemorative arches along the route of the procession from outside the city into its religious and administrative center was part of a long-established festive tradition. Such elaborate arches were built in large number in the sixteenth century even for less spectacular entries than the one examined here.10 My purpose here is to highlight the iconographic symbolism of the arches and the meaning of the numerous inscriptions that adorned them, seeking to instruct the Prince, as well as the audience. While we know from other entries that municipal and royal authorities cooperated in formulating the messages that were to be conveyed, that is, that is was often a joint effort in which the Crown (or in this case, the soon-to-be count of Flanders) and the leaders of Antwerp worked together to convey specific messages to the people that lined the streets and to each other, we seldom have information as to the humanist or humanists who may have plotted the entry. In that sense, Philip’s entry into Antwerp, laden as it was with political and religious significance, was also distinct from other entries, being one of those rare instances in which we know who had designed the ephemeral triumphal arches and spectacles (with the exception of those built by the Genoese and the Spaniards). Calvete de Estrella, although also an eye witness, tells us that he had faithfully followed the descriptions of the entire festive program from the notes and poetry of Cornelio (Cornelius) Schrijver or Grapheo, secretary of Anvers’ Senate, erudite scholar or antiquarian, and author of some appalling poetry (cited by Calvete de Estrella) that explained the mythical origins of the city and of its original ruler, the giant, Antigono.11 In 1535, almost fifteen years before Philip’s entry, Grapheo had published a little known polemical work, Monstrum anabaptisticum, rei christianae pernicies, which as the title indicates, was a Catholic response to Protestant Anabaptist beliefs. His orthodoxy then was beyond reproof, as the iconographical displays in the arches would show. Conveniently, Calvete de Estrella does not fail to recall Charles V’s entry into the city in 1545, the first to do so through the recently built (1543) ceremonial gate, known, because of Charles V’s initial entry, as the Caesarean Gate. Iconographic details on this ceremonial gate linked Charles V’s previous visit with Philip’s entry in 1549.12 Wild men and women, music, and imperial and municipal standards welcomed the young prince into the city. As Philip proceeded from the ceremonial gate to the palace, he traveled along a street decorated with columns, which according to Calvete de Estrella numbered 2,200 of them. Each column had emblems from Spain’s royal houses, portraits of the royal family, and reiterated the lordship of the emperor (and his heir) over the region. Fortunately, Calvete de Estrella spared his readers and did not describe every single column.13 From outside the city to its centre, Philip passed under one permanent arch, the already mentioned Caesarean Gate, and underneath eleven other artificial arches. These arches served also as stages for spectacles (different somewhat from free standing theatrical representations), tableaux vivants, harquebuses, and small artillery


Teofilo F. Ruiz

discharges. They were erected in rapid succession, one arch following the other in close proximity, ranging from fifty to, one hundred steps at the most. One may imagine how, as the Prince passed under one arch, the other loomed near by. Altogether twelve arches led the Prince into the heart of the city, not counting another ephemeral construction outside the city walls. The Caesarean Gate emphasized Antwerp’s loyalty to the Prince with the city’s motto in abundant display there and throughout the entire entry, proclaiming that the city was “always faithful.” References to the city’s wealth and its commercial importance within the Spanish lands served as an important reminder of Antwerp’s economic significance within Spain and the world’s commercial networks.14 The arch sponsored by the Spanish merchants focused on the historical continuity of the Spanish royal traditions and genealogy, connecting Philip with seven previous kings, ranging from Pelayo, the founder of the kingdom, to Ferdinand the Catholic, Philip’s grandfather. It was from the top of this arch that Spanish soldiers discharged their weapons which, besides the sonorous effect created by the firearms, served as salutary reminders to Antwerp’s citizens of the power of the Spanish Army, an army that was soon to be engaged in the Low Countries against Protestants and rebels in the Netherlands. The Spanish-sponsored arch was quickly followed by other arches. They were built of wood, with elaborate iconographic details, symbolic sculptures, and abundant poetical Latin inscriptions, most of them of questionable art and taste. The Genoese arch followed the Spanish one and a “public arch,” that is, a ceremonial structure sponsored by the city of Antwerp, followed. This arch reminded Philip of the importance of merchants in the city, while the Florentine arch emphasized, in a revealing self-reference, Philip’s connection with Hercules and with the Medici family. Significantly one of the characters represented in the final arch was Michelangelo, a testimony to the artist’s enduring reputation into the mid-sixteenth century. Other arches were also sponsored by the city, including an elaborate construction with an ephemeral palace and chapel, where the prince took an initial oath to protect Catholicism. This particular arch was followed by arches sponsored by the English merchants or the English nation in Antwerp, and by the Germans.15 The chronicler pays close attention to the cost of each arch (the cost of the German arch was the lowest), and to the number of artisans engaged in the design and construction of these ephemeral arches. In some cases, as many as 220 craftsmen were employed in the construction of these arches, though the Germans used only ninety artisans for theirs. The sycophantic symbols and literary and mythological references emphasized Philip’s equanimity, the hopes that his rule would be just, the struggle against the Turk, and the conflating of hopeful expectations of Philip’s rule with the accomplishment of his royal father, Emperor Charles V. It is clear from the inscriptions and the iconographical program of some of the arches that, seven years before Charles’s resignation and the splitting of the territories between his brother Ferdinand and his son Philip, most people, mistakenly, expected Philip to be the sole heir to the empire. Let’s now turn to the iconographic and symbolic representations of the spectacles.

Philip II and Antwerp 233 Spectacles The ceremonial arches were complemented by numerous tableaux vivants spread along the prince’s route into the city. Described by Calvete de Estrella as “spectacles,” these performances reinforced the diverse messages, petitions, and expectations articulated by the iconographical representations, symbols, and inscriptions present in the arches. The “spectacles” were evenly distributed between the arches, one decoration or message complementing the other. Nine of these tableaux vivants filled the spaces between the arches along Philip’s route to Antwerp’s ceremonial center. The themes were a complex combination of religious allusions, mythological, and royal genealogies. God the father or/and mythological gods shared space in these well scripted attempts to convey a plurality of messages to the young prince. Near Antwerp’s Mint house, the city’s moneychangers and bankers organized an elaborate tribute to money that would have made horrid nineteenth century capitalists, evil present day hedge fund managers, and a particular present Republican president quite proud. Calvete de Estrella commented that this particular “spectacle” was the favorite of the common people. Besides including some allegorical theatrical representation of God the Father, with a young man kneeling in front of him and receiving gold and silver coins from the deity in reward for his devotion, or a tableau of Philip being crowned by God, or another one of Philip’s shield with the motto of “neither from hope or fear,” it is clear that a promised distribution of coins among the populace was one of the most important reasons for the people’s partiality for this particular display.16

Multivocality, intent, the meaning of decorations Before we examine the entry itself, it may be useful to reflect and try to explicate the confusion of symbols, messages, pleas, and reminders that were present in the well-scripted arches and spectacles upon which the young prince was to gaze. Since Calvete de Estrella followed Grapheo’s descriptions (both as an eyewitness and as the one providing the humanistic references for these activities), one is fairly sure that what was described was also built (something that was not often the case, since many descriptions of arches in early modern festivals did not reflect the actual structures). What we encounter in Philip’s “Joyous Entry” into Antwerp are the often-contradictory messages from a diversity of protagonists. They all sought to impress Philip, their soon-to-be ruler. They sought to gain his support or, at least, his benevolence. Each of the mercantile groups or, as they were known nations, doing business in Antwerp sought to call attention to themselves by adulatory arches and spectacles. Germans, Florentines, Spaniards, Antwerp merchants, and others aimed at reminding Philip, through their competitive artificial constructions and representations, of their role in Antwerp’s commerce and in the commercial life of the Spanish Monarchy and Empire. Mixing religion, mythology, genealogy, and their own history (in the obvious case of the city’s municipal council and its ruling elites), these numerous actors made claims that were not always in accord with each other or with the economic and political reality of the city.


Teofilo F. Ruiz

Most festivals were defined by their multiplicity of voices and intents. Each group attempted to impress the prince with specific messages, conveyed in mottos written in Latin, and sponsored mostly for the attention of Philip’s advisers (people like Calvete de Estrella himself), since the prince, as we know, could not read Latin very well or at all. Neither could most of the people in attendance, so it begs the question, for whom were these messages and inscriptions intended? Each group was in competition with the others for princely favor, but their messages, at least the written ones as opposed to the sculptural program, belonged to the rarified world of local erudites and antiquarians. What is significant in the narrative or narratives articulated in the arches and spectacles, a narrative that the prince was surely to read about later on or to have someone in his entourage review, was the special attention given to the amount spent in these ephemeral monuments and to the number of craftsmen employed in the construction of the arches. There is an obvious competitive quality to the manner in which Calvete de Estrella emphasizes the differences between one sponsor and the other. It was not only about the representations and symbolic allusions; it was also about cost and the willingness of one group to really put out in honor of the entering prince. After all, Antwerp or access to Antwerp’s business was a big deal and brought abundant profits. Most significant in these complex cycles of festivities and artificial arches is the role of Antwerp’s authorities in engaging in a dual set of messages. One was the city’s loyalty and devotion to their soon-to-be master. After all, the loyalty of the city and of its numerous Protestant mercantile community and civic leaders ran counter to the blatant display of Philip’s oath to protect the Church, taken at the wood chapel built right towards the middle of his transit from outside the walls of the city to its civic heart. At the same time, Antwerp wished to remind Philip of the city’s wealth and commercial importance. And, as shall be seen, that the city was capable of putting a formidable armed contingent on the field in case of need. The city was willing to declare its loyalty and devotion, but also insisted on a ruler who would be benevolent. In many respects, the multivocality of Philip’s entry into Antwerp was part and parcel of the manner in which entries became complex sites of contestation. Diverse agendas overlapped each other; conflicting voices and messages were uttered. They never functioned entirely from the top down, but these performances (which is what entries were all about, after all) were sites of contestation where diverse claims and counter-claims were played out. Calvete de Estrella may have entitled his account, El felicísimo viaje, but we know that it was not, in truth, such a happy event.

The entry Philip’s actual entry into the city followed patterns long established for royal and princely entries from the Middle Ages into the early modern period. In the case of the Flemish and Brabant cities that he visited during his 1549–50 sojourns, the entries sought to imitate advents, or Joyful Entries, by the counts of Flanders, dating to the central Middle Ages. As was already a well-established tradition in medieval and early modern entries, Philip was met outside Antwerp’s walls. In

Philip II and Antwerp 235 a formal and well-organized procession Philip was led into the city, following a route that had been established as the traditional manner of princely progress from outside the city to its religious and institutional center. Entries depended on reiteration. Although some entries introduced new elements, or may even, as was the case for Philip’s (now as king) entry into Seville in 1570, alter the route to be followed from outside the city to the cathedral, in Flanders and Brabant, with their long history of advents and Joyful Entries by their ruling counts, following established patterns was important.17 In the case of Philip’s entry into Antwerp in 1549, what was significant was the order of the procession, who participated in the ceremonial march, and, far more important, how they participated or in what order or how close they walked in front or behind the prince. Philip, riding on horseback, was met outside the city walls, in this particular case one-mile away from Antwerp’s main gate. An escort of four thousand infantrymen, colorfully dressed accompanied him along the route into the city. As Antwerp’s municipal officials emphasized and Calvete de Estrella recorded, the entire contingent was manned by Antwerp citizens and represented a formidable military contingent. And they were armed to the teeth. This could be most certainly seen as a subtle reminder to Philip that while Antwerp could be an important military ally in Flanders and Brabant, they could also be capable, if pressed to do so, of resisting the heavy boot of Spanish troops. After Antwerp’s militia, the members of Antwerp’s senate marched proudly arranged in hierarchical order by rank and position. Antwerp’s clergy followed, also arranged in hierarchical order. Significantly, Philip’s “caballerizo mayor” or master equerry, holding high in his hand the sword of justice in front of the prince, as had been the case in Girona a year earlier, preceded Philip. The Duke of Alba Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, whose reputation for cruelty in the Low Countries later on would become one of the main narrative strands of resistance, followed the prince. He was soon to assume his role as viceroy of the Low Countries in a futile attempt to restore peace. The bishop of Arras also occupied a place of honor in the prince’s entourage. It is important to note that in this particular entry, as well as in other entries in Flanders and Brabant, Philip did not enter the city under a baldachin or palio, as was the custom in Iberian and other European royal and princely entries. As an established element in these types of festive and ceremonial occasions, the prince received the keys to the city.18 Now was the turn of Antwerp’s bourgeoisie and crafts, marching according to their peculiar occupations and rank within each of the guilds. But Antwerp was different because of its commercial importance. Unlike entries elsewhere, foreign merchants were an intrinsic component of the ceremonial events. In succession and in clearly differentiated ranks, the merchants of Lucca, Milan, England, Spain (Castile), Germans in two distinct groups – from the Hansa and from the region of Nuremberg respectively – accompanied the Prince into the city. Next came the Portuguese, Genoese, and Florentine merchants (with large group of richly dressed children on horseback between the last two groups of merchants). The presence of these foreign merchants and the emphasis on their diverse origins and mercantile affiliations was quite unprecedented in Iberian entries. It spoke of the unique


Teofilo F. Ruiz

importance of Antwerp’s commercial activities and role in international trade. Artillery discharges accompanied the princely procession and distribution of coins to the people in attendance sought to secure their enthusiasm. The next day, Philip took a formal oath, confirming Antwerp’s rights and his relation with the city. Three impressive jousts followed, attended by Philip, his imperial father, queens, and the great nobility. One joust was on foot, a martial exercise in which the Spanish nobles excelled. Another reenacted fictional battles, while the third was a royal joust, limited to members of the high nobility. As a counterpart, the prince and his relatives attended Masses, an adroit combination of military displays, popular support, and religious fervor. Remember his swearing his support and willingness to defend the Church against the rising tide of Protestantism.

Denouement Not everything was, however as it seemed, and this points to the difficulties of reading these accounts at face value. Reading between the lines we learn of all the things that did not work, as Calvete de Estrella would like us to believe. We learn that the Portuguese merchants did not show up after all, probably throwing into confusion the entire ceremonial script. Even though the Portuguese came to Philip as a group to apologize for their absence the following day, we do not know what was the prince’s response. He would not, one suspects, have been pleased. The day would come, almost thirty-one years later, when he would succeed to Portuguese throne and, as we know, he was not necessarily responsive to Portuguese interest after 1580. And worse yet, although Calvete de Estrella fails to provide too much detail about this, we know from his narrative that it rained. Brabant and Flanders rained on Philip’s parade. And the rain was really a storm. The prince, his royal father and relatives were, in Calvete de Estrella’s pithy words, soaked to the bone.19 This would have been, in spite of all the money distributed, the finery of the participants, the decorations along the ceremonial route, the artillery discharges, and so forth, a real disappointment. It would have thrown, figuratively and in reality, a tangible cloud on the performances and the representation of power. The symbolic meaning of the entry was lost as the participants and the viewers tried to protect themselves from the driving rain and wind. Everything was wet, and unlike events today that could be cancelled or rescheduled, both the citizens of Antwerp and Philip chose to go ahead with the entry and tried to save as much of it as they could manage. Here, the limits of representation and of narratives of power are clearly seen. This was to be, after all, the signal entry in the Low Countries. Antwerp had planned and scripted, in consort and with the approval of Philip, a “Joyous Entry” that would reassert Antwerp’s importance as the commercial capital (together with Seville) of the Spanish Empire. The entry represented an attempt, in the face of growing Protestant unrest especially in the northern provinces, to unify a city sharply divided by sectarian passions. The city pleaded for a benign rule; Philip sought for obedience and support in Spain’s growing struggle in Germany, Central Europe, and the Low Countries. There were however even more reasons why these representations of power would fall partly on deaf ears. Unlike his father, Charles V who was born in Ghent

Philip II and Antwerp 237 and spoke Flemish as his native language, Philip, who had a serious lack of linguistic skills, did not speak a word of Flemish or even much French. His Latin was very limited at best. How did they communicate? Most probably, Antwerp’s officials spoke Castilian, something of the lingua franca of the sixteenth century, but Philip must have been oblivious to the nuances that ceremonial arches, Latin inscriptions and the like sought to project. Philip was, after all, a Castilian prince, a foreigner. If the Castilians reacted so vehemently to Charles V’s foreign advisers and initial inability to speak Spanish, so did the people in Flanders and Brabant to Philip’s shortcomings and cultural predilections (though it must be said that Philip loved Flemish art and that Flanders and Burgundy remained throughout his life his true point of reference for ceremonies and chivalrous behavior). More adversity would follow. Over the next decades after Philip’s ascent to the throne in 1556, a series of viceroys sought to maintain order in the region. Their success was either limited or ended in failure. Ten years after Philip II began to rule the sprawling Spanish monarchy, the region rose up in arms against the Spanish Catholic rule. The Viceroy, the diplomatic Marguerite of Parma, was soon replaced, in 1567, by the capable military leader: the famous or infamous Duke of Alba. In spite of Alba’s brilliant military abilities and his early success, an armed conflict began that would grind the Spanish power into dust over the next eight decades. Trade declined and the more than five hundred-years commercial links between the Bay of Biscay Spanish commercial centres and Antwerp were badly damaged. On 4 November 1576, Spanish soldiers in Flanders, at the very end of their rope because of their salary was long in arrears and incensed by the stiff resistance and opposition of Antwerp’s Protestants, sacked the city in what has become known as the “Spanish Fury,” an unfortunate term used by the Spanish national football team to describe itself, but also an important part of Flemish memorialization of their resistance to Spain and of Spanish cruelty and savagery, part and parcel of the Black Legend. The city was crushed; many of its citizens were killed. Shortly afterwards, Protestant merchants and others relocated their businesses to Amsterdam. The future was with them. Spain would eventually wane, and Philip’s so-called “Joyful Entry” into Antwerp became nothing but a bitter memory and a clear symbol of the limits and failures of representation.20

Notes 1 A shorter version of this article appeared as a section of chapter 11 in a new edition of Teofilo F. Ruiz, Spanish Society, 1348–1700 (New York and London, 2017). 2 For Philip, heir to the throne of the diverse Spanish realms and, far more significantly, to Flanders see Geoffrey’s old and his two extensive and magisterial new studies of Philip II: Felipe II. La biografía definitiva (Madrid, 2010), and his Imprudent King: A New Life of Philip II (New Haven, 2014); John H. Elliott, Imperial Spain, 1469–1716 (New York, 1964), 271–95; Lucette Valensi, Fables de la mémoire: la glorieuse bataille des trois rois (Paris, 1992); see also Teofilo F. Ruiz, A King Travels: Festive Traditions in Late Medieval and Early Modern Spain (Princeton, NJ, 2012), 130–2, 146–92. 3 For the description of Philip’s entry into Brussels and the courtly festival at Binche see Juan Cristóbal Calvete de Estrella, El felicísimo viaje del muy alto y muy poderoso príncipe don Felipe, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1930), 1: 206–10; 2: 1–69 and following. The entire


4 5


7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


Teofilo F. Ruiz

description of the entry into Antwerp is found in vol. II, 108–217 (more than one hundred pages in the modern edition). Although I describe Philip’s entry into Brussels and the great courtly spectacle at Binche, I do not discussed the entry into Antwerp in my A King’s Travels because of the topic of the Dutch Revolt, so closely associated with Antwerp, was not pertinent to the topic of my book. See also Ruiz, A King Travels, above. See Calvete de Estrella, El felicísimo viaje, 2: 108–217. On advents and joyous entries in the Low Countries see Gerard Nijsten, “The Duke and His Towns: The Power of Ceremonies, Feasts, and Public Amusement in the Duchy of Guelders [East Netherlands] in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” in City and Spectacle in Medieval Europe, ed. Barbara A. Hanawalt and Kathryn L. Reyerson (Minneapolis, 1994), 236–70; David Nicholas, “In the Pit of the Burgundian Theater State: Urban Traditions and Princely Ambitions in Ghent, 1360–1420,” in City and Spectacle in Medieval Europe, 271–95 and bibliographies therein. Roy Strong’s excellent and engaging book describes festive events, with emphasis on the Burgundian lands. He tends however to reify the top down nature of festivals as indicated by his title: Roy Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals, 1450–1650 (Woodbridge, 1984). For festive events in the region see also Jean Jacquot, ed., Les fêtes de la Renaissance, 3 vols. (Paris, 1984); Larry Bryant, “The Medieval Entry Ceremony at Paris,” in Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual, ed. János M. Bak (Berkeley, 1990), 88–118. Calvete de Estrella, El felicísimo viaje, 1: 44–47; Ruiz, A King Travels, 130. On Antwerp, rebellion and unrest in the Los Countries see Jeroen Puttevils, Merchants and Trading in the Sixteenth Century: The Golden Age of Antwerp (Basingstoke, 2015); Michael Limberger, Sixteenth-Century Antwerp and Its Rural Surroundings: Social and Economic Changes in the Hinterland of a Commercial Metropolis (ca. 1450-ca. 1570) (Turnhout, 2008). For Antwerp’s role in the sixteenth-century global economy see Fernand Braudel, The Perspectives of the World, Vol. III of His Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, trans. Siân Reynolds (Berkeley, 1992), 138, 143–57. For the building of ceremonial ephemeral arches in the festive cycles of the Castilian/ Habsburg monarchy in Ruiz, A King Travels, 142–43 et al. Calvete de Estrella, El felicísimo viaje, 2: 111–12. Ibid., 115–17. Ibid., 117–29. Ibid., 183–6. Ibid., 123–32. Ibid., 154–70 et al. Ruiz, A King Travels, 76–99. Ruiz, A King Travels, 120–1, 129. For the structure of princely and royal entries see chapter 4. Calvete de Estrella, El felicísimo viaje, 2: 207: “. . . because as the Prince entered, was such an amount of rain that [the displays] had no effect, and the rain lasted until he [Philip] entered the palace, so the merchants’ vestments could not be enjoyed, and [one] could not enjoy the artificial arches and the spectacles. The Prince and all his court arrived in such manner that neither their coats nor clothing could prevent them from arriving [all wet], and similarly the Emperor, Queens, and ladies and all those in the royal court. (My translation). On the Dutch revolt and Antwerp see above and Geoffrey Parker, The Dutch Revolt (Ithaca, NY, 1977), and his Spain and the Netherlands, 1559–1659: Ten Studies (London, 1979).

18 The contested seed of Abraham1 Anna Sapir Abulafia

Sophia Menache’s wide-ranging work on the formation of medieval national identities, crusades and communications has stimulated many medieval historians to study the role which stereotypes and collective memories played in evolving relations between Christians and Jews. I became fascinated by the anomaly of the existence of self-possessed Jewish communities in the overwhelmingly Christian landscape of medieval Western Europe soon after I was introduced to medieval history. With hindsight, I can say that what shaped my whole research career was my encounter with the Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade in an undergraduate class at the University of Amsterdam in 1972–3. The chronicles contain passionate accounts of the bloody attacks by crusaders on the recently established Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms, Mainz, Cologne and Regensburg, the great episcopal cities along the Rhine and Danube.2 What caught my attention was the way Christianity was referred to in these texts which were composed within fifty years of the massacres in the spring and early summer of 1096. The Hebrew phrases which were utilised demonstrated a remarkable knowledge of Christian doctrines and customs; at the same time, they comprised a fulsome denunciation of everything held holy in Christianity. To give just a few mild examples, baptism was referred to as stench, churches as houses of idolatry and Jesus as a trampled corpse.3 What fired my imagination was the dichotomy between Christian crusading rhetoric of serving God by becoming knights of Christ, and Jewish experiences of the Crusade. This sparked my life-long interest in scrutinising Christian attitudes towards Jews in conjunction with the theological, intellectual and cultural transformations of the late eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Equally intriguing for me was to uncover the mechanisms used by medieval Jews to define and assert their selfidentities in increasingly challenging circumstances. The controversial nature of the title of my Chair as Professor of the Study of the Abrahamic Religions was brought home to me in no uncertain terms at an international conference on interreligious studies at the end of 2015 in Tel Aviv. The conference was organised to explore how ‘revelational and theological entanglement’ of the Abrahamic religions had led to dialogical encounters between the three religions as well as fruitful interactions between Jews, Christians and Muslims in late Antiquity and beyond.4 By the end of the proceedings, however, some delegates had come to the conclusion that the terms ‘religion’ and ‘Abrahamic Religions’

240 Anna Sapir Abulafia were not, in fact, fit for purpose. That was hardly what the conference organiser had had in mind; and as far as I was concerned, it left me without a title and the Faculty I had just joined without half of its name. A major argument put forward against the term ‘religion’ was that it was premised on an awareness of a sovereign secular sphere which was pretty much lacking before the end of the seventeenth century.5 For me this is simply not a persuasive reason to excise the word ‘religion’ from our academic vocabulary. That medieval religions were inextricably locked into contemporary political configurations and medieval politics of any kind and at every level were impregnated with religious associations has been a given for a long time. Take, for example, the royal crown of the German kings, which is now housed in the treasury of the Hofburg in Vienna. The crown probably dates from the early eleventh century. The heavily jewelled crown is constructed out of eight plates of which four depict biblical figures with accompanying texts. Kings David, Solomon and Hezekiah each have a plate to themselves, continuing the Carolingian tradition of kings seeking inspiration from the kings of biblical Israel. King David holds a scroll declaiming that the honour of the king loves justice (Psalm 99:4). The fourth plate has Christ in majesty flanked by two double-winged angels. The epitaph is taken from Proverbs 8:15: ‘by me kings reign’; the setting of God enthroned and surrounded by double-winged angels singing his praises recalls the vision of Isaiah (6:3) in which the Seraphim sing God’s glory: ‘Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of Hosts’.6 This is the ‘Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth’ which features in the liturgy of the Mass to call the congregation to join the angelic choir in praise of the Trinity. It is the ‘Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh, Adonai Tsevaot’ which comprises one of the most solemn moments in synagogal liturgy. This was the crown of the dynasty of King Henry IV, the bitter rival of Pope Gregory VII over the issue of the right of kings to make episcopal appointments in the 1070s and 1080s. Of course, this was not a battle between religion and state, or as the older literature termed it Church and State. Kings such as Henry did not aspire to abrogate to themselves the sacramental duties of priests; popes such as Gregory VII were not out to do away with kingship. Henry saw himself as a Christian king with sacred, God-given duties to maintain justice in his kingdom. Gregory saw himself as Vicar of St. Peter with the holy duty of restoring justice to Christendom. For him ecclesia, Church, was the same as societas, society. As such, he was convinced that kings should look to him for the necessary guidance to rule as God wished them to. But kings like Henry were convinced that the sacrality of their position gave them the wherewithal to do this without priestly interference.7 But none of this is a good reason to lose the term ‘religion’, or for that matter, ‘Church’. The value of these multivalent terms is that they make us think carefully what they mean in any particular time and place.8 Indeed, reading the German crown and analysing the conflict between Henry IV and Gregory VII through an Abrahamic lens helps us to understand just how entangled kingship and priesthood, or regnum and sacerdotium were. For if ecclesia and societas were deemed to be the same, where were the Jews, who according to Christian theology had a place in Christian society? Where were the Muslims, of whom both Henry and Gregory were well aware? An Abrahamic approach

The contested seed of Abraham 241 broadens our horizons and counteracts tendencies to simplify the European past by approaching it from a Christocentric perspective. The Abrahamic lens is also helpful in sharpening our insights into just how heterogeneous a religion such as medieval Christianity was. Henry IV gave the Jews of Speyer and Worms extraordinarily generous privileges in 1090; many of these privileges went against longstanding canons of the Church, as for example giving Jews permission to employ Christians as long as they did not work on Sundays or feast days. In 1084, the bishop of Speyer had allowed the Jews he brought to his city to employ Christian nurse maids and sell the parts of slaughtered animals which were not permitted in Jewish law to Christians, both serious no-no’s in canon law.9 Official Church teaching is one thing, what different sections of the institutional Church do is quite another; how individual Christians act and what they believe is yet another. Religiosity of individuals is much harder to uncover than the theological teachings of any religion. When I use the word religion in my research I sift through all these different components which could be covered by modern usage of the term to try and find the vocabulary which reflects what I am referring to as accurately as possible. To my mind the process of working out to what extent the term ’religion’ covers what one is analysing does not only make us better researchers, it heightens our awareness and deepens our understanding of patterns of thought which militate against the champions of secularism in present day western culture. Adopting an Abrahamic perspective is equally important for the writing of Jewish history because it brings to the fore the importance of studying developments in Jewish life and culture in conjunction with the societies in which Jews lived – Islam for the Jews of Al-Andalus, Christian for the Jews of southern France, northern France (Zarfat), Germany (Ashkenaz) and England. Analysing Jewries within the full contexts of their Christian or Muslim surroundings makes us ever aware of the fact that Jewish life in Western Europe was highly diversified. Just as Islam and Christianity were never single homogenous entities, there was never one western Jewish experience. Nor is it sufficient to distinguish between Sepharad, the Jewries of the western Mediterranean, and the Jewish communities of the rest of Europe commonly subsumed under the term Ashkenaz. The position of Jews in medieval Germany was in some ways closer to that of Sepharad than to Zarfat or England. For medieval German Jews had greater opportunities to diversify their economic activities than Jews in northern France or England. And over the course of the fourteenth century, Jews in a number of German cities could hold a kind of citizenship. This shows intriguing similarities with the situation in the Latin Mediterranean where Jews were granted citizenship in 1267 in Marseilles and Arles in 1385.10 All of this demonstrates that analysing the Jewish past through an Abrahamic lens does not have to lead to interpreting Jewish life and thought solely as a reaction or response to Christian or Muslim measures. On the contrary, it encourages the recognition of Jewish agency in the search for evidence of interactions not just between Christianity and Judaism in terms of abstract belief systems but also in terms of the people who identified with them. It encourages researchers to look for real people in the past rather than victims, heroes or villains. Jews were not just acted upon by a villainous Church in the medieval West. As we have already seen, there was

242 Anna Sapir Abulafia never one consistent Church policy universally acted upon by Christians vis-à-vis Jews. The actions of the unofficial crusading armies against the Jews in Rhineland in 1096 went against basic Christian teaching which safeguarded a place for Jews in Christian society. Exactly how that place was defined and precisely what role Jews were meant to play in Christian society were only two of the many elements which went into formulating complex, ambiguous and paradoxical theological theories which chopped and changed through the centuries. Medieval anti-Judaism took many forms and was fuelled by many different factors, many of which had more to do with shifting power structures than the niceties of theology. One instance of antiJudaism could differ greatly from another. This is one of the many reasons why the term anti-Semitism is best avoided for the Middle Ages. That term is now forever linked to the horrors of the Holocaust, and using it for the medieval past implies that medieval anti-Judaism inevitably and inexorably led to the Final Solution. Not only is this bad history; it is remarkably unhelpful for relations between Jews and Christians in the present.11 I have talked about the usefulness of adopting an Abrahamic perspective in analysing the medieval past. The time has come to look carefully at the signification of the term ‘Abrahamic’ and ‘Abrahamic religions’. For ‘Abrahamic’ is not just used as a convenient way to group together Judaism, Christianity and Islam;12 ‘Abrahamic’ implies the existence of a collective identity between the three religions and suggests that the binding factor between all three is a familial one which harks back to Abraham as the head of the Abrahamic family. The questions we need to ask ourselves are these: 1 2


How appropriate is it to describe the relationship between Judaism, Christianity and Islam in terms of the Abrahamic family? If it is appropriate to do so, or to put it more sharply, if it appears appropriate to do so from an external observation point to these three religions, does this reflect how Jews, Christians and Muslims saw themselves and each other in the past and see themselves and each other in the present? What purpose is sought in using the term ‘Abrahamic Religions’ and is that purpose well served by using the term?

Let us start by looking at Judaism and Christianity, focussing on the first two questions. Recent scholarship has utilised the frequent references to Jacob and Esau in Jewish and Christian late antique and medieval writings in order to argue that it is better to conceive of Christian-Jewish relations in terms of fraternal rivalry between the grandsons of Abraham than to regard it in terms of a generational struggle between a mother and a daughter.13 Israel Yuval of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has been particularly vocal on this point, giving his book on the perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages the title: Two Nations in your Womb.14 The womb in question is, of course, Rebecca’s, Abraham’s daughter-in-law. In Genesis 25 we read how Jacob and Esau were already fighting each other while

The contested seed of Abraham 243 they were still in their mother’s womb. When Rebecca asked God why she was suffering so much pain during her pregnancy she was told that she was carrying two nations in her womb and that ‘the older shall serve the younger’.15 At the time of the twins’ birth, Jacob grabbed Esau’s heel in attempt to push past him. Jacob grew up to be a quiet man who preferred to stay at home. Esau became an expert hunter. At a testing moment Esau sold his birth right to Jacob for a mess of potage. When the time came for Isaac to bestow the blessing of the first born, he asked Esau to catch his favourite game and to bring him the food he liked so much before receiving the blessing that was his due. Rebecca prevented this happening by getting Jacob to pretend to be Esau and bring his father the food she had prepared. In his near-blind state Isaac was deceived and he blessed Jacob, saying: ‘Be master over your brothers, And let your mother’s sons bow to you’. The blessing Isaac ended up giving to Esau, who was devastated that Jacob had managed to get the blessing which had been meant for him, ended with the words: ‘And you shall serve your brother; But when you grow restive, You shall break his yoke from your neck’ (Gen. 27:40). Jacob was then sent away to escape his brother’s wroth. The illustration of the Jacob and Esau narrative in the Bible Moralisée, Codex 2554 of the National Library of Vienna (c. 1220s), is a wonderful window through which to perceive how medieval Christians might have understood this narrative. This Bible Moraliseé is in French and was produced in Paris; it is the oldest surviving moralised Bible and it seems to have been connected to the French royal court in some way as was the Latin moralised Bible, Vienna, Codex 1179, to which it was closely related. In the way of all moralised Bibles, Codex 2554 narrated the Bible through sets of roundels. In each set one roundel told the story, the other what the story was meant to mean. Short passages were added in the margin next to each roundel to comment on each miniature. One of the many sources of these passages would have been the Glossa ordinaria, the Ordinary gloss, the grand twelfth-century northern French project of providing the Bible with marginal and interlineal commentaries. Most of the commentaries in the Ordinary gloss went back to Patristic scriptural commentaries which had been brought together in collections by Carolingian scholars. The Ordinary gloss became a basic study tool for the study of the Bible.16 The vernacular moralised Bible devoted four sets of roundels to the Jacob and Esau drama. In the first set we see Rebecca giving birth to a good twin and a bad one, coupled with an image of mother Church birthing two types of people: good Christians portrayed by a group of pious Christians emerging from her lap, and wicked ones (mescreans). No mention is made of Jews in the marginal comment but one of the wicked men sports a chin beard and wears a soft cap-like hat.17 In his right hand is a money pouch. We shall return to him shortly. The following set of roundels first shows how Jacob grew up to be a sweet child clinging to his mother’s skirts. Esau leaves his mother’s house to shoot game with his bow and arrow. This is matched by an image of pious Christians basking in the enveloping embrace of mother Church in sharp contrast to the ‘usurers and miscreants and wicked people’ who leave mother Church behind. Again, no mention is made of Jews, but the usurer has a chin beard and has a cap-like hat and holds a bowl of

244 Anna Sapir Abulafia

Figure 18.1 illustration of the Jacob and Esau narrative in the Bible Moralisée, Codex 2554 fol. 6r of the National Library of Vienna (c. 1220s) Copyright: “ÖNB Vienna: Cod. 2554, fol. 6r”. Reproduced with permission.

coins in his left hand. In his right hand, he wields a sword with which he threatens mother Church. The other two characters are a chin bearded man and a woman embracing each other. The man’s face is turned away from mother Church, but he is holding a dagger pointed at her. In the third set of roundels we see Jacob

The contested seed of Abraham 245 returning to his mother after having been blessed by Isaac. This is accompanied by a roundel showing Christ blessing his disciples on the Mount of Olives. Some of the disciples are tonsured and some have chin beards as well. The final set of roundels first shows us a shocked Esau bearing a slaughtered deer on his shoulder, coming too late to receive his blessing. This is accompanied by a roundel showing Christ enthroned sending away three men coming to be blessed. The marginal text explains that these men are ‘the Jews and the miscreants, who will come on Judgement Day before Jesus Christ for His blessing, and he will say to them: You are too late, the Christians have taken it’.18 All three men have chin beards, as does Christ. Two of the three men are wearing pointed hats and are offering money bowls to Christ. They are undoubtedly meant to portray Jews. The third man’s hat is of a softer material and more cap-like and is holding the same kind of money pouch as in the first set of roundels.19 The vernacular moralised Bible turned the Jacob and Esau story into an internal Christian story about good and bad Christians. Jews functioned in this moral reading of the struggle between Jacob and Esau as archetypes for wicked Christians. That is why I think the ‘miscreants’, ‘usurers’, and ‘Jews’ were interchangeably portrayed with different kinds of soft, cap-like hats and with money bowls or pouches. I think that in the first two sets of roundels the hatted wicked man/usurer is meant to make one think of Jews even though no mention is made of them and even though his hat is not the stereotypical Jewish one.20 To be sure, there are bad characters in these roundels who are bare-headed, but not one of the good people wears a hat, if one excludes what looks like a skullcap on the head of Isaac in the first of the final pair of roundels. Beards, on the other hand, do not seem to be indicative of who is Jewish or who is considered to act ‘Jewishly’.21 Good and bad people sport them, including Christ himself. But the combination of a beard and a hat in these roundels does seem to indicate a wicked person. The identification of usury with being Jewish was, in fact, a hallmark of the efforts of Peter the Chanter of Paris (d. 1197) and his students to convince lay rulers to eradicate money lending from their lands.22 The Ordinary gloss on Genesis contained many allusions to the inner division in the Church between those who were good and those who were bad. At the same time the Genesis gloss identified Jacob with Christians and the Church. Evil Esau symbolised the Jews or Synagogue. The blessing of Jacob meant that the Church had overcome Synagogue and that Jews now served Christians. Esau’s distress at being outsmarted by Jacob was read as Jewish grief on losing their place to Christians. Esau’s hatred of Jacob was interpreted as Jewish enmity of Christ and his followers until their eventual conversion to Christianity at which point they would give up the law, the law that had been superseded by Christianity.23 Jews interpreted the story of the struggle between Jacob and Esau narrative completely differently. The depiction of Rebecca giving birth in the so-called Sarajevo Haggadah, created in Aragon in the 1330s, is remarkably similar to the one in the Moralised Bible.24 The recent work by Katrin Kogman-Appel and Marc Michael Epstein has encouraged us to envisage Jewish artists and Christian miniaturists as drawing inspiration from commonly known models. But the message of the Sarajevo miniature is the opposite of the Christian one. In contrast to his

Figure 18.2 ‘The Sarajevo Haggadah, 14th century: the Synagogue. National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, fol. 9v Reproduced with the permission of the National Museum of B&H.

The contested seed of Abraham 247 hunting brother, Jacob is pictured as a learned Jew studying Jewish law. According to Kogman-Appel this way of picturing Jacob is peculiar to the Sarajevo Haggadah; she connects it to the way sages were depicted in Sephardi Haggadoth.25 Be that as it may, the depiction of Jacob championing the inviolability of Torah echoes the way medieval Jews would have engaged with the narrative about Jacob and Esau through the medium of Rashi, the biblical study tool par excellence in Jewish communities from the turn of the twelfth century. For Rashi, who worked in Troyes and died in 1105, it was clear that Jacob was good and Esau was evil. The difference between Rashi’s reading and the Genesis gloss is that good Jacob represented the Jews and wicked Esau Christians. Rashi had, of course, to deal with the fact that in his reading of the biblical narrative it was Esau, not Jacob, who was in the ascendancy. This led him to conclude that the words ‘But when you grow restive, You shall break his yoke from your neck’ in Esau’s blessing meant: ‘when the Israelites will transgress the Torah and you will have reason to grieve over the blessings which he [Jacob] took [then] “you will throw off his yoke”.’26 According to Rashi, then, the fate of Israel was dependent on their faithful observance of the Law, the very law which the Ordinary gloss demanded Jews abandon for the sake of Christ. In Rashi’s reading, Jews had to strive to emulate Jacob in his devotion to the Law for Esau’s ascendency to come to an end.27 There is no doubt that expressing the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in terms of the rivalry between Abraham’s grandsons accurately reflects that both Christians and Jews saw themselves as Jacob and the other as Esau. It also projects well the role of service which late Antique and medieval Christianity assigned to Jews. Jews were considered useful, among other reasons, because they preserved the books of the Old Testament whence Christianity drew the prophecies to prove the veracity of its teachings.28 Sibling rivalry also helpfully takes on board the conclusions of recent research which prefers to discuss early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism in terms of their common heritage in biblical Judaism, which came to an end with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.29 Having said that, we need to reflect in what measure medieval Christians and Jews would have recognised themselves in this imagery. Or to put it differently, did medieval Jews and Christians really think of each other as brothers? Does modern usage of fraternal rivalry adequately portray the overriding conviction of medieval Christianity that it had superseded Judaism? Remember, the Moralised Bible read the Jacob and Esau narrative as a Christian story. While Rashi used the narrative to celebrate Jacob’s adherence to the Law, the Genesis Gloss used the story of Jacob and Esau to confirm Christian claims to the inheritance of Abraham. This tallied with the Ordinary Gloss’s reading of Paul’s references to Abraham and the twins, Jacob and Esau, in his Epistle to the Romans. Today’s scholars diverge widely over their interpretation of what the historical Paul meant to convey to the Jews of his day and the followers of Jesus.30 Whatever the real Paul had had in mind, his commentators in the Gloss understood him as denouncing Jewish law and taking the view that Judaism had been superseded by Christianity.31 As the Genesis Gloss put it: ‘[Jews] will serve Christians (their younger brother) until through knowledge of faith and by the grace of Christ they throw off the burdensome yoke of the Law. Then they will no longer serve their younger brother; they will become brothers in faith’.32

248 Anna Sapir Abulafia Whether or not the image of rivalry between Jacob and Esau covers all aspects of the way rabbinic Judaism and Christianity developed side by side from the beginnings of the Common Era as well as the ways late Antique and medieval Jews and Christians saw themselves and each other, it is clear that it is not only appropriate but also fruitful to utilise Abrahamic familial language to explore Jewish-Christian relations. But it is equally clear that the exploration of JewishChristian relations in terms of Abrahamic familial ties is anything but an irenic exercise. For each religion has its own tradition of interpretation of where it fits into the Patriarchal family which side-lined or excluded the other. This should hardly surprise us. After all the Abrahamic family was remarkably dysfunctional with its instances of spousal and parental favouritism and murderous hatred between brothers or half-brothers. But why then is the term Abrahamic Religions so popular in today’s discourse on interfaith relations? This brings us to the third of the questions we posed earlier on: ‘What purpose is sought in using the term ‘Abrahamic Religions,’ and is that purpose well served by using the term?’ It was the French Islamicist, Louis Massignon, who in the first half of the twentieth century turned to the figure of Abraham to expand perceptions of JudaeoChristian commonalities to include Islam.33 His purpose was to improve relations between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa where French colonial power was struggling in the face of Muslim opposition. In 1908, Massignon went through an intense mystical experience in Iraq which brought him back to the Catholicism of his youth. The conversion started him on a mission to find a place for Islam in God’s salvific plan. He became a devotee of St. Abraham and took the name of the Patriarch when he joined the third order of the Franciscans in 1931. Massignon’s Muslim hero was the mystical thinker AlHallaj who was put to death in 922 in Baghdad for alleged blasphemy. Massignon felt very attracted to Al-Hallaj’s teachings which had been kept alive among Sufis. To Massignon’s thinking, these teachings had a great deal in common with Catholic beliefs. For Massignon this seemed to indicate that extraordinary figures such as Al-Hallaj were able to come to Christian truth from within Islam itself. Massignon’s striving to uncover truth within Islam which corresponded to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church led him to avow that the God he adored, i.e. the Trinity, was the same God Muslims worshipped, which was the God of Abraham, as he expressed it in 1955 (in Sydney Griffith’s translation): ‘it is in the bosom of Abraham, above the Law, in the sacrifice of the “King of Justice”, where Abraham was blessed, that all the liturgies inspired with human entreaty, will find again the unique “God”, principle of their unity’.34 Apart from this, Massignon countered centuries of Christian disparaging of the integrity of Muhammad by affirming his sincerity and by acknowledging the Qur’an as a repository of divine inspiration. As Griffith puts it: ‘For Massignon, Islam, [was] “the faith of Abraham revived with Muhammad”’.35 Arabic was a language of monotheistic revelation, and he attached great value to living Catholicism through the medium of Arabic. In 1949 Massignon adopted the Melkite rite with papal permission and became a Melkite priest in 1950. Arabic could henceforth be the language in which he celebrated the liturgy of the Church.36

The contested seed of Abraham 249 The peculiar nature of Massignon’s loving engagement with Islam is obvious. However much he professed to study Islam ‘from within’,37 to me it seems his ultimate goal was to discover a Christian reading of Islam, rather than to explore Islam for the sake of Islam. With him, Islam was in many senses put into the service of Christianity. From my vantage point I can even see some uncomfortable similarities between Massignon’s approach to Islam and medieval Christian ideas about preserving Jews in order to utilise Judaism to prove the veracity of Christianity. Be that as it may, Massignon was successful in encouraging the Vatican to think more positively about Islam. Nostra Aetate, the ‘Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions’ of the Second Vatican Council stated on 28 October 1965: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God’.38 An earlier document of the Council, ‘Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution of the Church’, of 21 November 1964 had stated that ‘Moslems [. . .] profess[ed] to hold the faith of Abraham’.39 These statements fell far short of Massignon’s vision of the providential interaction between Islam and Christianity but they did open up new possibilities for Christian-Muslim dialogue.40 And since Massignon’s death in 1962 interfaith discourse has increasingly used Abrahamic terminology in endeavours to find peaceful solutions to ever greater hostilities between adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The shock of 9/11 in 2001 infused this work with an even greater sense of urgency. As Aaron Hughes of the University of Rochester reminds us, Times Magazine featured Abraham on the front cover of its 30 September 2002 issue with the strapline ‘Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim him as their father. A new book explains the challenge of turning him into their peacemaker’.41 The book referred to is Bruce Feiler’s, entitled Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of the three Faiths (2002).42 But if the purpose of Massignon and those taking up the Abrahamic baton is to promote good relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims, how sensible is it to draw on the figure of Abraham? After all, our analysis of Jewish and Christian perceptions of Jacob and Esau showed just how differently Jews and Christians viewed their shared Abrahamic traditions and how mutually hostile those perceptions could be. Can it be any different for Abraham himself? A good example of what an Abrahamic approach can, in fact, achieve in interfaith discourse is demonstrated in the influential work by Karl-Josef Kuschel, of the Catholic Faculty of Theology at the University of Tübingen. Kuschel is painfully aware of the clashes between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the past and present. This does not stop him from seeking, what he calls, an Abrahamic ecumene. At the heart of Kuschel’s vision lies the Abrahamic Family, the fact that Jews, Christians and Muslims venerate Abraham and in their very different and independent

250 Anna Sapir Abulafia ways see Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac as their ‘tribal ancestors’. For Kuschel the existence of the Abrahamic family is not an historical phenomenon in the sense that he sees it as a genealogical entity; for him the Abrahamic family is a reality based on experiential perceptions of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He invites Jews, Christians and Muslims to use the fact of their own distinctive identification with the Abrahamic family to search for the real Abraham – not in a factual sense but in the sense of Abraham being stripped of centuries of interpretative material in Jewish, Christian and Muslim sacred writings. Kuschel locates, what we may call, the ur-Abraham in the earliest strata of Genesis. According to him, the earliest passages of Genesis reveal an Abraham who was simply ‘dedicated to the will of God [and put] a well-tried trust in God’. To Kuschel’s way of thinking ‘Torah, Gospel and Qur’an are concretions of the faith of Abraham, attempts to revive it’. This image of the faith of the ur-Abraham and the point that he was a stranger belie the exclusivity Jews, Christians and Muslims have attached to his memory. For in Judaism Abraham became the faithful upholder of Torah, in Christianity he became a proto-Christian to the exclusion of Jews, and in Islam he became ‘a model Muslim’ to the exclusion of Jews and Christians. Thus, Kuschel invites Jews, Christians and Muslims to form an Abrahamic ecumene in which they ‘recognize their special tie with one another, respect one another and are responsible for one another, because they take seriously their common historical origin: Abraham, Hagar and Sarah, the tribal ancestors of their faith. Those who think ecumenically in the spirit of the primal father and primal mother cease to think only of the good of synagogue, church or Umma. They are not indifferent to the fate of other brothers and sisters. They practise authentic brotherhood and sisterhood in the best sense of the word’.43 This is not the time or place to analyse the validity of Kuschel’s vision of Abrahamic ecumene. Jon Levenson, for one, has argued vociferously against Kuschel’s construction of what we have called an ur-Abraham and using that construction as a benchmark with which to assess the ways Jews, Christians and Muslims experience their respective religions. He does not feel that it is possible to find a ‘neutral Abraham’ outside the sacred writings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam with whom Jews, Christians and Muslims can identify.44 What matters here is that Kuschel’s work shows that Abrahamic familial language does not necessarily undermine interfaith discourse. And this brings us back to the questions we posed as we explored the signification of the term ‘Abrahamic Religions’. The term ‘Abrahamic Religions’ was formulated to improve relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims. From what we have seen it is appropriate and useful to use the term ‘Abrahamic Religions’ to denote Judaism, Christianity and Islam on account of the Abrahamic tradition they share, as long as we do not project the irenic vision of those who popularised the term onto the subjects of our investigation. Wishful thinking which obfuscates the reality of centuries of conflicts and differences between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has no place in academic or professional discourse. It is only by facing up to the unadorned complexities of the shared past of these religions that we can hope to uncover the full spectrum of relations and interactions between them. And as we do so, we need to be ever

The contested seed of Abraham 251 mindful of the multivalences of the term ‘religion’, with all of its institutional, theological and cultural connotations. Vitally important too is to recognise that there has never been a single unchanging Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Conflicts within these religions have been as bitter as conflicts between them. Interfaith discourse addresses only a part of the problems existing in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nor have these religious traditions only interacted with each other. Each has developed in diverse religious landscapes which included non-Abrahamic traditions. And as we investigate the interactions of multi-dimensional Judaisms, Christianities and Islams within multi-layered settings we need to be ever mindful to ask ourselves whether our endeavours reflect how the subjects of our investigations saw themselves and each other in the past and in the present. This is my response to the delegates at the Tel Aviv conference who considered the terms ‘religion’ and ‘Abrahamic Religions’ unfit for purpose. This is my riposte to Aaron Hughes’ disobliging words in his 2012 book Abrahamic Religions. On the Uses and Abuses of History about the establishment of the Chair of the Study of Abrahamic Religions in Oxford.45 Guy Stroumsa concluded his inaugural as Professor of the Study of the Abrahamic Religions in 2010 with the wish that we might live in a world in which ‘one could pray in a synagogue in the morning, prostrate oneself in a mosque at noon, and sing in a church in the evening, a world without walls, in which the words of David’s psalm would carry a new meaning: “The princes of the people gather, as the people of the God of Abraham”’.46 If I too may be allowed a closing wish I would take my cue from Edward Schillebeeckx and hope that adherents of any religion – and not just the Abrahamic ones – could align themselves with his insight that ‘There is [. . .] more truth in all the religions together than in one particular religion. [. . .] God’s fullness cannot be exhausted by a particular, historically limited religion or tradition of religious experience.’47

Notes 1 This paper is a revised version of the inaugural lecture which I delivered as the Professor of the Study of the Abrahamic Religions at the University of Oxford on 24 November 2016. 2 Eva Haverkamp, ed., Hebräische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während des Ersten Kreuzzugs. Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Hebrāische Texte aus dem mittelalterlichen Deutschland, I (Hanover, 2005). 3 See Anna Sapir Abulafia, “Invectives against Christianity in the Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade,” in Anna Sapir Abulafia, Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature and the Rise of Anti-Judaism in the West (c. 1000–1150) (Aldershot, 1998), article XVIII and Anna Sapir Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations, 1000–1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval Christendom (Harlow, 2011), 144–5. 4 Publicity for the Second International Conference on Inter-Religious Dynamics and Mutual Engagement under the Direction of Professor Menachem Fisch at http://humanities1. (accessed on 21 April 2017). 5 As argued by Professor Daniel Boyarin in his keynote address, ‘Were there religions in Antiquity? – The case for no Judaism’ delivered on 13 December 2015. 6 M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Die Kaiserkrone Konrads II. (1024–1039). Eine archӓologische Untersuchung zum Alter und Herkunft der Reichskrone (Sigmaringen, 1991), esp. 117,

252 Anna Sapir Abulafia

7 8


10 11 12 13

14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

122–3; Reinhart Staats, Die Reichskrone. Geschichte und Bedeutung eines europaï schen Symbols, völlig überarbeitete neue Ausgabe (Kiel, 2006); https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Imperial_Crown_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire (accessed on 24 April 2017). The literature on this conflict is vast. It includes H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) (Oxford, 1998); I. S. Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106 (Cambridge, 1999). See also Paul Hedges, “Discourse on the Invention of Discourse: Why We Need the Terminology of ‘Religion’ and ‘Religions’,” Journal of Religious History 38 (2014), 132–48 in which he takes on Timothy Fitzgerald, Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: A Critical History of Religion and Related Categories (Oxford, 2007). Amnon Linder, The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages (Detroit MI, 1997), 391–402; see also Anna Sapir Abulafia, “The Ambiguities of Medieval Christian Relations with Jews,” in Religiosità e civiltà. Conoscenze, confronti, influssi reciproci tra le religioni (secoli X-XIV). Atti del Convegno Internazionale Brescia, 15–17 settembre 2011, ed. Giancarlo Andenna (Milan, 2013), 152–5 and literature cited there. See Alfred Haverkamp, “‘Concivilitas’ von Christen und Juden in Aschkenaz im Mittelalter,” in Jüdische Gemeinden und Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Robert Jütte and Abraham P. Kustermann (Vienna, 1996), 103–36. See Anna Sapir Abulafia, Christian-Jewish relations: Jews in the Service of Medieval Christendom (Harlow, 2011). Guy G. Stroumsa, The Making of the Abrahamic Religions in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2015), 7. For a full discussion on the Jacob and Esau narrative within the context of medieval Christian-Jewish relations see my article, “Jacob and Esau and the Interplay of Jewish and Christian Identities in the Middle Ages,” in Lives, Identities, and Histories, ed. Julie Barrau and David Bates (forthcoming). Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Barbara Harshaw and Jonathan Chipman (Berkeley, 2006). Bible translation from Etz Hayim, Torah and Commentary (New York, 2001). Codex Vindobonensis 2554, Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek at http://search. ampus=false&lang=ger&docId=ONB_aleph_onb06000140542 (accessed on 24 April 2017), image 17; Bible Moralisée. Codex Vindobonensis 2554, Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Commentary and translation of biblical texts by Gerald B. Guest, English ed. (London, 1995), fol. 6r, 1–22, 59–60; see also Sara Lipton, Images of Intolerance: The Representation of Jews and Judaism in the Bible moralisée (Berkeley, 1999), 1–13; Babette Hellemans, La Bible Moralisée: une oeuvre à part entière. Temporalité, sémiotique et création au XIIIe siècle (Turnhout, 2010), 213–16; Die Bibel Ludwigs des Heiligen, Vollstāndige Faksimile-Ausgabe im Originalformat von MS M.240 der Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, introd. Hans-Walter Stork (Graz, 1995), 14–5. On the Glossa ordinaria see Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden, 2009). I think this is what Sara Lipton would call a “soft, low, and only slightly peaked hat,” Images of Intolerance 16. Quotations from facsimile edition edited by Guest, 59–60, see note 16. On fourth set of roundels see also Lipton, Images of Intolerance, 119. On hats and their interpretation see Lipton, Images of Intolerance, 15–9. On beards see Lipton, Images of Intolerance, 20. On the iconography of Jews with money bags see Lipton, Images of Intolerance, 31–53. On Peter the Chanter see John W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle (Princeton, 1970), 296–311. See my forthcoming article, “Jacob and Esau and the Interplay of Jewish and Christian Identities in the Middle Ages”.

The contested seed of Abraham 253 24 Now housed in the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo; facsimile in The Sarajevo Haggadah and Its Significance in the History of Art, text by Ceil Roth (London, 1963), fol. 9v. 25 Katrin Kogman-Appel, Lluminated Haggadot from Medieval Spain: Biblical Imagery and the Passover Holiday (Pennsylvania, 2006), esp. 24–5, 30, 44, 99–100, 103–4, 161–2; Marc Michael Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Religious Imagination (Yale, 2011), 267–8. 26 Gloss on Genesis 27: 40; Perushe Rashi a̒ l ha-Torah, ed. Hayim Dov Chavel (Jerusalem, 1982), 101; quotation from The Metsudah Chumash/Rashi: A New Linear Translation by Avrohom Davis (Lakewood, NJ, 2006), 304 (‘Jacob’ my addition to quotation). 27 My forthcoming article, “Jacob and Esau and the Interplay of Jewish and Christian Identities in the Middle Ages” includes a full discussion of Rashi’s commentary on the Jacob and Esau narrative. 28 Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations, 3–33 and literature cited there. 29 Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, 27. 30 For a very useful overview of the literature see Christopher Zoccali, “‘And So All Israel Will Be Saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2008), 289–318. 31 See note 23. 32 Gloss on Genesis 27: 33: Biblia Latina cum Glossa ordinaria: facsimile reprint of the editio princeps: Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, ed. K. Froehlich and M.T. Gibson, vol. 1 (Turnhout, 1992), fol. 76. 33 Section on Massignon predominantly based on Sydney Griffith, “Sharing the Faith of Abraham: The ‘Credo’ of Louis Massignon,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 8 (1997), 193–210; see also Aaron W. Hughes, Abrahamic Religions: On the Uses and Abuses of History (Oxford, 2012), 60–71. 34 Griffith, “Sharing the Faith of Abraham,” 199. 35 Ibid., 201. 36 Ibid., 203–4. 37 Ibid., 194. 38 Nostra Aetate, 3 at (accessed on 26 April 2017). 39 Lumen Gentium, 16 at (accessed on 26 April 2017). 40 On Massignon and Vatican II see Griffith, “Sharing the Faith of Abraham,” 193–4, 204–8; Hughes, Abrahamic Religions, 65–71. 41 Cover of Time Magazine 30 September 2002 at 0,16641,20020930,00.html (accessed on 26 April 2017). 42 Hughes, Abrahamic Religions, 15–8, 85–96. 43 Karl-Josef Kuschel, Abraham: A Symbol of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims (London, 1995), 167–9, 203–6, quotations from pp. 168, 203, 205–6; on his idea of the Abrahamic family, see Griffith, “Sharing the Faith of Abraham,” 206; see also Hughes, Abrahamic Religions, 84–5. 44 Jon D. Levenson, Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity & Islam (Princeton, 2012), 183–93; Jon D. Levenson, “The Conversion of Abraham to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman (Leiden, 2004), 3–40. 45 Hughes, Abrahamic Religions, 94–5. 46 Stroumsa, “From Abraham’s Religion to Abrahamic Religions,” Historia Religionum: An International Journal 3 (2011), 22. 47 Edward Schillebeeckx, “Documentation: Religion and Violence,” in Religion as a Source of Violence, ed. Wim Beuken and Karl-Josef Kuschel (London, 1997), 137–8.

19 Letters home British crusaders in Flanders, France, Gallipoli and Palestine during World War I Elizabeth Siberry The language of fighting in a crusade has echoed through the centuries and is woven through accounts of battle and sacrifice during the First World War.1 One important firsthand source for the imagery used by British soldiers during the war are the letters to and from those fighting at the various fronts, in Flanders, France, Gallipoli and Palestine. This paper discusses letters from a variety of correspondents throughout Britain; the way in which they used the language of crusading and some of the cultural and family influences which shaped this writing. From the very beginning of the war, the Army Post Office, a special unit of the Royal Engineers, was sent to set up an advance base Post Office in France and it is estimated that over the course of the war, “12.5 million letters were sent weekly and ‘for practically every letter sent to the front, a letter came home.’ ”2 The official record of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force notes that it was served by some 140 army post offices and the average number of letters sent weekly to three of the home countries was: British, 500,000; Australian, 42,000; New Zealand, 8,400. The total number of letters sent over the period of the expedition is remarkable: British, 36,000,000; Australian, 3, 000,000 and New Zealand, 600, 000.3 The letters exchanged news and experiences at home and in battle and show that there was a shared sense of fighting in a noble and holy war. This did not, however, exclude some criticism of the reality of war. And in an age of letter writing, family, friends and associates also wrote to express their condolences on the death of individuals. In her book Men of War, Jessica Meyer refers to two letter writing communities: the civil community of family, friends and business associates, and the military community of officers and men who formed the unit, platoon or regiment in which they had served. Meyer comments: “In their writing, repetition and circulation among groups of mourners, letters of condolence served as spaces in which images of the remembered dead were constructed and communicated, thereby forming written memorials to named individuals.”4 Many of these letters have survived in public and private archives and family collections, and they provide an important insight into how those fighting perceived their actions and what might be termed the cultural memory bank on which they drew to describe their feelings and experiences. As well as giving information about events at home and in areas of fighting, the imagery and language used

Letters home


shed light on what motivated those who were at the various fronts, as well as the attitudes of those who worried and mourned back at home. Some of the most widely quoted letters belong to a group of young men from prominent interrelated families often referred to as ‘The Souls’ who suffered significant losses during the war. The brothers Lord Elcho (known as Hugo or Ego) and Yvo Charteris, the sons of Lord Wemyss, were both killed during the war. Ego, a Captain in the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars Yeomanry, died at Katia in Sinai on Easter Day, 23 April 1916, and Yvo, a Lieutenant in the Grenadier Guards, in France on 17 October 1915 and their letters, together with files of condolence letters from others following their deaths, have survived in the archives at the family home, in Stanway, Gloucestershire. In A Family Record published in 1932, their mother, Mary Wemyss, wrote of Ego: “He went to Egypt with his beloved yeomanry, he was inspired by the true spirit of romance and ancient chivalry.”5 And as he left for Alexandria in March 1916, she wrote: “It is strange that you should return to the place I led you when you were quite a little boy- little did we think that you would return a crusader, . . . I have been trying hard to make myself behave like a mother in the days of the old crusades.”6 In exchanges of letters, Ego wrote about the books which he was reading, which included works on Arabic history and literature,7 and this gives an indication of the cultural context and memory bank on which he and others drew in the midst of fighting. After his death, Ettie Grenfell, Lady Desborough, who also lost two sons in the war, declared in a letter: “now he is with the shining company of knights, happy and unassailable for evermore.”8 This sense of taking part in a chivalric enterprise is also very evident in letters to and from Yvo Charteris, and may have been in part shaped by the set of Sir Walter Scott’s novels, which he had been given for his birthday in 1910.9 One of Yvo’s regular correspondents was Cyril Beaumont, a bookseller in Charing Cross Road in London. They first met in Beaumont’s bookshop and shared a ‘mutual love of things medieval’ and Beaumont regularly sent Yvo parcels of books. Fighting in France, Yvo seems to have had a real sense of following in the footsteps of medieval warriors and one of his favourite modern authors was Arthur Machen (1883–1947), the author of a number of fantasy novels drawing on Celtic, Arthurian and other legends. In 1910, Machen joined the staff of the London Evening News and in September 1914, he published a short story entitled The Bowmen, which developed into the legend of the Angels of Mons and captured the imagination both of those at the battle front and back home. Indeed the Stanway archives contain a book of newspaper cuttings about Machen and the popularity of his story. After Yvo’s death, Beaumont wrote: He rests in gallant company, for around him lie others who like him have given willingly their most precious possession for the honour of their country- and not so very far away sleep the men whose deeds he loved, the men who fought in mail, who have blow for blow, and met steel with steel by Agincourt.10 The Stanway archives include not only the original letters but also typed copies, which seem to have been shared amongst friends and family, thus reaching a wider audience.


Elizabeth Siberry

One of those who wrote a tribute to the Charteris brothers was the Irish author Katherine Tynan (Mrs. Katherine Hinkson). Her two sons fought in the war in Irish regiments in France and Palestine and survived, but she knew many others who had been bereaved, and conducted an extensive correspondence with them. Her tribute to Ego and Yvo appeared in The Cornhill Magazine and she published several volumes of war-related poetry, including Flower of Youth: Poems in War Time, and a small book entitled The Holy War (1916). Her poems also appeared in a number of popular magazines. In ‘To the Others’ she wrote of a holy and just sacrifice: This was the gleam then that lured from far; Your son and my son to the Holy War; Your son and my son for the accolade With the banner of Christ over them in steel arrayed . . . Your son and my son, clean as new swords, Your man and my man and now the Lord’s. Your son and my son for the Great crusade, With the banner of Christ over them-our knights new made.11 Yvo and Ego belonged to a wider group of friends and family, including Charles Lister, Patrick Shaw Stewart and the poet Rupert Brooke who fought and lost their lives during the war, and here again one can identify a stream of crusade imagery, in this case linked with the Gallipoli campaign. Charles Lister was a member of the Foreign Office, serving in Constantinople when the war began. As a linguist, he was transferred to Divisional Staff, becoming an interpreter for the Middlesex Yeomanry and met up with Oxford friends at Malta and Port Said. One friend, Cyril Bailey, wrote “like all others, he was filled with the hope of wresting Constantinople from the Turks and finally liberating the Balkans from Turkish tyranny.” And this sense of avenging the Greeks was fuelled by a classical education and reading of the Greek classics and history. After Lister’s death, at Gallipoli in August 1915, his father, Lord Ribblesdale, wrote a memoir of his son’s life, which again draws on crusade imagery: “The war had taken possession of him with all the intensity of the Crusades of his younger days, perhaps even with some of their glamour. . . . The call had come upon him as the Holy Ghost came down upon the apostlesas a sudden great sand in the likeness of fiery tongues.”12 Another of the group, Shaw Stewart (who had been at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford with Lister and was killed in France in 1917) wrote to Lady Diana Manners: “Oh it is fun to be a sailor and to be going to fight the Turk- no mud, no cold, very little danger and the infinite glory of avenging the Palaeologs and entering Byzantium.”13 And Edward Wyndham Tennant, nephew of Prime Minister Herbert Asquith who was killed at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, wrote home to his mother Lady Glenconner about his arrival in Venice: “We read in the words of Villehardouin who was there how the crusaders took their oaths and prevailed on Dandolo to find them ships and how they took Constantinople in 1204.”14 Similar imagery and echoes of history of course also occur in the letters of Rupert Brooke. In 1915, he wrote to

Letters home


Violet Asquith, daughter of the Prime Minister: “I suddenly realised that the ambition of my life has been- since I was two- to go on a military expedition against Constantinople. And when I thought I was hungry or sleepy or falling in love, or aching to write a poem – that was what I really, blindly, wanted.”15 And his letter to his friend Jacques Raverat has been often quoted in a similar context: “This is probably the first letter you ever got from a crusader. . . . The early crusaders were very jolly people. I’ve been reading about them. They set out to slay the Turks and very finely they did it when they met them.”16 In another letter, Brooke dreamed of celebrating the first holy mass in Hagia Sophia since 1453, and his close friend, Edward Marsh, Private Secretary to Winston Churchill and Brooke’s literary executor, gave him a copy of a history of Turkey and the crusades as a going-away gift as he sailed East.17 The book in question was Turkey’s Europe, published in 1900. Its author was named as Odysseus but was in fact Sir Charles Eliot, a diplomat who served in Turkey and Morocco, and his survey of Turkish history was realistic about the actual impact of the crusades: “Like most acts of intervention by Western Europe in the affairs of the East . . . doubtful blessings to those whom they were designed to assist.” He lamented the impact of the Fourth Crusade as “a deadlier blow than any yet received from Saracen or Turk.”18 Brooke died of blood poisoning in Greece on 23 April 1915, before he reached Gallipoli, but his epitaph, chosen by his friends, reinforces this sense of following in the footsteps of the crusaders: “Here lies the servant of God . . . who died for the deliverance of Constantinople from the Turks.”19 Another book (in typed manuscript in the Imperial War Museum and written perhaps by a family friend, Denis Pitcher from South Africa) about the Gallipoli campaign and specifically the involvement of Captain Henry St John, son of Lady Bolingbroke of Lydiard Park in Wiltshire, who enlisted in the Gloucestershire Regiment, was entitled The Last Crusade. It referred to the attack in Suvla Bay as “the last attempt to overcome the infidel and capture Constantinople” and the overall campaign as a “continuation of the centuries long fight to drive the infidel from the Holy Lands.” The author however noted: “The enthusiasm of all the crusaders was to be sorely tested and tried under the horrific conditions of modern war with which they were to come face to face . . . they were to find the era of romantic war had come to an untimely end.”20 Public schools commemorated pupils who had died in the War in words and physical memorials and a former pupil of Westminster School, Sir Herbert Archer Croft of Croft Castle in Herefordshire, who died at Gallipoli, was remembered as yet another generation of his family who had given their lives in the service of their country: “Since the days of the crusades, when Sir Jasper Croft was created a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre by Godfrey of Bouillon at the taking of Jerusalem, the Crofts have continually served their king and country as soldiers.”21 Others also claimed crusading ancestors and saw themselves as following in the family tradition. In a letter to his wife, Major General Guy Dawnay, a member of Allenby’s Headquarters’ staff, wrote that the entry into Jerusalem on 11 December 1917 was “thrilling to one’s historical sense – Jerusalem in Christian hands at last.” For Dawnay, it also had a particular family resonance: “I thought of my old


Elizabeth Siberry

crusading ancestor who killed the Saracen and the lion on those very hills,” and he mused: “Do you know we are now all entitled to have effigies in tombs with legs crossed.”22 The crusading ancestor in question is said to have been William Dawnay, who performed this feat on the Third Crusade and the story is recounted in James Cruikshank Dansey’s list of English Crusaders published in 1850: William Dawnay, during the siege of Acre, killed a chief emir of the Saracens, and afterwards slaying a lion, he cut off a paw and presented it to the king, who, as a mark of his approbation, took from his finger a ring, and ordered that, in commemoration of these exploits, his crest should be a demi Saracen, with a lion’s paw in one hand and a ring in the other, which is the family cognizance of the family of Dawnay to this day, of which Viscount Downe is the representative and direct descendant of the above crusader.23 Whilst however the family crest of Viscount Downe, Baron Dawnay, remains a Saracen holding a lion’s paw and the ring is still said to be in the family’s possession, the actual source of the story is difficult to establish and I have not been able to find any William Dawnay in the sources for the Third Crusade.24 In her book Spies in Arabia, Priya Satia, provides some of the background to those who worked in British intelligence in Palestine during the war, noting how many had previously explored the Middle East as travellers and archaeologists and relished the heady mix of history and adventure.25 A good example of this was Lieut. Colonel Harry Pirie-Gordon. Pirie-Gordon had studied the crusades at Oxford and in 1908–10 made several trips to the East to study crusader castles. Indeed he lent T. E. Lawrence a map of Syria and copies of photographs of the castles, which he had taken during his trips.26 He published some of his researches on the crusades and is said to have claimed that his history of the Palestine campaign was issued anonymously “in the hope that future historians might consider it the last of the anonymous continuations of William of Tyre.” Pirie-Gordon and his Oxford friend Harry (later Sir Harry Luke and a British diplomat, who had also been at Oxford with Charles Lister) even founded their own Order of chivalry, the Order of Sanctissima Sophia, and later became prominent members of the Order of St John.27 One could draw a detailed chart linking many of those discussed above, through their time at school or university or later travels in the Middle East, and Bar-Yosef has argued that the use of crusade imagery and actual references to events during the crusades was a product of a particular group or class, shaped and influenced by their backgrounds and education.28 I think, however, that a study of letters from family and public archives presents a more nuanced picture. Edward and Ivor Lloyd Jones were the sons of the Revd David Lloyd Jones, the Presbyterian Minister in Llandinam, Montgomeryshire in Wales. Both served in the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gallipoli and Palestine and wrote letters back home to their mother and cousins, Gwendoline and Margaret Davies, the sisters of the philanthropist and industrialist David Davies. A later description of Edward has a familiar heroic tone:

Letters home


Family, fortune and faith seemed to have combined to equip his heart and mind for the finest service of his fellows either in politics or religion. Welsh to the core in sentiment, happy in the companionship of simple peasant folk or in mountain solitudes . . . he was generous in all jeopardy of himself. As he lived, he died, in the place of danger, leading his men and was mentioned in dispatches for conspicuous gallantry in the field.29 His letters however reveal a more complex attitude to the war. Like others, Edward reflected on the history of the crusades as he travelled to Turkey. On 15 July 1915, he wrote to his mother: “Our destiny is in the Dardanelles. We are the last of the crusaders, adventurous spirits called forth to release the East from the thraldom of the Turk.” He recalled, in a letter to Gwendoline, their pre-war travels together in Greece, noting that on that occasion their travelling companions had been two German officers and a Turk. His sense of history and mission, however, did not stop him questioning whether he was indeed fighting now in a holy and for a just cause. In one of his last letters home before he was killed at Suvla Bay in August 1915, he declared: For good or ill we are pawns in the mighty game of war. God alone knows the value to place on our sacrifice. The spirit of adventure misleads our activities. Is our crusade utterly devoid of virtue? Even the church seems divided. Some regard the conflict of today as the last of wars. Such was the cry a hundred years ago and such will be the cry a hundred years hence.30 At the same time, Edward wrote to his cousin George Maitland Lloyd Davies, a prominent Welsh Christian pacifist and later a Member of Parliament and Methodist Minister, encouraging him to continue his mission of peace: And yet can our sacrifice be vain? Is our crusade to be voted wholly vicious and devoid of virtue? One longs to look to the church for guidance. But even the church seems to be divided in its attitude towards the present strife. In some instances she seems to be prostituting her purity in the recruiting field, besmirching her purity by dragging her soul in the channels which man has selected for her, instead of drawing man in the paths she has marked out for his redemption. Is there any honest Christian who believes that the problems of life can be decided by force of arms?31 Edward had told George of a dream in which he would die on the field of battle but he would not turn his back on the soldiers under his command, and his moving and thoughtful letters were quoted by George on a number of occasions in his later writings and commentaries. Ivor Lloyd-Jones died in Palestine in 1917, and Gwendoline and Margaret Davies both played their part as volunteers for the French Red Cross, opening a canteen for French soldiers at Troyes. Their personal experience of loss and war formed the background to their later philanthropy and patronage of the arts at their house Gregynog, in the village of Tregynon in Montgomeryshire.


Elizabeth Siberry

Crusading imagery was not just used on the Eastern fronts. The future British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, who served in the same regiment as Yvo Charteris and whose older brother Dan was a contemporary of the Asquiths and ShawStewart, fought in Flanders and wrote to his mother from Ypres on May 1916: Many of us could never stand the strain and endure the horrors which we see every day, if we did not feel that this was more than a War-a crusade. I never see a man killed but think of him as a martyr. All the men (tho’ they could not express it in words) have the same conviction – that our cause is right and certain in the end to triumph. One factor shaping his views may again have been his reading. From boyhood, Macmillan had been a keen reader of the novels of Walter Scott and he reread the Waverley novels during the War; his particular favourite was Guy Mannering.32 And in July 1917, Lieutenant Harry Sackville Lawson, former headmaster of Buxton College in Derbyshire, who fought in the Royal Field Artillery, wrote to his pupils from his dug-out in France, setting the crusades and the current war in a broad sweep of world history: I have got one thing in particular to say to you all. . . . It’s a Christian thing, and it’s a British thing. It’s what the Bible teaches. . . . It’s the story of the Crusaders, of the Reformation, of the downfall of the power of Spain, of our colonization, of the destruction of Napoleon’s might, of the abolition of slavery, and of the coming awakening of Germany. The thing is this: Playing the game for the game’s sake. . . . I am thinking of high honesty of purpose and of the word duty.33 Lawson in his turn was killed in France in February 1918. Bar-Yosef and Horswell give some examples of the use of crusade imagery in newspaper reporting,34 and letters published in various papers and magazines during this period drew on the same cultural memory bank. One letter to the magazine Country Life dated 22 July 1916, which linked the First World War and the crusades was prompted by a visit to a Kentish country church: Within the walls crowded memories of local knights and squires of long ago. Crusaders in recumbent effigies, and their story marked in crumbling stone and brass. In the porch lists hang the village roll of honour, from manor, rectory and cottage alike, and some names recall the family traditions of the old Crusaders. Outside, in the glorious sunshine of a July afternoon, and there one hears, in swaying cadence, yet almost constant flow, the boom of the guns across the sea, marking the struggle still pursued, as in old crusading days, for liberty and justice. Oh it is good at this hour to be an Englishman in Kent within the sound of guns. The author, J. Landfear Lucas from Hindhead in Surrey, who seems to have been a regular writer to the press, does not specify which particular church inspired his

Letters home


letter. As with family stories of crusading ancestors, however, it would not have been difficult to find links to the crusading past in British country churches and, like Sir Jasper and Sir Herbert Croft, see service and death in the First World War as continuing a family tradition of service. After the end of the war, when a memorial plaque was unveiled at the Roman Catholic church of Our Lady and Martyrs in Cambridge, a local paper declared: “Old families of this land were proud to go into a parish church to see the effigy of a Crusader. For centuries to come the descendants of men who died for England in the war would repeat the names of their people and they would feel the stock had been ennobled by the glorious sacrifice.”35 There are also some indications that the use of crusade imagery extended more widely. The Derbyshire poet Will Streets was born in 1885, one of twelve children. He worked as a miner but wrote poetry from an early age. In September 1914, he joined the Sheffield City Battalion of the Yorkshire and Lancashire Regiment and he wrote to his mother in December 1915, as he prepared to sail to Egypt: I know that women think the war never ought to have been, yet it is there, and we are fighting for the grandeur of life, for the reign of love and chivalry. Then why be sad women of England. Rather be eager to pin tokens on the breasts of the knights who are going out to fight this holy crusade.36 Streets had read widely both nineteenth-century romantic poetry and the work of contemporaries such as Rupert Brooke, and combined a love of the arts with a close observation of nature, even in the midst of war. A number of his poems were written in the trenches and published during the course of the war and his manuscripts survive in the Imperial War Museum and make poignant reading. Several of his poems are about noble sacrifice in a just cause, following previous generations of British warriors, and two were entitled The Song of the Crusaders (1915) and The Crusaders (1915). In the former, he wrote: “We march to death singing our deathless songs. Like knights invested with a purpose high, towards a flaming barrier of wrongs – to show how freemen live, how freemen die.” And the language is similar in the latter, referring to knights who “lionhearted rush into the fight.”37 Many other examples could be quoted of the use of crusade imagery, particularly in relation to the Palestine campaign, in letters, books, poems and memoirs.38 One more idiosyncratic use, which reflects the popular use of post-war crusade imagery, is a book entitled Temporary Crusaders published in 1919 by Cecil Sommers, but in fact compiled from a diary written by Captain Norman Down to his daughter Margaret during his service in Palestine from November 1917 to May 1918. In his introduction, Down/Sommers sought to explain to Margaret that the men she now saw in their civvies and human imperfections were the same as those who had fought in the war: Your grandmother, who is apt to sentimentalize, will tell you that Daddy was a Crusader. Fresh from reading the exploits of Richard Coeur de Lion, you will try to picture him in shining armour with a large red cross somewhere


Elizabeth Siberry about him. And you will fail. . . . Books too will mislead you. . . . The butcher, the baker, the man who comes about the drains, and the rest of them, are all Temporary Crusaders now, whether they are in Palestine or France. But they are in every way the same men that you will know later on and very ordinary men at that. Remember this and when in days to come Daddy strafes Mummy because the porridge is burnt you won’t be tempted to think to yourself ‘how poor father must have deteriorated since he was a crusader.’39

Together with such memoirs and other sources, letters therefore offer an insight into how the First World War was seen by those both at the front and at home. And, whilst most examples of the use of crusade imagery are to be found amongst those with a shared education and cultural background and who fought in the Eastern campaigns against the Turks, they are not confined to this group. Correspondents fought in all the theatres of war and came from more diverse backgrounds and areas of Great Britain. Moreover, some like Edward Lloyd-Jones combined their evocation of the crusading past with criticism of the harsh reality of the Great War, which they experienced in the trenches and where many of them lost their lives.

Notes 1 For a detailed analysis, of the use of crusade imagery in connection with the First World War see Michael Horswell, The Rise and Fall of British Crusader Medievalism c 1825–1945 (Abingdon, 2018), 160–90; Elizabeth Siberry, The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (Aldershot, 2000), 87–104. 2 Jessica Meyer, Men of War: Masculinity and the First World War in Britain (London, 2009), 14. 3 A Brief Record of the Advance of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, ed. H. Pirie-Gordon, 2nd ed. (London, 1919), 93. 4 Meyer, Men of War, 75. For the use of crusade imagery in physical war memorials, see Elizabeth Siberry, ‘Memorials to Crusaders-the Use of Crusade Imagery in British First World War Memorials’, forthcoming in After the crusade – memory and legacy, proceedings of the Odense conference 2016, and Stefan Goebel, The Great War and Medieval Memory: War, Remembrance and Medievalism in Britain and Germany, 1914–40 (Cambridge, 2007). 5 Mary Wemyss, A Family Record (London, 1932), 266–7. See also Anthony Fletcher, Life, Death and Growing Up on the Western Front (Yale, 2013). 6 Jeanne Mackenzie, The Children of the Souls: A Tragedy of the First World War (London, 1986), 178. 7 Wemyss, Family Record, 366–8. 8 Mackenzie, Children, 226–7. 9 For the influence of Scott, see Siberry, The New Crusaders, 112–31. 10 Stanway archives, Letters to and from C. M. Beaumont. I am grateful to Lord Wemyss for allowing me access to this family archive. For Arthur Machen, see Mark Valentine, Arthur Machen (Bridgend, 1995), 99–101; Mark Girouard, The Return to Camelot (London, 1981), 284–5. 11 Katherine Tynan, The Holy War (London, 1916), 15–16. See also Katherine T. Hinkson, Years of the Shadow (London, 1919), 146, 252, 321. Hinkson’s autobiography, particularly this volume covering the war years, gives an indication of her range of correspondents and the context in which she wrote her poetry.

Letters home


12 Lord Ribblesdale, Charles Lister: Letters and Recollections (London, 1917), 10. Similar language was used in Edward Bolland Osborn’s, The New Elizabethans (London, 1919), to describe Lister and his circle of friends. 13 Mackenzie, Children, 170. 14 Pamela Glenconner, Edward Wyndham Tennant: A Memoir (London, 1919), 27. 15 Nigel Jones, Rupert Brooke: Life, Death and Myth (London, 1999), 406. See also Edward Marsh, Collected Poems of Rupert Brooke with Memoir (London, 1919), xxxviii–ix. 16 Jones, Rupert Brooke, 413. See also Christopher Hassall, Rupert Brooke: A Biography (repr. London, 1984), 492. 17 Christopher Hassall, Edward Marsh, Patron of the Arts: A Biography (London, 1959), 307. See also, Jones, Rupert Brooke, 413; Marsh, Memoir, cxl. 18 Sir Charles Eliot, Turkey in Europe (London, 1900), 21–2. See also his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 19 Jones, Rupert Brooke, 424–5. 20 London, Imperial War Museum, Denis Pitcher, The Last Crusade. IWM Box 67/309/1. 21 Peter Parker, The Old Lie: The Great War and the Public School Ethos (London, 1987), 232. The source for Croft’s participation in the First Crusade is the eighteenth-century Golden Grove Book, so there has to be a note of caution about his actual involvement. See Kathryn Hurlock, Wales and the Crusades 1095–1291 (Cardiff, 2011), 94, 152, 220–1; Siberry, The New Crusaders, 48–51. 22 London, Imperial War Museum, Major General G.P. Dawnay papers, IWM, Box 69/21/2. See also Eitan Bar-Yosef, “The Last Crusade? British Propaganda and the Palestine Campaign, 1917–18,” Journal of Contemporary History 36.1 (2001), 87–109. 23 James Cruikshank Dansey, The English Crusaders: Containing an Account of All the English Knights Who Formed Part of the Expeditions for the Recovery of the Holy Land (London, 1850). See also Siberry, The New Crusaders, 49. Nicholas Paul has written about the stories of encounters between crusading knights and lions in “In Search of the Marshal’s Lost Crusade: The Persistence of Memory, the Problems of History and the Painful Birth of Crusading Romance,” Journal of Medieval History 40 (2014), 14–16. 24 A William Dawnay was however a Hospitaller captain at Bodrum in 1448: see Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusade (Chicago, 1988), 355. 25 Priya Satia, Spies in Arabia: The Great War and the Cultural Foundations of Britain’s Covert Empire in the Middle East (Oxford, 2008), 59–60, 83–4, 155. 26 T. E. Lawrence by His Friends, ed. A. W. Lawrence (London, 1937), 73–5. 27 Dana C. Munro, “Some Problems in Crusading Historiography,” Speculum 15 (1940), 60. See also Harry Pirie-Gordon, Innocent the Great: An Essay in His Life and Times (London, 1907); “The Reigning Princes of Galilee,” English Historical Review 27 (1912), 445–61; David W. J. Gill, ‘Harry Pirie-Gordon: Historical Research, Journalism and Intelligence Gathering in the Eastern Mediterranean (1908–18),” Intelligence and National Security 21 (2006), 1045–59; Sir Harry Luke, Cities and Men, 3 vols. (London, 1956), 2: 17. 28 Bar-Yosef, “The Last Crusade,” 94–5. 29 George M. Ll Davies, “Morituri Te Salutant,” Welsh Outlook 17.2 (1930), 34–6. 30 Trevor Fishlock, A Gift of Sunlight: The Fortune and Quest of the Davies Sisters of Llandinam (Llandysul, 2015), 132–4. 31 Jen Llewellyn, Pilgrim of Peace: A Life of George M. Ll. Davies (Talybont, 2016), 80–1. George’s brother Stanley also fought at Gallipoli but survived. The language used by Edward Lloyd-Jones has some echoes of Siegfried Sassoon’s criticism of ‘bellicose politicians and journalists’ using the word crusade in Memoirs of an Infantry Officer, published in 1930. See Siberry, The New Crusaders, 103. 32 Alistair Horne, Macmillan: The Official Biography 1894–1956, 2 vols. (London, 1988), 1: 39–41. In Guy Mannering, a Galloway laird tells an English visitor about his


33 34 35

36 37 38 39

Elizabeth Siberry

crusading ancestors who had fought in the Holy Land and brought home relics which remained in the family. See Siberry, The New Crusaders, 42. Fletcher, Life, 45–6. Bar-Yosef, “The Last Crusade,” 91, 103–4; Horswell, “The Rise and Fall of British Crusader Medievalism,” 160–90. Cambridge Chronicle and University Gazette 8 December 1920, 7, quoted in Stefan Goebel, “Britain’s Last Crusade: From War Propaganda to War Commemoration c. 1914–30,” in Justifying War: Propganada, Politics and the Modern Age, ed. David Welch and Jo Fox (Basingstoke, 2012), 163. London, Imperial War Museum, John William Streets Papers, IWM 62/117/1–2. Full text on line in John William Streets, accessed on 30 April 2018. See Siberry, The New Crusaders, 87–103. Cecil Sommers, The Temporary Crusaders (London, 1919), 1.


Abdal-Latīf al-Baghdādī 131 Abd al-Rahmān b. Nasr al-Shayzarī 130, 132 Abraham, Armenian monk 146 Abrahamic religions 239, 242, 248, 250, 251 Accolti, Benedetto 220 Acre 5–6, 8–10, 16, 18–20, 24–29, 31, 39–40, 92, 94–98, 112, 115, 121–124, 125, 129–131, 142, 144–145, 149–151, 169, 172, 175, 176, 180–181, 221, 258; Armenian hospital 145; cemetery of St Nicholas 151; church of St John 53, 114; church of St Michael 151; cathedral church of the Holy Cross 172; commune of 112; Genoese bathhouses 121, 129; hospital of St Brigid 145; hospital of St Catherine in Montmusard 145; hospital of St Martin of the Bretons 145; hospital of St Mary of the Germans 150; hospital of St Anthony 145; hospital of the Holy Spirit 145; Pisan bathhouse 121; porta balnei 129 Adam of Caffran 144 Adolphe de Nassau 42 Aegean islands 182 Aegean Sea 182 Agincourt 255 Agnès de Neufchâtel 39 Ahmad-il, Emir 4 Akeldama 150 al-ʿĀḍid 16 al-ʿĀdil 147 al-Amir 180 al-Andalus 197, 203, 204, 207, 214, 241 al-Aqsa, Mosque see Aqsa Mosque al-Ashraf Khalil 16, 20, 40 al-Hallaj 248 al-Mahdiya 92

al-Maḫzūmī: History of Majorca 200 al-Makkarī 200 al-Mansur, Muslim warrior 6, 115 al-Mansur, Ibrahim, ruler of Homs 6 al-Salihiyah 20 al-Surūjī: bathhouse 126 al-Zafir 93 al-Zāhir Ghāzī 122 al-Zuhri 93 Alarcos 221 Alba 235, 237 Albenga 30, 31 Alberic of Troisfontaines: chronicle of 5 Albert of Aachen 107, 108, 141, 159, Albrecht von der Duba 78 Alcañiz 201 Aleppo 8, 122, 187; bathhouse 122 Alexander III, Pope 111, 114, 146 Alexandria 93, 95, 97, 157, 179, 181, 187, 188, 255 Alfonso II of Aragon 195 Alfonso III of Aragon 29 Alfonso VII of Castile-León 204 Alfonso X of Castile-León 197 Aliaga 30 Alice of Cyprus 129 Aliénor of Provence 39 Allerthorpe 63 Álmos, Hungarian leader 4 Amadis of Gaul 228 Amalfi 93, 144, 151 Amaury of Jerusalem 122 Ambroise 19 Amico, Bernardino 112 Amédée de Savoie 42 Amouroux-Mourad, Monique 4 Amposta 26–31 Amsterdam 237, 239 Anagni, peace of 29



Anatolia 141, 182, 188 Andronicus II Palaiologos 182 Andreas of Regensburg 218 Angevins 26, 30, 32 Anjou 24, 25, 27, 29, 93, 175 Antartus 9, 10, 24, 26, 28, 42, 198–200 Antigono 231 Antioch 10, 92–94, 96, 97, 122, 123, 129, 141, 142, 147, 180, 181, 221 Antwerp 228–238 Apulia 27, 29 Aqsa Mosque 16, 111–113, 122 Arabia 188, 258 Aragon 24–30, 32, 41, 42, 52, 55, 58, 188, 195–197, 199, 200, 202, 204–207, 228, 229, 245 Archer Croft, Herbert 257, 261 Ares (Valencia) 26 Arles 42, 54, 174, 206, 241 Arles le Blanc 174 Armenia 26, 27, 145, 146, 169, 183–185 Arnold, John 114 Arnulf, patriarch of Jerusalem 107 ars dictaminis 76 ars dictandi 76 Arras 235 Arsuf 9, 151–152, 164, 181; Hospitaller castle 9 Arthurian legends 255 Ascalon 19, 122, 142, 145, 159, 221; battle 19–20, 159; hospitals 159 Asia 159, 183, 230 Aslackby 62 Asquith, Herbert 256 Asquith, Violet 257 Assassins 15, 17, 39 Asti 29 Athlit see Atlit Atlit: bathhouse 124, 126, 132 Augsburg 157 Augustine: Peace ontology 80 Augustinians 107, 218 Austria 26, 215, 216, 222 Auvergne 41 Auxonne 174 Aviñonet 27 ‘Ayn Jalut 6 Ayyubids 5 Azov Sea 182 Baalbek 126, 128, 130 Baghdad 95, 131, 132, 248 Bailey, Cyril 256 Bailiff of Brathean 78

Baldwin I of Jerusalem 107, 160 Baldwin II of Jerusalem 93, 94, 145, 160 Baldwin II of Constantinople 5 Baldwin III of Jerusalem 94, 122, 146, 161 Baldwin IV of Jerusalem 95, 105, 161 Baldwin V of Jerusalem 161 Baldwin of Bourcq see Baldwin II Balearic islands 92 Balian of Ibelin 143 Balkan Peninsula 183 Balsall 55 Baltic: countries 66; region 25; Sea 68 Bank of Saint George (Genoa) 181, 186 Barbara, virgin 165 Barcelona 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 195, 196, 199–205, 229 Bardi of Florence 27 Barletta: Ordinal of the Holy Sepulchre 110, 114 Bar-Yosef, Eitan 258, 260 Basel 218–220, 223–224; Compactata of 219, 225; council of 215–220, 223–225 Bathhouses: Byzantine 131; Cairene bathhouse 131; Frankish 121–140; Islamic 124, 131; see also under: Acre; al-Surūjī; Aleppo, Atlit, Bustān Nassīf, Jerusalem, Pisa; Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh Batrun 96, 98 Bautier-Bresc, Geneviève 112 Baybars, sultan 3–14, 18, 169 Beaumont, Cyril 255 Beaufort: Templar castle 6, 10 Beaujeu 7, 11, 16, 19, 20, 43, 169, 173–176 Bedfordshire 51, 54, 61 Beirut 6, 7, 92, 95, 122, 149, 163, 165, 181, 188 Belgrade 215, 219, 221, 222 Bellapais 172 Bells xiv, 54, 103–104, 108–115; bell of Šibenik 112; bell towers 104, 112; liturgy 105–108 Belvoir 123 Bendocdar see Baybars, sultan Benedict of Macra 80 Benjamin of Tudela 106 Bennett, Matthew 19 Bérard, Thomas 52 Bergaw, Nicclos 78 Berkshire 51–53, 61 Bernat Desclot 195, 199, 200, 203, 207 Bernard of Clairvaux 122 Bernhard of Silesia-Oppeln 80 Bessarion 219, 223 Bethany 162, 165

Index Bethel 163 Bethlehem 113; church of the Nativity 114; hospitals 113, 145 Bianca of Anjou 29 Bible Moralisée see moralised Bible Binche 228–230 Biscay, bay of 237 Bisham 51–54, 56, 61 Bissey-la-Côte 45 Black Death 142, 183, 188 Black Sea 32, 182–188 Blasco de Alagón 201 Blécort, relics 174 Boas, Adrian J. 132, 141 Bogislaw VIII of Pomerania-Stolp, Bohemia 79, 81 Bohemond IV of Tripoli 98 Bolingbroke 257 Bologna 150 Bonaw, Conrad 78 Boniface of Calamandrana 25, 29–32 Boniface VIII, Pope 28, 29, 31, 42 Borgononi, Theodoric: Chirurgia 55 Brampton 56 Brabant 228–230, 234–237 Brandenburg 65, 72, 78 Bresc, Henri 112 Breslau 72, 157 Brown, Elizabeth 4 Brooke, Rupert 256, 257, 261 Bruges 183, 229 Brussels 228, 229 Brut, legendary history of Britain 54 Brzozogłowy, Janusz 79 Burchard of Mount Zion 162 Buckinghamshire: Temple Bulstrode 52, 53, 56, 61 Buda 77, 82 Bulgaria 184 Bulst-Thiele, Marie-Luise 43 Bulstrode, Edmund 56, 57 Buonsignore 180 Bürgermeister 157 Burgundy 77, 78, 81, 159, 237 Burriana 199 Bustān Nassīf: bathhouse 126 Byzantium 30, 93, 95, 121, 122, 131, 179, 180–183, 185, 256 Bydgoszcz 79 Cadiz 183 Caesarea 16, 175, 180, 181, 231, 232 Caffa 182–186 Caffaro 180


Cairo 16, 93, 95, 157; Fustat (Old Cairo) 91, 95, 122; Geniza 131, 179 Caltabellotta, treaty of 26 Calixtus III, Pope 224 Cambridge: church of Our Lady and Martyrs 261 Cambridgeshire 52, 55, 61 Carolingians 187, 240, 243 Carvajal, Juan 222 Casal Imbert 122 Casalei, Guido 91 Casalei, Hugo 91 Casalei, Leo 91 Caspe (Zaragoza) 30 Castellany of Amposta 29 Castellón 27, 28 Castile 25, 27–29, 230, 235 Castile-León 195–197, 204, 207 Castiñeiras, Manuel 114 Catalonia 26–28, 184, 196, 198, 199, 202 Celestine V, Pope 42 Cembalo 183 Cervo: castle of 31 Cesarini, Giuliano 216 Ceuta 183 Champagne 174 Charles I of Anjou 24 Charles II of Anjou 25, 27 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 230 Charles VI of France 77 Charlier, Gilles 218 Charteris, Yvo 255, 256, 260 Chastel Blanc: siege 9, 10 Château Pèlerin 6, 123; see also Atlit Chelsing 61 Chéneau, Paul 113 China 148, 183, 185, 187 Chios 182, 184–186, 188 Chiriton 53, 54, 63 Christians 3, 6, 8, 19, 24, 25, 28, 104, 108–110, 113–115, 121, 131, 143, 158, 161, 188, 204, 217, 239, 241–243, 245, 247–250 Christian-Jewish relations 242 Chronicle of Amadi 142 Churchill, Winston 257 Cilicie (Cilicia) 40 Circassians 184 Cistercian order 146 Claverie, Pierre-Vincent 41 Clement V, Pope 24, 25, 28, 32, 42–46 Clermont: council 158, 159 Clontarf (Ireland) 54 Coeur de Lion, Richard 261



Cologne 239 Combe (Somerset) 52, 54, 55, 62 Comnenos, Alexios 219 Conrad III, King of Germany 143 Conrad of Montferrat 96–98, 121, 131 Conrad, servant of the bishop of Würzburg 78 Constantinople 5, 32, 95, 97, 121, 181–183, 188, 215, 219, 223–224, 256–257; St. Mamas quarter 5, 31, 95, 97, 121, 181–183, 215, 219, 222–224, 256, 257 Cooley 54, 63 Corbin, Alain 115 Corinth 29 Cortes 198, 200–203, 205 Corsica 30, 32, 92 Cosmas and Damian 52 Coulours, house 44, 45 Coupmanthorpe 63 Courban 45 Coves de Vinromà 26 Cowley 54, 57, 62 Cowton 63 Cressing 61 Crimea 182, 183, 188 Croatia 112 Croft Castle 257 Croft, Jasper 257 Cronica Austrie 222 cross 52, 53, 55, 105, 172, 173, 175, 198, 204, 205, 206, 217, 221, 222, 255, 259–261 Cruikshank Dansey, James 258 Crusades: Albigensian crusade 199; crusade imagery 256, 258, 260, 261, 262; crusader states 7, 8, 147, 151; crusaders 18, 27, 95, 103, 104, 109, 112, 114, 115, 122, 123, 141, 142, 159, 180, 222, 239, 254–264; English Crusaders 258; Fifth Crusade 221; First Crusade 91, 92, 103, 109, 141, 158–159, 161, 164, 165, 180, 219, 220, 221, 239; Fourth Crusade 182, 184, 257; German Crusade 147; Peasants’ Crusade 141; Second Crusade 143, 220, 221; Third Crusade 5, 18, 19, 91, 98, 130, 163, 221, 222, 258; Tuscan crusaders 95 Culla 26 Cumans 5, 184 Curialis, Leo 151 Curzola 30 Cusa 215, 224 cymbala 110

Cyprus 5, 9, 16, 18, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 52, 98, 122, 123, 129, 132, 142, 144, 148, 169, 171, 172–174, 181, 186 Daimbert 92 Damascus 18, 122, 129, 187 Damietta: siege 180, 221 Dandolo 256 Daniel of Kiev, abbot 150 Danzig 65–71 Dar el-Manak 180 Dardanelles 259 David, Hans 71 David of Liebstadt 69, 71 Davies, David 258 Davies, Gwendoline 258, 259 Davies, Margaret 258, 259 Dawnay, Baron 258 Dawnay, Guy 257 Dawnay, William 258 Dead Sea 165 del Conte, John 147 Delisle, Léopold 43 della Volta, Rosso 180 Delmenhorst, count of Hoya 78 Demerodes, family 184 Denmark 223 Denny 52–56, 61 Derbyshire 260, 261 Desborough 255 Dickson, Gary 222 Dillon, Emma 103 Dinsley 54, 62 Djerba 30, 32 Dodorf, Albrecht 70 Dome of the Rock 122 Dominicans 206 Don, river 182 Dondi, Cristina 55 Donyn, royal Vice-Chancellor 78 Doria, Babilano 31 Doria, family 30, 31 Doria, Lazzaro 31 Doria, Niccolò Babilani 30 Doria, Oberto 30 Dorylaeum 141, 221 Dothan, Moshe 175 Douai: hospital of St. Samson 29 Down, Margaret 261 Down, Norman 261 Downe, Viscount 258 Dragonet de Montdragon 27 Draperiis, family 184

Index Drwęca, river 66 Dublin 50, 63 Dunwich 51, 53, 56, 57, 63 Dutch revolt 229 Duxford 61 Dythlef of Sweryn 78 Eagle 53, 55–57, 62 East Anglia 50 Ebro, river 27, 28 Écochard, Michel 126 Edessa 4, 143, 145 Ebendorfer, Thomas: Chronica pontificum Romanorum 215, 223; Chronica regum Romanorum 215, 223; Deliberacio Thome 217, 218; Historia Jerusalemitana 215, 219; Motiva Thome 217 Edward I of England 39, 42, 44 Edward II of England 50 Eglinger, Georg 77 Ego Charteris see Elcho Charteris Egypt 7, 16, 18, 25, 32, 91, 93–95, 111, 148, 164, 165, 175, 179–180, 182, 187–188, 255, 261; Egyptian fleet 93 Elbing 25, 65, 66–71 Elcho Charteris 255 Eleanor of Castile 197, 204 Eliot, Charles: Turkey’s Europe 257 Embriaci 180, 181 Émpuries 202–204 England 50–52, 54–55, 57, 61, 76–77, 96, 143, 163, 183, 188, 221, 223, 235, 241, 261; Midlands 50 Enlart, Camille 112 Épailly 39–49 Epstein, Marc Michael 245 Eraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem 143, 147 Ernoul 143, 150 Ernst, Duke and Count Palatinate of Rhine 81 Esau 242–244, 245, 247–249 Etton 63 Eudes de Saint Amand 18 Eugenius IV, Pope 218 Euphrates valley 187 Evremar, patriarch of Jerusalem 111 Ewell 51, 62 Fabri, Felix 157 Fahad Aben Maymo 28 Famagusta 181, 186 Fatimids 179, 221 Faxfleet 54, 55


Feiler, Bruce 249 Ferdinand III of Castile-León 196, 200, 207 Ferdinand the Catholic 232 Fernando Álvarez de Toledo 235 Ferrara 25 Flanders 182, 183, 188, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234–237, 254, 260 Florence 27, 287, 219 Fontainebleau 45 Forbie, battle of 6 Forey, Alan 7 Forster, John 195 Foucher, Geoffrey 16 Foulbridge 53, 63 Foulques de Villaret 27, 30 Frale, Barbara 41 France 24, 27, 28, 32, 39, 41, 42–44, 46, 76, 77, 78, 81, 115, 122, 163, 169–178 Franciscans 111, 113, 158, 165, 185, 222, 248 Frankfurt (Oder) 130, 133, 219, 220, 222, 223 Franks 4–7, 9, 11, 19–20, 24, 106, 121–124, 126, 129–132, 143, 145, 147–151; Frankish kingdom 121; Frankish states 91–102, 180; Pullani 123 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor 29, 112 Frederick III of Sicily 26, 30, 215, 221, 223, 224, 225 Frederick Barbarossa 221 Frederick of Austria 26 Frère Sauvage 9, 10 Friedrich of Nuremberg 79 Fulcher of Chartres 109, 110, 141, 159 Fulk of Anjou 93 Fustat (Old Cairo) see Cairo Gadfryd 77 Galdinus 56 Galilee 6, 148, 159, 161, 162 Gallipoli 254–258 Gallur: castle of 27 Garway 50 Gaudin, Theobald 7 Gaul 31, 228 Gautier de Maisnilio 17 Gayangos, Pascual de 195 Geniza see Cairo: Geniza Genoa 24, 25, 27, 30–33, 91–93, 95, 97, 98, 130, 179, 180–184, 186–188, 201, 229 Geoffroy de Sergines 175 Geoffrey of Monmouth 54



George, Hospitaller scribe 16 Gerard de Ridefort 19 Gerhard von der Beke 70 Germany 25, 81, 157, 158, 223, 228–230, 236, 241, 260 Germain, Frankish burgess 148 Gesta Comitum Barcinonensium 195–196 Gesta Hungarorum 4 Ghazan, Ilkhan 24 Ghibelline 29, 30 Gibelet 92, 181 Giblet see Zevel Gibraltar: straits of 25, 28, 29, 32 Gil de Santarém 56 Gilles de Laon 45 Giovanni da Procida 29 Giovanni di Fedanzola 165 Giovanni of Capistrano 222 Girona 28, 229, 235 Gislingham 54, 62 Giustiniani, family 184 Glenconner 256 Gloucestershire: Temple Guiting 50, 255, 257 Gniezno 82 Godfrey of Bouillon 103, 108, 145, 257 Golan Heights 6 Golden Horn 182 Goodson, Caroline 114 Goths 184 Granada 27, 28, 31 Graudenz 66, 69 Gregor of Heimburg 224 Gregory VII, Pope 240 Gregory IX, Pope 201, 204, 206 Gregynog 259 Grenfell, Ettie 255 Griffith, Sydney 248 Grosmont 50 Grunwald, battle of 77 Guigues III of Forez 175 Guillaume de Beaujeu 43 Guillaume de Villaret 25, 30, 31 Guillem de Montcada 197, 198, 202, 203, 205 Guy of Bazainville 5 Guy of Bazoches 5 Guy of Ibelin 151 Guy of Lusignan 96, 98, 161 Guyenne 39 Habsburg 228, 230 Hagar 250 Hagia Sophia 257

Hampshire 53, 61 Hansa 235 Hanseatic trade 65, 69, 72 Harenc: siege 123 Hartburn 51 Harvey, P. D. A. 162 Haselbach 215 Hattin: battle of 17, 19, 95, 143, 221 Hayton 40 Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade 239 Heimburg 224 Heinrich, Duke and Count Palatinate of Rhine 81 Heinrich of Sagan 82 Heinrich von Dalen 70 Heinrich von Herlinkhusen 78 Heinrich von Plauen 70, 76–78, 80 Heinrich von Putzig 70 Henry II of Champagne 98 Henry II of Cyprus 30, 169 Henry II of England 143 Henry II of Jerusalem 171 Henry III of England 56 Henry IV of England 77 Henry VI of England 221 Heraklios, Byzantine emperor 158 Hercules 232 Herefordshire 50, 54, 61, 257 Herodotus 3 Hertfordshire 54, 57, 61 Herz, Randall 158 Hindhead 260 Hinnom, valley 150 Hirst (Yorkshire) 53, 54, 63, 141, 159 Holt, Peter 11 Holy Grail 3 Holy Land 24–26, 28, 32, 107, 112, 113, 114, 142, 143, 157–168, 174, 180–182, 219, 220, 223, 257 Holy Roman Empire 65, 223 Holy Sepulchre 157; canons of 107, 114, 145, 147, 151; church of 103, 105–112, 114, 145; golden gate 106; liturgy 106 Holy War 3, 15, 19 Honorius III, Pope 197 Honorius of Autun 103 Homar 158 Homs 6, 10 Horn, Eleazar 112 Horswell, Michael 260 Hospitallers 8–10, 18–19, 24–32, 106, 111, 114, 123, 129, 143, 145, 147, 148, 150, 172, 201, 206–207; Rule 146

Index hospitals 65, 144, 145 Hoya 78 Hugh III of Cyprus 172 Hugh IV of Lusignan 172 Hugh of Caesarea 16 Hugh of Narsac 11 Hughes, Aaron 249, 251 Hugues de Forcalquier 201, 206, 207 Hugues de Jouy 18 Hugues de Pairaud 41 Humbert de Beaujeu 173–175 Humphrey of Toron 145 Humphrey II of Toron 4 Huntingdonshire 54, 62 Hungary 80, 159, 225 Hurley 51 Hussites 215–218, 220, 222, 225 Ibelin 6, 105, 143, 151, 164, 172 Ibelin, house of 6, 105, 143, 151, 164, 172 Iberian Peninsula 24, 25, 31, 50, 183, 188, 195 Ibiza 197, 200, 207 Ibn Abd al-Zahir 6, 9 Ibn al-Furat 7–10 Ibn Munqidh, Usāma 16, 123, 130, 131 Ibn al-Qalanisi 4 Ibn Wasil al Hamawi 111 Ignatius III of Jerusalem 144 Île-de-France 173 Ilghazi (Ilghāzi) 160 ‘Imad al-Din 143 Imbert de Beaujeu 169, 175 India 187, 189 Innocent III, Pope 109, 147, 199 Innocent IV, Pope 31 Ioppe see Jaffa Iraq 248 Ireland 50–64 Isaac, Ducas Comnenus of Cyprus 5 Isaac II Angelus 5 Isaiah, vision 240 Ishmael 250 Islam 3, 5, 114, 124, 158, 241, 242, 248–251 Isle of Ruad 24 Israelites 247 Itinerarium Peregrinorum 5 Jabala 9 Jackson, Peter 6 Jacobite refugees 144 Jacopo of Varazze 180 Jacques de Mailly 19


Jacques de Milly 172 Jacques de Molay 26, 40–44, 46, 52 Jacques of Vitry 123, 131, 145 Jaffa 10, 92, 94, 97–98, 114, 122, 145, 147, 151, 157, 159, 163; hospitals 114 Jagiełło, Władysław, king of Poland 77 Jakub of Koniecpole 79 James I of Aragon 195: Book of Deeds 195–197, 199, 200, 201, 203, 205–207; Llibre dels feits 195 James II of Aragon 25–27, 30 James the Conqueror 203 Janus of Cyprus 169 Janusz Kropidło of Włoczławek 78 Jawlan see Golan Jean de Grilly 39, 40 Jean de Joinville 5, 174 Jean de Lastic 172 Jean de Villiers 29 Jehoshaphat, valley: Hospital of Saint Saviour 145; St. Mary abbey 122 Jerusalem xiv, 8, 17, 18, 24–25, 39, 41, 92, 103–112, 114–115, 121, 122, 142–150, 157–159, 161, 164–165, 169, 172–173, 180, 219, 223, 257; baths 122; Benedictine house of St. Mary Magdalen 144; Benedictine house of St. Mary of the Latins 144; cemetery of St. Mamilla 151; convent of St. Simon 144; church of St. Anne 111; church of St. John the Baptist 145; church of St. Mary of the Latins 146; church of St. Mary the Great 111; convent of St. Mark 143; Gate of David 122; German hospital 144, 145; hospital of St. John 111, 144; hospital of St. Mary of the Germans 144; hospital of St. Savior 145; Jaffa Gate 122; Kingdom of xii, 4, 6, 15, 92–98, 112, 121, 123, 142, 148, 149, 161, 172, 181; Muslim period 109; St. Stephen’s Gate 150; St. Stephen Hungarian hospital 145; St. Theodosius abbey 145 Jesus 53, 107, 108, 239, 245, 247; crucifixion image 53 Jews viii, ix, x, 131, 184, 185, 217, 239–243, 245, 247–250 Jihad 8, 11 Jihlava 219 Jiří of Poděbrad 225 Johann von Daman 78 Johann of Münsterberg 82 John III, Ducas Vatatzes 5 John II of Ibelin 151



John de Ferrers 51 John of Burgundy 77 John of Giblet 6 John of Ibelin 6, 105 John of Jaffa 9 John of Stoke 55 John of Waddon 55 John of Würzburg 106, 151 Johns, Cedric Norman 123 Jordan, river 122, 123, 164, 165 Jordan, valley 123 Joscelin II of Edessa 145 Joscelyn of Courtenay 4, 10 Juan Cristobal Calvete de Estrella: El felicísimo viaje del muy alto y poderoso principe Don Felipe 228 Judaea 162 Judaism: Ashkenaz 241; Sepharad 241 Judgement Day 245 Jungstadt of Danzig 69 Kammin 78 Karak 164 Kasimir V of Pomerania-Stettin 78 Katia (Sinai) 255 Keele 63 Kent 50, 51, 62, 260 Kerkennah 30, 32 Kiev 121, 150 Kilcloggan 53–55, 63 Kilia 182, 184 Kilsaran 52, 54, 63 King David 240 King Hezekiah 240 King Solomon 240 Kingdom of Heaven 146 Kirkby 56 Knocte, William 56 Kogman-Appel, Katrin 245, 247 Kolossi Castle 172 Königsberg 64–72, 78 Konrad von Feuchtwangen 25 Konrad von Muren 67, 71 Kool, Robert 133, 149 Korčula see Curzola Krak des Chevaliers 10 Kruckemann, Johann 70 Küchmeister, Michael 67, 77, 78 Kujavia 65, 66 Kulm 72 Kuschel, Karl-Josef 249 La Copa 182 Lancashire 261 Lancia, Bianca 29

Landfear Lucas, J. 260 Langres 44 Langton, John 45 Langton, Walter 42 Languedoc 184 Lannock 54, 57, 62 Laodicea 92, 94, 181 Larnaca 173 Latakia 122 Laurentius, commander of Tomar 56 Lautenburg (Poland) 66 Lawrence, T. E. 258 le Brun, Giles 175 le Coeur, Claude 126, 127 le Marshal, Andrew 56 Lebanon 126 Leicestershire 50, 62 Lemnos 182 Lent 147 Leo, Templars’ chief negotiator 9 Leopold V of Austria 222 Lesbos 182 Levenson, Jon 250 Levant 24, 25, 91–102, 122–124, 132, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186–188 Lhotsky, Alphons 215 Liber Feudorum Maior 195 Licostomo 182 Liguria 30–32 Limassol 122, 181 Limoges 53 Limousin 41 Lincolnshire: Temple Bruer 50 Lipany 218 Lisbon 183 Lisson 62 Lister, Charles 256, 258 Lithuania 25, 65, 70, 71, 77, 80, 81, 82 liturgy 55, 57, 104, 105–111, 240, 248 Livonia 25, 65, 80 Llandina 258 Llanmadoc 50 Lleida 204–206 Lloyd Davies, George Maitland 259 Lloyd Jones, David 258 Lloyd Jones, Edward 258, 262 Lloyd Jones, Ivor 258, 259 Lobeschitz, Christoph 70 Lock, Peter 162 Lombardy 188 London 65, 183, 255; church of St. Mary 54, 59n22; New Temple church 52, 53, 54, 56, 57 (altar of St John) 53; (altar of St Nicholas) 53 Lorraine 42

Index Louis VII 143 Louis IX of France 18, 24, 174 Louis de Beaujeu 173 Louesme 45 Louth 50, 52, 63 Low Countries 25, 228, 230, 232, 235, 236 Lübeck 65, 72, 78 Lucca 235 Ludwig, Duke and Count Palatinate of Rhine 81 Luke, Harry 258 Lull, Ramon 25 Lusignan, house of 169 Luttrell, Anthony 41 Lviv 65 Lydda 147, 163 Lydley 54, 62 Lyon 42, 174 Ma’arrat al-Nu’mān 122, 123, 130, 132, 142 Machen, Arthur 255 Macmillan, Dan 260 Macmillan, Harold 260 Magdalino, Paul 126 Maghreb 183, 188 Mahumeria 148 Mainebeuf, Philip 16 Mainz 221, 239 Majorca 195, 197, 199–207 Malta 256 Mamluks 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 24, 32, 181 Manfred of Sicily 29 Manners, Diana 256 Manso 151 Mantua, congress 223 Manuel I Comnenos 182 Maona 182, 184, 188 Map, Walter 17 Maqrizi 9 Marçais, William 124 Margat, castle 123 Margaret of Tyre 18 Marienburg: castle of 25 Marienwerder: cathedral of 78 Marinids 28 Marqab 164 Marseille 25, 27, 174, 206, 241 Marsh, Edward 257 Marshal, family 56 Martell, Pere 201 Martin V, Pope 224 Mary, Virgin 53: image 52, 53 Masovia (Mazovia) 65, 66, 82


Massignon, Louis 248 Mateusz of Labeschau 79 Mathieu de Marly 175 Matilda, queen of England 57 Matthias Corvinus of Hungary 225 Matthew of Edessa: chronicle of 4 Maurice of Paris 163–166 Medici 232 Mediterranean 8, 24–38, 91, 92, 96, 112, 121, 144, 179, 180, 181, 187, 188, 189, 199, 204, 228, 241 Megaw, Peter 132 Mehmet II, sultan 113, 183 Meillonnas 174 Melisende of Jerusalem 145 Melkites 248 Meloria 30 Merton 62 Merxadrus, Barzella 150 Mesopotamia 148, 187 Messina 30, 112 Mewe 66 Meyer, Jessica 254 Mez, Henry du 175 Michael VIII Palaeologus 182 Michelangelo 232 Middle East 8, 248, 258 Middlesex 62, 256 Milan 186, 229, 235 Military Orders 9, 10, 16, 106, 122, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 175, 206 milites Christi 15 Millbrook 51, 53, 54, 61 Minard, Renaud 45 Ming dynasty 187 Minorca 197, 207 Mitchell, Piers 55 Moncastro 183, 184 Mongols 6, 7, 24, 81, 183 Montmusard 97, 123, 132, 145, 149 Montpellier 41 moralised Bible 243, 245, 247 Montgisart 161 Montgomeryshire 258, 259 Monzón 197 Moors 197 Morocco 26, 28, 31, 257 Mount Carmel 159 Mount of Olives 107, 245 Mount Tabor 9 Mount Zion 107, 163–165; Abbey 122, 162–163, 166; church 111; Franciscan house 158; library 157, 162–165 Mudejar revolt 197 Muhammad II of Granada 28



Muhammad III of Granada 28 Murcia 28, 197 Muslims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 25–28, 30, 32, 91, 121, 123, 131, 142, 175, 188, 195, 198–201, 203, 204, 207, 239, 240, 242, 248, 249, 250 Nablus: hospital of Saint John the Baptist 145 Nantes 41 Naples 29, 42, 162 Napoleon Bonaparte 260 nâqûs 108, 110 Narbonne 27, 206 Neidenburg (Poland) 66, 71 Nephin: castle of 20 Neuenburg 66 Neumark 69, 78, 79 Newsam 63 Nicaea 141, 159, 221 Niccolò da Poggibonsi 111 Nicetas Choniates, annals of 5 Nicholas V, Pope 224 Nicholas of Cusa 215, 224 Nicholson, Robert 4 Nicopolis 219 Nicosia 30, 122, 142, 145, 147, 151, 181: Cathedral of Saint John 172; cemetery 151; hospitals 145 Nile 187 Nogat 25 Norfolk 54, 62 North Africa 248 North Sea 187, 188, 230 Northumberland 50, 51, 62 Norway 223 Novgorod 65, 81 Nuremberg 79, 157, 165, 235 Nymphaeum, treaty of 182 Odo des Pins 25 Old Testament 54, 247 Oldenburg, Count of Hoya 78 Öljaitü 24 Onda 26–28 Oneglia 31 Order of St. Anthony of Vienne 145 Order of St. John 28, 144 Order of Sanctissima Sophia 258 Order of Santiago 197 Order of the Temple see also Templars Orihuela 203 Oschema, Klaus 3 Othon de Grandson 39–49

Ottokar von der Gaal: Rhymed Chronicle 26 Ottomans xv, 170, 182–183, 188, 219–220 Oxford 251, 256, 258 Oxfordshire 52, 54, 57, 62 Pact of Umar 108 Pactum Warmundi 121 Pagans ix, 4, 18, 81 Palaeologs 256 Palermo 188 Paneas 122 Papacy i, viii, 24, 32, 222, 224 Paphos 123, 181 Paris 3, 39, 42, 43, 163–166, 243, 245 Paris, Matthew 3; Flores Historiarum 50 Parseval de Mar 52 Paschal II, Pope 146 Paul, apostle 247 Paul II, Pope 225 Paul von Wisseyn 79 Peçevi, Ibrahim 3 Pedieos River 142 Pelayo, king of Asturias 232 Peloponnese 223 Penhill 54, 63 Peñíscola 26, 31, 32, 42, 198, 199, 203 Pera-Galata: Galata Tower 182 Perchtoldsdorf 221, 222 Persian Gulf 187 Peter, apostle 216 Peter the Chanter of Paris 245 Peter II of Cyprus 181 Peter III of Aragon 29 Peter of Brittany 175 Peter the Hermit 159 Petronilla 145, 146 Philip II Augustus of France 122, 186 Philip II of Spain 228–238 Philip IV of France 24, 27 Philip of Nemours 175 Philip of Tripoli: Secretum Secretorum 131 Philippe de Nanteuil 175 Phocea 182 Picardy 5 Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius 215, 219; Constantinopolitana clades 219, 222 Piedmont 29 Pierre de Grandson 39, 45 Piers Plowman 3 Pilgrimage 52, 57, 105, 142, 151, 157–159, 163–164; hospices 144–145; hostels 144 Pinelli, Francesco 189 Pirie-Gordon, Harry 258

Index Pisa xiii–xiv, 16, 25, 27, 30, 91–98, 121–122, 129–130, 181–182, 199, 204; bathhouse 121, 130 Pisan, Bartholomew 16 Pisano, Leonardo: Liber abaci 97 Pitcher, Denis 257 Pius II, Pope 215, 223 Plate, Brent S. 104 Plebano, lord of Botrun 96 Po Valley 184 pogroms 141 Poitiers 43, 44 Poland 70, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 223 Poloner, John 162, 163, 166 Porphiria 159 Portopi, battle 205 Port Said 256 Portugal 27, 56 Prague 78, 216, 217 Prince of Peace 15 Pringle, Denys 165 Prokop the Bald 217 Protestants 232, 237 Provence 24, 27, 39, 41 Prussia 24, 25, 32, 64–75, 76–87 Prutz, Hans 4 Psalms 106, 108 Pskov 81 Pullani see Franks Qalawun (Al-Mansur) sultan 18 Quentin, Paul 72 Qurʼan 5 Qutuz, sultan 6 Rafanīya 122, 145 Rahmani, Levi Y. 171 Ralph of Barton 55 Ralph of Ruston 55 Ramla: battles 111, 160 Ramon de Montcada 205 Ramon de Ribells 27–29, 31 Randulph of Evesham 55 Ranieri, vita 93 Rashi 247 Rassit’ 122 Raverat, Jacques 257 Raymond III of Tripoli 5, 96, 97 Raymond IV Berenguer 195 Raymond of Aguilers 159 Raymond of Puy: Rule of the Blessed Raymond de Puy 146 Raymond of Toulouse 181 Raymond-Roupen of Antioch 96


Rebecca, matriarch 243, 245 Reconquista 195–196, 200, 205, 207; in Africa 25, 31 Red Sea 187 refugees 143, 144, 181, 184 Regensburg 216, 218, 222, 225, 239 Renaud de Châtillon 17 Revel, Hugh 9, 10 Rhine 81, 239 Rhineland 242 Rhodes 24, 26, 30, 31, 32 Rhône 174 Ribblesdale, lord 256 Ribston 63 Richard I of England 96 Riley-Smith, Jonathan 7, 175 Rieter, Sebald the Younger: Reisebericht 157, 158, 164 Ripoll 195 Robert de Ferrers 51 Robert de Seffeld 56 Robert of Bernewelle 55 Robert of Fandon 51 Robert of Reading 50 Robert the Monk: Historia Iherosolimitana 158 Rockley 54, 63 Rodez: hospital of Aubrac 28 Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada: Historia de Rebus Hispaniae 196 Roger des Moulins: Statutes of Fr. Roger des Moulins 147 Roger of Salerno 92 Roger of Stowe 55 Röhricht, Reinhold 4 Romaner, A. de 28 Rome 39, 42, 200, 223, 224 Rosenfeld, David of Kulm 72 Rosetta see Rassit’ Rosser, John 132 Rothley 50, 54, 56, 62 Roussillon 203 Roxburgh 42 Rügenwalde 79 Ruggero di Lauria 30, 32 Rum 7 Runciman, Steven 166n11 Rus’ 121 Russia 118n35 Sackville Lawson, Harry 260 Saddlescombe 54, 63 Safad 6, 9–10; Templar castle of 9 Safitha see Chastel Blanc



Saint-Jean du Bois 45 Saint John, Henry 257 Saint-Just, Pierre de 42 Saint Sabas: Great Laura 146 Saint Sabas: war 181 Saint-Simeon, harbour 180 Saint-Urbain, relics 174 Sainte-Eulalie de Cernon 54 Saladin 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 95–98, 112, 115, 122, 130, 143, 147, 152, 180, 189, 223 Saleph, river 221 Salvadó, Sebastián 52 Samastri 182, 184 Samothrace 182 Samper de Calanda 30 San Vitale, church 54 Sancho IV of Castile 25 Sancho of Aragon 30 Sandford 52–56, 62 Saône 174 Sant’Andrea, monastery 31 Sant’Angelo del Palazzo, monastery 29 Santa María la Blanca, statue 52 Santiago de Compostela 115 Saphet see Safad Saracens 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 20, 187, 196, 198, 199, 201, 203, 219, 258 Sarah 250 Sarajevo Haggadah 245, 246, 247 Saranda Kolones, castle 123 Sardinia 30–32, 92 Sarnowsky, Jürgen 64, 76, 78, 80, 82 Satia, Priya 258 Sattler, Carl 64 Sauvage, Matthew 3–14 Scandinavia 65, 121 Schedel, Hartmann 157 Schenk, Jochen 54, 56 Scheurl, Valentin 157 Schillebeeckx, Edward 251 Schlawe 79 Schmugge, Ludwig 220 Schönsee 77 Schrijver, Cornelio 231 Schwetz 66, 69 Scott, Walter 255, 260 Sea of Galilee 6 Seljuks 4 Semantron see nâqûs Sens 44, 45 Sepphoris 19 Sestri Ponente 31 Seville 235, 236

Shawbak 164 Shaw Stewart, Patrick 256 Shayzar 16, 130, 132 Sheffield 261 Shipley 50, 51, 54, 63 Shropshire 54, 62 Šibenik 112 Sibford Gower 54, 62 Sibson 54, 62 Sici di Vercelli, Antonio 3, 7, 11 Sicily 24–27, 29, 30, 65, 188, 204 Sidon 3, 164 Siegfried von Feuchtwangen 25 Sigismund, Hungarian and Roman king 77 Silesia-Oppeln 79, 80 Siloam, spring 148 Simisso 182, 184 Sinai 157, 255; St. Catherine 164 Sinope 182, 184 slavery 143, 188, 223, 260 Sirr al-asrār see Philip of Tripoli: Secretum Secretorum Smithline, Howard 123 Soldaïa 183 Soldau (Poland) 66, 69 Soler, Pere de 27, 28 Somerset: Temple Combe 55 Somme, battle 256 Sommers, Cecil 261 Sompting 50 Sorbonne 216 Sotherington 53, 54, 56, 57, 61 Southampton 183 Spain 25–29, 31, 183, 188, 196, 207, 228, 232, 235, 237, 260 Speyer 239, 241 Spinola, Oberto 30 Spring of Cresson 19 Staffordshire 63 Stanway 255 Stephen of Blois 159 Stern, Edna 123 Stern, Eliezer 123 Stolp 79, 81 Streets, Will 261 Strood 62 Suffolk 51, 53, 63 Sūq al-Bzūriyyeh: bathhouse 126, 127 Surrey 57, 260 Sussex 50, 51, 54, 63 Sutton 61 Suvla Bay 257, 259 Swanton 53, 54, 61

Index Syria 6, 9, 24, 32, 91, 129, 143, 144, 181, 188, 258 Syvod 79 Tacitus 3 Tana 182, 183, 187 Tamerlane 184 Tancred 92, 159 Tannenberg, battle of see Grunwald, battle of Tarifa 28 Tarragona 199, 201, 202, 204, 207 Tatars 25, 183–185, 188 Tegnæus, Harry 3 Tell Bashir see Turbessel “Templar of Tyre” 6–7, 9, 16, 144 Templars x, xii–xv, 3, 6–11, 15–20, 24–26, 28–32, 50–58, 106, 112, 122, 123, 145–146, 176, 197; Catalan Rule 8; Primitive Rule 146; Rule of 8 Temple Mount 106, 111–114 Temple of Solomon 111 Templum Domini 107, 111, 122 Templeton 52, 53, 61 Teruel 199 Teutonic Order 24–25, 64–72, 77, 81–82; Teutonic Knights 10, 27, 64, 68–72, 76–87 Theoderich, pilgrim 110, 122 Thomas de Wonhope 51 Thomas, Nicolaus 70 Thomas of Burton 55 Thomas of Canterbury 53 Thomas of Chobham 54–55; Cabeham 54 Thorau, Peter 10 Thorn 65–72, 77–80; Peace of 77, 78, 80, 81 Thornton 51, 62 Thoros 40 Thors, house 44 Tiberias 6, 159; hospital of Saint Julian 145, 148 Tiergarten, Johann 70 Tintern Abbey 50 Togrynd 53, 62 Toledo 203, 235 Tomar 56 Toron 4, 145 Torsello, Marino Sanudo: Liber secretorum fidelium crucis 162, 163 Tortosa see Antartus Trebizond 182, 183, 187 Tregynon 259 Tripoli 5, 10, 18–20, 30, 92, 94, 96–98, 122, 142, 145, 163, 181; Mount Pèlerin hospital 145


Troy 54 Troyes 44, 247, 259 Tucher, Hans: Reisebuch 157, 158, 161, 162, 165 Tudillén 200 Tunis 30, 39, 92, 183 Turbessel, fortress 4 Turcomans 6, 7, 11 Turville, Richard 56 Tynan, Katherine 256 Tyre 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–19, 91–98, 111, 121–123, 130, 131, 142, 144, 148, 149, 158–161, 172 Upleadon 54, 61 Urban II, Pope 221 Vadum Jacob, castle 122 Val des Choux, abbey 45 Valencia 26–29, 31, 199, 201, 205, 207; Almohad kingdom 196, 197, 200; Muslim kingdom 197, 199, 206 Varna 219 Vatican x, 249: Second Vatican Council 249 Vaud 39, 42 Venice 24–25, 27, 30, 91–96, 98, 110, 121–122, 129–130, 157, 160, 162, 180–184, 186–187, 189, 223, 256; naval forces 92 Venosa, monastery 29 Verlinden, Charles 189 Verona 54 Vesconte, Pietro 162 Vicina 182 Vienna 216, 222–223, 240, 243, 215; cathedral of St. Stephen 216 Vienne: council 45 Vignolo de’Vignoli 30 Villasirga 52 Villehardouin 256 Vincent of Beauvais: Speculum historiale 220 Vincent of Saragossa 56 Vistula, river 66 Voisan, Gerhard 78 Vytautas of Lithuania 77 Wales 50, 258 Walter of Brienne 175 Warmund, Patriarch of Jerusalem 92 Warpsgrove 62 Warwickshire 63 Wemyss, lord 255



Wemyss, Mary 255 Wenceslas IV of Bohemia 79 Werner, Johann 70 Werner von Orseln 25 Westerdale 63 Westminster Abbey 50 Wetherby 63 Wexford 50, 54, 55, 63 Wiener Neustadt 222 Wilbraham (Cambridgeshire) 61 Wilbrand of Oldenburg 149 Wilfred the Hairy 195 Wilhelm von Eppingen 77 Willehalm 26 Willelmus le Chapeleyn see de Kilros, William William I of Bures 148 William de Beaujeu 20 William de Kilros 55 William of Malines 150 William of Tyre 16–17, 19, 111, 123, 142, 158–161, 180, 258; chronicle 4, 158–159, 161; French continuation 91, 98, 148 William of Warwick 55 William of Winchester 55

Willoughton 62 Wiltshire 54, 63, 257 Witzleven 78 Wolfram von Eschenbach 26 Worms 239, 241 Würzburg 78, 106, 151 Wyndham Tennant, Edward 256 Wythefeld 57 Wythele 63 York: Temple Mill 51, 52, 57 Yorkshire 50, 54, 63, 261; North Riding 53, 54; West Riding (Temple Hirst) 53 Ypres 260 Yuval, Israel Jacob 242 Zantir 25 Zapata, Inés 30 Zaragoza 27, 28, 197, 198 Zarfat see France Zbigniew, Polish marshal 79 Zaccaria, Benedetto 181, 182, 188 Zevel: hospital 145 Zimmermann, Harald 215, 216 Zorzi, Marsilio 130