Crusades [18] 9780367375355, 9780429354885

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
CONTENTS
Abbreviations
Articles
Us and Them: Identity in William of Tyre’s Chronicon
William of Belvoir (?): A Short Note on an Even Shorter Inscription
Brevis Ordinacio de Predicacione Sancte Crucis: Edition, Translation and Commentary
The Life and Afterlife of Julian of Sidon
The Cocharelli Codex as a Source for the History of the Latin East: The Fall of Tripoli and Acre
The Church of Limassol at the Death of Bishop Francesco, 1351
Prelude to a Gazetteer of Place-Names in the Countryside of Rhodes 1306–1423: Evidence from Unpublished Documents
The Court of the Monastic Principality of Malta
Remembering Bernard Hamilton (1932–2019)
Bernard Hamilton Essay Prize: Crusading Memory in the Templar Liturgy of Barcelona
Reviews
The French of Outremer: Communities and Communications in the Crusading Mediterranean, ed. Laura K. Morreale and Nicholas L. Paul (Jessalynn Bird)
Simon John, Godfrey of Bouillon: Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Ruler of Latin Jerusalem, c.1060–1100 (Susan B. Edgington)
Danielle E. A. Park, Papal Protection and the Crusader. Flanders, Champagne, and the Kingdom of France, 1095–1222 (Christoph T. Maier)
Alexander Berner, Kreuzzug und regionale Herrschaft: Die älteren Grafen von Berg 1147–1225 (Alan V. Murray)
Thomas W. Smith, Curia and Crusade. Pope Honorius III and the Recovery of the Holy Land 1216–1227 (Laurence W. Marvin)
Antonia Durrer, Die Kreuzfahrerherrschaften des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts zwischen Integration und Segregation (Kristin Skottki)
Die Kreuzzugsbewegung im römisch-deutschen Reich (11.–13. Jahrhundert), ed. Nikolas Jaspert and Stefan Tebruck (Kristin Skottki)
From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keefe and Jean-Michel Picard (Laurence W. Marvin)
Michael Lower, The Tunis Crusade of 1270: A Mediterranean History (Jessalynn Bird)
Jonathan Rubin, Learning in a Crusader City: Intellectual Activity and Intercultural Exchanges in Acre, 1191–1291 (Peter Edbury)
Crusading in Art, Thought and Will, ed. Matthew E. Parker, Ben Halliburton, and Anne Romine (Andrew Buck)
Linda Paterson, Singing the Crusades: French and Occitan Lyric Responses to the Crusading Movements, 1137–1336 (Nicholas Morton)
Literature of the Crusades, ed. Simon Thomas Parsons and Linda M. Paterson (Nicholas Morton)
Constantinos Georgiou, Preaching the Crusades to the Eastern Mediterranean. Propaganda, Liturgy and Diplomacy, 1305–1352 (Christoph T. Maier)
Bulletin no. 39 of the SSCLE
Guidelines for the Submission of Papers
Membership Information

Citation preview

Crusades Volume 18, 2019

Crusades Edited by Benjamin Z. Kedar and Jonathan Phillips with Nikolaos G. Chrissis and Iris Shagrir Editorial Board Benjamin Z. Kedar (Editor; Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) Jonathan Phillips (Editor; Royal Holloway, University of London, U.K.) Nikolaos G. Chrissis (Associate and Bulletin Editor; Democritus University of Thrace, Greece) Iris Shagrir (Associate Editor; Open University of Israel) Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen (Reviews Editor; Aalborg University, Denmark) Denys Pringle (Archaeology Editor; University of Cardiff, U.K.) Michel Balard (University of Paris I, France) Karl Borchardt (University of Würzburg / Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Germany) Peter Edbury (University of Cardiff, U.K.) Jaroslav Folda (University of North Carolina, U.S.A.) Stefan Heidemann (University of Hamburg, Germany) Carole Hillenbrand (University of Edinburgh, U.K.) Kurt Villads Jensen (Stockholm University, Sweden) Thomas F. Madden (Saint Louis University, U.S.A.) Helen Nicholson (University of Cardiff, U.K.) Catherine Otten (University of Strasbourg, France) Jean Richard (Institut de France) Carol Sweetenham (Royal Holloway, University of London / University of Warwick, U.K.) François-Olivier Touati (Université François-Rabelais de Tours, France)

Crusades Volume 18, 2019

Published by ROUTLEDGE for the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 by the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized 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 has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-37535-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-35488-5 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by N2productions

CONTENTS Abbreviations

vii

Articles Us and Them: Identity in William of Tyre’s Chronicon Ann E. Zimo William of Belvoir (?): A Short Note on an Even Shorter Inscription Vardit Shotten-Hallel and Estelle Ingrand-Varenne Brevis Ordinacio de Predicacione Sancte Crucis: Edition, Translation and Commentary Christoph T. Maier The Life and Afterlife of Julian of Sidon Hans Eberhard Mayer

1 21

25 67

The Cocharelli Codex as a Source for the History of the Latin East: The Fall of Tripoli and Acre Chiara Concina The Church of Limassol at the Death of Bishop Francesco, 1351 Chris Schabel Prelude to a Gazetteer of Place-Names in the Countryside of Rhodes 1306–1423: Evidence from Unpublished Documents Michael Heslop

93 129

165

The Court of the Monastic Principality of Malta Francesco Russo

193

Remembering Bernard Hamilton (1932–2019) John France and Malcolm Barber; Andrew Jotischky

213

Bernard Hamilton Essay Prize: Crusading Memory in the Templar Liturgy of Barcelona Edward L. Holt

217

Reviews The French of Outremer: Communities and Communications in the Crusading Mediterranean, ed. Laura K. Morreale and Nicholas L. Paul (Jessalynn Bird) v

231

vi

CONTENTS

Simon John, Godfrey of Bouillon: Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Ruler of Latin Jerusalem, c.1060–1100 (Susan B. Edgington)

234

Danielle E. A. Park, Papal Protection and the Crusader. Flanders, Champagne, and the Kingdom of France, 1095–1222 (Christoph T. Maier)

236

Alexander Berner, Kreuzzug und regionale Herrschaft: Die älteren Grafen von Berg 1147–1225 (Alan V. Murray)

238

Thomas W. Smith, Curia and Crusade. Pope Honorius III and the Recovery of the Holy Land 1216–1227 (Laurence W. Marvin)

240

Antonia Durrer, Die Kreuzfahrerherrschaften des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts zwischen Integration und Segregation (Kristin Skottki)

242

Die Kreuzzugsbewegung im römisch-deutschen Reich (11.–13. Jahrhundert), ed. Nikolas Jaspert and Stefan Tebruck (Kristin Skottki)

242

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keefe and Jean-Michel Picard (Laurence W. Marvin)

245

Michael Lower, The Tunis Crusade of 1270: A Mediterranean History (Jessalynn Bird)

247

Jonathan Rubin, Learning in a Crusader City: Intellectual Activity and Intercultural Exchanges in Acre, 1191–1291 (Peter Edbury)

251

Crusading in Art, Thought and Will, ed. Matthew E. Parker, Ben Halliburton, and Anne Romine (Andrew Buck)

253

Linda Paterson, Singing the Crusades: French and Occitan Lyric Responses to the Crusading Movements, 1137–1336 (Nicholas Morton)

255

Literature of the Crusades, ed. Simon Thomas Parsons and Linda M. Paterson (Nicholas Morton)

255

Constantinos Georgiou, Preaching the Crusades to the Eastern Mediterranean. Propaganda, Liturgy and Diplomacy, 1305–1352 (Christoph T. Maier)

257

Bulletin no. 39 of the SSCLE

261

Guidelines for the Submission of Papers

297

Membership Information

299

Abbreviations AA AOL Autour

Cart Hosp Cart St Sép Cart Tem CCCM Chartes Josaphat Clermont

Crusade Sources CS

CSEL FC GF GN

Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana. History of the Journey to Jerusalem, ed. and trans. Susan B. Edgington (Oxford, 2007) Archives de l’Orient latin 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) Cartulaire général de l’ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, 1100–1310, ed. Joseph Delaville Le Roulx. 4 vols. (Paris, 1884–1906) Le Cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, ed. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 15 (Paris, 1984) Cartulaire général de l’ordre du Temple 1119?–1150. Recueil des chartes et des bulles relatives à l’ordre du Temple, ed. Guigue A.M.J.A., (marquis) d’Albon (Paris, 1913) Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis Chartes de la Terre Sainte provenant de l’abbaye de NotreDame de Josaphat, ed. Henri F. Delaborde, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 19 (Paris, 1880) From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies 1095–1500. Selected Proceedings of the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 10–13 July 1995, ed. Alan V. Murray. International Medieval Research 3 (Turnhout, 1998) The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot, 1998) Crusade and Settlement: Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127), ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913) Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. and trans. Rosalind M. T. Hill and Roger Mynors (London, 1962) Guibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, CCCM 127A (Turnhout, 1996) vii

viii

Horns Mansi. Concilia Mayer, Urkunden MGH  SRG  SS MO, 1 MO, 2 MO, 3 MO, 4 MO, 5 MO, 6/1 MO, 6/2 Montjoie Outremer

PG PL PPTS Pringle, Churches RHC  Darm  Lois  Oc  Or RHGF

ABBREVIATIONS

The Horns of Hattin, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar (Jerusalem and London, 1992) Giovanni D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio Die Urkunden der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, ed. Hans E. Mayer, 4 vols. (Hanover, 2010) Monumenta Germaniae Historica  Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum  Scriptores (in Folio) The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick, ed. Malcolm Barber (Aldershot, 1994) The Military Orders, vol. 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 1998) The Military Orders, vol. 3: History and Heritage, ed. Victor Mallia-Milanes (Aldershot, 2008) The Military Orders, vol. 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Aldershot, 2008) The Military Orders, vol. 5: Politics and Power, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Farnham, 2012) The Military Orders, Volume 6.1: Culture and Contact in the Mediterranean World, ed. Jochen Schenk and Mike Carr (London and New York, 2017) The Military Orders, Volume 6.2: Culture and Contact in Western and Northern Europe, ed. Jochen Schenk and Mike Carr (London and New York, 2017) Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jonathan RileySmith and Rudolf Hiestand (Aldershot, 1997) 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) Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society Library Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1993–2009) Recueil des Historiens des Croisades Documents arméniens  Les assises de Jérusalem Historiens occidentaux  Historiens orientaux Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France

ABBREVIATIONS

RIS NS RM ROL RRH RRH Add RS Setton, Crusades WT

ix

Rerum Italicarum Scriptores  New Series The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, ed. Damien Kempf and Marcus G. Bull (Woodbridge, 2013) Revue de l’Orient latin Reinhold Röhricht, comp., Regesta regni hierosolymitani (Innsbruck, 1893) Reinhold Röhricht, comp., Additamentum (Innsbruck, 1904) Rolls Series A History of the Crusades, general editor Kenneth M. Setton, 2nd edn., 6 vols. (Madison, 1969–89) William of Tyre, Chronicon, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, with Hans E. Mayer and Gerhard Rösch, CCCM 63–63A (Turnhout, 1986)

Us and Them: Identity in William of Tyre’s Chronicon Ann E. Zimo University of New Hampshire [email protected] Abstract In this article I closely analyze the vocabulary William of Tyre used in the Chronicon to describe the groups that opposed and those that supported the kingdom of Jerusalem. William’s text offers a varied and specific vocabulary for the opponents of the Franks, preferring geographic terms like Turci and Egyptii to infideles and Sarraceni. An analysis of hostes reveals that William did not include Christians in the generic category of “the enemy”; however, I argue that, in light of how he used other terms, this division reflects his acknowledgment of geo-political realities rather than a simple religious bigotry against Muslims. William’s use of nostri, Christiani, Latini, and Franci reveals that he possessed a somewhat pragmatic understanding of his own identity. At the core, he considered himself to be an eastern Latin Christian, but throughout the work we can see his self-identity expand to encompass all Christians, or narrow to include only Latins of the kingdom of Jerusalem. The language of the Chronicon does not support the view that the Franks divided the world into two undifferentiated groups of good Christians and bad everyone else. William instead evinced a flexible conception of identity capable of inclusivity and cultural discernment as well as intolerance.

Who were the Franks, those Europeans who stayed behind in the Levant following a crusade? Historians of the crusades and the crusader states have sought to answer this question through close readings of the several chronicles produced in the Latin East by men who settled or spent much of their lives there.1 Arguably the most prominent of these is the chronicle written by William, archbishop of Tyre. Emily Babcock and A. C. Krey’s 1941 English translation of William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, has long been a staple of the classroom and, in I would like to thank Peter Edbury, Michael Lower, the members of the History Working Group at the University of Minnesota, the editors of Crusades and the anonymous readers for reading and commenting on this article at various stages. Any remaining errors are, of course, my own. 1  Alan V. Murray, “Ethnic Identity in the Crusader States: The Frankish Race and the Settlement of Outremer,” in Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson and Alan V. Murray (Leeds, 1995), 59–73; David Jacoby, “Knightly Values and Class Consciousness in the Crusader States of the Eastern Mediterranean,” Mediterranean Historical Review 1 (1986): 158–86. See also idem, “La littérature française dans les états latins de la Méditerranée orientale à l’époque des croisades: diffusion et création,” in Essor et fortune de la chanson de geste dans l’Europe et l’Orient latin. Actes du IXe Congrès International de la Société Rencevals pour l’étude des épopées romanes (Padoue-Venise, 1982) (Modena, 1984), 617–46. 1

2

ANN E. ZIMO

many ways, sets the tone for how we continue to characterize the twelfth-century crusader experience.2 A close comparison reveals, however, that the translation misleads the reader when naming and describing the peoples William writes about. While William most often uses the simple terms “our people” and “the enemy” in his accounts of conflict, Babcock and Krey’s translation choices effectively change the narrative into an account of the battle between (good) Christians and (infidel) Muslims.3 Although one might be tempted to dismiss this particular binary as reflecting an earlier, and now outdated, understanding of the crusades, the conception has not disappeared.4 Some scholars, taking the language from contemporary papal and other major ecclesiastical sources, argue that the crusades were, in fact, defensive wars against a monolithic Islamic threat, glossing over differing attitudes that may be found in sources more reflective of a lived reality.5 Others argue that Latin Christians and the crusaders saw themselves surrounded by dangerous error in belief and set themselves to correct it without an interest in exchange or understanding.6 Whether from the perspective of apology or critique, both attitudes in the scholarship accept and tacitly reinforce the notion that, for Latin Christians, the world was divided 2  William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily A. Babcock and A. C. Krey, 2 vols. (New York, 1943; repr. 1976). Examples of popular textbooks and readers using Babcock and Krey include S. J. Allen and Emilie Amt, The Crusades: A Reader, 2nd ed. (Toronto, 2010); Thomas Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades (Lanham, MD, 2006). 3  The purpose of this paper is to analyze William’s words and not Babcock and Krey, so a few examples will have to suffice. The translators frequently render hostes as an entirely different word, for example “infidel” or “Turk” (Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:328, 500 respectively). William is sparing in his use of the term infidelis, however, Babcock and Krey’s translation uses it synonymously with hostes which imposes negative connotations not necessarily in the text. For example, in Book 12, William uses infidelium once (WT 12.9, p. 556) however “infidel” appears eight times in the translation. When not translating hostes into another word altogether, they often add detail not included in the Latin. In Book 20, William writes, “quod hostium incessanter augebantur numerus,” which Babcock and Krey translate as “that the enemies of the Christian faith were constantly increasing” (WT 20.22, p. 942; Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:377). By adding “of the Christian faith” the translators put added weight to a religious component understood but not emphasized in the original. Moreover, they are making a claim about William’s priorities which are not universally supported in the Latin. Many of the stories he presents are pragmatic, the enemies are the enemies of the kingdom of Jerusalem, not of the universal Christian faith. 4  Although recent scholars have been attempting to dispel this idea, e.g. Nicholas Morton, “William of Tyre’s Attitude towards Islam: Some Historiographical Notes,” in Deeds Done Beyond the Sea: Essays on William of Tyre, Cyprus and the Military Orders presented to Peter Edbury, ed. Susan B. Edgington and Helen J. Nicholson (Abingdon, 2014), 14. 5  Some of the more popularly oriented work on the crusades points in this direction: Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades, x; Paul F. Crawford, “The First Crusade: Unprovoked Offense or Overdue Defence?” in Seven Myths of the Crusades, ed. Alfred J. Andrea and Andrew Holt (Indianapolis, 2015), 1–28; and idem, “Four Myths about the Crusades,” Intercollegiate Review 36 (Spring 2011): 13–22. 6  Jonathan Riley-Smith, “Crusading as an Act of Love,” History 65 (1980): 177–92; Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The Subjected Muslims of the Frankish Levant,” in Muslims Under Latin Rule, 1100–1300, ed. James M. Powell (Princeton, 1990), 174; David Nirenberg, Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today (Chicago, 2014), 17–19.

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

3

between good Latin Christians and a barely differentiated mass of everyone else. This essay investigates, through a close analysis of the language in his Chronicon, the manner in which William of Tyre described his own identity group and those around him.7 It first explores the terms used to describe those put in opposition to the Franks, that is, the enemies the crusaders fought against. This is followed by a more in-depth analysis of the most common terms used to describe the groups within Frankish society starting with nostri. Even though William was a member of the Frankish ecclesiastical elite, his language demonstrates that he did not think in terms of a simple Christian–Muslim binary, but rather saw the world in religious and political terms that shaded his understanding of the various Christians and Muslims he lived among.8 Over the course of his life, William wrote three historical works, of which the Chronicon is the only one to survive (the other two were a history of the Islamic world from the time of Muhammad, and an account of the Third Lateran Council). While William originally intended the Chronicon to inspire renewed efforts against Muslim forces by his fellow Franks, upon his return from the Third Lateran Council, he changed focus to include the wider Latin world, which he considered to be ill-informed about the state of the Latin East.9 Although William’s language is generally uniform, this analysis will focus particularly on his language from the last eight books (16–23) as, it is assumed here, examples of prose less likely to have been taken from other narrative sources. For the period up to 1143, William had reference to other written sources, such as Fulcher of Chartres’s Historia Hierosolymitana, the vocabulary from which might have inadvertently influenced his own. For the last eight books, William could only draw from oral informants, documents, and his own memory.10

7 

References to word frequency are based on information from the concordance: Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi and CETEDOC, Chronicon/[Concordance], CCCM 63–63A, Instrumenta lexicologica Latina. Series A, Formae, fasc. 32 (Turnhout, 1986). 8  With respect to the Byzantines, see Peter W. Edbury and John Gordon Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East (Cambridge, 1988), 167–74. For a recent overview of the scholarship on William’s attitudes towards Muslims, see Morton, “William of Tyre’s Attitude towards Islam,” 13–23. William of Tyre barely discusses the Jews and Samaritans who also comprised part of the society of the kingdom of Jerusalem. He mentions Jews eight times in the whole chronicle, four times in the context of the earlier history of Jerusalem, once mentioning Josephus’s history of the Jews, twice with regards to the massacres during the First Crusade, and once when referring to Jewish doctors whom the Frankish nobility consulted. Samaritans are only mentioned in the latter reference. WT 18.34, p. 859. 9  Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, 159–60, 171. See also R. B. C. Huygens, “Guillaume de Tyr étudiant: Un chapitre (XIX, 12) de son «Histoire» retrouvé,” Latomus 21 (1962): 811–29; Julian Yolles, “Latin Literature and Frankish Culture in the Crusader States (1098–1187)” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2015), 79 [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn–3:HUL.InstRepos:17467480 (date last accessed: 15 July 2019)]. William himself explains that “love of country” urged him on, as well as the command by King Amalric: WT Prologue, pp. 99–100. 10  For a discussion of the chronology of composition of William’s Chronicon, see Benjamin Z. Kedar, “Some New Light on the Composition Process of William of Tyre’s Historia,” in Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, 3–12. As the data shows, there is some difference in the frequency with which William

4

ANN E. ZIMO

This kind of study reveals how William himself categorized those around him and offers an opportunity to analyze the expression of the Frankish conception of identity through language.11 William of Tyre’s differentiation among Muslim and Christian groups would have been an intentional act, intended both to appeal to Franks who presumably already thought in those terms, and as a corrective to Western clerics trained to establish and maintain monolithic religious constructs. William of Tyre’s categories of both “us” and “them” prove more nuanced than a simple binary of good Christians and evil Muslims. His work is peopled with a wide variety of adversaries, ranging from basic hostes, to the more specific Greci, Egyptii, Turci, Arabes, infideles, and Sarraceni. The vast majority of the Chronicon, though, is written in terms of hostes and nostri, the enemy and our people. According to the concordance of Huygens’s edition, there are 883 instances of hostes in its various forms, which is more than double the total number of all the other words William uses to describe those whom the Franks confronted.12 On the surface, the prevalence of this binary would seem to suggest that William had, indeed, a monolithic and intolerant worldview. When William writes about the hostes of the Latins, hostes are almost always non-Christians. The exceptions occur when William adopts the perspective of Muslims and actually calls the Latins “the enemy,” or when Christians do harm to the Latin cause.13 Even so, the fact that William does not hesitate to call the Latin army hostes when on occasion he assumes the perspective of Muslims belies the bigotry. This recognition and adoption of the perspective of those he called enemy lends further support to R. C. Schwinges’s argument that William wrote with a tolerance and even sympathy for the Muslims he lived among.14 In the cases where William adopts the perspective of Muslims, he exhibits considerable empathy. For example, the speech that he puts in the mouths of the elders of Ascalon before they capitulate to the besieging Franks refers to the

used certain words between the first fifteen and final eight books, especially with the “us” vocabulary, but also the use of “Persian.” See Figures 1 and 2 below. 11  Rainer Christoph Schwinges notes the difference in vocabulary, “William of Tyre, the Muslim Enemy, and the Problem of Tolerance,” in Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades, ed. Michael Gervers and James M. Powell (Syracuse, NY, 2001), 127. For other discussions of identity in William of Tyre, see: Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, 144–50; Conor Kostick, “William of Tyre, Livy, and the Vocabulary of Class,” Journal of the History of Ideas 65 (2004): 353–69; and Miriam Rita Tessera, “Prudentes homines ... qui sensus habebant magis exercitatos: a Preliminary Inquiry into William of Tyre’s Vocabulary of Power,” Crusades 1 (2002): 63–71. 12  See Table 1 below. Data excludes examples from the rubrics since their authorship is indeterminable. 13  For instance, see the speech of the “prudentes viros” of Ascalon, WT 17.29, pp. 802–3; or when the citizens of Constantinople attack the Latin community of the city, WT 22.13, p. 1023. 14  Rainer Christoph Schwinges, Kreuzzugsideologie und Toleranz: Studien zu Wilhelm von Tyrus (Stuttgart, 1997), 64–67, 187–99, passim; idem, “William of Tyre, the Muslim Enemy, and the Problem of Tolerance,” 124–32. Thomas Rödig, however, is unconvinced, instead interpreting William’s rhetoric as stylistic rather than tolerant: Thomas Rödig, Zur politischen Ideenwelt Wilhelms von Tyrus (Frankfurt am Main, 1990), esp. 79–81.

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

Table 1 Analysis of “the enemy”

Fig. 1 Average uses per book of “enemy” vocabulary

Word

8

Arabes Egyptii Heretici Hostes Infideles Pagani Perses Sarraceni Turci Turcomani

Books Books 1–15 16–23 16 10 53 36 3 2 517 366 44 15 3 0 31 0 10 7 97 54 2 1

5

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Egyptii Heretici Infideles Pagani

Perses Sarraceni Turci Turocmani

Frequency Books 1–15

Frequency Books 16–23

Note: Fig. 1 excludes the frequency of use for hostes for reasons of visual clarity (i.e. because of the very large number of references by comparison to the other terms); however, the data is provided in Table 1.

valiant defense of the city on behalf of wives, children, and liberty in the face of the unrelenting Frankish onslaught.15 While the formal divide between who was and was not an enemy typically corresponded to their faith, religious prejudice should not be seen as the exclusive cause of this correspondence. Politics also played an important role. On the one hand, the Byzantines were frequently at odds with the kingdom of Jerusalem, and William is often disparaging, calling them “little Greeks,” effeminate, and soft. They are only once described as hostes.16 This suggests that their status as Christians generally prevented them from falling into the hostes category even if they were occasional enemies. On the other hand, William’s vocabulary shifts for the account of the destruction of Constantinople’s Latin quarter during Andronikos’s coup.17 The Latins fought for and lost their lives to the Byzantines who accordingly are described as the enemy. It was at this point, as Edbury and Rowe argued, that William seems to have given up on the Byzantines as allies against the Muslims.18 Another illustrative example is that of Malih, the brother of Thoros II of Cilician Armenia, a Christian and former member of the Knights Templar, who attempted to seize control of Cilicia with the help of Nur al-Din. William describes these events as deeply disturbing to the Franks, likening the conflict that erupted between him and King Amaury to a civil war, and, crucially, he calls Malih “an enemy of the state.” William reports that Malih introduced the first “infidel” forces into his 15 

WT 17.29, p. 802. For example, WT 18.17, p. 833; 22.11, p. 1020. As “hostes,” WT 22.13, pp. 1023. 17  WT 22.13, p. 1023. 18  Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, 149–50. 16 

6

ANN E. ZIMO

ancestral inheritance by using Nur al-Din’s troops to seize Cilicia. Because of this, William likens Malih to an infidel and someone forsaken by God.19 By coming to terms with Nur al-Din in order to gain his military aid, Malih took Cilicia into the political sphere of the man who most threatened the Frankish presence at the time. Thus, it seems that “the enemy” were those who posed an existential threat to Latins and the kingdom of Jerusalem. Religion was obviously closely entwined with the political situation; however, it would be wrong to dismiss the political reality from William’s understanding. Although the basic categories in William’s narrative are “our people” and “the enemy,” the Chronicon possesses an array of more specific categories that reveal William’s nuanced understanding of the peoples around him. William uses Turci, Egyptii, and Arabes throughout to refer to different groups of hostes encountered by the crusader armies. Egyptii correspond to people from the geographical area around the Nile, which would match both the Roman Latin Aegyptus and the Arabic Misr.20 The word Turci is a little more nebulous. At times, William uses it in connection to peoples coming from Anatolia, who, if not themselves Turkic, would have been at least subject to the Seljuk Turks. For instance, the Seljuk sultan of Iconium gathered “a great multitude of Turks from neighboring regions” in response to the arrival of the German contingent of the Second Crusade led by Conrad III.21 In the same passage he goes on to specify that they came “from the two Armenias, Cappadocia, Isauria, Cilicia, Media, and Parthia.”22 When deployed in the context of military contingents, it seems that the origin of the leader and the fighting style employed may have played the deciding role in determining the term applied to an army. Nur al-Din, the atabeg of Aleppo and conqueror of most of Syria, was of Turkic ancestry. The forces at his disposal, however, would have included both people who were and were not of Turkic descent. Yet William describes his troops as Turks when not calling them hostes.23 We see this effect in William’s description of the forces of the general Shirkuh and his nephew Saladin. These men, who served as generals for Nur al-Din, were themselves Kurdish, but, according to William, they led troops of “Turks.”24 Because it seems likely that William did not know they were Kurdish, since he only refers to Kurds once in the whole work, he must have chosen to call them Turkish for another reason, perhaps because of the nomadic Kurdish familial background or because their own superior was Nur al-Din.25 Another possibility was that they fought in the style of the Turks, using mounted archers as light cavalry.26 In any 19 

WT 20.26, p. 949. For William’s description of the geographical extent of Egypt in the eleventh century, see WT 18.4, p. 814. 21  Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:167; WT 16.20, p. 743. 22  Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:168; WT 16.20, p. 743. 23  e.g. WT 16.11, p. 730; 17.9, p. 771; 19.5, p. 872. 24  e.g. Siracunus: WT 19.14, p. 883; 19.22, p. 893; 20.9, p. 922; 20.10, p. 923. 25  “curdinorum”: WT 5.14, p. 289. 26  Steve Tibble, The Crusader Armies 1099–1187 (New Haven, CT, 2018), 6. 20 

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

7

case, their identity was then passed on to the troops they led. Even when Saladin established himself as ruler of Syria and Egypt, William calls his armies Turci. For example, in his account of the attack on Gaza in 1170, William writes that Saladin was rumored to have gathered troops from all of Egypt as well as Damascus.27 As he goes on to describe the battle, he writes that Turks took the city.28 William’s initial description of Saladin and how he came to rule Egypt is also suggestive. He writes that Saladin understood that the Turks were hated by the Egyptians and so feared the caliph would kill him; accordingly, he decided to strike first.29 William in this section leads us to understand that Saladin himself was a Turk and therefore could expect the caliph to attack him. This tendency to ascribe ethnic origins to a group based on its leader was not universal and so leads one to suspect that fighting style was also a factor. There is one exception from the last five books of the Chronicon in which we find a Turk leading Arabs. William describes the forces of Shirkuh prior to the Battle of al-Babayn (March 1167) as containing “twelve thousand Turks, of whom nine thousand wore the breastplate and helmet and the other three thousand used only bows and arrows” as well as “ten or eleven thousand Arabs [Arabes] who, according to their custom, fought with lances only.”30 William gives the classic description of Turkic mounted archers known for their distinctive fighting style.31 Given the context, it is possible that by Arabes William means Arabic speakers from Syria sent by Nur al-Din to Shirkuh in order to gain control of Egypt. The contemporary Syrian nobleman Usama ibn Munqidh describes the Syrian cavalry as fighting with spears, mirroring William’s description.32 After this one anomalous reference to mixed forces, the remainder of the account of the battle simply calls the entirety of Shirkuh’s army Turci. The treatment thus reinforces the idea that William used it as a blanket term based on the general (perceived) identification of the troops with people of Turkic ancestry based in part on leadership and fighting style. Turning to Arabes, we see that in fact, the above example is doubly exceptional since it departs from William’s usual meaning for the term, namely “Bedouin.” Given William’s level of education, it might be tempting to read Arabes as referring to people originally coming from regions known in the Roman world as “Arabia,” including any Arabic-speaking person living in Syria. However, he was not merely imitating classical models, but also drawing from his knowledge of the region. William himself tells us that King Amaury granted him access to Arabic 27 

WT 20.19, p. 936. WT 20.20, p. 939. 29  WT 20.11, p. 925. Also, Anne-Marie Eddé, Saladin, trans. J. M. Todd (Cambridge MA, 2011), 47–50. 30  Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:331. See WT 19.25, p. 898. 31  Tibble, The Crusader Armies, 254–61. 32  Usama Ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation: Islam and the Crusades, trans. Paul M. Cobb (London, 2008), 52, 114–15. See also Tibble, The Crusader Armies, 60–61. For the Seljuk troops, see R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare 1097–1193, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1995), 77–78; John France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades 1000–1300 (Ithaca, NY, 1999), 211–12. 28 

8

ANN E. ZIMO

historical writings for the purpose of composing his history of the Islamic states. In those works, he would have encountered the medieval Arabic meaning of ʿarab (Arabs) which referred to nomadic Bedouin.33 Current consensus seems to hold that William’s grasp of Arabic was tenuous at best; however, he was versed in the basics of Islam and other local knowledge, and thus would have been exposed to the association of the word Arab with Arabic-speaking nomads.34 Thus, in a passage describing the lifestyle of Turkmen who gathered with Arabes in the forests of Banyas, he writes that they were like the Arabs, living in tents and off the products of livestock.35 Clearly, both the Turkmen and the Arabes are nomadic pastoralists.36 William uses Sarracenus and infidelis the least frequently to designate someone who would fall under the umbrella of “the enemy.” This infrequency stands in contrast to current understanding of how Latins thought and wrote about Muslims in the eleventh and twelfth centuries: that is, that they were a single group defined by their religious status as unbelievers and frequently misidentified as pagans or at best, heretics.37 William employs the category Sarracenus a mere seventeen times in the whole work.38 Moreover, he does not use pagani or heretici to describe those

33 

Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, 23. Hannes Möhring made the strong argument against William’s knowledge of literary Arabic in “Zu der Geschichte der orientalischen Herrscher des Wilhelm von Tyrus,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 19 (1984): 170–83. See also, Morton, “William of Tyre’s Attitude towards Islam,” 15, 16. 35  WT 18.11, p. 825; Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:255. 36  The other examples of Arabes as nomadic pastoralists from the last eight books: WT 16.9, p. 726; 18.11, p. 825; 19.5, p. 871; 21.23, p. 993; 22.15, p. 1026; 23.1, p. 1063. A possible exception: WT 16.12, p. 732; Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:155. 37  Nicholas Morton provides the most recent overview of the scholarship on this topic and demonstrates that the papal curia favored general terms such as pagan or Saracen on the eve of the First Crusade. He argues compellingly that the true binary in these chronicles is between those who adhere to the will of God and those who do not: Encountering Islam on the First Crusade (Cambridge, 2016), 3–11, 80–82, and 183–87. Elizabeth Lapina discusses eleventh-century chroniclers’ use of “infidels” as witnesses and interpreters of miracles and emphasizes the knowledge the Normans brought with them about the Byzantines and Muslims on the First Crusade: Warfare and the Miraculous in the Chronicles of the First Crusade (University Park, PA, 2015), 24–28. See also John V. Tolan’s discussion of the word in: Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (New York, 2002), esp. 105–33. Norman Daniel offered the classic discussion of Christian views of Muslims as heretics in: Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh, 1960), 184–88. As Schwinges found, William’s usage does not reflect the derogatory notes Tolan highlights, and nowhere does William suggest that Saracens were pagans as was common in contemporary Europe: Schwinges, “William of Tyre, the Muslim Enemy, and the Problem of Tolerance,” 126; see also fn. 14 above. Norman Bade argues that eleventh-century chroniclers such as Adhemar of Chabannes and Rodulfus Glaber did understand cultural differences of those they called Saracens but would group them with pagani in opposition to Christians when discussing eschatology: Norman Bade, “Stereotype Vorstellungen? Die christlich-abendländische Wahrnehmung der Sarazenen im Spiegel der französischen Historiographie zu Beginn des 11. Jahrhunderts,” in Von Sarazenen und Juden, Heiden und Häretikern. Die christlich-abendländischen Vorstellungen von Andersgläubigen im Früh- und Hochmittelalter in vergleichender Perspektive, ed. Norman Bade and Bele Freudenberg (Bochum, 2013), 13–53. 38  WT 17.10, p.772; 18.5, p. 816; 18.34, p. 859; 19.13, p. 882; 20.29, p. 953; 21.25, p. 998. 34 

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

9

he calls Saracens.39 Perhaps even more than pagan or heretic, infidelis represents the word most often attributed to how medieval Latins regarded Muslims. The assumption that Latins principally thought about Muslims as infidels, that it encompassed all they wanted or needed to know, is so pervasive that scholars adopt the term without qualification or explanation in their own discussions.40 The English translation of William of Tyre certainly lends itself to this assumption. Although more common than Sarraceni, William only uses the term infidelis and its forms some sixty-two times in total and just fifteen times in the later eight books. These are still a small fraction compared to his use of hostes, Turci, or Egyptii, suggesting William was not usually interested in describing peoples in the region by their confessional status as unbelievers.41 Although the sample pool is rather small to definitively suggest what William understood by Sarraceni, the evidence indicates that he uses it as a blanket term for Muslims.42 In Book 17 William describes the caliph in Baghdad as the greatest prince and monarch of the Saracens, which corresponds to the traditional position the caliph held in relation to all Muslims in Sunni political thought.43 The language William uses much later in discussing the Assassins clearly reveals a general meaning of the word Saracen. He claims “neither our men nor the Saracens” know the origins of the name Assassin, and that the Assassins so strictly follow the laws and traditions of the Saracens that everyone else looks bad in comparison.44 Here again it is evident that William means “Muslims” in general when he uses Sarraceni. It is important to emphasize that William only chose to use such a blanket term seven times in the later eight books of the Chronicon, which underlines that he found it to be of relatively minimal utility compared to the other terms already discussed. In an age when we are often asked to think about the crusades in terms of clashes between Christians and Muslims, it is instructive to note that for William the battles were not with Muslims, but with specific groups of Turks or, less frequently, Egyptians. 39  Heretici are always Christian heretics. Although the three instances of pagani do refer to Muslims, all come from texts that William copied into his chronicle. Heretici: WT 2.13, p. 178; 3.1, p. 197; 22.11, p. 1021. Pagani: WT 11.12, p. 513; 12.25, p. 578. See also Schwinges, “William of Tyre, the Muslim Enemy, and the Problem of Tolerance,” 126–27. 40  e.g. María Dolores Bollo-Panadero, “Heretics and Infidels: The Cantigas de Santa María as Ideological Instrument of Cultural Codification,” Romance Quarterly 55 (Summer 2008): 163–73; Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades, 60; even Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, especially Chapter 9 “War Against the Infidel,” 151–66. David Nirenberg argues that even though Latin Christians did develop a “science of Islam” it was only ever in service of polemic: Nirenberg, Neighboring Faiths, 19. 41  Bertil Nilsson suggests that infideles included the unbaptized as well as those who were disobedient to the Holy See in Rome but acknowledges more work on a precise definition needs to be done. Bertil Nilsson, “Gratian on Pagans and Infidels. A Short Outline,” in Cultural Encounters during the Crusades, ed. Kurt Villads Jensen, Kirsi Salonen, and Helle Vogt (Odense, 2013), 154, 160. 42  This was also how it was used in Norman Sicily: Timothy Smit, “Pagans and Infidels, Saracens and Sicilians: Identifying Muslims in the Eleventh-Century Chronicles of Norman Italy,” Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History 21 (2009): 67–86. 43  WT 17.10, p. 772. 44  WT 20.29, p. 953.

10

ANN E. ZIMO

William’s use of infidelis is not only infrequent, but also varied. In the last eight books, William twice uses “infidel” in its adjectival capacity to mean “unfaithful,” describing a person or people. A Turk named Nocquinus, according to William, fought with the people of Ascalon when they were defending the city against King Baldwin III. After the city was captured, and the townspeople allowed to leave for Egypt, Nocquinus turned on them, robbing them of their possessions. On account of this bad behavior, William calls him “evil in character and unfaithful.”45 Similarly, William describes Andronikos Komnenos as “a faithless and wicked man, originator of plots and always unfaithful to the empire.”46 William more often uses infidelis to mean unbeliever and does so in two contexts. One is when he wants to underline the justice of a situation or conversely its horror.47 For example, he writes that Renaud of Châtillon and other captives were sent to Aleppo and made a spectacle for the “infidel populace.”48 Since Renaud’s raid on Christians, the faithful, and their flocks precipitated his capture by the governor of Aleppo, William considers his capture by a Muslim a fitting punishment, and underlines the justice of Renaud’s fate by calling the residents of Aleppo infidels. Similarly, he describes how those Franks, including Bohemond of Antioch seized in the skirmish at Harim in 1165, were sent to Aleppo and also made “a spectacle for the infidel populace.”49 Again, there is a sense that those captured were deserving since they let their greed for booty lure them into disorderly pursuit of the retreating army that then rallied and routed the Latins. William is clearly playing with the meanings and relations between infidelis and fidelis. At the end of a section in which he recounts how King Baldwin III allowed an attack on Turkmen and Arabs in Banyas in contravention of a treaty, William remarks how God “soon made it plain that, even with infidels, faith must be kept.”50 He connects the poor faith of the king with Nur al-Din’s subsequent attacks and victories.51 William also uses infidelis in situations where he wants to emphasize their horror or pathos. Perhaps most appalling to William was when the Byzantines of Constantinople sold the Latins whom they seized in the wake of Andronikos’s coup d’état “to Turks and other infidel peoples.”52 He emphasizes this further by concluding that it was said that more than four thousand people were delivered to “barbarian nations.” William uses infideles to heighten the stakes of the situation confronting the Christian citizens of Edessa, who choose to abandon their city and 45 

WT 17.30, p. 805. WT 22.12, p. 1022. Also, regarding Taticius see WT 4.21, p. 263. 47  There are only two examples (both in the same discussion of the inhabitants of Jerusalem prior to the First Crusade) in which William may have included Jews in his understanding of infideles: WT 18.5, pp. 815–16. He mentions Jews twice in the last eight chapters: WT 18.34, p. 859; 23.P, p. 1062. 48  WT 18.28, p. 852. 49  WT 19.9, p. 875. 50  Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:256; WT 18.11, p. 826 51  The other example of the emphatic use of infideles for underlining God’s justice is WT 16.25, p. 751. 52  WT 22.7, p. 1016. 46 

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

11

leave with the Latins, rather than risk being killed or put under perpetual servitude to an infidel enemy.53 A final example in which William uses infidelis to deliver pathos, is in his account of the funeral procession of King Baldwin III from Beirut to Jerusalem. He notes that multitudes of infidels descended the mountains to mourn his passing.54 Again it is as if William is playing with meanings, by which he presents so-called unfaithful peoples showing a kind of faith to their dead king. The final context in which William of Tyre uses infidelis is when discussing the status of Christians and Christianity in the world. A typical example is his account of the discussion among the leaders of the Second Crusade as to how to proceed following the failure of the siege of Damascus. It was proposed that they attack Ascalon which “an infidel populace still retained.”55 Here it seems clear that the distinguishing feature of the populace of Ascalon was that it was Muslim, making the city a potential new target for the crusaders “to restore to the Christian devotion.”56 Another example of William using infidelis to create a contrast between the space of believers and unbelievers occurs in his brief history of the origins of the Hospital in Jerusalem.57 He writes that the city was equally divided into four quarters, only one of which, that with the Holy Sepulchre, belonged to the faithful (fidelibus), while the rest were inhabited by infideles.58 Later in the same section, William again describes the populace of Jerusalem prior to the First Crusade and says that “all the inhabitants of the city were Saracens and infidels” with the exception of the patriarch, the clergy, and the “miserable” Syrian Christians.59 We see in this example that Saracen and infidel are not necessarily synonymous for William. He could be describing two aspects of the same group of people, or perhaps in this one case he is including the Jewish inhabitants of the city as well as the Muslims. As a point of comparison, we can examine William’s use of fidelis. This antonym for infidel and its forms appear 223 times in the chronicle as a whole, but only 42 times in the later eight books. This emphasizes that, in the parts of the Chronicle William would have written without having read other accounts, he did not frame his narrative as being about faithful Christians fighting infidel Muslims. The meanings of fidelis can be divided into three groups. Most frequently, in fifteen instances, William uses it to mean “follower.”60 For example, he describes how Saladin entrusted the cities in northern Mesopotamia to fideles suos prior to 53 

WT 16.15, p. 736. WT 18.34, p. 860. 55  WT 17.7, p. 769. 56  The use of infidelis in William’s discussion of the apostle Thadeus at Edessa should be read in the same light: WT 16.5, p.721. 57  Norman Bade describes a similar phenomenon: “Stereotype Vorstellung,” 51–52. 58  WT 18.5, p. 815. 59  WT 18.5, p. 816. 60  This is a notoriously nebulous and frought term, but for a sustained discussion of uses in Europe see Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (New York, 1994), 6, 23, passim; for what it meant in France, see ibid., 127. 54 

12

ANN E. ZIMO

moving his forces to Aleppo in 1183.61 During his account of the civil war between Melisende and Baldwin III, William describes how the queen learned that her son Baldwin was approaching her position, and then retired to the citadel “with her household staff and loyal followers.”62 In eleven instances, William uses fidelis to mean faithful or loyal when describing individuals such as Thomas Becket or Ivo de Nesle, count of Soissons as fidelis et prudens, faithful and sensible.63 In thirteen instances, William uses fidelis to mean Christian. Admittedly, there are occasions, such as when he discusses how the Maronites once separated from the “union of the faithful” but then rejoined it, in which the faithful are clearly Latin Christians. More often, however, fidelis refers to Christians of all kinds.64 Returning to Renaud of Châtillon’s raid on Edessa, William first calls the populace “faithful” then later specifies them as Syrian and Armenian Christians.”65 Similarly, he uses fidelis to describe the Byzantine population of Cyprus which Renaud also raided.66 Fulcher of Chartres, one of William’s sources, offers an interesting point of contrast. Fulcher did not use “infidel,” preferring to use “pagan” in instances in which he wanted to emphasize the odds against which the first crusaders found themselves, for example when they traveled across Anatolia, or when describing Pope Urban II’s work “to drive out the pagans from Christian lands.”67 Fulcher refers to Turks extensively, whom he clarifies as “paganis Persicis” perhaps suggesting that he was aware that few back in Europe would have been familiar with them.68 He also refers to the Fatimids as Babyloniis, giving another indication that William’s use of Egyptiis instead reflects a shift in knowledge of the political powers involved. One gets a sense of greater ethnic diversity from Fulcher, since he notes the presence of Ethiopians as well as Arabs in the forces of Egypt.69 His description of the suffering of the peasants living around Jerusalem, subject to the predation of Ethiopian ambushes, sudden Babylonian attacks by land and sea, and Turkish attacks from the north, reveals a greater preoccupation with ethnic or racial characteristics on Fulcher’s part. William, by contrast, only refers to Ethiopians three times, suggesting he placed more importance on the political affiliation of the enemy armies than on their ethnic composition. In sum, this overview of the words William of Tyre used to signify the groups with which he did not identify confirms that the fundamental distinction between “us” and “them” corresponded to religion. More specifically, the dividing line came between Christian and Muslim. However, the analysis also shows that William was 61 

WT 22.25, p. 1046. Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:206; WT 17.14, p. 779. 63  WT 20.21, p. 940; 17.1, p. 761. 64  WT 22.9, p. 1018. 65  WT 18.28, p. 851. See also Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance (Philadelphia, 2008), 8–9. 66  WT 18.10, pp. 823–24. 67  FC 1.16, p. 227; 1.4, p. 143. 68  FC 1.16, p. 227. As suggested by Morton, Encountering Islam on the First Crusade, 98. 69  FC 1.27, p. 300. 62 

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

Table 2 Who were “our people”? Word Christiani Fideles Franci Latini Nostri

Books Books 1–15 16–23 115 60 164 42 30 34 44 35 606 469

13

Fig. 2 Average uses per book of “us” vocabulary 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Christiani

Fideles

Franci

Book 1–15

Book 16–23

Latini

Note: Figure 2 excludes nostri for reasons of visual clarity (i.e. because of the very large number of references by comparison to the other terms). The data can be found in Table 2.

concerned with the divisions within the category of his enemy, breaking the larger group down into Turci, Egyptii, and Arabes. Moreover, the attribution of the leader’s identity to that of his troops, signals a particular concern with political affiliation in addition to religious adherence. Contrary to what one might expect given the English translation of his work, William used the term “infidel” infrequently, and for specific rhetorical effect. Likewise, he rarely used “faithful” in comparison to other terms, but when he did, it often meant a noble’s loyal subjects or entourage. When it came to the adversaries of the kingdom of Jerusalem, William of Tyre was not guided exclusively by religious sentiment, but by politics as well. Yes, the enemy was comprised of Muslims, but he was not ignorant or incurious about them, nor did he view all Muslims as the same. The “enemy” therefore was not a solid, indistinguishable mass. This was an important distinction for William to make to an audience of Western clerics inclined to criticize the Franks for, among other things, alliances they made with the various, largely Muslim political powers that they lived beside. The primary terms that must be analyzed in order to understand William of Tyre’s self-identification are nostri, Franci, Latini, and Christiani. Nostri, “our people”, can most clearly inform us about the self-ascription of Latins from the East.70 Determining who William included when he wrote “our people,” tells us about who “us” was; in other words, who counted as a Frank from the Frankish perspective.71 Depending on context, it appears he had three different meanings for the term. The first, and most inclusive, typically denotes the combined peoples, including their military forces, of the crusader states, crusading armies, and Byzantium. In Book 17, chapters 16–17, William presents the ceding of Edessa and the remainder 70 

Although nostri is the nominative masculine plural, in most cases that William uses the term it is likely that women were involved. It is therefore translated as “our people” rather than “our men” unless the context suggests a male-only group. 71  Nostri is found 354 times in the work as a whole, and over 150 times in the last eight books.

14

ANN E. ZIMO

of the county to the Byzantines. He first carefully distinguishes the Latini and Armenii, who were being evacuated, and the Greci, who took over. In the end of the account, however, Williams writes that it was only after the forces of Nur al-Din expelled the Byzantines, “because of our sins,” that the land was lost “from our jurisdiction” to “the enemy.”72 The Byzantines are included when William writes “our sins (peccatis nostris)” and “our jurisdiction (nostra iurisdictione)” and thus are part of William’s conception of “us.” In Book 21, chapter 11, when discussing the disastrous defeat of the Byzantine army at Myriokephalon in 1176, he again concludes that “our sins” were responsible.73 At play here is perhaps what might be considered a pragmatic ecumenism, whereby William envisions the regional Christian political powers, principally the Byzantines and the Latins, as belonging to a Christian whole. There exists a sense of “us” which includes all Latin and Orthodox Christians, except at the very end of his life when, as Edbury and Rowe pointed out, William became disillusioned with the prospect of a Byzantine-Latin alliance after Andronikos’s coup d’état.74 Most often, however, nostri appears to refer specifically to the Latin army comprised not just of those living in the East, but also of those on pilgrimage and crusade. Even when the troops do not include anyone from the crusader states, for example the armies of King Conrad or King Louis, they are described as nostri. The whole of Book 16, chapter 22 deals exclusively with the army of the German monarch and the Turks, and nearly the entire story is written in terms of nostri and hostes (he uses Turci only twice).75 In Book 20, William refers to the Latin inhabitants of Constantinople who feared a sudden attack by the Byzantines under Andronikos as nostri.76 He likewise refers to their quarter as “that part of the city in which our people were dwelling.”77 It becomes obvious that the primary meaning imparted to nostri corresponds to that of omnem Latinorum nationem.78 “Us” and “our people” throughout the bulk of the Chronicon refer to people following the Latin rite who look to the pope as the head of their church. It is not terribly surprising in a document produced by a man within the church hierarchy that this should be his primary determinant of whom he includes in his own group. This further explains why he at times includes the Byzantines in an expansion of this group but not the other Eastern Christians. The schism was relatively fresh, and while recognizing significant cultural differences, William, as well as others within the Western church, still held out hopes that they could be reconciled. 72 

WT 17.17, p. 785. WT 21.11, p. 977. 74  Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, 148–50. 75  WT 16.22, pp. 746–47. 76  WT 22.13, p. 1023. 77  Ibid. 78  WT 2.10, p. 173. Miriam Rita Tessera, “Tra Oriente ed Occidente. Guglielmo di Tiro, l’Europa e l’identità degli stati latini di oltremare,” in Studi sull’Europa medioevale. L’Europa di fronte all’Oriente cristiano, ed. A. Ambrosioni (Alessandria, 2001), 104. 73 

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

15

There is, however, a third meaning of nostri that demonstrates that William distinguished even among Franks. On a few occasions, he narrows his sense of inclusion even further to mean only people of the kingdom of Jerusalem. For example, in Book 21, chapter 10, William describes the troops of the count of Tripoli joining those of King Baldwin IV near Heliopolis. Clearly distinguishing between the men of the kingdom of Jerusalem (nostri) and those of the count (illi), he writes, “At this news (that the count’s forces were at Heliopolis nearby), our people eagerly hastened in that direction, and as the count was no less desirous of meeting us, the two armies joined forces nearly in the middle of the valley.”79 In the very next sentence he describes the combined armies again as nostri in contrast to Shams al-Dawla’s hostes. Although only a single example, it is nevertheless suggestive. William, who was born in the kingdom of Jerusalem and served as chancellor, would naturally relate to his own political entity ahead of the other crusader states. This shows that Franks did differentiate among themselves when dealing with other Franks. When other groups, particularly hostes, are the point of comparison William draws upon the more inclusive meaning of nostri. Since he sets out in the Chronicon to tell the history of the defense of the Holy Land by the Christians (including Byzantines) against the Muslims, it could be that, in the face of the larger problem at hand, William ignored as irrelevant smaller distinctions people living there might have perceived. Thus far two terms that ambiguously invoke religious belonging, fidelis and nostri, have been discussed. William uses two further terms that openly signify religious affiliation, Christiani and Latini. William uses Christiani and christianitas a combined 185 times throughout his work (sixty-four times in the last eight books). Analyzing the ways he uses these terms allows us to see whether William was so biased against certain sects as to not include them under the umbrella of Christianity. As with nostri, there are a few different meanings he gives to the term. At its most broad, William does seem to include all Christians, even those with whom there was no particular hope of imminent union. He describes both Zengi and his son Nur al-Din as great persecutors of the Christian faith and name.80 Since both of these men attacked not only Frankish holdings, but Armenian and Byzantine ones, and displaced Christians of multiple sects, it is likely William is being inclusive in his definition of Christian. This inclusivity is reflected in his account of the Christian peasants of Edessa attacked by Renaud of Châtillon.81 He also comments that the emperor Manuel Komnenos was attempting to “extend the Christian name” by attacking Iconium in 1176, thus clearly including Greek Orthodoxy within his definition of Christianity.82 With that said, William also often uses Christian to implicitly mean Latin Christian. For example, when he refers to the capture of Ascalon, he always 79 

Babcock and Krey, History of Deeds, 2:413; WT 21.10, p. 976. WT 16.14, p. 734. 81  WT 18.28, p. 851. 82  WT 21.11, p. 977. 80 

16

ANN E. ZIMO

puts it in terms of the Christian army capturing the city, or that it was returned to Christian control. Behind this phrasing, though, is the fact that it was the Frankish armies with the aid of Latin crusaders who conquered the city, and that it became part of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.83 Likewise, when William invokes the “Christian army,” he means Latin forces. In his account of the arrival on crusade of Philip of Flanders he writes that the ailing King Baldwin IV offered the count the regency and command of the entire Christian army.84 In a section describing the foundation of the Hospital in Jerusalem, William refers to the forces of the First Crusade as “the Christian people and princes protected by God.”85 Later in the chronicle, William blames the current generation’s degeneracy and falsity to the Christian faith, for allowing the enemy to become so powerful.86 Again, although he invokes the Christian faith generally, he clearly means the Franks specifically since he compares them to their fathers who created the kingdom originally. From these examples, we see that although William recognizes an inclusive meaning to Christian as a category, he was not immune from adopting a usage that elided the meanings of Christian and Frank together. On a few occasions, we see William using the term Eastern Christians. In 1174, an envoy from the Isma’ili sect known as the Assassins came to King Amaury. According to William, they offered to convert to Christianity if the annual tribute that they owed their neighbors, the Knights Templar, was remitted. The king agreed eagerly and offered to compensate the Templars for the lost income. However, the envoy was attacked and killed on his way home by a group of Templars. William explains the king’s anger at this as being due in part to how these actions defamed the constancy of the Christian faith and lost potential converts to the orientalis ecclesia, or “Oriental Church,” a common term for the Latin Church in the kingdom of Jerusalem.87 Of course, William did also make frequent use of Latini to specify the people who looked to the pope in Rome as their ecclesiastical head. Without a doubt, it was this group which most closely aligned with William’s self-identity. Forty of the ninetyfour references occur in the last eight books, indicating William was more likely to use the term than his sources. That this was how he distinguished his church from the others can be clearly seen in his account of the schism following the death of Pope Hadrian IV in 1159, which he describes as causing a division in the universal Latin church.88 Elsewhere he notes that the synod he attended in 1179 had been proclaimed throughout the Latin world.89 Moreover, this was the term by which he identified crusaders and the Franks living in the crusader states. He notes that, from 83 

e.g. WT 17.7, p. 769; 17.18, p. 785; 17.23, p. 792; 18.3, p. 812; 19.1, p. 864. WT 21.13, p. 979. 85  WT 18.5, p. 817. 86  WT 21.7, p. 969. 87  WT 20.30, pp. 954–55. See Miriam Rita Tessera, Orientalis ecclesia: Papato, Chiesa e regno latino di Gerusalemme (1099–1187) (Milan, 2010). 88  WT 18.26, p. 849. 89  WT 21.25, p. 996. 84 

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

17

the advent of the Latins to the Promised Land until 1168, Petra and Hebron had not had Latin bishops, thus connecting the idea of the crusaders and their descendants to being Latin.90 He also often uses it to name Latin-rite patriarchs or the kings of Jerusalem.91 Moreover, the Latins is a group that he explicitly contrasts with the Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Samaritans, Syrians, and Saracens. For example, he bemoans that “our Oriental princes” spurn the medical practice “of our Latin men” and instead have faith only in Jews, Samaritans, Syrians, and Saracens.92 Elsewhere he describes how King Baldwin III ceded the remnants of the county of Edessa to the Byzantine emperor Manuel Komnenos. The king marched with the Byzantine envoys to Turbessel where he took into his protection “the (former) countess, her children, and any others, whether Latin or Armenian, of any sex who wanted to leave, and bestowed the region to the Greeks.”93 Although William undoubtedly considered himself part of a universal latinitas, he occasionally goes even further by distinguishing the Latins of the East from the rest. He calls Fulk of Anjou the third king of the Oriental Latins.94 He also pronounces that following the return of the survivors of the Second Crusade, the “situation of the Oriental Latins began to be clearly worse.”95 Plainly, then, the group William self-ascribed to was the Oriental Latins. It is again instructive to compare what we see from William with Fulcher of Chartres. In contrast to William, Fulcher’s word use suggests that his preferred term for his identity group was “Frank.” A word search in the digitized Hagenmeyer edition results in 32 examples of Christian, 77 examples of Frank, and one example of Latin.96 Fulcher uses Christian to indicate all Christians or when he wants to emphasize the importance of an event. In his account of Pope Urban II’s speech at Clermont, he refers to the boundaries of the Christians being impinged by the Turks.97 Likewise, in his account of the besieged first crusaders at Antioch, he has Kerbogha deliver an ultimatum demanding that the Christians leave.98 But he also uses it deliberately when discussing non-Latin Christians, as when he tells of the Syrian Christians who warn “Christianos nostros” about an ambush, or of the many Greek, Syrian, and Armenian Christians who lived in Antioch.99 When Fulcher wishes to discuss specifically the crusaders or those who settled in the crusader states after their establishment, he uses the word Frank. The army of the First Crusade are the Franks. It is the Franks who besiege Antioch and who are in 90 

WT 20.3, p. 914. e.g. WT 18.19, p. 838; 19.1, p. 864 (four examples); 22.9, p. 1018; 22.29, p. 1056. 92  WT 18.34, p. 859. 93  WT 17.16, p. 782. 94  WT 22.29, p. 1056. 95  WT 17.9, p. 770. 96  FC: https://archive.org/details/historiahierosol00foucuoft (accessed 25 February 2018). Numbers do not include instances found in the rubric. 97  FC 1.3, pp. 133–134. 98  FC 1.23, p. 257. 99  FC 2.4, p. 374 and FC 1.15, p.221. 91 

18

ANN E. ZIMO

turn besieged and it is the Franks who arrive at Jerusalem and capture it.100 There is an elision perhaps between the Franks as the French and Franks as people of European origin. In his famous comment on Frankish society, he notes: “qui fuit Romanus aut Francus, hac in terra factus est Galilaeus aut Palaestinus.”101 We see here that Fulcher conceives of “Frank” as the national or at least regional identity, with “French” comparable to Galilean or Palestinian. However, when he lists the leaders of the crusader army, he refers to them as “Francorum vero principes” at the same time as he notes that Robert is count of the Normans for example, clearly marking him as not French.102 The Franks were also those who settled in the crusader states, those whom William tended to call Latins. In Fulcher’s account of the death of King Baldwin I, he describes how the Franks cried, the Syrians, and even the Saracens mourned.103 Whereas William more often simply uses nostri or Latini or Christiani to indicate his identity group, Fulcher overwhelmingly chooses Franci.104 Conclusion The words that chroniclers such as William of Tyre used to describe themselves and those around them are central to how we should understand the social dynamics of the Latin East. At present there is a disconnect between how we conceptualize the Frankish understanding of identity, and the understanding as revealed in William of Tyre’s own words. This disconnect does not always result in problematic or incorrect usage on the part of modern scholars. For example, we, as I do here, often refer to the group of Latins permanently living in the crusader states as the Franks. William also uses Franci, but it only refers to people from the kingdom of France. Each of the forty-two examples of Franci and its other forms from the last eight books of the Chronicon refer to the king of France or his subjects.105 Unlike Fulcher, there is no indication that William regarded the term as useful in describing his own people. Rather, he thought first in terms of religion and language when naming his own group. He most closely identified with the Eastern Latins, Christians whose liturgy was in Latin, but who resided in the eastern Mediterranean.106 He often elided the notion of Latins with Christians, but he was fully aware of the other sects which in the end he did include under the umbrella of Christianity. Even with this 100 

FC 1.15, pp. 220, 221, 1.16, p. 229, 1.17, p. 233; FC 1.25, p. 281, 1.27, p. 292. FC 3.37, p. 748. 102  FC 1.22, p. 251. 103  FC 2.64, p. 613. 104  Murray, “Ethnic Identity in the Crusader States,” 61. 105  And the majority of the examples come from WT books 16 and 17 in which he recounts the Second Crusade. Miriam Rita Tessera, “Tra Oriente ed Occidente,” 106. 106  On the patriotism of William of Tyre, see Bunna Ebels-Hoving, “William of Tyre and his patria,” Media latinitas: A Collection of Essays to Mark the Occasion of the Retirement of L. J. Engels (Turnhout, 1996), 211–16. 101 

US AND THEM: IDENTITY IN WILLIAM OF TYRE’S CHRONICON

19

in mind, the precision “Franks” affords modern scholars, allowing us to distinguish people who spent their lives in the Latin East, seems a reasonable justification for its continued use. However, the disconnect has led to a more pernicious misunderstanding and representation of Frankish attitudes that does require change. William of Tyre in his narrative did not present a world riven starkly between two monolithic forces of good and evil, Latin Christianity and Islam. He could and did distinguish between adversaries and allies. The enemy was uniformly Muslim, but their identity was more often than not defined by their political alignment. Although Saracen and infidel were part of his vocabulary, he overwhelmingly elected to refer to the opponents of the crusader states by their ethno-political association, as Turks or Egyptians. The term used was determined by the leadership of the forces, not their actual ethnic or geographic origin. Much of the time they were simply “the enemy.” Although clearly believing that the world ought to be converted to Christianity, and Latin Christianity at that, William of Tyre’s language does not support the view that the Franks living in the crusader states held simplistic views of identity and the world around them. William has a flexible conception of identity and belonging, with a vocabulary that allows for inclusivity and cultural discernment, as well as intolerance for both Christians and Muslims. To deny William and his fellow Franks a more complex view of the people around them does them a disservice by presenting them as more chauvinistic than the evidence suggests. Moreover, it serves the urge to congratulate ourselves for being more tolerant than the past, while also bolstering the equally problematic sentiment that Islam was, and continues to be, a monolithic and threatening entity.

William of Belvoir (?): A Short Note on an Even Shorter Inscription Vardit Shotten-Hallel (Israel Antiquities Authority; [email protected]) and Estelle Ingrand-Varenne (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; [email protected]) On 24 October 1966, among the finds brought to storage after the excavation at the Hospitaller castle of Belvoir was a small building block on which the word Villelmus was carved (block size: 28.5 × 24.2 cm, limestone, Gesher Formation).1 The exact provenance within the castle’s remains was not recorded. Despite the brevity of the inscription and the lack of precise information on its context, the following linguistic, palaeographic and technical analysis may shed light on the history of Belvoir castle, because it is the only extant epigraphic source from the site (masons’ marks and outline marks excluded).2 The inscription consists of a single word: VILLELM9 (see Figure 1). The mark 9, which appears above the letter M without touching it, is an abbreviation, a suspension mark indicating that some letters are missing, to be expanded to Villelm(us), the way this name normally appears in Latin texts for William (or Guillaume). The form of this abbreviation mark can vary. In the documented epigraphic corpus of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem it usually appears as a large apostrophe connected to the letter. However, a different small, curved form can be seen on a funerary fragment, originally from Sidon, with (probably) the name [R]obert(us), held in the Beirut Museum.3 The name Villelmus is written in Latin. The use of the form with V, and not the digram W, is common during the medieval period: for instance, the form Villelmus can be observed from a tenth-century charter from Cluny.4 The writing at Belvoir is characteristic of the twelfth century. The engraver used capitals, with straight letters – with the exception of an uncial form for the E – a mixed writing representative of the twelfth century. The letters are deeply etched, 1 

The stone was transferred to the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) storage facilities and registered on that date. 2  See the drawing in Sabino de Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum Crucesignatorum Terrae Sanctae (1099–1291): Testo, traduzione e annotazioni, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 21 (Jerusalem, 1974), 290, no. 390. 3  Camille Enlart, Les monuments des Croisés dans le Royaume de Jérusalem. Architecture religieuse et civile, 2 vols. (Paris, 1925), 1;168–69. 4  Marie-Thérèse Morlet, Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l’ancienne Gaule du VIe au XIIe siècle. T.1 Les noms issus du germanique continental et les créations gallo-germaniques (Paris, 1968), 220. 21

22

VARDIT SHOTTEN-HALLEL & ESTELLE INGRAND-VARENNE

Fig. 1. Building block from Belvoir with the name VILLELM⁹ carved on a finished surface. Below: Tracing of the carving on the building block. Photo by Vardit Shotten-Hallel, courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority; tracing by the authors.

WILLIAM OF BELVOIR (?): A SHORT NOTE

23

well-formed with serifs and the carving angle is 8°. The letter L appears in three different sizes: 2.9, 2.7, and 3 cm, indicating that no template was used for their carving. The letters E and M are smaller, to fit in the letter L that precedes them, a kind of letter play very common in the twelfth century. A funerary inscription found in Tyre for Peter, son of Sergius of Capua, deceased in 1190, offers a good example.5 It appears that the engraver of this inscription was experienced and literate. But what was the function of this inscription and who was Villelmus? It is difficult to attribute a clear function to inscriptions with a single name. Some evidence can be found in the form of the name, the technique employed, and in the context. Here the name Villelmus is in the nominative case, thus grammatically a subject. Its presence on this block shows the willingness to establish a strong, material and long-lasting link with the opus and the locus. This is the only recorded name found in the context of the entire castle, and thus it is possible he was the master builder. The signature also contains the letter E, carved in the same form of a mason identity mark found on several building stones, both of basalt and limestone, throughout the castle. The name was carved on a building block (not a sculpture), and therefore probably belonged to a mason and not to a sculptor. The block was identified as oolitic limestone which, as far as we can reconstruct the castle at the present, was used only in the chapel. Thus, it is possible that the mason Villelmus was directly involved in the construction of Belvoir castle chapel. Other well-carved single names (not graffiti) have been noticed on stones of Frankish buildings and churches: combinations OdE and qAR which appear in the Church of Our Saviour, Jacob’s Well, Nablus, were interpreted as names.6 Interestingly, their epigraphy seems to differ from the name Villelm(us) from Belvoir, whose name was carved in capital letters (majuscule script). More importantly, on the walls (both external and internal) of the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, several complete names (Ogier: nine times; Elia: six times; the abbreviation of Johannes: three times) were found; they are credited to stonecutters who worked on the construction of the church in the first period of the crusader occupation.7 We have no clear evidence for mason brothers in the thirteenth-century Hospital; but, considering what we know about literacy in the order, this short inscription – merely a Christian name – if nothing else, may shed some light on the level of literacy among the artisans employed by the Hospitallers. A single word carved on a building stone, probably originating from Belvoir castle chapel, marks 5 

Denys Pringle, “Crusader Inscriptions from Southern Lebanon,” Crusades 3 (2004): 137–38. The inscription, preserved in the Louvre, was stolen in 1991. For other examples, see De Sandoli, Corpus, xli. In most cases, the letter I is inserted, because of its form: see the inscription for the prophet Elijah painted on one of the columns of the Nativity Church in Bethlehem. 6  Pringle, Churches, 1:258–63. 7  Bellarmino Bagatti, Eugenio Alliata and Raphael Bonanno, Excavations in Nazareth, vol. II: From the 12th Century until Today, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 17 (Jerusalem, 2001), 74–85.

24

VARDIT SHOTTEN-HALLEL & ESTELLE INGRAND-VARENNE

a small yet important distinction between the vernacular for the spoken language, and Latin as the language of record.8

8 

For example: Alan Forey, “Literacy and Learning in the Military Orders during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in MO, 2, 185–206.

Brevis Ordinacio de Predicacione Sancte Crucis: Edition, Translation and Commentary Christoph T. Maier University of Zurich [email protected] Abstract This article presents a new improved edition, together with an English translation, of the Brevis Ordinacio de Predicacione Sancte Crucis, an early thirteenth-century crusade preaching treatise, which was first edited in the 1870s and has since been used frequently by historians of the crusades. The new edition is based on the two extant manuscript copies now at Oxford and Antwerp. The article also reviews the debate about the possible authorship of the treatise, coming to the conclusion that in the absence of conclusive evidence the Brevis Ordinacio must remain the work of an anonymous author. As concerns the date of the treatise, an argument is made that it was written at some point after 1209 within the first few decades of the thirteenth century. The article also revises previous views on the contents and structure of the Brevis Ordinacio, suggesting that the treatise was constructed around the core theme of imitatio Christi as a well-known model for crusading spirituality at the time, partly offering theological reflection and partly presenting ready-made passages to be integrated into crusade sermons.

The Brevis Ordinacio de Predicacione Sancte Crucis is a text about the preaching of the cross surviving in two thirteenth-century manuscripts which probably both originated from Oxford. One of them is today still at Oxford, in the library of Balliol College, whereas the other one is now in the collection of the Museum PlantinMoretus at Antwerp.1 Its authorship and date are uncertain and have led to much speculation ever since the text was made known to historians through Reinhold Röhricht’s edition, based on both manuscripts, in 1879.2 The text of the Brevis Ordinacio was for the first time discussed in some detail by Valmar Cramer in his pioneering article on crusade preaching published in 1939.3 It has since featured in many studies on crusade preaching, most prominently in Penny Cole’s 1991

1  Oxford, Balliol College, MS 167, fols. 212v–215r. Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus, MS M103, fols. 57r–64v. 2  Ordinacio de Predicacione S. Crucis in Anglia, ed. Reinhold Röhricht, in Quinti Belli Sacri Scriptores Minores, Publications de la Société de l’Orient Latin, série historique 2 (Geneva, 1879), 1–26. 3  Valmar Cramer, “Kreuzpredigt und Kreuzzugsgedanken von Bernhard von Clairvaux bis Humbert von Romans,” in Das Heilige Land in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 1 [= Palästinahefte des Deutschen Vereins vom Heiligen Land 17] (1939), 43–204.

25

26

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

monograph, as well as in a number of general works on the crusades and crusade propaganda.4 Röhricht’s edition of the Brevis Ordinacio was, however, not the first one. Two years before its publication, in 1877, the Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques printed an annotated transcription of the same text by Johann Heinrich Nolte, who later also published the article as a small book.5 His edition of the Brevis Ordinacio and his annotations are of equal quality to those by Röhricht, but Nolte had no knowledge of the Oxford copy and thus only transcribed the text from the Antwerp manuscript. This first edition of the Brevis Ordinacio was apparently not known to Röhricht and has so far not been noticed by scholars of the crusade and crusade preaching, possibly because the theological journal in which it appeared has been of rather marginal importance to historians and because Nolte chose a title for his edition which did not at first sight disclose the text’s association with crusade preaching. Who Wrote the Brevis Ordinacio? As neither of the two manuscript copies of the Brevis Ordinacio mention who originally wrote the treatise, editors and commentators of the text have speculated about its author. These speculations have been rather laboured because there is very little evidence to go by. Nolte did not give the question much thorough thought. He surmised that the author might have been from Flanders or Hainaut for the sole reason that two of the exempla mentioned in the Brevis Ordinacio featured knights from Flanders and Hainault.6 In contrast, in the introduction to his edition, Röhricht placed the likely origin of the text in Oxford primarily because both manuscripts came from the medieval holdings of the libraries of two Oxford colleges.7 Röhricht 4 

Penny J. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270 (Cambridge, MA, 1991). See, for example, Norman Daniel, “Crusade Propaganda,” in Setton, Crusades, 6:39–97; Christoph T. Maier, Preaching the Crusades. Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994); Jean Flori, Prêcher la croisade (xie–xiiie siècle). Communication et propagande (Paris, 2012); James M. Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213–1221 (Philadelphia, 1986); Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusades 1095–1588 (Chicago, 1988); C. Matthew Phillips, “Crucified with Christ: The Imitation of the Crucified and Crusading Spirituality,” in Crusades – Medieval Worlds in Conflict, ed. Thomas F. Madden, James L. Naus and Vincent Ryan (Farnham, 2010), 25–33; Christopher Tyerman, How to Plan a Crusade. Reason and Religious War in the Middle Ages (London, 2012); Ane L. Bysted, The Crusade Indulgence. Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the Crusades c.1095–1216 (Leiden, 2015); Jessalynn Bird, “Crusade and Reform. The Sermons of Bibliothèque Nationale, MS nouv. acq. lat. 999,” in The Fifth Crusade in Context. The Crusading Movement in the Early Thirteenth Century, ed. Elizabeth J. Mylod et al. (Abingdon, 2017), 92–113. 5  “Un traité inédit de Santa Cruce,” ed. Dr. [Johann Heinrich] Nolte, Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques (série 4, t. 5) 53 (1877): 346–68; Un traité inédit “de Santa Cruce”, ed. [Johann Heinrich] Nolte (Arras, s.d.). I should like to thank the anonymous reader of this article for Crusades who managed to identify the Dr. Nolte, whose initials were not given in the original publication, and who also pointed me to the separate edition of Nolte’s article. 6  “Un traité inédit de Sancta Cruce,” 346. 7  See Röhricht’s introduction in Quinti Belli Sacri Scriptores Minores, x.

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

27

also believed that the author was of Anglo-Norman origin because the text has verbatim quotations in French, which it ascribed to knights from Normandy and Flanders.8 This suited Röhricht’s belief that the core of the Latin text of the Brevis Ordinacio was in fact a translation from French. He thought that the text of the treatise was based on an actual sermon or speech – in his Latin introduction he called it both a sermo as well as an oratio – originally delivered to an audience of knights, who would have been addressed in French. Its present version was, according to Röhricht, a concoction of a Latin translation and a possibly unfinished commentary of the original sermon.9 From this Röhricht continued his speculations about a possible author, pointing out that among the three crusade preachers in England mentioned in the context of the Fifth Crusade – when Röhricht believed the Brevis Ordinacio to have been written – there was a certain Philip of Oxford. But he stopped short of postulating Philip of Oxford as the author of the Brevis Ordinacio.10 Considering these cautious remarks in the introduction, Röhricht curiously chose a rather misleading title for his edition of the Brevis Ordinacio, namely [Philippi Oxoniensis] (?) Ordinacio de Predicacione S. Crucis in Anglia.11 His doubts about Philip of Oxford’s authorship were sufficiently marked by putting the name in brackets and having it followed by a question mark, but why did he include the name at all after having pronounced in the introduction that he did not know if Philip was in fact the author? Like many later commentators of the Brevis Ordinacio, Röhricht probably found the coincidence of having evidence for a crusade preaching text from Oxford and a near contemporary crusade preacher from the same place too tempting not to suggest a causal relationship between these two historical facts, even though there was no evidence at all for such a relationship. Röhricht also did not explain why he added in Anglia to the title of the text. He must have inferred that a text which he believed to have been composed in Oxford must have been written for the preaching of the cross in the geographical vicinity, i.e. England. But this was pure speculation without any evidence to support it. The two historical inaccuracies which Röhricht smuggled into the title of his edition of the Brevis Ordinacio have had a great impact and a long afterlife in subsequent historiography. The addition “in Anglia” to the title has been used by most modern commentators.12 But while this erroneous aspect of the title has not really attracted much attention, the question of its authorship has. When Valmar Cramer gave the Brevis Ordinacio its first exposure within a scholarly study, he adopted Röhricht’s most tenuous ascription to Philip of Oxford as plain fact 8 

Ibid., ix. Ibid., ix. 10  Ibid., x: “Quum Oxonienses sunt codices duo, qui Ordinacionem nobis servaverunt, fortasse consequitur, quod auctor Oxoniensis (haud scio, an Philippus ipse) fuerit.” 11  Ordinacio de Predicacione S. Crucis, 3. 12  See, for example, Powell, Anatomy, 52; Maier, Preaching the Crusades, 114; Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 153; Tyerman, How to Plan a Crusade, 91. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades, 110–26, however, correctly uses the title without “in Anglia.” 9 

28

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

without raising any doubts or sounding any caution.13 It may well be that Cramer’s pronouncement was responsible for making people forget that Röhricht himself had clearly said that he did not know if Philip was the author of the Brevis Ordinacio. In any case, as late as 2012, in his monograph Prêcher la croisade, Jean Flori still talked about the Brevis Ordinacio as being attributed to Philip of Oxford.14 The tenuous ascription of Philip of Oxford as author of the Brevis Ordinacio eventually led to further speculation. In his 1981 article on Archdeacon Walter of London, one of the preachers commissioned by Pope Innocent III to promote the crusade in England in 1213, Alfred Andrea searched for a possible identification of Walter’s crusade preaching colleague, Philip.15 He came up with two candidates with Oxford connections: one Philip of Hanneye, who had links with St. Frideswide’s Priory as a donor and served as papal judge delegate in a case involving the priory in 1224, and one Philip of Haya, who had financial dealings with Oseney Abbey and was also involved in the settlement of a dispute by papal judge delegate in the 1220s.16 Andrea also wondered whether the crusade preacher Philip of Oxford might have been the “Oxoniae magist[er] Philippu[s]” mentioned by Alexander Nequam in his De Artificioso Modo Predicandi.17 Andrea further surmised that this Philip of Oxford, like his crusade preacher colleague Archdeacon Walter of London, might earlier have been associated with Peter the Chanter’s reform movement at Paris.18 Ultimately, however, Andrea acknowledged that these individual snippets of evidence could not form a coherent argument as to the question of the authorship of the Brevis Ordinacio. In her 1991 monograph on the preaching of the crusades to the Holy Land, Penny Cole again took up the question of the authorship of the treatise. She pointed out that in the Balliol manuscript the Brevis Ordinacio was associated with a work by Robert of Cricklade, a twelfth-century prior of St. Frideswide’s, and therefore might possibly have originated from this Oxford priory, which would bring Andrea’s candidate Philip of Hanneye into play as a possible author of the Brevis Ordinacio.19 The same is true for the Antwerp manuscript, where the Brevis Ordinacio is also associated with Robert of Cricklade’s De Connubio Iacob.20 But 13 

Cramer, “ Kreuzpredigt und Kreuzzugsgedanken,” 114. Flori, Prêcher la croisade, 245. Likewise Powell, Anatomy, 52, and Daniel, “Crusade Propaganda,” 48. 15  Alfred J. Andrea, “Walter, Archdeacon of London, and the ‘Historia Occidentalis’ of Jacques de Vitry,” Church History 50 (1981): 141–51. Both Walter and Philip were commissioned by Innocent III sending them a copy of Pium et sanctum, see PL 216:822–23. 16  Andrea, “Walter,” 149–50. 17  Andrea, “Walter,” 150. See also Richard W. Hunt, “English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series 19 (1936): 19–42, at 20. 18  Andrea, “Walter,” 150. 19  Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades, 110–11. Cole claimed that Röhricht already pointed out a possible connection of the author with St. Frideswide’s on the basis of the manuscript evidence. This is, however, not the case. 20  For the description of the manuscripts see below. Cole was unaware of this, since she thought that the Antwerp manuscript had disappeared: The Preaching of the Crusades, 111. In an email of 21 March 14 

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

29

since there is no direct evidence to link Philip of Hanneye to the Brevis Ordinacio, Cole concluded by rightly reaffirming that “the evidence for this is slight, and the underlying assumptions that the English preaching effort was well coordinated and that the English preachers were deeply committed to the cause of the crusade, however attractive, belongs to the realm of imaginative hypothesis. What is certain, however, is that without further evidence the links between Master Philip of Oxford the crusade preacher, Master Philip the Oxford preacher and theologian so admired by Alexander Nequam, and the author of the Brevis ordinacio must remain tentative.”21 No new evidence has come to light since Cole’s study and the rules of academic enquiry, therefore, dictate that we must treat the Brevis Ordinacio de Predicacione Sancte Crucis as the work of an anonymous author. When Was the Brevis Ordinacio Written? If we accept that we do not know who wrote the Brevis Ordinacio, the usual date given for its composition collapses. Röhricht proposed 1216 as the year in which the Brevis Ordinacio was written on the grounds that the text mentioned the Albigensian Crusade and the papal indulgence for crusaders, which, without actually saying so, he seems to have associated with the issuing of Innocent III’s crusade constitution Ad liberandam of 1215.22 With few modifications, later historians roughly followed Röhricht’s reasoning, placing the writing of the Brevis Ordinacio in the context of the propaganda campaigns for the Fifth Crusade, which started in 1213. Penny Cole tried to adduce further evidence for a date of 1213–1214 from the text itself indicating that the Brevis Ordinacio had references in its exempla to participants of the Fourth Crusade and the Albigensian Crusade but not of the Fifth Crusade.23 This hypothesis is, however, highly debatable. Adducing the absence of any mention of the Fifth Crusade in the Brevis Ordinacio constitutes an argumentum e silentio and also presupposes a necessary reference to the Fifth Crusade had the text been written after the beginning of that crusade, i.e. after about 1217. The reference to the Albigensian Crusade also does not give a firm date since this crusade was conducted on and off between 1209 and 1226. Nor does the palaeographical evidence help since neither of the two manuscripts can be dated more precisely than to the first half of the thirteenth century. This means that the only precise date which can be given for the composition of the Brevis Ordinacio is a terminus post quem of 1209, the year of the first campaign of the Albigensian Crusade. There is 2017, Dirk Imhof, Conservator bibliotheek en archief Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp, assured me that the manuscript has always been at the library, albeit with a new shelf mark, different from the one it had in the late nineteenth century. I have examined the manuscript for the present edition in June 2017. 21  Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades, 111. 22  Quinti Belli Sacri Scriptores Minores, x. For Ad liberandam, see Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien: Band 2: Konzilien des Mittelalters vom ersten Laterankonzil (1123) bis zum fünften Laterankonzil (1512–1517), ed. Josef Wohlmuth (Paderborn, 2000), 267–71. 23  Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades, 111.

30

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

thus no proof that the text was written in the context of the Fifth Crusade and, on account of the palaeographical evidence, it could theoretically have been composed at any time after 1209 within the first few decades of the thirteenth century. The Structure and Contents of the Brevis Ordinacio The Brevis Ordinacio has not attracted much thorough scholarly attention and analysis. This may be partly due to the fact that historians found it difficult to understand its structure and internal arrangement. Jean Flori wrote that “the discourse of the Ordinacio is at times obscure and its flow often gets lost in meandering digressions of nebulous doctrine.”24 Penny Cole asked “whether it simply represent[ed] the lofty musings of an Oxford schoolman.”25 And Christopher Tyerman speculated that “the Brevis Ordinacio may have been simply a scholarly exercise.”26 Compared to other preaching materials of the early thirteenth century, the text of the Brevis Ordinacio certainly lacks formal rigour, stylistic elegance as well as economy and sometimes clarity of thought. In his short introduction to the edition, Röhricht conjectured that the text was an embellished Latin version of a sermon originally delivered in French, but he did not say anything more about its structure.27 Valmar Cramer discussed the Brevis Ordinacio in his 1939 article on crusade preaching.28 He uncritically took over Röhricht’s hypotheses on authorship and date, but Cramer was the first to write about the structure and character of the text at any length. For Cramer the text reflected a new preaching style of the early thirteenth century because of the frequent use of allegories for explaining theological doctrine and the addition of exempla as illustrative material.29 He was of the opinion that the Brevis Ordinacio was a composite text made up of what he called a dogmatic treatise on the eucharist and the cross, followed by a crusade sermon. But the sermon, according to Cramer, was lacking its customary initial Bible verse as well as a formal ending. In his view the Brevis Ordinacio was in fact pieced together from an unfinished theological tract to which arguments and exempla for the preaching of the cross were added. The composite nature of the text, so Cramer claimed, explained why the Brevis Ordinacio seemed to him of an uneven character and lacking its final polish.30 Cramer’s analysis of the structure of the Brevis Ordinacio was in itself not very consistent or systematic. The major part of his treatment of the text merely 24 

Flori, Prêcher la croisade, 245: “Le discours de l’ordinacio est parfois obscur et son déroulement s’égare souvent dans les méandres de digressions doctrinales fumeuses.” 25  Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades, 126. See also Maier, Preaching the Crusades, 114, n. 21. 26  Tyerman, How to Plan a Crusade, 91. 27  Quinti Belli Sacri Scriptores Minores, ix. 28  Cramer, “Kreuzpredigt und Kreuzzugsgedanken,” 114–23. 29  Ibid., 115, 123. 30  Ibid., 115.

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

31

consists of a detailed summary without much analytical input.31 Towards the end, however, Cramer offered a refined version of his initial view of the overall structure of the Brevis Ordinacio. He now claimed that the text in fact offered three separate sermon sketches (“Predigtskizzen”). Following the initial section on the meaning of the eucharist and the cross, each sermon sketch, the way Cramer saw it, was introduced by its own heading. The first one (De circumstantiis crucis) expounded the meaning of the crucifixion, explaining the love of Christ for the crusader and encouraging the crusader to reciprocate by showing his love for the crucified. The second sketch (De carne et eius deliciis) was, so Cramer thought, meant to serve for use in a sermon pointing out the need to do penance and suggesting to an audience the salvific benefits of taking the cross. The third sketch (De uocatione hominum a crucem), according to Cramer, was geared towards a sermon in which the preacher would directly call on his audience to take the cross by elaborating on the threats of the Last Judgement and emphasising people’s obligation to follow God’s command.32 Cramer’s contention that the Brevis Ordinacio consists of a thematic first part followed by three sermon sketches is untenable. None of the four sections of the text in fact bears any close formal similarities to the extant sermon texts of the late twelfth or early thirteenth centuries. There are no bible verses which might serve as basis for an actual sermon and the formal arrangement of the individual sections does not suggest a deliberate structuring which might present a coherent argumentative frame for developing a sermon in front of an audience.33 Nor does the tract fall into the category of artes predicandi as its subject is not the question of how to construct good sermons.34 The closest relative, so-to-speak, of the Brevis Ordinacio was Humbert of Romans’s De Predicacione Sancte Crucis written in the 1260s. Both tracts appear to have similar aims, namely to provide crusade preachers with a variety of materials for the preaching of the cross.35 But Humbert’s De Predicacione Sancte Crucis is a much longer and much more systematically arranged collection of materiae predicabiles, providing a veritable handbook of crusade preaching. In comparison, the Brevis Ordinacio combines just a few 31 

Ibid., 115–22. Ibid., 120. 33  For a survey and summary of formal characteristics of twelfth- and thirteenth-century sermons, see Mark A. Zier, “Sermons of the Twelfth Century Schoolmasters and Canons,” in The Sermon, ed. Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge Occidental 81–83 (Turnhout, 2000), 325–62; Nicole Bériou, “Les sermons latins après 1200,” ibid., 363–447; Carlo Delcorno, “Medieval Preaching in Italy (1200–1500),” ibid., 449–560. 34  For artes predicandi see Sigfried Wenzel, Medieval Artes Predicandi: A Synthesis of Scholastic Sermon Structure (Toronto, 2015). 35  The De Predicacione Sancte Crucis exists in two versions: the original full-length text of the thirteenth century and a shorter, slightly adapted version of the fifteenth century. The full-length version has now been edited as Humbertus Romanis, De Predicatione Crucis, ed. Valentin Portnykh, CCCM 279 (Turnhout, 2018). The shorter version has been edited in Valentin L. Portnykh, “The Short Version of Humbert of Romans’ Treatise on the Preaching of the Cross: An Edition of the Latin Text,” Crusades 15 (2016): 55–115. 32 

32

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

themes, explaining the basic theological foundation of crusading and providing a list of exempla and appeals to be used in crusade sermons. After Valmar Cramer, Penny Cole was the only scholar to offer detailed commentary on the formal characteristics of the Brevis Ordinacio. Like Cramer, Cole identified the text as a product of the pastoral reform movement of the early thirteenth century.36 But her assessment of the character and structure of the Brevis Ordinacio differed from Cramer’s. “In essence,” according to Cole, it was “a short manual of the theology of crusading.”37 It was meant to present materials that made it possible for a “preacher [...] to explain as simply as possible – using all the techniques of biblical and patristic authority, exemplum, analogy, vernacular aphorism, and familiar and homely similitudes drawn from the animal world – how crusading brings salvation.”38 In terms of formal structure, Cole claimed that the Brevis Ordinacio was divided into “four separately headed parts.”39 She describes the contents of these four parts in some detail: the first part discusses “the fall of man and his redemption through Christ”; the second part “describes Christ upon the cross and urges men to see in this image the exemplar of the Christian life”; the third part calls for “repentance through the crusade, first by demonstrating to the audience their own sinfulness and then by impressing upon them the mortal danger in which they exist”; and, finally, the fourth part “further amplified [...] the suggestion [...] that the crusaders who have turned from a carnal life and who have taken the cross will escape damnation.”40 Each of these four parts “begins with a preface,”41 so Cole states, although she unfortunately does not clearly explain which passages she defines as the preface in each section. At the end, there follows, according to Cole, “an appendix of five exempla whose purpose is to provide the crusade preacher with suitable stories taken from real life.”42 Cole’s suggestion of calling the Brevis Ordinacio a “manual of the theology of crusading” describes the character of the treatise rather well. However, I do not agree with her analysis of its structure. First, the text is not divided into “four separately headed parts” as Cole claims. In both manuscripts, the formal divisions of the text run as follows: (i) an introductory paragraph; (ii) the first part explaining the significance of Christ’s redemptive act on the cross, which is not preceded by a title (para. 1–11); (iii) the second part describing Christ on the cross headed by the title De circumstantiis crucis (para. 12–14); (iv) the third part about human sinfulness and the need for redemption headed by the title De carne et eius deliciis (para. 15–33); (v) the fourth and final part featuring a list of individual appeals and exempla for use in sermons, titled De uocatione hominum ad crucem (para. 34–56). 36 

Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades, 112–17. Ibid., 125. 38  Ibid., 125. 39  Ibid., 117. 40  Ibid., 118, 121, 123, 124. 41  Ibid., 118. 42  Ibid., 125. 37 

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

33

Thus, the first part bears no title whereas parts two to four do. In addition, the six final exempla (para. 51–56), which Cole identified as a separate appendix, are not marked out in the text as distinct from the rest of part four. Also, both manuscripts use the same subtle indicators for marking the beginning of a new section. While section titles are only provided for parts two to four, the beginnings of parts one to three are also indicated by the use of a clearly visible enlarged and decorated initial. The lack of a decorated initial at the beginning of part four seems to create a kind of hierarchy, with parts one to three being set apart from part four. If we assume that in both manuscripts the formal divisions, indicated by titles and decorated initials, reflect a conscious effort by the author/scribe to distinguish between parts of the treatise that were considered to be of different character and/ or weight, we would have to come to the conclusion that the Brevis Ordinacio is in fact divided into three major sections: (a) the first part which is not given a separate title but is marked out by a decorated initial (para. 1–11), (b) the second and third parts which are given their own separate titles as well as decorated initials to mark their beginnings (para. 12–33), and (c) the fourth part which is only indicated by its title but without a decorated initial (para. 34–56). In fact, in terms of their content and function, these three sections can also be described as distinct from each other. Part one is already set apart by its length, being almost three times as long as any of the other parts. In terms of content, too, this is clearly the centrepiece of the treatise. In its opening paragraph (para. 1) the core theme of the Brevis Ordinacio is outlined: “Hard-pressed by burdens” and “human weakness,” human destiny is to reject “the shady vanity of earthly pomp” and choose “the shortest path to reach [Christ]” and thus gain “entrance to the kingdom of heaven and to never-ending life.” To achieve this, people must “obey [God’s] mandate” to serve Christ and follow him to “the cross, on which the Lord by his death redeemed humankind.” The core theme of the Brevis Ordinacio is thus the application of the concept of imitatio Christi to the preaching of the cross. This comes as no surprise since the idea of imitatio Christi was very much a set topic for contextualising crusading in the early decades of the thirteenth century.43 In doing so, the author in fact followed a long-established tradition because, as William Purkis has explained, already in the twelfth century the idea of imitatio Christi was one of the pivotal concepts used in representing and explaining crusading.44 With the “meandering” tendencies of the arguments in the Brevis Ordinacio, the first and main part of the treatise forms a loosely structured attempt to explain the redemptive power of Christ’s death on the cross with reference to scriptural theology, and to demonstrate its relevance to crusaders. There is a lengthy discussion on life and death, contrasting the introduction of original sin into the world through Adam and Eve in Paradise, which is set against the promise of eternal life made possible 43 

Christoph T. Maier, “Mass, the Eucharist and the Cross: Innocent III and the Relocation of the Crusade,” in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. John C. Moore (Aldershot, 1999), 351–60. 44  William Purkis, Crusading Spirituality in the Holy Land and Iberia c.1095–c.1187 (Woodbridge, 2008). See also Phillips, “Crucified with Christ.”

34

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

by God’s incarnation and Christ’s death on the cross (para. 2–4). In developing these themes, the text plays on the manifold interrelations of life and death, pointing out that the crusader’s aim of eternal “life lurks under the cloak of toil, which is death” (para. 6). The text then explains that humans can take part in the transformation from death to life by abandoning their sinful ways: “[S]o the sinner is transported from the depth of wickedness, which is at times in greed, at times in lust and in other desires, to the cross and clings to it and thus comes to Christ” (para. 7). With regard to the crusader, the background of the indulgence is explained as follows: “Therefore, the church must rightly lighten the burden of its fighter, who goes to war for it, and carry his weight, and thus the lord pope justly remits the punishment of sins for crusaders and those who can be cleansed by their contrition, devotion, confession [...]” (para. 8). By discussing the eating of the apple of death in Paradise and the eating of Christ’s body in the form of bread during mass, the final section of the first part ties the themes of death, life and redemption in with the Eucharist (para. 10–11). In doing so, the text places the central theme of redemption in a known ritual enactment of the mechanism of salvation. This strong emphasis on the Eucharist in crusade propaganda was also commonplace at the beginning of the thirteenth century.45 The second and third parts of the Brevis Ordinacio are in essence elaborations of thematic aspects which the first part has introduced. Both are also much shorter than the first part. Penny Cole described the function of part two, which is entitled “About the circumstances of the cross,” as directing “the audience to a meditation upon the crucifixion.”46 There is indeed a visual quality to the text which describes the physical setting of the figure of the suffering Christ on the cross (para. 12). Again, Christ on the cross is described as the agent of salvation and a model to be imitated: “[T]he Lord on the cross describes our whole life so that we may imitate him, because Christ’s every deed is our instruction [...]” (para. 13). The message of redemption is once more geared towards the crusader: “[The Lord] sends you the cleansing and purging from your sins, that you may take up the cross for the aid of the Holy Land, and in this way you will enter the kingdom of the heavens through the cross [...]” (para. 13). While part two stresses the redemptive power of Christ on the cross, part three is all about sinfulness and people’s need to strive for God’s forgiveness. This section reads like a catalogue of short similes and allegories of human sinful behaviour requiring forgiveness. Some of these are connected to biblical passages, others not. In terms of style, part three is clearly different from parts one and two. While the first two parts develop coherent arguments around central topics, part three simply lists short passages which are united by a common theme but do not develop a coherent argument. 45 

See Maier, “Mass, the Eucharist and the Cross,” 358–60. Also Christoph T. Maier, “Ritual, what else? Papal Letters, Sermons and the Making of Crusaders,” Journal of Medieval History 44 (2018), 333–46, at 340–41. 46  Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades, 121.

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

35

This style continues in the fourth part of the Brevis Ordinacio, entitled “About people’s vocation to the cross.” The final part of the treatise presents a long list of short appeals to be used in addressing the audiences of crusade sermons directly. As its first paragraph explains, the general theme of this section is to “[b]reak the trap of the devil, of the flesh and of the world dragging you to hell and rise up through the virtue of the Holy Spirit to the cross and thus to heaven” (para. 34). Each appeal consists of a short simile or allegory, sometimes based on a biblical passage, or an exemplum which is followed by an exhortation “to rise up” and follow Christ, take the cross, etc. As the author explains in an insertion before the final five appeals, “exempla are also interspersed sometimes to make the listeners attentive, sometimes to keep away boredom, sometimes to move them further towards contrition by the example of others, sometimes so that they the more detest the fallacious vanity of the world” (para. 50). Overall there is a thematic unity to the Brevis Ordinacio. The treatise follows through the core theme of imitatio Christi and its application as a path to salvation for the crusader. However, it falls into two stylistically distinct sections. Parts one and two read like a theological text aiming to discuss aspects of the core topic in an exploratory manner. By contrast, parts three and four present lists of short materiae predicabiles to be integrated into sermons directly, which are also linked to the core theme but do not develop a coherent argument. This uneven formal and stylistic arrangement, along with its sometimes rather convoluted train of thought, might account for the fact that the Brevis Ordinacio does not seem to have been very popular with crusade preachers. It has only survived in two manuscripts, both originally at Oxford. In terms of usability, the Brevis Ordinacio was probably disadvantaged compared to other crusade preaching aids. From the 1230s onwards at the latest, crusade model sermons were made available by well-known preachers such as James of Vitry, Eudes of Châteauroux and others.47 Model sermons had the advantage of offering argumentative structures for entire sermons thematically anchored in a Bible verse and formally arranged in the way sermons were delivered. For a crusade preacher seeking materials for his sermons, model sermon texts thus presented ready-made themes and arguments appropriately structured and embellished with pertinent exempla. In contrast, while the first two parts of the Brevis Ordinacio provided materials for an important theme, these were not pre-structured for use in sermons. As for the third and fourth part, the short passages listed for direct introduction into spoken sermons, lacked ready-made arguments into which these passages could be easily fitted. Compared with the later and very popular De Predicatione Sancte Crucis by Humbert of Romans, the Brevis Ordinacio also lacked the breadth and choice of materials which might have made it attractive as a handbook-type resource. 47  See Christoph T. Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology. Model Sermons for the Preaching of the Cross (Cambridge, 2000); Miikka Tamminen, Crusade Preaching and the Ideal Crusader (Turnhout, 2018).

36

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

The Manuscripts of the Brevis Ordinacio The Brevis Ordinacio has survived in two thirteenth-century manuscripts, both probably originally from Oxford, which are now at Balliol College, Oxford, and in the collection of the Museum Plantin-Moretus at Antwerp. The following descriptions are partly taken from the published catalogues and partly based on my own observations.48 Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus, MS M10349 (= A) 22.5 cm × 15.5 cm in size. 219 folios; 218 are paginated with one unpaginated folio between fols. 98 and 99. 3 fly-leaves at fols. 1, 108, 219. Fols. 1–107 in 2 columns of 29 lines each, fols. 109–217 in a single column of 27 lines. Fols. 56, 108, 218 are left blank. Quires: 510, 16 with one folio missing, 68, 14, 18, 310, 18, 210, 18, 110, 18, 110, 18. Hand and decorative style change at fols. 57 and 109. All three hands are thirteenth-century, probably first half to middle decades. The manuscript consists of three separate parts which were bound together at some unknown time, possibly in the thirteenth century. The first part (fols. 2–56) comprises three works by Bernard of Clairvaux, De gratia et libero arbitrio, De diligendo Deo, De XII gradibus humilitatis et superbiae;50 the second part (fols. 57–107) has the Brevis Ordinacio, the Epistula ad fratres de Monte Dei by William of St. Thierry51 (which the manuscript falsely ascribes to St. Bernard) and the Meditationes by Guigues 1er le Chartreux52 (also falsely ascribed to St. Bernard); the third part consist of Robert of Cricklade’s De Connubio Iacob.53 A marginal note on fol. 3r in a late fifteenth- or early sixteenth-century hand explains that the book had been donated to All Souls College, Oxford, by Robert Warham, father of Archbishop William Warham of Canterbury (c.1450–1532).54 How and when the manuscript came to be included in the collection of the Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp is unknown. The text of the Brevis Ordinacio in the Antwerp manuscript has probably undergone two stages of emendation. Throughout the text there are small 48  I should like to thank Anna Sander, Archivist and Curator of Manuscripts at Balliol College, Oxford, and Dirk Imhof, Conservator bibliotheek en archief Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp and his staff, for their permission and help in examining the original manuscripts. 49  Jean Denucé, Catalogue des Manuscrits Musæum Plantin-Moretus (Antwerp, 1927), 87–88, where the manuscript is listed as “Latin, no. 107 (anc. 56).” 50  These works are edited in S. Bernardus, Tractatus et opuscula, ed. Jean Leclerq and Henri-Marie Rochais (= S. Bernardi Opera Omnia 3) (Rome, 1963), 13–59, 119–47, 165–203. 51  Jean-Marie Déchanet, Guillaume de Saint-Thierry. Lettre aux Frères du Mont-Dieu (Lettre d’or), Sources chrétiennes 45 (Paris, 2004). 52  Guigues 1er le Chartreux, Méditations. Sources chrétiennes 308 (Paris, 2001). 53  This text has not been printed or edited. 54  Oxford, Balliol College, MS 165, fol. 3r: “Liber collegii animarum omnium fidelium defunctorum in Oxonia ex dono Roberti in Christo patris domini Wilhelmi Warham Cantuarensis archiepiscopus.”

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

37

corrections filling in occasional missing words in between the lines, probably by a different, contemporary scribe. In addition, there are two marginal notes in yet another thirteenth-century hand on fols. 57rb and 57va, where missing words were inserted into biblical quotations. But altogether only little has been corrected and there are only a few mnemonic marginal marks to suggest that the text was used (see fols. 57r, 60r, 61r, 62v, 63r, 64r). Oxford, Balliol College, MS 16755 (= B) 30.5 cm x 21.5 cm in size. 215 folios, paginated throughout. 2 fly-leaves. 2 columns of varying length of between 32 and 50 lines. Quires: 810 (2 blanks missing at the end), 510, 112, 310, 14, 310, 110+1. Occasional catchwords up to fol. 176. Hand and decorative style change at fols. 81r, 143r, 177r. All hands are thirteenth-century, probably first half to middle decades. The manuscript consists of four separate parts which were bound together at some unknown time, possibly in the thirteenth century. The first part (fols. 3–80) has the commentary on Genesis by Rabanus Maurus,56 the second part (fols. 81–142) the same author’s commentary on the Book of Maccabees,57 the third part (fols. 143– 76) unites Rabanus Maurus’ commentary on Acts58 with Bede’s commentary on the same New Testament book,59 the fourth part (fols. 177–215) comprises Robert of Cricklade’s De Connubio Iacobi as well as the Brevis Ordinacio.60 Both texts in part four, which interest us here, show the same decorative style and are written by the same hand, probably in one go, since the De Connubio Iacobi stops on the same folio 212v on which the Brevis Ordinacio starts. The text of the Brevis Ordinacio has no corrections nor any commentary or other obvious signs of use. The Antwerp and Oxford manuscripts are only related by their chronological origin (having been written in the first half or the middle of the thirteenth century) and the fact that, at some stage of the later Middle Ages, they were probably both in Oxford. As concerns the contents of the two manuscripts, the only works they have in common are the Brevis Ordinacio and Robert of Cricklade’s De Connubio Iacobi. But whereas in the Oxford manuscript the two works belong to the same section and were copied alongside each other, they appear in different sections in

55  Roger A.B. Mynors, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College Oxford (Oxford, 1963), 173–74. 56  See PL 107:439–670. 57  See PL 109:1127–1256. 58  This text has not been printed or edited. 59  See PL 92:1033–40 and PL 23:1297–1306. 60  Mynors, Catalogue, 173–74.

38

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

the Antwerp manuscript, where the Brevis Ordinacio was copied alongside two other twelfth-century works. The two manuscript texts of the Brevis Ordinacio show hardly any difference beyond occasional spelling mistakes or the odd word missing from one or the other. What sets them apart are occasional variations of spelling, as for example the use of c and t, or different transcriptions of the names of biblical books and names (e.g. Chain/Caim). These differences are not sufficiently numerous nor systematic enough for determining whether one text was copied from the other or whether they both were copied from another version or versions which no longer exist. Principles of Edition and Translation For the following edition of the Brevis Ordinacio, the Antwerp manuscript (= A) has been chosen as the base text because it was more carefully corrected at the time of production and therefore has fewer obvious mistakes. Variants in the Oxford manuscript (= B) are recorded in the footnotes and adopted for the edited text if the text of A was clearly faulty. Where both manuscripts were clearly wrong (e.g. faulty identifications of biblical passages) editorial alterations have been made while the original text is relegated to the footnotes. Differences in spelling are also indicated in the footnotes unless they are subject to the following normalizations: v has been normalized to u (e.g. devotione > deuotione) for small letters unless v occurs as part of a Roman numeral; U has been normalized to V at the beginning of a sentence; c has been normalized to t of classical use (e.g. insurgencium > insurgentium) because both manuscripts keep changing between one and the other spelling, with no consistent pattern; y has been normalized to i (e.g. gygas > gigas) unless it occurs in proper names and names of books of the Bible; w has been normalised to u (Ewangelio > Euangelio). The manuscript texts are not divided into individual paragraphs. The edition uses paragraphs to mark the beginning of the four major thematic sections and also to subdivide the text within each section into coherent thematic units. For ease of referencing the paragraphs are numbered in brackets at the beginning. Modern punctuation is used throughout to facilitate reading. The edited text uses two sets of footnotes. Footnotes with arabic numerals are used to indicate variations between the two manuscripts and for editorial adjustments. Footnotes with small letters are used for identification of quotations and historical commentary. Identifications of biblical quotations have been added in the Latin text between square brackets. Abbreviations and chapter and verse numbers were adopted from the Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate.61

61 

Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, 5th edition (Stuttgart, 2007).

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

39

The English translation tries to render the Latin text as literally as possible in terms of word meaning, grammatical form and sentence structure. At times, this may sound a little artificial and also produces renderings of the Latin Bible passages which do not conform to modern standard translations, but on the whole an attempt has been made to reproduce the original flow and meaning of the text as best as possible.62

62  I should like to thank Cathy Aitken and Gabi Vetsch (both Basel) as well as, even more so, Jessalynn Bird (Notre Dame) for their helpful comments on various aspects of this article and the edition and translation.

40

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

Edition A = Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus, MS M103, fols. 57ra–64vb. B = Oxford, Balliol College, MS 167, fols. 212vb–215ra. Incipit breuis ordinatio de predicatione sancte crucis laicis facienda, que uerborum ornatam non respicit compositionem, sed potius lucidam et manifestam ueritatis ostensionem. Et lingue facundia rationis regimine moderata calami solum materiam predicandi colligentis suppleat breuitatem. (1) Obsida pressuris humana fragilitas suarum uirium sepe considerat paruitatem et nichil in se nisi tenebras angustiarum et hostium insurgentium estus cernit. Sed cum mentem ad superni presidii lumen et ad perpetue retributionis dona erigit, Deo firmiter adherens, per ipsum uires plus et plus colligit successiue et triplicis hostis inquietationes potenter elidit, id est quod secundum carnem est amarum conuertens in id quod secundum spiritum est dulce et pompe mundane umbratilem1 respuens uanitatem, ad ipsum ueniendi, a quo est omnis salus, qui est uia, ueritas et uita [John 14.6], semitam breuissimam sibi eligit imitandam, ut mors uite temporalis sit quasi ia-/A 57rb/-nua et introitus regni celorum et uite indeficientis. Cum igitur quanto magis aliquid est bonum et plus delectabile tanto magis sit appetendum et ad ipsum eo magis sit accelerandum ad eum, quo nichil est melius uel delectabilius, in cruce, que est uia apud celos breuissima, est properandum dilationem fugiendo cum feruenti desiderio. Ne igitur ad eum ueniendi queras dilationem per effectus euidentiam non obseruans illud mandatum [Matt. 22.37, 40]: Diliges Deum tuum ex toto corde etc. a quo pendet tota lex et prophete, eum sequere, qui dicit [John 13.16]: Seruus non est maior domino suo, et alibi [John 12.26]: Vbi sum ego, scilicet in cruce, illic et minister meus erit, quia qui mihi ministrat me sequatur, in cruce scilicet, in qua moriendo Dominus genus redemit humanum. (2) Dicit enim in Euangelio [John 12.24–25]: Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram2 mortuum fuerit, ipsum manet solum. Christus dicitur granum frumenti, quia eo fruemur, et dicitur granum, quia, sicut granum frumenti est candidum interius et rubicundum exterius, sic Christus interius candidus per innocentiam et uirginitatem et rubicundus fuit exterius in cruce per proprium sanguinem. In grano frumenti est quedam rima quasi inter duo, que uniuntur, sic sunt in Christo due nature, scilicet Dei et /A 57va/ hominis, que in eo uniuntur. Christus enim est uerus Deus et uerus homo, quia est gigas gemine substantie. Sicut granum frumenti molitur in mola inter duos lapides, sic Christus in cruce inter duos populos, scilicet Iudaicum et Gentilem, quia Iudei adiudicauerunt Christum morti et Romani eum interfecerunt, qui fuerant Gentiles. Granum cecidit in terram, sic Christus in uterum Marie uirginis. Nisi mortuum fuerit, ipsum manet solum; ita, nisi Christus mortuus fuisset, ipse mansisset solus absque hominis consortio in gloria, quoniam in morte sua redemit in cruce genus humanum et aperuit ianuas celorum iuxta illud: Tu deuicto mortis aculeo, aperuisti credentibus regna celorum3 etc.a Granum autem4 diuiditur quando interior medulla exit et

a  This quote is from the Te Deum in the office of the mass; see Adolf Adam, ed., Te Deum Laudamus (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1990), 16.

1 umbratilem] umbralitatem B  2 cadens in terra add. in marg. A, om. B   3 aperuisti ... celorum add. in marg. A, om. B  4 autem sup. lin. A

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

41

Translation

Here begins a short instruction about the preaching of the holy cross to lay people which is not concerned with the ornate composition of words but rather with the clear and plain presentation of truth. And may the verbal eloquence of the pen tempered by the rule of reason plainly enhance the brevity of the material collected for preaching. (1) Hard-pressed by burdens, human weakness often considers the deficiency of its strengths and sees nothing within itself except the gloom of anguish and the surge of rebellious enemies. But when it raises the mind to the light of heavenly aid and to the gifts of perpetual retribution, firmly adhering to God, it gradually gathers through him ever greater strengths and forcefully crushes the attacks of the threefold enemy, meaning that, turning what is bitter with regard to the flesh into what is sweet with regard to the spirit and rejecting the shady vanity of earthly pomp, it chooses for itself to emulate the shortest path to reach him, from whom all salvation comes, who is the way, the truth and the life, so that the death of temporal life be like the door and entrance to the kingdom of heaven and to never-ending life. Therefore, since the better and the more enjoyable something is, the more you should seek it and hasten towards it, you must the more hurry towards him, compared to whom nothing is better and more enjoyable, on the cross, which is the shortest way to heaven, with burning desire, avoiding any delay. Do not seek delay in coming to him by disobeying this mandate on account of any weighty evidence: Love God with all your heart etc., on whom hangs the whole law and the prophets, following him, who says: A servant is not greater than his master, and elsewhere: Where I am, meaning on the cross, my servant will also be there, because he who serves me should follow me, meaning to the cross, on which the Lord by his death redeemed humankind. (2) As it says in the Gospel: Unless the grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it only remains a single grain. Christ is called a wheat grain because we savour him and is also called grain because, just as a wheat grain is white inside and reddish outside, so Christ is white inside by his innocence and virginity and was made red outside on the cross by his own blood. In a grain there is a split between two parts that are joined together; in the same way there are two natures in Christ, meaning one of God and one of a human, which are joined in him. Christ, therefore, is the true God and a true human because he is a giant of twin substance. Just as a wheat grain is ground in a mill between two stones, so Christ on the cross [was placed] between two peoples, namely the Jews and the Gentiles, because the Jews sentenced Christ to death and the Romans, who were Gentiles, killed him. The grain fell into the earth, just as Christ into the womb of the Virgin Mary. Unless it dies, it only remains a single grain, thus, unless Christ had died, he would have remained alone without human companionship in eternal beatitude, because by his death on the cross he redeemed humankind and opened up the doors of the heavens according to this: Having defeated the sting of death you have opened the kingdoms of heaven to the believers etc. The grain is

42

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

germinat granum et desinit esse granum, unde quodammodo moritur in illa desicatione.5 Sic et Christus diuidebatur /B 213ra/ quodammodo in duo, scilicet corpus et animam, quando anima exiit a corpore et aperuit ianuam celi et desiit esse homo, unde Christus moriebatur in illa diuisione corporis et anime. Conuenienter igitur appellatur Christus granum et non simpliciter granum, sed frumenti granum. (3) Item, per Christum et Mariam intrauit uita, sicut per /A 57vb/ Adam et Euam mors. Maria autem fuit in cruce, quia in maximo cruciatu, quando uidit filium suum pendere in cruce, unde Ysa. ultimo capite [66.7–8]: Antequam parturiret, peperit; antequam ueniret partus eius, peperit masculum. Quis audiuit unquam tale, quis uidit huic simile? Parturit autem mulier, quando laborat, et nimios habet dolores, antequam puer egressus fuerit suus6 ab utero. Sic non fuit de beata Maria uirgine, que peperit sine dolore. Sed postea, quando affligebatur uidens filium suum unicum, innocentem, sine causa in cruce positum, despectum, a discipulis suis derelictum, tunc parturiuit. De ea competenter igitur dixit Ysa.: Antequam parturiret, peperit. (4) Item, sicut per mulierem, scilicet Euam, que facta fuit de uiro, scilicet Ada, absque coniunctione femine, oportuit homines mori, sic opposito modo per uirum, scilicet Ihesum Christum, qui de muliere, scilicet Maria, absque coniunctione masculi, debemus omnes per Dei gratiam uiuere et habere uitam eternam. Item, alia est ratio: per costam intrauit mors, quia per Euam, que facta fuit de costa Ade [cf. Gen. 2.21–22], sic e contrario per latus uita, quia /A 58ra/ per sanguinem Christi, qui exiuit de latere eius [cf. John 19.34]. Item, per actionem mors, quia per comestionem pomi, sic e contrario per passionem uita, quia passio Christi in cruce induxit uitam. Item, per delectationem Ade et Eue in comestione pomi mors, sic e contrario per amaritudinem Christi et Marie in cruce uita. Item, Adam et Eua comedebant pomum, ut simul tenerent corpus et animam, quia propter hoc comedunt homines, ut uiuant. Ergo cum contraria contrariis curentur, debuit medicina esse per mortem,7 quia per diuisionem corporis et anime. Salus igitur nostra debuit esse per mortem. Item, mors inducebatur per uirum cum peccato, ergo uita debuit induci per uirum existentem sine peccato [cf. 1 Cor. 15.22, 45]. Ille ergo, ex quo per ipsum debuit fieri reparatio generis humani, non potuit esse de progenie Ade et esse purus homo, quia omnes de progenie Ade, qui fuerunt pure homines, nascebantur cum originali peccato [cf. Rom. 5.14]. Oportuit igitur ipsum esse Deum et hominem et oportuit ipsum hominem esse de genere Ade, quia, ex quo Adam deliquit, necesse fuit humano generi, quod uel ipse uel aliquis de suis satisfaceret pro illo delicto, quia, si aliquis homo nouus crearetur a Deo, qui redimeret genus humanum, tunc non restitueretur genus humanum ad pristinam libertatem, quia semper te-/A 58rb/-neretur humana creatura ei obedire et seruire; oportuit ergo ipsum esse Deum et hominem et de progenie Ade. (5) Item, Genesis xv [16] dictum est Abrahe et semini suo8 subiecto seruituti: Quarta generatione reuertuntur huc, quia quedam fuit generatio, nec de uiro, nec de femina, ut Ade, quedam de uiro et non de femina, ut Eue, quedam et de uiro et de femina, ut hominum qui modo sunt, quedam de femina et non de uiro, ut Christi. Tres prime generationes prenominate precesserunt incarnationem, in natiuitate autem Christi consumauit Deus quartam generationem, et impossibile fuit plures esse, ut patet, per quadrimembrem9 diuisionem predictam. Completum est igitur quod dictum est: /B 213rb/ Quarta generatione reuertuntur huc, quia Christus liberauit semen Abrahe a seruitute.

5 desicatione] desitione A  6 suus om. A  7 per mortem sup. lin. A  8 suo] tuo B 9 quadrimembrem] quadrimenbrem A

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

43

divided when the inner marrow pushes out and germinates the grain and the grain stops being a grain, whence it somehow dies in this state of desiccation. In the same way Christ, too, was somehow divided in two, meaning body and soul, when the soul left the body and opened the door of heaven and stopped being human, whence Christ died in this division of body and soul. Christ, therefore, is aptly called grain, and not grain alone but grain of wheat. (3) Also, life entered through Christ and Mary, as did death through Adam and Eve. Mary was also on the cross, because she was in the greatest torture when she saw her son hanging on the cross, whence in the last chapter of Isaiah: Before she was in labour, she gave birth; before her birth pangs came, she delivered a son. Who ever heard such a story, who ever saw such a thing? A mother is in labour when she gives birth and experiences many pains before her baby boy leaves her womb. This was not the case with the Holy Virgin Mary, who gave birth without pain. But afterwards, when she was tormented seeing her only son, innocent, put on the cross without reason, despised, abandoned by his disciples, then she was in labour. Thus, Isaiah aptly says about her: Before she was in labour, she gave birth. (4) Also, as humans had to die through a woman, namely Eve, who was made of a man, namely of Adam, without female contact, so in contrast we may all live by God’s grace and have eternal life through a man, namely Jesus Christ, who [was made] of a woman, namely Mary, without male contact. Also, there is another reason: death entered through a rib, as through Eve, who was fashioned from one of Adam’s ribs, so in contrast life [entered] through the side, as through the blood of Christ, which poured from his side. Also, death [entered] through a deed, as through the eating of an apple, so in contrast life [entered] through suffering, because Christ’s suffering on the cross brought about life. Also, death [entered] through Adam’s and Eve’s pleasure in eating an apple, so in contrast life [entered] through Christ’s and Mary’s bitterness on the cross. Also, Adam and Eve ate the apple, so that they might keep together body and spirit, because this is why people eat, so they may live. Thus, because opposites are cured by opposites, medicine must come through death, as through the division of body and soul. Our salvation, therefore, must be through death. Also, death was introduced by a man with sin, so life must be brought by a man living without sin. Thus, he through whom alone the saving of humankind must happen, could not be [both] a descendant of Adam and a pure man, as all descendants of Adam who were pure men were born with original sin. It was therefore necessary for him to be God and human and also necessary for him to be a man of Adam’s line. Because Adam failed, it was necessary that he be human so that he or one of his line make amends for this [Adam’s] offence, because if any new human were created by God, who redeemed humankind, then humankind would not be returned to pristine freedom, because the human creature would be held to obey and serve him; it is thus necessary that he be God and man and a descendant of Adam. (5) Also, [in] Genesis 15 it is said to Abraham and his people subjugated in slavery: In the fourth generation they will return here, because one generation was not of man and not of woman, as with Adam, one of man and not of woman, as with Eve, one of man and of woman, as of humans as they are now, one of woman and not of man, as with Christ. The first three aforementioned generations predated the incarnation, but in the birth of Christ God completed the fourth generation, and it was impossible for there to be more [generations] as is made clear by the fourfold division above. Thus is fulfilled what was said: In the fourth generation they will return here, because Christ freed the people of Abraham from slavery.

44

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

(6) Item, qui sibi minuit, ut sanetur a dolore, non extrahit sanguinem a loco infirmo, sed a loco sano. Sic humana natura, cum infirma esset, non extraxit sanguinem a loco infirmo, ut saneretur, sed a loco sano, scilicet a corpore Ihesu Christi in cruce, quod sanum fuit et mundum a peccatis et sic mundabatur a peccatis et a morte eterna genus humanum, unde Iohannes, in prima capite [1 John 1.7]: Sanguis Ihesu Christi mundat nos ab omni peccato. Item, /A 58va/ per uirum et mulierem Adam et Euam mors intrauit in ameno loco, pulcro et delectabili, scilicet in Paradiso, sic e contrario per uirum et mulierem, scilicet Christum et Mariam, uita in loco tedioso, deformi et horribili. Item, mors in ligno pulcro, uita in ligno, id est in cruce, deformi. Item, mors infra ambitum Paradisi, uita extra castra, unde Ad Hebreos ultimo [Heb. 13.13–14]: Exeamus ad eum extra castrum improperium eius portantes, non enim habemus hic10 manentem cuitatem. Item, in pulcro ligno Paradisi sub pallio uite occultabatur mors, ita e contrario in ligno deformi et horribili sub pallio mortis abscondebatur uita. Sicut etiam in cruce signatis sub pallio laboris, qui est quasi mors, latet uita. Item, per hominem factum de terra uirginali, scilicet per Adam, mors, sic per hominem factum de muliere uirgine, scilicet per Christum, uita. Item, sicut Adam et Eua operati sunt mortem in medio Paradisi et Lucifer in medio celi, sic Deus, rex noster, operatus est salutem in medio terre [Ps. 73.12], scilicet in Ierusalem, que est umbilicus terre. Ioel ii11 [32]: In monte Syon et in Ierusalem erit saluatio, ubi agnus in cruce uicit leonem rugientem, id est diabolum, qui circuit etc. [1 Pet. 5. 8]. Item, sicut aqua ueniens cum impetu /A 58vb/ mundat et purgat fossata, sic crux mundat corda peccatorum. Sitis ergo in cruce, ut mundemini ab omni inquinamento carnis et spiritus, ut dicit Apostolus [2 Cor. 7.1]. (7) Item, iiii Reg. vi [3–6] dicitur, quod quidam ad Iordanem cedebant ligna, ut edificarent sibi domum; ferrum securis unius hominis cecidit in aqua, et ipse clamauit ad Heliseum dicens: Heu, heu, domine mi, hoc ipsum mutuo acceperam. Dixit autem Heliseus: Ubi cecidit? At ille monstrauit ei locum. Precidit ergo Heliseus lignum et misit illud ad locum illum, natauitque ferrum ad lignum et ait: Tolle. Qui extendit manum et tulit illud. Per Heliseum significatur Christus, per lignum crux, per ferrum, quod fuit durum et frigidum, significatur peccatorum frigidus in caritate et induratus in peccatis. Quoniam, sicut ferrum illud de lutoso fundo aquarum sursum mouebatur ad lignum et sic ad Heliseum, ita peccator de profunditate malitie, que est tum in gula, tum in luxuria et in aliis, mouetur ad crucem et ei adheret et ita peruenit ad Christum, unde illud: Hec est scala peccatorum etc.,b et in Euangelio [John 12.32]: Si exaltatus fuero a terra etc. (8) /A 59ra/ Qui pugnat est in metu mortis nec debet honerari, sed debet honus ab eo tolli, ut ipse sit agilis. Merito ergo debet ecclesia exhonerare suum pugilem, qui pro ipsa pugnat, et sustinere pondus ipsius, et ideo cruce signatis iuste remittit dominus papa penam peccatorum et obligat uniuersalem ecclesiam pro ipsis,12 qui mundari possunt per propriam eorum contritionem, deuotionem, confessionem, /B 213va/ laborem, per orationes et elemosinas, que fiunt ab uniuersis Christianis pro peregrinis Terre Sancte. Item, si aliquis esset honeratus pluribus lapidibus et quidam acciperet ab eo unum lapidem et alius alium et tertius tertium et sic deinceps, ipse totaliter exhoneraretur. Similiter cruce signatus dehoneratur a pena peccatorum per dominum papam et uniuersalem ecclesiam: Quemcumque enim soluerit

b 

Adam of St. Victor, Sententiae xx in inventione sancte crucis, PL 196:1486A.

10 hic om. B  11 ii] iii A, B  12 ipsis] ipsius B

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

45

(6) Also, he who bleeds himself in order to be healed from pain does not draw blood from the afflicted spot but from a healthy spot. In the same way human nature does not, when it is ill, draw blood from the afflicted spot in order to get well but from a healthy spot, meaning the body of Jesus Christ on the cross, which was healthy and clean from sin and thus humankind was cleansed from sins and eternal death, whence in the first chapter of John: The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Also, through a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, death entered in a pleasant place, beautiful and delightful, namely in Paradise, and so in contrast life [entered] through a man and a woman, Christ and Mary, in a dull place, ugly and horrible. Also, death [entered] in a beautiful wood, life in a deformed wood, namely the cross. Also, death [entered] inside the perimeter of Paradise, life outside the walls, whence in the last chapter of Hebrews: Let us go to him outside the walls bearing his humiliation, since we have no permanent city here. Also, in the beautiful wood of Paradise, death was hidden under the cloak of life, and so in contrast life was hidden in the deformed and horrible wood under the cloak of death. And thus also in those signed with the cross, life lurks under the cloak of toil, which is like death. Also, death [entered] through a man made from virgin earth, namely through Adam, and so life [entered] through a man made from a virgin mother, namely through Christ. Also, just as Adam and Eve brought about death in the midst of Paradise and Lucifer in the midst of heaven, so God our king has brought about salvation in the midst of the earth, namely in Jerusalem, which is the navel of the earth. Joel 2: On Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be salvation, where the lamb on the cross prevails over the roaring lion, that is the devil, who is on the prowl etc. Also, just as water, flowing hard, cleans and washes down ditches, so the cross cleans the hearts of sinners. So be you on the cross so that you are cleansed of all the filth of the flesh and the spirit, as the Apostle says. (7) Also, [in] 4 Kings 6 it is said that some people cut down wood at the Jordan to build themselves a house; the iron axe-head of one man fell into the water and he called out to Elisha saying: Oh, oh, my master, I borrowed this one. But Elisha asked: Where did it fall? And he showed him the spot. Elisha cut a piece of wood and threw it in at that spot and the iron floated to the wood, and he said: Take it. And he stretched out his hand and took it. By Elisha Christ is signified, by the wood the cross, by the iron, which is hard and cold, is signified the coldness in charity of the sinners and the hard-headedness in their sins. Because, as this iron was transported from the muddy ground of the waters up to the piece of wood and thus to Elisha, so the sinner is transported from the depth of wickedness, which is at times in greed, at times in lust and in other desires, to the cross and clings to it and thus comes to Christ, whence this: This is the ladder of sinners etc. and in the Gospel: When I am lifted up from the earth etc. (8) He who fights is in danger of death and ought not to be burdened down, rather the burden ought to be lifted from him so that he may be agile. Therefore, the church must rightly unburden its fighter, who goes to war for it, and carry his weight, and so, in the same way the lord pope justly remits the punishment of sins for those signed with the cross and binds the universal church on their behalf, so that they might be cleansed through their own contrition, devotion, confession, labour and through the prayers and alms, which are performed by all Christians on behalf of the pilgrims to the Holy Land. Also, if a person were burdened with many stones and someone took one stone from him and another a second [stone] and a third a third [stone] and so on, he would be altogether unburdened. Similarly, one signed with the cross is unburdened of the punishment for sin by the lord pope and the universal church: Whatever he looses

46

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

super terram, erit solutus et in celum [Matt. 16.19]. Notandum quod dicitur super terram, non dicitur infra terram, nec in terra. Super terram est, qui terrena negligit, in terra est, qui in terrena cor suum affigit, et de talibus dicit Apostolus [Phil. 3.19]: Gloria eorum in confusione, qui terrena sapiunt, hoc est habent delectationem et saporem in terrenis. Et Iohannes in Apoc. [8.13]: Ve, ue, habitantibus in terra! (9) /A 59rb/ Genes. iii [6]: Vidit mulier, scilicet Eua, quod lignum esset bonum ad uescendum et pulcrum oculis aspectuque delectabile; tulit de fructu illius et comedit et dedit uiro suo, et comedit. Sed precepit Deus prius Ade, Gen. ii [16–17]: Ex omni ligno Pardisi comede, de ligno autem scientie boni et mali ne comedas! Vnde Eua respondit serpenti [Gen. 3.2–3]: De fructu ligni, quod est in medio Paradisi, precepit nobis Deus, ne comederemus et ne tangeremus illud, ne forte moriamur. Recto igitur13 iudicio Dei diuidebantur corpora Ade et Eue ab animabus suis, quia ipsi contra Dei preceptum diuidebant pomum per morsum, unde mors a morsu deriuatur. Oportuit igitur eos mori, et nos omnes per eos,14 et in eodem fuit culpa et pena, quia in diuisione, culpa in diuisione partium pomi, pena in diuisione corporis et anime. Item, qui comedit rem uenenosam, mori debet, et Adam et Eua comederunt pomum eis uenenosum, quia contra Dei preceptum, ergo necesse fuit eos mori. Item, in diuisione pomi habuerunt Adam et Eua delectationem, sic e contrario in diuisione corporis et anime habebant amaritudinem et eorum sequaces similiter. /A 59va/ Item, sicut Eua seduxit Adam ita quod oportuit eum mori, sic caro seducit quandoque spiritum, itaque necesse est eum quasi mori, quia erat in morte eterna. Item, sicut Eua pomum uetitum porrexit Ade, sic caro diuersa, que sunt uetita, offert anime. Quicquid enim est uetitum homini, significatur per pomum predictum et per Adam spiritus, per Eua caro. (10) Item, sicut per cibum pomi, factum contra preceptum Domini, intrauit mors, ita per cibum, qui est caro et sanguis Christi, factum ex precepto Domini, intrauit uita, et cotidie intrat. Iohannes vi [33–35, 40]: Panis Dei est qui de celo descendit et dat uitam mundo. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: Domine, semper da nobis panem hunc. Dixit autem eis Ihesus: Ego sum panis uiuus; qui uenit ad me, non esuriet, et qui credit in me, non sitiet ultra; et ita omnis qui uidet filium et credit in eum, habet uitam eternam, et infra eodem capite [John 6.54, 56–57]: Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis uitam in uobis etc.; caro mea uere est cibus, et sanguis meus uere est potus; qui manducat carnem mean et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in eo. Qui autem in illo est, est in forti castro, circumdatus undique tam forti muro, quod diabolus ad eum non potest habere accessum, et ideo dicit Iohannes in Apoc. [14.13]: Scribe: Beati mortui /A 59vb/ qui in Domino moriuntur. Caro autem Christi non est cibus uentris, sed cibus mentis. Dicit enim Augustinus: Crede et manucasti,c et Dominus dicit [John 6.40]: Omnis, qui uidet filium et credit in eum, habet uitam eternam, unde Abacuc [2.4]: Iustus ex fide uiuit, et infra eodem capite [John 6.55]: Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit meum sanguinem, habet uitam eternam. Ad credere igitur sequitur utrumque istorum et manducare et habere uitam eternam. (11) Sed qui indigne sumit, iuducium sibi manducat et bibit [1 Cor. 11.29], unde sacerdos, impenitens existens, in mortali sumit corpus Christi15 ad sui dampnationem et ad suorum

c  Augustine of Hippo, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 36:254.

13 igitur] ergo B 

14 eos] ipsos B 

15 tamen sacram materialiter add. et del. A

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

47

above the earth will be loosed in heaven. It must be noted that it says above the earth, and does not say inside the earth nor on earth. He who disregards earthly things is above the earth, he who binds his heart to earthly things is on earth, and about such people the Apostle says: Their glory is troubled who know earthly things, that is they take pleasure in and have a taste for earthly things. And John in Apocalypse [says]: Woe, woe to the inhabitants on earth! (9) Genesis 3: The woman, namely Eve, saw that the tree was good to eat and beautiful to the eyes and of pleasant appearance; she took some of its fruit and ate it and she gave some to her husband, and he ate. But previously God ordered Adam, Genesis 2: Eat from every tree of Paradise but do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! Whence Eve responded to the serpent: God ordered us not to eat and not to touch the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of Paradise, lest perhaps we die. Therefore, the bodies of Adam and Eve were rightly separated from their souls by God’s judgment, because they divided the apple with a bite against God’s command, whence death derives from a bite. It was, therefore, necessary for them to die, and all of us through them, and in this was guilt and punishment as a consequence of the separation, guilt in the separation of the parts of the apple, punishment in the separation of body and soul. Also, he who eats something poisonous must die, and Adam and Eve ate an apple that was poisonous to them; because it was against God’s command, they had to die. Also, Adam and Eve took pleasure in dividing the apple and thus in contrast they felt bitterness in the separation of body and soul, as do their descendants. Also, just as Eve seduced Adam in such a way that he had to die, so the flesh at times seduces the spirit, and therefore it is necessary for it to die, so-to-speak, because it has been in eternal death. Also, just as Eve gave the forbidden apple to Adam, so the flesh hands to the soul several things that are forbidden. Hence everything that is forbidden to humans is signified by the afore-mentioned apple, and by Adam the spirit, by Eve the flesh. (10) Also, just as death entered through the eating of an apple, done against God’s command, so life entered through eating, namely the flesh and blood of Christ, done according to God’s command, and it [still] enters daily. John 6: The bread of God is the one that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. They said to him: Lord, give us that bread always. But Jesus said to them: I am the living bread; he who comes to me will never be hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty, and therefore everyone who sees the son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and later in the same chapter: Unless you will have eaten the flesh of the son of man and have drunk his blood, you will not have life in you etc.; my flesh is true food and my blood true drink; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will dwell in me and I in him. But he who is in him is in a strong castle surrounded on all sides by such a strong wall that the devil cannot reach him, and therefore John says in Apocalypse: Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. But the flesh of Christ is not food for the stomach but food for the mind. As Augustine says: Believe and eat, and the Lord says: Everyone who sees the son and believes in him shall have eternal life, whence Habakkuk: The just lives through faith, and later the same chapter: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have eternal life. Believing is, therefore, followed by both of these, eating and having eternal life. (11) But he who lifts up unworthily eats and drinks his own judgement, whence a priest who has not done penance lifts up the body of Christ in mortal [sin] to his own damnation as well

48

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

parochianorum fidelium salutem, qui non sunt in /B 213vb/ mortali; ille etiam sumit corpus Christi tantum sacramentaliter et illi spiritualiter. Si uero sacerdos non esset in mortali, ipse tunc sumeret corpus Christi et sacramentaliter et spiritualiter. Confectio autem sacramenti est supra humanam intelligentiam, declaretur tamen, qualicumque modo sit. Homo aliquis exit quandoque a domo sua contra aduentum domini sui et permittit dominum suum intrare in locum suum. Sic est de pane quodammodo, quia ibi, ubi fuit panis in substantia pereunte, substantia panis per uim sacrorum uerborum est uerus Deus et uerus /A 60ra/ homo, et remanent ibi accidentia panis, que fuerint quasi hospitium et locus, panis scilicet albedo, rotunditas, sapor, quantitas, durities, et illa accidentia teruntur dentibus, et corpus Christi, quod ibi est sub illis accidentibus, est cibus anime et non corporis. Accidentia autem illa miraculose remanent absque subiecto. Competentem igitur medicinam preuidit Deus contra causam mortis, scilicet cibum mentis contra cibum uentris. De circumstantiis crucis. (12) Quando milites sunt in bello, ipsi habent arma sua, fortiora exterius, ut loricam, et debiliora interius. Christus e contrario habuit arma sua debiliora exterius, scilicet carnem, et fortiora interius, scilicet deitatem, que latuit sub carne. Item, quando Eua accepit pomum de ligno, clausit manum suam uersus lignum. Christus e contrario in cruce auertebat manus suas a ligno et manus habuit apertas, ut innuat, quod debemus auertere manus nostras a rebus prohibitis; per pomum autem significatur qualibet res prohibita. Item, Christus in cruce inclinat se ad osculum offerens pacem peccatori, dilatat brachia in cruce ad amplexum. Dicit enim [Luke 5.32]: Non ueni uocare iustos sed peccatores, /A 60rb/ et alibi dicit [Luke 15.7]: Maius gaudium in regno celi super uno peccatore etc. Apertum est eius latus ad aperiendum eius16 secretum. Item, unicus fuit clauus defixus et transfixus per pedes Christi, quia per pedes significatur corpus, quod nunc huc, nunc illuc uerititur, sicut pedes nunc huc, nunc illuc ferunt corpus. Dilectio autem unius, scilicet Dei, principaliter debet esse in corde, et ideo unicus clauus in pedibus fuit, qui cor significant, in quo est caritas una, in qua una fundantur omnes alie uirtutes. Sicut enim multi rami ex una radice prodeunt, sic et multe uirtutes ex una caritate prodeunt, que defixa est in corde. In designatione igitur unius caritatis fuit unicus clauus in pedibus. Item, per manus significantur17 opera, quia manibus operamur, unde duo fuerunt claui in manibus ad significandum, quod duo debent esse opera nostra bona, uel in uita actiua, uel contemplatiua. Item, ternarius fuit clauorum in designatione Trinitatis. Item, Dominus in cruce inclinauit se ad terram et direxit in terram uisum ad significandum, quod ipse fuit in cruce pro eo, qui18 fuit in terra, scilicet pro homine peccatore. Petrus autem in cruce sursum direxit uisum ad significandum, quod ipse fuit in /A 60va/ cruce pro eo, qui fuit sursum in celo, scilicet pro Christo. Item, Dominus in cruce inclinauit se ad aquilonem ad significandum, quod ipse fuit in cruce pro peccatore, qui sigificatur per aquilonem, quia, sicut aquilo frigidus est, sic peccator frigidus est in amore Dei, unde Ier.19 [1.14]: Ab aquilone panditur omne malum. Item, Maria mater Domini stabat ad crucem ex parte aquilonis inter aquilonem et Christum existentem in cruce ad significandum, quod ipsa est mediatrix inter peccatores et Christum; recipit enim fugientes ad se cum contritione et devotione et pro eis intercedit tanquam mater ad filium. Quem enim mundus respuit, et qui uilis est mundo, ut sunt inueterate meretrices, Deus ad se uenientem recipit.

16 eius sup. lin. A  17 significantur] significatur B  19 Ier.] Ysa. A et B

18 qui] quod B 

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

49

as to the salvation of his faithful parishioners, who are not in mortal [sin]; he only lifts the body of Christ sacramentally and they spiritually. But if the priest were not in mortal [sin], he would lift up the body of Christ sacramentally as well as spiritually. The configuration of the sacrament is above human intelligence, but it should be stated what kind it is. A man once left his house as his lord arrived and allowed his lord to enter his place. In the same way [it is] with the bread, because where there was bread in its transitory substance, the substance of the bread becomes true God and true man through the power of the sacred words, and the accidents of the bread remain there; these act like the dwelling and the home, namely the whiteness, the roundness, the flavour, the quantity, the solidity of the bread; and these accidents are torn by the teeth, and the body of Christ, which is there beneath these accidents, is the food for the soul and not the body. But these accidents miraculously remain without a subject. God thus provided a capable medicine against the cause of death, namely food for the mind against food for the stomach. About the circumstances of the cross. (12) When knights are at war, they have their own weapons, the stronger ones outside, like a hauberk, and the weaker ones inside. Christ in contrast wears his weaker weapons outside, namely his flesh, and the stronger ones inside, namely his divinity, which is concealed under the flesh. Also, when Eve took the fruit from the tree, she closed her hand towards the tree. Christ on the cross in contrast turned his hands away from the wood and held his hands open as a sign that we must turn our hands away from forbidden things; and by the apple any forbidden thing is signified. Also, Christ on the cross bends down for a kiss to offer peace to the sinner, he stretches out his arms on the cross for an embrace. For he says: I have not come to call the just but the sinners, and elsewhere he says: [There will be] more joy in the kingdom of heaven over one sinner etc. His side was opened to reveal his secret. Also, one single nail fixed and pierced the feet of Christ, because by the feet the body is signified, which once turns this way and once that way, as the feet once carry the body this way and once that way. The love of one, namely God, must foremost be in the heart, and this is why one single nail was put through the feet, which signify the heart, in which there is one charity, within which all other virtues are founded. Because, just as many branches spring from one single root, so also many virtues spring from one single charity, which is fixed in the heart. Therefore, as a sign of one single charity one single nail was in the feet. Also, through the hands deeds are signified because we work with our hands, whence there were two nails in the hands to signify that our good deeds need to be twofold, be it in the active life or the contemplative [life]. Also, there were three nails to signify the Trinity. Also, the Lord on the cross bent down towards the earth and directed his sight at the earth to signify that he was on the cross for him who was on earth, meaning the sinful human. But Peter on the cross directed his sight up above to signify that he was on the cross for him who was up in heaven, meaning for Christ. Also, the Lord on the cross bent down towards the north to signify that he was on the cross for the sinner, who is signified by the north, because, just as the north is cold, so the sinner is cold in his love of God, whence Jeremiah: All evil is spread from the north. Also, Mary the mother of the Lord stood at the cross to the north between the north and Christ on the cross to signify that she is the mediator between Christ and the sinners, because she receives those who flee towards her in contrition and devotion and pleads with the son for them like a mother. Whom the world rejects, and who is odious to the world, as are inveterate whores, God welcomes when they come to him.

50

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

(13) Item, Dominus in cruce describit nobis totam uitam nostram, ut imitemur eum, quia omnis Christi actio nostra est instructio, unde per Ysa. xlix20 [16]: Descripsi21 te in manibus meis, id est uitam tuam, et in Euangelio dicit [John 17.24; 13.16]: Ubi sum ego etc., quia non est seruus maior domino suo. Non extendamus ergo manus uel pedes, nec cor nec aliquod membrum ad aliquod prohibitum, sed refrenemus omnia membra nostra ab illicitis pro Christo, et tunc sequimur Christum. /A 60vb/ Item, fissuras clauorum habuit pro nobis Dominus, ut sic haberet perpetuum memoriale nostri, unde dicit per Ysaiam xlix [15–16]: /B 214ra/ Numquid obliuisci potest mulier infantis etc. ecce in manibus meis descripsi te; Psalmus [8.5]: Quid est homo, quod memor es etc.? Non uult igitur Dominus, quod uos pereatis, quos ipse pro uita sua redemit, sed est memor uestri, qui totiens post baptismum incidistis in laqueos diaboli per peccata uestra et carnalia et spiritualia, unde mittit uobis hic mundationem et purgationem a peccatis, ut crucem sumatis ad succursum Terre Sancte, et sic per crucem intrabitis in regnum celorum et sic Deum22 uidebitis aspectu desiderabilem et ineffabiliter delectabilem, unde [Matt. 5.8]: Beati mundo corde etc. (14) Item, sicut pannus abluitur prius amara lexiua et postea aqua dulci et calida, sic anima prius abluitur per tribulationem amaram et postea per lacrimam, que sequitur tribulationem, que etiam calida effecta est per contritionem et recordationem preteritorum. Per motum enim in complexionato excitatur calor naturaliter, lacrime autem per ueram cordis compunctionem effluentes dulces et delectabiles erunt in conspectu Dei; exemplum patet in beata Maria /A 61ra/ Magdalena. Patere etiam potest, quod minus placent lacrime Deo ex uera penitentia procedentes per hoc, quod Dominus uidens Ierusalem fleuit super eam dicens [Luke 19.42]: Si cognouisses et tu. Plangebat enim Dominus peccatores, qui exultant in rebus pessimis, qui, si23 suam damnationem peruiderent, seipsos uix plangere cessarent, sed ipsi in peruersitate sua dies suos sic ducunt, quod ipsi in temporalium habundantia sibi pacem suam prefigunt, que potius non est pax, cum ipsa, quanto magis est affluens, tanto plures cordium inquietationes influere facit, et a Deo plus et plus animam alienat. Fugiamus ergo uiscum rerum temporalium, ut euolemus ad eterna, recolentes illud Gregorii: Satis est alienus a fide, qui ad agendam penitentiam tempora senectutis expectat; metuendum namque est, ne, dum sperat misericordiam, incidat in iuducium.d De carne et eius deliciis. (15) In libro Regum dicitur, quod due mulieres oppresse fame comederunt puerum alterius illarum, et reliqua postea noluit sustinere, quod suus puer comederetur. Rex autem illius terre comminabatur Heliseo mortem, quia noluit deprecari Deum, ut fames cessaret [cf. 2 Kings 6.28–33]. /A 61rb/ Per alteram mulierem significatur caro, cuius puer comeditur. Hoc est, opera pereunt, scilicet per gulam uel luxuriam uel aliud peccatum carnis. Per reliquam24 mulierem significatur quelibet fidelis anima, que non uult sustinere, quod suus puer deuoretur. Hoc est, quod sua opera pereant propter delicias carnis. Per Heliseum significatur Christus.

d This quote is falsely ascribed to Gregory in: Alcuinus incertus, De diviniis officiis, PL 101:1192C.

20 xlix] xlx A et B  21 descripsi] describsi A et B  22 Deum om. B  23 si sup. lin. A 24 reliquam post corr. sup. lin. B

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

51

(13) Also, the Lord on the cross describes to us our whole life so that we may imitate him, because Christ’s every deed is our instruction, whence through Isaiah 49 [he says]: I have inscribed you on my hands, that is your life, and in the Gospel it says: Where I am etc., because the servant is not greater than his master. So let us not stretch out our hands or feet nor our heart or any other limb towards anything forbidden but let us avert all our limbs from illicit things for Christ’s sake, and then we follow Christ. Also, the Lord suffered gashes from the nails for us so that in this way he might have an everlasting reminder of us, whence he says through Isaiah 49: A mother surely cannot forget her child etc. Look, I have described you on my hands; Psalm: What is man that you should remember him etc.? Therefore, the Lord does not want you to perish, you whom he redeemed with his life, but he remembers you, who after baptism have so often fallen into the devil’s traps through your carnal and spiritual sins, whence he here sends you the cleansing and purging from your sins, that you may take up the cross for the aid of the Holy Land, and in this way you will enter the kingdom of the heavens through the cross and see God desirable to behold and unspeakably delightful, whence: Blessed are the pure in heart etc. (14) Also, just as cloth is first washed in bitter lye and afterwards in soft and warm water, so the soul is first washed in bitter tribulation and afterwards in crying, which follows tribulation, which has also a warming effect through contrition and the remembrance of things past. Because through movement in an embrace natural warmth is induced, while the tears which flow through the true compunction of the heart will be sweet and pleasant in the sight of God; there is an obvious example in Saint Mary Magdalene. It can also be understood that tears flowing from true penitence are less pleasing to God because, seeing Jerusalem, the Lord wept over it saying: If you, too, had only recognized. Thus the Lord lamented for the sinners who revel in the worst things, who would not stop lamenting for themselves if they foresaw their damnation; but in their perversity they lead their lives in such a way that they give themselves their peace through an abundance of temporal things, which is rather no peace, because the more abundant it is the more worries of the heart it causes to flow, and it alienates the soul further and further from God. So let us escape from the glue of temporal things so that we may soar towards eternity, remembering this by Gregory: He who waits for old age to do penitence is rather alienated from the faith; it must, therefore, be feared that, while he is hoping for mercy, he may meet his judgment. About the flesh and its pleasures. (15) In the book of Kings it says that two women tormented by hunger ate the boy of one of them; the other women afterwards did not want to allow her own boy to be eaten. The king of this land threatened Elisha with death because he did not want to pray to God for the famine to stop. By the one woman, whose boy was eaten, the flesh is signified. This means: good works perish, namely through greediness or extravagance or any other sin of the flesh. By the remaining woman any faithful soul is signified, who does not want to permit her boy to be devoured. This means that her good works come to nothing because of the pleasures of the flesh. By Elisha Christ is signified.

52

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

(16) Item, triplex est mensa corporis per cibos anime, per sacramenta utriusque in celo, ubi nullus est defectus. Reficiantur igitur in hoc seculo tam cibis, quoad corpus, quam sacramentis, quoad animam, secundum doctrinam Dei, ut reficiamur ad mensam celestem in eternum cum gloria indeficiente. (17) Item, eger diues in principio morbi, quoniam recusat medicum, dum curari potest, et differt, donec, superueniente morte, curari non potest, et tunc recusat eum medicus. Sic est de peccatore, qui sequitur carnem: respuit enim medicinam Dei, quando Deus se offert ei et uocat eum ad seruitium suum, et differt peccator, donec, morte superueniente, ueniat iudicium, et tunc respuit eum Dominus. (18) Item, sanguine Christi calefiebant claui in cruce; sic debent peccatores accendi in caritate ad seruitium Christi /A 61va/ per sanguinem Christi. Per clauos enim significantur peccatores ratione frigiditatis et duriciei. Et per malleum infigitur clauus in cruce; sic per ponderositatem culpe inpingitur peccator in cruciatum pene gehennalis. (19) Item, in Euangelio legitur, quod quidam porci uexati erant a demonibus et currebant in mare [cf. Luke 8.32–33]. Sic est de quibusdam hominibus, qui sic uiuunt secundum carnem per demonum suggestionem, quod uiuunt sicut porci et currunt in amaritudinem inferni, que significatur per amaritudinem maris. Tolle ergo grabatum tuum [John 5.8], id est carnem tuam sursum a terrenis, quia est de deliciis carnis sicut de cauda anguille, que fugit, dum creditur retineri. Et intellige, quid dicit Glosa super predictum locum Euangelii, scilicet, nisi quis more porci uixerit, in eum diabolus non accipit potestatem, nisi ad probandum, non ad perdendum.e (20) Item, quanto plus25 comprimis aquam inter manus, tanto plus effluit et minus retin/B 214rb/-etur; sic est de deliciis carnis et seculi. (21) Item, peregrinus itinerans, qui semper sequitur impulsum uenti, raro habet congruum hospitium; sic, qui sequitur omnem motum carnis, raro habet hospitium in celo. (22) Item, columba non comedit carnem, sic nec bonus sequitur uoluptatem carnis. Item, columba cum rostro separat granum frumenti a palea, /A 61vb/ sic bonus ea, que sunt Dei, qui est granum frumenti, ab ea, que sunt carnis. (23) Item, lignum, quod sepius fuit accensum et sepius extinctum, facilius accenditur quam lignum uiride, quod nunquam fuit accensum; sicut est de homine carnali, qui sepius exercuit usum libidinis quam ille, qui semper fuit castus. (24) Item, de diuite et luxurioso et quocumque sequente delicias carnis. Chain26 interfecit27 Abel, hoc est possessio luctum et penitentiam; Cahin28 enim interpretatur possessio et Abel luctus.f (25) Item, per diem Veneris pro deliciis carnis in comestione pomi, facta contra Dei preceptum, intrauit mors, et eodem die, scilicet die Veneris, per carnis amaritudinem intrauit uita in cruce, et aperiebatur ianua celi.

e  Biblia latina cum Glossa Ordinaria, 5 vols. (Strasbourg, c.1480) 5:814. For an online edition, see http://gloss-e.irht.cnrs.fr/php/editions_chapitre.php?livre=../sources/editions/GLOSS-liber57.xml& chapitre=57_8 [retrieved 1 March 2018]. f  Jerome, Liber Interpretationis Hebraicarum Nominum, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72:60, 63.

25 plus rep. A et B  26 Chain] Caym B  27 interfecit] interficit B 

28 Cahin] Chaym B

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

53

(16) Also, the table of the body is threefold through the foods of the soul, through both sacraments in heaven, where nothing is missing. Thus, in this world people strengthen themselves with food for the body as well as sacraments for the soul according to God’s doctrine, so that in eternity we may strengthen ourselves at the heavenly table with everlasting glory. (17) Also, a sick rich man refuses the doctor at the beginning of his illness when he can still be cured and delays until, with death approaching, he can no longer be cured, and then the doctor refuses him. So it is with the sinner who follows the flesh: he rejects God’s medicine when God offers it to him and calls him to his service, and the sinner delays until, with death approaching, the judgment arrives, and then God spits him out. (18) Also, the nails on the cross were heated up by the blood of Christ; in the same way sinners must be set on fire with charity for the service of Christ through the blood of Christ. For by the nails sinners are signified on account of their coldness and their hard-heartedness. And the nail is pounded into the cross with a hammer; in the same way the sinner is pinned down in the torture of the punishment of hell by the weight of his guilt. (19) Also, in the Gospel one reads that some pigs were tormented by demons and ran into the sea. It is the same with certain people who live according to the flesh by the temptation of demons, so that they live like pigs and run into the bitterness of hell, which is signified by the bitterness of the sea. So take up your bed, that is [take up] your flesh above earthly things, because with carnal pleasures it is as with the tail of an eel, which escapes when you think it is held fast. And mark what the Gloss says about the above-mentioned passage of the Gospel, namely that unless someone has lived like a pig, the devil does not assume any power in him, neither in order to test [him] nor in order to destroy [him]. (20) Also, the more you compress water between your hands, the more it flows away and the less it is held back; it is likewise with the pleasures of the flesh and the world. (21) Also, a wandering pilgrim who always follows the impulse of the wind seldom has an proper resting place; in the same way, he who follows every urge of the flesh will rarely have a resting place in heaven. (22) Also, the dove does not eat meat, and so a good person does not follow the desire of the flesh. Also, as the dove separates the grain of wheat from the husk with its beak, so a good person [separates] those things which are God’s, who is the grain of wheat, from those which are of the flesh. (23) Also, wood which has often been lit and often been extinguished is easier to light than green wood which has never been lit; it is likewise with a carnal person who has often practised his libidinous habits compared with one who has always been chaste. (24) Also, about a rich man and a passionate man and one who follows carnal pleasures. Cain killed Abel, that is possessiveness [killed] sorrow and penitence; because Cain is interpreted as possessiveness and Abel as sorrow. (25) Also, through the day of Venus [i.e. Friday] death entered through the pleasures of the flesh when eating the apple, done against God’s command, and on the same day, namely the day of Venus, life entered on the cross through the bitterness of the flesh, and the gate of heaven was opened.

54

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

(26) Item, quidam rusticus gulosus comedit pellem uentris de intestinis bouis, et propter tenacitatem pellis remansit magna pars pellis inter dentes illius rustici, et ipse non potuit ammouere pellem a dentibus et petiit auxilium ab uxore sua. Ipsa autem uolens eum iuuare cum cutello acuto abscidit rustici superius labium. Similiter carnalis uoluptas abscidit ab homine delicioso superius labium, scilicet intentionem ad superna, et facit, quod homo non cogitat de Deo, sed de eis, que carni /A 62ra/ placent [Gal. 5.17]: Caro enim concupiscit aduersus spiritum. (27) Item, sapiens cocus in ollam sordidam et fetentem tam parum ponit, sicut potest; sic et homo peritus tam parum ponit in uentrem suum, sicut potest, quia omnis cibus et potus in uentre peioratur. (28) Item, cum piscis, qui dicitur lucius et est in aquis sicut lupus, uiderit rete, figit se in lutum et, licet pungatur, non exibit ad rete. Sic diues et deliciosus, cum uiderit crucem, figit se in terrenas uoluptates et carnales, quasi in lutum, et licet a predicatoribus per sermonem Dei pungatur, non exibit ad rete29 Dei, scilicet ad crucem. Item, magni pisces non transeunt per medium rete, sed capti remanent. Sic diuites non pertranseunt rete diaboli, sed capti remanent in eo. Parui uero pisces pertranseunt rete et effugiunt ad salutem. Sic et pauperes pertranseunt temptationes diaboli et ueniunt ad crucem et sic ad Deum, qui est auctor salutis. Retia diaboli sunt gula,30 luxuria, superbia, inuidia, auaritia, ira, accidia, periurium, falsum testimonium, lingua mendax etc. (29) Item, multi dant totum florem etatis sue diabolo et in fine dant furfur Deo. Dominus enim per suam misericordiam meretricem inueteratam et a mundo despectam ad se uenientem recipit [cf. Luke 7.37–50], quia dicit Dominus [cf. Ezek. 33.12]: In quacumque hora peccator, ingemuerit saluus erit.g /A 62rb/ Et Ezech.31 xviii32 [23, 32; cf. 33.11]: Nolo mortem peccatoris etc., nolo mortem morientis, sed uolo, ut conuertatur et uiuat. (30) Item, sicut spica frumenti fulgure percussa fetet et nullius est, sic et homo percussus fulgure luxurie fetet et nullius est et est obscurus in peccatis et uacuus a gratia Dei et Dei luce, sicut spica illa nigra est et uacua. (31) Item, homo in hieme uidet anelitum33 suum, in estate nequaquam. Sic homo in aduersitate et in miseria seipsum uidet, in prosperitate diuitiarum et carnis uoluptate nequaquam. (32) Item, sicut aqua cadens in terram non reuertitur ad uas, unde exiuit, sic nec peccator inpenitens reuertitur ad Deum, a quo post baptismum recessit. (33) Item, acus comparatur penitenti, quia pungit, et confitenti, quia habet foramen apertum, et resurgenti a peccatis, quia penetrat et consuit pellem, que est de mortuo animali. Item, peccator in tot distrahitur partes, ad quot illicita distrahitur animus illius per consensum. Opposito modo est salus, quando tota intentio eius contrahitur in caritate ad Deum et consuitur per penitentie acum ad ipsum.

g  The same wording, based on Ezek. 33:12, is found in Opusculum Ermengaudi contra Haereticos, PL 204:1261, 1269.

29 rete] rethe A  30 et add. B  33 anelitum] hanelitum B

31 Ezech.] Eze. B 

32 xviii] xix A et B

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

55

(26) Also, some greedy peasant ate the skin of the stomach of the intestines of a cow and because of the toughness of the skin a large part of the skin got stuck between the teeth of the peasant and he could not remove the skin from his teeth and asked his wife for help. But, wanting to help him, she cut off the peasant’s upper lip with a sharp knife. In the same way, the desire of the flesh cuts off the upper lip from a lecherous person, meaning his striving for heavenly things, and causes that person not to think of God but of the things which please the flesh: Because the flesh sets its desires against the spirit. (27) Also, a wise cook puts as little as possible in a dirty and smelly pot; in the same way, a clever person puts as little as possible in his stomach, because all food and drink deteriorate in the stomach. (28) Also, when the fish which is called a pike and is like a wolf in the water sees a net, it hides itself in the mud and, lest it be spiked, will not come out into the net. In the same way, a rich and lecherous person, should he see the cross, hides himself in earthly and carnal pleasures, in mud so-to-speak, and, lest he be spiked by preachers with the word of God, he will not come out to God’s net, meaning the cross. Also, big fish do not slip through a medium-sized net but remain caught. In the same way, rich people do not slip through the devil’s net but remain caught in it. But small fish slip through the net and escape to salvation. In the same way, poor people also slip through the temptations of the devil and come to the cross and thus to God, who is the author of salvation. The nets of the devil are greed, lust, pride, envy, avarice, wrath, laziness, perjury, false testimony, lying etc. (29) Also, many people give all of their best years to the devil and at the end give the husks to God. Of course, the Lord in his mercy received the inveterate whore, despised by people, who came to him, because the Lord says: No matter what hour the sinner laments, he will be saved. And Ezekiel 18: I do not wish for the death of the sinner etc., I do not want the death of the dying, but I want him to convert and live. (30) Also, just as an ear of wheat struck by lightning rots and comes to nothing, so a person struck by the lightning of lust rots and comes to nothing and is blurred in his sins and devoid of God’s grace and God’s light just as the ear [of corn] is blackened and empty. (31) Also, a person sees his own exhaled breath in winter but never in summer. In the same way, a person in trouble and misery sees himself but never [when he is] in prosperity of riches and in pleasure of the flesh. (32) Also, just as water falling to the ground does not return to the vessel from which it escaped, so the impenitent sinner will not return to God, from whom he escaped after baptism. (33) Also, a needle is compared to a sinner, because it pricks, and to someone who confesses, because it has an open passage, and to someone who rises again from sins, because it penetrates and sews up skin, which is from a dead animal. Also, a sinner is pulled apart in so many parts as his mind is voluntarily pulled towards forbidden things. Salvation works the opposite way when his whole intention is drawn together in charity towards God and is sewn to him by the needle of penitence.

56

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

De uocatione hominum ad crucem. (34) Sicut Dominus noster Iesus Christus, quando corporaliter fuit in terris, circuiuit suam Galileam querendo infirmos, ut eos curaret, sic facit modo Spiritus Sanctus, uocans infirmos ad crucem, ut sic iterato sanet eos, quoniam Spiritus Sanctus monet /A 62va/ semper interius, ut surgatis ad crucem. Sed caro, mundus, diabolus monet, ut non34 surgatis; /B 214va/ scit enim diabolus, quod Spiritus Sanctus est ei contrarius. Scindite laqueum diaboli, carnis et mundi trahentis uos ad infernum et surgite per uirtutem Spiritus Sancti ad crucem et sic ad celum! (35) Item, Dominus noster pendens in cruce dixit [John 19.28]: Sitio; sitiuit autem illud, propter quod passus est, sed passus est propter salutem peccatorum, dicit enim [Matt. 9.13]: Non ueni uocare iustos sed peccatores. Sitiuit ergo salutem peccatorum et adhuc eam sitit. Surgat ergo aliquis et det ei bibere, hoc est offerat Christo et corpus et animam; ualde enim miser et auarus est, qui Christo sitienti et potum petenti negat dare; accipiat ergo in humero signum sancte crucis et dicat in corde suo: Tibi, Domine, propter me clamanti meipsum commendo! (36) Item, Math.35 xxvii [34]: Dederunt ei uinum cum felle mixtum et, cum gustaret, non bibit. Per uinum ibi36 designatur quecunque delectatio, uinum enim letficat cor hominis [Ps. 103.15]. Sic ergo ibi datur intelligi, quod, si tibi a mundi uanitate uel diabolo dantur delicie carnales uel seculares, quas sequitur amaritudo et eis etiam commixta est, cum gustaueris eas, non debes eas bibere nec in eis balneare sicut porcus pinguis in fetenti luto, sed abicias eas et sequaris Christum, redempto-/A 62vb/-rem tuum. Surge ergo a deliciis et curre ad crucem, unde Paulus ad Hephesos37 v [14]: Surge, qui dormis etc. (37) Item, porcus commedit glandem et numquam sursum respicit ad quercum, a qua habet glandem, sed semper oculos suos et os suum figit in terram. Sic et malus, quamuis omnia bona sua habeat a cruce, nunquam tamen respicit ad crucem, sed se totum in terrenos figit affectus. Omnia bona nostra sunt a cruce, quia baptismus est a sanguine et aqua, que effluxerunt a latere Christi, et nostra redemptio et nostra salus et maxime bona clericorum. Ne sis ergo porcus, sed surgas et erigas oculos cordis ad crucifixum pro te suspensum in cruce, et sequere eum. (38) Item, Eustachius et Gaufridus, milites Flandrenses et fratres, ad inuicem uenerunt in Terram Sanctam,h et in amplicando Gaufridus graue uulnus recepit et, antequam ipse sanaretur, Christiani cum Saracenis bellum inierunt, cui38 ipse G[aufridus], infirmitate uulneris grauatus, interesse non potuit et ideo rogauit fratrem suum E[ustachium], quod ipse non intraret bellum, sed per xv dies exspectaret, donec per Dei gratiam sanitate recuperata consortes bellum inirent. Respondit autem E[ustachius] tanquam uerus miles Christi cupiensque dissolui et esse cum39 Christo [Phil. 1.23]: Differre nolo, quin inuadam /A 63ra/ inimicos crucifixi, ‘kar grant auantage aueroie de uenir a Deu xv iurs plus tot ke uus,’ et iuit in bellum et martir Dei factus est. Hoc audito a matre ipsorum, ipsa laudauit Deum, quod ipse ita respexerat40 eam, quod ipsa filium talem peperit, qui ei fuit placabilis. Socii Iacobi de

h  This story might refer to Godfrey and Eustace of Bouillon, who were together on the First Crusade: see Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), 205, 209.

34 non om. B  35 Math.] Mt. B  36 ibi in marg. A  37 Hephesos] Epes. B 38 cui] cum B  39 cum add. marg. infr. A  40 respexerat] repexerit B

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

57

About people’s vocation to the cross (34) Just as our Lord Jesus Christ, when he was bodily on earth, roamed throughout his native Galilee looking for sick people to heal, so the Holy Spirit now does the same, calling the sick to the cross so that he may heal them again, because inside the Holy Spirit always advises you to rise to the cross. But the flesh, the world, the devil each advises you not to rise, because the devil knows that the Holy Spirit is hostile to him. Break the trap of the devil, of the flesh and of the world dragging you to hell and rise up through the virtue of the Holy Spirit to the cross and thus to heaven! (35) Also, hanging on the cross, our Lord said: I thirst; he was thirsty because of what he suffered, but he suffered for the salvation of sinners, because he says: I did not come to call the just but the sinners. He was thus thirsted for the salvation of sinners and he still thirsts. Therefore, everyone should rise up and give him a drink, that is offer body and soul to Christ, because he who refuses to give to Christ, who thirsts and asks for a drink, is truly wretched and greedy. He should, therefore, take up the sign of the holy cross on his shoulder and say in his heart: Because you have called out to me, I entrust myself to you, O Lord! (36) Also, Matthew 27: They gave him wine mixed with gall and when he tasted it he did not drink. By the wine any pleasure is here designated, as wine delights the human heart. Here it is given us to understand that, if you are given carnal or earthly pleasures by the vanity of the world or the devil, after which bitterness follows and is mixed-in with them, when you taste them, you do not have to drink them nor wallow in them like a fat pig in stinking filth, but you should reject them and follow Christ your redeemer. Therefore, rise up from pleasures and hurry to the cross, whence Paul in Ephesians: Rise, you who sleeps etc. (37) Also, a pig eats an acorn and never looks up at the oak tree, from where it gets the acorn, but it always turns its eyes and its snout to the ground. In the same way, a bad person, although he has all his good things from the cross, still never looks at the cross but fixes his entire affect on earthly desires. All our good things are from the cross because baptism consists of blood and water, which poured from Christ’s side, as well as our redemption and our salvation and in particular the things of the clergy. Therefore, do not be a pig but rise up and lift the eyes of your heart to the crucified, who hangs from the cross for you, and follow him! (38) Also, Eustace and Geoffrey, Flemish knights and brothers, in turn came to the Holy Land and when they embraced Geoffrey was gravely injured, and before he was healed the Christians started war on the Muslims, in which Geoffrey, hampered by the weakness of his injury, could not take part and therefore asked his brother Eustace not to join the war but to wait for fifteen days until, having regained his health by God’s grace, they might go to war together. But Eustace replied like a true soldier of Christ wishing to dissolve and be with Christ: I do not want to wait because I will fight the enemies of the crucified, because I will have the great advantage of coming to God fifteen days before you, and he went to war and was made a martyr of God. When this was heard by their mother, she praised God that he had had such regard for her that she gave birth to such a son who was pleasing to him.

58

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

Auenthnesi militis dixerunt: socii nostri omnes moriuntur, recedamus a Saracenis, et Iacobus dixit: ‘Io irreie plus uolentiers la u nul home ne me conustreit.’ Ex quo ergo morituri estis, surgite etc., ut in morte et per mortem inueniamus uitam! (39) Item, si quis habens talentum et41 non ipsum posset semper retinere, sed oporteret de neccessitate eo carere, et ipse pro ipso bono talento bonam aliquam ciuitatem uel aliquod maius bonum iuste et pacifice posset habere, nonne fatuus esset, si ipsum pro penitus nichilo daret, uel ipsum amittendi spe in ambiguo retineret? Talentum tibi commissum habes, scilicet uitam temporalem, qua de necessitate carebis, quoniam mori est tibi ineuitabile; ex quo ergo potestis pro ea habere gaudium eternum et Deum, quo nichil est melius. Fatuus es, si respuas! Moriaris ergo in cruce pro Christo, et ipsum /63rb/ habebis! Surge ergo, et42 sume crucem etc. (40) Homo factus est, ut sit43 particeps eterne glorie. Dominus uocat te per apostolos et44 prophetas et nos predicatores, ut per crucis sumptionem habeas id, propter quod factus es. Surge ergo, etc. (41) Item, quilibet fidelis petit a Domino remissionem peccatorum et pacem eternam. Dominus noster offert tibi fideli quod ab eo petis, dummodo contritio et confessio perueniant. Surge ergo etc. (42) Item, quid dices in tremendo die iudicii Domino querenti: Quare noluisti ad me uenire, quando te mandaui? Caue, ne dicat tibi [Matt. 25.12]: Amen, amen, dico tibi, nescio te, et ne dicat illud horribile tibi [Matt. 25.41]: Vade, maledicte, in ignem eternum. Vt sis ergo seruus obediens Domino tuo et securus in die tremendo, uenias ad mandatum, qui dicit [Mark 2.14]: Sequere me, et cuius nuntius ego sum, et auctoritate eius te moneo, ut eum sequaris. Rumpe ergo laqueos falsitatis et surge in uera fide et sume crucem, ut possis dicere in die iudicii: Domine, pro me fuisti in cruce et ego in cruce pro te; tu fuisti mortuus pro me et ego pro te! Surge ergo, serue Deo,45 et quia seruus eius, ideo obedire teneris ei! (43) Item, Dominus cognouit secreta cordium. Si ergo aliquis uestrum sit talis, qui propter regnum Anglie uel Gallie temporale uellet sumere crucem, coniuro eum per aspersionem san-/A 63va/-guinis Ihesu Christi, quod ipse sumat crucem pro regno celorum, quod est eternum et infinitum melius. Intelligite, quod Dominus est scrutator cordium [Wisd. 1.6] et erit iudex uester. Videte, ne uobis dicat in iudicio: Vos preelegitis terrena et pro eis postposuitis celestia; quod absit, et ne dicat uobis46 in obprobrium illud, quod est in cantico [Deut. 32.38]: Surgant opes uestre et opitulentur uobis etc. Surge ergo, etc. (44) Item, Zachar. [1.16]: Reuertar ad Ierusalem /B 214vb/ in misericordiis, et edificabitur domus mea in ea. (45) Item, Dominus noster conqueritur per Micheam, quod diabolus tot rapit in magna quantitate ad infernum, quod Dominus noster paucos habet et colligit eos, sicut qui colligit racemos post uindemiatores. Micheas47 vii capite [1]: Ve mihi, quia factus sum,

i  James of Avesnes was leader of the Flemish contingent on the Third Crusade and was killed in the battle of Arsuf in 1191: see Sidney Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus,” in Setton, Crusades, 2:45–85, at 50, 65, 75.

41 et add. sup. lin. A, om. B  42 et om. B  43 sit om. B  44 et om. A   45 Deo] Dei B  46 uobis] nobis B  47 Micheas] Michea B 

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

59

Companions of the knight James of Avesnes said: All our companions are dead, let us retreat from the Saracens, and James said: I shall much more gladly go where no one knows me. In whichever way you will die, rise up etc., so that in death and through death we may find life! (39) Also, if someone who has a sum of money and cannot always hold on to it but by necessity needed to part with it, and if he could acquire some good town for this good sum of money or any other better thing in a just and peaceful way, would it not be foolish if he gave it away for virtually nothing or held onto it in uncertain hope of losing it? You have a sum of money which was given to you, namely temporal life, which you will by necessity have to give up, because it is inevitable that you die; therefore now, you can have in its place everlasting joy and God, compared to whom nothing is better. You are foolish if you refuse. Therefore, may you die on the cross for Christ, and you will have him! Therefore, rise up and take the cross etc. (40) A human is made so that he might participate in eternal glory. The Lord calls you through the apostles and prophets and us preachers so that by taking the cross you may have that for which you were made. Therefore, rise up etc. (41) Also, some believer asks the Lord for a remission of sins and eternal peace. Our Lord offers you, the faithful one, what you ask of him as long as contrition and confession come forth. Therefore, rise up etc. (42) Also, what will you say to the Lord on the fearful day of judgement when he asks: Why did you not want to come to me when I ordered you? Make sure he does not tell you: Amen, amen, I tell you I do not know you, and does not say this terrible thing to you: Go, you cursed one, to the eternal fire. Therefore, that you may be an obedient servant to your Lord and safe on the fearful day, may you come to the summons that says: Follow me, [him] whose messenger I am and with whose authority I remind you to follow him. Therefore, break the traps of falsehood and rise up to true faith and take the cross so that you may say on the day of judgement: Lord, you were on the cross for me and I on the cross for you; you were dead for me and I for you. Therefore, rise up, serve God, and because you are his servant, keep your promise to him. (43) Also, the Lord knows the secrets of the hearts. Therefore, if one of you is someone who wants to take the cross for the temporal kingdom of England or Gaul, I beg him, by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, that he may take the cross for the kingdom of the heavens, which is eternal and infinitely better. Mark that the Lord is an examiner of hearts and will be your judge. Watch out that he may not tell you in his judgement: You preferred earthly matters and for them postponed heavenly matters; may this not happen, and may he not say to you this disgrace which is in the song: Let your riches rise up and help you etc. Therefore, rise up etc. (44) Also, Zechariah: I shall return to Jerusalem in compassion and my house will be built in it. (45) Also, our Lord was railed at by Micah that the devil carried off such a great number of people to hell, so that our Lord had only a few and gathered them just like he who gathered the last gleanings after the grape-gatherers. Micah, chapter 7: Woe is me, for I am now like

60

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

sicut qui colligit in autumpno racemos uindemie. Diabolus enim ad se rapit in infernum superbos, inuidos, auaros, iracundos, accidiosos, gulosos, luxuriosos, periuros, falsos testes, detractores, homicidas, qui inpenitentes moriuntur, et tot falsos Christianos, quod Dominus paucos habet. Si uis ergo esse cum Christo et euadere a laqueis diaboli, surge cum uera contritione et deuotione et recipias sigillum crucis super te, et eris hereditas Christi ei per crucem confirmata quasi per cartam, et in te habitabit quasi in templo suo. Dicit enim Apostous [1 Cor. 3.16]: Templum sanctum Dei Spiritus Sancti,48 quod estis uos, et in Dominica oratione petitur [Matt. 6.9–10]: Pater noster, adueniat regnum tuum, scilicet ueniat ad te; /A 63vb/ si ergo homines sunt eius regnum, ipse in eis regnabit. Vt ipse ergo in te regnet, et tu in ipsum habeas et gloriam eternam, sume crucem et sequere Ihesum! (46) Item, in Cant. ultimo capitulo [8.6]: Pone me ut signaculum super cor tuum, ut signaculum super bracchium tuum, quia fortis est, ut mors, dilectio. Dominus noster Ihesus Christus hic inuitat te ad sumptionem crucis et in corde et in opere. Dicit enim: Pone me, scilicet crucifixum tribus clauis ferreis, lancea perforatum, flagellatum, ab hominibus derisum, super cor tuum per compassionem et fidem ut signaculum. Crux enim est sigillum Domini, quod maxime timet diabolus, quia in cruce uincebatur et adhuc uincitur. Sed quia fides sine operibus mortua est [James 2.26], ideo additur: Vt signaculum super bracchium tuum, hoc est super opus tuum. Esto igitur peregrinus! Sequitur: Quia fortis est, ut mors, dilectio, quia dicit Dominus: Tam fortis est, erat dilectio, qua te, peccator, amaui, quod ipsa animam meam separauit a corpore. Et non aliud facit mors quam illud49 idem, quia, ut redimeret te ad uitam, sustulit mortem. Ioh. tertio capite [1 John 3.16]: In hoc cognouimus karitatem Dei, quoniam ille animam suam pro nobis posuit. Tanta sit ergo dilectio tua ad Christum, quod ipsa separaret animam tuam a carnalitate et deliciis50 carnis, sicut mors animam separat a corpore. Surge ergo et sequere preceptum Domini et assume signaculum Domini, scilicet crucem /A 64ra/ et in corde et in opere, et offeras Deo et51 corpus et animam, que ipse tibi tradidit! (47) Item, quamuis acetum sit amarum, tamen reddit bonum saporem salse. Sic et passio Domini, quamuis amara sit, tamen ipsa per compassionem dulcorat cogitationes nostras et sermones et opera et reddit eis saporem, quia dilectionem. Et sicut acetum est penetratiuum et pungitiuum, sic passio Domini penetrat dura corda hominum et pungit per compassionem. Compatiaris ergo Christo existenti in cruce et dulcora opera tua per crucis amaritudinem, ut tu habeas dulcedinem eternam! (48) Item, dictum est Iosue post subuersionem Iericho [8.18]: Leua clipeum, qui in manu tua est, contra urbem Hai! Quidam clipeus est rotundus, sic et quilibet fidelis habebit coronam in celo, quod significatur per coronam Christi. Quidam clipeus habet quatuor angulos, sicut et crux. Suppremus angulus est fides, qua tendimus in Deum, qui est ignis consumens [Deut. 4.24] peccata, sicut ignis consumit stuppam, et quia est suppremus,52 ideo dicitur: Sursum corda.j Infimus angulus est timor Domini, habitus pro peccatis; Iob [31.23]: Semper timui Dominum, quasi fluctus tumentes super me. Terre autem motu ueniente, /A 64rb/ si terra aperiretur, timeret quilibet absorberi a terra; multo fortius clangor tubarum Domini et apertio inferni timeri debent. Tertius angulus est abstinentia contra prosperitatem, ne sit

j 

Versicle from the preface of the mass.

48 Spiritus Sancti add. sup. lin. A, om. B  49 illud del. A  50 deliciis] delicii B  51 et om. B  52 suppremus] supremus B  

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

61

he who gathers the last gleanings in the autumn harvest. The devil in fact carries off to hell the proud, the envious, the greedy, the angry, the lazy, the gluttonous, the lecherous, the perjurers, the false witnesses, the slanderers, the murderers who die impenitent, and so many false Christians that the Lord has only a few left. If you want to be with Christ and escape the traps of the devil, rise up in true contrition and devotion and receive the seal of the cross on you, and you will be the inheritance of Christ, which was confirmed to him by the cross as by a charter, and he will dwell in you like in his temple. Because the Apostle says: The holy temple of God the Holy Spirit, which you are, and in the Sunday prayer one asks: Our Father, your kingdom come, meaning may it come to you; therefore, if people are of his kingdom, he will reign in them. So that he may reign in you and you may have in him also eternal glory, take up the cross and follow Jesus! (46) Also, in the last chapter of the Song of Songs: Set me like a sign on your heart, like a sign on your arm, because love is strong as death. There, our Lord Jesus Christ invites you to take up the cross in the heart as well as in deeds. Because he says: Set me, namely the one crucified with three iron nails [and] pierced with a lance, whipped [and] mocked by people, on your heart by compassion and faith like a sign. Thus, the cross is the Lord’s seal, which the devil greatly fears, because he was defeated on the cross and has been defeated since. But because faith without deeds is dead, it is added: Like a sign on your arm, that is on your deeds. Therefore, be a pilgrim! It follows: Because love is strong as death, because the Lord says: The love with which I loved you, sinner, is, was, so strong that it separated my soul from the body. And death does nothing but the same, because he suffered death in order to redeem you to life. In the third chapter of [the first letter to] John: We recognize God’s charity because he laid down his soul for us. Let your love for Christ be so strong that it separates your soul from carnality and the pleasures of the flesh just like death separates the soul from the body. Therefore, rise up and follow the Lord’s command and take up the sign of the Lord, meaning the cross in your heart as well as your deeds, and offer God your body as well as your soul, which he gave to you! (47) Also, although vinegar is sour, it still gives a good taste to a sauce. In the same way, the Lord’s passion, even though it was bitter, it all the same sweetens our thoughts and sermons and deeds through compassion and gives them taste, namely love. And just as vinegar is penetrating and pungent, so the Lord’s passion penetrates people’s hard hearts and stings by compassion. Therefore, show compassion with Christ on the cross and sweeten your deeds with the bitterness of the cross so that you may have eternal sweetness! (48) Also, it was said to Joshua after the destruction of Jericho: Raise the shield which is in your hand against the city of Ai! One kind of shield is round and, therefore, every believer will have a crown in heaven, which is signified by Christ’s crown. Another kind of shield has four corners just like the cross. The uppermost corner is faith, with which we strive towards God, who is the fire consuming sins, just like the fire consumes flax, and because it is the uppermost corner, one says: Lift up your hearts. The lower corner is the fear of the Lord, which people have on account of their sins; Job: I have always feared the Lord like a flood towering over me. With an earthquake coming, when the ground might open, someone might fear being swallowed by the ground; but people must fear much more strongly the sound of the Lord’s trumpets and the opening up of hell. The third corner is abstinence from prosperity, so that a human should not live in the earth like a mole. The fourth [corner] is

62

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

homo habitans in terra sicut talpa. Quartus est patientia53 in tribulatione;54 Psalmus [93.19]: Secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum etc., et [93.18]: Si dicebam, motus est pes meus. Vt sis ergo securus ab inferno, leua clipeum, hoc est crucem que sit in manu tua per effectum, scilicet in opere contra urbem Hai adhereas cruci! Dominus in Euangelio [Matt. 5.11–12]: Beati estis, cum maledixerint uobis homines, etc., gaudete et exultate, quoniam merces uestra copiosa est in celis! (49) Item, Amos [9.6]: Edificauit Dominus ascensionem suam in celo per lapidem in sepulcro, per ferrum et ligna in cruce, per uulnera et sanguinem eius, unde in Cant.55 quinto capite [5.9–10]: Qualis est dilectus tuus? Dilectus meus candidus et rubicundus, quia candidus per innocentiam et rubicundus per sanguinem. (50) Item, exempla aliqua quoque interferantur, tum ut magis reddant auditores attentos, tum propter remotionem tedii, tum ut per exempla aliorum magis moueantur ad contritionem, tum ut magis fallacem mundi uanitatem contempnant, ut aliquod huiusmodi uerbi gratia: (51) Tres fratres milites fuerunt in bello contra Abigesos et multi fideles interficiebantur, unde duo illorum fratrum flentes dicebant tertio: Proh dolor, hodie omnes moriemur! Tertius autem confortans fratres suos: Moriamur pro eo, qui pro nobis /A 64va/ mortuus est, kar io ne sai meilur marchie ke pur un iur de penance aler a Deu. Surge ergo audacter et sume crucem! (52) Quidam miles captus fuit a Saracenis et suspensus ad murum, ubi saxa cadebant, que Christiani proiciebant ad destruendum murum, et Christiani proicere cessabant illuc lapides, quia militem timuerunt occidere ibi suspensum. Quod uidens miles coniurauit per aspersionem sanguinis Ihesu Christi Christianos, quod ipsi propter eum non cessarent. Et ipsi ideo non cessabant, sed proiecerunt lapidem, qui per Dei gratiam percussit funes et pannos, per quos pendebat miles ad murum, et rupit eos, et miles liberatus est et saluus cucurrit ad Christianos. Nolite ergo diffidere de Christo, sed firmam /B 215ra/ fidem habentes in Christum et desiderium ad ipsum ueniendi surgite per aspersionem sanguinis, quem pro uobis effudit, et sequimini eum in cruce! (53) Quidam miles in bello Saracenorum uulneratus quatuor uulneribus audiuit, quod medici dicerent,56 illa uulnera esse mortalia, et ipse petiit arma sua, que ipse deposuerat, et dixit: Dominus meus Ihesus Christus passus fuit pro me quinque uulnera, et ego redibo in bellum /A 64vb/ et patiar pro eo quintum uulnus, quia quatuor passus sum. Et cum armatus fuit, rediit in bellum et multos occidit Saracenos et tandem, quinto uulnere recepto, reddidit spiritum Christo. Surge tu ergo, qui uis reddere spiritum Christo, etc.! (54) Quidam miles in campo erat contra Sarracenos57 et dixit equo suo: Morelle, Morelle, pluries tulisti me in bellum cum laude et uictoria, sed nunquam sicut hodie, quia hodie feres me ad uitam eternam, et, pluribus ab eo occisis, factus est martir in Domino.k Surge ergo et esto martir Christi, ex quo scis, quod necesse est te mori, etc.!

k  The same story told in different wording also appears in several exempla collections of the thirteenth century as well as in James of Vitry’s Sermo ad fratres ordinis militaris: see Frederic C. Tubach, Index Exemplorum. A Handbook of Medieval Religious Tales, FF Communications 204 (Helsinki, 1969), no. 2606; Thomas F. Crane, ed., The Exempla or Illustrative Stories from the Sermones Vulgares of Jacques de Vitry (London, 1890), no. 89; Joannes B. Pitra, ed., Analecta Novissima. Tomus II ([Paris], 1888), 420.

53 patientia] sapientia B  54 tribulatione] tribulatone A  56 dicerent add. sup. lin. A  57 Sarracenos] Saracenos B

55 Cant.] Cantic. B

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

63

patience in tribulation; Psalm: According to the great number of my pains etc., and: When I spoke, my foot was slipping. So that you may be safe from hell, raise the shield, that is the cross, which is in your hand through action, meaning you should join the cross in the action against the city of Ai. The Lord [says] in the Gospel: You will be blessed after people will have insulted you etc. be joyful and rejoice because your rewards in the heavens will be plentiful! (49) Also, Amos: The Lord built his stairs to heaven with the stone of the sepulchre, with the iron and wood of the cross, with his wounds and blood, whence in the fifth chapter of the Song of Songs: What kind is your beloved? My beloved [is] white and red, because [he is] white on account of his innocence and red on account of his blood. (50) Also, some exempla are also interspersed sometimes to make the listeners attentive, sometimes to keep away boredom, sometimes to move them further towards contrition by the examples of others, sometimes so that they the more detest the fallacious vanity of the world, like some such story: (51) Three knightly brothers were in the war against the Albigensians and many faithful were killed, whence two of the brothers said weeping to the third: Alas, we will all die today! But the third one comforted his brothers: Let us die for him who died for us, because I know of no cheaper way to go to God than for one day of penance. Therefore, rise up courageously and take the cross! (52) A certain knight was captured by Saracens and hung on the wall where rocks kept hitting which the Christians were flinging to destroy the wall, and the Christians stopped flinging rocks there, because they feared killing the knight who was hanging there. When the knight saw this, he beseeched the Christians by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ not to stop on his account. And, therefore, they did not stop, and flung a rock which by God’s grace hit the ropes and rags on which the knight was hanging on the wall and broke them, and the knight was freed and ran unharmed to the Christians. Therefore, do not despair of Christ, but having firm trust in Christ and the desire to come to him, rise up by the flow of the blood which he poured out for you and follow him to the cross! (53) A certain knight wounded with four wounds in the war against the Saracens heard that the doctors said that those wounds were mortal, and he asked for his weapons, which he had laid down, and said: My Lord Jesus Christ suffered five wounds for me, and I will return to battle and suffer a fifth wound for him, because I have [already] suffered four. And when he was armed, he returned to battle and killed many Saracens and finally, having received a fifth wound, he gave his spirit back to Christ. Therefore, rise up you who want to give back your spirit to Christ, etc.! (54) A certain knight was on campaign against the Saracens and said to his horse: Morelle, Morelle, you have often carried me in battle with praise and victory but never like today, because today you will carry me to eternal life, and after having killed many of them, he was made a martyr in the Lord. Therefore, rise up and be a martyr of Christ, from whom you know that it is necessary for you to die, etc.!

64

CHRISTOPH T. MAIER

(55) Quidam miles Hugo nomine de Bello Campol in bello Sarracenorum58 portans ueram crucem occisus est et dixit: Nunquam fui in bello campo nisi hodie, et tamen nominor de Bello Campo. Surge, ut uenias ad bellum campum! (56) Hoc est Ingeram de Boues,m quod miles dixit: Viulte est de cheualer ke l’enporte59 plus tost hors a l’us les piez ke la teste, et surrexit et accepit crucem; multi milites de cognatis suis et alii illud uidentes et audientes similiter sumpserunt crucem.

l  Hugh of Beauchamp was killed at Hattin in 1187, see Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1867), 1: 359, 2: 22. m  Enguerrand (Ingram) de Boves was a participant of the Fourth Crusade, see Jean Longnon, Les Compagnons de Villehardouin. Recherches sur les Croisés de la Quatrième Croisade, Hautes Études Médiévales et Modernes 30 (Geneva, 1978), 123–24.

58 Sarracenorum] Saracenorum B 

59 l’enporte] l’emporte B

BREVIS ORDINACIO DE PREDICACIONE SANCTE CRUCIS

65

(55) A certain knight named Hugh of Beauchamp carrying the True Cross in the war against the Saracens was killed and said: I have never been in a beautiful field until today and yet I am called “of the Beautiful Field.” Rise up so that you may come to the beautiful field! (56) This is what the knight Ingram of Boves said: It is shameful that a knight should rather use his feet than his head, and he got up and took the cross; many knights of his family and other people seeing and hearing this also took the cross.

The Life and Afterlife of Julian of Sidon Hans Eberhard Mayer Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel Abstract Julian of Sidon († 1275) was the lord of one of the big baronies of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, applauded for his courage but severely criticized for deficiencies in his character such as heavy gambling, which is said to have ruined him financially. His lifestyle forced him to give away considerable parts of his lordship until he was forced to sell the remainder to the Templars in 1260. Late in life, he joined this order but left it to become a Trinitarian. He was married since 1252 to an Armenian woman of rank who left him and later, in 1263, became a nun in Nicosia. In the trial of the Templars, he was reported to have been a necrophile.

More than seventy years ago John L. La Monte, in his study of the lords of Sidon, devoted two and a half pages to Julian of Sidon’s life.1 The paper was never intended to be a full biography of Julian. Its main purpose was to clarify the genealogy of his family. Since then, research has advanced a good deal and it seems appropriate to reinvestigate this colourful person. Sidon was one of the four big baronies of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. A defining characteristic of such a barony was that it had to furnish 100 knights to the royal army.2 In return, John claimed that in court the four barons could only be tried by the other three.3 Julian, lord of Sidon and Beaufort,4 came from one of the oldest noble families of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and ruled over the town and lordship of Sidon 1 

John L. La Monte, “The Lords of Sidon in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Byzantion 17 (1944/1945): 206–9. 2  John of Ibelin, Le Livre des Assises, ed. Peter W. Edbury, The Medieval Mediterranean 50 (Leiden, 2003), 600–602. The theory of the four baronies has been discussed by Jean Richard, “Pairie d’Orient latin: les quatre baronnies des royaumes de Jérusalem et de Chypre,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger, année 1950: 67–80; by Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem 1174–1277 (London, 1973), 16–20; and, above all, by Peter W. Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Woodbridge, 1997), 164–76. The theory, which was to the advantage of John as count of Jaffa, should be viewed with a good measure of scepticism. It is true that the lordship of Sidon is listed as owing 100 knights in a list of services dating to the twelfth century, but this number is reached only when the lordships of Caesarea and Bethsan are included: John of Ibelin, Livre, 607. 3  Another privilege of the four barons was that their widows were not entitled to one-half of their husbands’ possessions, as was normally the case: John of Ibelin, Livre, 395. They received less. This would have been to the advantage of John of Jaffa’s successor if John should have died before his Armenian wife. As it happened, she predeceased him in 1263, and in any case they had been separated since 1261. 4  Beaufort was a strong castle south-east of Sidon, near the great bend of the Litani river. It seems to have been taken from the Muslims under King Fulk (1131–43). Later it may have been in 67

68

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

in the sixth generation.5 An ancestor by the name of Eustace I Granarius was a trusted follower of Kings Baldwin I and II of Jerusalem and came from the diocese of Thérouanne in the Pas-de-Calais.6 Several generations later, the lord of Sidon was a certain Balian who was regent of the kingdom of Jerusalem for Emperor Frederick II and, strangely enough, godfather of the chronicler Salimbene de Adam from Parma.7 According to the Lignages d’Outremer, Balian of Sidon and his wife Margaret of Reynel8 had four children: Gilles, Julian, Isabelle and Agnes.9 But the couple had another son named Philip who is attested as Julian’s brother in RRH, nos. 1256, 1300 and 1301. When Balian died in 1240, he was succeeded as lord of Sidon by Gilles who died in 1247.10 the possession of the Hospitallers when Pope Eugenius III confirmed Belforte to them in 1153: Rudolf Hiestand, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens pontificius, 3 vols., Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 3. Folge 77. 135. 136 (Göttingen, 1972–85), 2:210, no. 7. I owe it to an anonymous reader of this paper, however, that there is another possibility for the identification of Belforte, namely Bellifortis near Mirabel, mentioned in RRH, no. 433, which has been identified with Dair Abu Maʾshal near Mirabel (grid reference 156/156) by Denys Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 1997), 46, no. 79. In 1179 Beaufort seems to have been in the possession of the lord of Sidon: WT, 1002. With the exception of the period 1190–1240, Beaufort remained in the hands of the lords of Sidon until it shared the fate of the lordship of Sidon in 1260. It was never a separate lordship; see Hetʾum of Korikos, “La flor des estoires de la Terre d’Orient,” RHC Darm 2:174: “La terre de Belfort, qui estoit de la seignorie de Saiete.” 5  This, at least, is the current common opinion according to which Gerard of Sidon (1146–after 1165) is supposed to have been the son of Eustace II Granier, lord of Sidon (1123–c.1126). But in my view the time gap of more than twenty years between the two made this doubtful: see Hans E. Mayer, “The Wheel of Fortune. Seignorial Vicissitudes under Kings Fulk and Baldwin III of Jerusalem,” Speculum 65 (1990): 875, n. 51. This does not seem to have convinced Rudolf Hiestand, “Die Herren von Sidon und die Thronfolgekrise des Jahres 1163 im Königreich Jerusalem,” in Montjoie, 80–81. 6  Versus de viris illustribus dioecesis Tarvanensis, ed. Charles Moeller, “Les Flamands du Ternois au royaume latin de Jérusalem,” in Mélanges Paul Frédericq. Hommage de la Société pour le progrès des études philologiques et historiques (Brussels, 1904), 191. Murray argued for an origin from Beaurainville, département Pas-de-Calais, arrondissement Montreuil or the nearby Beaurain-Château: Alan V. Murray, “A Note on the Origin of Eustace Grenier,” Bulletin of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East 6 (1986): 28–30. See also idem, The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Dynastic History 1099–1125 (Oxford, 2000), 193–95. 7  “Cronica fratris Salimbene de Adam,” MGH SS 32:34, 38. 8  Département Haute-Marne, arrondissement Chaumont. She was the daughter of John of Brienne’s sister Ida, and of Ernoul of Reynel, and came to the East in the fall of 1218 at the request of her uncle King John of Brienne in order to marry Balian of Sidon: Estoire de Eracles, in RHC Oc 2:332. According to James M. Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213–1221 (Philadelphia, 1986), 233, she returned to France; however, she was still in the East in 1252 (RRH, no. 1202) and died on 5 June 1254: Estoire de Eracles, 441, where by mistake she is called Marthe. She made a will on 1 June 1254, apparently in the East as suggested by the named executors (see below, p. 83): RRH Add, no. 1215a. Perry’s opinion that she might have accompanied, together with her husband Balian of Sidon (Estoire de Eracles, 358), Isabella II of Jerusalem in 1225 from Palestine to Brindisi, is purely speculative: Guy Perry, John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople, c.1175–1237 (Cambridge, 2013), 136, n. 53. 9  Lignages d’Outremer, ed. Marie-Adélaïde Nielen, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 18 (Paris, 2003), 71, 102–03. 10  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314), ed. Laura Minervini, Nuovo Medioevo 59 (Naples, 2000), 58 (§260). Nielen, Lignages d’Outremer, 103, n. 201 calls him “seigneur de Beaufort” but he was more than that, he was lord of Sidon; see Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 58 (§260).

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

69

The next lord of Sidon was his brother Julian whom the Templar of Tyre at one point wrongly considered to have been a son of Gilles rather than of Balian.11 According to this chronicle, Julian was a big man, a gallant knight and an experienced warrior. However, the chronicler also found considerable deficiencies of character in him. He called him light-headed and indulging in the sins of the flesh (“legier de la teste … et estoit moult lussirious de ses chars”) and a great gambler, ruining himself in this way (“et grant juour de hazart et y se mist por le jeuc a nient”). He also accused him of mismanaging his affairs (“avoit mau fait ses afaires”).12 That Julian gambled heavily was generally known. The Armenian constable Smbat wrote in his chronicle: “Julien, … en jouant au fsus, perdit Sidon.”13 His reputation became so much tarnished that almost forty years after his death he even was accused of having been a necrophile (below, pp. 90–91). Only two years after Julian had become lord of Sidon his misfortunes began. In the summer of 1249, a Damascene army temporarily occupied Sidon.14 It was a manoeuvre of diversion, after it had been learnt that Saint Louis, king of France, had landed at Damietta and had occupied the town. But it does not seem to have been as shortlived as has often been presented in historical literature. There was al-Din Ibn Nizar who time enough for the Muslims to install a governor named Saʾd invested the cave-fortress Shaqif Tirun (Cave de Tyron for the Franks, today Qalʾat en-Niha, Lebanon grid 138/183) and took it from them. Soon history repeated itself when the Damascenes occupied Sidon once again briefly and without fighting in the summer of 1253 after they had heard that the king of France was about to fortify it. The king’s representative in Sidon was his 11  Ibid. Margaret of Sidon is named in RRH, no. 1202 as the mother of Julian. This makes Balian, not Gilles, the father of Julian. The Templar of Tyre was evidently confused about Julian’s relations because on 84 (§304) he called him incorrectly the son of the nephew of Philip of Montfort, lord of Tyre, whereas on 132 (§374) he correctly saw in Julian the nephew of Philip of Montfort. Through their mother Helvis of Ibelin, who first married Renaud of Sidon and later Guy of Montfort, Balian of Sidon and Philip of Montfort were half-brothers. Consequently Julian was a nephew of Philip. 12  Ibid., 84 (§304), 132 (§374). 13  La chronique attribué au connétable Smbat, trans. Gérard Dédéyan, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 13 (Paris, 1980), 96. Dédéyan explains that fsus is an Arabic word meaning a precious stone and hence also a gambling die. 14  Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-kurub fi akhbar Bani Ayyub, ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salam Tadmuri (Sidon and Beirut, 2004), 77. Ibn al-Furat, Ayyubids, Mamlukes and Crusaders. Selections from the Tarikh al-Duwal waʾl-Muluk, trans. U. and M. C. Lyons, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1971), 2:18. Maqrizi, A History of the Ayyubid Sultans of Egypt, trans. R. J. C. Broadhurst (Boston, 1980), 292. In the Christian sources this event is mentioned only in a letter of 1250 found in Matthew Paris, Chronica maiora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, RS, 7 vols. (London, 1872–83), 6:191–97 (here 196) describing the occupation of “Canan Turoriis [= the cave-fortress Cave de Tyron north-east of Sidon], quam Saraceni occupaverunt quando rex [scil. Saint Louis] fuit Damiatae” (5 June 1249–8 May 1250), refers to this campaign. ‘Izz al-Din Ibn Shaddad, Al-Aʾlaq al-khatir fi dhikr umaraʾ al-Sham wa-l-Jazira, part 3 for Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine, ed. Sami al-Dahhan (Damascus, 1963), 159, dates this early to the reign of al-Nasir Yusuf in Damascus. Al-Nasir took Damascus on 10 July 1250. R. Stephen Humphreys, From Saladin to the Mongols. The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193–1260 (Albany, NY, 1977), 465, n. 20, thinks that this is too late.

70

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

chief arbalester, Simon de Montceliard.15 Realizing that he had no chance against the Damascene army because the town walls were not completely fortified, Simon took refuge in time in the sea castle16 of Sidon taking numbers of the Sidonians with him. Even so, because the castle was not big enough for all of them, 2,000 people were slain in the town which was, of course, plundered.17 Saint Louis now set about in earnest to refortify Sidon. One does not know how much this cost him, but an official estimate by the French treasury had it that on the refortification of Acre, Jaffa, Caesarea and Sidon he spent more than 95,000 livres parisis for which he had to borrow money heavily, mostly from Genoese merchants.18 For this task, he left Jaffa for Sidon on 29 June 1253 and stayed there until 25 February 1254.19 By this time Julian had contracted a good marriage. From 1237 to 1266, King Hetʾum I of Lesser Armenia (1226–69; †1270) pursued a diplomatic offensive through marriages in order to strengthen his relations with the Frankish states on the Syro-Palestinian mainland and Cyprus. To Julian, Hetʾum I gave in marriage his daughter Euphemia (Femi or Fimi in Armenian). This match of 1252 is mentioned in various sources.20 Femi must have been quite young when she married because she was still alive in 1308. Since medieval canon law allowed girls to marry from the age of twelve,21 she must have been born in or before 1240. We are well informed about the material conditions of Julian’s marriage because we possess an undated charter by King Hetʾum I of Lesser Armenia dealing with

15  Jean de Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, ed. Jacques Monfrin (Paris, 1998), §§551–52. Simon is otherwise unknown. Monfrin suggests, that we may here be dealing with a slip of memory by Joinville who wrote his work as a very old man and that Simon may be identical with Thibaut de Montliard, another and better known chief arbalester: ibid., in a note to §551. 16  Sidon had a citadel in the town and another castle in the sea. The sea castle can still be seen, but the present buildings are partly Muslim. It was built in 1227/28 by French and English crusaders. They had planned to rebuild the town walls and the citadel, but found that this was too much labour for them and built the small sea castle instead: Estoire de Eracles, 365. 17  The number of those slain is lower in the Estoire de Eracles, 440–41, but on the other hand the Estoire mentions 400 people (que maçons que autres gens) who were abducted into slavery. The presence of a good number of masons shows that Simon had already begun the refortification of Sidon at Saint Louis’s expense. 18  RHGF 21:515. André E. Sayous, “Les mandats de Saint Louis sur son Trésor et le mouvement international des capitaux pendant la septième croisade (1248–1254),” Revue historique 167 (1931): 271–88. 19  Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, §§563, 616. 20  Lignages d’Outremer, 92, 103, 139. Estoire de Eracles, 440 with the year indicated. Chronique d’Amadi, ed. René de Mas Latrie, Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, 2 vols., Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France (Paris, 1891–93), 1:202. “Annales de Terre Sainte,” ed. Reinhold Röhricht, AOL 2b (1884): 445. Chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, 96. “Annals of King Hetʾum II of Lesser Armenia,” trans. Marie-Anna Chevalier, Les ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne. Templiers, Hospitaliers, Teutoniques et Arméniens à l’époque des croisades (Paris, 2009), 736. Marino Sanuto the Elder, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, ed. Jacques Bongars, in Gesta Dei per Francos, 2 vols. (Hanau, 1611), 2:220. 21  For the same age limit in Jerusalemite law, see John of Ibelin, Livre, 379.

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

71

it.22 The charter was a contract between Hetʾum I on one side and Margaret of Sidon and her son Julian of Sidon on the other. The king obliged himself to give his daughter Femi in marriage to Julian and to pay as dot (en mariage) 25,00023 Saracen bezants of the weight of Acre, 8,000 of which were to be paid in valuable kind, gold, silver, precious stones or pearls, each item to be counted according to its value. The remaining 17,000 Saracen bezants were to be paid either in Saracen bezants of the weight of Acre or in Armenian besans de nos staurat at the exchange rate of four besans staurat for one Saracen bezant.24 The payment was due at the wedding, provided that Julian and his mother Margaret would observe a contract arranged by the Hospitaller master William of Châteauneuf and John of Ibelin, count of Jaffa. Under this contract Femi was to have (additional) 8,000 Saracen bezants as dowry in the form of land or rents. This dowry she was to have freely without homage or service, except for three knights. For this part of the deal a charter had been issued to Hetʾum sealed in lead and wax by Julian and Margaret as well as by her daughter and her son-in-law (serorge) Agnes and William of Batrun.25 Hetʾum’s charter does not have a date but we know 1252 to be the year of the wedding of Julian to Femi from the Estoire de Eracles (see above, n. 20). At the end of the charter it is stipulated that the wedding was to take place at the feast of the Holy Cross (14 September) or later, meaning that the charter was issued before 14 September. It is possible, however, that there was an indication on the original assigning the year 1252 to the charter, perhaps an archivist’s note on the back of it. Before the loss of the Holy Land, the archives of the Hospitallers had been transferred to their house in Manosque in Provence where the body of the Blessed Gerard who was venerated by the Hospitallers as one of their founders, was kept since at least 1283. Between 1531 and 1535, the archivist at Manosque put together an inventory of the order’s archives there26 consisting of papal generalia, records of the Hospitallers 22 

RRH, no. 1202. The original (formerly preserved in Valletta, National Library of Malta, Archives of the Order of St. John, Div. I, Arch. 3, no. 72) is lost and there are no manuscript copies. It was printed three times: Sebastiano Paoli, Codice diplomatico del sacro militare ordine gerosolimitano oggi di Malta, 1 (Lucca, 1733), 134, no. 119; Victor Langlois, Le Trésor des chartes d’Arménie ou cartulaire de la chancellerie royale des Roupéniens (Venice, 1863), 146, no. 20; Cart Hosp 2:718, no. 2581. 23  Rey in Charles Ducange and Emmanuel G. Rey, Familles d’Outremer, Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France (Paris, 1869), 437, changed this by mistake to 35,000. 24  The Acre Saracen bezant was a crusader gold coin. The Armenian besans staurat, that is the bezant with a cross, was a silver coin, also known in Armenia as tram, a corruption of Latin drachma. There must either be a slip of the pen in the exchange rate stated here or else Hetʾum effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of Margaret and Julian of Sidon, because Bedoukian in dealing with this charter has shown conclusively that, given the gold contents of the Saracen bezant and the silver contents of the tram, the proper exchange rate should have been eight, not four trams to a Saracen bezant: Paul Z. Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia, Numismatic notes and monographs 147 (New York, 1962), 52. 25  According to the Lignages d’Outremer, 71, 102–3, Margaret and her husband Balian of Sidon had two sons and two daughters, Isabella who died unmarried, and Agnes who married William of Batrun. 26  Inventory of the archives of Manosque, Marseille, Archives départementales, 56 H 68.

72

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

in the Holy Land and Armenia, and the regional records around Manosque. The inventory was drawn up rather carelessly in a curious mixture of Latin and French with many mistakes. On fol. 368r, item no. 38 C, there is a brief note dated 1262 concerning an agreement between Hetʾum I and Julian of Sidon, which may be a summary of Hetʾum’s marriage pact with Sidon discussed above, but if so, then the date given is wrong. The text is as follows: Item ung instrument contenent une convention faicte inter regem Armenie et dominum Julianum Sidonis, laquelle convention a este faicte selon les pactes contenus dedans ledit instrument prins sub millesimo centesimo sexagesimo [sic] secundo, cotte au dos d’iceluy par lettres 38 C.

It may seem rash to assume that an abstract dated 1262 refers to a charter of 1252. But it is unlikely that in 1262 a pact could have been made between King Hetʾum and Julian of Sidon on anything. At this time Julian was no longer lord of Sidon because he had sold his lordship in 1260 to the Knights Templar and this is reported to have caused great dissatisfaction with Hetʾum (see below, p. 82). In addition, his marriage with Femi must not have been going well in 1262 because one year later she left him (see below, p. 86). The year 1262 is probably one of many errors committed by the Manosque archivist who seems to have misread MCCLII as MCCLXII. It is clear from the text of the marriage contract issued by Hetʾum I to Margaret and her son Julian of Sidon, which has been preserved and concerned both dot and dowry, that there was also a lost charter issued by Julian and his mother, presumably to Hetʾum, concerning only the dowry. It should also be dated 1252.27 And it is only for this second charter that the good services of William of Châteauneuf and of John of Jaffa are reported in the first one. The two men may have represented the Jerusalem side when the marriage was negotiated, or they may have been involved in the deal through a guarantee, or by helping in other ways to finance it.28 We also have an abstract of this second charter in the Manosque inventory (see above, n. 26) fol. 371r, no. 38 L: Item ung instrument contenent convences faictes par le grand maistre de l’Ospital de sainct Jehan de Jherusalem frere Guilhaume de Chastel et par la main conte de Jaffe sieur Jehan d’Ebelinum se [= ce] est a dire que nostre fille damoiselle Femie doyt avoyr de doyar huict cenz [sic] mille besans sarrasins lesquels seront payez a ladite damoiselle 27 

Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars. History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310), History of Warfare 50 (Leiden, 2008), 678, dates it to 1256/57, which is too late. 28  When in 1214 Stephanie (also called Rita), the daughter of King Leon I of Lesser Armenia, married John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem, the Hospitallers, in order to facilitate the project (“pro supplendo matrimonio dilecte mee filie” and “in auxilio supplendi matrimonii dilecte mee filie”) gave no less than 30,000 Saracen bezants to Leon, 20,000 as a loan and 10,000 in exchange for an Armenian village, but still tied to the marriage project; RRH, nos. 869. 870.

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

73

celon la forme et teneure dudit instrument auquel ny a ny an ny jour cotte au dos d’iceluy par lettres 38 L.29

The gigantic amount of 800,000 bezants stated here is, of course, a blatant mistake on part of the Manosque archivist,30 the correct amount was 8,000 bezants (see above, p. 71). In September 1254, Julian was among the kingdom’s leading ecclesiastics and laymen who wrote to Henry III of England to inform him about the difficulties caused in the Holy Land by the departures of Saint Louis and of the papal legate Odo of Châteauroux, and by the death of Patriarch Robert of Jerusalem (RRH, no. 1221). In November of the Armenian year 705 [= A.D. 1256] King Hetʾum I, having just returned in September from a long and successful journey to the Mongol court, decided to have his son and successor Leon knighted. He celebrated the event with a family reunion to which he invited Bohemond VI of Tripoli, Julian of Sidon and John of Jaffa, as well as their wives from his family.31 In the meantime, Julian had begun dissipating his lordship, mostly to the military orders. At first, we find only ordinary transactions. On 4 August 1250 he donated six casalia in the district of the fortress of Beaufort to William of Bulhon (Buillon).32 On Monday, 21 March 1253, he gave a plot of land in Sidon to Pierre d’Avalon, constable of Tiberias and lord of Adelon (Aadloun, Lebanon grid 107/164, 17 kilometres north-east of Tyre).33 The description of the borders of this land mentions houses of the Franciscans and the Teutonic Knights in Sidon.34

29 

This is not an abstract of Hetʾum’s charter RRH, no. 1202 because there is no mention of the dot of 25,000 bezants, only of the dowry. 30  By comparison it is instructive that, when King Henry II of Cyprus had to set aside marriage portions for two of his sisters, they amounted to a total of 400,000 (white) bezants; Leontios Makhairas, Recital concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus entitled “Chronicle”, ed. Richard M. Dawkins, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1932), 1:54 (§56). White bezants were inferior in value to the Saracen bezants of the mainland. 31  Chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, 98–100. 32  Inventory of the archives of Manosque (see above, n. 26), fol. 343r, no. 34 Z. William was one of Julian’s vassals: RRH, nos. 1217. 1220. 33  RRH, no. 1205. Ernst Strehlke, Tabulae ordinis Theutonici (Berlin, 1869), 82, no. 103. There is something wrong with the date because in 1253, 21 March was a Friday. In 1254 it was a Saturday. If we retain Monday, 21 March, the year would be 1250. Pierre came from Avalon in the French département of Yonne. He was a cousin of Jean de Joinville: Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, variant b to §434. The two lunched together on Christmas Day 1249 in the French army camp in Egypt; ibid., §196. Cf. ibid., §434 of summer 1250. In 1254 Pierre was the first witness in a charter by Julian for the Hospitallers and in the same year acted as arbiter in a controversy between John of Jaffa and the Hospitallers concerning Ascalon: RRH, nos. 1217. 1247. Cf. RRH Add, no. 1249c. In a slip of the pen, Pierre’s wife Helvis is claimed by La Monte, “Lords of Sidon,” 207, to have been Julian’s aunt but she was, in fact, his niece; see the correct relationship, ibid., 206. 34  For the Franciscan house there is no other evidence. The house of the Teutonic Knights had probably been founded in February of 1228 when Balian of Sidon donated properties in and outside Sidon to the Teutonic Knights (RRH, no. 986). The principal donation in Balian’s charter was the former Great Mosque which up to the Third Crusade had belonged to the abbey of Josaphat and had probably served as a church; Pringle, Churches, 2:322, no. 239, 328, no. 244.

74

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

From now on things changed. In August of 1254 Julian sold Casale Roberti (Kafr Kanna, grid reference 182/239, 6 kilometres north-east of Nazareth) for 24,000 bezants to the Hospitallers.35 Julian was obliged to defend the transaction against everyone. This was a standard formula in contemporary charters for which, however, there were good reasons in this case (see below, p. 75). The Hospitallers apparently planned to develop the place, because it was stipulated that in case that Julian could not defend the deal against third parties, the deal would be null and void, the place would return to him, whereas he would have to repay the 24,000 bezants to the Hospitallers. He would also have to reimburse them up to 6,000 bezants for the costs of buildings they had completed in the meantime. In addition, Julian’s deed of sale mentions the gastina Jubeil (today Khirbat Umm Jubeil, grid reference 186/237, roughly 10 kilometres north-east of Nazareth) as the place where the territory of Casale Roberti ended in the east. It had once belonged as Iubeim to the abbey on Mount Thabor but in 1255 it was acquired by the Hospitallers (RRH, no. 1237).36 Casale Roberti was situated between Tiberias and Nazareth, as was expressly stated in RRH, no. 1217. This was far away from Sidon and apparently not part of the lordship of Sidon. Among Julian’s charters it is the only one to which his wife Femi had to give her consent. This, and the location of Casale Roberti, may suggest that Julian sold here a village, which belonged at least in part to Femi who may have invested her dowry there. The Hospitallers soon expanded their possessions around Casale Roberti. In 1255 they leased from the archbishop of Nazareth, for a period of ten years, four villages, two of which had been at the western end of the territory of Casale Roberti, and prolonged the lease in 1259 for another 50 years.37 In the same year they leased from the archbishop the whole dominium Nazareth, consisting of 19 villages, for an annuity of 14,000 bezants.38 The archbishop, who resided in Acre rather than in Nazareth,39 remained silent until about 1260. Then he claimed Casale Roberti as belonging to his church. One does not see any foundation for this claim, but he took the case to the papal court.40 35 

RRH, no. 1217. Cart Hosp 2:761, no. 2688. In September Julian invested the Hospitallers in the presence of the Jerusalem High Court with the place: RRH, no. 1220. 36  Mayer, Urkunden, nos. 20, 31. 37  RRH, nos. 1239. 1280; Cart Hosp 2:787, no. 2748; 880, no. 2934. 38  RRH, no. 1282; Cart Hosp 2:882, no. 2936. The opinion of Pope Urban IV that the church of Nazareth abounds in temporal goods but has collapsed as a spiritual centre (Jean Guiraud, Registres d’Urbain IV, 4 vols. [Paris 1901–1906], 2 (= Registre ordinaire 1): no. 45 of 1261) was partly unjustified. Nazareth had possessions in Europe but hardly anything in the East except for the immediate vicinity of Nazareth. The spiritual collapse, on the other hand, was evident because in 1261 there were only two canons, one residing in Nazareth, the other at the papal court (ibid.). 39  Charles Bourel de la Roncière, Les Registres d’Alexandre IV, 3 vols. (Paris, 1902–59), 1: no. 1300. 40  It was probably for their defence in Rome that the Hospitallers procured an inspeximus of the original of the 1254 sales deed from Bishop Florentius of Acre and Abbot John of St. Samuel of Montjoie at Acre (Valletta, National Library of Malta, Archives of the Order of St. John, Div. I, Arch. 5 [formerly 6], no. 40). It is undated but generally believed to have been issued in 1258. But 1260/61 was a

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

75

We know about this because in October 1261 the Hospitallers demanded in writing from Julian of Sidon that he should defend his sale of Casale Roberti of 1254 against the archbishop of Nazareth and his chapter, who argued that it belonged to them.41 By 1261 Pope Urban IV, a former patriarch of Jerusalem, or his predecessor Alexander IV, had appointed the papal legate Thomas Agni as judge delegate to decide the case. We do not know how Julian reacted to the Hospitallers’ demand to support them. In January of 1263, the judges brought about a settlement that amounted to a defeat of the archbishop.42 The case had been “tam super solucione appalti terre Nazareth (RRH, no. 1282) … quam super Casali Roberti” (RRH, no. 1217). The archbishop abandoned his lawsuit concerning the annual payment of the Hospitallers arising out of RRH, no. 1282. As for Casale Roberti, the ownership of the Hospitallers was upheld. However, from now on, they had to indemnify the archbishop for whatever rights he may have had there with an annual payment of 400 bezants, and if this was not paid in time, there was a penalty of 30 bezants every two weeks. All this was much ado about nothing because in the spring of 1263 Sultan Baybars took Nazareth from the Franks for good. This must also have been the end of the lease of Casale Roberti by the Hospitallers. They no longer had to indemnify the archbishop because the settlement of 1263 had provided for this case: If Casale Roberti became Muslim or if the Saracen peasants there should revolt, the Hospitallers did not have to pay. In any case, on 11 March 1271 Henry’s successor, archbishop Guy and the Hospitallers annulled the settlement of January 1263 by mutual consent.43 Why this was done remains unclear. After Julian had sold Casale Roberti in 1254 the alienations of his landed possessions picked up speed. In the year 1567 of the Seleucid world era [= A.D. 1255/56] he granted part of the village of Damor (Lebanon grid 124/199) to the Buhturid emir Jamal al-Din Hajji II.44 On 14 January 1257 Julian donated to the Teutonic Knights en aumone perpetuel all his land in the Schuf, a mountainous region between Sidon and Beirut, which was densely settled because the charter

much more appropriate occasion to procure it because the text of the sale of 1254 was needed to fight off the attack by the archbishop of Nazareth. Florentius was bishop of Acre 1257–62 while Abbot John was active 1235–63; Rudolf Hiestand, “Königin Melisendis von Jerusalem und Prémontré. Einige Nachträge zum Thema: Die Prämonstratenser und das Hl. Land,” Analecta Praemonstratensia 71 (1995): 91–93. 41  RRH Add, no. 1306a; Cart Hosp 3:14, no. 2995. The word compositio in Röhricht’s abstract is inexact. 42  RRH, no. 1314; Cart Hosp 3:62, no. 3051. For the date, see Hans E. Mayer, Von der Cour des Bourgeois zum öffentlichen Notariat, Schriften der MGH 70 (Wiesbaden, 2016), 401, n. 148. 43  RRH, no. 1373; Cart Hosp 3:241, no. 3414. For the date (Pisan style) see Mayer, Von der Cour des Bourgeois zum öffentlichen Notariat, 465. 44  This is reported in the fifteenth century by Salih ibn Yahiya, Taʾrih Bairut, fol. 36e of the Paris manuscript = French translation by Francis Hours as Salih ben Yahiya, “Histoire de Beyrouth,” Annales d’histoire et d’archéologie (de l’Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth 6 (1995), 40. See also Charles Clermont-Ganneau, “Deux chartes des croisés dans des archives arabes,” in idem, Recueil d’archéologie orientale, 8 vols. (Paris 1888–1924), 5:4–6.

76

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

lists 42 place-names.45 A marginal note in the Berlin cartulary of the Teutonic Knights mentions in addition four gastinae (inhabited for only part of the year) on the river Damor, over which there were problems with the Knights Templar. Concerning RRH, no. 1253, Julian was rather dishonest.46 By presenting it as a gift in alms for which there was normally no payment, he did not need the approval of the central power (king, regent or High Court). In fact, it was an outright sale for which Julian had received 23,500 bezants. This is stated in a second version of the charter with the same date and the same place-names,47 but now the words en aumone perpetuel had disappeared and instead the price was revealed. For a sale of a considerable part of his fief, Julian would have needed the approval of a central power, because the sale might affect the military service of Sidon. Moreover, in principle, sales of fiefs to the military orders were not permitted since church law did not allow the orders to hold fiefs from, or do homage, to anyone.48 Nevertheless, such an approval is not mentioned in the charter. Julian had presented the transaction outwardly as a donation in alms in the first charter, whereas the second charter which no doubt was kept a secret by both parties, revealed the truth and gave the Teutonic Knights the necessary proof that they had paid the price stated. In the end of the second charter it was added: “Et ce je l’ai fait por mon profit et por payer mes dettes.” In Julian’s case this was probably true but it was 45  RRH, no. 1253 falsely dated 4 January 1257 (1256); Strehlke, Tabulae, 88, no. 108 with the same date. But the text here as well as in RRH, nos. 1254 and 1255 says au quatorsime jor del mois de jenvier. The year given is 1256. Julian’s charter used the Florentine style of beginning the year on 25 March. A charter by Julian dated Wednesday, 20 March 1257 (RRH, no. 1265) can only belong to our year 1258 when 20 March was a Wednesday. In 1257 it was a Tuesday. For the identification of place names in southern Lebanon in the possession of the Teutonic Knights, see René Dussaud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 4 (Paris, 1927), 52–58 and Peter Hilsch, “Der Deutsche Ritterorden im südlichen Libanon,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 96 (1980): 174–89. Steven Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099–1291 (Oxford, 1989), 53–60, invented a lordship of the Schuf which never existed. He based himself on Julian granting to the Teutonic Knights in RRH, no. 1253, “toute ma terre dou Souf … et tout la seigniorie et toute la justise.” But seigniorie, which can mean lordship, here rather means seignorial rights. Julian never called himself “lord of the Schuf” but only “lord of Sidon and Beaufort.” The charter calls the area his “land of the Schuf” and he sealed the deed with his leaden bull “empraint en mes droiz coinz de ma seigniorie de Saiete,” not with his seal of a lordship of the Schuf. In RRH, no. 1256, he confirmed what his vassal John of the Schuf had granted to the Teutonic Order, but this was done not in the court of the Schuf, but rather a Sayete en ma cort, i.e. in the seignorial court of Sidon because there was no separate court of a lordship of the Schuf, as there should have been in Tibble’s theory. And, most revealing of all, in RRH, no. 1301, Andrew of the Schuf came before the court of Sidon and sold to the Teutonic Knights “le fié, que il avoit dou Scuff et de ces appartenances, lequel est en ma [i.e. Julian’s] dite seignorie de Seete.” One is not surprised that Tibble, having gone so far as to postulate a separate lordship of the Schuf, presumes that King Amaury temporarily confiscated the lordship of Sidon and during this time carved out the lordship of the Schuf from the seigneury. All this is a product of fantasy. A lordship of the Schuf never existed, the Schuf was part of the lordship of Sidon. 46  See on this Marie L. Favreau, “Die Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Scandalion (Iskanderune),” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 93 (1977): 26–27. 47  RRH, no. 1254; Strehlke, Tabulae, 89. no. 109. For the date, see above, n. 45. 48  Philip of Novara, Le Livre de forme de plait, ed. Peter W. Edbury, Texts and Studies in the History of Cyprus 61 (Nicosia, 2009), 196. John of Ibelin, Livre, 311, 729.

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

77

also another measure of precaution. If the vassal could not meet his debts he could sell his fief or part of it.49 The cave fortress of Cave de Tyron (Shaqif Tirun of the Arabic sources) was also part of the deal because Julian gave it to the Teutonic Knights en aumone perpetuel in a separate charter of 14 January 1257.50 In the Schuf Julian had two vassals, Andrew of the Schuf and his son John of the Schuf.51 John was the first of the two to leave the Schuf when his lord sold his estates there. On 2 September 1256 Julian (as feudal lord) gave to the Teutonic Knights the rights which John of the Schuf had over the fiefs of Gesin (Jezzine, Lebanon grid 136/178) and Miedenes (Meyadiné north-west of Marjayoun, not on the Lebanon map 1:50,000)52 which apparently were the centres of John’s possessions. This prepared the way for John’s sales. In November 1256, he appeared before Bartholomew Monge, the representative of Julian, and sold the fiefs in the Schuf and in Gesin with a few exceptions to the Teutonic Knights for an annual rent of 1,000 bezants for himself and his heirs in times of truces and 500 in times of war.53 The transaction was not put into effect, however, because a marginal note in the Berlin cartulary of the Teutonic Knights fol. 162r reads: “Non valet, quia postmodum fuit factus alius contractus.” This other charter cannot be RRH, no. 1256 issued on 10 January 1257,54 because Julian did not confirm RRH, no. 1252 until more than a year later (RRH, no. 1267 of 11 June 1258). This leaves only RRH, no. 1301 of March 1260 (see below, p. 78) as the alius contractus issued by Julian on behalf of Andrew of the Schuf. This, in turn, probably means that Andrew the father had not approved of what his son John had done in RRH, no. 1252 and had seen to it that this charter was rendered invalid. On 20 March 1258 Julian’s constable John de la Tour and his wife Isabella sold to the Teutonic Knights for 4,000 bezants the village of Cafarfacouh in the Schuf 49  For the legal texts on this, see the introductory remarks to Mayer, Urkunden, no. 298. Such a sale still had to be approved by the king, the regent, or the High Court (see the case of ibid., no. 783) but the permission had to be given. Julian was not the only one to resort to such shady deals. His cousin John II of Beirut did exactly the same when he sold Toron Aghmid in the mountains near Beirut to the Teutonic Knights in 1261: Hans E. Mayer, Das Siegelwesen in den Kreuzfahrerstaaten, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Neue Folge 83 (Munich, 1978), 95. 50  RRH, no. 1255; Strehlke, Tabulae, 89, no. 110. For the date, see above n. 45. 51  Riley-Smith, Feudal Nobility, 33 and ibid., n. 76 erroneously says that Andrew and John were brothers but had a father also called Andrew. There was only one Andrew of the Schuf and John was his son; Strehlke, Tabulae, 97, no. 115: “Jehan dou Schuf, fiz de sire Andre de Schuf.” 52  Riccardo Predelli, “Le reliquie dell’archivio dell’ordine Teutonico in Venezia,” Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti 64/2 (1905), 1436, no. 48 (abstract of the original in the Archivio di Stato in Venice). The charter, issued in Acre, was sealed with Julian’s wax seal but he promised to affix his leaden bull once he had the matrix, which apparently he had left in Sidon. 53  RRH, no. 1252 as related in Julian’s confirmation (RRH, no. 1267; Strehlke, Tabulae, 97, no. 115). Bartholomew had to fill in for his lord because Julian was absent in Armenia: Chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, 100. He was back in Sidon on 15 January 1258; RRH, no. 1257. Yet there seem to have been time-consuming difficulties about the sale because the confirmation was not issued until a year and a half after the actual sale. 54  Strehlke, Tabulae, 90, no. 111. The year is given as 1256.

78

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

(Kfar Faqoudh, Lebanon grid 131/196).55 Shortly before, on 15 January 1258, Julian had sold to the Hospitallers three villages in the lordship of Sidon for 5,000 bezants.56 This was followed on 20 February 1258 by Julian giving permission to the Hospitallers to buy land in the lordship of Sidon producing an income of 1,000 bezants a year, provided this would not diminish the military service of the land by more than one knight’s service.57 Julian also promised to approve all future acquisitions by the Hospitallers in his lordship. Andrew, the father of John of the Schuf, left the Schuf in March 1260 when he sold his fiefs there to the Teutonic Knights for a one-time payment of 6,000 bezants and an annual rent of 300 bezants.58 In the same month, and probably on the same day, Julian donated to the Teutonic Knights en aumosne perpetuel (the remainder of) his possessions in the Schuf, listing 56 place-names and confirming his earlier gifts, or at least some of them.59 Both charters are dated in March 1260. Strehlke changed this in his edition to March 1261 because he had realized that in Julian’s charters the year began normally in Florentine fashion on 25 March (see above, n. 45). But unless RRH, nos. 1300 and 1301 were issued between 25 and 31 March 1260 this is not possible in this case, because Julian had already sold his whole lordship of Sidon in August of 1260. Consequently RRH, nos. 1300 and 1301 belong to March 1260.60 The culmination of these developments came on 24 August 1260 when Julian sold his lordship of Sidon to the Knights Templar because he was out of money, and this time not merely because he had gambled too much.61 The Mongols had laid siege to Sidon to avenge a raid by Julian into the Biqaʾ plain.62 On 11 August they broke into the city, notwithstanding Julian’s valiant defence during which two horses were killed under him. His actions and the presence of Genoese ships gave part of the city population enough time to take refuge in the land castle and the sea 55 

RRH, no. 1265; Strehlke, Tabulae, 96, no. 114. For the date, see above, n. 45. RRH, no. 1257; Cart Hosp 2:836, no. 2852. The villages are Maroenie = today Merouaniye (Lebanon grid 117/168), Haanouf = Aanout (129/188) and Daraye = Daraya (128/189). 57  RRH Add, no. 1257a; Cart Hosp 2:839, no. 2856. 58  RRH, no. 1301; Strehlke, Tabulae, 104, no. 118. 59  RRH, no. 1300; Strehlke, Tabulae, 103, no. 117. 60  Probably they were drawn up by another chancery man who used a different way of beginning the year, Christmas in this case. No day is given in the two charters, only year and month, whereas all other charters issued by Julian are dated by year, month and day of the month. Possibly the two charters were written by a chancery man of the Teutonic Knights. 61  Estoire de Eracles, 445. Annales de Terre Sainte, 449. Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 83 (§303). Chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, 96. “Annals of King Hetʾum II,” trans. Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires, 738. Marino Sanuto the Elder, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, 221. The date 24 August is found in a confirmation of the sale by Pope Urban IV of 21 July 1262. The papal charter is lost but there is an abstract of it in a sixteenth-century inventory of the archives of the Langue de France of the Hospitallers, today preserved in the Archives départementales de Poitiers, 3 H 2, no. 672 giving the date of Julian’s sale as “mil IIcLX, le XXIIIIe jour du moys d’aoust.” The abstract was published by Rudolf Hiestand, “Zum Problem des Templerzentralarchivs,” Archivalische Zeitschrift 76 (1980): 28–29. On the manuscript of the inventory see idem, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens pontificius 1: 87–88. 62  Hetʾum of Korikos, Flor des estoires, 174. Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 83 (§303). 56 

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

79

castle. Julian himself made it to the land castle. But before the Mongols left they destroyed the town walls which Saint Louis had rebuilt (see above, p. 70). Julian lacked the money to rebuild the walls, and this time there was no one to help him. It was a matter of only a few days until he sold the lordship of Sidon precipitately to the Templars.63 The sale fetched a large price. The Templars did not have enough ready cash in the East and were obliged to levy a special tax on their houses in Europe in order to be able to pay for the acquisition of Sidon.64 Although Julian’s deal with the Templars was a sudden decision, he must have been thinking earlier about something similar because he had promised to lease Sidon with Beaufort to the Hospitallers (see below, p. 83). The sale gave Julian a financial claim against the Templars that could be used as a surety if he wanted to borrow money. He did precisely this in 1261 to help John II of Beirut, his cousin once removed.65 John became a Muslim prisoner in 1260 and was set free against a ransom of 20,000 bezants. To finance it, he sold to the Teutonic Knights his fief at Caselimbert for an annuity of 11,000 bezants, as well as Toron Aghmid, east of Beirut. In 1256 he had already leased Caselimbert to them for ten years. Both places were part of his lordship Beirut. This gave him 5,000 bezants as a one-time payment for Toron Aghmid and an annual rent of 11,000 bezants for Caselimbert. He also got a one-time payment of 4,000 bezants from the Teutonic Knights for the premature termination of the lease contract for Caselimbert. Thus, he had the 20,000 he needed for his ransom. However, this took some time, and he probably had to make a down payment to the Muslims at the time of his release. To finance this he borrowed 16,000 bezants from Julian against a promissory note. Julian did not have so much ready cash but on the strength of his sale to the Templars, he could borrow for his cousin’s release 11,000 bezants from the Hospitallers. Because of this loan, John could pay his ransom or the rest of it in 1261. In September 1263 John instructed the Teutonic Knights to pay to Julian of Sidon 10,000 bezants from the annuity of 11,000 the Knights owed him for the current year for Caselimbert. In the document he stated that earlier he had already paid 6,000 bezants to Julian. Thus, he had fully repaid Julian’s loan and had enabled Julian to repay the loan the Hospitallers had in turn given him.66 The sale of the lordship of Sidon got Julian into difficulties at home and abroad. Royal power in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was weak. The royal title was held by 63  Sidon fell on 11 August; on 17 August news of it was received in Damascus: Peter Jackson, “The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260,” English Historical Review 95 (1980): 499. On 24 August Julian sold out to the Templars. René Grousset, Histoire des croisades, 3 vols. (Paris, 1934–36), 3:595, claims that Julian had large debts with the Templars who had previously lent him money at usurious interest. This is not impossible, yet since the archives of the Templars are lost it cannot be proven. 64  RRH Add, no. 1303a. ROL 6 (1898): 333–34. 65  Julian and John II had common great-grandparents, to wit Barisan the Younger of Ibelin and his wife Maria Komnene. 66  RRH, nos. 1250 (lease of Caselimbert), 1307 (sale of Caselimbert), 1308–10 (sale of Toron Aghmid). Predelli, Reliquie, 1441, no. 56 (repayments to Julian and the Hospitallers). Some of these charters were deliberately falsely dated: see Mayer, Siegelwesen, 90–99.

80

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

Conradin who was absent in Germany, a child of eight years who never came to the East to claim his kingdom. As his nearest relative in the East, the regent was Hugh II of Cyprus, also a child. In a remarkable coup d’état Hugh’s mother Queen Plaisance of Cyprus was installed as regent in 1258 or 1259. She set up Geoffrey of Sergines as her lieutenant. He, however, seems to have acted more often in his second capacity as seneschal of the kingdom rather than as her lieutenant. But in 1264 Hugh of Antioch-Lusignan became regent of Jerusalem and in 1267 rose to be King of Cyprus as Hugh III. In 1269 he also became king of Jerusalem. Up to his death, he strove to restore royal power. In doing so he had to deal with barons who had sold their fiefs or lordships without royal consent.67 One of these cases was the sale of Sidon to the Templars. Here military service was a central problem. The military orders indeed fought for the kingdom time and again, but they were difficult allies rather than fiefholders who could be summoned. It was forbidden for them to accept fiefs from, and to render homage to, anyone.68 Hugh’s solution was to leave the sale of Sidon intact but to keep Julian as his vassal with the obligation to furnish a number of knights to the royal host.69 In his lawbook, Philip of Novara clearly considered the sale as criminal, calling it a mesfait.70 But Hugh III, not strong enough to bring the offenders to court, had to bargain with them. In Julian’s case, so Philip of Novara tells us, the king pardoned him and received him as a vassal de l’eschange que il fist por Saete, et li fist homage et fina ou lui en tel maniere que a sa vie il li devoit faire servise de chevaliers, et amprés son decés messire Balian (his son) devoit faire servise de son cors et d’une quantité de chevaliers et avoir VIIm bezans, et Johannin frere li devoit faire aussi et avoir IIIIm besanz.71

The Templars could not be touched since they were much too powerful. What happened was that Julian, after the settlement, did homage for what the Templars had paid him (l’eschange). For this he had to render the service of a certain number of knights. The eschange does not seem to have been a money fief because the king did not pay him anything. It was the lordship of Sidon and Beaufort converted into money. This means that the lordship continued to exist in immaterial form and

67 

For the normal procedure, see RRH, nos. 812, 1370 = Mayer, Urkunden, nos. 772, 712. For the Templars, see Hiestand, Vorarbeiten 1:204, no. 3 (p. 207) of 1139. For the Hospitallers, ibid., 1:367, no. 180 of 1186 (text ibid. 2:134–35). For the Teutonic Knights, see Strehlke, Tabulae, 275, no. 306 (pp. 276–77) of 1220. 69  The lordship of Sidon proper had to furnish 50 knights, at least before 1187; John of Ibelin, Livre, 607. Pace Tibble, Monarchy, 174, it is unlikely that Julian had to furnish that many after the sale of his lordship even though it is probably untrue that after the sale he was a pauper (see below, n. 125). In addition to the knights mentioned the bishop of Sidon had to furnish 50 footsoldiers, probably again before 1187; John of Ibelin, Livre, 615. Cf. Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 232 (§521). 70  Philip of Novara, Livre, 196. 71  Ibid. 68 

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

81

Julian continued to be lord of Sidon and Beaufort even though he no longer had any practical rights there.72 In a way, this was legal trickery because it was neither a true land fief nor was it a money fief. My theory may therefore appear far-fetched. But at about the same time Hugh III used the same legal trick with regard to the small lordship of Arsur. In 1261 Balian of Arsur leased his lordship to the Hospitallers for 4,000 bezants a year. In the chronicles this is presented as a sale but it was, in fact, a lease.73 In addition to the 4,000 bezants a year the Hospitallers had to pay the fiefs of Balian’s vassals.74 Balian remained lord of Arsur with an income of 4,000 bezants a year,75 his vassals drew their fiefs in money or in kind from the order of St. John which exploited Arsur economically and, naturally, had to defend it. In 1265 Sultan Baybars occupied Arsur and destroyed it completely. The Hospitallers were now trapped in their lease contract and had to pay.76 In 1269 the lease contract was finally dissolved when Balian cancelled the obligation of the Hospitallers to pay the 4,000 bezants.77 It seems that during the negotiations a draft of a renewal of the lease had been produced for whatever reasons. It still exists,78 but was cancelled by an incision with a knife. On the back appears an unprinted 14th century note: “Cestuy privilegi [sic] est cassie.” Even so it is revealing of the legal situation in Arsur (when Christian). The text says that the Hospitallers had to cause the military service which the lordship of Arsur owed in knights to the crown to be performed (faire faire)79 “sauf le service que la meisme seignorie d’Arsur doit de cors.” The personal service de cors had to be excepted, again because the Hospitallers could not accept fiefs. This leaves only Balian who could perform it. The legal situation of the lordship of Arsur as envisaged in RRH, no. 1313 was as 72 

In April 1266 Julian still styled himself seigneur de Sayete et Beaufort and had a seal; Inventory of the archives of Manosque (see above, n. 26), fol. 701r, no. 93 C (see below, p. 30XXX). In the case of Julian’s two sons Balian and John, on the other hand, things do look like money fiefs because the 7,000 and 4,000 bezants cannot well be interpreted as still being part of what the Templars had paid for Sidon. 73  Estoire de Eracles, 446; Annales de Terre Sainte, 450; Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 96 (§328). For the evidence for this transaction, see the commentary to Mayer, Urkunden, no. 711 where the 4,000 bezants are mentioned. 74  RRH, no. 1302 of 1261. 75  In 1263 Balian donated the profits of justice in Arsur to the Hospitallers; RRH Add, no. 1329a. The Hospitallers only got the profits but did not administer justice which was still being rendered by Balian: Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus (London, 1967), 461. 76  As late as 1269 (no day given) they still paid the larger part of the annuity and Balian issued a receipt; Inventory of the archives of Manosque (see above, n. 26), fol. 550r, no. 62 9. 77  RRH, no. 1371 dated only 1269; Cart Hosp 3:192, no. 3326. 78  RRH, no. 1313. Valletta, National Library of Malta, Archives of the Order of St. John, Div. I, Arch. 16, no. 5. Röhricht’s date of 1261 is obviously wrong. The charter has been dated within very wide margins; see the commentary to Mayer, Urkunden, no. 711. The witnesses named clearly show that it must correctly be dated between September and December 1269, in other words it is contemporary with the 1269 dissolution of the original lease of 1261. 79  Not just faire which would have meant that the Hospitallers themselves would have performed Arsur’s military service. This was out of the question because they were not allowed to enter into vasallitic relationships (see above, n. 68).

82

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

follows: Balian continued to be lord of Arsur in theory because he performed the service de cors for the royal host. The lordship of Arsur also still existed but Balian had no practical rights in it. It was economically exploited by the Hospitallers and they had to find people in the lordship who would perform the normal knight service to the crown. Mutatis mutandis, this is the same situation as in Sidon after the agreement between Julian and Hugh III. It only is clearer in Arsur because there Balian continued to perform the service de cors. I assume that, under the terms of the agreement, Julian also continued to perform it for Sidon, although this is not explicitly said for him but only for his son and for the time after Julian’s death. The sale of Sidon is also said to have produced severe criticism in Lesser Armenia from King Hetʾum I.80 Having reported Julian’s sale to the Templars the Estoire de Eracles continues: “dont grant haine sordi puis entre le roi d’Ermenie et le Temple.” But I have been unable to find any indication of difficulties between the Templars and Hetʾum in, or shortly after, 1260, except perhaps the gift of the fortress of Darbsak by the Mongols to Hetʾum in 1260. The Templars had lost it to Saladin in 1188. When Hetʾum got it, he did not restore it to the Templars, nor did they claim it, knowing perhaps that they would not get it if they did. Hetʾum should rather have criticized his son-in-law Julian for having squandered what Hetʾum had believed would eventually be owned by his Sidonian grandchildren. But any criticism on his part would have been rather unfair anyway because he had been the principal ally of the Mongols when they conquered Syria and sacked Sidon in 1259/60. Julian practically disappeared from the charters after his sale to the Templars. In January of 1263, we learn from RRH, no. 1315 that Julian had a house in Tyre. When in 1906 the Gestes des Chiprois were published in the second volume of the Documents arméniens of the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, the editors believed [p. 752, n. B] that Julian was qualified as Lord of Sidon and Beaufort in a charter of May 1262. From what is quoted there it is clear that the document in question is RRH, no. 131981 of 31 May 1262. It was an exchange of possessions between the Knights Templar and the Hospitallers which had been brought about by four named arbiters led by Thomas Agni, papal legate and bishop of Bethlehem. The Templars gave up their rights in the towns of Valania and Margat, an important Hospitaller possession, and also the maneir in Sidon which they had already owned before Sidon came into their hands. The Hospitallers gave up among other things a maneir82 in Sidon and everything they had “en la seignorie de Saiete et 80 

Estoire de Eracles, 445. This abstract is inadequate. The document must be used as printed in Cart Hosp 3:31, no. 3029. 82  At first sight it is astonishing that the Templars and the Hospitallers apparently exchanged their houses in Sidon. In the commentary to Mayer, Urkunden, no. 813, I have offered the explanation that the house of the Hospitallers survived unharmed the Mongol sack of Sidon in 1260, and was therefore more useful for the Templars than their former own house which had apparently been damaged. This is why the Templars could not give up their whole maneir, but only the cors dou maneir, meaning the central part of the building. 81 

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

83

Biaufort.”83 It was a sensible arrangement, with each order clearing out of one of the main possessions of the other. Julian was mentioned but not as still being lord of Sidon but rather as “Julien qui fu [!] seignor de Saiete et de Biaufort.” Only two years after Julian’s sale of his lordship it is hardly surprising that it was still known under its old name. The Hospitallers also renounced all claims and legal action they had had against Julian and his heirs. This was not a trifle. We learn from this document that, before selling his lordship to the Templars, Julian had promised to the Hospitallers to lease it to them. We do not know what made him change his mind. At any rate, the Hospitallers in 1262 demanded from the legate a penalty (peine) in the amount of 10,000 marks of silver which had been part of the promise. The Hospitallers then renounced their claim against Julian and the Templars and agreed to cease all legal action in this matter. The only charters issued by Julian after 1260 that we know of are from 1266 and concern a family affair. On 1 June 1254 Julian’s mother Margaret had made a will.84 She had appointed as executors Gilles, archbishop of Tyre, John, abbot of St. Samuel de Montjoie in Acre, Pierre de Beaune, marshal of the order of St. John,85 Hugh Revel, then grand commander of the same order, and G. prior of the Carmelites.86 She had also founded a chaplaincy in the church of St. John (probably in Acre87) to be maintained at the expense of Julian lord of Sidon, a sure sign that she felt that death would prevent her from doing it herself. A sixteenth-century abstract of this charter reveals that the endowment was 1,000 bezants.88 Margaret died on 5 June 1254 and one day later the will’s executor Pierre de Beaune also died.89 83  On the possessions of the Hospitallers in and around Sidon see RRH Add, no. 1076a, where the first portam must be corrected to portum. 84  RRH Add, no. 1215a; Cart Hosp 2:761, no. 2686. 85  On Pierre de Beaune see Burgtorf, Central Convent, 609. 86  Possibly Godfrey, first prior general of the Carmelites: see Elias Friedman, The Latin Hermits of Mount Carmel, Institutum Historicum Teresianum. Studia 1 (Rome, 1979), 184. 87  So Pringle, Churches, 4:86. Margaret favoured this church. When in 1250 or 1251 the bones of Walter IV, count of Brienne and Jaffa and a relative of Julian’s mother, were returned by the Egyptians to the Latin Kingdom, Margaret gave him a rather magnificent burial in the church of St. John in Acre. She paid for everybody’s offertory of a candle and one denier, and even for the one gold bezant offered by Saint Louis who otherwise offered only his own money on such occasions: Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, §466. 88  Inventory of the archives of Manosque (see above, n. 26), fol. 599r, no. 71 φ. Normally such gifts required an annuity because the position was a permanent one. But 1,000 bezants a year for a chaplain would have been rather lavish, even though we learn from another abstract, this time of RRH Add, no. 1344a (ibid., fol. 701r, no. 93 C), that it was a daily mass. When Philip of Ibelin, regent of Cyprus, who was probably richer than the lord of Sidon, founded the position of a chaplain in Nicosia Cathedral in 1217 to celebrate masses for his deceased mother, the yearly endowment was 100 white bezants (less valuable than the Saracen bezants of the mainland), 50 measures of wheat and 25 measures of wine; RRH, no. 903. In 1234 Baldwin of Morphou donated to the church of Nicosia 120 white bezants a year eternally from his Cypriot money fief of 1,000 white bezants to assign to a priest the obligation of celebrating masses for the soul of Baldwin and his ancestors; RRH, no. 1055. 89  Estoire de Eracles, 441, where she is called Marthe. Annales de Terre Sainte, 446.

84

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

Julian took his time with his mother’s bequest. It was only in April 1266 that, with his old title Julian seigneur de Sayete et Beaufort, he founded a daily mass in the church of the Hospital of St. John (in Acre) by assigning to the Hospitallers 40 bezants per year:90 Item ung instrument contenant une fondation d’une messe fondee par Julian seigneur de Sayete et de Beaufort, lequel a fonde une messe de requiem en l’Ospital de sainct Jehan de Jherusalem a chanter tous les jours en luy baillant quarante besans sarrasins chascun an de rente comme plus amplement est contenu audit instrument faict sub millesimo ducentesimo sexagesimo sexto et de mense aprilis, ensemble le seau pendent cotte par lettres 93 C.

On 3 October 1266, it seems, Julian confirmed this grant.91 A document in the so-called Inventaire Raybaud reads: Rémission92 de 40 besans de rente, faite au grand maître Hugues de Revel par Julien, seigneur de Sydon, assignée sur de certains biens qu’il avoit près de ladite ville, pour être destinés à l’entretien du prêtre que Marguerite, dame de Sydon, sa mère, avoit fondé par son testament dans l’église de Saint-Jean. Vidimé par maître Jean de Montdidier, notaire apostolique, du 3 octobre 1266.

I believe that the date 3 October 1266 is correct in the Raybaud text as certainly is the name of the notary. The Manosque text reads: Item ung instrument contenent une confirmation de privilege faict par Julian, seigneur de Seiete et de Beaufort, lequel a delayssi a l’Ospital de sainct Jehan pour fere chanter a tout jamays un prestre audit Hospital de requiem pour l’arme de madame Margarede, mere dudit Julian et dame de Sayete, quarante besans sarrasins chascun an payez de renthe, comme plus amplement est contenu audit instrument prins et receu per magistrum Johannem de Monte de Sidon [sic] notaire public sub dat. Accon sub millesimo ducentesimo septuagesimo quarto et die penultima mensis octobris, cotte par lettres 59 L.

90 

The charter is lost. An abstract is found in the Inventory of the archives of Manosque (see above, n. 26), fol. 701r, no. 93 C. 91  RRH Add, no. 1344a following an eighteenth-century abstract in the so-called Inventaire Raybaud; Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, “Inventaire de pièces de Terre Sainte de l’ordre de l’Hôpital,” ROL 3 (1895): 100, no. 338. There is another abstract from the sixteenth century (Inventory of the archives of Manosque [see above, n. 26], fol. 526v, no. 59 L dated Acre 30 October 1274. 92  Remission here has the meaning of remittance, not the usual one of cancelling a debt. La Monte, Lords of Sidon, 208, already struggled with RRH, no. 1344a. He saw it as an increase of the original endowment of Julian’s mother by making over (to the Hospital) a revenue of 40 bezants a year “assigned against certain goods which he had taken [sic] from the city of Sidon.” One must remember, however, that La Monte had only the Raybaud text at his disposal and could not know that Julian had in fact made the grant already in April 1266.

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

85

Here the name of the notary has obviously been misread by the Manosque archivist. The date 30 October 1274 is incorrect.93 Provided that the correct date was 3 October 1266, the Manosque archivist erroneously read trigesimo die instead of tertio die and changed MCCLXVI into MCCLXXIV. I thus arrive at the following sequence of events: April 1266:

Julian grants an annuity of 40 bezants for masses to be sung for his mother. 3 October 1266: Julian confirms his grant of April. In 1270 Julian’s life was threatened.94 In a long story the Templar of Tyre recounts how two Assassins were hired by Sultan Baybars to kill Philip of Montfort, former lord of Tyre, and Julian of Sidon. The Assassins ingratiated themselves with Philip and Julian by asking them for baptism. Both were baptized and Julian stood godfather to his Assassin because he was named Julian. Both of them stayed in Philip’s service as turcopoles. One of them stabbed Philip to death and Julian only escaped because by chance he had gone off on a trip to Beirut. His Assassin followed him even there but the murder of Philip was reported to Julian in time. Learning that Julian had been warned, the Assassin fled to the Saracens. The story gives the impression that Philip and Julian were on good terms with one another. This had not always been the case because at an unknown time before 1270 Julian started a feud with Philip, even though he was Philip’s nephew (see above, n. 11).95 According to the Lignages d’Outremer, Julian and his Armenian wife Femi had three children, two sons, Balian and John, and one daughter, Margaret.96 The daughter married the unfortunate Guy II of Gibelet (Byblos) who revolted in 1282 against Count Bohemond VII of Tripoli and was imprisoned by Bohemond in the moat of the castle of Nephin in 1283 where he starved to death.97 Shortly before the revolt Guy and Margaret petitioned Pope Martin IV (1281–85) to legitimize their children, claiming they had not known that they were related to each other in the fourth canonical degree. This request was finally granted in 1289 by Pope Nicholas IV.98 Julian’s son John drowned in Armenia at an unknown date but, before his death, he had a money fief, or at least the expectancy thereof after his father’s 93 

We know that Julian died in 1275 after a checkered monastic career. There is every reason to believe that in 1274 he was already a monk and no longer seigneur de Seiete et de Beaufort, however theoretical this position might have been in 1266. 94  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 130–36 (§374). 95  Ibid., 84 (§304). This was not a wise thing to do because Philip had the greater resources and was one of the dominant figures among the nobility of Outremer. 96  Lignages d’Outremer, 103. 97  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 144 (§391), 156–58 (§§409–10), RRH, no. 1444. 98  RRH Add, no. 1484a; Ernest Langlois, Registres de Nicolas IV, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886–93) 1: no. 829.

86

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

death, in the amount of 4,000 bezants annually for which he owed the service de cors.99 Balian became titular lord of Sidon and, under the same arrangement, owed the service de cors to the king and was entitled to an annual money fief of 7,000 bezants.100 Whether these provisions were ever put into effect is unknown. Balian married Marie, the sister of Guy II of Gibelet. For their two daughters, Femi and Isabella, there was the same problem as for the children of Guy II and Margaret, their parents were too closely related to marry each other. Pope Nicholas IV also had to legitimize Femi and Isabella on 22 January 1290.101 By that time Balian had long been dead, having died miserably one or two years after his father. In the first revolt of Guy II of Gibelet in 1276 against the count of Tripoli he sided with his brother-in-law. In a skirmish between the Tripolitan troops and those of Gibelet, the latter held the day but Balian was killed. He had dismounted and had begun to remove his armour but the beaver or the visor of his helmet got stuck and with his head inside the helmet he died from suffocation.102 Femi left Julian in 1263. She did so at his wish and, taking her sons, went back to Armenia where her father was still king. From there she refused to return to Julian. We know this from a charter by Pope Urban IV of 26 March 1264 ordering the patriarch of Jerusalem to see to it that Julian and Femi (here erroneously called S.) resume their marital life.103 Given that shipping in the Mediterranean normally ceased from October to March, Femi’s domestic crisis must have occurred in 1263 for Urban to react to it in March 1264.104 It is not known whether the pope’s letter had any effect, but this does not seem likely. Unless a reconciliation came about in 1264 the couple continued to live apart. There is no evidence for a formal divorce. As a consolation, Femi’s brother Leon, the future king Leon II of Lesser Armenia (1269–89), made her a present of an illuminated manuscript of the gospels which had been copied in 1249. In 1263 a colophon was added naming him and his brother T’oros and continuing: C’est en leur temps que la pieuse, de bonne renommée, de l’ascendance impériale, élevée dans la pourpre, la maitresse de la ville de Saita [Sidon], gardée par Dieu, tam [dame] Fimi, fille du pieux roi Hét’oum, vint, en raison de guerres sataniques, dans le pays des Ciliciens, auprès de son père et de ses pieux frères, le paron [baron] Lewon et le paron T’oros, avec ses garçons et ses filles, dont les noms sont Markrôn [Margaret], l’aînée, surnommée Marine, qui se traduit dans notre langue par Lousaworim [Lumineuse], son fils Paliôn [Balian], qui se traduit par Bet’léhem [Bethlehem105], le nom de son fils 99 

Lignages d’Outremer, 103. Philip of Novara, Livre, 196. See above, p. 24XXX. Ibid. 101  Langlois, Registres de Nicolas IV, 1: no. 2001. 102  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 148 (§393). 103  Guiraud, Registres d’Urbain IV, 3 (= Registre ordinaire 2), no. 1466. 104  On the basis of Armenian sources published in Eriwan and not at my disposal. Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires, 406, n. 87, also dates the event in 1263. 105  A misunderstanding of the author. The name Balian was sometimes rendered as Bellian or Bellon. This was often identified as Belleem, an Old French form for Bethlehem; see Mayer, Von der Cour des Bourgeois zum öffentlichen Notariat, 185 n. 397. 100 

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

87

cadet, élevé dans le lait de sa mère, étant Dchvan [Jean], qui se traduit par Hofhannês. Et comme tam [dame] Fimi était dans la peine, en raison des épreuves qu’elle traversait, son pieux frère, le paron Lewon lui donna cet Évangile, porteur de la parole de Dieu, pour la consolation et le salut de son âme.106

It was not the only manuscript Femi owned. She had a learned uncle by the name of Paltin (Baldwin), a brother of King Hetʾum I. Under the name of John he became bishop of Molevon with residence in the monastery of Grner in the Armenian year 708 (A.D. 1259–60).107 Here he established a scriptorium excelling in the production of illuminated and non-illuminated manuscripts. After the death of Hetʾum I in 1270 he presented to Femi an anthology of Biblical texts dealing with King Salomon.108 After his marital crisis, Julian’s life became unstable. At an unknown date he joined the Knights Templar. Normally, although not in his case, this would have meant that he was a widower because in the profession ceremony candidates were asked whether they were married or engaged.109 In practice, exceptions were possible, provided the consent of the partner had been given or the couple wished to join, simultaneously, different religious institutions. In any event, the Templars would have had to stretch their rule to the limit in Julian’s case, because having bought his lordship they could not possibly refuse his entry into their order. It seems that Julian later had second thoughts about his decision because he left the Templars and joined the Trinitarians, an order mainly concerned with the liberation of Christian prisoners from Muslim captivity. To change from one order to another was not the easiest thing to attempt and it would be interesting to know how Julian managed to do this. But we know only the fact, not the method, from a brief note in the Estoire de Eracles: “Anno MCCLXXV … Et morut a Triple frere Julien de l’ordre de la Trinité, qui avoit esté sires de Saiete et frere du Temple.”110 Femi survived Julian until at least 1308. At an unknown point in her late life she became a nun in the abbey of Notre-Dame de Tyr in Nicosia. In 1306 Amaury, lord of Tyre, had taken the control of the Cypriot government from his brother King Henry II. In 1308 he was acting against his opponents by deporting two of them 106 

The Armenian text of the colophon was edited by Artashes S. Matʾevosyan, Hayeren dzeragreri hichatakarannar, JG dar (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, 13th century) (Eriwan, 1984), 320, no. 264. It was pointed out to me by Madame Marie-Anna Chevalier (Montpellier) and kindly translated into French by Professor Gérard Dédéyan (Montpellier). I sincerely thank both scholars for this. 107  Chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, 103. 108  Ms. 376 of the library of the Mechitarist monastery of San Lazzaro di Venezia; Grand catalogue of Armenian manuscripts in the library of the Mechitaristes of Venice, 8 vols. (Venice 1914–98), 1:164– 66, no. 21 (in Armenian). On this manuscript see Claude Mutafian, L’Arménie du Levant, 2 vols. (Paris, 2012), 1:625, n. 10. Coloured illustration showing one miniature (Salomon and the queen of Saba) from this manuscript: ibid. 2:illustration no. 188. 109  Henri de Curzon, La règle du Temple (Paris, 1886), 337 (§658). 110  Estoire de Eracles, 467. The “Annals of King Hetʾum II of Lesser Armenia,” trans. Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires, 741, date Julian’s death in 1274. On an unlikely different monastic career of Julian see below, p. 90.

88

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

to Lesser Armenia, the seneschal of Cyprus Philip of Ibelin and Baldwin of Ibelin. Femi, who was the grandmother of Philip of Ibelin’s wife, intervened with King Oshin of Lesser Armenia (1308–20) and his brother Alinak, who were her nephews. She succeeded in obtaining Oshin’s agreement that the two Cypriots could live in full personal liberty in Armenia provided that they did not communicate with Henry II of Cyprus.111 At this time the chronicle of Amadi described her as madama sur (= monastic sister, suer in Old French) Fimia …, che era monacha de la Nostra Donna mazore (= maggiore) de Hierusalem, che si dice in Cypro Nostra Dame de Sur (= Tyrus), et era gia signora del Saeto.112 This was the Benedictine nunnery of St. Mary the Great which Amalfitan merchants founded in Jerusalem before the crusades. Following the loss of Jerusalem it seems to have been briefly in Tyre and after 1191 it was in Acre until 1291.113 Then it was transferred to Nicosia, where there is evidence for a house of Notre-Dame de Tyr from 1300 on.114 It was a nunnery well suited for ladies of high social standing. Not only Femi became a nun there. The two abbesses we know to have been contemporary with Femi came from noble families of excellent reputation: Beatrice, probably from the family of the lords of Maraclea in the county of Tripoli, and Margaret from the family of the counts of Jaffa. Margaret, dowager lady of Tyre and Toron, chose in 1308 to have her funeral at Notre-Dame de Tyr and on deathbed she took the monastic habit.115 The abbey was heavily damaged in an earthquake, probably the one of 8 August 1303. The Templar of Tyre was of the opinion that it was stronger than any other earthquake in his days, even though the damage had mainly been done on Crete

111  Chronique d’Amadi, 1:276–67. Cf. Florio Bustron, Chronique de l’île de Chypre, ed. René de Mas Latrie, Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France (Paris, 1886), 161. In the Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 344 (§§699–700) these events are dated to 1309, but 1308 seems more plausible. 112  Chronique d’Amadi, 1:276–77. Nicholas Coureas, The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1195–1312 (Aldershot, 1997), 189, lets Euphemia of Armenia and also the widow of Julian of Sidon enter NotreDame de Tyr, as if these were different persons. In fact, they are identical. Camille Enlart, L’art gothique et la Renaissance en Chypre, 2 vols. (Paris, 1899), 1:144, erroneously says that she was abbess there in 1308. Weyprecht H. Rüdt-Collenberg, “Les Ibelin aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles,” in idem, Familles de l’Orient latin XIIe–XIVe siècles, Variorum Collected Studies 176 (London, 1983; published originally 1979 in a Cypriot periodical), 207, is of the same opinion saying that Margaret of Ibelin succeeded Femi as abbess of Notre-Dame de Tyr in Nicosia. But Femi was never referred to as abbess. The abbess before Margaret had been Beatrice of Picquigny: Chronique d’Amadi, 1:349. She seems to have been identical with Beatris qui fu abaiesce de Nostre Dame de Sur from the family of the lords of Maraclea mentioned in the Lignages d’Outremer, 117. Her mother Isabella is described there as the daughter of William of Maraclea who married Baldwin of Picquigny. 113  Pringle, Churches, 3:253, no. 335; ibid., 4:217, no. 470 and 142, no. 431. 114  Legacy of 10 bezants dominabus illis duabus de Tiro Nicosie in a will of 5 December 1300; Valeria Polonio, Notai genovesi in Oltremare. Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (3 luglio 1300 – 3 agosto 1301), Collana storica di fonti et studi 31 (Genoa, 1982), 162, no. 145 (here on p. 163). In 1247 one finds a jardin de Notre Dame de Sur in Nicosia; Nicholas Coureas and Christopher David Schabel, Cartulary of Holy Wisdom of Nicosia, Texts and Studies in the History of Cyprus 25 (Nicosia, 1997), 147, no. 49. 115  Chronique d’Amadi 1:271.

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

89

and Rhodes.116 The nuns were persuaded by King Henry II of Cyprus that he should demolish the damaged conventual buildings and rebuild the convent. On this task the king spent 18,000 (white) bezants until he ran out of money in 1306, because his brother Amaury, in a coup d’état, took over the government of Cyprus as governor of the kingdom.117 Femi’s death has been dated to 1309118 but to my knowledge there is no firm evidence for this specific year which is probably based on the fact that she cannot be traced alive beyond 1308 or 1309 (see above, pp. 87–88 and n. 111). All that is certain is that she died in or after 1308. Scholarly Armenian works mostly not at my disposal date her death on 3 or 4 December 1308.119 She was probably buried in her monastery as would have been appropriate for a nun, even though RüdtCollenberg claims that Léonce Alishan let her be buried in the castle-monastery of Darbsak (also known as Trazarg or in French as Trois Arcs) in Cilicia north of Sis.120 Both her mother and father and her brother King Leon II had been buried there in 1252, 1270 and 1289, respectively,121 but there is no evidence for Femi having been buried there. Julian of Sidon had an unsavoury afterlife during the trial of the Templars. In March of 1311 a notary public by the name of Antonio Sicci who came from Vercelli, 116 

Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 318 (§656). Chronique d’Amadi, 1:239. On the earthquake of 1303 see Emanuela Guidoboni and Alberto Comastri, Catalogue of Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Area from the 11th to the 15th Century (Rome, 2005), 335–63. 117  Henry was required in 1306 to sell at public auction his moveable property to pay off debts and provide for the marriages of two unmarried sisters; Leontios Makhairas, Recital, 1:54 (§56). Chronique d’Amadi, 1:349 by mistake calls the abbey San Lazzaro but scholars have recognized long ago that the events related to it in fact refer to Notre-Dame de Tyr. The opinion of Count Rüdt-Collenberg, “Les Ibelin aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles,” 207, n. 378 that San Lazzaro was but another name for Notre-Dame de Tyr was already rejected by Coureas, Latin Church, 189, n. 11. The Nicosia church identified by Enlart, Art gothique, 1:142–50 as Notre-Dame de Tyr is actually that of another nunnery called Notre-Dame de Tortose: Brunehilde Imhaus, “Un monastère féminin de Nicosie: Notre-Dame de Tortose,” in Dei gesta per Francos. Etudes sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard, ed. Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jonathan Riley-Smith (Aldershot, 2001), 389–401 (various tombstones of abbesses and prioresses of Notre-Dame de Tortose were found in the church). 118  Count Weyprecht H. Rüdt-Collenberg, The Rupenides, Hethumides and Lusignans. The Structure of the Armeno-Cilician Dynasties (Paris, 1963), 66 and genealogical table H 2. On the serious shortcomings of this genealogical table see Mutafian in Maxime Goepp, Claude Mutafian, Agnès Ouzounian, “L’inscription du régent Constantin de Papéron (1241). Redécouverte, relecture, remise en contexte historique,” Revue des études arméniennes, n.s. 34 (2012), 270: four names of the offspring of Hetʾum’s father must be eliminated, three others must be added. Cyrille Toumanoff, Les dynasties de la Caucasie chrétienne de l’Antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle (Rome, 1990), 288 and genealogical table 60. Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires, 406. 119  Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israel, trans. George Bayan, Patrologia Orientalis 16 (Paris, 1922. Manuscript of 1316), 160 (3 December). Further references in Armenian cited by Mutafian, L’Arménie du Levant, 1:397, n. 16. 120  Rüdt-Collenberg, Rupenides, 66. His reference “(Alishan)” without any title or page number is sadly deficient. In Alishan’s major work Sissouan ou l’Arméno-Cilicie (Venice, 1899), 266–68, Alishan deals with the persons buried in Darbsak, but Femi is not mentioned there. 121  Chronique attribué au connétable Smbat, 123. Alishan, Sissouan, 267. Lignages d’Outremer, 139–140.

90

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

had to testify in Paris under oath.122 In the 1270s he had been in the Holy Land and had worked there for the Templars.123 He had known Julian of Sidon and that he had temporarily been a Templar. But it seems that Antonio was in error about Julian’s subsequent monastic career. He said that when Julian left the Templars he first joined the Hospitallers, claiming that he had seen him dressed as a Hospitaller. But if Julian did not like it among the Templars, he would not have done much better in the order of Saint John, since they were both equally strict. Also, Julian had first promised his lordship to the Hospitallers and had then sold it to the Templars (see above, p. 83). Consequently, the Hospitallers were an unlikely affiliation for Julian. Antonio stated further that Julian had, in fact, also left the Hospitallers after a short while and had entered a Premonstratensian house Saint-Michael de Clusa on an island near Beirut.124 It is probably best to disregard this part of Antonio’s story and stay with a transfer from the Templars to the Trinitarians, as reported in the Estoire de Eracles (see above, p. 87). Antonio either intensely disliked Julian or was trying to please the Paris judges who, of course, had their minds set on finding the Templars guilty of all kinds of abuses. Among other things they were charged with the denial of Christ whom they allegedly considered a false prophet, and with homosexual practices during the reception of new members, as well as with the worship of idols, in particular of a head which was considered the giver of plenty. Antonio’s testimony must have pleased the judges, for he turned Julian into a true monster.125 He did not charge him with homosexual practices but turned him into a necrophile. He testified that he had often heard in Sidon of a lord of that town who loved a noble lady from Armenia, clearly Julian and Femi. He had never known her carnally while she was alive but he had secret intercourse with her in her tomb on the night of the day of her burial. When he had finished he had heard a certain voice telling him to return when the time for birth had come because then he would see a head and this would be his offspring. Antonio said that he had heard it said that Julian returned to the tomb after the necessary time and had found a head between the legs of the dead

122  Jules Michelet, Procès des Templiers, 2 vols., Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France (Paris, 1841–51), 1:619. His testimony: ibid., 1:641–48. 123  On his career there see Mayer, Von der Cour des Bourgeois zum öffentlichen Notariat, 438–39, where 1273 as the year of the arrival of the Templar master in Acre needs to be corrected to 1275. 124  Michelet, Procès des Templiers, 1:647. Perhaps S. Michael de Clusa is the same as the capella sancti Michaelis in mari which Pope Lucius III confirmed in 1184 to the bishop of Beirut: Hiestand, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens pontificius 3:303, no. 127. But we have no knowledge of a development into a Premonstratensian monastery, and no other Premonstratensian house on the Syro-Palestinian mainland or on Cyprus will fit Antonio’s description. 125  Not Antonio but Jean Senaud, preceptor of the Templar house of La Fouilhuze (commune Culhat, département Puy-de-Dôme), turned Julian into an apostate which, if true, would have precluded any chance of becoming a Trinitarian: intraverat ordinem eorum (scil. of the Templars) et postmodum aposthaverat, et ad magnam devenerat paupertatem: Michelet, Procès des Templiers, 2:140.

LIFE AND AFTERLIFE OF JULIAN OF SIDON

91

woman. Then the same voice told Julian to guard this head because all good things would come from it to him.126 The story is preposterous, not only because Julian and Femi had three children, but also because it necessarily makes Femi die before Julian when in fact he predeceased her by 33 years. When the Templars bought the lordship of Sidon from Julian in 1260 they must have believed that it was worth having. They held it for 31 years, but as time went on they probably did not remain very happy with their purchase. One of their most important possessions in the former lordship was the strong castle of Beaufort. They made it even stronger than before, but lost it to Sultan Baybars in 1268. In 1267 Baybars made a truce with the Christians in which the town and the lowlands of Sidon were defined as belonging to the Christians, while the mountainous region of the former lordship belonged to Baybars,127 and Beaufort was in the mountains. In 1268 the master of the Hospitallers reported to the prior of Saint-Gilles “quia licet Castrum Peregrini, Tyrus et civitas Sydonis sint adhuc sub Christianorum manibus, tamen extra muros nihil percipiunt Christiani.”128 In 1278 Bohemond VII, count of Tripoli, succeeded in conquering the Sidonian sea castle where he took several Templars prisoners.129 When Sultan Qalawun made a truce with the Kingdom of 126  Ibid., 1:645. The rumours had not reached only Antonio Sicci. Jean Senaud told the court a similar story, though charged with the crime not Julian, but one of his ancestors (quidam ex progenitoribus dicti Juliani): ibid., 2:140. It is therefore incorrect if Pierre V. Claverie, L’Ordre du Temple en Terre Sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle, 3 vols, Sources et études de l’histoire de Chypre 53 (Nicosia, 2005), 1:353, in dealing with the testimony of Jean Senaud, ascribes the misdeed to one of the sons of Julian. Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars (Cambridge, 1978), 186, has shown that Hugh de Fauro, a Templar from the diocese of Limoges, told the court on 11 May 1311 a very similar story, which also was supposed to have taken place in Sidon, but the woman here was not an Armenian princess but a lady from the castle of Maraclea in the County of Tripoli. A nobleman from Sidon could not have her, so after she had died he had her exhumed and had intercourse with her. Then he cut off her head which he had to keep in a chest because it would destroy anyone who saw it. Out of hatred to the Greeks, he exposed the head in Greece, destroying castles and cities. Constantinople was saved only because the key to the chest had secretly been stolen; Michelet, Procès des Templiers 2:223–24. In essence we have here variations of the ancient tale of Perseus and Medusa which in medieval times also crops up in the writings of Walter Map, De nugis curialium, ed. Montagu R. James, revised by Christopher N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1983), 364–68; of Roger of Howden, Chronica, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols., RS (London, 1868–71), 3:158–59, but quoting Horace, Sat. I 5. 100: Credat hoc Iudaeus Apella, non ego; and of Gervase of Tilbury, Otia imperialia, ed. S. E. Banks and J. W. Binne, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 2002), 330. On the medieval legend see Salomon Reinach, “La Tête magique des Templiers,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 63 (1911): 25–39, and Laurence Harf-Lancner and Marie N. Polino, “Le gouffre de Satalie: survivances médiévales du mythe de Méduse,” Le Moyen Age 94 (1988): 73–101. 127  Maqrizi, Histoire des sultans mamelouks de l’Egypte, trans. Etienne Quatremère, 2 vols. in 4 parts (Paris, 1837–45), 1/2: 56. Ibn al-Furat, Ayyubids 2:102, reports that there was an agreement between Baybars and the Franks to turn the former lordship of Sidon into a condominium with shared revenues, and to destroy Beaufort, but apparently nothing came of it in 1267. 128  Cart Hosp 4:201, no. 3308. 129  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 151 (§400), dates the event to 1279, but see Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte et à Chypre (Paris, 1904), 231, n. 3.

92

HANS EBERHARD MAYER

Jerusalem in 1283 Sidon was listed as property of the Franks but had shrunk to 15 villages.130 Shortly after the final fall of Acre in 1291, the Templars fled from Sidon to Cyprus.131 The Frankish history of Sidon had come to an end.

130  Peter M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290). Treaties of Baybars and Qalawun with Christian Rulers, Islamic Civilization. Studies and Texts 12 (Leiden 1995), 88. 131  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 226–28 (§§509–10).

The Cocharelli Codex as a Source for the History of the Latin East: The Fall of Tripoli and Acre Chiara Concina University of Verona [email protected] Abstract The Cocharelli Codex is a sumptuously illuminated manuscript produced in Genoa in the early fourteenth century, of which only 27 folios survive today. The codex contains a treatise on the Virtues and Vices written by an unidentified member of the Genoese merchant family of the Cocharelli for the moral instruction of his children. The text is of particular interest because it includes a series of exempla that narrate historical events dealing with Genoa and the Latin East at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century. Many of these narratives are explicitly said to derive from the personal recollections of the author’s grandfather, Pellegrino Cocharelli, whose presence and commercial activities are witnessed by documentary evidence in Acre, Cyprus and Genoa between 1269 and 1307. The article discusses the texts and the miniatures concerning the downfall of Tripoli (1289) and of Acre (1291) and tries to examine the reliability of these narratives in the light of the other known sources, as well as of the recent interpretations of the last period of the Frankish rule in the Outremer.

The Cocharelli Codex is a fragmentarily surviving fourteenth-century (1325–35)1 illuminated manuscript containing a Latin treatise on the Virtues and Vices, of which only 27 leaves survive today.2 The Cocharelli (Cocharellus, Coccharellus in Latin; Coquerel, Coqueriau in French) were a family of Provençal origin settled in Genoa. As we shall see, their presence is witnessed in the Latin East (Acre and Cyprus) and in Genoa between the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century.3 1  I accept the dating of the manuscript proposed by Robert Gibbs, “‘Antifonario N’: A Bolognese Choirbook in the Context of the Genoese Illumination between 1285 and 1385,” in Tessuti, oreficerie, miniature in Liguria, XIII–XV secolo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Genova-Bordighera, 22–25 maggio 1997), ed. Anna Rosa Calderoni Masetti, Clario Di Fabio and Mario Marcenaro (Bordighera, 1999), 271, and Robert Gibbs, “The Dating of the Coccarelli Leaves in the British Library,” Burlington Magazine 144/1189 (2002): 232–33. 2  The leaves are currently disorderly bound in six different volumes: London, British Library, MS Add. 27695 (15 fols.), MS Add. 28841 (7 fols.), MS Egerton 3127 (2 fols.), MS Egerton 3781 (1 fol.); Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, MS inv. 2065 Carrand (1 fol.); Cleveland, Museum of Art, Wade Fund, MS n. 1953.152 (1 fol.). 3  See Otto Pacht, “Early Italian Nature Studies and the Early Calendar Landscape,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950): 13–47; Francesca Fabbri, “Il codice ‘Cocharelli’: osservazioni e ipotesi per un manoscritto genovese del XIV sec.,” in Tessuti, oreficerie, miniature in

93

94

CHIARA CONCINA

According to its “architectural and topographical”4 evidence, the Cocharelli manuscript is considered by art historians to be one of the most interesting and extraordinary products of the early Trecento Genoese illumination, written by an anonymous member of the Cocharelli family for the education of his children. The codex was possibly produced in a specialized atelier, illuminated by several artists who were not the scribes of the text itself.5 Thus, due to the small format of the text and to the copyist’s very extensive use of abbreviations, which are not always easy to resolve, the work transmitted in this manuscript has hitherto received far less attention than the illustrations.6 I have attempted elsewhere to reconstruct the correct sequence of the surviving leaves and to highlight the main peculiarities of the text (to be dated between 1314 and 1324).7 The results of this first inquiry have shown that the precise structure of the booklet on the Cardinal Virtues is extremely difficult to retrace. Indeed, this part of the work is preserved in 7 fols., of which only one (BL Add. 27695, fol. 10, preserved as a snip of parchment of 114 × 55 mm.) contains a paragraph explicitly dealing with the virtue of Justice, while the remaining 6 fols. (BL Add. 28841, fols. 2–7) consist of a verse section interweaving moral dictates into a series of historical anecdotes relating to military and political events of the period from the naval battle of Ponza in 1300 to the arrival in Genoa of Henry VII of Luxembourg in 1311. The main character in this historical account is the Captain of the People and Admiral of Genoa, Corrado Doria, presented as an outstanding example of a virtuous man and a wise ruler. It is, however, difficult to determine whether the verse section (that displays an iconographical apparatus unrelated to the text and representing the natural world) was part of the booklet on the Virtues or whether it constituted a sort of separate appendix.8 The work on the Vices is the best preserved one since it is contained in 20 of the extant 27 folios. This part is introduced by a prologue in which the author declares that he will deal with the seven deadly sins, describe their different species and subspecies, and add to the description of each vice one or more examples that were Liguria, 305–20; eadem, “Il codice Cocharelli fra Europa, Mediterraneo e Oriente,” in La pittura in Liguria. Il Medioevo, secoli XII-XIV, ed. Giuliana Algeri and Anna De Floriani (Genoa, 2011), 289–310. 4  Gibbs, “‘Antifonario N’,” 271. 5  For more details on these aspects, see Francesca Fabbri, “Il manoscritto Cocharelli e il suo contesto,” Medioevi. Rivista di letterature e culture medievali 6 (2020) [forthcoming]. 6  Rose Faunce has recently submitted a PhD thesis devoted to this codex: “The Cocharelli Codex. Illuminating Virtue: A Fourteenth-Century Father’s Counsel to his Son” (University of Melbourne, 2016). 7  Chiara Concina, “Unfolding the Cocharelli Codex: Some Preliminary Observations about the Text, with a Theory about the Order of the Fragments,” Medioevi. Rivista di letterature e culture medievali 2 (2016): 189–265 (available online: http://www.medioevi.it/index.php/medioevi/article/view/41/45). 8  For the miniatures of this section, see Giulietta Chelazzi Dini and Maria Grazia Ciardi Dupré dal Poggetto, “L’iconografia nella storia dell’entomologia; il codice miniato,” in Atti del IX Congresso nazionale italiano di entomologia, Siena 21–25 giugno 1972 (Florence, 1972), 359–90; Colette Bitsch, “Le Maître du codex Cocharelli. Enlumineur et pionnier dans l’observation des insectes,” in Insects in Literature and the Arts, ed. Laurence Talairach-Vielmas, Marie Bouchet (Brussels, 2014), 60–78.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

95

narrated in his presence (“me audiente”) by his grandfather, the late Pellegrino Cocharelli.9 The vices are presented in the order most popular at the time, based on Gregory the Great’s Moralia in Job.10 The majority of the passages give the description of each vice, taken almost verbatim from Guido Faba’s Summa de vitiis et virtutibus (one of the most popular treatises on vices and virtues of the Middle Ages), and – sometimes – from Paul of Hungary’s Summa de poenitentia. The historical accounts that accompany each vice cannot, apparently, be related to any known source. In addition, the Cocharelli treatise on the Virtues and Vices displays a series of features that show that its author also derived his materials from sources popular at the time, including Martin of Braga’s Formula vitae honestae, Boethius’ De consolatione philosophiae, Gautier de Châtillon’s Alexandreis, Jacopo da Benevento’s Carmina moralia, and the Pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum secretorum. It is indeed likely that several of the passages from these authors derive in turn from collections of moral texts and sentences, rather than being a first-hand quotation. As far as the exempla inserted in the booklet on the Vices are concerned, it is to be noted that many of them deal with some of the main historical events occurring between the second half of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, including details concerning the kingdom of Cyprus from Hugh III (1267) to, at least, the restoration of Henry II of Lusignan to the throne (1310), the fall of Tripoli (1289) and Acre (1291), the trial and the execution of the Templars (1314), and the death of Philip IV of France (1314). Many of the illuminations of the booklet on the Vices are closely related to the text and work together in providing an illustrated narrative of some of the main events of Genoese and Mediterranean history. In what follows, I shall focus on the texts and illustrations depicting the fall of Tripoli and Acre (both painted by the same artist), which are inserted one after the other in the third chapter of the treatise on the Vices, devoted to Envy. The Fall of Tripoli (1289) The Text The account of the Fall of Tripoli is contained on BL Add. 27695 fol. 5v, while the recto of the same folio bears a full-page miniature showing the siege and the assault on the city led by the Mamluk army of Qalāwūn in 1289. The text begins by narrating some of the events occurring before the fall of the city mentioning a young ruler who was then count of Antioch and prince of Tripoli:

9 

Concina, “Unfolding,” 194–96. The order of the vices in the Cocharelli treatise is: 1) Pride; 2) Wrath; 3) Envy; 4) Sloth; 5) Greed; 6) Gluttony; 7) Lust. 10 

96

CHIARA CONCINA

Erat enim iuuenis quidam, nobili progenie, in diuiciis mag[n]us11 et potens in ciuilibus, qui Antioche comitatum et principatum Tripolis12 gubernabat […].13

whose mother was very envious of his son and of her son’s wife’s power: Habebat tamen iuuenis iste matrem suam quandam que ualde inuidiosa erat: dolebat enim quia amiserat comitatus et principatus nomen, quod filius suus et filii14 sui uxor plenarie obtinebant […].

The text relates that the mother of the prince started to harass her son’s wife and, due to her malice, the couple had not been able to have children: Ipsa enim cum ista uxore filii sui predicti continue maligne et maliuole uexabatur. Fecit enim tantum istius principis mater cum uerbis et facinoris quod princeps predictus ex uxore sua numquam potuit habere prolem.

The prince died without heirs, his wife went back to her country, and the prince’s mother (an “evil old woman”) eventually gained the power she desired: Accidit tamen quod, ex uoluntate Dei, princeps iste, istius domine filius, de hoc seculo transmigrauit, ita quod uxor sua desolata ad regionem unde ipsa uenerat remeauit. Erat enim ista domina principis uxor regis Francorum neptis. Remansit ergo uetula maledicta et obtinuit quod uolebat.

Furthermore, the narrative reveals that the prince’s mother was bound by an illicit relationship to the Bishop of Tortosa, and wanted him to rule over her son’s land: Ipsa tamen capta erat amore illicito de quodam homine pulcerrimo, qui erat episcopus de Tortosa, propter quod et ipsa oblita erat de morte principis antedicti.15 Uolebat enim istum episcopum esse comitem et principem tocius terre predicti nati sui et ordinauit posse suo quod tam milites quam populares iurarent et tenerent precepta episcopi antedicti ut si esset princeps uel dominus tocius principatus.

11 

I supply the n within square brackets because the scribe has possibly fogotten to note the titulus. The text inverts here “comitatum” and “principatum”: it is the principality of Antioch and the county of Tripoli. 13  All the passages of the account of the fall of Tripoli are based on my own transcription of BL Add. 27695, fol. 5v. The complete text of the booklet on the Vices will be edited by Rose Faunce in the 2020 special issue of the journal Medioevi (forthcoming), along with the text of the booklet on the Virtues and the verse-section (to be edited by myself). The edition will be accompanied by a complete photographic reproduction of the fragments, and by a collection of essays devoted to some of the most important topics related to the Cocharelli Codex (by Alessandro Bampa, Colette Bitsch, Dieter Blume, Franco Cardini, Francesca Fabbri, Kathrin Müller and Antonio Musarra). 14  Filie, with e expunged and i added in the interline by the scribe. 15  antedictis in the ms. 12 

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

97

Her choice was protested by all the citizens of Tripoli, some of whom refused to submit to the bishop, and consequently a series of dissensions arose in the principality. The sultan was informed of this internal strife. He took advantage of it in order to conquer the city, kill its inhabitants, and destroy all the buildings, in such a way that nobody would ever be able to inhabit the land: Fuerunt tamen ex militibus ex aliis qui nullo modo episcopo predicto se subicere uoluerunt, contenti tamen erant aliqualiter de principissa, et sic in terra illa orte fuerunt partes et discordia magna. Que soldanus sciens et audiens, cum magno exercitu principatum inuasit et cepit terram, interfecit gentes, destruxit habitacula et ab illo tempore citra nullus illam terram postea habitauit. Fuit enim propter inuidiam facta destructio ista […].

In the last section, the author relates the conquest of Tripoli. A sudden ebbing of the sea allowed the Saracens to reach the island across from the city by land, and kill all those attempting to escape: all the old men and women were killed, while some of the younger men and women escaped: quando predicta ciuitas fuit capta adcisit quod mare arruit desiccando per totum usque in insulam ciuitatis, taliter quod sarraceni cum toto exforcio acceserunt super eam per terram et ipsam uiolenter ceperunt et occiderunt omnes homines et feminas inductos senectute et ceteros inductos in iuuentute dicte ciuitatis, tam maros quam mulieres, plenarie euaserunt.

The text ends by noting that the city fell because of the vice of envy (“et sicut propter inuidiam fuit principatus iste totaliter anullatus”), which is akin to leprosy. It then introduces the second example, the fall of Acre: Sic regna et multe alie ciuitates propter inuidiam sunt destructe. Istud enim uicium contagiosum existit uelud lepra, que inficit ad inuicem conuersantes, quia quod de principatu propter inuidiam accidit idem uel peius accidit de ciuitate quadam uicina illius principatus, que Achon ciuitas est uocata, propter idem scelus […].

Although no names are mentioned, it is quite clear that the text here refers to Bohemond VII (1261–87), who from 1275 onwards was count of Tripoli and prince of Antioch, to his wife Marguerite of Brienne-Beaumont whom he married by 1277, and to his mother Sibylla of Armenia (c.1240–90), who was the daughter of Hetʾum I, king of Cilician Armenia. When Bohemond VI of Antioch died, Sibylla undertook the regency in the name of her son (who was 14 years old in 1275), and assigned the administration of the city to Bartholomew, bishop of Tortosa, “who seems to have belonged to the great Antiochene family of Mansel.”16 A detailed account of this episode is given by the Templar of Tyre:

16 

Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1951–54), 3:343; on this family see Wipertus H. Rüdt de Collenberg, “A Fragmentary Copy of an Unknown Recension of the

98

CHIARA CONCINA

Cestu dit Beymont, pour ce que il estoit moult jeune, sa mere fist venir a Triple .i. parlat quy estoit vesque de Tourtouze et vicaire dou patriarche d’Antioche, quy avoit nom Berthelemé et fu nes d’Antioche, moult grant clerc. A sestu dona la princesse, mere dou prince, tout son poier et le fist governeor de Triple, si que les chevaliers eurent a grant desdain d’estre gouvernés par clerc, et toute fois le soufryrent et ne firent semblant.17

In 1277, Bohemond VII came from Armenia to take over the government, and the subsequent years of his reign were marked by a series of internal conflicts, which involved the bishop of Tortosa as well.18 Bohemond VII died without heirs in 1287, and the dowager countess tried to appoint the bishop as her bailli for the second time. This decision was rejected by Tripolitan nobles, who explicitly declared that the bishop was their enemy, and, instead of waiting for the arrival of a legitimate heir (Luca of Tripoli, Bohemond’s sister, who married the admiral Narjot de Toucy and lived in Apulia), they preferred to dethrone the dynasty, and established a sovereign commune under the leadership of Bartholomew Embriaco.19 Sibylla retired to Armenia, and in 1288 Luca arrived in Outremer, claiming the throne with the support of the Military Orders. Meanwhile, the Tripolitan commune sought the protection of Genoa, who sent the admiral Benedetto Zaccaria to the Latin East. In the end, a compromise was achieved: the commune was allowed to administer the city and was granted a series of rights, and Luca became countess of Tripoli.20 It is possible that the growing power of Genoa in Tripoli alarmed Sultan Qalāwūn, who decided to break the truce he had made with Bohemond VII in 1281, and to wage war against the city. He conquered Tripoli on 26 April 1289 and razed it to the ground, following a siege of thirty-four days.21 Comparing the Cocharelli text to what we can reconstruct from more reliable sources, we can observe not only that the events narrated by the anonymous treatise are rendered in an abridged and simplified way, but also that some confusions arise. Concerning, for example, Bishop Bartholomew, his regency of the county ‘Lignages d’Outre-Mer’ in the Vatican Library,” English Historical Review 98/387 (1983): 311–27, at 325, and Faunce, “The Cocharelli Codex,” 173. 17  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314). La caduta degli stati crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples, 2000), 142. 18  Jean Richard, “Les Comtes de Tripoli et leurs vassaux sous la dynastie antiochénienne,” in CS, 217–20. 19  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 188: “Quant vint aucuns jours aprés il entendirent que elle devoit faire venir le vesque de Tourtouse, pour le quel il avoient eu contens et ryote et grant escandele entr’iaus, et troverent letres coument la princesse [fist] por luy faire venir, si distrent entre iaus quy ne le souferoient et alerent a la princese et ly mostrerent les letres, et li distrent que ce vesque estoit lor henemy et quy ne seroit ja lor governeor, et se partirent et alerent a conseill.” 20  Setton, Crusades, 2:586–93; Antonio Musarra, Acri 1291. La caduta degli stati crociati, introduzione di Franco Cardini (Bologna, 2017), 143–51. 21  See Robert Irwin, “The Mamlūk Conquest of the County of Tripoli,” in CS, 246–50 [repr. in idem, Mamlūks and Crusaders (Farnham, 2010), no. III]; Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (1100–1291) (Innsbruck, 1898), 997–1003; Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3:403–7; Joshua Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, 2 vols. (Paris, 1969–70), 2:527–37; Musarra, Acri 1291, 152–56.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

99

of Tripoli and of the principality of Antioch dates back to the period preceding Bohemond VII’s death, since we know that his appointment as a bailli in 1287 failed due to the opposition of the Tripolitan nobility. Moreover, we have no mention elsewhere of his ambiguous relationship with Sibylla of Armenia. Bohemond VII’s wife is said to be the niece of the king of France and to have gone back to her country after her husband’s death. None of this information is accurate: Marguerite of Brienne-Beaumont († 1328) was the granddaughter of John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem,22 and she was still in Tripoli during the siege of the city, together with Bohemond’s sister and aunt (Luca of Tripoli, and Marguerite of Antioch, wife of John of Montfort), and she consequently should have returned to France after 1289.23 Thus, on the one hand the text correctly registers that Bohemond VII died childless, and that Tripoli was affected by internal strife (“in terra illa orte fuerunt partes et discordia magna”), but, on the other hand, no mention is made of Luca of Tripoli or of the establishment of the sovereign commune under Genoese hegemony. Nonetheless, the conclusion of the anonymous author of the treatise, namely that the fall of Tripoli was caused by the civil dissensions and the struggle for power, is not so different from that of modern historians.24 Finally, it is worth noting that the last section of the text refers to the terrible massacre of Tripoli’s citizens who took shelter on the offshore island opposite the city (the “insulam ciuitatis,” which must be identified with the island of Saint Thomas).25 This detail is known also from at least two other sources – the Annales de Terre Sainte and the Arab historian Abu l-Fidāʾ –26 who report that the Saracens reached the island by swimming with their horses, and that they killed most of those trying to escape. However, our text says that the Saracens did not swim, but that they were able to follow the Christians on the island because of a sudden ebbing of the sea that allowed an isthmus of dry land to emerge, connecting Tripoli’s coast to the island of Saint Thomas. This seems extremely unlikely, and we must suppose that it was introduced here as a supernatural sign, testifying to God’s will to punish the sin of envy among Tripoli’s citizens and rulers.

22 

Louis Le Maistre, “Marguerite de Bourgogne, comtesse de Tonnerre, reine de Naples, de Sicile et de Jérusalem,” Annuaire historique du département de l’Yonne (1867): 81–83; Charles Du Fresne Du Cange, Les familles d’Outre-mer, ed. Emmanuel-Guillaume Rey (Paris, 1869), 486. 23  Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 197. 24  See, for instance, Richard, Les Comtes de Tripoli, 220: “La lutte des partis, on le sait, fut une des causes de la chute de Tripoli.” 25  Today this island is called Baqar. It is the closest to the mainland among Tripoli’s offshore islands; in recent years it has been connected to the city by a bridge. 26  Annales de Terre Sainte, ed. Reinhold Röhricht and Gaston Raynaud, AOL 2/2 (1884): 460; Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, Selected and Translated from the Arabic Sources (London, 1969), 342; as far as I know this information is absent from the other major sources relating the fall of Tripoli: see Concina, “Unfolding,” 204–8.

100

CHIARA CONCINA

The Miniature The text, as mentioned above is closely related to the full-page miniature on the other side of the same folio (Fig. 1). The illustration shows a fortified peninsula attacked by the Mamluk troops, who are recognizable thanks to the ‘Baybars’s panther’ within a roundel depicted on their flags and on their caparisons (Fig. 3a).27 In the Mamluk world, the panther’s emblem was adopted by the sultan Baybars I (1223–77), and was often represented on his coins and buildings.28 Medieval sources associated the Baybars coat-of-arms with Saladin and, more generally, the Saracens: we find it, for instance, on the shields and flags of the Saracens in the miniatures of MS Chigi L.VIII.296 (1341–48) of the Vatican Library, containing the illustrated Chronica by Giovanni Villani (Fig. 3b),29 or in MS Tanner 190 of the Bodleian Library (Venice, c.1321–24; Fig. 3c).30 Another feature of the Mamluk horsemen and soldiers that deserves mention is that they wear brimmed chapel-de-fer, war-hats of round form that are quite different from the helmets used in this period by the Mamluks (Fig. 4a).31 However, in the Middle Ages representations of foreigners that do not correspond to historical reality are common, especially since (as in our case) the master illuminator had often never seen personally the subject he represented and had to rely on iconographic models known or available to him. The type of round metal military hat represented by the artist of the Cocharelli codex is one of the most commonly illustrated helmets, and it is often found in miniatures of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, although it is associated in most cases with Christians rather than Muslims. We find similar metal helmets in the aforementioned MS Chigi L.VIII.296 (fols. 28v, 30v, 35r, 72v, etc.; Fig. 4b), but also, just to give a few examples, in several manuscripts of the Histoire ancienne jusqu’à César32 or 27  Mario Marcenaro, “Genova, due miniature del XIV secolo: una al Museo Nazionale del Bargello di Firenze e una alla British Library di Londra,” Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria, n.s. 55/2 (2015): 9–10 and Fig. 6. 28  Michael Meinecke, “Zur mamlukischen Heraldik,” Mitteilung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 28 (1972): 214–87; Stefano Carboni and David Whitehouse, Glass of the Sultans, with contributions by Robert H. Brill and William Gudenrath (New York, 2001), 246. 29  Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Chigi L.VIII.296, fols. 42r, 60v, 150v (online at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Chig.L.VIII.296). See also Il Villani illustrato. Firenze e l’Italia medievale nelle 253 immagini del ms. Chigiano L VIII 296 della Biblioteca Vaticana, ed. Chiara Frugoni (Florence, 2005), 104, 117, 183. 30  Otto Pächt and Jonathan J. Graham Alexander, Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 2. Italian School (Oxford, 1970), n. 118. 31  For the historical military clothing of the Mamluks see Leo A. Mayer, Mamluk Costume: A Survey (Geneva, 1952), 41–43; Islamic Arms and Armour, ed. Robert Elgood (London, 1979); Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh, 1999), 431–67. 32  London, British Library, MS Add. 15268 (made in Acre before 1291), fols. 114v (Achilles slaying Hector), 119c (Holofernes before Nabuchadnezzar), available online: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/ FullDisplay.aspx?ref=add_ms_15268; see also Hugo Buchtal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 2nd ed. (London, 1986), pl. 113c, 119c.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

101

of the Estoire d’Outremer (Fig. 4c),33 in illustrated Bibles (such as the Morgan Old Testament picture book),34 or in the well-known MS T.j.l (thirteenth century) of the Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de El Escorial containing Alfonso X of Castile’s Cantigas de Santa María. In this last manuscript, the artist “took care to distinguish between various groups of warriors, be they Christian Spaniards, Muslim Andalusians or Muslims from North Africa”;35 nonetheless round metal war hats are depicted without distinction on the heads of all the abovementioned groups.36 Even if the iron hats displayed in our manuscript as a part of the Mamluk war equipment seem to derive from a well-established iconographic Western model, we cannot entirely exclude an Eastern influence, as long as we find very similar depictions in Islamic art, such as the helmet (this one without the brim) of the mounted warriors painted on the twelfth-century ivory casket from Southern Italy, produced by a Muslim craftsman, preserved at the Museo Nazionale del Bargello in Florence.37 One could also assume that the anonymous master of the Cocharelli Codex chose this particular type of helmet because its shape resembles some of the hats that we find in the same period in many pieces of Islamic art, as in one of the figures adorning the celebrated brass basin inlaid with silver and gold known as the “Baptistère de Saint Louis,” dated to the second half of the thirteenth or the early fourteenth century.38 In our miniature, at the centre of the city stands an elegant seigneurial palace, depicted in pale tones of green and pink, with four double lancet windows in the upper part and a loggia sustained by six pillars in the lower part. In the centre of the loggia, the dowager countess Sibylla of Armenia and the bishop of Tortosa sit together holding hands, a posture clearly suggesting a close connection, if not their prohibited relationship. In the lower part of the page, the Mamluks are shown in the act of crossing the dry strip of land (as described in the text), killing or taking 33  See Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS Plut. LXI.10 (Western ms. related to the Acre school), for which see Jaroslav Folda, Crusader Manuscript Illumination at Saint-Jean d’Acre, 1275–1291 (Princeton, 1976), pl. 165; and David Nicolle, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050–1350. Western Europe and the Crusader States (London, 1999), 283 and n. 743A-E. Paris, BnF, MS fr. 2825, fol. 361v (French translation of the Excidium Urbis Acconis; 1291 Moslem attack of Acre), available online: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9059140b/f375.item.r=francais%202825; see also Folda, Crusader Manuscript Illumination, pl. 299. 34  See, for instance, Goliath’s helmet in New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS 638 (c.1240s), fol. 28v, available online: https://www.themorgan.org/collection/Crusader-Bible/thumbs; Nicolle, Arms and Armour, 36, 374 and figs. 49i, 49l, 49r. See also the Old French Bible in Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl., Thott MS 7 (a Western Manuscript related to the Latin East style), in Folda, Crusader Manuscript Illumination, pl. 284. 35  Nicolle, Arms and Armour, 158. 36  Nicolle, Arms and Armour, 430–31 and figs. 399v, 399ab, 399z, 399ae. 37  Nicolle, Arms and Armour, 257–58 and fig. 685b. 38  David Storm Rice, Le Baptistère de Saint Louis (Paris, 1951); Doris Behrens-Abouseif, “The Baptistère de Saint Louis: A Reinterpretation,” Islamic Art 3 (1988–89): 3–13; Rachel Ward, “The ‘Baptistère de Saint Louis’ – A Mamluk Basin Made for Export to Europe,” in Islam and the Italian Renaissance, ed. Charles Burnett and Anna Contadini (London, 1999), 113–32.

102

CHIARA CONCINA

as prisoners the citizens of Tripoli, while the sea is crowded by fleeing galleys showing the Genoese flag with St. George’s cross. Very little is known about the topography of crusader Tripoli, which lay near the modern area of the Municipality of el-Mina. Indeed, the town was completely destroyed by the Mamluks and rebuilt on a new site slightly inland from the crusader city. In 1211, Wilbrand, bishop of Oldenburg, who was sent to Outremer by Emperor Otto IV, described it as very similar to Tyre, protected by the sea by a double wall and by two defensive ditches: Ipsa vero civitas in omni sua dispositione Thyro simillima fere undique mari cingitur et munitur; sed ipsa natura, suis naturatis, commoda, pratum quoddam amenum et fertiles ortos interiecit. Circa quem locum ipsa munitur duobus muris validis et turritis, duas fossas largas et profundas inter se capientibus, quorum portas et introitus speciales quondam sinuose barbacane intricant et observant.39

Examining the Cocharelli miniature of Tripoli, it is noteworthy that not only do we see that it is “almost from every side surrounded and protected by the sea” (“fere undique mari cingitur et munitur”), but if we compare it to a satellite view of the current coastline of Tripoli seen from the north-west (i.e. approaching by ship to its ancient harbour) and looking south-east, the resemblance of the general outline of the site and the coast is striking (compare Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), with the island of St. Thomas (Baqar Island) situated on the lower right. Furthermore, if we examine the flags and the caparisons of the knights inside the city walls, on the left side of the central palace, we observe that they are decorated by a blazon with alternating quarters painted in gold, and quarters with a white eight-pointed star depicted on a black background (Fig. 5a). This is a very common decorative motif, but it is worth noting that it was also one of the most popular symbols used on coins issued in the county of Tripoli under Bohemond VI (1251–74; Fig. 5b).40 The star with eight rays minted on the coins of Bohemond VI was later replaced by a castle, in the reign of Bohemond VII. Even if somewhat speculative, it is worth noting the vague similarity between the rectangular shape and the towers and windows of the main Tripolitan palace in the Cocharelli miniature (Fig. 6a) and the shape and the arched windows of the three-tower castle on the reverse of Bohemond VII’s coin (Fig. 6b), “symbolizing the fortifications of Tripoli.”41 Additionally, the shape of the palace seems to evoke the gate (ianua) depicted on Genoese coins such as the “‘grosso” or the gold “genovino” (Fig. 6c).42 39 

Denys Pringle, “Wilbrand of Oldenburg’s Journey to Syria, Lesser Armenia, Cyprus, and the Holy Land (1211–1212): A New Edition,” Crusades 11 (2012): 109–37, at 120. 40  Setton, Crusades, 6: 386–87, 405, pl. IX n. 80. Jaroslav Folda, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, from the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre (Cambridge, 2005), 49–50, 466–68. 41  Folda, Crusader Art: 466; see also Setton, Crusades, 6:386–87, 405, pl. IX n. 82. 42  Genova nel Medioevo. Una capitale del Mediterraneo al tempo degli Embriaci, ed. Clario Di Fabio, Piera Melli, and Loredana Pessa (Genoa, 2016), 146–47; A Companion to Medieval Genoa, ed. Carrie E. Beneš (Leiden-Boston, 2018), 278.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

103

As for the knights on the right side of the palace, they bear a blazon decorated in red, white and gold. We have no specimens of the blazons used in Tripoli, and we cannot be sure that the arms are correctly represented. It could possibly be argued that the artist meant to suggest that the two groups of horsemen are the followers of Sybilla (on the left) and those of the bishop of Tortosa (on the right). In addition, the striped white and green motif painted on the arches of the loggia clearly hints at the typical style of medieval Genoese monuments, such as the Cathedral of San Lorenzo, which is depicted on another folio of the Cocharelli Codex (Add. 27695, fol. 7r; Fig. 7), or the so-called Tower of the Embriaci,43 dating back to the middle of the twelfth century, which is very similar to the central tower of Tripoli’s palace (Fig. 8).44 As Sylvia Schein remarked, “although Tripoli had been a Christian possession of major importance, the reaction to its fall was rather mild. […] Only a few European chroniclers even mention the disaster and even fewer record the event in detail.”45 Consequently, even if not entirely reliable, Cocharelli’s account of the fall of Tripoli is to be considered of major importance both because it undoubtedly contains accurate details transmitted only by a few other sources (e.g. the massacre on St. Thomas’s island), and because the miniature related to the narrative represents an attempt to depict a realistic image of the city by rendering faithfully its coastline, and possibly by evoking patterns and symbols that could have helped the reader to recognize the town. While the text emphasizes the events that caused the fall of Tripoli, focusing for the most part on Sybilla’s character and on her sinful behaviour, the miniature, on the other hand, starts out with Sybilla and the bishop of Tortosa sitting together in Tripoli’s castle. The miniature thus develops a more intricate theme. Sybilla and the bishop, bound together by a sinful alliance, are the cause of the surrounding disaster, of the terrible massacre by the Mamluks and culminating – on the lower right part of the miniature – with the carnage on St. Thomas’s island. The Tripoli miniature seems to work as a complement to the text by offering a sequential narrative that goes from the misdeeds of the city’s rulers to the sudden ebbing of the sea possibly suggesting God’s punishment that allowed the Mamluks to reach the fugitives (both these details are mentioned in the text), but according greater space to the siege scene, the description of which is not included in the related text.

43  It has recently been found that the Tower of the Embriaci is located elsewhere: see Aurora Cagnana and Roberta Mussardo, “Le torri di Genova fra XII e XIII secolo: caratteri architettonici, committenti, costruttori,” Archeologia dell’Architettura 17 (2012): 94–110. 44  La cattedrale di Genova nel Medioevo (secoli VI–XIV), ed. Clario Di Fabio (Milan, 1998), 251–52, 253; Fabbri, “Il codice ‘Cocharelli’: osservazioni ed ipotesi,” 316–17 (with a reproduction of the miniature with Genoa’s cathedral). I wish to thank Francesca Fabbri for suggesting the similarity of the tower to the Tower of the Embriaci in Genoa. 45  Sylvia Schein, Fideles crucis. The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land, 1274– 1314 (Oxford, 1991), 68 (and n. 66 for the primary sources on the fall of Tripoli).

104

CHIARA CONCINA

The Fall of Acre (1291) The Text The account of the fall of Acre covers two folios. In the original manuscript they would have been placed after Add. 27695, fol. 5. They correspond today to the single leaf preserved at the Bargello Museum in Florence (MS inv. 2065 Carrand), and to another single leaf preserved at the Museum of Art in Cleveland (MS n. 1953.152). The Bargello folio is organized like the Add. 27695, fol. 5, with a full-page miniature depicting the siege on one side and the text on the reverse, while the Cleveland folio contains the ending lines of these accounts as well as the title and the beginning of the fourth chapter, on Sloth.46 Pellegrino’s narrative here opens by remarking that the city was ruled almost totally by the two powerful military orders of Outremer, the Templars and the Hospitallers, and that their mutual envy led to dissensions and disorders: Audiui enim ab auo meo, qui predicte patrie erat ciuis, quod Achone due religiosorum domus ad quas quasi pertinebat regimen tocius ciuitatis, ita quod illud quod ipsos preceptum erat, id totum penitus erat factum. Erant enim antedicti Templi et Sancti Iohannis fratres, qui ex inuidia dyutissime in discordiam permanserunt.47

The concerns arising after the capture of Tripoli led the government of Acre to send an appeal to the pope and the Western rulers, begging for aid. Consequently, an army was sent to Outremer to defend the city: Et quia rectores istius ciuitatis predicte intellexerunt et audiuerunt destructionem tocius Tripolis ciuitatis principatus, miserunt ambaxatores ad papam et ad reges ad quos christianorum regimen pertinebat, quod ipsi uel ciuitas predicta in isto casu deberet omnimode adiuuari, et quod non paterentur christianorum fieri talem dampnum. Quare papa et reges predicti, deliberato consilio, predictis rectoribus maximam gencium copiam transmiserunt ut magis secure possent ciuitatem predictam absque periculo custodire.

But the newcomers soon revealed themselves to be a bad bargain, since they did not find immediate military activity to engage in, and acted like a rabble of thieves and murderers. Their illicit actions culminated in a riot and in the murder of a number of Muslim merchants who thought they could safely trade in Acre thanks to the truces previously agreed between the sultan and the city: […] multa scelera comitebant, quia ipsi depredabant mercatores, interficiebant homines, strupabant mulieres et multa alia faciebant que erant non licita neque iusta. Erant enim in ciuitate predicta sarraceni multi qui, propter tregas et confitentes quod ciuitas in iustitia permaneret, in predicta ciuitate sua mercimonia aportabant. Isti tamen qui de nouo 46  47 

Concina, “Unfolding,” 220. Here and henceforth I reproduce passages of the text edited in Concina, “Unfolding,” 209–10.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

105

uenerant, ipsos interficiebant. Fiebat enim omnia propter inuidiam et discordiam illorum qui debebant regere ciuitatem.

After this incident, the sultan sent his ambassadors to Acre asking for an explanation. The answer was unsatisfactory (Acre’s rulers simply denied their responsibility for the riot), and, in consequence, the sultan used it as the pretext to march on the city with a huge army and destroy it: Cum tamen soldanus sciuisset omnia supradicta, uidelicet quod sub tregra et malo modo essent sui homines interfecti, misit predictis rectoribus ambaxatores seu nuncios suos, ut ipse melius et clarius posset de predictis intellegere ueritatem. Quibus predicte ciuitatis rectores breuiter responderunt, sicut est religiosorum consuetudo qui, proferentes uerba dulcia, ut plurimum nequissima operantur, dicentes nunciis seu ambaxatoribus antedictis quod isti qui de nouo uenerant non erant sub eorum dominio neque super ipsos habebant aliquam potestatem: – Ite cum Deo et facite quod potestis. Redeuntes autem predicti nuncii ad soldanum, sibi retulerunt omnia antedicta. Soldanus uero iratus conuocauit suarum gentium numerum infinitum et predictam ciuitatem inuasit, destrucxit ipsam, neque aliquis christianus et sarraceni paucissimi ipsam postea habitauit, quod satis omnibus patet palam.

The final lines re-emphasize the invidious behaviour and rivalry of the Templars and the Hospitallers, and attribute to them the primary responsibility for the loss of Acre: Quod autem inter illos duos ordines qui predicte ciuitatis erant rectores essent inuidia et discordia antedicta patuit in processu: procurauit enim una parcium et fecit tantum quod alia penitus anullauit. Dicebant enim fratres Sancti Iohannis quod fratres Templi erant pessimi christiani, et per ipsorum opera fides nostra erat malignissime usurpata […].

The events related to the fall of Acre in 1291 under the attack of al-Ashraf’s troops are well known. They have been reported in a considerable number of contemporary and later sources,48 and thoroughly studied by scholars of the history 48  See Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, 214–18; Excidium urbis Aconis, in Excidii Aconis Gestorum Collectio. Magister Thadeus civis Neapolitanus. Ystoria de desolatione et conculcatione civitatis acconensis et tocius Terrae Sanctae, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, with contributions by Alan Forey and David C. Nicolle (Turnhout, 2004), 49–50; Girart of Frachet, Chronicon cum anonyma eiusdem operis continuatione, RHGF 21:9–10; Grandes Chroniques de France, ed. Jules Viard (Paris, 1834), 8:139–44; Chronique latine de Guillaume de Nangis de 1113 à 1300 avec les continuations de cette chronique de 1300 à 1368, ed. Hercule Géraud, 2 vols. (Paris, 1843), 1:276–78; Gesta Boemundi archiepiscopi Trevirensis, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH SS 24:475; F. Nicholai Triveti de Ordine Frat. Praedicatorum, Annales sex regum, ed. Thomas Hog (London, 1845), 317–18; Bartholomaei de Cotton, Monachi Norwicensis, Historia Anglicana (AD 449–1298), ed. Henry Richards Luard (London, 1859), 183; Fr. Joannis Elemosina, Liber Historiarum S. Romane Ecclesie, in Girolamo Golubovich, O.F.M., Biblioteca Bio-Bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente francescano, 2: (Addenda al sec. XIII, e fonti pel sec. XIV) (Quaracchi, 1913), 108, 127; Chronique d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. René de Mas Latrie (Paris, 1891–93), 218–26; Florio Bustron, Chronique de l’île de Chypre, ed. René de Mas Latrie, Mélanges historiques. Choix de documents, 5 (1886): 118–28; Giovanni Villani, Nuova Cronica, ed. Giuseppe

106

CHIARA CONCINA

of the crusades.49 The events narrated in Pellegrino’s account generally correspond to what happened: the text correctly describes the arrival in Acre of the Italian crusaders sent by Pope Nicolas IV, the casus belli that led to the revocation of former truces50 and the consequent attack by the Mamluks. The fall of Acre captured Europe’s attention: “The loss of the Holy Land had profoundly stirred European society and this is reflected in the sheer volume of references in chronicles, in treatises tinged with apologetics, and in sources dealing with other affairs.”51 In blaming the Military Orders for their envy (invidia), their excessive power in the East, as well as the quarrels between Templars and Hospitallers for the loss of Acre, the Cocharelli text reflects in many ways the general mood in this period, during which public opinion as well as many authors, shocked by the disaster, ascribed the Christians’ defeat to the sinfulness of the leaders and citizens of Outremer.52 A very similar explanation appears, for instance, in the Dunstable Annals, even if – this time – the vice for which the Templars and the Hospitallers are blamed is lust: Eodem anno venerunt certi rumores quod Soldanus Babiloniae ceperat civitatem de Accon et eam funditus prostravisset, interfectis habitatoribus illius, religiosis viris non parcendo, exceptis paucis qui apud Cyprum insulam per navigium transfugerunt. Et dicitur hoc de infortunium doloriferum per Hospitalariorum et Templariorum discordiam

Edoardo Sansone, Giulio Cura Curà (Rome, 2002), 362–63; Iacobi Aurie, Annales Ianuenses ann. MCCLXXX–MCCLXXXXIII, in Annali Genovesi di Caffaro e de’ suoi continuatori, ed. Luigi Tommaso Belgrano and Cesare Imperiale di Sant’Angelo, 5 vols. (Genoa and Rome, 1890–1929), 5:93–94; Marino Sanudo Torsello, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis, in Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. Jacques Bongars (Hanau, 1611), 2:230–31. 49  Reinhold Röricht, “Die Eroberung ‘Akkas durch die Muslime,” Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte 20 (1880): 93–126; idem, “Der Untergang des Königreichs Jerusalem,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschungen 15 (1894): 1–59; idem, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1005–32; Gustave Léon Schlumberger, “Prise de Saint Jean d’Acre en l’an 1291 par l’armée du Soudan d’Égypte; fin de la domination franque en Syrie,” in idem, Byzance et Croisades: Pages Médiévales (Paris, 1927), 207–79; René Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jérusalem, 3 vols. (Paris, 1934–36), 3:746–63; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3:410–23; Setton, Crusades, 2:595–98; Richard, Le royaume latin de Jérusalem, 333–45; Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, 2:539–57; Erwin Stickel, Der Fall von Akkon. Untersuchungen zum Abklingen des Kreuzzugsgedankens am Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts (Bern and Frankfurt, 1975), 1–88; Musarra, Acri 1291, 171–207. On the fall of Acre in Arabic sources, see Donald P. Little, “The Fall of ʿAkkā in 690/1291: The Muslim Version,” in Studies in Islamic History and Civilization in Honour of Professor David Ayalon, ed. Moshe Sharon (Jerusalem and Leiden, 1986), 159–81; Andreas D’Souza, “The Conquest of ʿAkkā (690/1291). A Comparative Analysis of Christian and Muslim Sources,” The Muslim World 80 (1990): 234–49. 50  Not all the sources agree on the event that led to breaking the truces with the sultan; see Musarra, Acri 1291, 174–79. 51  Schein, Fideles crucis, 112. 52  Stickel, Der Fall von Akkon, 89–95; Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, 1095–1274 (Oxford and New York, 1985), 70–95; Schein, Fideles crucis, 110–39.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

107

contigisse; et praecipue propter vitium luxuriae, quod ibidem regnaverat, in confusionem et in mortem tradidit illos Deus.53

Other sources offer a more general explanation, referring to the dissensions provoked by the heterogeneous composition of Acre’s population and by the opposing powers governing the city, as we can read in Bernard Gui’s Flores chronicorum (c.1306–15): Causa autem proditionis ejusdem fuisse fertur multitudo dominorum et diversitas nationum ibidem, quae faciebant contrarietatem voluntatum.54

Almost all the sources agree that the arrival of the crusaders sent by the pope actually aggravated the situation: their enforced idleness led to the attack on Muslim merchants, as narrated by the Dominican Francesco Pipino in his Chronicon (first half of the fourteenth century), who describes a situation slightly similar to the one of the Cocharelli’s account: Confluxerant in ea urbe multi pseudo-Christiani cruce-signati, proposita venia peccatorum. Hi foedis operibus in Civitate ipsa, ut prius, intenti, coelum non animum mutantes, quotidie in lupanaribus & tabernis degebant, & venientes Acon Sarracenos cum mercimoniis offendebant.55

The Miniature As already mentioned, the Bargello leaf has a full-page miniature depicted on the side opposite the text, representing the fall of Acre (Fig. 9). Like the Tripoli miniature, it offers a densely organized scene and a remarkable bird’s-eye view of the city that, like many other details in the codex, clearly reveals the influence of Islamic art, and of the school of Tabrīz in particular,56 as it is possible to notice by comparing the Acre miniature to one of the paintings showing the Mongol siege

53 

Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia (A.D. 1–1297), in Annales monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London, 1866), 3:366 (emphasis added). 54  Bernardus Guidonis, E floribus chronicorum seu catalogo Romanorum pontificum necnon e chronico regum Francorum auctore Bernardo Guidonis, episcopo Lodovensi, RHGF 21:709. 55  Franciscus Pipinus, Chronicon fratris Francisci Pipini Bononiensis ordinis praedicatorum, ab anno mclxxvi usque ad annum circiter mcccxiv, in RIS, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori (Milan, 1726), 9:733. 56  For the bird’s eye view in Islamic art, see Vincenzo Strika, “La prospettiva ‘spianata’ nella miniatura persiana,” Mesopotamia. Rivista di Archeologia, Epigrafia e Storia Orientale Antica 7 (1972): 239–58. For the influence of Eastern models on the Cocharelli artists, see Fabbri, “Il codice Cocharelli fra Europa, Mediterraneo e Oriente,” and eadem, “Vizi e virtù in due codici realizzati a Genova nel Trecento fra seduzioni d’oriente e apporti toscani,” Rivista di Storia della miniatura 17 (2013): 95–106; Anne Dunlop, “Ornament and Vice: the Foreign, the Mobile, and the Cocharelli Fragments,” in Histories of Ornament: from Global to Local, ed. Gülru Necipoğlu and Alina Payne (Princeton, 2016), 234–36.

108

CHIARA CONCINA

of Baghdad in MS Diez A Fol. 70 of Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz at Berlin (fourteenth century).57 It is well known today that knowledge of the topography of Acre during the period of Frankish rule relies mostly on two early fourteenth-century maps of the city. The first was drawn by the Genoese cartographer Pietro Vesconte to illustrate Marino Sanudo’s Liber secretorum fidelium crucis. The other map (independent from Vesconte’s one) is inserted in the Chronologia magna by Paolino Veneto.58 Modern archaeological surveys of the Old City only partly confirm the layout of these maps. In analysing our miniature we will therefore compare some of its features to the topography of the crusader city as it has been reconstructed by the most recent studies on this subject (Fig. 10).59 57  See Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung MS Diez A Fol. 70, S. 4, n. 1 and S. 7, n. 1 (fourteenth century); the whole MS is available online: http://digital.staatsbibliothekberlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN73601313X&PHYSID=PHYS_0001&DMDID=DMDLOG_0001. David Roxburgh, “Heinrich Friedrich von Diez and his eponymous Albums: MSS. Diez A, fols. 70–74,” Muqarnas 12 (1995): 116; Robert Hillenbrand, “The Arts of the Book in Ilkhanid Iran,” in The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353, ed. Linda Komaroff and Stefano Carboni (New York, 2002), 134–67 and n. 25. 58  See Bernhard Degenhart and Annegret Schmitt, “Marino Sanudo und Paolino Veneto, zwei Literaten des 14. Jahrhunderts in ihrer Wirkung auf Buchillustrierung und Kartographie in Venedig,” Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 14 (1973): 3–137; Evelyn Edson, “Reviving the Crusade: Sanudo’s Schemes and Vesconte’s Maps,” in Eastward Bound: Travel and Travellers, 1050–1550, ed. Rosamund Allen (Manchester, 2004), 131–55. 59  The first archaeological surveys of the Old City started in the 1960s with Alex Kesten: Alex Kesten, Acre, the Old City: Survey and Planning (Tel Aviv, 1962); idem, The Old City of Acre. Reexamination Report (Acre, 1993). Since then, many studies have appeared: Adrian J. Boas, “A Rediscovered Market Street in Frankish Acre?,” ʿAtiqot 31 (1997): 181–86; idem, Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlements and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c.1120–1291) (London, 2006), 29–32 (for the Templar’s quarter in Acre); David Jacoby, “Crusader Acre in the Thirteenth Century: Urban Layout and Topography,” Studi medievali 20 (1979): 1–45; idem, “Montmusard, Suburb of Crusader Acre: The First Stage of its Development,” in Outremer, 205–17; idem, “L’évolution urbaine et la fonction méditérranéenne d’Acre à l’époque des Croisades,” in Città portuali del Mediterraneo. Storia e Archeologia. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Genova, 1985), ed. Ennio Poleggi (Genoa, 1989), 95–109; idem, “Les communes italiennes et les Ordres militaires à Acre: aspects juridiques, territoriaux et militaires (1104–1187, 1191–1291),” in État et colonisation au Moyen Age et à la Renaissance. Actes du colloque international (Reims, 2–4 avril 1987), ed. Michel Balard (Lyon, 1989), 193–214; idem, “Aspects of Everyday Life in Frankish Acre,” Crusades 4 (2005): 73–105; Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The Outer Walls of Frankish Acre,” ‘Atiqot 31 (1997): 157–80; Miriam Avissar and Eliezer Stern, “Akko, The Citadel,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 14 (1994): 22–25; Miriam Avissar and Eliezer Stern, “Akko, The Old City,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18 (1998): 13–14; Eliezer Stern, “Excavations in Crusader Acre (1990–1999),” in Il cammino di Gerusalemme. Atti del II Convegno Internazionale di Studio (Bari-Brindisi-Trani, 18–22 maggio 1999), ed. Maria Stella Calò Mariani (Bari, 2002), 163–68; Danny Syon, “Akko, the Knights’ Hotel,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122 (2010), available online: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. aspx?id=1481; Benjamin Z. Kedar and Eliezer Stern, “A Vaulted East West Street in Acre’s Genoese Quarter?,” ‘Atiqot 26 (1995): 105–11; Benjamin Z. Kedar and Eliezer Stern, “Un nuovo sguardo sul quartiere genovese di Acri,” in Mediterraneo genovese. Storia e architettura. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Genova, 29 ottobre 1992), ed. Gabriella Airaldi and Paolo Stringa (Genoa, 1995), 11– 28; Robert Kool, “The Genoese Quarter in Thirteenth Century Acre: A Reinterpretation of its Layout,”

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

109

Acre is viewed from the sea, as if arriving from the south-west. The harbour and the bay in front of the city are crowded by a great number of ships and galleys, most of them displaying the Genoese flag with the cross of Saint George. At the entrance to the harbour, on the right, is a breakwater extending from the southern shore to the east, whose existence is witnessed both by archaeological evidence and medieval sources.60 At the end of the breakwater, near the entrance of the harbour, stands the big guard tower, known as the Tower of the Flies, that is also depicted in Vesconte’s and Paolino’s maps, and whose foundations lie today underwater.61 The Muslim camp is located quite correctly in the upper part of the miniature (we know that al-Ashraf tried to storm the city from the north-east, and that during the final stage of the siege the Mamluks broke into the city westwards, towards Saint Anthony’s Gate);62 in a Saracen camp of tents and pavilions, the sultan receives his ambassadors, while his troops (with the ‘Baybars panther’ on their flags and on their caparisons, as in the Tripoli miniature) are fighting under the city walls against the Hospitallers (on the right, with a white cross on their black shields) and the Templars (on the left side, with a red cross on their tunics and on their flags). In the centre, just to the right of the Templar contingent, is a small group of soldiers holding a different flag on which it is possible to recognize three white “lions passant” on a red background, that could represent the royal arms of England (Fig. 11a–c). The text does not mention the provenance of the different troops that took part in the defence of Acre against the Mamluks, but it is very probable that the artist who painted the miniature was aware that, after the beginning of the siege, King Henry II of Cyprus arrived from the island with 40 ships and more than 2,000 soldiers (4 May 1291), to assist in defending the city. Again, at the upper left corner of the miniature, under a small contingent of Muslim horsemen, there is a big siege machine (a counterweight trebuchet; Fig. 12a) activated by a man with a mansel and apparently shooting towards the Saracen camp. Trebuchets and mangonels, as well as other siege machines, are represented very often in miniatures depicting warfare scenes and attacks on fortified citadels and cities. We find many examples both in Western and Eastern manuscripts of the same period, almost all showing only one siege machine, activated by one man or more (Fig. 12b–c).63 In our case it is possible to imagine that this detail, although being part of a traditional scheme ‘Atiqot 31 (1997): 187–200; Fabrizio Benente, Rita Lavagna, Edna J. Stern, Eliezer Stern and Carlo Varaldo, “Ricerche archeologiche nel quartiere medievale genovese a S. Giovanni d’Acri (Israele),” Rivista di Studi Liguri 75–76 (2009–10): 131–94; Piero Pierotti, Pisa e Accon. L’insediamento pisano nella città crociata. Il porto. Il fondaco (Pisa, 1998); Emanuel P. Wardi, “The Monçoia of the Genoese in Acre,” ‘Atiqot 31 (1997): 201–7. 60  Jacoby, “Crusader Acre in the Thirteenth Century,” 211. 61  Jacoby, “Crusader Acre in the Thirteenth Century,” 212–13; a photograph of the Tower ruins as they appear today is to be found in San Giovanni d’Acri, Akko. Storia e cultura di una città portuale del Mediterraneo, ed. Luciana Menozzi, texts by Gabriella Ferri Piccaluga, Alberto Giuffrè, Luciana Menozzi, and Gabriele Sansone (Rome, 1996), 65. 62  Musarra, Acri 1291, 186. 63  Jim Bradbury, The Medieval Siege (Woodbridge, 1992), 259–70. See, for example, the mangonels and trebuchets depicted in the miniatures reproduced in Hugo Buchthal and Francis Wormald, Miniature

110

CHIARA CONCINA

of siege imagery, could have been introduced to suggest the massive use of war machines during the siege, if not to suggest the construction by the Pisans of a great catapult, which was one of the most effective instruments during the fierce fight for the defence of the city.64 Inside the walls, Acre is represented as a densely built city, made up of houses, churches and towers, possibly reflecting its appearance in the late thirteenth century.65 It is noteworthy that in the centre of the city, next to one another, stand three buildings with a loggia on their façades, and that St. George slaying the dragon as well as the winged lion of St. Mark are depicted on two (central and right) of the three loggias, while the third loggia (the one on the left) has a background painted in red and represents perhaps Pisa, as we can see comparing our picture to the many Pisan flags (always red) depicted on MS Chigi L.VIII.296 (Fig. 13).66 The red loggia, St. George and the lion of St. Mark, i.e. the symbols of Pisa, Genoa and Venice, could indicate the artist’s intention to show the approximate location of the Pisan, Genoese and Venetian quarters of Acre, as they are drawn in Vesconte’s and Paolino’s maps (with the Pisan quarter to the west of the Genoese one, and the Genoese quarter to the west of the Venetian one). However, the presence of a Genoese quarter in Acre at the end of the thirteenth century is unlikely, since the Genoese ceased to have their own quarter in the city after 1258, when they were expelled from it after the war of St. Sabas.67 I am convinced that other details, such as some of the flags and banners, must be linked to Pisa, Genoa and Venice. In fact, the three gates and the two towers of the city walls are all marked by a banner. Starting from the lower right part of Acre’s walls we find: • a gate with the banner of the Hospitallers (a white cross on black field; Fig. 14a), who are represented fighting just above; • a gate with a white banner with a red device, which is the same as the one on the flags of the three small galleys seen leaving the shore on the right part of the coast (Fig. 14b–c). The red device on the flag is difficult to interpret and is half-erased, but I think that it could represent the lion of St. Mark, and that it must be associated with Venice. Indeed, at that time the Venetian banner was Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1957), 72, 79–87, 150–51; Jaroslav Folda, Crusader Manuscript Illumination, pl. 5, 11, 175. 64  Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3:416. We know that the Pisans’ trebuchet was placed in a location different from the one in the miniature, near the church of St. Romanus. See Pringle, Churches, 4:15. 65  Jacoby, “Everyday Life in Frankish Acre.” 66  In Concina, “Unfolding,” 216 n. 56, I hypothesized that the red loggia was unfinished and that it could have referred to Pisa. I was in fact convinced that the artist had simply omitted painting the white cross on the red background to indicate Pisa’s symbol, until Antonio Musarra (whom I wish to thank) pointed out that at the time Pisa’s flag was completely red. 67  Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3:281–86; Antonio Musarra, In partibus Ultramaris. I Genovesi, la crociata e la Terrasanta (secc. XII–XIII) (Rome, 2017), 437–57.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

111

white with a red lion, as can be seen either on the mosaic of St. Isidore’s chapel (completed before 1355) of the cathedral of St. Mark in Venice, in the scene showing the doge Francesco Michiel removing the relics of Isidore from the island of Chios,68 and in the opening miniature of MS Laud. Misc. 587 of the Bodleian Library, made in Venice c.1330, containing Villehardouin’s Conqueste de Constantinople (Fig. 14d);69 • the third gate from the right has the red Pisan banner, which appears also on the two small galleys sailing just below the Venetian ones in Acre’s harbour (Fig 14e–f); • after the “Pisan” gate is a tower with two flags (Fig. 14g): the one on the right displays a half-erased device of what seems to be a gold cross potent with four smaller crosses in each quadrant, that presents similarities with the cross of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Fig. 14h);70 the second flag is difficult to identify: it bears a black bird with a prominent tail on a white background, which looks like a rooster. This point deserves further investigation, but for the moment I would just suggest that it could be a reference (and a tribute?) to the Cocharelli family, which had roosters on their blazon. It should be noted, however, that if the half-erased cross of the right-hand flag is that of Jerusalem and not of Genoa (as far as I can see the device does not show traces of red), the association with the Cocharelli’s rooster would be odd. • the last tower (i.e. the first on the left), has a white flag with a red cross (Fig. 14i) that could be associated with the Templars (fighting above), or with Genoa’s flag (though this seems unlikely), which is also the one depicted on most of the vessels sailing away from Acre’s bay (Fig 14j). What is clear is that, in the artist’s intention, the symbolism that refers to Pisa, Genoa and Venice is recurrent, and that particular emphasis is given to Genoa, since most of the ships in the bay fly Genoese flags.71 Finally, it should be noted that inside the city walls two other buildings are painted with a greater degree of detail: they are the church on the left of, and slightly behind, the loggia with the red background, and the church neighbouring the loggia on the right with the lion of St. Mark. Both churches are represented as three-aisled basilicas with, above the portal, a lunette in which a portrait of a nimbed saint is depicted, and a rose window at the top of their façades. During the 68 

Pietro Saccardo, La cappella di S. Isidoro nella basilica di San Marco (Venice, 1887), 19, 38–45; Mario de Biasi, Il gonfalone di S. Marco (Venice, 1981), 18–19; Enzo De Franceschi, “I mosaici della cappella di Sant’Isidoro nella basilica di San Marco a Venezia,” Arte Veneta 60 (2003): 7–29. 69  Pächt and Alexander, Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, n. 120 and pl. XI. 70  “The device of a cross and four smaller crosses is not associated with the kingdom of Jerusalem till the mid-thirteenth century, when Hugh de Lusignan, whose descent from the Counts of Boulogne was remote, took the title”: Thomas Woodcock and John Martin Robinson, The Oxford Guide to Heraldry (Oxford, 1988), 7. 71  The Genose galleys in the bay of Acre display, next to the Genoese flag, a series of other banners, on which see my forthcoming essay for the abovementioned 2020 issue of Medioevi (see n. 13 above).

112

CHIARA CONCINA

period of Frankish rule, a great number of churches are known to have existed in Acre. Nevertheless, the reconstruction of their exact shape and position is often difficult to establish.72 The identification of the churches in our miniature remains uncertain. The larger one on the left, in the western part of the city, might represent the parish church of St. Andrew, located along the seawalls, between the Templar citadel (which is completely absent from Cocharelli’s miniature) and the harbour, to the west of the Genoese and Venetian quarters.73 This church, the largest one in Acre at the time, is mentioned by the most ancient known portolan, the Compasso de navegare (mid-thirteenth century), as a reference point for entering the harbour safely,74 and its imposing Gothic ruins were still visible at the end of the seventeenth century, when Gravier d’Ortières included them in his drawing of the panoramic view of Acre’s coast.75 As for the church on the right of our miniature, it might represent the Hospitaller Church of St. John, that was located inland to the northeast of the Venetian quarter, towards the walls and south of the Hospitallers’ Palace (that is not depicted in our illuminated page).76 The remains of this church were also still visible in about 1685, and have been included in d’Ortières’s panorama of Acre’s bay.77 However, it is not possible to exclude the possibility that both churches should be connected with the symbolic representation of the Genoese and of the Venetian quarters, and that, consequently, they should be identified with the church of San Lorenzo of the Genoese quarter (the one on the left), and with the parish church of San Marco of the Venetian quarter (the one on the right), which we know from written sources.78 It should be borne in mind that in none of these cases does the representation in the miniature reflect the exact architectural features, position or orientation of the abovementioned churches. The master of the Cocharelli Codex was aware of some of the main features of crusader Acre, such as the general shape of the bay, the existence of the Tower of Flies, the position of the southern reef, the approximate position of the Muslim camp. But he seems to ignore, for example, the existence of the second range of

72 

The main reference work on this subject is Pringle, Churches (vol. 4 for the churches of Acre). Pringle, Churches, 4:63–68 (n. 393). 74  Alessandra Debanne, Lo Compasso de navegare. Edizione del codice Hamilton 396 con commento linguistico e glossario (Brussels, 2011), 75. 75  Kedar, “The Outer Walls of Frankish Acre,” 164–66; Pringle, Churches, 4:28–29; Vardit ShottenHallel, “Reconstructing the Hospitaller Church of St. John, Acre, with the Help of Gravier d’Ortières’s Drawing of 1685–1687,” Crusades 9 (2010): 187–89. 76  For the identification of these two churches, see now also Vardit Shotten-Hallel, “The Architectural Language of the Hospitaller Church of St. John, Acre, and its Historical Context,” in Crusading and Trading between West and East. Studies in Honour of David Jacoby, edited by Sophia Menache, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Michel Balard (Abingdon, 2019), ch. 8. (who also proposes to identify the church on the right with that of St. John, and suggests that the figure painted on the tympanum of the west church could be St. Mary, patroness of the Templars). 77  Pringle, Churches, 4:82–114 (nn. 410–11); Shotten-Hallel, “Reconstructing the Hospitaller Church.” 78  Pringle, Churches, 4:117–19 (n. 415, San Lorenzo), 125–29 (n. 420, San Marco). 73 

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

113

Acre’s walls (to be found on Vesconte’s and Paolino’s plans) enclosing the northwestern part of the city,79 or of the chain used to secure the entrance to the harbour.80 While the text puts greater emphasis on the events that led to the Muslim attack on the city (the casus belli and the responsibilities of the Templars and of the Hospitallers), the Acre miniature, like the Tripoli one, starts with an event narrated in the textual account (the ambassadors speaking with the sultan on the upper right part of the image), but develops the war scene far beyond it. In this case too, the picture completes and, in some cases, expands the narrative, and this seems to be a feature that our codex shares, though with many differences, with the Chigi manuscript of Giovanni Villani’s Chronicle in which: Il testo spesso non descrive minutamente il fatto specifico (che comporterebbe una narrazione prolissa e dispersiva) e, se anche lo facesse, il lettore sarebbe ugualmente costretto a raffigurarsi lo svolgersi degli eventi. I modi del racconto letterario e figurato sono infatti ben diversi. Gli illustratori prendono spunto dai capitoli, ma contribuiscono con il loro lavoro all’arricchimento dell’apparato testuale con informazioni che, se di più complessa lettura per noi, sicuramente apparivano chiare e immediate per il contemporaneo.81

Conclusions Cocharelli’s text and miniatures related to the fall of Tripoli and Acre offer a symbolic and condensed picture of the events in which both reliable and fictional elements are interwoven. I will now briefly crosscheck some information contained in the text with what emerges from the documents and the notarial deeds of this period related to the Cocharelli family in order to attempt some further hypotheses about the value of the codex’s historical accounts: 1) The text of the Cocharelli fragments says that Pellegrino Cocharelli was a citizen of Acre before the fall of the city in 1291 and, seeing that the city was under the rule of unsuitable rulers and destined to be ruined, he decided to move to Genoa bringing with him all the members of his family, along with his large fortune. Later he decided to narrate a series of exemplar stories in order to try to correct the behaviour of one of his sons called Johannes, and these are exactly the 79  Kedar, “The Outer Walls of Frankish Acre”; Jacoby, “Aspects of Everyday Life in Frankish Acre,” 99–103. 80  Jacoby, “Crusader Acre in the Thirteenth Century,” 13–14. 81  Riccardo Luisi in Il Villani illustrato, 23: “The text often does not minutely describe the specific fact (this would have led to a long-winded and dispersive narrative) and, even if it did, the reader would still be forced to imagine the development of the events. The ways of literary narration are indeed very different from the figurative ones. The illuminators draw inspiration from the text’s chapters, but also contribute with their work to enrich the textual apparatus with information that is today difficult for us to read, but that certainly appeared clear and immediate to contemporary readers.”

114

CHIARA CONCINA

stories the anonymous grandson of Pellegrino inserts into his treatise,82 affirming in turn that he remembers them for the education of his own children, and of his son “Johanninus” in particular. It should be noted that the latest datable historical event contained in Pellegrino’s account is the death of Philip the Fair in 1314. 2) Documentary evidence affirms the following: • that a “Pelerin Coquerel” is mentioned in a 1269 document, certifying that he sold to the Hospitallers, for 1700 Saracen besants, an inheritance situated in the “rue des Provensaus”;83 • that in the years 1273–74 the same individual is mentioned as a member of the Court of Burgesses of Acre;84 • that in 1279 a debt was paid back to him by the vicar of the Angevin court of Naples in the kingdom of Jerusalem;85 • that in a letter (datable between 1278 and 1284) he was appointed by Nicholas Lorgne, the Hospitaller Master, to go to England to recover a debt from King Edward I;86 • “Pelerinum Cocharelum” is mentioned again in 1300, in a deed drawn in Cyprus by Lamberto of Sambuceto;87 • his name appears together with that of “Johannes” (presented as his son) in three documents drawn up in Genoa in 1307, concerning some transactions related to the French fairs of Lagny and Provins.88 82  “Post tamen magnus tempus, uolens corrigere natum suum quidam nomine Johannes, me audiente, sibi protulit ista uerba […]” (BL Add. 27695, fol. 3ra); Concina, “Unfolding,” 197. 83  Cart Hosp, 3:195–96, n. 3334. 84  Riccardo Predelli, “Le reliquie dell’archivio dell’ordine Teutonico in Venezia,” Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti 64 (1904-1905): 1379-1463, at 1444 (n° 62), 1445 (n° 64), 1447 (n° 66). 85  Fabbri, “Vizi e virtù,” 102, n. 10, and Documents en français des archives angevins de Naples. Les mandements aux Trésoriers, ed. A. De Bouard (Paris, 1933), 146, 154. 86  Cart Hosp, 4:297, n. 3653bis. According to Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “The Teutonic Knights in Acre after the Fall of Montfort (1271): Some Reflections,” in Outremer, 273, n. 3, “Pelerin Coqueriau entered the Order of St. John about 1281”; but it should be noted that Favreau-Lilie refers to the summary of the document given in RRH, n. 1443a, in which it is stated that “Nicole Lorgne, magister Hospitalis, Eduardum I, regem Angliae, rogat ut Pelerin Coquerel fratri in occidentem misso CCLIV bisantios solvat”; this information is followed by the reference to Delaville Le Roulx, Cart Hosp. The French text of the letter (that must be dated between 1278 and 1284; see Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars. History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden and Boston, 2008), 597) simply mentions the name of “Pelerin Coquerel” without the epithet “frater” or “frere.” As a consequence, it is not possible to affirm or to prove that Pelerin entered the Order of St. John. 87  Cornelio Desimoni, “Actes passés à Famagouste de 1299 à 1301 par devant le notaire génois Lamberto de Sambuceto,” AOL 2 (1884): 23–24, n. 39; and Actes de Famagouste du notaire génois Lamberto di Sambuceto: décembre 1299-septembre 1300, ed. Michel Balard, William Duba and Christopher Schabel (Nicosia, 2012), 48–49, n. 39. 88  Renée Doehaerd, Les relations commerciales entre Gênes, la Belgique et l’Outremont d’après les archives notariales génoises aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles, 3 vols. (Brussels and Rome, 1941), 2:953–55,

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

115

Based on this evidence, we can infer that Pellegrino was a citizen of Acre; that some time between 1278 and 1284 he possibly moved from Acre to Genoa; and that at the beginning of the thirteenth century he was still active in trade, conducting his commercial activities between Genoa, Cyprus and northern Europe. From the 1307 documents we know that he had at least one son, called Johannes, who not only is the same son of Pellegrino named by our treatise, but also who seems to be the same “Johan Coqueriau” mentioned as the patron of a manuscript copied in 1309 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Lat. 4788), containing a translation and a commentary of Boethius’s De consolatione philosophiae, written in Outremer French by an author called Pierre de Paris.89 We have no mention of Pellegrino’s name in official documents after 1307, while – if it is true that he was the narrator of the events related to the death of Philip the Fair – we should infer that he was alive until 1314 at least. Pellegrino Cocharelli possibly left the Latin East prior to the defeats of 1289 and 1291, and did not witness these events personally. Consequently, he must have relied for his tales on second-hand information, recollected in Genoa or in Cyprus. It should also be noted that the narratives are written by Pellegrino’s grandson some thirty years after the events, and that they are not only based on an oral account but are also possibly revised to fit the purposes of a moral treatise, aimed at the edification of the youngest members of the family. The miniatures seem to reflect a similar hybrid situation. Indeed, it is possible that the Cocharelli master had access to some basic information about the shape and the main features of the coastlines and of the architecture in Tripoli and Acre. This information could have been drawn from oral and from written sources, as well as from portolan charts and atlases, which often offer city views.90 In addition, the general iconographic structure of the two miniatures reveals (and this happens also for several other miniatures in the Cocharelli codex) a knowledge of Eastern figurative models.91 nn. 1633, 1634, 1637. See also Fabbri, “Il codice Cocharelli tra Europa, Mediterraneo e Oriente,” 289. 89  On this translation see Chiara Concina, “Le Prologue de Pierre de Paris à la traduction du De Consolatione Philosophiae de Boèce,” Le Moyen Français 74 (2014): 23–46; eadem, “Traduzione e rielaborazione nel Boece di Pierre de Paris,” in Francofonie medievali. Lingue e letterature galloromanze fuori di Francia (sec. XII–XV), ed. Anna Maria Babbi and Chiara Concina (Verona, 2016), 45– 73; Chiara Concina, “Boethius in Cyprus? Pierre de Paris’s translation of the Consolatio Philosophiae,” in Medieval Francophone Literary Culture Outside France: Studies in the Moving Word, ed. Nicola Morato and Dirk Schoenaers, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe 28 (Turnhout, 2019), 165–90. This paper discusses in detail the documents related to the Cocharelli family and those concerning Giovanni Cocharelli in particular. 90  Tony Campell, “Portolan Charts from Late Thirteenth Century to 1500,” in History of Cartography, ed. John Brian Harley and David Woodward, 3 vols. in 6 (Chicago and London, 1987– 2007), 1:371–463. 91  Fabbri, “Vizi e virtù,” 96: “di segno orientale è anche la strutturazione dello spazio, non formata sui modelli prospettici toscani, bensì concepita attraverso una visione a volo d’uccello delle scene d’assedio o come un giustapporsi di piani differenziati solo dalle strisce geometriche sul fondo, tipico espediente della scuola di Tabriz […].”

116

CHIARA CONCINA

To conclude, the Cocharelli Codex offers an illustrated narrative that, despite mixing historical and fanciful or fictional details, must be considered a most remarkable and original product of the Genoese cultural milieu of the early fourteenth century, and the result of an intricate layering of influences and experiences, ultimately offering a unique and lively insight into Mediterranean history.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

Fig. 1 The fall of Tripoli, BL Add. 27695, fol. 5r. © The British Library Board.

117

118

CHIARA CONCINA

Fig. 2 3D satellite map of the coastline of the Municipality of El-Mina (Tripoli) as it appears today. © Google Earth.

Fig. 3 a) The fall of Tripoli, detail of a Mamluk horseman, MS Add. 27695, fol. 5r. © The British Library Board.

b) The fall of Acre in 1291, detail of a Saracen attacking a fugitive with a panther rampant within his shield, Vatican Library, MS Chigi L.VIII.296, fol. 150v. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

c) Saracen knights, with a flag with the panther rampant, from Marino Sanudo’s Secreta fidelium crucis, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 190, fol. 22r. 3a © The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford.

3b

3c

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

4a

4b

4c Fig. 4 a) The fall of Tripoli, Mamluk horseman wearing a round brimmed military hat, MS Add. 27695, fol. 5r. © The British Library Board.

b) Catalan soldier, Vatican Library, MS Chigi L.VIII.296, fol. 193r. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

c) Mamluk attack on Acre in 1291 (the helmets are here worn by besieged Christians), from the History of Outremer, MS Reg. lat. 737, fol. 383v. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

119

120

CHIARA CONCINA

Fig. 5 a) BL Add. 27695 fol. 5r, detail showing quartered blazon. © The British Library Board.

b) County of Tripoli, Bohemond VI, silver gros, +boemvndvs comes, cross with a tressure, rev., +civitas tripoli, eightpointed star within tressure.

Reproduced by permission of the Museum of the Order of St. John, University of Birmingham.

5a

5b Fig. 6 a) BL Add. 27695 fol. 5r, detail showing Tripolitan palace. © The British Library Board.

b) County of Tripoli, Bohemond VII, ar gros, +septimvs·boemvndvs·comes, cross with a tressure, rev., +civitas·tripolis·svrie, three-towered castle in tressure. Reproduced by permission of the Museum of the Order of St. John, University of Birmingham.

c) Gold “genovino” (1252–1339), +i·a·n·v·a, gate, rev., +cvnradus·rex, cross, from Cornelio Desimoni, Tavole descrittive delle monete della zecca di Genova, dal MCXXXIX al MDCCCXIV (Genoa, 1890), pl. I, fig. 10.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

6a

6b

6c

121

122

CHIARA CONCINA

Fig. 7 BL Add. 27695, fol. 7r (in the upper margin: The cathedral of San Lorenzo, Genoa). © The British Library Board.

Fig. 8 The so-called Tower of the Embriaci, Genoa, from Gustavo Strafforello, La Patria. Geografia dell’Italia, 6: Province di Genova e Porto Maurizio (Turin, 1892), pl. 12.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

Fig. 9 The siege of Acre, Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

123

124

CHIARA CONCINA

Fig. 10 A plan with the reconstruction of crusader Acre (1258–63), compiled by Denys Pringle, drawn by Ian Dennis. From Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187-1291, ed. Denys Pringle (Farnham and Burlington, 2012), fig. 7. 11a

11b Fig. 11 a) The siege of Acre, detail showing, possibly, the Royal English flags, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

b) Royal Arms of England, from Matthew Paris, Chronica maiora (1250–59), London, British Library, MS Royal 14 C VII, fol. 53r. © The British Library Board.

c) Edward II of England, Vatican City, Vatican Library, MS Chigi L.VIII.296, fol. 225v. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

11c

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

125

12a Fig. 12 a) The siege of Acre, detail showing a trebuchet, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

12b

b) A trebuchet on triangular supports depicted in the Annales Ianuenses of MS Paris, BnF, lat. 10136 (12th and 13th centuries), fol. 107r. © Bibliothèque nationale de France.

c) A catapult operated by a man with a mansel, from Rashid-al-Din Fażl-Allāh’s Jāmeʿal-tawāriḵ, Edinburgh, University Library, Special Collections, Or. MS 20, fol. 20r (between 1307–8 and 1314–15). © Edinburgh University Library. The whole manuscript is online at: https://images.is.ed. ac.uk/luna/servlet/media/book/showBook/ UoEsha~4~4~64742~103064.

12c

Fig. 13 Pisans defeated at the battle of Fosso Arnonico (1276), the Pisan soldiers bear red shields and banners, MS Chigi L.VIII.296, fol. 119v. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

126

CHIARA CONCINA

14b 14a

14c Fig. 14 a) The first gate on the right, with the Hospitallers’ flag, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

b) The second gate from the right, with the white Venetian flag with a red lion, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

c) Venetian galleys leaving Acre, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

COCHARELLI CODEX: THE FALL OF TRIPOLI AND ACRE

14d

Fig. 14 d) Venetian crusaders sailing towards Constantinople and bearing the flags with the lion of St. Mark, from Villehardouin, La Conqueste de Constantinople, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. Misc. 587 (c.1330), fol. 1r. © The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford.

e) The third gate from the right, with the Pisan red flag, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

f) Pisan galleys, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

14e

14f

127

128

CHIARA CONCINA

14g

14h

14i

14j Fig. 14 g) The first tower, after the third gate from the right, with a white flag with the cross of the kingdom of Jerusalem and another unidentified flag, possibly bearing a black rooster on it (the Cocharelli’s device?), MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

h) The cross of the kingdom of Jerusalem, from William Wood Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, History and Art (New York and London, 1898), 364. i) The first tower from the left, with the Templar (or Genoese?) flag, MS inv. 2065 C. © Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

j) A Genoese ship, MS inv. 2065 C.

© Museo Nazionale del Bargello.

The Church of Limassol at the Death of Bishop Francesco, 1351 Chris Schabel University of Cyprus [email protected] Abstract This article publishes several stray documents in the Vatican Archives concerning the legacy of Francesco d’Arezzo, bishop of Limassol in Cyprus from 1346 to 1351. Sometimes fragmentary in themselves, the documents present a fragmentary picture of (1) the person of the bishop, (2) the status of the church of Limassol at his death, (3) the succession to the episcopal see, and (4) the dispute over the bishop’s legacy between the cathedral chapter and the representatives of the Apostolic See. The documents illustrate the financial ties between Avignon and the Latin East and the functioning of ecclesiastical administration. Furthermore, with the aid of published and unpublished papal letters and the general context, this paper links the four issues and hypothesizes that the bishop was a local whose personal and professional property had become entangled, leading to a conflict between Cypriot and papal agents.

In the Latin East, perhaps we know more about the bishopric of Limassol in the mid-fourteenth century than about any other see at any time. This is due to a series of documents surviving in the Instrumenta Miscellanea of the Vatican Archives, especially those connected to the exhaustive audit following the death of Bishop Guy d’Ibelin (1357–67), a local Dominican, published and studied by Jean Richard.1 Less famous, but in some ways equally enlightening, are the documents I thank Ludivine Voisin, who identified Instrumenta Miscellanea 1967, 2017, and 4747 as pertaining to Cyprus, and Daniel Williman, who alerted me to his discovery of the fragment in Reg. Aven. 346 and to the entry on Francesco d’Arezzo in D. Williman and K. Corsano, The Right of Spoils of the Popes of Avignon, 1316–1415, 2nd revised and augmented edition (Cambridge, MA, 2020), 180–81, no. 330. I thank the Vatican Archives for allowing Adinel Dincă, Ludivine Voisin, and myself to check problem spots in Document 4 with a UV lamp. 1  Number 2467: Jean Richard, “Guy d’Ibelin, O.P., évêque de Limassol, et l’inventaire de ses biens (1367),” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 74.1 (1950): 98–133, repr. in idem, Les relations entre l’Orient et l’Occident au Moyen Âge. Etudes et documents (London, 1977), V, at 107–33 (except for Guy’s library books); Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent and Jean Richard, “La bibliothèque d’un évêque dominicain de Chypre en 1367,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 21 (1951): 447–54, repr. in Richard, Les relations, VI, at 451–54 (Guy’s library). Number 2468: Jean Richard, Chypre sous les Lusignans. Documents chypriotes des archives du Vatican (XIVe et XVe siècles) (Paris, 1962), 76–110. There are related unpublished documents, 5237 and 5274, but they do not contain significant additional information. For an attempt at a complete catalogue of such documents for Cyprus, see now Chris Schabel and William O. Duba, “Instrumenta Miscellanea Cypria. A Catalogue of Cypriot Documents in the Instrumenta Miscellanea of the Vatican Archives,” in Incorrupta monumenta Ecclesiam defendunt. 129

130

CHRIS SCHABEL

preserved concerning Bishop Francesco d’Arezzo (1346–51), another Dominican. One, recently published, contains what may be the sole surviving dossier of a Latin bishop’s consecration in the East, from the start of Francesco’s episcopate.2 Others, published below, pertain to a dispute over Bishop Francesco’s legacy following his death, pitting members of the cathedral chapter against the agents of the papacy, leading to an appeal, and moving from Nicosia to Avignon. The episode provides an interesting snapshot of the church of Limassol and its close connections with the Apostolic See around the time of the Black Death. In order to explain the dispute, however, it is necessary to examine first the bishop’s identity and the status of the church of Limassol. It is plausible that Francesco was a rather rich bishop of a relatively poor see, the lines between whose personal and professional property became blurred, leading to the conflicting claims over his legacy. Bishop Francesco d’Arezzo When Francesco d’Arezzo was consecrated bishop of Limassol on 24 September 1346, the town on the southern coast of Cyprus in which his cathedral stood had seen better, or at least more exciting, days. The seat of a Latin bishop since 1196, five years after Richard the Lionheart’s conquest of the island in the course of the Third Crusade, Limassol rose to international prominence following the fall of Acre in 1291. Already the primary port of the kingdom of Cyprus, Limassol became the headquarters of both of the main military orders of the Latin East, the Templars and the Hospitallers, while the smaller order of St. Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury was based in the countryside nearby, the mendicant orders were arriving in the town, and various Franks and Italian merchants, notably a community of Pisans with their own church, rounded out the Latin-rite population in the largely Greek-rite diocese. In 1346, however, the Templars were no more, the Hospitallers had moved to Rhodes, the base of the Order of St. Thomas was in London, and Famagusta had replaced Limassol as the kingdom’s leading port. Limassol’s cathedral of Notre-Dame, a pre-conquest structure taken over from the Venetian community after 1191, must have seemed inadequate in the decade or so after 1291, but even before the arrival of the Black Death it was probably sufficient to serve local needs Studi offerti a mons. Sergio Pagano, prefetto dell’Archivio Segreto Vaticano. II. Archivi, Archivistica, Diplomatica, Paleografia, ed. Andreas Gottsmann, Pierantonio Piatti, and Andreas E. Rehberg (Vatican City, 2018), 807–20. 2  Number 1717: Chris Schabel, “Ab hac hora in antea. Oaths to the Roman Church in Frankish Cyprus (and Greece),” in Crusader Landscapes in the Medieval Levant: The Archaeology and History of the Latin East, ed. Micaela Sinibaldi, Kevin J. Lewis, Balazs Major, and Jennifer A. Thompson (Cardiff, 2016), 361–72, at 369–71. Despite the abundant documentary evidence, Francesco is not mentioned in narrative sources and hence is absent from the biographies of bishops of Limassol in John Hackett, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus: From the Coming of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas to the Commencement of the British Occupation (A.D. 45–A.D.1878). Together with Some Account of the Latin and Other Churches Existing in the Island (London, 1901), 573.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

131

once more. Indeed, since Nicosia was not only the archiepiscopal see, but also the capital of the Lusignan dynasty, bishops of Limassol were spending increasingly more of their time in their residence in Nicosia in the fourteenth century. A good indication of the status of Limassol at the time is that the Greek bishop of Lefkara, with jurisdiction over the Greeks of the diocese of Limassol, never seems to have based himself even temporarily in Limassol proper, unlike in the other three sees, Nicosia, Famagusta, and Paphos, in the former two of which survive substantial ruins of impressive Greek cathedrals in a mixed Gothic-Byzantine style.3 Who was Francesco d’Arezzo? When Pope Clement VI appointed him in 1346, the letter referred to him as a priest and a Dominican; contrary to the published summary, however, he is not called the king’s confessor, but he is labelled as such on 20 April 1349.4 On 4 December 1345, a few months before Francesco’s appointment, Clement had granted a Dominican named Francis of Cyprus a plenary indulgence in articulo mortis; although the entry in the Bullarium Cyprium records that this Francis was the king’s confessor, the manuscript itself actually says that he was the confessor of the queen.5 On this basis, given that the bishop was supposedly from Arezzo, I have previously written that the two are “apparently” not identical.6 But could they be the same man? It would be quite a coincidence for both the king and the queen to have Dominican confessors named Francis, and one of the fragments edited below seems to suggest – in unfortunately vague Latin – that Bishop Francesco was confessor to the king’s familia, i.e., family or household, saying that most of his expenses were covered “by our lord king and the royal court as the confessor and of his familia” (a domino nostro rege et curia regali tanquam confessor et de familia ipsius). Before we go further, let us look at a parallel case, Bishop Baldwin of Famagusta (1309/10–1327), who, according to an inscription on St. Nicholas Cathedral and a letter of Pope Clement V of 1313, claimed much of the credit for its construction. This was Baldwin Lambert, but papal letters clarify that he was also known as Master Baldwin of Cyprus, canon of Nicosia on 19 May 1309 and bishop by 1 May 3  On the church of Limassol in the Frankish period in general, see Angel Nicolaou-Konnari and Chris Schabel, “Frankish and Venetian Limassol,” in Lemesos. A History of Limassol in Cyprus from Antiquity to the Ottoman Conquest, ed. idem (Newcastle, 2015), 196–359, at 216–42, 258–80, and 306–19, and also Nicholas Coureas, The Latin Church in Cyprus 1195–1312 (Aldershot, 1997), passim, and idem, The Latin Church in Cyprus 1313–1378 (Nicosia, 2010), passim, 198, 200–01, and 265 on the events discussed here. 4  Charles Perrat and Jean Richard, with Chris Schabel, Bullarium Cyprium, vol. III: Lettres papales relatives à Chypre 1316–1378 (Nicosia, 2012), nos. t–191 (26 June 1346) and t–544 (8 September 1350; ASV, Reg. Suppl. 22, fol. 137r: “confessori regis Cipri”); ASV, Reg. Suppl. 19, fol. 253r (20 April 1349; not in Bullarium Cyprium III): “Frater Franciscus episcopus Nimociensis confessor domini regis Cipri”; contrary to the summary, no. t–567, also from 8 September 1350, does not concern Friar Anthony the king’s confessor, but the king’s cantor or singer (ASV, Reg. Suppl. 22, fol. 137r: “fratri Anthonio cantori regis Cipri”). 5  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. t–173; ASV, Reg. Suppl. 10, fol. 122v: “fratre Francisco de Cipro confessore regine Cipri.” 6  Schabel, “Ab hac hora in antea,” 372, n. 16.

132

CHRIS SCHABEL

1310. Master Baldwin of Cyprus was already canon of Nicosia on 20 March and 23 August 1299, and he may also have been the Baldwin of Cyprus who was canon of Tortosa on 22 June 1298, who played an important role in the election of Guy of Trento as bishop of Famagusta, and the Bandinus of Cyprus who was canon of Nicosia on 31 July 1298.7 Master Baldwin could have picked up the name ‘of Cyprus’ while studying in the West. Thus it is possible that Francesco d’Arezzo was also known as Francis of Cyprus, a name change resulting from moving around in the Dominican Order. There was a Dominican conversus or lay-brother named Francis of Cyprus in the order’s Nicosia convent in 1329–30, and at the Council of Nicosia in 1340 the Dominican prior provincial of the Holy Land was called Francis of Limassol.8 When Clement VI appointed Francesco, the pope was filling the vacancy at King Hugh IV’s request, believing that Hugh already held Francesco in high regard (quem tibi gratum esse credimus).9 As we shall see presently, Francesco obtained posts for two of his nephews, Simone and Benvenuto “d’Arezzo,” and Simone entered the Dominican Order while on Cyprus. More importantly, the fragments from the process edited below also indicate that Francesco’s niece lived with him and was married to a local. Now, although King Hugh IV’s admiral, Angelo Bettoni d’Arezzo, died in Cyprus, he was a citizen of Arezzo and the city got involved with his will, so one could obviously be from Arezzo but living in Cyprus.10 Nevertheless, it is possible 7 

Anne Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus: A Complete English Translation (Leiden, 1988), 44, 93, 104; Chris Schabel, “A Neglected Quarrel over a House in Cyprus in 1299: The Nicosia Franciscans vs. the Chapter of Nicosia Cathedral,” Crusades 8 (2009): 173–90, docs. 1 and 3, at 184 and 186; idem, Bullarium Cyprium, vol. II: Papal Letters Involving Cyprus 1261–1314 (Nicosia, 2010), nos. o–30, o–33, q–50, q–78, q–100; Michalis Olympios, “The Shifting Mantle of Jerusalem: Ecclesiastical Architecture in Lusignan Famagusta,” in Famagusta, Volume I. Art and Architecture, ed. Annemarie Weyl Carr (Turnhout, 2014), 75–142, at 87–88. 8  Christina Kaoulla and Chris Schabel, “The Inquisition against Peter de Castro, Vicar of the Dominican Province of the Holy Land, in Nicosia, Cyprus, 1330,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 77 (2007): 121–98, repr. in Chris Schabel, Greeks, Latins, and the Church in Early Frankish Cyprus (Farnham, 2010), VII, at §§54–73, at 167–69; Chris Schabel, The Synodicum Nicosiense and Other Documents of the Latin Church of Cyprus, 1196–1373 (Nicosia, 2001), no. L.14, at 259. 9  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. t–199, although the summary is misleading: the king is not said to have asked for Francesco specifically; cf. ASV, Reg. Vat. 140, fol. 71v–72r. 10  This supplements Nicholas Coureas, “The Admirals of Lusignan Cyprus,” Crusades 15 (2016): 117–34. Angelo Bettoni is mentioned in Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. u–94 (5 April 1356, post mortem, ASV, Reg. Vat. 238, fol. 49v: capitaneus), u–95 (ASV, Reg. Vat. 244F, fol. 91r: amiratus galearum tuarum), u–166, and v–134 (ASV, Reg. Vat. 248, fol. 134r: Hugonis regis Cipri genitoris tui admiratus; ASV, Reg. Suppl. 45, fol. 78v: olim admiratus divine memorie domini Hugonis illustrissimi regis Cipri). Angelo Bettoni must have died before 8 September 1350, because John of Tyre is already called amiratori regni Cipri on that date, no. t–539 (ASV, Reg. Suppl. 22, fol. 144r), eleven years before previously thought. After John of Tyre’s death in May 1368, Peter of Tyre is already called admirato regni Cipri on 1 November, no. v–214 (ASV, Reg. Vat. 249, fol. 182r), so the succession was probably immediate. The first evidence for Peter Caffran being admiratus is already in the late spring of 1383: Michel Balard, Laura Balletto, and Chris Schabel, Gênes et l’Outre-mer. Actes notariés de Famagouste et d’autres localités du Proche-Orient (XIVe–XVe s.) (Nicosia, 2013), part II, no. 74, at 294. Caffran’s immediate successor was probably another previously unknown admiral, John Babin, already amiratus regni Cypri in 1399 and until at least 9 October 1410: Christina Kaoulla, “The Quest for a Royal Bride.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

133

that Arezzo was a family name for Francesco, and that he and his nephews and niece were members of the Pisan community of Limassol, given that Arezzo is not so distant from Pisa in Tuscany. If so, could the vague phrase above about Francesco’s expenses being paid by the king and the royal court as confessor “and of his familia” mean instead Francesco’s family? We can thus present the following as a possible biography for Francesco: born in Limassol around 1300 to a Tuscan family that was part of the Pisan community of merchants and had its ultimate origins in Arezzo, Francesco became a Dominican conversus in the 1320s, joined the order as a friar in the 1330s, rose to Dominican prior provincial on the basis of his local connections, and became confessor of the queen (and perhaps the king). In 1346, King Hugh IV suggested to Clement VI that the pope transfer Itier de Nabinaud, whose family Hugh had known for many years, from Limassol to Famagusta, and appoint Francesco to the see of Limassol. Something similar would happen in 1357, when the local Dominican Guy d’Ibelin was appointed bishop of Limassol following King Hugh’s recommendation.11 Finally, this scenario would explain the main element of the controversy that followed Francesco’s death. If Francesco had substantial personal wealth obtained before becoming bishop of Limassol, even before entering the clergy, wealth that was distinct from his possessions qua bishop, the agents of the papacy instructed to collect the spoils following Francesco’s demise may have failed to make the distinction, while the local representatives of the chapter protested that the church of Limassol was institutionally poor. The Chapter of Limassol Cathedral at the Time of Bishop Francesco The dispute hinged not only on Francesco’s personal wealth, but also on the economic status of the church of Limassol. When the see of Limassol was established in 1196, it had a chapter consisting of an archdeacon, a cantor, a treasurer, and apparently only six canons, which arrangement was probably confirmed as perpetual in 1221, unless economic and/or demographic conditions warranted an increase in the number of canons.12 The audit of 1367 shows that, after the vicissitudes of the intervening years, the cathedral still, or again, had the same number of positions in

The Marriage of King Janus of Cyprus and Anglesia Visconti of Milan” (PhD diss., University of Cyprus, 2017), esp. 176–222, and Louis de Mas Latrie, Histoire de l’île de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan, vol. 2 (Paris, 1852), 495. Finally, a papal document shows that Peter le Jeune was already admiral of Cyprus on 19 February 1414: Apostolos Kouroupakis, “Η Κύπρος και το Μεγάλο Σχίσμα της Δύσης (1378–1417)” [Cyprus and the Great Schism of the West (1378–1417)], 2 vols. (PhD diss., University of Cyprus, 2018), 2:430 (from ASV, Reg. Lat. 161, fol. 300v). 11  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. u–149. 12  Chris Schabel, Bullarium Cyprium I: Papal Letters Involving Cyprus 1196–1261 (Nicosia, 2010), no. c–30, specified six for Famagusta and, in the margin, eight for the more wealthy see of Paphos, so probably Limassol was omitted by mistake.

134

CHRIS SCHABEL

the chapter, and the documents provide us with their names and salaries.13 Papal letters allow us to reconstruct the higher cathedral staff during Bishop Francesco’s tenure, however, and it appears that the situation may have been more complicated. The positions of archdeacon, cantor, and treasurer, of course, remained, and there was no cathedral dean. When Pope Clement VI appointed Francesco on 26 June 1346, the archdeacon was a Bolognese named Alberto Baldoino d’Ossano della Cecca, son of the late Francesco and nephew of former Bishop Lambertino of Limassol (1337–44). The post of archdeacon had been vacant for about eighteen years when Alberto was appointed in 1343, a year before his uncle Lambertino was transferred to Brescia, and Alberto remained archdeacon until his death, probably in the fall of 1357.14 The last cantor we hear of by name is Henry Hamelin, who held the post in 1319, having served in the cathedral in some capacity for over twenty years already, so if he was still cantor in 1346, he was quite old.15 Whoever the cantor was when Francesco took over, that person died relatively soon afterward and between mid-1347 and early 1349 Francesco managed to obtain the post for his nephew Simone d’Arezzo, who had received a canonry with expectancy of a prebend on 14 July 1347. After Simone joined the Dominican Order, Francesco procured the post for another nephew, Benvenuto, who, although not yet 19 years of age (in his 18th year, however), received the position on 19 April 1349 and remained cantor at least until 1367.16 The cathedral treasurer was James of Paschalis, perhaps a relative of contemporaries Matthew and John Paschalis. As a deacon James already possessed a lesser post called an “assise” when he was given a canonry with expectancy of a prebend in 1322. James was called canon and treasurer in 1340, when, at the Council of Nicosia, he is recorded as knowing both Latin and Greek. Since the post of treasurer had a lower salary than that of canon, perhaps James had two posts, which would explain why following his death, probably in late 1348, his canonry with prebend was given in 1349 to Archambaud de Montencès, who held it until his death in 1361, and although Bernard Anselme had received papal letters promising him the treasury, in 1350 Nicholas Cristal, chaplain of the seneschal John of Ibelin, succeeded James as treasurer, remaining in the post at least until 1356, having become papal chaplain in 1350.17 At least fifteen people could claim to be canons of Limassol at Francesco’s accession, but it is difficult to determine how many had the salaries to go with it. 13 

Richard, Chypre sous les Lusignans, 92–93. Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. s–33, t–35, t–36, t–114, t–148, u–173, and u–175. 15  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. r–89. 16  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–256, t–320 (ASV, Reg. Vat. 188, fol. 224v: “cum in decimo octavo etatis tue anno dumtaxat constitutus existas”); Richard, Chypre sous les Lusignans, 92, 105, 107, 108. 17  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. r–133, t–368, t–408, t–450, t–459, t–470, t–595, u–114, u–283; Synodicum Nicosiense, no. L.14, at 259; for Matthew and John, see Nicholas Coureas and Chris Schabel, The Cartulary of the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom of Nicosia (Nicosia, 1997), no. 113, at 289, and no. 130, at 311. 14 

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

135

There are two complicating factors: first, popes, especially Clement VI (1342–52), gave canonries with an expectancy of a future prebend, the conditions of which were expressed in formulaic sections of the papal letters, although they were not identical; second, although the number of fixed canonries in a cathedral chapter could stay the same, in the case of Limassol theoretically six, the pope could make temporary exceptions, allowing himself, prelates, or kings, for example, to appoint favorites. Thus even if we have more than six canons, even with prebends, at a given time, this does not mean that the statutory number had also changed. When Francesco became bishop, (1) James Paschalis possessed a canonry with prebend, as we have seen. (2) Federico di Bargagli, son of Simon, had received a canonry with expectancy of a prebend back in 1317 and, as we shall see, Canon Federico was vicar of Limassol following Francesco’s death, remaining canon at least into the late 1350s.18 (3) William of Acre had an expectancy in 1318, when he was the chaplain of Simon d’Aguilers, and William was listed as a canon of Limassol in 1343. After William’s death in 1348, George Homodei (already canon, with expectancy: see below) received his prebend in January 1349.19 (4) Goffredo Spanzota had become canon of Limassol via a trade in 1327 and retained the prebend almost 40 years until his death in late 1365 or early 1366.20 (5) James of St. Prosper, who witnessed a document in Nicosia in 1327 and studied law from 1307 to 1335, when he received a canonry with expectancy of a prebend, was canon of Limassol and the official of Archbishop Elias of Nabinaud at the Council of Nicosia in 1340, where he interpreted for the Greeks. Following James’s death on 6 December 1351, William of Verny, son of the knight of the same name, received his canonry and prebend on 17 February 1352.21 Finally, (6) Arnald de la Faye, who received his expectancy in July 1342, almost certainly had a canonry and prebend by Francesco’s appointment, because following Arnald’s death they were given on 8 March 1351 to Elias of Jardronne, familar of Cardinal Talleyrand, at the latter’s request, with Elias holding them until his death shortly before 6 March 1372, when they were granted to someone else.22 That makes six canons for whom we are practically certain that they possessed prebends in mid-1346, either because they died soon afterwards and their prebends were granted to others or because they had been canons for decades. Yet there seem to have been others. (7) Pèlerin Benout was most probably canon of Limassol with prebend in 1346, but the first time we hear of him is on 2 July 1350, after his death, when his canonry and prebend were given to Bernard Anselme, who remained canon of Limassol until after 1368.23 (8) On 10 May 1349, the nephew 18 

1357.

19 

Bullarium Cyprium III, no. r–16; ASV, Instrumentum Miscellaneum 4954, fol. 1r, 11 September

Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. r–63, t–48, t–363. Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. r–335, v–140. 21  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. s–6, t–604, u–2; Synodicum Nicosiense, no. L.14, at 259; Coureas and Schabel, Cartulary, no. 109, at 280. 22  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–4, t–606, w–77. 23  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. t–470; Richard, Chypre sous les Lusignans, 76–110 passim. 20 

136

CHRIS SCHABEL

of Simon the bailli of the Secrète, Bertrand of Montolif, who was given an expectancy on 25 September 1345, a year before Francesco’s consecration, was called canon of Limassol and not simply an expectant canon when he received a canonry with expectant prebend in Nicosia, so he, too, was most likely a canon with prebend around the time Francesco became bishop. Indeed, on 1 October 1352 Firmin Barthélemy d’Uzès, canon of Nicosia, claimed that Bertrand was unjustly occupying the Limassol canonry and prebend of the late James Paschalis, but, since they had been given to Archambaud de Montencès, Firmin may have been mistaken about the circumstances of Bertrand of Montolif’s benefice.24 At any rate, there seems to have been a given moment during Bishop Francesco’s reign when there were at least eight canons with prebends, not including the archdeacon, cantor, and treasurer. Still, we have to be cautious about numbering others among the canons with prebends. The abovementioned George Homodei, for example, who received a prebend in January 1349, was already addressed in a letter as “canon of Limassol” on 12 September 1347, when he was a familiar of the king and the “cardinal of Nicosia,” that is, former Archbishop Elias of Nabinaud. The letter itself specifies that George was merely expecting a prebend in Limassol in 1347, and eventually his single canonry and prebend were given to John de Longo on 30 January 1350 (John had been given an expectancy in Nicosia back in 1325 and died in 1356).25 In contrast, John of Montolif, who had a canonry and prebend on 25 July 1343, may have died before Francesco’s appointment, because he had received his expectancy in 1319 and was thus probably approaching 50 years of age.26 The fact that John of Montolif was still expecting a prebend in 1328,27 nine years after becoming canon, should warn us against claiming that Limassol Cathedral had more than eight canons with prebends – eight probably by exception – during Francesco’s reign. Pope Clement gave a number of such expectant canonries in Limassol following Francesco’s appointment, and it is not always clear who and how many were able to obtain incomes as well: in 1347, John Imbert (son of John) cleric of Nicosia, James de Conches (nephew of John de Lavello, the king’s ambassador), John Gautier expert in both laws, and the above-mentioned Simone d’Arezzo; in 1348, Perceval of Tyre (chaplain of Bishop Léger of Famagusta) and Nicolinus Sacerina cleric (of the king of Cyprus) of Nicosia; in 1349, Thomas of Générac, Benvenuto d’Arezzo (the cantor), and Thomas Mongu (cleric and familiar of Bishop Eudes of Paphos, despite his irregular birth).28 Thus around fifteen people 24  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–92, t–409; ASV, Reg. Vat. 213, fol. 92v–93r, no. 44 (not in Bullarium Cyprium III), which grants the canonry and prebend in question to Firmin. 25  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. r–259, t–289, t–454, u–105, u–123. 26  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. r–86, t–58. 27  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. r–374. 28  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–237, t–244, t–256, t–280, t–311, t–357, t–358, t–370 (#2, which, although unstated in the summary, applies to Thomas de Générac), t–397, t–401, t–405, t–429. On 12 July 1351, the day before Bishop Francesco’s death, Jacquet Imperiali was given an expectancy in Limassol, although this is not in the Bullarium Cyprium III: ASV, Reg. Vat. 210, fols. 64v–65r, no. 126.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

137

could call themselves canons of Limassol in 1349, but we have no evidence that the fixed number of prebends for canons ever exceeded the original six, even if it appears that eight obtained them by exception. The chapter seems to have had a number of locals. James Paschalis the treasurer and Canon James of St. Prosper both knew Greek, had long connections with Limassol, and were advanced in years, so they appear to have been from Cyprus. This was probably also true for the elderly Henry Hamelin, if he was still cantor, and certainly for Canons William of Acre and Bertrand of Montolif. If Bishop Francesco was indeed from Limassol, then so were Simone and Benvenuto. This is no doubt the case for others as well, including those with expectancies, notably Perceval of Tyre, but we lack sufficient information. As we have seen, by Francesco’s death some of the salaried cathedral staff had been replaced after the death, promotion, or other change in status of the incumbents. Some of them also held posts elsewhere and surely did not live in Limassol, Goffredo Spanzota and, before his appointment as bishop of Modon in late 1349, George Homodei being perhaps the best examples. A couple of them were away at a university; for instance, in August 1345 Archdeacon Alberto was given leave to collect his incomes for two years while studying; Archambaud de Montencès received three such dispensations for studying law at Montpellier in 1349, 1357, and 1359, having become bachelor there by late 1356.29 Nevertheless, there were enough experienced dignitaries and canons in the town to defend the cathedral’s interests when they were threatened following Bishop Francesco’s death. In sum, there is no reason to believe that the economic status of the church of Limassol had improved to a such a degree that the cathedral chapter increased in size, and, after the rapid decline of the Latin-rite population in the first decades of the fourteenth century and again with the shock of the Black Death, the financial health of the institution cannot have been robust. It is thus unlikely that Francesco grew wealthy in his five years as bishop of Limassol. When the papal agents came to collect from the church of Limassol Francesco’s substantial legacy, experienced members of the chapter and Francesco’s successor did not acquiesce. Before presenting the conflict that ensued, a detour is required to discuss the confusing question of succession to the bishopric of Limassol. The Succession of Elias of Chambarlhac as Bishop of Limassol Francesco d’Arezzo died on 13 July 1351. According to the fragments published below (Document 4), a witness in a later inquisition explained that Francesco died after a prolonged illness, more than twenty days in duration. Our clarity about 29 

Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–148, t–368, u–128, u–217; ASV, Reg. Vat. 211, fol. 38v, no. 677, and fols. 39v–40r, no. 681 (not in Bullarium Cyprium III).

138

CHRIS SCHABEL

Francesco’s accession to the episcopal see of Limassol in 1346 is in contrast with our confusion about what happened after his death. First, who was Francesco’s successor? On 22 September 1351, ten weeks after Francesco’s death, Clement VI addressed a letter to, among others, “Bishop Léger of Limassol,” that is, Léger of Nabinaud (brother of Cardinal Elias of Nabinaud, former archbishop of Nicosia and patriarch of Jerusalem). Pope Clement’s successor, Innocent VI, referred to Clement’s letter and “Bishop Léger of Limassol” in a follow-up letter of 1 October 1353. Since Elias of Chambarlhac (brother of Philip of Chambarlhac, Elias of Nabinaud’s successor as archbishop of Nicosia) was already called bishop of Limassol on 18 January 1353 and remained bishop of Limassol until his transfer to Paphos in 1357, I inserted Léger of Nabinaud between Francesco d’Arezzo and Elias of Chambarlhac in a recently published list of bishops of Limassol. Assuming that he was appointed immediately after Francesco’s death and ceased being bishop shortly before the first mention of Elias of Chambarlhac as bishop, I assigned Léger to the years 1351–53.30 In fact, however, Léger of Nabinaud had been appointed bishop of Famagusta on 14 August 1348 and remained bishop there until his death on 30 September 1365. Indeed, Jean Richard tacitly changed the manuscript’s reference to Léger in Innocent VI’s letter of 1353, writing, contrary to the original letter of Clement VI, “de Famagouste,” although in the 1351 letter Professor Richard retained the manuscript’s “de Limassol.”31 New questions thus arise: why did Pope Clement refer to Léger as bishop of Limassol, was Elias of Chambarlhac Bishop Francesco’s immediate successor, and when did Elias become bishop? As mentioned, in the surviving evidence identified thus far, the first published mention of Elias as bishop of Limassol is a letter of Innocent VI from 18 January 1353. The previous mention of Elias in print is in a letter of Clement VI dated 8 September 1351, in which the pope thanks King Hugh IV for the gifts that Elias of Chambarlhac, treasurer of Nicosia and Hugh’s envoy, brought to Avignon for the pope.32 This must have been around the time that Clement learned of Bishop Francesco’s death two months earlier, and Clement would have been considering the appointment of Francesco’s successor. One scenario is that Clement planned to transfer Léger from Famagusta to Limassol, or actually did so, but either Léger refused or Clement changed his mind. This is rather unlikely, because it would have been a demotion. Famagusta, with its large population and striking cathedral, had surpassed Limassol in prestige, as is shown by the fact that Léger’s other brother, Itier, had been transferred from Limassol to Famagusta on 26 June 1346, making way for Francesco d’Arezzo.33 30 

Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–627, u–3, u–23 (changed in the summary: see below); NicolaouKonnari and Schabel, “Frankish and Venetian Limassol,” 385. Léger is also listed in Hackett, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, 573, for 1351–53, and in Giorgio Fedalto, La Chiesa latina in Oriente, vol. II: Hierarchia latina Orientis (Verona, 1976), 179, for before 22 September 1251 until after 1 October 1353, merely listing Elias as bishop until 21 April 1357. 31  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–326, t–627, u–23. 32  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. t–620. 33  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. t–190.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

139

Originally the income of the bishop of Limassol seems to have exceeded that of Famagusta, but by 1295 bishops-elect of Famagusta were taxed more than those of Limassol by a ratio of 5:4 (1,257 to 1,000 florins) and after 1298 the ratio was 3:2 (1,500 to 1,000).34 Moreover, only Itier, Francesco, Elias, and Guy d’Ibelin are recorded as obliging themselves to pay the tax.35 Nor is there any (other) evidence for Léger as bishop of Limassol in the surviving papal letters and, although the manuscript is damaged, a fragment of a document discussed and edited below (Document 4) indicates that, indeed, Francesco was Elias of Chambarlhac’s “immediate predecessor” as bishop of Limassol. An alternative scenario is that the chancery meant to write “Elias” and instead wrote “Léger,” but previously unpublished materials, while allowing us to date Elias’s appointment to before 1353, also enable us to rule out such an error. In the dispute over Bishop Francesco’s legacy (Document 1), discussed just below, Archdeacon Alberto and Canon Federico assert that they had rendered an account of this legacy to the personal vicar or vicars of the new bishop of Limassol before the composition of Pope Clement VI’s letter of 29 November 1352 concerning that legacy. Papal letters of 22 October and 17 September assign, respectively, Bishop Elias of Limassol’s benefices in France to his relative Aimery of Chambarlhac and in Nicosia to Cardinal Talleyrand, the family patron. Finally, a long search turned up the letter appointing Elias to his see, on 30 May 1352, with no mention of Léger. The easiest explanation for the chancery’s error is that the letter was supposed to be addressed to Bishop Léger of “Famagusta,” but “Limassol” was written instead; and indeed in one of the copies in the papal registers the second of the two mentions of Léger in the letter is as bishop of “Famagusta.”36 The ten-month delay in appointing a successor may be due to Elias’s own manoeuvring. Elias received a canonry with expectancy of prebend and dignity in Nicosia in 1343, became treasurer of Nicosia in 1346, and obtained a canonry and prebend there in 1348, while retaining benefices in France. On 4 November 1349, George Homodei, archdeacon of Nicosia, was made bishop of Modon, but he retained his archdeaconate until he was consecrated in Avignon in July 1350, when he had to renounce his Nicosia position. Two months earlier, in May, Treasurer 34 

Hermann Hoberg, Taxae pro communibus servitiis ex libris obligationum ab anno 1295 usque ad annum 1455 confectus (Vatican City, 1949), 53 and 86–86 (Nicosia paid 5,000 and Paphos 2,000: ibid., 86 and 93). 35  The details are in BAV, Borgh. 125, fols. 1r (Itherius, 17 November 1344), 19r (Franciscus, 17 August 1348, via Bishop Itier of Famagusta and papal penitentiary Peter de Felicianis), 130v (Helyas, 3 September 1352), and 189v (Guido, 23 May 1357, via Peter Leguini canon of Nicosia). 36  ASV, Reg. Vat. 213, fol. 120r–v, no. 101 (Aimery); Reg. Vat. 212, fol. 89r–v, no. 169 (Talleyrand); Reg. Aven. 120, fol. 104r (appointment). None of these is in Bullarium Cyprium III, and after a fruitless folio-by-folio search through all 4,000 folios of the Reg. Vat. series for the 17-month period between the deaths of Bishop Francesco and Pope Clement (which, however, turned up 25 other unknown documents concerning Cyprus), starting in on the 3,200 folios in the Reg. Aven series, I found the rubric to the appointment on the third folio (Reg. Aven. 120, fol. 3r), with a note explaining why it was not in the Reg. Vat. series: “Nota: omnes gratie istius quaterni deficiunt in registro pergameni.” For the reference to Léger as bishop of “Famagusta” in the 1351 letter, see Reg. Vat. 145, fol. 83r.

140

CHRIS SCHABEL

Elias was granted the right to receive the income of his benefice while absent for up to three years, probably to travel to the papal curia on business. On 16 July 1350, Elias, aware of George’s appointment in Modon, was given the archdeaconate as he had requested in writing, with the proviso that he give up his treasury when the time came, and his post was granted to Bernard Anselme pending Elias’s renunciation. But since the papal chancery failed to note whether Elias could retain his benefices in France, the same day (hodie) it issued a correction, remarking that he could keep them.37 Perhaps Talleyrand advised Elias to wait for something better, since Elias did not accept the post. A year later, on 12 July 1351, Treasurer Elias was in Avignon securing dispensations, positions, and privileges for himself and others, including Princes Peter and John and Princess Eschive of Lusignan. Bishop Francesco died the following day, and when Elias heard the news he must have worked to secure the succession. The archdeaconate of Nicosia was given to Philip Jaumar on 28 February 1352, and three months later Elias became bishop.38 Bishop Elias seems to have remained in Avignon until late 1353 or early 1354 (he was granted a dispensation on 9 December 135339), and Canon Federico continued as the chapter’s vicar for Limassol’s affairs. Hence, when the dispute over Francesco’s legacy arose in Cyprus, the new bishop was still in the West and it fell to the chapter to protect the economic interests of the church of Limassol, although Elias’s extensive experience and connections in Avignon would be of great help later. The Dispute over the Legacy of Bishop Francesco By the mid-fourteenth century, the papacy had the right of spoil, claiming the property of deceased prelates, with the justification that no one could bequeath ecclesiastical goods. Personal property that the prelate obtained before entering the clergy, on the other hand, could be left to the people or institutions of the prelate’s choice, or, if he died intestate, to his natural heirs. Because personal and ecclesiastical wealth could easily be combined while in office, however, after the prelate’s death it was not easy to separate the personal from the institutional, and the question was left to judges to determine.40 37  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–30, t–207, t–315 (with more details from ASV, Reg. Aven. 89, fols. 435r–436r), t–462 (1) (with more details from ASV, Reg. Aven. 113, fol. 158r–v), and t–521; Reg. Aven. 105, f. 87r, no. 67 (4 November 1349; not in Bullarium Cyprium III). The entry in Bullarium Cyprium III, no. t–473, conflates the two separate letters of 16 July 1350: Reg. Aven. 114, fol. 63r–v contains the first letter and Reg. Vat. 203, fols. 48v–49r, no. 584, the second. 38  For 12 July 1351, Bullarium Cyprium III contains only one, no. t–633 (Eschive). See also ASV, Reg. Vat. 209, fol. 209, no. 20 (Elias), Reg. Vat. 211, fol. 68v (Peter and John), and several others. For 28 February 1352: Reg. Vat. 207, fols. 114v–115r, no. 83. 39  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. u–31. 40  See Williman and Corsano, The Right of Spoils of the Popes of Avignon, 6–8, translating the canonist Giovanni d’Andrea’s authoritative explanation from 1338.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

141

From the above, there is no reason to consider Limassol a wealthy diocese at the time of Bishop Francesco’s death on 13 July 1351. Nevertheless, some people apparently had a different opinion at the time. In his letter of 29 November 1352, one of the last of his papacy, Pope Clement gave instructions concerning the goods of the late Francesco. Writing to Bishop Eudes of Paphos and the Dominican Monaldo di Campo, the pope related that at one point for good reason he had decided that the disposition of the goods, debts, and credits pertaining to the late Bishop Francesco at the time of his death be reserved for the pope. After the bishop’s death, however, Clement continued, several people extended their greedy hands to these goods, debts, and credits, seized them, and took them away. The pope instructed the addressees to recover these items, forcing those who contradicted with ecclesiastical censure, seeking the aid of the secular arm, if necessary, regardless of the exemption from such assignments that Monaldo enjoyed via the Dominican Order.41 Jean Richard has devoted a separate study to Eudes de Canqualies, who had been bishop of Paphos for quite a while, whereas we only encounter Monaldo di Campo “of Orvieto” of the Dominican convent in Famagusta as a member of Bishop Mark of Famagusta’s entourage in a letter of Pope Clement dated 28 September 1345.42 According to Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1952 (Document 1A below), on 23 September 1353, Archdeacon Alberto and Canon Federico, vicar of the church of Limassol in spiritual and temporal affairs, appeared in Nicosia in the house of Bishop Eudes before the bishop and Monaldo di Campo, the addressees of Pope Clement’s letter, who claimed to be judges delegate regarding the late Bishop Francesco’s legacy, which they said had been reserved for the Apostolic See. The copy of the papal rescript that Eudes and Monaldo assigned to Alberto and Federico was objectionable on five counts, the archdeacon and vicar claimed. Alberto and Federico prefaced their remarks by denying that Eudes and Monaldo had any jurisdiction at all and that their voluntary decision to appear should not be construed as an admission that Eudes and Monaldo had any authority. Their second objection explained this, noting that Pope Clement’s letter of 29 November 1352 addressed to Eudes and Monaldo made no mention of the previous papal letter concerning the same matter, by which the pope ordered Archbishop Philip of Nicosia to warn those who possessed any of the goods of the late Francesco to return them within a certain deadline or else be excommunicated. (This letter does not seem to have survived and it is unclear whether it is related to the pope’s earlier decision on the disposition of Bishop Francesco’s goods.43) Nor did the new rescript make mention of anything that the archbishop had done as a result of the first letter, including the 41 

Clement’s letter is included in Document 4 in the Appendix below. Bullarium Cyprium III, no. t–154; Jean Richard, “Un évêque de Paphos nonce du pape au xive siècle: Eudes de Cauquelies,” in Nea Paphos. Fondation et développement urbanistique d’une ville chypriote de l’antiquité à nos jours Études archéologiques, historiques et patrimoniales, ed. Claire Balandier (Bordeaux, 2016), 349–54. 43  As mentioned above in note 36, I searched exhaustively through the 4,000 pertinent folios of the Reg. Vat. series for the period between Francesco’s and Clement’s deaths, and systematically, although not exhaustively, through the 3,200 pertinent folios of the Reg. Aven. series. 42 

142

CHRIS SCHABEL

examination of witnesses, the publication of their testimony, and the archbishop’s summary of the case. For these reasons, Alberto and Federico considered the new rescript invalid. Their fourth objection expanded on this: even if the new rescript were valid and Eudes and Monaldo had some jurisdiction in this matter, they would have no jurisdiction with respect to Alberto and Federico themselves, because the papal instructions concerned solely those who put their greedy hands on the late bishop’s goods, grabbed them at will, and took them away. Since this did not and does not apply to Alberto and Federico, Clement’s letter has no bearing on them. Thus they cannot thereby be summoned on this account and if summoned they have no obligation to appear, there being no mention in the papal letter of anything of that sort. Indeed, the summons that they did receive contained no text that would demonstrate that they were obliged to appear before Eudes and Monaldo. Fifth, and last, even assuming for the sake of argument that they were held to appear before Eudes and Monaldo, it has never been found that Alberto and Federico received anything from the goods of Bishop Francesco, but only from the goods of the church of Limassol itself. These goods, moreover, were obtained in the inventory process in the presence of many good and trustworthy men, and a complete account was rendered concerning these items to the vicar or vicars of Francesco d’Arezzo’s successor, Bishop Elias of Limassol, before Pope Clement’s letter was sent to Eudes and Monaldo. Alberto and Federico thus did their duty before Eudes and Monaldo received any instructions and even before the pope had sent any letter reserving the goods for the Apostolic See. Thus Alberto and Federico are not obliged by these instructions, but rather excused as having done well and justly. Federico performed the administration as the vicar of the chapter and answered, made satisfaction, rendered accounts, and received approval, always doing his duty, both according to the first papal letter sent concerning this and according to common law. Federico’s ignorance of Clement’s later instructions was just and legitimate, since a papal letter following a papal letter can hardly be to the contrary effect when they pertain to the same business, Alberto and Federico continued. The most interesting and informative objections, however, were the first and the third. First, Alberto and Federico asserted that the new rescript contained falsehoods and covered up the truth, misleading the Apostolic See into acting in a way that it otherwise would not have done. Primarily, the rescript held that the church of Limassol was quite prosperous (habundans, to use their word) and that Bishop Francesco left goods and debts owed to him worth a total of 40,000 bezants. To put this in perspective, the cathedral employed around 42 clerics and others with a total annual salary of only 5,000 Byzants, the high salary of a canon being 375 bezants. Bishop Francesco thus allegedly left sufficient funds to pay the entire cathedral staff for eight years, or an individual canon for over a century. But Alberto and Federico declared that this was far from the case, and instead the bishop’s legacy was hardly enough to pay the canons and clergy and to restore the vestments and

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

143

ornaments of the cathedral of Limassol. When Francesco died on 13 July 1351, it was time to pay the canons, those with assises, the scribes, and the stipendiaries of the church and to cover the expenses for candle wax, and what came into the hands of the clergy or officials of the church from Francesco’s legacy did not cover these expenses. In their third point, Alberto and Federico painted a picture of the state of the church itself: For a long time now the church of Limassol is and has been in such a very poor state that the aforesaid bishop, lord Friar Francesco of good memory, barely had enough to live on if he had not received the main part of the expenses from our lord king and the royal curia as the confessor and from his [ipsius: the king’s? the bishop’s?] familia. And the aforesaid church of Limassol and the episcopal houses in the city of Limassol are in need of no little repair, because they are in danger of falling into ruin in Limassol and in the villages [casalia], and the church even needs no little repair in ornaments [paramentis] and other necessary vestments for the divine office, concerning which things no information was or is being given to our lord the highest pontiff.44

If the pope had learned of the real situation, they continued, the new letter would not have been sent, since there is no doubt that he would not have wished to add affliction to a church that is already afflicted “with the supreme affliction of poverty.” When Alberto and Federico had finished making these objections, on Monday 23 September 1353, in the presence of Pons Pagès canon of Paphos and Minirino of Bologna the royal turcopole,45 Bishop Eudes of Paphos and Friar Monaldo the Dominican responded by rejecting them as frivolous and of no account, ordering them to appear before them five days later, on Saturday 28 September. Alberto and Federico asked Gerardino Tauri of Parma to draw up a document recording what had happened, the present Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1952 (Document 1A).46 Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1953 (Document 1B) continues the story. Despite their refusal to acknowledge the jurisdiction of Eudes and Monaldo, Alberto and Federico duly appeared before the alleged judges delegate five days later, this time in the archbishop’s residence, in the large room next to the palace, in the presence of the elderly Goffredo Spanzota, archdeacon of Famagusta and official of the 44 

See Document 1AB below, p. 152. Pons, from the diocese of Elne, was given an expectancy in 1343 with the support of Queen Constance of Armenia, although he was already assized in Paphos; in 1346 the pope reserved a sinecure for him, the position of the person in charge of the bells of Nicosia Cathedral, but this was long disputed with Peter Trenchfoot (see just below); Pons finally received the Paphos prebend of the late Peter Pilgrim on 31 July 1352, and in 1356 he also became chanter of Paphos, while expecting a canonry in Nicosia: Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–37, t–198, t–476, u–86, u–122, u–124; ASV, Reg. Vat. 212, fols. 319v–320r, no. 758 (for Paphos prebend, not in Bullarium Cyprium III). The turcopole is apparently otherwise unknown. 46  Gerardino had drawn up a document in the cartulary of Nicosia in May: Coureas and Schabel, Cartulary, no. 130 and 130a, at 305–12. 45 

144

CHRIS SCHABEL

Nicosia church (although also their fellow canon in Limassol), Peter Trenchfoot, prior of the cemetery of St. Michael of Nicosia (since 1348), Elias Ortici assized in the church of Nicosia (with a degree in civil law), the priest Bertrand Talliani, and Pons Pagès.47 Alberto and Federico began by repeating their objections verbatim. Because Eudes and Monaldo again rejected the objections, Alberto and Federico asserted that the alleged delegates’ response, a copy of which they were unable to obtain, although they requested one, as well as the deadline assigned to them of five days were null, because they were done without deliberation and against justice. Indeed, Alberto and Federico declared that they were harmed by this and could be subject to further harm in the future, so they were willing to prove their grievance before competent judges. In light of the above, Alberto and Federico thus decided to appeal to the pope against their response and the deadline, both in their own names and on behalf of the church of Limassol and any other interested parties. They requested that their appeal be submitted and that nothing else be done in the case until the result of their appeal became known. When a copy of the appeal was given to Eudes and Monaldo, the bishop of Paphos and his Dominican colleague replied that they would not allow the appeal unless there were a basis for it, and they assigned to Alberto and Federico a deadline of the following Wednesday, 2 October 1353, to hear their response. Again Gerardino Tauri of Parma was called upon to draw up an instrument for the appeal, the present Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1953, which soon arrived in Avignon, perhaps following the approval of Eudes and Monaldo. Instrumenta Miscellanea 1952 and 1953 were known to Jean Richard over a halfcentury ago, although he did not discuss them at any length.48 Recently, however, traces of what happened afterwards have come to light. The first, Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1967 (Document 2), is a rather amusing document dated Avignon, 10 February 1354. Peter de Cloto, a priest of the diocese of Périgueux, had the document drawn up. According to a papal letter of the previous year, 26 February 1353, Peter had been given a canonry in Limassol with a prebend, if vacant, or to be vacated, on Bishop Elias’s request, because Peter was the bishop’s chaplain.49 Acting as Bishop Elias’s procurator, Peter de Cloto had gone to the gate of the papal palace in Avignon with “a certain public instrument of appeal” in his hands. The detailed physical description that follows, giving the first and last words of the second and penultimate lines, demonstrates that this instrument was none other

47  Peter Trenchfoot was himself involved in a dispute over the position of the person in charge of the bells of Nicosia Cathedral, which he eventually won, although he died in 1356, probably enjoying his position only for a few months: Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–337, t–410, t–476, u–35, u–86, u–130. Elias Ortici had received an expectancy in Nicosia in 1347, but he only received a canonry in 1358, in Paphos, which he resigned in 1371: nos. t–218, u–175, w–60. 48  Richard, Chypre sous les Lusignans, 70. 49  Bullarium Cyprium III, no. u–7.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

145

than the surviving Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1953 just discussed. Peter had also brought number 1952, according to a note on the dorso.50 Peter de Cloto asked the gate keeper, Étienne de Combes, in charge of the first gate of the palace and who witnessed the document, to open the gate, allow him to enter, and introduce him to the pope, since he wanted to present the appeal along with the entire main business, to ask that a judge or auditor be given him at the Apostolic See, and to carry out other duties as required by reason of the bishop’s appeal. Étienne responded that it was not the time for entering the palace and seeing the pope, so he did not allow Peter to pass, despite Peter’s humble insistence. Peter wished to avoid any negative repercussions for himself and Bishop Elias, since he would have done all of the above had he been allowed entry. To make sure that the passing of time would not affect their ability to appeal in the future, therefore, Peter had a document (Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1967) drawn up by the notary John de Paillencourt before the witnesses Stephan Carri, papal courier, and John Borrelli, who had a benefice in the church of Majorca. Peter de Cloto succeeded, and two partially damaged fragments survive of the judicial process that resulted. The date of this process can be ascertained from a note on the dorso of Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1953, which relates that the bishop of Limassol (Elias) “produced these words before (citra) the revocation of his procurators on Saturday the 10th of the month of May and promised to produce them facto the following Monday, and before the day of Monday the 12th the procurator Peter de Cloto produced them facto.”51 These dates do not correspond to 1354, but to 1355. Another note on the dorso seems to indicate that John de Vado then joined the case for Bishop Elias, with the auditor assigning him a deadline of the following Monday (19 May?) and then both Peter and John a deadline of Wednesday (21 May?) and finally Thursday (22 May?).52 These dates allow us to contextualize Instrumentum Miscellaneum 2017 (Document 3), dated Nicosia, in the room of the bishop of Paphos in his residence, 28 March 1355, in which Bishop Eudes names his procurators at the papal curia, Firmin Barthélemy d’Uzès canon of Nicosia (from 1345 until his death in 1362; also a scribe in the papal chancery), Thomas Foscarino canon of Paphos (from 1348 until his death in 1372; in later years archdeacon of Nicosia and papal nuncio), and Master Peter de Balneis.53 The bishop’s notary, Giovanni di Francesco de Puteo of Bologna, drew up the document in the presence of Eudes’s associates the priests Bertrand Talliani (now specified to have an assize in Paphos) and Bartolomeo of Parma, as well as the scribe of the secrète of the church of Paphos “Ser Gerardus Hang’.”

50  Schabel and Duba, “Instrumenta Miscellanea Cypria,” 813. Following a calendar that began the year later, the dorso dates it to 1353. 51  Schabel and Duba, “Instrumenta Miscellanea Cypria,” 813. 52  Schabel and Duba, “Instrumenta Miscellanea Cypria,” 813. 53  Bullarium Cyprium III, nos. t–169, t–322, u–256, u–282, u–303, w–50, w–159.

146

CHRIS SCHABEL

The agents of Bishop Elias and Bishop Eudes thus converged on Avignon in the spring of 1355. Instrumentum Miscellaneum 4747 is a bifolium with some of the articles of the inquisition, showing that they numbered at least 26, while another bifolium was bound as Reg. Aven. 346, fols. 243r–244v. The first folio of the latter fragment contains an unknown witness’ responses to articles 2–8. Aside from information already noted about the succession of Bishop Elias, the duration of Bishop Francesco’s illness, and the date of his death, this witness claimed in response to article 6 that, while Francesco was ill, with his own hands he gave away many things to those who served and administered to him as he wished. More importantly, responding to article 7 the witness testified that both long before and throughout Francesco’s illness a certain Conrad de Margato was serving the bishop as a domestic in charge of his household while being married to Francesco’s niece. Judging from his surname, confirmed in Instrumentum Miscellaneum 4594, Conrad was a Cypriot member of a refugee family from Syria. Our witness asserted that Conrad, unlike all of Francesco’s other familiars, had full knowledge of and complete access to Francesco’s goods. Instrumentum Miscellaneum 4747, perhaps from the same witness, contains responses to articles covering a period after Francesco’s death. For article 19, apparently on the basis of Pope Clement’s first letter (so far unidentified), Archbishop Philip of Nicosia was put in charge of the affairs of the church of Limassol and had Archdeacon Alberto and Canon Federico summoned to render an account of the goods that they had inventoried as well as the debts that Francesco had at the time of his death. We are told that only around 1200 bezants of good and debts, along with some chalices, crosiers, and ornaments, were found to have remained with the dead bishop, which the previous vicars, Alberto and Federico, turned over to Archbishop Philip, now specified as acting as vicar for the current bishop, namely Elias. Once this was done, Philip examined and accepted their actions and relieved Alberto and Federico of further responsibility. Regarding article 20, the witness maintained that Archbishop Philip did what he could to recover the goods of the late Bishop Francesco, initiating numerous judicial proceedings against Conrad and his accomplices and others who retained those items, even before Bishop Eudes of Paphos and Friar Monaldo di Campo became involved. For article 21, the witness noted that after all of this, a long time after Pope Clement VI had died (6 December 1352), Bishop Eudes and Monaldo came and publicized Clement’s letter of 29 November 1352 in Limassol Cathedral, after 13 September 1353. After a missing bifolio, the witness continues with article 24, which picks up where Instrumenta Miscellanea 1952 and 1953 are concerned: Eudes and Monaldo summoned Alberto and Federico to appear between 13 and 23 September 1353 to testify about the late Bishop Francesco’s legacy, Alberto and Federico appeared on 23 September and presented objections, and Alberto and Federico appealed to the pope. In article 25, the witness claimed that Bishop Eudes and Friar Monaldo maliciously neglected to proceed against Conrad and his accomplices, despite

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

147

knowing their culpability, and instead proceeded less justly against Alberto and Federico, although they did not have that power. The deposition breaks off at the start of article 26, in which the witness states that in the inventory three chalices and two or three crosiers or pastoral staffs along with some ornaments of the church of Limassol were found. Nothing is dated in these fragments, but the process must have occurred between mid-May 1355 and 10 September 1355, when Bishop Elias was obligated to pay 283 florins.54 The recto of the second folio of the fragment in Reg. Aven. 346 (the verso is blank) contains part of the settlement between Bishop Elias and the Camera, including the agreement to pay the 283 florins. It was not until 1358, however, that Conrad of Margat finally paid what he owed, for the collector Pierre Domand reported that “on the 10th day of August I received 3000 bezants from Conrad of Margat, nephew of the late Bishop Francesco of Limassol, from the goods of said bishop that have been detained for a long time by the same Conrad.”55 By then Elias of Chambarlhac had already been transferred to Paphos in 1357, replaced by Guy d’Ibelin, after whose death in 1367 a complete inventory of his goods was carried out. * * * If the hypothesis about the Cypriot origins of Francesco d’Arezzo, bishop of Limassol, is correct, this may provide the clue to explain what happened upon his death in 1351. Francesco had at least two nephews who were clerics, the Dominican Simone and Benvenuto the cantor of Limassol, but his niece was a layperson, and she was married to a local layperson, Conrad of Margat, who was probably only ‘nephew’ of Francesco via marriage. Francesco was considerably wealthy, largely from family money, most likely from trade, and at his death he was worth 40,000 bezants. Conrad, who was with Francesco during the bishop’s mortal illness, managed to obtain all of Francesco’s property, but intentionally or accidentally he did not distinguish between the late bishop’s personal property and what belonged to the church of Limassol. When this was reported to the papal curia, 54 

ASV, Coll. 497, fol. 55v: “Die Xa mensis Septembris reverendus pater dominus Helias episcopus Nimossiensis promisit solvere camere apostolice hinc ad festum Resurexionis Domini proxime venturum: IIcLXXXIII florenos. Quos recepit de bonis mobilibus bone memorie domini Francisci episcopi Nimossiensis predecessoris sui dispositioni apostolice reservatis.” On 11 September 1353 (Bullarium Cyprium III, no. u–22), Pope Innocent VI acknowledged that he had received 287 florins from Elias for the common services, but the date and the amount must be merely coincidentally close to the 1355 agreement. 55  Instrumentum Miscellaneum 4594, fol. 10v: “Sequitur recepta per me facta anno Domini MoCCCoLVIII. Die X Augusti recepi a Conrado de Margato nepoti episcopi Franchischi condam Nimociensis de bonis dicti episcopi iam diu est per eundem Curadum detentis: bz. IIIm.” Most of this document has been published in Jean Richard, “Les comptes du collecteur de la Chambre Apostolique dans le royaume de Chypre (1357–1363),” Επετηρίδα του Κέντρου Επιστημονικών Ερευνών 13–16 (1984–87), 1–47, repr. in idem, Croisades et états latins d’Orient (Aldershot, 1992), XV, with brief discussion of the story.

148

CHRIS SCHABEL

the report equally failed to distinguish between private and Church property, and Pope Clement VI reacted by instructing Bishop Eudes of Paphos and the Dominican Monaldo di Campo to secure the return of Francesco’s property from those who detained it illegally. In the meantime, Archdeacon Alberto and Canon Federico performed an inventory of the goods of the church of Limassol, rendering an account to Archbishop Philip of Nicosia, who approved. When Eudes and Monaldo summoned Alberto and Federico on the same matter, the latter claimed that the bishop of Paphos and his Dominican colleague had no right to interrogate them, but only to seek the property from those who occupied it. Rather than 40,000 bezants, moreover, they maintained that Francesco’s legacy of ecclesiastical property was insufficient to pay the cathedral staff and other expenses, around 5,000 bezants annually. Eudes and Monaldo, seeking to please the pope and perhaps acting in good faith, refused to believe that such a rich bishop had so little money from his church incomes, which they assumed had ended up with the cathedral staff. In the papal letter of November 1352, Eudes and Monaldo were told to proceed appellatione postposita, but although the letter contained the typical legal clauses meant to prevent impediments, Alberto and Federico pointed out that it made no mention of the previous letter to Archbishop Philip and everything that followed from it. Their observation was correct, but whether the previous letter required such a mention for it to be superseded is unknown, since that letter does not appear to survive. At any rate, Alberto and Federico successfully appealed to the new pope in Avignon, Innocent VI, and Elias of Chambarlhac, the new bishop of Limassol, took over the defense. In the end, the worldly Bishop Elias and the church of Limassol paid rather little, but Conrad of Margat was forced to pay 3,000 bezants. The settlement, regardless of whether it was just, appears to have vindicated Archdeacon Alberto and Canon Federico. If Bishop Francesco had really left 40,000 bezants, and if this money had come into the hands of Conrad (perhaps acting for Francesco’s family), then Conrad’s obligation to pay just 3,000 bezants suggests that only a small fraction of what Francesco left belonged to the church of Limassol. Alberto’s and Federico’s claims about the sorry state of Limassol Cathedral, its adornment, the church’s real estate, and the fact that Francesco had an ecclesiastical legacy of less than 5,000 bezants at his death may then be accurate, at least to a degree. Despite the fact that there appear to have been eight acting canons with salaries, with about fifteen expecting prebends, thus exceeding the statutory number of six, this was probably temporary because of Pope Clement’s penchant for granting benefices or perhaps a residue of the glory years of 1291–1307. Although our records are far from complete, each time a prelate in the remnants of the Latin East died, or even someone of slightly lower rank, the Apostolic See had its permanent and locally salaried agents ready to make sure that every denarius was accounted for and that the papal camera received its share. On the other hand, the king of Cyprus seems to have had his say in some appointments, and much of the money earned from Cyprus was returned in the form of subsidies for the

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

149

defense of the island, the Kingdom of Armenia, Smyrna, and other Latin outposts. This system only broke down after 1378, with the outbreak of the Great Schism of the West.56

56 

For the spoils system in general, see Williman and Corsano, The Right of Spoils of the Popes of Avignon, 1–52. For its application in Cyprus, along with financial aspects of the defense of the Latin East during the Avignon papacy, see Jean Richard, “The Papacy and Cyprus,” in Bullarium Cyprium I, 1–65, esp. 22–30 and 59–65, and the literature cited there.

150

CHRIS SCHABEL

Appendix Note: In the editions of the documents published below, I have retained the sometimes odd orthography of the originals, unless it would completely obscure the meaning, in which case I have noted the manuscript’s reading in the apparatus criticus. Document 1 Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Instrumenta Miscellanea 1952 (A) and 1953 (B) Parallel documents drawn up for Archdeacon Alberto and Canon Federico of Limassol, for their appeal to the Apostolic See against Bishop Eudes of Paphos and Friar Monaldo OP, recording two proceedings that took place in Nicosia, September 1353, concerning the legacy of Bishop Francesco of Limassol. (A) House of the Bishop of Paphos, Monday, 23 September 1353 In Christi nomine, amen. Noverint universi et singuli per hoc presens publicum instrumentum quod anno Nativitatis eiusdem millesimo trecentesimo quinquagesimo tercio, Indictione sexta, die xxiiia mensis Septembris, in presentia mei notarii infrasscripti et testium subsscriptorum ad hoc specialiter vocatorum et rogatorum, venerabiles et discreti viri domini Albertus de Bononia, archidiaconus Nimotiensis, et Federicus de Bargalio, eiusdem ecclesie canonicus et in spiritualibus et temporalibus vicarius, comparuerunt coram reverendo patre domino Oddone, Dei gratia episcopo Paphensi, et fratre Monaldo de Campo Ordinis Predicatorum, qui se dicebant iudices a Sede Apostolica delegatos ad petendum et exigendum bona dimissa per condam reverendum patrem dominum fratrem Francischum, Nimotiensem episcopum, per sanctam Sedem Apostolicam reservata, ut asserebant, et eis presentaverunt exceptiones infrascriptas:

(B) Archbishop’s Palace, Saturday, 28 September 1353 In Christi nomine, amen. Noverint universi et singuli per hoc presens publicum instrumentum quod anno Nativitatis eiusdem millesimo trecentesimo quinquagesimo tercio, Indictione sexta, die vigesima octava mensis Septembris, in presentia mei notarii infrasscripti et testium subsscriptorum ad hoc specialiter vocatorum et rogatorum, venerabiles et discreti viri domini Albertus de Bononia, archidiaconus ecclesie Nimotiensis, et Federichus de Bargalio, eiusdem ecclesie canonicus et in spiritualibus et temporalibus vicarius, personaliter constituti coram reverendo patre et domino domino Oddone, Dei gratia episcopo Paphensi, et fratre Monaldo de Campo Ordinis Predicatorum, iudicibus a Sede Apostolica dellegatis, ut asserebant, ad exigendum bona dimissa per bone memorie fratrem Francischum, Dei gratia olim episcopum Nimotiensem, interposuerunt quandam appellationem tenoris et continentie per omnia subsequentis:

(B) In Christi nomine, amen. Coram vobis, reverendo in Christo patre et domino domino Oddone, Dei gratia episcopo Paphensi, et fratre Monaldo, qui vos asseritis iudices delegatos

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

151

sancte Sedis Apostolice etc., dicimus, proponimus, protestamur, et allegamus nos, Albertus de Bononia, Nimotiensis archidiaconus, et Federichus de Bargalio, eiusdem ecclesie canonicus et in spiritualibus et temporalibus vicarius, quod cum die xxiii mensis Septembris anni Domini millesimi trecentesimi quinquagesimi tercii, Indictione sexta, contra iurisdictionem vestram et ad executionem nostram proposuerimus exceptiones et excussationes tenoris et continentie per omnia talis: (AB) In Christi nomine, amen. Hec sunt exceptiones quas coram vobis, reverendo in Christo patre et domino domino Oddone, Dei gratia Paphensi episcopo,1 et relligiosso viro fratre Monaldo de Campo Ordinis Fratrum2 Predicatorum, qui vos asseritis sancte Sedis Apostolice delegatos ad exigendum bona dimissa3 per bone memorie reverendum patrem4 dominum fratrem Francischum, Nimotiensem episcopum, dudum per ipsam sanctam Sedem Apostolicam reservata, ut asseritis, in iudicio proponunt Albertus de Bononia, archidiaconus Nimotiensis, et Federichus de Bargalio, canonicus et vicarius ecclesie eiusdem in spiritualibus et temporalibus, contra rescriptum cuius copiam eisdem assignastis, protestatione ante omnia premissa quod per aliquam comparitionem quam faciant vel fecerint coram vobis non intendunt in vos vel aliquem vestrum tanquam in eorum iudices seu iudicem in presenti causa assentire, sed potius contra quancunque iurisdictionem quam dicatis vos vigore ipsius rescripti contra ipsos habere se opponere et forum vestrum declinare tanquam forum iudicum qui nullam vel modicam iurisdictionem habetis contra ipsos ex vigore rescripti, cuius copiam eisdem assignastis. [1] In primis dicunt et excipiendo proponunt contra dictum rescriptum et quamcunque iurisdictionem quam dicatis vos habere ex vigore ipsius rescripti contra ipsos quod ipsum rescriptum non valet, nec ex vigore ipsius rescripti contra eosdem vel eorum aliquem procedi potest seu potuerunt vel debuerunt citari, quia dictum rescriptum veritate tacita et falsitate suggesta processit et tali que movit animum principis ad id faciendum quod alias non fecisset seu concedendum quod alias non concessisset, sed denegasset, ut pote suggestione facta sancte Sedi Apostolice quod ecclesia Nimotiensis erat habundans, et quod bone memorie episcopus Francischus in bonis mobilibus et debitis dimisit quadraginta5 millia bissantiorum, quod, salva reverentia cuiuscunque contrarium asserentis, contra omnem veritatem fuit suggestum, cum vix dimiserit6 de quo posset satisfieri canonicis et clero ecclesie Nimotiensis et de quo possent vestes et paramenta ecclesie Nimotiensis neccessaria ac ipsa ecclesia reparari. Nam cum dictus bone memorie reverendus in Christo pater dominus episcopus Francischus migraverit die xiiia Julii anni Domini m iiic li,7 Indictione quarta, in quo termino fieri debebant solutiones canonicis, assissiis, et scribis, ac stipendiariis ecclesie et fieri debebant expense luminarium cere, non dimisit bona de quibus satisfieri posset prefatis solutionibus que pervenerunt8 ad manus cleri vel officialium ecclesie Nimotiensis. Et sic non valet dictum rescriptum quo ad nos, Albertum et Federichum prefatos, quia processit veritate tacita et falsitate suggesta et informatione tali facta que movit animum principis ad id faciendum et scribendum quod alias denegasset. 1 

Paphensi episcopo] inv. A Fratrum] om A 3  dimissa] dimisa A 4  patrem] in Christo patrem et A 5  quadraginta] quadragenta A 6  vix dimiserit] vxx dimisserit A 7  xiiia... li] xiii Julii anno Domini moiiiclio A 8  prevenerunt] prevenerint A 2 

152

CHRIS SCHABEL

[2] Item, non recedendo a dicta eorum exceptione, sed ipsam semper affirmando, dicunt et excipiendo proponunt contra dictum rescriptum quod non valet, nec ex vigore ipsius aliqua vobis, reverendo patri domino episcopo Paphensi et relligiosso viro9 fratri Monaldo, qui vos asseritis sancte Sedis Apostolice iudices dellegatos, ulla atribuitur iurisdictio seu conceditur contra nos, quia rescriptum apostolicum vobis missum, vigore cuius asseritis vos iudices delegatos,10 processit et procedit nulla facta mentione de rescripto et litteris papalibus primis super ipsis bonis recuperandis per dominum nostrum bone memorie summum pontificem concessis et emanantibus. Quibus mandabatur et comittebatur reverendissimo in Christo patri domino nostro Nicossiensi archiepiscopo ut, proposito edicto contra quoscunque qui de bonis dimissis per dictum bone memorie reverendum patrem dominum Nimotiensem episcopum habuissent et haberent quod infra certum terminum debuissent restituere, infra quem terminum nisi restituissent, habita summaria informatione, contra quoscunque qui de ipsis bonis habuissent et haberent procedere posset ad excommunicationis sententiam. De quibus litteris papalibus seu rescripto et processu ex vigore ipsarum litterarum facto usque ad examinationem et publicationem testium nulla fit seu facta fuit mentio. Et sic non valet seu11 valuit dictum rescriptum, nec vobis ex vigore ipsius aliqua atribuitur iurisdictio, quia procedit nulla facta mentione de primo et processibus ex vigore ipsius factis usque ad publicationem testium et conclusionem12 in causa, ut superius est premissum13 et dictum. [3] Item, non recedendo a dictis eorum exceptionibus, sed ipsas et earum quanlibet semper affirmando, dicunt et excipiendo proponunt dicti Albertus et Federichus quod, cum ecclesia Nimotiensis sit et fuerit iam longo tempore in pauperimo statu et tali quod vix habebat episcopus prefatus bone memorie dominus frater Francischus ad vivendum nisi recepisset maiorem partem expensarum a domino nostro rege et curia regali tanquam confessor et de familia ipsius, et ecclesia Nimotiensis prefata ac domus episcopales civitatis Nimotiensis indigeant non modica reffectione, quia minantur ruinam in Nimotio et cassalibus, et ecclesia etiam non modica reffectione de paramentis et aliis vestimentis neccessariis pro divino officio, de quibus nulla facta fuit vel est informatio domino nostro summo pontifici, que si facta fuisset et de premissis eidem constitisset, non procesissent14 dicte littere, cum non sit dubium quod ecclesie afflicte et in supprema15 afflictione paupertatis existenti noluisset maiorem afflictionem addere, et sic non procedit dictum rescriptum nec ex vigore ipsius aliqua vobis dominis prefatis episcopo Paphensi et fratri Monaldo atribuitur seu conceditur contra ipsos dominos Albertum et Federichum iurisdictio, si bene considerentur exceptiones et cause in ipsis exceptionibus superius inserte. [4] Item, non recedendo a dictis eorum exceptionibus, sed ipsas et earum quamlibet semper affirmando, dicunt et excipiendo proponunt dicti domini Albertus et Federichus quod – posito sine preiudicio quod dictum rescriptum valeret, quod expresse negatur ex causis premissis – nullam ex vigore ipsius rescripti habetis iurisdictionem contra ipsos, cum ex vigore rescripti nullam habeatis iurisdictionem nisi contra illos qui “manus avidas” ad bona per bone memorie dominum fratrem Francischum episcopum Nimotiensem dimissa extenderunt et “illa pro libito rapuerunt et etiam dixtraxerunt,” prout apertissime ex tenore ipsarum litterarum apparet, cum ipsi non sint tales nec unquam fuerint. Et sic non potuistis 9 

relligiosso viro] religiosso viro domino A delegatos] dellegatos A 11  seu] se a.c. s.l. B 12  conclusionem] conclussionem A 13  est premissum] inv. A 14  procesissent] processissent A 15  supprema] suprema A 10 

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

153

nec debuistis ipsos facere citari, quia nullam habuistis vel habetis iurisdictionem contra ipsos. Nec tenebantur venire ad citationem vestram, cum in ipsa citatione non esset intersertus tenor comissionis vobis facte seu litterarum apostolicarum, qui tenor, quo ad hoc quod citacio per vos facta ipsos ligaret, debuit in litteris citatoriis interseri. Et cum non fuerit intersertus, non valuit nec valere dici debet citacio, nec artari debent respondere coram vobis ex causis premissis superius insertis et earum qualibet que melius valeat. [5] Item, non recedendo a dictis eorum exceptionibus, sed ipsas et earum quanlibet semper affirmando, dicunt et excipiendo proponunt dicti domini Albertus et Federichus eorum nomine quo supra quod – posito sine preiudicio quod coram vobis respondere tenerentur, quod absit, ut constat et est manifestum ex causis prefatis et earum qualibet que melius valeat, quibus inherent – nonquam16 invenietur quod aliquid receperint tanquam de bonis dicti domini episcopi Nimotiensis, sed tanquam de bonis ecclesie Nimotiensis. Que bona fuerunt recepta cum inventario et inventariis in presentia multorum bonorum proborum virorum. De quibus omnibus plenarie reddita fuit ratio et satisfactum vicario seu vicariis reverendissimi patris domini Nimotiensis episcopi ante quam emanarent littere comissionis vestre. Et sic non possunt in aliquo conveniri per vos, quia fecerunt debitum suum ante quam emanarent littere alicuius reservationis vel alicuius comissionis super hoc facte. Et sic non ligantur ex vigore ipsarum litterarum, sed sunt excusandi tanquam illi qui bene et iuste fecerunt, quia administravit dictus dominus Federichus tanquam vicarius capituli, et de ipsis bonis respondit et satisfecit, et rationes reddidit, et quictionem habuit, semper faciens quod debebat, tam ex vigore litterarum apostolicarum super hoc emanantium quam etiam vigore iuris communis iusta et legittima ignorantia facti ductus, cum non esset verisimile quod littere papales post litteras deberent procedere super eodem negotio quasi in effectu contrarie. Et sic est excusandus, quia rationes reddidit et satisfecit illis quibus de iure communi reddi debuit et etiam ex vigore litterarum papalium super hoc emanantium. Quas omnes et singulas exceptiones dicunt et excipiendo proponunt dicti domini Federichus et Albertus17 alternative, coniunctim, et divisim, protestantes quod non abstringunt se ad probandum nisi quod sufficiat ad eorum intentionem probandam, et quod per aliquam comparitionem quam faciant vel fecerint coram vobis non se submittunt seu consentiunt in aliquo iurisdictioni vestre, petentes eorum exceptiones et earum quanlibet que melius valeat admitti debere et super ipsis responsum18 eisdem prestari. (A) Quibus exceptionibus presentatis, dicti domini delegati responderunt quod ipsas exceptiones non admittebant, sed eas abiciebant tanquam frivolas et inanes, assignantes terminum dictis dominis Alberto et Federicho ad diem Sabbati venturam ad comparendum coram ipsis delegatis et parendum contentis in rescripto, sicuti in ipsa responsione sic vel aliter sub eodem effectu verborum plenius continetur.

16 

nonquam] sic AB pro nunquam Federichus et Albertus] inv. A 18  responsum] responssum A 17 

(B) Quas quidem excussationes et exceptiones ex arupto, absque aliqua cause cognitione, indebite et iniuste, die eodem in instanti admittere denegastis, respondendo nobis quod dictas exceptiones non acceptabatis, sed eas abiciebatis et admittere recussabatis tanquam frivolas et inannes, assignando nobis terminum ad diem Sabbati venturam ad comparendum coram vobis et parendum contentis in rescripto, sicuti in ipsa responsione sic vel aliter sub eodem effectu verborum plenius continetur, cum ipsius responsionis

154

CHRIS SCHABEL

copiam habere non potuerimus, licet ipsam petierimus cum instancia. Quam responsionem et termini assignationem dicimus esse nullam seu nullas, ut pote ex arupto et absque aliqua deliberatione factam seu factas et contra Deum et iusticiam. (B) Et siqua est seu sique sunt – quod absit – sentientes nos non modicum agravatos ex causis omnibus et singulis in ipsis exceptionibus insertis et earum qualibet que melius valeat, et quia ipsas exceptiones et excussationes nostras admittere denegastis et denegatis, prout constat ex ipsa responsione et termini assignatione, et posse semper in futurum amplius agravari – quod gravamen seu que gravamina suo loco et tempore nos offerimus coram iudice competenti seu iudicibus competentibus legittime probaturos, ex causis prefatis in ipsis exceptionibus et excussationibus insertis – et quia ipsas exceptiones et excussationes admittere denegastis, prout constat ex ipsa responsione vestra et termini assignatione et earum qualibet que melius valeat, ad sanctissimum in Christo patrem et dominum nostrum summum pontificem et sanctam Sedem Apostolicam in hiis scriptis appellamus a dicta responsione vestra et termini assignatione nomine nostro proprio et ecclesie Nimotiensis et quorunlibet huic appellationi adherentium et decetero adherere volentium, et apostolos nobis dari petimus et iterum et iterum cum instancia et instantissime petimus, inhibentes vobis et vestrum cuilibet ex parte dicti domini nostri summi pontificis et sancte Sedis Apostolice, et nichilominus protestantes nequid novi contra nos et iura nostra et ecclesie Nimotiensis ac quoruncunque huic appellationi adherentium et decetero adherere volentium debeatis innovare donec de presenti appellatione plenarie fuerit cognitum et discussum. (B) Qua appellatione interposita et eisdem delegatis copia assignata, iidem domini delegati responderunt quod non admittebant dictam appellationem nisi, si, et in quantum fuerit rationis, assignantes dictis dominis Alberto et Federicho terminum ad diem Martis proximam ad audiendum responsionem ipsorum dellegatorum. (A) De quibus premissis omnibus et singulis, videlicet exceptionum productione et assignatione et dellegatorum responsione ac termini assignatione, dicti domini Albertus et Federichus rogaverunt me notarium infrasscriptum sibi publicum conficere instrumentum. Acta fuerunt predicta Nicossie, in domo habitationis dicti domini episcopi Paphensis, anno, die, mense, et Indictione quibus supra, presentibus discretis viris domino Pontio Payesii, canonico Paphensi, et Minirino de Bononia, turcopolo regio, testibus ad premissa vocatis specialiter et rogatis.

(B) De quibus appellatione et ipsius assignatione ac ipsorum delegatorum responsione dicti domini Albertus et Federichus rogaverunt me notarium infrasscriptum sibi publicum conficere instrumentum. Acta fuerunt premissa Nicossie, in domibus archiepiscopalibus, videlicet in camera maiori iuxta pallatium, anno, die, mense, et Indictione quibus supra, presentibus venerabilibus et discretis viris dominis Goffredo Spanzota, archidiacono Famagustano et officiali ecclesie Nicossiensis, Petro Trenchapodii, priore cimeterii Sancti Mihaelis de Nicossia, Helya Ortici, assissio ecclesie Nicossiensis, Pontio Payesii, canonico Paphensi, et presbytero Bertrando Tallianni, testibus de premissa vocatis specialiter et rogatis.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

155

Notarial sign of Gerardinus Tauri de Parma

Notarial sign of Gerardinus Tauri de Parma

Et ego Gerardinus Tauri de Parma, publicus apostolica et imperiali auctoritatibus notarius, predictarum exceptionum presentationi et assignationi ac omnibus aliis et singulis suprascriptis presens fui et ea rogatus et requisitus scripsi atque in hanc publicam formam redegi signoque meo solito signavi in testimonium premissorum.

Et ego Gerardinus Tauri de Parma, publicus apostolica et imperiali auctoritatibus notarius, predicte appellationis interpositioni et omnibus aliis et singulis suprascriptis presens fui et ea rogatus et requisitus scripsi atque in hanc publicam formam redegi signoque meo consueto signavi in testimonium premissorum.

156

CHRIS SCHABEL

Document 2 Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Instrumentum Miscellaneum 1967 Document drawn up in Avignon at the Gate of the Papal Palace, 10 February 1354, certifying that Peter de Cloto has attempted to file the appeal (Document 1) with the pope but was denied entry by the gatekeeper, Étienne de Combes. In nomine Domini, amen. Anno a Nativitate eiusdem millesimo trecentesimo quinquagesimo quarto, Indictione viia, die decima mensis Februarii, pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo patris et domini nostri domini Innocentii divina providentia pape vi anno secundo, in mei notarii publici et testium infrascriptorum ad hoc vocatorum specialiter et rogatorum presentia personaliter constitutus, dominus Petrus de Cloto, presbyter Petragoricensis diocesis, procurator – ut asseruit – et nomine procuratorio reverendi patris domini Helie, Dei gratia episcopi Nimociensis, coram Stephano de Combis, domini nostri pape porterio, tunc primam portam palacii custodiente, quoddam appellationis publicum instrumentum, scriptum et signatum manu magistri Gerardini Tauri de Parma, apostolica et imperiali auctoritate notarii, ut prima facie videbatur – quod incipit in secunda sui linea “ad hoc” et finit in eadem “personaliter”; item, in penultima sui linea, ante subscriptionem notarii, incipit “Goffredo” et finit in eadem “Tallianni” – in suis tenens manibus, ipsum porterium requisivit humiliter ut ipse porterius dictam primam portam palacii apperiret, eundemque procuratorem intrare permitteret, et introduceret ad ipsum dominum nostrum papam, cum ipse vellet – ut dixit – sibi dictam appellationem presentare una cum toto negocio principali, et petere iudicem seu auditorem apud Sedem Apostolicam sibi dari, et alia facere ad que de iure tenetur ratione dicte appellationis nomine domini episcopi predicti. Qui quidem porterius eidem procuratori respondit quod non erat tempus intrandi ad ipsum dominum nostrum papam, nec ipsum procuratorem intrare permisit, licet per eum esset humiliter et instanter requisitus. Et tunc dictus dominus Petrus procurator illico dixit et protestatus fuit quod nullum sibi et domino episcopo predicto occasione gravaminum in dicta appellatione contentorum preiudicium generetur, cum per eum non stetit, stat, neque staret quominus, si posset, ad dictum dominum nostrum papam intrasset et dictam appellationem presentasset, iudicemque seu auditorem sibi dari cum instancia postulasset, et alia fecisset cum effectu facienda, si ingressum potuisset habere ad eundem dominum nostrum papam, et quod sibi et dictis dominis suis non currant tempora quominus possit dictam appellationem prosequi in futurum, petens dictus procurator per me notarium infrascriptum sibi dari et fieri publicum instrumentum. Actum et datum Avinione, ante dictam primam portam, anno, die, mense, Indictione, et pontificatu quibus supra, presentibus discretis viris Stephano Carri, ipsius domini nostri pape cursore, et Iohanne Borrelli, beneficiato in ecclesia Maioricensi, et pluribus aliis testibus ad premissa vocatis specialiter et rogatis.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

157

Notarial sign of Iohannes de Paillencourt Et me Iohanne de Paillencourt, Atrebatensis diocesis, apostolica et imperiali auctoritate publico notario, qui premissis omnibus et singulis dum agebantur in modum supradictum una cum prenominatis testibus presens fui, eaque omnia et singula manu propria scripsi, signoque meo solito signavi, in hanc publicam formam redigendo vocatus et requisitus in testimonium premissorum.

158

CHRIS SCHABEL

Document 3 Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Instrumentum Miscellaneum 2017 Document drawn up for Bishop Eudes of Paphos in Nicosia on 28 March 1355, in which he names as his procurators at the papal curia Firmin Barthélemy d’Uzès canon of Nicosia, Thomas Foscarino canon of Paphos, and Master Peter de Balneis. In Christi nomine, amen. Anno Nativitatis eiusdem millesimo trecentessimo quinquagessimo quinto, Indictione octava, die vigessimo octavo mensis Martii, per hoc presens publicum instrumentum sit omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris publice manifestum quod, presente me notario et testibus infrasscriptis ad hoc specialiter vocatis et rogatis, reverendus in Christo pater et dominus dominus Oddo, divina permisione Paphensis episcopus, fecit, constituit, et ordinavit venerabiles viros dominum Ferminum Bartholomei canonicum Nicossiensem et dominum Thomam de Foscarinis canonicum Paphensem et magistrum Petrum de Balneis, absentes tamquam presentes, et quemlibet ipsorum insollidum, ita quod non sit melior conditio ocupantis, suos veros et legitimos procuratores, actores, factores, et certos nuntios speciales ad visitandum sanctam Sedem Apostolicam, et ad debitam reverentiam prestandam dicte sedi ac faciendam, prout dictus dominus episcopus tenetur et moris est, et generaliter ad omnia alia facienda que dicte visitacioni et reverentie neccessaria sunt ac ecciam opportuna, dans eis et cuillibet eorum plenam pottestatem et mandatum adimplendi et exequendi predicta omnia et singula sicut ipse dominus episcopus facere posset si personaliter interesset. Actum Nicossie, in domibus Paphensis ecclesie, in camera dicti domini episcopi, presentibus presbyteris Bertrando Taliani assisio Paphensis ecclesie et Bartholomeo de Parma, sociis domini episcopi predicti, et ser Gerardo Hang’, scriba secrete ecclesie Paphensis, testibus ad predicta vocatis specialiter et rogatis. Qui prefatus dominus episcopus ad cautelam iubsit presens publicum instrumentum sui magni sigilli appensione muniri.

Notarial sign of Iohannes Francisci de Puteo de Bononia Et ego Iohannes condam Francisci de Puteo de Bononia, imperiali auctoritate iudex ordinarius atque notarius publicus et nunc notarius supradicti domini mei episcopi, predictis omnibus et singulis una cum testibus nominatis interfui et ea rogatus in hanc publicam formam reddegi meumque nomen ac signum apposui consuetum, in testimonium omnium premissorum.

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

159

Document 4 Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Instrumentum Miscellaneum 4747 and Reg. Aven. 346, fols. 243r–244v, completed with Reg. Vat. 146, fol. 83r–v Fragments of the record of the inquisition held concerning the legacy of Bishop Francesco of Limassol, probably in Avignon around early September 1355. Note: I.M. 4747 is a bifolio that originally had another bifolio bound within it. These are the present contents: folio 1 (A): end of article 18 to start of article 21; folio 2 (B): end of article 23 to start of article 26. Article 21 has the beginning of a letter of Clement VI of 29 November 1352, which survives complete in Reg. Vat. 146, fol. 83r–v (C). Reg. Aven. 346, fols. 243r–244v, is another bifolio that contained one or more bifolia bound within it. These are the present contents: folio 243 (D): end of article 2 to start of article 8; folio 244 (E): agreement between Bishop Elias and the papal camera (the verso is blank). Since the original composition of the document is unknown, below the texts have been rearranged in the sequence D-A-C-B-E as if containing the testimony of a single witness, followed by the agreement. Part of folio 2 of I.M. 4747 has been torn off, and in both fragments the paper has been damaged by water and is illegible in places. A UV lamp was employed, but conjectures and illegible spaces remain, marked with (-) below. [D 243r] et ipso precedenti articulo contenta fuerunt et sunt vera et notoria, de hiisque omnibus et singulis fuit et est communis opinio, reputatio, assertio, credulitas, arbitratio, et commune dictum. Nec est aliquis vivens qui umquam viderit vel audiverit seu qui diceret se vidisse vel audivisse ab aliquo alio qui diceret se vidisse vel audivisse ab alio usque (in insanitum contrar)ium omnium et singulorum que in hoc et precedenti articulis continentur. III. Item, quod de predictis omnibus et singulis fuit et est publica vox et fama. IIII. Item, ponit (et probare intendit) quod bone memorie dominus frater Franchiscus, immediatus predecessor dicti domini Helie moderni episcopi Nimociensis, de anno Domini millessimo ccc quinquagesimo primo, a principio ipsius anni et ante1 usque ad (xiii) diem mensis Julii eiusdem anni et usque ad tempus (mortis sue) fuit episcopus Nimociensis et in possessione episcopatus eiusdem corporali se gessit et habitus et reputatus fuit communiter pro (-) (not)orie. V. Item, quod existens idem dominus frater Franchiscus episcopus Nimociensis diem vite sue clausit extremum predicta die xiii Julii eiusdem anni Domini millesimi ccc quinquagesimi primi; et quod per ipsius domini fratris Franchisci obitum dicta ecclesia vacavit et fuit communiter reputata vacare. VI. Item, quod idem dominus frater Franchiscus decessit de quadam longa infirmitate; et quod ipsa infirmitas duravit sibi immediate ante dictum tempus obitus sui per xx dies et ultra; quodque ipsa [D 243v] infirmitate2 durante idem dominus frater Franchiscus de bonis que apud ipsum tempore huiusmodi sue infirmitatis erant multa dedit et distribuit manualiter suis servitoribus et ministris prout sibi placuit. Et quod omnia et singula in hoc articulo

1  2 

ante] p.c. s.l. D infirmitate] detentus add. sed del. D

160

CHRIS SCHABEL

contenta fuerunt et sunt vera, et quod hiis omnibus et singulis fuit et est communis opinio, reputatio, credulitas, arbitratio et commune dictum ac publica vox et fama. VII. Item, quod longe ante tempus et tempore mortis eiusdem domini fratris Franchisci olim episcopi Nimociensis et per totum tempus sue infirmitatis predicte quidam Conradus dictus de Margato, habens quandam neptem ipsius domini fratris Franchisci quondam episcopi in uxorem, serviebat eidem domino Franchisco et erat servitor suus domesticus commensalis et rector sui hospicii s(u)p(er) omnes alios suos familiares et rerum suarum, et quam longe ante tempus et tempore3 obitus ipsius domini Franchisci idem Conradus (re)g(ie)bat dictum dominum Franchiscum et sciebat et scire potera(t) (-) (se) (scire) dicebat quicquid habebat idem dominus Franchiscus in p(ecuni)a et in quibuscumque aliis bonis, et eidem Conrado hoc revelaverat et revelabat idem dominus frater Franchiscus. Et quod de contentis omnibus et singulis in hoc articulo fuit et est communis opinio, assertio, credulitas, reputatio, arbitratio, ac commune dictum, eaque fuerunt et sunt sic fuisse vera, de hiisque fuit et est publica vox et fama. VIII. Item, quod existente dicto Conrado familiari domestico commensali et marito dicte neptis ipsius domini fratris Franchisci et tali ut supra proxime descriptus [end folio] [A 1r] omnia et singula contenta in hoc articulo fuerunt et sunt vera et notoria, de hiisque omnibus et singulis fuit et est communis opinio, reputatio, credulitas, assertio, et commune dictum et etiam publica vox et fama. XIX. Item, quod receptis litteris apostolicis supradictis ac vicariatus predicti per ipsum dominum archiepiscopum Nicossiensem, idem dominus archiepiscopus fecit ad se vocari dominos Albertum et Fredericum ut sibi tanquam vicario domini episcopi et ecclesie Nimotiensis redderent rationem tam de bonis contentis in dicto inventario quam etiam de debitis ipsius domini fratris Franchisci ad que tenebatur tempore mortis sue; et quod dicti vicarii reddiderunt rationem et computum legale eidem domino archiepiscopo de omnibus et singulis inventis apud4 ipsum dominum episcopum defunctum et contentis in dicto inventario et de debitis ad que tenebatur5 idem episcopus defunctus tempore mortis sue; et quod per huiusmodi rationem et computum legale, et facta deductione, de omnibus bonis que dicebantur fuisse inventa apud ipsum episcopum defunctum et de debitis supradictis solum remanserunt m iic bisancii vel circa ac calices et baculi pastorales et ornamenta – de quibus infra dicetur – quos dicti vicarii assignarunt domino archiepiscopo supradicto ut vicario domini episcopi Nimociensis moderni; et quod huiusmodi m iic bisancios vel circa ac ipsos calices, baculos, et ornamenta dicti vicarii eidem domino archiepiscopo assignarunt tanquam vicario ipsius domini episcopi Nimociensis moderni et nomine suo ac ipsius Nimociensis ecclesie; quodque idem dominus archiepiscopus huiusmodi rationem et computum diligenter examinatum tanquam legale, iustum, et verum [A 1v] acceptavit et admisit et quittationem fecit dictis vicariis de gestis per eos in hac parte, prehabita examinatione diligenti. XX. Item, quod idem dominus archiepiscopus, vigore dictarum litterarum apostolicarum sibi directarum contra raptores et detentores bonorum predictorum eisdem litteris apostolicis receptis et earum vigore, tam contra dictum Conradum quam contra alios suos complices et alios detentores et raptores dictorum bonorum fecit nonnullos processus tam in specie quam in genere, prout sibi ex huiusmodi litteris apostolicis competebat, et fecit totum posse suum de recuperando dicta bona, etiam antequam dominus Odo episcopus Paphensis et quidam

3 

tempore] opu add. sed del. D apud] dominum add. sed del. A 5  tenebatur] qui add. sed del. A 4 

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

161

frater Monaldus de Campo de Ordine Predicatorum cum quibusdam litteris apostolicis pretensis – de quibus infra dicetur – ad regnum Cipri applicarent seu accederent. XXI. Item, quod post omnia et singula supra(dicta) et iam post est nonnulla tempora postquam felicis recordationis dominus Clemens (papa est ad) viam universe carnis ingressus, dicti dominus Odo episcopus Paphensis et frater Monaldus accesserunt primo cum dictis litteris apostolicis pretensis – de quibus infra dicetur – ad regnum (et insulam) Cipri et ipsas litteras apostolicas pretensas longe post obitum dicti domini Clementis in dicta ecclesia Nimociensi publicarunt (prop...) non (ante), videlicet anno Domini millesimo cccliii, post xiii diem mensis Septembris. Et quod omnia et singula in hoc articulo contenta fuerunt et sunt vera et notoria, de hiisque omnibus et singulis fuit et est communis opinio, reputatio, credulitas, arbitratio, et commune dictum ac publica vox et fama. Tenor vero dictarum litterarum apostolicarum pretensarum de quibus supra proxime fit mentio talis est: Clemens etc. episcopus, servus servorum Dei,6 venerabili fratri Odoni, episcopo Paphensi [C 83r], Apostolice Sedis nuncio, et dilecto filio Monaldo de Campo, Ordinis Fratrum Predicatorum, salutem etc. Licet dudum ex certis causis rationabilibus dispositionem bonorum mobilium ac debitorum et creditorum bone memorie Francisci episcopi Nimociensis que haberet vel ad eum pertinerent quomodolibet tempore mortis sue nobis duxerimus reservandam, tamen, eodem episcopo sublato de medio, nonnulli, ad bona, debita, et credita huiusmodi manus avidas [C 83v] extendentes, illa pro libito rapuerunt et etiam distraxerunt. Ideoque discretioni vestre per apostolica scripta mandamus quatenus vos vel alter vestrum, per vos vel alium seu alios, bona, debita, et credita supradicta, quecunque sint et in quibuscunque rebus consistant et per quascunque detineantur seu debeantur personas – super quibus vos, si necesse fuerit, summarie, simpliciter, et de plano, sine strepitu et figura iudicii, informetis – petere, exigere, ac recipere illaque fideliter conservare curetis. Contradictores, cuiuscumque status, gradus, ordinis, vel conditionis extiterint, etiam si pontificali vel quavis alia prefulgeant dignitate, per censuram ecclesiasticam, appellatione postposita, compescendo. Invocato ad hoc, si opus fuerit, auxilio brachii secularis. Non obstante indulgentia qua, fili Monalde, ordini tuo a Sede Apostolica dicitur esse concessum quod fratres ipsius ordinis non teneantur se intromittere de quibuscumque negociis que ipsis per eiusdem sedis litteras committuntur7 nisi in eis de concessione huiusmodi plena et expressa mentio habeatur, seu si eisdem personis vel quibusvis aliis communiter vel divisim a dicta sit sede indultum quod interdici, suspendi, vel excommunicari non possint per litteras apostolicas non facientes plenam et expressam ac de verbo ad verbum de indulto huiusmodi mentionem. Nos enim eos a quibus bona, debita, et credita supradicta recipere vos continget absolvendi plenius et quittandi de hiis que receperitis ab eisdem plenam concedimus tenore presentium potestatem. Volumus autem quod de receptione huiusmodi duo confici faciatis consimilia publica instrumenta, quorum uno penes assignantes illa dimisso, reliquum ad nostram cameram evestigio destinetis. Datum Avinione, iii Kalendas Decembris, anno undecimo. [B 2r] toria, de hiisque fuit et est communis opinio, reputatio, credulitas, extimatio, assertio, et commune dictum et publica vox et fama. XXIIII. Item, ponit et probare intendit quod dicti dominus Odo episcopus Paphensis et frater Monaldus, scientes et scire valentes et se scire dicentes omnia et singula supradicta fuisse et esse vera et notoria, sicque servatum fuisse et esse etiam in ecclesia Paphensi et 6  7 

episcopus servus servorum Dei] s.l. A committuntur] commiittuntur C

162

CHRIS SCHABEL

ecclesia predicta Nimociensi et omnibus ecclesiis predictis ipsius regni Cipri cathedralibus, convenerunt et fecerunt evocari coram se dictos dominos Albertum et Fredericum indebite et iniuste post dictam xiii diem dicti mensis Septembris et ante xxiii diem eiusdem mensis Septembris dicti anni Domini millesimi cccliii, super dictis bonis que dicebantur dimissa per eundem dominum fratrem Franchiscum quondam episcopum Nimociensem, pretextu dictarum pretensarum litterarum apostolicarum, et ipsos d(ominos) Albertum et Fredericum8 multipliciter pretextu ipsarum (pretensarum) litter(arum) apostolicarum – cuius tenor superius est insertus – vexaverunt super (dictis bonis) et eorum occasione; et quod propter huiusmodi evocationem et con(ventionem) dicti domini Albertus et Fredericus predicta xxiii die ipsius mensis Septembris, coram dictis domino Odone episcopo et fratre Monaldo, propos(uerunt) iustas et legitimas causas, rationes, et exceptiones contentas in substantia in articulis supradictis et alias etiam iustas et legitimas, propter quas dicebant et proponebant – sicut verum erat et est – se non teneri super huiusmodi bonis respondere eisdem domino Odoni episcopo et fratri Monaldo pretextu ipsarum litterarum apostolicarum – cuius tenor superius9 est insertus – petentes ipsas causas, rationes, et exceptiones admitti et eis super ipsis [B 2v] responsionem dari per ipsos dominos Odonem episcopum et fratrem Monaldum; et quod causas, rationes, et exceptiones huiusmodi subito et repente, et in continenti, eis propositis, absque deliberatione aliqua, precipitative dicta xxiii die ipsius mensis Septembris dicti anni prefati dominus Odo episcopus Paphensis et frater Monaldus repulerunt et abiecerunt, dicentes quod eas non admittebant, sed abiciebant indebite et iniuste, et nichilominus assignaverunt eisdem dominis Alberto et Frederico quandam diem ad comparendum coram eis etiam indebite et iniuste. Propter que pro parte dictorum dominorum Alberti et Frederici fuit ad Sedem Apostolicam appellatum iuste et legitime, scilicet quia dicte cause,10 rationes, et exceptiones non admittebantur, sed abiciebantur seu repellebantur per dictos dominos Odonem et fratrem Monaldum et etiam propter assignationem predictam. (XXV. Item), quod dicti dominus Odo11 episcopus Paphensis et frater Monaldus omiserunt (sci)enter et maliciose procedere contra dictos Conradum et suos complices, qui multa bona de predictis rapuerant et asportaverant12 et manus avidas extenderant ad dicta bona. Hoc scientes, dicti dominus episcopus Paphensis et frater Monaldus et ipsos Conradum et suos complices dimiserunt in pace, procedentes contra predictos vicarios voluntarie et minus iuste, ut supra premissum est, licet non possent rationibus antedictis.13 (XXV)I. Item, quod per dictum inventarium reperti fuerunt iii calices et due vel tres crocie seu baculi pastorales et certa ornamenta ecclesie Nimociensis; et quod huiusmodi calices, baculi pastorales, et ornamenta [end B] [E 244r] Cum domino Nymociensi per Cameram concordatur: In primis, ut ipse infra quindenam post festum beati Michaelis pro sua subventione habeat Camere assignare: iiic florenos. (mg. alia manus: Non obligavit se pro prima summa)

8 

Fredericum] Franchiscum B superius] inser inferius a.c. s.l. B 10  dicte cause] dictas causas B 11  Odo] et add. B 12  asportaverant] p.c. B 13  antedictis] Item, quod de predictis omnibus et singulis fuit et est publica vox et fama add. sed del. B 9 

THE CHURCH OF LIMASSOL IN 1351

163

Item, ut pro bonis contentis in rotulo hiis annexo quos ab exequtione eius predecessoris asserit et nullos alios se habere hinc ad festum Pasche14 eidem Camere assignabit: iiclxxxiii florenos. Item, quod in interim dominis Odoni Paphensi et Leodegario Famagustano episcopis per ipsum et sepefatam Cameram conscribetur ut super debitis et creditis tempore obitus bone memorie Francissi episcopi Nimociensis ac super periculiis et dispendiis, siqua essent, si Romana Ecclesia eadem exigeret reservationis virtute, quodque super hiis informationem secretam et plenariam quam primum poterunt hic transmittant. Item, quod domini episcopi memorati contra quemdam dictum Colradum de Margato depredatorem totius vaissallamenti dicti episcopi vitafungti et quoscumque alios nomine Camere antedicte fiat diligentia per censuram ecclesiasticam notadigna. Item, super hiis proxime dictis Hugoni regi Cipri illusti per papam scribatur ut super auxiliis et favoribus promptum reddere se dignetur. Item, ut super hiis dictus dominus Nymociensis quatenus ipsum tangunt se Camere obligabit post cuiusmodi obligationem manus Camere ammovebitur a bonis eiusdem episcopatus prefatis debitis et creditis dumtaxat exceptis. [E 244v blank]

14 

Pasche] purifficationis beate Marie a.c. s.l. E

Prelude to a Gazetteer of Place-Names in the Countryside of Rhodes 1306–1423: Evidence from Unpublished Documents Michael Heslop Royal Holloway, University of London [email protected] Abstract This paper examines the geographic evidence which can be derived from hitherto unpublished documents from the Malta archives of the Order relating to the Rhodian countryside during the period from 1306 to 1423. Land grants made by the Hospitallers to both Latins and Greeks are analysed, examining in particular the nature of the grant (size and features such as vineyards) and the place-names mentioned. Most of the study is devoted to identifying a modern location for the places and features mentioned in the documents. Some 75 per cent of the 211 place-names in the documents have been identified using a variety of old and more recent maps, travellers’ accounts, and existing studies of toponyms; most significantly, about half were located due to extensive field work carried out by the author over the years 2009– 13. This information makes it possible to locate many of the boundary points of land grants when these are mentioned, and to map a select few of the 47 known such grants to both Latins and Greeks. The study presents a map of the whole island that shows the place-names identified, as well as maps of certain grants of casalia, areas of land, and of specific features such as vineyards. Some comments are also made about the road system of the island. On the basis of the Malta documents, we see that, although the Hospitallers did try to attract Latin colonists, they were clearly prepared to grant land to the Greek inhabitants. One result of this seems to have been that the countryside of Rhodes enjoyed one of the more harmonious relationships between Latins and Greeks to be found in the post-1204 Byzantine world.

Introduction Very little is known about the ownership of land on Rhodes prior to its occupation by the Hospitallers in 1309. Whatever the reality, and any changes made after 1250, it is known that Michael VIII Palaiologos gave the island to his brother, the despot John Palaiologos, in about 1260. The exact nature of this grant remains obscure, but Bartusis has concluded that John would have received the properties as well as the administrative rights over the islands (Mytilene and Rhodes) for as long as the emperor wanted him to.1 In any event, around 1272, in Pachymeres’ words, Michael

1 

Mark C. Bartusis, Land and Privilege in Byzantium: The Institution of Pronoia (Cambridge, 2012), 289–92. 165

166

MICHAEL HESLOP

“took away the great part of [John’s] oikonomia; all the islands [mentioned] earlier, I speak of Mytilene and Rhodes.”2 Apart from the evidence surviving in the Hospitaller archives in Malta, very little documentary evidence is available for the period 1306–1423.3 Most pre-1424 travellers to Rhodes did not visit the countryside except to view the church and icon of “Our Lady of Filerimos.”4 Cristoforo Buondelmonti was an exception. He was based on Rhodes from 1414 to 1422; he returned there by June 1430 and may have died there.5 In his Liber Insularum Archipelagi, he describes, inter alia, the countryside of Rhodes and certain contemporary issues.6 The Documents Although hardly any archival documents survive from Rhodes for the period prior to 1346, and very few (five registers) for the years 1348–61, there are in total 2007 extant ones which mention the countryside of Rhodes in the period from 1306 to 1423.8 Appendix A, below, lists the 151 documents which refer specifically to land grants made to both Latins and Greeks, together with a few other documents which 2  George Pachymeres, Relations Historiques, ed. Albert Failler, 5 vols. (Paris, 1984–2000), 2:417, l.7–9. The circumstances surrounding this event are explained by Paul Magdalino, “Notes on the Last Years of John Palaiologos, Brother of Michael VIII,” Revue des études byzantines 34 (1976): 143–49. 3  Doc. 2 is from the Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid: Sección de Órdenes Militares – San Juan de Jerusalén; Llengua de Aragón, Legajo 718. 4  As for instance, Ogier d’Anglure in 1396: Le Saint Voyage de Jherusalem du Seigneur D’Anglure, ed. F. Bonnardot and A. Longnon (Paris, 1878), 93. 5  Jean-Marc Roger, “Christophe Buondelmonti, doyen de l’église cathédrale de Rhodes (1430),” Byzantion 82 (2012): 323–46, describes the background to his appointment. 6  There exist some 70 pre-1500 manuscripts of his book, together with a range of adaptations and translations. The most comprehensive list is contained in Anthony T. Luttrell, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, vol 2: The Written Sources and their Archaeological Background – The Later History of the Maussolleion and its Utilization in the Hospitaller Castle at Bodrum (Aarhus, 1986), 193–94. Buondelmonti’s description of the countryside referenced many place-names. 7  The 49 documents relating to the countryside which are excluded here relate to such topics as the manumission of slaves, the administration of justice and taxation, and the control of exports, particularly grain. 8  I am indebted to the late Julian Chrysostomides and Gregory O’Malley for access to transcriptions of documents from the Rhodian archives in Malta and to Anthony Luttrell for allowing me to see his summaries of these documents. I am also grateful to both Luttrell and O’Malley for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Twelve of the documents [docs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 22, 33, 35, 62, 74, 142] had been published by Luttrell in the past, in his various articles, while two [docs. 150, 151] appear in Z. N. Tsirpanlis, Anekdota eggrapha gia ti Rodo kai tis Noties Sporades apo to archeio ton Ioanniton Ippoton [“Unpublished documents concerning Rhodes and the South-East Sporades from the archives of the Knights Hospitaller”], vol. I: 1421–1453 (Rhodes, 1995), 223–31. I am also indebted to the late David Jacoby for his insightful comments on a later version of this paper. All the 200 aforementioned extant documents have recently been published (March 2019): Anthony Luttrell and Gregory O’Malley, The Countryside of Hospitaller Rhodes 1306–1423 (Abingdon and New York, 2019).

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

167

illustrate additional features about the landscape.9 The majority of these grants were issued in Rhodes, but others were granted from near Limassol [doc. 1], Avignon [docs. 3, 4, 99–105, 107–22] and Paris [doc. 143]. The document issued in Cyprus on 27 May 1306 was a record of the pact agreed between the Hospitallers and the Genoese Vignolo de Vignoli on how to administer their planned Dodecanese conquests, while the other documents were issued in France because the Master of the Hospitallers resided there at the time. I have examined in another study the names of the grantees and their probable ethnicity, as well as the nature and length of the grants, their tenure and the accompanying rental arrangements.10 Appendix A tabulates some other characteristics of the grants awarded in the 151 documents in the survey. The fourth column describes the location of the grant and the fifth column describes the geographic unit or feature which was the subject of the grant. The geographic units included the casale11 or sometimes several casalia; the modiata which was a specific area of land,12 as was the cafizata which equalled, as noted in one of the documents [doc. 50], one-eighth of the modiata; and the charruata [doc. 21] which equated to the amount of land capable of being ploughed within one year. In one case [doc. 149], an entire territorium was granted.13 Properties are frequently mentioned with the features they include, such as vineyards; orchards and/or market gardens;14 monasteries, churches, chapels, cells and chaplaincies; water-mills and windmills; houses, buildings, baths, an inn and a hospice; an enclosure; unspecified lands; fig and unstated types of trees; a platea,15 springs and a sheepfold. Sometimes the awards would combine multiple items such as a geographic area and a feature: doc. 52 for instance, referred to nine modiate and a vineyard. Other grants covered several different components which were not necessarily contiguous such as that of doc. 28 which comprised three separate elements, namely a mill with an adjacent vineyard and jardinum; four modiate with figs and trees; and another mill with another jardinum, together with a vineyard.

9  These other documents relate to donations and endowments, transfers and exchanges, receipts (quittances) for payment of rents, a mortgage for a loan, appointment of officers, and an award of certain rights to a monastery. 10  Michael Heslop, “Rhodes 1306–1423: The Landscape Evidence and Latin-Greek Cohabitation,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 43/1 (2019), 83–104. 11  A casale was an economic or agrarian unit circumscribing a village, including serfs and their services, slaves, animals and any rights attached to the property. 12  The Byzantine modios, from which some have thought the Rhodian modiata was derived, like all medieval measurements, differed from area to area but was approximately 1,000 square metres: see J. Lefort et al., Géometries du fisc byzantine (Paris, 1991), 216–17. The extent of the Rhodian modiata is unknown but, based upon the area calculated for identified boundaries in doc. 56 infra, it is assumed in this paper to be 67 square metres. 13  A territorium was a larger unit of land than a casale. 14  Tsirpanlis, Anekdota eggrapha (passim), translates a jardinum as an orchard rather than a garden. 15  A platea is deemed here to be a flat area of land.

168

MICHAEL HESLOP

Identifying the Medieval Place-Names There are approximately 211 countryside place-names or features mentioned in the selected Malta documents.16 Appendix B lists all the locations mentioned in the 151 documents, together with their modern equivalent where known.17 Many of these are simple to identify as their names have survived without major changes. Others are more difficult to identify for a variety of reasons, while some are the subject of speculation.18 Forty-nine locations have proved impossible to identify for the time being. Some names have not changed (e.g. Damatria, Kattavia and Salakos). Names easy to identify include such places as Afandou,19 Asgourou,20 Laerma,21 and Psinthos.22 But then it gets harder and recourse has to be made to a number of other sources. Principal sources of information are, of course, the two works by Christodoulos Papachristodoulou.23 These works are indispensable, collecting as they do information about place-names that is rapidly disappearing as tourism attracts more and more people away from traditional pursuits in the countryside. The books are arranged by geographical features and cover place-names in two ways, firstly by giving accounts of specific places like Archangelos and Lindos, and secondly by providing a name with more than one location, e.g. Agros, a name that is present in three administrative districts. Travellers in the countryside occasionally noted a place of interest that has subsequently disappeared. For instance, Grünenberg visited the church of Quadraginta Marturi (Forty Martyrs) in 1486, which he described as being near the sea,24 thus complementing the description in the document [doc. 143]. Similarly, in the middle of the nineteenth century, Guérin commented on the existence of the 16  A Gazetteer providing full details of all these place-names is under publication as part of Michael Heslop, Medieval Greece: Encounters between Latins, Greeks and Others in the Dodecanese and the Mani (Routledge, 2020). A sample entry for Caraqui ton Pangos [doc. 61] follows: “A podium or hill used as a boundary point in the Canterelli land grant. It can be identified with the hill with a rocky coned peak called Haraki, some 5 km to the NNW of Laerma. The farmlands to the W of the hill are productive. The ton Pangos part of the name may refer, as suggested by Papachristodoulou, to the old dimos Pagion and to the main stream running in the area, which is still called Pagio(n) or Spaeno(n), formerly called Spagos.” Each entry is accompanied by a map reference and bibliography. 17  See the next section, “Town and Suburbs,” for a review of the distinction between place-names in the town of Rhodes and those deemed to be in the suburbs, and therefore, technically the countryside. 18  These have been characterized as “possibly” or “probably” in Appendix B, below. 19  Despite being recorded in a number of ways ranging from Afada to Phando. 20  Ascribed names include Esgare, Lesguro and Sgorro. 21  Treated as Ladarma, Laderma, La Drema and Ladrema. 22  Given as Absato, Apsido, Obsito and Psito. 23  These are Christodoulos Papachristodoulou, Toponymiko tis Rodou [The Toponomy of Rhodes], 2nd augmented ed. (Rhodes, 1996), and idem. Symvoli sto Toponymiko tis Rodou [A Contribution to the Toponomy of Rhodes], 2nd ed. (Rhodes, 1996). 24  Konrad von Grünenberg, Berschreibung der Reise von Konstanz nach Jerusalem (Konstanz 1487), 52; repr. Ritter Grūnembergs Pilgerfahrt ins Heilige Land 1486, ed. J. Goldfriedrich and W. Fränzel (Leipzig, 1912), 52.

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

169

remains of unidentified medieval buildings in the vicinity of Cape St Minas, which may have included the church mentioned in doc. 6.25 Maps of the island in the centuries following Buondelmonti are essentially derivative. Thus, no real additional information is gained from the maps of Sonetti (1480), Bordone (1528), Sideri (1563), Nelli (1570), Petri (1571), Porcacchi (1572), Belleforest (1575), Piacenza (1688), Coronelli (1688) or Petroschi (1733–37). Matters start to improve with Guérin’s version26 of Spratt’s map (1856), followed by various British Admiralty maps.27 A dramatic further improvement follows the arrival of the Italians with Revelli (1912)28 and the maps accompanying an Italian guide book (1929).29 By the 1930s, however, the Italians were producing military maps. Such a map was adapted by Inglieri in 1936 to put together his gazetteer of ancient monuments.30 Copies of these Italian maps were obtained by the British authorities and modified to show Italian defensive positions in the Dodecanese. The British Library holds several versions of these maps, the most useful being the Series MDR 47 1:25,000 maps of the Dodecanese.31 Twenty-one of these maps cover the whole of Rhodes and provide detailed topographical information, as well as a very helpful index. The index gives references to squares on the map, each square being 1,000 square metres, thus allowing speedy identification of several elusive place-names which have not changed much since the medieval period. Examples of such locations are the place called Aeras [doc. 58], only slightly modified to Airas; the vineyard of Santa Barbara [doc. 99], still known by the same name; and Ta Triodia [docs. 16 and 128], now known as the hill of Trodia. Even more detailed, however, are a series of Italian maps of the towns and villages of the island.32 These are 1:5,000 in scale and cover 39 communes, some of them with only one map, though bigger ones have many more: Salakos, for example, has seven. These maps are so detailed that it has proved possible to trace with them names mentioned by Papachristodoulou as being in certain districts. Thus, the specific locations of such places as Agropilla, Coclaconovo (Hohlakouvouno) and Gadoraespillo, named by Papachristodoulou, have been traced in the relevant areas. 25 

Victor Guérin, Voyage dans l’île de Rhodes et description de cette île (Paris, 1856), 275. This very usefully includes the contemporary road (probably more resembling tracks) system, which may not have changed very much from the Hospitaller period as we shall see. 27  Including no. 1667 (c.1865) used as a frontispiece in C. T. Newton, Travels and Discoveries in the Levant, vol. I (London, 1865). This too shows roads. 28  Paolo Revelli, L’Egeo. Dall’eta micenea ai tempi nostri (Bergamo-Milan, 1912). 29  Luigi Vittori Bertarelli, Possedimenti e colonie: Isole Egee, Tripolitania, Cirenaica, Eritrea, Somalia (Milan, 1929). 30  Raffaele Umberto Inglieri, Carta archeologica dell’isola di Rodi (Florence, 1936). 31  This series is a 23 January 1941 adaptation of the February 1935 Italian map used by Inglieri. The maps are overlaid in green with Italian defensive positions detected by an aerial photographic survey in March 1941. 32  These maps were provided by the Archaeological Service of Rhodes through the kind assistance of Anna-Maria Kasdagli. 26 

170

MICHAEL HESLOP

Eventually, however, field investigations were required to fill out the picture.33 These usually begin at the local kaphenion where local inhabitants gather at various times of the day. Particularly helpful were older people who could still remember place-names mentioned to them by their parents and grandparents. Farmers, hunters and foresters gave up their time to help a search for a particular location or to indicate where a structure used to exist. Also of benefit was information included in local village histories, such as those for Afandou and Koskinou for example, often compiled by the local schoolteacher. About half the locations identified are derived from field investigations. Figure 1 is a map showing all the places identified, including some subject to speculation. Town and Suburbs Unsurprisingly, the distinction between town and suburbs can be somewhat blurred. This is partly a result of flexible definitions and partly a result of the town walls having been extended from time to time.34 There are a variety of expressions used in the Malta documents to describe areas within the walls. These included collachium, burgum, urbs and civitas.35 Somewhat more problematic are descriptions such as iuxta portam civitatis; without additional information, it is difficult to know whether this is inside or outside the town. More certain are identifications like extra civitate, extra muros burgi civitatis, in suburbiis civitate, extra suburbiis and extra menia civitatis. But in suburbiis without any amplification is confusing. Let us illustrate the issues arising from these descriptions by looking at some examples from the documents surveyed. There is only one example [doc. 93] of iuxta portam civitatis before 1424, when a piece of land was described in 1382 as being next to the gate of the city of Rhodes which led to St. Stephen’s church outside the walls. Given, however, the location of the neighbouring features, it seems that this grant was outside the walls of the town. There are no places extra civitate in the documents selected, but the 1481 reference to the churches demolished ahead of the 1480 siege confirms that such locations were outside the walls.36 There is, however, one 1348 example [doc. 35] of a site extra muros burgi civitatis, namely the church of St. George of Cappadocia. 33  I was accompanied on these trips by Michael Domocos, a long-term resident of the island, whose help was invaluable in obtaining information. 34  The subject has been discussed by Anthony Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes: 1306–1356 (Rhodes, 2003), 146–47, and Kara Hattersley-Smith, “The Documentary Evidence for the Suburbs of the City of Rhodes under the Hospitallers in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,” in Rodos, 2400 chronia [Rhodes, 2400 years], 2 vols. (Athens, 2000), 1:493–96. 35  The collachium was the area around the Grand Master’s Palace reserved for the Brethren of the Order. The burgum or borgo was the southern, predominantly commercial, sector of the town inhabited by Greeks, Latins and others. The urbs and civitas usually referred to the joint area covered by the collachium and burgum. 36  Malta Cod. 76, ff. 47- 48v.

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

171

Fig. 1 Map of identified place-names mentioned in the documents. Map by the author.

The walls of the town had probably expanded by 1382 to include the church within its circumference, as doc. 97 mentioned that a certain piece of land had belonged to some Greeks “at the time of the construction of the walls of the suburbs of the city.”37 In suburbia civitatis is reasonably explicit; there are two documents employing this expression. Docs. 98 and 103 refer to the same two churches, namely St. Mary Calisteni and St. John the Baptist. The first was a private church, positioned outside 37 

Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, 131.

172

MICHAEL HESLOP

the walls in 1358 [doc. 55], 1382 [doc. 98] and 1389 [doc. 103], but brought inside or infra menia by 1447.38 The second had a garden and adjoining buildings in 1382 and was still outside the walls in 1427.39 The church of St. Onofrius was described as being extra suburbia in 1390 [doc. 104], while the identical expression is used to describe the location of the contrata40 of Quiporia in 1391 [doc. 108]. It seems, however, that in sub urbiis or in suburbiis could well have been a location within the walls; a 1384 document mentioned a church called Metropoli in suburbiis,41 while a subsequent 1395 document refers to the church of St. Constantino42 in the contrata of the Metropolitan church infra suburbia Rodi.43 It is possible, however, that the Greek metropolitan church was not inside the walls of the town throughout the Hospitaller period; instead it may have been moved by the Hospitallers outside the walls to its current location before 1384.44 It is clear from the above and other information that the walls of the town were expanded in successive stages. There are no specific dates for when new walls were added but, as noted above, the church of St. George of Cappadocia was originally outside the walls in 1347 and 1348, but within them by 1382 as the original Byzantine suburban wall was subsequently enclosed by new walls. So, the original suburbs of the borgo were gradually enclosed as the town expanded in all directions except the north. Defining the Boundaries The land grants described in the documents can be classified in three different ways. Forty-seven of them have a specific quantified area attached to them. Most of these relate to multiples of a modiata. The size of the grants varied from two cafizate45 [doc. 31] to 170 modiate [doc. 91], the average-sized grant to a Latin being 42 modiate, while for a Greek it was 5 modiate. The grant of 170 modiate was given in 1382 to Dragonetto Clavelli, an influential Latin resident of the island, who subsequently acquired the entire fief of the casale of Lardos and the lordship of the islands of Chalki, Nisyros and Tilos. The size of this grant, around 11.4 square kilometres, was only exceeded by two special grants, one for a monastery, Artamitis, and all its appurtenances [doc. 61], and the other for the casale of Salakos, together with further lands [doc. 151]. 38 

Tsirpanlis, Anekdota eggrapha, 461–62. Ibid., 239–41. 40  An area larger than a casale, sometimes interchangeable with a territorium. 41  Malta Cod. 322, fol. 291v. 42  Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, 133 n. 468. 43  Malta Cod. 328, fol. 163r–v as noted in Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, 133 n. 468. 44  See Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, 129 n. 450, for a possible attribution to Santa Maria on the north side of Athinas Square, following Tsirpanlis, Anekdota eggrapha, 459–60. 45  The cafizata equalled, as noted in one of the documents [doc. 50], one eighth of the modiata. 39 

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

173

Fig. 2 Stavros in the Casale of Agropilla (Agropilia) [Doc. 80]. Photo by the author.

A further category of grants was the casale, covering twenty-seven examples, including in four cases several casalia [docs. 34, 64, 80, 103] and, in another four cases, fractions of a casale [docs. 107, 132, 133 and 134]; Figure 2 shows a church in the casale of Agropilla [doc. 80]. All the grants of casalia were to Latins except for one [doc. 50], namely Mesta, granted to Zeno Calopsiqui. Given, however, that this casale is described as being only ten cafizate in extent, and that later in the same document there is a reference to “dicto contrata,” it would seem that Mesta was mistakenly called a casale. The final type of grant, of which there are 66 surviving examples, were for individual locations, such as vineyards and other features noted above.46 In all, 122 grants or 80 per cent of the total number of documents, provided details of specific adjacent landholdings, usually in each direction, either with the name of the landholder or by stating that the land belonged to the Hospital. Unfortunately, the names of the adjoining landholders do not really help to identify a particular area, as most of the landholders are only mentioned a few times in the documents. Of these contiguous property owners, 26 grants refer to lands owned by the Hospital in one or more directions. Nine documents give the names of individual Hospitallers, 35 note Latin owners, usually just one but occasionally more, while 52 46 

The total of the above categorization does not equal 151 as some of the documents included in the survey were not land grants.

174

MICHAEL HESLOP

grants list Greek landholders. Most of the references to adjacent Greek landholders include multiple names; thus, one document [doc. 50] gives the names of ten Greeks. Other documents [docs. 94, 122, 144] merely list adjoining features such as orchards; the remaining 29 of the documents do not provide any information whatsoever about adjoining holdings or features. Nothing is indicated about the size of contiguous properties.47 Nor is it always easy to locate grants with any precision where adjoining placenames are given, as it has not always been possible to identify some of them. In doc. 6 for example, although the name of the contrata is known, namely Cape Saint Martin, it has not been possible to identify where Vathiurianon, Yclimaquides and Yacladopi were, let alone the even more elusive “place where there are dogs” or “there is a stone with a cross.” In one case [doc. 70], it is impossible to identify exactly where a sizeable land grant was, as none of the names are known with any degree of certainty. Of more interest are those grants where boundary points were provided. It has proved feasible to identify several of them well enough to draw a conjectural representation of the extent of the grant. In doc. 56 for example, a grant of 104 modiate and deserted lands was awarded in a place called Crusem or Trufem. Known to be in the castellany of Feraklos, at first this was considered to be the monastery of Trifenu which is located to the north of Kalathos. But only one of the named boundary points, namely Hiotaria, was present in this area, so attention was instead focused on the area surrounding the church of Timios Stavros, near Malona.48 Five boundary points were mentioned in the document, of which four, including Hiotaria (Figure 3), have been identified. The resulting map (Figure 4) shows Stavros surrounded by the four known boundary points, while the fifth, Micaladena,49 is assumed to cover an area stretching from the north-west of the church to its northeast. The whole area, covering about seven square kilometres, is thus the equivalent of 104 modiate, but this excludes any allowance for the deserted lands included in the grant. In doc. 17 by contrast, only five out of the ten place-names mentioned are known with any degree of certainty so any map would be speculative. Though their sizes are not quantified in the document, the two largest land grants were the Canterelli grant in 1359 [doc. 61] and the Cattaneo grant in 1422 [doc. 151]. The latter included the casale of Salakos, together with the lands of Quironacia and Koraquies.50 The major problem in determining the extent of the 47 

Of interest in the 122 documents describing adjacent properties is the preservation of the ancient Roman custom of land division whereby confines predominantly began with “ab oriente.” Practically all of these documents adopt this practice: see Alex Metcalfe, “Orientation in Three Spheres: Medieval Mediterranean Boundary Clauses in Latin, Greek and Arabic,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 22 (2012): 37–55. 48  The Italians used to call the church La Croce. 49  This means the lands of the “widow of Michael.” 50  Neither of these two areas has been traced. It is known, however, from the document that the first name borders the casale of Salakos at Platanos. So Quironacia could have been the area stretching north and east from Platanos to the coast. It is also known from the document that the lands of Koraquies

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

Fig. 3 Hill of Hiotaria (Lo Liothiari) – a boundary point [Doc. 56]. Photo by the author.

Fig. 4 Map of conjectural boundaries of grant to Mormo de Sindria [Doc. 56].

Map by the author. Google Earth. © 2011 Basarsoft. © 2012 TerraMetrics. © 2011 Tele Atlas. © 2012 DigitalGlobe.

175

176

MICHAEL HESLOP

Fig. 5 Map of conjectural boundaries of grant to Antonio Cattaneo [Doc. 151].

Map by the author. Google Earth. Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO. © 2013 Google. © 2013 DigitalGlobe. © 2013 Basarsoft.

award is deciding the location of the start-off point. It is called the church of St. George Acrotiriano;51 there are, however, two possible St. Georges surviving in the area: the one at Kapi (see Figure 5) seems most likely, since the other St. George at Salakos could be another boundary point noted in the document. If Kapi is indeed the start point, the boundary then heads for the sea at St. Minas before winding back towards Salakos and then reversing towards Kalavarda. The perimeter then goes back towards Salakos before turning east to form a big loop pointing eastwards towards Dimilia. It then returns in the direction of Salakos, skirting the lower northern slopes of Mount Profitis Ilias, before encircling the village of Salakos and culminating back at Kapi. Our map identifies, with some confidence, 17 of the 19 place-names mentioned in the document. A notable feature of the grant is that it is said to cross land belonging to Fr. Peter Ramondi. The land lay between Faneromeni and Kulumbes (thought to be Conopes); this is the only time that such an occurrence is mentioned in the documents. No area is given for the extent of the grant, but it is calculated to be around 63 square kilometres. included a place called Apano Methores which has been identified so it seems possible that the land of Koraquies was the area running east from Salakos to the neighbourhood of Dimilia. 51  Tsirpanlis has also transcribed the document (Tsirpanlis, Anekdota eggrapha, 225–31), but only identified the well-known names.

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

177

Fig. 6 Map of conjectural boundaries of grant to Anthonio Cantarelli [Doc. 61].

Map by the author. Google Earth. © 2011 DigitalGlobe. © 2011 Basarsoft. © 2011 European Space Imaging. © 2011 Tele Atlas.

The biggest grant, however, is the one awarded in 1359 to Antonio Canterelli for his lifetime.52 This grant included the famous monastery of Artamitis and its lands and appurtenances, as well as two locations outside the stated boundaries in the territorii of Laerma and Siana. The document referred to 25 boundary points of which 24 have been identified with varying degrees of certainty, Pordalectora being the unidentified one (see Figure 6).53 The boundary line stretches north from the monastery initially, passing to the east of Kitala, before reaching the fertile lower southern slopes of Mount Profitis Ilias. It then probably turned south after skirting the edges of Apollona and made its way down, touching a number of identifiable 52  Presumably not for very long as the same grant was being awarded to someone else by 1365 [doc. 70]. 53  A preliminary attempt was made by Kara Hattersley-Smith to identify the boundaries and extent of the award: Hattersley-Smith, “The Documentary and Archaeological Evidence for Greek Settlement in the Countryside of Rhodes in the Fourteenth and early Fifteenth Centuries,” MO, 1, 85–87.

178

MICHAEL HESLOP

Fig. 7 Hills of Mavrovouni and Vounara (Guienara) – a boundary point [Doc. 61]. Photo by the author.

boundary points, including Vounara (Figure 7), to an area just north of Laerma. Here the line turned west, reaching the southern part of Mount Ataviros, before going north again to reach Artamitis. The document also mentioned, for whatever reason, two casalia located within the boundaries, namely Vervori and Guienara, as well as the two locations outside the primary grant. A rough estimate of the total area covered by the property comes to about 80 square kilometres. The Road System Fifty-one of the documents refer to roads, usually as a boundary marker. Only ten of these references, however, mention both a starting and finishing location that is known with some certainty. These are as shown in Table 1. Of the other roads noted, several give a starting point and destination, but one of these points is unknown. Others note the existence of a road near a place-name without saying where the road is going to or from. Consequently, the mentions of roads yield somewhat fragmentary evidence. Nevertheless, after taking into account the maps included in Guérin and Newton, it is possible to try to reconstruct what the fourteenth-century road system might have looked like. The results are shown in Figure 8.

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

179

Table 1 Roads with an identifiable start and finish Doc. no. 37  43  85  91  99 105 126 139 140 143

Start Rhodes Psinthos Passimade Rhodes Asgourou Villanova Castle of Villanova Malipassi Rhodes Rhodes

Finish Afandou Archangelos (via Tsambika) Parambolino Dyascoros Diapassadas Kremasti St. George Parayliti Filerimos Malipassi Parambolino

Conclusions Hospitaller policy towards the Rhodian Greeks was undoubtedly influenced in a positive way by their experiences in Cyprus, where they held numerous estates populated largely by Greeks. It is unclear whether the Hospitaller leaders made a conscious decision to promote a harmonious relationship with their Greek subjects on Rhodes from the very start of their occupation, but they would have been encouraged to do so by the knowledge that the Greeks represented a significant majority of the population and were, therefore, best treated with respect. The Hospitallers would also have been aware of the ongoing difficulties suffered by the Venetians in confronting a partly hostile Greek population in Crete. Whatever their ideological or political views, the Hospitallers behaved in such a way as to create an economically successful island and lived with their Greek subjects in relative political and social peace. The grants to Latins may have been bigger in size, but the information contained in the documents about adjacent properties and their landholders indicates there were probably many more Greek landholders than there were Latin ones. By employing multiple approaches, particularly first-hand in situ examination of the area, it has been possible to identify many of the countryside and suburban place-names mentioned in the documents and to see that the awards, whether of specific land areas or features, covered the whole island. Produce on the island was varied and included figs, olives, cheese and honey, while animals present encompassed oxen, sheep, donkeys and goats. Although the island suffered from earthquakes, famine and plague, the impression gained from the documents is that the Hospitallers were relatively successful in fostering the local agriculture, thus allowing the population to form a unique island order state.

180

MICHAEL HESLOP

Fig. 8 Map of conjectural fourteenth-century road system. Map by the author.

Date 27 May 1306 14 May 1313 3 Jan 1326 18 May 1329 12 Nov 1329 6 Sep 1338

2 Apr 1339 1 May 1347

20 May 1347 26 Jul 1347 26 Jul 1347 26 Jul 1347 1 Aug 1347 4 Sep [1347] [4 Sep 1347] 8 Oct 1347 20 Oct 1347 20 Oct 1347 20 Oct 1347 5 Nov [1347] 7 Nov 1347 8 Nov 1347

Doc. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

317 235 317 235v 317 235v–236 317 236 317 236–236v 317 236v 317 237 317 228v–229 317 237 317 239v–240 317 240v–241 317 237 317 230v–231 317 231–231v

317 235 317 225–226

Malta doc. code 326 187v–188v Madrid* In doc. 5 In doc. 5 326 186–187v 16 no. 28

Location 2 unnamed casalia Lands on Rhodes and Turkish mainland Lardos Lardos Lardos Contrata Cape St Martin including Yclimaquides and Yacladopi Politi, casale Kattavia Locus St Johannes de Limona, contrata Abouratorii and territorium Ayos Pandiris Contrata Apolakkia Lands near Filerimos castle Lands near Filerimos castle St Theodori, casale Archangelos Agia Marina, contrata or territorium Salakos Occa, contrata Feraklos Casale Kalathos Casale Myrtonas & contrata Salakos Oxia, casale Lachania St Michaelis de Levadi St Maria Hyctiriatisa & contrata Solloros Mallipassi Energuiros, near St George de Ycossi Giropotamos, contrata church of the Holy Cross

Appendix A: List of Malta Documents

Mon & jard Jard & 6 mod Jard & 6 mod Jard & 7 mod 15 mod 25 mod Water mill & 1 mod Casale & 5 mod & 60 mod 25 mod Jardinum 1/2 mod of vineyard & 3 mod of vyd 25 mod Jard & mill & 2 vyds & 1 charruata 2 1/2 mod & house

3 mod Vineyard & jardinum

Grant of 2 casalia Lands Casale Casale Casale 80 + 30 modiates

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423 181

Doc. no. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Date 9 Nov 1347 9 Nov 1347 15 Nov 1347 20 Nov 1347 28 Nov 1347 28 Nov 1347 28 Nov 1347 20 Dec 1347 20 Dec 1347 1 Jan 1348 8 Jan [1348] 4 Mar 1348 20 Mar 1348 20 Mar 1348 10 Aug 1350 15 Aug 1350 25 Aug [1350] 1 May [1351] 20 Sep 1351 25 Sep 1351 1 Oct 1351 1 Oct 1351 1 Oct 1351 12 Oct 1351 1 Nov 1351 16 Dec [1351] 12 Jan 1352

Malta doc. code 317 239 317 239v 317 240–240v 317 238–238v 317 237v 317 237v–238 317 238 317 238v 317 238v–239 317 241v 317 240 317 241–241v 317 234 317 241 In doc. 39 In doc. 39 318 203–204 318 202 318 221v 318 205 318 206 318 222–222v 318 222v 318 222 318 222v–223 318 223 319 209v–210

Location Agros, casale Vaty Otra, territorium Villanova Contrata St Anargyroi Gadoraespillo, contrata St Elie Contrata Asgourou Contrata Feraklos Lo camp de Laze Vogadoro Solloros Contrata Solloros Casale Artona Lindos Casale Kalamonas & (casale?) Archangelos St George of Cappadocia Not specified - land on Rhodes Contrata Diopassadas Contrata Diopassadas Contrata Diopassadas Dyascoros Contrata Megaloco St Onofrius Contrata Tsimbika Contrata St George Ycossi Contrata Asgourou Lindos Contrata Diopassadas Contrata Campanos Contrada Quiparrisi 5 cafizate Vyd incl. windmill, houses & inn Vyd incl. windmill, houses & inn Vyd incl. windmill, houses & inn Tricopleria Vineyard of 2 1/2 mod Vineyard & church 4 mod Vineyard of 3 mod 50 mod 2 mod Vyd of 1 1/2 mod Vyd of 1 1/2 mod Jard incl. baths & houses

Grant of Site for watermill & 2 mod 1 1/2 mod 25 mod 25 mod Vineyard of 3 mod Mill & vyd & jard & 4 mod & mill & jard & vyd 50 mod 3 cafizate 2 cafizate 3 mod jard incl. trees, spring & church 3 cafizate jard 1 casale & another?

182 MICHAEL HESLOP

Date 20 Mar [1352] 1 Apr 1358 1 May 1358 1 Jun 1358 8 Jul 1358 18 Jul 1358 1 Sep 1358 12 Dec 1358 17 Dec 1358 15 Jan 1359 15 Feb 1359 6 Mar 1359

1 Oct 1364 1 May 1365 1 May 1365 20 Jun 1365 1 Aug 1365 8 Nov 1365 8 Nov 1365 15 Nov 1365 31 Dec 1365 ? 1365/1366 1 Jan 1366 18 Feb 1366 1 Apr 1366

Doc. no. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

16 no. 40 319 264 319 264–264v 319 265 319 293v–294 319 293 319 268 319 293v 319 270 319 326–326v 319 293 319 270v–271 319 296v–297

Malta doc. code 318 223 316 316 316 304 316 303–303v 316 301v–302 316 301–301v 316 316–316v 316 305v 316 305v 316 309v–310 316 311v–312v 316 311–311v

Location Casale Mesta Unidentified outside town Contrata Palamide Casale Kalamonas & (casale?) Archangelos Contrata Rodini St Mary Calisteni Locus Crusem Contrata Archistratigos Casale Guararadis Contrata Alepos Locus Pitharion Artamiti and lands incl. casalia of Vervori and Guienara and territorii of Laerma & Siana Casale Myrtonas Casale Psinthos Casalia Psinthos, Parmeni, Levalani & Archipoli Malipassi & Villanova Contrata St Ilias Contrata Gematico Casalia Altoloco, Pendia & Laerma Mirtia, casale Kalathos Artamiti and lands per no. 61 Casale Lardos Contrata Stanbrotio, casale Apolakkia Damatria St Maura, contrata Quiparissi; contrata St John of Quiporia; contrata Sotira 16 mod Casale 4 casalia Jardina 30 mod 3 mod 3 casalia Mill Mon & lands incl. 2 casalia, 1 mod & jard Casale 2 mods incl. vineyards Vineyards & other goods Mon, church, land, houses, jard & vyd

Grant of 40 cafizate incl. a casale Jard Vyd & 9 mod Casale & another casale? Jard Church Locus of 104 mod Vineyard Vineyard 1/2 vyd & house Locus Mon & lands incl. 2 casalia, 1 mod & jard

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423 183

Doc. no. 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Date 10 May 1366 15 May 1366 15 May 1366 20 May 1366 26 May 1366 26 May 1366 28 Sep [1374] 8 Mar 1379 19 Mar 1379 22 Mar 1379 6 Jul 1381 27 Aug 1381 [27 Aug 1381] 18 Dec 1381 [21 Feb 1382] 21 Feb 1382 6 Mar 1382 6 Mar 1382 13 Mar 1382 15 Mar 1382 22 Mar 1382 22 Mar 1382 22 Mar 1382 24 Mar 1382 6 Oct 1383 6 Oct 1383 22 May 1385

Malta doc. code 319 307 319 301v 319 306 319 305–305v 319 299v 319 297v 320 38v–39 24 no. 16 24 no. 17 Vatican** 321 225 321 225 321 225 321 216 321 225v 321 225v 321 226 321 226 321 226 321 233 321 226v 321 226v 321 227 321 218 322 300 322 300 323 217

Location Contrata St Elya Casale Kalamonas Diapassadas Contrata Aptana Restegelas, contrata Palamida Casalia Laerma, Guitounis & Agropilla Casale Dyaschoro Damatria Damatria Casale Neocorio Villanova Contrata Passimade Contrata Filerimos St George Paraialiti, Villanova Bangi Casale Apollona Unidentified in NW of island Locus St Ancona Land outside Rhodes town near gate of St Stephen Casale Apollona Casale Trianda Near castle Villanova Land outside Rhodes near gate of St Stephen St Maria Calisteni & St Johannes Prodromos Casalia Lelos & Neocorio; contrata Diapassades Contrata St Michael of Psifi Casale Koskinou

Grant of Vineyard & adj. properties Casale Vyd & adj. houses & enclosure 3 mod Locus incl. vyd & house 3 casalia Casale 23 mod Lands & vyds Casale Vineyard Houses & jard 5 mod of vyds & fig Church Jard, houses & vyds Casale 170 mod Locus incl. vyds Piece of land Casale 2 mod Jard & 12 caf & vyd Piece of land 2 churches & houses etc 2 casalia plus vyd, houses & windmill Vyd, houses & mill 30 mod

184 MICHAEL HESLOP

Doc. no. 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

Date 22 May [1385] 1 Oct 1389 2 Aug 1390 12 Sep 1390 20 Apr 1391 6 Nov 1391 16 Dec 1391 10 Jun 1392 2 Sep 1392 2 Sep 1392 2 Sep 1392 2 Sep 1392 2 Sep 1392 24 Oct 1392 29 Oct 1392 20 Aug 1393 4 Sep 1394 13 Sep 1394 15 Sep 1394 25 Jul 1395 18 Oct 1395 6 Feb 1399 5 May 1400 8 Aug 1400 18 Oct 1400 13 Nov 1400 4 Jun 1401

Malta doc. code 323 223 324 140v 324 144 324 94–94v 326 129–131 326 127v–128v 325 163v–164 326 128v–129 326 162 326 162–162v 326 162v–163 326 163–163v 326 163v 326 135 326 135–135v 327 37v 328 179 328 161v 328 162 329 127v 329 142 330 128v 330 139 330 16 330 74v 330 139v 331 160–161v

Location Casalia Lelos & Neocorio; locus Katagro St Maria Calisteni & St Johannes Prodromos St Onofrius, contrata Helemonitra Territorium Villanova; locus Cobocle Locus La Finicha Casale Lardos (1/3) Contrata Quiporia Locus Cardamatha Rodagniaco; Bangi & locus Afandou Contrata Manganly Asgourou Platipotamo Territorium Trianda Cameliqui; Trianda Contrata Manganly Locus Asarito Contrata St Michael of Psifi Unidentified Unidentified Asgourou Contrata Damatria Unidentified Unidentified Kalamonas Coboclia Vardalata; Compania Casale Myrtonas; contrata Salakos

Grant of 2 casalia & 40 mod 2 churches, cells & jard Chapel 2 vyds & jard, house & grotto Lands with vyds & trees 1/3 casale House & jard Houses, jards, lands & vineyards Jards, lands, vyds & houses Vineyard Vineyard Vineyard Vineyard 2 vineyards Vineyard Locus & possessions Vyds, houses & mills Mill, vyd, jard & house Vyd. & land Vineyard 25 mod Vineyard Vineyard Vyd & jard 2 vyds, jard & buildings 2 vyds & house Casale, 5 mod & 60 mods

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423 185

Date 10 Sep [1401] 20 Jan 1402 12 Mar 1402 24 Aug 1402 28 Aug 1402 28 Aug 1402 9 Feb 1403 10 Oct 1403 3 Aug [1404] 1 Sep 1404 30 Jan 1409 5 Feb [1409] 8 Feb 1409 6 Jun 1410 2 Sep 1410 10 Jul 1413 17 Mar 1414 24 Mar 1414 7 Jun 1421 1 Feb 1422 1 Feb 1422 10 Mar 1422 26 Oct 1422

Malta doc. code 331 165 331 188 331 168v 332 164v–165 332 165–165v 332 165v–166v 332 146v 332 169 333 119–120 333 122 334 154v–155 334 190 334 190v 339 53v–54 336 235 339 253v 339 114v–115 339 63v–64v 346 162 346 166v 346 167v–168v 346 167v 346 172–174

Location Manganelli Contrata St Niqueta Psinthos Casale Lardos (2/3) Casale Lardos (2/3) Casale Lardos (1/3) Contrata Quiporia Casale Diascoro Casale Armia Filerimos Contrata Mixy Near road from Rhodes to Malpasso Villanova St Anthony of the Latins Contrata Bangi St Athanasius & St Maria St Erini, casale Parabolinos Afandou Contrata Alupus Unidentified Territorium Mangavely St Michael of Camberidi Casale Salakos and lands of Quironacia & Coraquies

Grant of Vineyard Vineyards Platea, house & vyd 2/3 casale 2/3 casale 1/3 casale House & jard Casale Casale incl. fort & mills Chaplaincy House & vyd Houses & vyds House & piece of vyd. Chaplaincy Jard & vyd 2 churches Church Hospice Vineyard Sheepfold Territorium incl. vyd Monastery Casale + other lands

Notes *  Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid, Sección de Ordenes Militares – San Juan de Jerusalén; Llengua de Aragón, Legajo 718. **  Archivo Secreto Vaticano, Reg. Vat. Fol. 147v–148.

Doc. no. 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

186 MICHAEL HESLOP

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

187

Appendix B: Summary Gazetteer Place-name Abouratorii Aeras Alfando etc Agretha Agropilla Agros Ahonia Alepos Alupus Angathonas Apano Methores Apolakkia Apollona Aptana Archangelos Archapoli Acristatigus Armia Attramiti Artona Aquatum Asarito Asquioti Bangi Cameliqui Campanos Capous Caraqui ton Pangos Castrum Anticum Chemire Cobocle Coclaconovo Columbier Colimbus Colevreto Compania

Doc. no. 8 58 34, 37–39, 55, 110, 119 61 80 23 60 59 143 61 151 9, 72 61, 90, 94 78 12, 34, 43, 53 64 57 137 61, 70 32 104 117 61 89, 110, 143 115 48 17 61 61 82 105, 126 61 127 60 81 127

Conopes Crusem (Crufem)

151 56

Modern equivalent Unidentified contrata Airas 1 km SW of Damatria Afandou Probably Agriles WNW of Asquioti Agropilia N of Laerma Somewhere near Vaty Unidentified perhaps Alunia near Pitharion Unidentified perhaps Alupus NE of Archipoli Possibly Lupi near Mt Kumuli Agatonas valley between Embona & Artamitis Apano Mititari 6 km SE of Salakos Apolakkia Apollona Possibly Ethonas Archangelos Archipoli Archistratigos Probably Pelemoni Artamitis Probably Ethonas Unidentified, but perhaps near Rodini Unidentified Aheritis, S of the Pitta river Posibly Vaghies near Koskinou Possibly Kamiles E of Maritsa Possibly Kambos W of Koskinou Kapos, near Skolonitis reservoir Haraki, NNW of Laerma Ta Pila, S of Spagos stream Unidentified but near Damatria Unidentified but NE of Villanova Hohlakovouno N of Laerma Unidentified but perhaps Kulumbi near Maritsa Unidentified near Pitharion Kolovrehtis river S of Fanes Unidentified but perhaps Kambos SW of Colombier Possibly Kulumbes, 7 km E of Salakos Probably Stavros church near Malona

188

Place-name Dadima Damatria Dedimavounia Deno Dimilia Diopassadas Dyascoros Ecclesia Crucis Embonas Eschunides Esgare etc Exipetro Fanoromeni Fanos Feraclo etc

Filermis etc Gadoraespillo Gematico Giropotamos Granadenas Guararadis Guienara Guitounis Hardaqui Helemonitra Kalato Kalamona (1) Kalamona (2) Kardamatha Katagro Kattavia Kitala (Quitala) Kopries Koraquies

MICHAEL HESLOP

Doc. no. 17

Modern equivalent Possibly near chapel of St John off old road Gennadi-Lachania 73, 82–83, 122 Damatria 17 Hummocks just S of Gennadi 50 Unidentified river S of Mesta 151 Dimilia 37–39, 47, 77, Probably SE of Asgourou 99 40, 81, 91, 136, Unidentified but close to Soroni & Fanes 151 22 Probably Ekklisia Stavros of Apollona 61 Embonas 56 Probably Askilini on S side of Macaris river 27, 45, 99, 112, Asgourou 121 56 Probably Gerakopetra SW of Malona 151 3 km SE of Kalavarda 81 Fanes 14, 28, 32, 34, Feraklos 53, 56, 63–4, 78, 80, 104, 120 4–5, 10–11, 79, Filerimos 87, 124, 138–9 26 Gadourospilio cave S of mouth of Soula river near Crescent hotel 67 Dematika, NE of Koskinou 22 Gieropotami 2 km N of Dimilia 49 Unidentified orchard close to town walls 58 Unidentified N of hill of Villanova 61 Probably Vounara N of Agropilla 80 Possibly Kutruni SE of Laerma 60 Unidentified near Pitharion 104 Site of demolished church outside town walls 15, 69 Kalathos 34, 53, 76 Kalamonas SW of Kalithies 125 Either Kalmonas (1) or Kalamonas on NW coast 109 Kardamena 3 km W of Afandou 99, 150 Masari, the old village 7, 142 Kattavia 61 Kitala NW of Embonas 151 Koprana 4 km N of Dimilia 151 Area around Apano Methores

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

Place-name Kosquino Kremesto La Canea (Aganea) Ladarma etc La Finicha Langria (Angria) Lardo etc Lelo Levalani Lindo etc Liveri Lo Camp de Laze Vogadoro Lo Liothiari Lo Malanguy Losam Lo Vastagno Malpasso etc Mandrico Manganelli etc Manio Masto (Masco) Megalaco Megaliqui Melessovounos Mesta Micaladena Mirtia Mistago Mititari Mixy Monopiguado Mortona Myrtonas Neocorio etc Occa Otra (Ocra)

189

Doc. no. 101 105 17 61, 68, 80 106 151 1, 3–5, 71, 107. 132–34, 145 61, 99, 102 64 3, 5, 17, 33, 46, 69 20 29

Modern equivalent Koskinou Kremasti Lachania Laerma Possibly Vaghia near Maritsa Langria, hill 2 km S of Kalavarda Lardos

56 61 61 29 20, 65, 139–40

Probably Hiotaria 2 km W of Malona Probably adjacent to N Agatonas valley Losa stream 2 km ENE of St Isidoros Unidentified Mallipassia area of ravines & aqueducts S of Monte Smith Mandrico 4 km N of Kamiros Skala Megavli inland from Kritika

151 111, 116, 129, 149 81 61

Lelos W of Apollona near Panaghia Kariona Valanidi 3.5 km N of Archipoli Lindos Unidentified E of Malpasso Unidentified

Possibly Mais 1 km W of Fanes Probably Pastos on stream of St John near St Isidoros 41 Possibly Melanghi near Archipoli 149 Unidentified but near Trianda 25 Unidentified hill S of St Anargyroi 50 4 km W of Apollona 56 Unidentified 69 Myrtia NW of Kalathos near Skokkou hill 10 Unidentified S of Filerimos 151 Area 6 km SE of Salakos 139 Ixia adjoining Bay of Trianda 11 Unidentified near Filerimos 62, 122 Possibly Myrtonas W of Maritsa 16, 128, 151 Mill and tower close to church of St Anna on road from Kalavarda to Salakos 16, 84, 99, 102 Probably Kalavarda 14 Probably the hill named Oxys on the S bank of the Gaduras river 24 Possibly Stena 1 km SW of Paradissi

190

MICHAEL HESLOP

Place-name O Ventos Oxia

Doc. no. 13 17

Palamida Palamide dicte St Horini Parabolinos Parmeni

79 52 86, 143, 145 64

Passimade

86

Pendia Pitharion Plaroto

68 60 28

Platanos Platipotamo Plinanovova

151 113 61

Politi Pordalectora Potamos Prodomata Profitis Ilias (1)

7 61 81 61 61, 151

Proifitis Ilias (2) Profitis Ilias (3) Psito etc Psiquidali

26, 67 66, 75 34, 43, 53, 63–64, 131 151

Psithos Quadraginta Marturi

15 143

Quaraqum Quilidonia Quinovati Quiparissi Quipparici Quiporia Quipparosovunom Quironacia Quivida etc

60 56 151 49, 74 149 74, 108, 135 60 151 83

Modern equivalent Unidentified adjoining St Marina at Salakos Possibly Hioni to N of Skolonitis river between chapel of St George and old road between Gennadi & Lachania Unidentified near Filerimos Unidentified near Trianda Probably Aimomilos N/NE of Koskinou Area around Panaghia Parmeniotissa 4 km S of Psinthos Unidentified but area around destroyed church named Pazimades adjaced to new Metropolitan church Unidentified Possibly Pitharia N of Archipoli Probably Plakoto near St George N of Macaris river Area between Stavri near Salakos & coast Probably the river Platis 1 km N of Afandou Klianounas NNE from N end of the Angathonas valley At Kattavia 500 m from St Anthony Unidentified podium near Laerma Probably the Platis river near Fanes Domata 3.5 km N of Laerma Hill between Salakos & Apollona with monastery of same name Hill SE of Koskinou Unclear if (1) or (2) or another Psinthos Probably Psakes between Kalavarda & Myrtonas Probably Psito stream N of Trifenu monastery Possibly the vanished St Soula near the mouth of the Soula river Unidentified near Pitharion Probably Hilioni 2 km W of Malona An unknown area near Salakos Unidentified close to town walls Unidentified near Megaliqui Possibly Kepulia SE of Pastida Unidentified stream near Pithario Possibly Kourounakia near Salakos Unidentified but road leads from here to Damatria

PLACE-NAMES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OF RHODES 1306–1423

Place-name Restegelas Risfata Rodagnacio Rodini Salaco etc

Doc. no. 79 61 110 54 6, 13, 16, 81, 128, 151 Sanacenas 49 St Anargyroi 25, 124 St Ancona 17, 92 St Anthony of the Latins 142 St Athanasius 75, 144 St Barbara 99 St Firisi 97 St George Auctoriano 151 St George Apanomeriti 52 St George of Cappadocia 22, 35 St George Mitridiotis 151 St George Parayliti 88, 105, 126 St George of Ycossi 24, 44 St Irene (Erini) 145 St John Bucadene 75 St John of Limona 8 St John of Quiporia

74

St John Prodromos St Mary Calisteni St Mary of Funassa St Mary Hyctiriatisa St Mary La Piatosa St Marina St Martin St Maura St Michael of Kamiriotis St Michael of Levadi St Michael of Psifi St Niqueta

98, 103 98, 103, 144 17 19 42 13 6, 151 74 150 18 100, 118 130

St Onofrius St Pandiris St Solas St Stephen

42, 100 8 74 93, 97

191

Modern equivalent Unidentified near Palamida Probably the gully Rihtes on Hohlakovouno Unidentifed orchard Rodini Salakos Unidentified orchard near Quiparissi Just outside walls; now a modern church Possibly located in casale of Capous On S edge of Kattavia Next to eponymous gate of town Monastery & spring SE of Asgourou Church reached by St Stephen’s Gate Possibly St Geroge at Kapi Unidentified Originally outside walls near the Collachium Possibly the church of St George at Salakos Presumably St George on coast near airport Unidentified Church at Aimomilos (Parabolinos) St John Chrysostomos near St Athanasius Unidentified but possibly St John Prodromos at Apollon or another church of same name nearby Unidentified but perhaps at Kepulia near Pastida Next to St John’s Gate Also, next to St John’s Gate Ai Phaneia 4 km SW Gennadi Outside walls originally Same place as Hyctiriatisa Unidentified near Salakos Cape of St Minas Unidentified but close to walls Monastery 4 km W of Masari Unidentified Unidentified Possibly the cave monastery high up on Paradissi Vouno Demolished church near Helmonitra Unidentified Unidentified but near town walls Demolished church at foot of hill of St Stephen outside town

192

Place-name St Theodori Scala Sclapia Scandalha Siana Sichia Solloros Sotira Spagos Squiliqui Stanbrotio Stavri Stillos Ta Paxa Ta Triodia Theologos (Altoloco) Tomasinus Traquia Trianda Tsambika Tu Monomacu Vardalata Vathiurianam Vati Vensinplia Vervori Villanova

Volari Yacladopi Yclimaquides Zinodotu

MICHAEL HESLOP

Doc. no. 12 60 61 61 61, 72 151 19,30

Modern equivalent Church 2 km SW of Archangelos Possibly a hill to W of Pithario Area 2.5 km NW of Laerma Area 3.5 km E of Aghios Isidoros Siana Area 2 km SE of Kalavarda Probably Siliuri between St Athanasius and Mitropoli outside walls 74 Possibly monastery of the Saviour in N Trianda 61 Stream now called Spaeno flows into Gaduras river below Haraki 151 Area about 2 km E of Myrtonas 72 Possibly Stavropetra 4.5 km N of Apolakkia 151 Area below road from Salakos to Kapi 151 Possibly Spitia 3 km NE of Salakos 128 Possibly Ta Paskia near Theologos 16, 128 Area around hill Ta Trodia near Salakos 68 Theologos 60 Unidentified platea near Pitharion 103 Trahia 2.5 km NW of Archangelos 53, 95, 114–15, Trianda 124, 139 43 Area of chapel at Mt Tsambika 13 Low hill close to SE of Salakos 127 Unidentified vineyard 6 Unidentified but perhaps Vatopos near Argiro river 23 Vathy 17 Unidentified near Capous 61 Area S of monastery of Kariona 24, 58, 82–83, Paradisi 85, 88, 95–96, 105, 123, 126–27, 141 61 Probably Golari W of Agatonas 6 Unidentified near cape St Minas 6 Unidentified but perhaps Klimata on the St Minas river 15 Vanished village S of Gaduras river near old aerodrome

The Court of the Monastic Principality of Malta Francesco Russo Independent scholar, Rome [email protected] Abstract From 1530 until 1798 the Maltese archipelago was effectively an independent monastic principality coexisting with numerous other Italian states. Malta’s grand master, just like the prince of any other monarchy or oligarchic republic, was served by a court populated by the many dignitaries who managed the sovereign’s daily life. Examining the Hospitaller grand master’s court and comparing it with those of its European counterparts will reveal the similarities between them, as well as structural and functional aspects which were unique to the Hospitaller court, and allow us to understand its impact on Maltese society. This is a noteworthy subject given that positions within the grand master’s retinue were held exclusively by knights of the Order, severely limiting one of the most important functions of a court: that of gathering the principal social components of a state around the sovereign and allowing them to participate in the management of power.

A Monastic Court In recent years, the study of courts has gained a prominent position within the general historiographical field of pre-modern states, allowing us to understand the significance of the power structures underlying the ceremonial apparatus that characterized court circles.1 Jeroen Duindam’s reflections on the tight interrelation and mutual influence between court and state enriched the work of Norbert Elias and his sociological and anthropological interpretation of the relationship between prince and nobility, opening the way for a large number of comparative essays on the different types of court throughout Europe, from powerful national monarchies to minor principalities.2 The findings of these studies have allowed us to redefine 1 

José E. Hortal Muñoz, Dries Raeymaekers and René Vermeir, “Courts and Households of the Habsburg Dynasty: History and Historiography,” in A Constellation of Courts: The Courts and Households of Habsburg Europe, 1555–1665, ed. José E. Hortal Muñoz, Dries Raeymaekers and René Vermeir (Leuven, 2014), 8; Marcello Fantoni, “Introduction,” in The Court in Europe, ed. Marcello Fantoni (Rome, 2012), 19; Pierpaolo Merlin, Nelle stanze del re. Vita e politica nelle corti europee tra XV e XVIII secolo (Rome, 2010), 7; Jeroen Duindam, Vienna and Versailles. The Courts of Europe’s Dynastic Rivals, 1550–1780 (Cambridge, 2003), 7; and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, “Figure e luoghi della corte romana,” in Roma moderna, ed. Giorgio Ciucci (Rome and Bari, 2002), 44. 2  Norbert Elias, La società di corte (Bologna, 2010; translation of the German original of 1969); John Adamson, ed., The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture under the Ancien Régime, 1500–1750 (London, 1999); Jeroen Duindam, Myths of Power: Norbert Elias and the Early Modern European Court (Amsterdam, 1995); Ronald G. Asch and Adolf M. Birke, eds., Princes, Patronage and 193

194

FRANCESCO RUSSO

the role of the court and have presented new interpretations of the interplay between the entourage of a ruler, the government, and society as a whole. It is indeed well known that the officials and dignitaries who served the prince were not simply participants in meaningless palace rituals, but represented a close circle of advisers who took part, directly or indirectly, in the political life of the state.3 All European courts, whether ecclesiastical or secular, shared substantially the same general structure, with specific responsibilities assigned to specialized departments for the smooth running of the public and private lives of the sovereign. The court of Malta resembled the “continental” scheme, but it also introduced elements typical of monastic administrative structures. From the sixteenth century the tiny archipelago of Malta was ruled by the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, one of the few military orders to survive the fall of the crusader states. Its members took religious vows and were subject to the authority of a grand master, comparable to the abbot of more traditional monastic families.4 As time passed, the balance between a sense of statehood and the Nobility: The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age, c.1450–1650 (London and Oxford, 1991); and also the essays by Cédric Michon, “L’historiographie anglaise sur la cour: entre analyse politique, remontée chronologique, vastes synthèses et large couverture géographique”; Malcolm Smuts, “Court Historiography, 1970–2009: One North American’s Perspective”; Werner Paravicini, “Des résidences à la cour, du Moyen Âge aux Temps modernes: Recherches en langue allemande depuis 1985”; Nicolas Le Roux and Caroline Zum Kolk, “L’historiographie de la cour en France”; Maria Antonietta Visceglia, “Italian Historiography on the Courts: A Survey”; Manuel Rivero Rodríguez, “Court Studies in the Spanish World”; and Agnieszka Jakuboszczak and Maciej Serwański, “Entre le centre et les périphéries. Les courts royales de l’époque moderne dans l’historiographie: les cas de Cracovie, Varsovie, Vilnius, Dresde et Prague,” all in The Court in Europe, 27–172. 3  “Intimacy with the prince was a sign of social status and for everyone, whether high or low ranking, it represented a source of informal power, which aroused jealousy and was constantly under threat”: Werner Paravicini, “The Court of the Dukes of Burgundy. A Model for Europe?”, in Princes, Patronage and the Nobility, 72; see also Fantoni, “Introduction,” 14; Elias, La società di corte, 148; Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 120–21; Gianvittorio Signorotto and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, “Introduction,” in Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492–1700, ed. Gianvittorio Signorotto and Maria Antonietta Visceglia (Cambridge, 2002), 4; and Marcello Fantoni, “Corte e Stato nell’Italia dei secoli XVI–XVII,” in Origini dello Stato. Processi di formazione statale in Italia fra Medioevo ed età moderna, ed. Giorgio Chittolini, Anthony Molho and Pierangelo Schiera (Bologna, 1994), 454. 4  Even though the Order of the Hospital of St. John was not properly made up of monks but rather of “regular laymen,” we will use the concept of “monastic” to define the specific features that characterized the Order. This is not the place for an in-depth analysis of the use of the term “monastic” with regard to the Hospital, and it is used here only in a broad sense which takes account of the traditions at the root of military orders, including those of a monastic and canonical nature, in the hope that we will be able to take up this topic in the future; some interesting food for thought is provided by Nicholas Morton in The Medieval Military Orders, 1120–1314 (Harlow, 2013), 91–92; see also Giles Constable, “The Military Orders,” in Crusaders and Crusading in the Twelfth Century (Farnham, 2008), 182. The Hospitaller membership included professed knights from European aristocratic families, sergeants-atarms who were also professed but had no aristocratic pedigree, and chaplains, priests who followed the Hospitaller rule and were an integral part of the Order: Helen J. Nicholson, The Knights Hospitaller (Woodbridge, 2001), 83–84; Henry J. A. Sire, The Knights of Malta (New Haven and London, 1994), 82–83; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus c.1050–1310 (London and New York, 1967), 238–39.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

195

the essentially monastic nature of the Order began to waver, and during the Early Modern period this imbalance gave the island’s court a unique structure. The grand master of the Order surrounded himself with an entourage similar to those of contemporary monarchs, and over the centuries the size of his retinue increased. This type of organization, although comparable to those of Paris, Madrid, Vienna, London, and Rome, or to the smaller Italian and German principalities, was characterized by a combination of the traditional features of a secular court and monastic rules. As a consequence, a separation appeared between members of the Order, who took part in the palace administration, and the local inhabitants who were barred from membership of the Hospital or from holding office in the grand master’s court. Members of the local aristocracy could not, in fact, join the knighthood, and as a result found themselves excluded from the Order’s power structure. Some noblemen did serve as chaplains or were accepted as donats, although the status of the latter within the Order was one of only partial membership,5 and in neither case was it possible to rise to become one of the conventual dignitaries, with the notable exceptions of those who rose to the rank of prior of the conventual church or vice chancellor.6 The court of the grand master had some “conceptual” and “compositional” differences when compared with European households, but generally it followed the conventional tripartite court structure of household, chamber and stable.7 Similarly, the ceremonial nature of the court reflected practices the knights had been used to in their home countries, consisting of a system of codified customs and rules, which in many respects were common to most courts and were traditionally seen as having their origins in Burgundian courtly circles.8 It has, however, been argued in recent literature that it is difficult to confidently identify how, precisely, the Burgundian tradition influenced the different courts,9 and it has been proposed, rather, that there appeared “multiple models with distinctive features.”10 5 

Francesco Russo, Un Ordine, una città, una diocesi. La giurisdizione ecclesiastica nel principato monastico di Malta in età moderna (1523–1722) (Rome, 2017), 181–84 and 493–97; Emanuel Buttigieg, “Jesuits, Carnival, and the Inquisition in Seventeenth-Century Malta,” The Historical Journal 55/3 (2012): 582; Anton Caruana Galizia, “The Maltese Nobility during the Hospitaller Period: Towards a Reappraisal,” in Symposia Melitensia 7 (2011), 94; Carmel Cassar, “Popular Perceptions and Values in Hospitaller Malta,” in Hospitaller Malta 1530–1798: Studies on Early Modern Malta and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, ed. Victor Mallia-Milanes (Malta, 1993), 435. 6  Relatione della Religione Gerosolimitana di Malta dell’anno MDCXXX, in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 2v; this manuscript has been published recently in Melitensia 16 (2017): Victor Mallia-Milanes, ed., Lo Stato dell’Ordine di Malta 1630 (Taranto, 2017). See also Compendio del Caravita, Tomo I, Sovereign Military Order of Malta (Rome), Magistral Library, MS MAL 030 CAR, fols. 167–68. See, for example, the biography of Giovanni Francesco Abela, by Enzo Scipione, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 1 (1960), 45–46. 7  Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 17–21, esp. 20. 8  John Adamson, “Introduction: The Making of the Ancien-Régime Court, 1500–1700,” in The Princely Courts of Europe, 28. 9  See the reflections of Hortal Muñoz, Raeymaekers and Vermeir, “Courts and Households,” 11–12. 10  Matteo Casini, “Court Rituals, ca. 1450–1650,” in The Court in Europe, 240.

196

FRANCESCO RUSSO

In brief, the court’s general subdivision was designed around the management of the various activities of the monarch, with a functionary at the head of each department: the maggiordomo or maestro di casa (master of the household), for the household; the ciambellano or cameriere maggiore (chamberlain), for the chamber; and the cavallerizzo or grande scudiere (master of the horse), for the stable.11 Malta had a slightly more diversified hierarchy than existed elsewhere, and some roles combined courtly and monastic duties, in keeping with the “double” nature of the grand master, who was both “abbot” and prince.12 Just like elsewhere, the Maltese court carried out many subtle functions which were well beyond those dictated by protocol, giving rise to a complicated system of balances between competing factions. Nevertheless, the protagonists of Malta’s court were quite unlike their continental counterparts, and the institutional context within which they moved was fundamentally different. Previous studies have identified certain patterns within the typical dynamics of a royal court, such as the balance between the nobility’s desire for autonomy and the centralizing tendencies of the monarchy, or the development of a social, economic, and political patronage, or even the creation of a specific cultural milieu.13 Here we pose the question of how this happened in Malta and to what extent it influenced, or was influenced by, the monastic system. 11 

We will use the Italian version of these official court positions, which were obviously different according to the court to which they belonged; to give a general list, the French court had a grand maître, a grand chambellan and a grand écuyer; in Spain there was a mayordomo mayor, a camarero mayor and a caballerizo mayor; in England the lord steward (or master of the household), the lord chamberlain and the master of the horse; in German states the equivalent positions were the Hofmeister, the Kammerer and the Oberststallmeister. These officials were flanked by many others, among whom was the maresciallo di corte or Marschall at the Austrian Habsburg court and at the court of the Valois and the Bourbon of France: Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 13, 30, 34, 54, 106, and 204; Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 36, and 94–95; Daniela Frigo, “L’affermazione della sovranità: famiglia e corte dei Savoia tra Cinque e Settecento,” in ‘Familia’ del principe e famiglia aristocratica, ed. Cesare Mozzarelli, 2 vols. (Rome, 1988), 1:299; Dieter Stievermann, “Southern German Courts around 1500,” in Princes, Patronage and the Nobility, 158; Robert J. Knecht, “La corte di Francia nel XVI secolo,” in “Familia” del principe e famiglia aristocratica, 232; Volker Press, “The Habsburg Court as Center of the Imperial Government,” The Journal of Modern History 58 (1986): 31; John H. Elliot, “Philip IV of Spain: Prisoner of Ceremony,” in The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Royalty (1400–1800), ed. Arthur G. Dickens (London, 1977), 174; Ragnhild M. Hatton, “Louis XIV: At the Court of the Sun King,” in The Courts of Europe, 244. 12  In a way, the figure of the grand master had the “caractère bicéphale de la monarchie pontificale”: Paolo Prodi, Christianisme et monde moderne. Cinquante ans de recherches (Paris, 2006), 184. See also the interesting reflections on the use of the title of the grand master, hovering between the lay title, “Highness,” and the ecclesiastical “Eminence”: Anne Brogini, “Cultural Components of the Grand Masters’ Power in Early Modern Malta (16th–18th centuries),” in At Home in Art: Essays in Honour of Prof. Mario Buhagiar, ed. Charlene Vella (Malta, 2016), 1–8. 13  For example, see Ronald G. Asch, “Introduction: Court and Household from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries,” in Princes, Patronage and the Nobility, 4 and 9; Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, “Corte y provincia en la Monarquía Católica: la corte de Madrid y el Estado de Milán. 1660– 1700,” in La Lombardia spagnola, ed. Elena Brambilla and Giovanni Muto (Milan, 1997), 290; Fantoni, “Corte e Stato nell’Italia,” 451.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

197

One of the most interesting studies on this subject is surely that of Alain Blondy, who edited and commented an eighteenth-century manuscript dealing with court positions and the main ceremonies that took place in Valletta14 during the reign of Fra’ Manuel Pinto de Fonseca (1681–1773),15 and provided a fundamental contribution to the understanding of the Maltese court. Starting from this text and comparing it with some other descriptions of the Maltese environment of the previous century, we can sketch an image of the grand master’s household during the Early Modern Age.16 Certainly, a court had existed to serve the Hospitaller grand master long before the eighteenth century: since at least the beginning of the thirteenth century the head of the Order had his own retinue, which was mainly of a military nature.17 This was enlarged when he set up residence in Cyprus with the appointment of a series of functionaries responsible for the care of his palace.18 The structure of his entourage was further refined during the Hospitallers’ rule over Rhodes (fourteenth to sixteenth centuries),19 and a series of positions related to ceremonial court functions must have been in place by the time the Order moved to Malta,20 but it is only at the end of the sixteenth century that we have reliable evidence of a complex 14  Alain Blondy, ed., Usages et étiquettes observées à Malte, à la Cour du Grand Maître, au Conseil, à l’Église (1762) (Paris, 2011); the manuscript is kept in the National Library of Malta, Valletta (MS LIBR 291). We can compare this text with the description of the Maltese court in Nicholas de Piro, The Sovereign Palaces of Malta (Malta, 2001), 29–34, itself based on an eighteenth-century manuscript, maybe the same one that Blondy published ten years later. 15  Born in Portugal in 1681, Fonseca was received into the Langue of Castile, Leon and Portugal, and when he was 11 years old he went to Malta, where he became a page of the Grand Master Fra’ Ramon de Peréllos y Rocafull (1635–1720). After completing his studies in civil and canon law, he held the post of vice chancellor of the Order from 1714 until 1735 going on to become grand chancellor until 1741, when he was elected grand master. His long reign ended in 1773: Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 53–54; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 283. 16  Barb. Lat. 5036; Relatione di Malta di Monsig.r Ranuzzi Inquisitore, e Delegato Apostolico. 1668, in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. Lat. 5353; Elettione del Gran Maestro Fr. D. Raffael Cotoner, in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Chig. N.III.82, fols. 62r–63v; Ristretto e Compendio de Statuti, Costumi ed Ordinationi della Sacra Religione Gerosolimitana, in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Lat. 15065, fols. 281–529. 17  Edwin J. King, The Rule Statutes and Customs of the Hospitallers, 1099–1310. With Introductory Chapters and Notes (London, 1934), 48. 18  King, The Rule Statutes and Customs, 122. See Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, 249 and 277–78. 19  Jyri Hasecker and Jürgen Sarnowsky, eds., Stabilimenta Rhodiorum militum: Die Statuten der Johanniter von 1489/93 (Göttingen, 2007), 182; Elias Kollias, The Medieval City of Rhodes and the Palace of the Grand Master (Athens, 2005), 93–94. 20  In 1531, for example, the maestro di casa under Grand Master Fra’ Philippe Villiers de l’Isle Adam (1464–1534) was his nephew, Fra’ Jacques de Wignacourt; in 1543, during the reign of Fra’ Juan de Homedes (1477–1553), the maestro di casa was the Spanish knight Fra’ Gonzalo Cervantes, later promoted to the rank of siniscalco of the grand master and replaced in 1548 by the nephew of the same grand master, Fra’ Miguel de Homedes; whilst in 1554, during the reign of Fra’ Claude de La Sengle (1494–1557), we find the positions of siniscalco, maestro di casa, cavallerizzo and ricevitore: Giacomo Bosio, Dell’Istoria della Sacra Religione et Illustrissima Militia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano di Iacomo Bosio. Parte Terza. Seconda Impressione (Naples, 1684), 106, 225–26, 254 and 356.

198

FRANCESCO RUSSO

and stable structure.21 When the Grand Master Fra’ Jean l’Evesque de la Cassière (1503–81) was imprisoned in Fort St. Angelo during the knights’ uprising of 1581, he was allowed to keep his court, which included the heads of his household and stables, and minor officials in charge of the bouche and of the chamber, totalling at least forty men, as well as the many members of the famiglia bassa – the lower servants.22 Under normal conditions the siniscalco was the head of this organization. This figure more than any other represented the close interconnection between ceremonial needs, political activity and monastic life that characterized the Maltese court. While the siniscalco was mainly responsible for the smooth running of the magistral household and of the public and private life of the Magistracy,23 he also carried out several administrative duties related to the government of the principality24 and took part in the sacred council of the Order, the political body that ruled the Hospital, whose members included the grand master and the grand crosses living in Malta.25 The siniscalco also took delivery of the grand master’s seal when the magistral throne was about to become vacant, acting as guarantor of 21 

Ann Williams, “Decision Making in the Order of St. John, 1530–1630,” in The Order of St. John from Jerusalem to Malta. Some Aspects and Considerations, ed. George Cassar (Marsa, 2007), 68. 22  These were “il Maestro di Casa Viviers, il Cavallerizzo Fra’ Claudio de la Sale, il Ricevitore Fra’ Giovanni Battista Rondinelli, il sotto Maestro di Casa Cavalier di Leccia, il sotto Maestro di Campagna Fra’ Giusto de Fay Gerlande, quattro Cavalieri di Corte, due Coppieri, due Trincianti, altri 4 Cavalieri, 9 Paggi, 4 Camerieri, 4 Cappellani, 3 Medici, 3 Credentieri”: Bartolomeo Dal Pozzo, Historia della Sacra Religione militare di S. Giovanni Gerosolimitano detta di Malta, del signor Commendator Fr. Bartolomeo Co: dal Pozzo Veronese, Cavalier della medesima. Parte Prima, che proseguisce quella di Giacomo Bosio dall’anno 1571 fin al 1636 (Verona, 1703), 188. 23  In addition, from the eighteenth century he took part in the camera dei conti – court of audit – and, together with the maestro di casa, he reviewed the accounts presented by the ricevitore del gran maestro: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 4v; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 73; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 227. See also the Indice dei Ministri della Religione in Convento, in Malta, National Library of Malta, AOM 6430, fol. 21r–v, which reveals the importance of the grand master’s cavallerizzo and maestro di casa in the management of expenses as early as the beginning of the seventeenth century. 24  The siniscalco appointed the judges of the castellania (the civil and criminal law court of Malta), presided over the meetings of the Universitas of Valletta and of Mdina, and supervised the governor and the jurats of the smaller island of Gozo: see Paolo De Bono, Sommario della Storia della Legislazione in Malta (Valletta, 1897), 171–72. 25  A generalized description of the position of the grand crosses is that they were the knights who held a high position within the Convent or were at the head of a priory. They had the right to take part in the council and to direct the religious, institutional and political life of the Order. The Hospitaller knights, according to their specific country of origin, were split into eight langues or tongues, corresponding to the different European priories: Provence, Auvergne, France, Italy, Aragon, England, Germany and Castile. Each langue had a certain number of knights who lived more or less permanently in Malta. A pilier, or conventual bailiff, headed each group of knights, one for each of the eight langues. After the English Reformation, the English component of the Order disappeared along with its pilier. The last English turcopilier – the pilier of the English knights – was, until 1551, Fra’ Nicolas Upton, after which the position was entrusted to other lieutenants from different langues. In 1582 the position was definitively absorbed by the siniscalco, who inherited its duties, which were substantially reduced to the command of the militias guarding Malta: Bertrand Galimard Flavigny, Histoire de l’ordre de Malte. Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée (Paris, 2010), 58–59; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 81 and 186–87.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

199

the continuity of power within the Order,26 and at the same time as physical proof of the complementary relationship between Court and State.27 The Maltese case is certainly quite peculiar and it is difficult to draw a comparison with other situations where ecclesiastical institutions had also temporal power. The only Ordensstaat comparable to that of the Hospitallers was the principality created by the Teutonic knights in Prussia and Livonia, destined to survive only until the first half of the sixteenth century;28 all the other military orders never rose to such a structured and refined level of state power. The Spanish orders, for example, were not able to evolve into a political entity, being later incorporated into the Crown,29 and the Order of St. Stephen in Tuscany had more or less the same destiny.30 In all these cases a proper “monastic” court did not exist, because the sovereign was only “incidentally” head of an Order, which usually had already lost its pure regular features. In other words, the king of Spain had his own retinue as lord of the Spanish realms, and not as grand master of the orders of Santiago, Alcántara and Calatrava. The grand master of the Hospital, on the other hand, had his own court precisely because he was the head of the knights of St. John and only subsequently as prince of Malta and Gozo. It is true that other monastic principalities existed during the Early Modern Age, especially in the Holy Roman Empire, but they were all characterized by the regional level of their institutions: the abbot was the chief of the monks living inside the abbey, and the sovereign of the people settled within the boundaries of his principality. The Hospitaller grand master was instead at the head of a multinational institution, whose members lived in every part of Catholic Europe and brought to the Convent a very complex combination of cultural contributions: languages, artistic tastes, religious devotions, interpersonal relations. Evidently, every knight contributed to the creation of a unique milieu, and each grand master was influenced by this microcosm, which in turn probably was able to influence the organization of the court. Hereafter, we will try to understand how far Maltese structures replicated European ones, and how far the functions of Valletta’s court were comparable to 26  This usually happened when the prince was seriously ill: the siniscalco kept the seal until the sovereign’s recovery or death, and in the latter case, he delivered it to the council, so that it could be destroyed in the presence of the grand crosses. See the decrees of the 1631 general chapter, in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Lat. 15065, fols. 98 and 393–394; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 82–85. 27  Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 8. 28  Kristjan Toomaspoeg, Histoire des chevaliers teutoniques (Paris, 2001), 117–18; Karol Górski, L’Ordine Teutonico. Alle origini dello stato prussiano (Turin, 1971), 3–4 and 113. 29  Alain Demurger, I Cavalieri di Cristo. Gli ordini religioso-militari del medioevo. XI-XVI secolo (Milan, 2004), 306; Ignasi Fernández Terricabras, “Al servicio del Rey y de la Iglesia. El control del Episcopado castellano por la Corona en tiempos de Felipe II,” in Lo conflictivo y lo consensual en Castilla: Sociedad y poder político. 1521–1715. Homenaje a Francisco Tomás y Valiente, ed. Francisco Javier Guillamón Álvarez and José Javier Ruiz Ibáñez (Murcia, 2001), 213. 30  Giorgio Spini, “Introduzione generale,” in Atti del convegno “L’Ordine di Santo Stefano e lo Studio di Pisa (Pisa, 14–15 maggio 1993)” (Pisa, 1993), 15; Gaetano Greco, La parrocchia a Pisa nell’età moderna (secoli XVII–XVIII) (Pisa, 1984), 94.

200

FRANCESCO RUSSO

those of other capitals. It is therefore essential to have a clear and concise idea of the grand master’s household, stables, and chamber, according to the hierarchical importance they had in the court of Malta. The Household, the Stables, the Chamber The grand master’s household was managed by the maestro di casa, who was specifically in charge of public ceremonies, and who was responsible for the magistral residence of Valletta, and the palaces of Verdala and San Anton, and supervised the events held in each palace.31 He was assisted by the sotto maestro di casa, who served the prince on less formal occasions,32 and by the coppieri (cup-bearers) and the trincianti (literally the meat-slicers), who were more generally charged with the service of the table.33 31  The maestro di casa assisted the grand master when he ate and made sure that one of the pages tasted the food of the prince during meals au grand couvert; he greeted and accompanied distinguished guests to the door of the meeting place; and finally, along with these ceremonial tasks, he also commanded the militia of Valletta: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 4v; Barb. Lat. 5353, fol. 17v; Dal Pozzo, Historia della Sacra Religione, 188; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 86–88; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 227. 32  The sotto maestro served the prince when he ate in private; he also organized the other dining tables of the palace, where the dignitaries and the knights who served the grand master ate, and he prepared the receptions offered by the Magistry. He was certainly part of the grand master’s retinue both in the sixteenth and in the seventeenth century: see Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 4v; Bosio, Dell’Istoria della Sacra Religione, 100; Dal Pozzo, Historia della Sacra Religione, 188; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 99. We find the Sotto Maestro also in the papal court, see the Rolo della famiglia di N. S. Papa Gregorio XV, in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Chig. H.II.42, fol. 3r. 33  During meals the coppiere on duty generally held the saucer while the credenziere filled the glass of water, then he placed it on the table and the grand master poured the wine for himself. While the grand master was drinking, the coppiere held the saucer under the glass, then he handed glass and saucer to the credenziere. During the eighteenth century, the grand master had four coppieri, who served alternately, while the number of trincianti was not specified, but these numbers had varied somewhat over the course of previous centuries: in 1581 there were only two coppieri and two trincianti, but fifty years later both positions were held by ten knights each: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r; Barb. Lat. 5353, fol. 18r; Dal Pozzo, Historia della Sacra Religione, 188; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 161–62. The duties of the coppieri and trincianti were considered more “humble” than others, but they substantially reflected the structure of other courts, where the same duties were carried out by members of the nobility. In general, the coppiere verified the quality of beverage, took care of the lord’s table and acted in place of the maestro di casa, when absent, while the trinciante cut and distributed the food among the diners: Elisa Acanfora, “La tavola,” in Rituale, cerimoniale, etichetta, ed. Sergio Bertelli and Giuliano Crifo (Milan, 1985), 60–61; on the practice of carving the meat for a meal and its ceremonial importance, see Cristiano Grottanelli, “Cibo, istinti, divieti,” in Rituale, cerimoniale, etichetta, 40. In the seventeenth century, at the court of Rome, the coppiere was always noted among the offitiali maggiori (the high officials), while the trinciante was replaced by the scalco (carver), and during the pontificate of Innocent X this position was downgraded and placed among the bussolanti (servants of the papal antechamber), disappearing altogether during the reign of Alexander VII. It is interesting to note that during the reign of pope Chigi the coppiere and the scalco were both knights of St. John: Fra’ Clemente Accarigi and Fra’ Angelo della Ciaia, who had been in the service of the pope when he was a cardinal: Officiali di Palazzo a la morte di P. Innocenzo X, in Chig. H.II.42, fol. 30r–v; Rolo della Candelora dell’Anno 1661. Alessandro Papa VII, in Chig. H.II.42, fol. 196v; Gaetano Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

201

The position of the maestro di casa could be found in practically all the other European courts and was usually the highest position in the royal household.34 In France, Austria and Spain, as well as in smaller courts like that of Savoy, along with meals and supplies, the maestro di casa was responsible for maintaining order and administering justice among the staff of the court. He also oversaw a large part of the palace functionaries, enabling him to ensure the social advancement of his own entourage, thanks to his familiarity with the prince and the great patronage and influence deriving from his position.35 In Malta the cavallerizzo, who ranked immediately below the household functionaries, enjoyed similar privileges. Assisted by the sotto cavallerizzo,36 the cavallerizzo, aside from managing the magistral stables, commanded the Maltese cavalry and accompanied the grand master every time he left his palace.37 We find a head of the stables in all European courts who, besides having care of the stables, was also responsible for duties connected to the transfer of the court and to hunting expeditions, including falconry.38 At the Maltese court, the falconiere played quite an important ceremonial role; aside from the burden of safeguarding the island’s game, hunting of which was usually restricted to members of the Order, the falconiere was charged with procuring the falcons to be given to the sovereign Pietro sino ai nostri giorni, 23 (Venice, 1843), sub voce Famiglia pontificia, p. 84. See also Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 338–39; Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 107. 34  Félix Labrador Arroyo, “The Situation of the Portuguese Court and Royal Household under the first Monarch of the House of Austria (1581–1598),” The Court Historian 21 (2016): 14; Catherine Désos, “La Familia francesa de Philippe V d’Espagne. Essai de biographie collective,” Source(s) 7 (2015): 42; Visceglia, “Figure e luoghi della corte romana,” 50; see also Chig. H.II.42, fol. 3r. 35  Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 106, 276, 284, and 295; Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 36, 39, and 104; Glyn Redworth and Fernando Checa, “The Kingdoms of Spain: The Courts of the Spanish Habsburgs, 1500–1700,” in The Princely Courts of Europe, 45 and 50; John P. Spielman, The City and the Crown. Vienna and the Imperial Court, 1600–1740 (West Lafayette, IN, 1993), 54; Frigo, “L’affermazione della sovranità,” 321–23; Robert J. Knecht, “Francis I: Prince and Patron of the Northern Renaissance,” in The Courts of Europe, 99. 36  The sotto cavallerizzo received distinguished visitors, accompanying them to the piano nobile: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 102; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 228. On the importance of welcoming guests, see Patricia Waddy, “Many Courts, Many Spaces,” in The Politics of Space: European Courts ca.1500–1750, ed. Marcello Fantoni, George Gorse and Malcolm Smuts (Rome, 2009), 214–15; Alice Jarrard, Architecture as Performance in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Court Ritual in Modena, Rome, and Paris (Cambridge and New York, 2003), 118. 37  He also acted as maestro di casa in the secondary residences of the prince, he organized the welcome of the grand crosses or of distinguished guests when they arrived at the port, and supervised the sale of horses and mules on the island: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r; Vat. Lat. 15065, fol. 394; Dal Pozzo, Historia della Sacra Religione, 188; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 90–93; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 227. 38  Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 109, 129, 276, 296, and 309; Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 40 and 104; Spielman, The City & the Crown, 55; Knecht, “La corte di Francia,” 232; Frigo, “L’affermazione della sovranità,” 322; we can even see the importance of the stables in the French court of the exiled James II: Edward Corp, A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689–1718, with contributions by Edward Gregg, Howard Erskine-Hill, and Geoffrey Scott (Cambridge, 2004), 105 and 111; or in the Roman court of James III: Edward Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 1719–1766: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile (Cambridge, 2011), 121 and 127.

202

FRANCESCO RUSSO

of Sicily as a feudal homage established in 1530 by Emperor Charles V, a gift also offered in the following centuries to the kings of France, Spain and Portugal.39 In addition to these duties, the cavallerizzo shared with the maestro di casa and one of the chaplains the responsibility of providing instruction for the pages who served the prince. At the age of twelve, these young boys were sent to Malta in order to receive an education appropriate to their rank and, usually, to begin the cursus honorum into the Order, in preparation for a religious career.40 They belonged to aristocratic families from all across Europe and, as knights, had to provide proof of their nobility. They served as pages until the age of fifteen before beginning their novitiate, and although they were supported by their families during the time they lived in the palace, the fact that they had joined the Hospital when they were so young ensured that they would gain an advantage in obtaining commanderies and dignities.41 This too indicates a parallel between the Maltese ceremonial apparatus and that of other courts, where the presence of pages was commonplace. In Turin as well as in Florence,42 or to an even greater degree in Vienna, Paris and Madrid, several tens of young boys completed their training with particular attention to ceremonial, and above all a political education.43 This practice was also typical of the ecclesiastical principalities, such as Salzburg.44 Usually, the paggeria was under the authority of the stable, while the pages’ duties were fulfilled for the most part in the household or in the chamber, and Malta was no exception to this rule. In the Hospitaller principality, the cavallerizzo was followed, in order of importance, by the ricevitore del gran maestro (the receiver of the grand master), 39 

For an idea of the importance of this homage, see foglio d’informazioni (information sheet), dated 28 December 1709, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Segr. Stato, Malta 61, fol. 13v; and foglio d’informazioni dated 14 January 1719, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Segr. Stato, Malta 66, fol. 424r–v; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 103–5; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 228. 40  Letter by Grand Master Fra’ Martin Garzés to Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany, dated 31 May 1598, Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Mediceo del Principato 4179, [not foliated]; Emanuel Buttigieg, Nobility, Faith and Masculinity: The Hospitaller Knights of Malta, c.1580–c.1700 (London and New York, 2011), 44–45; Angelantonio Spagnoletti, Stato, aristocrazie e Ordine di Malta nell’Italia moderna (Rome, 1988), 164. 41  Pages were housed in the magistral palace and surrounded the grand master in practically all public and private ceremonies and functions: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r; Barb. Lat. 5353, fol. 18r; Vat. Lat. 15065, fol. 302; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 91, 96–97, and 156–59; de Piro, The Sovereign Palaces, 34; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 83; Blanch Lintorn Simmons, Description of the Governor’s Palaces in Malta of Valletta, St. Antonio and Verdala and catalogue of the pictures by Blanch Lintorn Simmons (Malta, 1895), 19. 42  Paola Bianchi, “La corte dei Savoia: disciplinamento del servizio e delle fedeltà,” in I Savoia: I secoli d’oro di una dinastia europea, ed. Walter Barberis (Turin, 2007), 159–60; Marcello Fantoni, La corte del Granduca. Forma e simboli del potere mediceo fra Cinque e Seicento (Rome, 1994), 60–62; Frigo, “L’affermazione della sovranità,” 323. 43  Alessandro Cont, “L’uomo di corte italiano: identità e comportamenti nobiliari tra XVII e XVIII secolo,” Rivista storica italiana 126 (2014): 100 and 115–16; Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 39, 153, 286, and 339; Duindam, Myths of Power, 175; Hubert Ch. Ehalt, La corte di Vienna tra Sei e Settecento (Rome, 1984), 56; Hatton, “Louis XIV,” 244 and 253. 44  Georg Stadler, Salisburgo e il Trentino (Trent, 1994), 117.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

203

who was responsible for collecting revenue and managing expenses for the Magistracy.45 The grand master’s income was generated by both his functions as ruler of the monastic order and as head of state, and from these he was able to accumulate, during the seventeenth century, an income of about 60,000 scudi a year, set against ordinary expenses of about 7,500 scudi for the maintenance of his court.46 Naturally, general expenses also included the costs of the prince’s private life, or the chamber, run by the cameriere maggiore or primo gentiluomo della camera (first gentleman of the chamber) who lived in the apartments of the grand master.47 Being able to enjoy the “most secret and free access to the prince’s person” allowed him to exercise a certain influence, similar to the chamberlain in other courts,48 who had the power to grant or refuse access to the private apartment of the sovereign, making it possible for him to promote his own clients or fend off an opposing faction.49 A traditional element within the court was the cappella, the chapel, which catered for the spiritual welfare of the prince.50 Due to the unique and specific 45 

Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 94; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 228. As head of the Hospitaller Order, in 1554 the grand master received an allowance of 7,000 scudi, which rose to 8,000 scudi during the following decade and then fell to 6,000 in the seventeenth century, to which were added the income he received from the magistral and “di Grazia” commanderies, totalling between 7,000 and 10,000 scudi a year. In his role as prince of Malta, he received all revenues accruing from taxes, gabelles, rents and customs, for a total of up to 30,000 scudi, which was further increased by the tithes due to him from the profits of privateering vessels (about 12,000 scudi). In 1676, the grand master’s annual income amounted to about 50,000 scudi, without considering the corsairs’ loot: Relatione di Mons.r Pallavicino Inquisitore di Malta alla S.tà di N. S.re Papa Innocenzo XI. 10 Novembre 1676, in Vatican City, Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, S.O., St.St., HH–5-a–5, (Carte relative a Istruzioni a mons. Enrico Caracciolo [1634–1635]), [not foliated]; L’entrata che’l commun Thesoro della Sacra Religione Hierosolimitana tiene in ciascun’anno così in tutti li Priorati d’essa come in la gran commenda di Cipri et luochi di Genova, in Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma, MS Gesuit. 398, fol. 477v; Vat. Lat. 15065, fols. 258–259, 343–344, and 392–393; Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r–v; Bosio, Dell’Istoria della Sacra Religione, 350; see Victor Mallia-Milanes, “Paths of Power and Glory: The Hospitaller Grand Master and his Court in Valletta,” in Palace of the Grand Masters in Valletta, ed. Albert Ganado (Malta, 2001), 75. 47  He commanded the four camerieri (valets) of the grand master (usually sergeants-at-arms), the camerieri segreti (valets de chamber) and the staffieri, and he attended to the lever and to the coucher of the prince. Furthermore, he kept a register of the names of all the office holders and of the captains of the galleys; he also guarded the keys of the reliquaries of the conventual church of St. John; finally, he kept the seal used for the magistral graces which were not dealt with by the council. Other members of the chamber’s staff accompanied guests to their rooms, served refreshments and carried dishes from the kitchen to the magistral table: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r; Barb. Lat. 5353, fols. 17v–18r; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 96–98; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 228. 48  “Proximity to the king was the key prerequisite of his favour”: James M. Boyden, The Courtier and the King: Ruy Gómez de Silva, Philip II and the Court of Spain (Los Angeles and London, 1995), 122; see Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 306. 49  Alessandro Cont, “Ministri, favoriti, confidenti. L’entourage dei sovrani secolari italiani nell’Antico Regime, 1659–1796,” Nuova Rivista Storica 101/2 (2017): 400–401; Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 106, 276, 285, and 296; Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 58 and 104; Ehalt, La corte di Vienna, 64; Hatton, “Louis XIV,” 244. 50  See, for example, Bianchi, “La corte dei Savoia,” 150. 46 

204

FRANCESCO RUSSO

nature of the sovereign of Malta, this function was that which was most interwoven with the monastic structure of the Hospital. Since it was a purely lay order, it had been necessary from the very beginning to establish a class of priests who professed the Hospitaller rule to ensure indispensable liturgical rites for the knights. Even though the grand master was their religious superior, the chaplains were under the authority of the prior of the church, charged with overseeing the day-to-day provision of religious services in the conventual church of St. John of Valletta, as well as in all other Hospitaller churches on Malta and throughout Europe. The conventual church acted, naturally, as “court church,” but inside the grand master’s palace four chaplains were responsible for daily services in the Palatine Chapel;51 these were chosen by the grand master from any Langue and depended directly on him.52 Therefore, unlike other courts, there was no real “spiritual” structure headed by a specific almoner, and liturgical tasks were carried out as part of ordinary monastic life. The number of chaplains at the courts of the Ancien Régime could be very high,53 and these priests, together with confessors, played a very important role, and were often capable of reaching beyond the confines of the royal palace or their strictly sacramental duties.54 They were able to influence appointments to bishoprics and abbeys, or to management positions in hospitals and charitable institutions.55 They wielded considerable power which was envied and feared in Malta as much as anywhere else.56 Membership of the grand master’s entourage, in 51 

The palatine chapel of the magistral palace was adjacent to the bedroom of the grand master and connected with it: Lintorn Simmons, Description of the Governor’s Palaces, 17. 52  Vat. Lat. 15065, fol. 414; Statuti della Sac. Religione di S. Gio. Gerosolimitano con le ordinationi dell’ultimo Capitolo Generale celabrato nell’anno 1631 dal fu Em.o e Rev.o Gran Maestro Fra’Antonio de Paula, aggiontivi li Privilegii, il modo di dar la Croce, e di fare li miglioramenti alle Commende. Di nuovo ristampati con le loro Tavole, e postille a luoghi debiti (In Borgo Nuovo del Marchesato di Roccaforte, appo il Stampator Camerale, 1674), p. 128; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 154; Giovanni Scarabelli, Culto e devozione dei Cavalieri di Malta (Malta, 2004), 43–45; Joseph Psaila Cumbo, La dignità del Priore della Chiesa, la Ven.da Assemblea dei Cappellani Conventuali e i Fra Cappellani dell’Ordine nel Codice Gerosolimitano alla luce del Diritto Canonico (Malta, 1938), 12. 53  In France, Louis XIII had to reduce a plethora of 252 aumôniers: Jacqueline Boucher, “L’évolution de la maison du Roi: des derniers Valois aux premiers Bourbons,” XVIIe siècle 137 (1982): 366–67. 54  “In any event, the confessor enjoyed regular access to the center of power. His influence depended upon his own personality and even more so on that of the prince as well as on other circumstances”: Robert Bireley, The Jesuits and the Thirty Years War: Kings, Courts, and Confessors (Cambridge, 2003), 30; see also the general considerations of Guillermo Nieva Ocampo, “El confesor del Emperador: la actividad política de fray García de Loaysa y Mendoza al servicio de Carlos V (1522–1530),” Hispania 75 (2015): 641–42. 55  Joseph Bergin, “The Royal Confessor and his Rivals in Seventeenth-Century France,” French History 21/2 (2007): 190–93; Isabelle Poutrin, “Cas de conscience et affaires d’État: le ministère du confesseur royal en Espagne sous Philippe III,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 53/3 (2006): 19–21; Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 41 and 236; Flavio Rurale, “Introduzione,” in I religiosi a corte: Teologia, politica e diplomazia in antico regime. Atti del Seminario di studi. Georgetown University a Villa Le Balze (Fiesole, 20 ottobre 1995), ed. Flavio Rurale (Rome, 1998), 18–19; Knecht, “La corte di Francia,” 232. 56  The grand masters did not always turn to the conventual chaplains for the care of their souls, but to priests of other orders, who, as such, could not expect any kind of advancement within the Hospital, but could nonetheless expect protection and privileges for their own religious family. For example,

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

205

fact, provided the chaplains with opportunities for further promotion to the priory of the church as well as to the bishopric of Malta.57 All the officers of the palace were aided by other knights, who carried out less well-defined duties, a sort of trait d’union between the Convent and the principality. Among these was the mastro scudiero (the squire of the stables), a sergeant-at-arms from the Langue of Auvergne in charge of receiving and carrying out the prince’s orders regarding the inner life of the Hospital;58 three secretaries for correspondence in Italian, French and Spanish;59 and a number of auditori (or uditori), legal advisors who were not necessarily members of the Order.60 These three departments, the household, stable and chamber, formed, along with the chapel, the equivalent of the sovereign’s domestic household, which stood Grand Master Fra’ Jean Paul Lascaris de Castellar (1560–1657) turned to a Jesuit: Buttigieg, “Jesuits, Carnival, and the Inquisition,” 574; David F. Allen, “Anti-Jesuit Rioting by Knights of St. John during the Malta Carnival of 1639,” Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu 65 (1996): 22; and another Jesuit was the confessor of the Grand Master Fra’ Adrien de Wignacourt (1618–97): letter by the inquisitor Tommaso Ruffo to the Secretariat of State, dated 25 August 1694, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Segr. Stato, Malta 45, fol. 153r. After all, during the Early Modern Age the Society had a “monopoly” on the conscience of many European sovereigns: “Jesuits served as confessors for the other German Catholic princes besides the emperor and the elector of Bavaria, including the archbishop-electors of Mainz and Cologne,” Bireley, The Jesuits and the Thirty Years War, 265; see Flavio Rurale, “Court and Religion in Early Modern Catholic Europe,” in The Court in Europe, 232–33. 57  Fra’ Pierre Viany and Fra’ Miguel Jerónimo de Molina, two almoners serving Grand Master Fra’ Nicolas Cotoner (1608–80), for example, became, respectively, prior of the conventual church in 1664 and bishop of Malta in 1677: foglio d’informazioni dated 11 December 1663, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Segr. Stato, Malta 18, fol. 133r–v; Winston L. Zammit, Malta under the Cotoners. 1660–1680 (Malta, 1980), 55–56. We may also consider the chaplains who had been vice chancellor of the Order as formally included among the eighteenth-century palace officials: Fra’ Tommaso Bosio, bishop from 1538 to 1539; Fra’ Martin Rojas de Portalrubio, bishop from 1573 to 1577; his successor, Fra’ Tomas Gargallo, bishop from 1578 to 1614; Fra’ Lucas Bueno, bishop from 1666 to 1668 (formerly the secretary of Grand Master Fra’ Nicolas Cotoner and prior of the church): depositions of Fra’ Filippus Ortiz and of Fra’ Didacus Pappalardus during the enquiry for the appointment of Bueno to the bishopric of Malta, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Dataria Ap., Processus Datariae 42, fols. 311r/v; Bosio, Dell’Istoria della Sacra Religione, 100; Vincent Borg, Melita Sacra II. The Maltese Diocese during the Sixteenth Century (Malta, 2009), 100–08; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 116 and 119. 58  The mastro scudiero also had certain judiciary powers over the knights; in fact, he could enter their houses, as well as those of the consuls of different States living in Malta, for “eseguire gli atti di Giustizia,” that is to say, for inspections: letter by the inquisitor Antonio Zondadari to the Secretariat of State, dated 16 January 1779, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Segr. Stato, Malta 139, fol. 17r; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 138–41. 59  Usually, the secretary for Italy was also responsible for communicating with the territories of the Empire, writing in Latin: Barb. Lat. 5036, fol. 5r; Barb. Lat. 5353, fol. 18v; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 110–13. 60  Fra’ Baldassarre Cagliares had been uditore (legal advisor) of the Grand Master Fra’ Alof de Wignacourt (1547–1622), before he became bishop of Malta, from 1615 to 1633: letter by Grand Master Fra’Alof de Wignacourt to the ambassador at Rome Fra’ Niccolò della Marra, dated 28 February 1615, Malta, National Library of Malta, AOM 1394, [not foliated]; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 183; Francesco Luigi Oddo, Dizionario di antiche istituzioni siciliane (Palermo, 1983), 148, sub voce uditore. See also the case of Gio. Nicolò Muscat, studied by Frans Ciappara, “Gio. Nicolò Muscat: Church-State Relations in Hospitaller Malta during the Enlightenment, 1786–1793,” in Hospitaller Malta, 605–58, esp. 606–7 and 611.

206

FRANCESCO RUSSO

alongside the military household, although there were considerable conceptual and actual limitations. Since the grand master was the head of a chivalric order, he could, theoretically, have at his disposal all the Hospitaller knights, but from the beginning of the eighteenth century, a regiment of guardie del corpo (the prince’s bodyguards) was also established, being responsible for security inside the magistral palace and charged with escorting the prince when he left Valletta’s fortifications for his secondary residences.61 A Transition toward Monarchy Between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, the figure of the grand master completed the process which transformed the “abbatial” dignity into a princely authority.62 This process involved the adoption of many practices more usual in the palace of a secular sovereign than in a monks’ cloister: let us consider, for example the meals of the grand master. They began with a ceremonial rich with symbolism, the washing of hands before touching the food, which included gestures resembling a purification rite.63 The coppiere offered the instruments for the washing of the hands, and the siniscalco offered a towel for drying while the prior of the church blessed the table; then the prince sat under a canopy and ate in the company of the grand crosses or other distinguished guests.64 Before the beginning of the eighteenth century, the grand master frequently ate in public together with his inner circle, in what was perhaps a legacy of the monastic refectory, but after the reign of Fra’

61  Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 106–8. Surely, it was nothing comparable to soldiers who ensured the security of the king of France or of the emperor, Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 159 and 331. 62  See Brogini, “Cultural Components,” 1; Alain Blondy, L’Ordre de Malte au XVIIIe siècle. Des dernières splendours à la ruine (Paris, 2002), 29–32; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 221–23. 63  On the sacred value of meals and of the gesture of the washing of hands, see the observations by Casini in “Court Rituals,” 245–47; Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 29; John Adamson, “The Kingdom of England and Great Britain. The Tudor and Stuart Courts, 1509–1714,” in The Princely Courts of Europe, 104–5. In general, we can apply to all courts that which is said of the ceremonial rites of Venice: “the public life of the Doge could be compared to a liturgy,” Meri Sclosa, Venice. The Doge. Public and Private Life (Milan, 2012), 13. 64  Barb. Lat. 5353, fols. 18v–19r; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 167–69; Mallia-Milanes, “Paths of Power and Glory,” 75. For comparison, see the ceremony adopted for the meals of Cardinal Cinzio Aldobrandini, described in Girolamo Lunadoro, Relatione della Corte di Roma, e de’ Riti da osservarsi in essa, e de’ suoi Magistrati, & Offitij, con la loro distinta giurisdittione. Dal Signor Cavaliere Girolamo Lunadoro già data in luce. E di nuovo accresciuta, & ampliato l’Indice in quest’ultima impressione. E Dedicata Al Molto Illustre, e Molto Eccellente Sig, il Signore Ercole Ronconi (Bracciano: Per Andrea Fei Stampator Ducale, 1650), 192; or the emperor’s lunch in Jeroen Duindam, “The Archduchy of Austria and the Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary. The Courts of the Austrian Habsburgs. c. 1500– 1750,” in The Princely Courts of Europe, 176.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

207

Ramón de Perellós y Rocafull (1637–1720) things changed, and the sovereign was increasingly less accustomed to share his table with other knights, similarly to other courts where the sovereign would sit at table alone or with his wife, as in France for example, thus displaying the vast gulf between himself and his courtiers.65 This distinction was also evident on the occasion of formal greetings, with the rite of the baciamano (the kissing of the hand) practised in Malta and other courts, and intended to enhance a sense of subjection between different social classes.66 The modelling of offices and positions on those of other courts, as well as a certain homogeneity in ritual practices, together with the grand master’s role as head of the Hospital, clearly showed his “double” nature, as Hospitaller “abbot” and as prince of Malta and Gozo. If the structure of the court raised the importance of roles like that of the ricevitore, which were less important elsewhere, this was probably as a result of the close connection between secular requirements and monastic traditions including the vow of poverty. The siniscalco, the principal official in Malta’s court system, was in a way the person who connected the two Hospitaller realities and was the guarantor of the political and institutional stability of the Order during, or in anticipation of, the vacancy of the magistral throne, a time of increased internal and external weakness, as was often the case where political power was not hereditary.67 All in all, Malta is a unique case in the context of the study of princely courts. In some respects, it mirrored a traditional relationship between the sovereign and the retinue which was the concrete manifestation of power and its sacredness, but in other respects it displayed a marked distinctiveness. One of the more visible features of this uniqueness was the absence of women. Since it was a male religious order there was no female court at the service of the sovereign’s wife or daughters, as in the majority of other monarchies;68 in the magistral palace 65 

Barb. Lat. 5353, fol. 18v; Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 167. In public, Henry IV ate alone or with the queen only; courtiers could attend and also speak to the king, provided that it was not to discuss state affairs: Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 131. This detail records the brief time when, after meals, it was possible to have direct contact with the grand master and have “un peu de conversation sur de sujets indifférents”: Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 169. The ritual at the Imperial court was similar, and the same happened in the less important courts of Savoy and Tuscany, or in those of the cardinals, Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 37; Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 176–77; Fantoni, La corte del Granduca, 59; Frigo, “L’affermazione della sovranità,” 312–13; Sergio Bertelli and Giulia Calvi, “Rituale, cerimoniale, etichetta nelle corti italiane,” in Rituale, cerimoniale, etichetta, 19. 66  The baciamano involved dignitaries and members of the Order as well as the Maltese common people and their institutional representatives: Blondy, Usages et étiquettes, 144–46; see foglio d’informazioni, dated 25 December 1779, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Segr. Stato, Malta 139, fol. 176r; for the ceremony as practised in the European courts, see Andrea Merlotti, “Una ‘muta fedeltà’: le cerimonie di baciamano fra Sei e Ottocento,” in Le strategie dell’apparenza: Cerimoniali, politica e società alla corte dei Savoia in età moderna, ed. Paolo Bianchi and Andrea Merlotti (Turin, 2010), 93–95 and 99. 67  For example, Rome and Venice: Maria Antonietta Visceglia, La città rituale. Roma e le sue cerimonie in età moderna (Rome, 2002), 32–33. 68  Of course, the courts of the prince-bishops of the Empire and that of the pope were excluded: Visceglia, “Figure e luoghi della corte romana,” 73–74.

208

FRANCESCO RUSSO

women were not allowed the same freedom of movement they enjoyed in other royal palaces, as it was to all intents and purposes a monastery. This uniqueness, along with the impossibility for Maltese subjects of joining the Order, created an added distance between the Hospital and Malta’s social elite, a distance which was only partially reduced during the eighteenth century, when grand masters admitted the local aristocracy and even women into the palace, carrying forward a policy of ennoblement of the most influential members of society, with the purpose of enhancing consensus towards Hospitaller authority.69 We should not forget that the noble origin of all the knights of justice automatically gave them the appearance of a homogenous dominant class, without distinction between different national origins. They had, therefore, come to substitute the local dominant classes in the political management of the State. The Maltese court was, of course, not comparable to those of the other great European powers with regard to size and numbers, since it is estimated to have been made up of about 60 palace officials, along with about 80 servants and employees of the stables, for a total of about 150 persons, including dignitaries and attendants, to which we should add about 200 members of the guardia del corpo, along with the slaves who were usually engaged in the most menial jobs.70 This was quite small in comparison to the French court, which by the middle of the sixteenth century already counted 1,000 individuals,71 or to the 1,400 of the Spanish court.72 The papal court, too, was considerably larger, numbering 700 during the pontificate of Urban VIII (1623–44),73 as was the imperial court,74 and 69  Caruana Galizia, “The Maltese Nobility,” 91 and 99; Sire, The Knights of Malta, 221 and 227. Fifty years earlier, Grand Master Fra’ Antonio Zondadari had forbidden women to sit at the place they used to, inside the conventual church, because it was too close to the knights: foglio d’informazioni dated 20 January 1720, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Segr. Stato, Malta 67, fol. 19r. 70  This is an estimate for the middle of the eighteenth century, but it is presumably valid for the previous century too, with the exception of the guards: Lintorn Simmons, Description of the Governor’s Palaces, 20. With regard to the presence of slaves, it is recorded, for example, that “at one time Perellos had fifty domestic slaves in his employ”: Mallia-Milanes, “Paths of Power and Glory,” 75; see also Barb. Lat. 5353, fol. 18r. 71  The court of Valois grew from 540 members in 1522, to 620 in 1535, and continued to grow: Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 111; Knecht, “La corte di Francia,” 229 and 233–34; Boucher, “L’évolution de la maison du Roi,” 365; Knecht, “Francis I,” 99–100. For a general comparison between the major European courts, see Guido Guerzoni, “‘Familia’, ‘corte’, ‘casa’. The Este Case in Fifteenth-Sixteenth Century,” in La Cour de Bourgogne et l’Europe: Le rayonnement et les limites d’un modèle culturel, ed. Werner Paravicini (Ostfildern, 2013), 533. 72  Merlin, Nelle stanze del re, 74; Marcello Fantoni, “La corte nell’Italia di antico regime: mutamenti e continuità,” in Studi in memoria di Cesare Mozzarelli, vol. 1 (Milan, 2008), 394–95; Visceglia, “Figure e luoghi della corte romana,” 48. 73  Visceglia, “Figure e luoghi della corte romana,” 47–48; but see the analytic reconstruction by Antonio Menniti Ippolito, “La ‘Familia del Papa’. Struttura e organizzazione,” in Offices, écrits et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. Armand Jamme and Olivier Poncet (Rome, 2007), 548–50. 74  Robert J. W. Evans, “The Austrian Habsburgs: The Dynasty as a Political Institution,” in The Courts of Europe, 123. Including the courts of empresses and of archdukes, the imperial family was served by about 2,000 persons: Duindam, “The Archduchy of Austria,” 168; Spielman, The City & the Crown, 59; Ehalt, La corte di Vienna, 37.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

209

that in England during the time of the Stuarts.75 The same could be said for less important courts, like that of Tuscany, which counted almost 600 members by the middle of the seventeenth century, growing to about 800 by its end;76 or the court of Mantua, which at the turn of the seventeenth century already had more than 500 components; a similar size could be found at the court of the Este family during its final year in Ferrara.77 The Maltese court was, however, not so small in comparison with the retinues of the Farnese and of the Savoy, which numbered 200 to 230 members, or those of the cardinals, ranging between 100 and 120 persons.78 However, aside from the undeniable numerical differences, the structure of the Hospitaller court seems to have been comparable to those of the other European monarchies.79 There appears to have been a gradual increase in the size of the departments of the court between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, but this was in conformity with the slow and steady transformation of the prestige of the magistral dignity, which became increasingly similar to that of a secular prince, and thus in need of a ceremonial apparatus much larger than that of an “abbot” whose functions were adequately fulfilled within the parallel system of the sacred council, and as the head of various conventual officers.80 This bipolarity between Court and Convent ensured that the officials who were closest to the grand master gained a greater influence and were able to guide political decisions and increase the power of one particular Langue or faction.81 We should not ignore the importance of 75  The court of Elizabeth I was made up of about 1,500 people, whilst that of James II Stuart before 1689 numbered about 600: Corp, A Court in Exile, 105; Alison Sim, “The Royal Court and Progresses,” History Today 53/5 (2003): 49. 76  Hélène Chauvineau, “Ce que nommer veut dire. Les titre et charges de cour dans la Toscane de Médicis (1540–1650),” Revue Historique 304/2 (2002): 31; Fantoni, La corte del Granduca, 30–31. 77  Fantoni, La corte del Granduca, 30; Ileana Florescu, “Gli spazi del quotidiano: la reggia,” in Rituale, cerimoniale, etichetta, 86. The Este court in Modena was reduced to 240 members by the first half of the seventeenth century: Jarrard, Architecture as Performance, 116. 78  Bianchi, “La corte dei Savoia,” 147; Fantoni, La corte del Granduca, 31; Gigliola Fragnito, “Cardinals’ Court in Sixteenth-Century Rome,” The Journal of Modern History 65/1 (1993): 40; Frigo, “L’affermazione della sovranità,” 299. Broadly in line with this analysis was the court of Cardinal Guido Bentivoglio, which numbered 151 members in 1626 (Rome, Archivio Storico del Vicariato di Roma, SS. Vincenzo e Anastasio a Trevi, Stato delle Anime, 1, fol. 35r), but by the same time, Cardinal Federico Corner had a more modest court (65 servants: SS. Vincenzo e Anastasio a Trevi, Stato delle Anime, 1, fol. 54r). 79  Barb. Lat. 5353, fol. 18v. 80  Mallia-Milanes, “Paths of Power and Glory,” 76. 81  For example, see the case of Fra’ Jakob Christoph von Andlau, siniscalco of Grand Master Fra’ Antoine de Paule, who became grand cross ad honorem: letter by Grand Master Fra’ Antoine de Paule to cardinal Francesco Barberini, dated 6th November 1623, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. Lat. 6689, fol. 61r; or the case of Fra’ Antonio Correa, who was cavallerizzo of Grand Master Fra’ Nicolas Cotoner before being appointed ambassador of the Order to the Holy See: letter by Grand Master Fra’ Nicolas Cotoner to cardinal Francesco Barberini, dated 10th January 1676, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. Lat. 6691, fol. 23r. Furthermore, the officers of the court, since they were depositories of the grand master’s confidence, often took part in the general chapter as grand master’s procurators; this was the case, for example, in 1555, for Grand Master de La Sengle, and again in 1558, for Grand Master Fra’ Jean de Valette (1494–1568), Bosio, Dell’Istoria della Sacra Religione, 358 and 402.

210

FRANCESCO RUSSO

the constant succession at the highest levels of the Hospital of different national interests; and while it is true that appointments to positions within the Convent were made under a fairly rigid system of division between the Langues,82 the palace officials could also be appointed or removed at the discretion of the grand master.83 Conclusion With these considerations in mind, our aim is to understand and assess whether all of the social functions typical of European courts were found in this tiny Mediterranean principality. The role of the magistral court was significantly different from that of similar continental institutions. Historiographical considerations lead us to see the court as a fundamental “point of aggregation” of a state’s strongest social components around the sovereign; a system of continuous “bargaining” between the claims of the aristocracy (and later those of the rich bourgeoisie) and the holder of a power which was still considered to be sacred.84 In short, the court became the place where the various peripheral components of society met and communicated with the centralizing authority of the emerging nations.85 Fundamental at that point was the ability of the sovereign to bring together, cajole, weaken and, ultimately, to control all of these centrifugal forces, while, at the same time, being able to create a sense of common interest in the stability that was guaranteed by the preservation of the power represented by the figure of the prince.86 This aggregating function could not have a place in Malta for two main reasons. First of all, the main offices and personnel of the court of the grand master were occupied exclusively by members of the Order: knights held the highest positions and offices, sergeants-at-arms carried out more humble duties, and conventual chaplains saw to the court’s spiritual needs. Members of Malta’s upper classes had 82  Each langue was headed by a grand cross, who took part in the council, just as priors and capitular bailiffs did, see Vat. Lat. 15065, fols. 18–19, and 401. 83  This was a condition that, in general, connected the Maltese court with the rest of Europe. See, for example, the case of Vienna, where “the actual political influence of any household official or councillor of state still depended almost entirely on the personality of the prince and his relationship with his advisers. A new ruler could substantially change the power structure at the court simply by giving certain offices to his favourites”: Spielman, The City and the Crown, 55; or the case of Rome: Maria Antonietta Visceglia, “Factions in the Sacred College in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 103; see also Duindam, “The Archduchy of Austria,” 168. 84  In brief, the court was the “strumento di consenso all’affermazione dello Stato moderno”: Paolo Prodi, Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna, 2006), 102; but in general see also the statements of Duindam, Myths of Power, 108. 85  Pierpaolo Merlin, “Il tema della corte nella storiografia italiana ed europea,” Studi storici 27 (1986): 205 and 209. 86  For example, see Volker Press, “La corte principesca in Germania nel XVI e XVII secolo,” in “Familia” del principe e famiglia aristocratica, 164; Alberto Tenenti, “La corte nella storia dell’Europa moderna (1300–1700),” in Le corti farnesiane di Parma e Piacenza, 1545–1622. Vol. 1: Potere e società nello stato farnesiano, ed. Marzio A. Romani (Rome, 1978), xiv; but especially Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 223; and Ronald G. Asch, “Introduction: Court and Household,” 4 and 9.

THE COURT OF THE MONASTIC PRINCIPALITY OF MALTA

211

no access to court structures, neither did they participate actively in the ceremonies of the grand master’s palace, although they did play a part in the administrative apparatus set up by the knights to manage the principality and, to an even greater extent, in the management of their properties in Europe.87 The fundamental process of fusion between the ruling elite and their subjects never took place, and so that bond of solidarity between sovereign and people was largely missing.88 The Hospital, therefore, was always a foreign body in Malta, unable to perform the role of “social compacting” that was played by courts elsewhere. Furthermore, the court of Valletta failed to provide, to any real extent, the opportunities for social advancement offered by other princely courts, since the progressive process of ennoblement facilitated by service to the Order never evolved into true participation in the political life of the Maltese principality, which was administered from within the conventual structure. After all, the pursuit of titles, typical of secular social advancement on the continent and often an integral part of any political career, did not interest the knights serving the grand master, who were attracted rather by advancement within the monastic hierarchy.89 With these premises in mind, we find ourselves asking whether a “Maltese court” ever really existed. Certainly, a truly “native” court system, based on local customs, was never created. This was a Hospitaller court, characterized by a combination of the different traditions of the knights’ various homelands.90 Furthermore, without a process of social aggregation, the grand master’s palace became more like the residence of a supranational order than the seat of a “national” principality.91 This was further 87 

“The arrival of the Order resulted in the exclusion of the Maltese nobility from positions of power. From then on, the secular power on the islands rested with the Grand Master of the Order who governed through the institutions of the Magistracy. It remained possible for members of the local elite to hold state offices, but this capacity was severely restricted by their exclusion from full membership of the Order as Knights of Justice, a policy the Order had followed on its previous territory, the island of Rhodes”: Anton Caruana Galizia, “Family Strategies and Transregional Mobility: The de Piro in Eighteenth-Century Malta and Sicily,” European History Quarterly 44/3 (2104): 421. 88  Of course, the opportunities which the aristocracy had to frequent the magistral palace and, to an even greater extent, of working for the Order, created ties between the knights and the people of Malta, even opening the way for social advancement, as in the case of Giovanni Pio de Piro, studied by Caruana Galizia, but “ties of patronage between the Magistracy and the Maltese nobility did not necessarily impart homogeneity of allegiance of the latter towards the former”: Caruana Galizia, “The Maltese Nobility,” 100. 89  For example, we can consider the case of Ruy Gómez de Silva, favourite of Philip II: Boyden, The Courtier and the King, 151; see also Duindam, Vienna and Versailles, 223; idem, Myths of Power, 51; Press, “The Habsburg Court,” 32; Adrianus Koster, “A Knights’ State (1530–1798): A Regular Regime,” Melita Historica 8/4 (1983): 301. Obviously one of the highest grants the grand master could bestow was one of the commanderies at his disposal, highly sought after by the knights of his court: Mallia-Milanes, “Paths of Power and Glory,” 74. 90  From this point of view, the magistral palace was more similar to the royal palace of Vienna, because “overall, the most striking feature of this Habsburg court was its heterogeneity, the varied backgrounds and standpoints of its members”: Evans, “The Austrian Habsburgs,” 134. 91  It did not carry out the task of domestication of the ruling class (“addomesticamento del ceto dirigente”) that Fantoni identified in the other courts: Fantoni, “Corte e Stato nell’Italia,” 451. See

212

FRANCESCO RUSSO

complicated by the fact that the position of the grand master was not hereditary, meaning a renegotiation and redistribution of the balance of power at each new election.92 The hierarchical structure of the court in Malta was due more to the position of officials within the monastic system than to their rank within the palace. In other words, the Court was subordinate to the Convent even though, with time, the monastic nature of the grand master became subordinate to the political one of the prince. From this point of view, Elias’s assertion that the court “even if not completely, at least to a certain degree represented the core of the whole system, and through it the king ruled the whole kingdom,” cannot be applied to Malta, where this function was performed by the Council, and therefore by the Convent.93 From this perspective Valletta was not simply the capital of Malta, nor was this its principal role. It was, rather, the heart of a huge cultural, political and economic system which spread across the whole of Europe.

Charles A. J. Armstrong, “The Golden Age of Burgundy: Dukes that Outdid Kings,” in The Courts of Europe, 58–60. 92  The comparison is, obviously, with the court of Rome: Mario Rosa, “The ‘World’s Theatre’: The Court of Rome and Politics in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century,” in Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 91; Signorotto and Visceglia, “Introduction,” 4; Visceglia, “Figure e luoghi della corte romana,” 72. 93  Elias, La società di corte, 149.

Remembering Bernard Hamilton (1932–2019)

Bernard Hamilton came from South London and as an undergraduate went to University College. His academic progress was somewhat delayed by National Service, but he went on to work at Royal Holloway under Joan Hussey before in 1960 becoming an Assistant Lecturer at Nottingham, where he would spend the rest of his career. It has been our privilege to know him since then. John France became a student there in 1960 and Malcolm Barber in 1961, and we both subsequently became his postgraduates, and later colleagues and friends. As such, we, along with so many others, profited from his guidance and support. In 1964 he married Jan, and they bought the house in Lenton Avenue where they raised their daughters, Sarah and Alice. As a teacher Bernard showed great patience and, above all, enormous kindness. Everyone recognised his immense learning, but it was accompanied by a gentle and 213

214

REMEMBERING BERNARD HAMILTON (1932–2019)

considerate temperament which meant that he was approachable and humane and so it was never deployed to crush the young. But kind and considerate as he was, Bernard was a powerful personality who drew great strength from his profound Catholic belief. Bernard’s doctoral thesis was on Rome in the tenth century and he was always deeply interested in religious history. The culmination of this was his Religion in the Medieval West (1986) which is a rather different approach from the usual histories of the church. But his interests diversified. From 1962 he taught the crusades and this bore fruit in a series of important books and articles, above all The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church of 1980. But there was always wit in his work and this shows notably in the 1978 article “The Elephant of Christ: Reynald of Châtillon” of 1978 and “Continental Drift: Prester John’s Progress through the Indies” of 1996. The sheer volume and weight of publication on the crusades is remarkable and explains his enthusiasm for the SSCLE of which he later became president. But Bernard and Jan together also explored the history of heresy in a series of deeply learned articles, culminating in their Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650–c.1405. This body of work is ultimately based on a profound interest in medieval religion, but the subject is explored through many lenses. It is through this major body of work, and his participation in numerous conferences and associations that Bernard Hamilton is best known. Yet what we would wish to emphasize is the man behind the activity – warm, intelligent and, above all, kind and considerate. John France and Malcolm Barber For those who had the privilege to know Bernard Hamilton, the qualities that most obviously struck most of us were his kindness and generosity. I first met Bernard early in 1993, when I had recently returned to the UK after doctoral studies at Yale University. It was typical of Bernard that, having heard of my interest in religious life in Outremer, he should not only invite me to Nottingham to talk about my work, but to stay at his and Jan’s rambling house on Lenton Avenue; typical also that from the start he treated me as someone worth listening to. Generations of Ph.D. students and early career scholars will, I am sure, recognize the same sense of gratitude that I felt in that first meeting, since Bernard invariably treated younger and aspiring historians with respect. He became a close friend as well as a colleague, and it is no exaggeration to say that it is to his generosity that I owe my career, since he found teaching for me at the University of Nottingham when I was between jobs in 1993–94, at a time when not having such employment might have made the difference between being able to carry on or not. Bernard’s scholarship needs neither introduction nor defence to the readership of this tribute. It was, of course, meticulous, precise and immense in range. He

REMEMBERING BERNARD HAMILTON (1932–2019)

215

wrote with authority on the institutions of the Church; on medieval Christian beliefs and practices; on heresy and alternative beliefs; on saints and sinners; on popes and the laity. He was by instinct an empirical – traditional, some might say – historian. I do not know whether he dwelt inwardly very much on the kind of History that he wrote, but underlying his every sentence was not only impeccable scholarship but deep historical imagination. In conversation he once suggested that we compare the images brought to our mind’s eye by the simple sentence “The Goths crossed the Danube.” The vivid colour, texture and feeling at his command, as revealed by this exercise, was astonishing. Because his writing style was deceptively simple and clear, it was sometimes easy to miss the undercurrents of knowledge and understanding that informed every page he wrote. The Latin Church in the Crusader States (1980), probably his most influential work, is a testament to his brand of understated, lucid and accurate scholarly writing. He was as scrupulously fair to the subjects of his study as he was to the living. Above all, he sought to understand historical actors within the frameworks in which they lived, and he brought to this an intuitive sensitivity as to human motive. His famous rehabilitation of Reynald of Châtillon, first published in 1978, provides a masterclass in calm, reasoned and judicious enquiry into historical reputation. Bernard had his critics as an historian, of course. It has been said of his work that he allowed his own sense of fundamental human decency to influence his historical judgement, with the result, for example, that he was too inclined to emphasize the irenic and the co-operative when it came to the relations of the Latin Church with non-Latins. And of course he held his views – on the evidence for Cathar heresy, for example – firmly. When he disagreed, however, it was always with courtesy and respect for others’ views. Not by nature a controversialist, he understood the necessity for historians to argue, and the inevitability that they would sometimes reach different conclusions from the same evidence, but not for them to drop high standards of behaviour or of discourse. In this, as in his scholarship itself, he remains a role model to be emulated. Personally, I owe Bernard an enormous debt for his friendship, his example and his guidance. Requiescat in pace. Andrew Jotischky

Bernard Hamilton Essay Prize Crusading Memory in the Templar Liturgy of Barcelona Edward L. Holt Grambling State University [email protected] Abstract This article uses a little-studied Templar Sacramentary in order to explore the religious intersections of international military orders with crusading ideology and local piety in thirteenth-century Catalonia. As opposed to the Knights Hospitaller, whose houses all followed the same canonical liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, the Templars adapted their religious needs to the local rites available. This article situates this Templar Sacramentary within its local devotional landscape in two ways. It first traces the influences by which this rite conformed to local Barcelona usage. Contesting the traditional idea of passive reception, the second half of the article analyzes the distinct ways that the sacramentary diverged from its liturgical models as the task of crusade found expression within the text. It provides a threefold examination of prayer adaptations, iconographic representations, and cross devotions in order to connect religious piety and crusader ideology. Consequently, crusading influences on the everyday rhythm of liturgical life demonstrate the role of the Templars within the Crown of Aragon as a religious order.

On the eve of the dissolution of the Knights Templar, Brother Ramon de Saguardia wrote that his order served as a wall against enemies of the faith.1 Since its foundation in 1119, the Templars had formed a physical bulwark against the encroachment of the enemies of Christ, and, in Iberia, they even had served to expand the borders of Christendom. However, in matters of faith, physical enemies were not the only threat to Christianity. Pope Honorius III, in a letter dated 24 November 1217 that detailed a religious procession in support of the upcoming Fifth Crusade, warned that individuals must be willing to fight “against visible enemies with invisible A version of this paper was read at the 2018 International Medieval Congress at the University of Leeds, for which I would like to thank the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University and the American Academy of Research Historians of Medieval Spain for their support towards conference attendance. I also would like to thank Thomas Madden, Richard Allington, and the reviewers for their comments and corrections. 1  Josep Maria Sans i Travé, “Recull de cartes de fra Ramon de Saguàrdia durant el setge de Miravet (novembre 1307–desembre 1308),” in Miscel·lània en honor del Doctor Casimir Martí, ed. Josep Maria Sans i Travé and Francesc Balada i Bosch (Barcelona, 1994), 433–35, doc. 2. 217

218

EDWARD L. HOLT

weapons.”2 Thus “the wall” of which Brother Ramon de Saguardia wrote has two levels of interpretation: on the one hand, the Muslim enemy could be held back by a physical force that stopped incursions; on the other hand, prayers against the enemies would also deliver salvation. The Templars stood as both a physical barrier against Muslim incursions and a spiritual barrier against less tangible, but no less threatening foes. Historians have long studied the martial role of the Templars.3 Historians have also been interested in the Templars’ role as economic actors, largely because of the suppression of the order by King Philip IV of France in 1307 and because of the legends of their wealth and survival which stoked the imagination of subsequent generations.4 However, it is only more recently that scholars have taken seriously both halves of the idea of the Templars as a military order and placed equal emphasis on their role as a religious order. Jonathan Riley-Smith recognized that an examination of the crusade movement must be grounded in an understanding of its religious roots.5 Recent research has taken two approaches to understanding the Templars as a religious order. The first looks at the context of the Templars, the ways in which they conducted their religious life and formed a sense of Templar spirituality.6 The second way analyzes the texts involved with religious practice. For instance, Sebastián Salvadó has approached the religious life of the Templars in Spain, examining the ways in which the Templars were allowed to participate in the religious discourse of the region. Nevertheless, he does not discuss an actual rite practiced by the Templars in the region, relying on evidence from the Templar Rule about what sort of things should be practiced, as well as evidence from Templar inventories about what sort of liturgical decoration shaped the ways worshippers participated in the liturgy.7 Interventions into the relationship between liturgy and 2 

“Adversus hostes visibiles invisibilibus armis”: RHGF 19:639–40. There is no space here to list the extensive historiography on the Templars. For an overview, see Alain Demurger, “Histoire de l’historiographie des ordres religieux-militaires de 1500 à nos jours,” in Prier et combattre. Dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Philippe Josserand and Nicole Bériou (Paris, 2009), 22–46. See also Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of Order of the Temple (Cambridge, 1994). 4  For a more historical analysis, see Malcom Barber, The Trial of the Templars (Cambridge, 1978); Jochen Burgtorf, Paul Crawford, and Helen Nicholson, eds., The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314) (Aldershot, 2010); Alan Forey, The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (Aldershot, 2001). For more on the idea of Templars in modern imagination, see Nicolas Dohrmann, “Un Temple fantasmé ? Le Temple dans la fiction contemporaine,” in Templiers. De Jérusalem aux commanderies de Champagne, ed. Arnaud Baudin et al. (Paris, 2012), 174–79. 5  Jonathan Riley-Smith, Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the Holy Land (Notre Dame, IN, 2009) 6  Jochen Schenk, “Some Hagiographical Evidence for Templar Spirituality, Religious Life, and Conduct,” Revue Mabillon 22 (2011): 99–119; Anne-Marie Legras and Jean-Loup Lemaître, “La pratique liturgique des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem,” in L’écrit dans la société médiévale: divers aspects de sa pratique du 11. au 15. siècle : textes en hommage à Lucie Fossier, ed. Caroline Bourlet and Annie Dufour (Paris, 1991), 77–137. 7  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 Nicholson (Farnham, 3 

CRUSADING MEMORY IN TEMPLAR LITURGY

219

crusade ideology have largely focused on crusade campaigns and larger theological studies. Scholars such as Cecilia Gaposchkin, Jessalynn Bird, and Christoph Maier have provided monumental contributions on how liturgy and crusade rhetoric reinforce each other and have enhanced our understanding of the devotional ideology behind crusading projects.8 However, the lack of research on these topics has meant that the liturgical study of the crusades remains at times a phenomenon abstracted from the medieval society in which it operated. There remain many questions about how these particular strands were articulated. In particular, how does the liturgy of an international order such as the Templars operate within a local context? Moreover, how does Templar liturgy remember the crusades? This article will examine the intersections between liturgy, memory, and crusading in the Iberian Peninsula through an analysis of the Templar Liturgy of Barcelona. Far from simply an international religious order, the Templars operated within their local communities, and an examination of this liturgy sheds light on the religious intersections of military orders with local piety in thirteenth-century Catalonia. By situating this Templar Sacramentary within its local devotional landscape, the article first will trace the influences by which this rite conformed to local Barcelona usage. In so doing, the article will demonstrate how the Knights Templar did not stand outside of the religious practices of Barcelona but rather were a religious order embedded within the spiritual fabric of their community. And yet, the Templars did not passively receive and conform to local traditions. Through an examination of modification of prayers, selection of illuminations, and devotion to the cross, this article will analyze the distinct ways that the liturgical memory constructed by the Knights Templar diverged from their local liturgical models as their crusading mission was expressed within the text. At the same time, through the adoption of local rites, the memory of crusading was reflected in the everyday rhythm of Iberian liturgical life. The liturgy of the Templars of Barcelona is located in the manuscript Vat. lat. 3547 from the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.9 This particular liturgical text is a sacramentary which contains a Franciscan rite that conformed to local Barcelona usage. As a sacramentary, its 195 folios include the celebrant’s text for both the temporal and sanctoral cycles as well as a series of votive masses. Due to the prescriptive nature of the source, in that it provides what one could call the “script” 2011), 31–43; idem, “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 Crawford, and Helen Nicholson (Aldershot, 2010), 183–97. 8  Cecilia Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons: Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology (Ithaca, NY, 2017); Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1994); Jessalynn L. Bird, “Preaching and Crusade Memory,” in Remembering the Crusades and Crusading, ed. Megan Cassidy-Welch (New York, 2017), 13–33; eadem, “Rogations, Litanies, and Crusade Preaching: The Liturgical Front in the Late Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries,” in Papacy, Crusade, and Christian–Muslim Relations, ed. Jessalynn L. Bird (Amsterdam, 2018), 155–94. 9  Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 3547.

220

EDWARD L. HOLT

for worship but not a description of an actual service or how one experienced it, an analysis of the sacramentary cannot attempt to describe an individual’s spirituality, although hints of it will appear when the sacramentary is contextualized within a larger liturgical program and is related to its (presumed) owner’s career. Instead, this text sheds light on corporate patterns of worship as well as how local Templar commanderies integrated into already established traditions of piety. The manuscript itself has been the subject of little investigation. Joan Bellavista, one of the few scholars to have worked on it as well as the author of a partial edition and paleographic study, argues for a composition date in the 1230s.10 Due to the strong influences of the sacramentaries from the nearby dioceses of Vic and Ripoll (in addition to the Hadrianum, the late eighth-century liturgical text sent by Pope Hadrian I at the request of Charlemagne), Bellavista argues that the majority of the original content of the manuscript was compiled in 1133.11 However, the use of a later hand suggests that the Barcelona Sacramentary was not written until about a century later. This is confirmed by several pieces of textual evidence. The arrival of the Franciscans in Barcelona around 1229 as well as the presence of a mass for St. Francis suggests a date of composition after his canonization in 1228. More importantly, the inclusion of St. Anthony, canonized in 1232, in the votive masses but not in the sanctoral suggests that the work was begun before this date but not completed until after it. Its composition date means that the text is the only known extant sacramentary for Catalonia in the thirteenth century, and thus a unique witness to local liturgical practices.12 Vat. lat. 3547 gains additional significance as it is one of a few extant liturgical manuscripts that have been identified as belonging to the Templars.13 Written on the exterior of the codex is a reference to Fr. P.G. comendator domus Palacci de Vales. Identified as Pere Gil, he was the commander of the Templar commandery at Palau from 1238 to 1250 and again from 1254 to 1258.14 Miret has demonstrated that, although located outside of Barcelona, this commandery had jurisdiction over the city.15 As commander, Pere Gil was charged with providing for the discipline and observance of the rule in his house. Beyond this the typical commander spent the 10  Joan Bellavista, Sacramentari de Barcelona: edició i estudi del manuscript de la Biblioteca Apostólica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 3547 (Barcelona, 1994), 27. 11  Ibid. 12  Ibid., 5. 13  Salvadó identifies these manuscripts as the Templar Ordinal of the Holy Sepulchre (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. lat. 659), the Templar Breviary of Acre (Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 10478), the Templar Rheims manuscript (Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 15054), the Templar Sacramentary of Modena (Modena, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS O.II.13), the Templar Rule with liturgical calendar (British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra, B.III (3)), the Templar Psalter (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 246), and the Templar Barcelona Sacramentary (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 3547); Salvadó, “Templar Liturgy and Devotion in the Crown of Aragon,” 33. 14  Pere Gil was also head of Joncosa in 1246–66: Alan Forey, Templars in the Corona de Aragon (Oxford, 1973), appendix 1; Bellavista, Sacramentari de Barcelona, 27. 15  Joaquim Miret i Sans, Les cases de Templers y Hospitalers en Catalunya: aplech de noves y documents històrichs (Barcelona, 1910), 166.

CRUSADING MEMORY IN TEMPLAR LITURGY

221

majority of his time administering the properties of his convent, including but not limited to land acquisition and the granting of licenses.16 The career of Pere Gil was unique for more than just his unusually long tenure. During his term as commander, the Templar order became further integrated within the spiritual fabric of Barcelona, through the construction of the chapel of Santa Maria de Palau. Negotiating the contested economics of the resulting church donations, Pere Gil signed an agreement with the Bishop and Chapter of Barcelona in 1246, such that a portion of donations be given to the diocese, except horses and arms, “which were necessary for the defense of Christendom and help to the Holy Land.”17 As the sacramentary can be dated to this period, Joan Fuguet has speculated that this liturgical book accompanied the new chapel.18 The first thing to note about the liturgical memory constructed by the Templars in Barcelona is that it seems to confirm the assessments of Cristina Dondi and Sebastián Salvadó concerning the liturgical practices of the military orders.19 As opposed to the Knights Hospitaller, whose houses all followed the same canonic liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, the Templars adapted their religious needs to the local rites available. In this case, it was a Franciscan rite that includes further evidence of local piety in Barcelona with rubrics for several Catalonian saints.20 The international structure of the order combined with the spiritual intercessions at a local level made it an attractive place for religious benefaction. Proof of this is the long lists of confraternity members that have survived for the Templars in Aragon.21 The Barcelona Sacramentary further confirms this close relationship through the inclusion of masses in honor of benefactors and other lay associates.22 As Helen Nicholson has argued, Templar commanderies were open to their local communities such that the “many examples of contact between the brothers and their local communities suggests the relationship may be close even though it may infringe the letter of the order’s privileges and regulations.”23 Specifically for Spain, Schenk notes that the relationship between some lay associates and 16 

Alan Forey, “The Career of a Templar: Peter of St. Just” in Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. Norman Housley (Aldershot, 2007), 185. 17  “cum fuit eis necessaria pro christianorum defensione et subsidio terre sancte”: Miret i Sans, Les cases de Templers y Hospitalers en Catalunya, 167. 18  Joan Fuguet Sans, “La Casa del Palau del Temple, de Barcelona,” Locus Amoenus 7 (2003): 100. 19  See Salvadó, “Templar Liturgy and Devotion in the Crown of Aragon,” 43; Cristina Dondi, “Manoscritti liturgici dei templari e degli ospitalieri: le nuove prospettive aperte dal sacramentari templare di Modena,” in I Templari, la guerra e la santità, ed. Simonetta Cerrini and Fulvio Bramato (Rimini, 2000), 85–133. 20  St. Eulalia: Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 98v; St. Fructuosus: Vat. lat. 3547, fols. 93r–94v; St. Cucuphas: Vat. lat. 3547, fols. 113v–114r. 21  Jochen Schenk, “Forms of Lay Association within the Order of the Temple,” Journal of Medieval History 34/1 (2008): 83. 22  Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 88r–v. 23  Helen Nicholson, “Relations between Houses of the Order of the Temple in Britain and their Local Communities, as Indicated during the Trial of the Templars, 1307–12,” in Knighthoods of Christ, 196.

222

EDWARD L. HOLT

professed brothers was so close that medieval thinkers such as Vincent of Spain considered them equivalent.24 It should be said that several privileges did in fact knit these communities closer together. Innocent IV had granted a relaxation of 40 days’ penance to those who contributed to the cost of building this Templar house in Barcelona.25 Additional penance was granted to lay associates who made an annual benefaction. And interestingly, the Templars were so embedded that should the region be placed under interdict, the order had permission to hold services once a year, in which all lay associates could participate.26 Consequently, the Chapel of Santa Maria de Palau and its attendant liturgy was crafted for an audience that included Templars and an additional parochial role in its integration with the surrounding community. The reliance on local liturgies and ties with local figures does not mean that the Templar liturgy was simply a passive expression of its local environment. Instead, it was adopted and adapted in order to conform to the specific spiritual needs of the order. The Templar Rule itself delineated both the feast days and fasts that the brothers were expected to observe. List 1 Feast days and fasts observed by the Knights Templar27 Nativity of Christ (25 Dec.) St. Stephen (26 Dec.) St. John the Evangelist (27 Dec.) Holy Innocents (28 Dec.) 8th day of Christmas (1 Jan.) Epiphany St. Mary Candlemas (2 Feb.) St. Matthias the Apostle (24 Feb.) Annunciation (25 Mar.) Easter St. George (23 Apr.) St. Mark (25 Apr.) St. Philip and St. James (1 May) Invention of the Holy Cross (3 May) Ascension (and 3 days before) Pentecost (and 2 days after) St. John the Baptist (24 June)

24 

St. Peter and Paul (29 June) St. Mary Magdalene (22 July) St. James the Apostle (25 July) St. Laurence (10 Aug.) Assumption of Our Lady (15 Aug.) St. Bartholomew (24 Aug.) Nativity of Virgin Mary (8 Sept.) The Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 Sept.) St. Matthew (21 Sept.) St. Michael (29 Sept.) St. Simon and St. Jude (28 Oct.) Feast of All Saints (1 Nov.) St. Martin (11 Nov.) St. Catherine (25 Nov.) St. Andrew (30 Nov.) St Nicholas (6 Dec.) St Thomas (21 Dec.)

Schenk, “Forms of Lay Association within the Order of the Temple,” 98. Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, bulas, leg. 11, doc 49. 26  Forey, Templars in the Corona de Aragon, 162. 27  Judith Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar (Woodbridge, 1992), §§74, 75, 352. 25 

CRUSADING MEMORY IN TEMPLAR LITURGY

223

As can be seen from List 1, one principally finds the days devoted to Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles. While the Templar Rule lists which feasts to observe, it does not describe which rite should be followed. Consequently, Vat. lat. 3547 includes these masses, employing regional rubrics from older Catalonian examples.28 These days were unique neither to the crusading movement nor the military orders but rather could be found throughout Christendom. This list of masses appears to be the minimum required of the order, as the sacramentary includes many additional masses, including ones for local, Catalonian saints such as St. Eulalia, St. Fructuosus, and St. Cucuphas.29 Unfortunately, it is unknown to what extent these additional masses were observed, or if the Templars participated in them. Or whether, as suggested by a different clause of the Templar Rule, these other services were substituted with paternosters to the Virgin Mary if missed.30 In both the rule and the sacramentary, while the Barcelonan Templars do not have a unique series of devotions and follow long-standing local customs, their selections of feast days centered on Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles reflect a Christomimetic desire that focused on the Holy Land. Thus liturgically, they are able to be a part of the crusading movement in the East, even if a majority of them never left the country of their birth. The cyclical nature of this feast calendar onto which the Templars add a further crusading dimension means that the crusade becomes infused into the liturgical rhythm of everyday life. One of the most poignant examples of this mental transportation occurred in the Mass in Honor of the Holy Sepulchre, the site in Jerusalem venerated as the place of Christ’s crucifixion and burial.31 Interestingly, this mass is unique to the Barcelona Sacramentary and Bellavista could find no precedent in other, older Catalonian sacramentaries.32 The Holy Sepulchre also was the base for the Templars in Jerusalem. Thus, through this mass, the Templars were able to form an international bond with their brethren located in the Holy Land. Unlike other Templar constructions, the creation of a spiritual topography did not extend to the physical spaces in which it was practiced. In terms of architecture, the Barcelona chapel of Santa Maria de Palau does not demonstrate the radial design of the Holy Sepulchre found in other Templar places such as London or Paris but rather has been argued to show deference to Barcelonan design customs.33 However, some scholars argue that it does demonstrate one unique feature: western orientation.34 In so doing, the chapel at Palau was similar to the Holy Sepulchre and distinct from the typical eastern orientation of a church. Here again, we see an integration with 28  For a list of texts from which Bellavista notes influences, see Bellavista, Sacramentari de Barcelona, 20. 29  See note 20 above. 30  This practice is described in Salvadó, “Templar Liturgy and Devotion in the Crown of Aragon,” 35–36. 31  Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 48r–v. 32  Bellavista, Sacramentari de Barcelona, 44. 33  Joan Fuguet Sans, “Els Templers a Barcelona,” L’Avenç 133 (1990): 6–15, at 13. 34  Ibid., 12; Fuguet Sans, “La Casa del Palau del Temple, de Barcelona,” 104.

224

EDWARD L. HOLT

local custom but a distinctive international mindset. It is also interesting to note that the majority of Templar radial architecture dates to the twelfth century; by the thirteenth century, crusading rhetoric had shifted emphasis from an external piety to a more internal devotion. Therefore, it was not necessary to construct a physical duplicate because the internal spiritualization of the accompanying liturgies instead conditioned the Templars towards the Christo-mimetic. Returning to the sacramentary, it should come as no surprise that the Barcelona Sacramentary contains the feasts prescribed by the Templar rule within its temporal and sanctoral cycle. However, one of the feasts prescribed by the Templar Rule, that of St. Catherine, does not appear in the correct place in the sequence (see List 2). It is noticeably absent in the original compilation of the text, and only present due to a later emendation in a different hand and included in a separate gathering of folios that does not correspond with the pattern of the previous twenty-four gatherings.35 While the other mass included at this time, that of St. Francis, has been used to date the manuscript as completed after both the arrival of the Franciscans in Barcelona in 1229 and Francis’ canonization in 1228, there has been no inquiry into why the mass of St. Catherine was added at a later stage. List 2 Select Order of Templar-prescribed feasts as found in Vat. lat. 3547 Feast of All Saints (1 Nov.) St. Martin (11 Nov.) St. Catherine (25 Nov.) St. Andrew (30 Nov.) St Nicholas (6 Dec.) St Thomas (21 Dec.)

fol. 134r fol. 136r fol. 194r fol. 139v fols. 139v–140r fol. 141r

A comparison between the Rule of the Templars and this manuscript suggests that the correction occurred so as to align the text with the liturgical needs of the order. Since there was no centrally mandated liturgical book for the Templars, they adapted local traditions to their use. Here is no exception. When the manuscript came into the possession of Pere Gil, the absence of the feast of St. Catherine meant that it would need to be included in order for the sacramentary to adhere to the prescriptions of the Templar rule. Far from being a passive reception of other liturgical traditions, the inclusion of the feast of St. Catherine indicates an interest in devotional practices grounded in local custom as in rubrics modeled on other regional sacramentary traditions, yet the sacramentary in question still followed the prescriptions of the order at large, as it was not focused on Catalonian feasts but rather those of the Holy Land – such as those for Christ and the Holy Sepulchre.

35 

Bellavista, Sacramentari de Barcelona, 30.

CRUSADING MEMORY IN TEMPLAR LITURGY

225

Another set of prayers that blended the liturgical memory of crusade and local piety are those in the votive mass in favor of the king. Here too, several changes have been made to foreground crusade ideology. In contrast to the Catalonian models for many of the votive masses, Vat. lat. 3547 contains a mass descended from a Carolingian form of the Missa cotidiana pro rege. It should be noted, however, that they are generally rubricated under the heading Missa pro rege or simply pro rege. Included within the liturgical tradition emanating from Rome, this particular mass was brought by the successive waves of French clerics that arrived during the late eleventh-century transition from the native Hispanic (Mozarab) traditions to those universally sanctioned by the papacy.36 Gonzálvez Ruiz notes in particular the strong influence that first the Cluniacs, then the Cistercians and finally various groups of canon regulars exerted on the Peninsula.37 This particular variant can be traced to a family of manuscripts that originate within the Premonstratensian tradition.38 The collect reads as follows: Quaesumus, omnipotens deus, ut famulus tuus (rex noster), qui tua miseratione suscepit regni gubernacula, virtutum etiam omnium percipiat incrementa, quibus decenter ornatus, et vitiorum monstra devitare et hostes superare et ad te, qui via, veritas et vita es, gratiosus valeat pervenire.39

Of note is the twelfth-century addition to the collect. In this variation, the phrase “et hostes superare” is inserted after the verb “devitare” and before the next independent clause indicated by the conjunction “et.” While the phrase “hostes superare [conquer enemies]” invokes the martial tradition of the Iberian monarchs, its liturgical flexibility enables the injunction to apply to the Templars, who often fought alongside the king. And the liturgical flexibility of the phrase extends beyond its original enemies of sin to include the more present threat of Muslim foes. This addition of religious struggle is further exemplified in a different votive mass, that of All Saints, in which the collect echoes the language of Honorius III, enjoining the repelling of visible and invisible enemies, an addition which Bellavista notes is unique to this Templar Sacramentary.40 Finally, it should be noted that the inclusion of this particular variant of the mass of the king represented a choice by 36  See Julia Montenegro Valentín, “La alianza de Alfonso VI con Cluny y la abolición del rito mozárabe en los reinos de León y Castilla: una nueva valoración,” Iacobus 25/26 (2009): 47–62; Rose Walker, Views of Transition: Liturgy and Illumination in Medieval Spain (London, 1998); Bernard Reilly, Santiago, Saint-Denis and Saint Peter: The Reception of Roman Liturgy in León-Castile in 1080 (New York, 1985). 37  Ramón Gonzalvéz Ruiz, Hombres y libros de Toledo (1086–1300) (Madrid, 1997), 66. On the Cluniac presence in the Iberian Peninsula, see also Patrick Henriet, “Cluny and Spain before Alfonso VI: Remarks and Propositions,” Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies 9/2 (2017): 206–19. 38  For the family of manuscripts, see Corpus Orationum. Corpus Christianorum series latina 160F, ed. Edmond Moeller and Joanne Maria Clément (Turnhout, 1995), no. 4880a. 39  Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 193r. 40  “hostes visibiles et invisibiles remove”: Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 149r; Bellavista, Sacramentari de Barcelona, 242.

226

EDWARD L. HOLT

the scribes of the manuscript, as other variations existed. For instance, in a missal from the nearby Cathedral of Tortosa, the mass utilized for the king derives from the Gregorian sacramentary’s rite of the Missa pro principe, which does not include the same elements of martial language.41 Beyond what one could argue are minor additions to the mass, is the more significant, alternate collect: Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, in cuius manu sunt omnium potestates et omnia iura regnorum, pretende principi nostro et exercitu eius arma celestia, ut te protegente viriliter agant, et ab omni liberati adversitate presenti et futura gaudeant prosperitate.42

Not the one originally intended to accompany this mass, the particular phrasing of this oratio is not found in any of the local models for this sacramentary. Although unfamiliar to these texts, this particular rubric is a variant of one found within other crusading liturgical contexts. In conjunction with the campaign that culminated in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, Innocent III had issued a letter ordering a general procession to take place “so that God may be favorable to those in war, which is to be waged between them and the Saracens in Spain.”43 He goes on to detail the plans for the Christians in Rome and orders that those participants who go to the Basilica of the Holy Cross be led in a mass with the oratio “Omnipotens sempiterne deus in cuius manu sunt omnium potestates.”44 Linder argues that this prayer, which originated within the Good Friday tradition, became appropriated within the context of crusading.45 Gaposchkin notes that it had been used at the Holy Sepulchre for votive masses contra paganos since the mid-twelfth century.46 Thus, in the invocation of prayers for the king, the prelates place an additional charge on the monarch and evoke multiple liturgical resonances. While within the Barcelona Sacramentary, it is not explicit which of these intellectual trends mark the reason for inclusion, the final phrasing covers both options. For while it appears to be here in the more traditional usage in support of the king, one must recognize the crucial role that the Aragonese monarchy played in crusading and thus it may be evocative of that same tradition of crusade liturgy, since the Templars often accompanied the monarch on crusading expeditions throughout the thirteenth century. To pray for the success of one implied simultaneously praying for the success of the other. 41  Tortosa, AC Tortosa, codex 13, fol. 129r–v. For more on the Missa pro principe, see Mary Garrison, “The Missa pro principe in the Bobbio Missal,” in Bobbio Missal: Liturgy and Religious Culture in Merovingian Gaul, ed. Yitzhak Hen and Rob Meens (Cambridge, 2009), 187–205. 42  Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 193v. 43  “ut Deus propitius sit illis in bello, quod inter ipsos et sarracenos dicitur in Hyspania comittendum”: Demetrio Mansilla, ed., La documentación pontificia hasta Innocencio III, 965–1216 (Rome, 1955), no. 473. 44  Ibid. 45  Amnon Linder, Raising Arms: Liturgy in the Struggle to Liberate Jerusalem in the Late Middle Ages (Turnhout, 2003), 115. 46  Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons, 199.

CRUSADING MEMORY IN TEMPLAR LITURGY

227

The next set of local prayers that the Templars adapted with an extra liturgical resonance of crusading involve the iconographical symbol most associated with the Templars and the crusades: namely, the cross. This most prominent image in the Order’s iconography not only expressed the Templars’ association with the Holy Land but recreated the spiritual homeland of their order. Sebastián Salvadó has argued on the basis of Templar inventories taken after the dissolution of the order that through the deployment of imagery near the altar, including personalized crosses, the Templars inserted themselves into the biblical narrative and gained a privileged proximity to intercession with the divine.47 Within the prescribed feast days, both the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross and the Exaltation of the Holy Cross provided opportunities to express this devotion to the cult of the cross.48 However, the main day of this expression was during Holy Friday, when the liturgy conducted was allegedly so well practiced by the Templars that many could describe it in detail during their depositions. For example, Brother Gerard de Passagio insisted “that he and his brethren always venerated the Cross with much reverence on Holy Friday and that he had never seen it done any differently in any of the Templar houses he had visited during his career in Cyprus, Burgundy, Lotharingia, Picardy and Allemania.”49 Bellavista notes that, within the Barcelona Sacramentary, the liturgy of Good Friday and in particular the ritual of the cross provides a more detailed description than the more simple rubrics deployed by those models from which it draws. And mirroring other known accounts of the Templar Good Friday ceremony, folio 37 describes the ritual by which the cross is led in procession, is displayed, and the antiphon Ecce lignum crucis is sung in response.50 The increased elaboration suggests the importance of the day to the community for which the liturgy was included. And the commander, as the person who maintained compliance to the rule and therefore comprised part of the audience for this text, used this sacramentary as a means to ensure proper devotion. Curiously, the text does not provide the other prayer, Adoremus te Christe et benedicimus tibi, that not only appears in some accounts of Templar devotion but also exists in the model of the Sacramentary of the Small Missal.51 A potential explanation is that while the rule provides for the feast days, it does not prescribe a particular ordo. While there is a veneration of the cross on Holy Friday and similar prayers can be found in other commanderies, ultimately, they are not uniform as the international order is more often connected to more local associations, interests, and customs. 47  Salvadó, “Icons, Crosses, and the Liturgical Objects of Templar Chapels in the Crown of Aragon,” 187. 48  Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 103r–v; Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 126r–v. For an additional Mass for the Holy Cross, see Vat. lat. 3547, fols. 176r–177r. 49  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 Cristiana Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela, 2012), 207–19, at 216. 50  Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 37r–v. 51  For the use of this prayer, see Schenk, “The Cult of the Cross in the Order of the Temple,” 217.

228

EDWARD L. HOLT

A final note about the use of the cross is the illuminated image of the Crucifixion.52 Enclosed within a blue border flanked by the Virgin Mary on the left and St. John on the right, is the figure of Christ who is hanging on a green cross and draped from the waist to his knees with a reddish cloth. This same color is repeated for the triplelobed shape at the bottom of the scene, representing a hill which supports the cross. The image, commonly found before the Te igitur prayer at the canon of the mass, is referenced by Innocent III in De sacrificio Missae and he wrote that it serves as a devotional image to remind the priest that he enters into the most solemn recreation of the passion, but also notes that the canon, which begins with the Te igitur prayer, begins with the letter “Tau” which is the symbol of the cross and of the passion.53 Gaetano Curzi has argued that the Crucifixion exemplifies a theme of Templar art, namely that the constant iteration of the theme of the cross and of Christ crucified highlights the ideal identification of the Templars with the passion.54 Fuguet has demonstrated that the Templar cult of the cross used a variety of forms and thus the crosses embedded in the image would resonate with the viewer as a reminder of the imperative of crusade.55 In an examination of the chapel at Palau, he notes that the liturgical armoire, the place where the sacramentary under investigation was kept, was decorated with dozens of crosses.56 Returning to the image from the Barcelona Sacramentary, the scene of crucifixion transports the viewer to the Holy Land.57 First and foremost, the eyes are drawn to the giant cross filling the image of the passion. However, the astute viewer would have this symbolism magnified by the second, smaller cross that embellishes the halo surrounding Christ but is absent from both the Virgin Mary and St. John. Here, Christ more closely is linked to the Templar iconography and the viewer is able to situate himself at the scene of the passion. While the illumination of the Crucifixion would be the most recognizable symbol of the Templars, the second, facing illumination, the Virgin Mary, would also resonate throughout the entire Templar order. On folio 81v, Mary is enthroned as the seat of wisdom.58 Draped in red and blue, she is seated with a young Christ in her lap (who himself is draped in red and holds up his hand in blessing) and holds a green fleur-de-lis in her other hand.59 Tom Licence notes that, while many Templars believed erroneously that the order was established in honor of the Virgin 52 

Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 82r. A digitized version of this illumination can be seen at https://digi.vatlib.it/ view/MSS_Vat.lat.3547 [last accessed: 23 July 2019]. 53  Innocent III, “De sacrificio Missae,” PL 217:763. 54  Gaetano Curzi, La pittura dei Templari (Milan, 2002). 55  Joan Fuguet Sans, “Consideracions sobre l’us de la Creu en l’orde del Temple,” in El Temps sota control: Homenatge a F. Xavier Ricomà Vendrell (Tarragona, 1997), 299. 56  Fuguet, “La Casa del Palau del Temple, de Barcelona,” 107. 57  See the similar opinion of the use of the cross in Salvadó, “Icons, Crosses, and the Liturgical Objects of Templar Chapels in the Crown of Aragon,” 190. 58  Vat. lat. 3547, fol. 81v. 59  Ibid.; a digital version of the illumination can be seen at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat. lat.3547 [last accessed: 23 July 2019].

CRUSADING MEMORY IN TEMPLAR LITURGY

229

Mary, nevertheless by the 1130s, the cult of the Virgin was well established within Templar charters.60 This relationship between the Templars and the Virgin Mary was especially strong as the Templars tended to build their bases of power in areas where there was also an intense devotion to the Virgin.61 As important as the Virgin Mary was to the Templar order as a whole, it had additional resonances for the local existence of the order in the Iberian Peninsula. The use of this second illumination indicates the strong Marian Devotion of the Iberian Peninsula, but when combined with the image of the Crucifixion and placed within the Templar context, indicates the strong martial role that Mary played within the Iberian Peninsula and crusading. It was, after all, the Marian banner that led the troops to victory at the 1212 battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, a battle in which the Aragonese helped defeat the Muslim enemy. Moreover, while Remensnyder notes the particular devotion of Castile-León to the Virgin Mary, she states that this does not preclude similar devotion for James I and the kingdom of Aragon. In fact, Remensnyder argues that James’s autobiographical Llibre dels fets reads as an account of a king’s Marian Military exploits. This remarkable text allows us to hear for the first time a Christian king of the Iberian Peninsula putting into words his belief that Mary watched over his wars with Muslims and explaining how his love for her profoundly influence his own self-image as a crusading king.62

Finally, the image reflects the patronage of the chapel, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, to whom the Templars not only prayed but to whom they dedicated their lives. Thus, the use of the Virgin Mary indicates the way in which the international Templars found expression within the local, Iberian contexts of crusade devotion, not necessarily just signed by the cross but also as knights of Mary. In conclusion, what are the echoes of crusading in the Iberian Peninsula? The answer is that they are embedded within the everyday rhythm of liturgical life. For the Knights Templar, their liturgical use of crusade ideology meant that beyond a regional military or economic player, they can be considered to have an equally important religious function within the crusade movement. Moreover, the Barcelona Sacramentary demonstrates that the Knights Templar did not stand outside of the religious practices of Barcelona but rather were a religious order embedded within the spiritual fabric of their community. Through the adoption and adaptation of local rites, the Knights Templar inserted crusading spirituality as a part of the everyday rhythm of Iberian liturgical life. 60 

Tom Licence, “The Templars and the Hospitallers, Christ and the Saints,” Crusades 4 (2005): 47–48. For its presence in other Templar liturgical settings, see Jaume Riera i Sans, “L’officium Beate Marie entre els Templers Catalans,” Miscel·lània Litúrgica Catalana 19 (2011): 323–34. 61  Licence, “The Templars and the Hospitallers, Christ and the Saints,” 49. 62  Amy Remensnyder, La Conquistadora: The Virgin Mary at War and Peace in the Old and New Worlds (Oxford, 2014), 40. For the Llibre, see: The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon: A Translation of the Medieval Catalan Llibre dels Fets, trans. Damian J. Smith and Helena Buffery (Burlington, VT, 2003).

REVIEWS The French of Outremer: Communities and Communications in the Crusading Mediterranean. Ed. Laura K. Morreale and Nicholas L. Paul. New York: Fordham University Press, 2018. Pp. x, 296. ISBN 978 0 823 27816 9.1 Seeking to unite the disparate fields of French language and literature studies and the history of the crusade and Latin (Frankish) culture in the eastern Mediterranean, this volume bridges multiple disciplinary divides. Did adoption of the French language mean adoption of a French identity? Were French-users in Outremer a cohesive colonialist group who simply parroted imported Western literary and linguistic developments or were they a “fragmented assemblage” (p. 3) who over a wide timespan used the French language as a cultural meeting point, producing as well as consuming French literature and thereby shaping and ordering their identities and communities? The tangled history of the Old French translations and continuations of William of Tyre and many other innovative works produced in Outremer and consumed and adapted in the West would support the latter model. The volume’s editors rightly point to several other major thematic strands which stitch together seemingly heterogeneous essays. The unique climate of Outremer’s polyphonic linguistic, religious, and cultural worlds led to hybridization, adaptation, and innovation in spoken language and written genres. This same climate led to the translation and/or transplantation of linguistic, religious, and literary forms from genre to genre, place to place. Language also served a practical function: the familial and communal commemoration and reinterpretation of historical events, the representation of power in the form of coins, place names, histories of and proposals for the occupation of the Holy Land and other regions. This purpose also allied with the construction of a unique ultramarine or poulain identity (p. 10), forged in negotiation with other Latin European communities. The volume also highlights the under-sung role of the Italian peninsula as a producer and consumer of the French language, both at “home” and in Italian-influenced communities overseas, including the Morea. Laura Minervini rightly laments the traditional neglect, by historians of Old French, of texts produced in Outremer, although this has changed recently with the publication of reliable editions of key texts and laborious research on the social and cultural history of Outremer. However, historians have only begun to consider the use of French by non-elites, the ways in which French enabled acculturation between indigenous groups and newer arrivals, and the distinctive characteristics of Outremer French. Alan Stahl’s article on the Outremer denier provides powerful evidence of precisely that, showing that initial generations of crusaders modelled 1  An earlier and shorter version of this review appeared online, at the electronic resource Sehepunkte. Permission for this was granted exceptionally, as Crusades in principle publishes only original reviews written for the journal alone. Any such issues should be brought to the attention of the Reviews Editor.

231

232

REVIEWS

some of their coinage on French deniers they brought from their home regions, some on the new Byzantine and Islamic coins they encountered; both practices duplicated and adapted European and Eastern imageries of power and authority. Fabio Zinelli explores the ways in which Italian scribes adopted French forms common in Outremer and were crucial agents in these forms’ dissemination, although Italians also merged Outremer French forms with others they encountered in Occitan and western French manuscripts. For the Venetian da Canal, the choice of Outremer French helped him to convincingly represent Venice’s claims to rights and privileges on the Italian mainland, in the Latin East, and in the Adriatic and Near East while resisting the interference of the western French Charles I in Italy. Philip Handyside and Peter Edbury unravel the tangled production and transmission of the Old French translations and continuations of William of Tyre (known as Eracles, Ernoul-Bernard, and the Rothelin continuation) some of which were translated and/or compiled in northern France yet interlaced with copies and continuations circulating in the East, such as at least part of the continuation of Ernoul-Bernard, one of the earliest surviving examples of French vernacular prose history. Similarly, the Old French translation of William of Tyre known as Estoire d’Eracles was probably produced near Paris during the campaign of the Fifth Crusade (c.1219–23) yet its creator included material on Outremer he considered useful for Western pilgrims and/or crusaders while further copies were also produced in Outremer and cross-fertilized with Western versions of Eracles. Through comparing the account of the Fourth Crusade embedded in the ErnoulBernard continuation (produced in northern France c.1225) with that provided by Robert of Clari, Massimiliano Gaggero argues that the reliability of both texts (in comparison to Villehardouin) should be favourably reappraised as products with a common origin in the cultural atmosphere of the abbey of Corbie. Although omitted from Gabrielle Spiegel’s Romancing the Past, both texts were produced at a critical period in Old French prose historiography informed by the struggle of the aristocracy in northern France and Flanders against the kings of France. The history of Outremer ought thus to be considered within the context of political agendas in the West. But what about Cyprus? Angel Nicolaou-Konnari tackles the linguistic and cultural meeting point of medieval and early modern Cyprus through a study of the relationship of Leontios Makhairas’s fifteenth-century chronicle (written in a Greek Cypriot dialect) and similar historical texts written in French from the crusader Latin East or France. From a Greek Orthodox family, Leontios served the Lusignan administration during the Mamluk invasion of Cyprus and on several diplomatic missions. His history, written in a French-influenced Greek vernacular, raises important questions of a Cypriot identity based on linguistic interaction, codeswitching, and bilingualism at an important moment when individuals were writing in vernacular prose to compose “national” or dynastic histories nevertheless deeply influenced by French historiography encountered in Outremer and in diplomatic missions to Europe. Uri Zvi Shachar similarly rehabilitates the much-maligned

REVIEWS

233

Estoires d’Outremer et de la Naissance Salehadin (an Old-French continuation of William of Tyre which circulated in the East) focusing on an interpolated episode describing Saladin’s wars against the king of Nubia as evidence of a Frankish culture which made claims for dynastic and cultural prestige by embedding popular episodes from Arabic historiography within the framework of Old-French historical romance. In so doing, his article challenges multiple assumptions: that strict segregation existed between urban Frankish elites and rural indigenous populations, that urban nobles created legal and social boundaries to limit crosscultural encounters, and that the Outremer nobility imported and reproduced languages which preserved European social categories and mentalities, informed their law codes, and confirmed European claims for cultural and political hegemony. Two important articles by Anne Lester and Zrinka Stahuljak explore other aspects of translation across cultures. Part of a larger project on the literary and physical translation of relics from the Byzantine context into western Europe post 1204, Lester’s piece illuminates how such “eastern” relics were integrated into and simultaneously reshaped the western devotional landscape and practices. Such integration could be physical (in the form of relocation or the creation of new reliquaries), literary (in the creation of translation accounts), and liturgical (in the creation of specific feasts and offices for translated relics). Just as clerics played important roles as “translators” in the movement and authentication of relics, so too a lively pilgrim translation market emerged in the aftermath of the fall of Acre to the Mamluk sultanate in 1291. Stahuljak vividly depicts the important role played by dragomans (interpreter-intermediaries and fixers) in helping Western pilgrims navigate the cultural complexities of the Holy Land, including the customs of courtoisie. Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski similarly uses Pierre Dubois’s De recuperatione Terre Sancte (an armchair travel narrative merged with concrete advice on launching a new crusade), to unpack the cultural assumptions behind Dubois’s suggestion that European women could serve a similar function to the dragomans as navigators between cultures or infiltrators of Muslim households and potential converters of Muslim women (who in turn could influence their husbands). Dubois proposed that young female settlers be educated in medical skills and foreign languages for this purpose, a variation on the long-cherished theme, in epics and romances, of marriage and conversion of Muslim women, except that it would be Christian women who would do the marrying and convert their male Muslim spouses. Dubois’s vision of purposeful cultural miscegenation through medicine, translation, and marriage contrasted with his contemporary Philippe de Mézières’ scheme for the deliberate creation of a strictly segregated and self-sufficient quasi-regular crusader society composed of militant crusaders and their devout repopulating Western wives. In the best possible way, this volume’s essays quash long-cherished assumptions about the ways in which societies functioned in Outremer, breaking down disciplinary walls and calling for ambitious new avenues of research. Some of the essays could easily be assigned to advanced undergraduates and certainly to graduate students

234

REVIEWS

contemplating entering the field of Mediterranean studies. The addition of on-line tools and addenda, including translations of original source material, introduces another pioneering element to this volume, bringing functionalities associated with textbooks to a volume of scholarly essays. Alas, the publishing world has been slow to embrace the possibilities offered by digital publication, and one would hope that in the future, in electronic versions of printed publications, scholars might be able to embed hyperlinks to the digitized manuscripts or images referenced. Jessalynn Bird Saint Mary’s College Notre Dame Simon John, Godfrey of Bouillon: Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Ruler of Latin Jerusalem, c.1060–1100. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2018. Pp. xvi, 283. ISBN 978 1 4724 5896 4. Even more than most medieval rulers, Godfrey of Bouillon presents exceptional challenges for his biographer: little is known for sure about his career before the First Crusade, and much of what has been written about him as crusade leader and as ruler of Jerusalem has been distorted by his posthumous quasi-sanctification. Simon John, whose doctoral research was the basis for this contribution to Routledge’s Rulers of the Latin East series, is ideally fitted to bring Godfrey – his career first too shadowy then too shiny – to credible life. John confronts the historiographical challenge in his introduction. Using Godfrey’s statue that has stood in Brussels since 1848 as a starting point, he points out the tendency of modern historians to view Godfrey’s career through the prism of his later reputation. John’s own purpose is rather to show how Godfrey’s background and pre-crusade experiences as duke of Lotharingia influenced his involvement in the crusade. Thus, roughly half of the book is devoted to Godfrey’s life before 1096. John’s introduction also details the sources he has used, which are all as near as possible contemporary, that is, eleventh- or early twelfth-century. A substantial and exhaustively documented first chapter deals with Godfrey’s ancestry and parentage, placing his predecessors in the contexts of Lotharingia and the Western Empire, the Investiture Conflict and relations with the Church. The emphasis – which would be unusual for most prominent medieval figures – is on Godfrey’s mother and the matrilineal line, for it was through Ida that he inherited the lands that were to make him duke of Lower Lotharingia. The paternal inheritance, primarily in Normandy and Norman England, went of right to Godfrey’s elder brother Eustace. In Chapter 2, Godfrey’s early years and his coming into his inheritance on his uncle’s death in 1076 are described. The lands he acquired as a result brought him within the ambit of the empire, and of particular interest is John’s discussion of Godfrey’s relationship with Henry IV. Historians have generally assumed that Godfrey aligned himself with the emperor and took part in his campaigns in Saxony and Italy, but John points out that it is difficult to find

REVIEWS

235

unambiguous evidence of Godfrey fighting for the emperor, while Henry did not immediately confirm Godfrey as duke, but instead bestowed the title on his own infant son. Godfrey did not achieve the dukedom until 1087, but John claims that even after that he cannot be considered a staunch political supporter of the emperor. Instead his focus was on his own inherited lands. This was the situation when Pope Urban made the speech at Clermont that instigated the First Crusade and it goes some way to mitigating the surprise of many historians that Godfrey, if he was a supporter of the emperor, would respond to an appeal from the pope. John points out that members of Ida’s birth family were associated with the reform papacy and Godfrey may have heard of the appeal by way of senior clerics, Lotharingian or Norman, who were present at the council of Clermont in 1095, or through his family connections in the Anglo-Norman world: his brothers Eustace and Baldwin were married into Norman families and all three brothers went on crusade. A less satisfactory segment of this third chapter speculates as to Godfrey’s reasons for joining the papal expedition, largely discounting Albert of Aachen’s claim that it was a long-held desire (and overlooking William of Malmesbury’s late but circumstantial evidence about Godfrey’s miraculous recovery from illness and pilgrimage vow) and identifying a number of possible material inducements, including that of gaining territory in the East when his land and authority in the West were being eroded at Henry IV’s hands. The rest of the chapter describes how Godfrey raised the funds he needed by disposing of all his lands, reinforcing the view that he had no intention, or expectation, of returning to Lotharingia. It was an extraordinary investment in a highly speculative enterprise and suggests that the strength of Godfrey’s spiritual commitment should be restated. With the First Crusade, we move from conjecture based on quite fragmentary evidence to the best documented period of Godfrey’s career, but this does not mean there is less room for debate. Inevitably, the narrative draws heavily on Albert of Aachen’s Historia, with support from the other primary accounts, and although John correctly draws attention to the problem of hindsight when dealing with all these sources, it is notable that he questions Albert’s reliability at certain points but not at others: he finds it implausible that Godfrey had prior contact with Coloman of Hungary, for example, and unlikely that Adhémar was “capable of directing military affairs,” without satisfactorily examining opposing arguments. On the other hand, he accepts the story of Godfrey’s fight with a bear in northern Syria and uses it to explain Godfrey’s absence from the action for some seven months. In fact, an important theme of this fourth chapter is that Godfrey became a dominant figure among the leaders only in 1099 when he led the response to popular insistence that the expedition go on to Jerusalem and took a leading role in the capture of the city. Godfrey’s election as ruler initiates discussion of some well-rehearsed debates: why Godfrey? What title did he assume? Was there a “kingdom of Jerusalem” before the accession of Baldwin I? An assessment of Godfrey’s short reign has to be based on Albert of Aachen, the “Bartolf” version of Fulcher of Chartres, and precious few charters and letters, but John lays it clearly before us.

236

REVIEWS

A short concluding chapter sums Godfrey up as a man motivated largely by self-interest and links Godfrey the crusader with Godfrey the duke of Lower Lotharingia. There is also an epilogue that discusses Godfrey’s reputation in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and Simon John promises a comprehensive study of the evolution of Godfrey’s reputation through the centuries that followed his death. This will be a welcome complement to this thorough and revisionist biography of the terrestrial Godfrey. Susan B. Edgington Queen Mary University of London Danielle E. A. Park, Papal Protection and the Crusader. Flanders, Champagne, and the Kingdom of France, 1095–1222. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2018. Pp. x, 244. ISBN 978 1 78327 222 8. The cover illustration of this new book shows an allegorical scene of the castle of love fiercely attacked by knights and forcefully defended by a team of young women. This truly engaging picture from the Peterborough Psalter of around 1300 has, however, little to do with the content of Danielle Park’s study of papal protection for crusaders in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Yes, women play a considerable part in Park’s story, but not as damsels protecting their honour and integrity nor as female soldiers battling against manhood. The women in the focus of this book are crusaders’ wives acting as regents for their husbands who had gone to wage war in the Holy Land. As temporary rulers these women took on the roles and capacities which were in the normal run of things reserved for men. Rather than combatting the other sex, female regents closely collaborated with their menfolk. Indeed, women and also men appointed as temporary regents were an integral element of the system of crusading. They made it possible for rulers in the West to abandon their governmental duties when on crusade while their regents ran and defended their principalities during often protracted periods of absence. In doing so, regents were supported by papal privileges which were issued for the protection of crusaders’ families and possessions while they were fighting the holy war. Park’s book is about both these related topics: the development and legal aspects of papal protections and the political realities and efficiency of the regencies. Chapters 1 and 3 treat the origin and development of papal privileges protecting the crusader’s possessions and family. In the former, Park spells out a convincing case in support of the novelty of the crusader privileges proclaimed by Pope Urban II in 1095. By emphasizing the differences between the new legislation accompanying the First Crusade and earlier provisions for pilgrims, Park rightly insists that innovation eclipsed legal precedence when Urban designed a framework of privileges for supporting the novel practice of holy wars. Chapter 3 traces the emergence of papal protection privileges from the twelfth century up to the

REVIEWS

237

pontificate of Honorius III. Here Park argues for a steady evolution rather than momentous restructurings. Popes Eugenius III and in particular Alexander III, Park argues, contributed as much to the development of papal protection as did Innocent III, who is often seen by historians as the great innovator of all things crusading. This argument could have been presented even more forcefully and convincingly if Park had combined and compared her findings with those of Ane Bysted’s seminal study of the crusade indulgence in the same period (The Crusade Indulgence, 2015, reviewed in Crusades 15, 2016). Chapters 2, 4, 5 and 6 present a number of case studies of regencies established for absent crusaders in Flanders and Champagne during the First Crusade as well as in the second half of the twelfth century, in the kingdom of France during the Second Crusade, and in a variety of cases during the Third and Fifth Crusades. Park explores how and how effectively these regents ruled, mainly through the charter evidence available. Choosing the wife as regent when possible made sense because she was not only closest to the ruler himself but also least likely to make an attempt at usurping his position and ousting the absent crusader from his powers. Reliable safeguards were indeed deemed necessary and the French kings even opted for two regents, one secular and one ecclesiastical, in the hope of creating a stabilizing balance of power. A strong regency was, however, not only dependent on choosing the right person(s). Departing crusaders took several measures to bolster the strength and power of regents. Among these was a systematic process of putting their affairs in order before leaving on crusade by settling disputes, reconfirming rights and declaring local peace. Obtaining papal protection privileges was part and parcel of this strategy. Park here argues, against previous assertions by some historians, that within the context of measures available to regents, papal protections did prove valuable instruments for safeguarding absent crusaders’ possessions. In the course of reading through the case studies presented here, it becomes abundantly clear, however, that papal privileges only had a chance of providing the desired security they were meant to give if the regents were actively supported politically by the popes and other powerful people. Park is to be commended for having delivered the first monograph study of papal privileges of protection for crusaders. She has also made an important contribution towards the study of the crusade on the “home front” by analysing the regencies supporting a number of important crusaders during the twelfth century. Still, as it stands, the study has its limitations which seem mainly self-imposed by an unfortunate choice of the testing ground. Firstly, by focussing only on the privileges protecting the crusaders’ possessions and families, Park fails to explore their efficiency and importance as one element belonging to an entire parcel of temporal and spiritual privileges meant to work in unison. Secondly, the scope of Park’s study could have profited immensely from extending the investigations into the thirteenth century rather than multiplying case studies for the twelfth. The materials available in the papal and episcopal registers of the thirteenth century would have allowed Park to delve much more deeply into questions surrounding

238

REVIEWS

the application of papal privileges and their actual effectiveness in cases of conflict and in conflict management. This would not only have hugely contributed to our understanding of the workings of papal privileges but would also have given greater coherence between the two main thematical strands of Park’s study. However, if her book acts as a beginning and shows the way towards extending the study of papal protection privileges for crusaders, Park will have earned highly deserved merits. Christoph T. Maier University of Zurich Alexander Berner, Kreuzzug und regionale Herrschaft: Die älteren Grafen von Berg 1147–1225. Cologne: Böhlau, 2014. Pp. 373. ISBN 978 3 412 22357 1. For many years German scholarship on the crusades has tended to focus on the aims and activity of the kings and emperors, and investigations of regional participation have lagged well behind research done on France, the Low Countries and the British Isles. It is noticeable, for example, that the analysis of crusaders in the publications of two important exhibitions, Die Kreuzzüge – Kein Krieg ist heilig (2004) and Saladin und die Kreuzfahrer (2006), rely on the outdated catalogues compiled by Reinhold Röhricht in Die Deutschen im Heiligen Lande (1894). Thanks to pioneering work done by scholars such as Stefan Tebruck and Bernd Ulrich Hucker, however, this situation is beginning to change, and the book reviewed here is a welcome addition to the literature. The original seat of the counts of Berg was the castle of Berge (later known as Altenberg) north-east of Cologne. Count Adolf II converted Altenberg into a Cistercian monastery and moved his base to the new castle of Burg (Neu-Berg) on the River Wupper near Solingen. The family acquired great landed wealth and political influence in Westphalia, with three archbishops of Cologne and other senior prelates being recruited from its members. From the time of Adolf II’s eldest son, who died at the siege of Damascus in 1148, up to 1225, when the male line died out, at least four (and possibly six) out of the family’s nine known adult males took part in crusades, while another (Bruno II of Cologne) made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The dynasty is thus an excellent subject for an investigation into the relationship between its territorial lordship and its participation in the crusade movement. The book is structured in four main parts: a survey of the contribution to crusading made by the north-west of the Reich (an area which is not defined, but roughly comprises Westphalia, Lower Lotharingia and Frisia) (pp. 31–64); a chronological narrative of the history of the dynasty (pp. 65–162); an analysis of the spiritual influences on its crusading motivation (pp. 163–83); and an assessment of the crusade activity of seven of its members (pp. 185–299). This structure provides an accessible way into the sometimes dense material discussed. The book draws on an impressively wide range of sources and secondary literature covering the German monarchy, crusading and, above all, the history

REVIEWS

239

of the region. Its greatest strength is its detailed elucidation of the circumstances surrounding the motivation, vows and finance of several generations and their attitudes to crusading. On the subject of motivation, Berner makes a convincing case that the counts were especially receptive to Cistercian attitudes to the Holy Land. Thus, on founding the monastery at Altenberg, Count Adolf II accepted the Cistercian prohibition on lay advocates, even though the acquisition of advocacies was one of the main factors in the dynasty’s accumulation of power. Given the importance of the counts of Berg as regional political players and leading vassals of the archbishops of Cologne, it is perhaps surprising that the evidential basis for their crusading activity is highly varied. Thus, the participation of Count Adolf III and his brother Engelbert (later archbishop of Cologne) in the Albigensian Crusade is attested only by a single terse remark in the Dialogus miraculorum of Caesarius of Heisterbach, although it is surely buttressed by the fact that Simon de Montfort was one of only a handful of non-Germans whose death was recorded in the memorial book of Altenberg. By contrast, we are relatively well informed about Adolf III’s involvement in the Fifth Crusade, and the treatment of this episode is the most detailed and impressive section of the book. Berner argues that Adolf was accorded leadership of the German and Frisian contingent at the siege of Damietta not only because he was the senior member of a large kinship group with common political interests, but also because he had experience of a similar military situation as commander at the siege of Kaiserswerth in 1214 in the service of the young Frederick II. Adolf issued several documents during the crusade, and this section is rounded off with a prosopographical analysis of twenty-seven witnesses to a privilege for the Teutonic Order issued at Damietta shortly before his death in 1218, most of whom were members of his retinue. There are much more than the highlights outlined here, and there is very little to criticize about this study, apart from a few minor omissions (such as the lack of discussion of the description of Adolf III as iudex of army at Damietta). By contrast there is a wealth of information on motivation, pious donations, fund-raising, political and kinship networks, and the often difficult circumstances in which nobles took decisions to leave their ancestral lands in order to aid the Holy Land or to combat heresy. This book is an exemplary treatment of one of the major dynasties of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Germany, and demonstrates how the best investigations of crusading participation are those which are firmly rooted in regional and local history. Alan V. Murray University of Leeds

240

REVIEWS

Thomas W. Smith, Curia and Crusade. Pope Honorius III and the Recovery of the Holy Land 1216–1227. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. Pp. xii, 393. ISBN 978 2 503 55297 2. While occasionally the parts of this book are greater than the sum, its parts are valuable indeed. Based on a 2013 Ph.D. dissertation, Thomas W. Smith has written a study analyzing how the papacy worked in the thirteenth century and about how one pope and his curia laboured and reacted to a large, ongoing international affair over an eleven-year period. Along the way, Smith provides specialized studies on the Fifth Crusade in particular, especially Honorius’ relationship to it. Thoroughly grounded in archival and printed primary sources with up-to-date secondary literature, the author uses the evidence well. Smith acknowledges that Honorius’ pontificate was sandwiched between two very influential popes, Innocent III and Gregory IX. Innocent III in particular has cast a long shadow over Honorius in historiography, with the latter sometimes viewed as merely a passive version of the former. Smith aims to understand Honorius the man (as best as that can be ascertained) and evaluate his effectiveness as pope. Ironically, he confirms that popes, even in their apogee of power in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, were less proactive and more reactive to constantly shifting circumstances. Although Smith uses the less negative “responsive,” the fact remains that Honorius typically reacted to what lay powers did or wanted to do, and rarely created active policies that were actually carried out. Honorius, of course, inherited Innocent III’s financial apparatus and the military movement we call the Fifth Crusade. The Fourth Lateran Council had placed a tax on clerical incomes but Honorius was responsible for its collection and distribution. The pope had to exhort and encourage the leaders and men needed to crusade. He had to appoint legates and offer them direction in what they ought to do. Honorius could not magically create the apparatus of collection or order anyone to go on crusade at a specific moment. He reacted to and granted the petitions of those who wished to collect the tax themselves, leaders who wanted that money for a variety of reasons (such as defraying immediate expenses among local crusaders, or diverting it to other regions, like Southern France or Spain), or an exemption from paying it, or a commutation of vows, or a delay from honouring them. Though the papal records only list successful petitions, it is surprising how often petitioners succeeded in getting the pope to do what they wanted, rather than the pope and his curia setting policy and enforcing it. In this Honorius was no weaker or more powerful than his predecessors or successors, since they often did the same thing. Some of the book’s more original aspects stand as the “greater parts” mentioned in the first sentence of this review. These challenge aspects of the current interpretation of the Fifth Crusade and also complement James Powell’s pioneering work. In several chapters Smith repeatedly probes into Powell’s “leadership question.” Chapter 3 examines King Andrew II of Hungary’s relationship with Honorius. This monarch is generally viewed as a leadership failure who never got

REVIEWS

241

to the main theatre of operations and aborted his expedition prematurely. Smith suggests that Honorius early on had concluded that Andrew, as a monarch already committed to the crusade via a vow made by his father, was the right man for the job as commander-in-chief of the crusade, not Frederick II or John of Brienne. Smith’s chapter 4 on Frederick II carefully charts out how Honorius gradually came to view Frederick II as a viable commander-in-chief, but only after Frederick announced his intention to crusade in late 1218, long after Andrew departed from the Holy Land. Frederick was the cause of anxiety for the pope because of his role as monarch of Sicily alongside his election as King of the Germans and his quest to be crowned Emperor of the Romans. On the plus side, Frederick’s increasing authority and great resources also made him attractive as a general who could revive listless efforts in Egypt. In hindsight the emperor’s repeated, vexing delays were indeed one of the reasons why the crusade eventually foundered. In their correspondence, however, Smith paints a different picture. Ever the diplomat, Honorius tried to persuade Frederick cordially and patiently throughout Frederick’s chronic postponements. The pope clearly recognized the importance of maintaining positive relations with a powerful lay ruler. Honorius needed Frederick and adroitly realized that threats or excommunication would not bring about the desired outcome of getting Frederick to Egypt. Chapter 7 also analyzes the leadership question vis-à-vis the other most infamous leader of the crusade, Pelagius. Smith attempts to rescue Pelagius from the reputational pit he has occupied for a long time, unsealing the lid created by Joseph P. Donovan’s 1950 scathing biography. Smith demonstrates that Honorius never intended Pelagius to be military commander of the crusade and that Pelagius never acted as one. The hostile picture of a grasping, imperious, micromanaging zealot was created by narrative sources written sometimes decades later, after the legate had become a convenient scapegoat for why the crusade ended in disaster. The pope never lost confidence in Pelagius, and until Honorius died the cardinal continued to serve the pope faithfully and competently (p. 295). Honorius was more capable than the historiographical record suggests, with Smith even calling him “slick and professional” (p. 344). The pope emerges as a skilled diplomat who held his own with lay powers but who recognized that without their cooperation the Fifth Crusade in particular, and crusading in general, could not succeed (p. 343). Thus, Honorius practiced diplomatic Realpolitik whereby granting petitions and exemptions facilitated the participation and cooperation of secular leaders and thousands of crusaders, and allowed great sums of money to be drawn from all areas of Europe to be disbursed great distances away. By realizing he could not control or micromanage lay leaders or even his own legates, Honorius adeptly made the best of difficult situations. Laurence W. Marvin Berry College

242

REVIEWS

Antonia Durrer, Die Kreuzfahrerherrschaften des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts zwischen Integration und Segregation (Mittelalter-Forschungen, 51). Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2016. Pp. 407. ISBN 978 3 799 54371 2. Die Kreuzzugsbewegung im römisch-deutschen Reich (11.–13. Jahrhundert), ed. Nikolas Jaspert and Stefan Tebruck. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2016. Pp. 375. ISBN 978 3 799 50383 9. These two recent German-language studies are a good indicator for a renewed interest in the crusades among German-speaking scholars. Fortunately, in the last few years more and more colleagues have encouraged their Ph.D. students to participate in the debates over almost every aspect of crusade history, memory and engagement that is of interest to modern crusade historians – although these debates are generally dominated by Anglophone scholars. Antonia Durrer, for example, chooses to examine the hotly debated question whether the crusader states in the Levant could be understood as a “multicultural society” (as in the title of an edited volume by Hans Eberhard Mayer from 1997), or if they should rather be understood as a society governed by segregation (or even by a kind of “apartheid” as Joshua Prawer argued already back in 1972) of the different ethnic and/or religious groups living within these territories. Her Ph.D. thesis, supervised by Rainer C. Schwinges and successfully defended in Bern in March 2013, was published in 2016 as “The Crusader States in the 12th and 13th Centuries between Integration and Segregation” (my translation). Durrer picks up a discussion which already dates back at least to the 1970s, but to which – unsurprisingly – no one has so far found a definite and all-encompassing answer. One of Durrer’s conclusions is that such an answer is still far-off, as on the one hand our knowledge about everyday life in these territories is still not very thorough, and on the other hand the discussion is somewhat trapped between the abovementioned extreme positions of either segregation or integration (see esp. pp. 329–37). Like the present reviewer, Durrer is confident that such a question cannot fully be addressed by solely using well-known written sources from the Middle Ages as if they were windows to a historical reality outside of them. Therefore, she chooses to turn the scholarly discourse (“Wissenschaftsdiskurs”) about the crusader states into another one of her research objects. This helps recreate a genealogy of the assessments and judgements to be found in modern research about these medieval societies (especially in chapter V, “The multi-religious crusader states in scholarly discourse,” pp. 245–327). It also helps reveal the lacunae and blind spots of recent discussions, which Durrer mainly traces back to rather naive readings and generalizations of short passages from crusade chronicles and to a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration. The obvious reason for this being, of course, that no reconstruction of a bygone society’s everyday-life experiences can be fully achieved within the limits of a single scholarly discipline, let alone of a single research subject.

REVIEWS

243

Durrer’s approach is not to write a new history of the crusader states by using previously unpublished or largely ignored sources/materials; it is rather a (in the best sense) revisionist approach scrutinizing the portrayals of the different religious/ ethnic groups of the crusader states in Latin Christian, Oriental Christian, Muslim and Jewish sources from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. She does so with an impressive knowledge of the corresponding languages, sources, and available secondary literature (see the bibliography, pp. 339–94). Extremely helpful – for example, for teaching the history of the crusader states – is her second chapter (“Religions and confessions in the crusader states,” pp. 17–55), which provides an overview over the complexity of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition of the societies in the Frankish Levant. The third chapter is dedicated to the portrayal in pilgrim literature (in Christian, as well as in Jewish and Muslim texts) of the different religious groups living within the crusader states. She concludes that all these texts have two things in common: they are all witnesses to the enormous religious diversity, and they all try to legitimate the claims of their own community to the Holy Land, its towns and its pilgrimage sites (pp. 118 and 123). The fourth chapter is dedicated to historiographical portrayals of these societies. Here she uses a variety of mostly well-known Christian and Muslim texts, which present the “other” in very similar terms, so that Durrer argues for the universality of enemy stereotypes to be found in this particular source material (p. 237). She does find a few modifications of such enemy stereotypes as images of the “other” based on real-life encounters, but she argues that these did not alter the discourse in a decisive manner. Durrer presents (p. 243) three conclusions of her analysis of the medieval source material: Firstly, religious differences were an important topic in these texts and their authors deployed them as a means of legitimization of their own group’s claims to (political-religious) power. Secondly, labels and characteristics attributed to the respective “other” were of a consistent nature and were accordingly adopted also by later authors. Thirdly, genre-specific conventions in both pilgrimage literature and historiography forced the portrayal of the “other” to be extremely conventional and left little space for differing voices. Durrer uses these conclusions as a guiding principle for analysing a number of pertinent monographs since the nineteenth century (see the list on pp. 395f.) in chapter V. Her conclusion here is rather pessimistic in tone, as she states that no reasonable general assertions about the animosity or amicability of either Muslims or Franks towards each other may be drawn from either the medieval pilgrimage literature or the historiographical accounts (p. 333). This negative result is nevertheless an important one and is also the reason why Durrer in the end argues for other sources and other approaches to be used to come to more fruitful ways of understanding the medieval crusader states in the Levant. The volume edited by Nikolas Jaspert and Stefan Tebruck has a very different aim and scope. These proceedings originate from an international conference held in Gießen

244

REVIEWS

in 2012, where scholars were invited to trace the repercussions of the crusading idea in the Holy Roman Empire during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. As the editors state in their introduction, since the days of Reinhold Röhricht at the end of the nineteenth century only very limited and specialized case-studies about crusade engagement in the medieval Empire were published in German, and all too often these older studies offered a rather naive-positivistic reading of the source material and were tainted by a nationalistic agenda. It is therefore the aim of this volume to offer an up-to-date systematic overview over “German” crusaders, supporters and institutions, their social, political and economic backgrounds, as well as how the participation of German crusaders influenced the localities they came from – and, in most cases, returned to. The innovative approach of the volume is, on the one hand, to offer area studies (as in the first four contributions by Alexander Berner, Stefan Tebruck, Alan V. Murray and Hubert Houben), covering the north-western and the south-western parts of the Empire, as well as Italy, Saxony and Thuringia. On the other hand, the contributions avoid biographical storytelling by focusing on different socioeconomic, political or religious groups and communities and their crusading engagement (as in the contributions by Jochen Burgtorf, Karl Borchardt, MarieLuise Favreau-Lilie, Nikolas Jaspert, Claudia Zey and Christoph T. Maier), covering members and supporters of the Templars, the Knights of St. John, the Teutonic Order, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, papal legates and crusade preachers. The last five contributions (by Bernd Bastert, Gia Toussaint, Andrea Worm, Bianca Kühnel – the only chapter in English –, and Jürgen Bärsch) focus on different sources and forms of representing and visualizing the Oriental Crusades as well as Jerusalem and the Holy Land for “German” audiences. All contributions are of very high quality and offer a solid, sometimes surprising and always insightful overview over the respective topic. Since for the most part they address hitherto neglected fields of research, the contributions are generally uncontroversial. One major exception is Jochen Burgtorf’s chapter (pp. 119–40) as he deals with the exuberant myth-making about the Templars’ possessions in the Empire, which he is able to correct and contextualize with a great knowledge of the available sources and with a sure sense for revealing historiographical traps and pitfalls. Almost all contributions note the importance of the Staufer kings and emperors for “German” crusading activities, notably Henry VI and to a lesser extent Frederick II and Conrad III. They also note the importance of the Second Crusade and the preaching of Bernard of Clairvaux for crusading activities in the Empire. But this also points to one of the major lacunae of this volume: namely, the topic of the Northern Crusades. Given this omission and the volume’s focus on the East, it comes as little surprise that no contribution is dedicated to the north-eastern parts of the Empire, although it is well-known that these territories only became part of the Empire thanks to crusading activities and associated efforts of mission and colonization since the second half of the twelfth century. The editors do address this

REVIEWS

245

problem in their introduction – as they point out also other lacunae, e.g. the history of the German Jewish communities and the interactions of German crusaders and crusade institutions in other theatres of war like the Iberian Peninsula (pp. 9–11) – and they invite scholars to use this volume as a basis for further studies by explaining that the present volume is solely dedicated to the entanglements between (the Western and Southern parts of) the Empire and the Levant. But the omission of the Northern Crusades weighs quite heavily; as Christoph T. Maier notes in his contribution, the crusading activities in the Baltic countries, as well as in modern-day German territories like Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and parts of Brandenburg, shaped the German crusade engagement in a far more decisive way than those in the Levant (p. 248). The incorporation of the Germania Slavica, the rise and fall of the Teutonic Order, but also the importance of the Cistercians for the dissemination of crusade accounts and propaganda and especially their importance for the socio-economic history of the north-eastern parts of the Empire are unfortunately not addressed in this volume. The editors claim in their introduction that the generalist and pluralist definitions of crusading are nowadays undisputed (although Hans Eberhard Mayer, Jean Flori and probably a few others would certainly disagree); however, the deliberate limitation of this volume is all the more of a pity as it misses the opportunity to actually prove that the “real” crusades were not limited to the Levant. Let us hope that either Nikolas Jaspert and Stefan Tebruck or other scholars will soon provide a follow-up volume with equivalent high-standard contributions covering these other extremely important aspects. Overall, both books are very well researched and written and deserve to be read and used as a basis for further research in the respective topics. Kristin Skottki University of Bayreuth From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keefe and Jean-Michel Picard. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. Pp. xxii, 358. ISBN 978 2 503 56781 5. From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne is a clever concept that delivers on many of the promises of its subtitle. Its premise, a sort of “life, times and world” of the Anglo-Norman/Irish noble Hugh de Lacy II (c.1170–1242) makes real connections between two seemingly disparate places, Ireland and Languedoc. It shows the vibrancy of a topic when a book of sixteen chapters (four in French) can be devoted to someone who may seem to be merely a minor character of a major crusade, even if Hugh and his family were important figures in Ireland. Ten chapters derive from two 2015 conferences held in Belfast and Carcassonne while five others were commissioned independently “to map Hugh’s movement through the Cathar territories and to establish his role in the crusade that defeated Catharism”

246

REVIEWS

(p. 3). The work is interdisciplinary in the best sense, with chapters stemming from history, biography, literature and archaeology. It contains dozens of fine maps, archaeological renderings and pictures. While some chapters say little, if anything, about Hugh de Lacy II, this does not necessarily lessen their value; but it is worth pointing out that the volume’s title and subtitle do not fully reflect the range of the chapters contained therein. After the three editors’ introductory chapter, the other chapters are organized into three sections: “Expulsion,” “Exile” and “Restitution,” loosely following Hugh II’s own career. In addition to the introduction, the archaeologist Paul Duffy co-wrote Chapter 2 with Daniel J. F. Brown, a historian specializing in Hugh de Lacy’s career, and Duffy solely authored Chapter 16, which acts as a sort of conclusion to the whole volume. Chapters 2, 9 (sole-authored by Brown), 14 (Philip Macdonald), 15 (David McIlreavy) and 16 evaluate Hugh de Lacy’s influence in various contexts. Duffy and Brown provide the most biographical detail and discussion of Hugh de Lacy II. Their chapters tend to be complementary, suggesting that Hugh was not merely a violent, opportunistic adventurer (though he certainly was these things) but also an observant man of vast experience who incorporated new things he learned about warfare, governance and architecture into each phase of his career. He certainly lived a turbulent and restless life. As a young man in 1205 he deftly ousted, and took over the lands of, John de Courcy, one of the most important and successful buccaneers of the initial Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the latter half of the twelfth century. Shortly thereafter Hugh became the first Irish earl, only to run afoul of the English crown by 1210 to such an extent that he fled to the Continent. He brought the mentality, skills and expertise of someone raised in the fluid, rough frontier of Ireland to his new life in Languedoc. By 1211 he popped up as one of Simon of Montfort’s most capable and long-serving lieutenants on the Albigensian crusade, and was rewarded with the important lordships of Castelnaudary and Laurac. Hugh II remained in Languedoc until 1221, when it seemed clear that northern nobles might be pushed out as Raymond VII experienced steady successes against Simon of Montfort’s heir and successor, Amaury. Hugh returned to the British Isles where he unsuccessfully petitioned to receive his Irish lands back but eventually recovered them through a rebellion. By 1227 he had come full circle when he regained his title of Earl of Ulster. The archaeological chapters (3, 4, 5, 9, 12 and 14) exhibit a common theme about Hugh de Lacy’s potential influence on the development of fortifications in Ireland. While none of this can be proved in the written record, as multiple authors admit, Hugh (and others) likely brought their knowledge of new, Capetian-stimulated architecture of concentric defence and round or D-shaped towers to Ireland around the turn of the thirteenth century. Some chapters that say little about Hugh de Lacy still make valuable contributions to our understanding of the Albigensian Crusade. Chapter 11, by Jean François Vassal, provides a biographical sketch of Peter de Voisins, another Montfort lieutenant and colleague of Hugh II. Jean Catalo’s Chapter 12, on Toulouse’s

REVIEWS

247

Château Narbonnais, shows why archaeology can be so helpful to historians, by shedding light on a structure poorly described in the written record but which played a critical role in the second siege of Toulouse in 1217–18. Recent archaeological work has established it was a stand-alone structure during the crusade. Lucien Aries’ Chapter 13 on the battle of Baziège, at which Hugh de Lacy was present, provides a detailed analysis of the battle and the battle site, and in the process challenges some perceived facts about it, such as the date when it occurred. The value of other chapters which do not directly focus on Hugh II will depend on the reader. In Chapter 6, the distinguished historian of the Cathars, Anne Brenon, examines a Cathar religious manual that somehow ended up in Ireland. Pilar Jiménez Sanchez’s Chapter 8 functions as a basic primer for the rise of Catharism in Languedoc, while Jean-Louis Gasc’s Chapter 10 does the same for Simon of Montfort’s career before and during the Albigensian Crusade. Beyond those tangential inclusions, one technical limitation of this volume was the decision not to include a bibliography. Since later chapters often only include a short title, it is hard to retrace the full reference back to earlier chapters. If the editors or press omitted the bibliography because of space or price there was a solution. To accompany many of the chapters, the volume contains sixteen pages of nicely reproduced colour plates of buildings, manuscript pages and other assorted items at the end. Inexplicably every one of those plates also appears in good-quality black-and-white in the relevant chapters, thus appearing twice in the volume. The colour plates alone would have sufficed and the space saved could have been used for a bibliography. The technical criticism notwithstanding, From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne was a worthy idea. It provides valuable contributions on one noble’s life and career, the Albigensian Crusade, Ireland, and the evolution of defensive architecture in northern Europe. Laurence W. Marvin Berry College Michael Lower, The Tunis Crusade of 1270: A Mediterranean History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xx, 216. ISBN 978 0 19 874432 0. Michael Lower’s latest book utilizes the much-misunderstood Tunis Crusade to propose a complete paradigm shift in multiple fields: he calls for crusading historians typically trained either in the European perspective or the Islamic perspective of the crusade movement to commit instead to a multi-perspective approach to interreligious conflict and collaboration. A student of the late Jonathan Riley-Smith, Lower acknowledges the valuable contributions of recent crusade historiography in tracing the origins of the crusading mentality (and practice) within the European context and the very recent focus on the impact of both on European culture (for example, in studies of crusading liturgy and sermons, of crusades within and on the

248

REVIEWS

periphery of Europe, of memory and material culture). However, Lower makes a case for the need to incorporate the study of the crusades within the larger field of Mediterranean studies. This incorporation poses its own problems, as Mediterranean studies has its own paradigms for explaining this region’s polyphonous dialogue between (and within) competing and collaborating polities with diverse ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. One school stresses a common “Mediterranean” culture forged by shared environmental conditions, manifested in similarities in material culture and exchanges via trade, learning, and literature. Other schools cite the crusades as emblematic of the ways in which ethnic and religious difference polarized rather than united, with the result that the Tunis Crusade is traditionally envisaged in terms of axial opposites: money/souls, confrontation/accommodation, and spiritual/material. Lower proposes a compromise position, where confessional diversity and religious warfare become key agents in creating and confirming those elements of a shared Mediterranean culture customarily viewed as traversing religious difference. In other words, in order to understand the context of the Tunis Crusade of 1270, all of its aspects – commercial, diplomatic, scholarly, missionary, artistic, religious and social – must be weighed for all parties involved in the conflict. Rather than viewing Charles of Anjou’s desire for maintaining trade relations and extracting tribute from al-Mustansir of Tunis as incompatible with Louis IX’s desire to win Muslim souls through crusade and mission, the two goals could, in fact, be mutually reinforcing. Lower also daringly resituates the Tunis Crusade within a panorama of influential individuals, cultures, and historical developments in later thirteenth-century Eurasia: the reform and peace efforts of Louis IX in France; Charles of Anjou’s development of his Sicilian kingdom; the rise of the Mongol empire and Byzantium as potential targets for competition, alliance, and conversion; the ascent of al-Mustansir of Tunis and Baybars’ Mamluk empire; the beleaguered Christian princes of Antioch, Cyprus, and Cilicia-Armenia; the Italian merchants of Pisa, Genoa and Venice. This holistic approach demands a staggering amount of research. However, Lower deftly recontextualizes the Tunis campaign in light of Louis IX’s and Baybars’ parallel growth to power and mutual concern for portraying themselves as champions of orthodoxy and purifying moral, military and administrative reforms at home and religious warfare abroad. Both rulers grappled with the rise and expansion of the Mongol empire and its avowed mission of world domination. The disastrous defeat of one Mongol army at ʿAyn Jalut in 1260 may have led some Mongol rulers into diplomatic and religious negotiation with European rulers, yet the conversion of Berke, Khan of the Golden Horde to Islam also stirred up European fears of a MongolMamluk anti-Christian alliance. Similarly, the intra-European crusades between the papacy and surviving Hohenstaufens informed a complex multilateral diplomacy and military expansionism on the part of Louis IX, Charles of Anjou, Baybars and al-Mustansir. The model of negotiation and exchange pursued by Charles of Anjou and his counterpart, al-Mustansir of Tunis, would soon transform the plans of Louis IX and Baybars, initially both dedicated to the pursuit of holy war in Syria

REVIEWS

249

as a form of political legitimization and personal redemption. The emergence of Charles of Anjou as ruler of Sicily in the midst of the papal-Hohenstaufen struggle threatened the traditional trading and diplomatic relationships which al-Mustansir had built up with the Hohenstaufen rulers of Sicily, the Italian city-states, and the rulers of al-Andalus and the Christian kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. Head of the relatively new Hafsid dynasty, al-Mustansir cultivated relationships with these powers and those within Ifriqiya and the Near East through diplomacy, trade, mercenaries and cultural exchange to stave off competition within and beyond his domains, including Baybars. Similarly, Charles of Anjou, younger brother of Louis IX, sought to stabilize his titular position as ruler of Sicily through multiple avenues which embroiled him in negotiations and rivalry with many of the same powers, including also Michael VIII Palaiologos, Baldwin II of Constantinople, and William, prince of Achaia. Despite al-Mustansir’s support for a rebellion in Sicily, Charles continued negotiations which gained both sides their desired goals: peace and trade in the central Mediterranean region. Lower convincingly argues that the Tunis Crusade was not the result of cynical diversion but rather of a realignment of interests emerging from the diplomatic and military strategizing which embroiled most of Eurasia’s greatest powers. The advent of the Mongols forced a reappraisal of the economic, strategic, and religious significance of Tunis. Lower similarly gives us quietly revolutionary reassessments of set-piece moments in crusading history. Baybars’ letter to Bohemond of Antioch, traditionally interpreted as evidence of Mamluk jihadist tendencies, is reread as a statement of the impossibility of coexistence used as leverage for ensuing negotiations with Hugh of Cyprus and the other Christian princes in the region. Louis IX’s second crusade is acknowledged as a potentially pan-European expedition involving not merely Louis and his brother Charles, but the Genoese, the king of Aragon and the crown-prince of England, all of whom soon engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Mongol rulers, including Abaqa, and the Byzantine ruler Michael VIII Palaiologos. Both of the latter were willing to dangle the carrot of conversion or reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches as a sweetener to alliances against Baybars. When Ramon Martí and Francis Cendra undertook a diplomatic mission from al-Mustansir to Charles of Anjou and Louis IX, they may have brought up the prospect of the conversion of al-Mustansir, enabling the merging of crusade and mission, trade and tribute. From Charles’ and Louis’s perspective, if the crusading army targeted Tunis with military force, al-Mustansir might convert (and his people shortly thereafter), and a potential ally be gained against Baybars. At the very least, Sicily’s security would be strengthened and plunder might finance the crusade’s next stage in Syria, hopefully with Mongol (and perhaps Byzantine) allies forcing Baybars to fight on multiple fronts. Charles of Anjou meanwhile kept his options open by negotiating with Baybars and preparing for a possible campaign against Michael Palaiologos in support of William of Achaia. The eventual decision to take the crusade to Tunis was initially kept largely secret from the other members of the anti-Mamluk coalition (Aragon, Genoa, Byzantium, the Ilkhanate), partly to keep the information from Baybars’ famed spy network.

250

REVIEWS

Similarly, Lower stresses that the much-maligned strategy of the campaign of 1270 made sense in terms of the diplomatic and internal goals of the opposing parties. Both sides utilized “staying put” as a show of force; while al-Mustansir invoked the language of jihad to muster recruits, his commanders exploited crusaders’ hopes for Muslim conversion to lure unwary crusaders into ambushes. Meanwhile Charles of Anjou was being courted by Greek envoys and ambassadors from both Baybars and al-Mustansir, while after the death of Louis IX, his son Philip entertained ambassadors from Hetum of Armenia and the Ilkhan Abaqa. Ultimately, all sides were willing to fight in order to obtain a diplomatic settlement favourable to their own interests. The resulting treaty of Tunis must therefore be reinterpreted. Did the anger of the “common people” of the Christian army, who saw the agreement as a sell-out and wanted to attack and plunder Tunis, stem from the treaty’s funnelling the payment of reparations and tribute into the hands of the crusade’s leaders or from fundamental divisions in conceptions of the crusade’s goals? Was the crusade meant to obliterate unbelievers or use military leverage to obtain a profitable negotiated settlement and potential allies? Similarly, al-Mustansir could point to a long tradition of Islamic jurisprudence which justified paying tribute to Christian rulers under certain circumstances, but how could this practice be reconciled with the rhetoric of jihad? As Lower rightly concludes, “conflict across religious frontiers was a powerful cultural expectation in the Mediterranean” (p. 142), an expectation used by all sides to mobilize popular support for their campaigns. Initial confrontation was essential to gaining a favourable position in the ensuing treaty and each side engaged in actions which appeared not to conform to contemporary norms of Christian–Muslim conflict. Charles negotiated a lucrative financial settlement without consulting the other leaders of the crusade (notably Edward of England) while al-Mustansir used Christian mercenaries and agreed to pay tribute to win peace. Yet, the “initial appeal to ideologies of interreligious conflict proved essential to the final achievement of the settlement.” Embedded within the treaty of Tunis was a vision of interreligious relations based on distinct religious groups enjoying reciprocal rights and responsibilities as Christians, as Muslims; the treaty’s recognition of the “right to existence” of disparate states was essential to peaceful relations between Hafsid Ifriqiya and the kingdoms of Navarre, Sicily, and France. Ironically, the Tunis Crusade stabilized interreligious relations in the Mediterranean. Baybars would go on to sign treaties with Frankish authorities, Charles of Anjou and Baybars agreed to cessation of hostilities so that each could deal with other rival powers. Al-Mustansir went on to sign multiple treaties with Mediterranean powers which consolidated the role of Tunis as a hub for Mediterranean trade. Religious identity thus structured post-crusade commercial relations even while the assertion of religious difference continued in conversion, jihad and crusade. Jessalynn Bird Saint Mary’s College Notre Dame

REVIEWS

251

Jonathan Rubin, Learning in a Crusader City: Intellectual Activity and Intercultural Exchanges in Acre, 1191–1291 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. x, 224. ISBN 978 1 107 18718 4. While the political and economic importance of thirteenth-century Acre has been much studied, the town’s significance as a centre for intellectual activity has, until now, remained largely unknown. Indeed, there has been a tendency to assume that there was not very much to know anyway. It is this assumption that Jonathan Rubin now challenges. He successfully draws together a wide variety of data to show that, despite the growing threat to Acre in the decades immediately before 1291, there was a vibrant intellectual life to be found there in both the Latin Christian and the Jewish communities. Building on the earlier work of Joshua Prawer, Rubin shows that Acre provided a “convenient environment” for Jewish scholarship, enhanced by immigrants from Western Europe. Unsurprisingly it was the clergy and in particular the members of the mendicant orders who were prominent when it came to Latin scholarly activity, although John of Ancona, an outstanding figure whose treatises on Civil and Canon Law Rubin has previously done much to bring to general attention and whose arguments on certain vital legal points are given valuable attention here, seems to have been a layman. The Dominican William of Tripoli was another outstanding figure whose writings on Islam show him to have been well-informed on his subject matter; unlike James of Vitry, he managed to avoid repeating any of the welter of misinformation that was then in circulation. With John of Antioch we have the creator of a French translation of Cicero’s De inventione and an anonymous work (believed in the thirteenth century to have been by Cicero) entitled Rhetorica ad Herennium. He also left a discussion of the nature of translation and a short treatise on logic. The translations were “real translations” rather than adaptations, and his work on logic, itself largely an adaptation of parts of Boethius’ De topicis differentiis, defied the received opinion that denied that a vernacular treatment of the subject was possible. Indeed, John of Antioch’s works stand out as early examples of translated Latin classics, and he is thought to have been the first to have translated a work on rhetoric into French. He was thus an early exponent of the idea that denied that French was necessarily deficient as a mode of communication when compared with Latin. By way of validating his contention that Acre proved to have been a “vibrant and creative intellectual arena,” Rubin provides an appendix listing a total of fortyfour texts that were “certainly,” “almost certainly” or “probably” written there in the thirteenth century. The point is well made, and the assemblage is impressive, especially when it is borne in mind that much of the local literary achievement would have been destroyed at the time of Acre’s sack in 1291. However, it is here that a caveat is called for. Among the Catholic Christians living in Acre, there were at any one time significant numbers who had come from Western Europe and who would have stayed there for a few years before moving on. Such people included lawyers, churchmen and artists, and it is noticeable that pretty well all the named individuals

252

REVIEWS

whose achievements the author examines in this study can be numbered among these incomers and that hardly any native-born Acre Christians feature. So, for example, if indeed the Franciscan William of Rubruck wrote his celebrated Itinerarium describing his travels in Asia in Acre, that was only because his superior ordered him to remain there, and how long he stayed on afterwards is not known. Benoit d’Alignan, another Franciscan, who was bishop of Marseilles (1229–68), spent two periods in the Holy Land, during the second of which (c.1260–61) he seems to have completed his Tractatus super erroribus quos citra et ultra mare invenimus. The Dominican Thomas Agni, like Benoit, lived in the East for two periods, in his case both lasting rather less than five years. In the earlier (1259 – shortly before 1264) he was bishop of Bethlehem and at the same time papal legate; then from October 1272 until his death in 1277 he combined the office of papal legate with that of patriarch of Jerusalem. So, while the intellectual achievements are real enough, many of the main players have a somewhat “colonial” edge to them. My one, admittedly minor, criticism is that more attention should have been given to the writing of history in Acre. Rubin, quite reasonably, has strict criteria for which works merit consideration. So, for example, Philip of Novara, himself no stranger to Acre, is excluded on the grounds that he was Cyprus-based, while the Templar of Tyre, writing in Cyprus in the second decade of the fourteenth century is ruled out for obvious chronological reasons, even if his threnody on the fall of Acre is mentioned with approval. On the other hand, there are good grounds for believing that the Annales de Terre Sainte, the Colbert-Fontainebleau recension of Eracles (1184–1248), the Lyon Eracles (1184–97) and the concluding pages of Eracles covering the period 1248–77 were all produced in Acre, and that together they constitute a significant historiographical tradition. Whereas the ColbertFontainebleau text was likely to have been the work of a lay author and was almost certainly composed by someone working under lay patronage, the others seem to me to have been written by clerics; if I am right, then the writing of French vernacular texts by members of the clergy is a subject deserving comment in its own right. These histories were written at various times after the late 1240s, by which time the genre of French-language prose history was well established in the West, and so there is no need to posit the influence of Arabic or Byzantine writings. In the latter part of the thirteenth century the Eracles texts were disseminated in the form of luxury manuscripts; it is regrettable that there is no discussion here of whether those that were apparently copied in the East were in fact the work of an Acre atelier, and where the author stands on the challenges from Jacoby and Wollesen to the established views of Buchthal and Folda who claim that indeed they were. A vibrant intellectual environment surely needs good facilities for book production; ascribing manuscripts thought to have been produced in Acre to Cyprus or Italy is going to detract from Acre’s claims for importance. Peter Edbury Cardiff University

REVIEWS

253

Crusading in Art, Thought and Will, ed. Matthew E. Parker, Ben Halliburton, and Anne Romine. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018. Pp. xi, 300. ISBN 978 90 04 37659 5 (hardback), 978 90 04 38613 6 (e-book). The latest instalment in Brill’s long-running “The Medieval Mediterranean” series, this volume is the product of the International Symposium on Crusade Studies, held at Saint Louis University, Missouri, in 2014, at which all the papers contained herein were initially presented. As the editors of this essay collection state, Crusading in Art, Thought and Will seeks to tap into the wide outpouring of scholarship on the crusades in recent decades, and to make its own contribution to the field, by attempting to “access the intellectual space in which contemporaries experienced the crusades.” It takes up this challenge, moreover, in the spirit of inter-disciplinary endeavour: to demonstrate the various avenues for better understanding the “crusading movement.” Consequently, the volume is split into three thematic sections: “Structures of Crusading,” which explores the structures contemporaries created in order to “interpret, engage with, and exploit the crusade movement”; “Crusade Preaching,” which examines how the crusades were presented away from the field of battle in order to recruit, raise funds, and to commemorate; and “Perceptions of Crusade and Combatants,” which discusses how views of crusade combatants shaped medieval and early modern political and religious structures. Part One begins with Lisa Mahoney’s discussion of the church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the ways that its decorative programme acted as an imprint of Jerusalemite royal power. Refuting belief in the role played by the Byzantine emperor, Manuel Komnenos, in the so-called 1169 mosaics, Mahoney instead interprets these as part of a wider process in which the church became a locus of royal power. Cathleen Fleck then continues the architectural discussion of the Latin kingdom by exploring a pilaster (now found in a fourteenth-century mosque in Cairo) which depicts three of Jerusalem’s most important buildings: The Dome of the Rock, the Tower of David, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is argued that this pilaster was created in crusader Jerusalem before the city’s loss and would most likely have acted as a representation of these buildings’ political and liturgical significance. The pilaster therefore offers an important window onto Jerusalem’s visual culture under Latin rule. Next, Tomasz Borowski moves away from the Jerusalem focus to examine the role of relics and holy sites in fourteenthcentury Famagusta. Here, he suggests that waves of Latin and Armenian migration into Cyprus helped to foster a multi-denominational religious space for Christians, especially for those living in Famagusta. Finally, Adam Bishop considers Jerusalem’s legal history by tracing the influence of the Roman Lex Aquilia in the kingdom’s Burgess Assizes, particularly in relation to the treatment of slaves. In doing so, he sheds light on both the Frankish adaptation of classical legal structures and the potential links between Outremer and legal developments made in the Latin West.

254

REVIEWS

Part Two turns to crusade preaching with Jessalynn Bird’s impressive discussion of how theologians trained in Paris during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, like James of Vitry, crafted crusade sermons linked to the liturgical celebration of Good Friday and the Holy Week. Bird argues that analogies between Christ’s suffering, the redemptive power of the cross, and the lived experience of crusading helped to portray the crusader as the ideal penitent. Matthew Phillips then elaborates on the role of the cross in crusade preaching, perceiving it as an extension of eleventhand twelfth-century theological developments and a further demonstration of crusading’s redemptive focus. From here, Charles Cornell offers a challenge to scholars who have emphasized the influence of Apocalypticism over the conception and promotion of crusading, seeing its influence as minimal before the thirteenth century. Even when the Franciscans eventually drew on eschatology in their efforts to promote opposition to Islam, the reality is that such themes probably had a negative effect on crusade recruitment. The third and final part of this volume, which examines the perceptions of crusading as an institution and those considered as combatants, begins with Richard Allington’s discussion of papal reactions to Byzantine intervention in the Latin East, primarily Pope Innocent II’s response to Emperor John II Komnenos’ attempt to exert his power over the principality of Antioch after 1137. For Allington, this serves as a microcosm for the divergent Latin and Greek conceptions of the crusade (one as an extension of papal power, the other as an extension of imperial power), while it also influenced the negative Byzantine responses to the Second Crusade. Next, Yan Bourke offers an analysis of the ways in which Muslims were depicted in the so-called Gesta family accounts of the First Crusade. Here, he explores how the venture’s most contemporary authors drew on its earliest narrative, the Gesta Francorum, in divergent ways in order to legitimize acts of crusader violence by “othering” the Islamic communities through emphasis on their apparent savagery and immorality. In the volume’s final essay, Sam Zeno Conedera discusses the presence of crusading themes in the life of the early modern Iberian saint, Ignatius of Loyola. Though the direct influence of crusading rhetoric is hard to detect in Ignatius’ career and writings, it is suggested that ambient inspiration of the concept of milites Christi can still be found in the order he founded and in his attitudes towards monarchy. It is undeniable that this is an interesting volume, one which contains several thoughtful and valuable contributions that will attract the attention of scholars of crusading and beyond. Though the different aspects do not always gel into a coherent whole, this is a frequent and understandable reality for edited volumes and does not detract from its overall strength (further supplemented by various high-quality pictures). Indeed, the editors are to be commended for their efforts to provide thematic structure and for promoting inter-disciplinary approaches. Given the (now-traditional) prohibitive retail price (£100/€110/$132), it is hard to see this filling too many individual scholars’ bookshelves, and it is a touch disappointing in this regard that this reviewer received a copy in which the index only goes up to G.

REVIEWS

255

Nevertheless it will be a valuable point of reference for those who are interested in crusade studies and have access to academic libraries. Andrew Buck Queen Mary University of London Linda Paterson, Singing the Crusades: French and Occitan Lyric Responses to the Crusading Movements, 1137–1336. Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2018. Pp. xviii, 332. ISBN 9781843844822. Literature of the Crusades, ed. Simon Thomas Parsons and Linda M. Paterson. Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2018. Pp. xiii, 210. ISBN 9781843844587. One of the major themes characterizing the last few decades of historical research on the crusades has been a growing engagement with a broader array of sources, whether material artefacts, archaeological remains or, in this case, literary sources. In recent years, several studies have been published, stressing the importance of vernacular lyric/epic sources and showing how they contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the crusading movement and its socio-cultural context. Obvious examples include Helen Nicholson’s Love, War and the Grail as well as the large corpus of work on the Chanson d’Antioche and the many lyric sources surrounding the crusades against heresy. A further parallel might also be struck with the growing attention shown to Islamic jihad poetry covering a similar period, by authors such as Osman Latiff in his The Cutting Edge of the Poet’s Sword. In the early months of 2018, research on such sources took a substantial bound forward with the publication of two major works on this theme: Paterson’s Singing the Crusades and an essay collection edited again by Paterson in collaboration with Simon Parsons entitled Literature of the Crusades. To begin with the former, Singing the Crusades examines an impressively large corpus of over 200 Occitan and Old French songs, all connected in some way with the crusading movement. Structurally, Paterson works through these songs in a broadly chronological order, drawing out these texts’ distinctive features along with their thematic/contextual significance. This is an important and hardworking achievement, not least because Paterson also offers translations of many of these songs’ more interesting verses. In terms of content, these songs provide a great deal of material on a broad range of themes. Scholars interested in questions of crusade recruitment, anticlericalism (within a crusading context), hostility towards vow commutation, and the association of crusading with notions of courtly-love – among others – will find much to interest them. There are also many wonderful (and quotable) comments on key commanders and rulers, several of whom fall foul of the songwriters’ frequently sarcastic jibes. Perhaps one of the most illuminating aspects of these sources is their

256

REVIEWS

ability to communicate subversive, cynical and/or popular viewpoints which are difficult to glean from other sources. At other moments these songs offer insights into specific lived experiences. These range from the incessant rolling of ponderous transport vessels en route to the East, to the gratitude shown by a returning pilgrim for the assistance rendered by the brother-sergeants of the military orders whilst in the Holy Land. Paterson supports her commentary on individual poems by providing an ongoing historical narrative within each chapter. This is generally accurate, although it was rather surprising to see Runciman’s now very dated work appearing quite so frequently. The work concludes with a series of appendices, including a helpful essay by Marjolaine Raguin-Barthelmebs exploring the rhetoric used by troubadours and trouvères. Literature of the Crusades complements the above work, providing a series of studies looking for the most part at vernacular sources from a similar period. Several of these essays showcase individual authors or songs/poems which were connected in various ways to the policies of Christendom’s royal courts and monarchs, including those of Aragon (Miriam Cabré), the Angevin Empire (Charmaine Lee and Anna Radaelli), Angevin Sicily (Jean Dunbabin), and Lusignan Cyprus (Helen Nicholson). These works demonstrate how songs could serve the interests and policies of ruling elites and, in particular, their crusading aspirations and mythhistories. The standard across these essays is generally very high and they are especially effective in placing the sources under discussion within a broad political context. Among the other essays, Simon John provides an interesting analysis on one of the legends connected with Godfrey of Bouillon. He shows how reports that Godfrey once managed to slice an enemy in half became garlanded and enhanced in the retelling, building his subsequent reputation as a mighty warrior of legend. Stephen Spencer joins the rising number of scholars engaging with the history of emotions to discuss the emotional qualities attributed to the First Crusade’s opponents in Latin narrative sources. Carol Sweetenham likewise discusses the First Crusade sources, focusing on earlier Latin chronicles, which contain episodes or ideas redolent of vernacular lyric sources. Among her conclusions she shows that the poetic themes – so familiar in the later chansons – were already present at the time of the First Crusade. Barbieri changes ground to discuss the differences between the northern trouvères and the Occitan troubadours, especially in their discussion on crusading. This is an important analysis, touching upon key divergences in these traditions, and addressing questions which are also addressed in Paterson’s Singing the Crusades. Finally, there is Simon Parsons’ superb analysis of the verse account of the First Crusade known as the Siège d’Antioche. He conducts a highly effective dissection of the work’s provenance, challenging any easy attempt to establish a hierarchical chain of dependence upon earlier crusade texts, suggesting instead the existence of a more fluid model of transmission.

REVIEWS

257

There is much to praise about both Singing the Crusades and Literature of the Crusades. Cumulatively they draw attention to – and render accessible – a broad selection of little-known texts. Singing the Crusades is especially impressive both for its discussion but also for the very impressive corpus of texts it draws together. It also contains a great deal of illuminating analysis and many insights on the many songs under examination. Literature of the Crusades provides several highlyeffective case studies for new methodologies and approaches which open up new avenues for research on vernacular lyric texts. It was a little surprising that neither of these studies really drew any significant analytical connections with the large body of German texts from this same period, but perhaps this would be a suitable avenue for future research. Having said this, these works achieve a great deal and add a new dimension to our understanding of the crusading movement. Nicholas Morton Nottingham Trent University Constantinos Georgiou, Preaching the Crusades to the Eastern Mediterranean. Propaganda, Liturgy and Diplomacy, 1305–1352. London: Routledge, 2018. Pp. xii, 293. ISBN 978 1 138 74370 0 (hardback), 978 1 315 18165 3 (e-book). This is the first book-length study of crusade preaching and crusade sermons of the fourteenth century. It covers the period of the four Avignon popes Clement V, John XXII, Benedict XII and Clement VI. Following the loss of the kingdom of Jerusalem, this was a turbulent time for the Holy Land crusade. There was widespread enthusiasm for launching new military campaigns for the recovery of Jerusalem with the French and English kings pledging their support. But no major crusade came to be, with the exception perhaps of Humbert II of Viennois’ naval expedition to Asia Minor in the 1340s which, however, only had limited effects on the wider fortunes of the whole region. Nevertheless, there was much campaigning on the home front during this period with major diplomatic negotiations and much preaching, propaganda and collecting of money. These activities, largely undertaken for crusades that ultimately never happened, form the subject of the present study. The first two chapters of this book consist of a chronological survey of the crusade preaching activities organized by the popes. The first chapter treats the first three decades of highly charged and sometimes frantic propaganda activities at the centre of which stood the attempts by the popes to provide the conditions and the inducements for the French kings to fulfil their crusading vows and promises. The second chapter focuses on Pope Clement VI’s support of the various naval expeditions of the 1340s. Georgiou follows these propaganda activities and looks at the various levels of society which were targeted by different communicative means. He has gathered information from diverse sources, chiefly among them the papal registers, chronicles and sermons. It comes as no surprise that the early fourteenth-century popes continued to use the organizational skills developed in

258

REVIEWS

the thirteenth century: crusade preaching was spread among the diocesan clergy and the two big mendicant orders and, reacting to the growth in population and the increasing size of new orders, also the Carmelites and Augustinian Hermits. Public preaching still formed the mainstay of propaganda. This was accompanied by ever more elaborate liturgies in an attempt to further energize the home front for spiritual support of crusading activities. There is also evidence that the public responded to the propaganda sometimes, as in the thirteenth century, in overly fanatic and unorderly if not violent ways, as during the popular crusades of 1309, 1320 and 1344. Chapters 3 and 4 take a closer look at crusade sermons and their context. In Chapter 3 Georgiou reconstructs the liturgical context of crusade preaching, which during this period was augmented by new forms like the Missa contra Turcos, and looks in particular at the response crusade preaching provoked during the three popular crusades. Chapter 4 presents a discussion of crusade sermon texts from the first half of the fourteenth century, in particular one text by James of Lausanne, two by Pierre Roger and a further one by Pope Clement VI, which are also transcribed from manuscripts in the appendices at the end of the book. Georgiou deserves to be congratulated for having opened up the field of crusade sermon studies into the fourteenth century. He has managed to show that, despite, or possibly because of, the loss of the Latin territories in Palestine, crusade enthusiasm was very much alive in Europe at the beginning of the fourteenth century and that this enthusiasm translated into intense diplomatic and propagandist activities originating with the popes. There was an evident continuity from the thirteenth into the fourteenth century as far as propaganda and preaching was concerned. The frequency of crusade sermons broadcast throughout Europe and the concomitant liturgical celebrations of the crusade on the home front did not abate after 1291. Georgiou’s study makes this abundantly clear. The discovery and discussion of crusade sermon texts from the beginning of the fourteenth century enhances the available evidence, especially because for some of the texts presented here the contexts of the original sermons are known and help us better to understand the arguments these texts present. Even though Georgiou has found and contextualized valuable new evidence, his approach has its flaws. With very few exceptions, he handles his topics and materials chronologically rather than thematically, which not only leads to frequent repetition but also prevents him from achieving greater analytical depth. A number of obvious points of enquiry are either ignored or only touched upon in passing. There is, for example, no systematic discussion of the relationship between extant sermon texts and sermons preached in front of actual audiences, although the texts presented by Georgiou clearly betray various degrees of remove from oral discourse. Also, there is no systematic analysis of the interplay between preaching, liturgy, recruitment of crusaders and collection of money. This is an important line of enquiry because it tells us not only about the motivation, effect and success of crusade preaching, it also has a bearing on the ways in which crusade propaganda was managed and the potential conflicts it provoked. This would have been a particularly interesting

REVIEWS

259

element in the discussion of the popular crusades of the early fourteenth century. To what extent did a possible emphasis on money collecting during crusade preaching and the ensuing exclusion of non-fighting classes from actual participation in the crusade play a role in the violent protest of the participants in the popular crusades? Was popular frustration fuelled by the protracted procrastination of the French kings to fulfil their crusade vows and promises? Here as in other cases a more thorough engagement with previous research would have been welcome. Gary Dickson’s monograph The Children’s Crusade (2008; reviewed in Crusades 8, 2009) is strangely missing from the discussions. There is also little information given about the manuscript texts transcribed in the appendices. Basic information on the manuscripts and the editorial rules adopted for the transcriptions would also have been welcome. Despite these points of criticism, it must be emphasized that Georgiou’s book is a very welcome addition to the ever-growing corpus of crusade sermon studies. It certainly makes researchers aware of the wealth of evidence the fourteenth century is offering for further study of this budding field. Christoph T. Maier University of Zurich

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES AND THE LATIN EAST (SSCLE) BULLETIN No. 39, 2019

Contents i.

Editorial ........................................................................ 264

ii.

Message from the President ................................................... 265

iii. Practical information .......................................................... 266 iv.

List of abbreviations ........................................................... 267

1.

Recent publications ........................................................... 268

2.

Recently completed theses .................................................... 277

3.

Papers read by members of the Society and others ......................... 277

4.

Forthcoming publications ..................................................... 282

5.

Work in progress ............................................................... 288

6.

Theses in progress ............................................................. 290

7.

Fieldwork planned or undertaken recently ................................... 291

8.

News of interest to members: a) Conferences and seminars ................................................. 291 b) Other information .......................................................... 291 c) Annual Bernard Hamilton Essay Prize ................................... 292

9.

Members’ queries .............................................................. 293

10. Financial statement ............................................................ 293 11. Officers of the Society ......................................................... 295 Guidelines for Submission of Papers ........................................ 297

264

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

Editorial The main aim of the Bulletin of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East is to help make the society’s members, old and new, aware of each other’s work and publications, fostering connections between them. The Bulletin provides a concise record of the research carried out in different aspects of our field. This includes a wealth of themes, topics, approaches, and activities, in a variety of disciplines which collectively make up crusade studies: history, literature, archaeology, art history, anthropology, law, theology, etc. – without forgetting, of course, more and more interdisciplinary research. The entries in the following pages are a testament to the strength and breadth of crusade studies across many countries and languages. It is very encouraging that, once again, a large number of highly original and interesting studies have appeared – including several collective volumes bringing together crusade scholarship from various sources; the list of abbreviations below provides a characteristic, if merely partial, snapshot. There is no doubt that this exciting activity will receive a further boost with the eagerly anticipated quadrennial conference of the SSCLE taking place this coming summer (29 June – 3 July 2020, Royal Holloway, University of London). On a rather less positive note, this year, the preparation and publication of the SSCLE Bulletin, along with the Crusades journal, was significantly delayed, despite our best efforts. I sincerely apologise for this delay on behalf of the SSCLE. The launch of the SSCLE’s new website late last year was an important and undoubtedly positive development. The option to sign up and renew membership electronically through the website has facilitated and sped up the relevant processes; nevertheless, it also affected the flow of information for the Bulletin as, contrary to what was hoped, eventually it did not prove possible to include the latter as part of the online registration process. We are still looking into the possibility of integrating most of the Bulletin information into the new website, so that the entries can be easily available to our members and up-to-date, eliminating as much as possible the time-lag which renders some of the information obsolete by the time the Bulletin goes to print. Additionally, on account of the GDPR legislation and the need to protect personal data, we have had little option but to avoid inclusion of the list of members and their contact details, on the strong advice of the publisher and their legal team. We will review the situation in the future. I remind you that our main mailing list operates via the SSCLEBulletin Yahoo group (https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SSCLEBulletin/info). If you have not already done so, please join (by either accepting the invitations I periodically sent out, or by sending a message to [email protected]), in order to make sure that you continue to receive messages of interest from the SSCLE. Finally, I would like to thank all of you for providing the core information that makes up the Bulletin, through the forms you submit. Please continue doing so, preferably in electronic format (MSWord, etc.), which makes the task of collating and transferring the information much easier. It is also greatly appreciated when you follow the format and style of references used in the Bulletin (please consult the latest volume when possible). Do not hesitate to contact me with any suggestions for improvement or any information that might be of interest to the SSCLE membership. Nikolaos G. Chrissis Bulletin Editor

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

265

Message from the President Dear Fellow Members, Another year has passed, and we are looking forward to the coming year in which we hold our tenth quadrennial conference Crusading Encounters which will take place at Royal Holloway, University of London between 29 June and 3 July 2020. The conference organising team headed by Professor Jonathan Phillips has done exceedingly well in preparing what promises to be an outstanding event and Jonathan informs me that the response to the call for papers has been beyond expectations. With an excellent group of plenary speakers, a wide variety of topics, a fine location and an excellent planned conference tour the prospect is for a highly successful event. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of our committee for their hard work on behalf of the SSCLE, to specifically thank Dr Mike Carr for his efforts and reliability, serving as treasurer from 2016, and to welcome Dr Danielle Park who formerly served as assistant treasurer and has now taken over the role from Mike, as well as Simon Parsons who has joined us as assistant treasurer. All the elected positions of the society will be up for renewal in 2020. Elections for committee representatives will be held prior to and during the upcoming conference and information on the process will be posted to all members in the coming weeks. The state of the society remains stable both financially and regarding membership. The society continues its role in sponsoring conferences and panels and in supporting students and providing a platform for the dissemination of information on crusader related scholarship. In an effort to expand our membership and to reach scholars from regions and countries less represented or underrepresented, the SSCLE has prepared small posters with information on the society that can be placed on notice boards in university departments and at conferences. The posters are in English, German, French, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic and are available by contacting myself ([email protected]). It has been another excellent year for research, fieldwork and publications on crusades and crusading topics and we warmly congratulate our society members for the high quality and broad range of their work. As is the way of the world, we have this past year lost a few respected members of our society, among them Bernard Hamilton, Professor Emeritus of Crusading History at the University of Nottingham who served as our fifth president (2008-2016). Bernard was highly regarded for his scholarship, did much to advance the organization and was renowned for his support of young scholars. In his honour the SSCLE committee established the Bernard Hamilton Prize which is entering its third year (see p. 292 below). Another sad loss to the society was the death of David Jacoby (1928-2018), Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a scholar of diverse interests, a renowned specialist of the mercantile history of the medieval Eastern Mediterranean, highly respected by colleagues and students alike and an active participant in SSCLE conferences. A conference in his memory (From Famagusta to Jerusalem), sponsored by the SSCLE, will take place at the University of Haifa, Israel in May 2020 (details on our web page). Finally, a reminder to those of you who have yet to pay membership fees that this can very conveniently be done on the new web page. Very best wishes to you all and we look forward to meeting again in the summer of 2020 in London. Adrian Boas President

266

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

Practical information Dr Danielle Park is the Treasurer of the SSCLE. If you have any queries concerning your subscriptions and payments, please contact her at the following address: Dr Danielle Park, Department of History, School of Humanities, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 OEX, UK; [email protected]. The Bulletin Editor would like to remind you that, in order to avoid delays, he needs to have information for the Bulletin each year at an early date, usually by May. Please, conform the presentation of your information with the typographic model of this Bulletin. Use – if possible – the style of the last Bulletin in the presentation of your activities and publications. The best is to send them in attached document (via email), when you subscribe. The address of the Bulletin Editor is: Dr Nikolaos G. Chrissis, 149 Oropou Str., 14232, Perissos, Athens, GREECE; [email protected] I want to thank all members who provide bibliographical data. In order to make the Bulletin more useful for you, it would be helpful if those members who edit proceedings or essay volumes could let the Bulletin Editor know not only about their own papers but also on the other papers in such volumes. You are encouraged to supply any information via email. Dr Kyle C. Lincoln is webmaster for the new official website of the SSCLE (https:// societyforthestudyofthecrusadesandthelatineast.wildapricot.org/). There you will be able to find news about the SSCLE and its publications as well as bibliographical data and other information of interest to members. Our journal entitled Crusades, now n° 18, 2019, allows the Society to publish articles and texts; encourages research in neglected subfields; invites a number of authors to deal with a specific problem within a comparative framework; initiates and reports on joint programmes; and offers reviews of books and articles. Editors: Benjamin Z. Kedar and Jonathan Phillips; Associate Editors: Nikolaos G. Chrissis and Iris Shagrir; Reviews Editor: Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen; Archaeology Editor: Denys R. Pringle. Colleagues may submit papers for consideration to either Professor Benjamin Z. Kedar or Professor Jonathan Phillips. Information on the style sheet can be found in the back of this booklet. The journal includes a section of book reviews. In order to facilitate the Reviews Editor’s work, could members please ask their publishers to send copies to: ProfessorTorben Kjersgaard Nielsen, Reviews Editor, Crusades, Dpt. of Politics and Society, Aalborg University, Fibigerstraede 1, 02, 9220 Aalborg N, DENMARK; [email protected]. Please note that Crusades reviews books concerned with any aspect(s) of the history of the crusades and the crusade movement, the military orders and the Latin settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean, but not books which fall outside this range. Current subscription fees are as follows: • Membership and Bulletin of the Society: Single £10, $12 or €12; • Student £6, $7 or €7; • Joint membership £15, $19 or €18 (for two members sharing the same household); • Membership and the journal Crusades, including the Bulletin: please add to your subscription fees: £25, $31 or €29 for a hard copy, OR £15, $19 or €18 for an electronic copy of the journal. • If a member wishes to purchase back issues of Crusades, each back issue costs £35, $43 or €41. The cost of the journal to institutions and non-members is £120, US$155. Cheques in these currencies should be made payable to SSCLE. For information on other forms of payment contact the treasurer. Those members who do not subscribe to the journal will receive the Bulletin from the Bulletin Editor.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

267

List of abbreviations Communicating the Middle Ages Communicating the Middle Ages. Essays in Honour of Sophia Menache, ed. Iris Shagrir, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Michel Balard, Crusades Subsidia 11, London and New York, Routledge, 2018. Crusading and Masculinities, ed. Natasha R. Hodgson, Crusading and Masculinities Katherine J. Lewis, and Matthew M. Mesley, Crusades Subsidia 13, London and New York, Routledge, 2019. Crusading and Trading between East and West. Studies in Crusading and Trading Honour of David Jacoby, ed. Sophia Menache, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Michel Balard, Crusades Subsidia 12, London and New York, Routledge, 2019. Crusading Europe. Essays in Honour of Christopher Crusading Europe Tyerman, ed. Gregory E. M. Lippiatt and Jessalynn L. Bird, Outremer: Studies in the Crusades and the Latin East 8, Turnhout, Brepols, 2019. Entre Deus e o Rei. O mundo das Ordens Militares, ed. Entre Deus e o Rei Isabel Christina F. Fernandes, 2 vols., Ordens Militares 8.1 and 8.2, Palmela, GEsOS-Municipio de Palmela, 2018. The French of Outremer. Communities and Communications The French of Outremer in the Crusading Mediterranean, ed. Laura K. Morreale and Nicholas L. Paul, Fordham Series in Medieval Studies, New York, Fordham University Press, 2018. International Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, ICMS (following the year) USA. IMC (following the year) International Medieval Congress, Leeds, UK. Literature of the Crusades Literature of the Crusades, ed. Simon T. Parsons and Linda Paterson, Woodbridge, Boydell & Brewer, 2018. MO6.1 The Military Orders Volume 6.1: Culture and Contact in the Mediterranean World, ed. Jochen Schenk and Mike Carr, London and New York, Routledge, 2017. MO6.2 The Military Orders Volume 6.2: Culture and Contact in Western and Northern Europe, ed. Jochen Schenk and Mike Carr, London and New York, Routledge, 2017. MO7 Military Orders Conference VII: Piety, Pugnacity and Property, ed. Nicholas Morton, London and New York, Routledge, 2019. SSCLE 9 Odense Diversity of Crusading, Ninth Quadrennial Conference of the SSCLE, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, 27 June–1 July 2016. Templars and their Sources The Templars and their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson, Crusades Subsidia 10, London and New York, Routledge, 2017. Uses of the Bible The Uses of the Bible in Crusader Sources, ed. Elizabeth Lapina and Nicholas Morton, Leiden, Brill, 2017.

268

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

1. Recent publications Auffarth, Christoph, “Kulturkontakt – Kulturkonstrukte: In den Chroniken gedeutete Erfahrung auf den Kreuzzügen” [Review of] Kristin Skottki, Christen, Muslime und der Erste Kreuzzug. Die Macht der Beschreibung in der mittelalterlichen und modernen Historiographie (Münster, 2015), in: http://blogs.rpi-virtuell.de/buchempfehlungen/2016/09/17/christenmuslime-und-der-erste-kreuzzug/ (17 September 2016); “Ohne Vorurteile ins Land der Muslime – in der Kreuzfahrerzeit” [Review of] Christiane M. Thomsen, Burchards Bericht über den Orient. Reiseerfahrungen eines staufischen Gesandten im Reich Saladins 1175/1176 (Berlin, 2018), in: https://blogs.rpi-virtuell.de/buchempfehlungen/2018/08/03/ burchard-ueber-den-orient/ (3 August 2018); [English review of the same book in:] Journal of Transcultural Medieval Studies 5 (2018). Article-DOI: 10.1515/jtms-2018-0035 (1 September 2019); [Review of:] Boris Gübele, Deus vult, Deus vult. Der christliche heilige Krieg im Früh- und Hochmittelalter (Ostfildern, 2018), in: https://blogs.rpi-virtuell.de/ buchempfehlungen/2018/12/28/guebele-deus-vult/ (28 December 2018) Bagni, Giampiero, “The Sarcophagus of Templar Master Arnau de Torroja in Verona? Sources and Scientific Analysis,” Crusades 17 (2018), pp. 31–38; “Dante, Pietro da Bologna, l’arcivescovo Rinaldo da Concorezzo e papa Clemente a Bologna e Ravenna: l’influenza dei loro rapporti nel processo ai Templari,” in Atti del XXXVI° Convegno della LARTI (Penne e Papiri, 2019), pp. 101–117; “A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Production of Wine on Templar Estates: The Bologna Commandery,” in MO7, pp. 97–105. Balard, Michel, The Sea in History – The Medieval World, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge 2017, 1056 p.; Gênes et la mer / Genova e il mare, 2 vols., Genoa 2017; “Sources génoises pour l’histoire de Tyr,” in Sources de l’histoire de Tyr 2, Textes et images de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Âge, Beyrouth 2017, pp. 89–97; (ed. with I. Shagrir and B.Z. Kedar), Communicating the Middle Ages; “The Genoese expansion in the Middle Ages,” in Communicating the Middle Ages, pp. 179–192; “Quand ils ont pris la croix,” in Le Figaro/Histoire, n° 40 (oct–nov. 2018), pp. 42–51; “Les Hospitaliers et Smyrne (1344–1402),” in Entre Deus e o Rei, pp. 745–754; “Remarques sur les Assises de Jérusalem,” in Autour des Assises de Jérusalem, ed. J. Devard and B. Ribémont, Paris, Garnier, 2018, pp. 18–30; “New Documents on Genoese Famagusta,” in Crusading and Trading, pp. 147–160; “David Jacoby, un passeur entre Orient et Occident,” in Crusading and Trading, pp. viii–xi; “Colonization and Population Movements in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages,” in Byzantium and the West: Perception and Reality, ed. N.G. Chrissis, A. Kolia-Dermitzaki & A. Papageorgiou, Routledge, 2019, pp. 25–37. Balletto, Laura, “La schiavitù nella Chio dei Genovesi a metà del secolo XV (dagli atti notarili redatti nell’isola nel 1449–1450)”, in Bulgaria Mediaevalis 7 (2016), pp. 181–214; Aspetti e momenti della storia di Cipro (secc. XIII–XV), Centre de Recherche Scientifique. Recueil de travaux, IV, Nicosie 2018, 657 pp.; “Atti sparsi redatti a Caffa da notai genovesi nel XIV secolo”, in Alvaro M.G., Assini A., Balletto L., and Basso E. (eds.), Notai Genovesi in Oltremare. Atti redatti a Caffa ed in altre località del Mar Nero nei secoli XIV e XV, The Black Sea Region in the Middle Ages, X, editor-in-chief S. P. Karpov, Center of Byzantine and the Black Sea Region Studies, Faculty of History, Moscow State University (St. Petersburg, 2018), pp. 177–256; “Atti redatti a Caffa dal notaio Bartolomeo de Paverio nel 1394–1395”, ibid., pp. 257–307; “Atti redatti a Caffa dal notaio Giovanni Balbi nel 1402–1403”, ibid., pp. 311–345; (with E. Basso) “Atti redatti a Caffa dal notaio Giovanni de Labayno nel 1410–1412”, ibid., pp. 347–471; “Atti sparsi redatti a Caffa da notai genovesi nel XV secolo”, ibid., pp. 473–530; (with E. Basso) “Atti redatti a Caffa, Pera e Chio dal notaio Manuele Granello nel 1466–1469”, ibid., pp. 531–592; (with M. G. Alvaro) “Atti

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

269

redatti dal notaio Teramo de Castellacio a Caffa, Cembalo e in alter località del Vicino Oriente nel 1473–1476”, ibid., pp. 593–660; “Un Maonese di Chio a metà del Quattrocento: Francesco Giustiniani de Garibaldo e il suo testament olografo in Genovese”, in Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria, LVIII 2018, pp. 87–142. Bass, Ian, “Communities of Remembrance: Religious Orders and the Cult of Thomas de Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford (1275–82)” The Journal of Medieval Monastic Studies 7 (2018), 237–272; “‘What Lies Beneath?’ The Swinfields of Hereford Cathedral,” Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, Herefordshire, 65 (2018), 46–73; “‘Articli Inquisicionis de crucesignatis’: Late Thirteenth-Century Inquiry into English Crusaders” [Bernard Hamilton Essay Prize, Winning Entry], Crusades 17 (2018): 171–93. Bird, Jessalynn, (ed. with G.E.M. Lippiatt), Crusading Europe: Essays in Honour of Christopher Tyerman (Brepols, 2019); (ed. with Damian J. Smith), The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement: The Impact of Fourth Lateran (1215) on Latin Christendom and the East (Brepols, 2018); “How to Implement a Crusade Plan: Saint-Victor and Saint-Jean-des-Vignes of Soissons and the Defense of Crusaders’ Rights,” in Crusading Europe, pp. 147–80; “The Fourth Lateran Council, Peace, and the Protection of Crusader Rights during the crusades of Frederick II,” in The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement, pp. 273–98. Bisaha, Nancy, “The Medieval University as Refuge”, in Europe Now, issue 30 (October 2019). Borchardt, Karl, “On Studying Templar Sources and Templar Archives,” Entre Deus e o Rei, 1:43–56; “On Hospitaller Initiatives in the Western Mediterranean, 1291–1307,” Communicating the Middle Ages, 24–38; (with Anthony Luttrell), “The Latin Will of a Jewish Burgensis of Rhodes, 1448,” Crusading and Trading, 161–172; “Hospitaller Chapters in the Medieval Priory of Alamania”, in MO7, 195–207; “Vogtei und Schutz bei geistlichen Ritterorden des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts,” Kirchenvogtei und adlige Herrschaftsbildung im europäischen Mitteralter, ed. Kurt Andermann and Enno Bünz, Vorträge und Forschungen 86 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2019), 87–141. Burgtorf, Jochen, “Die Ritterorden in den regionalen kirchlichen Strukturen der Kreuzfahrerstaaten: Drei Fallstudien (Akkon, Tortosa und Hebron”, Ordines Militares Colloquia Torunensia Historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 24 (2019): 9–38; “‘Blood-Brothers’ in the Thirteenth-Century Latin East? The Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Templar Matthew Sauvage,” in Communicating the Middle Ages, 3–14. Carraz, Damien, “Une enclave dans le domaine comtal: la seigneurie de l’Hôpital à Manosque”, in L’enquête de Leopardo da Foligno dans la viguerie de Forcalquier et la baillie de Sisteron, ed. Th. Pécout, Paris, CTHS, 2017, pp. 167–178; “L’enquête de 1338 sur l’ordre de l’Hôpital: un “horizon indépassable”? Réponse à Benoît Beaucage”, Provence Historique, t. LXVII (2017), pp. 281–289; “O lugar da imagem pictórica e da espiritualidade junto aos Templários e Hospitalários: estado da questão no espaço francês“, in Ordens Religiosas Medievais: Poder e Sociedade, Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, vol. 15 (2017), pp. 1191–1219 (online at: http://periodicos.pucminas.br/index.php/horizonte/issue/view/990/ showToc); “Les collections de livres dans les maisons templières et hospitalières. Premiers jalons pour la France méridionale (XIIIe–XVe siècle)”, in Entre Deus e o Rei, vol. 1, pp. 153–176. Cerrini, Simonetta, Le Dernier Jugement des Templiers, Paris, Flammarion, 2018 (version française de La Passione dei Templari, avec collation des mss de la bulle Vox in Excelso 1312); “Les Templiers et le progressif évanouissement de leur règle”, Templars and Their

270

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

Sources, pp. 187–198; La Passione dei templari, con la prefazione di Franco Cardini, Milano, Mondadori, 2016, 528 pp.; “Rangs et dignités dans l’ordre du Temple au regard de la règle”, dans Élites et ordres militaires au Moyen Âge. Rencontre en l’honneur d’Alain Demurger, dir. Nicole Bériou, Philippe Josserand et Luís Filipe Oliveira, Casa de Velázquez, 2015, pp. 169–187. Chollet, Loïc, Les Sarrasins du Nord. Une histoire de la croisade balte par la littérature (XIIe–XVe siècle), Neuchâtel, Alphil, 2019, 544 p.; “Partir pour la Prusse ou la Hongrie? La croisade dans le Petit Jean de Saintré et les Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles,” dans N. Labère et L. Pierdominici (dirs.), «A tant m’en vois». Figures du départ au Moyen Âge, Fano, Aras, 2019, pp. 217–239. Chrissis, Nikolaos, (ed. with A. Kolia-Dermitzaki and A. Papageorgiou), Byzantium and the West: Perception and Reality (London: Routledge, 2019); “Ideological and political contestations in post-1204 Byzantium: The orations of Niketas Choniates and the imperial court of Nicaea”, in S. Tougher (ed.), The Emperor in the Byzantine World: Papers from the Forty-Eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (London: Routledge, 2019), pp. 248– 263; “Worlds apart? Reconsidering late Byzantine identity through the image of the West (13th–14th c.)”, in Byzantium and the West: Perception and Reality (as above), pp. 257–274; [Review of:] Rebecca Rist, Popes and Jews, 1095–1291 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), in The English Historical Review 134 (2019), pp. 679–681; [Review of:] Anne van Arsdall and Helen Moody (trans.), The Old French Chronicle of the Morea: An Account of Frankish Greece after the Fourth Crusade (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015), in The Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture 5.1 (2019), pp. 100–103. Christie, Niall, “Fighting Women in the Crusading Period through Muslim Eyes: Transgressing Expectations and Facing Realities?” in Crusading and Masculinities, pp. 183–95; “Ibn al-Qalanisi,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, ed. Kate Fleet et al. (Leiden: E.J. Brill), Part 2019-1, pp. 40–41; also available on the Internet at: ; “The Sultana of Egypt: Shajar al-Durr,” Medieval Warfare, Vol. 8, Issue 6, pp. 18–23. Claverie, Pierre-Vincent, “Bertrand Du Guesclin avait-il les moyens de vaincre l’Égypte mamelouke? Essai d’uchronie raisonnée,” in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras, t. IX, ed. K. D’hulster, G. Schallenberg (†) and J. Van Steenbergen, Leuven, 2019, pp. 237–249; “Une enquête pour sacrilège menée contre des Juifs d’Alexandrie sous le règne d’al-Nāṣir Muḥammad,” in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras (as above), pp. 251–263; “Starting Point of the Genoese Thalassocracy in Cyprus: An Unpublished Roll of Knights and Squires Imprisoned in Famagusta in 1374,” Famagusta maritima: Mariners, Merchants, Pilgrims and Mercenaries, ed. Michael J.K. Walsh, Leiden, Brill, 2019, chapter 5 pp. 144–158. Coureas, Nicholas, translation into English of Andrea Nanetti, At the Origins of the Venetian Sea State Coron and Modon 1204–1209 Critical Edition, Translation and Commentary of the Treaty of Sapienza, National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute of Historical Research Section of Byzantine Research Sources 17, Athens 2018; “The Hospitallers and their Manumission of Rhodian and Cypriot Serfs (1409–1459)”, in MO7, pp. 149–159; “Envoys between Lusignan Cyprus and Mamluk Egypt: The Accounts of Pero Tafur, George Boustronios and Taghri Birdi”, in Mamluk Cairo, A Crossroads for Embassies, ed. F. Bauden and M. Dekkiche, Leiden: Brill, 2019, pp. 725–740; “The Export of Soap and Olive Oil from the Port of Famagusta in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries”, in Famagusta Maritima,

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

271

ed. M.J.K. Walsh, Leiden: Brill, 2019, pp. 159–169; “Chequered Fortunes: Foreign Soldiers on Cyprus under King James II”, The Medieval Chronicle, vol. 12 (2019), 59–74; “Captives from the Mamluk Lands in Cyprus: 1250–1324”, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras 9, Proceedings of the 23 & 24 HES, ed. K.D’ Hulster, G. Schallenberg and J. van Steenbergen, Leuven: Peeters, 2019, pp. 265–273; “Food, Wine and the Latin Clergy of Lusignan Cyprus 1191–1473” in People, Pottery and Food in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean, Travaux de la Maison de l’ Orient méditerranéen, ed. Y. Waksman, Lyon, 2019, pp. 77–84; “To katastikho tou Bernard Anselm (1367) kai he latinike episcope Lemesou ton 14o aiona: Anaphores ston hierea tes Silikous”, Epistemonike Epeteris tes Kypriakes Hetaireias Historikon Spoudon, vol. 13 (2018), 37–44. “He katanalose kypriakon krasion apo ton anotero latiniko klero apo ton 13o mekhri ton 15o aiona”, Epistemonike Epeteris tes Kypriakes Hetaireias Historikon Spoudon, vol. 13 (2018), 45–50; [Review of:] Famagusta Art and Architecture, ed. Annemarie Weyl-Carr, MEDNEX, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014) in Crusades 17 (2018), pp. 219–221; [Review of:] Gênes et l’Outre Mer: Actes notariés rédigés à Chypre par le notaire Antonius Folieta (1445–1458), edited by Michel Balard, Laura Balletto and Catherine Otten Froux (Sources et Études de l’Histoire de Chypre 75), Nicosia, Cyprus Research Centre, 2016, reviewed for The Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 33.2, December 2018, 231–234 Cushing, Dana, “Fragments Found: Evidence for the Teutonic Order’s Bavarian Origins,” De Re Militari Online (https://tinyurl.com/DOrdBav); “The Siege of Silves” in: Medieval Warfare 7.5 (2017): 48–52; “Ibn Tumart and the Almohad Movement” in: Curta and Holt, eds. Great Events in Religion: An Encyclopedia of Pivotal Events in Religious History (ABCClio, Santa Barbara CA, 2016), pp. 541–543 (see http://www.academia.edu/34956316); “Ibn Tumart and the Almohad Movement” and “Third Crusade” in: Curta and Holt, eds. Great Events in Religion: An Encyclopedia of Pivotal Events in Religious History (ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara CA, 2016), 2:541–543 and 2:563–567 respectively (see http://www.academia. edu/34956397/). Dragnea, Mihai, The Wendish Crusade, 1147: The Development of Crusading Ideology in the Twelfth Century, Routledge, London, 2019, 68 pp.; Misiune și cruciadă în teritoriul venzilor (sec. al XII-lea) (‘Mission and Crusade in the Wendish Territory, 12th Century’), Etnologică, Bucharest, 2019, 257 pp. Edbury, Peter, “Conrad v. Saladin: the Siege of Tyre, November–December 1187”, in Crusading Europe, 237–47; “Ernoul, Eracles and the Collapse of the Kingdom of Jerusalem”, in The French of Outremer, pp. 44–67; “The Assizes of Jerusalem and Legal Practice: The Political Crisis in Cyprus in the Early Fourteenth Century”, in J. Devard and B. Ribemond (eds), Autour des Assises de Jérusalem (Classiques Garnier 2018), pp. 143–57; “The Lyon Eracles Revisited”, in Crusading and Trading, pp. 40–53. Endmann, Philipp, “Die Schlacht vor Nikaia am 17. Mai 1097 in militärgeschichtlicher Perspektive,” in Concilium Medii Aevi Bd.4. Verlag Edition Ruprecht, Göttingen 2001, pp. 133–151; “Die Entstehung des Ablasses für den Ersten Kreuzzug,” in Concilium Medii Aevi, Bd.6. Verlag Edition Ruprecht, Göttingen 2003, pp. 163–194. Favreau-Lilie, Marie-Luise, “The Fall of Acre 1291. Considerations of Annalists in Genoa, Pisa, and Venice (13th/14th–16th Centuries)”, in John France (ed.), Acre and its Falls. Studies in the History of a Crusader City (History of Warfare, 116), Leiden: Brill, 2018, pp. 167–182. Folda, Jaroslav, “East meets West: The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, revised, for A Companion to Medieval Art, 2nd edition, ed. Conrad Rudolph, Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 705–727.

272

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

Forey, Alan, “The Papacy and the Commutation of Crusading Vows from One Area of Conflict to Another (1095–c.1300),” Traditio 73 (2018), 43–82; Templar Provincial Chapters in the Later Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Ordines Militares 23 (2018), 275– 299; “The Templars in the Christian West at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century,” in Entre Deus e o Rei, 2:585–597. Gaggero, Massimiliano, “Identification de deux manuscrits italiens de la Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier,” in Segno e Testo 16 (2018), pp. 291–314; “L’identificazione dei personaggi nella Chronique di Ernoul e Bernard le Trésorier. Strategie testuali e varianti,” in F. Carapezza (ed.), Il nome proprio nella letteratura romanza medievale («In Verbis», 8/2 [2018]), pp. 117–140; “Succès et tradition manuscrite: les rédactions longues de l’Eracles,” in R. Antonelli, M. Glessgen, and P. Videsott (eds.), Atti del XXVIII Congresso internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza (Roma, 18–23 luglio 2016), 2 vols. (Strasbourg, ELiPhi, 2018), I, pp. 185–197; “Western Eyes on the Latin East: The Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier and Robert of Clari’s Conquête de Constantinople,” in The French of Outremer, pp. 86–109. Heslop, Michael, ‘Defending the Frontier: The Hospitallers in Northern Rhodes,’ The Struggle for Supremacy: The Mediterranean 1453–1699, ed. George Cassar & Noel Buttigieg (Malta, Sacra Militia Foundation, 2018), pp. 31–38, 73–78 (colour illustrations); “A Florentine Cleric on Rhodes: Bonsignore Bonsignori’s unpublished account of his 1498 visit,” MO7, pp. 329–344; “Rhodes 1306–1423: The Landscape Evidence and Latin–Greek Co-habitation,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 43 (2019), pp. 83–104; “Prelude to a Gazetteer of Place-Names in the Countryside of Rhodes 1306–1423: Evidence from Unpublished Documents,” Crusades 18 (2019). Jordan, William Chester, The Apple of His Eye: Converts from Islam in the Reign of Louis IX (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), 177 pp. Josserand, Philippe, Jacques de Molay. Le dernier grand-maître des Templiers, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2019 (592 p.); “Jacques de Molay en terres ibériques: avatars d’une représentation,” in Entre Deus e o Rei, pp. 575–583. Kangas, Sini, “Slaughter of the Innocents and Depiction of Children in the TwelfthCentury Sources of the Crusades,” in Uses of the Bible, 74−101; “Growing up to Become a Crusader: The Next Generation,” in Jerusalem the Golden. The Origin and Impact of the First Crusade, ed. by Susan Edgington and Luis García-Guijarro, Outremer 3, Brepols, 2014, 255−72; (ed. with Mia Korpiola and Tuija Ainonen), Authorities in the Middle Ages: Influence, Legitimacy, and Power in Medieval Society, Walter deGruyter, 2013. Kedar, Benjamin Z., “Frankish bathhouses. Balneum and furnus – A Functional Dyad?” in Communicating the Middle Ages, 121–140; “The Use of Paper in the Frankish Levant: A Comparative Study,” in Crusading and Trading, 3–16; Studies in World, Jewish and Local History [in Hebrew], Bialik Institute: Jerusalem, 2019. 582 pp. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Athina, (ed. with N. Chrissis and A. Papageorgiou), Byzantium and the West: Perception and Reality (11th–15th c.) (Routledge, 2019); “Byzantium and the Crusades in the Komnenian Era: Perception and Reality,” in Byzantium and the West: Perception and Reality (as above), pp. 59–83. Lascurain Bernstorff, Ignacio Garcia, “Das intellektuelle Apostolat an der Via Bocca di Leone. Hermann Weber, Lateinamerika und eine Forschungslücke in der römischen Historiographie,” in Heinrich Geiger et al. (eds.), Bildung und Wissenschaft im Horizont von Interkulturalität. Festschrift für Hermann Weber zum 60. Geburtstag, Ostfildern 2019, ISBN: 978-3-7867-3166-5, pp. 55–60; [Review of:] Il bestiario del papa by Agostino Paravicini

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

273

Bagliani, in Römische Quartalschrift für Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, 2018 (2), pp. 278–281. Lewis, Katherine J., ‘...doo as this noble prynce Godeffroy of boloyne dyde: Chivalry, Masculinity and Crusading in late Medieval England’, in Crusading and Masculinities, pp. 311–28; ‘Women and Power’, in Historians on John Gower, ed. Stephen H. Rigby (D.S. Brewer: Cambridge, 2019), pp. 232–50; ‘A King, Not a Servant: The Prose Life of St Katherine of Alexandria and Ideologies of Masculinity in Late Medieval England’, in Hagiography and the History of Latin Christendom, 500–1500, ed. Samantha Kahn Herrick (Brill: Leiden, 2019), pp. 397–416; ‘“What Does a Man Do?” Representing and Performing Masculinity’, in Vikings and the Vikings: Essays on Television’s History Channel Series, eds Paul Hardwick and Kate Lister (McFarland: Jefferson, N.C., 2019), pp. 59–76 Lewis, Kevin James, “The Foreskins of Christ and Antichrist: Latin Christian Interpretations of Circumcision during the Crusades,” in Crusading Europe, pp. 93–117. Ligato, Giuseppe, “Le mura armate. Due ipotesi sulla ‘Torre di Davide’ della Gerusalemme crociata in una miniatura della Bibliothèque Royale di Bruxelles”, in Liber annuus of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum of Jerusalem, no. 67 (2017), pp. 329–395; “La mancata vocazione cavalleresca di Salimbene de Adam e il ruolo di Elia da Cortona”, in Frate Elia, il primo francescanesimo e l’Oriente, ed. G.M. Caliman, Spoleto 2019, pp. 119–140; “Acri e i primi francescani, in Culture e religioni in dialogo,” Atti della IV edizione delle giornate di archeologia e storia del Vicino e Medio Oriente (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 4–5 maggio 2018), Milan 2019, pp. 195–201 Loud, Graham A., The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck (Routledge: Crusade Texts in Translation, 2019), xiv + 320 pp.; ‘Migration, Infiltration, Conquest and Identity: the Normans of Southern Italy c.1000–1130’, Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano per l’alto medioevo 66 Le migrazioni nell’alto medioevo (2019), 339–60. Luchitskaya, Svetlana, Krestovie pohody. Idea i real'nost' (The Crusades. Idea and Reality). Saint-Petersburgh: Nauka, 2019. 390 p. (in Russian); “Johnathan Riley-Smith (1938– 2016),” in: Srednie veka. Studies on Medieval and Early Modern History. Moscow: Nauka, 2017. Vol. 78. № 1–2, pp. 415–416; “The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in L Rossijskaia istoricheskaia encyclopedia. Moscow: Olma Press, 2018. Vol 7, pp. 568–569. Luttrell, Anthony, “Chaucer's English Knight and his Holy War,” in Tribute to Alain Blondy, ed. J. Azzopardi et al. (Fondation de Malte, Malta, 2017), 251–266; (with K. Borchardt), “The Latin Will of a Jewish Burgensis of Rhodes, 1448,” in Crusading and Trading, 161–172; “Progressive Memory: the Hospitallers’ Chronicle of the Deceased Masters,” in Entre Deus e o Rei, 1:89–96; (with G. O’Malley), The Countryside of Hospitaller Rhodes 1306–1423 (Routledge, Abingdon, 2019), pp. vii, 323; “Hospitaller Pugnacity: 1306–1421,” in MO7, 322–328; “I Giovanniti nel sud del Priorato di Pisa 1373,” Studi Melitensi 27 (2019), 41–77. Marvin, Laurence W., “King Louis VII as General on the Second Crusade: A Failure of Command, Control and Communication,” in Louis VII and His World, ed. Michael Bardot and Laurence W. Marvin, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2018, pp. 29–49. Mayer, Hans Eberhard, Die Kreuzfahrerherrschaften von Maraslea und Nephin (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Neue Folge 46), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2018, viii + 124 pp. Minervini, Laura, “Dalla Francia alla Terra Santa e ritorno. La circolazione della voce a.fr. profinel ‘sacco per la biada dei cavalli’”, in Fay ce que vouldras. Mélanges en l’honneur d’Alessandro Vitale Brovarone, ed. Michela Del Gaudio et al., Paris, Classiques Garnier,

274

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

2018, 423–434; “I longobardi alla VI Crociata. Una nota sul lessico francese d’Oltremare e un etnonimo dimenticato”, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 135 (2019), 1–28. Mitchell, Piers D., (with Yeh, Hui-Yuan), “Parasites and Baltic crusading in medieval Riga: insights into disease, diet and hygiene,” in Ecologies of Crusading, Colonisation and Religious Conversion in the Medieval Baltic: Terra Sancta, ed. A. Pluskowski, Turnhout: Brepols, 2018. Möhring, Hannes, “Joseph und seine Brüder im Mittelalter. Sultan Saladin und der Aufstieg des Aiyubidengeschlechtes,” in: Richard Löwenherz, ein europäischer Herrscher im Zeitalter der Konfrontation von Christentum und Islam. Mittelalterliche Wahrnehmung und moderne Rezeption, ed. Ingrid Bennewitz and Klaus van Eickels (Bamberger interdisziplinäre Mittelalterstudien, 8), Bamberg 2018, 73–93; “Das Constans-Vaticinium und die Entstehung der Endkaiser-Weissagung. Schlüsse und Fehlschlüsse,” in: Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 74,2 (2018), 703–714. Morton, Nicholas, (ed.) The Military Orders Volume VII: Piety, Pugnacity and Property (Routledge, 2019); The Field of Blood: The Battle for Aleppo and the Remaking of the Medieval Middle East (Basic Books, 2018); “Representations of Muslim virtue in Christian ecclesiastical sources: c.1000–c.1350,” Reading Medieval Studies (2018), pp. 145–172; “Walter the Chancellor on Ilghazi and Tughtakin: a prisoner’s perspective,” Journal of Medieval History, 44:2 (2018), pp. 170–186. Musarra, Antonio, In partibus Ultramaris. I Genovesi, la crociata e la Terrasanta (secc. XII–XIII), Roma, ISIME, 2017; Acri 1291. La caduta degli stati crociati, Bologna, il Mulino, 2017; Il crepuscolo della crociata. L’Occidente e la perdita della Terrasanta, Bologna, il Mulino, 2018; Gli Italiani e le crociate, Roma, Istituto per l’Oriente “C.A. Nallino”, 2019 (Collana didattica, 6); (with Franco Cardini) Il grande racconto delle crociate, Bologna, il Mulino, 2019; Francesco, i Minori e la Terrasanta, Viareggio, La Vela, 2019; “‘Mercatores’ o ‘cives et bellatores Dei’? I Genovesi e la prima crociata tra istanze religiose, politiche e commerciali,” in Storia dei Mediterranei. Popoli, culture materiali e immaginario dall’età antica al Medioevo, Ragusa, Edizioni di storia e studi sociali, 2018, pp. 324–354; “The Role of Famagusta in Genoese Maritime Routes between the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” in Famagusta Maritima: Mariners, Merchants, Pilgrims and Mercenaries, International Conference (Padova, 21 novembre 2017), ed. M.J.K. Walsh, Leiden, Brill, 2019 (Brill’s Studies in Maritime History, 7), pp. 130–143; “Nuove spigolature genovesi. Quattro documenti sul mancato ritorno a Cipro di Giacomo I di Lusignano (1383),” in Επετηρίδα του Κέντρου Επιστημονικών Ερευνών [Cyprus Research Centre Annual Review] 39 (2019), pp. 191–216. Nicholson, Helen J., ‘Holy Warriors, Worldly War: Military Religious Orders and Secular Conflict’, Journal of Medieval Military History, 17 (2019), 61–79; ‘The true gentleman? Correct behaviour towards women according to Christian and Muslim writers during the period of the crusades’, in Crusading and Masculinities, pp. 100–112; ‘Women’s writing and cultural patronage’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Literature of the Crusades, ed. Anthony Bale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, ISBN 978-1-108-47451-1 hbk, 978-1-1-8-46486-4 pbk), pp. 72–84; ‘The Surveys and Accounts of the Templars’ estates in England and Wales (1308–1313)’, in Crusading Europe, pp. 181–209; ‘Memory and the Military Orders: an Overview’, in Entre Deus e o Rei, vol. 1, pp. 17–28; ‘Evidence of the Templars’ religious practice from the records of the Templars’ estates in Britain and Ireland in 1308’, in Communicating the Middle Ages, pp. 50–63. Parsons, Simon Thomas, ‘The Inhabitants of the British Isles on the First Crusade’,

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

275

English Historical Review, 134/567 (2019), pp. 273–301; ‘The Letters of Stephen of Blois Reconsidered’, Crusades, 17 (2019), 1–29; ‘Crusading Participation in Normandy and its Borderlands: The Evidence from the Old French Traditions of the First Crusade’, Haskins Society Journal, 29 (2018), 201–223, awarded the Denis Bethell Prize 2016; ‘The Valiant Man and the Vilain in the Tradition of the Gesta Francorum: Overeating, Taunts, and Bohemond’s Heroic Status’, in Crusading and Masculinities, 36–52; co-editor, with Linda Paterson, of Literature of the Crusades (Boydell, 2018), and co-author, with Ruth Harvey, of the Introduction to the volume; ‘A Unique Song of the First Crusade? New Observations on the Hatton 77 Manuscript of the Siège d’Antioche’, in Literature of the Crusades, 55–74. Paterson, Linda M., Singing the Crusades: French and Occitan Lyric Responses to the Crusading Movement, 1137–1336, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2018, xviii + 332 pp.; (ed. with Simon Thomas Parsons) Literature of the Crusades, Woodbridge, Boydell & Brewer, 2018, xii + 210 pp. Phillips, Joanna, “Crusader Masculinities in Bodily Crises: Incapacity and the Crusader Leader, 1095–1274,” in Crusading and Masculinities, pp. 149–64. Portnykh, Valentin, (ed. with C. Vande Veire) Humbertus de Romanis, De predicatione crucis, [Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis 279], Turnhout: Brepols, 2018, LXXIII + 200 pp.; “La croisade anti-russe a-t-elle jamais existé au treizième siècle. Réflexions sur le livre récent d’Anti Selart,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 3–4 (2018), pp. 885–894; “God Wills It! Supplementary Divine Purposes for the Crusades according to the Crusade Propaganda,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70/3 (2019), pp. 472–486. Prost, Marco, “Quand Le Siège d’Antioche remplace Troie: pour une lecture spirituelle du manuscrit de Spalding (BL, Add. 34114) et de son Songe vert,” in « Par deviers Rome m'en renvenrai errant », ed. M. Careri, Rome: Viella 2017, pp. 251–62; “De la traîtresse à la sorcière: imaginaire et représentations de l’héroïne rusée condamnée au bûcher dans la littérature courtoise médiévale,” in Lincoln Humanities Journal 6 (2018), pp. 42–62. Purkis, William J., (ed. with Matthew Gabriele), The Charlemagne Legend in Medieval Latin Texts (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2016), 241 pp.; (ed. with Rosie Weetch), Material Religion in the Crusading World, special issue of Material Religion: The Journal of Objects, Art, and Belief 14.4 (December 2018); ‘“Zealous Imitation”: The Materiality of the Crusader’s Marked Body’, Material Religion: The Journal of Objects, Art, and Belief 14.4 (December 2018), pp. 438–53. Rodríguez García, José Manuel, “Hombres de religión y servicios de información, ss. XIII–XIV”, in Hombres de religión y guerra. Cruzada y guerra santa en la Edad Media peninsular. Silex, Madrid, 2018, pp. 495–511. Schabel, Christopher, (and William O. Duba), “Instrumenta Miscellanea Cypria. A Catalogue of Cypriot Documents in the Instrumenta Miscellanea of the Vatican Archives,” in Incorrupta monumenta Ecclesiam defendunt. Studi offerti a mons. Sergio Pagano, prefetto dell’Archivio Segreto Vaticano. II. Archivi, Archivistica, Diplomatica, Paleografia, ed. A. Gottsmann, P. Piatti, and A.E. Rehberg, Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 2018, pp. 807–820; “The Church of Limassol at the Death of Bishop Francesco, 1351,” Crusades 18 (2019). Schrader, Helena P., “Maria Comnena: Byzantine Princess, Queen of Jerusalem and Lady of Ibelin,” The Medieval Magazine No. 122, (Digital/Online Only, March 2019), 8–18; “Scandalous Frankish Fashion: Outfitting Outremer,” The Medieval Magazine No. 124 (Digital/Online Only, May 2019), 81–89; “Beyond the Seas: The Crusader States of ‘Outremer’,” The Medieval Magazine No. 125 (Digital/Online Only, June 2019), 69–79;

276

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

“The Contributions of the Knights Hospitaller to Medical Care,” The Medieval Magazine No. 128 (Digital/Online Only, September 2019), 42–51. Shepard, Jonathan, ‘Man-to-Man, “Dog-Eat-Dog”, Cults in Common: the Tangled Threads of Alexios’ Dealings with the Franks’, in J.-C. Cheynet and B. Flusin (eds.), Autour du Premier humanisme byzantin et des Cinq études sur le xi e siècle, quarante ans après Paul Lemerle (Travaux et Mémoires 21/2) (Paris, 2017), pp. 749–88; ‘Power-Seeking on the Imperial Fringes in the Later Eleventh Century: the Uses of Seals’, in B. Caseau et al. (eds.), Οὗ δῶρόν εἰμι τὰς γραφὰς βλέπων νόει: Mélanges Jean-Claude Cheynet (Travaux et mémoires 21/1) (Paris, 2017), pp. 675–89; ‘Superpower to Soft Power, within Overlapping Circles: Byzantium and its Place in Twenty-First Century International History’, in B. Haider-Wilson, W. D. Godsey and W. Mueller (eds.), Internationale Geschichte in Theorie und Praxis / International History in Theory and Practice (Vienna, 2017), pp. 81–122. Siberry, Elizabeth J., “Letters home: British crusaders in Flanders, France, Gallipoli and Palestine during World War 1,” in Communicating the Middle Ages, pp. 254–65; “The crusades: nineteenth century readers’ perspectives,” in Perceptions of the Crusades from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century, ed. Mike Horswell and Jonathan Phillips, Engaging the Crusades 1 (Routledge, 2018), pp. 7–27; “Variations on a theme: Harry Pirie-Gordon and the Order of Sanctissima Sophia,” in MO7, pp. 237–246. Spacey, Beth C., “Martyrdom as Masculinity in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi”, in Crusading and Masculinities, pp. 222–36. Spencer, Stephen John, “Two Unexamined Witnesses to Ralph of Coggeshall’s Chronicon Anglicanum in London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 371,” Manuscripta: A Journal for Manuscript Research 62/2 (2019), 279–86. Sweetenham, Carol, “Papal discussions in a chanson de geste: the depiction of Crusade, the Lateran Council and the split personality of the Canso de la Crozada,” in Literary Echoes of the Fourth Lateran Council in England and France, 1215–1405, ed. Maureen Boulton (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, 2019), 124–44. Tyerman, Christopher J., The World of the Crusades: An Illustrated Guide (Yale University Press, 2019) Villegas-Aristizabal, Lucas, ‘Was the Portuguese Led Military Campaign against Alcácer do Sal in the Autumn of 1217 Part of the Fifth Crusade?’, Al-Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean 31:1 (2019): 50–67 [https://doi.org/10.1080/09503110.201 8.1542573]; ‘Did Savary of Mauléon participate in Alfonso IX’s failed siege of Caceres 1218?’, De Medio Aevo 12 (2018): 99–118. [http://www.capire.es/eikonimago/index.php/ demedioaevo/article/view/247]; ‘Cruzados normandos en la frontera del Ebro y el caso de Tarragona’, in Repoblació del camp de Tarragona: Estat de la qüestió, ed. Manuel Rivera, Tarragona: Silva Editorial, 2018, 13–40; ‘Gregory VII and Eblous II of Roucy: Proto-Crusade in Iberia’, Medieval History Journal 21:1 (2018), 117–140. [https://doi. org/10.1177/0971945817750508]; ‘Spiritual and Material Rewards on the Christian–Muslim Frontier: Norman Crusaders in the Valley of the Ebro’, Medievalismo 27 (2017): 353–376 [https://doi.org/10.6018/medievalismo.27.310701].

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

277

2. Recently completed theses Carraz, Damien, De la Méditerranée au Massif central, étudier et enseigner les sociétés médiévales, mémoire de synthèse, Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université Jean Monnet–Saint-Étienne, 2018; Un commandeur ordinaire? Bérenger Monge et le gouvernement des hospitaliers provençaux au xiiie siècle, mémoire de recherche inédit, Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université Jean Monnet–Saint-Étienne, 2018. (1 vol. de 461 p. + 1 vol. d’annexes de 77 p.) [submited to Brepols for publication]. Josserand, Philippe, Le Temple, les ordres militaires et la croisade entre le Moyen Âge et l’aujourd’hui, Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches soutenue le 7 septembre 2019 à l’Université Lyon-2 sous la garantie du Prof. Julien Théry, 4 volumes: vol. I: “Chemins de recherche. L’histoire, l’ordre et le chaos”; vol. II: “Les ordres militaires dans le royaume de Castille au Moyen Âge” (t. 1) et “Croisades et ordres militaires dans l’espace latin” (t. 2); vol. III: “Jacques de Molay. En quête du dernier grand-maître de l’ordre du Temple”. Kühn, Hans-Ulrich, Sultan Baibars und seine Söhne. Frühmamlūkische Herrschaftssicherung in ayyūbidischer Tradition (= Mamluk Studies 18; Göttingen 2019), PhD, Saarland University, supervised by Peter Thorau, 2016. Lascurain Bernstorff, Ignacio Garcia, The Athletes and the Vicar of Christ: An inquiry on the communication strategies of the Hospitallers of St. John with the Holy See in the 15th century, Dr. phil., Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, supervised by Claudia Märtl and Mark Hengerer, 2019. Marx, Alexander, Die Predigt des Dritten Kreuzzuges (1187–92). Religiöse Gewalt im Schatten der Exegese [The preaching of the Third Crusade (1187–92). Religious violence in the shadow of exegesis], PhD, University of Vienna, supervised by Philippe Buc, 2019. Shotten-Hallel, Vardit, Material and Building Technologies in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, PhD, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, supervised by Benjamin Kedar, 2018. 3. Papers read by members of the Society and others Auffarth, Christoph, Vortrag “‘Gott will es!’ – ‘Gott will es nicht!’ Die Kreuzzüge als Paradebeispiel religiös motivierter Gewalt”, Beitrag zur Ringvorlesung der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Basel (13 November 2018). Balard, Michel, “Genoa and the Golden Horde,” paper read in Kazan, March 2017; “Slavery in the Black Sea (XIIIth–XVth C.),” paper read in Leiden, May 2017; “Origines et préparation de la IVe Croisade,” paper read at the colloquium “Foulques de Neuilly en son temps” (Neuilly-sur-Marne, 9 June 2017); “Merchants’ and Pilgrims’ Emotions on the Mediterranean (XIIIth–XVth C.),” paper read at the colloquium “Portals: Spaces of Encounter, Entanglement and Exchange” (Spit, 25–26 Septembre 2017); “Caffa e il mondo tataro,” paper read at the colloquium Impero: Problemi della colonizzazione interna ed esterna (Moscow, 15 January 2019). Bass, Ian, “Materiality and Sanctity: St Thomas Becket among the saints, V – A Round Table Discussion,” and “England’s Two Thomases: Becket, Cantilupe, and Models of the Bishop-Saint,” at IMC 2019; “Miracles in the Marches: St Thomas Cantilupe of Hereford,” to Longtown & District Historical Society; “Thomas de Cantilupe: A Remarkable Bishop,” to Hereford Guild of Guides; “Hereford’s Bishops and the Saints,” at the Three Choirs Festival Hereford 2018; “In the Footsteps of the Past: Medieval Miracle Stories and the St Thomas Way”, at the St Thomas Way Launch Day, Hereford Cathedral; “English or Welsh? The Struggle for Dore Abbey,” at IMC 2018; “Saints and Miracles in the Welsh Marches: their role in people’s faith,” at the Mortimer History Society Conference 2018.

278

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

Bird, Jessalynn, “Lingua-tonante: Stephen Langton’s Crusade Sermons in Context”, ICMS, 2019; “Globalizing the Middle Ages: Pedagogical Dilemmas and Solutions”, organizer and presenter, ICMS, 2019; “Jacques de Vitry’s Historia Orientalis”, Mediterranean Working Group, Medieval Institute, Notre Dame, November 2018 (invited speaker); “Teaching the Crusades in the Wider Mediterranean Context”, Globalizing the Middles Ages, MMHC, Milwaukee, WI., October 2018 (invited speaker); “Papal Bulls, Paris Masters, and Crusade Preaching, c.1187–c.1221”, at: Papal Communication: Responses and Receptions (c.1100– 1300), Aalborg, Denmark. June 2018 (invited and funded speaker); “Grey Popes, White Monks and Moralist Masters: Henry of Marcy and Paris in the late Twelfth Century”, Annual Symposium on Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Saint Louis University, June 2018; “Jacques de Vitry and the Image of Muhammad in the Latin West”, ICMS 2018. Burgtorf, Jochen, “Kommunikationsformen im Zentralkonvent der Templer und Johanniter”, Conference: “Communication in the Military Orders: Spaces – Structures – Forms” (Ordines Militares Colloquia Torunensia Historica 20), Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu [Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń] (Toruń, Poland), September 2019; “Experiments in Coexistence? The Religious Military Orders and Condominia in the Near East,” Conference: “The Global Turn in Medieval Studies” (Medieval Academy of America, 94th Annual Meeting), University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA, USA), March 2019; “Auf der Flucht: Menschliche Schicksale zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge” [Lecture], Academic Celebration of the 85th Birthday of Prof. Dr. Rudolf Hiestand, Haus der Universität (Düsseldorf, Germany), November 2018. Chollet, Loïc, “A model for chivalry of the abode of heresy? The Teutonic Order seen from France and Poland (14th–15th centuries)”, Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum… The State of Teutonic Order in Prussia, Malbork Castle Museum (15 November 2019); “Russkiy mir glazami zapadnykh evropeitsev: nasledie baltiyskikh krestovykh pokhodov?” (“The Russian World seen by Western Eyes: a Heritage of the Baltic crusade?”), Research Library of Tomsk State University, trad. V. Portnykh (25 October 2019); « "Adversaire mescreans de la foy catholique et crestienne": otgoloski tsentralno-evropeyskikh krestovykh pokhodov v nekotorykh manuskriptakh iz Frantsii i Shweitsarii (14–15 vv.) » [« "Adversaires mescreans de la foy catholique et crestienne“ : Échos de la croisade est-européenne dans quelques manuscrits de France et de Suisse (XIV–XVe s.) »], Knizhniye pamyatniki v aspekte sokhrannosti / Book Monuments in Aspect of Conservation, Moscow, Biblioteka Inostrannoy Literatury, trad. V. Portnykh (15 October 2019); « De l’héroïsme des croisades à la légende noire : les “pays des marges” dans les sources narratives de la fin du Moyen Âge », Atelier en sciences historiques, University of Prague (4 April 2019); « Le roi, les traîtres et les hérétiques. Pouvoir et orthodoxie à l’époque de la Guerre de Cent ans », Cours public du Centre d'études médiévales, University of Geneva (27 March 2019); « Comprendre la croisade balte, ou comment constituer un corpus de sources à l'échelle européenne », Mon corpus de sources, j’en fais quoi ? CUSO Workshop in Medieval Studies, University of Lausanne (20 March 2019); « Des moines-soldats hérétiques? Les Chevaliers teutoniques et leur mauvaise réputation (XIIIe–XVe s.) », .Altérité et déviance religieuse. Pour une approche comparatiste de l’hérésie en histoire des religions, Tokyo, Tôyô Bunko (Oriental Library) (9 March 2019). Chrissis, Nikolaos, “War of Faith? Byzantine criticisms of crusading”, at the Inaugural Conference of the International Orthodox Theological Association (IOTA): “Pan-Orthodox Unity and Conciliarity” (Iasi, Romania, 9–12 January 2019). Christie, Niall, “Istanbul, not Constantinople: Why did Constantinople get the Works?”, Dunbar Community Centre Lecture Series (Location, Location, Location), Vancouver,

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

279

Canada (January 2019); “Shajar al-Durr: Scheming Sultana of Egypt,” Brock House Society Lecture Series (Wicked Women), Vancouver, Canada (Februry 2018). Coureas, Nicholas, “Settlement on Lusignan Cyprus after the Latin Conquest: The Accounts of Cypriot and other Chroniclers,” at: The Latin East in the 13th Century: Institutions, Settlements and Material Culture. Conference Commemorating the 800th Anniversary of ‘Atlit Castle, University of Haifa, Israel, 31 January – 2 February 2018; “Wine, Women and Song: Entertainment on Lusignan and Venetian Cyprus,” at: Othello’s Island: The Sixth International Conference on Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Centre for Visual Arts and Research, Nicosia, Cyprus, 25–27 March 2018; “Western Metal Workers in Famagusta, Cyprus, 1296–1300”, at: “Bridge of Civilisations,” at: The Near East and Europe c. 1100– 1300, Pazmany Peter Catholic University, Esztergom, Hungary, 2–5 May 2018. Favreau-Lilie, Marie-Luise, “Der Fall Akkons (1291) und der Deutsche Orden,” at: Akkon-Venedig-Marienburg. Moblität und Immobilität im Deutschen Orden. Tagung der Internationalen Historischen Kommission zur Erforschung des Deutschen Ordens (Wien) in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Deutschen Studienzentrum Venedig, Venedig 8.–10. Oktober 2018. Folda, Jaroslav, “Crusader Gothic,” Inaugural Lecture for the Colloque on “Transferts Culturels/Cultural Transfers: France et Orient Latin aux XIIe et XIIIe Siecles,” at the CESCM (University de Poitiers/CNRS), 24 April 2019, jointly organized by the CESCM University of Poitiers, and the CMEMS Stanford University. Gaggero, Massimiliano, “Per la tradizione dell’Eracles: copie occidentali di modelli d’Oltremare,” International conference Forme dell’innovazione linguistica nelle tradizioni romanze medievali. Metodi e prospettive di studio, Università di Milano, 9–11 May 2019; “Ricordi della storia antica nella storiografia francese sulle crociate,” International conference L’Antichità nel Medioevo. Testi, tradizioni, problemi, Sapienza Università di Roma, 23–24 May 2019; “La tradition italienne de l’Eracles. Pour un nouvel examen des fragments,” XXIXe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Société de Linguistique Romane), Kobenhavn, 1–6 July 2019. Heslop, Michael, “Villehardouin’s castle of Grand Magne (Megali Maini): a re-assessment of the evidence for its location,” at the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, Birmingham on 25 January 2018. Josserand, Philippe, “Alle prese con la tormenta: il gran maestro Jacques de Molay nei carceri reali (1307–14),” in Mirko Santanicchia and Sonia Merli (eds.), Gli ordini di Terra Santa fra XII e XVI secolo: questioni aperte, nuove acquisizioni, congress held in Perugia on 14th and 15th November 2019; “La guerre en péninsule Ibérique au regard de Jacques de Molay,” in Carlos de Ayala Martínez, Santiago Palacios Ontalva and Francisco García Fitz (ed.), Memorias y fuentes de la guerra santa peninsular (siglos X–XV), conference held in Cáceres on 28th, 29th and 30th November 2019. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Athina, “The Rhetoric of Victory in Byzantine Texts of the 10th to 12th Centuries: Historiography and Panegyrics in a Comparative Context”, paper read at the Conference Victors and Vanquished in the Euro-Mediterranean. Cultures of War in the Middle Ages, held in Mainz, October 2018. Loud, Graham A., ‘Victors and Vanquished in Norman Italy’, at the University of Mainz, October 2018; ‘Papato, impero e regno di Sicilia nell’età di Ruggero II’, at the Istituto di studi normanni, Ariano Irpino, October 2019. Marx, Alexander, “In memoriam crucis Christi: The loss of the True Cross in 1187 and its meaning in the Latin West”, at IMC 2018; “Martin of Leon: A Spanish Crusade Preacher

280

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

in the Late Twelfth Century”, at: Medias in Res, Media in Media, Nov. 2018, Vienna, Austria; “Multilingualism and the preaching of the crusades: Methodological challenges and approaches”, at: Understanding Multilingual Sermons of the Middle Ages, May 2018, Vienna, Austria; “Monastic Preaching of the Crusades: Methodological Issues and Approaches”, Poster presentation at: Symposium of the International Medieval Sermon Studies Society, July 2018, Bristol, UK. Musarra, Antonio, “An Uneasy Coexistence: The Genoese, Pisans and Venetians in Thirteenth-Century Acre,” in Movement & Mobility in the Medieval Mediterranean (6th–15th centuries), Sixth biennial conference of the Society for the Medieval Mediterranean, Barcelona, Institut d’Estudis Catalans (8–11 July, 2019), Society for the Medieval Mediterranean, Institución Milá y Fontanals, Institut d’Estudis Catalans; “Economic Migrants or Commuters? Multi-Ethnicity on Venetian, Genoese and Catalan Galleys, 1350– 1500,” in Movement & Mobility in the Medieval Mediterranean (as above); “Mercanti, Pellegrini, crociati e sognatori d’Oriente nel lungo medioevo. Il reale e l’immaginario,” in Libri di viaggio tra Medioevo ed Età moderna: la scoperta culturale, religiosa e visiva del Vicino Oriente, Scuola estiva “Beniamino Burstein” 2019, Torrita di Siena-Montepulciano (26–29 agosto 2019), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore; “L’incontro tra Francesco e il Sultano secondo le fonti crociate e occidentali,” in 800 years from the Pilgrimage of Peace of Saint Francis in the Holy Land, Celebrations and Conventions, Jerusalem (30/09/2019– 04/10/2019), Custodia Terrae Sanctae, Ordo Fratrum Minorum, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Fondazione Terra Santa; “Una translatio francescana dei Luoghi Santi? La Betlemme di Greccio, la Passione de La Verna, il Perdono d’Assisi,” in 800 years from the Pilgrimage of Peace of Saint Francis in the Holy Land (as above). Nicholson, Helen J., ‘Templar Chapels in Britain and Ireland’, for the Saunière Society (10 March 2018); ‘Queen Sybil of Jerusalem as a military leader’ at ICMS 2018; ‘Templars and Hospitallers in the Welsh Marches’ at the Mortimer History Society Conference (19 May 2018); ‘The Knights Templar’ with Tony McMahon (chair: Remona Aly) at the Bradford Literature Festival (30 June 2018); ‘Archbishop Baldwin’s crusade’ at IMC 2018, Session 1304, New Approaches to the Third Crusade, II (4 July 2018); ‘The Templars and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, from the First to the Third Crusade’, at Bishop Wordsworth's School’s History Society, Salisbury, England (11 Sept 2018); ‘Something old, something new? The beginnings and early growth of the Templars’: keynote paper at V Simposio International de Estudios Medievales: A 900 años de la fundación de los Templarios, at the Universidad Gabriela Mistral (Santiago, Chile), 3–5 October 2018; ‘The Knights Templars and the Crusades’ – talk to the general public (8 October 2018); ‘A ruler of the Latin East? Queen Sybil of Jerusalem (1186–1190)’ a paper at the London Society for Medieval Studies, Institute of Historical Research (22 January 2019); ‘The Templars and Hospitallers in the Welsh March’ for the Longtown History Society, Herefordshire (4 March 2019); ‘Defending the Indefensible? The Survival of the Crusader States, 1099–1187’ for the Shrewsbury School Bastille Society (8 March 2019); ‘Women connected with the Knights Templar and Hospitaller’, at ‘War and Welfare in Late Medieval England’, a Study Day organised by the Gloucestershire Branch of the Richard III Society (1 June 2019). Paterson, Linda M., ‘Editing and Translating the Old French Siège d’Antioche: An Introduction to the Preparation of an Online Edition’, talk given for the session ‘The Crusades at Home: Roots, Impact, and Cultural Significance of the Crusades in France and Occitania’, ICMS 2018; ‘A hairy hero: the ambassador Herluin in the Siège d'Antioche’, talk given at the IMC 2018; ‘The Troubadours, the Third Crusade, and Richard the Lionheart, talk given in the session ‘New approaches to the Third Crusade’, IMC 2018.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

281

Perra, Photeine V., (in collaboration with Yannis Stoyas), “Women and Power in the Southeastern Mediterranean, 13th–15th centuries: A historical overview reflected through the numismatic evidence,” at: “Movement & Mobility in the Medieval Mediterranean (6th–15th centuries),” Barcelona, Institut d’Estudis Catalans (8–11 July, 2019). Phillips, Joanna, “‘You will suffer these and many other things in my name’: Illness, Wounding and Suffering during the Crusades of the 12th and 13th Centuries,” at Stonyhurst College, Lancashire (January 2018); “What Happened to Robert of Pontefract? Disease and Death at the Crusader Siege of Acre, 1189–91,” at Pontefract Castle (May 2018); “Broken and Remade: The Bodily Experience of Medieval War,” at IMC 2018, and at New Voices in the History of War, Oxford University (July 2018). Purkis, William J., “‘Holy Christendom’s New Colony’: The Extraction of Sacred Matter and the ‘Colonial’ Status of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” at: 36th International Conference of The Haskins Society, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, November 2017; “Harvesting the Holy Land: The Export of Sacred Matter from the ‘Colonial’ Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” at: The Latin East in the Thirteenth Century: Institutions, Settlement and Material Culture, University of Haifa, February 2018; “‘A Treasury of Heavenly Things’: Extracting the Sacred from the ‘Colonial’ Kingdom of Jerusalem,” at: The Housley Lectures in Medieval Mediterranean History, University of Leicester, June 2018. Rodríguez García, José Manuel, “‘Monjes-guerreros’ fuera de las Órdenes Militares”, en Murum et clipeum Christinitas. Las Órdenes Militares y la guerra. Sevilla, November 2018; “Repensando las cruzadas”, Curso de Verano, UNED, Avila, July 2018; “Crusade and Empire. A double edge sword”, UNED-Fern Univ. October 2018. Siberry, Elizabeth J., “Saint Louis. A Warrior Saint for Victorian and First World War Britain,” at IMC 2018. Spacey, Beth C., “The ‘Mockery of Dreams’: Crusade Narratives and the Categorisation of Visionary Experience”, at: ANZAMEMS 2019; “Touching, Seeing and Believing in Raymond of Aguilers’ History of the First Crusade”, at: IMC 2019; “The Miraculous and Divine Agency in the De expugnatione Scalabis”, at: Centre for the Study of Religion and Conflict Conference, Nottingham Trent University, 10 July 2019; “Hostile Landscapes in Arnold of Lübeck’s Narrative of Henry the Lion’s 1172 Jerusalem Pilgrimage”, at: Landscapes of Conflict and Encounter in the Crusading World, University of Queensland, 12 August 2019. Tyerman, Christopher J., “Commoners on Crusade: The Creation of a Political Space?”, at IHR Crusades Seminar, London, 14 January 2019. Villegas-Aristizabal, Lucas, “La Reconquista desde las Fuentes del Norte Europeo”, Symposium: Violencia religiosa en la Edad Media peninsular: guerra, discurso apologético y relato historiográfico (ss. X–XV), Cáceres, Spain (28–30 November 2019); “Motives and Priorities in the Norman involvement in the Iberian Peninsula”, Session 57.1, 50th Anniversary Conference of the ASPHS, Barcelona, Spain (July 13, 2019); “Conquest, Grant, or Sack? : Exploring the Reason for the Changing Priorities in the Norman Involvement in the Iberian Peninsula”, Session 1646-b, IMC 2019 (July 4, 2019); “Angevine England and the Iberian Reconquista”, Session 1343, IMC 2018 (July 4, 2018); “Frisian Naval Itinerary to the Holy Land, 1217–1218: Pilgrimage, Crusade, or Piracy?”, Session 1708, IMC 2017 (July 6, 2017); “Was the Siege and Conquest of Alcacer do Sal a Crusade?”, at the conference: Lisbon Medieval Culture and War: spaces, images, mentalities, Lisbon, Portugal (June 22, 2017).

282

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

4. Forthcoming publications Balard, Michel, see previous Bulletin; Introduction for the catalogue of the Crusades’ rooms in the Versailles. Balletto, Laura, “Brevi note su Antonio Pallavicino, vescovo di Chio (1450–1470)”, in Studi in onore di Dino Puncuh, ed. Bitossi C., Calleri M., Macchiavello S., and Rovere A. (Genova, 2019) (Quaderni della Società Ligure di Storia Patria, 7). Bass, Ian, “St Thomas de Cantilupe’s Welsh Miracles,” Studia Celtica 53 (forthcoming December 2019); “Rebellion and Miracles on the Welsh March: Accounts in the Miracle Collection of St Thomas de Cantilupe,” The Welsh History Review 29:4 (forthcoming December 2019); “In the Footsteps of the Past: Medieval Miracle Stories and the St Thomas Way,” in The St Thomas Way and the Medieval March of Wales: Place, Heritage, Pilgrimage, ed. C. A. M. Clarke, Medieval Places and Spaces 1 (London, forthcoming 2019/2020); “England’s Two Thomases: Episcopal Models of Sanctity Embodied in Thomas Becket and Thomas de Cantilupe,” in Episcopal Personalities in Medieval Europe, 900–1480: Power of the Bishop Volume 2, eds. P. Coss, C. Dennis, M. Julian-Jones and A. Silvestri, Medieval Church Studies 42 (Turnhout, forthcoming 2019/2020). Bird, Jessalynn, “The Preaching of the Crusades, c.1095–c.1291,” in The Cambridge History of the Crusades, ed. Thomas Madden and Jonathan Phillips, 2 vols (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2020); Burgtorf, Jochen, “Refugees in the Latin East before and during the Third Crusade (1168– 1192),” in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East [= SSCLE 9 Odense], ed. Kurt Villads Jensen and Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen, Outremer: Studies in the Crusades and the Latin East (Turnhout, Brepols) [expected 2020]; “Experiments in Coexistence? The Religious Military Orders and Condominia in Northern Syria (1260–1291),” in Ordres militaires et territorialité: Entre Orient et Occident, ed. Marie-Anna Chevalier (Paris, Éditions Geuthner, 2020); “Stellvertretung in den geistlichen Ritterorden des Hochmittelalters: Konzepte, Personen und Zeichen”, in Stellvertretung im Mittelalter: Konzepte, Personen und Zeichen im interkulturellen Vergleich, ed. Claudia Zey, Vorträge und Forschungen 88 (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2019). Carraz, Damien, “Les dominations seigneuriales en Terre d’Argence à la veille du siège de Beaucaire”, in Le siège de Beaucaire 1216. Pouvoir, société et culture dans le Midi rhodanien (seconde moitié du XIIe – première moitié du XIIIe siècle), actes du colloque international de Beaucaire, 17–18 novembre 2016, ed. M. Bourin, Toulouse, Privat, 2018; “La redécouverte de deux châteaux de l’Hôpital en Haute-Provence: Manosque et Puimoisson exhumés par les sources écrites” and “L’occupation de Belvoir par les Hospitaliers. Quelques éléments de chronologie” in Le château de Belvoir et l’architecture fortifiée de l’Hôpital de SaintJean de Jérusalem, actes de la table-ronde de Lyon, Archives départementales du Rhône, 1er–2 décembre 2016, ed. A. Baud and J.-M. Poisson, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient, 2019; “Administration, délimitation et perception des territoires dans l’ordre de l’Hôpital : le cas du prieuré de Saint-Gilles (XIIe–XIVe siècle)”, in Ordres militaires et territorialité: entre Orient et Occident (Journée d’études de Montpellier, 20 octobre 2017), ed. M.-A. Chevalier, Paris, Geuthner; “Echoes of the Latin East among the Hospitallers of the West: The Priory of St. Gilles, c.1260–c.1300”, in Settlement and Crusade in the 13th Century: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Latin East, ed. Judith Bronstein, Gil Fishhof and Vardit Shotten-Hallel, Routledge (Crusades Subsidia); “Celeberrimum et generalissimum concilium. Montpellier, 1215 et le negotium pacis et fidei”, in L’Église et la violence, Xe–XIIIe siècle, Toulouse, Privat, 2019 (Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 54); “Un érudit méconnu et peu reconnu. Jean Raybaud

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

283

(† 1752), archivaire et historien de l’ordre de Malte”, in La Provence, terre d’érudition, 61e Congrès de la Fédération historique de Provence (12–13 octobre 2018), Provence historique. Cerrini, Simonetta, (with Franco Cardini), La storia dei Templari in 8 oggetti, Milano, Utet, 2019; La Révolution des Templiers et les 10 mss de la règle, Paris, Perrin, 2020. Chollet, Loïc, “Cohabiter sur la frontière: l’Ordre teutonique et ses sujets de Livonie au début du XIVe siècle,” in M.-A. Chevalier (ed.), Ordres militaires et territorialité: entre Orient et Occident, Paris, Geuthner, to be published in early 2020. Chrissis, Nikolaos, “Frankish Greece”, in J. Phillips et al. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Crusades (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2020); “Western aggression and Greco–Latin interaction: A view from Greece”, in F. Hinz and J. MeyerHamme (eds.), Controversial Histories: Current Views on the Crusades in an International Comparison (London and New York: Routledge, forthcoming 2020); “Broken brotherhood: Greeks and Latins in the thirteenth century”, in N. Giantsi (ed.), The Presence and Contribution of the Eastern Roman Empire in the Formation of Europe (Athens: EPLO, forthcoming 2020), pp. 1–36; “Tearing Christ’s seamless tunic? The ‘Eastern Schism’ and crusades against the Greeks in the thirteenth century”, in P. Srodecki and N. Kersken (eds.), Crusading and the Crusader Movement in the Peripheries of Latin Christianity (Brepols: Turnhout, forthcoming 2020). Christie, Niall, Muslims and Crusaders: Christianity's Wars in the Middle East, 1095–1382, from the Islamic Sources, 2nd ed., Seminar Studies in History (Abingdon: Routledge); “‘Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami (1039 or 1040–1106), Kitab al-Jihad,” in Christian–Muslim Relations: A Reader, ed. David Thomas and Alex Mallett (Leiden: E.J. Brill); “Crusades” and (with David Morray) “Muslim–Crusader Relations,” in The Routledge Medieval Encyclopedia Online, ed. Josef Meri et al. (Abingdon: Routledge). Claverie, Pierre-Vincent, Les notules pour Chypre et le Levant des notaires perpignanais, Bernat Pastor et Jaume Molines (1368–1408), Cyprus Research Centre, Nicosia, 2019. Coureas, Nicholas, “The Churches of Famagusta and their Secular Congregations (1448– 1474)”, at Melusine of Cyprus: Studies in Art, Architecture and Visual Culture in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr, Nicosia, 19–21 May 2017; “The Formation and Evolution of the Class of Burgesses in the Lusignan Kingdom of Cyprus, 1192–1474”, in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East [= SSCLE 9 Odense], ed. Kurt Villads Jensen and Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen, Outremer: Studies in the Crusades and the Latin East (Turnhout, Brepols), 2020; “The Import of West European Textiles to Cyprus in the Fourteenth Century”, in Epeteris Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon, 39, 2019; “King Peter I of Cyprus and the Armenians” in Knighthood, Crusades and the Eastern Mediterranean at the Time of King Peter I of Cyprus, ed. A. Beihammer and A. Nicolaou-Konnari, Brepols Mediterranean Nexus Series, 2019. Cushing, Dana, A Student’s Guide to Crusader Chronicles: De Itinere Navali Digital Medieval Studies Series 1 (Antimony Media, Tucson, 2020); “The ‘Crusader Equation’ as Demonstrated by a Case Study of the Development and Deployment of Ship-Building Technology ny Denmark’s Crusaders in Estonia before 1220” (in preparation). Donnachie, Stephen, “Male Consorts and Royal Authority in the Crusader States”, in The Routledge History of Monarchy, ed. Elena Woodacre, Lucinda H.S. Dean, Chris Jones, Zita Rohr, and Russell Martin (Routledge, 2019). Dragnea, Mihai, Verbal and Non-Verbal Interactions Between Germans and Wends in the Second Half of the Tenth Century (Dec 2019); The Saxon expeditions against the Wends and

284

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

the foundation of Magdeburg in the shadow of Otto I's kingship (Nov–Dec 2019); Mental Geographies and Cultural Identities in the Baltic Region in the Eleventh-Century: the AngloSaxon ‘Cotton’ World Map (Nov 2019). Edbury, Peter, ‘Legal Procedure in the Latin East’, in J.P. Phillips et al. (eds), Cambridge History of the Crusades; ‘Medieval legal treatises in the Langue d’Oil’ (in proof); ‘Sultan al-Kamil, the emperor Frederick II and the surrender of Jerusalem as presented by the anonymous Chronique d’Ernoul’, in Peter Edbury, Denys Pringle and Balázs Major (eds), Bridge of Civilizations (Archeropress, expected early 2020); ‘The Old French Translation of William of Tyre and Templars’ Medievalista (Jan 2020). Folda, Jaroslav, “Two Icons of the Virgin and Child Hodegetria from the Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai: Byzantine or Crusader?”, in the Festschrift in Honor of Erica Cruikshank Dodd, eds. Marcus Milwright and Lesley Jessop, University of Victoria Press, 20 pp. (forthcoming fall 2019); “The Crusader Templum Domini: Fact and Fiction,” for the symposium volume, Marking the Sacred: The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, ed. Joan Branham, to mark the centennial of Providence College, Penn State University Press, 20 pp., (forthcoming fall 2019). Heslop, Michael, “The defences of middle Byzantium in Greece (7th–12th centuries): the flight to safety in town, countryside and islands,” joint plenary paper with Nikos Kontogiannis in the Proceedings of the 46th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, 23–25 March, 2013 (Routledge, 2019); “Villehardouin's castle of Grand Magne (Megali Maini): a re-assessment of the evidence for its location,” in Crusading and Archaeology, papers from the SSCLE 9 Odense conference, Crusades Subsidia (Routledge, 2020). Irwin, Robert, “Ibn Jubayr, the Passionate Pilgrim,” introduction to a reissue of Broadhurst’s translation of Ibn Jubayr (IB Tauris, 2019). Josserand, Philippe, “Jacques de Molay: portrait du maître en héros martyr,” communication à la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France le 29 juin 2016, to be published in 2019 in Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 2016; “Face aux temps nouveaux: Morimond et l’ordre de Calatrava au tournant des XIIIe et XIVe siècles,” in Morimond, 1117–2017. Approche pluridisciplinaire d’un réseau monastique (Chaumont et Langres, 31 août, 1er et 2 septembre 2017), ed. Benoît Rouzeau and Hubert Flammarion, to be published in 2019; “Conclusions,” in Ordres militaires et territorialité: entre Orient et Occident, ed. Marie-Anna Chevalier, to be published in 2020; “The Order of the Temple in Public Cultural Debate in France (18th–19th Centuries),” in Military Orders and Crusades. Festschrift for Alan Forey, ed. Helen J. Nicholson, to be published in 2019; “Au miroir de Palmela: trente ans de recherches sur les ordres religieux-militaires en France (1989–2019),” in Ordens militares, identidade e cambio. VIII Encontro sobre ordens militares (12–16 Junho 2019), ed. Isabel Cristina Fernandes, to be published in 2020; “En quête de Jacques de Molay, dernier grand-maître de l’ordre du Temple: cinq ans de travaux et un livre,” Medievalista, 2020. Kangas, Sini, “Biblical Allusions as Markers of Social Hierarchy in Twelfth- and ThirteenthCentury Sources of the Crusades”. In Transcultural Approaches to the Bible: Exegesis and Historical Writing in the Medieval Worlds, ed. by Matthias M. Tischler and Patrick Marschner. Transcultural Medieval Studies 2, Brepols, forthcoming in 2019; “The Image of Warrior Bishops in the Northern Tradition of the Crusades”. In Christianity and War in Medieval East-Central Europe and Scandinavia: The Church at War, Religion in War, and Perceptions of War, ed. by Radoslaw Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen and Stephen Bennett.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

285

Medieval Institute Publications, Univ. Press at Kalamazoo & ARC Humanities Press, forthcoming in 2019; “Ideas of Time and Age in the Chronicles of the Crusades”. In Sources for the Crusades: Textual Tradition and Literary Influences, ed. by Léan Ni Chléirigh and Natasha Hodgson. The Crusades, Subsidia. Routledge, forthcoming in 2020/2021. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Athina, “The attitude of the soldiers in warfare as reflected in the Byzantine sources (9th–12th centuries)”, in the Journées d’étude INHA: La violence des soldats dans les récits de guerre, de l’Antiquité à l’époque contemporaine, Paris, 6–7 juin 2014; “ ‘Mirror of officials’: searching for the ideal and real image of dignitaries in the ninth and tenth centuries”, in Efi Ragia (ed.), in the Proceedings of the international workshop: ˝Social˝ Profiles and ˝Social˝ Groups: Perceptions of Social Position in Byzantium, Athens, 2019/2020; “The multidimensional personality and varied oeuvre of Konstantinos Amantos. A biographical approach”, in the Proceedings of the Congress: Konstantinos Amantos. Teacher, Scientist, Citizen”, Chios, 5–8 May 2016, 2019/2020. Lewis, Katherine J., ‘The passage of Edward Duc of Guyon’: Narrative depictions of Lord Edward’s Crusade’, in Crusading and Ideas of the Holy Land in Medieval Britain, eds Kathryn Hurlock & Laura Whatley (Brepols: Turnhout, 2020); ‘Margery Kempe, Oral History and the Value of Intersubjectivity’, in Encountering the Book of Margery Kempe, eds Laura Varnam and Laura Kalas Williams (Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2020); Catherine of Valois: The Elusive Queen’, in English Consorts: Power, Influence, Dynasty, vol. 2, Later Plantagenet and Wars of the Roses Consorts, eds Joanna Laynesmith and Eleanor Woodacre (Palgrave McMillan: London, 2021). Ligato, Giuseppe, “Acri al tempo di frate Elia da Cortona”, in Conferenze e celebrazioni per l’800° anniversario della fondazione della Provincia francescana di Terra Santa (Gerusalemme, 17–19 ottobre 2017); “Il contesto cortese dell’incontro tra Francesco e il sultano,” Atti della V edizione delle giornate di archeologia e storia del Vicino e Medio Oriente (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 10 maggio 2019); Le armate di Dio. Templari, ospitalieri e cavalieri teutonici (book). Loud, Graham A., Pergamene scelte della badia di Cava, 1097–1200 (Istituto di studi normanni, Ariano Irpino, end 2019); The Social World of the Abbey of Cava, c. 1020–1300 (Boydell, 2021); ‘Frederick II and the Crusade’, in The Cambridge History of the Crusades, ed. Andrew Jotischky, Thomas Madden and Jonathan Phillips (Cambridge U.P., 2020); ‘Crusade and holy war in the chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck’, in Texts and Contexts: Studies in Religious and Intellectual History presented to I. S. Robinson, ed. Thomas McCarthy and Christine Meek (University of Amsterdam Press 2020); ‘The Abbey of Cava and the Bishops of Capaccio: an early thirteenth-century Canon Law Dispute from Southern Italy’, in Canon Law in the Long Twelfth Century (c.1073–1234). Essays for Anne Duggan, ed. Travis Baker (2020); ‘The posthumous reputation of Abbot Peter of Cava’, in Medioevo mediterraneo: incontri, scambi e confronti. Studi in onore di Salvatore Fodale, ed. Patrizia Sardina, Daniela Santoro, Maria Antonetta Russo and Marcello Pacifico (2020). Marshall, Chris, (with Steve Tibble) “Warfare in the Latin East, 1097–1291,” in The Cambridge History of the Crusades, Volume II: Expansion, Impact and Decline (expected 2020/21). Marvin, Laurence W., “Raymond VI,” in The Worst Military Leaders in History, ed. John M. Jennings and Charles Steele, Reaktion Press (under contract). Marx, Alexander, “Constructing and denying the enemy: Cistercian approaches to the Third Crusade’s preaching (1187–92),” in: Cîteaux (forthcoming, 2019/2020); “Multilingualism and crusade preaching in the late twelfth century: Methodological challenges and

286

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

approaches,” in Proceedings of ‘Understanding Multilingual Sermons of the Middle Ages’, ed. Jan Odstrčilík (Brepols, forthcoming, 2019/2020). Musarra, Antonio, “I molti orizzonti di un manoscritto ‘mediterraneo’. Il codice ‘Cocharelli’ tra Acri, Cipro e Genova,” in Il codice Cocharelli: il manoscritto e il suo contesto, ed. Chiara Concina and Francesca Fabbri, in Medioevi [2020]; “Rotte, scali ed equipaggi genovesi tra Mediterraneo e mar Nero (XIV–XV secc.),” in Per omnia litora. Interazioni artistiche, politiche e commerciali lungo le rotte del Mediterraneo fra XIV e XV secolo, Atti de Convegno (Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore, 9–10 giugno 2017), ed. Caterina Fioravanti and Alessandro Diana [2020]; Multi-ethnic Cities in the Mediterranean World, vol. 1, Cultures and Practices of Coexistence, 13th–17th Centuries, edited by Marco Folin and Antonio Musarra, London, Routledge [2020]; “Da Antonio di Padova a Fidenzio da Padova. Le crociate, i Minori e la Terrasanta nel XIII secolo,” in La basilica di Sant’Antonio in Padova. Archeologia Storia Arte Musica, ed. L. Bertazzo and Girolamo Zampieri [2020]; Il Grifo e il Leone. Genova, Venezia e la supremazia sul Mediterraneo, Roma-Bari, Laterza [2020]. Nicholson, Helen J., ‘The Military Orders’ in A Companion to Chivalry, ed. Robert Jones and Peter Coss (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, due July 2019); ‘The construction of a primary source: the creation of Itinerarium Peregrinorum 1’, for a special edition of Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes on L’écriture de la croisade, edited by Catherine Croizy-Naquet, due for publication in issue 37 (2019). Parsons, Simon Thomas, ‘The Gran Conquista de Ultramar, its Precursors, and the Counts of Saint-Pol’, Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture 5 (2019). Perra, Photeine V., “‘The City has fallen’. From A.D. 1204 to 1453: the two great ‘losses’ of medieval Hellenism and the two Constantines of the respective captures,” Annual Yearbook of the School of Humanities and Cultural Studies, University of the Peloponnese (Athens, Herodotos Publications, 2019) [in Greek]; “From Byzantine to Hospitaller Rhodes. Pages from the Medieval History of Southeastern Aegean,” Domus Byzantinus 27 (2019) [in Greek]; “Cyprus as an independent Frankish Kingdom” and “Cyprus as a Venetian domain” in History of Cyprus, ed. S. Neokleous (Publication of the Foundation of Hellenism, 2019) [in Greek]. Purkis, William J., “‘Holy Christendom’s New Colony’: The Extraction of Sacred Matter and the Colonial Status of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” The Haskins Society Journal 30 (forthcoming: 2019). Russo, Luigi, “Par mer ou par terre? Les itinéraries des pèlerins vers la Terre Sainte (fin XIe– debut XIII siècle),” in Itinérances maritimes en Méditerranée du Moyen Âge à la première modernité, ed. S. Gorgievski, Paris 2019, forthcoming. Schabel, Christopher, “Documents on the Election of Master Henry of Bedford of the Order of Saint Thomas of Canterbury, Cyprus, 1310,” for Eπετηρίδα του Κέντρου Επιστημονικών Ερευνών 39 (2017–18); “Pierre de Rieuforcat, Abbot of Cistercian Beaulieu in Nicosia, and His Oath to the Pope,” for Eπετηρίδα του Κέντρου Επιστημονικών Ερευνών 39 (2017– 18); “International Efforts to Solve the Cyprus Problem after ‘74: A Letter from Philippe de Mézières to Federigo Cornaro, 1382 (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 499),” for Eπετηρίδα του Κέντρου Επιστημονικών Ερευνών 39 (2017–18); “The Church of Famagusta,” in G. Grivaud, A. Nicolaou-Konnari, and C. Schabel (eds.), Famagusta: History and Society, Turnhout: Brepols, 2020; (with William Duba), “A Documentary History of St Theodore Abbey,” in M. Olympios and C. Schabel (eds.), A Cistercian Nunnery in the Latin East: The History and Archaeology of St Theodore Abbey, Nicosia, Cyprus, Leiden: Brill, 2020;

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

287

“Tolerating the Greeks? Augustinian Hermits on the Filioque from the Black Death to the Great Schism,” in M.W. Dunne and S. Gottlöber (eds.), Toleration and Concepts of Otherness in Medieval Philosophy, Turnhout: Brepols, 2020; (with Peter Edbury), “The Papacy and King Peter I of Cyprus,” in A.D. Beihammer and A. Nicolaou-Konnari (eds.), Knighthood, Crusades, and Diplomacy in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Time of King Peter I of Cyprus, Turnhout: Brepols, 2020; “Piracy on the Side: A Genoese Armada in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1383,” in G. Saint-Guillain (ed.), Individus, piraterie, représailles et contrebande en Méditerranée orientale et Adriatique (XIIe–XVe siècle). Schrader, Helena P., “The ‘Wonder of the World’ confronts a Righteous Baron,” Medieval Warfare, Karwansaray Publishers (forthcoming). Shepard, Jonathan, ‘Anna Komnena as a Source for the Crusades’, in A. Mallett (ed.), Franks and Crusades in Medieval Eastern Christian Historiography (Turnhout, 2019 forthcoming); ‘The Knowledge of the West in Byzantine Sources’, in S. Kolditz et al. (eds.), Byzantium and the West 850–1204 (Leiden, 2020 forthcoming). Siberry, Elizabeth J., “Memorials to crusaders. The use of crusade imagery in British First World War memorials,” in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East [= SSCLE 9 Odense], ed. Kurt Villads Jensen and Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen, Outremer: Studies in the Crusades and the Latin East (Turnhout, Brepols). Spacey, Beth C., “Refocusing the First Crusade: Authorial Self-Fashioning and the Miraculous in William of Tyre’s Historia Ierosolymitana”, in Remembering the Crusades in Medieval Texts and Songs, ed. A.D. Buck and T.W. Smith, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, forthcoming 2019; The Miraculous and the Writing of Crusade Narrative, Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, forthcoming 2020. Spencer, Stephen John, Emotions in a Crusading Context, 1095–1291 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2019); ‘Feelings of Betrayal and Echoes of the First Crusade in Odo of Deuil’s De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem’, Historical Research, 92/258 (forthcoming 2019); ‘Fear, Fortitude and Masculinity in William of Malmesbury’s Retelling of the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin East’, Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture, special issue to be simultaneously published as Remembering the Crusades in Medieval Texts and Songs, ed. Andrew Buck and Thomas Smith (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, forthcoming 2019). Sweetenham, Carol, “When the saints go marching in: the memory of the miraculous in the sources for the First Crusade,” forthcoming in Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East [= SSCLE 9 Odense], ed. Kurt Villads Jensen and Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen, Outremer: Studies in the Crusades and the Latin East (Turnhout, Brepols); “‘Por ce qu’i mielz l’entendent qui ne sunt letré’: translating the story of the First Crusade,” forthcoming in proceedings of the Haifa conference 2018, The Latin East in the Thirteenth Century; “2000 cows and 4000 pigs at one sitting: was the Gesta Francorum written to be performed in Latin?” forthcoming in proceedings of the 2017 Medieval Chronicles Conference, Lisbon. Villegas-Aristizabal, Lucas, ‘Conquest, Grant or Sack?: Exploring the Reason for the Changing Priorities in the Norman Involvement in the Iberian Peninsula c. 1018–1191’, in Normans in the Mediterranean, ed. Emily Winkler, Andrew Small, and Liam Fitzgerald, Turnhout: Brepols, 2020; (with Dominic Alessio), ‘Re-thinking Religion and Empire: NonState Organisations from the Knights Hospitallers to ISIS’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 22 (2020); ‘A Frisian Perspective on Crusading in Iberia as Part of the Sea

288

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

Journey to the Holy Land 1217–1218’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 15 (2020). 5. Work in progress Balard, Michel, Spices in the Middle Ages [book]. Bass, Ian, is working on finishing his thesis. He then plans to work on an edition of English medieval last testaments between 1066–1300. It is hoped that one output will be a follow-up article for Crusades on bequests to the Holy Land subsidy in these testaments, contextualised against the questions in the articles of inquiry. He is also in the planning stages of two major projects on St Thomas de Cantilupe, bishop of Hereford (1275–82). The first is an edition of Cantilupe’s household roll for the period 1286–87, covering his excommunication and journey to Rome, as well as a new edition of the household roll of his successor Richard de Swinfield (1283–1317). The second is a monograph-length biography of St Thomas. Several other studies are currently in progress: i) a locally produced short book on St Thomas of Hereford, co-authored with the Dean of Hereford, the Very Reverend Michael Tavinor, to be published by Logaston Press in 2020; ii) a short article on a previously unidentified errant Templar and a court case he was involved in (based on research in a chapter of the PhD thesis); iii) “‘Ignoble Pilgrims?’ The Lists of Crusaders in Archbishop Walter Giffard of York’s Register, 1274–76,” (article summarizing the results of a PhD thesis case study); iv) “Bishop Cantilupe is Dead! Long Live St Thomas of Hereford! The Effects of St Thomas of Hereford’s Miraculous Cult,” invited submission for a special edition of History on 2020 anniversaries of British saints (expected publication 2020); v) “The ‘Unknown Layman’: An Unidentified Medieval Monument in Hereford Cathedral,” journal article in peerreview; vi) “Lincolnshire and the Third Crusade: The List of Crusaders from the Deanery of Holland,” – as mentioned in Bulletin no. 38 – revised journal article and edition currently in peer-review. Bird, Jessalynn, Heresy, Crusade and Reform in the Circle of Peter the Chanter (Oxford University Press, contract signed); The “History of the West” (Historia Occidentalis) of Jacques de Vitry, Liverpool University Press, translation with critical introduction and notes, in progress (contract signed); The “Eastern History” (Historia Orientalis) of Jacques de Vitry, Ashgate Crusade Texts in Translation series, in progress (contract signed with Routledge); Still engaged in projects described in previous bulletins (prophecy, crusade sermon editions). Bisaha, Nancy, is working on a study of Pope Pius II’s role in the articulation of the modern concepts of Europe and Asia. Burgtorf, Jochen, The Templars: The Rise, Fall, and Legacy of a Military Religious Order (together with Shlomo Lotan and Enric Mallorquí-Ruscalleda), [edited collection of articles]; William of St. Stephen’s Saterian (1296): A Hospitaller Legal Treatise from Paris, BNF, fr. 6049 [edition, translation, and commentary]; Refugees during the Crusades [monograph]. Carraz, Damien, Epigraphy of the Military Orders (development of a database for France). Cerrini, Simonetta, edizione critica della Regola del Tempio (Une expérience neuve au sein de la spiritualité médiévale: l'Ordre du Temple, 1120 – 1314. Etude et édition des règles latine et française), Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis (Brepols); Histoire de la spiritualité et de la culture des Ordres militaires et religieux, en particulier des Templiers. Chollet, Loïc, is working on Pouvoir, hérésie et religion dans l’Occident et le Japon médiéval: étude comparée, team research project financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (2018–2021); he is also preparing the book Les Dernières croisades. Défense et expansion de la Chrétienté à la fin du Moyen Âge, Paris, Vendémiaire.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

289

Chrissis, Nikolaos, (with Marie-Hélène Blanchet) “Accusations of Heresy between East and West”, in R. Flower (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Heresy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in progress); “Crusades against the Byzantines”, in M. Carr, Gianluca Raccagni, and N. Chrissis (eds.), Crusading against Christians in the Middle Ages (London: Palgrave Macmillan, in progress); “Crusades against Christians, 1200–1500”, in J. Harris (ed.), The New Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in progress). Christie, Niall, chapter on ‘Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami for a collection edited by Alex Mallett. Coureas, Nicholas, King Henry II of Cyprus, part of the series Rulers of the Latin East, ed. by N. Morton and J. Phillips; The Burgesses of the Lusignan Kingdom of Cyprus 1191–1473 (monograph) for the Cyprus Research Centre. Dragnea, Mihai, Hippomancy in the Baltic Region: Desacralization of the Wendish Sacred Horses (2020); Between Prayer and Sword: the Conversion of the Wends in the Twelfth Century (2020–2021). Edbury, Peter, The Chronique d’Ernoul and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation of William of Tyre, edited by Peter Edbury and Massimiliano Gaggero (Brill). Favreau-Lilie, Marie-Luise, Italien und der islamische Orient zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge (book). Folda, Jaroslav, “Crusader Sculpture at Nazareth: Some Reconsiderations,” for a volume of studies in honor of Nurith Kenaan-Kedar, eds. Gil Fishhof, et al., de Gruyter, 30 pp., submitted March 2018. Forey, Alan, The Papacy and the Spanish Reconquest; Bernard of Fuentes: A Templar in Christian and Muslim Service; Aspects of Templar Conventual Life in the West, c.1250– 1307. Gaggero, Massimiliano, Study of the manuscript tradition of the Eracles (with a focus on the Continuations of William of Tyre); Collaboration to the forthcoming new edition of the Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier and the Acre Continuation of William of Tyre by Peter Edbury. Irwin, Robert, A History of the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and Syria (1250–1517). Josserand, Philippe, “Jacques de Molay et le gouvernement de l’ordre du Temple,” conference to be held in Poznan (Poland), summer 2020; “Autour de la naissance de l’ordre du Temple: histoire, écriture et historiographie,” conference to be held in Troyes, autumn 2020. Kangas, Sini, The Concept of the Crusade and Christian Violence. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Athina, War and peace in Byzantium (7th–13th c.). See also Bulletin 37 (2017). Lewis, Katherine J., is continuing to work on the interrelationships between crusading, masculinity and chivalry in late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century England, as described in previous bulletins. She is also working on women and power in late medieval England. Ligato, Giuseppe: more researches concerning the Lombard crusade of 1101 and the Fifth Crusade. Marshall, Chris, is working on 13th century military history and crusaders’ motivation and mindsets (as in Bulletin 2018). Marvin, Laurence W., “Command,” in The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Warfare, ed. John France, Daniel P. Franke and Clifford J. Rogers; ongoing work on book-length monograph of a military history of the Fifth Crusade.

290

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

Marx, Alexander, preparation of a Post-Doc project on crusade sermons and preaching in the twelfth century. Musarra, Antonio, is completing a book on the presence of the Friars Minor in the Holy Land between the 13th and 14th centuries. Nicholson, Helen J., The Templars, the Hospitallers and the Crusades: Essays in Homage to Alan J. Forey, edited with Jochen Burgtorf, contracted to be published in Routledge’s series ‘The Military Religious Orders’ – as described in Bulletin no. 36; The Knights Templars’ English and Welsh Estates, 1308–13, transcription and analysis of the inventories and accounts of the Templars’ properties in England and Wales during the trial of the Templars (documents at Kew, The National Archives of the UK) – as described in bulletin no. 29; The Knights Templar, a book for ARC Humanities Press – as described in Bulletin no. 37; Sybil of Jerusalem: the Queen who never let go: a book for Routledge’s ‘Rulers of the Latin East’ series – as described in Bulletin no. 37; Women in Crusading, a trade book for Oxford University Press – as described in Bulletin no. 37. Parsons, Simon Thomas: a monograph on the textual traditions of the First Crusade and their interrelation and nature; an article on the chanson de geste formulaic combat as constituted in hemistichal blocks; and an article on ‘Women at the Walls: Gender, Competition, and Teichoscopy on the First Crusade’; Preparing a full (online) edition and translation of the Siège d’Antioche in collaboration with Fordham University, Linda Paterson, Carol Sweetenham, and Lauren Mullholland. Paterson, Linda M.: an online edition and translation of the Siège d’Antioche, with Simon Parsons, Carol Sweetenham and Lauren Mulholland. Purkis, William J., ‘The Crusaders and their Relics’, for The Cambridge History of the Crusades, ed. Marcus Bull, Thomas F. Madden, Andrew Jotischky and Jonathan Phillips; Sacred Treasure: Crusaders, Relics, and the Medieval War for the Holy Land (book, for Yale University Press); (ed. with Andrew Jotischky), A Companion to Medieval Pilgrimage, (for Arc Humanities Press). Russo, Luigi, (with Franco Cardini), a book about pilgrimage, Viareggio 2019 (about 250 pp.). Schabel, Christopher, “Latin Cyprus under the Lusignans,” for J. Philipps, ed., The Cambridge History of the Crusades; Bullarium Cyprium, 1316–1378; Bullarium Hellenicum, 1227–1261; Updated RRH, papal letters 1243–1291. Spencer, Stephen John: a Leverhulme ECF project entitled ‘Information Dissemination and Contested Memory: The Third Crusade, 1187–1300’, at King’s College London. Sweetenham, Carol: edition and translation of the Siège d’Antioche in collaboration with Linda Paterson and Simon Parsons; translation of the Chevalier au Cygne texts. Villegas-Aristizabal, Lucas, ‘Contextualising De itinere frisonum as a Source for Seaborne Pilgrimages to the Holy Land 1217–1218’, Historical Research (2021; revising corrections); ‘Understanding Navigation Technology from De itinere frisonum during the Fifth Crusade’ (2021). 6. Theses in progress Bagni, Giampiero, Templars in Bologna: A Multidisciplinary Approach, PhD, Nottingham Trent University, supervised by Dr Nicholas Morton Bass, Ian, The Crozier and the Cross: Crusading and the English Episcopate, c.1170–1313, PhD, The Manchester Metropolitan University, supervised by Dr Kathryn Hurlock and Dr Roadmund Oates.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

291

Carter, Leo, A Regional Study of Crusading Enthusiasm in South East England during the 12th to 15th Centuries, PhD, Royal Holloway, University of London, supervised by Professors Andrew Jotischky and Jonathan Phillips. Prost, Marco, Du stratagème à la fiction: La ruse comme engien génératif dans les chansons de gestes et les romans des XIIème et XIIIème siècles, PhD, University of Lausanne, supervised by Prof. Alain Corbellari (Lausanne & Neuchâtel) and Prof. Françoise Le Saux (Reading). 7. Fieldwork planned or undertaken recently Chollet, Loïc: western stereotypes on the crusading fronts (Spain, Hungary, Balkans, Baltic and Eastern Mediterranean); Political use of the discourse against heresy and/or “deviance”. Lascurain Bernstorff, Ignacio Garcia, a research project on the awareness of the Levant in five representative cathedral archives in Spain in the High Middle Ages. Loud, Graham A.: two visits to the Archivio della badia di S. Trinità di Cava, May and October 2019, for research among the unpublished charters of this abbey. Musarra, Antonio, “The 11th century Reformation, the First Crusade and the rise of selfgovernment in central-northern Italy: three stories, a result”; “Before the Custodia: The Minors and the Holy Land between the 13th and 14th centuries”; “The Italians and the Crusades”. 8. News of interest to members a) Conferences and seminars The SSCLE sponsors sessions each year at the Annual Symposium on Medieval and Renaissance Studies in St Louis, Missouri in mid-June. To propose a paper, submit an abstract to Thomas F Madden at [email protected]. The Crusades Studies Forum at Saint Louis University is the oldest continuous forum for the presentation of new research by scholars worldwide and the discussion of new directions in crusade studies. It meets twelve times per year and also sponsors the quadrennial International Symposium on Crusade Studies. SSCLE members are welcome to attend and present. More information is available at http://crusades.slu.edu. Taught-MA in Hospitaller Studies: programme of studies dedicated specifically to the study of the Order of St John from its inception to 1798. This is run by the Department of History of the University of Malta. Also: Taught-MA in Mediterranean Studies: interdisciplinary programme of studies focusing in a holistic manner on the Mediterranean. This will be run by the Faculty of Arts of the University of Malta. For information please contact emanuel. [email protected] Musarra, Antonio, organises a specialist course at the Sapienza University of Rome dedicated to the Crusades and the Latin East, from the academic year 2019–2020. b) Other information The Crusading Masculinities Network (#crusmasc) was instigated by Natasha Hodgson, Katharine Lewis and Matthew Mesley after a workshop on the same theme held in Zürich in March/April 2016, which was part-funded by the SSCLE. It seeks to bring together scholars from the fields of gender history and crusader studies, in order to examine and highlight the variety of masculinities which were represented in the context of the crusades. For more information see our website https://crusadingmasculinities.wordpress.com/ or contact

292

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

[email protected]; [email protected] or mm.mesley@gmail. com. Northern Network for the Study of the Crusades (NNSC). The Network provides an interdisciplinary regional hub for scholars at all stages of their career with a view to fostering crossinstitutional interaction and collaboration, sharing news and announcements, and promoting the study of the history of the crusades and all its related fields of investigation. For more information http://nnscrusades.wordpress.com or contact Dr Jason T. Roche on J.T.Roche@ mmu.ac.uk; Steering Committee: Natasha Hodgson – Nottingham Trent University; Kathryn Hurlock – Manchester Metropolitan University; Damien Kempf – University of Liverpool; Alex Metcalfe – Lancaster University; Nic Morton – Nottingham Trent University; Alan Murray – University of Leeds; Jason T. Roche – Manchester Metropolitan University. Jonathan Riley-Smith’s Röhrichts Regesta Revised (RRR) database [http://www.crusadesregesta.com/]. This project aims to compile a calendar of all the charters, other legal or formal documents and letters that were composed between 1098 and 1291 in the Latin kingdoms of Jerusalem and Cyprus, the principality of Antioch and the counties of Edessa and Tripoli or were addressed to individuals in those settlements. The new calendar is based on Reinhold Röhricht’s Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani (1893–1904). Every RRR entry has been carefully rechecked against the latest or best edition of the original document and has been redrafted and rendered in English. The RRR database is also fuller than the original, as many newly discovered documents have been added, and all the protocols of the rulers of the settlements and references to all eleemosynary grants were included. This resource will be of the greatest importance for scholars as well as a tool to introduce students to the valuable range of material from the Latin East. It currently contains 2,457 entries ranging from 1098 to 1244. Parsons, Simon Thomas: Some primary sources which could be used for teaching can be found at cfoproject.org Purkis, William J.: A) As part of the AHRC Leadership Fellows project Bearers of the Cross: Material Religion in the Crusading World, 1095–c.1300, William Purkis and Rosie Weetch have produced an online, open access database of the medieval collections of the Museum of the Order of St John, London: https://www.bearersofthecross.org.uk. B) Crusading in Context is a new book series published by Boydell & Brewer, edited by William Purkis, which aims to situate the medieval experience of the crusades and crusading societies in the broader social, cultural and intellectual contexts of the Middle Ages as a whole. For further details, including the call for manuscripts, please see https://boydellandbrewer.com/series/ crusading-in-context.html. c) Annual Bernard Hamilton Essay Prize In honour of the former president and honorary president of the SSCLE, Professor Bernard Hamilton (1932–2019), and in recognition of his enormous contribution to the society and support of young scholars, the SSCLE awards an annual essay prize. The Rules • The essay should be on any aspect of history, art history or archaeology of the Crusader period or otherwise relating to Crusader studies. • Any current doctoral student, or an individual who is within two years of receiving their doctorate is eligible to enter the competition.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

293

• The essay, excluding references and bibliography must not normally exceed 6,000 words and must conform with the editorial requirements of the SSCLE journal Crusades (available on the SSCLE webpage and in the Bulletin/Journal). • Essays submitted elsewhere for competitions or publication will not be eligible for the prize. • The essays must be submitted as electronic copies as an e-mail attachment, to Professor Jonathan Phillips (email: [email protected]) the SSCLE Postgraduate Officer, by 31 December in the corresponding year. • Essays should be accompanied by details of the author’s name, address (including email address), institutional affiliation and degree registration. The Decision • The essays will be read by a jury consisting of a panel drawn from the Committee of the SSCLE and the editors of Crusades. • The jury panel reserves the right not to award a prize in any particular year. • The jury decision will be announced in April. • The decision of the jury is final. • The winner of the essay competition will have their paper put forward to Crusades where, subject to the normal procedures of satisfactory reports from two anonymous external referees (and, if required, the chance to modify, amend or improve the piece on their advice), it will be published under the title ‘Bernard Hamilton Essay Prize’. • Names of prize winners will be posted on the SSCLE webpage and announced in the Bulletin. 9. Members’ queries Simonetta Cerrini: pour pouvoir publier l’édition critique de la Règle du Temple (Troyes, 1129), dont la dernière edition est datée 1905, j’ai besoin de financements. La Règle latine (et sa version en français d’Outremer) sera publiée dans le Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis (Brepols -Belgique). Nicholas Morton is the co-editor of two book series and he would be interested to hear from members interested in submitting proposals for either. They are: 1. Rulers of the Latin East (Ashgate, co-editor Professor Jonathan Phillips); 2. The Military Religious Orders: History – Sources – Memory (Routledge, co-editor Professor Jochen Burgtorf). 10. Financial Statement 2019 (6 June 2018 – 6 June 2019) This has been a quiet year. The main points of interest are as follows: 1. The Society’s finances have increased slightly from last year, mostly because of the increase in funds from subscriptions. Our main expenditures were the journal orders, the funding of two conferences, the translation of promotional materials and the subscription to Wild Apricot for our website. 2. In terms of membership, by the end of the 2018 membership year (early 2019) we had 312 paid-up members, which is slightly down from the 319 recorded for the 2017 membership year. However, now that we record our memberships through the website, the data is far more accurate than in previous years, which were slightly inflated (e.g. due to the recording of joint memberships, pre-payments, life-time memberships, etc.). The number of members recorded for this year is therefore the most accurate and probably highest in the Society’s history. It seems likely that our total membership for 2019 will be similar to 2018.

294

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

3.

The main challenge this year has been the rolling out of the SSCLE’s new website for memberships, which has gone very smoothly thanks to the hard work of our website administrator Kyle Lincoln. Already the website has made the recording of memberships and financial details far more efficient and secure. In the coming years we hope to further take advantage of its features by introducing automatic renewal payments. 4. For the past two years the US dollar account, administered by James Ryan, has received no incomings or outgoings. The Society has therefore decided to close this account after the end of this financial year. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Jim for his hard work in managing the account and for his services to the SSCLE over the years. May I also offer my ongoing thanks to Michel Balard for his hard work managing our Société Générale account. Finally, I would like once again express my gratitude both to the SSCLE financial team and also to the SSCLE members for their support and courtesy. Respectfully submitted, Mike Carr, Treasurer UK sterling accounts (£)

US dollar accounts ($)1

Euro accounts (€)2

£18,180.49

$7,402.80

€10,290.18

Total Income Subscriptions Interest

£6,276.54 £6,258.93 £17.61

$489.00 $425.00 $64.00

€1,170.89 €1,170.89

Total Expenditure Journal (all orders) Funding for the Crossing Boundaries conference (Cambridge, Apr 2019) Funding for the Crusading Identities Symposium (Huddersfield, Feb 2019) Translations of SSCLE promotional material Wild Apricot Subscription Charges and refunds

£6,808.69 £5,182.00 £400.00

Account Balances 6 June 2018

Account Balances 6 June 2019

€110.50

£200.00 £184.65

€110.50

£789.33 £52.71 £17,648.34

$7,891.80

€11,350.57

Notes to accounts: 1   I am indebted to James Ryan for keeping the accounts for the SSCLE’s US-based account. These accounts form part of the basis for the numbers supplied here. 2  I am indebted to Michel Balard for his assistance in managing the society’s Société Générale account.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

295

11. Officers of the Society (2018–2019) President: Professor Adrian Boas. Honorary Presidents: Professor Jean Richard, Professor Benjamin Z. Kedar, Professor Michel Balard, Professor Bernard Hamilton†. Secretary: Professor François-Olivier Touati. Conference Secretary: Professor Jonathan Phillips. Editor of the Bulletin: Dr Nikolaos G. Chrissis. Postgraduate Members: Professor Jonathan Phillips. Treasurer: Dr Mike Carr. Assistant Treasurer: Dr Danielle Park. Webmaster: Dr Kyle C. Lincoln.

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES

297

Crusades: Guidelines for the Submission of Papers The editors ask contributors to adhere to the following guidelines. Failure to do so will result in the article being returned to the author for amendment, or may result in its having to be excluded from the volume. 1. Submissions. Submissions should be sent as email attachments to one of the editors (contact details below). Papers should be formatted using MS Word, double-spaced and with wide margins. Times New Roman (12 pt) is preferred. Remember to include your name and contact details (both postal and email addresses) on your paper. 2. Peer Review. All submissions will be peer reviewed. They will be scrutinized by the editors and sent to at least one outside reader before a decision on acceptance is made. 3. Length. Normally, the maximum length of articles should not exceed 6,000 words, not including notes. The editors reserve the right to edit papers that exceed these limits. 4. Notes. Normally, notes should be REFERENCE ONLY and placed at the end of the paper. Number continuously. 5. Style sheet. Please use the most recent Speculum style sheet (see: http://www. medievalacademy.org/?page=stylesheet). This sets out the format to be used for notes. Please note that this is not necessarily the same format as has been used by other edited volumes on the crusades and/or the Military Orders. Failure to follow the Speculum format will result in accepted articles being returned to the author for amendment. In the main body of the paper you may adhere to either British or American spelling, but it must be consistent throughout the article. 6. Language. Papers will be published in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. 7. Abbreviations. Please use the abbreviation list on pp. vii–ix of this journal. 8. Diagrams and Maps should be referred to as figures and photographs as plates. Please keep illustrations to the essential minimum, since it will be possible to include only a limited number. All illustrations must be supplied by the contributor in camera-ready copy, and free from all copyright restrictions. 9. Italics. Words to be printed in italics should be italicised if possible. Failing this they should be underlined. 10. Capitals. Please take every care to ensure consistency in your use of capitals and lower-case letters. Use initial capitals to distinguish the general from the specific (for example, “the count of Flanders” but “Count Philip of Flanders”). 11. Summary of Article. Contributors will be required to provide a 250 words summary of their paper at the start of each article. This will be accompanied by the author’s email address. The summary of the paper is to be in English, regardless of the language of the main article.

Submission of papers to either of the editors: Professor Benjamin Z. Kedar Department of History The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem 9190501, Israel [email protected]

Professor Jonathan Phillips Department of History, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, England, UK [email protected]

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE CRUSADES AND THE LATIN EAST MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION The primary function of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East is to enable members to learn about current work being done in the field of crusading history, and to contact members who share research interests through the information in the Society’s Bulletin. There are more than 300 members from 41 countries. The Society also organizes a major international conference every four years, as well as sections on crusading history at other conferences where appropriate. The committee of the SSCLE consists of: Prof. Adrian J. Boas, President Prof. Jean Richard, Prof. Benjamin Z. Kedar and Prof. Michel Balard, Honorary Presidents Prof. François-Olivier Touati, Secretary Dr Danielle Park, Treasurer Dr Simon Parsons, Assistant Treasurer Prof. Jonathan Phillips, Officer for Postgraduate Members and Conference Secretary Dr Nikolaos G. Chrissis, Bulletin Editor Dr Kyle C. Lincoln, Website Current subscription fees are as follows: • Membership and Bulletin of the Society: Single £10, $12 or €12; • Student £6, $7 or €7; • Joint membership £15, $19 or €18 (for two members sharing the same household); • Membership and the journal Crusades, including the Bulletin: please add to your subscription fees: £25, $31 or €29 for a hard copy, OR £15, $19 or €18 for an electronic copy of the journal; • If a member wishes to purchase back issues of Crusades, each back issue costs £35, $43 or €41. The cost of the journal to institutions and non-members is £120, US$155.