The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck [1° ed.] 1138211788, 9781138211780

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
Maps
Genealogical charts
Introduction
The life and work of Abbot Arnold
Lübeck in the time of Arnold
Why did Arnold write his chronicle?
Arnold and the Crusade
Arnold and ‘other’ peoples
Texts copied within the chronicle
Manuscripts and editions
Prologue
Book I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Book II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Book III
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Book IV
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Book V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Book VI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Book VII
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Appendix: Frederick II recognises Lübeck as an imperial city and
lists its special privileges (June 1226)
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

THE CHRONICLE OF ARNOLD OF LÜBECK The chronicle of Arnold, Abbot of the monastery of St John of Lübeck, is one of the most important sources for the history of Germany in the central Middle Ages, and is also probably the major source for German involvement in the Crusades. The work was intended as a continuation of the earlier chronicle of Helmold of Bosau, and covers the years 1172–1209, in seven books. It was completed soon after the latter date, and the author died not long afterwards, and no later than 1214. It is thus a strictly contemporary work, which greatly enhances its value. Abbot Arnold’s very readable chronicle provides a fascinating glimpse into German society in the time of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and his immediate successors, into a crucial period of the Crusading movement, and also into the religious mentality of the Middle Ages.

Graham A. Loud is Professor of Medieval History at the University of Leeds, where he was Head of the School of History 2012–15. He holds a Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship 2017–19, during which he is working on a book about the social history of the principality of Salerno, c.1020–1300, as revealed by the charters of the abbey of Holy Trinity, Cava. Among his previous books are The Age of Robert Guiscard. Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (Harlow 2000), The Latin Church in Norman Italy (Cambridge 2007), Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily (Manchester 2012), and The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350, edited with Jochen Schenk (Routledge 2017). He has also translated The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa for the series ‘Crusade Texts in Translation’ (2010).

Crusade Texts in Translation Editorial Board Malcolm Barber (Reading), Peter Edbury (Cardiff), Norman Housley (Leicester), Peter Jackson (Keele) The crusading movement, which originated in the 11th century and lasted beyond the 16th, bequeathed to its future historians a legacy of sources which are unrivalled in their range and variety. These sources document in fascinating detail the motivations and viewpoints, military efforts and spiritual lives of the participants in the crusades. They also narrate the internal histories of the states and societies which crusaders established or supported in the many regions where they fought. Some of these sources have been translated in the past but the vast majority have been available only in their original language. The goal of this series is to provide a wide-ranging corpus of texts, most of them translated for the first time, which will illuminate the history of the crusades and the crusader-states from every angle, including that of their principal adversaries, the Muslim powers of the Middle East. Titles in the series include Graham A. Loud The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck Carol Sweetenham The Chanson des Chétifs and Chanson de Jérusalem Anne Van Arsdall and Helen Moody The Old French Chronicle of Morea Keagan Brewer Prester John: The Legend and its Sources Martin Hall and Jonathan Phillips Caffaro, Genoa and the Twelfth-Century Crusades Denys Pringle Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291

The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck

Translated by

GRAHAM A. LOUD

First published 2019 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 © 2019 Graham A. Loud The right of G.A. Loud to be identified as author of this translation has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-21178-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-05324-5 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK

Contents

Preface Abbreviations Maps Genealogical charts Introduction 1

vi vii viii x 1

Prologue

38

Book I

39

2

Book II

63

3

Book III

92

4

Book IV

132

5

Book V

164

6

Book VI

227

7

Book VII

261

Appendix: Frederick II recognises Lübeck as an imperial city and lists its special privileges (June 1226) Bibliography Index

303 307 316

Preface

My interest in the Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck began with a casual conversation many years ago with Bernard Hamilton, the former president of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. This led me to read the chronicle for the first time, if rather too hurriedly. Much later, I looked at this text in greater depth when searching for primary sources to present to the students taking my third-year option at the University of Leeds on ‘Emperor and Authority in Medieval Germany’, for whom I translated Arnold’s account of the downfall of Henry the Lion. I returned to his chronicle once again while working on my previous translation in this series, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, and it was while completing that work that I decided to produce a complete translation of Arnold’s chronicle as a companion volume. The attentive reader will note that I have called this work simply ‘the Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck’ – for reasons that are explained in the introduction the traditional title of ‘the Chronicle of the Slavs’ is inappropriate and unjustified. I am grateful to John Smedley of Ashgate publishers, who originally commissioned the book, and to Routledge for honouring the contract when Ashgate was taken over. Over the several years that I have been working on this book many others have assisted me, often by patiently answering importunate questions, or advising on problematic passages. Among them have been Oliver Auge, Julia Barrow, David D’Avray, Susan Edgington, Bill Flynn, Thomas Förster, John Gillingham, Sebastian Modrow, Alan Murray, Guy Perry, Tom Smith, Olivia Spencer (a graduate student who kindly assisted with the translation of a particularly confusing chapter), and Helmut Walther. Above all, my retired colleague at Leeds Ian Moxon has been an unfailing source of advice on translation, the scansion of verse and classical literature in general, as he was also for The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. David Crouch and (once again) Bernard Hamilton kindly commented on drafts of the introduction. It has been a particular pleasure to collaborate with Oliver Auge (Kiel) and Sebastian Modrow (Griefswald), who are preparing a German translation of this same work. Finally, I am as ever most indebted to my wife, Kate Fenton, and for so much more than just her work on the maps and genealogical charts, and patient nursing of malfunctioning computers, although she has done all this, as she has for my previous books. Leeds and Lyme Regis, September 2018

Abbreviations

Arnoldi Chronica

AV Crusade of FB

Dipl. Fred. I.

Helmold, Cronaca

MGH

MPL Urkunden HL

Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg, with Georg Heinrich Pertz (MGH SRG, Hanover 1868) Authorised Version [of the Bible] Graham A. Loud, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts (Crusade Texts in Translation 19: Farnham 2010) Die Urkunden Friedrichs I, ed. Heinrich Appelt (5 vols., MGH Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 10, Hanover 1975–90) Helmoldi Presbyteri Bozoviensis Cronica Slavorum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, Hanover 1937) Monumenta Germaniae Historica, following the usual conventions (SRG = Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum; SS = Scriptores, etc.) Patrologia Latina, ed. J-P. Migne (221 vols, Paris 1844–64) Die Urkunden Heinrichs des Löwen, Herzogs von Sachsen und Bayern, ed. Karl Jordan (MGH, Weimar 1949)

Note: Classical texts in the footnotes that are available in multiple editions are referred to by the usual book and chapter divisions, but without editorial details.

Maps

I North Germany (Schleswig-Holstein and Eastern Saxony)

II The Holy Land

Genealogical charts

(1079 – 1105)

(King 1138 – 52)

(King 1152 – 90)

(d. 1187 – 8)

(1190 – 7)

(1212 – 50)

(King 1198 – 1208)

(c. 1130 – 95) 1142–80 1156–80

(1184–1213)

(1174/5–90) (1172–1208/9)

(1204–52)

1241–65

Sven II King 1047–76

King 1080–6

King 1095–1103

King 1104–34

King 1157–82

King 1154–7

King 1134–7

King 1182–1202

King 1202–41 1180–1223

Introduction

The Chronicle of Arnold, Abbot of the monastery of St John at Lübeck, is one of the most important and interesting contemporary sources for the history of Germany in the central Middle Ages. The early thirteenth century saw something of an efflorescence of historical writing in that kingdom, and especially in its monasteries, but of all the narrative texts written during that period Arnold’s chronicle is the most ambitious and sophisticated. While the main focus of his work was on northern Germany, and especially Holstein and eastern Saxony, our author was also deeply concerned with the Crusade, not least because of the deep shock induced by the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187, which he discussed at length. Arnold’s chronicle is the principal source of our knowledge concerning the pilgrimage to Jerusalem of Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony in 1172 and of the German Crusade of 1197–8. He also provides an important account, albeit not as an eyewitness, of Frederick Barbarossa’s expedition to the Holy Land in 1189/90, and he furnished the first contemporary account of the Livonian Crusade at the beginning of the thirteenth century. While this last is relatively brief, it was written no later than 1210 and thus antedates the much better-known chronicle of Henry of Livonia by at least fifteen years. Given the extent of English-language scholarship on the Crusades, and increasingly on that movement in the Baltic region as well as in the eastern Mediterranean, it is, therefore, surprising that Arnold’s chronicle is not better known among the Anglophone scholarly community. But, in addition, his chronicle is a crucial contemporary source for the history of Staufen Germany. It provides the fullest contemporary account of the downfall of Henry the Lion in 1179–81 and of the disputes that wracked Saxony in the years immediately after that. There is much information about the problems within the German Church in the wake of the long papal schism caused by the double election of 1159. The chronicle is also a key source for the German civil war after the disputed election to the kingship in 1198, as well as for the relations between Germany and Denmark in the time of Waldemar the Great and his sons. For Arnold, writing in Lübeck at the foot of the Schleswig-Holstein isthmus, the kings of Denmark were just as much a factor in the politics of the region as were the German rulers, who only rarely intervened directly in the north. Furthermore, Arnold saw himself as continuing the work of the earlier chronicler of Holstein and the GermanSlav frontier Helmold of Bosau. His chronicle therefore began its coverage in the year when Helmold’s work ceased, 1172. Given that Helmold’s chronicle has long been available in English translation, and is (rightly) seen as a crucial

2

Introduction

source for the advance of Christianity across the German frontier and along the Baltic during the twelfth century, a translation into English of the work of his successor is certainly overdue.1 The life and work of Abbot Arnold We are fortunate that, in contrast to many other medieval authors, we know at least a certain amount about Arnold’s career beyond what can be gleaned from his writings. While some of his ‘biography’ can only be inferred, and quite a lot of what is suggested here remains hypothetical, there is at least a little evidence on which one can base the discussion. Unfortunately some of this evidence, particularly for his early life, remains ambiguous. Thus a cleric called Arnold first appears at Lübeck in November 1170 as a witness to a charter of its bishop, Conrad, where he was described as custos (perhaps treasurer), presumably of the cathedral chapter. The name Arnold was a relatively unusual one, and it seems to be generally agreed that this custos was the future chronicler.2 After the death of Bishop Conrad in the Holy Land in 1172, Arnold the custos was one of the canons who chose as his successor Abbot Henry of the monastery of St Giles, Brunswick, and then persuaded Henry the Lion to agree to their choice.3 Then, when in 1177 Bishop Henry founded a new Benedictine monastery, dedicated to St John, in Lübeck, we are told by the chronicler that: ‘the solemn consecration took place on St Giles’s day [1st September], with the bishop being assisted by Ethelon the provost of the cathedral, along with Otto the dean, Arnold the custos and the other canons’. These same capitular officials were named as witnesses in the foundation charter of the monastery issued by the bishop.4 Yet here we have a problem. There is a brief later account of the foundation, contained within a list of the abbots of the monastery of St John, which states that Abbot Arnold and certain other brothers were summoned by Bishop Henry from the Benedictine monastery at Brunswick to man the new monastic house at Lübeck, bringing with them books and relics to equip this foundation. This notice was then copied into a chronicle from Cismar (to which the monastic community had by then moved), the Historia de Duce H(e)inrico, itself heavily dependant upon Arnold the

1

The Chronicle of the Slavs by Helmold, Priest of Bosau, trans. Francis J. Tschan (New York 1935). 2 Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i, ed. Wilhelm Leverkus (Codex Diplomaticus Lubecensis, Ser. II(i), Oldenburg 1856), p. 14 no. 9. Arnoldi Chronica, p. 2. 3 Below, Bk. I.13. 4 Bk. II.5, below p. 67. Das Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i (1139–1470) (Codex Diplomaticus Lubecensis, Ser. I(i), Lübeck 1843), 7–8 no. 5.

Introduction

3

chronicler’s work.5 There can be no doubt that Arnold was the first abbot of the new foundation, for this is expressly stated in a charter of Henry’s successor, Bishop Dietrich, from May 1201, which confirmed a sale to the abbey by Count Adolf III of Holstein.6 Arnold was also named as abbot in an early, although undated, charter of the abbey, which was probably drawn up c.1183.7 Furthermore, in the closing paragraph of his other known literary work, the Deeds of Gregory the Sinner, he said that he had been educated from boyhood at Brunswick.8 The problem is clear. Were Arnold the custos and Abbot Arnold one and the same person, and, if so, how can one explain this apparently discordant evidence? That the chronicler had been educated at Brunswick does not, of course, mean that he could not have been a member of the cathedral chapter at Lübeck – particularly since that see was only a decade old in 1170. Nor do the two mentions of Arnold the custos in the third person in the chronicle obviate him being its writer – such a practice was common among medieval authors, and at one later point in the chronicle Arnold neutrally mentions the abbot of the monastery of St John without specifying that this was indeed him.9 The fact that Arnold the custos was mentioned twice in the chronicle might even be taken as a subtle signal that he was the author. But, if he was still a cathedral canon in 1177 when the monastery was founded, how can he have become its first abbot? Furthermore, the chronicler showed some interest in, and knowledge of, the monastery of St Giles at Brunswick, which might be taken as an indication that he had indeed once had some connection with that community.10 Any attempt to reconcile this seemingly discordant evidence must be extremely tentative – and, assuming that the two were the same man, no solution is wholly satisfactory. It may be that at some stage after 1173, and under the influence of the former abbot and now bishop, Henry, Arnold the custos became a monk at St Giles, from whence he was recalled to become the first abbot of the new house at Lübeck. Could he have retained his position in the chapter, as perhaps an honorary canon, in the meanwhile? Alternatively, Bishop Henry chose him directly from the chapter as a suitable person to become the first abbot of his new foundation, to head

5 Series Abbatum Sancti Iohannis Lubicensis et Cismariensium, MGH SS xiii.348; the Historia is quoted by Schilling in his introduction to Arnold von Lübeck, Gesta Gregorii Peccatoris. Untersuchungen und Edition, ed. Johannes Schilling (Göttingen 1986), p. 13. 6 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.13–14 no. 9. 7 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.8–9 no. 6. 8 Gesta Gregorii Peccatoris, p. 177. 9 Bk. II.21. 10 Bk. VI.4.

4

Introduction

a community, probably to begin with very small, drawn from the monks of Brunswick. In that case, he must have been tonsured as a monk and then immediately appointed abbot. If that were so, then the compiler of the late thirteenth-century list of abbots must have assumed that he had been a monk at St Giles, since the other monks had come from there. One small indication that this latter case may be the more probable is that Arnold himself said that he had been educated at Brunswick (which could well have been at the monastery of St Giles), but did not say that he had become a monk there. And since Lübeck in 1177 was in a region only recently Christianised, and the new monastery was the first Benedictine house to be established north of the Elbe,11 might the bishop have been more prepared to install a secular cleric as abbot than in other, more ‘normal’ circumstances? Nothing is known for certain about Abbot Arnold’s family background, although it has been suggested that, like so many inhabitants of Holstein at this period, he was an immigrant, the son of a minor nobleman from Dorstadt in Frisia, also called Arnold, who served as Barbarossa’s podestà (governor) in Piacenza in northern Italy from 1162 to 1168/9. Should this identification be correct, then three of his brothers can also be identified. The case remains, however, no more than plausible supposition, based once again on the coincidence of a relatively uncommon personal name.12 Apart from the charter of Bishop Dietrich in 1201, there are a few other documentary references to our abbot. In that same year he and his monastery received a charter from Archbishop Hartwig II of Bremen, similarly confirming Count Adolf’s sale of the vill of Kühresdorf to it.13 During his long abbacy, his monastery received no less than four papal privileges, the earliest of which was from Celestine III in May 1191, which may be taken as a sign of its growing prosperity and importance. Arnold also acted as a papal judge delegate to decide a disputed election to the bishopric of Schwerin in 1193/5.14 Otherwise we know of him only from his appearances as a witness in several charters concerning the cathedral chapter at Lübeck

11

Volker Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremem, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von Lübeck (Berlin 2002), p. 238. 12 Berndt U. Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV (Hanover 1990), pp. 405, 432–3. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 223–4, sounds a note of caution here. For Arnold the podestà, Das Geschichtswerk des Otto Morena und seiner Fortsetzer, ed. Ferdinand Güterbock (MGH SRG, Berlin 1930), pp. 162, 177. 13 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.15 no. 10. 14 Germania Pontificia, vi Provincia Hammaburgo-Bremensis, ed. Wolfgang Seegrün and Theodor Schieffer (Göttingen 1981), p. 151; Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 244.

Introduction

5

between 1197 and c.1210.15 He was therefore abbot of the monastery of St John for about thirty-five years, before his death on 27 June of an unknown year, but which may well have been 1212.16 It may be significant, and not simply a matter of scribal omission, that no abbot was named in a charter of King Waldemar II of Denmark, confirming gifts to the monastery by his son-in-law Count Albrecht of Orlamunde, on 23 May 1213.17 Certainly by the next year Arnold had been succeeded by the second abbot, Gerhard.18 The last event described in the chronicle was the coronation of Otto IV as emperor in October 1209, and it is probable that the work was completed within a few months of that ceremony, and at the latest in the summer of 1210. There is no mention in the chronicle of the breach between emperor and pope that developed within a few months of the coronation, and culminated in Otto’s excommunication in November 1210, nor of the pope’s translation of Bishop Gerhard of Osnabrück to the archbishopric of Bremen in the autumn of that year, or of the papal judgement in October 1210 which decided the dispute between the bishop of Riga and the Swordbrothers to which Arnold alluded in the chronicle.19 Perhaps even more notable is that the chronicle made no mention of the death of Bishop Dietrich of Lübeck, not only his own diocesan but a prelate of whom Arnold thought well, on 21 August 1210. The assumption must be, therefore, that it was finished before that date.20 Similarly there is no allusion to the expedition to Livonia in 1211 by Bishop Philip of Ratzeburg, to whom the chronicle was dedicated, having taken place, although if preparations for that expedition were already underway this may well explain the choice of dedicatee.21 Given the length and complexity of his chronicle, it is quite possible that Arnold had begun writing it some years earlier. The only other indication of this comes with the

15 Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i.21–2 no. 18, 25–8 nos 20–1, 31–2 no. 36 (this last document undated, but c.1210). 16 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 224. 17 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.21 no. 14. 18 Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i.32–3 no. 28. 19 Bk. V.30, p. 226 below. 20 The year is given by the Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.355, the day by the necrologies of Cismar and Bremen cathedral, B.U. Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 44 (1988), 111–15 offers an exhaustive review of this evidence. 21 The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia. Henricus Lettus, trans. James A. Brundage (2nd ed., New York 2003), pp. 96, 109, 114. Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds’, p. 113, points out that Bishop Philip was in Italy at the emperor’s court in May 1210, and cannot have returned home before mid-July at the earliest. He cannot therefore have received a presentation copy of the chronicle before then, but this circumstance is hardly sufficient to invalidate the arguments above concerning its date of completion.

6

Introduction

lengthy report by Frederick I’s ambassador to Saladin of his journey in the Middle East in 1175, which was inserted quite out of its correct chronological place in the seventh and last book of the chronicle, amid the events of the year 1207.22 This was presumably because this document had only just come to Arnold’s attention, and he copied it into his chronicle as soon as he could, even though it interrupted his discussion of changes within the German episcopate in 1207. This is not to suggest that this section was written in that year – indeed since it came towards the end of the work he may have here been writing not long before 1209/10. But the chronicle was clearly already complete up to that point, and Arnold chose to insert this tract here, and not to attempt to incorporate it earlier in the work where it would more logically have been placed, perhaps at the end of Book I. Apart from his chronicle, Abbot Arnold wrote one other work, a translation into Latin verse, with the title The Deeds of Gregory the Sinner, of the Gregorius of Hartmann von Aue, a German poem by one of the great vernacular poets of the time. This translation was dedicated to William of Brunswick, the fourth and youngest son of Henry the Lion, who appears to have shared the literary interests of his parents and their patronage of Minnesänger.23 William died on 13 December 1213, so the Latin poem must have been completed before that date – this terminus ante quem fits with the probable date of Arnold’s death. The modern editor of this text suggests that the translation was made after the completion of the chronicle. The main basis for this opinion comes in the dedication, where Arnold referred to the ‘little work’ (opusculum) in which he had described the ‘deeds of courage and works of piety’, and death, of William’s father.24 This would seem to be an unequivocal reference to the chronicle. But Arnold did not expressly state here that he had presented a copy of the completed work to the duke’s son; given what has already been suggested about the time involved in writing, he could have been referring to a work in progress, albeit substantially advanced (up to at least book V, where Henry the Lion’s death was reported). We should also note that if Arnold did indeed die in June 1212, rather than 1213, the time period for writing this further work after the completion of the chronicle was tight, particularly since, as Arnold admitted in his introduction, ‘this work which you have enjoined upon us, to translate from German into Latin, is extremely burdensome for us, because we are not accustomed to reading such things and we are made apprehensive by the unknown form of

22

Bk. VII.8, see pp. 272–83. For this patronage by his parents, Karl Jordan, Henry the Lion, trans. P.S. Falla (Oxford 1986), pp. 208–13; Joachim Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe. Eine Biographie (Munich 2008), pp. 294–302. For William, see below Bk. VI.15, and note 61. 24 Gesta Gregorius Peccator, p. 177. 23

Introduction

7

speech’.25 Since the German original was written c.1190 it seems quite possible that this translation was actually made, or at least commenced, somewhat earlier, although presumably only during William’s adulthood – after his marriage to the sister of the king of Denmark in 1202 (William was born in 1184). The poet Hartmann was apparently still alive c.1210; this Latin translation may well, therefore, have been begun during his lifetime. The Gregorius is a lurid, not to say unlikely tale of a nobleman born of an incestuous union, brought up by fishermen, who eventually marries his own mother and, on finding out the horrible truth, has himself chained to a rock on the seashore there to do penance for his sins in perpetuity. He not only survives this ordeal, but is eventually and miraculously elected pope. He then proves an exemplary pontiff, ‘a doctor of souls’, kind to the poor, gently reproving sinners and hearing the confession of his penitent mother.26 We cannot know whether the earlier and more scandalous parts of this poem were to Arnold’s taste, but as one whose conscience was troubled by his own sins he must have concurred with the moral of the tale, that ‘So with purity of heart you will find the Lord, and the clear light of God will put the darkness of sins to flight, and the sun of justice will give unto you full understanding’.27 Without making significant changes to the story, Arnold did anyway subtly alter Hartmann’s poem to give a more clerical and theological slant to a layman’s work, emphasising the significance of God’s grace and also toning down the specifically ministerial standpoint of the German text and the criticism there directed towards the higher nobility.28 For all his protestations of modesty here, which were anyway directed at his source material rather than his own lack of expertise, it is clear that Arnold was an accomplished versifier. The octosyllabic rhyming couplets of the Gregorius were a clever attempt to reproduce the rhythm and sound of the German original, which was also in rhyming couplets. Arnold’s poetic skill can also be seen from the poems included in the chronicle, notably those to mark the deaths of Henry the Lion and Philip of Swabia, both in dactylic hexameters.29 The odd lines of poetry he quoted elsewhere, the source of which cannot be identified, as, for example, the single-line hexameter about the virtue of Cnut of Denmark included in his (very positive) description of

25

Gesta Gregorius Peccator, pp. 14, 67 (quote). Ibid., pp. 171–5. 27 Ibid., p. 176: Sic ergo cordis puritas, / ut dominum invenias, / et peccatorum tenebras / dei fugabit claritas / et dabit sol iusticie / tibi plene cognoscere. For Arnold’s own sense of sin, see Bk. III.10 below. 28 Bernward Plate, ‘Gregorius Peccator. Hartmann von Aue und Arnold von Lübeck’, Mittellateinische Jahrbuch 28 (1994), 67–90, who makes a close textual comparison between the two versions. 29 Bks V.24, VII.12. 26

8

Introduction

the Danish kingdom, were almost certainly his own work.30 This reflects the excellent education that he must have received at Brunswick. The chronicle shows him not just to be steeped in the Bible, as one might expect, but also to be well-read in Latin classical authors, and especially the poets of the Augustan age, notably Horace, Ovid and Vergil.31 His interest in the classics can also be seen in his inclusion in his chronicle of the letter of the chancellor, Conrad of Hildesheim, describing southern Italy and its wonders, a text steeped in classical learning, both literary and legendary.32 Lübeck in the time of Arnold The cultural sophistication of our author reminds us that, although he spent most of his adult life in a small city on the frontiers of Christendom that had only been founded a few years before his birth, he was part of the mainstream clerical and intellectual culture of his time. Yet it is worth remembering how relatively new the city of Lübeck was, and while clearly prospering it was not yet the economic and political force that it was to become in the later Middle Ages when it was one of the largest towns in medieval Germany and leader of the Hanseatic League. Lübeck was a ‘new town’, founded by Count Adolf II of Holstein in 1143. (Arnold would seem to have been born c.1150 or slightly earlier.) Built on an island between the Rivers Trave and Wakenitz, and near the ruins of an old Slav fortress, it was intended as a defensible base, market centre and port for the settlers, many of whom were from the Netherlands, whom Adolf had introduced into the region.33 Its early history was troubled. The town was attacked by the Slavs in 1147 and many of its inhabitants killed, it became a cause for dispute between Count Adolf and Duke Henry, with the latter demanding a share of its revenues, and was then burned down in a fire in 1157. Soon afterwards the duke persuaded, or rather pressurised Adolf to transfer the site to him, probably in return for some monetary compensation. Having done so, he encouraged the rebuilding of the ruined town and did what he could to encourage trade there. A couple of years later, with the duke’s agreement, Bishop Gerold of Oldenburg transferred the seat of his diocese from its historic, but now desolate, site to Lübeck.34

30

Bk. III.5. Gesta Gregorius Peccator, p. 15. 32 Bk. V.19. 33 Helmold, Cronaca, I.57, pp. 111–12, trans. Tschan, pp. 168–9. 34 Helmold, Cronaca, I.63, 86, 90, pp. 119–20, 168–9, 175–6, trans. Tschan, pp. 177–8, 228–9, 236. Jordan, Henry the Lion, pp. 69–72. Oldenburg was, in Helmold’s words, ‘entirely deserted, having neither walls nor an inhabitant, only a little chapel 31

Introduction

9

Lübeck really took shape from 1160 onwards. The original wooden cathedral, built on the southern tip of the island, was rebuilt in stone after 1173. Soon afterwards Bishop Henry founded the monastery of St John, the first Benedictine house north of the Elbe, the precinct of which was established on the eastern, Wakenitz, side of the island. The main marketplace was sited west of that precinct and a town hall established there c.1200. The harbour was enlarged and rebuilt c.1216, by which time the town was already expanding beyond its original walls, and stone houses were beginning to appear in the largely wooden city. A new town hall was built in the 1230s. Intensive archaeological investigation since the Second World War has confirmed that Lübeck in the time of Abbot Arnold and beyond was indeed a boom-town.35 Alongside the physical and economic development of the city went that of its privileged status. Henry the Lion undoubtedly granted a charter of liberties to the town, but the text of this no longer survives. Its terms were, however, confirmed and extended by Frederick Barbarossa in September 1188. In a privilege granted at the request of his two main allies in this northern region, Counts Adolf III of Holstein and Bernhard of Ratzeburg, he set out the bounds of the city’s territory and confirmed the citizens’ rights to the use of meadows and woods, fishing and pasture, this last including grazing rights in the lands of Count Adolf. Its merchants were exempted from most tolls, as were foreign merchants coming to the city. Unfortunately, however, the surviving text of this document has probably been interpolated, and thus the original privilege may not have been quite as generous as it now seems, although the modern editor of Barbarossa’s charters had no doubts that the pseudo-original that we now possess, the diplomatic of which is impeccable, was based upon a genuine privilege of the same date.36 Furthermore, King Waldemar II of Denmark confirmed the rights and freedoms of Lübeck in August 1203 after his takeover of the city, although his privilege did not go into detail as to what these were – it simply confirmed that they existed.37 Fortunately there are no doubts as to the genuineness of the privilege granted to Lübeck by Frederick II in June 1226, giving it the status of an imperial free city, directly dependant on the emperor (the status that is known in German as Reichsunmittelbarkeit). The citizens were to be permitted to have a mint, for which they were to pay him 60 marks a year, but they were freed from various other dues and exactions, and especially those previously levied by the

which Vicelin of sacred memory had erected there’, Cronaca, I.83, p. 158, trans. Tschan, p. 217. 35 Matthias Hardt, ‘Lübeck in der Zeit Arnolds’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, ed. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 175–89. 36 Dipl. Fred. I, iv.263–7 no. 981. See in particular Prof. Appelt’s remarks on p. 263. 37 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.16 no. 11.

10

Introduction

citizens of Cologne on trade with England, from the levying of the Ungelt (an excise tax) within Saxony, and protecting their property in case of shipwreck.38 Lübeck never possessed as large or as coherent a dependant territory as some other major German cities,39 but the basis of its later power and prosperity was certainly established around the time of Abbot Arnold. To what extent he himself identified with the city is a good question – he reported, for example, the citizens complaining of Count Adolf’s ‘tyranny over us’, apparently approvingly, but this was at least ostensibly their view rather than his.40 He recorded too, seemingly with great pride, that four hundred of ‘the most worthy men of Lübeck’ were ‘inspired from on high’ and enlisted in the Crusade launched by Henry VI in 1197.41 He certainly devoted considerable attention to the city’s role in the political struggles of the day, although that may have reflected its importance for control of the region rather than simply, or only, his loyalty to his adopted home. One development soon after his death would, however, have saddened him, lamenting as he did in the chronicle that monks often failed to show proper obedience.42 After a long-running quarrel between his successor but one as abbot and his monks, and the failure of efforts by the bishop and the civic authorities to resolve the dispute, the monastic community of St John was persuaded to abandon its site within the city, and at some time between 1245 and 1256 the monastery moved to Cismar in the county of Oldenburg, some 30 km north of Lübeck, where it remained until its dissolution during the Reformation. The abandoned buildings in the city were then taken over by Cistercian nuns.43

38

Quellen zur deutschen Verfassungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte bis 1250, ed. L. Weinrich (Darmstadt 1977), pp. 410–16 [also in Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, ed. J.L.A. Huillard-Bréholles (6 vols in 11 parts, Paris 1852–61), ii(2).625–9]. See the appendix, pp. 303–6 below. Frederick II and his advisers clearly disliked the Ungelt, and indeed he tried to forbid it completely in his Mainz Land Peace of 1235 (translated in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1235. Essays by German Historians, ed. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 357–65 appendix (e), at p. 360). For the mint, Norbert Kamp, Moneta Regis. Königliche Münzstätten und königliche Münzpolitik in der Stauferzeit (Hanover 2006), pp. 219–22, 400–1. 39 Gabriel Zeilinger, ‘Urban lordships’, in The Origins of the German Principalities, pp. 60–7, especially p. 65. 40 Bk. V.12, below p. 176. 41 Bk. V.25, below p. 208. 42 Bk. III.10, below pp. 111–14. 43 Quite when the transfer took place is not clear. A proposal to transfer the monks to a new site outside the city ‘because of the lack of temporal possessions and disciplinary problems’ had been approved by Archbishop Gerhard II of Bremen as early as 1231, Mecklenburgische Urkundenbuch i (Schwerin 1863), 206 no. 126. Yet despite the use of the past tense, transtulit (‘has transferred’) in this document, the

Introduction

11

Why did Arnold write his chronicle? Arnold stated explicitly in the preface to his chronicle that it was his intention to continue and complete the work of his predecessor Helmold of Bosau. The latter, an Augustinian canon, became parish priest at Bosau on the Plöner See, some 40 km north-west of Lübeck, in or soon after 1156. This was a key centre for the conversion of the local Slav inhabitants of Wagria, especially after the transfer of the episcopal see from Oldenburg to Lübeck, and Helmold was undoubtedly active in this role. It was this that led him to write his history: Nothing more fitting came to mind than that I should write in the praise of the conversion of the Slavic race, that is to say of the kings and preachers by whose assiduity the Christian religion was first planted in these parts.44

Although the early part of his chronicle was largely drawn from Adam of Bremen’s earlier history of that see, the greater part of Helmold’s book is both original and has a strong thematic unity. He did indeed write what he set out to do. He wrote most of his chronicle during the years 1163–8, and his original draft ended with the death of Bishop Gerold of Oldenburg/Lübeck in 1163, but he subsequently extended his coverage up to 1171/2. He dedicated his work to the canons of Lübeck. Helmold died after 1177, and one should note that Arnold knew him personally, for Helmold was one of the witnesses listed in the foundation charter of the monastery of St John in that year – this is the last record of him.45

monks clearly had not yet moved and a charter of February 1232 shows them still to have been in the city. After an inquiry ordered by the archbishop into the internal problems within the monastery, the abbot agreed to Bishop John I’s plan for the move (which included compensation for the monks’ property inside the city) in January 1245, and the cathedral chapter signified its agreement the next month. It may be that the transfer followed soon after that time, but the first clear evidence for the new monastery at Cismar comes only in March 1256 when Bishop John II mediated in a property dispute between the monks and the nuns who had succeeded them, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.62 no. 52, 102–4 no. 104, 106 no. 108, 206–7 no. 226. I am grateful to Sebastian Modrow for his help on this issue. While Arnold would undoubtedly have disapproved of the internal strife within the monastery, it may also be significant that he did not mention the foundation in 1189 of the first Cistercian monastery in the diocese of Lübeck in his chronicle, Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 242–3. 44 Helmold, Cronaca, p. 1, trans. Tschan, p. 43. 45 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 138–42. For the charter, above, note 4.

12

Introduction

Arnold might therefore seem to have made his intentions clear in his preface, when he wrote that: Since the priest Helmold of good memory died before he completed, as he intended, his histories of the subjection and conversion of the Slavs, and the deeds of the bishops through whose efforts the churches of these regions grew stronger, we have decided with the help of God to embark on this work, so that those of us also helping in such a work of pious devotion and supported by your prayers may share in his blessed memory.46

Arnold clearly knew Helmold’s chronicle well. We find occasional linguistic borrowings from it in his own work, such as the phrase ‘it is memorable to every age’ (which Helmold himself had lifted from Adam of Bremen),47 and the metonymy ‘a new light arose’, which Arnold used twice, both with regard to the Welfs, for the reconciliation of Henry the Lion’s eldest son Henry with the emperor in 1194, and for the success of his brother Otto IV in 1208. Helmold had used this image to describe the election of their greatgrandfather Lothar as king in 1125.48 And while this was not a direct linguistic transfer, Arnold’s reference to Henry the Lion taming the ‘obstinacy’ (duritia) of the Slavs was surely written with Helmold in mind.49 The two works were certainly seen as a pair by later generations. All the surviving manuscripts of Helmold’s work also contain that of Arnold. But it was only in the early fifteenth century that the two works together were described by the title Chronica Slavorum, which was subsequently employed by early modern editors and came into general parlance after it was used for the nineteenth-century editions in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica series.50

46

Below, p. 38. Schmeidler, the modern editor of Helmold, speculated that the author had intended to add a third book to his chronicle, covering the episcopate of Henry of Lübeck. If so, this was never written, but this intention could be why Arnold thought Helmold’s work to be unfinished, Helmold, Cronaca, introduction, p. ix. 47 Bk. I.10 (Latin text, Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, p. 26), cf. Helmold, Cronaca, I.22, p. 45, trans. Tschan, p. 97 (where the phrase is rendered as ‘forever memorable’). Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesie, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, Hanover 1917), III.50, p. 193. 48 Bks V.20, VII.15, below pp. 196–7, 293. Cf. Helmold, Cronaca, I.41, p. 83, trans. Tschan, p. 139. 49 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 287–8. 50 Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, pp. 99–100; Helmut G. Walther, ‘Die handscriftliche Uberlieferung der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis [above note 35], p. 11.

Introduction

13

While there is thus no justification for assuming that either author would have employed this title, it is nevertheless an appropriate one for the chronicle of Helmold who, as he set out to do, devoted the overwhelming part of his work to describing how the Slavs of Holstein, Wagria and Mecklenburg were persuaded to convert to Christianity. It is far less appropriate for Arnold’s chronicle, the focus of which is much more diffuse, both thematically and geographically. What therefore did Arnold intend his chronicle to be about, and, indeed, what might be a more suitable title than the traditional ‘Chronicle of the Slavs’? One should note that two of the surviving manuscripts, including the only one actually from Lübeck itself, carry the title Historia de Duce Heinrico, and this same title was adopted by the chronicle based on Arnold’s work that was written at St Giles, Brunswick, after 1283.51 Yet this is almost equally misleading, for while Henry the Lion dominates the first two books of the chronicle, after his deposition and exile in 1180/1 thereafter he is only intermittently mentioned and his death was recorded towards the end of Book V, just under two-thirds of the way through the work. There are references, mainly in the seventh and last book of the chronicle, to a narratio regum or a historia regum and this has led one modern German scholar to suggest that Arnold’s work was actually intended to be a ‘history of the kings’.52 But while such a title might be appropriate for the last two books, much of which are indeed devoted to the dispute about the throne between the rival kings Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick after the two separate royal elections of 1198, one can hardly argue that either of the two previous rulers, Frederick Barbarossa or Henry VI, plays a central role in the narrative. They were, after all, only relatively rarely involved in the affairs of northern Germany, even though Arnold did take some account of their doings elsewhere, notably of Barbarossa’s stormy relations with the papacy in the 1180s and his Crusade in 1189–90. But after the disastrous failure of the Roman expedition of 1167, Barbarossa’s itinerary within Germany had contracted and he spent most of his time there south of the River Main. Nor, indeed, did north German princes and aristocrats often attend his court – indeed princely attendance as a whole declined quite significantly after 1167.53 It seems, therefore, more probable that when Arnold wrote of this ‘history/story’ of the kings he was thinking of this more restricted sense of his particular discussion of the throne

Walther, ‘Die handscriftliche Uberlieferung’, pp. 8–9. Cf. Lappenberg’s introduction to the MGH SS edition, MGH SS xxi.112. 52 Bks VII.1, 8, pp. 261, 272. Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, especially pp. 103–10. 53 John B. Freed, Frederick Barbarossa. The Prince and the Myth (New Haven 2016), pp. 349–50, 444–5, 517. 51

14

Introduction

dispute after 1198 – ‘now let us return to continue our account of the kings’54 – rather than this being the overall theme of his work. Hence other students of this text have remained unconvinced by this theory that it was a ‘royal history’.55 Nor can Arnold’s work realistically be seen as a chronicle of the Welfs (as opposed to simply one of Duke Henry). Arnold did, of course, have close connections to the Welf family via his earlier education in Brunswick, which remained in their hands after the crisis of 1180/1 and thereafter became the centre of their much-reduced lordship. He devoted considerable attention to the family throughout his chronicle, and was generally sympathetic towards them. His translation of the Gregorius was, as we have seen, done for one of Henry the Lion’s sons. It has even been suggested that he was responsible for the dedicatory poem in the Gospel Book of Henry the Lion, although since this de luxe manuscript was produced at the monastery of Helmarshausen, some 250 km south of Lübeck, probably in the late 1180s, this supposition seems unlikely and has found little favour.56 There is no doubt that Arnold thought well of Henry the Lion, whom he praised in his prologue as ‘the man who tamed the obstinacy of the Slavs more than all those who had come before him’ and who was responsible for their conversion to the true faith. He repeated this tribute on the occasion of the duke’s death, praising him there as ‘another Solomon’.57 His opinion of Henry was, if anything, more enthusiastic than that earlier expressed by Helmold, who on occasion criticised the duke for being more concerned with increasing his own temporal power and wealth than in fostering the work of conversion.58 Arnold also contrasted Henry’s rule as duke with that of his successor Bernhard of Anhalt, under whom Saxony was riven with internal disputes, the comparison being very much to the latter’s disadvantage. Henry was a dynamic ruler who upheld law and order, Bernhard was dilatory and sluggish.59 The chronicle concluded with the general

54

Below, p. 261. For example, Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 254–6 and idem ‘Zwischen terra nostra und terra sancta. Arnold von Lübeck als Geschichtsschreiber’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, pp. 149–74; Thomas Riis, ‘Monasteries and cultural centres: the case of Schleswig-Holstein with Lübeck and Hamburg’, in Monastic Culture: The Long Thirteenth Century. Essays in Honour of Brian Patrick McGuire (Odense 2014), pp. 102–17, at 108–111. 56 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 227, with references to earlier literature, but see Jordan, Henry the Lion, pp. 206–7. Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, pp. 313–16, discusses this manuscript at some length, but without ascribing authorship. 57 Bk. V.24. 58 Helmold, Cronaca, I.68, 84, pp. 129, 164, trans. Tschan, pp. 187–8, 221–2. 59 Bk. III. 1. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 236–7. 55

Introduction

15

recognition of Otto IV as king of Germany in 1208, after the murder of Philip of Swabia, and his imperial coronation in Rome a year later. Nevertheless, this work was hardly a ‘family history’ of the type being written at more or less the same time in a number of other German monasteries: such as the ‘History of the [south German] Welfs’ at Weingarten, that of the Landgraves of Thuringia at Reinhardsbrunn, or the Lauterberg chronicle (Chronicon Montis Sereni), which combined a history of that monastery with that of the Wettin family who had founded it. These works displayed a narrow and myopic partisanship noticeably lacking in Arnold’s work.60 Nor was he concerned with justifying Welf claims to territory and position through emphasising their descent from earlier dukes of Saxony, as were the writers of the family’s historiography in the late thirteenth century.61 His lack of overt partisanship is made clear in his depiction of the Staufen family. He may have regretted the quarrel that led to the downfall of Henry the Lion, but he understood how this had come about – insofar as he was informed about this62 – and did not, at least overtly, blame Frederick Barbarossa for his involvement and Henry’s subsequent exile. It has, admittedly, been suggested that the account of Henry the Lion’s downfall was carefully crafted to contrast the duke’s attempt to ‘play by the rules’ and win forgiveness with the emperor’s stubborn refusal to compromise.63 Yet this theory seems overly-schematic and not entirely convincing. Arnold suggested that the emperor was constrained to act against Henry because of the general hostility towards the duke among the other princes. He even admitted that Henry’s pride (superbia) had helped to create the dispute.64 Furthermore, his depiction of Barbarossa as the leader of the Crusade of 1189–90 was extremely positive, showing him dealing steadfastly and patiently with the untrustworthy Byzantine ruler, keeping his own army firmly in hand and acting steadfastly against the Turks of

See, especially on these first two texts, Stefan Tebruck, ‘The propaganda of power. Memoria, history and patronage’, in The Origins of the German Principalities [above, note 38], pp. 160–80. 61 Bernd Schneidmüller, ‘Billunger – Welfen – Askanier. Eine genealogische Bildtafel aus dem Braunschweiger Blasius-Stift und das hochadlige Familienbewuβtsein in Sachsen um 1300’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 69 (1987), 30–61, especially pp. 33–47. 62 Arnold did not seem to be aware of how the dispute about Welf VI’s inheritance may have poisoned relations between Henry the Lion and Barbarossa, but then he made no mention at all of the South German Welfs in his chronicle. For the significance of this dispute, Karl Leyser, ‘Frederick Barbarossa and the Hohenstaufen polity’, Viator 19 (1988), 168–70. 63 Gerd Althoff, ‘Die Historiographie bewältigt. Der Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen in der Darstellung Arnolds von Lübeck’, in Die Welfen und ihr Braunschweiger Hof im hohen Mittelalter, ed. Bernd Schneidmüller (Wiesbaden 1995), pp. 163–82. 64 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 267. 60

16

Introduction

Asia Minor. When Frederick drowned in Lesser Armenia, Arnold showed how his second son Duke Frederick of Swabia acted swiftly and decisively to keep the army together, and only after his death did the German Crusade dissolve – something for which modern historians have rarely given the duke any credit.65 While Arnold was quite sharp in his criticism of the young Henry VI, because of his arrogance, his clumsy meddling in the disputed archiepiscopal election at Trier and of his high-handed treatment of bishops generally, his attitude to Henry as emperor softened, not least because of the latter’s encouragement of the Crusade. The proud and violent young prince became the pious and glorious emperor.66 When discussing the civil war after 1198, Arnold maintained a relatively neutral tone. While he was hostile to the Staufen partisan Count Adolf of Holstein, this was because of the threat that the latter posed to the freedom and independence of Lübeck, rather than because he was a supporter of King Philip.67 Nor did Arnold gloss over the internal disputes among the Welf party, notably the breach between Otto IV and his elder brother the Count Palatine Henry in 1204,68 and, most significantly, he used the royal title for both Philip and Otto of Brunswick.69 And while Arnold rejoiced that Otto’s triumph in 1208–9 and his marriage to King Philip’s daughter had brought an end to the civil war (or so he thought), he also rendered a moving tribute to the excellent personal qualities of Otto’s murdered rival, ‘a gentle and humble man, and always affable’ who treated the clergy well and whose brutal murder caused general lamentation.70 The most probable explanation for why Arnold composed his history was that he wished, as he said, to continue the work of his predecessor Helmold in describing the history of his own (or his adopted) region – if he was, as Hucker has argued, an incomer – that is the land beyond the River Elbe (Nordalbingia), and more generally that of northern Germany. That, as it turned out, the focus of his work differed from that of Helmold was due to differences both in attitude and in circumstances.71 Based as he

65 Bk. V.13. Typical of the dismissive verdict of modern histories of the Crusades is H.E. Mayer, The Crusades, trans. John Gillingham (2nd ed., Oxford 1988), p. 141. 66 Bernd Schütte, ‘Staufer und Welfen in der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis [above note 35], pp. 113–48, especially 123–6. 67 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 275–6. 68 Bk. VI.6. 69 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 256. 70 Bk. VII.12. 71 What follows in this and the next section of this introduction draws heavily upon a preliminary study, G.A. Loud, ‘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 (Amsterdam

Introduction

17

was in a centre of trade and communications, his outlook was wider and more eclectic than was Helmold’s. Thus Helmold, and indeed his predecessor Adam of Bremen, thought largely of Christianity in terms of their own church – in Helmold’s case the diocese of Oldenburg. Arnold had a broader concept of the interests of Christianity as a whole.72 Second, the context within which the author was writing had changed significantly in the period of forty or more years between the composition of Helmold’s chronicle and that of Arnold. Helmold was, in a very real sense, on the frontier of Christendom, an active participant in missionary activity and face to face with real live pagans who stubbornly resisted attempts at conversion, and even when they did accept Christianity often did so superficially while retaining many pagan beliefs and practices.73 He remarked, for example, quoting St Paul, that the church of Oldenburg was re-established ‘in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation’.74 He was a witness to the Christian Church in the region being constructed from the ground up, both figuratively and indeed literally, for his own church at Bosau and houses to live in there had had to be built from scratch.75 The work of conversion was thus central to his life as well as the theme of his historical writing. But by the time Arnold was writing, the work of conversion had been accomplished and the whole population of Northelbia, and further east into Mecklenburg too, was securely Christian. Thus Helmold could write of the inhabitants of the island of Rügen as being more hostile to Christianity, and attached even more deeply to paganism, than other Slavs.76 Yet by 1185 not only were the Rugians Christian, but their ruler, Geromar, was aiding King Cnut (VI) of Denmark in his attempts to secure his overlordship over Pomerania. Moreover, Geromar had married a daughter of the previous king, Cnut V.77 By the early thirteenth century when Arnold was composing his chronicle, the missionary phase was over in his region. Hence the overarching theme of his work could not be the same as that of Helmold. This did not mean that Arnold was not concerned about the spread of Christianity, nor that he lacked interest therein. His brief account of the beginnings of the Livonian mission and Crusade indeed showed many

2019, forthcoming). Unfortunately the publication of this essay, written as a conference paper in 2016, has been much delayed. 72 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 246–7. 73 Helmold, Cronaca, I.47, pp. 92–3, trans. Tschan, p. 149. 74 Ibid., I.84, p. 164, trans. Tschan, p. 224, quoting Philippians, 2: 15. 75 Ibid., I.71, pp. 136–7, trans. Tschan, p. 195. 76 Ibid., I.36, II.108, pp. 70–2, 211–14, trans. Tschan, pp. 125, 274–7. 77 Bk. III.7, below. Christian Lübke, ‘Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, p. 193.

18

Introduction

similarities with the work of his predecessor. Just as Helmold had seen the expeditions across the Elbe against the Slavs in 1147 as part of a wider Christian endeavour, encompassing also the expeditions in Spain and to the Holy Land in that year – which we now call the Second Crusade78 – so Arnold expressly linked the expedition to Livonia with the ‘crusade’ to the east. And since the journey or pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed at that time to be in vain, the lord Pope Celestine decreed an indulgence that whoever should vow themselves to the aforesaid pilgrimage, and whomever they should bring as their companions on this journey, if this was pleasing to them, would be granted no less remission of [their] sins by God.79

But, like Helmold, Arnold above all emphasised the importance of this mission for the conversion of the heathen and saving their souls. He began this chapter by praising ‘the devotion and hard work of many men of religion, who laboured among the Gentiles who are called the Livonians and … strove to make that people cease from idolatry’. Spreading the word of God among the Gentiles was what mattered, even if military action might be necessary to make that possible. That Bishop Berthold of Riga’s expedition to Livonia sailed from Lübeck in 1197 can only have reinforced his interest in this new frontier of Christianity. That the mission and conversion did not feature more in Arnold’s chronicle was therefore because of a change of local context, not through any lack of concern or change in motivation. But where Helmold was preoccupied with mission and conversion on the north German frontier, Arnold – writing forty years later and with a broader perspective – was deeply concerned with the frontiers of Christendom as a whole. Arnold and the Crusade It seems probable that Arnold spent his entire adult life in north Germany, in either Brunswick or Lübeck, and never left that region. Yet he displayed a lively interest in the ‘Crusade’, even if he never actually employed that term. He devoted substantial parts of his chronicle to the holy war against the Muslims and, even if he was not an eyewitness, his work is a major source for the Crusade during his lifetime and especially for German involvement therein, and for the significance of the Crusade in German society under the rule of the early Staufen emperors.

78 79

Helmold, Cronaca, I.59–62, pp. 115–19, trans. Tschan, pp. 170–79. Bk. V.30, and for the indulgence see note 213 there.

Introduction

19

This reflects the fact that the kingdom of Germany did indeed make a major contribution to the Crusade in the late twelfth century, more so, one might argue, than it had to the earlier, largely Francophone, Crusading expeditions. Both Barbarossa’s expedition of 1189 and that set in motion by Henry VI in 1197 were very substantial, and recruited widely from all over the Reich.80 But there can also be no doubt that, like many others throughout Christendom, Arnold was deeply affected by the shock of the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187, and this led him to reflect not just upon the struggle to recover the Holy Land but also on the spiritual wellbeing of Christian society. He wrote about the Crusade not just because it was an important part of what was going on in Christendom during his lifetime, but because it was significant for his own concept of a flourishing and righteous Christian society. The Crusade to the eastern Mediterranean features in four separate episodes in Arnold’s chronicle, which in total comprise a large part of the work (books I, IV and substantial parts of books V and VI). Related to these there is the report of the mission of Burchard of Strassburg to the east included in book VII. The first of these four episodes, the account of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem by Henry the Lion in 1172, was of course only peripherally part of the ‘Crusade’ since it was – apart from skirmishes with bandits in the Balkans – an entirely peaceful expedition, which saw no fighting against the Muslims and, indeed, the duke returned by agreement through Turkish territory in Asia Minor and had apparently amicable discussions with the Turkish Sultan, Kilij-Arslan. It did, nevertheless, show the importance of Jerusalem, both to Arnold and to Christendom in the later twelfth century, and without his detailed and circumstantial account of the pilgrimage we would know very little about this episode, which is mentioned only very briefly in a few other contemporary sources.81 Henry the Lion was not the only prominent German pilgrim to the Holy Land during the twelfth century: there were, among others, the future king,

80 For details of the major participants, see especially G.A. Loud, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts (Crusade Texts in Translation 19: Farnham 2010), pp. 21–5, 47–57; G.A. Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, Crusades 13 (2014), 143–71, at pp. 149–52. There is an excellent account of the 1197 Crusade by Claudia Naumann, Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI (Frankfurt am Main 1994). 81 Thus the Pohlde Annals said only that ‘Duke Henry travelled to Jerusalem, journeying through Greece with a large following’, Annales Palidenses, MGH SS. xvi.94, and the entry in the Pegau annals was even more laconic, ‘Duke Henry crossed the sea’, Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.260. The Cologne annals devoted a short paragraph to the pilgrimage, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, ed. Georg Waitz (MGH SRG, Hanover 1880), pp. 123–4. Other north German sources, notably the Magdeburg and Stederburg annals, do not mention it at all.

20

Introduction

Conrad III, in 1125/6, Margrave Conrad of Meissen in 1145, Albrecht the Bear of Brandenburg in 1158, and Henry’s uncle Duke Welf VI in 1167. But, thanks to Arnold, we know far more about the pilgrimage of 1172 than we do about any of these other earlier visits.82 It has been suggested by several different authors that Arnold provided such a detailed account of the pilgrimage because he himself was one of the large following who accompanied the duke.83 One should, however, stress that our chronicler never claimed this, that there is no firm evidence that he took part, and there are, indeed, some indications that he did not. Thus he claimed that the duke was accompanied on the journey by the margrave of Styria, as well as an otherwise-unknown margrave of Sulzbach.84 Since Margrave Ottokar of Styria was only seven years old in 1172 this seems improbable. Arnold’s nineteenth-century editor Lappenberg suggested that he may have given these names in mistake for the Bavarian Counts Palatine Frederick and Otto of Wittelsbach, the former of whom, at least, is known to have travelled to the Holy Land around this time.85 There is, too, some geographical confusion in his description of the duke’s outward journey through the Balkans, both concerning the passage down the Danube and once his party had entered Byzantine territory.86 In his account of the return journey Arnold referred to one local potentate as ‘Milo the Saracen’, although in fact this was Mleh, a Christian Armenian prince, albeit one who had submitted to Nur-ed-Din.87 And although Arnold described the presents which Kilij-Arslan gave to the duke when they met during this return journey, he omitted the very important detail (provided by the Cologne chronicler) that the sultan released all his Christian prisoners at the duke’s request.88 Nor did Arnold say much about any political dimensions to this journey, and especially the visit on the outward route to Constantinople where the duke was received by the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel Komnenos, although he mentioned in passing that the

82

Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, p. 197. Einar Joranson, ‘The Palestine pilgrimage of Henry the Lion’, in Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson, ed. James Lea Cates and Eugene N. Anderson (Chicago 1938), pp. 146–225, at pp. 151–3; Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 151; Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 229, cites earlier literature in German. 84 Bk. I.2. 85 Arnoldi Cronica Slavorum, p. 12 note. Count Palatine Frederick made his will, unfortunately undated but c.1170, ‘being about to set out for Jerusalem to visit the glorious Sepulchre of the Lord’, ‘Diplomatarium Miscellum no. vi’, in Monumenta Boica x (Munich 1768), pp. 239–44. 86 Bk. I.3. 87 Bk. I.9. 88 Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 124. 83

Introduction

21

duke was joined on his journey by the bishop of Worms, who had been tasked with negotiating a marriage between one of Frederick’s sons and Manuel’s daughter. According to the contemporary Byzantine historian John Kinnamos, writing only a few years later and before the death of Manuel in 1180, Henry himself was making a diplomatic visit specifically to improve relations between Frederick Barbarossa and the eastern empire.89 This had followed a preliminary visit two years earlier by Archbishop Christian of Mainz.90 Of course pilgrimage and diplomacy were not mutually exclusive, and Kinnamos may anyway have confused Henry’s role with that of the bishop. But what Arnold reported about the visit to Constantinople was more or less exclusively concerned with ceremonial and with theological wrangling, in which, according to him, Abbot Henry of Brunswick (the later bishop of Lübeck) acted as spokesman for the westerners. And much of the theological exposition ascribed to Abbot Henry was, anyway, lifted, more or less verbatim, from the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard.91 All of these various mistakes, omissions and emphases tend to suggest not an eye-witness but one who was compiling a later account. Indeed, Volker Scior goes further and suggests that much of Arnold’s account of the 1172 pilgrimage was a literary construct, emphasising and exaggerating the difficulties and dangers of the journey to fit with an image of what pilgrimage should be like. Pilgrims ought to brave dangers, whether in the forests of Bulgaria or from storms at sea.92 We do not, necessarily, have to go as far as this, and the account of Duke Henry’s journey through the Balkans towards Adrianople, with its problems of transport and skirmishes with the local inhabitants, presaged the similar problems that faced Frederick Barbarossa’s army in 1189 – about which Arnold later said very little, but of which we have a very detailed and entirely independent account.93 No doubt there was some exaggeration in the account of the pilgrimage, but this seems more probable in the description of Henry the Lion’s reception at Constantinople,

89 Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, by John Kinnamus, trans. Charles M. Brand (New York 1976), p. 214. To what extent such a marriage can ever have been a serious proposition is arguable. Not only was Manuel simultaneously negotiating for a marriage with King William II of Sicily (even if that never materialised), but Maria was about twenty whereas even Frederick’s eldest son was only six at this time. There is a helpful discussion of Manuel’s intentions in Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge 1993), pp. 92–3. 90 ‘Annales S. Petri Erphesfurtensis Maiores’ and ‘Chronica S. Petri Erfordensis’, in Monumenta Erphesfurtensia Saec. XII-XIV, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1899), pp. 60, 186. 91 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 300–1. 92 Ibid., pp. 295–98, 301–2. 93 The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 59–69.

22

Introduction

seemingly more or less as an equal by the Byzantine emperor, an account designed to flatter his status; and also in that of his conversations with the Turkish sultan, in which the duke allegedly spoke to him of ‘the Incarnation of Christ and the Catholic faith’, thus burnishing his reputation as a pious and God-fearing Christian.94 If Arnold did not accompany the duke on his pilgrimage, then from where did he derive his detailed account of this enterprise? By far the most likely source was Abbot Henry of Brunswick, whose role on the pilgrimage Arnold emphasised and who became bishop of Lübeck and who was the founder of the monastery of which our author became abbot. Since Bishop Henry died in (probably) 1182, this might suggest that he had left some sort of account or memorandum of the pilgrimage, which Arnold then used many years later. Admittedly, Einar Joranson, whose meticulous and detailed study of the pilgrimage is still of great value, considered and dismissed this possibility. He saw no stylistic differences between book I and the rest of the chronicle, which one might have expected if an account by a different author had been incorporated therein, and because nothing was said in the chronicle of events in Germany in the duke’s absence he argued, anyway, that Arnold himself must have been part of the pilgrimage.95 This latter objection seems spurious, given that Arnold’s chronicle was selective as well as written quite a long time after the event. This was not a set of contemporary annals. Furthermore, if Arnold was adapting, rather than simply copying, an account by the bishop, we would not necessarily expect to see a change in style. Alternatively, Arnold may have been using some sort of memorandum that he himself wrote to record the bishop’s oral reminiscences. But, if that was so, and it is suggested here as no more than a possibility, then he must have been gathering material for his chronicle long before he actually composed it. Whatever the case, we may fairly safely conclude that Arnold’s interest in the Holy Land and its welfare, which he clearly demonstrated in his chronicle, was not the consequence of direct experience of having been there. What his chronicle does show is quite how traumatic the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 was, but also how seriously our author meditated on the meaning of that disaster. That he saw this as God’s punishment for the sins of the people of Christendom was, of course, entirely conventional, and he was clearly influenced here by the papal bull Audita Tremendi, issued by Gregory VIII at the end of October 1187, which lamented the ‘severe and terrible judgement’ with which God had smitten the kingdom of Jerusalem. Arnold commented approvingly that the pope ‘encouraged everyone to abandon their wicked ways’ and encouraged fasting and public

94 95

Bk. I.9. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 305–6. Joranson, ‘The Palestine pilgrimage’, pp. 148–55.

Introduction

23

prayer.96 What was more unusual about Arnold’s reaction was how heartfelt it was, and how it tied in with earlier passages in the chronicle where he lamented the defects he perceived in the Church of his time. Arnold was, indeed, quite prepared to criticise fellow-churchmen, and even bishops, for failing to live up to the standards expected of them. He began his account of the fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent Crusade not just with lamentation, although there was plenty of that, but by some stinging remarks about clerical failings. Bishops, for example, gave unjust judgements, and their negligence and wickedness (perversitas) led those who were subject to them into sin. He did not mince his words here. ‘Every prelate’, he wrote, ‘who harms the Lord’s sheep by word and deed is a thief ’.97 Earlier, after describing an unseemly dispute at the diet at Mainz in 1184 between the archbishop of Cologne and the abbot of Fulda as to who should sit next to the emperor, he launched into a swingeing and extensive attack on ‘the detestable pride of monks’, whose concern with secular matters and accumulation of property led them to neglect their vocation.98 There were clearly some prelates of whom he approved, above all his own master Bishop Henry, whose many virtues he described and whose death was marked by dreams and visions.99 But he was adamant that repentance, reform and renewal was necessary if Jerusalem was to be recovered, and also that those who undertook the Lord’s work by taking the Cross had to prove themselves worthy. Hence, when describing the Crusade of 1197–8, the ‘second pilgrimage’ as he described it – the first being the Crusade of 1189–92 – he exclaimed: How can someone conquer through this sort of behaviour, who does not have the spirit of fear, but is instead full of the spirit of pride and resembles the enemies of Christ more than his disciples?100

What is interesting about Arnold is that he could combine this deeply moral and spiritual view of the Crusade with a relatively dispassionate account of

96

Bk. IV.6, below p. 145. For a translation of one version of this bull, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 37–41. Several different versions were issued over a very brief period by the papal chancery, which may reflect quite a complicated process of drafting, as well as the election of a new pope only a few days before the first issue of the bull. I have benefited from reading an unpublished paper on this topic by my colleague Thomas Smith, first delivered at the International Medieval Congress at Leeds in July 2018. 97 Bk. IV.1, below pp. 132–4. 98 Bk. III.10, below pp. 111–14. 99 Bk. III.3. 100 Bk. V.29, below p. 220.

24

Introduction

events, as, for example, with the internal tensions within the kingdom of Jerusalem which led to the defeat of Hattin, or the problems of internal disunity and indiscipline that hampered the Crusade of 1197–8.101 Yet there can be no doubt that he considered the campaigns for defence and recovery of the Holy Land to be God’s work. Even if the loss of Jerusalem was the consequence of His displeasure at Christian failings, those who fought and died at Hattin ‘dedicated their hands to the Lord’, and the captives there showed their steadfastness by refusing to apostasise even under threat of death.102 Those who died on the Third Crusade were hailed as martyrs,103 while those in the Christian army were ‘the people of God’ (populus Dei),104 ‘the knights of Christ’ (milites Christi)105 or ‘the servants of Christ’ (servi Christi).106 After Barbarossa’s army had crossed the Bosphorus in 1190, ‘as if they had escaped the bond of Pharaoh [they] sang a hymn in praise of the religion of Christ’, thus equating the German crusaders with the children of Israel.107 Similarly, describing the expedition of 1197 he wrote that: The holy people, the race of kings, that is of the Christians, the royal priesthood (regale sacerdotium), devotedly undertook their expedition or pilgrimage against the legions of Satan.108

Where these expeditions made at least some limited gains, this was a result of God’s assistance. For example, the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was the result of ‘recent and wonderful events which took place through the Lord’s doing, or which he allowed to take place’.109 Meanwhile, even though both the Third Crusade and that of 1197/8 (which Arnold clearly saw as no less significant than the earlier expedition) had ultimately failed, the participants – and especially those who had perished – had witnessed for the Lord, and by doing so they had secured their own salvation, ‘since the death of one of his holy men is precious in the sight of the Lord’.110 Furthermore, even if these expeditions had not been successful, there was still hope. Here Arnold For a comparison of Arnold’s account with others, Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, pp. 144–8. For what follows, see also, at greater length, Loud, ‘Crusade and Holy War in the Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck’. 102 Bk. IV.4, pp. 141–2. 103 Bk. IV.11, p. 152. 104 Bk. IV.12, 15, 16. 105 Bk. IV.3, 12, 14, Bk. V.26. 106 Bk. V.27. 107 Bk. IV.11, below p. 152, cf. Exodus, 15: 1–19. 108 Bk. V.26, below p. 208. Latin text: Arnoldi Chronica, p. 196. 109 Bk. VI.19, below p. 246. 110 Bk. IV.13, p. 157. 101

Introduction

25

twice quoted Isaiah, 5: 25, ‘the Lord’s Hand is stretched out still’.111 One day (by implication), if the Christians were worthy, He would grant them success. Arnold’s accounts of the two German expeditions of 1189/90 and 1197/8 are both detailed and circumstantial, especially the latter, even if the supposedly verbatim account of the negotiations between Barbarossa and Kilij-Arlan in May 1190 are a product of the author’s imagination – or at least a dramatic reconstruction of whatever his informants may have told him. Arnold may also have seen one or more contemporary newsletters, which we know were sent home both during Barbarossa’s Crusade and other expeditions, although we do not know how widely these may have been distributed.112 Certainly he said more about this expedition, and a lot more about that of 1197, than most other contemporary German chroniclers, who seem either to have known little about them, or to have thought the eventual failure of these ventures made much comment superfluous.113 No doubt Arnold, who cared deeply about these ventures, made more of an effort to find out, and there were sufficient participants in them from his region of north Germany who might be questioned, or from whom news might filter back. Among the more prominent participants, for example, were Count Adolf of Holstein – who took part in both expeditions – and Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen (in 1197). Neither of these were men whom Arnold much liked, since both were often hostile to Lübeck (and in the archbishop’s case to Bishop Dietrich in particular), but he did make special mention of Adolf’s heroism during the capture of Beirut in 1197.114 More probably, his informants were those further down the social scale – for the 1197/8 expedition presumably some of the survivors of the four hundred men of Lübeck whose enlistment he reported. That his account of the later stages of the Third Crusade petered out, and became increasingly confused after his report of the arrival of German seaborne reinforcements at Acre, was surely because so many of his fellow countrymen had died or returned home before the capture of the city.115 Similarly, the fact that his

111

Bks. IV.16, V.25, below pp. 163, 206. The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 5–6. One might note too that the Cologne Chronicle’s account of the 1197/8 expedition was limited to the reproduction of a newsletter from the Duke of Brabant, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 160–1. 113 The Marbach annalist, for example, gave a long list of those who took the Cross in 1195, but then said nothing at all about what happened in the Holy Land in 1197/8, Annales Marbacenses qui dicuntur, ed. Hermann Bloch (MGH SRG, Hanover 1907), pp. 66–71 [also in Die Chronik Ottos von St. Blasien und die Marbacher Annalen, ed. F-J. Schmale (Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 17, Darmstadt 1998) (henceforth ed. Schmale), pp. 190–5]. 114 Bk. V.26, below pp. 212–13. 115 The Cologne chronicler’s account similarly petered out after reporting the death of Duke Frederick of Swabia, although one recension later added a longish paragraph about the siege of Acre, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 151–4. 112

26

Introduction

description of the Fourth Crusade and the capture of Constantinople was limited to the reproduction of two lengthy newsletters may be attributed to a lack of suitable informants. Only a relatively few Germans were involved in that expedition, and those that were – with the exception of Bishop Conrad of Halberstadt – were almost all from western Germany.116 One should, however, be careful not to read too much into his chronicle. In particular, Bernd Hucker has suggested that Arnold saw the general recognition of Otto IV as king in 1208 and his imperial coronation a year later as presaging the calling of a new Crusade, to him the ‘third’, after those of 1189 and 1197, and even claims that Arnold’s chronicle served as propaganda for this new Crusade.117 There is, indeed, mention in the (strictly contemporary) work of Otto of St Blasien that at the diet at Würzburg in May 1209 the abbot of Morimond expressed the wish that King Otto ‘would assist the church of Jerusalem in his own person, [and] to all this the king was obedient’.118 Otto did subsequently, as he admitted on his deathbed, promise to take the Cross at his imperial coronation, and may formally have done so, before his relations with Innocent III broke down and rendered such a commitment irrelevant.119 He also sent an embassy to the Holy Land in 1210, which was probably part of his preparations for a forthcoming expedition.120 But Arnold made no mention of any of this, even though he discussed the Würzburg assembly at some length. This may seem a surprising omission – perhaps his informants there did not report the abbot’s sermon to him – presumably had he been aware that Otto had pledged himself to a new Crusade he would have said so, since the Holy War was so central to his vision of contemporary Christendom. Nor, given the initially very limited distribution of his work, can it have fulfilled any ‘propagandist’ function. Arnold and ‘other’ peoples Arnold showed less obvious interest in the geography and ethnography of neighbouring peoples than did his predecessors Helmold and Adam of Bremen. The former, indeed, began his chronicle by delineating the

116 Jean Longnon, Les Compagnons de Villehardouin: Recherches sur les Croisés de la Quatrième Croisade (Geneva 1978), pp. 242–50. 117 Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, pp. 106–7; idem, Papst Otto IV, pp. 131–2. 118 Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, ed. Adolf Hofmeister (MGH SRG, Hanover 1912), pp. 85–6 [ed. Schmale, p. 154]. 119 Narratio de Morte Ottonis, in Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, ed. E. Martène and U. Durand (5 vols, Paris 1717), iii.1375. 120 Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 137–8.

Introduction

27

various, primarily Slav, peoples who lived along the Baltic coast and to the east of the German kingdom, while Adam devoted the final book of his history to a description of the countries and peoples of Scandinavia.121 Nevertheless, living as he did on the Baltic coast, and concerned as he was with the spread of Christianity and the recovery of the Holy Land, Arnold wrote about a number of other peoples, both Christian and non-Christian. With some, like the Danes and Slavs, he must have had some contact and direct knowledge; but he only knew about others, above all Muslims, at second-hand – assuming that the argument above that he did not take part in the 1172 pilgrimage is correct. He certainly cannot be characterised as a German nationalist – even if such a person existed at the turn of the thirteenth century. His view of the Danes, for example, was remarkably positive. They were ‘a most Christian people’, remarkable for their wealth, their skill at war, the learning of their young men, the excellence of their archbishops and for their virtuous king, Cnut (VI).122 He reported, but without particular comment, Waldemar II’s takeover of the region north of the Elbe in 1201/3, indeed if anything he saw this as enhancing the peace and security of the region. He was probably influenced both by a considerable body of opinion within Lübeck, which welcomed Danish lordship and because King Waldemar was an ally of Otto IV – and his principal opponent, the aggressive and ambitious Count Adolf of Holstein, was both a dangerous neighbour to Lübeck and a supporter of King Philip.123 His opinion of the Danes was notably more positive than that of his predecessors Helmold and Adam of Bremen. The latter, clearly conscious of the depredations of the Viking period, thought that the Danes, while now nominally Christian, were violent, greedy and untrustworthy.124 Helmold considered them to be fierce and active in their civil wars – to which they were far too prone – but often cowardly and ineffective when confronting foreign foes – while their kings, and especially Sven III, were frequently cruel and tyrannical.125 They were also too fond of eating and drinking.126 Arnold did at one point refer to the Danes’ fondness for strong drink, but

121

Helmold, Cronaca, I.1, pp. 5–7, trans. Tschan, pp. 45–8. History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, Adam of Bremen, trans. Francis J. Tschan (2nd ed., New York 2002) [first published 1959], pp. 186–223. 122 Bk. III.4. 123 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 274–9. 124 History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, pp. 190–1. 125 Helmold, Cronaca, I.65, p. 122; I.70, p. 136; I.85, pp. 165–6, trans. Tschan, p. 180, 194, 225–6. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 103–10 (on Adam), 200–4 (Helmold), 285–7. 126 Helmold, Cronaca, II.109, p. 216, trans. Tschan, p. 279.

28

Introduction

this seems to have been something of a cliché among medieval writers.127 Otherwise he thought well of them. The Slavs were, as has already been shown, less central to Arnold’s narrative than they had been to that of Helmold. Although he did occasionally refer to Sclavia or ‘the land of the Slavs’ (terra Sclavorum), this seems to have been no more than a geographical expression – and interestingly it seems usually to have referred to Pomerania and Mecklenburg, and not to have included the region north of the Elbe which to Helmold was the most significant part of ‘Slav land’, although Arnold was not entirely consistent in this usage. Nor did this include the island of Rügen, despite its Slav population.128 The north-Elbian region was now firmly Christian, and had also been heavily settled by German immigrants during the twelfth century, while the ruler of Rügen was a vassal of the Danes. But the various Slav peoples east of the Elbe were also now Christians, and their rulers were intermarrying with Danes, Germans and Poles, actively founding monasteries and fostering the Church, and involving themselves in the politics of eastern Saxony. The process was already well underway in which these Slav rulers acculturated and within two or three generations had transformed themselves fully into ‘German’ princes.129 Pribislav, the recently converted Abrodite prince, had accompanied Henry the Lion on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The princes of Pomerania supported Duke Henry against his enemies in 1180, until the death of Prince Casimir led his brother to change sides.130 Count Bernhard of Badwide had earlier married the daughter of another Pomeranian prince.131 While Arnold described the campaigns of Duke Bernhard and Cnut VI in Pomerania in the 1180s, these were in no sense part of any ‘holy war’, for the Slavs against whom they were directed were Christians and other Slavs supported the invaders. The Danish king was seeking to make ‘the land of the Slavs subject to him and the power of his kingdom’,132 and after achieving the submission of the various Pomeranian princes, he withdrew. Arnold did indeed mention

127 Bk. VI.14, below p. 244. Cf., for example, William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: the History of the English Kings, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom (2 vols., Oxford 1998–9), i.240–1, 606–7. 128 For this and what follows, Lübke, ‘Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven’, especially pp. 191–4. 129 See especially Friedrich Lotter, ‘The Crusading idea and the conquest of the regions to the east of the Elbe’, in Medieval Frontier Societies, ed. Robert Bartlett and Angus Mackay (Oxford 1989), pp. 267–306, particularly 294–303; Oliver Auge, ‘Pomerania, Mecklenburg and the “Baltic frontier”: adaptation and alliances’, in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350 [above note 38], pp. 264–79. 130 Bk. II.17, below p. 83. 131 Bk. V.7, below p. 171. 132 Bk. III.4, below p. 99.

Introduction

29

the ‘obstinacy’ of the Slavs in previously resisting Christianity, but once they had converted he reported what happened within Sclavia without animus and indeed with some generosity. So, at the death of (Nicholas) Nyklot, a prince of the Abrodites, in 1200 he called him ‘a wise and good man, whose death cast all of Slavonia into mourning’.133 In this respect he showed himself more favourably disposed towards the Slavs than some of his contemporaries, among whom old attitudes died hard. Thus the Pegau annalist described Prince Casimir on his death as ‘for a long time the plunderer of the Christians’.134 The Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus also remained resolutely hostile to the Slavs.135 Arnold, by contrast, was much more critical of the Bohemians, even though the latter had been Christian for several centuries. He considered them to be ‘by nature vicious’, always anxious for plunder and no respecters of churches.136 The other Christian people in whom Arnold was intermittently interested were the Byzantines. He gave an interesting, if highly-coloured and far from accurate, account of the usurpation and downfall of Andronikos Komnenos. Otherwise his treatment of the Byzantines, where they impinged on his narrative, tended to be brief and, in all but one respect, relatively neutral. On the one hand, he was not intrinsically hostile to them – like other westerners he seems to have thought well of Manuel Komnenos, noting his hospitality and generosity towards Henry the Lion in 1172 and according him the epithet ‘noble’ on his death. While he briefly noted the problems that the army of Frederick Barbarossa faced in Byzantine territory in 1189/90, he did not linger on these, nor did he show the hostility towards the Byzantines displayed in, for example, The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick, where there was repeated complaint about the ‘deceit’ and ‘tricks’ of the Greeks.137 And while he gave an account of the theological debate that took place in Constantinople in 1172, where Abbot Henry of Brunswick acted (we are told) as the spokesman for the Latin Church, and was clear that the Greeks were in the wrong concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, at no point then or later did he specifically denounce them as schismatics, as some other westerners did.138 He saw the capture of Constantinople in 1203/4 as divinely

133

Bk. VI.13, below p. 242. Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.264. 135 Lübke, ‘Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven’, p. 198. 136 Bk. VI.5, below p. 233. 137 For example, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 46, 61, 64, 67, 70, 75, 77, 81–2, 84, 96. 138 Bk. I.5. Cf. for a much more hostile view, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 99–100, including the opinion that: ‘they separated themselves a long time ago from the Roman Church’. 134

30

Introduction

inspired, but made a rather subtle distinction here between what was God’s work and what took place by His permission. If God had sanctioned this, it was rather because such an extraordinary event could not have happened without His approval.139 He did not portray this, as he might have done, as Divine punishment for Greek sin or error. The one point where he was adamant, however, was with regard to the status of the Byzantine ruler. He was only ‘the king of the Greeks’, or (once) ‘the king of Constantinople’ – Arnold never allowed him the imperial title. This was reserved for the German ruler.140 One would expect Arnold’s view of non-Christians to be more hostile, and to some extent this was the case. He clearly disliked the Jews, whom he accused of having ‘a detestable custom of mocking Christ’.141 His account of what happened after the Battle of Hattin, with claims that Saladin mocked the Eucharist, churches were destroyed, monks and nuns killed, and nuns violated, drew on a long tradition of Christian polemic, which acquired new life after the disaster of 1187.142 He also clearly saw the crusades to recover the Holy Land as God’s work, to which true Christians should dedicate themselves. Yet despite this, there are indications that his view of Muslims was more nuanced than one might have expected. There are three principal manifestations of this in the chronicle. First, he wrote that the Seljuk Sultan Kilij-Arslan had allowed Henry the Lion to travel peacefully through his lands on the latter’s return from Jerusalem in 1172, and had received him ‘most kindly’ (benignissime), lavishing presents upon him and thanking God that he had avoided the ambushes of the treacherous Armenians. He even suggested that they might be distantly related. When the duke and sultan discussed religious matters, Arnold claimed that the latter remarked that it was not hard to believe in the truth of the Virgin Birth, because God had after all created the world.143 As has been suggested above, Arnold’s primary concern here may have been to

139

Bk. VI.19, below p. 248. In the letter which Arnold included describing the capture of 1204, Baldwin of Flanders described himself as ‘Emperor of Constantinople, crowned by God’, below, p. 253. This was an existing text and Arnold may not have wanted to alter it; but more probably he did not see this title as conflicting with German imperial claims, as the Byzantine use of the ‘Emperor of the Romans’ title did. 141 Bk. V.15, below p. 183. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 246–8. 142 Bk. IV.4–5. Penny J. Cole, ‘“O God, the heathen have come into your inheritance.” (Ps. 78.1) The theme of religious pollution in Crusade documents, 1095–1188’, in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Shatzmiller (Leiden 1993), pp. 84–111, especially 105–11. 143 Bk. I.9. This was in accordance with the Koran, Sura III.47, where Mary’s virtue is expressly recognised, but what is significant here is that Arnold reported it. 140

Introduction

31

show the piety of the duke, but the picture of the sultan was by no means hostile. Then, immediately after this Arnold went on to relate a story about a local castle, which had been besieged by Godfrey of Bouillon during the First Crusade. This seems to have been one among many such fictional anecdotes to which the success of the Crusade had given rise, some of which were circulating only a few years after the capture of Jerusalem.144 It was eventually decided that the decision as to whether or not the castle would be surrendered would be entrusted to two champions, the one representing the Muslims being an apostate who had married the daughter of the castle’s governor. The Christian champion defeated him, but then offered to spare his life if he would return to his original Christian faith. The apostate refused and was beheaded. Arnold was in no doubt that this was God’s judgement. But, nevertheless, the picture of the defeated Muslim champion was by no means unsympathetic, for he was portrayed as an honourable man, who resisted the Christian’s offer to spare him and to give him half his property and his sister as his wife. The apostate preferred to remain true to his word and to his Muslim father-in-law, even if it cost him his life.145 Furthermore, after his defeat the Muslims fulfilled their side of the agreement and surrendered the castle. We do not know from where Arnold may have got this story – the closest parallel comes in the verse account of the First Crusade by Metullus of Tegernsee, written after 1150 and largely based on the contemporary prose account of Robert of Rheims, who described a duel between Godfrey’s champion Wicher the Swabian and a Turkish giant.146 But, apart from the actual single combat – of which Metullus furnishes much more detail than does Arnold – the similarities are not that obvious. The duel Metullus described happened outside Jerusalem, not in Asia Minor, and its obvious model was the Biblical combat between David and Goliath.147 Nor is it likely that Arnold can have read, or even known about, this poem (which survives in only one MS, from Admont in Styria).148 Presumably the source for his story was oral, perhaps even a tale told in Asia Minor to members of Duke Henry’s suite, and it is possible that Arnold only included it as a good story which he could not resist telling. But, again, as he told it, this anecdote was not completely hostile to the Muslims.

See Carol Sweetenham, ‘What really happened to Eurvin de Créel’s donkey? Anecdotes in sources for the First Crusade’, in Writing the Early Crusades, ed. Marcus Bull and Damien Kempf (Woodbridge 2014), pp. 75–88. 145 Bk. I.11. 146 Metullus von Tegernsee, Expeditio Ierosolimitana, ed. Peter Christian Jacobson (Stuttgart 1982), part VI, lines 231–330, pp. 125–8. 147 I Samuel, 17: 38–51. 148 Metullus, Expeditio, p. ix. 144

32

Introduction

Finally, there was Arnold’s account of the siege of Toron in 1197/8. Here, he described how the Muslims inside the fortress sought to negotiate its surrender, with a concomitant guarantee of their safety. They appealed to the Crusader leaders, stressing their own descent from Abraham like that of the Christians, and that they themselves were not without religion, and saying ‘even though we are of different religions, we have one origin and one forefather’; and thus it was right that the Crusaders should spare them. While in the end the surrender agreement broke down, Arnold was clear that it was an unruly element within the Christian army that first broke the truce. Arnold was not, of course, an eyewitness of what took place, although his detailed and circumstantial account of the expedition shows that he had excellent sources of information. The speech which he put into the mouths of the Muslim envoys was, however, his own composition, giving the gist of what he thought they might have said, which makes its tone even more surprising. Indeed, throughout his account of the negotiations at Toron, Arnold portrayed the Muslims as rational beings, with an understandable wish to save their own lives, whose behaviour was in some respects more straight-forward and honourable than that of the Christians. Furthermore, when fighting resumed, he suggested that the Muslims displayed more courage and constancy than many of the Christians, who were by now half-hearted and often spending their time consorting with prostitutes – bad behaviour that risked God’s anger.149 Arnold appears to have known that Muslims professed a monotheistic faith like Christians. While he believed in the rightness of the Crusade, he was prepared to view them as recognisable human beings. Perhaps his knowledge of the conversion of the Slavs gave him a more sympathetic view of nonbelievers than many of his Christian contemporaries had? Texts copied within the chronicle Four texts written by others were copied within Arnold’s chronicle. The two circular letters describing the Fourth Crusade have already been mentioned. These had a wide distribution in the west after 1203/4, and versions of them, even if not quite identical to those Arnold copied, appear in a number of different sources, including in the register of Pope Innocent III. It is clear that multiple copies of these letters had been sent from Constantinople to the west as part of a propaganda campaign to justify the conquest, and Arnold was by no means the only chronicler to copy them.150

149

Bk. V.29. Alfred J. Andrea, Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden 2000), pp. 79–80, 98–9. 150

Introduction

33

More singular are the other two lengthy texts inserted into the chronicle, the letter by Bishop Conrad of Hildesheim about the wonders of southern Italy, and the tract by Burchard of Strassburg describing the Middle East in an account of his embassy to Saladin in 1175.151 The first of these, which survives only in Arnold’s chronicle, was inserted immediately before his account of the conquest of the kingdom of Sicily in 1194 – although after that chapter might have been the more logical place to put it. Nevertheless, this was at more or less the correct chronological point in the narrative, and it served to flesh out the fairly brief discussion of that conquest. Its primary purpose for its original author seems to have been for him to display his classical learning – often misapplied, for some of the ancient wonders he described were more properly associated with Greece than southern Italy. The text certainly testifies to the ‘exotic’ reputation of southern Italy in the twelfth century, fed by such natural phenomena as volcanos that were unknown in the north, and is by no means the only evidence of this.152 Arnold would have been interested in the classical learning, and no doubt regarded it as valuable evidence concerning a region he had never seen – not least since Bishop Conrad, the imperial chancellor, had been left as one of Henry VI’s key agents in the kingdom of Sicily when the emperor had set off to return to Germany in April 1195.153 Since he seems to have had connections with Hildesheim, and took an interest in Bishop Conrad, who was mentioned several times in the chronicle – and he may indeed have had use of a contemporary letter collection compiled there – his access to a text from that see should not surprise us.154 The other tract was, as was explained above, inserted completely out of chronological sequence towards the end of the chronicle, no doubt because it had only just come to Arnold’s attention. This was a detailed account, not of any negotiations that might have taken place on Burchard’s embassy, but of the geography and peoples of Egypt and Syria. Given his interest in the recovery of the Holy Land, and his belief that God would eventually permit

151

Bks. V.19, VII.8. G.A. Loud, ‘The kingdom of Sicily and the kingdom of England, 1066–1266’, History 88 (2003), 540–67, especially pp. 562–3. On Conrad, Evelyn M. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily. His Life and Work and the Authorship of the Epistola ad Petrum and the Historia Hugonis Falcandi Siculi (London 1957), pp.149–51, see on p. 149: ‘Conrad’s objective in writing was not to give his itinerary but rather to communicate the thrill of the classical tradition as he experienced it’. 153 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily, pp. 146–8, who suggests that he was promoted to be effectively governor of the mainland during his brief visit to Germany in winter 1195. 154 Stephan Freund, ‘Symbolische Kommunication und quellenkritische Probleme – Arnold von Lübeck und das Mainzer Pfingest von 1184’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, pp. 96–102. 152

34

Introduction

this, Arnold must have thought this would be of interest to any reader of his chronicle. One cannot, however, link his inclusion of this tract with any forthcoming Crusading plans – above all because, as we noted above, Arnold made no mention of Otto IV’s possible new Crusading expedition. Nor indeed is the tract a plan for such a future enterprise, it was at best ‘background material’ that gave the reader some understanding of the region and of the Islamic world and its customs. Unlike the letter of Bishop Conrad, this tract would appear to have circulated quite widely during the early thirteenth century. There is a free-standing, but incomplete, copy in BL MS Harley 3995,155 and it was recycled in the description of the east, perhaps intended as a report to the papacy, that was appended to the History of Jacques de Vitry, under the (misleading) title Narratio Patriarche Hierosolymitani. It was also known to the Westphalian pilgrim Thietmar, who left an account of his visit to the Holy Land in 1217–18.156 What may also have appealed to Arnold, given his nuanced and relatively restrained attitude towards Muslims, was the tone of this account, which is generally dispassionate, descriptive and not condemnatory, and seemingly the result of close observation rather than legend or prejudice. The account of Muslim beliefs is reasonably accurate, and there is a refreshing absence of improbable wonders – which many western authors writing about this region, notably Fulcher of Chartres, derived from uncritical reading of the Wonders of the World by the late-Roman author Solinus. In some passages Burchard noted that Muslims showed respect for, or even accepted some, Christian beliefs. Thus there were places where both Christians and Muslims venerated the Virgin Mary, notably at her shrine at Saydnaya outside Damascus.157 The one section where the author’s customary restraint was cast aside was in the discussion of the Assassins, where he was probably reliant on Sunni informants, who would have disliked them intensely. Arnold had earlier mentioned the Assassins during his discussion of the Third Crusade but, while similar, these two passages are by no means identical.158 155

A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts of the British Museum (4 vols, London 1808), iii.102. 156 Translated by Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (Crusade Texts in Translation 23, Farnham 2012), pp. 95–133. For the Narratio, see the footnotes to Bk. VII.8, below. 157 Below, pp. 279–80. 158 In an otherwise very interesting study Bruce Lincoln, ‘An early moment in the discourse of terrorism: reflections on a tale from Marco Polo’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 48 (2006), 242–59, at pp. 250–4, suggested that Arnold modified Burchard’s earlier account to make his section on the Assassins (Bk. IV.16) more dramatic. Given the late inclusion of Burchard’s text in the chronicle, this seems most improbable and we should regard these two passages as entirely separate.

Introduction

35

One should note, however, that the last section of this tract, for which we only have evidence in the chronicle, beginning ‘what ought to be considered amidst these matters if not the boundless clemency of our Redeemer’, may in fact have been added to it by Arnold himself. Certainly both tone and style, with frequent Biblical citations, are different from what comes earlier, even if the phraseology at the end of the chapter implies that everything before that was part of the original report. The stress in this paragraph on the importance of humility, and on the grace of the Holy Spirit, are characteristic of Arnold’s work.159 That it also included a quotation from the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you’, may therefore be revealing about Arnold’s own attitudes towards non-Christians.160 Manuscripts and editions There are now eleven surviving MSS of the Chronicle of Arnold, dating from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. The earliest, and indeed the only one from the thirteenth century, the so-called Schauenberger Codex, is now only a fragment, although there is a late and full copy made from this MS in 1579 (now Copenhagen, Royal Collection, 2288). According to the reconstruction and manuscript stemma suggested by Helmut Walther, these are the only witnesses to the original version of Arnold’s work, written c.1210. Subsequently, a year or two later, shortly before his death, he made a few minor revisions – the only witness to this stage is a MS formerly at Havelberg cathedral, which was transferred to Berlin during the nineteenth century, after 1837 (now Berlin, MS Lat. Fol. 296). Then, during the 1230s, someone else made some further (again relatively minor) revisions, while the monastery of St John was still at Lübeck, and before the community transferred to Cismar. The ur-text of this version, which does not survive, contained both Helmold’s work and Arnold’s together, as did almost all the later copies. At this stage Arnold’s work was probably still unknown outside his own monastic community, and perhaps at Ratzeburg if a copy had been given to Bishop Philip; certainly Albrecht of Stade, the leading historian of this same region in the mid-thirteenth century, does not seem to have been aware of it. It would appear that the work began to be distributed more widely only in the later thirteenth century. All the other surviving manuscripts, and at least two further ones now lost, appear to have been derived from the revised 1230s version, as was the Brunswick Historia de Duce H(e)inrico. Probably the most important manuscript of this redaction is Copenhagen, Royal Collection 646, fols 5–88, from the fourteenth century, which was transferred to the Danish capital after the

159 160

Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 325–6. Matthew, 5: 44.

36

Introduction

secularisation of the monastery of Cismar in the seventeenth century.161 This was the base manuscript for Lappenberg’s edition, although he collated it with others. The fifteenth-century paper manuscript surviving in the Stadsbibliothek at Lübeck would seem to be closely related to this. A further redaction of this revised version was, however, made at Cismar after 1283, contained in two surviving manuscripts (one a copy of the other) and in a now lost seventeenthcentury manuscript once in the Vatican (Cod. Vat. Pal. Lat. 956). Some of book I is missing from this version, the earliest manuscript of which is Copenhagen, University Library, Additamenta no. 50. The other known but lost manuscript, which contained the post-1283 version, was destroyed in a fire at Stettin in 1677.162 There may, of course, have been others; in particular, one would like to know what exactly was the cronica istius terre recorded in a list of the books of the cathedral library at Lübeck in 1297.163 Could this have been a now-lost copy of the chronicles of Helmold or Arnold, or indeed both? The first printed edition of Arnold’s chronicle was published by Siegmund Schorkel at Frankfurt in 1556. The text was derived from the post-1283 Cismar redaction. Several further early modern editions followed, including by the famous polymath Georg-Wilhelm Leibniz in his collection of Brunswick historians in the early eighteenth century.164 The only ‘modern’ edition remains that by Johannes Lappenberg (1794–1865), for many years the city archivist of Hamburg, published posthumously in 1868.165 A new edition for the MGH by Hans-Joachim Freytag was announced in the 1980s, but never completed. A new German translation, by Oliver Auge and Sebastian Modrow, with a commentary by Christian Lübke, is now in preparation for the series ‘Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters. Freiherr vom SteinGedächtnisausgabe’, but has not yet appeared. Furthermore, while this book

161 Ellen Jørgenson, Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Medii Aevi Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis (Copenhagen 1926), p. 397. 162 Walther, ‘Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’, pp. 7–23. Lappenberg’s discussion of the MSS is in his introduction published in the MGH Scriptores in folio edition, MGH SS xxi.106–12. Unfortunately this section was omitted from the MGH SRG edition. 163 Urkundenbuch des Bistum Lübecks, i.383–90, at p. 388. 164 Scriptores Rerum Brunsvicensium (3 vols, Hanover 1707–11). Helmold’s Chronica is to be found in vol. ii (1710), 537–629, immediately followed by that of Arnold, ibid., ii.629–743. 165 Lappenberg was a frequent contributor to the MGH, editing among other texts Thietmar of Merseburg, Adam of Bremen, Helmold (which also appeared posthumously) and the Annales Stadenses. He also edited the medieval charters of Hamburg, and material relating to the Hanse. That his editions of Helmold and Arnold did not appear in his lifetime, although completed some years before his death, may have been due simply to the MGH’s publication schedule, or perhaps to the failing eyesight that blighted Lappenberg’s last years.

Introduction

37

will contain a parallel Latin text, the latter will simply be a reprint of Lappenberg’s edition. From the brief discussion above, it will be clear that an entirely new edition is much needed, a project that has been undertaken by Helmut Walther (Professor Emeritus at the University of Jena), but has unfortunately been much delayed. This will utilise the former Havelberg manuscript, which is the nearest to what Arnold himself actually wrote, as its base text. However, since it seems unlikely that this new edition will appear in the near future, there is clearly no reason to delay the present translation.

Prologue

Arnold, least of the servants of God, offers due reverence in Christ to his lord and father Philip, Bishop of the church of Ratzeburg, and to all the brothers there.1 Since the priest Helmold of good memory died before he completed, as he intended, his histories of the subjection and conversion of the Slavs, and the deeds of the bishops through whose efforts the churches of these regions grew stronger, we have decided with the help of God to embark on this work or endeavour, so that those of us also helping in such a work of pious devotion and supported by your prayers may share in his blessed memory. Hence we ask your prudence that you do not pay attention to our lack of intellect or the rusticity of our words, but you direct your attention with pious consideration rather to the blessing of charity which ought not to be neglected. For indeed, he [Helmold] was a man of shrewd mind, wide vocabulary, more powerful in phrase making, eloquent and with a wealth of talent;2 and he made the series of events flow swiftly. We, however, distilling from the oil of Minerva,3 although of less ready tongue and with a slower pen, have begun this work, and we shall proceed humbly, as if by crawling, since we do not equal our master with either voice or our pen.4 Following therefore the true course of history, we shall entirely eliminate flattery, which is the companion of many writers, so that excluding fear and treacherous grace we shall proceed freely to expound those things which are known to us. We shall in what follows explain how the position of the leaders and governors of these northern regions, whether lay or ecclesiastical, developed, as is [also] described in the aforesaid book of Helmold the priest. And since he delineated events up to the time of Duke Henry of Saxony and Bavaria, we shall place him at the beginning of our account; the man who tamed the obstinacy of the Slavs more than all those who had come

1

Philip, Bishop of Ratzeburg 1204–15, had been one of the (Praemonstratensian) canons of that church before his promotion to the see after a disputed election in 1204. 2 divitis vene: Horace, Ars Poetica, l.409. 3 ‘from our mother wit’: the phrase comes from Cicero, De Amicitia, c. 19. 4 Cf. Vergil, Ecloga, V, ll.48–9: ‘You do not just equal your master with your pen, but with your voice, you lucky boy’.

Book I

39

before him, and not only forced them to pay tribute, but also forced them to abandon their superstitious idolatry and rendered them fully obedient, on bended knee, to the cult of the true God. He established a most firm peace in all the land of the Slavs. All the northern provinces of the Wagrians, Holsteiners, Polabi and Obrodites lay peacefully at rest; thefts and robberies were prohibited on both land and sea, and they were made fruitful by trade with each other and mercantile activity. ‘Every man dwelt safely under his vine and fig tree’,5 while the most reverend father Evermodus presided over the church of Ratzeburg, the illustrious man Conrad was bishop in Lübeck, and the man of religion Berno in Schwerin, who strove with the assistance of the Lord to plant doctrine and to water with their most industrious efforts these newly planted churches which the aforesaid Duke Henry had founded.6 Book I 1 About the pilgrimage of Duke Henry. After peace had been confirmed in the land of the Slavs, as has been described,7 the power of the duke over the land and all its inhabitants grew greater and greater, and the civil wars between him and the eastern princes were suppressed through the mediation of the imperial majesty. Pribislav, the brother of Wertizlav, from an enemy became a most dear friend to the duke, knowing that the plots which had been undertaken against him would be of no avail, and also considering the magnificence of the man.8 Having now obtained this great peace, and having reached a safe and comfortable haven after escaping great dangers and disturbances, the duke wished to atone for his sins by seeing the Holy Sepulchre, that he might worship the Lord in the place where his feet had trod. He therefore put his affairs in order, and began carefully to plan his journey to Jerusalem. Consigning his lands to the guardianship of Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg, he took as his companions for his journey the most noble men of the land, namely Bishop

5

I Kings, 4: 25. Evermodus, Bishop of Ratzeburg 1152/4–78, formerly provost of the Praemonstratensian house of St Mary at Magdeburg; Conrad, Bishop of Lübeck 1164–72; Berno, Bishop of Schwerin 1160–92, a Cistercian monk from Amelungborn. For the appointment of Evermodus and Berno, see Helmold, Cronaca, I.77, 88, pp. 145–6, 173, trans. Tschan, p. 204, 234. 7 By Helmold. 8 For the conversion of Pribislav, prince of the Obrodites, Helmold, Cronaca, I.84, pp. 159–65, trans. Tschan, pp. 218–25. 6

40

Book I

Conrad of Lübeck,9 Abbot Henry of Brunswick,10 Abbot Berthold of Lüneburg, the aforesaid Pribislav, the kinglet (regulus) of the Obrodites, Count Gunzelin of Schwerin,11 Count Siegfried of Blankenburg,12 and many others [too], both from among his free men and his ministeriales. None of his great men remained at home apart from Ekbert of Wolfenbüttel,13 whom the duke appointed to rule over his household – he was in particular charged with being of service (in ministerium) to Duchess Matilda, that most religious woman, whose memory is preserved with God and among men, the daughter of the king of England.14 She was derived from a most distinguished line, from a kin who had long been descended from royalty. She was [also] distinguished by works of piety, was busy with charitable gifts, and flourished in the grace of religion. For she was extremely pious, had a wonderful compassion for the afflicted, was generous in dispensing alms, and dedicated to prayers and masses, of which she had many chanted, for she was most devoted in religious services. Strictly guarding her sworn union with her husband, she preserved her marriage bed in

9

Bishop Conrad, formerly Abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Riddagshausen, had been appointed in 1164 by Duke Henry to succeed his brother Gerold as bishop, although his relations with Henry had subsequently been troubled, Helmold, Cronaca, II.97, 105, pp. 189–91, 205–7, trans. Tschan, pp. 252–3, 268–70. 10 Henry, Abbot of the monastery of St Giles in Brunswick, witnessed only one surviving charter of the duke, in July 1156, Urkunden HL, p. 49 no. 34. He subsequently, with the duke’s approval, became Bishop of Lübeck in 1173, and died in 1182; see below Bk. I.13, III.3. 11 Gunzelin of Hagen, Count of Schwerin 1167/9–85, one of the duke’s most loyal supporters whom he had elevated from ministerial status. For his installation by the duke as castellan of Schwerin in 1160, Helmold, Cronaca, I.88, p. 172, trans. Tschan, p. 233. Helmold described him as vir bellicosus. He is referred to as count for the first time in a forged charter dated 1167, and in a genuine document of November 1169, Urkunden HL, pp. 109–11 no. 76†, 118–20 no. 81. See Jordan, Henry the Lion, pp. 75–6, 109. 12 Siegfried, son of Count Poppo I of Blankenburg (d. 1164), who had been an ally and supporter of the Emperor Lothar, from whom he had received his countship. Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, pp. 136–7. Siegfried died in 1173. He witnessed a small number of Duke Henry’s charters, Urkunden HL, nos 48 (October 1161), 52 (1162), and 60 (1163). Also in 1163 the duke purchased his and his brothers’ rights over the monastery of Northeim, ibid., no 64, although this document, which survives only in a late copy, seems to have been tampered with. 13 His father Burchard had been one of Lothar’s ministeriales: Henry had inherited his services as part of the Supplinburg lordship derived from his mother. Ekbert can be attested in Henry’s service from 1154, Urkunden HL, p. 38 no. 27; Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, p. 198. 14 She was the eldest daughter of Henry II of England, born 1155/6. She married Duke Henry in February 1168, and died on 28 June 1189.

Book I

41

purity. She remained in Brunswick all the time in which the duke was a pilgrim, since she was then pregnant, and she gave birth to a daughter who was called Richenza.15 After his return she bore him sons: Henry, Lothar, Otto and William, whom, as is read of the holy Tobias, she taught from infancy to fear God.16 Henry of Lüneburg and the aforesaid Ekbert served her, the latter being considered the most faithful and distinguished in all the duke’s household. But in his case matters turned out otherwise. For he stained his glorious reputation and incurred disgrace through his treachery, and as a result was gravely punished.17 But let us omit these matters, since we turn to other things.

2 About the same. The duke set off in great state from Brunswick after the Octave of the Epiphany and came with all his following to Regensburg where he solemnly celebrated the day of the Purification with the great nobles (optimates) of the region. Some of these nobles joined him in his pilgrimage, namely Margrave Frederick of Sulzbach and the Margrave of Styria.18 And so he travelled into Austria to his stepfather, the noble Duke 15

She was named after Henry’s maternal grandmother, the wife of the Emperor Lothar III. Later also called Matilda, she married first in 1189 Count Geoffrey III of Perche (d. 1202) and then soon after his death Count Enguerrand III of Coucy. She died in January 1210. Karl Jordan, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und seine Familie’, Archiv für Diplomatik 27 (1981), 111–44, at pp. 128–31; Kathleen Thompson, Power and Border Lordship in Medieval France. The County of the Perche, 1000–1226 (Woodbridge 2002), pp. 109–10, 145–51. 16 Henry (1173/4–1227), Count Palatine of the Rhine 1195; Lothar (1174/5–90); Otto (1176/7–1218), later Emperor Otto IV; William (1184–1213), Jordan, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und seine Familie’, pp. 128–34, 138–9. 17 The circumstances here are obscure. Ekbert was still in favour in 1174 when the duke sent him, along with Count Gunzelin and Jordan the steward (see below), to represent him at the dedication of the monastery of Stederburg: subsequently in 1191 Ekbert of Wolfenbüttel ravaged ducal property and Henry launched a punitive campaign against him, but the culprit here may well have been not this Ekbert, but his homonymous son Ekbert II, Annales Stederburgenses, MGH SS xvi.211, 226–7. Possibly Arnold confused the father and son, although Ekbert (I) did not witness any of Henry’s charters after his pilgrimage. For his other son, Gunzelin, see below, VI.7. 18 Here it would seem that Arnold was in error. There was no Margrave Frederick of Sulzbach, and Ottokar VI of Styria was no more than seven years old. It is more probable that Counts Frederick and Otto of Wittlesbach were the persons concerned. Count Frederick announced that he would be going to Jerusalem in a charter to the monastery of Scheyern issued at around this time, Monumenta Boica x.239–44 [see p. 20].

42

Book I

Henry, who met him as soon as he could and amid great rejoicing from clergy and people at the castle of Neuburg, where his mother the lady Gertrude had chosen to be buried.19 The duke then brought him with honour to the metropolitan city of Vienna, where ships had been purchased, plentifully laden with wheat, wine and other foodstuffs. The duke and his men embarked by ship upstream on the River Danube. However, the servants travelled on land with the horses, always arriving each evening at a predetermined place where they met the ships. Nor should it be omitted that the lord Bishop of Worms joined them on this journey, not for the sake of pilgrimage but having been entrusted by the emperor with an embassy to Manuel, the King of the Greeks, to secure a marriage between the latter’s daughter and the emperor’s son.20 The duke of Austria also prepared ships and followed the duke of Saxony, furnishing the resources of his duchy to him, and hospitably providing in great abundance the supplies he needed. They thus arrived well-supplied at a city which is called Wieselburg, sited on the Hungarian frontier, where an envoy from the king of Hungary, called Florenz, was present, ready to receive the dukes of Saxony and Austria, to whose sister the king was married.21 Then, travelling peacefully onwards without hindrance, they arrived at a certain fortress with a naturally defensible position, for on one side it was flanked by the Danube, and on the other by a very deep valley which is called Gran, from which both the fortress and the town which is sited on the other bank take their name.22 There the dukes suffered a grievous shock, for that very night the king died by drinking poison, administered so it was said by [agents of] his brother whom he had exiled from that land.23 They were greatly upset by this, to such an extent that they did not know what they were doing. The duke of Saxony and his men were extremely worried that they might not be able to continue further on the pilgrimage which had been undertaken; for the duke feared that the king’s death would appear to stifle the chance of securing a guide to show them the way. The other

19 Henry’s mother Gertrude had married Henry Jasomirgott, Margrave and later Duke of Austria, in May 1142, as part of a compromise to resolve a dispute about the succession to the duchy of Bavaria, but she had died in childbirth on 18 April 1143, Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 25. 20 Conrad (II) of Sternberg, Bishop of Worms 1171–92, who later played a prominent role in the negotiations leading to the peace conference at Venice in 1177. 21 King Stephen of Hungary (1161–72) had married Agnes of Austria, Henry Jasomirgott’s eldest daughter by his second marriage to Theodora Komnena, in 1168. She died in 1182. 22 Modern Estergom. 23 Stephen died on 4 March 1172, and was succeeded by his brother Bela III, king 1172–96, who had spent most of the previous reign at the imperial court in Constantinople, as a favoured protégé of Manuel Komnenos.

Book I

43

duke was equally upset by the king’s sudden death, because he had died intestate, and his sister, who was pregnant, was left widowed, and seemingly deprived of her portion, since the kingdom lacked an heir. However, after discussing the situation, they sent an embassy to the archbishop, who was at that time in the city and was busy with the king’s funeral, composed of Bishop Conrad and Abbots Henry and Berthold, asking that he might arrange for the duke of Saxony to be provided with a guide for the journey. The archbishop showed himself amenable in this matter, for he summoned his leading men and then instructed that the aforementioned Florenz should accompany the duke on the journey which he had commenced.

3 The same. The duke and his men thus departed, and sailed on safely for some days, until they arrived at a dangerous place which is called in the vernacular Skere. Here vast cliffs towered up like mountains, on one of which a castle was placed, and sticking out into the river and interrupting its flow, they made the passage for boats here extremely difficult. Passing through a narrow channel, the water was extremely fast, surging up and then falling headlong with a great crash.24 However, with the help of God all the ships passed through the defile in safety, apart from that of the duke, which was wrecked there. Seeing this, the people who were in the castle took to their boats and brought him to shore. Gunzelin and Jordan the steward, along with various others, saved themselves by swimming.25 The ship was, though, repaired, and they then went to Branischevo, a town of the king of the Greeks, where with the water being shallow, they disembarked from the ships onto dry land.26 For here the Danube is diverted into an underground channel, and what remains is a very small river; it is only after a considerable distance has elapsed that it bubbles up once again

24

The Cazane defile. Jordan of Blankenburg (d. 1196), one of the duke’s ministeriales, who with his brother Josarius, who seems also to have gone on this pilgrimage, was a trusted advisor over a long period from 1161 onwards. He later went into exile with the duke in 1184, and again in 1189. Austin Lane Poole, ‘Die Welfen in der Verbannung’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 2 (1938), 143; Jordan, Henry the Lion, pp. 150–1, 162; Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, pp. 223–4, 245–7. 26 Similarly this place, near the junction between the Danube and the Morawa, was where Frederick Barbarossa and his army abandoned their ships and continued on foot, along the old Byzantine military road, in 1189, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, p. 59 25

44

Book I

with a strong flow, and merges with the Sava (Sowa).27 Thus abandoning their ships, they set off on the land route and entered a vast and most threatening forest, which is called the Bulgarwald, where both they and their horses struggled in the deep swamps. Many horses perished, especially those pulling the wagons and carts carrying their supplies. The wagons were all too frequently damaged, everyone was exhausted with the work repairing them and righting the overturned carts, and they were making no progress; for, so it was said, when one of the carts was wrecked, everyone remained there until the contents had been eaten, and they all started off again. The duke realised that their journey was being greatly delayed by the time this work was taking, and so he ordered that the wagons be abandoned, and the supplies carried on pack horses, and so they set off once more. You might have seen, therefore, great heaps of the finest flour thrown away, and many wine vessels, full to the brim with wine, left behind, a huge amount of meat and fish abandoned, along with all sorts of carefully prepared delicacies flavoured with various spices. Marching on therefore, they approached the town of Rabnell,28 which is sited in the midst of the forest, the inhabitants of which are called Serbs. These people are ‘sons of Belial’,29 without the yoke of God, given over to the delights of the flesh and greed, and in accordance with their name serving in every filthy way. They lived like beasts, as one had to in this place, indeed they were even fiercer than beasts. They are, however, acknowledged to be subjects of the king of the Greeks, whose envoy had previously met the duke and was then with him. This man gave instructions that the duke be honourably received in the castle, in a manner indeed that was appropriate for royalty, and that they should treat him with the utmost honesty in every respect. They, however, ignored his advice and instructions. They sent him away emptyhanded and left him without honour. He returned to the duke and told him what he had heard. The duke and his men approached the town and set up camp there. The duke sent another messenger, announcing that he was coming in peace, and asking them to furnish him with a guide, and then he would [also] leave in peace. But after he had made several such attempts of this sort, and none of them had achieved anything, the duke said to his men: It is indeed right that while we are on a pilgrimage we travel in peace and behave with the utmost gentleness, and so we ought not to march against this town of the king, towards which we are heading, with

27

This passage makes little sense, since the Danube and the Sava join at Belgrade, which is upstream from the Cazane defile and Branischevo. 28 Probably modern Cuprija, Ekkehard Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient: Kreuzzug und Tod Friedrichs I. (Tübingen 1977), p. 50. 29 Cf. Deuteronomy, 13: 13; Judges 19: 22, 20: 13; I Samuel, 2: 12.

Book I

45

warlike banners unfurled: but since these sons of Belial are not followers of peace but seem to be determined to make war upon us, raise your banners and march out! May the God of our fathers be with us, in whose name we undertake this pilgrimage and following whose instructions we have left behind homes, brothers, wives, sons and lands. We need to employ our strength here. Let us fight bravely! Let whatever is pleasing to Him happen, ‘whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord’.30

After these words, they raised their banners and set out, marching by the town. They then camped not far away in a very long valley by a very clear stream, having mountains on the right hand side and a very dense expanse of pines on the left, which served to protect them. They lit great fires, and having set sentries around the camp they took thought for their bodily welfare and lay down to sleep. Lo and behold, in the middle of the night the Serbs who had gathered together from all over the forest formed up in four groups, yelling and creating an ever-increasing din with their shouts, hoping so to terrify the duke’s army that his men would flee and abandon their goods, which they could then plunder. But the duke and his men rose up and flew to their weapons, while Henry the Marshal strode about ordering all the knights to gather under the duke’s banner. The servants stayed on one side with a guard [around them] looking after the horses. Their instructions were that if those in the front rank were attacked by the enemy, they should without delay call on the knights to protect them. There were 1,200 men carrying swords there. And when, as has been described, all the knights had gathered around the duke, Bishop Conrad and Abbots Henry and Berthold climbed up and sat next to the duke. While the duke was sitting there in his armour, a huge fire was lit, and Count Gunzelin and some of the more powerful men stood in front of him, strengthening each other’s resolve with mutual exhortations. Suddenly an arrow was fired and fell near them. Terrified by this, they snatched up their weapons. Then someone appeared who said that the camp of the lord bishop of Worms had been seized by the enemy, and one knight was dead, struck by an arrow, and two servants. Another servant lived until midday and then died, for the darts had been dipped in poison, and whoever was wounded [by them] could not escape death. On hearing such sad news, twenty knights in armour (loricati) were sent to the bishop’s camp, and when they arrived there they launched a valiant attack on the enemy. One of their number was carrying a crossbow and with God’s assistance fired accurately, hit the enemy 30

Romans, 14: 8.

46

Book I

leader and transfixed him. On his fall the others took flight, and they made no further attempt to attack the duke’s camp. When morning came a dense fog arose, and the duke ordered them not to move the camp until this fog dispersed. When the sun broke through they set out, and throughout the day they saw from afar the enemy waiting to ambush them, if they could have seized any of them, but they managed to cross through the forest unscathed and reached the city of Nish. There the duke was honourably received, and he and all his men were most generously supplied at the king’s expense. Then they were guided to Adrianople, and then Vinopolis,31 and eventually on Good Friday they approached Constantinople. There they celebrated the Passion of the Lord and Holy Saturday, and on the morrow the day of the Resurrection, and after solemnly hearing mass, and having had a meal, they set off for the court of the king. The duke had sent many very fine presents on ahead, as is the custom of our land: most beautiful horses with saddles and harness, hauberks, swords, scarlet tunics and others in most delicate linen.

4 How the king received the duke at his court. The king therefore, clad in his royal finery, was along with his bishops, princes and great men awaiting the arrival of the duke. There was in that place a most wide and level hunting park, walled, and the king ordered his princes and great men all to be present [there] at this most solemn occasion, to demonstrate the glory of his riches. You might therefore have seen here innumerable tents set up, made from fine linen, in purple with golden tops, and everyone magnificently but differently decorated. When the duke arrived he was splendidly received, and since the ceremony began with a procession, the king walked with the duke. There was a narrow path covered in purple [cloth] and above it a canopy with golden embroidery and decorated with gold torches and crowns. A detachment of clergy and bishops walked along this, with the king and the duke following, along with many pilgrim knights; and so they proceeded to a golden tent, which was shining all over with gems and precious stones. Then they went back by the same route to the church, where the king sat on his throne on high, and the duke on another one next to him, and a solemn mass was celebrated.

Later, Bk.IV.9, Arnold seems to mean Philippopolis by this name – but that makes no sense in this chapter since Adrianople was 150 miles further down the road to Constantinople than Philippopolis. If not simply confused, and placing these in the wrong order, Arnold may here have intended Chariopolis or Arkadiopolis. 31

Book I

47

5 The disputation between the Greeks and Abbot Henry. In the afternoon, while the king and the duke were making merry, the lord Bishops of Worms and Lübeck posed a question to the learned men of the Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit. For the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, adhering literally to the words of the Lord, when he speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit thus: ‘I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father’.32 The bishops, however, opposed this, arguing that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, since the Holy Spirit is of both the Father and the Son, and when the grace of the Holy Spirit is given to men, it is sent from the Father, but it is also sent from the Son, and while it proceeds from the Father, it also proceeds from the Son, since that sending is also His proceeding. The Greeks still argued against this, as though the matter had not yet been conclusively proved by many authorities. So Abbot Henry, a most learned and very eloquent man, modestly began.33 ‘You catholic and religious men! Might you not be in error’, he said, in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, since it clearly proceeds from the Son just as much as it does from the Father? To deny this is to join the heretics. For the fact that it proceeds from both is proven from many statements from Holy Scripture. Thus the Apostle says: ‘God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts’.34 Behold, this says that the Spirit is of the Son. And here: ‘If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his’.35 That this Son is also of the Holy Spirit is [also] said in the Gospel: ‘whom I send unto you from the Father’.36 However, the Spirit is said [to be] of the Father, where one reads: ‘If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you’.37 And Christ himself said: ‘For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you’.38 And in another place: ‘Whom the Father sends in my name’.39 It is shown by these and other

32

John, 15: 26. Most of the arguments that follow were taken directly from the Sententiae of Peter Lombard, lib. I dist. 11, MPL 192, cols 551–3. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 300–1. 34 Galatians, 4: 6. 35 Romans, 8: 9. 36 John, 15: 26. 37 Romans, 8: 11. 38 Matthew, 10: 20. 39 John, 14: 26. 33

48

Book I authorities that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. To those who oppose this citation from the Gospel, ‘which proceedeth from the Father’, we reply thus: that since the Truth says in this that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it does not add ‘alone’, and thus it does not deny that it proceeds also from Him [the Son]. Rather it names the great Father since it is customary to refer to him, as also what is from him, since He has [being] from Him. Even your doctors interpret this sentence in the same way, since the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and to the Son, and they have acknowledged that the Spirit is of the Son as well as of the Father, hence the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, just as it does from the Father. Hence Athanasius in the Symbol of Faith: ‘the Holy Spirit has not been made by the Father and the Son, nor has it been created, nor born, but it is proceeding’. Behold, he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Similarly John Chrysostom in one of his homilies says this: ‘This is proceeding from the Father and from the Son, and he divides his own gifts as he wills’. Also Bishop Cyril says: ‘the Holy Spirit is known for itself, in that the Spirit is not the Son, but is however not distinct from Him. For the Spirit is called of truth, and flows from Him, just as from God the Father’.40 So you also have clear testimony from your doctors, by whom the Holy Spirit is shown to proceed from the Father and the Son.

The masters of the Greeks were unable to speak against these and other authorities, but in particular against his arguments, agreeing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Abbot Henry was highly esteemed in the sight of the king and of the bishops, who praised him for his doctrine and [true] faith, and gave him no little applause for his words.41 The queen gave the duke many cloths of velvet, so that he might clothe all his knights in velvet, and to these the queen added [a gift] to one particular knight of various skins and a sable skin.

6 The duke’s journey. The king then gave him a very substantial ship, plentifully furnished with all sorts of supplies, and the duke went on board and set sail with his men. There was a great storm at sea, so that

40

All three of these examples were copied from Peter Lombard, Sententiae, I.11, MPL 192, cols 552–3, rather than directly from the Greek Fathers. 41 Manuel Komnenos was indeed interested in theology, and had taken an active part in several theological controversies within the Greek Church before 1172, Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, pp. 279–92.

Book I

49

everyone feared that they were risking death because of the strength of the tempest. There was, however, a certain man of virtuous life on board, who was desperately worried because of the danger threatening them. Caught between these thoughts and the tossing of the waves, he suddenly fell asleep, and in a dream he saw a most beautiful girl standing near him, who said: ‘Do you fear danger from the sea?’ He replied, ‘My most gracious lady, fears grip us fast, and if God in Heaven does not look after us, then we shall swiftly perish’. And she said, ‘have faith, for you will not perish, but because of the prayers of a certain man who is on this ship and who unceasingly calls upon me, you will be freed from this peril’. Although it was not expressly said to whom this referred, the man who saw this vision thought to himself that it was said about Abbot Henry, since he who sees in the Spirit of God may indeed hear little, but understands much. Nor was the vision wrong. When day finally dawned, the winds grew stronger and the ship was tossed about by the waves in the midst of the sea. This perilous situation at sea was similar to that which they had earlier faced on the Danube at the place called Skere, and the sailors were absolutely terrified. There indeed there were very sharp rocks to right and left, and the ship in the middle. Although the sailors were much afraid, they saw the rocks standing clear as though they were enemies. Now they sailed into the wind, and behold the force of the storm decreased and the waves grew still. The ship was soon sailing on unharmed, and they praised the Lord, who ‘killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up’.42

7 The arrival of the duke at Jerusalem. The duke then landed at Acre, or Accaron, where he was magnificently received by the inhabitants. Mounting their horses, chariots, mules and even donkeys, they travelled to the city of Jerusalem, where the Templars and Hospitallers, along with a huge following, met them. Giving the duke an honourable reception, they led him into the holy city, where he was welcomed by the clergy with hymns and praises to God. The duke gave a large sum of money to the Holy Sepulchre, and he had the basilica in which the Wood of the Lord was kept decorated with mosaic work and the doors of this same basilica covered with purest silver.43 He also pledged annual sums of money to buy candles, to burn

42

I Samuel, 2: 6. Arnold uses the word basilica to describe where the True Cross was kept, but this was in fact in a chapel of the Holy Sepulchre itself, although it was separate from 43

50

Book I

continually at the Holy Sepulchre.44 Moreover, he gave gifts and many weapons to the Templars and Hospitallers, along with a thousand marks of silver to be used for buying property through which mercenaries (tyrones) could be hired in time of war. The king entertained him and his men in his own house for three days.45 Then, after visiting all the holy sites, at Jehosophat, the Mount of Olives, Bethlehem and Nazareth, he went to the Jordan, escorted by the Templars, and then he climbed up the Quarentana.46 Abbot Henry also climbed up the mountain, with great difficulty since he was exhausted, and celebrated mass there. Indeed, he celebrated mass with great devotion at all these holy places in memory of our Lord Jesus Christ, where He had appeared in the flesh, and of his most glorious mother, to whom he showed himself most devoted throughout his whole pilgrimage in fasting and prayer, clad in a hair shirt. At first light, before the camp was struck, he had always finished the morning hours, with the full office of the mass, celebrating the solemn service and continually offering the Eucharist, both for himself and for all that pilgrim army.

8 The return of the duke from the Jordan. The duke went back to Jerusalem, and the lord patriarch hosted him there for two days.47 He then returned to Acre, or Accaron, where he said farewell to all his men, and especially Bishop Conrad and Abbot Berthold. He himself travelled to Antioch, followed by the Templars and a great crowd of people. Bishop Conrad was ill, with the sickness from which he died. After the duke had set off, the lord bishop was upset by his departure, because he had certain matters which he wanted to discuss with him. He embarked with Abbot Berthold, and followed the duke by ship, but his bodily suffering grew worse, and when they reached the city which is called Tyre, or Sur, he rendered up his spirit.48 His body was brought into the city, and was buried there with great ceremony,

the main shrine. For a contemporary description, c.1169, see the account of Theodorich, in Peregrinationes Tres, ed. R.B.C. Huygens (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis 139, Turnhout 1994), p. 153. 44 The income for these three lamps came from rents from some houses near the Holy Sepulchre which the duke purchased, Urkunden HL, pp. 143–5 no. 94. 45 Amalric, King of Jerusalem 1163–74. 46 The mountain where Jesus had fasted for forty days in the Wilderness; cf. Matthew 4: 1–12; Mark, 1: 12–13, Luke, 4: 1–13. 47 Amalric of Nesle, Latin patriarch of Jerusalem 1157–80. 48 According to the necrology of St Michael of Lüneberg, he died on 17 July (1172), Die Totenbücher von Merseburg, Magdeburg und Lüneburg, ed. G. Althoff and J. Wollasch (MGH Libri Memoriales et Necrologia, n.s. 2, Hanover 1983), pp. 18, 38.

Book I

51

through the agency of Count Gunzelin and other friends of the duke who were present there. Abbot Berthold returned to Acre after three days and finished his life there.49 On hearing this news the duke was greatly saddened. Abbot Henry accompanied the duke on the road which he had begun.

9 The duke’s return home. The duke then sent envoys to Milo the Saracen, asking him for permission to enter his duchy.50 The latter sent twenty of his nobles to him, to announce that he was most ready to escort the duke honourably and in safety through his land. But realising that this offer was a trick, the duke refused to cross his land. The prince of Antioch, who had dealt honourably with him, furnished him with ships, which he boarded at a town called the port of St Symeon, along with his horses and all the men whom he had with him. When they had arrived at a city called Tarsus, or in the Saracen language Tortun, which this same Milo subsequently captured and made subject to himself – in revenge for the pilgrims having made a stay there – the Sultan, the prince of the Turks,51 sent 500 knights to him, that they might escort him and all those in his following through the land of Milo. After setting out, they spent three days crossing a desert land, waterless and trackless, ‘a land of horror and vast solitude’,52 which is called the desert of Romania. There they struggled greatly, carrying all their supplies on their horses, even the water that they and their mounts drank. And so they arrived at a city that is called Rakilei in the Turkish language, and in our tongue Heraclea.53 This was once held by the prince of Jerusalem Heraclius, he who killed Cosroes, who had taken Jerusalem and carried away the Wood of the Lord into captivity.54 On his arrival there, the duke was magnificently received by the Turks, who then escorted

49

The necrology of St Michael recorded his death on 24 July, Totenbücher, p. 10, 35. 50 This was actually Mleh (d. 1174), one of the Roupenid princes of Armenia, who was a Christian, albeit a close ally of Nur-ed-Din, who was in conflict with Bohemond III, Prince of Antioch 1160–1201, the Templars and the Byzantines. See T.S. Boase, The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia (Edinburgh 1978), p. 14. 51 Kilij Arslan II, Sultan of Iconium 1156–92. 52 Deuteronomy, 32: 10. 53 Heraclea is now Erakli, on the River Halys. The duke had taken the wellestablished Roman road north from Tarsus through the Cilician Gates, which then continued west to Iconium (modern Konya); cf. John Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565–1204 (London 1999), pp. 57–9. 54 Cosroes II, Shah of Persia, had captured Jerusalem in 614, but was defeated by the Emperor Heraclius and subsequently murdered in 628.

52

Book I

him to Axarat, where the sultan met him most joyfully, embracing and kissing him, and saying that he was his blood-relation. And when the duke inquired exactly how they were related, the sultan replied: ‘A certain noble matron from the land of the Germans married the king of the Ruthenians, and bore him a daughter. A daughter of hers came into our land, from whom I am descended’.55 The sultan called out blessings on God in Heaven that the duke had escaped from the hands of Milo, saying that he was untrustworthy and a traitor, and that if the duke had entered his land then Milo would surely have deprived him of his property, and perhaps even his life. He gave him many gifts, including a mantle and tunic of the best silk. Because of the excellent workmanship of these, the duke subsequently had a chasuble and dalmatic made [out of them]. After this 1,800 horses were brought forward, for the duke to choose from them whichever he wanted. The duke therefore told his knights that each of them should select for himself the horse that he wanted. Thirty most powerful horses were then brought forward, with silver reins and superb saddles made of precious cloths and ivory, which were given to the duke. He also gave to him six felt tents, in the style of that land, and six camels who carried them, with the servants who looked after them. He added to these two leopards and horses and servants: for these leopards had been taught to sit on the horses. After he had treated the duke most kindly in all these various ways,56 the latter spoke to him at some length about the Incarnation of Christ and the Catholic faith. The sultan replied. ‘It is’, he said, ‘not difficult to believe that God should, when He wanted, assume human flesh from the immaculate Virgin, since He created the first man from the soil of the earth’. Perhaps, since this was [derived] from the heresy of the Nicholaites,57 he had heard the books of Moses, in which it is read about the creation of the first man. For there are many gentiles who have received the Pentateuch of Moses, but still do not cease from their idolatry, like the Samaritans long ago. Thus the Samaritan

55

Assuming that there is any truth in this story, the king of the Ruthenians may have been Svyatoslav II, Prince of Kiev (d. 1076), whose second wife was indeed German, a daughter of Leopold (d. 1043), the eldest son of Margrave Adalbert of Austria, from the family later known as the Babenberger. 56 The Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 124, adds that the sultan released all his Christian captives at the duke’s request. 57 A group mentioned by Revelations, 2: 6, who may have advocated the retention of some pagan practices – later c.200 apparently a Gnostic sect. The term was applied in the Central Middle Ages to married priests, and Lappenberg, Arnaldi Chronica, p. 25 n.3, tentatively suggests that Arnold may have used it because he was aware that Muslims were polygamous.

Book I

53

woman says in the Gospel: ‘Lord, I perceive thou art a prophet’,58 and so on.

10 Remarks about King Conrad. After the duke had taken his leave from the sultan, he was escorted to Ismil and then to Iconium, which city is the capital of the Turks. He then travelled on and came to a deserted and very arid land, where it is said that King Conrad and his army had halted, since because this land was so poor and many of his men were suffering from hunger and thirst he had been unable to march on any further. For he had been betrayed by his guide to the road, something which they say was done on the instructions of the king of the Greeks, because the latter did not wish that Conrad and his great host should remain any longer in his land, nor indeed did he wish to see him. For it is a detestable custom of the king of the Greeks – who indeed calls himself emperor through the great arrogance derived from his riches, although he also derives this rank from Constantine, the founder of this same city – that he ever offers anyone else a kiss of greeting, rather whoever is deemed worthy to see his face must kneel down and kiss his knees. This King Conrad absolutely refused to do because of the honour of the Roman Empire. Although the king of the Greeks agreed that he would offer him a kiss, he insisted on remaining seated, which did not please King Conrad. Eventually the wiser men on both sides gave this advice; that they meet each other on horseback and thus come together on terms of equality, with both sitting, and greet each other with a kiss – which is what happened. It was therefore for this reason, or since they feared the power of the Germans, that the Greeks betrayed all that pilgrim army, poisoning the springs they used and leading them into that most terrible desert, and so that expedition broke up miserably because of these awful people.59 The duke, however, travelled on and came to the great forest which divides the land of the Turks from that of the Greeks. After taking three days to cross this, with some difficulty, he came to a town of the king of the Greeks called ‘the castle of the Germans’, because Duke Godfrey had once

58

John, 4: 19. This garbled account of the Second Crusade of 1147/8 reflects the antiByzantine propaganda that circulated afterwards. Conrad III himself did not blame Byzantine treachery for the defeat of his army in Asia Minor; see especially his letter of January 1148, Die Urkunden Konrads. III und seine Sohn Heinrich, ed. F. Hausmann (MGH Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae ix, Vienna 1969), pp. 354–5 no. 195 [English translation in The Encyclopedia of the Crusades, ed. Alan V. Murray (4 vols, Santa Barbara, CA, 2006), iv.1299]. 59

54

Book I

held it and then made all Turkey subject to himself. He then travelled on until he came to a most strong town, powerfully fortified with a wall and most charmingly decorated with many towers around its circuit, which is called Aniko and which this same Duke Godfrey attacked by storm.60 And since on account of his faithfulness, ‘it is memorable to every age’,61 we shall tell you how God gave this same town, which had been impregnable, into his hands.

11 Remarks about Duke Godfrey. After Godfrey had laboured for a long time in the siege of this town and his army was greatly weakened by hunger, so that almost all the horses and whatever they had for the repair of their shoes had been eaten, the governor (princeps) of the castle who was tired out by the lengthy tedium of the siege, made a German prisoner, whom he had been torturing for a long time in his dungeon, climb up on the wall.62 The prisoner called out to the duke and to the people of God, saying: The governor says this. How is it that you labour for so long over this siege, and you don’t want to leave my territory? Behold, you cannot storm this castle, but if you wish you may put an end to this evil. Let two men stand forth, one from our men and one from yours, to fight a duel between them; and if your man should win we will give you the castle and depart. If, however, our man is granted the victory, you will leave our land without delay.

What he said was pleasing to the duke and everyone else. It was confirmed on both sides that they would fulfil the agreement which had been proposed, whoever obtained victory. Duke Godfrey had a servant called Helias, who was powerful of body, tall of stature, and extremely handsome. After safeconduct had been granted, the duke sent him into the town to meet the governor, for he wanted to put an end to the affair and to fix a day for the duel

60

Was this name derived from a confusion with Nikea (in Turkish Isnik)? This phrase, omni est memorabilis evo was copied from Helmold, who in turn followed Adam of Bremen, Helmold, Cronaca, I.22, p. 45; Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae, ed. B. Schmeidler (MGH SRG, Hanover 1917), III.50, p. 193. It seems not to be of classical derivation. 62 Sweetenham, ‘What really happened to Eurvin de Créel’s donkey? Anecdotes in sources for the First Crusade’, p. 81, suggests that this part of the story may echo an earlier anecdote recounting the torture of a martyr who refused to apostasise from the history of the Crusade by Peter Tudebod. 61

Book I

55

to be fought. Seeing this good-looking man of great size, with powerful limbs, and realising that none of his own men were his equal in strength, the governor admired him, and having found out the purpose of his embassy, he said to him: ‘Would you like to remain here with me and to fight for me in the duel that has been agreed?’ The other replied: ‘What’, he said, ‘will you give me to do as you ask?’ The governor said: ‘I shall give you half my land, I shall marry my daughter to you, and I shall grant you every honour’. And Helias: ‘Do as you say, and I shall fight for you’. So they made an agreement, and Helias renounced Christ and joined himself to the gentiles, and ‘they were of one heart and one soul’.63 The duke was, however, puzzled as to what should be done about him, not knowing whether he had been made prisoner, or if there was another reason why he had not returned. Eventually, on another day, the aforesaid German stood up on the wall and called out to the duke and to the princes, saying: ‘My lord sends these instructions. Be prepared for that day and hour, since then my lord will show himself to you with his champion, and he will fulfil what he has said’. On these words, they were all joyful, and everyone volunteered to undergo this single combat for the honour of God. The duke was readier than anyone to fight, but he was not allowed to since he was exhausted, and feeling his age, and had a hunchback.64 The bishops also inquired how many people were there, rich or poor, who were ready either to conquer or die for the honour of God. A certain man stood forth, who was called Drogo, a kinsman of the duke, the son of his sister, who said to him: I have served you for many years, and I have never asked for any reward from you. It is right that I should finally receive the fruit of my labour. I shall therefore most devotedly undertake this duel in return for all the service which I have rendered to you.

What more? The devotion of this man was pleasing to the duke, and he was girded with his arms while everyone cheered him. As he went forth, the duke said: God, who blessed our father Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God who brought his people through the wilderness through the hand of Moses, submerging their enemies in the Red Sea, who also through Joshua led them into the land of Canaan, treading their enemies under their feet; God who gave Gideon confidence against his enemies, Sampson strength,

63

Acts, 4: 32. Here Arnold seems to be confusing Godfrey of Bouillon with his maternal uncle Godfrey, Duke of Lower Lorraine, who was murdered in 1076. 64

56

Book I Judith victory over tyranny; God who freed Daniel from the lions’ den, David from the hurtful sword,65 Elias from the persecution of Jezebel; God who indeed sent his son Jesus Christ into this world as the Redeemer of the human race, who conquered the devil by the victory of the Holy Cross and destroyed the prison of our captivity, who blessed His Apostles and illuminated the Holy Church by their doctrine, who also said to us through them: ‘Whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you’;66 for the name and love of whom we make our pilgrimage, may He bless you with His right hand on high and today grind your enemy beneath your feet, for the praise, glory and honour of His name.

Everyone responded, ‘Amen’, and the bishops confirmed this with their blessing. Drogo the champion of Christ went out to meet his adversary, with everyone on their knees in tearful prayer to God. And lo indeed Goliath the proud met him, namely Helias the Apostate, so that he might be overthrown by the humble David in the name of the Lord, seated on a caparisoned horse, into the harness of which the governor’s daughter had sewn many little bells, both for show and to frighten the horse of his opponent. However, Duke Godfrey had foreseen this, and had stuffed the ears of his nephew’s horse with wool and pitch. So their horses charged, and they broke their lances at the first encounter, and then they dismounted. For a long time cleaving each other’s bodies with mighty iron, Hand to hand they struck each other with alternate blows.

Finally remembering His mercy and truth, the Lord gave victory to his servant Drogo, and Helias fell to the ground. As he lay prostrate, with no chance of rising again, Drogo said to him: ‘Who are you, who fights with me?’ For neither of them knew who the other was. To this, he replied, ‘I am Helias’. Then the former said, Why do you want to do this? You are denying Christ! How can you continue [doing this]? You ought now to do penance and be reconciled to your God, since He is merciful, and then come back to the camp with me. For I have, as you know, four towns, and I shall give you two, which you may choose, and I shall give you my sister, a kinswoman of the duke, in marriage to you, and you will be one of the duke’s closest confidants (familiarissimi).

65 66

Psalm 143.10 (Vulgate), 144: 10 (AV). John, 16: 23.

Book I

57

He replied: ‘Never, for I shall never violate my word once it is given, nor will I desert my father-in-law’. Drogo then beheaded him. So God was gloried among his men, and the gentiles left the castle, and Duke Godfrey entered it with his men, praising God, who did whatever He wanted in Heaven and on earth.

12 He returns to Constantinople, and then to Brunswick. The duke travelled on, and after crossing the Arm of St George he came to the town of Gallipoli, and then set off and came to Constantinople where his men took possession of the horses which they had left there, and they went to Manopolis, where the king then was. The later was overjoyed by his return, and kept him there with great honour for some days. He gave him fourteen mules, with gold and silver harness and silk saddle cloths. Although thanking him most heartily, the duke was reluctant to accept [this gift], saying to him: ‘I have enough, my lord, if I may find such grace in your eyes’. Although the king pressed him hard, he absolutely refused to receive this gift, and so [instead] the ruler gave him many precious relics of the saints, as he had requested. He also added many glorious precious stones, and bidding him farewell the duke departed in peace and came to Nikea.67 Traversing the great forest, he came to the king of Hungary, who had then just acceded to the throne of his brother.68 After this he went to the emperor, who was then at the city of Augsburg, who rejoiced at his arrival and his safe return.69 A year had gone by when he returned to Brunswick, and all his friends rejoiced at his arrival. He endowed the house of God with the relics of the saints that he had brought with him, covering them with gold and silver and precious stones – among these were the arms of several apostles.70 He had also many chasubles, dalmatics and subtilia71 made from the most precious cloths, and decorated churches. This same prince was indeed most devoted to the decoration of the house of God, as one may discern in the church of St Blaise, which is in Brunswick. However,

67

A scribal error for Nish? Bela III, king 1172–96; see above note 22. 69 Frederick Barbarossa spent Christmas 1172 at Augsburg, Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis (to the Annales Mellicenses), MGH SS ix.630. 70 The only evidence of this among his charters comes in 1173 when he gave the church of the Holy Cross in Hildesheim a piece of the True Cross, presumably acquired in Jerusalem, Urkunden HL, pp. 145–6 no. 95. 71 Liturgical garments specifically for subdeacons. 68

58

Book I

because of the problems which came later, to which we shall come, albeit unwillingly, he did not complete this work as he wished.

13 About the election of the lord Abbot Henry to the see of the church of Lübeck. After this he was residing in the castle of Lüneburg when the canons of Lübeck came to him, requesting that they might have, with his approval, a suitable person as steward in the house of God, and saying that they were all unanimously agreed on the person of lord Henry, Abbot of Brunswick. They urged him to appoint Henry to their church, and that he should not refuse his consent to this petition of theirs and the designation of the abbot. The duke replied to them: I acknowledge that he is a very suitable person and a prudent and religious man, a splendid preacher of the seed of the word of God. But since we rely on this man’s loyalty and have experience of the grace of his behaviour, we cannot do without his presence in our palace at Brunswick without grave loss. However, to avoid seeming to act against what is of greatest advantage and so as not frivolously to spurn your just and reasonable petition, let the will of the Lord and yours be done. Escort this venerable man with honour to the seat of the church of Lübeck and show him all due reverence and submission.

Those who had come to Brunswick were Otto the dean72 and Arnold the custos, along with the provost Henry, who was the duke’s notary.73 On their entry to the chapter house, and in the presence of Abbot Sigebod of Riddagshausen and the provosts Gottfried and Anselm,74 they presented a letter address to the church, which went as follows: ‘The brothers of the church of God which is in Lübeck send their greeting and love in Christ to the convent of the monastery of St Giles in

72

Cf. Urkunden HL, pp. 157–9 no. 104 (1175). Henry, provost of St Stephen, Bremen, who dated a ducal charter for the bishopric of Schwerin in September 1171, Urkunden HL pp. 132–5 no. 89. 74 Probably Gottfried, provost of Bücken, near Verden, and Anselm, provost of St Cyriacus at Brunswick, see respectively Urkunden HL, pp. 130–2 no. 88 (1171), and pp. 94–6 no. 64 (November 1163). Riddagshausen was a Cistercian monastery, founded just outside Brunswick by one of Duke Henry’s ministeriales c.1145, and subsequently endowed by the duke, Urkunden HL, pp. 11–14 no. 7; Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 125. 73

Book I

59

Brunswick’. And when at these words of salutation the brothers humbly bowed, they added: Let it be known to your charity that our mother, that is the holy church of Lübeck, has been deprived of its father, and since we cannot be for a long time without a shepherd, therefore we should investigate with the utmost care how we might obtain a prudent and faithful steward for this house of God. Hence we give heartfelt thanks to God that we have found someone who is pleasing to us, namely your abbot, the lord Henry, a prudent and religious man whom not only have we decided to choose for ourselves by canonical election, but whom we also take by the authority of the prince, our lord duke, who has appointed him to us as our lord and spiritual father. Wherefore we ask that you view this matter in the same way that we do, and consenting to the ordination of God you most devotedly advance [him] to the highest rank of the holy ministry.

The brothers rejoiced in such an honourable promotion for their father, although also lamenting the loss of so pious a pastor. The bishop-elect responded thus: My brothers and lords, the work to which you have summoned me is difficult and exceedingly wearing, and I consider it to be beyond my powers. But since it is absolutely certain that nobody suitable comes to this position unless like Aaron they have been summoned by God, thus I do not doubt that I have been summoned to this ministry by Divine dispensation, since ‘all power is from God, the powers that be are ordained by God. Whosever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordination of God’.75 So behold I come to obedience, because necessity is more important that one’s own will.

And so he travelled with them from the monastery of St Egidius, which he had ruled for ten years, which he had endowed with many properties and after his return from his pilgrimage he had decorated with twelve precious cloths.76 He went to the duke at Luneburg, and receiving episcopal investiture from him he was brought with honour to Lübeck and most respectfully received by the clergy and by all the people. Then, on the nativity of St John the Baptist, and in the presence of the duke, he was consecrated by lords Walo of Havelburg, Evermodus of Ratzeburg and Berno of Schwerin;77 and it was found in the text of the Gospel, which he was

75

Romans, 13: 1–2. He had in fact been abbot for at least sixteen years, since he was mentioned in a ducal charter of 1156 [above note 10]. 77 24 June 1173: Walo was Bishop of Havelberg 1155/6–77. 76

60

Book I

holding over his scapula, at the top of one page: ‘behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people’, and at the top of the next page ‘the man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel’.78 It can be clearly discerned that this was a Divine manifestation of his future way of life. For he had indeed been endowed by the Lord with many gifts, but in particular his knowledge of letters was reflected in the eloquence of his words; and while many with shining intellects are inclined rather to arrogance than to edification, he however remained humble as ever, always devoted to God and to his most glorious Mother, in fasting, vigils, abstinence and prayer, as well as generosity in alms-giving, so that we may truly say of him ‘the man was just and devout’. He was distinguished with particular skill in preaching the word of God, so that there was nobody with a heart so stony that he could not be brought to compunction, and even to tears, by the great sweetness of his speech. He clearly explained the most obscure passages of the Scriptures in very plain words, drawing out the secret flour from their innermost parts and feeding everyone with the most pleasant bread of God’s word; thus he made all the people very joyful with the sweetness of his doctrine. May it not be tedious to your charity to hear how God revealed the blessedness of this man and of his faithful doctrine to certain persons. Once upon a time he was travelling through Thuringia on business, and he turned aside to find lodging at a place called Ichterhausen. Religious women were leading a life of celibacy there, following the Rule of St Benedict.79 As they were asleep in their beds around midday, a certain woman of most proven way of life called Ida, who was subsequently sent as abbess to Waltingerode, and was the first ruler of the congregation of women there, where she also made a blessed end,80 had a dream, in which she saw in a vision from God the whole congregation of her sisters most devotedly serving in the choir, and enthusiastically singing for the reception of a bishop. Truly a fortunate prelate, a true teacher of the faith.81

78

Luke, 2.10 and 25. This nunnery was founded by Frideruna of Grumbach and her son Markward shortly before April 1147, when the foundation and the independence of the convent was confirmed by Conrad III, Die Urkunden Konrads. III und seine Sohn Heinrich, pp. 339–42 no. 188. 80 A nunnery near Goslar, founded c.1174 by Count Hoger of Waltingerode and his brothers Liudolf and Burchard; by November 1188, when Frederick Barbarossa confirmed its property, it had been accepted by the Cistercians, Dipl. Frederick I, iv (1181–90), 269–70 no. 984. 81 Vere felicem presulem, vere fidei doctorem, quo petente panis Christi formam accepi digni, from the Office of Gregory the Great. 79

Book I

61

After this had been sung most joyfully, a man of venerable age, a religious person, went to the window of the choir, where communion was placed on Sundays, and said to them: Don’t be slow to receive this pilgrim bishop with all reverence and with everything you have, serve him most carefully in every way, since it will be divinely shown to you that what you are singing at his reception is truly said of him. For he is indeed ‘truly a fortunate prelate and a true teacher of the faith’.

When the said nun woke up, she told her sisters what she had seen, and what she was saying immediately happened, for the bishop had turned aside to seek hospitality there. Once they were certain that the prophecy was true, and giving thanks to God [for this], they asked the bishop that he should deign to see them, that they might be worthy to hear words of exhortation from his own mouth. Coming to them as they desired, he took this passage as the text for his sermon: ‘As is the lily among the thorns, so is my love among the daughters’.82 He included in this sermon a great deal about chastity and innocence of life, which was intended for their edification, and they were delighted with the mellifluous sweetness of his words, so that as had been predicted they said that he was indeed truly a fortunate prelate and a true teacher of the faith. At this same time the duke began to build a church at Lübeck in honour of Saints John the Baptist and Nicholas the Confessor of Christ. He laid the foundation stone along with Bishop Henry. He gave every year a hundred marks in pennies for its completion, and the same at Ratzeburg, and he strove in every way to forward this new plantation in the north.83 But he did not achieve the end which he desired, since some time later the great crisis occurred that completely disrupted the whole of Saxony. The construction of churches was interrupted while he worked on the fortifications of cities and towns, since many attacks had arisen against him.

14 The passion of Bishop Thomas in England. Around this time in England the blessed Archbishop Thomas of Canterbury, a man of holiness distinguished

82

Song of Solomon, 2: 2. This was a chapel attached to the cathedral, and not the later monastery of St John. The duke later (probably after 1177) granted this church tithes from the toll station at Odeslo, recording that he had already given it three holdings near the River Wokenize, Urkunden HL, pp. 157–9 no. 104. Unfortunately the ducal charters to Ratzeburg have suffered severely from the attentions of later forgers. 83

62

Book I

by miracles, suffered. Since he fought to the death for the law of his God, a storm of persecution arose and to avoid the anger of evil persons he went to Pope Alexander III, who was at this time living in exile in France, and he dwelt with him for many days, serving the Lord in holiness and justice all the days of his life. It happened one day that the pope was sitting with the bishop and happened to become thirsty. He said to the boy who was serving him: ‘bring me some water from the spring that I may drink’. When this had been brought to him, the pope said to the bishop: ‘bless [this] and drink’. He blessed it and it was changed into wine, and he drank and gave it to the pope. When the latter realised that it was wine, he summoned the boy in secret and said to him, ‘What have you brought me?’ The boy said, ‘water’. The pope said, ‘bring me some more of the same’. After this had been done a second time, the pope said to the bishop: ‘brother, bless this [and] drink’. The bishop was unaware of the wondrous event that he had caused, believing that the wine had been brought on purpose, so he innocently blessed it, and it was once more changed into wine, which after drinking he gave to the pope. The latter still did not believe this, thinking that a mistake had been made. He secretly ordered water to be brought for a third time, and a third time it was changed into wine. The pope was now amazed, realising that he was a holy man and that the power of God had been celebrated in him.84 After this, he said to the pope: Lord, I shall return to my diocese and visit my sheep. I do indeed know that the king’s anger threatens me, but ‘we ought to obey God rather than men’.85 The will of Him for whose name I am prepared to die will be accomplished through me; ‘since He laid down His soul for us, so we must lay down our souls for our brethren’.86

The pope said to him, ‘Go, for behold I send you’. And so he returned to his diocese, and on 29 December he suffered [martyrdom]. From that hour until today God has worked many wonders through him, as has indeed been witnessed by those who have been to his tomb, where the power of his prayers many benefits have been granted to the sick and afflicted, and [where] God, who in our time has deigned to be glorified in his saints, is praised by the peoples of every nation.

84

Another version of this story can be found in Chronica Rogeri de Hoveden, ed. W. Stubbs (4 vols, London: Rolls Series 1868–71), ii.11–12, but it is not in any of the Vitae of Becket, or the miracle collections. 85 Acts, 5: 29. 86 I John, 3: 16.

Book II 1 Of the discord between the emperor and the duke. Around this time the emperor was staying in Italy, where he was busy with a serious conflict. For indeed the Lombards were all rebelling against him and the state in those parts was greatly disturbed, largely because of the sin of the schism, which had lasted for many years, and many of the sheep were not entering into the sheepfold by the door,1 but were going in different directions and harming the Church with schismatic error. Because Caesar was suffering from the fortunes of war, and was seriously worried [by this], he left these regions, crossed the Alps, came to the lands of the Germans, and after summoning the princes he explained to them the problems that the empire faced. He then issued them a summons to take part with him in an Italian expedition to suppress the rebels. He also made every effort to have Duke Henry take part in this endeavour, and indeed he said that, since it was well known how feared the duke was by the Lombards, without his presence he himself would be quite unable to prevail against them. But the duke argued against this that he was worn out through his many labours, both in Italian expeditions and by innumerable other tasks, and was now suffering from old age.2 He claimed that he would serve the imperial majesty with the utmost devotion in providing the army with gold and silver for its various expenses; however he flatly refused to come to serve in person, saving the emperor’s grace. To this the emperor replied: God in Heaven has raised you on high among the princes, and has conferred upon you wealth and honour beyond all others.3 All the empire’s

1 The reference is to John, 10: 7: ‘Then said Jesus unto them again, verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep’. 2 Born (probably) in late 1129 or early 1130, Henry was now (c.1176) forty-six; therefore at least a decade younger than the emperor. Some historians, most recently Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, pp. 47–8, have indeed suggested that he may not have been born until 1133 or later. For an exhaustive, if inconclusive, examination of the evidence, Jordan, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und seine Familie’, pp. 112–17. 3 Cf. Helmold, Chronica, I.70, p. 135, trans. Tschan p. 193, where Bishop Vizelin of Oldenburg addressed Henry the Lion.

64

Book II strength rests in you, and it is right and proper that you should show yourself the first among all to lend a hand in this matter,4 so that the commonweal, which is starting to crumble, should be restored to health through your efforts, which have undoubtedly been especially valuable in the past. We wish you [also] to be mindful that we have never denied your wishes and that we have always been ready to increase your honour, we have always been ‘an enemy to your enemies’,5 and we have never allowed anybody to prevail against you. We shall not mention the faith that you have promised on oath to the empire, but we wish to remind you of the blood-relationship, which binds you to us above everything, so that in the present crisis you hasten to us with all loyalty, as our nephew to his lord and friend; and furthermore you shall have our benevolence for all that you want.6

However, the duke still refused. He said that he was ready for every service, but he would not come to serve in his own person. The emperor rose from his throne, and with everyone looking on anxiously he flung himself at the duke’s feet. The duke was greatly disturbed by such an unheard-of thing – that the man under whom the earth trembled7 lay humbly on the ground – and he raised him up as quickly as he could. But he still would not agree to his request.8

4

A paraphrase of Judges, 7: 11. II Maccabees, 10: 26. 6 For the significance of this passage, Althoff, ‘Die Historiographie bewältigt. Der Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen’, pp. 169–74. Frederick had previously taken a hard line with ecclesiastics trying to plead old age or ill-health to avoid service in Italy, e.g., Archbishop Arnold of Mainz in 1158, ‘Vita Arnaldi Archiepiscopi Moguntini’, in Monumenta Moguntina, ed. Philipp Jaffé (Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum 3, Berlin 1866), pp. 624–5. 7 Cf. Job, 9: 13. 8 The earliest account of this meeting, usually thought to have taken place at Chiavenna early in 1176, comes in the chronicle of Gilbert of Mons, written c.1195/6, which also described the emperor prostrating himself at Henry’s feet, La Chronique de Gislebert de Mons, ed. Léon Vanderkindere (Brussels 1904), p. 94 [English translation, Laura Napran, Gilbert of Mons, Chronicle of Hainaut (Woodbridge 2005), p. 55]. Several thirteenth-century authors provided increasingly elaborate accounts of the encounter, e.g., Burchard of Urspberg, Chronicon, pp. 53–4, and Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.348; for these, see especially Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, pp. 220–7. Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa, pp. 483–5, doubts that the meeting took place and suggests that the various descriptions were inventions attempting to explain the suddenness of the breach between emperor and duke. However, Freed, Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 387–9, argues for the essential truth of the episode. 5

Book II

65

2 The plot against the duke. The emperor hid his anger for the time being, although in truth it greatly exercised his mind, and he returned to Italy with the army that he was then able to gather. His cause was greatly helped by the efforts of Christian of Mainz,9 who right up to the end of his life laid Lombardy waste and made it subject to the empire, desiring in this more to please the earthly empire than that of Heaven, and neglecting the sheep entrusted to him, gathering rather tribute for Caesar than reward for Christ. The emperor thus prospered and secured victory, and that land was at his command given over to fire and plunder, and every fortified city was ruined. And the horn of his enemies was made sad, and they were silent in his sight.10 Thus, when he saw that there was a moment of quiet, he took the opportunity to summon the princes, and he made a great many charges against Duke Henry; that because of his great pride he had shown such total contempt for the emperor that even when the latter had humbled himself at his feet, he had not deigned to show him any mercy in such a crisis, he had ignored the public interest and had ignored the authority of the imperial majesty, by obstinately refusing to render him any help. On hearing this, the princes who already hated him took advantage and started to launch many charges against him, and in agreement with the words of the emperor they judged that he should be deprived of all his honor, and denounced as one who had offended against the imperial majesty – not just since he had despised the latter’s precepts and warnings, but that he had brought shame upon him in his own person to the disgrace of all the princes. More and more people brought charges against him or claimed that he had done various injuries to them, and requested that justice be done through the judgement of the emperor. The bishops denounced in front of everyone the oppression of churches, alleging that there was almost no church that had not suffered from his plundering. Thus a great conspiracy was manufactured against him. When Caesar saw that the princes intended to harm him, using great sagacity he turned all his efforts towards securing the duke’s overthrow. Knowing that he could not easily bring him down, he cunningly encouraged all the complaints, thinking that wisdom needed to be enlisted to ensure the defeat, little by little, of one who he doubted that he could

Christian of Buch, Archbishop of Mainz 1167–83. Timothy Reuter, ‘Episcopa cum sua militia: the prelate as warrior in the early Staufer era’, in Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages. Essays Presented to Karl Leyser, ed. Timothy Reuter (London 1992), pp. 79–94, especially 81, 89, places his career in context. 10 There is an echo here of I Samuel 1: 2 and 9: ‘mine horn is exalted in the Lord’ and ‘the wicked shall be silent in darkness’. Arnold’s account is notably misleading: in fact, Barbarossa suffered a serious defeat in this campaign at the Battle of Legnano, and subsequently came to terms with the Lombard cities. 9

66

Book II

overthrow by force. He was also now reconciled with Pope Alexander, through the mediation of Philip of Cologne,11 and he then received him, a man with whom he had been in conflict for a long time, in peace, so that with his cause strengthened in every way he could more easily achieve what he wished. 3 The removal of the schismatics. In the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus 1177, the Lord looked down from His throne on high upon the sons of men, and a day of exaltation and joy arose in the Church of God. The schism that had harmed the Church for twenty years ceased, and there was peace between state and Church [inter regnum et sacerdotium] and unity in the Apostolic See; the Church was united under Pope Alexander, and there was [now] one flock and one shepherd.12 Thus the mercenaries were ejected, and true pastors returned to the folds of their sheep. Among these was Udalrich of Halberstadt, who returned by Apostolic authority to his see. But the hand of the emperor was [also] with him, strengthening him in all things. Hence his arrival immediately stirred up the land, since with the support of the eastern princes he started all sorts of intrigues against Duke Henry. Meanwhile Gero had fled, and everything that he had decreed in that church over many years was overturned.13 Thus all those whom Gero had ordained were suspended from office; the churches which he had not consecrated but rather execrated were closed, and the body of the blessed Bishop Burchard – which he had translated – was reburied by Bishop Udalrich.14 4 The expedition of the duke into Slav territory. At this time Duke Henry entered the land of the Slavs with a large expedition and stormed the castle of Demmin. On hearing of the entry of Udalrich, he realised that he had been tricked.

11

Philip, Archbishop of Cologne 1167–91, who was a son of Count Goswin II of Heinsburg. 12 Peace was concluded between Alexander III and Frederick Barbarossa at Venice in August 1177, and the latter agreed to abandon the antipope whom he had hitherto recognised. 13 Henry the Lion had appointed Gero as bishop of Halberstadt, in place of Udalrich, in 1160, Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 62. 14 Bishop Burchard II of Halberstadt had been murdered at Goslar in 1088, and buried in the monastery of Ilsenburg, Gesta Episcoporum Halberstadensium, MGH SS xxiii.101; Die Reichschronik des Annalista Saxo, ed. Klaus Naβ (MGH SS xxxvi, Hanover 2006), pp. 479–81.

Book II

67

I see that there are wars against me, so wars shall be prepared, he said.15

Thus summoning a few of his familiares, he told them that he must return without delay to Saxony. Among those to whom he spoke was Frederick, the man who built his siege engines. He asked him: ‘What means and powers do we have to storm the city?’ Frederick replied: ‘If you want, I can consume the whole city with fire within three days’. To which the duke replied: I don’t agree that it should be burned, since if it should be destroyed, nonetheless our enemies will attack us with renewed vigour, and in particular they will stir up wars against us in the region across the Elbe, and it will be difficult to resist enemy attacks on both sides of the river.

To which Frederick said: ‘If it is more pleasing, I shall do my best to ensure that after three days they offer as many hostages as you want, and in future pay tribute and maintain the peace’. This advice pleased the duke, and so indeed it was done – the duke received hostages, as he would if a crime had been committed, and returned to Brunswick. 5 The foundation of the abbey of SS Mary and John the Evangelist in Lübeck. In this same year Bishop Henry set in motion the foundation of a work of new plantation in Lübeck, namely a congregation of monks, a foundation that he built in honour of Mary, the holy mother of God and St John the Evangelist, and Giles the patron of confessors. The solemn consecration took place on St Giles’s day, with the bishop being assisted by Ethelon the provost of the cathedral, along with Otto the dean, Arnold the custos and the other canons.16 He was unable to endow it generously because of the exiguous revenues of the bishopric, but he did grant this little church as an endowment half the village of Rensefeld, another hamlet called Cleve, and three parts of the tithes from Greater Gladenbrugge, Lesser Gladenbrugge and Stubbendorf. He also bought properties in the town with his own money, which provided an annual rent of eight marks of silver, as well as some fields in the plain around the town. He encouraged this new plantation with great devotion, not without great envy from some people who were jealous of his efforts. However he left it incomplete, because he oversaw this foundation for such a short time.17

15

Ovid, Remedia Amoris, line 2. 1 September. See the introduction, p. 2. 17 Bishop Henry died on 29 November 1182. For his foundation charter for the abbey, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, pp. 7–8 no. 5. 16

68

Book II

6 The building of Hopelberg. Bishop Udalrich of Halberstadt took possession of a mountain called the Hopelberg, and established a castle there, with the help of the eastern princes. Hearing of this, the duke came there with a multitude of armed men, drove out his enemies and destroyed the castle. But they recovered their strength and decided to rebuild the fortification. And when the duke’s army came to meet them once again, they proved the stronger and put the duke’s men to flight, taking many prisoners and a great deal of booty. Many men also perished there, swallowed up by the marshes. Another who died at this time was Count Henry, the stepfather of Count Adolf (who was still at this time a young man). His mother Matilda, a wise and religious woman, after she was freed from the law of marriage, wisely disposed the affairs of his household.18 When Adolf was made a knight, he lived up to his father’s virtue. 7 The death of Evermodus and the succession of Isfried. Also at this time the lord Evermodus of Ratzeburg died, but as is pleasing to the devotion of the faithful, he lives in Christ, since he led a religious life and persevered in holiness and justice up to his end, so that, as some people claim, he still lives while God shall work wonders through him.19 And since the opportunity is provided, we should not pass over in silence what we have learned through the account of the faithful. It once happened that Count Henry of Ratzeburg, in whose time this same prelate was appointed to episcopal rank by Duke Henry, held as prisoners two distinguished men of Frisia.20 Since he tormented them in a most cruel fashion, the bishop, who pitied them, often begged the count to release them. But he showed them no mercy and would not spare them. It was now the time of Easter, and the prisoners were much moved by reverence

18 Matilda, widow of Count Adolf II of Holstein (d. 1164) and mother of Count Adolf III. Count Henry of Schwarzburg was her brother, so he could not be Adolf ’s stepfather in the strict sense of the word: he was however the man who brought up the young count, after the latter’s guardianship was transferred to him from the boy’s mother c.1166/7, Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 100. 19 Bishop Evermodus died on 16 February 1178, Die Totenbücher von Merseburg, Magdeburg und Lüneburg, p. 12, 37 (necrology of St Michael, Lüneburg). 20 Henry of Badwide, Count of Ratzeburg, was described by Helmold as ‘a man strenuous at arms and impatient of inactivity’. He was installed c.1139 as Count of Holstein, replacing Adolf II for a time, although subsequently in 1143 Adolf was restored to Holstein, and Henry was granted the county of Ratzeburg in compensation, Helmold, Chronica, I.54, 56, p. 106, 109–11, trans. Tschan p. 163, 166–8 (quote 166). Henry died c.1164.

Book II

69

for the holy festival, even though they were fettered in a most cruel captivity. But when the bishop, having sprinkled holy water, had come to visit them, moved by pity he [also] sprinkled the blessed water on them, using these words: ‘The Lord looseth the prisoners, the Lord raises them that are bowed down’,21 and immediately and with a great noise the chains fell off. And they were released and glorified God. These events took place in Mount Saint George, where the episcopal seat then was, for God had not yet, as He has now, caused it to grow. The chains were for a long time hung up in the church as a record of this deed. On another occasion the aforesaid prelate was in Dittmarsch with lord Hartwig, Archbishop of Bremen, who for his generosity was known as ‘the Great’, to hold a meeting.22 The man of God was celebrating mass in the archbishop’s presence when it happened that a man from Dittmarsch shed the blood of one the leading men of that land and killed him. When the bishop was informed of this, he strove to work for reconciliation, as is the custom between solemn masses. He earnestly begged a man who was a cousin of the dead man to show mercy to his neighbour, repeating from the Sunday prayer, ‘Forgive us our sins’, and so on. When this man, hard and proud of mind, would not listen to this plea, the bishop descended from the pulpit and went up to him, prostrating himself at his feet along with relics of the saints. However, the man bound himself by terrible oaths in the name of God and his mother, and all the saints, that he would never renounce [his vengeance], and so instead of a blessing the bishop boxed the ear of the man who was refusing him. He instantly stretched out his arms, granted what was sought, and received his neighbour in peace. We believe that what happened was divinely inspired, and that demon was driven from the man by the slap. Similar events are to be found in the blessed Gregory’s book of Dialogues, where a certain nun freed a peasant from a demon by a slap.23 St Benedict also cured a monk who followed a demon by a blow from his staff.24 This happened not because demons can be vanquished by slaps or staffs, since they are incorporeal, but that the holiness of God and the power of prayer should here be recognised. We believe that these and other signs and wonders show that the bishop is now living in Christ. To him there succeeded the lord Isfried, who had previously been provost at Jerichow, a man of great religion, since in that provostship he had lived not as a canon but as a monk.25 This, however, I shall say in peace

21

Psalm, 145: 7–8 (Vulgate), 146: 7–8 (AV). Hartwig (I) of Stade, Archbishop of Bremen 1148–68. 23 This seems to be a misreading of Gregory, Dialogi Libri IV, ed. U. Moricca (Fonti per la storia d’Italia, Rome 1924), III.21, p. 189. 24 Gregory, Dialogi, II.4, ed. Moricca, pp. 87–8. 25 Isfried was bishop 1179–1204; for his death, see below, VII.9. The canons of Jerichow were Praemonstratensians, whose way of life by the late twelfth century was very similar to that of monks. 22

70

Book II

to the canons regular, since, although many of the canons live a holy and just life, ‘monk’ is however the name of the utmost holiness, and nothing ought to detract from the perfection of this name, but this is for the few. So it is that laymen, not knowing of the distinction between the order of monks and that of canons regular, are accustomed to call those canons monks. After Isfried had been made a bishop, he did not desert the way of humility, but showing himself gentle to all, he was indeed patient to all. And, although we seem to anticipate the order of this history a little bit, since we have begun to speak about him, we shall say that however great the setbacks that he suffered, he sustained them with an equal measure of patience. When the Lord shall place you in adversity, thus he says: ‘but when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified’,26 which the blessed Gregory explains: ‘wars pertain to enemies, commotions to citizens’.27 We may say that what is done from the inside is by citizens, that is by brothers, and what shall be done from the outside is by enemies. Therefore from when the change of dukes was made the bishop was left as if abandoned, lacking the support of Duke Henry, who cherished him both on account of his loyalty and for devotion to his church. From that time on he was never able to have peace with Otto the provost, who aspiring to the bishopric himself made many attacks against him and stirred up the brothers against him. Otto hated this duke and although he could do him no physical harm he attacked him verbally. Count Bernhard also made the bishop’s life difficult, since he refused to abandon his friendship with Duke Henry.28 Above all he sustained the intolerable wrath of Duke Bernhard, since he sought to exact homage from the bishop, while the latter claimed that it was unnecessary for a bishop to do homage twice. He did however say that he would willingly serve his rule, if through this he might have peace or profit for his church. He also said that he had done homage to Duke Henry, not so much on account of his princely status but rather because the church had received a great many things from him, and [especially] an increase in peace and religion.29 This greatly offended Duke

26

Luke, 21: 9: cf. Matthew, 24: 6. Gregory, Homiliae in Evangelia, II.35.1, MPL 76, col. 1259. However, since Arnold uses proelia for wars rather than bella, as does Gregory, this suggests that he may actually have taken the quote from Bede’s commentary on Luke, In Lucae Evangelium Expositio, VI.21, which has this wording. 28 Count Bernhard (I) of Ratzeburg, for whom see below, Bk. V.7, note 45. 29 This justification obscures the point that Henry the Lion insisted on all the bishops under his control doing homage to him, Hans-Joachim Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches nach dem Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen. Bischof Waldemar von Schleswig und das Erzbistum Bremen (1192/3)’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 25 (1969), pp. 479–80. For Duke Bernhard, see below note 39. 27

Book II

71

Bernhard, and he confiscated all his tithes [payable] throughout the region called Saxelauenburg, and he forced all the bishop’s dependants to pay money to him. The bishop, however, remained firm, although he chose to suffer this patiently for the time being, rather than bring any new imposition on him and his church. 8 The death of Baldwin and the succession of Berthold. Around the time when Evermodus died, so too did Archbishop Baldwin of Bremen, who greatly neglected his church, and about whose way of life ‘it is better to remain silent than to speak’.30 To him there succeeded Berthold, a prudent and welleducated man, and a zealot for justice, with whom to begin with Duke Henry was indeed pleased, but afterwards he changed his mind and began to be displeased [with him]. And since his election was celebrated when he was below the sacred ranks,31 it was viewed as having been carried out uncanonically. An embassy was sent to the lord pope, through which he explained the full circumstances of his election, submitting himself to the judgement of the supreme pontiff, so that if he should approve it, then it would remain valid, or if not it would be considered void. Once the pope realised that he was a man of wisdom, and that he could do much that was fruitful in the church, he approved his election, and confirmed it in all its details in writing. Berthold was therefore promoted to the rank of subdeacon, then he was once again elected bishop, so that if indeed the former election had been carried out uncanonically, once he had been promoted to the sacred ranks, this was made good canonically and legitimately by papal authority. 9 The Council of Pope Alexander. At this time Alexander summoned a general council, which was celebrated in the palace of Constantine at the Lateran.32 Thus a great assembly of prelates met there, and many who had been ordained by schismatics appeared there, hoping that they might find grace from the pope, and might mercifully be permitted by him to exercise their offices. And in particular both monks and clerics came from the church of Halberstadt, which Gero had greatly dismembered, seeking clemency from

30

Rule of St Benedict, c. 1. Baldwin, Archbishop of Bremen 1168–78, was a younger son of Count Dietrich (VI) of Holland. 31 That is, he was only in minor clerical orders, as is clear from what is subsequently described. 32 The Third Lateran Council, March 1179.

72

Book II

the Apostolic See. One in particular who undertook this journey was Abbot Dietrich of Hilsenburg, since almost all the congregation of his monks had ‘hanged their harps upon the willows’, apart from a few senior monks who had been ordained before the schism.33 They asked most insistently, appealing to the pope’s religious feelings, and finally he issued a dispensation for those ordained by Gero: since this same Gero had himself been consecrated, not by a schismatic but by a catholic, namely Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen, by Apostolic grace those ordained by him might remain in their orders and [even] through the benevolence of the Lord ascend to higher rank. Even Gero obtained this grace, being permitted freely to exercise the episcopal office everywhere except within the diocese of Halberstadt. The lord Berthold, archbishop-elect of Bremen, also came there, that he might receive Apostolic blessing on his promotion to that office. The lord pope received him kindly. He discussed his promotion most earnestly, but he also showed him every honour, in that he was given a seat among the senior bishops in the council and he allowed him to sit clad in his official regalia in his presence. But when he was due to be raised to the priesthood on the next Saturday, and then to the episcopate on the following Sunday, there arrived on the Friday an envoy from Duke Henry, Henry the provost, who was a most fierce pleader.34 And since this man was known to the Supreme Pontiff, he was immediately allowed entrance to see him. The next morning the archbishop-elect of Bremen was preparing to receive ordination, and Cardinal Hubald, who succeeded Alexander as [Pope] Lucius, who was the key advisor on whom the Roman Curia depended, was supervising his preparations, for no person could have been more suitable.35 The chamberlains of the lord pope then summoned him, saying ‘Bremen should come’. The lord-elect therefore came with his attendants. And the lord pope came out of his chamber and said to him: ‘Brother, since you were elected to the rank of a bishop when you were below the proper orders, we quash your election’. And when some of those standing there said: ‘Lord, your holiness should remember that you 33 Psalm, 136: 2 (Vulgate), 137: 2 (AV): the implication is that they had either ceased to take part in the liturgy, or had been suspended from this. 34 Probably Henry, provost of the church of St Stephan, Bremen, who was also a ducal notary, for whom Arnold, Chronica, I.13, p. 31. He witnessed a number of ducal charters, e.g., Urkunden HL, nos 60 (1163), 75 (1167), 79 (1168) and 89 (1171), and may well have been the Henry the notary who drew up or witnessed several other documents for Duke Henry. 35 Hubald was one of the most senior members of the Curia. Originally from Lucca, he had been appointed as Cardinal deacon of S Adriano in 1138, and promoted to be Cardinal priest of S Prassede in 1144, and Cardinal Bishop of Ostia in 1158. He had been papal legate to Byzantium in 1167/8, and was one of the principal negotiators of the Treaty of Venice in 1177. See Barbara Zenker, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalskollegiums von 1130 bis 1154 (Würzburg 1964), pp. 22–5.

Book II

73

have approved his election’, the pope returned to the chamber from which he had come out. Berthold thus departed, not without embarrassment.36 He was thereafter succeeded by Siegfried, son of the Margrave Albrecht, to whom the duke was most inordinately devoted, both for his own sake and because he was close to his brother, Count Bernhard of Anhalt.37 But later they grew distant from one another and became most fierce enemies. 10 The first expedition of the Archbishop of Cologne and the citing of the duke. At that time Philip of Cologne left his own lands with a mighty multitude and traversed the land of the duke, ravaging it with many fires, and then he marched on as far as Hameln, but he did not go further, and then retired back to his own lands. It was at about that time that the emperor returned from Italy, and the duke went to meet him at Speyer. He made a complaint before the emperor about the injuries done to him by the lord archbishop of Cologne. Then the emperor dissimulated, and ordered them [both] to appear before his court at Worms; however he issued a specific summons to the duke to the hearing, to respond there to the complaints of the princes. On realising this, the duke dissimulated that he would come [but did not]. However, the emperor summoned him to another court at Magdeburg, where the margrave Dietrich of Landesberg sought to fight a judicial duel against him, accusing him of various acts of treason against the empire.38 It is believed however that the real reason he did this was because he was angry since [he believed that] the duke had stirred up the Slavs to inflict appalling devastation on his lands of Lusatia. Realising this, the duke refused to come. He remained at Haldensleben, sending envoys to

36

Not long afterwards, in 1181, he became Bishop of Metz, where after a long episcopate he died in 1212. The Gesta Episcoporum Metensium, MGH SS x.546, praised his learning, and said that Pope Alexander had quashed his earlier election at Bremen more ‘out of hatred for Emperor Frederick’ than for love of justice. But, the author continued: ‘what a happy ruin, which was restored for the better. He fell there, and rose again more strongly here’. 37 Siegried was archbishop of Bremen 1179–84, having been translated from Brandenburg, where he had been bishop from 1173. 38 Dietrich of Landsberg, Margrave of Lusatia (1156–85), a member of the Wettin dynasty. The emperor arrived at Magdeburg on 24 June 1179, and had a formal crown-wearing there five days later, on the feast of SS Peter and Paul, Annales Magdaburgenses, MGH SS xvi.194; Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.262. That same day he issued a privilege for the bishopric of Havelburg, and he was still at Magdeburg on 1 July, when he issued a further privilege for the see of Brandenburg, Dipl. Frederick I, iii (1168–80), 338–41 nos 780–1.

74

Book II

request a meeting with the lord emperor. The emperor went to meet him at the place chosen for the conference. The duke did his best to soften him with carefully prepared words. The emperor, however, sought five thousand marks from him, giving him this advice, that he should give this as a present to the emperor’s majesty, and thus with his mediation he would recover the grace of the princes whom he had offended. It seemed to the duke hard to pay so much money, and he left without agreeing to the emperor’s proposition. The emperor then summoned him to a third court, at Goslar, but just as before he failed to appear. The emperor proceeded to hold the hearing, and issued a sentence against him, seeking a judicial decision because he had refused justice despite being summoned in proper form three times, and by refusing to come to the hearing he was guilty of contempt. In reply, the princes gave this sentence, that justice dictated that he should be deprived of all his honor, he be declared a public outlaw, his duchy and all his benefices be confiscated, and another should be appointed in his place. The sentence thus being confirmed, the emperor ordered that it be put into effect. At the request of the princes he summoned the duke to a further fourth court hearing, to which he did not come either. The emperor then carried out what had been ordered by the sentence of the princes, and appointed Count Bernhard of Anhalt as duke in his place. He ordered the bishops to recover what the duke held in benefice from them, and he instructed that his goods be confiscated.39 Some of his men took this opportunity to abandon him. The duke however claimed that the judgement against him was unjust, saying that he derived his origin from Swabia, and that no person could be condemned as an outlaw unless he had been convicted in his native land. 11 The second expedition of Archbishop Philip of Cologne. So from this time onwards ‘evils multiplied in the land’,40 since everyone rose up against the duke, and ‘every man’s hand was against him, and his hand was against every man’.41 For Philip of Cologne gathered an army and launched a second expedition, having in his company those whom they called Rotten.42 Once more he

39 Frederick confiscated Henry’s ducal offices and his benefices, and appointed Bernhard of Anhalt as Duke of Saxony in his place, on 13 April 1180: see the ‘Gelnhausen charter’, Dipl. Frederick I, iii (1168–80), 362–3 no. 795 [English translation, The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350, pp. 349–51, appendix (b)]. 40 I Maccabees, 1: 10. 41 Genesis, 21: 12. 42 Rotten / routiers = mercenary troops. Cf. the Pegau annals: ‘the infantry of Cologne, called the Rotten, plundered the monastery of Haldensleben and all the churches and villages round about, Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.263.

Book II

75

traversed all the lands of the duke with a powerful army and everybody fled in fear from him. Many appalling deeds were done during that march, for the evil men, ‘the sons of Belial’,43 who were with him, were of the utmost iniquity, and were insatiably determined to perform their wicked actions. Cemeteries were plundered, churches burned and many houses of religion destroyed, so that, what is worse to tell, they took brides of Christ away as prisoners and lewdly defiled them, prostituting the temples of God not made by man’s hand. Who would not sigh [to know] that they did not spare a priest celebrating the holy mysteries, but they struck him down, even before the sacrament was completed, in order to seize the chalice from his hand? These most wicked men committed many other crimes that were so dreadful that it would be sinful to describe them and pour such strong poison into the ears of the faithful. The archbishop then went to Haldensleben, which Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg was besieging, along with the eastern princes.44 He strengthened their forces and then returned home, not without serious remorse for his responsibility in giving rise to such great evils, although he did not send away those Godless men he had brought with him. However, the siege dragged on for days and months, because Count Bernhard of Lippe, the governor of the city, was a most valiant and warlike man, and the place was marshy, and the soft ground made it impossible to attack in winter. After they had tired of this hard and lengthy toil, they finally thought of a new type of attack, and decided to flood the town. And so they built a dam and immediately put their plan into practice, submerging the houses up to the roof beams, but still the warlike men [of the garrison] held the town. Finally an agreement was concluded, Bernhard and his men left freely, and the town was utterly destroyed.45 12 The excommunication of the duke. While all this was going on, Udalrich of Halberstadt brought pressure to bear upon the duke in all sorts of ways,

43

Deuteronomy, 13: 13. Wichmann, Archbishop of Magdeburg 1154–92, translated thanks to the emperor’s influence (amid considerable controversy) from his previous see of Naumburg, and a long-time enemy of the duke, see Helmold, Chronica, II.105, pp. 206–7, trans. Tschan, pp. 265–6. Freed, Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 71–3, 430–1. 45 Arnold blurs the events of two distinct sieges of Haldensleben, the first by Archbishop Philip of Cologne in 1179, and a second by the Archbishop of Magdeburg, which eventually captured the town in May 1181, cf. Annales Palidenses, MGH SS xvi.95–6, which record that in 1179: ‘The eastern princes joined together at the emperor’s behest against the duke and besieged the town of Haldensleben. The archbishop of Cologne joined them there with a great army, but dissension arose among the princes, and abandoning the unfinished siege they departed’. 44

76

Book II

and in particular by repeatedly pronouncing the curse of excommunication against him, and by suspending divine service throughout his diocese. Thus in the monasteries services were held behind closed doors and celebrated in silence, because of those who were excommunicated.46 Fearing the sentence of excommunication, the duke went to Halberstadt with his men, and humbled himself with contrite heart at the feet of the bishop. He was solemnly absolved, both he and his men were freed from the chain of anathema, and he discussed with the bishop and with the church the terms by which peace would be concluded. But this agreement only lasted for a little while, for the bishop was reluctant to endure peace and quiet, and when a chance was once again given him, he abandoned him and joined his enemies. He began to launch many attacks against him, and ‘the last error was worse than the first’.47 13 The expedition of the duke into Westphalia. The duke gathered an army and sent it into Westphalia. Its leaders were Counts Adolf of Schauenburg,48 Bernhard of Ratzeburg,49 Bernhard of Wölpe – who was also, as will be shown in what follows, the only one who remained faithful to the duke as others deserted him50 – Gunzelin of Schwerin,51 Liudolf of Halremunt and his brother Willebrand. He sent them to fight against his enemies in the midst of their land, while they were invading his territory in that region, and in particular against Counts Simon of Tecklenburg,52 Herman of Ravensberg, Henry of Arnesburg and Widukind of Swalenberg, along with many others, who had taken up position near Osnabrück. And when the enemy army drew near, the Westphalians suffered a major defeat, because the Saxons who are called the Holsteiners [Holzati] are men without mercy and most anxious for bloodshed.

46

In other words, no laymen were admitted and there was no ringing of bells or other outward signs that the services were going on. 47 Matthew, xxvii.64. 48 Count Adolf III of Holstein. 49 Succeeded his father Count Henry c.1164, and a frequent witness of ducal charters. 50 For him as part of Duke Henry’s entourage, Urkunden HL, p. 113 no. 77 (February 1168), 117 no. 79 (1168), p. 132 no. 88 (August 1171), 165 no. 107 (1177), 186 no. 128 (June 1191). His presence as a witness in this last charter supports what Arnold says about his continued loyalty to the duke. 51 For him, see above Bk. I.1, note 11. 52 Count Simon was, ironically, to become a Welf supporter after 1198, and was eventually slain in a battle against his erstwhile ally Herman of Ravensberg in 1202, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.354.

Book II

77

And their eye did not spare either greater or less,53 but they greedily consigned all who opposed them to slaughter. Many however were led into captivity by the duke’s knights, the most notable among whom was Count Simon of Tecklenburg, who was thrown into chains by the duke, and bound with manacles, until he felt their burden. Afterwards, however, he was freed from his chains, and swearing fealty to the duke on oath, he became most faithful to the duke, and throughout that dispute he remained loyal to him. An argument then arose about the prisoners between the duke and Count Adolf and the other noblemen. The duke said that it was his right to have all the captives handed over to him. Count Gunzelin, Conrad of Rode54 and other familiares of the ducal household did hand over their prisoners. The others refused, claiming that they were fighting at their own expense, and it was therefore only fair that they should keep their prisoners for themselves, because, they said, if their prisoners were handed over for the benefit of others they would have no reward at all for their military service. Count Adolf greatly annoyed the duke with these objections, and from that time on the seed of discord arose between them. Adolf and the others returned to their own lands, along with a great number of prisoners and much booty. 14 The burning of the city of Halberstadt and the capture of Bishop Udalrich. At that time Udalrich of Halberstadt would not be peaceful, because, as was said above, he was consumed by old jealousies, and he launched many assaults on the duke. As a result grave losses were visited upon that church, of the sort that should be deplored by every age. For when frequent raids were made from Halberstadt and from the castle of Hornburg, ducal villages were burned and his men either mutilated or led into captivity, the duke was much upset, and he gathered a crowd of his friends and sent them into these parts to exact, if they could, a fitting revenge from his enemies. Going there, they plundered and burned many villages, and coming to Halberstadt they captured the city without resistance from the unwilling citizens. Once the attack had been made, they received a great deal of booty from the captured townsmen, but the town itself was still unharmed, along with its castle, strongly fortified on every side, which was garrisoned by the lord bishop with a host of armed men. By the foresight of the townsmen, who feared the threat of fire, it was

53

Cf. Judith, 2: 6. For him, Urkunden HL, pp. 64–5 no. 45 (1160), 108–9 no. 75 (1167), 111–13 no. 77 (1168), 116–17 no. 79 (1168), in which he was described for the first time as ‘count’, 129–30 no. 87 (1171), 132–5 no. 89 (1171) and 185–6 no. 128 (1190), also witnessed by his son Conrad ‘the younger’. 54

78

Book II

agreed that fires should not be started inside the city. Nor indeed did their enemies seek to set it ablaze, for they wished to spare the city on account of its holiness. However, one of them found a torch somewhere, and used it to set light to a cottage, and immediately the fire grew and consumed the whole city, so that it was reduced to ashes. Even the principal church, dedicated to St Stephen and to the Blessed Mother of God Mary was burned down with all its furnishings, and (something that it is impossible to describe without groaning) a host of clerics who had taken refuge there for safety were roasted along with these holy places.55 The lord bishop had gone to his own house, and surrounded there by fire was taken prisoner, along with his cousin Romarus the provost and many others, and the relics of St Stephen, which the bishop had taken with him, perhaps to safeguard them, were snatched from the fire and taken away half-burned. ‘Thy judgements are a great deep, Oh Lord!’56 ‘It must needs be that offences come, but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh’.57 But who is it who on account of his sins allows offence to come? All in such a case pretend that they are innocent, and promise themselves safety. And they have their error, by which they are protected.58

But as a result of previous crimes, the most serious and scandalous of sins are caused. Thus the blessed Gregory says: ‘Condemn he who is unwilling to be penitent, [for] God finds him offensive, so that he will strike the more fiercely one who has not repented in any way’.59 For certain sins are sins and the punishment of sin, but certain others are both sins and the cause of sin. However, other sins are both the cause of sin and its punishment. Therefore a sin which is not quickly washed away through penitence is either a sin and also the cause of sin; or it is a sin and the punishment of sin. Therefore, on account of

Cf. the account of the town’s destruction in the Pegau annals for 1180: ‘Fire ruined four monasteries, St Stephen, St Mary, St John the Baptist and St Paul, and all the other churches. A thousand and more men were burned, including three canons, many priests and various scholars who had fled to sacred places. Some were suffocated by smoke, others were killed by arrows or by the sword, others were despoiled, while some were led captive to the duke’, Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.262–3. The destruction of Halberstadt was also lamented by Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg, in a letter to the clergy and people of Mainz, Mainzer Urkundenbuch ii(2) 1176–1200, ed. Peter Acht (Darmstadt 1978), 695–6 no. 430. 56 Psalm, 35: 7 (Vulgate): 36: 6 (AV). 57 Matthew, 18: 7. 58 Ovid, Fasti, lib. 1.32. 59 Here, Arnold is in fact quoting Peter Lombard, Liber Sententiarum, II. xxxvi.1, MPL 192, col. 738: Peter in turn was conflating separate passages from Gregory, Homiliae in Ezechielem, I.xi.23, MPL 76, col. 915. 55

Book II

79

previous transgressions, as was said above, there arise scandals – that is more serious sins. As David said in the psalm: ‘Add iniquity onto their iniquity’.60 And another prophet [says], ‘blood touches blood’,61 that is sin is piled up upon sin. But how can it be that scandals are able to emerge through ministers of the Church and the highest bishops? For they are seen to lead the people of God to the Promised Land, as Moses once did, through the vast desert of this age. But if only they would lead us along this kingly road, so that they do not, both being blind, fall into a pit.62 What then? Do we pass judgement upon them? Far from it! But we see them girded round with twin swords, one spiritual and the other material. But it was once more necessary to use the spiritual one – and there was less need to employ the material one – indeed only insofar as it had be used against those who did not fear the sentence of excommunication. Now, however, they use the material sword more than the spiritual one so as to demonstrate the might of their worldly glory; and in [doing] this, although ‘they think that they doeth God’, they often achieve less.63 For the spiritual sword is more powerful than the temporal one, since ‘the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword’.64 For behold that most savage lion, at whose roar the earth trembles,65 who after being bound by the spiritual sword was humbled upon the ground, but was roused and spurred to anger by the material one, and hence created greater scandal. Thus both in this conflict and in the one described above the strife became materially worse. But let us leave these matters and return to the main theme, lest we seem to fear to reprove the priests of God; for they should be standing vigilant in the watch tower of the Lord, as though intending to render a rendering of the souls subject to them.66 15 The release of Udalrich from captivity. After depopulating, or rather burning down the city, these sacrilegious men returned rejoicing to Brunswick. When he heard of the plundering of the city and saw the multitude of

60

Psalm 69: 28 (Vulgate), 68: 27 (AV). Sapientia,14: 25. 62 This would seem to refer to Psalm 56.7 (Vulgate); 57.6 (AV); ‘they have digged a pit before me, into the midst of which they have fallen themselves’. 63 John 16: 12: ‘whoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service’ (AV). 64 Hebrews 4: 12. 65 Cf. Psalm, 21: 14 (Vulgate), 22: 13 (AV), and II Samuel, 22: 8. This is of course also an allusion to Henry the Lion. 66 I am grateful for the assistance of Olivia Spenser, an MA student in the Institute for Medieval Studies at Leeds, in translating these last two paragraphs. 61

80

Book II

prisoners, the duke indeed was joyful. But when he realised how many churches had been burned, along with a multitude of the clergy, and he saw the lord bishop with his swan-white head, an old man led prisoner and so exhausted that he seemed at the end of his days, and furthermore the relics of the Blessed Protomartyr Stephen half-burned and blackened by the filth of the fire, brought with the bishop as though an ornament for a triumph, his face fell and he wept abundant tears, deploring what had happened most bitterly and claiming that this was not what he had wanted. However, he would not for the time being release the lord bishop from his captivity. He had him taken to Ertheneburg, where he ordered that he should be treated honourably, but kept under guard. The most religious Duchess Matilda was moved by piety and generously provided him with goods, as if for reverence of his priestly vestments, and indeed she most devotedly provided everything he needed, so that he appeared to lack for nothing in his captivity. Romarus, his bloodrelation and fellow prisoner, was kept under guard in the castle of Siegberg. Meanwhile the bishop’s men from Hornburg were incensed by the injuries suffered by their lord, launched frequent attacks on the men of the duke, spreading out through the region and destroying the villages laying round about by fire. The duke was annoyed by this and sent his army, which burned down the castle and reduced it to a desert. After this he celebrated Christmas at Lüneburg, and calling the lord bishop to him, he agreed peace terms with him, released him from captivity, and sent him home in an honourable manner. The bishop went to Huysburg, and falling ill he remained there for some time on his sickbed. His condition grew worse, and freed from worldly cares, he closed his days with a blessed end.67 16 The expedition of the duke into Thuringia and how Count Adolf and the other nobles abandoned him. At the beginning of May [1180] the duke entered Thuringia with an army, and he burned the town that is called Königsnordhausen. The Landgrave Ludwig met him with a great army, battle was joined between them, and the Thuringians were put to flight. The Landgrave, his brother the Count Palatine Herman and a host of knights were captured.68 The duke was exultant that day, and there was

67

Bishop Udalrich died at the monastery of Huysburg, near Halberstadt, on 30 July 1180. 68 Cf. ‘Cronica S. Petri Erfordensis’, in Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, p. 189, which dated this battle to 14 May. Ludwig III was Landgrave 1172–90. His father,

Book II

81

joy and rejoicing in all his house, and he returned to Brunswick with a vast crowd of captives and much booty. But one day when Count Adolf had come to him to congratulate him on his victory, and also to seek from him permission to return to his own land, Count Gunzelin started to make accusations against him in the duke’s presence. And since he had formerly been one of Count Adolf ’s closest friends, as if seeking a reason for his change of heart, he began to complain to the duke about him, alleging that Adolf had inflicted many injuries upon him, and that not only had he himself suffered much from him but indeed that all those who were faithful to the duke had always been hateful to him. Furthermore, he said, the lord duke had been injured by him, because he had refused to hand over his prisoners to him, as the rest of the nobles had, taking them away as if by force. To this Count Adolf replied: ‘You do indeed’, he said, have the power to attack me in the presence of my lord duke, when I have always been most devoted to you and ready to oblige you in everything. Now though, you make claims in front of my lord about ways in which you have been injured by me, so that I must either show my innocence in these matters, if I can, or if not render you just satisfaction in my lord’s presence. If, however my lord is displeased with me, it is only fair that he indicate to me what he wants, and once this is made manifest, then I shall render complete satisfaction to him. But what you are claiming about those who are loyal to my lord being hateful to me is just your wishful thinking – you cannot prove this. For what is undoubtedly known to everyone about me is that I have always been faithful to my lord, coming and going and doing things at his order. If anybody alleges anything else about me, I shall immediately prove him a liar in front of my lord. Nevertheless, if it is pleasing to my lord, that this matter should be thrashed out in his presence, I shall demonstrate how trustworthy I am in his sight.

The duke appeared to play down their dispute, and replied thus: Adolf does indeed claim to be entirely innocent. I agree that he has been devoted to us and of great assistance in every matter. But in one thing he cannot pretend to have behaved at all justly, that he has not surrendered to us the prisoners taken in the recent battle. He ought now to hand over the prisoners whom he holds, to prevent others

Ludwig II, had been part of the coalition that had attacked the duke in 1167, for which Helmold, Cronica, II.105, pp. 206–7, trans. Tschan, pp. 265–6; ‘Cronica S. Petri Erfordensis’, pp. 184–5.

82

Book II from following his example and holding on to their prisoners too. (At that time Count Adolf, along with the Count of Dassel and their other associates, held seventy-two prisoners of rank).69

To which Count Adolf replied: Lord, you should know that I have used up all my wealth in this expedition, the warhorses of my knights and countless other horses of my servants have been lost, and if I now hand over the prisoners to you, I shall have no choice but to return home on foot.

And after saying this he left the duke’s presence. All his friends said with tears in their eyes that the words of Count Gunzelin were great calumnies, and that his dishonest charges rendered him suspect to the duke. After this, Count Adolf received permission to depart and left. He and the other noblemen abandoned the duke, and the latter’s cause was weakened by their defection.70 Realising this, the duke responded to his defection by seizing all his land on the far side of the Elbe and storming the castle of Plön, from which he drove out the count’s men and installed Markward, the commander of the Holsteiners.71 Since the castle of Siegberg was impregnable, he had Count Bernhard of Ratzeburg lay siege to it, which he did for a long time while the lady Matilda, the count’s mother, defended it tenaciously. Eventually the cisterns ran dry, and those who were in the castle lacked water, and their throats were dry with thirst: forced by necessity they surrendered the castle on terms. The commander of the garrison was a certain Leopold, a Bavarian, a wise and valiant man. Lady Matilda and her people went to Schauenburg. Then Count Adolf and his friends and relations destroyed the castle of Hohenrode, which Conrad of Rode had built near his castle in the region beyond the Weser.72

69

Count Adolf of Dassel (d. c.1223) was Adolf of Holstein’s uncle. According to the Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus, ‘the reason for their desertion was not so much their love for Frederick as their loathing for the duke … his uncommonly ferocious oppression and unbearably harsh manner were as often as not just as vexatious to his own citizens as they were to his enemies’, although he went on to be highly critical of Count Adolf ’s change of sides, Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, The History of the Danes, ed. Karsten Friis-Jensen, trans. Peter Fisher (2 vols, Oxford 2015), ii.1478–81. 71 Either the Markward, ‘standard bearer’ [signifer] of the Holsteiners, first mentioned in a ducal charter of September 1148, Urkunden HL, p. 21 no. 12, or his son of the same name. Up to this point the Holsteiners had usually opposed the duke, since Henry had been allied to Count Adolf and his father before him, and their primary concern had been to reject the count’s claims to rule over them. Now they changed sides, and supported the duke against Adolf. Freytag, ‘Der Nordostern des Reiches’, pp. 481–2. 72 That is Schauenburg. 70

Book II

83

17 The coming of the Emperor into Saxony. Learning that these men had deserted the duke, the emperor turned his face to come into Saxony, and almost all the warriors who were in the duke’s castles feared to face him.73 When he approached, they surrendered all his strongest castles and themselves to him – whether from necessity or from their own wish. Many of his ministeriales, who had been brought up by him [i.e., Henry the Lion] from their cradles, and whose fathers had served him continuously, like Henry of Witha,74 Leopold of Herzberg,75 Liudolf of Peine,76 and many others, deserted the duke and went over to the emperor. Thus the emperor grew stronger, since he had gained the castles of Herzberg, Lauenburg, Blankenburg, Heimburg and Regenstein, and he led his army to besiege Lichtenburg, which was betrayed into his hands after a few days. At this time Prince Casimir of the Pomeranians, a very close friend of the duke, died and the Slavs deserted him, since Casimir’s brother Bogeslav joined the emperor, and did homage and paid tribute to him.77 18 The rebuilding of Harzburg. In these days the emperor occupied a high mountain near Goslar, which is called Harzburg, establishing a castle there and surrounding it with a strong wall. The elder Emperor Henry had long ago built a very strong castle on this mountain: his son Henry later rebelled against him, who cruelly took up arms and drove his father out, but who was [in turn] put to flight by the Saxons at the battle of Welfesholz.78 And since this castle was like a yoke that lay on the whole of

73

June 1181, Freed, Frederick Barbarossa, p. 439. He was son of another ducal ministerialis, Erchenbert de Wida, and was described by Helmold as ‘an influential and knightly man’ and ‘one of the duke’s henchmen’, Helmold, Cronica, I.69, p. 131, trans. Tschan, p. 189. Duke Henry confirmed a sale of his to the monastery of Volkenrode in 1154, Urkunden HL, 39–40 no. 28. Among other ducal charters he witnessed were ibid., nos 21, 27–8, 34, 52, 64, 71, 73, 84–5 and 97. 75 A frequent witness of ducal charters, and possibly one of his stewards, he accompanied Henry on the Italian expedition of 1155, Urkunden H L, p. 45 no. 31. Cf. ibid., nos 27–8, 33–5, 38, 51–3, 73 and 112. 76 Son of another ducal ministerialis, Berthold of Peine, and another, albeit less frequent, witness of ducal charters, e.g., Urkunden HL, nos 27, 50, 52 (witnessed by all three of the ministeriales mentioned here), 107. The duke made him castellan of one of his fortresses in Mecklenburg c. 1160, Helmold, Chronica, I.88, p. 233, trans. Tschan, p. 233. 77 For them, Helmold, Chronica, II.100, 102, 108, p. 196, 200–1, 211; trans. Tschan, p. 259, 263–4, 274–5. 78 Henry IV and Henry V. The battle of Welfesholz was in February 1115. 74

84

Book II

Saxony,79 and the emperor, because of his great pride was not only hateful to the Saxons but also to the Apostolic See and to almost all the empire, the Saxon princes and bishops decided to hold a conference at Goslar. And there they hatched a conspiracy against the Emperor Henry, and tried to raise up another king against him. However, dispute arose among them about the election of a [new] king, since everyone put forward one or another person whom they themselves wanted, and nobody seemed suitable. Then a man stood up among them, called Conrad, a man of eloquence, and he said to them: You men, what are you arguing about. Don’t you want to agree to secure the blessing of peace? If my advice is pleasing, I shall show to you a good man, who is worthy of the royal honour, a man happy in victories, through whom the Lord will work to bring salvation to us all.

They all then gave their consent that they would all acclaim as their king whomever he should designate. Taking some companions with him, Conrad went to the lodgings of a certain nobleman, whose name was Henry, but when they entered the latter’s lodgings they did not find him there. He was, in fact, at a grange, and was spending his time fowling. However, when they came in, his wife received them honourably, saying that her husband was not there, but was not far away. They dismounted from their horses, and while she was preparing a meal for her guests, she quietly sent horses to her husband so that he could ride back to his house, just as though he had come from the road. They met him as he entered, and he greeted them politely, ordering a table to be set up, and inviting them to dine. Conrad replied to him: ‘I shall not eat until I have said what I have to say’. He said: ‘speak’. Conrad then said: ‘All the princes of Saxony salute you, requesting that you come to them at Goslar as fast as you can’. To this he replied: ‘What do the princes of Saxony want of such an unimportant man [like me]?’ However, he rose up and came to them. Conrad, who had brought him there, said to them: ‘Behold, your king!’ They all immediately and unanimously chose him as their king. And from what had taken place, namely that he had been busy fowling, which seemed as though it was an augury for his future, he was called ‘king of the birds’, or in German Vogelkuning.80

79

For the significance of this phrase for the Saxons’ historical memory of their struggle with Henry IV, Karl Leyser, ‘The crisis of medieval Germany’, Proceedings of the British Academy 69 (1983), 442–3. 80 Arnold here confused the rebellion against Henry IV and the events that led to the destruction of the Harzburg in 1073 with the designation by King Conrad I of Duke Henry of Saxony as his successor in 918.

Book II

85

After he had been raised to the kingship, he said to the princes: ‘Since you have honoured me by raising me up to be your king, it is right that you render me fealty on oath as your king’. And when they had all sworn oaths to him, he sent envoys to those who were in the Harzburg, ordering them to come to his presence as speedily as possible. The envoys informed those who were absent81 what they had heard from the king’s own mouth. But the latter were angry, and beat them with staves, and sent them back with their hair shaved to their lord. Then the man who was their leader said to his fellow envoys: ‘We have been dishonoured, but let us be steadfast and we shall change our disgrace into glory. I have seen hawks flying today: they will remove our dishonour’.82 For more than twenty young nobles had descended to the bath house: they lay in wait for them on their return and slew them all. So, having revenged their disgrace, they returned to the king. When the king heard what had taken place, he was extremely angry: he besieged the castle with a mighty host, stormed it and levelled it to the ground. Some people say that because of the many dreadful things perpetrated from this same castle, and on account of the aforesaid Emperor Henry, who remained until the end of his life excommunicated by the Roman see, this place was condemned under anathema by the lord pope, so that it should never be inhabited, but like Babylon should be abandoned in perpetual solitude.83 The Emperor Frederick, however, began to rebuild on this mountain, since even if he deserved sentence of excommunication [by doing so], nonetheless he was unwilling to suffer any diminution of his royal authority.84 Meanwhile the garrison placed in the castle of Woldenberg rebelled because they were not strong enough (to hold it); they destroyed the castle and they went to a castle of the emperor. 19 The arrest of Count Bernhard. After this the duke spent the Christmas feast at Lüneburg, and there he charged Count Bernhard of Ratzeburg, who was with him, with being part of a conspiracy that had been hatched against him, accusing him of dishonesty and treason, saying that he had been given reliable information about this by those loyal to him. Indeed, if it should prove necessary, he would be able to convict him with manifest proof and witnesses that he had entered into a conspiracy with his enemies against him, that he would invite the duke and his wife to Ratzeburg as if to a banquet, and then lay an

81 82 83 84

That is, from Henry’s election as king. That is, these hawks were an omen. Cf. Jeremiah, chaps 50–1, here. Cf. note 79 above, on why this was so significant to the Saxons.

86

Book II

ambush in order to kill him as he dined. And when the count produced nothing worthy in his defence, the duke had him arrested, along with his son Volrad, and coming with his army to Ratzeburg, he besieged it, dragging the count along with him in his train. The men of Lübeck joined him, with many ships, and arms and siege engines, and the siege grew closer. Bernhard had no choice but to surrender the castle, and he himself went with his wife and children and all that he had to Gadebusch. Afterwards, however, the duke still viewed him as suspect and not entirely loyal to him, since he remained on good terms with the latter’s enemies; so he made a second journey into his land and destroyed the castle of Gadebusch, receiving a great deal of plunder there. The count fled, and took himself off to Duke Bernhard. The duke meanwhile expelled all his men, and gained full control of all his land. He began to strengthen the castles of Ratzeburg, Siegberg and Plön, trusting greatly in their defences. 20 The expedition of the emperor. The next summer the emperor with a strong army poured through the duke’s borders and entered his territory, and intending to drive him from his land in person, he decided to cross the Elbe. Fearing, however, that the duke’s men would follow after and harass him, he instructed Philip of Cologne with the other princes to watch Brunswick, while he deputed Duke Bernhard and his brother Otto, Margrave of Brandenburg,85 with the other eastern princes to Bardowick on account of the men of Lüneburg. He himself had in his company Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg, the lord of Babenberg, the abbots of Fulda, Korvey and Hersfeld,86 along with Margrave Otto of Meissen, and with these and a great force of Swabian and Bavarian knights he led his army towards the Elbe. On his approach, the Landgrave Ludwig, who had previously been held under guard in Lüneburg, was brought to Siegberg and kept there in stricter custody. The duke remained for a time in Lübeck, fortifying the city and setting up many war engines there. After arranging this, he left Ratzeburg on the day of SS Peter and Paul [29 June]. He set out from there in the morning, heading for the Elbe, while all those who were in the castle followed him, as if they were joyfully accompanying him. But when those who were of Count Bernhard’s party who remained there saw that the castle was empty, they immediately seized it and, capturing the citadel, driving out the few of the duke’s servants remaining there, they closed its gates. On hearing of this the duke was furious and

85

Otto I, Margrave of Brandburg 1170–84. Conrad II, Abbot of Fulda 1177–92; Siegfried, Abbot of Hersfeld 1180–1200, Hans-Peter Wehlt, Reichsabtei und König (Göttingen 1970), pp. 311–13. 86

Book II

87

returned to the castle, but he found his enemies quite determinedly against him. He immediately sent messages to Leopold at Siegberg and Markward at Plune, ordering them to come as fast as they could with the Holzati, so that he could drive out the enemy troops, who were few in number. But meanwhile a man arrived who said that Caesar was approaching, and so he abandoned the attempt and retreated, bitter at heart, and went to Ertheneburg. But seeing the forces of Caesar coming near, he set fire to Ertheneburg, took ship and travelled along the Elbe to Stade. 21 The siege of the city by the emperor. The emperor crossed the river and came to Lübeck, and he was joined by an army of Slavs and Holsteiners. King Waldemar of the Danes came with a great fleet to the east of the Trave, and the city was besieged by land and sea.87 In the city were Count Simon of Tecklenburg, Count Bernhard of Oldenburg and his namesake the Count of Wölpe, along with Markward the commander of the Holsteiners, and Emeco of the Forest, with some very valiant Holsteiners, and a very large number of citizens. King Waldemar, accompanied by a large retinue, came into the emperor’s presence and paraded before him with much boasting about his glory. He betrothed his daughter to the emperor’s son, the duke of Swabia, and these marital sacraments were confirmed on oath by the bishops [present].88 During the siege the burgesses went to see Henry, the bishop holding office in that city, and said to him: Most reverend father, we ask your holiness that you go out to the lord emperor and give him this message. Lord, we are your servants, and we are prepared to serve your majesty, but what have we done to warrant you blockading us with this great siege? Up to now we have possessed this city through the generosity of our lord Duke Henry, which we have indeed built for the honour of God and the strengthening of Christianity in this awful place amidst this wasteland. Now it is, so we hope, the habitation of God, where previously it was the seat of Satan through the error of the Gentiles. We shall not therefore surrender it into your hands, but shall most steadfastly defend its freedom by force of arms, to the best of our ability. However, we request your magnificence that you grant us a truce so that we may

87

Waldemar I, King of Denmark 1157–82. Duke Henry had apparently earlier sought, and been promised, his support, but he must have decided that it was wiser to support the stronger side; see Saxo Grammaticus, ii.1452–3. 88 See Saxo Grammaticus, ii.1480–5 for a more extended account of this meeting. Frederick, Duke of Swabia (born February 1167) was the third, but second surviving, son of Frederick Barbarossa.

88

Book II go to our lord duke, to ask him what should be done and what measures should be taken by us and for our city in the present crisis. If he shall promise freedom to us, it is right that we should keep the city for him; if not, we shall do what is pleasing in your eyes. But if you are unwilling to do this, then you should know that we would all greatly prefer to die honourably in defence of our city than to live dishonourably having broken our word.

The bishop then came to the emperor and most diligently relayed this message. He also advised the emperor that he should show patience towards his cousin the duke, remembering their blood-relationship and that the duke had often rendered him excellent services. The emperor rejoiced in the arrival of the bishop, whom he esteemed for his high reputation. He willingly listened to him, and then replied: Most beloved of bishops, we do indeed rejoice greatly in your arrival, and we are certainly grateful to meet you and have this discussion. But that your citizens offer us words of arrogance and will not open our city to us, is, we believe, something that neither you nor anyone else who is acknowledged as being of sound mind will see as just. We do indeed confess that through our benevolent generosity this town once belonged to our cousin; but through his contumacy, and by the decree of all the princes, he has rightly suffered public outlawry. Title to the town therefore now belongs most justly to us, along with everything that he had received from the bishops, which he held as a benefice. And now indeed we shall lay hands on those things to which we are entitled. But since justice dictates that we should show in all matters rather patience than vengefulness, we shall therefore grant them what they seek, that they shall go to their lord to confer with him about their situation. However, they should realise one thing, that if once they have returned to the city they do not surrender it, then they shall suffer a sterner penalty because of this delay. As to what you say suggesting that we should have patience with our cousin the duke, you should know that we have always treated him with extraordinary patience and great clemency. The result has been that he has become puffed up with pride, and has treated the grace that he has found with contempt; nor indeed has he realised, as he should, that the favour that has overflowed to him comes from God. You should understand that it is because of this that God has brought him low, since the overthrow of such a powerful man is not something achieved by our strength, but rather by the dispensation of Almighty God.

The bishop then returned to the town and reported what he had heard to the citizens. They accepted the safe-conduct without delay and went to Stade, where the duke was. The emperor took account of the ill-health of the bishop, since the latter was afflicted with frequent burning fevers, from

Book II

89

which he suffered until the end of his life, and sent his own physician to him, to ameliorate his bodily weakness with his potions. Some days later the burgesses returned, along with Count Gunzelin, and on the duke’s instructions they surrendered the town into the hands of the emperor. But before they opened [the gates] to him, they went out to request him that they might retain the civic freedom that they had previously been granted by the duke, and seeking confirmation of the judicial rights, on the model of those of Soest,89 to which they had written title in [his] privileges, and that they might secure recognition of their boundaries, in pasture, forest and river, through his authority and munificence. The emperor assented to their petition, and not only did he confirm this but he also gave judicial confirmation to whatever had been assigned from tolls to support the canons in Lübeck and Ratzeburg.90 He gave as a benefice to Count Adolf a half-share in the tolls, mills and mint, both for his great service to the empire and in recompense for the exile that he had suffered for a time on this account. And so the emperor entered the city, and was ceremoniously received with hymns and praises to God,91 with rejoicing by the clergy and all the people. The abbot of the monastery of the holy Mother of God Mary and St John the Evangelist came into his presence, and received from his hand the plots that he had in the city and some fields in the plain around the city, at the request of Bishop Henry, who had bought these plots and fields for cash, and had given them to this same monastery of the blessed Mother of God Mary and St John the Evangelist.92 22 The return of the emperor and the exile of the duke. The emperor then set out on his return journey, crossed the Elbe and pitched camp to the east of Lüneburg. However the duke, as was said above, had stationed himself at

89

Soest in Westphalia, 30 km W of Paderborn. Neither this privilege of Barbarossa nor Henry the Lion’s earlier privileges have survived, although his later privilege for Lübeck, issued in September 1188 in response to the disputes between the citizens and Counts Adolf of Holstein and Bernhard of Ratzeburg, does refer to ‘all the rights that the founder of this place, Henry former Duke of Saxony, granted to them [the citizens] and confirmed by his privilege’; Dipl. Frederick I, iv (1181–90), 263–7 no. 981, at 265. Unfortunately the text of the 1188 privilege has been interpolated, and even this is hardly a sure guide to the city rights and the boundaries of its territories. See above, p. 9. 91 Laudibus Dei; these were presumably the ceremonial laudes regiae acclamations customary for rulers. 92 This abbot was of course Arnold himself. 90

90

Book II

Stade. He had apparently taken refuge there because of its defensibility, since it had not yet been captured by the enemy. [In that eventuality] he hoped to be able to escape by water. He had surrounded the town with a great rampart and he had built very strong forts with war-engines within them. Count Gunzelin, who was supervising this work, even had the audacity to destroy the towers of the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary, since they appeared to be very close to the fortifications.93 Such a deed could not be perpetrated without incurring guilt [sine reatu]. But when things like that are done, instead of greater security they often bring about greater ruin thanks to punishment from God. Seeing that he was in a tight spot, the duke requested the lord emperor that he might come under safe-conduct to Lüneburg, hoping that in his presence he might find mercy and [be able to make] some agreement. He was brought to a place between Erthenberg and Bardowick, where a host of knights from the emperor’s camp met him, and welcomed him in peace. He returned the salutation, saying: ‘I am not accustomed in these parts to receive safe-conduct from anyone, but rather to give it’. And so he came to Lüneburg, where he did his best through intermediaries to soften the heart of the emperor. He also released his prisoners, the Landgrave Ludwig and his brother the Count Palatine Herman, hoping that he might receive some grace from this concession, but nothing then resulted.94 However, when the emperor then departed, he summoned him to a court at Quedlinburg, where the princes were to decide, in accordance with justice, what was to become of him. As a result all the friends of the duke rejoiced, hoping that this might have a favourable outcome for him. But his case was not resolved there because of the bad-feeling [seditio] between him and his rival, Duke Bernhard, that arose there, and so the emperor summoned him to another court at Erfurt. At the time Archbishop Siegfried of Bremen received in full restitution Stade and all the other things that the duke had held, ostensibly as a vassal [inbeneficiatus] of the church of Bremen.95 However, he paid six hundred marks of silver to Archbishop Philip of Cologne, whom he had requested to come with his army and capture Stade. But when the latter had arrived in accordance with the archbishop of Bremen’s request, then

93

This monastery lay outside the walls. Cf. Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, p. 191: ‘Seeing that his cause lacked both resources and allies, Duke Henry finally surrendered to the royal majesty, having freed Landgrave Ludwig and his brother Herman from captivity, instructing them to act as mediators for a peace with the imperial majesty’. 95 Dipl. Frederick I, iv (1181–90), 14–15 no. 981 (issued from Erfurt, 16 November 1181). Stade had been acquired for the see by Archbishop Hartwig, who had inherited the county, Helmold, Cronica, II.102, p. 202, trans. Tschan, p. 265. 94

Book II

91

with the agreement of the emperor (so it was said) he retained the castle, although he still exacted the money that had been promised to him. Counts Bernhard and Adolf were also granted back their castles and districts by the emperor. The duke came to the court designated for his case, made full submission to the emperor’s grace and flung himself at his feet.96 The emperor raised him to his feet, kissed him, not without tears because the dispute between them had lasted so long and since he was the cause of his downfall. It is doubtful, however, whether these tears were genuine, for it seemed that he had not been fully forgiven, for the emperor made no effort to restore him to his former position. This indeed he could not do at that time because of his oath; for since all the [other] princes were determined on his overthrow, the emperor had sworn to them by the throne of his kingdom that he would never restore the duke to his former position unless this was with the agreement of them all. One concession was, however, made for him, that he might freely possess without challenge his patrimonial property, wheresoever that might be. But the duke abjured the land for the space of three years, promising that he would not enter his land during that period unless he was specifically recalled by the emperor. Accompanied by his wife and children, he travelled to his brother-in-law the king of England, and dwelt with him for all that time.97 The king of England gave him a most honourable reception, appointed him as if he were a prince ruling over the whole land, and endowed those who were exiled with him with many gifts.

96

The evidence of his diplomas shows the emperor at Erfurt from 16 November to 13 December 1181. During this court, Herman, the younger brother of Landgrave Ludwig, was appointed Count Palatine of Saxony, with his brother’s agreement, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, p. 191. For the significance of this, see Jonathan R. Lyon, Princely Brothers and Sisters. The Sibling Bond in German Politics, 1100–1250 (Ithaca, NY, 2013), pp. 116–17, who suggests that Ludwig was keen to see his brother ranked among the imperial princes in order to strengthen his family’s position in the Reich. 97 Henry II was in fact the duke’s father-in-law: Arnold was presumably writing this after his death in 1189, when the king (either Richard or John) was indeed the duke’s brother-in-law. The Pöhlde annalist said that he set off into exile on 25 July 1182, Annales Palidenses, MGH SS xvi.96. Duke Henry met the king at Chinon in late August/September 1182, and remained in exile, spending time in both Normandy and England, until April/May 1185. He finally arrived back in Saxony in late summer of that year. Poole, ‘Die Welfen in der Verbannung’, pp. 130–8; Jordan, Henry the Lion, pp. 183–5.

Book III 1 The rule of Duke Bernhard. ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes’.1 Duke Henry had alone prevailed in the land and had, as we said at the beginning, enforced a most effective peace, restraining by the bridle of his government not only those within his boundaries but even barbarians and foreign regions, so that men lived in peace without fear and the land flourished in every way in peace and security. But after his exile, everyone ruled over their own district like a tyrant, and either inflicted violence on others or suffered violence themselves. Furthermore Duke Bernhard, who was seemingly exercising princely rule, acted sluggishly, and whereas previously when he ruled over a county he had been the most vigorous of his brothers, once he was promoted to the duchy, he behaved not as a true prince, but declined as a ruler, and showing himself to be a man of peace, he was late and careless in everything. As a result he was neither honoured by the emperor, as he had been earlier, nor was he respected by the princes and noblemen of the land. In these days Count Adolf married a daughter of Count Otto of Dassel, at the behest of Archbishop Philip of Cologne, to whom she was related, and through the archbishop the count’s power grew strong.2 After he had regained all the land of his father, he expelled from the region all his enemies who had opposed him in the time of Duke Henry, notably Markward, the commander of the Holsteiners, in whose place he appointed another, called Syricus, who was however far inferior in courage and character. He also expelled Emeco and many others, some of whom went to the king of Denmark and took refuge with him. Others accompanied the Count of Ratzeburg during the period of his exile. Duke Bernhard came with his brother the Margrave Otto to Erthenburg, and held court there, instructing the chief nobles of the land to attend him so that they might receive their benefices from him, do homage and confirm their fealty on oath.3 While he was holding court there, the Counts of

1

Judges, 21: 25. This was Adelheid, daughter of Count Otto of Asselburg (Arnold was in error here) and Salome, sister of Archbishop Philip. For her, Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, p. 325. 3 The sons of Margrave Albrecht the Bear formed an unusually close fraternal group who often worked together. See Lyon, Princely Brothers and Sisters, pp. 106–10. 2

Book III

93

Ratzeburg, Dannenburg,4 Lüchow5 and Schwerin came to attend him, but although he expected Count Adolf the latter did not come. As a result the duke began to regard him with suspicion, and thus disputes arose between them. At this time Duke Bernhard began to build Lauenberg along the bank of the Elbe to the east of Erthenberg. After having abandoned the latter castle, he destroyed the wall which surrounded it, and constructed his new castle from its stones. He ordered that the crossing by boat should [now] be made at Lauenberg, rather than at Erthenberg where this had taken place. But the men of Lübeck complained to the emperor about this change, because the route was longer and more difficult and so they found the crossing extremely difficult. Hence the emperor ordered that they should cross at Erthenberg, as before. Wishing to extend the power of his name, Duke Bernhard began to inflict various new innovations on the men of his province, which were unheard of and intolerable. ‘He forsook the counsel of the old men and consulted with the young men’, thinking that his ‘little finger be thicker than his father’s loins’, and he ‘added to their yoke’.6 Thus his princely rule over them became hated, and his glory shrank to nothing. Furthermore, his brother Archbishop Siegfried of Bremen tried to take the county of Dittmarsch away from Count Adolf and transfer it to his brother the duke.7 Despite the archbishop, Count Adolf held on to this by force of arms, and strengthened his jurisdiction over it. 2 The embassy of the emperor to King Cnut. King Waldemar of the Danes died at about this time, and his son Cnut ruled in his place.8 The emperor sent distinguished envoys to him, namely Archbishop Siegfried and other nobles, seeking his sister, whom their father had previously betrothed to

4 Probably Count Henry of Dannenburg, for whom Urkunden HL, pp. 157–9 no. 104 (1175). 5 Perhaps Count Herman of Lüchow, who was an occasional witness of Duke Henry’s charters, e.g., Urkunden HL, pp. 141–2 no. 92 (1171). Lüchow and Dannenburg are both to the W of the Elbe, about 90 and 100 km respectively NE of Brunswick. 6 I Kings, 12: 8, 10–11. 7 Siegfried was a younger son of Albrecht the Bear, Margrave of Brandenburg. After an abortive attempt to install him as archbishop in 1168, which was prevented by Henry the Lion, he became bishop of Brandenburg in 1173 and archbishop in 1179. See above, Bk. II.9. 8 Waldemar I died on 13 May 1182, aged fifty-one. For his illness and death, Saxo Grammaticus, ii.1488–94.

94

Book III

one of his sons, and also that he should pay part of the [dowry] money, as had previously been agreed. The marriage agreement between the emperor and the king of Denmark was as follows: that the latter would provide his daughter with a portion of 4,000 marks, calculated by weight in accordance with the public measure established by Charlemagne. Part of the money, as was convenient to him, would be paid at that time when his daughter was handed over, and after six years betrothal, when she had reached marriageable age – for she was then only a girl of seven – six weeks before [the wedding] he would pay all the rest. Both sides confirmed by privilege that should any part of the terms not be fulfilled, then the agreement and betrothal would be deemed void. The emperor’s envoys came to the River Eider with four hundred horses, and Count Adolf saw to their needs most generously for three days. King Cnut, however, handed his sister over to them as if with disdain, saying that should he wish to dishonour the oaths of his father then his sister would never be joined to the emperor’s son. Moreover he handed her over with a modest clothing and train, one not at all in accordance with royal magnificence, and he only paid a part of the money, as has been described. For there had been dispute between him and the emperor, since the latter was demanding homage from him, which the king refused, while because of his father-inlaw Duke Henry,9 whom the emperor had driven from the land, he sought to exploit opportunities for fostering rebellion against him, or so certain persons thought. 3 About the death of Bishop Henry. During these days Bishop Henry fell ill and died. Although he was labouring under grave bodily illness, he remained no less intent upon the psalms, prayers and the office of the mass, which he attended without a break in honour of Blessed Mary the Mother of God until three days before his death. He strove also to observe various special fasts right up to his end. When the man of God knew that his struggle was completed and his race was now run – while he was quite certain that he would receive the crown of justice – he began, however, to be anxious about the Lord’s vineyard which he had newly planted, namely the monastery of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, and the Holy Evangelist John. And

9

The text has gener, but Cnut had married Henry the Lion’s daughter Gertrude (by his first marriage to Clementia of Zähringen), c.1177. He had previously been betrothed as a baby to her younger sister Richenza, who had died c.1167, Saxo Grammaticus, ii.1228–9, 1420–1. Gertrude died on 1 July 1197, and the marriage was childless, Jordan, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und seine Familie’, pp. 118–23.

Book III

95

although he had ‘a desire to depart and be with Christ’,10 as a conscientious shepherd with a few and still delicate sheep he wanted to anticipate the ambushes of the wolves. He was often visited by the brothers, who said to him: ‘Why are you deserting us, father, and to whom will you leave us in our desolation?’ He answered: I give thanks to God, Jesus Christ and to his most holy mother, for I am indeed not sad about my death through the hope of Divine clemency, but I am not a little disturbed by leaving this new plantation. I hope that, if this is pleasing to the Lord, it will survive, and insofar as I can, to strengthen this new foundation in His honour. But as I lie in the Lord my thought will be like that of the Psalmist, ‘he also will hear my cry and will save them’.11

After he had repeated this a number of times, and commended the monastery most earnestly to the Lord, then one night, after the office of Matins, and as if Divinely instructed, he said confidently to the abbot who was sitting with him:12 Trust in the Lord, my son, remain steadfast and do not be sad about my death, since it is necessary that what is pleasing to the Lord should be fulfilled. However, you may know this most certainly, that your service in praise of His name in this place will grow stronger; so do not doubt this, but ‘be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart; wait I say on the Lord’.13

So, strengthened in the Lord, he said to the brothers who had been summoned that he was now passing away. Receiving the unction of holy oil, he stretched out his hands and feet, and while they sang psalms he took the viaticum of the Lord’s Body, and said: ‘O King of glory, come in peace!’ As if now certain of his coming, he added: ‘Yea though I walk through the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me’.14 As he came closer and closer to death, his tongue shook and his speech failed, but he suddenly opened his eyes, which he had [seemingly] closed in death, and extending his hands said: ‘Behold, the Virgin!’ Those who stood by believed that this had been said to the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, whom the bishop had served with the utmost devotion. Nor can it be doubted that the mother of mercy should console at the moment of death one who was always so devoted

10 11 12 13 14

Philippians, 1: 23. Psalm, 144: 19 (Vulgate), 145: 19 (AV). This is Arnold the chronicler. Psalm, 26: 14 (Vulgate), 27: 14 (AV). Psalm, 22: 4 (Vulgate), 23: 4 (AV).

96

Book III

a servant to her. He was then lifted from his bed and placed on a hair blanket (cilicium), and so breathing his last he rendered up his spirit on 29 November.15 His body was buried in that same monastery which he had founded, although there were some who were unwilling and opposed this, and who sought to have him brought to the cathedral and buried there. But God was unwilling to oppose his own wish, for when he had fallen ill in the monastery, desiring to be buried there he had said: ‘This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell, for I have desired it’.16 We believe that his soul is counted among the blessed and in the company of the holy, since he had followed Christ from his childhood years. Then, as a youth at about the age of twenty he had abandoned his studies at Paris, and left [also] his native land, namely Brabant, since he had been born in the city of Brussels. Coming to Hildesheim, he took a position teaching in the school there, since he was well-versed in the arts. After he had been there for some time, then through the will of God he came to Brunswick, and there too he undertook the task of teaching scholars. Sometime later he took to his bed, laid low by fever. During his illness he had a dream and saw this vision. He saw a very tall man, making horrible threats against him. He took flight, and came to a very broad river which he crossed panting for fear of the dangerous robber. He [then] came to the monastery of St Giles, and once he had entered it he escaped from the hands of his pursuing enemy. So on waking up and trying to understand what intentions Divine Clemency had for him, he was immediately brought to the monastery of St Giles, tonsured and clad in the monastic habit there. His fever ceased, and he was snatched from waves of secular tempests. And so he became a monk, and led the life of a monk. Nor, as is the custom with some people, did he later return to the land of his birth, his relatives and those known to him, but like Abraham he truly departed from his own land, leaving all [behind him] for Christ, in search of the supreme reward from God.17 Hence, after his decease, God deigned to reveal to various spiritual persons that after the exile of this life he had passed to joy eternal. For within a week of his death, a dream about him revealed to an abbot that his tomb had opened, as though there had been some fault in construction of this same monument that ought to have been changed, for behold the bishop arose and sat up, and said with great thankfulness: ‘I will extol thee, O Lord, for thou has lifted me up, and has not made my foes to rejoice over me’,18 and so following the order of the Psalms he gave thanks to God. And coming to that place: ‘Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing’,

15 16 17 18

Probably in 1182: for his election as bishop in 1173, above, Bk. I.13. Psalm, 131: 14 (Vulgate), 132: 14 (AV). Cf. Genesis, 12: 1, although this is not a direct quotation. Psalm, 29: 2 (Vulgate), 30: 1 (AV).

Book III

97

he began to divest himself of the sheets in which he had been clothed at his funeral, and to say: ‘thou hast put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness’.19 And when he had finished the Psalm, [with] ‘O Lord, my God, I will give thanks unto thee for ever’,20 he said: ‘I shall not speak any more to you’, and so the vision was ended. Also, a certain nun at Zeven saw in a vision from God a dove, whiter than snow, fly to her breast. She was overjoyed by this, and offered it food. It said: ‘I shall not eat, for I am not a dove, but guided by mercy I shall tell you who I am’. Petrified by fear, she said: ‘Tell me how you have received mercy, as you claim, and who you are’. And he said to her: ‘If throughout a whole year you will recite the psalm “When Israel went out of Egypt”21 in memory of me, I shall tell you who I am’. After she had promised most faithfully [to do this], he said: ‘I am called Henry, and I was the bishop in Lübeck’. She said to him, ‘where is your dwelling now?’ He replied, ‘among the angelic choirs’. From this evidence one should hope that he has deserved the company of the blessed. But in case it should seem absurd to anyone that we prove these things through the evidence of dreams, we shall direct them to the authority of the Holy Gospel, where it is read that angels appeared several times in dreams to Joseph, and he spoke to one, and the angel to him concerning the boy Jesus and his mother.22 Furthermore, many dreams are recounted in Holy Scripture, as of St Daniel and St Joseph, which are judged to be faithful, both because of the truth of the Scriptures and on account of the authority of those about whom we read in the Scriptures, whose testimony is confirmed through their holiness and merit. Because even if the author of this work can be deemed less trustworthy than them, he can still be trusted, for he proclaims that his evidence is reliable, and like the Apostle says: ‘Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not’.23 4 The destruction of Lauenberg and the flight of Niklot. Since Duke Bernhard acted with little wisdom, he therefore achieved little success. For, as has been said above, he was oppressing the men of the province with various new burdens, and he tried various inept plans against Count Adolf, Bernhard of Ratzeburg and Gunzelin of Schwerin. He tried to seize from Count Adolf all the land that is called Ratkau, which Duke Henry had

19 20 21 22 23

Psalm, 29: 12 (Vulgate), 30: 11 (AV). Psalm, 29: 13 (Vulgate), 30: 12 (AV). Psalm, 113 (Vulgate), 114 (AV). Matthew, 1:20–4. Galatians, 1: 20.

98

Book III

formerly held, and the town of Todeslo. He wanted [too] to usurp the city of Lübeck for himself. The emperor had retained the city in his own hands, both for the usefulness of its income (tribute) and since it is sited on the farthest edge of the empire: he had, however, assigned Hitzacker and twenty good holdings to Duke Bernhard in lieu. Since Adolf held half the income from the city as a benefice from the emperor, Duke Bernhard sought [to obtain this] rather than him. He [also] tried to curtail part of the benefices of the Count of Ratzeburg and Count Gunther of Schwerin. They were as a result enraged, and joining together as one, they attacked his town of Lauenburg. They laid siege to it and built siege engines, and after a few days they razed it to the ground. Since the duke was a mild man and was reluctant to injure them in return, he went to the emperor and complained about this attack in his presence. The counts, however, were determined to shake his yoke from off their necks, and did their best to drive those whom they knew to be his friends from the land. So they mustered an army in secret and invaded the land of the Slavs. Making an unseen night march they attacked the castle of Ylowe, and forcing an entrance by surprise they drove out the mother of Nyklot who was the son of Wartislav, and making many others captive they burned the castle down, devastating all the land [round about], and they returned home laden with spoil. Borwin, the son of Pribislav, who had married Matilda, the daughter of Duke Henry, gained the castles of Rostock and Mecklenburg. Nyklot fled to Duke Bernhard, who was meeting with his brother Margrave Otto at the castle of Havelberg. As a result he made frequent raids into the land of the Slavs, and ravaged it severely.24 Geromar, the prince of the Rugians, assisted him, although Bogeslav, the prince of the Pomeranians, was on Borwin’s side. And so these blood relations became entangled in a civil war. However, Nyklot’s side prevailed, because Geromar, a most valiant man, laid waste most of the land of the Circipani, which was near the Triebsee. When Henry Borwin raided the land of this pirate he was taken prisoner by Geromar, who threw him into chains, sending him to King Cnut of the Danes, who kept him in prison for a long time. On the other hand Nyklot, or Nicholas [as he was known], raided into the land of Bogeslav and was taken prisoner by him and thrown into chains. But after they

24

There was thus a split in the princely family of the Obrodites, who ruled over the Mecklenburg region. Pribislav, who had accompanied Henry the Lion on his pilgrimage, had been killed in a tournament in December 1178. His son, Henry Borwin I (d. 1227), was in dispute with his first cousin Nyklot (Nicholas). The latter’s father, Wartislav, had been executed by Henry the Lion in 1164, for which Helmold, Cronica, II.100, p. 195, trans. Tschan, p. 258. Henry Borwin I had married Matilda, the duke’s illegitimate daughter, before 1167. Jordan, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und seine Familie’, pp. 142–4.

Book III

99

had [both] remained in custody for a long time, they were finally set free, on condition that they hold their land from the king of the Danes, and hand over those hostages he selected. They therefore gave him twenty-four hostages, among whom Borwin surrendered his son, and he abandoned the castle of Rostock, handing it over to his nephew. He was assigned Ylowe and Mecklenburg to retain as his share, on the instruction of the king, who now thought that he had made the land of the Slavs subject to him and to the power of his kingdom. 5 About the way of life of the Danes. The Danes indeed imitate the customs of the Germans, which they have learned from them through living together for a long time. They adopt the clothing and arms of other nations. Once they only had as their clothing the garb of sailors, because of their familiarity with ships, since they live in coastal parts, but now they wear not only scarlet, multi-coloured clothes and grey, but also purple, and white linen. For they abound in every sort of wealth, because of the fishing which takes place every year in Skane, and merchants from all the surrounding nations hasten there, bringing gold, silver and other precious commodities, and buy from them the herrings with which they have been freely endowed through Divine generosity. Thus they leave their most valuable trade goods behind in return for these cheap ones – and sometimes even leave themselves through shipwreck. Their land is also filled with fine horses because of their rich pastures. Because of this wealth of horses, they are very expert in cavalry tactics, and they glory in battle both on horseback and at sea. They are also proficient in the science of letters since the nobles of their land not only advance their sons into the clergy but send them to be instructed in secular matters at Paris. Hence those of that land are imbued not only with letters but in the art of [public] speaking, and they are expert not only in arts but even in theology. Indeed because of their ready facility in speech, they are found to be subtle not only in dialectical argument but also, in dealing with ecclesiastical matters, they are proven to be good decretists and lawyers. Moreover religion is known to flourish among them, because Archbishop Eskil of Lund, a man of great piety who abandoned his episcopal office seeking to lead a life of quiet, and took himself to the monastery of Clairvaux where he also lived a holy and just life before finishing it peacefully,25 built many places for every religious order, both for men and women. And as a cedar of Lebanon multiplies, the branches were extended,

25 He abandoned his see c.1177, and died 6 September 1182. For his resignation, Saxo Grammaticus, ii.1420–7.

100

Book III

not only in Denmark but as a vine of the Lord Sabaoth to the sea,26 indeed beyond the sea, and they spread into the land of the Slavs. The lord Absalon, who succeeded to his place, was filled with the zeal of justice and protected by the armour of God, and was no less active in promoting religion.27 Although the Lord had endowed him with many excellent qualities, he flourished especially through the treasure of a good conscience, namely the reward of chastity. So shining forth like a burning torch he encouraged many others to follow his example, as it is said: ‘You see that I have not worked for myself alone, but for all those seeking the truth’.28 He therefore, with the Apostle, made his subjects jealous ‘with Godly jealousy’,29 as he encouraged them to guard their chastity through argument, entreaty and rebuke, although he endured a great deal of opposition from some people. Nor is this to be wondered at, for the carnal mind, ensnared by being accustomed to sin, can hardly ever remove from itself the yoke of the devil, but stands like a donkey harnessed between the shafts for daily labour, so that should someone want it to carry a load, it bears it without resistance. Although they spread all sorts of vile thoughts of the evil spirit against him, the more wicked their behaviour the more gracefully he suffered it. Because of this, when these accusations were heard by the ruler, ‘he could not know them, because they were spiritually discerned’.30 Then, ‘kicking against the pricks’,31 these men heaped up serpent’s eggs against the prelates, conspiring together and raising revolt, they described the just admonition of the magistrate as oppression and complained that they had been traduced. Hence the words of correction proffered against them were just. However, many religious people from among the married were found who followed his good example in their way of life; distributing alms, respecting the marriage bond, praying conscientiously and fulfilling the other works of righteousness.32 What shall I say about the king? Although he was still young in years, in all his actions he showed himself to be of mature age: the saying in Wisdom might clearly be applied to his seriousness: ‘Old age is venerable, but is not

26

Cf. Psalm, 91: 14 (Vulgate), 92: 13 (AV). According to Saxo’s account, Absalon was initially reluctant, but was persuaded by the pope, acting in response to King Waldemar, to accept, Saxo Grammaticus, ii.1428–35, 1442–5. But, in fact, papal agreement was necessary since Absalon was already Bishop of Roskilde, to which see he had been appointed c.1158, and the translation of a bishop from one see to another required papal sanction. 28 Ecclesiasticus, 24: 47 (Vulgate). 29 II Corinthians, 11: 2. 30 II Corinthians, 2: 14. 31 Acts, 9: 5. 32 See also Book V.18, below. 27

Book III

101

to be measured by length of time nor by the passage of the years’.33 He did not busy himself with games or plays, as is the custom of those of his age, nor was he immersed in partying or foolish diversions, nor indeed was he given to the sins of the flesh. He lived chastely with his wife, but he was the more chaste. During the mass he did not spend his time, as is the custom of some, with whispering and hearing pleas, but having the books of Psalms and other prayers before his eyes he busied himself devotedly with prayer. And since he behaved with wisdom, as is said ‘By me kings reign’,34 thus the Lord strengthened his kingdom, so that while in the time of his grandfathers there were three, or even four, rulers in the Danish kingdom, he ruled by himself as the only monarch of the kingdom which his father had gained with much effort and great wisdom. With his kingdom firmly at peace, King Cnut mulled over the fact that the Slavs had inflicted a great deal of harm on his land in the days of his father. Seeing also that they were now deprived of the help of Duke Henry, who had curbed their mouths with the bridle of his lordship, having found a suitable occasion, he launched an attack on them. However, following the advice of Archbishop Absalon, he prevailed against them more through wisdom than force. 6 About Conrad, the bishop-elect. Meanwhile the see of Lübeck remained vacant, since the emperor was lodged a long way away. The canons of Lübeck went to him, in obedience to his will, asking him if he could appoint a bishop [for them]. The emperor selected a man of religion called Alexius, a member of the Praemonstratensian order who was provost of Hileburgerode.35 The canons [however] were unanimous in opposing him, and they insisted that somebody else from his order should be preferred to him. The emperor took the advice of his courtiers and gave them his chaplain Conrad, a well-educated and eloquent man, who was a most effective advocate in legal cases.36 The emperor had indeed heard about, and even seen for himself, the situation of the church of Lübeck – that it was still a young see, and as if newly created, and thus it had been neglected in many ways. Hence he decided to send this wise man to it, so that not only would that church profit through him but also that his interests in this region would benefit from his presence. Therefore, after accepting episcopal

33 34 35 36

Sapientia, 4: 8. Proverbs, 8: 15. In the county of Mansfeld in Saxony. Conrad of Querfurt (see note 41 below).

102

Book III

investiture at Eger,37 a castle of the emperor, the lord bishop-elect came to his diocese and started to organise his church in an appropriate manner, encouraging the clergy to a properly religious way of life, urging them to be chaste, sober and charitable without complaint, and to practice the other good qualities which would be pleasing to both God and man. He governed the laity, who are more impressed with austerity than with doctrine, with such prudence that they respected him above all those who had come before him. He did not permit any cleric from another bishopric to hold a parish in his diocese, saying that nobody could serve two lords. He declared that every parish priest was always to be ready for visiting and giving unction to the sick, and for the other duties of his spiritual charge, that he would assist as bishop in restoring the penitent to the Lord’s Supper and the consecration of chrism. He deployed Apostolic authority on this issue; since after he had gone to Verona with the emperor, he brought back a letter of Pope Lucius concerning this matter, which gave comprehensive instructions that if any of the clerics from another bishopric wished to hold a church in his diocese, he must make his dwelling there or resign the benefice.38 However, he himself never received episcopal consecration, although this was not without good reason. Perhaps he wished first to find out about the condition of the church which he had begun to rule, and if he could bear the burden placed upon him, and to consider for a long time what his shoulders could bear and what they could not,39 so that if the church could benefit through him, he would not refuse to undertake the work; otherwise he would humbly withdraw. But he was also extremely well-endowed with many benefices, both parishes and prebends, which he was reluctant to renounce, unless this was to change his situation for a better one. Dispute also arose between him and Count Adolf. For the lord bishop-elect said that the count had imposed all sorts of unjust exactions on his men, also some episcopal property had been violently seized, and the judicial rights in his town of Eutin that ought to have stemmed from his advocacy were frequently infringed by the count’s men. Since the count was too formidable for him to be able to withstand these attacks, he seemed to put up with them with the appearance of patience, but in fact not without bitterness. Since he had told the emperor about these matters, but without benefitting his cause, his enthusiasm for the post he had undertaken began to cool, and little by little his thoughts turned towards returning back home. So, after arranging his affairs, he set off to

37

Frederick Barbarossa was at Eger, in Bohemia, on 30 March 1183, Dipl. Fred. I, iv.64–5 no. 845. 38 Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i.17 no. 12 (issued at Verona on 3 January 1185). [Germania Pontificia, vi.143 no. 11]. 39 Horace, De Arte Poetica, lines 39–40.

Book III

103

visit Archbishop Siegfried of Bremen.40 He took away with him whatever he could find, whether silver, precious vessels or high quality horses – these had even been extorted by force from various people – for he was a little bit greedy. Resigning to the emperor the office which he had received from him, he wrote to his clergy to inform them that he would not be returning, and absolving them from the oath of obedience that they had sworn to him. And so he departed, having not consulted anyone, either for the reasons suggested above, or because of other hidden reasons, or since he seemed to aspire to greater things.41 7 About the subjugation of the Slavs. King Cnut of Denmark ravaged the land of the Slavs unceasingly. They were, however, preparing to rebel and occupied the ford which the Danes had to cross, setting up castles on each side from which bandits from their ranks rushed out to attack. They also tried to close the path with iron chains. ‘But they profited nothing by such endeavours.’42 For the Danes came there in great numbers, broke through their fortifications, and having crossed their borders spread all over the land like locusts. The Slavs were unable to counter their attack and took refuge in their fortresses. The Danes ravaged the country, ‘eating up the fat of the land’,43 and then returned to their homes. And so for some years they arrived at the time of sowing and at harvest time and plundered their land, and through pressure of hunger, and without killing them with the sword, they forced them to surrender. There was, however, one time when Bogeslav, prince or king of the Pomeranians, sought out his neighbour Prince Geromar of the Rugians, wishing to inflict a reprisal upon him because this same Geromar gave ready assistance to the king of the Danes in subduing the Slavs; since he had received Christianity from him he stood under his rule. Thus he attacked him with six hundred pirates, undoubtedly believing that he would destroy his whole land ‘as fire consuming the wood of the forest’.44 Indeed, when he met Geromar the latter turned in flight, although not on horseback. However, the Danes had prepared an ambush nearby. The Slavs believed them to be some of their men and approached them, suspecting nothing. The

40

Archbishop Siegfried died on 24 October 1184 [cf. Bk III.13 below]. Conrad subsequently became the imperial chancellor and bishop of Hildesheim in 1194: in 1198 he was elected Bishop of Würzburg, to which see Innocent III eventually reluctantly agreed to translate him, before he was eventually assassinated in 1202. See Bernd Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben. Itinerar, Urkundenvergabe, Hof (Hanover 2002), pp. 497–501. 42 Ovid, Metamorphoses, I.vi.19, xxi.84. 43 Genesis, 45: 18. 44 Psalm, 82: 15 (Vulgate), 83: 15 (AV). 41

104

Book III

Danes, along with the Rugians, made an attack on them and pursued them – they killed some and captured others, and forced some of them into the sea. For the Slavs saw that they had been trapped, and not doing the sensible thing in their panic, believed that they could escape by swimming – they were drowned in the waves. Some did reach the shore, ignoring their ships, and wandered through forest and brushwood into the marshes, where they perished through hunger and thirst. And the Lord made recompense to them that day, for since they had [previously] dragged many Danes from the water into captivity, they themselves were made captive or killed, although they hated serving the Danes who were always depriving them of their liberty. Geromar left the rest of his men behind and pursued Bogeslav. The latter had taken thought for himself and slipped away in swift flight. Geromar shouted to his retreating back, saying: ‘What are you up to Prince Bogeslav? Did you not boast that you bound the black and horrible Geromar? Wait, wait, so you can capture him whom you did not want to have as an associate!’ But Bogeslav was saved by flight. And so the forces of the Slavs were humbled, and they served the Danes, handing over the fortress of Wolgast and giving twelve hostages into the king’s hands.45 These events were by no means pleasing to the emperor, who said that he had been doubly injured by King Cnut, both because the latter refused to be crowned by him and because he had forced the Slavs, who were subjects of the emperor, to render tribute and homage to him as their lord. He persuaded Count Adolf, Bernhard and Gunzelin, who were in dispute with Duke Bernhard, for the reasons described above, to make peace, on condition that Count Adolf pay him 700 marks in pennies, and recover his grace for the destruction of his castle, and [allow] the duke freely to obtain the land around Ratkau and the town of Todeslo, which he sought. Count Bernhard was to pay 300 marks, and Gunzelin the same sum; while all of them would co-operate to rebuild the castle.46 8 The death of Manuel, King of the Greeks. At this time Manuel, the noble king of the Greeks, died.47 He left a son to reign after him, although the latter was only a boy, who, during his father’s lifetime, had been betrothed to a daughter of the king of the French.48 There was, however, extraordinary disturbance

45

Cf. Saxo Grammaticus, ii.1508–38, for a more detailed account of this campaign. This paragraph refers back to Chapter 4 above. 47 24 September 1180. 48 Alexius II was eleven when his father died: a few months earlier he had been betrothed to Agnes, the nine-year-old daughter of King Louis VII of France. 46

Book III

105

both in the city of Constantinople and in the entire kingdom, since ‘smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered abroad’,49 and the hungry wolves who had been lurking in ambush, made themselves known through robberies, violence and the unjust seizure [of property]. For there was there one ‘who had grown old in the ways of evil’,50 called Andronicus, the son of the brother of the deceased king.51 Disguising his ambition to rule, and claiming to be the protector of the boy king, he started to govern, seemingly intending to act in the boy’s interests and faithfully to defend the kingdom for his nephew. But when he was able to find a suitable moment, he started to stir up rebellion, and unleashed a great purge and slaughter of those who seemed to be on the side of the king. Once he had advanced his own supporters, and brought down or had murdered the others, he had the queen, the king’s mother, secretly arrested and drowned in the sea.52 Everyone in the kingdom whom he feared might be against him, he either deprived of their lives, mutilated or condemned to exile. For he had a certain confessor, who in appearance was a monk, but in truth was a devil, who transformed himself under a pretence of religion into an angel of light to the damnation of men, and on whose advice this man handed over all those whom the latter rendered suspect to him for immediate execution. And when one day the boy asked questions about his mother’s absence, this man replied: ‘don’t worry about the absence of your mother, for she is alive and staying in a safe place’. After the boy had made a nuisance of himself for several days by asking after his mother, he replied: ‘Your mother is safe, but to avoid you being sad any longer through her absence you will go to join her as soon as possible’. And he ordered that the boy be taken away and killed in secret as his mother had been.53 After this deed, he took his betrothed as his wife, having repudiated two other women whom he had earlier legally married. After this he said to his confessor: ‘How does it seem to you? Is there anybody left who is plotting against me?’ ‘There is still’, the latter said, one of your relatives whom I do not trust. But since you cannot deprive him of his life because he is a close blood-relation, shut him up in a monastic cloister, so that he ceases to be a threat to you or your kingdom.

49

Matthew, 26: 31. Daniel, 13: 52. 51 Andronikos Komnenos was the son of the Emperor Manuel’s elder brother Isaac. 52 In fact she was strangled, O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit 1984), p. 149. 53 Alexius II was murdered on 24 September 1183, about a year after his mother died, Niketas Choniates, p. 152. 50

106

Book III

After this had been done, the ruler asked: ‘Is everything not well?’ The monk responded: Everything is indeed well, but I do not have a good feeling about your bride, for she seems to hold a grudge against you because of the memory of her first husband. But this ought to be heard in confession, so that the secrets of her heart are made clear. You yourself should dress up as a priest and take his place.

After hearing this advice, the ruler said to her: For how long will you remain wrapped in these unhappy thoughts? I see that you are full of bitterness: go and confess your sins, so that you may clean out wickedness from your heart, and you can then look on my face with calmness.

She then went away. Then the old man came, dressed in a priestly habit, and said to her: ‘Daughter, confess your sins, and don’t fail to speak to me. For I am acting in place of Christ, and since He knows everything, do not hide anything that is in your thoughts’. She then naively made confession of venial faults, as a young woman does, since she had not committed any grievous crimes. He then continued: ‘Do you sincerely love your husband the king?’ And she replied: I do indeed love the king as my lord and husband; however if I had been married to the king’s son, who has died, I would have loved him more, since I had been betrothed to him. Now though, since it must be so, I love the other one faithfully and take care to be a faithful wife to him.

Hearing her words, he was angry, and rose up and left. What more? He rejected her, and immediately despatched her along with other people to be executed.54 After this, since the wickedness of this man had run its course, and God wished through His just judgement to put an end to his evil-doing, the old man once again consulted his accomplice, saying: ‘Surely one may now expect that having brought down those who plotted against me, I can sit securely on my throne with no further threat [to me]?’ The latter replied to him: ‘You can indeed live in safety, but I do have a little bit of worry about that monk, your relative. If he should be eliminated, you will have nobody else to fear’. In response, the king despatched a messenger, ordering this

54 This was completely untrue. Andronikos took Agnes with him when he tried to flee from Constantinople, Niketas Choniates, p. 191. She died c.1240.

Book III

107

man to be brought to him. The recipient immediately summoned his friends and associates and told them about the king’s embassy. Knowing that this summons would undoubtedly lead to his death, he asked them secretly to arm themselves and go with him to the palace. They took courage and [also] took up arms, and steadfastly went with him. Coming to the first guard post, they promptly slew its doorkeeper. They did the same at the second and the third post. And so, having made a noisy entrance to the hall, he said to the king: ‘Behold, here I am, for you have called me!’ The king was in his chamber with only a few attendants, since frightened by his many evil deeds, nobody dared to be there, thinking it unsafe. The ruler said to him: ‘I have indeed summoned you, but because you have entered in this disorderly manner now go away, and come back [later]’. ‘I shall not come back’, he said, ‘for I know that after killing so many other people, you now seek my life, and so I shall either take yours, or you will take mine’. And he rushed upon him. The ruler, however, fled, escaping through a secret passage way, and he went to the castle of a certain prince, whom he had blinded, having his eyes torn out for no good reason. He said to him: ‘My enemies “seek my life to take it away”,55 I ask that you show me mercy and keep me in safety’. He responded: ‘Although you have exercised your power unjustly against me, I shall, however, try to save your life’. So he received him in the castle. But once his enemy realised where he was, he followed him there with a strong force of men. Indeed, when it was known that the king was in flight, the whole people, old and young, set off in pursuit – for he was hateful to all – and taking him by force from the castle they brought him back to the city. Dragging him through the streets, they inflicted every sort of insult upon him, and then took his life without mercy, treating him as cruelly as he had those who were close to him.56 The innocent blood [that he had shed] was thus avenged that day. The kingdom was then transferred to his enemy, called Manuel,57 and it flourished in his hands, since ‘when it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting’.58 9 How Henry was crowned as king. At that time the Emperor Frederick announced [the holding of] the most famous and celebrated court at Mainz,

55

I Kings, 19: 10. Here Arnold does seem well-informed, cf. Niketas Choniates, pp. 192–3. Andronikos was murdered on 12 September 1185. 57 Actually Isaac [II] Angelos, Emperor 1185–95. 58 Proverbs, 11: 10. 56

108

Book III

which was celebrated at Pentecost, in the year from the Incarnation of the Word 1182, in the 36th year of his reign as emperor.59 There he knighted his son King Henry, and bound the sword of knighthood to his most valiant thigh. All the chief dignitaries and princes attended there for this ceremony, the sublime body of archbishops and bishops, the glory of kings, a joyful crowd of princes and a host of nobles, all jealously anxious to please the emperor. What shall I say about the abundance, nay the superfluity, of victuals which had been brought there from every land, so much that it could not be counted, nor described by any language? The quantity of wine there, which had been brought from both up and down the Rhine, was like that at the feast of Ahasuerus, supplied without measure, ‘according to everyman’s pleasure’ or need.60 That you may realise the indescribable magnitude of the equipment, let me speak of one of the least important elements, that you may have some idea of the greater. Two large and roomy houses were built within the camp, entirely of wooden staves, which were filled top to bottom with chickens and hens, so that nobody improper could enter them, not without wonder to many, who did not believe that there could be so many chickens in those lands. The offices of steward, butler, chamberlain and marshal were entrusted only to kings, dukes or margraves. There was a great plain near the city, between the Rhine and the Main. The emperor ordered a large church and a palace to be most carefully built out of wood there, as well as a large number of other different lodgings, because of the cramped nature of the city and the better air, and so that this joyous occasion be celebrated with the most appropriate ceremony. On the holy day of Pentecost, and with the processional hour approaching, the emperor entered the church, and all the bishops and the assembled princes were sitting before him when the lord abbot of Fulda rose up and said: ‘Lord, we ask your serenity to hear us’.61 To this the emperor replied: ‘I am listening’. And he said: ‘Lord, the lord [archbishop] of Cologne, who is sitting here, has for a long time deprived the church or monastery of Fulda, which through the grace of God and your generosity we [now] rule, of one of its rights’. To this the emperor replied: ‘Explain what you are alleging’. The abbot: The church of Fulda has this prerogative, granted to it by the emperors of old, that whenever a general assembly is celebrated at Mainz, the lord archbishop of that see shall be on the emperor’s right, while the abbot of

59

Actually 1184, which was Frederick’s 33rd year as king and 30th as emperor: Pentecost fell on 20 May 1184. This assembly was noted in almost every contemporary chronicle; of particular interest is the apparently eyewitness account of Gilbert of Mons, Chronicle of Hainaut, pp. 87–90. 60 Esther, 1: 8. 61 Conrad (II), Abbot of Fulda 1179–92.

Book III

109

Fulda shall have the left-hand side.62 But for a long time the lord of Cologne has supplanted us in this position: we ask that you intervene today to prevent him from usurping for himself the place which is properly due to us.

The emperor then said to the archbishop: Do you hear what the abbot is saying? We ask you that in accordance with his petition you do not disturb our joyous occasion today, and you do not deny him the place which he claims to be his by right.

At these words the archbishop stood up and said: ‘Lord, if this is what your serenity wants, then let the lord abbot have the place which he desires; however, saving your grace, I shall retire to my lodging’. And as he was making ready to take his leave, the emperor’s brother, the Count Palatine of the Rhine,63 stood up at his side, and said: ‘Lord, I am the vassal (homo) of the lord of Cologne, and it is proper therefore that I follow him wherever he goes’. Then the Count of Nassau stood up and said: ‘And I [too] will with your permission follow my lord the archbishop’.64 The duke of Brabant and many other powerful men said the same thing.65 The Landgrave Ludwig, who was a vassal (homo) of the abbot,66 responded and said to the Count of Nassau: ‘You have shown yourself to be truly worthy of your benefice today’. To which the latter replied: ‘I have been worthy and I shall be worthy, if there is need for this today’. As the archbishop

62

For a similar dispute involving the abbot of Fulda’s right to sit next to the archbishop of Mainz, Lambert of Hersfeld, Annales, ad. an. 1063, in Lamperti Monachi Hersfeldensis Opera, ed. O. Holder–Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1894), p. 81 [The Annals of Lampert of Hersfeld, trans. I.S. Robinson (Manchester 2015), pp. 84–6]. Freund, ‘Symbolische Kommunication und quellenkritische Probleme’, pp. 91–6, argues that Arnold confected this episode, which no other source mentions, based on his reading, perhaps at Hildesheim, about the earlier incident in either Lambert or William of Malmesbury, who gave a brief and somewhat garbled account of it in Gesta Regum, i.343–4. This argument is not convincing. Lambert’s annals had a very limited distribution before the late fifteenth century, see Opera, pp. xlvii–lix, while of the 37 manuscripts noted by the editors of the Gesta Regum, pp. xiii–xxi, none were from the empire. It seems most unlikely that Arnold had read either of these works. 63 Conrad (born c.1140, d. 1195), the emperor’s half-brother, by the second marriage of Duke Frederick of Swabia to Agnes of Saarbrücken. 64 Rupert III, Count of Nassau (near Coblenz in Lotharingia), died 1191, who was a long-term and loyal supporter of Barbarossa. 65 Godfrey III, Duke of Brabant 1142–90. 66 Ludwig III, Landgrave of Thuringia 1172–90, the emperor’s nephew, son of his sister Judith.

110

Book III

was walking out, and seeing that the dispute was becoming absolutely furious, the youthful king rose from his throne and with head bowed said: ‘I beg you, most beloved of fathers, to remain, otherwise you will turn our joy into lamentation’.67 The emperor also asked him to remain, saying: ‘we said what was said in good faith, and do you [really] wish to leave in a furious temper? Please don’t do this evil thing and stir up ferocious dispute to disturb our peace’. The archbishop replied to him: ‘I did not think’, he said; that you wanted to do me this great injury in the presence of the [other] princes. I have indeed grown old in your service, and the white hairs on my head bear witness to the battles which I have waged on your behalf, risking my life to do so. And what is worse, alas, I have undergone a great deal of anxiety and many tribulations [for you], nor have I spared either myself or my property in upholding the honour of the empire. You saw my devotion in Lombardy, you undoubtedly realised the faithfulness of my heart at Alessandria, and you remember what I did at Brunswick, not once but several times.68 Since I was second to none in all these endeavours, I wonder why today you wish to take the side of this abbot against me. I suspect that you are behind his presumption, since if he did not think that you wanted to humiliate me, he would never have raised his heel against me. Now, therefore, if it be pleasing, let the seats be arranged in the customary manner, and if he should cast down my seat, he will undoubtedly resemble the Almighty.

Indeed, the archbishop of Cologne had foreseen the arrogance of the abbot, and he had come to the court with 4,064 men-at-arms.69 Then the emperor rose up and said: ‘We do indeed declare our innocence from this charge, but if you still do not trust this assertion, do not doubt that we shall immediately clear ourselves on oath’. And he extended his hand as if about to place it on the relics. These words put the archbishop’s

Cf. James, 4: 9 and (inverted) Jeremiah, 31: 13: ‘I will turn their mourning into joy’. 68 Referring to the archbishop’s assistance to the emperor against Henry the Lion, above, II.10–1, 20. Freund, ‘Symbolische Kommunication und quellenkritische Probleme’, p. 97, suggests that this passage depended upon a letter in Die Jungere Hildesheimer Briefsammlung, ed. Rolf de Kegel (MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit VII, Munich 1995), p. 124 no. 72. 69 Gilbert of Mons, Chronicle of Hainaut, trans. Napran, p. 88, claimed that the archbishop had brought 1,700 knights, but his figure is not necessarily more trustworthy than that given by Arnold. Gilbert alleged that in all there were 70,000 knights at this assembly. 67

Book III

111

mind at rest, and he said: ‘That is sufficient, for these words of yours are as good as an oath. However, it will not be as easy to clear those who are the cause of this trouble from suspicion’. The emperor then said to the abbot: ‘It is necessary that you exercise forbearance in the matter of the justice which you are seeking, and allow the archbishop to have the superior place’. The dispute was thus stilled, the emperor wore his crown, and processed with the empress and his son, [also] wearing his crown. The abbot took a lower seat, not without embarrassment. 10 The detestable pride of monks. Woe unto you, pride, which is indeed born in Heaven, but you are sunk into the pit below with your father the Devil, and the higher your rank above was, the deeper will you be placed below. You have indeed sprung forth from the worst of kin, and having first infected those close to you, you have through the machinations of the Devil entered the lands of the world. You, Devil, were preparing a throne for yourself in the northern regions, but I believe that you have not sought a worldly throne, but through this you have abandoned the love of God, and eking out an existence in the coldness of evil you have erected your throne on the sons of pride, who have eyes [capable of] looking up, but who do not, with the Apostle, ‘set your affection on things above’,70 but rather on the earth; ‘whose God is their belly’,71 and ‘in the frowardness of their heart devise mischief’.72 But what do you have to do with spiritual matters? What have you in common with those who have entered religion, take their place in the various ecclesiastical grades and are busy in the ministry of the Lord, or especially with those who exercise the priesthood, and who seem to uphold all the holiness and justice of the Lord? Woe, woe on your presumption, you who have condemned many of the people to perdition! Nor is it to be wondered at that, since you cannot prevail against the Almighty, you burn fiercely against His members, since you have fallen from Heaven like a thunderbolt. Because of this, God will destroy you in the end; he will cast you out of the tabernacle of His elect and He will ‘root thee out of the land of the living’.73 Does it seem to you unimportant that you do this? Why do you dare even to penetrate the community of monks? When you force them to live a life of ambition and to abandon bearing the yoke of Christ, which ‘is easy and the burden is light’,74 and they willingly receive

70 71 72 73 74

Colossians, 3: 2. Philippians, 3: 19. Proverbs, 6: 14. Psalm 51.7 (Vulgate); 52: 5 (AV). Matthew 11: 30.

112

Book III

your yoke, they spend their time eating and drinking, walking in pride of [this] life, and always polluting themselves before the Lord with the sins of the flesh and of the eyes. Woe unto you, Leviathan, who drink the river and are not amazed, and still ‘trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth’.75 Jordan, it should be said, is not only of the baptised, but also of the religious, namely monks, who seem to have abandoned everything for Christ; but in return for this will gain eternal life, while those who give ear to your pestilential blandishments lose everything as they look back. For the habit of religion which they have chosen, on account of which they also receive honours from men, does not allow them to be fashioned in accordance with the affairs of the world, but while they think on secular matters and are experienced in the ways of the flesh, their thoughts which are known to God are filled with this business, and they lose this present secular world which they hunger after, and they do not find the future which they seem to seek. Leviathan seeks them out so much the more greedily when he sees them made distant from him by [their] religious profession and united to God through the spirit. And so, as he appeared to the eyes of the first ancestors76 through concupiscence, he also lusts the more greatly for those things which are desirable, since his food is the chosen food of spiritual men, alas; a life which sometimes is formed from innocence, but which for the most part, while it ought to improve [further], slides down the slippery slope, and which tastes so much the better to him the more it should smell sweetly through the foundation of good deeds by a man of the spirit. O how hard to me are those things which I say, since when I attack a sinful way of life not by giving judgement but with sympathy, I incur censure upon myself, I do not act with penitence, nor do I fear the words of the Apostle: ‘Lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway’.77 What indeed? Should I be silent, or should I speak? Conscience indeed persuades me to be silent, but charity, which cannot allow the word of God to be bound fast, persuades one to speak out. Thus I shall speak, so that while I reprove the things which are wrong, I shall be embarrassed about my own sins. For what was the life of monks of old, if not the purity of innocence, the path of justice, a proper way of life, and the road to paradise? For this is the society of the angels, the following of the Apostles, the joy of the martyrs, the glory of the confessors, the crown of virgins. John, the precursor of the Lord taught this, being the first to lead the life of a hermit, and Christ confirmed this by fasting in the desert. The choir of hermits distinguished itself by signs and deeds, and a countless multitude of monks spread all

75 76 77

Job, 41: 23. Protoplasti: that is Adam and Eve. I Corinthians, 9: 27.

Book III

113

over the lands of the world. As princes realised, they made this life glorious, and loving it above gold and topaz,78 they enriched them by generously conferring vast patrimonies [upon them]. However, as possessions grew so religion disappeared. Indeed, as they began to live carnally through an abundance of temporal possessions, so they began also to relish carnal things. Charity grew cold,79 and a concern for worldly things developed. Nor was this [any longer] a place of religion when it allowed the entry of pride. Nor could humility stand fast, for a desire for lordship drove it away; and they began to lust after forbidden things, which were not permitted, such as holding their own private property. And so it happened that only the appearance of religious life remained, when the rule of righteousness had completely perished from their midst. Oh you monks, who serve [only] the empty name of religion and follow the paths of superstition, you profess [to follow] the Rule, but what is the point of knowing the law and discussing it when everything you do contradicts it? The Rule climbs through the steps of humility, but you descend on the stairs of pride. The Rule wants you to be usefully kept busy, either through manual labour, prayer or reading the Bible (lectio divina); you, however, pursue idleness, or turn to [mere] curiosity. The Rule teaches you in particular how to be saved through obedience; you, however, are filled with a desire to contradict. And along with obedience, indeed, charity counts for nothing with you; you are obedient only to your own will or when forced by necessity. The Rule from charity makes one obedient even in hard matters against one’s own interests, according to that text: ‘I came [down from heaven], not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me’.80 Now these things, if they are to some extent commandments to the will, support the authority of the one giving the order; but, on the contrary, he is [in fact] not obeyed at all, except by the goad of necessity. You hear the law, but do not fulfil it.81 In what therefore do you have trust? You do not serve the law, but behave like the Jews, as if the habit and tonsure alone [were important]. Hence I fear that what you do proceeds rather from hypocrisy rather than what you should do through the truth. For even though you wish to be seen as a monk, and to be proclaimed as religious, you are not afraid to anger God, who is the only judge of the just and unjust. You do not pay attention to he who says in the Gospel: ‘Whosever would save his soul will lose it’.82 And again: ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself’.83 And

78 79 80 81 82 83

Psalm, 118: 127 (Vulgate), 119: 127 (AV). Cf. Matthew, 24: 12. John, 6: 38. Cf. James, 1: 22. Matthew, 16: 25. Matthew, 16: 24.

114

Book III

you have indeed denied yourself, but you follow yourself against Christ. You have denied the Man, and you follow a man who will bind you with chains and drag you into captivity, bound by the law of sin. But now turn to Christ, and say to him: ‘Rise up, Lord, let man not prevail’. You have chosen the last place, you cleave humbly to Him, so that ‘He who bade thee cometh may say unto thee: “friend, go up higher”: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee’, not in the banquet of an earthly emperor, but of a heavenly one. ‘For whomsoever exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted’.84 After the diet had continued for some days, being celebrated with the utmost rejoicing, a fierce wind arose one day and soon blew down the wooden building, in which fifteen men were crushed. This collapse may have happened through the carelessness of the workmen, although some people wondered whether it might have been a portent of some other even greater event – and indeed not long afterwards the empress died.85 Thus the court was brought to an end. Fearing the wrath of Archbishop Philip, Landgrave Ludwig followed him to Cologne, and did not leave there until their dispute was settled and he had been restored to the archbishop’s grace. 11 The lord Pope Lucius and the emperor. In the following year the emperor set off for Italy to deal with matters of state there. The lord Pope Lucius met with him at Verona, to settle various causes of dispute between them.86 The pope was welcomed in a most excellent way by the people of Verona and by the clergy who had gathered there from a number of different lands, who had during the time of Pope Alexander received ordination from schismatics. The emperor interceded for them and pressed their case

84

Luke, 14: 10–11. Empress Beatrice died in Burgundy on 19 November 1184, Freed, Frederick Barbarossa, p. 420. The Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 133, considered the collapse of the wooden structure to be the result of divine judgement and an ‘unfortunate omen’, although no mention was made of what such an omen might have presaged. The Annales Marbacenses, p. 54 [ed. Schmale, pp. 168–70], simply mentioned the disaster, without comment. Gilbert of Mons, Chronicle of Hainaut, p. 88, mentions only the high wind. The carelessness of workmen was, however, mentioned in a letter in Die Jungere Hildesheimer Briefsammlung, pp. 154–5 no. 99, on which Arnold may have drawn, Freund, ‘Symbolische Kommunication und quellenkritische Probleme’, p. 98. 86 Frederick was at Verona between 19 October and 4 November 1184, Dipl. Frederick I, iv (1181–90), pp. 111–23 nos 872–83. 85

Book III

115

to the lord pontiff, asking him to act mercifully towards them. At first the pope appeared to be favourable to this request, and agreed that they should all put their petitions in writing, so that every case might be treated on its individual merits. But the next day the lord pope changed his mind, and announced his decision as follows: that at the council which had taken place at Venice, where the emperor himself had been present,87 dispensation had been granted to lord Christian of Mainz, lord Philip of Cologne, the bishop of Mantua and some others, whose ordinations were deemed to be valid, but the rest had been suspended from their orders. He claimed that this decision could not be changed except in a general council of cardinals and bishops. The lord Conrad of Mainz and the bishop of Worms were suspected of being responsible for this change.88 Those who had been given hope of recovering their offices were extremely sad. Previously, when they welcomed the emperor, they chanted most joyously: ‘You have come, O desired one’;89 but now that they were turned to sorrow [it was]: ‘We have upheld peace, and it has not come, O Lord, we have sought goodness, and lo there is disturbance’.90 Because of this the cardinals were greatly displeased, saying: ‘How great is the presumption of the Germans, who seek grace by uttering threats’. After the negotiations on this issue had thus collapsed, the lord pope and the emperor [then] had discussions concerning the patrimony of the lady Matilda, that most noble of matrons, which the emperor was retaining in his possession. He said that it had been bestowed [upon her] by this same empire, while on the other hand the lord pope claimed that it had been given by her to the Apostolic See; and although both sides produced privileges as evidence to prove their cases, the argument ended without any final result.91 They were also in dispute about another very important and pressing matter, concerning the election at Trier. The metropolitan see at Trier was

87

August–September 1177: the council which had ended the papal schism. Conrad of Wittlesbach had always been a papal supporter, and had been forced to abandon the see of Mainz in 1165 because of his support for Alexander III during the schism. He had subsequently become Archbishop of Salzburg in 1177, and then been translated back to Mainz after the death of Archbishop Christian in 1183. Conrad [II] of Sternberg was Bishop of Worms, 1171–92. 89 Advenisti desiderabilis [quem expectabamus in tenebris], from an Antiphon in the Easter Liturgy. 90 Sustinuimus pacem, et non venit, Domine, quesivimus bona et ecce turbatio, from the Lenten Mass. 91 Matilda, Marchioness of Tuscany, the most prominent lay ally and supporter of the Gregorian papacy, had on her death in 1115 bequeathed her lands in northern Italy to the papacy. The emperors had never accepted the validity of this donation, although Lothar III had in 1133 agreed to hold them from the papacy. I.S. Robinson, The Papacy 1073–198. Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge 1990), pp. 246–8, 449. 88

116

Book III

vacant, and two candidates had been elected, Folkmar and Rudolf.92 Folkmar had indeed been elected by the wiser party. Rudolf had been chosen later and by a less valid group. And since schism had arisen between them, Folkmar appealed to the Apostolic See, as though he considered himself to have been canonically elected, while Rudolf took himself off to the emperor. The pope then supported the party of Folkmar because of the canonical election, while the emperor was for Rudolf because of the dispute at the election, and so they argued together, with each of them saying that his side was in the right. After some time had elapsed during which Folkmar was following the Roman Curia around, and was bothering the pope about his case, the latter sent a letter peremptorily citing Rudolf, who was then with the emperor. When the emperor was informed of this, he did not take it at all well. However, he encouraged Rudolf to go to the hearing, to avoid seeming to be contumacious; and he sent with him two canon lawyers (decretistae) and two [other] legal experts – the former to argue the case for Rudolf according to canonical justice, and the lawyers to plead secular law on his behalf. When the case came to be heard, and a great many charges were made on both sides, no decision was reached, and [after this] Rudolf returned to the emperor, while Folkmar remained with the pope. These two rival parties caused no little disruption, since because of this dispute relations between pope and emperor grew worse every day. The faithful, who were well aware of the harm caused by the schism, feared that the Church was once again being most gravely put at risk. Meanwhile the king, who was young and proud, and was a vigorous supporter of Rudolf, laid accusations against the dean and certain canons of Coblenz, who seemed to be on the side of Folkmar, and after confiscating their revenues he ordered their houses and property to be laid waste.93

92

Arnold, Archbishop of Trier 1169–83, had died on 25 May 1183: Folkmar was the dean of the cathedral, and Rudolf of Wied was its provost, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 133–4, which added that Folkmar took a considerable sum of money with him to Italy. The fullest account of the dispute comes in the Gesta Treverorum, Continuatio III, MGH SS xxiv.383–90; for a modern overview, Freed, Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 457–8, 464–8. 93 The Trier account, Gesta Treverorum, Continuatio III, MGH SS xxiv.384, of Henry’s intervention was as follows: King Henry, the son of the emperor, came to Trier and its territory with a great host, and led on by the advice of certain wicked men, he disregarded the immunity of the clergy and the freedom of the citizens, which his predecessors, the most glorious princes, had conferred upon them and preserved undisturbed until this time. For his knights and servants rushed into the houses of the clergy, and especially the homes of those who were believed to support the party of Folkmar, seizing all their property, and even razing the

Book III

117

The pope was much annoyed by this, and decreed that Folkmar be promoted to episcopal rank. Hearing of this, the emperor sent his men to the pope to tell him that if he should intend to promote Folkmar to the highest rank of the priesthood in defiance of his wishes, then he should be in no doubt that all friendship between them would disappear for ever more. He also added a number of other terrible threats, which were not, however, made public through the good sense of the men who were sent as envoys. So because of this pope and emperor were at odds with each other, and whatever attempts were made to soften their stance were in vain, nor could good advice have any effect in this dispute.94 Furthermore, among the many other matters which the emperor was negotiating with the pope was his request that the latter place the imperial crown on the head of the king his son. But since the emperor made no attempt to please him, the pope refused to allow this coronation. His justification for this, although it was not without good reason, was as follows: for the pope said that there could not be two emperors ruling at the same time – nor could the son be granted the imperial regalia unless first his father laid this down.95 12 The dispute between the king and the archbishop of Cologne. It happened at this time that Archbishop Philip of Cologne had certain merchants from Duisburg who were travelling through his lands arrested, and he

house of Folkmar to the ground. If any of the citizens was accused by informers, he was forced to pay a ransom for himself and his property, or led away as a captive. These events caused great harm and discord between the regnum and the sacerdotium. 94

Urban III eventually consecrated Folkmar in June 1186, and he was thereafter accepted as archbishop, holding a provincial synod in February 1187, Gesta Treverorum, Continuatio III, MGH SS xxiv.385, 387; Paul B. Pixton, The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1216–45. Watchmen on the Tower (Leiden 1995), pp. 41–2. 95 Cf. Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 134: The emperor celebrated Christmas at Pavia, and envoys went frequently between him and the pope, before they arrived at a meeting. The emperor’s son began to act recklessly and to take away the property of others; as a result frequent complaints were made to his father, and finally to the pope. Thus when the emperor wished that his son be raised up through the imperial blessing, it is alleged that the pope responded, on the advice of various princes and cardinals, that it was improper for two emperors to be ruling over the Roman Empire.

118

Book III

confiscated their goods as if they were a pledge, on the excuse of some injury that they had done to him. Since their town belonged to the empire, they went to the emperor’s son, the king, and complained to him about this incident. The king sent a message to the archbishop, ordering him to restore their property to them. But the archbishop refused, unless they first rendered the compensation (iustitiae) to him that he demanded; and so they returned empty-handed to their lord. He sent a second message, but to no effect. He [then] sent a third one, ordering that those goods which had been taken should be returned to them, if the archbishop wished to obtain his grace. The archbishop took this badly, saying that nobody could serve two lords, and thus two princes could not rule together. When these words were reported to the king, he was extremely angry: he summoned a court, and ordered the archbishop to come for a hearing there. When the archbishop did not come, the king summoned him to another court; and when he did not come to that one either, he arranged a third court hearing for him at Mainz. The archbishop was persuaded by the advice of his friends to attend this, which he did accompanied by many noblemen. However, a secret arrangement was made with these men, that each of them came by night and made an oath of fealty to the king. The archbishop realised that he had been out-manoeuvred, and so he did what he was forced to do by necessity, and he excused his actions to the king as the latter wished. He swore an oath of purgation about the words mentioned above, in which he alleged, and he swore that this was the truth, that when he had spoken these words he had not intended any contempt towards the king. He swore another oath too, since the king held him suspect because he had gone to the king of England. This suspicion was on account of Duke Henry, since the latter was at that time in exile in England.96 Moreover, he gave the king three hundred marks as compensation, and then he departed. But from that time onwards he was estranged from the emperor and his son, something which he greatly lamented, because he had [previously] served the empire with such devotion. He began to fortify Cologne with a great rampart and towers. Because of this the

96

Archbishop Philip’s ostensible motive for visiting England, in August–September 1184, had been to make a pilgrimage to the tomb of Thomas Becket, but Henry II of England had used the opportunity to broker peace talks between him and Henry the Lion, Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols, Rolls Series 1867), i.318–19; cf. Radulf of Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols, Rolls Series 1876), ii.31. That Frederick was very suspicious of these contacts is also shown by his letters copied in Die Jungere Hildesheimer Briefsammlung, pp. 120–2 no. 70, 127–8 no. 75.

Book III

119

emperor regarded him with suspicion, as though this was an entirely new initiative.97 13 The death of Siegfried and the succession of Hartwig. Archbishop Siegfried of Bremen died a little while after this. He was succeeded by Hartwig, a canon of this same church.98 From the first he acted valiantly, and he recovered many properties which had been carelessly alienated as benefices by his predecessors, although not without [much] effort. He immediately sought the county of Dittmarsch, which Count Adolf had gained by force. The count realised that he had little just title to this possession and resigned his claim, but [in return] he received as a permanent benefice two hundred modii of land (according to the measure of Stade) sown with oats. Round about this time Duke Henry, having completed his period of pilgrimage, ‘returned to the land of his fathers’99 and settled in Brunswick, and was content with his patrimony – although much of this had been violently occupied by others.100 The emperor frequently encouraged his hopes, sending him letters filled with reassurance and good wishes, but all sorts of hindrances prevented these sentiments being put into effect.101 For whenever anything happened during these times of adversity, Duke Henry was the object of suspicion, from the pope, Archbishop Philip of Cologne, or from King Cnut of Denmark, who had married the duke’s daughter, either on his own account or because of what had been done on his behalf; and so he made only slow progress in advancing his interests. Hearing on his return that lord Hartwig had been chosen to head the church of Bremen,

97

The Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 136 (1187) said that the new fortifications at Cologne were undertaken because of the fear of a military attack by the emperor. 98 Siegfried died on 24 October 1184 [for him, see above, book II.9]. He had never been popular with the cathedral clergy of Bremen, who had sent an emissary to the pope in 1183 making serious charges against him, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.350. Hartwig was elected on 25 January 1185, received the regalia on 22 February, and was consecrated by Lucius III at Verona on 21 April 1185, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae Occidentis, Series V Germania, ii Archiepiscopatus Hammaburgensis sive Bremensis, ed. Stefan Weinfurter and Odilo Engels (Stuttgart 1984), pp. 49–50. 99 Genesis, 31: 3. 100 He returned from exile in October 1185, Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, p. 366. 101 Schütte, ‘Staufer und Welfen’, pp. 144–5, connects this passage to the two letters, one from Henry to the emperor, and the latter’s reply, in Die Jungere Hildesneimer Briefsammlung, pp. 101–3 nos 54–5 (undated, but clearly after 1185). In his reply, the emperor claimed that Henry’s downfall was not the result of his wishes, but of ‘necessity’.

120

Book III

the duke was extremely pleased. And since he had once been a member of his entourage (familiaris), because with fortune favouring him he had been a notary at the duke’s court, and it was through him that he had obtained a canonry at Bremen,102 Henry asked him to come to a personal meeting at a place which was pleasing to him. Hartwig, however, would not agree to this, nor did he deign either to see or to greet him, for he was a friend in good times, not in adversity, nor was his friendship personal, but like that of the crowd, since: The crowd values friendship by its usefulness.103

14 The election of Bishop Dietrich. While this was taking place, the see of Lübeck remained vacant, since the emperor was residing in Italy, as was described above. But seeing that the canons of that see were slow to come to an agreement concerning the election, the archbishop involved himself in the appointment, and summoned all the canons by letter to come to Hamburg at the Lord’s Epiphany,104 so that he might discuss this matter with them. He was, however, staying in Stade, and was unable to cross the river because of the icy winter; thus the canons abandoned their journey and returned home. Afterwards, before the Purification of the Blessed Mary,105 the archbishop came to Lübeck, where he found the canons [still] in disagreement about the election. The majority were indeed agreed on the abbot of Harsefeld, the brother of the archbishop, but the other group wanted the provost of this same church, called David. But since neither party could prevail, they eventually all unanimously agreed upon the lord Dietrich, who was provost of Segeberg and Zeven, a just, gentle and pious man.106 When he was told by the canons of his election, for he had not been there, he did his best to refuse, believing himself to be unworthy, and announcing that this was more a burden imposed upon him than an honour. Not without tears did he say this, and in truth humbling himself, according to the text: ‘I am no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son’.107

102 Hartwig was a ducal notary from 1160 onwards, and in 1176 was described as magister chartularii and chaplain of the duke. He became a canon of Bremen in 1168, Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, p. 376. 103 Ovid, Epistolae ex Ponto, II.3, line 8. 104 6 January 1186. 105 2 February. 106 He was Archbishop Hartwig’s nephew, the son of his sister, Series Episcoporum, Germania ii.68. 107 Amos, 7: 14.

Book III

121

On the urging of the archbishop to avoid seeming to attack anything without cause, and with the agreement of Count Adolf, he dwelt in his provostship at Zeven for the whole of that [following] year, until as winter approached the emperor returned from Italy and he and the archbishop went to meet him at Gelnhausen.108 There he received pontifical investiture from the emperor’s hand, and [then] he returned with the archbishop to Bremen; and so on the Memento nostri Domine Sunday he was consecrated and anointed with the oil of sanctification by the latter’s hand, and adorned with the episcopal chasuble.109 Then, honourably escorted by Count Adolf, he came to Lübeck on the day before the eve of the Lord’s Nativity. There he was received with the utmost joy by the clergy and all the people with hymns and anthems to God, while he humbled himself like the Lord, who abased himself, for He rode to meet those who came out to him not on a gaily-caparisoned horse but on a little donkey. So the bishop took off his shoes and went to meet those who were coming out so solemnly to meet him with feet bare. Furthermore, after being confirmed on the pontifical throne, he did not desert the path of humility, showing himself to be mild and affable to everyone – through ‘the bowels of mercy’110 he was dedicated to works of piety: he was chaste, sober, modest, a true servant of religion who was pleasing to both God and man. 15 The marriage of the king. While these events were taking place, in Italy the king, son of the emperor, took as his wife the aunt of William of Sicily, and he celebrated his marriage on the border between the [land of the] men of Pavia and the men of Mantua.111 He wished to celebrate this ceremony magnificently, in accordance with royal splendour, and so he asked all the nobles, not only from Italy but also from the German lands to be present. Among the latter, he was at pains to urge Archbishop Philip of Cologne to come, issuing many appeals to him and ignoring all [former] dispute. After the archbishop had set off with a large following on his journey, an envoy from lord Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, set off in great haste in pursuit, who did his best to persuade him to abandon his journey, saying that he would never return to Cologne from this feast. Fearing for

108

Frederick issued a privilege to the citizens of Bremen at Gelnhausen on 28 November 1186, witnessed by Archbishop Hartwig and Dietrich as Bishop-elect of Lübeck, Dipl. Frederick I, iv (1181–90), 226–8 no. 955. 109 21 December. 110 Luke, 1: 78; Colossians, 3: 12. 111 Henry and Constance were married at Milan on 27 January 1186, Annales Marbacenses, p. 56; Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, p. 39 [ed. Schmale, pp. 80, 172].

122

Book III

his safety after these words of warning, Philip pretended illness and asked that he be excused from attending the marriage. As a result the king and his servants were even more suspicious of him. 16 The landgrave and the mother of the king. Around this time Ludwig, Landgrave of Thuringia, the son of the emperor’s sister, repudiated the wife whom he had first married, bringing a charge of consanguinity against her, and took as his wife the mother of King Cnut of the Danes.112 She had departed from her land with a great trousseau and treasure; the landgrave met her at the River Eider and, receiving her from the hand of the king and his bishops, he went on his way rejoicing. Count Adolf led her through his land in most honourable fashion, providing supplies for her maintenance in great abundance, both to honour the king and because of his friendship with the landgrave. 17 The quarrel between Pope Urban and the emperor. Pope Lucius died at this time, and the lord Urban was raised to the Apostolic See.113 A conference was arranged between him and the lord emperor to continue the negotiations mentioned above, which had still not been settled. The lord pope, as a man zealous for justice, strove manfully for the defence of the Roman Church, for he did not fear the power of an earthly empire, and he fearlessly demanded receipt of those things which rightfully belonged to him. He was indeed in dispute with the emperor about the patrimony of the lady Matilda, of which mention was made above, which he said had been wrongfully occupied by the emperor. He also claimed that the latter was unjustly receiving the spoils (exuviae) of bishops who had died, which were being seized from their churches.114 The [new] bishops who took possession of them found that their churches had been plundered and all but ruined. Through necessity they were forced to recreate anew what had been taken

The first wife of Ludwig III of Thuringia was Margaret, daughter of Count Dietrich III of Kleves (who died in 1172). Cnut’s mother was Sophia, daughter of Vladimir III of Kiev. 113 Lucius III died at Verona on 25 November 1185, and Uberto Crivelli, Cardinal priest of S Lorenzo in Damaso, was elected as Urban III that same day, although only eleven cardinals were present, Robinson, The Papacy 1073–198, p. 86. 114 That is, the ruler’s right to receive a proportion of the personal property of the deceased prelate, as ‘spoil’ or heriot. 112

Book III

123

by these robbers when incomes had been confiscated. The pope also laid a third charge against him, that he had alienated the property of many communities ruled by abbesses, under the pretext of levying fines because of offences they had committed. After seizing their incomes for himself, he had indeed deposed them from office, but he had not then installed others of better life [in their place] for the glory of God and the welfare of the church. The emperor listened to all these charges patiently, even if not willingly, since his primary concern was the coronation of his son. But the lord pope raised all sorts of objection to this project, for he said that he had been told by his predecessor that he should not grant the imperial regalia to the son of the emperor unless his father first laid them down. While these arguments were going on, Folkmar, the archbishop-elect of Trier, who was mentioned above,115 was in defiance of the emperor’s wishes raised to the rank of the priesthood by the pope in person. Hearing of this, the emperor was very annoyed, and from that day on he and the lord pope were openly hostile to each other. This caused no little concern within the Church of God. Since the [two] hinges of the world were at odds,116 there was confusion among its members, namely the prelates, not knowing who then to please. The emperor’s son played no small part in causing this worrying situation. He was at this time resident in Lombardy, where he ordered a certain bishop to come to him, and to him he said: ‘Tell me, cleric, from whom you have received episcopal investiture?’ The bishop replied: ‘from the lord pope’. The king repeated himself. ‘Tell me’, he said, ‘from whom you have received episcopal investiture?’ And after he had demanded this a third time, using the same words, the bishop said: ‘Lord, I possess no regalian rights, nor do I have ministeriales or royal estates, but I hold the diocese over which I rule from the hand of the lord pope’. The furious king then ordered his servants to strike the bishop with their fists, and then to tread him into the mud of the streets. What happened here displeased everyone, since no such similar action by kings had been heard of since Decius.117 The pope, however, was determined, and pressed the emperor concerning the three charges outlined above, that is concerning the patrimony of lady Matilda, the spoils of bishops, and the income of abbesses, openly citing him [to answer the charges] and resolving to impose the curse of excommunication upon him. Archbishop Philip of Cologne strongly supported him, lamenting that after the death of bishops all their movable property reverted to their liege lord. Conrad of Mainz pronounced his support of this view, as

115

Above, Chapter 11. Cardines orbis, cf. Proverbs, 8: 26. 117 Roman Emperor 249–51, who instigated the first large-scale official persecution of Christians. 116

124

Book III

did Archbishop Folkmar of Trier, and a dozen other bishops agreed with them. The most prominent among these was Berthold of Metz, who not only received Folkmar with great honour in his diocese, when the latter came home after his consecration by the pope, but even went outside its borders to meet him. This action greatly irritated the emperor, because the bishop had not been mindful of the favour that the latter had shown to him. For after Berthold had been elected to the see of Bremen, and then deposed by Pope Alexander, as can be found in the previous book, he came to the emperor as a poor exile.118 The emperor took pity upon him and received him kindly. He met him when he arrived from his see, took him by the hand, and gave him a place by his side; he treated him honourably and generously, and arranged that he would never depart from his sight until at the appropriate time he would appoint him to an honourable and secure see. This he did; for after the see of Metz had become vacant, he had raised him to this with the utmost honour.119 When therefore the emperor saw that he was so ungrateful after receiving these many great benefits, and that he had immediately defected to the opposite side, he sent his men to drive him from his see. The bishop fled, and took himself to Philip of Cologne, who granted him a prebend at the church of the Holy Apostles at Cologne, and thus that see remained vacant for a long time, with neither him nor anyone else presiding over it.120 The metropolitan see of Trier was similarly torn by endless dispute, since Rudolf, whom the emperor had appointed, seemed through the latter to have control of its temporalities; while Folkmar, whom the pope had consecrated on account of his canonical election, prevailed neither in spiritual nor temporal matters.121

118 119 120

Book II, Chapter 9 above. He was Bishop of Metz 1180–212. Cf. Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 135: Bishop Bertram [sic] of Metz, either because he had granted hospitality to this same Folkmar, or because he had gone to his synod, was driven from his bishopric by Werner of Boland, the emperor’s representative, and his property was confiscated. He [then] lived as a private citizen at the church of St Geroen of Cologne, where he had previously been a canon. The bishop of Verdun resigned his see because of this same conflict. The bishop of Toul and the leading men of Trier were excommunicated by Folkmar for the same reason, which excommunication the pope confirmed. (The Bishop of Verdun was Henry (II), 1181–6.)

121

The Trier election dispute was prolonged until 1189, when eventually Clement III quashed the election of both candidates, and his legate Soffred, Cardinal Priest of S Maria in Via Lata, with the agreement of Henry VI, secured the election of the imperial chancellor John as the new archbishop, Gesta Treverorum,

Book III

125

18 The emperor and the archbishop of Cologne. Returning from Lombardy and mindful of the pope’s obstinate stand against him, the emperor therefore closed all the Alpine passes and those of the surrounding regions, so that nobody could go to the Apostolic See for any business whatsoever. Then, summoning Philip of Cologne, he held discussions with him about the importunate demands of the lord pope, realising also that the archbishop might act instead of the pope in hearing legal cases. Moreover, he very much wanted to explore the archbishop’s mind, or rather he wished to find out what his feelings were towards him. The pope had in fact granted him a legation from the Roman Church, or at least primacy over his suffragans, so that, since the emperor had (as said) shut the Alpine passes, the archbishop would hear everyone’s legal cases instead of the pope, so that justice would not be completely denied to the Church of God. While the emperor was thus explaining the lord pope’s troublesome demands, and seeking to find out from the archbishop how far he might trust him, the latter replied: Lord, you have no need to have any doubts about me, for you know that I have always wished to stand on the side of justice. In fact you have often had proof that my heart is on your side, so therefore it is up to you always to treat me faithfully. Nevertheless, as I am speaking as the voice of all the bishops, [let me say that] if you wish to act a little bit more gently towards us, and through imperial liberty to alleviate the burden imposed upon us, we shall be all the more devoted in every respect towards you and speedier in serving all your interests. Now, however, it seems to us that we are burdened with all sorts of levies which, even if they are not unjust, are really improper. So indeed it seems to the lord pope that the accusation which he makes against you is just, that after bishops have died their goods are confiscated from their churches, so that after all their movables and the income from that same year is taken away, the new bishop taking office finds everything has been removed and left empty. If, however, through imperial clemency you strive for justice and have a care for our service, and spare us in this matter, we shall humbly act as mediators to secure a just settlement between you and the lord pope, for we can never depart from the path of truth.

Continuatio III, MGH SS xxiv.389–90. See Klaus Ganzer, ‘Zur Beschränkung der Bischofswahl auf die Domkapitel in Theorie und Praxis des 12. und 13. Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 88 (1972), 173–7.

126

Book III

To this the emperor replied thus: In truth, we have discovered that our predecessors, the emperors of old, had this right, that after the death of bishops they granted episcopal investiture to suitable persons with absolute freedom and without interference by anyone. But since we find this changed by the wish of these people, we shall take counsel. But I shall never permit the least scintilla of what I have found to be our right to be altered. You should be content with the judicial rights that have come to you, that the election of bishops is allowed to you, which you say should be done canonically. You should, however, know that more righteous priests were to be found when these matters were arranged by the will of the emperors than is the case now when bishops are enthroned through election. For then they invested priests by taking account of how deserving their lives were, now when matters are settled by election, they are elected not in accordance with God’s will but through favour.

On saying this, the emperor realised that the archbishop was of the papal way of thinking, and so he said to him: ‘Since I hear that you do not agree with me, I don’t want you to come to the court which is about to be celebrated at Gelnhausen, where there will be a gathering of bishops’. To this the archbishop replied: ‘Your wishes will be obeyed’. 19 The agreement of the bishops. The emperor therefore then proclaimed that a general court would be held at Gelnhausen, where a multitude of bishops and princes foregathered.122 Entering the assembly, the emperor spoke to everyone in the following manner. High priests and bishops, princes, we ask you, whose hearts are filled with justice, that you pay attention to what I say. You have perhaps

122

This was almost certainly at the end of November 1186; there is no evidence that the emperor was at Gelnhausen at any time during the following year. The witness list to the privilege to the citizens of Bremen issued then [above, note 108] to some extent supports what Arnold says here about the attendance: the witnesses included the archbishops of Bremen, Magdeburg, Mainz, Salzburg, the bishops of Hildesheim, Verden and Würzburg, the bishop-elect of Lübeck, the abbot of Stade, Duke Bernhard of Saxony, Landgrave Ludwig (III) of Thuringia and Count Christian of Oldenburg. However, despite what Arnold said above, Philip of Cologne did attend the council, which leads Freed, Frederick Barbarossa, p. 469, to suggest that the previous chapter was largely Arnold’s own invention.

Book III heard how many slights I have suffered from the lord pope – I do not know, however, what I had done to deserve this treatment. One thing I am sure of, I have never sought to cause him anger, nor at any time have I done anything against his instructions or wishes. Nor have I ever demanded anything unlawful from him. In all those matters in which he has been in dispute with me, I have made my response in a proper manner in every respect, not getting angry or contradicting him, but replying obediently and reasonably. And since I am innocent in all these matters, I shall not be upset by this treatment, but if it should be pleasing to the lord pope to treat me as his beloved son and subject, I shall hold him dear [to me] and respect him as a father for honour and reverence of the holy Apostolic See. If, however, he shall be determined on my overthrow – I do not say unjustly, but through some foolish notion, I hope that with the help of Divine clemency, and also assisted by your advice and support, I shall respond resolutely to him on all these issues. I shall say these things on my own part; you need to think hard, however, on your part about what should be done. For the lord pope says that it is unjust for any lay person to possess tithes which God has clearly intended for those who serve the altar, which according to the authority he has from Scripture he thus argues should by this same authority be released. But since from the time when Christianity was [first] established, churches have been under attack from their enemies, noble and powerful men have received tithes from churches as permanent benefices, that they might be defenders of those churches, since the latter would be unable to do this for themselves. He also claims that it is unjust that anybody should take for themselves advocacy over the lands and men of churches, for since churches have been founded through the free will and donation of emperors and princes, therefore the property of [these] churches should be at the free disposal of their prelates. And although these claims may seem to be in the interests of prelates, I do not however believe that such arrangements, which use from time of antiquity has made customary, can easily be altered; rather this custom descending from one generation to another has strengthened as if it was lawfully granted. These words on your behalf are sufficient. Thus I seek from you, the guardians of churches, what your advice to me is on these matters, what apprehensions there are, and how and to what extent I may rely on your loyalty. But since we are ordered by the Lord, ‘render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’,123 so I ask that you pay due obedience to

123

Mark, 12: 17.

127

128

Book III the lord pope as Christ’s representative, that you do not on the other side neglect the justice that is established by God.

After these words the lord Conrad of Mainz took the opportunity, rose up and spoke as follows. Lord, we ask your serenity that you listen to our words for a moment. The situation in which we seem to be entangled is a serious one. ‘It is not for us to decide such serious disputes between you.’124 As you have already briefly explained, on the one hand we are required to render to God those things that are God’s, and on the other those things to Caesar that are his. It is right that we obey most willingly all the commands of the lord pope, for he is our spiritual father who is placed above us all. To you, whom God has raised up as our prince and as emperor of the Roman world, to whom we have done homage, and from whom we possess our temporal rights, we are also bound by law to assist, and to uphold all your judicial rights. Now therefore, unless better advice is available, and if it is pleasing, a letter will be written, in the name of the bishops, in which we shall advise him to make clear to you his conditions for peace and do justice to you with regard to those matters which are sought by him.

What he had said was pleasing [both] to the emperor and to all the bishops. In accordance with the emperor’s wishes a letter was written, sealed with the bulls of all the bishops, and sent to the lord pope. When the latter had read the letter, he was amazed by the bishops’ change of mind, since he appeared to have undertaken this dispute on their behalf while they had abandoned the cause. Nevertheless he remained fixed in his course, and coming to Verona he decided to excommunicate the emperor, who had been lawfully cited to answer the charges described above. The men of Verona came to him and said: Father, we are the servants and friends of the lord emperor; we ask your holiness that you do not excommunicate him in our presence in our city; rather that you respect our sworn duty (servitium) and refrain from this sentence for the moment.

The pope followed their request, and left [the city]. He intended to excommunicate the emperor soon, but death prevented him, and the sentence was not carried out; thus the emperor escaped the disgrace of being cursed.125

124 125

Virgil, Eclogues, III.108. Urban III died at Ferrara on 20 October 1187.

Book III

129

20 Of the building of the castle of Schauenburg and of the privilege of the citizens. In those days Count Adolf began to rebuild the fortress at the mouth of the [River] Trave which had been destroyed by the Slavs when the emperor besieged the city of Lübeck. However, he changed the site where it was built since that castle had first been constructed in the water – he now founded it on the seashore at the entrance to the Trave, so that it would hinder pirates from entering the river. However, the townspeople became very upset by this project since the count sought toll from them, which with one accord they denied to him. As a result there was great dispute between them. For the count said that the toll was his by right, since in the time of Duke Henry they had not crossed without [paying] a toll. They however stated that this was not done of right but at the duke’s request, and it had been allowed in his time in order to sustain the castle. Because of this dispute, the count confiscated whatever of value that the citizens had previously seemed to have within his territory, whether from its rivers, pastures or woods. Moreover, he even arrested some of the citizens who were going to trade with Oldesloe and Hamburg and seized their goods as a pledge for the toll. They made a number of complaints to the emperor about this, and he frequently sent his men to make peace between them, but achieved no success in this endeavour. Finally, thanks to the emperor’s mediation, they concluded this agreement about the toll: that they should give the count three hundred marks of silver, and the count would renounce his right to exact the toll – they would similarly pay two hundred marks of silver for their pastures, and thus they would freely enjoy the rivers, pastures and woods from the sea to Oldesloe, except for those which were reserved for the sustenance [pro stipendio] of the monks at Reinfeld. They were granted this with the agreement of Duke Bernard, and the emperor confirmed it. They were indeed given a privilege about this by the emperor, which even as time elapsed was not to be altered by human boldness.126 21 Of the restitution of the king’s sister and the return of his mother. At this time, too, the emperor sent envoys of rank to King Cnut, seeking the money which the latter’s father Waldemar had promised to furnish for the marriage of his daughter with the emperor’s son, but of which he had only

126 19 September 1188, Dipl. Fred. I, iv.244–7 no. 981 (see introduction, p. 9); cf. Dipl. Fred. I, iv.295–6 no. 1002 (10 May 1189) for the Cistercians of Reinfeld.

130

Book III

paid a part.127 For the reasons mentioned above, which were causing dispute between him and the emperor, the king had been reluctant to hand over this money. The emperor returned the king’s sister to him, still a virgin, with all the baggage that he had received with her, not because he sought an opportunity to repudiate her, but because of the immutability of the agreement. King Cnut took this ill, and from that day on began to display open enmity against the emperor, by claiming all the land of the Wagrians, Holsteiners, Stormani and Polabi, as far as the River Elbe to be under his jurisdiction, and he frequently had this ravaged by the Slavs, to whom he was allied. In addition his mother was repudiated by Landgrave Ludwig and returned without honour to the land of her birth, complaining that she had suffered many injuries from her husband.128 The king was also greatly upset by this, and considered that he had just cause [for anger] against the Germans. 22 The expedition of the archbishop. During these days Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen mustered or hired an army, and invaded Dittmarsch with a powerful force, forcing those who opposed him [there] to surrender. These people indeed promised him a huge sum of money for their freedom, and so the archbishop returned home in a very boastful manner, believing that everything had turned out well for him. But, although I do not say that this was the reason, confusion and humiliation arose for this same church; for when Count Adolf of Schauenburg, the Count of Oldenburg129 and other nobles sought the wages of their troops which the archbishop had promised to them, the latter was unable to pay either what he had promised to them or many other sums which he had expended to no purpose. He postponed payment of the renders for the ministeriales of his see for three years, pledging that all these would be paid in full within that time. The archbishop supported himself from what he could raise from the cathedraticum and from the dedications of churches.130 The men of Dittmarsch were however unable to pay the money which they had promised, and they [therefore] took themselves off to Bishop Waldemar of Schleswig. He was a son of King Cnut, who was invited, along with Waldemar, by Swein to a banquet, and was treacherously murdered while he

127

See above, Bk. III.2. See above, III.16. 129 Probably Count Christian II of Oldenburg (d. 1192). 130 That is from ecclesiastical dues: the cathedraticum was an annual payment by subordinate churches in recognition of his episcopal authority. 128

Book III

131

was feasting.131 The bishop was a very rich man, not only from his episcopal revenues, but from the great patrimony that he had inherited from his father. And so the men of Dittmarsch gave him hostages, and from that day on they were subject to the kingdom of the Danes, and they served St Peter of Schleswig as they had [formerly] served Bremen. Thus the church of Bremen was dismembered through Hartwig’s negligence, and he was too incapable to recover the lost sheep.

131 Cnut V was murdered at Roskilde on 9 August 1157. Waldemar escaped, and defeated and killed King Swein III soon afterwards.

Book IV 1 Lamentations about the downfall of the Church and especially of Jerusalem. While these events were taking place, tears are flowing, sighs are being drawn out, and voices are being raised on high in lamentation and shrieking. For people were disturbed by unaccustomed fear, internally confused and tremulous at heart, the flower of nobility perished, the writing hand grew weak. For, on account of the tares of the enemy choking the harvest of Christ, the disruptions of the thorns were multiplied, so that the wheat became scarce in the field of the holy Church, which was entirely overgrown by weeds.1 For where was there a man of wisdom and intelligence? Where were laws, rights, justice, religion, peace, truth, the chastity of married life, the celibacy of the spiritual life? Does not the prophet say: ‘They have broken out’, more than in the past, ‘by swearing and lying, and killing and stealing, and committing adultery, and blood touches blood’.2 So too, is it not according to Isaiah that ‘the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable’.3 Thus bowels (viscera) rightly tremble, and hearts filled with fear. For because of this the judgement of God, from which nobody can escape, is threatening, even though He, the Father of mercy, still seeks rather to save than to damn. Thus He strikes with a sparing hand, although He does indeed inflict just punishment, but He [also exercises] patience, still allowing time for emendation. The Apostle says: ‘do you not know that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?’4 But since you refuse the riches of His goodness, you not undeservedly incur the stone of sin. For Jeremiah says: ‘What has my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many?’5 Who should be the beloved, I ask, if not the community of the servants of God? But, as one who is less wise, I shall say, who is to reveal their sins, who is able to number them? For indeed, do they not ‘have eyes, yet they see not’.6 They hear the law of God, they understand the Holy Scriptures, but they do

1

Although Arnold was not quoting directly, he clearly had Christ’s parable in Matthew, 13: 24–30, in mind here. 2 Hosea, 4: 2. 3 Isaiah, 3: 5. 4 Romans, 2: 4. 5 Jeremiah, 11: 15. 6 Psalm, 134: 16 (Vulgate); 135: 16 (AV); cf. Ezekiel, 12: 2; Mark, 8: 18.

Book IV

133

not do what they say. For you do what you say you will not, and although you say you will not steal, you steal. You who sit gloriously on the throne (cathedra) in church – the throne not of Moses, nor of the Apostles, but of the Lord himself, you judge your neighbour. What, I say, about trust or morality? For insofar as you judge another, you condemn yourself. But if, for example, you do not stay your hand from exploiting the poor, you conspire against me, so that I shall remember you as a thief. For does not the Truth say: ‘He that enterest not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up by some other way, the same is a thief and a robber’?7 But you say, ‘I have entered by the door’, if perhaps the church consents to your election. To this the Lord replies: ‘I am the door of the sheep; by me, if any man shall enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture’.8 If indeed you have entered by the door, and dwell in the pastures of the Lord, why do the sheep not hear you, but rather flee from you? For they do not hear the voices of strangers. For the thief does not come except to steal, slay and destroy. If therefore the sheep do not hear you, it is clear that you have not entered by the door, since in truth you do not know what it is to enter by the door. Whence you should know that every prelate who harms the Lord’s sheep by word or deed is a thief, and slays and destroys them. Although ‘evil communications corrupt good manners’,9 [this occurs] not only through evil communications, but also evil works, deception, trickery, lying and perjury. For those who ensnare are themselves ensnared, and they choose ensnarement when they render service to God. Those who are ensnared say, however: ‘now the end of time is at hand, for there is no reverence for the clergy’. For it is said about the priests of Christ: ‘men shall call you the ministers of God’.10 And again: ‘touch not mine anointed’.11 How rightly these words are applied to them, if they do not contradict them by their way of life. For now everyone wishes to be clergy in law, but not through religion. But since they are clergy neither through duty nor through religion, they are through just judgement not considered as such either by God or men. Since their life is despised, it is natural that their preaching is rejected. The Lord also confutes them through the Psalmist, saying: What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction and casteth my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.12

7 8 9 10 11 12

John, 10: 1. John, 10: 7, 9. I Corinthians, 15: 33. Isaiah, 61: 6. Psalm, 104: 15 (Vulgate), 105: 15 (AV). Psalm, 49: 16–18 (Vulgate), 50: 16–18 (AV).

134

Book IV

And other things are here recorded concerning wicked priests. However, this wickedness of prelates is by the secret judgement of God accustomed frequently to be accompanied by sins of those subject to them, according to this text: ‘as with the people, so with the priest’.13 And this text: ‘God makes the hypocrite to reign because of the sins of the people’.14 And the Lord: ‘he that is of God heareth God’s word; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God’.15 And Jeremiah: ‘thy way and thy thoughts have procured these things unto thee’. Again [he says]: ‘the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests applaud with their hands, and my people love to have it so’.16 Hence prelates are not rashly reproved by those subject to them, nor should these subjects suffer capital judgement from prelates, knowing that such prophets and priests whom the Lord once drove from the Temple destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, since if these people had not stained it by their wicked behaviour, it would never have been held in contempt by the gentiles. The Lord had previously wept over its destruction, which then indeed came to pass at the hands of Titus Vespasian, for it killed the prophets, and stoned those who had been sent unto it,17 and did not fear to lay hands on the Lord himself. These events were founded on the blood of this same Lord, and were confirmed by his death and resurrection. By not respecting that life-giving sacrament, and by failing properly to honour the holy places, this has led to the utmost confusion, so that one may say with Jeremiah: We lie down in our confusion, and our shame covers us, for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God.18

However, now let us make an end to these things, and turn our pen to the destruction of the holy city. 2 About the downfall of Jerusalem. Baldwin, the son of King Amalric, the king of Jerusalem, who was distinguished by both descent and courage (virtus), held the enemies of the Christian religion who surrounded his

13

Isaiah, 24: 2; cf. Hosea, 4: 9. Job, 34.30. 15 John, 8: 47. 16 Jeremiah, 4: 18 and 5: 31 (the AV translation here slightly amended to fit the Latin). 17 Matthew, 23: 37. 18 Jeremiah, 3: 25. 14

Book IV

135

kingdom in check and ruled it justly in every way. But touched by the hand of the Lord, ‘who chastens whom he loves’,19 he suffered from leprosy, and thought upon the succession to the kingdom. For he himself had no son as his heir, since he led a life of celibacy, and remaining firm in his chastity, he remained always virgin. He had, however, a sister, whom he had married to a certain William, a noble and valiant man, brother to Conrad, Margrave of Montferrat. From her the king received a little nephew, to whom he gave his own name.20 When he was five years old, hoping that he would not dishonour his father’s good name, and on the advice of the lord patriarch, with the consent of the princes, nobles, Templars and Hospitallers, and with the good wishes of the clergy and the devotion of the people, Baldwin instructed that his nephew be anointed as king. To him he also entrusted as his guardian (tutor) his relative the Count of Tripoli, named Raymond, that he might act for the boy until he had reached the age of fifteen, whether the latter survived or if he passed from this life. After arranging these matters, the king grew weaker from his illness, and making a blessed end he passed to Heaven.21 The boy king followed him by dying in the ninth year of his age.22 After he had been buried in the sepulchre of his fathers in Jerusalem, in the week of his burial his mother went to the lord patriarch, and spoke to him as follows. Lord, you know that my brother is dead, and also my son who had been anointed as king, and there is nobody left to whom the kingdom belongs by hereditary right except for me, who is the daughter of a king, and the sister and mother [of a king] too. Now therefore I request that you render me mercy, and do not deny the crown which is due to me.

The lord patriarch replied to her: I know indeed that you are, as you say, the daughter of a king, as well as the sister of one, and the mother of the boy king who has died; but I do not know how the crown ought to be yours, for you are a woman, and

19

Hebrews, 12: 6. The elder of the king’s two sisters, Sybilla, had married William of Montferrat in November 1176, but he had died at Ascalon in June 1177. Their son, Baldwin V, was born posthumously in December 1177 or January 1178, Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs. Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge 2000), pp. 109–10, 118, 139. 21 Baldwin IV died before 16 May 1185, perhaps on 15 April. For these events, Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs, pp. 186–210. 22 Between May and September 1186, the exact date is unknown, Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs, p. 216. 20

136

Book IV especially since this land is surrounded by countless and most fierce enemies, [and] ‘not fit to be ruled in a woman’s name’.23 You may only hold this kingdom through your husband, assuming that you have found someone who is suitable by descent and courage.

To this, she responded: I have a husband who is indeed of noble descent, strong in body, notable for his courage, who is worthy to be crowned amid glory and honour. If you intend to treat me honestly and with justice, I shall bring him into your presence, so that he may receive both the crown and blessing from your hand.24

After the death of William, she had indeed married another husband, who was called Guy, against the wishes of her brother Baldwin, since he had not long arrived [there].25 On the instructions of the lord patriarch, she brought him into his presence. What more? With the agreement of the lord patriarch and of the others who were with him, Guy was immediately anointed, with the gates of Jerusalem being closed for that entire day, which was the Sunday on which is sung, ‘All people clap your hands’.26 The clergy, who were fawning on the [new] king, interpreted these words as though they were a prophecy. And they all went away rejoicing, saying, ‘may the king live for ever’, not knowing that to him these words were rather the curse of Zedekiah rather than words of prophecy.27 This coronation was carried out in haste, because they were suspicious of Count Raymond, since he aspired to the kingdom and appeared to have friendly relations with Saladin. However, this opinion was displeasing in the eyes of the brothers of the Hospital of St John, because the kingdom had been placed in the hands of Count Raymond by King Baldwin for fourteen years, with everyone agreeing to this, and this arrangement also being confirmed by many men of religion.

23

Ovid, Heroides, ii, v. 112. Cf. here the texts translated in Peter Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade. Sources in Translation (Aldershot 1996), pp. 154–5. 25 Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs, pp. 150–8, suggests that in fact it was Baldwin IV who chose Guy as her second husband. Cf. the texts translated by Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, pp. 149–53. 26 Omnes gentes plaudit manibus, from Psalm, 46: 2 (Vulgate), 47: 1 (AV): this was 20 July 1186. 27 The last Old Testament king of Jerusalem, who ‘did that which is evil in the sight of the Lord’, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, II Kings, 24: 17–20; 25: 1–20. 24

Book IV

137

3 About the discord between king and count. After Guy had been confirmed as king, he therefore sent to the great men of the kingdom, ordering that they come to do him homage and receive their royal benefices from his hand. Among whom he also sent this message to the Count of Tripoli, that since he seemed more worthy than the rest, so he should be the first to honour the king by his actions. On hearing what had taken place, the count was at first astounded, but then replied in amazement, saying: The boy Baldwin, who was anointed as king, has indeed recently died, and I have not heard that there is [another] king, and now you are telling me that I should hasten to the king? What message have you been conveying to me? Who has ever ruled without election by the great men and the consent of the people? Nobody can make himself king, unless he wishes to rule unjustly like a tyrant. I have no doubt that everyone has been informed that King Baldwin appointed me as the protector of Baldwin the boy king for fourteen years. I can confirm the truth of this through the witness of many religious men, whom I hope would not wish to change their testimony. If indeed they have done this, may that not be so, you should however know that I am not coming to the king, since I shall have nothing to do with your king. For what I possess, I hold rather in freedom than as a benefice.28

After saying this, he left their presence. The messengers [then] returned to their lord. This was what caused the king and the count to quarrel for a year and a half, and display great rancour towards each other.29 However, the king’s party grew stronger, because all the nobles who came to him, and received benefices from him, did homage to him. Even the people of Acre, who had seemed to be on the count’s side, changed their mind and went over to the king. The count went to Tiberias like a fugitive. On discovering that the king and the count were at loggerheads, Saladin, the king of Damascus, was overjoyed, and since the Holy Land was always under threat, he decided that he would be able to use this as an excuse to invade it. Which is what he did; for he sent messengers to the count, saying:

28

While Raymond was the independent ruler of the county of Tripoli, he held the principality of Galilee, which he had acquired through his marriage to Eschiva of Bures in 1174/5, as a fief from the king of Jerusalem, Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs, p. 94. 29 In fact, for about eight or nine months, August/September 1186 to May 1187.

138

Book IV Be steadfast! I know that you have been treated unjustly, for the kingdom ought by right to have been yours, as King Baldwin decreed. Should you wish to oppose Guy by force, I shall give you a great deal of money to hire soldiers. If you are unable to prevail in this way, I myself will come with a strong army, and after driving your enemies from the land will make you king over everyone; provided that you allow me the right, by the law of your God, to have free transit through your land, and you and your men will remain safe.

The count therefore bound himself under oath to Saladin, whose help against the king he greatly sought.30 Saladin, meanwhile, raised an army, not only from every part of his own kingdom, but also drawing support from neighbouring kingdoms too, and prepared little by little for the destruction of the Holy Land. While this was taking place, there were those who said to the brothers of the house of St John: ‘You are wickedly acting against the people of God. For you have made a conspiracy with the count, who if he did not trust in you would never have dared to undertake such serious acts against the king’. Hearing this, the Master of this house, a wise and religious man called Roger,31 went to the count and spoke to him thus: How can you pride yourself upon evil, you who are mighty in iniquity? Why are you plotting against the people of God? When you were misled by your greed for rule and pledged your faith to Saladin, unlawfully and against the religion of God in heaven, you placed yourself alongside Judas the traitor. Now, take my advice – be reconciled to God whom you have denied, and be reconciled to the king whom you have offended, lest what happens in the future be worse than what has taken place in the past.

The count was terrified by these words, and replied, saying: Why, servant of God, are you attacking me? Don’t you know that I have been unjustly treated? For I am one of those who has been

30

The French continuation of William of Tyre (here probably based on the contemporary account by Ernoul) suggests only that Raymond sought military help from Saladin should Guy attack him, Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, p. 29. Saladin was clearly hoping to exploit these internal divisions among the Franks, and to encourage Raymond he released some of the latter’s knights whom he had been holding prisoner, Malcom Cameron Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson, Saladin. The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge 1982), p. 247. 31 Roger des Moulins, Master of the Hospital 1177–87.

Book IV

139

violently deprived of what I justly possessed. Remember that by the lawful disposition of King Baldwin, which was confirmed by the ready agreement of the patriarch, and also the consent of all the great men, the barons, and the Templars and Hospitallers, I undertook the guardianship of the boy king for fourteen years, whether the boy survived or departed this life, except if the king of England should wish to assist this realm, either in person or through one of his sons. But, although it is clear and obvious that I have spoken truth to you; however, to avoid being the cause of great harm and the downfall of the people of God, I shall therefore accede to your advice and make an agreement with the king, provided that he promises to repay me for the expenses incurred on the kingdom’s business.

On hearing this, Roger withdrew. He went to the king and explained to him what had happened in detail. His word seemed good in his eyes.32 The king not only promised to repay the sums that had been spent, provided that he could account for them by reliable evidence, but he also promised to add riches and honours to his benefice. And when he was about to return to the count, to bring him into the king’s presence, the count sent men to him with a message, saying: ‘See that you do not return to me by the road by which you came, since there are ambushes there’. For the son of Saladin had secretly entered the land, although the count was aware of this, and occupied the valley of Canaan with ten thousand men. Furthermore, some canons coming in haste from Nazareth announced that the camp of their enemies lay near to them and demanded protection. After hearing this, Roger changed his course to meet the Master of the Temple, who was staying not far from there at the castle of la Fève, with fifty knights.33 They consulted together and sent out scouts, who returned saying that there were only two thousand of the enemy there. For in fact the enemy lay in ambush in the hills on either side, and so the scouts had been tricked. The knights of Christ rejoiced, saying: ‘the Lord has delivered them into our hands’.34 And when they came near to the enemy, the latter pretended flight, until those who had been hiding in ambush rose up and surrounded them, and ‘they smote them with the edge of the sword’.35

32

I Maccabees, 1: 13; cf. I Samuel, 29: 9; and Isaiah, 38: 3. Ernoul suggested that the initiative for these negotiations came from the king’s side, albeit under pressure from his other nobles, Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, pp. 30–1. 33 Gerard de Ridfort, Master of the Temple 1185–90. 34 Judges, 3: 28. 35 A repeated Biblical trope, e.g., Joshua, 6: 21; 10: 30; 19: 47; Judges, 1: 8, 1: 25; 18: 27; Jeremiah, 21: 7. The Battle of Cresson took place on 1 May 1187. Edbury,

140

Book IV

4 About the capture of the Wood of Christ and the killing of the people of God. So as the knights of Christ lay asleep in the tomb (confessio) of the Lord,36 the enemy returned to their homes with joy. Hearing that Roger had been killed, Saladin rejoiced and said: ‘Now they have fallen into our hands, since they will now lack counsel, for their leader is dead’. So his army advanced, and he entered the land by the bridge of Tiberias with a vast host, and he camped near Saphoria.37 The king, along with all the great men of the land, among whom were bishops with the Wood of the Lord,38 went to meet him, and camped in the same vicinity, although there were mountains between them. After they had watched each other for several days, with both sides afraid to attack the other, Saladin and all his multitude returned to Tiberias. The people of the Lord, believing him to be in retreat, climbed up onto the mountain. He meanwhile captured Tiberias and set it on fire. The count of Tripoli tried to dissuade the knights of Christ from climbing up the mountain, saying: you should not go up into the mountain, for you will not be able to resist Saladin’s attack; but if he is planning to leave this land, you will be considered to have won a great victory. The castle which you see burning is mine, do not worry about this. I shall willingly sustain this loss.

Although he said this deceitfully, he did however speak wisely. But ‘there is no counsel against the Lord’,39 who because of the evil behaviour of men wished to impose an awful judgement upon that land. And when all the rest decided to fight with Saladin, the count fled from them with his men

The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, pp. 30–1, blamed the defeat, in which 130 or 140 knights were killed or captured, on the arrogance and rashness of the Master of the Temple. The most detailed contemporary account comes in De Expugnatione Terra Sanctae per Saladinum, in Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series, London 1875), 210–17. For this campaign from the Muslim side, Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 248–51. 36 Confessio was the word used for the tomb of a martyr; hence the implication that the dead knights were martyrs. 37 In fact, this was where the Christian army was based, Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, p. 38. 38 The relic of the True Cross, on which Christ had been crucified, discovered after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, which was usually carried as a standard against the Muslims. For its use and significance, Alan V. Murray, ‘Mighty against the enemies of Christ. The relic of the True Cross in the armies of the kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot 1998), pp. 217–38. 39 Proverbs, 21: 30.

Book IV

141

and went to Tyre, a most strongly-defended castle.40 Knowing that the people of God had climbed up onto the mountain and remained there for two days suffering from thirst, both men and horses, Saladin said to his men: ‘these men are the sons of death, since not only are they suffering from thirst, but they are few in number. Nor does their situation in this place allow them the possibility of flight’. So, as the other side drew near, the Christians drew up their battle line. The king was at the head, along with the bishops and the most victorious Wood of the Lord’s Cross. The Templars and Hospitallers followed, along with the barons, knights and people of the land. Thus the battle they had sought took place, and the faithful fought with the infidels. Our men, aroused by love of death, charged down upon them and breaking into the enemy ranks, dedicated their hands to the Lord, and slew their adversaries right and left. But, since they were exhausted by thirst, they grew weak, and their enemy prevailed. The king was captured; the bishops were killed and the Cross of the Lord seized by the enemy, and almost all the others were either slain by the sword or fell into the hands of the enemy, so that only a few are believed to have escaped by flight.41 The cries of the gentiles rose to Heaven, blaspheming the name of the living God and mocking the people of God. The son of iniquity prospered on his road, and disappearing into his thoughts, saying in his heart, ‘there is no God’.42 The next day, he raised up the throne of his glory amid the corpses, and placing in front of it the Cross of the Lord, with the great host of his soldiers standing around him, he ordered the multitude of captives to assemble there, and raising his voice to Heaven, he spoke to all of them thus: You are unlucky, those worshippers of that Nazarene who is called Jesus, who was once crucified by the Jews in this land, and whom you, deluded by vain superstition, believe to be God. Having altered the rite of sacrifice which was appointed both by your fathers and also by the law of God, you offer to that crucified one, instead of the flesh and blood of

That Raymond fled at the start of the battle is confirmed by The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, or al-Nawādir al-Sultāniyya wa’l-Mahāsin al-Yūsufiyya by Bahā al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād, trans. D.S. Richards (Aldershot 2002), p. 74. The AngloNorman poet Ambroise not only said that but expressly accused him of treason, The History of the Holy War. Ambroise’s Estoire de la Guerre Sainte ii Translation, ed. Marianne Ailes and Malcolm Barber (Woodbridge 2003) [henceforth Ambroise], p. 68. 41 4 July 1187. Other accounts from the Christian side include Ernoul in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, pp. 45–8, Ambroise, pp. 68–8, De Expugnatione Terra Sanctae per Saladinum, pp. 222–8. See especially Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 255–66. 42 Psalm, 13: 1 (Vulgate), 14: 1 (AV). 40

142

Book IV a thousand sacrifices, a tiny bit of bread and wine as a sacrament of flesh and blood, and by this presumption you have usurped my land and that of my fathers for yourself. But now you see what your God can do, or rather you feel my mighty hand by the power of my God Mohammed. Now, indeed, choose one of these two, either agree to worship my God, or receive in front of your cross the sentence of beheading.

To this the knights of Christ replied, saying: We are true followers of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, who is God and the Son of God, who through the power of the Holy Spirit was conceived by and born from a spotless virgin, and was crucified in this land for the sins of all those who believe in Him, and not only arose from the dead, but indeed also ascended into Heaven. We have fought the good fight in His name and for love of Him, and we choose to finish our course with willing perseverance. We worship Him, we praise Him, and we confess that He is God and the Lord of all. We laugh at Mohammed, the son of perdition, whom you say is God, who after the good seed of the Apostles has sown tares in your land, and has seduced the hearts of men through trickery. We deny him, we curse him, and we also despise you and your threats.

After saying these things, they were all driven from his sight, and on the next day the Templars and Hospitallers were beheaded, because he hated them above all others. May my soul die by the death of these just men, and may my last hours be similar to theirs! Glory to You, Christ, since although there are sinners, You also have devoted confessors in our times. O how many are there who after being defeated in such a battle by their own rashness would emerge the victors, and faced with such a choice would instantly reject life and all the charms of life, standing up for our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns through all the ages! Amen. 5 How Saladin conquered the land. After killing the people of God, Saladin thus conquered the whole land, and driving out the inhabitants, he smote every fortified city with the edge of the sword.43 All the holy places were

43

See note 35 above. Cf. De Expugnatione Terra Sanctae per Saladinum, p. 230: With the Christians thus defeated, Saladin sent out his army so that each [of its leaders] with his men went forth to seize the region that he knew had

Book IV

143

destroyed; the religious, both men and women, were either slaughtered or taken away into captivity. Even virgins dedicated to God suffered violence. He first captured Acre, then coming to Sur, which is known also as Tyre, he attacked it for a month. When he was [still] unable to capture it, he went to Sidon and took that, then Gibelet, and afterwards Beirut.44 When he had captured that city, he created another name for himself, since he was there crowned and acclaimed as king of Babylon. Then he retraced his footsteps and came to Ascalon, which the brothers of the Hospital had most strongly fortified, and laid siege to it. Being unable to take it, he said to the captive king: ‘Persuade your people to hand this city over to me, and the others too which the Templars hold, and I shall release you from captivity, and thirty of your most noble men with you’. The king was overjoyed, and sent a message to the people of Ascalon, and spoke to them thus: ‘I ask that you have mercy upon me, and that you free me from captivity, and the men who are with me, since Saladin has offered this arrangement’. They replied: You are indeed our king, but now you cannot save yourself, nor the others, for you should know that we will not surrender this city to the gentiles. You also know that all the strongest castles are in the hands of the Templars, and they take the same view we do as to your liberation.

On hearing this, Saladin attacked the city more powerfully, and set up many siege engines against it, and broke down the walls and threatened the towers. Seeing this, those who were within surrendered the city in return for the king’s freedom. But Saladin was unwilling to accept this under the terms of his original offer. The king was freed, but with only a few others, and those within the city were allowed to leave unharmed. Saladin then entered the city.45 After this, he took his army to attack the Holy City, and laid siege to it. Some of the better men who were inside encouraged the others, saying:

been allocated to him by driving out those who lived there. They marched out with the utmost speed and occupied the whole land, to prevent anybody [there] gaining help, either for himself or for anyone else. Hence they spread out over the whole land like locusts. 44

Acre surrendered on 9 July, Sidon on 29 July and Beirut on 6 August. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, pp. 75–6. 45 Ascalon surrendered on 5 September 1187, after a two-week siege, Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, p. 77, and The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l Ta’rik ii The Years 541–589/1146–1193: the Age of Nur al-Din and Saladin, trans. D.S. Richards (Farnham 2007), 330; De Expugnatione Terra Sanctae per Saladinum, p. 238.

144

Book IV Let us fight bravely, and let us die with our brothers. For is this not the place of the Lord’s Passion, in which Christ died for us? Now therefore let us remain, and we shall die joyfully with Him, so that together we shall rise up again with Him.

There were, however, others who did not ‘desire to depart and be with Christ’,46 and did not agree with these sentiments, and they sent an embassy to Saladin to secure their freedom. Believing the city to be very wealthy because of the numerous gifts made by pilgrims, he sought a huge sum of money from them, namely that everyone should give a thousand bizantei for his own freedom. But when this much could not be found, he accepted a hundred. But even this sum could not be found. Finally, it was agreed that, apart from those who were greater and wealthier, every male would give ten gold pieces, and every woman five, and they would depart unharmed.47 Those who did not have the aforesaid money would redeem their lives by being slaves and bondswomen.48 After the enemies of Christ had obtained the Holy City, their eye did not spare the sanctuary of God, but making this temple a stable for their horses they destroyed all the decoration to bring contumely to the Christian religion, and committed many other wicked deeds.49 However, the Lord’s Sepulchre was entrusted to men of religion, on condition that they paid tribute to Saladin from the gifts of the pilgrims who visited this same Sepulchre in time of peace. Indeed, to satisfy his greed, Saladin decreed that if any Christian wished to visit the Lord’s Sepulchre, he should give a gold bizanteus for his safe-conduct, and he might [then] go and return in peace, although he might carry no weapons with him. And so the Holy City was humbled, and that song of lamentation by Jeremiah was heard again: ‘how doth the city sit solitary that was full of people! How has she become as a widow! She that was great among the nations, and a princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!’50 Saladin also ordered the Cross of

46

Philippians, 1: 23. This agrees with the French continuation of William of Tyre (Ernoul), which adds that children were ransomed for one besant, Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, p. 61. 48 The Islamic sources suggested that 15,000 inhabitants could not be ransomed and were enslaved, Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, p. 277. This figure seems too high, however. 49 This would seem to be a reference to the Dome of the Rock, which the Franks had converted into a church (the Templum Domini), covering the rock (sacred to Muslims) with marble. In 1187 Saladin had the Christian accretions removed, and the building converted back into being a mosque. Bernard Hamilton, ‘Rebuilding Zion: the Holy Places of Jerusalem in the twelfth century’, Studies in Church History 14 (1977), 105–116, at pp. 109–10. 50 Lamentations, 1: 1. 47

Book IV

145

the Lord to be dragged down by his followers, saying: ‘Worship as captives the Captured cross in which you have faith, until I may experience the power of your God, if indeed it is possible to snatch it from my hands’.51 6 About the letter of the lord pope. In the year of the Word Incarnate 1187, on 4 July, the Promised Land was defeated, and the Holy City was captured by Saladin, the king of the Saracens, on 28 September, while Pope Gregory, who had succeeded the lord Urban, ruled in Rome and Frederick reigned as Emperor of the Romans. After the decease of Pope Gregory, who was in office for only a few days, lord Clement was raised to the Apostolic throne.52 Lamenting the downfall of the church of Jerusalem, he sent out letters throughout the Roman world, writing to all the churches about this wretched surrender, the killing of God’s servants and the other abominable deeds committed by the Saracens in the Holy Land, and rousing in everyone zeal against these unholy men and a desire to revenge this holy blood. By Apostolic authority he promised remission of all sins as a reward for the liberation of the Lord’s Wood and the Holy City. He also encouraged everyone to abandon their wicked ways and to abstain from the luxury of the Jews and from loose and irreligious garments, in which pride of life and indulgence of the flesh and the eyes are to be found. Hence he said to everyone: ‘Just as you show off your limbs to serve wickedness and impurity, so now for the glory of the Holy Cross, of which you are worshippers, show off yourselves in the sanctification of justice’. He proclaimed fasting for everyone, and decreed that public prayers be said during the service in every church, monastery and parish, namely the psalm, ‘O God the heathen are come’,53 which serves as a prophecy of all the miseries

51 This was the cross ‘of vast size’ over the Dome of the Rock, Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, p. 78. But here Arnold also drew on a long tradition of Christian polemic, which was given new life by the fall of Jerusalem. See Penny J. Cole, ‘“O God, the heathen have come into your inheritance.” (Ps. 78.1) The theme of religious pollution in Crusade documents, 1095–1188’, in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Shatsmiller (Leiden 1993), pp. 84–111, especially 105–11. 52 Urban III was still in office at the time of Hattin and the capture of Jerusalem; he died on 19 October 1187. The papal chancellor Albert of Morra was elected as Gregory VIII on 21 October, but died on 17 December. 53 Psalm, 78: 1 (Vulgate), 79: 1 (AV): ‘O God, the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps’.

146

Book IV

perpetrated in the Holy Land, and of the sins through which we deserved [God’s] anger.54 7 About the preparation of the pilgrimage. Therefore all the sons of the Church spread throughout the lands of the world, after becoming acquainted with the Apostolic letters, were very much afraid and were filled with horror and wonder by the news which was conveyed to them. There was communal mourning, with everyone lamenting with a single voice: Alas, why have we been born to see the sad state of the people of God and of the Holy Land, in which trod the feet of the armies of the Lord, Who came into this world for the salvation of all? ‘Now the crown is fallen from our head, our dance is turned into mourning.’55 Our holy places have been profaned, the temple of God violated, and the gentiles have polluted it. The Holy City is filled with uncleanness, the Wood of the Lord is a prisoner among strangers. We and all its worshippers will constantly seek for it. Now therefore let every man strap his sword upon his thigh, and let us die with Him for the suffering of our brothers, who have died for us, since he rendered up His soul for us, so ‘we ought to lay down our lives for our brethren’.56 Let him therefore to revenge the man who was zealous for the house of the Lord and to inflict punishment for the blood of the just man, ‘let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride from her bed’,57 let the days of joy cease, and song and music not be heard in the streets. Joyful people customarily ordain to be entertained by songs.

Roused by reflections of this sort, all the brave men of the earth, under whom the earth is curved, noble and ignoble, with rich and poor together – for fear and indignation fell upon them – sought as one to go on the expedition to

54

The bull Audita Tremendi, proclaiming a new Crusade and calling for repentance and reformation, was issued in three different versions by Gregory VIII between 29 October and 3 November 1187, and by Clement III in a fourth recension on 2 January 1188. The text translated in ‘The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick’, in Crusade of FB, pp. 37–41, is that of the third version. I am indebted to Thomas Smith for letting me read his unpublished article, ‘The call for the Third Crusade reconsidered: Audita tremendi and the reissue of papal encyclicals, 1187–1188’. 55 Lamentations, 5: 15–16. 56 I John, 3: 16. 57 Joel, 2: 16.

Book IV

147

Jerusalem. They took up the journey, marked by the sign of the Holy Cross, for the remission of their sins. The foremost among them and the standardbearer was lord Frederick, the Emperor of the Romans, who desiring to exalt the honour of the empire, directed the strength of his knighthood to attacking the enemies of the Cross of Christ. He was confident that there would be a good outcome to this struggle which he had undertaken both for God and for worldly honour, even if he were to finish his days with such an honour. As a wise commander, he organised this expedition prudently, ordering all the pilgrims from his kingdom, whether they intended to travel by horse or by ship, to prepare themselves for [departure in] May of the next year. After he himself, along with many nobles, had been signed with the symbol of the Lord’s Passion at Mainz, through the preaching of Bishop Gottfried of Würzburg and other preachers, he [then] summoned a general court at Goslar to deal with various matters of state.58 There he reconciled various people who were quarrelling, and also ordered that various castles be destroyed in an attempt to stamp out robberies. His intention was that with all men at peace he would undertake the proposed journey both more devotedly and more freely. He also ordered Duke Henry to be present there, so that he might by some means, and in accordance with the will of the princes, restore peace between him and Duke Bernhard, since there had been no little dispute between the two because of the duchy [of Saxony]. He finally gave Duke Henry three options; that he be given the opportunity for the restoration of a specific part of his former lordship; or that he go with the emperor on his pilgrimage at the latter’s expense, at the end of which he would be fully restored; or that both he and his son of the same name abjure with land for three years. The duke, however, much preferred to abjure the land rather than travelling to somewhere he did not wish to go, or seeing his original lordship diminished in any way.59 8 About the pilgrimage of the emperor. Therefore, when joyful springtime arrived the lord emperor started on his pilgrimage journey. After he had come to Regensburg and seen the great weaknesses of his army, he feared

58

The Mainz assembly met on 27 March 1188, Crusade of FB, p. 44, and Frederick remained there until at least 1 April, Dipl. Fred. I, iv.245 no. 968. He was at Goslar 25 July–8 August 1188, Dipl. Fred. I, iv. 254–6 nos 974–5. 59 Cf. Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 140. The Cronica Reinhardsbrunensis, MGH SS xxx(1).544, said that Henry swore to go into exile for six years. He left Germany around Easter 1189, and met Henry II in Normandy shortly before the king’s death on 6 July, Poole, ‘Die Welfen in der Verbannung’, pp. 141–2; Jordan, Henry the Lion, pp. 188–9.

148

Book IV

that his journey might not be successfully accomplished. The cause of these problems was the vast host of people of every nation who had preceded him, since everyone had hastened on the journey for love of this pilgrimage. However, after taking counsel, and knowing that it would not be possible for him to travel by that road because of its difficulty, he abandoned the road which he had [first] taken. Marching onwards, he arrived in Austria, where he was met by the duke of that province, accompanied by a great following.60 The duke received him and all his men most honourably, generously providing gifts of money to those who wanted them. While he was staying in the largest city of that land, called Vienna, such disgusting behaviour and impurity began to spread through the army that on the advice and order of the emperor some five hundred men, who were guilty of fornication or theft or were otherwise of no use, are alleged to have been forced to return home. After this he took up his journey once more, and at Pentecost he arrived at the gate of Hungary, where he remained for some days celebrating the Pentecostal feast.61 The king of Hungary sent envoys to greet him joyfully, and willingly permitted him entry to his land, and promising him that he would be able to purchase or sell any commodities as he wished.62 The king instructed that everywhere his route be made easy, whether this be over rivers, streams, marshes or bridges, so that he pass through the land. When the lord emperor arrived in the city called Gran, which is the principal place in Hungary,63 the king solemnly came to meet him in person, with an escort of a thousand knights, and not only provided him with hospitality with the utmost care, but paid him every mark of respect. The emperor remained there for four days, and on the advice of the princes and because of the great unrest among the unruly troops, a firm and lasting peace in the army was confirmed under oath. The queen, meanwhile, gave the lord emperor a magnificent tented house covered in scarlet cloth and with a carpet as long and as broad as the house itself.64 There was also a bed and pillow magnificently decorated and with precious coverings, and an ivory throne with a padded stool placed before it, so extensively ornamented and carefully worked that we lack the wit to describe it in the present work. And in case you should think that any

60

Leopold (V) of Babenberg, Duke of Austria 1177–94. He and Frederick met at Vienna on 22 May 1189, Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient, p. 53. 61 Pentecost was on 28 May in 1189. 62 Bela III, King of Hungary 1173–96. 63 Modern Esztergom. This meeting was on 4 June, Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient, p. 57. 64 According to ‘The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick’, in Crusade of FB, p. 58, this tent had four separate rooms within it. The queen was Margaret, daughter of King Louis VII of France, who had married King Bela in 1186 and died in Acre in 1197, Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, pp. 142–3.

Book IV

149

delights were lacking, a little white hunting dog was running about on the carpet. After this the queen, the author of these gifts, went to the lord emperor to ask him for a favour, namely that on his request the king’s brother, who had been held prisoner by the king for fifteen years, might be freed from his captivity.65 The king, who had received the emperor with such devotion, did not wish to disappoint him in any way, and so he not only released his brother from imprisonment at the emperor’s request, but also provided him with two thousand Hungarians to go before him to prepare his way and guide him. The king then received the emperor in the citadel of Gran. When he crossed the river of that name, from which the town in which he had first stayed and the castle take their name, the king there gave the emperor two containers (domus) filled with the purest flour. Since the emperor had no lack of flour, he gave this to the poor among his people. Because of the great greed of the unruly people, three men were there buried in flour. The emperor was then taken by the king to a town called Etzilburg, where he spent four days hunting. Then he came to the town of Slankamen, where they spent three days and three nights crossing the waters of the Etza.66 They lost three knights who were drowned there. The king is known to have given a huge quantity of victuals to the entire army. After this they came to the river called the Sava, where the vast numbers of the army were counted, and there were found to be fifty thousand knights and a hundred thousand men-at-arms ready for battle. The lord emperor was overflowing with joy at the great multitude of his army, and because he was so pleased he personally organised a tournament (militia ludum). He promoted sixty young noblemen who were called squires (armigerii) to the rank and status of knighthood. He also presided over a judicial tribunal there, where two merchants were beheaded and four servants had their hands cut off, since they had broken the sworn peace.67 On this same day five hundred servants used as foragers were slain by the inhabitants of that region, who were called Serbs, with poisoned arrows. The next day the duke of this same people came and did homage to the lord emperor, receiving his land from him as a benefice. They then continued and came to a river called the Morava, where the king sent the emperor many carts laden with flour, each cart being pulled by two oxen. The king said farewell to the emperor at this same place and departed, giving him four camels laden with precious gifts, which were estimated to be worth about five thousand marks. The lord emperor thanked the king very much and gave him all the ships which had followed him from

65

Geza; the king had also imprisoned his mother Euphrosyne at the same time. The River Drau (Drava), see Crusade of FB, p. 59. 67 According to the Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 144–5, this court was held at Belgrade, soon after the Feast of SS Peter and Paul (29 June), and the two men who were beheaded were noblemen from Alsace. 66

150

Book IV

Regensburg. On that same day a duke of the Greeks came to the emperor, giving him a golden vessel that had to be lifted up by its two handles, and enough foodstuffs to support the army for a week.68 9 The same subject as above. Thus on the Nativity of John the Baptist they left Hungary and entered Bulgaria.69 There they did not find water for three days, and were in some little danger. The duke of Greece had had all the narrow roads widened for them, and so on the feast of St James they reached the castle of Ravenel, which is located in the midst of a forest.70 After struggling through the forest, they reached the town of Listriz, which is on the border between Bulgaria and Greece, and seemed as though it was a paradise of God, on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.71 Then they struck camp and came to Philippopolis, a great city but [left] deserted, in which, even after all the army had been accommodated, barely one house in two was inhabited. They remained there for eighteen weeks. However, amid so many and so great successes, there was also no lack of problems, since there would have been no Abel without the evil perpetrated by Cain. For the Duke of Branchevo, which is between Hungary and Bulgaria, being envious of the servants of Christ, rushed in haste to the king of Constantinople and said to him: What do you wish to be done to deny these ungodly men passage across your land? Their eye does not spare any town or city, but they lay everywhere waste and make it subject to their rule. From this you will understand that if they enter your land they will topple you from your throne and take over your empire.

Quite convinced by these words, and terrified, the ruler of Constantinople ordered the envoys of the emperor, namely the bishop of Münster, Count Rupert of Nassau and Markward the chamberlain, with their escort of 500 knights, to be arrested.72 And hence all the inhabitants of this land, who were terrified by the approach of the pilgrims, sought refuge in the stronger places and left [other] cities and towns abandoned.

68

This was the doux (governor) of Branchevo. 24 June. 70 25 July, modern Cuprija, see above, Bk. I, note 27. 71 Listriz would seem to be Sofia, which other sources suggest the German army reached on 13 August 1189, Crusade of FB, p. 67; Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient, p. 64. 72 For Herman, Bishop of Münster 1174–1203, and the other envoys (who also included Count Henry (III) of Diez), Crusade of FB, p. 46. 69

Book IV

151

10 As above. While the emperor was resting in the aforesaid city, there was surprise that those whom he had sent to the king to secure a peace agreement had not returned. The emperor was reminding the latter of the agreement or promise to which he was pledged, and that his army would behave in every respect as one of pilgrims seeking only to punish through zeal for God and to revenge [the loss of] the Holy Land and the shedding of the righteous blood of the servants of God; that they would behave peacefully in his realm, and that the king should help them along the way and give them permission to purchase both food and the other supplies that they needed. Moreover the emperor would faithfully observe everything which had been agreed, so that, as was said above, he would not allow anyone from the army to seize anything through force, plunder or theft. But after he had waited for a long time and his men had still not returned, he became angry and ravaged the whole of the surrounding region, as if he was ploughing it up. This, however, was done on purpose, so that he might make the inhabitants of the land even more afraid. As a result the army gathered as plunder such riches in this land, in gold, silver, precious clothes and herds, that one man gave eight cattle for a hen, in search of a more refined diet. Later, however, the army went from abundance to such want that after consuming, or rather losing, everything, it seemed that they had completely forgotten their former prosperity. After passing seventeen weeks there, they packed up their camp and came to Adrianople, where they remained for seven weeks, behaving in the same manner. There the messengers of the emperor returned with fifty hostages, who signified their assent to a firm peace and all the other things which the emperor sought. After receiving the hostages, they left Adrianople in the middle of Lent and marched on in safety, and at Easter, which that year was celebrated on the day of the Lord’s Annunciation,73 they came to the Arm of St George, where they pitched camp and celebrated the Lord’s Supper. The next day they started to board the ships and cross the strait. The king provided so many ships that the whole army with all its baggage crossed in three days. 11 The difficulties of the pilgrims. After crossing the sea, the people of the armies of the Lord, as if they had escaped the bond of Pharaoh, sang

73 25 March 1190. The army had left Adrianople in two divisions on 1 and 2 March, Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient, p. 78.

152

Book IV

a hymn in praise of the religion of Christ.74 Because of the hostages whom they brought along with them, they were hoping for peace. But instead there was violence, and no market for comestibles but rather hunger and the pain of want. And indeed, not many days later and while they were still in the land of the king of the Greeks, they encountered the Turks, who lay in ambush for them. At first they were not expecting this, since the Turks were few, nor did they think that the latter were planning them harm.75 But from day to day their numbers grew, ‘like the sands of the sea which cannot be counted because of their multitude’,76 and night and day they lay round about. The people of God thus chanted the psalm: Lord, how are they increased that trouble me! Many are they that rise up against me. Many there be which say of my soul; there is no help for him in God. But thou, O Lord, are a shield for me.77

Although they were surrounded by the hand of the enemy like sheep in the midst of wolves, they did not, however, cease from the journey they had undertaken, even though when they moved their camp the enemy moved camp at the same time. They now entered Rum, a deserted, unwelcoming and waterless land, and bread was lacking in their packs since they did not have supplies. There were, however, those among them who had prepared for themselves honeyed bread,78 since this was plentiful, and they were thus sustained as best they could. Those who had not made similar preparations ate either horseflesh and water or roots. Those who no longer had the strength to walk fell on their faces on the ground, so that they might receive martyrdom for the Lord’s name. Rushing down upon them, the enemy slew them without mercy in the sight of all the others.79 By now horses were in short supply, both because they lacked grazing and also since they had been consumed as food, and so many noble and gently raised men struggled to walk all day and gave thanks to God. They therefore ordered their ranks so that those on foot and the sick were in the middle, with the cavalry to right and left to counter the enemy attacks. The latter made frequent attacks against them, and they laid low some among them, indeed anything up to five thousand, but nevertheless they [did not]

74

Cf. Exodus, 15: 1–19. The emperor had earlier been in negotiations with Sultan Kilij-Arslan to secure peaceful passage through his territory, see Crusade of FB, pp. 15–16, 92. 76 Hosea, 1: 10. 77 Psalm, 3: 1–3 (both Vulgate and AV). 78 panes mellitos. 79 Cf. Crusade of FB, p. 104. 75

Book IV

153

cease to follow them.80 But since ‘many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth them out of them all’,81 the hand of the Lord was not powerless upon them, and was all the time strengthening them. They laboured indeed as those who were reproved, but not condemned, as if they were sad, but in fact rejoicing. Although he did not doubt that they were still surrounded, the emperor still released the hostages whom he was holding, according to the saying: ‘vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord’.82 After this they encountered a very parched region, through which they struggled for two days. They then came at Pentecost to Iconium, which is the capital city of the Turks, and they camped in a hunting chase near the city, where they fed upon the vegetables which grew round the city, and it seemed to their minds as if they enjoyed the delights of paradise.83 12 The battle between the emperor and the sultan. While the people of God were in some way restored after this lengthy period of hunger, they hoped for a period of rest and quiet after their long travail, and for the serenity of peace after the storms of war. However, that son of iniquity, the son of Saladin and son-in-law of the Sultan,84 sent a message to the emperor saying: If you wish to have a safe crossing through my land, you will give me Byzantium through whatever gold your men have. If you do not do that, then you should know that tomorrow I shall attack you, and I shall either slay you or your men with the sword or I shall lead you into captivity.

To this the emperor replied: It is quite unheard of that a Roman emperor should pay tribute to any mortal man, for he is accustomed to exact tribute rather than pay it, and to receive rather than to give – however, since we are exhausted, and that we may pass along our way quietly and in peace, I shall be willing to pay you one of the pennies that are called ‘Manuels’. But if

80 The text says that ‘they ceased to follow them’, but the sense surely suggests that a ‘not’ has been omitted. 81 Psalm, 33: 19–20 (Vulgate), 34: 19–20 (AV). 82 Romans, 12: 19. 83 Pentecost was on 13 May. According to the ‘History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick’, the German army arrived outside Iconium on 17 May, Crusade of FB, p. 109. 84 Qutub al-Din was actually son of the Sultan Kilij-Arslan and son-in-law of Saladin, see Crusade of FB, pp. 92–3, 101.

154

Book IV you are unwilling to accept this and prefer rather to levy war upon us, he should know that we shall be most willing to fight him for the sake of Christ, and to take the risk of either conquering or being conquered for His sake.

A ‘Manuel’ is a poor-quality coin, which is neither all gold nor all copper, but is as though of mixed and wretched matter.85 The envoy then returned to report this response to his lord. The emperor meanwhile summoned his wiser advisors, to decide with their advice what should be done. They replied to him with one voice, saying: It is indeed good that you have answered this tyrant as is appropriate for the imperial majesty. You should moreover know that we shall on no account seek peace, for nothing remains except to live or die, conquer or be conquered.

The steadfastness of these great men pleased the emperor. As the sun rose, he drew up his battle line, stationing his son the duke of Swabia in the front line with the strongest warriors, while he gathered the rest around him to strike the enemies who attacked from the rear. The knights of Christ therefore fought with stouter hearts and more effectively. Furthermore, He who once strengthened the endurance of the martyrs now also encouraged their constancy. Their enemies fell right and left – the dead were uncountable, as was shown by huge piles of corpses. The multitude of the dead even blocked the entrance to the city, but as some were busy killing, others cleared the dead away. So, bursting through the gates, they struck down with the edge of their swords all those who were [still] inside the city. The rest took refuge in the citadel which was next to the town, and with their enemies laid low both within and without they remained in that city for three days. The sultan then sent envoys to the emperor, laden with gifts, saying: It is well indeed, lord emperor, that you have come into my land, but you have not been received as you requested and as is proper for your majesty. To you indeed is the glory, and to us the shame. For to you there will be the everlasting memory of this great victory, while to us there is embarrassment and shame. You should, however, know that

85

Quite what this coin was is uncertain. The gold nomisma remained stable under Manuel I, although the silver coinage was devalued during his reign. Or could this have been a nickname for the electrum coins introduced under Isaac II (in whose time the silver coinage was also further devalued)? Michael Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450 (Cambridge 1985), pp. 518–19.

Book IV

155

what has happened was most definitely not what I wanted, since I was laying on my sick bed, which meant that I was not responsible either for my deeds or those of others. I ask, therefore, that you now grant me mercy, and that you accept hostages as a condition of peace, and whatever else you want, if you will leave the city and once again set up camp in the garden area.

What more? The emperor and his men abandoned the city, both because they were willing to give him what he demanded and because they were forced to leave through the terrible stench from those who had been killed. A peace agreement was therefore concluded, and those fighting for Christ set off on their way rejoicing. Nor did their enemies follow them anymore. And so, crossing the land of the Armenians, they came to the River Saleph, where the castle of the same name was sited. 13 The death of the emperor. When they had arrived there, the lord emperor decided, because of the great heat and clouds of dust, to wash himself in that river and cool down. The river was indeed not very wide, but it had a rapid current because of the mountains that lay around it. The others were crossing by an established ford, but although many urged him against this he entered the water, intending to cross by swimming. He was swept up by the force of the river and dragged away, resist as he might. Before those who were nearby could help him, he was swallowed up by the water and perished.86 As a result everyone was grief-stricken, lamenting as one: ‘Who shall comfort us in this our pilgrimage, since our champion has perished? Now we shall be like sheep, wandering in the midst of the wolves, nor is there anyone to rescue us from their attacks?’ The people dissolved into tears and cries of this sort. But his son comforted them, saying: ‘My father is indeed dead, but you must be steadfast and not be worn down by your tribulations, and you will see the help of the Lord being offered to you’. And since this same man acted wisely in every way, everyone accepted his leadership after the death of his father. He mustered together those who remained – for many had scattered – and came to Antioch. The prince of Antioch received him honourably and consigned the city to him, so that he might dispose of it as he wished. For the Saracens had made many attacks upon it, so many indeed that the prince despaired of

86

10 June 1190, Crusade of FB, pp. 115–16. There is a helpful comparison of the various accounts of the emperor’s death in Helen Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade. A Translation of the Itinerarium Perigrinorum et Gesta Regis Richardi (Aldershot 1997), p. 65 n. 108.

156

Book IV

holding it against these assaults.87 While they remained there for a while to recover, the hungry people began to gorge themselves to excess with wine and the other delicacies of the city, and they started to die in large numbers, so that indeed more died from excess than from the earlier want. Not only did many of the ordinary people perish there through their intemperance, but also nobles and men of rank died because of the great heat. Among these was Bishop Gottfried of Würzburg, a wise and eloquent man, who had played a major part in directing this pilgrimage because of the grace granted to him, through which he departed to dwell in the Heavenly kingdom.88 Leaving three hundred knights there, the duke went to Acre with those who remained, and there he found a powerful Christian army which had laid siege to the city. The force of Germans [already there] was greatly encouraged by his arrival, even though he was accompanied by only a thousand men. He stayed there for some time, intending to fight with the enemy, but was unexpectedly overtaken by death and ended his days [there].89 And so that expedition ended, and appeared to be virtually destroyed. As a result, some people thought ill of it, saying that it had not been begun well nor did it have a good outcome. But you who make such judgements, you do not see the light that is within you. The Lord says that such people are in darkness: ‘the light of your body is your eye’,90 for they wish indeed to interpret the inward intention through the exterior action of the body, as it appears to the eye. The Book of Wisdom, however, says: ‘man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart’.91 If indeed the light of your body is in the heart, which God alone sees, and if in the appearance of the bodily exterior, which man sees, through this temerity you usurp the judgement of God, who alone knows these hidden matters, since those things which you do not know are the greater, for they reveal the soul, ought you to understand this in better part? However, clear signs are found here, to which more attention ought to be paid, because those men of the Gospel left their homes, their brothers and sisters, father and mother, wives, children and fields, for love of Christ, and what is even better for all, giving their bodies over to toil and torments. Since many of them went on pilgrimage with such devotion that, insofar as they had

87 Bohemond III may indeed have become a vassal of the empire, Rudolf Hiestand, ‘Antiocha, Sizilien und das Reich am Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 73 (1993), 70–121, especially pp. 109–13. 88 He died on 8 July 1190. 89 20 January 1191. 90 Matthew, 6: 22: the next few (rather opaque) sentences are essentially a meditation on this verse and the rest of this Gospel chapter. 91 I Samuel, 16: 7.

Book IV

157

a choice, they preferred to lay down their lives confessing the faith of the Lord rather than returning to their homes. And although this expedition or pilgrimage did not achieve the result intended for the struggle, one should not therefore believe any less that they did not obtain the desired crown, since the death of one of His holy men is precious in the sight of the Lord. But by what end he ought to close his days, and how or when this should happen, is for God alone to know, as is His judgement on the merits of each and every man; for if the just man shall be overtaken by death, he will go to Heaven. 14 The siege of Acre. Meanwhile the knights of Christ, who were gathered there from every tribe, people, kin and tongue, attacked the city of Acre. First of all, King Guy, who had been released from captivity as has been described above,92 came from Tyre with two hundred knights and laid siege to it.93 Thereafter, with the help of the Lord, he gathered a huge force at this siege. Tyre was indeed almost the sole refuge of the Christians at this time, thanks to Margrave Conrad who held it most steadfastly. God had directed him there to strengthen the Christian knighthood and for the defence of His faithful people who in that time of desolation for the Holy Land were going to Jerusalem for the sake of prayer; for as he was coming by ship from Greece and intending to land at Acre, he found out that Saladin had seized the whole of that land, and this city had been surrendered to him. He retreated, and changed his course towards Tyre. Nevertheless, Saladin’s men were present there, in order to receive hostages from that city.94 When the leading men of the city were informed of his arrival, they welcomed him into it in secret, and making an alliance with him they granted him rule (principatus) over the city. Conrad expelled Saladin’s men from there, strengthened the minds of the inhabitants, repairing the gaps in the walls and strengthening the defensive towers. Saladin was then at Acre. Hearing what had happened, he was enraged and immediately laid siege to the city, setting up seven siege engines against it, he breached its walls so that his men might now gain entry.95 Margrave Conrad encouraged his men, trusting in the help of Christ who never deserts those who put their

92

Bk. IV, c. 5. King Guy began the siege of Acre at the end of August 1189, Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, ii.364, so, in fact, long after the events narrated in the rest of this chapter. 94 As the first step in securing the city’s surrender. 95 The siege began on 11 or 12 November 1187, Rare and Excellent History, p.78; Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, ii.335. 93

158

Book IV

hopes in Him. Opening the gates, he bravely sallied out against the enemy and put Saladin to flight. He pursued him to the mountains, and slew five thousand of his men. He returned laden with spoils from the enemy, and replenished the city’s store of foodstuffs. The citizens were now happy, no longer facing the danger of famine; nor did Saladin try to besiege the city again.96 Thereafter he bought a peace from the margrave with much gold, since the latter was harassing his camp with continuous raids. As a result some people tried to accuse the margrave of treachery, because he had accepted bribes from the infidel. But he ‘spoiled the Egyptians’ to endow the Hebrews,97 since whatever he had taken from the unbelievers, he bestowed in good faith upon the faithful. 15 The arrival of the Germans. King Guy was, as has been said, laying siege to the city of Acre, along with the German knights and those from Lombardy and Tuscany who had gathered at Tyre. Among the Germans were the count of Geldern,98 Count Henry of Oldenburg,99 Widukind the advocate of Rieden, Count Albrecht of Poppenburg and many other bishops and nobles. Saladin attacked them unceasingly, to such an extent that they lost hope of remaining there. But He who once heard the groans of the children of Israel in Egypt, when they were oppressed by Pharaoh, now remembered his past mercies and, looking down from his heavenly throne, sent help to them. For on 1 September, the third day of the siege, a great host of ships appeared from the different areas of Germany, which the Lord had preserved unharmed through a very long and weary journey across the vastness of the sea, so that it had never lacked a favourable wind, nor had it lost any of the ships, or even a man or any piece of equipment. Fifty-five German ships arrived with sails

96

According to his biographer, Saladin abandoned the siege on 3 January 1188, because his troops were disheartened by heavy rain. Beha ad-Din mentioned a naval defeat, but not this sortie, Rare and Excellent History, p. 79. Ibn al-Athir mentioned the sortie, but implied that the battle was indecisive. He ascribed the abandonment of the siege to division among the Muslim leaders as well as poor morale among the troops, but also blamed Saladin for allowing the Christians to congregate at Tyre, Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, ii.337–8. For discussion, Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 279–83. 97 Exodus, 13: 36. 98 Otto, Count of Geldern 1182–1207, who had travelled to the Holy Land by sea, Crusade of FB, p. 57. 99 Henry (II), Count of Oldenburg-Wildeshausen 1167–97, was first cousin to Otto of Geldern, his mother Salome being the latter’s aunt. Another first cousin of Henry, Count Christian of Oldenburg, had taken part in Barbarossa’s Crusade.

Book IV

159

unfurled.100 A prince called James had joined them with five great ships, laden with men, arms and supplies.101 Saladin had previously decided to make an attack with his vast army on the knights of Christ the next day. But when he heard of the fleet’s arrival, he was at first amazed, and then his spirits sank and he was worn down by bitterness of heart since he had no doubt that he would be unable to prevent them landing and that they had come to seek his destruction. So, once they had reached harbour and emerged in full force, they built a rampart all around the city. Even so, they were unable to prevent Saladin’s men gaining access with their camels or leaving the city whenever they wanted by the gate that looked towards the east. And so they laboured with great effort and danger for almost a month in this siege, and they were completely exhausted by continuous guard duty and watching, for the Saracens launched attacks and fired arrows upon them without ceasing. Their wish was to attack them, if God would allow them to get to grips with the enemy. They also sent messages to Tyre for Margrave Conrad and Landgrave Ludwig of Thuringia, who had recently arrived from his land with a great and glorious force of knights and ample supplies, asking them to come to their aid. But although the margrave was summoned several times, he came unwillingly because of various grievances he held against the king, for he accused the latter of having surrendered many fortified cities to Saladin just to secure his release. They arrived, however, in considerable force, and the besiegers were very joyful at their arrival, and especially of that of the landgrave, who had only recently come [to the Holy Land], and seemed like a prince in the ranks of their army.102 The lord patriarch also arrived in the camp, and strengthened the resolve of many of them. They therefore drew up their battle line, and all the host of horsemen, archers and the strongest [of the others] were in the field. The remainder protected the camp against the attacks of

This was a combined Flemish, Frisian and German fleet. Another German fleet had left in April 1189 and had previously attacked Silves in Portugal. A contemporary account of that campaign also gives the figure of 55 ships. However, this fleet wintered in southern France and Sicily and only arrived at Acre in spring 1190. According to the chronicler of the Silves campaign, the fleet only set off from there on its eastern journey on 20 September 1189, Crusade of FB, pp. 196, 205. John D. Hosler, The Siege of Acre 1189–91. Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, and the Battle that Decided the Third Crusade (New Haven, CT, 2018), pp. 19, 63. 101 Jacques d’Avesnes, a Flemish lord, whose family became Counts of Hainault during the thirteenth century. He was killed at the Battle of Arsuf in September 1191. The Itinerarium Peregrinorum claimed that he arrived only a day after the German fleet, Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, p. 74. Ambroise, pp. 72–3, compared him to the heroes of Antiquity, Alexander, Hector and Achilles. 102 A letter copied by Ralph of Diss in his Ymagines Historiarum claimed that Conrad brought an army of 1,000 knights and 20,000 footsoldiers, Opera Historica, ii.70. This was surely an over-estimate. 100

160

Book IV

those who were in the city. And once those who were outside were engaged in battle, the men of the city rushed out upon those who were defending the camp, and pressed them fiercely. But [those who were in] the camps of Saladin were put to flight. On seeing this, the men who were guarding the ships cried out to pursue Saladin, and so those who were in the camp were set free. Those who were in the field pursued Saladin as far as the mountains, but then turned back, fearing ambush. However, when the infantry in the camp were plundering the booty, an argument arose among them about a mule, and everyone took hold of him and tried to drag him away, so that it seemed as if everyone was ready to fight their own people. Once the Saracens noticed this, they charged out of ambush upon them and laid low more than a thousand men from their ranks. The remainder fled back to the camp. This aroused great sadness among the people of God.103 From that time onwards they decided to surround themselves with a rampart, to protect them from sudden raids by the enemy. They therefore dug two great ditches, one facing the city and the other on the side of the plain; and protected by these defences they were able to relax, while those who were shut up in the city had now lost their ability to leave and come back. Encouraged by the landgrave and the rest of the nobles, they set up three wooden towers against the city, with a great deal of hard work and expense. Although they believed that by such means they would take the city, the garrison burned down these structures, using that fire which they call ‘Greek fire’. After that the knights of Christ were filled with grief and anger, and some were upset by the mockery of the enemy. Furthermore, the landgrave died a few days later. They seemed then to be without a leader.104 16 The arrival of the kings of France and England. The king of France arrived and began to attack the city with a powerful army, setting up siege engines against it.105 Meanwhile the king of England was occupied in the conquest of Cyprus. Cyprus is a kingdom surrounded by the sea which is subject to the

103 It would appear that Arnold was here describing the initial Christian defeat in October 1189, but he may also have been conflating it with a further severe setback on St James’s Day, 25 July 1190. Ambroise, pp. 74–6, 81; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, pp. 77–81, 94–6. Hosler, the Siege of Acre, pp. 27–37, 67–71. 104 Landgrave Ludwig had retired to Cyprus because of ill-health, and died there in October 1190, Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS xxx(1).546. 105 Philip landed at Acre on Easter eve, 13 April 1191, Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, Historiens de Philippe-Auguste, ed. François Delaborde (2 vols, Paris 1885), i.108.

Book IV

161

emperor of Constantinople, paying an annual tribute to him of seven weights [of gold], which are called cyntenere.106 However, having grown strong through his wealth, the king of that land [also] grew proud, and rejected both Constantinople and the Catholic faith. Because of this, the king of England attacked him, and gained possession both of him and his land, imprisoning him in chains at a city called Margat; and since he had sworn to him that he would not fetter him with iron, he bound him with silver chains, and there he died. Using the pretext of his Christianity, he consigned his land into the hand of King Guy of Jerusalem, who had now been deprived of his former kingdom, for his wife had died. Margrave Conrad gained his kingdom along with the sister of his wife. After plundering Cyprus, the king of England landed at Acre, and joining forces with the king of France besieged the city.107 The knights of Christ indeed courted danger, for they dug away night and day without pause, and overthrew the walls and turrets. Those who were within were forced by necessity and decided to surrender the city. They sent in secret frequent messengers to Saladin, asking him to save them as he had promised. But when he proved unable to do this, they surrendered the city.108 All those within were made prisoner, and they promised for their freedom not only a great deal of money but also to hand over the Wood of the Lord.109 After giving hostages, they received a month’s grace, but although they went to Saladin they did not succeed in obtaining the restoration of the Wood of the Lord, nor were they able to pay the ransom. And so they returned and entered the city, and four thousand of the Gentiles were slain there, in the sight of Saladin.110 Carchas and Mesthus, and others of the more noble among them,

A German version of the Latin centenarium, ‘hundredweight’. Richard arrived on 8 June 1191, Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, p. 202. 108 12 July 1191. 109 That is the True Cross, which had been captured at the Battle of Hattin; see above, Bk. IV.4. 110 Cf. among other accounts, Richard’s letter to the Abbot of Clairvaux, in Roger of Howden, Chronica, ed. William Stubbs (4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1868–71), iii.130–3, which said that 2,600 prisoners had been put to death); Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, pp. 107–8; Ambroise, pp. 107–8; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, pp. 227–31 (both said 2,700 prisoners were killed); Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, i.117–8 (more than 5,000 beheaded); Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, pp. 164–5 (about 3,000 prisoners killed); Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, ii.389–90. The Christian sources tend to emphasise Saladin’s bad faith, as Arnold does, and he may have been trying to prolong the negotiations to delay Richard’s march southwards from Acre. But guarding so many prisoners was also clearly a considerable problem for the Franks. The Muslim sources suggest that Saladin did not trust the Franks to hand over the prisoners once he had paid the ransom. For discussion, see now Hosler, Siege of Acre, pp. 143–57. 106 107

162

Book IV

gained their freedom through money.111 After the capture of the city, the king of France took ship and returned to his homeland, on condition however that he be given half of all the spoils of the city. The king of England did indeed promise this at the time, but he did not pay it. After the departure of the king of France, he went to Ascalon and attacked it. Seeing this, its inhabitants set fire to it and fled. The king entered the ruined city and refortified it most strongly, rebuilding its walls and towers. Some time later, King Conrad of Jerusalem was slain, through the treachery – so it was said – of the king of England and of certain Templars. It was indeed the prince of the mountains, he who for certain features of his rule is called ‘the Old Man’, who was bribed to send two of his men who murdered Conrad. I shall say some things about this Old Man which may seem ludicrous, but I have, however, been told of them by those worthy of trust. This same Old Man so deceives the men of this land by his tricks that they worship him, and believe him to be none other than God himself. He also most wickedly promises them the hope and expectation of eternal joy, so that they choose rather to die than to live, for often many of them, standing on an exceedingly high wall, on his wish or order jump off it and die wretchedly through breaking their necks. He claims that they are most blessed who perish while shedding human blood in seeking revenge. And when any of his followers choose such a death, by treacherously killing someone, that they may die more happily while carrying out this revenge, he hands them the daggers for this deed as though they are consecrated, and then makes them drunk with a certain potion, through which they are roused to ecstasy or madness; and he shows them through his wiles dreams in which they experience fantasies, joy and delights, or rather deceits. Thus he strives to hold them ready for ever to carry such deeds. This man, as was said, was bribed by those who plotted the death of the margrave and despatched two men from his sect, who killed him but were themselves slain. But I do not know whether they found paradise.112

111 Carchas was Bahā’ al-Din al Asadī Qāruqūsh, one of the commanders of the garrison throughout the siege, Mesthus was Sayf al-Din ‘Alī ibn Ahmed al-Mashtūb, a Kurdish emir who was sent to the city in late December 1190, Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, pp. 141, 157–8; Hosler, Siege of Acre, pp. 99, 169–70. Roger of Howden, Chronica, iii.128, named seven prominent persons who had been spared, but apart from Qāruqūsh none of these can be identified from his phonetic transliteration of Arabic names. 112 The last sentence is presumably ironic. Arnold returns later to the subject of the Assassins, when he reproduces Burchard of Strassburg’s letter of 1175 describing the Middle East in book VII.4. The description of the murder here largely accords with the more detailed account given by the Gesta Regis Ricardi, Nicholson, Chronicle of the Crusade, pp. 305–8, although this naturally denied any involvement of King Richard.

Book IV

163

The death of the margrave – the name which was habitually used for him – or king caused no little distress to the people of God, since a good and wise man fell, through whom the Lord often worked for salvation in Israel.113 After this the king of England, who wished to return to his homeland, concluded a most firm peace with Saladin, for three years and forty days, although the king was unable to secure this without agreeing to the destruction of Ascalon. He was forced by necessity to have it destroyed, for it had no inhabitants who might live there after his departure. Thus he took ship114 and sailed to Bulgaria, where his men left him at Branischevo. He himself, accompanied by only a few companions, boarded a galley and left Hungary, for he did not return by the way by which he had come. For he feared the king of France, whom he had offended, for he had not taken as his wife the latter’s sister, to whom he had been betrothed, and whom this same king of France had brought to meet him; he had rather married the daughter of the king of Navarre, whose mother had most ambitiously brought her to him.115 But although he avoided this snare, he fell into another one. For while he was crossing Hungary like a pilgrim – for he had clad himself and his companions in the habit of the Templars – he was made captive by the duke of the eastern region, known as Austria, who presented him to the emperor.116 So the land of promise was not yet liberated because of our sins, ‘for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full’,117 ‘but the Lord’s hand is stretched out still’.118

113

Cf. here I Samuel 11.13, and ibid., 19: 5. Richard left the Holy Land on 9 October 1192, Nicholson, Chronicle of the Crusade, p. 381. 115 Berengaria, daughter of King Sancho VI of Navarre, whom Richard married at Limassol in May 1191. Arnold’s phraseology, mater ipsius (when the subject of the sentence was Richard), seems to ascribe the initiative to Berengaria’s mother – however, in fact, the key role was played by the king’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who escorted Berengaria as far as Sicily. For the significance of this marriage, John Gillingham, ‘Richard I and Berengaria of Navarre’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980), 157–73. 116 For a full discussion and analysis of the relevant sources, John Gillingham, ‘The kidnapped king: Richard I in Germany 1192–1194’, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, London 30 (2008), 5–34. 117 Genesis, 15: 16. 118 Isaiah, 5: 25. 114

Book V 1 The return of the duke from England. Meanwhile, as this expedition or pilgrimage was taking place, there was no lack of new events in Saxony. Indeed, in that same year in which the lord emperor departed in May, along with those others who went on pilgrimage with him for love of God – among whom was Count Adolf – the lord Hartwig, Archbishop of Bremen, welcomed back the lord duke Henry, along with his son of the same name, who returned from England round about the feast of St Michael.1 He hoped that he might, through the duke, recover his former position – for he was now held almost in contempt by everyone because of the men of Dittmarsch, whom he was unable to win over – and so he made an alliance with him, welcomed him in Stade and granted him the county. On hearing this, the better men among the Holsteiners and Sturmarii went to him, greeted him peacefully and offered him entry to the land. He was overjoyed and promised to exalt them, if he could have entry through them. They immediately occupied the places held by the count: Hamburg, Plön and Itzehoe, and drove his men from the land. Seeing this, Adolf of Dassel, who was then ruling the land on behalf of his nephew, Matilda, the mother of the Count of Schauenberg, and his wife Adalheid, daughter of lord Burchard of Querenvorde, took refuge in Lübeck. 2 The destruction of Bardowick. Having raised an army from Stade, and from the land of the Holsatians, Sturmarii and the Polabians, the duke besieged Bardowick, with the help of Count Bernhard of Ratzeburg, Count Bernhard of Wolpe, Count Helmold of Schwerin and others of his friends, and launched attacks upon it. However, those who were within resisted, being unwilling to surrender the city. But the duke prevailed against it, and this wealthy city was badly damaged; nor did the men of war spare churches or cemeteries, but taking everything away, they consigned it to the fire. All those who were

1

29 September 1189. He may have sent his son Henry in advance, Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Ricardi, in Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ii.92. King Richard allowed the duke to use his own ship, and gave him five others as an escort for his journey, Poole, ‘Die Welfen in der Verbannung’, p. 142.

Book V

165

within were made prisoner, among whom was Herman of Störtenbüttel and other knights, along with the citizens of the town. The women and little ones barely escaped captivity. With matters going well for him, the duke launched a second expedition round about the feast of St Martin,2 and made preparations for the siege of Lübeck. As he was approaching the town, those within, who were terrified by the destruction of Bardowick, sent envoys who offered him peace, on condition that Count Adolf of Dassel and his wife, and the mother of the Count of Schauenberg (who was then away on pilgrimage), and their men and all their goods, might freely leave the land. And when the duke had gained possession of the city and all the land of Count Adolf, then a pilgrim, he immediately attacked Lauenberg, a castle of Duke Bernhard, which was surrendered to him after a month, on condition that those within the castle might leave unharmed. Therefore, with his cause going from strength to strength, the duke laid siege to Segeberg, which was the one place still held by men of the count, through Walter of Baldensele, who was being helped by the Holsteiners and Sturmari, albeit treacherously. As if indeed they repented of what they had done earlier, they changed their mind and abandoned the duke, and the castle was saved through the assistance of Eggo of Sture and his friends. Walter was taken prisoner and thrown into chains, and now lived as a captive in the castle which he had previously attacked. So the duke’s cause in these parts was once again weakened. Adolf of Dassel indeed returned, along with his wife and the mother of the pilgrim count, and harried the city of Lübeck in many ways. Later, when May was come, the duke sought to take revenge on his opponents and mustered his array in the land of Holstein, led by Count Bernhard of Ratzeburg, Helmold of Schwerin and Jordan the steward.3 They had not, however, gone far from the city of Lübeck when they were put to flight, and Helmold and Jordan were among the many made captive, while many others were drowned in the River Trave. The count of Ratzeburg and the rest took refuge in flight. Helmold and Jordan were bound with iron fetters in the castle of Segeberg. Afterwards they were released from captivity, Helmold paying a ransom of 300 marks in pennies, and Jordan, because he was richer, 600 marks of silver. 3 The arrival of the king. Hearing of the return of Duke Henry and his son, the young king was angry, both because the duke had, contrary to his oath, returned before the time agreed, as if he despised his own youth, and

2

11 November. Either Jordan of Blankenburg, for whom Book I.3, note 23, or his son of the same name. 3

166

Book V

since the man whom, so it was said, he and his father had exiled had illegally seized for himself the land of Count Adolf. He came in haste to Brunswick, seeking to destroy it.4 When because of the arrival of winter he was unable to capture it, he went instead to Limmer, a castle of Conrad of Rode, seeking to capture that. But after meeting with no success there either, he returned home in bitterness of spirit. However, the hostility of the people of Bremen drove Archbishop Hartwig, who had been the cause of this trouble, from his see. He indeed, being unable to resist the king’s anger, travelled to England where he remained for a year. After that he returned, and took himself to the duke. The latter, meanwhile, began with the help of Archbishops Conrad of Mainz and Philip of Cologne, to work to recover the king’s grace.5 The latter summoned him to a court in Fulda, where he received him into his grace, on condition that he level the walls of Brunswick in four places and destroy the castle of Lauenberg, while through the king’s gift he might have half the city of Lübeck, provided that Count Adolf had the other half and held his land in peace.6 That this peace agreement might remain firm, the king received his son Lothar as a hostage, who later died in the city of Augsburg.7 His elder son Henry went to Rome with the king, and then to Apulia, along with fifty knights.8 The duke, however, neither destroyed the Lauenberg as he had promised, nor restored half of the city to Count Adolf, who was still on his pilgrimage, nor did he cease to harry the count’s land. 4 The coronation of the emperor. After arranging these matters, the king entered Italy with a strong following, including Philip of Cologne and Duke Otto

4

The decision to attack Henry the Lion was taken at a court at Merseburg on 16 October 1189, with the expedition to begin four weeks later, Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.267. The Annales Stederbergenses, MGH SS xvi.225–6, lamented the plundering of the royal army, made worse by a breakdown in discipline among its ranks, which badly affected that abbey’s lands: ‘we lost absolutely all the fruits of that year’. 5 The Annales Pegavienses, loc. cit. suggested that the king was planning a further expedition in May 1190, so it is probably that Duke Henry was trying to forestall this. 6 The Fulda court took place from 11–14 July 1190, Vorabedition Urkunden Heinrichs VI. für deutsche, französiche und Italienische Empfänger (electronic version), pp. 53–7 nos 101–3, MGH Constitutiones, i.466–8 nos 328–9. However, a privilege that purported to be issued there to Bishop Rudolf of Verden on 15 July, in which the emperor still referred to Henry the Lion as ‘our enemy and that of our empire’, is a later forgery, Vorabedition, pp. 57–9 no. 104. 7 He died on 15 October 1190. 8 Cf. the Annales Stederbergenses, MGH SS xvi.222.

Book V

167

of Bohemia, and many others. And when he approached Rome, in order to receive Apostolic blessing, the lord Pope Clement had died. The lord Celestine was installed on the throne in his place.9 Although he saw that the king had arrived with great pomp, he was reluctant to perform his coronation. But the Romans went out to the king and spoke to him thus: Grant us your friendship and honours, and jurisdiction in the City, as the kings who ruled before you have done. Furthermore do justice to us with regard to your castellans in Tuscolano, who harass us unceasingly and without pause, and we shall go on your behalf to the lord pope, to request him to place the imperial crown on your head.

The emperor showed himself ready to fulfil the wishes of the Romans in every respect. In particular, he ordered that the castle or city about which they had complained be destroyed. The Romans then went to the lord pope, and spoke to him with this implicit advice: Lord, we are your sheep, and you are the shepherd of the sheep and the father of sons. Therefore we beg your clemency that you spare us, who are no little afflicted. For you, who are better than us, with your rule over the peoples ‘rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep’.10 This king has occupied the land with a vast host and is ruining our fields, vineyards and olive groves. Because of this we beg you that you assist us in this crisis, and do not delay his coronation any further, so that the land is not consumed by poverty. He also claims that he has come in peace, and wishes to honour our city in every way, as well as to be obedient to your fatherly authority.

The pope was moved by these prayers, and the king entered the city amid great joy. The lord pope was solemnly consecrated on Easter Day,11 and the next day the emperor and empress received blessing and coronation amid the tranquillity of perfect peace.

9

Clement III died on 29 March 1191, and Celestine III was elected on the same day, Hubert Houben, ‘Philipp von Heinsberg, Heinrich VI und Montecassino. Mit einen Exkurs zum Todesdatum Papst Clemens’ III’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 68 (1988), 52–73, at 65–72. Archbishop Philip had been sent on ahead to negotiate the arrangements for Henry’s imperial coronation, ibid., 55–6. 10 Romans, 12: 15. 11 14 April 1191.

168

Book V

5 The emperor’s journey into Apulia. After receiving this blessing, the emperor then marched into Apulia, to take possession of all the land of William of Sicily, which belonged to him and to the empress his wife. However, by undertaking this expedition he caused the pope no little offence, since another king, called Tancred, had already been appointed there by the Apostolic See. The latter was certainly prepared to resist, but was unable to withstand the emperor’s attack. Indeed, on the arrival of the emperor the terrified inhabitants of that land surrendered all the fortified cities and the strongest castles into his hand. Coming to Montecassino, where the body of St Benedict rests, he was received there with great enthusiasm. While he was there, at S Germano at the foot of the mountain, the son of Duke Henry left without warning and returned to Rome.12 There he was given ships by some of the Romans and escaped by sea. Concealing his annoyance, the emperor continued on the path he had begun, and so arrived safely at Naples, where he found a strong army, but those within the city steadfast. The emperor ravaged all the land [roundabout], cutting down the vines and olive trees of the inhabitants, and invested the city with powerful siege works. Those who were within were not too concerned by this, since they were able to come and go by sea. The emperor had intended to hire a large number of ships from Pisa and other cities, and to blockade the city by land and sea.13 While this was happening, the dog days were approaching and made continuous inroads into the army. 6 The death of the Archbishop of Cologne and the retreat of the emperor. At this time Philip of Cologne and Duke Otto of Bohemia both died, on whom much of the strength of the expedition depended, and also many

12

Henry entered the kingdom of Sicily on 29 April, Annales Ceccanenses, MGH SS xix.288. His visit to Montecassino must therefore have been in early May. On 21 May, when he issued a privilege in favour of Montecassino, he was at Acerra, near Naples, Dione Clementi, ‘Calendar of the diplomas of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Henry VI concerning the kingdom of Sicily’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 35 (1955), 99–101 no. 4. According to the Annales Stederbergenses, MGH SS xvi.224, the younger Henry only left the army after disease had broken out in the army during the siege of Naples. 13 He had made a treaty with the Pisans to secure their assistance while still in Germany in August 1190, Clementi, ‘Calendar’, 96–8 no. 1.

Book V

169

others both nobles and ordinary people.14 The archbishop’s body was carried back to Cologne and interred there with appropriate ceremony. Due to the great heat the emperor also became seriously ill, which led his enemies, believing him to be dead, to make the empress, who had travelled further onwards, their prisoner. Although he had still not recovered his health, the emperor returned home. Sometime later the empress was honourably returned to him.15 Hence those places which the emperor had captured were recovered by his enemies. 7 The return of Count Adolf. Meanwhile, while undertaking his pilgrimage, Count Adolf reached Tyre, where he was informed that his land had been seized by Duke Henry. On the advice of many men of religion, he abandoned his pilgrimage and returned to Schauenburg.16 However, during his return journey he had approached the emperor, who was then in Swabia. The latter indeed held out hopes to him that his land would soon be restored, and promised him all sorts of assistance, as well as rewarding him with very valuable gifts. But when Count Adolf arrived at Schauenburg, he found his entry to Holstein blocked on every side, since the duke held all the strongholds around the Elbe, namely Stade, Lauenberg, Boizenburg and Schwerin. Nor was he able to enter through Slavonia, since Borwin, the duke’s son-in-law, had prepared ambushes for him there.17 So he went to Duke Bernhard and Margrave Otto of Brandenburg,18 who escorted him with a large army to Ertheneburg. There he met Adolf of Dassel, who welcomed his nephew joyfully, along with a host of Holsteiners and Sturmarii, and his mother and wife. Bernhard the younger, the son of Count

14

Archbishop Philip died on 12/13 August, and Duke Conrad Otto of Bohemia on 9/10 September. Philip’s bones were interred at Cologne on 26 September 1191, Houben, ‘Philipp von Heinsberg, Heinrich VI und Montecassino’, 60–2. 15 She was at Salerno, where the inhabitants handed her over to King Tancred, Book in Honour of Augustus (Liber ad Honorem Augusti) by Pietro da Eboli, trans. Gwenyth Hood (Tempe (AR) 2012), pp. 172–95. 16 He witnessed a privilege of Henry VI to the bishopric of Trent at Lodi, in Lombardy, on 20 January 1191, Vorabedition Urkunden Heinrichs VI. für deutsche, französiche und Italienische Empfänger, pp. 69–70 no. 116. A charter which suggests that he had already returned to Germany by 24 December 1190, Hamburgisches Urkundenbuch i (786–1300), ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg (Hamburg 1842), pp. 258–9 no. 292, is a forgery, Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches’, p. 497. 17 Henry Borwin I, lord of Mecklenburg (d. 1227), who had married Matilda, an illegitimate daughter of Henry the Lion, see above Bk. III.4. 18 Otto II, Margrave of Brandenburg 1184–1205, Duke Bernhard’s nephew.

170

Book V

Bernhard of Ratzeburg, whom the duke had through a dispensation from the lord pope transferred from the clergy to knighthood, since he was his father’s only son, feared to lose his land.19 So he came to Duke Bernhard and the margrave, and went over to their side in the name of the emperor. Hence, having abandoned the duke, he began to render every assistance to Count Adolf. His father, however, travelled to the duke and remained with him for many days. He later fell ill, and was brought back to Ratzeburg, not to the castle however but to the monastery. There he lay all for some time, with both his son and his wife taking care of him, before ending his retirement and breathing his last. Nor should it upset the reader if some things that happened earlier are repeated later, since the one is the natural order while the other is artificial. Hence too the poet advises the learned person: So as to say here and now what ought now to be said, He says many things and omits [others] for the present.20

It should not be forgotten, but ought rather to be entrusted to memory that this same Bernhard had as his father that noble and illustrious man Henry, Count of Badewide, who entered this land at the time of King Conrad, and during the lifetime of Duke Henry of Saxony and Bavaria, while his son Duke Henry was only a boy.21 After the death of this Henry, the father of Duke Henry, he received the land from the son, while the latter was still very young. There was, however, conflict between this same Count Henry and the elder Adolf of Schauenburg, who was then also in the land. Wishing to obtain Wagria, Count Henry strove mightily against him. However, Adolf prevailed and obtained Wagria. Henry meanwhile held Ratzeburg and the land of the Polabii as a landed benefice from the duke.22 Once adult and growing in power, the duke sought to found churches in the Trans-Elbe region, and decided to appoint Evermodus, provost of Magdeburg, to the see of Ratzeburg, with the permission of the archbishop of that place.23 The aforesaid count aided him in every respect, and with the grace of God assisting that church, although still young, grew strong both in property and people. This same count had a son called

19

His two elder brothers had predeceased their father, as is explained below. Horace, Ars Poetica, lines 43–4. 21 Thus c.1138–9. Count Henry died c.1163/4, Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 82. 22 See Helmold, Cronica, I.56, pp. 109–11, trans. Tschan, p. 167, who makes clear that this original enfeofment was made by Henry’s mother Gertrude during his minority, c.1140–1. 23 Helmold, Cronica, I.77, pp. 145–6, trans. Tschan, p. 204. This appointment was c.1152/4. 20

Book V

171

Bernhard, who after his father’s death conducted himself valiantly and resisted the frequent attacks of the Slavs, albeit not without great difficulty. Driving the Slavs out from day to day he grew strong in the land. This Bernhard took as his wife a noblewoman from Slavonia called Margaret, the daughter of Ratzibor, Prince of the Pomeranians.24 Through this marriage the land remained allied and in peace. Through her, he engendered [three] sons, Volrad, Henry and Bernhard, who as adults were valiant and lived up to his paternal expectations. Volrad and Henry were taught military skills, while Bernhard became a cleric and obtained a prebend at the cathedral of Magdeburg. Meanwhile Volrad was slain while waging war against the Slavs. He was brought back to be buried with his blood relations at Ratzeburg, where he received this well-merited epitaph: While you were going before the enemy ranks, O most valiant knight, Alas Volrad, your sorrowful end brought ruin to your people. From the death of your father, you were the champion of your fatherland, And you defended it as if it were your mother, now you will receive your reward.

His brother Henry finished his life peacefully. And so, after his father’s death, as has been said, Bernhard the son, who had left the clergy with a dispensation, became a knight and married a noblewoman, Adelheid, daughter of the countess of Hallermund. She gave him a son, to whom he gave his own name. Afterwards he was struck down by illness and ended his days at Ratzeburg.25 A few years later the child followed him and a premature death finished his life. The child’s mother, and his widow, then married Count Adolf of Dassel, and so that blood line (generatio) was ended. 8 The second siege of the city. After he had restored Adolf, Duke Bernhard, along with his nephew the margrave, returned home. The supplies which he had brought with him he consigned to Counts Adolf and Bernhard. These counts therefore immediately surrounded Lübeck, laying close siege to the city, with each remaining in his own territory. The men of Duke Henry defended it most steadfastly. To lead them the duke had appointed a certain Liuthard, son of Walter of Berge, a most valiant man, who after showing

24

Ratzibor I, who died c.1155/6. He was already a Christian at the time of the Second Crusade, Vincenti Pragensis Annales, MGH SS xvii.663. 25 Count Bernhard II died c.1198.

172

Book V

himself so steadfast in this siege has served the city by dwelling there until the present day. Seeing that the city was not much bothered by the siege, since its inhabitants had the ability freely to come and go by the River Trave, Adolf therefore expended a great deal of effort to have the river blocked by stakes and huge tree trunks, and thus the city was tightly blockaded. While this siege was taking place, he went to King Cnut of Denmark, greeting him and thanking him most warmly because the king had observed a most firm peace towards his land during his pilgrimage. This was, however, not without good reason, since Duke Waldemar, the brother of the king,26 along with Bishop Waldemar of Schleswig, had after the count’s departure entered his land with a strong army. The duke had received hostages from the count’s nephew, Adolf of Dassel, although the latter did this reluctantly and because he had no choice, to prevent the men of Dittmarsch, who were then under their rule, from launching an attack – nor did they do anything else against King Cnut. After meeting the king, the count returned home. 9 The capture of the duke’s knights. Meanwhile, sympathising with the besieged citizens, Duke Henry mustered an army and sent it to the city. It was commanded by Conrad of Rode, who at this time held Stade from the duke and from the above said Bernhard.27 After crossing the Elbe near Lauenburg in secret, they approached Ratzeburg and terrified the men of Count Bernhard who were on guard duty near the city at a place called Herrenburg. They fled and took refuge in Ratzeburg. And thus the siege was raised on this side, and the citizens made a sortie from the city and seized booty and the victuals which they found there, and entered the city again with great joy. At dawn the next day they took up arms and left the city, led by Count Bernhard and Conrad of Rode, intending to fight with their opponents in the middle of their land. Although they were outnumbered, they attacked them not far from the city and took up position by a stream, which they were ready to cross, leading to the River Schwartau. There they fought bravely and soon put their foes to flight. They then returned to the city. However, Bernhard the younger returned from Ratzeburg with all the men whom he had, along with the men of Holstein, and camped that evening near the city on the southern shore, with the intention of fighting the citizens should they come out next morning. The duke’s men who were in the city received warning of this, and they left during the night on the northern side, thinking to return to their homes by

26

Subsequently king himself, as Waldemar II (1202–41), after his elder brother died childless. See below, VI.17. 27 That is the elder Count Bernhard of Ratzeburg.

Book V

173

the other road. There was a river called the Wakenitz between them, so neither side could reach the other one. With his army increasing more and more, Bernhard set out in pursuit of them. Count Adolf meanwhile was detained by illness in the castle of Segeberg. And when they were near the bank of the Elbe at Boizenburg, battle commenced between them, and the duke’s men were defeated. Many of them were captured, and the rest fled. When Adolf heard this joyful news, as if he was recovering from his illness, he started to consider how, if God should favour this enterprise, he could take Stade, for many men from the county of Stade had been captured whom he held in his power. He followed a wise policy and gave them their freedom, ransoming them from the knights who had captured them. These men put their hopes in him, so that if they found him well-disposed towards them, they were prepared to support him rather than the duke. They promised therefore to make themselves subject to him in every respect, that through their advice and help he could gain Stade. 10 How the count captured Stade. The count was thus encouraged, or rather made ready, by their words. He mustered his army at Hamburg, and occupied the island of Gorieswerder. Those who were afraid of his coming went to him and concluded a treaty of friendship with him. Mustering all the ships which they could find at that time, the count and all his host sailed to Stade and started to burn some of the villages on the far bank of the river. And ‘Rumour now on high soon made a great noise in the halls,’28 that the count had come with a great army, and they were desperately afraid, for they were still mourning the dead and captives whom they had lost. One man said to his neighbour: ‘It is better that we should serve the count, through whom we may recover our prisoners, than the duke, on whose account such disasters have happened’. Conrad, seeing what the future held, and fearing the uprising among the people which had been stirred up, mounted his horse, pretending that he was riding out to hold a parley. He spoke to the people as if to thank them for striving so hard for his lord the duke, and leaving behind there his wife and all his equipment, spurred away with no intent to return. Those who were in the castle then came in peace to the count, offering both themselves and the castle to him. After he had taken possession of the castle, he ordered Conrad’s wife to be released and all those of his following brought out on pack-horses and carts. In this great generosity he was, so it is claimed, deceived by a cunning trick, since the women in the carts carried heaps of treasure in the bags intended for the hauberks of their husbands. The men of Lüneburg, however,

28

Statius, Achilleidos, I.750, slightly misquoted.

174

Book V

attacked him fiercely, making frequent raids and plundering expeditions, [indeed] they committed endless robberies in the county of Stade. 11 About the bishop of Lübeck. Meanwhile they also inflicted no little harm towards Bishop Dietrich of Lübeck, and continually ravaged the lands of the provostship of Zeven. Furthermore, Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen, who at this time had been driven out by the men of Bremen, was a follower of the duke, and was ill-disposed towards the bishop. The latter was closely allied with the inhabitants of Bremen through loyalty to the emperor and also friendship, since he was born in Bremen and had brothers and many relatives in the city – although he was also a blood relative of the archbishop.29 However, the latter, unmindful of their relationship, did not spare him, wishing to deprive him of his position through canonical process, but he was unable to do this. While he was living at Lüneburg, he frequently summoned him by letter as if to an audience. Since the bishop did not dare to venture among men of the opposing party outside the boundaries of his bishopric, the archbishop cited him peremptorily, but not in a proper judicial manner, since after the first citation he had on the appointed day received excuses from the bishop, to extend the deadline in the archbishop’s citation. Nevertheless, when he failed to come, the archbishop angrily announced his excommunication, at a conference at Minden which was held between him and the men of Bremen. The people of Bremen denounced this sentence as null and void, since not only did the bishop not deserve excommunication, while the archbishop, because of his dubious title, had come rather to be judged than to be the judge. The sentence was subsequently quashed by Cardinal Cinthius, who had been legate in Denmark and came to Bremen on his return.30 After this Duke Henry the younger, the son of Duke Henry, entered the county of Stade with an army, in which county the archbishop [already] was. Coming to the

29

Lappenberg, in his edition of the Annales Stadenses, p. 374, said that he was the archbishop’s nephew, the son of his sister Matilda. Bishop Dietrich had been with the emperor at Nordhausen, on 18 December 1192, when the latter confirmed, at his request, the property of the monastery of Segeberg at Lübeck, including previous donations by his other allies Duke Bernhard and Count Adolf, MGH Vorabedition Urkunden Heinrichs VI [online], pp. 179–80 no. 269. 30 Cinthius, Cardinal priest of St Lawrence in Lucina 1191–1217, and briefly thereafter Cardinal Bishop of Porto. His legation to Denmark and Norway began after August 1191 and had concluded by December 1192, when he was back in Rome, Werner Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216 (Vienna 1984), 104–6. His visit to Bremen must have been in the summer of 1192, Freytag, ‘Der Nordostern des Reiches’, p. 477. See also below, Bk. V.23.

Book V

175

aforesaid town, I do not know on what grounds he thought that he might secure his entry. But when the men of Stade refused to receive him, he first ordered that an estate of the bishop which was near the city, called Horst, should be plundered, and then, coming to Zeven, on the archbishop’s instruction, he ordered that all the movable property and beasts which the men of that place had brought there as if to a house of refuge, should be taken away, so that the nuns of Christ who were enclosed there and day and night raised their voices in praise of their heavenly bridegroom, would suffer for a long time from severe shortages. Also, at another time when Conrad of Rode still held the fortress, the men of Bremen poured into the county to plunder it, and among the other booty which they took, it even happened that they plundered the bishop’s men.31 The latter was busy saying mass when a man arrived who said that his men had been robbed by the men of Bremen, and that these robbers with their booty were not far away. The man of God was unsure what he might do and which way he might turn. ‘Besides those things which are without’, he had a daily concern with all those afflicted, and rightly more for his own men, according to the text: ‘Who is weak and I am not weak? Who is offended and I burn not?’32 Thus, laying down his priestly vestments, he left the church and set out to follow the plunderers. He ran breathlessly for almost a mile and caught up with them. He laid hands on the plunder, nor would he leave them alone until he had restored their property to his men. They were all terrified by his arrival, and admitted that they had sinned. They were trapped between the compassion and steadfast magnanimity of the man. They venerated the elderly gentleman covered in grime and dust, and they shuddered before the holy hands pulling the horns of their beasts. Nor did these men, frightened by the authority of so great a bishop, offer any opposition. This man was full to the bowels with mercy, deeply imbued with feelings of compassion, and piety forbade him to make any delay, so that he followed the robbers on foot rather than on horseback. He was also tireless in his actions, while showing humility in reconciling those who were in dispute, even to the extent of throwing himself in his pontifical vestments at the feet of those whose strong feelings prevented them accepting reconciliation. He believed that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive’.33 Thus when consecrating churches, he made every effort to perform this ceremony at his own expense rather than burdening others by exercising his charm [in requesting their help]. When ordaining clerics he rejoiced more when he saw his house to be full rather than in the number of those to be ordained, for he was most generous to guests of his house, but a reluctant guest of

31

That is, their nominal allies, since the Bremenses and the bishop were both opponents of Archbishop Hartwig. 32 II Corinthians, 11: 28–9. 33 Acts, 20: 35.

176

Book V

others. He was a most diligent steward to the poor, and was most jovial with them as they dined at his own table. We believe that the virtue of this bishop lacked nothing in any respect, so that we can say most truthfully of him: He who was pious, wise, humble, virtuous Sober, chaste and peaceful, While he was active in this present life, He treated his body austerely.

He also suffered the above-mentioned setbacks with such great patience that nobody ever saw him show anger or heard him complain, nor did he return evil for evil, but directing his thoughts towards the Lord, he said with the Apostle: ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?’34 12 The surrender of the city of Lübeck. Since we have indeed wandered a long way from the city, let us now return to it. Our citizens had meanwhile been suffering from the lengthy blockade, when they heard of the change that had taken place at Stade. They were upset by this, and began to contemplate the surrender of the city. There was, however, disagreement between them. For some said: Let us surrender the city to the king of the Danes, to secure his favour, and he will save us from all attack while allowing us to trade in our land. Who is there who can harass us if we have him as our protector?

Others though said: No! Since our city has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Roman emperor, and if it is withdrawn from this, then we shall be punished by the lord emperor with outlawry, and so we shall become hateful to all. But if this is pleasing, let us hand it over to Margrave Otto, so that he receives it as though in the emperor’s name, and thus we shall be freed from the tyranny of this count, and he will not reign over us.

When he became aware of this dissension, Adolf besieged the city even more closely, which terrified the citizens. They offered the city to him, on condition, however, that the duke’s men should be allowed to leave unharmed. Thus the

34

Romans, 8: 31.

Book V

177

city was captured, and Count Adolf travelled to the emperor, who in response to all his efforts generously allowed him to have all the revenues of the city.35 He also honoured Count Bernhard with frequent gifts. 13 The confession of the writer. I shall record the mercy of the Lord. Why, amid those things which I have written down for the memory of posterity, should I not recall the works of mercy of our God which have been made known in our time? I shall place his memory before all others since ‘he has remembered me’,36 ‘and is become my salvation’.37 Since indeed my father and my mother abandoned me, the Lord then raised me up. For in all my tribulations and anxieties I have looked for help and it was not there. But He is ‘merciful and gracious’,38 and has been a helper to me. I have never enjoyed the patronage of any prince or magnate, but if I have been beset by worries, He says to me: ‘Give your heart to the Lord’, since ‘my grace is sufficient for thee’,39 ‘put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help’.40 For what have I to do with princes? To whom it is better rather to say: ‘But I am a worm, and no man: a reproach of men and despised of the people’.41 I have indeed been placed among men, [but] I could [rather] boast of my weaknesses. They find in me nothing that would make men wonder, since ‘my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty; neither do I exercise myself in great matters or in things too high for me’.42 There are those who choose what is powerful, and despise what is weak and ‘the base things of the world’,43 but you, my God, rather choose to confound the powerful. For neither do you wish for the strong, since you, O God, are strong – thus you prefer the weak, that you might make them strong, that they fully ascribe victory to your name, since without you they can do nothing. To the one who boasts of power and strength without you, I say: ‘Why boastest thou in mischief, you who are powerful

35

Adolf witnessed imperial diplomata at Koblenz on 14 June, and at Worms on 28 June, 1193, Registrum Henrici VI (Regesta Imperii IV.3.1 Staufer Kaiser und Könige) [online edition], nos 302–3. Only the second of these documents is as yet included in the MGH Vorabedition Urkunden Heinrichs VI. 36 Daniel, 14: 37. 37 Exodus, 15: 2; Psalm, 117: 14, 21, 28 (Vulgate), Psalm, 118: 14, 21 (AV). 38 Psalm, 85: 15; 102: 8; 110: 4; 111: 4; 144: 8 (all Vulgate). 39 II Corinthians, 12: 9. 40 Psalm, 145: 2–3 (Vulgate); 146: 3 (AV). 41 Psalm, 21: 7 (Vulgate); 22: 6 (AV). 42 Psalm, 130: 1 (Vulgate), 131: 1 (AV). 43 I Corinthians, 1: 28.

178

Book V

in iniquity?’44 You rather approve of those things about which men reproach me. They despise me as a sinner, but since you are holy, I turn to you and say: ‘O God, purge away my sins’,45 and ‘thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin’.46 There are those who seek wisdom from me, but ‘thou knowest my foolishness’.47 There are those who detest me for detesting secular business, but it is good for me to cleave to you, O Lord, my God. They flee me as a person having nothing, but you, my God, are ‘no respecter of persons’.48 ‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that your power may rest upon me’.49 ‘For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom you, my God, commendeth’.50 Therefore, I will rightly mention your loving kindnesses,51 so that I do not doubt that through your grace I shall be saved, and I shall also be presented ‘with the blessings of thy goodness’,52 through which, my God, the just dine in thy sight. O pious, O merciful one, most sweet and most loving, what thanks shall I give for thy mercies?53 How shall I recompense you for all that you have given to me, what praises will suffice for you, for whom heaven and earth, and sea, is not enough? But since in thee my song will live for ever,54 indeed ‘thou art my praise’;55 let it be sufficient for You, my God, and whatever my praise is, which Thou are, and also by helping fulfil our vows,56 which You and nobody else favours by Your foresight. What shall I say about the change which Your right hand has wrought in me, O Highest one? He turned around an unholy man, and he was not [wicked]. For though I lived for some time under the law, I lived without the law, one who heard the law, but did not fulfil it. I was under the rule of religion, but I was almost completely irreligious, for I sinned freely ordinarily under the freedom of an order. Although I seemed to be endowed with piety, I rather misused this than used it [well]. And since I did not observe the set times for study, work or prayer, my mind was always wandering; I was always unsure and never remained true to the same purpose. Nor did I regularly abstain, nor regularly fast.

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Psalm, 51: 3 (Vulgate); 52: 1 (AV). Psalm, 78: 9 (Vulgate); 79: 9 (AV). Psalm, 31: 5 (Vulgate); 32: 5 (AV). Psalm, 68: 6 (Vulgate); 69: 5 (AV). Cf. Acts, 10: 34. II Corinthians, 12: 9. II Corinthians, 10: 18. Cf. Isaiah, 63: 7. Psalm, 20: 4 (Vulgate), 21: 3 (AV). Cf. I Timothy, 2:1. Cf. Psalm, 70–6 (Vulgate). Jeremiah, 17: 14. Cf. Jeremiah, 44.25.

Book V

179

But to use the words of the poet: freedom degenerated into excess … and the chorus was deprived of its right of injuring people through the law, and made to keep silence in shame.57

Indeed, what is dispensation to those people is a postponement of change for us. For those who modify the [monastic] order from day to day through many changes work not for the order but against the order. This leads to disaster, so that in this present time hardly anyone knows what the [proper] order is, but only disputing the [proper] order. ‘When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child’. But with your grace, O my God, ‘when I became a man, I put away childish things’.58 And when I heard the Rule, which I was not following, I knew that I had erred. Through whom? Through the spirit of fear of You. He has opened my eyes, teaching me the whole truth through His truth. And I have learned that in these practices which I previously performed in all sorts of ways, there is great trouble and affliction of spirit, nor is it possible to remain true to the order in such things. For the [monastic] order is simple, inspired by you, the most simple God and the holy Fathers, from whom our Father Benedict received it and set it down in writing. These precepts are to me better than honey and sweeter than the honeycomb. For it is this that strong men will desire and the weak will not refuse. Thus, my God, Your just precepts are to me worthy of singing, so that I shall sing on the ways of the Lord, since the glory of the Lord is great. Because of these benefits, I shall remember Your mercies, so that praising You, I shall preach how praiseworthy You are to everyone, remembering your works of mercy which have been done in our time, so that those both present and future shall have reason to glorify Your name, which is blessed through the ages. Amen. 14 A miracle concerning the Blood of the Lord. A little girl in the region of Thuringia, near Erfurt, was lying sick. When a priest visited her, as is customary, giving her the viaticum, he washed his fingers in a clean beaker, giving her the water to drink, and so he departed. She, however, being absolutely clear of mind, said to those who were round about her: ‘cover that water most carefully, since I saw a little portion of the Eucharist fall into it from the fingers of the priest’. This was done, and when that water was afterwards brought out

57 58

Horace, Ars Poetica, lines 282–4. I Corinthians, 13: 11.

180

Book V

for her to drink, it was completely changed into blood, while that little portion, although it was only a tiny crumb in the shape of a finger, was changed into bloody flesh. All who saw this were terrified – and there was pandemonium from the women milling about, exclaiming, wondering and amazed, and all talking on and on about this unheard-off event. A message was sent, the priest was summoned, who was even more amazed, and he was afraid of his negligence in this matter. Fearing indeed that he would be suspended from his office, he wished to keep the incident secret, urging [them] that this great sacrament be burned. But what God wanted miraculously to make manifest could not be concealed. What had happened was told to many people, a meeting of priests was held, and since in their distress they did not know what to do, they went to the archdeacon. He was afraid to make a decision on this matter, and so he wrote a letter informing the lord archbishop of Mainz about what had taken place.59 Meanwhile that beaker with the life-giving blood, covered by a corporal,60 was placed on the altar, and in the sight of all those who were present there a dove came and sat for a long time on the lip of the beaker, to the amazement of everyone because the weight of its body had not upset that vessel. In those regions, indeed, the lower parts of beakers are thin, as though they have been compressed, while their top halves are wider. As a result the onlookers decided that the dove was not a bodily dove but a spiritual one. These events took place around the feast of the Blessed Martyr Vincent.61 The lord archbishop came to those regions at the feast of the Annunciation.62 For he had notified all the prelates that on this day they should meet with all the clergy and people, so that, with them all gathered together as one, he might benefit from their advice as to what he should do in this matter. Therefore they all assembled at the village where this sacrament had been kept, and they came in an orderly procession to the aforesaid town with the prelates carrying the Blood of the Lord, and with litanies of supplication being made, the people most devotedly praying, and everyone with feet bare, making their first stop at Mount St Cyriacus. The nuns of that place came out to meet them with the utmost humility, genuflecting deeply, and most devotedly singing ‘Jesus our Redemption’.63 After the solemnities of the mass

59

Conrad of Wittlesbach, Archbishop of Mainz 1183–1200, who had previously held the see 1161–5, before being forced out by Frederick Barbarossa. See above, p. 155, note 88. Erfurt and the area immediately around it belonged to the archbishopric, as well as being part of the diocese of Mainz. 60 A square piece of linen, on which the bread and wine are placed during the Eucharist. 61 22 January. 62 25 March. 63 An early hymn, sung especially on Ascension Day. The Benedictine convent of SS Cyriacus and Andrew at Erfurt was a ninth-century foundation; the abbess at

Book V

181

had been celebrated, with reference to this difficult situation, they went to the mountain of St Peter, where there is a great and devout convent of monks, founded long ago. Mass was most devotedly celebrated together there [too], and the procession went to the church of the Blessed Mary, mother of God. There the lord archbishop, clad in his pontifical vestments, during the service exhorted the people to tears and prayers, so that Divine Clemency, always the friend of the human race – which to obliterate the error of the unbelievers and to strengthen the faith of His followers, has shown with the clearest indications that the sacrament which is blessed, sanctified and consumed under the appearance of bread and wine, is truly His flesh and blood – might deign to transform these again into their former substance of bread and wine, to the praise and glory of His name. [He does this] also to enhance the joy and exaltation of His holy Church, that we may acknowledge his name and glory in His praise, so that just as if He truly is the bread of life and the wine, that spiritually makes the heart of man rejoice, so truly the sacrament which He had given to the Church to be used under the appearance of bread and wine should be changed into the known form. And after he had prayed for a long time, and the blood and flesh had not returned into its former appearance, the archbishop ordered a new altar to be built from new stones, that this same blood, with the flesh of the Lord, might be reverently placed within it. In truth, although he continued to make the same prayers and exhortations, and had often sent messages, the transformation had not taken place, when suddenly someone came and said that the Lord had heard the prayers and groans of the children of Israel,64 and that the previous substance had entirely returned.65 On hearing this, the lord archbishop was overcome with tears, and he encouraged everyone to give thanks, while he himself immediately began to preach a sermon in praise of our Lord Jesus Christ, speaking to everyone as follows: ‘This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes’.66 O Redeemer, who of any mortal is worthy to bring praise and commendation for what has been done through your mercy? You always think thoughts of peace and not of affliction. And since it is Your way always to show mercy and to spare us, You whose nature is goodness, whose wish is power, whose work is

this period was a correspondent of Hildegard of Bingen, see The Letters of Hildegard of Bingen, trans. Joseph L. Baird and Radd K. Ehrmann (2 vols, Oxford 1998), ii. 8–10 no. 94 (before 1173). 64 Cf. Exodus, 6: 5. 65 The implication of this opaque sentence is that the transformation back took place some time later, after the new altar had been built, not on Annunciation Day itself. 66 Psalm, 117:23 (Vulgate), 118:23 (AV); cf. Matthew, 21: 42; Mark, 12: 11.

182

Book V mercy, You do what is characteristic of You, while we do what is characteristic of us. You, [even] before we invoke You, are prepared to be merciful; we are prone to evil from the days of our youth. We are ungrateful for your great and generous piety; You, however, do not withdraw your blessings from the ungrateful – You make the sun rise on both the good and the bad, and the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust. But he who is of the earth, speaks of the earth; you, however, who have come down from Heaven, you are above everyone, since you alone know from whence you come and where you will go, You who has changed this sacrament into bloody flesh to strengthen the faith of your people. You who have descended from Heaven have indeed given living bread to man to eat, lest he fails on the road of this pilgrimage, that which an angel will chew on continuously in Heaven without revulsion. What the angel eats as a delicacy, for the time being man chews on [only] as a remedy. Both will therefore eat, but only one will be filled – for the Apostle says: ‘Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread’.67 To consume the [outward] sacrament is indeed one thing, the matter of the sacrament is [quite] another. One is the visible form; the other is the invisible grace. In these two, there are two ways of eating, one sacramental, the other spiritual. Everyone eats in the first manner, a number of the good eat in the other. There many are called, here the few elect. Hence I have said, ‘Both will therefore eat, but only one will be filled’, since one person merely consumes the sacrament, while another both the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament. For the devoted and worthy person receives with the visible sacrament [also] invisible grace. Another, unworthy, person consumes the sacrament, and commits a crime against the Body and Blood of the Lord, since he eats and drinks judgement upon himself, not properly honouring the Body of the Lord. Now, therefore, dearly beloved, that we shall perform appropriate acts of thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ, who by this action has wanted us to be made fearful and [also] to be consoled, we urge, instruct and decree to all those who lie under our jurisdiction that everyone from the smallest to the greatest, from young to old, boys and girls, should bow down and adore, praise and magnify our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom every knee is bent, from those in Heaven, on earth and in hell. Through this we shall honour his nourishing sacraments, so that we shall faithfully receive not only the [outward] sacrament but the matter of the sacrament through the grace of him who is a priest ‘after the order of Melchisedech’,68 and through this sacrifice makes for himself ‘a peculiar people, zealous of good works’.69

67

I Corinthians, 11: 28. Psalm, 109: 4 (Vulgate), 110: 4 (AV); also Hebrews, 5: 6 and 7: 11, 17. 69 Titus, 2: 14: ‘peculiar’ (the usage both of the Latin and the AV) is used in the sense of ‘chosen’. 68

Book V

183

After everyone had responded by saying ‘Amen’, the lord archbishop had this water which had been re-transubstantiated put back into a precious vessel, which he installed in a position of honour in that church, while he took the beaker away with him to Mainz, where up to the present day it is venerated with great honour. All the inhabitants throughout his diocese bowed down so devotedly in praise of Christ that even infants laying in their cradles bowed down and gave thanks, in accordance with the saying: ‘Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise’.70 15 Another miracle. I shall recount another blessing of our Saviour which was celebrated in the time of Archbishop Philip of Cologne. On Easter Saturday, when it is the Church’s custom that little ones are baptised, a certain Jew of that same city joined the other onlookers of this event as though from curiosity. As the holy chrism was being placed on the head of one of the infants by the pontiff, his eyes were opened and he saw the Holy Spirit descending upon the infant in the form of a dove. He went away terrified by such a vision and with his mind in turmoil. Thinking about this, he was to some extent enlightened, for he neither fully believed nor absolutely denied that this was a Divine mystery. He had often heard that this was the great sacrament of Christianity, but Jewish perfidy resisted, and he remained in doubt as to what he could have imagined. However, he remembered all this and continued to turn it over in his heart. So a year went round, but at the next Good Friday, that is the day before the Sabbath, he was in the synagogue when he felt a vision of the most pious Saviour. It is indeed the detestable custom of the Jews that every year, fulfilling the instruction of their fathers, they crucify a wax figure to insult the Saviour. Then it is their custom to inflict insults upon this, and to perform those other actions which are read about in His Passion: they attack it through flagellation, blows, and spitting, and they perforate the hands and feet with nails, while they pierce His side with a lance, and [as a result] blood and water flowed out in a stream.71 And he who has seen this realises that it is evidence, and we know that it is true evidence of Him. For this same Jew saw this, and received Divine illumination, and believed. He left the synagogue and immediately ran to the archbishop, telling him what had been done; and on that holy Sabbath he renounced the bad faith of the synagogue and received the water of rebirth. His conversion brought joy not only to the angels of God but to men as well. Let us rejoice, dearly beloved, in the most blessed grace of our Redeemer, so that by behaving well towards the

70

Psalm, 8:3 (Vulgate), 8:2 (AV). Cf. John, 19:34: ‘one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith there came out blood and water’. 71

184

Book V

evil doers we may turn this wicked behaviour of the Jews to us as a weapon of salvation, and as if illuminated through their blindness we may encourage our devotion towards Jesus. We may see what their evil behaviour does to them, and we may truly believe what our devotion may do before Jesus. They fulfil the instruction of their fathers, who tell themselves and their [descendants], saying: ‘His blood is upon us and upon our sons’.72 Crucifying Him, and bringing insults upon Him through His image, they really crucify not the Word of God through their fathers dishonouring it with their wicked hands, but they dishonour Him through their hands of evil, and by their hatred and insults. For Christ, rising from the dead, is not now dead; death no longer rules over Him. He could, however, be crucified through an image, He who could before the Passion in the time of the Law be immolated through a lamb. But you say: ‘That has been done to a figure’. I agree. We send those who disagree with this proposition to the authority of that document where something similar was perpetrated by the Jews on an image of the Lord, where it is found that from His side blood and water flowed, from which many blind people were given sight and cripples cured, lepers made clean, and demons put to flight. We therefore truly believe this, since what their malice does to them, our faith does for us. In addition, whoever recalls with a devoted mind the Passion of the Lord, so that he is moved to tears does not really suffer with Christ, of whom he is a member, but rather with his most glorious mother Mary, whose soul a sword of grief pierced,73 and with His most virtuous son and minister John, although he did not see death until the Lord visited him and he received peaceful absolution from His flesh, will you [too] drink the chalice of the Lord’s Passion? Will you weep with the women who lamented while they were sitting at his tomb, crying for the Lord? Furthermore, those who show themselves wholly devoted and full of compunction in commemoration of such things, will they not with Nichodemus and Joseph bury Him with spices and wind Him in linen cloth?74 Indeed those who weep with the sorrowful, will rejoice with the joyful, since just as they suffer with Christ as He is dying, so they shall reign with him when He is risen.75 16 The siege and relief of Lauenberg. Seeing that Count Adolf was prospering in his course and had obtained Lübeck and Stade, Duke Bernhard hoped that

72

Matthew, 27: 25. Cf. the prophecy of Simeon in Luke, 2: 35, which in the thirteenth century was adapted for verse 2 of the Stabat Mater. 74 Cf. John, 19: 38–40. 75 Cf. Romans, 8:17. 73

Book V

185

through him he [too] might prevail greatly in the land and extend the power of his name. Coming with a strong army, he stationed his wife and all his baggage at the church of St Peter, and laid close siege to Lauenberg. Counts Adolf and Bernhard steadfastly assisted him. After they had besieged the castle for a long time, so that hunger was now weakening those within, and the duke, with his army busy, was by himself with only a bodyguard, friends of Duke Henry arrived, namely Count Bernhard of Wolpe and Helmold of Schwerin, with those whom they had recruited, with the intention of either bringing foodstuffs to those whose supplies had run out, if they could, or if they were unable to do this to free them from the siege. When they crossed over the waters, the duke did not at first notice them, but as their numbers increased he wanted to stop them, but was unable to do so. The latter joined forces with those who were in the castle, and went out into the field seeking battle with their enemies. The duke did not know what to do: his army was, as said, busy, Adolf was not there, and Count Bernhard and his men were attacking the castle of Barsith.76 The duke, however, behaved steadfastly, took up his arms and fought manfully, but he did not secure victory. Indeed, all his men were captured, and he himself only just escaped captivity. His wife abandoned all her baggage and fled to Ratzeburg. And so, improbably, Lauenberg was relieved, either because blind fortune had deserted Duke Bernhard or since God wished to preserve some parts of the Trans-Elbe region for Duke Henry.77 He, however, was seeking revenge on his enemies, and was soliciting help now from the Slavs, and now from the Danes, and was [thus] not there. 17 The expedition of the king of the Danes in Holstein and the captivity of Bishop Waldemar. King Cnut of the Danes78 had meanwhile been provoked by Count Adolf, and crossed his frontier with a great army, with the intention of ravaging his land with fire and plunder. However, Bishop Waldemar of Schleswig, the son of King Cnut,79 undertook hostilities against King Cnut over the

76

Identification uncertain. Second half of February 1193, Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches’, p. 517. 78 Cnut VI, King of Denmark 1182–1202, eldest son of King Waldemar the Great (1157–82). 79 Bishop Waldemar was the posthumously-born son of King Cnut V, who was murdered at Roskilde in August 1157 (for which murder, Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, ii.1090–5). He had been Bishop of Schleswig since 1179. His relations with the king, which for some time seem to have been harmonious, broke down in 1190/1 through rivalry with the latter’s younger brother, also Waldemar, Duke of Schleswig, for pre-eminence in that region, Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches’, pp. 502–6. 77

186

Book V

kingdom, and obtained assistance from the kings of Norway and Sweden. The friends of the emperor, Margrave Otto, Count Adolf and Count Bernhard of Ratzeburg, supported him from the other side. When therefore Waldemar led out his army against Cnut, at the same time Count Adolf crossed the River Eider with a numerous host and ravaged all the land of the king as far as Schleswig, where he received a deceitful envoy and [then] returned home with much booty. Waldemar was now treacherously persuaded by some of his friends that he should remember his blood-relationship and former closeness to the king, and should return to his grace, which the latter would without doubt grant this worthy man with his full friendship and shower him with honours and riches. Acquiescing with this advice, he experienced the mutability of fortune, for he was most strongly bound not only with fetters on the feet but also with iron handcuffs.80 Because of this attack, as has been said, or because it was pleasing to some, the king entered the bounds of the count’s land with his forces to render assistance to Duke Henry. Even though he was outnumbered, the count hastened to meet him. The count had indeed foreseen the king’s attack for some time, and so he had engaged the help of the margrave and a strong force of knights. But with the king delaying his arrival, the margrave and many others were absent when the king suddenly appeared and the count went out to meet him. However, reckoning that he could not fight him on equal terms, the count asked for terms of peace; and so he obtained the king’s grace for 1,400 marks in pennies, and the latter returned home.81 18 About the death of Archbishop Absalon of Lund. During these days Archbishop Absalon of Lund, a religious man of good counsel, of the utmost

80

See the Annales Ryenses, ad. an. 1192, MGH SS xvi.404: Bishop Waldemar opposing himself to the king, with nobody forcing him [to do this], went to Norway. Then, returning from there with 35 long ships, he was captured and placed in the tower of Sieberg, where he remained for fourteen years.

81

Cf. Annales Stadenses, ad. an. 1192, MGH SS xvi.352, although the Danish Annales Waldemarienses date this to 1193, and the bishop’s eventual release to 1206, MGH SS xxix.178–9. Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches’, suggests, on the basis of other Danish sources, that the bishop was captured on St Stephen’s Day, 26 December 1193. For his release, see Bk. VI.18, below. January/February 1194, Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches’, p. 519.

Book V

187

discretion and notable for his honesty, was taken from this life.82 Through his efforts all the churches throughout Denmark, previously in disagreement, were made to use the same form of the Divine office. He had a crucifix raised on high in his cathedral, so that when people were entering or leaving it should seem that they were doing reverence to the Cross rather than to himself. Furthermore, he conferred generous gifts on churches and monasteries, and in particular he strove to endow and beautify the cathedral church of St Laurence the Martyr at Lund, with precious crowns and great bells and all sorts of ornaments, as is now to be seen. And since he was, as has been said, a man who loved religion, he strove to build and endow a monastery of Cistercian monks at Sorø, and it was there towards the end of his days that he lay sick, stricken by bodily illness. After leaving dispositions for the property of his church, he ended his days on the feast of Abbot Benedict.83 The whole of Denmark made no little lamentation, since during his lifetime he had persuaded many people in dispute to make peace; he commended his death to Jesus Christ, the author of peace. The lord Andrew, the royal chancellor, succeeded him, a most learned man.84 Nor was he endowed with less grace, for from the time of his earliest youth he was dedicated to study, and distinguished by his good character. And although he continued to be busy with royal business, he still constrained himself with great abstinence. He did not modify this even when he was busy with affairs in the Roman Curia, so that every Friday he refused food, and [thus] stood forth as a guardian of the Lord’s Cross. After his appointment he did not abandon his good character, remaining humble, peaceful, modest and abstemious.85 By this he provoked many to envy. He was also so

82

Absalon was archbishop from c.1178 [see above, Bk. III.5]. 20 March 1201: it would seem therefore that Arnold has inserted this chapter in the wrong place in his account. Sorø abbey had been founded by Absalon’s father c.1142 as a Benedictine house, and he himself had installed Cistercians there some twenty years later. For Absalon as a patron of the Cistercians, see Brian Patrick McGuire, The Cistercians in Denmark. Their Attitudes, Roles and Functions in Medieval Society (Kalamazoo 1982), pp. 62–3, 85–92, 98–9, 108–9. 84 Andrew (Anders) was dean of Roskilde before becoming chancellor c.1194. He spent the next few years in Paris and Rome, acting on behalf of the king’s sister Ingeborg, who had been repudiated by her husband King Philip II of France. He was Archbishop of Lund 1201–23, when he resigned his see and retired to a hermitage on an island in Lake Ivö, where he died in 1228. Among his works was the Hexameron, a poem of 8,000 lines recounting the Creation, Fall and Redemption of Man through Christ. For his career, see especially Torben K. Nielsen, ‘The missionary man: Archbishop Anders Sunesen and the Baltic Crusade, 1206–21’, in Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier 1150–1500, ed. A.V. Murray (Aldershot 2001), pp. 95–117. 85 Cf. the verses in praise of Bishop Dietrich of Lübeck in Chapter 11 above, where Arnold listed the qualities manifest in an ideal prelate. 83

188

Book V

steadfast in doctrine that he lit the flame of Divine love among many, both clergy and laity, and by shining forth himself he everywhere scattered the light of the Word of God. Absolutely detesting avarice, which is the service of idols,86 he was careful not to take anything by force, but was content with his own things, and taught that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive’.87 19 The letter of Conrad the Chancellor. Nor is it wrong to place here for the edification of others a letter of Conrad the chancellor, which he wrote to us about the condition of Apulia and concerning the works and arts of Vergil. Conrad, by the grace of God, Bishop-elect of Hildesheim, legate of the imperial court in the kingdom of Sicily, to his beloved Hildebert, provost of the church of Hildesheim, greeting and profound love.88 Since the powerful hand of the Lord has up to now spread the rule of our most serene lord Henry, the most glorious Emperor of the Romans, always Augustus, and King of Sicily at sword point, so that those things which once when we were with you in the schools we heard of and dimly perceived as though in a mirror, we have now in truth seen face to face – and so we do not think it superfluous to write to you about them, to take away any doubt from your heart concerning all those things which seem quite frivolous or incredible to you, through seeing those things about which you have heard. We shall satisfy your wish so that those matters which have come down to you by hearsay and are matters of uncertainty may be established with complete assurance and will be clear to your inspection.89 Lest this seem difficult to you; there is no need to go beyond the frontiers of the empire, one need not go beyond the sphere of German lordship, to see places on which the poets spent a great deal of time.

86

Cf. Colossians, 3: 5. Acts, 20:35. 88 Conrad of Querfurt (for whom see above pp. 101–3) was bishop of Hildesheim 1194–8, and subsequently bishop of Würzburg, where he was murdered in December 1202. He was the younger son of Burchard II, Burgrave of Magdeburg, and had been appointed as an imperial chaplain and as provost of the church of SS Simon and Jude at Goslar in 1188, and as chancellor in 1194. He was left as governor of the kingdom of Sicily when Henry VI returned to Germany in the summer of 1195. Hartbert (or Heribert) of Dahlem, the provost, succeeded him as bishop of Hildesheim, 1199–1216; see Chronicon Hildesheimense, Continuatio, MGH SS vii.858–9. 89 Conrad here draws upon Horace, Ars Poetica, v. 180. 87

Book V

189

Among these, after we had first overcome in a difficult journey the Alpine snows, we first encountered: ‘Mantua, all too near to wretched Cremona’.90 Passing by these cities at rapid pace, ‘and the sufferings of Modena’, we [then] stood, not without admiration, ‘at the stream of little Rubicon’.91 While gazing upon its smallness with amazement, we admired the eloquence of Lucan, that most fluent of poets, who created so splendid a eulogy for such a humble thing. We would have been no less amazed that this, which was not even a little river but only a stream could strike fear into the mind of such a leader as Julius Caesar, one which never flinched from any danger, or pose any difficulty in crossing, had we not learned from what the inhabitants told us that this same Rubicon frequently swells through the addition of heavy rain and becomes a treacherous and fastflowing river.92 After crossing without difficulty, a piece of luck that Julius did not have, and passing by Pesaro, which has been called this from Antiquity from the weighing of gold, because gold was weighed and distributed there, in the form of solidi, to the Roman soldiers marching forth to fight foreign nations,93 we arrived at the city of Fano, where the soldiers who were setting out prayed at the temples of idols, traces of which are still there today, and promised votive offerings to the gods for their safe return.94 On returning victorious after defeating their enemies, they fulfilled their promises by rendering thanks there. Then climbing up the Apennine range, not without difficulty, we reached Sulmona, the homeland of Ovid, although this place is more famous because of the birth of this great poet than through a reputation for fertility, since we found it full not of riches but of icy waters. Hence this same Ovid said: ‘Sulmona is my homeland, most fruitful in icy waters’.95 Nor, to speak truthfully, did we find it any less cold, with heavy snows. Near that place we found some trees which seemed extraordinary to us. They claim that if someone cuts off one of their branches then that very same year he either succumbs to fate or does not escape the onset of a long and very serious fever. With regard to these, they claim – if this deserves credence – that the sisters of Phaeton were through the mercy of

90

Vergil, Eclogues, IX.28, quoted again below, p. 300. Lucan, Pharsalia, I. 41, 185. 92 In reality, Caesar’s hesitation in crossing the Rubicon had nothing to do with the size of the stream, but because it was the boundary between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy proper, and by crossing it he was declaring war on the Republic. 93 From the Latin pensare, ‘to weigh’, Italian pesare. 94 Latin fanum, ‘a temple’. 95 Ovid, Tristia, IV.x.3. 91

190

Book V the gods transformed into these [trees] after the tearful funeral rites of their brother.96 Then passing by the city of Chieti, where Thetis, the mother of Achilles, lived, we left the city of Nympha on our right, where from the pleasantness of the springs nymphs were imagined to exist and where they too are worshipped. We also saw Cannae, where so many thousands of noble Romans were slain by Hannibal, and the rings of those killed filled two modii, since at that time most nobles wore rings. We went by the city of Giovenazzo, which is called this as the birthplace of Jove, because Jupiter was born there. Also we do not want to pass over in silence that we went past the spring of Pegasus, the home of the Muses, from which you can now draw water and drink without charge, if this pleases you. The poets once devoted lengthy studies and much work to the taste of this spring. Now it is unnecessary to make the pilgrimage to the health-giving springs beyond Sarmatia or in the farthest Indies,97 for this spring is in our empire. Mount Parnassus is not far away from there, in which Deucalion and his wife repaired the harm to the human race after the flood through throwing a rock.98 There [too] is Mount Olympus, which is of such height that it seems to leave the other lofty mountains behind and indeed to have them at its feet. There [also] is Kaiano, which was the home of Janus and thus is called Caiano.99 We passed by the place called the head of Minerva,100 because it is here that Minerva was worshipped, going past too the rocky seashore which is called Palinurus, because there: ‘Palinurus lies naked in foreign sands’.101

96 Phaeton was in mythology the son of Helios, the Sun God, who after borrowing his father’s chariot and leaving a trail of destruction in his wake, was struck down by a thunderbolt from Zeus. The story is recounted in, among other sources, Ovid, Metamorphoses, I.755–779, although this version did not include the transformation of his sisters into poplars, found in other sources such as Diodorus Siculus and Statius, Thebaid. 97 Cf. Catullus, Carmina, 11, v. 2. 98 Ovid, Metamorphoses, I. 381–415; Vergil, Georgics, I vv. 62–3: Zeus had caused a flood, which destroyed all mankind except Deucalion and his wife: the rocks (in the plural) which they threw became people and repopulated the world. Although Mount Parnassus is in Greece, some versions of this story link it with Mount Etna. 99 Lappenberg, p. 177, suggests that this was Gaeta. 100 Punta di Campanella, at the tip of the Amalfitan peninsula. 101 Vergil, Aeneid, V v.871 (slightly misquoted). Palinurus was Aeneas’s helmsman, who died when he was washed overboard. Capo Palinuro is on the southern coast of Cilento, at the south of the principality of Salerno (and in the modern province of Lucania).

Book V

191

Aeneas is here recalling the shame which deservedly led the travellers to be submerged in the waters of Palinuro.102 We have also seen Naples, an elaborate work of Vergil, about which the threads of the Fates have wonderfully explained to us, that we ought by imperial order to destroy the walls of this city, which the philosopher [i.e., Vergil] founded and built. Nor do the citizens of that city benefit from an image of this same place enclosed in a glass flask with a very narrow neck by this same Vergil through magical art, in the security of which they have such great faith that [they believe that] provided this same flask remains whole the city can suffer no harm. We have both the flask and the city in our power, and we have destroyed the walls, while the flask remains whole. But perhaps, since the flask has a tiny crack, it has harmed the city. In this same city there is a horse of bronze, cast by Vergil with magic incantations, so that provided it remains whole no horse can have its back broken, since from a natural weakness that is a characteristic of that land, both before the construction of that [bronze] horse and after that same horse had suffered some minor damage, no horse could carry a rider more than a short distance without suffering a broken back.103 There is there [too] a most strong gate, built to be just like a castle, having brass sections, which imperial servants now hold, in which Vergil placed a bronze fly, and while this remains whole not one fly can enter the city.104 The bones of Vergil are also there in a castle on the edge of the city, which is surrounded on all sides by the sea.105 If they are exposed to the fresh air, the atmosphere becomes completely dark, the sea is churned from its depths, and surging gusts of wind and a roaring storm springs up out of nowhere. This we ourselves have seen and witnessed. Baiae is nearby, a place which [ancient] authors mention, where there are the baths of Vergil, which are useful remedies for the ailments of the body. Among these there is one principal and major bath, in which there are images, nowadays much damaged by age, showing the ailments afflicting each of the various parts of the body. There are plaster images at

102 This interpretation seems to be a medieval misreading of the Aeneid, in which the death of Palinurus was a sacrifice required by the gods to ensure the Trojans’ safe arrival in Italy: Aeneid, V.814–15. 103 This was apparently melted down in 1322, Domenico Comparetti, Virgil in the Middle Ages, trans. E.F.M. Benecke (London 1895), p. 268. 104 Cf. John of Salisbury, Policraticus, I.4 [Policraticus I–IV, ed. K.S.B. KeatsRohan (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis 118, Turnhout 1993), p. 34]; and Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, Recreation for an Emperor, ed. and trans. S.E. Banks and J.W. Binns (Oxford 2002), III.10, pp. 576–7. 105 Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperiala, III.112, pp. 802–5, tells a story of how the bones were discovered and placed in the castle – the Castello d’Ovo – during the time of King Roger (d. 1154). He said that: ‘they are exhibited there behind iron gratings, to anyone who wants to see them’.

192

Book V each and every bath showing what particular ailment each of them benefits.106 Also there is the palace of the Sybil, a group of elaborate buildings in which there is a bath, which nowadays is called the Sybil’s bath. There is here [too] the palace from which Helena was allegedly stolen by Paris. We also passed by the island of Chiros, on which Thetis placed her son Achilles, since she feared the threats of the fates and the ambushes of the Greeks.107 Then, travelling through the fastnesses of Calabria, with some difficulty, to reach Sicily we passed through Scylla and Charybdis, not without great fear, for no man, however stout of body, can ever cross through that place without dread.108 Then, on our first arrival in Sicily, we saw the house of Daedalus, built at the peak of a mountain, in which the Minotaur was imprisoned and redeemed the infamy of his mother through a life of darkness. As a result this place is now called Taormina, from the Minotaur, or as if it is ‘the walls of the bull’ (tauri menia). From the seed of this bull Pasiphae gave birth to the Minotaur.109 There are there the complex remains of the foundations and the ruins of the house’s walls, of an intricate design, as we saw. The sea nearby is called the sea of Icarus, because Icarus there, sailing through the air with the wings as oars, against the nature of man,110 forgot his father’s order and wretchedly finished the last day of his life. We then approached Mount Etna, in which Vulcan, the smith of Jove, with his servants the giants, built the thunderbolts of Jove. In this mountain, indeed, there is a most terrible furnace from which a huge fire bursts out, and instead of cinders great stones come forth, burning like iron slag. At the present day these cover the whole face of the earth for a day’s journey around it, which not only makes the whole of that province unsuitable for

106 Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, III.16, pp. 586–7, discusses these baths, which he suggests were at Pozzuoli, on the other side of the bay, rather than Baiae. He said that the people of Salerno had recently defaced the inscriptions. 107 Here Conrad (or his source) seems to confuse the Isole Sirenuse (Li Galli) off the Amalfitan peninsula with the Aegean island of Skyros in the Sporades, where according to Statius, Achilleid, from the first century BC, Thetis hid Achilles from the king’s court dressed as a girl. 108 The Straits of Messina. 109 Taormina (Tauromenium) was apparently named from its foundation, in the early fourth century BC, on Monte Tauro, but the Minotaur legend was derived from Crete. Conrad would presumably have been familiar with this legend and the related story of Daedalus and Icarus from Ovid, Ars Amandi, I, lines 289–326, and II, lines 21–98, and Metamorphoses, VIII.151–235. 110 Based on Vergil, Aeneid, I.300–1, per aera magnum remigio alarum: cf. also Ovid, Ars Amandi, II.44: ‘Who would have believed that man could ever sail the heavenly seas?’ Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, II.12, pp. 330–3, correctly locates the sea of Icarus off Crete.

Book V

193

cultivation, but the number of the aforesaid stones means that it is quite impossible for travellers to cross. Indeed, that hardy manufacturer of thunderbolts had need of coals of such a sort that they could not be easily blown away by the vast blasts of air from his bellows. There is [too] on the slope of the aforesaid Mount Etna a place that is both fortified and pleasant, to which the goddess Ceres, concerned for her one and only child, consigned, not without tears, her only daughter Proserpine. There is here a cleft in the earth, by no means small, inside which it is horrendously dark and obscure. This is where Pluto is alleged to have burst forth, seeking to carry Proserpine away.111 The aforesaid furnace of Etna has existed back to the time of the virgin Agatha. On one occasion when it erupted even more strongly than usual, so that it covered all the surface of the earth [round about], and many thousands of men were slain through the violence of the flames, the Saracens – who had seen the many miracles accomplished through the merits of the blessed Agatha – held up the veil of this same virgin against the flames, and these flames retreated from it as though propelled by the winds, and retreated back into the bowels of the earth,112 nor did this appear thereafter in Sicily, but rather this fire transferred itself to a certain crag overlooking the sea, where even today a mass of flames and cinders is thrown forth unceasingly. Hence this same crag is called Vulcano by the populace, because Vulcan, the smith of Jove, is believed by simple people to have taken himself from Etna to this same crag. The city of Syracuse is not far from this place, about which Vergil said: ‘my first muse saw fit to play in the poetry of Syracusan’.113 On the sea shore next to this city arises the fountain of Arethusa, she who first duly revealed the Rape of Proserpine to her distraught mother. Alpheus glides nearby to the fountain of Arethusa – he arises in Arabia and flows through the sea all the way to Sicily; and there he tries to mix with the waters of Arethusa, keeping his love pristine for her whom he loved while she was alive, [thus] he strives to mix with her waters after her transformation.114 We have [also] seen thermal springs here, which are often mentioned by our authors, and we have seen the three promontories of Sicily: Peloro, Passero and Lilibeo.115

111

Ovid, Metamorphoses, V.385–424. Based upon the Greek life of St Agatha, Acta Sanctorum, February I (Paris 1863), c. 5, pp. 635–6; although the pagans here were not ‘Saracens’, but the third/ fourth century Graeco-Roman inhabitants. 113 Eclogues, VI. 1–2. 114 For the legend of Arethusa and the river god Alpheus, Ovid, Metamorphoses, V. 572–641. 115 Hence the alternative name for Sicily, Trinacria – the three-cornered island; see Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, II.12, p. 332. 112

194

Book V We have seen Saracens here, who kill poisonous animals with their spittle alone. We shall briefly explain how this power has been implanted in them. The Apostle Paul was shipwrecked, and landed on the island of Capri, which in the Acts of the Apostles is called Melita, and after he and a number of others had escaped [drowning] they were kindly received by the inhabitants of that land.116 And when a heap of brushwood was piled up to make a fire for those who had been shipwrecked, a snake which he [St Paul] had carried in the brushwood, fleeing the heat of the fire, slithered out and fastened on the hand of St Paul with his fangs, wounding him with a poisoned bite. Seeing this, the inhabitants said: ‘No doubt this man is a sinner or criminal, and not worthy to live, for though God has saved him from the danger of shipwreck, he has placed the punishment of a worse death upon him’. However, the undaunted Paul shook his hand free, and was immediately healed. Amazed by this, the Saracens began to worship Paul.117 Hence through the merits of Paul, and as a reward for the kindness of Paul’s host, it has been granted to his sons and grandsons up until the present day that they might kill poisonous creatures with their spittle alone. And wherever they might roam in their solitary wanderings, no poisonous creature comes near, nor does any snake dare to touch them. Hence, when anyone [there] gives birth to a son, he is placed alone in a little boat with a snake and allowed to sail in the little boat for a long time. If afterwards the father recovers the boy unharmed, he knows that he is the father and he clasps the boy to his bosom with paternal love. If, however, he finds him wounded, he immediately rends him limb from limb, and condemns his wife to punishment as an adulteress. We call to mind that there is a certain gate at Naples which is called the Iron Gate, in which Vergil enclosed all the snakes of that region, which because of the underground buildings and crypts, of which there are so many there, are abundant. We were afraid only of this gate among all the rest, in case the snakes enclosed might escape from their prison and harm the land and its inhabitants.118 There is in this same city a meat market built by Vergil in such a way that the flesh from a dead animal may remain

116

Acts, 28: 1–2. The island was actually Malta. This passage paraphrases Acts 28: 3–6, although Conrad assumes that the inhabitants were Saracens (Muslims), which the inhabitants of Malta still largely were in the 1190s, but not of course in the time of St Paul. 118 The implication seems to be that whereas the other gates were destroyed along with the city walls, the Germans were afraid to destroy this one, lest the snakes allegedly confined there escaped. Gervase of Tilbury mentioned this same legend, but called the gate the Porta Dominica, facing towards Nola, Otia Imperialia, III.12, pp. 578–9. 117

Book V

195

there for six weeks fresh and incorrupt – should it be taken out it stinks and appears decayed.119 Close to the city is Mount Vesuvius, from which fire, carrying many stinking cinders, is blown forth, usually about once a decade. Against this, Vergil set up a bronze figure, holding a bow at the ready, with an arrow fitted to the string. A peasant was admiring this, and because the bow, although always threatening had never been fired, he pulled the string. The arrow was fired and struck the mouth of the mountain, and immediately flames shot forth, and nor, as hitherto, were these eruptions confined [only] to regular times.120 There is an island before this same city, which is called by the people Ischia, in which fire and sulphurous smoke is continuously vomited forth, so that a certain fortress which lies near was little by little destroyed, both the stonework and even the rock [on which it was situated], and now there are no traces of a castle here. It is most strongly asserted here that this is the mouth of hell, and they allege [too] that this is a place of punishment. It is also claimed that Aeneas descended to the infernal depths here.121 Around this place on Saturdays at about the ninth hour one sees birds, black with filth and sulphurous smoke, land in a certain valley where they rest throughout the Sunday, and in the evening they leave with a lot of grief and lamentation, not to return until the following Saturday, and they descend into a boiling lake. Some people believe that these troubled creatures are spirits or demons. There is here Monte Barbaro, to which we went through an underground road through the midst of this great mountain, through awful darkness, as if we were about to descend to the underworld. In the bowels of this mountain there are palaces and dwellings, like those of a great city, underground, and rivers flowing underground, which some of us have seen, who went under the ground for a distance of about two miles. The treasures of seven kings are alleged to be buried there, which demons guard, [who are] enclosed in brazen images. These images take various fearful forms: some with bows taut, others with swords, and others still in threatening postures. We have seen these and many other things, although we cannot remember every one.122

119

Cf. Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, III.12, pp. 576–9. The version of Gervase of Tilbury was somewhat different. He claimed that Vergil had set up a statue of a man with a trumpet on Monte Vergine, which would miraculously blow to change the direction of the wind when there was an eruption, until the statue ‘either perished from age or was destroyed in a spiteful act of jealousy’, Otia Imperialia, III.13, pp. 582–5. 121 Vergil, Aeneid, VI.236 et seq., although this says that Aeneas entered the underworld at Misenum, which is on the mainland opposite Ischia. 122 Monte Barbaro, sometimes known as Monte Gauro, is a volcanic cone in the Phlegraen Fields, west of Naples and near Baia. 120

196

Book V

20 About the marriage of Duke Henry and the emperor’s second expedition to Apulia. Seeking the help of the king,123 Duke Henry sent his son of the same name to him, so as not to leave his side until he had through him recovered all the land beyond the Elbe. The king indeed offered him encouragement, but not however that which was to be fulfilled. For his hopes grew less from day to day, and it became clear that his negotiations with the king would achieve nothing practical. These events brought the duke’s son close to desperation, and so he decided to take another way, which was to seek the grace of the emperor, even though this would not result in the restitution of his paternal honour.124 For since he was of distinguished birth, noble courage, handsome in appearance and highly regarded, he secured the daughter of the count palatine of the Rhine as his wife. Although the count was the emperor’s uncle, the emperor fiercely opposed this union. The count claimed that this had taken place without his consent, and strove to soften the emperor’s attitude with cunning persuasion. And since a legitimate marriage could not be dissolved, little by little, and with the mediation of his father-in-law the young count palatine worked his way into the emperor’s grace. At that time the emperor was organising a second expedition to Apulia, and during the journey the duke’s son did everything he could to please him, not so much to secure the emperor’s grace but that he might receive his father-in-law’s dignity from the emperor’s hand as a benefice.125 Then a new light arose

123

Of Denmark. That is, the duchy of Saxony. 125 Conrad, Count Palatine of the Rhine, was the half-brother of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Henry the Younger married his daughter and heiress Agnes, who was then only about thirteen, towards the end of 1193; Conrad’s only son having predeceased him. The account in the Annales Stederbergenses, MGH SS xvi.227, 229, supports what is said here, and makes clear that the marriage was hurried and semisecret, while the count palatine was away at the emperor’s court (although this does not necessarily absolve him of prior knowledge). The annalist ascribes a key role, however, to his wife Irmgard. Certainly, Gerhard, the author of these annals, supports Arnold in saying that Conrad did his best to persuade the emperor to forgo his opposition to the marriage. Henry’s participation in the expedition to southern Italy was certainly the price he paid for this, and his succession to Conrad, who died in July 1195, may have been dependant on his taking part in the emperor’s forthcoming Crusade. G.A. Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, Crusades 13 (2014), 161–2. Peace between the emperor and duke was agreed after they met in Thuringia, at Conrad’s urgings, in March 1194. Agnes died in May 1204, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.354. There is also a very fanciful account of the marriage by William of Newburgh, Historia Regum Anglicarum, II.32, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, 124

Book V

197

in Saxony,126 namely the joyfulness of peace, since from that time onwards he served the emperor so faithfully that thereafter he refused to do anything against him. And so everywhere, on land and water, plundering, theft and highway robbery ceased, and robbers and men of blood groaned aloud, since their cursed fruit perished.127 Blessed be this marriage, and blessed be this same woman among women, and ‘blessed be the fruit of her womb’,128 since in this union peace and joy was given to the land; then they opened the gates of towns and castles which had for a long time been shut, they ceased to guard them, those who had formerly been enemies came together as friends, and merchants and peasants freely travelled about. The elder duke was busy with various matters, in particular with what pertained to the adornment of the house of God, and also to his own residence in Brunswick, and he passed the rest of his life quietly. The emperor meanwhile journeyed to Apulia and prospered on his way, for with his enemy Tancred having died, he obtained rule over the whole kingdom of William.129 After entering his palace, he found the beds, seats and tables there all made out of silver, and the utensils of purest gold. He also discovered hidden treasures, precious stones and glorious jewels, so that he triumphantly sent [no less than] one hundred and fifty pack-horses loaded with gold and silver, precious stones and silk vestments back to his homeland. Moreover, when he reached the lands of Germany, an envoy of the empress – who had remained in Apulia – arrived, having followed him at top speed, announcing that all the treasures of King Roger had been found.130 For there was an old woman with the empress who had been in the service of King

Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett (4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1884–90), i.385–6, which suggests that King Philip II of France was keen to marry Agnes, but was forestalled by her mother. For an extended discussion, Andrea Briechle, Heinrich von Braunschweig. Bilder eines welfischen Fürsten an der Wende vom 12. zum 13. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg 2013), pp. 45–68. 126 Cf. Helmold, Cronica, I.41, p. 83: ‘in the days of the Caesar Lothar a new light arose not only in Saxony but throughout the kingdom’, referring to the beginnings of Vizelin’s missionary work among the Slavs. Arnold used this metaphor again in Bk. VII.15 [below, p. 293] with regard to Otto IV. 127 Cf. Deuteronomy, 28: 18; ‘the men of blood’ reflects Psalm, 54: 24 (Vulgate), 55: 23 (AV). 128 Luke, 1: 42, copying Elizabeth’s words to the Virgin Mary. 129 Tancred of Lecce, the rival King of Sicily, had died on 20 February 1194, leaving the kingdom to his younger son William (III), then only a child – his elder son Roger having predeceased him in December 1193. Henry VI was crowned king of Sicily in Palermo cathedral on Christmas Day 1194. 130 Roger (II), Count of Sicily from 1105, later the first King of Sicily (1130–54), the empress’s father.

198

Book V

Roger. She recognised his treasury from a very few things which by diligent search were discovered in a very ancient wall, although it had seemed to be concealed from everyone by the wall plaster and pictures covering it. When through her revelation the emperor was apprised of this, he sent a message to the empress, saying: ‘With regard to these treasures which you think that I want, you ought to know that I am not at this time coming back to Apulia’. He was indeed a most generous emperor. Since God wished to endow him, He gave him these hidden treasures, which he distributed widely and unceasingly, not however prodigally, and not to the better sort or the nobles, but to knights and to common people. He was not slow to give to the poor, and he conducted himself in all matters not only wisely but soberly and religiously. 21 The return of Hartwig of Bremen to his see. At this same time the lord Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen, who had been driven out by the people of Bremen,131 returned to his see with the support of the clergy and the agreement of some of his ministeriales. There had been a great deal of opposition to the archbishop in the Roman Curia, for the reasons described above, and also at the emperor’s court, to deprive him of his office and benefice. But since his enemies laboured in vain, because the lord Pope Celestine held him in his hand, the dispute died down and he returned in peace to his church. The hostility to him had [previously] grown to such an extent that with the agreement of the emperor the whole church had joined together to choose the lord Waldemar of Schleswig, to whose election they had consented. Matters had gone so far that the men of Bremen had arranged various matters in Waldemar’s name, and they placed his picture and inscription on their coins.132 However, because of this election Waldemar was regarded with suspicion by King Cnut and his friends; and since Cnut was in dispute with the emperor, he decided for that reason to do his best to frustrate the attempts

131

See above, Chapter 11. As Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches’, p. 508, points out, Arnold’s phraseology here was extremely careful, since although he disapproved of Archbishop Hartwig he was well aware that Waldemar’s election was uncanonical. The issue was made explicit in a later letter of Innocent III to King Waldemar II in January 1206: ‘since the canonical sanctions of the holy fathers expressly prohibit anyone from usurping the position of one who is still alive, before that same person has been deprived of it by canonical censure’. Ironically, here he was referring to the king’s attempt to hold a new election to replace Waldemar as Bishop of Schleswig, Die Register Innocenz’ III. 8 Pontifikatsjahr, 1205/1206, eds O. Hageneder and A. Sommerlechner (Vienna 2001), pp. 333–6 no. 194. 132

Book V

199

of the emperor’s bishop to secure the archbishopric. And since ‘every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation’,133 Waldemar was unable to remain in the kingdom, for he realised that he would have no peace with the king. The citizens [of Bremen] were, however, reluctant to welcome back the lord Hartwig, for they said that he had not returned through the wish of the emperor, whom he had offended. Hence they tried to prevent the return to him of the city, which the emperor had placed in their hands. The archbishop, however, claimed that he had entered it not through his own decision but with the emperor’s consent, and that he was fully restored to the latter’s grace. To support this assertion, he brought Adolf, the lord Archbishop of Cologne, into the matter; the latter took his part and sent letters and envoys to say that this was so.134 But the citizens, who had received a mandate from the emperor, protested that arrangements could not be changed without genuine letters and envoys to make the situation clear. 22 About the excommunication imposed by the archbishop because of his revenues. Therefore, on hearing of the arrival of the lord Hartwig, Count Adolf came to Bremen, both to congratulate him on his entry [to the city] and wishing to find out if he had made his entry at the emperor’s behest or by some other means. For when Hartwig had been expelled, he had striven in every way both through the emperor and the church of Bremen that he might return to his former position. He was now extremely pleased, and because of this change of circumstances expected some reward. Arriving at Bremen, he then heard what was being said there, and was displeased that the archbishop had not ‘entered by the door’.135 Thus it was decided by him and the citizens, and the other friends of the lord emperor, that when the lord archbishop wanted to make any arrangements in the city, even in ecclesiastical matters, this should be tolerated for no more than a day, or at most two. He should not, however, have access to his revenues, which had been placed under interdict, until they had reported what had happened to Caesar and found out what his wishes were. This decision greatly displeased the lord Hartwig and his men, for the archbishop thought that he now had every right to take control of the revenues of his see. Indeed, he launched serious accusations against Count 133

Luke, 11: 17. Adolf of Altena, Archbishop of Cologne 1193–1205, 1212–14, who had succeeded his uncle Bruno (III) as archbishop. Twice deposed as archbishop, he died in April 1220. Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 79–80, 437. 135 John, 10: 1: ‘He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbed up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber’. 134

200

Book V

Adolf, who on the emperor’s instructions was holding on not merely to the county of Stade but to a large part of the property of the see, and he denounced him as an invader of the church. Seeing that he was likely to have ecclesiastical censure laid unjustly upon him, Count Adolf appealed to the Apostolic See. The lord archbishop then summoned an ecclesiastical council, and took its advice on what he should do about this matter, or rather what judgement the Church should make. After receiving its response, he excommunicated his enemies, and suspended the Divine services, not just in the cathedral but throughout his whole diocese, and as a result not only was the church itself seriously harmed but the anger of his enemies against him was greatly increased. For since ‘the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light’,136 they did their best to cause Hartwig injury because of his sentence. Coming to Bremen while the archbishop was absent, and after interposing his appeal according to the law, Adolf claimed that he had been unjustly excommunicated, for he said that he had not taken the revenues of the church, which the lord emperor had placed under interdict while he was still on his pilgrimage,137 and that after his return he would have consigned these to the archbishop’s hands, had the lord emperor not once more forbidden this through his authority. He said, indeed, that he deserved the archbishop’s grace rather than his anger, for he had always remained faithful and devoted not only to him but to the church as a whole, and it was through his efforts that St Peter had recovered not only Stade, but also the men of Dittmarsch who had transferred themselves to the rule of the Danish king. These disputes caused no little disturbance to the church from his followers, and thus it was pleasing to those who wished [the church ill], for those who were allies of the count said that this excommunication was invalid because of his recourse to the appeal; those who were of the archbishop’s party could not contradict this, but they claimed that the excommunication of the count was for other reasons.138 He however claimed that he had been excommunicated because of the appeal. After the city of Bremen had suffered from this pestilential dispute for a long time, and the

136

Luke, 16: 8. That is, while he was absent on the Third Crusade, 1189–90. By placing them ‘under interdict’ this does not, of course, mean imposing an ecclesiastical sanction upon them, which the emperor had no right to do, but placing them under embargo, or confiscating them from the archbishop. 138 The dispute was explained in detail in two bulls of Celestine III; of 10 February 1195 commissioning the Bishops of Münster and Osnabrück, and the Abbot of Radstadt, to act as papal judges delegate, and a second from 3 March 1195 to the Archbishop and Dean of Cologne, Hamburgische Urkundenbuch, i. (786–1300), ed. J.M. Lappenberg (Hamburg 1842), 266–7 no. 304, 268–9 no. 306. 137

Book V

201

stench of the bodies lying unburied in the cemeteries was harming many people, the sentence was relaxed, so that services were resumed in the cathedral and the city flocked there. However, the count, along with the advocate of the city and some of the leading men who collected the revenues, remained under the ban, and the Divine service was not to be celebrated in their presence. Even this situation still caused scandal. For since these men remained adamant in denying that they had been [properly] excommunicated, they continued to take communion not only in Hamburg but in all the parishes and castles of its region. Others in Bremen forced the people to use the church outside the town, since it lacked funds, and celebrated services there in defiance of the archbishop and the canons, and ‘the last error was worse than the first’.139 What shall I say of these canons? Having fled from their own homes, they were allowed entry neither to the church nor to the claustral offices, because of those who said: ‘You are disloyal to the emperor; you want to surrender the city, so we shall not allow you in the city’. All this happened because of the emperor’s absence, since he was then in Apulia. On his return the lord archbishop purchased his grace for 600 marks, and the count received the county of Stade as a benefice, along with a third of the revenues.140 All the excommunications were lifted, fully and completely. 23 The translation of Bishop Bernward of Hildesheim. It was during these days that the lord Dietrich, Abbot of St Michael the Archangel of Hildesheim, went to Rome to the tombs of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, honouring their memory with great devotion. He also at this same time humbly requested that through their vicar, the lord Pope Celestine, and by the authority of the holy Roman Church, Bernward, the former Bishop of Hildesheim, the original founder of the monastery of St Michael, and now to be venerated as its patron before God, be enrolled into the catalogue of the saints.141 Through the sanctity of this man who was laying in his tomb

139

Matthew, 27: 64. Hamburgische Urkundenbuch, i.270–1 no. 307 (24 October 1195), also edited Vorabedition Urkunden Heinrichs VI. für deutsche, französiche und Italienische Empfänger [online edition], pp. 319–21, no. 477. 141 Bernward, Bishop of Hildesheim 993–1022, who before his appointment as bishop had been the tutor of the young Otto III. He was commemorated in a biography attributed to a priest of his cathedral school called Thankmar, Vita Bernwardi Episcopi Hildesheimensis, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS, iv.757–82, although there has been considerable debate as to whether this was a genuine eleventh-century text, written soon after the bishop’s death, or whether it was in fact confected as part of 140

202

Book V

[there], it was attested that demons had been put to flight, the blind given sight, and the lame cured. Furthermore the whole church came and honoured his holy body when he was translated from the dust. The Holy Roman Church, out of devotion to him, or rather through agreement with a just petition, gave devout assent to the arguments from all those making postulations, and ordered this bishop to be canonised, not only on account of the most devoted supplication of the abbot but also because of the intercession of the lord cardinal Cinthius, so that after his body had been raised from his tomb he should be venerated in the prayers of the faithful, and the Holy Church might rank him among those whose merits would undoubtedly be recognised before God.142 This same cardinal had been sent to deal with some difficult matters in Denmark, and as he was returning home after completing his business, he made a diversion to this church of St Michael the Archangel.143 There he had most amicable discussions with the aforesaid abbot and brothers of this place and he realised again and again how much they wanted to accomplish the translation of the saint, and so with his advice and help they obtained what they had desired for so long. Therefore, after the cardinal had recommended the abbot and his church a number of times in the pope’s presence, not only did he obtain what he wanted with regard to the translation of the bishop, but also that the abbot was deemed worthy of being honoured by certain marks of favour from the lord pope. Thus he obtained the right to wear a mitre and episcopal ring during services, and through a most generous privilege he obtained everything that he desired for his church.144 Having been thus honoured by the supreme pontiff, and after receiving a letter about the translation of the aforementioned saint, and having undergone the many difficulties of the journey, he returned joyfully home. Coming then into the presence of Berno the lord bishop and his whole chapter, he produced the lord pope’s letter in their midst.145 This was read out and welcomed by everyone, for it was pleasing to all of them not only because

the canonisation process. Knut Görich and Hans Henning Kortüm, ‘Otto III, Thangmar und die Vita Bernwardi’, Mitteilungen des Instituts österreichische Geschichtsforschung 98 (1990), 1–57; Marcus Stumpf, ‘Zum Quellenwert von Thangmars Vita Bernwardi’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 53 (1997), 461–96. 142 The hearing in Rome took place on 19 December 1192, Germania Pontificia, V/2 Provincia Maguntinensis, Pars vi, ed. H. Jakobs (Göttingen 2005), 87 no. 13a; the bull of canonisation was issued on 8 January 1193, Acta Pontificorum Romanorum Inedita, ed. Julius von Pflugk-Harttung (3 vols, Leipzig 1880–6), i.360–1 no. 419. 143 For his legation, see above V.11 and note 30. His visit to Hildesheim was in the autumn of 1192. 144 Pflugk-Harttung, Acta, i.361–2 no. 421 (21 January 1193); a further privilege on 27 January confirmed the property and rights of the see, ibid., i.362–4 no. 422. 145 Berno, Bishop of Hildesheim 1190–4, previously the cathedral dean.

Book V

203

of the revelation of such a great treasure but because of this man’s devotion and also the glorification of the city of the most glorious Mary Mother of God. Thus the church was gathered together, the translation of the relics was discussed, and a day was chosen for this business. But he who hates all good men, lest an innocent should accomplish something which would add to his damnation,146 did his best to hinder this matter. For the lord bishop and those of wiser counsel had decreed that the tomb should be opened and that they would reverently gather up the relics in the morning, [thus] preventing any disturbance among the people, so that the procession might proceed without hindrance. But he changed his mind, and went in secret to the tomb, accompanied by the abbot and only a few monks, before dawn, opened the shrine, collected these bones which were full of power in a clean linen cloth, and then leaving them under guard returned to his dwelling. When what had taken place was revealed next morning, the brothers of the cathedral chapter were much upset by this, and said: ‘we want no part in these relics, which have been tainted by the [other] bones of the dead in the silence of the night’. And a man said to his friend: Who will guarantee to me that I shall not have put before me the head or shoulder blades or shin-bones of a lecher or some other sort of sinner? These ceremonies are nothing to do with us, let us go back home.

To the bishop they said: ‘since you have failed us in this matter, we shall take no part in what you are doing today’. These disputes held up the translation, and the people who had come from afar became bored, with the result that some went away disappointed, while others indeed remained, but not without scandal. This problem arose, in my opinion, for the following reason. There had previously been some of the more straight-forward brothers in this monastery, who knowing the virtues of the blessed bishop, which he had displayed both in life and after his death, held his tomb in great veneration; hence they were of the opinion that he should be translated in the most appropriate manner, and they ardently wanted to be enriched by his relics which they valued above gold and topaz. Thus after taking counsel with the guardians of the church, they opened the tomb in secret and brought out the relics, and gazing on them in their containers (loculis), they venerated, honoured and adored them with psalm singing, masses and other little prayers. Reports of this veneration spread and it became known to many people, but as it became known it caused displeasure, for it was actually considered not to be devotion but rather the gravest presumption.

146

There are echoes here of Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, II.10.

204

Book V

Those honouring the relics became scared, wishing that they had not done what they had, but that everything had been different – so they most carefully and discreetly put back the treasure which they had purloined. Knowing this, the monks feared [even] to approach the relics ceremonially; they would therefore only do so with the bishop [there]. However, since their motives were unknown to him, he did what he did in good faith, so that pressure upon the people performing the translation might be avoided. Through such machinations the originator of evil, so it is said, almost prevented the translation of these holy relics, for some days earlier he had boasted of what he would do through a man who was possessed. But through the intervention of religious men, a great many of whom were gathered there, concord, the mother of virtues, gained the upper hand among them. The bishop confirmed on oath that he would not have done what was done except for the peace of the Church, while the monks swore that they had brought forth nothing except genuine relics. Thus when the treasure of the holy body was produced, there was general rejoicing, the singing of the people resounded, and there was jostling between those bringing gifts and those asking help from this great patron. The relics of the bishop were carried into the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary,147 in which this same bishop had in his own time so frequently glorified this queen with divinely-inspired songs of praise in her honour. And because he praised her as was appropriate, she made him great within the Church of God. So after the praises of God had been completed, his head and right arm were placed in the treasury of the church, and the head was indeed much embellished with precious jewels and yellow gold of the finest workmanship,148 while the rest of the body was taken to the church of St Michael the Archangel. This translation was performed, and not without evidence of wonders, by Bishop Berno in the sixth year of his pontificate, in the year from the Incarnation of the Word 1194, while at Rome the lord Pope Celestine presided, in the fourth year of his pontificate, while the pious Emperor Henry ruled, in the seventh year of his reign after the death of his father, who had passed away gloriously during his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, in his fourth year as emperor, and 188 years after the burial of the aforementioned saint.149 And the name of our Lord Jesus Christ was praised and glorified by the people of every nation who in our times wished thus to be exalted through His saints. May His kingdom and empire remain without end for ever and ever. Amen.

147

That is the cathedral. That is, it was enclosed in a golden, jewelled reliquary. 149 Since Bernward had died in November 1022, this last figure ought to be 172. Similarly it was four rather than seven years from the death of Frederick Barbarossa. The translation took place on 16 August 1194. 148

Book V

205

24 About the deaths of Bishop Berno and Duke Henry. During these days Bishop Berno of Schwerin died, who was the first prelate to bear this title, for what is now Schwerin was once, in the time of the Ottonians, called Magnopolitanus. The see was translated from there because of fear of the Slavs, by whom the bishop had often been attacked. Berno was appointed as a bishop for them by Duke Henry,150 and he was the leading teacher of Catholic doctrine to them in our times. He endured many blows from them, so that he was often held in derision and forced to [attend] sacrifices to demons. The bishop was, however, strengthened by Christ and extirpated the cults of demons, cutting down the sacred groves and substituting veneration for Bishop Gotthard for Godrac.151 It was therefore pleasing to the faithful that the bishop finished the course of this earthly struggle with a good end. After his passing the lord Brunward, dean of this same church, was raised to the pontifical honour.152 Around this time [too] that most famous duke, Henry, died at Brunswick, and like Solomon, left nothing of all his labour, which he had left under the sun,153 apart from a noteworthy enough burial next to his wife Matilda in the church of St Blaise, bishop and martyr.154 For as Solomon makes clear, there is one fate that happens to all, and the same end happens to the wise and the fool, and ‘the wise man dies along with the fool’.155 In all these things, however, and above all, blessed be God on high, since ‘his name shall be continued as long as the sun’.156 O praiseworthy prince, now rejoicing in Heaven You were the man who fostered peace. Now the King of kings, Who alone reigns on high, grants you true riches.

150

See Helmold, Cronica, I.88, p. 173, trans. Tschan, p. 234 (c.1155). St Gotthard, Bishop of Hildesheim 1022–38. This implies that Godrac/Gutdracco was one of the leading deities of the pagan West Slavs. However, the name presents some problems, for it appears to have been an alternative name for the River Warnow, see Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, ii.1168–9. So was Arnold referring to a genuine river deity of the pagan Slavs, or was this simply a piece of misguided amateur folk-ethnology? 152 Berno died on 27 January, either in 1190 or 1191. Brunward was Bishop of Schwerin c.1191–1238. 153 Ecclesiastes, 2: 18. 154 Henry the Lion died on 6 August 1195, and was buried in Brunswick cathedral. There is a more detailed account of his last illness and burial in the Annales Stederbergenses, MGH SS xvi.230–1, which said that he died at the age of sixty-six. 155 Cf. Ecclesiastes, 2: 14–16. 156 Psalm, 71: 17 (Vulgate), 72: 17 (AV). 151

206

Book V Your virtue and piety shines forth far and wide, Your nobility of morals, combined with the flower of grace. You made the Slavs submit to the worship of Christ, Those who madly disdained it through the ministers of Satan [Now] were happy to raise their faces to the worship of Christ. In accordance with your beliefs, you are the builder of many churches. There are no people who does not admire you, Nor do not [think] good things [about you] while at worship. You knew far-flung places, which gave their gifts to you. Greece has glorified you, Jerusalem with its king and patriarch, Seeing all your pious vows, pays honour to you. Black sadness is not banished by these virtues; But instead of secular burdens you acquire future benefits. Along with your wife there will come to you many heavenly rewards, Which pious offering encourages willing service to Christ. The blessing of offspring lasts with gifts from on high, And those whom you have engendered will now rule at the pleasure of Christ.157

25 The second pilgrimage. ‘For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.’158 Indeed, on account of our sins, which every day increased among us, the time of mercy still did not come. For Sion was in captivity and up to now trampled underfoot by the Gentiles. But rise up, O Lord, and have mercy on Sion, and would that the time for showing His mercy would come upon you! It is to be presumed, however, from Your mercy, O most pious Father, that a time of mercy will come soon. For how many of your sons, O Lord, were involved in the former pilgrimage for the redemption of Sion, how many kings and glorious and sublime princes, giving themselves and their goods, suffered exile and death on your account? And even though not all persevered with equal devotion, you still found among your people, whom you chose, a willing sacrifice. What shall I say about the order of the glorious bishops? They laboured with utter devotion in this pilgrimage and gave an example to many, and they encouraged them both by preaching and by their actions. Priests offering salutary sacrifices by their ministry and exhortations greatly strengthened the people of God with the harmony of the canons. Let the devotion of Your spouse, namely Holy Church, be pleasing to

157 158

Verse (in the original) in dactylic hexameters. Isaiah, 5:25.

Book V

207

you, O Christ, let Your faithful please [you], even if their works are less than perfect, for You have found faith in Israel! For we know no other God in whom we trust than You, O Lord, since even if you are justly angered at times, because of this [devotion] you will still be favourable, nor in your anger will you abandon your mercy. Now therefore the sons of earthly men, rich and poor as one, please the Lord, take up the armour of God, namely the sign of the most victorious Cross to fight against His enemies, both visible and invisible! Listen to the encouragement of the Psalmist: ‘Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your heart’.159 The pious emperor, Henry, so we hope, heard this voice. Although he was not publicly signed with the Cross, we do not, however, doubt that through the bowels of mercy he was spiritually marked [with this].160 For, just as his father had organised a first pilgrimage, so he too organised a second one. He received a letter from the lord Pope Celestine at a court meeting at Strassburg, [brought] by the venerable Cardinal Gregory, and he stated with complete devotion that he would take part in this pilgrimage.161 He also sent distinguished envoys to Apulia to the lord Conrad, the chancellor, who was at that time kept there on imperial business, ordering him to make every effort to raise money for the pilgrimage, which was to take place in the following year, levying gold, corn and wine, and preparing many ships.162 Roused by his zeal, many men, both magnates and soldiers, took the sign of the Lord’s Passion at that time for the remission of [their] sins. Notably [there were] Henry, Count Palatine of the Rhine and Otto, Margrave of Brandenburg, who did not, however, fulfil his pilgrimage but was granted a dispensation by the lord pope,

159

Psalm, 94: 8 (Vulgate); 95: 7–8 (AV). The Marbach annalist claimed that Henry VI had received the Cross in secret from the Bishop of Sutri at Bari at Easter 1195, and later suggested that the emperor had delayed his public announcement of this until the princes elected his baby son as king, Annales Marbacenses, pp. 65, 67 [ed. Schmale, pp. 190, 194]. Henry did, however, send a circular letter to the German bishops announcing the new expedition on 12 April 1195, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 157. 161 Other sources name different cardinals who were entrusted with the preaching of the Crusade, for example Peter of Piacenza, Cardinal priest of S Cecilia, and John, Cardinal Priest of S Stefano in Celio Monte, Annales Marbacenses, p. 65 [ed. Schmale, p. 190]; and Peter of S Cecilia and Gratian, Cardinal deacon of SS Apostoli in the continuation to the chronicle of Magnus of Reichersberg, which also gives the text of the papal letter. (This latter author suggests that the two cardinals he named were sent because the first choice, John, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina, fell ill), Chronicon Magni Presbyteri Continuatio, MGH SS xvii.524. 162 Conrad of Querfurt was chosen as bishop-elect of Hildesheim late in 1194, and is recorded as imperial representative in Italy and Sicily from January to June 1196, Urkundenbuch des Hochstifts Hildesheim i (bis 1221), ed. Karl Janicke (Leipzig 1896), p. 482 no. 507, 493–5 nos 518–19, 499 no. 521. 160

208

Book V

Duke Henry of Brabant, Herman Landgrave of Thuringia, Count Walram of Limburg, Count Adolf of Schauenberg, the Duke of Austria, Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen, Bishop Rudolf of Verden and many others. Many others were also recruited in the towns and in many parishes after the lord pope’s exhortatory letters to the aforesaid cardinal were circulated. On hearing these, some were inspired from on high and received the sign of the Lord’s Passion for the defence of the Holy Land. Among them were about four hundred of the most worthy men in the city of Lübeck. Thus with fervent zeal and Christian devotion all as one, rich and poor, prepared themselves for the pilgrimage [to take place] in the next summer. The emperor himself hastened to Apulia so as to organise this pilgrimage. The more devotedly [he showed himself], the more ready he would be for the arrival of the pilgrims. But Leviathan ‘with his stones wrapped together’163 tried to hinder this, and an intolerable war arose there. For the wife of the emperor was alienated from him, and a great conspiracy by the great men of the land, and also the relatives of the empress, arose against him. We cannot explain this in detail, since we wish to deal with other matters, so it should be left to [other] historians to describe this.164 26 The course of the pilgrimage. Therefore, with the arrival of ‘the time when kings go forth to battle’,165 the holy people, the race of kings, that is of the Christians, the royal priesthood, devotedly undertook their expedition or pilgrimage against the legions of Satan, some travelling by sea and others by land. With the aid of Divine clemency, those who went by ship enjoyed a favourable wind, while those who went by land made good progress on the royal road. Coming to Italy and arriving in the Benevento region, they found some kindness from the inhabitants of that land, who did indeed provide them with an adequate market for foodstuffs and other things they needed. However, they were unceasing in their complaints about them among themselves. Some of them also insulted them to their faces, saying:

163

Job, 40.12 (Vulgate); 40.17 (AV). There was a major rebellion in Sicily in May 1197. A number of contemporaries alleged that Empress Constance was a party to this, notably the Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 159, Annales Marbacenses, p. 69 [ed. Schmale, p. 196], and Roger of Howden, Chronica, iv.27, as well as the later Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.352–3. Modern historians have tended to be sceptical, e.g., Peter Csendes, Heinrich VI (Darmstadt 1993), pp. 191–2. There is a judicious discussion of the issue by Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 156–60. 165 II Samuel, 11:1; I Chronicles, 20:1. 164

Book V

209

The road that you travel is superstitious and hateful to God, for while you pretend to be pilgrims and men of religion in reality you are inwardly rapacious wolves. For you fight not for the Heavenly ruler but for earthly gain, and you have come with him (Henry VI) to plunder the whole of Apulia and Sicily.

The knights of Christ became doubtful as to what they should do, whether they should continue or return home. The resolution of many was washed away by these words, ‘as wax melteth before the fire’.166 They rightly feared betrayal, that if they continued they would be despoiled both of life and goods. The art of the tempter did not however stand in their way.167

For the pious Lord did not desert his people, but rather he strengthened their constancy in holding to their purpose. At that time, as has been said, the emperor was in Apulia, kept busy by various problems and conflicts. He remained resolute in the face of the treason of the empress and of the nobles of that land. Because of this he paid out a huge sum of gold for the wages of his troops, and gathered under his command every man who was strong and valiant. It transpired that he captured these enemies of his, and he took appropriate revenge against them. Indeed he placed a crown upon that man whom they had raised up as king against him, and pierced his head with the sharpest of nails to fix that crown upon him.168 Others he condemned to hanging, the fire or various other torments. After that he ordained that a general court be held in the royal city of Palermo, and entering this assembly he addressed them all: We do indeed know that all of you have been tarred by this wicked treason against us, but since with the help of God we have defeated and captured the ringleaders of this crime who have attacked our clemency, and we have condemned these guilty men as traitors, imperial serenity argues that this will be sufficient for us – thus we shall inflict no further punishment for this matter. We therefore banish from our mind the support [given] by the whole kingdom for this wicked plot, which you have made against us, by raising up a king against us and angering us. So

166

Psalm, 68: 3 (Vulgate), 68.2 (AV). Also in dactylic hexameters, source unidentified, probably by Arnold. 168 The Annales Marbacenses, pp. 69–70 [ed. Schmale, p. 198], adds the unpleasant detail that this was done in the empress’s presence. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 158–9, suggests that the unfortunate victim was Jordan Lupinus, Count of Bovino. 167

210

Book V for the rest you will be accorded peace, and let the God of peace be with you.

With these words he gained the good opinion of that kingdom, and thereafter the land was peaceful. However, he had to endure a very serious illness, from which he suffered up to his death. While this was going on, the army of the pilgrims was drawing near, and Count Adolf and the leading men came to greet him. He was overjoyed by their arrival, greeted them most cheerfully and treated them most kindly. At that same time the fleet of the pilgrims, some forty-four ships, which the Lord had preserved unharmed through a most tedious voyage and the great distances of the sea, with a favourable wind and sails billowing arrived joyfully at the city of Messina. Their arrival cheered both the emperor and all the Germans who had flocked there to undertake the war. For the emperor had mustered a vast army, up to sixty thousand strong, from Swabia, Bavaria, Franconia and from other nations, to punish the enemy.169 All the best of these and the entire household (familia) of the emperor, along with Conrad the chancellor, together undertook with great devotion their pilgrim journey. Since he had been in Apulia for a long time, he had prepared a great deal of material for this journey. For in addition to other baggage and most extensive treasures, which he subsequently expended on a large scale, the gold and silver vessels that were in use at his daily table for eating and drinking were valued at a thousand marks. During that journey, the chancellor was ordained as a priest and bishop;170 he set out with great enthusiasm, taking a lot of wealth with him, and accompanied by the young men (tirones) sent by the emperor who strove manfully in the Lord’s battle. They set off from the city of Messina around the feast of St Giles,171 they arrived at the port of Acre on the feast of St Maurice172 after a safe and peaceful voyage and with all their ships intact. However, the chancellor, along with Count Adolf and other friends, landed on the island of Cyprus, so that they might crown the king of that island with a diadem sent by the lord emperor. For, while this same king had formerly been under the rule of the Emperor of Constantinople, he most earnestly desired to be crowned by the most glorious Augustus of the

169

Naumann, Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI, pp. 156–9, suggests that the actual strength of the expedition was about 16,000 men, including 2,500 knights. Even this estimate may be on the high side. 170 This is somewhat misleading. Conrad had already been appointed as Bishop of Hildesheim in 1194, and was not elected as Bishop of Würzburg, to which see he sought to be translated, until his return from the Holy Land in 1198. 171 1 September. 172 22 September.

Book V

211

Romans, which would greatly enhance his own prestige.173 Arriving there in state, the bishop was gloriously received. He was splendidly entertained, and after speedily completing his business [there] and being given most magnificent presents, they boarded their ships once more and the bishop sailed successfully for Acre. However, while he was there, he was shaken by the sad news of the death of Count Henry of Champagne, the king of Jerusalem, who had a few days earlier perished suddenly and unexpectedly. For the Saracens had launched an attack and laid siege to the town of Jaffa. On hearing this, the aforesaid king had immediately taken up arms to ensure the safety of the city. The Christians who were within, trusting more in his courage than in the Lord, opened the gates and began to slay the enemy. The latter fought back fiercely and forced them to take flight. And when they wished to take refuge in the city those who were [still] within, fearing the attack of the enemy, shut the gates and left many of their brothers outside. The Saracens slew them and [then] attacked and took the town. They massacred all the Germans who were inside the town. Indeed, it happened that all the Germans, both inside and outside the town, died; it was alleged through the treason of those who were there from Italy and England. God took a worthy revenge upon them, for even those sinners who saved their lives lost their possessions and goods, while those who died were esteemed as victors. Seeing the loss of so many people, the king returned to Acre and entered his own house. While he was standing by himself with a single companion on the balcony to take the air, he suddenly fell and died of a broken neck.174 Some however say that God did this to him, because he was unhappy with the arrival of the Germans, and was jealous if the Lord should be pleased to allow them to free the Holy Land.175 The pilgrims arrived at Acre round about this time, and hearing of the loss of their brothers they took up arms, hoping that with the help of Christ they might be able either to destroy their enemies or gain booty. After

173

Aimery de Lusignan, King of Cyprus 1194–1205, King of Jerusalem from 1198 (for which see below, pp. 214–15). He had sent as his envoy to the emperor to request this, Renier of Gibelet, who had arrived in Germany in late 1195, Naumann, Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI, pp. 45–6. 174 10 September 1197; for this see also Estoire d’Eracles, chapter 183, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, p. 143, which said that this companion was the count’s dwarf, who also fell and landed on top of him. Other accounts of Henry’s death include Roger of Howden, Chronica, iv.26. For discussion of the loss of Jaffa, Naumann, Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI, pp.172–5; Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, pp. 147–8. 175 Otto of St Blasien indeed accused Henry of treacherously negotiating with the Muslims against the Germans, Chronica, pp. 67–8 [ed. Schmale, p. 128].

212

Book V

destroying the city [of Jaffa] the enemy returned home with their captives and a great deal of plunder, while the Christians returned to Acre. 27 The success of the pilgrims. Thus with the ships mustered there and the sons of God congregated together as one, there was no little joy about the union of those gathered there in Christ and such great devotion to the Church. ‘Zion heard and was glad, and the daughters of Judah rejoiced.’176 This was not however the terrestrial Zion, which the wretched daughter of Babylon still held captive, but those in Acre and Tyre, not formerly the people of God but now the co-heirs of Christ, and the sons of God blessed the Lord in hymns and confession, praying and begging Him to accept their devotion and inflict appropriate punishment on the enemies of the Cross. On the other side their enemies were thrown into no little panic, fearing that they might be driven out and the Holy Land liberated. Hearing of the arrival of these people, they also abandoned many fortified places which they had [previously] confidently garrisoned and withdrew to safer spots. Therefore, once the army was mustered, as has been described, everyone went together to Tyre. There they inspected their forces and weapons, and drew up their squadrons against Sidon. The cavalry took the land route, while the others travelled by sea. Arriving at Sidon, they found it empty and deserted. You would have seen there houses of stones and cedar wood, decorated in a variety of ways, which had been a joy to inhabit, wretchedly destroyed. How many were there who used cedar wood to make stables for their horses or to cook their meals? Sidon was thus destroyed, and they turned their steps towards Sarepta.177 They behaved similarly there, and came to the Spring of Gardens, and then turned their faces towards Beirut. Its inhabitants abandoned the town, but garrisoned the most noble citadel next to the town with valiant warriors, well-furnished with cisterns and war engines. But when the garrison saw an army approaching them by land, with the naval squadron still to arrive, they opened the gates and all marched out to meet the enemy. Seeing this, our men called for help from on high and roused their spirits against them. Thus, after they had charged each other, fortune revealed itself by swinging from one side to the other. Count Adolf remained concealed in ambush until he saw how matters turned out, along with a nobleman called Bernhard of Horstmar.178 Then he saw the prince of

176

Psalm, 96:8 (Vulgate), 97:8 (AV). Actually Sarepta is between Tyre and Sidon. 178 Bernhard had a long and distinguished career, having already taken part in the Third Crusade, and was eventually killed fighting for the bishop of Utrecht 177

Book V

213

that castle on a high-spirited horse, which they call a destrier, riding forward and vaingloriously threatening the annihilation of many. Seizing the opportunity, he charged forth from the shadows into the fight and striking from the flank overthrew both horse and rider. As that man fell suddenly, he was immediately dazed and as he looked around in confusion he saw that there was no one to help him [nearby]. At last he returned to his senses and tried to recover his strength, but nevertheless there was [another] fierce attack and he was trampled to the ground by the feet of the horses. He was beset a third time, but recovering his wits and his strength he tried to seize a horse with his arms. Then, laid low for a third time, his hauberk was torn away from his body, and immediately an enemy attacked him and pierced him through with a glittering spear, but he did not wound him a second time. Meanwhile a host of the enemy reinforcements arrived at the fight. As the count and his men manfully resisted these, two of the enemy standard-bearers were captured by their men, and their opponents retreated. Count Adolf was highly esteemed for subjecting himself to this danger [in which] the Lord assisted him. While this was happening, the fleet was sailing well and approaching the deserted city, in which a large number of Christian captives remained. Seeing these square sails, the Christians spotted the squadrons.179 One of them went to the tower which was stronger and higher than the rest. He secretly opened [the door] with a tool belonging to the enemy, and treading silently and holding his breath he climbed up. He found the jailers resting [there], and hurling himself upon the sleeping men he promptly turned their sleep to death. Seizing a flag (signum) and waving it as best he could, he signalled the ships to come to conquer the city. Seeing this, they realised that it was a miracle of God, and increasing speed they eagerly reached the shore. The chancellor, who was with them, laid hold of the castle as quickly as he could. The enemy, however, were terrified by this evil omen, because their main hope had perished with the downfall of their leader and the loss of the tower. Their courage utterly failed and they sought flight through deserted places and byways, thinking that they had no chance of saving their lives except in the hills, rocks and ravines. The servants of Christ entered the city and castle rejoicing, and they found that castle filled with all sorts of riches. They found it most abundantly supplied with wine, wheat and other foodstuffs, enough to have been able to supply the inhabitants for three years. There was also such a superabundance of darts, crossbows and bows that two great ships could have been filled with

against the men of Coevorden and Drenthe in 1227, Gesta Episcoporum Traiectensium, ed. Ludwig Weiland, MGH SS xxiii.415 chapter 25. 179 Presumably they realised by the shape of the sails that these were Christian ships, Muslim ones having lateen sails.

214

Book V

these.180 Beirut is the most noble city and the strongest fortress of that region. Since it lies beside the best harbour on the coast, it allows entry and egress to all, nor can any ship or galley slip by there, without being brought into this harbour, willingly or unwillingly. Whence it happened that, from the fall of Syria until now, nineteen thousand Christian captives were sent from this same castle to the court of Saladin. This city also has this prerogative, that all the kings of that land are crowned there. Thus when Saladin took it, he was crowned there and saluted as King of Jerusalem and Babylon.181 The army stayed there for a while, and [was busy] raising up once more the destroyed walls of the city when the dreadful news of the death of the emperor arrived.182 This gave no little sadness to the people of God. For the hands of brave men were weakened, since as was usually the case when such a change occurred, one person was worrying about losing his position, somebody else [about losing] his benefice, another worried about his patrimony, so the thoughts of nearly everyone were disturbed. To another perhaps his thoughts turned to the possibility, if he was at home, of gaining the empire himself. Another feared that the [new] ruler would turn against him, and what was even more disastrous, some hoped to gain more from dispute than from peaceful co-operation, that if there was party strife they might in some way gain an advantage. The spirit of wisdom was [however] not entirely absent amid these fluctuating feelings; it overcame the bonds of impiety within them and encouraged them to stick to their endeavour. For the princes held a council and decreed that all the leading men of the kingdom there present should swear fealty to the emperor’s son. And so the commotion died down.183 Another plan was hatched here, which was to the advantage of the kingdom of Jerusalem, since, as has been described, the king had [recently] died. It seemed to everyone that the King of Tyre184 was suitable for such a princely position. He was summoned, came to them with honour, there married the widowed queen, and was declared King of Jerusalem by 180

Cf. a letter written by the Duke of Brabant, copied into the Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 161, which claimed that ‘we found so many arms for crossbowmen and archers in that castle that 20 wagons could scarcely carry them, and so many victuals that they would suffice for five hundred men for seven years’. 181 Arnold had made the same claim earlier when describing the fall of the Holy Land in 1187, lib. IV.5, p. 143. 182 Henry VI died at Messina on 28 September 1197, probably from dysentery, at the age of thirty-two. 183 The German princes had reluctantly agreed to the election of the infant Frederick II as king in the summer of 1196, Annales Marbacenses, p. 69 [ed. Schmale, p. 197]. Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, pp. 153–4. 184 Amaury de Lusignan, King of Cyprus.

Book V

215

everyone. The Prince of Antioch co-operated wholeheartedly in these matters. He had come from his land with substantial forces, and with the situation looking favourable he now thought about his return journey.185 Wishing his men to know what had taken place, he sent out a pigeon. What I am going to say about this is not ludicrous, but has been ludicrously described by foreign peoples, who since they ‘are in their generation wiser than the children of light’186 devise many things which our people do not know about, unless perhaps they should learn about them from these foreigners. For they are accustomed when they go out anywhere on business to carry pigeons with them, which have recently built nests, or laid eggs or had chicks; and should they on their way wish to send an urgent message, they cleverly place a letter under the pigeon’s stomach and release it to fly away. The pigeon hastens back to its brood, quickly carrying the desired message to their friends. By using this means, the aforesaid prince very quickly informed his men of what had taken place. When they heard of the destruction of Sidon and the capture of Beirut in the attack that had been made they [too] wished to try to gain the advantage over their enemies. Thus after bidding farewell to the [other] leaders, the Prince of Antioch returned home. With sails unfurled, he hastened to Laodicea. The inhabitants of this town were immediately seized by fear, and taking flight they sought the hills and fields. The prince then entered the town, mustered his knights there and installed a garrison of Christians. When the inhabitants of Gibelet heard of the arrival of the men of Antioch they too were thrown into a state of shock, and abandoning their homes they took flight. The prince then arrived and added that town to the Christian territories. 28 The siege of Toron. Since the Lord was strengthening his people, and confirming the words that he had spoken to them through his prophet: ‘As one whom his mother comforteth, so I will comfort you’,187 the servants of God were greatly exalted and strengthened in spirit. If, indeed, that prophecy had truly been fulfilled in them, ‘that all things work together for good’,188 then they would have freely secured the whole land. For since it held the entire coast, there was nowhere in all of Syria to which the army could not reach, and in particular everyone hoped that they would soon recover the Holy City. But that was far from being the case, and this was

185 186 187 188

Bohemond III, Prince of Antioch 1160–1201. Luke, 16:8. Isaiah, 66: 13. Romans, 8: 28.

216

Book V

because our sins prevent it. This indeed is shameful to have been recorded. But this reason urges us to set to work on the order of events. Thus, once the city of Beirut had been recovered, or as it pleases others, arrangements had been made for its habitation, the army of the Lord returned the way it had come to Tyre. There, after a little time had elapsed, on the advice, or rather the order, of the princes the whole expedition marched on the castle of Toron, which is not far away, being about a day’s journey from Tyre. On arriving there, they enclosed the castle with a very close siege. And since this place was very steep and almost inaccessible, they attacked it with a new type of assault that was entirely unknown to their enemies. For among those present there were some men from Saxony, who were known to be skilled in the mining of silver at the mountain which many know at Goslar. Therefore with a great deal of effort and considerable expense this work was set in motion, and kept under close supervision, with the miners working all round the castle, backwards and forwards, or one after the other. And when by such means they had tunnelled into the mountain, they set the workings on fire, as they had planned and made the walls to collapse. The enemy were terrified, not knowing what was going on, for the castle lay in ruins even though they had not seen any assault on the walls. They did, however, start to dig in a similar manner, but gained nothing from working [in this way]. And when this work had been pressed onwards at speed for a month, and the enemy had been unable to find any way to stop it, they were very worried, and said to each other: Brothers, what shall we do? How shall we escape from this sort of deadly threat? It was in such a way that our brothers and relations perished at Acre, when four thousand suffered the punishment of beheading under our very eyes.189 We should therefore take precautions for ourselves and our little ones. For this particular people is very determined, full of rage, and most greedy for our blood: it therefore seems sensible to us that we seek their hands [in peace], if there is any way we can do this to save our lives.

And since they were greatly upset, and often mulled over this matter in their discussions among themselves, one day standing on the wall they cried out to those who were keeping watch below: ‘We ask that you give to us an opportunity to speak to you under safe conduct’. When permission had been given, they said: ‘We beg that you tell us what we ask without trickery. Who is your lord, or to whom do these [siege] castles belong that are set up against us?’ They replied: ‘the castles which you see are those of

189

This refers to the slaughter of the garrison of Acre in July 1191 on the orders of Richard I, after negotiations with Saladin for an exchange of prisoners had broken down, mentioned earlier by Arnold, Bk. IV.16, p. 161 above.

Book V

217

Henry, Count Palatine of the Rhine, son of the most distinguished prince Duke Henry, and we are his servants’. To this they said: ‘We would like, if this is possible, to speak to your lord’. ‘Why’, they said, ‘would you wish to speak to our lord, when you are disturbers of the peace and men who distort the truth?’ But they replied: ‘It is of the truth, indeed, that we wish to speak, and of a peace agreement’. What more? The Count palatine appeared in response to their petition, offering his hand and accepting their own. To him they said: We are suffering greatly because of this siege, and hence we request you, glorious prince, to allow us to come under your safe-conduct before a meeting of your leaders, so that we may negotiate with them for the surrender of the castle and for our own safety.

The hero gave this response to those few.190 We would indeed be presuming upon the grace of the princes, [by assuming] that you could come into their presence by our ducal authority alone, but since it is wiser to do everything by consultation, your message will be communicated to them, and a reply will be given to you as quickly as possible.

After saying this, he withdrew, and he communicated their wishes to his equal in rank, namely the duke of Brabant, who had been chosen by everyone as leader of the army.191 When they were informed of their offer, and it was revealed to them that they wished to negotiate a surrender of the castle, their word was given and seven of the leading men of that castle were brought with him to the [siege] castle where the princes were gathered, and the Christians gave them permission to speak their piece. ‘We ask’, they said, your clemency that you have mercy upon us and, mindful of the Christian religion, which, so you say, manifests religious truth, that you display this towards us, as is proper for men of religion. For although we are not Christians, however, we do not live without religion, for as we believe we are called Saracens because we are descended from Abraham and his wife Sarah.192 If indeed it is to be believed that your Christ is

190

Aeneid, vi.672. Cf. the duke’s own letter to the archbishop of Cologne, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 160. 192 The more usual medieval view was that the Arabs (Agarenes) were descended from Abraham and his slave woman Hagar, and their son Ishmael, Genesis, chapters 16 and 21. 191

218

Book V truly [both] God and the man who will liberate you on the Cross, and so you glory in the symbol of the Cross, you can indeed turn that towards us. Whence it happens that even though we are of different religions, we have one origin and one forefather; thus it is that we are brothers, not through acknowledgement but through humanity. For this reason remember your forefather, spare your brothers, let all our property be yours, if you grant to us the right to life alongside you. There is now nothing which we can claim for ourselves; [and] we shall explain to you our situation, as it has been up to now. We hold the command in the castle which you see [before you], since we come from the best families among our people. Hence, may it be pleasing to you that we shall be your prisoners, since you can now receive for our freedom, not a great deal of treasure, but a vast number of Christian captives.193 With regard to those who are within the fortress, if it is pleasing, let this be the arrangement: they shall be allowed to leave, but leaving behind all their possessions, apart from their simple clothing and what little they can carry on their person. If anyone should be found with gold, jewels or precious garments, or to be carrying anything apart from what has been agreed, he shall without delay suffer loss of his head. We make this offer to you willingly, since we seek nothing apart from life itself. You will be left in possession of the castle, while to us there will be left only a means of escape.

The princes discussed this among themselves, and the offer was pleasing to them, not least in that through the surrender of this one castle they would more easily be able to secure two others nearby, of which one was known in French as Beaufort, which in Latin means ‘beautiful castle’, the other was ….194 A truce was therefore concluded between them and the castle, so that the deal so begun should be better arranged. A message was sent to the lord chancellor, that this agreement be confirmed by his assent. He had sought to be excused [from the siege] on account of bodily weakness, but nevertheless he gave his confirmation to the truce arranged. There were, however, those who opposed this agreement, arguing that it was better to overcome the enemy by force. ‘If we violently attack these men’, they said, ‘we shall have nobody willing to resist us in future, since the overthrow of this most strong castle will strike abject fear into them – it will reverberate in the ears of all those who seek to resist us’. So some people claimed. However, many more rejoiced in the benefit of peace. Peace and unity was, however, an uphill struggle, since charity did not reign among all. Meanwhile Count Adolf wished to terrify the enemy, and

193

The Estoire d’Eracles said that there were 500 of these, Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, p. 144. 194 This name was omitted. It may perhaps have been Chastelneuf.

Book V

219

so he led those who were speaking to the leaders back to the ditch,195 so that they might clearly see the torments that threatened them. After this had been done, and so they were quarrelling among themselves, there were some men who flew to arms and attacked the garrison with crossbows and siege engines. The latter, seeing themselves being harmed, nevertheless threw stones and shot arrows, wounding some and killing others. So with some fighting, and others paying no attention to the truce, those on one side wept with those that wept, and those on the other rejoiced with those who rejoice.196 However, [eventually] peace was established once again and the violent commotion was stilled. After some days of negotiations a truce was confirmed, on condition that they [the Muslims] give hostages until they fulfilled their promises, and so they withdrew to their camp. 29 As above. After this had been settled, the envoys explained the course of events to their men, and this condition displeased them, and there was a serious argument in their ranks. Some said that this could not be fulfilled, while others sought to strengthen the resolve of their companions, saying: ‘Do we not hold a very strong castle, garrisoned by brave men-atarms? Let us stand together, and repel force with force’. They were also aware of the discord which was stirring among the princes, and was becoming much more intense, as to whether they should renege on their promises or stand by the sworn agreement. Peace was therefore abandoned; they seized their weapons, and resolved not to fulfil [the agreement] but to fight on. They prepared themselves to resist our men, running hastily to their catapults and other instruments of war. The hostages were forgotten, and from that day onwards the garrison strove to defend themselves with all the courage at their disposal. The fortunes of our men declined, however, while against them the enemy grew stronger and stronger. For burning with great cunning, they destroyed the tunnel in which our men were placing their hopes, and they burned many men in it or slaughtered them with the sword. Dragging some others out alive, they cut off their heads and threw them from the walls. See where strife has brought our unhappy citizens.197

195 196 197

ica VI.6.

That is the Muslim envoys. Cf. Romans, 12: 15. Vergil, Eclogues, I, lines 71–2, lines which Arnold quoted again later, Chron-

220

Book V

Those on the one side persevered as one, while those on the other were divided, some of them fighting, while others occupied themselves with other business. And since ‘charity was waxing cold’,198 and their minds were set on returning to Egypt,199 for they felt that the Egyptians, that is the sons of darkness, had risen up against them. For many people abandoned the enterprise to which the saints were summoned, and by doing so they feebly surrendered to the vices which lay in ambush. For how many people were there who had left behind their legitimate spouses, but who here clung to prostitutes? For they hastened to his service under an appearance of religion, as if from necessity, but thereafter they discovered the daughters of Moab, who once led Israel to sin; then the Lord was angry and they fell before their enemies.200 How many were deceived there through this appearance of right conduct, who having been enriched by the hire of their ships were more concerned with avarice than with the warfare of Christ? What shall I say about those who were given over to arrogance, and put themselves vaingloriously above their fellow men? And since the Lord says: ‘Learn of me, since I am meek and lowly in heart’,201 how can someone conquer through this sort of behaviour, who does not have ‘the spirit of fear’,202 but is instead full of the spirit of pride and resembles the enemies of Christ more than his disciples? But I shall seek pardon, for I write this not in order to confound anyone, but I warn the beloved in Christ.203 Now let us follow the course of events. The people of Christ, meanwhile, were running out of food, and they were forced to send to Tyre to purchase victuals. Moreover, through fear of the enemy this embassy was composed not just of a few people, but of a considerable number. Hence they divided the army, so that some went, who were nicknamed ‘the members of the caravan’, while others remained keeping guard. When those absent had been gone for a long time, and there was little expectation of their return, so that the remainder were very short of food, and were becoming fearful at the plight of their men. Furthermore, it was rumoured in the camp that Saphadin was threatening to arrive with a vast host from Persia, Media and Damascus, to destroy them and rescue the castle.204 Amid all these alarms, trumpets were sounded in

198

Matthew, 24: 12. Cf. Numbers, 14: 2–4. 200 Cf. Numbers, 25: 1–9. 201 Matthew, 11: 29. 202 II Timothy, 1: 7. 203 Cf. I Corinthians, 4: 14. 204 Al-’Adil Sayf al-Din abū Bakr, the younger brother of Saladin, who had captured Damascus from his nephew al-Afdal in the summer of 1196: on hearing of the arrival of the Germans he had secured reinforcements from Egypt and Iraq. He 199

Book V

221

the chancellor’s camp announcing that the ‘members of the caravan’ had arrived. Then everyone rejoiced, and they happily welcomed their companions. The princes, however, were aware that their enemies were still threatening them, and so they held a council on the vigil of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin,205 and they had it announced in the camp that everyone should make ready to fight the enemy on the morrow. This news made everyone joyful, dancing together and encouraging each other with mutual exhortations, expressing their willingness to conquer or be conquered for Christ. But as everyone was hoping for success in the morning, and they were carefully preparing themselves for the fight, news suddenly spread among this band of brothers that all the households of the chancellor and the other princes had loaded their baggage on to pack horses and set off on the road back to Tyre. Everyone was terrified by this news, and they started to pack their belongings in haste, put them on pack horses, and to hasten after them either on horseback or on foot. There was therefore a great hubbub among the fugitives, as they lamented this change [of fortune] and worried about the loss of their baggage. How many sick did they leave behind there? How many wounded? Those who were responsible [for this event], which caused derision among the enemy, are known to those in Heaven. It was, nevertheless, the flight of the first group which terrified the others and made them flee. Both groups displayed fear and feebleness: the former had lost the spirit of bravery, and their blindness dragged the others down the same path. Nor was this cowardice the only thing from which the fugitives suffered, for as they fled tempests, thunderstorms, driving rain and hailstones beset them.206 Hence the siege was lifted, and they retreated back to Tyre and Acre, where they started to plan their return home, terrified [also] by news of the emperor’s death. Those who decided to remain there began to reorganise their arms and victuals, which were [now] in more than abundance, and to offer these to those who lacked them. However, at the beginning of March almost all the princes and the better people boarded the ships and set off for home.207 The lord

had, however, been taken unawares by the siege of Toron, which began after he had sent many of his troops home. He had then requested further reinforcements from his nephew al-Aziz, the ruler of Egypt, who arrived in person on 10 February. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l Ta’rik iii The Years 589–629/1193–1231: the Ayyubids after Saladin and the Mongol Menace, trans. D.S. Richards (Farnham 2008), pp. 29–30. 205 1 February. 206 Ibn al-Athir dated the Germans’ withdrawal to 23 February, but confirmed the account of bad weather. 207 Conrad of Hildesheim was one of the earliest to return, arriving back in Germany by 21 May 1198; others took longer, Henry of Brunswick, for example,

222

Book V

archbishop of Mainz, the bishop of Verden and a few of the nobles, along with the people of God, awaited His mercy and consolation. The archbishop of Mainz was, however, then absent, for he had gone to Armenia to crown the king of that land, which task had [originally] been entrusted to the chancellor, who, as has been described, had previously performed the same service in Cyprus. But when he was at Beirut, it seemed to the princes that the chancellor should remain [with them] and the archbishop of Mainz should take his place and crown this king, placing the diadem upon him on behalf of the Roman Empire. The king had done everything he could to prepare for this. Having heard news of the courage of the people of God, and since the Lord at their arrival had filled all their enemies with terror, and since [also] they had gloriously captured many fortified places, he sent envoys laden with generous gifts and welcomed their princes effusively, informing them both in writing and through ceremonious speeches how eagerly he had been awaiting their arrival. He told them that he was most ready to become a subject of the Roman Empire if he might obtain the crown which he had so long desired from an imperial representative. The Roman Church might [also] be proud, for with the favour of Christ it would not only be enlarged in spiritualities but also in temporalities, so that [other] rulers overseas would strive to be granted this title. They would, therefore, see that by not granting this dignity they would contribute to the diminution of the Roman world rather than its expansion.208 Hence the archbishop of Mainz, as we described, gloriously completed this business, and he [also] negotiated an agreement to make peace between the king of Armenia and the prince of Antioch, through whose disputes the church of God in those parts had for a long time suffered no little disturbance.209

only returned home at the end of September, Naumann, Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI, pp. 199–201. 208 Despite this account, the coronation of the Roupenid prince Leo as king of Armenia was actually the product of a lengthy diplomatic process, stretching back to before the Third Crusade. Gérard Dédéyan, ‘De la prise de Thessalonique par les Normands (1185) á la croisade de Frédéric Barbarousse (1189–90): le revirement politico-religieux des pouvoirs arméniens’, in Chemins d’Outre-Mer. Études sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, ed. Damien Coulon, Catherine Otten, Paule Page and Dominique Valerian (2 vols, Paris 2004), i.183–96, especially pp. 192–6. 209 Leo had actually kidnapped Prince Bohemond III in 1193, allegedly with the collusion of the latter’s wife, and had attempted to seize the city of Antioch, but this coup de main had been foiled by a popular rebellion, and eventually Henry of Champagne had negotiated Bohemond’s release. Estoire d’Eracles, cc. 152–60, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, pp. 128–32.

Book V

223

30 The conversion of Livonia. I think it appropriate to commend to the memory of the faithful, and not to pass over in silence the devotion and hard work of many men of religion, who laboured among the gentiles who are called the Livonians, and who by scattering the seed of the Word of God strove to make that people cease from idolatry. We have indeed seen through their persuasion many co-workers take part in this enterprise, some through pilgrimage, and others dedicating themselves so that the plants of Christ spring up fruitfully and bear heavy crops, while the tares of the Devil were choked. The first initiator of this enterprise was lord Meinhard, a canon of Segeberg, whom the eloquence of the Lord inflamed, encouraging him to announce the peace of God to this unbelieving people, and little by little he lit them up with the heat of faith. This good man went there for some years along with merchants, and he devotedly forwarded his own business, until he realised that the hand of the Lord was not without power and he felt the considerable devotion of those who heard him. Going therefore to the church of Bremen, which was then ruled by lord Hartwig as archbishop, he explained his purpose and the devotion of his hearers to the archbishop and cathedral chapter, so that he might not continue his work without proper authorisation and taking advice. Hoping that he, by planting and irrigating, might make a profit for the Lord, they sent him to preach to the gentiles, and they raised him to the rank of bishop to provide him with greater authority. Therefore this humble and devoted man spread the seed of the Word to those who heard him, and by argument and entreaty, but especially through entreaty, he broke down the hardness of heart of these gentiles, through gifts no less than exhortations, and little by little through the help of God he led them to what he wanted. Thus in the year from the Incarnation of the Word 1186 the seat of a bishopric was founded in Livonia at a place called Riga by this venerable man Meinhard, and was entrusted to the patronage of the Blessed May, Mother of God.210 And since this same place abounds in many good things through the fertility of the land, worshippers of Christ and planters of the new church were never lacking there, for this same land has fertile fields, abundant pastures, is watered by rivers, and also has plenty of fish and trees of the forest. Moreover, the lord Berthold, abbot at Loccum, left his position and determined to spread the seed of the Word to the gentiles,

210

These arrangements, and the subordination of the new bishopric to the archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, were confirmed by Clement III in two letters of 25 September and 1 October 1188 respectively, Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt, The Popes and the Baltic Crusades 1147–1254 (Leiden 2007), pp. 65–6.

224

Book V

taking this work on himself in no light way.211 As a result, and with the help of God, it was received by no small number of these gentiles. They saw indeed in this man grace in speech, moderation and sobriety, patience and modesty, his strength in abstinence, the effectiveness of his preaching, and his joyfulness and affability. Thus, after the death of the lord Meinhard, who as has been said before, ‘fought a good fight and finished his course’,212 since the way of life of lord Berthold was known to everyone, both clergy and people, they unanimously agreed that they wanted him to fill the place of he who had passed away. Going to Bremen, Berthold was consecrated as bishop. To assist him in his work, revenues of twenty marks a year in that same church were assigned to him. Urged on by his preaching various high noblemen were signed with the symbol of the holy cross, to overthrow the power of the gentiles, or rather to make them subject to the worship of Christ, and started out on the path of pilgrimage. Nor were priests and men of learning lacking, who strengthened by his exhortations promised with cheerful steadfastness to take themselves to the land of promise. And since the journey or pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed at that time to be in vain, the lord Pope Celestine decreed an indulgence that whoever should vow themselves to the aforesaid pilgrimage, and whomever they should bring as their companions on this journey, if this was pleasing to them, would be granted no less remission of [their] sins by God.213 There was, therefore, a great muster of prelates, clergy, knights, merchants, and people both poor and rich, from all over Saxony, Westphalia and Frisia, who having prepared ships, arms and supplies at Lübeck travelled to Livonia. But when the blessed prelate led his army against the unbelievers who were laying in ambush for the worshippers of Christ, he and a few others, indeed [perhaps] no more than two, fell into the hands of the ungodly. He was unhorsed and killed; and, so we hope, was crowned with glory and honour, for it was his burning desire to have such a death.214

211

Loccum was a Cistercian monastery in Saxony, about half-way between Hanover and Bremen, founded in 1163 by Count Wulbrand of Hallermund, and a daughter house of Volkenroda in Thuringia. 212 II Timothy, 4:7. Meinhard died on 11 October 1196. 213 The phraseology is clumsy, but the implication is clear, that they would receive the same indulgence as if they had gone on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. This indulgence does not survive, but there seems little doubt that it was granted, not least because of retrospective references to it by Henry of Livonia, although the exact scope of the indulgence remains uncertain, Fonnesberg-Schmidt, The Popes and the Baltic Crusades, pp. 69–73. 214 24 July 1198.

Book V

225

Just as he was first endowed with his share of worldly riches So to him was now given the riches of death.

Moreover, when on the morrow they went to retrieve the bodies of the dead, the body of the bishop was found to be intact and uncorrupted, while since it was summer the other bodies were [already] covered with flies and worms. He was buried at Riga with great lamentation and solemn funeral rites.215 After this lord Albert, a canon of Bremen, was appointed to the see in place of the deceased bishop. Although he was still in the flower of his youth, he already displayed great maturity and good behaviour. And since this man was endowed with plenty of brothers and friends,216 he had many co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord. Nor can I easily explain how he found favour among kings and magnates, who assisted him with money, arms, ships and supplies. Among these, Archbishop Andrew of Lund and Bishops Bernhard of Paderborn and Yso of Verden217 dedicated their hands to the Lord. He also obtained permission from the Apostolic See that if he should find religious men and preachers of the Word of God, whether they be from the order of monks, or regular canons, or from some other religious order, he might appoint them as co-workers in his endeavour. A great multitude of people and a powerful force of knights followed him. And since in most summers he led an army against the enemies of the Cross of Christ, he not only made the Livonians subject to him, but also other barbarian nations, receiving hostages from them and concluding peace agreements with them. Thus the Church of God grew in Livonia through the work of this venerable man Albert, with provosts, parishes and abbeys settled there. Many men, indeed, vowed themselves to continence, desiring to fight for God alone. Renouncing everything, in the manner of

215

According to Henry of Livonia, he was in fact buried in the church at Üxcull, further up the Dvina valley, The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, Henricus Lettus, trans. James A. Brundage (2nd ed., New York 2003), p. 57. There is a more detailed account of the bishop’s death in ibid., pp. 32–3, but the subsequent condition of his corpse is not mentioned. 216 Amici, which might also have the sense of relations/family connections, as well as its literal meaning. 217 Andrew, Archbishop of Lund 1201–23 [above, note 84], who accompanied King Waldemar II of Denmark on his expedition to Oesel in 1206, remaining in Riga until spring 1207; Bernhard (III), Bishop of Paderborn 1203–23 and Yso of Wölpe, Bishop of Verden 1205–31, were recruited by Bishop Albert during a visit back to Germany in 1210, to join an expedition in the next year, Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, pp. 64–5, 68, 96. This mention is therefore significant evidence as to when Arnold was writing, Hucker, ‘Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, p. 113.

226

Book V

the Templars, they formed themselves into a knighthood of Christ, and they chose to place on their clothing as a sign of their profession a badge showing the sword with which they fought for God.218 Strong both in spirit and numbers, these formidable men created no little terror among the enemies of God. Nor was Divine mercy lacking through the strengthening of their unshakable faith, as can be shown by this story as evidence of that truth. For when some of the newly converted were captured by enemies from their own people, the latter strove to recall them to their former error through bribes and blandishments. The converts absolutely refused to do this, for they were determined most steadfastly and inviolably to remain true to the sacraments of the faith they had received. Their enemies then put them to death with an extraordinary range of tortures. They encouraged many others through their witness (confessio), since through them many people glorified God.219 Admittedly there were some setbacks amid these favourable events. So the Russian king of Polotsk had been accustomed regularly to collect tribute from these Livonians, but the bishop refused it to him. As a result he launched frequent attacks on that land and the city we have mentioned, but God, the helper in adversity, always protected them. However, dispute and civil strife arose between the lord bishop and these said brothers who are called the warriors of God, and there was an extraordinary quarrel. The brothers claimed that they had a right to a third part of all that foreign land, which the lord bishop had been able to gain either through preaching the Word or through military expeditions. When the bishop absolutely refused this demand, serious discord arose between them, and the brothers made great efforts at the Roman Curia against him; nevertheless the lord bishop confirmed his decision.220

218

The Order of the Sword Brothers was founded in 1201. Cf. here The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, pp. 56–7. 220 The case was decided, largely in favour of the bishop by Innocent III on 20 October 1210, although disputes between the two continued thereafter, Fonnesberg-Schmidt, The Popes and the Baltic Crusades, pp. 80–1. The phrasing suggests that Arnold was writing this chapter before then. Hucker, ‘Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, p. 115. 219

Book VI 1 About the election of King Otto. ‘For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still’.1 When the princes had at last returned from their pilgrimage, because of the weight of our sins Sion indeed remained captive, while the Church in the west suffered no less through internal conflicts. With the death of the glorious Emperor Henry, through whom, as has been said, God had greatly extended the borders of the empire, the [previous] pledge, that is the election that had been made of his son, was forgotten. Two suns, that is two kings, arose, who caused no little disturbance within the borders of the Roman Empire through the quarrels they fostered against each other. Thus a conference was held at the famous city of Cologne [Colonia Agrippina], where the great men of the kingdom discussed the election of a new king. Presiding at this conference was Archbishop Adolf of Cologne, for Conrad of Mainz was at this time still absent, occupied with overseas business, as has been described above – the archbishop of Cologne acted in his place in conducting all these negotiations, although the lord archbishop of Trier did not absent himself from these discussions.2 Also present was Henry, Count Palatine of the Rhine,3 along with many other nobles, who all unanimously elected Otto, the son of the most noble prince Duke Henry, as king and prince of the Roman Empire, even though he was then living in Poitou – they sent envoys to him, who brought him with great ceremony to Cologne. Once his election as king had been confirmed,4 Otto gathered a strong force of troops and summoning his electors laid close siege

1

Isaiah, 5: 25. Cf. above, where lib. V.25 begins with the same quotation. John, Archbishop of Trier 1189–1212, who had previously been the chancellor of Frederick Barbarossa; he subsequently changed sides and supported King Philip, for which he was threatened with deposition by Innocent III, and subsequently excommunicated, Regestum Innocentii III Papae super Negotio Romani Imperii, ed. Friedrich Kempf (Rome 1947), pp. 205–6 no. 75 (8 November 1202), 223–4 no. 83 (24 February 1203). For a summary of his career, Bernd Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben. Itinerar, Urkundenvergabe, Hof (Hanover 2002), pp. 492–4. 3 Here Arnold was in error, for at the time of this meeting, in early April 1198, Henry was still in the Holy Land and he cannot be attested at his brother’s side until January 1199, Briechle, Heinrich von Braunschweig, pp. 80–1. 4 9 June 1198. 2

228

Book VI

to Aachen, which town, preserving its loyalty to the dead emperor, or rather to his brother Philip, manfully resisted him. However, he succeeded in taking it, not without difficulty and at great expense, namely 70,000 marks, and after being anointed as king by the archbishop of Cologne he was raised to the imperial throne and acclaimed as Augustus of the Romans.5 The lord Pope Innocent, supreme pontiff of the Roman see, was informed of this election and ordination as king by distinguished envoys sent by the lord archbishop of Cologne and by the other archbishops, princes and leading men, all of them earnestly entreating him to approve this election or appointment of King Otto through his authority.6 He was overjoyed, and not only approved the election, but judged that Otto was a most worthy man for the empire, calling him his most beloved son, and sending letters in which he ordered all the prelates holding regalia, archbishops, bishops and abbots, to obey him in supporting the election of the king.7 2 About the election of King Philip. Meanwhile Philip, who was holding the imperial insignia, aspired to succeed his brother. He was supported by strong forces from the Saxons, Franconians, Swabians and Bavarians, and as a result held all the fortified places, [both] cities and castles; and while only Cologne and part of Westphalia favoured Otto, the whole might of the empire supported Philip. Hence a multitude of prelates and princes from Franconia, Saxony, Swabia, Bavaria and Thuringia gathered at Mainz, and with the agreement and favour of everyone he was elected as king. He was then crowned with great ceremony as king by the lord archbishop of Tarantaise, with the consent of the clergy and the agreement of the cathedral chapter – this was without prejudice to Conrad, the lord Archbishop of Mainz, who was then, as has been said several times, abroad – and Philip was then acclaimed as Augustus of the Romans.8 The queen was not, however,

5

12 July 1198. The only source for both these dates is the Annales Sancti Gereonis, MGH SS xvi.734. 6 For Adolf ’s letter, Regestum super Negotio Romani Imperii, pp. 21–3 no. 9. Otto himself had notified the pope of his election, in a letter which claimed that his father Henry the Lion had suffered exile because of his loyalty to the Roman Church, ibid., pp. 10–13 no. 3. Unfortunately neither of these letters is dated. 7 Here Arnold may have been thinking of such letters as Regestum super Negotio Romani Imperii, pp. 102–10 no. 22, to the German princes lay and ecclesiastical (March 1201), and ibid., pp. 158–60 no. 59 to the archbishop of Cologne and his suffragans, and also to various secular nobles in the Rhineland (October/November 1201). 8 The sources disagree as to the exact date. The Annales Marbacenses, pp. 73–4 [ed. Schmale, p. 204], suggest that the coronation was on the Feast of the Assumption

Book VI

229

crowned here with the royal diadem, but went in procession with a coronet (circulata). She had been born in Greece, and through her marriage to Philip had considerably enhanced his status among his supporters.9 A higher rank was also granted to the ruler of Bohemia, so that while previously he had ruled a duchy, he was here promoted by Philip to the title of king, and he went forth crowned and carrying a royal sword.10 These kings did not reign together, but were in conflict. The Church was disturbed, schism arose and quarrels, and parties of the self-interested, with the kings now seeking to please those who favoured them. The pope, however, steadfastly supported Otto, using his authority to make prelates support him – he would not grant the pontifical pallium to archbishops unless they remained entirely loyal to Otto. And so it was that the clergy favoured Otto, in large part from fear of condemnation by their shepherd, while Philip after his promotion to the kingship generally prevailed among the laity, although there were a few bishops who ignored papal orders, and through various expedients only pretended to serve Otto. Some indeed openly opposed him, and were not afraid to remain disobedient until the end of their lives.11 After his coronation, Philip set out with his forces, accompanied by the ruler of Bohemia, intending to cross the Rhine and Moselle and advance upon Cologne. Otto and his men bravely went out to encounter him.12 Otto was a strong and powerful (15 August 1198), the ‘Cronica S. Petri Erfordensis Moderna’, in Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, p. 199, which confirms the role of the archbishop of Tarantaise, said that it was on the Feast of her Nativity (8 September). Philip had been first elected at Ichterhausen in Thuringia in March, Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 322–3. 9 This was Irene, daughter of the Emperor Isaac Angelos, who had previously been betrothed to the young William III of Sicily. For the marriage, Burchard of Ursburg, Chronicon, p. 73. 10 Ottokar I (died 1230): his father Vladislaw had previously been granted a royal crown by Frederick I in 1158, and his royal status was subsequently confirmed by Frederick II in 1214. This was part of a process through which Bohemia became much more closely bound to the Reich; see Harmut Hoffmann, ‘Bohmen und das deutsche Reich im Hohen Mittelalter’, Jahrbuch für Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands 18 (1969), 1–62, especially pp. 57–61. 11 Philip, in fact, enjoyed considerable support among the episcopate. Some 28 bishops were named in the declaration of the German princes in favour of Philip issued at Speyer on 28 May 1199, and there were still 13 prepared to join in with the protest against the recognition of Otto by Innocent’s legate at Halle in January 1202, Regestum super Negotio Romani Imperii, pp. 33–8 no. 14, 162–6 no. 61. See Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 197–207. But Arnold was entirely correct in describing the pressure put upon the leaders of the German Church to support Otto, as for example in the case of John of Trier [above, note 2]. At least one bishop, Berthold of Naumberg, was forced to resign because of his support for Philip in 1206, Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 430–1. 12 In early October 1198, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 165.

230

Book VI

man, daring of spirit, roaring like a lion cub,13 keen for plunder, ready to do battle, and looking to conquer or be conquered, and was stronger in person than Philip. The latter therefore sought rather to conquer through cunning than by fighting battles. As his army was preparing to cross the Moselle, Otto’s supporters offered savage resistance. Battle was joined, and not a few fell on each side. So Philip retreated, and the Bohemian ruler returned home. 3 The death of Conrad of Mainz. Around this time Conrad of Mainz ended his life, and there was an immediate schism in this great see.14 The partisans of Philip appointed Leopold to the church of Mainz, while those loyal to the Church, fearing Apostolic condemnation, elected Siegfried to this great position.15 The former, holding the imperialia from Philip, prevailed far and wide, both in cities and in castles, through military force, while the latter was confirmed in spiritual powers and quietly ruled those subject to him. 4 The death of Archbishop Ludolf of Magdeburg. At this time [too] Archbishop Ludolf of Magdeburg ended his life,16 and lord Albert, principal provost of this same church, was raised to the see. Since he faced some people who were jealous of his election, he went by himself to the Apostolic See, and just as he had been confirmed in his provostship so he was confirmed in the episcopate, and he returned home with honour – although this was on condition that he supported King Otto and did not oppose his rule. Made confident by his powerful forces, Philip then sought out Otto once more, and coming with a hired army began to blockade the town of Brunswick.

13 Catullus leoni, derived from Judges, 14:5. There may also be a pun intended here: ‘whelp’ and Welf, Helmold, Chronica, I.35, p. 69, used catullus as a synonym for Welf. The name seems also to have implied descent from the Roman senator (and rebel) Catiline, Schneidmüller, ‘Billung – Welf – Askanier’, p. 38; Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 2. 14 Conrad died on 27 October 1200. 15 Leopold of Schönfeld, Bishop of Worms since 1196; his ultimately successful rival Siegfried was a younger son of Count Gottfried of Eppstein, and had been Provost of St Peter’s, Mainz, since 1196. Pope Innocent excommunicated Leopold in 1201, which led him to go to Rome seeking recognition from the pope, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 170–1. 16 He died on 16 August 1205, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, p. 203. Ludolf had been archbishop since 1192.

Book VI

231

King Otto was not then there, but his brother Henry, the Count Palatine, defended the town steadfastly.17 Their enemies, however, gained entrance to the town near the monastery of St Giles, and occupying the bridge18 came close to storming the place. On realising this, those who were inside, who were busy on the other side of the town where King Philip seemed to be with greater strength, quickly switched over to resist the attack. They forced their enemies to flee, and drove them a long way back with bolts from their crossbows. Meanwhile, some thieves broke into the house of St Giles, which was close by, and attacked the monks with barbaric ferocity. They seized vestments, took away the utensils from the claustral offices, the dormitory and the kitchen – they did not even spare the house of prayer. Breaking down the doors with axes, they tried to carry off the sacred vessels (ornamenta ecclesie). These were, however, saved with God’s help and through the efforts of some of the monks, who cleverly concealed the door of the sacristy with some materials, so that there seemed to be a solid wall there. And as in the days of Rachel, they ‘searched, but found not’.19 Meanwhile, hearing of this raid Conrad the chancellor arrived with a host of men, quelled the disturbance and drove the wicked robbers well away [from the monastery]. Nor was the vengeance of God found wanting, for on the next day one of the culprits, indeed he who had been more violent than all the others, was struck down by a fit of madness in front of everyone, and wretchedly ended his life. Nor is this a cause for amazement. For how many wonders have through the mercy of God been worked since ancient times in this house by prayers to St Giles? How many demons have fled from the bodies of those possessed, how many blind people given sight, lame and paralytics cured, and how many of those afflicted by all sorts of snares, or in fetters or prison in various places, have been set free? Those who, mindful of their release, flock to that house with hymns and praises of God have left there with joy, as can now be seen. It should not, however, seem wrong to anyone if God has permitted, perhaps because of some hidden sins, that house of so many miracles to be afflicted at this time by the sons of Belial; for this Lord of miracles and King of glory surrendered himself into the hands of the ungodly and suffered crucifixion for our redemption. The siege of the town lasted some days longer, but those who were within grew stronger, while those outside were suffering. Those within enjoyed an abundance of food, those without tortured by famine and want.

17

Summer 1200, probably August. The most detailed account of the siege comes in the vernacular Brunswick Rhymed Chronicle, lines 5446–5563, in MGH Deutsche Chronikon ii (Hanover 1877), 526–9. 18 Over the River Ocker; this was the langhen brucke mentioned by the Rhymed Chronicle, line 5493. 19 Genesis, 31: 35.

232

Book VI

The men of Otto who were stationed on patrol outside the town hid carts full of victuals coming from various towns and other places in the rocks, valleys and woods, preventing an attack in force by killing men, making others prisoner and stealing horses and goods, and they dispersed these foodstuffs far and wide. You might have seen streams there flowing with beer and wine, pouring out from broken barrels to irrigate the land. The enemy who were suffering so much wanted to leave and not stay there.20 A peace agreement was negotiated, the siege was lifted, and they departed without honour; nor did they make any further attempt to storm the city. That town was also given no little hope through the aid of Blessed Auctor, Archbishop of Trier, whose body lies there. Margravine Gertrude, the spouse of Margrave Ekbert, had founded this monastery during her widowhood, and had obtained his body after much entreaty to the people of Trier, and had had it honourably interred in a sarcophagus in that monastery with other bodies of the Theban martyrs, as is now realised.21 When his lands were being ravaged by the Huns who slew the holy virgins of Cologne, this same bishop, who was then ruling the city of Trier, kept it unharmed through his prayers. He is believed to retain such power before God to the present day, so that through his prayers he protects and defends the city where he now rests from the attack of the enemy. Thus the custom developed among the people of Brunswick that when they were afraid of being besieged they carried these relics around the walls of the city with litanies, songs of praise of God and the distribution of alms, and [as a result] no enemy attack penetrated the circuit of the walls. The efficacy of this is proven by their escape [above] which has been so often recounted.

20 Cf, the much briefer account in the Gesta Episcoporum Halberstadensium, MGH SS xxiii.114, which also says that the besiegers grew discouraged through shortage of supplies. 21 This translation (or more properly theft) took place in 1115, Ex Translatione Sancti Auctoris, ed. P. Jaffé, MGH SS xii.315–16; discussed by Robert Bartlett, Why Can the Dead do such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton 2013), p. 307. Arnold was, however, in error with regard to Gertrude, who was the sister rather than the wife of Margrave Ekbert II of Meissen (d. 1090). She was married first to Henry of Northeim (d. 1101); their daughter Richenza married Lothar of Supplinburg (Emperor Lothar III), she was thus the great-grandmother of Henry the Lion. After Henry of Northeim’s death, she had married Henry (I) of Wettin, who died c.1103; she died in 1117, Die Reichschronik des Annalista Saxo, p. 560. St Auctor was an allegedly early fifth-century archbishop of Trier. For his role in protecting Brunswick during the siege, see also the ‘Braunschweig Reimchronik’, p. 528, lines 5518–5562. One should also note that St Auctor was one of the saints linked with St John in the original dedication of Arnold’s own monastery, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, pp. 7–8 no. 5.

Book VI

233

5 About the expedition of King Otto into Thuringia. In the following year Ottokar of Bohemia repudiated his legitimate wife, and married another one from Hungary.22 Margrave Dietrich of Meissen, the brother of the rejected woman, was angry about this, and together with Duke Bernhardt, another of the familiares of King Philip, they obtained his agreement that the kingdom or duchy of Bohemia would be confiscated from Ottokar the adulterer, and transferred to Dietrich’s son, also Dietrich, then only a boy, who was studying at Magdeburg.23 This was done. The Bohemian was now enraged, and abandoned Philip and made an alliance with Landgrave Herman of Thuringia.24 They were now both hostile to Philip, and began to plot against him. Thus Herman, who was the son of the sister of Emperor Frederick, unmindful of his blood relationship and his oath of fealty, went over to the side of King Otto, and as a result received Northusen and Mulenhausen as benefices from him. Aided by the Bohemian, he and Otto led an army against Philip and took this opportunity to wreak irreparable damage upon the latter’s own lands. Philip then entered Thuringia with a large force, assisted by Leopold of Mainz and by many other contingents. Basing himself at Erfurt, he ravaged the whole of that land on every side.25 Nor did others refrain from plundering that region, for the Bohemians are by nature vicious and act wickedly, and are never willing to undertake a military expedition unless they have the freedom to wreak havoc, on sacred places as well as secular. Nor was there lacking there that most depraved tribe of men who are called Valwen, practicing their cruel and evil actions, about which it is not edifying to speak, but rather wretched.26 Since his opponents were afraid to meet Philip in battle, or so it is said, they spread all over Thuringia, plundering everywhere. Sixteen conventual churches,

22

The chronology here would seem to be in error. Ottokar repudiated Adelaide of Messen soon after Philip recognised his royal status in 1198; his new wife was a daughter of King Bela III of Hungary. The papal Curia was very slow to react to this; it was only in April 1206 that Innocent III commissioned three German churchmen to investigate the issue, Die Register Innocenz’ III 9 Pontifikatsjahr, pp. 108–10 no. 60, and even then little action was taken because the pope did not want to alienate a prominent supporter of Otto IV. Adelaide herself died in 1211. Lyon, Princely Brothers and Sisters, pp. 146–8. 23 His illegitimate son Dietrich, who was later Bishop of Naumberg 1243–72. 24 Here Arnold seems to have confused cause and effect. Philip transferred the Bohemian crown to Dietrich after Ottokar defected from his side. 25 This was in 1203, Burchard of Urspberg, Chronicon, p. 84, 95; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, pp. 203–4. Philip was in Erfurt in July of that year. 26 The Valwen would seem to be Cuman troops sent by King Emerich of Hungary. The presence of Hungarian troops was mentioned by the Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS xxx(1).568.

234

Book VI

both male and female, and 350 parish churches were destroyed by the Bohemians, and sacred vessels, along with all sorts of other movable property, were polluted by these wicked men. You might have seen here something even worse, which is shameful even to talk about: a man clad in an alb instead of a shirt, girt with a stole, another using a dalmatic as a tunic, a third an amice as a mantle or hood. The horse of yet another of these wicked men was galloping around covered with an altar cloth. And what one can scarcely describe without tears and groaning, they dragged away religious and noble women, dedicated to God, tied to the stirrups of their horses as captives, and they libidinously polluted the temples of God, which were not made by [human] hand. Some among them were tortured to death by this sort of maltreatment. How can one reckon these women except among the martyrs? Far be it for the faithful of Christ to believe that they would willingly be polluted by such shameful acts, which I would say were like those of dogs. In the early Church, when persecution led to martyrdom, was it not often decided by wicked judges and torturers to inflict this kind of death on holy women famed for their virginity, or so we read in their passions? But if they were miraculously and mercifully freed from all these things by their pious bridegroom Jesus Christ, who was unwilling to allow these idolaters to prevail, do we not believe that they hoped for no less in their community, who while persevering in the profession of chastity sustained such things from those who professed the faith but did not practice it? Do we not find something similar with regard to the virgin and martyr Irene? When she was threatened with dishonour by a wicked judge, she replied thus: I do not doubt that, however cruel or wicked the type of death inflicted upon someone’s body, while her spirit does not give way in the face of torment, nor does she consent to the allurements of the flesh, then God will allow her to remain intact and undefiled. Surely the holy martyrs are rather polluted by the sacrifices to idols which you have ordered, and the blood of the slain violently poured out from open mouths to demons?27 They are not polluted; rather they are crowned eternally through these and other punishments and injuries inflicted upon them.

Instructed by these and other examples, we believe that those who are unwilling, and do not consent when slain in this fashion, do not lose the chastity which they have truly professed. Marching as far as Halle, the Bohemian performed dreadful deeds throughout the land of the margrave, as he sought to punish him. He then returned home, but not without heavy losses among his men, who suffered

27

This presumably refers to the blood of animals sacrificed to pagan deities.

Book VI

235

a number of defeats in different places, in which God repaid them in kind for the wickedness of their own actions.28 King Otto also returned home, although before he disbanded his army he built a most strong castle at Harlingsberg. As a result, the men of Goslar were much afflicted, to such an extent that many people left the city, which appeared to be in large part desolate. That town indeed suffered from hunger and want, having this new castle set up against it in the east, while to the west was the castle of Lichtenberg. Wagons or other vehicles carrying foodstuffs to the citizens who were trapped there were not permitted to enter the town. A little while later, however, Lichtenberg was captured by Count Herman of Harzburg through treachery, and the blockade of the city was in part lifted. But thereafter Goslar was left desolate through the activities of this castle. 6 The Count Palatine abandons his brother. A little while went by, and Philip once again drew near to Otto’s lands with an army.29 The latter stationed himself at Brunswick, where he mustered a host of knights, and even of citizens who because of these continual wars were well-accustomed to the use of swords, spears and arrows. He then marched out to meet Philip, and pitched camp near Goslar. Among those in his company was his brother the count palatine, along with no small forces of his own whom he had hired (contraxerat) from Oldenburg and Stade, and from the ranks of his own ministeriales. But when the brothers took up their station, surrounded by these great armies, at Burgdorf,30 suddenly an unexpected quarrel broke out, of the sort which always makes its citizens wretched, for as the poet said: See where strife has brought our unhappy citizens.31

28

The Bohemian [ruler] and the leaders of the army, hearing that a multitude from Swabia and a countless number of men from Saxony had gathered to resist them, and not trusting their own men, for indeed he knew that some of them had been suborned by Philip, preferred to turn tail with his whole army than commit to the doubtful result of battle with the Saxons. Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, 568. 29

This was around April 1204, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 215–16, although the Cologne chronicler added that when Philip realised the size of the forces arrayed against him, he decided that it was prudent to withdraw. 30 40 km NW of Brunswick and about 20 km E of Hanover. 31 Vergil, Eclogues, I, lines 71–2, quoted earlier in Bk. V.29.

236

Book VI

And thus that great host disbanded amid wonder and lamentation, and with nothing accomplished. This was because the count palatine, who was making such efforts to help his brother, was hearing continual threats from Philip that he would lose his position as Count Palatine of the Rhine unless he abandoned his brother. Philip indeed said that he was unwilling to allow him to be burdened by the property of the palatinate, which he himself and nobody else appeared to control.32 This seemed hard to the count palatine, both because of the expense he had been put to in the service of his brother and because, having deserted Philip, he would lose his palatine position. So, faced with this difficult situation, he spoke to his brother the king in secret: Brother, I am indeed doubly bound to serve you, both through our blood relationship and through loyalty to your royal majesty. It is only right that I should receive some reward from you, so that I can assist you to the utmost. Please therefore would you hand over to me the city of Brunswick and the castle of Lichtenberg, and strengthened by these fortifications I shall be ready to resist all your enemies around us.

Hearing this, the king answered with some disdain: Not so, brother! It would be better if first I gained full control over the government of the kingdom, and then you may hold everything you want equally with me. I am unwilling to be seen to do anything through fear that I shall later regret and be forced to rescind.

What more? To the amazement and distress of many people the count palatine abandoned his brother and went over to Philip’s side, whether through deliberate choice or necessity, and Otto returned to Brunswick.33 While this was going on, however, the people of Goslar suffered continuous

32 In other words, Philip was being sarcastic as he threatened to confiscate the lands that Henry had gained through his marriage (for which, above, V.20). 33 Cf. Chronicon Montis Sereni, MGH SS xxiii.171, which said that Philip promised Henry the advocacy (advocatia) of Goslar. For discussion, see Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 49–50, 361–2, Bernd Schneidmüller, Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung (Stuttgart 2000), pp. 251–2, Briechle, Heinrich von Braunschweig, pp. 92–111, and especially Lyon, Princely Brothers and Sisters, p. 139–45. Henry would seem to have been seeking the return of Saxon properties which had originally been allocated to him as eldest son by his father (given that it was expected that Otto would receive significant endowment in the Angevin Empire from his uncle King Richard I). After his election as king, Otto needed a significant territorial base in Germany and some of his brother’s lands in Saxony were transferred to him in May 1202. However, Henry, whose position

Book VI

237

attacks and losses at the hands of the men of Brunswick, while the latter frequently captured the merchants among them setting off for other regions or relieved them of their money bags, and [thus] did them a great deal of harm. 7 The capture of Goslar. After this, while King Otto was dwelling in Cologne, his steward Gunzelin wanted to capture the castle of Lichtenberg, since the men of Brunswick were suffering frequent attacks from there.34 So he summoned his friends and laid siege to the castle, but since this was strongly defended, their efforts were wasted and they made no progress with the siege. After discussing the matter, they went instead to Goslar, and launched an attack in force upon it; and since the town was, as described above, in large part deserted and lacking a garrison, it was quickly captured by the enemy and suffered a fearful sack. The guard of the town had been entrusted to Herman with a few men from Harzburg, who were quite unable to resist the onrushing enemy – he and his men fled and managed to escape. As a result this wealthy city was quite depopulated, with its citizens made prisoner, while for a week plunder was taken out of the city in countless wagons which had been gathered from all around. Among this loot there was such a quantity of pepper and spices that they divided these up into containers and huge piles. Since this city had resisted Otto for a long time, there were some who wished to set fire to it and burn it down, while others made preparations to destroy the churches. Some indeed entered the church of St Matthew carrying weapons and prepared to carry off the golden crowns and countless other ornaments generously given to it by the kings. But God changed their minds, and [instead] they accepted hostages from the citizens, and left the city unharmed until the arrival of the king. This was pleasing to the king, and so that he might hold it more

in the Rhineland was becoming increasingly problematic, especially after the death of his wife in May 1204, now sought some of these concessions back. 34 Gunzelin of Wolfenbüttel, son of Ekbert the ministerialis of Henry the Lion, for whom above, I.1. He was one of Otto IV’s closest and most loyal servants. The Erfurt chronicler later described him as: one of the domestic household of his same Otto, who was distinguished by the office of steward, of whose loyalty and courage this same Otto had long been aware. He entrusted him not just with private business, but also the public affairs of the kingdom, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, pp. 209–10 (anno 1211). For Gunzelin’s career, Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 389–92.

238

Book VI

securely, he returned some of what had been taken to the citizens and thereafter held the city subject to him.35 8 The second expedition of King Philip. After this King Philip launched another expedition into Thuringia, and laid close siege to the town of Weissensee, which lay in the middle of the landgrave’s territory.36 When after some time the siege had grown more intense, Landgrave Herman was much troubled, for he was unable to resist the king. However, his ally the Bohemian arrived, bringing help to his friend. He had reached Orlamünd when he was informed of the strength of Philip’s forces, and became apprehensive and began to consider ways of escape. He deceitfully held talks with Margrave Conrad of Landsberg as to how he could with the latter’s mediation recover the king’s good grace.37 After the margrave had promised faithfully to do this, the Bohemian said: Since it is now time for dinner, you should return to your camp. You may know, however, that I definitely want to come to [receive] the grace of King Philip. I shall not change my mind, and I need you to secure me a face-to-face meeting with him.

The margrave therefore returned to his camp. Meanwhile the Bohemian, deserting his men and abandoning everything in his camp, apart from the staff which the Bohemians are accustomed to use, mounted his horse and fled. The Count Palatine Otto of Wittelsbach and four hundred men pursued him

35

Cf. Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 179, which suggests that King Otto’s other brother William commanded the attack, which took place between Easter and June 1206. 36 The Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 179, dates this to around 22 July 1206; however, the Erfurt chronicler seems to date this campaign to 1204, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, pp. 202–3. Since Philip issued a charter to the archbishop of Magdeburg while ‘in camp near Erfurt’ on 22 September 1204, the latter is almost certainly correct, Die Urkunden Philipps von Schwaben, ed. Andrea Rzihacek and Renata Spreizer (MGH Diplomata 12, Wiesbaden 2014), pp. 184–6 no. 81. Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 290–1. 37 Conrad was one of the Wettin family and first cousin to Margrave Dietrich of Meissen. He was margrave of the Ostmark, and married to a daughter of Duke Sobieslaw II of Bohemia (d. 1180), a cousin of King Ottokar. He was therefore an obvious intermediary. Conrad died in 1210. Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 501–2; Jorg Rogge, Die Wettiner. Aufstieg einer Dynastie im Mittelalter (Ostfilden 2009), pp. 43–4.

Book VI

239

as far as the forest known as the Boemerswald. Seeing this, the landgrave was much afraid, and seeing no prospect of escape came to kneel at Philip’s feet, absolutely unconditionally. He lay for a long time on the ground while the king chided him for his treachery and foolishness, but Philip was finally persuaded by the arguments of those who were present with him, raised him up from the ground and received him with the kiss [of peace].38 Ottokar was so humiliated by Philip that he only held on to half of his duchy, while Diepold possessed the remaining part.39 Now let us abandon these matters and return to our homeland. 9 The expedition of King Cnut against the margrave. Meanwhile there was no lack of new occurrences in Denmark and the North Elbe region. Margrave Otto of Brandenburg indeed attacked King Cnut, subjecting to himself certain Slavs whom the king claimed to be under his jurisdiction. As a result the angry king launched an expedition against him, and entered his land with his fleet along the River Oder, which flows into that sea. The Rugians or Raini, with the Polabians and Obrodites came to meet him. The king took up his station on the island of Möen while the chancellor Peter led the army.40 When the margrave encountered them, with a host of knights and Slavs, many fell from wounds on both sides. Among others, Thorbern the brother of the bishop fell, and the chancellor himself was wounded and taken prisoner, and so that expedition was ended. The bishop was held in close custody by Otto, who hoped that through him he might recover many prisoners or take possession of a large part of Slavonia. Some little time went by while the bishop was held in prison. As he lay sick from the wound which he had suffered, this shrewd and cunning man pretended to be more ill than he really was, as if his case was desperate. As a result the margrave was moved by a certain humane instinct, and also fearing the

38

The landgrave, forced by necessity, handed over his son and other hostages, and surrendered his person and all his possessions near the monastery of Ichterhausen on the feast of St Lambert [17 September], pledging himself to King Philip both by oath and through the hostages, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, p. 203. 39 Philip supported Diepold, Duke of Moravia, another member of the Premzelid family, who was the great-grandson of Duke Vladislaw I (d. 1125), as the rival ruler of Bohemia, but he was eventually forced to take refuge with the Poles. 40 Peter Sunesen, Bishop of Roskilde 1191–214. This expedition seems to have taken place in summer 1198, Annales Ryenses, MGH SS xvi.405.

240

Book VI

shame should the bishop pass away while held in close confinement, to treat him more kindly. Guard over the bishop had been entrusted to a man called Ludolf. The bishop now took the opportunity to persuade his jailer to help free him. And what more [need be said]. With the agreement and assistance of his jailer, the bishop was rescued from his imprisonment and returned home, and Ludolf received no small reward. 10 About the expedition of the margrave. The next winter, when the rivers and marshes were frozen, Margrave Otto raised an army, and with the help of Count Adolf ravaged the whole of Slavonia; nor did he spare the land of Geromar, which is called Tribsees.41 He would indeed have [also] ravaged Rügen if the ice of the lagoon, which divides these lands, had not melted. Because of this Adolf caused the king to become very angry, and thereafter was excluded from his grace, for he had often offended the king, both through his frequent attacks on the Slavs and when he had taken sides with Bishop Waldemar against him.42 11 The expedition of Cnut to the Eider region. Thus next summer King Cnut led an army against Adolf into the Eider region which came to a place called Reinoldsburg.43 The count hastened to meet him with a countless host of knights, while Margrave Otto sent a great number of men-at-arms to his aid. Among those present there were Count Simon of Tecklenburg, Bernhard of Wolpe, Moritz of Oldenburg and many others.44 Nor was the lord Hartwig, Archbishop of Bremen, absent from this muster. The count provided in abundance for all these men at his own expense for not a few days – and many people were amazed that a count could meet these great costs. Since the water

41

A district in Pomerania, about 40 km E of Rostock. Cf. above, V.17. 43 Modern Rendsburg, on the River Eider in Schleswig, c.30 km W of Kiel. This was the furthest point at which the river was navigable. For what follows, and especially the chronology, see Hans-Joachim Freytag, ‘Die Eroberung Nordelbingens durch den dänischen König im Jahre 1201’, in Aus Reichsgeschichte und nordischer Geschichte. Karl Jordan zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H. Fuhrmann, H.E. Mayer and K. Wriedt (Stuttgart 1972), pp. 222–43. 44 Moritz of Oldenburg (d. 1209) had earlier been responsible for the murder of his brother Count Christian, in 1192, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.352. For Counts Simon and Bernhard, see above, Bk. II.13. 42

Book VI

241

separated the two sides one from another, and the king only pretended to cross over to meet them, while they did not dare to attack him, eventually the king raised camp and returned home, and thus this expedition was abandoned without any peace agreement being concluded. 12 The building of Reinoldsburg. Once summer had passed, Count Adolf promptly began to rebuild the ancient castle of Reinoldsburg, hoping that with the aid of this fortress he might foil the king’s attack. But when May arrived the king, not unmindful of his injuries, mustered an army and came with a great host to the Eider region, while the count and his men were also present there. Since he was unable to resist the king’s attack, a peace agreement was concluded and he recovered the king’s grace; the count was allowed to retain his lands in peace provided that he surrendered this castle to the king. The latter, however, not only strengthened the castle, installing a large and well-armed garrison there, but he had a very wide bridge built over the Eider, which thus allowed him free entry and exit to the count’s lands, and little by little disputes and clashes arose. The count meanwhile, along with his namesake Count Adolf of Dassel, started to besiege Lauenberg, building the castle of Haddenburg through which he blockaded the other castle, and preventing the garrison from entering or leaving.45 The siege grew more intense, since the count had brought with him a naval force from Hamburg, which provided him with plenty of men, weapons and siege engines. And since the castle was closely blockaded both by land and water, and Duke Henry, the count palatine, was unable to relieve it, with victuals now running short, the garrison started to consider its surrender. They therefore sent envoys in secret to King Cnut, offering to hand the castle over to him. The king was overjoyed, and sent a certain Radulf, a distinguished man from Holstein, to the garrison with his thanks, with the intention that they should hand the place over to him and place the royal standard there, promising that he himself would arrive in the near future and rescue the castle from their enemies. Hearing of this, the nephews [of Count Adolf] redoubled their attacks on this castle, and since it was running short of food, they soon forced it to surrender. On being informed, the king conceived an even greater dislike for these counts, although he cunningly dissimulated this. However, after a while and through the mediation of his friends Count Adolf was restored to the good graces of the count palatine and they became the greatest of friends, so that the duke gave him in fief

45 This castle had earlier been held by Henry the Lion against the attacks of Duke Bernhard, see above, V.16.

242

Book VI

(inbeneficiaret) the patrimony that he had around the River Gamma, for which the count paid him 700 marks. 13 About the expedition of the Slavs into the land of Ratzeburg. Meanwhile Henry Borwin and his nephew Nicholas, also known as Niklot, with the consent of King Cnut, prepared an expedition into the land of Count Adolf of Dassel.46 The count and his men met them at a place called Waschow. After they had drawn up their battle lines, Nicholas made the first attack on the enemy and was killed. He was a wise and good man, whose death cast all of Slavonia into mourning, which led many to perish in revenge for him. For, on realising that this great man had fallen, the enemy attacked ferociously and overthrew the German with great slaughter, so that only the count and a very few knights escaped – apart from some prisoners 700 men died from the sword.47 Alas, alas, how many widows were given over to groaning and tears! After so many men had perished, this spacious land remained as if uncultivated, growing thorns and brambles, and untouched either by ploughs or yokes of oxen. The aforesaid count was then of little value to his land; indeed he was rather the cause of this terrible disaster, for he and his nephew had entered Dittmarsch, which seemed to be subject to the king, and despoiled it, inflicting no little harm upon it. Furthermore, Count Adolf permitted raids by his men, through whom he amassed money, notably Henry who was called Busche (whom he even threw into prison, in chains),48 Eggo of Sture,49 and Bruno of Tralau. Those people whom the count had driven from the land and who had gone into exile with Duke Waldemar in Jutland rejoiced: these were Scacco and his brothers Widagus and Radulf, Ubbo, Thiemo and his brother Markward, all of whom were relatives of Markward the commander, who had been driven by the aforesaid count from the land and had died while he was in exile there with his wife Ida50 – through these men and their agents the tares of discord were sown every day and unceasingly in the land of this count, so that

46

This was the county of Ratzeburg, which Adolf had acquired through his marriage to the widow of Count Bernhard II, who had died in 1198, and the subsequent death of his stepson Count Bernhard III, c.1200, for which see above V.7. 47 25 May 1201, Freytag, ‘Die Eroberung’, p. 229. 48 Henry appears as a witness to a charter of the Count of Holstein in 1209, Hamburgische Urkundenbuch, i.329–30 no. 372. 49 For him, see above, V.2. 50 For Markward, the commander (prefectus) of the Holsteiners, see above, III.1. He seems to have died before c.1190. This family were known as the Amonides, Freytag, ‘Die Eroberung’, pp. 232–3.

Book VI

243

as the conflict continued some of his party were tempted to defect, namely Emmeko of Fissau and Wergot of Sibberstorf. Joining the count’s enemies, they were now instructed to behave with open hostility towards him. Some indeed were brought over to the side of the king and his brother Duke Waldemar by promises of rewards, others were bribed with gifts of money. Thus all the better men joined the side of the king and his brother the duke. Around the time of the customary fishing season in Skane, in which our citizens take part – and this year they and their ships and equipment were arrested, and some of them held as prisoners – Duke Waldemar entered the land of the count with a large army – this was around the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.51 The count and his men met him at a place called Stellau. When battle was joined, the count’s side was defeated, so that many perished by the sword and others were captured. The count fled and took refuge in Hamburg. At this time the duke gained Etzeho, and laid siege to Segeberg and Travemunde, while Plön, which seemed to be a strong fortress, was captured by his men. Around the feast of SS Simon and Jude52 he mustered his army once more and, together with Bishop Peter of Roskilde, a wise man who was shrewd in counsel, he entered the land. And since the aforesaid count had already left that land, he came to Hamburg. He was met there by the men of the province and honourably welcomed by the clergy and all the people. The next day he moved his camp and came to Bergedorf, and a day after that marched to Lauenberg. Aware of the duke’s power, and no less afraid of betrayal, for the reasons explained above, the Count of Dassel had left that region. Those who remained there feared the duke’s attack and so, after taking advice, they came to meet the duke at Lauenberg, and they handed over to him the castle of Ratzeburg and entrance to the land. Seeing that he could not capture Lauenberg, the duke had Haddenburg rebuilt,53 and stationing knights there with a plentiful supply of arms and foodstuffs, he [then] marched to Ratzeburg. After he had gained control of this castle, the men of Wittenburg and Gadebusch54 surrendered to him. With everything thus going well for him, the duke came to the famous city of Lübeck, knowing that his name would be celebrated if he were to become lord of so great a city. The citizens knew that they had no choice, because of their men who were held prisoner and the ships in custody in Skane, and seeing that the duke now controlled every part of the land around them, so that they could neither enter nor leave, whether by land or sea. They took counsel and went to meet the representatives of the duke,

51

14 September 1201. 28 October. 53 For its construction, see the previous chapter. Arnold had not, however, earlier mentioned its destruction, although this may have been part of the short-lived peace agreement between the king and Count Adolf of Holstein. 54 20 km E of Ratzeburg. 52

244

Book VI

who was at Breitenfelde,55 and they surrendered the city to him – by doing so they recovered the prisoners, as well as the ships and everything that had been confiscated.56 After receiving hostages both from the city of Lübeck and from other towns and castles, the duke returned home joyfully, appointing Thiemo as his governor (advocatus) of the castle of Segeberg, although the latter was still toiling away in the siege. He appointed his brother to Travemunde, which the men of the count were [also] still holding.57 He also appointed Scacco as count of Dittmarsch, and his brother Widagus to rule over Plön. He installed Radulf in Hamburg, so that those who had been exiled on his account might receive through him greater rewards. 14 About the captivity of Count Adolf. After this Count Adolf of Schauenburg, lamenting the loss of his lands, raised ships and troops from Stade, which he still held, and occupied Hamburg around the feast of St Andrew.58 The men of the king and the duke were terrified, and took flight, along with the governor Radulf. Although the count hoped that matters would go well for him, because of the castles of Lauenberg, Segeberg and Travemunde, which still supported him, and also because some of the men of the province who were still on his side even in hard times, he remained in that city up to the Lord’s Nativity because the omens were bad. Meanwhile Duke Waldemar, hearing of the arrival of Count Adolf, made energetic preparations for another expedition, and having summoned all his friends from the North Elbe region, the Slav lands and Dittmarsch, hastened to besiege the city. Nor was Count Gunzelin absent, who came loyally to bring help, along with Henry Borwin. The count was, however, misled by his scouts, who treacherously reassured him that there was no way that the duke would come at Christmas, because the Danes customarily celebrated the feast with drinking bouts. Thus rendered over-confident, he suddenly realised, on Christmas Eve, that the duke had arrived there with a vast following. There was now no way that he could flee, for in the depth of winter both the Elbe and the Alster were frozen over. The count was thus caught in a trap, and did not know what he should do or where he might turn since his enemies were pressing him on all sides. He discussed with his men if it might be possible at night, when the enemy were

55

About 30 km S of Lübeck. Subsequently, after he had become king, Waldemar confirmed the rights of the city of Lübeck, and then granted its merchants trading rights in Skane and Falsterbro, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, p. 16 no. 11 and pp. 20–1 no. 13 (August 1203, undated but 1203/9). Ibid., pp. 16–9 no. 12 (dated 7 December 1204) is a forgery. 57 That is Markward, see above. 58 30 November. 56

Book VI

245

asleep, to take up arms and force a way out, but this did not seem feasible because of the substantial pickets which had been placed on all sides round the town walls. When St Stephen’s day arrived,59 it was agreed that the count would surrender Lauenberg to the duke and [then] he and his men would be free to depart. The person chosen to arrange this was Count Gunzelin of Schwerin, who conducted the count to Lauenberg under a truce agreement, so that the latter might faithfully fulfil his promise. But when the men of Dittmarsch realised that the count had left the city and was staying in Gunzelin’s camp, whether through their own deliberate decision or through the persuasion of others they gathered as a mob and, breaking the peace agreement, they sought to murder the count. Gunzelin and his men valiantly resisted the riot which had broken out, and the leaders of the duke’s army arrived and rescued Count Adolf from this deadly danger – however, they kept him under close guard. The duke therefore moved his camp and came with Adolf to Lauenberg, so that he might keep his promise. The latter spoke to the garrison, begging them to have mercy upon him and to surrender the castle in return for his freedom, but they would in no way comply with his request. As a result the count was bound with fetters and chains. He was then led, not without mockery, through all the places over which he had previously ruled, and entered Denmark as a captive. Hearing that their enemy had been taken prisoner, the Danes announced this in every town and village, to the applause and rejoicing of everyone, as the Philistines did in the time of Saul.60 Meanwhile the men of Lauenberg made frequent raids and greatly disturbed the land. 15 The marriage of lord William. Nor ought it to be forgotten that the lord King Cnut, to please his brother Waldemar, married his sister, lady Helena, with great ceremony to lord William, the son of Duke Henry.61 Hence all the

59

26 December. This would seem to be an allusion to I Samuel, 31:9, although there are no direct verbal borrowings. 61 This took place in 1202. William, the youngest son of Henry the Lion, was then about 18. He had been born in England in 1184, and spent his childhood there even after his parents had returned to Saxony. English sources sometimes call him ‘William of Winchester’. He can only have returned to Germany shortly before his marriage, since he was in Normandy with King John on 1 April 1202, Poole, ‘Die Welfen in der Verbannung’, pp. 139, 144–5. His wife, the youngest child of Waldemar the Great and Sophia of Novgorod, was perhaps a year or two older. This marriage was planned as part of a double union, with the betrothal of Otto’s infant niece Irmgarde, daughter of the count-palatine, to Duke Waldemar, although this latter 60

246

Book VI

friends of the duke rejoiced, and all the land of the Holsatians and Sturmarii, hoping that he would be given the whole region along with the king’s sister. But this rumour was false. As the king’s brother-in-law he was, however, often treated with honour by the king and his brother the duke, and his reputation was much enhanced. In the next summer King Cnut came to Lübeck where he was gloriously received by the clergy and all the people. On his arrival, the castle of Travemunde surrendered, which overjoyed the king. The people of the province flocked with great alacrity to show themselves obedient to the king. The latter then went to Mölln and, receiving hostages where these had previously been refused, he returned home. His brother the duke went to Lauenberg, but when he was [still] unable to capture this, he rebuilt the castle of Haddenberg, which the men of Lauenberg had destroyed, and, placing a strong garrison there, he too returned home. 16 About the castle of Segeberg. After these events, the duke realised that his men were making no progress in the siege of Segeberg, because the garrison often forcibly took oxen and other animals that could be eaten from the peasants (villani) to reinforce the place – and they often seriously wounded those countrymen who resisted them. The duke made a personal inspection and, being unwilling to put up with this situation, he had ramparts thrown up around the castle and closely besieged it, preventing any sortie. After this siege had gone on for a long time the garrison’s supply of food ran low, but although under great pressure they still hoped that they would be relieved, and continued manfully to defend the castle, despite lengthy and severe privations. And when nothing arrived [to assist] these hungry men, they nonetheless cut millstones with iron tools, that their opponents might believe that they had an abundance of flour and bread. Those besieged were eventually worn out by this great labour and suffering so much from famine that the castle was surrendered, on condition that the members of the garrison might retain their property, both inherited and held as benefices, as before, and that they might freely and in complete safety carry away all their baggage or whatever they owned in the castle. After the duke had installed his own men in the castle and was returning home rejoicing, a messenger suddenly arrived with the sad announcement that his brother the king was dead.62 He was appalled by this news, and continued his return journey at a much faster pace so that he might take possession of his brother’s kingdom. After he had been accepted as king

marriage never took place, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.353; Freytag, ‘Die Eroberung’, pp. 234–5. 62 Cnut VI died on 12 November 1202, Annales Ryenses, MGH SS xv.405.

Book VI

247

to general agreement, he received the royal blessing from the venerable Archbishop Andrew of Lund on Christmas Day and was gloriously raised to the throne in that city. 17 The siege of Lauenberg and the release of Count Adolf. After these matters had been arranged, King Waldemar came to Lübeck with great glory and accompanied by a very large following around August, and was there acclaimed most joyfully as King of the Danes and Slavs, and lord of the region north of the Elbe. Then, accompanied by the archbishop of Lund and his brother Peter of Roskilde, along with the other bishops, provosts and leading men of North Elbia, Dittmarsch, the Slavs and the Rugians, he set up ramparts of great strength around the castle of Lauenberg; and after he had established his camp there, he had many siege engines and catapults for attacking castles built. Crossbowmen and archers continually harassed the garrison, and both sides inflicted and received wounds – nor among these exchanges was there any lack of funerals for those who died. After this had been going on for a long time, and the king was still unable to gain possession of the castle, for the garrison were brave men and true warriors, and the castle was strongly fortified, finally a truce was agreed and the garrison requested a meeting with the king, in which they might discuss the release of the count. And so, with the mediation of the archbishop and his brother the chancellor, and the rest of the bishops and leading men, it was agreed that the garrison would surrender the castle, and after hostages had been given the count would be freed from captivity. The count therefore gave [as hostages] his two sons, the son of his relation Ludolf of Dassel,63 the son of Count Henry of Dannenberg, and in addition eight further boys from among his ministeriales. It was confirmed on oath that the hostages would be freed after ten years. If indeed within these years the king should depart this life, the hostages would be freed; if the count should die then this would also be done. Thus the castle was surrendered, and the count returned joyfully to Schauenburg. 18 The release of Bishop Waldemar. Meanwhile, however, his fellow prisoner Bishop Waldemar continued to languish in chains. But through the piety of the lord Archbishop Andrew and others, who made representations on his behalf, he was finally released, in this way. For since this same Waldemar was a nobleman, the son of King Cnut, and heir to a great patrimony,

63

Brother of Count Adolf of Ratzeburg.

248

Book VI

and had conspired against King Cnut and his brother Duke Waldemar, who was now the king, his release seemed unwise to many people.64 After some discussion, the matter was communicated to the lord pope. The latter, through his envoys, acted as mediator, and lord Waldemar was freed on the following conditions: that he would not remain in this region where he might cause problems for his relative and namesake King Waldemar, and this was confirmed by Bishop Waldemar on oath.65 The king therefore sent him to the lord pope, having paid his expenses, that he might remain there with him, that the latter might appoint him to some other bishopric.66 Bishop Waldemar did not, however, fulfil his part of the bargain, since he soon afterwards attached himself to King Philip, complaining that he had been injured by King Waldemar. As a result some people alleged that he had perjured himself. 19 About the conquest of Greece. Now we shall leave these matters and move on to Greece, while we tell of the recent and wonderful events which took place there through the Lord’s doing, or which he allowed to take place. We shall present these to those of the present time and the future, insofar as we are aware of the truth [of these events]. What was done by the Latins there was great and extraordinary, and is worthy of being told. But whether these doings were those of God or of men is not yet absolutely clear. For that reason, it seems to be by God’s permission, as was foretold, since things which happen in the Church often seem to take place rather through the permission of God than through his doing (operatio), even though this same permission of God can rightly be understood [also] as His doing. For He, at the request of Satan, allowed Job to be afflicted, although the affliction led to the overthrow of this Satan and the exaltation of the man of God. For this was by the working of God, as Job was tempted through His permission, so that the virtue of patience, known to God alone, might benefit the elect in setting an example

64

See above, V.17. Pope Celestine III had previously written in December 1195 to Cnut VI, Archbishop Absalon and the clergy of Denmark to request the bishop’s release, without effect, Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches’, p. 522. Innocent III had also done so in December 1203, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 6 Pontifikatsjahr, 1203/1204, ed. O. Hageneder, J.C. Moore and A. Sommerlechner (Vienna 1995), pp. 294–9 no. 179. 65 In 1206. 66 Innocent III wrote to King Waldemar on 2 April 1207, saying that Bishop Waldemar had appeared before him to answer the charges made against him, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 10 Pontifikatsjahr, 1207/1208, ed. Rainer Murauer and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2007), 63–5 no. 41.

Book VI

249

for their way of life. This the holy man knew well, thus after the destruction of his property and the killing of his people he said: ‘the Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away’, and so on.67 For since the Devil has deserted the truth and has taken himself from the company of God and the angels, by whom he was exalted, so that he has nothing of his own save his own evil, and thus through himself he has no power. Therefore anything he does is done by permission, although he indeed acts as though he were the agent of destruction. God is indeed merciful, and through his will even when something is done which seems to be out of malice, the devil is reluctantly doing what God wishes. We shall, however, leave these thoughts and let us come to the matters in hand. Around this time a letter was sent from the regions of Greece to the lord King Otto:68 To the most excellent lord Otto, by the grace of God King of the Romans and always Augustus, Count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainault, and Counts Louis of Blois and Clermont and Hugh of Saint Pol, and the other barons and knights of the army of those signed (signatorum)69 in the fleet of the Venetians in the fullness of their love and always ready for the service of his honour. How much the Lord has done for us, although not for us but for His name, how much glory he has given in these days, we shall albeit briefly narrate as much as we can. We record first that after leaving the city of transgression – for so we call Zara, the ruin of which we view with sorrow, although we were forced to this by necessity – we remember nothing that was arranged between us that pertained to the general benefit of the army. However, Divine Providence changed that for the better, and taking everything upon itself made our wisdom foolishness. That is, we reject all the glory that might by right be ours because of those deeds which were done by us, since we contributed nothing to the plan and little to the execution. Hence it is necessary that if anyone among us should wish to be glorified, he should be glorified in the Lord, and not in himself or in another. Therefore, a treaty was concluded at Zara with the illustrious man Alexius of Constantinople, son of the former emperor, Isaac, since we were lacking all foodstuffs and supplies and, like those others among us who had gone before, seemed rather to bring a burden to the Holy Land than

67

Job, 1: 21. This was a circular letter, probably written in late August 1203: another more or less identical version was sent to Pope Innocent III, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 6 Pontifikatsjahr, 1203/1204, pp. 358–61 no. 210 [English translation by Alfred Andrea, Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden 2000), pp. 80–5], and a very similar one in the name of Hugh of Saint Pol, addressed to the Duke of Brabant, can be found in Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 203–8. 69 That is, ‘with the Cross’. 68

250

Book VI to furnish it with any assistance; nor did we believe that, given we were in such great want, we could make a landing in the land of the Saracens. We were persuaded by all sorts of most plausible rumours and arguments that the more powerful faction within the royal city and the bulk of the empire hoped for the arrival of the said Alexius, whom it had raised to the imperial crown through a harmonious election and with proper solemnity.70 In a short time we arrived safely at the royal city through a favourable wind, quite against the usual custom of the season, with the wind and the sea obeying the Lord.71 But we had not arrived unexpectedly, for we found up to sixty thousand knights, along with [other] infantry, in the city. Rushing past the most secure places, bridges, towers and rivers, we besieged the city by land and sea, and equally the tyrant, who by committing parricide against his brother had polluted the insignia of empire (fasces imperii) through his long [illegitimate] occupation.72 However, contrary to the opinion of all [of us], we found that the minds of all the citizens were firmly set against us, and similarly the city was held against its lord by walls and war machines, as if an infidel people had arrived there who intended to pollute the holy places and inexorably wipe out the Christian religion. So indeed the most cruel usurper of the empire, the betrayer and bereaver of his lord and brother, who had condemned him to perpetual imprisonment, although he had not committed any crime, [and] he would have done the same thing to his son the illustrious Alexius, if fortunate exile had not snatched him from his hands, had previously called a shocking meeting with the people, and had infected both the powerful and the common people with poisonous arguments, such as claiming that the Latins had come to overthrow their ancient liberty, and that they were hastening to restore the place and its people to the Roman Pontiff and make the empire subject to the laws of the Latins. What he said so animated everyone against us, and equally strengthened their morale, so that they all seemed equally to have joined in a sworn conspiracy against us and our exile. We frequently requested a hearing from the citizens, through envoys, and indeed through our exile himself, our barons and even in person, but we were unable to explain the reason for our arrival, nor what we wanted, but every time we tried to parley with those stationed on the wall we received missiles in return for our words. Considering therefore that everything was turning out contrary to our hopes, and

This was entirely untrue – the Eastern Empire was not an elective monarchy, and Prince Alexius had never been crowned emperor. 71 Cf. Mark, 4: 41. 72 Alexius III, emperor from 1195, who had seized the throne from his brother Isaac. The implication of the phrase diutina incubatione is, as Andrea rightly suggests in his translation (which differs slightly from the one above), that not only had he held the throne for a long time but that he had done so illegally. 70

Book VI

251

thrust into a desperate position where we must quickly either conquer or die, for there was no way we could extend the siege beyond fifteen days, suffering as we were from an extraordinary shortage of foodstuffs, we began to long for battle, not indeed out of desperation but rather inspired by a certain sense of security from on high – we were most ready boldly to face danger and incredibly to succeed in everything. As often as we were drawn up for battle in the open field, we forced a great multitude back into the city through ignominious flight. Therefore, after setting up siege engines in the meanwhile both on land and sea, an entry was forced into the city on the eighth day of the siege.73 A fire broke out, and the emperor drew up his army in open field against us, while we were ready to meet those advancing [against us]. Astounded by our steadfastness, given how few we were, he shamefully hauls back on his reins.74 Having retreated into the burning city, that very night he takes flight with only a few companions, leaving his wife and infant daughter in the city. Unknown to us, once that flight was discovered, the Greek nobles (proceres) gather in the palace and the solemn election of our exile is celebrated – or rather his restoration is announced – and a large number of torches in the palace attest to unexpected joy. When morning came, a large body of Greek nobles come, unarmed, to our camp, joyfully seeking out the one whom they had elected, and claiming that liberty has been restored to the city. With immeasurable joy they inform the son who is returning to the insignia of empire that his father Isaac, the former emperor, had been released from prison. After those matters which seemed to be necessary had been arranged in advance, the new emperor is brought in solemn procession to the church of St Sophia, and without dissent the imperial crown, along with the plenitude of power, is restored to our exile. After these events the new emperor hastens to fulfil his promises, and to promises he adds deeds. He offers to all of us a year’s supply of victuals for our future service to the Lord. He proceeds to pay 200,000 marks to us and to the Venetians, and at his own expense he extends [our hire of] the fleet for a further year. He binds himself on oath that he shall go with us, with his royal standard, and travel with us in the March passage in the Lord’s service with as many thousands of men-at-arms as he can. By this same promise he also obligates himself that he must show that same reverence to the Roman Pontiff as his ancestors, the Catholic emperors, are known in the past to have accorded to the pope’s predecessors, and to do everything he can to persuade the Eastern Church to do this [too].75

73

17 June 1203. Most of what follows is rendered in the ‘historic present’ tense, which usage has been followed here. 75 The text of this letter recorded in Innocent’s register ends here after one further sentence (omitted from this version), Andrea, Contemporary Sources, p. 84. 74

252

Book VI Therefore, inspired by these advantageous conditions, and lest we be seen to spurn the deliverance that the Lord has given into our hands and to turn into eternal shame what would seem to have accorded us incomparable honour, we have agreed with ready devotion to spend the winter here, and then with God’s help to sail to Egypt by the next passage. We are all of our own free will bound by this decision which is both certain and irrevocable, insofar as this is in us. And now, if we expect any merit, grace or even glory from these deeds which have been accomplished or will be done [in future], we ask in the Lord that your Serenity be a participant, or rather the leader [in them]. Meanwhile, we have sent our envoys to the Sultan of Babylon, the impious occupier of the Holy Land,76 who are charged with informing him ceremoniously on behalf of the highest monarch, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and of his servants, namely of the aforesaid emperor and in our name, that with God’s assistance in the very near future we propose to demonstrate to his unbelieving race the devotion of the Christian people, and we expect power from Heaven for the affliction of infidelity.77 We have, however, done these things trusting in your power under the Lord and that of other lovers of the Christian name, rather than relying upon our own power. We would wish that our fellow servants be joined to Him more devotedly and to us more ardently; through this we shall see more and better servants of our King fighting alongside us, lest He who was once betrayed to the Jews but is now raised up in glory be handed over to the heathen to be mocked.

20 As above. We have learned about the first coming of the Latins to Greece through this letter, which as you have heard was sent to the king. Now you can find out from the following letter how the land was conquered and how Baldwin became emperor of Constantinople, how he powerfully made the land subject to him, how its treasures were taken away, about the secret of secrets that the Lord showed to him, and with what great generosity he distributed his gains.78

76

Al-‘Adil Sayf-al Din abū Bakr (‘Saphadin’ to the Christians), Sultan of Egypt, who had from c.1201 onwards united most of the Ayubid Empire under his rule. 77 For the use of contritio in this sense, cf. Jeremiah, 30: 15. 78 This again was a circular letter, probably written soon after 16 May 1204, which survives in three other, slightly different but similar, versions in addition to this one: to Innocent III, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 7 Pontifikatsjahr, 1204/1205, ed. O. Hageneder A. Sommerlechner and H. Weigl (Vienna 1997), 253–9 no. 152 [translated by Andrea, Contemporary Sources, pp. 100–12], this arrived in Rome about

Book VI

253

Baldwin, by the grace of God the most faithful Emperor of Constantinople, crowned by God, Roman governor and always Augustus, Count of Flanders and Hainault, to all the faithful of Christ, archbishops, bishops and abbots, priors, provosts, deans and other prelates of churches and ecclesiastical persons; barons, knights, sergeants and all the Christian people to whom this present document comes, wishing them grace and salvation in true salutation. Hear, whether you are far away or near, and let us marvel and praise the Lord, ‘for He hath done excellent things’.79 He has deigned to renew in our times the miracles of old, and He has given glory to be wondered at for all time, not indeed to us, but to His name. Even more miraculous events follow His miracles around us, so that there can be no doubt, even among unbelievers, that the hand of the Lord guided all of these events, since nothing that we hoped for or had previously anticipated took place, but then at last the Lord provided for us new assistance,80 when human ingenuity seemed to benefit us not at all. And indeed, if memory serves us well, we presented in a letter sent to your community an account of our progress and condition up to the point when the populous city had been stormed by a small number, the tyrant had fled and Alexius had been crowned, and a promise and agreement was made that we would stay over the winter, so that should anyone wish to resist Alexius, they could be firmly subdued. But to avoid our behaviour towards the barbarians serving to create dispute between us and the Greeks, we left the city, and at the emperor’s request set up our camp on the opposite side of the harbour from the city. Those deeds which we performed against the Greeks were not in truth like the work of men, but of God; but what Greece, with a new emperor, did in response to us, arose from its usual perfidy, and was the work not of men, but rather of demons. The emperor indeed, seduced by the treachery of the Greeks, quite unexpectedly became hostile to us, we who had conferred so many benefits upon him. He showed himself a perjurer and a liar in everything that he (along with his father, the patriarch and the bulk of the nobility) had promised to us – every time he swore an oath to us he committed perjury. As a result he was finally deprived of our assistance, and he vainly contemplates doing battle against us, and he seeks to burn the fleet which had brought him [here] and had raised him to the crown. But he is denied his cruel desire, for the Lord defended us, and his situation becomes worse in every respect as his men are slaughtered, with fire and

October 1204; to Archbishop Adolf of Cologne, recorded in Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 208–15; and to the abbots of the Cistercian Order; for discussion, see Andrea, Contemporary Sources, pp. 98–9. 79 Isaiah, 12: 5. 80 Andrea, Contemporary Sources, p. 100, translates this as ‘new forms of aid’.

254

Book VI rapine. As battle threatens outside, he is inwardly beset by fears. The Greeks seize the opportunity to raise up a rival emperor,81 since now neither he nor anyone related to him by blood can have recourse to our help. Even so, his only hope of escape remains in us, and so he sends to our army a certain man named Murzuphulus, who was sworn to him, in whom he trusted above all others because of the rewards and benefices he had given him. This man promises by his own oath and that of the emperor to give us the imperial palace of Blachernae as a pledge until everything that had been promised to us should be fulfilled. The noble Margrave of Montferrat went with our knights to receive the palace. But the Greeks deceived our men and with their customary perjury are not afraid to withhold the hostages whom they have previously promised to give us. The next night Murzuphulus, betraying both his lord and us, revealed the secret agreement to surrender the palace to us, and he declares that from this their liberty will be permanently snatched away from them and that he himself would do everything he could to prevent this if Alexius was overthrown. Through this betrayal he was raised by the Greeks to be emperor. He therefore placed sacrilegious hands on his lord while the latter lay sleeping and unaware of what was happening and clapped him into prison, along with a certain Nicholas, whom the mob had raised up as emperor at St Sophia – something of which he was unaware. Murzuphulus overthrew this man, who had been treacherously betrayed to him and usurped the imperial crown for himself.82 A little while later the lord Isaac, father of Alexius, ended his days. It was he above all who had turned his son’s mind away from us, or so it was said. With the Greeks thirsting so much for our blood, and with the clergy and all the people crying out that we should very quickly be wiped off the earth, the aforesaid traitor levies battle against us. He strengthens the defences of the city by installing machines in the bastions, the like of which nobody has seen before. The wall is extremely thick and rises to a great height. It is furnished with a great number of towers, spaced around fifty yards, more or less, from each other, between every two on the sea side, where our assault was expected, a wooden tower was placed on three or four places above the wall, containing a host of armed men. In addition, stone throwers or mangonels were set up between each pair of towers. Moreover wooden towers six storeys high were set up above the towers, and above the top level platforms were extended out against us, with walls and bulwarks set up on both sides. The highest part of each platform was at a height just less than

81

See below. This happened on 25 January. Nicholas Kannavos had been chosen emperor by the mob who had seized the church of St Sophia on 25 January 1204. Alexius IV was overthrown on the night of 27/28 January. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium, pp. 307–8. 82

Book VI

255

a bowshot from the ground. A lower wall and a double ditch enclosed this wall, to prevent any machine being pushed up to the [main] wall, under which sappers could hide. Meanwhile the perfidious emperor tested us by land and sea, but with the Lord always protecting us his attempts were frustrated. For in accordance with our orders our men were ranging far and wide in search of food; and the emperor attacked with a great host a force of almost a thousand warriors. But his army was routed at the first encounter, with not a few of his men killed and captured, with no loss to our men. He thought it best to take refuge in shameful flight – he threw away his shield, dropped his arms and abandoned the imperial standard, as well as a noble icon which he had borne before him, which our victorious men dedicated to the Cistercian Order.83 After this he once again tried to set fire to our ships; in the dead of night, as the south wind blew, he launches sixteen fire ships against our vessels with sails unfurled and tied together at the prow. But with the Lord’s assistance and thanks to great efforts by our men we are preserved without harm. Chains were fastened to the burning ships by grappling hooks, and they are towed out to sea by our oarsmen, and thus we are freed by the Lord from imminent danger of death. We then challenge him to a battle on land, and having crossed the bridge and stream that separated us from the Greeks and drawn up our formations, we stood for a long time before the gate of the royal city, preceded by the life-giving Cross, in the name of the Lord of Israel’s armies,84 we were ready to undertake battle with the Greeks, if it pleased them to make a sortie. But only one noble knight came out for military endeavour, and our infantry cut him to pieces, and so we returned to camp. We faced frequent challenges on both land and sea, but with the Lord’s aid we always obtained victory. The treacherous occupier of the imperial throne therefore sends envoys to us, feigning peace, and asks for and obtains a meeting with the Doge of Venice.85 The duke then complained to him that there could be no secure peace with a man who had clapped his own lord into prison, having disregarded the sanctity of his oath and fealty, and the agreement between them, something which is strictly observed even among unbelievers,86 and

83

This encounter took place about 5/6 February. The Devastatio Constantinopolitana also noted the capture of the icon, which it said was of the Virgin, and that the Frankish force was commanded by Henry, brother of the Count of Flanders (the later emperor, 1205–16), Andrea, Contemporary Sources, p. 220. 84 As Andrea, Contemporary Sources, p. 104, notes, the papal version of this letter has agmina (nominative) rather than agminum (genitive) as does Arnold and the other two versions of this letter, which would result in a different translation. 85 Enrico Dandolo. 86 Arnold’s text reads inter fideles, but the passage only makes sense if one accepts the reading of the version in the papal register.

256

Book VI he had snatched the empire from him. The doge advised him in good faith that he should restore his lord and humbly beg his pardon, promising him our prayers on his behalf, while we ought to treat this same lord of his mercifully, if he so wished. Whatever he [Alexius IV] had done [so] venomously against us; if he were to return to his senses, we would be willing to impute his actions to his age and poor judgement. He replied with empty words, since there was no way he could respond reasonably. Moreover he rejected the obedience to the Roman pontiff and the assistance to the Holy Land which Alexius [IV] had confirmed on oath and in writing. So, he chose the loss of his life and the overthrow of Greece rather than subjecting the Eastern Church to Latin pontiffs. Therefore, on the following night he had his lord, with whom he had dined that day, strangled in prison. Then, with unheard of cruelty, he broke the sides and ribs of the dying man with an iron cudgel that he held in his hand.87 He fabricated the story that the life which he had taken with a noose had been lost by accident, and having granted him imperial burial, he tried to hide a crime which was known to all by the honour of a funeral. So, with winter completely over for us, and once our ships had been furnished with ladders and [other] warlike devices made ready, we and our equipment went aboard our ships. On 9 April, that is the Friday before Passion of the Lord,88 we all together launch(ed) a naval attack on the city, for the honour of the Roman Church and to help the Holy Land.89 On that day we suffered greatly, albeit without much bloodshed among our men, so that we retreated shamefully from our enemies. One section of our men was comprehensively defeated, so that we were forced by the Greeks to abandon our war machines which we had dragged onto land, and made to retire to the opposite shore, with the enterprise seemingly facing disaster and having on that day apparently worn ourselves out to no purpose. We were greatly disturbed and indeed afraid, but finally, taking strength in the Lord and discussed the matter, we are ready for battle once again, and on the fourth day, on 12 April, that is the day after the Passion of the Lord,90 we are carried back to the walls by the north wind. Through great efforts by our men, and despite the fiercest of resistance from the Greeks, the ladders from the ships were extended to the platforms of the towers. But once

87

Three of the four versions of this letter have inde (‘then’), that in the papal register reads Iude (Judas), referring to Alexius Murzuphulus, Register Innocenz’ III, 7 Pontifikatsjahr, p. 257; Andrea, Contemporary Sources, p. 105. 88 That is Good Friday. 89 This sentence and some of the following passage employs a ‘historic present’ tense which reads oddly in English. 90 Passion Sunday, the fourth Sunday in Lent, two weeks before Easter, which in 1204 fell on 25 April.

Book VI

257

the defenders felt our swords, the outcome of the fight was not long in doubt. Indeed, two of our ships which had been tied together, named the Paradise and the Pilgrim, which were carrying the bishops of Soissons and Troyes,91 were the first to place their ladders on the platforms of the towers, and by a happy coincidence they bore pilgrims fighting for paradise against the enemy. The banners of the bishops were the first to gain the walls, and the initial victory was granted by Heaven to ministers of the secrets of Heaven. Thus, with our men rushing in, at the Lord’s command a vast multitude yielded to a few, and with the Greeks abandoning their ramparts our men bravely opened the gates to the [other] knights. When the emperor, who is standing to arms in the tents not far from the walls, saw our men entering he immediately abandoned his tents and fled. Our men busy themselves with killing, and the populous city is captured, while those who are fleeing from our swords take refuge in the imperial palaces. After a great slaughter of the Greeks, our men re-assembled and since it was now evening and they were tired, they laid down their arms and planned the next day’s attack. The emperor [meanwhile] collects his troops and urges them to fight on the morrow, claiming that he now has our men in his power, trapped within the enclosing walls. But during the night the defeated man turns tail. On learning of this, the common people among the Greeks were flabbergasted, and set about discussing his replacement by a new emperor. Next morning, they proceed to nominate a certain Constantine, but while they are busy with this our infantrymen rush to arms, not waiting for the decision of the leaders. The Greeks fled, and they abandon the strongest and best-defended palaces, and the city was taken in no time. Countless horses, gold, silver, precious silk garments, jewels and all those other things which men account as riches are taken as plunder. So vast and unaccountable is the booty that it seems as though it is more than the whole Latin world possesses. So those who previously denied us [even] little things now by divine judgement surrender everything to us. We may, therefore, safely say that no history has ever told of extraordinary events greater than these concerning the fortunes of war, so that the prophecy seems clearly to have been fulfilled in us, where it says: ‘one man of you shall chase a hundred strangers’,92 since if we assign a share in the victory to individuals, every one of our men besieged and conquered no fewer than a hundred. Now, however, we do not falsely claim this victory for ourselves, for the right

91

Nivelon of Chérisy, Bishop of Soissons 1176–207, played a very prominent role on the Crusade, and Garnier, Bishop of Troyes 1195–205, both of whom were to be among the electors who chose Baldwin of Flanders as the new Emperor of Constantinople. 92 This combines Leviticus, 26: 8 and Joshua, 23: 10, although neither is quoted exactly.

258

Book VI hand of the Lord upheld His cause in all these miraculous events and His powerful arm was revealed in us.93 ‘This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.’94 Therefore, once we had diligently taken care of those matters with which the situation required us to arrange, we turned unanimously and devotedly to the election of an emperor, and setting aside all partisanship we appointed as the electors under God of our emperor those venerable men our bishops of Soissons and Halberstadt,95 the lord bishop of Bethlehem, who had been sent to us from the lands overseas by apostolic authority,96 the bishop-elect of Acre,97 and the abbot of Lucedio, along with six barons of the Venetians.98 On Misericordia Sunday,99 after preliminary prayer had been offered, as was proper, they unanimously and solemnly elected our own person, something which was far beyond our merits, with the clergy and people acclaiming this with divine praises.100 And on the following Sunday, when Jubilate is sung, in accordance with the precept of the Apostle Peter, that the king is to be honoured and obeyed,101 and as the Gospel tells us that nobody shall take your joy from you,102 with great honour and rejoicing, and with even the Greeks applauding as is their custom, these aforesaid bishops, fathers beloved both by God and men, raised us to the exalted rank and crown of the empire, to the honour of God and of the Holy Roman Church, and to universal applause and pious tears.103 This was done in the presence of inhabitants of the Holy Land, both ecclesiastical and military personages, whose joy and congratulations were even less restrained than

93

Cf. Psalm, 97: 1 (Vulgate), 98: 1 (AV). Psalm, 117: 23 (Vulgate), 118: 23 (AV); Matthew, 21: 42; Mark, 12: 11. 95 Conrad of Krosigk, Bishop of Halberstadt 1201–8, a supporter of Philip of Swabia who eventually resigned his see and became a Cistercian monk. He died on 21 June 1225. See, Alfred J. Andrea, ‘Conrad of Krosigk, Bishop of Halberstadt, Crusader and monk of Sittichenbach: his ecclesiastical career, 1184–225’, Analecta Cisterciensia 43 (1987), 11–91. 96 Peter, Bishop of Bethlehem, subsequently killed at the battle of Adrianople in April 1205. 97 John of Noyon. 98 Abbot Peter of Lucedio, a Cistercian monastery near Vercelli in northern Italy. (He has often been confused with Peter, Bishop of Ivrea, who subsequently became Patriarch of Antioch in 1209, see Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States, the Secular Church (London 1980), p. 219). The bishop of Troyes, who was the twelfth elector, has been omitted from this list, perhaps through a copyist’s error. 99 9 May 1204. 100 The Laudes Regiae that were traditional at royal acclamations. 101 I Peter, 2: 17. 102 John 16: 22. 103 16 May 1204. 94

Book VI

259

those of everyone else. They claimed that this service offered to God was even more welcome than if the Holy City had been restored to the Christian cult, since the royal city has now vowed itself to [serve] both the Holy Roman Church and to the Holy Land of Jerusalem, having for so long and so powerfully stood forth as an enemy in opposition to them both, and this [will be] to the perpetual confusion of the enemies of the Cross. For this is the city which so often dared to conclude deadly friendships with the infidel – sucking blood in turn from the filthiness of the gentiles as a sign of fraternal union and the richness of its breasts for a long time nourished these same people, and it provided in its worldly arrogance for them arms, ships and foodstuffs, while on the contrary doing nothing for pilgrims.104 These deeds rather than words serve to instruct all the people of the Latins. This is indeed the city that out of hatred for the supreme pontiff could scarcely hear the name of the Prince of the Apostles, nor did it grant a single church from the great number of Greek ones to him who has received from the Lord rule over all churches; and as recent testimony of those who saw this event recalls it condemned an Apostolic legate to a most shameful death, nothing comparable to which can be read about among the [deeds of the] martyrs, even though terrible cruelty can be found there in the description of their sufferings.105 This is the city which had learned to honour Christ with pictures alone,106 and among the very wicked rites that it had devised for itself, in contempt for the authority of Scripture, it even presumed to reject salvation-giving baptism by repeating the ceremony.107 This is the city that designated Latins not with the name of men but with that of dogs, the shedding of whose blood they almost considered to be among the works of merit; and lay monks, to whom, rather than priests who were held in contempt, all authority to bind and loose was granted, did not impose any penalties for this that involved making penance or satisfaction.108 These and other acts of

104

The allusion here would seem to be to Isaac II’s friendly relations with Saladin, for which Charles M. Brand, ‘The Byzantines and Saladin: opponents of the Third Crusade’, Speculum 37 (1962), 167–81. 105 The victim was John of Naples, Cardinal priest of S Anastasio, murdered by the Constantinople mob during the coup of Andronicus Komnenos in 1182; for his career, Zenker, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegium von 1130 bis 1154, pp. 73–7. 106 The reference is obscure, but seems to refer to the Iconoclast controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries. 107 Westerners often accused the Greeks of insisting that Latin converts to orthodoxy be re-baptised. 108 This seems to refer to the alleged preaching of John Dositheus, Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem, whom Isaac II had tried to appoint as Patriarch of Constantinople in 1189–91 at the time of Frederick Barbarossa’s Crusade, Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I., ed. A. Chroust (MGH SRG, Berlin 1928), p. 49 [Loud, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, p. 77].

260

Book VI madness, which do not deserve the effort involved explaining them in a letter, completed their sins – these have provoked Christ the Lord again and again, and divine justice has inflicted a fitting punishment upon them through our agency. The men who hate God and love [only] themselves have been driven out, and He has given to us this land, overflowing with vast quantities of all good things, furnished with wheat, wine and oil, rich in fruits, beautiful in its forests, waters and pastures, with ample space for settlement, and with a temperate climate to which there is no equal in the world. However, our desires are not satisfied by these things, nor will we permit the royal banner to be laid aside from our shoulders, until with this land firmly settled by our people we may visit the lands across the Sea and with the help of God fulfil our intended pilgrimage. For we hope in the Lord Jesus Christ that He who accomplished good work through us, to the praise and glory of His name, will secure, establish and make permanent the perpetual downfall of the enemies of the Cross. Therefore we encourage all of you the more willingly in the Lord that you deign to share in His glory, victory and hope, a great door to which has been opened to us, that without any doubt at all belongs to you [too], if both noble and ignoble, whatever their condition and gender, inflamed by His wishes, reach out for true and vast riches, you will gain these, both earthly and eternal. For with the help of God we shall provide for all those whom zeal for the Christian religion shall have brought to us, and we both wish and will be able to reward everyone according to their class and the differing circumstances of their births, and to load them with honours. We also earnestly request that churchmen pleasing to God, of whatever order or custom, hasten to come here in numbers, to plant the Church in these pleasant and fruitful places, not now in blood but in peace and with great freedom, and with an abundance of all good things, to light a fire among this same people through powerful words and to instruct them in their sermons, provided that they always have, as is proper, permission from their prelates.

Book VII 1 How Adolf of Cologne deserted King Otto. In explaining these matters concerning the situation of the Latins and the conquest of Greece, we are sharing what we have learned through our reading. But since we cannot yet be sure of the end of this story, let us now return to pursue an account of the kings. Since, therefore, King Otto had seized Cologne, as was described above,1 it seemed that good fortune was smiling upon him, when suddenly he was faced by an unexpected setback. The count of Jülich began to plot against him, and in secret sent a letter and envoys to King Philip that should the latter be willing to bestow wealth and honours upon him, then he would be willing not only to bring over all the princes who were supporters of Otto to Philip’s side, but even the archbishop of Cologne himself.2 Philip was overjoyed, and sent a message back that he wanted to come to meet him to discuss this matter at an agreed location, which is what happened. Stringently binding the count to him on oath, Philip therefore granted him an estate worth 600 marks as a benefice, and enriched him with gold and silver, precious garments and horses, and sent them all back home, after rewarding his followers. Count William then so deceived the archbishop and all the more noble men with his blandishments that they all renounced Otto and joined Philip’s party. What more? The conspiracy succeeded, Philip marched on Aachen, where he was crowned as king by Archbishop Adolf and was seated on the imperial throne.3 News of this displeased the

1 This seems to refer to a brief and oblique reference at the start of Bk. VI.7 above. 2 William II, Count of Jülich 1176–1207, was the archbishop’s uncle, Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, p. 554. Both Archbishop Adolf and Count William witnessed a charter of Philip to Duke Henry of Brabant, issued at Koblenz on 12 November 1204, Die Urkunden Philipps, pp. 186–90 no. 82. 3 This was at Epiphany (6 January) 1205, Reineri Annales, MGH SS xvi.659; cf. Chronica Regia Colonienis, pp. 173–4, which claimed that the archbishop was ‘most royally rewarded by gold, silver, a precious stone and other royal insignia’. On 12 January 1205, King Philip confirmed the ducal rights of the archbishopric in Westphalia and restored to it the estate of Saalfeld, which his father had acquired from Archbishop Philip, Urkunden Philipps, pp. 195–201 nos. 86–7. Among the witnesses to both these charters were the Count Palatine Henry and Count William of Jülich.

262

Book VII

men of Cologne,4 who remained faithful to Otto, and they complained that the archbishop had acted in this matter without consulting them before he dared to pursue this new policy, and they begged him again and again, demanding that he retract what he had done. They reminded him that the lord pope had acted at his request when he confirmed Otto as king, and the pope had decreed that nobody except himself should place his hand upon him. When the archbishop refused to change his mind, or retract what he had done, they sent a letter to the lord pope, in the name of the king, the cathedral chapter and the citizens of the city, informing him tearfully of what had taken place. The pope was annoyed by this, and sent an Apostolic letter to the archbishop, ordering him to appear before the Apostolic See within six weeks and purge himself of the charges against him.5 2 The mutilation of the dean and the murder of the chancellor. Meanwhile, one should not forget [what happened] when Henry of good memory, the principal dean of Magdeburg, wished to go to King Philip to pursue his affairs. Gerhard, brother of the burgrave, suspected that he intended to plot something against the chancellor Conrad, his [other] brother, and so he and his men followed him and, wickedly laying hands upon him, blinded him as he lay on the ground, even though he was a good and pious man, and greatly esteemed as an ornament to his church.6 For this presumption he was sentenced to the following fine: that he should pay a thousand marks of silver to the man he had There may be an echo here of II Samuel, 11: 27: ‘but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord’. 5 No such letter now survives, although we have no reason to doubt that it was written. Arnold’s account is, however, misleading in that he implicitly links the papal measures against Archbishop Adolf to the latter’s coronation of Philip. However, two months before that, on 29 October 1204, Innocent had written to the archbishop of Mainz, the bishop of Cambrai and Bruno the provost of Bonn (Adolf ’s eventual replacement), instructing them to order Adolf to return to obedience to him, on pain of deposition, Registrum super Negotio Imperio, pp. 279–82 no. 113. Adolf ’s relationship with King Otto had begun to break down in 1202, when they had a dispute about tolls and minting rights, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 200. 6 This took place on 14 August 1202, cf. the Magdeburg Schöppenchronik, ed. Karl Janicke, in Der Chroniken der deutschen Stadte, vii(1) (Leipzig 1869), pp. 127–8, and the Lauterberg Chronicle, Chronicon Montis Sereni, ed. E. Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS xxiii.168 (which, however, wrongly dates this event to 1200). Gerhard witnessed a charter of Philip of Swabia for the Cistercian monastery of Walkenried on 31 January 1200, Urkunden Philipps, pp. 82–5 no. 34, at p. 84. His two elder brothers, Burchard III, who died during the Third Crusade in 1190, and Gebhard, were successively Burgraves of Magdeburg. 4

Book VII

263

injured, he should surrender a hundred marks of silver from his fief to the cathedral, he and many [other] nobles should do homage to the dean, and that he and fifty knights should perform a suitable military penance to him, that is that every knight from the place where this wicked deed took place should bring a puppy to the door of the cathedral.7 One should also say in addition that this same chancellor Conrad, having resigned the bishopric of Hildesheim when he was elected to the see of Würzburg, and since he was a man zealous for justice, on behalf of his church had a dispute with his ministeriales, who had dared to seize the church’s property. A peace settlement was agreed, that the dispute be settled by a judicial hearing, but the bishop was [then] treacherously murdered by his opponents in that same city of Würzburg.8 An elaborate cross was subsequently erected by the faithful at the spot where he was murdered, on which this epitaph was carved: Here I lay alone, since I would not spare the wicked. My wounds were inflicted through treachery, those that gave them will live in hell.

This is the voice of the slain, calling with the blood of Abel the just man to God. They even claim that the dead man was discovered to be wearing a hair shirt, and that while living he devoted himself to the care of the poor,

7

The implication may be that these were hunting dogs, and therefore valuable, but there was clearly a strong element of humiliation involved, and it is probable that this sentence refers to the ancient practice whereby a person submitting to another, or doing penance for an offence, carried a dog on his shoulders for a specified distance. See The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa by Otto of Freising and his Continuator, Rahewin, trans. C.C. Mierow (New York 1953), p. 163 (Bk. II.46); ‘Vita Arnaldi Archiepiscopi Moguntini’, in Monumenta Moguntina, p. 615; and Annales S. Disibodi, ad. an. 1155, MGH SS xvii.29; all referring to the same punishment imposed by Frederick Barbarossa on Herman, Count Palatine of the Rhine, and his allies. 8 The murder of Bishop Conrad by the ministeriales Bodo and Henry of Ravensburg, on 6 December 1202, was widely noted by contemporary chroniclers. The most detailed account comes in the Lauterburg chronicle, Chronicon Montis Sereni, MGH SS xxiii.170. See also Burchard of Urspberg, Chronicon, p. 95, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 201, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.354, and the chronicle of St Peter of Erfurt, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, p. 201. Innocent III subsequently wrote to both the archbishop of Salzburg, on 23 January and 3 July 1203, and to the provost of Würzburg on 8 July, ordering them to prevent the murderers or their heirs holding fiefs from the bishopric of Würzburg, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 5 Pontifikatsjahr, 1202/1203, ed. O Hageneder, C. Egger, K. Rudolf and A. Sommerlechner (Vienna 1993), pp. 298–302 no. 154; Die Register Innocenz’ III, 6 Pontifikatsjahr, 1203/1204, ed. O. Hageneder, J.C. Moore, A. Sommerlechner and H. Weigl (Vienna 1995), pp. 193–7 nos. 113–14.

264

Book VII

and that he spent a quarter mark of gold every week in alms to them. ‘The Lord knoweth them that are his.’9 Who would believe that so refined a man, clad in fancy silk, would have been wearing a hair shirt? But sometimes a spiritual mind hides underneath a secular form, and on the contrary, alas, a worldly soul is hidden underneath the appearance of spirituality. 3 The deposition of the archbishop of Cologne and the appointment of Bruno in his place. The archbishop, however, ignored the Apostolic mandate, and refused to appear before the pope. Henry, canon of St Geroen, and the parish priests Anselm and Christian were appointed as judges, who immediately and properly warned him to renounce the error of his ways, and that if he proved unwilling to do this, then they would depose him as an excommunicate and appoint another suitable person in his place. That is what happened, for when he refused to heed their salutary admonitions, he was placed under interdict, and Bruno, provost of Bonn, was appointed in his place. However, to carry out this duty more effectively, some more important persons were chosen by the lord pope, as is made clear by the latter copied below. Innocent, Bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brothers the archbishop of Mainz and the bishop of Cambrai, and to his beloved son the scholasticus of St Geroen, greeting and Apostolic benediction.10 As Adolf, Archbishop of Cologne, has fallen into the pit which he has prepared for himself,11 and the sword of iniquity has entered into his own heart,12 his obstinate disobedience, repeated perjury and betrayal have become notorious. For neither fearing God nor regarding man,13 nor paying attention to the dignity of the church of Cologne, he has thrown off the yoke of obedience, offending God, showing contempt for the Roman Church and harming his see. He has not just once but repeatedly violated the oath that he has pledged, and has betrayed him who raised him up. For previously, when he crowned our dearest son in Christ, the illustrious Otto, Roman emperorelect, as king and swore an oath of fealty to him, he many times urged us to lend our Apostolic support to this same king and to confirm what he had done. And after he had with numerous intercessions obtained from us that

9

II Timothy, 2: 19. This letter, dated 13 March 1205, to Archbishop Siegfried (II) of Mainz, the Bishop of Cambrai and Henry, scolasticus of St Geroen, was copied in the Registrum super Negotio Imperii, pp. 285–90 no. 116. 11 Cf. Psalm, 7.15. 12 Cf. Psalm, 36: 15 (Vulgate), 37: 15 (AV). 13 Luke, 18: 4. 10

Book VII

265

we defer to the honour of the church of Cologne in favour of this king, his devotion [to him] started to grow cold. Taking his hand from the plough,14 he began to provide frivolous excuses to us for not watering what he had planted, and that his plant was soon drying out, when the gardener’s hand was no longer taking care of it. Since truly ‘neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God giveth the increase’,15 nevertheless the new shoot grew strong through the grace of God, and when it extended its branches and flourished, the envious gardener saw this and grew jealous,16 and he could no longer hide his poison, since he revealed his worthless mind through his evil behaviour, ‘for the tree is known by its fruit’.17 Therefore, after being warned, he came and pledged his oath once more, that he would never desert this same king nor defect to the other side. But the oath could not keep firm a mind that wavered through the vice of inner frivolity. Although we could not easily believe that a man who had been promoted to such high rank might thus be an enemy to himself, and that he might wish to reject what he had done, however that he should not be denied our care and wishing to encourage him to be steadfast, we insisted with both warnings and threats, insofar as we could, and strictly ordered him to help this same king and strive energetically for his success, taking care not to receive a curse for a blessing if he should prove to have so wickedly deceived us.18 He did not, however, consider that obedience is preferable to sacrifices,19 or that disobedience is the same as idolatry, and breaking the bonds he fell into the sin of disobedience, corrupted by money or so it is said, this rash man betrayed his lord and was ‘turned aside like a deceitful bow’,20 foolishly supporting the nobleman Philip, Duke of Swabia.21 Furthermore, not ceasing in his presumption, and to make sure that his guilt was not hidden by any veil, he has recently and publicly crowned the duke, at Aachen where he had solemnly crowned the aforesaid king. By doing this he has incurred the sentence of excommunication, which

There is here an oblique reference to Luke, 9: 62: ‘No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of Heaven’. 15 I Corinthians, 3: 7. 16 Arnold has here omitted a phrase, quoting Luke 12:2: ‘for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid that shall not be known’, from the text copied in Registrum super Negotio Imperii, p. 286. 17 Matthew, 12: 33. 18 Cf. Genesis, 27: 12. 19 Cf, I Samuel, 15: 22. 20 Psalm 77: 57 (Vulgate); 78: 57 (AV). 21 Innocent had never recognised the legitimacy of Philip’s election as king, seeing the latter’s family as hereditary enemies of the Church and Otto as the king best suited to its welfare, hence his refusal to describe him as other than duke of Swabia. 14

266

Book VII in the church of St Peter at Cologne, in front of a great crowd of people, and in his presence and while he was wearing the priestly stole round his neck and holding a lighted candle in his hand, our brother G., Archbishop of Rheims, then Bishop of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, pronounced against those who abandoned the aforesaid king and joined the other party.22 Thus let the people of Cologne, who did not wish to follow the evil example of their head but remained, and still remain, steadfastly loyal to this same king, having purged out the old leaven which seeks to corrupt the whole loaf, be the new batch, as is the unleavened bread having no corruption.23 According to canonical decrees one should not act [without] clear charges; therefore we follow the example of him who, in the absence of the body but in the presence of the spirit, condemned the absent Corinthian. We have therefore been able to promulgate this sentence against him, which for greater precaution has been passed on the advice of our brothers, both bishops and also many other prelates. Thus we inform your discretion by this Apostolic letter, and strictly order you, that since these matters are absolutely clear and illuminated to us, you should publicly announce with bells chiming and candles lighted, on every Sunday and feast day, that the aforesaid archbishop has been excommunicated. You should do this in all the churches of Cologne, and similarly have it solemnly proclaimed throughout the neighbouring dioceses. You should inform all the vassals of the church of Cologne both clerical and lay that they are absolved from obedience to him. Indeed, if so great a crime was to remain unpunished, anyone else could perpetrate without penalty the sin of disobedience, the crime of perjury or an act of treason. We therefore order you under this same compulsion that, since such matters can be subject to delays in our presence, you who are entrusted with our authority should depose him from his pontifical office, without contradiction from anyone and notwithstanding any appeal, unless within one month from your sentence he should set off to the Apostolic See to receive judgement. You should [also] instruct by Apostolic authority those to whom you believe the right to election to pertain that they should elect as their pastor a suitable person who is appropriate for the great burden and honour [of this office]. If it should happen by any chance that this election should be disputed, which we hope it does not, to avoid the property of the church of Cologne being in the meanwhile diminished, you should entrust its administration to some wise, honest and powerful

22

This ceremony took place on 3 July 1200. Guy de Paredo (Paray), a Cistercian and Abbot of Citeaux from 1194, was appointed Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina shortly before June 1200, and Archbishop of Rheims July 1204, after a disputed election which Innocent III had quashed. He died in 1206. Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg, pp. 133–4. 23 Cf. I Corinthians, 5: 7–8.

Book VII

267

person. Since we are keen both to increase the reputation of this same church and also to prevent any schism wrecking its unity when we know that its clergy and people are more devoted and steadfast [than others], if it should perhaps happen that those to whom the right of election belongs should be unable to gather together, you shall instruct them to entrust their votes to some suitable men who shall come to the Apostolic See, where with our advice, which we shall, with God’s assistance, give to assist them and hasten their agreement, that they may elect a suitable person as their prelate.

Thus Adolf was degraded from his position, as was just, and the aforesaid Bruno raised up in his place.24 Receiving the insignia of the archbishopric from the lord pope, and enjoying peaceful relations with Otto, Bruno took control in the city with some of those subject to him. Adolf, however, with his family connections, launched continuous and violent attacks on the region round about. 4 The steadfastness of the lord pope. In all these matters the pope was like an immovable column and did not waver from his purpose, binding this disobedient man by ecclesiastical censure and constantly strengthening Otto’s party. There was no lack of those who tried through persuasion, presents or promises to change his mind. But neither prayer nor bribe, nor even threats, could persuade him to retract what he had done; rather he always strove in every way to strengthen and assist his archbishop-elect. This is most clearly known to us, and we can demonstrate it through the evidence of the following letter: Innocent, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son in Christ the illustrious King Otto, Roman emperor elect, greetings and Apostolic blessing.25 We do not need to explain in a letter the sincere

24 For the election of Bruno, provost of Bonn, on 25 July 1205, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 221, which makes clear that the chapter was divided, and that some canons, headed by the Provost Engelhard (who himself became archbishop in 1216) still supported Adolf. Innocent described Adolf as ‘the former’ (quondam) archbishop on 22 September 1205, Registrum super Negotio Imperii, pp. 300–1 no. 123, and in December 1205 he wrote to the chapter of Cologne approving the election of Bruno in his place, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 8 Pontifikatsjahr, 1205/1206, pp. 307–9 no. 178. Bruno, provost of Bonn from 1192/3, was a younger son of Eberhard I, Count of Sayn (d. 1176); for his career, Joachim Halbekann, Die älteren Grafen von Sayn (Wiesbaden 1997), pp. 35–61 25 Also in the Registrum de Negotio Imperii, pp. 261–3 no. 105 (16 December 1203). It crossed with a letter from Otto, thanking the pope for his support, ibid., pp. 263–5 no. 106.

268

Book VII and well-disposed disposition that we have previously displayed, and still do, to your elevation as king, since our deeds rather than documents most fully show our intention and most faithfully demonstrate what we have in mind. We did indeed take up your cause from the start, despite the opinion of many and the advice of many more, for almost everyone thought that your election [as king] was doomed to failure. Nor did we abandon you in the crisis after the death of your uncle, Richard King of the English of distinguished memory, when you seemed to have been deserted by everyone [else].26 For indeed there were not lacking those who tempted us on many occasions with gifts and promises, wanting us to cease favouring your cause, but neither prayer nor bribe, nor threats or warnings, could change our mind in any way, for our love for you increased from day to day and we strove the more eagerly for your success. ‘So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither [is it] he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase’,27 however we rejoice in Him ‘that giveth to all men liberally’,28 since He for whom we have planted and watered has kindly granted us the increase, like the grain of mustard seed, which (so we read) a woman planted in her garden, ‘and it grew and waxed a great tree, and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it’,29 with the Lord’s help, and the beasts of the land rested in its shade. Since therefore the Lord directs your steps and makes your rule stronger from day to day, we advise your serenity and exhort you in the Lord, that you now seize the opportune moment,30 that you strive watchfully and unceasingly, whether or not the time is favourable, to ensure that a good beginning is followed by the best and most desirable ending and that our common intention is put into effect. You should foster the love and devotion of the princes who favour you, so that you encourage others better to favour your serenity, and when the favour of the princes smiles upon you, you should work to complete your promotion. You should not neglect your task in any way, but strive for success with the utmost diligence. We do indeed hope in Him, ‘who is a buckler to [all] those that trust in Him’,31 that if you make further progress, as you said that you have done this year, there will be nobody who will oppose himself to your cause, or who will resist divine disposition. Dated at Anagni, 16 December, in the sixth year of our pontificate.

26

Richard, Otto IV’s principal external ally, died on 6 April 1199, from an arrow wound received while besieging the castle of Chalus in the Limousin. 27 I Corinthians, 3: 7. 28 James, 1: 5. 29 Matthew, 13: 31, and Luke, 13: 19 (although in both the sower was male). 30 Cf. II Timothy, 4: 2. 31 Psalm, 17: 31 (Vulgate), 18.30 (AV); cf. also II Samuel, 22.31.

Book VII

269

What has been said here about the constancy of the lord pope towards King Otto should suffice. 5 The massacre of the men of Cologne and the capture of Archbishop Bruno. Philip, however, did not cease his attacks on Cologne. He also bound many men to his cause through handing out gifts, so it is said, thus attracting the duke of Limburg to his party.32 After the deposition of Archbishop Adolf, the latter had accepted responsibility over the city. Hence, at a time when Philip was threatening Cologne, the duke treacherously led out the citizens and had made them think that they were safe from enemy attack, when suddenly their enemies charged down on the unsuspecting men and massacred some four hundred men. The few who managed to escape death were led into captivity.33 The king, however, escaped, along with Archbishop Bruno and the duke’s son who was called Walram,34 and he came to the castle of Wassenberg where he was hoping to find shelter. However, fearing betrayal, he and this same Walram left by a secret entrance and escaped by night. Their enemies pursued them, hoping that they would capture the king, but they were frustrated in this and could not find him, although they captured the archbishop as he was hiding [from them] and brought him to King Philip. The latter, hoping that he would benefit greatly by holding him prisoner, threw him into chains and held him captive for quite a long time. After he had been moved from place to place and treated most shamefully, he was eventually brought to Würzburg, where he remained a prisoner for a long time, although released [from his chains].35

32

Henry III, Duke of Limburg 1167–1221. He remained a supporter of Philip thereafter, Urkunden Philipps, pp. 313–16 no. 138 (April 1207), 401 no. 178 (May– June 1208). There is a detailed account of the earlier attacks, to which Arnold alludes but does not discuss, in the Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 175–8. These took place in the autumn of 1205. 33 27 July 1206, see Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 179–80, which has a more detailed account of this campaign. 34 Subsequently duke, 1221–6. He had previously taken part in the 1197–8 German Crusade. 35 Cf. Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 180, 223–4, which also accused Henry of Limburg of treachery, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.354, and Reineri Annales, ibid., p. 660. These confirm Arnold’s account that Archbishop Bruno was held in fetters. King Philip held a court at Würzburg on 16 October 1206, Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, p. 409. The men of Cologne subsequently concluded a peace treaty with Philip in January 1207, in which they promised to request the pope to reinstate Adolf, Urkunden Philipps, pp. 298–300 no. 132.

270

Book VII

6 More about the above. After this the lord pope assigned two cardinals to conclude a peace – one was named Hugo and the other Leo36 – they were to free Philip from excommunication if through the dispensation of the father of all good and religious things, or on the advice of the princes, unity and peace could be restored between them, on condition, however, that the prisoner Bruno should be set free and fully released from captivity. The legates of the lord pope thus came to Philip and explained to him the purpose of the legation with which they were entrusted. Philip was well pleased with what he had heard, but he absolutely refused to release the archbishop, for he said that by freeing him he would cause great offence, both to Adolf and to all those through whose grace he had been raised up to the throne of the empire by his second coronation. The cardinals were then struck blind, forgetful of the lord pope’s instructions because of Philip’s presents, for he had showered them with gold and silver and provided the most splendid garments for them, and so they indeed absolved Philip while leaving the archbishop captive.37 They therefore said to King Otto: ‘We have absolved your rival so that, as the pope has ordered, and if it can be done, you may reach a peace treaty with him’. To this the king replied: ‘If you have done this on the order of the lord pope, you should read this letter’. For the pope had sent a letter in secret to Otto about the absolution of Philip and the release of Archbishop Bruno, containing this same condition.38 And after the legates had read this letter, and realised what it contained, they were very afraid. Otto uttered terrible threats towards them, but from reverence for the supreme pontiff he refrained from carrying these out. They, however, returned to Philip and confessed that they

36

Innocent announced the appointment of these legates in a letter to the ecclesiastical and secular princes of Germany in May 1207, Registrum de Negotio Imperii, pp. 332–5 no. 141. Despite Arnold’s low opinion of their probity, the two cardinals were among Innocent III’s closest collaborators. Hugolino, cardinal deacon of S Eustasio from 1198 and cardinal Bishop of Ostia from June 1206, was the pope’s cousin and had been his legate in the kingdom of Sicily in 1202. He later became pope as Gregory IX (1227–41). Leo Brancaleone, an Augustinian canon, was appointed cardinal deacon of S Lucia in Septisolio in July 1200, and was cardinal priest of S Croce 1202–24. He had been papal legate to Bulgaria, where he had crowned its ruler Kaloyan as king in October 1204. Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg, pp. 126–33, 137–9. 37 August 1207, at Worms. 38 The text of this appears not to have survived. However, Innocent re-iterated the importance of securing the archbishop’s liberation in a letter to the legates in January 1208 (clearly sent before he had news of Bruno’s release), Registrum de Negotio Imperii, pp. 340–1 no. 146.

Book VII

271

had erred, saying that without the liberation of Archbishop Bruno his absolution could not stand. Yielding to necessity, Philip treated Bruno kindly and [promised to] release him from captivity, while he made preparations for a conference with King Otto. Philip based himself at Quedlinburg and Otto in Harliburg, and the two kings met for a conference with only the cardinals and a few others present. But when they parted, no agreement for peace had been reached.39 7 The release of Archbishop Bruno. However, wishing to please Archbishop Adolf and his other friends, Philip still did not release Bruno, but sent him under guard to a very strong castle called Rothenburg, holding him prisoner there.40 When the pope was informed of this, he sent a further letter to him, warning him sternly to release Archbishop Bruno from captivity and then send him, in an honourable manner, to him – should he not do this then he should know that he would be subject to excommunication as a transgressor. Therefore, since King Philip feared the sentence of excommunication, he sent the archbishop with honour to the lord pope.41 For as long as he remained there, he was treated as enjoying his full rank, with the plenitude of its power, while Adolf was humbled. The latter was, however, permitted to receive 200 marks from the customs house at Deutz and the same sum from that of Cologne, and eight prebends (stipendia) in the city. He was happy with this, and did not molest Archbishop Bruno.42

39

Philip was at Quedlinburg 14–22 September 1207, Urkunden Philipps, pp. 343–50 nos 150–2; Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 362–4. Other chroniclers suggested that some progress was made. The Annales Stadenses, p. 354, said that a truce was agreed until the feast of St John the Baptist (24 June 1208), and Burchard of Urspberg, Chronicon, p. 89, that it was agreed that Otto should marry Philip’s daughter. The legates then returned to Rome to secure a dispensation for this marriage, since it was within the prohibited degrees of kinship. 40 Rothenburg ob der Tauber, NW of Ansbach in Franconia. The castle had been built by Conrad III, and was a Staufen strongpoint in the region. 41 Bruno was finally released towards the end of November 1207. He was still in Rome on 31 May 1208, but then returned to Germany where he died on 2 November of that year, Halbekann, Die älteren Grafen von Sayn, pp. 53–5. 42 Adolf also went to Rome; this was a condition imposed upon him by the legates when they released him from excommunication in December 1207, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 182.

272

Book VII

8 The situation of Egypt or Babylon. Since ‘poets wish to benefit or to please’,43 we shall abandon the history of the kings for a little while to describe other things, and for the use of readers in the future, let us turn to Egypt and the region of Libya. In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1175, the lord Frederick, Emperor and Augustus of the Romans, sent lord Gerhard, vicedominus of Strassburg, to Egypt, to King Saladin of Babylon.44 Now, therefore, let us follow his account in its own words. After the embassy was entrusted to me, I committed to writing everything on land and sea that I saw, or of which I received truthful report, that seemed rare or unusual to an inhabitant of our land. I set off across the sea from Genoa on 6 September. On the journey we sailed between two islands, Corsica and Sardinia. These islands are four miles from each other, and each of them is very beautiful, with both mountains and plains, and overflowing with every gift of the earth. The people of both genders in Corsica are courtly, clever and hospitable, and the men soldierly and warlike. By contrast, in Sardinia the people are disorderly, rustic, countrified and niggardly, and the men feeble and misshapen. Wolves do not live in Sardinia. The sea around Sardinia is very wild and dangerous, more so than the sea elsewhere. Also, Sardinia is six days journey both in length and breadth, and is a most unhealthy land. Corsica is, however, three days journey in length and breadth, and is a very healthy land, apart from a most dangerous river that flows through it, for if any living soul drinks from this, he dies, and if birds fly too near it they [too] die. Passing by these two islands, I came to Sicily. This island is a most healthy land, rich in every earthly bounty: fields, mountains, vineyards, meadows and pastures, with flowing springs and most free-flowing rivers, producing all sorts of different fruits and crops. It is at a crossroad in the sea, and is [thus] most suitable for merchants, but it has only a few inhabitants. It is six days journey on each side, both in length and breadth, and has many cities. Not far from the other side of this island, some twenty miles from Sicily, is another island, called Malta, whose inhabitants are Saracens and is under the lordship of the

43

Horace, Ars Poetica, line 333. The name Gerhard is probably a mistake for Burchard; a vicedominus of Strassburg Burchard witnessed a contemporary charter of Frederick I for the bishopric of Basel, Dipl. Fred. I, iii.126–7 no. 631 (probably summer 1174). This embassy was in response to one from Saladin to the emperor in 1173, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 124; Martin Wagendorfer, ‘Eine bisher unbekannte (Teil-) Überlieferung des Saladin-Briefs an Kaiser Friedrich I. Barbarossa’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 65 (2009), 565–84. 44

Book VII

273

king of Sicily. Not far from Malta, there is the island of Pantellaria, which is also inhabited by Saracens. They are subject to no lordship, for they are rude and rustic people, living in caves in the earth. In the event of a great army coming against them, they take refuge in these caves with all their belongings, so that should they be unable to defend themselves by fighting they are able immediately to take refuge in flight. This race of men lives from stock-rearing rather than from the fruits of the earth, since they only grow a very little grain. After travelling for six days, I came to a barbarous land inhabited by Arabs.45 This race of men chooses to live without houses in the open air, living in whatever part of the land it can, for they say that to build houses or to live in them during such a short space of life leaves no time for the contemplation of Divine reward. They do hardly any cultivation of the earth, but live entirely through their herds. Both men and women go around virtually naked, apart from wearing a meagre cloth to cover their shameful parts. These people are most wretched and are devoid of all possessions, weak and naked, black, deformed and thus weak. During my sea voyage of forty-seven days I saw all sorts of fish, and in particular I saw a huge fish which I was able to estimate as being 340 ells long. I also saw fishes flying over the sea for the length of one shot from a bow or crossbow. At last I entered the port of Alexandria, at which harbour a most high tower has been built from stones, to show sailors where the port is, since the land of Egypt is flat. A fire burns within it all night, to reveal the harbour to those approaching it, to prevent them perishing.46 Alexandria is a notable city, distinguished by its buildings and open spaces, and by a huge population. It is inhabited by Saracens, Jews and Christians, and is under the rule of the king of Babylon. When the city was first founded, it was extremely large, as can be seen from its ruins, for it extended four miles in length and one in breadth. It was bounded on one side by an arm of the Euphrates and enclosed on the other by the Great Sea. Now the city has become smaller and is by the sea, while a great plain lies between it and a branch of the Nile. One should be aware that the Euphrates and the

45

The account suggests that after leaving Malta, the author made a landfall somewhere in Libya, and then followed the coast to Egypt. 46 This sentence, from ‘at which harbour’ onwards, was copied in an early thirteenth-century tract (written c.1216–25) on the geography and history of the Holy Land and the Middle East, the so-called Narratio Patriarche Hierosolymitani, which was contained within Book III of the Historia Orientalis of Jacques de Vitry, Bishop of Acre (but which is most unlikely to have been written by Jacques himself). The Narratio is edited in E. Martène and U. Durand, Thesaurus Novum Anecdotorum (5 vols, Paris 1717), iii.269–87, here at col. 275. A number of other passages were copied in the Narratio, although not in the same order as here.

274

Book VII

Nile are one and the same water. Every sort of man in Alexandria freely worships his own religion. This city is very healthy and many elderly people are found therein, and even quite a lot of centenarians. It is defended only by a dilapidated wall with no moats. One should also know that the aforesaid port pays every year from its tolls 50,000 gold coins, which is equivalent to more than 8,000 marks of pure silver. Many different peoples frequent this city with its markets. The city does not have sweet water, apart from what is brought by an aqueduct from the Nile once a year, which is then stored in cisterns. There are many Christian churches in this same city, among which is the church of St Mark the Evangelist, which is sited outside the walls of the new city and near the sea. Inside this church I saw seventeen monuments, full of the bones and blood of martyrs, but the names of these persons are unknown. I also saw the chapel where this same evangelist wrote his Gospel and where he received martyrdom, and the place of his burial, from which he was stolen by the Venetians. The patriarch is elected, consecrated, and after his death buried in that church, for they have a Christian patriarch, who is a member of the Greek Church.47 There was once in that city the great palace of Pharaoh, raised up with huge marble columns, but now only its ruins remain. Near Alexandria I have seen where the Nile is channelled from its bed a short distance into a field, and there the water remains for some time and without any work or human skill is converted into the purest and best salt. The Nile floods once a year and irrigates and makes fertile the whole of Egypt, since rain there is rare. This flooding begins in the middle of June and continues until the feast of the Holy Cross,48 and then diminishes until the Lord’s Epiphany. Note that as soon as the water recedes, and wherever land appears, a peasant immediately ploughs it and puts in seed.49 They harvest wheat in March. That land does not produce any other grain apart from wheat and very beautiful barley.50 All sorts of vegetables are harvested from the feast of St Martin51 until the end of March, and fruits from the gardens and fields. The sheep and goats from that land breed twice a year, and produce at least twin offspring. I have also heard that they breed asses there from horses. Christians live in towns and villages throughout Egypt, paying a fixed tribute to the king of

47 This section, from ‘There are many Christian churches’, copied in the Narratio, col. 275. 48 14 September. 49 These two sentences seem to be the source of a later and very similar passage in the account of his pilgrimage in 1217/18 by the Westphalian monk Thietmar, Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (Crusader Texts in Translation 23, Farnham 2012), p. 129. 50 Section from ‘The Nile floods’ in the Narratio, col. 274. 51 11 November.

Book VII

275

Babylon, and almost every village has a Christian church. However, this race of men is most wretched and lives wretchedly. Note that from Alexandria to the new Babylon it is three days’ journey by land, but seven days by water, going upstream. One should know that there are three Babylons, one on the River Khabur, where Nebuchadnezzar ruled, in which was the tower of Babel. This is said to be ancient and deserted, and is more than thirty days’ distance from the new Babylon.52 There was another Babylon in Egypt, which is now deserted, sited above the Nile and at the foot of a mountain, in which Pharaoh ruled, six miles distant from the new Babylon. This is now destroyed. The new Babylon is in the plain near the Nile, and it was once a great city, and is still most notable and populous, in a land which is fertile in every way, inhabited only by merchants, to whom ships, laden with valuables from India frequently come along the Nile and are then brought to Alexandria. Corn and vegetables are available everywhere in the streets and squares. From the new Babylon a mile out into the desert there are two mountains, artificially constructed with admirable workmanship from great blocks of marble and other square blocks of stone, a bowshot distant from each other, each of the same width, height and number of blocks. Both are the width of a very strong bowshot and have the height of two of these.53 Item, next to the new Babylon and about a third of a mile away is another notable city, called Cairo, which is now the royal seat, and in which are the palaces of the king and princes, and the barracks of their soldiers. This military city is sited near the Nile, and its buildings are no less admirable and splendid. It is enclosed by a wall, and surrounded by most beautiful fruit trees. Saracens, Jews and Christians live there, each nation following worshipping in accordance with its own faith. There are many Christian churches there.54 A mile away from this city is a balsam garden, which is almost half a mansus in extent, and this balsam wood is like a three-year old lignum vitae, with each leaf like a little trefoil. At the time of maturity, around the end of May, an incision is made in the bark of the tree, following a line drawn by the workmen. They collect the gummy resin from this incision, drop by drop, which is stored in glass containers, and then it is buried for six months in doves’ excrement. It is boiled down and washed, and afterwards the liquid is separated from the faeces. This garden has its own spring from which it is watered, since it cannot be irrigated by any other water. Note that balsam grows nowhere else in these lands except in this one place. The Blessed Virgin took refuge at this spring with our Saviour when she was fleeing the

52

These three sentences were copied in the Narratio, col. 275. These are, of course, pyramids. 54 The four sentences from ‘next to the new Babylon’ copied in the Narratio, col. 274. 53

276

Book VII

persecution of Herod,55 and she dwelt there for some time, washing the boy’s linen at the spring, as the nature of man requires. Because of this the spring has been held in veneration by the Saracens, right up to the present day, and they bring wax and incense when they wash themselves there.56 At Epiphany a vast crowd flocks there from every part and washes itself with the aforesaid water. The Saracens believe that the Blessed Virgin conceived Jesus Christ through an angel, gave birth and after parturition remained a virgin. They say that this son of the Virgin was a holy prophet, and was miraculously taken up by God to Heaven, both body and soul, which they celebrate along with his Nativity. But they deny that he is the Son of God, who was baptised, crucified, dead and buried. They even claim that they hold to the law of Christ and the Apostles since they are circumcised, and we are not. They also believe that the Apostles were prophets, and they hold many martyrs and confessors in veneration. Also, there is at Cairo a very ancient and very tall palm tree, which leant over to the Blessed Virgin when she passed that way with our Saviour, and she gathered dates from it, and it was made straight once again. The Saracens who saw this at the time were jealous of the Blessed Virgin, and they cut through the tree in two separate places. The following night the tree was made whole and raised up again, but the wounds from the cuts are apparent to the present day. The Saracens hold this tree in veneration, and it is illuminated all night with candles.57 There are various other places in Egypt where the Blessed Virgin lived which are venerated by both Christians and Saracens. The Nile or Euphrates is a river greater than the Rhine, coming from paradise, the source of which is not known to men, although we have

55

Cf. Matthew, 2: 13–15. This spring was at Matariyya. This passage from the start of the paragraph was copied in the Narratio, cols 274–5. The section up to ‘any other water’ was also copied by Thietmar, Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, p. 118. The balsam garden was later visited by Burchard of Mount Sion (c.1274–85), who said that it was tended only by Christians, ibid., pp. 285–6. This observation may have been drawn from the Narratio, col. 279, which said that: 56

Once the only place in the entire world where there was balsam wood was in the land of Jerusalem at a place called Jericho. Afterwards the Egyptians came there, and they transported this tree to Egypt and planted it there. … In the city of Babylon there are many plantations of balsam, but it is an extraordinary thing about these trees that if they are cultivated by anybody other than Christians they bear no fruit, but are condemned to perpetual sterility. 57

This paragraph, apart from the last sentence, copied in the Narratio, col. 275.

Book VII

277

learned from books that it has a level course, turbulent water, overflowing with fish, but these are of no great account. It nourishes wild horses concealing themselves under the water and often emerging from it.58 It also nourishes a huge number of crocodiles, which is a type of animal formed like a lizard, having four feet, with short, fat legs. Its head is like that of a sow. This animal grows long and fat, and has huge teeth. It goes out at sun up, and if it finds animals or children, it kills them.59 Item, there is a certain church of the Christians, next to which is a well which is dry for the whole year, apart from on the annual feast day of that church. Then, for three days, water rises up to the top, so that all the Christians coming there for the feast day find enough water. Once the festival is over, the water disappears as before. Item, out in the desert, at six days’ distance from new Babylon, alum, a material for dyeing, is quarried from certain mountains, and is collected for the use of the king. Also, indigo dye is produced in Egypt. Also many sorts of birds are most abundant in Egypt. Item, neither gold nor silver, nor any other type of metal, is mined throughout Egypt, even though the earth overflows with gold. Egypt also nourishes very good horses. Item, pistachios, which come from Nubia, are abundant in Egypt. Nubia lies twenty days’ journey from Babylon, and it is a Christian land, having a king, but its people are uncultivated and it is a wooded land. Item, in Egypt a thousand, or even two thousand, chicks are reared together in an oven through fire, without a hen, and this is for the use of the king. Egypt is a very hot land, seldom having rain. Mount Sinai lies in the desert seven days’ distance from Babylon. Also, the Saracens believe that they have a paradise on land, to which after this life they shall be transported, and in which they believe there are four rivers, one of wine, the second of milk, the third of honey and the fourth of water, and they say that every sort of fruit grows there, and they will eat and drink as they wish there. Every one of them will have sex with a new virgin every day to sate their desire, and if anyone has been slain in battle by a Christian, he will enjoy ten virgins every day in paradise. And when I asked what happens to these women, where they are now, or how they will become virgins, whom according to them are deflowered every day, they answered me that they did not know. Item, Egypt abounds in different species of birds and various fruits of the earth. There is little wine because of their religion, but the nature of the land would produce a great deal of wine if it were to be cultivated.

58 59

Could these be hippopotami, in modern German Nilpferde (‘Nile horses’)? This paragraph is copied in the Narratio, cols 273–4.

278

Book VII

From Babylon, I travelled to Damascus through the desert, and I spent twenty days in this desert where I did not see any cultivated land.60 The desert land is sandy, containing both plain and mountain, with nothing at all growing there apart from low bushes, and these only in a few places. That land is very harsh and intemperate, in winter extremely cold, and in summer extremely hot. The route across this land is difficult and hard to find, for the surface of the sand is so disturbed by the blowing of the winds that the road is known to scarcely anyone, apart from the Bedouins who often cross it. They guide the other people travelling there, as seamen sailing on the ocean. Note that the desert nourishes lions, ostriches, pigs, wild oxen, onagri, that is wild asses, and hares. Water is found very rarely, apart from on the fourth day in the region, and on the fifth. Item, the Indian Ocean touches the desert on one side, while the Red Sea, near which I spent two nights, bounds it on the other.61 Item, I saw the seventytwo palm trees where Moses struck the rock and brought forth water.62 Item, I travelled for two days by Mont Sinai. Note that no man knows the breadth or boundaries of the desert, since it is mysterious like the sea. After I passed through the desert I found a flat land, inhabited by a few Christians, but largely waste and rarely cultivated since it is sited in the march between the Christians and Saracens. In this land I found an ancient city called Bosra, once inhabited by Christians, built of large and splendid cut blocks of stone, and as it seemed from its ruins once most beautiful and delightful. But it is now inhabited by Saracens, and is reduced to dire straits, as though all that remains therein is a castle, which is very strongly fortified.63 From there I came to Damascus in three days through land which is in large part cultivated by Christians, who pay tribute to the lord of Damascus.

60

Burchard took the route across Sinai, and then seems to have gone north along the eastern side of the Dead Sea to Damascus. One would normally expect Westerners to have travelled from Cairo through northern Sinai to El-Arish and Ascalon in the kingdom of Jerusalem. However, Burchard’s route suggests that he was travelling in the company of Arab merchants, avoiding Christian-held territory and going directly to Damascus, which had recently been captured by Saladin. Was this because the Franks of Jerusalem would not have approved of his diplomatic mission? 61 Here Burchard/Gerhard seems to be describing the Arabian Peninsula as a whole, rather than just the Sinai desert. This section, from ‘The land is very harsh’, was copied in the Narratio, col. 273. 62 Numbers, 20: 11. 63 Bosra, c.140 km S of Damascus had been in Muslim hands throughout the Crusader period. King Baldwin III of Jerusalem had tried and failed to capture it in 1147, William of Tyre, A History of Deeds done beyond the Sea, trans. E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey (2 vols, New York 1943), ii.146–57 (Bk. xvi.8–13).

Book VII

279

Damascus is a most noble city, very strongly fortified with a double wall and many towers, with water flowing through it from springs and aqueducts from outside the city and in various places within it, to the houses which are ornamented and most elegantly constructed buildings. The city is populous, surrounded far and wide on every side and most delightfully adorned with pleasure-gardens and orchards. Indeed, the city is irrigated both inside and outside through human endeavour as if it was a sort of terrestrial paradise. And there are many Christian churches therein, and Christians and many Jews. Excellent wine is produced in the Damascus region. Note too that Damascus is a most healthy city, nourishing many old men. Damascus is five short days’ distance from Jerusalem, and four days from Acre. Item, three miles from Damascus is a certain place in the mountains which is called Saydaneia,64 and is inhabited by Christians. There is a church on a rock65 there which is dedicated in honour of the glorious Virgin, in which twelve virgin nuns and eight monks assiduously serve God and the Blessed Virgin. In this church I saw a wooden tablet one ell in length and about half an ell in breadth, placed behind the altar on the wall of the sanctuary, in the window, and held in place by an iron grating. On this tablet the face of the Blessed Virgin had been painted, but now, it is wonderful to say, the picture is incarnated into the wood and perfumed oil, even stronger than balm, flows unceasingly from it. Many people, Christians, Saracens and Jews, have often been freed from all sorts of illnesses by this oil. Note that this oil is never diminished, however much is then used. Nor is it permitted to touch the aforesaid picture, although everyone is allowed to gaze upon it. That oil is preserved by the Christian faith, and when one receives it for whatever reason with devotion and sincere faith,

64 Part of this paragraph was copied, with some re-arrangement, in the Narratio, col. 272. Saydnaya is in the Qalamoun Mountains, actually about 20 miles N of Damascus. For the problems concerning this passage, and its links with a number of later texts, see Paul Peeters, ‘La légende de Saïdneia’, Analecta Bollandiana 25 (1906), 137–57, and Paul Devos, ‘Les premières versions occidentales de la légende de Saïdnaia’, Analecta Bollandiana 65 (1947), 245–78. For the growing popularity of the cult among western pilgrims during the thirteenth century and afterwards, Bernard Hamilton, ‘Our Lady of Saidnaya: an orthodox shrine revered by both Muslims and Knights Templar at the time of the Crusades’, Studies in Church History 36 (2000), 207–15, and Benjamin Z. Kedar, ‘Convergences of Oriental Christian, Muslim and Frankish worshippers: the case of Saydnaya and the Knights Templar’, in The Crusades and the Military Orders. Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky (Budapest 2001), pp. 89–100. 65 The Latin reads in rure, but as Peeters, ‘La légende’, p. 159, pointed out this appears to be a corruption of in rupe, which is what later versions of the passage have, cf. Devos, ‘Les premières versions’, p. 265, and which corresponds to the topography of the site.

280

Book VII

and with masses and solemn ceremonies for the honour of the Holy Virgin, one will undoubtedly obtain what one has sought.66 On the Assumption of the glorious Virgin and at the feast of her Nativity67 all the Saracens of that region flock to that place along with the Christians to pray, and the Saracens offer their ceremonial gifts there with great devotion. Note that this tablet was originally made and painted in honour of the Blessed Virgin at Constantinople, and was then taken from there by a certain Patriarch of Jerusalem.68 At that time an abbess from the aforesaid place went down to Jerusalem to pray there, who begged the Patriarch of Jerusalem for this tablet, and she carried it away with her to the church which had been entrusted to her. This was in the year from the Incarnation 870.69 Thereafter, over a long period the holy oil flowed from it. Note that there is a certain race of Saracens in the mountains in the territory of Damascus, Antioch and Aleppo. In their own language they are called Assassins, and in Romance ‘lords of the mountains’ [segnors de montana].70 This race of men lives without law, eats pork flesh contrary to the law of the Saracens and its members have sex promiscuously with any women, even their mothers and sisters. They live in the mountains, and are almost impregnable there, since they take refuge in immensely strong castles, and their land is not particularly fertile, unless one lives off beasts. They have a lord among them who strikes the utmost fear into all the Saracen princes near and far, as well as among the nearby Christian barons, since he is accustomed to slay them in an extraordinary way. I shall explain how this happens. This prince has many very beautiful palaces in the mountains, which are enclosed within very high walls. Entrance is impossible except through a little door that is most carefully guarded. He has many sons of his peasants brought up from the cradle in these palaces, and they are taught various languages, namely Latin, Greek, Romance, Arabic and many others. They are instructed by his teachers from their earliest years until they reach adulthood, that they must obey every word and command of the lord of this land. If they do this, then he will grant

66 The Latin of this sentence is confused, and has perhaps been mistranscribed by a copyist, Peeters, ‘La légende’, p. 139. The translation is an attempt to make sense of what the passage is trying to say. 67 15 August and 8 September. 68 Legend now has it that this icon was painted by St Luke, this seems to have developed after c.1430, Peeters, ‘La légende’, p. 156. 69 This date was probably an error, based on a western misunderstanding of dating by the Alexandrian era: Arabic sources suggest rather 1059 AD, Devos, ‘Les premières versions occidentales’, p. 271. Thietmar provided a much expanded and more circumstantial version of this story, Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, pp. 103–5, which was developed still further by later texts. 70 For another, exactly contemporary, Christian description of the Assassins, see William of Tyre, A History of Deeds done beyond the Sea, ii 390–2 (Bk. xx.29).

Book VII

281

the joys of paradise to them, through the power he has over living Gods. They are, however, taught that they cannot be saved if they fail to obey the wishes of the prince of this land, even in the slightest way. They are confined to these palaces from the cradle, and they never see any other man apart from their instructors and teachers, nor are they told anything else until the moment when they are summoned into the presence of the prince and ordered to kill someone. Then, once they have come before the prince, he asks them if they wish to obey his orders and [by doing so] gain entry to paradise. As they have been brought up to do, they throw themselves at his feet without the slightest doubt or hesitation, replying enthusiastically that they will fulfil all his instructions. Then the prince gives each of them a golden knife, and sends them to slay whatever [other] prince he wishes them to kill.71 I travelled from Damascus via Tiberias to Acre, and then on to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem I went to Ascalon. This is a small town on the sea coast, strongly defended by walls and ditches and very secure. Then, travelling through the desert for eight days, I returned to Babylon. On this journey I discovered that the road was largely covered with a salt solution to make it level, and I saw many wild asses and wild cattle. Note at El Arish harlots were for sale. The women of the Saracens go out veiled, and covered up with linen, and they never enter the temples of their people. These women live under the strict guard of eunuchs, so that the wives of the more important men never leave their houses, except on their husbands’ command. Note, too, that no other man, whether a brother or any other close relative of either the man or the woman dares to enter a woman’s dwelling without her husband’s permission. The men go to the temple to pray five times in the space of a day and a night, to which they are summoned by the voice of a herald from their bell towers, at whose call they are accustomed solemnly to gather. And note that at each of these hours religious Saracens customarily wash themselves with water, beginning with their faces and head, [then] washing their hands, arms, legs, feet, private parts and anus, and afterwards they go to pray, and they never pray without prostration.72 They do indeed believe that the Lord is the creator of all things, while they say that Mohammed is a most holy prophet and the author of their law. Saracens living both near and far also customarily visit him with the utmost veneration in their pilgrimages.73 They hold certain other authors of their law in veneration too. Every Saracen is permitted by law to marry seven wives at one time, and he provides for each of these separately an income

71

This whole paragraph was copied in the Narratio, col. 272. This section was also copied by Thietmar, Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, p. 102. 73 Here Gerard referred to the pilgrimage to Mecca, where he seems to assume that the Prophet is buried. 72

282

Book VII

which is promised and set out in the marriage contract. Furthermore, each of them has female slaves and servant girls, with whom he may legally sin, just as if it is not held to be a sin. If any of these slave women should conceive, she is immediately set free from the ownership of her master.74 And a Saracen can appoint any one of his sons as his heir, whether born from a free woman or a slave, just as he chooses. There are, however, many religious Saracens who only have one wife. It is permitted to have up to seven wives, but not to have more, unless these are concubines, as has been said. What ought to be considered amidst these matters if not the boundless clemency of Our Redeemer, which allows both the just and the wicked a share in the gift of his piety? He grants to the just man who is humble and peaceful, and heeds his words, the reward of eternal life, and He will bless him with the supreme good, which He is, and with the sight of His glory. However, while he allows a wicked man an abundance of temporal goods in this mortal life, he shall [also] receive eternal damnation. Thus it is that these reprobates holding the best regions abound in wheat, wine and oil, exult in their gold, silver, jewels and silk clothing, and luxuriate in spices, colourings and balsam, and leave untried nothing which the eye desires. For the prophecy of Isaac will be fulfilled in them, he who blessed Jacob with a special gift, but said to Esau: ‘thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and the dew of Heaven from above shall be thy blessing’.75 We can prove this from the words of the Lord, saying: love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you, that ye may be the children of your Father that is in Heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.76

And David says: Behold, these are the ungodly who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.77 Although, however, we may receive earthly riches through the soil and dew in this place, the grace of the Holy Spirit is to be understood through dew of another sort, as this same David says: ‘He shall come down like rain on the mown grass’, as his action showed to Gideon, when the grace of the Holy Spirit was made clear by the dew,78 and it is received through the wish of the unstained Virgin Mary who by conceiving and

74

These three sentences were also copied by Thietmar, in his account of his pilgrimage, Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, p. 130. 75 Genesis, 27: 39. 76 Matthew, 5: 44–5. 77 Psalm, 73: 12. 78 Cf. Judges, 6: 36–7.

Book VII

283

bringing forth the Son of God remained both mother and virgin. He also gave His fruit to the land when this same Blessed Virgin generated the blessed fruit of her belly, Christ, the Saviour of the world.79

These words about the situation of the Gentiles and of the Church, which God deigns miraculously to preserve among them are enough. Now let us return to follow the course of our history. 9 About the death of Isfried and the appointment of Philip in his place. At this time Bishop Isfried of Ratzeburg died.80 He was a man of great patience, of the utmost abstinence and entirely dedicated to religious worship. But even before his funeral had taken place, dispute emerged among the canons concerning the [new] election. Some were agreed on the selection of the lord Henry, provost of this place, a man of discretion and most worthy of every honour. He had indeed greatly endowed his provostship with property, persons and buildings, and what is more he was scrupulous in religious observance. However, another group sought another candidate to be the prelate, in the person of Philip, chaplain of the dead bishop. Thus there was dispute, but finally the trouble was calmed by a decision that both electors and candidates should submit themselves to the arbitration of Count Albrecht.81 After discussion of the case, he decided that Philip should be appointed to the church.82 This was indeed what was done, since King Waldemar was busy with wars in Sweden. What more? After being invested, Philip went to Bremen and received episcopal blessing from the lord archbishop Hartwig. And so, after consecrating churches and arranging various matters in his diocese, he took himself off to the bishop of Utrecht,83 where he remained for a year, and he did not appear before

79 This last paragraph, which does not occur in other versions of this tract, may have been added by Arnold, Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 325–6. See the introduction, above p. 35. 80 15 June 1204; for his appointment in 1179, see above, Bk. II.7. 81 Son of Count Siegfried of Orlamunde and Sophia, sister of King Waldemar II; the latter had recently installed him as count over that part of Holstein which was then under Danish control, Freytag, ‘Die Eroberung’, pp. 241–2. His father by contrast seems to have been a supporter of King Philip, Die Urkunden Philipps, nos 97, 100, 101 (April–May 1205). 82 Henry then succeeded Philip as bishop after the latter’s death in 1215, Hucker, ‘Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, pp. 116–17. He died in 1228. 83 Dietrich (II) of Ahr, Bishop of Utrecht 1197–1212.

284

Book VII

King Waldemar. This action made him suspect to the king, but finally through the count’s mediation he recovered, more or less, the king’s grace. 10 The death of Hartwig and the election of Waldemar. Some years later the above-mentioned lord Hartwig, Archbishop of Bremen, departed this life.84 While he was still alive that church had been much battered, but now much greater and more serious troubles arose. For a meeting was held, and with the unanimous consent and agreement of the clergy and people it was decided that the lord Waldemar, Bishop of Schleswig, who had now been released from his aforesaid captivity and was living in Bologna,85 should be chosen for the (arch)bishopric in that same church. There were, however, those who were not freely involved in this election, although they did this not by publicly contradicting it but they showed their opposition by absenting themselves, and in particular, Burchard, the major provost and some of his supporters.86 The canons of the church of Hamburg disapproved of this election, because of King Waldemar who was holding that city, but it was celebrated despite them. Those who saw themselves ignored raised serious objections against this election, saying that their church had once been the mother church, and therefore they ought to have the first and most significant voice in the election.87 The men of Bremen, however, who had sent distinguished legates, both from the clergy and from among the ministeriales to lord Waldemar at Bologna, claimed that the election had been carried out canonically. Waldemar received these companions, and then went to the lord pope with his electors, and with the evidence of the church of Bremen, to the pope. The latter rejoiced, and received the archbishop-elect with pleasure, while also congratulating him because after his many troubles the Lord had deigned to promote him to this high office. He would not, however, put this promotion into effect until he had ascertained that his election was genuine. Then, while Waldemar was staying at

3 November 1207, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae … Germania, ii Archiepiscopatus Hammaburgensis sive Bremensis, p. 52. 85 See VI.18 above. 86 Burchard of Stumpenhausen, Provost of Bremen cathedral 1205–30, Reg. Innocenz’ III, 10 Pontifikatsjahr, 1207/1208, ed. Rainer Murauer and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2007), p. 371 note 11. 87 One of the several grounds on which Innocent III eventually quashed this election was that the Bremen chapter had made the election without consulting the Hamburg chapter, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 11 Pontifikatsjahr, 1208/1209, ed. Otmar Hageneder and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2010), pp. 12–16 no. 9, at pp. 12–13. 84

Book VII

285

the Curia, the envoys from Hamburg arrived, opposing his election and alleging that it was not canonical. An envoy from King Waldemar also arrived, namely Peter the provost of Roskilde, but without any documents, which he claimed has been taken from him by violence while he was on the road. He informed the pope of the oath which had been pledged by Waldemar, that he would never take office in this place, and hence how seriously King Waldemar disapproved of this [election].88 Thus, after hearing all these things, the lord pope kept Waldemar with him for some days, while he considered the matter and took the advice of the cardinals. Seeing that he was in a difficult position, Waldemar left without permission and took himself off to King Philip, who sent him with honour to Bremen.89 The people received him there most honourably, exulting and rejoicing. The pope, however, sent letters to all the churches of Germany and Gaul, excommunicating Waldemar for disobedience.90 The people of Bremen were, however, unaware of this at the time, since nobody dared to present the Apostolic letter to them, until at last, during a mass, it was placed on the altar by someone, as if he was making an offering like the others. 11 The expedition of King Waldemar. On hearing of the entrance [into the see] of his relative Bishop Waldemar, the king invaded the land with a vast host, both an army of knights and a fleet, with the intention either of hindering him, or, if possible, substituting another in his place. He also had a feud with Count Gunzelin of Schwerin and his brother Henry, who had offended him by driving out John Gans, whose castle of Grabow they

88

According to the letter which Innocent subsequently wrote to Philip’s wife Irene, the Danish envoy accused the bishop of treason, apostacy, adultery, perjury, dilapidation of his see and criminal conspiracy [See note 90 below]. 89 Philip wrote to the pope c.January 1208 requesting him to translate Waldemar to Bremen, and alleging that the church of Bremen was much diminished both in property and reputation, mainly through the negligence of Archbishop Hartwig, Reg. Innocenz’ III, 10 Pontifikatsjahr, 1207/1208, pp. 384–6 no. 215 [also in Die Urkunden Philipps, pp. 382–4 no. 170]. 90 Innocent wrote to his legates in Germany, denouncing Bishop Waldemar’s treachery, in February 1208, Registrum de Negotio Imperii, pp. 344–5 no. 149. At the same time he wrote to Queen Irene and to Otto, Bishop-elect of Würzburg, asking both of them to persuade King Philip not to provide any aid to Waldemar, but to shun him as an excommunicate, Reg. Innocenz’ III, 10 Pontifikatsjahr, 1207/1208, pp. 369–74 nos 209–10. He wrote to King Waldemar in March 1208, informing him of this and saying that he had quashed the election at Bremen and ordered the chapter to hold a new election, Reg. Innocenz’ III, 11 Pontifikatsjahr, 1208/1209, pp. 12–16 no. 9.

286

Book VII

had violently seized.91 He sent an army under the command of Count Albrecht of Nordalbingia, who was in charge of this land, who first had their castle of Boizenburg destroyed, and then ravaged beyond repair all the land of the men of Schwerin. Bishop Waldemar meanwhile planned to attack the borders of the king, but as the war between the two unfolded his intentions were foiled by a number of circumstances. For Burchard, the major provost who [also] aspired to the archbishopric, having secured the support of a number of electors from Hamburg, and even some from Bremen, came to the king and received pontifical investiture from him; and after he had gained possession of Bremen, he also occupied Stade with the help of some of the king’s friends. Arriving there, Waldemar of Bremen sought to enter it, with his men meanwhile lying hidden, but the other side closed the doors and refused to receive him. On realising this, Waldemar summoned his friends from the see of Bremen, besieged the city and stormed it, consigning everything which was within to his troops, who took a huge amount of plunder and laid everything waste, leaving the town more or less deserted.92 However, the party of archbishop-elect Burchard recouped its strength, and having recaptured Stade, he took up residence there without hindrance. Meanwhile King Waldemar had a bridge built across the Elbe, so that wagons and horsemen could cross freely. With his men streaming into the land of the men of Bremen, he built a very strong castle at Horneburg from which to support his archbishop-elect. 12 The expedition and death of Philip. Meanwhile King Philip was planning to march against King Otto, or even King Waldemar. Having raised a numerous army from every part of the empire, which was joined by hordes of men from the borders of Hungary, and [even] getting help from those worst of men who are called Valve,93 he mustered a huge force of crossbowmen and men-at-arms of every sort at Bamberg, awaiting his [other] troops to join him there. King Otto was informed of this, for they could not hide such great troop movements from him, and he began to stockpile food and weapons in his cities and castles, and to prepare himself for these great attacks as though he was quite unperturbed. Nor did King Waldemar fail to support him, both with bands of soldiers or even laying out of treasure, knowing that if Otto was gored by

91

Gunzelin II, Count of Schwerin 1185–1221, whose daughter and heiress Ida was married to Niels, elder son of King Waldemar II (d. c.1218). Gunzelin’s brother Henry (d. 1228) was the eventual successor to the county. 92 3 August 1208, according to the Annales Stadenses, p. 355. 93 Cumans, see above, VI.5.

Book VII

287

the right horn, then he himself could undoubtedly expect to be hit by the left. But God the merciful and compassionate, conscious of the daily blows against the Church, which it received because of our sins, or even touched by the sighing and prayers of the faithful, finally deigned to put an end to these disasters in this way. While, as was explained above, Philip was staying peacefully in Bamberg, awaiting the arrival of his troops, suddenly a wretched and unexpected dispute arose between him and the Count Palatine, Otto of Wittelsbach, which we do not think ought to be passed over in silence. King Philip had decided to betroth his daughter to Otto, for the latter was a nobleman. But since Otto was a very cruel and inhumane man, the king changed his mind about the betrothal.94 On learning of this, Otto the count palatine strove to secure a daughter of Duke Henry of Poland,95 and he said to King Philip: Lord, we want your clemency to remember how devoted I have always been to you, how much I have spent in your service in the present war, and with what a great following I have now arranged to march with you against your enemies. So I ask that you now give me a little help and send a letter of recommendation to the lord duke of Poland, so that the betrothal agreement, which has been proposed but not yet concluded, may be secured through your majesty’s mediation.

The king replied: ‘I shall most certainly do this’. Otto was overjoyed, and a letter concerning the matter was drafted. The king said: ‘Leave us, and if you come back in a little while you will find the letter sealed’. But in his absence, the letter was changed to say the opposite of what it had, and then sealed with the royal bull. And after the count palatine had received the letter, he saw a blot on the outside of the parchment and became suspicious. He went to one of his counsellors and said: ‘Open up this letter for me, that I might know its meaning’.96 The advisor read the letter, and became very fearful, saying: ‘I beg you in the sight of God that you do not force me to read the letter to you, since I see myself threatened with nothing less than death should I reveal its contents to you’. But after taking back the letter, the count palatine bullied the other man into telling him what it said. He was as a result absolutely enraged, and he made up his mind to plot nothing less

Otto (IV), Count Palatine of Bavaria (c.1180–1209), was the first cousin of Duke Ludwig of Bavaria. Philip had four daughters: Otto’s intended would seem to have been the eldest, Beatrice, who would then only have been nine or ten. 95 Henry ‘the bearded’, Duke of Silesia from 1201 (d. 1238): he had at least three daughters through his marriage to Hedwig, daughter of Berthold (V), Duke of Merania. 96 The count was, therefore, illiterate, or at least unable to read Latin. 94

288

Book VII

than the king’s death. However, concealing his anger, he went to see Philip, behaving in a jocular and friendly manner. Thus it was that one day, when Philip was staying in private in his chamber, because he had an incision in each arm,97 the count palatine went into the royal antechamber with a drawn sword, as if he was playing a game. He then approached the king’s chamber, knocked on the door and entered, acting in the same manner in the king’s presence. The latter said to him: ‘put down your sword, for this is not the place for such behaviour’. To which the count responded: ‘This is just the place for you to pay for your treachery’. He promptly struck him in the neck with a single blow, nor did he bother with inflicting a second wound. And when those who were present sought to seize him, he flung the door open, forced his way out and fled. Philip, however, had not altered this letter without good reason, since the girl whom Otto wished to marry belonged to Philip’s kin on his mother’s side, and so it was displeasing to the king that a man so cruel, ungodly and shameless might be wed to so noble a virgin. For this same count palatine had murdered one of the leading men of the land, called Wulf, with great savagery, which had greatly shocked Philip. Thus his reign was brought to an end by this wicked deed. God had deigned to reveal this ending to a certain holy man in Ratzeburg through a vision, with these words: ‘in the year 1208 there will be an ending’. Quite what this ending would be was [then] unknown, but around the time of the feast of St John the Baptist the prophecy was brought to pass as described. A number of other men of name were considered to be greatly suspect in this deed, notably the bishop of the city, along with many others who were [thought to be] accessories in the betrayal of the king.98

97

That is, he was being bled for medical reasons, which is confirmed by the Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 225–6. According to this account, Philip had that morning attended the wedding of his niece Beatrice, daughter of his deceased older brother Otto, to Duke Otto of Merania, the elder brother of the bishop of Bamberg (which makes the latter’s alleged involvement in the murder hard to explain). The Cologne chronicler said that he was in his chamber accompanied only by the bishop of Speyer, and his chamberlain and steward, when Otto entered with sixteen armed men. 98 An even more circumstantial account of Philip’s murder was given by the papal legate Bishop Ugolino of Ostia to Pope Innocent III, written soon after the event, and quoting the testimony of an eyewitness, Registrum super Negotio Imperio, pp. 347–9 no. 152. On the Saturday before the feast of St John the Baptist [21 June], on which the Lord had arranged that the truce previously agreed would continue, without the death of another person, the lord Philip, leaving his army in the field, entered the town of Bamberg accompanied only by a few members of his household. About the ninth hour [3 p.m.], he was resting in the episcopal

Book VII

289

So fell this powerful and noble man, who was adorned by many virtues, for he was gentle and humble and extremely affable, and because he was literate he was greatly devoted to religious matters. When he was in church he would [himself] read out the lessons and responses; nor would he have the clergy or poor scholars kept at a distance, rather he treated them as fellow pupils. The land was therefore much disturbed by his death, and there was general lamentation. Everybody cried out with one voice: ‘Alas, our prince has fallen, our glory has ceased, “our dance is turned into mourning”,99 rule is taken away from us and a kingdom of another people is created’. The princes and nobles gathered, and the king was buried in the city of Bamberg with solemn funeral rites and amid great mourning. Hearing such sad news, the queen, who was pregnant, was so worn out by her grief that she died.100 Struck down by the death of her husband, the young woman was tortured By her great grief and so two lives were lost rather than one. But while I thought on these matters, this saying by the poet about the uncertainty of his life suddenly came to mind. All human affairs hang by a slender thread; Chance suddenly brings ruin to what was strong.101

palace when the said palatine count, to whom the lord Philip had given his daughter and [then] taken her away, entered the palace where lord Philip was staying, accompanied by the duke of Bavaria, the margrave of Istria, brother of this same bishop, and another ten armed men. They knocked on the door, and were admitted to the chamber as was customary. As the lord Philip greeted him with pleasant words and jokes, as was his custom, Otto drew the knife that he was carrying. He replied to the lord Philip by stopping his jokes with his sword, saying: ‘this will not be a joke for you’, and abandoning all fear of God he immediately ran him through with his sword. He then inflicted a fatal wound on Henry, the seneschal of the empire, who was attempting to prevent the crime; and fearing that the man whom he had already killed was still alive he cut his throat. With the help of his accomplices who protected him, the murderer left, and as the army now completely dispersed, it pleased God to allow him to escape without suffering punishment for his villainy. Other accounts of the murder include Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, pp. 82–3; Annales Marbacenses, p. 78 [ed. Schmale, pp. 148–50, 212]; Reineri Annales, MGH SS xvi.661; and Herman of Niederaltaich, Annales, MGH SS xvii.386. 99 Lamentations, 5: 15. 100 She died on 27 August 1208. 101 Ovid, Tristia ex Ponto, IV.iii.35–6.

290

Book VII

For He who disposes of transient secular affairs, Thinks of human behaviour, those who are wicked, those who are better, ‘He exalteth them of low degree and has put down the mighty from their seats,’102 Lest masters should rule from their throne in a shameful way. Do you not hear what the wisdom of Christ says? ‘You who are rulers of the lands on earth, love righteousness’.103 Behold, a man who is the possessor of great wealth Has suddenly been taken away, [although] barely scratched by a light wound, And soon majesty ceases, and family and power, His hand at which one trembled, and also his virtue that was worthy of being feared. The psalmist, who long ago predicted these events, knew this well; ‘Vain is the help of man.’104 Let not the hope of riches be your purpose, Because there is no profit in them. Take care to have thought heavenly rewards, Which Christ grants freely as a recompense for piety.105 13 About the plenary election of King Otto. Therefore, after the death of King Philip all those who seemed to stand by him were rendered uncertain. Thus it happened that Waldemar, archbishop-elect of Bremen, was no longer welcome among his own men, for indeed they feared that they would give offence to a future prince, or would be excommunicated by the pope, for they had now learned of this. Seeing the opportunity that was being presented, King Otto, however, thought to launch an attack on some of his enemies. The archbishop of Magdeburg and Duke Bernhard went to him and spoke as follows:106

102

Luke, 1: 52. Cf. the similar sentiments expressed in Bk. III.10 above. Sapientia, 1: 1. 104 Psalm, 60: 13 and 108: 13 (Vulgate), 60: 11 and 108.12 (AV). 105 Original verse in dactylic hexameters. 106 Albrecht of Käfenburg, Archbishop of Magdeburg 1206–32, and Bernhard, Duke of Saxony 1180–1212. Otto wrote to Pope Innocent in July or August 1208 to inform him that Archbishop Albrecht and the Bishops of Halberstadt and Minden were assisting him, and that he hoped that Duke Bernhard would shortly do fealty to him, while the Bishop of Speyer too had given security to him, Regestum super Negotio Imperii, pp. 359–63 no. 160. Conrad of Krosigk, Bishop of Halberstadt, who had been an opponent of Otto, paid out 800 marks to recover the king’s grace, and then soon afterwards resigned his see to become a monk at the Cistercian abbey of Sittichenbach, near Eisleben, Gesta Episcoporum Halberstadensium, MGH SS xxiii.122. 103

Book VII

291

We would advise you not to make any rash attack, which might well stir up anger against you, but rather we shall arrange with the agreement of the princes a meeting of the high court so that there may be a general discussion there concerning the election of a king. If it shall be pleasing to the Lord for the choice to be of your person, we shall render thanks – if the choice is otherwise we shall pay attention to this.

When he signified his assent, a formal court meeting was called to meet in Halberstadt, where the majority of the prelates and princes of Saxony and Thuringia attended, nor was Otto, bishop-elect of Würzburg, absent.107 All the princes who had gathered there, as if divinely inspired, by equal vote and unanimous consent elected Otto as Roman Prince and always Augustus, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The archbishop, who appeared to have the first voice, began this process. He was followed by Duke Bernhard, then by the margrave of Meissen and the landgrave of Thuringia,108 along with the others to whom the election of the king seemed to pertain. When, however, it came to the aforesaid bishop-elect, he began to complain, in the presence of the other princes, that his church had been so injured by King Philip, and by the latter’s predecessor Emperor Henry, that it had been deprived of a thousand marks a year. It was because of this injury that his predecessor Conrad had been treacherously slain,109 and he announced that unless this same wrong were to be righted, so that the church remained unharmed, he would not give his consent to this election. After many other charges were then made, he walked out of the meeting and departed. However, when he was summoned back the next day he agreed to the election made by the princes, from whom, along with appointment by the king, he received his church.

Innocent wrote to Archbishop Albrecht, to thank him for recognising Otto and urging him to assist him further, on 20 August 1208, Regestum super Negotio Imperii, p. 365 no. 163. As a preliminary to the archbishop joining his side, Otto IV had concluded an agreement with him concerning the fiefs which his father had previously held from his church, Regesta Imperii [online edition], Otto IV, no. 239. 107 Otto of Lobdeburg, Bishop of Würzburg 1207–23. This meeting took place on 22 September 1208, the feast of St Maurice, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, pp. 205–6. There had been an earlier meeting with the princes of eastern Germany at Würzburg on 8 September, to the calling of which Otto IV referred in his letter to Pope Innocent, Regestum super Negotio Imperii, pp. 361–2, and in a letter to the bishop-elect on 20 August, ibid., pp. 365–6 no. 164. 108 Dietrich, Margrave of Meissen 1195–1221, the head of the Wettin family, and Herman, Landgrave of Thuringia 1190–1217. 109 For which, see above, Bk. VII.2.

292

Book VII

14 The court at Frankfurt. Another, even more notable, court was now summoned to meet at Frankfurt on the feast of St Martin.110 There a very large number of the princes of Franconia, Bavaria and Swabia flocked to meet the lord king amid great ceremony. Beatrice, the daughter of King Philip, was [also] there, and she and her men submitted themselves to the grace of the lord king. The lord bishop of Speyer brought her forward;111 and in a loud voice, with groans, sighs and many tears, she appealed to the lord king and the assembled princes, and indeed to the whole Roman world concerning the wicked death of her father and the evil conspiracy of the Count Palatine Otto, who had treacherously murdered him while the king was in his own house, suspecting nothing. After her speech there was great pressure on the king from those who sympathised with the queen’s grievances,112 all of whom with tears welling wept at her great distress and begged that justice be rendered to the queen. Indeed, they urged that if the wicked perpetrator remained unpunished neither the king nor any of the princes would be able to live in safety. Thus in accordance with the wishes of all who were there the lord king condemned that murderer to public outlawry.113 Subsequently Henry of Kalden, along with the son of the aforementioned Wulf, whom this same man had slain, killed Otto and threw his severed head into the Danube.114 The king

110

11 November. The date is confirmed by Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, p. 83 [ed. Schmale, p. 216] and Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 183, which said that 55 princes attended this meeting. 111 Conrad (III) of Scharfenberg, Bishop of Speyer 1200–24, had been King Philip’s principal notary before his elevation to the episcopate. He had regularly attended Philip’s court throughout the conflict, Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 507–12. 112 The Latin word used is querimoniae, which has the sense of formal legal charges, to initiate a court case. Strictly speaking Beatrice was not a queen, but she was clearly considered to have inherited royal status after the death of her father, and of her mother Queen Irene, who died in childbirth at the castle of Hohenstaufen on 27 August 1208, two months after her husband’s murder, Annales Marbacenses, p. 79 [ed. Schmale, p. 214]. 113 On 15 November, at Frankfurt, King Otto granted the fiefs confiscated from the count palatine, and from his accomplice the Margrave of Istria, to Duke Ludwig of Bavaria, Regesta Imperii [online edition], Otto IV, no. 243. Among the witnesses to this grant were Bishop Conrad of Speyer and the Margrave of Meissen. Otto of St Blasien suggested that the sentence of outlawry was proclaimed at a court at Augsburg in January 1209, although this may have simply been a confirmation of the earlier sentence for the south German regions, Chronica, p. 83. 114 In February 1209, cf. Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, p. 84, Annales Marbacenses, p. 78 [ed. Schmale, pp. 152, 212–14], Burchard of Urspberg, Chronicon, p. 91, and Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 228, which commented that the cruel death

Book VII

293

accordingly took the young queen under his protection, and in addition he promised, in response to a petition of the princes, to take her as his wife, if it should be possible given the tie of consanguinity [between them].115 He therefore received her, along with her hereditary possessions and great wealth, and three hundred and fifty castles. Here too all the imperial regalia were presented to the lord king, with plenitude of power and honour, and general good wishes.116 15 Concerning the same thing. A new light has arisen in the Roman world, the joy of peace and the security of quiet,117 and the mockery and insults of the many who claimed that Otto would never rule ceased. What shall I say about the noble king of France, who did not with the others forbear from his mockery? For when Otto was summoned by the princes from Poitou for his royal election, and crossed France with a safe-conduct from the aforesaid king, the latter saw him while he was travelling and greeted him, and during the conversations which they had among themselves the king of France burst out with these words. ‘We have learned’, he said, ‘that you have been summoned to the throne of the Roman Empire’. Otto replied: ‘What you have heard is true, but my journey may be in the hands of God’. To this the king said: You should not believe that this great dignity will come to you. What if only Saxony agrees to support you? If you now give me the war horse which I want, and [then] after you have been made king I shall give you the three best cities of my kingdom, Paris, Etampes and Orleans.

of the count palatine was what he deserved. For the long-term exile of his alleged accomplices, the Margrave of Istria and his brother Bishop Ekbert of Bamberg, Lyon, Princely Brothers and Sisters, pp. 163–70. 115 They were indeed related within four degrees of kinship, Jordan, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und seine Familie’, p. 136. Nevertheless, the marriage had been mooted immediately after Philip’s murder, and Innocent III had been prepared to support it (uncanonical as it was) in order to strengthen Otto’s position as king, Regestum super Negotio Imperii, p. 351 no. 153 (late July/August 1208). From Otto’s point of view, it served to win over the Staufen supporters, and especially the imperial ministeriales, Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, p. 98. 116 After Philip’s murder, Bishop Conrad of Speyer had secured possession of the royal insignia (regalia) which he then handed over to Otto, in return for which he was appointed chancellor, Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 415–16. 117 Cf. above, Bk. V.20.

294

Book VII

Now King Otto had with him many presents from his uncle King Richard of England, and 150,000 marks which were being carried in his baggage [and] fifty warhorses. Among these was the one special one, which the king sought. The lord Otto therefore gave him the warhorse and continued on the journey which he had begun. It is not intended here to insult the lord emperor by repeating this story. 16 The solemn court of the king at Brunswick. In the following year a court was arranged to meet at Altenburg, sometimes called by its other name of Pleisse, where the emperor possesses the huge estate of Count Radbod, along with the castles of Leisnig and Colditz, which the Emperor Frederick bought from the said count for 500 marks.118 The men of Meissen and Zeitz gathered there, along with the Poles, Bohemians and Hungarians. After many matters had been settled there, and the peace which had been sworn in all previous courts was confirmed, the lord king turned his face towards Brunswick, where he solemnly celebrated the feast of Pentecost.119 The king was very keen that his closest friends should be present there, namely the archbishop of Magdeburg, the bishop-elect of Halberstadt,120 the bishops of Hildesheim,121 Merseburg122 and Havelberg,123 the abbot of Korvey and the abbot of Werden.124 Duke Bernhard was also present throughout the festival, as was the landgrave, the Count Palatine of the Rhine,125 the margrave of Meissen, the Margrave Conrad,126 Duke William

118

These were among the Saxon properties which Frederick Barbarossa granted in exchange to Henry the Lion on 1 January 1158 in return for various Swabian estates belonging to the latter and his then wife Clementia of Zähringen, Dipl. Frederick I, i.332–3 no. 199. The purchase from Count Radbod, ‘for no small sum of money’, was expressly mentioned in this document. Otto was at Altenburg on 7 May, accompanied by most of the princes who later attended the court at Brunswick, Regesta Imperii [online edition], Otto IV, no. 276. 119 17 May, cf. Regesta Imperii [online edition], Otto IV, nos 277–9. 120 Frederick (II) of Kirchberg, Bishop of Halberstadt 1209–36. 121 Heribert of Dahlem, Bishop of Hildesheim 1199–1216. 122 Dietrich of Wettin, Bishop of Merseburg 1204–15, illegitimate son of Margrave Dietrich II of Lower Lausitz (d. 1185) and his mistress Kunigunde, widow of Count Bernhard of Plötzkau, who died on the Second Crusade, Chronicon Montis Sereni, MGH SS xxiii.159. 123 Siboto, Bishop of Havelberg c.1207–19. 124 Heribert (II), Abbot of Werden 1197–1226. 125 Otto IV’s elder brother Henry (d. 1227), for whom see above, Bk. VI.4, 6, 12. 126 Conrad, Margrave of Landsberg (d. 8 May 1210) was another member of the Wettin family, a first cousin of Margrave Dietrich of Meissen and previously

Book VII

295

of Lüneberg who was a brother of King Otto,127 and the margrave of Brandenburg.128 There were only a small number of counts, but a great host of knights, through all of whom the king’s finances were most honestly and most abundantly administered.129 On the holy day itself the mass had not yet begun when the lord archbishop of Magdeburg refused to permit the margrave of Meissen to be present during the service, on the grounds that he had been excommunicated. The lord king was quite unable to dissuade him from his purpose, so to console the margrave for his embarrassment he left the church with him. The next day, on the princes’ advice, the margrave promised to render satisfaction and the dispute was put to rest. Nor do I think that I have sinner when I mix serious matters with a joke.130

Since ‘It is not enough for a poem to be beautiful, it must have charm’.131 When, therefore, everyone was cheerful again, Duke Bernhard touched the statue of a lion, which had been placed here by Duke Henry, and said: ‘Why do you turn your mouth to the east? Stop this, you already have what you want, so now turn to the north’. These words made everyone laugh, not without the admiration of the many people who clearly understood his words.132 17 The legitimisation and betrothal of the daughter of King Philip. Once the feast was over, the king went to Goslar, and after arranging various matters there, he travelled to Walkenried, where he found the abbot of

a supporter of Philip. See above, Bk. VI.8; Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 501–2. 127 Youngest son of Henry the Lion (1184–1213), he was the ancestor of the later Welf dukes of Brunswick. For his career, Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 368–74. See above, Bk. VI.15. 128 Albrecht II, Margrave of Brandenburg 1205–20. 129 That is, these were imperial or Welf ministeriales. Regesta Imperii [online edition], Otto IV, no. 278 (issued at Brunswick on 19 May 1209) was witnessed by most of those listed here, as well as five counts and a number of prominent ministeriales. 130 Horace, Epistolarum, I.14.36. 131 Horace, Artis Poeticae, line 99. 132 The (still-surviving) statue was set up outside Brunswick cathedral in 1166, Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.345. Was the implication of the duke’s words that Otto IV should now oppose the Danes?

296

Book VII

Morimond, along with another fifty-two abbots of his order.133 These all granted to him their confraternity and prayers, and so they followed the king to Würzburg, and were generously supported by him. On the Sunday ‘O Lord in your mercy’, he was solemnly received at Würzburg with great solemnity amid hymns and praises of God.134 The chant was this, ‘you have come desired one’.135 The legates of the lord pope were present there, namely Ugo, Cardinal bishop of Ostia, and Leo, Cardinal Bishop of Sabina, along with a great crowd of prelates, princes, priests and clergy.136 Among these were Archbishops Siegfried of Mainz, Dietrich of Cologne, John of Trier and Eberhard of Salzburg,137 and Bishops Henry of Strassburg, Siegfried of Augsburg, Otto of Freising, Manegold of Passau, Henry of Regensburg, Liudolf of Basel, Hartbert of Hildesheim, Yso of Verden,138 and the bishops of Konstanz, Halberstadt and Havelberg,139 also Abbot Cono of Ellwangen,140 and the

133

Walkenried in the Harz mountains was a Cistercian monastery, of the Morimond filiation, founded c.1129 as a daughter house of Kamp (in the Rhineland, the first Cistercian monastery in Germany). 134 24 May 1209. Otto remained at Würzburg until 2 June, Regesta Imperii [online edition], Otto IV, nos 281–3. 135 The Antiphon of the Resurrection: Advenisti desiderabilis, quam expectabamus in tenebram. 136 Pope Innocent had announced the appointment of Ugolino of Ostia (his cousin) and Leo, Cardinal priest of S Croce, on 16 January 1209, and had given them authority to grant dispensation for Otto’s marriage to Beatrice ‘if necessity and evident utility urged this so that peace might be restored to the empire’, Regestum super Negotio Imperii, pp. 390–2 nos 181–2. 137 Siegfried of Eppstein, Archbishop of Mainz 1200–30, for whose election see Bk. VI.3 above; John, Archbishop of Trier 1189–1212; and Eberhard of Truchsen, Archbishop of Salzburg 1200–46 (previously bishop of Brixen 1196–1200). Eberhard was a former supporter of King Philip, and often attended his court. He was consequently not well-regarded by Innocent III, Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 445–7. 138 Henry (II) of Veringen, Bishop of Strassburg 1202–23; Siegfried (II) of Rechburg, Bishop of Augsburg 1208–27; Otto (II) of Berg, Bishop of Freising 1184–1220; Managold of Berg, Bishop of Passau 1206–15; the bishop of Regensburg was properly Conrad (IV) of Teisbach, bishop 1204–26, was this a confusion with his father who was called Henry (Count of Lechsgemund)? Liudolf or Luitold of Roetheln, Bishop of Basel 1192–1213; Hartbert of Dahlem, Bishop of Hildesheim 1199–1216; and Yso of Wölpe, Bishop of Verden 1205–31. 139 Conrad (II) of Tegesfeld, Bishop of Konstanz 1209–33; Frederick (II) of Kirchberg, Bishop of Halberstadt 1209–36; and Siboto, Bishop of Havelberg c.1206–19. 140 Cono, Abbot of Ellwangen (an important Benedictine abbey in Swabia) 1188–1221.

Book VII

297

abbots of Fulda, Hersfeld, Korvey, Prüm, and Weissenburg.141 The names of the kings and princes who were present there are as follows: King Ottokar of Bohemia, the margrave of Moravia,142 Dukes Leopold of Austria,143 Bernhard of Saxony, Ludwig of Bavaria,144 Berthold of Carinthia,145 the dukes of Lotharingia and Brabant,146 the margrave of Meissen, Conrad Margrave of Landsberg, Margrave Albrecht of Brandenburg and many others too. Many matters were therefore dealt with here, and peace was confirmed, in accordance with all the aforesaid courts. The lord king had, however, summoned so many cardinals, prelates, princes and priests, along with [other] learned men and those who were expert in the law for the special purpose of obtaining legitimisation for his union with the daughter of King Philip, and so he addressed them all generally: We have asked you all, in the Lord, first you cardinals who are present here by the authority and wishes of the lord pope, and then the mighty archbishops, bishops, abbots and others whom the ecclesiastical order has distinguished by various ranks, and also your excellencies, kings, dukes and princes, that you may hear our words. After many setbacks God in heaven has benevolently granted us the kingdom in its entirety, so that we may not inappropriately say as we give thanks to Him: ‘the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner. This was the Lord’s doing and it is marvellous in our eyes’.147 What should be absolutely clear to everyone is that the Roman world presents us with no lack of choice among the illustrious women from whom we might choose a spouse or wife. This distinguished meeting has, however, been convened to consider the case of the daughter of Duke Philip of Swabia. Nobody is in any doubt that she is our kinswoman. We [now] submit this matter to your advice and judgement, asking you to

141

Henry (III), Abbot of Fulda 1192–1216; John, Abbot of Hersfeld 1200–14; Widekind, Abbot of Korvey (d. 1209), who was a long-standing supporter of Otto IV, Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 438–9; Gerhard, Abbot of Prüm and Stavelot 1184–1212; and Wolfram, Abbot of Weissenburg 1197–1222. These last two abbots were, significantly, from houses west of the Rhine. 142 Przemysl, Margrave of Moravia, the king of Bohemia’s younger brother (d. 1239). 143 Leopold (VI) of Babenberg, Duke of Austria 1198–1230. 144 Ludwig of Wittlesbach, Duke of Bavaria 1183–1231. 145 Actually Bernhard, Duke of Carinthia 1202–56. 146 Frederick II, Duke of Upper Lotharingia 1207–13, and Henry I, Duke of Brabant 1190–1235, to whose daughter there had previously been a plan for Otto to marry, and whom indeed he would eventually marry as his second wife in 1214. 147 Mark, 12: 10–11. The first sentence is also in Matthew, 21: 42.

298

Book VII consider the matter sincerely, and in accordance with the salvation of your souls, without any consideration of fear or favour, to advise us what we should do in this case. For if we were to live for six thousand years, we would choose rather to live a life of celibacy for all time rather than to take a wife and place our soul in peril. Nobody is to give heed to the glory, generosity, riches and castles belonging to this girl, for none of these can be compared to the safety of one’s soul. If indeed these 350 castles were to be shared among her sisters, to whom the inheritance pertains, there would be little that remains. Now, therefore, as has been said, you should consider this and render a suitable response to us.

While everyone was leaving to go to the meeting, the king said to his brother the Count Palatine Henry, who was at his right hand: ‘We would like you to sit down, to avoid your presence arousing undue suspicion in the meeting’. There was therefore a long discussion, and eventually the participants returned to the king. They chose as their spokesman Duke Leopold of Austria, who was a most eloquent and educated man, and he addressed the king as follows:148 ‘Lord king, is it pleasing to you to hear the response from the cardinals, prelates and princes?’ To which the king replied, ‘I’m listening’. Leopold thus: Your excellency knows that this notable gathering of cardinals – bearing the authority of the lord pope – high prelates and princes, and other educated men, has decided to assist you in every way it can, for the good of peace and the welfare of the Roman world, to enable you to take as your wife the virgin who has been mentioned, adding this: that to alleviate any anxiety you should willingly found two splendid congregations of monks. We shall indeed do our best to assist you by generously providing alms, and also by supporting priests and other clergy in lower grades to say masses and prayers.

To this, the king replied: ‘We shall act in accordance with your words, not wishing to reject such wise and good advice from so great and authoritative body. Let the girl therefore be summoned’. After she had been ceremonially brought in by the bishops and princes, the king rose from his throne and received her with a bow. She bowed back, and offering her a ring in the presence of the entire gathering he pledged himself to her and received her with a kiss. Instructing her to sit among the cardinals, whose thrones were placed immediately opposite his own, the king said to

148

Innocent III had written to Duke Leopold in December 1208 advising him to recognise Otto as king and emperor-elect, Regestum super Negotio Imperii, pp. 380–1 no. 175.

Book VII

299

everyone: ‘Behold you have a queen, treat her with the proper respect’. Having appointed suitable representatives, he also ordered that she be escorted with the utmost respect to Brunswick along with her sister. He himself remained in that land, and after travelling around that region, he started to consider the matter of his imperial coronation. 18 The journey of the lord king. After the feast of St John the Baptist, therefore, he convened a court in the city of Augsburg, where all the princes of that land were gathered, ‘to whom he revealed his intentions’,149 in order that with their help he might with honour and glory receive the imperial blessing of the Germans.150 Many prelates and princes came to this meeting, as well as all the others who held regalian rights: the archbishops of Trier and Magdeburg,151 the bishops of Würzburg,152 Strassburg, Speyer (who was the chancellor), Worms,153 Basel, Konstanz, Passau, Chur,154 Augsburg, Eichstätt,155 Prague and Olmütz,156 and the abbots of Reichenau, Sankt Gallen, Kempten, Weissenburg, Selz, Prüm and Echternach.157 To these were added the princes – the dukes of Bavaria, Lotharingia, Carinthia, Merania, and many margraves and counts. The rest who remained behind provided vast sums of money to assist this journey by the king. And so, after leaving the city which is from its waters naturally called Innsbruck he started the ascent of the Alps around the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.158 He successfully reached Brixen, where the River Isarco

149

cum quibus habuit mysterium consilii sui, from Judith 2:2 (Apocrypha). Otto was at Augsburg from 24 July (St John the Baptist’s day) until early August, Regesta Imperii [online edition], Otto IV, nos 288–90. 151 See above, note 106. 152 See above, note 107. 153 Leopold, Bishop of Worms 1196–1217. 154 Reginhar, Bishop of Chur 1200–9, who died soon after Otto’s army crossed into Italy. 155 Hartwig of Grögling, Bishop of Eichstätt 1195–1223, a former supporter of Philip, and briefly, in 1203–4, his chancellor, Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben, pp. 463–4. 156 Daniel (II), Bishop of Prague 1197–1214, and Robert, Bishop of Olmütz 1201–40. 157 Henry, Abbot of Reichenau 1206–34; Ulrich (VI), Abbot of Sankt Gallen 1204–20; Rudolf (II), Abbot of Kempten (Swabia) 1208–13. For the abbots of Weissenburg and Prüm, see above note 141. 158 15 August. In fact, at least according to the Piacenza annalist, by 14 August Otto was already at Peschiera, at the southern end of Lake Garda, Iohannis Codagnelli, Annales Placentini Guelfi, ed. O. Holder-Egger (MGH, SRG, Hanover 1901), p. 37. 150

300

Book VII

flows, and descending by its valley came to Trent. Leaving this, he arrived at a narrow pass to cross through the mountains which is called the Pass of the Veronese, where there is a very strong castle, which has been known since antiquity as the ‘city of Hildebrand’. That place was rendered even stronger because of the size of this castle, whose garrison wages a long-running feud against the men of Verona, to whom they cause no little trouble. On the king’s arrival this castle, which dominated the whole region, surrendered to him. The men of Verona, however, still did not hesitate to attack the people of the castle, and through this they incurred the king’s anger. They subsequently recovered his grace through a gift of many thousand marks. The lord king marched onwards, and was magnificently received by the people of Mantua and Cremona, about which the poet says: Mantua alas, too near to wretched Cremona.159

After his crossing of the Po, the people of Parma and Pontremoli received the king with joy. Nor were the Milanese, Genoese and people of Lucca lacking, along with other cities. They joyfully offered their cities to him, honouring him with countless treasures and presents. After remaining there for a while and arranging many matters in these cities, he moved on to a great city, which is called in their tongue Siena, where he stayed from some days. He then arrived at the city where the Blessed Christina suffered, which from her name is called the lake of St Christina.160 Marching on with his whole army, he came to Viterbo, where the lord Pope Innocent met him with great ceremony, accompanied by a huge host of both clergy and people. The incapacity of the present writer cannot fully describe the great joy and exultation of the heart with which they met each other, which was shown by the many embraces and kisses they exchanged, and by the floods of tears which such abundance of joy produced.161 19 The coronation of the emperor. On the Friday after Michaelmas, which was three days after that feast was celebrated, the lord king came with great devotion to the threshold (limina) of St Peter to adore the holy Apostles, 159

Vergil, Eclogues, IX.28. Vergil was, of course, originally from Mantua. Bolsena, which is associated with one version of the legend of St Christina, a third-century martyr – another version suggests that she was martyred at Tyre. 161 Cf. Annales Ceccanenses, MGH SS xix.298. This meeting would seem to have taken place during the second week of September, Regestum super Negotio Imperii, pp. 404–5 no. 191. 160

Book VII

301

and at the same time also to honour the royal city in every way [he could].162 He had in his army 6,000 men-at-arms (loricati), not counting crossbowmen and the countless troops of the prelates and princes. On the Sunday after Michaelmas, he came in procession to the atrium of St Peter, through a great throng of those coming and going to the stairs of the monastery of St Peter, where the processional route was entirely blocked, but the generous hand of the king scattered silver coins in profusion, and at last he just about managed to climb the stairs. Nor were servants lacking with lances and staves to repress the tumult. And so, on ‘Give us peace, Lord’ Sunday, amid great peace, tranquillity and joy, the lord emperor was blessed and crowned, with everyone rejoicing exceedingly and singing, ‘let there be peace in your strength’.163 And since he always devoted all his efforts to gaining peace, let us hope that through this office he will obtain assistance from God to secure the peace and unity of the Church, which has for a long time been ruptured. Once the service was completed, the lord pope kindly summoned the emperor to a banquet. The lord emperor insisted that the pope accompany him. When therefore they came to their horses, the emperor did not forget the respect which should be displayed by the faithful to the pope, as their vicar, and he carefully took hold of the reverend Pope Innocent’s stirrup.164 And so they came to the place of the banquet, where through the munificence of the emperor generous provision was made for both rich and poor. Nor should one omit that Waldemar, archbishop-elect of Bremen, now a poor exile, did not cease to request with the utmost solicitude and devotion pardon for his sin of disobedience, being penitent and promising to make full satisfaction, both through the intercessors whom he could find, or even going in person to the gates of Apostolic piety, ‘that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth’,165 and which is accustomed to forgive ‘until seventy times seven’.166 Since this case was

162

2 October 1209. Antiphon from Psalm, 121: 7 (Vulgate), 122: 7 (AV). Arnold was, however, in error identifying the liturgical Sunday, which in 1209 was two weeks before the coronation on 4 October. 164 This ceremony, where the emperor acted as the pope’s groom (strator), had in the past proved extremely controversial, suggesting as it did the former’s subordination to the pontiff. At Frederick I’s coronation in 1155 it had been stressed that the emperor did this only out of goodwill (benevolentia), not out of duty, Helmold, Cronica, I.81, pp. 152–4, trans. Tschan, pp. 211–13. For discussion, Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa, pp. 243–6. 165 Revelations, 3: 7, referring to the key of David. 166 Matthew, 18: 22. Innocent III had written to Archbishop Anders of Lund in November 1208, informing him that Waldemar, a serpent that the papacy had nursed in its bosom, was unworthy to rule over either Bremen or Schleswig, and ordering 163

302

Book VII

indeed problematic in all sorts of ways, nothing was then decided, except that he might celebrate mass in his pontifical dress, but not, however, in the church of Bremen. 20 An apology by the writer. I seek pardon from my readers in case anyone wishes to accuse me of presumption or temerity, since I have described these matters knowing that many people have written about the deeds of kings or bishops. But, as was said at the start, I have proceeded with this work not out of temerity but out of love, wishing to continue the work written by the priest Helmold who set forth many things concerning the condition of our land and about its kings and princes, and in particular he discussed the mission to and the subjection of the Slavs which was carried out through the noble Duke Henry, to endure in the memory of the faithful. Nor do I think that it is right for these matters to be consigned to oblivion, since all those who have the eye of faith may perceive the glory of churches, the devotion of the faithful and the growth of faith and the religious life in these northern regions, which had been the abode of Satan; but now indeed a wind from the south, namely the grace of the Holy Spirit, has driven out the north wind and blown upon the gardens of the faithful, and its strength has made countless perfumes flow forth. Nor should anyone be offended if, following the order of our story, I set forth matters quite joyful or favourable, or even evil ones, since it is necessary for these things to come to notice and not be omitted. For God sometimes promises happiness and at others punishment for the salvation of his faithful people, for whom ‘all things work together for good’.167 If indeed anything shall have happened, which has been set forth in the wrong order, let this should be ascribed to the informant rather than to the author. I leave this, however, to the careful emendation of the faithful, greatly rejoicing, that I make a joyful ending from a good beginning.

him to arrange an election to choose a new bishop for the latter see, Reg. Innocenz’ III, 11 Pontifikatsjahr, 1208/1209, pp. 268–71 no. 168, while in a letter to Otto IV in July 1209 he referred to Waldemar, whom he stigmatised as being ungrateful to the papacy which had helped release him from captivity, as the ‘former Bishop of Schleswig’, Die Register Innocenz’ III, 12 Pontifikatsjahr, 1209/1210, ed. Andrea Sommerlechner and Otmar Hageneder (Vienna 2012), pp. 109–13 no. 63. Waldemar eventually died at the Cistercian abbey of Loccum in 1236, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae … Germania, ii Archiepiscopatus Hammaburgensis sive Bremensis, p. 52. 167 Romans, 8: 28.

Appendix Frederick II recognises Lübeck as an imperial city and lists its special privileges (June 1226) In the name of the holy and individual Trinity, Frederick II by the favour of Divine clemency Emperor of the Romans [and] always Augustus, King of Jerusalem and Sicily. However many times the excellence of the imperial majesty extends the hand of its liberality over its faithful subjects and rewards them in accordance with their merits with appropriate gifts, the more it strengthens them in the constancy of their pure loyalty and enlists both them and other subjects the more willingly in its service. Therefore we wish all the faithful subjects of the empire, both present and future, to take note that having before our eyes the pure faith and sincere devotion which all the burgesses of Lübeck, our faithful subjects, are praiseworthily acknowledged to have for our high majesty, and also carefully paying attention to the very distinguished and freely offered service which they are at pains always faithfully to show to us and our empire and that in the future they can improve upon still further, wishing to reward them as they deserve with liberal munificence, we grant and firmly decree that the aforesaid city of Lübeck shall always be free, namely as a special city and place of the empire, especially belonging to imperial lordship, and at no time ever to be separated from that special lordship. We decree also that whenever any rector is appointed by the empire to rule over that city no person shall be appointed to that office who is not from a place near to and bordering on that city; so that in addition the castle which is called Travemunde shall be similarly governed by that same rector. Moreover, wishing to increase and to amplify the bounds of that city during our happy time, we grant and add to these same bounds that this city shall hold from the Padelügge stream to the [River] Trave, and from the Padelügge upstream following the bounds laid out there to the Krempelsdorf stream, and to the dry allod, and from there to the Trave. We also grant to the aforesaid burgesses that none of them shall be liable to pay custom at Oldesloe. We furthermore grant to them that they are permitted to make and coin money in that city under the impress of our name, which right is to last for our lifetime and similarly that of our beloved son Henry, the illustrious King of the Romans, and in return for this they shall provide sixty marks of silver to our court. With the accession of a new successor thereafter their right of coining is to be renewed under the same census and condition to

304

Appendix

last for his lifetime, and so we have decreed to be observed by each of our successors one to another concerning this coinage as laid out above. We have furthermore decreed and we grant to them that neither we nor any of our successors as emperors will exact hostages from them; rather they shall adhere faithfully and be bound to the faithful service of the empire by their oath alone. Furthermore, all merchants faithful [to us] who come to this city, whether by land or water, to carry out their trade shall always come and go in safety, provided that they pay the lawful duty that is laid down. Also we entirely exempt the aforesaid burgesses of Lübeck, whenever they go to England, from that wicked abuse and burdensome exaction which the men of Cologne and Tiel and their associates are alleged to have inflicted upon them, abolishing that abuse completely. They shall rather enjoy that law and condition which the men of Cologne and Tiel and their associates enjoy. We also grant to them the island of Priwall, sited near the castle of Travemunde, to be possessed in future according to the city law which is called Weichbild. We furthermore wish and instruct to be firmly observed that no person whether high or low, ecclesiastical or secular, shall presume at any time to build a fortress or castle near the River Trave, either upstream from the city to its source or downstream from that city to the sea, and for two miles on either side [of the river]; we most strictly forbid [too] that any outside advocate shall presume to exercise his advocacy or administer justice within the bounds of this same city. And since we wish in future to protect the aforesaid burgesses from all wicked and illegal exactions, we strictly forbid that the exaction which is called the Ungeld be levied or exacted from them anywhere within the duchy of Saxony. Moreover no prince, lord or noble from the adjacent regions shall presume to hinder foodstuffs from being brought to the city of Lübeck, whether from Hamburg, Ratzeburg, Wittenburg, Schwerin, or even from all the land of Borwin and his son,1 and through these same lands and in these lands every burgess of Lübeck, whether rich or poor, shall buy and sell without hindrance. Furthermore we firmly prohibit any person, great or small, ecclesiastical or secular, exacting a fee for safeconduct into the aforesaid city to anyone, since that ought to be lawfully available to anybody seeking it. We furthermore wish and strictly instruct that, whenever and wherever in the empire the aforesaid burgesses shall in future suffer shipwreck, they shall be fully permitted to take away whatever of their goods they can salvage from such great danger, and all hindrance or contradiction to this is to cease. We furthermore conceded to them

1

That is Mecklenburg: Henry Borwin I was lord of Mecklenburg 1178–227. His son Henry Borwin II predeceased him in June 1226 (at the same time as this privilege was drawn up therefore), and he was succeeded by his four grandsons, who eventually divided Mecklenburg between them.

Appendix

305

a site (fundum) outside Travemunde, next to the port, where the banner of this same port is situated, giving power to them freely to use this site for the utility and profit of the aforesaid city of Lübeck. From our overflowing grace we concede and confirm to them in perpetuity their rights and all the good usages and customs that they are known to have enjoyed from the time of the Emperor Frederick, our grandfather of happy memory, until now; decreeing and firmly enjoining by the authority of this present privilege that no person great or small, ecclesiastical or secular, shall presume or dare to undertake to hinder or disturb the aforesaid burgesses of Lübeck, our faithful subjects, in anything of what is written down above. Because if anyone should presume to do this he should know that he will incur our anger as punishment for his daring and a fine of five hundred pounds of pure gold, half to be paid to our chamber and the other half to the person suffering injury. That all this shall remain valid and undisturbed always, we have ordered that the present privilege be drawn up and authenticated by the wax seal of our majesty. Witnesses in this matter are: Archbishops Albrecht of Magdeburg, Enrico of Milan and Lando of Reggio; Bishops [Rudolf] of Chur [who is also] Abbot of Sankt-Gallen, [Engelhard] of Zeitz, [Henry] of Basel, [Conrad] of Hildesheim, Giacomo of Turin, Mainardo of Imola, and Albrecht of Brixen; the Abbot of Murbach,2 the Abbot of Reichenau;3 Hermann, Master of the House of St Mary of the Germans in Jerusalem;4 Ludwig, Landgrave of Thuringia,5 Duke Albrecht of Saxony;6 Duke Rainald of Spoleto,7 Count Siegfried of Vianden and many others. The sign of the lord Frederick II, by the grace of God most invincible emperor of the Romans [and] always Augustus, King of Jerusalem and Sicily. These things took place in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1226, in the month of June, fourteenth [year] in the indiction, during the rule of our lord Frederick II, by the grace of God most invincible emperor of the Romans [and] always Augustus,

2

Hugo, Abbot of Murbach in Alsace, was a little later (in 1228) promoted to the rank of imperial prince. 3 Henry, Abbot of Reichenau 1206–34. 4 Herman of Salza, Master of the Teutonic Knights 1210–39, and one of Frederick II’s closest associates. 5 Ludwig IV, Landgrave of Thuringia 1217–27, who died while on his way to the Holy Land with the emperor. 6 Albrecht (I), Duke of Saxony 1212–61, the son of Duke Bernhard who features in Arnold’s chronicle. 7 Rainald of Urslingen, Duke of Spoleto (d. 1253), whose family came originally from Swabia, was another of Frederick II’s closest companions during the 1220s. He was left as lieutenant of Sicily when the emperor went on Crusade in 1228/9, although relations cooled thereafter. He and his brother Berthold were exiled from Sicily in 1233, and thereafter opposed the Staufen.

306

Appendix

King of Jerusalem and Sicily, in his sixth year ruling the empire, first in Jerusalem and twenty-ninth in the kingdom of Sicily. Amen. Dated at Borgo San Donnino, in the year, month and indiction recorded above. [Translated from Quellen zur deutschen Verfassungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte bis 1250, ed. L. Weinrich (Darmstadt 1977), pp. 410–16.]

Bibliography Primary sources, in the original language Acta Pontificorum Romanorum Inedita, ed. Julius von Pflugk-Harttung (3 vols, Leipzig 1880–6). Adam Bremensis, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, Hanover 1917). Annales Magdeburgenses, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS xvi 105–96. Annales Marbacenses qui dicuntur, ed. Hermann Bloch (MGH SRG, Hanover 1907). Annales Palidenses, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS xvi 48–98. Annales Pegavienses et Bosovienses, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS xvi 232–70. Annales Ryenses, ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg, MGH SS xvi 386–410. Annales Stadenses, ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg, MGH SS xvi 271–379. Annales Stederbergenses, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS xvi 197–231. Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg, with Georg Heinrich Pertz (MGH, SRG, Hanover 1868). Arnold von Lübeck, Gesta Gregorii Peccatoris. Untersuchungen und Edition, ed. Johannes Schilling (Göttingen 1986). Braunschweigische Reimchronik, ed. Ludwig Weiland, in MGH Deutsche Chronikon und andere Geschichtsbücher des Mittelalters, ii Hanover 1877, 430–574. Burchardi Prepositus Urspergensis Chronicon, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger and Bernhard von Simson (MGH, SRG, Hanover 1916). Chronica Magni Presbyteri Continuatio, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS xvii 523–34. Chronicon Montis Sereni, ed. Ernst Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS xxiii 130–226. Chronica Regia Coloniensis, ed. Georg Waitz (MGH, SRG, Hanover 1880). Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SS xxx(1) 490–658). Chronica Rogeri de Hoveden, ed. William Stubbs (4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1868–71). [La] Chronique de Gislebert de Mons, ed. Léon Vanderkindere (Brussels 1904). Das Geschichtswerk des Otto Morena und seiner Fortsetzer, ed. Ferdinand Güterbock (MGH SRG, Berlin 1930), 162, 177. De Expugnatione Terra Sanctae per Saladinum, in Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series, London 1875), 209–62. Ex Translatione Sancti Auctoris, ed. Philipp Jaffé (MGH SS xii 315–16). Germania Pontificia vi Provincia Hammaburgo-Bremensis, eds. Wolfgang Seegrün and Theodor Schieffer (Göttingen 1981). Germania Pontificia, V(2) Provincia Maguntinensis, Pars vi, ed. H. Jakobs (Göttingen 2005). Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia. Recreation for an Emperor, eds and trans. S.E. Banks and J.W. Binns (Oxford 2002). Gesta Episcoporum Halberstadensium, ed. Ludwig Weiland, MGH SS xxiii 73–123. Gesta Episcoporum Metensium, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS x 531–51. Gesta Episcoporum Traiectensium, ed. Ludwig Weiland, MGH SS xxiii 400–26.

308

Bibliography

Gesta Treverorum, Continuatio III, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS xxiv 380–9. Gregory I, Dialogi Libri IV, ed. Umberto Moricca (Fonti per la storia d’Italia, Rome 1924). Hamburgische Urkundenbuch, i (786–1300), ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg (Hamburg 1842). Heinrici Chronicon Livoniae, eds. Leonid Arbusow and Albrecht Bauer (MGH SRG, Hanover 1955). Helmoldi Presbyteri Bozoviensis Cronica Slavorum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, 3rd ed., Hanover 1937). Iohannis Codagnelli, Annales Placentini Guelfi, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1901). [Die] Jungere Hildesheimer Briefsammlung, ed. Rolf de Kegel (MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit VII, Munich 1995). Lamperti Monachi Hersfeldensis Opera, ed. Oswald Holder–Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1894). [Die] Magdeburg Schöppenchronik, ed. Karl Janicke (Die Chroniken der deutschen Stadte, vii(1), Leipzig 1869). Mainzer Urkundenbuch ii(2) 1176–1200, ed. Peter Acht (Darmstadt 1978). Mecklenburgische Urkundenbuch i, ed. Verein fūr mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde (Schwerin 1863). Metullus von Tegernsee, Expeditio Ierosolimitana, ed. Peter Christian Jacobson (Stuttgart 1982). Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, Saec. XII, XIII, XIV, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1899). Narratio de Morte Ottonis, in Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, eds. Edmond Martène and Ursin Durand (5 vols, Paris 1717), iii 1373–8. Narratio Patriarche Hierosolymitani, in Edmond Martène and Ursin Durand, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum (5 vols, Paris 1717), iii 269–87. Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, Historiens de Philippe-Auguste, ed. François Delaborde (2 vols, Paris 1885). Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, ed. Adolf Hofmeister (MGH SRG, Hanover 1912). [Die Chronik] Ottos von St. Blasien und die Marbacher Annalen, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale (Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 17, Darmstadt 1998). Paul Peeters, ‘La légende de Saïdneia’, Analecta Bollandiana 25 (1906), 137–57. Peregrinationes Tres, ed. R.B.C. Huygens (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis 139, Turnhout 1994). Peter Lombard, Liber Sententiarum (MPL 192), cols 519–964. Policraticus I–IV, ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis 118, Turnhout 1993). Quellen zur deutschen Verfassungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte bis 1250, ed. Lorenz Weinrich (Darmstadt 1977). Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I., ed. Anton Chroust (MGH SRG, Berlin 1928). Radulf of Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs (2 vols, Rolls Series, London 1876).

Bibliography

309

Regestum Innocentii III Papae super Negotio Romani Imperii, ed. Friedrich Kempf (Rome 1947). [Die] Register Innocenz’ III, 5 Pontifikatsjahr, 1202/1203, eds. Otmar Hageneder, Christoph Egger, Karl Rudolph and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 1993). [Die] Register Innocenz’ III, 6 Pontifikatsjahr, 1203/1204, eds. Otmar Hageneder, John C. Moore, Andrea Sommerlechner and Herwig Weigl (Vienna 1995). [Die] Register Innocenz’ III, 7 Pontifikatsjahr, 1204/1205, eds. Otmar Hageneder, Andrea Sommerlechner and Herwig Weigl (Vienna 1997). [Die] Register Innocenz’ III, 8 Pontifikatsjahr, 1205/1206, eds. Otmar Hageneder and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2001). [Die] Register Innocenz’ III, 10 Pontifikatsjahr, 1207/1208, eds. Rainer Murauer and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2007). [Die] Register Innocenz’ III, 11 Pontifikatsjahr, 1208/1209, eds. Otmar Hageneder and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2010). [Die] Register Innocenz’ III, 12 Pontifikatsjahr, 1209/1210, eds. Andrea Sommerlechner and Otmar Hageneder (Vienna 2012). [Die] Reichschronik des Annalista Saxo, ed. Klaus Naβ, MGH SS xxxvi, Hanover 2006. Reineri Annales, ed. L.C. Bethmann, MGH SS xvi 651–80. Roger of Howden, Chronica, ed. William Stubbs (4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1868–71). Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. William Stubbs (2 vols, Rolls Series, London 1867). Stubbs considered the author of this history to be Abbot Benedict of Peterborough, but it has now been securely ascribed to Roger of Howden. Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, The History of the Danes, ed. Karsten FriisJensen, trans. Peter Fisher (2 vols, Oxford 2015). Scriptores Rerum Brunsvicensium, ed. G.W. Leibniz (3 vols, Hanover 1707–11). [Die] Totenbücher von Merseburg, Magdeburg und Lüneburg, eds. Gerd Althoff and Joachim Wollasch (MGH Libri Memoriales et Necrologia, n.s. 2, Hanover 1983). [Die] Urkunden Friedrichs I, ed. Heinrich Appelt (5 vols, MGH Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, x, Hannover 1975–90). [Die] Urkunden Heinrich des Löwen, Herzogs von Sachsen und Bayern, ed. Karl Jordan (MGH, Weimar 1949). [Die] Urkunden Konrads. III und seine Sohn Heinrich, ed. Friedrich Hausmann (MGH Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae ix, Vienna 1969). [Die] Urkunden Philipps von Schwaben, eds. Andrea Rzihacek and Renata Spreizer (MGH Diplomata 12, Wiesbaden 2014). [Das] Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i (1139–1470) (Codex Diplomaticus Lubecensis, Ser. I(i), Lübeck 1843). Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i, ed. Wilhelm Leverkus (Codex Diplomaticus Lubecensis, Ser. II(i), Oldenburg 1856). Urkundenbuch des Hochstifts Hildesheim i (bis 1221), ed. Karl Janicke (Leipzig 1896). ‘Vita Arnaldi Archiepiscopi Moguntini’, in Monumenta Moguntina, ed. Philipp Jaffé (Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum 3, Berlin 1866), 604–75. Martin Wagendorfer, ‘Eine bisher unbekannte (Teil-) Überlieferung des SaladinBriefs an Kaiser Friedrich I. Barbarossa’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 65 (2009), 565–84.

310

Bibliography

William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, eds. R.A.B. Mynors, Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom (2 vols, Oxford 1998–9). William of Newburgh, Historia Regum Anglicarum, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1884–90, i–ii, 1–583.

Primary sources online only Registrum Henrici VI. (Regesta Imperii IV.3.1, Staufer Kaiser und Könige), www. regesta-imperii.de/heinrichsVI. Registrum Ottonis IV. (Regesta Imperii V.1.1, Staufer Kaiser und Könige), www. regesta-imperii.de/OttoIV. Vorabedition Urkunden Heinrichs VI. für deutsche, französiche und Italienische Empfänger, www.mgh.de/daenbanken/diplomata/urkunden-heinrichs-vi.

Primary sources in English translation Marianne Ailes and Malcolm Barber, The History of the Holy War. Ambroise’s Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ii Translation (Woodbridge 2003). Alfred Andrea, Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden 2000). Emily A. Babcock and August C. Krey, William of Tyre, A History of Deeds done beyond the Sea (2 vols, New York 1943). Joseph L. Baird and Radd K. Ehrmann, The Letters of Hildegard of Bingen (2 vols, Oxford 1998). Charles M. Brand, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, by John Kinnamus (New York 1976). James A. Brundage, The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia. Henricus Lettus (2nd ed., New York 2003). Dione R. Clementi, ‘Calendar of the diplomas of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Henry VI concerning the kingdom of Sicily’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 35 (1955), 86–225. Peter W. Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade. Sources in Translation (Crusade Texts in Translation 1, Aldershot 1996). Gwenyth Hood, Book in Honour of Augustus (Liber ad Honorem Augusti) by Pietro da Eboli (Tempe (AR) 2012). G.A. Loud, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts (Crusade Texts in Translation 19, Farnham 2010). Harry J. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates (Detroit 1984). Charles Christopher Mierow, The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa by Otto of Freising and his Continuator, Rahewin (New York 1953). Laura Napran, Gilbert of Mons, Chronicle of Hainaut (Woodbridge 2005). Helen Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade. A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi (Crusade Texts in Translation 3, Aldershot 1997). Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (Crusade Texts in Translation 23, Farnham 2012).

Bibliography

311

Donald Sidney Richards, The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, or al-Nawādir al-Sultāniyya wa’l-Mahāsin al-Yūsufiyya by Bahā’ al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād (Crusade Texts in Translation 7, Aldershot 2002). Donald Sidney Richards, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh (3 vols, Crusade Texts in Translation 13, 15 and 17, Farnham 2005–8). Ian Stuart Robinson, The Annals of Lampert of Hersfeld (Manchester 2015). Francis J. Tschan, The Chronicle of the Slavs by Helmold, Priest of Bosau (New York 1935). Francis J. Tschan, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, Adam of Bremen (2nd ed., New York 2002) [first published 1959].

Secondary literature Gerd Althoff, ‘Die Historiographie bewältigt. Der Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen in der Darstellung Arnolds von Lübeck’, in Die Welfen und ihr Braunschweiger Hof im hohen Mittelalter, ed. Bernd Schneidmüller (Wiesbaden 1995), pp. 163–82. Alfred J. Andrea, ‘Conrad of Krosigk, Bishop of Halberstadt, Crusader and monk of Sittichenbach: his ecclesiastical career, 1184–1225’, Analecta Cisterciensia 43 (1987), 11–91. Oliver Auge, ‘Pomerania, Mecklenburg and the “Baltic frontier”: Adaptation and alliances’, in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350. Essays by German Historians, eds. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 264–79. Robert Bartlett, Why Can the Dead do such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton 2013). Thomas S. Boase, The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia (Edinburgh 1978). Charles M. Brand, ‘The Byzantines and Saladin: opponents of the Third Crusade’, Speculum 37 (1962), 167–81. Andrea Briechle, Heinrich von Braunschweig. Bilder eines welfischen Fürsten an der Wende vom 12. zum 13. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg 2013). Ane L. Bysted, Carsten Selch Jensen, Kurt Villads Jensen and John H. Lind, Jerusalem in the North. Denmark and the Baltic Crusades 1100–1522 (Turnhout 2012). [A] Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts of the British Museum (4 vols, London 1808). Penny J. Cole, ‘“O God, the heathen have come into your inheritance” (Ps. 78.1). The theme of religious pollution in Crusade documents, 1095–1188’, in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Shatzmiller (Leiden 1993), pp. 84–111. Domenico Comparetti, Virgil in the Middle Ages, trans. E.F.M. Benecke (London 1895), p. 268. Peter Csendes, Heinrich VI (Darmstadt 1993). Gérard Dédéyan, ‘De la prise de Thessalonique par les Normands (1185) á la croisade de Frédéric Barbarousse (1189–90): le revirement politico-religieux des pouvoirs arméniens’, in Chemins d’Outre-Mer. Études sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, eds. Damien Coulon, Catherine Otten, Paule Page and Dominique Valerian (2 vols, Paris 2004), i.183–96.

312

Bibliography

Paul Devos, ‘Les premières versions occidentales de la légende de Saïdnaia’, Analecta Bollandiana 65 (1947), 245–78. Joachim Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe. Eine Biographie (Munich 2008). Ekkehard Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient: Kreuzzug und Tod Friedrichs I. (Tübingen 1977). [The] Encyclopedia of the Crusades, ed. Alan V. Murray (4 vols, Santa Barbara 2006). Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt, The Popes and the Baltic Crusades 1147–1254 (Leiden 2007). John B. Freed, Frederick Barbarossa. The Prince and the Myth (New Haven 2016). Stephan Freund, ‘Symbolische Kommunication und quellenkritische Probleme – Arnold von Lübeck und das Mainzer Pfingest von 1184’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 73–111. Hans-Joachim Freytag, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches nach dem Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen. Bischof Waldemar von Schleswig und das Erzbistum Bremen (1192/3)’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 25 (1969), 471–530. Hans-Joachim Freytag, ‘Die Eroberung Nordelbingens durch den dänischen König im Jahre 1201’, in Aus Reichsgeschichte und Nordische Geschichte. Karl Jordan zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Horst Fuhrmann, Hans Eberhard Mayer and Klaus Wiedt (Stuttgart 1972), pp. 222–43. Klaus Ganzer, ‘Zur Beschränkung der Bischofswahl auf die Domkapitel in Theorie und Praxis des 12. und 13. Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 88 (1972), 166–97. John Gillingham, ‘Richard I and Berengaria of Navarre’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980), 157–73. John Gillingham, ‘The kidnapped king: Richard I in Germany 1192–1194’, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, London 30 (2008), 5–34. Knut Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa, eine Biographie (Munich 2011). Knut Görich and Hans Henning Kortüm, ‘Otto III., Thangmar und die Vita Bernwardi’, Mitteilungen des Instituts österreichische Geschichtsforschung 98 (1990), 1–57. Joachim Halbekann, Die älteren Grafen von Sayn (Wiesbaden 1997). John Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565–1204 (London 1999). Bernard Hamilton, ‘Rebuilding Zion: the holy places of Jerusalem in the twelfth century’, Studies in Church History 14 (1977), 105–116. Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States. The Secular Church (London 1980). Bernard Hamilton, ‘Our Lady of Saidnaya: an orthodox shrine revered by both Muslims and Knights Templar at the time of the Crusades’, Studies in Church History 36 (2000), 207–15. Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs. Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge 2000). Matthias Hardt, ‘Lübeck in der Zeit Arnolds’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 175–89.

Bibliography

313

Michael Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450 (Cambridge 1985), pp. 518–19. Rudolf Hiestand, ‘Antiocha, Sizilien und das Reich am Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 73 (1993), 70–121. Hartmut Hoffmann, ‘Bohmen und das deutsche Reich in hohen Mittelalter’, Jahrbuch für Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands 18 (1969), 1–62. John D. Hosler, The Siege of Acre 1189–91. Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, and the Battle that Decided the Third Crusade (New Haven 2018). Hubert Houben, ‘Philipp von Heinsberg, Heinrich VI und Montecassino. Mit einen Exkurs zum Todesdatum Papst Clemens III’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 68 (1988), 52–73. Bernd Ulrich Hucker, ‘Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 44 (1988), 98–119. Bernd Ulrich Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV (Hanover 1990). Evelyn M. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily. His Life and Work and the Authorship of the Epistola ad Petrum and the Historia Hugonis Falcandi Siculi (London 1957). Einar Joranson, ‘The Palestine pilgrimage of Henry the Lion’, in Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson, eds. James Lea Cates and Eugene N. Anderson (Chicago 1938), pp. 146–225. Karl Jordan, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und seine Familie’, Archiv für Diplomatik 27 (1981), 111–44. Karl Jordan, Henry the Lion, trans. P.S. Falla (Oxford 1986). Ellen Jørgenson, Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Medii Aevi Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis (Copenhagen 1926). Norbert Kamp, Moneta Regis. Königliche Münzstätten und königliche Münzpolitik in der Stauferzeit (Hanover 2006). Benjamin Z. Kedar, ‘Convergences of Oriental Christian, Muslim and Frankish worshippers: the case of Saydnaya and the Knights Templar’, in The Crusades and the Military Orders. Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, eds. Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky (Budapest 2001), pp. 89–100. Karl Leyser, ‘The crisis of medieval Germany’, Proceedings of the British Academy 69 (1983), pp. 409–43. Karl Leyser, ‘Frederick Barbarossa and the Hohenstaufen polity’, Viator 19 (1988), 153–76. Bruce Lincoln, ‘An early moment in the discourse of terrorism: reflections on a tale from Marco Polo’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 48 (2006), 242–59. Jean Longnon, Les Compagnons de Villehardouin: Recherches sur les Croisés de la Quatrième Croisade (Geneva 1978). Friedrich Lotter, ‘The Crusading idea and the conquest of the regions to the east of the Elbe’, in Medieval Frontier Societies, eds. Robert Bartlett and Angus Mackay (Oxford 1989), pp. 267–306. G.A. Loud, ‘The kingdom of Sicily and the kingdom of England, 1066–1266’, History 88 (2003), 540–67. G.A. Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, Crusades 13 (2014), 143–71.

314

Bibliography

G.A. Loud, ‘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, eds. Thomas McCarthy and Christine Meek (Amsterdam forthcoming). Christian Lübke, ‘Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 191–202. Jonathan R. Lyon, Princely Brothers and Sisters. The Sibling Bond in German Politics, 1100–1250 (Ithaca 2013). Malcom Cameron Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson, Saladin. The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge 1982). Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge 1993). Werner Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216 (Vienna 1984). Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, trans. John Gillingham (2nd ed., Oxford 1988). Brian Patrick McGuire, The Cistercians in Denmark. Their Attitudes, Roles and Functions in Medieval Society (Kalamazoo 1982). Alan V. Murray, ‘Mighty against the enemies of Christ. The relic of the True Cross in the armies of the kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, eds. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot 1998), pp. 217–38. Claudia Naumann, Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI (Frankfurt am Main 1994). Torben K. Nielsen, ‘The missionary man: Archbishop Anders Sunesen and the Baltic Crusade, 1206–21’, in Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier 1150–1500, ed. Alan V. Murray (Aldershot 2001), pp. 95–117. Stephan Panzer, ‘Arnolds Chronik – Darstellungsabsicht und Addressaten’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 45–71. Paul B. Pixton, The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1216–1245. Watchmen on the Tower (Leiden 1995). Bernward Platte, ‘Gregorius Peccator. Hartmann von Aue und Arnold von Lübeck’, Mittellateinische Jahrburch 28 (1994), 67–90. Austin Lane Poole, ‘Die Welfen in der Verbannung’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 2 (1938), 129–48. Timothy Reuter, ‘Episcopa cum sua militia: the prelate as warrior in the early Staufer era’, in Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages. Essays Presented to Karl Leyser, ed. Timothy Reuter (London 1992), pp. 79–94. Thomas Riis, ‘Monasteries and cultural centres: the case of Schleswig-Holstein with Lübeck and Hamburg’, in Monastic Culture: The Long Thirteenth Century. Essays in Honour of Brian Patrick McGuire (Odense 2014), pp. 102–17. Ian Stuart Robinson, The Papacy 1073–1198. Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge 1990). Jorg Rogge, Die Wettiner. Aufstieg einer Dynastie im Mittelalter (Ostfilden 2009). Bernd Schneidmüller, ‘Billunger – Welfen – Askanier. Eine genealogische Bildtafel aus dem Braunschweiger Blasius-Stift und das hochadlige Familienbewuβtsein in Sachsen um 1300’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 69 (1987), 30–61. Bernd Schneidmüller, Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung (Stuttgart 2000).

Bibliography

315

Bernd Schütte, König Philipp von Schwaben. Itinerar, Urkundenvergabe, Hof (Hanover 2002). Bernd Schütte, ‘Staufer und Welfen in der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 113–48. Volker Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremem, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von Lübeck (Berlin 2002). Volker Scior, ‘Zwischen terra nostra und terra sancta. Arnold von Lübeck als Geschichtsschreiber’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 149–74. Marcus Stumpf, ‘Zum Quellenwert von Thangmars Vita Bernwardi’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 53 (1997), 461–96. Carol Sweetenham, ‘What really happened to Eurvin de Créel’s donkey? Anecdotes in sources for the First Crusade’, in Writing the Early Crusades, eds. Marcus Bull and Damien Kempf (Woodbridge 2014), pp. 75–88. Stefan Tebruck, ‘The propaganda of power. memoria, history and patronage’, in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350, eds. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 160–80. Helmut G. Walther, ‘Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 7–23. Hans-Peter Wehlt, Reichsabtei und König (Göttingen 1970). Stefan Weinfurter and Odilo Engels eds., Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae Occidentis, Series V Germania, ii Archiepiscopatus Hammaburgensis sive Bremensis (Stuttgart 1984). Gabriel Zeilinger, ‘Urban lordships’, in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350. Essays by German Historians, ed. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 60–7. Barbara Zenker, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalskollegiums von 1130 bis 1154 (Würzburg 1964).

Index

Aachen 228, 261 Absalon, Archbishop of Lund 1178–1201 100–1, 186–7 Acre 49, 51, 143, 210–12, 221, 281; siege of (1189–91) 157–62 Adam of Bremen, chronicler 26–7 Adolf, Archbishop of Cologne (d. 1220) 199, 227–8, 261–2, 264–7, 269–71 Adolf, Count of Dassel 164–5, 169, 171, 241–2 Adolf II, Count of Holstein (d. 1164) 8, 68n18, 170 Adolf III, Count of Holstein 9, 25, 27, 68, 76–7, 81–2, 89, 91, 94, 97–8, 102, 104, 121–2, 129–30, 165, 169–73, 185–6, 199–200, 208, 210, 212–13, 218–19, 241–5, 247 Albert, Bishop of Riga 225–6 Albrecht, Archbishop of Magdeburg 1206–32 290–1, 294–5, 299, 305 Alexander III, Pope 1159–81 62, 66, 71–3, 124 Alexandria 273–5 Alexius III, Byzantine Emperor 1195–1203 250–1, 253 Alexius IV, Byzantine Emperor 1203–4 249–51, 253–4, 256 Alexius V Murzuphulus, Byzantine Emperor 1204 254–7 Amalric, King of Jerusalem 1163–74 50, 134 Amaury de Lusignan 214–15 Andrew (Anders), Archbishop of Lund 1201–23 187–8, 225, 247, 301n166 Andronikos Komnenos, Byzantine Emperor 29, 104–7 Antioch 50, 155; see also Bohemond III Apulia 168–9, 190, 197–8, 209 Arnold of Lübeck, chronicler 1–35, 58, 89, 112, 177–9, 302; Deeds of Gregory

the Sinner 6–7; family of 4; manuscripts of the chronicle 36–7 Ascalon 143, 163, 281 assassins 34, 162, 280–1 Audita Tremendi, papal bull (1187) 22–3, 146 Baldwin, Archbishop of Bremen 1168–78 71 Baldwin, Count of Flanders and Emperor of Constantinople (d. 1205) 249, 252–3, 258–60 Baldwin IV, King of Jerusalem 1174–85 134–5, 138–9 Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem 1185–6 135, 139 Bardowick 86, 164–5 Beatrice, daughter of King Philip 287–8, 292–3, 297–9 Beirut 25, 143, 212–14 Bela III, King of Hungary 1172–96 57, 148–50 Bernhard, Count of Lippe 75 Bernhard, Count of Oldenburg 87 Bernhard (I), Count of Ratzeburg 9, 70, 76, 82, 85–6, 91–3, 97–8, 104, 164–5, 169–71, 185–6 Bernhard (II), Count of Ratzeburg 170–2 Bernhard, Count of Wölpe 76, 87, 164, 185, 240 Bernhard, Duke of Saxony 1180–1212 14, 70, 74, 86, 92–3, 97–8, 129, 147, 169–73, 185, 290–1, 294–5, 297 Berno, Bishop of Schwerin 39, 59, 205 Bernward, Bishop of Hildesheim (d 1022) 201–4 Berthold, Abbot of Lüneburg 40, 43, 45, 50–1

Index Berthold, Archbishop-elect of Bremen, later Bishop of Metz 71–3, 124 Berthold, Bishop of Riga 1196–8 223–5 Bogeslav, prince of the Pomeranians 98, 103–4 Bohemians 233–5, 238–9, 294 Bohemond III, Prince of Antioch 1160–1201 155–6, 214–15, 222 Bremen 166, 174–5, 198–201, 284–6 Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne 264, 267, 269–71 Brunswick 41, 57–8, 81, 86, 119, 197, 235–7, 294, 299; monastery of St. Giles 2–4, 13, 58–9, 96, 231–2; siege of 230–2 Burchard of Strassburg 33–4, 272–83 Cairo 275–7 Casimir, Prince of the Pomeranians 28–9, 83 Celestine III, Pope 1191–8 4, 167, 204, 207, 224 Christian, Archbishop of Mainz 1165–83 21, 65, 115 Cinthius, cardinal and papal legate 174, 202 Cismar, monastery of 10, 35–6 Clement III, Pope 1187–91 167 Cnut VI, King of Denmark 7–8, 17, 27, 93–4, 100–1, 103–4, 119, 122, 129–30, 185–6, 239–41, 245–6 (death) Colditz castle 294 Cologne 10, 169, 227, 237, 266, 269, 271, 304 Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz (d. 1200) 115, 121, 123, 128, 166, 180–3, 221–2, 227–8, 230 Conrad, Bishop of Halberstadt 26, 258 Conrad, Bishop of Hildesheim and Würzburg (d. 1202) 8, 33, 101–3, 188–95, 210, 213, 221–2, 231, 262–4 (murder) Conrad, Bishop of Lübeck 1164–72 39–40, 43, 47, 50 Conrad, Bishop of Speyer 292, 299 Conrad (II), Bishop of Worms 42, 45, 47

317 Conrad, Count of Rode 77, 166, 172–3 Conrad, Count Palatine of the Rhine 109, 196 Conrad III, King of Germany 53, 170 Conrad, Margrave of Landsberg 294, 297 Conrad, Margrave of Montferrat 157–9, 161–3 Constance, Empress, wife of Henry VI 121–2, 167, 169, 197, 208 Constantinople 20–1, 46–8, 57, 105, 107; siege of (1203–4) 24, 26, 29–30, 32, 249–58 Corsica 272 Cresson, battle of (1187) 139 Damascus 220, 278–9, 281 Danube, river 20, 42–4, 292 Dietrich, Bishop of Lübeck 1183–1210 3, 5, 25, 120–1 Dietrich, Margrave of Landsberg (d. 1185) 73 Dietrich, Margrave of Meissen (d. 1221) 223, 233, 291, 294–5 Dittmarsch, county/men of 69, 93, 119, 130–1, 164, 172, 200, 244–5, 247 Drogo, nephew of Godfrey of Bouillon 55–7 Eggo of Sture 165, 242 Ekbert of Wolfenbüttel, ministerialis 40, 237n34 Episcopal elections 4, 58–9, 115–17, 120–1, 124 Erfurt 179–83, 233 Ertheneburg 93, 169 Etna, Mount 192–3 Evermodus, Bishop of Ratzeburg 1152/ 4–78 39, 59, 68–9, 170 Folkmar, Archbishop of Trier 115–17, 124 Frederick, Duke of Swabia (d. 1191) 16, 87, 129, 154–6 Frederick I Barbarossa, Emperor 9, 13, 15–16, 19, 21, 24–5, 29, 57, 63–6, 73–4, 86–91, 93–4, 107–11, 114–17, 119, 122–8, 294,305; Crusade of (1189–90) 147–55; death 155

318 Frederick II, Emperor 9–10, 303–6 Fulda, abbots of 23, 86, 108–9, 111, 297 Gero, Bishop of Halberstadt 66, 71–2 Geromar of Rügen 17, 98, 103–4 Gervase of Tilbury, writer 192–5 Godfrey of Bouillon 31, 53–7 Goslar 74, 235–8, 295 Gregory I, Pope 69 Gregory VIII, Pope (1187) 22, 145 Gunzelin, Count of Schwerin 40, 45, 76–7, 81–2, 89–90, 93, 97–8, 104, 244–5, 285–6 Guy of Lusignan, King of Jerusalem 136–41, 143, 157–8, 161 Haddenberg castle 241, 246 Halberstadt 76, 291; Bishops of see Conrad Gero, Udalrich; sack of (1180) 77–80 Haldensleben 73, 75 Hartwig I, Archbishop of Bremen 1148–68 69, 72 Hartwig II, Archbishop of Bremen 1185–1207 4, 25, 119–21, 130–1, 164, 166, 174, 198–201, 2008, 223, 240, 283–4 (death) Harzburg 83–4 Hattin, battle of (1187) 24, 30, 140–2 Helias, apostate 54–7 Helmold of Bosau, chronicler 1, 11–13, 16–18, 26–8, 35–6, 39, 302 Helmold, Count of Schwerin 164–5, 185 Henry, Abbot of St. Giles, Brunswick and Bishop of Lübeck 2–4, 9, 22–3, 29, 40, 43, 45, 47–8, 51, 58–61, 87–9, 94–7 Henry Borwin (I), lord of Mecklenburg 98–9, 169, 242, 244, 304 Henry, Count of Champagne 211 Henry of Badwide, Count of Ratzeburg 68, 170 Henry, Count of Schwarzenburg 68 Henry, Count Palatine, son of Henry the Lion 16, 41, 165–6, 168, 174–5, 196–7, 207, 216–17, 227, 231, 235–6, 241, 294, 298

Index Henry Jasomirgott, Duke of Austria 41–2 Henry, Duke of Brabant 208, 217, 297 Henry (III), Duke of Limburg 269 Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony 6–8, 12–15, 38–9, 59–61, 63–7, 70–1, 73–83, 85–91, 101, 165–6, 170, 185–6, 196–7, 302; death (1195) 205–6; exile 91, 94, 118–19, 147; pilgrimage to Jerusalem (1172) 1, 19–22, 28, 30, 39–53 Henry II, King of England 40, 91, 118, 147n59 Henry VI, Emperor 13, 16, 19, 33, 107–8, 110, 116–18, 121, 123, 165–9, 177, 198–201, 204, 207–10, 214, 291 Henry of Kalden, ministerialis 292 Henry of Witha, ministerialis 83 Herman, Count of Harzburg 235, 237 Herman, Count Palatine of Saxony and Landgrave of Thuringia 80, 208, 238, 291 Holstein/Holsteiners 39, 76–7, 82, 89, 130, 164, 169, 241 Horace, Roman poet 8, 38, 102, 170, 179, 188, 272, 295 Hornburg 77, 80 Hospitallers 49–50, 138, 143 Hungary/Hungarians 42–3, 148–9, 233, 286, 294; see also Bela III, Stephen Innocent III, Pope 1198–1216 26, 32, 228–9, 249n68, 252n, 262, 264–71, 284–5, 288n98, 300–1 Irene, wife of Philip of Swabia 228–9, 289, 292n112 Isaac II Angelos, Byzantine Emperor 150–2, 249, 253–4 Isfried, Bishop of Ratzeburg 1179–1204 69–71, 283 Jaffa 211–12 Jerusalem 19, 30, 132, 145; Church of Holy Sepulchre 39, 49–50, 144; siege (1187) 143–5 Jews 30, 183–4, 279

Index John, Archbishop of Trier 1189–1212 227, 296, 299 Jordan of Blankenburg 41n15, 43, 165 Julius Caesar 189 Kilij Arslan II, Sultan of Iconium 19–20, 25, 30, 51–3, 153–5 Lateran Council (1179) 71–3 Lauenberg 83, 93, 98, 165–6, 184–5, 244–6 legates (papal) 174, 202, 207, 266, 270–1, 296 Leopold, Archbishop-elect of Mainz 230, 233 Leopold (V), Duke of Austria (d. 1194) 148, 163 Leopold (VI), Duke of Austria (d. 1230) 297–8 liturgical garments 57, 234 Liudolf of Peine 83 Livonia 5, 17–18, 223–6 Lothar, son of Henry the Lion 41, 166 Lübeck 8–10, 25, 36, 86–9, 121, 129, 165–6, 171–2, 176–7, 208, 243–7, 303–6; bishops of see Conrad, Dietrich, Henry; monastery of St. John2–3, 5, 9–10, 67, 89, 94 Lucan, Roman poet 189 Lucius III, Pope 1181–5 72, 102, 114–17, 122 Ludwig III, Landgrave of Thuringia 80, 86, 109, 114, 122, 126n122, 159–60 Lüneburg 80, 85, 173–4 Magdeburg 73, 171, 233; Archbishops, see Albrecht, Wichman Mainz, Diet of (1184) 23, 107–111 Malta 194, 272–3 Manuel Komnenos, Byzantine Emperor 20–1, 43, 46–8, 53, 57, 104 Markward, commander of the Holsteiners 82, 87, 242 Matilda, Duchess of Saxony (d. 1189) 40–1, 80, 82 Matilda, Margavine of Tuscany (d. 1115) 115, 122–3

319 Matilda, wife of Count Adolf II of Holstein 68, 82, 164–5, 169 Meinhard, Bishop of Livonia 223–4 Metullus of Tegernsee, writer 31 miracles 60, 62, 68, 97, 179–84, 191, 231, 275–6, 278–9 Mleh, Armenian prince 20, 51–2 Naples 168, 191, 194–5 Nazareth 50, 139 Niklot (Nicholas), Slav prince 29, 97–9 Oldenburg 8, 10, 11, 17, 63, 126, 235 Otto of Wittelsbach, Count Palatine of Bavaria 238–9, 287–8, 292 Otto, Dean of Brunswick 58 Otto, Duke of Bohemia (d. 1191) 166–8 Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg 1170–84 86, 92, 98 Otto II, Margrave of Brandenburg 1184-1205 169–70, 176, 186, 207, 239–40 Otto IV, Emperor 12–13, 15–16, 26–7, 41, 227–38, 246, 249, 261–2, 264, 267–71, 286, 290–301; imperial coronation 301 Ottokar, Duke (King) of Bohemia 229, 233, 238–9, 297 Ottokar, Margrave of Styria 20, 41 Ovid, Roman poet 8, 189, 190n98, 193, 289 (St.) Paul 17, 194 Peter, Bishop of Roskilde 239–40, 243, 247 Peter Lombard, Sentences 21, 47 Philip, Archbishop of Cologne 1167–91 23, 73–5, 90–2, 108–11, 114–15, 117–19, 121–6, 166, 168–9, 183 Philip, Bishop of Ratzeburg 1204–15 5, 35, 38, 283–4 Philip II, King of France 1180–1223 160–3, 197n125, 293–4 Philip, King of Germany 1198–1208 7, 13, 27, 228–33, 235–6, 238–9, 248, 261–2, 265, 269–71, 285; election 228–30; murder 15, 286–90; see also Beatrice, Irene

320 Plön 82, 86–7, 164, 243–4 Pomerania 17, 28, 103–4, 239–40 Praemonstratensian canons 38n1, 101 Pribislav (Henry), Prince of the Obrodites 28, 39–40 Ratzeburg 170, 172, 304; bishops of see Evermodus, Isfried, Philip Raymond III, Count of Tripoli (d. 1187) 135–41 Reinoldsburg 240–2 Relics 80, 201–4, 221–4, 232 Rhine, river 229, 276 Richard I, King of England 160–3, 268 Richenza (Matilda), daughter of Henry the Lion 41 Riddagshausen, monastery of 40n9, 58 Riga 223, 225 Roger, King of Sicily 1130–54 197 Roger (des Moulins), Master of the Order of the Hospital 1177–87 138–40 Rome 167, 300–1 Rudolf, Bishop of Verden 208, 222 Rügen/Rugians 28, 103–4, 239–40, 247 Rule of St. Benedict 60, 113, 179 Rupert (III), Count of Nassau 109, 150 Saladin 6, 19, 30, 137–8, 140–5, 153, 157–63, 214, 272 Saphadin [Al-Adil] 220, 252 Sardinia 272 Saydaneia [Saydnaya] 34, 279–80 Segeberg castle 86, 165, 172–3, 243, 246 Serbs 44–6, 149 Sicily 33, 192–3, 209–10, 272 Sidon 143, 212 Siegfried (I), Archbishop of Mainz 230, 296 Siegfried, Count of Blankenburg 40 Simon, Count of Tecklenburg 76, 87, 240 Stade 90, 119, 164, 169, 172–6, 200–1, 235, 244 Stephan, King of Hungary 42 Swordbrothers 5, 225–6 Sybilla, Queen of Jerusalem 135–6

Index Tancred, King of Sicily 1190–4 168, 197 Templars 49–50, 139, 142–3, 163, 226 Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury 61–2 Toron, siege of (1197–8) 32, 215–21 Travemunde 243–5, 305–6 Trier 115–17 True Cross 49, 51, 140–1, 145, 161 Tyre 50, 143, 157, 159, 169, 212, 216, 220–1 Udalrich, Bishop of Halberstadt 66, 68, 75–80 Ugolino, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia [Pope Gregory IX] 296 Urban III, Pope 1185–7 117n94, 122–5, 127–8 Venice/Venetians 249, 251, 255–6, 258 Vergil, Roman poet 8, 189–91, 194–5, 235, 300 Verona 114, 128, 300 Vesuvius, Mount 195 Vienna 42 Waldemar, Bishop of Schleswig 130–1, 185–6, 247–8, 284–6, 290, 301–2 Waldemar I the Great, King of Denmark 1, 87, 92–3, 129 Waldemar II, King of Denmark 5, 9. 27, 242–8, 283–6 Walram, son of the Duke of Limburg 208, 269 Wichman, Archbishop of Magdeburg 39, 86 Widukind of Swalenberg 76 William, Count of Jülich 261 William II, King of Sicily 1166–89 121, 197 William of Lüneburg, son of Henry the Lion 6–7, 41, 245–6, 294–5 William of Montferrat 135–6 Würzburg, Diet of (1209) 26, 296–9 Ylowe castle 98–9