• About
  • Teaching
    • Stephen Powell's Page
    • Hannah Graham's Page
    • Martin Nelson's Page
    • Michael Weldon's Page
  • Resources
  • Sources in Translation
    • John of Ancona's Summa Feudorum
  • Podcast
  • Undergraduate Projects
  • 6078 Materials
  • Narrative Page
  • Documents
THE CRUSADER STATES
  • About
  • Teaching
    • Stephen Powell's Page
    • Hannah Graham's Page
    • Martin Nelson's Page
    • Michael Weldon's Page
  • Resources
  • Sources in Translation
    • John of Ancona's Summa Feudorum
  • Podcast
  • Undergraduate Projects
  • 6078 Materials
  • Narrative Page
  • Documents

Documents of the Latin East


The Queen and the Cleric: A letter from Bernard of Clairvaux to Melisende of Jerusalem

9/30/2023

0 Comments

 
    Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux sent hundreds of letters throughout his lifetime to recipients ranging from Northern Europe to Jerusalem. These letters, all in Latin, show the epistolary tradition of a savvy communicator who knew when to write to some of the Middle Ages’ most important figures. One such figure was Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem, who he wrote to four separate times. [1] Epistle 354, the last letter written between Bernard and Melisende, attempts to comfort Melisende after the death of her husband Fulk V. While scholars are unsure when exactly the letter was penned, it was certainly written any time between 1143, when Queen Melisende ascended the throne of the Kingdom of Jerusalem alongside her son Baldwin III, and 1153, when Bernard of Clairvaux died. He provides advice for her as ruler and stresses the importance of her clearly establishing her power over the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The letter is written in Latin, as are all of Bernard’s letters; as a well-revered scholar and theologian, Bernard would have had no issues using the language of the Church. [2] In fact, it would have been uncommon and likely overly familiar if Bernard had written in vernacular.
    If this was a modern letter, perhaps one could assume that Bernard of Clairvaux and Queen Melisende were close friends and that Melisende perhaps wrote to him first asking for advice or guidance; this was likely not the case. Ample political and religious motivation guided Bernard’s pen. Jerusalem and its fellow crusader states were plagued with vast upheaval during the ten-year span Epistle 354 was written in, which provides many different potential reasons for the letter’s writing. [3]
If the letter was written in 1143 upon Melisende’s crowning, Bernard may have wanted to ‘check in’ with the queen and remind her of his spiritual support – essentially, a savvy bid at establishing relationships with powerful people. While Melisende certainly did not need Bernard’s advice on ruling, considering she ruled alongside her husband for nearly a decade before his death, the letter was still a prudent move at establishing a foothold in the constantly-changing Kingdom of Jerusalem. If the letter was written a year later, however, Bernard’s intent changes drastically. After the Crusader state of Edessa was taken in 1144, Pope Eugenius III called for the Second Crusade. [4] Bernard of Clairvaux’s crusade sermons were instrumental in rallying support for this new war. In this light, Bernard’s letter to Melisende may have been sent still to remind her of his spiritual support, but also to cement his position of power within the Second Crusade. A letter addressed to the Queen of Jerusalem herself is certainly a striking way to establish oneself as an important figure in a holy war that benefits her directly. While the letter could have been sent as late as 1153, it is unlikely that it was written after 1150. Bernard states that “the young king [is] not yet ready to bear the business of the kingdom and to carry out the office of king,” suggesting that Melisende’s son, Baldwin III, did not have a desire to rule independently of his mother. [5] This changed as Baldwin grew and tested his military prowess, leading to a tense few years until Baldwin III demanded in 1152 that Fulcher, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, crown him and force Melisende to abdicate. [6] Considering Bernard of Clairvaux’s letter makes no reference to Baldwin III other than his disinterest in ruling, it is unlikely that this upheaval would have happened at the time of writing.
    This document’s relevance to the Crusader States is undeniable: it is a correspondence between one of the most powerful people in the Latin East, the Queen of Jerusalem, and one of the most powerful clerics at home in Europe, Bernard of Clairvaux. Regardless of when it was written, it shows Bernard’s desire to remind Queen Melisende that he, too, was an important force in the Church’s holy wars in the Levant. Bernard of Clairvaux’s letters show he was adept at making connections with powerful people during uncertain times, and this letter exemplifies this skill. 

[1] Sancti Bernardi Opera
, ed. J. LeClercq and H. Rochais (Rome: Eds. Cisterciennes, 1979), v.8, ep.354; Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. LeClercq and H. Rochais (Rome: Eds. Cisterciennes, 1979), v.8, ep.355; Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. LeClercq and H. Rochais (Rome: Eds. Cisterciennes, 1979), v.8, ep.289; Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. LeClercq and H. Rochais (Rome: Eds. Cisterciennes, 1979), ep.206.
[2] Sancti Bernardi Opera
, ed. J. LeClercq and H. Rochais (Rome: Eds. Cisterciennes, 1979), v.8, ep.354.
[3] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem (1100-1190),” Studies in Church History Subsidia 1 (1978): 143–74, doi:10.1017/S0143045900000375, 152.
[4] Helen A Gaudette, "The Piety, Power, and Patronage of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem's Queen Melisende," Order No. 3169909, City University of New York, 2005, https://login.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/piety-power-patronage-latin-kingdom-jerusalems/docview/305006120/se-2, 112-13.
[5] Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. LeClercq and H. Rochais (Rome: Eds. Cisterciennes, 1979), v.8, ep.354.
[6] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem (1100-1190),”
Studies in Church History Subsidia 1 (1978): 143–74, doi:10.1017/S0143045900000375, 152-53.

Written by Frances Seabrook, Fordham University, MA Medieval Studies


0 Comments

The Will of King Henry II of England

9/30/2023

0 Comments

 

     Revised Regesta Regni (RRR) document #1097 is the will of Henry II of England indicating the large sums of money to be divided among the military orders of the holy land as well as the defense and wellbeing of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The source for this entry in the RRR is noted as the Recueil des actes d’Henri II, specifically, the act listed under the title of Testament de Henri II (The Will of Henry II).[1] The Recueil notes that while the original document has been lost, two extant sources attest this documents historicity, those of Gervais of Canterbury, found in his Chronicle of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard,[2] and the Foedera by Thomas Rymer.[3] However, it is noted that the main source used in the Recueil is that of Gervais with Rymer’s work only used for some small variants.
     Gervais begins his account with Henry arriving at Waltham with a host of retainers and clergy ordering his will to be put into writing and notarized with his seal along with the corroboration of the various nobles present including barons, representatives of his sons, and the archbishops of Oxford, and Derby, as well as Randulf of Glanville, Justiciar of England. 
     The chronicle then goes on to recount, in full, the words recorded in Henry’s will. These include the disbursement of 5000 silver marks[4] to the Templars and Hospitallers as well as another 5000 each for the general defense of Jerusalem, to be utilized by the heads of the aforementioned orders, and to various religious organizations operating within the Kingdom of Jerusalem to be utilized by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. This is then followed by a listing of other various religious orders within England, Normandy, and Anjou and their respective disbursements and closes with a command to recognize these disbursements as well as a threat of excommunication, via a letter of approval from the pope, of any who dispute the contents of the will.[5]
     Gervais then mentions that three copies of this document were written, signed, and affixed with the king’s seal and placed in the church at Canterbury, the royal treasury, and the treasury at Winton.[6]
       Noting that all three of the original manuscripts mentioned by Gervais of Canterbury seem to be lost, it is difficult to determine the veracity of this document, however when comparing the two existing sources, and their general agreement, it is possible to draw certain conclusions. 
    Thomas Rymer’s Foedera is a collection of treaties and documents produced by the English Crown with little commentary. The document in question is a copy of from an unspecified old manuscript (as evidenced by notation in the marginalia),[7] written in Latin, reflecting the official nature of the document as well as its trans-national nature (not only were the nobility of England concerned, but also those of France, the Pope, as well as religious orders in England, France, and Jerusalem). Latin would serve well to facilitate understanding across these multilingual groups.
         The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury is a chronicle of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I. This chronicle was meant to be distributed and read by future kings and nobles, and thus, to maintain its readability, Latin was used.
     Considering that both a collection of official documents and the recounting in a chronicle largely agree on how Henry’s estate was to be divided as well as the vast time difference between the two (Gervais writing in the late 12th Century and Rymer compiling in the mid 18th Century), it could be concluded that they were working from the same manuscript and therefore the document did exist at some point.
       As for its importance on the crusades, this document shows the value that the Kings of England placed on both the defense and wellbeing of the Crusader States (specifically the Kingdom of Jerusalem. When looking at the breakdown of his bequeathments, the amount of silver marks donated to religious organizations for the defense and support of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is nearly equivalent to the amount donated to all of the religious organization in England and France combined (20000 marks to Jerusalem, 20800 marks to England and France). This would indicate that the Crown of England had a vested interest in the success of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It is also peculiar to note that while much is set aside for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the crusader States of Tripoli and Antioch are notably absent from this will (the County of Edessa was not mentioned as it had been captured by the Zengids decades prior).

​[1]Henry II, “Testament de Henri II.” in Recueil des actes de Henri II, roi d’Angleterre et duc de Normandie, concernant les provinces françaises et les affaires de France, ed. Léopold Delisle and Élie Berger (Paris: Klincksieck, 1927), 219-221.
[2]Gervais of Canterbury, The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. William Stubbs (London: Longman & Co, 1879) 297-300.
[3]Thomas Rymer, “Hoc est testamentum illistrissimi Regis Henrici Secundi Angliae.” in Foedera (London: J. Tonson, 1726), 57-58.
[4]Post Norman Conquest, a silver mark was worth approximately 160 pennies. A substantial sum considering the purchasing power of 5 pennies in 10th C. England was a sheep. For more information about early medieval coins and purchasing power see Henry Dunning Macleod’s A Dictionary of Political Economy (459) and Rory Naismith’s Money and Coinage in the Middle Ages (184-185).
[5]Gervais, The Historical Works, 220-221
[6]Gervais, The Historical Works, 221
[7]Rymer, Foedera 57

​By Benjamin Hausman, MA Student of Medieval Studies at Fordham University

0 Comments

A letter from James of Vitry to his friends

9/30/2023

0 Comments

 
The Revised Regesti Regni database, no. 1737 cites Huygens, R.B.C., ed. Lettres de Jacques de Vitry (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 71-78 for an edited version of James of Vitry’s letter to his friends. Huygens relied on three manuscripts for his edition: manuscript G in the Bibliothèque Universitaire de Gand (Ghent University Library), no. 554, folios 1-3, manuscript 10 in the catalog of Saint-Genois [1], and manuscript B* in the Bibliothèque Royale de Bruxelles [2]. In the edition, Huygens designated this letter as letter I.
This document is a personal letter from James of Vitry, the newly appointed Bishop of Acre, to a group of his friends. The letter describes James’ journey through Italy on his way to the Holy Land throughout the summer and fall of 1216 [3]. During his travels, James saw and participated in many events. He preached in the city of Milan, noting that its inhabitants were heretics [4]. While in the city of Perugia, he learned that Pope Innocent III died and his body was rotting away in the city’s cathedral [5]. After the papal election, Honorius III became pope, and James tried to secure additional powers over the secular authorities in the Holy Land, but to no avail [6]. After a rough journey over water, he secured passage to the Holy Land on a newly built (and expensive) ship in Genoa [7].
James wrote this letter in Latin while he was on a Genoese ship before departing for Acre. Although he does not identify his friends, it is likely that James was writing to a fellow group of religious officials, hence why he decided to write in Latin. James wrote many letters throughout his life, mainly to his friends and religious officials like Pope Honorius; Huygens has collected these letters in his edition. Several of James’ letters are written together in Ghent University’s manuscript [8].
This document reveals many interesting points about the crusader states. The Latin West and East were firmly connected: James was from France, and he was traveling through Italy to assume his position as Bishop of Acre in the east. James’ letter also displays the rivalry between secular and religious officials. He expressed his disappointment to his friends when the pope refused to grant him more powers over the crusaders in the Latin East. The pope was an influential figure in the politics of the Latin East, and his mere assent could give a bishop an edge over the secular crusaders. 
​

[1] R.B.C Huygens, ed., Lettres de Jacques de Vitry (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 6.
[2] Huygens, ed., Lettres, 11-12.
[3] Huygens, ed., Lettres, 52.
[4] Huygens, ed., Lettres, 72, Letter I, lines 47-54.
[5] Huygens, ed., Lettres, 73, Letter I, lines 61-65.
[6] Huygens, ed., Lettres, 74, Letter I, lines 67-90.
[7] Huygens, ed., Lettres, 76-78, Letter I, lines 138-144, 178-194.
[8] Huygens, ed., Lettres, 5-6.

By Ryan Sheehan, History MA Student at Fordham University.
0 Comments

King Baldwin I to Jacobite Archbishop Kyrillos V and the Jacobite Monastery of St. Mary Magdalene, 1138.

9/30/2023

0 Comments

 
Revised Regesta Regni (RRR) no. 178 details the payment to King Baldwin I of Jerusalem from the Jacobite, or Syrian-Orthodox, patriarch Athanasios VII to restore the castles, Khirbat ‘Adasa and Bait ‘Arif, to archbishop Kyrillos V of the monastery of Saint Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem. The entry in the RRR derives from an entry in Die Urkunden der Lateinischen Kӧnige von Jerusalem, or The Charters of the Latin Kings of Jerusalem, within the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH).[1] This entry in the MGH, in which the MGH lists two colophons in Syriac manuscripts which detail the payment made to King Baldwin I. The first, written on parchment by the monk Michael of Mar’aš of the Saint Mary Magdalene monastery in February 1138 C.E., within a manuscript detailing Syrian-Orthodox liturgy and festivals, is currently held in the Bibliothèque municipale of Lyon in France (Ms. Syr. 1). Michael purports to have been present at trial to Baldwin I, in which he recounts verbatim words spoken at the trial.[2] The second colophon, written on parchment by the monk Romanos of the Saint Mary Magdalene monastery in August of 1138 C.E., within a chronicle of the monastery’s history, is currently held in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris (Ms. Syr. 52).[3] Romanos finds issue with Michael’s account, stating that he left crucial details about the trial out of his report and thus concluded to create his own manuscript.[4] The dating of the payment to Baldwin I is, according to Hans Eberhard Mayer, difficult given that the names listed within the manuscripts do not perfectly match contemporary names and the lack of detail given by the two authors. However, Mayer deduces that the payment most likely took place between 1104-1118 C.E., given names and dates present within other manuscripts and that Baldwin died in 1118. Yet Andrew Palmer argues that the date of the trial was in January 1138, given that Michael recalls specific phrases used at the trial.[5] The use of Syriac to detail this event is partly due to the religious tradition of the Jacobites, and partly since this monastery was present before the arrival of the Franks and thus they had no reason to write the manuscripts in a language other than Syriac lest they wished to break the scholarly tradition of the monastery. It is important to note that the potential alternative languages could have been old French or Latin, to better appeal to the new cultural interactions present within the region. The content of the sources pertains to, prior to the Crusades, Archbishop Kyrillos V fleeing with his monks from the Saint Mary Magdelene Monastery to Egypt. Upon the arrival of the Franks in the Levant and the establishment of an official polity in Jerusalem, Gaufried seized the two castles which had originally belonged to the monastery which they had paid for prior to the arrival of the Crusaders.[6] At some point, Gaufried was placed in Egyptian captivity to which Kyrillos V went before King Baldwin with patriarch Athanasios VII and presented the deeds of sale to the castles with witnesses to convince Baldwin I that the castles belonged to the Saint Mary Magdalene Monastery.[7] However, in order to restore the castles to Kyrillos V, Baldwin had to be paid large amounts of gold. These two colophons are incredibly useful for historians studying the establishment of the Frankish polities in the Levant within the presence of already established religious and legal institutions. Perhaps the latter is more pressing, as this source details a specific legal exchange and its resolution, albeit the religious elements at play should not be ignored.

[1] Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Die Urkunden der Lateinischen Kӧnige von Jerusalem (DD. Jerus.), 4 vols., edited by Hans Eberhard Mayer (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2010), 1:208-210.

[2] Andrew Palmer, “The History of the Syrian Orthodox in Jerusalem. Part Two: Queen Melisende and the Jacobite Estates,” Oriens Christianus 76 (1992): 77.

[3] Romanos's manuscript, of the two, is the only one digitized. Presently, the manuscript written by Michael exists only in physical format.

[4] Palmer, “The History,” 77.

[5] Palmer, “The History,” 77.

[6] The relational aspect between Gaufried and King Baldwin I is subject to debate, as the Syriac word within the manuscripts can mean son-in-law or parent. See Mayer, DD. Jerus., 1:209.

[7] See Andrew Palmer “The History”. Palmer translated large portions of the original Syriac text which is cited by Mayer within DD. Jerus. 75. Palmer also believes that the Godfried is in fact Geoffrey of the Tower of David. The dating of Gaufried’s capture is likely around 1102-1106 according to Mayer. 

Written by Cole Taylor, History Ph.D. Student at Fordham University.
0 Comments

    Author

    Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

    Archives

    October 2023
    September 2023

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

  • About
  • Teaching
    • Stephen Powell's Page
    • Hannah Graham's Page
    • Martin Nelson's Page
    • Michael Weldon's Page
  • Resources
  • Sources in Translation
    • John of Ancona's Summa Feudorum
  • Podcast
  • Undergraduate Projects
  • 6078 Materials
  • Narrative Page
  • Documents