143

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIMARY SOURCE

The creation of Itinerarium Peregrinorum 1

The so-called “Itinerarium Peregrinorum 1”, as named by Professor H. E. Mayer in his ground-breaking 1962 study, is an anonymous medley of different sources forming a loose narrative of events in the Holy Land and during the Third Crusade between May 1187 and November 1190. It includes martyrdom accounts, letters, and eye-witness material. Its precise date of composition and its author are unknown. In this article I will argue that it had an over-riding purpose, and that this purpose is important evidence for its authorship and date1.

This work survives as a stand-alone chronicle in five manuscripts2. It was later adapted to form the first part of a Latin history of the whole Third Crusade, the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi (IP 2)3. Scholars generally agree that the latter was written by Richard de Templo, prior of Holy Trinity (an Augustinian priory in London), during the period 1217-12224. Because our text now forms the first part of the 144Itinerarium Peregrinorum Mayer dubbed it IP 1. H. Möhring called it Historia Hierosolimitana, remarking that IP 1 is a misleading title5. It certainly is a “Jerusalem history”, and Möhring’s title is more accurate; however, because there are already several Historiae Hierosolimitanae, scholars in general continue to call it IP 1.

This is a controversial text. Firstly, the date of composition is unclear. It must have been written after 19 November 1190, the date that Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury died, as this is the last event recorded6. As IP 1’s account of the Emperor Frederick’s crusade indicates that the Emperor’s bones were taken to Tyre to be carried on to Jerusalem, Hans Mayer points out that this section must have been written before 2 September 1192, the date that King Richard of England concluded a peace treaty with Saladin which left Jerusalem under Saladin’s control7. Mayer also postulated that, because the text describes Richard of England as remaining involved on the crusade after all other princes had died or retreated, it was composed after 1 August 1191, when King Philip Augustus left Acre8.

Yet evidence within the text contradicts this assumption. The account of the Emperor Frederick’s crusade describes how on the way to the Holy Land the Duke of Swabia’s teeth were knocked out when he was attempting to assist his father in battle, and then comments in the present tense that whenever the Duke of Swabia opens his mouth, his bare gums bear witness to the glory of his victory9. But the Duke of Swabia died on 20 January 119110. Was the text written over a period of time, and not fully revised?

The authorship of IP 1 is also uncertain, although the text offers some indicators. It was written in complex Latin with many classical and Biblical allusions, so the author was almost certainly a cleric. Again, he was probably English, as he makes favourable reference to King Henry II of England, his son Count Richard of Poitou (later King Richard I), 145the archdeacon of Colchester, Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury, and the bishop of Salisbury11. His genealogy of the rulers of Jerusalem starts with Fulk of Anjou, father of Geoffrey count of Anjou (and therefore grandfather of King Henry II of England), showing the connection between the kings of Jerusalem and England12. His references to King William II of Sicily also indicate an English connection: William was married to Henry II’s daughter Joanna13.

H. Mayer suggested that the author was an English Templar chaplain14. However, H. Möhring showed that the author could not be a Templar15. Although the author included some Templar anecdotes he knew too little about the Templars’ activities to be a member of that Order. A Templar should have known the date when Saladin released the Templar master Gerard de Ridefort from prison, but the date given by the author of IP 1 is a year too late: Gerard was released in May 1188, but IP 1 indicates that he was released in May 118916. The author did not mention the Hospitallers at Hattin on 4 July 1187, although a Templar should have known that they were involved. He did not mention the Templars’ and Hospitallers’ heroic defences of their castles in Galilee – Saphet and Belvoir – in 1188, nor Gerard de Ridefort’s successful defence of the Templar fortress of Tortosa. In fact, apart from three isolated Templar martyr stories, the author of IP 1 knew very little about the Templars. In fact the third of these martyr stories – describing the death of Gerard de Ridefort on 4 October 1189 – was not even the most favourable surviving account of the Templars’ actions on this occasion. IP 1 mentions that the Templars had made a tactical error which led to the disaster; another western Latin source says nothing of this error, depicts Gerard’s death as akin to martyrdom and states that the Templars who died at Hattin were martyrs17. All 146of this suggests that the author’s sources, not the author himself, were responsible for the information on the Templars.

Clearly, however, the author of IP 1 was a well-educated cleric, and his favourable depiction of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury suggests that he was in the archbishop’s service. It is likely that he arrived in the Holy Land with the archbishop, which would have brought him to the siege of Acre by 12 October 119018. I will return to this question at the end of this article.

IP 1 can be divided into four sections. The appendix to this article sets out the contents in detail, but they can be summarised as follows:

–Prologue: justification for writing, with reference to Dares of Phrygia.

–Section One: Saladin’s conquest of the kingdom of Jerusalem and the preaching of the crusade in the west.

–Section Two: the crusade of Frederick Barbarossa.

–Section Three: the siege of Acre.

–Section Four: the conspiracy of the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, the deeds of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury at Acre, and the abduction of Isabel of Jerusalem (here called “Elizabeth”).

The narrative is framed within the theme of disaster, which opens and closes the chronicle. It starts abruptly with the disastrous battle of 1 May 1187, and ends equally abruptly on 19 November 1190 with the nobles’ decision to award the kingdom of Jerusalem and the heiress to the throne to the Marquis Conrad. The people have turned their back on what is right (spreto iure) and so, the author indicates, God will abandon them. Yet between these disasters the central part of the book is optimistic, describing the successes of Frederick Barbarossa’s crusade and the crusaders flocking to the Holy Land. This balanced narrative suggests deliberate organisation and purpose, inviting more detailed scrutiny.

147

CHARACTERISTICS OF IP 1

IP 1 has several idiosyncrasies which set it apart from IP 2 and other contemporary and near-contemporary accounts of the events of 1187-1192.

The author’s very extensive use of classical allusions transforms this into a story of nemesis on the scale of a classical tragedy such as the siege of Troy. The use of Biblical and other religious allusions is not unusual or surprising in the work of a late twelfth – or early thirteenth-century cleric19. Yet it is unusual to find so many classical allusions in a work on the crusades, especially as (as Mayer points out) the author of IP 1 was well but not exceptionally educated20. The author opens his work by referring to the history of Greece and Rome21. As we might expect in a work on the Third Crusade, he refers a few times to the First Crusade22, but alludes just as often to the siege of Troy23. He also quotes Virgil24 and uses the work of Vegetius25. He is at pains to give us the classical origins of Tyre and Acre26, and quotes Solinus’s geographical work, although in fact Solinus does not say what our author states27. Our author also refers to other classical myths and history, introducing his work with references to the journey of Jason, the labours of Hercules, the glory of Alexander and the victories of Caesar28.

148

On the other hand, he does not refer to the epic and romance literature that was so popular in western European noble culture in the late twelfth century. There is only one reference to Charlemagne and his (legendary) chronicler Turpin, and there are no references to Roland or Arthur29.

Overall, the author of IP 1 impresses the reader with his classical education and integrates his account of modern events into classical history. He depicts these events as being not only the work of God; but also part of human history stretching back to the Roman Republic and to the siege of Troy. They are indeed a tragedy on the scale of the story of Troy.

The author also shows a particular interest in the Angevin monarchy of the kingdom of Jerusalem, stressing the positive contribution of the Queen and her husband King Guy and insisting that their monarchy is legitimate. Unlike (for example) Roger of Howden’s Gesta, there is no mention of Queen Sybil’s forced separation from her husband and her decision to remarry him30. The first part of the account emphasises the validity of Sybil’s and Guy’s right to rule: the Queen is “regina, regis Amalrici filia, Sibilla nomine” (giving first her title; then her inheritance; and finally her first name); she works with the Patriarch in the defence of Jerusalem; she is a faithful and loving wife to Guy31. No blame is attached to the King for the defeat at Hattin; the defeat was foretold and (apparently) unavoidable32. Even in the face of defeat, the King refuses to give up the kingdom33. Once released, he meets the Queen on Arwad Island, near Tortosa, and they go together to Antioch to start the fight-back34. The author demonstrates the King’s determination to recover his kingdom: he gathers troops, he marches to Tyre and then Acre, he leads the initial attacks on Saladin35. The Pisans’ revolt at Tyre in favour of King Guy is “commendable” (commendabili seditioni36). Finally, a long genealogical digression explains the Queen’s hereditary 149right, descended from Fulk of Anjou and Melisende of Jerusalem, and why Guy was the legitimate king37.

Turning to the other side of the narrative, Saladin is presented as the enemy of Christendom. He is depicted as morally dubious (as he started his career licensing the prostitutes of Damascus and financing plays), opportunist (gaining control of Damascus by marrying Nur al-Din’s widow and disinheriting Nur al-Din’s heirs), untrustworthy (promising to release the King if Ascalon is surrendered to him, then failing to do so) and cruel (executing the aged Prince of Antioch after the battle of Hattin38). He is irreligious: he insults Christianity, and when he meets with setbacks he curses Mohammad39. He uses underhand tactics, trying to poison the water of the Christian camp by throwing the corpses of Christian dead into the river40. Yet he is a worthy enemy: as a young man he was knighted by a Christian warrior41. He is God’s tool to punish the Christians, chosen by God for this purpose42.

Although Saladin is God’s tool to punish sin, IP 1 reveals that the fundamental enemy to the Christian cause is far more insidious. The greatest enemy to Christianity is the Christians’ own sin: the dissension between Christians that led to the disaster at Hattin; and the plotting of the Marquis, who leads the nobility of the kingdom astray. Another danger is a woman’s weakness: Queen Sybil’s half-sister is weak and easily persuaded to abandon her legal husband to marry the Marquis. Isabel/Elizabeth’s husband is also to blame, however: IP 1 accuses him of being effeminate43. In fact, although by the end of the text Saladin and his army are still a serious danger to the Christians, following the successful advance of 12 November 1190 it appears that the greatest remaining danger to the Christian cause lies within the Christian camp itself.

It is striking that the author of IP 1 names two of the key individuals in this tragedy differently from his contemporaries. He calls the Queen’s sister “Elizabeth” rather than Isabel (the name used by other 150sources44), and calls her first husband and his ancestor “Enfrid” rather than Humfrey45. The name Enfrid appears both in the first section (where Saladin is knighted by “Enfrid” and “Enfrid” is released by Saladin in May 1189) and in the final section, where Isabel/Elizabeth is divorced from Enfrid, indicating that the same author composed both.

This is not the only material in IP 1 that is misleading, incorrect, unverifiable or simply different from that reported by other contemporaries. For example, as already mentioned, in IP 1 Saladin releases the master of the Temple, Gerard de Ridefort, a year after his actual date of release, so that Gerard is released at the same time as Humfrey of Toron and William of Montferrat, rather than with King Guy. This alteration in the order of events allowed the author to focus his audience’s attention on King Guy.

Again, our author consistently names Reynald of Châtillon as princeps Antiochie, “prince of Antioch”, despite the fact that he had not been prince of Antioch since 1163, when his stepson Bohemond had taken the title while Reynald was a prisoner of the Muslims. Since 1177 Reynald had been lord of Transjordan through his marriage to Stephanie de Milly. As Mayer points out, contemporary documents still gave him the title of prince of Antioch: he was given this title in charters until 120246. But if IP 1 was written for western Europeans who did not know the history of the kingdom of Jerusalem, the effect of using this title was to suggest that Saladin had executed the ruler of a great Christian city, the place where Christians were first given that name, and the focus of the famous siege during the First Crusade47.

According to IP 1, shortly after King Guy began the siege of Acre (28 August 1189), fifty cogs arrived with 12,000 armed men from Denmark, Frisia, England and Flanders. On their way to Acre they had captured Silves on the coast of Spain and appointed a bishop for the city. They were such brave fighters that by the time the city fell to the Christians they had almost all been killed48. Silves was in fact captured on 3 September 1189, no bishop was appointed, and the Dutch fleet that won the city could not have reached Acre in autumn 118949. Dana 151Cushing, the most recent editor of the De itinere navali, a contemporary account of the capture of Silves, argues that the victors of Silves arrived at Acre in the following year in late spring or early summer50.

There was certainly more than one fleet sailing to Acre via Portugal in 1189-119051. Mayer suggested that the author of IP 1 meant the capture of Alvor in June 1189, where a bishop was appointed52. IP 1 is correct in recording that reinforcements arrived via the conquest of Silves but misrepresents when they arrived. Including them at this point in the text allowed the author to depict the start of the siege of Acre as a highpoint, with Christians flocking to Acre having already had successes against Muslims.

IP 1 also includes a battle which does not appear in other accounts of the siege of Acre. This battle is placed on 12-19 May 1190, and is described occurring directly after an engagement around Ascension Day (the Estoire de la guerre sainte says Ascension Day, IP 1 says the Sunday after) at which three siege towers were destroyed53. This battle was not directly described by any independent contemporary source, neither Christian nor Muslim. It is mentioned in the so-called “Latin Continuation of William of Tyre”, but both Mayer and Möhring agree that the “Latin Continuation” copied from IP 1. The most detailed contemporary Arabic commentors, Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad and ‘Imād al-Dīn, mention the arrival of new forces at Saladin’s camp at the end of May, but there was no large engagement54. There is an eight-line reference in the work of ‘Haymarus Monachus’, to a battle at Ascension 152Day, the following Saturday and Pentecost. Paul Riant reckoned this account had used IP 2; Mayer calculated that as the putative author died by 1202 it must have been independent of IP 255. This states:

Ad hoc in sanctissimo die Pentecostes

Nos ab omni latere circumdabant hostes

nitentes irrumpere fovearum postes

Nec est locus vacuus a sagittis, quo stes

Idem nobis fecerant in Ascensione

Nec non post in Sabbato, et tunc in agone

Pugnarunt viriliter homines Veronae

memores Ferrariae tali die pronae56.

“At this in the most holy day of Pentecost [13 May]

the enemy surrounded us from every side

glittering, they burst through the gates of the embankments

nor was the place empty of arrows, whither you might stand.

The same attacked us at Ascension [3 May]

and after on the Saturday [5 May], and then in agony

the men of Verona fought manfully;

Ferrara is inclined to remember such a day.”

In common with IP 1, this account says that the enemy surrounded the crusaders, arrows were shot and the fighting was arduous. Amalgamating this account with the Estoire and IP 1, we could suggest that there was continual fighting from Ascension Day to Pentecost.

IP 1 describes Saladin drawing together a huge army from the whole of Asia, India, and Africa: “two parts of the world attacked the third”: “due mundi partes terciam imperunt”. He hires mercenaries from money accumulated from a death duty of one third on “Gentiles” (here meaning Muslims); in fact, as Mayer comments, the death duty was a legend: the money came from a type of military levy, the iqtā’57. Other Muslims come “on a sort of obtaining of the grace of pilgrimage”: “quodam peregrinationis obtenu gratis”. The army is compared to that of King Darius of Persia. The Christians fight boldly for eight days and hold their ground. On the eighth day one of Saladin’s sons is killed by a bolt from a crossbow, and the army withdraws in fear, “shuddering 153at ever engaging the Christians in battle again”: “christianorum prorsus abhorrentes congressum”. Yet IP 1 then goes on to recount that on 25 July 1190 Saladin’s army held its ground and repulsed an attack by the crusaders, which contradicts this statement58.

IP 1’s description of the battle in May 1190 shows the whole of Islam descending on a small group of Christians, and this small group of Christians surviving a battle against overwhelming odds: an image familiar from the chansons de geste (such as Baligant’s army attacking Charlemagne’s force in the Chanson de Roland). The lack of supporting evidence in the otherwise detailed Muslim sources suggests no large engagement took place. However, IP 1’s account conveys the message that the Christians were successful because they were united. They were defeated at Hattin and on 4 October 1189 and they would lose on 25 July 1190 because they were divided. But they won the naval battle in spring 1190 and the battle against all odds in May 1190 because they all fought together.

In short, the alterations to history made by the author of IP 1 were not errors but were made with a purpose: to focus attention on King Guy, emphasise the impact of the defeat at Saladin’s hands, and create an image of a large number of faithful Christians flocking to the siege of Acre, where they could win battles against overwhelming odds as long as they were united and trusted God.

So far, this discussion has focussed on the idiosyncrasies of the author of IP 1 and the details in his narrative that can be called into question. This may give the impression that his narrative is unreliable. In fact, this is one of the most reliable and detailed Christian accounts of events in the kingdom of Jerusalem during the years 1187-1190, indicating that the author was well-informed and had access to reliable sources of information.

For example, in describing the battle on 1 May 1187, the author of IP 1 does not make the mistake of calling Brother Jacquelin de Maillé marshal of the Temple. Two contemporary letters reveal that the Templar marshal was Brother Robert de Frenellus, who also died at the battle on 1 May59. Yet the Libellus de expugnatione Terre Sancte per 154Saladinum and the Old French continuations of William of Tyre claim that Brother Jacquelin was marshal, suggesting that they were written much later60. Unlike many of the western English and Norman sources, including IP 2, the author of IP 1 does not accuse the count of Tripoli of treachery before the battle of Hattin, only stating that there was a dispute between him and the king61. Unlike the Estoire de la guerre sainte, he describes the fall of Jerusalem and the terms of surrender, although he also insists that the Queen was prominent in its defence, whereas other writers foreground Balian of Ibelin62. He has some information about Saladin’s origins and describes Saladin’s campaigns in the Holy Land, his northern campaign and his siege of Kerak and Monréal (1187-1189)63. Perhaps most significantly, his account of the Emperor Frederick’s crusade is unique and includes a physical and personal description of Frederick64. These accurate details indicate that where his work is inaccurate, or omits information, this was done deliberately in order to convey his message more effectively.

155

THE MESSAGE OF IP 1

The idiosyncratic interests, emphases and alterations of actual events in IP 1 point to the author having had a particular message to convey to his readers.

His chronicle depicts the war against Saladin as an historically significant event, the equal of the Trojan War. He stresses the legitimacy of Queen Sybil and King Guy; in contrast to the Marquis Conrad, who has illegally married the late queen’s younger sister. He stresses the significant role of the kings of England in the defence of the Holy Land: King Henry II’s money saved the kingdom; Richard of Poitou will save the kingdom when everyone else has run away or died in the attempt65. He emphasises that Christians succeed only when they are united and respect God.

This message indicates that the author was close to the King of England and his family (which included Queen Sybil, King Richard’s first cousin once removed); he was a religious man; and he had a classical education, with a particular interest in the Trojan War.

WHO WROTE IP 1?

The evidence set out above indicates that IP 1 was composed and compiled by an English clerk who travelled with Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury.

Archbishop Baldwin’s expedition was a major undertaking: IP 1 tells us he employed ‘two hundred knights and three hundred retainers’66; and Gerald of Wales recorded that he planned to have official histories made of the crusade67. There would be a Latin verse account by the archbishop’s 156nephew Joseph of Exeter, who had already written a six-book verse account of the siege of Troy based on Dares of Phrygia68; and a prose account, which Gerald of Wales expected to write. As he explains in his autobiography:

Finita sic igitur legatione laudabili, cum ad Angliam de Walliæ finibus tenderet archepiscopus, quidam de clericis suis pariter iter agentes, et de peregrinatione Jerosolimitana coram ipso loquentes, interrogabant eum quis nobilem historiam illam de terræ Palestinæ per principes nostros restauratione, et Saladini ac Saracenorum per eosdem expugnatione digne tractare posset. Quibus ipse respondens ait, se bene providisse ac promtum habere qui historiam illam egregie tractaret. Et cum instarent illi quærendo quisnam esset, vertens se ad archiaconum Giraldum, qui at latus ipsius equitabat: “Hic est”, inquit, “qui prosaice tractabit, et nepos meus Joseph metrice, quem et archidiacono adjungam, ut ei serviat et inseparabiliter adhæreat”. Sperabat enim archdiaconum promovendum a rege plurimum et sublimandum69.

“Thus having finished the laudable legation [his preaching tour of Wales], when the archbishop headed from the bounds of Wales to England, certain of his clerks who were equally making the journey and speaking in his presence about the Jerusalem pilgrimage asked him who could worthily draw up the noble history of our princes’ restoration of the land of Palestine and their conquest of Saladin and the Saracens. In reply to them, he said that he had provided well for himself and had ready [the person] who could excellently draw up the history. And when they pressed him, asking who it was, turning to Archdeacon Gerald who was riding beside him, he said: “Here is the person who will draw it up in prose, and my nephew Joseph [will write it] in verse; I will also attach him to the Archdeacon to serve him and inseparably stick by him”. For he was hoping that the king would very much promote and raise up the Archdeacon.”

However, Gerald did not go on the Third Crusade. He explains that, after the death of King Henry II – whom he had originally intended to accompany – he could not afford to go; and in 1189 he obtained absolution from his crusade vow70. His autobiography does not suggest that he ever wrote the planned prose history. But in another book, De principis instructione, Gerald did use text identical to that in IP 171. He 157included the letter from Saladin which is incorporated into IP 1, as well as a letter from Emperor Frederick which is not in IP 1 but appears in other contemporary English sources72. He describes Saladin’s letter and its impact in precisely the same words as IP 1: “Hanc superbi et infidelis tyranni epistolam cum nugis sui magnificus imperator contemnens dignas principe iras concipit et ad bella totis affectibus ardescit73.” He goes on to indicate that he has drawn the details of his account of Emperor Frederick’s crusade from another account, “sicut historica veritate sunt explanata luculentoque stilo et studio exquisitissimo exarata74.” Was this account, whose style and quality Gerald praised so highly, IP 1? Certainly most of Gerald’s account of the Emperor’s crusade is identical word-for-word to IP 1, although Gerald omits the initial organisation of the expedition, the journey from Germany to Plowdiw, two battles and the anecdote about the Duke of Swabia’s teeth75. So Gerald could have drawn his account of the Emperor’s crusade from IP 1 – or he could have had access to IP 1’s source for this crusade. His flattery might suggest that its author was a close friend.

On the other hand, Joseph of Exeter did accompany his uncle and wrote a verse account of the Third Crusade entitled Antiocheidos or Antiocheis. Only a 26-line extract survives, identifying Britain as the birthplace of the Emperor Constantine I and of Brennius who conquered Rome, mentioning the deeds of Marcus Cassius Scaeva, and praising King Arthur76. The title suggests that the book began with the First Crusade77. Even the great antiquary John Leland (c. 1503-1552) saw only a fragment of this work, indicating that it did not survive the dissolution of the monasteries78.

158

In Gerald’s absence, IP 1 would have been written by whichever of the Archbishop’s clerks replaced Gerald in the role of prose historian. Like Joseph of Exeter, and unlike Gerald, the author of IP 1 was a poet: he included poetry in his prose history, and his frequent references to the siege of Troy and classical history, plus the reference in his Prologue to Dares of Phrygia, indicate that he knew Joseph’s work. M. L. Bulst-Thiele and H. Möhring discussed the possibility that Joseph himself was the author of IP 179. This is an attractive theory, but it presents problems. Unlike Joseph’s Antiocheidos, IP 1 never refers to King Arthur: IP 1 is fixed in the classical past rather than the world of contemporary romance. This suggests that it was written by a different author. Arguably the Latin of IP 1 falls far behind the quality of Joseph’s Latin80. It also seems unlikely that Joseph would have written both a verse and a prose history of the Third Crusade, or that – if he did – neither he nor any of his contemporaries mentioned it.

Surely the Archbishop could have found another skilled Latinist to replace Gerald? For example, the Archbishop’s chaplain wrote to the convent of Canterbury on 21 October 1190 in terms very similar to those of IP 1. Both authors use “turpis”: the chaplain wrote: “exercitus noster turpi exercitio deditus”, while IP 1 includes phrases such as: “vite turpitudo”; “ad turpia declinarent”; “in abyssum turpitudinis”; “turpiter repulsus”; “turpiter consputam”; “turpiter demigraret”; “tam turpi fato”; “turpi reditu”; “in pravum docilis turpem momentium doctrinam”. Both pile noun on noun: the chaplain wrote: “In castris non est castitas, sobrietas, fides, dilecctio, caritas”; while IP 1 has (for example): “Cedes, rapinas, adulteria, longum est evolvere”. Both state that the army was in a poor condition: the chaplain wrote: “otio potius et libidini quam virtuti indulget […] ignavi et torpidi, et quasi convicti, contumelias sibi ab hostibus infra impune patiuntur”; while IP 1 has: “exercitum omnino dissolutum, tabernis, scortis et ludis talorum insistere”. Both deplore the defeat on St James’ day 1190 and describe the Christian army on that occasion as infantry rather than cavalry. Both emphasise the death of the Queen81. 159But the Archbishop’s chaplain did not add his own name to his letter, so his identity is unknown – perhaps he was Joseph of Exeter.

Which other skilled English Latinists took part in the Third Crusade? Geoffrey of Vinsauf was credited by the antiquary Roger Gale as author of IP 2. This attribution has been disproven, but could he have written IP 1? Probably not, as there is no evidence that he accompanied the crusade82. On the other hand, the young Richard de Templo, who wrote IP 2, was probably on the crusade; but the differences in Latin style and content between IP 1 and IP 2 rule him out as author of the former.

Identifying a named individual as author may not be productive. Recent studies suggest that even where a crusade account is linked to named individual, that individual may have been a fictitious narrator rather than the actual author83. All that can be concluded with a degree of certainty is that the author of IP 1 probably travelled to Acre in the entourage of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury.

It remains to ask whether IP 1 was left unfinished. If IP 1 is the intended prose history of Archbishop Baldwin’s crusade, then the most likely explanation for its ending abruptly with the death of the Archbishop is that the author decided that there was no point in continuing after the Archbishop’s death. Alternatively, perhaps the author himself died in the epidemic of the winter of 1190-1191. Or perhaps, like Joseph of Exeter, he returned home to England after the Archbishop’s death, leaving his account to be completed thirty years later by Richard de Templo84.

Yet it is possible that IP 1 is complete as it stands. The careful structure and consistent message of the narrative suggests that it is complete: it begins and ends with a crisis and the death of Christian champions, but its central highlight – the crusade of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa – demonstrates what the crusade army could achieve when 160it was united under a wise, devout and experienced leader. IP 1 could have been aimed at King Richard of England and his crusade army – still in Sicily in November 1190, en route to the East – urging them to come to the East as quickly as they could to thwart the treachery of the Marquis and unite the Latin Christians. Richard of England, whose father’s money had aided the Holy Land, whom “dominus […] primum aliorum omnium incentorem elegit, cum ceteris principibus vel defunctis vel regressis negotii sui executorem reservavit85”, must now come to the East to help the kingdom of his late cousin “regina regis Amalrici filia Sibilla86”.

In this case, the work would have been written very quickly, between 19 November 1190 and 20 January 1191 (that is, between the deaths of Archbishop Baldwin and the Duke of Swabia), in order to reach the king in Sicily with the first spring sailings in March. It could even have been written by more than one author, clerks formerly in the employment of Archbishop Baldwin, working together to produce a carefully-structured account. The prologue admits that it is unpolished – “pomposo non expolita ornatu”; if Joseph of Exeter was involved in its production, the speed of composition could explain why the quality of the Latin falls short of his style elsewhere87.

If IP 1 was intended to urge Richard of England to complete his crusade, it was successful to a certain degree. Richard set off from Sicily for the East just before Easter 1191. Although he did not recapture Jerusalem, he set up a stable government in the kingdom in the persons of his relative Count Henry of Champagne, married to his cousin Isabel of Jerusalem; and his peace treaty with Saladin in September 1192 ensured the survival of the kingdom, albeit in a greatly reduced state, for nearly another century.

Helen Nicholson

Cardiff University

161

Appendix

The contents of IP 1

Prologue88

Justifies the writing of histories to ensure the memory of great events, specifically mentioning Dares of Phrygia’s history of the Trojan War; states that this book was written “calente memoria”, while memory was warm, and that as it was written in the military camp the style is clumsy.

Section One

Subject: Saladin’s conquest of the kingdom of Jerusalem and the preaching of the crusade in the West89.

–Opens with the date, 1187; gives the name of the pope and the leading kings of Europe; states that in this year the Lord exterminated the Christians of the Holy Land because of their sins.

–Saladin puts the master of the Temple, Gerard de Ridefort, to flight and kills the master of the Hospital, Roger des Moulins, at the battle [of the Spring of the Cresson] on 1 May 1187; description of the heroic death of the Templar Brother Jacquelin de Maillé.

–Saladin’s origins and rise to power via an official post in Damascus, his service in Egypt (with a brief description of the Fatimid caliph), his take-over of Damascus on the death of Nur al-Din, marriage to the latter’s wife and disinheritance of Nur al-Din’s heirs; Saladin was knighted by “Enfrid” of Toron – that is, Humfrey II of Toron.

–Quarrel in the kingdom of Jerusalem between Raymond of Tripoli and Guy, eighth king of the Latin kingdom. The start 162–of the war is blamed on the Prince of Antioch’s attack on a Muslim caravan that was travelling from Damascus to Egypt during a truce.

–“Parthians, Bedouins, Arabs, Medes, Kurds and Egyptians” invade the Holy Land.

–Vision by King Guy’s chamberlain of the forthcoming disaster.

–Battle of Hattin (4 July 1187): the army of the kingdom of Jerusalem is defeated, the Holy Cross is captured; Saladin executes the Prince of Antioch and the Templars.

–Christians sailing into Acre are captured. The Marquis Conrad of Montferrat evades capture and goes to defend Tyre.

–Saladin’s conquests of Beirut, Sidon, Ascalon (surrendered on promise of King Guy’s release – a promise not kept), but the Marquis successfully defends Tyre.

–Saladin captures Jerusalem, which was defended by the Patriarch and the Queen.

–“The Queen, daughter of King Amaury, Sybil by name”, goes to Antioch with the Patriarch, Templars and Hospitallers and innumerable others. She meets her husband King Guy at Nablūs. She plans to cross the sea, but the Marquis takes her ship away to Tyre. Saladin besieges Tyre but is driven back a second time. His attempt to use the Marquis’s father as a bargaining tool fails when the Marquis pretends to shoot crossbow bolts at his father.

–History of Tyre. Saladin withdraws from Tyre.

–Saladin releases King Guy, who goes to Arwad (Ruad, island off Tortosa) to meet the Queen. They go to Antioch and then Tripoli and wait for Christians to come from overseas to help them.

–King Henry II of England’s money, deposited with the Templars and Hospitallers, helps to defend Tyre and the kingdom.

–Saladin captures towns in Palestine and attacks Antioch and Tripoli, which are relieved by King William of Sicily’s navy, led by Margarit.

–The fortresses of Kerak and Monréal surrender to Saladin (May 1189), who releases Enfrid (that is, Humfrey) of Toron, Gerard de Ridefort (actually released 12 months earlier) and the Marquis’s father.

163

–Anecdote about a jester telling Saladin that he was no more than God’s tool to punish Christians.

–The Archbishop of Tyre preaches the crusade in the West. Count Richard of Poitou, King Philip of France and King Henry of England take the cross. Everyone takes the cross. Death of King William of Sicily (11 November 1189).

Section Two

Subject: the crusade of Frederick Barbarossa90.

–The Emperor Frederick takes the cross.

–Saladin writes to Frederick.

–The Emperor’s crusade, his successful advance across eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire, and defeat of the Sultan of Iconium.

–Having reached Cilician Armenia, Emperor Frederick dies in an accident (10 June 1190). His son, the Duke of Swabia, reaches Antioch, where he takes over the government of the city. An aside implies that the Duke of Swabia was still alive at the time of writing.

Section Three

Subject: the siege of Acre91.

–Meanwhile, the Christians are besieging Acre. Flashback to the release of King Guy from prison (in May 1188; described in the first section). The clergy release King Guy from his oath to Saladin. Crusaders flock to Tripoli to aid him. His brother Geoffrey of Lusignan joins him. The army goes to Tyre (late April 1189), where the Marquis will not admit them. Two anecdotes against the Marquis. The army besieges Acre (28 August 1189).

164

–Saladin arrives and sets up his camp. 12,000 armed men arrive in a fleet of 50 ships of Danes and Frisians, who had captured Silves on the coast of Spain. James of Avesnes arrives; the Bishop of Beauvais and nobles of Champagne arrive; and the Landgrave of Thuringia arrives and persuades the Marquis to join the siege.

–Battle of 4 October 1189: King Guy and the Templars and Hospitallers attack Saladin’s camp; the Templars charge ahead, become cut off and are slaughtered. The King saves the Marquis from death. The siege resumes and Acre is surrounded.

–Description of Acre, with allusions to classical literature and the Bible. The siege of Acre is compared to the classical siege of Troy, and to the siege of Antioch during the First Crusade.

–The besieged run short of food; Saladin relieves them with ships; sea battle on 26 December 1189.

–The Marquis brings supplies by sea around Easter (25 March 1190). Battle at sea, with description of galleys and of Greek fire.

–Siege continues: three siege towers are built, but destroyed by Saladin’s forces on 6 May.

–Battle of 12-19 May 1190: Saladin draws together armies from the whole of his kingdom to attack the Christians; the army is compared to that of King Darius of Persia. For eight days the battle rages, only ending when one of Saladin’s sons is killed by a crossbow bolt.

–Besieged run short of food; Saladin relieves them with ships.

–Battle of 25 July 1190: the Christian infantry attack Saladin’s army but are defeated.

–More crusaders arrive by ship, including Count Henry of Champagne (28 July 1190), who takes over leadership of the army from James of Avesnes and the Landgrave of Thuringia. The Landgrave of Thuringia returns home on the grounds of ill-health.

165

Section Four

Subject: the conspiracy of the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat and the deeds of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury at Acre92.

–Flashback to section two: the Duke of Swabia is at Antioch. The crusader army sends the Marquis to him as an ambassador to ask him to continue defending the city, but the Duke comes to Acre.

–The Marquis wants the Duke’s support so that he can take advantage of the failure of the ruling line of Jerusalem. Genealogy of the ruling house of Jerusalem from Fulk of Anjou and Melisende; Sybil of Jerusalem and her daughters died (before 21 October 1190), leaving Guy without a good title to the throne. The Marquis decided to marry Sybil’s half-sister Isabel (here called Elizabeth), currently married to “Enfrid” of Toron.

–12 November 1190: attack on Saladin’s camp. This battle introduces Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury as a Christian leader who led the army with the Duke of Swabia and Count Theobald of Blois; favourable mention of the Bishop of Salisbury (Hubert Walter).

–Return to the Marquis’s plotting; many classical allusions; Isabel/Elizabeth of Jerusalem agrees to leave her husband and is married to the Marquis. The Archbishop of Canterbury sees that the army is completely dissolute. He falls ill and dies (19 November 1190).