The Crusades and the Near East
Page 33
‘a people shining in faith in all powerful God and the name of Christ’, ‘those who are reckoned in the worship of Christ just as you’.95 Nowhere is there an indication that Fulcher took issue with the different liturgical practices between the Latin and Greek Churches. In later references he made it clear that he considered the Greeks, Armenians and Syrians to be Christian. For example, in writing about the siege of Antioch, Fulcher lamented the loss of the lives of the Christian inhabitants of the city at the hands of the Turks.96 When the crusade arrived at Bethlehem in 1099 and when Baldwin reached Jerusalem to take up the crown on the death of his brother Godfrey, the local Syrian and Greek Christian populations were represented as being supporters of the crusade, rejoicing at its arrival.97
The Historia Hierosolymitana consistently presented the events of the First Crusade in such a way as to depict the Byzantines as allies of the Latins. In 176
W E S T E R N O P I N I O N O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E E M P I R E
situations where the evidence mitigated against such an interpretation, Fulcher avoided a negative portrayal of the Byzantines by leaving out potentially damaging details, the most striking example of which was the omission of any mention of Tatikios. The instances where the empire cooperated with the crusade were heavily emphasised and on more than one occasion Fulcher stated that the crusade could not have succeeded without the input of the emperor. In spite of the single, albeit vehement, criticism of Alexios, the overall tendency of Fulcher to provide a conciliatory and fraternal image of the Byzantines is unmistakable.
The contrast between the treatment of the Byzantines by Guibert and Fulcher is striking. Each departed from their principal written source to assert their own opinions, neither one adopting or unconsciously inheriting the prejudice of the Gesta Francorum. As with Guibert, it is necessary to attempt to establish if Fulcher’s relatively positive portrayal of the Byzantines was inherited from another source and to what extent the events of the crusade impacted on his opinions.
These opinions appear to have been formed from an early stage, as Fulcher’s statements concerning the Byzantines which appear in Book I were not revised in the second redaction, suggesting that they had not altered significantly between c.1105 and the 1120s.
The earliest discussion of the Byzantines in the Historia Hierosolymitana arises in the rendition of the speech of Urban II at Clermont in 1095. In this version of the famous oration, the main goal of the crusade was the liberation of the Eastern Church from oppression. Urban lamented the treatment of ‘your brothers dwelling in eastern parts’.98 The pope described the devastation of the Eastern Church at the hands of the Turks and the extent of the imperial lands which had been lost.
This rendition of the pope’s speech bears a strong resemblance to contemporary accounts of eyewitnesses and it has been suggested that Fulcher himself was an eyewitness at the council. On their journey through Italy, the crusaders of northern France met Urban at Lucca, where Fulcher indicated he was present.99 This early exposure to the pope may be responsible for Fulcher’s efforts to present the actions of Alexios and the Eastern Christians in as positive a light as possible.
In his 1913 edition of the Historia Hierosolymitana, Hagenmeyer suggested that Fulcher had been an eyewitness at Clermont.100 Following the example of Hagenmeyer, a number of modern authors have assumed Fulcher’s presence at the council, most strikingly Verena Epp, who suggests that he attended in the company of Bishop Ivo of Chartres.101 This assertion is based on the assumption that Fulcher was one of the clerics at Chartres Cathedral, even though there is no clear evidence for this.102 Indeed, Ivo of Chartres’ own presence at the council is not certain. Clermont was convened to discuss a number of reforms of the French Church as well as the excommunication of the French king, Philip I.
Consequently, Ivo may have felt it more prudent to abstain from attending.103
The report of Urban’s speech by Fulcher contains the same elements as the eyewitness accounts of Robert the Monk and Baldric of Dol, as well as the letter of Urban to the Count of Flanders.104 Unlike Robert and Baldric, Fulcher did not claim that he had been at Clermont. Like Guibert, Fulcher was aware that 177
L É A N N Í C H L É I R I G H
history was to be written by one who had witnessed it and he makes reference on a number of occasions to having seen events that he described: ‘I arranged diligently, yet truthfully – deeming those things appropriate to trust to memory
– just as I was able, those things I observed in that journey.’105 And ‘This I, Fulcher of Chartres – myself travelling with other pilgrims – afterwards, diligently and carefully collected as a memorial for those who came after, just as I saw with my own eyes.’106 And again, ‘I would not have believed that there were so many wonders unless I had seen them with my own eyes.’107
As well as referring to himself as a witness to events, Fulcher, for the most part, changed his verb usage when describing events that he had not witnessed – from the first person plural into the third person.108 In his description of the Council of Clermont, Fulcher used the third person, implying that he was not present: ‘His dictis, et audientibus gratanter ad hoc animatis, nihil actu tali dignius aestimantes, statim plures astantium se ituros, et caeteros absentes inde diligenter se evocaturos spoponderunt [my emphasis].’109
Given the evidence that Fulcher was not an eyewitness to Clermont yet was extremely well informed as to the substance of Urban’s address, it seems likely that he had a written source at hand. It is worth taking the trouble to establish this, because Fulcher’s relationship to the policy of Urban II might well have been the key to his depiction of the Byzantines in his history.
The written sources for Clermont are broadly divided into two categories: those which detail the reform decrees of the council and those which report only the summons to crusade. Fulcher’s account is remarkable in that he includes both.
Robert Somerville has identified an ‘Anglo-Norman’ tradition of the Clermont decrees, and a comparison of this tradition with formulations in Fulcher’s account shows a surprisingly close match:
(17)110
Orderic: Qui episcopum ceperit, omnino exlex habeatur.
P L C: Quod qui episcopum ceperit, omnino exlex habeatur.
William: Quod episcopum qui ceperunt, omnino exlex habeatur.
Fulcher: Qui igitur episcopum ceperit, omnino exlex habeatur.
(18)
Orderic: Qui monachos, vel clericos, vel sanctimoniales et eorum comites ceperit, vel exspoliaverit, anathema sit.
P L: Quod qui monachos, vel clericos, vel sanctimoniales et horum
famulos ceperit, vel expoliaverit, anathema sit.
C: Quod qui monachos, vel clericos, vel sanctimoniales et horum
famulos ceperit, anathema sit.
William: Quod qui sacri ordinis viros vel eorum famulos ceperit,
anathema sit.
Fulcher: Qui monachos vel clericos aut sanctimoniales et eorum famulos ceperit aut exspoliaverit, vel peregrinos vel mercatores, anathema sit.
178
W E S T E R N O P I N I O N O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E E M P I R E
(1)
Orderic: Ecclesia sit catholica, casta et libera: catholica in fide et communione sanctorum, casta ab omni contagione malitiae, et
libera ab omni saeculari potestate.
P L: Quod ecclesia catholica sit, casta, et libera: catholica in fide et communione sanctorum, casta pudicitia, et libera ab omni seculari
potestate.
C: Quod ecclesia in catholica sit, casta, et libera: catholica in fide et communione sanctorum patrum, casta pudicitia, et libera ab omni
seculari potestate.
William: Quod ecclesia catholica sit in fide casta, libera ab omni servitute.
Fulcher: Ecclesiam suis ordinibus liberam ab omni saeculari potestate.
(7)
Orderic: Ecclesiasticae dignitates, vel canonicae, a nullo vendantur, vel emantur.
P L C: Quod ecclesias
tice dignitates, vel canonicae, a nullo vendantur, vel emantur.
William: Quod ecclesiasticae dignitates a nullo emantur vel vendantur .
Fulcher: Res ecclesiasticas praecipue in suo iure constare facite, ut et simoniaca haeresis nullatenus apud vos cavete ne vendentes ac
ementes flagris flagellati dominicis per angiportus in exterminium
confusionis miserabiliter propellantur.
(26)
Orderic: Laicus decimas nec vendat, nec retineat.
P L C: Quod laicus decimas nec vendat, nec retineat.
William: Quod laicus decimam nec emat, nec vendat.
Fulcher: Decimas Deo de omnibus terrae cultibus fideliter dari facite, ne vendantur aut retineantur.
What this comparison shows is more than a passing familiarity between Fulcher’s history and the works of the ‘Anglo-Norman’ tradition. It strongly suggests that Fulcher had access to a written version of decrees, which in turn brings him much closer to papal policy than has hitherto been appreciated. Moreover, the speech of Urban in Fulcher’s Historia does correspond with the reports of Robert the Monk and Baldric of Dol. Both Robert and Fulcher refer to the Turks as a Persian race.111 In all three accounts there are descriptions of the torture and enslavement of Christians and the destruction of churches.112 Similarly, all three authors reported the papal emphasis on the common bonds of religion which the Eastern and Western Christians shared.113 In Urban’s letter to the Count and faithful of Flanders, the pope referred to the Council of Clermont, where, he wrote, he had detailed the suffering of their Eastern brothers and the Church in Eastern parts and exhorted them to aid the liberation of this Eastern Church.114
179
L É A N N Í C H L É I R I G H
The speech of Urban as it appeared in the Historia Hierosolymitana contained a number of phrases which can be found in the letters of the late eleventh-century papacy. Reference to the papacy as apostolatus apice is found rarely before Urban’s pontificate, but it appears in three of his surviving letters.115 Scriptural metaphors for the comportment of the clergy referred to by Urban in his reported speech are found in the writings of contemporary reformers. They were exhorted not to be mercenarii but pastores;116 they were not to allow the sin of Simony to take root ( radicere)117 among them; and they were to administer discipline with baculos semper in manibus.118 As well as particular phrases, a number of verbs which the papacy used to denote reform are found in Fulcher’s account. The papacy used a set of key terms to describe the reform process and Fulcher’s use of these in his narrative suggests an exposure to papal literature. 119
The clergy at Clermont were urged by the pope to restore ( restaurare), correct ( corrigere), and free their flock from errors ( emendare).120 The pope also called on the ecclesiasts to reform ( reformare) the Truce of God, a peace movement which forbade the nobility from waging war during certain Christian festivals on pain of excommunication. 121
The reliability of this source is affirmed by the parallels with eyewitness accounts of the speech and with the letter of Urban to Flanders. The phrasing of the account which bears such a resemblance to papal terminology would suggest that this source may have been papal in origin. Given Fulcher’s contact with Urban at Lucca, it is likely that his urge to follow papal policy towards the Byzantines as he understood it tempered his view of the events of the First Crusade and influenced his depiction of the Byzantines in his narrative.
Conclusion
Despite the unifying impulse of Pope Urban II in his policy towards the Eastern Church, tensions ran high between the Latins and the Byzantines almost as soon as the crusade entered the European territories of the empire. The poor discipline of Peter the Hermit’s army and the mistrust of the Normans of southern Italy put the Byzantines on their guard immediately. Alexios’ response, an oath of allegiance to him personally by many of the leading crusaders, was received indignantly by many of the Latins, with Raymond of St Gilles declaring that he had not travelled to the East to serve any lord but God.122 According to Raymond of Aguilers, when the Count of St Gilles suggested that Alexios lead the crusade himself, the emperor prevaricated. The emperor’s first duty was to the empire and his efforts to maintain its stability in the face of the crusade and its outcome were viewed as moral cowardice. Alexios’ attempts to maintain relations with the Turks angered the crusaders, particularly at Nicaea, and the failure of the Byzantines to meet the crusaders’ expectations as allies of the crusade was seen by many as treachery. At Antioch, in particular, Tatikios’ departure and Alexios’ non-arrival allowed Bohemond to argue that the oath of loyalty was void. In his attempts to establish himself as Prince of Antioch and to justify his occupation of the city, 180
W E S T E R N O P I N I O N O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E E M P I R E
Bohemond most likely distributed the Gesta Francorum in France in 1106, supplying a new generation of writers, removed from the events, with a source which was biased against Alexios.
Guibert of Nogent was one of this ‘new generation’ who took the anonymous source as his raw material and added significantly to it from eyewitness statements, written sources and his own knowledge. Having been influenced by the hostility towards Alexios in the Gesta Francorum and most likely by the views of Bohemond, Guibert added still more invective against the Byzantines, claiming that their misfortunes had been caused by their religious errors and ethnically based political inconstancy. Unaware or unconcerned that his religious invective was no longer in line with the papacy’s position towards the Eastern Church, Guibert was inspired by the events of the First Crusade as they were presented to him, as a tremendous, divinely inspired success over the enemies of God, despite the consistent failure of the Byzantines to support the Latins.
By contrast, Fulcher of Chartres, predominantly an eyewitness but also an author who relied on the Gesta Francorum, did not share his source’s antagonism towards Alexios. Although his initial impressions of the Byzantines, like those of Stephen of Blois, were positive, Fulcher must have been aware of the heightened tensions between the other armies and the emperor on his arrival at Nicaea.
Despite this, he defended the actions of Alexios and avoided reporting on the most controversial events in Latin–Byzantine relations by omitting them from his chronicle. Fulcher’s respect for the Eastern Christians was most clearly articulated in his account of the speech of Urban II at Clermont, an account based on a written source, possibly papal in origin. This direct contact with the papal conception of the crusade, ‘for the liberation of the Eastern Churches’, influenced Fulcher’s interpretation of the events which followed and led him to excise the conflict between the crusade and the Byzantines from his chronicle.123
Neither Fulcher nor Guibert adopted the attitudes of their source without question. Clearly, Fulcher altered events presented in the Gesta Francorum significantly in order to maintain the fraternal tone of his history. Even though Guibert echoed the criticism of Alexios found in his source, he was also probably influenced by Bohemond’s rhetoric in 1106, but his interpretation of the Turkish invasions as a divine instrument of correction for the religious failures of the Eastern Christians appears to be his own. The events of the crusade did not in themselves prompt Guibert’s criticisms, but their presentation in the Gesta Francorum and the rhetoric of Bohemond may have. Fulcher was clearly pre-disposed towards treating Eastern Christians sympathetically, both by his understanding of the papal position with regards to Constantinople and perhaps from the good impressions of Alexios during his stay in Constantinople, impressions which Stephen of Blois included in his letter to his wife Adele.
A comparison of these two crusading histories shows that it would be an error to suggest that the experience of the First Crusade led to a universal anger in Western Christendom towards the Byzantines. Rather, it might be more accurate to speak of a polarisation of opinion, one in which the raw materials provided by 181
L É A N N Í C H L É I R I G H
the clash of policy between cr
usaders and the Byzantines was either worked up to a new level of polemic and hostility or toned down in a consciously conciliatory fashion.
Notes
1 The author would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences, which facilitated this research.
2 Bernold of Constance, Chronicon 1054–1100, I.S. Robinson (ed.), MGH Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, Nova Series 14, Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2003, p. 520 lines 3–11.
3 AC 308, related her father’s trepidation at the arrival of the Latins.
4 GF 3.
5 EA 29–32, 37–8; Richard of Poitiers, Chronicon, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 12, Martin Bouqet (ed.), Paris: Palmé, (1877), pp. 411–21, at p. 412; GN 312–13.
6 For the date of the anonymous Gesta Francorum and its use by later authors, see Heinrich Hagenmeyer, ‘ Einleitung’, §6, in Anonymi Gesta Francorum et Aliorum Hierosolymitanorum, Heinrich Hagenmeyer (ed.), Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1890, pp. 49–92; John France, ‘The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere of Peter Tudebode’, in John France and W.G. Zajac, The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998, pp. 39–69; John France, ‘The Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum in the Early Twelfth-Century Sources for the First Crusade’, in A.V. Murray (ed.), From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, Turnhout: Brepols, 1998, pp. 29–42; Jay Rubenstein, ‘What Was the Gesta Francorum and Who Was Peter Tudebode?’, Revue Mabillon 16, 2005, 179–204.
7 OV VI.68–71; J.G. Rowe, ‘Paschal II, Bohemond of Antioch and the Byzantine Empire’, Bulletin of John Rylands Library 49, 1966–7, 165–202, at 184–6.
8 A.C. Krey, ‘A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and its Bearing on the Literature of the First Crusade’, in Louis Paetow (ed.), The Crusades and Other Historical Essays, New York: F.S. Crofts, 1928, pp. 57–78. Krey suggests that a passage, describing a secret agreement between Bohemond and Alexios in which the emperor promised Bohemond territory in the environs of Antioch, was a later interpolation, as part of this propaganda campaign. This has been disputed by a number of historians, including France, ‘The Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum’; Colin Morris, ‘The Gesta Francorum as Narrative History’, Reading Medieval Studies 19, 1993, 55–71; Rubenstein, ‘What Was the Gesta Francorum’, p. 195. Evelyn Jamison, ‘Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade’, in M.K. Pope (ed.), Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature Presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope (reprint), Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969 [1939], pp.183–208, at p. 195