Baldwin III (1143–1163)

A month later King Baldwin II. secured his liberation. In 1 129 he strengthened his throne by the marriage of his daughter, Melisende, to Foulque of Anjou, son of the notorious Bertrade, who had deserted her legitimate husband for the embrace of King Philip of France. This monarch had put away his wife Bertha for this new union. Thus was brought upon Philip the famous excommunication of the Pope. Two years later (August 13, 1 131) Baldwin II. died and was buried with Godfrey and Baldwin I. in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Foulque ascended the throne. His first work was to settle a dispute for the lordship of Antioch, which was accomplished only after bloodshed between brethren. Next he baffled the Greek emperor, John Comnenus, who attempted to gain for himself the kingdom of Jerusalem. Later he made alliance with the Mussulman Prince of Damascus and fought against Zenghi, Prince of Mosul. His queen, Melisende, by her rumored amours brought him additional perplexity. King Foulque died from an injury while hunting (November 13, 1143), leaving two children, Baldwin and Amalric.

Baldwin III succeeded his father at the age of thirteen, with Melisende as regent. Effeminacy not only marked the government, but infected the spirit of the people. The heroism of the founders of the kingdom seemed to die in the blood of their successors, or, if danger fired the ancient valor, it was without the light of discretion.

Young Baldwin III. inaugurated his reign by a foolish expedition to take Bozrah, which had been offered in surrender by its traitorous commandant. To accomplish this it was necessary to break a fair and useful alliance which the Christians had made with the Sultan of Damascus, the rightful lord of Bozrah. On reaching Bozrah, instead of the keys of the city, there was placed in the hands of the king an announcement from the wife of the treacherous governor that she herself would defend the walls. The perplexity of the king and his equally callow advisers was followed by an ignoble retreat. The enemy pursued not only with sword, but with fire. The wind, which seemed to the retreating army to be the breath of God's wrath, covered them with smoke and cinders, while the flames of the burning grass chased their fleeing feet. The Christians would have perished had not, say the chronicles, the wood of the True Cross, raised with prayer, changed the direction of the breeze and beaten back the pursuers.

At this time there was felt the need of an astute mind at the head of the kingdom. Christian progress had been arrested, and events of evil omen were thickening, especially tThe star of Zenghi, the ruler of Mosul, the father of Nourredin, and the forerunner of Saladin, had arisen.

References:

Archer (T. A.) and Others, The Crusades; The story of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, New York, 1902.

James (M. L.), The age of the crusades, New York, 1914.

Murray (A. V.), The Crusades: an encyclopedia, CA : ABC-CLIO, 2006.

Baldric of Dol

Baldric of Dol was born at Meun, near Orleans. He was] first a monk, and then became Abbot of Bourgueil in 1079, and in 1107 was appointed Archbishop of Dol in Brittany. His personal character was a complete contrast to that of his contemporary Guibert. I dwell with the greater pleasure upon it, as it forms an agreeable relief to that of Guibert, and also because Baldric represents a more common though, at that time, an oppressed type.

The ascetic zeal which pervaded the hierarchy of the eleventh century, was as hatefuLto the nature of Baldric as it was congenial to the Abbot of Nogent. Baldric saw no impediment to a Christian life in secular learning and art; the mortification of the senses was not to his mind ; sullen looks and strict fasts — in short, the whole pomp and ceremony of holy works — appeared to him not sufficient to fill up human life. He enjoyed the quiet of his cloister, the smiling garden, the clear running stream, the budding groves, while in his own room there were books, manuscripts, and all the appliances of learning. “ This is the spot,” writes he to a friend, “in which peace can be found .” There he wrote his verses ; nothing remarkable, but unpretending, and a labor of love . There also he applied himself to severer studies, and interchanged letters with friends of similar tastes. They carefully discussed their works, among others the History of the Crusades . They allowed the ecclesiastical contests to be settled elsewhere; it concerned them but little that a new hierarchy had conquered and remodelled the world ; not that they neglected their duties , but their true life lay in their books, in their gardens, and in their meadows. They were not always able to defend their peaceful existence from the incursion of a hostile element; their ideas were peculiar and too much opposed to the dominant party. Baldric writes to the Bishop of Ostia : “ My vessel sails only by stealth, for pirates of all sorts swarm around me ; they hem me in on every side, gnashing with their teeth because I do not quit my books, because I do not go about with eyes cast on the ground. Thus am I flagging in my work. May your hand protect me.

As bishop, he remained true to himself and to his nature. He was very religious, but gentle and mild. It is true this did not always succeed in his diocese, with his fierce Bretons . He was not fit to hold ecclesiastical power. He quitted Brittany, and sought a more peaceful asylum at Bee, Fecamp, and finally in England . Men like him would never have gained honours and triumphs for the hierarchy; but it is a pleasure to meet with a nature so pure, so cheerful, and so gentle, in times so full of energy, war, and austerity .

His history of the Crusades breathes the same spirit. He is exact and trustworthy in his use of the * Gesta he has not made many additions to its contents, but the views and opinions which he expresses are in keeping with his character. He does not withhold praise, even from the Turks: he omits the word “ faithless,” as applied to the Emperor Alexius, which constantly occurs in the "Gesta". He endeavours to excuse Count Stephen of Blois, who is . generally styled impudens et abominabilis , on the score of the general weakness of human nature. The additions he makes are mostly taken from oral testimony, and generally well selected. Of course it is only in few instances that he can be called an eye-witness; he undoubtedly is so where he mentions the effect caused by the beginning of the Crusades in France.

Baldric died before 1130, as his death was known to Pope Honorius II. His work on the Crusades seems to have been widely known. Ordericus Vitalis made use of it, and William of Tyre in many instances took it as the groundwork of his own history.

References:

"The Version of Baldric of Dol", in The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, 2nd ed., ed. Edward Peters (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998)

John (T.) and Henningsen (G.). Inquisition in Early Modern Europe:  Studies on Sources and Methods (Papers from a conference in Denmark, 5-9 Sept. 1978).  (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986).

Guibert of Nogent

Guibert of Nogent was bom in the year 1053, at Beauvais, of noble parents. His youth was passed in those times when the Roman Church began to bring the world under its dominion. Many circumstances concurred to subject Guibert altogether to these ecclesiastical influences, his mother was enthusiastically pious, and lived only in the mortification of the outward senses, and in the cultivation of the inward and spiritual perceptions. Before his birth his parents had vowed to devote their son to the service of the Church, and long before manhood he assumed the monk’s cowl at Mavigny. As he grew up, the lusts of the world awoke within him: he became a poet and learned music; he attempted imitations of Ovid and of Virgil’s Bucolics. But his teacher was warned in a vision, and the lad himself saw how he sinned against the rules of his Order. In this frame of mind he met with Anselm, Abbot of Bee, afterwards primate of the English Church, whose powerful influence at once directed him into the strict path of the Church. Gifted as Guibert was, he soon attained fame by his eloquence and learning, and at an early age became abbot of Nogent on the Seine. He remained there, respected by a large circle, and distinguished in politics and literature, until his death, in 1124.

The results of such a career are visible throughout his writings ; he was not without abilities, and for the times in which he lived, he was well read. The advantages of his birth and of his ecclesiastical dignity were of great service to him in writing a history of the Crusades. His acquaintances and connections extended over all France ; he was indebted for many valuable hints to Count Robert of Flanders ; Archbishop Manasses of Rheims allowed him to consult the letters of Anselm of Ripemont and he was himself present at the Council of Clermont. As a man of learning he affects a cultivated style and artistic form, but he only selected the Crusades as his subject, in order to make the ‘ Gesta Francorum,’ in his paraphrase, more agreeable to cultivated readers. It is true that he has succeeded very ill : the simple tone of his original is overwhelmed by his inflated and pompous style; he appears, conscious of his own high position, to disregard the opinion of others ; and frequently intimates that those who do not approve his manner of writing may seek some other. Valuable as his work is, in his literary character, full of pedantry and conceit, he is most offensive . The dignified servant of the Church, the man with whom everything has succeeded, the ecclesiastic who belongs to a ruling party, is too conscious of a proud position. He feels all his power when he attacks Fulcher of Chartres, as to his doubts with respect to the Holy Lance, and reproaches him with credulity and superstition as to other miracles . It was not in vain that Guibert had studied the science of demonology, that he had himself seen visions, and had everywhere found the doctrine of apparitions and wonders flourishing . Nor was it either doubt or enthusiasm that stirred Guibert to anger against Fulcher. The pride of superior learning, the consciousness of belonging to a dominant orthodox party, made him look down with contempt on his rival .

The close of his work is remarkable, hard as he had worked at the historical form of his book, he could not master his mass of learning. He had come to the end of the ‘ Gesta Francorum/ which was his guide, and he still had on hand a. variety of unused materials, too good to be lost to posterity. He determined to use them at all events, and strung fragment upon fragment, digression upon digression, important and useless matter in utter confusion, until his store of knowledge was exhausted. These stories extend as late as the middle of the reign of Baldwin L, and it is easy to conceive how they vary in value and credibility ; the most ordinary and the most unexpected matters are mixed together ; occasionally we find individual notices on points but little known, which throw new light on familiar subjects. Such are the details as to the government of Robert of Normandy in Laodicea, which Lappenberg has made use of, and which are important as correcting a widely spread statement by Albert of Aix, and the account of the Crusade of the year 1011. Of more special subjects we would also mention the death of Anselm of Ripemont and the end of Baldwin of Hennegau ; the former serves to supply deficiencies in the narratives of Raymond and Radulph, the latter is remarkable for its accurate agreement with the local history of Giselbert of Bergen.

The book was begun in the year 1108 or 1109, and certainly not finished till 1110. Guibert says that he is writing two years after the death of Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims, 70 which occurred on the 17th September, 1106, 71 and in another place he mentions the death of Bohemond, which is known to have taken place in the year 1110.

References:

Levine (R.), The Deeds of God through the Franks : A Translation of Guibert de Nogent's "Gesta Dei per Francos", Boydell & Brewer, 1997.

Rubenstein (J.), Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind, London, 2002.

Peter Tudebode

We know but little about Peter Tudebode life. Besly asserts that he was with the army of Poitou, commanded first by Hugo of Lusignan, and then by Gaston of Bearn. But there is no positive proof of this. Besly was led to this conclusion because Hugo was then Lord of Sivray. The book copies the ‘ Gesta Prancorum/ nearly word for word; many of the interpolations are mere episodes, and of little importance. He gives some details concerning the capture of Jerusalem, which may serve partly as an amplification, partly as a rectification of the ‘Gesta.’

Peter Tudebode's Source:

Besly, in the preface to Tudebod’ s History of Jerusalem,’ positively asserts that the  Gesta Francorum,’ edited by Bongars as a genuine and authentic narrative, and frequently used as such by former writers, was nothing more than a plagiarism of the grossest kind, the anonymous author being entirely indebted to Tudebod for his facts, and thinks it his duty to expose such a wholesale plagiarism. Besly grounds this assertion chiefly upon three passages, — one in which Tudebod speaks of himself, and two wherein he mentions the death of his brothers. In these cases, Tudebod, he says, speaks as an eye-witness, and the anonymous author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum’ has carefully omitted all mention of these occurrences in his narrative. Besly’s views met with general concurrence, and have been followed by all subsequent historians of the Crusades .

I must confess that the reasons urged for this opinion appear to me thoroughly unsatisfactory, and that there is evidence of exactly the reverse. In the case in point, Tudebod narrates an unlucky event which occurred at the siege of Jerusalem ; “the author,” he adds, “Tudebod, a priest of Sivray, was present, and was an eye-witness.” The whole narrative, to which this statement is appended, is omitted in the ‘ Gesta Francorum/ and I can conceive nothing unlikely in the supposition that Tudebod, having got so far in his transcription of the * Gesta/ should have inserted in this place something he had himself witnessed. There is nothing to disprove that he and his brothers were present with the army, but there are many objections to looking upon his narrative as the original source of the "Gesta Francorum".

First of all, the anonymous author invariably speaks in the first person ; Tudebod, sometimes in the first, at other times in the third person.

Further, the anonymous author, as we shall presently see, was a knight. Tudebod was a priest. The first remains true to his character, whereas Tudebod introduces himself sometimes as a warrior, at others as a priest , which can easily be accounted for, if we consider him only as the secondary author.

In both works passages occur which are wanting in the other. Those which Tudebod alone has are anecdotes, traits of individual character, etc., which can be easily inserted or omitted, without interfering with the narrative. But it is not so in the other case. It clearly appears 'that Tudebod, from a mistaken endeavour at compression, has omitted passages essential to the meaning. His narrative of the conquest of Nicaea has faults inexcusable in an eye-witness, but easily understood as the errors of a transcriber. It is impossible not to see that the "Gesta Francorum" is the source from which he draws.

This leads me to the last and most important point, which Besly passes over lightly, but which appears to me conclusive. Tudebod makes use of Raymond’s work, as well as of the "Gesta" He has inserted several passages from the former, word for word, in his compilation. Had the author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum ’ followed Tudebod, it would be impossible that some passage from Raymond should not have slipped into his text. Precisely the one passage which is to be found both in Raymond and in the anonymous author of the * Gesta Erancorum/ makes the matter quite clear. Tudebod follows first the ‘ Gesta/ then Raymond, and then repeats the last sentences from the * Gesta ’ for a second time.

References:

Tudebodus (P.), Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere Trans. with introd. and notes by John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill., Philadelphia, 1974.

James (M. L.), The age of the crusades, New York, 1914.

Murray (A. V.), The Crusades: an encyclopedia, CA : ABC-CLIO, 2006.