A FEfistory of DEEDS DONE BEYOND THE SEA & By WILLIAM Archbishop of Tyre & VOLUME ONE ae Translated and Annotated by EMILY ATWATER BABCOCK and A. C. KREY & NEW YORK : MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1943Copyricur 1943 Covumara Unrversiry Press, New York Foreign’ agent: oxvorn university press, Humphrey Milford, Amen House, London, E.C. 4, England, axv B. I, Building, Nicol * Road, Bombay, India MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICARECORDS OF CIVILIZATION SOURCES AND STUDIES EDITED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Editor AUSTIN P. EVANS, pu.p. Professor of History Advisory Board DINO BIGONGIARI, Da Ponte Professor of Italian ROBERT HERNDON FIFE, u.u.p., Gebhard Professor of the Germanic Languages and Literatures CARLTON J. H. HAYES, zirr.p,, Seth Low Professor of History ROGER SHERMAN LOOMIS, n.uirr., Associate Professor of English ROBERT MORRISON MacIVER, urrr.p., Lieber Professor of Political Philosophy and Sociology DAVID S. MUZZEY, ru.p., Gouverneur Morris Professor Emeritus of History JAMES T. SHOTWELL, 11.0., Bryce Professor Emeritus of the History of International Relations; Director of the Division of Economics and History, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace LYNN THORNDIKE, t.u.p., Professor of History WILLIAM L. WESTERMANN, t.u.0., Professor of Ancient HistoryACKNOWLEDGMENTS Now as we near the end of our labors we become painfully aware of the fact that the task of translating and annotating this work of Arch- bishop William has extented over quite as long a period of time as he required for composing it. As in his case, so also in ours, the work has suffered from many—if not as important—interruptions, with the usual consequence of many broken threads. Several of those on whom we called frequently for help in the early stages of translation have already passed on to their final reward. Our debt was especially great to two of these: to Sister Frances Rita Ryan, CS.J., and to Professor Joseph B. Pike, former head of the Depart- ment of Latin at the University of Minnesota, whose expert knowledge of medieval Latin was so generously placed at our disposal. The late Mr. Willoughby M. Babcock, though immediately concerned with his legal practice, nevertheless gave generously of his time to untangle many a knotty problem of translation. And last, but not least, we wish to express our debt to the late Professor D. C. Munro of Princeton, who did so much to inspire this undertaking. It is quite impossible to render adequate acknowledgment of assist- ance received from those of our colleagues who are primarily interested in medieval studies. The citation of their published works indicates but a fraction of our indebtedness, for they were repeatedly called on for advice and counsel at many meetings of the American Historical Asso- ciation and of the Mediaeval Academy of America as well as on other occasions when opportunity offered. The complete list of those who have contributed in this way would include not only most of the Amer- ican medievalists who have worked on the period of the Crusades, but also many other scholars in related fields. Old friends and fellow “Crusaders,” Professors E. H. Byrne of Columbia University, F. Dun- calf of the University of Texas, E. Joranson of the University of Chicago, and J. L. La Monte of Pennsylvania University, were per- sistently plagued with questions, Part of our work was done during a sabbatical year (1939-1940) which events transformed from a visit at the scene of the Crusades to study at libraries in this country. A special tribute should be paid to theviii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS authorities of Harvard University, whose usual hospitality was put to an extraordinary strain by an abnormal number of migrant scholars. They not only placed all the available space at the disposal of these visitors, but transformed seminar rooms and offices into studies so that all could be accommodated. The faculty was no less generous in hospi- tality, which it would be a pleasure to acknowledge, but we must here confine ourselves to naming those whose special researches were placed at our service. Among these must be included Professors R. P. Blake, S. H. Cross, N.S. B. Gras, C. H. MclIlwain, and E. K. Rand. To Har- vard University we are also indebted for the opportunity of discussing our problems with other visiting professors, among whom are included Professors C. W. David of Bryn Mawr, P. B. Fay of the University of California, W. K. Ferguson of New York University, Gaines Post of the University of Wisconsin, T. C. Van Cleve of Bowdoin College, and C. Webster of the American University of Beirut. Princeton Uni- versity was no less generous in giving access to its magnificent collection of books on the history of the Crusades and the Near East. Its faculty was equally hospitable, and our gratitude is especially due Professors E. C. Armstrong, Gray C. Boyce, P. K. Hitti, and J. R. Strayer. The Universty of North Carolina proved to be an equally kind host, its authorities and faculty no less cordial. There Professors G. R. Coffman, U. T. Holmes, Jr., L. C. McKinney, and J. C. Russell lent us their advice on a number of problems. Thanks to the happy codperation of the libraries of North Carolina and Duke Universities, the resources of the latter were also of assistance, and two of its faculty, Professors E. W. Nelson and Dorothy M. Quynn, were especially helpful. Con- scious of the fact that we have failed to mention all to whom we have become indebted over the long interval of years, we must close the list by expressing to Professors D, Bjork of the University of California at Los Angeles, R. L. Reynolds of the University of Wisconsin, and Lynn White of Stanford University our appreciation for aid and com- fort. : It would, however, be highly ungracious after acknowledging the assistance of other universities to fail to name that of our own, whose authorities have been more than kind in furthering this work. Likewise our colleagues in many fields have borne patiently with us while we drew on their special funds of knowledge. We hope that all of them will feel themselves represented if we single out for mention onlyACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix President Guy Stanton Ford, who encouraged and aided us in this work through all its stages, and Mr. F. K. Walter, librarian, who never failed us when we needed his help and not infrequently anticipated our needs. In like manner we hope that all the members of the Medi- eval Seminar who have given their help on these problems over the period of years will feel themselves included in the special mention of Gertrude Doxey, Beatrice Siedschlag, and Wentworth Morris, all of whom have since become worthy members of the historical profession. In the more immediately punishing tasks of preparing the manu- script for publication our debt is likewise great. We have received from Mr. Willoughby M. Babcock, Jr., and Mrs. A. C. Krey assistance which only bonds of relationship could command. Mrs. Zephyra Shep- herd and Mrs. T. S. Basford both have rendered devoted service be- yond all possibility of remuneration. The sketch maps were prepared for us by Mr. D. A. Melander, a student in architecture. A grant-in-aid generously allotted by the Carnegie Corporation of New York did much to further the final stages of our work and make its completion possible. Finally, our thanks are due to the Columbia University Press, to its vigilant editor, Dr. William Bridgwater, and to Professor Austin P. Evans, the editor of the series in which this work finds a place, who made countless valuable suggestions for improving both translation and notes. We wish also to pay special tribute to the latter’s almost unceasing patience and good humor through the taxing labor of con- scientiously editing this work. In spite of all the help that these scholars and friends have given us, we cannot, of course, hope that the printed result is entirely free of error. Indeed the circumstances under which we have labored, the great lapse of time, the variety of sources from which we have drawn, the immensity of the task as well as our own natural fallibility have rendered it certain that many mistakes must have occurred. For this we can only crave the indulgence of the reader and invoke the prayer with which the good archbishop himself concluded his prologue. E. A. B. A.C. K. Saint Paul, Minn. May, 1943InTRODUCTION ProLocuE Boox I. Boox II. Boox III. Boox IV. Book V. Book VI. Book VII. Boox VIII. Boox IX. Book X. Boox XI. Boox XII. &Boox XII. Book XIV. CONTENTS Volume One Christianity Aroused for the Relief of Jerusalem: Peter the Hermit and Other Bands Begin the March The Armies of the First Crusade Proceed to Con- stantinople Capture of Nicaea and the March through Asia Minor Crusaders Overrun Northern Syria and Begin Siege of Antioch Siege and Capture of Antioch Crusaders Besieged; A Miraculous Victory Dissension among the Crusaders; They March on Jerusalem End of the Pilgrimage: Jerusalem Captured Godfrey, Defender of the Holy Sepulchre: Pre- carious ‘Tenure of Jerusalem and Antioch King Baldwin I: Expansion of the Kingdom End of the Reign of Baldwin I: Further Conquests by Jerusalem and Antioch Baldwin II: Troubles in Northern Syria Volume Two Capture of Tyre; Extension of Royal Influence to Other Latin States Fulk of Anjou as King of Jerusalem: Troubles in Northern Syria 60 116 152 187 225 261 298 339 379 415 460 517 47xii CONTENTS Boox XV. Emperor John Seeks to Extend His Influence over the Latin States 94 Book XVI. Joint Rule of Baldwin III and His Mother Meli- send: The Second Crusade 136 Book XVII. The Capture of Ascalon Offsets the Failure of the Second Crusade 184 Book XVIII. Latin Jerusalem at Its Height under Baldwin IIT: The Lure of Egypt 235 Book XIX. Amaury I: The Struggle for Egypt, First Stage 295 Book XX. The Struggle for Egypt: Alliance with Emperor Manuel 344 Boox XXI. Baldwin IV, the Leper, Forced to Assume Rule of Jerusalem 397 x Book XXII. Conflict of Interests 446 Book XXIII. Could Jerusalem Be Saved by Raymond of Tripoli? 505 ABBREVIATIONS 512 BrB.ioGRaPHy 513 Inpex 523 Maps Routes of the Principal Crusading Expeditions, 1097-1184 a.p. I: 298 The Regions of William of Tyre II: 238INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION Tue crusades still hold a place in the treasured memories of Western people which is approached only by the story of the discovery of the New World. To a long record of adventurous exploration, the crusad- ing chronicles add equally romantic accounts of the pursuit of a pious ideal. True, the ultimate goal of that endeavor, several times so nearly won, was never fully attained. In the effort to reach it, however, much was gained that was never to be lost; for during the period of the crusades the civilization of Europe advanced materially, intellectually, and spiritually to new levels. Furthermore, all of Western Europe was involved in the effort to occupy the Holy Land. If the regions of France contributed most to this endeavor, the other countries did not lag far behind. Britain had its Richard Lionheart, Germany its Freder- ick Barbarossa, Italy its Bohemond and Tancred, the Lowlands their Godfrey of Bouillon, their Baldwins, and Robert of Flanders, and the Scandinavian lands their Sigurd “Jorsalfar.” Nor, during the two centuries of greatest crusading activity, were the regions of Spain, of Ireland, and of Scotland unrepresented. The story of the triumphs and failures, of the heroic episodes and the tragic suffering involved in the crusades was, therefore, of more than casual concern to all the peoples in the Western world. The interest in that story, which began with the very first of the expeditions, as people back home waited anxiously for news of their relatives on the march, has continued ever since; and as the descendants of the participants have spread over the earth, they have carried that interest with them. As a result, there has grown up a vast literature about the crusades ranging from extravagant fiction, song, poetry, and drama to critical history and philosophical interpretation. In this accumulation of literature the history of William, archbishop of Tyre, occupies a position of unique distinction. Its enduring im- portance is well, if whimsically, illustrated by the story that the British historian, H. Pirie-Gordon, chose to write an unsigned account of General Allenby’s capture of Jerusalem in 1917, so that his work might be regarded “as the final anonymous continuation of William of Tyre.” ! This allusion, of course, was intended to refer to the fact 1J, L, La Monte, “Some Problems in Crusading Historiography,” Speculum, XV (1940), 60.4 INTRODUCTION that, in recounting the history of the later crusades, the writers of the thirteenth century were almost uniformly content to add their anony- mous contributions to the story related by William of Tyre. William’s account is generally regarded as the first comprehensive history of the crusades. Before his time, however, the First Crusade had been described not only by participants, whose accounts were necessarily incomplete, but also by men of letters, some of whom had tried to round out the earlier stories. On these primary sources of informa- tion William drew for part of the material in his earlier books or chap- ters. Taking Jerusalem as the center of his theme, he added to these antecedent works an introduction which ran back to the loss of that city by the Christians in 614 and continued on to the verge of its fall before Saladin in 1187. The manner in which he performed this task is well stated in the words of a modern historian: “This great move- ment found its fitting chronicler in William of Tyre, an historian who surpasses nearly all other of his medieval fellows as much in the artistic symmetry of his work as he does in the inherent interest and almost epic completeness of his theme.” * Once this work became known, it was used. by other writers as the base for their own addition of later events. Such additions, covering the two most active centuries of crusading history, were made by various scribes down to the end of the thirteenth century. William’s work, therefore, comprises the main trunk of the literature on the crusades, the roots of which are to be found in ante- cedent writings and the branches in numerous later anonymous addi- tions. HIS LIFE William of Tyre, the author of this work, was archbishop of Tyre from 1175 to 1184 or 1185; and he remained chancellor of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1174 until his death. So much of his career may be established on the basis of objective evidence.? The rest of our knowledge of his life has been built up chiefly from hints and incidental allusions in his record of his own times. This reconstruc- tion—a process not unlike that by which scientists have reassembled 2T, A. Archer, “On the Accession Dates of the Early Kings of Jerusalem,” Eng- lish Historical Review, IV (1889), 89- 3 There are surprisingly few references to William by contemporary writers. Men- tion of him is largely confined to legal documents, nearly all of which are listed by R. Rohricht in his Regesta regni Hierosolymitani.INTRODUCTION 5 the skeletons of prehistoric animals out of scattered bones—has re- sulted from the continuous efforts of a long succession of scholars, be- ginning with the first printed edition of the history in the sixteenth century and continuing down to the present time. The list of those who have contributed to this reconstruction of William’s career in- cludes Pantaleon, Bongars, Pastoret, Michaud, Ranke, Sybel, Jaffe, Riant, Kugler, Mas Latrie, P. Paris, Rey, Prutz, T. A. Archer, Ré richt, Hagenmeyer, W. B. Stevenson, D. C. Munro, Brehier, and La Monte.‘ This cumulative reconstruction has been accomplished through * The authorities here cited are but a few of those who have had occasion to com- ment on William’s career. So far as is known, the first attempt to write a life of William of Tyre is contained in one of the earliest printed editions of the work, H, Pantaleon, Historia belli sacri verissime . . . authore olim Willelmo Tyrio . . . una cum continuatione ... Cum pracfatione Henrici Pantaleonis atque ipsius au- thoris vita. The diplomat historian, J. Bongars, wrote a brief biography of William in his edition of chronicles of the crusades, Gesta Dei per Francos. C. Pastoret, who regarded William as of French origin, wrote an article summarizing the findings of scholars up to his own time for the Histoire littéraire de la France, XIV (1817), 587-96. With the opening of the nineteenth century came a new interest in the his- tory of the crusades, represented by the monumental works of F. Wilken (Geschichte der Kreuzziige nach morgenlindischen und abendlindischen Berichten) and also of J. Michaud. The latter devoted many pages to an appraisal of William as historian in his Bibliothque des croisades, I, 134-68. Ranke submitted the sources of infor- mation for the history of the crusades to the critical scrutiny of his seminar, and one of his most brilliant students, Von Sybel, published, in 1841, a critical study of the literature of the First Crusade. He included an extended treatment of William’s life and the value of his history for our knowledge of the First Crusade (H. von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuxzugs, pp. 108-43). Critical scrutiny was then directed to William’s account of the Second Crusade, where the similarity of his treatment to that of the Gesta Ludovici VII raised some question of borrowing. After considerable debate, William’s originality was confirmed and the evidence summarized by B. Kug- ler, Studien zur Geschichte des saveiten Kreuszugs, pp. 21-343 also his Analecten sur Geschichte des saveiten Kreuzeugs. It was unfortunate that Paulin Paris made little or no use of these critical studies, for the authority of his name was to lead many students of medieval literature to ignore them likewise. Count Riant, how- ever, did not overlook the critical work of contemporary scholars but contributed to it significantly in his wide and varied studies on the crusades, some of which will be cited in the footnotes. It remained for H. Prutz to undertake a comprehensive and critical study of William and his work. This appeared in his “Studien iiber Wilhelm von Tyrus,” Newes Archiv der Gesellschaft fiir dliere deutsche Geschichts- unde, VIIL (1882), 93-132, and was summarized in his Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzziige, pp. 458-69. Since those studies appeared, further contributions to our knowledge of William have been of a supplementary nature, often as an incidental part of other research. In his article, pp. 91-105 (see note 2), T. A. Archer sought to disentangle the chronological confusion of William’s list of kings. This problem received further attention from W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East, pp. 361-71. R. Réhricht added considerably to the knowledge of William’s work as chancellor in his monumental Regesta, Important contributions likewise resulted from H. Hagenmeyer’s editions of chronicles of the First Crusade, which are cited else- where. Additions, too, were made by L, Bréhier in L’Eglise et POrient and by J. L.6 INTRODUCTION venturesome hypotheses and conjectures, many of which have proven mistaken, while others have served as brilliant guides to further ad- vance. Indeed, erroneous conjectures regarding William’s career began to appear long before critical scholarship applied itself to the subject. Unfortunately these early mistakes, as well as the false clues entertained at times by modern scholars, have likewise become a permanent part of the literature on the crusades, so that the unwary reader is easily be- guiled into accepting error along with fact. This danger, which is illustrated in Grousset’s recent three-volume history of the crusades, is so great that it seems essential to present here a summary of our present authentic knowledge of Williams career.® William was a native of the kingdom of Jerusalem, where he was born about the year 1130, perhaps in Jerusalem itself.° Probably both of his parents were from the West. Who they were, whence they came to Jerusalem, or when—none of these facts has been determined. Various conjectures have been offered as to the place of their origin, which has been variantly cited as England, Germany, France, and Italy. William, who has so much to say about the genealogy of others, is singularly reticent about his own, maintaining throughout all his La Monte in his Feudal Monarchy. While these scholars have made the more sub- stantial contributions since Prutz published his “Studien,” nearly every modern scholar who worked on twelfth-century crusading history has helped to fortify our knowl- edge of William’s life and works. An effort to summarize our present knowledge of the subject appears in the article by A. C. Krey, “The Making of an Historian in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, XVI (1941), 149-66. Additional bibliography may be ob- tained from the standard works of reference on medieval literature and history: M, Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters; G. Grober, Grundriss der romanischen Philologie; U. Chevalier, Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen age: Bio-bibliographie; A. Potthast, Bibliotheca historica medii avi; A. Molinier, Les Sources de histoire de France des origines aux guerres @’ltalie, Vol. IL. Paradoxically enough, the brief notices by Gréber and Manitius are more accurate than those of Potthast or Molinier. ®R. Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jérusalem, Il, i-ii, 757. Errors appear throughout the first two volumes in which he has followed chiefly the old French translation of William’s work as edited by P. Paris. Many of these and some of her own errors appear in the edition of Caxton’s Godefroy de Boloyne by Mary Noyes Colvin. More unfortunate is the fact that both Potthast and Molinier, whose bibliographical notes are the standard reference of historians, have perpetuated several serious errors. Thus Hagenmeyer, or probably some assistant, in his last important work (H. Hagenmeyer, ed., Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hiero- solymitana, p. 85), was betrayed by Potthast into the use of 1190 ‘as the date of William’s death, though Prutz had thoroughly convinced him earlier that it was an error (H. Hagenmeyer, ed. Galterii Cancellarii bella Antiochena, p. 47). ® No evidence has yet appeared to challenge these conclusions of Prutz. J. B. Bury gives 1127 as the date of William’s birth, in his edition of Gibbon (E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, VI, 527).INTRODUCTION 7 work a silence so complete as to remain impenetrable to the present time. The claims of the first two regions, however, may be readily dis- missed. Those for England doubtless arose from a hasty confusion of the historian with the first William, archbishop of Tyre, who was an Englishman. Though our William has much to say of English participants in crusading affairs, his attitude is scarcely that of a per- son of English antecedents. He esteems Robert of Normandy, scorns Henry I, praises Stephen, and denounces Queen Eleanor. He dislikes Hadrian, the English pope, and ascribes the elevation of Ralph as bishop of Bethlehem to the fact that he was a fellow countryman of this pope. The claims for Germany as the home of his ancestors are even less convincing. His statements about German affairs are rela- tively few and the proportion of inaccuracies greater than for any other important region. In addition, he fails to mention a number of important German nobles who were in the Holy Land during his own lifetime.” On the other hand, his references to France and to the regions of France are most extensive and usually very accurate. It has, therefore, often been assumed that William was himself of French origin. This view was held by Prutz, whose study of William of Tyre is still the most thorough ever attempted. There are grounds, however, for ques- tioning this conclusion also. For example, William possesses an extraor- dinarily accurate knowledge of Italy, and, in referring to the history of Sicily, he includes a number of details which are inessential to his main story. Furthermore, he names Tancred as a hero almost equal to Godfrey, and not only lists France as “ultramontane,” but identifies Henry of Champagne as, not from Campania in Italy, but from Cam- pania “across the mountains.” Such references would scarcely be ex- pected of any Frenchman, or even of any son of French parents. In addition, there are other facts of his life, to be discussed later, which strengthen this hesitancy and incline one to suspect Italian, or Italian- Norman, origin. The status and occupation of his father have not been determined. Pastoret, basing his statement upon a chronicle now lost, held that T Notably Duke Henry the Lion (see E. Joranson, “The Pilgrimage of Henry the Lion” Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson). William, moreover, frankly confesses his ignorance of the names of many of the German leaders of the Second Crusade,8 INTRODUCTION William was related to most of the leading noble families of the king- dom of Jerusalem.® This statement coupled with William’s own com- plete silence regarding his forebears might suggest that he had good reason for concealing his genealogy. Against this inference, however, is the fact that William is known to have had a brother, Ralph, who is mentioned in a charter of the year 1175 as a witness to a transfer of property at Jerusalem. Inasmuch as Ralph’s name is placed low in the list of witnesses and carries no other designation than his relation- ship to the archbishop, it has been assumed that the father was neither of the noble class nor of military calling. In that event, he may very well have been a merchant or a notary, both of which occupations were well represented in the Holy Land at the time. As a rule such persons, if from the West, were of Italian origin.’° William’s own unfamiliarity with military matters, together with his sympathetic interest in the activities of merchants, imparts a certain degree of support to this supposition. Furthermore, the permanent Latin colony at Jerusalem at the time was so small that even ordinary merchants and especially notaries were on friendly terms with the nobles of the court. William’s boyhood, then, was spent in Palestine, probably most of it in Jerusalem. Such early recollections as are incidentally recorded in his history all center there. His work reveals an intimate knowledge of the streets and the buildings of that city.12 Furthermore, his extraor- dinary command of languages could best have been acquired by a youth living in the East. This familiarity included knowledge of French, the language of the court, of Arabic, which shared with French the field of commerce, and of Greek, which was likewise extensively used in the East. In addition, he appears to have had at least a smatter- ing of other Eastern tongues—of Hebrew and even of Persian. Latin 8 See note 4. He cites a history by one “Etienne de Lusignan,” which has since been lost. OR. Reg., no. 531. 1° The activities of the Italian merchants, to which William himself devotes much attention, have been treated quite fully by recent historians. In addition to the great pioneer work of W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen age, see also H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, and the more recent publications of E. H. Byrne, especially “Genoese Trade with Syria in the Twelfth Century,” Ameri- can Historical Review, XXV (1919-20), 191-219, dealing with various aspects of the Genoese maritime empire. 11 William’s knowledge of the city of Jerusalem was the subject of a study by F. Lundgreen, “Das Jerusalem des Wilhelm von Tyrus und die Gegenwart,” Neue hirch- licher Zeitschrift, XX (1909), 973-92.INTRODUCTION 9 was, of course, the language of the Church and of the schools, and William’s exceptional command of it implies that he must have en- joyed excellent training. This circumstance arouses an interesting speculation as to whether he may not have received instruction along with Prince Baldwin, who was almost exactly his own age. To support this conjecture, it is possible to cite William’s curious error regarding Baldwin’s father, King Fulk, whom he indicates as about twenty years older than he actually was—a mistaken impression which might quite easily have persisted from his childhood. It is probable that William decided early upon a career in the Church. Almost no one mentioned by him is accorded more genuine affection and respect than is Peter of Barcelona, who was prior of the canons of the Holy Sepulchre from 1130 to 1158, a period corresponding to the first twenty-eight years of William’s life. The cathedral chapter over which Peter presided made definite provision for the training of priests. It would be no rash assumption, therefore, especially in view of William’s later scholarship, to infer that he displayed an early apti- tude for learning which must have commended him to the attention of his teachers. Probably it was this very fact that first brought William to Peter’s notice and led to an intimate friendship which was to mean much to the lad. Though in the military, frontier state of Jerusalem there were hardly enough children to justify the development of im- portant schools, there were few places in the West where more scholars were gathered.** True, most of these were pilgrims who had come only to visit the shrines of the Holy Land and intended soon to depart. Since, however, some of the older visitors planned to end their days there, the monasteries contained a number of men with excellent pretensions to scholarship. Among them Geoffrey, abbot of the Temple of the Lord, was especially marked for his expert knowledge of Greek. An able, eager youth like William must, therefore, have had good opportunity to improve his learning by associating with such men, whether on journeys to shrines or in the monasteries and church es- tablishments. Doubtless Peter of Barcelona guided the education of 12-The Holy Land as a point of contact between scholars of the West and East in the twelfth century has scarcely received the attention that it deserves. D. C. Munro touched upon it in a number of his writings (see especially his “Christian and Infidel in the Holy Land,” Essays on the Crusades), and C. H. Haskins treated one im- portant aspect of the subject in his Renaissance of the Tavelfth Century, chap. ix. A comprehensive treatment of the topic, however, is still to be made.10 INTRODUCTION his young favorite. It is a singular fact that William has little to say of military events that occurred during his late teens and early twenties. Even such a major event as the siege and capture of Ascalon in 1153 interested him less in its military aspects than because of the deter- mined stand of Patriarch Fulcher in demanding the continuance of the siege after the king had despaired of taking the city. This patri- arch, who had held the office since William’s sixteenth year, was an- other churchman who commanded the young man’s unqualified respect and affection. All indications, then, seem to point to William’s early decision to embark upon an ecclesiastical career and to imply that he pursued his studies for the priesthood without interruption. Whether he received his ordination at the hands of Patriarch Fulcher, who lived to William’s twenty-eighth year, or at the hands of Peter of Barcelona, who became archbishop of Tyre when William was eighteen, is not known. Certainly his friendship with both men con- tinued until their deaths, his admiration and affection for both of them to his own. Sooner or later William became a member of the archbishop’s official family at Tyre; and almost certainly he was the canon of Tyre referred to in a document of 1161 and also in a deed of gift by Archbishop Peter in the year 163.1% Sometime before 1163, William had gone “across the sea” to con- tinue his studies, This period of his education he had intended to describe in his history, but only the caption of that chapter has been preserved. Whether it was lost or, more probably, never written still remains a mystery. As it is, his only reference to his education is in- cluded in an incidental statement in connection with the separation of 18 The first of these documents (R. Reg., no. 370) has been dated 1161 without more definite indication of day and month; the other (R. Reg., no. 385) in 1163, likewise indefinitely, though Rébricht has placed it toward the end of the year. Both documents involve an adjustment of property between Archbishop Peter and the canons of the Holy Sepulchre. A Willelmus, canonicus . . . ecclesiae Tyrensis is a signator of both. In the second, another William who was archdeacon of Tyre at the time is also listed, Réhricht has accidentally confused this William, who was shortly made bishop of Acre, with the historian, who did not become archdeacon of ‘Tyre until 1167. It is possible for Canon William to have left Tyre with the pil- grims returning to Europe after Easter, 1161, and to have come back with the fall sailing from Italy in 1163. This would have permitted him two full academic years in the schools of Italy, quite enough for the “postgraduate” study of law, and still enabled him to sign both documents, Such a conjecture receives a certain degree of confirmation from the paucity and vagueness of his recollection of events in the Holy Land from 1161 to 1163. The events before 1161 as well as those for 1164 and 1165 are relatively fully and accurately reported.INTRODUCTION 1 Amaury from his wife, Agnes, before his coronation in 1163. William excuses his ignorance of this event at the time because he “was not yet returned from across the sea, where he was engaged in the study of the liberal arts in the schools.” In translating this passage, a French chronicler of the thirteenth century, when Paris and the liberal arts were almost synonymous, assumed that any such allusion referred naturally to France and so translated the reference—an assumption which has been accepted almost without question by modern scholars.* At the time indicated, however, William was already thirty-three years old, much too old to be concerned with the ordinary liberal arts. The passage, therefore, must refer to some special study, such as law, which at this period was only just beginning to be differentiated from the liberal arts and was still frequently included under that term.1® Since such knowledge was more and more being required of those responsible for the operation of the increased business of the Church, it was not uncommon for archbishops to send members of their establishments, usually archdeacons, to acquire this new training abroad. Such study, however, was done in Italy, not in Paris. It is, therefore, quite probable that Peter of Barcelona, still guiding the education of his protégé, had sent William from Tyre, perhaps in the interval between the dates of the two documents cited above, to equip himself for carrying on the legal business of the diocese. Certainly William was thus en- gaged when King Amaury ascended the throne, and it is possible that the dates of the two documents mentioned mark his absence from the kingdom quite closely. At any rate, by the fall of 1163 he seems to have been back at Tyre prepared to look after the legal business of the diocese. Little is known of his life during the next four years. His friend and patron, Archbishop Peter, soon died, and Frederick, who suc- ceeded him as archbishop of Tyre, was a very different type of man. He was a noble “according to the flesh” and much more interested in military affairs than was, according to William, proper for a church- man. Ultimately there was to be a quarrel between the two. For the time being, however, it may be assumed that William devoted himself 14 See French translation included with Latin text in Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens occidentaux, I, 1004. 18H, Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, I, 110, note 2. The evidence on’ William’s probable study of law in Italy is assembled by Krey, “The Making of an Historian in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, XVI (1941), 149-66.12 INTRODUCTION to the routine duties of his office. Whether these included all the legal business as marked out for him by Archbishop Peter or involved less specialized activities is not determined. It seems safe to assume that, with his legal training, he was naturally intent upon improving his chances of promotion in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. His friends and patrons, Archbishop Peter and Patriarch Fulcher, doubtless served as the models whom he would emulate. Under favorable circumstances he, too, might become an archbishop and, in his dreams, even a patri- arch. The year 1167 was to prove unusually fateful in his career. Through- out his life, the prospects of the kingdom of Jerusalem had been steadily improving; its boundaries were being extended, the advances insured by the erection of fortresses, and the gaps in its defenses secured in similar fashion. Ascalon, the last seaport in Muslim hands, had been captured and securely fortified against recapture. Indeed, the affairs of the kingdom appeared so prosperous that the king felt justified in embarking upon new adventures in Egypt, whither, just before his death, Baldwin III had already ventured. Amaury, Baldwin’s brother, who was now king, had followed that lead by a series of expeditions of which the one in 1167 had been the most successful. Acting as the ally of the Egyptians against Saljuq invaders, he had penetrated well up the Nile. His men had been received in the sacred city of Cairo, and, finally, his army had succeeded in capturing the commercial metropolis of Alexandria from Saladin, who was just then entering upon his career. Amaury was dazzled by so much success. Earlier, anticipating the need of help in the conquest of Egypt, he had negotiated a marriage alliance with a Greek princess of Constantinople. Upon his return from the successful Egyptian campaign, this princess, Maria, with her escort, awaited him at Tyre, where their marriage was celebrated on August 28, 1167. The conquest of Egypt now seemed well assured. An eager student of history, Amaury foresaw his achievement as second only to the capture of Jerusalem, and he was determined to find a proper historian to record that triumph. This thought must have been in his mind as he rode back from Egypt; and the matter appears to have been settled when, three days after his marriage, he not only arranged to have Canon William made archdeacon of the church at Tyre, but also allotted to him an income perhaps somewhat larger than was customary in that office.INTRODUCTION 13 Just how Amaury’s attention was attracted to William as the person best qualified for the task of writing this history, whether by impulse or by careful inquiry, is nowhere stated. Doubtless William had already displayed some of those qualities which were so well revealed in his final work, Certainly he was more highly educated than most of his colleagues; his knowledge of languages was probably superior, and his skill in speech and writing correspondingly marked. However, he had no training as an historian, nor, so far as is known, was he engaged in work of that nature. Furthermore, William appears not to have been very eager to undertake such an assignment, perhaps regarding it as a distraction from the career that he had mapped out. In fact, it required a definite assurance of Amaury’s favor to overcome his re- luctance; and the promotion to the office of archdeacon “at the request and in the presence of the king” was the first evidence of such favor. Had Amaury’s judgment been as wise in his other enterprises as in his selection of an historian, he would doubtless have been regarded as the greatest king of Jerusalem. Once committed to this task, William appears to have entered upon it with real enthusiasm and energy. He interviewed the king and his lieutenants about the recent Egyptian campaign with a thoroughness which must have been gratifying to his royal patron. Amaury’s regard for his historian grew with their acquaintance—so much so that when the details of the treaty for Greek codperation in the conquest of Egypt had been worked out, he sent William to Constantinople to obtain the emperor’s signature. This mission probably afforded Wil- liam his first glimpse of that great metropolis and his first acquaintance with Emperor Manuel, whom he found in camp some distance away in the Balkan regions. After some months, he returned with the treaty duly signed, only to find that Amaury, overpersuaded that he could achieve the conquest of Egypt alone, had already departed, ten days before, on that venture. Perhaps it was fortunate that William did not see the king again for more than a year, since his opinion of the move, which is recorded in this history, could not have been flattering. Be- fore Amaury returned, however, William was forced to go to Rome to answer charges which his archbishop, Frederick, had there made against him. These charges, which doubtless concerned the income that Amaury had insisted upon for his historian, William evidently answered to the satisfaction of the papal court. Incidentally he im-14 INTRODUCTION proved his knowledge of the curia. The affair, however, necessitated his absence from the kingdom through most of the year 1169, and he did not again see the king until the latter’s return from another Egyp- tian expedition after Christmas, 1169. When Amaury and William at last met, the latter resumed his his- torical labors by inquiring diligently about the two recent campaigns; but the outcome of the venture had spared William the necessity of expressing his condemnation of the king’s course. Their friendship was thus resumed without friction. Indeed Amaury’s admiration for his historian was so greatly increased that he now asked him to under- take the care of his son’s education. This son, Baldwin, offspring of Amaury’s earlier marriage with Agnes de Courtenay, had been legiti- mized in 1163 when Agnes was divorced on grounds of consanguinity. Baldwin was nine years old and heir to the throne when, at the beginning of 1170, Amaury entrusted him to William’s care—an as- signment which William undertook with even more reluctance than he had felt in assuming his historical tasks. The latter duty, while add- ing little to his ecclesiastical stature, did permit him to continue his calling and enabled him to keep in close touch with men and affairs. This new duty, however, threatened to confine him closely to the person of the young prince for an indefinite number of years, thus removing him from the main flow of ecclesiastical promotions. The king’s re- peated urging, together with his very positive assurance of further royal favors, finally prevailed; and in 1170 William undertook the duties of tutor to the young prince. As events turned out, he was thus engaged for the next four years. Having agreed, finally, to accept this assignment, William dis- charged it conscientiously, if not with enthusiasm. The prince had several companions—doubtless sons of nobles, though their names are nowhere stated—who shared some of his tutor’s attention. In carrying out his commission William did not confine his instruction to letters; for, as he says, he was equally concerned about the moral and physical welfare of his charge. He speaks with pride of young Baldwin’s skill in horsemanship; and other allusions justify the conjecture that William not infrequently accompanied these lads on rides through the country- side of Tyre. It was from the playground that William first learned that the prince was afflicted with a malady which was ultimately to be recognized as leprosy. This observation he at once, of course, reportedINTRODUCTION 15 to the king; and then began a series of vain remedial treatments which were to continue up to the time of Baldwin’s death. Under these circum- stances, it was perhaps natural that the tutor should have developed a deep affection for his pupil, whose progress in all fields of instruction he records with pardonable approval. This attachment was returned with respect and admiration. These new duties confined William closely, but they did not engross either all his thought or all his time. King Amaury visited Tyre as often as possible and, as a rule, saw much of William on these occasions. Their conversation turned frequently to the proposed history; and probably in their discussion of a proper background, or introduction, to the Gesta Amalrici they discovered the lack of any previous chronicle. There proved, indeed, to be no systematic account of any of the reigns in Jerusalem since Fulcher of Chartres had stopped writing, about 1127.1° There were a number of accounts of the earlier period, but by 1170 these chronicles must have appeared crude and inadequate. At all events, Amaury appears to have decided that an adequate history of the kingdom of Jerusalem from its very beginning ought to be written. William concurred in this opinion and agreed to undertake the composition of such a work. By common consent, then, the Gesta Amalrici was laid aside, except for such notes as William might collect on current affairs, with the understanding that the earlier years of Amaury’s reign were to be written when the account of the previous reigns had arrived at that point. For the time being, therefore, William was to work upon the Gesta regum, beginning with the council of Cler- mont in 1095 or, rather, with the supposed pilgrimage of Peter the Hermit in 1094. Almost at once William began collecting all available written sources as well as a large assortment of oral tradition. He was, therefore, soon engaged in the actual composition of his work; and before long the king, on his visits to Tyre, was able to read extended installments, or, as he preferred, to listen to their reading. So rapid was William’s progress, despite his tutorial cares, that Amaury was encouraged to 26 The lack of a chronicle after Fulcher of Chartres had been noticed in the reign of Baldwin III. Whether at the instigation of this king or upon his own initiative, an anonymous author then undertook to write a history which should carry the narrative to Baldwin’s reign. The author began by abbreviating Fulcher’s account as the beginning of his own. He had scarcely finished this when he stopped writing. His work has been preserved under the title Balduini III historia Nicaena vel An- tiochena necnon Jerosolymitana in R.H.C.Oc., Vy 133-85. See also H.F., pp. 83-84.16 INTRODUCTION press upon him still another task. Not content with an introduction that went back to 1094, the king was curious to know more about the Muslim history that lay behind the coming of the Latins. The splendor of that civilization, of which he had seen evidence in Egypt, doubtless whetted his curiosity. He therefore urged William also to write a history of the princes of the Orient. To facilitate this undertaking, he himself supplied William with certain Arabic accounts from which it might be compiled. These books were probably originally from the private library of Usamah which Baldwin III had confiscated in a shipwreck near Acre in 1154.7 Only one of them, that written by Said ibn Batrik, is mentioned by William. Since, however, this carried the story only to a.p. 937, he must have used others as well. The work of Said, or Seith, or Eutychius, as he was variously designated, was so satisfactory that, for this earlier period of oriental history, William could content himself with translating it. He was thus able to make rather rapid progress on the Gesta orientalium principum as well as on the Gesta regum, Whenever King Amaury visited Tyre thereafter, he must have found himself well satisfied with the progress of both works. Meanwhile, William was not neglecting his duties as tutor. Had such conditions continued, William’s histories might well have been brought up to date in another four years. At least a full half of the Gesta regum was composed during this time, and there is reason to believe that a corresponding portion of the Gesta orientalium prin- cipum was likewise written. Unfortunately an unkind fate intervened in the form of an illness from which King Amaury died at the early age of thirty-eight. William blamed the king’s premature death on the incompetence of the physicians, but this was only another way of confessing his own deep sorrow at the event. It meant not only the loss of a great personal friend. Scarcely less tragic was the thought that now his afflicted, and only partially educated, pupil, who was barely thirteen years of age, must assume the duties of kingship. His own career, too, was seriously affected. No sooner was the young king crowned than both the king and the kingdom were taken in charge by Milon de Plancy, whom William detested as the worst of the late king’s advisers. There is some reason to believe that William decided to close his his- torical labors at this time. After all, he had undertaken them reluctantly 1 See P. K. Hitti, dn Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades, Memoirs of Usamah ibn-Mungidh, p. 61.INTRODUCTION 7 at the king’s request and with the assurance of the king’s favor, neither of which any longer held. If he was to regain his place in the procession of ecclesiastical promotion, he saw that he must apply himself to those activities from which the more academic pursuits of writing history and teaching the young prince had so long distracted him. We may, therefore, picture him as devoting the next few months after the funeral of Amaury and the coronation of Baldwin IV to the completion of his historical writings up to the point which he had then reached.'$ If such, indeed, was his purpose and those his activities, they were to be as suddenly interrupted as they had been undertaken, for in the fall of 1174 Milon de Plancy was murdered on the streets of Acre. Shortly thereafter Raymond III of Tripoli was chosen regent of the kingdom until the king should reach the legal age of fifteen. This turn of affairs marked a sharp change in the prospects of both the king- dom and William. The latter was now called upon to fill the vacant post of chancellor of the kingdom, and this office brought him again into close touch with his former pupil. The previous chancellor had occupied the bishopric of Bethlehem, an office likewise still vacant, as was the archbishopric of Tyre. Both offices were much sought and were, at the moment, so hotly contested that the regent did not feel ready to use his influence in obtaining either as the proper dignity for the new chancellor. William’s own preference was doubtless for the latter ap- pointment. Momentarily, however, his dignity and income were en- hanced by assigning to him the archidiaconate of Nazareth, in addition to that of Tyre, which he already held. The difficulties of ecclesiastical politics were not fully unravelled for more than six months—not until June 6, 1175, when William was at last confirmed as archbishop of Tyre. Thus he whom the death of the king and the regency of Milon de Plancy appeared to have relegated to the obscurity of a minor ec- clesiastic was, within less than a year, occupying 2 position of great dignity and influence in the affairs of both state and church. For the next year and a half William probably spent most of his time at court, continuing, if in somewhat less formal fashion, his inter- rupted instruction of the young king. During this time, no doubt, he himself was learning from Raymond of Tripoli and others the more 18 See Prologue, note 10. William’s repeated allusion to 570 years as the period covered in his Gesta orientalium principum is obviously according to Muslim reckon- ing. The year 570 A.H. was the year of Amaury’s death and betrays William’s origi- nal intention of stopping the work at that point, A.D. 1174.18 INTRODUCTION intimate details of the conduct of public affairs. Fortunately, his long and close association with Amaury had given him some insight into the practical problems of statecraft. All that learning and more he required in 1176 when, Baldwin IV having attained his fifteenth birth- day and Raymond having automatically retired from the regency, he found himself chief adviser to the king. Presumably, the major problems of state had been solved before Raymond’s retirement. Royal succession had been safeguarded by the marriage of Baldwin’s older sister, Sibylla, to William of Montferrat, a close relative of both the French and the German royal families. The alliance with Constantinople as well as the disorder aroused in the surrounding Muslim states on the death of Nureddin had excited good hope of success in the Egyptian venture. The other Latin states did not require any emergency aid. William’s responsibilities as chief adviser, therefore, promised to consist chiefly in the continued instruc- tion of his royal pupil. If such was his conception of his role, his expectations were to be rudely shattered within a year by the appearance of a number of un- expected emergencies. William of Montferrat died in June, 1177, leaving his young wife pregnant. An embassy arrived from Constanti- nople to press the execution of the alliance for the conquest of Egypt, but the king was taken seriously ill. At this juncture Count Philip of Flanders also arrived with a considerable military force from the West. The presence of this army aroused the cupidity of the other Latin states, each of which had plans for the expansion of its frontiers. The probability that the king was in no condition to make immediate use of Philip’s army led them to exert every means in their power to turn it and him to their own ends. To add further to the confusion, one of Philip’s lieutenants, the advocate of Bethune, saw in the situa- tion an opportunity to advance his own family interests. He therefore prevailed upon Philip to urge the marriage of the advocate’s sons to the sister and the younger half sister of the king. This suggestion was both unexpected and unwelcome to the barons of Jerusalem, be- cause the proposed marriages did not promise to add power, prestige, or even influence to the kingdom. Following all these complications, it became William’s unfortunate duty to act as intermediary between the sick king, the royal council, Philip, and the Greek envoys. The diplomatic problems created by the impact of so many conflict-INTRODUCTION 19 ing aims and purposes might well have taxed the resources of one far more highly skilled in statecraft than William. To begin with, he sought to execute the Greek treaty, Philip to serve as leader of the military forces. At the same time, he invoked both canon and customary law against any proposals for the marriage of the king’s sister until a year should have elapsed since the death of Sibylla’s husband. This decision created an impasse with Philip, which the latter finally resolved by accepting the invitation to help the other Latin states, both Tripoli and Antioch. Some of the forces of the kingdom accompanied Philip on this campaign; and to add to William’s discomfiture, Saladin chose this moment, while the crusading army was engaged in the siege of Harim in northern Syria, to make a grand invasion of the kingdom of Jeru- salem. In this crisis William accompanied the king, who, though sufhi- ciently recovered to assume the command of such forces as remained in the kingdom, probably handed over the active direction of the army to Renaud de Chatillon. It was a brilliant campaign, and, though Sala- din’s larger force had swept a wide countryside virtually up to the walls of Jerusalem itself, the small royal army was able to inflict a disastrous defeat upon him. Under the circumstances William may well be par- doned for regarding the victory as a miracle and, in view of the ulti- mate failure of the larger army under Philip to take Harim, as a judg- ment of the Lord regarding the righteousness of their respective un- dertakings. For fear that Philip, on his return, might seek to prejudice the West against the court of Jerusalem, William hastened to send his story of these events to the chief rulers in that region. Fortunately, the leading chroniclers of England and Normandy accepted both his story of the events and the evidence of the Lord’s judgment. William’s sense of relief after the successful campaign against Sala- din and the departure of Count Philip, whose various efforts had come to nothing, continued with the more favorable conditions of the follow- ing year. The king’s health was improved. Saladin’s defeat had been too disastrous to permit of any further immediate threat. Instead, the king was able to extend and fortify his eastern border. William’s thoughts could, therefore, safely turn to ecclesiastical affairs. Circumstances were now so shaping themselves as to encourage his 2® Robert of Torigni, the so-called chronicle of Benedict of Peterborough, William of Newburgh, and Ralph of Diceto all have more or less extended accounts of the events of 1177 in the spirit of William’s interpretation.