Download PDF | (Medieval Mediterranean) Philip D. Handyside - The Old French William of Tyre-Brill Academic Publishers (2015).
291 Pages
Acknowledgements
I owe much to my supervisor, Peter Edbury, for his constant support and guidance throughout both the research and writing processes. I am also grateful to Peter for allowing me to use his microfilm collection of the Eracles manuscripts, without which this research could not have been completed. His advice has been invaluable and prevented me from getting lost too many times.
I am indebted to Massimiliano Gaggero for constant aid with the complexities of both Latin and Old French as well as deciphering the palaeography of the manuscripts, though any mistakes are my own. He was also very patient with me on my first attempts to produce editions of the sample chapters so that I have, hopefully, presented them in a form that is intelligible to the reader.
I would also like to thank Dirk Krausmuller for aiding me with my Latin and German, Susan Edgington for assistance with translating Latin, and Carol Sweetenham for guidance in translating Old French. In addition, I thank Jaroslav Folda, Theodore Evergates, and Piers Mitchell for their advice and aid. Any mistakes are, of course, my own.
I am also grateful to the staff at the Bibliothéque national de France for allowing me to take photographs of F50—Paris, BnF, fr. 9086. This particular manuscript was unable to be reproduced as a microfilm, and the access that I was granted allowed me to ensure that the research for this project was completed.
Finally, I wish to thank my wife Tiffany for her constant support.
Introduction
Historians of the crusades and the Latin East have long valued Archbishop William of Tyre’s renowned history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, generally known as the Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum.1 William held important ecclesiastical and administrative positions in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, giving him access to key individuals in this period of the Latin East and to the official records of the kingdom that made his history so informative. As William is our main source for the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth century any historian studying this subject has necessarily used William's work. However, despite its popularity with modern historians the Latin text of the Historia does not seem to have been particularly successful. It was only through an Old French translation that William’s work reached a wide audience in medieval Europe.
While the Old French translation generally follows William’s narrative, it contains many significant alterations to the text, which include additional material and on occasion a rather different view of the history of the Latin East from that provided by William. On the whole, historians have overlooked these differences. The purpose of this study will be to remedy this oversight and improve our understanding of the reception of William’s Historia. In the first part we shall explore and analyse key differences between the texts in order to identify the translator and his motivations. The second part will discuss the manuscript development of the Old French text and draw attention to some later readings that have crept into the current printed editions and have misled modern scholars.
The title, Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, is not William's own; it only appears in two of the Latin manuscripts that form a subgroup removed from the rest of the stemma. It would seem to have been added to the text in the West, since the phrasing implies a Western perspective on the Latin East.2 Since whatever title William himself used does not appear to have survived, that of these manuscripts has come to be commonly accepted. P.W. Edbury and J.G. Rowe suggested Historia Ierosolymitana as being a more appropriate title, but the former title continues to hold sway.’ I shall henceforth refer to the Latin text as the Historia as a convenient shorthand.
What we know about William primarily comes from his work. While he made a few references to himself in the course of his Historia at points in which he was personally involved in the narrative, the most detailed discussion of his life is found in the autobiographical chapter, Book 19.12 in the Latin text. The presumed existence of this chapter was known to earlier historians, due to it being included in the chapter headings of several manuscripts, although the chapter itself had been lacking. However, a manuscript including this chapter was discovered by R.B.C. Huygens and brought to scholarly attention in 1962.5 As a result, we know something of William's early life and career, although details are missing and many questions remain unanswered. He tells us that he was born in Jerusalem and was deeply attached to his patria. Most of the chapter relates to the education that he had received during the almost twenty years he spent in the West. He notes that he returned from his studies in 1165, which would suggest that he left the Holy Land in 1146, and, in turn, places his birth around u30.” With regard to his education, he relates that he spent the time ‘in paupertate voluntaria’ [in willing poverty], studying the liberal arts, theology, canon law, and civil law under various masters in France and Italy. Despite his claims of being a poor, dedicated student, Edbury and Rowe have questioned how he was able to support himself during his two decades in the West and whether he received financial help from the East.? Whatever these sources of funding may have been, William received a prebend at Acre upon his return to the Kingdom of Jerusalem and was soon receiving favours from King Amaury.!°
Following his return to the East, William was able to cultivate royal favour into a successful ecclesiastical career. In 167 he was made archdeacon of Tyre, ‘presente et rogante domino rege et aliis multis honestis viris™ [in the presence and at the request of the lord king and many other honest men]. He then served King Amaury as an envoy to the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos in 168 in preparation for a proposed collaborative attack upon Egypt.!2 Amaury continued to show favour towards William, and, in 1170, made him tutor to his son Baldwin, the future King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem.!° It was as tutor to Baldwin that, as William relates, he was the first to notice the symptoms of what later was recognized as leprosy.* Despite his royal patronage, he did encounter difficulties in his career. He relates that he had returned to the West in 1169 in order to avoid the ‘unmerited anger’ of Frederick, the archbishop of Tyre.5 Whether William was seeking to counter accusations being made against him or whether he was unwilling to take some action without the archbishop's permission is uncertain.!6 However, whatever the cause of this journey to Rome, it did not hinder his career significantly.
Following Baldwin IV’s coronation in 1174, the kingdom suffered divisions among the ruling elite. William showed a clear preference for the faction centred on Maria Comnena, King Amaury’s widow, and Raymond of Tripoli rather than on the group gathered around Agnes de Courtenay, the mother of Baldwin IV, and Renaud de Chatillon.” William was to benefit from his association with Raymond when he was named chancellor of the kingdom later that year!® and again in 1175 when he was elected archbishop of Tyre.! These offices gave William a prominent position in both the ecclesiastical and secular hierarchies in the kingdom. His access to the most significant figures of the period as well as to the official records is a major reason why many historians who use the Historia view him as being particularly well-informed and impartial.?° William, however, was not always impartial.
To the medieval mind the Levant was very much the terra promissionis. As a native of Jerusalem, William must certainly have been moved by the rhetoric about his homeland; he regularly refers to his patria,?! and speaks often to the uniqueness of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Historia.?2 While care is needed in order to avoid reading too much partiality into William's work, he certainly defended the kingdom from criticism in the West. This is particularly evident in treatment of Baldwin IV, whose leprosy was seen in the West as punishment for Jerusalem from God.” The final chapter of William’s work depicts a kingdom that had come through adversity but had been placed in the care of Raymond of Tripoli by the people and prelates of the kingdom due to his wisdom and his magnanimity.?* He presents an optimistic picture of the kingdom in 1184, ignoring the illness of the king, the lack of an heir, and divisions within the kingdom. This expectation would prove to be unfounded when, in 1187, following the deaths of Baldwin IV and his nephew Baldwin V, the army of the Latin Kingdom was defeated at Hattin, and Jerusalem itself fell to Saladin. William did not live to see these events; for him, the prestige and validity of the Kingdom of Jerusalem remain a central tenet of the Historia.
William never altered his narrative by inventing episodes in order to give a more favourable portrayal of his patria, which would have been contrary to statements in his Prologue for the need of the historian to be truthful and diligent.5 Instead, he subtly chose to remain silent or gloss over certain episodes, particularly in the case of factions within the court. The role of Renaud de Chatillon, for example, is undermined in the interest of providing Baldwin IVa more positive ‘spin’. The translator of the Historia, in contrast, presented a more favourable view of Renaud, to be discussed subsequently in detail. William also gave only cursory attention to the patriarchal election of 1180. He simply relates that, ten days after the death of the patriarch, Amaury of Nesle, Heraclius, the archbishop of Caesarea, replaced him.?® A later source, La Chronique d’Ernoul, provides details on the subject and relates that William was himself a candidate for the patriarchate. The author is favourable towards William and scathing in his criticism of Heraclius, alleging that Herclius won the position only due to his close relationship with the king’s mother, Agnes de Courtenay.”’ Details of this account may have become embellished in its retelling; a speech is ascribed to William, for example, on why Heraclius should not be awarded the patriarchate due to his eschatological predictions. The author of the Chronique’s prejudices are particularly evident, but the account nevertheless makes it clear that there was scandal and heated debate surrounding the election. By stating simply that Heraclius was elected, William may have been safeguarding the reputation of his patria in the West.?8
William’s Latin has been rightly praised for displaying a complex and elegant style beyond that found in many contemporary Latin works and older histories of the First Crusade.?9 However, it is not only William’s style of writing that gives his Historia its revered place in the study of the crusades; it is also his use of various sources, primary and secondary, to create his history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Thus Runciman labelled William ‘one of the greatest of medieval historians’.3° The text can be divided roughly into two parts. In the first part William relies upon previous works and oral traditions. He used several different works, including Fulcher of Chartres, Raymond of Aguilers, and Baldric of Dol. He also makes extensive use of Albert of Aachen’s chronicle up to the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, but then ceased to make use of this text. It is unknown whether this was because the manuscript William had access to stopped at this point or whether it was because he disagreed with Albert’s view of Arnulf of Chocques, shortly to be elected patriarch of Jerusalem, as well as his hostile treatment of the papal legate Daibert of Pisa. By switching sources to Raymond of Aguilers, William avoided mention of Arnulf’s role in preaching to the crusader army prior to the capture of Jerusalem and praise of his actions. William also may have used the Gesta Francorum, or a text derived from it, as well as works no longer extant.®! Events detailed in the second part of William’s text fell within his lifetime, and he was able to introduce first-hand experiences to his narrative as well as those of prominent figures he was associated with. He also was able to supplement the narrative due to his access to the official records of the Kingdom of Jerusalem through his positions as tutor to the future Baldwin IV, chancellor of the kingdom, and archbishop of Tyre.
Of the twenty-three books that comprise the work, the first eight recount the story of the First Crusade, beginning with a reference to the reign of the emperor Heraclius in the seventh century and concluding with the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099. The balance of the work is dedicated to a history of the Latin East. Book g is assigned to the reign of Duke Godfrey while, in general, the reigns of most of the kings of Jerusalem each receive two books. The exceptions are Baldwin III, whose reign comprises three books, and Baldwin IV, whose two books are supplemented by the single chapter of Book 23. William returned to the East in 1165 two years after Amaury came to the throne. At this point William involved himself personally in the narrative despite the fact that in the prologue to Book 16, the beginning of the reign of Baldwin III in 1143, William already notes that he has changed from using written historical accounts to information obtained from eye-witnesses and from a variety of records.32 Book 23 comprises a prologue and a single chapter that relates events in early 184, when Raymond, count of Tripoli, was appointed regent of the Kingdom of Jerusalem for the leper king, Baldwin IV. While it is possible that William died shortly after writing this last chapter, no evidence exists for a new chancellor until 10 May 1185, and the next archbishop of Tyre is first mentioned on 21 October 186. Although William certainly died before a new archbishop was installed, the new chancellor may have been installed during William’s lifetime.*? There is no definite evidence for his death except for an obit identified by R. Hiestand, which notes that William died on 29 September without giving a year.34
While the Historia is of unrefutable importance as a source of information for the Latin East, particularly during William’s ecclesiastical career in the Levant from 1165 until his death, we must remember that William was actively involved in the politics of the period, and that his history of the Latin East reflects his own inclinations. William’s work, as D.W.T.C. Vessey states, ‘has done more than any other historian to mould and to influence the attitude of his many successors towards the early history of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem’.%> His Historia, however, written in Latin, does not seem to have been widely disseminated. The few surviving copies are of either French or English provenance, most datable to the decades around the year 1200.°° Although William's work quickly found its way to the West, interest in copying it seems to have waned shortly afterwards, perhaps due to the loss of Jerusalem. Since William’s text ends in 184, three years before the battle of Hattin, the narrative might have seemed incomplete to those reading the text after 1187. However, interest in the Latin East did not diminish. At some point within the first quarter of the thirteenth century, William's Historia was translated into Old French, a work commonly called L’Estoire de Eracles (Eracles), and a significantly larger number of manuscript copies of the translation survive. The title can be explained by the fact that William opened his account of the history of the First Crusade with a reference to the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, who ruled 610-641, during which time Islam burst onto the scene. The translator started from the same point as William, with the result that the name ‘Eracles’ appears on the first page of all of the manuscripts.
William’s history of the Latin East remained popular from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, but not in its original Latin form. In terms of the number of surviving manuscripts, the Old French translation was far more successful; there are fifty-one manuscripts of the Old French text from before 1500 in public collections compared to only nine Latin manuscripts. That does not mean that all connection with the original text was lost. As the translator noted, he was not writing a new history of the crusades. He reminded his readers that it was William of Tyre who originally wrote the text, and that he remained faithful to that text. However, the act of translation inevitably entails some alterations. Whether simple inaccuracies in the translation resulted in different meanings or a conscious effort on the part of the translator to alter the text, differences exist between the original and its translation. These alterations, however slight, need to be considered by historians of the Crusades.
The translator did not make significant additions or alterations to William's text that would indicate his use of another source or purposeful deviation from William’s narrative. Instead he made numerous small additions, generally consisting of short phrases, which serve as a gloss to William's text, adding background information. The translator did, however, alter the portrayal of events given by William, either in a positive or negative light. Even without adding further information, the translator may have held a different view of events that affected his presentation and closer consideration may cause historians to rethink previously held ideas. A good example of this is the case of Renaud de Chatillon, about whom the translator regularly added significant phrases that are lacking in William’s text, such as ‘qui est un bon chevalier’. In addition, the criticism of Renaud by William is reduced, though not completely removed. The translator did omit material from William's text. These omissions generally include large sections of ecclesiastical interest, as well as biblical and classical quotations, which may provide indications about the intended audience and rationale for the translation.
Research for this study consisted of two distinct campaigns. The first centred on identifying differences between the Latin and the Old French texts. The second was to develop a manuscript stemma for the Eracles text in order to discover which manuscripts come closest to preserving the original text of translation. The purpose of this process has been to establish which alterations to William’s Latin text were introduced by the original translator and which appear later in the manuscript tradition.
Several questions about the Old French translation of William of Tyre need to be addressed, in particular, the nature of modifications. A provenance for the translation, to identify the translator, may provide insights on attitudes towards the crusades at the time of translation, and to determine its historical and cultural importance. While historians turn first to William’s Latin text as a primary source for the decades leading up to 184, the Eracles includes information about events in the Latin East that are not found in the Historia. It contains, in addition, information about the West, France in particular, not found elsewhere. The majority of additions made by the translator, where such information can be corroborated, suggest that the new material generally has a basis in fact. Thus, the Eracles text deserves closer attention from historians of both the Crusades and of Western Europe independent of William’s original as well as in comparison to it. Establishing the relationships between these manuscripts should enhance an understanding of how and where they were produced and delineate the significance of the differences between manuscripts produced in the West and those copied in the Latin East.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق