The anonymous Historia regum Hierusalem Latinorum ad deplorationem perditionis Terrae Sanctae accommodata: a new edition, translation, and commentary

ABSTRACT

This article offers a new edition and translation, with accompanying commentary, of an anonymous text entitled by Charles Kohler in the nineteenth century as Historia regum Hierusalem Latinorum ad deplorationem perditionis Terrae Sanctae accommodata. Incorporating evidence drawn from the discovery of three new manuscript witnesses, it is argued that this text, which presents a history the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem from its foundation during the First Crusade through to Saladin’s capture of the Holy City in October 1187, was likely produced in the Latin East at the turn of the 1190s, contemporaneously with the events of the Third Crusade. Indeed, the Anonymous Historia is viewed here not only in the context of contemporary laments on Jerusalem’s loss, but as a possible exhortatio that sought to use the history of the Latin East as a vehicle to promote further crusading. Analysis of the text’s potential literary influences and early dissemination demonstrates its relationship to William of Tyre’s Chronicon, and brings forward the date of our earliest written witness to that famous narrative, as well as the Historia’s likely independence from the text known as Ernoul. The fact that we can find echoes of this text not only in the Holy Land, but in Angevin and German lands as well, adds another piece to the puzzle of exploring textual responses to the Latin East at the end of the twelfth century.

KEYWORDS:

• Crusades
• Latin East
• manuscripts
• historical writing

In recent years, there has been a growing scholarly interest in how the crusading movement intersected with, and in turn influenced, processes of historical writing in the European Middle Ages. What has been demonstrated, above all else, is that the crusades contributed to significant developments in history creation, as those who participated in the vast outpouring of storytelling that began with the First Crusade combined their use of traditional literary frameworks with diverse and innovative approaches to genre and style.¹ This shift in modern historiographical emphasis offers scholars the opportunity to return to the wider pool of crusading narratives which have been side-lined or overlooked for their lack of empirical value. In particular, there is a great need to incorporate into the field those texts which relate not to single crusading expeditions, but to the permanent settlements of the Latin East.² This is what underpins this article’s new edition and translation of the anonymous Historia regum Hierusalem Latinorum ad deplorationem perditionis Terrae Sanctae accommodata, henceforth referred to as the Anonymous Historia.

Scope and content

The Anonymous Historia was first edited in the Revue de l’Orient latin in 1897 by Charles Kohler, who seemingly constructed its title not from any heading offered in the extant manuscripts, for none carries one, but rather by summarising the text’s content.³ In form, it is a short history of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem from its inception through to Saladin’s capture of the Holy City in 1187 that also serves as both an exhortatio to crusade – such that this word is scrawled in the margin of one surviving manuscript, MS Burney 73 (described below) – and a lament on the fall of Jerusalem.⁴ It begins by noting how Vegetius’s De re militari demands that the deeds of the past be related so as to not be lost to posterity and fail to inspire later generations, before decrying the consequences of Jerusalem’s loss. From here, the author recounts the First Crusade, with a particular focus on Godfrey of Bouillon, described as God’s chosen knight, His illustrious son, and a second Joshua, followed by the military deeds and deaths of every Jerusalemite ruler to 1187. Until 1184 it is largely formulaic, listing the battles, captured cities, deaths, and burials of each ruler, but afterwards becomes more detailed on how the kingdom fell into dispute, the Jerusalemites lost at Hattin, and the Holy City was surrendered. This section starts with Baldwin V's early death after succeeding his uncle, Baldwin IV, at which point his mother, Queen Sybil, called together the patriarch, prelates, and nobles of the kingdom, all bar Count Raymond III of Tripoli (called here Bertrand). As Sybil sought to enjoy the name and status of queen for herself, she had her husband, Guy of Lusignan, who, the author noted, arrogantly aspired to power as well, made king. Subsequently, Raymond, another who apparently sought the authority of rule for himself and who reportedly married the Lady of Galilee to undermine the king, made truces with Saladin and other nearby Muslims and fomented dissent amongst the nobles. This gave the Ayyūbid sultan a route into the kingdom and heralded his victory at Hattin. In a classic ring composition – whereby the final sections of a narrative come back around to the themes which characterise the opening ones as a form of rhetorical crescendo – the author returns to lamentation, describing the reasons for God’s punishment, decrying the loss of the True Cross and Jerusalem, and calling on contemporary knights to emulate Godfrey. This is accentuated by the author’s reference to the varied uses of weapons and shields. Thus, the comment made at the start that the First Crusaders had captured Jerusalem ‘not by decorating the walls with their weapons, but by adorning battlefields with their shields’ is met at the end of the text by criticism of those who had failed to recover the Holy City after 1187 and ‘their arms that decorate the walls’. A final, somewhat narratively superfluous note is then offered on the invention of the True Cross by Helena in the fourth century and its short-term loss to Chosroes.⁵

In scope and content, therefore, the Anonymous Historia is not especially novel, though there are some interesting idiosyncrasies of detail. However, depending on the likely date of the text, and where it appears to have been produced, it could nevertheless prove to be an important witness to the processes of history creation that surrounded the crusades and the Latin East, most especially in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem and during the Third Crusade. To demonstrate this, we now turn to the text and its provenance.

Earlier edition and manuscripts

In his edition, Kohler worked from versions of the text found in two manuscripts:

• Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 722 (B), fols. 103r–106r

  • This codex is English in origin and was in the possession of the Cistercian Abbey at Kirkstall by the early sixteenth century. It is difficult to date precisely but may be from as early as the 1420s. Other contents include a Life of Saint Barbara, texts on the Lacey family and the Carthusian Order, as well as the only copies of two works by the fourteenth-century Carmelite William of Coventry, which could indicate that the manuscript initially came from a Carmelite foundation. Significantly, one of these Carmelite narratives, De duplici fuga, shares details with the Anonymous Historia regarding the First Crusade and the foundation of the crusader states, which form part of a wider discussion of the order’s spread throughout the Near East.⁶ Of further importance is that following directly after the Anonymous Historia is a so-far unedited, albeit now recognised, version of the Tractatus de locis et statu sancte terre ierosolimitane, a description of the peoples and natural characteristics of the Holy Land probably composed in the crusader states towards the end of the twelfth century.⁷ This further supports a Carmelite origin, for the order was founded in the Latin East and would have had a particular interest in texts relating to the Latin presence there.⁸

• London, British Library, MS Burney 73 (C), fols 124r–132r

  • This is probably Genoese in provenance, and the manuscript’s watermarks are consistent with those used in 1483. It also contains Demetrios Cydones’s Homily on Saint Lawrence, a note on the Third Crusade (which perhaps acts as a rudimentary continuation of the Historia), and a description of Islam and the teachings of Muhammad, each of which Kohler added as appendices to his edition given their relevance to the content of the Historia.⁹

To these is now added:

• Durham, Durham University Library, MS Cosin V.iii.7 (A), fols 88r–93v

  • This codex is English, largely produced by the scribe William Ebesham, possibly for the monks at Westminster, between 1483 and 1485. It contains other texts, including John Mandeville’s Travels, the book of Judith, a memoria on King Henry VI of England, and other religious and monastic sources.¹⁰

In his edition of the Historia, Kohler also made use of the edition by Peter Canisius (1521–97) of a separate text, composed c. 1373/4, that he called an Epitome.¹¹ Though Kohler believed that no manuscript of the Epitome’s exemplar survived, two have now been identified that show slight variations from those used by Canisius but, more importantly, are textually near-identical to the Historia. Indeed, the only minor differences, other than scattered word variants, are a paragraph introducing the text before the incipit, an insertion discussing the Franciscan Nicholas of Lyra (d. 1349), and the omission of the addendum on the Invention of the True Cross. The Vatican manuscript also omits, clearly by mistake, the reign of King Baldwin III.

• Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 10688 (D), fols 157v–162r

  • This parchment codex was produced in Italy in the mid-fifteenth century. The manuscript contains several other related texts, including, among many others, Jacques de Vitry’s Historia Orientalis, the Pseudo-Turpin chronicle, other descriptions of the Holy Land, a genealogy of the counts of Flanders, and works denouncing ‘the infidel’. The Epitome was thus evidently seen as forming part of a much wider tradition of recounting the wars in the Holy Land.¹²

• Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 73 G 8 I, fols 30r–37r

  • This paper codex was produced in the Netherlands in the second half of the fifteenth century. Other texts found within include the collected prophecies of Hildegard of Bingen and Joachim of Fiore, various ecclesiastical texts, notes on the inscriptions found on the tombs of Godfrey and Baldwin I (on which, see below), collected texts relating to the Holy Sepulchre, and a treatise attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux on the war between Babylon and Jerusalem. Like the Italian manuscript, then, the Epitome is situated within wider dialogues on the Holy Land.¹³

Kohler based his edition on the Oxford manuscript, MS Laud 722 (our B), but where he noticed errors, he also drew on the London manuscript, MS Burney 73 (our C), and the Canisius edition of the Epitome (represented by our D and E). In addition to this, where he conjectured there was lost text, he included interpolations drawn from Jacques de Vitry’s Historia Orientalis, composed in the Latin East between 1216 and 1224, which he correctly noted is in some way related to the Anonymous Historia (see below for further discussion).¹⁴ The basic premise of Kohler’s argument for his edition was that MS Laud 722 was the closest to the original, and was the version likely used and altered by Jacques de Vitry, whereas the later MS Burney 73 had incorporated interpolations taken from the Historia Orientalis and in turn its version had served as the basis for the Epitome. MS Laud 722 thus served as Kohler’s base text, but he nevertheless drew frequently, and sometimes confusingly, from other versions.¹⁵

Dating: the issue of the manuscripts

Regarding the text’s dating, it must first be addressed that all our manuscripts are from the fifteenth century. It was for this reason, and due to certain textual idiosyncrasies (such as the misnaming of Raymond of Tripoli as Bertrand), that Kohler offered the tentative belief that although the Historia might ‘perhaps’ (peut-être) have been written at the end of the twelfth century, it was highly plausible that it was in fact a much later source.¹⁶ However, it is our contention that such doubt can now be more firmly removed, and the dating of our manuscripts viewed squarely as a product of the text’s preservation and dissemination, not its production. Thus, in relation to Canisius’s Epitome, it has recently been noted by Michele Campopiano that we have at least five manuscripts, each of them also fifteenth-century, which bear witness to a Franciscan compilation on the Holy Land originally produced in Jerusalem at Mount Zion c. 1373/4.¹⁷ This compilation, or more rightly these compilations, served as a descriptio of the Holy Land based largely on the works of Jacques de Vitry and Burchard of Mount Zion. In two of these, the Hague (our E) and Vatican (our D) manuscripts listed above, the text is near identical to the Anonymous Historia, while in the other three there are different short texts discussing the Latin kingdom.¹⁸ However, these other narratives are clearly more independent of, if not altogether unrelated to, both the Historia and the Epitome, albeit the (surviving) opening recto of Vienna Hs. 3468 contains the final few lines of the text found in the Hague and Vatican manuscripts and may originally have also contained the full version.¹⁹ There are also other witnesses to the Mount Zion connection. One such is Hans Tucher’s Reisebuch, an account of a Jerusalem pilgrimage made by the author in the late 1470s and first published in 1482. In this, Tucher includes the German translation of a Latin text – which is certainly the Anonymous Historia – he claims to have found in the library of the Franciscan house at Mount Zion.²⁰ One of Tucher’s companions, Sebald Rieter, copied elements of this text into his own account of the pilgrimage, as, it seems, did another contemporary German pilgrim, Paul Walther of Guglingen.²¹

What is clear, then, is that the Anonymous Historia had some popularity in the fifteenth century across various parts of Europe and much of this stemmed from the text’s copying and dissemination by the Franciscans at Mount Zion. Were these our only witnesses to the text, potential or more demonstrable, it would be easy to share Kohler’s doubt, and to suggest that the Historia is late medieval, created to pass on to visiting pilgrims in the hope of inspiring crusading fervour. It is certainly evidence of the high levels of crusading interest in this period, as well as the kind of contemporary popularity of crusading stories that inspired William Caxton to publish his English translation of the first nine books of William of Tyre’s Chronicon in 1481.²² As such, it would be erroneous to say that the Anonymous Historia should not be seen in the context of fifteenth-century crusade enthusiasm – it is certainly significant that the Durham manuscript was likely created for the monks of Westminster between 1483–5, just a short while after Caxton’s publication of a major English translation of a crusade account, and only a short distance from his workshop. However, the Franciscan manuscripts which include or abbreviate the Anonymous Historia clearly post-date the original composition of the latter text, as shown by their selective use of, and additions to, its content, as well as the fact that, because they incorporate its information into a Holy Land descriptio, they preserve little of the Anonymous’s original purpose as an exhortatio. Consequently, it is worth returning to Kohler’s tentative postulation that the original text, which we almost certainly no longer have in an unadulterated form, ‘perhaps’ dates to the end of the twelfth century, especially given his reluctance to commit to this hypothesis and the many potential avenues for exploration he left untouched.²³ To do this, we must analyse the Anonymous Historia’s possible relationship to other medieval texts.

Dating: sources and reception

As already noted, Kohler identified a close link between the Anonymous Historia and Jacques de Vitry’s Historia Orientalis. Chapters 22–9 and chapter 95 of Jacques’s Historia follow much the same ordering and/or structure as the Anonymous Historia, covering the reigns of several rulers from Godfrey through to Guy of Lusignan. Chapter 95, which covers Baldwin II to Guy, shows a particularly close relationship.²⁴ Following this last chapter, though, the Historia Orientalis provides a more detailed explanation of Saladin’s conquests.²⁵ Importantly, there are several clues that suggest Jacques used the Anonymous alongside his other sources and not vice versa. For a start, the Latin employed in the two texts is not as similar as the narrative structure, while there are also certain differences, such as Jacques omitting details found in the Anonymous Historia in the material up to 1187 and then offering a very different account of that year. Moreover, with the discovery of the ‘new’ manuscripts, we can eliminate one of the key pieces of evidence that lay behind Kohler’s belief that the version in MS Burney 73 contained interpolations taken from Jacques which created the tradition that led to the Epitome. This is the account of Baldwin IV’s military campaigns, especially his famous victory over the forces of Saladin at Montgisard in 1177.²⁶ While MS Laud 722 does not mention Baldwin’s martial activities, Jacques’s Historia and MS Burney 73, along with the Epitome as edited by Canisius, contain accounts of two battles, including Montgisard, in which the king defeated the Ayyūbid sultan.²⁷ Significantly, the Durham, Hague, and Vatican manuscripts all have this passage of the text; and so, since none is copied from MS Burney 73, it is evident that MS Laud 722 has a major omission and the original Historia contained Montgisard and the other victory.²⁸ This ensures that we can confidently assert that Jacques simply knew the Historia as originally written, abbreviating or expanding it according to his own authorial needs. It is also worth remembering here that one of the manuscripts containing the Epitome, our D, includes that text alongside the Historia Orientalis, meaning the two were clearly seen as distinct.

In fact, and this is a reality largely missed by Kohler, the source that exerts the clearest influence over the Anonymous Historia is William of Tyre’s Chronicon, written in crusader Jerusalem between c. 1170 and c. 1184/6, for, up to 1184, the Historia represents an abbreviation of that famous text.²⁹ To demonstrate this, consider the following notes on Queen Melisende found in the sections detailing Baldwin III’s reign in both the Anonymous Historia and William of Tyre’s Chronicon:

Table

Historia	Chronicon
Baldwin [III]’s mother, Queen Melisende, ruled very faithfully in domestic affairs for about thirty years, both in his time and that of his father, so that the kings themselves could be more free to apply themselves to warfare and warlike deeds.	Meanwhile the Lady Queen Melisende, a prudent woman and marked out above the female sex, who by transcending feminine strength had ruled the kingdom with proper governance for thirty years and more, as much as when her husband lived as when her son ruled, fell into an incurable illness from which her health did not recover until her death.^30

Importantly, this comment on the queen’s role is not found in Jacques’s Historia, which barely mentions Melisende throughout. This is compelling evidence for the Anonymous author’s use of William of Tyre and strengthens the belief that Jacques used the Historia and not the other way around – if the Anonymous was simply adapting Jacques, the trouble of adding in this short section of the Chronicon was unnecessary extra labour. There are also many other clear echoes of William’s text, even if we examine only the Anonymous Historia’s account of the First Crusade. These include foregrounding the venture against the loss of Jerusalem by Emperor Herakleios to the Caliph ‘Umar; the role of Peter the Hermit as God’s instrument for launching the crusade; the inclusion of Baldwin of Bourcq as one of the leaders, which Jacques does not do to the same degree; the dating of the crusade to the reigns of Pope Urban II, Emperor Henry IV, and Emperor Alexios I Komnenos; the listing of 600,000 participants at the start of the crusade, and 40,000 when it finally reached Jerusalem, as well as the Muslim defenders of that city numbering 40,000, none of which Jacques includes; and, finally, its note that Godfrey of Bouillon rejected the crown and title of king, and reluctantly accepted rule while maintaining the title of duke, which echoes William’s continued use of the title of duke when describing Godfrey’s reign (which Jacques does only once).³¹ Of interest, too, is an additional note found in the Hague and Vatican manuscripts. Just after the section describing the figure of 600,000 participants on the crusade, in the interpolation on Nicholas of Lyra, it is specified that the text's information was taken from William’s chronicle (cronica Gulelmi).³² Even for a late medieval witness to the Anonymous Historia, therefore, the link between it and William of Tyre’s Chronicon was obvious.

It should be noted, though, that the relationship between William’s text and the Historia is imperfect, and there are times when there is a sense that the anonymous author was working from notes, or perhaps writing under some form of time pressure. Slight inconsistencies have crept into the text, as well as some truly original interpretations. Perhaps the most entertaining is that the Anonymous author makes the seemingly unique claim that the castle of Scandalion, built between Acre and Tyre by King Baldwin I, took its name not from a fortress previously constructed there by Alexander the Great, as William writes, but from the fact that it was considered to be the greatest scandal (scandalum maximum) among nearby Muslims.³³ That Jacques de Vitry, who clearly knew both texts, failed to comment on the castle’s name, though he nevertheless described its building, could indicate that he was following the Anonymous here, and not William, and decided that its information was spurious and should be excised.³⁴ Moreover, the fact that the compiler(s) of Mount Zion retained this unique comment in the Epitome, despite having access to Burchard of Mount Zion’s Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, which describes Scandalion’s links to Alexander the Great, further attests the Anonymous Historia’s much earlier dating.³⁵ Indeed, it is highly unlikely for such an error to have been created, as opposed to copied, by a Franciscan of the fourteenth or fifteenth century.

Echoes of the Anonymous Historia are also found in other medieval sources. The earliest of these is Ambroise’s Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, an Old French verse account of the Third Crusade composed in the late 1190s.³⁶ Thus, when Ambroise describes the events leading to the fall of the kingdom of Jerusalem, his coverage from the death of King Amalric in 1174 follows the same structural path as the Anonymous. Ambroise notes how Amalric had a son, Baldwin IV, who was a leper but still became king; that the latter had two sisters who married: one (Sybil) to William Longsword, count of Montferrat, and from this union was born a son, Baldwin (V); that Baldwin IV then died, and the child Baldwin became king; that Guy of Lusignan then took Sybil as his wife; that Baldwin then died and the kingdom went to her, as was right and just, but that Guy was crowned king – an act which later caused many blows to fall; that Count Raymond III of Tripoli, who had long had an alliance with Saladin, was angered at this, as he thought to have the kingdom for himself; that this facilitated Saladin’s invasion; and, finally, that at Hattin Guy was captured, the True Cross taken, and most of the Latins killed.³⁷ Ambroise also includes information not contained in the Anonymous Historia, such as the fact that Baldwin’s other sister, Isabella, married the Jerusalemite nobleman Humphrey of Toron; that Guy called his barons to him to do homage after being made king, but that this demand was rejected by some; that Raymond III then turned to Saladin for help in frustration at Guy’s conduct and may even have abandoned the king at Hattin; and an account is included of the battle of the Springs of Cresson in May 1187.³⁸ At times the Estoire is likewise more detailed; for example when describing Hattin.³⁹ It is evident that Ambroise drew on written materials, especially for his digression on the kings of Jerusalem, as he comments himself, in a mixture of the first and third person, that ‘he [Ambroise] did not see any of this; I only know what I have read (our emphasis)’.⁴⁰ Therefore, while textual divergences suggest that the Anonymous Historia was not the only source at Ambroise’s disposal, there is nevertheless enough of a convergence to posit some form of textual relationship, and it is particularly significant that the author indicates his access to written materials at the exact moment when he picks up the thread of the Anonymous Historia.

Perhaps clearer is the sense that the Anonymous Historia was known to the German chronicler Arnold of Lübeck, whose Chronica Slavorum, a continuation (c. 1210) of a text by Helmold of Bosau (d. 1177), deals largely with German crusading.⁴¹ To demonstrate this, see these sections of the Anonymous Historia and the corresponding sections of the Chronica:

Table

Historia [1]	Chronica [1]
The seventh lord and sixth king of the Latins in Jerusalem was Baldwin IV, the aforesaid Amalric’s only son. He was crowned as king [but] for some unknown reason of divine agency he had been afflicted with leprosy from his infancy. Nevertheless, in his time he kept the kingdom safe from dread of the enemy most strenuously … Although Baldwin defended the kingdom very effectively in his lifetime, nevertheless because of his illness he would not take a wife. For this reason he arranged to give in marriage the two sisters he had; he gave the firstborn of them, called Sybil, to the most noble knight Lord William Longsword, marquis of Montferrat, promising to bequeath the kingdom to him and his son, if God should grant him one. But by the ordinance of God, who conceals His vengeance of sin at His divine pleasure, the aforesaid William, having engendered a son from Sybil who was given the name of his uncle Baldwin, left this life before the death of the king himself.	Baldwin, the son of King Amalric, the king of Jerusalem, who was distinguished by both descent and courage, held the enemies of the Christian religion who surrounded his kingdom in check and ruled it justly in every way. But touched by the hand of the Lord, ‘who chastens whom he loves’, he suffered from leprosy, and thought upon the succession to the kingdom. For he himself had no son as his heir, since he led a life of celibacy, and remaining firm in his chastity, he remained always virgin. He had, however, a sister, whom he had married to a certain William, a noble and valiant man, brother to Conrad, Margrave of Montferrat. From her the king received a little nephew, to whom he gave his own name.^42
Historia [2]:	Chronica [2]:
After this was done [Baldwin V being made heir and crowned], in the same year, the eighth of his reign, the ailing king [Baldwin IV] brought to a close the last of his days and was brought for burial next to the choir of the Holy Sepulchre with his kingly forefathers, marking the beginning of the troubles of the faithful. The eighth lord and seventh king of the Latins in Jerusalem, as is clear from the above, was Baldwin V, the son of the aforesaid marquis. In the same year his uncle died, and without any kingly deeds, he flew away as swiftly as if taken straight from the womb to the grave, and he was buried in a little royal sepulchre next to the aforesaid uncle … [leads into discussion of Sybil’s coronation].	After arranging these matters, the king grew weaker from his illness, and making a blessed end he passed to Heaven. The boy king followed him by dying in the ninth year of his age. After he had been buried in the sepulchre of his fathers in Jerusalem … [leads into discussion of Sybil’s crowning].^43

In the first of these quotations, there are key similarities: both writers lead with Baldwin being Amalric’s son; they note how divine agency led to Baldwin being afflicted with leprosy; that Baldwin nevertheless ruled and defended the kingdom well; that he was forced into a life of celibacy and so could not engender an heir; that he therefore married his sister Sybil to William of Montferrat; and that from this union was born a son who was also named Baldwin. In the second, where the similarities are slightly less clear, we nevertheless see that both sources discuss Baldwin IV’s sudden deterioration and death; Baldwin V’s death in the same year and his burial alongside his forebears in the Holy Sepulchre; and then both relate Sybil’s coronation.

It is significant, too, that the German author incorporates several other key details found the Historia. These include the comment that Baldwin V was placed under Raymond III’s stewardship after being made heir; a description of how Sybil came to power after discussion with the patriarch, other churchmen, and nobles (minus Raymond III of Tripoli), in which she claimed the throne as her hereditary right; a comment on how Raymond sought to claim the crown for himself and had long-standing truces with Saladin; and a note that the Ayyūbid sultan used the instability created by Guy and Raymond’s dispute to invade.⁴⁴ Underlying these elements of Arnold’s text, then, is much the same narrative structure as the corresponding sections of the Historia. Likewise, Arnold quotes Lamentations 1.1 – ‘How does the city sit solitary that was full of people! How has the mistress of the gentiles become as a widow, the princes of provinces made tributary’ – in describing Jerusalem’s loss.⁴⁵ However, like Ambroise, Arnold has information that is different or more expansive. For example, he suggests that Baldwin IV opposed Sybil’s union with Guy because the latter was a foreigner; in describing the debate between Sybil and the patriarch over the succession, he includes reported speeches made by both parties that are not found in the Historia; he details, like Ambroise, how Guy called the barons to him to do homage and how Saladin and Raymond shared correspondence, after which the latter bound himself by oath to the former in return for aid – an act discovered by the Hospitallers and reported to the king; and he covers the Springs of Cresson.⁴⁶ These details suggest Arnold also had access to a wider corpus of material than just the Historia. It could even indicate that a common source lies behind all three texts, at least for 1184–7.

At this juncture, therefore, it is worth offering a potential explanation for the fact that Ambroise and Arnold offer echoes of the Anonymous Historia but also include additional details. As suggested above, it is possible that other sources were used alongside the Anonymous, or that they had a common source. Perhaps the most obvious candidate for a common source is the now-lost chronicle of Ernoul, a continuation of William of Tyre’s Chronicon up to the fall of Jerusalem. The Ernoul text was probably produced in the Latin kingdom before 1193 but now survives only in an undoubtedly corrupt form produced in France during the 1230s and incorporated into the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre.⁴⁷ Ernoul has not before been explicitly cited as a direct influence over either Ambroise or Arnold of Lübeck, and yet the three texts share key details. These include Raymond III’s direct correspondence with Saladin over betraying the kingdom; dialogue between Sybil and the patriarch, who has a key role in ensuring she takes power; Guy calling the barons to do homage to him; and the Springs of Cresson.⁴⁸ Kohler also failed to consider that the Anonymous Historia was related to Ernoul, despite certain similarities. For example, the Old French text describes how Baldwin IV was buried in the Holy Sepulchre, between Mount Calvary and the Sepulchre of the Lord, where the other kings had been buried since the time of Godfrey. This is very close to the Anonymous. Ernoul also describes, like the Historia, how Raymond made truces not just with Saladin but with other nearby Muslims; as noted above, it emphasises the role of the patriarch in supporting Sybil; and both seemingly end with Jerusalem’s capture.⁴⁹ We find further parallels in the so-called Lyons Eracles Continuation of William of Tyre, which has all of these textual similarities, and, like the Anonymous Historia, alludes to Godfrey of Bouillon’s actions during the First Crusade when detailing the surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin.⁵⁰ Importantly, it has recently been argued that another contemporary text that describes the fall of Jerusalem – albeit not the complex political problems of 1184–7 – had access to Ernoul: the Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum. Parts of this text were composed c. 1190 by a former inhabitant of the Holy City, perhaps a Cistercian staying in Tyre or Acre, while other elements were written later at Coggeshall Abbey in Essex.⁵¹ The likelihood that Ernoul was more widely available, even at this early juncture, is thus quite plausible.

Nevertheless, we must be careful when trying to reconstruct the original Ernoul, with the possibility (recently explored by Keagan Brewer and James Kane) that a Latin version existed before or alongside the Old French one and it was this that was used by the sources in question here.⁵² Furthermore, even if there was only ever an Old French Ernoul, it is clear that this was edited and altered in the process of being incorporated into the Continuations. It is also undeniable that there are differences between the Anonymous Historia and Ernoul, both in terms of the quality and quantity of information provided. That Ambroise and Arnold show – at times divergent – echoes of both, moreover, increases the likelihood that Ernoul and the Anonymous Historia are independent of one another, and either both were known to those western authors or they had a common (now lost) source. Two key divergences between the Anonymous Historia and Ernoul are significant here. The first relates to Raymond III’s marriage to Eschiva, lady of Galilee, which, according to the Anonymous, Raymond undertook to undermine King Guy, contrary to Ernoul’s understanding that the union was arranged by King Amalric just before his death.⁵³ The second regards the Historia’s comment that Jerusalem surrendered to Saladin in 1187 after ‘realising it had no defender’, which eradicates any evidence of Balian of Ibelin’s famous defence of the city. Given that Ernoul seeks to comment upon and preserve the reputation of the Ibelin family, to whom its author was clearly linked politically, and so foregrounds Balian’s involvement, this is a key indication of authorial independence.⁵⁴

A further source that demonstrates a relationship with the Anonymous Historia, and so could be useful for dating the text, is the Historia et Gesta Ducis Gotfridi, which, as Kohler noted, includes large, often verbatim chunks of the text. The Gotfridi was included in the Recueil des historiens des croisades, the editors of which suggested it was composed by an anonymous Rhinelander who had visited the Holy Land, probably in the first half of the fifteenth century (an opinion based almost entirely on the dating of the surviving manuscripts).⁵⁵ For the material up to 1187, the Gotfridi is a composite of several texts, including, but probably not limited to, Robert the Monk’s Historia Hierosolymitana, the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium formerly attributed to Bartolf of Nangis, Fulcher of Chartres’s Historia Hierosolymitana, and the Anonymous Historia, though the editors of the Recueil erroneously believed it was also using Jacques de Vitry’s Historia Orientalis.⁵⁶ In the case of the Anonymous Historia, there is a particular convergence of materials for the years starting with the reign of Baldwin II and leading through to Guy of Lusignan’s coronation in 1186. The Gotfridi also transmits the Anonymous Historia’s erroneous use of Bertrand for Raymond III of Tripoli.⁵⁷

However, the Gotfridi diverges for the period leading to Hattin, extends beyond 1187 to include an account of the siege of Acre and the Third Crusade, and has additional notes about later events, such as one on the siege of Damietta in 1249 which is inserted into the chapter on Baldwin I’s coastal conquests.⁵⁸ More work is warranted on the Gotfridi, particularly the nature, date, and geographical provenance of its composition, but two tentative suggestions can be offered. Firstly, it is far more likely to date to the thirteenth century than the fifteenth, as it is doubtful that such a long Latin text would originate from the later Middle Ages, while the insertion of details like the siege of Damietta in 1249 make little sense unless they were near contemporary with the text’s composition. Secondly, it is fairly clear that the Gotfridi used the Anonymous Historia, and occasionally abbreviated the details found therein, and not the other way around. This is deduced in large part from the Gotfridi’s composite nature, but also the differences between the two texts as regards the First Crusade and the reign of Baldwin I, since the Gotfridi, unlike the Anonymous Historia, shows no evidence that it was based here on William of Tyre.

Collectively, this leads to the strong likelihood that the Anonymous Historia does date, as Kohler tentatively suggested, to the end of the twelfth century. It might be possible to be slightly more specific, though, by inspecting closely internal clues left by the author.

Dating: internal clues

The first is the descriptions of the tombs of the kings of Jerusalem. At the end of each reign, the Anonymous Historia details the king’s burial and the placement of his tomb in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, below Mount Calvary. In some ways, the author follows William of Tyre’s descriptions, at least up to King Amalric, but there are occasional additional details or stylistic idiosyncrasies which help to date the text to before the semi-destruction of the royal mausoleum by the Khwarizmian Turks in 1244.⁵⁹ For example, the author largely uses the present tense when describing the tombs, and offers no hint of their destruction – which the text would likely have done if this were known at the time of composition. Likewise, there are specifics found in all manuscripts of the Anonymous that are not known elsewhere, such as the comments that Baldwin II ‘is entombed beneath a stone next to the wall of the choir of the [church of the] Holy Sepulchre’, that Baldwin IV was ‘brought for burial next to the choir of the Holy Sepulchre with his kingly forefathers’, and that Baldwin V ‘was buried in a little royal sepulchre next to his uncle’. These are the most specific descriptions of the burial places of Baldwins IV and V to survive from the period of Latin rule in the East and suggest an author who had physically visited these sites. This was highly unlikely after 1244, and was also not feasible for much of the period after 1187, though participants in the Third Crusade were permitted to visit the Holy Sepulchre following the Treaty of Jaffa in September 1192.⁶⁰ Of further interest is that in MS Burney 73 (our C) there is a note that Baldwin I’s tomb is inscribed with verses (cuius tumulus versibus est adornatus). This is not a detail that was taken from William of Tyre, nor even Fulcher of Chartres, who provided an epitaph but offered no sense that it was inscribed on the tomb, though it is known to be true thanks to the pilgrim Theoderic, who recorded how Baldwin was likened to Judas Maccabeus and was shown to be a protector of the Church and his country.⁶¹ That the other versions of the text do not include the inscriptions, and only one of our manuscripts notes their existence in what is clearly an act of scribal intervention, suggests an author who, despite having detailed knowledge of the royal mausoleum, did not have access to the Holy Sepulchre at the time of writing. This is a further indication of an earlier date for the Historia, since the Franciscans of the fifteenth century had preserved traditions of the exact inscriptions (as shown by the copies of those found on both Godfrey and Baldwin I’s tombs included in the Hague manuscript), and a compiler contemporary to that period could, like the Genoese scribe of C, have incorporated these details.⁶²

Other specifics found in the Anonymous Historia can help with dating the text to the twelfth century. Perhaps the most important is that the text lists the number of knights killed at Hattin as 1200, which matches the Lyon Eracles and the Libellus de expugnatione (potentially indicating its inclusion in Ernoul), as well as a letter sent by Patriarch Aimery of Antioch to King Henry II of England in 1187/8 preserved in the Chronica of Roger of Howden.⁶³ In other words, the text aligns with sources produced within, or linked to, the Holy Land in the late 1180s/early 1190s. The following passage on Guy of Lusignan is also worth pondering:

And thus, the Holy Land … that King Guy, the eighth king, and his unfortunate nobles who, for their sins, lording it as they were over a populace of sinners with avarice, greed, extravagance, and other vices, wretchedly lost and let fall into enemy hands in ad 1187. And until today, none from among all the virile Christian kings, princes, dukes, counts, barons, or knights, with their arms that decorate the walls, coming or sending [others] to the church of the Holy Sepulchre, has been able to restore it.

What is particularly significant here is the note on how kings, princes, and others had tried to recover the Holy Sepulchre but failed.⁶⁴ This almost certainly relates to the Third Crusade, when the kings of England and France failed to recover Jerusalem and faced criticism of their conduct and accusations of failing to prioritise the needs of the Holy Land.⁶⁵ This passage even shares thematic similarities with one found in the early thirteenth-century Latin Continuation of William of Tyre, which was probably composed in southern England and which noted that, with the end of the Third Crusade, ‘the hope of recovering either the Holy City or the Holy Land has been cut short and nothing has been done since then that is worthy of such great efforts or that responds to such great expectation’.⁶⁶ These clues suggest a date for the text, or at least its completion, after 1192 and the Treaty of Jaffa, although it cannot be ruled out that it was begun earlier, perhaps inspired by the venture’s waning fortunes after Acre’s capture in 1191 and Philip I of France’s departure.

A date of composition around the time of the Third Crusade is also suggested by the author’s drawing on the Book of Lamentations, especially at the beginning of the text. In an impassioned discussion on Jerusalem’s fall to ‘the enemies of Christ’s cross’, the author uses three direct quotations from Lamentations. He also deploys this biblical framing to lead into his account of the First Crusade, when the ‘true soldiers of Christ thus assumed the name of His true militia, not without good reason, and they snatched this most holy city from the dogs and restored her to her true heirs, not by decorating the walls with their weapons, but by adorning battlefields with their shields’.⁶⁷ The author’s recourse to Lamentations is unsurprising, as are the frequent allusions to God’s punishment being a result of the Latins’ sins: both are common tropes for medieval texts, particularly those dealing with loss. However, such framings place the text very comfortably in the literary climate of the period immediately following the disasters of 1187. Numerous chronicles, as well as papal bulls like Audita Tremendi and the letters dispatched across Europe to summon a new crusade, couched these events in the context of an emotionally charged lament on the consequences of sin.⁶⁸ More specifically, the aforementioned passage of Lamentations 1.1 used by both the Historia and Arnold of Lübeck is also found in two other contemporary texts: the Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae and another English-produced narrative, the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi (IP2).⁶⁹ The sense of the author’s own recognition of the significance of these events, as well as the use of phrases like ‘Jerusalem, our mother, is now enslaved’, also lend a personal, even emotional, immediacy to the description. This is, of course, a literary flourish, but it is one that makes the most sense, given the text’s apparent purpose to summon aid for the Holy Land, in the years immediately following 1187, especially once it became clear that the Third Crusade would fail to recover Jerusalem. Moreover, although Jacques de Vitry and the Historia Gotfridi contain large chunks of the Anonymous Historia, neither replicates the lamentation passages, perhaps because the Anonymous’s visceral urgency was deemed less suitable further in time from Jerusalem’s initial loss and with the certain knowledge that no one had yet managed to emulate Godfrey or the great kings of Jerusalem.

A further clue is the author’s use of zelus, or zeal. In an original passage regarding the motivations behind the First Crusade, the Anonymous notes that:

all of these with one heart and one soul, preferring sooner to lose their own lives than to put up any longer with the ills of their people and to allow the holy places to be further desecrated, with zeal for [avenging] the shedding of Christ’s blood and for justice, were striving with all their might to restore their heritage to its true heirs and true sons.

As Susanna Throop has argued, the use of zelus and vengeance as a motive and rationale for crusading was particularly strong in the later twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.⁷⁰ Although their usage did not stop after this point, as Stephen Spencer has shown, when the evidence of this passage is combined with the information noted earlier, it further demonstrates that the Historia has many of the literary hallmarks of late-twelfth-century crusading texts.⁷¹

One final aspect worth considering is the Anonymous Historia’s rendering of Amalric, which is spelt either Almaricus or Almericus. As this is one of the few names to have any such consistency of spelling across the variant manuscripts, it can be safely assumed that it represents the original rendering. Yet, this is not the spelling deployed by William of Tyre, who utilised the more traditional Amalricus.⁷² Ernoul, meanwhile, adopts the Old French Amauri, or variants thereof.⁷³ A broad sampling of contemporary European texts offers much the same issue. The Norman author Robert of Torigni went for Amauricus; the English writer Roger of Howden used either Amarius or Aumaricus in his Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, and Amauri in his later Chronica; and his compatriot, William of Newburgh, much like William of Tyre, used Amalricus.⁷⁴ Ambroise and Arnold of Lübeck rendered it as Amauri and Emelricus respectively.⁷⁵ Nevertheless, we do find other texts, or at least copies of them, that match the Historia’s spelling. This includes the early-thirteenth century Latin Continuation of William of Tyre, as well as certain manuscripts of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum (otherwise known as IP1), a text likely composed at the siege of Acre during the Third Crusade by an English participant, including a late twelfth-century copy made in northern France.⁷⁶ Jacques de Vitry likewise utilised Almaricus.⁷⁷ Furthermore, we find both Almaricus and Almericus in two manuscripts of a history of the kings of Jerusalem that relies heavily on William of Tyre’s Chronicon up to 1184, and then provides a particularly stunted account of the events which led to Hattin and the fall of the Holy City. It was written by the German author Oliver of Paderborn, a personal friend of Jacques de Vitry, seemingly while participating in the Fifth Crusade (1217–21).⁷⁸ Perhaps of greater significance, however, is the fact that Almericus is the spelling adopted in the Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum, parts of which were composed in the Latin East by an author resident in Jerusalem during Saladin’s siege.⁷⁹ It may be inferred, therefore, that Almaricus/Almericus is a spelling variant that was particularly prominent in Latin texts produced around the time of the Third Crusade and during the early decades of the thirteenth century.

When the above evidence is taken together, we are left with a window of c. 1192 × 1244 as the likeliest dating period for the text. If we accept that Jacques de Vitry used the Anonymous Historia, we could tighten the latter date to before 1216; with Arnold of Lübeck to 1210; and with Ambroise to before 1198. Internal evidence suggests that the date of composition is probably much closer to 1192, with the writing of the Historia perhaps coinciding with the final months of the Third Crusade – which would help to explain how it was that Ambroise, a participant in that venture, came to access it.

Geographical origins

It is our contention that the author was almost certainly a resident in the Latin East before 1187, which Kohler suggested as a possibility.⁸⁰ A key indicator is the descriptions of the royal tombs, for these reveal a personal knowledge that most likely came from eyewitness experience; though, of course, it cannot be ruled out that the author had spoken to someone else who had been to the Holy Sepulchre, or was among those crusaders who visited in late-summer 1192. However, there are other clues that underpin this belief: for example, the author’s listing of 1200 knights at the battle of Hattin and the spelling Almaricus, which both align almost exclusively with texts produced in the Holy Land or by writers with close links to it. The Anonymous Historia’s textual relationship with works composed by those who went on crusade or who had direct access to those returning from the East, like Ambroise and Arnold of Lübeck, and perhaps even the author of the Historia Gotfridi, apparently a pilgrim, as well as those who spent several years in Outremer, like Jacques de Vitry, also builds further the sense of a text linked to first-hand knowledge of the region. This is reinforced by the occasional slip into the first person, which betrays a vested interest in the events and the people. While calling Jerusalem our mother is hardly rare, the description of Godfrey of Bouillon and the other First Crusaders as ‘noble forefathers’ (nobilium patrum) implies direct descent from the crusaders in much the same way as William of Tyre emphasised his own personal connection to the Latin East and its rulers through the term patria.⁸¹ In light of the text’s purpose of describing the history and legitimacy of the kings of Jerusalem, and through this to promote a new crusade, this is unlikely to be a coincidence or a mere rhetorical flourish.

Conjectural links to the Holy Land are strengthened by the connection of later manuscripts to the Franciscans at Mount Zion. The order first entered the Holy Land in the late 1210s and built a strong presence there over the following decades, including in Jerusalem. With the fall of the Latin East to the Mamluks, the Franciscans moved to Cyprus and elsewhere, and probably took their libraries with them.⁸² In this regard, it is relevant that the c. 1373/4 compilation(s) produced at Mount Zion followed not too long after the order’s reinstatement in Jerusalem in the early 1330s and their return to Mount Zion in 1372 after a brief expulsion owing to Peter of Cyprus’s attack on Alexandria in 1365.⁸³ It is possible, therefore, that this return heralded a desire to recirculate works of crusading literature amongst visiting pilgrims. As Campopiano has demonstrated, the order was deeply invested in crafting and transmitting textual memories of the Holy Land and crusading in this period.⁸⁴ The Historia was thus most especially found and preserved in the East, with the Franciscans playing an important later role in its dissemination and perhaps even being responsible for its survival there in the thirteenth century and beyond.

Nevertheless, there is one issue that needs to be addressed that could undermine acceptance of the above dating and provenance, as Kohler himself intimated.⁸⁵ As mentioned above, the Historia renders Raymond III of Tripoli’s name as Bertrand. If this were just a quirk of the three main manuscripts, we might simply see it as a later scribal error that became canon. However, although none of Ambroise, Arnold of Lübeck, or Jacques de Vitry made this mistake – a reality which again suggests the Historia’s author was not relying on Jacques, but rather was working from potentially corrupt notes made on a much longer narrative, like William of Tyre’s – this error found its way into the Historia Gotfridi. As such, if this latter text is from the thirteenth century, then it is an error that entered the Anonymous Historia’s textual tradition early on, at least after the 1220s, although it cannot be ruled out that each of Ambroise, Arnold, and Jacques recognised the error and simply corrected it. It is obvious that a resident in the Holy Land c. 1187 is unlikely to have made such a mistake, even if there was clearly some confusion over the succession of the county of Tripoli in this period, as some claim Raymond III was followed by either Bohemond IV or Raymond II Antioch.⁸⁶ More work is necessary to ascertain the Historia Gotfridi’s dating, which may help to decide whether this is simply a later mistake that was compounded as the Anonymous Historia was disseminated and re-used in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, or if it is an earlier error. That said, even if this was a copyist’s error, made at some point in the second half of the thirteenth century and then incorporated into the Historia Gotfridi, the evidence of the other likely indirect witnesses to the Anonymous Historia, as well as the fact that our earliest manuscript witnesses date to some two centuries or more after the text’s composition, means we should not necessarily preclude that the original text had the correct name.

The Historia’s significance

In light of our contention that the Anonymous Historia is a Holy Land text produced in the early 1190s, there are several key repercussions for modern historiography. Firstly, it provides a vital witness to the potential for a wider tradition of historical narratives written in the Latin East. As has long been noted, following the end of Fulcher of Chartres’ text in 1127, we are left with very little in the way of surviving written histories composed in the crusader states, except for William of Tyre’s Chronicon and a scattering of other, largely derivative sources.⁸⁷ The Historia now serves as a vital additional witness to what those within the Latin East thought about events which had occurred in their lands after 1127, for which historians have until now been reliant almost entirely on William of Tyre. Though it offers little that is new to the Chronicon’s information, its selective use of material does at least offer a window onto what the Eastern Latins might have hoped would serve as the main points of historical value. Also important is that the Historia can now be considered as the earliest written witness to William of Tyre’s text, replacing the work of Guy of Bazoches, composed at the very end of that decade, or the early thirteenth century.⁸⁸ Moreover, the Historia shows William’s text being used by a likely Jerusalemite soon after its creation in exactly the way the archbishop appears to have hoped when he sat down to write his main prologue.⁸⁹ We might even wonder whether the Historia’s anonymous author wrote the text to accompany copies of William’s Chronicon sent to Europe. In this regard, it is potentially significant that Ambroise, an Anglo-Norman, is perhaps our first witness to the Anonymous, for it is in England that we find two of our earliest manuscript witnesses to William’s text.⁹⁰ It is also interesting that one of the manuscripts of the Anonymous Historia carries a copy of the Tractatus de locis et statu sancte terre ierosolimitane, as this accompanies William’s Chronicon in those two early-thirteenth-century English manuscripts.⁹¹ The descriptions the text includes of the tombs of the Jerusalemite kings also add greater texture to our rather scant contemporary knowledge of the royal mausoleum at Mount Calvary, in particular the placement of Baldwin IV’s tomb.

The Historia can also be seen to lend greater weight to recent work that has sought to stress the importance of First Crusade memories to Latin literary cultures and identities in the crusader states, especially in the figure of Godfrey of Bouillon.⁹² Indeed, after noting the tribulations of the Christians of the East prior to the crusade, the Historia notes:

But then the Lord took pity on His people, for the fulness of time was at hand, namely the first centenary after the millennium, and God sent His son, namely His specially chosen knight Godfrey of Bouillon, a very devout prince who, like a second Joshua, drove out the false Jebusites and by his countless labours and battles restored this city and land to her true heirs.

The circular allusion, noted above, to the placing of shields or weapons on the wall likewise intersects with, and takes further, this call for knights of the author’s own time to emulate Godfrey and the other crusaders. As noted above, the comment made at the start that the First Crusaders, described as noble forefathers, had captured Jerusalem by adorning the field of battle with their shields, and not by decorating the walls with their weapons, which is then answered later in the text by the note that none of the great Christian leaders, with their arms that decorate the walls, had been able to recover the Holy Sepulchre, leads into the author’s command to:

place it in your hearts to render repayment to Him in return, to march in the footsteps of the most noble Prince Godfrey with all your might, to obtain once more the entirety of your inheritance, and, after driving the illegitimate sons from there by your purity of life, to keep it forever. May Jesus Christ the just judge grant this to you, he who has freely hung his weapons of war on the cross for the restoration of your justice in Jerusalem.

These passages demonstrate that memories of that initial expedition, particularly in the figure of Godfrey of Bouillon, were as pervasive in the Latin East as they were in the Latin West. Indeed, Godfrey’s status here as a Christ-like, God-sent biblical hero goes beyond the author’s source material, that is William of Tyre. This indicates how important, and indeed universal, such memories were, for the anonymous author’s words not only reflect the local endurance of Godfrey’s reputation, which William emphasised through his comment that stories of the former were still told at the time he was writing, but also the expectation and understanding that its evocation would have the desired effect on warriors in the Latin West who might see it as an impingement on their honour not to try and emulate him.⁹³ As Natasha Hodgson and others have shown, honour and shame – particularly in a gendered sense – were powerful tools for crusade recruitment and are consistent undercurrents of crusade narratives.⁹⁴ If we are able to accept that the Historia is indeed a product of the Latin East, then this would argue that this, and the role of First Crusade heroes in perpetuating it, was understood in the crusader states, just as it was in the Latin West.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the Anonymous Historia may now also represent one of the earliest written rationales for the kingdom’s fall to Saladin to have been produced in the East. It is well-known that many Europeans sought to explain this disaster almost immediately, in encyclicals, chronicles, letters, songs, etc., but the surviving written evidence from the Latin East is rather less prolific. As such, the Anonymous Historia could offer an overlooked perspective to the textual processes of explanation and blame that surrounded the events of 1187, and even a counterbalance to Ernoul, as well as a further window onto how the surviving ruling classes of the crusader states sought to express and perpetuate the legitimacy of the kingdom at this crucial moment. It could certainly be argued that the Historia reflects a level of anxiety about the validity of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem following 1187, such that its author clearly saw the need, as part of an attempt to convince the warriors of the Latin West to offer military aid, to craft a narrative that, much like William of Tyre’s Chronicon but perhaps even more so, expressed Outremer’s worthiness for intervention.⁹⁵ Part of this, as already noted, relied on the evocation of the First Crusade, for Godfrey was the kingdom’s founder, but it was also achieved through a focus on the qualities and military successes of his successors.

Thus, when the narrative passes through the various reigns of Jerusalem’s kings, they are each in some way lauded (with William of Tyre’s more nuanced depictions flattened into relentless praise), while the author also lists the main conquests and several battles. Of the kings, then, the Anonymous author describes Baldwin II as ‘a most energetic knight’; Baldwin III was ‘by God’s grace and good fortune a capable man, following in the footsteps, as it were, of the [earlier] King Baldwins both in name and in truth’; of Amalric it was said that he ‘ruled well for twelve years, humbling the enemy on all sides’ (his manly breasts and licentiousness, as described by William of Tyre, being of no concern to the Anonymous); and of Baldwin IV it was said that, following two victories over Saladin, ‘after this humiliation Saladin did not dare to invade the kingdom of Jerusalem ever again in Baldwin’s days’.⁹⁶ Added to this, as can be ascertained from the text’s aforementioned description of Queen Melisende’s worthy support for her husband and son, the text also omits the conflict which raged between that queen and Baldwin III as each sought to assert their power following Fulk’s death in 1142, and instead offers the picture of a clean and peaceful succession.⁹⁷

Turning to the battles, the key aspects included by the Anonymous in each case are the Muslim leader who was defeated; the respective odds in terms of numbers per army; and the numbers of enemies killed (at times compared with the Latins losses). Regarding the Muslim leaders, they are at times seen as arrogant – for example, it is noted of Tughtakin of Damascus that he was ‘in his own opinion, more exalted than Alexander’. However, others are seen as powerful enemies, no doubt to better accentuate the skill of the Latins in defeating them. Perhaps the clearest example here is Saladin, who is described as ‘the most renowned Saracen amongst all the Saracens’. Turning to the issue of numbers, there is a definite impression that, even if it was a reality that the Latins were outnumbered, we are meant to be left with a real sense that they achieved victory against the odds. Thus, the Muslim forces almost always number many thousands, while the notion of the Latins having few men is oft repeated. The same theme can be found in terms of the dead, as many thousands of Muslims are killed or captured, while the Latins lose few in return. To give an example, at Qinnasrin in 1133/4, Fulk of Jerusalem is said to have faced ‘a multitude of men that seethed forth from the heart of Persia’, to have killed some 3000 of them, and to have put the rest to flight ‘with few of his own men falling’. Some anomalies are created by this approach, as the author numbers the battles but, perhaps knowing that their audience might know William of Tyre, they sometimes jump in time – for example, Baldwin III’s first war is listed as taking place in the ninth year of his reign, which neatly sidesteps the issue of the Second Crusade.

All this serves to create the sense that the battle of Hattin, and the political intrigue and fragmentation that surrounded it, was an aberration, an outlier in the wider span of the kingdom’s history, such that even the battle of the Springs of Cresson in May 1187 is omitted. The author does not even particularly dwell on the events of Hattin. While it is seen as a great disaster, and it is made clear that Guy of Lusignan’s greed (alongside that of Queen Sybil and Raymond III of Tripoli), as well as the wider sins of the settlers, allowed for God’s punishment to be inflicted upon them, the details of the battle are not described in any great depth. Thus, direct mention is only made of Guy’s capture and the deaths of the masters of the military orders – though it is also said that all of the knights perished. Likewise, Jerusalem’s surrender is detailed only in a small notice. As a result, those called upon by the Anonymous author to take up the cross and crusade would be doing so not only to emulate the crusading exploits of Godfrey of Bouillon, but to save a kingdom, an inheritance (hereditatem), that had been governed by some of the most praiseworthy rulers of the period for some 88 years.

In this regard, the author’s decision to also perpetuate Godfrey’s decision not to accept the title of king in a way that dampens William of Tyre’s suggestion that he was king in deed, even if not in name, could be significant.⁹⁸ The Historia’s author here was likely not actively seeking to challenge William’s position on whether Godfrey was actually king out of any regard for empirical truth, but rather because it made better sense of Godfrey’s status as the hero of the text.⁹⁹ Though the numbered kings are, with the exception of Guy, all praised and set up as figures of note, it is only Godfrey who is singled out for emulation. The idealised crusader of the Historia, then, was a holy warrior dedicated to saving Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, but not one who would then seek to claim power for himself. For an author entrenched in the political climate of the Latin East, this would certainly have been a useful message, especially when seen in the context of the issues surrounding the succession of the kingdom that emerged in the wake of Jerusalem’s fall and across the Third Crusade.¹⁰⁰

Editorial principles

Since all the manuscripts are from the fifteenth century, the choice of which to use as base is by no means obvious. The earliest of the five may be B (Oxford), which was used by Kohler, but A (Durham) and C (London) were very probably both copied in the 1480s. Manuscripts D (Rome) and E (The Hague) also offer close copies, though neither was known to Canisius or Kohler and the text they contain has previously been undervalued because it was held to be an abridgement (‘epitome’) of Jacques de Vitry’s Historia Orientalis. D and E are closely related, very likely copied from the same exemplar, as shown by the pattern of variants as well as the major additions and omissions described above. The scribe of the conjectural shared exemplar, or of one of its antecedents, made intelligent emendations to the text which are not generally shared with manuscript B, which was copied by another scholarly scribe. Manuscripts D and E are so closely worded that one might be eliminandus, were it not that the earlier, D, omitted the reign of Baldwin III, which is in E.

Manuscript C, while clearly a version of the same text and often sharing variants with D and E (thus suggesting the Genoese scribe may even have drawn upon a text related to D and E when making emendations to the Historia), has sufficient unique readings to set it apart from the textual tradition shared by the other four texts. Minor idiosyncrasies of C include the occasional use of Arabic numerals rather than Roman, and the accurate deployment of the Greek accusative and genitive for the placename Tiberias. Manuscripts A and B tend to be verbally close. The difference is that scribe B was the better Latinist and palaeographer. William Ebesham, who copied A, was rather frequently puzzled by contractions and abbreviations in his exemplar. His approach, since he seems not to have had enough Latin to expand them, was to copy them as accurately as he could. Thus, in the first few lines of the text he was unable to expand tre to trenis, vis to viz or videlicet, and wrote vitruoser, a non-existent word, where other scribes had expanded their source to read intrusoribus or incursoribus.¹⁰¹ Other than this, which may be seen as a virtue rather than a shortcoming, there is little to choose between manuscripts A and B, but since B omitted the important passage about Baldwin IV’s battles with Saladin, which is in A, the latter has been used for the edition, corrected with reference to B or other manuscripts for the most part reserved for when it is necessary to make better sense of the Latin. Moreover, where word ordering might differ, but the meaning of the sentence is unchanged, we have simply followed A and not included the variants, although such variants were noted when establishing the relationships between the manuscripts.

The Latin text has been punctuated according to modern syntactical principles. Orthography varies widely both within and between the five manuscripts, but for the edition we have endeavoured to render individual words consistently, though decisions on their standardisation may perhaps be arbitrary: e for the classical æ, for example, but ti rather than ci in words like militia. Where spellings have a recognisable medieval form shared by the manuscripts (e.g. opidum for oppidum) we have not intervened. Names of people and places are especially problematic. Different spellings of the same name are listed at its first appearance only, and the version found in the text is usually either the one that is most often found in medieval texts, especially William of Tyre’s Chronicon, or the one that is closest to the modern name, for example A’s reading Boloigne for Godfrey clearly confused Boulogne and Bouillon, so the reading Bulion from D and E is used: whether this is an earlier usage preserved or an intelligent correction of an earlier error can only be speculated. A more intractable problem is numbers. In the same manuscript they may be spelt out in words, written as Roman numerals or, in C’s case, occasionally rendered with ‘modern’ Arabic numerals. Our decision was to use Roman numerals in the text (but to spell out milia, milibus) and to record variants only when the actual number has been recorded wrongly. Very minor variations which do not affect the meaning, such as a scribe’s using ac for et or ergo for igitur, have not been recorded as variants. Similarly, William of Ebesham, who copied A, had a predilection for beginning sentences with a redundant Et and rather than note this countless times as an addition or omission, we have omitted it from the text and from the apparatus criticus. Finally, we have divided the text and translation into numbered sections to facilitate navigation between the two. These divisions are in none of the manuscripts we used.

Edition

Table

A	Durham University Library, MS Cosin V.iii.7
B	Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 722
C	British Library, MS Burney 73
D	Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 10688
E	Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 73 G 8

[1]	aDocet Vigetiusb cin libroc de re militari quod ideo acta predecessorum nostrorumd commendantur scripturise ut posteri ipsa pertractantes illorumf laudabilia debeant imitari, dicente apostolo gad Romanos xv: quecumque scripta sunt ad nostram doctrinam sunt.g Cum ergo non sine cordis amaritudine revolvere aut fari potero illud lamentabile dictum propheticum trenish primo: quomodo sedet sola civitas, videlicet nostrei redemptionis, plena populo,j orbata propriis liberis, fecundata spuriis, alienatak suis filiis, collocata servis, spoliata heredibus, occupatal intrusoribusm privataquen Christi fidelibus et conculcata ao canibusp heu ut amplius dicam Iherusalem mater nostra sic iam servit cum suis liberis quod facta est nobis quasi vidua domina gentium inimicis sanctisq crucis Christi rsponsar ad libitum, ssicques universis Christi fidelibus, facta est sub tributo.
[2]	Quapropter dolorosum os meum nunca ponam in pulvere nobilium patrumb precedentium ipsorum facta vel gesta breviterc recitando, qualiter ipsorum quidam itad veri Christi milites nomene vere militie non inaniter usurpantesf qui non armis muros depingentes, sed clipeis campos illustrantes. Hanc civitatem sacratissimam eripuerunt ag canibus, et reddiderunt veris heredibus. Si forte sit spes, quod nostri moderni nobiles ipsorum operah perlegentes valeanti amore vel dolore ad peragendum similiaj eorumk actibusl provocari, nam licet hec civitas sanctam terraquen vicina, Christi sanguineo dedicata fueratp ab ipsaq passione a Christi fidelibus sparsim inhabitata.r Tamen a tempore Eraclii,s imperatoris Christianissimi, videlicet ab anno domini vicxxxvio, quo tempore ipsam cepit Homart saracenus discipulus seductoris Machametiu et post eumv princeps arabum tertius, usque ad tempora Godefridiw de Bulionx videlicety ad annum domini mlxxxxix,z hoc estaa bbivclxiiibb annos, fuit a Christi fidelibus violenter alienata et dominio saracenorum totaliter subiugata.
[3]	Seda misertus dominusb populo suoc imminente plenitudine temporis, videlicetd annoe primo centenario supra millenarium, misit Deus filiumf suumg militemh scilicet electissimumi dominumj Godefridi de Bulion principem devotissimum,k qui velut alterl Josuem Jebuseis expulsisn spuriis civitatem hanc et terram cum innumeris laboribus et preliis veris heredibuso restauravit, nam divina tunc cooperante gratia inveniens ad hoc corda ipsorump disposita receptacula, inmisit deus per quendam servum suumq pauperimum nomine Petrum Heremitam simplicissimumr in cordibus suorum militum, videlicet domini Godefridi predicti nobilissimi militis, domini Balduinis sui germani, domini tBalduini det Burgo eorumdemu consanguinei, domini Hugonis germani regis Francie, ducisv Normanniew germani regis Anglie, domini Roberti comitis Flandrie, xdomini Raymundiy comitis Tolosani, domini comitis Sancti Egidii, comitis Blesencie, comitis Carnotensis, comitis Sancti Pauli, aliorumque venerabilium ultramontanorum militum, necnon dominiz Beamundiaa principis Tarentini, domini Tancredibb filii ducis Apulie, multorumque venerabiliumcc cismontanorum nobilium,x domini insuper episcopi Podiensis diversorumque aliorum prelatorumdd spiritualium, ad cultum Dei observandum suaee corda disponentium, ut isti duces electi,ff a iugo servitutis infideliumgg suum populum liberarent.
[4]	Hii omnes corde uno et anima una malentes citiusa vitam propriam perdere quamb gentisc sue malad ulterius esustinere,e loca sancta prophanari amplius permittere, zelo aspersionisf sanguinis Christi et iustitie,g hereditatemh nitentesi pro viribus veris jheredibus verisquej filiis restituere. Anno abk incarnatione domini moxcovio,l presidente papa Urbano secundo,m Henrico existenten imperatore Romano,op Grecorum qimperatore Alexio in consilio generali apud Clarum Montem ad istius terre liberationem cruce erantr signati. Quo quidem anno turmatim et non simul per Ungariam propter hospitiorums stricturamt et sic continue per Greciam et ultrau semper pro terram siccam quasiv leones ad predam versus istam sanctam Iherusalemw velocius viam ceperunt. Inventusx yeraty numerus cruce signatorum, vic miliaz pugnatorumaa bbde quibuscc tamendd quibusdam aspicientibus retro revertentibus,bbee quibusdam interfectisff ab hostibus, aliis morbisgg diversisquehh infirmitatibus per viam, residuisque inii itinerejj passiskk caloribusll ac frigoribus, barbarorummm Bulgarorum variis resistentiis, fame,nn sitioo innumerispp aliisqq infortuniis.rr
[5]	aAnno iiiob sequenti, scilicet moxcoixo, xvoc died mensis Iulii tunce existentif gferia viah ipassionis Christii solum xl milia, quorum v milia erant equites, xxx milia pedites,j alia v milia puerik et mulieresl cum predicto duce eorum domino Godefrido mde Bulionm Iherusalem pervenerunt. Unden venientes,o invenerunt in sanctap civitateq Iherusalemr xls milia saracenorum armatorum, excepto alio populo innumerabili.t Sedu tunc dux Godefridus nobilissimus,v armatusw iustitia et fervore sancti propositi, suos confortans in domino, quibusdam infidelibus fugientibus et trucidatis resistentibusx virilitery etz glorioseaa die et anno supradictis,bb civitatem hanc sanctissimam veris heredibuscc filiis fidelibus plenius obtinebat.
[6]	Quo gratia dei facto locisquea sanctissimis cum omnib reverentia visitatis, regem principem ac dominum civitatis et populi patronumc ducemd Godefridum omni honore dignume unanimiter elegerunt. Qui licet ad multarum precum instantias civitatis regimenf ac populi nomenque domini quasi inviteg admiserat,h sedi ubij Christusk pro eol fuit coronatus spinea corona ipse corona aurea mhonoris seu regnim coronari noluit nec rex appellari. Tandemn devictus oipsis instantiiso regimen populi sub nomine ducis recipiens, civitates Ramam,p Joppen, qPorphippamq sub Monte Carmeli,r Tiberiams super mare Galilee,t quam plurima opida et castra uoptima etu maximisv preliisw adquirensx principem milities Soldaniy cum infinita multitudine devincens, solum per xi menses post captionemz civitatis superveniens in domino requievit,aa sepultus sub Monte Calvarie princeps nobilissimus ac speculum omnium regum,bb cuius animam ccnon dubiumcc ipse pro cuius amore, terram hanc adquisivit secum in terra viventium feliciter collocavit.
[7]	Mortuo quoa strenuissimo principe Godefrido, cuius memoriab non immerito inter universos reges seuc principes possidere debeatd principatum, primus rex latinorum in Iherusalem ab omnibus electus et coronatus de eadem stirpee beataf fuit germanus gsuusg Balduinus, qui honore regio fuith sublimatus. In primo bello quod habuit cum cc lxi equitibusj cm peditibusk principem militiel Soldani Egypti venientem cum xvm milibusn equitum xxx milibus peditum, cesis ex ipsis v milibus viriliter effugavit. In secundo prelio innumerabilem multitudinem Ascalonitarum simul et Egyptiorum cum incomparabilio hominump paucitate fortissime superavit. In tertio quoque prelio habens secum ccccc armatos,q ii milia peditumr principem militie Soldanis Egyptiorum cum xxiit milibus hominum iiii millibus ex ipsis occisis viriliter superavit, et ipsumu in fugam convertit. Hic Assur opidum fortissimum, inter Joppen et Cesaream vet etiam ipsam Cesareamv Palestine metropolim, Barutum,w Accon,x Sydonem ex parte boriali Iherusalem et totam patriam vicinam Christi fidelibus adquisivit. Ad orientalemy ultra Jordanemz castrum munitissimum quod appellavit Montem Regalemaa suis sumptibus fundavit. Inter Tyrum et Accon aliudbb quod Scandalum dictum fueratcc eo quod scandalum maximum saracenis fecit, suis etdd expensis construxit etee quasi totam terram promissionis ffChristianisff ggsubiecit.gg Hic per xviiio annos regiminishh regnans regnum strenuissime augmentans et gubernans in domino requievit. Et exopposito sepulcri germani sui sub sancto Monte Calvarie, iiibi iacet etii sepultus.jj
[8]	Tertius dominus et secundus rex latinorum in sanctaa civitate Iherusalem, eo quod venerabilis dominusb Godefridus et suusc germanus Balduinus sined liberis decesserunt de fructu carnis corruptibilis minime curantes, fuit dominus Balduinus de Burgo eorumdeme consanguineus miles strenuissimus,f ab omni populog postulatus. Hic in primo prelioh suo cum dcc equitibus paucisquei peditibus Gazi principem gentisj turcorum cum infinita multitudinek cesis ex ipsis ivl milibus fortissimem de campo eiecit.n In secundoo preliop veroq secum habens m et c equites, et iir milia peditum, regem Damasci, cum xv milibus, ii milibus ex ipsiss cesis,t fugam appetereu coegit. In tertio preliov regem Ascalonitarum cum innumerabili populo Egypti, dorsumw vertere fecit.x In quartoy prelioz cumaa Deldequinumbb regem Damasci ccin sua propria opinionecc excedentemdd eesublimitatemee Alexandri proiectis de ipsius exercitu ii milia, de Christianis ciiii viris,ff ad fugam potenter deduxit.
[9]	Quibus factis, ne forte nimium extolleretur in graciis sibi datis, aut forsan peccatis occultis aliunde provenientibus,a vo anno regni sui captusb fuit a saracenis et per ii annos in carcere retentus.c Quo tempore dominus patriarcha de consilio regined cum assistentium nobilium terree concurrente duce Venetorumf cum xl galeis Tyrum metropolim provincie Phenicisg civitatemh quasii inexpugnabiliem diutinaj obsidionek magnal sanguinisquem effusione in manu valida exquisierunt.n Quod videntes saraceni attendenteso Christianos captionip suiq regis magisr esse attritoss quodt uin aliquo repercussosu ipsos amplius timentes regem iusta redemptione regniv sui anno septimo liberumw reddiderunt.x Qui liberatus ay zcarcere multiplicius ipsisaa nocuit, terras civitatesz et castra quodambb plurima adquisivit,cc adquisitadd quoqueee munivit et sic xiiio anno sui regni in domino ffobdormiensff iuxta murum chorigg Sepulchrihh sub lapide est tumulatus.
[10]	Quartus dominus et tertius rex latinorum civitatisa sancteb Iherusalem erat dominus Fulco comes Andegavie,c quia videns predictus rex dominusd Balduinus quode heredem filium non habuit,f et lineag venerabilis Godefridi in eo inh masculis defecit,i ipso viventej misit pro predicto Fulcone cui filiam suam nomine Milesendamk in uxorem tradidit, et post morteml simulm et regnum assignavit. Defuncto igitur Balduino et ipso ab omnibus accepto,n in regno iio anno regni sui, contrao multitudinem virorump de sinuq Persico ebullientemr audacter ad campum regredienss iii milia ext ipsis occidit. Reliquos in fugam convertit, paucis ex suis cadentibus cum ugloriosissimau victoria ad propria remeavit. Hicv more predecessorum suorum regnum prudenter gubernans nichil diminuens sed augmentans, undique hostes debellans dumw semel in territorio Accon leporemx insequeretur,y de equo cecidit zet conquassatus ad mortem, relinquens suosaa duos filiosbb Balduinum et Almaricum.zcc ddXIo anno regni sui predictusee rexdd lamentabili infortunio de istoff mundo recessit. Et in ggloco sancto regum merito sepulture traditus est.gg
[11]	Quintusa dominus et quartus rexb Iherusalem fuit tertius Balduinus primogenitus predicti regis Fulconis, qui sublimatus in regem licet adhuc iuvenis etate,c vir tamen potens gratiad dei et fortunae fsicut etf nomine itag et re vestigiis inherens regum Balduinorum. Nam ixo anno regni sui inh primo bello innumerabiles turcorum nobiles, ipsum adhuc iuvenem debellare cupientes, interfectisi jab ipsisj vk milibus captis et fugatis cuml totidem centennariism fortissime expugunavit. In alio prelion regem Damasci nomine Noradinumo cum innumerabili exercitu cum paucis viris fidelibus, a campo prelii fugavit, pcunctis remanentibus captisp etq interfectis, gloriosam victoriam reportavit. Cuius mater regina Milesenda, tempore suo et sui patris, quasi xxx annis regnum rin yconimicisr satis fideliters rexit,t ut ipsi reges liberaliusu armis etv factis bellicis intendere potuerunt.w Hic Balduinus xxiiiix annis regnans hostes continuey zsuperavit.z aaAnno xxvobb nec sibi relinquens liberos, ad dominum transivitcc et cum suis patribus sancte sepulture cumdd honore regio eecommendabatur.ee
[12]	Sextus dominus et quintus rex latinoruma Iherusalem fuit Almaricus predicti Balduini bgermanusque secundus.b Hic assumptus in regem, in primo bello in partibus Egypti cumc Dargan principed militie Egyptiorum facta strage maxima, incredibileme victoriam obtinuit gloriosam.f In secundo bello, cum ccclxxg equitibus, paucisqueh peditibus annexis,i principem militie Damascenorum cum xii milibus de turcis et xi milibus de arabisj audacter invasit. Etk centum de suis cadentibus, letl mmcccccm de hostibus, nnocte eis superveniente abinvicem discederunt,o honorem campip et prelii sibi et suisq servavit.r Hic Almaricus xiio annis bene regens undique hostes deiciens. Anno xiiios cum patribus suist uibidem feliciteru requievit vin domino eterno.v
[13]	Septimus dominus et sextus rex latinoruma Iherusalem fuit quartus Balduinus prefatib Almarici filius unigenitus. Hic coronatus in regem ignota causa divine actionis a sua infantia lepra erat percussus. Qui tamenc suisd temporibus eregnumf strenuissimeg ab hostium timore preservavit,h huius temporibus Saladinusi omnium saracenorumj inter saracenos nominatissimus surrexit, quik postmodum Christianorum peccatis exigentibus totam terram sanctam abstulit dolose.l Iste tamen Balduinus tertio anno regni sui ipsi Saladino et xxvi milibus exercitus sui cum cccm lxx equitibus etn paucis peditibus in partibus Ascalone occurrens. Interemptis ex suis precise,o iv viris abp hostibus innumerabilibus ipsum Saladinum cum sibi relictis potentissimeq effugavit. In alio bello iuxta Tiberiam suprar mare Galilee cum dcc equitibus et mille peditibus ipsum Saladinum cum xx milibus saracenorum et amplius milles occisis sic enimt confusibiliter repercussit quod diebus ipsius Balduini regnum Iherusalem nunquam invadereu aususv fuit.e
[14]	aHic licet temporibusa suis regnum bstrenuissime defendit,b causa tamen sue infirmitatis uxorem ducere noluit. cIdeo sorores duasd quas habuit nuptui tradere disposuit. Quarum progenitam nomine Sibillam dedit nobilissimo militi domino Willelmoe de Longa Spata, marchioni Montis Ferratif sibi spondens regnum Iherusalem,g et suo filio masculo sih quem Deus daret.i Sed disponente Deo, jqui peccati vindictam ad suum placitum dissimulat,j predictuskl Willelmus genitom exn Sibilla filioo et nomine sui avunculi Balduini sibi imposito, ante mortem ipsius regisp vitam hanc finivit.q Quodr videnss dictust rex infirmus tactus doloreu intrinsecus precavensv inw futurum timens,x ney hostes scientes suam debilitatemz audacius regnum invaderent, quidamaa militi adolescenti vocatobb ccGuidoni de Lusinianocc ddsororem ipsamee Sibillam secundo marito indd matrimoniumff coniuxitgg hhut ipsumii regem infirmumjj puerum heredem et regnum suo virili gubernaculo fortiuskk defensaret. Qui lluxoremll regimenque regni recipiens,mm sicquenn paucis diebus evolutis, ipsum regem offendit, quareoo ppipsum de gubernaculopp totius regni eiecit,qq et congregatis sui regni baronibus nepotem suum puerulumrr in regem fecit inungi et ipsum infantem et regnum tutele domini Bertrandriss tunc comitis Tripolitani plenius committebat.tt Quo facto eodem anno regni sui viiio ipse rex infirmus extrema lucis claudebatuu cum suis patribusvv regibus, ad wwinitium dolorumww fidelium, xxiuxta chorum Sancti Sepulchri traditur sepulture.
[15]	Octavus dominus et septimus rexa Iherusalem latinorum ut patet ex predictisb fuit quintusc Balduinus filius marchionis predicti qui ind eodem anno mortuo suo avunculo absque factis regiis, quasi de uteroe translatus ad tumulumf citius evolavit,g iuxta predictum avunculumh in parvo sepulcro regio extitit tumulatus.
[16]	Nonus dominus et octavusa rex ultimus latinorum binc civitate sanctabd Iherusalem fuit predictuse Guido de Lusiniano, secundus maritusf predicte Sibille, quig nimiah pompositatei apparens,j meruit privari. Undek mortuis predictis Balduinisl mgermano scilicet et filiom hec Sibilla reginan regine ohonore eto nomine in se gaudere voluit coniugique placere. Sicp prudenter egit cum domino patriarcha episcopis et aliis regni nobilibus, quod mox, ignorantieq comite,r cui regnis dabatur gubernaculum, ipsum Guidonem secundum maritumt in regem fecit inungi et in solio regiou citius sublimari.
[17]	Quod audiens comes prefatus, ipsoa non requisito hoc opus factum fuisse, tamenb cipse ad regnumd eiuse aspiravit. fTantumf concepit dolorem et peperit iniquitatem quodg statim cum Saladino et aliis circumquaque saracenis treugash cepiti occultas, etj amplius regi resistit,k cum domina totius Galilee que tunc vidua eratl matrimonium contraxit. Quo facto ortam est in regno dissentio, quibusdam prefato regi, quibusdam ipsin comiti in augmentum discordie flebiliter adherentibus, quod viam dabat saraceniso regnum et regem audacius invadendi.
[18]	Heu,a quod statim Saladinus intendensb quod regnumc sitd divisum levius possite destrui fruptoquef foramine ingressusg facilius,h mox regnumi cepit invadere, undique fideles affligere, acceptojk placito treugas captas rumpere,l regem et omnes nobiles plagis incessabilibus ad prelia provocare. Unde peccatis exigentibus,m interfectis militibus,n aliis se sponte reddentibus ceterisque letaliter vulneratis, oin quop belloo superq mare Tiberiadis, capto ipso rege magistrisr Hospitaliss Iherusalem ac Templi militie,t totum regnum infra annum obtinuit dolorose. Et sic terram sanctam Christi sanguine consecratam, quamu dominus Godefridus de Bulion princeps inclitissimus, carus deo et hominibus cum suis devotissimisv sociis anno domini wmolxxxxoix,w xvo die mensis Iulii, xmaximisx laboribus ety periculisz aainfusioneaa sanguinisbb Christi fidelibuscc heredibus adquisivit, illedd rex Guido octavus cum suis eeinfortuniis etee infortunatis nobilibus, ipsorum peccatis exigentibus in populoff plebanogg regnantibushh avaritia, gula, luxuria, ceterisque viciis,ii jjanno dominikk mocolxxxviioll miserabiliter perdidit atque alienavit.
[19]	Nec usque hodie quispiama inter reges Christianos omnes virilesb principes, duces, comites, barones seu milites accedentesc vel mittentes ecclesie Sancti Sepulcrid suis armis qui depingunt parietes, valuite frestaurare.f Unde quodg peccato requirente et non sine offensah deoi deserente, huiusmodi perditionis jinfortunium meruit evenire. kCertok claruit, evidente iuditio, rerum signo, quod ipsil regi et suo populo in ipso prelio perditionis apertius imminebat.m Nam non legiturn aliquem regemo predecessorum suorump totq equites omnium hominum in aliquo duxisse bello quot iste rexr Guido milites shabuit et plurest nobiless in illo prelio captos atque vulneratos, quoniam de mcc militibus nullus manusu infidelium fugerev valebat.w
[20]	Sancta quoquea bcrux Christi,b cque inaudito miraculo in adventud Godefridie loco sancto per quendam hominem devotissimum ffuit adinventa,f etg in omnih prelio regum velut vexillum summi regis reverenter deportata,i jcuiusj virtutisk intuitul hominesm semper cadebant, in ipson bello sancteo terre perditionis,p sic mirabiliterq evanuit,r quod nec a Christianis, nec as saracenis, usque ad tempus presens, potuitt inveniri. uEx quibus satis liquet quod qui populum Iudaicum suis peccatis exigentibus a terra ipsav sancta expulit et reiecit gentem Christianam etiam suis viciis promerentibusw eiusdemx dominio omittendoy infidelibus, penitus exstirpavit.u
[21]	Quaproptera fideles Christi militesb cnobilesd considerate terrame non tantumf promissionis sed sanguinis Christi aspertionisg eth nostrei redemptionis et factis perambulatej eam videntes quomodo Deus et homo non per arma alia, sedk per brachia propria et totius corporis membra, vos ab antiqui hostis captivitatel ibidem moriendo redeunt. Et ponitem in cordibus vestris vices sibi reddere nnobilissimi principis Godefridi vestigiao pro viribus incederep vestramq hereditatem iterum omnino adquirere, et per vite puritatem rexpulsis inder spuriis perpetues possidere.n Quod vobist concedatu Ihesus Christiv iustusw iudex, quix proy vestraz inaa Iherusalem iustitiabbcc restauranda sua arma in crucis brachiis liberedd appendebat. eeAmen.ee
[22]	Notandum est insuper,a quod eodem anno predicti regis captionis, residueque terre sancteb perditionis, civitas hec sancta Iherusalemc non sentiens defensorem, ia die mensis Octobrisd dominio Saladini, salvise rebusf et personis, se libere offerebat. Ex quibus patet cum premissis quod summa annorum quibusg Iherusalem reges et principes in Christi nomine dominabantur fuit lxxxvi annorumh ii mensium et xix dierum. Et ecce quam parvo tempore propter sua peccata nostri Christiani suam hereditatem, gratia summi regis tam inopinabiliteri conquisitamj merueruntk possidere.l

o—————o—————o—————o—————o

[23]

aNota quod anno incarnationis domini nostri Ihesu Christi cccoxlo,b cpost ipsius benedictam passionem in iiio die mensis Maii, sub parte orientali Montis Calvarie inventa fuit sancta crux per beatam Helenamd matrem Constantini imperatoris christianissimi.e Que quidem crux anno domini cccccco xviiio per Cosdroe regem Persarum fde civitate sancta Iherusalemf violenter fuit raptag, et adh regnum persarum peri eumj estk deportata. Sed secundol anno sequenti, mid estm nanno domini occccccoxxviiio,o xivo die mensis Septembris,n perp imperatorem Heraclium qcivitati isti Iherusalem fuit iterum restituta. Unde festum eiusdem exaltationis per universam Christianitatem usque ad tempus presens feliciter celebratur.aq

Translation

[1]	In his book De re militari, Vegetius teaches that the deeds of our predecessors are to be committed to writing in such a way that when posterity studies them it ought to imitate their praiseworthy acts; as the apostle wrote to the Romans: For what things soever were written, were written for our learning.1 Therefore, although I shall not be able to consider or to speak without bitterness of heart2 that sorrowful saying of the prophet in Lamentations 1: How does the city (that is to say the city of our redemption) sit solitary that was full of people!,3 bereaved of her own children, impregnated with bastards, estranged from her sons, given in marriage to slaves, stripped of her heirs, occupied by usurpers, deprived of Christ’s faithful, and trampled underfoot by dogs, let me say, alas indeed, that Jerusalem, our mother, is now enslaved with her sons in such a way that the mistress of the gentiles is become as a widow for us,4 espoused to the enemies of Christ’s cross for as long as they please, and so she is made tributary for all Christ’s faithful.5
[2]	For this reason let me now place my sorrowful face in the dust6 of our noble forefathers by briefly recounting their deeds or acts, how some true soldiers of Christ thus assumed the name of His true militia, not without good reason, and they snatched this most holy city from the dogs and restored her to her true heirs, not by decorating the walls with their weapons, but by adorning battlefields with their shields. I do this in the hope that our present-day nobles, studying their deeds, are able to be inspired by love or sorrow to perform similar deeds to theirs. For although this holy city and the neighbouring territory had been consecrated by the blood of Christ, it was sparsely inhabited by Christ’s faithful from the time of His Passion. And yet, from the time of Herakleios, a most Christian emperor, that is from ad 636, when the Saracen ‘Umar, disciple of the deceiver Muhammed and the third Arab ruler after him, captured the city, she was violently estranged from Christ’s faithful and entirely subjugated to Saracen rule right up to the times of Godfrey of Bouillon, that is until ad1099, or for 463 years.
[3]	But then the Lord took pity on His people, for the fulness of time was at hand,7 namely the first centenary after the millennium, and God sent His son, namely His specially chosen knight Godfrey of Bouillon, a very devout prince who, like a second Joshua, drove out the false Jebusites and by his countless labours and battles restored this city and land to her true heirs. With the assistance of divine grace, which found their hearts willing receptacles for it at that time, and through His most humble servant called Peter, the simplest of hermits, God instilled in the hearts of His knights – namely of Lord Godfrey, the aforesaid very noble warrior; Lord Baldwin, his brother, and Lord Baldwin of Bourcq, their kinsman; Lord Hugh, the king of France’s brother; the duke of Normandy, the king of England’s brother; Lord Robert, count of Flanders; Lord Raymond, the count of Toulouse, the lord count of Saint-Gilles; the count of Blois, the count of Chartres; the count of Saint-Pol, and other worthy knights from north of the Alps; and also Bohemond, prince of Taranto; Lord Tancred, son of the duke of Apulia, and other worthy knights from south of the Alps; the lord bishop of Le Puy as well, and various other devout bishops who inclined their hearts to observe God’s worship – the desire that these chosen leaders and many others not named here would deliver His people from the infidels’ yoke of servitude.8
[4]	All of these with one heart and one soul, preferring sooner to lose their own lives than to put up any longer with the ills of their people and to allow the holy places to be further desecrated, with zeal for [avenging] the shedding of Christ’s blood and for justice, were striving with all their might to restore their heritage to its true heirs and true sons. Therefore in ad 1096, when Urban II was presiding as pope, Henry was the Roman emperor, and Alexios emperor of the Greeks, they were signed with the cross for the deliverance of that land in a general council at Clermont. In that very year they quickly began the journey towards the holy city Jerusalem, like lions in pursuit of prey: through Hungary, in bands and not at the same time because of the restricted numbers of places to lodge, and always pressing on overland through Greece and beyond. The number of crusaders was found to be 600,000 combatants, but of these some looked back and turned around, some were killed by enemies, and others died along the way from disease and different illnesses. Those who remained on the journey suffered from heat and cold, various forms of opposition from the barbarian Bulgars, hunger and thirst, and countless other troubles.
[5]	Three years later, namely in ad 1099, on 15 July, on a Friday, the day of Christ’s passion, just 40,000, of whom 5,000 were cavalry, 30,000 infantry, the other 5,000 children and women, arrived at Jerusalem with the aforesaid Lord Godfrey of Bouillon as their leader. They found in the holy city Jerusalem 40,000 armed Saracens, not counting countless other people. But then the most noble Duke Godfrey, armed with both justice and the fervour of their holy purpose, encouraged his men in the Lord, and after some of the infidels fled and those who resisted were slain, he gained fully this most holy city for her true heirs, her faithful sons, courageously and gloriously, on the day and in the year stated above.
[6]	When this was accomplished by the grace of God, and the holy places had been visited with all reverence, they unanimously elected Duke Godfrey, worthy by every mark of distinction, as king, prince, and lord of the city, and protector of the people. Although Godfrey, in response to many insistent pleas, rather unwillingly accepted rule of the city and the title of lord of its people, yet he refused to be crowned with the golden crown of honour and of kingship or to be called king where Christ was crowned for him with a crown of thorns. Eventually, after he was completely won over by those pleas and had received the rule of the people under the name of duke, he obtained by battles the cities of Ramla, Jaffa, Porphyria under Mount Carmel,9 Tiberias on the sea of Galilee, and very many towns and castles that were bigger and better than any others, and he defeated the commander of the sultan’s army with his infinite horde.10 He survived only eleven months after the capture of the city and then rested in the Lord; he was buried under Mount Calvary, the most noble of princes and an outstanding example for all kings. Without doubt, He for love of whom Godfrey had captured this land placed his soul beside Him blissfully in the land of the living.
[7]	After Godfrey, such a very energetic prince whose rule should deservedly be preserved in memory among all kings or rulers, had died, the first king of the Latins in Jerusalem, chosen by all and crowned, was from that same blessed line,11 his brother Baldwin, who was elevated to the royal title. In the first war that he had, with 260 knights and 900 footsoldiers he valiantly put to flight the sultan of Egypt’s army commander, who came with 15,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry, of which 5,000 were killed.12 In the second battle, he mightily overcame a countless horde of Ascalonites, together with Egyptians, with incomparably few men.13 And also, in the third battle, when he had with him 500 armed men and 2,000 infantry, he valiantly overcame the commander of the sultan of Egypt’s army with 22,000 men, killing 4,000 of them, and forced the commander to flee.14 Baldwin gained for Christ’s faithful Arsuf, a very well fortified town between Jaffa and Caesarea, and also Caesarea itself (the capital city of Palestine), Beirut, Acre, and Sidon to the north of Jerusalem, and all the neighbouring land. To the east, beyond the river Jordan, at his own expense he built a well fortified castle that he called Monréal. Between Tyre and Acre he constructed another, also at his own expense, that was called ‘Scandalous’ because it caused the greatest scandal to the Saracens, and he brought nearly all the promised land under Christian rule.15 Through eighteen years of governance, he ruled the kingdom energetically, guiding and expanding it, and then he rested in the Lord. He lies buried opposite his brother’s tomb below holy Mount Calvary.
[8]	Because the venerable Lord Godfrey and his brother Baldwin died without children, caring little for the fruit of corruptible flesh, the third lord and second king of the Latins in the holy city of Jerusalem was Lord Baldwin of Bourcq, their kinsman, a most energetic knight and desired by all the people. In his first battle, Baldwin, with 700 horsemen and few footsoldiers, chased from the battlefield the Turkish leader Ilghāzī with an infinite multitude, of whom 4,000 were killed.16 Moreover, in the second battle, having with him 1,100 cavalry and 2,000 infantry, he forced the ruler of Damascus, with 15,000 men, to take flight, and 2,000 of the Damascene troops were killed.17 In the third battle he caused the ruler of Ascalon to turn tail with an infinite army from Egypt. In the fourth war he mightily brought Tughtagīn, the ruler of Damascus who (in his own opinion) was more exalted than Alexander, to abandon 2,000 of his army and flee, while the Christians [lost] 104 men.18
[9]	After these deeds, lest it should chance that he was raised too high by the favours granted to him, or perhaps it was because of secret sins proceeding from somewhere else, in the fifth year of his reign he was captured by the Saracens and imprisoned for two years.19 At this time the lord patriarch, on the advice of the queen and of the nobles of the land who were present, and together with the doge of Venice and 40 galleys, took Tyre, the capital of the Phoenician province, after much bloodshed and with a strong hand,20 having surrounded with a long siege a city that was all but impregnable.21 Seeing this, the Saracens observed that the Christians were disheartened by the capture of their king but in no way driven back, and they feared them more, so for a fair ransom they returned the king, a free man, in the seventh year of his reign. After he was set free from prison he harmed them in many more and different ways; he took very many lands, cities, and castles, and those he took he fortified. And thus, in the thirteenth year of his reign, he went to sleep in the Lord and he is entombed beneath a stone next to the wall of the choir of the [church of the Holy] Sepulchre.
[10]	The fourth lord and third king of the Latins in the holy city of Jerusalem was Lord Fulk, count of Anjou. Since the aforesaid King Baldwin saw that he would not have a son as heir and that with him the venerable Godfrey’s line failed in its males, while he still lived he sent for the said Fulk and gave to him in marriage his daughter, called Melisende, and at the same time he also assigned the kingdom to him after his own death. Therefore, after Baldwin died and he, Fulk, had been accepted by all in the kingdom, in the second year of his reign he boldly returned to the battlefield against a multitude of men that seethed forth from the heart of Persia. He killed 3,000 of them, the rest he put to flight with few of his own men falling, and he returned home with a most splendid victory.22 In the manner of his predecessors, he ruled the kingdom prudently and did not diminish it, but increased it, waging war on its enemies on all sides, until one time, when he was chasing a hare in the land around Acre, he fell from his horse and was crushed to death, leaving two sons, namely Baldwin and Amalric. In the eleventh year of his reign the aforesaid king departed from this world after a lamentable accident and he was deservedly given to burial in the holy place of kings.
[11]	The fifth lord and fourth king of the Latins in Jerusalem was Baldwin III, the eldest son of the said King Fulk, who, when he was raised to the kingship, although he was still a youth in age, was yet by God’s grace and good fortune a capable man, following in the footsteps, as it were, of the [earlier] King Baldwins both in name and in truth. For, in the ninth year of his reign, in his first war, he decisively defeated countless Turkish nobles who wanted to wage war on him while he was still a youth; 5000 of them were captured, killed, and put to flight by the same number of hundreds.23 In another battle, with a few loyal men he chased from the battlefield the ruler of Damascus, called Nūr al-Dīn, with his innumerable army; all those who remained were captured and killed and he brought back a splendid victory.24 Baldwin’s mother, Queen Melisende, ruled very faithfully in domestic affairs for about thirty years in his time and that of his father, so that the kings themselves could be more free to apply themselves to warfare and warlike deeds. This Baldwin ruled for twenty-four years, constantly defeating the enemy, and in the twenty-fifth year he passed over to the Lord and was committed with royal distinction to holy burial with his forefathers, leaving no children.
[12]	The sixth lord and fifth king of the Latins in Jerusalem was Amalric, younger brother of the aforesaid Baldwin. After he became king, in his first war, which was in Egyptian territory with Dirghām, the commander of the Egyptian army, he inflicted a very great slaughter and gained an incredible victory.25 In his second war, with 370 knights together with a few footsoldiers he boldly attacked the commander of the Damascene army, who had 12,000 Turks and 11,000 Arabs. And one hundred of Amalric’s men fell in battle, 1,500 of the enemy, and when night came upon them and both sides withdrew he retained for himself and his men the honour of the field and the battle.26 This Amalric ruled well for twelve years, humbling the enemy on all sides. In the thirteenth year he rested in the eternal Lord in the same place as his royal forebears.
[13]	The seventh lord and sixth king of the Latins in Jerusalem was Baldwin IV, the aforesaid Amalric’s only son. He was crowned as king but for some unknown reason of divine agency he had been afflicted with leprosy from his infancy. Nevertheless, in his time he kept the kingdom safe from dread of the enemy most strenuously, for in his times rose up Saladin, the most renowned Saracen among all the Saracens: he who, not long afterwards, cunningly stole the entire Holy Land, as the sins of the Christians dictated. Yet this Baldwin, in the third year of his reign, with seventy knights and a few footsoldiers, opposed Saladin himself and his army of 26,000 soldiers in the region of Ascalon. Exactly four of his men were killed, but innumerable numbers from the enemy, and he most powerfully drove away Saladin himself with his remaining men.27 In another war, above the Sea of Galilee near Tiberias, with 700 knights and 1,000 footsoldiers, he drove back Saladin himself, who had 20,000 Saracens. More than 1,000 of them were killed and after this humiliation Saladin did not dare to invade the kingdom of Jerusalem ever again in Baldwin’s days.28
[14]	Although Baldwin defended the kingdom very effectively in his lifetime, nevertheless because of his illness he would not take a wife. For this reason he arranged to give in marriage the two sisters he had; he gave the firstborn of them, called Sybil, to the most noble knight Lord William Longsword, marquis of Montferrat, promising the kingdom to him and his son, if God should grant him one. But by the ordinance of God, who conceals His vengeance of sin at His pleasure, the aforesaid William, having engendered from Sybil a son who was given the name of his uncle Baldwin, left this life before the death of the king himself. Seeing this, the ailing king, suffering from internal pain29 and fearing for the future, that is, that the enemy, knowing of his weakness, would boldly invade the kingdom, joined his aforesaid sister Sybil in marriage to a second husband, a certain young knight called Guy of Lusignan, so that with his firm government he would valiantly defend the ailing king, the child heir, and the kingdom. Guy accepted the wife and the rule of the kingdom, but after a few days had passed in this way he annoyed the king himself and for this reason the king removed him entirely from the government of the kingdom and in an assembly of the barons of his kingdom he had his little nephew anointed as king, fully committing the infant himself and the kingdom to the guardianship of Lord Bertrand, then count of Tripoli.30 After this was done, in the same year, the eighth of his reign, the ailing king brought to a close the last of his days and was brought for burial next to the choir of the Holy Sepulchre with his kingly forefathers, marking the beginning of the troubles of the faithful.
[15]	The eighth lord and seventh king of the Latins in Jerusalem, as is clear from the above, was Baldwin V, the son of the aforesaid marquis, who, in the same year his uncle died, and without any kingly deeds, flew away as swiftly as if taken straight from the womb to the grave,31 and was buried in a little royal sepulchre next to the aforesaid uncle.
[16]	The ninth lord and the eighth and last king of the Latins in the holy city of Jerusalem was the aforesaid Guy of Lusignan, the second husband of the aforesaid Sybil, who was seen to have too much arrogance and deserved to be deprived of power. For this reason, after the deaths of the said Baldwins, namely her brother and her son, this Queen Sybil wanted to enjoy the name and status of queen for herself and to please her husband. So, with the lord patriarch,32 the bishops, and the other nobles of the kingdom, she acted shrewdly and soon she had Guy, her second husband, anointed king and swiftly elevated to the royal throne while the count [Bertrand], to whom the government of the kingdom should have been given, was unsuspecting.
[17]	Hearing this, the said count [Bertrand], who had not been consulted before this deed was done, still aspired to the kingdom himself. He conceived a very great resentment and hatched a wicked plan because at once he made secret truces with Saladin and other Saracens all around, and, in order to oppose the king further, he contracted marriage with the lady of all Galilee, who was a widow at that time. After he did this, conflict broke out in the kingdom, with some people supporting the aforesaid king, some – lamentably – attaching themselves to the count for the increase of dissension, for he was giving the Saracens a way of boldly attacking the kingdom and the king.
[18]	Alas, Saladin perceived at once that the kingdom was divided within itself and could easily be destroyed, and could be taken without difficulty now that an entry point had been created. Saladin soon began to attack the kingdom, to harass the faithful everywhere, to break truce agreements made in good faith, and to challenge the king and all the nobles to battle with constant provocations. Consequently, and as their sins dictated, in the battle above the sea of Tiberias some knights were killed, others surrendered willingly, and the rest were fatally wounded.33 The king himself was captured with the masters of the Jerusalem Hospital and of the knights of the Temple. Sad to say, Saladin occupied the whole kingdom within a year. And thus, the Holy Land, consecrated by the blood of Christ, which Godfrey of Bouillon, most famous prince, dear to God and to men, had captured for Christ’s faithful heirs with his very devout comrades, with very great effort and risk and by the shedding of their blood, on 15 July in ad 1099, that King Guy, the eighth king, and his unfortunate nobles who, for their sins, lording it as they were over a populace of sinners with avarice, greed, extravagance, and other vices, wretchedly lost and let fall into enemy hands in ad 1187.
[19]	And until today, none from among all the virile Christian kings, princes, dukes, counts, barons, or knights, with their arms that decorate the walls, who come or send [others] to the church of the Holy Sepulchre, has been able to restore it. It is for this reason that, having been abandoned by God, as required by sin and not without His displeasure, the ill fortune of this sort of destruction deservedly happened. Of course, it became clear, as an obvious judgement and a sign of the times, that it plainly hung over the king and his people in that battle of perdition. For we know of no king among his predecessors, of all of mankind, who led as many horsemen into battle as that King Guy had knights, or [as] many nobles captured and wounded [as] in that battle, since from the 1200 knights none was able to escape the hands of the infidels.
[20]	And the Holy Cross of Christ, too, which by an unheard of miracle had been found by a certain very devout man in a holy place on Godfrey’s arrival, and which had been carried reverently in every one of the kings’ battles as if it were the standard of the King on high, and men fell at the sight of its power, so miraculously vanished in this battle of the Holy Land’s destruction that it has not been possible for either Christians or Saracens to find it right up to the present time. From this it is clear enough that He who, as their sins dictated, expelled and rejected the Jewish people from that holy land also thoroughly extirpated the Christian people from that same dominion, as their vices merited, giving it over to the infidels.
[21]	For this reason, faithful nobles of Christ, reflect upon the land not only of Promise, but of the shedding of Christ’s blood and of our redemption, and make the journey to it34 for feats of arms, observing how God and man, by dying in that place, redeemed you from the captivity of the ancient enemy not through the weapons of others, but through His own arms and the limbs of the whole body. And place it in your hearts35 to render repayment to Him in return, to march in the footsteps of the most noble Prince Godfrey with all your might, to obtain once more the entirety of your inheritance, and, after driving the illegitimate sons from there by your purity of life, to keep it forever. May Jesus Christ the just judge grant this to you, he who has freely hung his weapons of war on the cross for the restoration of your justice in Jerusalem. Amen.36
[22]	It should be noted in addition that in the same year as the capture of the aforementioned king and the destruction of the remaining Holy Land, on the first day of October, this holy city of Jerusalem, realising it had no defender, surrendered itself freely to the dominion of Saladin, with its possessions and persons unharmed. From this and what is written above, it is evident that the total number of years for which kings and princes ruled over Jerusalem in the name of Christ was eighty-six years, two months, and nineteen days.37 And see for what short a time, because of their sins, our Christians deserved to possess their inheritance that had been so unexpectedly conquered by the grace of the King on high.

o—————o—————o—————o—————o

[23]

Note that in the year of the incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ 340, on 3 May after His blessed passion, the Holy Cross was discovered under the eastern side of Mount Calvary by the blessed Helena, mother of the most Christian emperor Constantine. This cross, indeed, was seized violently from the city of Jerusalem in ad 618 by Chosroes, king of the Persians, and carried off by him to the kingdom of the Persians. But the second year after this, that is in ad 620, on 14 September, it was restored to the city of Jerusalem once more by Emperor Herakleios. For this reason the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross is joyfully celebrated throughout all Christendom right up to the present day.

Acknowledgement

The ideas offered here were presented at Nottingham Trent University, the Institute of Historical Research, and the SSCLE Conference at Royal Holloway, London. The authors would like to thank those audiences for their supportive and helpful remarks; Michele Campopiano, Peter Edbury, Pierre Chambert-Protat, Andrew Jotischky, Stephen Spencer, and Jonathan Rubin for their invaluable help on various points; the staff at Durham University Library, the Bodleian, and the Koninklijke Bibliotheek for their support with the manuscripts; and the editors and reviewers of Crusades for their guidance and enthusiasm in getting this to publication.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See, for example, Marcus Bull and Damien Kempf, eds., Writing the Early Crusades: Text, Transmission and Memory (Woodbridge, 2014); Marcus Bull, Eyewitness and Crusade Narrative: Perception and Narration in Accounts of the Second, Third and Fourth Crusades (Woodbridge, 2018); Stephen J. Spencer, Emotions in a Crusading Context, 1095–1291 (Oxford, 2018); Katherine Allen Smith, The Bible and Crusade Narrative in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 2020); Beth C. Spacey, The Miraculous and the Writing of Crusade Narrative (Woodbridge, 2020).

2 For some important work on Latin East narratives, see Verena Epp, Fulcher von Chartres: Studien zur Geschichtsschreibung des ersten Kreuzzuges (Düsseldorf, 1990); Peter W. Edbury and John G. Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East (Cambridge, 1998); Jay Rubenstein, ‘Tolerance for the Armies of Antichrist: Life on the Frontiers of Twelfth-Century Outremer’, in Papacy, Crusade, and Christian-Muslim Relations, ed. Jessalyn Bird (Amsterdam, 2018), 81–96; Andrew D. Buck, ‘William of Tyre, Femininity, and the Problem of the Antiochene Princesses’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70, no. 4 (2019): 731–49; idem, ‘Remembering Outremer in the West: The Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane and the Crisis of Crusading in Mid-Twelfth-Century France’, Speculum 97, no. 2 (2022): 377–414; Julian Yolles, Making the East Latin: The Latin Literature of the Levant in the Era of the Crusades (Cambridge, MA, 2022). See also several of the essays contained in Andrew D. Buck, James H. Kane, and Stephen J. Spencer, eds., Crusade, Settlement and Historical Writing in the Latin East and Latin West, c. 1100–c. 1300 (Woodbridge, 2024).

3 Charles Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme des rois de Jérusalem (1099–1187) composée peut-être à la fin du XIIe siècle’, ROL 5 (1897): 211–53, text at 228–42. We have chosen to use Kohler’s title in the absence of any obvious and better alternative.

4 London, British Library, MS Burney 73, fol. 131r.

5 This may not actually belong to the original text but has been added here given its inclusion in the three primary manuscripts.

6 For a description of this manuscript, see https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/manuscript_7499. For the likely dating and the Carmelite links, see also Andrew Jotischky, ‘Crusading and Crusaders in Medieval Carmelite Texts: William of Coventry and the Holy Land’, in Historiography and Identity: Responses to Medieval Carmelite Culture, ed. Jens Rohrkasten and Coralie Zermatten (Zurich, 2017), 80–90.

7 Benjamin Z. Kedar, ‘The Tractatus de locis et statu sancte terre ierosolimitane’, in The Crusades and Their Sources : Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot, 1998), 111–34; Benjamin Z. Kedar and Paolo Trovato, ‘New Perspectives on Tractatus de locis et statu sancte terre Jerosolimitane’, Storie e Linguaggi 4, no. 2 (2018): 1–32, at 18.

8 Bernard Hamilton and Andrew Jotischky, Latin and Greek Monasticism in the Crusader States (Cambridge, 2020), 263–71.

9 For a description of this manuscript, see http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Burney_MS_73. For Kohler’s editions of the texts on the Third Crusade and Muhammad, see Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme’, 247–53.

10 For a description of this manuscript, see https://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ark/32150_s2zg64tk93x.xml. On William Ebesham’s corpus of work, including our manuscript A, see A. I. Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late Fifteenth-Century English Scribe, William Ebesham’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 39, no. 2 (1957): 298–325.

11 Petrus Canisius, ed., ‘Epitome bellorum quae a christianis principibus pro recuperatione Terrae Sanctae suscepta sunt’, in Antiquae Lectionis, ed. Henricus Canisius et al., 6 vols. (Ingolstadt, 1601–4), 6: 249–93.

12 For a full description, see Michele Campopiano, Writing the Holy Land: The Franciscans of Mount Zion and the Construction of a Cultural Memory, 1300–1500 (Cham, 2020), 367–9.

13 For a full description, see Campopiano, Writing the Holy Land, 362–4.

14 Jacques de Vitry, Historia Orientalis. Introduction, édition critique et traduction, ed. and trans. Jean Donnadieu (Turnhout, 2008), 10–12.

15 Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme’, 213–28.

16 Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme’, 213–28.

17 Campopiano, Writing the Holy Land, 127–84, 362–4, 367–9.

18 Pisa, Archivio Storico Diocesano, Miscellanea Zucchelli, Number 23, Appendice 2, Inserto 2, fols 3v–11v; Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, MS Guelf. 391 Helmst, fols 318v–20v; Vienna, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS Hs. 3468, fols 1v–8v, 12r, 25v–27r.

19 Campopiano, Writing the Holy Land, 364–7, 370–2; Vienna, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS Hs. 3468, 1r.

20 Susan B. Edgington, ‘A Rough Guide to the Holy Land: Pilgrims’ Use of the Mount Zion Library in the Fifteenth Century’, in Communicating the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Sophia Menache, ed. Iris Shagrir, Benjamin Z. Kedar, and Michel Balard (Abingdon, 2018), 157–68.

21 Campopiano, Writing the Holy Land, 119–24, 226–79, 298–301, 341–6. See also Mary Boyle, Writing the Jerusalem Pilgrimage in the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2021), esp. 193–203.

22 Norman Housley, ed., The Crusade in the Fifteenth Century: Converging and Competing Cultures (Abingdon, 2017); Norman Housley, ed., Reconfiguring the Fifteenth-Century Crusade (London, 2017); Lee Manion, Narrating the Crusades: Loss and Recovery in Medieval and Early Modern English Literature (Cambridge, 2014), 146–211.

23 Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme’, 213–28.

24 Jacques de Vitry, Historia Orientalis, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 174–83, 424–31.

25 Ibid., 432–43.

26 MS Burney 73, fols 128v–29r; Jacques de Vitry, Historia Orientalis, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 428–9; Peter Canisius, ‘Epitome’, 257. See also Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2000), 132–58.

27 Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme’, 213–28.

28 MS Cosin V.iii.7, fols 91r–91v; Den Haag, MS 73 G 8, fol. 34v; Vat. lat. 10688, fols 161r–161v.

29 For the traditional dating of the Chronicon, see Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, 24–31. For a recent study that suggests a slightly longer and more fragmented compositional period, see Andrew D. Buck, ‘William of Tyre, Translatio Imperii, and the Genesis of the First Crusade: Or, the Challenges of Writing History’, History: Journal of the Historical Association 107, no. 377 (2022): 624–50.

30 WT, 2: 850–1: ‘Interea domina Milissendis regina, mulier provida et supra sexum discreta femineum, que regnum tam vivente marito quam regnante filio congruo moderamine annis triginta et amplius, vires transcendens femineas, rexerat, in egritudinem incidit incurabilem, de qua usque ad obitum salutem non recepit’.

31 Compare WT, 1: 105, 124–30, 138, 193–4, 390–1, 418, 422–4, 430–2; Jacques de Vitry, Historia Orientalis, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 104, 160–4, 170–2, 174.

32 Den Haag 73 G 8, fol. 31v; Vat. lat. 10688, fol. 159r.

33 WT, 1: 543.

34 Jacques de Vitry, Historia Orientalis, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 182.

35 Burchard of Mount Zion, OP, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, ed. and trans. John R. Bartlett (Oxford, 2019), 14–15.

36 Ambroise, Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ed. and trans. Marianne Ailes and Malcolm Barber, 2 vols. (Woodbridge, 2002), 2: 3.

37 Ibid., 2: 66–9.

38 Ibid., 2: 66–9. For a modern historiographical discussion of these events, see Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs, 211–34.

39 Ambroise, Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ed. and trans. Ailes and Barber, 2: 68–9.

40 Ibid., 1: 39 (for trans., see 2: 66): ‘Kar il n’en aveit rien veü / Fors tant come jo en ai leü’. On Ambroise’s use of notions of eyewitnessing, and ideas of eyewitness material more generally, see Bull, Eyewitness and Crusade Narrative, 193–255.

41 Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Georg Pertz, MGH SRG 14 (Hanover, 1868). See also Beth C. Spacey, ‘“A Land of Horror and Vast Wilderness”: Landscapes of Crusade and Jerusalem Pilgrimage in Arnold of Lübeck’s Chronica Slavorum’, Journal of Medieval History 47, no. 3 (2021): 350–65.

42 Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Pertz, 115: ‘Cum Baldewinus, Emelrici regis filius, rex Ierosolimorum tam genere quam virtute preclarus, refrenatis circumquaque christiane religionis hostibus, regnum suum in omni iustitia moderaretur, manu Domini tactus, qui quos diligit corripit, infirmitate lepre cepit deficere et de regni succesore cogitare. Ipse enim filium heredem non habebat, quia celibem agens vitam, in castitate perseverans, virgo in evum permansit. Habebat autem sororem, quam cuidam Wilhelmo, nobili et strennuo viro, fratri Conradi marchionis de Monte Ferreo, sociaverat, ex qua nepotem parvulum suspiciens, nomen ei suum imposuerat.’ Translation taken from Graham A. Loud, The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck (Abingdon, 2019), 134–5.

43 Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Pertz, 116: ‘Hiis ita dispositis rex infirmitatis molestia deficiens, beato fine migravit ad superos. Puer autem rex anno etatis sue non ipsum moriendo secutus est’. Cf. Loud, The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck, 135.

44 Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Pertz, 115–23. Cf. Loud, The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck, 134–42.

45 Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Pertz, 125. Cf. Loud, The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck, 144.

46 Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Pertz, 115–23. Cf. Loud, The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck, 134–42.

47 The Chronique d’Ernoul and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation of William of Tyre, ed. Peter W. Edbury and Massimiliano Gaggero, 2 vols. (Leiden, 2023), esp. 1: 6–63, 177–299.

48 Ibid., 1: 177–299, but esp. 177–8, 183–4, 189–211.

49 Ibid., 1: 183–4, 189–95, 201–2.

50 La continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184–1197), ed. M. R. Morgan (Paris, 1982), 21, 23–4, 66.

51 The Conquest of the Holy Land by Salāh al-Dīn: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Anonymous Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum, ed. and trans. Keagan Brewer and James H. Kane (Abingdon, 2019), 9–50. See also James H. Kane, ‘Wolf’s Hair, Exposed Digits, and Muslim Holy Men: The Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum and the conte of Ernoul’, Viator 47, no. 2 (2016): 95–112.

52 The Conquest of the Holy Land by Salāh al-Dīn, ed. and trans. Brewer and Kane, 37–41.

53 The Chronique d’Ernoul and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation of William of Tyre, ed. Edbury and Gaggero, 1: 88–9. See also Natasha R. Hodgson, Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative (Woodbridge, 2007), 217; Kevin J. Lewis, The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century: Sons of Saint-Gilles (Abingdon, 2017), 222, 234–6.

54 Ernoul has long been described as the squire of Balian of Ibelin, but Peter Edbury and Massimiliano Gaggero argue instead that he was the servant, or varlet. See The Chronique d’Ernoul and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation of William of Tyre, ed. Edbury and Gaggero, 1: 7–8, 271–99.

55 ‘Historia et Gesta Ducis Gotfridi’, in RHC Oc 5: cxxviii–cxxxv, 438–524.

56 Ibid., cxxviii–cxxxv.

57 Ibid., 516–19.

58 Ibid., 512, 519–24.

59 On the royal mausoleum, see Jaroslav Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098–1187 (Cambridge, 1995), 37–40, 74–5, 113–5, 174, 324–8, 409, 461, 467–9.

60 Thomas S. Asbridge, The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land (London, 2010), 512–13.

61 MS Burney 73, fol. 127r. See also WT, 1: 544; FC, 613–14; ‘Theodericus’, in Peregrinationes tres: Saewulf, John of Würzburg, Theodericus, ed. R. B. C. Huygens (Turnhout, 1994), 143–97, at 154. See also Susan B. Edgington, Baldwin I of Jerusalem, 1100–1118 (Abingdon, 2019), 178–9.

62 Den Haag, MS 73 G 8, fols 37v–38r.

63 La continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 43; The Conquest of the Holy Land by Salāh al-Dīn, ed. and trans. Brewer and Kane, 134; Roger of Howden, Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedene, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols., RS 51 (London, 1868–71), 2: 340–2.

64 In one of the manuscripts, MS Burney 73, this thread is taken further through reference to Philippians 2.21, For all seek the things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ’s, as it is commented at the end of the passage that the crusaders had failed ‘since they all sought that which was theirs or not theirs, not that which was Jesus Christ’s’ (‘quare omnes que sua et non sua sunt querunt, non que Yesu Christi’). See MS Burney 73, fol. 130v.

65 Michael Staunton, The Historians of Angevin England (Oxford, 2017), 236–80, esp. 264–70; Stephen J. Spencer, ‘“Like a Raging Lion”: Richard the Lionheart’s Anger during the Third Crusade in Medieval and Modern Historiography’, The English Historical Review 132 (2017): 495–532; James Naus, Constructing Kingship: The Capetian Monarchs of France and the Early Crusades (Manchester, 2016), 124–8.

66 Continuatio: Die lateinische Fortsetzung Wilhelms von Tyrus, ed. Marianne Salloch (Greifswald, 1934), 146: ‘Ab illa die precisa est spes recuperande vel civitatis sancte vel terre nichilque ex hoc actum est tantis dignum conatibus, vel quod tante responderet expectationi’. See also James H. Kane, ‘Between Parson and Poet: A Re-Examination of the Latin Continuation of William of Tyre’, Journal of Medieval History 44, no. 1 (2018): 56–82.

67 For the full passage, see the translation below.

68 Helen Birkett, ‘News in the Middle Ages: News, Communications, and the Launch of the Third Crusade in 1187–1188’, Viator 49, no. 3 (2018): 23–62; Thomas W. Smith, ‘Audita Tremendi and the Call for the Third Crusade Reconsidered, 1187–1188’, Viator 49, no. 3 (2018): 63–102; Spencer, Emotions in a Crusading Context, 123–4, 127–8, 133–4, 137–8, 150–1, 157–8, 172–3, 194; Tamar M. Boyadjian, The City Lament: Jerusalem across the Medieval Mediterranean (Ithaca, NY, 2018), 138–64; Matthieu Rajohnson, L’Occident au regret du Jérusalem (1187–fin du XIV^e siècle) (Paris, 2021).

69 The Conquest of the Holy Land by Salāh al-Dīn, ed. and trans. Brewer and Kane, 208; ‘Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi’, in Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols., RS 38 (London, 1864–5), 1: 22.

70 Susanna A. Throop, Crusading as an Act of Vengeance, 1095–1216 (Farnham, 2011), esp. 145–72.

71 Spencer, Emotions in a Crusading Context, 183–90.

72 See e.g. WT, 2: 864.

73 The Chronique d’Ernoul and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation of William of Tyre, ed. Edbury and Gaggero, 1: 75.

74 The Chronography of Robert of Torigni, ed. and trans. Thomas N. Bisson, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2020), 1: 98; Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols., RS 49 (London, 1867), 1: 116, 330; Howden, Chronica, 1: 275; William of Newburgh, ‘Historia Rerum Anglicarum’, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 4 vols. (London, 1884–9), 1: 1–408, at 155.

75 Ambroise, Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ed. and trans. Ailes and Barber, 1: 34; Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Pertz, 115.

76 Continuatio: Die lateinische Fortsetzung Wilhelms von Tyrus, ed. Salloch, 60. Regarding the Itinerarium, included within this list are manuscripts of the extended version known as IP2, which was produced in London c. 1197–1201. See Das Itinerarium peregrinorum: Eine zeitgenössische englische Chronik zum dritten Kreuzzug in ursprünglicher Gestalt, ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer (Stuttgart, 1962), 217–19, 251; ‘Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi’, in Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, ed. Stubbs, 1: 10, 23, 96, 119, 121. See also Helen J. Nicholson, ‘The Construction of a Primary Source. The Creation of Itinerarium Peregrinorum 1’, Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes / Journal of Medieval and Humanistic Studies 37 (2019): 143–65; Stephen J. Spencer, ‘The Composition Date of the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi (IP2) Reconsidered’, The English Historical Review (forthcoming).

77 Jacques de Vitry, Historia Orientalis, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 194.

78 Oliver of Paderborn, ‘Historia regum Terre Sancte’, in Die Schriften des Kölner Domscholasters späteren Bischofs von Paderborn und Kardinal-Bischofs von S. Sabina Oliverus, ed. Hermann Hoogeweg (Tübingen, 1894), lvii, 80–158, at lvii, 119, 142–4. See also Thomas W. Smith, ‘Oliver of Cologne’s Historia Damiatina: A New Manuscript Witness in Dublin, Trinity College Library MS 496’, Hermathena 194 (2017 for 2013): 37–68, at 37–43.

79 The Conquest of the Holy Land by Salāh al-Dīn, ed. and trans. Brewer and Kane, 108.

80 Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme’, 213–28.

81 WT, 1: 97–101.

82 Hamilton and Jotischky, Latin and Greek Monasticism in the Crusader States, 272–81.

83 Campopiano, Writing the Holy Land, 40–6.

84 Ibid., passim.

85 Kohler, ‘Histoire anonyme’, 221–2.

86 Andrew D. Buck, The Principality of Antioch and its Frontiers in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 2017), 240.

87 For a recent and important survey of much of this material, see Yolles, Making the East Latin.

88 WT, 1: 76–7.

89 WT, 1: 97–101.

90 WT, 1: 19–31.

91 Kedar, ‘The Tractatus’, 119.

92 Andrew D. Buck, ‘Settlement, Identity, and Memory in the Latin East: An Examination of the Term “Crusader States”’, The English Historical Review 135 (2020): 271–302.

93 WT, 1: 430.

94 Natasha R. Hodgson, ‘Honour, Shame and the Fourth Crusade’, Journal of Medieval History 39, no. 2 (2013): 220–39. See also the essays contained in Katherine J. Lewis, Matthew M. Mesley, and Natasha R. Hodgson, eds., Crusading and Masculinities (Abingdon, 2019).

95 Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, 61–84.

96 For William of Tyre’s comparative descriptions of these kings, see WT, 1: 454–5, 550–1; 2: 864–6, 961–2.

97 For William of Tyre’s coverage of this period in the kingdom’s history, see WT, 2: 714–87.

98 WT, 1: 431.

99 On the debate over Godfrey’s title and the creation of a kingdom, see Simon John, ‘The Papacy and the Establishment of the Kingdoms of Jerusalem, Sicily and Portugal: Twelfth-Century Papal Political Thought on Incipient Kingship’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 68 (2017): 223–59.

100 On these, see Helen Nicholson, Sybil, Queen of Jerusalem, 1186–1190 (Abingdon, 2022).

101 The variant readings may support the idea of a thirteenth-century copy somewhere in the manuscripts’ ancestry beginning with minims that were differently interpreted.

[1]

a Ut add. B.

b Boetius C.

c–c libro C; om. E.

d om. BCDE.

e scriptis CDE.

f facta add. D; gesta add. E.

g doctrinam scripta sunt B; doctrinam scripta sunt. Romani 15 C; doctrinam script sunt ad Romanos xv DE.

h trenoris D; trenorum E.

i scilicet add. C.

j supple add. DE.

k a add. DE.

l ab add. DE.

m vitruoser A; incursoribus CDE.

n privata C.

o om. C.

p ymmo add. BCDE.

i om. BCDE.

r–r sponsaque BDE; subiectaque et post cordam C.

s–s om. C; sic quod E.

[2]

a om. D.

b patrium B.

c brevius CDE.

d uti C; ut DE.

e nomine AB.

f usurpans E.

g om. B.

h facta B.

i aut add. CDE.

j similie B; om. D.

k ipsorum C; om. DE.

l om. DE.

m sanctam A.

n terram A.

o sanguinem B.

p fuerit CDE.

q ipsius BCDE.

r habitata C.

s Heraclei B; Heraclii CD; Eradii E.

t Homare B; Hamar C.

u Macumethi B; Mahometi C; Machometi D.

v ipsum C.

w Godefri A; Godfridi B; Godefredi C.

i Boloigne A; Bolon B; Bolin C.

y usque add. BCDE.

z m^oxxxix A.

aa per add. BCDE.

bb–bb iiii^clxvi A; quadringentos lx et vi B.

[3]

a tunc add. BDE; et tunc add. C.

b domino C.

c om. E.

d scilicet CDE.

e om. CDE.

f om. E.

g illustrem add. CDE.

h suum add. C.

i electissima C; inclitissimum D.

j om. E.

k devotissima C.

l aliis BE.

m om. B.

n eiectis C; et add. D.

o reddidit et add. CDE.

p eorum DE.

q om. B.

r simplicimum A; simplissimum BC.

s Baldewini AE; Baldwyni B; Baldeuini D.

t–t om. B.

u eorum B.

v Robertus added above B; ducisque CDE.

w Normandie CDE.

x–x om. B.

y Raymondi A.

z om. D.

aa Beimundi AB.

bb Trachendi A; Tanchredi C; Thanchredi E.

cc valentium CDE.

dd episcoporum C.

ee et aliorum add. C.

ff et alii quam plures hic non nominati add. B.

gg infidelis CDE.

[4]

a om. CDE.

b quodam BD; videre add. C.

c om. E.

d sive add. C; molestias oneris DE.

e–e suffere onerum molestias ac C; et add. DE.

f om. DE.

g accensi add. C; aspersi add. DE.

h animose add. DE.

i intendentes DE.

j–j om. CDE.

k igitur add. C.

l m^oii^cvi A.

m et add. C.

n om. C.

o Romanorum C.

p et add. B.

q autem add. C.

r fuerunt CDE.

s hospitorum A.

t structuram A; strictura B.

u per Asiam add. C; paridem add. D.

v om. B.

w civitatem BCDE.

x Inventa DE.

y–y enim fuit tunc C; enim fuit DE.

z hominum add. CDE.

aa At this point, DE interpolate several lines about the Franciscan, Nicholas of Lyra.

bb–bb om. C.

cc om. D.

dd om. CDE.

ee vertentibus E.

ff quibusdam captis add. E.

gg morientibus CDE.

hh diversis BDE.

ii om. CD.

jj afflicti add. C.

kk passim C; passi DE.

ll coloribus DE.

mm et add. C.

nn et add. C.

oo et add. CDE.

pp innumerabilibus C.

qq om. C.

rr multi perierunt add. C; perierunt add. DE.

[5]

a Tandem add. C.

b om. ABC.

c om. B.

d om. E.

e om. C.

f existente BD; om. C; existentis E.

g quadam add. DE.

h die add. D.

i–i om. C.

j et add. B.

k fuerunt add. C.

l mulieris E.

m–m om. BCDE.

n et add. B.

o ad add. CDE.

p om. BCDE.

q om. B; civitatem CDE.

r ea BCDE.

s sexaginta E.

t om. DE; ad bellum parato add. CDE.

u om. C.

v Christi miles add. B; predictus add. DE.

w om. B; utique add. CDE.

x nostris add. C.

y animose DE.

z om. C.

aa glorioso C.

bb suprascriptis C.

cc om. CDE.

[6]

a locis B.

b omnique E.

c promissi D; ipsum add. CDE.

d om. DE.

e dignissimum DE.

f requiem D.

g invitus CDE.

h est recepit add. B.

i om. CDE.

j tamen add. DE.

k cum opprobriis add. C.

l nobis C.

m honoris seu regis A; om. B; et honoris et regia D; honoris et regia E.

n pie add. DE.

o–o om. DE.

p Rama B; Raman D.

q–q Porsippam B; Phrigiam, que dicitur Cayphos C; Calipham quoque que alio nomine dicitur Prosyna DE.

r carmello C.

s Tiberiadem C.

t et add. C.

u–u om. CDE.

v maxima AB.

w pre aliis A.

x et add. C.

y Soldanum D.

z ereptionem C.

aa quievit D.

bb et principum add. DE.

cc–cc proculdubio C.

[7]

a autem C; ergo DE.

b in benedictione est et add. C.

c et DE.

d debet E.

e strippe B; prosapia C.

f nobilissimi C; nobili DC.

g–g nobilissimi Gothofridi predicti C.

h om. CDE.

i septixaginta D.

j et add. C.

k pedibus B.

l militis D.

m xvii AB.

n et add. B.

o inequali CDE.

p suorum C.

q et add. C.

r pedites CDE.

s om. CDE.

t duodecim DE.

u ipsam E.

v–v om. A; Cesariam B; ipsam Cesaream DE.

w Baruthum CD; Berutum E.

x Achon CD; Acon E.

y orientem BCDE.

z in colle sublimi add. DE.

aa de add. C.

bb castris add. C.

cc fuit C.

dd etiam BCDE.

ee om. A.

ff–ff Christiani imperio et C.

gg–gg fidelibus subiugavit CDE.

hh om. CDE.

ii–ii iacet C; in domino requiescit DE.

jj cuius tumulus versibus est adornatus add. C.

[8]

a om. E.

b om. C.

c suis C.

d cum suis E.

e eorum BC.

f fuit add. C.

g acclamatus et in regem add. DE.

h bello CDE.

i paucis DE.

j om. C.

k hominum add. BDE.

l decem AB.

m fortiter C.

n reiecit BDE.

o autem add. BCDE.

p bello BCDE.

q om. BCDE.

r om. AB.

s illis CDE.

t occisis in C; occisis DE.

u om. C; petere D.

v bello BCDE.

w deorsum A; confusum C.

x cepit B.

y enim add. BCDE.

z bello BCDE.

aa om. BCDE.

bb Delquinum A; Delquynum B; potentissimum C; Deldiquinum D.

cc–cc om. AB.

dd excedens AB.

ee–ee ad civitatem AB; summitatem DE.

ff om. C.

[9]

a pervenientibus E.

b in bello add. C.

c tentus B.

d regni D.

e om. C.

f Venicorum A; Venesiorum B; Venatorum C; add. ad bellum docto DE.

g Phenisis B; Fenicis E.

h munitas et add. D; munitam et add. E.

i scilicet C.

j diutine B; diuturna C.

k vallatam add. C.

l magnaque B; multaque C; magnique DE.

m sanguinis BCDE.

n adquisierunt B; conquisierunt CD; conquesierunt E.

o a add. D.

p captione CDE.

q suis E.

r se add. DE.

s actinctos C; constrictos D; contrictos E.

t quodam B; om. CE; et D.

u–u contra se quam in aliquo alio tempore C; quasi in rege captivo recompensatos DE.

v om. AB.

w om. A.

x om. A.

y om. DE.

z–z copiosius eos persequebatur civitatesque DE.

aa ipsos B.

bb om. BDE; quam C.

cc atque add. B; et add. C.

dd om. B.

ee om. BCDE.

ff–ff obdormivit et C.

gg ecclesie sancti add. C; ecclesie add. D.

hh Christi add. DE.

[10]

a om. B.

b om. B.

c Andegavensis CDE.

d om. CDE.

e et B.

f haberet CDE.

g sanguinea add. DE.

h om. B.

i deficit B.

j adhuc vivens C.

k Milcendam AB; Mylesendem E.

l suam add. CDE.

m om. DE.

n acceptato C.

o infinitam add. CDE.

p turcorum CDE.

q exercitu AB.

r ebullientium C.

s properans C; progrediens DE.

t de CD.

u–u gloria atque C; gloriosa DE.

v rex Fulco add. C.

w cum DE.

x venando add. C.

y insequetur A.

z–z om. D.

aa om. E.

bb scilicet add. E.

cc Almarium A; Almericum C.

dd–dd et D.

ee predicto C.

ff homino A.

gg–gg ecclesia Sancti Sepulchri regia sepultura merito est tumulatus C.

[11]

a autem add. C; Baldwin III’s reign is omitted in D.

b latinorum in add. C; latinorum add. E.

c et annorum add. C; annorum add. E.

d et providentia add. CE.

e fortis C; om. E.

f–f non tamen E.

g ymmo E.

h om. B.

i interfecit A.

j–j ex ipsis C; eisdem E.

k quo B.

l om. E.

m cetenariis A.

n bello E.

o Maradrinum A; Naradinum BC.

p–p et ex ipsis de potioribus captis quibusdam CE.

q om. C.

r–r in yconicis ABD; om. C.

s prospere E.

t gubernavit CE.

u liberius CE.

v om. B.

w possent C.

x 23 C.

y sibi add. E.

z–z sepe dictis B; subpeditans CE.

aa Ipso add. CE.

bb 24 B; 23 C.

cc transmigravit BCE.

dd om. BC.

ee–ee commendatus est C.

[12]

a in add. CDE.

b ^–bgermanus CDE.

c contra C.

d principem C.

e militarem DE.

f om. C.

g lxx A.

h paucis BCDE; autem ex eis add. B.

i om. B.

j arabibus DE.

k om. DE.

l–l mille cadentibus B.

m–m ml A.

n et add. D.

o descederunt B; descedentes C; discedentes DE.

p triumphi C.

q fortiter add. DE.

r reservavit C.

s 12 C; xii^o DE.

t om. BD.

u–u regibus BCDE.

v–v om. BCDE.

[13]

a in add. CDE.

b prefatus E.

c cum AB; cum add. C.

d om. A.

e–e om. B.

f regimen A.

g tenuisse A.

h reservavit A.

i Soldanus A; Salahadinus D; Sahaladinus E.

j soldanorum CDE.

k primus add. DE.

l dolorose CDE.

m om. A.

n om. D.

o om. CDE.

p ex DE.

q instanter C; constanter DE.

r scilicet C

s eorum add. CDE.

t om. CDE.

u infestare CDE.

v iusus D.

[14]

a ^–a om. B.

b–b defenderit strenue CDE.

c Et add. CDE.

d suas ABC.

e Wyllelmo B; Wilhelmo C; Guillelmo D; Guilhelmo E.

f Ferrarie AB.

g relinquere CDE.

h ei B.

i ei add. C.

j–j om. C.

k idem C.

l dominus add. C.

m generans CDE.

n predicta add. C; dicta add. D; illa add. E.

o filium CDE.

p regiminis B.

q terminavit C.

r Hoc DE.

s audiens CDE.

t prefatus CDE.

u cordis add. CDE.

v precavensque BCDE.

w om. DE.

x periculum CDE.

y scilicet add. C; etiam add. DE.

z infirmitatem DE.

aa quedam C.

bb nomine CDE.

cc–cc Guydone de Luciano B; Guido de Lisiniano C; Guidoni de Lisiniaro DE.

dd–dd om. B; predictam sororem C.

ee suam C.

ff matrimonio CDE.

gg coniunxit CDE.

hh et add. C.

ii ipse CDE.

jj et add. C.

kk om. CDE.

ll–ll regis sororem cum parvulo eius filio C.

mm suscipiens CDE.

nn om. D; sed CE.

oo quod AB; que DE.

pp–pp eum a gubernatione C.

qq reiecit BCE.

rr parvulum C; puerum DE.

ss Bartrandi AB.

tt connitebat C.

uu et add. D.

vv et add. C.

ww–ww iuditium doloris CDE.

xx et add. E.

[15]

a in add. CDE.

b premissis CDE.

c om. B.

d Baldeuinus C; om. DE.

e via AB.

f etiam add. C.

g et add. DE.

h suum add. D.

[16]

a ac add. CD.

b–b om. B.

c hac add. C.

d in add. C.

e prefatus CDE.

f om. E.

g forsan add. CDE.

h nimis B; nimie C.

i pompose CDE.

j appetens CDE; iuste habitis add. C; habitis add. DE.

k iam add. C.

l regibus C.

m–m om. C.

n om. BCDE.

o–o om. B.

p Sicque E.

q ignorante BCDE.

r prefato add. CDE.

s regnum E.

t suum add. C.

u regni CDE.

[17]

a videlicet add. D.

b cum BCDE.

c forsan et add. CE; forsan add. D.

d et ipse add. D.

e etiam CDE.

f–f Indignatus tandem C.

g quia C.

h amicitias C.

i iniit C; excogitare add. DE.

j ut add. DE.

k resisteret CDE.

l extiterat BDE.

m exorta CDE.

n ipso D.

o om. B.

[18]

a om. BD.

b attendens CDE.

c in se add. C.

d sic DE.

e posset DE.

f–f rodatoque A; rodato quod B.

g ingressusque AB.

h haberi nam concordia parve res crescunt sic et discordia maxima labuntur add. C; haberi add. DE.

i om. C.

j acceptoque E.

k colore add. CDE.

l irrumpere C.

m in bello add. C.

n et multis millibus add. C.

o–o prelio exeunte C.

p quodam DE.

q supra CDE.

r magistroque DE.

s hospitis B.

t militia AB.

u quodam B.

v laudedignis D; laudedignus E.

w–w m^oix A.

x–x assiduis utique D; assiduis itaque E.

y immensis add. C.

z om. DE.

aa–aa in effusione B; insudore C; ingenti evilatu DE.

bb om. DE.

cc et veris add. C; veris add. DE.

dd iste C.

ee–ee om. BCDE.

ff plebe C.

gg peccatrici C; plebecino D.

hh dominantibus CDE.

ii innumeris add. CDE.

jj hoc add. C.

kk scilicet add. C.

ll milessimo centesimo quinquagesimo vicesimo septimo A; m^oc^olxxvii^o B; c^olxxxvii^o E.

[19]

a om. AB; prohdolor add. C.

b vel CDE.

c attendentes BD.

d cum add. C.

e valeant AB.

f–f restaurari AB; vel voluit restaurant quare omnes que sua et non sua sunt querunt, non que Yesu Christi C.

g om. CDE.

h causa E.

i eos add. C.

j undique add. E.

k–k Certe B; Quod certe C.

l ipso CE.

m quia predecessores sui reges dignissimi, gratia Dei confisi, quasi semper cum paucioribus multos vincebant add. C.

n legimus unquam C.

o regum DE.

p om. CDE.

q tunc E.

r scilicet add. C.

s–s multos habens secum principes et nobilis C.

t pueros DE.

u manum D.

v effugere CDE.

w valuit DE.

[20]

a que AB.

b–b + B; crux CDE.

c om. C.

d ad B.

e in Iherusalem in add. DE.

f–f fuerat inventa DE.

g qui C.

h omnium C.

i est add. C.

j–j unde crucis DE.

k virtutum B; munimine C.

l om. C; inimici DE.

m hostes BCD; om. E.

n autem add. C.

o om. BDE.

p et in Damascum deportata add. C.

q ut dicitur add. C.

r emanavit D.

s om. DE.

t potuerit DE.

u–u Et quibus patet quod qui Iudaicum in suis peccatis et perfidia perseverantem a sancta terra expulit et reiecit sic gentem etiam christianorum suis viciis de merentibus de eiusdem terre dominio penitus extirpavit infidelibus subiciendo. Ipsa est enim terra que evomit malos habitatores suos, sicut dicitur in libris Moysi. Et mali christiani pro tanto sunt peiores infidelibus seu saracenis, quia servus sciens voluntatem domini sui et non faciens plagis vapulavit multis C.

v ipsum DE.

w de add. BDE.

x etiam add. DE.

y commitendo DE.

[21]

a O vos omnes add. C.

b om. CD.

c principes add. C.

d ceterisque boni Christiani add. C.

e vestram iam add. C.

f om. C; solum DE.

g aspertione BC.

h liberatam et sanctificatam iuri add. C.

i vestre DE.

j perambulantes B.

k quodam A; quam CDE.

l et faucibus mortis eterne add. C.

m posite A.

n–n ut filii legiptimi intime conpassionis et caritatis, aufferte itaque obproprium omnium vestrum atque passionis mortis et sanctissime crucis eiusdem domini nostri Iesu Christi atque locorum sanctorum terre huius, que ab infidelibus canibus fedantur, conspuuntur et deridentur in despectum Christi et nominis Christiani, defendite honorem Dei nostri, legem et gentem, ne sitis sicut filii adulteri, ut aspides surde et obturantes aures, ne forte amplius dicant in gentibus. Ubi est deus eorum? et hec confusio operiat faciem vestram. Incedite pro viribus vestigia nobilissimi principis Gothefridi et vestram sanctam hereditatem propter amorem pro vobis ibid passi iterum omnino adquirite et ipse adiuvante per vite puritatem, seclusis abinde spuriis, perpetuo possidere in spe vite eterne et salute et felicitate animarum vestrarum C.

o vestigiis DE.

p intercedere D.

q sanctam add. DE.

r–r seclusis exinde DE.

s perpetuo DE.

t nobis D.

u concedant B.

v om. DE.

w om. B.

x om. E.

y per D.

z viam AB.

aa omnium in add. C.

bb iustitiam AB; iustiam C.

cc restaurata sive add. AB; et salute add. C.

dd om. AB.

ee–ee om. AB; Qui est benedictus in secula. Amen. C.

[22]

a om. B.

b om. BCDE.

c heu add. C.

d obsessa flebiliter add. C.

e tamen add. C.

f om. B.

g in C; in add. E.

h anno A.

i inopinabile C.

j adquisitam E.

k meruerant D.

l et cetera, deo gratias add. D; deo gratias amen. Explicit hoc opusculum scriptum Iherosolimus in conventu sacri Montis Syon add. E.

[23]

a–a om. DE.

b ccxli B.

c cccvii add. B; hoc est ac cccvii annis add. C.

d Elenam B.

e om. B.

f–f cum multis millibus Christianorum C.

g capta C.

h a A.

i om. C.

j eundem B; om. C.

k om. BC.

l om. C.

m–m est B; om. C.

n–n om. C.

o–o cccccc^oxx^o A.

p Christianissimum add. C.

q–q honorifice cum gaudio reportata cum omni captivitate. Sed anno supradicto, scilicet m^oc^olxxx^ovii, miserabiliter capta et perdita non reperitur ubi sit collocata, quare non est forte cum debita reverentia et diligentia requisita C.

1 Rom. 15.4.

2 Ecclesiasticus 7.12.

3 Lament. 1.1.

4 Lament. 1.1.

5 Lament. 1.1.

6 Job 7.21.

7 Galatians 4.4.

8 Galatians 5.1.

9 Mod. Haifa.

10 Probably the battle of Ascalon, fought in August 1099 against the Fātimid forces of the vizier al-Afdāl. See WT, 1: 432–46.

11 Psalm 32.12.

12 The first battle of Ramla in September 1101. See WT, 1: 472–5.

13 The retaliatory victory following the disastrous second battle of Ramla in May 1102. See WT, 1: 476–7.

14 The third battle of Ramla in August 1105. See WT, 1: 498–500.

15 The castle known as Scandalion.

16 The victory achieved at Tell Danith in response to the Antiochene disaster at Ager Sanguinis in August 1119. See WT, 1: 560–2.

17 The battle fought against al-Bursuqī of Mosul, an ally of Tughtagin of Damascus, near ‘Azāz in northern Syria in June 1125. See WT, 1: 604–6.

18 The battle fought at the village of Shaqab near Damascus in January 1126. See WT, 1: 608–10.

19 Baldwin was captured and imprisoned by the Artūqid amir Balak in April 1123.

20 Baruch 2.11 et al.

21 Tyre was captured in July 1124.

22 Fulk’s victory at Qinnasrin in northern Syria in the January of either 1133 or 1134. See WT, 2: 637–9.

23 The victory over a Turkish invasion of the kingdom achieved near the River Jordan in November 1152. See WT, 2: 787–9.

24 The victory over Nūr al-Dīn at Puthaha in the Transjordan in July 1158. See WT, 2: 841–2.

25 The battle fought near Bilbais in September 1163. See WT, 2: 870–2.

26 The battle fought against Nūr al-Dīn’s lieutenant, and uncle of Saladin, Shīrkūh at al-Babyn in Egypt (a site in the desert far to the north of Cairo) in March 1167. See WT, 2: 892–4, 898–901.

27 The battle of Montgisard (near Ramla) in November 1177. See WT, 2: 987–92.

28 The battle of Forbelet (in Galilee) in July 1182. See WT, 2: 1030–2.

29 Gen. 6.6.

30 Count Raymond III of Tripoli (d. 1187).

31 Job 10.19.

32 Patriarch Eraclius of Jerusalem (d. 1191).

33 The battle of Hattin, 4 July 1187.

34 Zacharias 6.7.

35 Luke 21.14; Deuteronomy 11.18.

36 Romans 6.13; 2 Corinthians 6.7.

37 The listing of 86 years could indicate that the author did not count Godfrey as king, though it is more likely to be a scribal error and should read 88.