Chronicle, Crusade, and the Latin East contains eighteen original essays honoring Susan B. Edgington. It includes a preface, an introduction by Buck and Smith, an appreciation of Edgington by William J. Purkis and Carol Sweetenham, and a Tabula Gratulatoria. Most of Edgington’s work has revolved around translation and assessment of crusade texts. Perhaps she remains best known for her masterful edition of Albert of Aachen, a crucial but under-used text until she made it widely accessible by her translation. [1] In addition to that, of course, Edgington has had a most productive and influential career, bringing forth numerous articles and chapters, as well as recently writing a biography of King Baldwin I of Jerusalem. [2] Unlike many historians who always work alone, she collaborates regularly with others. It is clear from the affectionate tributes many of the authors include at the beginning of their chapters or in a footnote that Edgington has had a positive influence. They hail her not simply for her works as exemplars of the editor’s and translator’s art, but for her collegiality and helpfulness to those early in their career.

Buck and Smith have divided this collection into three parts. Part I, “Narrating the First Crusade,” consists of seven contributions that stick closely to that theme by challenging the prevailing wisdom on certain texts. Thomas W. Smith’s “New Manuscript Witnesses to the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, the Historia Ierosolimitana of Albert of Aachen, and the Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres: Preliminary Observations” discusses new manuscripts that have been discovered since the standard editions of the Gesta Francorum, Albert of Aachen, and Fulcher of Chartres first appeared. In particular, these new manuscripts reveal the perspectives of cloistered clergy who wrote about crusaders. John France’s “A Textual Puzzle: The Early Accounts of the First Crusade and their Relationships” suggests that Raymond of Aguilers’s account probably predates that of Peter of Tudebode or the Gesta Francorum, whereas the consensus has suggested the opposite. He concludes that the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers were probably composed independently from one another, which again argues against the accepted consensus. If France’s view prevails, then many secondary accounts will have to be rewritten. Stephen J. Spencer’s “Albert of Aachen, the Gesta Francorum, and the Fall of Antioch: A Reflection on the Textual Independence of Albert’s Historia Ierosolimitana” attempts to make connections between the two accounts regarding the fall of Antioch in June 1098. Spencer believes that Albert is probably an independent account rather than dependent on the Gesta Francorum. Simon Thomas Parsons’s “Women at the Walls: Teichoscopy, Admiration, and Conversion on the First Crusade,” argues that First Crusade texts did not simply relate or concern campaign, faith, or conversion, but reveal “aesthetics, desire, envy, admiration and the pursuit of gain” (90). At times knights operated under the “female gaze” for validation, even in battle (94, 106-107). Kay Mortimer presents a counter-intuitive argument in her “Digesting Cannibalism: Revisiting Representations of Man-Eating Crusaders in Narrative Sources for the First Crusade.” She contends that although cannibalism of Muslim corpses by crusaders was obviously wrong, in a biblical context it allowed writers to show how those who participated in a depraved practice were not beyond redemption. Natasha Hodgson argues in “Legitimising Authority in the Historia Ierosolimitana of Baldric of Bourgeuil,” that Baldric’s account of the First Crusade, though not an eyewitness one, nonetheless has valuable insights on authority, the relationship between secular and religious leadership on the First Crusade, and Baldric’s own thoughts about Christ’s leadership over the entire enterprise. Finally, Beth C. Spacey’s “Miracles and Crusade Narrative in the First Old French Crusade Cycle” concerns theChanson d’Antioch, an early thirteenth century vernacular piece that drew from early Latin sources like Albert of Aachen. She claims that miracles and saints appear far more frequently in these vernacular sources than they did in Latin prose chronicles.

Part II, “Crusade and Narrative,” contains five contributions that are more disparate in subject matter than Part I. In fact, Marcus Bull’s “The Gestis Herwardi as a Crusade Text,” does not concern a crusade text or participant at all. Bull believes, however, that this text, composed in the first half of the twelfth century, “resonates with crusade ideas and practices,” despite the fact that the subject of the text did not go on the First Crusade (173, 179). His support for widening frames of inquiry and even using film studies theory for its definition of “motivation” is certainly a laudable exercise. Martin Hall’s contribution, “Pisa’s Double Century: The Case for an English Translation of the Pisan Annals,” assesses the value of the Pisan Annals as historical texts, especially what they have to say about crusade history and Pisa’s contribution to Mediterranean history ca. 1000-1200. His chapter functions perhaps as a manuscript proposal for translating the Pisan annals, an argument whose merit no reader will dispute. Peter Edbury’s “The Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation of William of Tyre, 1184-1247: Structure and Composition” continues Edbury’s prolific string of articles on this text. The present article was written before the publication of his new edition of Colbert-Fontainebleau, which came out in 2023. [3] The Colbert-Fontainebleau continuation is, Edbury argues, the best source for the thirteenth century on Acre, as well as the early history of the kingdom of Cilician Armenia. Helen Nicholson’s chapter, “The Sultan at the Hospital: A Thirteenth-Century Tale of Saladin and the Hospitallers,” concerns an apocryphal visit Saladin made to the Hospital in Acre. The sultan decided to test the Hospital’s much-vaunted reputation for both care and the varied cuisine it offered to sick patients. Nicholson offers an interesting case of comparison between the two texts that contain an account, the Minstrel of Reims and the Chronique d’Ernoul, but also concludes that the story raises questions as to how an order with a dual mission coped with such different functions. Alan Murray’s “The Lords of Zimmern, Baldwin I of Jerusalem, and a Crusader’s Ghost: The Uses of a Distant Crusading Past in an Early Modern Family Chronicle,” like Bull’s chapter, takes a turn away from the crusade era directly in favor of presenting readers with an interesting case of history manufactured after the fact. His source, a sixteenth century text written in Early New High German, was derived (loosely) from Robert the Monk, William of Tyre, and an earlier sixteenth-century work written by one of the author’s relatives. Its purpose, besides inventing an older pedigree for the family, admonished that same family, through its fictional First Crusader ancestor, not to alienate its estates.

Part III, “Crusading and the Latin East,” contains six articles that vary in subject matter, though some concern texts. Carol Sweetenham’s “Urban Myth: The First Crusade and a Foundation Narrative of Conquest, Settlement and Defeat in the Principality of Antioch” argues that the rulers of Antioch sought a “national foundation narrative” for Antioch (256, 270-271). They went so far as to attempt to emulate Bohemond’s victory of 28 June 1098 at Antioch. Sweetenham explores the possible connection between this victory and battles fought in 1119 and 1149 by subsequent rulers, who even tried to fight on the same day as that earlier victory. Both times resulted in military catastrophes, proving that history really does not repeat itself. James Doherty’s “Fulcher of Chartres and Armed Pilgrims, 1104-27,” argues that Fulcher attempted to get people to settle in the Latin East and concentrated his account on those figures who expanded territory in the Latin East (282-283). Because of that agenda, the chronicler did not spend much space on “armed pilgrims” like Sigurd of Norway or the Venetians in the early twelfth century because neither group had any intention of staying. Fulcher also said little about the Templars, because, Doherty suggests, they were supported by Baldwin II, who Fulcher did not like. In the end the chronicler seemed to prefer those he perceived as “inspired” by God rather than those who only came because of a “pope’s call” (283). Andrew D. Buck’s “Remembering Baldwin I: The Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane and Literary Responses to the Jerusalemite Monarchy in Twelfth-Century France” uses a little used source to discuss the crusader states vis-à-vis “crusading memorialisation and reception” (286). The author of the text considered Baldwin I an ideal Christian king and soldier who could be used as an exemplar to inspire others, perhaps even stirring Louis VII to return to the Latin East for a second time (290, 300). Nicholas Morton’s “The ‘Land Route’ to the Holy Land: Latin Travellers Crossing Asia Minor at the Time of the Erly Crusades (1095-1187)” questions the consensus as to whether Turkish aggression really closed the land route through Anatolia to pilgrims during the twelfth century. He demonstrates that in fact medium and small parties, ironically, could actually cross unhindered under certain conditions (302-303). The Turks were more likely to bother groups large enough to pose a military threat but allowed those that did not to pass through (308, 310). Yvonne Friedman’s “Gifts in Christian-Muslim Diplomacy in the Latin East,” is a valuable discussion of gift-giving between Latin Christians and Muslims. She argues that it was actually complementary. In the Latin West, gifts were usually given by a superior party to an inferior one; whereas among Muslims it was the opposite. Thus unwittingly, gift-giving often worked successfully between the two societies because of their misperceptions about the other (316-317). When those misperceptions were laid bare, they led to misunderstandings of course but it generally appears to have worked more often than it did not. Andrew Jotischky’s contribution, “Lions, Actual and Allegorical, in the Holy Land,” discusses how lions were perceived or seen; how they were used in hagiography, and how they were used to show saintliness for westerners (327). Latin Christian authors were attracted to the lion’s “ambivalent nature,” as ferocious creatures but capable of noble and merciful acts if tamed (336).

Beyond the justified celebration of Edgington’s contributions to crusade studies and translation, and despite some of the essays being disparate in subject, the collection’s overall theme mostly revolves around the close analysis and discussion of texts. On the whole the chapters celebrate the love of discovery of new texts, using underused texts, and heralding neglected, ignored, and misunderstood texts. In doing so they show, as Marcus Bull points out in his chapter, the increasingly wide lens employed by historians under the growing umbrella of crusade studies. Although almost all of the contributors are British and Anglophone, their chapters show the sheer diversity and variety in how scholars operate under that umbrella.

--------

Notes:

1. Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana. History of the Journey to Jerusalem, ed. and trans. Susan B. Edgington (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007), with facing Latin and English translation. This work is also available as an English-only, student friendly edition: Albert of Aachen’s History of the Journey to Jerusalem, 2 vols., trans. Susan B. Edgington (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2013).

2. Susan B. Edgington, Baldwin I of Jerusalem, 1100-1118 (New York: Routledge, 2019).

3. The Chronique d’Ernoul and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation of William of Tyre, 2 vols., eds. Peter Edbury and Massimiliano Gaggero (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2023).