^{page 213 note 1} A bibliography of the Second Crusade will appear as a part of the chapter by Virginia Berry in the forthcoming co-operative History of the Crusades. In spite of its age, the most complete account is still that of Kugler, Bernhard, Studien zur Geschichte des zweiten Kreuzzuges (Stuttgart 1866); but for the German aspects of the crusade, that of Bernhardi, Wilhelm, Konrad III. (Jahrbücher der deutschen Geschichte; 2 vols. paged consecutively, Leipzig 1883) 512-684, is fuller and more accurate. The best narrative in English is that of Steven Runciman in the second volume of his A History of the Crusades (Cambridge 1952) 247-88. In addition to the abbreviations listed at the front of this volume, the following will be used: Ann. for Annales; Bern. for Sancti Bernardi … Opera Omnia I (PL 182; Paris 1859); Chron. for Chronicon or Chronica; MGH SS for Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores (rerum Germanicarum) (Hannover 1826ff.); MGH SS. r. G. for Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae historicis separatim editi (Hannover 1840ff.); PU for the Papsturkunden volumes in the series published by the ‘Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen’; RHGF for the Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France (ed. Bouquet, Martin; new. ed. by Delisle, Léopold; Paris 1869ff.). For his encouragement and assistance in the preparation of this article I am especially grateful to Professor Robert L. Wolff of Harvard University. I am also indebted for many valuable suggestions to Mrs. Virginia Berry, of Winnipeg, and to Professors Helen M. Cam and Herbert Bloch of Harvard.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} For all references on the campaigns mentioned in this introduction, see individual discussions below. The twelfth-century sources draw no clear line between the Moslems and the heathens: they were both pagani. The heathen Slavs were even, on occasion, referred to as Saraceni, see PL 180.1385 (JL 9325) and Vincent of Prague, Ann. seu Chron. Boemorum, MGH SS 17.664.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 3} Conrad III is known only by courtesy as Holy Roman Emperor, since he was never crowned as such. The Popes always referred to him as ‘King.’ Alfonso VII of Castile (see below) was both crowned and recognized by the Papacy as King of Kings and was commonly called ‘Emperor’ by contemporaries: on the imperial title in Spain, see Schramm, Percy, ‘Das kastilische Königtum und Kaisertum während der Reconquista,’ Festschrift für Gerhard Ritter (Tübingen 1950) 90f. Traditio of Louis at Constantinople late in 1147. In August of the same year a naval expedition led by Alfonso of Toulouse left the South of France and arrived in Palestine probably in the spring of 1148. At the same time, a joint Anglo-Flemish naval force sailed along the north coast of Europe, assisted the King of Portugal in the capture of Lisbon, proceeded around the peninsula early in 1148, attacked Faro, and presumably reached the Holy Land later that year. Meanwhile, in the northeast, four armies co-operated in a campaign against the pagan Wends across the river Elbe: a Danish army joined the Saxons under Henry the Lion and Archbishop Adalbero of Bremen in an attack on Dubin; another, larger, army led by Albert the Bear of Brandenburg and many other temporal and spiritual lords advanced against Demmin and Stettin; a fourth expedition, finally, under a brother of the Duke of Poland attacked from the southeast. In 1148, on the south shore of the Mediterranean, a powerful fleet under George of Antioch extended the control of Roger II of Sicily over the entire littoral from Tripoli to Tunis. In the West, four campaigns were directed against the crumbling power of the Almoravides. The Genoese in 1146 sacked Minorca and besieged Almeria. During the following year, the Emperor Alfonso VII of Castile advanced south through Andalusia and captured Almeria with the aid of a strong Genoese fleet, which in 1148 sailed north and joined the Count of Barcelona in his campaign against Tortosa. In the previous year, Alfonso Henriques of Portugal had captured Santarem and secured the assistance of the Anglo-Flemish fleet for an attack on Lisbon, which fell late in 1147.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 4} I shall not consider here either William of Tyre, who was thoroughly non-Western in his attitude and also not fully contemporary, or the Greek historians Cinnamus and Nicetas, on whom see Kugler (n. 1 above) 36-43; id., Neue Analekten zur Geschichte des The Second Crusade as Seen by Contemporaries zweiten Kreuzzuges (Tübingen 1883) 29-50; and Runciman (n. 1 above) II 475-7. The Gesta Ludovici VII is now believed to have been written after 1274: see Kugler, Bernhard, Analecten (sic) zur Geschichte des zweiten Kreuzzuges (Tübingen 1878) 1–13, and Molinier, Auguste, Les sources de l'histoire de France II: Époque féodale, les Capétiens jusqu'en 1180 (Paris 1902) 300-1.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Galbraith, V. H., Historical Research in Medieval England (The Creighton Lecture in History, 1949; London 1951) 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 6} Robert of Torigny (Robertus de Monte), Chronica , in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, etc. IV, ed. Howlett, Richard (Rolls Series 82; London 1890) 154.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 7} Bernhardi, , op. cit. (n. 1 above) 560 n. 61: ‘Es scheint, dass derselbe Bericht über den Kreuzzug an mehrere Klöster versendet wurde.’ Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 8} In certain respects the approach of this article is paralleled for the First Crusade by Paul Rousset in Les origines et les caractères de la première Croisade (Neuchâtel 1945). In his review of this work in Speculum 23 (1948) 328-31, John LaMonte accused Rousset of ‘an infatuation with words’ (329) and of trying ‘to reestablish the old thesis of the crusade as essentially a religious movement, away from which recent research has been steadily moving’ (331). ‘To assume…,’ LaMonte, said, ‘that because one finds repeated affirmations of the religious motive in contemporary literature religion was the essential cause of the crusade seems to be a rather naïve deduction’ (329). While I agree with LaMonte that Rousset tends to neglect political, social, and military factors in the motivation of the crusade, I believe that it is misleading to speak of ‘propaganda value’ and of ‘official clerical accounts’ (329) in the Middle Ages, and that to call the early twelfth century ‘a period when religiosity was at a premium’ and to compare St. Bernard to Pravda (329-30) is carrying cynicism too far.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 9} On the expedition of Alfonso of Toulouse, see the Continuatio Premonstratensis (Sigeberti), MGH SS 6.454; Chron. de Nîmes , in DeVic, Claude and Vaissete, Joseph, Histoire générale de Languedoc (new ed. Toulouse, 1872-92) V: Chroniques 5.27-31; Richard of Poitiers, Chron. RHGF 12.416; Geoffrey of Vigeois, Chron. in Philip Labbé, Nova Bibliotheca II (Paris 1657) 306; Anonymous Chron. ad annum 1160, RHGF 12.120; Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum , ed. Arnold, Thomas (Rolls Series 74; London 1879) 279; Chron. Turonense, RHGF 12.473; and among more recent works see Röhricht, Reinhold, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kreuzzüge II (Berlin 1878) 94; Boissonade, P., ‘Les personnages et les événements de l’histoire d’Allemagne, de France, et d’Espagne dans l’œuvre de Marcabru (1129-50),’ Romania 48 (1922) 228-9 Runciman II 280; and especially DeVic and Vaissete III 752f. and IV 223-4. On the expedition of Amadeus of Savoy, see Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem , ed. and tr. Berry, Virginia (Columbia Records of Civilization 42; New York 1948) 24, 66-8; Anonymous Chron. ad annum 1160, RHGF 12.120; Ann. Mediolanenses minores, MGH SS 18.393 and among more recent works see Guarmani, Carlo, Gl'Italiani in Terra Santa (Bologna 1872) 169; Previté Orton, C. W., The Early History of the House of Savoy (Cambridge 1912) 309-13. Odo of Deuil refers to Amadeus as the Count of Maurienne, an alternative title of the Counts of Savoy that appears frequently in contemporary sources. L'art de vérifier des dates (3rd ed. Paris 1783-7) III 614, and Molinier, Auguste, Vie de Louis le Gros par Suger (Collection de Textes pour servir à l’étude et à l’enseignement de l’Histoire; Paris 1887) 159 n. 20, err in calling him Amadeus II of Savoy, as do Mrs. Berry, in Odo of Deuil, op. cit. 78 n. 37, and Henri Waquet, in Odo of Deuil, La Croisade de Louis VII, Roi de France (Documents relatifs à l’histoire des Croisades 3; Paris 1949) 51 n. 1, in calling him Amadeus II of Maurienne.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 10} There have recently appeared two editions of this work, by Virginia Berry and by Henri Waquet (cited in n. 9 above); these were reviewed in Speculum, respectively, by LaMonte, John, 23 (1948) 502–4, and Topping, Peter, 26 (1951) 385-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 217 note 11} Topping 386; cf. Waquet (n. 9 above), introduction. It is, on the contrary, perhaps surprising that later, as Abbot of St. Denis, Odo did not play a more prominent part in the political and intellectual life of his time, cf. Berry (n. 9 above), intro. p. xvi.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 12} Ibid. xvii.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 13} With unblushing prejudice, Odo even attributes the aid given by the Greeks at Constantinople to their desire to lull the French into a sense of security in order to deceive them later: ibid. 68; cf. Hirsch, Richard, Studien zur Geschichte König Ludwigs VII von Frankreich (Leipzig 1892) 55–6.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 14} Odo of Deuil, ed. Berry, 98; cf. 58 and 82.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 15} One cryptic passage says that ‘parant naves maritimi cum rege navigio processuri,’ ibid. 12; but it is not clear whether this refers to the Anglo-Flemish crusaders (as Charles David assumes: De expugnatione Lyxbonensi [Columbia Records of Civilization 24; New York 1936] 12), or to the fleet of Alfonso of Toulouse, or to the ships that carried the soldiers of the Count of Savoy from Brindisi to Durazzo.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 16} Odo of Deuil, ed. Berry, 72.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 17} Runciman II 478, says, for instance, that ‘The history of the Second Crusade is fully treated in the De Ludovici VII profectione in Orientum (sic) of Odo de Deuil…’ Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 18} RHGF 15.487, 488, 495-6; cf. Luchaire, Achille, Études sur les actes de Louis VII (Paris 1885) nos. 224, 225, 229 (pp. 171-3). It should be remembered that as the King’s chaplain, Odo may have seen and even have written Louis’ letters.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 19} Bernhardi, (n. 1 above) 518.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 20} RHGF 15.488.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 21} Ibid. 495–6.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 22} Ibid. 488.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 23} Ibid. 495–6.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 24} Writing to Manuel in the 1160’s, Louis mentioned that ‘honor quem nobis in Domino peregrinantibus apud vos exhibuistis, Deo auctore, a memoria nostra nunquam excidet,’ Lettres de rois, reines, et autres personnages … tirées des Archives de Londres par Bréquigny I, ed. Champollion-Figeac, J. J. (Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France; Paris 1839) 1.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 25} Monumenta Corbeiensia, ed. Jaffé, Philipp (Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum 1; Berlin 1864) nos. 48 (p. 126), 78 (p. 152-3), and 144 (p. 225-6).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 26} Ibid. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 27} Ibid. 225–6.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 28} Ibid. 225–6.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 29} See below, 273–4.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 30} Otto of Freising, Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. Hofmeister, Adolf (MGH SS.r.G.; Hannover-Leipzig 1912) and Gesta Friderici primi imperatoris, edd. Waitz and von Simson (MGH SS.r.G; 1912). On Otto, see Kugler, (n. 1 above) 7-10; Manitius, Max, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters III (ed. Lehmann, P.; Munich 1931) 376-88; and Charles Mierow, introduction to Otto of Freising, The Two Cities (Records of Civilization 9; New York 1928).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 31} On Otto’s part in the crusade, see Kugler, (n. 1. above) 158–60, and Pfeiffer, Eberhard, ‘Die Cistercienser und der zweite Kreuzzug,’ Cistercienser-Chronik 47 (1935) 107f.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 32} ‘Verum quia peccatis nostris exigentibus, quem finem predicta expeditio sortita fuerit, omnibus notum est, nos, qui non hac vice tragediam, sed iocundam scribere proposuimus hystoriam, aliis vel alias hoc dicendum relinquimus,’ Otto of Freising, Gesta, p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 33} Principally in the Chronica , 1.26 (p. 59); 4.18 (p. 207); 5.18 (p. 247); cf. introduction, xiii; and in the Gesta, 1.35-47 (pp. 54-67); 1.62-6 (pp. 88-95); and 2.16 (p. 119).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 34} ‘Saxones vero, quia quasdam gentes spurciciis idolorum deditas vicinas habent, ad orientem proficisci abnuentes cruces itidem easdem gentes bello attemptaturi assumpserunt a nostris in hoc distantes, quod non simpliciter vestibus assutae, sed a rota subterposita in altum protendebantur,’ Gesta p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 35} ‘… a nostris nuper Sarracenis ablata est,’ Chronica 1.26, p. 59. Since these crusaders were mostly Flemings and Englishmen, and therefore not subjects of Conrad III, the nostri presumably refers to them as brother-crusaders.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 36} Gesta 1.65, pp. 91–4. Later in this chapter, he says: ‘Quamvis, si dicamus sanctum illum abbatem (Bernardum) spiritu Dei ad excitandos nos afflatum fuisse, sed nos ob superbiam lasciviamque nostram salubria mandata non observantes merito rerum personarumve dispendium reportasse, non sit a rationibus vel antiquis exemplis dissonum.,’ ibid. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 37} De exp. Lyx. (cited n. 15 above). On this crusade, besides the works of Cosack, Röhricht, Bernhardi, Kurth, Herculano, and De Castilho cited by David in his introduction, see Gibb, H. A. R., ‘English Crusaders in Portugal,’ Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations, ed. Prestage, Edgar (Watford 1935) 9–16; Cartellieri, Alexander, Der Vorrang des Papsttums zur Zeit der ersten Kreuzzüge 1095-1150 (Weltgeschichte als Machtgeschichte; Munich and Berlin 1941) 370-3; Livermore, H. V., A History of Portugal (Cambridge 1947) 74-80; and my own ‘Note on the Route of the Anglo-Flemish Crusaders,’ Speculum 28 (1953) 525-6. I have been unable to locate a copy of the study by Pimenta, A. A. L., A conquista de Lisboa em 1147 (Lisbon 1937).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 38} Cf. Riant, Paul, Expéditions et pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte I (Paris 1865) 223, who here also overthrows the old idea that Scandinavians took part in this expedition.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 39} De exp. Lyx. intro. p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 40} Ibid. 12–26; Gibb (n. 37 above) 8-9 and 16.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 41} Ann. Elmarenses , in Les Annales de Saint-Pierre de Gand et de Saint-Amand, ed, Grierson, Philip (Commission Royale d’Histoire; Brussels 1937, pp. 74–115) 111.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 42} ‘Non enim vos rerum inopia, sed mentis cogit ambitio … ambitionem vestram rectitudinis zelum dicentes, pro virtutibus vitia mentimini,’ De exp. Lyx. 120–1.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 43} Letter of Duodechin of Lahnstein, MGH SS 17.28. See also the contemporary Indiculum fundationis monasterii sancti Vincentii Ulixbone , in Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Scriptores I 91–3, whose author, perhaps an eye-witness, says: ‘Contemplor barones istos fortissimos de terris suis ad hoc egressos fuisse, et ad hoc venisse ut hic moriantur pro Christo, eius bella bellando, et contra hostes fidei dimicando viriliter.’ The church of the cemetery where the English dead were buried was known as Santa Maria dos Mártiros. Many miracles were performed at their tombs. See De exp. Lyx. 132-4 and 134 n. 1; see below, 237-40.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 44} De exp. Lyx. 146–58; see below, 239 and 241. The preacher may himself have been the author of the De exp. Lyx.; see 146 n. 3, and Cramer, Valmar, ‘Kreuzpredigt und Kreuzzugsgedanke von Bernhard von Clairvaux bis Humbert von Romans,’ Das Heilige Land in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Palästinahefte des deutschen Vereins vom heiligen Lande, 17-20; ed. Cramer, V. and Meinertz, G.; Cologne 1939) 60-2.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 45} See Conrad, Hermann, ‘Gottesfrieden und Heeresverfassung in der Zeit der Kreuzzüge,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abteilung 61 (1941) 98–9, and Rassow, Peter, ‘Die Kanzlei St. Bernhards von Clairvaux,’ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige, Neue Folge 3 (1913) 270.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 46} De exp. Lyx. 56. David suggests (p. 57 n. 5) a possible connection between this oath and the leges pacis in certain municipal charters in Flanders. Cf. Conrad 90-1, 98-9, and 115.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 47} MGH SS 17.28.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 48} See my ‘Note’ (n. 37 above).Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 49} Cf. the same point of view from the Portuguese side in the speech of the Bishop of Porto, De exp. Lyx. 68–84; see below, 246-7 and n. 178, and Cramer (n. 44 above) 55-60. See also the Translatio sancti Vincentii, in Analecta Bollandiana 1 (1882) 270-8, whose author says, ‘… visum est illis non contra Saracenos Syriae progrediendum, cum illi in Hispania sibi essent in offendiculum,’ 273. I can find no justification for Erdmann’s sceptical view of the Portuguese crusades as purely economic and political enterprises into which the natives, in order to further their own selfish ends, tried to draw crusaders destined for the Holy Land: Erdmann, Carl, ‘Der Kreuzzugsgedanke in Portugal,’ Historische Zeitschrift 141 (1929-30) 23-53. Cramer 56 n. 21 points out that, ‘Erdmann spricht zu Unrecht davon, dass « die Predigt des Bischofs (von Porto) gerade eine Rede zur Abhaltung vom Kreuzzug » sei.’ The English, German, and Portuguese sources show that on neither side was the campaign in Portugal ever considered more than a temporary break in the achievement of the ultimate purpose of the crusaders in the Holy Land, although the Bishop emphasized that it is sinful for a Christian to neglect an opportunity to assist a brother and that the campaign in Portugal is in itself a righteous war. As Cramer says, 59: ‘Wenn Bischof Peter alsdann den Kampf gegen die Mauren als gleichwertig mit der Jerusalemfahrt hinstellt, so befindet er sich keineswegs im Gegensatz zu den Urhebern der Kreuzzüge.’ See below, 258f.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 50} Helmold of Bosau, Chron. Slavorum, edd. Lappenberg, and Schmeidler, (MGH SS.r.G.; Hannover-Leipzig 1909). On Helmold and his work, see Manitius, , op. cit. (n. 30 above) 493–8.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 51} Helmold, , op. cit. 115.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 52} ‘Hoc solum prospere cessit de universo opere, quod peregrinus patrarat exercitus,’ ibid. 118. Of the Wendish Crusade he says: ‘Statim enim postmodum in deterius coaluerunt; nam neque baptisma servaverunt nec cohibuerunt manus a depredatione Danorum,’ 123.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 53} This point should be emphasized in opposition to those who consider each of these campaigns as a separate crusade, such as Riant (n. 38 above) 225 n. 1, and Vasiliev, A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire (2nd English edition, Madison 1952) 419.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 54} Chron. Montis Sereni, MGH SS 23.147; Ann. Palidenses, MGH SS 16.82-3 (cf. Wattenbach, Wilhelm, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, 6th ed. Berlin 1893-4; II 435–8); Ann. Magdeburgenses, MGH SS 16.188-90 (cf. Wattenbach II 438-9); Continuatio Gemblacensis (Sigeberti), MGH SS 6.389-90 (cf. Wattenbach II 162); Chron. Regia Coloniensis , ed. Waitz, Georg (MGH SS.r.G.; Hannover 1880) 82-6.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 55} See above, 221.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 56} MGH SS 17.654-710; of him Wattenbach II 320 says, ‘eine unserer wichtigsten Quellen.’ Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 57} MGH SS 17.663. The three leading Bohemians in the crusade were Prince Otto of Olmütz and his brothers Svatopluk and Wratislaw, see Bernhardi, 569.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 58} Grammaticus, Saxo, Gesta Danorum, edd. Olrik, J. and Raeder, H. (Copenhagen 1931) 14.3.5, pp. 376ff.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 59} MGH SS 6.392; cf. the same idea in the Casus monasterii Petrishusensis, MGH SS 20.674-5 (composed in 1156: Wattenbach II 391).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 60} On this campaign see Bernhardi 563-78; Regesten der Markgrafen von Brandenburg ed. Hermann Krabbo, I (Veröffentlichungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg; Leipzig 1910) 28–9; Artler, George, ‘Die Zusammensetzung der deutschen Streitkräfte in den Kämpfen mit den Slaven von Heinrich I. bis auf Friedrich I.,’ Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 29 (Neue Folge 21; 1913) 313-319; Poole, Austin Lane, ‘Germany, 1125-52,’ CMH 5 (Cambridge 1926) 354-6; Bündung, Margret, Das Imperium Christianum und die deutschen Ostkriege vom zehnten bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert (Historische Studien, ed. Ebering, E. 366; Berlin 1940) 35-50; and Cartellieri (n. 37 above) 374-6.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 61} Schünemann, Konrad, ‘Ostpolitik und Kriegführung im deutschen Mittelalter,’ Ungarische Jahrbücher 17 (1937) 32–3.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 62} See, for instance, Bündung, , op. cit. 50: ‘Der Wendenzug ist im ganzen gesehen weniger ein ritterlicher Kreuzzug als ein Eroberungskrieg der deutschen Grenzfürsten geworden, der nur noch sehr beiläufig Spuren der Kreuzzugsidee zeigt.’ Cf. Cartellieri 376, and Thompson, James W., ‘The German Church and the Conversion of the Baltic Slavs,’ American Journal of Theology 20 (1916) 205–30 and 372-89, who called the crusade a ‘sinister mixture of bigotry and lust for land,’ 381.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 63} Vincent of Prague, for instance, says: ‘Saxones potius pro auferenda eis terra, quam pro fide Christiana confirmanda tantam moverant militiam,’ MGH SS 17.663. But Vincent was a Bohemian and not unprejudiced.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 64} Jordan, Karl, ‘Heinrich der Löwe und die ostdeutsche Kolonisation,’ Deutsches Archiv für Landes- und Volksforschung 2 (1938) 789: ‘Das Unternehmen war vor allem an der Diskrepanz gescheitert, welche sich zwischen den Forderungen der Kirche und den politischen Zielen der sächsischen Fürsten im Wendenland auftat.’ Carl Erdmann, on the contrary, emphasizes in his Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte 6; Stuttgart 1935) 91-7, that the early campaigns against the Slavs in the East were marked by ‘das Zusammentreffen von Heidenkrieg und Heidenmission,’ 95.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 65} Borenius, Tancred, Mediaeval Pilgrims’ Badges (Opuscula of Ye Sette of Odd Volumes 90; London 1930) 7–8; Otto of Freising, Gesta (cited n. 30 above) 61. Theodor Mayer, in ‘Das Kaisertum und der Osten im Mittelalter,’ Deutsche Ostforschungen , edd. Aubin, H., Brunner, O., Kohte, W., and Papritz, J., I (Deutschland und der Osten 20; Leipzig 1942) 291-309, says with respect to the eastern policy of the Empire: ‘Ideell deckten sich also die Absichten und Ziele des Kaisertums und des Papsttums völlig,’ 295.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 66} Casus monasterii Petrishusensis, MGH SS 20.674.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 67} See below, 245-6 and 255-7.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 68} Volk, Otto, Die abendländisch-hierarchische Kreuzzugsidee (Halle a.S. 1911) 41: ‘Der Slavenkreuzzug von 1147 ist aber unmittelbar mit dem zweiten orientalischen in Zusammenhang zu bringen…’ See Mayer (n. 65 above) passim; Bündung (n. 60 above) 41; Villey, Michel, La Croisade: Essai sur la formation d'une théorie juridique (L'Église et l'État au Moyen Age 6; Paris 1942) 210-12.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 69} Defourneaux, Marcelin, Les Français en Espagne aux XI ^e et XII ^e siècles (Paris 1949) passim; esp. 69: ‘La grande époque du pèlerinage, 1'« âge d'or » de Saint-Jacques de Compostelle, ne commencèrent cependant qu'avec les premières années du xii^e siècle.’ Cf. Borenius (n. 65 above) 10 and 18-9.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 70} Herculano, Alexandre, Historia de Portugal I (4th ed. Lisbon 1875) 528–30, mentions in all fifteen contemporary and later sources on the fall of Lisbon. To these may be added Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica de tempore regum Angliae Stephani, Henrici II, et Ricardi I , ed. Stubbs, Wm. in The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury I (Rolls Series 73; London 1879) 137-8; The Chronicle of Melrose , edd. Alan, and Anderson, Marjorie (Studies in Economics and Political Science 100; London 1936) 34; and several French chronicles, such as the Chron. Sancti Victoris Massiliensis, RHGF 12.349.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 71} MGH SS 6.454. It was composed, up to 1155, by an anonymous Premonstratensian monk in the diocese of Rheims or Lyons.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 72} Robert of Torigny, who as Abbot of St.-Michel-du-Mont had exceptional sources of information in an endless supply of pilgrims’ tales, mentions all but two (the Wendish Crusade and the Genoese expedition of 1146) of the many Christian campaigns of these years: Chron. (n. 6 above) 152-5. But his notices are on the whole annalistic and unconnected.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 73} Caffaro, , Ystoria Captionis Almarie et Turtuose , in Annali Genovesi I, ed. Belgrano, L. T. (Fonti per la Storia d’Italia 11; Genoa 1890) 79-89. On this campaign see Schirrmacher, F. W., Geschichte von Spanien IV (Gotha 1881) 143f.; Langer, Otto, Politische Geschichte Genuas und Pisas im 12. Jahrhundert (Historische Studien, ed. Arndt, W. 7; Leipzig 1882) 23-35; Manfroni, C., Storia della Marina Italiana (400-1261) (Leghorn 1899) 207-15; Schaube, Adolf, Handelsgeschichte der Romanischen Völker des Mittelmeergebiets bis zum Ende der Kreuzzüge (Handbuch der mittelalterlichen und neueren Geschichte, edd. Below, and Meinecke, , Abt. III; Munich-Berlin 1906) 317-19; Cartellieri (n. 37 above) 420-2. The principal objection to Caffaro’s excellent account of the capture of Almeria and Tortosa is the impression it gives that this was one campaign, whereas it was in fact two campaigns, in both of which the Genoese cooperated. This is clearly seen in the treaties preserved in the Liber iuris and printed in the Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova , ed. di Sant’Angelo, Cesare Imperiale (Fonti per la Storia d’Italia 77, 79, 89; Rome 1936-42). Here are found the agreements, made in September, 1146, in which the Genoese promised to assist the Emperor of Spain in an attack on Almeria in May of the following year and in which the Emperor, in return, undertook to attack also and promised certain rights to the Genoese in the city if it fell (I nos. 166-7, pp. 204-9). The Genoese stipulated that they were bound to join in no enterprise other than that against Almeria, in case they wished to ally with the Count of Barcelona. This they did by a treaty, concluded in 1146, in which the Genoese agreed to assist, after the capture of Almeria, in an attack on Tortosa; the Count on his side granted to the Genoese property and privileges in Tortosa should the city be captured (I nos. 168-9, pp. 210-17). These treaties were quite separate and indicate that each of these campaigns was a distinct undertaking. The later dealings of the Genoese with Alfonso and Ramon Berenger confirm this impression: see in the Codice dipl. I nos. 182-3 (pp. 228-30), 190-1 (pp. 236-40), 214-6 and 243-4 (pp. 265-7 and 291-5), and III nos. 52-3 (pp. 137-40). On the other hand, it must be remembered that these campaigns were both part of the wider effort of the Spanish Reconquest; and no doubt Alr fonso’s summons to join the campaign against Almeria stimulated in Ramon Berengea desire to recapture Tortosa.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 74} On Caffaro, see di Sant’Angelo, Cesare Imperiale, Caffaro e i suoi tempi (Turin and Rome 1894).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 75} The Ann. Ianuenses , in Annali Genovesi (n. 73 above) 1-75, apparently referring to the Ystoria, say that it was made ‘a sapientibus …, qui viderunt et interfuerunt,’ 35. Belgrano, , Ann. Ianuenses, intro. p. xc–xci, and Imperiale, , op. cit. 210-1, however, both believe that Caffaro did not accompany the expedition in 1147-8. In this case, the passage in the Ann. may mean that Caffaro wrote his work from eye-witness reports.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 76} The anonymous chronicler of Alfonso VII says of the pirates at Almeria: ‘qui circuentes diversa maria, nunc subito egressi terra Barensi, et terra Ascalonis, et Regionis Constantinopolitarum, et Siciliae, et Barcinonensis, et nunc Genuae, nunc Pisae, et Francorum, aut Portugaliae, et Galleciae, vel Asturianorum praedas captivos Christianos navibus adversantes fugiebant…,’ Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris , ed. Florez, H., España Sagrada 21.398.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 77} See the account of the capture of Almeria, under the year 1154, in the Notae Pisanae, MGH SS 19.266, which are called ‘sehr merkwürdig und lehrreich’ by Wattenbach (n. 54 above) II 326. Schaube (n. 73 above) emphasizes the economic aspects of this expedition, the expense of which produced a financial collapse in Genoa: see Imperiale (n. 73 above) 226f. and Krueger, Hilmar C., ‘Post-War Collapse and Rehabilitation in Genoa, 1149-62,’ Studi in onore di Gino Luzzatto (Milan 1949) I 117–28. Economic considerations always influenced the policy of the Genoese, who in 1137/8 had even allied with the King of Morocco: Manfroni (n. 73 above) 195.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 78} See below, 235.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 79} They had attacked Tortosa in 1093: see the De liberatione civitatum Orientis , in-Annali Genovesi I 97–124; Chron. Adefonsi Imperatoris , ed. Belgrano, L. T., ‘Frammento di poemmetto sincrono su la Conquista di Almeria nel MGXLVII,’ Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria 19 (1887) 400. They had played an important part in the First Crusade: see Manfroni 136-65, and Runciman I 112 and 219.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 80} Caffaro, , Ystoria 79; cf. Jacobus de Voragine: ‘ad preces summi pontificis,’ Iacopo da Varagine e la sua Cronaca di Genova , ed. Monleone, Giovanni (Fonti per la Storia d’Italia 84-6; Rome 1941) II 336; Sigonio, Carlo, De Regno Italiae, in Opera Omnia , ed. Muratori, Ludovico (Milan 1732) II 698; and Manrique, Angelo, Cisterciensium … Annalium Tomus Secundus (Lyons 1642) under 1146, vi (pp. 35-6) and 1147, i 11-12 (pp. 55-7). On the crusading vow, see below, 240. The Genoese appear to have taken oaths in connection with this expedition on at least three other occasions: before leaving Genoa, the consuls ‘omnibus discordantibus pacem iurare preceperunt’ (Caffaro, , Ystoria 80, line 6, cf. lines 12-4); then twice before the walls of Tortosa, the Genoese swore not to join battle without the common counsel and permission of the consuls (ibid. 86) and not to leave Tortosa before the city fell (ibid. 87). To capture Tortosa, , ‘pro honore Dei et civitatis Ianuensis’ (ibid. 85), they wintered at Barcelona.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 81} See above, n. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 82} For the two editions cited, see above nn. 76 (Florez) and 79 (Belgrano). There is another edition in Las Crónicas Latinas de la Reconquista, ed. Huici, A. (Valencia 1913) II 170–439. For the prose I use that of Florez, for the verse, that of Belgrano. The poem is incomplete, breaking off at verse 387.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 83} Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, , verse 4.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 84} See above, n. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 85} Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Florez, 398. On Bishop Arnold of Astorga, ‘cuius micat inclytus ensis’ in this campaign (Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, v. 376), see Belgrano pp. 404 and 422 n. 2; and España Sagrada 16.207, where in 1150 Alfonso makes him a grant ‘por el servicio que le hicieron en la guerra contra los Saracenos.’ Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 86} Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, vv. 44-7: ‘Crimina persolvunt, voces ad sydera tollunt, Mercedem vite spondent cunctis utriusque, Argenti dona promittunt cumque corona, Quidquid habent Mauri rursus promittunt auri,’ as had Urban II in the First Crusade. On the celebrated Archbishop Raymond of Toledo, see Haskins, Charles H., The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, Mass. 1927) 52 and 286.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 87} Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, v. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 88} Ibid. w. 50f.; for the most complete description of the Spanish forces listed in this poem, see de Sandoval, Prudencio, Chronica del Inclito Imperador … Alonso VII (Madrid, 1600) 138-40; also Schirrmacher (n. 73 above) 147. The troops included men from Leon, Asturia, Castile, and Toledo; the Count of Zamora and Salamanca, the Count of Urgel, the King of Navarre, and many others.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 89} Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, vv. 20–1; see Pidal, Ramon Menendez, El Imperio Hispanico y los Cinco Reinos (Madrid 1950) 167.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 90} On the development of the medieval legend of Charlemagne see Lehmann, Paul, Das literarische Bild Karls des Grossen (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften , Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, 1934, IX): ‘Unter dem Einfluss der religiösen Erregung … hatte sich immer mehr das fromm-heroische Bild von Karl als dem Bekämpfer und Besieger der Ungläubigen in den Vordergrund gedrängt,’ 34; and Folz, Robert, Le souvenir et la légende de Charlemagne dans l'Empire germanique médiéval (Publications de l'Université de Dijon 7; Paris 1950), especially, with respect to the theme of Charlemagne as a crusader, 137-8 and 166-7; more generally, 159-237.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 91} On the pseudo-Turpin, composed 1147/68, see Lehmann 30, and Folz 223-5 and 235-7; on the Vita sancii Karoli, composed 1170/80, see Lehmann 33 and Folz 214-21; on the Pèlerinage de Charlemagne and its connection with the Second Crusade, see Adler, Alfred, ‘The Pèlerinage de Charlemagne in New Light on Saint-Denis,’ Speculum 22 (1947) 550–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 230 note 92} See Schramm, (n. 3 above) 110–1; and Rassow, Peter, ‘La Confradia de Belchite,’ Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español 3 (1926) 220-6.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 93} In his ‘Ara pareisson l'aubre sec’: see Boissonade (n. 9 above) 237-8 and 239 n. 3, and Schramm 113.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 94} The date of this famous poem is much disputed: see Poésies complètes du Troubadour Marcabru, ed. Dejeanne, J.-M.-L. (Bibliothèque Méridionale, l^re Série, 12; Toulouse 1909) 229, where Diez, Suchier, and Lewent are cited in favor of 1146-7 and Meyer, in favor of anterior to 1147. Boissonade 222 and 233-7 examines the poem in great detail with a view to dating it in 1138 or 1138-45 at the outside.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 95} Poésies complètes no. 22 (pp. 107–10) strophes 10-11; see Schramm 113.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 96} This army first moved on Calatrava, which fell in January, 1147 (Sandoval [n. 88 above] 123-4 and 126; Schirrmacher [n. 73 above] 147 n. 2) and was granted first to the Templars and later was defended by the Cistercians of the Abbey of Fitero in Navarre. So was established the Order of the Knights of Calatrava, which Alexander III approved in 1164: Thompson, A. H., ‘The Monastic Orders,’ CMH 5.682. Alfonso's army then took Anjudar and Baños before setting siege to Baeza: Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, v. 298 and pp. 420 n. 3, 421 n. 1. (On Anjudar: Schirrmacher 149; on Baeza: Sandoval 124-5; España Sagrada 16.483, 22.272, 36. cxciv [see n. 229 below]; Schirrmacher 149.) Here they encountered strong opposition, and many troops had already gone home (Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, vv. 334-7) by the time when, during the summer, envoys arrived at Baeza from the Catalonian, French, and Genoese forces that had meanwhile gathered at Almeria (ibid. vv. 340f.). The Bishop of Astorga, however, rallied the remaining Spanish troops to go on to Almeria. The poem breaks off in the middle of his speech.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 97} Dozy, , Recherches sur les Musulmans d'Espagne II 203 and 233, quoted by Merriman, Roger, The Rise of the Spanish Empire I: The Middle Ages (New York 1918) 88; cf. Schramm 113.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 98} Excluding, that is, the very brief Ann. Barcinonenses, MGH SS 19.501, written in a twelfth-century hand on the last leaf of a manuscript of Visigothic laws. Later Spanish chronicles, of which there are several, naturally viewed this campaign in a different light from contemporaries.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 99} Colección de documentos inéditos del Archivo General de la Corona de Aragon, ed. Próspero de Bofarull, D. y Mascarò, , IV (Barcelona 1849) nos. 51 (pp. 113-23), 54 (126-9), 56 (130-5), 58 (136-40), 61 (144-68), 70 (193-6), 139 (328), and 147 (347-55). In 1131, Alfonso of Aragon willed that ‘… si Deus dederit michi Tortosam tota sit ospitalis ihierosolomitani,’ ibid. no. 2, p. 11. Ramon Berenger in 1136, however, granted the entire city and diocese of Tortosa to William VI of Montpellier (ibid. no. 22, pp. 53-4, in a mutilated form; and Liber Instrumentorum memorialium: Cartulaire des Guillems de Montpellier , ed. Germain, A. [Montpellier 1884-6] no. clii, pp. 284-5), who in his will in 1146 bequeathed the city to his younger son William (d’Achery, Luc, Spicilegium, edd. Baluze and Martène [Paris 1723] III 498-500; and Liber Instr. mem. no. xcv, pp. 177-83). Several of the charters listed above concern the problem of the division of Tortosa after the conquest. In spite of the grants to the Hospitallers and to William of Montpellier, one third of the city seems to have been given to William of Moncada and another to the Genoese (see n. 73 above) and yet another portion to the Templars (presumably under Ramon Berenger's grant of 1143: see n. 100 below). However, William, the son of William VI of Montpellier, still called himself ‘William of Tortosa’ as late as 1157 (D’Achéry III 526). The whole problem is confused, and the explanations advanced by DeVic, and Vaissete, , op. cit. (n. 9 above) III 739-40, and by Defourneaux, , op. cit. (n. 69 above) 177, are not altogether satisfactory.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 100} Colección no. 63, pp. 93–9; also Pierre de Marca. Marca Hispanica , ed. Baluze, E. (Paris 1688) 1291-4; España Sagrada 43.241-5 and 484-8 (Fifth Council of Gerona, 1143).Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 101} It is too specific for a conventional arenga and was clearly composed for this charter.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 102} En Espagna, sai, lo Marques E cill del temple Salamo Sofron lo pes E·1 fais de l'orguoill paganor… Poésies complètes no. 35 (pp. 169–71) strophe 7. The date of this poem is no less disputed than that of the ‘Emperaire’: see ibid. 235. Milà and Suchier date it 1146/7; Meyer argues from the reference to the death of the Count of Poitou (1137) ‘que le vers del Lavador n'est pas de beaucoup postérieur à cet événement’; Crescini and Lewent follow Meyer, as does Boissonade (n. 9 above) 231. While 1138 is not impossible, the reference to the Templars appears to suggest a date posterior to the great privilege of 1143.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 103} Chaytor, H. J., A History of Aragon and Catalonia (London 1933) 55.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 104} España Sagrada 47.255.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 105} Caffaro, , Ystoria 86; Codice diplomatico … di Genova I 236-8; Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, v. 348: ‘in ordine magnus.’ It is not impossible that William came with the Genoese, as DeVic and Vaissete (n. 9 above) III 738-9, suggest, although Caffaro does not mention this. The Counts of Montpellier had a tradition of co-operation with the Genoese, who with the Pope had assisted William VI to reestablish his power in Montpellier in 1143: Germain, A., Histoire de la Commune de Montpellier I (Montpellier 1851) 19-21: Liber Instr. (n. 99 above) xi; Manfroni (n. 73 above) 195;Lewis, Archibald R., ‘Seigneurial Administration in Twelfth Century Montpellier,’ Speculum 22 (1947) 568. ‘Remarquons … l'intervention génoise dans ces affaires Montpelliéraines et Aragonaises…,’ says Germain, , Liber Instr. xii; ‘Guillem VI attacha une si haute valeur à cette intervention, que, pour en reconnaître le bienfait, il concéda aux Génois une maison à Montpellier, où ils eurent dès lors un centre commercial.’ Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 106} The new Abbot of Grandeselve, in 1149, was Alexander of Cologne, who had been converted to the monastic life by St. Bernard during his preaching of the crusade in the Rhineland, 1146-7: Greven, Joseph, ‘Die Kölnfahrt Bernhards von Clairvaux,’ Annalen des historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 120 (1932) 10–12. On William of Montpellier, see Manrique, , Cist. Ann. II (n. 80 above) under 1149, iii 5 (pp. 130-1); Histoire littéraire de la France… par les religieux Bénédictins … de Saint Maur, 13.324f.; DeVic and Vaissete III 737f., 778, 820, and IV 182-3 (note 37, viii); and the Liber Instr. vi-xii. The Counts of Montpellier were vassals for part of their lands both of the King of Castile and of the Counts of Barcelona and therefore had close relations with Spain in the twelfth century. William VI took a special interest in Catalonia, and as a monk he was present at the foundation of the Abbey of Vaullure (Santa-Cruz) by William of Moncada: DeVic and Vaissete III 820; Defourneaux (n. 69 above) 177. See also his interesting will, cited n. 99 above.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 107} Schirrmacher (n. 73 above) 147: ‘… man vereinigte sich zum erstenmal zu einer gemeinsamen kriegerischen Aktion.’ See, also, Lafuente, Modesto, Historia General de España V (Madrid 1851) 68–9; Defourneaux 175-6; Menendez Pidal (n. 89 above) 166-7.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 108} Menendez Pidal 166-7; DeVic and Vaissete III 737: ‘La guerre qu’Alphonse VII, Roi de Castile, avoit entreprise alors contre les infidèles d’Espagne, partagea la noblesse de la Province entre cette expédition et celle de la Terre Sainte.’ Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 109} See my ‘Note on the Route of the Anglo-Flemish Crusaders,’ Speculum 28 (1953) 526. On the vexed problem of the participation of Pisans in the campaign, I do not agree with Belgrano in his belief (Chron. Ad. Imp. p. 398) that they were present: Caffaro and the Notae Pisanae make no mention of them, nor the letter from the Pisans to Ramon Berenger in Colección (n. 99 above) no. 154, pp. 371-2, nor a charter of Alfonso which mentions Genoese aid: Rassow, Peter, ‘Die Urkunden Kaiser Alfons VII. von Spanien,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung 10 (1928) 444 and 11 (1929) 99-100. The two sources where they are mentioned — Robert of Torigny, Chron. (n. 6 above) 155 and Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, v. 347 — are not reliable. The confusion may have arisen, as Langer (n. 73 above) 31 n. 2 suggests, out of the undoubted Pisan participation in the attack on Majorca in 1114-5: Chaytor (n. 103 above) 57; Defourneaux 155; or, I think, perhaps more likely, out of the fact that one of the Genoese leaders was named Ansaldo Pizo: Caffaro (n. 73) passim; Ann. Ianuenses (n. 75) 35; or possibly out of the presence at the siege of Lisbon of a Pisan engineer, who may have gone on to Tortosa: De exp. Lyx. 142 and 162; letter of Duodechin, MGH SS 17.28. Pisa was in any case throughout this period occupied by a war with Lucca. In point of fact, she objected to the Genoese attack in 1146 on Minorca, over which the Pisans asserted a claim on the grounds of their earlier expedition: Manfroni (n. 73 above) 208. Of the presence, however (which appears to have hitherto escaped notice), of Ventimiglians on this expedition, there can be no doubt: Codice diplomatico (n. 73 above) I no. 194, pp. 242-3.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 110} Defourneaux 177-8.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 111} See below, 262.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 112} Archives, Hôtel de Ville, Narbonne, caisson 5: cited in French translation by DeVic and Vaissete III 739. More generally on French participation in the Reconquista, see Defourneaux passim and Benito Ruana, E., ‘España y las Cruzadas’, Anales de Historia antigua y medieval (1951-2) 103–11.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 113} Indiculum … sancti Vincentii (n. 43 above) 91: ‘inimicorum crucis Christi mirificus extirpator.’ Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 114} Boissonade, (n. 9 above) 229–30.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 115} In Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Scriptores I 94–5. On this capture, see Herculano (n. 70 above) 360f. and n. xxi, 526-8; de Azevado, Luiz Gonzaga, Historia de Portugal , ed. Mauricio, Domingos dos Santos, Gomes, IV (Lisbon 1941) 46-55; Brandão, Antonio, Crónica de D. Afonso Henriques , ed. de Magalhães Basto, A. (Lisbon 1945) 99-111; Livermore (n. 37 above) 73-4.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 116} De exp. Scal. (n. 115 above) 33-5. Cf. Psalm 46; Jud. 5.3, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 117} Grant of April, 1147: Documentos da Chancelaria de Afonso Henriques, ed. Reuter, Abiah E. (Chancelarias Medievais Portuguesas 1; Coimbra 1938) no. 145, pp. 209-10. See Herculano 366 n. 1 and 367 n. 1; Brandão 109 and 110 (a document of 1154, showing that the Templars got the property). On the part played by the Templars in the Portuguese Reconquest, see Livermore 80-1.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 118} De exp. Lyx. 178; Chron. Conimbricense, in Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Scriptores I 2; Chron. Lamecense, ibid. 19-20; Herculano I 404-6; Azevado 90-1; Gibb (n. 37 above) 16.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 119} Ann. Ianuenses 33–5.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 120} Langer, (n. 73 above) 25.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 121} On this expedition see Amari, Michele, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, ed. Nallino, Carlo (Catania 1933-9) III 421 and 441; Manfroni (n. 73 above) 198-201; Caspar, Erich, Roger II. und die Gründung der Normannisch-Sicilischen Monarchie (Innsbruck 1904) 419-21; Chalandon, Ferdinand, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile (Paris 1907) II 162-5; Curtis, Edmund, Roger of Sicily (New York and London 1912) 251-4; Cerone, Francesco, L'opera politica e militare di Ruggiero II in Africa ed in Oriente (Catania 1913) 63f.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 122} Robert of Torigny, Chron. 153. The continuator of Sigebert, MGH SS 6.454, devotes five lines to this campaign and mentions that Roger restored the Archbishop of Africa (Al Mahdia) to his see: cf. Mesnage, J., Le Christianisme en Afrique: Déclin et extinction (Algiers and Paris 1915) 219–20 and 225. The fact that the Bishops of Al Mahdia seem to have resided at Palermo (Mesnage 219-20) suggests that Roger II may have used them as instruments of his dynastic policy.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 123} Peter the Venerable, Epistolae , in Bibliotheca Cluniacensis, ed. Marrier, Martin (Paris 1614) ep. 6.16, col. 915. Peter here offers his sympathy to Roger on the death of his son, Roger, Duke of Apulia (May 2, 1148): Caspar 428: Curtis 294 and 239-40.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 124} See Caspar, 397f.; Chalandon, 157-62; Curtis, 242-63; Cerone, passim. Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 125} Caspar, 377–84; Chalandon, 135-7; Curtis, 227f.; Cerone, 58-63; Cartellieri (n. 37 above) 367-9; Heilig, Konrad, ‘Ostrom und das Deutsche Reich um die Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts,’ Kaisertum und Herzogsgewalt im Zeitalter Friedrichs I. (Schriften des Reichsinstituts für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 9; Leipzig 1944) 161-2: ‘… zweifellos hat er (Roger) damit auch dem Kreuzzugsunternehmen schwer geschadet.’ Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 126} Cerone, 68.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 127} Ibid. 63–4.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 128} Amari (the only scholar whom I have found who discusses this aspect of Roger’s campaign) thought otherwise: ‘Assaltando l'Affrica dunque nella state del 1148, il re de Sicilia comparia per la prima volta nel grande accordo cattolico,’ op. cit. (n. 121 above) III 421. He, however, does not appear to have realized fully the connection of this campaign with Roger's withdrawal from Greece; but he realized Roger's aim, for he says of of the crusade that Roger, ‘ne usava gli avvantaggi,’ ibid. Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 129} LaMonte, John, ‘La Papauté et les Croisades,’ Renaissance 2–3 (1944-5) 155.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 130} Other common names for the crusade include iter, expeditio, and profectio, sometimes with Dei or Ierosolymitana, and occasionally with some such phrase as ad debellandos paganos to indicate its military character. In no contemporary source is it called a crusade; the nearest equivalent is in the Ann. sancti Iacobi Leodiensis, MGH SS 16.641, where the soldiers are referred to as ‘crucizatur.’ Among the sources using the terms ‘pilgrimage’ and ‘pilgrims,’ see: Ann. Herbipolenses, MGH SS 16.3; Ann. sancti Dionysii, MGH SS 13.720; Continuatio Praemonstratensis, MGH SS 6.453; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis II, MGH SS 9.614; Helmold of Bosau, Chron. Slavorum (n. 50 above) 115f.; Hildegard of Bingen, who referred to the Pope as ‘pater peregrinorum’: Watterich, J. M., Pontificum Romanorum … Vitae ab aequalibus conscriptae (Leipzig 1862) II 302; William of Saint-Denis, in both the Vita Sugeri (in Oeuvres complètes de Suger , ed. de la Marche, Lecoy [Société de l'Histoire de France; Paris 1867J 394-5) and ‘Le dialogue apologétique du moine Guillaume, biographe de Suger,’ ed. Wilmart, A., Revue Mabillon (1942) 103 and 109. Pfeiffer (n. 31 above) 8-9 has drawn attention to the fact that in the Middle Ages peregrinatio was a general term embracing the modern concepts of pilgrimage and crusade; but he maintains that medieval men in fact made this distinction. The sources on the Second Crusade do not support this view: they draw no clear line between a crusade and a pilgrimage. The crusaders were quite as much pilgrims as they were fighters: see Romuald of Salerno, Chron. ed. Garufi, C. A., RIS² 7. i 229; Richard of Poitiers, Chron. RHGF 12.416, who says that King Louis ‘… in urbe Sancta, causa orationis, ut peregrinus remansit’; Odo of Deuil, De prof. Ludov. ed. Berry, (n. 9 above) 2; Monumenta Boica 12.329; De glorioso rege Ludovico, in Vie de Louis le Gros par Suger (n. 9 above) 160-1; and nn. 131 and 132 below. In their original forms, Erdmann has shown (op. cit. n. 64 above, 281-3), there was no popular association of the ideas of pilgrimage and of war against the heath en. By 1150, however, they were fully equated. This important development was principally the result of the fact that, through the exercise of the ecclesiastical power of remission of sins, a military expedition against non-Christians was put on an equal spiritual basis and rewarded with the same spiritual benefits as a pilgrimage: ibid. 306-7 and 319. There was as yet, however, little consciousness of the crusade as an institution or of the Second Crusade as a successor to the First. Very few sources refer to it as a second crusade at all: see Chron. Regia Coloniensis, rec. II (n. 54 above) 82; Bern. ep. 363, col. 568 (reference to Peter the Hermit); Henry of Huntingdon, Hist. Angl. (n. 9 above) 281; letters of the Emperor Manuel, RHGF 15.440-1 and 16.9-10. Louis VII was conscious of following a precedent: Odo of Deuil, ed. Berry 58 and 130; and Odo himself may have consulted an account of the First Crusade: William of Saint-Denis, ‘Dialogue’ 103. Important evidence of the survival at St. Denis of the tradition of the First Crusade is the window given by Suger, which is now lost but was reproduced by Montfaucon in his Les Monuments de la Monarchie Françoise I (Paris 1729) plates l-liv (389f.): cf. de Mély, F., ‘La Croix des premiers Croisés,’ in vol. III of Riant, Paul, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae (Paris 1904) 2-11.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 131} MGH SS 21.329. The Chron. Regia Coloniensis 82-3 says, ‘… mota sunt omnia regna Occidentis et accensa desiderio eundi in Ierusalem et visitare sepulchrum Domini ac dimicare contra gentes quae ignorant Deum et dilatare terminos christiani imperii in Oriente.’ Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 132} This is the case, for instance, with two crusaders who were not of very high rank. So Lambert of Ardres says that his father joined the crusade ‘ut dominicum venerari et … sepulchrum videre mereretur,’ Historia Comitum Ghisnenium et Ardensium, MGH SS 24.633. Abbot Hermann of St. Martin of Tournai went ‘… gloriosum Domini Jesu Christi sepulchrum invisere multo ardore sitiens…,’ D’Achéry, Spicilegium II 926. Cf. Ann. Ratisponenses, MGH SS 17.586.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 133} Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, Louis II (Paris 1892) 387.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 134} Peter the Venerable (n. 123 above) ep. 6.16, col. 915.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 135} Charter of Henry of Prunnen, in von Hormayr, Joseph, Die Bayern im Morgenlande (Munich 1832) 43.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 136} De exp. Lyx. 156. On the use of the cross and the cross-banner in the First Crusade and earlier, see Erdmann (n. 64 above) 30f. and 318-9. For an interesting archaeological study of the crusaders’ cross, see F. de Mély (n. 130 above) 1-21; cf. the crosses worn by the crusaders illustrated on plate i in Runciman vol. II (fresco at Cressac, Charente) and Peter the Venerable, Sermo de laude dominici sepulchri , in Martène, Edmond and Durand, Ursin, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum V (Paris 1717) 1439 B.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 137} JL 7116: Martène, Edmond and Durand, Ursin, Veterum Scriptorum … Amplissima Collectio I (Paris 1724) 650–1, and Bullaire du Pape Calixte II , ed. Robert, Ulysse (Paris 1891) II no. 454, pp. 266-7. See also the canons of the Ninth Ecumenical Council: Hefele, Charles-Joseph, Histoire des Conciles , ed. and tr. Leclercq, H., V 1 (Paris 1912) 635.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 138} De exp. Lyx. 156 and n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 139} See above, 222, and n. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 140} Otto of Freising, Gesta (n. 30 above) 61; cf. Bern. ep. 457, col. 652. As a Christian symbol, the globus cruciger dates back to late Antiquity. On the Ticinum silver festival issue of 315, Constantine ‘bears on his shoulder the Cross of Christ with the globe on top’: Alföldi, Andreas, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, tr. Mattingly, Harold (Oxford 1948) 43 and 129 n. 14, cf. 131 n. 21. ‘Die christlichen Kaiser führen als Bekrönung des Globus zunächst das Christusmonogramm, dann das Kreuz… Die Bedeutung des Kreuzes haben schon Prokop und Suidas richtig gewürdigt; es ist ein bildlicher Ausdruck für unsere Bezeichnung « von Gottes Gnaden »’: Schlachter, Alois, Der Globus, seine Entstehung und Verwendung in der Antike (ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙA, Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Weltbildes und der griechischen Wissenschaft 8; Leipzig-Berlin 1927) 69; cf. Alföldi, , ‘Eine spätrömische Helmform und ihre Schicksale im Germanisch-Romanischen Mittelalter,’ Acta Archaeologica 5 (1934) 141-2. It persisted throughout the Middle Ages, in both Byzantine and Western art as a symbol of divine majesty and as an emblem of Christian temporal power: see Didron, , Iconographie Chrétienne (Paris 1843) 597; Schlachter 105; Alföldi, , ‘Helmform’ 143-4; Grabar, André, L'Empereur dans l'Art byzantin (Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 75; Paris 1936), plates v, XXIV fig. 1, and xxx fig. 21; Schramm, Percy, ‘Das Herrscherbild in der Kunst des frühen Mittelalters,’ Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 2 (1922-3) part I, 158 and plates vii-viii, figs. 13-17. It appeared frequently on medieval coins and seals: Schlumberger, Gustave, Chalandon, Ferdinand, and Blanchet, Adrien, Sigillographie de l'Orient Latin (Haut Commissariat de l’État Français en Syrie et au Liban, Service des Antiquités: Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 37; Paris 1943), plates i (1,2,3,4), v (1), vi (1,2,3), vii (1,2,3, 5,6,9), etc.; and Harmer, Florence, ‘The English Contribution to the Epistolary Usages of the Early Scandinavian Kings,’ Saga-Book of the Viking Society 13 (1949-50) part III, 137, 140-1 and figs. 3 and 4.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 141} RHGF 12.120.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 142} See above, 225, and n. 65; and van Cauwenbergh, Étienne, Les pèlerinages expiatoires et judiciaires dans le droit communal de la Belgique au Moyen Age (Université de Louvain: Recueil de Travaux publiés par les Membres des Conférences d'Histoire et de Philologie 48; 1922) 22-3.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 143} Erdmann (n. 64 above) 318 suggests that in this cross may be seen the first intimation of the modern uniform.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 144} See above, 222.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 145} Odo of Deuil, ed. Berry, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 146} See above, n. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 147} Ann. Magdeburgenses, MGH SS 16.188.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 148} Monumenta Boica 7.348.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 149} Monachi Sazavensis Continuatio (Cosmae Chronicarum Bohemorum), MGH SS 9.159; cf. 1 John 3.16.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 150} De exp. Lyx. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 151} Gerhoh of Reichersberg, Commentarius aureus in Psalmos, ed. Pez, Bernhard in Thesaurus Anecdotorum novissimus V (Augsburg 1728) 794 (also in MGH, Libelli de Lite III [Hannover 1897] 437): ‘… reddentes vicem salvatori suo, qui pro eis mortuus est.’ Cf. Lamentations 3.64 and 1 Timothy 5.4.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 152} See Chron. Ad. Imp. ed. Belgrano, v. 4, and above p. 222 and n. 43. For references in the AS to miracles performed by participants in the Second Crusade, see Kohler, Ch., ‘Rerum et personarum quae in Actis Sanctorum Bollandistis … ad Orientem latinum spectant Index analyticus,’ Mélanges pour servir à l'histoire de l'Orient latin et des Croisades I (Paris 1906) 104-212, to whose list may be added St. Ernest, AS 7 November, III 608-17.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 153} De exp. Scal. (n. 115 above) 95.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 154} Monumenta Corbeiensia (n. 25 above) ep. 48, p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 155} Hormayr (n. 135 above) 43-6, whose examples are mostly taken from the Monumenta Boica. His citations are occasionally erroneous, but there is no evidence that these documents are forgeries, like those in some of Hormayr’s works: see Bock, Friedrich, ‘Fälschungen des Freiherrn von Hormayr,’ Neues Archiv 47 (1928) 225–43.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 156} Hormayr, 43.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 157} See, for instance, the Monumenta Boica 3.84 (Hormayr 43); Urkundenbuch des Herzogthums Steiermark, ed. Zahn, J. I (Graz 1875) no. 270, p. 281, and no. 266, p. 279. Reginher of Tovernich made his grant to Admont whether he returned or not: ibid. no. 271, p. 282.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 158} Ibid. no. 294, p. 302 (cf. Wichner, Jakob, Geschichte des Benediktiner-Stiftes Admont von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Jahre 1177 [Graz 1874] 100 and n. 2); Codex traditionum ecclesiae collegiatae Claustroneoburgensis , ed. Fischer, Maximilian (Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Abt. II, vol. 4; Vienna 1851) no. 396, p. 85 (cf. Fischer, , Merkwürdigere Schicksale des Stiftes und der Stadt Klosterneuburg II [Vienna 1815] no. 87, p. 51).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 159} PL 185 ii. 1824. Likewise Conrad of Peilstein sold various lands ‘pro remedio anime sue et pro precio sexaginta quinque librarum’: Urkundenbuch … Steiermark no. 265, p. 278 (Wichner 102-3; von Muchar, Albert, Geschichte des Herzogthums Steiermark III [Graz 1846] 347).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 160} Urkundenbuch … Steiermark no. 268, p. 280 (Wichner no. 15, p. 216).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 161} Besides Hormayr, see the documentary references cited by Röhricht (n. 9 above) II 311-20, in his list of German pilgrims; Cartulaire de l'Abbaye N.D. de Bonnevaux, ed. Chevalier, Ulysse (Documents historiques inédits sur le Dauphiné 7; Grenoble 1889) no. 244, pp. 102–3; Recueil des Chartes de l'Abbaye de Cluny , edd. Bernard, Auguste and Bruel, Alexandre, V (Collection de Documents inédits sur l'Histoire de France; Paris 1894) no. 4131 pp. 473-4 (Bernard III of Uxelles, ‘quando voluit ire Iherosolimam,’ disclaimed any rights in the lands of Cluny); Urkundenbuch für die Geschichte des Niederrheins , ed. Theodor Lacomblet, I (Düsseldorf 1840) no. 364, pp. 249-50; Urkundenbuch … Steiermark nos. 266-275, pp. 278-84; no. 290, pp. 299-300; no. 425, p. 406 (cf. Wichner, nos. 13-18, pp. 214-8); Wichner, pp. 101, 174, and 182 (Poppo of Piber sold his estate for twenty-five pounds and a horse before leaving on the crusade); Bridrey, Emile, La condition juridique des croisés et le privilège de croix (Paris 1900) 48 n. 3 (unedited charter of Louis VII); Luchaire (n. 18 above) no. 215, p. 168, and perhaps no. 395, pp. 227 and 407-8; von Muchar III 347, and IV (Graz 1848) 401f.; von Ludewig, J. P., Reliquae Manuscriptorum omnis aevi IV (Frankfurt and Leipzig 1722) 196-8; and cf. the later, but very interesting, letter from Alexander III to Louis VII: JL 10796, RHGF 15.789-90. Google Scholar

By such purchases, mortgages, and gifts many churches substantially increased their property. ‘Tempore quo expeditio Jerosolymitana … totum commovit fere occidentem, ceperunt singuli tanquam ultra non redituri vendere possessiones suas, quas Ecclesiae secundum facultates suas suis prospicientes utilitatibus emerunt’ : Monumenta Boica 3.540. And the author of the Chron. Tornacensis, in Corpus Chronicorum Flandriae , ed. de Smet, J.-J. II (Brussels 1841) 564, says of the crusaders: ‘… nonnulla praedia et possessiones quae habebant vendentes, pretiumque eorum secum deferentes.’ This occasionally led to difficulties. Bartholomew of Cicon, on his ‘deathbed’ at Jerusalem, promised to return to the priory of Mouthier-Haute-Pierre a mill and seven serfs; but when he recovered, he thought better of his promise, which, however, the priory, with the aid of the Archbishop of Besançon, forced him to keep: see Castan, Auguste, Un épisode de la deuxième croisade (Besançon 1862). On the other hand, it must be remembered that crusading clerics were not above selling the property of their churches: see Translatio sancti Mamantis, AS, 17 August, III 443. Laymen, , also, occasionally seized ecclesiastical possessions for this purpose: Theoderic of Flanders took two pieces from the treasury of St. Columba at Sens: Chron. Senonense Sanctae Columbae, RHGF 12.288.Google Scholar

On the financing of this crusade in general, see Pfeiffer, (n. 31 above) 78-81; Bridrey 45-6 and 66f. The relevant sources, of which Mrs. Berry has kindly sent me a list, include the Fragmentum hist. ex veteri membrana de tributo Floriacensibus imposito, RHGF 12.94-5; a letter from John of Ferrières to Suger, ibid. 15.497; and a letter from the royal chancellor Cadurcus to Suger, ibid. 497-8. But the evidence of these and later (Ralph of Diceto and Matthew Paris) sources is either unreliable or indefinite. Louis VII may have subjected certain churches to a crusading aid, but it is far from clear that this was a general tax, of which many historians speak. Nor does this levy appear to have roused any ‘mécontentement général,’ to which Bridrey 69 and Vuitry, A., Études sur le régime financier de la France avant la Révolution de 1789 (Paris 1878) 390-1, refer. This whole problem is in need of further study.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 162} Thompson, A. H., ‘Medieval Doctrine to the Lateran Council of 1215,’ CMH 6.694.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 163} Ann. Herbipolenses, MGH SS 16.3; cf. Gerhoh of Reichersberg, Libri III de Investigatione Antichristi, ed. Scheibelberger, F.I. (Linz 1875) chap. 67, and in MGH, Libelli de Lite 3.374-5.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 164} The bibliography on St. Bernard is enormous; for a list of books and articles dealing with Bernard and the Second Crusade, see Pfeiffer (n. 31 above) 44 n. 16. Hüffer, Georg, ‘Die Anfänge des Zweiten Kreuzzuges,’ Historisches Jahrbuch 8 (1887) 391–429, especially emphasizes the part played by Eugene III.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 165} Gleber, Helmut, Papst Eugen III (Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen und neueren Geschichte 6; Jena 1936) 43–8.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 166} This was suggested by Pfeiffer 8-10, whose idea I develop below, Appendix A.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 167} See Bernhardi, (n. 1 above) 532–3; Hüffer, Georg, Der heilige Bernhard von Clairvaux I: Vorstudien (Münster 1886) 70-103. Cosack, H., ‘Konrads III. Entschluss zum Kreuzzug,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 35 (1914) 278-96; Greven (n. 106 above), Pfeiffer 48f.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 168} The purpose of this visit seems to have been to deal with local heresy; Bern. ep. 242 coll. 436-7.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 169} Alfonso himself had taken the cross at Vézelay: De glorioso rege Ludovico in Vie de Louis le Gros (n. 9 above) 158. On Bernard's visit and the departure of this expedition, see DeVic and Vaissete III 752-5 and IV 223-4 (note L, xii).Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 170} In general, on the active part played by the Cistercians in the preparations for the crusade, see Pfeiffer 44-54 and 78-81. When possible, Bernard preached the crusade in person rather than by letters carried by agents: in ep. 363, col. 565, he says, ‘Agerem id libentius viva voce…’ Occasionally other Cistercian abbots were able to preach, such as Rainald of Morimund: Pfeiffer 46; cf. Fechner, Hilde, Die politischen Theorien des Abtes Bernhard von Clairvaux in seinen Briefen (Boon and Cologne 1933) 61. Simple monks were presumably not allowed to preach (cf. Appendix A) but were sent with letters wherever Bernard or another abbot was unable to go. Most celebrated among these is Rudolph, who in at least one chronicle (Gesta Abbatum Lobbiensium, MGH SS 21.329) appears as a crusading preacher more important than Bernard, since he took it on himself, with Lambert Abbot of Lobbes as translator, to preach the crusade in the Summer and Autumn of 1146 in the Lowlands and in the Rhine valley, where he aroused a terrible persecution of the Jews. St. Bernard was furious (see his ep. 365 to the Archbishop of Mainz, who may well have been nervous, remembering the sack of the archiepiscopal palace at Mainz during the riots connected with the First Crusade: Runciman I 138-9) and sent Rudolph packing back to Clairvaux: see Bernhardi 522-4; Cosack 281-2 and 294 n. 1; Pfeiffer 46-7. — Bernard’s secretary Nicholas wrote several crusading letters for his master: Rassow (n. 45 above) 245-6; on Nicholas, see Steiger, Augustin, ‘Nikolaus, Mönch in Clairvaux, Sekretär des hl. Bernhard,’ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige 38 (Neue Folge 7; 1917) 41-50; Pfeiffer 45; and Leclercq, Jean, ‘Saint Bernard et ses secrétaires,’ Revue Bénédictine 61 (1951) 220. The secretary Geoffrey carried a letter to the Bretons: Rassow 265 and 274; on Geoffrey, see Leclercq 220-5, and Greven (n. 106 above) 6-8. Geoffrey, together with another secretary, Gerhard, was constantly with Bernard on his travels for the crusade: Pfeiffer 46f. Abbot Adam of Ebrach carried to the diet of Regensburg (February, 1147) two of Bernard’s letters, one of which was taken on to Bohemia by Henry of Olmütz: Rassow 265-6 and 274-5; von Fichtenau, Heinrich, ‘Bamberg, Würzburg, und die Stauferkanzlei,’ Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung 53 (1939) 274; Pfeiffer 49 and 51-2. He probably also carried a letter to Abbot Gerlach of Rein, who preached the crusade in the Steiermark and Carinthia: Pfeiffer 49 and 52-3.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 171} To Speyer, East France and Bavaria, Cologne, Brescia, England, Bohemia, Brittany and possibly Spain: see Rassow, 243f. and Cosack, 293-6. The letter to the Archbishop and congregation of Cologne has since been printed by Greven 44-8. To these letters should also be added that addressed to the Hospitallers discovered at Jena by Jean Leclercq and published in the Revue Mabillon 43 (1953) 1-4, together with an interesting letter written to Louis VII by one ‘W. Dei gratia dux et miles Christi et servus crucis,’ who says, in words strongly reminiscent of Bernard's crusading letters, that he has received the cross ‘ex manibus sanctissimis abbatis Claraevallis’ and discusses the preparations for, and the route of the crusade.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 172} Bern. ep. 457, coll. 651-2; Rassow 275; see n. 222 below.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 173} Bern. epp. 247 (coll. 445-7), 365 (coll. 570-1) and 468 (coll. 672-3). On ep. 468 see Rassow 274 and Pfeiffer, E., ‘Die Stellung des hl. Bernhard zur Kreuzzugsbewegung nach seinen Schriften,’ Cistercienser-Chronik 46 (1934) 276 n. 28. Epp. 256 and 364 (coll. 463-5 and 568-70), which Mabillon dates 1146, in fact refer to the preparations for the crusade of 1150: ibid. 306 n. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 174} Hüffer (n. 164 above) 392, and Vacandard, E., Vie de saint Bernard (3rd. ed. Paris 1903) II 303 n. 1, who mention a letter ‘ad peregrinantes Jerusalem’ in the Royal Archives at Barcelona. Rassow was unable to locate this letter: loc. cit. 246.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 175} The meaning and date of this letter are not above dispute. Mabillon's late date of 1153 seems to be based upon a confusion between ‘Peter the brother of Your Excellency’ (Petrus Celsitudinis vestrae frater) and Peter Abbot of Celle to whom ep. 419 is addressed: Sancti Bernardi … Opera omnia, ed. Mabillon, Jean (Paris 1839) I 1.937. The letter certainly suggests that this Peter joined the Second Crusade: see Azevado (n. 115 above) 47-8. If it may therefore be dated in 1147, it shows that Bernard was in close touch with Portugal at this time. Another letter to Alfonso, in Manrique, , Cist. Ann. II (n. 80 above) under 1147, ix (p. 71) appears to be a forgery: see Mabillon, , Bernardi… Opera I 1.767-8 and 959; Defourneaux (n. 69 above) 212-3.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 176} Orton, Previté (n. 9 above) 292–3: Livermore, (n. 37 above) 83.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 177} Janauschek, Leopold, Originimi Cisterciensium Tomus I (Vienna 1877) 110; Cottineau, L. H., Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés (Mâcon 1939) I 50-1. The inscription printed by Brandão (n. 115 above) 147 suggests 1147 rather than 1148 as the foundation date; the Peter mentioned here may be either the brother or the son of Alfonso Henriques (ibid. 147-50) — possibly the brother mentioned by St. Bernard in ep. 308 (see n. 175 above). Cf. Broqua, De, Le Portugal feudataire de Clairvaux (Dijon 1927) 31, whose suggestion of 1142 seems to have no basis whatsoever.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 178} De exp. Lyx. 68–84; see n. 49 above. Rassow 271 considers this speech evidence of Cistercian influence on the author of the De exp. Lyx.; but I agree with Cramer (n. 44 above) 59 n. 26, that it has the appearance of being a genuine report, not a literary concoction. In this case, it witnesses the presence of Bernard’s ideas in Portugal. On the influence of St. Bernard on Alfonso Henriques’ 1147 campaign, see Azevado 46-8 and 95, who concludes that, ‘certo è que nessa concessão, obtida de Eugénio III, para a expedição contra Lisboa, o principal agenciador foi o mesmo S. Bernardo, a isso movido pelo nosso primeiro rei,’ 47; and Livermore, who says that the Cistercians were established in Portugal before 1143 and that they ‘performed the enormous task of peopling and cultivating the newly-won territory,’ 81.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 179} Bern. ep. 363, coll. 564-8. The last three sections did not appear in the earliest version of the crusading letter, that to Bishop Mainfred and the congregation of Brescia, in Baronius, , Annales Ecclesiastici, ed. Theiner, A., 18 (1094-1146; Bar-le-Duc 1869) 646-7: see Rassow 273. On Bernard’s crusading theory see Gottlob, Adolf, Kreuzablass und. Almosenablass (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen 30-1; Stuttgart 1906) 110-13; Paulus, Nikolaus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter I (Paderborn 1922) 199-200; Pfeiffer (n. 173 above) 278f.; Cramer 49-55; and Rousset, , op. cit. (n. 8 above) 152-68.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 180} Bern. col. 565.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 181} Bern. col. 566; cf. Villey, (n. 68 above) 146.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 182} Bern. col. 567.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 183} On the importance of Bernard’s letters in the history of the preaching of the crusades, see Röhricht, Reinhold, ‘Die Kreuzpredigten gegen den Islam,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 6 (1884) 555, and Cramer, 54-5.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 184} Caspar, Erich and Rassow, Peter, ‘Die Kreuzzugsbullen Eugens III.,’ Neues Archiv 45 (1924) 285–305. Caspar's conclusions are supported by Gleber (n. 165 above) 37-8, who gives a careful survey of previous opinions and says of Caspar's work: ‘Damit ist zugleich festgelegt, dass Eugen III. den ersten Anstoss zur neuen Kreuzzugsbewegung gegeben hat,’ 38. Although Gleber admits that it is not impossible that Louis VII reached a similar idea independently, he certainly acted later than the Pope. The statement by Baldwin, Marshall W., ‘The Papacy and the Levant during the Twelfth Century,’ Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 3 (1944-5) 280, that ‘a comparatively recent study (Gleber) suggests that King Louis VII of France assumed the initiative and was supported later by Pope Eugenius III,’ appears to misinterpret Gleber's work. For a thorough bibliography, up to 1939, of the vexed problem of the origins of the Second Crusade, see Cramer 45 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 185} Bern. ep. 247, coll. 445-7.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 186} PU in Frankreich , ed. Wiederhold, Wilhelm, Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 1907 (Beiheft) no. 22, pp. 91–2 (May 10, 1145?; Gleber, Beilage III [pp. 191-206] no. 20); PU in Spanien, II: Navarra und Aragon , ed. Kehr, Paul, Abhandlungen der Ges. der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Neue Folge 22.1 (1928) no. 57, pp. 360-1 (Nov. 9, 1145-6; Gleber no. 40); PU in Sizilien , ed. Kehr, Paul, Nachrichten… 1899, no. 3, p. 313 (Nov. 13, 1145-6; Gleber no. 41); Acta Pontificum Romanorum inedita , ed. von Pflugk-Harttung, J. I (Tübingen 1880) no. 201, pp. 183-4 (Oct. 27, 1145-6; JL 8829). It seems highly probable, from their content, that these bulls belong to 1145. Such grants were, of course, nothing new. Cf. also Eugene's bull of July 16, 1145-6 (JL 8821), of which the Nov. 13 bull is an almost exact repeat.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 187} JL 8796; Otto of Freising, Gesta 1.36, pp. 55–7.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 188} Cramer (n. 44 above) 48. Cf. Paulus (n. 179 above) I 199; Poschmann, Bernhard, Die abendländische Kirchenbusse im frühen Mittelalter (Breslauer Studien zur historischen Theologie 16; 1930) 225–7; and especially Gottlob (n. 179 above) 105, who says: ‘Die transcendentalen Wirkungen des Ablasses traten in dem zweiten Kreuzzuge … zum ersten Male deutlich hervor.’ Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 189} Morinus, Joannes, Commentarius historicus de disciplina in administratione sacramenti Poenitentiae (Antwerp 1682) 775; Jungmann, Josef, Die lateinischen Bussriten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Forschungen zur Geschichte des innerkirchlichen Lebens 3/4; Innsbruck 1932) 285-9; and Anciaux, Paul, La théologie du sacrement de pénitence au XII ^e siècle (Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis: Dissertationes ad gradum magistri…, Series II, 41; Louvain and Gembloux 1949) 51 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 190} This subject has been carefully studied by Teetaert, Amédée, La confession aux laĭques (Univ. Cath. Lovan.: Diss. II 17; Wetteren-Bruges-Paris 1926) 85–101, and by Anciaux, 50-1, 196-208, and 272-4, who says of Gratian: ‘Le manque de clarté dans l’exposé du célèbre canoniste illustre à sa façon la complexité du problème au sujet de la confession, aussi bien que les hésitations des auteurs de la première moitié du xii^e siècle,’ 207.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 191} Anciaux, 328f. ‘Gratian in his Decretum,’ says Jacob, E. F. (‘Innocent III,’ CMH 6.38), ‘had balanced and compared the views of those who said that contrition alone was necessary and confession to a priest merely the attestation of pardon, and of those who maintained that complete remission could not take place before confession and satisfaction.’ Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 192} Anciaux, 275–95. This doctrine was followed by many twelfth-century canonists, including Roland Bandinelli (Alexander III), Omnebene, and Zachary of Besançon, on whom see Anciaux 263-4 and 312f. Teetaert (n. 190 above) emphasizes that ‘au douzième siècle l'attention des théologiens se concentre sur l'efficacité de la contrition, qui est regardée à cette époque comme la partie principale et l'élément le plus important de la discipline pénitentielle,’ 85.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 193} Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis 2.14.8 (PL 176.568). On Hugh see Teetaert 91-2, 94, 99; Anciaux 295-302; Jacob (n. 191 above) 38. Cf. Paulus (n. 179 above) I 254-9.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 194} Anciaux, 328f.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 195} Lombard, Peter, Sententiarum libri IV, 4.18.8: ‘Ecce qualis et quantus est usus apostolicarum clavium. Iam ostensum est ex parte qualiter sacerdotes dimittant peccata vel teneant, et iam retinuit sibi Deus quandam singularem potestatem dimittendi vel retinendi, quia ipse solus per se debitum aeternae mortis soluit, et animam interius purgat’ (PL 192.888-9).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 196} Anciaux, 291.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 197} Ibid. 248–53. In his Ad Hugonem de S. Victore epistola de baptismo, PL 182.1037, Bernard says that ‘sola nihilominus poenitentia et cordis contritione obtinere veniam creditur, ne iam pro eo damnetur.’ Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 198} Bern. ep. 363, col. 566. For Bernard on confession, see the references in Anciaux 251-2; and particularly his De laude novae militiae c. 12 (PL 182.938).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 199} ‘Quid est enim nisi exquisita prorsus et inuentibilis soli Deo occasio saluationis, quod homicidas, raptores, perjuros, caeterisque obligatos criminibus, quasi gentem quae justitiam fecerit, de seruitio suo submonere dignatur Omnipotens?’ Bern. ep. 363, col. 566; cf. Ezechiel 18.21. Also in his De laude novae militiae Bernard rejoiced that thieves and perjurors entered the Order of the Temple: see Rousset, (n. 8 above) 164.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 200} Löwenfeld, Samuel, ‘Documents relatifs à la Croisade de Guillaume, Comte de Ponthieu,’ Archives de l'Orient latin 2 (1884) Documents, 254, Eugene III to William of Ponthieu: ‘Quia vero signum crucis dominice assumpsisti et ad iter Ierosolymitanum accingeris, nolentes te laborem tantum non ad anime tue profectum arripere, nobilitati tue mandamus et exhortamur … ut praefato abbati et monachis … antequam iter incipias, in eorum (iudicum) arbitrio vel iudicio iusticiam facias.’ Cf. the letter from Eugene to the Archbishop of Rouen and the Bishops of Coutances and Évreux and the letter from Hugh of Rouen to Count William, ibid. William had taken the cross at Vézelay (De glorioso rege Ludovico, in Vie de Louis le Gros [n. 9 above] 159) and seems to have cared little for the ecclesiastical prohibitions. As Sauvage, R. N., L’Abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn (Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 4th Series, 4; Caen 1911) 26, says: ‘Les menaces de l'archevêque, son parent, lui semblaient, sans doute, peu dangereuses, et les censures ecclésiastiques n’étaient pas chose nouvelle pour lui.’ In any case, he departed with the army of Louis VII before restoring the property of the Abbey. See Sauvage, 23-9, and Epistolae Pontificum Romanorum ineditae , ed. Löwenfeld, Samuel (Leipzig 1885) no. 201, p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 201} JL 9166; Löwenfeld, , ‘Documents’ 253. Cf. the view of Peter Lombard that good acts performed in a state of mortal sin are never meritorious: Anciaux 269-70; and the view of Ralph Niger with regard to the Third Crusade: Flahiff, George B., ‘Deus non vult: A Critic of the Third Crusade,’ Mediaeval Studies 9 (1947) 173.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 202} This difference in point of view is clearly seen in the versions of Bernard’s letters for the Crusade. In the earliest version, he urged men to take the cross with the words: ‘Suscipe crucis signum, et omnium pariter, de quibus corde contrito confessionem feceris, indulgentiam obtinebis,’ ep. 363, col. 567. In the latest version, the letter to Duke Ladislaus of Bohemia, this had been rephrased to read: ‘Suscipite signum crucis, et omnium, de quibus corde contrito confessionem feceritis, plenam indulgentiam delictorum hanc vobis summus pontifex offert, vicarius eius cui dictum est: Quodcunque solveris super terra, erit solutum et in coelo,’ ep. 458, col. 653; see Rassow, (n. 45 above) 262–3.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 203} Bernard clearly regarded Quantum predecessores as fundamental, although Villey (n. 68 above), perhaps goes too far in saying that, ‘sa prédication n'est qu'un commentaire de l'encyclique Quantum predecessores,’ 106. Bernard developed its ideas from his own, highly spiritual attitude. He had, in any case, a profound influence on Eugene's thought.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 204} For instance, Schwerin, Ursula, Die Aufrufe der Päpste zur Befreiung des heiligen Landes (Historische Studien, ed. Ebering, E. 301; Berlin 1937) 74: ‘… die Kreuzzugsenzyklica Eugens III. … ist zu arm im Gedanklichen, zu wenig schwungvoll in Sprache und Stil, um Ursache einer derartigen Massenbegeisterung sein zu können.’ Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 205} It is evidence of the conservatism and the memory of the Papacy that alone among the Western sources of the Second Crusade, the papal bulls show a strong consciousness of the precedent of the First Crusade, cf. n. 130 above.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 206} Erdmann, (n. 64 above) 320; Cramer, (n. 44 above) 47f.; Villey, 105-6; and Gieysztor, Alexander, ‘The Genesis of the Crusades,’ Medievalia et Humanistica 6 (1950) 26-7.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 207} Cramer 48: ‘Diese Bulle ist in formaler Hinsicht Vorbild für alle späteren Kreuzzugsaufrufe der Päpste geworden.’ For an interesting discussion of the development of crusading theory, see Villey, who calls the indulgence the ‘expression juridique précise de ce caractère salutaire de la croisade,’ 148; on Quantum predecessores, see ibid. 106–7, and Schwerin, 74-5.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 208} Klewitz, Hans-Walter, ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttums,’ Deutsches Archiv für Geschichte des Mittelalters 3 (1939) 371–412.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 209} Cf. for instance the crusading hymn in the Analecta hymnica medii aevi, edd. Dreves, G. M. and Blume, C., 45^b, no. 96, p. 78, dated by Dreves as 12th (13th 14th) century. The ninth stanza is reminiscent of the crusading bulls: Illuc quicumque tenderit Mortuus ibi fuerit Caeli bona receperit Et cum sanctis remanserit.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 210} JL 8876. For an ingenious, if not altogether convincing, account of the circumstances of this reissue, see Gleber (n. 165 above) 45-6. It differs from the earlier bulls in its slightly increased prohibitions against luxury: see Caspar, and Rassow, (n. 184 above) 287-8. This Quantum predecessores (II) may be the ‘omni favo litteras dulciores’ mentioned by Odo of Deuil, De prof. Ludov. ed. Berry 8. More probably, however, Odo is here referring to some other, lost letter sent by the Pope to Louis: Bernhardi (n. 1 above) 519; Hüffer, (n. 164 above) 405-6; Gleber 45 and n. 7, where he cites authorities disagreeing with this view.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 211} For the text of the letter of August, 1146 (Dölger, Franz, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Reihe A, Abteilung I: Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches II [Munich and Berlin 1925] no. 1348) see RHGF 15.440-1; for the text of the letter of March, 1147 (Dölger no. 1533) see Ohnsorge, Werner, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Manuels I. von Byzanz,’ Festschrift Albert Brackmann (Weimar 1931) 391-3. Manuel also wrote to Louis VII: Dölger no. 1349. On these letters, see Ohnsorge 371-81, whose conclusions are accepted by Dölger, , in his review of Ohnsorge's article, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 31 (1931) 446-7; Gleber, 48–9; Cartellieri, (n. 37 above) 351. On Manuel's attitude, see Chalandon, (n. 121 above) II 133-5.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 212} Epistolae Pont. Rom. (n. 200 above) 103; JL 8959.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 213} PU in Malta , ed. Kehr, Paul, Nachrichten … Göttingen , Phil.-hist. Kl. 1899, no. 3, 388–90.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 214} His route can be traced from his bulls in JL 8991-9021: see Gleber, 51–2.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 215} JL 9017; PL 180.1203-4.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 216} See p. 244 and n. 167 above.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 217} Cosack (n. 167 above) 290 reconstructs Eugene’s reaction from Conrad’s reply; Zatschek, Heinz, ‘Wibald von Stablo,’ Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 10 (1928) 325; Gleber, 50f.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 218} Very briefly, that Eugene had hoped to return to Italy accompanied by Conrad to crush the papal enemies at Rome: Gleber, 50 and 53-5.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 219} Also to the English and the Low Country men, see below, pp. 260–1. These four peoples were those who had played the principal parts in the First Crusade. Erdmann (n. 64 above) 272-4 brings out that in the eleventh century crusading thought had its broadest development in France and Italy. Urban II may have seen the First Crusade in theory as a general offensive to free Christendom (ibid. 306 and 321; Lecler, J., ‘L’idée de Croisade d’après les travaux récents,’ Études 29 [1936] 52-4), but he never developed this idea fully, and the response in fact was limited. On the scornful attitude of the Germans towards the First Crusade, see Ekkehard of Aura, in Krey, A. C., The First Crusade (Princeton 1921) 42. Speaking of the Second Crusade, therefore, Karl Hampe correctly says: ‘Das Unternehmen gewann sogleich einen universaleren Charakter als die erste Kreuzfahrt, bei der Urban wesentlich nur den französischen Lehnsadel nach dem Orient gelenkt hatte,’ Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier und Staufer (10th ed. by Baethgen, F., Heidelberg 1949) 133. On the German attitude towards the First Crusade, see aso Hauck, Albert, Kirchengeschichle Deutschlands IV (Leipzig 1903) 895.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 220} Most modern scholars agree that this fact payed an important part in the failure of the crusade: Kugler, (n. 1 above) 95f; Vasiliev, (n. 53 above) 419-22; Bernhardi, 532-3; Cartellieri, 357; Rassow, Peter, Honor Imperii: Die Neue Politik Friedrich Barbarossas 1152-1159 (Munich and Berlin 1940) 26. The division of responsibility is not, however, quite as easy as Vacandard, with sublime self-confidence, suggests: ‘A la distance où nous sommes de ces événements, il est facile de les juger avec impartialité et d’établir exactement la part de responsabilité qui revient à chacun des auteurs de la seconde croisade,’ op. cit. (n. 174 above) II 450.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 221} See Appendix B.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 222} Bernard’s letter for the Wendish Crusade, ep. 457, coll. 652-4, appears to me to have been written after Divina dispensatione (II). On this important point I disagree with Hüffer (n. 164 above) 427 n. 1; Rassow (n. 45 above) 265; Artler (n. 60 above) 314; Bündung (n. 60 above) 37-40, and others who hold that this letter preceded in date the papal bull. Several reasons incline me towards the opposite opinion. In the first place, it seems highly improbable, in view of Bernard’s extreme deference in taking up the preaching of the crusade, that he would here have taken upon himself the authority to change completely the original concept and especially to grant full indulgence to these new crusaders. Secondly, the language of this letter suggests that it is subsequent at least to the Diet of Frankfurt. ‘Quia enim verbum hoc crucis parvitati nostrae Dominus evangelizandum commisit, consilio domini regis et episcoporum et principum, qui convenerant Frankonovort, denuntiamus … Placuit autem omnibus in Frankenevort congregatis, quatenus…,’ coll. 651-2. The ‘Dominus’ here may indeed refer to the Pope; and in any case, since the diet lasted until late March (Bernhardi 545f.), Bernard can hardly have written his letter before then. There is in the third place some evidence that Bernard sent with each of his letters a copy of the papal crusading bull: see n. 247 below. If this supposition is correct, he could not have sent letter 457 before Eugene had issued the relevant bull, Divina dispensatione (II).Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 223} Volk, (n. 68 above) 41–2.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 224} Baethgen, Friedrich, ‘Die Kurie und der Osten im Mittelalter,’ Deutsche Ostforschungen (note 65 above) 310–30. After the Investiture Controversy, Baethgen says, the Curia ‘versuchte, im Osten sich unabhängig vom Reich ihre eigenen Machtposition zu schaffen …,’ 330.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 225} Hauck, (n. 219 above) IV 160f.; p. 160 n. 7 he lists the papal legates in Germany from ca. 1125 to 1150.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 226} Baethgen 324: ‘Hatte es früher der Ostmission nur aus der Ferne seinen Segen gespendet, so nahm es jetzt ihre Leitung in die eigenen Hände.’ Eugene was also more active than his predecessors in taking German monasteries under papal protection: see Hauck IV 165.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 227} Baethgen 324-5: ‘Damit hatte das Prinzip der gewaltsamen Bekehrung in der Ostmission Eingang gefunden…’ but care should be taken not to overestimate the extent of ecclesiastical concern for this movement.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 228} See pp. 246–7 above.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 229} España Sagrada 36.cxcii-iv: ‘Carta facta Palentiae XIII. Kalendas Martii Era MCLXXXVI quando praefatus Imperator habuit ibi colloquium … de vocatione Domini Papae ad Concilium, et in anno quo ab eodem Imperatore capta fuit Almaria et Baeza…’; cf. similar charters in Azevado (n. 115 above) 109 n. 1 (document of the National Archives, Madrid, C. D. Samos 794-21-1) and 106 n. 1. It should be noted that these charters are dated 1186 Era Hispanica (1148) and yet in the same year that Alfonso took Almaria, that is, 1185 (1147): the only explanation seems to be that, although in the era Hispanica the number changed on January 1 (Grotefend, H., Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung [8th ed. by Grotefend, O., Hannover 1941] 14), they reckoned the year as running from Easter to Easter or March 25 to March 25 (Grotefend, 12-4; Poole, Reginald Lane, ‘The Beginning of the Year in the Middle Ages,’ Studies in Chronology and History [Oxford 1934] 1-27). In any case, the papal letters must have arrived in 1147. I can find no reference in España Sagrada or Gerhard Säbekow, Die päpstlichen Legationen nach Spanien und Portugal bis zum Ausgang des XII. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1931) to a council attended by a papal legate, at Burgos in 1146, which Schramm (n. 3 above) mentions, p. 111. Is he perhaps referring to the Burgos council of 1136, which was attended by Cardinal Guido (España Sagrada 26. 438-40; Rassow, , loc. cit. n. 92 above, 212f.)? Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 230} JL 9255; PL 180.1345-6. See Kehr, Paul, Das Papsttum und der Katalanische Prinzipat bis zur Vereinigung mit Aragon , in Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1926, No. 1, p. 62; Erdmann, (n. 49 above) 32; Cartellieri, (n. 37 above) 379; Schramm, 112.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 231} Epistolae Pont. Rom. (n. 200 above) no. 82, p. 43; see Erdmann, , loc. cit. 28 and Entstehung (n. 64 above) 292-5; Lecler, (n. 219 above) 48-54; Paulus, (n. 179 above) I 195-8; Villey, (n. 68 above) 195-8; Ruano, (n. 112 above) 111-14; Runciman, I 90-1.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 232} PU in Spanien I: Katalonien , ed. Kehr, Paul, Abhandlungen … Göttingen , Phil.-hist. Kl. Neue Folge 18.2 (1926) no. 23, p. 287–8.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 233} JL 5840; PL 163.45; Villey 197; Paulus I 197: Oct. 14, 1100. See also Pascal's other bulls for a crusade on the Iberian peninsula: JL 5863 and 6485; Paulus I 197.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 234} Bridrey (n. 161 above) 30-2; Schlée, Ernst, Die Päpste und die Kreuzzüge (Halle 1893) 44–5 and 49; Cramer, (n. 44 above) 59; and especially Villey, 191-201; see n. 49 above. So the charter which reestablished the Order of Belchite in 1136 promised complete remission of sins to all who joined the Order. In addition, ‘Qui vero ibidem deo per annum servire voluerit, eandem quam si Jherusalem tenderet, remissionem assequatur. … Simili autem remissione sepulchrum domni de captivitate ereptum est et Maiorica et Cesaraugusta et alie, et similiter deo annuente iter Jherusalemitanum ab hac parte aperietur et ecclesia dei, que adhuc sub captivitate ancilla tenetur, libera efficietur,’ Rassow, (n. 92 above) 224-5.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 235} Gelasius II, apparently following now-lost documents of Urban II, issued two bulls for the Spanish Reconquest: JL 6636 (PL 163.489-91) and 6665 (PL 163.508); see Paulus, op. cit. I 197, and Villey, 201. In the second of these, Gelasius not only freed ‘a suorum vinculis peccatorum’ anyone who with a contrite heart died for the recovery of Saragossa but also assigned to the discretion of the provincial bishops the indulgence to be granted to those who simply joined this enterprise or even aided in the rebuilding of the church or the support of the clergy. For Calixtus II, see n. 137 above and Paulus I 197-8. Lucius II in 1144 reissued the bull of Urban II and Gelasius II for the reconquest of Tarragona: PU in Spanien I no. 53, pp. 320-2; and when it was recovered, Tarragona was held by the Count of Barcelona as a papal fief: Watson, E. W., ‘The Development of Ecclesiastical Organisation and its Financial Basis,’ CMH 6.555. A synod called at Compostella in 1125 by Diego Gelmirez, the legate of Honorius II, granted full indulgence to crusaders in Spain: España Sagrada 20.427-30; Paulus I 198; Villey 206. The papal legate Guido of SS. Cosmas and Damian was present at the Council of Burgos (1136), which promised remission of sins to members of the Order of Belchite (see nn. 229 and 234 above), and he presided at the Fifth Council of Gerona (1143) when Ramon Berenger made his great grant to the Templars (see pp. 231-2 above and Säbekow, , op. cit. n. 229 above, 46).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 236} PU in Spanien I no. 54, pp. 322–4. It is interesting for the method by which Eugene composed his crusading bulls that in this one he followed word for word not the most recent issue of this bull by Lucius II but that of Gelasius II (see n. 235 above).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 237} See n. 186 above.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 238} JL 9594; Colección (n. 99 above) no. 128, pp. 314-5. This bull, undated by Bofarull, may have been taken for a bull of 1146/7 (see n. 240 below). It was reissued by Anastasius IV: ibid. no. 133, 320–1; PU in Spanien I no. 70, pp. 316-7.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 239} See above p. 228 and n. 80; ‘Regesti delle lettere pontificie riguardanti la Liguria,’ Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria 19 (1887) no. 117, p. 59. A precedent for this may have been not only the Genoese participation in the First Crusade but also the indulgence granted to the Pisans who attacked the Balearic Islands in 1114-5 (see n. 109 above): Chron. Monasterii Casinensis, MGH SS 7.789; Paulus I 197; Erdmann (n. 64 above) 170; Villey 215-6; Ruano (n. 112 above) 113 and, cited by him, Sureda, Antonio Alcover, El Islam en Mallorca y la cruzada pisano-catalana (Palma en Mallorca 1930).Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 240} Manrique, , Cist. Ann. II (n. 80 above) under 1148, xiii, 8-10; Lafuente, , op. cit. (n. 107 above) 70; Kehr, Paul, Das Papsttum und die Königreiche Navarra und Aragon bis zur Mitte des XII. Jahrhunderts, in Abhandlungen der Preuss. Akad. Phil.-hist. Kl.1928 No. 4, pp. 50-1 (with no reference); Defourneaux (n. 69 above) 177; Cartelleri (n. 37 above) 422. I have been unable to locate this document or to find clear evidence that it was issued, cf. n. 238 above.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 241} Säbekow, (n. 229 above) 47–8; Livermore, (n. 37 above) 67-9.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 242} De exp. Lyx. (cited n. 15 above) 178–80; Erdmann, Carl, Das Papsttum und Portugal im ersten Jahrhundert der Portugiesischen Geschichte, in Abhandlungen der Preuss. Akad. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1928 No. 5, pp. 34-5.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 243} Of considerable interest in the history of papal direction of the crusading effort in Spain is the visit of the legate Hyacinth, Cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, in 1155: Säbekow 49-51; Brixius, Johannes, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130-1181 (Berlin 1912) 52. Hyacinth, later Pope Celestine III, was enthusiastic for the Reconquest: sec his letter in PU in Rom , ed. Kehr, Paul, Nachrichten … Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1903, no. 12, pp. 48-9. He presided over two councils in Spain, at Valladolid and at Lerida (the first council there since its recovery). The canons of these councils (Valladolid: Erdmann, , Papsttum und Portugal 55-8; Lerida: Valls-Taberner, F., ‘Ein Konzil zu Lerida im Jahre 1155,’ Papsttum und Kaisertum: Festschrift Paul Kehr , ed. Brackmann, Albert [Munich 1926] 364-8) closely resemble each other. Canon I is a fully developed crusading bull; it unquestionably reveals the influence of Rome, yet shows that as late as 1155 the Papacy was not even in theory the only eccesiastical authority capable of conferring the spiritual and temporal benefits of a crusade: cf. bull of Gelasius II, n. 235 above; contrast Villey, , op. cit. 100-1.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 244} Cf. Kantorowicz, Ernst, ‘Pro Patria Mori in Medieval Political Thought,’ American Historical Review 56 (1951) 478 n. 22, who says that ‘in Spain the whole development (of the crusade) was different in so far as crusading idea and national idea or patriotism coincided’; see Erdmann, , Hist. Zeitschr. 141 (n. 49 above) 23f. and Entstehung (n. 64 above) 88-90, 269-70; cf. n. 49 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 261 note 245} ‘For those men, moreover, whom our beloved son S(tephen) illustrious king of the English or his adversaries disinherited on the occasion of the war held for the realm before they took the cross, we are not willing that ecclesiastical justice should be exercised,’ Epistolae Pont. Rom. (n. 200 above) no. 200, pp. 103–4. For the names of some of the more important English crusaders, see De exp. Lyx. 5-6 (to David’s citations for William of Warenne may be added Chron. of Melrose, cited n. 70 above, 23) and Böhmer, Heinrich, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig 1899) 357 n. 2. David regards the response in England as slight (De exp. Lyx. 3-12), whereas Böhmer says that as a result of the crusade the number of fighters in the English civil war was sensibly diminished, and the war therefore took on a new character, 357; cf. also 407. For Scots on the crusade, see De exp. Lyx. 106 and Rassow, (n. 45 above) 269-7.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 246} Grammaticus, Saxo, Gesta Danorum (n. 58 above) 376; Hermann (Abbot of St. Martin) of Tournai, Narratio restaurationis Abbatiae S. Martini Tornacensis, in D’Achery, , Spicilegium II 926; Gesta Abbatum Lobbiensium, MGH SS 21.329; Arnulf of Lisieux, Letters , ed. Barlow, Frank (Camden Third Series 61; London 1939) 210: ‘In expeditione … Iherosolimitana ad quam me sanctus pater Eugenius destinavit invitum…’ See also the Ann. Herbipolenses, MGH SS 16.3: ‘Testes sunt huius apostolice admonitionis epistole hinc et inde per diversarum regionum ac provintiarum terminos directe et in plerisque ecclesiis ad inditium predicte expeditionis diligenter recondite.’ Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 247} JL 11218; PL 200.383-6. Cosack (n. 167 above) 279 believed that this was a purely formal expression and maintained that ‘nach diesem (zeitgenössischen) Quellenmaterial tritt in keinem Lande die offizielle Kreuzpredigt unabhängig von Bernard auf…’ It is true that Bernard appears to have sent with each of his crusading letters a copy of the relevant papal bull: see the evidence cited by Cosack 279 n. 6, to which may be added the fact, kindly suggested by Dom Jean Leclercq, that in the Munich MS 22201, which was written at Windberg in 1165 (cf. Hüffer, , loc. cit. in n. 164 above, 411), Bernard’s ep. 363 is preceded by Quantum predecessores. The foregoing evidence, however, indicates that Eugene sent at least some copies of his crusading bulls directly and independently.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 248} Poole, R. L., in John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis (Oxford 1927) intro. xii.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 249} JL 8999 (not 8998 as cited by Poole, R. L., ‘The Early Lives of Robert Pullen and Nicholas Breakspear,’ Studies in Chronology and History [Oxford 1934] 294 n. 4).Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 250} Poole 294. Kehr, , in PU in Spanien I (n. 232 above) no. 60, pp. 331–2, prints a bull dated from St. Peter's on Dec. 12 and addressed to ‘Ni. abbati ecclesie Sancti Rufi.’ Kehr assigns this document to 1152, in which case it would throw into utter confusion the slight knowledge gathered by Poole concerning the early career of Nicholas Breakspear. For Nicholas became Cardinal Bishop of Albano by December 16, 1149, at the latest (Brixius [n. 243 above] 56; JL II p. 20, indicates him as subscribing from January 30, 1150), and this bull would indicate that his successor at St. Rufus also bore the name of Nicholas — unless, that is, it may be dated December 12, 1149, when Eugene was certainly in Rome (JL 9359-9363) and presumably also Nicholas (see above). This bull may therefore be the last grant made to Nicholas as Abbot of St. Rufus. As Adrian IV, in any case, Nicholas Breakspear is known to have taken an interest in Spanish affairs: Kehr, , Das Papsttum und die Königreiche… (n. 240 above) 51.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 251} Villanueva, , Viage literario a las Iglesias de España XI (1850) 199, cited by Poole, , loc. cit. 294; Säbekow, , op. cit. (n. 229 above) 45.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 252} Kehr, , Das Papsttum und der Katalanische Prinzipat… (n. 230 above) 90–1; Das Papsttum und die Königreiche… 51.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 253} JL 9009; Orton, Previté (n. 9 above) 309.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 254} Regesta Comitum Sabaudiae, ed. Carutti, Domenico (Bibliotheca Storica Italiana 5; Turin, 1889) no. ccxciv, pp. 105-6; Previté Orton 309 n. 3. Cipolla has cast doubt on this charter, but Previté Orton, 197 n. 2 and 309 n. 3, says that ‘it is hard to see what part of the contents is not genuine.’ Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 255} Petit Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-Sulpice en Bugey, ed. Guige, M.-C. (Lyon 1884) 2; Previté Orton 309-10; Regesta Com. Sab. no. ccxcii, p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 256} William of St. Denis, Dialogue (n. 130 above) 103; Odo of Deuil, De prof. Ludov . ed. Berry, 14-6; cf. Chron. Mauriniacensis, RHGF 12.88. Odo here mentions that, ‘Affluent multi multarum partium utrique miraculo, videlicet regi et apostolico peregrinis’; and it is not impossible that Eugene put on a pilgrim’s costume in order to symbolize his spiritual participation in the crusade.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 257} JL 9095; PL 180.1251-2. See Kugler, (n. 1 above) 104-6; Brixius, (n. 243) 43, 47; and Bachmann, Johannes, Die päpstlichen Legaten in Deutschland und Skandinavien 1125-59 (Historische Studien, ed. Ebering, E. 115; Berlin 1913) 80-3.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 258} John of Salisbury, Hist. Pontif. (n. 248 above) 55.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 259} Anonymi vera narratio fundationis prioratus Sanctae Barbarae, RHGF 14.502. On Godfrey’s part in the Crusade, see Wurm, Hermann, Gottfried, Bischof von Langres (Würzburg 1886) 16-34, and Pfeiffer, (n. 31 above) 107f. I have been unable to consult the article by Drioux, G., ‘Geoffroi de La Roche, évêque de Langres, et la seconde croisade,’ Cahiers Hautmarnais (1948) 166-72. On Arnulf in the Crusade, see Barlow, in Arnulf of Lisieux, Letters (n. 246 above) introduction xxv-vii.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 260} John of Salisbury, Hist. Pontif. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 261} Historia Monasterii Aquicinctini, MGH SS 14.588.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 262} On the duties of these legates, see Schlée, (n. 234 above) 19–23. Ohnsorge (n. 211 above) 380 suggests that they were sent at the desire of the Emperor Manuel, who in his letter of March, 1147, asked the Pope to send a Cardinal with the French army. The example of the First Crusade, moreover, established a precedent for appointing a legate for the crusading army.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 263} JL 9095; PL 180.1251-2. It appears surprising that Eugene did not select for this purpose Anselm of Havelberg, who had in 1136 debated at Constantinople with Nicetas of Nicomedia concerning the union of the Churches: see Dräseke, Johannes, ‘Bischof Anselm von Havelberg und seine Gesandtschaftsreisen nach Byzanz,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 21 (1900) 160-85: Bréhier, Louis, ‘Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,’ CMH 4 (1923) 600; and Schreiber, Georg, ‘Anselm von Havelberg und die Ostkirche,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 60 (Dritte Folge 11; 1941) 357-62. Anselm had an exceptional understanding of the differences between the Greeks and the Latins. He met Eugene III at Tusculum in 1149 (not 1145, as in D'Achery, , Spicilegium I 161) and wrote for the Pope his remarkable Dialogorum libri III about his discussions with Nicetas: D'Achery I 161-207; see Dräseke, , loc. cit. 167f.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 264} Norden, Walter, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin 1903) 77–82.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 265} Gleber, (n. 165 above) 36–7 and 58-9; Erdmann, (n. 64 above) 299-301.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 266} Norden, 83–4.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 267} Gleber, 59; Norden, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 268} JL 9110; PL 180.1262. Henry of Olmütz was one of the most important papalist bishops in the Empire: JL 9296 and 9325.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 269} See p. 263 above.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 270} See Appendix B.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 271} Carried in letters and by deserters: see Bernhardi, 643 and n. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 272} Bernardi … Opera (n. 175 above) II 2.2198.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 273} Notae Pisanae, MGH SS 19.266: ‘Unde gens paganorum magnani habuerunt baldansa et letitia, christiani tristia.’ Cf. Kugler 212f.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 274} The attitude of contemporaries to the failure of the crusade seems never to have been studied adequately. See the brief remarks, mostly on the reaction against the Cistercians, in Röhricht, , Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. (n. 183 above) 6. 555-6, and Beiträge (n. 9 above) II 79 and 102-3, nn. 90-1; Hirsch, (n. 13 above) 55-6; Hauck, (n. 129 above) IV 895-6; Cramer, (n. 44 above) 46 and 53-4; Cartellieri, (n. 37 above) 379-80; and the interesting study of Flahiff (n. 201 above) 162-79.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 275} Odo, it is true, believed that God was with the expedition, the failure of which must be in accord with His inscrutible Will: cf. Odo of Deuil, ed. Berry, xxvi; but he always concentrated on the human and natural causes of the calamities. The fact that he hoped for revenge on the Greeks shows that he did not regard the failure as a divine punishment.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 276} See above, p. 220. Otto knew Bernard’s De Consideratione: Otto of Freising, Gesta 93.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 277} On Bernard's miracles in connection with his crusading activity, see Hüffer, (n. 167 above) 96–9.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 278} Bernardi … Opera II 2.2195-6; cf. the life by Alan, who says that ‘quidam minus intelligentes scandalizati fuerunt,’ ibid. 2464. See Pfeiffer, (n. 31 above) 146-7, and Fechner, (n. 170 above) 63.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 279} Bern. ep. 288, coll. 493-4; De consideratione, tr. Lewis, George (Oxford 1908) 37–41. Pfeiffer 148 suggests that Bernard's principal defense against this criticism was to throw the responsibility for the crusade onto Eugene III and Louis VII. This, perhaps, was his defense against the charge that he had, without authorization, preached the crusade (see Appendix A); but fundamentally, as he emphasizes in De consideratione, both the Pope and he himself obeyed a divine mandate in this matter. Rousset’s assumption, op. cit. (n. 8 above) 159, that Bernard implicitly suggested that ‘les croisés sont donc eux-mêmes la cause de leur défaite’ is not justified by the text of De consideratione, nor, I believe, by the general tenor of Bernard's crusading thought. Cf. also Flahiff 164 n. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 280} Bern. ep. 288, col. 493.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 281} JL 9344; Otto of Freising, Gesta 94–5.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 282} Kugler, 31–6; Manitius (n. 30 above) III 427.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 283} Ann. Herbipolenses, MGH SS 16.3; cf. Hauck IV 896.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 284} Gerhoh, , ed. Scheibelberger, (n. 163 above) 139-46 and 151-8, and in Libelli de lite 3.374-8 and 380-4. In some respects Gerhoh seems to have depended upon the Ann. Herbipolenses. See also his less virulent criticism of the crusade in his Commentarius (cited n. 151 above), Psalm 39 col. 794, and in the Ann. Reicherspergensis, MGH SS 17.461-4.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 285} JL 8914: May 4, 1146 (Germania Pontificia , ed. Albert Brackmann, I [Berlin 1911] Reichersberg no. 16, pp. 194-5) and JL 8922: May 16, 1146 (ibid. no. 17, pp. 195-6), where the Pope says to Gerhoh that, ‘fervorem tuae religionis ex earum (litterarum) inspectione manifeste cognovimus … et devotionem tuam in Domino collaudamus,’ PL 180.1139; see Hüffer (n. 167 above) 201, and especially Sturmhoefel, Konrad, ‘Der geschichtliche Inhalt von Gerhohs von Reichersberg 1. Buche über die Erforschung des Antichrists,’ Jahresbericht der Thomasschule in Leipzig für das Schuljahr 1886-7 (Program no. 504, Leipzig 1887) part I p. 3. Sturmhoefel (11f.) carefully examines Gerhoh’s account of the crusade and points out that in spite of his prejudice and frequent untrustworthiness, he includes some material presumably based upon eye-witness reports, although his real importance for the historian of the Second Crusade lies in his distinctive attitude.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 286} Ann. Herbipolenses, MGH SS 16.5. The Armenians seem to have been instrumental in ransoming crusaders taken prisoner by the Turks, see Casus mon. Petrishusensis, MGH SS 20.674; De s. Ernesto Abbate Zwifaltensi, AS 7 November, III 612 and 617; and the Vetus de s. Ernesto documentum, which I have been unable to consult but which is analyzed by Kugler 10.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 287} See n. 278 above. Also in the First Crusade, Ekkehard reports, many people considered the enterprise vain and frivolous: cited by Runciman I 141 n. 2. It is perhaps to these that an anonymous author refers when he says of the failure of the crusade (PL 155.1098) that ‘Gallia tota dolet, et ego, gens impia gaudet.’ Cf. Chron. Sancti Petri Erfordensis , in Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, ed. Holder-Egger, O. (MGH SS.r.G; Hannover 1899) 176; Ann. Sancti Iacobi Leodiensis, MGH SS 16.641. An interesting document, written according to Heinemann in 1147, bewails the sad state of the Church at this time when ‘Satan … tanta fortitudine catenas, quibus legatus est, concutit,’ Codex Diplomaticus Anhaltinus , ed. von Heinemann, Otto, I (936-1212; Dessau 1867-73) no. 336, pp. 252-4. In view of this evidence, Flahiff (n. 201 above) 165-6 perhaps overestimates the novelty of the opposition of Ralph Niger, writing in 1189, to the idea of crusading. Cf. n. 291 below.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 288} Pflaum, H., ‘A Strange Crusader's Song,’ Speculum 10 (1935) 337–9. Since it is written in a thirteenth-century hand, I see no reason to agree with Cartellieri (n. 37 above) 343, that it applies to the Second Crusade. For anti-crusading songs in the vernacular, see Hauck, , op. cit. 4.898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 269 note 289} Bern. ep. 256, col. 465.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 290} Pfeiffer, (n. 31 above) 8-10. In 1157, the General Chapter of the Cistercian Order decreed that monks ‘qui de ordine exeunt ita ut Jerusolymam eant vel aliam peregrinationem aliorsum faciant … sine omni personarum acceptione de domibus propriis amoti, mittantur in alias domos ordinis perpetuo numquam reversuri,’ ibid. 8. That Cistercian monks in fact joined the Second Crusade does not affect the general validity of this order, which was fully in accord with medieval crusading theory. Urban II forbade monks’ joining the First Crusade without the permission of their abbots (JL 5670); cf. Schlée, (n. 234 above) 48–9; Flahiff, 176-7; and Bridrey, (n. 161 above) 50-1, who says that, ‘quant aux moines, ils ne pourront jamais faire le vœu de croisade sans autorisation spéciale,’ 51; and see also the letter of Innocent III to the Bishop of Troyes, PL 214.58-61, no. 69.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 291} Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Hilberg, Isidor I (CSEL 54; Vienna and Leipzig 1910) 529: ‘non Hierosolymis fuisse, sed Hierosolymis bene vixisse laudandum est.’ Augustine, ep. 78, PL 33.268-9; Contra Faustum 20.21, PL 42.384-5. Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom, quoted by Koetting, Bernhard, Peregrinatio Religiosa (Forschungen zur Volkskunde 33-5; Regensberg and Münster 1950) 422-4. See the quotations in Mandonnet, Pierre, Saint Dominique , edd. Vicaire, M. H. and Ladner, R. II (Paris 1937) 25 n. 66; van Cauwenbergh (n. 142 above) 16; Koetting 421-6 (bibliography on p. 426 n. 21); Runciman I 40 n. 1. Even the author of the De imitatione Christi wrote that, ‘qui nimium peregrinatur, raro sanctificatur,’ 1.23.4.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 292} Bern. ep. 399, col. 612.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 293} Bern. ep. 386, coll. 590-1.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 294} Ibid. col. 590. Cf. Augustine, , De civ. dei 22. 1; Enchiridion 29.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 295} Ibid. See Rousset (n. 8 above) 168 on this letter, which shows the influence of Bernard’s thought. Cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, in Bernardi … Opera (n. 175 above) II 2.2196: ‘Quod si placuit Deo tali occasione plurimorum eripere, si non Orientalium corpora a paganis, Occidentalium animas a peccatis.’ Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 296} Henry of Huntingdon, Hist. Angl. (n. 9 above) 280–1.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 297} Robert of Torigny, Chron. (n. 6 above) 154; Vincent of Prague, Ann. MGH SS 17.663; Gisleberti Chron. Hanoniense, MGH SS 21.516; Vita Ludovici VII, RHGF 12.286; Continuatio Gemblacensis (Sigeberti), MGH SS 6.390: ‘… quia in hostico illo multa scelera, multa illicita et flagitiosa patrata sunt ab eis, et ob hoc ira Dei ascendente super eos, omnis conatus eorum in vacuum cessit’; Casus mon. Petrishusensis, MGH SS 20.674; William of Newburgh, Historia Anglicana, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, etc. ed. Howlett, Richard (Rolls Series 82; London 1884-5) I 66. Cf. also Ann. Rodenses, MGH SS 16.719.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 298} See n. 297 above. Cf. Ex anonymo Blandinensi Appendicula ad Sigebertum usque in annum 1152, RHGF 14.20: ‘Sed eorum conatus fuit inanis, quia Deus non erat cum eis.’ Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 299} William of St. Denis, Dialogue (n. 130 above) 105-6 and 109: ‘… Domini gratia, que, famulum suum indesinenter protegens, comes individua euntem et precedebat et subsecuta est,’ 106.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 300} Cf. the poetic lament over the failure, composed ca. 1150 according to the authors of the Histoire littéraire (n. 106 above) 13.88-90, in PL 155.1095-8. The Historia Welforum Weingartensis, MGH SS 21.468, mentions the ‘ciborum insolentia.’ Cf. the somewhat later Lambert of Ardres, Historia, MGH SS 24.633-4: ‘Multi enim fame, multi aeris inclementia, multi adversantium insidiis et ictibus, multi invalitudine corporis, multi qualicumque infirmitate correpti, interierunt. Inter quos et pater meus non, ut mentiuntur quidam, fame deperiit, sed invalitudine corporis debilitatus et totis viribus destitutus, morti succubuit.’ Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 301} Ann. Magdeburgenses MGH SS 16.188; Ann. Palidenses, ibid. 83; Chron. Ekkehardi Continuatio brevis, in Monumenta Erphesfurtensia (n. 287 above) 70; Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De invest. Antichr. (n. 163 above), in Libelli de lite 3.383; Helmold of Bosau, Chron. Slav. (n. 50 above) 116: ‘Multa vero portenta visa sunt in exercitu illis diebus, futurae cladis demonstrativa.’ Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 302} Ann. Sancti Iacobi Leodiensis, MGH SS 16.641; Chron. Sancti Petri Erfordensis 176; Geoffrey of Vigeois, Chron. (n. 9 above) 306. The Sibylline prophecies for 1147 appear in Otto of Freising and several other twelfth-century sources: see von Giesebrecht, W., Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit IV: Staufer und Welfen (2nd ed.; Leipzig 1877) 502 and 505-6.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 303} Röhricht (n. 9 above) II 79 is hardly correct in saying that, ‘nur wenige Stimmen luden dem griechischen Kaiser die Schuld auf.’ Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 304} Ann. Palidenses, MGH SS 16.83: ‘Rex Grecie Conradum regem valida infirmitate detentum summa fecit curare diligentia, nisus per hoc expiari adnotata sibi circa Teutonicos malivolentia.’ Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 305} Helmold of Bosau, Chron. Slav. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 306} Ann. Herbipolenses, MGH SS 16.4-5.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 307} Cf., among modern historians, Chalandon, Ferdinand, Les Comnène II (Paris 1912) 286–8; Vasiliev, (n. 53 above) 420; Cartellieri, (n. 37 above) 357f.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 308} For a list of these sources, see Röhricht, II 101 n. 76, and Bernhardi, 675 n. 37. Cf. Cartellieri, 363.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 309} Gerhoh of Reichersberg, in Libelli de lite 3.377.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 310} RHGF 12.88. Louis seems in part to have blamed himself for the failure: RHGF 15.495-6.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 311} Ann. Egmundani, MGH SS 16.456.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 312} Liber de compositione Castri Ambaziae , in Chroniques des Comtes d’Anjou, edd. Halphen, Louis and Poupardin, René (Collection de textes pour servir à l’étude et à l’enseignement de l’histoire; Paris 1913) 24. The principal part of this work goes to 1137 and is of no historical value (see intro. xlvii-lvi); an account of the Second Crusade is the only entry after 1137 (ibid. lv n. 3) and appears to be contemporary.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 313} Odo of Deuil, De prof. Ludov. ed. Berry, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 314} Geoffrey of Vigeois, Chron. 306.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 315} Vincent of Prague, Ann., MGH SS 17.663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 274 note 316} John of Salisbury, Hist. Pontif. (n. 248 above) 4.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 317} Poole, R. L., intro. to John of Salisbury, xxv. The sections on the Second Crusade are: ch. 5, pp. 12–3, and chs. 23-6, pp. 52-61.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 318} Ibid. xxvi; Kugler, 13-20.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 319} JL 10546; PL 188.1615. See Defourneaux, (n. 69 above) 172f.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 320} JL 9347; PL 180.1396. Cf. Bernard, who in his ep. 377 to Suger speaks of Louis’ presence on the crusade as an ‘exile’: col. 582.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 321} JL 9385; PL 180.1414. Cf. JL 9398 (ibid. 1419) and Continuatio Aquicinctina (Sigeberti), MGH SS 6.406: ‘Numquam audita tanta infelicitate corporali Christiani exercitus.’ Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 322} Bernard, , De consideratione (n. 279 above) 38.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 323} Vacandard, (n. 174 above) II 442–50; Pfeiffer, (n. 31 above) 149.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 324} See Janauschek, (n. 177 above) I 287f. Winter, Franz, Die Cistercienser des nordöstlichen Deutschlands 1 (Gotha 1868) 56, says: ‘Jener verunglückte Kreuzzug von 1147 hat dem heiligen Bernard in den Augen der Sachsen seinen Heiligenschein genommen und seinem Orden unter ihnen einen mehr als zwanzigjährigen Stillstand auferlegt.’ But this is too extreme, cf. Pfeiffer 145. Certainly 1147 was the peak year, after which there was a sharp reduction in the number of new houses; but the falling off in the middle and late 1150’s was presumably largely owing to the death of St. Bernard and to the stringent restriction on the foundation of new abbeys enacted by the General Chapter in 1152: see Statuta capitulorum generalium ordinis Cisterciensis , ed. Canivez, J.-M., I (Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 9; Louvain 1933) 45.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 1} Ladner, R., ‘L’Ordo Praedicatorum avant l’Ordre des Prêcheurs,’ in Mandonnet, Pierre, Saint Dominique (Paris 1937) II 13: ‘Qui prêchait sans délégation ni permission était dès l'abord classé comme hérétique,’ ibid. 15; cf. 28-9.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 2} PL 143.610.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 3} Ladner, 24–5.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 4} Ibid. 15–24.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 5} Ibid. 25–6.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 6} Quoted ibid. 25, cf. n. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 7} Decretum Magistri Gratiani, ed. Friedberg, Emil (Corpus Iuris Canonici I; Leipzig 1879), Dictum post c. 19, C. XVI, q. 1 (coll. 765-6).Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 8} Sermo 64 in Cantic., PL 183.1085.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 9} Ladner, 40.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 10} Statuta Cap. Gen. Ord. Cist. ed. Canivez, J.-M. (Louvain 1933) I 1212: cited by Ladner, 25 n. 66.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 11} As early as 1146 he wrote to the Pope saying that, ‘Mandastis et obedivi,’ ep. 247, PL 182.447.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 12} Ladner 36-7; a similar privilege had been granted to Robert d'Arbrisselles and others, ibid, 33–6.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} Brixius, (n. 243 above) 47; on Theodwin's many legations to Germany, see Hauck, (n. 219 above) IV 161.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 2} See n. 217 above.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} Bachmann, (n. 257 above) 78; Gleber, (n. 165 above) 54.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 4} Monumenta Corbeiensia (n. 25 above) nos. 33 (pp. 111–2) and 34 (pp. 112-3); see Zatschek, (n. 217 above) 324-5.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 5} Bernhardi, 545f.; Zatschek, 455-6.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 6} Gleber, (n. 165 above) 54–5.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 7} Monumenta Corbeiensia 114 and 242-3; see Zatschek, 325 and 353-5, and Mann, Ludwig, Wibald, Abt von Stablo und Corvei, nach seiner politischen Thätigkeit (Halle 1875) 32f.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 8} Monumenta Corbeiensia 243; cf. Mann, 32-3.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 9} On Wibald’s somewhat brief participation in the crusade, see Bastin, Joseph, Wibald, Abbé de Stavelot et Malmédy, du Mont-Cassin et de Corbie (Verviers 1931) 44–5. On Anselm, cf. n. 263 above,Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 10} Brixius, 43.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 11} Bachmann, 79–80.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 12} Gleber, 56–8.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 13} Cosack, (n. 167 above) 290f.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 14} Zatschek, , loc. cit. 325. Eugene's objections to the confirmation of Wibald were presumably based upon (a) the dubious canonicity of the election, against which the deposed Abbot Henry of Nordheim had already appealed to Rome, and (b) Wibald's pluralism: he was already Abbot of Stavelot and Malmedy and ex-Abbot of Monte Cassino. See Mann, 32; and Bastin, 36f., who says that ‘Eugène III fut d'ailleurs bientôt rassuré sur la régularité de l'élection. Une délégation de moines corbiens lui en porta la preuve à Meaux et il prit dès lors l'abbaye et son supérieur sous sa protection spéciale,’ 42.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 15} Cf. his letter to Henry of Olmütz, JL 9110, p. 265 above.Google Scholar