Riccoldo da Montecroce on bismillāh and ṣalawāt

Rita George Tvrtković

p. 85-98


Texte intégral

And we applied ourselves diligently to the study of
their law [the Qur’an] and works, and we were stupefied
to discover how — with a law of such perfidy — works of
great perfection could be found
1.

1The Dominican friar Riccoldo da Montecroce (d. 1320) went to Baghdad intent on destroying the «perfidy of Mahomet», but when he got there he was surprised to discover good works among the Muslims he met. The description of these works in his Liber peregrinationis is especially striking for its length, relative accuracy, and positive tone. Later readers quite literally took note of this account; in one manuscript2, the section on Muslim praxis contains more underscoring, manicules, and marginalia than any other part of the book. What Riccoldo had to say about Muslim praxis was clearly of great interest to later readers.

2Riccoldo’s description of Muslim praxis remains of great interest today, and this paper will focus on his account of two rites in particular: bismillāh and ṣalawāt. Our discussion of these two common Muslim practices will center on the following three questions: What did the friar get right in his descriptions? What did he get wrong? And finally, how were his descriptions received (or not) by his fellow Christians? To answer the last question, special attention will be paid to how Riccoldo’s account of bismillāh was incorporated into a sermon by his confrere, the famous preacher Giordano da Rivalto, also known as Giordano da Pisa or Jordan of Pisa (d. 1311).

What Riccoldo got right (bismillāh)

3Riccoldo lived in Baghdad from approximately 1288 to 1300. During that time, he learned Arabic, studied the Qur’ān and Islamic literature, and conversed «aliquantulum» with Muslims, not only in their universities and mosques, but even in their homes. Upon his return to the priory of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, Riccoldo penned four works: Epistolae ad ecclesiam triumpantem, letters which lament the 1291 fall of Acre; Liber peregrinationis, a pilgrimage itinerary; Libellus ad nationes orientales, a missionary handbook; and Contra legem Sarracenorum, an influential polemic praised by the likes of Nicholas of Cusa and Martin Luther. The Riccoldian corpus is noteworthy because it includes not only the standard polemic against Islam, but also a great deal of ambivalence, and sometimes even praise. Instances of all three can be found in Liber peregrinationis, where Riccoldo juxtaposes a six-point condemnation of the Qur’ān with an accurate and complimentary description of seven Muslim practices he dubs «works of perfection». Riccoldo himself saw the inconsistency between his condemnations and compliments, and attempted to rectify it by including the following disclaimer —twice— both immediately before and immediately after his positive account of Muslim praxis: «We have narrated [this] less to praise Saracens than to shame certain Christians»3. Even so, Riccoldo’s descriptions are so original, accurate, and complimentary as to make readers doubt his caveat. Perhaps he really did intend to shame his fellow Christians into good behavior. Or perhaps he was worried that without such a proviso, his readers would dismiss everything he had to say4. His true motivations remain unclear. In any case, he allowed the positive descriptions to stand.

4Riccoldo’s seven works of perfection are as follows: studiousness, devotion in prayer, mercy towards the poor, reverence for the name of God, solemn demeanor, friendliness to foreigners, and mutual love. A description of bismillāh is contained in the section entitled «Reverence for the Name of God». Bismillāh, also known as tasmiya, is shorthand for the phrase «bismi Allāh al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm», which means «In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate». The bismillāh is the very first line of the Qur’ān, and can be found before every chapter except the ninth. The bismillāh is arguably the most oft-recited phrase in Islam, since it is said during all five daily prayers and at many other times during the day, for example, before one writes a letter, starts a speech, leaves on a trip, or begins some other significant act.

5Riccoldo’s portrayal of this characteristically Muslim practice is both accurate and sympathetic:

They take the greatest care in never doing, saying, or writing anything of importance without first beginning with the name of God. Also in all letters they send to each other, they first write reverently the name of the Lord and for that reason they diligently take care to avoid destroying or throwing away any writing. If they find a piece of paper covered with writing, they reverently pick it up and place it up high into an opening in the wall, lest the name of the Lord be trampled underfoot5.

6The friar is quite complimentary here; he repeatedly uses adverbs such «reverently» and «diligently» to describe the manner in which Muslims perform this act. While Riccoldo does not use the Arabic term bismillāh here — which might seem odd given how frequently he uses Arabic terms in his other writings— he is precise enough that there can be little doubt what he is describing. He notes correctly the context in which the bismillāh is used — before «doing, saying, or writing anything of importance». In other words, there is almost no occasion when the bismillāh would not be appropriate, since it is done before one acts, speaks, or writes. Riccoldo seems to understand the theological reasoning behind this daily practice: to remind Muslims that all actions require the proper intention, and to be ever conscious that it is God alone who brings all things to completion6.

7In the next half of the section, Riccoldo shifts from the spoken bismillāh to the written bismillāh, and transitions into an extended commentary on the reverence with which Muslims regard the written word in general. He even offers a detailed description of what seems to have been a common practice of picking up scraps of paper and placing them on shelves «lest the name of the Lord be trampled underfoot». This section demonstrates Riccoldo’s recognition of the importance of writing as a form of religious expression in Islam, and of the sacred nature and potency of written words —most especially the name (and ninety-nine names) of God, for which Muslims have traditionally held great devotion7.

8Riccoldo further emphasizes the importance of God’s name by describing the phrase, which accompanies every utterance of God’s name by a Muslim:

When they come across the name of the Lord while reading or speaking, never does anyone say it alone, but they always add a praise like «God who is praised», or something like this8.

9He then goes on to describe the consequences for not showing proper respect for the name of God: «If a Saracen blasphemes God or one of the prophets, he will never be allowed to live9». The last part of the section briefly describes mosque cleanliness and etiquette (specifically, posture) as additional physical manifestations of the Muslim reverence for God’s name10.

10The fact that Riccoldo includes reverence for the name of God in his list of Muslim good works is significant. Unlike the other practices he mentions (for example prayer, almsgiving and studiousness), which he recognizes and praises in Islam partly because they are already familiar to him as a Christian, in this section he highlights a practice which finds no easy counterpart in his own religion, and which Muslims themselves deem important. Furthermore, his description of bismillāh demonstrates some understanding of Islamic theology on his part. When listing the seven Muslim works of perfection, Riccoldo is careful to entitle this particular virtue «reverence for the “name” of God», not merely «reverence for God». He appears to know that the bismillāh reflects Islam’s particular focus on the name of God itself11, a fact often lost on other medieval Christians. For example, the annotator who added section headings to one manuscript of Liber peregrinationis ignored Riccoldo’s original title (found in the text of the same manuscript), «De reverentia ad nomen Dei» («On reverence for the name of God»), and instead wrote «De reverentia ad Deum12» («On reverence for God»). This is the only section heading in which the annotator changed Riccoldo’s original wording. Perhaps the annotator was trying to save space, but in doing so he eliminated the characteristically Islamic meaning of this practice.

What Riccoldo got wrong (ṣalawāt)

11Another central Muslim practice described by Riccoldo in Liber peregrinationis is ṣalawāt, and his account is not as accurate as the one he offers for bismillāh. Ṣalawāt, also known as taṣliya, is the repetition of the phrase Ṣallā Allāh ‘alayhi wa sallama («May the prayers and peace of God be upon him»), which can be either stated or written (where it is often abbreviated «pbuh»). Technically, ṣalawāt is limited to Muḥammad, but in actuality the phrase has often been used throughout history to praise other prophets such as ‘Ῑsā (Jesus)13.

12It is the Muslim practice of saying ṣalawāt after the name of Jesus that concerns Riccoldo here. His description of ṣalawāt, which he includes in the section on Muslim hospitality, is brief and not entirely correct. There are two inaccuracies which are of particular interest: the first is the reason Riccoldo gives for why Muslims say ṣalawāt, and the second is an important omission in the basic definition.

13The fact that Riccoldo places his comments about ṣalawāt in the section on Muslim hospitality is significant, for this context sheds some light on his (incorrect) understanding of why Muslims say this phrase. As noted above, the section on reverence for God’s name includes mention of another phrase related to ṣalawāt, the subḥānahu wa ta‘ālā («Glorious and Exalted be He»):

When they come across the name of the Lord while reading or speaking […] they always add a praise like, “God who is praised”, or something like this14.

14However, this phrase is reserved for God alone, which is probably why Riccoldo mentions it in the section on reverence for God’s name. Since the ṣalawāt is only used when speaking of the prophets, not God, it makes sense that Riccoldo would discuss ṣalawāt in a section other than the one focused on the Muslim reverence for God’s name. But how does the ṣalawāt fit into the section on Muslim hospitality?

15Riccoldo begins the section with a basic definition of Muslim hospitality: providing food and shelter for anyone who comes to the door. But he then moves to an extended commentary on the quality of Muslim hospitality —noting that he himself has been the recipient of such hospitality. He is again very complimentary, and even uses phrasing reminiscent of the bible. For example, he repeatedly states that «the Saracens received us as angels», wording which echoes Hebrews 13, 215. Riccoldo is so impressed with the courteous treatment he has received «in the homes of the noble and the learned» that he likens it to the hospitality of his fellow Dominicans:

For they received us with such gladness that it often seemed to us that we had truly found hosts of our own Order, they who welcomed us as freely as brothers into their own homes16.

16This is a high compliment indeed; Riccoldo is claiming that the hospitality he has personally experienced in Muslim homes is akin to the intimate hospitality shown by one Dominican brother to another.

17The friar then cites what he thinks is another example of Saracen hospitality towards Christian guests, the ṣalawāt:

Frequently out of a certain urbanity and friendship, they asked us to say some words in praise of God or Christ. And whenever they said the name of Christ in our presence, they never did it without adding the appropriate commendation, for example, «Christ be praised» or something like that17.

18Riccoldo’s fellow Dominican, Guillermo de Trípoli, also mentions ṣalawāt, but unlike Riccoldo, Guillermo does not connect it to hospitality. Rather, he discusses it in a section on mosque protocol, describing ṣalawāt as a kind of antiphon:

While gathered [in the mosque], one of the faithful begins to read by heart […] And wherever the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, or Abraham or Mahomet is mentioned, they praise God with sweet whispers and frequently tears18.

19Here, Guillermo demonstrates his awareness that praising Jesus in this way is an internal Islamic practice. Guillermo recognizes that Muslims praise Jesus because their religion considers him to be a prophet along with Abraham and Muḥammad, not because doing so would please their Christian friends. But this is precisely what Riccoldo seems to think, since he explicitly states that Saracens praise Christ «in our presence» and «out of a certain urbanity and friendship».

20Furthermore, Riccoldo’s definition of ṣalawāt contains an important omission, which is highlighted by Guillermo’s account. Guillermo notes that the ṣalawāt is spoken after the names of prophets, and lists several, including Jesus, Abraham, and Muḥammad. But Riccoldo fails to mention the fact that Muslims most often say the ṣalawāt in praise of Muḥammad, not Jesus or any other prophet.

21Riccoldo’s two errors are puzzling. First, one wonders how much he really knew about Islam or the Arabic language if he failed to understand the basic reasoning behind a religious phrase as common as ṣalawāt, something which he certainly would have heard multiple times a day on the streets of Baghdad, nearly as often as bismillāh. Indeed, in his other writings Riccoldo actually mistranslates the very Qur’ānic verse upon which the ṣalawāt is based19. For example, in the Epistolae, he asks how it can be possible for God to «pray for» Muḥammad, citing Qur’ān, XXXIII, 56 as proof that such an idea can be found in the Qur’ān, but he will later argue in Contra legem Sarracenorum against the absurdity of an omnipotent God «praying» for anyone, and cites his faulty translation of this verse as proof of Qur’ān’s irrationality20.

22Second, Riccoldo’s omission of the name of Muḥammad in his description of ṣalawāt is truly a glaring error. It seems highly unlikely that he would not have known that Muslims say the ṣalawāt most often after the name of their most beloved prophet, Muḥammad. Does Riccoldo imply that the ṣalawāt is spoken solely in praise of Jesus because he did not know, or because he was trying to emphasize something else? While Riccoldo’s description of ṣalawāt is somewhat misleading for suggesting that Muslims say it only in the presence of Christian guests, and primarily for their benefit, his conclusion —that the ṣalawāt is additional proof of Muslim hospitality— demonstrates the extent to which he tried to interpret their practices in a positive light.

Reception

23Riccoldo’s account of the Muslim «works of perfection» is significant for three reasons. First, it contains considerable originality, in that some of the customs he describes are mentioned by few other medieval Latin Christians, and his account includes unique details, which most likely were gained through personal observation. Second, Riccoldo discusses quintessentially Muslim practices such as the bismillāh, which have no clear counterpart in Christianity. This makes his account potentially more useful to his readers, as it provides relatively «raw» ethnological data which could be used for a variety of purposes, including his stated goal of helping his fellow missionaries do their work. And finally, his account is highly complimentary. Nearly one third of his section on the Saracens is devoted to a systematic, detailed, and positive description of the works of perfection. And not only does Riccoldo explicitly note the similarity between certain Muslim and Christian practices (for example, he compares Baghdad’s schools to European studia generalia), but in one case he even asserts that the Muslim practice of forgiveness surpasses that of Christians.

24But did Riccoldo’s unusually positive account of Muslim praxis have any impact on the mainstream medieval Christian view of Islam? In truth, it seems to have had very little. In other words, his account was not «received» by the Christian community of his time21. Compare this to the great influence and positive reception of Riccoldo’s classical polemic, Contra legem Sarracenoroum, which was translated into Greek and French by the end of the 14th century, and praised by Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century and translated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Contra legem survives in twenty-eight Latin manuscripts, not to mention several medieval vernacular versions, while Liber peregrinationis is extant today in only seven. What Riccoldo wrote about Muslim religion in Contra legem remained influential for centuries, but what he wrote about Muslim praxis in Liber peregrinationis seems to have had little if any impact.

25A few reasons can be suggested as to why Riccoldo’s positive account of Muslim good works was not received by his fellow Christians. First, Liber peregrinationis does not appear to have been classified as a theological text by his confreres, despite his frequent references to Christian scripture and tradition22. The fact that many manuscripts of Liber peregrinationis are bound with travelogues rather than with scholastic tracts or biblical commentaries suggests that it was viewed more as ethnography than theology. For example, one manuscript is bound with books entitled Quomodo fiat iter Jerusalem and Tractatus de fide et moribus diuersarium gentium, while another shares the same volume with Marco Polo’s De novum et gentium varietatibus23. Furthermore, Riccoldo’s reflections on Islam were based on personal experience, and personal experience was not an acceptable theological authority during the medieval period24. New theological authorities such as the non-Christian philosophers and moderni did begin to be cited with regularity in the 12th century, but medievals rarely cited personal experience as authoritative25, since they considered theology neither a creative endeavor nor themselves theological «authors»26. Those who did cite experience, such as monastic theologians like Bernard of Clairvaux27, usually cited experience of the mystical sort, and this was mediated by faith and scripture28. It was not until the 19th century that «experience» similar to the kind cited by Riccoldo became an important theological authority for Protestant Christians, and even later for Catholics.

26The final reason why Riccoldo’s writings on Muslim praxis may not have been received by his contemporaries is because it was too positive to be used as fodder for anti-Islamic arguments. After all, most medieval Christians who wrote about Islam rarely discussed Muslim praxis for its own sake, but only to further their own anti-Islamic arguments. Few included the full spectrum of Muslim practices, or described accurately and completely the details of any particular ritual, since their goal was not to present Islam qua Islam, but to demonstrate its falsity using descriptions of practices that Muslims themselves would probably not recognize, and using rationale that would convince only Christians. But since Riccoldo’s account is so complimentary, the only way it could possibly be used would be to shame Christians into acting more virtuously. This is precisely what Riccoldo suggests in a twice-repeated disclaimer in which he assures readers that his account of Muslim good works is not meant to praise Muslims but to shame Christians. This disclaimer lends credence to John V. Tolan’s observation that «qualified praise of Muslim piety, sometimes misread by modern scholars as “relative tolerance” is in fact a common topos» intended not to compliment Muslims but to criticize lax Christians29.

27However, Riccoldo’s comments on Muslim praxis were not entirely lost to his generation. It seems that he had some local influence, which is reflected in the preaching of his famous confrere at Santa Maria Novella, Giordano da Rivalto (d. 1311), whose sermons appear to include several near-verbatim quotations from Riccoldo30. Giordano da Rivalto, the first Dominican whose vernacular sermons are preserved, was the main preacher at Santa Maria Novella, from 1303 until 1307, and thus a contemporary of Riccoldo, who had returned from Baghdad around 1300. Giordano was evidently in great demand, since during these four years he preached three or four sermons every single day in locations throughout the city, and was often asked to preach on the feast day of a parish’s namesake saint31. He was so popular that lay aficionados traveled from church to church to listen to him preach and to transcribe his sermons; we have these lay people to thank for the unusually large number of his sermon manuscripts extant today. These manuscripts show Giordano to be a master of the highly structured sermo modernus, which focused on a single theme32. He was also known for bringing contemporary issues such as Florentine politics and business practices into his sermons.

28Giordano’s sermon on December 26, 1305, the Feast of Saint Stephen the first martyr, was preached at the Church of Santo Stefano al Ponte, and appears to include some near-verbatim quotes from Riccoldo’s account of the Muslim reverence for God’s name. In the sermon, Giordano discusses four ways in which the sins of present-day Christians increase the pain of the martyrs. The third way is when God’s name is blasphemed. And it is here that Giordano uses details from Riccoldo’s account to do precisely what Riccoldo says he wrote it for, to shame Christians into good behavior:

Blasphemies are widespread among the cursed Christians, and no one respects the name of God! Many Saracens have great reverence for the name of God, to the point that if they see on the ground a piece of paper with the name of God written on it, they immediately collect it, kiss it, and would never trample on it for all the gold in the world. Do not think that they consider Mohammed their God or the son of God; they see him as a prophet. They adore well the one God, and anyone blaspheming God and Muhammad would be immediately beheaded. See how much reverence they have for the name of a prophet, despite the fact that they are dogs. Shame on us, miserable ones, we have Christ as God and yet we blaspheme him!33

29It is interesting to see how Giordano molds Riccoldo’s account for his own purposes. While two details appear to be taken from Liber peregrinationis, in both cases Giordano adds a flourish for effect. Like Riccoldo, Giordano notes that Muslims pick up scraps of paper, but he omits Riccoldo’s «reverently» and adds instead that they kiss it. Then comes the second detail: that Muslims punish blasphemy with death. Riccoldo says:

If a Saracen blasphemes God or one of the prophets, he will never be allowed to live34.

30While Giordano likewise mentions blasphemy against God or Muḥammad, he adds that Muslims will «immediately behead» of the blasphemer, a detail which is not included in Riccoldo’s account but which highlights the violence and irrationality of Muslims.

31Giordano later includes two additional facts about Islam for listeners who might not know: that Muslims do not worship Muḥammad as a god but honor him as a prophet, and that they «adore well the one God». It seems as if Giordano is trying to educate his audience with these two small statements. But the famous preacher’s main goal in this sermon is to hammer home a single point: that Muslims have more respect for Muḥammad, a mere prophet, than Christians have for Christ, the son of God. And just in case his audience misinterprets his statements about the Muslim reverence for God and his prophets as praise, Giordano ends with an insult which is absent in Riccoldo: «Look how much reverence they have for the name of a prophet, and they are dogs!35».

32Giordano’s sermon is a concrete example of how Riccoldo’s account of Muslim praxis was received by his contemporaries. Giordano follows Riccoldo’s suggestion that his description of good works should be used not to praise Muslims, but to shame Christians. Giordano even uses the word «shame» (vergogna) in his sermon. But when comparing Giordano’s sermon with Riccoldo’s account, clear differences emerge. Giordano takes two details and adds flourishes meant to heighten the dissonance between Muslims and Christians: he says that Saracens kiss the scraps of paper they pick up, and that they immediately cut off the heads of blasphemers. With these two additional details, Giordano reinforces beliefs about Muslims which were common among medieval Christians: that Muslims are irrational, violent, and fanatical. Even while engaged in the honorable practice of revering God’s name, they go to unacceptable extremes (for example, kissing scraps of paper and impetuously chopping off the heads of blasphemers). Riccoldo’s account, however, stresses the similarities between Christians and Muslims: he describes Muslim rituals sympathetically and in context, and repeatedly uses positive adjectives such as «reverently» and «diligently». While Giordano acknowledges Islam’s monotheism, his ultimate judgment is that Muslims are still cani («dogs»). Such epithets are entirely absent from Riccoldo’s writings.

33Most medieval Christian authors did not intend to present a balanced picture of Islam. Rather, they had other motivations. For example, the goal of polemicists was to demonstrate, almost always to a Christian-only audience, the errors of Islam. Proving Islam to be false was really the flip side of an apologetic for the truth of Christianity. In order to achieve this goal, authors would highlight only those aspects of Islam which clearly supported their case against it. Thus, the very same descriptions of Islam were repeated over and over by Christians wishing to make the very same arguments.

34Others brought up Islam not to argue against it, but to advance entirely different arguments. For example, Thomas Aquinas’s cursory mention of Islam in Summa contra Gentiles I.6 is not meant to attack the religion per se. Rather, Islam is mentioned only tangentially, as a foil to his main argument, which is that the truths of the Christian faith, which are beyond reason, are known to us only through revelation and confirmed through miracles. Islam is then brought up as a counter example of a religion, which has not been confirmed by miracles. Aquinas’s main goal is to prove an argument about Christianity, and the few details about Islam which he provides are meant only to serve that argument36.

35Riccoldo does not do this, at least not in Liber peregrinationis. Even though he claims to bring up Islamic praxis in order to shame Christians, in fact his focus stays squarely on Muslim good works. His discussion of Islamic praxis is not tangential to his main point, rather it is his main point. His descriptions are not mere ammunition for a greater anti-Islamic argument; instead, they take center stage. The practices themselves, relatively accurately and positively described, stand at the heart of this section. Granted, Riccoldo’s account of Islam is far from unbiased. After all, he was a 13th century missionary who approached other religions in the only way he knew how: from a Christian point of view37. Yet compared to the writings of most of his confreres, Riccoldo’s account is remarkable for its fidelity, and even for its sympathy in places. For much of what he says about Muslim praxis in Liber peregrinationis —most especially his description of bismillāh and his emphasis on the distinctively Islamic reverence for God’s name— might actually be recognizable to Muslims themselves. Despite the fact that it was most probably unintentional, Riccoldo offers his fellow medieval Christians a rare glimpse into Islam qua Islam, and this is significant, regardless of how limited a glimpse it is.

36Riccoldo’s faulty explanation for ṣalawāt, which is much less accurate than what he says about bismillāh, is still noteworthy for demonstrating his tendency to interpret Muslim practices sympathetically. His discussion of ṣalawāt is indicative of the overall positive tone of his account of Muslim praxis in Liber peregrinationis —an account that is so positive, in fact, that he cannot possibly use it to argue against Islam. Nor can he explain it away, even with his lame caveat about wanting to shame Christians. Indeed, the very existence of these practices truly surprises him, as noted in the quote with which this paper begins:

We were stupefied to discover how —with a law of such perfidy— works of great perfection could be found38.

37Riccoldo clearly sees the inconsistency between his theory (that Islam is a perfidious religion) and his experience (that Muslims practice «works of perfection»), and he is not afraid to admit his surprise at the contradiction.

38But by the time Riccoldo writes his polemic Contra legem Sarracenorum, the dissonance between his positive account of Muslim praxis and his negative assessment of Islam must have become too great to bear. His solution? Simply remove all mention of the works of perfection. And indeed, while expanding upon all of the anti-Qur’ānic arguments begun in Liber peregrinationis, Contra legem Sarracenorum is practically silent about Muslim works. In fact, what little Riccoldo has to say about praxis in Contra legem resembles the arguments of every other medieval Christian: he brings it up only to explain it away. Like Peter the Venerable before him, Riccoldo admits that the Qur’ān «contains works difficult to implement such as […] fasting and praying and giving according to their means39». But how can he square even this grudging admission of good praxis with the main argument of Contra legem —that Islam is a perfidious religion with an evil, irrational book? He does so by claiming that anyone who has actually observed the dealings of real Muslims — such as himself— knows that while the Qur’ān enjoins these practices, in actuality only a very few Saracens observe them40.

39With Contra legem Sarracenorum —a later, more polished, and more classically polemical text than Liber peregrinationis— Riccoldo’s days of providing a fleeting yet authentic glimpse into Muslim praxis were gone. The slim window which he had opened onto Islam as actually practiced was now closed, and the man who was to become one of the most-read anti-Islamic polemicists in the later Middle Ages had now taken a more critical position from the comfort of his armchair in Florence. His experiences in the streets of Baghdad had evidently failed to make any lasting impression on him, or at least on his view of Islam.

40But the originality and color of Riccoldo’s account of Muslim praxis did not escape the notice of a preacher like Giordano da Rivalto, who must have always been looking for unique ways to illustrate his main points. What better way to encourage Christian virtue than to describe the reverence even «Saracen dogs» show to God and their prophet? Today, many scholars are also interested in Riccoldo’s account of Muslim praxis, but for different reasons: they seek to deepen their understanding of medieval Christian-Muslim relations by examining genres other than polemics, which had been their focus in the past. It might seem amazing that a later editor or even Riccoldo himself did not delete the praise-filled section on Muslim praxis from Liber peregrinationis, given its inconsistency with his later writings and with the mainstream medieval view of Islam as a whole. But for whatever reason, Riccoldo allowed the account to stand. And thus it remains as an especially fascinating example of medieval Christian ambivalence towards Islam.

Notes de bas de page

1 «Attendimus diligenter legem ipsorum et opera et obstupuimus quomodo cum lege tante perfidie poterant opera magne perfectionis inueneri» (Riccoldo da Montecroce, Pérégrination en Terre sainte [Liber peregrinationis, hereafter LP], p. 158; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 211.

2 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (hereafter BAV), Barberini, Ms Lat. 2687, fos 1ro-12vo.

3 «Non supradicta narrauimus tam ad commendationem Sarracenorum quam ad confusionem Christianorum» (LP, p. 172; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 216). Riccoldo repeats the same proviso twice, once before and once after his description of the works of perfection.

4 He may also have been worried that some Christian readers would be overly impressed with Muslim piety. Evidently this was a common occurrence, since Peter the Venerable also mentions that one of the reasons he wrote against Islam was to dissuade Christians from converting to Islam. See the prologue of Pedro el Venerable, Summa Totius Haeresis Saracenorum, ed. and trans. R. Glei; Latin text in J. Kritzeck, Peter the Venerable and Islam, pp. 204-211.

5 «Maxime osseruant quod nichil notabile faciunt uel dicunt, uel scribunt quod non incipiant a nomine Dei. Vnde in suis litteris omnibus quas sibi inuicem mittunt reuerenter nomen Domini prius scribunt et ideo diligenter osseruant quod nullum scriptum dilanient uel in terram prohiciant. Si autem in terra inueniunt aliquid de carta scriptum reuerenter recolligunt et ponunt in loco alto in fixuris murorum ne nomen Domini conculcetur» (LP, p. 164; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 213; emphasis is mine).

6 Qur’ān, XXIX, 45.

7 The Muslim practice of reflecting on the ninety-nine names of God is rooted in the Qur’ān (Qur’ān, XX, 8), early ḥadīth literature, and key medieval texts such as al-Gazālī, The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God.

8 «Quando autem occurrit nomen Domini uel legendo uel loquendo nunquam esset ausus ipsum nominare solum sed semper cum certa laude scilicet Deus laudetur ipse uel aliquid tale» (LP, p. 164; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, pp. 213-214).

9 LP, p. 164; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 214.

10 «They maintain the greatest cleanliness in their holy places and churches [sic], and never enter there without removing their shoes first. They never spit there. And when they sit there they take diligent care not to let their buttocks touch the pavement; they sit with their buttocks on their heels. They teach their children to sit in this way [namely on their heels], lest they grow tired sitting for so long in the church» (LP, p. 164; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 214).

11 See Qur’ān, VII, 180, XVII, 110, XX, 8 and LIX, 24, where some of the names of God are listed. The ḥadīth literature elaborates on this concept, and refers in many places to God’s ninety-nine names. Muslim prayer beads (tasbīḥ) help the faithful reflect on the names of God.

12 BAV, Barberini, Ms Lat. 2687, fos 1ro-12vo.

13 A. Rippin, «Taṣliya».

14 LP, p. 164; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, pp. 213-214.

15 «Affabilitatem et urbanitatem tantam seruant ad extraneos quod nos recipiebant ut angelos quando uolebamus intrare ad domos nobilium et sapientium» (LP, p. 166; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 214). Riccoldo uses a similar phrase a few pages earlier: «Recipiebant nos sicut angelos Dei in suis scolis et studiis et in monasteriis et in ecclesiis seu sinagogis et domibus eorum» (LP, p. 156; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 211).

16 «Nam cum tanta letitia recipiebant nos quod uidebatur nobis frequenter quod uere inuenissemus hospites ordinis, et illos qui libentissime fratres recipiunt in domibus suis» (LP, p. 166; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 214).

17 «Frequenter enim quadam urbanitate et familiaritate petebant quod diceremus aliquid de Deo uel aliquid ad commendationem Christi. Et quando coram nobis nominabant Christium nunquam nominabant eum nisi cum digna laude, scilicet Christus laudetur ipse uel aliquid tale» (LP, p. 166; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 214).

18 Guillermo de Trípoli, Notitia de Machometo, chap. xv, pp. 256-258. English translation is my own.

19 Qur’ān XXXIII, 56.

20 Riccoldo da Montecroce, Epistolae ad ecclesiam triumphantem, p. 288 (Letter 3); Id., Contra legem Sarracenorum, chap. ix, pp. 106-107 (hereafter CLS). For more on Riccoldo’s mistranslation, see N. Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 338.

21 Reception is a new category in Catholic theology that has emerged since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965); it refers to the process by which the church community assimilates conciliar doctrine, but it can also refer to the process by which the doctrine of theologians is accepted as authoritative.

22 The theological and missionary intentions of Liber peregrinationis are explicitly outlined from the beginning. Immediately after Riccoldo states that he will be describing the cultures and morals of the various Eastern peoples, he says that he has written the book «so that friars who wish to take on the task of spreading the faith for Christ will know what they need to» (LP, p. 36). He follows this statement of purpose with numerous ecclesiastical and christological justifications for his trip: for example, by journeying to the Holy Land, Riccoldo tells us he is obeying the pope and his master general, learning more about Christ’s earthly life, and solidifying his vocation as a Dominican preacher and missionary.

23 LP, p. 22.

24 A «theological authority» is a source cited by a theologian in support of his or her argument which is recognized as legitimate by the Christian community. In his Summa Theologica (I.1.8), Thomas Aquinas defines the hierarchy of theological authorities as follows: first scripture, then the doctors of the church, then the philosophers, in that order.

25 J. E. Thiel, Imagination and Authority, p. 205, affirms that premodern theologians believed «experience could not be counted on as a source of the theological enterprise». While monastic theologians such as Bernard of Clairvaux did cite experientia, they defined it differently than Riccoldo.

26 J. E. Thiel, Imagination and Authority, p. 19: «In the classical paradigm, there was no conception of individual theological authorship […] Theologians were not seen to be functioning as authors in the modern sense that their vocation entailed the creative presentation of divine truth through individual experience or original insight. Because theologians were not authors, they did not possess authority». Yet this is precisely what Riccoldo does: he cites personal experience to buttress his views of Islam. Nor was Riccoldo alone in doing this; other medievals also cited their own opinions as authorities, albeit covertly. For example, Peter Lombard once cited a quidam (one of the common terms for moderni) in a lecture; it turned out that the quidam to whom he referred was none other than himself, as noted by M. Colish, «Quae hodie locum non habent», p. 4.

27 For a discussion of the difference between «monastic» and «scholastic» theology, see J. Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, p. 2.

28 For example, while Bernard of Clairvaux encourages those meditating on the Song of Songs to «read from the book of experience», he reminds them that «experience is the fruit of faith» (Bernard de Clairvaux, Sermons sur le Cantique, 3.1).

29 J. V. Tolan, «Looking East before 1453», p. 74.

30 The connection between Riccoldo and Giordano was first noted by E. Panella, «Ricerche su Riccoldo da Monte di Croce», pp. 49-56.

31 D. Lesnick, Preaching in Medieval Florence, pp. 111-113.

32 For more on the sermo modernus at Santa Maria Novella, see M. Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent, pp. 443-444.

33 «Vedi quanta ingiuria li fanno i maladetti cristiani, e non è nullo che si curi del nome di Dio! Deh, noi veggiamo di saracini, che hanno tanta reverenzia al nome di Dio, che incontantente che ‘l vedessero in terra in qualche straccio di carta, si lo ricoglie immantanente e baciolo tutto, e non ci andrebbe su co’ piedi per tutto quoesto mondo! Non intendete ch’ egli abbiano per loro Iddio Maometti, no nè per figliulo di Dio, ma per uno profeta; ch’ egli adorano bene uno Dio, e chiunque bestemmiasse Die o Maometti, incontanente gli è mozzo il capo di botto. Vedi quanta reverenzia hanno al nome di uno profeta, e sono cani. Quanta vergogna fa questo a noi miseri, ch’ avemo Cristo per Dio e bestemmiallo» (Giordano da Rivalto, Prediche inedite, p. 428; Eng. trans. by Emanuele Colombo).

34 LP, p. 164; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 214.

35 Giordano da Rivalto, Prediche inedite, p. 428.

36 It was long believed that Thomas Aquinas had written Summa contra Gentiles at the request of Ramon Penyaforte, who wanted to use it as a manual in the Spanish missionary schools. This idea has now been contested by scholars who see the text primarily as a protreptic for Christians. See M. Jordan, «The Protreptic Structure of “Summa contra Gentiles”«.

37 This is not to say that more objective descriptions of other religions and cultures did not exist in medieval times, only that such an approach was not the norm among medieval Christian theologians who were in fact writing nascent «Christian theologies of religion». Contemporary Christian theologians, many of whom regularly utilize the methodologies of religious studies and/or social sciences in their work, still feel it necessary to articulate the meaning of other religions from an internal theological standpoint. Works representative of the Christian «theology of religions» genre include J. Dupuis, Towards a Christian Theology and G. D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism.

38 LP, p. 158; Eng. trans. R. G. Tvrtković, A Christian Pilgrim, p. 211.

39 «Continet iterum difficultatem in opere adimplendum, ut […] de ieiunio et oratione et de expedendo secundum facultatem sibi a Deo datam» (CLS, chap. xvii, p. 142). The English translation of this section is in the main text above.

40 Ibid.


Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.