Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Chemins d'outre-mer

 | 
Damien Coulon
, 
Catherine Otten-Froux
, 
Paule Pagès
, 
et al.

Again: Genoa’s Golden Inscription and King Baldwin I’s Privilege of 11041

Benjamin Z. Kedar

Texte intégral

  • 1 My thanks to Professors Peter Herde (Würzburg) and Mordechai A. Rabello (Jerusalem) for their advi (...)
  • 1 [a] H. E. Mayer. M.-L. Favreau, Das Diplom Balduins I. fur Genua und Genuas Goldene Inschrift in d (...)
  • 2 M. Balard, Communes italiennes, pouvoir et habitants des États francs de Syrie-Palestine au xiie s (...)

1The golden inscription in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which commemorated Genoa’s role in the early crusader conquests and the privilege that King Baldwin I of Jerusalem granted the Genoese in 1104, have been at the center of an extensive - and on occasion unduly heated – debate since my friends Hans Eberhard Mayer and Marie-Luise Favreau (now Favreau-Lilie) claimed in 1976 that the inscription had never existed and that the privilege was a Genoese forgery.1 It seems appropriate to turn once again to this issue in a volume dedicated to Michel Balard, whose contributions to the history of Genoa as well as to the history of the crusades have been so manifold and valuable, and who has also taken a stand in the storm over the inscription and the privilege.2

  • 3 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 39-40; Rovere (n. 1 [f]), p. 101; Mayer (n. 1 [g]), p. 25.
  • 4 For the most recent edition of the inscription’s text see I Libri lurium della Repubblica di Genov (...)
  • 5 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 71 with the literature quoted in n. 47. See also Fulcher of Chartres, Histori (...)
  • 6 B.Z. Kedar, Chr. Westergård-Nielsen. Icelanders in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Twelfth-Ce (...)
  • 7 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 68.
  • 8 The shelf-mark of the letter, previously believed lost, was made known in B. Z. Kedar, The Patriar (...)
  • 9 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 42-43; Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 333.
  • 10 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 76.
  • 11 Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 327 n. 24; Rovere (n. 1 [f]), p. 121 n. 120. Mayer dealt with canons 1-3 of t (...)
  • 12 Mayer (n. 1 [g]), p. 53.

2The debate has clarified several issues, some of them crucial. It is now evident that Baldwin I’s original charter has not come down to us.3 The date that appears at the head of the golden inscription, ANNO AB INCARNATIONE DOMINI M°C°V, SEPTIMO KALENDAS IUNII,4 uses the calculus Pisanus and refers to the day on which the Franks and their Genoese and Pisan allies conquered Acre, 26 May 1104, and not to the day on which the text of the inscription was drawn up.5 The possibility that the Icelandic pilgrim who reported that a “gold-written letter” can be seen in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre may have had in mind the Genoese inscription6 has been convincingly discarded.7 The letter of Pope Alexander III to King Amaury of Jerusalem, which urges the king – in 1167 or 1169 – to restore the inscription, has been rediscovered and reedited.8 Caffaro’s tendency to exaggerate the role of the Genoese in the early history of the Frankish Levant has been highlighted.9 Still, the main issues at stake have not been resolved. Neither has the debate always proceeded systematically. Thus Mayer and Favreau argued in 1976 that Fulcher of Chartres does not mention Baldwin’s privilege of 1104 because it did not yet exist in his time;10 in 1986 and again in 1996 it was pointed out that this argument is not cogent because Fulcher does not mention the important Council of Nablus (1120) either;11 yet in 1999 Mayer, without mentioning this objection, reiterates that Fulcher’s total silence with regard to the privilege of 1104 is striking, since he is known to have been interested in documents.12

3I do not intend to dwell here on issues for which, at the present stage, no convincing solution can be offered, such as the question as to which of the locations in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre suggested during the debate as the possible site of the golden inscription is the most likely. Instead, I propose to deal with four issues for which some new evidence or reasoning can be adduced.

  • 13 Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 330-331 ; Rovere (n. I [f]), p. 97.

4The first is the plausibility of the argument, central to the Mayer-Favreau thesis, that the Genoese claimed from 1167 (or 1169) onward that King Amaury of Jerusalem (1163-1174) ordered the destruction of the golden inscription, and that they requested Pope Alexander III to force Amaury to restore it, even though they knew perfectly well that the inscription had never existed. In 1986 I argued that it is implausible that the Genoese put forward such a claim and such a request, for if there had not been such an inscription, Amaury would have emphatically denied its existence and produced witnesses to swear that no such inscription had ever existed in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and consequently it could not have been destroyed on his orders. In 1996 Antonella Rovere bolstered this argument by remarking that had the Genoese indeed concocted such a plot, they would have claimed that the inscription was destroyed by some previous king and not by Amaury, whose reign had started just a few years before the Genoese appealed to Alexander III.13

  • 14 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 69.

5In 2000 Mayer countered this contention with a three-pronged reasoning. First, he asks, how can one prove that something did not exist? Second, he observes that papal letters like those ordering the restoration of the golden inscription were normally based on a petitioner’s claim, the explicit or implicit assumption being that the petitioner had presented the facts truthfully; yet when a decision suited the popes’ political interests, they would not particularly bother about truth. Third, he argues that the popes presumably did not care whether the Genoese had a golden inscription in Jerusalem or not, but they regarded it as their duty to help the Genoese regain their purported rights - quite apart from the fact that Genoa and the papacy maintained close relations, especially in the days of Alexander III, who had issued the original order to Amaury to restore the inscription.14

  • 15 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 94. This forms part of a more intricate argument.
  • 16 D 22.3.2 ; see also D 22.3.21 in fine.
  • 17 Gregory I, Registrum epistolarum, 6.25, ed. P. Ewald, L. M. Hartmann (MGH Epp. 1, p. 403) ; C.6 q. (...)

6Let me deal with these arguments one by one. Regarding the question, How does one prove that something did not exist, the answer is that in a rational legal system one does so in the same way in which one proves that something did not happen - that is, by producing trustworthy testimonies. If indeed the inscription existed only in the minds of the Genoese schemers, as Mayer and Favreau believe, King Amaury (and later his son Baldwin IV or the canons of the Sepulchre) could have induced any number of clerics and laymen living in Jerusalem, pilgrims who had returned to the West, or perhaps even papal legates who had come to Jerusalem, to testify that the Genoese had never possessed a golden inscription in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Indeed, back in 1976 Mayer and Favreau took into account precisely this mode of proving non-existence when they wrote that, with the passage of time, the Genoese stood a better chance to obtain their goal, because by 1186-1192 no one of those who could swear that the golden inscription had never existed was still alive.15 We should also remember that, ideally at least, the burden of the proof rested on the Genoese plaintiff, for Roman law laid down that ”he who asserts has to prove, not he who denies” (ei incumbit probatio qui dich, non qui negat),16 and this rule, paraphrased by Pope Gregory I, made its way into canon law.17

  • 18 CJ 1.23.7 (a. 477) ; CJ 1.22.3 (a. 313) ; see also CJ 1.22.2,4,5.
  • 19 Dict. Grat, post C.25 q.2 c.16.
  • 20 For the texts and their discussion see P. Herde, Römisches und kanonisches Recht bei der Verfolgun (...)
  • 21 . Le cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jerusalem, ed. G. Bresc-Bautier, Paris 1984, Doc. (...)
  • 22 I libri iurium, 1.2, ed. Puncuh (n. 8 above), Docs. 316, 321, 324, p. 119-120, 125-126 ; see also (...)
  • 23 . I libri iurium, 1.2, ed. Puncuh, Doc. 317, p. 120-121 ; Hiestand, Vorarbeiten, Doc. 142, p. 318- (...)
  • 24 I libri iurium, 1.2, ed. Puncuh, Doc. 318, p. 121-122 ; see also Doc. 319, p. 122-123 ; Hiestand, (...)
  • 25 For the probable background of the destruction see Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 331-333.

7Mayer’s observation that papal decisions like the one in question were normally based on a petitioner’s claim is correct. Yet this does not mean that once a petitioner’s claim prompted a papal decision the latter became unassailable. Roman imperial law dealt extensively with mendacious claims and laid down that a decision’s validity hinges on the truthfulness of the petitioner’s plea (veritas precum); judges who did not allow a party to prove a plea’s falseness faced a stiff fine.18 Gratian first summed up this imperial legislation and then incorporated it verbatim into his Decreta.19 In the 1180s – that is, in the decade in which Pope Urban III ordered the prior and canons of the Sepulchre to restore the golden inscription -as well as in later years, the Decretists maintained that a charter obtained through a petitioner’s untruthful plea amounts to a forgery and must be punished; the Summa “Tractaturus Magister” (c. 1180-1190) specifically mentions obtinere cartam a domino papa per surreptionem, narrando falsum vel tacendo verum.20 Thus the possibility that a petitioner may submit a mendacious plea must have been well known at the Curia when the Genoese lodged their complaint against King Amaury in the 1160s, that is, in the days of the first canonist pope, Alexander III. The popes could protect themselves against entrapment by false information by allowing the accused party to prove that the plea was mendacious. When it was not possible to determine whether plea or counterplea was truthful, the pope could initiate an investigation. To give an example from the early history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, in 1107 Pope Paschal II received letters from the canons of the Sepulchre, the bishops and the king in which he was asked to confirm Evremar as patriarch of Jerusalem, and somewhat later he received letters from the canons, the bishops and the king in which he was asked to depose him. Both Evremar and his adversaries presented their cases in person, but the pope was not convinced by either party and appointed a legate to travel to Jerusalem and settle the issue there.21 Still more pertinent to the issue of the golden inscription are the letters that Pope Urban III sent on 12 and 13 March 1186 in the wake of Genoese complaints that they had lost control of possessions in the Kingdom of Jerusalem granted to them by King Baldwin I as well as of one-third of the town of Tripoli. In these letters the pope calls on the king of Jerusalem and the count of Tripoli to restore these possessions to the Genoese or to set forth their own claims with regard to them before the archbishop of Nazareth and the masters of the Temple and the Hospital.22 Urban III’s letter to the archbishop and the masters, also written on 13 March 1186, is much more frank. The pope announces that the Genoese have complained that the present-day King Baldwin of Jerusalem - that is, the child-king Baldwin V in whose name Count Raymond III of Tripoli ruled as regent - had unlawfully seized the possessions which King Baldwin I had granted to them. The pope makes no mention of the possibility that his letters to king and count might lead to the restoration of the possessions to the Genoese. Instead, he instructs the archbishop and the masters to summon both parties, hear and examine their respective pleas and render a decision.23 In other words, in this case the pope does not accept the Genoese complaint at face value and decides to appoint three judges to hear the arguments of both parties and then deliver a verdict. Apparently he had reasons to doubt whether the Genoese complaint presented the state of things accurately. Yet no such judges were appointed at any stage with regard to the Genoese complaint about the destruction of the golden inscription; and Urban III, on the very day on which he appoints the three judges with regard to the Genoese complaint about the seizure of their possessions, orders the prior and canons of the Sepulchre to restore the golden inscription, without calling for any investigation into the matter.24 Consequently it is reasonable to assume that King Amaury did not counter the Genoese claim by denying the inscription’s existence; had he done so, Alexander III would probably have followed a procedure similar to that adopted by Urban III in 1186 with regard to the Genoese complaint about the seizure of their possessions. And it stands to reason that Amaury did not issue a denial because he knew very well that the inscription had existed and that he had ordered its destruction.25

  • 26 M. Maccarrone, “Fundamentum apostolicarum sedium.” Persistenze e sviluppi dell’ecclesiologia di Pe (...)
  • 27 William of Tyre, Chronicon (n. 21 above), 18.29, p. 852-854. See Maccarrone, Fundamentum (n. 26 ab (...)
  • 28 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 12.13, p. 563-564 ; B.Z. Kedar, On the Origins of the Earliest Laws of (...)
  • 29 Mansi, Concilia 21 : 1146. It is not certain that the decision was taken at a later stage of the C (...)

8Mayer is also right to stress the close relations between Genoa and Pope Alexander III. At the same time, however, this pope, who had to maintain his legitimacy vis-à-vis the antipopes Victor IV (1159-1164), Paschal III (1164-1168). Calixtus III (1168-1179) and Innocent III (1179-1180), was eager to have the Kingdom of Jerusalem on his side. Michele Maccarrone, in an important article that has as yet not been duly utilized by crusade historians, demonstrated that recognition by the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch came to be regarded as an important criterion of papal legitimacy in the wake of the double elections of 1130 and 1159.26 Upon his election in 1159 Alexander III sent a legate to Outremer to obtain recognition. The legate landed with some Genoese at Gibelet, ruled by the Genoese Embriaci, but was not admitted into the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Thereupon a council presided over by Patriarch Amaury of Jerusalem and King Baldwin III of Jerusalem convened in Nazareth in 1160 to deliberate whether Alexander III or his rival Victor IV should be acknowledged as pope. The prelates were divided between the two, and Baldwin III - King Amaury’s predecessor and elder brother -persuaded them to stay neutral for the time being.27 The king evidently played a crucial role in this council, just as his grandfather, Baldwin II, had done at the Council of Nablus of 1120.28 Later in 1160 Patriarch Amaury notified Alexander III that he and his clergy had decided to recognize him.29 Thus when Alexander III was approached in the same decade by the Genoese with regard to the golden inscription, he would scarcely have wanted to antagonize unnecessarily the king of Jerusalem, who was quite capable of reversing the decision of 1160. Under these circumstances it stands to reason that, when Alexander III ordered King Amaury to restore the inscription without first initiating an investigation into the factuality of the Genoese complaint, he must have been pretty sure that the complaint was trustworthy. Perhaps other informants, too, let him know about the inscription’s demolition.

  • 30 See I Libri Iurium. ed. Rovere, Doc. 59, p. 98.
  • 31 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana (n. 5 above), 2.64, p. 614 (emphasis added).
  • 32 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 37-38.

9The plausibility of the Mayer-Favreau argument, that the Genoese accused Amaury of destroying the golden inscription although they knew it had never existed, is the first of four issues to be discussed here. The second is the doubt Mayer and Favreau cast on the phrase in the golden inscription claiming that the Genoese CESAREAM VERO ET ASSUR IEROSOLIMITANO IMPERIO ADDI-DERUNT.30 They argue that in the early years of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, in which the inscription was purportedly set up in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the kingdom was very small and to call it an “empire” was highly inappropriate. They point out that a parallel passage exists: Fulcher of Chartres presents a verse epitaph that lauds King Baldwin I as the ruler who terras Arabum vel quae tangunt mare Rubrum / addidit imperio, subdidit obsequio.31 They therefore hypothesize that if the Genoese composed the text of the golden inscription after Baldwin I’s death in 1118, they could have been inspired by Fulcher’s phrase. True, no manuscript of Fulcher’s chronicle is extant in Italy, but the Genoese could easily have read it in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.32

  • 33 Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 329.
  • 34 On the date and value of Bartolf s chronicle see Hagenmeyer’s introduction to his edition of Fulch (...)
  • 35 Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, c. 63, RHC Occ., III, p. 537 (emphasis added).

10In 1986 I wrote: “Would it not be simpler to regard Fulcher’s usage as proof that there is nothing extraordinary about the appearance of the phrase in the golden inscription? Besides, imperium did not necessarily mean ‘Empire’; it could have referred to rule over a lesser entity, such as a principality.”33 It is possible now to bolster this case with a further text. Bartolf of Nangis, who in 1108 or 1109 wrote a chronicle based on Fulcher’s work but containing numerous original and trustworthy additions,34 announces the conquest of Acre in 1104 as follows: Anno itaque dominicae incarnationis millesimo centesimo quarto, ab urbe vero Iherusalem capta quinto, tradidit Deus hanc civitatem Christianis atque imperio subdidit Iherosolymitano.35 Thus we find the term imperium Iherosolymitanum in the first decade of the kingdom’s existence - and in connection with the conquest of Acre, which figures so prominently in the golden inscription. The appearance of the term in the inscription, which – as we shall presently see – must date from the same decade, cannot therefore justify skepticism with regard to its authenticity.

  • 36 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 71-73.
  • 37 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 72.
  • 38 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 10.25, p. 484-485.
  • 39 Sedil autem in pace annis quattuor, in exilio veto tribus. William of Tyre, Chronicon, 11.4. p. 50 (...)
  • 40 Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, cc. 61, 63, p. 536-537 ; Bartolf mentions the Januenses e (...)
  • 41 For the most recent edition of the privilege see I Libri Iurium. ed. Rovere, Doc. 61, p. 99-100. T (...)
  • 42 For the absence of Tripoli in the inscription as proof of its dating after the conquest of that to (...)

11The third issue is the inscription’s date and its implications. It is one of Mayer’s many important contributions to have pointed out that the date appearing at the head of the golden inscription is 26 May 1104, the day on which the Franks conquered Acre. He however considers this date to be incontrovertible proof that the inscription’s text is a late forgery. This is so because it mentions Daibert as patriarch at the time of Acre’s conquest, whereas in reality the incumbent patriarch was Evremar.36 Yet while Evremar was the de facto patriarch on 26 May 1104, was he also so de jure? The answer is that he was not. The deposition of Daibert in 1102 and the election of Evremar in his stead were overruled by Pope Paschal II in the spring of 1106,37 which means that thereafter Daibert was formally regarded as having been the lawful patriarch in 1104. Indeed, William of Tyre describes Evremar as an intruder and usurper in 110238 and writes that Daibert occupied the patriarchal see of Jerusalem for seven years, four in peace and three in exile.39 The Genoese, who according to both Bartolf and Albert of Aachen acted together with the Pisans in the conquest of Acre in 1104,40 and who assured the domus Gandulfi Pisani filii Fiopie a preferential treatment in the privilege they had obtained from Baldwin I in that year,41 evidently accepted the papal ruling that Daibert, the Pisan, was the lawful patriarch in May 1104. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that the text of the golden inscription must postdate the spring of 1106, when Paschal II annulled Daibert’s deposition, and antedate 12 July 1109, because the conquest of Tripoli, which took place on that day with the help of a Genoese fleet, is not mentioned in the inscription.42 A date between 26 May 1104 - which appears at the inscription’s head – and the spring of 1106 may be ruled out, because it is inconceivable that even the Genoese would dare to place in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre an inscription that mentioned as patriarch the man who was the rival of the then ruling Evremar.

  • 43 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 10.27, p. 487. It should be noted that William speaks of a written agr (...)
  • 44 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 76-78.

12The fourth issue is William of Tyre’s reference to the privilege King Baldwin I granted the Genoese in 1104. Mayer and Favreau, who consider this privilege as a forgery, have to contend with the fact that William of Tyre does mention negotiations between the king and the Genoese before their joint attack on the town. William reports that the Genoese demanded to be accorded, in perpetuity, one-third of the income of Acre’s marine trade and to be given possession of a church in the town as well as of a quarter over which they would have full jurisdiction, and that the king and his barons gave their acquiescence to these demands and put the grant in writing.43 Since the Genoese demands listed by William markedly coincide with the text of the privilege as it has come down to us, Mayer and Favreau assume that William was duped by the Genoese, regarded their forged privilege as authentic and recapitulated some of its clauses. Still, William was King Amaury’s confidant and wrote his chronicle on the latter’s initiative. He therefore did not report that after the conquest of Acre King Baldwin I put the privilege into effect. On the contrary, he wrote: Qua obtenta [scilicet Accon] Januensibus iuxta singulorum merita possessiones et domicilia assignavit. Consequently - so argue Mayer and Favreau - the Genoese received possessions according to the merits of each individual (iuxta singulorum merita) who participated in the conquest, not according to the privilege (iuxta Privilegium). They present this sentence as the cautious formulation of the Bologna-trained jurist William of Tyre, who chooses his words carefully and asserts thereby that the privilege was granted but not implemented. “The golden inscription, too, was thereby disposed of,” they write, “and when the Genoese maintained that the king destroyed it and demanded its restoration, one could always argue that the destruction was perfectly justified and the restoration perfectly inappropriate, since the privilege had not been implemented down to the present day. Thus William contributed a striking argument for the royal party, because now it was of no consequence whether the privilege of 1104 was genuine or forged, and the question whether the Genoese inscription had ever existed at all became of purely academic nature.”44

  • 45 Rovere (n. 1 [f]),p. 121.

13This is an ingenious argument which, like the rest of the Mayer-Favreau construction, is notable for its gripping internal logic. Rovere’s retort, that in writing that Baldwin gave the Genoese possessions in Acre iuxta singulorum merita William was probably not referring to the grants in Acre but to rewards the king bestowed on individual Genoese for particular merits45 leaves open the question of why William kept silent with regard to the much more consequential grants in Acre itself.

  • 46 RHC Occ., I. p. 443. Discussing a different issue, Mayer rightly criticizes Rovere for having used (...)
  • 47 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 10.27, p. 487. The edition in the Recueil evidently reflects a homoeo- (...)

14However, the sentence Qua obtenta, Januensibus, iuxta singulorum merita, possessiones et domicilia assignavit, which figures in the edition of William of Tyre’s chronicle in the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades,46 does not appear in the critical edition that Robert Huygens published in 1986. There we read : Qua obtenta, lanuensibus iuxta tenorem pactorum parte, que eos de iure contingebat, resignata, reliquum victori populo rex, iuxta prudentum consilium virorum distri-butis iuxta singulorum merita possessionibus et domiciliis, assignavit.47

Notes

1 [a] H. E. Mayer. M.-L. Favreau, Das Diplom Balduins I. fur Genua und Genuas Goldene Inschrift in der Grabeskirche, Quellen und Forschungen aux italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 55/56, 1976, p. 22-95 (= H. E. Mayer, Kreuzzüge und lateinischer Osten, London 1983, V).
[b] B. Z. Kedar, Genoa’s Golden Inscription in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: A Case for the Defence, I comuni italiani nel regno crociato di Gerusalemme. Atti del Colloquio di Gerusalemme, 24-28 maggio 1984, ed. G. Airaldi, B. Z. Kedar, Genova 1986 (Collana storica di fonti e studi 48), p. 317-335 (= Id., The Franks in the Levant, 11th to I4th Centuries, Aldershot 1993, III).
[c] H. E. Mayer, review of (b) in Deutsches Archiv fur Erforschung des Mittelalters 44, 1988, p. 331-332.
[d] M.-L. Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im Heiligen Land vom ersten Kreuzzug bis zum Tode Heinrichs von Champagne (1098-1197), Amsterdam 1989, p. 106, 327-328.
[e] B. Z. Kedar, The Franks in the Levant, llth to I4th Centuries, Aldershot 1993, Addenda et corrigenda, p. 1.
[f] A. Rovere, “Rex Balduinus Ianuensibus privilegia firmavit et fecit.” Sulla presunta falsità del diploma di Baldovino I in favore dei Genovesi, Studi Medievali 3.37, 1996, p. 95-133.
[g] H. E. Mayer, Genuesische Fälschungen. Zu einer Studie von Antonella Rovere, Archiv fur Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde 45, 1999, p. 21-60.
[h] H. E. Mayer, Genuas gefälschte Goldene Inschrift in der Grabeskirche, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 116, 2000, p. 63-75.

2 M. Balard, Communes italiennes, pouvoir et habitants des États francs de Syrie-Palestine au xiie siècle, Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. M. Shatzmiller, Leiden 1993 (The medieval Mediterranean 1), p. 48-49 ; Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 22 n. 7.

3 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 39-40; Rovere (n. 1 [f]), p. 101; Mayer (n. 1 [g]), p. 25.

4 For the most recent edition of the inscription’s text see I Libri lurium della Repubblica di Genova 1.1, ed. A. Rovere, Roma 1992 (Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato. Fonti 13), Doc. 59, p. 97-98.

5 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 71 with the literature quoted in n. 47. See also Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana (1095-1127), ed. H. Hagenmeyer, Heidelberg 1913, p. 463 n. 5.

6 B.Z. Kedar, Chr. Westergård-Nielsen. Icelanders in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Twelfth-Century Account, Mediaeval Scandinavia 11, 1978-1979, p. 207 n. c; Kedar (n. 1 [e]), p. 1.

7 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 68.

8 The shelf-mark of the letter, previously believed lost, was made known in B. Z. Kedar, The Patriarch Eraclius, Outremer. Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem presented to Joshua Prawer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, R. C. Smail, Jerusalem 1982, p. 195 n. 63; the letter, presented at the Jerusalem colloquium of 1984, is edited in Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 333-335 and in I Libri lurium della Repubblica di Genova 1.2, ed. D. Puncuh, Roma 1996 (Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato. Fonti 23), Doc. 312, p. 114-115. See also in R. Hiestand, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius 3: Papsturkunden fur Kirchen im Heiligen Lande, Gôttingen 1985, Doc. 97, p. 256-257.

9 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 42-43; Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 333.

10 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 76.

11 Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 327 n. 24; Rovere (n. 1 [f]), p. 121 n. 120. Mayer dealt with canons 1-3 of that council (which undoubtedly took place during Fulcher’s lifetime) in his The Concordat of Nablus, Journal of Ecclesiatical History 33, 1982, p. 531-543.

12 Mayer (n. 1 [g]), p. 53.

13 Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 330-331 ; Rovere (n. I [f]), p. 97.

14 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 69.

15 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 94. This forms part of a more intricate argument.

16 D 22.3.2 ; see also D 22.3.21 in fine.

17 Gregory I, Registrum epistolarum, 6.25, ed. P. Ewald, L. M. Hartmann (MGH Epp. 1, p. 403) ; C.6 q.5 c.l.

18 CJ 1.23.7 (a. 477) ; CJ 1.22.3 (a. 313) ; see also CJ 1.22.2,4,5.

19 Dict. Grat, post C.25 q.2 c.16.

20 For the texts and their discussion see P. Herde, Römisches und kanonisches Recht bei der Verfolgung des Fälschungsdelikts im Mittelalter, Traditio 21, 1965, p. 326-327 with notes 224-225 ; Id., Die Bestrafung von Fälschern nach weltlichen und kirchlichen Rechtsquellen, Fälschungen im Mittelalter, Hannover 1988 (MGH Schriften 33.2), p. 594-595 with n.63. For a thirteenth-century discussion see Id., Marinus von Eboli: “Super revocatoriis” und “De confirmationibus.” Zwei Abhandlungen des Vizekanzlers Innocenz’ IV über das päpstliche Urkundenwesen, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 42/43, 1962/1963, p. 186-188, 223-229.

21 . Le cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jerusalem, ed. G. Bresc-Bautier, Paris 1984, Doc. 90, p. 204-206 ; B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States : The Secular Church, London 1980, p. 57. In 1106, Pope Paschal II canceled Daibert’s deposition only after he waited for a long time to learn utrum rex Ierosolimorum et qui eum [scilicet Daibertum] expulerant vellent aliquid contra eum allegare and rendered his decision postquam nemo comparuit qui contra eum aliquid obiceret: Wiilliam of Tyre, Chronicon, 11.4, ed. R. B.C. Huygens, Turnhout 1986 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio mediaevalis 63-63A), p. 500.

22 I libri iurium, 1.2, ed. Puncuh (n. 8 above), Docs. 316, 321, 324, p. 119-120, 125-126 ; see also Docs. 320, 323,p. 123-124,127-128 ; Hiestand, Vorarbeiten (n. 8 above), Docs. 133-134,140,p.310-311, 316-317 ; see also Docs. 141, 143, p. 317-318, 319-320.

23 . I libri iurium, 1.2, ed. Puncuh, Doc. 317, p. 120-121 ; Hiestand, Vorarbeiten, Doc. 142, p. 318-319.

24 I libri iurium, 1.2, ed. Puncuh, Doc. 318, p. 121-122 ; see also Doc. 319, p. 122-123 ; Hiestand, Vorarbeiten, Doc. 138, p. 315, see also Doc. 139, p. 316.

25 For the probable background of the destruction see Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 331-333.

26 M. Maccarrone, “Fundamentum apostolicarum sedium.” Persistenze e sviluppi dell’ecclesiologia di Pelagio 1 nell’Occidente latino tra i secoli xi e xii, La chiesa greca in Italia dall’ viii al xvi secolo, Padova 1973 (Italia sacra 20-22), esp. p. 629-648.

27 William of Tyre, Chronicon (n. 21 above), 18.29, p. 852-854. See Maccarrone, Fundamentum (n. 26 above), p. 638 ; Hamilton, The Latin Church (n. 21 above), p. 76.

28 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 12.13, p. 563-564 ; B.Z. Kedar, On the Origins of the Earliest Laws of Frankish Jerusalem: The Canons of the Council of Nablus, 1120, Speculum 74, 1999, esp. p. 326.

29 Mansi, Concilia 21 : 1146. It is not certain that the decision was taken at a later stage of the Council of Nazareth, as supposed by Mansi and Maccarrone.

30 See I Libri Iurium. ed. Rovere, Doc. 59, p. 98.

31 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana (n. 5 above), 2.64, p. 614 (emphasis added).

32 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 37-38.

33 Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 329.

34 On the date and value of Bartolf s chronicle see Hagenmeyer’s introduction to his edition of Fulcher of Chartres, p. 46, 71-73 : C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l’epoque des croisades et la principalité franque d’Antioche, Paris 1940, p. 11.

35 Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, c. 63, RHC Occ., III, p. 537 (emphasis added).

36 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 71-73.

37 Mayer (n. 1 [h]), p. 72.

38 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 10.25, p. 484-485.

39 Sedil autem in pace annis quattuor, in exilio veto tribus. William of Tyre, Chronicon, 11.4. p. 500. See also the list of patriarchs in the Cathalogi quorundam magnatum that appears in two English manuscripts containing William of Tyre’s chronicle: Ibid., p. 1065. For Paschal II’s exoneration and restitution of Daibert see his letter of 4 December 1107 : Le cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre, ed. Bresc-Bautier (n. 21 above). Doc. 90, p. 204-205. Among contemporaries, Bartolf, who sides with Daibert. writes: Paschalis... Daibertum enim patriarcham loco suo restituit: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium (n. 35 above), c. 65, p. 538. In other words, he considers him to have been patriarch throughout. Fulcher writes merely: Daibertus... patriarchatum recuperaverat. Historia Hierosolymitana (n. 5 above), 2.37, p. 514. Albert of Aachen is critical of Daibert: Albert of Aachen, Liber christianae expeditionis pro ereptione, emundatione et restilutione sanctae Hierosolymitanae ecclesiae, 7.48, 9.16-17, RHC Occ., IV, p. 539, 599-600.

40 Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, cc. 61, 63, p. 536-537 ; Bartolf mentions the Januenses et Pisani acting conjointly also in 1101 : cc. 46, 50, p. 524, 527. Albert of Aachen, on the other hand, usually speaks of Pisani et Genuenses when describing the events of 1101 and 1104 : Albert of Aachen, Liber, 7.54-55, 9.26-29, RHC Occ., IV, p. 542-543,605-607.

41 For the most recent edition of the privilege see I Libri Iurium. ed. Rovere, Doc. 61, p. 99-100. The importance of the inclusion of the domus Gandulfi Pisani, to which Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie first drew my attention, has been underlined by Rovere: Kedar (n. 1 [b]), p. 328 ; Rovere (n. 1 [f]),p. 127-128. - Discussing the number and identity of jurors mentioned at the end of the privilege Mayer observes that the largest number of jurors in Genoa was apparently that of the citizens who in 1188 swore to keep the peace treaty with Pisa, but that he did not count them: Mayer (n. 1 [g]), p. 42 n. 46. The 937 names are analyzed in B. Z. Kedar, Noms de saints et mentalité populaire ä Genes, au xive siècle, Le Moyen Âge 73, 1967, p. 439-440 ; Id.. Merchants in Crisis: Genoese and Venetian Men of Affairs and the Fourteenth-Century Depression, New Haven-London 1976, p. 98-100.

42 For the absence of Tripoli in the inscription as proof of its dating after the conquest of that town see Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 38.

43 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 10.27, p. 487. It should be noted that William speaks of a written agreement before the attack on Acre, whereas the privilege as it has come down to us postdates the conquest.

44 Mayer - Favreau (n. 1 [a]), p. 76-78.

45 Rovere (n. 1 [f]),p. 121.

46 RHC Occ., I. p. 443. Discussing a different issue, Mayer rightly criticizes Rovere for having used this edition of William’s chronicle: Mayer (n. 1 [g]), p. 47.

47 William of Tyre, Chronicon, 10.27, p. 487. The edition in the Recueil evidently reflects a homoeo-teleuton.

Notes de fin

1 My thanks to Professors Peter Herde (Würzburg) and Mordechai A. Rabello (Jerusalem) for their advice and to Dr. Gideon Almagor, Orit Amrani, Pnina Arad, Iris Gerlitz, Nimrod Ha-Gileadi, Henri Gourinard, Eyal Poleg, Yoni Rubin, Philip Slavin and Inbal Zuk, who participated in 2002-3 in the graduate seminar on Frankish Acre in which this paper took shape.

Auteur

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

© Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2004

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540