As soon as he was able, Godfrey of Bouillon had established a chapter of twenty canons at the Holy Sepulchre, for the church needed their services to assist the patriarch in the liturgy, to conduct masses and to manage the pilgrims and their offerings. Albert of Aachen says that bells were cast so that ‘when the brothers heard the signal and sound of these they would hurry to the church to celebrate the praises of the psalms and the prayers of masses, and the faithful people would as one make haste to hear these things’. Until then, he said, there had been no signals of this kind in Jerusalem.56 The canons were supported by prebends, the allocation of which was set down by Patriarch Evremar in late 1102 or early 1103.57 As this implies, however, the canons did not live at the Holy Sepulchre and, in April 1112, as he lay dying, Gibelin of Arles, the patriarch, asked the king to establish them as a community living according to the customs of the churches of Lyon and Reims. Two years later, Patriarch Arnulf, who, as archdeacon, seems to have steered Gibelin towards this idea, imposed the Augustinian Rule on the canons, endowing them with a range of incomes, including offerings, tithes and churches. Their role as custodians of the True Cross was emphasised by the grant of all the offerings made, except on Good Friday and when it was carried by the patriarch ‘for any necessity’.58
Although William of Tyre comments sourly that Arnulf had only done this to distract attention from his own shameful life, this reform was evidently in accordance with contemporary developments, since the Gregorians believed that the communal table was the best way of maintaining standards and avoiding the distractions of the secular world, while in the county of Tripoli, Raymond of Toulouse had already built a church for the Augustinians of Saint-Ruf.59 Even so, the patriarch inevitably met resistance, since the reform impinged on a number of vested interests, as well as obliging the canons to live under much closer patriarchal supervision than had previously been the case. As late as 1121, the cantor and the succentor were censured by Pope Calixtus II for continuing to live in their own houses and were threatened with expulsion if they did not conform.60
In these circumstances it was important that appropriate accommodation be provided as soon as possible and, over the next five years, a cloister, chapter house, dormitory, refectory and kitchen were constructed on the ruins of the Martyrium to the east of the rotunda, as well as an infirmary to the north. The cloister was built over the top of the chapel of St Helena, the dome of which stood out at its centre.61 It is unlikely that this was part of an overall plan to rebuild the church of the Holy Sepulchre itself, as the axis of the cloister is aligned with the old Constantinian church and not with the rotunda. Both the axis and the unusual situation to the east (rather than to the south, as was more often the case in northern Europe) were determined by the nature of the site and the space available.62 Although he does not comment on it, the extension of the patriarch's already spacious residence at the same time would undoubtedly have confirmed William of Tyre's view of Arnulf's self-interestedness.63
The shrine of the Holy Sepulchre was the most important holy place in the Christian world. However, the first rulers of the crusader states were well aware that, as soon as it became possible, they needed to endow communities at other leading holy sites, all of which had been in the hands of the Greek Orthodox until this time. According to Fulcher of Chartres and William of Tyre, Godfrey had therefore similarly established canons in what the Christians called the Temple of the Lord in the middle of the Temple platform.64 In 691–2, Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik had built a great dome over the rock here, a place sacred to all three great religions. This was substantially rebuilt in 1022–3 after a previous collapse and its rich mosaic decoration restored. For Christians, there was disagreement about its Old Testament associations, but it was universally recognised in the Latin world for its central importance in key episodes in the life of Christ, including the place of circumcision, the scene of the Presentation and the meeting with the teachers. Here, too, was the one recorded act of violence, when Christ drove out the money-changers.65 Initially, it was served by secular canons, but they probably became an Augustinian community soon after 1114, in the same period in which the canons of the Holy Sepulchre were undergoing reform. They had a prior called Achard by 1112 and he presided until his death in c.1137. In his time a marble floor was installed over the rock and by the 1120s they had erected an altar and a choir on top of this.66
Both Saewulf and Daniel report that Christian sites outside Jerusalem were in a poor state, but there are signs that here too under the first generation of settlers considerable effort went into restoration. Apart from the Temple of the Lord, there were canons at the church of St Mary on Mount Sion to the south of the city, a church that incorporated the room of the Last Supper. This had been damaged a century before the arrival of the crusaders, but both Saewulf and Daniel saw a church there, so the Latins must have begun repairs from an early date.67 At the place of the Resurrection on the Mount of Olives to the east, Daniel describes a small round chapel without a roof or floor situated in a paved court surrounded by a wall.68 All three churches had priors by 1112, and it has been assumed that they had adopted the Augustinian Rule by this time.69
Godfrey also established a monastery at the church of the Tomb of the Virgin in the valley of Jehoshaphat on the western slope of the Mount of Olives.70 If William of Tyre is correct, the core of the initial community was drawn from monks who had accompanied the duke's army, who had specifically requested to be settled there.71 Briefly they seem to have been under the jurisdiction of Baldwin, a cleric who had been part of the Lotharingian contingent, but by the time Saewulf saw a community of monks there in 1102, he had become archbishop of Caesarea and had been replaced by Hugh, the first abbot.72
In Galilee there were two other famous sites at which the Latins began building almost immediately. William of Tyre says that Tancred, at this time expecting to carve out a principality in the region, ‘devoted much attention to establishing churches in that diocese, namely, at Nazareth, Tiberias and on Mt. Tabor’, which he generously endowed.73 Saewulf describes Nazareth as ‘wholly ruined and all pulled down by the Saracens’, but says that ‘a very fine church marks the place of the Lord's Annunciation’. Four years later Daniel saw a tall church with three altars, within which there was a cave with two doors and steps leading down to ‘a cell with little doors and in this little cell lived the Holy Mother of God with Christ'; the ‘place where Gabriel stood is the third column from the door of the cave’. Daniel was impressed, for he was travelling with the royal party, which was welcomed by the ‘very rich Latin bishop there’, enabling them to spend a comfortable night in the town.74
About 10 miles to the south-east of Nazareth was Mount Tabor, where the Transfiguration took place. Here there were two monasteries, one of which, situated on the south-east corner, had been changed from a Greek Orthodox to a Benedictine house centred on the church of the Transfiguration.75 In 1100, the Latins had appointed an abbot, Gerard, and for a period, until there was a bishop in Nazareth, he took on the role of metropolitan.76 However, as both Saewulf and Daniel emphasise, there were few men available to protect either travellers or institutions situated outside the major cities and castles and, even though the whole area was surrounded by a wall, Tughtigin's forces occupied the mountain in June 1113, and it seems unlikely that any of the monks survived. It took two years to re-establish the community.77
Nevertheless, however dynamic his military interventions and bold his solutions to the problems posed by the defence of the kingdom, and despite the progress made in establishing a governmental administration and creating an appropriate ecclesiastical structure, Baldwin knew that the ultimate constraint on his activities was money and, throughout the reign, his actions were conditioned by the need to pay his soldiers. He had made considerable progress in establishing a royal demesne, especially in Judaea and Samaria, and had control of important ports, including Acre and Beirut. The demesne varied in size, partly as a consequence of changing political circums
tances, but in the twelfth century it remained a substantial source of income, providing returns from proportional taxes and seigneurial monopolies, as well as capitation taxes and forced labour from non-Christian dependants. Incomes from ports were a key resource; despite the privileges granted to the Italian cities, the Crown could still draw on a wide range of taxes. The Italians were essential if ports were to be conquered, but their very presence greatly increased both the volume of trade and the numbers of pilgrims; and although they were exempt from taxes on the sale of goods, their purchases both from locals and long-distance Asian traders had to be made in the royal markets, which attracted a range of relevant taxes. Incomes from non-Italians, including taxes on entry to the ports, anchorage and gate tolls, added further to royal revenues.78 Moreover, the activity generated by the presence of the Italians further stimulated the economies (and therefore the revenues) of the ports; some of the profits were invested in building, consumption of goods and services, and social climbing.79 It must be assumed that Baldwin had established some kind of exchequer, which would have been controlled by the seneschal, although, not surprisingly given the embryonic state of many royal and seigneurial exchequers in the West, it has not left clear traces at this early date.80
The building of the southern fortresses was, at least in part, a result of the king's desire to exploit the caravan routes, the profits from which he had already experienced when, in 1113, he had gained over 50,000 dinars from plundering a caravan in the pass of ‘Azib, about two days from Jerusalem. ‘There was not a town [in Syria],’ says Ibn al-Qalanisi, ‘but had some merchants among the victims of this caravan.’81 The proceeds must in part have compensated for the failure to take Tyre in April 1112, a siege that had begun so promisingly at the end of the previous year when Baldwin had intercepted a train of camels and wagons loaded with the Tyrians’ goods which they were sending to Damascus for safe-keeping. A great part of the proceeds ‘the king bestowed with a generous hand on his soldiers, who until now had been weighed down by long want’.82 Even so, although Baldwin captured ‘wonderful and incredible treasures’, they were still not sufficient to finance the campaign against Tyre, which was abandoned ‘on the advice of his magnates who were tired of the long-drawn-out siege and completely out of possessions and food supplies’.83
The withdrawal from Tyre underlined the kingdom's shortage of resources: plundering could only fill gaps temporarily, while the lack of a fleet meant dependence on others to enable a concerted attack on a coastal town to be undertaken. These were the circumstances in which Baldwin and his advisers conceived a plan to draw in the aid of the Norman rulers of Sicily, whose main city of Palermo was the most populous and wealthy on the northern shore of the Mediterranean, except for Constantinople itself. Chief among those advisers was Arnulf of Chocques, in the late winter of 1112 chosen as successor to the patriarch, Gibelin of Arles, who had just died, in an election evidently determined by the king.84 It appeared to be a propitious moment, for in 1112, Adelaide del Vasto, widow of Count Roger I, who had died in 1101, had relinquished the regency which she had held for her young son, Roger II. Envoys were dispatched to Palermo, proposing that Adelaide come to Jerusalem and marry Baldwin. As ever, Fulcher of Chartres is discreet about this matter, but William of Tyre makes quite explicit the financial needs that prompted the initiative. The king, he says, ‘instructed the envoys when they left that they should agree to any conditions and should endeavor by every possible means to bring the countess back with them. For he had heard, as was true, that the countess was rich and possessed everything in great abundance, since she was in good favor with her son. Baldwin, on the contrary, was poor and needy, so that his means scarcely sufficed for his daily needs and the payment of his knights. Hence, he longed to supplement his scanty resources from her superabundance.’85
The Norman Sicilians were fully cognisant of Baldwin's position, for the marriage was agreed on condition that any offspring would succeed to the kingdom of Jerusalem, but that if there were no issue then Roger himself would become king on Baldwin's death. Any claim to the throne by Eustace of Boulogne, Baldwin's elder brother, was apparently ignored at this time.86 This was a deal entered into cynically by both parties, for Adelaide was at least forty years old and had last given birth seventeen years before, while Baldwin had already been married twice and fathered no children by either wife. His probable homosexuality, about which he was discreet but which even so appears to have been known both to contemporary chroniclers and to William of Tyre, makes it even more unlikely that the king would have had any direct heirs.87 As neither party can seriously have expected children from this third union, in effect the Normans were buying the throne of Jerusalem for Roger II, at this time a youth of sixteen or seventeen, at least twenty-five years younger than Baldwin. The acquisition of a royal title for the son of a Norman adventurer was an obvious inducement.88 If the conditions described by William of Tyre had been met, Norman domination of the eastern Mediterranean would have been possible. At the very least Sicilian fleets would have had important trading bases in both the principality of Antioch and the kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Normans would very likely have become the main ethnic group in the crusader states.
Adelaide's arrival at Acre in August 1113 was appropriately splendid. According to Albert of Aachen, she had two trireme dromons, each with 500 men, and seven other ships laden with gold, silver and precious objects, as well as a whole range of weaponry, together with a specialist squad of Saracen archers. This was a powerful armada, quite strong enough to beat off an attack by Egyptian ships despite being blown off course into the bay of Ascalon.89 William of Tyre's description is not quite so colourful, but it does emphasise that she came with mounted men and foot soldiers, supplies of grain, wine, oil and salt meat, and ‘an immense sum of money’.90 It is likely that Pagan, the future chancellor, and his relative Brando, who became a notary in the chancellery, formed part of her entourage, and it may be that the Sicilian connection brought trained administrative personnel as well, enabling the Crown to establish a proper chancellery in 1115.91 Baldwin was not the only beneficiary. Roger of Antioch attended the wedding feast and was rewarded with 1,000 marks of silver, 500 besants and high-quality goods, horses and mules, gifts that confirm the Sicilian interest in cultivating the Norman connection throughout the crusader states.92
There was a complication, however, for the king was still married to the Armenian wife he had taken in 1098 as part of his policy of establishing himself in Edessa. They had long been estranged, for Baldwin had repudiated her several years before, possibly in 1103 or 1104, and had obliged her to enter the convent of St Anne in Jerusalem, then a small house of three or four women only, although he had added extra endowments at the time of her entrance.93 William of Tyre, who, of course, knew of the later marriage to Adelaide, says that some thought the repudiation was to enable Baldwin to marry ‘a richer woman of higher rank’, others that the king had put her away because of sexual misconduct. William himself, who later accuses her of promiscuous behaviour while living in Constantinople, nevertheless claims that, at this time, she had not been convicted of any crime and that Baldwin had acted ‘regardless of the rights of matrimony and without the procedure of law’.94 At any rate, her life as a nun was short-lived, for she gained permission from the king to visit relatives in Constantinople on the pretext of acquiring more endowments for the house, a fiction that was convenient for both parties, as it was evident that she did not intend to return.95
Adelaide, claims William, knew nothing of this; indeed, the archbishop presents her as the innocent and naïve victim of the machinations of Arnulf of Chocques, whom he sees as the mastermind behind the plan. This cannot have been the case. Adelaide had had eleven years’ experience as regent in the tough world of Norman Sicily, protecting the inheritance of her son Simon, who died in 1105, and then that of his younger brother, Roger. Moreover, Baldwin's repudiation of his wife was known to western chroniclers, one of whom, Guibert of Nogent,
always interested in prurient stories, alleges that she had been captured and raped by pirates while sailing from Saint Simeon to Jerusalem and that, consequently, the king had ‘banished her from his bed’.96 It is inconceivable that the Sicilians were unaware of Baldwin's marital state and it therefore follows that, in 1112–13, both parties ignored this inconvenience in view of the advantages they stood to gain from the new marriage.
However, in 1117, a combination of circumstances revived the issue in such a way as to have serious long-term consequences for the kingdom of Jerusalem. Towards the end of the previous year, Baldwin seems to have had a crisis of conscience, brought on by a serious illness. Believing that he was about to die, he ordered the distribution of money and goods to the poor and instructed that all his debts should be paid.97 ‘For this reason,’ says Fulcher of Chartres, ‘he dismissed his wife, Adelaide, the Countess of Sicily mentioned above, whom he had unlawfully wed, since she whom he had lawfully married in the city of Edessa was still alive.’98 He was advised, says William of Tyre, by ‘certain religious and God-fearing men’ to restore his Armenian wife to her former status, an action that necessarily meant sending Adelaide back to Sicily.99
Remorse was not the only reason for this course of action, however, for he was further persuaded to it by Patriarch Arnulf who, ever since 1112, had been fending off criticism of the circumstances of his election, his personal conduct and, most importantly, his role in the marriage of Baldwin and Adelaide. In 1115, Arnulf had actually been deposed by Berengar, bishop of Orange, the papal legate, and had been obliged to travel to Rome in an effort to obtain reinstatement. He had succeeded only on condition that he ensure that Baldwin's bigamous marriage be brought to an end.100 Arnulf therefore convened a council in the church of the Holy Cross at Acre, at which Baldwin and Adelaide were formally separated, with, says Albert of Aachen, ‘all the clergy and people giving judgement’, their resolve stiffened by the knowledge that an influx of Normans would have a serious impact on their own control of church appointments and lay fiefs.101 Accordingly, Adelaide was dispatched to Sicily on the spring sailing, leaving Acre on 25 April in the company of seven ships.102 Later, in the summer, on 19 July 1117, Arnulf himself was restored to the patriarchate in a bull of Paschal II in which the three main arguments against him were put aside, that is, election through royal influence, illicit relations with women and illegitimacy.103 Sixty years later William of Tyre assessed the damage caused by the collapse of the agreement with the Sicilians. Not only was Adelaide herself highly indignant and insulted, but Roger II was so angry that ‘he conceived a mortal hatred against the kingdom’. William of Tyre says that the Norman Sicilians offered no help to the kingdom during his lifetime, although they were best placed among all the powers of the West to do so.104
The Crusader States Page 16