Exploring the Rebirth of a Chronicle: Why Robert the Monk's Historia Iherosolimitana Gained New Life in the Fifteenth Century

Abstract

The chronicle of Robert the Monk is a well-known source for the First Crusade and the most copied First Crusade narrative in the Middle Ages. Though the number of copies decreased after the twelfth century, it increased in the fifteenth, with most of these later copies either being preserved in German-speaking lands or originating from there. It is possible that a First Crusade narrative was needed in fifteenth-century German-speaking lands because of their proximity to the struggle against the Ottomans, and the chronicle of Robert the Monk was the only one widely available for copying.

As a historical phenomenon, crusading has encompassed many and varied interpretations. No single medieval word can be translated as ‘crusade’,¹ nor is there any consensus on what can be called a crusade: this lack of firm definition has been widely discussed for decades.² Thus, crusading is not homogeneous, either practically or conceptually. Currently, the crusade is understood as a broader phenomenon than simply expeditions to the Holy Land. In other words, the definition of the so-called traditionalists is mainly rejected, but apart from this there is no clear convention. The best known definition includes three vital components: proclamation of the expedition by the pope; crosses on the clothes of crusaders; and the granting of privileges to them, among which the most important was certainly the indulgence.³ Even with these parameters, doubts remain about some expeditions that are traditionally called crusades but about which the scarcity of sources at hand does not allow us to confirm that they meet the above-mentioned criteria (for example, some of the Northern crusades). In addition, even when, in cases of well-known expeditions, we are certain about papal declarations, crosses and indulgences, this information does not allow us to evaluate to what extent their promoters, participants and contemporaries perceived all these expeditions as similar. Were there any subdivisions of crusades? Was there deemed to be a succession between earlier and later ones? To what extent were these perceptions endorsed by common ideas and texts?

One possible way to answer these questions is to study the transmission and reception of texts. Recent years have been marked by important contributions in this field, one example being a collection of studies on the relationships between the chronicles of the First Crusade.⁴ Above all must be mentioned the very well-grounded research of Thomas W. Smith on the transmission of the First Crusade letters.⁵ Smith's research is important in terms of demonstrating contemporary interest in crusading, as the letters reveal the involvement of certain regions in crusades to the Holy Land in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Recent research has also demonstrated an increased interest in the historical memory of the crusades, which is tightly connected to issues of textual transmission: several very important and innovative studies have been published.⁶ None the less, it should be noted that studies on the transmission of crusading texts and historical memory of early crusades rarely look outside the era of crusading to the Holy Land.

Among other things, a perspective well worth studying, and heretofore not examined, is the later reception of texts that pertain to the crusades for the liberation and protection of Jerusalem. In fact, some textual transmission evidence suggests that ideas relating to crusade preaching were quite long-lived, enduring for centuries after. For example, De predicatione crucis by Humbert of Romans, fifth master-general of the Dominican order, a treatise composed for use by crusade preachers allegedly around 1266–8, was extensively copied in the fifteenth century. In fact, it survived in two versions, long and short, the latter likely being a later one.⁷ Almost all manuscripts of the long version (sixteen of eighteen) date to the fifteenth century and are currently preserved in either Germany, Austria or German Switzerland – that is, in the area close to the anti-Hussite and anti-Ottoman struggles of the fifteenth century – or are said to originate from there, although Humbert of Romans himself was French and wrote his treatise in France. All five manuscripts of the short version are datable to the fifteenth century and are preserved in Austria. In three instances, the manuscripts of the long version are bound together with a number of Hussite or Ottoman crusades-related sources. Furthermore, all five manuscripts of the short version are bound together with sources relating to the anti-Hussite wars.⁸ Moreover, one of the codices of the long version (Stiftsbibliothek, Melk, 1799) contains an anti-Ottoman exhortation titled Exhortatio pro cruce assumenda contra infideles et paganos (fos 162r–169v), parts of which are undoubtedly adopted from De predicatione crucis or an unknown intermediary source.⁹ The treatise was likely deemed highly useful in relating to both the anti-Hussite and anti-Ottoman struggles because it was not especially focused on the enemy: more attention was paid to such aspects as the sign of the cross, the reasons for taking it and the advantages of the crusader status. Thus, the text was flexible enough for use not only against the Ottomans, but also against the Hussites.

The common points in the preaching of various crusades are, of course, a subject worth developing further. However, the focus here is on questions concerning the transmission of First Crusade chronicles. Were they still copied in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries? If so, where and what for? Did the remembrance of crusading to the Holy Land serve any purpose during the late medieval crusades? Was any connection perceived between the earlier and later ones? Some evidence for answers to these questions can be found in the manuscript tradition of the most widespread medieval First Crusade narrative, which is certainly the Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk.

The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk

In 2013 Damien Kempf and Marcus Bull published a new edition of a chronicle of the First Crusade written by Robert the Monk and titled Historia Iherosolimitana. This well-known text had already been published several times, with some of the early printings being from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.¹⁰ It was subsequently published in the famous collection of crusade-related sources gathered by Jacques Bongars.¹¹ We do not know which manuscripts Bongars used for the texts he published. The first – and, before 2013, the only – critical edition of the chronicle was published in the third volume of Recueil des historiens des croisades: historiens occidentaux.¹² It was based on twenty-two manuscripts, one of the incunabula and the text published by Bongars, and contained an apparatus criticus with different readings. The editors declared that a twelfth-century manuscript from the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, ms lat. 5129, was taken as the base manuscript, but it also includes systematically amalgamated readings found in other copies.¹³ This can be observed in the apparatus criticus of the edition. Kempf and Bull chose to edit the same manuscript, which is probably one of the oldest, as it allegedly dates to 1145–53. It was produced at the Benedictine abbey of Saint-Amand in Northern France.¹⁴ This is likely to be the most copied First Crusade history – eighty-four manuscripts of it are currently known – and it had, at the same time, noteworthy stability as the propositional text of the chronicle; hence, editors decided not to make an apparatus criticus, publishing only the base manuscript as close as possible to the scribal version.¹⁵ Only very few emendations have been made in the case of manifest errors in the text of the base manuscript as compared to readings provided by other members of the early northern French manuscript grouping.¹⁶

Who was the chronicle written by, and when? The Sermo apologeticus at the beginning of the chronicle provides us with some information about the author. His name was Robert, and he was residing in the cloister of a certain monastery of St Remigius in the bishopric of Reims.¹⁷ Robert alleges that he has written this history conpulsus per obedientiam – that is, probably because he was a monk bound by his monastic vow. Around that time there was an abbot named Robert, who ruled the abbey of St-Rémi of Reims in 1095/96–7, before he was excommunicated and replaced, but soon rehabilitated. Very often, though not always, he has been considered by scholars to be the author of the chronicle.¹⁸

The chronicle by Robert the Monk belongs to a group traditionally called ‘the Gesta family’,¹⁹ which refers to a group of chronicles highly dependent on the text of the so-called Gesta Francorum, an anonymous chronicle by an alleged eyewitness, who was probably a Norman from Southern Italy. In the introductory part of his chronicle, Robert the Monk alleges that he is amending the style of a certain book, very probably the Gesta Francorum. He affirms that a certain abbot B. showed him a history (‘abbas nomine B. … ostendit michi unam istoriam’), ordering it be rewritten and amended because it did not include information about the Council of Clermont and because of the uncertainty of its composition and unsophisticated style.²⁰ In fact, Robert the Monk states that he was present at Clermont.²¹ The identity of abbot B. is still not clear.²² In some manuscripts he is named Benedictus or Bernardus, but in the earliest surviving manuscripts, he is named B.; and other variants of the name may well be scribal guesses or over-readings.²³ It is worth noting that other chroniclers who base their work on the Gesta Francorum declare the same motivation: improvement of a ‘rustic history’. Baldric of Bourgueil writes that he undertook to rewrite and amend a certain ‘libellum rusticanum’ (rustic little book).²⁴ Guibert of Nogent also purports to have rewritten a certain history, amending its style and grammar.²⁵

Robert the Monk's chronicle is largely dependent on the text of the Gesta Francorum. However, Robert adds a lot of information, making his chronicle much longer, from around 20,000 words to approximately 35,000 words.²⁶ Furthermore, although it has some parallels with other crusade texts, some parts are present only in Robert the Monk's text.²⁷

The exact year when the chronicle was written is unknown, but some of the evidence favours the first decade of the twelfth century.²⁸ This time frame would mean that the earliest surviving manuscript was produced only about forty years later.

Surviving manuscript copies of the chronicle and the questions they raise

In their edition Kempf and Bull provide a list of all known manuscripts of Robert the Monk's text and their provenances in cases where they are known.²⁹ This is probably largely based on the list provided in 1905 by Friedrich Kraft.³⁰ This list can lead to some curious observations and even contribute to the question as to whether texts related to the First Crusade, their transmission and the memory of the expedition could serve to corroborate the sacred wars of the late Middle Ages.

There are important observations to be made concerning the manuscript tradition of Robert the Monk's chronicle. First, it is the most copied chronicle of the First Crusade. There are eighty-four known manuscripts (including four incomplete copies) of Robert the Monk's chronicle, produced throughout the whole medieval period, only two of which are said to have been destroyed.³¹ It is likely the most copied chronicle of the First Crusade: if we look at the most recent editions, we can observe that the chronicle of Baldric of Bourgueil is attested to by twenty-four complete or partial manuscripts;³² the chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres has two versions attested to by fourteen manuscripts altogether;³³ the chronicle of Albert of Aachen is preserved in thirteen extant manuscripts, including incomplete copies;³⁴ the chronicle of Raymond of Aguilers survived in ten manuscripts, two of which are incomplete.³⁵ The Gesta Francorum has survived in only nine manuscripts³⁶. The chronicle of Guibert of Nogent is attested to by eight manuscripts with a complete text.³⁷ Only five manuscripts remain for the chronicle of Peter Tudebode,³⁸ while the chronicle of Ralph of Caen is currently attested to by only one manuscript.³⁹

Can this difference theoretically be explained as reflecting a scarcity of early manuscripts to serve as a basis for further copying? It is true that the chronicle by Robert the Monk has the most impressive number of copies in the twelfth century – thirty-two copies (two of them preserved in Tournai and Tours are marked as destroyed), and this is excluding manuscripts that may well be from both the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. However, it must be noted that each of the listed chronicles – apart from the text by Ralph of Caen, which is hard to date – has at least some manuscripts dating back to the twelfth century. Almost all manuscripts containing the chronicle by Baldric of Bourgueil are datable to the twelfth (eight) and thirteenth (fourteen) centuries.⁴⁰ Exceptions are two manuscripts produced in Spain: the first one in the fourteenth, and the second, which is in fact a Spanish translation of the chronicle, in the fifteenth century.⁴¹ The majority of the manuscripts of the Fulcher of Chartres chronicle are from the twelfth or early thirteenth century, and only one from the fourteenth century.⁴² Seven of eight manuscripts with the complete text by Guibert of Nogent are from the twelfth century, with one produced in the thirteenth.⁴³ The chronicle by Albert of Aachen is attested to by seven manuscripts from the twelfth century, single manuscripts from the thirteenth, fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, and three manuscripts from the fifteenth.⁴⁴ Almost all manuscripts of the Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode are from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries (only two manuscripts of the Gesta Francorum are from the fourteenth century, and one from the fifteenth, and one manuscript of Peter Tudebode from the fifteenth century).⁴⁵ More or less the same is true for the chronicle of Raymond of d'Aguilers: only two are from the fourteenth century and one from the fifteenth.⁴⁶

Of course, we could surmise that the spread of the text of Robert the Monk could even be a sort of coincidence arising from the high number of its early copies. However, this is far from evident: other texts have a considerable number of early copies as well, but they were copied mostly in the era of crusading to the Holy Land and very rarely afterwards. At the same time, there is another phenomenon which cannot be neglected: the number of copies of Robert the Monk is very unequal from century to century, with a sort of ‘resurrection’ of the text observable in the fifteenth century.

The number of copies of the chronicle of Robert the Monk decreases in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but then considerably increases in the fifteenth century. Thirty-two of the manuscripts of the chronicle by Robert the Monk are from the twelfth century, ten from the thirteenth, four from the twelfth and/or thirteenth century, five from the fourteenth century, twenty-eight from the fifteenth century, three from the sixteenth century, and two from the fifteenth and/or sixteenth century. In other words, the chronicle was popular in the twelfth century, becoming less and less popular afterwards but then regaining popularity once again in the fifteenth century. Such a situation is not observable in the manuscript traditions of any other chronicle of the First Crusade. Other First Crusade texts are mostly preserved in early manuscripts.

Finally, most of these numerous manuscripts of the fifteenth century are likely to be of German origin. In fact, most fifteenth-century manuscripts containing Robert the Monk's chronicle are currently preserved in German-speaking lands (twenty-one manuscripts), and eight of them are indicated by Kempf and Bull as originating from there. Only seven manuscripts are preserved in other places (Douai, Milan, Oxford, Reims, the Vatican and two in Paris). Furthermore, even though Kempf and Bull believe that the manuscript from Douai (Bibliothèque municipale, ms 881) originated in Northern France,⁴⁷ and the manuscript at Oxford, Bodleian Library (ms Canon. Class. Lat. 271) is of Italian origin,⁴⁸ some of the seven manuscripts currently preserved outside German-speaking areas originate from German-speaking lands. The manuscript from the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense in Milan, ms AE. XII. 40, has a medieval inscription on its first folio, Liber monasterii beate Marii in Windesem ordinis canonicorum regularium prope Zwollis, which probably refers to the congregation of canons regular at Windesheim, which is near Zwolle in the Netherlands. So, to be exact, this belongs to a Middle-Dutch speaking area. We have other examples of such inscriptions on manuscript books that are known to be from Zwolle in the Netherlands.⁴⁹ That manuscript, which is now preserved in the Carnegie Library of Reims, call number 2572, is said in the catalogue to have been acquired from a private person in Munich in 1931.⁵⁰ Librarians from Reims probably wanted to possess at least one copy of a chronicle written by their prominent compatriot. Fo. 92rv has a barely readable marginal note that mentions Graz or Königgräz in Bohemia (in opido Gretzensi). A manuscript that is now preserved in the Vatican, ms Pal. Lat. 962, notes at the end of the text of Robert the Monk (64r) that this was copied by a certain Jo[hannes] Wiszenburg, probably a German.

It should be noted that this German-centred distribution of Robert the Monk manuscripts was not the case during the twelfth century, because only nine of the thirty-two twelfth-century manuscripts of Robert the Monk are actually preserved in German-speaking areas (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), and nine indicated (including six of those indicated as currently preserved in German-speaking areas and three manuscripts preserved in Copenhagen, Paris and the Vatican) as originating from there, whereas many other manuscripts appear to be of French origin.⁵¹ If we look at the available data on the provenance of all manuscripts before the fifteenth century, we see that they are preserved in various countries, and we usually cannot affirm that any given text was necessarily copied in the German empire. Hence, the particular interest in this text in late medieval Germany is notable, as the chronicle by Robert the Monk was translated into German at least five times by the end of the sixteenth century, and at least four of these translations come from the fifteenth century.⁵² One of them was published in Augsburg in 1482 and 1502. However, there were no translations into Romance languages at that time. The first one was Italian, published in 1552.⁵³ A certain spread of the text in Italy as well is attested by the fact that the chronicle by Robert the Monk is one of the sources of De bello a Christianis contra barbaros gesto pro Christi sepulchro et Iudea recuperandis libri IV, a history of the First Crusade compiled by the humanist Benedetto Accolti allegedly in 1464.⁵⁴

It is not certain whether in the fifteenth-century Holy Roman Empire, Robert the Monk's chronicle in particular, as opposed to any other from the First Crusade, was needed. Probably it was simply the only chronicle available for copying, thanks to a high number of manuscripts, even very early ones. Nine Robert the Monk manuscripts from the twelfth century originate from German-speaking areas.⁵⁵ As Kempf and Bull suggest, the earliest datable German manuscript, allegedly produced shortly before 1152, can be located at the abbey of Reichersberg in northern modern-day Austria.⁵⁶ Three thirteenth-century and one fourteenth-century manuscript originated from German-speaking areas as well.

In other words, the spread of Robert the Monk's chronicle was possible in fifteenth-century Germany, but that of other chronicles of the First Crusades was not, because they were not very widespread in German-speaking lands. Only three manuscripts of Baldric of Bourgueil are preserved in German-speaking lands (in Zwettl and two in Bern).⁵⁷ The manuscript of the thirteenth century from Zwettl was possibly preserved there in the fifteenth century, as attested by a note on it. At the same time, one of the manuscripts currently preserved in Bern is, in fact, only a four-page fragment, and the other is supposed to have originated from Normandy. None of the manuscripts preserved in other cities is said to have come from Germany. We know that the manuscripts of Fulcher of Chartres's chronicle are mostly preserved in France and that some of them actually originated from France. None is believed to have originated from German-speaking countries, and only one, of the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, is preserved there, in Bern. The same manuscript (Burgerbibliothek, ms Lat. 261) is the only one of the chronicle of Raymond of Aguilers preserved in German-speaking lands. However, its earlier location was probably in France.⁵⁸ None of the copies of the chronicle of Raymond of Aguilers, which, by the way, can be found mostly in the same codices as those by Fulcher of Chartres, is said to originate from German-speaking lands. Six manuscripts of the complete text of Guibert of Nogent are of French origin, while the provenance of two others, one of which is currently preserved in Bern, is unknown.⁵⁹ None of the manuscripts and fragments of the Gesta Francorum indicated in the most recent edition or discovered later is preserved or attested to originate from German-speaking lands, apart from one thirteenth-century manuscript of the Gesta Francorum preserved in Berlin, which is known to be of English origin.⁶⁰ There are no manuscripts of Peter Tudebode preserved or allegedly produced in German-speaking lands. The provenance of the only manuscript of Ralph of Caen currently preserved in Brussels is unknown. It seems natural that all these chronicles were mostly copied outside Germany, given that their authors were not German. An exception is the chronicle of Albert of Aachen: manuscripts of the twelfth century are produced in Eberbach, Utrecht and Gladbach.⁶¹ At the same time, only three manuscripts of this chronicle from the fifteenth century were preserved, in the Vatican, Nuremberg and Trier (the last one is also known to have been preserved in Trier in the Middle Ages).⁶² Being much larger than the text of Robert the Monk, this chronicle was probably less convenient for extensive copying.

To sum up, it seems likely that there was a particular interest in the First Crusade in fifteenth-century Germany. It is hard to say whether this special interest was focused particularly on the text of Robert the Monk, or whether it was simply the only available text convenient for copying. The story of the unparalleled spread of the chronicle will probably become clearer when a critical edition is published that takes the whole manuscript tradition into account and establishes a stemma codicum. However, some preliminary explanations as to why this phenomenal spread of the text happened in the fifteenth-century Holy Roman Empire are possible. Was not this second life of the text at least partly caused by the fact that the Ottoman threat or anti-Hussite struggle resurrected the historical memory of crusading to the Holy Land precisely in an area mostly marked by fifteenth-century crusades? In attempting to confirm this theory, let us look at the context in which the chronicle of Robert the Monk is sometimes placed in manuscript books.

Manuscript evidence to explain the spread of the text in the fifteenth century

Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan, ms AE. XII. 40

Most of the fifteenth-century manuscripts do not yield anything remarkable to support our hypothesis. The contexts wherein the text of Robert is placed are, in most cases, neutral and do not suggest any particular use of the text in the fifteenth century.

However, one fifteenth-century paper manuscript from the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense in Milan, originating from Zwolle (Netherlands), is curious because the chronicle of Robert the Monk is immediately followed by several texts that concern the struggle against Ottomans and Hussites. A description can be found in the database Manus Online, <manus.iccu.sbn.it>.⁶³ The whole codex is written by the same hand. It starts with the chronicle by Robert the Monk (fos 1r–39r), followed by a letter of the crusaders from Laodicea after the fall of Jerusalem in 1099⁶⁴ (39r–40r) and another letter from Patriarch Symeon of Jerusalem and the other bishops with the crusade army, which is addressed to the people of the West (1098)⁶⁵ (incomplete) (40r). The latter can be found together with the chronicle by Robert the Monk in many manuscripts, though it is often incomplete.⁶⁶ These are followed (fos 40v–53r) by a writing from Eneas Silvias Piccolomini (the future Pope Pius ii) on the Hussite heresy, addressed to Cardinal Juan Carvajal (1451).⁶⁷ Letters from Cardinal Isidore of Kiev,⁶⁸ which occupy the subsequent folios, are known and published. This papal legate of Byzantine origin was a prominent supporter of and actor for the church union established in 1439 at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, and he was sent to Constantinople shortly before the siege of 1453 in order to enforce this union, which was always strongly opposed in Byzantium. During the siege, Isidore remained in the city, from whence he managed to escape, first to the Genoese colony of Pera just opposite Constantinople, and then to Crete, which was a Venetian possession at that time. The first letter (53r–54v), sent on the 8 July 1453 from Crete, is an exhortation to all the faithful to fight against the Turks.⁶⁹ The second letter (54v–55v), addressed to Pope Nicholas v and composed on the 15 July 1453, represents a summary of Isidore's experiences in Constantinople before and during the siege.⁷⁰ Finally, the third letter (fos 55v–56r), also dated 15 July 1453 and sent from Crete, was written by one of the companions of Isidore, and it tells how the cardinal escaped from Constantinople when it was taken by the Turks.⁷¹ A letter from 1470 of the papal chamberlain (cubicularius) Henricus da Alman (?) and Henricus Steynwyc, a doctor in canon law, to an unknown ruler, on how the Turks took Negroponte (Euboea) (fos 56r–57r), had already been published by Nicholas Jorga precisely from the manuscript in question.⁷² Fos 57r–62v are occupied by a well-known anti-Ottoman bull issued by Pius ii, Ezechielis prophete (1463), with an exhortation to proceed against the Turks.⁷³ This text can frequently be found in fifteenth-century manuscripts; it was even printed soon after it was issued, probably to answer papal instructions to copy and distribute it.⁷⁴ In fact, we can find some examples throughout the fifteenth century that bulls were ordered to be copied and distributed by legates and other ecclesiastics, and these copies were expected to be certified with their seals.⁷⁵

The Historia Troiana by Guido de Columna (fos 63r–154v), which follows the bull, is probably not placed here by accident, given that the Turks were sometimes presented as people of Trojan origin.⁷⁶ Various works then follow that clearly have nothing to do with crusades against any enemy: the Golden Bull of 1356 (fos 156r–169r), Chronica qualiter Romanum imperium translatum fuit in Germanos by Jordan of Osnabrück (fos 169r–176v), two writings of Bartolus de Saxoferrato (fos 176v–183v) (Tractatus de nobilitate et dignitate and Tractatus de insigniis et armis), a sermon addressed to the Council of Basel on the authority of the general council (fos 183v–187v), and a compilation from different chronicles about the popes from Urban vi to Eugene iv (fos 188r–198r).

Even though the codex is ultimately a mixture of everything, it is possible that the chronicle of Robert the Monk, the anti-Hussite writing and the bulk of the texts relating to the struggle against the Ottomans were deemed as an entity. The properly ‘crusade-related’ part of the manuscript ends with the papal bull Ezechielis prophete, which is said to have been recorded in 1479 (fo. 62v: ‘Scriptum iam per fratrem Henricum Stephani Dotinchem in profesto sancti Alexii anni lxxix’), and this is the only date in the ‘crusade-related’ part of the manuscript. The Trojan history by Guido de Columna, a thirteenth-century Italian author, is said to have been copied in 1481 (fo. 154v: ‘Scriptum per fratrem Henricum Stephani Doetinchem conventualem in Wyndesem [Windesheim] anno 81 finitumque ibidem in profesto sancti Michaelis archangeli’). We may theorise that the text of the Trojan history was deemed independent of the ‘crusade-related' section, since it was copied a little bit later, but throughout the whole interval from fos 1–155, new texts never start with new quires. At the same time, fo. 155 is void, and terminates a quire, and the Golden Bull starts with a new quire. In other words, it is likely that the texts in fos 1–155 were deemed a thematic entity, given that the Trojan theme was not really alien to the Ottoman question. Then probably it was decided to unite this part with other texts which follow: a catchword at the bottom of fo. 155v is written by the same hand as all the texts and other catchwords of this manuscript. The production of the manuscript with a lot of texts related to the Ottoman question can be deemed natural in the light of important events and substantial crusading activity in the years immediately preceding it: the fall of Caffa (1475), Ottoman military activity in Balkans, Pope Sixtus iv's crusading calls and crusading activity and finally Otranto seized by the Ottomans (1480).⁷⁷ Probably the chronicle by Robert the Monk was illustrating a good old example for the deeds of fifteenth-century people against the Ottoman advance, while an anti-Hussite text was included in this manuscript book section, because this was also a recent crusade direction.

Bibliothek der Erzabtei St Peter, Salzburg, b. IX. 28.

This codex is the most important evidence that the text by Robert the Monk was of interest in the fifteenth century because of a mentally established connection between crusading of the fifteenth century and crusading to the Holy Land. This volume of 130 paper folios is remarkable, because it contains the text of the chronicle by Robert the Monk and, immediately following it, various documents related to the military struggle against the Ottomans and Hussites in the fifteenth century. Its content was generally described with some important lacunae in the old handwritten catalogue of the library of St Peter's Abbey,⁷⁸ then copied without any substantial revision in a brief note by Walter Lipphardt,⁷⁹ and finally considerably reworked and amended by Gerold Hayer.⁸⁰

There is only one watermark in this codex, which can be found on many folios.⁸¹ Jungwirth, the author of the handwritten catalogue, identified it as Briquet 2401 (dated to 1437–57 and encountered in German lands from the 1440s), which is similar but not identical. I would rather suggest AT 5000-328_88 from the WZMA (Wasserzeichen des Mittelalters) database, which is dated back to the early 1450s. In any case, all are from the middle of the fifteenth century.

The first text on fos 1r–25v was identified by Hayer as Summarium biblicum, and the second one, on fos 26r–74v, though titled in the manuscript itself as Biblia pauperum, as Excerpta Bibliae (Genesis bis Apostelgeschichte). The first text, generally attributed to Alexander de Villa Dei, is a brief summary designed to help one remember the contents of the Bible, a device that was very popular in the fifteenth century.⁸² Hayer probably avoids using the manuscript title for the second text, because it is not a ‘picture Bible’, which Biblia pauperum means to contemporary scholars,⁸³ but rather an extremely condensed summary of the Bible with no images at all. These two texts are not put together by accident: it is often the case that a Summarium is placed at the beginning or end of biblical codices.⁸⁴ Fo. 75r is void, and fos 75v–83r contain sermons attributed in our manuscript book to St Bernard.⁸⁵ Fo. 83v is again void, and fos 84r–124v contain the chronicle by Robert the Monk. It is titled Hystoria quomodo christiani expungnaverunt turcos sive gentiles usque Iherusalem et virtute Dei obtinuerunt sepulchrum Domini, which was, according to a colophon at the end of the text, written in 1440 in Steyr in modern-day Austria (Sit laus Deo nostro in die sancti Alexii xl Styra) (see Figure 1). The end of the text bears an incomplete letter of Patriarch Symeon of Jerusalem to the people of the West (123v),⁸⁶ which is also found in the manuscript preserved in Milan, and an apparent letter from Emperor Alexius Comnenus to Count Robert of Flanders (123v–124v).⁸⁷ Both documents are joined to the text of the chronicle in many manuscripts.⁸⁸ Finally, a block of documents related to struggles against the Turks and the Hussites between 1430 and the 1460s occupies fos 125r–130r, and 130v is void.

Figure 1. Colophon at the end of the text of the chronicle of Robert the Monk: Bibliothek der Erzabtei St Peter, Salzburg, b. IX. 28, fo. 124v. Reproduced, and photograph, by kind permission of the library.

Codicological and paleographic features of the manuscript book demonstrate that the text of Robert the Monk and the block of documents relating to the anti-Ottoman and anti-Hussite struggle were together already in the fifteenth century. Of course, it is true that the binding is a later one: this is a half-leather and wood board binding made of pork skin for Benedikt Schön, a priest from Berndorf near Salzburg.⁸⁹ On the leather part of the binding are the initials ‘B. S.’, known among the librarians of St Peter Abbey as the mark of Benedikt Schön, as well as the year of fabrication, 1591. In fact, other similar book bindings at St Peter's all date back to the second half of the sixteenth century.⁹⁰ However, other codicological and paleographic elements suggest that Robert the Monk's chronicle had existed together with Ottoman/Hussite-related documents even before that, and that the documents in question were likely recorded no later than around 1470. This conclusion can be drawn from an analysis of the quire structure and the hands.

The manuscript consists of the following quires: (VI+1)¹³ + 5*VI⁷³ + (VI-2)⁸³ + 3*VI¹¹⁹ + (VI-1)¹³⁰; or, otherwise, 1¹²⁺¹, 2–6¹², 7^12-2, 8–10¹², 11^12-1 = 130. There are eleven quires in total, and between almost all of them are catchwords (at the bottom of fos 13v, 37v, 49v, 61v, 73v, 95v, 107v, 119v). Only fos 25v, 83v – that is, the end of the second and seventh quires, respectively – have no catchword, which theoretically could indicate that originally there were three separate parts, though likely to be produced in the same area given that the watermark is always the same: Summarium biblicum, Excerpta biblica and sermons, and the chronicle together with the Ottoman/Hussite-related documents. But the third part is an entity, not only thematically, but also physically, because Robert and the Ottoman/Hussite-related documents share the same quire: the final, eleventh one starts with folio 120, and the chronicle by Robert the Monk ends on fo. 124v.

The next question is when the documents relating the struggle against the Ottomans and Hussites were entered in the last of four quires with the Robert the Monk chronicle, which was written down in 1440. We can obtain some evidence for this by using hand analysis. In total nine different hands were identified in this manuscript (see Table 1).

Table 1. Hand analysis of Robert the Monk's Historia Iherosolimitana.

In most cases, the situation seems ordinary: hand changes usually coincide with the switch from one text to another. Everything against the Ottomans and Hussites is written by the same hand, but the hand is not the same as for the text by Robert the Monk. Nevertheless, let us pay attention to hand nine, with which different notes are made in both the text of Robert the Monk and the anti-Ottoman/Hussite documents. In the text of the chronicle, notes in this hand usually sum up or quote information allegedly relevant for the reader. Several examples: ‘perse medi arabes turci azimite sarraceni angulani tres milia’ (104r), ‘crus asini pro lx solidos’ (106v), ‘Albaria capta xii die decembris’ (115r). The same hand wrote a very voluminous note on fo. 126r, where there is a list of names of people that were sent by a certain Abbot George to make war with the Turks at Belgrade in 1456 (see Figure 2).⁹¹ In fact, in July 1456, the Christian army marched against the Ottomans while the latter were laying siege to Belgrade and repulsed a huge Turkish army.⁹² Who might this Abbot George have been? Hayer notes in his catalogue that the hand of the notes (here nine) is that of Georg Liebenknecht,⁹³ who was the abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Michaelbeuern near Salzburg between 1440 and 1472.⁹⁴ At the same time, he states that this abbot also wrote the text of Robert the Monk, which seems to me quite doubtful: the hand is very different. A recent publication which includes a photograph of an autograph of Georg Liebenknecht that dates to 1448 (see Figure 3)⁹⁵ leaves no doubt: hand nine in our manuscript is actually that of Georg Liebenknecht. This data also confirms that the text of Robert the Monk in our manuscript does not belong to hand nine, contrary to what Hayer claims: of course, Robert the Monk was copied in 1440 and the handwriting of the person could have changed after that. However, we have a document from 1448 clearly written with a hand identical to hand nine in our manuscript, and such a rapid change in one's manner of writing seems unrealistic.

Figure 2. The beginning of the list of names of the people whom Abbot Georg Liebenknecht of Michaelbeuern sent to make war with the Turks at Belgrade in 1456: Bibliothek der Erzabtei St Peter, Salzburg, b. IX. 28, fo. 126r. Reproduced, and photograph, by kind permission of the library.

Figure 3. An autobiographical report of the pilgrimage of Abbot Georg Liebenknecht to Rome in 1448: Stiftsarchiv Michaelbeuern, Salzburg, Fach 41/II, Stift- und Dienstbuch A, fo. 166. Reproduced by kind permission of the archive. Photograph © Gerald Hirtner.

Let us now consider exactly which documents we have in fos 125r–130r. The first text on fo. 125rv is a ritual for taking the cross. It is absolutely certain that this ritual concerns precisely the crusades against the Turks in the 1450s: it is said that the cross is given to those who are willing to fight against the Turks at any time and any place (‘contra Turcos pugnare semper et ubique’). It also specifies that absolution is given in exchange for taking the cross by the authority of Pope Calixtus iii,⁹⁶ and that one year of service is necessary.⁹⁷

The second and third texts are two letters. The first (fos 125v–126r) is a letter from Archbishop Sigismund of Salzburg to Abbot Georg Liebenknecht dated 18 February 1456. This letter refers to another addressed by Calixtus iii to Juan Carvajal, cardinal deacon of St Angelo in foro piscium, who at that time was sent as a papal legate to Germany and Hungary to promote the crusade, specifically concerning the tithe to be collected from ecclesiastical revenues for the crusade. Benjamin Weber notes that the pope had introduced such a tithe many times in specific countries or in all countries at once as, for example, in his letter on 15 May 1455.⁹⁸ The catalogue description by Hayer refers to the archive of the archbishopric of Salzburg, Acta Syn. 10/107, currently AT-AES 1.2.14 Synoden 15. Jh. In fact, among these documents is a quire concerning that tithe with copies of similar letters sent by the archbishop of Salzburg to the bishops of Freising, Regensburg and Passau (1rv); to Nicholas of Cusa, bishop of Brixen (1450–64) (2rv); to provosts and archdeacons (3rv); and to priors of the Dominican, Franciscan, Carmelite and Augustinian convents and guardians of the Franciscan convents of the Salzburg diocese (4r). It should be noted that there is also a similar text by the same archbishop, Sigismund of Salzburg, dated back to 18 February 1456 and addressed to Abbot Johann ii Esslinger, abbot of St Paul in Lavanttal (1455–83).⁹⁹ Another letter (fo. 126r) is a confirmation for Abbot Ulrich of Michaelbeuern (Ulrich ii von Haunsberg, abbot from 1418 to 1440) concerning a payment of the tithe of a twentieth (semidecima), introduced by the Council of Basel for the struggle against the Hussite heretics (1434).¹⁰⁰

The fourth document (126v) is a formula of absolution for those going against the heretics of Bohemia (‘Forma absolutionis pro euntibus contra hussitas seu hereticos bohemales’), which is given by Pope Paul ii (‘auctoritate sancte matris ecclesie et sanctissimi domini nostri domini Pauli pape secundi’). Thus, it is not connected with the well-known anti-Hussite crusades of the first half of the fifteenth century. In fact, there was a quarrel between Pope Paul ii and King George of Bohemia, against whom the crusade was preached in 1467–8.¹⁰¹ It should be noted that such an absolution could theoretically serve for both the Ottoman and Hussite crusades: the absolution formula does not mention Hussites, so it can be universally applied to any holy war. One example demonstrates that such absolutions were deemed to be universally applicable to any crusade: an absolution formula for crusaders going against the Hussites is given in the codex 1799 from Melk Stiftsbibliothek (161r–162r) in the middle of documents that relate to the struggle against the Ottoman Turks. The text itself does not focus on the Hussites, and the absolution formula can be universally applied in the struggle against any enemy.¹⁰² Amnon Linder mentions some war masses which could be directed alternately with some changes against the Hussites and the Ottomans depending on a specific manuscript.¹⁰³

The fifth document (127rv) is a report on the battle of Belgrade in 1456. Another copy of the same text was published by Nicolae Jorga:¹⁰⁴ in that copy, however, there is a preamble saying that this was a letter sent from Ladislaus v, king of Hungary, to the German emperor Frederick iii on 2 August 1456.

The sixth document (128rv) is a variety of reflections on comets and their significations, which may seem unrelated to this anti-Ottoman/Hussite selection, but it may well be considered as relevant. In fact, a comet was observed in Austria in June 1456, just before the battle at Belgrade, which took place in July.¹⁰⁵

The seventh document (128v–129r) is a German version of the antiphon Media vita in morte sumus (see Figure 4),¹⁰⁶ called ‘En mitten in des lebens zeit’, with notation. School regulations from Crailsheim of 1480 mention that this German translation was actually sung during processions in the diocese of Salzburg.¹⁰⁷ The text stands thus in our manuscript:¹⁰⁸

En mitten in des lebens czeit

sein wir mit tod umfangen

Wen such mir [wir]¹⁰⁹ der uns hilffe geit

von dem mir [wir] huld erlangen

wen dich herr anlainne

Der du durich unser missetat

rechtleichen czurnen tuest

Heyliger herre got

Heyliger starkcher got

Heyliger parmhertziger hayler ebiger got

Lazz uns nicht gebalten des pittern todes pott

(In the middle of lifetime

We are surrounded by death

Whom do we search who will provide us help

and from whom we obtain favour

Apart from you, Lord, alone

Who, because of our misdeeds,

Burst his rightful anger

Holy Lord God

Holy Mighty God

Holy Merciful Savior Eternal God

May you not offer us to powers of the worst death)

Why comets and why the song, which seem to have nothing to do with the anti-Ottoman crusades to which the surrounding documents pertain? A closer look reveals that both may be thematically bound to the Ottoman question. First, the song may relate to the Turks, and, as evidence from another Salzburg manuscript confirms, to plague epidemics too. The song is a prayer which aims at avoiding death, which, naturally, may be caused by foreign invasions, including those from the Turks. At the same time, it is relevant that this verse in German appeared in the fifteenth century, a period marked by multiple and large-scale epidemics.¹¹⁰ Precisely from 1449 to 1451 a large-scale epidemic swept across Germany and other European countries.¹¹¹ A vast epidemic raged in many countries in the early 1450s, touching Salzburg in 1454.¹¹² At St Peter's Abbey there is another fifteenth-century manuscript, A II 9, fo. 23r–v, where the same song, with notation and with only minor textual differences, is recorded. Before it, there is a notation and the text of Salve Regina in German (21v–22v); immediately after the German Media vita, fo. 24r is void, but after it, on 24v, follows a brief instruction concerning which Psalms are to be sung and prayers pronounced as a thanksgiving for the end of a plague epidemic (‘pro gratiarum accione post pestilenciam debent dici psalmi sequentes’). There is no quire or hand change between the song Media vita and the instruction. Thus, it is probably not accidental that these two texts are recorded together.

Figure 4. Media vita song in German: Bibliothek der Erzabtei St Peter, Salzburg, b. IX. 28, fos 128v–129r. Reproduced, and photograph, by kind permission of the library.

Secondly, the text on comets notes that these heavenly bodies can be precursors of various things, including diseases and wars. It says that a comet can be a sign of forthcoming diseases (‘significat epidimias quia febres colericas pestiferas’, and in some passages further, ‘cometa significat mortalitates et epidimias’). At the same time, they can also signify forthcoming wars and homicides (‘cometa est significativa gwerrarum et homicidiorum et huiusmodi’). This traditional interpretation of comets as signs of war, political change, tempests and pestilence was shared by many medieval authors.¹¹³ As an aside, statistics demonstrate that among natural phenomena, comets were the most frequently interpreted as bearers of a specific signification.¹¹⁴ According to the Saltzburgische Chronica of Franz Dückher (1666), there was a comet in 1455, and it was seen as a precursor of sorrow and bloodshed.¹¹⁵

Thirdly, in the context of the Ottoman invasion, the enemy could be identified with the plague. Already around 1433, a Renaissance humanist Andrea Biglia, an Augustinian friar who taught Aeneas Sylvius (the future Pope Pius ii), called Islamic invasions ‘plague’ (‘pernicies’).¹¹⁶ The pontiff himself called past Muslim conquests ‘plague’ (‘pestis’) as well.¹¹⁷ Benjamin Weber states that starting with Pope Calixtus iii, the Ottomans were presented in papal letters as a disease, like the plague (‘pestis’) for example.¹¹⁸

In other words, the song may allude to plague and wars; comets were seen as precursors of both plague and wars; and the Turks were sometimes identified with the plague. Thus, rather than affirming that these two texts are alien to the Ottoman/Hussite-related block in our manuscript, it is more probable that they form a vital part of it.

The eighth and ninth documents (129rv) are two letters. The first, a letter from Archbishop Sigismund of Salzburg to an unknown recipient, is a reaction to a papal bull prescribing processions, fasts and prayers (‘pro salute et victoria Christifidelium obtinenda contra Turchos processiones, ieiunia et orationes’) in order to prepare the crusade. Hayer is absolutely right to indicate that a copy of this letter is preserved in the archive of the archbishopric of Salzburg, Acta Syn. 10/107, currently AT-AES 1.2.14 Synoden 15. Jh. Differences are minor, so we can be sure that this is another copy of the same letter. The only thing is that the date is different: in our codex it is 4 October 1456, and in the copy from the archive it is 5 October. Since quarta and quinta are very similar when abbreviated, this could be a matter of a simple scribal mistake or it is also possible that on another day the letter could have been sent to another recipient. The second letter is from Burkhard von Weisspriach, provost and archdeacon of Salzburg Cathedral (6 October 1456), in which he insists that the prescriptions of the archbishop and the pope must be observed. Given the dates, these prescriptions must be those mentioned in the letter from the archbishop issued two days earlier.

The tenth and final document (129v–130r) contains extracts from a papal bull that shed light on what text the two previous documents are referring to.¹¹⁹ Hayer is right to identify them with the well-known bull Cum his superioribus annis, issued by Calixtus iii in June 1456,¹²⁰ less than a month before the crusaders and Turks met at Belgrade. This was a widely copied text, which was even printed soon after this bull was issued, both in the original version and in German translation.¹²¹ Here we see a summary only of the ‘practical’ part of the bull, wherein the pontiff prescribes regular processions and prayers for the cause of the anti-Ottoman crusade. There is no large ‘emotional’ introduction describing how disastrous the Ottoman threat is and how necessary and urgent are prayers to God. Someone from the local clergy probably made a kind of summary and noted only direct instruction as to what to do. There is a difference in the date: in the edition I am referring to, the bull is dated the ‘third calends of July’ – that is, 29 June – whereas in the summary present in our manuscript, the date is 12th calends – that is, 20 June. Probably this is again a question of scribal confusion between ‘xii’ and ‘iii’.

Very probably, this is the bull referred to in document number eight. In his letter Archbishop Sigismund says that weekly processions taking place each Wednesday for the cause of the crusade were prescribed before,¹²² but now it is to be changed, because the pope expressed himself another way. Furthermore, together with a copy of the same letter, the same folder in the archive contains two undated documents (1r, 2r), where Sigismund prescribes processions every Wednesday, as ordered by the papal cardinal of St Angelo and legatus a latere, Juan Carvajal. It is not specified what is to be changed, but the letter of Sigismund in our codex refers to a summary of the bull (‘ex copia effectus seu summarii eiusdem apostolice bulle’). The archbishop probably means the summary of Cum his superioribus annis placed here, a bull which was issued around three months before the letter of Sigismund, which would be logical: the pope prescribes processions only once a month.¹²³ Most likely for this reason, the archbishop says – on the issue of processions – that the initial decision should be moderated (‘priorem etiam nostram in eadem materia dispositionem factam duximus moderandam’).

All in all, between fos 125 and 130, we have an apparent thematic entity of texts related to the struggle against the Ottomans and the Hussites, mostly the Ottomans. Most documents are from 1456, but the presence of the absolution formula of Pope Paul ii suggests that these copies are post-1467, given that Abbot Georg made notes in the text of Robert the Monk and in the anti-Turkish documents, and that he died in 1472. We do not know whether the whole manuscript book existed as an entity before the current binding of 1591, but we can suggest that documents relating to the anti-Turkish/Hussite wars were added to the text of Robert the Monk between 1467 and 1472. Since Abbot Georg ruled the Abbey of Michaelbeuern and that there are also two letters concerning Michaelbeuern, the texts concerning the anti-Turkish/Hussite struggle are likely to have been added in Michaelbeuern, not in Steyr, where the text of Robert the Monk was said to be written. The alleged years of copying the documents relating to the anti-Turkish/Hussite wars were marked by important events: among other things, the crusade against King George of Bohemia, the fall of Negroponte in 1470 and crusading calls of Pope Sixtus iv which followed it.¹²⁴ The question of the anti-Ottoman crusade was also raised at the Regensburg Christentag of 1471, a great diet not just of the members of the Empire, but of the whole of Christendom, attended personally by Emperor Frederick iii.¹²⁵

In summary, certain evidence suggests that the wide distribution of the chronicle of Robert the Monk in the fifteenth century was not accidental. At least two manuscripts lead to the conclusion that this text was in demand, especially in German-speaking lands, because of its connection with the anti-Ottoman/Hussite holy wars of the fifteenth century, in which German-speaking lands were extremely involved. Since the major part of texts related to the Ottomans/Hussites in both of the manuscripts from Salzburg and Milan is clearly related to the anti-Ottoman struggle, not anti-Hussite, it seems likely that it was precisely the Ottoman question that spurred the ‘resurrection’ of Robert the Monk's opus: such a conclusion is logical, given that in both cases the enemies are Muslims. However, some of the texts relate to the crusades against the Hussites as well. This suggests that, in the view of those who ordered them to be copied, all these holy wars – to the Holy Land, against the Ottomans and against the Hussites – were united by a common crusading background, without any subdivision. Of course, the original impetus may have included the need for any First Crusade chronicle, but it was Robert the Monk's text that was extensively copied precisely because it was the most highly available for copying in German-speaking lands.

The manuscripts discussed here were copied in the local ecclesiastical milieu, but conclusions on the perception of the crusades can be at least partly valid for the common people as well: preaching by the local clergy certainly influenced the common people much more than papal letters, which almost never reached the audience of would-be crusaders directly. We can even assume that a chronicle like that of Robert the Monk would have been directly used in preaching: in fact, Humbert of Romans's De predicatione crucis, referred to at the beginning of this article, contains some extracts from various crusade chronicles to be included in sermons. Furthermore, Humbert even mentions that various stories about the glorious deeds of crusaders were used in preaching to motivate the would-be crusaders (‘gesta militum Christi … a predicatoribus recitantur ad animandum fideles’).¹²⁶

It should once again be noted that the case study of the history of Robert the Monk's text should be seen in the broader framework of the transmission of various texts related to crusading to the Holy Land in the fifteenth-century context. The case of the treatise by Humbert of Romans demonstrates that many ideas in crusade preaching from the thirteenth century were still in use in the fifteenth and, furthermore, in both the Ottoman and Hussite contexts. As an aside, it is curious that one of the copies of De predicatione crucis is preceded by a 1472 printed copy of the chronicle of Robert the Monk within codex A IX 15 from the University of Basle.¹²⁷ There is much continuity in crusade liturgy between crusading to the Holy Land after 1187 and the later crusades, including those against the Ottomans and the Hussites in the fifteenth century.¹²⁸ In conclusion, much remains to be explored concerning the later use of texts related to the earlier crusades.