The Republic of Venice

The Republic of Venice lasted from its establishment in 697 until 12 May 1797 when Napoleon conquered Venice and the last doge stepped down. In its 1100 years, it dominated the Adriatic Sea, provided countless ships for the Crusades, and was one of the most powerful trading entities and maritime powers in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Marco Polo's uncles were Venetian traders; accompanying them is why we know who he was.

Venice started simply because the Venetian Lagoon was the easiest way to flee from Germanic tribes invading after the decline of the Roman Empire. Those in the lagoon formed a community that grew, formed laws, and became the city of Venice.

The historian John Deacon in the 11th century stated that a certain Paolo Lucio Anafesto was proclaimed dux or duke in 697, making him the first Doge of Venice. This is disputed, since Constantinople (with Rome's fall, the Byzantine Empire had more authority over the former Roman Empire) confirmed Orso Ipato with the title dux in the early 8th century. He is seen as the first official Doge. Although Orso's son Deusdedit ruled after him, any attempt to create a dynastic rulership ultimately failed. The Doges were elected for life by the Great Council of Venice, a parliament of aristocrats and merchants.

Venice was recognized as its own entity, separate from the Byzantine Empire, in 840 when it signed a commercial agreement with Lothair I of the Carolingian Empire. This Pactum Lotharii asked that Venice help control the Slavic tribes to the east; in return, Venice was safe from invasion from the Frankish Empire. The Pact also forbade the sale of Christians to Muslims. Venice had established a thriving slave trade, capturing people in Italy and selling them to Moors in North Africa. After the Pact, Venice captured Slavs and other Eastern European non-Christians. Records show a female slave was worth 1.5 grams of gold, or about 1/3 of a dinar. Castration houses were a business in Venice, preparing slaves because of the high demand for eunuchs.

Another big business was ship-building, and Venice perfected this process in a big way. Ships were important for moving everything, including thousands of willing passengers from Europe to the east during the Crusades. Venice was involved in just about every Crusade, providing (renting) ships to the ventures. The Fourth Crusade was particularly crucial in this regard, with the Doge Enrico Dandolo taking over the Crusade and using it for his own ends.

I suppose this is a good time to segue to a larger discussion of the medieval slave trade. Venice was not alone in this lucrative market, as you will see.

The Adriatic

From Venice in the north to the heel of Italy's boot, the Adriatic offers access to the Mediterranean for many Italian cities, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Slovenia. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, however, much of its eastern coastline was controlled by the Republic of Venice, blocking much of the Ottoman Empire from access.

The Romans established a naval base in (what is now) Brindisi  (at the heel) in 246 BCE, partially to block Carthaginian ships from entering the Adriatic, and partially to deal with the Illyrians. Illyrians inhabited the eastern side of the Sea and acted as pirates to traders. Rome and Illyria fought on and off from 229-168 BCE.

After the decline of Rome, the coasts were ruled by the Byzantine Empire under Justinian, the Lombards, and the Ostrogoths. A few centuries later, with the rise of the Carolingians, the Frankish Kingdom of Italy controlled the western coasts and the Byzantines kept control of the eastern. It was around this time (700) that the Republic of Venice was founded. They thrived early on because of the salt trade, eventually developing a thalassocracy, a maritime empire known more for its presence on the sea than for possession of land.

In 999 CE, the Normans conquered southern Italy, eventually establishing the Kingdom of Sicily. Against this growing power, Alexios I of Constantinople issued a Golden Bull to Venice, offering them tax-free trading with the Byzantine Empire if their navy would control the spread of Normans.

The Adriatic was controlled by the Republic of Venice for centuries after that, and we will look at the Republic a little closer tomorrow.

Golden Bulls

When Byzantine Emperor Alexios I sent his general Boutoumites to secretly negotiate with the city of Nicaea in order to have them surrender to him instead of being captured and plundered by the First Crusade, he gave Boutoumites an edge: the chrysobull.

I mentioned these briefly in 2012 when discussing papal bulls. Starting from the 6th century, popes used bulls to authenticate their decrees. Initially lumps of clay, they evolved to lead. Byzantine emperors took this a step further, making their seal out of gold, hence a chrysobull (from Greek chrysos, "gold"). The chrysobull carried by Boutoumites was an assurance that he represented the word of the emperor. (It worked, as you can read here.)

The Holy Roman Emperors liked the look of gold and the status it conferred on their decrees, as did the popes, so both they and other rulers sent out golden bulls for many occasions.

A Golden Bull of 1213 from the papacy to King John of England confirmed their alliance. A year later, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II issued a Golden Bull ceding all territory north of the River Elbe to Denmark. One of the most famous was the Golden Bull of 1356, issued by Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (he is mentioned here), declaring the constitutional structure of the Holy Roman Empire—an arrangement that would last the next 400 years.

Emperor Alexios had issued another Golden Bull in 1082, giving Venetian merchants tax-exempt trading rights, so long as their fleets defended the Adriatic Sea against the Normans. The Adriatic is on the east coast of Italy and was an access point for invaders from the east. Venice was at the extreme northern end, in an ideal location to police the whole area. Let's look at the Adriatic and its medieval history next time.

The Siege of Nicaea

When the First Crusade was on their way to free the Holy land from the "infidel," they passed through Constantinople and asked for help from Emperor Alexios I. They left Constantinople in stages, starting in April 1097. Their first target was the city of Nicaea (now İznik), held by Seljuk Turks on the shore of Lake Ascania in Turkey.

Godfrey of Bouillon arrived first on 6 May, followed by other parts of the army including Raymond IV of Toulouse, Tancred, and Peter the Hermit with the remains of the People's Crusade.

The ruler of Nicaea, Sultan Kilij Arslan, was away, but rushed back when he got word the siege, but he was unsuccessful in breaking through the Crusaders. Nicaea had to make a decision.

Alexios had not joined the Crusading army for the siege, but stationed his forces at a nearby town. He had boats transported over land to the Crusaders to aid in a blockade on Lake Ascania, to prevent the Turks from getting food. The boats were sent with general Manuel Boutoumites. Following them was general Tatikios with 2000 foot soldiers. This was not simple support of the siege, however. Alexios instructed Tatikios to join the assault on the walls while Boutoumites from the lake side of the city secretly negotiated with Nicaea to surrender, making it appear that the Byzantines had captured Nicaea themselves and could dictate what happened in the aftermath. Here's how they pulled it off.

Boutoumites sent messages to the city rulers, offering them amnesty for surrender but promising destruction if they did not. Boutoumites was even allowed into the city (all out of sight from the land-side Crusaders). When Nicaea learned that Kilij Arslan was on his way, they forced Boutoumites out, but with the failure of Arslan's attack, they re-considered the Greek's offer. On the morning of 19 June, when the Crusading army prepared a large assault, the Byzantines on the lake-side were allowed into Nicaea; they raised their standard above the city walls, showing that they—not the Western Europeans—had control of the city.

Nicaea surrendered peacefully to Boutoumites, who as its new leader protected the city by forbidding plundering. Groups of Crusaders were allowed in of no more than 10 at a time. Arslan's family were sent to Constantinople, but were released with ransom once the Crusaders had moved on from Nicaea. Alexios did supply the Crusade with money and horses, but the wealth they might have had by ransacking Nicaea was denied them.

Part of Boutoumites' negotiation included showing Nicaea the chrysobull, which I suppose needs some explanation. I'll be happy to do that...tomorrow.

The End of Axouch

The rise of John Axouch from captive Turk to Byzantine megas domestikos and sebastor can be found here. Although he was treated well by one emperor (Alexios I), favored highly by the next (John II), and maintained in his high status by the third (Manuel), he was not immune to the whims of rulers, as you shall see.

It involves a dinner party consisting of the emperor's (Manuel's) family. The presence of Axouch at the dinner shows how integrated he was with the Comnenos clan. A debate arose concerning the martial prowess of Manuel versus his father, John II. Axouch was John's closest companion his whole life, so it is not surprising that Axouch praised the abilities of his friend above those of his friend's son.

Manuel's older brother, Isaac (whom we are told was preferred by Axouch as the next emperor, but John wanted Manuel instead), agreed with Axouch. A cousin, Andronikos, argued for Manuel's superiority. Tempers flared and Isaac attacked Andronikos with a sword, but the blow did not strike because Manuel had his own sword ready and saved Andronikos. (Andronikos would later usurp the throne from Manuel's son, Alexios II.)

Manuel, unhappy with the unfavorable comparison with his father, took the imperial seal from Axouch, who could no longer approve documents. This anecdote tells us that Axouch, besides being commander of the army, also was in charge of civil administration.

Despite this incident, he was still in charge of the military, and still respected enough for it that his ties to the Comnenos family continued. Axouch had a son whom he named for the man who first brought him to Constantinople, Alexios. Alexios married Maria, the daughter of John II's eldest son Alexios who had died before John. Alexios Axouch became second-in-command of the Byzantine army (until he was forced into a monastery in 1167, having been accused of treason). Axouch also had a daughter, Eudokia, who married Stephen Comnenos, a great-nephew of Alexios I.

...which brings us back to Alexios I Comnenos, who was given Axouch as a captive after the Siege of Nicaea during the First Crusade. There is much more to that story and Alexios' involvement in the Nicaea event, which I'll tell you about tomorrow.

John Axouch, from War Prize to Commander

In June of 1097, the First Crusade captured Nicaea, at that time under the control of the Seljuk Turks. An attempt at defense by Kilij Arslan failed, after which Nicaea surrendered rather than allow the Crusaders to break the walls. (There is much more to that surrender that needs addressing soon.)

As in many such cases, captives from noble families were taken in order to guarantee good behavior on the part of the conquered. One of these was John Axouch, given to Emperor Alexios I as a present. Alexios took him to Constantinople where Axouch became a companion to Alexios' son John Comnenos (shown above; there are no available representations of John Axouch).

The two were constant companions and close friends. When Alexios died and his son became Emperor John II Comnenos, he appointed his close friend megas domestikos, essentially commander-in-chief of the army. Axouch was also given the court title of sebastos, equivalent to the Roman augustus, meaning "venerable one." Members of the imperial family were required to treat him with the greatest respect.

This generated hostility among the royal family, which Axouch wisely tried to ameliorate. When a plot against John by his sister Anna was foiled, John wanted to give Axouch all her properties, but Axouch refused, knowing how much the action would increase the enmity felt towards him by the royals. He also (we are told) persuaded John to reconcile with his sister and let her keep her property.

John liked to be personally involved in military campaigns, and the two worked well together. For example, Axouch would be sent ahead to begin a siege, and John would follow up with more of the army to swiftly conclude the taking of a city.

John died after being wounded while hunting on a campaign in Cilicia. Axouch quickly traveled back to Constantinople in order to reach it before news of the death did. The urgency was to ensure that John's younger son Manuel succeeded him, rather than the older Isaac. This may have had something to do with Isaac's reputation for being irascible, or perhaps in order to fulfill a prophecy. Some historians of the time claim that Axouch was close to Isaac, and tried to persuade John that the elder son was a better candidate. They also say Manuel was suspicious of the friendship between Axouch and Isaac.

Whatever the case, the truth is that Manuel became emperor and confirmed Axouch in his position as megas domestikos. There were troubles ahead, however, which I will tell you about tomorrow.

The AIMA Prophecy

When Emperor John II Comnenos chose his younger son Manuel over the older Isaac as his heir, some eyebrows were raised. One explanation offered by later historians is that he was following the AIMA Prophecy. Also called the "Blood Prophecy," it refers to the idea that the names of successive emperors in the Comnenian dynasty would spell AIMA, aima, Greek for "blood." The letter sequence was alpha, iota, mu, alpha.

The acronym begins with Alexios II, followed by his son Ioannes (John II), then Manuel. Manuel's eldest child was a daughter, Maria, whom he betrothed to Béla, son of the king of Hungary and Croatia (and later king himself). Manuel bestowed on Béla the name "Alexios" in case he was the only heir available should something happen to Manuel. When Manuel's second wife bore him a son, the son was named Alexios (of course). Typical naming convention was to give a son the name of his paternal grandfather, but Manuel must have been trying to adhere to the prophecy.

That son became Emperor Alexios II Comnenos, but after three years he was deposed (and killed) by his cousin, Andronikos I Comnenos. At this point, the AIMA sequence could begin again. Andronikos already had children prior to his plans to become emperor, and his eldest was named Manuel. He reigned only a couple years, and felt obliged to name his second son, Ioannes, as his heir so that the "A-I" part of the prophecy was in place. It was not to be, however. Another iota-bearing person was in the wings: Andronikos' cousin, Isaac II Angelos. Fearing that Isaac would take over, Andronikos' trusted friend and lieutenant tried to kill him; Isaac instead killed his attacker and fled to sanctuary in the Hagia Sophia. From there he appealed to the citizens of Constantinople for support, who decided he should replace Andronikos. That he did.

The AIMA Prophecy was broken...in Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire included the Empire of Trebizond stretched around the coastline of the Black Sea and was founded by Alexios I Megas Comnenos, a son of Manuel. The Comnenos clan ruled there, and the sequence restarted with Andronikos I Gidos, Ioannes I Axouchos, Manuel Megas Comnenos, and Andronikos II Megas Comnenos.

The Middle Ages loved acronyms and patterns that suggested an order to the universe. The AIMA Prophecy was just one example.

I mentioned in yesterday's post the character of John Axouch, a Turkish prisoner who rose in the Byzantine ranks. You can see his family name represented again above, indicating that he left a legacy tied to the Comnenos clan. Let's look at his rise to power tomorrow.

John the Beautiful

As the eldest son of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos, John had the status of Porphyrogenitus, "born to the purple." He had an older and well-educated sister, Anna, who had hoped that she and her husband would rule after Alexios' death, but it was not to be. Her brother became Emperor John II Comnenos, the second emperor of what is called the Comnenian Restoration that lasted more than a century.

He was known as John the Good or John the Beautiful, but this was a reference to his character, not his physical appearance (he was short, and his eyes and hair and complexion were so dark that he was also called "the Moor"). He was pious, dignified, and (notable for a medieval ruler) known to be faithful to his wife (Irene of Hungary, venerated as a saint). A just ruler, supposedly he never had anyone executed outside of what the law demanded.

He was also a good general and strategist. Unlike his father and other emperors, he did not use his family to fill high positions (which in the past created opportunities for family members to consider conspiracies and coups). He appointed several men from outside his family connections, distributing (and diluting) power among several different clans.

His closest friend and advisor was John Axouch, who was himself so moral that, when John offered him all the property of John's sister Anna (because John had uncovered a conspiracy of which she was a part), Axouch declined. Axouch was a Turk who had been captured at the Siege of Nicaea and given to Alexios as a gift. John appointed Axouch as the megas domestikos, the Grand Domestic, making him commander-in-chief of the Byzantine armed forces.

John II's policies did lead to resentment among his family. His younger brother, Isaac, was conspiring against John, and in 1130 when John was about to have him arrested for it, Isaac fled first to a Danishmend emir, then to the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, and also to the Prince of Armenia. Isaac was apparently seeking aid from these rulers. Isaac had some support in Constantinople, and John had to hurry back home from a campaign upon learning that there was a plan to put Isaac on the throne. A reconciliation of the brothers in 1138 was short-lived: a year later Isaac was exiled to Heraclea, on the coast of the Black Sea, far from Constantinople.

During his reign, John personally led all military campaigns to expand territory or put down rebellions. He is regarded as the most successful of the Comnenian emperors. His death was accidental. While hunting wild boar in Cilicia in southern Turkey, he cut his hand on a poisoned arrow. We assume he did not bother treating the cut, which became infected; he died several days after the incident, on 8 April 1143. Of his surviving sons, he named the younger, Manuel, to be his heir rather than the older Isaac. Isaac was known to be irritable, while Manuel had distinguished himself on campaign. John Axouch argued for the older Isaac, but was a faithful supporter of Manuel when the choice was made.

There is another theory offered to explain the choice of Manuel over Isaac, and it is the odd AIMA prophecy. This is a quirky one, which I'll save for tomorrow.

The Alexiad

Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger (1062 - 1137) was a Byzantine noble. As a general, he defended Constantinople when the army of Godfrey of Bouillon attacked in 1097 during the First Crusade. He was also the second husband of Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos.

Anna's mother Irene Doukaina suggested he write a political history of the quarter century leading up to the coronation of his father-in-law, Alexios. It would largely be a "family history" of the Comnenos clan, and he gathered information for his "Material for a History." He drew on writings of contemporary historians such as Michael Psellos, John Skylitzes and Michael Attaleiates, covering many topics of which he would have no personal experience

Before the work was finished, Nikephoros died after becoming ill while on a military campaign in Syria. His widow, Anna, took the notes and turned them into The Alexiad, with a large focus on exalting her father:

I, Anna, the daughter of two royal personages, Alexius and Irene, born and bred in the purple. I was not ignorant of letters, for I carried my study of Greek to the highest pitch, and was also not unpractised in rhetoric; I perused the works of Aristotle and the dialogues of Plato carefully, ...

However, to resume—I intend in this writing of mine to recount the deeds done by my father for they should certainly not be lost in silence, or swept away, as it were, on the current of time into the sea of forgetfulness, and I shall recount not only his achievements as Emperor, but also the services he rendered to various Emperors before he himself received the sceptre.

The 15 chapters include not only the political rise and fall of emperors, but also the encounter with the "Frankish barbarians" of the Crusade, with details useful to modern historians:

For the Frankish weapon of defence is this coat of mail, ring plaited into ring[s], and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt. An additional weapon of defence is a shield which is not round, but a long shield, very broad at the top and running out to a point, hollowed out slightly inside, but externally smooth and gleaming with a brilliant boss of molten brass.

About 10 manuscripts of the finished work survive, some of them complete. Written in Attic Greek, The Alexiad gives us another version of the time period for scholars to study with some unusual traits. It is the only historical work written by a woman, and it differs radically from other histories because the author acknowledges feelings and opinions of the events discussed.

She virtually ignores her brother, John II Comnenos, who became emperor after Alexios. Anna, of course, wanted Nikephoros to succeed her father. Was John that bad an emperor? Was his reign worthy of being ignored in The Alexiad? Let's look at John II Comnenos next time.

Anna Comnena's Rebellion

Anna Comnena (1083 - 1153) has had her own blog posts before (here and here). The daughter of Alexios I Comnenos and Irene Doukaina, she was betrothed at an early age to Constantine Doukas and raised by Constantine's mother (who had helped Anna's father and grandmother in the coup that put Alexios on the throne). Constantine was named junior emperor and heir to Alexios.

Unfortunately, her father and mother later had a male child, John, making the succession of Constantine unnecessary. Constantine died in 1094, and Anna then married Nikephoros Bryennios in 1097. Nikephoros was about 35, handsome and educated, and a good match for the highly educated and talented Anna. Alexios approved the marriage heartily, and granted Nikephoros the titles Caesar (a court title denoting favor) and Panhypersebastos. (Panhypersebastos, meaning "venerable above all," was a new title created by Alexios.)

When Alexios died (attended by Anna in the hospital he founded and she worked at), Anna would have liked Nikephoros to take over, rather than her brother John. Anna was raised in the presence of inspiring women who often took matters in their own hands to bring about large results. Her paternal grandmother Anna Dalassene helped the coup that put Alexios on the throne, as did her mother-in-law Maria of Alania. Her mother, Irene, although initially seemed to be in an unsatisfactory marriage, later became a strong partner to Alexios, accompanying him on expeditions and ruling firmly when he left her behind. In the latter cases, she was regent for John with Nikephoros Bryennios. It has been suggested that Irene wanted Nikephoros to be named Alexios' heir rather than their younger son.

Anna's and Nikephoros' previous titles and administrative authority, seniority in the family, and ambition may have led them to be involved in a plot to replace John. John suspected opposition, so as his father lay dying in the monastery of the Mangana on 15 August 1118, John took a retinue to the monastery and obtained the imperial signet ring from his father. One chronicler, Niketas Choniates, claims that John embraced his father as if in mourning and secretly stole the ring from him. John then rode with armed followers to the palace and forced his way in.

Alexios died that night. John II Comnenos did not attend the funeral, fearing a public appearance would offer an assassination attempt. In his first year, however, he claimed to discover a conspiracy involving his mother and sister. Anna's property was taken from her and given to a friend of John's, John Axouch, who declined it. Eventually it was given back to Anna, but Anna was effectively removed from public life. Irene was retired to a monastery,

Much of what we know of this period comes from The Alexiad, a book begun by Nikephoros Bryennios and completed by Anna Comnena. I want to dive a little deeper into it tomorrow.

Maria of Alania

The Unified Kingdom of Georgia in the Middle Ages stretched from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea. When it was conquered by the Byzantine Empire, the daughter of its then ruler, Bagrat IV, was taken to Constantinople as a hostage in 1056. She was five years old. Martha of Alania, called Maria in Constantinople, was raised and educated by the Empress Theodora; when Theodora died a year later, Maria was sent home.

In 1065, to further unite Georgia and the empire, Maria was married to Michael VII Doukas, who was in line to become emperor in 1071. Unfortunately for Michael, his reign experienced military disasters and economic woes, and in 1078 a coup replaced him with Nikephoros III Botaneiates. Michael was forced into a monastery and became a monk, and Maria with her young son Constantine was sent to a monastery (but did not become a nun).

Nikephoros was widowed while in office, and his intention to remarry started a fierce competition among all the eligible noblewomen. He settled on Maria for several reasons: marrying her would assuage the hostility of her Doukas relatives after the ouster of her first husband; her foreign birth meant she had no blood relatives who would try to use her empress status as a way to garner power for themselves, and she was a known beauty:

And certainly she was as slender of stature as a cypress, her skin was white as snow, and though her face was not a perfect round, yet her complexion was exactly like a spring flower or a rose. And what mortal could describe the radiance of her eyes? Her eyebrows were well-marked and red-gold, while her eyes were blue. Full many a painter's hand has successfully imitated the colours of the various flowers the seasons bring, but this queen's beauty, the radiance of her grace and the charm and sweetness of her manners surpassed all description and all art. Never did Apelles or Pheidias or any of the sculptors produce a statue so beautiful. [from the Alexiad]

She was still married to Michael, however, and the Orthodox Church considered a marriage to Nikephoros to be adulterous. The first priest who was asked to perform the marriage refused (and was demoted), but the next one was willing to accommodate the couple. Nikephoros agreed as part of the marriage pact to make her son from her first husband the heir to the empire, but he later went back on his word.

She allied with Anna Dalassene, and adopted her son Alexios in order to give him closer ties to the palace and the emperor; this allowed Anna and Alexios and Maria to plan to replace Nikephoros. Maria would have liked her son to become emperor, but he was still a child, and when the coup took place in 1081, Alexios became emperor. Alexios made Constantine his heir, even betrothing his own daughter Anna Comnena to the boy. Maria was treated well and remained in imperial quarters at Mangana, a suburb of Constantinople. As mother of the imperial heir, she lived a lavish lifestyle, making donations to a monastery and building a convent at Jerusalem. She was a patron to literary figures.

When Alexios and his wife bore a son of their own, however, the betrothal between Anna Comnena and Constantine was called off, Constantine was declared no longer heir, and Maria was retired to a monastery. Constantine died in 1096. Maria died in 1118, remaining an important figure to her fellow Georgians.

About the Alexiad that wrote so glowingly about Maria: it was written by Anna Comnena, Alexios' daughter, and we're going to look at her next time.

Rebellion in Constantinople

Alexios I Comnenos might not have made it to the position of Byzantine emperor if not for the behind-the-scene actions of his mother, Anna Dalassene. She endeavored early in the lives of her children to make politically advantageous marriages for them and help them get to useful positions, such as when she helped Manuel and Alexios become leaders in the army.

In 1081, an opportunity arose to take power from the current ruler of the Byzantine Empire, Nikephoros III Botaneiates. His empress, Maria of Alania, had originally been married to the previous emperor, Michael VII Doukas, and wanted her son by Michael, Constantine, to succeed. Nikephoros wanted instead to be succeeded by a close relative. Anna forged an alliance with Maria against Nikephoros, an alliance with a precedent: Anna's son Alexios was married to Maria's cousin Irene.

Anna allowed Empress Maria to adopt Alexios. This made her son Constantine and Alexios brothers, which allowed Alexios to come and go in the palace as "family" and be fed information from Maria about Nikephoros' plans. Alexios and his brother Isaac also pledged loyalty to Maria's son Constantine (who was just a child).

In February 1081, Isaac and Alexios left Constantinople to raise an army against the emperor. Anna had the rest of her children join her in the Hagia Sophia for sanctuary. She protested that her sons were innocent of the accusations that they were committing treasonous actions, and pleaded for the emperor's protection for her family. She claimed they had learned of a plot by enemies to have Isaac and Alexios blinded, and the boys had therefore fled to safety. She managed to get the emperor to publicly grant protection to her family. Her actions not only gave her sons time to raise an army but also convinced the emperor that there was no danger of a coup, leading him to be less guarded about their actions.

Isaac and Alexios returned to Constantinople on 1 April 1081 with their army, and Alexios assumed the throne on 4 April. Maria's son Constantine was only 7 years old at the time, so too young to assert a claim to the throne against Alexios' claim, but Alexios gave him the title junior emperor, which had to satisfy Maria.

Regarding other titles, however: it was typical for the emperor's wife to be also crowned and given the title "Augusta." Alexios' wife, Irene Doukaina (of the Doukas clan), was not crowned until a week later. Alexios then gave the title Augusta to his mother! Former empress Maria was allowed to live on in the palace thanks to her help in the coup and the fact that she was alone and far from home (Alania was in Georgia).

Alexios preferred to take personal control of the army, and so was often away from the capital, leaving his mother in charge of matters. She was still managing many administrative matters when the First Crusade came through, but she retired to a monastery not long after, and died on 1 November in 1100 (or 1101 or 1102: the year is unclear).

While on the subject of Byzantine women: Maria of Alania is worth looking at in more detail. She came from the newly unified kingdom of Georgia, was married to two emperors and took part in overthrowing the second to raise up a third. I'll talk about her tomorrow.

Anna Dalassene

"Behind every great man is a woman" was never more apt than in the case of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Comnenos and his mother, Anna Dalassene. She was born c.1025-1030 to a Byzantine official named Alexios Charon (about whom her biography says little) and a member of the noble Dalassenos family.

She was married to John Comnenos, younger brother of Isaac I Comnenos, who rebelled in 1057 against the current emperor and took the throne. This placed John himself (and therefore Anna) closer to the seat of power, and may have served to increase her ambitions for her children.

She and John had eight children. When Isaac decided to abdicate the throne to become a monk, John declined the throne, despite Anna's vehement urging about the benefits the position would create for their children. The throne went to Constantine X Doukas, whose family Anna then considered a rival that must be opposed.

Constantine died in May of 1067, the throne passing to Romanos IV Diogenes. John died 12 July of that same year, and Anna became responsible for raising the children and finding opportunities for them. She allied herself with Constantine's widow, with whose help she arranged politically advantageous marriages for her children. She also allied herself with Romanos, supporting him against the Doukas clan. Anna's youngest daughter, Theodora, was married to Romanos' son. Her eldest son, Manuel, became one of Romanos' best generals. (Manuel died from infection in 1071, and she tried to put Alexios forward as a suitable replacement in his position, but Alexios was considered too young at the time.)

Romanos IV was captured by the Seljuk Turks in August 1071, and the Doukas clan returned to power with Michael VII Doukas taking the throne. When Romanos was freed from the Seljuks, the Doukas clan led troops against him, capturing him to prevent a return to power and blinding him. Anna was accused of supporting Romanos, even being brought to trial.

She was prepared. She boldly pulled a crucifix from under her cloak and said "Here is my judge and yours. Think of him before deciding and take heed that your decision is worthy of the supreme judge, who knows the secrets of men's hearts." She and her sons were exiled to the island of Prinkipos. After Romanos died and there was no chance of a rebellion coalescing around him, they were allowed to return from exile. Michael VII even seemed to try to win her over by allowing Anna's son Isaac to marry his wife's cousin. Also, Alexios was married in 1078 to the 12-year-old Irene Doukaina, niece of Constantine X Doukas.

So it looked like her desire for her children to be secure and successful was coming true. There was more to come, however, because in 1081 the Comnenos clan and Anna would pull off a coup d'état, the details of which you will read tomorrow.

Emperor Alexios I Comnenos

Alexios I Comnenos (1057 - 1118) was the Byzantine emperor during the start of the Crusades. Since the Byzantines were a part of the old Roman Empire, and Christian, and a well-populated and economically significant city at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, Europeans saw them as allies and the gateway to the lands of the infidels who held the Holy Land.

The Crusades were not his only concern, however. As a young man, he and his brother, Manuel Comnenos, served with distinction against the Seljuk Turks, whose territory was right across the Bosporus. The empire also had trouble with Normans in the western Balkans. At one point, he refused to fight against a kinsman who was seizing control of Byzantine territory in Asia Minor for himself. This did not count against Alexios, however, because his abilities were too valuable, and he was needed to help deal with Robert Guiscard.

His father, John Comnenos, had refused the throne when the previous ruler, Isaac I Comnenos, abdicated to become a monk. The throne therefore went to Constantine X Doukas, followed by Romanos IV Diogenes, then Michael VII Doukas, then Nikephoros III Botaneiates, against whom Alexios conspired to take the throne himself. Alexios surrounded Constantinople with his troops, broke through the walls on 1 April 1081, and was crowned on 4 April. Nikephoros fled, but was captured and forced into monk-hood.

Alexios took on an empire that was in decline and face with content military threats at the edge of its borders. Alexios' military skills enabled him to strengthen the empire and recover lost territory. The First Crusade was sparked by his requests for aid against the Turks, as mentioned in this 2012 post. He got the help (some of which was better than others), but the Seljuks continued to be a problem throughout his reign. He was also plagued by the question of succession, his preference being for his son John II Comnenos, while his wife pushed for their daughter Anna and her husband.

I might get to the resolution of who succeeded Alexios, John or Anna, but I want to talk about another Anna: Alexios' mother. She was an important figure who had a significant role in helping his rebellion succeed, and we should look at her next.

Kilij Arslan I

Kilij Arslan I (1079 - 1107) was the Sultan of Rum; it was he who had to deal with the Europeans of the First Crusade when they attempted to "free" the Holy Land from non-Christians in the late 1090s.

Prior to the First Crusade, however, he had his own set of difficulties. The Turks were organized in several different tribes that saw each other as rivals: Seljuks (Aslan's tribe), Danishmends, Mangujekids, Saltuqids, Tengribirmish, Artuqids, and Akhlat-Shahs. Upon the death of Arslan's father, Suleyman (d.1086), the Sultan Malik Shah I of Isfahan imprisoned him, seeing him as a potential rival. When Malik died in 1092, a quarrel among his jailers allowed him to escape, after which he assembled an army and set up a capital for himself in Nicaea.

In times of political rivalry, carefully chosen alliances become vital. A non-Turkish complication in this part of the world was the size and proximity of the Byzantine Empire. Nicaea was in Byzantine Territory, and Arslan was able to set up his capital there (relatively safe from his Turkish rivals) because of a strategic alliance.

Arslan married the daughter of Emir Tzachas, a Seljuk Turkish military commander. Tzachas had earlier in life become a significant member of Byzantine society, until he lost his position when Emperor Alexios Comnenos I came to power and dismissed him. He then became an enemy of the Byzantines. Arslan married the daughter, Ayşe Hatun, to strengthen his own power against the Byzantines.

Then there was a twist: Arslan received a communication from Alexios, claiming that Tzachas intended to usurp him. Arslan marched his army to Tzachas' location, invited his father-in-law to a banquet, and killed him. This simple act ingratiated him to Alexios. When the Crusade of 1101 captured Nicaea and sent Ayşe Hatun to Costantinople to be held for ransom, Alexios sent her back without a ransom, in order to honor his alliance with Arslan.

Kilij Arslan, whose name means literally "sword lion," drowned in 1107 while crossing the Khabur River to escape a losing battle against a rival. In January 2021, archaeologists found his grave in Silvan, in Turkey.

Emperor Alexios Comnenos' name keeps cropping up in discussions of the Crusades, and he should probably be discussed a little more, but that's for tomorrow.

The Sword of the Lion

When the First Crusade approached the Holy Land, they were met by the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, Kilij Arslan I. His first encounter with the Europeans came when the Peasants' Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, overran the castle of Xerigordon at Nicaea. They did so because Arslan sent his spies to give them the impression that the castle was easy pickings. In fact, it was inconsequential to him, but a German contingent raced to take their prize. Once they were settled in it, Arslan sent a force to besiege it and starve them out, knowing that the place had few supplies. He offered a choice: renounce Christianity and become captives, or be put to death.

The tables turned on Arslan after this, because the easy victory led him to believe that all the Crusaders would be easily handled. Unfortunately for him, a far more organized and strategy-oriented army was headed his way. He decided to refocus his attention on his rivalry with the Danishmend Turks, ignoring the soon-to-arrive actual First Crusade. 

As a result, he was away from Nicaea when the Crusaders besieged it in May 1097. Returning to Nicaea, he was defeated by the Crusaders on 21 May. Nicaea was then held by the Byzantines, and Arslan's wife and family were taken captive. She was sent to Constantinople to be held for ransom, but was returned without ransom (for reasons which are a separate chapter of Arslan's story).

Kilij Arslan means "sword lion," and he had a reputation for being a great soldier and leader, but in this case he decided not to go it alone and to ally himself with his Danishmend rivals (as he would later to deal with the Crusade of 1101), attempting to ambush the Crusaders at the end of June near Dorylaeum. The defensive line created by the disciplined Europeans, however, proved too strong for the Turkish mounted archers. The Turkish camp was captured on 1 July by the arrival of Bohemond with reinforcements. According to the Gesta Francorum, the Europeans gained respect for Aslan's tactics and soldiers, claiming "had the Turks been Christian, they would be the finest of all races."

Realizing he could not stop the conquest of the Holy Land, Arslan decided to spend his time on hit-and-run attempts on the Europeans. He also destroyed crops and water supplies in their path, but could not stop them. His experience here is what made him take the approach of the Crusade of 1101 much more seriously, but in that case he was facing a less-organized group that was easier to defeat.

Why, however, was his wife returned from Constantinople without the ransom the Europeans demanded? There were Byzantines in the Crusade, so clearly the Byzantines were enemies of Arslan. Or were they? I'll explain in the next post.

The Battle of Mersivan

The Crusade of 1101 had high hopes: the First Crusade had already been successful, establishing the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Germans, French, and Lombards (joined by Byzantines from Constantinople) who set out as reinforcements at the request of Pope Paschal II thought they would be avoiding any serious battles. They were mistaken, however, when different groups of Turks banded together and met them at the Battle of Mersivan. The Turkish leader, Kilij Arslan I, had his forces push the invaders where he wanted them to go.

The westerners were then at a disadvantage in the Mersivan area, dealing with dry open land bereft of supplies that was more suited to the cavalry regiments of the Seljuk and Danishmend Turks. Over the several days of the battle, the Turks outmaneuvered the Crusaders at every turn, surrounding them on the very first day.

On day two, a raid by the German division failed, and they were cut off from the main army with no supplies or communication. After a relatively inactive third day, the next day saw Turkish reinforcements. The Crusaders tried to break out of their position, inflicting some damage to the Turks, but they failed to achieve their goal. The fifth day saw the Crusaders' camp captured. Shockingly, the knights fled, leaving behind families and priests to be killed or enslaved. The Lombards, mostly peasant class who did not have horses, could not flee and were largely wiped out, although some were captured and made slaves.

This defeat, and the rounding up and destruction of those who fled, taking place just a few years after the First Crusade, taught the Muslim world that the Crusaders were not invincible. The leader of the Turks, Kilij Arslan I, had redeemed himself after the losses brought by the First Crusade, and established a capital at Iconium. I'll tell you more about Kilij Arslan next time.

The Crusade of 1101

Because the First Crusade was successful, in 1100-1101 several of those who had avoided going on the First (or started and turned back because of the difficulties in traveling such distances) decided to conduct their own Crusade. Because they had avoided the First, this Crusade is sometimes called the Crusade of the Faint-Hearted. Stephen, Count of Blois (1045 - 1102), fled from the Siege of Antioch, for instance, and was so strongly criticized that his wife refused to allow him to stay home. This new Crusade was an opportunity for him and others to redeem themselves.

Pope Urban had died before the First Crusade was completed, but his successor, Pope Paschal II, called for reinforcements to supplement the armies who remained in the Holy Land. His urging resulted in three separate groups deciding to take up the Cross.

One group was from Lombardy, led by the Archbishop of Milan, Anselm IV. They were untrained and undisciplined peasants who, when they reached Constantinople, pillaged the city (even killing Emperor Alexios I's pet lion) until they were gathered and shipped to a camp at Nicomedia.

A second group met them there in May 1101. These were led by Stephen of Blois and other nobles, bringing French, Germans, and Burgundians. They were joined by Raymond IV of Toulouse, who had been successful on the First Crusade and had been offered the position of "King of Jerusalem," which he refused (the title went to Godfrey of Bouillon).

The largest contingent in this combined army was Lombards, who wanted to march the army north where they could rescue Bohemond I of Antioch, who was held captive by a Turkish dynasty, the Danishmends. The Seljuk Turks, realizing that combining forces was necessary to defeat the intruders, persuaded the Danishmend Turks to join them. This proved disastrous for these new Crusaders, but that is a story for tomorrow.

The First Troubadour

William IX, Duke of Aquitaine and Gascony (1071 - 1127), also Count of Poitiers, had a shaky start in life. He was the son of Duke William VIII of Aquitaine and his third wife, Hildegarde of Burgundy; but the duke's earlier marriages and divorces (and the very close relatedness of the parents) caused the Church to declare the young William illegitimate. William senior had to make a pilgrimage to Rome for approval from Pope Alexander II (who wasn't always so obliging in marital questions).

Our subject was also a Crusade leader, but not of a Crusade that gets talked about, or even included in the numbering system: it is simply called the "Crusade of 1101."

He invited Pope Urban II—who had called for the Crusade in November 1095—to his court for Christmas of that year, during which Urban urged William to take up the Cross. William was more interested, however, in whether his rival, Count Raymond IV of Toulouse, would go on Crusade, leaving Toulouse unguarded (he did). William's wife, Philippa of Toulouse, was Raymond's niece, and William thought she could make a claim to the territory. The pair did capture Toulouse in 1098, and were subsequently threatened with excommunication.

What William is most known for now, however, is his career as the first known troubadour. There are 11 songs attributed to him. A 13th century vida says of him:

The Count of Poitiers was one of the most courtly men in the world and one of the greatest deceivers of women. He was a fine knight at arms, liberal in his womanizing, and a fine composer and singer of songs. He traveled much through the world, seducing women.

He did in one song admit to deceiving two women. Several of his songs show an attitude toward women in the courtly love tradition, however, in that the subject is called midons, "master":

Every joy must abase itself,
and every might obey
in the presence of Midons, for the sweetness of her welcome,
for her beautiful and gentle look;
and a man who wins to the joy of her love
will live a hundred years.
The joy of her can make the sick man well again,
her wrath can make a well man die,

Orderic Vitalis tells us that he wrote and performed "witty measures" of his adventures on Crusade, but the only Crusade in which he participated, as mentioned, was the Crusade of 1101. I'll tell you what happened with that tomorrow.

The Troubadour Styles

Troubadours originally referred to their songs as vers, but over time developed a set of several different specific types of composition. The vers was a love song that later took on the term canso. The newer identifiable genres include:

Alba (called an aube in German love songs or Aubade in French): a "dawn song"; the lament that dawn approaches and the man must depart before the lady's husband discovers them).

Comiat: a song renouncing the lover.

Canso de crozada: a song encouraging the Crusades.

Desdansa: a dance for sad occasions.

Devinalh: a riddle or cryptogram.

Gap: a boasting song.

Maldit: a complaint of a lady's behavior.

Planh: a lament on the death of an important figure (evolved from the Latin planctus, a lament).

Serena: a song expressing impatience, waiting for night to fall so one could join their lover.

Tenso: a debate between two poets.

Viadeira: a traveller's complaint.

Let's look at the man thought of as the original troubadour next time.

The Female Troubadour

The word "troubadour" was masculine, and the feminine form was "trobairitz" (both singular and plural). The term was rarely used, and was first seen in a 13th century Occitan romance, Flamenca. Trobairitz wrote and performed for Occitan noble courts from 1170 to about 1260—significant because up until then known female composers only produced sacred music.

Almost all information we have about them comes from their own biographical lyrics. We know of only 20 or so female poets. They were outnumbered by troubadours by 20 to 1, and their surviving works are about 1% of the total musical works from the 12th and 13th centuries. In fact, of the works of trobairitz that have survived, we have perhaps only a single work from each, except for two women.

The Comtessa Beatriz de Dia (pictured here from a 13th century codex; Dia was a town in southern France) was born c.1140 and died c.1212. She left us 5 works—four cansos and one tenson—one of which is the only trobairitz work with musical notation. (In the case of troubadours, about 10% have musical notation intact.)

The other trobairitz who left us more than one composition was Castelloza, the wife of Lord Turc of Meyronne (in southwestern France). She wrote several cansos about Arman de Brion, whose status was higher than hers. She describes the pain of betrayal:

My handsome noble-natured dear,
I’ve loved you since the day you pleased me.
How great a fool I am is clear.
For you held back, while such love seized me
That I not once have turned away.
Though you repay my good with ill
I’ll stand my ground and love you still,
For love so has me in its sway
That I now doubt my life can offer. [source]

Cansos and tenson were only a few of the types of songs composed by the troubadours and trobairitz. There were also alba, devinalh, gap, planh, ensenhamen, and many others. I'll give you a list next time, in case you want to try your hand at some different styles of song.

What Makes a Troubadour?

In the years 1100 - 1350, a type of musical performer arose called a troubadour. They did not call themselves troubadours; that term was first used in 1575 to refer to court poets of the 12th and 13th centuries. They almost always referred to themselves as chantaire, "singer." The term "troubadour" is assumed to come from Occitan trobador, from trobaire, "composer," which may be from Late Latin tropare, "to compose, to invent a poem."

The earliest known troubadour whose work has survived was Duke William IX of Aquitaine (grandfather of Eleanor of Aquitaine). He may not have been the first troubadour: it is possible that his political prominence helped him appear to be the start of a tradition, but he may instead have been just one example of an already thriving cultural event. The chronicler Orderic Vitalis records that William composed songs about his experience on the First Crusade. Order also gives us a first-hand account of William performing "many times ... with rhythmic verses and witty measures."

The troubadour phenomenon rose and fell. The 12th century began with few examples of activity, but the final decades saw a burst of output: almost half of the almost 2500 pieces (from a total of about 450 known names) that have survived come from the years 1180 - 1220. Beginning in western Aquitaine, it spread to eastern Aquitaine, then down to Toulouse and Provence. In the early 1200s it reached Italy and Spain.

Duke William was probably the highest-ranking member of society who could be designated a troubadour. Most described themselves as "poor knights," although there was Jaufre Rudel, prince of Blaye in southwestern France.

The troubadours had an "enemy" in the jongleur. The jongleur was not the juggler that the word has become, but was actually a minstrel. The difference is that the minstrel plays songs he has heard from others, although there may be an element of dancing and acrobatics. The troubadour is a poet-composer, a much higher calling requiring skill. Troubadours often wrote attacks on jongleurs. There were, however, many troubadours who also entertained in the manner of the jongleur.

The word troubadour is masculine; a female troubadour is a trobairitz. It would make sense to look at the phenomenon of the female composer in the troubadour tradition next.

Peire d'Alvernhe, Poet and satirist

I mentioned that, for all our talk of courtly love in the Middle Ages, the only use of the actual phrase was in a single Provençal poem. The author of that poem was Peire d'Alvernhe, a troubadour born about 1130. He produced 21-24 poems (authorship can be difficult to determine) by 1170. He was known well-enough that Dante names him in the Divine Comedy.

An anonymous biographer tells us he was handsome and charming and wise, and that he spent time in Spain at the court of Alfonso VII of Castile and his son Sancho III. The biographer calls his poems the greatest poems ever except for the slightly later Giraut de Borneill. A contemporary of Peire's, Bernart Marti, wrote a poem in which he accuses Peire of entering a religious life but abandoning Holy Orders.

Not only did he abandon the religious life, he also abandoned the concept that brought us to this blog entry. The reference to courtly love is in a poem in which he praises love of the Holy Ghost over that of cortez amors de bon aire, "well-spirited courtly love." In this preference of spiritual over carnal love he (and others) followed the influence of one of the earliest troubadours whose name we can put to his poetry, Marcabru (active 1130 - 1150).

Of all Peire's poems, modern scholars have spent the most time and effort discussing a particular one: Chantarai d'aquest trobadors ("Song of wandering troubadours"), a sirventes or "service song" used by troubadours to address a particular subject for educational purposes. In this poem he describes a dozen known troubadours, criticizing their looks and their poetry before proclaiming himself their superior. Although critical, it is seen as a good-natured parody, and he ends by telling the listener that it was composed "while laughing and playing."

On the other hand, if the twelve other troubadours were not present to laugh along with their descriptions, would an audience be familiar enough with the others to understand that it was all in fun? On the other other hand, it does give us (as few pieces of medieval literature do) give us information about specific poets we might not otherwise have, allowing us opportunities to identify authorship for some of the troubadours' works.

Peire d'Alvernhe, Bernart Marti, Marcabru, Giraut de Borneill—we have many names of troubadours, but what did they have in common? What made a "troubadour" rather than just a poet? Let's talk about the troubadour life tomorrow.

Courtly Love

"Courtly love" is the phrase used to describe a set of "rules" expressed in medieval literature about the relationship of a man (usually a knight) with a woman (usually a noblewoman). First appearing in continental French stories, it became (for some) a way to conduct oneself in a relationship, especially one outside of marriage.

First, a few facts. The phrase "courtly love," the English translation of the French amour courtois, was not routinely used until the late 19th century (introduced by a French philologist). (To be fair, the phrase cortez amors appears in a single Provençal poem in the 12th century.) C.S.Lewis in The Allegory of Love defined it as "love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love."

Also, the focus of the practice was not so much about the behavior of the knight as the privilege of the woman. Eleanor of Aquitaine is credited with bringing the courtly love ideals from her home to England when she married Henry II. Eleanor's daughter Marie, Countess of Champagne (by Eleanor's first husband, Louis VII), spread it to the court of Champagne. Troubadours popularized the ideas in their poems and songs.

Courtly love was expressed as a form of feudalism, where the man acts as a vassal of the lady. Addressing her in poetry as his "lord" served two purposes: it showed his willingness to serve, and it hid the lady's name. Courtly love was often a secret love, because it was adulterous: the lover pined for the love of a highborn lady who was often married to his real feudal lord. This "forbidden love" did not stop him from expressing g the utmost courtesy and humility toward her.

Many noble marriages were political arrangements rather than loving unions, and given the daily lives of many noble couples, who hardly spent time together, there were opportunities to see the lady without her husband present, although the presence of ladies-in-waiting precluded consummating physical love.

Andreas Capellanus in the late 12th century wrote De amore ("Concerning Love"), also known as De arte honeste amandi ("The Art of Loving Virtuously"). In it he lists several rules that became entwined with the courtly love idea:

1. Marriage is no real excuse for not loving.
6. Boys do not love until they arrive at the age of maturity.
8. No one should be deprived of love without the very best of reasons.
13. When made public love rarely endures.
14. The easy attainment of love makes it of little value; difficulty of attainment makes it prized.
20. A man in love is always apprehensive.
30. A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of his beloved.

Was this a real practice in anyone's life? Did real people engage in these "poetic" affairs (sexuality rarely comes into the subject of courtly love)? Hard to say, although it seems entwined with some of the very real chivalric ideals that were expected behavior on the part of the knight.

That single instance of cortez amors I mentioned was by a poet named Peire d'Alvernhe, who was prolific enough in his time and obscure enough in ours that he is a perfect subject for this blog...next time.

The Matter of Rome

The man who first came up with the concepts of the Matter of Rome, the Matter of Britain, and the Matter of France, was Jean Bodel (c.1165 - c.1210).

For Bodel, the Matter of Rome was the collected literature of the Greeks as well as the Romans, and included historical figures such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, and especially the Trojan War. The Iliad and the Odyssey were important inspirations for later works. 

Curiously, the Iliad and the Odyssey were not known to the Middle Ages. Although the two epic poems were known and studied in the Byzantine Empire, Western Europe only knew about them through a couple short prose narratives. This was enough, however, to spark the imagination. A 12th-century French poet, Benoît de Sainte-Maure, wrote a 40,000-line version of the story of Troy that was a major source of inspiration for medieval poets. The Iliad and the Odyssey themselves were not made available in print in Western Europe until almost 1490.

Another significant source from the Matter of Rome that informed medieval knowledge was Virgil's Aeneid. After leaving Troy, Aeneas travels the Mediterranean (not unlike Odysseus) and finally founds Rome. A grandson or great-grandson of Aeneas, Brutus/Brute/Brut, later founds Britain and becomes its first king. The story of Aeneas got retold as the Roman d'Enéas ("Romance of Aeneas"), c.1160 in a poem of a little over 10,000 lines.

Troy continued to captivate European audiences. Geoffrey Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde is a love story that takes place in Troy during the war, introducing the medieval notion of courtly love to Ancient Greece. Anachronism did not bother medieval writers, however: even if they understood the possible cultural differences that would have existed, they would not let historical accuracy get in the way of telling the story they thought people wanted to hear.

Courtly love, for instance, was a popular central theme of much literature, and I find I've mentioned it briefly only once without going into detail. I'll rectify that oversight tomorrow.

The Matter of Britain

Just like the Matter of France, the Matter of Britain is a collection of legends and literature involving kings and heroes.

King Arthur was central to many of these legends, but not the only figure. The Knights of the Round Table was fodder for many stories that promoted chivalrous behavior and Christian values wrapped in mysterious powers and fantastical antagonists.

The 12th century poet Chrétien de Troyes, though French, contributes to the Matter of Britain with stories of Perceval, Lancelot, Yvain, and the Story of the Grail. Thomas Malory's 15th century Le Morte d'Arthur was the ultimate expression of the Arthurian Cycle.

The 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae ("History of the Kings of Britain") by Geoffrey of Monmouth collects many earlier texts and provides us with the stories of King Coel, making him the father of Helena. This is also the source of Shakespeare's King Lear.

One of the earliest works in the Matter of Britain is the 9th century Historia Brittonum by Nennius (to be fair: Nennius was likely a later contributor to the work; the original author is unknown). One of Nennius' singular contributions to the Matter of Britain is the idea that Britain was found and founded by Brutus or Brute of Troy, Britain's first king  and a descendant of Aeneas. Using the legend of the diaspora of heroes after the Trojan War, this created a desirable link to Rome through its Virgilian founder, Aeneas.

And that was important because Rome and its Empire was the "Golden Age" that Western Europe looked back at and longed to recreate, hence the Holy Roman Empire. As it happens, the third and final of the Matters was the Matter of Rome. I'll tell you more next time.

The Matter of France

This post referred to the Song of Roland as foundational to of the Matter of France. The Matter of France, also known as "The Carolingian Cycle," is a collection of legends and literary works about the origins of the French nation.

It is not unusual to look back in history and perceive a "Golden Age" when life was better and people were more heroic. Charlemagne, because he united much of Western Europe, promoted a rebirth of learning and arts, and spread Christianity, is seen as the cornerstone on which the nation of France was built.

The Matter of France is written about in chansons de geste, or "song(s) of heroic deeds."

A French poet from the Champagne region, Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube (late 12th - early 13th centuries) divided the matter of France into three cycles of chansons de geste  at the start of a poem about a Count of Paris who was one of Charlemagne's grandsons:

At Saint-Denis, in the great abbey, we find it written (I don't doubt) in a book of noble lineage that there have been only three gestes in well-defended France (I think no-one will argue with me now). [...]

The lordliest is that of the kings of France. [...]

The next, it is right to say, was of Doon of the white beard, he of Mainz who had many lands. [...]

The third geste, which was much to be praised, was that of Garin de Monglane of the fierce countenance. [...]

Doon and Garin are not well-known to modern audiences, but Charlemagne turns up in every European history book. Their stories are different, but the heart of the Matter of France is Christianity (especially against Muslims, who are erroneously perceived as polytheistic) and feudal loyalty. The chansons were largely seen by the Middle Ages as reliable historical retellings.

The Matter of France evolved and spread to other countries. The Song of Roland became Orlando Furioso ("The Frenzy of Orlando") and Orlando Innamorato ("Roland in Love") in Italy in the early 1500s and late 1400s respectively. These works in turn influenced Edmund Spenser's Faerie Queene in England.

More to the point for England and Spenser was the Matter of Britain, which I'll talk about next time.

The Song of Roland

In 778, Basques ambushed the rearguard of Charlemagne's army as it was going northward through the Ronceveaux Pass in the Pyrenees. They had good reason, and they destroyed the rearguard and the baggage train. In the process, according to Charlemagne's biographer Einhard, they killed the "prefect of the borders of Brittany," Hruodlandus. Hruodlandus is translated as the name "Roland."

In the 11th century, a poet writing in Old French produced a 4000-word epic poem, La Chanson de Roland ("The Song of Roland") that turned the incident mentioned briefly by Einhard into the foundation of a literary cycle called the Matter of France. It tells a very different story from Einhard's brief description.

Instead of being pursued by Basques whose chief city of Pamplona had its walls torn down by Charlemagne's army on his way home, the poem has Charlemagne's army fighting Muslims in Spain for seven years. The last holdout is the city of Saragossa, ruled by Marsile. Marsile promises treasures to Charlemagne and that he will become a Christian if Charlemagne will leave and go home.

Charlemagne is satisfied with this. His nephew, Roland, selects Roland's stepfather Ganelon to carry the message of acceptance to Marsile. Ganelon, afraid that Roland wishes him ill by sending him to where Muslims might kill him, betrays them all by telling the Muslims how to ambush Charlemagne's army as they pass through Roncesvalles. The rearguard, led by Roland with comrades Oliver and Archbishop Turpin, finds themselves overwhelmed.

Oliver tells Roland to blow his horn and summon reinforcements. Roland believes that would be an act of cowardice. Roland, however, loves Oliver's sister, so Oliver tells him that Roland will not be allowed to see his sister again if he does not summon help. It is Turpin who ultimately convinced Roland to blow his horn (in the illustration above). Emperor Charlemagne hears the horn and starts back, but takes too long because Ganelon delays him. With Roland's men dead or dying, he blows the horn one more time so powerfully that his temples burst. He is taken to Heaven by angels.

Charlemagne finally arrives, finds Roland and all his men dead, and pursues the Muslims into the River Ebro where they drown. While burying their dead, the Franks are attacked by Baligant, emir of Babylon, who has come to support Marsile. The armies fight, Charlemagne kills Baligant, the Muslims flee, and Charlemagne now conquers Saragossa, returning home with Marsile's queen.

Ganelon's betrayal is discovered, and he is imprisoned; he argues that he acted out of legitimate revenge against his stepson, not treason against the emperor. Although Ganelon's friend, Pinabel, will fight anyone who claims Ganelon is guilty of treason, Thierry convinces the council of Barons that it was treason, since Roland was serving Charlemagne at the time of the betrayal. Pinabel challenges Thierry to trial by combat, Thierry kills Pinabel, Ganelon is executed by having four horses tied to him, one to each limb, and set to gallop.

There are many improbabilities and impossibilities here, not least of which Charlemagne did not become an emperor until many years later, and an "emir of Babylon" is unlikely to appear in northern Spain, thousands of miles west of Babylon. The poem became an important literary and cultural touchstone for medieval France, however. I referred above to the "Matter of France." There were three great "Matters" in the Middle Ages, and I'll tell you more about them tomorrow.