The Lucca Letter of the First Crusade: A Digital Edition and Commentary


By Stephen J. Spencer (Queen Mary University of London)

Publication Information

 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 1710.

While research into the sources for the First Crusade (1095-1099) - including a corpus of letters written by and for participants - continues at a rapid pace, the Lucca letter has received relatively little scholarly attention. Whereas some historians continue to mine the correspondence for information to facilitate empirical reconstruction, others have treated it with caution and scepticism, for there remain question marks over its authenticity. Thus, it has been termed ‘a curious document’ by Susan Edgington and, in Robert Somerville’s assessment, ‘fascinating yet ambiguous’. One reason for this is the letter’s unusual form: it was a circular sent by the clergy and people of Lucca, addressed to ‘all the faithful of the lands of Christ everywhere’. It purports to faithfully report the experiences of one of their citizens, Bruno, who had participated in the the siege of Antioch in June 1098, before returning home in mid-July.

Only one extant witness to the Lucca letter has survived: MS 1710, currently held at the Bibliothèque Mazarine, Paris, but formerly from the Parisian abbey of Saint-Martin des Champs, which was a prominent Cluniac house. The letter was transcribed by Paul Riant in 1881 and reproduced in Heinrich Hagenmeyer’s 1901 collection of crusade letters.

The present edition offers a new transcription of the letter, noting divergences from the previous editions by Riant and Hagenmeyer, as well as a discussion of the manuscript and codicology. Unclear readings in the manuscript are highlighted in grey, and in such instances I have followed Riant and Hagenmeyer. A critical commentary has also been provided, focusing on one of the most interesting and hitherto overlooked facets of the missive: named personnel. An analysis of named and unnamed individuals suggests that we encounter a distinctly Norman voice in the Lucca letter; and although further research is required to determine the letter’s authenticity, it is likely that either Bruno or the missive’s author had Norman connections. Brief descriptions of places and biographies of individuals have been included to aid those unfamiliar with the letter or the events of the First Crusade.

In the manuscript, captial letters are highlighted in red, and names are struck through with red ink. It is evident that the Lucca letter was written over a pre-existing text, as the scribe demonstrably worked around two holes in the parchment. Further, some of the earlier writing can still be identified and there are other markings likely created by the removal of ink. There are a few signs of editing, such as the alteration of the numerals ‘LV’ to form ‘itaque’, and the addition of a title 'Sequitur de victoria mirabili contra Turcas'. The former was possibly carried out by the original scribe, whereas the latter is of a much later date.

The Lucca letter is found in a collection of various eleventh- and twelfth-century Latin manuscripts, primarily comprised of hagiographical texts. These include the lives of Saints Pacôme, Paul, Abraham, Mark, Agatha of Sicily, as well as the life of Theobald of Provins. Other notable works include the Rule of Saint Augustine, and Augustine’s sermons on Christ’s Ascension and the birth of John the Baptist. The Lucca letter is preceded by accounts of the passions of Saint Symphorian and Saint Babylas, the latter having served as patriarch of Antioch in the third century. This potential Antiochene connection may account for the positioning of the Lucca letter in the codex.

Immediately following the Lucca letter is another correspondence pertaining to the First Crusade, written in the same hand: a fragment of the second letter sent by the First Crusader Anselm of Ribemont to Manasses II, archbishop of Rheims, which similarly focused on events at Antioch in 1098 (f. 73v-74v). One further witness exists for this letter, currently in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, though it is not the autograph manuscript. Anselm’s earlier letter, dated to November 1097 and again addressed to Manasses, is found earlier in MS 1710 (f. 21v-22r); and this is the sole extant witness. Slight differences in the paleography could suggest another scribe, albeit one from the same period and potentially the same scriptorium.

In any case, the three crusade letters included in the codex are not the originals. It is unclear whether all the pieces therein were copied at the abbey of Saint-Martin des Champs. All three letters are missing from the collection’s contents page, and it is possible that the Lucca letter and Anselm’s second letter (perhaps also his first) were introduced at a later date. As the collection currently stands, the trio of crusade letters have seemingly been incorporated to supplement a history of holy exploits for a monastic audience. This in itself is indicative of how the First Crusade’s history was often conceived of within a broader framework of devotional literature.

  • Mazarine1710 - Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 1710, f. 72r-73r; Latin; single column; early twelfth century.
  • Riant - P. Riant, Archives de l’Orient latin, 2 vols (Paris, 1881-84), vol. 1, pp. 223-24.
  • Hagenmeyer - H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugssbriefe aus den Jahren 1088-1100 (Innsbruck, 1901), no. 17, pp. 165-67.

Sequitur de victoria mirabili contra Turcas

Primatibus, archiepiscopis, episcopis, ceteris que↑ceteris que Mazarine1710 ] ceterisque Riant; ceterisque Hagenmeyer rectoribus, ac uniuersis ubique terrarum Christi fidelibus. Lucensis↑Lucensis Mazarine1710 ] Luccensis Hagenmeyer clerus et uniuersus populus, pacis plenam et gaudii salutem in Domino. Ad laudem et gloriam redemptoris Domini nostri Ihesu Christi, quae ab ipsis rei actoribus uere et fideliter accepimus, cunctis uere et fideliter notificamus, quo tempore, quanto cum triumpho fratribus nostris propugnatoribus suis potentissima Christi dextera post laborem et pericula de paganis plenam dedit uictoriam. Ciuis quidam noster Brunus nomine cunctis nobis notus, cunctis carissimus, anno ante hunc praeterito cum Anglorum nauibus ad ipsam usque peruenit Antiochiam, ubi laboris comes et periculi, triumphi particeps et gaudii, pugnauit cum pugnantibus, esuriit cum esurientibus, uicit quoque cum uincentibus et post iam peractam ex toto uictoriam, cum omnibus ibi per tres septimanas conlaetatus, ad nos felici cursu rediit. Quem statuentes in medio puram simplicemque rei ueritatem, hac ecce ipsius narratione accepimus.

Cum peruenissemus Antiochiam nos qui per mare nauigauimus↑nauigauimus Mazarine1710 ] navigabamus Riant; nauigabamus Hagenmeyer, exercitus qui per terram undique confluxerat, uix bene ciuitatem iam circumsederat. Sequenti die principes nostri procedunt ad mare uisitandi nos gratia. Hortantur nos ut ad construendas belli machinas copiosam lignorum conferamus materiam. Quod factum magnum nobis fuit dispendium. Tertio autem nonas Martii, idest↑idest Mazarine1710 ] id est Riant; id est Hagenmeyer prima die ueneris statuunt nostri occidentali porta ciuitatis castellum erigere, iactu balistae proximum, quod nunc beatae Mariae dicitur. Ubi ipsa die Turcis insurgentibus ex nostris duo milia LV itaque ex inimicis uero ceciderunt DCCC numero. Tertia autem die erecto castello, nostri usque III nonas Iunii multa perpessi fame deficientes et gladio, multa ibi exsudauerunt constantia. Ea autem die hoc ordine capta est ciuitas. Quatuor Germani uiri nobiles de Antiochia secunda die Iunii

Boimundo↑Boimundo Mazarine1710 ] Boemundo Hagenmeyer et Rotberto Curtose, et Rotberto Flandrensi comiti, ipsis tantum ciuitatem promittunt se reddere. Hi uero communi omnium nostrorum consilio nocte proxima nescientibus Turcis ad murum ciuitatis totum conduxere exercitum. Cumque mane Antiocenses↑Antiocenses Mazarine1710 ] Antiochenses Hagenmeyer aperuissent portas ut secundum promissum solos nominatos tres principes reciperent, repente omnes nostri ingrediuntur communiter. Fit clamor maximus. Fortia quaeque loca nostri excepta summa arce obtinent. Turcos hos trucidant gladio, hos ruinant praecipicio. Postera autem die innumerabilis adest Turcorum exercitus. Statim portas ciuitatis omnes obsident. Introitum et exitum nostris omnino prohibent. Illos autem qui ex nostris ad mare consederant, gladio et igne perimunt. Ea autem uiuendi miseria et exeundi angustia, magna fames nostros uehementer cepit affligere↑affligere Mazarine1710 ] adfligere Hagenmeyer. Hoc autem timore perterriti comes Stephanus et Guilelmus cognatus Boimundi et ceteri quamplurimi, descenderunt Constantinopolim. Inde quicumque hos ita discessisse audiebat, omnem exercitum perisse existimans, inceptam etiam dimittebat uiam. Eis autem quos in ciuitate fames attenuabat maxima, iam panis, iam etiam asinorum et equorum carnes, et omne iam uiuendi deerat subsidium. Dominus uero pius et misericors ad horum gemitus, ululatus, et lacrimas, hac benignitate misertus est. Erat namque quidam pauperrimus et omnium fere abiectissimus Prouincialis genere, cui sanctus Andreas manifestissime apparuit, eumque tenens per dexteram ad aecclesiam sancti Petri perduxit, et locum ostendens digito ait. Hic sepulta est lancea qua uulneratus est in cruce pendens Dominus. Vade ad principes exercitus Domini, et dic eis quae uidisti. Trepidauit pauper iste, et ire noluit. Secundo quoque commonitus iuit, et uisum prodidit. Cauant fideles, et inueniunt. Gaudent, et certi de Dei misericordia, Christum
magnificant. Indicto autem triduano ieiunio, instant orationibus, confitentur quae male fecerant, et aecclesias discalciatis circumeunt pedibus. Quo facto, uterque ad bellum adarmatur exercitus. In uigilia autem apostolorum Petri et Pauli inuocato Christi nomine nostri de ciuitate exeunt. Precedit episcopus de Podio sanctae Mariae, portans crucem et tritriumphalem↑tritriumphalem Mazarine1710 ] triumphalem Riant; triumphalem Hagenmeyer saluatoris lanceam. Subsequuntur sacerdotes et multi clerici, albis induti uestibus. Cumque sic ad campum processissent, ad tria fere milia, ecce uexillum admirabile, excelsum ualde et candidum, et cum eo multitudo militum innumera, ac uentus pariter et puluis nimis, et in tantam fugam Turcos uertit, ut ipsa arma, ipsas etiam uestes fugitiui proicerent, et sic omnes Deo dispergente dilapsi sunt, ut nusquam nostris apparerent amplius. Res mira. Neque enim unde uexillum, ut↑ut Mazarine1710 ] vel Riant; uel Hagenmeyer qui cum eo fuerint alicui certum est. Nostri itaque colligentes↑colligentes Mazarine1710 ] conligentes Hagenmeyer exuuias, et infinitam praedam fugientium, ingressi urbem magno exultant gaudio. Ipsa autem die tantam Dominus dedit eis alimentorum et caeterorum, bonorum copiam, ut autunno↑autunno Mazarine1710 ] autumno Riant; autumno Hagenmeyer apud nos nec tanta sit habundantia↑habundantia Mazarine1710 ] abundantia Hagenmeyer. Nunc uero arcem ciuitatis, et omnem circa regionem libere possident, usque ad superiorem Niceam.

Haec coram omnibus Brunus fideliter explicuit. Nos autem fratres karissimi omnes uos qui praeestis populis oramus et obsecramus in Domino, ut Christi uictoriam uestris enarretis et explanetis filiis, admonentes et ad remissionem peccatorum iniungentes, ut quoscunque↑quoscunque Mazarine1710 ] quoscumque Hagenmeyer decet exceptis pauperibus et mulieribus et ire praeualent fratres adeant. Vos quoque deuote et assidue↑assidue Mazarine1710 ] adsidue Hagenmeyer psalmis et uigiliis instate et orationibus, ut quam acturi sunt uiam per nationes barbaras muniti tam bellatorum armis quam intercessorum meritis tutam tranquillam que↑tranquillam que Mazarine1710 ] tranquillamque Riant; tranquillamque Hagenmeyer uitam agant. Notum quoque uobis facimus, quod Dominus papa Urbanus apud Barum tenet concilium, tractans et disponens cum multis terrae senatoribus ad Ierusalem profecto tendere. Valete.

My thanks to Thomas Asbridge, Andrew Buck, Eyal Poleg, and Chris Sparks for their advice and assistance with various aspects of this edition. I would also like to thank Susan Edgington for suggesting the Lucca letter as a project, and Françoise Avel of the Bibliothèque Mazarine, who kindly provided images of the manuscript.

Bruno of Lucca

Biographical Note

If we accept the letter as genuine, little is known of Bruno, other than that which can be gleaned from the correspondence itself. He arrived at Antioch by sea in early March 1098 and participated in the construction of a fortress, known as ‘the Blessed Mary’, at the city’s western gate. He appears to have witnessed Antioch’s capture on 3 June, the blockade of the city by Kerbogha of Mosul's forces, and finally the crusaders’ victory over Kerbogha’s army on 28 June in a confrontation known as the battle of Antioch. Bruno then left the expedition in mid-July, three weeks after the battle of Antioch, and returned to Lucca. Bruno is referred to as a citizen of Lucca, but there are strong indications that he may well have been of Norman descent or, at the very least, had Norman connections. All of the protagonists accurately named in the section which was supposedly based on Bruno’s report had Norman ties. This would also explain the mystery as to why he journeyed to Antioch ‘with ships of the English’.

Bohemond of Taranto

Born:
c. 1058
Died:
1111
Social Status:
Count of Taranto; prince of Antioch

Biographical Note

Bohemond of Taranto was the eldest son of Robert Guiscard and leader of the southern Italian Norman contingent on the First Crusade. Having participated in his father’s invasion of the Byzantine empire in 1081-85, Bohemond took the cross at the age of forty while besieging Amalfi, southern Italy, in September 1096. The primary sources – particularly the anonymous Gesta Francorum – afford him a key role in orchestrating Antioch's capture via his negotiations with the city’s betrayer, Firuz. Rather than continuing to Jerusalem, Bohemond remained at Antioch, where he founded the Latin principality of Antioch. He endured a lengthy period in Muslim captivity between 1100 and 1103, and, following a disastrous defeat at Harran, he returned to western Europe in 1105 to recruit for an expedition against Byzantium. The resulting campaign ended in failure, with the Antiochene prince agreeing to extensive concessions in the Treaty of Devol (1108).

Commentary

The fact that Bohemond was the individual mentioned most frequently (twice) in the letter, coupled with the figures he appears alongside, is suggestive of a Norman perspective, either on the part of Bruno or the letter’s author. The account of the fall of Antioch on 3 June 1098 represents one of the most original passages of the Lucca letter. No other source mentions the involvement of Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders – two high-ranking crusaders of Norman ancestry. It is not inconceivable that the letter’s creation may have been connected to Bohemond’s preaching tour of France in 1105, to facilitate recruitment for an expedition against Byzantium. We know that he disseminated what would today be called ‘propaganda’ in order to legitimise his possession of Antioch, including a spurious letter allegedly sent from the Byzantine emperor to Robert of Flanders. In the context of Bohemond’s recruitment campaign, making Norman figures like Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders complicit in the negotiations which led to Antioch’s capture – and the suggestion that these leaders acted with ‘the common assent of all our princes’ – could be seen as an attempt to bolster Norman claims to the city.

Robert Curthose

Born:
c. 1050
Died:
1134
Social Status:
Duke of Normandy

Biographical Note

Robert Curthose was the duke of Normandy, eldest son of William the Conqueror and brother to William Rufus, king of England. In most other accounts, he was attributed with a minor role in the siege of Antioch. Robert of Flanders was his cousin, and Stephen of Blois was his brother-in-law.

Robert II of Flanders

Born:
c. 1065
Died:
1111
Social Status:
Count of Flanders

Biographical Note

Robert II of Flanders had familial ties to Norman England through his aunt, Matilda, the wife of William the Conqueror. He was the cousin of Robert Curthose and his sister was the wife of Robert Borsa, Bohemond of Taranto’s half-brother.

Stephen of Blois

Born:
c. 1045-1048
Died:
1102
Social Status:
Count of Blois and Chartres

Biographical Note

The eldest son of Count Thibaut of Champagne and a leading figure among the northern French crusaders, Stephen of Blois was married to William the Conqueror’s daughter, Adela. In early 1098 he seems to have been temporarily appointed overall commander-in-chief of the Latin army. Following his desertion from the expedition, he participated in the 1101 expedition to the Holy Land, where he met his demise in 1102.

Commentary

Further signs of a Norman bias can be detected in the account of Stephen of Blois' flight. In contrast to almost all other accounts which dated his departure to 2 June, before the betrayal of Antioch, the Lucca letter recorded that Stephen left the army on the following day - after the city's capture - and proceeded to Constantinople. In this context, Stephen's departure also acquired the explanation that it was due to the famine which beset the Christians within Antioch; and there is a notable absence of the opprobrium which was levelled at the count of Blois in other sources.

William of Grandmesnil

Social Status:
Knight

Biographical Note

William of Grandmesnil was Bohemond of Taranto's brother-in-law.

Commentary

The author's awareness that William was related to Bohemond again suggests a Norman perspective. William left Antioch on 11 June, but he was not accompanied by Stephen of Blois (who had already fled). Other ‘eyewitness’ testimonies attest that William and Stephen met at Alexandretta, sailed to Tarsus together, and came across the Byzantine emperor, Alexios I Komnenos, at Philomelium.

Adhémar of Le Puy

Died:
1 August 1098
Social Status:
Bishop of Le Puy; papal legate

Biographical Note

Probably the son of a Valentinois count, Adhémar occupied the bishopric of Le Puy between 1080-1087 and may have undertaken a pilgrimage to Jerusalem before 1087. As the papal legate on the First Crusade, Adhémar was considered responsible for the spiritual welfare of crusade participants, until his death at Antioch on 1 August 1098.

Commentary

In line with Bruno’s inability to identify crusaders associated with the Provençal contingent (such as Peter Bartholomew), the bishop of Le Puy remains unnamed in the Lucca letter. The suggestion that he wielded the relic of the Holy Lance (discovered by the crusaders on 14 June 1098) during the battle of Antioch may also indicate that Bruno (or the scribe) was tapping into the collective memory of the expedition in order to present a legitimate narrative of events. As has been demonstrated elsewhere, within the first decade of the twelfth century there emerged a sort of ‘official’, agreed upon narrative of the Lance’s impact: it was interpreted as a token of God’s support, responsible for granting the crusaders victory in the battle of Antioch. One element of this ‘official’ narrative of events was the belief that Adhémar bore the Lance during the battle; in reality, the relic seems to have been held by Count Raymond of Toulouse’s chaplain, Raymond of Aguilers. The Lucca letter thus appears to conform to this established version of events, offering very few of the incidental details we might expect from a participant.

Peter Bartholomew

Died:
April 1099
Social Status:
Peasant

Biographical Note

Peter Bartholomew was a peasant from Arles who experienced a series of visions during the enterprise. He reportedly died from injuries sustained during an ordeal by fire at Arqa in 1099, which he had undertaken to prove the validity of his visions.

Commentary

In contrast to high-ranking figures with Norman connections, Bruno was unable to name Peter Bartholomew, who was referred to as ‘a certain man, a Provençal by birth, the poorest and almost the most common of all’.

Urban II

Social Status:
Pope

Biographical Note

A former Cluniac monk and an advocate of the papal reform movement, most famously led by his predecessor Pope Gregory VII, Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade at the council of Clermont on 27 November 1095.

Commentary

Traditionally, the reference to the council of Bari has been used to date the Lucca letter to early October 1098. Some scholars have interpreted the letter's ambiguous closing sentence as evidence that Pope Urban II had intended to personally travel to Jerusalem.

Make Map Big