Save

Discovering a Hospitaller Order in Frankish Greece: The Order of St James in the Principality of Achaia

In: Frankokratia
Authors:
Guillaume Saint-Guillain University of Picardy Amiens France

Search for other papers by Guillaume Saint-Guillain in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Chris Schabel University of Cyprus Nicosia Cyprus

Search for other papers by Chris Schabel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Full Access

Abstract

The Hospital of St James in Andravida, a mixed house of male and female religious in the capital of the Principality of Achaia, has long been known to historians of Frankish Greece, but recent publications allow us to identify the institution as the head of an entire hospitaller order, founded by Prince Geoffrey I of Villehardouin. This helps explain Geoffrey II’s desire to incorporate St James into the military-hospitaller Teutonic Order, initiating a long struggle within and over St James that involved the papacy and that, understandably, has not been examined closely until now. The saga ended under Prince William II with the incorporation of St James into the Templar Order instead, although with the dissolution of the latter St James came into the hands of the Hospitallers. This paper tells the history of this newly discovered Order of St James from 1209/1210 until its absorption into the Templars in 1246.

In his treatise on the quarrel over unleavened and leavened bread of 1436, the Cistercian Hermann Zoest remarked that the Greeks could complain that, while they were content with one religion, the Latins had greatly multiplied the ways of religious life.1 Indeed, by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, Western Christians wishing to join the clergy not only had the choice between secular priest and monk (and nun), but they could also become regular canons (and canonesses), hospitallers, knights of Christ, and now mendicants. Just as important, the reign of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) saw the crystallization of the idea of a religious order, which had evolved in the twelfth century, especially with the gradual shift from the Cistercian ordo in the sense of way to the Cistercian ordo in the sense of order, a group of monks and monasteries (and, increasingly, nuns and nunneries) bound together by common regulations and a ruling body.2

The Crusader States, in particular, gave birth to the main hospitaller orders that provided care for pilgrims and, eventually, defended the faith and the Holy Land with arms, the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Teutonic Knights, although smaller hospitaller and/or military orders arose as well. In the first decades after the conquest of Constantinople and much of the Byzantine Empire in the context of the Fourth Crusade, along with a local hierarchy of the secular Latin Church came these new or newly formed religious orders.3 In fact, a new order was established in Latin Constantinople, the hospitaller Order of St Sampson, which seems to have taken on a military role and which Emperor Baldwin II tried to reform as a military order.4

This article traces the history of a parallel phenomenon in the Principality of Achaia, that of the Hospital of St James in the capital of Andravida (Andreville). Although the sources are relatively plentiful, scholars working on Latin Romania have only alluded to the history of St James, not noticing that it was the headquarters of an order, in fact an order with both male and female members, and usually claiming that the Teutonic Knights successfully incorporated St James.5 Founded by Prince Geoffrey I of Villehardouin, the Order of St James was successful enough that, with the decline of the Latin Empire, in an effort to improve the principality’s defensive capabilities against the Greeks, Prince Geoffrey II decided to unite it and its resources with the Teutonic Order, then in the midst of its conquest of Prussia, but whose main theatre of activities at the time was still the Eastern and Central Mediterranean. The move was met with resistance and resulted in a schism within St James, and the long saga only ended with the order’s absorption into the Templars in the reign of Prince William II.

The struggle over the Order of St James led the Teutonic Knights to copy a dossier of pertinent documents into the oldest section of their cartulary, or more precisely book of privileges. This section, relating to its properties in the Holy Land and the Mediterranean, was compiled in the mid-thirteenth century, most probably in 1243, and bound together with the other sections only in the nineteenth century.6 In 1243 the question of the destiny of St James had still not been settled against the Teutonic Order, which explains why these documents were deemed worthy of being copied. The dossier is of particular interest, not least because several of the original instruments were drafted locally, but they tell only one side of the story. For the rest, we rely on the papal registers preserved in the Vatican Archives, which provide sparser information.

Geoffrey I and the Foundation and Early History of the Order of St James

The existence of the Hospital of St James in Andravida can be traced back to the first decade of Frankish rule in the Peloponnese, making it one of the earliest foundations of the conquerors, although one cannot exclude the possibility that it replaced a preexisting Greek house and inherited its properties. The conquest of the peninsula began in 1205, the year of birth of the Frankish Principality of Achaia, but it was not until 1209/1210 that the first prince of the Villehardouin family, Geoffrey I, was recognized as such.7 The prince had founded St James by late 1214, as we shall see, in the town that became the administrative capital of the young crusader state, part of a series of measures intended to reinforce Geoffrey I’s status as the new ruler of the principality, including the foundation of Cistercian Isova Abbey and the construction of Clermont Castle (Chlemoutsi).

Geoffrey I is unambiguously identified as St James’ founder in a 1237 act of his son, namesake, and successor, Geoffrey II,8 who explicitly claims ius patronatus for the hospital and records its original purpose: “our father of pious memory founded [St James] for the honor of the divine name and for the sustenance of the poor” (quam genitor noster pie recordationis fundavit ad honorem divini nominis et pauperum sustentamen). This is mirrored in a contemporary letter of the prior and brothers of St James to Pope Gregory IX and in a bull of the same pope, also dated 1237, in which Geoffrey I is also named as founder, as well as in another document from a few years later.9 St James was thus initially a charitable institution that contributed to legitimizing the power of the new prince through evergetism.

Perhaps in order to claim papal initiative after the fact, however, Gregory IX’s bull presents Prince Geoffrey as acting with the full backing of Pelayo (Pelagius), cardinal-bishop of Albano, who confirmed the establishment with a privilege.10 Unlike Geoffrey’s foundation charter, which must have existed but is now lost, and the rule of the order, of which only a single article is preserved (see below), we still possess the text of the privilege granted by Cardinal Pelayo, who was papal legate to Romania and de facto administrator of the Latin Church in the Empire of Romania during a vacancy in the patriarchal see. The privilege is the earliest surviving document mentioning the Hospital of St James, dated 4 February 1215 at Constantinople, although the edition misdates it to 1214 because of the common confusion about the dating of documents from January and February in the reign of Pope Innocent III.11 Nevertheless, because it would have taken some time in winter for the news of the foundation of St James in Andravida to reach the Bosphoros, late 1214 is our terminus ante quem for Geoffrey I’s initiative.

In the privilege, Cardinal Pelayo grants to Bernard, master of the Hospital of St James of Andravida, and to its brothers (Bernardo magistro et fratribus hospitalis sancti Iacobi de Andrevilla tam presentibus quam futuris) an exemption from all ecclesiastical and secular authority, for St James itself – which would seem to contradict Geoffrey II’s later claim to have ius patronatus – as well as for the other hospitals under its authority throughout the empire, and for all its properties (cum omnibus hospitalibus subiacentibus eidem in imperio Romanie et aliis pertinenciis suis), placing them all directly under the jurisdiction of the Holy See (ad ius et proprietatem beati Petri) and exempting them from tithes. The instrumentum mentions two of these dependent houses by name: the hospital of St James de Macra in the diocese of Athens and the hospital of St James of Pegai (Spicacenensis) in the northwest of Asia Minor, at this time under the control of the Latin Emperor Henry of Hainault.12 The first hospital has been tentatively identified with the town of Megara on the isthmus of Corinth,13 but this is problematic, since in 1215 Megara was still an episcopal see in its own right and not part of the diocese of Athens, to which it would be united only later, between 1218 and 1221, by another papal legate in Constantinople, Giovanni Colonna, cardinal-priest of Santa Prassede, whose decision would be confirmed, with a series of other similar ones, by Pope Honorius III on 11 March 1222.14 In any case, the privilege reveals that already before 1215 the patrimony of St James of Andravida extended beyond the Principality of Achaia and that the hospital had probably benefited from the patronage not only of Prince Geoffrey but also of other prominent Frankish lords, perhaps Othon de la Roche lord of Athens, the secular ruler in the latter diocese, and the Latin Emperor Henry himself, or of the Latin lord who controlled Pegai under imperial suzerainty. The shared dedication of these dependencies to James the Apostle also indicates that they were new foundations or re-foundations rather than pre-existing Greek monasteries.

This is not a privilege of an ordinary ecclesiastical institution: the head of the main Hospital of St James in Andravida enjoyed the title of “master,” the hospital had an unspecified number of other “houses” (domus) subject to it in the Empire of Romania, the hospital possessed directly two other hospitals of St James, and the entire organization was subject immediately to the pope, enjoying special immunities and exemptions. In the document, moreover, Pelayo establishes that the master and brothers shall observe inviolably forever “the ordo granted” to them. Since the ordo mentioned in the document carries no further specification, it appears that what we have is the foundation of a hospitaller Order of St James, complete with its own “rule of our order” (regula nostri ordinis) and “habit of St James” (habitum sancti Iacobi), as later documents reveal.15

Three years later, the master (perhaps still Bernard) and brothers of St James obtained an even higher confirmation of their position and possessions. On 27 May 1218, responding to a request they had sent him, Pope Honorius III placed them under papal protection.16 This letter is quite standard – with formulas that are heavily abbreviated in the papal register that preserves it17 – and does not say anything very specific until the conclusion. Here it confirms the immunities already granted by the legate Pelayo in the 1215 privilege, which had been presented to the curia, and – without bothering to enumerate them – the possessions given by the prince of Achaia “and others of Christ’s faithful,” which must mean the initial endowment of St James and the subsequent donations, all mentioned in Pelayo’s privilege. Nevertheless, there is a brief section fully copied into the register that lists the possessions for which the papal confirmation is more specially granted, all but two of which were absent from the privilege of the legate. It can be surmised that these were new acquisitions made between late 1214 and early 1218, and that St James was still quite successfully increasing its patrimony through a continuing flow of new patronage.

The papal bull first enumerates the church of St Leo on the island of Zakynthos (ecclesiam Sancti Leonis de Iacinto), the village of Bonrepast18 near Andravida (casale de Bonrepast in territorio Andreville), the house of Mourges (domum de Murges),19 and the village of Redonia (casale de Redonia), all with their dependencies; these places seem to be in the Peloponnese or on a neighboring island, in the case of St Leo. Another series of possessions, which the syntax of the document seems to separate from the previous ones, are in other parts of Latin Romania and more particularly in regions under direct imperial control: the church of St Barbara with its fishpond (ecclesiam Sancte Barbare cum piscaria), whose precise location is not given, and dependent houses in Bestiaria (domum de Bestiana),20 Megara (?) (domum de Megala),21 Ravennika (domum de Ravanica),22 Serres (domum de Serra),23 Selymbria (domum de Salabria)24 and, in the Latin-controlled part of Asia Minor, Pegai (domum de Spigatio), clearly the hospital of St James of Pegai already mentioned in the previous document.

Map 1
Map 1

Southern Greece and the Peloponnese

Citation: Frankokratia 2, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/25895931-12340008

Map 2
Map 2

Frankish Greece and Constantinople

Citation: Frankokratia 2, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/25895931-12340008

In sum, although the prince himself was in conflict with the papacy over Church properties in Morea25 and is not officially informed but merely mentioned incidentally in the letter, Geoffrey I’s foundation seems to have done rather well in its first period of existence. Moreover, although it is formulaic, the fact that the benefits of Pelayo’s privilege were also extended to any future donations “from kings or princes” or from ordinary faithful implies that Bernard and his brothers considered all this to be just the beginning and believed that their house still had ample potential for expansion. Indeed, this is what seems to have happened, at least early on. One must keep in mind that these concessions were drafted shortly before and after the end of the reign of Emperor Henry (1206-1216), when the Latin Empire was still the rising power in Romania: the conquest of all Romania was still to be completed, but to contemporaries it may have looked as if this was fated to happen one way or another in the years to come.26 It was not before the third decade of the thirteenth century that events would take a dramatically different turn, much less favorable to the Latins. Thus in these rather auspicious circumstances the Franks of Morea created an institution of charity and assistance whose main house was based in the capital city of their principality, but which constituted the head of a network of smaller houses throughout the other, then-expanding, Latin-ruled territories.

With the decline of the Kingdom of Thessaloniki and the Empire of Constantinople itself, however, the Order of St James did not grow at the pace that was optimistically anticipated. Indeed, within a few years after its recognition by the papacy, the Greeks had regained possession of St James’ houses at Serres, Pegai, Ravennika, and perhaps the unidentified Bestiaria. Nevertheless, St James does seem to have attracted some new patronage from the Frankish aristocracy, at least in Morea itself, for example a house called Rotumni belonging to St James, mentioned only in a document from the 1230s and thus probably obtained after 1218.27 More clear, in a charter28 written in French (the normal practice in the principality), a knight named Robert de l’Isle made a donation to the “house of my lord St James of Andravida” (a la maison de mon seignour sant Jaque d’Andrevile) for the souls of his late wife Péronnelle, of his father John, of his mother Mahaut, and of his brother, who was named Côme (Comes) or Conon (Quenon).29 Robert gave the hospital two tenures of land (“estacges”) near Veligosti (Vilegourt) in Arcadia in a place named “le Chimeron” (perhaps the hill called today Tsimberou),30 and seven peasants with their families (Ioannes Lagoutes and his two brothers, Ioannes Katomerites and his brother Basiles, and Kyriakos and Ioannes Gonopoulos).31 The donation was accepted by Brother William, master of St James, who sealed the document with the seal of the hospital,32 and done in the presence of Bishop Nicholas of Coron, who also sealed it with his own seal.33 The grant was intended to endow positions for seven Latin priests who would celebrate Masses, failing which the grant would be revoked and the land and peasants returned to Robert de l’Isle or his heirs, who would enjoy the goods until the seven priests performed their duties again.

Robert de l’Isle is otherwise unknown, and “l’Isle” is a very common French toponym. Although it is hardly a basis for speculation, the admittedly common names Robert and John are found among the close relatives of the famous 1204 crusader Manessier de l’Isle (whom Geoffrey of Villehardouin the historian mentions quite often), who even had sons by those names.34 Karl Hopf instead suggested a relation with Hugues “ντὲ Λέλε” (which, as Jean-Alexandre Buchon had done before him, he interpreted as “de Lille”), whom the Greek version of the Chronicle of Morea labels the first lord of Vostitza (unfortunately, the corresponding passage in the French version is corrupt, depriving us of the French form of the surname).35 The location of Robert’s properties near Veligosti, in Arcadia and far from Vostitza on the Gulf of Corinth, does not favor this hypothetical connection, and in any case in his donation Robert is adamant that what he is granting to St James comes “from his own fief and from his right conquest” (de son propri fieu et de sa droite conqueste).36 This was no doubt legally significant, because, at least in later Moreote law, a fief “by right of conquest,” also called in the Assizes of Romania a “fief of the acquisition” (feudo dalo acquisto), did not have the same limitations as other properties in terms of transmission.37 Nevertheless, even for a fief by right of conquest, any donation to the Church was conditional on the prince’s approval.38 But the phrase also shows that Robert de l’Isle had been present, if not since the beginning of the Frankish Morea, at least since the conquest of this part of the peninsula, and that he had not inherited his lands from relatives.

Robert’s initial charter does not bear a date, at least not the copy in the cartulary, where the end of the document might be missing, but the mention of the attestation of Bishop Nicholas of Coron helps narrow the chronology. In a papal letter dated 16 September 1237, a bishop-elect of Coron is mentioned who is obviously the same already mentioned one year earlier, on 26 September 1236, in another papal letter considered below.39 According to other papal correspondence, he was consecrated between 11 January 1238, when he was still elect, and 23 March 1239, when he was addressed as bishop. This bishop’s name began with a P., as we learn from another document relating to St James, from May 1240, when he was already dead (P. bone memorie quondam Coroniensis episcopus).40 Bishop P. obviously cannot be Bishop Nicholas. Another bishop of Coron was in place by 8 June 1241,41 but he cannot be Nicholas either, because, as we shall see, Robert de l’Isle had already renewed – and somewhat modified – his donation by March 1240.42 Consequently, Nicholas must have been P.’s predecessor on the episcopal throne of Coron, perhaps the successor of Bishop Eudes of Villehardouin, whom Pope Honorius III promoted to archbishop of Corinth between the summer of 1216 and 4 April 1218. Honorius addressed several letters to the same bishop of Coron between 11 March 1222 and 23 October 1226, but after the pope’s death on 18 March 1227 the first we hear of a bishop of Coron is in a letter of Gregory IX dated 10 October 1231.43 Whether or not this was already Nicholas, the latter had died by the summer of 1236, which makes this date the terminus ante quem for Robert de l’Isle’s initial donation. It is difficult to be more specific, but the grant must not be too close to that date, considering the master of St James mentioned in it (William, not yet John) and the situation of the house at the time, so Robert probably made his initial donation in the early 1230s.

In those years, the hospital was involved in a conflict with other members of the Latin clergy, described in a papal letter of 26 September 1236.44 The local bishop of Olena,45 in whose diocese the hospital was situated, apparently objected to the violation of some of his episcopal rights by the master and brothers of St James.46 The dispute reached the papal curia, whither both parties sent their representatives and where the pope assigned the case to Raniero Capocci, cardinal-deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin. The representative of St James made various legal objections, however, including the fact that, he claimed, the bishop was excommunicate, which assertion the representative of the bishop immediately countered with scepticism and other objections. All this required an additional investigation, so in the letter informing us of the story Pope Gregory wrote to the bishops-elect of Coron (the P. just discussed) and Helos,47 giving them two months to summon the parties to Veligosti,48 plus two additional months to interrogate witnesses according to a questionnaire drafted by the cardinal and appended to the letter (but unfortunately not registered). If the parties agreed, the bishops-elect were to judge the case or otherwise to send the witnesses’ depositions back to the papal curia. The nature of the dispute is not made clear, but, considering that the investigation was to be conducted at Veligosti, a relatively minor, remote place and a former episcopal see united with Coron in 1222,49 one cannot but wonder whether the quarrel was at least partly linked to Robert de l’Isle’s recent donation of properties there to St James, if only because Veligosti was associated with St James and more or less equidistant from Olena, Coron, and Helos.

Geoffrey II, the Teutonic Knights, and the Struggle over St James

By 1237, the Order of St James had more serious problems than conflicts with the local episcopate. The main hospital, once so flourishing,50 was experiencing a serious crisis and had descended into chaos and even internal schism. This is revealed in detail by an undated document that the editor assigned to circa 1237.51 Although it could be a bit later,52 it reports events covering several years of the 1230s, which justifies our beginning with it. This document enumerates in detail all the grievances of the brothers of St James – or rather of a dominant faction among them – against their master or preceptor,53 Brother John Manchot.54 The list of abuses of which he is accused is quite impressive, but it must be taken with caution, since many of the charges were standard for any high cleric whom his enemies wished to discredit at the papal curia.55 We learn that when he was elected master by his brothers, John swore to act according to the rule of the order and to promote a collegial way of government and some form of collective control over his activities:56 another brother was to manage the purse and use it solely for expenditures indispensable for the house, and the master was not to travel without an escort of a brother or chaplain of good reputation. Allegedly, John did not deliver on his promise, perjuring himself in the process. Without consulting the brothers he sold horses, destriers, mules, oxen, bulls, colts, wheat, wine, and oil and pilfered gold and silver objects from St James’ treasury, using the money thence extracted at his whim. On one occasion, he had the wheat harvest of one of the order’s possessions, the house of Rotumni, loaded on a ship, most probably to be sold abroad.57 All this provides an interesting glimpse into the economic activities of the possessions of the order the names of which have just been listed above: St James’ property seems to have concentrated on husbandry and also produced wheat for the market. A short section of the rule of the order is even quoted, which enjoined that the “highest master” (summus magister) cannot spend more than half a mark without the brothers’ consent.58

It was not just on the economic field that, according to his brothers, John Manchot had acted deviantly: his sexual misconduct was no less blatant. The brothers asserted that he had raped one of the sisters of the house (vi habuit rem cum quadam sorore domus), a charge that incidentally informs us that, like some other hospitaller orders, St James was a mixed order with both male and female members, even participating in the chapter, something confirmed at the end of the document and in other documents going all the way back to Pelayo’s privilege.59 The rape case must have been particularly scandalous, because the sister publicly complained not only to the order’s chapter and other clerics but also to laymen. According to his accusers, however, John’s debauchery was in no way limited to this single lapse, for he maintained girls with whom he slept at will and for whom he afterwards arranged marriages (possibly to silence them), giving them dowries carved out of the donations made to St James for the sustenance of the brothers and of the poor.

Moreover, despite his initial promise not to travel without his brothers’ agreement, and obviously on account of his conflict with them, John had left the mother house in Andravida to go to the island of Zakynthos, where, as we have seen, St James owned a dependency called St Leo. At that time, St Leo was managed by members of the order, a man and a woman, but he expelled them, gave away its properties to the Templars, and lived there in luxury for some time. On one occasion – between the summer of 1236 and the summer of 1238 – John went to Patras and obtained from the archbishop (the infamous and redoubtable Antelm) and from the bishop-elect of Olena a sentence of excommunication and interdict against the mother house and his brothers in Andravida,60 clearly another escalation in the internal rift inside the order, but also, as his accusers remarked,61 an infringement on the privileges granted by Cardinal Pelayo and confirmed by Pope Honorius III that had placed St James under direct papal authority. It was probably in order to defend his rights before the authorities that John took with him the privileges of the order, which his opponents accused him of having stolen and which he refused to return.62 Ultimately, while he was trying to leave the mother house secretly for the second time, the brothers had him arrested.

The tension seems to have increased to the point of jeopardizing the position that the order had previously acquired in Romania, and one wonders exactly why this happened, regardless of John’s morality. As we have seen, when he was in Zakynthos John Manchot had turned over to the Templars some properties belonging to the Order of St James. Conversely, in narrating a psychodrama that occurred in the mother house at Andravida, John’s accusers reveal that the master was not alone on his side. At a time when John had seemingly already split from the brothers, he “abducted” one of their number from St James. The other brothers and the prior (named Geoffrey, according to another document,63 and who appears to have been the head of the faction opposing the master) managed to find the “abducted” man in the house of a certain Lord Thomas, obviously also in Andravida, where the brother had taken refuge. They urged him to come back, but he obstinately refused and accused them of being puppets of the Teutonic Knights: “I will never be with you, because you are on the side of the Teutonic Knights, so I do not want to come back” (Nunquam ero64 vobiscum, quia vos estis ex parte Theutonicorum, et ideo nolo redire). To which they all indignantly replied: “We are wearing the habit of St James, which you are wearing as well, so, in the name of the allegiance that you pledged to the church of St James and in virtue of the habit that you are wearing, we order you to come back with us to our house!” (Nos habemus habitum sancti Iacobi, quem tu portas, unde precipimus tibi per illam obedienciam quam fecisti ecclesie sancti Iacobi, et per habitum quem portas, ut venias nobiscum ad domum nostram!).

Evidently St James was experiencing an acute identity crisis, and it is difficult to say to what extent the rift between the master and the brothers was a cause or a consequence of the schism; probably both. As has been noted,65 the dispute might have revolved at least in part around the question of which military order to join, the Templars or the Teutonic Knights, both already present in the Peloponnese and hostile to one another in other fields of operation. The two options polarized the factions inside St James and undermined its cohesion. Both factions had other external support: the “Templar” camp was allied with Archbishop Antelm of Patras, while the “Teutonic” side enjoyed the backing of none other than Prince Geoffrey II himself, as well as that of some other less important clerics, such as Bishop Benedetto of Cephalonia.66 It may seem prima facie that both parties were more or less resigned to the fact that St James could not carry on as an independent hospitaller order. Nevertheless, until 1246 the “local” party fighting against Teutonic hegemony did not present its cause as a battle to join the Templars, but rather to stay an independent and purely charitable, non-military institution. It appears, at least, that they had not fully understood – or were not prepared to admit – that there was no longer any alternative.

The general context certainly played a role in this development: Latin domination in Romania had begun to retreat dramatically and was now reduced to some Thracian territories near Constantinople, some of the Aegean islands, and Southern Greece. True, the Principality of Achaia was in the ascendant, by far the most dynamic power in Southern Greece, but it was against the broader background of the general decline of Latin power in former Byzantine lands. The principality had to find the means to play the role of what it had de facto become in the early 1230s, the champion and protector of imperial power in Constantinople, which was theoretically its sovereign. Militarizing the resources of St James by affiliating it to one of the already existing international military orders would contribute to this effort. Such a transformation of a charitable institution was not unique in Romania at this time, as illustrated by the case of the Hospital of St Sampson in Constantinople, which Emperor Baldwin II tried to transform into a military order.67 The same sovereign also attempted to enrol in one way or another the help of the Spanish military Order of St James (not related to the one in Morea) in his projects to save his empire.68

That this was Prince Geoffrey II’s own assessment is revealed by the document he had drawn up in July 1237, by which he gave the Hospital of St James in Andravida to the Teutonic Order.69 The German order was by far the youngest and least powerful among the great crusader military orders (it had been formally established as such only in 1198), but its star was quickly rising and it had already set foot on Greek soil. At that point, it had perhaps no property in the Empire of Romania outside the Peloponnese, where it possessed four knightly fiefs in the region of Kalamata and was headquartered at Mostenitsa in the diocese of Coron.70 Still, compared to the Templars and Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights were already proving to be more aggressive on the European continent in areas populated by pagans and Eastern-rite Christians. At the invitation of King Andrew II of Hungary in 1211, the Teutonic Order had de facto ended up creating a small state in extreme southeastern Transylvania in the Terra Borsa (Burzenland) around Brașov (Kronstadt). Although their actions provoked Andrew to expel them in 1225, by 1230 the order was involved in the conquest of pagan Prussia and soon formed another independent entity. Their establishment in neighboring Livonia had also required the absorption of another pre-existing order, the Brothers of the Sword, which was confirmed in the same year 1237.71 Prince Geoffrey appears to have been undeterred by the Teutonic Order’s tendency toward autonomy, and one wonders whether the prince had chosen the Teutonic Knights to revivify St James in part because of their connection with the Western emperor and king of Sicily, a powerful neighbor of the principality. Nevertheless, another factor explaining the prince’s preference for this particular order might be its close relations, established in the context of the Fifth Crusade and of the siege of Damietta (1218-1219), with the counts of Brienne. At this date, but also in the following decades, the Briennes and other nobles of whom many were their relatives or vassals (some of them being also relatives of the Villehardouins) endowed the Teutonic Order with properties in Champagne, the Villehardouins’ native region, which became the nucleus of its main commandery – briefly even ranking as a preceptory – in the Kingdom of France:72 feudal relations between the Villehardouins and the Briennes were ancient, and quite recently, in 1231, John of Brienne, incidentally Frederick II’s father-in-law (although their relations had quickly deteriorated into enmity), had become the emperor reigning in Constantinople and so Geoffrey’s direct suzerain.

In his 1237 document,73 Prince Geoffrey claimed to be motivated by the fact that he knew St James “to be clearly, by lack of a leader, incompetently managed” (defectu rectoris dedecenter procurari liquide), a veiled attack against John Manchot and his defection. For that reason, the brothers had begun to tear the establishment apart and the care for the poor suffered. Since the prince saw no one within the institution who could save it, he had to exert his right of patronage to transfer it and all its properties to the Hospital of St Mary of the Teutonic Knights of Jerusalem. This concession was to be perpetual, but under certain conditions: the Teutonic Order would have to maintain the hospital in Andravida in accordance with the original foundation, in addition to four chaplains who would pray on a permanent basis for the souls of the prince’s parents. St James of Andravida would have to become the Teutonic Knights’ main house (caput conventus) in Romania (thus replacing Mostenitsa), and they would have another house in Clermont Castle – the prince’s main castle, whose construction by Geoffrey I had created so many problems – where all the brothers would reside if deemed necessary for the defense of the fortification. This makes evident the military dimension of the move.

Already a month earlier, in June 1237 at Andravida, Prior Geoffrey with the chapter and supposedly all the brothers and sisters (una cum capitulo et universitate fratrum et sororum) of St James had written directly to the pope to ask him to merge their house with the Teutonic Order.74 Although the style is more emotional (cum lacrimarum effusione), as could be expected from a petition to the pope, the arguments closely parallel those given one month later in the prince’s charter: the brothers explained that they did not have the resources to care for the poor and to abide by the rule established by their founder, and that lacking a proper administrator the situation of St James could go from bad to worse, with their possessions reduced to nothing. By associating themselves with the Teutonic Knights and by following their example and rule, the brothers of St James would return to the right path, care for the poor would be reassumed, and, more crucially perhaps, “the land of the lord prince, by means of the residency of men in arms who would stay in this place, would remain more secure” (terra domini principis, propter residenciam armatorum qui in eodem loco permanebunt, securior permanebit). The brothers of St James also ingenuously stressed the benefits of the solution for their own safety: “We, who appear to have no shelter outside Romania, if, God forbid, the land ever left the domination of the Latins, we, brothers and sisters, would be able to be conveniently sustained by the [Teutonic Knights].”75 This candid confession reveals how, in the late 1230s, confronted with the unexpected decline of the Latin Empire, at least some of the Latins of Romania felt insecure about their future even in Morea, the stronghold of their rule in the area. For some of the members of this religious institution, it now looked safer to be affiliated with an international order than to remain a regional one struggling to develop its own independent identity in an adverse environment. To support their petition to the pope, they had it sealed by three high Church dignitaries, Bishop Benedetto of Cephalonia, who, as we have seen, would also testify to and seal their charges against their master, the exiled Bishop John of Andros,76 and Dean Gerard of the cathedral chapter of Thebes.

Perhaps the brothers’ letter never reached the curia (at least the papal bulls do not allude to it), but Prince Geoffrey II of Achaia then sent his own, asking exactly the same thing. This was obviously a coordinated action, although only the prince’s petition77 is mentioned by Gregory IX in his three letters of 16 September 1237 summarizing the facts, granting the request, and stressing the utility of this union “for the Empire of Romania and for the Holy Land” (Romanie imperio ac Terre Sancte).78 One of the three bulls is addressed to the prior and brothers of St James, another to the preceptor and brothers of the Teutonic Order in Romania, and the third to the newly elected bishop of Coron and to the abbot and prior of the Cistercian abbey of Zaraka who, as papal executors, would have the task of granting the hospital permission to transfer to the Teutonic Order, not without having first made an inquest concerning its present situation to make sure it was truly exempt and not already subject to another order. The problems with the administration of Master John Manchot and his conflict with other brothers, to which the prince’s charter and the prior’s petition only alluded obliquely, and even the position of master of St James itself are not mentioned at all in these bulls, and it seems that at this stage the curia had not been comprehensively informed about the chaos within the hospital.

The master and some of the brothers of St James would later claim that the bishop-elect of Coron and the abbot and prior of Zaraka were not acting as impartial agents of the papacy in this affair, being unduly favorable to the Teutonic Knights.79 Regardless of the truth of this assertion, for unknown reasons the executors never actually fulfilled the mission that the pope assigned to them. Instead, some time later they delegated the task to two other Latin clerics, Dean Peter and Archdeacon Guy of the cathedral chapter of Monemvasia.80 Peter and Guy went together with “prudent and discrete men” (viris providis et discretis) to Andravida, but only in September 1238, a full year after the date of Gregory IX’s bull allowing the merger of St James with the Teutonic Order. Once there, they made an inquest and interrogated the brothers who were running the hospital to ensure that it was not already subject to any other religious order nor exempt, eventually granting them license to join the Teutonic Knights, with a portion of the brothers in fact adopting the Teutonic habit. Yet the mission was not recorded in an official document until much later, in May 1240, more than two and a half years after the pope had made known his decision.81 The document neglects to say, however, that, at that time or shortly before, to make a clean sweep, the prince had his castellan of Clermont expel manu militari the master and his followers from the hospital.82

Paperwork always takes some time, but the administrative delays and even more the date at which the permission for the transfer of the hospital to the Teutonic Knights was at last recorded probably have a very practical explanation: it was now urgent to clear up the situation, because the opposing faction within St James had begun to rise up and act to counter the devolution process. Master John Manchot had escaped detention and with some of the brothers he had gone in person to the curia to appeal to the pope. His arguments, known from the papal response,83 were that the Teutonic Knights, with the support of the prince of Achaia, who claimed to be St James’ patron, had unlawfully high-jacked for their own uses the properties of St James, which had been bequeathed “for the reception of the poor and the sick” (ad receptionem pauperum et egrorum), violently84 detained the master, and duped the pope into believing that the hospital was in such spiritual and temporal decay that only they could restore it. In addition, they had lied by claiming that the master and brothers had agreed to the arrangement and by omitting the fact that they themselves had already occupied St James de facto and placed the master in detention. The pope seems to have been convinced by the demonstration and he addressed a letter to the archdeacons of Corinth and Argos and Master Th., papal subdeacon and canon of Coron, ordering them to restore the rights of the master and his brothers. This first papal letter is lost, but it must have been sent in late 1238, shortly after St James had been officially handed over to the Teutonic Order, or in early 1239.

Despite this ruling of the pope in their favor, the plaintiffs were unable to obtain restitution because two of the three judges delegate were absent from Greece, staying in Italy. John Manchot had to return to the curia, then residing in Anagni, accompanied by two of his brothers, one called Julian and the other bearing a name beginning with R.85 (One of them – probably Julian – must have been the brother who had dramatically escaped from St James and taken refuge in the house of Lord Thomas.) They obtained a new papal letter, dated 20 August 1239 and addressed this time to Master Bernard, papal subdeacon and canon of Patras,86 confirming and summarizing the previous one: once the master and his brothers had been restored to possession of St James, and the Teutonic Knights had reimbursed the brothers of St James for the revenues received during their occupation, the pope decided, the knights should be given a deadline to present to the pope any claims they might have to the hospital, and the pope would have their claims examined. The people who had acted violently against John Manchot, if the facts were confirmed, should be publicly excommunicated.87 Twelve days later, the pope also wrote to Prince Geoffrey II to inform him of his decision and to warn him not to oppose, directly or through his agents, the actions of Master Bernard.88

The story of a pope granting a favor to a party coming from a remote place, based on faulty information supplied by that party, and changing his mind after being informed by the other party, is hardly original. By the late twelfth and early thirteenth century, the papacy had gone from a distant authority intermittently consulted on difficult cases to the busy supreme court of appeal for all Latin Christendom, when bearing the burden still lay far beyond its administrative capabilities. Thus it had to rely on local authorities to execute its decisions, but also to check the basic facts, for which reason papal letters were almost always granted with a caveat, provided that the information reported by the petitioner were proven to be true. This placed a great responsibility on the shoulders of the executors, who were given a wide berth, but in turn the defeated party had ample opportunity for appeal. The case of St James, however, perhaps involved more than just the usual legal chicanery at the papal curia. The pope may have changed his mind between 1237 and 1239 not simply because of Master John’s petition but also out of consideration for the general context: the Teutonic Knights were no longer in such favor at the curia, and Gregory had no reason to indulge them when they were active sympathizers of Emperor Frederick II, whom the pope had had to excommunicate for the second time on 20 March 1239, the day of the death of the Teutonic Order’s longtime grand master Hermann von Salza (1209-1239), who had been on good terms with the pope.89 The whole 1240s were actually a difficult period for the Teutonic Knights: the growth of their properties halted, due to internal difficulties but above all to their embroilment in the inexpiable struggle between the pope and the emperor, and consequently the grand masters’ authority was sometimes challenged (one of them was even deposed and offered to pass himself to the Templars).90 Their forces were also now fully absorbed in the conquest of Prussia and Livonia, where they experienced some serious reverses with the First Prussian Uprising (1242-1249) and their defeat at the hands of Prince Alexander Nevsky at the Battle of the Ice (1242).

On a more local level the papacy’s about-face interfered with the projects of Geoffrey II, the prince of Achaia, who reacted by sending a new petition to the pope, the text of which has been copied into the cartulary of the Teutonic Knights.91 The prince recalled the reasons that had compelled him, on the advice of sound men and at the request of the brothers of St James themselves, to give the hospital to the knights, reaffirming or reclaiming his right of patronage. He also reminded Gregory of the license that the pope himself had given to the brothers to transfer to the Teutonic Order in his letter to the bishop of Coron and the abbot and prior of Zaraka, that is, one of the three bulls of 16 September 1237, conditional on an inquest, which had been duly executed,92 after which almost all the brothers of St James had devoutly and humbly accepted to receive the Teutonic habit. In contrast, John Manchot (Iohannes Mancus) – whom the prince does not deign to call “master” – and Julian, “sons of iniquity and falsehood” (filii iniquitatis et mendacii), had been judged guilty of their excesses and lack of moderation, duly expelled from the community of St James, and could no longer be considered among its brothers. Yet they were the ones who had gone to the pope and, omitting pertinent facts and giving false and exaggerated evidence against the Teutonic Knights, they had mendaciously extorted from him the letter to Master Bernard, papal subdeacon, ordering the restitution of St James.

The prince expresses his indignation at seeing them causing damage so unjustly, when the innocent Teutonic Knights are compelled to waste for the defense of their rights the alms given to St James for the benefit of the sick and the poor. What makes him even more indignant is the intolerable sight of John and Julian trying to win over to their cause the archbishop of Patras – a frequent adversary of Geoffrey II and even more of his father before him – and the bishop-elect of Olena by pledging allegiance to the latter, contrary to the privilege of exemption granted to St James, which incidentally reveals that, in order to escape the claws of the Teutonic Order, John and his followers were now willing to sacrifice the independence they had fought for in 1236. Due to the prestige of the archbishop of Patras, almost all the bishops of Romania have sided with him against the Teutonic Order. The prince begs the pope to sanction once again and definitively the decision they have both already confirmed and to impose silence on those malignant people. The end of the petition has a more vehement and even emotional tone: the prince cannot bear to see the house in which his parents are buried abandoned to infamy. As a wise man said, “the hand of the impious cannot rightly worship the heavens” (non bene celestis93 impia dextra colit). Male and female benefactors concerned about the poor who turned away from St James due to its decadence have now, thanks to the integrity of the Teutonic Knights, resumed their donations and works of piety and divine worship are again performed at the hospital, Robert de l’Isle presumably being a good example. The others (meaning John Manchot and his kind), “in the numbness of a deep indolence and in the luxury of the dissolute” (desidie torpore gravis94 luxuque soluti), have soiled this holy place of retreat with the filth of their incontinence.

The document is interesting in more than one respect. Regarding the affair of St James, although Geoffrey II was claiming not to seek anything but the confirmation of a process of devolution to the Teutonic Knights already approved by the papacy, the prince slightly altered the argument given in the 1237 documents: there is no longer any question of the military advantages of uniting St James with the Teutonic Order, but, obviously to counter the arguments of his opponents, the focus is now on better serving the poor. Even more interesting, perhaps, is the style of the letter, including stock formulas routinely employed in ecclesiastical documents (e.g., filii iniquitatis). We have already encountered several clerics bearing the title of “master,” a reminder that, among those who endeavored to make a career in the new Latin Church of Romania, a good number had a university background; the same must have been true of those working in the prince’s chancery. The redactor of the prince’s petition cleverly drew from the culture he shared with his counterparts in the papal chancery, even inserting into the document the two quotations in verse recited in the previous paragraph, only the first of which is identified as such: the “wise man” to whom it is attributed is actually Ovid and it is taken from his Heroides,95 a text that circulated widely in the Latin West from the twelfth century onwards, although not as a complete collection, and in the thirteenth century began to be translated into French and a bit later into Italian.96 The second quotation in the prince’s petition, this one not identified as such, comes from a verse of the Alexandreis of Walter of Châtillon, a twelfth-century French poet and theologian.97 The Alexandreis, a heroic poem of Virgilian fashion on the life of Alexander the Great (mostly from Quintus Curtius), was also widely read and quoted during the last centuries of the Middle Ages.98 Both works belong to a body of secular literature with which university-educated clerics were intimately familiar. It is tempting to identify the redactor of this fascinating document with Master Peter, chancellor of Achaia but also papal subdeacon, who had collaborated four years earlier with the preceptor of the Teutonic Knights in Romania, in the service of both the pope and the prince, to collect the tithes on Church revenues that Gregory had assigned to Geoffrey to assist in his defense of the Latin Empire.99 Socially and culturally, Master Peter belonged to the same milieu as, for example, Master Bernard, the canon of Patras whose actions this letter tried to counter.

The princely petition is not dated, but an official copy was made in Rome on 26 April 1241,100 and the original was obviously composed after the second bull in favor of John Manchot, dated 20 August 1239, had reached Morea, since the petition responds to its arguments. It must thus have been sent to the papal curia between late 1239 and early 1241, more or less around the time (May 1240, with a vidimus in October) the dean and archdeacon of Monemvasia drew up their own delayed declaration explaining how they had executed their mission two years earlier.101 Obviously the Teutonic faction was attempting to strike back and to strengthen its legal position.

It is in the same context that we must place an event that occurred in the second half of March in 1240 or, less likely, in 1239.102 Robert de l’Isle remade the donation he had already made some years earlier, which had apparently become obsolete, surely because the brothers of St James had not been able to fulfil their obligations. The text of the second document, also in French, is quite similar to the first one, although slightly less detailed, for example omitting his parents’ names. At the core of the donation are still the two tenures at Chimeron and the seven peasants who should cultivate them, although Kyriakos Gonopoulos is missing, perhaps having died, and is replaced by an unnamed second brother of Ioannes Katomerites, while Robert now excludes from the donation a piece of land of four muids. The beneficiaries will now have to maintain seven more clerics in addition to the seven priests, but for the latter the conditions are the same. Robert augments his donation of eighty muids of arable land in an enclosure along the river, a detail that confirms that this is basically the same donation already made some years earlier to St James, not an entirely new one. The main difference between the two versions, however, is that the second is not made in favor of St James – which is not mentioned at all in the document – but directly in favor of the Teutonic Order. Robert says he has remade his donation with the advice of the Teutonic Knights, and this time it is their own seal that is used to validate the act. The purpose is obvious: whatever the ultimate fate of St James, at least this particular donation will remain with the Teutonic Knights, whom Robert de l’Isle now trusts more to care for the future of his foundation of Masses.

Once the case of St James had entered the circuit of the papal appeal system, one would expect to have even more information on its fate, but, on the contrary, we know very little about how the case evolved at the curia. It is certain that a legal process was conducted there and, therefore, that the Teutonic Order had in turn appealed to the Apostolic See (as can already be deduced from Prince Geoffrey II’s petition), but there are few traces of it in the papal registers or elsewhere, because the pope handed the case over to a cardinal. On 19 May 1241, the pope permitted Master John Manchot, Prior G., and their brothers to borrow up to 100 pounds of senatorial pence on the properties of the Hospital of St James to cover legal expenses for their case against the Teutonic Knights.103 From this letter, we learn that Gregory IX had delegated the case to Riccardo Annibaldi, cardinal-deacon of Sant’Angelo in Pescheria, the pope’s relative and a trusted right-hand man in his struggle with Frederick II.104 We are also informed that there was a new prior of St James (or, less likely, that the same one had shifted allegiance, abandoning the Teutonic Knights and siding with John Manchot) and that Master John seems to have reorganized his troops. Nevertheless, John had not been able to make the best of the bull of August 1239 and to recover St James’ properties, which were still in the hands of the Teutonic Order, since the next month, on 8 June 1241, the pope wrote to the archbishop of Patras and to the bishop and archdeacon of Coron, asking them to force the Teutonic brothers (who were still occupying the hospital) to pay back at a fitting place and time the loan that the master and brothers of St James had received, in accordance with his previous letter, from a Sienese merchant.105 On 19 July 1241, official copies of all the relevant documents were made by two cardinals, Goffredo da Castiglione, bishop of Sabina (who just three months later would become pope for sixteen days as Celestine IV), and Raniero Capocci, deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, whom we have already met some years earlier in his capacity as auditor of the dispute between St James and the bishop of Olena.106

William II, the Templars, and the Later History of St James

There is thus evidence that the case was still following its course at the curia, but one month later, on 22 August 1241, Pope Gregory IX died. Because the pope who had appointed him was no longer living, Cardinal Annibaldi’s authority to judge the case of St James ceased ipso facto. For almost two years the curia was embroiled in electing Gregory’s successor. When the registration of letters resumed at the papal chancery in July 1243, after the election of Innocent IV on 25 June, we find no trace of the case in the registers and we have no idea whether the legal process was again committed to the examination of a cardinal and ultimately culminated in a formal sentence, or the parties managed to keep it alive but undecided for years through subtle legal hair-splitting, or it simply became dormant. All we can say is that in 1243, when the cartulary of the Teutonic Order was likely compiled, the documents relating to St James were included, which shows that the order still stood by its claim at this stage and that the whole dossier was in the hands of its central administration at the time.107 Once papal documentation concerning St James resurfaces, however, more than three years after the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent IV, it is no longer a question of the Teutonic Knights.

The master of St James, perhaps still John Manchot, perhaps not, along with his brothers lodged a new petition to the new pope, their immediate superior. They explained that their hospital, formerly flourishing, had declined in spiritual and temporal affairs to such an extent that reform from within the order was hopeless, but this time they blamed the numerous quarrels and legal battles, internal and external, that they had suffered, an allusion, but an allusion only, to the attempted union with the Teutonic Order and the almost decade-long dispute that followed. Consequently, they asked the pope to permit them and their hospital to be incorporated into the Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, whose brothers would be able to reform their institution. As a result, Pope Innocent approved the absorption of St James into the Templar Order with a letter dated 31 October 1246 at Lyons – where the thirteenth general council of the Church had taken place the previous year and where the pontiff was still residing at the time – and addressed to the archbishop of Corinth, the bishop of Sparta (Lacedaemon), and the dean of the cathedral chapter of Thebes, who were in charge of its execution.108

This looks like a compromise. In the end the brothers of the Hospital of St James had to join a military order, but it was not the Teutonic Knights, with whom they had litigated since at least 1237, but rather the Knights Templar. One suspects that what made this compromise possible was the death of Prince Geoffrey II, who had made the merging of St James with the Teutonic Order his pet project, and the succession of a new prince, his brother William II of Villehardouin, who had been until then lord of Kalamata. It is true that the prince is not mentioned at all in the 1246 papal letter and that Geoffrey II’s dates are less securely fixed than has been hitherto believed (see the appendix below). Nevertheless, the coincidence seems too striking to be simply that, particularly when one takes into consideration how much William’s memory is linked to St James in the fourteenth-century Chronicle of Morea. Granted, the Chronicle exhibits a general tendency to assign to individuals of a later period the actions of some of the early Frankish lords of Greece, particularly as concerns William, the last “indigenous” prince of Achaia.109 In the case of St James, however, there is probably something more. In presenting the testamentary arrangements of William II surrounding his funeral, the Chronicle imputes to him both the construction of the Church of St James and its donation to the Templars. This can be found in both the French and the Greek versions (the late fourteenth-century Aragonese version is much more vague):110

What makes it obvious that St James was an important element at least for the reworker of the Greek version of the Chronicle of Morea is that this passage implicitly refers to another that, in this version, is placed right at the beginning of the reign of Prince William, which gives it an epanaleptic narrative structure or at least frame. It is difficult to say if this structure reflects the common ancestor of both versions or is a development introduced by the reworker of the Greek version. The French version, which tends to be more synthetic in some sections, just notes that William was more enterprising than his late brother (“qui fut entreprenans plus que ne fu messire G[eoffroys] ses freres”).115 On the contrary, in the Greek version, which generally has much more taste for invented direct speech, a dying Geoffrey gives a lengthy farewell address to his brother and successor, in which he presents his own reign as characterized by being incomplete – a theme that is present in this whole section, since Geoffrey II is portrayed as leaving the conquest of the Peloponnese unfinished (which is false)116 and as not having been able to beget a son and successor (which is true). In his last speech, he gives his brother two missions: first, to fulfil in his place what he had not been able to do; second, to marry and have heirs.117 It is the first one that interests us:

What Geoffrey describes here is exactly what William is said, some 5,000 verses later, to have realized. True, we have already remarked that one should never take what the Chronicle of Morea says for granted. Here its narrative implicitly erases all the earlier history of St James, which we know for certain to have existed almost from the foundation of the principality. Nevertheless, when the Chronicle claims that William was responsible for the construction of the church of St James and its donation to the Templars, both statements could well be at least partly true, and this grain of truth might be the basis for its entire reconstruction of the events. It is indeed at the beginning of William’s reign and certainly at his instigation that St James was merged with the Order of the Temple, and the church itself may well have been constructed or reconstructed while he was prince and with his financial support. The order of events should probably be reversed, however, the transfer to the Templars coming first and the reconstruction or simply the extension and embellishment of the church next.

Of course, it is not William who made St James the mausoleum of the Villehardouin: the petition of Geoffrey II to the pope recalls that Geoffrey I and his wife Elizabeth had both already chosen to rest there.121 No doubt Geoffrey II himself did decide on St James as his place of burial, rather than let his brother choose for him. Nevertheless, the actual disposition of the tombs of the three princes inside the church must be William’s work, and we can trust the Chronicle on that point because it describes something that was still fully visible in the fourth decade of the fourteenth century, when it was written or at least compiled more or less in the form in which we have it. Although the Chronicle speaks of only one monument, the description implies that this was a sepulcher with three places, equivalent to three tombs side by side. Whatever the formal aspect of this monument, for the three resting places to be visible it must have been a freestanding monument in an open space and not against a wall, possibly in the choir of the church.

Burial in a conventual church, generally in a prominent place in the choir, was indeed a privilege of the founder and burial rights were usually extended to his descendants. The spatial arrangement of the tombs often became a focus of family consciousness, and later tombs sometimes even integrated a genealogical discourse in their decoration, expressing their illustrious family connections or dynastic continuity.122 For example, in Champagne, the Villehardouins’ native region, at the collegiate church of Saint-Étienne of Troyes, the metal and enamelled tomb of Count Thibaud III (†1201) was erected symmetrically to the similar tomb of his father, Count Henry the Liberal (†1181), to strengthen his and his heir’s dynastic rights.123 What the disposition at St James recalls more directly, however, is the core of the necropolis of the kings of France at Saint-Denis, reorganized in the thirteenth century according to a genealogical logic and ideology, with the three great Capetian kings – Philip II Augustus, Louis VIII, and St Louis IX (whom William of Villehardouin had met during the former’s first crusade and who was still alive at the time of this funerary refurbishing) – lying alone side by side in the center, behind the matutinal altar, under three shining tombs of metalwork.124 Undoubtedly, the monument of the Villehardouin princes was much more modest: although the Greek version of the Chronicle speaks of “κιβώριον” (“κιβοῦριν”), in late medieval sources this does not necessarily refer to a canopy.125 Judging from the only princely tomb that has come down to us, that of Princess Agnes/Anna, they were probably just marble slabs or simple sarcophagi with inscriptions, but the basic idea of a church with a central triple dynastic memorial is nevertheless comparable.

The princes were not alone in being buried in St James. As we have seen, the wife of Geoffrey I, Elizabeth, was also laid to rest there, not necessarily in the same tomb. It is possible that this was also the case of Agnes of Courtenay, the wife of Geoffrey II, if she stayed in Morea as a widow, as well as of the first wife of William II, but no source mentions their burials. The only princely tomb that has come down to us is the partially preserved grave slab of Anna (renamed Agnes by the Latins), the second wife of Prince William II.126 In fact, this small monument has played a major role in modern studies on St James: it seems to be the only solid element connecting the hospital to a site in Andravida where the slab is supposed to have been found.127 Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Anna/Agnes was buried at St James: although she had been the wife of Prince William, the inscription on the slab, which is only very partially preserved, commemorates her only as the daughter of the Despot Michael Komnenos of Epiros, and at the time of her death she had remarried Nicholas II de Saint-Omer, co-lord of Thebes. Moreover, she is known to have founded her own monastery, dedicated to the virgin and martyr St Marina, certainly a Greek monastery, which might also have been in Andravida and would have been a natural place for her sepulcher.128

IMG000006

Grave slab of Anna/Agnes, second wife of Prince William II (in the public domain)

Citation: Frankokratia 2, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/25895931-12340008

Conclusion

With the quarrel finally quieted, we hear little more of the Hospital of St James. A letter of Pope Clement V of 27 April 1308 tells us that Master James of Ménetreuil (“Monestruel”), canon of Corinth and archdeacon of Argos, possessed a perpetual chaplaincy in St James of Andreville,129 thus demonstrating that the four chaplains established many decades earlier still served. Unfortunately, the information in Clement V’s letter comes in the non obstantibus clauses, so we are not told anything else. At that time, Templar control over St James was nearing its end, since the process leading to the destruction of the order, instigated by the French crown, had already begun.

In the Kingdom of Cyprus, where the Templars were headquartered, the records of the inquest against the order conducted by a papal commission in 1310 contain a handful of mentions of St James. A Templar called Brother Pons of Singrige or Singrande, from the diocese of Cahors in Southern France, stated that he had been received into the order in November 1304130 by “Brother John le Connétable, then preceptor of Morea. Asked where he received him, he said in a house of the order of the Temple which is in Andravida (Andravilla), and is called the house of Saint James.”131 He also mentions some of the other knights who attended his reception: the chaplain, Brother Adam da Brindisi (Brandisio) (not one of the four chaplains of St James, but the chaplain of the order), Brother Pons de Chavannes (de Ceveni), Brother Geoffrey du Port.132 Two of them, Geoffrey du Port and Adam da Brindisi, had already been present less than a year earlier, on 24 June 1303, “in Andravida (Antravilla) in Morea,” with John of Besançon (de Besazono), for the reception of a knight named Albert or Hubert.133 Some of these individuals were again present at the reception of another knight, Brother Stephen de Centonaria (or Chentanario), which took place in 1306/1307 at Andravida – obviously in both cases at St James even if it is not stated explicitly: John le Connétable was still preceptor in Romania and received him, and Pons of Chavannes (Chavania) and the chaplain lord Adam da Brindisi (Brundisio) were both still present, with another brother, John de Ubamore.134

The earliest these testimonies permit us to look back into the past is with that of Brother Hugh de Besançon (Besaczono), prior of the order, who recalled having been received thirty years earlier – so in 1280 – “in the town which is called Andravida” (in villa que dicitur Andravilla), at a time when the preceptor of the order in Romania was Geoffrey de Sale (Jeffredus de Sale): Adam da Brindisi was already chaplain, and Brother John d’Arnoval (de Arnovalle) was also present.135 What they confirm undoubtedly is that St James was still in the hands of the Templars at the beginning of the fourteenth century and seems even to have been the center of their activities in Morea and more generally in Romania,136 and the place of residence of the regional preceptor. Two of those preceptors are mentioned, Geoffrey de Sale in 1280, as preceptor “in Romania,” and John le Connétable from 1301 to 1306/1307, twice as preceptor “in Romania” and once as “preceptor in the Morea.” The latter may or may not be identified with John de Neufchastel, “grand commander of the Temple in Romania,” who in 1305, with other high ranking laymen and clerics, probably in Athens, delivered a vidimus of various documents pertaining to the inheritance of the then duchess of Athens.137

Nevertheless, the end of the Templar presence did not mean the end of St James. A last but vivid testimony of its link with the Villehardouin dynasty that had founded it can be seen in a slightly later document, the testament of Margaret, the younger daughter of William II of Villehardouin, drawn up in French in Clarence (Glarentza, near today’s Kyllini) on 15 December 1314.138 It contains several donations to “our hospital of Andravida” and “our church of Andravida”: the wall of the hospital must be completed (“le mure de nostre hospital soit percomplie [se]lonc la maniere que fu encomencié”), an old house that will serve as lodgings must be whitewashed, twelve places must be created for the poor in good health so that they will not be mixed with the sick, a horse mill at Potamia or at Clarence is given to the hospital, as well as 6,000 hyperpers to buy property and 1,500 for incidental costs. The hospital is also the beneficiary regarding all of Margaret’s possessions in Clarence and, last but not least, “our church in Andravida” (obviously the church of the hospital) receives an impressive treasure of liturgical vessels, garments, vestments, and other precious objects that are enumerated in detail in the testament. Nevertheless, Margaret chooses as her place of burial the nunnery of Clarence, to which she bequeaths 1,000 hyperpers, which seems odd, considering that the hospital of Andravida is her main ecclesiastical beneficiary.

In fact, we have evidence for more than one hospital in the diocese of Olena, and Margaret herself bequeathed 100 hyperpers to “Our Lady of A[…]is” and its hospital (“a Nostre Dame d’A[…]is et son hospital”). A lacuna in the text unfortunately deprives us of the French form of the name, but it must be the hospital of Our Lady “of Arras” (capellam hospitalis Beatae Mariae de Atrebato) to which Nicholas IV had granted an indulgence in 1290.139 There is no indication, however, that this hospital was situated in Andravida, where the only known hospital was St James, which at one point Margaret referred to simply as “the hospital of Andravida” (“l’ospital d’Andriville”), just as Pope Gregory IX called it in a bull of 1236: magistrum et fratres hospitalis Andreville.140

If it was indeed St James to which Margaret made so many bequests, why did she not refer to the previous history of the establishment or call it by its name? And why did she make such specific arrangements for the endowment of the hospital when St James was supposedly already well endowed by her ancestors? The most reasonable explanation is that St James had been so reduced to disarray and despoiled due to the persecution and suppression of the Templars that it needed to be refounded from top to bottom. As the last heiress of the Villehardouin dynasty, Margaret assumed the task, revivifying their dormant jus patronatus. However unsatisfactory this explanation may appear, it seems more plausible than to suppose that there were two major hospitaller institutions under Villehardouin patronage coexisting at the same time in Andravida, one of which Margaret would completely ignore in her will.

Ultimately, however, the Knights Hospitaller (who, in the early decades of the fourteenth century, were establishing their political domination in the Southeastern Aegean, not so far from the principality) prevailed and took over St James. According to the Aragonese version of the Chronicle of Morea, compiled at the very end of the fourteenth century, possession of St James had passed to the Hospitallers, probably in the wake of the Templar trial, as in the case of so many Templar properties elsewhere.141 No doubt the house survived until the fall of the town to the Byzantines in the early fifteenth century. By then the glory of St James, Andravida, and the Villehardouin was long gone, although only St James was forgotten.

Appendix: Note on the Chronology of the Reign of Geoffrey II of Villehardouin

by Guillaume Saint-Guillain

The dates of the reign of the second prince of the house of Villehardouin are often foggy in the bibliography. Regarding Geoffrey II’s accession, even now one finds repeated the date of 1218, adopted by Buchon in the nineteenth century,142 although Jean Longnon demonstrated as long ago as 1946 that this is impossible.143 In a later book, Longnon also made a crucial observation, often passed unnoticed since, based on a document of 28 April 1227 authored by a Geoffrey who uses the title of prince of Achaia but not that of seneschal of the Empire of Romania.144 Since Geoffrey I had enjoyed both titles, this implies he had already died and Geoffrey II had succeeded him as prince, but not yet as seneschal, since this office was not hereditary but conferred by the emperor, whom Geoffrey II had still not had the occasion to meet at that time. Later he would use the title of seneschal in his charter for St James and even in his petition to the pope,145 which shows that its absence in the 1227 charter must have been for a reason.

Geoffrey II was thus already prince in April 1227, but for how long had he been so? In the same book, Longnon suggested, based on a papal letter of February 1225, that Geoffrey I was still prince at that point,146 and this is certainly the case (and an improvement over Du Cange’s terminus post quem of 1223). Longnon overlooked another papal letter from 21 October 1226, however, because this was not copied into the papal registers and consequently had not been summarized by Pietro Pressutti in his calendar of the letters of Honorius III, which Longnon was using. It was copied into the Liber plegiorum, one of the earliest registers of the Venetian chancery. Addressed not to the prince of Achaia but to the prior of St Mark of Negroponte, the letter concerns a sentence of excommunication that the Venetian castellans of Modon, Tommaso Dandolo and Leonardo Foscolo, had incurred during the conflict between the Church and the lay lords of Southern Greece over ecclesiastical properties.147 The pertinent point for us is the circumstances given to explain why they can now be pardoned: the pair had been excommunicated for the same reason as Prince Geoffrey, after which time the prince reached an agreement with the clergy and was absolved; thus, since the castellans are ready to adhere to the convention, they can be absolved as well.148 It seems clear that Honorius was not referring to a dead prince and considered Geoffrey to be still alive when he sent this letter. Granted, he might not have been informed of a recent death, and the news of a death at the end of the summer or in early autumn would not have reached the curia by October. Nevertheless, such an important event could not have remained unknown to the papacy for very long, considering the regular communication between the local lords and clergy and the curia. One can conclude that Geoffrey I likely died and Geoffrey II became prince between September 1226 and late April 1227.

If the date of the beginning of Geoffrey II’s reign varies considerably in the literature, its end is almost invariably given as 1246, as if that date were certain. Yet it is anything but, based on grounds as weak as some of the dates given for his accession. Du Cange thought the prince died between 1244 (year of a papal letter mentioning him) and 1247, “because in the year 1247, Agnes his wife had come back to France.”149 This was based on a charter of her brother Emperor Baldwin II regulating the succession to Namur and naming his sister among potential heirs.150 Buchon closely followed Du Cange, although claiming additionally that there was not just one 1247 document but several, and that they mentioned Agnes as a widow.151 In fact, in the document Agnes is not so labelled other than princess of Achaia (“princesse de Achaye”), nor is she said to be in France rather than in Greece.

Other authors, among them William Miller, Jean Longnon, Antoine Bon, and Kenneth Setton, have since relied on a papal letter of May 1246, in which Geoffrey is mentioned as still alive,152 and they followed more or less explicitly this line of reasoning: if, as claimed in the Chronicle of Morea, Prince William II captured Monemvasia in 1248 after a three-year siege, his brother Geoffrey must have died before the end of 1246, so shortly after May of that year.153 Of course, the Chronicle gives no date at all for the conquest of Monemvasia, 1248 being just another educated guess by Buchon. This piling up of suppositions has no real foundation, since the attribution of the conquest of Monemvasia to William in the Chronicle is a legend, the city having been taken by the Latins more than one if not two decades earlier.154 No document explicitly mentions William II as prince of Achaia earlier than February 1249, so all that we can be sure of is that Geoffrey died between the spring of 1246 and February 1249. Still, a letter of November 1248 mentions a prince of Achaia who conducted an expedition to succour Constantinople earlier that year, certainly during the spring and summer of 1248.155 Although unnamed, the prince must already be William (who is attested in February of the following year, as we have seen), rather than Geoffrey, but it remains difficult to pinpoint more precisely when the latter died during the range of two years between spring 1246 and spring 1248.

1

Hermannus Zoest de Monasterio, De fermento et azimo, c. 12, ed. C.P.E. Nothaft and C. Schabel, forthcoming. We thank our two anonymous readers and our cartographer, Trine Wismann.

2

On this development, see, for example, C.H. Berman, The Cistercian Evolution. The Invention of a Religious Order in Twelfth-Century Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000).

3

Unlike for other areas of Hellenism under Latin rule, there is still no recent monograph on the Latin secular clergy in Greece. Aside from several other works cited below, see R.L. Wolff, “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261: Social and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest,” Traditio 6 (1948), 33-60, and Idem, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), 225-303; both repr. in Idem, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (London: Variorum, 1976), nos. VIII and IX; G. Fedalto, La Chiesa latina in Oriente, vol. I (2nd ed., Verona: Mazziana, 1981), 217-469. For the Latin regular clergy, aside from the military orders, see now N.I. Tsougarakis, The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, 1204-1500 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012).

4

D. Stathakopoulos, “Discovering a Military Order of the Crusades: The Hospital of St. Sampson of Constantinople,” Viator 37 (2006), 255-273 (the inspiration for our title).

5

Mentions of St James based on these documents can be found mostly in studies touching on the Teutonic Order in Greece, above all E.A.R. Brown, “The Cistercians in the Latin Empire of Constantinople and Greece, 1204-1276,” Traditio 14 (1958), 63-120, at 107-108; K. Forstreuter, Der Deutsche Orden am Mittelmeer (Bonn: Wissenschaftliches Archiv, 1967), 237-238, making the failure of the incorporation clear; A. Bon, La Morée franque. Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205-1430) (Paris: De Boccard, 1969), 319-320, explicitly claiming (319, n. 6) that St James was never Templar or Hospitaller; A. Kiesewetter, “L’Ordine Teutonico in Grecia e in Armenia,” in L’Ordine Teutonico nel Mediterraneo. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio, Torre Alemanna (Cerignola)-Mesagne-Lecce, 16-18 ottobre 2003, ed. H. Houben (Galatina: Mario Congedo, 2004), 73-107, at 86 and 88-89; C. Schabel, “Antelm the Nasty, First Latin Archbishop of Patras,” in Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1000-1500: Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication, eds. A.D. Beihammer, M.G. Parani, and C.D. Schabel (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93-137, at 136; P.-V. Claverie, Honorius III et l’Orient (1216-1227) (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 184-185; A. Kouroupakis and C.D. Schabel, “Bishop Benedetto of Cephalonia, 1207–post 1239,” Mediterranean Historical Review 32/2 (2017), 139-152 at 142-143, noting that St James was head of an order. The most complete summary is G. Saint-Guillain, “The Conquest of Monemvasia by the Franks: Date and Context,” Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, n.s., 52 (2015), 241-294, at 250-253.

6

The documents relating to St James are published in Tabulae ordinis Theutonici ex tabularii regii Berolinensis codice potissimum, ed. E. Strehlke (Berlin: Weidmann 1869; repr. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 129-140, nos. 129-140. The edition is in chronological order and does not follow the order of the cartulary, in which some documents are actually copied more than once, independently or inserted into other documents (some of them being only copies of copies). For a codicological analysis and concordances between the manuscript and the edition, and for the history of the manuscript, see H.E. Mayer, “Introduction” to the reprint, 27-81 (particularly 27-29, 34-37, and 66-80). Oddly at first sight, the cartulary does not contain any document relating to the other properties of the Teutonic Knights in Romania: for the reason, see below, n. 107.

7

On Geoffrey I’s life, see J. Longnon, Les compagnons de Villehardouin. Recherches sur les croisés de la quatrième croisade (Geneva – Paris: École pratique des hautes études, 1978), 32-41, at 35 for the assumption of the title of prince of Morea, which took place between September 1209 and March 1210, but more probably at the beginning of the latter year.

8

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 134 no. 133.

9

Ibidem, 135 no. 134 and 137 no. 139, the latter being Geoffrey II’s 1240/41 petition.

10

Ibidem, 135 no. 134: “Ex parte siquidem dilecti filii nobilis viri G. principis Achaye fuit propositum coram nobis quod clare memorie pater suus ad honorem beati Iacobi auctoritate bone memorie . . Albanensis episcopi tunc in partibus illis apostolice sedis legati hospitale cum ecclesia eterne retributionis obtentu fundavit …”

11

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 129-131 no. 129, at 131: “Datum Constantinopoli II nonas Februarii, pontificatus domini Innocencii pape tercii anno septimo decimo.” Innocent III was elected pope on 8 January 1198 but crowned only on the following 22 February, and he dated his pontificate from his coronation.

12

Pegai, on the Asiatic shore of the Sea of Marmara, was also a bishopric (ecclesia Spigatensis), but this was a new see created by the Latins. In fact the town, which was also at that time the seat of a lordship, had an important Latin population: see J.-C. Cheynet, “Les biens de l’Église latine de Constantinople en Asie Mineure,” Byzantinische Forschungen 29 (2007), 155-173, at 161. This was the right place to install a hospital dependent on St James of Andravida. Consequently, the edition’s Spicacenensis (Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 129 no. 129) must be a scribal error for Spigatensis, probably due to an incorrect resolution of an abbreviation, Spigatensis being abbreviated as Spigaten. (rather than Spigat.) and then developed by adding the ending -ensis rather than just -sis. This is confirmed by the formula domum de Spigatio in the 1218 papal letter (see below).

13

J. Koder and F. Hild, Hellas und Thessalia (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976), 87: “Auch der Deutsche Ritterorden war in Hellas vertreten; zwar lag sein Schwerpunkt in der Nordwestpeloponnes (Andreville), doch nennt eine 1214 datierte Urkunde auch ein hospitale sancti Iacobi de Macra (Megara?) Atteniensis diocesis” (although the Teutonic Order was not yet involved in the affairs of St James at this stage).

14

Bullarium Hellenicum. Pope Honorius III’s Letters to Frankish Greece and Constantinople (1216-1227), eds. W.O. Duba and C.D. Schabel (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 311 no. 125.

15

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 132 no. 131 and 133 no. 132, both from the late 1230s.

16

Bullarium Hellenicum, 227-228 no. 65. For the first attempt to identify the properties mentioned in this letter, see Claverie, Honorius III et l’Orient, 184, which the editors of the Bullarium Hellenicum followed.

17

Surprisingly, and unlike the privilege granted three years earlier by the papal legate, this papal privilege was not recopied among the documents relating to St James of Andravida in the cartulary of the Teutonic Order. It may be that it had been lost or was in the hands of the adversaries of the Teutonic Knights in the case of St James. As we shall see, in the late 1230s the master, who was in communication with the Templars, was accused of having stolen some privileges from the archives of the order.

18

Bonrepast is not mentioned by Bon, La Morée franque. It looks French and might be a lapse for “Bonrepost,” meaning “good rest,” a common place name.

19

Murges cannot be identified more precisely, but it seems unlikely that it is the island of Amorgos in the Cyclades, even admitting that the latter was already in Latin hands. The place is probably in the Peloponnese instead. One can postulate a transliteration from the Greek “Μούργες.”

20

The document reads Bestiana, but such a toponym does not seem to exist. One can hypothesize an error for Bestiaria, the plural of Bestiarion, which might conceivably have been used as a place name for properties belonging to the imperial bestiarion, the Byzantine state treasury, but one would expect a transliteration with an initial V rather than a B.

21

The identification with the city of Megara is not certain: it could be a minor place with the name Megale (“the Great”). One wonders, however, if the house of Megala (Μεγάλη, “large,” “great”) is not just simply St James de Macra (Μακρ, “long”) mentioned in 1215 and thus in Attica but unconnected to Megara.

22

On this place, south of the present Lamia, see Koder and Hild, Hellas und Thessalia, 251.

23

One of the main cities of Macedonia, at the time the seat of a Latin archbishopric (ecclesia Serrensis) and still in Latin hands for some years.

24

In Eastern Thrace, on the Sea of Marmara, west of Constantinople, still under imperial control, with a Latin bishop.

25

See Schabel, “Antelm the Nasty,” 108-121, more particularly 115 for this period.

26

This optimism about the future of Latin rule is also revealed in the properties granted in the 1210s by members of the Latin baronage to a Cistercian nunnery in Constantinople, St Mary of Le Perchay, many of which were located in Asia Minor, the region of the Latin Empire that modern historiography often considers – wrongly – as the more exposed to a Greek reconquest that is often assumed to be inevitable: see G. Saint-Guillain, “Propriétés et bienfaiteurs de l’abbaye constantinopolitaine de Sainte-Marie du Perchay,” Thesaurismata 41-42 (2011-2012), 9-39, at 35.

27

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 133 no. 132.

28

Ibidem, 131-132 no. 130.

29

The name of the brother appears as “Comes” in this document and as “Quenon” in a 1239 document: ibidem, 136 no. 137.

30

Veligourt in the document. For the location and forms of the name see Bon, La Morée franque, 518-521 (521 on Chimeron).

31

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 131 no. 130: “E avec les II estaies devant només a doné li davant dis Robert a la maison davant dite Johan Lagot et ses dos freres et lor meisnies et Johan Catomérite et Vasile son frere et Curiache et Johanni Gonople et les meisnies de tos ces homes només.” The edition has “meismes” which should be corrected to “meisnies.” “Lagor” in the edition must also be a misreading for “Lagot” (which appears in the 1239 document). One can hypothesize that the Greek patronym is Lagoutes (Λαγούτης).

32

Sealing was the standard way to validate documents in the Principality of Achaia, so it seems that Robert de l’Isle did not own a seal and the donation had to be validated with the seal of the beneficiary. It is interesting to note that St James did have a seal and that the master needed the approval of his brothers to use it (“par lo consel et par la volenté des freires de cele meisme maison i ai mis le seel de la davant dite maison”). On sealing in the Assizes of Romania, the fourteenth-century handbook of customary laws of the principality, see Libro dele Uxanze e statuti delo imperio de Romania, ed. A. Parmeggiani (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1998), 188-189, §§149-150.

33

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 131-132 no. 130: “Et je maestre Nicholes, par la grace de Deu avesques de Couronne, i ai mis lo mien seel el non de tesmoignage ceste.”

34

On Manessier de l’Isle himself, see Longnon, Les compagnons de Villehardouin, 42-45. From a family of the Île-de-France, but implanted in Champagne on account of his marriage, he had four sons from his union with Amisse of Milly: Robert, Manessier, John, and Thibault, all mentioned in a 1210 document: H. Petersen Dyggve, “Trouvères et protecteurs de trouvères dans les cours seigneuriales de France (Vieux-Maisons, Membrolles, Mauvoisin, Trie, L’Isle-Adam, Nesle, Harnes),” Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, series B, 50 (1942), 39-247, at 176-178 (at 176 n. 2 the identification with the companion of Villehardouin is excluded for no special reason, but Longnon has shown it is the same individual).

35

C. Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues publiées avec notes et tables généalogiques (Berlin: Weidmann, 1873; repr. Brussels, 1966), 472, table 5.X (genealogical table full of conjectures and mistakes: e.g., Robert’s father is named also Robert, when the document calls him John).

36

In the 1239 document, Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 136 no. 137, Robert similarly says that the lands are “de ma propre conqueste.”

37

See the articles of the Assizes of Romania on the fiefs by right of conquest: Libro dele Uxanze, 132-133 §32, 151-152 §62, 156 §71, 167-168 §98. See also D. Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale. Les “Assises de Romanie”: sources, application et diffusion (Paris – La Haye: Mouton, 1971), 40-42.

38

Libro dele Uxanze, 166-167 §96. This concerned also donations to communities and to villeins.

39

Les registres de Grégoire IX. Recueil des bulles de ce pape publiées d’après les manuscrits originaux du Vatican, ed. L. Auvray, 4 vols. (Paris: E. Thorin, A. Fontemoing, 1890-1955), vol. II, cols. 488-489 no. 3346 (1236) and cols. 770-771 no. 3878 (1237), with another copy in Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 136 no. 13.

40

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. II, cols. 850-851 no. 4022 (1238), and vol. III, col. 16 no. 4811 (1239); Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 137 no. 138 (1240) (from two different copies in the cartulary), which reproduces one of the 1237 letters, thus proving that it is the same individual.

41

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. III, col. 531 no. 6071, 8 June 1241, addressed to the bishop. In ibidem, vol. III, col. 514 no. 6034, 1 June 1241, full text in Reg. Vat. 20, f. 79r, no. 59, the pope writes to the prior of St Mark of Negroponte that “Cum itaque, sicut accepimus, . . electus Coranus nuper contra cives, castellanos, et Coronenses ac Venetos in eorum(!) civitatibus commorantes super possessionibus et rebus aliis a nobis ad diversos iudices litteras impetrarit …” Given the context, Coranus is presumably an error for Coronensis, but did the news of his consecration reach the curia during that week? On the letter, see S. Borsari, “La chiesa di San Marco a Negroponte,” Medioevo greco. Rivista di storia e filologia bizantina 0 [sic] (2000), 27-34, at 28.

42

On Robert de l’Isle’s second donation, see below.

43

Bullarium Hellenicum, 222 no. 61, 311 no. 125, 572 no. 274; Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. I, col. 452 no. 729.

44

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. II, cols. 488-489 no. 3346 (Rieti, 26 September 1236).

45

Andravida was in his diocese. The last bishop of Olena mentioned by name was Peter (an individual hardly more respectable than Archbishop Antelm of Patras), who was still in charge in 1226: Bullarium Hellenicum, 565-568 no. 270, and Schabel’s introduction, ibidem, 42-43. There is no way of knowing if he was still bishop ten years later.

46

The master was probably already John Manchot, on whom see below. In the document, there is mention only of the “hospital of Andravida” (magistrum et fratres hospitalis Andreville), not of St James, but there is no doubt that it is the same house.

47

The see of Helos was so poor that it had never received a Latin bishop and was merged with the see of Sparta as early as September 1223: Schabel, “Antelm the Nasty,” 103; Bullarium Hellenicum, 456-457 no. 203, and see also Schabel’s introduction, ibidem, 52 (by mistake, in G. Fedalto, La Chiesa latina in Oriente. Vol. II. Hierarchia latina Orientis [Verona: Mazziana, 1976], 128-129, this mention of the see is taken for the mention of a bishop). The 1236 letter shows, however, that Helos nevertheless resurfaced in the 1230s and, as noted by Fedalto (ibidem, 129), the mention of both the bishop of Olena and the bishop-elect of Helos in the same letter excludes a confusion between the two sees. This might be a consequence of the ecclesiastical reorganization of the Southeast of the Peloponnese in the early 1230s after the completion of the conquest with the annexation of Monemvasia: Saint-Guillain, “The Conquest of Monemvasia by the Franks.”

48

The edition of Gregory’s letter and the manuscript, Reg. Vat. 18, f. 196v, read “in villa que villa Gort vulgariter appellatur,” an obvious error for “in villa que Villagort vulgariter appellatur.”

49

Bullarium Hellenicum, 311 no. 125.

50

Even in the words of Prince Geoffrey II in his petition to the pope when summarizing the history of St James, Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 137 no. 139: “et ibidem aliquamdiu hospitalitas visa fuerit reflorere.”

51

Contrary to other documents, this one is known only through its insertion into the documents produced by two cardinals in 1241 (see below), which probably explains its lack of dating.

52

The presence as witness and sealer of the document of Bishop Benedetto of Cephalonia (ibidem, 133-134 no. 132) would plead for a dating close to the document of June 1237, also sealed by the same bishop (ibidem, 132 no. 131): Kouroupakis and Schabel, “Bishop Benedetto of Cephalonia,” 142. Nevertheless, neither this document, nor the princely act, nor the papal letters of the same year make any allusion to John Manchot. This list of grievances could have been made a bit later, when it became necessary to justify his arrest.

53

The documents relating to these events use the two titles alternatively, which might reflect the ongoing process of integrating St James into a larger order, of which it would have become a mere preceptory.

54

He is called just John in this document, Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 133 no. 132, but his full name and surname (Iohannes Mancus) appear in Prince Geoffrey II’s petition, Ibidem, 138 no. 139.

55

See Kouroupakis and Schabel, “Bishop Benedetto of Cephalonia,” 143-144, with a comparison with other examples in Romania, particularly the case of Benedetto himself.

56

One wonders whether these promises were in reaction to the rule of a previous and authoritarian master (who could be William, mentioned in Robert de l’Isle’s donation) or simply a standard oath for a new master to respect the rule.

57

This incident is recorded toward the end of the document, apart from John’s other economical irregularities, Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 133 no. 132: “Item sine conscientia fratrum navigio fecit asportari frumentum de quadam domo eorum, que dicitur Rotumni, et nesciunt quid de ipso frumento fecerit.”

58

Ibidem: “… cum regula dicat quod eorum summus magister non possit dare ultra dimidiam marcham absque fratrum consensu.”

59

Ibidem, 133 no. 132; cf. 130 no. 129, 132 no. 131, and 134 no. 132. For women in hospitaller orders, see M.M. Bom, Women in the Military Orders of the Crusades (Basingstoke – New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

60

The date range can be deduced as follows: the bishop of Olena involved in the process against St James at the curia had died and had been succeeded by another, so the master’s visit to Patras must have happened after the summer of 1236, since the pope still thought this first bishop was alive in September of that year: Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. II, cols. 488-489 no. 3346. The master’s trip must have happened before August 1238, because by that date Antelm had travelled to France: Schabel, “Antelm the Nasty,” 135. It is curious that Antelm, the first Latin archbishop of Patras, who ruled his Church with a hand of steel for almost four decades (1205-1243), and the Templars both sided with John Manchot, since the archbishop and the knights had not always been on good terms: ibidem, 106-108, and see Bullarium Hellenicum, 504 no. 230, a 1224 papal letter stating that Antelm gave indulgences to those who killed men of the Templars, many of them having been killed in his presence.

61

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 133 no. 132: “… cum omnibus constet domum sancti Iacobi et personas ibi constitutas alium prelatum non habere nisi dominum papam.”

62

Ibidem: “Item privilegia domus furtive abstulit et in tali loco deposuit quod fratres ea rehabere nequaquam possunt, nec ipse reddere vult.”

63

Ibidem, 132 no. 131.

64

The edition, Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 133 no. 132, reads “evo.”

65

Kouroupakis and Schabel, “Bishop Benedetto of Cephalonia,” 143.

66

Ibidem. As the authors note, Benedetto sealed the report of the brothers of St James that complained about the activities of John Manchot and he testified that the charges were true and proven. The seal of the chapter of St James was also appended to the document. At that time the Ionian Islands had only recently come under the sovereignty of the prince of Morea, and Benedetto, who seems to have played an important political role, obviously aligned himself with the new overlord, Prince Geoffrey II. Still, Benedetto might also have been personally alarmed by the activities of John Manchot on Zakynthos and his introduction of the Templars in the bishop’s jurisdiction.

67

Stathakopoulos, “Discovering a Military Order of the Crusades.”

68

E. Benito Ruano, “Balduino II de Constantinopla y la Orden de Santiago: un proyecto de defensa del Impero Latino de Oriente,” Hispania 12 (1952), 3-36, reprinted as “La Orden de Santiago y el Imperio latino de Constantinopla,” in Idem, Estudios Santiaguistas (León: Colegio Universitario de León, 1978), 29-60; J. Longnon, “L’empereur Baudouin II et l’ordre de Saint-Jacques,” Byzantion 22 (1952), 297-299.

69

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 134 no. 133. The donation is also briefly summarized ibidem, 120-128 no. 128, at 127, a document that might seem to be a table of contents for this section of the cartulary, but which is actually more complex (see Mayer, “Introduction,” 71-73): “Item G(aufridus) princeps Achaye et Romanie senescalcus dat domui hospitalis sancti Iacobi cum omnibus pertinenciis suis in Andrevilla et domum unam in castro Clari montis.”

70

For an overview of the history and organization of the order and of its role in the Mediterranean in the thirteenth century, see S. Gouguenheim, Les chevaliers teutoniques (Paris: Tallandier, 2007), 19-60, 64-77, 81-115. For their headquarters in Morea, see Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. III, col. 531 no. 6070 (19 May 1241). H. Houben, “Neuentdeckte Papsturkunden für den Deutschen Orden (1219-1261) im Staatsarchiv Neapel,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 83 (2003), 41-82, at 76-77 no. 4, published a letter of Honorius III dated 1 October 1222 (not in the registers and omitted in the Bullarium Hellenicum) in which the pope confirms and strengthens the grant already made to the order by the legate Cardinal Giovanni of Santa Prassede (after late 1217) of “ecclesiam Neamoni Amiclensis diocesis” and thus near the headquarters. Kiesewetter, “L’Ordine Teutonico in Grecia,” 80-89, cites a Venetian document that claims that they possessed a vineyard in the same general area, between Coron and Kalamata, “a tempore conquiste dictarum partium” (80), which leads him to suggest that the Teutonic Knights came with Count Katzenelnbogen and participated in the conquest of the peninsula (81). He also notes that by 1247 the Teutonic Order had a house in Constantinople, but he traces all other alleged Teutonic property outside the area of Mostenitsa to the faults and fantasies of Buchon, who “forse, se avesse fatto un viaggio sulla luna, avrebbe scoperto l’arme di Guillaume de Villehardouin e di Guiot de la Roche anche in qualche cratere lunare” (84).

71

On the Teutonic Order in Terra Borsa, see J. Laszlovszky and Z. Soós, “Historical Monuments of the Teutonic Order in Transylvania,” in The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity. In memoriam Sir Steven Runciman (1903-2000), eds. Z. Hunyadi and J. Laszlovszky (Budapest: Central European University, 2001), 319-336; H. Zimmermann, Der Deutsche Orden in Siebenbürgen. Eine diplomatische Untersuchung (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau, 2011), an update of Idem, Der Deutsche Orden in Burzenland. Eine diplomatische Untersuchung (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau, 2000); and the article on Transylvania by A.C. Dincă and C. Schabel in this issue. The literature on the Teutonic Knights in Prussia is immense, but on different aspects see recently in English A. Pluskowski, The Archaeology of the Prussian Crusade. Holy War and Colonisation (London – New York: Routledge, 2013) and R. Czaja and A. Radziminski, eds., The Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia: The Political and Ecclesiastical Stuctures, 13th-16th Century (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau, 2015).

72

H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, “L’Ordre teutonique en France,” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 12 (1871), 63-83; H. de Flamare, “La cinquième croisade et les chevaliers teutoniques en Nivernais,” Bulletin de la Société nivernaise des lettres, sciences et arts, 3rd series, 2 (1886), 413-435; T. Krämer, “Der Deutsche Orden im heutigen Frankreich. Ein Beitrag zur Ordensgeschichte im Königreich Frankreich und im Midi,” in L’Ordine Teutonico nel Mediterraneo, 237-274, particularly at 246-254 and 262-266; Gouguenheim, Les chevaliers teutoniques, 574-576; K. Polejowski, “The Teutonic Order during the Fifth Crusade and Their Rise in Western Europe: The French Case Study (1218-58),” in The Fifth Crusade in Context. The Crusading Movement in the Early Thirteenth Century, eds. E.J. Mylod, G. Perry, T.W. Smith, and J. Vandeburie (London – New York: Routledge, 2017), 195-204.

73

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 134 no. 133.

74

Ibidem, 132 no. 131 (from two different copies in the cartulary). Briefly summarized ibidem, 120-128 no. 128, at 127: “Item prior et capitulum sancti Iacobi rogant dominum papam Gregorium ut det eis licenciam intrandi ad ordinem nostrum cum omnibus bonis suis” (under the heading “Consensus prioris et capituli de Andrevilla”).

75

Ibidem, 132 no. 131: “nos, qui nullum extra Romaniam refugium habere videmur, quod Deus avertat, si terra dominium amitteret Latinorum, ab eis nos fratres et sorores possemus congrue sustentari.”

76

John had been expelled from Andros some years earlier by the lord of this Aegean island. On him see R.-J. Loenertz, “Marin Dandolo, seigneur d’Andros, et son conflit avec l’évêque Jean,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 25 (1959), 165-181; repr. in Idem, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1970), 399-419. On our document see ibidem, 169 n. 4 and 170 (= Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, 403 n. 3 and 404).

77

The pope seems to know that the prior and brothers agree to the union with the Teutonic Order, but only by hearsay, from what the prince says in his own petition: “vobis quorum ad hoc voluntas accedere dicitur et assensus …”: Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 135 no. 134. He would not have used such words if he had received the petition from the prior and brothers of St James.

78

Ibidem, 134-135 no. 134, 135-136 no. 135, 136 no. 136 (from a copy of the original bull, also in Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. II, cols. 770-771 no. 3878, in abbreviated form in the papal register, the only one of this dossier that was registered at the papal chancery). All these documents are copied twice in the cartulary, except the third one, which appears two additional times as an insertion in no. 138 (itself copied twice). They are collectively summarized ibidem, 120-128 no. 128, at 127: “Item concessit papa Gregorius eisdem licentiam intrandi ordinem nostrum cum omnibus bonis ipsius hospitalis” (under the heading “Concessio pape priori et capitulo transeuntes <ad> ordinem nostrum”).

79

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. III, cols. 94-95 no. 4917, the first of the two 1239 papal bulls that will be considered below, summarizing the arguments of the master and his partisans, says that the bishop of Coron “and his colleagues” (not named but plural) were “plus debito favorabiles” to the knights.

80

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 137 no. 138. On the importance of these mentions for the history of Monemvasia and of the Latin conquest of the Peloponnese, see Saint-Guillain, “The Conquest of Monemvasia by the Franks,” 250-253.

81

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 137 no. 138. The text included an inserted copy of Gregory’s bull. The document recorded in the cartulary of the Teutonics was not the original, which is said to have been sealed (most probably with the seals of the two Monemvasiote clerics), but a vidimus made in October 1240 by the bishop and dean of Sparta, sealed with both their seals.

82

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. III, col. 96 no. 4918 (1 September 1239).

83

Ibidem, vol. III, cols. 94-95 no. 4917 (20 August 1239).

84

This implied excommunication for those who had put their hands on the master, since he was a cleric.

85

As is often the case, they are all mentioned solely by their first initials in the papal bull, but John Manchot and Julian are known via Prince Geoffrey II’s petition to the pope: Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 138 no. 139.

86

This Bernard would be appointed archbishop of Patras by the pope four years later, in October 1243: Schabel, “Antelm the Nasty,” 136-137.

87

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. III, col. 94-95 no. 4917 (Anagni, 20 August 1239).

88

Ibidem, vol. III, col. 96 no. 4918 (Anagni, 1 September 1239).

89

H. Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128-1291 (Leicester – London – New York: Leicester University Press, 1993), 26-27; Gouguenheim, Les chevaliers teutoniques, 238-240, 502-503, and 508-510.

90

One must remember that it is in this context that the Teutonic cartulary containing most of the documents relating to St James of Andravida was compiled: see above n. 6 and below n. 107.

91

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 137-139 no. 139. That the Teutonic Knights had a copy of this correspondence between the prince and the pope, which otherwise would not have ended up in their archives, shows that Geoffrey II was working with them hand-in-hand.

92

As we have seen, this was technically true, except that the bishop of Coron and the abbot and prior of Zaraka had delayed the execution of their mission and had not done it themselves but through proxies.

93

The edition of the document has celestes.

94

The edition of the document has graves.

95

Ovid, Heroides VII, 130 (Dido writing to Aeneas): “non bene caelestis impia dextra colit.”

96

B. Munk Olsen, “Ovide au Moyen Age,” in Le strade del testo, ed. G. Cavallo (Bari: Adriatica Editrice, 1987), 65-96; repr. in Idem, La réception de la littérature classique au Moyen Âge (IXe-XIIe siècle) (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1995), 71-94; Ovid in the Middle Ages, eds. J.G. Clark, F.T. Coulson, and K.L. McKinley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Actually, Ovid was not unknown to some other Latin lords of Greece, for some decades later, Filippo Ghisi, a Venetian but a vassal of the principality for his lordship of the island of Skopelos in the Aegean, chose to apply to himself a verse from the Metamorphoses: “I am greater than one that Fortune could arm” (Maior sum quam cui possit fortuna nocere). At least this is what his relative Marino Sanudo Torsello reports in his portrait of Filippo: Marino Sanudo Torsello, Istoria di Romania, ed. E. Papadopoulou (Athens: Ethniko Idryma Ereunon, 2000), 137. Of course, the quotation might be Sanudo’s embellishment for rhetorical purposes. On the latter’s characterization of Filippo and the art of ironic portrayal, see G. Saint-Guillain, “Tales of San Marco: Venetian Historiography and Thirteenth-Century Byzantine Prosopography,” in Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, eds. J. Herrin and G. Saint-Guillain (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 265-290, at 279-280.

97

P. Bourgain, “Gautier de Châtillon (XIIe s.) entre histoire antique et satire contemporaine,” in La lyre et la pourpre: poésie latine et politique de l’Antiquité tardive à la Renaissance, eds. N. Catellani-Dufrêne and M. Perrin (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2012), 251-266.

98

Walter of Châtillon, Alexandreis II, 3, ed. M.L. Colker, Galteri de Castellione Alexandreis (Padua: In aedibus Antenoris, 1978), 37: “desidiae torpore gravis luxuque soluti.” This describes the state of lascivious stupor in which Darius was wallowing when the terrible news of Alexander’s advance arrived. If the quotation is not taken totally out of context, there could be, at least in the mind of the redactor, an implicit assimilation of the brothers of St James with the useless Persian king, and of the prince who came to reform them with Alexander the Great.

99

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. II, cols. 521-523 nos. 3408-3409. Interestingly, the third executor designated by the pope is the abbot of Zaraka, whose alleged collusion with the Teutonic Knights we have seen denounced by their opponents.

100

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 139 no. 139.

101

Ibidem, 137 no. 138.

102

Ibidem, 136 no. 137, briefly summarized ibidem, 120-128 no. 128, at 127: “Item Robertus de Insula dat nobis duas estagias terre, que sunt in contrata de Vileguort et in pertinentiis de Chimeuro” (under the heading “De estagiis de Villagort”); this is the last piece of St James’ dossier summarized on that list. The document is dated 1239, “el mois de mars et es kal. de april” (so between 16 and 31 March), but is difficult to know which chronological style is used. If the system used began the year at the Annunciation on 25 March, it would probably have been n.s. 1240, certainly so if Easter dating was employed (Easter fell on 15 April in 1240). Kiesewetter, “L’Ordine Teutonico in Grecia,” 86, considers that the Easter style is used, but gives no evidence; moreover, he dates the document 1 April 1240, but the text mentions both March and the kalends of April.

103

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. III, col. 531 no. 6070 (Lateran, 19 May, 1241).

104

D. Waley, “Annibaldi, Riccardo (Riccardo della Molara),” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. III (Rome: Treccani, 1961), 348-351.

105

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. III, col. 531 no. 6071 (Lateran, 8 June 1241). Since the addressees were ordered to perform a task, it could not have been intended for an absent prelate, which seems to imply that Archbishop Antelm of Patras had returned from France to his see by the spring of 1241, and the mention of his plotting with the master of St James in Geoffrey II’s petition to the pope from late 1240 or early 1241 does not suggest an absent Antelm either. U. Chevalier, Regestes dauphinois, vol. II (Valence: Imprimerie valentinoise, 1913), col. 371 no. 7983 mentions the obit of “Lantelme, archevêque de Patras, prieur de St-Robert-de-Cornillon” from the necrology of Saint-Robert, which Chevalier himself had published, dating Antelm’s death to “18 avril (vers 1243).” This is made explicit ibidem, col. 393 no. 7994 (25 June 1243), taken from the accounts of the church of Vienne: “Le cabiscol B[erlion] et S. Chalvez rendent compte au chapitre de Vienne des acquisitions faites pour anniversaires: […] de l’archevêque de Patras 60 l. […].” See also P.-V. Claverie, “Une source négligée pour l’histoire du clergé latin d’Orient: les archives des chapitres occidentaux,” Επετηρίδα του Κέντρου Επιστηµονικών Ερευνών 38 (2016), 117-173, at 157-158. Thus Antelm died on an 18 April, according to the necrology of Saint-Robert, and an archbishop of Patras (no doubt Antelm) paid the chapter of Saint-Maurice for an obit, which money was received between 26 June 1242 and 25 June 1243. Did Antelm return to Greece and then go back to France again, dying there on 18 April 1243?

106

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 139-140 no. 140.

107

Mayer, “Introduction,” has shown that the cartulary was compiled using whatever materials remained in the magisterial archives at the time. As we have already noted, the cartulary contains no document relating to the other Teutonic properties in the Morea, no doubt because those documents were kept by the local authorities of the order in the principality, whereas the documents relating to St James had been sent to the grand master for the requirements of the legal procedure.

108

Partial edition by Kiesewetter, “L’Ordine Teutonico in Grecia,” 86 n. 61; summary in Les registres d’Innocent IV publiés ou analysés d’après les manuscrits originaux du Vatican et de la Bibliothèque nationale, ed. É. Berger, vol. I (Paris: E. Thorin, 1884), 429 no. 2869.

109

For example the Chronicle credits him with the conquest of Monemvasia when it was the work of his brother and predecessor Geoffrey II: Saint-Guillain, “The Conquest of Monemvasia by the Franks.” See similar examples below on Corinth and Nauplion and on Clermont Castle.

110

It just says that William “had ordered that his body should be carried to Andravida and buried in the church of St James, and so it was done” (Et auia ordenado que su cuerpo fuesse leuado en Andreuilla & que aqui fuesse enterrado en la yglesia de Sant Jayme, & assi fue fecho): Libro de los fechos et conquistas del principado de la Morea compilado por comandamiento de don fray Johan Ferrandez de Heredia, maestro del Hospital de S. Johan de Jerusalem, ed. A. Morel-Fatio (Geneva: Jules-Guillaume Fick, 1885; repr. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1968), 92 §419. The Aragonese version mentions the foundation of St James once before, in another context and in connection with the Dominican and Franciscan churches, after the battle of Sergiana and as a celebration of the prince’s victory (ibidem, 77 §346). This cannot be true of St James, which already existed much earlier.

111

Livre de la conqueste de la princée de l’Amorée. Chronique de Morée (1204-1305), ed. J. Longnon (Paris: Laurens, 1911), 212 §535.

112

The Old French Chronicle of Morea. An Account of Frankish Greece after the Fourth Crusade, trans. A. van Arsdall and H. Moody (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015), 126 §535 (translation slightly modified).

113

The Chronicle of Morea, Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως. A History in Political Verse Relating the Establishment of Feudalism in Greece by the Franks in the Thirteenth Century, ed. J. Schmitt (London: Methuen, 1904; repr. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis, 1967), 504-506 vv. 7787-7800. This edition presents on facing pages the two oldest versions of the Greek text of the Chronicle: we always quote here from the older one (on the even pages), which is the prototype of the other.

114

Crusaders as Conquerors. The Chronicle of Morea, trans. H.E. Lurier (New York – London: Columbia University Press, 1964), 290.

115

Livre de la conqueste de la princée de l’Amorée. Chronique de Morée, 68 §190. Still, this could be an effort on the part of an abbreviator to draw in a few words the same inference that the reader of Geoffrey’s boring deathbed speech would make, if the speech was part of the common prototype of both versions.

116

The Chronicle claims that the strategically vital cities of Corinth, Nauplion, and Monemvasia were still in Greek hands. In reality, Corinth and Nauplion had already been conquered by Geoffrey I and Monemvasia by Geoffrey II himself. The conquest of Monemvasia itself is presented by the Greek version as an unfinished project of Geoffrey (The Chronicle of Morea, ed. Schmitt, 176 vv. 2642-2644) and, although it does not figure on the to-do list he gave to his brother, this is implied by the fact that the conquest of the three cities is narrated immediately afterwards.

117

In reality, William was already married when his brother died (although he still had no child), but in the narrative economy of the Chronicle the important point is that this “mission,” contrary to the one relating to St James, was not fulfilled by William, or at least not in a satisfactory way: at the end of his reign, some lines after the passage quoted above narrating his disposition for St James, the Greek version of the Chronicle emphasizes that the prince did not leave a son to inherit the land conquered by his father, but only daughters: The Chronicle of Morea, ed. Schmitt, 506 vv. 7805-7810 (the later version of manuscript P adds here misogynistic comments on daughters that are clearly an interpolation: ibidem, 507 vv. 7811-7814). This commentary is again symmetrical with the deathbed discourse of Geoffrey II, and also absent from the French version.

118

The Chronicle of Morea, ed. Schmitt, 182-184 vv. 2735-2747.

119

The speech alludes here to the events that have been reported just before Geoffrey’s death: the prince’s struggle with the Church to finance the construction of Clermont Castle and his consequent excommunication. But the logic and chronology are fanciful: this happened much earlier and the prince involved was Geoffrey I and not Geoffrey II. See Schabel, “Antelm the Nasty,” 121-126. Here again we see one of the writing methods of the chronicler, who creates logical connections between independent narrative sequences better to concatenate them: on this narrative process, see Saint-Guillain, “The Conquest of Monemvasia by the Franks,” 267-268.

120

Crusaders as Conquerors, 151.

121

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 138-139 no. 139: “in qua felicis memorie pater et mater nostra sibi sepulturam elegerunt …”

122

On this, and more particularly on the development of a family iconography on the monuments, see A.M. Morganstern, Gothic Tombs of Kinship in France, the Low Countries, and England (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000).

123

M. Bur, “Les comtes de Champagne et la ‘Normanitas’: sémiologie d’un tombeau,” Anglo-Norman Studies, vol. III, Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1980, ed. R. Allen-Brown (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1981), 22-32; Idem, “L’image de la parenté chez les comtes de Champagne,” Annales. Économies, sociétés, civilisations 38 (1983), 1016-1039; repr. in Idem, La Champagne médiévale: recueil d’articles (Langres: Éditions Guéniot, 2005), 59-90; Morganstern, Gothic Tombs of Kinship, 10-18; X. Dectot, “Les tombeaux des comtes de Champagne (1151-1284). Un manifeste politique,” Bulletin monumental 162 (2004), 3-62, esp. 31-41 and 49.

124

The debate over the paternity of the program (the abbot of Saint-Denis, the royal power, or both) does not concern us here. See for complementary although sometimes conflicting views A. Erlande-Brandenburg, “Le tombeau de saint Louis,” Bulletin monumental 126 (1968), 7-36; Idem, “Le tombeau de saint Louis,” Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France (1970), 222-229; Idem, Le roi est mort. Étude sur les funérailles, les sépultures et les tombeaux des rois de France jusqu’à la fin du XIIIe siècle (Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques, 1975), 81-83 and 162-166, nos. 89, 93, and 96; G.S. Wright, “A Royal Tomb Program in the Reign of St. Louis,” The Art Bulletin 56 (1974), 224-243. On the influence of the Saint-Denis program on the development of later “genealogical” funerary monuments, see Morganstern, Gothic Tombs of Kinship, 94.

125

J. Bogdanovic, The Framing of Sacred Space: The Canopy and the Byzantine Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 14-20.

126

A. Bon, “Dalle funéraire d’une princesse de Morée (XIIIe siècle),” Monuments et mémoires. Fondation Eugène Piot 49 (1957), 129-139; Idem, “Pierres inscrites ou armoriées de la Morée franque,” Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, 4th series, 4 (1964-1965), 89-102, at 95-96 and pl. 29; Idem, La Morée franque, 590-591 and pl. 21; A. Philippidis-Braat and D. Feissel, “Inventaire en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance. III. Inscriptions du Péloponnèse (à l’exception de Mistra),” Travaux et Mémoires 9 (1985), 267-395, at 317-318 and pl. XV, 2.

127

Bon, “Dalle funéraire,” 132.

128

B.L. Fonkich, “Vkladnaja zapis Anny, prinkipissy Ahaiji (no 30),” in Issledovanija po grecheskoj paleografii i kodikologii, IV-XIX vv. (Moscow: Rukopisnyje pamjatniki Drevnej Rusi, 2014), 260-261. The exact location of St Marina is not known, but, when in the year of the World 6785 (September 1276-August 1277) the princess gave a manuscript to the monastery she had founded, she was residing in Clermont Castle (ν τῶ κάστρω Κλερεµοῦντω). The monastery must have been in the vicinity, and Andravida and Clarence (Glarentza) seem the most obvious candidates.

129

Regestum Clementis papae V, vol. III (Rome: Typographia Vaticana, 1886), 107 no. 2806.

130

“More than five years before the month of November last” (iam sunt V anni elapsi et plus a mense Novembris proxime preterito), which, counting back from the time of the interrogation in May 1310, brings us back to November 1304.

131

Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens mit urkundlichen und kritischen Beiträgen, ed. K. Schottmüller, vol. II (Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler & Sohn, 1887), 203-204 no. LVI: “dixit quod frater Iohannes de Conestabule, tunc preceptor in la Morea. Interrogatus ubi eum recepit, dixit in domo dicti ordinis Templi, que est in Andravilla et appellatur domus sancti Iacobi.” English translation in A. Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus. A Complete English Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 133. The translator assumes that Catursiensis is a lapse for Cadurcensis and the knight is from the diocese of Cahors in Southern France. P.-V. Claverie, L’ordre du Temple en Terre Sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle (Nicosia: Centre de Recherche Scientifique, 2005), 201, interprets Singrige as “Saint-Cirq.”

132

Comparison with other mentions shows Porcu is here a mistake for Portu.

133

Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, vol. II, 167-168 no. II; trans. Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial, 79-80. The date is given: “on the feast of St John next it would be seven years.”

134

Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, vol. II, 178-179 no. XX; trans. Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial, 97.

135

Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, vol. II, 176-177 no. XVI; trans. Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial, 93-94 (but villa here obviously means “town” and not “rural house,” as assumed by the translator).

136

Among the depositions collected in Cyprus in 1310, only one knight was received in Romania but not in Andravida: Geoffrey du Port, whom we have seen appearing as witness to others’ receptions, had himself been received in 1301 by Preceptor John le Connétable “in Morea, in Palusioli, in the house of the said order” (“in Morea in Palusioli in domo dictis ordinis”), Adam the chaplain of the order being present as well as Brother Theobald of Lyons (de Lione): Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, vol. II, 177 no. XVII; trans. Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial, 94-95.

137

J. de Saint-Genois, Monumens anciens essentiellement utiles à la France, aux provinces de Hainaut, Flandre, Brabant, Namur, Artois, Liége, Hollande, Zélande, Frise, Cologne et autres pays limitrophes de l’Empire, vol. I (Lille – Paris: Léonard Danel-Saillant, 1782; repr. Brussels – Paris: Archives générales du Royaume/Sources généalogiques et historiques des Provinces du Nord, 1998), cccxxxvii no. J. 52.

138

P.-J. Bernard, “Une source inédite pour la connaissance des élites de la Morée franque: le testament de Marguerite de Mategrifon (1314),” in Élites chrétiennes et formes du pouvoir en Méditerranée centrale et orientale (XIIIe-XVe siècle), eds. M.-A. Chevalier and I. Ortega (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2017), 123-135, at 129-135.

139

Les registres de Nicolas IV. Recueil des bulles de ce pape publiées ou analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. E. Langlois, vol. I (Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1886), 517 no. 3247. Bernard, “Une source inédite,” 129 n. 14, asserts that two letters are illegible in “A[…]is,” but the “i” could easily be the right side of an “a.” See also the article on Olena by C. Schabel in the next issue of this journal.

140

Les registres de Grégoire IX, vol. II, cols. 488-489 no. 3346, discussed above.

141

Libro de los fechos, 77 §346: “Et ordenó en reuerencia de Dios [&] fizo fer en Andreuilla tres yglesias … Sant Jayme de los Templeros, que aguora es de los Espitaleros.”

142

J.-A. Buchon, Recherches et matériaux pour servir à une histoire de la domination française aux XIIIe, XIVe et XVe siècles dans les provinces démembrées de l’Empire grec à la suite de la quatrième croisade, vol. I (Paris: Auguste Desrez, 1840), 142, 146, and 149-150. Buchon intended to correct Du Cange who had – rightly – deduced from the history of his dispute with the Church that Geoffrey I must have lived at least until 1223.

143

J. Longnon, “Problèmes de l’histoire de la principauté de Morée (Deuxième article),” Journal des savants (1946), 147-161, at 157-159 (the date range proposed is 1223-1231, basically what Du Cange had already said). See also the summary of K.M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, vol. I, The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1976), 50 n. 25.

144

Longnon, Les compagnons de Villehardouin, 40. The document will be published in a forthcoming study. Longnon was not entirely convinced by his own argument, however, because he gave also some credit to the late chronicle of Francesco Pipino, which seems to imply that Geoffrey I was still alive around the time of the death of Emperor Robert, which Longnon assumed – wrongly – to have happened in 1228 (Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 50 n. 25, follows this second option by dating Geoffrey I’s death to “about 1228”). But this passage of Pipino is nothing more than a rewriting of earlier historiography, and in its model the Geoffrey mentioned here can be the son as well as the father.

145

Tabulae ordinis Theutonici, 134 no. 133 and 137 no. 139.

146

Longnon, Les compagnons de Villehardouin, 40 (but ibidem, 41, he writes of September 1225, probably by mistake). This is a standard letter for the defense of the Kingdom of Thessaloniki, with similar exemplars also sent to the clergy of the empire, to the lord of Athens, and to the baronage of the empire. It is published in Bullarium Hellenicum, 539-540 no. 252: “In eundem modum scriptum est nobilibus viris G. de Villa Arduini principi Achaie et O. de Rocca domino Athenarum ac universis baronibus aliisque Latinis in imperio Romanie constitutis” (540).

147

Bullarium Hellenicum, 569-570 no. 272; previous edition: Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio di Venezia, ed. R. Cessi, vol. I (Bologna: Forni, 1931), 176 no. 33e. It is part of a dossier of five papal letters relating to the case that are copied in the register under the common heading “Exemplum litterarum domini pape super interdictione castellanorum Motoni et Corone, que sunt V.” The letters give only the surname and first initial of each castellan, but this can be supplemented with other documents, e.g., ibidem, 101 no. 179.

148

Bullarium Hellenicum, 570 no. 272: “… cum ipsi et nobilis vir G. princeps Achaie … excommunicationis fuerint sententia innodati, a qua idem princeps … extitit absolutus, quia dicti castellani … inire compositionem similem sunt parati, eis impendi absolutionis beneficium faceremus.”

149

C. du Fresne du Cange, Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs françois (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1657), 243: “Il y a lieu de croire qu’il décéda peu après, puisqu’en l’an MCCXLVII Agnès sa femme estoit retournée en France …”

150

Du Cange mentions the document without giving a reference, but its text had been printed some decades earlier by another founding father of French historical erudition, André du Chesne, Histoire généalogique des ducs de Bourgogne de la Maison de France (Paris: Sebastien Cramoisy, 1628), Preuves, 138-139.

151

Buchon, Recherches et matériaux, vol. I, 157: “D’autres documens m’apprennent qu’en l’an 1247 Agnès de Courtenai, princesse d’Achaïe, sa femme, était veuve, et était domiciliée en France. Je présume donc qu’il mourut vers l’an 1246.”

152

Les registres d’Innocent IV, vol. I, 274-275 no. 1842.

153

This is most clearly explained in Longnon, “Problèmes de l’histoire,” 159.

154

Saint-Guillain, “The Conquest of Monemvasia by the Franks.”

155

G. Saint-Guillain, “Les seigneurs de Salona, un lignage picard en Grèce médiévale,” Thesaurismata 44 (2014), 9-49, at 21-23.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 459 0 0
Full Text Views 128 70 3
PDF Views & Downloads 359 197 5