Religion and the Clergy in Joinville's Chronicles

Within his chronicles, Jean de Joinville does not make many frank or direct comments regarding the clergy. He does refer on a number of occasions of having his own priests, which shows that although he is not a religious figure himself that he does have direct connections to the church. Joinville showed great pride one of his priests, John of Voisey who took one eight Saracens in a battle by himself. Joinville almost then brags about the accomplishment of his priest in his chronicle stating that “From that time onwards my priest was well known in the camp, and people pointed him out to one another and said, 'Look! There's my lord of Joinville's priest, who routed eight Saracens.'”¹ Joinville pride in his priest's actions demonstrates the reliance and trust that he puts in the clergy, especially those close to him.

Another instance where Joinville specifically mentioned his relationship with the clergy was when he was trying to take control of an Abbey that resided on land that he controlled. After Joinville returned from a crusade overseas, monks at the abbey of Saint- Urban elected two new abbots, but they were rejected by the Bishop. He wanted them to select an abbot of his own choosing- John of Mymeri (who had done an injustice to another abbott close to Joinville).² Following these proceedings, Joinville took it upon himself to take control of the Abbey from the Bishop and the abbots. His justification was that it resided on the land that he ruled over, therefore it was his for the taking. Unfortunately, this led to the Church excommunicating Joinville. There was a subsequent debate over who controlled the land that the abbey resided on, was it Joinville or the King who was the guardian of the abbey. The abbots wanted the King to be the guardian of the abbey, and not someone for the sole reason that they owned the lands that the building stood on. However, Joinville was adamant that it was he who controlled it.³ King Louis articulated to Joinville that “It may well be that you are lord of the abbey's lands, but that does not mean you have the right to the guardianship of the abbey.”⁴ Thus, the King decided that this matter was not to go to the courts, and he would take guardianship of the abbey away from Joinville. This incident brings to light, although not explicitly, Joinville's opinions of the clergy. He is very cordial and accepting of the Church, their decisions, and their presence in France- except, when it interferes with his land holdings and areas of control. Joinville does go on crusades for the Church and in the name of religion, but this does not affect his home and property, which it appears he highly covets. Also, he is loyal to clergy who are close to him, but if another member of the clergy were to attack or had wronged those he was loyal to he would do almost anything to stand up for them.

Although Joinville didn't explicitly state his opinion about the clergy, by his writings about King Louis- the King had a strong opinion about religion, the Church, and how to be a good Christian leader. Near the end of the chronicles, Joinville reports how before King Louis died he gave Joinville advice on how live one's life religiously. Louis tells Joinville to make many confessions and to “Listen devotedly to the services of the Holy Church without mocking or making light of them. Pray with both your heart and tongue, especially when the consecration is preformed during the Mass.”⁵ On a similar note, King Louis instructed Joinville to “Honour and love all the representatives of the Holy Church, and make sure that no one may diminish or deprive them of the gifts and alms offered to them by your ancestors...(also) Beware of embarking on a war against a Christian without long deliberation. If it is necessary to do so, then protect the Holy Church and those who have done no wrong. If wars or disputes arise among your subjects, bring them to peace as quickly as possible.”⁶ These comments and instructions that King Louis gave Joinville demonstrates that Louis knew that Joinville was a very argumentative person who also was ready to put up a fight for his land and property. Louis warns Joinville of these actions for one should not disrespect the Church or other Christians in a volatile manner. This advice also shows that Louis may have realized that Joinville cares more about his own affairs and less about the church, which is why he tells him directed to listen to the Church and to be a good Christian, for that is the proper way of living ones life. If Joinville already did these thing it would be less likely that King Louis would have given him this advice at the end of his life.

It is evident throughout Joinville's chronicle that he does have a relationship with the Church and the clergy, but it does not appear to be the sole topic for his writings, or the predominant influence in his affairs and life choices. King Louis makes this quite clear at the end of the chronicles, but Joinville is man of his times, and religion was an important factor in society at the time- which helps explain why he went on the crusades. However, there might be other reasons why he “took up the cross,” and those could be in part connected to his relationship with and connection to Louis- who by all accounts looked up to, and whose life is the basis of his chronicle. Thus, it is unclear whether it was chronicling Louis's life, a desire to protect his lands for incoming foreigners, or a devotion to Christianity that drove him to become a crusader.

1Jean de Joinville and Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Chronicles of the Crusades (New York: Penguin Classics, 2008), 211.

2Ibid., 314.

3Ibid., 315.

4Ibid., 316.

5Ibid., 330.

6Ibid., 332.

King and Saint: The Two Faces of Louis

Joinville’s Crusade – Royal Friend and Critic

Joinville, as discussed last week, comes from an area engrained in the Crusades. He has a strong aristocratic background which helps forge an interesting narrative of mentorship and friendship with King Louis. The Life of St. Louis is a religious work as much as anything, but the emphasis of the writing is as much about two separate incarnations of Louis as it is about his sainthood. Joinville writes of Louis as a king, and as a saint, a unity which is at odds.

Joinville tells of Louis’s alms-giving, his churchgoing, and especially of his acts of humility. Joinville’s representation of the king shows that he was striving to live according to his beliefs, dictating his actions with the ethic of the gospel. Saintliness, which is linked to the future, benefits Christendom after the saint’s death, by providing an example of someone who indeed follows Christ’s command by giving up everything in order to follow him. Even more importantly, the saint is seen as reenacting Christ’s earthly life and suffering, thereby reminding Christians that their life has an eternal significance. Being a king, even a pious king, involves making do with the present, with the means at one’s disposal, and with the temporal demands of one’s subjects. At times, it seems as if Joinville wonders whether the king is adequately fulfilling his terrestrial mission.

The underlying facet of the narrative is that Joinville is one of Louis’ intimate friends and advisers. As a result, it would be assumed that Joinville would portray the dichotomy of kingliness and saintliness in the most intimate details of Louis’s life and the men’s life together. Moreover, Joinville wishes to portray King Louis in such a way which might be an example to his readers and to Louis’ heirs. Joinville’s work is his own reflection both on Louis’ position as king of France and his status as a saint.

Since Joinville was a layman and a political figure himself, as seneschal of Champagne, it is interesting that he chooses to reflect on the notion of saintliness and of how it appears in the world, and especially in the political world to which Louis belongs. In other words, Joinville provides an interesting account on how saintliness can indeed be secular – how it does not have to play out beyond the living world but rather can exist within. This insistence on reflecting how sainthood ought to be practiced in the world makes Joinville a product of his time. Thus, while many of Joinville’s writing can be seen as a chronicle, it could also be classified as a religious text above all.

Joinville’s two characters are explored with different views of Louis. This first section will look at Louis as a king.

For Joinville, to be kingly is very similar to being knightly – that is, knights do not automatically receive respect due to their position, rather they earn it through moral merit. Honour, justice and chivalry are traits of the knight which also demonstrate the secular role of the good Christian king on Earth. Episodes which Joinville depicts the king putting his life in danger could be seen as sacrificial saintly behaviour were potentially not so – three of the four episodes involve the safety of his people. These episodes are more a sign of chivalry then. Furthermore, a closer examination of Louis’s relationship to the people for whom he is risking his life shows that it is not a simple matter of his dying so that they might live. In all of the episodes, the relationship might best be described as one of solidarity: one for all and all for one.

Example 1: When the king jumps fully armed into the sea against the advice of others, and is the first to reach ground in order to begin battle with the Saracens, cannot be understood in any other light. The king’s action is symbolic of his position as leader and friend of his people.

Example 2 and 3: Louis refuses to escape to Damietta on a ship, and when the king, in spite of the advice of his navigators, refuses to leave his ship.
The king sees his fate as bound to that of his people and as a result feels unable to take the selfish action.

Example 4: The decision to remain in the Holy Land against the advice of his council. Here, the reason given for the king’s staying on seems more directly related to his people’s salvation than in the three other episodes; however, Joinville does not provide much information surrounding the king’s decision. Instead, he insists on the past success of the French. It is also here that the king and Joinville’s relationship and solidarity is further expressed. It is here that Joinville himself is most directly associated with the king’s suffering.

Joinville’s proof of the king’s justice is the way in which he judges. Thus, even though Joinville distinguishes religious and state activity, piety remains the basis for human deeds. Joinville presents the reader with a kind of dialectic: the meaning of Louis’s religious practice is renewed because he adds justice, and true justice is possible when grounded in faith. Through his narrative, Joinville, in a sense, brings his own answers to debates about the relationship between theological and cardinal virtues. For Joinville, the Catholic virtues remain empty if not manifested in the world through the political.

Louis as a Saint:
Part of the aim of Joinville’s book is to distinguish for Louis’s heirs what was properly kingly about the king’s life and behavior, and what happened when saintliness affected his actions as a ruler. An aspect of Louis’s saintliness is that his choices are incomprehensible and often appear misguided to those around him, including Joinville.

Joinville represents events of Louis’ life which are highly symbolic as prophecy to Louis’ destiny as a saint. The dominant symbol of the cross shows that it is not just the story of a king, but the story of one destined to become a saint. On the one hand, the cross represents the crusade and the life-long importance for the king of the effort to protect and take back the Holy Land from the Muslims. On the other, the cross, and by extension the Crusade, elucidate parallels to Christ’s passion and to Louis’ passion as a crusader and a martyr. For Joinville, Louis is not among the confessors, he dies a crusader for Christ – a martyr.

The symbol of the cross crops up on various occasions in Louis’ life:
1. Joinville begins his section on Louis’s deeds by indicating that he was born on the feast of Saint Mark the evangelist. The prophetic sign of the black crosses attending Louis’s birth points not just to his individual martyrdom and glorification but to that of those suffering alongside him. Individual heroics are not as important to Joinville as the actions which are able to transform a reluctant group of crusaders - to redeem them and open for them the doors of paradise. For Joinville, Louis’s lowering of himself to being one small, suffering part of the group in the end exalts the whole group, just as Christ’s final humiliation on the cross led to the salvation and exaltation of humanity.
2. The account of how Louis took his crusader’s vow: We have all read this story in Matthew Paris and discussed the difference in how Joinville presents it. Several aspects of Joinville’s narrative of this episode distinguish it as being important in his portrait of Louis as a crusader and saint. The first aspect that may be noticed is that Joinville marks the story as a point in time at which Louis breaks both with his past as king and with his past as a son and heir continuing on in the family tradition. Louis’s rulerly destiny is halted, turned around and the meaning of his life on earth radically modified. He could have continued on as a good son and good king; instead, through his symbolic death and resurrection, he experiences a conversion where he is willing to give up his kingdom to take up his cross.

Overall, Joinville is preoccupied with the truth of his story and careful to indicate when he himself was an eye-witness and when he wasn’t. He was not with Louis at the time of his sickness and his decision to take the cross; yet it was essential to his sainthood so he relies on the account of Louis himself. The immediateness of Louis’s healing--he was about to die and then, he was well--is obviously the miracle, but the wealth of biblical or religious symbolism in this passage also emphasizes its importance. The two women taking care of Louis become of importance - the first thinks that Louis is dead and wants to cover his face. The two women argue almost as if it were the argument of a devil and angel over Louis’ soul.

Saintly virtue of love:
One of the final themes in Joinville is of the saintly virtue of love. In short, the most important trait is love, not just love, but love of God. This signifies that for Joinville, Louis’ love of God is not to be seen so much in his obedience to commandments, but in his imitation of God’s own works, and in particular his work of sacrifice and martyrdom for his people.

Joinville's Representation of the Tartars, Turks, and Bedouins.

John of Joinville’s The Life of Saint Louis has a surprisingly objective portrayal of enemies and the “exotic other” in the context of the crusades. In this time, one would expect that a sense of religious entitlement and superiority would cross over into the descriptions of enemies, or exotic others. Anthropologically speaking, the Tartars, Turks and Bedouins are presented in manner not as subjective, and not with an air of superiority that has been portrayed before. Please consider Matthew Paris’ description of the Tartars; they are a “detestable race of Satan”, who “cover the face of the earth like locusts…spreading a destructive fire and slaughter” where ever they travelled. In short, as portrayed by Matthew Paris, the Tartars were a near a fiendish group of blood lusting, power hungry brutes. This and equally negative descriptions of the Tartars, Turks, and Bedouins are spared by John of Joinville in his The Life of Saint Louis, specifically the section detailing Joinville’s Crusade, or page 191 to 316.

The Tartars are not given as much attention as Matthew Paris gives in his Chronica Majora and are restricted to, in The Life of Saint Louis, a short chapter titled “The Crusaders at Caesara, (Reports Concerning the Tartars).” In this chapter Joinville describes the process of appointing a leader of the Tartars. Accordingly, each tribe under the mass empire of the Tartars would gather and each would elect their most promising member by throwing an arrow marked with the name of said person in a pile. Then a small child would pick an arrow, and whoever’s name was drawn selected his fifty-two closest, or highest-ranking friends, and thrown their names (arrows) in a new pile. The child would choose an arrow, and the corresponding person would be King of the Tartars.[1] In a climate of religious tension, Joinville would be expected to waste no time in placing a judgment on this process of determining rule that resembles the “throw-your-hockey-sticks-in-the-middle-and-sort-out-the-teams” style of organizing a rag-tag pickup hockey game. Joinville declines any such judgments and continues by outlining the laws given to keep the peace in the Tartar society; he states “that no man should steal from another or strike another if he did not want to lose his hand, nor should any man sleep with another man’s wife or daughter if he did not want to lose his hand or his life.”[2] Joinville concludes his description of this process by explaining “he [the king] gave them many other good laws in order to maintain peace.”[3] Joinville then describes the cultural make up of the Tartars: the role of women in society, the eating habits, and their impressive war reputation. The Tartars are explained as a very powerful group that is, at times, not so distant. An incident is described (after a description of a desolate city after a Tartar fallout) where the King makes contact with the Tartar king, and a response is given back stating that, in order to keep the Tartars from attacking them, an annual fee must be paid. The discussion is concluded with Joinville stating something to the effect of, “I bet the King wished he hadn’t made contact.”[4]

The Turks constantly seem to be at war with Joinville’s companions, and a reader can get a slight sense of bias when his description of the battles and the people therein are given. The Turks are presented as a formidable opponent, often employing “engines” that launch boulders and flaming arrows; Joinville neglects the opportunity to explain how this could be seen as a cowardly way of fighting. Also, it becomes apparent through Joinville’s presentation of the Turks in warfare, that they only fight fights they feel they can do well in. To explain, often a turning point has been reached in a battle, the Turks are quick to decide all is lost and flee. Very much of the time, the Turks fight in large groups, and if they are isolated or outnumbered, they flee – at least as presented by Joinville. In a more negative aspect, the individual attacks on people (by the Turks) are often done from behind; this is a very dishonorable thing to do. Joinville explains an attack: “A Turk appeared, coming from the direction of the king’s battalion, which was to our rear, and he struck my lord Peter Noville from behind with a mace, pinning him down on his horse’s neck with this blow.”[5] Again, Joinville declines to make hateful and judgmental comment a-la Matthew Paris when describing this attack. Finally, to conclude on the discussion of the Turks, is the conversation about “Scecedin” the commander of the Turks, and this perhaps shows the most bias. Joinville uses the term “infidel” to describe this ruler, but then later continues to describe the physical war clothing, and banners that he wears.[6] The last of the exotic peoples presented by Joinville is the Bedouins, and they are given a scant courtesy.

The Bedouins are described at the beginning of chapter seven. Joinville begins by saying he is going to tell us “what sort of people the Bedouins are.”[7] In short, the Bedouins do not believe in Muhammad, but his uncle, Ali. Under this belief, “when a man dies for his lord, or for any good cause, his soul enters a better and happier body than before.”[8] Joinville does not condone this belief and is quick to state that it is “wicked”, so “wicked that it is the equivalent to saying that God has no power to help us, for those of us who serve God would be fools if we did not believe that he did not have the ability to lengthen our lives and to protect us from evil and misfortune. “[9] Joinville supposedly corrects that viewpoint, and validates his own by saying, “We must believe in him [God], for he has the power to do all things.”[10] A detailed description of the lifestyle of the Bedouins can be found on page 208 and 209, but essentially it states that they are nomadic peoples, and describes that sort of lifestyle.

Finally, when looking at Joinville’s description of the Tartars, Turks, and Bedouins in The Life of Saint Louis one does not encounter the fierce xenophobic like accounts in the style of Matthew Paris, but a more distant, respective and well rounded description. Judgment calls are only ever made, in the case of Bedouins and their following of Ali, when religious doctrine is called into question.

---

[1] Joinville and Villehardouin. The Chronicles of the Crusade. (Toronto: Penguin Press, 2008), 263-264.

[2] Ibid. 264.

[3] Ibid. 264

[4] Ibid. 267

[5] Ibid. 204

[6] Ibid. 194

[7] Ibid. 209

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

Joinville's Conceptions of Honour

As the historian Leo Braudy notes in his work, From Chivalry to Terrorism, the most lasting cultural mediator between the individual soldier and his social group, between violence and civility, between war and peace, is the concept of honour (page 49). Honour serves as a justification for the professional, as well as for the conscript. Codes were regularly employed to structure and organize the conception of honour among warriors, both on and off the battlefield. The goal of honourable behaviour may be social (to attack an enemy, to defend a woman, to defend one’s lord) or it may be rooted in a personal and internal sense of what is right (Braudy, 52). These codes (at least for Europe) were eventually organized into thoughts of ‘chivalry,’ and can anchor the personal impulse and desire to act to a special group and set of values (Braudy, 54), rectifying the desire to do great things, but not outside of your set social group (aka, the knighthood and army). In wartime, such a code can give an externally validated sense of honour, an approved violence in the name of deeper and more central values (Braudy, 54).

The honourable behaviour of the Crusading battlefield however, is a different matter. The Crusades fused variously opposing ideas together: material gain and idealism, social hierarchy and social egalitarianism, spirituality and violence, local pride and allegiance to an international order (Braudy, 77). Knights functioned as the secular arm of the Church during the Crusades, and as such they were bound by the code of honour given to the crusaders by Pope Urban II in 1095. This gave rise to the idea of the "Code of Chivalry." Every crusader had to "swear to defend to his uttermost the weak, the orphan, the widow and the oppressed; he should be courteous, and women should receive his especial care. Thus to his bravery and love of adventure, the knight was enjoined to add gentler qualities" (Swettenham, 26).

These conflicting ideas are seen within John de Joinville’s writings, though not in an explicit manner. Joinville offers insight to honour and dishonour at this time in several key areas: the manner of the fighting man on the battlefield, the behaviour of knights/arms men off the field of battle, and the treating with/against enemies. For Joinville, the actions of a knight carried with it various levels of honour, as well as for the lower ranks and divisions of the Crusading army. He especially emphasizes ‘good’ deeds performed by knights/nobles as being honourable acts, one example of which was the actions of Count Guy of Forez. The count and his knights broke through a battalion of Saracen enemies, and with a broken leg, proceeded to protect the king of Sicily (among others) from the battle (Joinville, 195). The act of placing oneself in danger to protect others it seems is a trait that Joinville considers to be honourable.

Joinville provides us with two opposing ideas of how the Crusaders dealt with, and were dealt by, their various Muslim enemies. One example that Joinville gives us that denotes a dishonourable interaction from both parties is the case of what each does with prisoners. Joinville tells us that, “there is a bad custom in the infidel lands according to which when the king sends envoys to the sultan, or the sultan to the king, and the king or sultan happens to die before the envoys’ return, those envoys are taken as prisoners and slaves no matter what side they are from, whether Christian or Saracen” (page 222). The dishonour of not returning prisoners to the opposing camp – either through ransom or some sort of prisoner exchange – was something that Joinville denounced, and would have preferred some sort of fair exchange.

In dealing with various sultans, emirs, and Muslim kings, a variety of oaths, pacts, and agreements were made between them and the Crusading kings/leaders. For example, when dealing with several emirs from the city of Damietta, the king required them to protect the sick, along with weapons caches and salted meats until the king should need them (page 234). The oaths that the emirs had to swear to the king revolved around the concept of honour. The punishment of breaking these oaths had a notably religious theme, that also incorporated the concepts of shame, respect, and God. Should they break their oaths, they “would be dishonoured as he who, because of his sinfulness, goes on pilgrimage to Muhammad at Mecca with his head uncovered, and as dishonoured as those who leave their wives and then take them back afterwards…dishonoured as the Saracen who eats pig’s flesh (page 234-235). However, these same emirs also demanded that the king swear an oath as well. This oath too, revolved around honour related to religion; “…he would be dishonoured as the Christian who denies God and his Mother, and is barred form the fellowship of his twelve companions and of all the saints…” [he would agree to this point], as well he would be “dishonoured as the Christian who denies God and his law and who, scorning God, spits and tramples on the cross.” [he would not agree to this point] (page 235). This interchange of oaths denotes an interesting interchange between two cultures at war with another.

The personal affairs and honour of knights and the Crusaders was also of interest to Joinville. He denotes several affairs of knights who besmirch their honour, and certainly does not approve. For example, during his time as Caesarea a young knight was caught in a brothel, and was offered a choice of punishment; either the prostitute would lead him through the camp by a cord tied round his genitals while he was wearing just his chemise, or he would lose his horse and his armour and be expelled from the camp (he would eventually be expelled) (page 270). Several other incidents revolve around this concept of personal honour and acting in an honourable way that Joinville not the wider Crusading society at the time approve of.

Overall Joinville provides little outright definitions of what chivalry consists of, and indeed many researchers relate it mainly to knights and the knighthood, which Joinville hints at as well. According to other research found for today, poetry at the time detailed the knightly characteristics of humility; the Knights acquired honour not through their strength and valour in battle alone, rather through the act of using these skills in the name of God, and in defense of the Christian faith against the Infidel (Jackson, http://www.suite101.com/content/the-troubadours-and-the-rhetoric-of-the-crusades-a123225). Though Joinville does not detail much of the honour found on the battlefield, he does condemn those who flee from battle (Joinville, 278). The act of fleeing from battle has been a signal of cowardice for most armies, and indeed has a direct correlation to conceptions of honour on the Crusader battlefield.

A Hard Day's Knight

Louis IX – How Typical A Knight...by Jordan Crosby

The King of France, Louis IX, is typical of a knight, in that he is an ardent warrior who resembles above all the notion of chivalry, which is protecting the weak and defenceless, and fighting for the welfare of all. He is someone who shows faith, courage, loyalty and honour. Louis shows all of these characteristics by the fact that he would not let his men fight the Barons without him assisting him in battle. Louis had no intention of making peace with the Barons, rather not settling until they were repelled from the country (167). Even the way he dressed signalled a connection with the knights, wearing silk cotes (169). In one scene, Louis shows up with his entire battalion, to which Joinville remarked he “never saw a man so finely armed” (202). From head to toe, with steel helmet on his head, and German sword in his hand, Louis depicted the traditional image of a knight.

Fighting Ability

Aside from merely looking like a knight, there are many examples of Louis IX being visibly active and successful in battle, which leads to his heroic abilities as being knightly. Upon approaching Saracen lands, he leapt ahead of his fellow men, placed his lance under his arm and shield in front of him, and attempted to charge at the Saracens in front of him (185). This was a break away from the route the Saracens took, namely slaughtering people as they slept, (189) which was a cowardly way of killing someone. His fighting skills were also quite impressive, as on one occurrence, Louis was being carried away by six Turks, and managed to single-handedly kill all six by the sword (204). It was noted that had it not been for the King, the French cause would have been over before it had even gotten underway, and in essence Louis saved the day. He was claimed as having been the only King to swim across a river, defeated his enemies and captured their tents (206). His courage was undeniable, but at the same time he was showing his faith in God by not only engaging in the crusades, but by giving all recognition of his glory to the Lord.

Loyalty

Aside from being active and heroic in battles, Louis IX also showed knightly expressions of loyalty to his family and French subjects. Upon hearing that his brother was being beaten by the Saracens, the King immersed himself personally in his brother’s battle, and placed himself so far among the enemy that they set fire to his horse (212). Being able to ride a horse is also a sign of being knightly, and equestrianism is an important aspect of being a knight. The King, through his actions, was able to rescue the King of Sicily and his men, as well as driving the Turks from their camp (214). The King made it clear he would never abandon his people. Louis’ best example of showing the knightly value of loyalty is best seen in his truce with the Saracens, in which he offered himself as a prisoner (221) in order to show his dedication to the negotiations. Rather than submit one of his brothers, or any of his dedicated men, Louis gave himself up as a prisoner to prove the loyalty he showed for his people.

It was absolutely absurd for a King to place himself as a prisoner to an enemy. The King would not back down from the enemy’s threats, saying that as a prisoner, he would succumb to any torture, and would raise 400,000 livres to meet their demands. Louis was also loyal to his men who died in the crusades, as seen by the fact that he personally carried the rotten and stinking dead bodies of his former men to give them a proper burial (291), not even pausing to hold his nose from the stench, which everyone else was doing.

Religion

By the agreement, Louis would have to uphold the agreement, otherwise he would be dishonoured as a Christian, thereby denying God and his Mother (235). Religious devotion is a major aspect of chivalric code, and the two were inseparable. The crusades served the moral code of religious duty, and religious groups devoted their crusades to protect their religious beliefs. Louis would uphold the agreement as a way to show his absolute devotion to Christianity, and would rather die than risk being seen as a hack to his religion. The Saracens on the other hand, were not chivalric as they slaughtered the king’s men and his engines despite being under oath to protect them (237). Upon release, the King dedicated to any agreement with any people refused to leave unless his men paid the 200,000 livres to the Saracens, and the extra 10,000 that was taken illegitimately. This showed his absolutely knightly devotion to God and the religious cause of the crusades.

Even in the throes of defeat, Louis would not abandon his knightly deeds of honour and courage. The great and wise men of France were urging Louis to go home, which he refused to do claiming that he came for the religious mission of restoring Jerusalem to Christianity, and would not leave until he was successful (252). This was problematic for him, because as the greatest Christian king, what would people think if he would be unable to deliver the most holies of places from the enemies at hand, but had merely made a pilgrimage into foreign lands. Once he finally agreed to go home, Louis’ boat, carrying his family and friends reached turbulence, and his men told the King to disembark in order to save his life. Again showing the knightly values of chivalry and loyalty refused to place himself ahead of his men saying “I would rather place my own person, my wife and children at risk in God’s hands than that I should do much harm to so great a number of people as there are on board” (303). Louis is not only showing devotion to his loyal men, but is also showing his faith in God.

Back Home
Back at home, Louis’ reforms also followed the knightly chivalric code of providing for the weak and poor. On his return, every day he fed his poor people and gave them money after the meal (313). He also gave money and gifts to churches (showing his love to God) to hospitals and to poor people (319). Not only that but in an act of good graciousness, he ceded back to England lands he personally took from them in an effort to establish peace. Right up until his death, Louis harboured the chivalric virtues of being courageous, loyal and faithful as in 1270 he attempted to lift up the cross again, and launch another crusade. Despite his poor health, he was the one brave and dedicated enough to lift up the cross when nobody else would.
Criticisms

A criticism of Louis IX from Joinville, which repudiated the chivalric rule of knights, is how the King broke with customs relating to money. Louis was criticized by Joinville for his neglect of putting his own money to use as a way of sending more men to the cause (250). It was argued that if he would donate his own money, more relief and support would eagerly come and fight for the crusades. Louis was acting greedily, and not in the general concern for his people and his mission. Another criticism of Louis related to one of his sergeants, the Glutton, who laid his hands on one of the knights from Joinville’s battalion. Louis, not acting in good morale, refused to originally act on the incident, seeing it as irrelevant, thereby showing disloyalty to his men (271).

Joinville - wonders and miracles

Wonders and Miracles

Medieval chronicler Jean de Joinville has provided historians with quite a personal account of his own trials and tribulations in the Holy Land during the seventh crusade, 1248-1254. While his body of work was designed to be a biography of the pious King Louis IX, the impression I perceived upon reading Joinville’s work was a profound sense of empathy for the author. Although the depicted events revolved around the French king, Chronicles of the Crusades reads much like an autobiography. This observation is made most apparent within the author’s renditions of religious and spiritual experiences. Discussing the Holy War, I conceived three separate categories whereas Joinville’s account of wonders and miracles could be construed: God’s mysteries, God’s will, and God’s intervention. Religion clearly shaped the author’s worldview, and having an appreciation of his sense of devotion is the only way to understand him

God’s Mysteries

There is a definite sense of wonderment in large segments of Joinville’s writings. Though the Chronicles is not a diary, the same anecdotal remarks present in the chronicle. I define ‘God’s mysteries’ as grand expressions that cannot be explained otherwise. An obvious example, the author expresses awe at the sight of the Nile. He inferred, “No one knows where this flood comes from”. If it were not for the river, the surrounding life would simply burn up. He insinuated that the Nile was akin to an “earthly paradise”. A not-so-obvious example of ‘God’s mysteries’, King Louis himself. Discussing the new fortifications of Jaffa, Joinville explained that the good king spent 30,000 livres of his own funds on a mere gate! Trying to grasp the tremendous humility of such a donation, all that Joinville could state was “God help him” – as if relaying a message that the king was not of this world.

God’s Will

Every time the author survived a battle, or overcame a disease, God’s hand was at play. My second category pertains to Joinville’s religious faith more than anything. Depicted in the chronicle, as armies clashed within the Nile delta, the enemy was preparing to hurl caskets full of flammable liquid. The author got down on his knees and prayed for deliverance. Amazingly, Joinville survived the battles, his subsequent capture, and even time spent imprisoned. The entire chronicle is full of examples regarding the assistance of God, or by the grace of God, or God forbid etc… In all cases, ‘thy will done’ was done.

God’s Intervention

Now, ‘intervention’ and ‘will’ are not one in the same. Rather than letting fate take its course, ‘intervention’ entailed a more activity of the lord. In a word, these interventions were miracles. While in Sidon, Joinville and the sing visited a church that was supposedly blessed - the almighty had come down from the heavens and saved a recently widowed girl from the clutches of Satan. The two friends subsequently attended mass, exhibiting piety. This conveys a general impression to the reader that such activities represented the true goals of the Holy Land. On the journey back to France, a squire fell into the Mediterranean Sea unnoticed by all. When a galley ship picked him up, Joanville later asked the boy why he had not yelled out or even try and swim? To this the squire replied that Our Lady of Vauvert was protecting over him during the entire ordeal. This was a miracle, and the author actually commissioned the creation of stain glass windows depicting this event,

There is value in appreciating Joinville’s religious worldview. Given that he wrote the chronicle many years after the actual crusade, I got the feeling that his opinions had been honed. Looking back on his life, the author had probably gained new insights. Indeed, if he was trying to have King Louis canonized, Joinville would have certainly had a different interpretation of the past events than prior. Considering his rendition of wonders and miracles, it becomes clear that the author was pious himself. If this is true, it just begs the question, why did the crusades fail?

One Man Above All Others

France and King Louis during the Crusade
by Jordan Crosby

King Louis IX was born a devout Catholic, and was characterized as a man who loved God and anybody who accepted God, regardless of their background (30). Over the course of his life, King Louis would wage two crusades, one in 1248, and then in 1270 (70). Crusades by their very nature were sanctioned religious missions launched by Roman Catholic France as a way to return the Holy Land of Jerusalem back to Christian hands, and out of the grasp of the heathen Muslim population. Upon leaving on leaving for Jerusalem, the men would sing in God’s name, and would set sail in the name of the Lord (126).

What makes France distinct in regard to the Crusade is the fact that they were always at the forefront, which was symbolic of the eagerness and tenacity of Louis IX. The King himself was the leader of the crusades, and he made all his barons swear an oath of loyalty to him, declaring that they shall solemnly swear allegiance to his children should he die (114). What makes Louis remarkable is the fact that he did not just sit idly by and let other people do the deeds, but rather he is a central player in the crusades.

This is seen in a number of different ways. The first is that when the boat carrying the King’s loyal men reached Cyprus, they were shocked to find that Louis was already there waiting for them, with copious amounts of wine, grain and money (130). This was the first stop in the effort to reach Egypt, and it was told that Louis would have travelled non-stop to Egypt, without a break, had it not been for the barons who urged him to wait for his reinforcements. (132). This is remarkable for the fact that out of an original 2,800 men who set sail for Jerusalem, only 700 remained from a violent storm (146). Louis’s eagerness and loyalty to the cause prevented him from wanting to wait for reinforcements, rather he wanted to get in on some action as soon as humanely possible.

Another striking detail about the first crusades, is that Louis was willing to assist other countries, even though they might not be friends, as a way to rescue Jerusalem from the heathen Saracens. Louis received word from the King of the Tartars that he would assist them in their crusades, however the King himself did not offer his services, choosing instead to send envoys (133). This again shows that France, and especially Louis, were the forefront of the crusades, and while other countries were willing to assist, they were not willing to go as far.

Aside from merely being a King, and taking part in the crusades, Louis IX was an absolute participant in the battles as well. Upon reaching Saracen land, King Louis IX, with his shield at his neck, helmet on his head, and lance in his hand, got ready to charge at the Saracens, but was ultimately held back by his men (162). Following the battle of Mansurah, Brother Henry of Ronnay told him that no King of England has ever swam across a river, defeated his enemies in battle, and captured his enemies tents. Louis selflessly replied that it was God who should be praised, as the Lord was the one who granted him such remarkable talents (244). It ultimately ended up in failure, with Louis having to live at the court of the crusader Kingdom in Acre.

But his character would not allow him defeat, and again, at the young, ripe age of fifty-six, Louis found it his mission to attempt another crusade at bringing Jerusalem back into Christian hands (734). It turned out to be a dismal failure, but the fact that he took up the cross in the name of the Lord at fifty-six shows his true character. Quite literally, no other King did what he did, young and old, and it shows his determination and love of God, which put him, and France at the forefront of the crusades.