Está en la página 1de 28

Cannibals and Crusaders

Jay Rubenstein

theFirstcrusadebeganin1096withmassacresofJewsalongtherhine, and its penultimate act in 1099 was the killing of nearly all of Jerusalems inhabitantsmen, women, and children.the events sparked seriousdiscussionamongcontemporarywitnessesandcontinuetodo soamongscholarstoday.Mosttwelfth-centuryobserverscondemned thekillingoftheJewsanddistinguisheditsperpetratorsfromthereal crusaders.thekillingsatJerusalem,ontheotherhand,theyaccepted
JayrubensteinisassociateprofessorofhistoryattheUniversityoftennesseeatKnoxville.Heis authorofGuibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind(2002)andeditor,withsallyN.Vaughn,of Teaching and Learning in Northern Europe, 10001200(2006).Heisworkingonabookabouttwelfthcenturyinterpretationsofthecrusade. Numerouspeoplefromavarietyofdisciplineshavediscussedwiththeauthorthetwin subjects of cannibalism and crusading. suggestions and advice from suzanne conklin Akbari, tomBissell,HeatherBlurton,clmentineBobin,VirginieBobin,PhilippeBuc,thomasBurman, HelenDamico,sharonFarmer,c.stephenJaeger,christopherMacevitt,JaclynMaxwell,carmen Nocentelli,WilliamNorth,GerardPassannante,HilaryPoriss,charlesradding,Marinarustow, thomassizgorich,KevinUhalde,andsallyN.Vaughnhaveallbeenextremelyhelpful.thanks arealsoduetomembersofthetexasMedievalAssociationandthemembersoftheMarcocenter attheUniversityoftennesseewholistenedtoandcommentedonearlierversionsofthisessay. thearticlewascompletedattheAmericanAcademyinromewiththehelpofanAmericancounciloflearnedsocietiesBurkhardtFellowship.thetranslationsfromlatininthearticlearethe authorsown,madewheneverpossibleinconsultationwithpublishedtranslations.  the interpretation of these events remains a vexed question.On the pogroms, robert chazan provides translations of the Hebrewaccounts and argues for their veracity in European Jewry and the First Crusade(Berkeley,cA,1987).Jeremycohenhassuggestedthatthereismuch artificeintheHebrewnarrativesinSanctifying the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade (Philadelphia, 2004). cohen does not question the scale or brutality of the pogroms,concludingthattheaccountsexpressedtheutterhorrorandguiltfeltbythesurvivors. Asfor1099,therehasbeensomeattempttominimizethescaleofthekilling,e.g.,DavidHay, GenderBiasandreligiousintoleranceinAccountsoftheMassacresoftheFirstcrusade,in Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades,ed.MichaelGerversandJamesM. Powell(syracuse,NY,2001),310.BenjaminZ.KedarsexcellentarticletheJerusalemMassacresofJuly1099intheWesternHistoriographyofthecrusades,Crusades3(2004):1575,ought tosettlethequestion.Whilethereweresurvivors,Kedarconcludesthatsourcespointtowardthe massacresextraordinarinessandthatevidencefortheexistenceofsurvivors,eitherasslavesor ashostages,isscarce(74). chazan,European Jewry,providesthebestinterpretationofmassacresasresultsofmobviolence.MatthewGabrieleoffersaneschatologicalinterpretationinAgainsttheenemiesofchrist: theroleofcountemichointheAnti-JewishViolenceoftheFirstcrusade,inChristian Attitudes French Historical Studies,Vol.31,No.4(Fall2008) DOi10.1215/00161071-2008-005 copyright2008bysocietyforFrenchHistoricalstudies

526

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

eitherasagloriouscleansingofpagancontaminationorelseasastrategicnecessitytoholdthecityagainstimmediatecounterattack.the eventsweretroublesome,butformedievalobserverscomprehensible within the framework of the crusade story. One incident, however, resistedanyattemptatintegrationintothiscelebratorynarrative:the cannibalismcommittedaroundthesiegeofMaarrain1098. AlmostallthedozenchroniclerswhowrotebooksaboutthecrusadeinthetwentyyearsfollowingJerusalemscaptureacknowledgeit, sometimeswithdisbeliefordisgustordenial,butalwayswithdiscomfort.thebroaddetailsofthestoryareclear.OnNovember28,1098, countraymondofsaint-GilleslaidsiegetoMaarra(todaythesyrian townMaarratal-Numan).twoweekslater,onDecember11,withthe helpofothercrusadeleaders,raymondsarmybrokedownthecitys defenses and took possession of it the next day. the various armies then waited for a month as their leaders debated how to settle proprietaryclaims born of theirconquests. Finally, on January 13, 1099, under intense pressure from his followers, raymond gathered his forcesandcontinuedthemarchtoJerusalem.Atsomepointduring thisactivityasweshallsee,thesourcesdivergesignificantlyanindeterminatenumberofsoldiersatefromthefleshofenemydead. crusade historians have largelyconfined this cannibalism to the fringes of the main narrative, treating it at times inconsistently, at timesincoherently.itsmostsustainedanalysisremainsa1959article bylewisA.M.sumberg,whoblamedthecannibalismonasubgroup
toward the Jews in the Middle Ages: A Casebook,ed.MichaelFrassetto(NewYork,2006),84111.the presenceofnobilityinthemobhaslongbeenattested,includinginFredericDuncalf smistitled thePeasantscrusade,American Historical Review26(1921):44053.seealsoJohnFrance,Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade(cambridge,1994),8895. France,Victory in the East,35556. theonlychroniclerswhodonotmentionthecannibalismareBartolphdeNangis,Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium,inrecueildeshistoriensdescroisades,Historiensoccidentaux (hereafterrHcOc.)(Paris,184495),3:491543;andekkehardofAura,Hierosolymita: De oppresione, liberatione ac restauratione Jerosolymitanae Ecclesiae,rHcOc.5:740.ekkeharddoesmention thecannibalismintheuniversalchronicleattributedtohim(publishedasFrutolfs und Ekkhards Chroniken und die anonyme Kaiserchronik,ed.Franz-Josefschmaleandireneschmale-Ott[Darmstadt,1972],15152)usinganabbreviatedpassagefromanothersource;seen.68below. HeinrichHagenmeyer,Chronologie de la Premire Croisade, 10941100(18981901;rpt.Hildesheim,1973),197210.thomasAsbridgesrecentFirst Crusade: A New History(Oxford,2004),262 76,containsafineaccountofthedetailsofthesiegeandofitsaftermath.Asbridgesdescription ofthecannibalismfollowstheGestaandraymondofAguilerssaccounts,discussedbelow,since thewriterswouldhavebeenpresentatthesiege.Heacknowledgesaswellthatthecannibalism was,incontemporaryobserverseyes,thecrusadesgreatestmoraloutrage,butwemustremember,hecautions,thatintheMiddleAges,aneraofendemicsavagery,warfarewasregulatedby aparticular,medievalsenseofmorality(274). inhisgenerallysuperbmilitaryhistoryFrancewritesthattherewereaccusationsofcannibalismatMaarra,thattherewasactualcannibalismamongthepoor,andthatagroupofpoor pilgrimscalledthetafurscommittedit(Victory in the East,22,139,315);hedescribesthetafurs on28687.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

527

ofimpoverishedcrusaderscalledthetafurs,whoseoriginshesought tolocate.AnarticlebyMichelroucheattributesasacralcharacterto thecannibalism,comparingthefleshpickedfromMuslimcorpsesto themannasenttothechildrenofisraelastheywanderedthosesame deserts,anargumentthat,accordingtoJonathanriley-smith,asksthe evidence to carry moreweight than it can bear. riley-smith himself seesthecannibalismasaresponsetofamineanddoesnotblameitall onthetafurs,whomhestillarchlydescribesasveryhungry.0Other scholarscontinuetoassociatethecannibalismwiththetafurs.Few, however,wouldgoasfarasAminMaalouf,whoinhisoftenincendiary book,The Crusades through Arab Eyes,titleshischapteronthecaptureof JerusalemthecannibalsofMaarra.Heobserves,thememoryof theseatrocities,preservedandtransmittedbylocalpoetsandoraltradition,shapedanimageoftheFranjthatwouldnoteasilyfade;and, theturkswouldneverforgetthecannibalismoftheOccidentals. Maalouf s reference to oral tradition is probably an argumentative sleightofhand,since,infact,nomedievalArabchroniclerdoesrecall thecannibalism.thewriterswhocouldnotforgetwhathappenedat Maarra,andwhoareouronlysourcesforit,are,inMaalouf sterms, Occidentals.
lewisA.M.sumberg,thetafursandtheFirstcrusade,Mediaeval Studies21(1959): 22246. Michelrouche,cannibalismesacrchezlescroisresPopulaires,inReligion populaire: Aspects du christianisme populaire travers lhistoire,ed.Yves-MarieHilaire(lille,1981),3141.Apart fromthefrequentcomparisonsbetweentheFranksandtheisraelites,rouchesideareceiveslittle supportfromthesources.totravelreallyfarafield,someoftherelativesofthefamousAndes planecrashdevelopedasimilarthesis,reversingthesymbolicreadinghereandsuggestingthat mannaintheBiblewasacodewordforcannibalizedflesh,whichGodhadallowedthechildren ofisraeltoeat(PiersPaulread,Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors,rev.ed.[NewYork,2002], 39091). Jonathanriley-smith,The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading(london,1986),189n230. HanseberhardMayer,The Crusades,trans.JohnGillingham,2nded.(Oxford,1990),297n25,says thatroucheabsurdlysuggeststhatcannibalismhelpedthecrusadesucceed,perhapsforgetting thatsomecontemporarychroniclerssupportthatassessment. 0riley-smith,First Crusade,88.Hediscussesthecannibalismon66.  e.g., christopher tyerman, Gods War: A New History of the Crusades (cambridge, MA, 2006),150;andMayer,Crusades,51.  Amin Maalouf, The Crusades through Arab Eyes, trans. Jon rothschild (NewYork, 1985), 39. ArabhistoriansdorememberMaarraasthesceneofahorrificmassacre,numerically worse than that in Jerusalem. ibn al-Athir gives the exaggerated figure of one hundred thousanddeadinhishistory,printedasExtrait de la chronique intitule Kamel-Alteverkykh par Ibn-Alatyr, inrecueildeshistoriensdescroisades,Historiensorientaux(hereafterrHcOr.)(Paris,1872 1906),1,withaccompanyingFrenchtranslation,andinenglishasThe Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period,trans.D.s.richards,vol.1(Aldershot,1988),196.theDamascus Chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi,publishedasrogerletourneau,trans.,Damas de 1075 1154(Damascus,1952),4243, referstothetreacheryoftheFranks,saidtohavekilledthecitizensofMaarraafterpromising them safety. see also the Aleppo chronicle, in rHc Or. 3:579, which recalls the massacre and desecrationatMaarrabutnotcannibalism.ibnal-AthirdoesspeakofpoorFranksatAntioch

528

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

literarycritics, more akin to Maalouf than to riley-smith, have beguntospotlightthecannibals.Mostsubversively,GeraldineHeng, inEmpire of Magic,hasfoundinMaarrathebeginningsofmodernliterature.thetwelfth-centuryinventionofromance,shesays,andparticularlyoftheArthurianromance,grewoutoftheanxietiesofrememberingchristianwarriorsastheyfeastedonsaracendead.Because ofmedievalnotionsofpollutionandpurity,itisvirtuallyimpossible formodernstograsptheprecisehorroranddimensionsofabhorrence, thetraumatotheculturalimaginaryofmedievalchristendomcaused by crusader cannibalism of the Muslim enemy. Perhaps paradoxically,cannibalismisalso,inHengsanalysis,awaytomakeliteralthe languageofmilitaryconquest,withcolonizersswallowingthelandsand possessionsofconqueredpeoples.Maarraisthusbothanuglymemoryinneedofrepressionandasymbolofculturalsuperiority.thislast stepbringsMaarraintothepurviewofpostcolonialtheory,making itaprecursortothemind-setfullyrealizedwithchristophercolumbusandthereporteddiscoveryofwidespreadcannibalismintheNew World. seenfromthistheoreticalangle,cannibalismcanexpressbothan individualneurosisandabroadersocialdisorder.AccordingtoPeter Hulme,theeuropeandesireforincorporationisthepsychosisthat droveitsinteractionswithNewWorldcultures.0inthemoremeasured termsofMaggieKilgour,thisstrategyofself-definitionagainstaprojectedaliengroupisaversionofcolonialdiscourse,theconstruction of the savage cannibal as antithesis of civilized man used as a justificationforculturalcannibalism,thatemergedwiththediscoveriesof theNewWorld.theargumentinitsmostextremeformwouldcall intothequestiontheveryexistenceofritualcannibalismoutsidethe
eating carrion, interpreted as cannibalism byothercommentators but just as likely to refer to deadanimals(Extrait,194). Mostrecently,HeatherBlurton,Cannibalism in High Medieval English Literature(NewYork, 2007),whichtimedidnotpermitmetointegrateintothisarticle. GeraldineHeng,Empire of Magic: Medieval Romance and the Politics of Cultural Fantasy(New York,2003),esp.1735. ibid.,2526.  Heng clearly interprets the crusades as a colonial venture, a controversial historical interpretation(e.g.,ibid.,3132,18693). On columbus and cannibals, see Philip P. Boucher, Cannibal Encounters: Europeans and Island Caribs, 14921763(Baltimore,1992),1525;andPeterHulme,Colonial Encounters: Europe and the Native Caribbean, 14921797(london,1986),3253. MaggieKilgour,From Communion to Cannibalism: An Anatomy of Metaphors of Incorporation (Princeton,NJ, 1990),511, defines cannibalism as an outgrowth ofthe fundamental binaryof outsideandinsideandanostalgiclongingforatimewhenallexperiencewasinternal. 0Hulme,Colonial Encounters,194. Kilgour,From Communion,83.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

529

european imagination. indeed, skilled early modern observers like MicheldeMontaigneortheProtestantmissionaryJeandelrycould deliberatelyusecannibalismasmuchtocritiqueeuropeansocietyasto depictexotic,unknownworlds.Butwhatevertheultimaterhetorical goal,cannibalswerealienandfundamentallyinhuman,theirexistence alonejustifyingconquest. Applying such an interpretive framework to Maarra raises difficulties.Aboveall,theFranksare,nonmetaphorically,conquerorsand cannibals.theyarethemselvestheother.thesecontradictoryidentitieshelpjustifyHengsreadingofMaarraasapointofculturalneurosis,resolvedsubconsciouslythroughtheproductionofromanceliterature.ButtheliteraturedirectlyaboutMaarra,whentakentogether,is varied,nuanced,andextensive.Farfromrepressingthememory,medievalpeoplewroteandthoughtaboutitatlengthandoften.theyalso hadaccesstoavarietyofinterpretivefiltersintheformofscriptural reference and historical precedentto apply to the problem, filters that would have shaped how both confessors and chroniclers would assignmeaningtothesoldiersactions.themostseriousdifficultyin interpreting Maarra, however, hinges on the question of pollution, anditpointsaswelltoarguablythestorysmosttroublingaspect:in theabstractitisperfectlysensibletoobservethateatingMuslimbodies would be especially unnerving for medieval christians, creating for theeatersarealsenseofhorrorandpollution.Butinpracticechroniclers stress that the crusaders ate only Muslimswhen there would havebeen,presumably,manydeadFranks,andpossiblyArmenianand syrianchristians,tochoosefrom.thatdecisionaloneindicatesthat thecrusadersandtheirstorytellersinscribedameaningontotheseacts beyondthesimpleneedtosurvive. inthefollowingpagesiwillundertaketwotasks.First,iwillreview allthecontemporaryevidenceconnectedtocrusadercannibalismto
 the classic anthropological attack against the belief in widespread cannibalism is WilliamArens,Anthropology and Anthropophagy(Oxford,1979);seealsoArens,rethinkingAnthropophagy, in Cannibalism and the Colonial World, ed. Francis Barker, Peter Hulme, and Margaret iversen(cambridge,1998),3962.PeggyreevessandayrebutsArens,seeingrealcannibalism aspartofasymbolicsystemrootedinFreudiantheory,inDivine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System(cambridge,1986),xxii.lawrenceOsborneprovidesanoverviewofthedebateinDoes ManeatMan?insidetheGreatcannibalismcontroversy,Lingua Franca7(1997):2838.  On Montaignes use of cannibalism to critique feudal customs in France, see David Quint, A reconsideration of Montaignes Des Cannibales, Modern Language Quarterly 51 (1990): 45989.On Jean de lry (who compares european usurers to Brazilian cannibals), see Frank lestringant,Jean de Lry ou linvention du sauvage: Essai sur lhistoire dun voyage fait en la terre du Brsil, 2nded.(Paris,2005),esp.1013. inthisconjunction,seeHulme,Colonial Encounters,83:Anthropologyisseen,inother words,asmerelytheinstitutionalmanifestationofamorewidespreaddesirefortheexistenceof sometouchstoneoftheabsolutelyother,frequentlyrepresentedbycannibalism.

530

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

highlightitstensionsandcontradictions.takentogether,oursources suggestthatthecannibalismwasnotconfinedtoasingleincidentof famineandthatitwasnotalwaysaresponsetohunger.second,iwill examinehowlaterchroniclersandonepoetattemptedtoresolvethese inconsistencies.twocontradictoryideasmotivatedwritersinthissecondgroup.theywantedbothtoblamethepoorforthecannibalism (whichledthemtocreatethetafurmythology)andtodenythatthe eventeveroccurred.Butbehindeachnarrativedirectionliesacommonimpulse:therecognitionofcannibalismnotasanaberrationfrom theethosofholywarbutasanaspectofit.Asanepilogueiwilloffera (necessarilyspeculative)reconstructionoftheeventsatMaarraandof theirconnectiontopossibleearliermomentsofcrusadercannibalism. Crusader Cannibalism: The evidence and Its Discontents themodeltextformanylatersourcesistheGesta Francorum,ananonymous recounting of the campaigns major events begun, apparently, duringthemarch.OfthecannibalismatMaarraitmakesonlyterse mention.theauthornotesgreatdeprivationssufferedthereandthen says,somecutthefleshofdeadbodiesintostripsandcookedthem foreating.Basedonthistestimonythecannibalismwouldappearto beabrief,discreteproblem,allbutforgottensixmonthslaterafterthe triumphatJerusalem. thechronicleattributedtoPetertudebodeconfirmsthisreading. tudebode,liketheGestaauthor,wasaparticipantinthecrusade,and hisbookislargelyaword-for-wordcopyoftheGesta,withoccasional additions and revisions. in the description of Maarra, tudebode
theusualhistoriographicalapproachistoseetheGesta Francorumastheoriginalsource uponwhichlatertextsdependorfromwhichtheyborrow.theliteraturehereisimmense.One might refer to two articles by John France, the Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt IherusalemofraymondofAguilersandtheHistoria de Hierosolymitano itinere ofPetertudebode:AnAnalysisofthetextualrelationshipbetweenPrimarysourcesfortheFirst crusade, in The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zang (Brookfield,Vt, 1998), 3969; and France, the Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum, in From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 10951500, ed. AlanV.Murray(turnhout,1998),2942.seealsocolinMorris,theGesta FrancorumasNarrative History,Reading Medieval Studies19(1993):5571;andH.Oehler,studienzudenGesta Francorum,Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch6(1970):5897.iproposeamorecomplexrelationshipamongthe sources,particularlybetweentheGestaandtudebode,inWhatistheGesta Francorum,andWho isPetertudebode?Revue Mabillon16(2005):179204. Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum,ed.rosalindHill(london,1962),10.33.80. inWhatistheGesta Francorum?iarguethatthesurvivingcopyoftheGestaisaflawed textwithseverallacunaeandthattudebodeseditionactuallypreservestheoriginalcompilers workmoreaccuratelyonsomeoccasions.isuspectthatthismaybeoneofthoseoccasions,though thepointisnotessentialformyargument.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

531

reiterateshissourceandthenaddsthatthearmysleadersgrewconcerned:Afterourleadershadseenthis[theeatingofthedead],they had the pagans moved outside the city gates.there they piled them intoamoundandlatersetfiretothem.Besidesspecifyingthatthe FrankswereeatingMuslims,thisnewinformationgivesthecannibalismasecretive,anarchicalquality,performedwithouttheknowledge oftheleadersandimmediatelysuppressedondiscovery. Phrasedintheseterms,whathappenedatMaarraseemscomprehensible:shocking,sad,buteasilyexplicable,especiallyfromamedieval perspective. For eleventh-century europewas not a society free ofhomegrowncannibalism.in1069,accordingtoJohnofWorcester, asaresultofWilliamtheconquerorsharryingofthenorth,famine so prevailed that men ate the flesh of horses, dogs, cats and human beings.rodulfusGlaber,ingreaterandgrislierdetail,describestwo eleventh-century famines so severe that cannibalism resulted. in the first,aroundthemillennium,thefaminehadbecomesosavagethat grownsonsatetheirmotherswhilewomendidthesametotheirbabies, losttoallmaternallove.0inthesecond,around1032,raveninghungerdrovementodevourhumanflesh....inmanyplacesthebodies ofthedeadweredraggedfromtheearth,alsotoappeasehunger.this raging madness rose to such proportions that brigands were more likelytoattackmenthansolitaryanimals.thecustomofeatinghuman flesh had grown so common that one fellow sold it ready cooked in themarket-placeoftournuslikethatofsomebeast.inthispassage Glaberclearlywishestocommunicatenotjustscarcitybutinhumanity. He is also drawing upon well-established traditions, discussed below, butthefinalimage,ofhumanbodiessoldinthemarketplace,isespecially noteworthyon two counts. it occurs in another revision of the Gesta Francorum, the so-called Historia belli sacri, assembled at Monte cassinointhemid-twelfthcentury:sometookit[theflesh]intothe streetstosellit.BecausetheMontecassinowriterhadaccesstoan extensivearchiveofnowlostmaterial,wecannotbecertainifthisfinal detail represents his imagination or the recollection of a crusader. if
Petertudebode,Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere,ed.J.H.Hillandl.l.Hill,intro.and notestrans.PhilippeWolff(Paris,1977),12425. The Chronicle of John of Worcester,ed.andtrans.P.McGurk,vol.3(Oxford,1998),11. 0rodulfusGlaber,Historiarum libri quinque,ed.JohnFrance(Oxford,1989),2.17.8283. ibid.,4.10.18889.theMiracles of St. Benedictalsomentionscannibalismduringthisfamine,whichitsituatesintheaftermathofrobertthePioussdeathin1031.theimageryusedto depictthecannibalismresemblesGlabers,withparentssuddenlyturningonchildren(Les miracles de Saint Benoit crits par Adrevald, Aimoin, Andr, Raoul Tortaire, et Hugues de Sainte Marie moines de Fleury,ed.e.Decertain[Paris,1858],235). PublishedunderthetitleHistoria peregrinorum euntium Jerusolymam,rHcOc.3:92,209.

532

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

theimageisaliterarydeviceonly,itisremarkablethatawriterfrom anentirelydifferenttradition,thethirteenth-centuryArabdoctorAbd al-latif,usesthesamelanguagetodescribeconditionsincairoduring thefamineof12001201.Wehavethereforeeitheracommonpool ofimagesorelseareminderofhowwillinglypremodernsocieties,ravagedbywarandfamine,abandonedthisfundamentaltaboo. three other monks famously rewrote the Gesta FrancorumGuibert of Nogent, robert the Monk, and Baudry of Bourgueilall of themaround1107.theyundertooktheirprojects,eachsays,outofa senseofdissatisfactionwiththeliterarymeritsoftheGesta,andtheyall supplementedtheirnarrativeswithwhateverotherevidencetheyhad been able to gather, including stories heard from crusade veterans. eachofthem,moredirectlythantheGesta,tudebode,ortheMonte cassinowriter,expressesasenseofhorroratthecannibalism.Ofthe three,Guibertsreactionwasthemostcomplicatedandwillbeconsideredseparatelyandindetailbelow.roberttheMonksrevisionsarethe briefestandthemoststraightforward.itisindeedremarkablethathe wouldmentionthecannibalismatall,forrobertisthemostdisingenuousofchroniclers.Hefeltnocompunctionaboutreimaginingevents ifitimprovedthereputationsofhisheroes.Aboutthecomplexnegotiations, rivalries, and internal betrayals that underlay the crusaders captureofAntioch,forexample,roberthasalmostnothingtosay;and hesimilarlyglossesoverthebitterfeudbetweenGodfreyofBouillon and raymond of saint-Gilles over the possession of Jerusalem. the famous challenge to the authenticityof the Holy lance he does not acknowledge.Butevenrobertfeltobligatedtomentiontheeatingof
reaytannahill,Flesh and Blood: A History of the Cannibal Complex(NewYork,1975),4751. treatedbyriley-smith,First Crusade,13552.  Baudry of Bourgueil, Historia Hierosolymitana, rHc Oc. 4:3.26.863.27.87; Guibert of

Nogent,Dei gesta per Francos,ed.r.B.c.Huygens,corpuschristianorumcontinuatioMediaevalis (hereaftercccM)127A(turnhout,1996),6.9.241;androberttheMonk,Historia Hierosolimitana, rHcOc.3:8.8.850.ireturntoeachofthesepassagesbelow.  in the case of robert, as well as more generally, i do not find persuasive Hengs offhandobservationthatthehistoriansrecordedtheeventstosatisfytheirobligationstothetruth (Empire of Magic,29).Medievalhistorianshadavarietyofobligationsandmotiveswhenwriting history.see,e.g.,YitzhakHenandMatthewinnes,eds.,The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (cambridge,2000);andGerdAlthoff,JohannesFried,andPatrickJ.Geary,eds.,Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory, Historiography(Washington,Dc,2002).seealsoBernardGuene, Histoire et culture historique dans lOccident mdivale(Paris,1980);andHans-WernerGoetz,Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbewutsein im hohen Mittelalter(Berlin,1999). robertacknowledgesabriefdebateamongthearmysleadersatAntiochaboutwhether Bohemondshouldcontrolthecityaloneorwhethertheyoughttoshareitequally;Bohemond dismissestheargumentwithaneasyjoke:Vaecivitatiquaetotdominissubjecti!(Woetothe citysubjectedtosomanylords!)(robert,Historia,5.10.798).OnthekeyscenesatJerusalem,see ibid.,9.9.8699.15.873.Onthelance,seecolinMorris,PolicyandVisions:thecaseoftheHoly lanceatAntioch,inWar and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of J. O. Prestwich,ed. J.GillinghamandJ.c.Holt(Woodbridge,1984),3345.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

533

fleshatMaarraandtoexpressrevulsionatit:Nothingcouldbefound thattheymighteatorcapture.Andso,withhungerandsufferingdrivingthem,horribletosay,theycutthebodiesofthegentilesintostrips andcookedandatethem. thethirdwriterinthisgroup,BaudryofBourgueil,acknowledges occurrencesofcannibalismsomewhatreluctantly.itissaid,andhas beenconfirmed,thatmanyateturkishflesh,thatis,humanflesh. Presumably,thephraseithasbeenconfirmedindicatesthathetook the time to consult with eyewitnesses, perhaps hoping that his information was wrong. But his sources not onlyconfirmed but also supplemented the Gesta. Baudry writes that the bodies were cut up and cooked in hiding, away from the camp, in wicked banquets.0 the leaders regretted the actions but suspended all punishment, recognizingthatthearmyssurvivaldependedonextrememeasures:they performed unlawful acts, but inescapable necessities demanded the laws violation. the language is legalistic, approaching the technicaljargonofsinandpenance.AnditisindeedpossiblethatBaudry echoesajudgmentmadeonthespotbythecrusadesclericalleaders, who, due to Urban iis promise of indulgence at clermont in 1095, wouldverymuchhavehadontheirmindsquestionsofforgivenessand redemption. so far the chroniclers agree on the essential facts of the cannibalism:thatitoccurredafterthesiegeandthatitwasbornofdespair andfamine.theydisagreeaboutitsrelativesecrecy,withmostwriters implying that it happened in dark corners of the city, but with the Monte cassino compiler saying that human flesh was being traded openly.theyalsodisagreeontheresponse,withtudebodesayingthat theleadershipimmediatelyputastoptoitandwithBaudry,againin theopposition,sayingthattheleaderstoleratedthepracticeasaregrettablenecessity.
robert,Historia,8.8.850. relatumestenimetcompertum,quodmulticarnesturcinas,carnesscilicethumanas

(Baudry,Historia,3.27.86). 0Nefandisdapibus(ibid.,3.27.86). Patrabantequidemillicita,sedlegemviolaricompellebatangustiosanecessitas(ibid., 3.27.86). theissuesraisedbywhatUrbaniipromisedatclermont,andwhathemeantwhenhe promisedit,arefartoocomplexforthescopeofthisarticle.theclassicdiscussionremainscarl erdmann,The Origin of the Idea of Crusade,trans.MarshallW.BaldwinandWalterGoffart(Princeton,NJ,1977),30654.seealsoAlfonsBecker,Der Papst, die griechische Christenheit und der Kreuzzug: Papst Urban II. (10881099),vol.2(stuttgart,1988),376413,withimportantrevisions,esp.Paul rousset,Les origines et les caractres de la Premire Croisade(Neuchtel,1945),5362;riley-smith,First Crusade,920;H.e.J.cowdrey,PopeUrbaniiandtheideaofcrusade,Studi medievali,3rdser., 36(1995):72142;andsylviaschein,Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (10991187)(Burlington,Vt,2005),920.

534

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

the first really discordant note comes from another eyewitness chronicler, Fulcher of chartres. Fulcher was absent from Maarra, havingbrokenofffromthemainarmyin1097withBaldwin,thefuture countofedessa.HeseemstohaveknownoftheGesta,buthestruck a narrative course largely independent from it. When he discusses the cannibalism, he attaches to it something like a cryof distress: i trembletosayit,butmanyofourmen,seizedbythemadnessofhunger,cutpiecesfromthebuttocksofthesaracens,whoweredeadatthe time,whichtheycookedandate,andeveniftheywerebarelywarmed over,theysavagelyfilledtheirmouthsanddevouredthem.Fulcher alsodisagreeswithothertextsonchronology,forhesituatesthecannibalismduringthesiege,notinitsaftermath.thedistinctionisnot minor:cannibalismcommittedinshameandsecrecyafteravictoryand cannibalism committed aggressively in the midst of combat are very differentphenomenaindeed. We have one othereyewitness chronicler, raymond of Aguilers, who,likeFulcher,isalargelyindependentvoiceandwho,liketheGesta author,seemstohavebeenatMaarra.raymondagreeswiththelatter on chronology, situating the cannibalism after the siege and in the midstoffamine.Manyofthebodies,hesays,hadbeendecayingforas longastwoweeks.Buthisdescriptionoftheeatingsoundscloserto Fulchers.itisnotshamefulandsecretive.rather,crusadersateflesh inpublicsquares,andtheydidsoavidissime,withgusto.thespectacle,headds,struckfearintheheartsofbothourmenandtheforeigners.someofthepilgrimsactuallydesertedbecauseofthecannibalism,despairingoffuturesuccess,andperhapsaboutthevalidity oftheirmission,too.itisnotimpossiblethattheseeventswereatthe heartofraymondsdecisiontowriteabook,sinceheannouncesinhis introductionthathewishestocontradictliesbeingspreadbycertain deserters.0
OnFulchergenerally,seeVerenaepp,Fulcher von Chartres: Studien zur Geschichtsschreibung des ersten Kreuzzuges (Dsseldorf, 1990), as well as the notes in the standard edition, Fulcherof chartres,Historia Hierosolymitana,ed.HeinrichHagenmeyer(Heidelberg,1913). Fulcher,Historia,1.25,s.2. FulchersituatesthecaptureofMaarrainthesentenceafterthecannibalism,atibid., 1.25,s.3. raymondofAguilers,Liber,ed.J.H.Hillandl.l.Hill,intro.andnotestrans.Philippe Wolff(Paris,1969),101. ibid. terrebantistamultostamnostregentishominesquamextraneos(ibid.). raymondsaysthatProvenalsoldiersweredeserting,formallyblamingtheFranksfor notprovidingsupplies(ibid.). 0ibid.,35.raymondbeganhisbookduringthecrusade,withacoauthorwhodiedshortly afterthesiegeofMaarra(see35,107).

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

535

What most intrigues raymond, however, is how the Muslims reacted to these stories. indeed the saracens and the turks said amongthemselves,Whoisabletostandagainstthispeople,whoare soresoluteandcruelthatafterawholeyearofnotbeingdrivenaway fromthesiegeofAntioch,eitherbyhungerorswordorbyanyother dangertheynoweathumanflesh?itisdoubtfulthatanyFrankish writer,evenoneasperceptiveasraymond,sawintoaMuslimsoul,but thissoliloquyisparticularlyunlikely.ForaftertheconquestofMaarra itscitizenswereeitherkilledorenslaved.Presumablycorpseswerethe onlyenemywitnessestoFrankishactivity.raymondhimselfmayhave spottedthedifficulty,sinceheaddsthattheFranksonlylearnedmuch lateroftheiractionspsychologicalimpact.ifonewere,likeFulcher, tosituatethecannibalismduringthesiege,therewouldbenonarrativeinconsistency:thecitywouldhavebeenfullofhostileandfearful witnesses.inanycase,raymondconfirmstheimplicationsofFulchers description:notallcrusadersslippedintotheshadowstocannibalize theenemydead.somedidsopublicly,withboldnessandaplomb. two other writers whom we might describe as independent of earlier traditions produced crusade chronicles within two decades of1099.Neitherwasaparticipantinthecampaign,thougheachhad ampleopportunitytoconsultwithpeoplewhowere.Andbothofthem, likeFulcher,placedthecannibalismatMaarraduringthesiege,rather than in its aftermath.the first of them, Albert of Aachen, wrote in Germany, beginning his book perhaps as early as 1102 but probably somewhatlater.thecannibalismduringthesiege,hesays,prompted countraymondtoworkwithrenewedenergyanddesperationtocapturethecity.Aboutthecannibalismitself,Albertobserveswithapparentcoldness,suchsufferingfromhungergrewuparoundthesecities that the christians, in the face of the scarcityabout which you have heard,didnotfeartoeatwickedtosay,muchlesstodothebodies, cookedinfire,notonlyofthesaracensorturkstheyhadkilled,but alsoofthedogsthattheyhadcaught.itisasurprisinglycruelepiibid.,101. etenimdederatDeustimoremnostrumcunctisgentibussednosnesciebamus(ibid.).  On Alberts significance as a historian, see susan B. edgington, Albert of Aachen

reappraised,inMurray,From Clermont to Jerusalem,5567;JeanFlori,Pierre lErmite et la Premire Croisade (Paris, 1999), 5166; Peter Knoch, Studien zu Albert von Aachen: Der erste Kreuzzug in der deutschen Chronistik(stuttgart,1966);colinMorris,theAimsandspiritualityoftheFirstcrusade asseenthroughtheeyesofAlbertofAachen,Reading Medieval Studies16(1990):97117;and,of course,edgingtonsrecenteditionofAlbert,Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem (Oxford,2007). Albert,Historia,5.29.374.

536

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

thetfromAlbert,whosegeneralsympathytowardmarginalgroups includingJews,women,andMuslimshasearnedhimthepraiseofhis mostrecenteditor.itispossible,asweshallsee,tocontextualizehis commentssomewhat,butthesimplestexplanationmaybethathistone indicatesarealdiscomfortatwhathedescribed. the other independent source, ralph of caen, traveled to the eastafterthecrusadeandmettwoofitsheroes,theitalianNorman warriorsBohemondandtancred.Aboutthelatterhewroteabiography,The Deeds of Tancred,completedsometimebetween1112and1118. WhenralphrecallsthecannibalismofMaarra,hetransformsitintoa grislypublicspectacle:ihaveheardthemsaythatalackoffoodcompelledthemtomakeamealofhumanflesh,thatadultswereputinthe stewpot,andthatboyswereskeweredonspits.Bothwerecookedand eaten.thesedetails,thestewpotsandspits,soundlikethestuffof epicfiction.Andindeedtheyareparalleledinthenearlycontemporary metricalaccountofthecrusade,theHistoria vie HierosolimitaneofGilo ofParis.GilodrawsmostheavilyonroberttheMonkschronicle,and likerobert,heplacesthecannibalismafterthecaptureofMaarra. YethefurthercommentsthattheFranksdidwhatlawforbidsand for shame! what a crime!they put the fresh flesh of turks on spits andworetheirteethoutoncadavers.Wecanonlyspeculatewhat inspiredGilotoaddthesedetails.ralph,however,identifieshissources asactualparticipantsinthefeasting,whichistosay,cannibals:the breadfailed,andhungergrewstrong.iamashamednowtotellwhati haveheardandwhatihavelearnedfromtheveryperpetratorsofthis shame.0 ralph concludes that the pilgrims, by cooking their food, behavedasmen;butbecausetheywereeatingpeople,theybehaved likefiguresfromthemedievalAlexanderlegend,exotic,cynocephalic
Fortheaccountofthemassacre,seeibid.,6.30.44042.OnAlbertsattitudetowardmarginalgroups,seeedgington,AlbertofAachenreappraised,6163. ralphofcaen,Gesta Tancredi,rHcOc.3:587710.ralphspeaksofhisrelationshipto bothmenon603.Onthetextsdate,seetheintroductorycommentsinrHcOc.3:xxxviiixl; ralph or another scribe did make subsequent revisions to text. it has been translated as The Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen,trans.Bernards.BachrachandDavids.Bachrach(Brookfield,Vt, 2005). ralph,Gesta Tancredi,97.675. PublishedasThe Historia Vie Hierosolimitae of Gilo of Paris,ed.andtrans.c.W.Grocock and J. e. siberry (Oxford, 1997). Unlike the editors here (lviiilx) and unlike roberts recent translator,carolsweetenham(Robert the Monks History of the First Crusade[Aldershot,2006],33 35),isuspectthatGilodidmakeuseofrobertschronicleasasourceforhispoem.Onroberts connections with vernacular traditions, see Grocock and siberry in their introduction to Gilo, Historia Vie,xlixlii. Gilo,Historia Vie,8,ll.27880. 0ralph,Gesta Tancredi,97.675.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

537

races,dog-men.AswithAlbert,cannibalismcausedralphtothink ofdogs. tensionsamongthesourcesthusfarhaveinvolvedtwodifferent questions:whendidthecannibalismhappen,andwithwhat(forlack ofabetterword)demeanordidthecrusadersapproachtheircannibalism?Amajorityofthesources,sevenofthetenexaminedsofar,place thecannibalismafterthesiegeofMaarra.Butwhenoneconsidersthat allbutoneofthosesourcesderivefromtheGesta,andthatthethree sourcesplacingthecannibalismduringthesiegearelargelyindependentofoneanother,weareleftwithamuchnarrowermargin:twotraditionssayithappenedafterthefightinghadendedandthreesaythat ithappenedinthemidstofit.Wemightappealtothesuperiorityof theauthoroftheGestaandofraymondasprobableeyewitnesses,but eyewitnessstatusdoesnotguaranteeveracity.Andeyewitnessesinform allofoursourcestovaryingdegrees. thefullestaccountingoftheevidence,moreover,raisesanother difficulty:whetherMaarrawastheonlytimewhentheFranksatefrom the dead. the problematic Chanson dAntiochea late-twelfth-century vernacularepicthatcombinesliterarypanachewithunusualhistorical precisionlocatestheoriginalsiteofcannibalismafewmonthsearlier duringthesiegeofAntioch,asdoesthenormallywell-regardedlatetwelfth-centuryhistorianWilliamoftyre.WilliamofMalmesbury,an early-twelfth-century english writer, similarly mentions cannibalism atAntioch:Andthereweresomewhonourishedbodieswithbodies, feedingonhumanflesh,butfarawayandinthemountains,lestothers takeoffenseatthesmellofcookedmeat.thearmysleadersthemOnthedog-men,seeMerrallllewelynPrice,Consuming Passions: The Uses of Cannibalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe(NewYork,2003),57.thetraditiongoesbackatleastto Pliny,Natural History,trans.H.rackham(cambridge,MA,1942).Plinytwicetellsreadersofcannibalisticscythiantribesintheeast(6.20.53,37677;7.2.9,51213)andthenmentions,farther eaststill,thattherearetribesofmenwithdogsheads(7.2.23,52021). recallingalsotheproverbDogdoesnoteatdog,citedbyVarro,De lingua latina,ed.and trans.rolandG.Kent(cambridge,MA,1938),7.32.29899:caniscaninamnonestaccording toconventionalwisdom,theoriginofthemoderndog-eat-dogworld.Boucher,Cannibal Encounters,1516,notesthataround1520aspanishobserveropined,erroneously,thatthetermcannibal originatedfromthelatincanis,dog. thesourcesthatplacethecannibalismduringthesiegearetheGesta,tudebode,the Montecassinochronicle,robert,Baudry,Gilo,andraymond.raymondislargelyindependent oftheGesta,thoughheprobablyreaditorevenknewtheauthor.thewriterswhoplacethecannibalismduringthesiegeareFulcher,Albert,andralph. Williamoftyre,Chronicon,ed.r.B.c.Huygens,cccM63,63a(turnhout,1986);La chanson dAntioche,ed.suzanneDuparc-Quioc,2vols.(Paris,197778),withvol.1containingthe text.idiscusscannibalisminbothsourcesbelow. WilliamofMalmesbury,Gesta regum Anglorum,ed.r.A.B.Mynors,r.M.thomson,and M.Winterbottom,vol.1(Oxford,1998),4.361.634.WilliamdoesnotdiscussMaarraatall,moving

538

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

selveshintedatpossiblecannibalismatAntiochinaletterfromseptember1099,addressedtothepopebutclearlyintendedforawideaudience:Hungerinthecityhadgrowntosuchanextentthatsomewere hardlyabletokeepthemselvesfrommakingbanquetsofmen.this excerptfromtheletter,likelywrittenbyraymondofAguilers,wasto reappearwithGermanchroniclers,oneofwhomfoundtheexpression banquetsofmen,humanis dapibus,sodisturbingthathetransformed it into inhumanis dapibus. the visionary priest Peter Bartholomew similarly offered an admonition about cannibalism during the final stages of the siege at Antioch: Do not delayattacking the enemy, he pronounced, speaking with thevoice of the apostle Andrew, otherwiseyouwillreachsuchapointofdeprivationthatsomeofyouwill eattherestofyou.0thesentiment,ifnotthelanguage,echoesPauls lettertotheGalatians:ifyoubiteandeatoneanother,seethatyouare notaltogetherconsumed,onebyanother(Gal.5:15).thereis,however,asignificantdifferencebetweenthesehintsofearliercannibalism andwhathappenedatMaarra.thelettertothepopeandthewarning fromPeterBartholomewbothrefertochristianseatingchristians,not Muslims.AndWilliamofMalmesburydoesnotindicatewhomthesoldiersateonlythattheycookeddeadbodies.inthesethreeinstances, allfromAntioch,cannibalismisapunishmentforthearmy,notafeedingupontheenemy. the Byzantine princess Anna comnena places the cannibalism
almostdirectlyfromAntiochtoJerusalem.AsWilliamnotes(4.374.660),hederivesmuchofhis accountfromFulcher,butwithrevisions. Praetereafamesinciuitateconualerat,utuixabhumanisdapibussecontinerentaliqui (HeinrichHagenmeyer,Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 10881100[1901;rpt.Hildesheim,1973], 169). HagenmeyermakesseveralnotesoftextualoverlapbetweenraymondsLiberandthis letter (cosigned by count raymond, whose chaplain raymond was) (ibid., 37497).the letter containsabriefdescriptionofMaarra,liftedfromraymond:cf.raymond,Liber,101;andHagenmeyer,Kreuzzugsbriefe,170.Ontheletterscomposition,seeJohnFrance,theelectionandtitle ofGodfreydeBouillon,Canadian Journal of History18(1983):32627;andAlanV.Murray,the titleofGodfreyofBouillonasrulerofJerusalem,Collegium medievale3(1990):16364.  e.g., the Annales Hildesheimnenses, Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, scriptores (hereafterMGHss)3,ed.G.H.Pertz(Hanover,1839),echothisletterthattheFrankscouldhardly restrainthemselvesfromhumanis dapibus(106).thechroniclethatprefersinhumanbanquetsis Frutolfs und Ekkhards Chroniken,152. saintAndrew,accordingtoapre-crusadelegend,evangelizedalandofcannibalsinthe east:robertBoening,ed.andtrans.,The Acts of Andrew in the Country of the Cannibals: Translations from the Greek, Latin, and Old English(NewYork,1991);seealsoBoening,Saint and Hero: Andreas and Medieval Doctrine(lewisburg,PA,1991). 0raymond,Liber,78. AllscripturalquotationsaremyowntranslationsfromtheVulgate,inconsultationwith theNewrevisedstandardVersion. AsJanetWhatleyobserves,Biblicalanthropophagyappearstobelessacrimethana punishment(Foodandthelimitsofcivility:thetestimonyofJeandelry,Sixteenth Century Journal15[1984]:396).

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

539

earlierstill,duringthePeoplescrusadeledbyPetertheHermit.As thisragtagarmydevastatedthelandsaroundNicea,shewritesinlanguage reminiscent of ralphs and Gilos, theycut in pieces some of thebabies,impaledothersonwoodenspits,androastedthemovera fire;oldpeopleweresubjectedtoeverykindoftorture.settingaside questionsofpoeticlicense,wemightindeedwonderwhethercannibalismoccurredduringtheexigenciesofthePeoplescrusade,orelseat Antioch,where,assumbergpointsoutinhisarticleonthetafurs,the faminewasinfinitelyworseandoflongerdurationthanatMaarra. Whatevertheanswer,theevidencethusfarallowstworadicallydifferentinterpretations:cannibalismwasaminoraffairinvolvingafewof thepooratMaarra,orelseitwasacontinuingandsometimespublic actcommittedfromthecampaignsearlieststagesupuntilthearmies approachedJerusalemsshadow. medieval approaches to Cannibalism todescribeaneventistoascribemeaningtoitatruismthatmedieval authors would havewell understood, trained as they were in biblical exegesis and in its overlapping levels of literal and allegorical meaning. For them the cannibalism at Maarra would have been heavily loadedwithsymbolicimplication,evenifitweremerelyanactofnecessity.Andtodeterminethesemeaningswasnotwhollyatextualexercise.thecannibalismwasrealenough,andpartofwhatcomplicated the writers task was that the cannibals themselves had found their ownmeanings.Perhapsasawayofcopingwithwhattheyhaddone, perhapsinearnestaggression,somecrusadersandthenchroniclers, reluctantlyunderstood the cannibalism as an act of holy war: not necessarilyasacolonialgesture,buttrulyasanaspectofthecrusade enterprise. Ofallourwriters,nonestrugglesmoremightilywiththeseissues ofmotiveandmeaningthandoesGuibertofNogent.Asmentioned,
The Alexiad of Anna Comnena,trans.e.r.A.sewter(london,1969),10.6.311. sumberg,thetafurs,242.Baudryalmostseemstoanticipatethisobjectionwhenhe

observesthatthehungeratMaarradidsurpassthatatAntioch(Historia,3.26.86).Onewondersif BaudrymighthavebeenreferringtorumorsofcannibalismatAntiochwhenhewrotethatchristiansatetheirhorsesandassesandwhateverimpurethingstheymightfind(ibid.,3.6.65). thebestoverviewsofmedievalexegeticaltraditionareH.delubac,Exgse mdivale: Les quatre sens de lEcriture,4vols.(Paris,195464);andBerylsmalley,The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages(NotreDame,iN,1964);seealsoGuylobrichonandPierrerich,eds.,Le Moyen Age et la Bible (Paris,1984).ihavemadeoneattempttodrawconnectionsbetweenexegesisandhistoryforone ofthechroniclersinGuibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind(NewYork,2002),87110.Bycontrast,Jacqueschaurand,laconceptiondelhistoiredeGuibertdeNogent(10531124),Cahiers de civilization mdivale8(1965):38195,arguesthatGuibertstrainingasanexegeteimpededhis abilitytowriteeffectiveandaccuratehistory.

540

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

GuibertwasoneofthemonkswhorewrotetheGesta.HeknewFulcher ofchartressbookandusedittorevisehisoriginaldraft.Healsospoke with crusade participants and presumablyasked them, among other things,whathadhappenedatMaarra.Foreventstheresotroubled himthathetriedtoexplainthemtwice,initiallywithextremecaution, referencingtheGestabutencouraginghisreadersnottobelieveeverythingtheyhadheard:somearesaidtohavecutpiecesfrom[saracen bodies]andtohavecookedandeatenthem;butthishappenedrarely andinsecret,tosuchanextentthatnoonecanbesureifitreallyhappenedatall.Hereturnstothesubjectneartheendofthechronicle, where he associates the cannibalism with a special type of crusader, thetafurs,poormenwhotraveledbarefootandwithoutweaponsand who performed manual labor for the armys leaders, living off whatever common, barely edible plants they could find. sometimes,Guibertadds,paraphrasinghisearlierremark,stripsoffleshwerefound missing from saracen bodies at Maarra and elsewhereyet another signthatMaarrawasnottheonlysiteofcannibalismbut,hestresses again,thishappenedmostrarely.Butwhenitdidhappen,rumorspread amongthesaracensthatthesesamemen,thatistosaythetafurs, wereeatinghumanflesh,anideathattheirownreligioussensibilities couldnotbear.Ononeoccasion,inordertoencouragetherumors,the tafursandtheirkingaNormanknightwhohadlosthishorseand hencehisaristocraticstatustookthebatteredbodyofasaracenand, infullviewoftheenemy,roasteditasifitweremeattobeeaten. theanecdoteisatourdeforceinmisdirection.Bytheendofit, westilldonotknowifanycannibalismtookplace.Weknowonlythat a few saracen bodies had been suspiciously cut up. contrary to the usualreadingsofthepassage,Guibertdoesnotevenaccusethetafurs. He only says that these helpful volunteersservants more than soldierscleverlyfakedanactofcannibalismtofrightentheenemy.At a stroke he has simultaneously cast doubt on the event and blamed itonthepoor.Hehasalsoconnectedittoarecognized,ifrare,militarystrategy:stagedcannibalism.Around1020inspain,accordingto Ademarofchabannes,theNormanrogerdetosnyusedasimilartactictofrightenMuslims.rogercutupasaracenprisoner,asifapig,in frontofhisfellowcaptives,boiledthebodyparts,andthenpretendedto feastonthemwithhiscomrades.Feigningcarelessness,heallowedthe
OnthevalueandcharacterofGuibertshistory,seeHuygenssintroductoryremarksin hiseditionofGuibert,Dei gesta,717. ibid.,6.18.254. ibid.,7.23.310.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

541

othercaptivestoescapeandtospreadthewordamongtheirterrified coreligionists.itispossiblethatoneoftheNormansortheProvenalsinthecrusaderarmycouldhaveheardAdemarsstoryandadvised employingaversionofitduringtheirowncampaign.Buttheimagery isalsonoticeablyclosetoralphofcaensandAnnacomnenas,who hadheardofsimilarspectaclesandhadthoughtthemreal.0 William of tyre gives us almost exactly the same scene, only at Antioch,andwithBohemondtakingtheplaceofthetafurking.inhis version,Bohemondhadpromisedtheotherleadersthathewoulddo somethingtodriveoutthespieswhohadpenetratedtheircamp.After somecarefulthoughtheorderedexecutionerstocutthethroatsofa fewoftheirprisonersandthentohavetheirbodiesroastedonspitsand preparedprobablymeaningcutandseasonedasifforafeast. shouldanyoneaskwhatwashappening,Bohemondorderedhismento replythatthearmysleadershaddecidedtodineontheirprisoners. NotonlydoesWilliam,likeGuibert,denytherealityofthecannibalismitisallplayactingbutheevenseparatesitfromtheissueofhunger. For he has Bohemond roast the enemycorpses during the early daysatAntioch,wellbeforetheworstofthefaminehadstruck.that thestrategysolvedthespyproblemseemsanafterthoughttothestorys real lesson: that the saracens learned to believe that christians surpassedinsavageryeveryothernationofmen,andwildbeaststoo. All of these themes surface in the Chanson dAntioche, where the tafursroastsaracenbodiesonspitsjustoutsideAntiochswalls,causingthedefenderstocryoutinfear:Oh,lordMahomet!Whatgreat cruelty!takevengeanceonthosewhohaveshamedyou,thosewhohave eatenyourpeoplearetrulynothuman.theyarenolongerFrenchmen butinsteadarelivingdemons.theMuslimreactionrecallsanother commentmadebyBaudryofBourgueiltoexplainwhythecannibalism
Ademarofchabannes,Chronicon,ed.P.Bourgain,r.landes,andG.Pon,cccM129 (turnhout,1999),3.55.174.seealsoFrance,Victory in the East,12. 0OnewouldexpectAnnacomnenainparticulartodescribetheelaboratecookingscenes asexercisesinfakery:emilyAlbu,Bohemondandtherooster:Byzantines,Normans,andthe Artful ruse, in Anna Komnene and Her Times, ed. thalia Gouma-Peterson (New York, 2000), 15768. William,Chronicon,4.23.266.thestoryappearstobeanelaborationofasimplerstoryin theGesta Francorum,5.12.29,whichstatesthatBohemondexecutedprisonersbeforethegatesof thecitytofrightenitsdefenders. Williammentionsthattheexploratorum pestisgrewquietafterthisincidentinChronicon, 4.23.267.On266heimaginesthespiesreportingtotheirlordsinthefarthestcapitalsoftheeast thattheFrankssavagerysurpassedthatofmanandbeast:Populushicquarumlibetnationum, sedetferarumexuperatseviciam. Ahi!Mahometsire,comegrandecruelt!/Quarprentdecelsvenjancequisitontvergond,/Quantiltegentmanjuent,tottontdesperson,/onesontpasFranois,anoissongvif malf(Chanson dAntioche,219,ll.406063).

542

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

constitutednosin:becausethey[thecrusaders]sufferedsuchhunger forGod,andbecausetheywerefightingtheirenemieswiththeirhands andwiththeirteeth.cannibalismdidnotonlyquietthestomachand frightentheenemy;italsostruckoutagainstsaracensinadirectand physicalway.thebehaviorisnotaltogetherdifferentfromthedesecrationofgravesandofexhumedbodies,whichthecrusaderspracticed outsidethewallsofAntioch.itisindeedeasytoimagineonetactic leadingtotheother. What we have in these three accounts, of Guibert,William, and the Chanson, is cannibalism, pretended or otherwise, not because of necessitybutasanaspectofpsychologicalwarfare.Psychological warfare, however,istoopoliteatermforwhatthewritersdescribe:tearingand gnawingatcorpsesasaformofcombat.Adescriptionmoreappropriate, and less anachronistic, would be, simply, holy war. if this suggestioniscorrectthatthecannibalismwasintendedtostrikefearinthe enemy,andliterallytostrikeatthemwithchristianteeth,asBaudry framesitthentheeatingcouldnothaveoccurredonlyafterthesiege atMaarra,whereraymondandmostwritersoftheGestatraditionsituateit,butduringthesiegeitself,whiletherewerestillMuslimsaliveto witnessitandtofeelthehorrorthatwasitsintendedby-product.Andas wehaveseen,asurprisingnumberofwritersdoexactlythat,especially ifweaddtothelistofFulcher,ralph,andAlbertthesomewhatproblematictestimonyofAnnacomnena,Williamoftyre,andtheChanson dAntiocheall of whom describe theatrical cannibalism at sieges otherthanMaarraandofraymondandGuibert,whoacknowledge theeffectivenessofcannibalisminterrifyingtheenemy,withGuibert implyingtheoccurrenceofothersimilarbutunspecifiedincidents. Mostreaderswouldrecoilatthenotionofdeliberate,purposeful cannibalism,buttheexistenceoftheideaintheeleventh-centurywarriorsmind-setshouldnotsurpriseus.Oneaccountofapilgrimageto Jerusalem in 1064 has an Arabwarrior threaten christians by saying that hewould first take everything they had and that hewould then eattheirfleshanddrinktheirblood.ralphexplainstherisksrunby
Baudry,Historia,3.27.86. theGesta Francorumrelatesthestory,sayingthatthebodieswereunearthedtoobtain

anaccuratecountofthedead,aswellastosendseveredheadsasgiftstolegatesoftheemirof egypt(6.17.42).Baudry,workingfromhisimaginationorfromhiseyewitnesses,attributesdifferentmotivestothegraverobbers,sayingthatsomeweremotivatedbygreed,sincethebodieshad been buried with valuables, or byaggression, in that they wanted to demoralize theirenemies throughthepublicmistreatmentoftheirdead:Utdoloremsuperdoloremturcisapponerent, incitati,sepultosdesepelierunt,etcorporibussatisignominoseinsultaverunt(Baudry,Historia, 2.17.51). lambertofHersfeld,Annales,ed.O.Holder-egger(Berlin,1958),98100.theAnnales

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

543

hisherotancredbysayingthatifthesaracenshadcapturedhim,they wouldsurelyhaveeatenhim.Albert,ontheotherhand,tellsusthat tancredwasaferociousknightwhocouldneverquenchhisthirstfor saracenblood.suchmetaphorsswordsbecomingdrunkonhuman blood,enemiesdevouredbythemouthofhell0arepartofthenormalparlanceofwarfare.Andofcourse,ontheeveofbattlewarriors wouldhavefortifiedthemselveswiththebodyandbloodoftheirlord. Asaresultoftheongoingeucharisticcontroversy,inauguratedinthe 1050sbyBerengaroftours,priestswouldhaveonlyrecentlylearned tostresstheabsoluterealityofthisotherwiseabstractceremony.And mostclericsin1095,eventhebetter-educatedones,lackedtheAristoteliantrainingnecessarytoexplaintransubstantiation.thepossibility thattheycouldcommunicateanuanced,theologicalsummaryofeatingchristsfleshanddrinkinghisbloodtoalayaudiencewellaccustomedtothesightofveryrealbloodseemsremote. evenwithouttheeucharist,christianityhasasurprisingnumber of things to say about cannibalism. the Pentateuch offers two stern warningsfromthelordthatifthechildrenofisraeldonotobeyhis commands,theyshallbereducedtoeatingtheirownchildren.You will eat the flesh of your sons and your daughters, leviticus 26:29 threatens.Deuteronomy28:5357elaborates,couchingthesethreats inthenowfamiliarlanguageofshameandofsiegewarfare:
Altahense maiores,ed.WilliamdeGiesebrechtandedumundl.B.abOefele,MGHss20(Hanover, 1868),816,describingthesamescene,attributeaslightlylesscannibalisticspeechtotheleader, thoughinfactthetextearlierdescribestheArabsasthirstingforhumanblood(815).thebest general account of this pilgrimage remains einar Joranson, the Great German Pilgrimage of 10641065,inThe Crusades and Other Historical Essays, Presented to Dana C. Munro by His Former Students,ed.louisJ.Paetow(NewYork,1928),356. seeralph,Gesta Tancredi,50.643. Nunquamturcorumsanguinesatiatus(Albert,Historia,4.32.296).  Baudry uses precisely this image: sed omnis christianus gladium suum occisorum sanguineinebriabat(Historia,2.17.51).theimpliedeucharisticmetaphorhereofbloodaswine barelydeservesmention. 0theideaoftheentrytohellasamouthisacommonplaceinWesternart,literature,and language:carolineWalkerBynum,The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 2001336(New York,1996),148andn.102;29394. Berengarbeganthedebateontherealpresenceofchristinthesacramentinthe1050s. Definitionsweresettledonatthetimeofthecrusade,butthemechanismsforexplainingthem remained elusive: Jean de Montclos, Lanfranc et Brengar: La controverse eucharistique du XIe sicle (leuven, 1971); see also Miri rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (cambridge, 1991). Prominent contemporary thinkers whose careers nearly ended over eucharistic missteps include rupert of Deutz and Guibert of Nogent: John H.Van engen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley, cA, 1983), 15868; rubenstein, Guibert of Nogent, 13272. Frank lestringant finds a similareucharisticneurosisbehindanti-catholicrhetoricduringtheFrenchWarsofreligion: catholiquesetcannibales:lethmeducannibalismedanslediscoursprotestantautempsdes Guerres de religion, in Pratiques et discours alimentaires la Renaissance, ed. J.-c. Margolin and r.sauzet(Paris,1982),23345.

544

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

Andyouwilleatthefruitofyourwombandthefleshofyoursons and yourdaughters, whom the lord gave toyou, in the midst of the anguish and devastation with which yourenemy shall oppress you.themostrefinedandwealthymanwilllookevillytowardhis brotherandtowardthewifeofhisbosom,andhewillnotgivethem anyofthefleshofhischildrenwhomhewilleat,becauseheshall possessnothingelseinthemidstofsiegeandloss,asyourenemies laywastetoyouwithinyourgates.thegentleandrefinedwoman, whoonaccountofhergreatsoftnessanddelicacywouldnotallow the sole of her foot to touch the ground as shewalked, will look evilly toward the husband of her bosom, about the flesh of their sonsanddaughtersandabouttheafterbirthwhichcomesfromher betweenherlegsandthechildrenbornatthathour.theywilleat themsecretlybecauseofthegreatshortagesofeverythingduring thesiegeandthedevastationwithwhichyourenemieswilloppress youwithinyourgates.

these warnings reappear in several of the Old testament prophets. continuing with the theme of intrafamilial cannibalism, ezekiel 5:10 states,surelythefathersinyourmidstshalleatthefleshoftheirsons, andthesonsshalleattheirfathers.Zechariah11:9increasesthelevel ofviolence,proclaimingageneralcannibalismofallagainstall:And letthosewhoarelefteattheflesh,everyoneofhisneighbor.Micah 3:3addsexplicitdetail,toberevisitedinthelanguagebothofralph ofcaenandofAnnacomnena:theywilleatthefleshofmypeople, they will flay their skin and break their bones and chop them into piecesforthepot,withfleshasifinthemidstofthecauldron.the historicalbooksoftheBiblemakefrequentuseoftheimageofdogs satiatingthemselvesonthebloodoftheenemy,whichagainhelpssituateAlbertofAachensassociationofcannibalizedturkishbodieswith deaddogs.intheNewtestament,asnoted,acannibalisticreference inthelettertotheGalatiansfindsanechoinraymondofAguilerss chronicle, when the Apostle Andrew warns the Frankish host not to delayitsattackagainsttheenemy.thebookoftheApocalypsesimilarly describesacallfromanangelatopthesuntothebirdsoftheairtelling themtofeedthemselvesonthekingsoftheearth,theirservants,and theirhorses.theimageryisreminiscentofavision,relatedbyAlbert, aboutGodfrey,thefuturerulerofJerusalem,alsoseateduponthesun, surroundedbybirds,whothendisperse.
OnemightaddthatJer.19:9describesmorefamilialcannibalism.isaiahtwicerefersto self-cannibalism(9:1920,49:26).lam.4:10referstomotherseatingtheirchildren.Ps.26:2and 52:5(followingtheVulgatenumberingsystem)makeuseofcannibalisticimagery. see3Kings14:11,16:4,21:9,21:2324,22:38;4Kings9:10,9:36. seeApoc.19:1718;andAlbert,Historia,6.37.450.theApocalypsetwiceshowsusabeast poisedtoeatanewbornchild(12:4,17:1516).

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

545

thecontextformostofthesepassagesissiegewarfare,afrequent phenomenon in the Old testament and in medieval life. the most spectacularincidentofcannibalismintheBible,infacttheonlyconfirmedinstanceofpracticedratherthanthreatenedorprophesiedcannibalisminvolvesthesiegeofsamaria,describedin4Kings6:2433. the siege, and the accompanying scarcity, became unusually brutal, andinthispassageawomancriestotheKingofisraelforhelp.she explains, A woman said to me, Give up your son so that we might cook him today, and tomorrow we shall cook mine. We cooked my son,andweatehim.thenextdayisaidtoher,Giveupyoursonso thatwemightcookhim.Butshehadhiddenhim.Josephusrelates asimilarstoryaboutthefinalstagesoftheromanssiegeofJerusalem in70AD.inthiswell-knownincident,aJewishwomannamedMariaso despairedofherplightandthecitys,andwassoovercomebyhunger, thatshe,too,killedandcookedherson.someoftheleadersofthe rebellioncaughtthescentofroastedmeatandimmediatelydemanded that she hand over whatever meal she had prepared. Maria showed themtheremainsofherchild,whichshehadsetasideforlaterconsumption,andsaid,thisismyson,trulymyson.Now,eatofmycrime. Dontbesofterthanawoman,ormoremercifulthanamother.this sceneinturnbecameoneoftheclimacticmomentsinthethirteenthcentury vernacular saga La vengeance de Nostre-Seigneur, which adapts Josephuss storyof titus and Vespasians destruction of Jerusalem to stressthethemeofchristianvengeance.inoneversion,MariascharacterbecomesanAfricanqueenandachristianconvertwhoeatsher daughterandherservantsson,butonlyatthecommandofanangel. suchactionsarenecessary,theangelexplainstoher,tofulfillprophecy andtobringaboutJerusalemsdivinelysanctioneddestruction.the
theversesquotedhereare4Kings6:2829.thekingisJehoramorJoram,referredto hereconsistentlyastheking. Josephus,The Jewish War,trans.H.st.J.thackeray,2vols.,loebclassicallibrary(cambridge, MA, 192728).this passage appears as 6.34, 43439. latin translations of Josephuss workscirculatedwidelyintheMiddleAges.ForthisessayihaveconsultedamanuscriptofDe bello Iudaeocopiedaround1100intheVatican:cod.Vat.lat.1992,withreferencestotheloebGreek edition.thestoryofMariaandhersonappearsonfols.148148v.Jeandelry,writingofcannibalsinBrazil,usedthisJosephanimagerytodescribehisownexperienceofthesiegeatsancerre; seealsolestringant,catholiquesetcannibales,23738.  et hic meus inquit est. vere filius: et facinus meum comedite. Nam et ego comedi. Nolositisautfeminamolioresautmatremisericordiores(Vat.lat.1992,fol.148;intheloeb edition,43637).  the different versions of this saga are collected in Alvin e. Ford, ed., La vengeance de Nostre-Seigneur: The Old and Middle French Prose Versions,2vols.(toronto,198493).Vol.1contains thelongestandlatestversionofthestory,chaps.5255,wheretheangelordersthecannibalism andPontiusPilatehimselfdiscoversthecookedchild.invol.2theFandHfamiliescontain briefermentionsofthecannibalism,inchaps.22and37,respectively.

546

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

textobviouslypostdatestheFirstcrusade,butitshowshowanaudienceraisedonvengeancecouldimaginativelytransformcannibalism intoanactofsacredviolence. itwouldnothavebeenlostonourchroniclersthattheFrankswere conductingsiegewarfareinthesameterritory,andsometimesaround thesamecities,wherethesenightmarishsceneshadoccurred.ifthe crusaders themselves had bothered to seek out information about what to expect while on campaign, the Old testament and Josephus would have been their likeliest sources.00 it would have been easier stillfortheologiansandevenforthemoderatelyeducatedclericsin the armyto drawconnections among the cannibalism of prophecy, the sufferings of the Jews, the specific events reported by Josephus, and the conditions that they themselves were experiencing on the march.toseesuchlinksby1099hadindeedbecomeintellectualhabit, particularlyforbiblical exegetes who necessarily hadto explainincidentsofscripturalcannibalism. saint Jerome helped set the pattern in, among other places, his commentaryonMicah3:23,whereheelidestheBabyloniancaptivity andtheromanwaragainsttheJews:theyareinthemidstofastewpot, as if in the cityof Jerusalem, where theyafflict those miserable people;andonaccountofthese[sins],theyareborneawaytopunishmentonthedayofcaptivity,eitherbyNebuchadnezzarorbytitusand Vespasian.0incommentingonezekiel5:10,Jeromerefersexplicitly toJosephus:WereadinthebookofKingshow,compelledbyhunger, amotherconsumedherownson.Josephusmemorializesmanysimilar eventsduringthesiegeofJerusalem.0Josephus,infact,onlycommemoratesonesucheventthestoryofMariaandhersonwhichrepresentsuncharacteristiccarelessnessonJeromespart.Jeromedoesadd forprecisionssakethatwehavenoinstancesoffathersandsonseating oneanother,asopposedtomotherseatingsons,thoughwemightpresumethatnecessityhadonoccasioncompelledsuchaction.0raba On vengeance and crusade thought, see Philippe Buc, la vengeance de Dieu: De lexgsepatristiquelarformeecclsiastiqueetlaPremirecroisade,inLa vengeance, 400 1200,ed.DominiqueBarthlemy,FranoisBougard,andrgineleJan(rome,2006),45186. 00BartolphofNangisappealstoOldtestamentprecedent(3Kings15)toexplainthemassacreinJerusalem.theFranks,hesays,didnotwishtobelikesaul,whohadsparedAgagagainst GodsorderstodestroyalloftheAmalekites(Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium,35.513).the mostcommonstrategyintheGestaforillustratingtheseverityofthefaminewastolisttheprices offood;thesamestrategyisusedin4Kings6. 0Jerome,Commentarii in Prophetas minores,ed.M.Adriaen,corpuschristianorumseries latina(hereafterccsl)76(turnhout,1969),457. 0Jerome,Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri xiv,ed.FranciscusGloria,ccsl75(turnhout,1964),58. 0ibid.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

547

nusMaurusfollowsJeromesleadinassociatingtheleviticuspassage withJosephus,butheisunconcernedwiththenicetiesofgender.He observes simply that, based on Josephus, the Jews have sustained all of the things threatened in the Pentateuch.0 so ingrained had this model become by the time of the First crusade that the contemporaryexegeteBrunoofsegnicouldobserveaboutthepassagesinleviticusandDeuteronomythattheirmeaningswereliteralandobvious.0 rupert of Deutz, anothercontemporaryexegete, always in search of novelty,takestimetowonderwhyMicahforeseestheJewscookedboth instewpotsandincauldrons.Heconcludesthatitiseasiertoremove something from a stewpot, because of thewideropening, than from acauldron.thestewpot,therefore,referstotheromansiege,which someoftheJewsdidsurvive.thecauldron,ontheotherhand,isthe fireofhell,fromwhichitisfarmoredifficult,nay,trulyimpossible,to escape.0 these associative leaps recur in a general way in the chronicles, wherewelearnthattheFranksarethenewchosenPeoplefightingfor thespiritualJerusalemaswellasforitsmoremundane,earthlycounterpart.GuibertofNogentfurtherspecifies,withclearreferencetoJosephus,thattheFirstcrusadewas,ifimaysayso,worthyofbeingtold inamoredignifiedstylethanalltheHistories of the Jewish War.0BaudrydirectlycitesJosephusintheintroductiontohischronicle,saying thatJosephusshistorydemonstratestheaccuracyofchristsprophecy about the destruction of the temple.0 in the historians minds, the FrankscompetedineverysensewiththeancientJewsandfulfilledtheir destinymorecompletely.itseemsunlikelythat,whenfacedwithnew storiesofcannibalism,thesesamehistorianswouldnothavethoughtof thosefamousincidentsfromJosephussnarrativeandfromthebooks
0 rabanus Maurus, Expositiones in Leviticum, Patrologia latina (hereafter Pl) 108, col. 563B,commentingonlev.26:29. 0 About the Deuteronomy passage Bruno of segni writes, Quaevero sequuntur, ideo nonexponimus,quiafaciliasunt,etmaximaexpartesecundumlitteramintelliguntur(Wehave notexpoundeduponwhatfollows,sinceitisobviousenoughandmostlytobeunderstoodaccordingtotheletter)(Expositio in Deuteronom,inPl164,col.535c).seealso459AB,whereBruno demurstocommentonthecomparablepassageinlev.26. 0 et de romana quidem obsidione quasi de lebete nonnulli quamvis difficile superfuerunt, de gehennae autem angustiis [correcting the Pl reading of augustiis] quasi de ollae interioribus,utevadantdifficilius,imoomninoimpossibleest(rupertofDeutz,Commentaria in xii prophetas minores,inPl168,col.466D).Ontheinnovativecharacterofrupertsthought,see roberte.lerner,ecstaticDissent,Speculum67(1992):3357;and,moregenerally,Vanengen, Rupert of Deutz. 0 Guibert, Dei gesta, preface, 81. i have discussed these aspects of Guiberts thought in rubenstein,Guibert of Nogent,97101. 0 lectionem vir eloquentissimus Josephus stilo celebri consecravit; Baudry, Historia, 1.1.11.FulcheralsocitesJosephuswhendescribinghispilgrimagefromedessatoJerusalemwith thencountBaldwin(Historia,1.34,s.3).

548

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

ofKings.theywerewithineasyintellectualreach.AndrewofFleury,in The Miracles of St. Benedict,whendescribingthefamineof1032,makes the connection: You would have seen in those times, he writes of France,thedestructionofthesiegeofJerusalem.But,headds,there wasadifference:in70ADthewholecityfelthorroratthecrimesofone troubled woman, whereas in France this crime was committed again andagain.0 Butforthecrusade,ofcourse,thistypologyisimperfect.inthe stories of Josephus and of Kings, the cannibalism was kept not only within the Jewish peoplewhich is to say that the Jews ate of one another, not of their attackersbut even within particular families. the survivors experienced unthinkable loss and remorse, and their leadersrespondedwithauthentichorror.WhentheJewishkingheard whatthewomanhaddone,herenthisgarmentsindespair.Whentitus heard the story of Maria, he decided that he could no longer offer mercy to the Jews.their temple and their city had to be destroyed. thecrusaderscannibalism,bycontrast,wasapreludetovictory.they eitheratetheirenemiesasanactofaggressionorelsetheylearnedto celebrateitassuchafterthefact. Forthatistheuncomfortablememoryattheheartofthestories ofMaarraandsometimesofAntioch,indicatedinasurprisingnumberofoursources.thecityisastewpotinwhichtheenemyiscooked aliveandconsumedbyGodswarriors,justastheArameansandthe romans had once forced the Jews to eat of themselves. And in the symbolic language of the First crusade, there was very little distinctionbetweenJewsandMuslims.0inthewordsofBaudry,theFrankish armyheldJews,heretics,andsaracensequallydetestable,inthatthey wereallenemiesofGod.some,likesaintJerome,mightprotestthat Godhimselfwasnotacannibal,thatGodnevercondoned,letalone ordered, cannibalism: He does not say, i myself am going to make fatherseattheirsonsinyourmidst,andsonstheirfathers.Butat thesiegeofMaarrasuchdistinctionsbetweenGodpermittingeviland Godwillingevilhadbecomepointless.theFrankswerevesselsofGods
0 cerneres temporibus illis Hierosolimitanae cladem obsidionis. . . . illic nefas unius mulieriscalamitosaplebshorruit;hic,quodamlegitimojure,clametinpropatulomortuisnullo modomiserabatur,vivisinsidiabatur,sepultiseffosioingerebatur(Miraculi S. Benedicti,6.11.236). 0sigebertofGembloux,GuibertofNogent,andtheJewishchroniclersgivesimilarexplanationsforcrusadersmotivesinkillingJews:itseemedfoolishtotravelsofartokillchristsenemies(saracens)whensomanyofthem( Jews)layclosetohand.seesigebertofGembloux,Chronica,MGHss6(Hanover,1844),367;GuibertofNogent,Autobiographie,ed.andtrans.edmond renlabande(Paris,1981),2.5.24648;andchazan,European Jewry,7678. Baudry,Historia,1.17.23. Jerome,In Hiezechielem,58.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

549

willandGodswrathnotinspiteofbrutalitiessuchascannibalismbut becauseofthem.Andifsomeoneweretohavecitedtothecrusaders JeromesdictumthatGoddoesnotcauseevil,alearnedclericmight wellhaverespondedwithisaiah49:26,whereGoddoesdirectlybring aboutcannibalism:iwillfeedyourenemieswiththeirownflesh,and likenewwine,theyshallbedrunkwiththeirownblood.Andallflesh willknowthatiamthelordwhosavesyou,yourredeemer,themighty oneofJacob. What i am suggesting is that we cannot presume that all of the warriorsfeltanunbearabletraumaatwhatmusthavebeensometimes willful, aggressive, deliberate cannibalism. the shame at this memoryistheshameofthehistorians,bothoftheeyewitnesswriterswho broughthomethetalesofwhathadhappenedatMaarraandofthe monastictheologianswhofeltcompelledtorepeattheirstories.One suspectsor,perhapsmoreaccurately,onehopesthatthecannibals themselveswouldhavelaterwonderedabouttheirownacts,whenor iftheyreturnedtothemoretranquilclimesofwesterneurope,which would explain the denial and displacement apparent in most of the chronicles.Butitappearsthatsomeofthesettlerswhomralphofcaen metintheeastfeltnosuchqualms,astheytoldhimleeringlyofadults cookedonspitsandchildrenboiledinpots. thevernacularChanson dAntioche,atextaimedsquarelyatasecularaudience,preservesthecelebratorytoneimpliedinralphsdescriptions, even if, like Guibert, the Chanson attempts to displace theviolence onto the tafurs. At the command of their leader, who in the ChansonisPetertheHermit,thetafurscooksaracenbodiesintheatrical fashion, enticing Antiochs defenders to peerover its walls, their appetitesdrawnbythesweetsmellofroastingmeat,justasthesmell ofMariasfrightfuldinnerhadoncedrawntoherhousetheZealotsof Jerusalem.thepilgrimsatewithpleasure,withoutbreadandwithout salt,sayingastheydid,thisismosttasty,betterthananyporkoreven curedham.cursedbeanyonewhowoulddienowwherethereissuch abundance!WhenDukeGodfrey,thecentralfigureofthecrusade songcycle,learnsofthiscannibalism,herespondsnotwithangeror shame,butwithajoke,offeringtheKingofthetafurswinewithwhich towashdownhissaracenmeat.thepoetleavestohisaudiencethe taskofdrawingalikelyeucharisticjoke.
Moltestcissavours,/Miusvautquecarsdeporcnequebaconsulls,/Dehsaitqui morratantcomenaiasss(Chanson dAntioche,219,ll.407375). Parfoi,cedistlirois[tafur],gierssuibienasass,/sejouavoieaboire,amangierai ass./DistlidusdeBuillon:certes,vosenars./Desonbonvinilfuunsbotelspresents,/li roistafursenbut,asautresfulivrs(ibid.,220,ll.41026).PierreAubprovidesahelpfuldis-

550

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

epilogue: an Interpretation of the Cannibalism at maarra Because of the contradictions among the sources, we cannot reconstructexactlyallofthecircumstances,letalonetheparticularmeanings, ofthiscannibalism.thechroniclerscontradictoryimpulsesgeneral agreementastotherealityofthecannibalismandthoroughgoingdisagreementastoitsdetailssuggestthattheyweredealingwithanugly reality,onebeyondpoorandhungrypeopleeatingfromthedead.A possibleandplausiblereconstructionisthatthefirstactsofcannibalismhappenedduringthecrusadesinitialexperiencesofscarcityand siegenear Nicea,whereAnnacomnena places it. it almostcertainly recurred at Antioch, whereWilliam of Malmesbury,William of tyre, and the Chanson dAntioche have it. By the time a similar desperation hadspreadamongthearmyatMaarra,someofthesoldiersmusthave recognizeditspotentialutilityand,hopingtodrivethedefendersinto aquicksurrender,madeaspectacleoftheeating,andmadesurethat Muslimsweretheonlyoneseaten. that is probably why, for the earliest chroniclers, the cannibalismatMaarrawasthemostmemorableinstanceofwhatwaslikelya periodicresponsetofamine:itwasthemostpublic,themostdeliberate,themostcelebratoryinstance,notatallsecretiveaswasthecannibalismatAntiochdescribedbyWilliamofMalmesbury.Noneofthe writers, however, wanted to celebrate Maarra, and they adopted a varietyofstrategiesfordealingwiththeirdiscomfort.raymonddidso byplacingthecannibalismexplicitlyafterthesiege,anxioustocounter therumorsspreadbymenwhohaddesertedthearmy.theauthorof theGestaplacedthecannibalismafterthesiege,too,acknowledgingit quicklyandthenmovingon.thewritersintheGestatraditionlargely followed this strategy, though Baudry and Guibert, on asking questionsofreturningsoldiers,realizedthattheyhadmoreexplainingto doandalteredtheirtextsaccordingly.Otherwriterssimplyplacedthe cannibalism during the siege and, tovarying degrees, acknowledged itseffectivenessatterrifyingtheenemy,withlatersourcesborrowing anotheraspectofGuibertssolutionandtransformingthecannibalism intoanelaboratefakery. WhetherthecannibalismsucceededinfrighteningtheMuslimsis anopenquestion.thefailureofanyArabhistoriantomentionitindicateseitherthattheFranksgreatlyoverestimatedtheirtacticseffectivecussionofGodfreysrolesintheChansoncycleinhisbiography,Godefroy de Bouillon(Paris,1985), 36174.

cANNiBAlsANDcrUsADers

551

nessorthattheythoroughlysucceeded,thatislamicwriterspreferred tosuppressaltogethertheshamefulmemoryofhowtheirenemieshad devouredthem.suchareconstructionisnecessarilyspeculative,butit iscompatiblewiththesourcesandnotunlikelyinthecontextofsacred warfare. Forthetimeoughtlongagotohavepassedwhenwewouldfeel obligatedtoaskwhetherthecrusadershadfailedtodohonortothe nobleideawhichhadpromptedthemtosewonthecross.Weought to observe instead, simply, that they were fighting a holy war, whose rulesofcombatwereinherentlydifferentfromnormalwarfare.Marvin Harris,inhisbookCannibals and Kings,observesthatholywarsamong statesareadimeadozen.thataphorismmaybetrue,buttheFirst crusadewassomethingunusual,perhapsbecausenostatewasinvolved. thesoldierscouldeattheirenemiesbecausethey,theFranks,werenot seekersafterGodsjusticebutweretheembodimentofGodswillthe wrathfulGoddescribedintheApocalypseandportrayedabovechurch doorsthroughouteurope.theywerethenewchosenPeople,engaged in combat against an undifferentiated, unbelieving adversarysaracen,Jew,orhereticinaseriesofbattlesfoughtonanappropriately prophetic,Old testament scale. A few years later in the twelfth century,athomeineurope,withthecreationofincreasinglysophisticated central governments and with the simultaneous crafting of refined, humane, and courtly sentiments, such behavior looked aberrational andinneedofexplanationorrepression.thesimpleexcuseoffaminewasnotenough,leavingopentoomanyquestions,suchastheone raisednearthebeginningofthisessay:whydidtheFranksatMaarra eatonlysaracens? Appropriately,itwouldbetheforward-thinkingGuibertofNogent whopointedthewaytowardbothpreservingthestoryanddenyingit, throughdisplacementofthedeedontoanill-definedarmyofthepoor. itisindeedremarkablethathistorianshavecontinuedtoembracehis rathercynical solution. in truth thetafurs survived in the historical imaginationonlybecausetheymadesuchconvenientscapegoats:peasantswhoheldnoplaceinthenascentchivalricculturethattheFirst
Forcomparison,totakearecent,arguablynonsacral,case,U.s.troopsinAfghanistan werereportedtohaveusedthecremationofMuslimbodiesasanopportunitytotauntabesieged enemywiththedesecrationoftheirdead.themilitarydescribedthecremationasundertaken forhygienicreasons.Whateverthemotive,apressingneed(hygiene/hunger)ledtoasacrilegious act (cremation/cannibalism), whose utility as a tool for psychological warfare quickly became apparent. reported by eric schmitt, Army examining report of Abuse, New York Times,Oct. 20,2005. sumberg,thetafurs,246. MarvinHarris,Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures(NewYork,1977),107.

552

FreNcHHistOricAlstUDies

crusade had helped inaugurate. When the tafurs made their more famousappearanceintheChanson dAntioche,acourtlyaudiencecould safely laugh at them, their reaction not dissimilar to that of the title character in chrtien detroyess Yvain, who, upon seeing a peasant makearareintrusionintoromance,crosseshimselfonehundredtimes andsaysthathehasneverseensuchanuglycreature.

UsingLe chevalier au Lion (Yvain),ed.Marioroques,vol.4ofLes Romans de Chrtien de Troyes(Paris,1960):Yvainscousincalogrenantfirstencountersthepeasant,describedaslooking somewhatlikeaMoor:Unsvilains,quiresanbloitMor,/leizethideusadesmesure,/einsitres leidecriature/quanneporroitdiredeboche,/assissestoitsoruneoche,/unegrantmaue ensamain(910,ll.28691).Yvainlatermarvelsthatnaturecouldhaveevermadesuchanugly creature:sivitlestorsetlevilain/quilavoielianseigna;/mesplusdeentfoizseseigna/dela mervoillequeilot,/comantNaturefeiresot/oevresileideetsivilainne(25,ll.79499).