William of Tyre | |
|---|---|
| Archbishop of Tyre | |
 William of Tyre writing his history, from a 13th-centuryOld French translation | |
| Elected | 6 June 1175 |
| Term ended | 29 September 1186 |
| Predecessor | Frederick de la Roche |
| Successor | Joscius, Archbishop of Tyre |
| Personal details | |
| Born | 1130 Jerusalem, Kingdom of Jerusalem |
| Died | 29 September 1186 (aged 55–56) Tyre, Kingdom of Jerusalem |
| Denomination | Roman Catholicism |
| Occupation | Medieval chronicler, chancellor |
William of Tyre (Latin:Willelmus Tyrensis;c. 1130 – 29 September 1186) was a medievalprelate andchronicler. Asarchbishop of Tyre, he is sometimes known asWilliam II to distinguish him from his predecessor,William I, the Englishman, a former prior of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, who was Archbishop of Tyre from 1127 to 1135.[1] He grew up inJerusalem at the height of theKingdom of Jerusalem, which had been established in 1099 after theFirst Crusade, and he spent twenty years studying theliberal arts andcanon law in theuniversities of Europe.
Following William's return to Jerusalem in 1165,King Amalric made him an ambassador to theByzantine Empire. William became tutor to the king's son, the futureKing Baldwin IV, whom William discovered to be aleper. After Amalric's death, William becamechancellor and archbishop of Tyre, two of the highest offices in the kingdom, and in 1179 William led the eastern delegation to theThird Council of the Lateran. As he was involved in the dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, his importance waned when a rival faction gained control of royal affairs. He was passed over for the prestigiousPatriarchate of Jerusalem, and died in obscurity, probably in 1186.
William wrote an account of the Lateran Council and a history of the Islamic states from the time ofMuhammad,neither of which survives. He is famous today as the author of a historical chronicle of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. William composed hischronicle in excellent Latin for his time, with numerous quotations fromclassical literature. The chronicle is sometimes given the titleHistoria rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum ("History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea") orHistoria Ierosolimitana ("History of Jerusalem"), or theHistoria for short. It was translated into French soon after his death, and thereafter into numerous other languages. Because it is the only source for the history of twelfth-century Jerusalem written by a native, historians have often assumed that William's statements could be taken at face value. However, more recent historians have shown that William's involvement in the kingdom's political disputes resulted in detectable biases in his account. Despite this, he is considered the greatest chronicler of the crusades, and one of the best authors of theMiddle Ages.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem was founded in 1099 at the end of the First Crusade. It was the third of fourChristian territories to be established by the crusaders, following theCounty of Edessa and thePrincipality of Antioch, and followed by theCounty of Tripoli. Jerusalem's first three rulers,Godfrey of Bouillon (1099–1100), his brotherBaldwin I (1100–1118), and their cousinBaldwin II (1118–1131), expanded and secured the kingdom's borders, which encompassed roughly the same territory as modern-dayIsrael,Palestine, andLebanon. During the kingdom's early decades, the population was swelled by pilgrims visiting the holiest sites of Christendom. Merchants from the Mediterranean city-states ofItaly andFrance were eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east.[2]
William's family probably originated in either France or Italy, since he was very familiar with both countries.[3] His parents were likely merchants who had settled in the kingdom and were "apparently well-to-do",[4] although it is unknown whether they participated in the First Crusade or arrived later. William was born in Jerusalem around 1130. He had at least one brother, Ralph, who was one of the city'sburgesses, a non-noble leader of the merchant community. Nothing more is known about his family, except that his mother died before 1165.[5]
As a child William was educated in Jerusalem, at thecathedral school in theChurch of the Holy Sepulchre. Thescholaster, or school-master, John the Pisan, taught William to read and write, and first introduced him toLatin.[6] From theHistoria it is clear that he also knewFrench and possiblyItalian, but there is not enough evidence to determine whether he learnedGreek,Persian, andArabic, as is sometimes claimed.[7]
Around 1145 William went to Europe to continue his education in the schools of France and Italy, especially in those ofParis andBologna, "the two most important intellectual centers of twelfth-century Christendom."[8] These schools were not yet the officialuniversities that they would become in the 13th century, but by the end of the 11th century both had numerous schools for the arts and sciences. They were separate from the cathedral schools, and were established by independent professors who were masters of their field of study. Students from all over Europe gathered there to hear lectures from these masters.[9] William studiedliberal arts andtheology inParis andOrléans for about ten years, with professors who had been students ofThierry of Chartres andGilbert de la Porrée. He also spent time studying underRobert of Melun andAdam de Parvo Ponte, among others. In Orléans, one of the pre-eminent centres of classical studies,[10] he read ancient Roman literature (known simply as "the Authors") withHilary of Orléans, and learnedmathematics ("especiallyEuclid") withWilliam of Soissons. For six years, he studied theology withPeter Lombard andMaurice de Sully. Afterwards, he studiedcivil law andcanon law inBologna, with the "Four Doctors",Hugo de Porta Ravennate,Bulgarus,Martinus Gosia, andJacobus de Boragine.[11] William's list of professors "gives us almost a who's who of the grammarians, philosophers, theologians, and law teachers of the so-calledTwelfth-Century Renaissance", and shows that he was as well-educated as any European cleric. His contemporaryJohn of Salisbury had many of the same teachers.[12]
The highest religious and political offices in Jerusalem were usually held by Europeans who had arrived on pilgrimage or crusade. William was one of the few natives with a European education, and he quickly rose through the ranks.[13] After his return to the Holy Land in 1165, he becamecanon of thecathedral at Acre. In 1167 he was appointedarchdeacon of thecathedral of Tyre byFrederick de la Roche, archbishop of Tyre, with the support of KingAmalric.[14]
Amalric had come to power in 1164 and had made it his goal toconquer Egypt.Egypt had been invaded by King Baldwin I fifty years earlier, and the weakFatimid Caliphate was forced to pay yearly tribute to Jerusalem. Amalric turned towards Egypt because Muslim territory to the east of Jerusalem had fallen under the control of the powerfulZengid sultanNur ad-Din. Nur ad-Din had taken control ofDamascus in 1154, six years after the disastroussiege of Damascus by theSecond Crusade in 1148. Jerusalem could now expand only to the southwest, towards Egypt, and in 1153Ascalon, the last Fatimid outpost in Palestine,fell to the crusaders. Nur ad-Din, however, also wished to acquire Egypt, and sent his army to hinder Amalric's plans. This was the situation in the east when William returned from Europe. In 1167 Amalric marriedMaria Comnena, grand-niece ofByzantine emperorManuel I Comnenus, and in 1168 the king sent William to finalize a treaty for a joint Byzantine-crusader campaign against Egypt. The expedition, Amalric's fourth, was the first with support from theByzantine navy. Amalric, however, did not wait for the fleet to arrive. He managed to captureDamietta, but within a few years he was expelled from Egypt by one of Nur ad-Din's generals,Saladin, who would later become Jerusalem's greatest threat.[15]
Meanwhile, William continued his advancement in the kingdom. In 1169 he visitedRome, possibly to answer accusations made against him by Archbishop Frederick, although if so, the charge is unknown. It is also possible that while Frederick was away on a diplomatic mission in Europe, a problem within the diocese forced William to seek the archbishop's assistance.[16]
On his return from Rome in 1170 he may have been commissioned by Amalric to write a history of the kingdom. He also became the tutor of Amalric's son and heir,Baldwin IV. When Baldwin was thirteen years old, he was playing with some children, who were trying to cause each other pain by scratching each other's arms. "The other boys gave evidence of pain by their outcries," wrote William, "but Baldwin, although his comrades did not spare him, endured it altogether too patiently, as if he felt nothing ... It is impossible to refrain from tears while speaking of this great misfortune."[17] William inspected Baldwin's arms and recognized the possible symptoms ofleprosy, which was confirmed as Baldwin grew older.[18]
Amalric died in 1174, and Baldwin IV succeeded him as king. Nur ad-Din also died in 1174, and his general Saladin spent the rest of the decade consolidating his hold on both Egypt and Nur ad-Din's possessions in Syria, which allowed him to completely encircle Jerusalem. The subsequent events have often been interpreted as a struggle between two opposing factions, a "court party" and a "noble party." The "court party" was led by Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wifeAgnes of Courtenay, and herimmediate family, as well as recent arrivals from Europe who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and were in favour of war with Saladin. The "noble party" was led byRaymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims. This is the interpretation offered by William himself in theHistoria, and it was taken as fact by later historians. Peter W. Edbury, however, has more recently argued that William must be considered extremely partisan as he was naturally allied with Raymond, who was responsible for his later advancement in political and religious offices. The accounts of the 13th-century authors who continued theHistoria in French must also be considered suspect, as they were allied to Raymond's supporters in theIbelin family.[19] The general consensus among recent historians is that although there was a dynastic struggle, "the division was not between native barons and newcomers from the West, but between the king's maternal and paternal kin."[20]
Miles of Plancy briefly held the regency for the underaged Baldwin IV. Miles was assassinated in October 1174, and Raymond III was soon appointed to replace him.[21] Raymond named Williamchancellor of Jerusalem, as well as archdeacon ofNazareth, and on 6 June 1175, William was elected archbishop of Tyre to replace Frederick de la Roche, who had died in October 1174.[22] William's duties as chancellor probably did not take up too much of his time; the scribes and officials in thechancery drafted documents and it may not have even been necessary for him to be present to sign them. Instead he focused on his duties as archbishop. In 1177 he performed the funeral services forWilliam of Montferrat, husband of Baldwin IV's sisterSibylla, when thepatriarch of Jerusalem,Amalric of Nesle, was too sick to attend.[23]
In 1179, William was one of the delegates from Jerusalem and the other crusader states at theThird Lateran Council; among the others wereHeraclius,archbishop of Caesarea,Joscius,bishop of Acre and William's future successor in Tyre, the bishops ofSebastea,Bethlehem,Tripoli, andJabala, and the abbot ofMount Sion. Patriarch Amalric andPatriarch of AntiochAimery of Limoges were unable to attend, and William and the other bishops did not have sufficient weight to persuadePope Alexander III of the need for a new crusade.[24] William was, however, sent by Alexander as an ambassador to Emperor Manuel, and Manuel then sent him on a mission to thePrincipality of Antioch. William does not mention exactly what happened during these embassies, but he probably discussed the Byzantine alliance with Jerusalem, and Manuel's protectorate over Antioch, where, due to pressure from Rome and Jerusalem, the emperor was forced to give up his attempts to restore aGreek patriarch. William was absent from Jerusalem for two years, returning home in 1180.[25]
During William's absence a crisis had developed in Jerusalem. King Baldwin had reached theage of majority in 1176 and Raymond III had been removed from the regency, but as a leper Baldwin could have no children and could not be expected to rule much longer. After the death of William of Montferrat in 1177, King Baldwin's widowed sister Sibylla required a new husband. At Easter in 1180, the two factions were divided even further when Raymond and his cousinBohemond III of Antioch attempted to force Sibylla to marryBaldwin of Ibelin. Raymond and Bohemond were King Baldwin's nearest male relatives in the paternal line, and could have claimed the throne if the king died without an heir or a suitable replacement. Before Raymond and Bohemond arrived, however, Agnes and King Baldwin arranged for Sibylla to be married to aPoitevin newcomer,Guy of Lusignan, whose older brotherAimery of Lusignan was already an established figure at court.[26]
The dispute affected William, since he had been appointed chancellor by Raymond and may have fallen out of favour after Raymond was removed from the regency. When Patriarch Amalric died on 6 October 1180, the two most obvious choices for his successor were William and Heraclius of Caesarea. They were fairly evenly matched in background and education, but politically they were allied with opposite parties, as Heraclius was one of Agnes of Courtenay's supporters. It seems that the canons of the Holy Sepulchre were unable to decide, and asked the king for advice; due to Agnes' influence, Heraclius was elected. There were rumours that Agnes and Heraclius were lovers, but this information comes from the partisan 13th-century continuations of theHistoria, and there is no other evidence to substantiate such a claim. William himself says almost nothing about the election and Heraclius' character or his subsequent patriarchate, probably reflecting his disappointment at the outcome.[27]
William remained archbishop of Tyre and chancellor of the kingdom, but the details of his life at this time are obscure. The 13th-centurycontinuators claim that Heraclius excommunicated William in 1183, but it is unknown why Heraclius would have done this. They also claim that William went to Rome to appeal to the Pope, where Heraclius had him poisoned. According to Peter W. Edbury and John Rowe, the obscurity of William's life during these years shows that he did not play a large political role, but concentrated on ecclesiastical affairs and the writing of his history. The story of his excommunication, and the unlikely detail that he was poisoned, were probably an invention of the Old French continuators.[28] William remained in the kingdom and continued to write up until 1184, but by then Jerusalem was internally divided by political factions and externally surrounded by the forces of Saladin, and "the only subjects that present themselves are the disasters of a sorrowing country and its manifold misfortunes, themes which can serve only to draw forth lamentations and tears."[29]
His importance had dwindled with the victory of Agnes and her supporters, and with the accession ofBaldwin V, infant son of Sibylla and William of Montferrat. Baldwin was a sickly child and he died the next year. In 1186 he was succeeded by his mother Sibylla and her second husband Guy of Lusignan, ruling jointly. William was probably in failing health by this point. Rudolf Hiestand discovered that the date of William's death was 29 September, but the year was not recorded; whatever the year, there was a new chancellor in May 1185 and a new archbishop of Tyre by 21 October 1186.[30]Hans E. Mayer concluded that William died in 1186, and this is the year generally accepted by scholars.[31]
William's foresight about the misfortunes of his country was proven correct less than a year later. Saladin defeated King Guy at theBattle of Hattin in 1187, and went on tocapture Jerusalem and almost every other city of the kingdom, except the seat of William's archdiocese, Tyre. News of the fall of Jerusalem shocked Europe and plans were made to send assistance.[32] According toRoger of Wendover, William was present atGisors in France in 1188 whenHenry II of England andPhilip II of France agreed togo on crusade: "Thereupon the king of the English first took the sign of the cross at the hands of theArchbishop of Rheims and William of Tyre, the latter of whom had been entrusted by our lord the pope with the office of legate in the affairs of the crusade in the western part of Europe."[33] Roger was however mistaken; he knew that an unnamed archbishop of Tyre was present and assumed it must have been the William whose chronicle he possessed, although the archbishop in question was actually William's successorJoscius.[34]
In the present work we seem to have fallen into manifold dangers and perplexities. For, as the series of events seemed to require, we have included in this study on which we are now engaged many details about the characters, lives, and personal traits of kings, regardless of whether these facts were commendable or open to criticism. Possibly descendants of these monarchs, while perusing this work, may find this treatment difficult to brook and be angry with the chronicler beyond his just deserts. They will regard him as either mendacious or jealous—both of which charges, as God lives, we have endeavored to avoid as we would a pestilence.[35]
— William of Tyre, prologue to theHistoria
William's great work is a Latin chronicle, written between 1170 and 1184.[36] It contains twenty-three books; the final book, which deals with the events of 1183 and the beginning of 1184, has only a prologue and one chapter, so it is either unfinished or the rest of the pages were lost before the whole chronicle began to be copied. The first book begins with theconquest of Syria byUmar in the seventh century, but otherwise the work deals with the advent of theFirst Crusade and the subsequent political history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It is arranged, but was not written, chronologically; the first sections to be written were probably the chapters about the invasion of Egypt in 1167, which are extremely detailed and were likely composed before the Fatimid dynasty was overthrown in 1171. Much of theHistoria was finished before William left to attend the Lateran Council, but new additions and corrections were made after his return in 1180, perhaps because he now realized that European readers would also be interested in the history of the kingdom. In 1184 he wrote the Prologue and the beginning of the twenty-third book.[37]
August C. Krey thought William's Arabic sources may have come from the library of the Damascene diplomatUsama ibn Munqidh, whose library was looted by Baldwin III from a shipwreck in 1154.[38] Alan V. Murray, however, has argued that, at least for the accounts of Persia and the Turks in his chronicle, William relied on Biblical and earlier medieval legends rather than actual history, and his knowledge "may be less indicative of eastern ethnography than of western mythography."[39] William had access to the chronicles of the First Crusade, includingFulcher of Chartres,Albert of Aix,Raymond of Aguilers,Baldric of Dol, and theGesta Francorum, as well as other documents located in the kingdom's archives. He usedWalter the Chancellor and other now-lost works for the history of thePrincipality of Antioch. From the end of Fulcher's chronicle in 1127, William is the only source of information from an author living in Jerusalem. For events that happened in William's own lifetime, he interviewed older people who had witnessed the events about which he was writing, and drew on his own memory.[40]
William's classical education allowed him to compose Latin superior to that of many medieval writers. He used numerous ancient Roman and early Christian authors, either for quotations or as inspiration for the framework and organization of theHistoria.[41] His vocabulary is almost entirely classical, with only a few medieval constructions such as "loricator" (someone who makes armour, acalque of the Arabic "zarra") and "assellare" (to empty one's bowels).[42] He was capable of clever word-play and advancedrhetorical devices, but he was prone to repetition of a number of words and phrases. His writing also shows phrasing and spelling which is unusual or unknown in purely classical Latin but not uncommon inmedieval Latin, such as:
_2006_0931C.jpg)
Despite his quotations from Christian authors and from theBible, William did not place much emphasis on the intervention of God in human affairs, resulting in a somewhat "secular" history.[44] Nevertheless, he included much information that is clearly legendary, especially when referring to the First Crusade, which even in his own day was already considered an age of great Christian heroes. Expanding on the accounts of Albert of Aix,Peter the Hermit is given prominence in the preaching of the First Crusade, to the point that it was he, notPope Urban II, who originally conceived the crusade.[45] Godfrey of Bouillon, the first ruler of crusader Jerusalem, was also depicted as the leader of the crusade from the beginning, and William attributed to him legendary strength and virtue. This reflected the almost mythological status that Godfrey and the other first crusaders held for the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the late twelfth century.[46]
William gave a more nuanced picture of the kings of his own day. He claimed to have been commissioned to write by King Amalric himself, but William did not allow himself to praise the king excessively; for example, Amalric did not respect the rights of the church, and although he was a good military commander, he could not stop the increasing threat from the neighbouring Muslim states. On a personal level, William admired the king's education and his interest in history and law, but also noted that Amalric had "breasts like those of a woman hanging down to his waist"[47] and was shocked when the king questioned theresurrection of the dead.[48]
About Amalric's son Baldwin IV, however, "there was no ambiguity".[49] Baldwin was nothing but heroic in the face of his debilitating leprosy, and he led military campaigns against Saladin even while still underaged; William tends to gloss over campaigns where Baldwin was not actually in charge, preferring to direct his praise towards the afflicted king rather than subordinate commanders.[50] William's history can be seen as anapologia, a literary defense, for the kingdom, and more specifically for Baldwin's rule. By the 1170s and 1180s, western Europeans were reluctant to support the kingdom, partly because it was far away and there were more pressing concerns in Europe, but also because leprosy was usually considered divine punishment.[51]
William was famously biased against theKnights Templar, whom he believed to be arrogant and disrespectful of both secular and ecclesiastical hierarchies, as they were not required to pay tithes and were legally accountable only to the Pope. Although he was writing decades later, he is the earliest author to describe the actual foundation of the Templar order. He was generally favourable towards them when discussing their early days, but resented the power and influence they held in his own time.[52] William accused them of hindering thesiege of Ascalon in 1153; of poorly defending a cave-fortress in 1165, for which twelve Templars were hanged by King Amalric; of sabotaging theinvasion of Egypt in 1168; and of murderingAssassin ambassadors in 1173.[53]
Compared to other Latin authors of the twelfth century, William is surprisingly favourable to the Byzantine Empire. He had visited the Byzantine court as an official ambassador and probably knew more about Byzantine affairs than any other Latin chronicler. He shared the poor opinion ofAlexius I Comnenus that had developed during the First Crusade, although he was also critical of some of the crusaders' dealings with Alexius.[54] He was more impressed by Alexius' sonJohn II Comnenus; he did not approve of John's attempts to bring the crusader Principality of Antioch under Byzantine control, but John's military expeditions against the Muslim states, the common enemy of both Greeks and Latins, were considered admirable.[55] Emperor Manuel, whom William met during his visits to Constantinople, was portrayed more ambivalently, much like King Amalric. William admired him personally, but recognized that the Empire was powerless to help Jerusalem against the Muslim forces of Nur ad-Din and Saladin. William was especially disappointed in the failure of the joint campaign against Egypt in 1169. The end of theHistoria coincides with themassacre of the Latins in Constantinople and the chaos that followed the coup ofAndronicus I Comnenus, and in his description of those events, William was certainly not immune to the extreme anti-Greek rhetoric that was often found in Western European sources.[56]
As a medieval Christian author William could hardly avoid hostility towards the kingdom's Muslim neighbours, but as an educated man who lived among Muslims in the east, he was rarely polemical or completely dismissive of Islam. He did not think Muslims were pagans, but rather that they belonged to a heretical sect of Christianity and followed the teachings of a false prophet.[57] He often praised the Muslim leaders of his own day, even if he lamented their power over the Christian kingdom; thus Muslim rulers such asMu'in ad-Din Unur, Nur ad-Din,Shirkuh, and even Jerusalem's ultimate conqueror Saladin are presented as honourable and pious men, characteristics that William did not bestow on many of his own Christian contemporaries.[58]
After William's death theHistoria was copied and circulated in thecrusader states and was eventually brought to Europe. In the 13th century,James of Vitry had access to a copy while he was bishop of Acre, and it was used byGuy of Bazoches,Matthew Paris, andRoger of Wendover in their own chronicles. However, there are only ten known manuscripts that contain the Latin chronicle, all of which come from France and England, so William's work may not have been very widely read in its original form.[59] In England, however, theHistoria was expanded in Latin, with additional information from theItinerarium Regis Ricardi, and the chronicle ofRoger Hoveden; this version was written around 1220.[60]
It is unknown what title William himself gave his chronicle, although one group of manuscripts usesHistoria rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum and another usesHistoria Ierosolimitana.[61] The Latin text was printed for the first time in Basel in 1549 byNicholas Brylinger; it was also published in theGesta Dei per Francos byJacques Bongars in 1611 and theRecueil des historiens des croisades (RHC) byAuguste-Arthur Beugnot andAuguste Le Prévost in 1844, and Bongars' text was reprinted in thePatrologia Latina byJacques Paul Migne in 1855. The now-standard Latin critical edition, based on six of the surviving manuscripts, was published asWillelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon in theCorpus Christianorum in 1986, by R. B. C. Huygens, with notes byHans E. Mayer andGerhard Rösch.[62] The RHC edition was translated into English by Emily A. Babcock and August C. Krey in 1943 as "A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea," although the translation is sometimes incomplete or inexact.[63]
A translation of theHistoria intoOld French, made around 1223, was particularly well-circulated and had many anonymous additions made to it in the 13th century. In contrast to the surviving Latin manuscripts, there are "at least fifty-nine manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts" containing the Old French translation.[64] There are also independent French continuations attributed toErnoul and Bernard le Trésorier. The translation was sometimes called theLivre dou conqueste; it was known by this name throughout Europe as well as in the crusaderKingdom of Cyprus and inCilician Armenia, and 14th-century Venetian geographerMarino Sanuto the Elder had a copy of it. The French was further translated into Spanish, as theGran conquista de Ultramar, during the reign ofAlfonso the Wise of Castile[65] in the late 13th century. The French version was so widespread that theRenaissance authorFrancesco Pipino [it] translated it back into Latin, unaware that a Latin original already existed. AMiddle English translation of the French was made byWilliam Caxton in the 15th century.[66]
William reports that he wrote an account of the Third Council of the Lateran, which does not survive. He also wrote a history of the Holy Land from the time ofMuhammad up to 1184, for which he usedEutychius of Alexandria as his main source. This work seems to have been known in Europe in the 13th century but it also does not survive.[67]
William's neutrality as an historian was often taken for granted until the late twentieth century. August C. Krey, for example, believed that "his impartiality ... is scarcely less impressive than his critical skill."[68] Despite this excellent reputation, D. W. T. C. Vessey has shown that William was certainly not an impartial observer, especially when dealing with the events of the 1170s and 1180s. Vessey believes that William's claim to have been commissioned by Amalric is a typical ancient and medievaltopos, or literary theme, in which a wise ruler, a lover of history and literature, wishes to preserve for posterity the grand deeds of his reign.[69] William's claims of impartiality are also a typicaltopos in ancient and medieval historical writing.[70]
His depiction of Baldwin IV as a hero is an attempt "to vindicate the politics of his own party and to blacken those of its opponents."[71] As mentioned above, William was opposed to Baldwin's mother Agnes of Courtenay, Patriarch Heraclius, and their supporters; his interpretation of events during Baldwin's reign was previously taken as fact almost without question. In the mid twentieth century, Marshall W. Baldwin,[72]Steven Runciman,[73] andHans Eberhard Mayer[74] were influential in perpetuating this point of view, although the more recent re-evaluations of this period by Vessey, Peter Edbury and Bernard Hamilton have undone much of William's influence.[citation needed]
An often-noted flaw in theHistoria is William's poor memory for dates. "Chronology is sometimes confused, and dates are given wrongly", even for basic information such as the regnal dates of the kings of Jerusalem.[75] For example, William gives the date of Amalric's death as 11 July 1173, when it actually occurred in 1174.[76]
Despite his biases and errors, William "has always been considered one of the greatest medieval writers."[77] Runciman wrote that "he had a broad vision; he understood the significance of the great events of his time and the sequence of cause and effect in history."[78]Christopher Tyerman calls him "the historian's historian",[79] and "the greatest crusade historian of all,"[80] and Bernard Hamilton says he "is justly considered one of the finest historians of the Middle Ages".[81] As theDictionary of the Middle Ages says, "William's achievements in assembling and evaluating sources, and in writing in excellent and original Latin a critical and judicious (if chronologically faulty) narrative, make him an outstanding historian, superior by medieval, and not inferior by modern, standards of scholarship."[82]
| Religious titles | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Archbishop of Tyre 1175–1185 | Succeeded by |
