The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck

THE CHRONICLE OF ARNOLD OF LÜBECK

The chronicle of Arnold, Abbot of the monastery of St John of Lübeck, is one of the most important sources for the history of Germany in the central Middle Ages, and is also probably the major source for German involvement in the Crusades. The work was intended as a continuation of the earlier chronicle of Helmold of Bosau, and covers the years 1172–1209, in seven books. It was completed soon after the latter date, and the author died not long afterwards, and no later than 1214. It is thus a strictly contemporary work, which greatly enhances its value. Abbot Arnold’s very readable chronicle provides a fascinating glimpse into German society in the time of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and his immediate successors, into a crucial period of the Crusading movement, and also into the religious mentality of the Middle Ages.

Graham A. Loud is Professor of Medieval History at the University of Leeds, where he was Head of the School of History 2012–15. He holds a Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship 2017–19, during which he is working on a book about the social history of the principality of Salerno, c.1020–1300, as revealed by the charters of the abbey of Holy Trinity, Cava. Among his previous books are The Age of Robert Guiscard. Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (Harlow 2000), The Latin Church in Norman Italy (Cambridge 2007), Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily (Manchester 2012), and The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350, edited with Jochen Schenk (Routledge 2017). He has also translated The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa for the series ‘Crusade Texts in Translation’ (2010). Crusade Texts in Translation

Editorial Board

Malcolm Barber (Reading), Peter Edbury (Cardiﬀ), Norman Housley (Leicester), Peter Jackson (Keele)

The crusading movement, which originated in the 11th century and lasted beyond the 16th, bequeathed to its future historians a legacy of sources which are unrivalled in their range and variety. These sources document in fascinating detail the motivations and viewpoints, military eﬀorts and spiritual lives of the participants in the crusades. They also narrate the internal histories of the states and societies which crusaders established or supported in the many regions where they fought. Some of these sources have been translated in the past but the vast majority have been available only in their original language. The goal of this series is to provide a wide-ran- ging corpus of texts, most of them translated for the ﬁrst time, which will illuminate the history of the crusades and the crusader-states from every angle, including that of their principal adversaries, the Muslim powers of the Middle East.

Titles in the series include

Graham A. Loud The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck

Carol Sweetenham The Chanson des Chétifs and Chanson de Jérusalem

Anne Van Arsdall and Helen Moody The Old French Chronicle of Morea

Keagan Brewer Prester John: The Legend and its Sources

Martin Hall and Jonathan Phillips Caﬀaro, Genoa and the Twelfth-Century Crusades

Denys Pringle Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck

Translated by GRAHAM A. LOUD First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Graham A. Loud The right of G.A. Loud to be identiﬁed as author of this translation has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-1-138-21178-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-05324-5 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK Contents

Preface vi Abbreviations vii Maps viii Genealogical charts x

Introduction 1

1 Prologue 38

Book I 39

2 Book II 63

3 Book III 92

4 Book IV 132

5 Book V 164

6 Book VI 227

7 Book VII 261

Appendix: Frederick II recognises Lübeck as an imperial city and lists its special privileges (June 1226) 303 Bibliography 307 Index 316 Preface

My interest in the Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck began with a casual con- versation many years ago with Bernard Hamilton, the former president of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. This led me to read the chronicle for the ﬁrst time, if rather too hurriedly. Much later, I looked at this text in greater depth when searching for primary sources to present to the students taking my third-year option at the University of Leeds on ‘Emperor and Authority in Medieval Germany’, for whom I translated Arnold’s account of the downfall of Henry the Lion. I returned to his chronicle once again while working on my previous translation in this series, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, and it was while complet- ing that work that I decided to produce a complete translation of Arnold’s chronicle as a companion volume. The attentive reader will note that I have called this work simply ‘the Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck’–for reasons that are explained in the introduction the traditional title of ‘the Chronicle of the Slavs’ is inappropriate and unjustiﬁed. I am grateful to John Smedley of Ashgate publishers, who originally commissioned the book, and to Routledge for honouring the contract when Ashgate was taken over. Over the several years that I have been working on this book many others have assisted me, often by patiently answering importunate questions, or advising on problematic passages. Among them have been Oliver Auge, Julia Barrow, David D’Avray, Susan Edgington, Bill Flynn, Thomas Förster, John Gillingham, Sebastian Modrow, Alan Murray, Guy Perry, Tom Smith, Olivia Spencer (a graduate student who kindly assisted with the translation of a particularly confusing chapter), and Helmut Walther. Above all, my retired colleague at Leeds Ian Moxon has been an unfailing source of advice on translation, the scan- sion of verse and classical literature in general, as he was also for The Cru- sade of Frederick Barbarossa. David Crouch and (once again) Bernard Hamilton kindly commented on drafts of the introduction. It has been a particular pleasure to collaborate with Oliver Auge (Kiel) and Sebastian Modrow (Griefswald), who are preparing a German translation of this same work. Finally, I am as ever most indebted to my wife, Kate Fenton, and for so much more than just her work on the maps and genealogical charts, and patient nursing of malfunctioning computers, although she has done all this, as she has for my previous books. Leeds and Lyme Regis, September 2018 Abbreviations

Arnoldi Chronica Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. Johannes M. Lap- penberg, with Georg Heinrich Pertz (MGH SRG, Hanover 1868) AV Authorised Version [of the Bible] Crusade of FB Graham A. Loud, The Crusade of Frederick Barba- rossa. The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts (Crusade Texts in Trans- lation 19: Farnham 2010) Dipl. Fred. I. Die Urkunden Friedrichs I, ed. Heinrich Appelt (5 vols., MGH Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 10, Hanover 1975–90) Helmold, Cronaca Helmoldi Presbyteri Bozoviensis Cronica Slavorum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, Hanover 1937) MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica, following the usual conventions (SRG = Scriptores Rerum Germa- nicarum; SS = Scriptores, etc.) MPL Patrologia Latina, ed. J-P. Migne (221 vols, Paris 1844–64) Urkunden HL Die Urkunden Heinrichs des Löwen, Herzogs von Sachsen und Bayern, ed. Karl Jordan (MGH, Weimar 1949)

Note: Classical texts in the footnotes that are available in multiple editions are referred to by the usual book and chapter divisions, but without editorial details. Maps

I North Germany (Schleswig-Holstein and Eastern Saxony) II The Holy Land Genealogical charts

(1079 – 1105)

(King 1138 – 52)

(King 1152 – 90)

(d. 1187 – 8)

(1190 – 7) (King 1198 – 1208)

(1212 – 50) (c. 1130 – 95) 1142–80 1156–80

(1184–1213)

(1204–52) (1174/5–90) (1172–1208/9)

1241–65 Sven II King 1047–76

King 1080–6 King 1095–1103 King 1104–34

King 1134–7

King 1157–82 King 1154–7

King 1182–1202 King 1202–41

1180–1223 Introduction

The Chronicle of Arnold, Abbot of the monastery of St John at Lübeck, is one of the most important and interesting contemporary sources for the history of Germany in the central Middle Ages. The early thirteenth century saw something of an efflorescence of historical writing in that kingdom, and especially in its monasteries, but of all the narrative texts written during that period Arnold’s chronicle is the most ambitious and sophisticated. While the main focus of his work was on northern Germany, and especially Holstein and eastern Saxony, our author was also deeply concerned with the Crusade, not least because of the deep shock induced by the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187, which he discussed at length. Arnold’s chronicle is the principal source of our knowledge concerning the pilgrimage to Jerusalem of Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony in 1172 and of the German Crusade of 1197–8. He also provides an important account, albeit not as an eyewitness, of Frederick Barbarossa’s expedition to the Holy Land in 1189/90, and he furnished the first contemporary account of the Livonian Crusade at the beginning of the thirteenth century. While this last is relatively brief, it was written no later than 1210 and thus antedates the much better-known chronicle of Henry of Livonia by at least fifteen years. Given the extent of English-language scholar- ship on the Crusades, and increasingly on that movement in the Baltic region as well as in the eastern Mediterranean, it is, therefore, surprising that Arnold’s chronicle is not better known among the Anglophone scholarly community. But, in addition, his chronicle is a crucial contemporary source for the history of Staufen Germany. It provides the fullest contemporary account of the downfall of Henry the Lion in 1179–81 and of the disputes that wracked Saxony in the years immediately after that. There is much information about the problems within the German Church in the wake of the long papal schism caused by the double election of 1159. The chronicle is also a key source for the German civil war after the disputed election to the king- ship in 1198, as well as for the relations between Germany and Denmark in the time of Waldemar the Great and his sons. For Arnold, writing in Lübeck at the foot of the Schleswig-Holstein isthmus, the kings of Denmark were just as much a factor in the politics of the region as were the German rulers, who only rarely intervened directly in the north. Furthermore, Arnold saw himself as continuing the work of the earlier chronicler of Holstein and the German- Slav frontier Helmold of Bosau. His chronicle therefore began its coverage in the year when Helmold’s work ceased, 1172. Given that Helmold’s chronicle has long been available in English translation, and is (rightly) seen as a crucial 2 Introduction source for the advance of Christianity across the German frontier and along the Baltic during the twelfth century, a translation into English of the work of his successor is certainly overdue.1

The life and work of Abbot Arnold

We are fortunate that, in contrast to many other medieval authors, we know at least a certain amount about Arnold’s career beyond what can be gleaned from his writings. While some of his ‘biography’ can only be inferred, and quite a lot of what is suggested here remains hypothetical, there is at least a little evidence on which one can base the discussion. Unfortunately some of this evidence, particularly for his early life, remains ambiguous. Thus a cleric called Arnold ﬁrst appears at Lübeck in November 1170 as a witness to a charter of its bishop, Conrad, where he was described as custos (perhaps treasurer), presumably of the cathedral chapter. The name Arnold was a relatively unusual one, and it seems to be generally agreed that this custos was the future chronicler.2 After the death of Bishop Conrad in the Holy Land in 1172, Arnold the custos was one of the canons who chose as his successor Abbot Henry of the monastery of St Giles, Brunswick, and then persuaded Henry the Lion to agree to their choice.3 Then, when in 1177 Bishop Henry founded a new Benedictine monastery, dedicated to St John, in Lübeck, we are told by the chronicler that: ‘the solemn consecration took place on St Giles’sday[1st September], with the bishop being assisted by Ethelon the provost of the cathedral, along with Otto the dean, Arnold the custos and the other canons’. These same capitu- lar oﬃcials were named as witnesses in the foundation charter of the monastery issued by the bishop.4 Yet here we have a problem. There is a brief later account of the foundation, contained within a list of the abbots of the monastery of St John, which states that Abbot Arnold and certain other brothers were summoned by Bishop Henry from the Benedictine monastery at Brunswick to man the new monastic house at Lübeck, bringing with them books and relics to equip this foundation. This notice was then copied into a chronicle from Cismar (to which the monastic community had by then moved), the Historia de Duce H(e)inrico, itself heavily dependant upon Arnold the

1 The Chronicle of the Slavs by Helmold, Priest of Bosau, trans. Francis J. Tschan (New York 1935). 2 Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i, ed. Wilhelm Leverkus (Codex Diplomat- icus Lubecensis, Ser. II(i), Oldenburg 1856), p. 14 no. 9. Arnoldi Chronica,p.2. 3 Below, Bk. I.13. 4 Bk. II.5, below p. 67. Das Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck,i(1139–1470) (Codex Diplomaticus Lubecensis, Ser. I(i), Lübeck 1843), 7–8no.5. Introduction 3 chronicler’s work.5 There can be no doubt that Arnold was the first abbot of the new foundation, for this is expressly stated in a charter of Henry’s successor, Bishop Dietrich, from May 1201, which confirmed a sale to the abbey by Count Adolf III of Holstein.6 Arnold was also named as abbot in an early, although undated, charter of the abbey, which was probably drawn up c.1183.7 Furthermore, in the closing paragraph of his other known literary work, the Deeds of Gregory the Sinner, he said that he had been educated from boyhood at Brunswick.8 The problem is clear. Were Arnold the custos and Abbot Arnold one and the same person, and, if so, how can one explain this apparently discordant evidence? That the chronicler had been educated at Brunswick does not, of course, mean that he could not have been a member of the cathedral chapter at Lübeck – particularly since that see was only a decade old in 1170. Nor do the two mentions of Arnold the custos in the third person in the chronicle obviate him being its writer – such a practice was common among medieval authors, and at one later point in the chronicle Arnold neutrally mentions the abbot of the monastery of St John without specifying that this was indeed him.9 The fact that Arnold the custos was mentioned twice in the chronicle might even be taken as a subtle signal that he was the author. But, if he was still a cathedral canon in 1177 when the monastery was founded, how can he have become its first abbot? Fur- thermore, the chronicler showed some interest in, and knowledge of, the monastery of St Giles at Brunswick, which might be taken as an indication that he had indeed once had some connection with that community.10 Any attempt to reconcile this seemingly discordant evidence must be extremely tentative – and, assuming that the two were the same man, no solution is wholly satisfactory. It may be that at some stage after 1173, and under the influence of the former abbot and now bishop, Henry, Arnold the custos became a monk at St Giles, from whence he was recalled to become the first abbot of the new house at Lübeck. Could he have retained his position in the chapter, as perhaps an honorary canon, in the meanwhile? Alternatively, Bishop Henry chose him directly from the chapter as a suitable person to become the first abbot of his new foundation, to head

5 Series Abbatum Sancti Iohannis Lubicensis et Cismariensium, MGH SS xiii.348; the Historia is quoted by Schilling in his introduction to Arnold von Lübeck, Gesta Gregorii Peccatoris. Untersuchungen und Edition, ed. Johannes Schilling (Göt- tingen 1986), p. 13. 6 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.13–14 no. 9. 7 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.8–9no.6. 8 Gesta Gregorii Peccatoris, p. 177. 9 Bk. II.21. 10 Bk. VI.4. 4 Introduction a community, probably to begin with very small, drawn from the monks of Brunswick. In that case, he must have been tonsured as a monk and then immediately appointed abbot. If that were so, then the compiler of the late thirteenth-century list of abbots must have assumed that he had been a monk at St Giles, since the other monks had come from there. One small indication that this latter case may be the more probable is that Arnold himself said that he had been educated at Brunswick (which could well have been at the monastery of St Giles), but did not say that he had become a monk there. And since Lübeck in 1177 was in a region only recently Christianised, and the new monastery was the first Benedictine house to be established north of the Elbe,11 might the bishop have been more prepared to install a secular cleric as abbot than in other, more ‘normal’ circumstances? Nothing is known for certain about Abbot Arnold’s family background, although it has been suggested that, like so many inhabitants of Holstein at this period, he was an immigrant, the son of a minor nobleman from Dorstadt in Frisia, also called Arnold, who served as Barbarossa’s podestà (governor) in Piacenza in northern Italy from 1162 to 1168/9. Should this identification be correct, then three of his brothers can also be identified. The case remains, however, no more than plausible supposition, based once again on the coincidence of a relatively uncommon personal name.12 Apart from the charter of Bishop Dietrich in 1201, there are a few other documentary references to our abbot. In that same year he and his monastery received a charter from Archbishop Hartwig II of Bremen, similarly confirming Count Adolf’s sale of the vill of Kühresdorf to it.13 During his long abbacy, his monastery received no less than four papal privileges, the earliest of which was from Celestine III in May 1191, which may be taken as a sign of its growing prosperity and importance. Arnold also acted as a papal judge delegate to decide a disputed election to the bishopric of Schwerin in 1193/5.14 Otherwise we know of him only from his appearances as a witness in several charters concerning the cathedral chapter at Lübeck

11 Volker Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremem, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von Lübeck (Berlin 2002), p. 238. 12 Berndt U. Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV (Hanover 1990), pp. 405, 432–3. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 223–4, sounds a note of caution here. For Arnold the podestà, Das Geschichtswerk des Otto Morena und seiner Fortsetzer, ed. Ferdinand Güterbock (MGH SRG, Berlin 1930), pp. 162, 177. 13 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.15 no. 10. 14 Germania Pontificia,viProvincia Hammaburgo-Bremensis, ed. Wolfgang See- grün and Theodor Schieffer (Göttingen 1981), p. 151; Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 244. Introduction 5 between 1197 and c.1210.15 He was therefore abbot of the monastery of St John for about thirty-five years, before his death on 27 June of an unknown year, but which may well have been 1212.16 It may be significant, and not simply a matter of scribal omission, that no abbot was named in a charter of King Waldemar II of Denmark, confirming gifts to the monastery by his son-in-law Count Albrecht of Orlamunde, on 23 May 1213.17 Certainly by the next year Arnold had been succeeded by the second abbot, Gerhard.18 The last event described in the chronicle was the coronation of Otto IV as emperor in October 1209, and it is probable that the work was completed within a few months of that ceremony, and at the latest in the summer of 1210. There is no mention in the chronicle of the breach between emperor and pope that developed within a few months of the coronation, and cul- minated in Otto’s excommunication in November 1210, nor of the pope’s translation of Bishop Gerhard of Osnabrück to the archbishopric of Bremen in the autumn of that year, or of the papal judgement in October 1210 which decided the dispute between the bishop of Riga and the Swordbrothers to which Arnold alluded in the chronicle.19 Perhaps even more notable is that the chronicle made no mention of the death of Bishop Dietrich of Lübeck, not only his own diocesan but a prelate of whom Arnold thought well, on 21 August 1210. The assumption must be, therefore, that it was finished before that date.20 Similarly there is no allusion to the expedition to Livonia in 1211 by Bishop Philip of Ratzeburg, to whom the chronicle was dedicated, having taken place, although if preparations for that expedition were already underway this may well explain the choice of dedicatee.21 Given the length and complexity of his chronicle, it is quite possible that Arnold had begun writing it some years earlier. The only other indication of this comes with the

15 Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i.21–2 no. 18, 25–8 nos 20–1, 31–2no.36 (this last document undated, but c.1210). 16 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 224. 17 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.21 no. 14. 18 Urkundenbuch des Bistums Lübeck, i.32–3 no. 28. 19 Bk. V.30, p. 226 below. 20 The year is given by the Annales Stadenses, MGH SS xvi.355, the day by the necrologies of Cismar and Bremen cathedral, B.U. Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 44 (1988), 111–15 offers an exhaustive review of this evidence. 21 The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia. Henricus Lettus, trans. James A. Brundage (2nd ed., New York 2003), pp. 96, 109, 114. Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds’, p. 113, points out that Bishop Philip was in Italy at the emperor’s court in May 1210, and cannot have returned home before mid-July at the earliest. He cannot therefore have received a presentation copy of the chronicle before then, but this cir- cumstance is hardly sufficient to invalidate the arguments above concerning its date of completion. 6 Introduction lengthy report by Frederick I’s ambassador to Saladin of his journey in the Middle East in 1175, which was inserted quite out of its correct chronological place in the seventh and last book of the chronicle, amid the events of the year 1207.22 This was presumably because this document had only just come to Arnold’s attention, and he copied it into his chronicle as soon as he could, even though it interrupted his discussion of changes within the German episcopate in 1207. This is not to suggest that this section was written in that year – indeed since it came towards the end of the work he may have here been writing not long before 1209/10. But the chronicle was clearly already complete up to that point, and Arnold chose to insert this tract here, and not to attempt to incorporate it earlier in the work where it would more logic- ally have been placed, perhaps at the end of Book I. Apart from his chronicle, Abbot Arnold wrote one other work, a translation into Latin verse, with the title The Deeds of Gregory the Sinner, of the Gregorius of Hartmann von Aue, a German poem by one of the great ver- nacular poets of the time. This translation was dedicated to William of Brunswick, the fourth and youngest son of Henry the Lion, who appears to have shared the literary interests of his parents and their patronage of Minnesänger.23 William died on 13 December 1213, so the Latin poem must have been completed before that date – this terminus ante quem fits with the probable date of Arnold’s death. The modern editor of this text suggests that the translation was made after the completion of the chronicle. The main basis for this opinion comes in the dedication, where Arnold referred to the ‘little work’ (opusculum) in which he had described the ‘deeds of courage and works of piety’, and death, of William’s father.24 This would seem to be an unequivocal reference to the chronicle. But Arnold did not expressly state here that he had presented a copy of the completed work to the duke’s son; given what has already been suggested about the time involved in writing, he could have been referring to a work in progress, albeit substantially advanced (up to at least book V, where Henry the Lion’s death was reported). We should also note that if Arnold did indeed die in June 1212, rather than 1213, the time period for writing this further work after the completion of the chronicle was tight, particularly since, as Arnold admitted in his introduction, ‘this work which you have enjoined upon us, to translate from German into Latin, is extremely burdensome for us, because we are not accustomed to reading such things and we are made apprehensive by the unknown form of

22 Bk. VII.8, see pp. 272–83. 23 For this patronage by his parents, Karl Jordan, Henry the Lion, trans. P.S. Falla (Oxford 1986), pp. 208–13; Joachim Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe. Eine Biographie (Munich 2008), pp. 294–302. For William, see below Bk. VI.15, and note 61. 24 Gesta Gregorius Peccator, p. 177. Introduction 7 speech’.25 Since the German original was written c.1190 it seems quite possible that this translation was actually made, or at least commenced, somewhat earlier, although presumably only during William’sadulthood– after his marriage to the sister of the king of Denmark in 1202 (William was born in 1184). The poet Hartmann was apparently still alive c.1210; this Latin translation may well, therefore, have been begun during his lifetime. The Gregorius is a lurid, not to say unlikely tale of a nobleman born of an incestuous union, brought up by fishermen, who eventually marries his own mother and, on finding out the horrible truth, has himself chained to a rock on the seashore there to do penance for his sins in perpetuity. He not only survives this ordeal, but is eventually and miraculously elected pope. He then proves an exemplary pontiff, ‘a doctor of souls’, kind to the poor, gently reproving sinners and hearing the confession of his penitent mother.26 We cannot know whether the earlier and more scandalous parts of this poem were to Arnold’s taste, but as one whose conscience was troubled by his own sins he must have concurred with the moral of the tale, that ‘So with purity of heart you will find the Lord, and the clear light of God will put the darkness of sins to flight, and the sun of justice will give unto you full understanding’.27 Without making significant changes to the story, Arnold did anyway subtly alter Hartmann’s poem to give a more clerical and theological slant to alayman’s work, emphasising the significance of God’s grace and also toning down the specifically ministerial standpoint of the German text and the criticism there directed towards the higher nobility.28 For all his protestations of modesty here, which were anyway directed at his source material rather than his own lack of expertise, it is clear that Arnold was an accomplished versifier. The octosyllabic rhyming couplets of the Gre- gorius were a clever attempt to reproduce the rhythm and sound of the German original, which was also in rhyming couplets. Arnold’s poetic skill can also be seen from the poems included in the chronicle, notably those to mark the deaths of Henry the Lion and Philip of Swabia, both in dactylic hexameters.29 The odd lines of poetry he quoted elsewhere, the source of which cannot be identified, as, for example, the single-line hexameter about the virtue of Cnut of Denmark included in his (very positive) description of

25 Gesta Gregorius Peccator, pp. 14, 67 (quote). 26 Ibid., pp. 171–5. 27 Ibid., p. 176: Sic ergo cordis puritas, / ut dominum invenias, / et peccatorum tenebras / dei fugabit claritas / et dabit sol iusticie / tibi plene cognoscere. For Arnold’s own sense of sin, see Bk. III.10 below. 28 Bernward Plate, ‘Gregorius Peccator. Hartmann von Aue und Arnold von Lübeck’, Mittellateinische Jahrbuch 28 (1994), 67–90, who makes a close textual comparison between the two versions. 29 Bks V.24, VII.12. 8 Introduction the Danish kingdom, were almost certainly his own work.30 This reﬂects the excellent education that he must have received at Brunswick. The chronicle shows him not just to be steeped in the Bible, as one might expect, but also to be well-read in Latin classical authors, and especially the poets of the Augustan age, notably Horace, Ovid and Vergil.31 His interest in the classics can also be seen in his inclusion in his chronicle of the letter of the chancellor, Conrad of Hildesheim, describing southern Italy and its wonders, a text steeped in classical learning, both literary and legendary.32

Lübeck in the time of Arnold

The cultural sophistication of our author reminds us that, although he spent most of his adult life in a small city on the frontiers of Christendom that had only been founded a few years before his birth, he was part of the mainstream clerical and intellectual culture of his time. Yet it is worth remembering how relatively new the city of Lübeck was, and while clearly prospering it was not yet the economic and political force that it was to become in the later Middle Ages when it was one of the largest towns in medieval Germany and leader of the Hanseatic League. Lübeck was a ‘new town’, founded by Count Adolf II of Holstein in 1143. (Arnold would seem to have been born c.1150 or slightly earlier.) Built on an island between the Rivers Trave and Wakenitz, and near the ruins of an old Slav fortress, it was intended as a defensible base, market centre and port for the settlers, many of whom were from the Netherlands, whom Adolf had introduced into the region.33 Its early history was troubled. The town was attacked by the Slavs in 1147 and many of its inhabitants killed, it became a cause for dispute between Count Adolf and Duke Henry, with the latter demanding a share of its revenues, and was then burned down in a ﬁre in 1157. Soon afterwards the duke persuaded, or rather pressurised Adolf to transfer the site to him, probably in return for some monetary compensation. Having done so, he encouraged the rebuilding of the ruined town and did what he could to encourage trade there. A couple of years later, with the duke’s agreement, Bishop Gerold of Oldenburg transferred the seat of his diocese from its historic, but now desolate, site to Lübeck.34

30 Bk. III.5. 31 Gesta Gregorius Peccator,p.15. 32 Bk. V.19. 33 Helmold, Cronaca, I.57, pp. 111–12, trans. Tschan, pp. 168–9. 34 Helmold, Cronaca, I.63, 86, 90, pp. 119–20, 168–9, 175–6, trans. Tschan, pp. 177–8, 228–9, 236. Jordan, Henry the Lion,pp.69–72. Oldenburg was, in Helmold’s words, ‘entirely deserted, having neither walls nor an inhabitant, only a little chapel Introduction 9

Lübeck really took shape from 1160 onwards. The original wooden cathedral, built on the southern tip of the island, was rebuilt in stone after 1173. Soon afterwards Bishop Henry founded the monastery of St John, the first Benedictine house north of the Elbe, the precinct of which was established on the eastern, Wakenitz, side of the island. The main marketplace was sited west of that precinct and a town hall established there c.1200. The harbour was enlarged and rebuilt c.1216, by which time the town was already expanding beyond its original walls, and stone houses were beginning to appear in the largely wooden city. A new town hall was built in the 1230s. Intensive archaeo- logical investigation since the Second World War has confirmed that Lübeck in the time of Abbot Arnold and beyond was indeed a boom-town.35 Alongside the physical and economic development of the city went that of its privileged status. Henry the Lion undoubtedly granted a charter of liber- ties to the town, but the text of this no longer survives. Its terms were, however, confirmed and extended by Frederick Barbarossa in September 1188. In a privilege granted at the request of his two main allies in this northern region, Counts Adolf III of Holstein and Bernhard of Ratzeburg, he set out the bounds of the city’s territory and confirmed the citizens’ rights to the use of meadows and woods, fishing and pasture, this last including grazing rights in the lands of Count Adolf. Its merchants were exempted from most tolls, as were foreign merchants coming to the city. Unfortunately, however, the surviving text of this document has probably been interpolated, and thus the original privilege may not have been quite as generous as it now seems, although the modern editor of Barbarossa’s charters had no doubts that the pseudo-original that we now possess, the diplomatic of which is impeccable, was based upon a genuine privilege of the same date.36 Furthermore, King Waldemar II of Denmark confirmed the rights and freedoms of Lübeck in August 1203 after his takeover of the city, although his privilege did not go into detail as to what these were – it simply confirmed that they existed.37 Fortunately there are no doubts as to the genuineness of the privilege granted to Lübeck by Frederick II in June 1226, giving it the status of an imperial free city, directly dependant on the emperor (the status that is known in German as Reichsunmittelbarkeit). The citizens were to be permitted to have a mint, for which they were to pay him 60 marks a year, but they were freed from various other dues and exactions, and especially those previously levied by the

which Vicelin of sacred memory had erected there’, Cronaca, I.83, p. 158, trans. Tschan, p. 217. 35 Matthias Hardt, ‘Lübeck in der Zeit Arnolds’,inDie Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, ed. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 175–89. 36 Dipl. Fred.I,iv.263–7 no. 981. See in particular Prof. Appelt’s remarks on p. 263. 37 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.16 no. 11. 10 Introduction citizens of Cologne on trade with England, from the levying of the Ungelt (an excise tax) within Saxony, and protecting their property in case of shipwreck.38 Lübeck never possessed as large or as coherent a dependant territory as some other major German cities,39 but the basis of its later power and prosperity was certainly established around the time of Abbot Arnold. To what extent he himself identified with the city is a good question – he reported, for example, the citizens complaining of Count Adolf’s ‘tyranny over us’, apparently approvingly, but this was at least ostensibly their view rather than his.40 He recorded too, seemingly with great pride, that four hundred of ‘the most worthy men of Lübeck’ were ‘inspired from on high’ and enlisted in the Crusade launched by Henry VI in 1197.41 He certainly devoted considerable attention to the city’s role in the political struggles of the day, although that may have reflected its importance for control of the region rather than simply, or only, his loyalty to his adopted home. One development soon after his death would, however, have saddened him, lamenting as he did in the chronicle that monks often failed to show proper obedience.42 After a long-running quarrel between his successor but one as abbot and his monks, and the failure of efforts by the bishop and the civic authorities to resolve the dispute, the monastic community of St John was persuaded to abandon its site within the city, and at some time between 1245 and 1256 the monastery moved to Cismar in the county of Oldenburg, some 30 km north of Lübeck, where it remained until its dissolution during the Reformation. The abandoned buildings in the city were then taken over by Cistercian nuns.43

38 Quellen zur deutschen Verfassungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte bis 1250, ed. L. Weinrich (Darmstadt 1977), pp. 410–16 [also in Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, ed. J.L.A. Huillard-Bréholles (6 vols in 11 parts, Paris 1852–61), ii(2).625–9]. See the appendix, pp. 303–6 below. Frederick II and his advisers clearly disliked the Ungelt, and indeed he tried to forbid it completely in his Mainz Land Peace of 1235 (translated in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1235. Essays by German Historians, ed. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 357–65 appendix (e), at p. 360). For the mint, Norbert Kamp, Moneta Regis. Königliche Münzstätten und königliche Münzpolitik in der Stauferzeit (Hanover 2006), pp. 219–22, 400–1. 39 Gabriel Zeilinger, ‘Urban lordships’,inThe Origins of the German Principal- ities,pp.60–7, especially p. 65. 40 Bk. V.12, below p. 176. 41 Bk. V.25, below p. 208. 42 Bk. III.10, below pp. 111–14. 43 Quite when the transfer took place is not clear. A proposal to transfer the monks to a new site outside the city ‘because of the lack of temporal possessions and disciplinary problems’ had been approved by Archbishop Gerhard II of Bremen as early as 1231, Mecklenburgische Urkundenbuch i (Schwerin 1863), 206 no. 126. Yet despite the use of the past tense, transtulit (‘has transferred’) in this document, the Introduction 11

Why did Arnold write his chronicle?

Arnold stated explicitly in the preface to his chronicle that it was his intention to continue and complete the work of his predecessor Helmold of Bosau. The latter, an Augustinian canon, became parish priest at Bosau on the Plöner See, some 40 km north-west of Lübeck, in or soon after 1156. This was a key centre for the conversion of the local Slav inhabitants of Wagria, especially after the transfer of the episcopal see from Oldenburg to Lübeck, and Helmold was undoubtedly active in this role. It was this that led him to write his history:

Nothing more ﬁtting came to mind than that I should write in the praise of the conversion of the Slavic race, that is to say of the kings and preachers by whose assiduity the Christian religion was ﬁrst planted in these parts.44

Although the early part of his chronicle was largely drawn from Adam of Bre- men’s earlier history of that see, the greater part of Helmold’s book is both original and has a strong thematic unity. He did indeed write what he set out to do. He wrote most of his chronicle during the years 1163–8, and his original draft ended with the death of Bishop Gerold of Oldenburg/Lübeck in 1163, but he subsequently extended his coverage up to 1171/2. He dedicated his work to the canons of Lübeck. Helmold died after 1177, and one should note that Arnold knew him personally, for Helmold was one of the witnesses listed in the foundation charter of the monastery of St John in that year – this is the last record of him.45

monks clearly had not yet moved and a charter of February 1232 shows them still to have been in the city. After an inquiry ordered by the archbishop into the internal problems within the monastery, the abbot agreed to Bishop John I’s plan for the move (which included compensation for the monks’ property inside the city) in Jan- uary 1245, and the cathedral chapter signified its agreement the next month. It may be that the transfer followed soon after that time, but the first clear evidence for the new monastery at Cismar comes only in March 1256 when Bishop John II mediated in a property dispute between the monks and the nuns who had succeeded them, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, i.62 no. 52, 102–4 no. 104, 106 no. 108, 206–7no. 226. I am grateful to Sebastian Modrow for his help on this issue. While Arnold would undoubtedly have disapproved of the internal strife within the monastery, it may also be significant that he did not mention the foundation in 1189 of the first Cistercian monastery in the diocese of Lübeck in his chronicle, Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 242–3. 44 Helmold, Cronaca, p. 1, trans. Tschan, p. 43. 45 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 138–42. For the charter, above, note 4. 12 Introduction

Arnold might therefore seem to have made his intentions clear in his preface, when he wrote that:

Since the priest Helmold of good memory died before he completed, as he intended, his histories of the subjection and conversion of the Slavs, and the deeds of the bishops through whose eﬀorts the churches of these regions grew stronger, we have decided with the help of God to embark on this work, so that those of us also helping in such a work of pious devotion and supported by your prayers may share in his blessed memory.46

Arnold clearly knew Helmold’s chronicle well. We ﬁnd occasional linguistic borrowings from it in his own work, such as the phrase ‘it is memorable to every age’ (which Helmold himself had lifted from Adam of Bremen),47 and the metonymy ‘anewlightarose’, which Arnold used twice, both with regard to the Welfs, for the reconciliation of Henry the Lion’seldestson Henry with the emperor in 1194, and for the success of his brother Otto IV in 1208. Helmold had used this image to describe the election of their great- grandfather Lothar as king in 1125.48 And while this was not a direct linguistic transfer, Arnold’s reference to Henry the Lion taming the ‘obstinacy’ (duritia) of the Slavs was surely written with Helmold in mind.49 The two works were certainly seen as a pair by later generations. All the surviving manuscripts of Helmold’s work also contain that of Arnold. But it was only in the early ﬁfteenth century that the two works together were described by the title Chronica Slavorum, which was subsequently employed by early modern editors and came into general parlance after it was used for the nineteenth-century editions in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica series.50

46 Below, p. 38. Schmeidler, the modern editor of Helmold, speculated that the author had intended to add a third book to his chronicle, covering the episcopate of Henry of Lübeck. If so, this was never written, but this intention could be why Arnold thought Helmold’sworktobeunﬁnished, Helmold, Cro- naca, introduction, p. ix. 47 Bk. I.10 (Latin text, Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum,p.26),cf.Helmold,Cronaca, I.22, p. 45, trans. Tschan, p. 97 (where the phrase is rendered as ‘forever memorable’). Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesie, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, Hanover 1917), III.50, p. 193. 48 Bks V.20, VII.15, below pp. 196–7, 293. Cf. Helmold, Cronaca, I.41, p. 83, trans. Tschan, p. 139. 49 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 287–8. 50 Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, pp. 99–100; Helmut G. Walther, ‘Die handscriftliche Uberlieferung der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’,inDie Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Ver- ständnis [above note 35], p. 11. Introduction 13

While there is thus no justification for assuming that either author would have employed this title, it is nevertheless an appropriate one for the chronicle of Helmold who, as he set out to do, devoted the overwhelming part of his work to describing how the Slavs of Holstein, Wagria and Mecklenburg were persuaded to convert to Christianity. It is far less appropriate for Arnold’s chronicle, the focus of which is much more diffuse, both thematically and geographically. What therefore did Arnold intend his chronicle to be about, and, indeed, what might be a more suitable title than the traditional ‘Chronicle of the Slavs’? One should note that two of the surviving manuscripts, including the only one actually from Lübeck itself, carry the title Historia de Duce Heinrico, and this same title was adopted by the chronicle based on Arnold’s work that was written at St Giles, Brunswick, after 1283.51 Yet this is almost equally misleading, for while Henry the Lion dominates the first two books of the chronicle, after his deposition and exile in 1180/1 thereafter he is only intermittently mentioned and his death was recorded towards the end of Book V, just under two-thirds of the way through the work. There are references, mainly in the seventh and last book of the chronicle, to a narratio regum or a historia regum and this has led one modern German scholar to suggest that Arnold’s work was actually intended to be a ‘history of the kings’.52 But while such a title might be appropriate for the last two books, much of which are indeed devoted to the dispute about the throne between the rival kings Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick after the two separate royal elections of 1198, one can hardly argue that either of the two previous rulers, Frederick Barbarossa or Henry VI, plays a central role in the narrative. They were, after all, only relatively rarely involved in the affairs of northern Germany, even though Arnold did take some account of their doings elsewhere, notably of Barbarossa’s stormy relations with the papacy in the 1180s and his Crusade in 1189–90. But after the disastrous failure of the Roman expedition of 1167, Barbarossa’s itinerary within Germany had contracted and he spent most of his time there south of the River Main. Nor, indeed, did north German princes and aristocrats often attend his court – indeed princely attendance as a whole declined quite significantly after 1167.53 It seems, therefore, more probable that when Arnold wrote of this ‘history/story’ of the kings he was thinking of this more restricted sense of his particular discussion of the throne

51 Walther, ‘Die handscriftliche Uberlieferung’,pp.8–9. Cf. Lappenberg’s introduction to the MGH SS edition, MGH SS xxi.112. 52 Bks VII.1, 8, pp. 261, 272. Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, especially pp. 103–10. 53 John B. Freed, Frederick Barbarossa. The Prince and the Myth (New Haven 2016), pp. 349–50, 444–5, 517. 14 Introduction dispute after 1198 –‘now let us return to continue our account of the kings’54 – rather than this being the overall theme of his work. Hence other students of this text have remained unconvinced by this theory that it was a ‘royal history’.55 Nor can Arnold’s work realistically be seen as a chronicle of the Welfs (as opposed to simply one of Duke Henry). Arnold did, of course, have close connections to the Welf family via his earlier education in Brunswick, which remained in their hands after the crisis of 1180/1 and thereafter became the centre of their much-reduced lordship. He devoted considerable attention to the family throughout his chronicle, and was generally sympathetic towards them. His translation of the Gregorius was, as we have seen, done for one of Henry the Lion’s sons. It has even been suggested that he was responsible for the dedicatory poem in the Gospel Book of Henry the Lion, although since this de luxe manuscript was produced at the monastery of Helmarshausen, some 250 km south of Lübeck, probably in the late 1180s, this supposition seems unlikely and has found little favour.56 There is no doubt that Arnold thought well of Henry the Lion, whom he praised in his prologue as ‘the man who tamed the obstinacy of the Slavs more than all those who had come before him’ and who was responsible for their conversion to the true faith. He repeated this tribute on the occasion of the duke’s death, praising him there as ‘another Solomon’.57 His opinion of Henry was, if anything, more enthusiastic than that earlier expressed by Helmold, who on occasion criticised the duke for being more concerned with increasing his own temporal power and wealth than in fostering the work of conversion.58 Arnold also contrasted Henry’s rule as duke with that of his successor Bernhard of Anhalt, under whom Saxony was riven with internal disputes, the comparison being very much to the latter’s dis- advantage. Henry was a dynamic ruler who upheld law and order, Bern- hard was dilatory and sluggish.59 The chronicle concluded with the general

54 Below, p. 261. 55 For example, Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 254–6 and idem ‘Zwischen terra nostra und terra sancta. Arnold von Lübeck als Geschichtsschreiber’, in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, pp. 149–74; Thomas Riis, ‘Monasteries and cultural centres: the case of Schleswig-Holstein with Lübeck and Hamburg’,inMonastic Culture: The Long Thirteenth Century. Essays in Honour of Brian Patrick McGuire (Odense 2014), pp. 102–17, at 108–111. 56 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 227, with references to earlier literature, but see Jordan, Henry the Lion, pp. 206–7. Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, pp. 313–16, discusses this manuscript at some length, but without ascribing authorship. 57 Bk. V.24. 58 Helmold, Cronaca, I.68, 84, pp. 129, 164, trans. Tschan, pp. 187–8, 221–2. 59 Bk. III. 1. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 236–7. Introduction 15 recognition of Otto IV as king of Germany in 1208, after the murder of Philip of Swabia, and his imperial coronation in Rome a year later. Nevertheless, this work was hardly a ‘family history’ of the type being written at more or less the same time in a number of other German monasteries: such as the ‘History of the [south German] Welfs’ at Weingarten, that of the Landgraves of Thuringia at Reinhardsbrunn, or the Lauterberg chronicle (Chronicon Montis Sereni), which combined a history of that monastery with that of the Wettin family who had founded it. These works displayed a narrow and myopic partisanship noticeably lacking in Arnold’s work.60 Nor was he concerned with justifying Welf claims to territory and position through emphasising their descent from earlier dukes of Saxony, as were the writers of the family’s historiography in the late thirteenth century.61 His lack of overt partisanship is made clear in his depiction of the Staufen family. He may have regretted the quarrel that led to the downfall of Henry the Lion, but he understood how this had come about – inso- far as he was informed about this62 – and did not, at least overtly, blame Frederick Barbarossa for his involvement and Henry’s subsequent exile. It has, admittedly, been suggested that the account of Henry the Lion’s downfall was carefully crafted to contrast the duke’s attempt to ‘play by the rules’ and win forgiveness with the emperor’s stubborn refusal to compromise.63 Yet this theory seems overly-schematic and not entirely con- vincing. Arnold suggested that the emperor was constrained to act against Henry because of the general hostility towards the duke among the other princes. He even admitted that Henry’s pride (superbia) had helped to create the dispute.64 Furthermore, his depiction of Barbarossa as the leader of the Crusade of 1189–90 was extremely positive, showing him dealing steadfastly and patiently with the untrustworthy Byzantine ruler, keeping his own army ﬁrmly in hand and acting steadfastly against the Turks of

60 See, especially on these first two texts, Stefan Tebruck, ‘The propaganda of power. Memoria, history and patronage’,inThe Origins of the German Principalities [above, note 38], pp. 160–80. 61 Bernd Schneidmüller, ‘Billunger – Welfen – Askanier. Eine genealogische Bild- tafel aus dem Braunschweiger Blasius-Stift und das hochadlige Familienbewuβtsein in Sachsen um 1300’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 69 (1987), 30–61, especially pp. 33–47. 62 Arnold did not seem to be aware of how the dispute about Welf VI’s inheritance may have poisoned relations between Henry the Lion and Barbarossa, but then he made no mention at all of the South German Welfs in his chronicle. For the significance of this dispute, Karl Leyser, ‘Frederick Barbarossa and the Hohenstaufen polity’, Viator 19 (1988), 168–70. 63 Gerd Althoff, ‘Die Historiographie bewältigt. Der Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen in der Darstellung Arnolds von Lübeck’,inDie Welfen und ihr Braunschwei- ger Hof im hohen Mittelalter, ed. Bernd Schneidmüller (Wiesbaden 1995), pp. 163–82. 64 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 267. 16 Introduction

Asia Minor. When Frederick drowned in Lesser Armenia, Arnold showed how his second son Duke Frederick of Swabia acted swiftly and decisively to keep the army together, and only after his death did the German Cru- sade dissolve – something for which modern historians have rarely given the duke any credit.65 While Arnold was quite sharp in his criticism of the young Henry VI, because of his arrogance, his clumsy meddling in the disputed archiepiscopal election at Trier and of his high-handed treatment of bishops generally, his attitude to Henry as emperor softened, not least because of the latter’s encouragement of the Crusade. The proud and violent young prince became the pious and glorious emperor.66 When discuss- ing the civil war after 1198, Arnold maintained a relatively neutral tone. While he was hostile to the Staufen partisan Count Adolf of Holstein, this was because of the threat that the latter posed to the freedom and inde- pendence of Lübeck, rather than because he was a supporter of King Philip.67 Nor did Arnold gloss over the internal disputes among the Welf party, notably the breach between Otto IV and his elder brother the Count Palatine Henry in 1204,68 and, most significantly, he used the royal title for both Philip and Otto of Brunswick.69 And while Arnold rejoiced that Otto’s triumph in 1208–9 and his marriage to King Philip’s daughter had brought an end to the civil war (or so he thought), he also rendered a moving tribute to the excellent personal qualities of Otto’s murdered rival, ‘agentleand humble man, and always affable’ who treated the clergy well and whose brutal murder caused general lamentation.70 The most probable explanation for why Arnold composed his history was that he wished, as he said, to continue the work of his predecessor Helmold in describing the history of his own (or his adopted) region – if he was, as Hucker has argued, an incomer – that is the land beyond the River Elbe (Nordalbingia), and more generally that of northern Germany. That, as it turned out, the focus of his work differed from that of Helmold was due to differences both in attitude and in circumstances.71 Based as he

65 Bk. V.13. Typical of the dismissive verdict of modern histories of the Crusades is H.E. Mayer, The Crusades, trans. John Gillingham (2nd ed., Oxford 1988), p. 141. 66 Bernd Schütte, ‘Staufer und Welfen in der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’,in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis [above note 35], pp. 113–48, especially 123–6. 67 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 275–6. 68 Bk. VI.6. 69 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 256. 70 Bk. VII.12. 71 What follows in this and the next section of this introduction draws heavily upon a preliminary study, G.A. Loud, ‘Crusade and holy war in the chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck’,inTexts and Contexts: Studies in Religious and Intellectual History presented to I. S. Robinson, ed. Thomas McCarthy and Christine Meek (Amsterdam Introduction 17 was in a centre of trade and communications, his outlook was wider and more eclectic than was Helmold’s. Thus Helmold, and indeed his predecessor Adam of Bremen, thought largely of Christianity in terms of their own church – in Helmold’s case the diocese of Oldenburg. Arnold had a broader concept of the interests of Christianity as a whole.72 Second, the context within which the author was writing had changed significantly in the period of forty or more years between the composition of Helmold’s chronicle and that of Arnold. Helmold was, in a very real sense, on the frontier of Christendom, an active participant in missionary activity and face to face with real live pagans who stubbornly resisted attempts at conversion, and even when they did accept Christianity often did so superfi- cially while retaining many pagan beliefs and practices.73 He remarked, for example, quoting St Paul, that the church of Oldenburg was re-established ‘in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation’.74 He was a witness to the Christian Church in the region being constructed from the ground up, both figuratively and indeed literally, for his own church at Bosau and houses to live in there had had to be built from scratch.75 The work of conversion was thus central to his life as well as the theme of his historical writing. But by the time Arnold was writing, the work of conversion had been accomplished and the whole population of Northelbia, and further east into Mecklenburg too, was securely Christian. Thus Helmold could write of the inhabitants of the island of Rügen as being more hostile to Christianity, and attached even more deeply to paganism, than other Slavs.76 Yet by 1185 not only were the Rugians Christian, but their ruler, Geromar, was aiding King Cnut (VI) of Denmark in his attempts to secure his overlordship over Pomerania. Moreover, Geromar had married a daughter of the previous king, Cnut V.77 By the early thirteenth century when Arnold was composing his chronicle, the missionary phase was over in his region. Hence the overarching theme of his work could not be the same as that of Helmold. This did not mean that Arnold was not concerned about the spread of Christianity, nor that he lacked interest therein. His brief account of the beginnings of the Livonian mission and Crusade indeed showed many

2019, forthcoming). Unfortunately the publication of this essay, written as a conference paper in 2016, has been much delayed. 72 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 246–7. 73 Helmold, Cronaca, I.47, pp. 92–3, trans. Tschan, p. 149. 74 Ibid., I.84, p. 164, trans. Tschan, p. 224, quoting Philippians, 2: 15. 75 Ibid., I.71, pp. 136–7, trans. Tschan, p. 195. 76 Ibid., I.36, II.108, pp. 70–2, 211–14, trans. Tschan, pp. 125, 274–7. 77 Bk. III.7, below. Christian Lübke, ‘Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven’,in Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, p. 193. 18 Introduction similarities with the work of his predecessor. Just as Helmold had seen the expeditions across the Elbe against the Slavs in 1147 as part of a wider Christian endeavour, encompassing also the expeditions in Spain and to the Holy Land in that year – which we now call the Second Crusade78 – so Arnold expressly linked the expedition to Livonia with the ‘crusade’ to the east.

And since the journey or pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed at that time to be in vain, the lord Pope Celestine decreed an indulgence that whoever should vow themselves to the aforesaid pilgrimage, and whomever they should bring as their companions on this journey, if this was pleasing to them, would be granted no less remission of [their] sins by God.79

But, like Helmold, Arnold above all emphasised the importance of this mission for the conversion of the heathen and saving their souls. He began this chapter by praising ‘the devotion and hard work of many men of religion, who laboured among the Gentiles who are called the Livonians and … strove to make that people cease from idolatry’. Spreading the word of God among the Gentiles was what mattered, even if military action might be necessary to make that possible. That Bishop Berthold of Riga’s expedition to Livonia sailed from Lübeck in 1197 can only have reinforced his interest in this new frontier of Christianity. That the mission and conversion did not feature more in Arnold’s chronicle was therefore because of a change of local context, not through any lack of concern or change in motivation. But where Helmold was pre- occupied with mission and conversion on the north German frontier, Arnold – writing forty years later and with a broader perspective – was deeply concerned with the frontiers of Christendom as a whole.

Arnold and the Crusade

It seems probable that Arnold spent his entire adult life in north Germany, in either Brunswick or Lübeck, and never left that region. Yet he displayed a lively interest in the ‘Crusade’, even if he never actually employed that term. He devoted substantial parts of his chronicle to the holy war against the Muslims and, even if he was not an eyewitness, his work is a major source for the Crusade during his lifetime and especially for German involvement therein, and for the signiﬁcance of the Crusade in German society under the rule of the early Staufen emperors.

78 Helmold, Cronaca, I.59–62, pp. 115–19, trans. Tschan, pp. 170–79. 79 Bk. V.30, and for the indulgence see note 213 there. Introduction 19

This reflects the fact that the kingdom of Germany did indeed make a major contribution to the Crusade in the late twelfth century, more so, one might argue, than it had to the earlier, largely Francophone, Crusading expeditions. Both Barbarossa’s expedition of 1189 and that set in motion by Henry VI in 1197 were very substantial, and recruited widely from all over the Reich.80 But there can also be no doubt that, like many others throughout Christendom, Arnold was deeply affected by the shock of the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187, and this led him to reflect not just upon the struggle to recover the Holy Land but also on the spiritual well- being of Christian society. He wrote about the Crusade not just because it was an important part of what was going on in Christendom during his lifetime, but because it was significant for his own concept of a flourishing and righteous Christian society. The Crusade to the eastern Mediterranean features in four separate episodes in Arnold’s chronicle, which in total comprise a large part of the work (books I, IV and substantial parts of books V and VI). Related to these there is the report of the mission of Burchard of Strassburg to the east included in book VII. The first of these four episodes, the account of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem by Henry the Lion in 1172, was of course only peripherally part of the ‘Crusade’ since it was – apart from skirmishes with bandits in the Balkans – an entirely peaceful expedition, which saw no fighting against the Muslims and, indeed, the duke returned by agreement through Turkish territory in Asia Minor and had apparently amicable dis- cussions with the Turkish Sultan, Kilij-Arslan. It did, nevertheless, show the importance of Jerusalem, both to Arnold and to Christendom in the later twelfth century, and without his detailed and circumstantial account of the pilgrimage we would know very little about this episode, which is mentioned only very briefly in a few other contemporary sources.81 Henry the Lion was not the only prominent German pilgrim to the Holy Land during the twelfth century: there were, among others, the future king,

80 For details of the major participants, see especially G.A. Loud, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts (Crusade Texts in Translation 19: Farnham 2010), pp. 21–5, 47–57; G.A. Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, Crusades 13 (2014), 143–71, at pp. 149–52. There is an excellent account of the 1197 Crusade by Claudia Naumann, Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI (Frankfurt am Main 1994). 81 Thus the Pohlde Annals said only that ‘Duke Henry travelled to Jerusalem, journeying through Greece with a large following’, Annales Palidenses, MGH SS. xvi.94, and the entry in the Pegau annals was even more laconic, ‘Duke Henry crossed the sea’, Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.260. The Cologne annals devoted a short paragraph to the pilgrimage, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, ed. Georg Waitz (MGH SRG, Hanover 1880), pp. 123–4. Other north German sources, notably the Magdeburg and Stederburg annals, do not mention it at all. 20 Introduction

Conrad III, in 1125/6, Margrave Conrad of Meissen in 1145, Albrecht the Bear of Brandenburg in 1158, and Henry’s uncle Duke Welf VI in 1167. But, thanks to Arnold, we know far more about the pilgrimage of 1172 than we do about any of these other earlier visits.82 It has been suggested by several diﬀerent authors that Arnold provided such a detailed account of the pilgrimage because he himself was one of the large following who accompanied the duke.83 One should, however, stress that our chronicler never claimed this, that there is no ﬁrm evidence that he took part, and there are, indeed, some indications that he did not. Thus he claimed that the duke was accompanied on the journey by the margrave of Styria, as well as an otherwise-unknown margrave of Sulzbach.84 Since Margrave Ottokar of Styria was only seven years old in 1172 this seems improbable. Arnold’s nineteenth-century editor Lappenberg suggested that he may have given these names in mistake for the Bavarian Counts Palatine Frederick and Otto of Wittelsbach, the former of whom, at least, is known to have travelled to the Holy Land around this time.85 There is, too, some geographical confusion in his description of the duke’s outward journey through the Balkans, both concerning the passage down the Danube and once his party had entered Byzantine territory.86 In his account of the return journey Arnold referred to one local potentate as ‘Milo the Saracen’, although in fact this was Mleh, a Christian Armenian prince, albeit one who had submitted to Nur-ed-Din.87 And although Arnold described the presents which Kilij-Arslan gave to the duke when they met during this return journey, he omitted the very important detail (provided by the Cologne chronicler) that the sultan released all his Chris- tian prisoners at the duke’s request.88 Nor did Arnold say much about any political dimensions to this journey, and especially the visit on the outward route to Constantinople where the duke was received by the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel Komnenos, although he mentioned in passing that the

82 Ehlers, Heinrich der Löwe, p. 197. 83 Einar Joranson, ‘The Palestine pilgrimage of Henry the Lion’,inMedieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson, ed. James Lea Cates and Eugene N. Anderson (Chicago 1938), pp. 146–225, at pp. 151–3; Jordan, Henry the Lion, p. 151; Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, p. 229, cites earlier literature in German. 84 Bk. I.2. 85 Arnoldi Cronica Slavorum, p. 12 note. Count Palatine Frederick made his will, unfortunately undated but c.1170, ‘being about to set out for Jerusalem to visit the glorious Sepulchre of the Lord’, ‘Diplomatarium Miscellum no. vi’,inMonu- menta Boica x (Munich 1768), pp. 239–44. 86 Bk. I.3. 87 Bk. I.9. 88 Chronica Regia Coloniensis, p. 124. Introduction 21 duke was joined on his journey by the bishop of Worms, who had been tasked with negotiating a marriage between one of Frederick’s sons and Manuel’s daughter. According to the contemporary Byzantine historian John Kinnamos, writing only a few years later and before the death of Manuel in 1180, Henry himself was making a diplomatic visit specifically to improve relations between Frederick Barbarossa and the eastern empire.89 This had followed a preliminary visit two years earlier by Arch- bishop Christian of Mainz.90 Of course pilgrimage and diplomacy were not mutually exclusive, and Kinnamos may anyway have confused Henry’s role with that of the bishop. But what Arnold reported about the visit to Con- stantinople was more or less exclusively concerned with ceremonial and with theological wrangling, in which, according to him, Abbot Henry of Brunswick (the later bishop of Lübeck) acted as spokesman for the westerners. And much of the theological exposition ascribed to Abbot Henry was, anyway, lifted, more or less verbatim,fromthe‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard.91 All of these various mistakes, omissions and emphases tend to suggest not an eye-witness but one who was compiling a later account. Indeed, Volker Scior goes further and suggests that much of Arnold’s account of the 1172 pilgrimage was a literary construct, emphasising and exaggerating the diffi- culties and dangers of the journey to fit with an image of what pilgrimage should be like. Pilgrims ought to brave dangers, whether in the forests of Bulgaria or from storms at sea.92 We do not, necessarily, have to go as far as this, and the account of Duke Henry’s journey through the Balkans towards Adrianople, with its problems of transport and skirmishes with the local inhabitants, presaged the similar problems that faced Frederick Barbar- ossa’s army in 1189 – about which Arnold later said very little, but of which we have a very detailed and entirely independent account.93 No doubt there was some exaggeration in the account of the pilgrimage, but this seems more probable in the description of Henry the Lion’s reception at Constantinople,

89 Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, by John Kinnamus, trans. Charles M. Brand (New York 1976), p. 214. To what extent such a marriage can ever have been a serious proposition is arguable. Not only was Manuel simultaneously negotiating for a marriage with King William II of Sicily (even if that never materialised), but Maria was about twenty whereas even Frederick’s eldest son was only six at this time. There is a helpful discussion of Manuel’s intentions in Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge 1993), pp. 92–3. 90 ‘Annales S. Petri Erphesfurtensis Maiores’ and ‘Chronica S. Petri Erforden- sis’,inMonumenta Erphesfurtensia Saec. XII-XIV, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1899), pp. 60, 186. 91 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 300–1. 92 Ibid., pp. 295–98, 301–2. 93 The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa,pp.59–69. 22 Introduction seemingly more or less as an equal by the Byzantine emperor, an account designed to flatter his status; and also in that of his conversations with the Turkish sultan, in which the duke allegedly spoke to him of ‘the Incarnation of Christ and the Catholic faith’, thus burnishing his reputation as a pious and God-fearing Christian.94 If Arnold did not accompany the duke on his pilgrimage, then from where did he derive his detailed account of this enterprise? By far the most likely source was Abbot Henry of Brunswick, whose role on the pilgrimage Arnold emphasised and who became bishop of Lübeck and who was the founder of the monastery of which our author became abbot. Since Bishop Henry died in (probably) 1182, this might suggest that he had left some sort of account or memorandum of the pilgrimage, which Arnold then used many years later. Admittedly, Einar Joranson, whose meticulous and detailed study of the pilgrimage is still of great value, considered and dis- missed this possibility. He saw no stylistic differences between book I and the rest of the chronicle, which one might have expected if an account by adifferent author had been incorporated therein, and because nothing was said in the chronicle of events in Germany in the duke’s absence he argued, anyway, that Arnold himself must have been part of the pilgrimage.95 This latter objection seems spurious, given that Arnold’s chronicle was selective as well as written quite a long time after the event. This was not a set of contemporary annals. Furthermore, if Arnold was adapting, rather than simply copying, an account by the bishop, we would not necessarily expect to see a change in style. Alternatively, Arnold may have been using some sort of memorandum that he himself wrote to record the bishop’s oral reminiscences. But, if that was so, and it is suggested here as no more than a possibility, then he must have been gathering material for his chronicle long before he actually composed it. Whatever the case, we may fairly safely conclude that Arnold’s interest in the Holy Land and its welfare, which he clearly demonstrated in his chronicle, was not the consequence of direct experience of having been there. What his chronicle does show is quite how traumatic the fall of Jerusa- lem in 1187 was, but also how seriously our author meditated on the meaning of that disaster. That he saw this as God’s punishment for the sins of the people of Christendom was, of course, entirely conventional, and he was clearly influenced here by the papal bull Audita Tremendi, issued by Gregory VIII at the end of October 1187, which lamented the ‘severe and terrible judgement’ with which God had smitten the kingdom of Jerusalem. Arnold commented approvingly that the pope ‘encouraged everyone to abandon their wicked ways’ and encouraged fasting and public

94 Bk. I.9. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 305–6. 95 Joranson, ‘The Palestine pilgrimage’, pp. 148–55. Introduction 23 prayer.96 What was more unusual about Arnold’s reaction was how heart- felt it was, and how it tied in with earlier passages in the chronicle where he lamented the defects he perceived in the Church of his time. Arnold was, indeed, quite prepared to criticise fellow-churchmen, and even bishops, for failing to live up to the standards expected of them. He began his account of the fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent Crusade not just with lamentation, although there was plenty of that, but by some stinging remarks about clerical failings. Bishops, for example, gave unjust judge- ments, and their negligence and wickedness (perversitas) led those who were subject to them into sin. He did not mince his words here. ‘Every prelate’, he wrote, ‘who harms the Lord’s sheep by word and deed is a - thief’.97 Earlier, after describing an unseemly dispute at the diet at Mainz in 1184 between the archbishop of Cologne and the abbot of Fulda as to who should sit next to the emperor, he launched into a swingeing and extensive attack on ‘the detestable pride of monks’, whose concern with secular matters and accumulation of property led them to neglect their vocation.98 There were clearly some prelates of whom he approved, above all his own master Bishop Henry, whose many virtues he described and whose death was marked by dreams and visions.99 But he was adamant that repentance, reform and renewal was necessary if Jerusalem was to be recovered, and also that those who undertook the Lord’s work by taking the Cross had to prove themselves worthy. Hence, when describing the Cru- sade of 1197–8, the ‘second pilgrimage’ as he described it – the ﬁrst being the Crusade of 1189–92 – he exclaimed:

How can someone conquer through this sort of behaviour, who does not have the spirit of fear, but is instead full of the spirit of pride and resem- bles the enemies of Christ more than his disciples?100

What is interesting about Arnold is that he could combine this deeply moral and spiritual view of the Crusade with a relatively dispassionate account of

96 Bk. IV.6, below p. 145. For a translation of one version of this bull, The Cru- sade of Frederick Barbarossa,pp.37–41. Several different versions were issued over a very brief period by the papal chancery, which may reflect quite a complicated process of drafting, as well as the election of a new pope only a few days before the first issue of the bull. I have benefited from reading an unpublished paper on this topic by my colleague Thomas Smith, first delivered at the International Medieval Congress at Leeds in July 2018. 97 Bk. IV.1, below pp. 132–4. 98 Bk. III.10, below pp. 111–14. 99 Bk. III.3. 100 Bk. V.29, below p. 220. 24 Introduction events, as, for example, with the internal tensions within the kingdom of Jerusalem which led to the defeat of Hattin, or the problems of internal disunity and indiscipline that hampered the Crusade of 1197–8.101 Yet there can be no doubt that he considered the campaigns for defence and recovery of the Holy Land to be God’s work. Even if the loss of Jerusa- lem was the consequence of His displeasure at Christian failings, those who fought and died at Hattin ‘dedicated their hands to the Lord’, and the captives there showed their steadfastness by refusing to apostasise even under threat of death.102 Those who died on the Third Crusade were hailed as martyrs,103 while those in the Christian army were ‘the people of God’ (populus Dei),104 ‘the knights of Christ’ (milites Christi)105 or ‘the ser- vants of Christ’ (servi Christi).106 After Barbarossa’s army had crossed the Bosphorus in 1190, ‘as if they had escaped the bond of Pharaoh [they] sang a hymn in praise of the religion of Christ’, thus equating the German crusaders with the children of Israel.107 Similarly, describing the expedition of 1197 he wrote that:

The holy people, the race of kings, that is of the Christians, the royal priesthood (regale sacerdotium), devotedly undertook their expedition or pilgrimage against the legions of Satan.108

Where these expeditions made at least some limited gains, this was a result of God’s assistance. For example, the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was the result of ‘recent and wonderful events which took place through the Lord’s doing, or which he allowed to take place’.109 Meanwhile, even though both the Third Crusade and that of 1197/8 (which Arnold clearly saw as no less signiﬁcant than the earlier expedition) had ultimately failed, the participants – and especially those who had perished – had witnessed for the Lord, and by doing so they had secured their own salvation, ‘since the death of one of his holy men is precious in the sight of the Lord’.110 Furthermore, even if these expeditions had not been successful, there was still hope. Here Arnold

101 For a comparison of Arnold’s account with others, Loud, ‘The German Crusade of 1197–1198’, pp. 144–8. For what follows, see also, at greater length, Loud, ‘Crusade and Holy War in the Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck’. 102 Bk. IV.4, pp. 141–2. 103 Bk. IV.11, p. 152. 104 Bk. IV.12, 15, 16. 105 Bk. IV.3, 12, 14, Bk. V.26. 106 Bk. V.27. 107 Bk. IV.11, below p. 152, cf. Exodus, 15: 1–19. 108 Bk. V.26, below p. 208. Latin text: Arnoldi Chronica, p. 196. 109 Bk. VI.19, below p. 246. 110 Bk. IV.13, p. 157. Introduction 25 twice quoted Isaiah, 5: 25, ‘the Lord’s Hand is stretched out still’.111 One day (by implication), if the Christians were worthy, He would grant them success. Arnold’s accounts of the two German expeditions of 1189/90 and 1197/8 are both detailed and circumstantial, especially the latter, even if the supposedly verbatim account of the negotiations between Barbarossa and Kilij-Arlan in May 1190 are a product of the author’s imagination – or at least a dramatic reconstruction of whatever his informants may have told him. Arnold may also have seen one or more contemporary newsletters, which we know were sent home both during Barbarossa’s Crusade and other expeditions, although we do not know how widely these may have been distributed.112 Certainly he said more about this expedition, and a lot more about that of 1197, than most other contemporary German chroniclers, who seem either to have known little about them, or to have thought the eventual failure of these ventures made much comment superfluous.113 No doubt Arnold, who cared deeply about these ventures, made more of an effort to find out, and there were sufficient participants in them from his region of north Germany who might be ques- tioned, or from whom news might filter back. Among the more prominent participants, for example, were Count Adolf of Holstein – whotookpartin both expeditions – and Archbishop Hartwig of Bremen (in 1197). Neither of these were men whom Arnold much liked, since both were often hostile to Lübeck (and in the archbishop’scasetoBishopDietrichinparticular),buthe did make special mention of Adolf’s heroism during the capture of Beirut in 1197.114 More probably, his informants were those further down the social scale – for the 1197/8 expedition presumably some of the survivors of the four hundred men of Lübeck whose enlistment he reported. That his account of the later stages of the Third Crusade petered out, and became increasingly confused after his report of the arrival of German seaborne reinforcements at Acre, was surely because so many of his fellow countrymen had died or returned home before the capture of the city.115 Similarly, the fact that his

111 Bks. IV.16, V.25, below pp. 163, 206. 112 The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa,pp.5–6. One might note too that the Cologne Chronicle’s account of the 1197/8 expedition was limited to the reproduction of a newsletter from the Duke of Brabant, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 160–1. 113 The Marbach annalist, for example, gave a long list of those who took the Cross in 1195, but then said nothing at all about what happened in the Holy Land in 1197/8, Annales Marbacenses qui dicuntur, ed. Hermann Bloch (MGH SRG, Hanover 1907), pp. 66–71 [also in Die Chronik Ottos von St. Blasien und die Marbacher Annalen, ed. F-J. Schmale (Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mit- telalters 17, Darmstadt 1998) (henceforth ed. Schmale), pp. 190–5]. 114 Bk. V.26, below pp. 212–13. 115 The Cologne chronicler’s account similarly petered out after reporting the death of Duke Frederick of Swabia, although one recension later added a longish paragraph about the siege of Acre, Chronica Regia Coloniensis, pp. 151–4. 26 Introduction description of the Fourth Crusade and the capture of Constantinople was limited to the reproduction of two lengthy newsletters may be attributed to a lack of suitable informants. Only a relatively few Germans were involved in that expedition, and those that were – with the exception of Bishop Conrad of Halberstadt – were almost all from western Germany.116 One should, however, be careful not to read too much into his chronicle. In particular, Bernd Hucker has suggested that Arnold saw the general recognition of Otto IV as king in 1208 and his imperial coronation a year later as presaging the calling of a new Crusade, to him the ‘third’, after those of 1189 and 1197, and even claims that Arnold’s chronicle served as propaganda for this new Crusade.117 There is, indeed, mention in the (strictly contemporary) work of Otto of St Blasien that at the diet at Würz- burg in May 1209 the abbot of Morimond expressed the wish that King Otto ‘would assist the church of Jerusalem in his own person, [and] to all this the king was obedient’.118 Otto did subsequently, as he admitted on his deathbed, promise to take the Cross at his imperial coronation, and may formally have done so, before his relations with Innocent III broke down and rendered such a commitment irrelevant.119 He also sent an embassy to the Holy Land in 1210, which was probably part of his preparations for a forthcoming expedition.120 But Arnold made no mention of any of this, even though he discussed the Würzburg assembly at some length. This may seem a surprising omission – perhaps his informants there did not report the abbot’s sermon to him – presumably had he been aware that Otto had pledged himself to a new Crusade he would have said so, since the Holy War was so central to his vision of contemporary Chris- tendom. Nor, given the initially very limited distribution of his work, can it have fulﬁlled any ‘propagandist’ function.

Arnold and ‘other’ peoples

Arnold showed less obvious interest in the geography and ethnography of neighbouring peoples than did his predecessors Helmold and Adam of Bremen. The former, indeed, began his chronicle by delineating the

116 Jean Longnon, Les Compagnons de Villehardouin: Recherches sur les Croisés de la Quatrième Croisade (Geneva 1978), pp. 242–50. 117 Hucker, ‘Die Chronik von Arnolds von Lübeck als “Historia Regum”’, pp. 106–7; idem, Papst Otto IV, pp. 131–2. 118 Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, ed. Adolf Hofmeister (MGH SRG, Han- over 1912), pp. 85–6 [ed. Schmale, p. 154]. 119 Narratio de Morte Ottonis,inThesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, ed. E. Martène and U. Durand (5 vols, Paris 1717), iii.1375. 120 Hucker, Kaiser Otto IV, pp. 137–8. Introduction 27 various, primarily Slav, peoples who lived along the Baltic coast and to the east of the German kingdom, while Adam devoted the final book of his history to a description of the countries and peoples of Scandinavia.121 Nevertheless, living as he did on the Baltic coast, and concerned as he was with the spread of Christianity and the recovery of the Holy Land, Arnold wrote about a number of other peoples, both Christian and non-Christian. With some, like the Danes and Slavs, he must have had some contact and direct knowledge; but he only knew about others, above all Muslims, at second-hand – assuming that the argument above that he did not take part in the 1172 pilgrimage is correct. He certainly cannot be characterised as a German nationalist – even if such a person existed at the turn of the thirteenth century. His view of the Danes, for example, was remarkably positive. They were ‘a most Christian people’, remarkable for their wealth, their skill at war, the learning of their young men, the excellence of their archbishops and for their virtuous king, Cnut (VI).122 He reported, but without particular comment, Waldemar II’s takeover of the region north of the Elbe in 1201/3, indeed if anything he saw this as enhancing the peace and security of the region. He was probably influenced both by a considerable body of opinion within Lübeck, which welcomed Danish lordship and because King Waldemar was an ally of Otto IV – and his principal oppon- ent, the aggressive and ambitious Count Adolf of Holstein, was both a dangerous neighbour to Lübeck and a supporter of King Philip.123 His opinion of the Danes was notably more positive than that of his predecessors Helmold and Adam of Bremen. The latter, clearly conscious of the depredations of the Viking period, thought that the Danes, while now nominally Christian, were violent, greedy and untrustworthy.124 Helmold considered them to be fierce and active in their civil wars – to which they were far too prone – but often cowardly and ineffective when confronting foreign foes – while their kings, and especially Sven III, were frequently cruel and tyrannical.125 They were also too fond of eating and drinking.126 Arnold did at one point refer to the Danes’ fondness for strong drink, but

121 Helmold, Cronaca, I.1, pp. 5–7, trans. Tschan, pp. 45–8. History of the Arch- bishops of Hamburg-Bremen, Adam of Bremen, trans. Francis J. Tschan (2nd ed., New York 2002) [first published 1959], pp. 186–223. 122 Bk. III.4. 123 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 274–9. 124 History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, pp. 190–1. 125 Helmold, Cronaca, I.65, p. 122; I.70, p. 136; I.85, pp. 165–6, trans. Tschan, p. 180, 194, 225–6. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 103–10 (on Adam), 200–4 (Helmold), 285–7. 126 Helmold, Cronaca, II.109, p. 216, trans. Tschan, p. 279. 28 Introduction this seems to have been something of a cliché among medieval writers.127 Otherwise he thought well of them. The Slavs were, as has already been shown, less central to Arnold’s narrative than they had been to that of Helmold. Although he did occasion- ally refer to Sclavia or ‘the land of the Slavs’ (terra Sclavorum), this seems to have been no more than a geographical expression – and interestingly it seems usually to have referred to Pomerania and Mecklenburg, and not to have included the region north of the Elbe which to Helmold was the most significant part of ‘Slav land’, although Arnold was not entirely consistent in this usage. Nor did this include the island of Rügen, despite its Slav population.128 The north-Elbian region was now firmly Christian, and had also been heavily settled by German immigrants during the twelfth century, while the ruler of Rügen was a vassal of the Danes. But the various Slav peoples east of the Elbe were also now Christians, and their rulers were intermarrying with Danes, Germans and Poles, actively founding monasteries and fostering the Church, and involving themselves in the politics of eastern Saxony. The process was already well underway in which these Slav rulers acculturated and within two or three generations had transformed themselves fully into ‘German’ princes.129 Pribislav, the recently converted Abrodite prince, had accompanied Henry the Lion on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The princes of Pomerania supported Duke Henry against his enemies in 1180, until the death of Prince Casimir led his brother to change sides.130 Count Bernhard of Badwide had earlier married the daughter of another Pomeranian prince.131 While Arnold described the campaigns of Duke Bernhard and Cnut VI in Pomerania in the 1180s, these were in no sense part of any ‘holy war’, for the Slavs against whom they were directed were Christians and other Slavs supported the invaders. The Danish king was seeking to make ‘the land of the Slavs subject to him and the power of his kingdom’,132 and after achieving the submission of the various Pomeranian princes, he withdrew. Arnold did indeed mention

127 Bk. VI.14, below p. 244. Cf., for example, William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: the History of the English Kings, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom (2 vols., Oxford 1998–9), i.240–1, 606–7. 128 For this and what follows, Lübke, ‘Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven’, especially pp. 191–4. 129 See especially Friedrich Lotter, ‘The Crusading idea and the conquest of the regions to the east of the Elbe’,inMedieval Frontier Societies, ed. Robert Bartlett and Angus Mackay (Oxford 1989), pp. 267–306, particularly 294–303; Oliver Auge, ‘Pomerania, Mecklenburg and the “Baltic frontier”: adaptation and alliances’,inThe Origins of the German Principalities, 1100–1350 [above note 38], pp. 264–79. 130 Bk. II.17, below p. 83. 131 Bk. V.7, below p. 171. 132 Bk. III.4, below p. 99. Introduction 29 the ‘obstinacy’ of the Slavs in previously resisting Christianity, but once they had converted he reported what happened within Sclavia without animus and indeed with some generosity. So, at the death of (Nicholas) Nyklot, a prince of the Abrodites, in 1200 he called him ‘a wise and good man, whose death cast all of Slavonia into mourning’.133 In this respect he showed himself more favourably disposed towards the Slavs than some of his contemporaries, among whom old attitudes died hard. Thus the Pegau annalist described Prince Casimir on his death as ‘for a long time the plun- derer of the Christians’.134 The Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus also remained resolutely hostile to the Slavs.135 Arnold, by contrast, was much more critical of the Bohemians, even though the latter had been Christian for several centuries. He considered them to be ‘by nature vicious’, always anxious for plunder and no respecters of churches.136 The other Christian people in whom Arnold was intermittently interested were the Byzantines. He gave an interesting, if highly-coloured and far from accurate, account of the usurpation and downfall of Andronikos Komnenos. Otherwise his treatment of the Byzantines, where they impinged on his narrative, tended to be brief and, in all but one respect, relatively neutral. On the one hand, he was not intrinsically hostile to them – like other westerners he seems to have thought well of Manuel Komnenos, noting his hospitality and generosity towards Henry the Lion in 1172 and according him the epithet ‘noble’ on his death. While he brieﬂy noted the problems that the army of Frederick Barbarossa faced in Byzantine territory in 1189/90, he did not linger on these, nor did he show the hostility towards the Byzantines displayed in, for example, The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick, where there was repeated com- plaint about the ‘deceit’ and ‘tricks’ of the Greeks.137 And while he gave an account of the theological debate that took place in Constantinople in 1172, where Abbot Henry of Brunswick acted (we are told) as the spokesman for the Latin Church, and was clear that the Greeks were in the wrong concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, at no point then or later did he speciﬁcally denounce them as schismatics, as some other westerners did.138 He saw the capture of Constantinople in 1203/4 as divinely

133 Bk. VI.13, below p. 242. 134 Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS xvi.264. 135 Lübke, ‘Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven’, p. 198. 136 Bk. VI.5, below p. 233. 137 For example, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa, pp. 46, 61, 64, 67, 70, 75, 77, 81–2, 84, 96. 138 Bk. I.5. Cf. for a much more hostile view, The Crusade of Frederick Barba- rossa,pp.99–100, including the opinion that: ‘they separated themselves a long time ago from the Roman Church’. 30 Introduction inspired, but made a rather subtle distinction here between what was God’s work and what took place by His permission. If God had sanctioned this, it was rather because such an extraordinary event could not have happened without His approval.139 He did not portray this, as he might have done, as Divine punishment for Greek sin or error. The one point where he was adamant, however, was with regard to the status of the Byzantine ruler. He was only ‘the king of the Greeks’, or (once) ‘the king of Constantinople’– Arnold never allowed him the imperial title. This was reserved for the German ruler.140 One would expect Arnold’s view of non-Christians to be more hostile, and to some extent this was the case. He clearly disliked the Jews, whom he accused of having ‘a detestable custom of mocking Christ’.141 His account of what happened after the Battle of Hattin, with claims that Sala- din mocked the Eucharist, churches were destroyed, monks and nuns killed, and nuns violated, drew on a long tradition of Christian polemic, which acquired new life after the disaster of 1187.142 He also clearly saw the crusades to recover the Holy Land as God’s work, to which true Chris- tians should dedicate themselves. Yet despite this, there are indications that his view of Muslims was more nuanced than one might have expected. There are three principal manifestations of this in the chronicle. First, he wrote that the Seljuk Sultan Kilij-Arslan had allowed Henry the Lion to travel peacefully through his lands on the latter’s return from Jerusalem in 1172, and had received him ‘most kindly’ (benignissime), lavishing presents upon him and thanking God that he had avoided the ambushes of the treacherous Armenians. He even suggested that they might be distantly related. When the duke and sultan discussed religious matters, Arnold claimed that the latter remarked that it was not hard to believe in the truth of the Virgin Birth, because God had after all created the world.143 As has been suggested above, Arnold’s primary concern here may have been to

139 Bk. VI.19, below p. 248. 140 In the letter which Arnold included describing the capture of 1204, Baldwin of Flanders described himself as ‘Emperor of Constantinople, crowned by God’, below, p. 253. This was an existing text and Arnold may not have wanted to alter it; but more probably he did not see this title as conflicting with German imperial claims, as the Byzantine use of the ‘Emperor of the Romans’ title did. 141 Bk. V.15, below p. 183. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 246–8. 142 Bk. IV.4–5. Penny J. Cole, ‘“O God, the heathen have come into your inheritance.” (Ps. 78.1) The theme of religious pollution in Crusade documents, 1095–1188’, in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Shatzmiller (Leiden 1993), pp. 84–111, especially 105–11. 143 Bk. I.9. This was in accordance with the Koran, Sura III.47, where Mary’s virtue is expressly recognised, but what is significant here is that Arnold reported it. Introduction 31 show the piety of the duke, but the picture of the sultan was by no means hostile. Then, immediately after this Arnold went on to relate a story about a local castle, which had been besieged by Godfrey of Bouillon during the First Crusade. This seems to have been one among many such fictional anecdotes to which the success of the Crusade had given rise, some of which were circulating only a few years after the capture of Jerusalem.144 It was eventually decided that the decision as to whether or not the castle would be surrendered would be entrusted to two champions, the one representing the Muslims being an apostate who had married the daughter of the castle’s governor. The Christian champion defeated him, but then offered to spare his life if he would return to his original Christian faith. The apostate refused and was beheaded. Arnold was in no doubt that this was God’s judgement. But, nevertheless, the picture of the defeated Muslim champion was by no means unsympathetic, for he was portrayed as an honourable man, who resisted the Christian’soffer to spare him and to give him half his property and his sister as his wife. The apostate preferred to remain true to his word and to his Muslim father-in-law, even if it cost him his life.145 Fur- thermore, after his defeat the Muslims fulfilled their side of the agreement and surrendered the castle. We do not know from where Arnold may have got this story – the closest parallel comes in the verse account of the First Crusade by Metullus of Tegernsee, written after 1150 and largely based on the contemporary prose account of Robert of Rheims, who described a duel between Godfrey’s champion Wicher the Swabian and a Turkish giant.146 But, apart from the actual single combat – of which Metullus furnishes much more detail than does Arnold – the similarities are not that obvious. The duel Metullus described happened outside Jerusalem, not in Asia Minor, and its obvious model was the Biblical combat between David and Goliath.147 Nor is it likely that Arnold can have read, or even known about, this poem (which survives in only one MS, from Admont in Styria).148 Pre- sumably the source for his story was oral, perhaps even a tale told in Asia Minor to members of Duke Henry’s suite, and it is possible that Arnold only included it as a good story which he could not resist telling. But, again, as he told it, this anecdote was not completely hostile to the Muslims.

144 See Carol Sweetenham, ‘What really happened to Eurvin de Créel’s donkey? Anecdotes in sources for the First Crusade’,inWriting the Early Crusades, ed. Marcus Bull and Damien Kempf (Woodbridge 2014), pp. 75–88. 145 Bk. I.11. 146 Metullus von Tegernsee, Expeditio Ierosolimitana, ed. Peter Christian Jacob- son (Stuttgart 1982), part VI, lines 231–330, pp. 125–8. 147 I Samuel, 17: 38–51. 148 Metullus, Expeditio, p. ix. 32 Introduction

Finally, there was Arnold’s account of the siege of Toron in 1197/8. Here, he described how the Muslims inside the fortress sought to negotiate its surrender, with a concomitant guarantee of their safety. They appealed to the Crusader leaders, stressing their own descent from Abraham like that of the Christians, and that they themselves were not without religion, and saying ‘even though we are of different religions, we have one origin and one forefather’; and thus it was right that the Crusaders should spare them. While in the end the surrender agreement broke down, Arnold was clear that it was an unruly element within the Christian army that first broke the truce. Arnold was not, of course, an eyewitness of what took place, although his detailed and circumstantial account of the expedition shows that he had excellent sources of information. The speech which he put into the mouths of the Muslim envoys was, however, his own composition, giving the gist of what he thought they might have said, which makes its tone even more surprising. Indeed, throughout his account of the negotiations at Toron, Arnold portrayed the Muslims as rational beings, with an understandable wish to save their own lives, whose behaviour was in some respects more straight-forward and honourable than that of the Christians. Furthermore, when fighting resumed, he suggested that the Muslims displayed more courage and constancy than many of the Chris- tians, who were by now half-hearted and often spending their time consort- ing with prostitutes – bad behaviour that risked God’s anger.149 Arnold appears to have known that Muslims professed a monotheistic faith like Christians. While he believed in the rightness of the Crusade, he was prepared to view them as recognisable human beings. Perhaps his knowledge of the conversion of the Slavs gave him a more sympathetic view of non- believers than many of his Christian contemporaries had?

Texts copied within the chronicle

Four texts written by others were copied within Arnold’s chronicle. The two circular letters describing the Fourth Crusade have already been mentioned. These had a wide distribution in the west after 1203/4, and versions of them, even if not quite identical to those Arnold copied, appear in a number of diﬀerent sources, including in the register of Pope Innocent III. It is clear that multiple copies of these letters had been sent from Constantinople to the west as part of a propaganda campaign to justify the conquest, and Arnold was by no means the only chronicler to copy them.150

149 Bk. V.29. 150 Alfred J. Andrea, Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden 2000), pp. 79–80, 98–9. Introduction 33

More singular are the other two lengthy texts inserted into the chronicle, the letter by Bishop Conrad of Hildesheim about the wonders of southern Italy, and the tract by Burchard of Strassburg describing the Middle East in an account of his embassy to Saladin in 1175.151 The first of these, which survives only in Arnold’s chronicle, was inserted immediately before his account of the conquest of the kingdom of Sicily in 1194 – although after that chapter might have been the more logical place to put it. Nevertheless, this was at more or less the correct chronological point in the narrative, and it served to flesh out the fairly brief discussion of that conquest. Its primary purpose for its original author seems to have been for him to display his classical learning – often misapplied, for some of the ancient wonders he described were more properly associated with Greece than southern Italy. The text certainly testifies to the ‘exotic’ reputation of southern Italy in the twelfth century, fed by such natural phenomena as volcanos that were unknown in the north, and is by no means the only evidence of this.152 Arnold would have been interested in the classical learning, and no doubt regarded it as valuable evidence concerning a region he had never seen – not least since Bishop Conrad, the imperial chancellor, had been left as one of Henry VI’s key agents in the kingdom of Sicily when the emperor had set off to return to Germany in April 1195.153 Since he seems to have had connections with Hildesheim, and took an interest in Bishop Conrad, who was mentioned several times in the chronicle – and he may indeed have had use of a contemporary letter collection compiled there – his access to a text from that see should not surprise us.154 The other tract was, as was explained above, inserted completely out of chronological sequence towards the end of the chronicle, no doubt because it had only just come to Arnold’s attention. This was a detailed account, not of any negotiations that might have taken place on Burchard’sembassy,but of the geography and peoples of Egypt and Syria. Given his interest in the recovery of the Holy Land, and his belief that God would eventually permit

151 Bks. V.19, VII.8. 152 G.A. Loud, ‘The kingdom of Sicily and the kingdom of England, 1066–1266’, History 88 (2003), 540–67, especially pp. 562–3. On Conrad, Evelyn M. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily. His Life and Work and the Authorship of the Epistola ad Petrum and the Historia Hugonis Falcandi Siculi (London 1957), pp.149–51, see on p. 149: ‘Conrad’s objective in writing was not to give his itinerary but rather to commu- nicate the thrill of the classical tradition as he experienced it’. 153 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily, pp. 146–8, who suggests that he was promoted to be eﬀectively governor of the mainland during his brief visit to Germany in winter 1195. 154 Stephan Freund, ‘Symbolische Kommunication und quellenkritische Pro- bleme – Arnold von Lübeck und das Mainzer Pﬁngest von 1184’,inDie Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis,pp.96–102. 34 Introduction this, Arnold must have thought this would be of interest to any reader of his chronicle. One cannot, however, link his inclusion of this tract with any forthcoming Crusading plans – above all because, as we noted above, Arnold made no mention of Otto IV’s possible new Crusading expedition. Nor indeed is the tract a plan for such a future enterprise, it was at best ‘background material’ that gave the reader some understanding of the region and of the Islamic world and its customs. Unlike the letter of Bishop Conrad, this tract would appear to have circulated quite widely during the early thirteenth century. There is a free-standing, but incomplete, copy in BL MS Harley 3995,155 and it was recycled in the description of the east, perhaps intended as a report to the papacy, that was appended to the History of Jacques de Vitry, under the (misleading) title Narratio Patriarche Hierosolymitani. It was also known to the Westphalian pilgrim Thietmar, who left an account of his visit to the Holy Land in 1217–18.156 What may also have appealed to Arnold, given his nuanced and relatively restrained attitude towards Muslims, was the tone of this account, which is generally dispassionate, descriptive and not condemnatory, and seemingly the result of close observation rather than legend or prejudice. The account of Muslim beliefs is reasonably accurate, and there is a refreshing absence of improbable wonders – which many western authors writing about this region, notably Fulcher of Chartres, derived from uncrit- ical reading of the Wonders of the World by the late-Roman author Soli- nus. In some passages Burchard noted that Muslims showed respect for, or even accepted some, Christian beliefs. Thus there were places where both Christians and Muslims venerated the Virgin Mary, notably at her shrine at Saydnaya outside Damascus.157 The one section where the author’s cus- tomary restraint was cast aside was in the discussion of the Assassins, where he was probably reliant on Sunni informants, who would have disliked them intensely. Arnold had earlier mentioned the Assassins during his discussion of the Third Crusade but, while similar, these two passages are by no means identical.158

155 A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts of the British Museum (4 vols, London 1808), iii.102. 156 Translated by Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (Crusade Texts in Translation 23, Farnham 2012), pp. 95–133. For the Narratio, see the footnotes to Bk. VII.8, below. 157 Below, pp. 279–80. 158 In an otherwise very interesting study Bruce Lincoln, ‘An early moment in the discourse of terrorism: reﬂections on a tale from Marco Polo’, Comparative Stud- ies in Society and History 48 (2006), 242–59, at pp. 250–4, suggested that Arnold modiﬁed Burchard’s earlier account to make his section on the Assassins (Bk. IV.16) more dramatic. Given the late inclusion of Burchard’s text in the chronicle, this seems most improbable and we should regard these two passages as entirely separate. Introduction 35

One should note, however, that the last section of this tract, for which we only have evidence in the chronicle, beginning ‘what ought to be considered amidst these matters if not the boundless clemency of our Redeemer’,mayin fact have been added to it by Arnold himself. Certainly both tone and style, with frequent Biblical citations, are diﬀerent from what comes earlier, even if the phraseology at the end of the chapter implies that everything before that was part of the original report. The stress in this paragraph on the importance of humility, and on the grace of the Holy Spirit, are characteristic of Arnold’s work.159 That it also included a quotation from the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you’, may therefore be reveal- ing about Arnold’s own attitudes towards non-Christians.160

Manuscripts and editions

There are now eleven surviving MSS of the Chronicle of Arnold, dating from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. The earliest, and indeed the only one from the thirteenth century, the so-called Schauenberger Codex, is now only a fragment, although there is a late and full copy made from this MS in 1579 (now Copenhagen, Royal Collection, 2288). According to the reconstruction and manuscript stemma suggested by Helmut Walther, these are the only witnesses to the original version of Arnold’s work, written c.1210. Subsequently, a year or two later, shortly before his death, he made a few minor revisions – the only witness to this stage is a MS formerly at Havelberg cathedral, which was transferred to Berlin during the nineteenth century, after 1837 (now Berlin, MS Lat. Fol. 296). Then, during the 1230s, someone else made some further (again relatively minor) revisions, while the monastery of St John was still at Lübeck, and before the community transferred to Cismar. The ur-text of this version, which does not survive, contained both Helmold’s work and Arnold’s together, as did almost all the later copies. At this stage Arnold’s work was probably still unknown outside his own monastic community, and perhaps at Ratzeburg if a copy had been given to Bishop Philip; certainly Albrecht of Stade, the leading historian of this same region in the mid-thirteenth century, does not seem tohavebeenawareofit.Itwouldappear that the work began to be distributed more widely only in the later thirteenth century. All the other surviving manuscripts, and at least two further ones now lost, appear to have been derived from the revised 1230s version, as was the Brunswick Historia de Duce H(e)inrico. Probably the most important manuscript of this redaction is Copenhagen, Royal Collection 646, fols 5–88, from the fourteenth century, which was transferred to the Danish capital after the

159 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, pp. 325–6. 160 Matthew, 5: 44. 36 Introduction secularisation of the monastery of Cismar in the seventeenth century.161 This was the base manuscript for Lappenberg’s edition, although he collated it with others. The fifteenth-century paper manuscript surviving in the Stadsbibliothek atLübeckwouldseemtobecloselyrelatedtothis.Afurtherredactionofthis revised version was, however, made at Cismar after 1283, contained in two surviving manuscripts (one a copy of the other) and in a now lost seventeenth- century manuscript once in the Vatican (Cod. Vat. Pal. Lat. 956). Some of book I is missing from this version, the earliest manuscript of which is Copen- hagen, University Library, Additamenta no. 50. The other known but lost manuscript, which contained the post-1283 version, was destroyed in a fire at Stettin in 1677.162 There may, of course, have been others; in particular, one would like to know what exactly was the cronica istius terre recorded in a list of the books of the cathedral library at Lübeck in 1297.163 Could this have been a now-lost copy of the chronicles of Helmold or Arnold, or indeed both? The first printed edition of Arnold’s chronicle was published by Siegmund Schorkel at Frankfurt in 1556. The text was derived from the post-1283 Cismar redaction. Several further early modern editions followed, including by the famous polymath Georg-Wilhelm Leibniz in his collection of Brunswick historians in the early eighteenth century.164 The only ‘modern’ edition remains that by Johannes Lappenberg (1794–1865), for many years the city archivist of Hamburg, published posthumously in 1868.165 A new edition for the MGH by Hans-Joachim Freytag was announced in the 1980s, but never completed. A new German translation, by Oliver Auge and Sebastian Modrow, with a commentary by Christian Lübke, is now in preparation for the series ‘Ausge- wählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters. Freiherr vom Stein- Gedächtnisausgabe’, but has not yet appeared. Furthermore, while this book

161 Ellen Jørgenson, Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Medii Aevi Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis (Copenhagen 1926), p. 397. 162 Walther, ‘Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck’,pp.7–23. Lappenberg’s discussion of the MSS is in his introduction published in the MGH Scriptores in folio edition, MGH SS xxi.106–12. Unfortunately this section was omitted from the MGH SRG edition. 163 Urkundenbuch des Bistum Lübecks, i.383–90, at p. 388. 164 Scriptores Rerum Brunsvicensium (3 vols, Hanover 1707–11). Helmold’s Chronica is to be found in vol. ii (1710), 537–629, immediately followed by that of Arnold, ibid., ii.629–743. 165 Lappenberg was a frequent contributor to the MGH, editing among other texts Thietmar of Merseburg, Adam of Bremen, Helmold (which also appeared posthumously) and the Annales Stadenses. He also edited the medieval charters of Ham- burg, and material relating to the Hanse. That his editions of Helmold and Arnold did not appear in his lifetime, although completed some years before his death, may have been due simply to the MGH’s publication schedule, or perhaps to the failing eyesight that blighted Lappenberg’s last years. Introduction 37 will contain a parallel Latin text, the latter will simply be a reprint of Lappen- berg’s edition. From the brief discussion above, it will be clear that an entirely new edition is much needed, a project that has been undertaken by Helmut Walther (Professor Emeritus at the University of Jena), but has unfortunately been much delayed. This will utilise the former Havelberg manuscript, which is the nearest to what Arnold himself actually wrote, as its base text. However, since it seems unlikely that this new edition will appear in the near future, there is clearly no reason to delay the present translation. References Acta Pontificorum Romanorum Inedita , ed. Julius von Pflugk-Harttung (3 vols, Leipzig 1880â6). Adam Bremensis, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae , ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, Hanover 1917). Annales Magdeburgenses , ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz , MGH SS xvi 105â96. Annales Marbacenses qui dicuntur , ed. Hermann Bloch (MGH SRG, Hanover 1907). Annales Palidenses , ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz , MGH SS xvi 48â98. Annales Pegavienses et Bosovienses , ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz , MGH SS xvi 232â70. Annales Ryenses , ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg , MGH SS xvi 386â410. Annales Stadenses , ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg , MGH SS xvi 271â379. Annales Stederbergenses , ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz , MGH SS xvi 197â231. Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum , ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg , with Georg Heinrich Pertz (MGH, SRG, Hanover 1868). Arnold von LÃ¼beck, Gesta Gregorii Peccatoris. Untersuchungen und Edition , ed. Johannes Schilling (GÃ¶ttingen 1986). Braunschweigische Reimchronik , ed. Ludwig Weiland , in MGH Deutsche Chronikon und andere GeschichtsbÃ¼cher des Mittelalters, ii Hanover 1877, 430â574. Burchardi Prepositus Urspergensis Chronicon , ed. Oswald Holder-Egger and Bernhard von Simson (MGH, SRG, Hanover 1916). Chronica Magni Presbyteri Continuatio , ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach , MGH SS xvii 523â534. Chronicon Montis Sereni , ed. Ernst Ehrenfeuchter , MGH SS xxiii 130â226. Chronica Regia Coloniensis , ed. Georg Waitz (MGH, SRG, Hanover 1880). Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis , ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SS xxx(1) 490â658). Chronica Rogeri de Hoveden , ed. William Stubbs (4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1868â71). [La] Chronique de Gislebert de Mons , ed. LÃ©on Vanderkindere (Brussels 1904). Das Geschichtswerk des Otto Morena und seiner Fortsetzer , ed. Ferdinand GÃ¼terbock (MGH SRG, Berlin 1930), 162, 177. De Expugnatione Terra Sanctae per Saladinum , in Ralph of Coggeshall , Chronicon Anglicanum , ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series, London 1875), 209â262. Ex Translatione Sancti Auctoris , ed. Philipp JaffÃ© (MGH SS xii 315â16). Germania Pontificia vi Provincia Hammaburgo-Bremensis , eds. Wolfgang SeegrÃ¼n and Theodor Schieffer (GÃ¶ttingen 1981). Germania Pontificia , V(2) Provincia Maguntinensis, Pars vi , ed. H. Jakobs (GÃ¶ttingen 2005). Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia. Recreation for an Emperor , eds and trans. S.E. Banks and J.W. Binns (Oxford 2002). Gesta Episcoporum Halberstadensium , ed. Ludwig Weiland , MGH SS xxiii 73â123. Gesta Episcoporum Metensium , ed. Georg Waitz , MGH SS x 531â551. Gesta Episcoporum Traiectensium , ed. Ludwig Weiland , MGH SS xxiii 400â426. 308 Gesta Treverorum, Continuatio III , ed. Georg Waitz , MGH SS xxiv 380â389. Gregory I , Dialogi Libri IV , ed. Umberto Moricca (Fonti per la storia dâItalia, Rome 1924). Hamburgische Urkundenbuch, i (786â1300) , ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg (Hamburg 1842). Heinrici Chronicon Livoniae , eds. Leonid Arbusow and Albrecht Bauer (MGH SRG, Hanover 1955). Helmoldi Presbyteri Bozoviensis Cronica Slavorum , ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (MGH SRG, 3rd ed., Hanover 1937). Iohannis Codagnelli, Annales Placentini Guelfi , ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1901). [Die] Jungere Hildesheimer Briefsammlung , ed. Rolf de Kegel (MGH Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit VII, Munich 1995). Lamperti Monachi Hersfeldensis Opera , ed. Oswald HolderâEgger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1894). [Die] Magdeburg SchÃ¶ppenchronik , ed. Karl Janicke (Die Chroniken der deutschen Stadte, vii(1), Leipzig 1869). Mainzer Urkundenbuch ii(2) 1176â1200 , ed. Peter Acht (Darmstadt 1978). Mecklenburgische Urkundenbuch i, ed. Verein fÅ«r mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde (Schwerin 1863). Metullus von Tegernsee, Expeditio Ierosolimitana , ed. Peter Christian Jacobson (Stuttgart 1982). Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, Saec. XII, XIII, XIV , ed. Oswald Holder-Egger (MGH SRG, Hanover 1899). Narratio de Morte Ottonis , in Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum , eds. Edmond MartÃ¨ne and Ursin Durand (5 vols, Paris 1717), iii 1373â8. Narratio Patriarche Hierosolymitani , in Edmond MartÃ¨ne and Ursin Durand , Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum (5 vols, Paris 1717), iii 269â87. Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, Historiens de Philippe-Auguste , ed. FranÃ§ois Delaborde (2 vols, Paris 1885). Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica , ed. Adolf Hofmeister (MGH SRG, Hanover 1912). [Die Chronik] Ottos von St. Blasien und die Marbacher Annalen , ed. Franz-Josef Schmale (AusgewÃ¤hlte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 17, Darmstadt 1998). Paul Peeters , âLa lÃ©gende de SaÃ¯dneiaâ, Analecta Bollandiana 25 (1906), 137â57. Peregrinationes Tres , ed. R.B.C. Huygens (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis 139, Turnhout 1994). Peter Lombard , Liber Sententiarum (MPL 192), cols 519â964. Policraticus IâIV , ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis 118, Turnhout 1993). Quellen zur deutschen Verfassungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte bis 1250 , ed. Lorenz Weinrich (Darmstadt 1977). Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I., ed. Anton Chroust (MGH SRG, Berlin 1928). Radulf of Diceto , Opera Historica , ed. William Stubbs (2 vols, Rolls Series, London 1876). 309 Regestum Innocentii III Papae super Negotio Romani Imperii , ed. Friedrich Kempf (Rome 1947). [Die] Register Innocenzâ III, 5 Pontifikatsjahr, 1202/1203 , eds. Otmar Hageneder , Christoph Egger , Karl Rudolph and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 1993). [Die] Register Innocenzâ III, 6 Pontifikatsjahr, 1203/1204 , eds. Otmar Hageneder , John C. Moore , Andrea Sommerlechner and Herwig Weigl (Vienna 1995). [Die] Register Innocenzâ III, 7 Pontifikatsjahr, 1204/1205 , eds. Otmar Hageneder , Andrea Sommerlechner and Herwig Weigl (Vienna 1997). [Die] Register Innocenzâ III, 8 Pontifikatsjahr, 1205/1206 , eds. Otmar Hageneder and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2001). [Die] Register Innocenzâ III, 10 Pontifikatsjahr, 1207/1208 , eds. Rainer Murauer and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2007). [Die] Register Innocenzâ III, 11 Pontifikatsjahr, 1208/1209 , eds. Otmar Hageneder and Andrea Sommerlechner (Vienna 2010). [Die] Register Innocenzâ III, 12 Pontifikatsjahr, 1209/1210 , eds. Andrea Sommerlechner and Otmar Hageneder (Vienna 2012). [Die] Reichschronik des Annalista Saxo , ed. Klaus NaÎ² , MGH SS xxxvi, Hanover 2006. Reineri Annales , ed. L.C. Bethmann , MGH SS xvi 651â680. Roger of Howden , Chronica , ed. William Stubbs (4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1868â71). Roger of Howden , Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi , ed. William Stubbs (2 vols, Rolls Series, London 1867). Stubbs considered the author of this history to be Abbot Benedict of Peterborough, but it has now been securely ascribed to Roger of Howden. Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, The History of the Danes , ed. Karsten Friis-Jensen , trans. Peter Fisher (2 vols, Oxford 2015). Scriptores Rerum Brunsvicensium , ed. G.W. Leibniz (3 vols, Hanover 1707â11). [Die] TotenbÃ¼cher von Merseburg, Magdeburg und LÃ¼neburg , eds. Gerd Althoff and Joachim Wollasch (MGH Libri Memoriales et Necrologia, n.s. 2, Hanover 1983). [Die] Urkunden Friedrichs I , ed. Heinrich Appelt (5 vols, MGH Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, x, Hannover 1975â90). [Die] Urkunden Heinrich des LÃ¶wen, Herzogs von Sachsen und Bayern , ed. Karl Jordan (MGH, Weimar 1949). [Die] Urkunden Konrads. III und seine Sohn Heinrich , ed. Friedrich Hausmann (MGH Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae ix, Vienna 1969). [Die] Urkunden Philipps von Schwaben , eds. Andrea Rzihacek and Renata Spreizer (MGH Diplomata 12, Wiesbaden 2014). [Das] Urkundenbuch der Stadt LÃ¼beck, i (1139â1470) (Codex Diplomaticus Lubecensis, Ser. I(i), LÃ¼beck 1843). Urkundenbuch des Bistums LÃ¼beck, i, ed. Wilhelm Leverkus (Codex Diplomaticus Lubecensis, Ser. II(i), Oldenburg 1856). Urkundenbuch des Hochstifts Hildesheim i (bis 1221) , ed. Karl Janicke (Leipzig 1896). âVita Arnaldi Archiepiscopi Moguntiniâ, in Monumenta Moguntina , ed. Philipp JaffÃ© (Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum 3, Berlin 1866), 604â675. Martin Wagendorfer , âEine bisher unbekannte (Teil-) Ãberlieferung des Saladin-Briefs an Kaiser Friedrich I. Barbarossaâ, Deutsches Archiv fÃ¼r Erforschung des Mittelalters 65 (2009), 565â584. 310 William of Malmesbury , Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings , eds. R.A.B. Mynors , Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom (2 vols, Oxford 1998â9). William of Newburgh , Historia Regum Anglicarum , in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I , ed. R. Howlett , 4 vols, Rolls Series, London 1884â90, iâii, 1â583. Registrum Henrici VI. (Regesta Imperii IV.3.1, Staufer Kaiser und KÃ¶nige), www.regesta- imperii.de/heinrichsVI. Registrum Ottonis IV. (Regesta Imperii V.1.1, Staufer Kaiser und KÃ¶nige), www.regesta- imperii.de/OttoIV. Vorabedition Urkunden Heinrichs VI. fÃ¼r deutsche, franzÃ¶siche und Italienische EmpfÃ¤nger , www.mgh.de/daenbanken/diplomata/urkunden-heinrichs-vi. Marianne Ailes and Malcolm Barber , The History of the Holy War. Ambroiseâs Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ii Translation (Woodbridge 2003). Alfred Andrea , Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden 2000). Emily A. Babcock and August C. Krey , William of Tyre, A History of Deeds done beyond the Sea (2 vols, New York 1943). Joseph L. Baird and Radd K. Ehrmann , The Letters of Hildegard of Bingen (2 vols, Oxford 1998). Charles M. Brand , Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, by John Kinnamus (New York 1976). James A. Brundage , The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia. Henricus Lettus (2nd ed., New York 2003). Dione R. Clementi , âCalendar of the diplomas of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Henry VI concerning the kingdom of Sicilyâ, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 35 (1955), 86â225. Peter W. Edbury , The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade. Sources in Translation (Crusade Texts in Translation 1, Aldershot 1996). Gwenyth Hood , Book in Honour of Augustus (Liber ad Honorem Augusti) by Pietro da Eboli (Tempe (AR) 2012). G.A. Loud , The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts (Crusade Texts in Translation 19, Farnham 2010). Harry J. Magoulias , O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates (Detroit 1984). Charles Christopher Mierow , The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa by Otto of Freising and his Continuator, Rahewin (New York 1953). Laura Napran , Gilbert of Mons, Chronicle of Hainaut (Woodbridge 2005). Helen Nicholson , Chronicle of the Third Crusade. A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi (Crusade Texts in Translation 3, Aldershot 1997). Denys Pringle , Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187â1291 (Crusade Texts in Translation 23, Farnham 2012). 311 Donald Sidney Richards , The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, or al-NawÄdir al- SultÄniyya waâl-MahÄsin al-YÅ«sufiyya by BahÄâ al-DÄ«n Ibn ShaddÄd (Crusade Texts in Translation 7, Aldershot 2002). Donald Sidney Richards , The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fiâl-Taârikh (3 vols, Crusade Texts in Translation 13, 15 and 17, Farnham 2005â8). Ian Stuart Robinson , The Annals of Lampert of Hersfeld (Manchester 2015). Francis J. Tschan , The Chronicle of the Slavs by Helmold, Priest of Bosau (New York 1935). Francis J. Tschan , History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, Adam of Bremen (2nd ed., New York 2002) [first published 1959]. Gerd Althoff , âDie Historiographie bewÃ¤ltigt. Der Sturz Heinrichs des LÃ¶wen in der Darstellung Arnolds von LÃ¼beckâ, in Die Welfen und ihr Braunschweiger Hof im hohen Mittelalter , ed. Bernd SchneidmÃ¼ller (Wiesbaden 1995), pp. 163â182. Alfred J. Andrea , âConrad of Krosigk, Bishop of Halberstadt, Crusader and monk of Sittichenbach: his ecclesiastical career, 1184â1225â, Analecta Cisterciensia 43 (1987), 11â91. Oliver Auge , âPomerania, Mecklenburg and the âBaltic frontierâ: Adaptation and alliancesâ, in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100â1350. Essays by German Historians , eds. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 264â279. Robert Bartlett , Why Can the Dead do such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton 2013). Thomas S. Boase , The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia (Edinburgh 1978). Charles M. Brand , âThe Byzantines and Saladin: opponents of the Third Crusadeâ, Speculum 37 (1962), 167â181. Andrea Briechle , Heinrich von Braunschweig. Bilder eines welfischen FÃ¼rsten an der Wende vom 12. zum 13. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg 2013). Ane L. Bysted , Carsten Selch Jensen , Kurt Villads Jensen and John H. Lind , Jerusalem in the North. Denmark and the Baltic Crusades 1100â1522 (Turnhout 2012). [A] Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts of the British Museum (4 vols, London 1808). Penny J. Cole , ââO God, the heathen have come into your inheritanceâ (Ps. 78.1). The theme of religious pollution in Crusade documents, 1095â1188â, in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth- Century Syria , ed. Maya Shatzmiller (Leiden 1993), pp. 84â111. Domenico Comparetti , Virgil in the Middle Ages , trans. E.F.M. Benecke (London 1895), p. 268. Peter Csendes , Heinrich VI (Darmstadt 1993). GÃ©rard DÃ©dÃ©yan , âDe la prise de Thessalonique par les Normands (1185) Ã¡ la croisade de FrÃ©dÃ©ric Barbarousse (1189â90): le revirement politico-religieux des pouvoirs armÃ©niensâ, in Chemins dâOutre-Mer. Ãtudes sur la MÃ©diterranÃ©e mÃ©diÃ©vale offertes Ã Michel Balard , eds. Damien Coulon , Catherine Otten , Paule Page and Dominique Valerian (2 vols, Paris 2004), i.183â196. 312 Paul Devos , âLes premiÃ¨res versions occidentales de la lÃ©gende de SaÃ¯dnaiaâ, Analecta Bollandiana 65 (1947), 245â278. Joachim Ehlers , Heinrich der LÃ¶we. Eine Biographie (Munich 2008). Ekkehard Eickhoff , Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient: Kreuzzug und Tod Friedrichs I. (TÃ¼bingen 1977). [The] Encyclopedia of the Crusades, ed. Alan V. Murray (4 vols, Santa Barbara 2006). Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt , The Popes and the Baltic Crusades 1147â1254 (Leiden 2007). John B. Freed , Frederick Barbarossa. The Prince and the Myth (New Haven 2016). Stephan Freund , âSymbolische Kommunication und quellenkritische Probleme â Arnold von LÃ¼beck und das Mainzer Pfingest von 1184â, in Die Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck. Neue Wege zu ihrem VerstÃ¤ndnis , eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd SchÃ¼tte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 73â111. Hans-Joachim Freytag , âDer Nordosten des Reiches nach dem Sturz Heinrichs des LÃ¶wen. Bischof Waldemar von Schleswig und das Erzbistum Bremen (1192/3)â, Deutsches Archiv fÃ¼r Erforschung des Mittelalters 25 (1969), 471â530. Hans-Joachim Freytag , âDie Eroberung Nordelbingens durch den dÃ¤nischen KÃ¶nig im Jahre 1201â, in Aus Reichsgeschichte und Nordische Geschichte. Karl Jordan zum 65. Geburtstag , eds. Horst Fuhrmann , Hans Eberhard Mayer and Klaus Wiedt (Stuttgart 1972), pp. 222â243. Klaus Ganzer , âZur BeschrÃ¤nkung der Bischofswahl auf die Domkapitel in Theorie und Praxis des 12. und 13. Jahrhundertâ, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fÃ¼r Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 88 (1972), 166â197. John Gillingham , âRichard I and Berengaria of Navarreâ, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980), 157â173. John Gillingham , âThe kidnapped king: Richard I in Germany 1192â1194â, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, London 30 (2008), 5â34. Knut GÃ¶rich , Friedrich Barbarossa, eine Biographie (Munich 2011). Knut GÃ¶rich and Hans Henning KortÃ¼m , âOtto III., Thangmar und die Vita Bernwardiâ, Mitteilungen des Instituts Ã¶sterreichische Geschichtsforschung 98 (1990), 1â57. Joachim Halbekann , Die Ã¤lteren Grafen von Sayn (Wiesbaden 1997). John Haldon , Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565â1204 (London 1999). Bernard Hamilton , âRebuilding Zion: the holy places of Jerusalem in the twelfth centuryâ, Studies in Church History 14 (1977), 105â116. Bernard Hamilton , The Latin Church in the Crusader States. The Secular Church (London 1980). Bernard Hamilton , âOur Lady of Saidnaya: an orthodox shrine revered by both Muslims and Knights Templar at the time of the Crusadesâ, Studies in Church History 36 (2000), 207â215. Bernard Hamilton , The Leper King and his Heirs. Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge 2000). Matthias Hardt , âLÃ¼beck in der Zeit Arnoldsâ, in Die Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck. Neue Wege zu ihrem VerstÃ¤ndnis , eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd SchÃ¼tte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 175â189. 313 Michael Hendy , Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300â1450 (Cambridge 1985), pp. 518â519. Rudolf Hiestand , âAntiocha, Sizilien und das Reich am Ende des 12. Jahrhundertsâ, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 73 (1993), 70â121. Hartmut Hoffmann , âBohmen und das deutsche Reich in hohen Mittelalterâ, Jahrbuch fÃ¼r Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands 18 (1969), 1â62. John D. Hosler , The Siege of Acre 1189â91. Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, and the Battle that Decided the Third Crusade (New Haven 2018). Hubert Houben , âPhilipp von Heinsberg, Heinrich VI und Montecassino. Mit einen Exkurs zum Todesdatum Papst Clemens IIIâ, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 68 (1988), 52â73. Bernd Ulrich Hucker , âDie Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck als âHistoria Regumââ, Deutsches Archiv fÃ¼r Erforschung des Mittelalters 44 (1988), 98â119. Bernd Ulrich Hucker , Kaiser Otto IV (Hanover 1990). Evelyn M. Jamison , Admiral Eugenius of Sicily. His Life and Work and the Authorship of the Epistola ad Petrum and the Historia Hugonis Falcandi Siculi (London 1957). Einar Joranson , âThe Palestine pilgrimage of Henry the Lionâ, in Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson , eds. James Lea Cates and Eugene N. Anderson (Chicago 1938), pp. 146â225. Karl Jordan , âHeinrich der LÃ¶we und seine Familieâ, Archiv fÃ¼r Diplomatik 27 (1981), 111â144. Karl Jordan , Henry the Lion , trans. P.S. Falla (Oxford 1986). Ellen JÃ¸rgenson , Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Medii Aevi Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis (Copenhagen 1926). Norbert Kamp , Moneta Regis. KÃ¶nigliche MÃ¼nzstÃ¤tten und kÃ¶nigliche MÃ¼nzpolitik in der Stauferzeit (Hanover 2006). Benjamin Z. Kedar , âConvergences of Oriental Christian, Muslim and Frankish worshippers: the case of Saydnaya and the Knights Templarâ, in The Crusades and the Military Orders. Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity , eds. Zsolt Hunyadi and JÃ³zsef Laszlovszky (Budapest 2001), pp. 89â100. Karl Leyser , âThe crisis of medieval Germanyâ, Proceedings of the British Academy 69 (1983), pp. 409â443. Karl Leyser , âFrederick Barbarossa and the Hohenstaufen polityâ, Viator 19 (1988), 153â176. Bruce Lincoln , âAn early moment in the discourse of terrorism: reflections on a tale from Marco Poloâ, Comparative Studies in Society and History 48 (2006), 242â259. Jean Longnon , Les Compagnons de Villehardouin: Recherches sur les CroisÃ©s de la QuatriÃ¨me Croisade (Geneva 1978). Friedrich Lotter , âThe Crusading idea and the conquest of the regions to the east of the Elbeâ, in Medieval Frontier Societies , eds. Robert Bartlett and Angus Mackay (Oxford 1989), pp. 267â306. G.A. Loud , âThe kingdom of Sicily and the kingdom of England, 1066â1266â, History 88 (2003), 540â567. G.A. Loud , âThe German Crusade of 1197â1198â, Crusades 13 (2014), 143â171. 314 G.A. Loud , âCrusade and holy war in the chronicle of Arnold of LÃ¼beckâ, in Texts and Contexts: Studies in Religious and Intellectual History presented to I. S. Robinson , eds. Thomas McCarthy and Christine Meek (Amsterdam forthcoming). Christian LÃ¼bke , âArnold von LÃ¼beck und die Slavenâ, in Die Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck. Neue Wege zu ihrem VerstÃ¤ndnis , eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd SchÃ¼tte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 191â202. Jonathan R. Lyon , Princely Brothers and Sisters. The Sibling Bond in German Politics, 1100â1250 (Ithaca 2013). Malcom Cameron Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson , Saladin. The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge 1982). Paul Magdalino , The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143â1180 (Cambridge 1993). Werner Maleczek , Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216 (Vienna 1984). Hans Eberhard Mayer , The Crusades , trans. John Gillingham (2nd ed., Oxford 1988). Brian Patrick McGuire , The Cistercians in Denmark. Their Attitudes, Roles and Functions in Medieval Society (Kalamazoo 1982). Alan V. Murray , âMighty against the enemies of Christ. The relic of the True Cross in the armies of the kingdom of Jerusalemâ, in The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton , eds. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot 1998), pp. 217â238. Claudia Naumann , Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Heinrichs VI (Frankfurt am Main 1994). Torben K. Nielsen , âThe missionary man: Archbishop Anders Sunesen and the Baltic Crusade, 1206â21â, in Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier 1150â1500 , ed. Alan V. Murray (Aldershot 2001), pp. 95â117. Stephan Panzer , âArnolds Chronik â Darstellungsabsicht und Addressatenâ, in Die Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck. Neue Wege zu ihrem VerstÃ¤ndnis , eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd SchÃ¼tte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 45â71. Paul B. Pixton , The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1216â1245. Watchmen on the Tower (Leiden 1995). Bernward Platte , âGregorius Peccator. Hartmann von Aue und Arnold von LÃ¼beckâ, Mittellateinische Jahrburch 28 (1994), 67â90. Austin Lane Poole , âDie Welfen in der Verbannungâ, Deutsches Archiv fÃ¼r Erforschung des Mittelalters 2 (1938), 129â148. Timothy Reuter , â Episcopa cum sua militia: the prelate as warrior in the early Staufer eraâ, in Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages. Essays Presented to Karl Leyser , ed. Timothy Reuter (London 1992), pp. 79â94. Thomas Riis , âMonasteries and cultural centres: the case of Schleswig-Holstein with LÃ¼beck and Hamburgâ, in Monastic Culture: The Long Thirteenth Century. Essays in Honour of Brian Patrick McGuire (Odense 2014), pp. 102â117. Ian Stuart Robinson , The Papacy 1073â1198. Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge 1990). Jorg Rogge , Die Wettiner. Aufstieg einer Dynastie im Mittelalter (Ostfilden 2009). Bernd SchneidmÃ¼ller , âBillunger â Welfen â Askanier. Eine genealogische Bildtafel aus dem Braunschweiger Blasius-Stift und das hochadlige FamilienbewuÎ²tsein in Sachsen um 1300â, Archiv fÃ¼r Kulturgeschichte 69 (1987), 30â61. Bernd SchneidmÃ¼ller , Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung (Stuttgart 2000). 315 Bernd SchÃ¼tte , KÃ¶nig Philipp von Schwaben. Itinerar, Urkundenvergabe, Hof (Hanover 2002). Bernd SchÃ¼tte , âStaufer und Welfen in der Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beckâ, in Die Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck. Neue Wege zu ihrem VerstÃ¤ndnis , eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd SchÃ¼tte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 113â148. Volker Scior , Das Eigene und das Fremde. IdentitÃ¤t und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremem, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von LÃ¼beck (Berlin 2002). Volker Scior , âZwischen terra nostra und terra sancta. Arnold von LÃ¼beck als Geschichtsschreiberâ, in Die Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck. Neue Wege zu ihrem VerstÃ¤ndnis eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd SchÃ¼tte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 149â174. Marcus Stumpf , âZum Quellenwert von Thangmars Vita Bernwardiâ, Deutsches Archiv fÃ¼r Erforschung des Mittelalters 53 (1997), 461â496. Carol Sweetenham , âWhat really happened to Eurvin de CrÃ©elâs donkey? Anecdotes in sources for the First Crusadeâ, in Writing the Early Crusades , eds. Marcus Bull and Damien Kempf (Woodbridge 2014), pp. 75â88. Stefan Tebruck , âThe propaganda of power. memoria, history and patronageâ, in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100â1350 , eds. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 160â180. Helmut G. Walther , âDie handschriftliche Ãberlieferung der Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beckâ, in Die Chronik Arnolds von LÃ¼beck. Neue Wege zu ihrem VerstÃ¤ndnis , eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd SchÃ¼tte (Frankfurt 2008), pp. 7â23. Hans-Peter Wehlt , Reichsabtei und KÃ¶nig (GÃ¶ttingen 1970). Stefan Weinfurter and Odilo Engels eds., Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae Occidentis, Series V Germania, ii Archiepiscopatus Hammaburgensis sive Bremensis (Stuttgart 1984). Gabriel Zeilinger , âUrban lordshipsâ, in The Origins of the German Principalities, 1100â1350. Essays by German Historians , ed. G.A. Loud and Jochen Schenk (London 2017), pp. 60â67. Barbara Zenker , Die Mitglieder des Kardinalskollegiums von 1130 bis 1154 (WÃ¼rzburg 1964).