Stefan Schröder 5 The Encounter with Islam between Doctrinal Image and Life Writing: Ambrosius Zeebout’s Report of Joos van Ghistele’s Travels to the East 1481–1485 [I]nt jaer ons Heeren zes hondert ende viere, als Bonefacius de vierde paus was inde heleghe kercke van Roome, ende Focas domineerde ende rengneerde over tkeyserijc, ende Cosdrue bezadt dat keyserijc van Perssen ende vele provincien daer onttrent, de welke zeere groote oorloghe voerende was jeghens de heleghe kerstin Keercke, so wart in Ara- bien gheboren de valsche bedriegher Machomet den xiiijen dach van aprille int jaer zes hondert ende zesse. [In the year of the Lord 604, when Boniface IV was pope of the Holy Roman Church, and Phocas reigned the empire (of Eastern Rome), and Khosrau II ruled the Persian empire with many provinces thereabouts which led great wars against the Holy Christian Church, the false traitor Muḥammad was born in Arabia on 24 April in the year 606.]1 With this somewhat internally contradictory (and historically inaccurate) pro- nouncement, Ambrosius Zeebout begins his description of the ‘birth, life, and faults’ of the Prophet Muḥammad that forms part of his book on Joos van Ghi- stele’s Eastern travels.2 Zeebout’s account is flawed from the outset, insofar as it provides two contradictory dates for Muḥammad’s birth in a single sen- tence – probably a slip of the pen or the result of sloppy compilation from different sources. The year 606 and the information regarding the clerical and worldly leaders of the day can be traced back to a pilgrimage report written by Bernhard von Breidenbach (c. 1434/1440–1497).3 This text – printed for the first time in 1486 – was Zeebout’s major source on Muḥammad and Islam, but in the case of this specific passage he ignored the broader context. Breidenbach 1 Zeebout 1998, 9. I am very grateful to Evelien Timpener M.A. (Hannover) for her help with some passages of Zeebout’s text. 2 The actual year of Muḥammad’s birth is unknown, but is estimated to be c. 570. In most cases, no year of birth was mentioned in accounts of his lineage and the circumstances of his birth. 3 Breidenbach 2010, 290–291. According to Bernhard von Breidenbach, however, Muḥammad was born on 23 April. In what follows, I will use the German edition of Breidenbach’s report, which was published with only a few minor changes a few months after the first printed edi- tion of the Latin version. For the publication history, see Timm 2006. © 2015, Schröder, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. 84 Stefan Schröder characterized these years as a very unstable period, during which Christians suffered greatly. In particular, Constantinople was presented as the target of constant attack by infidels. The date of Muḥammad’s birth was not chosen at random. The turbulence of the time was interpreted as a sign of an even greater evil to come. Even if Zeebout did not completely adhere to Breidenbach’s assessment, he did adopt Breidenbach’s tone for his own narrative of Muḥammad’s life and the Islamic faith. He made it clear to his readers from the outset that Muḥam- mad was the false prophet of a religion rife with error. But why exactly did he choose to include information about Islam in a report that was primarily devot- ed to the Flemish knight Joos van Ghistele and his remarkable travels in the East? What exactly does the text say about Islam and Muslims? And what do Zeebout’s dogmatic depictions of Islam have to do with Ghistele’s travels? This article explores the narratives about Islam and the Muslims and the options available as well as limitations faced in presenting information about transcultural contacts to the audience at home. Zeebout’s text and the sources he used, as well as contemporary travel reports, will be compared and ana- lysed to determine the nature of the (North) European image of the Muslim Other and the different functions it served. In this context, Otherness is under- stood as an attribution that is used to mark what is seen different, unfamiliar or exotic.4 Factors of difference are, for example, the spatial distance, the eth- nos, the faith, and cultural customs. Yet in most cases it is a combination of them all that is changeable and outlined every time anew. Cognitively and cul- turally solidified as stereotypes, they give orientation in the world and affect the patterns of perception of a person.5 Since the Other and the Self are interre- lated concepts, defining the Other influenced how the narrator saw, or wanted to see, himself and his culture. Given that Ambrosius Zeebout did not travel with Joos van Ghistele, but was commissioned to write his account, this article will also address Zeebout’s narrative strategy for incorporating knowledge from written sources with information he may have received directly from Ghistele. 4 On medieval studies dealing with the concept of the Self and the Other, see the recent over- view of Classen 2013. On the connection between this concept and travel reports, see with further references Münkler 2000; Reichert 2001; Schröder 2009; Meyer 2012. 5 A stereotype as such has either a negative or a positive connotation. For a definition and an explanation of the difference to prejudices, see, for example, Roth 1999. The Encounter with Islam Between Doctrinal Image and Life Writing 85 5.1 Joos van Ghistele’s travels and Zeebout’s Tvoyage The travels of Joos van Ghistele (1446–1516) to the East are remarkable for their unusual routes and for his motive for undertaking them. When the nobleman, who held several high-level political positions in Ghent, and who had impor- tant connections to the court in Burgundy, decided to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he probably did not think it would be four years before he saw his hometown again.6 Unlike the ‘all-inclusive’ trip to Jerusalem offered annually by Venetian patricians – an easy but pricy way to reach the Holy Sites7 – the travels of Joos van Ghistele and his chaplain Jan van Quisthout8 have more the quality of a Grand Tour. Besides the Holy Land, they visited Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula, Syria, some of the Aegean islands, and Sicily, as well as Tunis and Carthage in North Africa. Their most significant trips were those to the city of Aden on the Red Sea and to the city of Tabriz near the Caspian Sea. In both cases, they were prevented from traveling further East – once by local Muslim authorities and once by rumours of an outbreak of pestilence.9 According to Ambrosius Zeebout, the decision to go further East had been made very early on in the journey. During a stop in Cologne to visit the Shrine of the Three Kings, they heard that travellers from the Low Countries who were carrying jewels that had touched the bodies or tombs of the Kings were very welcome in the lands of Prester John. Ghistele decided to travel beyond Jerusa- lem to visit the tomb of the Apostle Thomas in India.10 The tale of a mighty Christian king and descendant of the three Magi, who ruled over numerous kingdoms and lived in incredible luxury somewhere in India near Paradise, had been very popular in Europe since the twelfth cen- 6 On the life of Joos van Ghistele, see with further references Villerius 2008–2009; Villerius 2009; Strijbosch 2010. 7 This trip from Venice to Jaffa and back lasted approximately six months and would have included a guided tour to the Holy Sites in Jerusalem, in Bethlehem, and along the Jordan River. 8 His other companions – his nephew Joris van Ghistele, Jan van Vaernewijck, and Joris Pa- linc – returned to Europe after visiting the Holy Land. 9 For a complete itinerary of their travels, see Zeebout 1998, 8–10 (maps); Paravicini 2000, 137–138. 10 Zeebout 1998, 48–49. As Bejczy (1994, 87) has pointed out, this section is probably a mis- reading of the Middle Dutch version of the Historia trium regum of John of Hildesheim, who mentions that “Indian pilgrims liked to purchase jewels that had been brought into contact with the Three Kings in Cologne, and that pilgrims and merchants ‘from that country’ take advantage of this.” 86 Stefan Schröder tury.11 It was a story connected to the hope of defeating the Muslims. The weak- er the position of the Christians in the Near East, the stronger the belief in a great power prepared to help overthrow Islam and re-conquer the Holy Land.12 The vision of a Christian realm in the East persisted in the fourteenth and fif- teenth centuries, as can be seen, for example, in another of Zeebout’s main sources, the widely read report on John Mandeville’s 1357–1371 trip around the world.13 Zeebout’s explanation of the length of Ghistele’s voyage is that he hoped to visit the lands of Prester John (and perhaps establish diplomatic con- tact). This placed him in the tradition of other famous travellers to Eastern Asia.14 Moreover, the hardships of a journey to the grave of St. Thomas would demonstrate his piety and bravery and increase his prestige at home. In this way, more temporal motives for the journey – curiosity, the quest for adven- ture, or even the complex political situation in the Low Countries – were taste- fully masked.15 Ambrosius Zeebout was not part of the party that accompanied Ghistele on his journey.