University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The History Collection

Page View

Baldwin, M. W. (ed.) / The first hundred years

XII: The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099-1118,   pp. 368-409 PDF (16.5 MB)

Page 378

Godfrey became vassals of the new patriarch. As Yewdale has pointed out,
Bohemond in doing homage to the patriarch of Jerusalem hoped that he had
secured a title to Antioch which would be acceptable to the Latin world.12
Up to this time he had felt his position compromised by his violation of
his oath to restore Antioch to the emperor Alexius. Having secured a title
at the price of acquiring an absentee sovereign who would trouble him not
at all, Bohemond departed for Antioch after Christmas. Baldwin of Edessa
left at the same time. There is no record that he defended Godfrey's position
against Bohemond and Daimbert. Probably he was not strong enough to oppose
Bohemond. Nor is there any record that he did homage to Daimbert. He had
nothing to gain by doing so. Arnulf was given what consolation he could find
in the important position of archdeacon of the Holy Sepulcher. 
 Godfrey was left to deal with his new suzerain. Daimbert was an able and
ambitious man. He had dominated the affairs of Pisa as if it were, in the
words of Moeller, "a sort of episcopal republic,"3 and at a time when Pisa
was extending its influence in Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and even Valencia.
He stood high in the counsels of pope Urban, who had elevated him to the
rank of archbishop in 1092, and had used him as a legate in Castile and Sardinia.
Daimbert had accompanied Urban to the Council of Clermont in 1095 and on
the great speaking tour that followed the next winter and spring. They were
both supporters of the Cluniac reform movement in the church, which sought
to free the latter from domination by the feudal princes. Such a man, though
he seems, as we have noticed, to have been neither papal legate nor patriarchdesignate,
would play no modest role in Jerusalem. He at once demanded possession of
the city of Jerusalem with its citadel, of the Tower of David, and of the
port of Jaffa, the essential link with Europe. Godfrey, weak in resources
and probably conscious of the need of church support from the west, reluctantly
made formal cession of a fourth part of the port of Jaffa, February 2, 1100,
and of the city of Jerusalem itself on Easter Sunday, April i. Title was
vested in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, to which as well as to the patriarch
the Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher swore homage. But on the latter occasion
Godfrey inserted the provision that he would retain physical possession of
 12 Krey, "Urban's Crusade," AHR, LIII (1948), 245, n. 32; R. B. Yewdale,
Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924), p. 91. 
 13 C. Moeller, "Godefroy de Bouillon et 1' avouerie du saint-sepulchre,"
Mélanges Godefroid 
Kurth (Liege and Paris, 1908), p. 79. See also W. Heywood, History of Pisa
192!), pp. 12—13. 

Go up to Top of Page