The siege of Lisbon and the second crusade.

Publication: Portuguese Studies

Publication Date: 01-JAN-04

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2004 Modern Humanities Research Association

At one time the participation of a northern fleet in the capture of Lisbon in 1147 was seen by most commentators as an unplanned matter: the Portuguese ruler Afonso Henriques merely took advantage of the fact that a crusading fleet had put into Porto on its way down the Iberian coast. More recently this view has been challenged. It has been argued that St Bernard had sought to promote Afonso Henriques's proposed campaign and had even been preaching the cross in the Low Countries in aid of the reconquista in Portugal, and that co-operation with the Portuguese had been discussed and planned before the fleet set sail: northern participation at the siege of Lisbon was premeditated. (1) This interpretation of the attack on Lisbon is seen as a further indication that the second crusade was planned as an assault on all non-Christian powers. (2) Yet the evidence which has been adduced to support this reading of events is scarcely compelling.

The case for St Bernard's involvement rests largely on a short letter attributed to him, usually referred to as letter 308:

To Afonso, illustrious king of the Portuguese, Bernard, in name Abbot of Clairvaux, the prayer of a sinner, if that is of any worth. We have received the letters and greetings of your Highness, rejoicing in him 'who commands deliverances for Jacob'. What we have done in this matter, the outcome will reveal for us, and you will also discover from the outcome; you will discern our readiness to act from the care we have taken or at least from our known friendship. Pedro, the brother of your Highness, and worthy of all glory, related the matters enjoined on him by you, and is now fighting in Lorraine, after roaming in arms through France; and he is soon to fight for the Lord of hosts. Brother Roland, our son, is bringing letters conveying the papal concessions. May you commit to your care him, our brothers residing with you, and myself. (3)

Its authenticity has in recent years been accepted and defended against those who have viewed it as a forgery, and it has been argued that it refers to the proposed Lisbon campaign: St Bernard was giving his backing to the proposed expedition against the Moors and was also enlisting papal support. (4) This letter first appears in Brito's Chronica de Cister, published in 1602; (5) and it is generally accepted that this work is based partly on documents which are not genuine. (6) No individual manuscript of letter 308 exists, and it is not found in any early collection of St Bernard's letters. (7) Its provenance therefore gives legitimate grounds for caution and for examining its text closely in order to determine whether it is in fact genuine.

Doubts are raised first by the incipit. Afonso Henriques is addressed as king, a title that the papacy did not allow to Portuguese rulers until 1179. If the letter is genuine it has to be assumed that St Bernard was ignorant of the papal stance in the 1140s, even though it would have to be accepted that he had been in consultation with Eugenius III about Portuguese affairs shortly before the dispatch of the letter. (8)

Doubts have also been expressed about the existence of Pedro, Afonso Henriques's supposed brother, who is mentioned in the letter. (9) This is admittedly not the only reference to him: he is named in several late-medieval chronicles, such as the narratives known as Cronicas dos sete primeiros reis and Cronica de cinco reis, which originated in the early fifteenth century, (10) and also the fourth of the Cronicas breves of Santa Cruz de Coimbra, which has been ascribed to the fourteenth century; (11) and Livermore concludes that 'if the Cronica de Cinco Reis is accepted, then he existed'. (12) But Livermore does not examine the reliability of this and other chronicles.

In chronicle sources, references to Pedro appear in two contexts. He is mentioned first in what seems to be a mythical account of the foundation of the monastery of Alcobaca. It is related that, before the attack on Santarem in March 1147, Pedro spoke to Afonso Henriques about miracles wrought by St Bernard, and the Portuguese ruler promised to give the whole district, if he gained it, to the Cistercians and to found a monastery there. This vow was immediately miraculously revealed to St Bernard in France, and he sent a group of monks with copies of Cistercian regulations: the monastery was established. (13) But these accounts are in some versions introduced by the word 'acertouse', which indicates that the chroniclers were reporting merely a rumour, and elsewhere in the Cronica de cinco reis and Cronicas dos sete primeiros reis prayers said by the canons of Santa Cruz de Coimbra for the success of the attack on Santarem are stressed. (14) The story of the vow seems in fact to be a myth. It is not mentioned in the earlier De expugnatione Scalabis. (15) In the foundation document of Alcobaca which Afonso Henriques issued in 1153, six years after the conquest of Santarem, there is no reference to a vow, as there is in the charter in which Afonso Henriques gave rights in Santarem to the Templars in 1147: (16) in this he stated that, on setting out towards Santarem,

I conceived a plan in my heart and vowed a vow that if God [...] granted it to me, I would give all ecclesiastical rights there to God and the brother knights of the Temple of Solomon, based in Jerusalem for the defence of the Holy Sepulchre, some of whom were with me in my army. (17)

It seems possible that the tale about Afonso Henriques's vow to found a Cistercian monastery has its origins in the promise actually made to the Templars. (18)

The second reference to Pedro occurs in descriptions of the capture of Santarem. In most of the later chronicle accounts, however, the member of the royal family who was the first to enter the city was reported to be not Afonso Henriques's brother but his illegitimate son Pedro Afonso. (19) The second version of the Cronica geral mentions 'Pero Affonso, filho del rey de gaaca', (20) while the Cronica de cinco reis and the Cronicas dos sete primeiros reis allude to 'Pedro Afonso, filho del Rey bastardo'. (21) It is only in an account found in the same sixteenth- or seventeenth- century manuscript as the Cronica de cinco reis, but which is distinct from that chronicle, that...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.