The renowned history of the crusader states Bernard
Hamilton has argued that Baldwin IV's mother, Agnes
de Courtney, had the “misfortune” to have “bad relations to the press.” He notes that “all contemporary sources are
hostile to her”, but argues that that “her influence was not as baneful as the
Ibelins and the Archbishop of Tyre would like posterity to presume.” He then
goes on to describe Agnes’ rival, Maria Comnena, as “a ruthless and scheming
woman.” Now Bernard Hamilton is a noted historian, but my father taught me to
judge a person by his/her deeds — not by what others said about them. Dr. Schrader provides a rebuttal to Hamilton.
So let us look at the record, not the reputation, of the wives of Amalric I of Jerusalem: Agnes de Courtney and Maria Comnena.
Agnes de Courtney
was, according to Malcolm Barber, betrothed to Hugh d’Ibelin, but instead
married Prince (later King) Amalric of Jerusalem. Whether she did this
voluntarily is not recorded. She might have been seduced or abducted, or she
might also have been very happy to give up the comparatively obscure and
unimportant Hugh in favor of the heir apparent to the throne. Whatever her motives at the time of her
marriage, when Baldwin III died childless, the High Court of Jerusalem had such
strong objections to Agnes that they refused to acknowledge Amalric as King of
Jerusalem unless he set Agnes aside.
Why, we do not know. There was the issue of being married within the prohibited degrees on consanguinity, and the issue of the pre-contract with Hugh d’Ibelin, both of which were canonical grounds for divorce. However, the objections of the High Court are not likely to have been legalistic in view of the fact that the High Court explicitly recognized Amalric’s children by Agnes as legitimate. This strongly suggests that the High Court was not uneasy about the legality of Amalric’s marriage but about the character of his wife. Perhaps it was simply the fact that she was a powerful woman, or a notoriously grasping one, or perhaps, as the Chronicle of Ernoul suggests, she was seen as insufficiently virtuous for such an elevated position as queen in the Holy City. Such speculation is beside the point; the naked fact is that Agnes was found unsuitable for a crown by the majority of the High Court. That’s a pretty damning sentence even without knowing the reason, and that’s not just a matter of “bad press.”
Why, we do not know. There was the issue of being married within the prohibited degrees on consanguinity, and the issue of the pre-contract with Hugh d’Ibelin, both of which were canonical grounds for divorce. However, the objections of the High Court are not likely to have been legalistic in view of the fact that the High Court explicitly recognized Amalric’s children by Agnes as legitimate. This strongly suggests that the High Court was not uneasy about the legality of Amalric’s marriage but about the character of his wife. Perhaps it was simply the fact that she was a powerful woman, or a notoriously grasping one, or perhaps, as the Chronicle of Ernoul suggests, she was seen as insufficiently virtuous for such an elevated position as queen in the Holy City. Such speculation is beside the point; the naked fact is that Agnes was found unsuitable for a crown by the majority of the High Court. That’s a pretty damning sentence even without knowing the reason, and that’s not just a matter of “bad press.”
The City of Jerusalem
Agnes then
married (or returned to) her betrothed, Hugh d’Ibelin, and, when he died,
married yet a third time. Until the death of King Amalric, she had no contact
with her children by him, and even after Amalric’s death, during her son
Baldwin’s minority, she appears to have been excluded from the court. Then in
1176, Baldwin IV took the reins of government for himself and invited his
mother to his court. Within a few short years, Agnes de Courtney had succeeded
in foisting her candidates for Seneschal, Patriarch and Constable upon her
young and dying son. These were respectively: 1) her utterly underwhelming
brother, Joceyln of Edessa, 2) the controversial figure Heraclius, who may not
have been as bad as his rival William of Tyre claims and may not have been
Agnes lover as the Chronicle of Ernoul claim, but hardly distinguished himself
either, and finally an obscure Frenchmen, also alleged to have been Agnes’
lover, Aimery de Lusignan. Not a terribly impressive record for “wise”
appointments – even if Aimery de Lusignan eventually proved to be an able man.
Hamilton next
applauds Agnes “cleverness” in marrying both heirs to the throne, her daughter
Sibylla and her step-daughter Isabella (Maria Comnena’s daughter), to “men of
her choosing.” We are talking here about Guy de Lusignan and Humphrey de Toron
respectively. The latter was a man of “learning,” who distinguished himself by
cravenly vowing allegiance to the former after Guy seized power in a coup
d’etat that completely ignored the constitutional right of the High Court of
Jerusalem to select the monarch, and then promptly got himself captured at
Hattin. Although Humphrey lived a comparatively long life and held an important
barony, he apparently never played a positive role in the history of the
kingdom. Not exactly a brilliant match or a wise choice for the future Queen of
Jerusalem.
Agnes’ other choice, the man she chose for her own daughter according to Hamilton, was even more disastrous. At best, Guy de Lusignan was freshly come from France, young, inexperienced and utterly ignorant about the situation in the crusader kingdoms. At worst he was not only ignorant but arrogant and a murderer as well: he allegedly stabbed the unarmed and unarmored Earl of Salisbury in the back, while the latter was escorting Queen Eleanor of England across her French territories. He certainly alienated his brother-in-law King Baldwin IV within a short space of time, and he never enjoyed the confidence of the barons of Jerusalem. This is not a matter of “hostile sources” just the historical record that tells us the dying king preferred to drag his decaying body around in a litter -- and his barons preferred to follow a leper – than trust Guy de Lusignan with command of the army.
Nor was this
mistrust of the baronage in Lusignan misplaced. When Sibylla crowned her
husband king and all the barons but Tripoli grudgingly accepted him, he led
them to the avoidable disaster at Hattin. In short, Agnes de Courtney’s
interference in the affairs of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, led directly to the
loss of the entire Kingdom.
In
contrast,
there is only one known instance of Maria Comnena actively intervening
in the
affairs of the Kingdom. This was when she pressured (or “browbeat”
according to
Hamilton) her daughter Isabella into assenting to the annulment of her
marriage
with unimpressive and militarily useless Humphrey de Toron in order to
marry the man who had just salvaged the last remaining free city in the
Kingdom of Jerusalem from destruction. Hamilton
portrays this as an act of unbridled, sinister power-seeking on the part
of
Maria. Why Agnes’ five appointments
should be “clever” (despite the disastrous consequences) but Maria’s
effort to
rescue the kingdom from the appalling and patently destructive
leadership of
King Guy should be seen as “power-hungry” is baffling. It
is certainly not an objective assessment of the behavior of the two
women.
True, Isabella
appears to have become fond of Humphrey de Toron, but she was the heir to the
throne and princesses do not marry where their hearts lead but
rather for the sake of the kingdom. To an objective observer, forcing an eight
year old girl to marry a total stranger is considerably more manipulative and
inhumane then for the a mother of a 17 year old princess to put pressure on her
teenage daughter to put the interests of the kingdom ahead of her personal
preferences.
To make matters
worse, Hamilton reports – with apparent approval! – that Agnes prevented the
child Isabella from visiting her mother, effectively imprisoning her in her
castle at Kerak from the age of 8 to the age of 11, a period in which,
incidentally, Kerak was besieged by Saladin. In short, Agnes was hardly
keeping Isabella “safe” – she may even have been courting her capture and death
to ensure there was no rival to her own daughter for the throne. But as that is speculation, I will leave
motives aside and focus on the fact that she keep a little girl imprisoned in
an exposed castle, denying her the right to even visit her mother.
In short,
Hamilton suggests it is legitimate – indeed clever -- to separate an eight year
old from her mother and step-father and expose her to danger, but it is devious
and self-serving when the mother of a seventeen year old persuades her to set
aside the husband forced on her as a child. That’s a warped view of affairs in
my opinion.
The English
chroniclers and Hamilton attribute to Maria evil motives and accuse her of
“scheming” and deviousness without bringing forth a single example to support
these allegations – aside from the above instance of pressuring her daughter
into an unwanted divorce. In her one recorded act of “interference” she induced
her daughter to marry not some adventurer, who would lose the kingdom, but the
only man the barons of Jerusalem were willing to rally around after the disaster
of Hattin. Her choice for her daughter was a proven military commander, who had
just rescued Tyre from falling to Saladin. So even if her “interference” was as
selfish and self-seeking as Hamilton implies, it was considerably wiser than
Agnes’ choice of Guy de Lusignan.
A 19th Century depiction of a Byzantine Queen
After this one
act, although her daughter was queen of Jerusalem from 1192 to 1205 and Maria
herself did not die until 1217, there is not a single instance of her “interfering”
in the affairs of the Kingdom again – very odd behavior for Hamilton’s unscrupulous,
devious and power-hungry woman. In
short, not a single fact supports the allegations against her.
Even taking into
account how historians love revisionism, an objective observer ought to recognize
that the contemporary sources favorable to Maria may indeed have had
justification -- and those hostile to Agnes de Courtney were probably just as right. It’s time
modern historians stopped slandering Maria Comnena just for the sake of
re-writing history.
Hamilton, Bernard, “Women in the Crusader States: Queens of Jerusalem 1000 - 1190,” Derek Baker editor, Medieval Women, Basil Blackwell, 1978
Dr Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.
She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.
She is the author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction, including a three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin.
Both Agnes de Courtenay and Maria Comnena are characters in my three part biographical novel of Balian d’Ibelin. Read more in:
I'll take Maria over Agnes any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
ReplyDelete