Monday, July 16, 2012

Eleanor of Aquitaine, Raymond of Poitiers and the Incident at Antioch.

One of the notorious players in Eleanor of Aquitaine's life story  is her paternal  uncle Raymond of Poitiers, Prince of Antioch.  His notoriety is caused not least by the rumours of an affair between him and his niece when she visited him in his city during the second crusade.

We don't have a solid birth date for Raymond. Wikipedia says circa 1115, but since he was at the court of Henry I of England in 1130, I would err on the side of that circa being before 1115.  His parents were William IX, Duke of Aquitaine, and his second wife Philippa, daughter of Count William IV of Toulouse.  His older brother William was destined to become Duke of Aquitaine and father of the above mentioned Eleanor,  but there was no inheritance for young Raymond and he left Aquitaine to seek his fortune at the court of Henry I, King of England where he was welcomed among the able young courtiers surrounding the king. There is charter evidence for him being there by 1130 when he was pardoned the sum of 7 shillings.
While Raymond was occupied at the English court, doings were afoot in the Holy Land.  The Christian held Principality of Antioch was in need of a ruler. Bohemond II,  lord of Antioch had been killed at the Battle of Mamistra in 1131.  His head had been cut off, enbalmed, and sent in a silver casket  to the Caliph of Baghdad.  He left behind his widow, Alice, sister of Queen Melisande of Jerusalem, and his small daughter, Constance.   Through his maternal bloodline, Bohemond was related to the French royal house and was cousin to Louis VII, husband of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
King Fulke of Jerusalem and Queen Melisande began casting around for a husband for Constance and their gaze lit upon young Raymond of Poitiers. Fulke's son was married to Henry I's daughter, and it is feasible that the recommendation came to Fulke and Melisande via influences at the English court.
 A Hospitaler knight called Gerard Jebarre was sent to England to fetch Raymond to his new calling.  The journey to Antioch was difficult because the politics of the Mediterranean and the Middle East of the time meant that there were those who did not want to see Raymond take up the reins.  Raymond had to undertake his voyage in secrecy, disguising himself as a pilgrim and as a merchant's servant, but he was fortunate and managed to slip through the blockade, arriving in Antioch in April 1136.
His arrival could not be hidden from the Princess Alice, Constance's mother who was still a young and fertile woman, and expected to become  Raymond's bride.  However, the politics of the moment were geared towards uniting her daugher with Raymond because young Constance had the blood of Count Bohemond in her veins and Alice did not.
While Alice waited expectantly in her palace to receive her future new husband,nine year old Constance was kidnapped and married to Raymond in haste by the patriarch of Antioch  Thwarted, unable to fight for her position and rights, Alice retired to her dower estates in Lattakieh.
Raymond took up governing his new principality. He is described by contemporaries as handsome, tall and elegant. He possessed immense physical strength - he was supposed to be able to bend an iron bar with his bare hands and was nicknamed 'Hercules'. He was skilled in the use of arms and militarily experienced.  Although not literate himself, he fostered those who were and enjoyed culture.  He liked gambling and was known to be impetuous and hot-tempered,  but he also had a high reputation for gallantry and purity of conduct (words in  bold for a reason). He attended church regularly and was a faithful husband to Constance who in the fullness of time bore him a son Bohemond, and daughters Maria and Philippa. 
Raymond had a difficult row to hoe politically and I only touch on it in passing in The Summer Queen. Suffice to say that as his rule progressed, the divisions between the Christian princes widened and the Muslim opposition took advantage where they could, with the result that the neighbouring principality of Edessa fell  in 1144 and help was sought in Europe, culminating in the debacle of the second crusade.  Raymond himself wrote to Louis of France seeking aid for Antioch and Edessa.  He might have expected plenty of help because the Queen of France, Eleanor, was his own niece and Duchess of Aquitaine, and Constance was blood kin to Louis.
It could be said that Raymond, as the brother of the last duke of Aquitaine, was the male figurehead of the dynastic household, even while Eleanor was the reigning  duchess. His word would have carried clout in an advisory capacity with her and with the men of Aquitaine she had brought with her.  When Raymond originally sent to France requesting aid, he accompanied his plea with all manner of costly gifts (some might say bribes)  from Antioch.
Louis was keen to go on a dual pilgrimage/crusade and Eleanor accompanied him. The reasons behind her presence on the crusade have been fair game for writers of historical fiction and biographers alike.  Some have her being bored to tears and champing at the bit to be gone from France and heading off on an adventure.  Others have seen it as a case of Louis bringing her along because there was no telling what she might do in France during his absence, and he needed her as the queen bee in a hive to keep the Aquitaine troops loyal and engaged.
Ramparts of Antioch
Whatever the reasons and motivation, Eleanor and Louis set out for the Holy Land in the spring of 1146 and after a series of difficulties along the way, arrived in Antioch in the middle of March 1148.  Raymond was delighted to see them and rode out to greet them at the port of St. Symeon and welcome them to his city.
Raymond seemed to hope that Eleanor would be able to influence Louis and persuade him to campaign with him in assaulting the city of Aleppo which was the greatest threat to Antioch's security. He 'counted greatly on the interest of the queen with the lord king.'  And of course his own wife was kin to Louis, so perhaps he hoped for a certain amount of persuasion from that direction too. He quickly discovered that it was not to be the case.  Eleanor might heartily agree with him but her relationship with Louis was on the skids and she was of a mind to part company with him, something she announced at Antioch.  Far from being a bridge between the two men, Eleanor was a divider.
She spent so much time in her uncle's council during the time they were there, that various chroniclers and clerics would find it a source of scandal and hint at improprieties committed that went far beyond the pale. Eleanor's biographers have debated long over the matter of whether Raymond of Poitiers and his niece became incestuous lovers during her sojourn in Aquitaine.
The main players are dead; we can't ask them and perhaps they wouldn't tell, but there are certain pointers that lead me to personally believe that Eleanor and her uncle did not have an incestuous fling during her stay in Antioch. That's not to say that there wasn't an 'incident' while she was there.  Something patently did happen to knot the underwear of the chroniclers, but I would hazard one of three things.

1. What they thought they saw and what really happened are two different matters.
2. They are referencing a different scandal to the one everyone has assumed involves Eleanor and her uncle - and you will just have to read the novel to obtain my version!
3. The references are to some kind of serious plot against Louis involving Eleanor and her uncle.

 Chronicler John of Salisbury is our most reliable source.  He's a sober type of chap not given to making stuff up just because it's colourful and he feels like it. (Unlike Gerald of Wales, who is less picky about truth and lies).  Having said that, historian Andrew Buck has pointed out to me that both John of Salisbury and William of Tyre were as prone to fabrication and political manipulation of their work as many other chroniclers and that William of Tyre looked to Jerusalem and was not exactly pro-Antiochene in his stance.

John of Salisbury says:
In the year of grace 1149 (March 1148) the most Christian King of the Franks reached Antioch, after the destruction of his armies in the east, and was nobly entertained there by Prince Raymond, brother of the late William count of Poitiers.  He was as it happened the queen's uncle, and owed the king loyalty, affection and respect for many reasons. (John of Salisbury does not say what these reasons are). But whilst they remained there to console, heal and revive the survivors from the wreck of the army, the attentions paid by the prince to the queen, and his constant, indeed almost continuous conversation with her, aroused the king's suspicions.  These were greatly strengthened when the queen wished to remain behind, although the king was preparing to leave, and the prince made every effort to keep her, if the king would give his consent. And when the king made haste to tear her away, she mentioned their kinship, saying it was not lawful for them to remain together as man and wife, since they were related in the fourth and fifth degrees.  Even before their departure a rumour to that effect had been heard in France.... At this the king was deeply moved; and although he loved the queen almost beyond reason he consented to divorce her if his counsellors and the French nobility would allow it.  There was one knight amongst the king's secretaries called Terricus Gauleranicus, a eunuch whom the queen had always hated and mocked, but who was faithful and had the king's ear like his father's before him.  He boldly persuaded the king not to suffer her to dally longer in Antioch both because 'guilt under kinship's disguise could lie concealed.'  (a quote from Ovid). and because it would be a lasting shame to the kingdom of the Franks if in addition to all the other disasters it was reported that the king had been deserted by his wife, or robbed of her.  So he argued, either because he hated the queen or because he really believed it, moved perchance by widespread rumour.  In consequence she was torn away and forced to leave for Jerusalem with the king; and their mutual anger growing greater, the wound remained, hide it as best they might.'

Was the above hinting that Eleanor and Raymond had totally lost their wits and their political sanity and been so overwhelmed by lust that in the circa ten days they were together they committed incest?  Nothing in the above piece suggests this, even though some modern biographers appear to think it damning and authors of historical fiction have had a field day.   Is it possible? Absolutely.  Is it likely on a scale of 1-10?  Ummm, how about a 1?
 That Eleanor wanted out of her marriage is obvious and that Raymond was willing to help her in this is obvious too.  Louis had chosen not to throw in his lot with Raymond and attack Aleppo, and the state of the relationship between Louis and Eleanor meant that she was not a good bridge as a peacemaker and path smoother between the two men.  With Louis determined to go on to Jerusalem,  it could well be that Raymond wanted to retain the men of Aquitaine for his own projects and how better to do it that than to keep Eleanor with him?  I have no doubt that Eleanor and Raymond sided with each other.  It stands to sense they would and John of Salisbury's description bears this out.  But to have an incestuous relationship?  If one looks at the timing, the characters, and the political situation, it all adds up to a negative.
Both were highly intelligent and astute; one a ruler of a great Middle Eastern principality and the other the Queen of France and Duchess of Aquitaine.  They had huge political roles as well as personal lives. In those personal lives, Raymond was commended for purity and faithfulness. Eleanor's reputation was not so lily-white but down to hostility from the court and the church based among other things on her inability to provide Louis with a male heir and some disastrous headstrong decisions taken in her teen years. She may well have liked to flirt, but that doesn't make her a sex mad idiot. Condemnation of her character is not universal either, and there are texts such as the Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal that sing her praises.
 Eleanor spent less than two weeks in Antioch and part of that time was recuperating from a difficult sea journey and earlier trials in Anatolia.  It hardly seems likely that she and Raymond would get down and dirty in that short space of time in what would be tantamount to a one night stand.  However, she may well have been plotting to overthrow her husband or dump him. Chronicler William of Tyre says that Eleanor was a 'rash woman. Lost to all sense of queenly dignity, she disregarded the marriage bond and forgot her duty to be faithful to her husband.'  But he was only eighteen when the Antioch incident happened and not on site,  and being faithful to one's husband in the medieval sense also had the connotation of keeping faith and didn't automatically mean the sexual act. To think that it did shows the same problematic modern mindset that believes Richard I and Philippe Augustus sharing a bed makes them sexual partners.
William of Tyre never names the man in his accusation, which is is interesting.  Historians have always taken it to be Raymond, but if one does go down the road of believing Eleanor sought comfort elsewhere, then perhaps they should widen the field and look to other, less closely related men - but of course that's another story.
Eleanor would not be the first queen accused by enemies of plotting with a lover.  Melisande of Jerusalem, whom Eleanor was to meet, was accused by her rivals of conducting an affair with one of her nobles, Hugh of le Puiset, lord of Jaffa. Melisande managed to win through and turn the tables on her detractors, but sullying the name of a ruling woman one wanted to bring down, was a firmly recognised tactic.
As mentioned above, Eleanor was torn away from Antioch at night by Louis - the inference being that she did not want to go with him and greatly resented him for his action.  Louis in his turn was furious with Eleanor but was advised by Abbot Suger in a letter to 'conceal your rancour against the queen.'  Basically Louis was being told to hold onto Eleanor until they got back to France because of the wealth, power and prestige of Aquitaine.
 Raymond did not pursue his escapees.  He had too much ado keeping Antioch together and fighting off his aggressive neighbours. Nor was he entirely sure of the motivations of his Christian supposed allies.
Raymond and Eleanor never saw each other again.  Raymond was killed fighting at the Battle of Inab in 1149.  He was beheaded by Shirkuh, uncle of Saladin, and like his father in law before him, his embalmed head was sent in a silver box as a gift to the Caliph of Baghdad. (one wonders what the Caliph did with his head collection!).
Eleanor would have received the news of his death while on her way home to France.  Her response is not recorded, but the death of her sole remaining male relative on her father's side must have come as a blow, and would hardly have improved the strained relations between herself and Louis. If Louis had done as Raymond wanted and lent his troops to take on Aleppo, then Raymond might have survived.
Raymond's widow went on to marry the notorious Reynald of Chatillon, a French knight among Louis' entourage who chose to remain in the Holy Land and carve out a future for himself.  He too ended his life headless when he was decapitated by Saladin following the disastrous battle at Hattin.

The bottom line is that we will never know using the traditional historical resources available to us if Eleanor and her uncle Raymond indulged in an affair during her time in Antioch.  Those who think she did say that the evidence lies in:

1. The word of three reliable chroniclers (John of Salisbury, William of Tyre, Richard of Devizes),  and several others less reliable, but nevertheless no smoke without fire. (Gerald of Wales, Walter Map).
2. Circumstantial evidence such as the sudden termination of the chronicle of Louis' chaplain  Odo de Deuil at Antioch, and Louis' letters to Suger concerning his anger at the queen.

Those who argue against it (and I'm one of them) say:
1. The reliable chroniclers speak of matters that could well be interpreted as plotting behind Louis' back (which makes sense and is likely)  but nowhere do they actually say that Eleanor committed incest with her uncle.
2. The less reliable chroniclers are known for their poisoned pen approach to rumours and could make Mount Everest out of a grain of sand even without the added goad of wanting to defame a ruling family out of personal pique for slights assumed - and they don't say Raymond and Eleanor did the deed either; they just hint darkly.
3. The less reliable chronicles were writing decades after the events.
4. Timing - and this is what sells it for me.  Seriously, does it make sense for two politically experienced people, uncle and niece, the former with a reputation for marital fidelity, to go into lustful overdrive in the space of less than a fortnight?  Come off it.

My opinion is that something DID happen at Antioch but there is enough circumstantial evidence to convince me that big though it was,  it wasn't incest.

Make up your own mind.  What do you think?

Select bibliography.

Article: A note on the origins of Raymond of Poitiers by Jonathon P. Philips


Michele @ The Lit Asylum said...

Ah, I love that you addressed this! I've long struggled with this particular controversy, being sympathetic to both Raymond and Eleanor over the years. Every point and counterpoint you mention has merit and, as you say, it is left to modern interpretation. For you, it is the time issue that cinches it - and that makes sense. For me, I've always been swayed by Eleanor's reaction once word of Raymond's death reached her I recall, she went into seclusion. Of course, that could have been for a myriad of reasons: exhaustion after the entire messed up odyssey they had just partaken in, simply being "done" with Louis, the storms encountered shipboard, etc, etc. But for some reason, I could never help but wonder if news of Raymond's death really was the cause. And if so, were they really *that* close? Obviously, this doesn't guarantee that a sexual relationship existed between them (they could have been close for a lot of reasons), but here that time frame issue that you mentioned comes into play again. Did they really become such close, non-sexual companions in that short of time? A sexual relationship would certainly amplify their closeness.

As you say, we will never really know (as much as I'd like to!). You bring up some excellent points here and cut through confusion to present "just the facts, ma'am." I love it!

Christy K Robinson said...

Great article, Elizabeth. Beside the fact that incest is reprehensible in most cultures (to all but the dirty-minded), the timing is critical.

When I was laying out my novel, a timeline was insufficient for all the intrigue, politics, and personal events among my cast of real characters. Instead, I made a grid in Excel spreadsheet fashion: annual timeline vertically, and characters or major events horizontally. It explained so much that has always been missing from descriptions, annals, or correspondence of the day. I know who was where and when, who they named their large litters of children after (shows relationships and loyalties), and even how they responded to major events. It blows long-held hypotheses out of the water, too. Mwahahaha!

And THAT is what makes history fun! Rock on, Elizabeth.

DocJohn said...

John Phillips says...
An early Teenage niece discovers, after a difficult time amidst a strange court, a wonderful Uncle; of course there would be a strong attraction of joy and kinship, with maybe some flirtatious interplay, but in the short time scale a sexual relationship would be an unlikely event even today,let alone at a royal court in those days.

Lady Grey Mare said...

The trouble with anything written about women in history, especially women who were far ahead of their time, is what is fact and what is fiction? Unfortunately, history and men are not often kind to strong women.

It is not impossible that Eleanor of Aquitaine could have slept with her uncle. Royalty has never been a stranger to inbreeding and getting into bed with relatives. But, this could very well be another lie spun by men who were threaten by such a powerful and smart woman. As Eleanor of Aquitaine's descendent I tend to be bias and go with the latter.

Lady Grey Mare said...

The trouble with anything written about women in history, especially women who were far ahead of their time, is what is fact and what is fiction? Unfortunately, history and men are not often kind to strong women.

It is not impossible that Eleanor of Aquitaine could have slept with her uncle. Royalty has never been a stranger to inbreeding and getting into bed with relatives. But, this could very well be another lie spun by men who were threaten by such a powerful and smart woman. As Eleanor of Aquitaine's descendent I tend to be bias and go with the latter.

Elizabeth Chadwick said...

I don't think Eleanor WAS ahead of her time. I think that's another of the myths we have swallowed from novels and biographers. I think she was OF her time and that she was caught in a moment where women's power for themselves was being squeezed. I do think she was dynamic, intelligent and nobody's fool, but everytime she tried to shift for herself, she ran into difficulty. When you look at it, her mother in law Adelaide of Maurienne actually exercised more longterm power in her reign than Eleanor was able to do in hers as queen of France. And Adelaide herself was caught up in the diminishing of women's power as the 12thc advanced. Where a woman could come into her own was as a mother of sons and as a deputy for her husband or those sons, both of which Eleanor accomplished with great skill. The time after Henry II's death was when Eleanor was at her most powerful.
Re Raymond: While I don't think it's impossible that he and Eleanor did the deed, I still can't see the pair of them eyeing each other up on the dockside of St. Symeon and getting such violent hots for each other that within the nine days they were in each other's company they lost their marbles and their political acumen and embarked on a bonk fest!

Trish said...

This is why we read the books! Thank you for such an interesting, informative post. Have you tried using an Akashic interview for this time or specifically for Raymond of Poitiers as you have in the past?

Elizabeth Chadwick said...

Trish, yes, I did use the Akashics to find out about it and they confirm what I said in the article. I didn't use them in the article because I wanted it to stand up for the sceptics. The Akashics say Eleanor and Raymond did not commit incest.

Rosemary Morris said...

Fascinating, well reasoned blog about Eleanor and her uncle.

I was about to ask about akhashic records but you've answered the question.