Salome by Oscar Wilde

‘Salomé’ is a one-act tragedy by Oscar Wilde. Wilde wrote it in French and the French version (title ‘Salomé’, with an accent) was published in Paris in 1893. Wilde’s lover, Lord Alfred Douglas, then translated it into English and this version (title ‘Salom’ without the accent) was published in London in 1894.

Setting

The play is set at the time of Jesus in the Roman province of Judaea i.e. around 30 AD and is based on contemporary sources, namely references in the New Testament and the history of Josephus.

John the Baptist – referred to throughout by the archaic name Jokanaan – has been arrested by officers of King Herod. His full historical name was Herod Antipas (21 BC to 39 AD) and he was the son of Herod the Great. Herod Antipas was tetrarch (ruler of a minor principality in the Roman Empire) of Galilee in northern Palestine, and Peraea east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea.

Anyway, this Herod is very aware that:

  1. he only rules with the permission of the Roman emperor who, during Jesus’s ministry, was the Emperor Tiberius (ruled 14 to 37 AD)
  2. he must implement Roman laws and, especially, taxes, while at the same time trying to manage the often restive and even rebellious Jewish population of Judaea

These issues occur in Wilde’s play where a) Herod is made to boast about his friendship with the emperor and admire him despite his gout; and b) to mock the ruler of the neighbouring Roman province, the King of Cappadocia; and c) there is a kind of chorus of Jewish voices heard offstage which periodically interrupt and comment on the action (‘What an uproar! Who are those wild beasts howling?’ ‘The Jews. They are always like that. They are disputing about their religion’) who then accompany Herod and the court onstage half way through the action and carry on an extended digression into the precise status of the Baptist and then of the alleged Messias (as the play spells it) who everyone is talking about.

Herod and Herodias

But all this is just background to the central action of the play which is pretty straightforward. Herod has married Herodias, the wife of his brother (Herod II). Herod had had Herod II arrested and imprisoned for 12 years before he was eventually strangled on his orders. It was John the Baptist’s relentless criticism of these acts as incest and against Jewish law (‘the prophet says that our marriage is not a true marriage, he says that it is a marriage of incest, a marriage that will bring evils’) which prompted Herod to have him arrested. The play is set thus:

A great terrace in the Palace of Herod, set above the banqueting-hall. Some soldiers are leaning over the balcony. To the right there is a gigantic staircase, to the left, at the back, an old cistern surrounded by a wall of green bronze. The moon is shining very brightly.

Improbably and strangely, Herod has got John-Jokanaan imprisoned in this ‘old cistern’. It’s a solution to the dramatic problem Wilde gave himself which is that he wants the voice of Jokanaan, quoting Biblical prophecies and curses, to be able to come in at various points, commenting on the dialogue of Herod and his family, and allowing the latter, in their turn, to execrate Jokanaan. He has to be onstage so as to do this, but at the same time clearly imprisoned and so this rather unconventional ‘cistern’ setup is the solution. This is what Jokanaan sounds like:

The voice of Jokanaan: After me shall come another mightier than I. I am not worthy so much as to unloose the latchet of his shoes. When he cometh, the solitary places shall be glad. They shall blossom like the rose. The eyes of the blind shall see the day, and the ears of the deaf shall be opened. The suckling child shall put his hand upon the dragon’s lair, he shall lead the lions by their manes.

Salome

Anyway, we finally arrive at the character of Salome herself. So Herod and his new wife, Herodias, are in their 40s. Herodias brought to the marriage her daughter by her first husband, the very attractive and nubile (18, 20-year-old?) Salome. So Salome is Herod’s step-daughter. And through the first half of the play it becomes clear that Herod cannot take his eyes off her. He is obviously looking at her in an obsessive if not lascivious way. We know this because the angry, jealous mother, Herodias, comments on it continually. And he’s not the only one. Wilde has the captain of Herod’s guard (‘a young Syrian’) also watching Salome obsessively, despite the warnings of his friend, the page of Herodias, that he shouldn’t.

The core event in the play is that Salome, wandering off from Herod’s dinner party, hears the voice of Jokanaan coming from the cistern and is lazily, sensually intrigued, looks down into its black depths and finds herself perversely, sensuously, cruelly attracted to the dirty ragged figure of Jokanaan in his cistern. She bullies Herod’s captain of the guard, Narraboth, into opening the cistern so that the prophet can emerge, and she can see him and touch him.

Jokanaan appears, denouncing Herodias and her husband. At first frightened by the sight of the holy man, Salome becomes fascinated by him, begging him to let her touch his hair, his skin and kiss his mouth. When she tells him she is Herodias’s daughter he calls her a ‘daughter of Sodom’, tells her to scatter ashes on her head and seek out the Son of Man.

All Salome’s attempts to attract him fail, he swears she will never kiss his mouth, cursing her as the daughter of an adulteress and advising her to seek the Lord.

At this point in a bizarre and excessive event, the young captain of the guard, unable to bear Salome’s desire for another man, fatally stabs himself and falls right between Salome and Jokanaan. What makes it especially bizarre is that Salome ignores this and carries on her futile requests for the Baptist to let her kiss him, ‘Suffer me to kiss thy mouth, Jokanaan’ until the Baptist, in disgust, returns to his cistern.

At which point Herod, Herodias, their courtiers and their Roman guest, Tigellinus, enter from the feast they’ve been having offstage. Herod is struck by the odd appearance of the moon but slips in the blood of the dead captain, correctly seeing this as a bad omen, and indeed the captain’s blood obviously adds to the macabre and decadent atmosphere.

His servants set up the table and feast and Herod invites Salome to come drink some wine or eat some fruit with him, which she refuses. Jokanaan delivers a broadside and Herodias asks Herod why he doesn’t hand the troublesome man over to the Jews who’ve been clamouring for him for 6 months but Herod refuses, maintaining that Jokanaan is a holy man and has seen God.

His words spark a digression, an argument among the Jews attending the court concerning the true nature of God and whether Jokanaan is the reincarnation of the prophet Elias. Others explain to Herod that Jokanaan is describing the advent of the Jewish Messiah and some men from Nazareth describe the miracles of Jesus such as turning water into wine and healing lepers and raising a girl from the dead. Herod approves of healing lepers, that sounds socially useful, but disapproves of raising the dead, that sounds like a bad idea.

Herod: Let them find Him, and tell Him, thus saith Herod the King, ‘I will not suffer Thee to raise the dead!’ To change water into wine, to heal the lepers and the blind. . . . He may do these things if He will. I say nothing against these things. In truth I hold it a kindly deed to heal a leper. But no man shall raise the dead. It would be terrible if the dead came back.

After this digression about Jesus Herod’s attention wanders back to Salome who he’s been staring at and he asks her to dance for him. Salome plays on Herod’s obvious obsession with her and tempts and goads him into promising her anything, all the riches and rare jewels in his treasury, even half of his kingdom, if she will dance for him. Herod, virtually drooling, agrees that he will give her anything she desires and so Salome dances a strange barbaric dance, which Wilde calls The Dance of the Seven Veils. Apparently this is Wilde’s invention and his main contribution to what was, of course, a well-known Bible story.

Having made Herod’s day by performing what, in the productions I’ve seen, is a very sensual and provocative striptease for Herod, she then forces him to fulfil his promise and names her price, which is the head of Jokanaan, for Jokanaan to be executed. Herod is shocked and horrified because, although he’s had Jokanaan arrested:

  1. he is a popular figure, whose religious prophecies have won him a large following and strike a chord with many Jews, many of whom claim he is the reincarnation of Elias the Old Testament prophets – so killing him will alienate many of Herod’s people
  2. Herod himself feels the force of Jokanaan’s integrity and trembles to harm such an obviously holy man who ‘has seen God’
  3. Herod is also uneasily aware of the figure Jokanaan keeps referring to, the Messias (as it is spelt here), the Son of Man, the one who has come to judge the world, and worried what will happen about him if Jokanaan is harmed

Which is why Herod spends a couple of pages listing everything else he will give Salome rather than Jokannan’s head but Salome is absolutely inflexible. Herod agonises but decides a king must keep his promise, especially a promise made in front of the whole court, courtiers and attendants who fill the stage. And so he gives the ring of death to a servant to hand to the Executioner, Namaan (‘a huge Negro’) who goes down into the cistern and chops Jokanaan’s head off. Up from the cistern comes a hand holding a tray on which is the freshly severed head still dripping blood.

Salome takes the tray and delivers a cruel and sensual soliloquy to the head which leads up to her kissing the severed head on the lips. Disgusted, Herod orders his courtiers to pack up the feast and leave the room, dousing the lamps.

The last event of the play is that, as he climbs the staircase to leave, Herod turns and sees Salome holding Jokanaan’s head so close that she has kissed it and now, thoroughly disgusted by the same young woman who, only ten minutes earlier he was lusting after, orders his soldiers to kill her, and the soldiers rush forward and crush her beneath their shields.

Presumably there’s a fair bit of screaming and squelching but this isn’t mentioned in the stage directions for ‘Kill that woman!’ are the play’s last words and the lights go out as they crush Salome to death.

Salome in contemporary literature and art

Wilde had been considering the subject of Salome since his undergraduate days at Oxford when Walter Pater introduced him to Flaubert’s story Hérodias in 1877. The biographer Peter Raby comments that Wilde’s interest had been further stimulated by descriptions of Gustave Moreau’s paintings of Salome as described in Joris-Karl Huysmans’s novel À rebours, by Heinrich Heine’s Atta Troll, Jules Laforgue’s Salomé in his ‘Moralités Légendaires’ and Stéphane Mallarmé’s Hérodiade. Not exactly an obscure subject, then. In fact getting on for being a cliché of the period.

Wilde never saw the play produced. The only performances given in his lifetime were in 1896, by which time he was serving a prison sentence for illegal homosexual activity. The play was first given, in the original French, in a one-off performance on 11 February 1896 by the Théâtre de l’Œuvre company at the Théâtre de la Comédie-Parisienne.

Historically, Wilde’s play was overshadowed by the opera written by Richard Strauss. Strauss’s opera was directly inspired by Wilde’s play which he saw in Berlin in 1902. He began to compose his opera in summer 1903, and completed and premiered it in 1905.

A blunt way of comparing the two is to say that Strauss’s music very powerfully conveys a sense of barbaric decadence, sensuality and depravity, in a way that Wilde’s prose poetry very much doesn’t.

Comments

Hard work

There’s more to comment on and analyse in ‘Salome’ than there is to enjoy. It’s more of a chore to read than the four comedies which are, obviously, worlds away, and this is reflected in its performance history. ‘Salome’ was occasionally performed in private theatres in Britain until given a licence in 1931 to be publicly performed but has never enjoyed a high reputation. It is treated more as an oddity, as a literary work to be read rather than a piece of drama.

Indebtedness

Critics noted at the time and ever since that Wilde’s play:

  • it is heavily indebted to Flaubert’s 1877 story Herodias
  • it echoes and repeats phrases and metaphors from French poets

Thus missing the broader point that it is most heavily indebted of all, like most symbolist works, to its basis in Christian legend and theology, so obvious that it’s often not mentioned.

An English symbolist play

‘Salome’ is a rare instance of an English symbolist play although it is symptomatic that it was written in French and first performed in France. It is heavily indebted to the north European movement of symbolism, and to symbolist drama as epitomised in the very recently completed and performed Axël by French writer Villiers de l’Isle-Adam (1890).

It is symbolist in at least the following ways:

  • the setting is stylised and unnaturalistic
  • the dialogue is not intended to be realistic but is highly formalised, for example the way characters repeat the same lines
  • these lines are themselves often not dramatic in the sense of conveying what characters are thinking or doing, but a) descriptive, designed to convey atmosphere, as in the repeated descriptions of the changing appearance of the moon throughout the play or b) repetition for its own sake to create an incantatory quality, as in the formal repetitions of religious ceremonies for example the Christian liturgy

And it uses potent symbols which are laboriously repeated to create the sense of ominousness and doom.

The moon The changing appearance of the moon (mentioned 31 times), as described by the characters and as demanded by stage directions, is maybe the most obvious one.

Blood Then the importance of blood (mentioned 16 times), very crudely and obviously spilled all over the stage when the young captain, grotesquely, eviscerates himself on stage, referred to again and again in speeches, and then literally brought on a second time when the head of Jokanaan is presented, still dripping with arterial blood.

Wings Less gruesomely, Herod refers repeatedly to hearing the wings (10 times), as if of some giant bird or maybe the angel of death flapping overhead.

White And Wilde obsessively refers to the colour white (16 times).

She is like a princess who has little white doves for feet…She is like the shadow of a white rose in a mirror of silver…Her little white hands are fluttering like doves that fly to their dove-cots. They are like white butterflies. They are just like white butterflies…Thy little feet will be like white doves. They will be like little white flowers that dance upon the trees…

And from Salome’s hymn of lust to Jokanaan:

Thy body is white like the lilies of a field that the mower hath never mowed. Thy body is white like the snows that lie on the mountains of Judaea, and come down into the valleys. The roses in the garden of the Queen of Arabia are not so white as thy body…There is nothing in the world so white as thy body.

Maybe because pure unstained white is rare in nature and so white is a very unnatural colour. And also white hands, feet and flesh were symbols of unnatural purity in a place and time (first century Judaea) where most people would be nut brown by natural complexion, plus being labourers exposed to the sun. It is white rather than gold in the play which denotes rarity and value. And then, again, all this mention of lilywhite skin makes all the more shocking the contrast with the red blood of first the Syrian captain and then Jokanaan.

White was the talismanic colour for the symbolist poet Stéphane Mallarmé who places a white swan at the centre of his 1866 poem about Salome, Hérodiade.

Orientalism

I’ve written a detailed critique (in three parts) of Edward Said’s famous and important book Orientalism which, as long ago as 1978, argued that the academic study of the Muslim Middle East and North Africa, from the late 1700s onwards, provided stereotypes of Eastern decadence, barbarism, laziness, illiteracy and so on, which the imperial powers (mainly Britain and France) then used to justify their rule over the ‘backward’ peoples of the region for nearly 200 years, throughout the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries.

Well, ‘Salome’ is a prime culprit, a classic example of the orientalism Said detected and criticised in so much Victorian literature, ethnography and political discourse. It barely needs to be pointed out how it took whatever Biblical sources existed and transfigured them into an orgy of orientalising stereotypes and clichés, from the lustful ruler to the cruel and sensual young beauty etc etc. The decadent movement sought out images of extravagant luxury, sensuality and cruelty and ‘the Orient’ was a very convenient place to locate them (compare and contrast the use of orientalising tropes in Wilde’s surprisingly violent fairy story, ‘The Fisherman and His Soul‘).

Douglas’s translation

I read ‘Salome’ in the English translation by Wilde’s boy lover, Lord Alfred Douglas, and it is bad. Hopefully the original French is mellifluous and flowing but this English translation is poor. Hardly anywhere does it have the flowing rhythm you associate with Wilde’s prose in his essays and especially in the wonderful fairy stories. The prose here is very run-of-the-mill, sometimes descending into bathetic everyday phrases, sometimes just poor quality, fake Bible tones, or fake Shakespeare, as here with ‘I know not what it means’ and then ‘Of a truth…’

SALOME: I will not stay. I cannot stay. Why does the Tetrarch look at me all the while with his mole’s eyes under his shaking eyelids? It is strange that the husband of my mother looks at me like that. I know not what it means. Of a truth I know it too well.

Douglas’s sparkle-free translation reveals the banality of the technique of repetition which Wilde deployed to try and build up his effects. The opening lines are typical:

THE PAGE OF HERODIAS: Look at the moon. How strange the moon seems! She is like a woman rising from a tomb. She is like a dead woman. One might fancy she was looking for dead things.
THE YOUNG SYRIAN: She has a strange look. She is like a little princess who wears a yellow veil, and whose feet are of silver. She is like a princess who has little white doves for feet. One might fancy she was dancing.
THE PAGE OF HERODIAS: She is like a woman who is dead. She moves very slowly.

Or take the repetition of the colour symbolism in Salome’s long speeches to and about Jokanaan:

SALOME: It is his eyes above all that are terrible. They are like black holes burned by torches in a tapestry of Tyre. They are like the black caverns of Egypt in which the dragons make their lairs. They are like black lakes troubled by fantastic moons

That’s fairly ornate repetition – elsewhere there’s just flat, bucket reiteration:

FIRST SOLDIER: The Tetrarch has a sombre aspect.
SECOND SOLDIER: Yes; he has a sombre aspect.
FIRST SOLDIER: He is looking at something.
SECOND SOLDIER: He is looking at someone.

This phrase (‘He is looking at someone’) is repeated later, just before Salome dances for Herod, with, I thought, little or no dramatic effect.

Maybe in French these repetitions of phrases, words and images work in some mystical incantatory way, but not in English. In English they create not a hieratic, ritualistic atmosphere but a sense of boredom and wasted time. You want to shout, ‘Get on with it.’ Compare and contrast its clunky style with the fluency of The Picture of Dorian Gray which I’ve just read. Here’s the opening paragraph of the novel:

The studio was filled with the rich odour of roses, and when the light summer wind stirred amidst the trees of the garden, there came through the open door the heavy scent of the lilac, or the more delicate perfume of the pink-flowering thorn.

This is fluent and sensuous in a way most of the English version of Salome tries but fails to achieve.

You can see what Wilde’s trying to do by repeating certain images – the changing appearance of the moon, Salome’s tiny hands and feet the image of blood – to give them the archetypal power sought by the symbolists but, in my reading, it doesn’t work. It falls flat.

Only in some of the long speeches of Herod and Salome towards the end do you get a sense of the sensual force I think Wilde must have been looking for. Here’s Salome:

SALOME: Ah, Jokanaan, thou wert the man that I loved alone among men. All other men were hateful to me. But thou wert beautiful! Thy body was a column of ivory set upon feet of silver. It was a garden full of doves and lilies of silver. It was a tower of silver decked with shields of ivory. There was nothing in the world so white as thy body. There was nothing in the world so black as thy hair. In the whole world there was nothing so red as thy mouth. Thy voice was a censer that scattered strange perfumes, and when I looked on thee I heard a strange music.

Looking closely at this passage and pondering why it works where lots of the rest of the play doesn’t, I think it’s because it’s gentle. It is soft and shimmering, passive and sensuous. In this respect it is like the wonderful descriptions of treasures and trees and fireworks which illuminate the lovely fairy tales. But when Wilde tries to be more active, when he tries to convey menace and threat – in Jokanaan’s preaching or, even more, the speeches of lascivious Herod or furious Herodias – they don’t come off. They don’t, in my opinion, have real aggressive feeling behind them and so fall flat.

Maybe ‘Salome’ could be effectively staged but it would require a completely new translation, done by someone with a really good feeling for poetic prose, and probably a completely new adaptation which would modernise its themes of sex and violence for a more explicit age. It remains an anomaly and a problem.

Aubrey Beardsley’s illustrations

It’s probably a well-worn observation that the Aubrey Beardsley illustrations commissioned for the first English edition are head and shoulders above to Douglas’s prose.

Illustration for Oscar Wilde’s Salome by Aubrey Beardsley (1894)

You can see them all, and read the full text, via the link below:


Related links

Related reviews

The Tragedy of the Templars: The Rise and Fall of the Crusader States (2) by Michael Haag (2012)

The Turks were aliens; the crusaders were not.

Haag’s book is opinionated in a very unacademic way. He has certain hobby horses, vehement ideas about the central role played by the Templars in the crusades, and about justifying the crusades by completely rethinking their context, portraying the crusades not as violent attacks against peace-loving Arabs, but as justified attempts to help oppressed Christians in the Holy Land which he gives vent to repeatedly and almost obsessively so that, eventually, the detached reader can’t help having misgivings about the objectivity of what they’re reading.

Nonetheless, that big reservation stated right at the start, this is a very interesting and thought-provoking book.

The Tragedy of the Templars signals its unorthodox approach by going back not ten or thirty or fifty years before the founding of its ostensible subject, the Order of the Knights Templars (in 1139), but by going back one thousand four hundred years earlier, to the conquests of Alexander the Great and then giving a sweeping recap of all the wars and vicissitudes which struck the Middle East from 300 BC through to the eruption of the Muslims from Arabia in the 630s AD.

The book has notes on every page and an excellent bibliography at the back, and yet it sometimes reads like the opinions of a crank, determined at any cost to convince you of his deliberately revisionist point of view. This comes over most obviously in the very unacademic use of repetition. Again and again he drums home a handful of key points. These are:

Haag’s key points

– the Crusades were not an unprovoked outburst of Western, racist, colonialist, greed and violence

– they were a rational response to repeated pleas for help from figures like the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Emperor of Byzantium

Why the pleas? because:

– even as late as the First Crusade (1095 to 1099) the majority population of the Levant, of Jerusalem and all the other holy cities, let alone of Anatolia and even of Egypt were Christians:

Christians had remained the majority at Damascus until the tenth century and maybe into the eleventh. (p.208)

Five hundred years after the Arab conquest, Egypt was still a substantially Christian country (p.211)

The Nubians were Christians, as were the majority of Egyptians (p.235)

– these Christians had suffered under the lordship of the Muslim Arabs who came rampaging out of Arabia in the 700s and quickly conquered north up the coast of Palestine into Syria, eastwards conquered the old Persian Empire, and westwards conquered Egypt and beyond

– but, despite centuries of inter-marriage, the Arabs remained an aristocracy, thinking of themselves as lords, knights, emirs and rulers over a broad population of subservient serfs and these serfs remained predominantly Christian

– through the three hundred years from the mid-700s to the mid-1000s these Christian populations suffered from being second-class citizens, forced to wear clothes which identified them as dhimmis and, occasionally, when the oppression got really bad, forced to wear halters round their necks or be branded

– meanwhile they were forbidden to repair existing churches, build any new ones, and had to stand by while existing ones were often desecrated and destroyed in periodic waves of persecution or forcibly converted into mosques

So Haag’s central point, rammed home on scores of occasions, with all the data he can muster, is that it was not the Crusaders who were the foreign invaders – it was the Muslim Arabs. It was the Arabs who had invaded and conquered Christian Egypt, Christian Palestine, Christian Syria and raided into Christian Anatolia.

Bethlehem where Jesus was born, Nazareth Jesus’ home town, the River Jordan where Jesus was baptised, Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and rose again, Tarsus where the apostle Paul came from, Antioch where the followers of Jesus were first named ‘Christians’, Damascus, on the road to which Paul had his great conversion experience – all these lands had, by about 400, become solidly Christian and were ruled by the Christian Roman Empire.

It was the Arabs who invaded and conquered them and subjected the Christian inhabitants to all kinds of discrimination and persecution. Christians were forbidden to build new churches or repair old ones. Thousands of churches were destroyed or converted into mosques. There were periodic massacres which triggered pleas from Christian leaders in the region to the Emperor in Constantinople for help, with the result that the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim invaders in the East were permanently at war.

And it wasn’t just the Arabs who were the alien invaders…

The Seljuk Turks add to the chaos

What specifically triggered the Crusades was the arrival of a third force on the scene, the Seljuk Turks, who swept out of central Asia, converted to Islam, and conquered Muslim Persia including the capital of the Abbasid Dynasty, Baghdad, in 1055.

From the 1060s the Seljuks besieged and took various cities in Palestine, as well as probing the eastern edges of Anatolia the borders of the Byzantine Empire. Their ultimate goal was to tackle the Fatimid Dynasty based on Egypt. The Turks had converted to the majority or Sunni brand of Islam. A territorial ambition to seize Egypt centrepiece of the Muslim lands was compounded by the fact that the Fatimids were adherents to Shia Islam, which Sunnis regard as a heresy.

The Fatimids, for their part, also wanted control of (at least southern) Palestine, in order to create a buffer against the insurgent Turks. This meant that the two Muslim opponents clashed in various battles, at various times throughout the later 11th century, taking and retaking bits of Palestine from each other.

Meanwhile the Byzantine Empire was reeling from its defeat by the Turks at the momentous Battle of Manzikert in 1071, after which:

the empire lay open before bands of Turkish tribesmen, who looted, murdered and destroyed as they marauded westwards until in 1073 they were standing on the Bosphorus opposite Constantinople. (p.76)

As an anonymous chronicler put it:

Almost the whole world, on land and sea, occupied by the impious barbarians, has been destroyed and has become empty of population, for all Christians have been slain by them and all houses and settlements with their churches have been devastated by them in the whole East, completely crushed and reduced to nothing. (quoted on page 76)

It was not the Crusaders who were invading; it was the Seljuk Turks who, in the years after 1071, invaded, conquered, devastated and took control of a vast central region of Anatolia which had been part of the Roman Empire and solidly Christian for at least 600 years. When the First Crusade arrived 25 years later it was to recover solidly Christian lands which had been invaded and to liberate its Christian inhabitants.

Anyway, the Byzantine Emperor survived the Turkish siege and soon began launching retaliatory raids into Syria and against Muslim strongholds in Palestine. So that’s Turks and Byzantines warring across the region.

And the Turks had brought with them bands of Turkomens, tribesmen of similar ethnic origin who didn’t, however, submit to Seljuk centralised authority and so raided, kidnapped and murdered across the region at will.

And the area had become infested by nomadic Bedouin, who took advantage of the prevailing chaos to also raid and kidnap and murder. Haag quotes liberally from the accounts of Christian pilgrims from Western Europe who made the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean and then found every step of their way to the Christian Holy Places fraught with the necessity to pay bribes to countless Muslim officials, and to pay armed guards to protect them from all manner of marauders and kidnappers.

Muslim destruction of Christian shrines, churches and towns

In 1077 Turkish forces led by Atsiz bin Uwaq laid siege to Jerusalem, destroying the surrounding orchards and vineyards. The city finally capitulated on promise of good treatment but Uwaq reneged on the deal and massacred about 3,000 of the Muslim population. He went on to devastate Palestine, burning harvests, razing plantations, desecrating cemeteries, raping women and men alike, cutting off ears and noses. He destroyed Ramla then went on to Gaza where he murdered the entire population, devastating villages and towns, burning down churches and monasteries.

In other words, the advent of the Seljuk Turks into the Middle East inaugurated a new era of chaos and disorder in the Holy Land

The Muslim East was wracked by misgovernment, division, exploitation, fanaticism an aggression. (p.79)

And this was widely reported by Christian pilgrims who returned to Western Europe (if they survived) telling tales of kidnap, rape and extortion, tales which had a cumulative effect at local, regional and national levels.

Back in 1009 al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh, the sixth Fatimid caliph, embarked on an attempted ‘annihilation’ of Christians in the Levant, and called for the systematic destruction of all Christian holy places which culminated in the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

This was the church built over two of the central holy sites in Christian tradition, the site where Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, at a place known as Calvary or Golgotha, and Jesus’s empty tomb, where he is said to have been buried and resurrected.

On Al-Hakim’s orders the church of the Holy Sepulchre was razed to its foundations, its graves were dug up, property was taken, furnishings and treasures seized, and the tomb of Jesus was hacked to pieces with pickaxes and hammers and utterly obliterated. Al-Hakim’s orders led to as many as thirty thousand churches being destroyed across the region or converted into mosques. News of the utter destruction of one of the holiest sites in Christendom shocked and appalled Christians from Constantinople through to Rome and into the Kingdom of the Franks. How much longer were the holiest sites in Christendom to remain at the utter mercy of fanatical opponents?

It was against this setting that Haag lists the repeated pleas for help, from the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, among others, which struck a chord, above all, with the Pope in Rome who, more than anyone else, heard eye-witness reports from pilgrims high and low about the mounting chaos in the region, about the wanton violence inflicted on pilgrims, and the wanton destruction inflicted on the Holy Sites themselves.

Seen from this perspective, the Crusades are not the unprovoked eruption of a bellicose West. The question is not why the Crusaders came, the question is why they took so long to respond to the pleas for help from their persecuted fellow Christians.

The Reconquista

The other really big idea I took from the book was that the Crusades happened in parallel to the Christian reconquest of Spain. I sort of knew this but Haag’s book really binds the two processes together, explaining how the Templars (the nominal subjects of his book) played as big or maybe a bigger role in the liberation of the Iberian Peninsula from Muslim control as they did in the Holy Land in the early years, anyway).

He points out how Popes and senior church figures called for the Christian knights of North and West Europe to put aside their differences and fight the Muslims in both places. When you look at a map of the Mediterranean Haag’s use of the phrase ‘war on two fronts’, fighting ‘on two fronts’, really makes sense.

The map below, from Wikipedia, clearly shows a) how the Muslims conquered the East, the West and the Southern coast of what had once been the Roman Christian Mediterranean and how, as a result, all the Mediterranean islands Sicily, Sardinia, Crete, Cyprus became battlefields for the centuries-long ‘assault by Islam against a Christian civilisation that had once embraced the whole of the Mediterranean’ (p.93)

If you were a Christian knight it wasn’t just a case of joining a Crusade to the Holy Land (as Haag points out, the term ‘crusade’ wasn’t coined until centuries after the things themselves had ended contemporaries wrote about ‘taking the cross’). It was a question of where you chose to sign up to the global effort to stop and repel the invading Muslims in Spain, in Sicily, in Cyprus or in Egypt or the Holy Land.

Map of the main Byzantine-Muslim naval operations and battles in the Mediterranean

Crusades wicked, Reconquista, OK?

The big question all this left me asking is Why is the ‘Crusade’ to liberate the Christian Holy Land from Muslim rule nowadays always criticised and castigated in the harshest possible terms as a racist, violent and greedy example of Western colonialism, whereas… the parallel ‘Crusade’ to liberate the Iberian Peninsula from Muslim rule, which was fought by much the same knights fighting for the same spiritual rewards offered by the same Pope… is totally accepted?

Does anyone suggest we should hand Spain back over to Muslim rule, to its rightful Moorish owners? No. The question is absurd. Does anyone suggest we should apologise to the Muslim inhabitants of Spain who were expelled 500 years ago? No. The notion is absurd.

Is it because the Crusades are perceived as consisting of violent attacks on Muslims living in a land they’d inhabited for hundreds of years? Well, the Reconquista was drenched in blood.

Or does the stark difference in historiographical thinking about the two Crusades mean that morality in history how we judge the morality of past events simply boils down to their success? The Christian Crusaders managed to expel the Muslims from Spain by about 1500, it has been a solidly Christian land for the past 500 years and so… it is accepted as the natural state of things…

Whereas the Christian Crusaders who tried to hang onto the Holy Land were always doomed to failure by virtue of the endless waves of new invaders streaming in from Asia (first the Turks, then the Golden Horde of Genghiz Khan’s Mongols) which were always going to outnumber the Christians’ dwindling numbers… and so… their effort is seen as reprehensible and subject to all the insults and abuse modern historians and the politically correct can level at them.

Yet the two Crusades were carried out by the same kind of knights, over the same period, inspired by the same ideology, and offered the same rewards (seizure of land and the remission of sins).

Is one a totally accepted fait accompli which nobody questions, and the other a great Blot on the face of Western Civilisation, simply because one succeeded and the other failed?

The West

Not far behind that thought is the reflection that the West is simply called the West is the West because Muslim conquerors conquered the East.

‘The West’ was not some great insurgent triumphant entity it is all that was left after the rampaging Muslims seized all of North Africa, all of the Middle East and most of Spain, then, in the 1100 began the process of seizing all of what we now call Turkey.

Previously Christendom had encompassed the entire Mediterranean and the lands around it. In this basic, geographical sense, the West is the creation of Islam.

The Knights Templar

So what about the ostensible subject of the book, the Order of the Knights Templar? Well it takes a while to get around to their founding in the 1130s… and then, in the rather unscholarly way which the reader soon gets used to, Haag goes out of his way to praise their involvement claiming they were decisive or vital in almost every encounter with the Muslims over the next two hundred years and to exonerate them from all accusations of greed, inaction or treachery brought against them by contemporaries. For example,

– when the contemporary chronicler William of Tyre criticises the Templars for their involvement in the murder of an envoy from the ‘Old Man of the Hills’ (p.251) Haag dismisses William’s criticism as biased.

– Haag claims that the Crusader states by the 1100s often administered by the Templars were far more religiously tolerant than the surrounding Muslim states. When the Templars didn’t support an ill-fated Frankish expedition against the Fatimids in Egypt, Haag makes excuses for them. And so on.

So there’s lots of detail about the Knights Templars (when they were set up, their location in Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, the vows they took, names of the founders and much, much more).

But, again, I was rather dazzled by one Big Idea about the Templars, which is the notion that they were the first multinational corporation. They were established after the First Crusade had established the Crusader states in Palestine, to guard the Holy Places and protect pilgrims. Quite quickly they began offering banking services i.e. they set up branches in London, Paris, Rome, on the Mediterranean islands because if you were going on pilgrimage to the Holy Land it was wise not to carry a big sack of gold which all manner of Muslim pirates, kidnappers and bandits might steal from you. Better to deposit the gold in London or Paris or Rome, and receive a chit or docket proving the fact, while the Templars recorded the fact on their increasingly sophisticated ledgers.

Within a hundred years they were on the way to becoming official bankers to the King of France. They made huge loans to the King of England and helped finance the Reconquista. By their constitution they answered only to the Pope in Rome. The point is that not being allied with this or that European prince or king they were strikingly independent. No-one had any interest in ‘conquering’ them, there was nothing to conquer except a set of international financial services.

Land and tithes in the West, gold and banking facilities across Europe, and by the time of the Battle of Hattin it is estimated the Templars, along with the Hospitallers (the other great order of knights) held maybe a third of the land of Outremer, the kingdom beyond the sea (i.e. the Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land established after the success of the First Crusade).

I found these ideas about the economic roots of their power and wealth more interesting than the blizzard of detail Haag also gives about the Templars’ involvement in various battles and strategic decisions. He follows the story right through to the events leading up to the suppression of the Knights Templar by King Philip IV of France who persuaded the Pope to suppress the order on trumped up charges of blasphemy, heresy and homosexuality, when his real motivation was simply to write off the enormous debts he’d incurred with the order to fund his prolonged war with England.

Saladin

As part of his program to debunk every myth about the Crusades, Haag really has it in for An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, commonly known as Saladin (1137 to 1193) who defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, then seized Jerusalem later the same year, events which triggered the third Crusade (1189 to 1192) in which Saladin was confronted by Richard I of England, both becoming heroes of legend for centuries to follow.

Haag places Saladin carefully in the succession of Turkish leaders who wanted to overthrow the Fatimid Dynasty in Egypt and establish their own kingdom. Haag goes out of his way to point out that:

– Saladin was not an Arab, he was a Turk; in fact he wasn’t strictly a Turk, but a ‘Turkified’ Kurd (p.233), having been born in Tikrit of Kurdish family, his father rising within the ranks of the Turkish army to become a city governor

– Saladin spent far more time waging jihad against his fellow Muslims than against the crusaders

[between 1171 and 1186] Saladin had spent no more than thirteen months fighting against the Franks; instead he directed his jihad almost entirely against his fellow Muslims, heterodox in many cases but most of them far from being heretics (p.262)

– this is one of the points Haag really dins home with endless repetition seeking to emphasise that Saladin was not a Muslim hero defending Muslim Palestine from marauding Crusaders he was a Kurd fighting under the banner of the Seljuk Turks, against his fellow Muslims in Egypt and Syria, in order to establish a dynasty of his own

As the Cambridge History of Islam explains, Saladin’s army was ‘as alien as the Turkish, Berber, Sudanese and other forces of his predecessors. Himself a Kurd, he established a regime and an army of the Turkish type, along the lines laid down by the Seljuks and atabegs in the East.’ In capturing Egypt, and in all his wars against the Muslims of Syria and the Franks of Outremer, Saladin was not a liberator; like the Seljuks and like Zengi and Nur al-Din, he was an alien leading an alien army of conquest and occupation. (p.234, emphasis added)

– Saladin wrote letters and issued edicts claiming he was fighting a jihad against heresy and the infidel in both cases Haag claims, he was hypocritically assuming a religious mantle to conceal what were basically the same lust-for-power motivations as all the other petty emirs and viziers competing in the region, a record of ‘unscrupulous schemes and campaigns aimed at personal, and family aggrandisement’ (Lyons and Jackson’s biography of Saladin, quoted on page 262)

– Haag goes out of his way to contrast Saladin’s fierce campaigns against what he regarded as Muslim heretics (especially Ismaili Islam, which he explains as a form of dualism), with the religious freedom operating in the Crusader states of Outremer, even quoting a contemporary Muslim chronicler, Ibn Jubayr, who admits that many Muslims preferred to live under the rule of the Franks who didn’t care what style of Islam they practiced, where they were treated fairly in the law courts, and taxed lightly (p.243).

– far from being the chivalrous knight of legend, Saladin routinely beheaded captured prisoners of war, as well as massacring the populations of captured towns, or selling all the women and children into slavery, for example:

  • after taking the Templar stronghold of King’s Ford in 1179 Saladin took 700 prisoners, who he then had executed
  • all the Templars and Hospitallers who survived the Battle of Hattin (4 July 1187) were, according to an eye witness account, lined up and hacked to pieces with swords and knives (p.274)
  • when Jaffa refused to yield to Saladin, it was eventually taken by storm and the entire population either massacred or sent off to the slave market at Aleppo
  • after taking Jerusalem, Saladin was reluctantly persuaded to allow the inhabitants to go free if they could pay a ransom; about 15,000 of the population was sold into slavery; all the churches had their spires knocked down and were converted into stables

As with Haag’s treatment of the entire period, his treatment of Saladin is detailed, compelling and, you eventually feel, strongly biased. I dare say the facts are correct, but Haag continually spins them with the very obvious purpose of undermining the legend of Saladin the chivalric defender of Muslims.

But to the casual reader, what really comes over is the immense violence and cruelty of everyone, of all sides, during the period. Muslims massacred Muslims. Muslims massacred Christians. Christians massacred Muslims. When Richard the Lionheart took Acre after a siege, he executed 3,000 Muslim prisoners, including women and children. All sides carried out what we would consider war crimes, because all sides were convinced God was on their side.

And all sides took part in the slave trade. Populations of captured towns were liable to be sent off to the great slave trade centres such as Ayas on the coast. I was genuinely surprised to learn that both the Templars and the Hospitallers took part in the slave trade, shipping captives taken in Palestine to work for the houses, especially in southern Italy and Christian Spain (p.229).

In the last decades of Outremer, as town after town fell to the Turks, the men would usually be slaughtered but their women and children would be taken to the slave markets of Aleppo or Damascus. Many thousands of Frankish women, girls and boys must have suffered this fate, as well as great numbers of native Christians.

Otherwise the great centre of the slave trade in the late thirteenth century was the Mediterranean port of Ayas, in the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia. Marco Polo disembarked at Ayas in 1271 to begin his trip to China at about the same time that the Templars opened a wharf there. the slaves, who were Turkish, Greek, Russia and Circassian, had been acquired as a result of intertribal warfare, or because impoverished parents decided to sell their children, or because they were kidnapped, and they were brought to Ayas by Turkish and Mongol slavers. (p.230)

Slavery is mentioned a lot throughout the book. I would really like to read a good account of slavery in the Middle Ages.

Steven Runciman’s negative interpretation of the crusades

Haag in several places criticises Sir Steven Runciman, author of what, for the second half of the twentieth century, was the definitive three-volume history of the crusades, published from 1951 to 1954.

Haag’s criticism is that Runciman was a passionate devotee of Byzantine culture and the Greek Orthodox church for example, the Protaton Tower at Karyes on Mount Athos was refurbished largely thanks to a donation from Runciman.

And so Runciman considered the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusaders one of the greatest crimes in human history. His entire account is heavily biased against the crusaders who he portrays as ‘intolerant barbarians’ and, in the famous conclusion to his history, calls the entire enterprise a long act of intolerance and a sin against the Holy Ghost.

This is important because:

It is no exaggeration to say that Runciman single-handedly crafted the current popular concept of the crusades. (Thomas F. Madden, 2005)

And his three-volume history, still published by Penguin, created the impression which:

across the Anglophone world continues as a base reference for popular attitudes, evident in print, film, television and on the internet. (Christopher Tyerman, Fellow and Tutor in History at Hertford College, Oxford)

Looking it up, I can see that Haag’s criticism of Runciman that he was consistently and obviously biased against the crusaders, and that his negative interpretation has been massive and widespread and continues to this day is now widely shared.

Reflections

The big picture lesson for me is not that this, that or the other side was ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ (and Haag’s interpretation has successfully undermined my simple, liberal, politically correct view that the Crusades were xenophobic, colonial massacres by showing how extremely complicated and fraught the geopolitical and military situations was, with a complex meshing of different forces each fighting each other).

The more obvious conclusion is that all sides in these multi-levelled conflicts shared values and beliefs and codes of conduct and moral codes and ethics which are wildly different from ours today almost incomprehensibly different drenched with a religious fanaticism few of us can imagine and prepared to carry out atrocities and cruelties it is often hard to believe.

It is in this light that the shambolic fourth (1204), fifth (1217 to 1221) and sixth crusades (1228 to 1229) must be seen less as the violent intrusions of a homogenous Superpower into the peace-loving affairs of poor innocent Muslims more as forms of time-honoured attack, war and conquest (and ignominious defeat) which had been practiced by all mankind, over the face of the whole world, since records began.

The 4th, 5th and 6th crusades may well have been blessed by the Pope (who also didn’t hesitate to excommunicate them and their leaders when they wandered off-target) but in practice followed the entirely worldly, calculating, selfish, power-hungry agendas of the various European princes and kings who led them.

Already, during the third crusade, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa had openly plotted with the Serbs, Bulgarians, Byzantine traitors, and even the Muslim Seljuks against the Eastern Empire and at one point sought Papal support for a crusade against the Orthodox Byzantines. Feeling between Latin West and Greek East was becoming ever more polarised.

It is this which helps explain why the so-called fourth crusade ended in the shameful sack of Constantinople in 1203 to 1204. The Venetians were promised a huge sum if they built ships to carry 35,000 warriors to the Holy Land. They stopped all commercial activity to build the fleet. When the knights arrived they were more like 12,000 and the Venetians were told they would only be paid a third of the promised sum. After fractious negotiations, the Venetians came up with a compromise solution the existing Crusader force would seize the port of Zara in Dalmatia. Zara had been dominated economically by Venice throughout the 12th century but had rebelled in 1181 and allied itself with King Emeric of Hungary and Croatia. It was a Christian city, but the ‘crusade’ proceeded nonetheless, and Zara fell to the combined Venetian-Crusader forces, after which it was thoroughly pillaged. Then, after further complicated negotiations, the crusaders were prevailed upon to attack Constantinople, capital of the Greek Byzantine Empire, by the Venetians, led by their blind Doge Dandolo. The Venetians had long been commercial rivals of the Greeks, and it was said Dandolo had himself been blinded by Byzantine forces in a much earlier conflict between them. There were many more complications for example, the crusaders were told they were fighting to liberate the deposed Byzantine emperor but, during the resultant siege, this emperor was hastily restored by the population of Constantinople, which robbed the attack of its prime goal. Didn’t stop the ‘crusaders’ from finally storming the walls and sacking the Greek capital.

The point is not that this was appalling. The point is that it quite patently has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy Land or Muslims or liberating the Holy Places and all the rest of crusader rhetoric. It was quite clearly commercial and political warfare of the kind going on all across the world at the time, in a world awash with armies and fighting princes, kings, khans, emperors, sultans and so on, not to mention Chinese emperors and Mayan and Aztec kings.

Same goes for the long-delayed and wandering expedition of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, which he grandly titled the Fifth Crusade, and which led up to him being crowned king of Jerusalem on 29 March 1229 but which was obviously more to do with his personal ambition than any ’cause’, let alone representing anything called ‘the West’. Frederick was excommunicated by the pope three times for pursuing his utterly selfish aims. He only stayed two days in Jerusalem. By this stage the once famous city was a dump, filled with ruins and churches turned into stables. As soon as decent, Frederick took ship back to Europe and got on with the serious job of building up his empire.

The fall of the Templars

And the point that beneath a thin veneer of religious rhetoric, all these events were just dynasty-making, invading, conquering, and commercial conflicts of a familiar and entirely secular kind is reinforced by the last few pages of Haag’s book, which chronicle the downfall of the Templars. King Philip IV was hugely in debt to the Templars. He decided to take advantage of the fact that the last Christian enclave in the Holy Land, Acre, had fallen in 1291, and the last little offshore island, Arwan, had fallen to Muslim forces in 1303, to turn on the Templars with a whole string of trumped-up charges of heresy, sodomy and so on which, despite the efforts of the pope to support an order which was nominally under his control, succeeded. The order was convicted of heresy, its leaders were burned at the stake and the point of the exercise King Philip’s huge debts were cancelled.

None of this is very edifying. But it is all very, very human.

Maps

There are only three maps in the book but they are excellent, clear and easy to read and they include all the place names mentioned in the text. I can’t find the name of the map designer but he or she is to be congratulated.


Other medieval reviews