Explanatory Notes

---

 

These Notes Serve Different Purposes. In Part, They Provide Historical And Contextual Details For The Events Recounted In The Poem That Might OtherWise Prove Puzzling To The General Modern Reader. No Attempt Has Been Made, Of Course, To Duplicate The Now Voluminous Published Materials Devoted To Pierre, French Culture In Cyprus, And The Fourteenth-Century Crusade; The Principal Relevant Works Are Amply Referenced Here And In Both The Introduction And The Selected Bibliography. However, I Have Tried To Provide Enough In The Way Of Necessary Facts So That An Informed Reading Of The Poem Is Possible Without Any Consultation Of The Secondary Literature.

At the same time, these notes are also for the convenience of fellow scholars. I have here quoted appropriate passages, sometimes rather lengthy, from more or less contemporary sources, with the general aims of adding detail and depth to Machaut's account or demonstrating the poet's detailed and often authoritative knowledge of events that took place far from his home in northern France. I apologize to the curious nonspecialist for not translating these passages into modern English when a published translation is unavailable, but considerations of space have not so permitted. References to Makhairas are from Dawkins 1932 (the English translation of his Greek); to Bustron, from Mas Latrie 1886; to Strambaldi and Amadi, from Mas Latrie 1891 (these three works are in Italian); and to Mézières, from Smet 1954 (Latin).

 

Line 19   Tragediane is a rare Latinism in French texts of the period (occurring twice, for example, in the balades of Eustache Deschamps) as a masculine noun with the more or less modern meaning of “tragic actor.” The word here is feminine and can hardly have the same sense. I have understood it, with Dzelzainis 1985, as “pagan high priestess.”

Lines 44–68   By the time Machaut came to write the Prise, the topos of the Nine Worthies had become a common motif in narrative literature and the plastic arts. It had been invented by Jacques de Longuyon in his narrative poem Les Voeux du Paon, which was completed about 1312–13. It seems likely, though by no means proven, that Machaut was the first writer to add a tenth to the list, thus neatly adapting the topos to the subject of the poem. Making the list the central motif of Mars's speech is a stroke of dramatic genius. One of those who added a tenth to the list of nine was Eustache Deschamps, who in one of his balades adds the contemporary Bertrand du Guesclin. Deschamps is apparently himself imitated by Cuvelier in his Chronique du Bertrand du Guesclin; it is also possible that Cuvelier knew the Prise and is simply following Machaut's lead. For full details and discussion, see Schroeder 1971, esp. 203–224.

Line 135   Pierre was born on October 9, 1329, on the feast day of St. Denis. It was thus on his birthday that the triumph at Alexandria was achieved in 1365.

Line 156   Because Pierre is imagined here as the son of Venus, this makes him the cousin of Minerva (if we accept, with some mythological accounts, that Venus, like Minvera, was fathered by Zeus).

Lines 236–50   Suppressing the letters MAR yields the following solution (even if H is not added as per the poet's instruction):

Lines 291ff   Actually this visionary experience occurred, apparently in 1347, at the Benedictine abbey near Stavrovouni, which is located in a mountainous area (Monte Sainte-Crois) near the town of Larnaca that had been for a long time famous as a shrine when Pierre visited there. The sanctuary was said to contain a piece of the True Cross embedded in pieces of the two crosses from the thieves crucified with Jesus, believed to have been carried to the island by St. Helena. This story of Pierre's youth is not given prominence in Makhairas even though that Cypriot chronicler does include some important information about this period of his life.

Lines 349ff   The reference here is to the Order of the Sword, which Pierre likely founded in 1347 (though the date is disputed by the historians) at the time when the eighteen year old had been made count of Tripoli. Iorga suggests that it was the arrival in Cyprus of Philippe de Mézières the year before that gave Pierre the idea of founding a chivalric order, as he had done himself (The Order of the Passion, perhaps the most famous of the late medieval military orders). Iorga (1896, 85) says: “Philippe de Mézières was perhaps one of the first Knights of the Sword. Since his initial arrival in Cyprus, a friendly relationship must have developed between the young prince and the knight from Picardy, who had come from that West which seemed so splendid in the mind of the count of Tripoli and to which he was to flee a few years later…. The mystical and warlike personality of Philippe was moreover just what would have pleased him: in his father's court, so peaceful and monotonous, he had finally found someone to whom he could confide unabashedly and with pleasure his dreams of holy war and far off conquest.” Mas Latrie (1877, 277n.) argues that Pierre would have been unable to realize such a project at this time because of his tender age and his father's opposition to crusading. He dates the order's foundation rather to Pierre's first year on the throne, but this view does not take into account what must have been the considerable influence of Mézières on the young man. In any event, the order's original purpose was the reconquest of the kingdom of Jerusalem, but, later, when this proved impossible, it became the defense of Cyprus. Evidence suggests that the order survived Pierre's death by some decades. For further discussion of Pierre's order and the others of the later Middle Ages see Boulton 1987.

Lines 386ff   Hugues IV, who became king in 1324, did not allow Cyprus to become involved in overseas adventurism, having a healthy fear of the Turks. He was also afraid that if his men traveled to the west they might be attracted by its glamour and abandon the defense of the realm. Unlike his father, Henri II (who had the unhappy fate of living through the fall of Acre on May 18, 1291), Hugues turned his attention toward maximizing the kingdom's role as a mercantile middleman. Under his leadership, Cyprus became quite wealthy as an exporter to the west of trade goods and commodities such as barley and cane sugar. A man of intellectual taste and refinement, Hugues commissioned Boccaccio to write the Genealogy of the Pagan Gods.

Line 516   It was 1349, three years after the disastrous French defeat at Crécy by the English. Actually, Pierre, at this time prince of Tripoli, determined to travel west along with his young brother Jean, titular prince of Antioch. They were aided in this enterprise by an accommodating knight, one Jean de Lombard. Furious at the deception, Hugues ordered the unfortunate Jean de Lombard (apprehended before disembarking himself) tortured to reveal the plans of his two sons and then put to death. The galleys Hugues sent in pursuit intercepted the two men as they neared Sicily. Brought home, they were imprisoned at Kyrenia. Their release (which likely came sooner than Machaut here suggests) was effected by papal intercession as well as paternal pity, or so some sources suggest. As is often the case, Machaut's account of these events agrees substantially with what Cypriot chroniclers record. Makhairas offers a full discussion that emphasizes the anger and grief of the king: “When the king heard that his two sons had gone, he fell into deep grief, and I cannot tell you the bitterness which he endured…. The king took all his barons and went out seeking for his sons, and he was like to die of vexation…. That this affair of his sons should not rest without their being punished, and that the king might make an example to prevent men from going to place to place they arrived at last at Kerynia; here he put his two sons into prison. And the king stayed at the gate [of the prison], and was in great grief. And they remained there three days, and the king was much grieved, so that it was the cause of his death” (75, 77).

Lines 612–618   Cf. the account of Pierre's coronation in Mézières:

“Tempore autem constituto et determinato ipsius regis coronationis, et multis praedicantionibus et divinis admonitionibus ipsius legati praece-dentibus, rex, regina, legatus [i.e. Peter Thomas], omnis exercitus, and populus utriusque sexus in Famagusta cum magna solemnitate venerunt, et peractis aliquibus solemnitatibus ad talem actum pertinentibus, ad req-uisitionem omnium baronum nobilum regni necnon et totius populi una voce clamantium legatus pontificalibus indutus, cum omni clero solem-niter associatus, suffragiis et ceremoniis ad hoc pertinentibus laudabiliter et devote peractis, cum omni gaudio et laude Dei in ecclesia cathedrali Famugustana coram omnibus ad honorem Dei et ecclesiae suae sanctae et multiplicationem fidei et destructionem inimicorum crucis Petrum de Lezignyaco iam coronatum corona Cypri oleo sancto inunxit et sacravit, et coronam Ierusalem hereditarie sibi legitime pertinentem super caput eius posuit, et ipsum solemniter coronavit, et factum est gaudium universale ab omnibus Christianis orientalibus et maxime accipientibus” (91–92).

Machaut's account of these events is somewhat misleading, if not inaccurate. Father and son were reconciled before the former's death in 1359, and Pierre had actually been crowned king of Cyprus the previous year in the hopes of avoiding a conflict over succession. Makhairas says: “I have found it recorded that King Hugh crowned his son (Peter) as king of Cyprus in his own lifetime on the twenty-fourth of November 1358 after Christ…. And [in his lifetime] he made his son [John] the prince Constable of Cyprus and his younger son [James], Constable of Jerusalem and Seneschal” (77, 79). Pierre's older brother Gui, prince of Galilee, had died in 1343, survived by his son Hugues, who claimed to be the king's true successor, maintaining that the right had passed from his father to him. Pierre's lawyers countered with the claim that this right could not have been passed to Gui to his son because Gui did not live long enough to be in seisin of it. In other words, the issue is whether a so-called “right of representation” existed in Cypriot law.

Pierre was summoned by the pope to defend his claim, but also, some sources suggest, by the king of France, to whom Hugues had made an appeal. As the Chronique d'Amadi records: “II re de Franza, che non si tenne a patto del acordio che il principe de Galilea fece con li ambasssatori del re Piero, rechiese al santo Patre, et lui scrisse al re Piero de andar per-sonalmente in la corte de Roma par deffendersi” (412.).

Though the pope and Jean II sided initially with Hugues, Pierre was able to argue his case successfully, in part because his brief was based upon the Assizes of Jerusalem, the law code of the Latin East (see Edbury 1977 for a full discussion of the Assizes and Cypriot culture). Hugues was granted a pension and the title of prince of Galilee. He accompanied Pierre on the expedition to Alexandria, where he distinguished himself, as Machaut notes. After his father's death, Pierre did assume the additional title of king of Jerusalem; certainly this is the coronation to which the poet and Mézières allude. At his coronation, Pierre filled a number of offices, according to Cypriot custom, for life, as Makhairas records: “When King Peter was crowned … [he] made ordinances and granted the offices of the kingdom that were void. That is, the princedom of Antioch he gave to his brother Sir John de Lusignan; he also gave him the post of Constable of Cyprus. And to his other brother James he gave the post of Constable of Jerusalem. And sir Philip d'Ibelin the Lord of Arsuf he made Seneschal of the Kingdom, and sir Raymond Babin Butler of the Kingdom of Cyprus, and Hugh Ognibono, the physician, Chancellor of the said kingdom of Cyprus, and sir Peter Malocello Chamberlain of Cyprus” (89). Makhairas leaves out Phillipe de Mezierres, who also served Pierre as chancellor.

Lines 628ff   Machaut's description of the Cypriot annexation of Gorhigos is rhetorical rather than factual. It was more a diplomatic than a military triumph. The citizens of the city (located on the Karamanian coast) owed allegiance to the Cilician Armenians, whose weakened kingdom was threatened by the Turks. Fearing capture, the townspeople offered the city to Pierre just as they had done some years before to Hugues IV (who declined, fearing Turkish anger). Makhairas records: “In those days the men of Gorhigos sent envoys to the most high King Peter, on the eighth of January 1360, Michael Psararis and Costas Philitsis, Greeks; and they commended all the people of Gorhigos and of the island to the king and to his council. And when he read the letters and understood that they were handing themselves over to himself—and the king was anxious to possess land in Turkey—he received them with great joy and honour” (101). As the Chronique de Strambaldi records, the Armenians in Gorhigos had previously offered the city to Pierre's father, but he declined, citing God's will: “Iddio non voglia che io toglia il castello al mio zerman.” When Pierre was crowned, however, they sent another embassy, impressed by the young man's reputation: “Et quando si incoronò, et si publicò per il mondo le buone opere de re Pier, desiderono li buttarsi alle sue brazza et mandorono le donne de Curico imbasatori al re Piero a di 8 zener 13 61, de Christo” (43). For his part, Pierre considered the prospect of a secure base in Anatolia too rich a prize to pass up. His delegate, an English knight named Robert, took peaceful possession in January 1360. Gorhigos remained part of the Cypriot kingdom (and an important stop on its trading routes) well into the next century when, in 1448, it was lost to the Turks. Hill 1940–52 comments: “Good fortune placed in Peter's hands, at the very beginning of his reign, the opportunity of establishing himself on the coast of Asia Minor. From a military point of view, he thus protected his rear; commercially, he secured a channel of communication with the interior of Asia Minor, to which caravans brought the products of Central Asia” (320). For further geographical and historical information (including excellent photographs) about the Armenian territories involved in Pierre's crusading activities, see Boase 1971, 1978.

Lines 641–660   Cf. the account of the capture of Adalia in Mézières:

“Et ecce Petrus Ierusalem et Cypri rex quod a iuventute sua desiderav-erat, videlicet destructionem inimicorum fidei, in lucem produxit. Nam cum exercitu valido manu forti expensis propriis civitatem invictissiman Sathaliam [i.e., Adalia] personaliter adiit, et ipsam foritissime expugnando a Deo gloriose triumphavit, et divitate ordinata et munit cum triumphon modico in regnum suum Cypri reversus est…. Et postea venit [i.e., Peter Thomas] in Cyprum, et manus regis pie confortans in cervicem inimicorum fidei, Deo laudabiliter regratiari fecit, processiones et missas solemnes pro victoria Sathaliae instituit, et regem nobiles et etiam populum Cypriensem in destructionem inimicorum fidei mirabiliter a Deo ani-mavit” (96–7).

Gorhigos provided the base necessary for the assault on Adalia (Satalia); the annexation of Gorhigos, in fact, had provoked the Turks into mounting an offensive threat that Pierre intended to preempt by capturing Adalia and environs. He assembled a fleet of some size at Famagusta (reported to be over a hundred vessels) and was aided substantially by Roger des Pins, master of the Hospitallers, and even Pope Innocent VI (both of whom contributed ships to the expedition). The city fell to the first direct assault on August 14, 1361, and was to remain in Cypriot hands until 1373.

Chroniclers and modern scholars disagree about what destruction, if any, occurred with the taking of the city. It is possible that Machaut here mentions a massacre that belongs more to the events of the campaign that followed the successful investing of Adalia. As Makhairas records: “When the host had returned to Cyprus, the emir of Adalia, Takka, collected an army and came and besieged Adalia. And the people went out both on horse and on foot, and chased them away, and they so closely pressed that they left behind their tents and their fear, and it was long before he came again to make war…. And he came and began to attack vigorously, and by the power of God the people of Adalia conquered Takka…. And in his rage Takka cut off the water which flowed into Adalia” (109). Eventually, the garrison was relieved, and the Cypriots went on the offensive: “Then the admiral took the ships and went to Myra where St. Nicholas was, and he set to and they besieged [the Turks]. And by the help of God he took the castle and ravaged [and slaughtered] as much as he could. … And when the admiral left Myra, he had set fire to it and burned the castle” (111, 113).

Lines 661ff   Cf. the explanation for Pierre's western expedition in Mézières:

“Petrus autem Ierusalem et Cypri rex a iuventute sua desiderio desider-abat liberationem hereditatia suae paternae regni Ierusalem necnon libera-tionem civitatis sanctae et mundationem eius, in corde suo proponens, quod si a Deo sceptrum Cypri sibi umquam eveniret, in acquisitionem ter-rae sanctae personam, bona, et regnum exponeret” (102).

The expedition set out in October 1362 with the additional intention of settling with the pope (who had summoned him) the disputed succession to the throne he now occupied. According to Makhairas, the pope was then being pressured by the king of France, who was supporting Hugues's case: “And now we must related the affair of the king of France. He was not content with the allowance which they gave to his cousin the Prince of Galilee [when the king was crowned], but came and laid a case through his envoys before the pope, for giving the kingdom of Cyprus to the [aforesaid] prince. … When the pope saw that the king of France was pressing him, and that he had also right on his side, he sent word to the king of Cyprus to go thither in person to defend his cause” (113). Pierre was accompanied by his young son and heir (the eventual Pierre II), Hugues, prince of Galilee, and Philip de Mézières, his chancellor.

By “court of Rome,” Machaut means the papal curia at Avignon, where Pierre was received by pope Urban V on March 29, 1363. The expedition had in fact landed at Venice some months before (December 5, 1362) and proceeded subsequently to Genoa. Pierre spent considerable time in both cities, which were important trading partners (and commercial rivals) with Cyprus. Genoese and Venetian naval support was vital to any crusading operation. Both communes were cautious but sometimes eager to support military ventures against the Turks and Saracens, in whose country they maintained a substantial commercial presence. Military triumph, extending diplomatic efforts, might bring about trading advantages, especially in these lands that were often weakened by internal dissension. Conversely, a crusade might interrupt the lucrative trafficking in luxury goods, even result in severe sanctions against Venetian and Genoese merchants (this was, in fact, the not unpredictable result of the destruction of Alexandria). This complex situation explains Venice's initial support of Pierre's efforts (the commune also felt intense papal pressure to go along with his demands), but later desire to effect a premature peace treaty after the taking of Alexandria. A crusade or passagium was proclaimed by the pope on April 12, 1363. Jean II of France, there present during much of Pierre's stay at Avignon, was to lead the expedition, which was to be begun within two years. Jean had been resident nearby for some time before Pierre's arrival. His purpose was to further a series of negotiations with the pope, but these came to nothing. Pierre's appearance in Avignon while Jean was at court must have struck both parties as a piece of good luck.

While in Avignon, Pierre also came to an amicable final settlement with his nephew Hugues. Makhairas records: “And when Sir Hugh de Lusignan heard that his uncle the king had come to the pope, he also came, and they made many citations against one another. And after much strife, the pope and the cardinals intervened between them to such effect that they reconciled them according to the terms of the original agreement” (115).

Lines 680ff   Machaut's mention of Jean's betrayal by cowards is a reference to the king's defeat at Poitiers six years earlier, a defeat thought by many to have been caused by the flight of many French knights from the field. The huge ransom demanded by the English and the political chaos caused by Jean's prolonged absence from France proved a severe trial to his countrymen. The depredations of the routiers or unemployed companies of mercenary soldiers in France actually proved a stimulus to the crusade for it was the hope of Jean and Urban alike that these men might be encouraged to enlist in a crusading army in hopes of great profit. Some of these men undoubtedly did join with Pierre, but not as many as had been hoped.

Lines 709ff   The cardinal in question was Elie Talleyrand de Perigord, bishop of Albano.

Machaut recounts the various stages of Pierre's travels throughout Western Europe somewhat out of their chronological order, apparently to make a point about his persistence in the face of adversity. Pierre had already left Avignon and had made his way through part of Germany and Low Countries before Jean took ill and died on April 8, 1364, about a year after taking the cross (Cardinal Talleyrand predeceased him on January 17 of the same year). Pierre, in fact, recently arrived in England, may have encountered Jean again at the court in London, or so Froissart suggests. Though by lineage and political alliance more closely aligned with the Valois in their continuing disputes with the English royal house, Pierre was eager to win any support he could for his cause. Thus he did not, apparently, find it difficult to ask for help from both Edward and the Black Prince. When Jean died, in fact, Pierre was visiting the latter in Angouleme with the hope of gaining the support of his well-known knight for his expedition. Hearing the news, Pierre proceeded to the side of the dauphin, Charles, duke of Normandy, who was waiting along with his two brothers for the arrival of their father's corpse from England.

Lines 825ff   Charles faced not only a continuing threat from the English, but also the constant depredations of the “great companies” or routiers. His refusal to sponsor the crusade is understandable, but also ironic since the popes of the period, including Urban V, attempted to deal with this problem by encouraging the crusade, both against them and, paradoxically, with them as participants. As Housley 1982 states, “The popes issued crusading indulgences to those who fought against the routiers on the grounds that they presented a serious threat to the well-being of the Christian community…. But the popes also hoped to use the companies in the service of Christian Holy war by persuading them to travel to the eastern Mediterranean, to Hungary or to Granada, to fight the Muslims” (253).

Line 949   The elector was Rudolf II.

Line 1009   At this point, Mas Latrie makes an error in numbering the lines of the poem, mistakenly identifying line 1009 as 1010. All subsequent lines in this edition and translation therefore do not conform to those in Mas Latrie's edition. To convert Mas Latrie's numbering after this point to the correct figure, simply add 1 to his total.

Lines 1147ff   The translation offers rough modern equivalents if available for the instruments Machaut names. When these instruments have no modern equivalents, the original terms are used and are herein explained according to the discussion in Machabey 1955 (see Earp 1995 for full bibliography; the identification and description of these instruments is a far from settled scholarly question).

The monochord is a straight harmony box with a single string passing from one end to the other over two frets. It was apparently placed on the musician's knees and played with either the fingers or a plectum. The psaltery or psalterion is also a harmony box, rather flat, apparently trapezoidal in shape, with a round opening in its center, and strung with cords, usually metallic and varying in number from seven to ten, perhaps as many as seventeen. The term rota normally designates the same instrument, sometimes with a triangular shape, but may refer to a different variety of stringed instrument as well. A smaller version of the canon is the micanon, another instrument similar to the psalterion. The ruhebe resembled the viola and consisted of two, three, or four strings. The “English” eschiquier is another stringed instrument, played with keys, distant ancestor of the modern piano. “Aussay” musettes resemble bagpipes but without an airbag. The cornemuse, doucine, and demi-doucine are instruments of the same general type. For an interesting discussion of the difficulties involved in identifying the specific features of these instruments and of the important place of Machaut's several poetic catalogs for this area of research see Bec 1992, especially pp. 61–151.

Lines 1235ff   The monarchs mentioned in this passage are Louis I of Hungary and Casimir III of Poland.

Lines 1271–4   Scholars have disagreed about the identification of these cities. See the discussion in Iorga 1896, 94–5.

Line 1413   The duke in question is Rudolf IV of Austria.

Line 1525   Machaut mentions here two of the smaller rivers in the region. The geographical precision of his account, as elsewhere, is surprising.

Lines 1535ff   Machaut is correct in suggesting that Pierre was greeted fittingly by his friends and allies in Venice upon his return. But he did not handle the negotiations for aid with the Venetians at this point, which would have been much too late for adequate preparations. It is more plausible to believe, with Philippe de Mézières, that his chancellor and the legate Peter de Thomas had been successful some months previously with convincing the reluctant commune to assist Pierre against their trading partners:

“Nobis autem advenientibus Venetias, et duci et consilio causa nostri adventus exposita, et responsione debili habita, magnum contrarium nos-trae petitionis et passagii invenimus (115“117) Tandem in fine, Deo cuius opus erat operante et sermones patris mei confirmante, illud [i.e., the agreement to cooperate] quod Venetis omnibus impossible his diebus vide-batur, ipsis velut Catholici et devoti patri meo (i.e., Peter de Thomas) vice regis ad terminum suum obtulerunt … Nam Veneti morte regis Franciae et insulae suae Cretensis perditione necnon et aliis multiplicibus impedi-mentis non obstantibus, in honorem sancti passagii et reverentiam et amicitiam regis Cypris navigia ad terminum ordinatum pro duobus mil-libus militibus cum eorum equis, armis, familiaribus, and victualibus pro tribus mensibus in terram soldani vel cuiuscumque fidei inimici transfre-tanda secundum voluntatem ipsius regis obtulerunt” (115–117)

When Pierre arrived later than scheduled, he found but few forces in Venice. The rulers of Western Europe had failed to support him with either money or men or supplies. He seems then to have fallen into a profound depression until receiving spiritual comfort from the legate:

“Tunc rex de principibus Christianorum desperatus, termino suo multo tempore elapso, et sine adiutorio de Deo confisus, cum pausis, omnibus de passagio desperatis, Venetias est reversus, et a Venetis magnifice receptus. Sed ille qui in rebus desperatis fortior erat, et ipsas res ad finem bonum Deo operante perducebat, videlicet pater meus legatus, obviam regi ivit, et ipsum lacrimantem et de labore suo et termino perditis lamentantem invenit. Legatus vero regi compatiens, a Spiritu Sancto ipsum dulciter et multis argumentis confortavit, et ut in Deum totam spem suam poneret, retro non respiceret, ad aratrum manum fortem poneret, et Deus ipsum adiuvaret, ipsum pie admonuit. Rex autem a Deo et verbis legati consola-tus magnalia in honorem Deo cogitans, vires resumpsit” (121).

Lorenzo Celsi was doge at this time.

Line 1602   Makhairas (147) offers a full list of the important Cypriot knights who accompanied Pierre. Several of these are mentioned by name in Machaut's account of the attack on Alexandria.

Line 1609   Actually, Pierre left Venice in late June or early July 1365. Iorga 1896 and Edbury 1991 are the most trustworthy modern authorities for dating the major events of the crusade

Line 1851   The deaths of Jean of France and Cardinal Talleyrand haunted the beginning stages of Urban's plans for a grand crusade, as Machaut notes in an earlier passage. However the poet neglects to mention the untimely death of a third important supporter of the crusade, Roger des Pins, Grand Master of the Hospitallers. He died unexpectedly on May 28, 1365 just as Pierre was making plans to leave Venice for Rhodes. Fortunately for the expedition, the new grand master, Raymond Bérenger of Provence, looked favorably upon the pope's wishes for a crusade. He was well known to Pierre because he had held since 13 61 the office of commander of the Hospitallers in Cyprus. See Delaville Le Roulx 1913 for further details of this important development. He writes that “The Hospital put at the king's disposition sixteen galleys and a contingent of one hundred knights under the command of Ferlino d'Airsaca, admiral of the order and prior of Lombardy…. The king, having at the instigation of the Grand Master agreed to come to terms with the emirs of Paltscha and Ephesus—who feared a crusade directed toward them—embarked free of any concern about the coast of Asia Minor” (152).

Lines 1875ff   The catalog of different ships is certainly a tour de force for Machaut, who spent most of his life far from the sea. Rough modern equivalents have been provided in the translation in so far as possible, but the interested reader is referred to Roques 1986 and Pryor 1988, 57–86, for further information about the specifics of the different types of vessels. In his Songe du Vieil Pelerin, Philippe de Mézières argues for the importance of the taforesse, a transport vessel, rather like a modern LST (landing ship tank), with a low board that enabled mounted horsemen to be debarked directly on the shore: “Tafforresse est un vaisseau de mer qui va a vingt ou a trente advirons et porte de xvi a xx chevaulx. Et a le dit vaisseau une grant porte en la poupe et ne lui fault que deux our troys paul-mes d'eaue. Et toutes les fois que ladicte taforesse en terre doit arriver encontre les ennemis, les gens d'armes seront montez sus les chevaulx dedans le vaisseau, le bacinet en la teste et la lance ou poing et, sans nul destourber, aussi comme en un moment, hystront du vaisseau et yront courre souddainement sus leurs ennemis. Et s'ilz sont chaciez, ils ren-treront tout a cheval dedans la taforesse, malgre leurs ennemis, et tantost se retrayront en mer. Telx vaisseaulx sont bonnes et propres aux grans riveres et flumaires des ennemis. Et fera plus de dommage une taforesse que ne feroient deux ou troys galees armees … il fu exprouve a la prinse d'Alixandre, car le vaillant roy de Chippre, Pierre de Lizignien, (ent) entre les vaisseaulx de sa gracieuse petite armee, avoit desdictes tafforesses environ xvi, qui furent tresbonnes preuves. Et quant a la despense desdictes taforesses, pour la despence d'une galee armee on aura quatre taforesses” (Coopland 1969, II: 435–6).

Line 1947   The fleet consisted of 165 vessels of different sizes, according to Bustron: “Li quale venne a Rhodi, et trovò l'armata in porto, ch'era de galee 33, fuste 6, nave 9, barchi 13, vasselli da condur cavalli 11 et altri navigli 20, che feco la somma de vele 92. Et feceno armar a Rhodi anchora altri galee et navigli per accompagnar l'armata del re fino la somma de vele, tra picole e grande, 165” (262).

Lines 1961ff   This scene is historically unlikely for three reasons. Although there was a knight named Perceval from, presumably, Coulonges or Coulon in Poitou who served Pierre, perhaps as chamberlain, Machaut is substituting him for Philippe de Mézières in the role of the king's chief advisor, both at this crucial moment and at other times. See the introduction for a discussion of Machaut's decision to eliminate the famed crusader from his recounting of Pierre's accomplishments. Moreover, crusading theory had, since the time of St. Louis, held that any full-scale assault against the Saracens must begin with the establishment of a base of operations in Egypt; hence such an important strategic decision would not have been based simply on the recommendation of a trusted lieutenant. Finally, it hardly seems likely that Pierre would have gone this far in his project without having made a strategic plan.

Lines 2083ff   Machaut neglects to recount the blessing of the fleet by Peter de Thomas, an impressive ceremony according to Philippe de Mézières:

“Legatus autem personis ecclesiasticis totius exercitus associatus in galeam regis ascendit pro benedictione generali exercitus Dei fienda, et ascenso in eminentiori loco galeae, ut ab omni exercitu videri posset, rege prope ipsum stante, et omnibus stantibus et legatum respicientibus, omnibus signis et vexillis galearum et aliorum navigiorum depositis, legatus quamdam longam et inauditam atque pulcherrimam benedictionem a Spiritu Sancto incepit, antiquum testamentum et novum in benedictione allegando, modo navigia, modo arma, modo personas, modo mare, modo totum exercitum benedicendo, in honorem crucis et Saracenorum destruc-tionem auxilium Dei invocando” (128).

Line 2100   Crambousa is a small island off the coast of Asia Minor, near Cape Khelidonia, east of Myra.

Lines 2196ff   Cf. the very similar description of the opening stages of the battle in Mézières:

“Saraceni vero exercitum Christianorum in portu ipsorum respicientes, non modicum admirati et turbati fuerunt. Exeuntes autem Saraceni de civ-itate Alexandriae cum multitudine populi infiniti, ut portum nobis defend-erent, in campo phalangas suas coram nobis ordinaverunt. Erat autem dies Iovis et hora quasi sexta. Sed rex ut distinctim et ordinata inimicos crucis invaderet, sua signa daret, et modum bellandi et quae pertinebant ad militiam ordinaret, consilio ventilato illo die Iovis requievit, et in terram non descendit. Videntes autem Saraceni quod exercitus Christianorum ad terram non descendebat, animati ad timorem nobis rep-utaverunt. Sed Deus nobiscum existens hoc manifeste fecit ad malorem victoriam et gloriam sui nominis habendam. Stantibus nobis sic, strenui-tatem patris mei legati et martyrii eius ardentem voluntatem tacere non possem. Nam Saraceni in turmis suis multiplicatis sapienter et strenue in litore portus ordinati vociferantes, nos ad terram descendere expectantes, legatus adhuc causam nesciens nostrae retardationis inimicos invadendi, mihi eum magno furore desiderii clamando dixit…. Pulsante vero regis buccina, gradatim et paulatim secundum ordinem datum galeae et alia navigia versus terram remigare inceperunt, et appropinquantibus terram, Saracenis ultra quam credi posset viriliter portum defendentibus, navigia nostra sagittis cooperunt. Tanta enim multitudo sagittarum super Christianos tunc cadebat sicut pluvia super terram, sed contra consue-tudinem humanam Deo defendente paucos et quasi nullos laedebant, psalmista dicente Cadente a latere tuo, etc. Galeis autem terram appropinquantibus, scalas ut in terram descenderent nostri in mari iuxta litus vi armorum proiecerunt, sed Saraceni ballistas nostras non timentes, in mari usque ad pectus intrabant, clipeis eorum cooperti, exitum nostrorum viriliter defendebant…. Tunc Christiani nostri qui citius poterant in terrain descendebant, et Saraceni versus civitatem fugientes terga verterunt, nostri vero persequentes et ipsos occidentes usque ad portam civitatis ipsos prosequebantur” (130–2).

Line 2220   Saracen sources suggest that this multitude was not an army, but rather merchants and townsmen eager to do business with what they initially thought was a fleet of trading ships. As Atiya 1938 states, “they had no experience of wars or sieges at home and in their ignorance they came out of their stronghold in the face of death” (353–4). When the Alexandrians did realize they were going to be attacked, a detachment of Maghribine volunteers waded into the water in order to forestall the landing of the crusaders. The Saracen chronicler al-Nuwairi states that these men ordered slings and other inflammable materials in hope of firing the ships, but the by then frightened townspeople could not meet this request. Lightly armed, the Maghribines were easily disposed by the heavily armored crusaders, who had the further advantage of striking at them from the height of their galley decks.

Lines 2267ff   Because he held two kingships, one real (Cyprus) and the other fictional (Jerusalem), Pierre was served by two marshals, Simon Thinoly for Jerusalem and Jean de Morf for Cyrpus. Ordinarily, neither of these officers would also serve as admiral, but recent troubles with the Genoese had made it politically necessary for Pierre to suspend Jean de Sur from this office (which he regained not long after the campaign and held until his death in 1366, when he was succeeded by Jean de Monstry). Machaut's account of Pierre's life is filled with correct minor details of this kind, indicating the general, overall excellence of his various sources and his own careful use of them.

Line 2294   The prince of Galilee was Hugues of Lusignan, the king's nephew and former frustrated claimant of the throne of Cyprus.

Lines 2307ff   This is the same knight who subsequently advises abandoning the captured city and persuades many others to do so. See lines 3325ff.

Lines 2500ff   The contingent from the Hospital was led by Ferlino d'Airsaca, who embarked at the so-called New Port, located to the east of the city in the direction of Rosetta. Al-Nuwairi emphasizes the importance of the speedy assault of these warriors, who were conveyed to battle on specially built ships that allowed them to be mounted before disembarking. Despite a continuing shower of missiles, they gained the shore and closed toward the Old Port, effectively trapping the hordes of Saracens with a pincers movement.

Lines 2537ff   The governor of Alexandria was then absent on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and his deputy, a certain Janghara, had little military experience or expertise. Janghara ordered a mixed force of Bedouin cavalry and infantry, which was not numerous, to make a stand before the city, but these were swept away by the determined assault of the heavily armed Christian knights. Machaut fails to note that a significant part of this success was achieved by Pierre's happy deployment of a company of archers, who harassed the enemy cavalry and threw its horses into a panic. Janghara was himself painfully wounded in the melee, but managed to escape inside the city before the gates were shut. If Machaut does not overestimate the number of defenders, and that is possible, he does not distinguish between trained armed forces, which were few in number, and the townspeople, who were forced to act in their own defense.

Lines 2645ff   Machaut may be using the word “amiraut” in its looser and general sense of “baron” or “lord.” The speaker here, then, could be any one of a number among the higher nobility in Pierre's company who advocated withdrawal from the strongly defended town. Conversely, Machaut may be referring here to either Jean de Morf or Ferlino d'Airsaca. It is likely, as Iorga 1896 (2.94) asserts, that both of these men were later prominent in the group of “rebels” who refused to remain in Alexandria in accordance with Pierre's plan. Delaville Le Roulx 1913 believes that it was the leader of the Hospitallers who counseled an excessive caution, both during the battle and after the taking of the city: “since the beginning of the expedition, Ferlino d'Airsaca had not ceased showing an excessive prudence. Did he exaggerate the dangers of a permanent occupation just as he had exaggerated the difficulties of assaulting Alexandria? Or was it that his experience in the Orient justified his cautions and advice? Was he afraid, at least for his own contingent, about the casualty rate of his horses, which threatened to paralyze the movements of his knights for the remainder of the campaign? Whatever motives he responded to, he declared himself in favor of retreat, and his influence had a decisive effect” (154).

Lines 2750ff   Al-Nuwairi offers a more plausible version of the successful assault on the city than Machaut. As Atiya (1938, 358–60) summarizes his account, the Christians first attacked the gate that lay directly opposite their position on the “island” they had won after their landing. Approaching the Bab al-Bahr (the Gate of the Sea), they were met with a storm of arrows, lances, and stones. A Christian attempt to push a large vessel of burning naphtha close enough to the gate so that it might be fired failed because of the skill and diligence of the archers on the walls above. Reforming on the shore of the eastern harbor, the crusaders then noticed that the Bab al-Diwan (which Machaut refers to as the Gate of the Douane) was undefended and that there was no moat at this place to prevent their approach. As the attackers brought up ladders to scale the walls and did their best to burn the gate, the defenders attempted to man this part of their defenses but were prevented from so doing by a tower that interrupted the wall at this point. No porches or walkways connected these two parts of the wall. Access could have been afforded through the customs house, but this had been locked as soon as battle was joined by an official who was later accused, perhaps rightly, of being in Pierre's pay.

Line 2912   The “conduit” was the canal where water from the Nile was brought into the city. It was apparently undefended, and the sailor was able to enter the city through it and then climb the staircase inside to mount the wall.

Lines 3064–6   Literally, “with only a basket full of swallows,” that is, without much at all.

Lines 3321ff   Those urging immediate departure included, according to Philippe de Mézières, Jean de Sur, the admiral of Cyprus, and Pierre's two brothers. Guillaume Roger was viscount of Turenne. In recounting the what he regarded as an ignominious retreat, Machaut shows a bias toward the members of Pierre's force who were of French blood and supporters of the Valois (i.e., not owing their allegiance to the English). It was not only the “foreign” knights who advocated withdrawal, but also most of his intimates and chief advisors, Philippe de Mézières and Peter de Thomas excepted.

Lines 3563ff   These Saracens were the first elements of the relief army sent by Cairo under the command of the emir Qutlobogha al-Mansuri. The city's governor, who had been on pilgrimage in Mecca, was immediately ordered by Yalbogha to return to Alexandria with another force that likely reached the suburbs of the city by October 13.

Lines 3610ff   Cf. the account of these events in Mézières.

“Corda indurata et iniquitate percussa fuerunt [i.e., those advocating retreat], et regem dolentem et legatum prae dolore quasi morientem reprobi vicerunt, de recessu concludendo, de Deo desperando et de poten-tia eius non confisi, et victorias eius inaduitas prorsus fuerunt obliti…. Rex vero in consilio suo victus, Deo permittente, Alexandriam relinquens, et nemine inimicorum persequente, in galeam quiete ascendit, et noster exercitus in navigia se recollegit, versum Cyprum tendentes, paradisum relinquentes, in pelagum navigaverunt. Sed quid fecit Deus nobis? Tantam fortunam in mari miscuit quod omnia navigia nostra divisit, fortunam fugiendo et quasi periclitando. Sed qui antea timore percussi sine causa Alexandriam reliquerunt tantum timorem in mari habuerunt, tantum mortem hi timebant, remanisse Alexandriam affectantes, et peccatum suum cognoscentes” (136).

Lines 3643ff   Machaut here omits reference to the important mission of Jean de Sur, who was entrusted with letters to the pope and other Western rulers, asking for further support. As Makhairas records: “First he went to Rome, and when the pope heard the admiral's news [of the victory of the king in Syria] he rejoiced greatly and all Rome with him. And when they heard of the victory of the Christians of Cyprus, the rulers of the West were filled with zeal, and took counsel to prepare an expedition to come to the ports of Cyprus to help the king in Syria” (155). Reaction in Venice, however, was quite different: “Now when the Republic of Venice heard the news about Alexandria, they were bitterly vexed, because the greatest profit of their trading was there and in all Syria. At once they sent envoys and advocates to the sultan with the message that the fleet which came to Alexandria did not come by their desire, nor did they know of it, nor had they helped the king” (157).

Lines 3647ff   None of the extant manuscripts includes the names promised here, so perhaps Machaut was unable to provide them because his source or memory failed (which, admittedly, seems strange compared to his encyclopedic inclusion of others; it is hard to see why he would have written a short passage of introduction but did not know what exactly it should introduce). In any event, Machaut did not remove the resulting inconsistent passage from the poem, nor did any of the scribes, including those of G and E who were most inclined to correct such problems by innovating.

Lines 3771ff   According to Makhairas, the mission was assigned to Monstry (or Moustry, as some sources give his name) on April 25, 1366: “King Peter, having returned to Cyprus, ordered the construction of galleys and light ships and many other vessels, to go to Syria to take Beyrout, which is close to Cyprus, a hundred and seventy miles by sea” (157). However, Makhairas does not report that at the insistence of the Venetians the destination was changed to Asia Minor.

Lines 3844ff   The sultan at the time was a boy of about eleven named Sha'Ban who had been placed on the throne by the most powerful of the Mamluk emirs, a man named Yalbogha. According to Egyptian sources summarized by Atiya (1938, 352), Yalbogha was a cruel and greedy man, eager for power and without scruples about how he achieved it.

Lines 3936–8   The grammatical sense of these lines is somewhat difficult to follow though the general meaning is clear enough.

Lines 3943ff   Makhairas suggests that Pierre was persuaded to halt his intended raid on Syria by more than good will. According to the chronicler, the envoys made him the following offer, which he apparently accepted: “And if you chance to be in need of money because of this same expedition for the expense you have been at in paying the men, we will pay it all and make good your losses, a service which you have had from us on other occasions also” (159).

Lines 4215ff   Machaut omits to mention that with the departure of the sultan's ambassadors, those from Venice returned home with the premature and essentially false news that peace had been concluded. Makhairas records: “When the Venetians saw that they had made a beginning of making peace, they embarked on their galley and went to Venice and told the news. And when this came to the hearing of the lords who were making ready for the eastward journey to Syria, they broke off and did not come, and this did great harm to the Christians” (163).

Line 4220   Literally, a “road made of iron.” The reference is to the practice of paving roads with the rock turned up from iron mines.

Lines 4471ff   Makhairas suggests that the envoy from Gorhigos told Pierre that the Grand Caraman was acting on orders from the sultan, which the sultan's envoy, there present, then denied: “[When the king heard this, he at once] sent and brought the sultan's envoy before him, and they read the letters out to him. And when the envoy heard them, he said: ‘God forbid that this should be done by my lord’” (175).

This expedition is not discussed in much detail by the Cypriot chroniclers. Machaut, of course, takes this opportunity to praise the exploits of the French knights present, whose individual accomplishments were much more notable here, perhaps, than at Alexandria. The Chronique d'Amadi, for example, states: “Venero novo al re da Curico, come la Caramania si metteva in ordine per assediate ditto castello; et il re immediate fece armar 10 galie and fece capitanio de esse el principe suo fratello, et patroni messer Philippo de Iblim, signor d'Arsuf, messer Joan de Iblim, sinescalco de Hierusalem, messer Philippo, conte de Bresvig, et altri cavalieri; et si partirono l'ultimo di frever 1366, da Famagosta, et andorono al ditto castello, dove trovorono grande hoste de Turchi, che tenivano assediato el castello. El principe, con tutta la sua gente et con quelli de Curico, ussiteno fora, et feceno giornata con li Turchi, et li rompeteno et occiseno, et preseno mold Turchi, et etiam preseno assai tende et artellarie sue; et a di quatuordise marzo 1367, ritorno la ditta armata in Famagusta” (416).

Line 4557   The office of turcoplier was important in Cyprus, as the remainder of the poem demonstrates. The turcoplier was the officer in charge of the native Cypriot troops known as turcoples.

Line 4686   The reference to the Saracens as the people of Apollo is a convention of the chanson de geste. The idea is that these people worship a trinity of gods, including Mohammed and Tervagant.

Lines 4796ff   The description of the military situation at Gorhigos is not particularly clear. Makhairas indicates that, in addition to the seaport and the castle, there were two outlying tower defenses, one of which had been taken by the Turks: “This expedition left Famagusta and went to Gorhigos; and they found the castle besieged and a great host of Turks who had also taken the tower which was built on the rock near the well outside the castle, over against the tower called the Tower of the Region of the Halfcastes” (177). For pictures and further topographical details see Boase 1971, 1978.

Lines 5453ff   Makhairas sums up the victory in similar terms: “The prince ordered the men of Gorhigos to make a sally, and they attacked in force, and God gave the victory to the Christians, and they routed the Turks so that they took flight; and they took many of them alive, and many Turks were killed, and the Christians captured much material of war, and their tents and much gear, and they also gave the Great Karaman many wounds, and they further took the tower which the Turks had taken” (177).

Line 5549   The Caraman, it seems likely, decided upon this sudden retreat from Gorhigos because he was troubled by the news of Yalbogha's assassination in Cairo and the fact that negotiations with the Cypriots had been resumed by the sultan's ambassadors.

Lines 5695ff   Machaut gets the details of this proposal incorrect. The king demanded a reduction by half of the duties paid by Cypriot merchants for the goods they imported into the lands of the sultan. He is also wrong about the details of the proposed treaty. It would have been completely unreasonable for Pierre to ask for the remission of all taxes paid by pilgrims to the sultan; this amount was considerable and thus an important source of revenue. Instead, Pierre asked for the remission of the taxes on all those coming from Cyprus who carried his official letter; this would have included family members, government officials, and others to the limit of fifty a year, as Cypriot records confirm.

Lines 5735ff   The column to which Machaut refers was at the time carefully guarded in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with its own private chapel.

Line 5807   Makhairas gives this man's name as Sir Peter de Canel, which can only be a corruption, and describes him as “a merchant of worth” (179).

Lines 5827ff   Machaut, or his source, has confused the two embassies sent to the sultan. The first, led by Paul de Belonia, Jean d'Alfonso, and George Settica, all influential Catalans, was sent by Pierre in response to Venetian entreaties. Having dismissed his foreign troops and expecting no immediate reinforcements from the West because of the premature announcement of a treaty by the Venetians, Pierre at that time was inclined to negotiate. A condition of such negotiations demanded by the sultan was the immediate return of all remaining Alexandrian captives, which was expedited by Paul de Belonia upon Pierre's command.

During the troubles at Gorhigos, Pierre continued to entertain another Saracen embassy in what was becoming protracted negotiations about peace. These negotiations were apparently proceeding toward an agreement of the kind here described by Machaut. As the poet later affirms, however, the peaceful overtures of the Saracens were in fact an attempt to play for time until military preparations were further advanced. Yalbogha, the sultan's regent, was engaged in building a huge fleet to launch a punitive raid against Cyprus, but was killed in an internal dispute with his peers, as Machaut later records. Makhairas recounts: “In Cairo there had been a great quarrel with the sultan and between the [Mameluke] emirs, and they had killed the great emir who ruled the Moslem people, named El Bogha el Azizi because it was his will and his advice to the sultan that peace should be made with Cyprus” (177). According to Makhairas, this change of regime put the peace process in jeopardy, a judgment echoed by Machaut, and this upset the Genoese, who agreed that an embassy should be sent to Cairo commanded by the turcoplier and including Aragonese and Genoese representatives. Apparently, it is this expedition that is recounted here.

Line 6106   Machaut's par lebech is a metaphorical reference to the Lebeccio, a characteristic harsh wind of the region.

Line 6057   The word flumaire is not Arabic but French, probably from the Latin flumen.

Lines 6251ff   Makhairas agrees with Machaut about the importance of this Christian renegade. In fact he makes him an intermediary between the sultan and the turcoplier after the latter's undiplomatic presentation of Pierre's proposals—see lines 655off. Hearing the sultan's angry dismissal of his embassy, the turcoplier “had a friend, a Genoese, who had turned Moslem; his name was Sir de Lort the Usher, and in the Saracen language they called him Nasr-ed-Din—he sent and summoned him and gave him fitting presents so that he also could give presents to the sultan and to (all) the [high] emirs who would be of use in the matter, and begged him that his dismissal from the sultan should be managed as quickly as possible” (185).

Line 6372   Babylon or New Babylon was what the crusaders of this time ordinarily termed Old Cairo. The name Cairo was reserved for so-called Greater Cairo, the city built on the northern side of the original city.

Lines 6446ff   Machaut here describes the Baharides, the corps of personal guards for the sultan from whom the Mameluke sultans were chosen.

Lines 6505ff   Makhairas suggests that the turcoplier's approach to the sultan was hardly diplomatic: “He spoke to him with great boldness and freedom, saying to him that sovereign rulers ought not to promise to make peace and then change their minds again…. And he added many other words both sharp and unseemly, boasting of his master's lofty birth, and that he was a sovereign prince” (183). Angered, the sultan was eager to punish the turcoplier, as the Chronique de Strambaldi records: “Et udendo il sultano si adiro fortemente et comandd che fosse desteso in terra et bat-tuto” (80). He was dissuaded by an “emir” who advised that no future embassies would be sent to the court should this be done. Then the sultan is reported to have dismissed the turcoplier, but without a final agreement. Machaut makes this incident part of a subsequent visit by the embassy to the sultan's court (see lines 655off), suggesting that Saracen anger was aroused not by the turcoplier's obstreperous behavior but by the sack of Alexandria, for which some in the court—but not the sultan—desired revenge on the spot.

Line 6912   The attack on Tripoli was not the unqualified victory Machaut suggests. As Makhairas relates, a Saracen ambush killed many among his disordered raiding party: “And when they turned back to embark on the galleys, the Saracens [came out and] were slaying them; for they were in disorder and had no captain to lead them; and were going in twos and threes, being sure that the Saracens were safely in their houses … and the Saracens were concealed among the hedges and in the reedbeds that were in the gardens…. And thus they were able to shoot at them and killed many of them. When the king perceived this, and saw that they were isolated, and the town had no protecting wall, he became afraid lest an host should attack him and kill him: he ordered the trumpet to sound for the people to come together, and when they had got together, they embarked on the galleys” (191).

Lines 6963ff   Layas or Ayasi, Lajazzo (forms with initial l from the French definite article) was the principal port of ancient Armenia on the Gulf of Alexandretta, an important center of trade in the eastern Mediterranean and a stop on the Genoese trade route from Sivas to Famagusta in Cyprus. See Boase 1971, 1978 for further details.

Line 6997   Tortosa was the site of a castle of the Templars, lost to the Saracens early in the fourteenth century. The city included a famous and much venerated church, the Cathedral of Notre Dame, and remained a destination for pilgrims in Pierre's time. Banias (Valena, Valania, Machaut's Valence) was the site of an episcopal see on the Syrian coast. Laodicea was a small port city protected by a fortified tower.

Line 6998   Literally, “those who are freed from the task of peeling garlic.”

Line 7114   The king's motive for withdrawal was more likely a desire to preserve the strength of his army, as Makhairas describes: “They decided it was better to retreat rather than that the king should expose his people to so much danger, and labour without any profit… And thus they departed with honour” (195).

Line 7227   The reference here is to the “great companies” of often unemployed mercenaries and freebooters who posed a strong threat to social order in France and Italy during this period. See Housley 1982 for full discussion.

Line 7302   Machaut is incorrect. A definitive treaty was not agreed upon until 1370, that is, after Pierre's death and during the reign of his son, Pierre II.

Lines 7420ff   Relying on the account of Henri Giblet, Rabanis 1843 offers an explanation for the quarrel that is eminently plausible and accords with what Machaut and other writers like Makhairas have to say about both the sire de Rochefort and the sire de Lesparre, men arrogant and explosive, much like Pierre himself. Apparently, both Rochefort and Lesparre were among a group of nobles who accused Jean Monstry, the admiral of Cyprus, of some grievous breach of Christian behavior. This quarrel erupted in the presence of Pierre and other high Cypriot dignitaries, and both Rochefort and Lesparre made it clear that they considered themselves above the law and the equals of anyone there present. Though they ceased their wrangling upon Pierre's command, both men apparently made it clear that they did so only in deference to his title and that they considered him no more moral than Monstry, whom he was protecting. In other words, both Rochefort and Lesparre acted insolently, in a manner consistent with their subsequent challenge to Pierre. Only the sire de Lesparre actually made arrangements to meet with Pierre on the field of battle, but eventually changed his mind and, after much intercession by the pope, did agree to reconcile with his former lord.

Lines 7490ff   Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Prise is its incorporation of two letters that purport to have been written by the sire de Lesparre and one in response that purports to have been written by Pierre.

Are these letters genuine in the sense that they are exact copies or more or less faithful to the originals? The question is difficult to answer. On the one hand, it is hard to explain why, in regard to what is after all a minor episode, Machaut should go to the considerable trouble of forging such letters, which have struck many modern scholars as eminently plausible (see, for example, Rabanis 1843 and Iorga 1896). On the other hand, how could such letters or copies of them have come into his possession? The poet's principal sources, Jean of Reims and Gautier of Conflans, were undoubtedly present during the events in question, but it is difficult to account for how either of them—or indeed any of the other forty or so knights from northern France—might have come into possession of the pertinent correspondence. The poem states that Perceval of Coulonges acted as Pierre's intermediary in the West, but it is more likely that this role was actually played by Philippe de Mézières. Could these letters have made their way west with him when he returned there after the assassination? if so, how did they come to Machaut's hand? In favor of such a possibility is the fact that to one of the manuscripts of the Vita of St. Peter Thomas a letter from Pierre arguing for his canonization has been appended. Certainly, Philippe would have had some access to Pierre's correspondence in general, and perhaps to this correspondence in particular. If Machaut did obtain the letters from Philippe, then it is even stranger that the poet does not acknowledge even the existence of the chamberlain in the poem. Interestingly, Machaut acknowledges no source for the letters, though his original readers must also have wondered about them. A further point in favor of the letters' genuineness is that in the Voir Dit Machaut does incorporate the actual correspondence (though it is sometimes extensively rewritten) that passed between him and a young female admirer. The authenticity of this correspondence, long a matter of scholarly debate, has been firmly established by Leech-Wilkinson and Palmer 1998.

Lines 7607ff   This money was difficult to raise, and the attempt to do so certainly did not improve the already strained relations between Pierre and the Cypriot nobility. As Makhairas relates: “And the king had need of ducats for his expenses; the burden lay upon Sir John de Castia, who was chamberlain of the king of Cyprus, and had control of all the revenues of the kingdom of Cyprus. And he had spent all that he had, and had nothing upon which to lay his hand. Seeing that if he were not able to find a means to get money, he would be punished and put to shame by the king, he made a proclamation on behalf of the king, that if any one desired to be freed, and whoever had vineyards and other heritages and desired to free them, he should come to the chamberlain” (197).

Lines 7624ff   After Pierre's arrival in Rome, messengers were sent. According to Makhairas, these “bade the Sieur de Lesparre to come [to Rome] ‘because the king has come and is ready to give you an answer to any complaint which you may wish to make against him, and he is also ready even to do battle with you.’ When the Sieur de Lesparre heard that the king of Cyprus had come—and he had been thinking that he would not come—then the Sieur de Lesparre also came and went to the lords and begged them to consent to intervene between the king and himself, and to make peace between them, because he had repented of what he had said about the king” (199).

Line 7800   Medieval tradition maintained that it was a Roman soldier (the blind Longinus) who pierced Jesus in the side with a lance, not one of the Jews who condemned him. It is surprising that Machaut makes such an error here.

Lines 7894   Makhairas offers a quite similar account of these events: “And the pope rejoiced greatly at this reconciliation and invited them to dine with him. And when they had finished eating, Mesire Florimond de Lesparre rose up and took the sweetmeats, and served the pope and the king of Cyprus. And thus peace was made between the king and the Sieur de Lesparre” (199). Bustron records the speech made by Pierre: “Ogni ingiuria ch'io vi facessi stando a questo modo, reputarci esser mia; haverei havuto caro che tu t'havessi disposto di combatter meco, perchè s'haveria conosciuto il valor tuo, et il mio, et quando t'havesti portato bene, m'havreste fatto pié tuo amico; ma se tu non hai voluto combatter, per haver conosciuto el torto da conto tuo, ti laudo et perdono” (267)

Lines 7936ff   Makhairas suggests that Pierre was still eager, despite the pope's misgivings to launch another expedition against the sultan, perhaps in support of the king of Armenia: “Favours were shown and promises were made to the king of Cyprus by the rulers of the West, who said that they would accompany him with a great host to destroy the sultan. And the Sieur de Lesparre urgently pressed the pope and the other rulers of the West to make this expedition and that the pope should press them to come” (199).

Lines 8029ff   Machaut's account of these events is somewhat sanitized and must be supplemented with those of the Cypriot chroniclers.

Upon his departure for Rome to settle affairs with the pope and Florimont de Lesparre, Pierre had left his brother, the prince of Antioch, in charge of the kingdom and, as Makhairas says, “to watch over his house he left a very brave knight named Sir John Visconti” (197). According to Makhairas, during his absence Queen Eleanora, Pierre's second wife, became outraged by the king's adulterous conduct with Joanna L'Aleman, who had once been married to one of his knights, Jean de Montolif. She successfully arranged for the unfortunate woman to be tortured so that she should miscarry what she believed, with some justice, was Pierre's child. As the Chronique d'Amadi recounts: “Stando il re in ponente, la regina sepe che madona Joanna l'Alemana, dama de Chulu, relitta del quondam signor Thomas de Montolipho, era gravida de otto mesi dal re, et la fece venir in presentia sua et li fece gran vergogna; poi la fece desten-der in terra, et metter sopra il suo ventre un morter di marmoro, et fece pestar piu cose per gittar el putto; et non havendo possuo, il di seguente, fece masinar sopra il ditto suo ventre, con un molin de man, quatro cafisi di formento, et ancora per questo non la gettò. La lassò poi andar a casa sua, et fe guardarla, et come fece la creatura fu portata a la regina, la qual creatura non si sa quel che sia fatto de essa. La dama fu mandata a Cerines cosi sanguinosa, et fu posta in una stretissima pregion” (419–20). The Chronique de Strambaldi purports to record the queen's indignant and insulting denunciation of her rival: “Cattiva puttana, tu sei quella che mi separi dal mio marito” (92).

The fate of the baby is unknown. Eleanora had Joanna imprisoned in the castle at Kerynia, where she was treated with kindness by those loyal to Pierre, who was brought word of the affair by a letter sent from her kinsmen in France. As the Chronique d'Amadi describes: “Vedendo il re ditta lettera, non dimandar si fu dolente et atristao, perche non se li poteva portar piu triste ne piu dolose nove; si sforzava molto di far bona ciera et mostrar allegra faza, per no discoverzer alcun la soa malinconia; ma non poteva, et tanto lo astrinseno pregando li soi homini, che lo vede-vano cosi atristato et doloso, che li dicese il suo dispiacer, che in fine per molti lamenti et parole coverte, se acorseno parte” (421).

It is hardly surprising that Pierre vowed a swift vengeance upon his return to Cyprus. But first he released his mistress from imprisonment, as the Chronique de Strambaldi recounts: “Et intrò nel monasterio et vedeva la spesa che bisognava all chiesa et alle celle, et venne alia cella della signora Zuana Lalema, sua inamorata, et vene, et volse inginocchiarsi per basarli il piede; et il re la recevete con gran amore, et commando et le fu data mille grossi d'argento” (97).

Perhaps in an attempt at revenge, Eleanora had apparently begun an affair of her own with Jean de Morf, the count of Roukha, who had served Pierre loyally and well during a number of his expeditions. Makhairas writes: “And the affair was made known to all the town, namely that so lawless a deed had been done, and all the people were speaking of nothing else, so much that even the street boys were talking about it” (221). Confronted by the prince and other lords, Visconti denied the truth, but agreed upon their urging to write the king about the spreading scandal. Shaken by the news, Pierre returned to Cyprus angry and distrustful. He questioned the queen and Joanna, who each denied there had been any wrongdoing, but said that Visconti, shamed by the queen, had written the king about it out of spite. Makhairas reports: “And the king came for the court, and ordered them to bring the two ladies before him: and he put them into a chamber and there examined them privately about the story which they had told [about the queen],… And he examined each one of them separately; and both of them said the same thing to the king, and he could learn nothing from them. So the king was in the end deceived by the two ladies, and thought that they told him the truth” (227, 229).

But it seems that Pierre did not trust their testimony because he then put the matter before the assembled court of nobles who, holding a private council, began to fear for their own reputation, saying: “It seems to us that it will be better for our fame if we conceal the story” (235). If they admitted that Jean de Morf had been conducting a liaison with the queen, then Pierre would be angry with them for failing to stop their meeting and taking no action against the offending knight. And so they told Pierre that Visconti was a liar. This is the Chronique d'Amadi's version of these events: “Li signori, con gran dispiacer, intenseno tel cosa, et dolce et devotamente cominiciorno a confortar il loro principe per molte belle et honeste rason; et lur li pregò che lo dovesseno consegliar quel che haveva da far in questo caso” (421). Believing them, Pierre had Visconti put in prison.

Line 8128   A frequent insult to Englishmen in French texts of this period is that they are couez, that is, “tailed.” Jean is an “honorary” Englishmen because of his loyalties to the English crown. For a full discussion of this tradition see Rickard 1953.

Lines 8196ff   Pierre was not fooled by the nobles' lies about Visconti even though he agreed to the man's imprisonment, as Makhairas suggests: “Now even with all this the king was not satisfied; nor was he so simple, for he knew how the matter had gone. He began to insult [all the high born ladies, from the least to the greatest] the wives of his enemies who had joined together to shame him” (239). His behavior eventually led the nobles to plot against his life, and Pierre's response was that “he ordered a tower to be built, and in the upper part he built a church, which was called Misericordia … and below the surface of the ground it was a prison, which he called Margarita…. And he intended to invite a greater gathering, as soon as the moat was finished, and all the great lords and barons to assemble for a banquet, and then to shut up his brothers in the tower and a number of his knights of whom he was afraid, to prevent them from conspiring among themselves and killing him” (241). These plans came to nothing because Pierre was assassinated before the tower could be finished though Pierre did use the project as a way of punishing some of his enemies (see lines 8352ft). For further details about Pierre's murder and its attendant circumstances see Edbury 1980.

Lines 8255ff   Makhairas offers a full account of this expedition: “On the eighth of the month of January, the day being Sunday, 1369 after Christ, the king was at Akaki, and went hunting; and near Akaki there is a small village called Meniko, and it belonged to Sir Henry de Giblet. This knight had an only son whose name was James, and a daughter named Mary who was a widow, and a bastard daughter called Louisa. The said knight was sheriff of Lefkosia and was very fond of hunting; and he had ordered to bring him from Turkey a pair of very beautiful greyhounds. And all the knights, all of them with a very bad grace, went in the king's train, as is the custom of the knights when they go hunting. Whilst the king was hunting, the kennelman of the said sheriff was on his way back from the hunt, and he passed by the count of Akaki on his way to Meniko, and he had with him the two fine dogs…. The Count of Tripoli, Sir Peter de Lusignan, the king's lawful son, met the kennelman and asked him, ‘To whom do these greyhounds belong?’” (243). The count, then an eight year old child, wanted the dogs for his own and demanded them from their handler, who declined. A note was sent to James de Giblet by the king's son with an offer of payment. James declined somewhat rudely. Upset, the boy began to cry, and his father saw he was upset upon his return from the field. A note was sent to Henri de Giblet, who refused the request for the dogs with the advice that if the king wanted such dogs he could send to Turkey for them. Outraged, Pierre “at once ordered Sir Henry to go at that very moment with his horses and arms to be warden at Paphos, and he sent and put his son James in irons, and sent him off with a hoe to dig in the moat at the Margarita, that is at Misericordia, with the labourers who were working there. And he sent to take his daughter Mary de Giblet and to marry her to Camous the Tailor, for she had been left a widow by Sir Guy de Verni…. The lady was prudent: when she saw the quarrel which was between the king and her father she grew frightened, saying that the end of the business would be some evil intention; she went off to the convent of Santa Clara…. She heard that he wanted to have her married, and therefore went away thence to the Tortosa convent, and there concealed herself. The king deprived her father of the office of sheriff“(247).

Hunting was important to the Cypriot nobles, as Iorga 1966 points out: “The dogs, like horses, had their tails painted either yellow or red. The animals hunted were onagers, wild asses, and wild sheep, all of which were found in the valleys of the island. The hunt had great significance: it was done in large groups that slept out in tents and sometimes spent a month on such an expedition” (46).

Lines 8393ff   The regulations governing the remarriage of heiresses were to be found in the Assizes of Jerusalem. Edbury 1977 states that “a lord had the right to control the marriages of all women between the ages of twelve and sixty who held fiefs or the baillage of fiefs owing servise de cors” (345). The regulation governing this right was straightforward: “The woman was summoned to appear in the High Court where she was given a choice of three potential husbands: a widow could not be summoned within a year and a day of her previous husband's death; the prospective husbands had to be peers of the woman, or, in the case of a widow, of her former husband” (346). Obviously, Pierre did not follow these protocols in attempting to force Marie to marry a tailor, nor did he have the right to torture her when she refused.

Lines 8450ff   The account of Makhairas suggests that Machaut may be exaggerating the wickedness of Pierre's treatment of Marie, though it was undoubtedly scandalous and cruel: “The king ordered them to torture her, and they tortured her so much that they roasted her very feet…. And the lords seeing this said: 'such things did we never expect to see now and henceforward done to our daughters and to our sons and to our widowed ladies'” (249). In the end, however, Marie relented and agreed to marry Jean de Neuville, the man who had been appointed sheriff of Lefkosia after her father had been removed from that office.

Lines 8496ff   Makhairas offers a somewhat different account of these events, but agrees in general with Machaut's version: “And when the lords considered that the king was full of ill will and anger, he had left them and gone out; when the knights considered that he had laid his hand upon the lieges against justice and wrongfully, they all of them together were filled with confusion and anger…. And they began immediately to think of a new plan…. And all the knights rise up and go to the two brothers of the king” (2.49). Sensing the great anger of the liege lords, the king's brothers then demanded a royal audience where they presented the grievances and argued that the king had gone against the Assizes. The Chronique de Strambaldi offers a full account of the brothers' embassy: “Et andorono li fratelli del re dal re, et li disse il principe suo fratello 'signor, ne par [che non] con raggion havete fatto alii vostri ligii quello che havete fatto; e giusto che lo diate alia vostra alta gran corte et che lo aldano et che lo giu-dicano. Et havete fatto contra le leggi et le assise, come havete giurato nella vostra incoronatione. Questi sonno pari vostri, sotto lor giura-mento.’ Et havendo aldio il re si adiro, et li disse brutte et indebite parole” (106).

Though Pierre's reaction was to abuse them “with ugly and discourteous words,” the brothers left with a promise to consult the Assizes and return with a legal opinion. Makhairas gives no indication that after this quarrel Pierre attempted to reconcile with his brothers or seek some reaffirmation of their loyalty to him. In fact, Makhairas recounts how Jean de Monstry tried to make the king's brothers return to the palace, but they refused. This incident only fueled the fires of discontent among the rebellious nobles who, seeing the king insult and mistreat those closest to him, feared increasingly for themselves. They considered themselves released from their oaths of allegiance to Pierre because he had violated his oaths to them as their king, as the Chronique d'Amadi relates: “Da poi questa terminatione, alcuni cavalieri se pensorono più oltra, et disseno che del sacramento che il re farà a loro, sara il medemo che fu del sacramamento che fece al suo coronamento, quando giuro sette volte, et pur non si ha guardato di romperlo” (425).

Makhairas insists, however, that the princes were not privy to any plot to assassinate the king. He suggests that the nobles simply threatened to leave Cyprus should Pierre continue to abuse the law (2.63). After the king's brothers departed for bed, the assassination plot was hatched: “The time came when the Enemy should gather in the fruits which he had sown in their hearts, namely that they should kill the king” (2.63). All the Cypriot chroniclers, however, make a concerted effort to exculpate the brothers even though circumstances point to their complicity with, if not direct involvement in the murder. See Edbury 1980 for a full and cogent argument that both brothers were involved in the plotting and murder. Much of the evidence that Edbury marshals is circumstantial (especially the prince's role in getting the door of the king's bedroom opened to the conspirators), but he also observes that after the assassination Pierre's brothers did nothing to punish the murderers, but, instead, persecuted the late king's friends and advisors.

Line 8589   Pierre's mother was remarried to Philip of Brunswick.

Line 8592ff   It was at this dinner that Pierre gave further, disastrous evidence of his unbalanced state of mind. Served with asparagus, the king discovered to his displeasure that there was no oil for its dressing. As Makhairas recounts, “The king grew vexed, for he was full of wrath and in a high passion, and said: ‘The steward of the court has served me thus out of obstinacy.’ … And he sends off at once and throws him into prison, and he threatened that in the morning he would cut off his head” (265). The princes and all assembled nobles were informed of the incident before the night was through. Along with Jacques and Marie de Giblet, the steward was released that night from prison by the order of the princes and the conspirators.

Lines 8639ff   Machaut omits a significant detail of the murder. Pierre did not spend that night alone, nor was he with the queen. Instead, as the Chronique d'Amadi records, the king heard the conspirators in the hall outside his room: “El re send el rumor de li lor piedi, et si levò dal letto, et disse: ‘Chi son questi che sono venuti quà dentro?’ Dama Civa di Scandelion, la qual dormiva con lui quella notte, li disse: 'signor, et quali ardiran vegnir quà dentro a queste hore, che li vostri fratelli?’ La dama si levò immediate, et si coperse con certi drappi, et si aschose in una guardarobba; et come il principe sentì la dama ussir di camera, et lui urto la porta et intrò dentro, et salutò el re che ancora era in camisa” (425).

Line 8644   The unfortunate chamberlain was Gilet de Cornalie.

Lines 8756ff   According to Makhairas, the court steward, Jean Gorap, who had been put under threat of execution the night before because there was no oil for the asparagus, took his revenge by cutting off Pierre's head as he said: “’You wished to-day to cut off my head, and I will cut off yours, and your threat shall fall upon your own self” (267).