Return to Primary and Secondary Sources Return to Book Reviews
Book Review
Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
Christopher MacEvitt, who teaches religion at Dartmouth College, has produced a solid and readable study of inter-Christian relations in the Holy Land during the era of the crusades. In doing so, MacEvitt has joined Bernard Hamilton, Andrew Jotischky, Benjamin Kedar, Joshua Prawer and others scholars, who also have examined this often elusive subject. Yet MacEvitt provides a solid overview of these previous efforts while adding a new view of how such relations should be defined. In contrast to arguments made by previous scholars, particularly Joshua Prawer, which held that Latin Christians maintained a strict segregationist model in their dealings with local Christian groups, including Armenian, Melkite, Jacobite, Orthodox and other Christian groups, MacEvitt argues that the Franks instead ruled with a type of “rough tolerance”. It was this “rough tolerance” that, unlike in Europe during this period, allowed for the growth of diverse religious and ethnic communities in the Levant.
“Rough tolerance”, according to MacEvitt, should not be equated with modern notions of multiculturalism, but was instead a practice that allowed for the co-existence of diverse religious and ethnic communities under Latin rule. (p. 21) Frankish tolerance was practiced out of necessity, as demographic and population concerns were always on the minds of Latin Christian rulers. For MacEvitt, such tolerance was “rough” because the Franks regularly used their political power against indigenous Christian communities as they saw fit, particularly when they felt their authority was threatened.
Focusing on the period from 1097 to 1187, MacEvitt begins with a useful historiography of Latin rule. He describes how earlier scholars had come to generally accept the notion that crusader states represented a type of European colonization of the Levant, in which Latin Christians ruled as a segregated and superior class over local native Christians.(p. 17) In recent years, however, there has been a shift in thinking on the issue. Modern crusades historians have now, for the most part, come to reject, or at least substantially modify, such a characterization of Latin rule. Yet there have been few works that have directly addressed this issue in any significant detail until now as MacEvitt convincingly argues in favor of “rough tolerance” as a model that should replace dated notions of colonialism.
MacEvitt notes that although the Frankish rulers of the Levant were separated from local Christians by language, religious practices, and beliefs, there still existed considerable interaction between these groups. Indeed, rather than segregating themselves, Franks shared in the administration of popular shrines and local churches. This was, perhaps, made most clear in the decision of the Latin Christian leadership to share the limited space of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Under prior Muslim rule, for example, the Melkites had sole authority over the Holy Sepulcher and they did not admit Jacobite or Armenian Christians. Yet sometime in the twelfth century Latin Christian rulers allowed for the clergy of other Christian groups, including the Armenians and Jacobites, to celebrate their liturgies as well (p. 120). Interestingly, Latin Christians were also the first to allow women into the Holy Sepulcher, a practice that was condemned by some local Christian authors. (p. 115)
Latin Christian rulers also often yielded considerable authority to local Christian leaders. In Edessa, Jerusalem, and elsewhere, the leaders of local Christian communities were granted the right to discipline errant members through corporal punishment or even imprisonment. Such rights had never existed under Muslim rule. (p. 108) Latin Christians also invested in the infrastructure of local Christian cities. Gaza, for example, under the protection of the local Templar castle, grew into a vibrant city during the short period it was under crusader control. This is perhaps best seen in the impressive architectural remains from this period that show significant investment in the city. (p.113) There also existed considerable good will between many Latin Christians and the clergies of the various local Christian groups. Far from considering indigenous Christians to be heretics or schismatics, MacEvitt writes, “Frankish clergy incorporated local hierarchies into their own. This closeness extended beyond administrative convenience…” (p.114) Indeed, the leadership of the Templars and Hospitallers preferred local Christian bishops to Latin Christian bishops as they presented no challenge to their authority over Latin Christian populations. (p.115)
The only significant criticism of the work seems to be the notion that Latin Christian tolerance was “rough”. Indeed, after speaking with a number of colleagues familiar with MacEvitt’s work, it is clear that a common question emerges from MacEvitt’s readers concerning the necessity of using “rough tolerance” rather than just “tolerance”? Certainly Latin Christian rule over local Christian groups in the Levant was at least as tolerant, if not much greater, as prior Byzantine or Muslim rule over the same groups. MacEvitt himself argues that Frankish tolerance was, at least in some cases, superior to anything local Christians had ever received before. (p. 120) Although MacEvitt cites the Frankish willingness to use their political or military power against indigenous Christians when they felt threatened as a justification for his use of the word “rough” to describe Frankish tolerance, I am not sure how this is unique to the Latin leadership. Indeed, Muslims have often been praised for their tolerant treatment of Christians living in medieval Iberia, for example, but the same Muslim rulers never shied away from exerting political or military against their Christian inhabitants to protect their authority. Why then should Muslim rule in Iberia be considered “tolerant”, a notion that has admittedly been challenged as of late, and Latin Christian rule in the Holy Land be described as “rough tolerance” when they ruled by essentially the same means?
In sum, MacEvitt has written a fine book on a topic that gets relatively little attention. His work is sure to inspire future studies as his readers become familiar with the uncharted territory that MacEvitt highlights throughout his work. More than anything, MacEvitt has seemingly put the final nail in the coffin of the segregationist model scholars have long applied to the Frankish rule in the Levant.
(c) Andrew Holt- June 2008- Permission is granted for electronic copying and distribution in print for educational and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use.