The Siege Of Lisbon And The Second Crusade Summary

652 Words3 Pages
The journal article “The Siege of Lisbon and the Second Crusade” written by Alan Forey questions the validity of St. Bernard’s letter 308 and the significance of the “Lisbon letter.” Some historical analyses of the letters imply that St. Bernard provided prior knowledge to Portugal’s King Afonso Henriques regarding the northern fleet’s siege of Lisbon in 1147. Forey opens his essay by questioning the authenticity of letter 308 by writing “This letter first appears in Brito’s Chronica de Cister, published in 1602: and it is generally accepted that this work is based partly on documents which are not genuine.” St. Bernard was a key figure in promoting, recruiting Christian warriors, and fulling the papacy’s desires regarding the Second Crusade. Many individuals believe that based upon the letters content Bernard was directly involved in planning the expedition to the Iberian Peninsula. To dispute their claims Forey cites numerous historical sources that insinuate St. Bernard was not the author of letter 308. It is Forey’s contention that the letter is unambiguous and simply does not stand up to scrutiny to analysis. In the letter 308, St.…show more content…
However, according to the chronicle De Expugnatione Lyxbonesi there had been no prior discussion between King Afonso and St. Bernard regarding the siege. Many who read the Lisbon letter believe that the existence of the Pisan engineer is proof that the fleet’s intent was coming to the aid of Afonso. The letter did not state the purpose of the engineer nor does the letter state when or where the he joined the fleet. Based upon Forey’s historical documentation and the presentation of his facts it appears that letter 308 is as a forgery and the ‘Lisbon letter’ provides no credible evidence suggesting any prior co-operation between the King of Portugal Afonso Henriques and St. Bernard in regards to the siege of
Open Document