5.5 Analysis: The Lords’ and Ladies’ Walls
5.5.2 Iconographic Representations of Seigneurial Power
Between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Caesarea’s city walls were used as both iconographic and physical representations of seigneurial power (see also sections 5.5.3 and 6.2.1 below). The image of Caesarea’s fortifications utilized on the seals acted as a
visual reminder of the lords’ and ladies’ ability to control and upkeep military fortifications financially even if no physical defences existed.
John d’Ibelin ascribed the right of “court et coins et justise” to certain fiefs, including “la seignorie de Cesaire” (Beugnot 1841: 420; quoted in Hazard 1974: 361 n.8). This allowed feudal barons and higher clergy the right to seal documents in lead in the kingdom of Jerusalem (de Briailles 1942–1943: 244–257; quoted in Hazard 1974: 360–361 nn. 7, 9; see also Kool 2007: 186). Each lord could thus attest to his official acts by appending his personal two-sided lead seal, usually attached with silk ribbons (Hazard 1974: 361).
According to Hazard (1974: 365), lead was used by individual lords to seal their
documents, while wax was used on documents sealed by several lords. The use of lead for sealing was introduced in the Frankish East from the early twelfth century since it was less susceptible to the extreme climate changes of the Near East (Kool 2007: 181 n.4).
The reverse of each of the lords’ and ladies’ seals has a representation of the city of Caesarea. The city is depicted using the city’s fortifications. There is a clear change in focus from Eustace’s seal which centres on the city’s main gate tower and part of the city wall to Gautier I’s seal using the full circuit of the walls including the city’s donjon and back again to Hugh’s seal which, like Eustace, centres on the main gate and city wall (see figure 5.69). This later style evolves and becomes more ornate with Gautier II’s and Julianne and Adhémar’s seals. These architectural variations may represent actual physical changes in the walls as Hazard (1974: 368) states:
the representations of fortifications vary markedly from fief to fief, and presumably reflect actual differences. Those of Caesarea start by showing the phallus-shaped citadel on its peninsula, protected on the landward side by a V-shaped wall anchored by towers, with no crenellations visible. Later seals stress crenellated towers linked by battlemented walls, centering on the large tower guarding the main gate as it existed before 1187.
However, I believe that these seals represent more than merely a depiction of architectural evolution (see section 1.2).
There is no evidence from the historical record to suggest that the fortifications were modified between Eustace, Gautier I and Hugh’s lordships. Thus the stylistic change from
the entire wall circuit to that of the front gate tower could be explained by looking at the careers and political positions of each lord. Eustace was very active in military affairs since he helped repel an attack on Jerusalem in 1110 and he commanded the army of the kingdom during the battle of Ibelin in 1123 (Hazard 1975: 85), while Gautier I, although present on two royal charters, does not appear to play a large role at court. Hugh is quite popular, appearing as a witness on several royal documents, and plays an active role in military matters. Perhaps Hugh believed that the image of the city’s impregnable front gate tower would serve him better than the image chosen by his father.
There are marked differences between Gautier I and Eustace and Hugh’s seals. First, the main defensible element in Eustace and Hugh’s seals has changed from a donjon to a main gate tower. Second, Eustace and Hugh’s seals portray a single archway with closed doors whereas Gautier I’s has two open archways. Third, Eustace and Hugh offer a very limited view of the city’s defences, showing only one tower and its adjacent walls with no way to see past them, while Gautier I’s lays out the extent of the city’s fortifications in plain view. Lastly, Eustace and Hugh’s seals reinforce the fact that the city is fortified through the inclusion of crenellations, a detail which is absent from Gautier I’s seal. All of these stylistic differences would suggest that Eustace wanted to demonstrate his
seigneurial power through the image of strong, fortified walls as did Hugh – an image which is not represented successfully on Gautier I’s seal. These differences would also suggest a change in attitude towards the city’s fortifications between Gautier I’s and Hugh’s lordships; the city’s strength lay with its walls and not its keep.
Figure 5.69: A – Seal of Eustace; B – Sketch of Gautier I’s seal; C – Seal of Hugh; D – Sketch of Hugh’s seal; E – Sketch of Gautier II’s seal; F – Sketch of Julianne and Adhémar de Lairon’s seal (Eidelstein 2002: Plate B; Schlumberger et al. 1943: Plate XVIII n.2; Gersht and
Muzeon Sedot-Yam (Israel) 1999: 79 n.18; Schlumberger et al. 1943: Plate XVIII n.1, Plate XVII n.8 and n.7)
Whether the seal’s stylistic choices are true representations of Caesarea’s physical walls, the fortified image continues to be used by Gautier II, and again by Julianne and her husband Adhémar, to demonstrate their seigneurial power. Gautier II’s seal is very similar to that of Eustace and Hugh although it includes two additional crenellated towers. This seal was used in 1182, the same year that a council was held at Caesarea to discuss plans for thwarting Saladin (William of Tyre 1976 II: 485). It may be that the addition of these towers, whether actual or simply iconographic, is a result of this threat.
Although there is no mention in the chronicles, Gautier II may have had the walls
augmented or he may have wanted to convey to the other barons of the realm that he had the power and resources to do so. This may also have been the case with Lady Julianne and Adhémar’s seal.
Lady Julianne and Adhémar de Lairon’s seal is the largest and most elaborate of all the seal examples; measuring approximately 4.6 cm in diameter compared to 3–3.5 cm. It is the only example depicting the walls after Saladin’s destruction of Caesarea in 1190–1191.
Hazard (1974: 368 n.54) believes that the lavishly decorated walls are a depiction of how
“the then-shattered fortifications” would have looked two decades before. This is a possibility. Alternatively, Lady Julianne may have kept a seal design similar to that of her predecessors as homage to the city’s once great fortifications. Lady Julianne received her fief during a tumultuous time and as such creating continuity with the past would have enabled her to communicate her ability to deliver a prosperous future. Perhaps she was using this lavish image to advertise her ability to render the walls to their former glory or to render the walls to a new height. In this scenario, Caesarea’s city walls are directly associated to Lady Julianne’s power to control the resources and wealth necessary to rebuild and upkeep these monumental structures (see section 2.3).
Another possibility is that the walls continued looking very similar to their pre-1190 appearance throughout the early thirteenth century. I believe this for two reasons: firstly, even though there is no mention in the chronicles of the walls being rebuilt between 1190 and 1207, seventeen years is ample time in which to rebuild or repair the city’s
fortifications. Moreover, Saladin’s destruction of the walls may not have been all
encompassing; after Ascalon’s destruction in 1191, its walls were rebuilt by King Richard I
in just over two months (see section 4.6.2). Even to the present day, the remaining ruins of medieval Caesarea, having succumbed to destructions in 1265 and 1291, are considerable.
Secondly, in February, 1206, Lady Julianne grants the Teutonic Order the Tower of Mallart and another smaller tower on the east side of the city’s walls (Boas 2006: 63;
Pringle 1995: 89; Rửhricht 1893: 216 n.810; Strehlke 1869: 32–33 n.40, 123 n.128) (see section 5.5.3). It seems unlikely that she would give the knights structures that no longer existed or were “shattered.” Therefore, I believe that the walls on the seal represent actual standing fortifications which would have been rebuilt or repaired by Lady Julianne and are, like the walls on Gautier II’s seal, a representation of her seigneurial power. This is only emphasized by the fact that her name appears alongside Caesarea’s walls, on the reverse of her seal.