John of Gorze was born at Vandières, France to a wealthy family. In 933 he became a Benedictine monk at the Gorze Abbey near Metz (Gorze is a roughly between Metz and Vandières). In 953, John was sent as an ambassador for Emperor Otto I to the Caliph Abd-al-Rahman III of Córdoba.

Reception area in the Córdoba palace

Let’s first give some historical context as this is a bit complicated.

It was a challenging time in Spain with the Moors, having defeated the weak Visigothic state, occupying most of the country and trying to use it as a base to further spread their influence into Europe. It seems that Rahman’s people were raiding Frankish lands from a base at Fraxinetum (La Garde-Freinet on the Côte d’Azur?). Therefore, in 950 the Frankish Emperor Otto I sent an embassy to the Caliph to complain. Rahman then sent a reply but apparently the “terms of the letter were highly offensive to Christianity” and, as a result the Caliph’s emissaries were held in Germany for three years.

In 953, the Emperor eventually released them. They left back for Córdoba but now accompanied by the monk John of Gorze along with his fellow monk, Garamannus. The monks carried Otto’s response to the Caliph. This was a letter prepared by Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne (and Otto’s brother). The letter was, apparently, insulting to Islam. Since John knew the contents, he seems to have understood his embassy more like a suicide mission. Being a fanatical monk, he may have hoped for martyrdom. The embassy reached Córdoba in 953 or 954.

After John’s embassy arrived at Córdoba with the letter (as well as gifts for the Caliph), John was at first forced to deal not with the Caliph but with the Caliph’s plenipotentiary, the local vezir Hasdai bin Shaprut (yes, the same Hasdai of the  Gebalim letter fame) whose mission was to investigate the contents of the imperial response before it was presented to the Caliph. In effect, the Muslim ruler, knowing that he pissed Otto off, did not want have Otto’s reply be read in public. John eventually disclosed the letters to Hasdai who urged him not to deliver the letter to the Caliph. John, however, was steadfast stating it seems that the presents that Otto sent could not be delivered without the letter having been given to the Caliph first. It seems that the Muslims were happy to get the gifts but not to have a scandal at the court (the same scandal that Otto apparently had to suffer at the hands of the Moor’s ambassadors).

Presumably as a tit for tat for the Muslim emissaries having been imprisoned by Otto for three years, the Christian embassy was also imprisoned somewhere in the vicinity of the palace for three years until the court dignitaries and the Caliph decided how to deal with the situation. In the meantime, the Caliph’s court Christian, a certain Bishop John (no relation to our John) was sent by his master to sway John of Gorze from delivering the letter. The monk seems to have grown disgusted at the meek nature of his, theoretical, superior and nothing was achieved.

Eventually, John stated that he would do whatever the Emperor told him suggesting that another Moorish embassy be sent to Otto. A local Córdoban court official, perhaps a Visigoth (or, more likely, a Frank), by the name Recemundus (who was a Christian) was sent to Otto for more instructions.  He arrived at Gorz in ten weeks and stayed there and in Metz. He was received by Otto in Frankfurt and got further diplomatic missives prepared for Rahman. Recemundus left Frankfurt on Palm Sunday 956 with a companion – Dudo of Verdun – and arrived back at Córdoba in early July 956.  Presumably, the new missives were less offensive than the original letter or contained some additional information. In any event, the Caliph eventually deigned to see John and the monk after some further meetings with the Caliph returned to the Frankish realm. He died many years later in 974. Furthermore, Recemundus, as a reward for this and other services was made a bishop in Granada. He was later sent on other missions by the Caliph to Byzantium, Syria and Jerusalem.

We learn the story of the embassy from the Vita of John (Vita Joannis Abbatis Gorziensis) written by his friend, another John, the abbot of the abbey of Saint Arnulph located in Metz. The work was written in the 10th century and is an interesting window into the state of affairs (including the very narrow religious tolerance of the Moors) on the Iberian Peninsula.

What is even more interesting for our purposes is that when John arrives in Córdoba some of the messaging with the Caliph is done by persons described as sclavi cubicularii or, more specifically, to give Pertz’ case sclavos cubicularios. So the question was are these sclavi cubicularii, that is “chamber slaves” or are these Sclavi cubicularii, that is “chamber Suavs.” Since Suavs were sold into Muslim slavery (see here and here and here or in many other places on this website), their name became synonymous with that of  “slave” eclipsing the original Latin servus. However, that process took a while and it is not clear when that actually happened. Assuming tenth century authorship of the Life of John of Gorze, that transformation may not yet have taken place. If this is correct, the the slaves are really Suavs, once again, suggesting a significant role for at least some of them in Moorish-occupied Spain. Of course, such Suavs would have been slaves or perhaps, more accurately, servants at the court.

The manuscript was published in print in 1657 by Philippe Labbe in his Novae bibliothecae manuscriptorum librorum (tomus primus). A year later it came out in the Bollandists’ Acta Sanctorum as part of their “February tomus III” volume. Then it was edited by Pertz for the MGH (Monumenta Germaniae Historica). Both Labbe and the Bollandists opted for “Suavs” but Pertz went with “slaves.”

The Latin is essentially the following:

Primoribus ergo illis palatium petentibus, cum regi super hoc per nuntios suggessissent — nam accessus ad eum ipsum clarissimus, et nisi maximum quid ingruerit nullus, tantum litteris per sclauos cubicularios omnia perferuntur — ille nihil eorum ad se perlatum rescribit.

Here is the Labbe edition text:

And the Bolland edition.

And, finally, here is Pertz.

So what does the original look like?

We’ll get to that but for now let’s take a look at the English translation of the relevant fragments dealing with John’s embassy. Most of this is from “Christians and Moors in Spain,” translated and edited by Colin Smith with Charles Peter Melville as well as Ahmad Ubaydli, Warminster, 1988, volume I (text number 14) (as part of “Niceties of diplomacy (953-56)” which was “reprinted with corrections” in 1993. (I also took some of the information shown up above from these Colin Smith fragments and from the lead in to the same translation). Note that the Smith translation calls Gorze, Görz (German spelling) and calls Córdoba, Cordova – I kept each of those spellings.

[It seems that the contents of Otto’s letter were leaked by a certain priest before the embassy’s (and the returning Rahman emissaries’) arrival and various local court officials managed to intercept the embassy and tried to sway it to turn back. Unfortunately for them, they then stopped to dally in Saragossa and were overtaken by John with his letter who, with this companions, entered Córdoba ahead of them.]

(120) As a result, [the nobles] having deliberated among themselves to determine whether this had [already] come to the attention of the Caliph, and being unable to assure themselves of this, they decided to inform the same [that is the Caliph] of this fact.

It should be noted that the law by which they [Muslims] are governed is so strict, that that which once is imposed as a precept to entire nation, cannot be annulled in any way, and binds equally the Caliph and the people, paying with life for every transgression, which the Caliph punishes when [such transgression] comes from his subjects, just as the people rise up to punish those who commit the same [transgressions]. The first and most terrible prescription of their laws is that no one should dare to utter the slightest word against their religion, a crime that without remission is atoned for by beheading, both among the natives and the foreigners. If the Caliph hears [the case?] and decides to stay the sword till the next day [?], the same penalty is then carried out without the slightest chance of deferral [of the punishment?].

So, then, when those nobles went to the palace and asked the Caliph about it, using intermediaries – for rarely does he deign to let others into his presence and no one is allowed [to see him] without having gone through much trouble, with all matters being dealt with through letters that go through the house Suavs – the Caliph replied that no letter or document  had come into his hands, that his friends had announced the arrival of some ambassadors to him, and that they had been received by his son in his [the son’s] own house, but that he [the Caliph] was still ignorant of the object that they carried.  With this answer he managed to placate the concerns of the nobles; although the truth was that that rumor had already reached his ears, whose accuracy he would check by means of [his] secret envoys, although the fear of his people made him hide the manner in which he had learned this.”

(121) The Caliph, always timid and uncertain, considered what danger might threaten him, and sought contrivances of all kinds by which he might avoid it. First he sent to them [the Christian emissaries] a certain Jew, Hasdeu [Hasdai bin Shaprut] by name, none more wise was ever seen or heard of than he, as our people testified, in order that he should discuss everything thoroughly with them. On account of his reputation for patience, he had it put about that he was the bearer of the royal commission, so that he could first win John’s confidence, thereby giving him cheer and freeing him from fear, assuring him that no harm would come to him and that they would be sent home with honour. He reminded them of many things concerning the customs of the [Muslim] people and how they should behave in their presence. As young men they should refrain from all manner of idle and lewd gestures or words; no [offense] would be so slight so as not to be reported at once to the Caliph. If there should be ready opportunities for going out, they should not even show any inclination for light-hearted joking with the women, for the sternest punishment would be inflicted upon them. They should in no way depart from the guidance being offered them, for they would be most carefully watched, and would be thought guilty of the smallest fault.

After John had replied to all this as best he could, and had most willingly listened to his adviser, securing the agreement of his companions for their part, and after much else had been added to the above, the Jew cautiously began on the main matter. What, he earnestly asked, had they been sent to do? Since he saw that John was hesitating somewhat – even though the discussion between them was taking place In private – he gave a promise of confidentiality, especially if the matter carried a need of total secrecy. John set it all out in good order: Once the presents had been given to the Caliph, the letter must also be brought to the Caliph’s attention, without that there should be no presents offered, nor would it be right for him to enter the Caliph’s presence. Then he disclosed the message of the letter in his own words. ‘It would be dangerous’, said the Jew [after hearing this?], ‘for you to see the Caliph with this. Surely you must be careful about what reply you make to the Caliph’s messengers when they come to you. I do not doubt that the severity of the law is already well known to you, and you must consider how you can act carefully and avoid that.’

(122) The Jew left, and after a few months [!] a certain bishop John was sent to them. He, after many discussions of mutual interest (as between members of the same faith), both asked for and offered back, brought the Caliph’s order: that the Christian ambassadors should be brought into the royal presence with their gifts alone. ‘What then’, asked John of Gorz, ‘about the letters from the Emperor? Was I not ordered to make a most important issue of them? For if the Emperor sends insults, he, by having these rejected, as the empty fabrications of his error, will be confounded.’ Bishop John answered this in measured tones. ‘Consider’, he said, ‘under what conditions we live. We have been driven to this by our sins, to be subjected to the rule of the pagans. We are forbidden by the Apostle’s words to resist the civil power. Only one cause for solace is left to us, that in the depths of such a great calamity they do not forbid us to exercise our own laws. They can see that we are diligent followers of the Christian faith, and so they cultivate us and associate with us, just as they delight in their own society, while they thoroughly detest the Jews. For the time being, then, we keep the following counsel: that provided no harm is done to our religion, we obey them in all else, and do their commands in all that does not affect our faith. So I advise you now to leave most of these things unsaid, and altogether to suppress that letter, rather than to bring about a most dangerous clash for yourself and for your people when there is absolutely no need to do it.’

(123) Somewhat angered, John of Gorz replied: ‘It would be fitting for someone other than you, a bishop, to utter such sentiments. But since you are a propagandist for the faith, your superior rank should have made you a defender of it, and still less should you obstruct others in preaching the truth out of any human fear, nor should you yourself hold back from doing that. It would be altogether better for a Christian man to suffer the harsh burden of hunger, than to join in the banquets of the gentiles and thus favour the destruction [of the faith?] of others. In this regard – and this is a thing most hateful to the whole Catholic Church, and evil – I hear that you are circumcised according to the custom of Islam, when the forthright statement of the Apostle is: “If you circumcise yourselves, Christ will not help you.” I hear the same of your foodstuffs, some of which you reject for the sake of keeping on good terms with the Moslems: “All things are clean for those who are clean in soul”; “There will be prating sages who will teach this and that in a beguiling way, among other things abstinence from certain foods, even though God created them to be prepared with thanksgiving by His faithful”; and “Let it be made blessed by the Word of God and by prayer”.’ But Bishop John answered: ‘Necessity constrains us, for otherwise there would be no way in which we could live among them. Indeed, we hold it so as something handed down to us and observed by our ancestors from time immemorial.’ ‘Never’, said John of Gorz, ‘could I approve of that: that the divine laws should be transgressed out of fear, or for friendship, or on account of some human favour. […] Even if I accept that you, constrained by necessity, fall in line with them, I, by the grace of God free from such necessity, and with my mind firmly made up, will in no way be deflected by any fear or enticement or favour from those orders of the Emperor which I undertook to obey. So I will not agree to suppress or alter one iota of these letters, and if anyone should have any objection to make against those things which we state concerning our firm Catholic faith, or comes up with some contrary view of our claims, I will publicly oppose him, and will not for the sake of life itself run away from the task of witnessing to the truth.’

(124) These remarks were secretly reported to the Caliph. The messages not having been sent publicly by the Caliph, John of Gorz could not reply publicly, and the bishop had come into the matter solely in order to make exploratory inquiries. The Caliph, in careful consultations (such as are said to be advisable for all mortals), tried to determine how by one means or another he might influence the emissary’s mind, believing that — just as the strongest wall can be shaken by driving siege-engines against it – he would manage to shake John’s firmness of purpose. When after a month or a period of six or seven weeks of sending messengers to him, and trying to secure some concession within the limits the Christians had set for themselves, it became clear that the latter would not make any change from their original position, the Caliph in amazement at such constancy turned to other possibilities. First, one Sunday, he sent a letter to John full of threats, thinking he could fill the Christians with fear, since they were freely practising their religious rites in his realm. They were allowed to go only to the nearest church, St Martin’s, and that only on Sundays or for the important feast-days of our religion, that is Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, the Ascension, Pentecost, St John, and the days dedicated to the Apostles and the Saints, being accompanied there and back by twelve guards of the sort they call ‘sagiones‘. As John was going to church that Sunday, a letter was handed to him. Because the size of the letter – it was a square of parchment – alarmed him, lest it should call him away from holy communion, to which he was going, he deferred opening it for the time being, until (their holy duties being performed) they returned to their lodging. When he read it, he found certain alarming things which might happen to him, and owned that he had never been so disturbed before by other kinds of fears.

(125) For, after many things with which he was threatened if he refused to obey the Caliph’s commands, by which he declared he was in no way moved, the following was finally stated: that if he should be killed, he [the Caliph] would not leave any Christian in the whole of al-Andalus alive, but would slaughter them all. He added: ‘Think of your responsibility before God for the death of so many souls, of people who, were it not for your obstinacy, [would] not perish on account of any other charge, and who ought to be able to hope for peace and salvation from you. You are at liberty to ask on their behalf for any concession you like, rather than persisting so obstinately in opposition to us.’ John of Gorz turned these things over in his mind as he re-read the letter while walking from the church to his lodging, his mind being torn by great doubts as he tried to decide what to do, and what sort of reply he should make to the Caliph, for he had little experience of such things. But he was suddenly reminded of that axiom – as he often told us – by which all terror and fear might be banished from the mind: he said ‘Cast thy burden upon the Lord’ [Psalms 55.22], and again, ‘Who hath made man’s mouth? Have not I the Lord?’ [Exodus 4.11].

[In section 126, John dictates an uncompromising letter to the Caliph.]

(127) When this letter reached the Caliph, it did not rouse his mind to anger, as had happened before; instead he referred it to his council. The Caliph was first advised by his councillors, to whom our affairs were already known, to suppress his wrath, lest there should be a risk of a confrontation with our Emperor. He, a most warlike victor over many peoples, bringing together the forces of many realms, might ravage all al-Andalus with diverse disasters, and would perhaps take control of it all by right of conquest, in retaliation for all the wrongs done to him, especially to his emissaries, for no wrong was ever received with greater indignation than this. After much discussion of these matters, someone by chance suggested that since the man [John of Gorz] seemed to be so firm in his purpose, and could not be thought to be any the less in good sense, and had shown himself to be so constant in his faith after such a long period, and would not therefore deny his faith under any merely human pressures, he should himself be asked what he considered should be done. So John heard this final resolution from carefully—chosen emissaries. He replied to them as follows: ‘At last, thanks to sound counsel, you have made some progress. If that sound counsel had been taken at the start, much tedium and anxiety for you and for us might have been avoided. Now a swift and easy plan presents itself. Let an embassy be sent by your Caliph to our Emperor, so that it can bring me back word about what I should do with my orders. As soon as I have letters from the Emperor, I will obey in all things.’

(128) When these developments were reported to the Caliph, he accepted the suggestion as a wise one, and ordered that someone willing to undertake such a long journey should be sought; and since very few or almost none would be willing to come forward, it was proposed that anyone willmg to go should be able to claim, on his return, any honour he chose, and all manner of rewards. Eventually a certain Recemundus – a Catholic, moreover, and exceptionally learned in both Arabic and Latin literature — presented himself from among the palace staff.

[… 129, 130: Recemundus journeyed to Gorz in ten weeks, staying there and in Metz and eventually being received by the Emperor in Frankfurt. ‘Litterae mitiores‘, ‘more diplomatic letters’, were there prepared for the Caliph. Recemundus left on Palm Sunday 956 with a companion, Dudo of Verdun, and reached Cordova in early July.]

(131) When all these matters were explained to him, John, released from almost three years of cloistered seclusion, was ordered to appear in the royal presence. When he was told by the messengers to make hiinself presentable to royalty by cutting his hair, washing his body, and putting on clean clothes, he refused, lest they should tell the Caliph that he had changed in his essential being beneath a mere change of clothes. The Caliph then sent John ten pounds in coin, so that he might purchase clothing to put on and be decent in the royal eyes, for it was not right for people to be presented in slovenly dress. John could not at first decide whether to accept the money, but eventually he reasoned that it would be better spent for the relief of the poor, and sent thanks for the Caliph’s generosity and for the solicitude he had deigned to show him. The monk added in his reply: ‘I do not despise royal gifts, but it is not permitted for a monk to wear anything other than his usual habit, nor indeed could I put on any garment of a colour other than black.’ When this was reported to the Caliph, he remarked: ‘In this reply I perceive his unyielding firmness of mind. Even if he comes dressed in a sack, I will most gladly receive him.’

(132) On the day which had been agreed for John’s presentation at court, all the elaborate preparations for displaying royal splendour were made. Ranks of people crowded the whole way from the lodging to the centre of the city, and from there to the palace. Here stood infantrymen with spears held erect, beside them others brandishing javelins and staging demonstrations of aiming them at each other; after them, others mounted on mules with their light armour; then horsemen urging their steeds on with spurs and shouts, to make them rear up. In this startling way the Moors hoped to put fear into our people by their various martial displays, so strange to our eyes. John and his companions were led to the palace along a very dusty road, which the very dryness of the season alone served to stir up (for it was the summer solstice). High officials came forward to meet them, and all the pavement of the outer area of the palace was carpeted with most costly rugs and coverings.

(133) When John arrived at the dais where the Caliph was seated alone

– almost like a godhead accessible to none or to very few – he saw everything draped with rare coverings, and floor-tiles stretching evenly to the walls. The Caliph himself reclined upon a most richly ornate couch. They do not use thrones or chairs as other peoples do, but recline on divans or couches when conversing or eating, their legs crossed one over the other. As John came into his presence, the Caliph stretched out a hand to be kissed. This hand-kissing not being customarily granted to any of his own people or to foreigners, and never to persons of low and middling rank, but only to the high-born and to those of exceptional dignity, the Caliph none the less gave John his hand to kiss.

(134) Then the Caliph signed to John to be seated. A lengthy silence ensued on both sides. Then the Caliph began: ‘I know your heart has long been hostile to me, and that is why I refused you an audience till now. You yourself know that I could not do otherwise. I appreciate your steadfastness and your learning. I wish you to know that things which may have disturbed you in that letter were not said out of enmity towards you; and not only do I now freely receive you, but assure you that you shall have whatever you ask.’ John — who, as he later told us, had expected to utter something harsh to the Caliph, since he had long harboured such resentment — suddenly became very calm and could never have felt more equable in spirit. So he answered that he could not deny he had at first been greatly exercised by the harsh tone of the emissaries, and had thought it better to remain silent for a long period than to torment himself by feigned rather than true statements of threats in response to the Caliph’s threats; but eventually all the obstacles placed in his way by deeds and words over three years had been removed from above, and now no obstacle based on justified enmity remained to make him doubtful of his status. This being so, he had dismissed these things completely from his mind, and was only glad that he had won such generosity and favour, and that in this matter he had perceived such strength of purpose and moderation in the royal heart, and a most noble character. The Caliph was greatly pleased with these remarks, and addressed John on other subjects. Then he asked him to hand over the presents from the Emperor. When this was done, John instantly requested permission to leave. The Caliph asked in surprise: ‘How does this sudden change come about? Since both of us have waited so long for a sight of each other, and since we have now scarcely met, is it right for us to part as strangers? Now that we are together, there is an opportunity for each of us to acquire a little knowledge of the other’s mind, and we could meet again at greater length, and on a third occasion forge a truly firm bond of understanding and friendship. Then, when I send you back to your master, you could bear yourself thither with all due honour.’ John agreed to this. They ordered the other emissaries to be brought in, and the presents which they were carrying were handed over to the Caliph.

(135) The Christians returned to their lodging, and when after a time John was again called to see the Caliph, he conversed with him on a number of subjects of mutual interest: the power and wisdom of our Emperor, the strength and numbers of his army, his glory and wealth, events of war, and many things of that kind. The Caliph for his part boasted that his army exceeded that of any other of the rulers of the world in strength. John made but little answer to this, saying only what might serve to pacify the Caliph’s mind, but eventually he added: ‘I speak the truth when I say that I know of no monarch in the world who can equal our Emperor In lands or arms or horses.’

What does the original say?

As you can see, we won’t get the answer from this as capitalization had not yet taken hold when  the manuscript was put together. For what it’s worth, the question has been around for many years with, for example, the Polish revolutionary and popular historian Karol Szajnocha (who, to be sure, did have some crazy theories) firmly believing that the above reference was to Suavs.

Finally, I will leave you with this thought about Gorze aka Görz.  Gorze lies in a portion of France that is replete with -in town names. It lies next to Metz and Vandières. Is Gorze a Celtic or Teutonic name? Well, consider where there are other similarly named towns. For example, we have Gorz in Iran (Baluchistan). We also have Gorizia (also aka Görz) in Italy on the Slovene border. This last town’s name was first recorded as Goriza in a document dated April 28, 1001, in which Otto III donated the castle and the village of Goriza to the Patriarch of Aquileia John II and to Count Verihen of Friuli. That document referred to Gorizia as “the village known as Goriza in the language of the Suavs (Villa quae Sclavorum lingua vocatur Goriza). Gorica (the likely original transcription of Goriza) just means “mountain” in Suavic. (This, quite apart from the fact that one of the first sentences in Polish written apparently about the 13th century was “A great calamity befell upon us!” (Gorze się nam stało!) by Henry the Pious in reference to the defeat of the Silesians by the Mongols. This creates another potential Suavic etymology).

So the question is what is the origin of the name of the French Gorze? The first time this town was mentioned seems to have been in 762 (“Monasterium in Gorzia“).

Remains of the abbey church at Gorze

Copyright ©2019 jassa.org All Rights Reserved