In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS 425 author's findings and opinions forms a final chapter. There follow four appendices on controverted topics, a bibliography, and an index. Although there is a vast corpus of scholarly writing about the Crusades and the Crusader states and a much smaller corpus about the Byzantine Empire, this is the first detailed book to focus on the relations between those states and the empire. This is not a history of the Crusader states or of Byzantium; Lilie presumes that the reader is already well acquainted with those histories. Instead, he concentrates his attention, and ours, on his avowed primary interest , the relations between those states and the empire. Still, he has based his work solidly on historical facts and, in places, has devoted considerable energy to the clarification of some factual problems, but he is much more concerned about the political motivations of the individuals and the governments he writes of. He begins, as one might expect, with the forceful attempts of Alexios I, and then the more confrontational ones ofJohn II, to secure the recognition of their overlordship in the Crusader states, particularly in Antioch . He then shows how Manuel II altered this policy to one which sought friendship with the Latins. This chapter, of course, must now be read in the light ofPaul Magdalino's magisterial study: TheEmpire ofManuelIIKomnenos (Cambridge, 1993). The last chronological chapter shows a weakened empire abandoning Manuel's détente in favor of a more aggressive stance, which culminated in the catastrophe of 1204. It should be noted that Lilie's book, excellent though it is, treats primarily of political and diplomatic history and has very little to say about religious and cultural aspects. The few matters on which reviewers of the original German edition disagreed are dealt with in a responsible manner. While the reader, particularly the specialist, might differ with Lilie on some points, it is clear that any further discussion of relations between Byzantium and the Crusader states must begin with this book. George T. Dennis, SJ. The Catholic University ofAmerica Brother andLover. Aelred ofRievaulx. By Brian Patrick McGuire. (New York: Crossroad. 1994. Pp. xviii, 186. $22.95.) The present volume considers the filial and erotic tensions in Aelred of Rievaulx's writings. Aelred's history is presented chronologically from his placement at the court of King David of Scotland, through his death eulogized by Walter Daniel, to Aelred's place in present spirituality. McGuire traces, what he calls, Aelred's homoerotic impulse, an impulse which he says Aelred was able to change to an "agapetic union" for his monastic brethren. Various episodes in Aelred's life are viewed to show the development of this struggle. McGuire has read deeply in Aelred's works. His informal prose style lends his narrative the "feel" of a meditation rather than an historical inquiry. The 426 BOOK REVIEWS book eschews footnotes, and although McGuire translates at length from the Latin he often does not cite the original. We do, however, need the Latin, especially in those instances when he contests other translations, and his own translations lead to interpretations they cannot support, e.g., his point that the passage he cites from De Institutione Inclusarum illustrates the way a twelfth-century monastic leader claims he "forced himself to stop masturbating " (p. 61). McGuire's goal is to understand Aelred's sexual identity, his struggle with his physical affection for men and resolution of that struggle in Rievaulx. This is a worthy subject and a difficult one, not least because the surviving writings are so opaque. While McGuire ably illustrates Aelred's achievement ofspiritual friendship, he oversteps the bounds ofthe careful historian in his interpretation of the texts. In order to underscore Aelred's attraction to men, McGuire reads into the historical record intentions and conclusions which it cannot sustain, e.g., since Aelred makes no mention of his mother, McGuire states that "He was not keen on motherhood" or, despite Aelred's expressed intention that the De Institutione Inclusarum was written for his sister, ". . . that Aelred lacks much feeling at all for religious women and their concerns." These remarks are drenched with the idiom of the late-twentieth century, and reveal more...

pdf

Share