In 1219, accompanied by another friar and hoping to convert the Sultan of Egypt or win martyrdom in the attempt, Francis went to Egypt where a Crusader army had been encamped for over a year besieging the walled city of Damietta two miles (3.2 kilometers) upstream from the mouth of one of the main channels of the Nile. The Sultan, al-Kamil, a nephew of Saladin, had succeeded his father as Sultan of Egypt in 1218 and was encamped upstream of Damietta, unable to relieve it. A bloody and futile attack on the city was launched by the Christians on 29 August 1219, following which both sides agreed to a ceasefire which lasted four weeks.^[1] It was most probably during this interlude that Francis and his companion crossed the Saracen lines and were brought before the Sultan, remaining in his camp for a few days.^[2] The visit is reported in contemporary Crusader sources and in the earliest biographies of Francis, but they give no information about what transpired during the encounter beyond noting that the Sultan received Francis graciously and that Francis preached to the Saracens without effect, returning unharmed to the Crusader camp.^[3] No contemporary Arab source mentions the visit.^[4] One detail, added by Bonaventure in the official life of Francis (written forty years after the event) but dismissed by modern critics as a hagiographical embellishment, concerns an alleged challenge by Francis offering trial-by-fire in order to prove the veracity of the Christian gospel.^[5] Although Bonaventure does not suggest as much, subsequent biographies went further, claiming that a fire was kindled which Francis unhesitatingly entered without suffering burns. Such an incident is depicted in the late 13th c. fresco cycle, attributed to Giotto, in the upper basilica at Assisi (see accompanying illustration).^[6] According to some late sources, the Sultan gave Francis permission to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land and even to preach there. All that can safely be asserted is that Francis and his companion left the Crusader camp for Acre, from where they embarked for Italy in the latter half of 1220. Drawing on a 1267 sermon by Bonaventure, later sources improbably report that the Sultan secretly converted or accepted a death-bed baptism as a result of the encounter with Francis.^[7] The Franciscan Order has been present in the Holy Land almost uninterruptedly since 1217, receiving concessions from the Mameluke Sultan in 1333 with regard to certain Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and (so far as concerns the Catholic Church) jurisdictional privileges from Pope Clement VI in 1342.^[8]

^ Steven Runciman, History of the Crusades, vol. 3: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades, Cambridge University Press (1951, paperback 1987), pp.151-161.
^ Tolan, St. Francis and the Sultan: the curious history of a Christian-Muslim encounter, Oxford University Press (2009) pp.4f.
^ e.g., Jacques de Vitry, Letter 6 of February or March 1220 and Historia orientalis (ca. 1223-1225) cap. XXII; Tommaso da Celano, Vita prima (1228), §57: the relevant passages are quoted in an English translation in Tolan, pp.19f. and 54 respectively.
^ Tolan, p.5
^ Bonaventure, Legenda major (1260-1263), cap. IX §7-9, criticized by, e.g., Sabatier, La Vie de St. François d'Assise (1894), chapter 13, and Paul Moses, The Saint and the Sultan: The Crusades, Islam, and Francis of Assisi's Mission of Peace, Doubleday Religion (2009) excerpted in an article "Mission improbable: St. Francis & the Sultan", in Commonwealth magazine, September 25, 2009.
^ e.g., Chesterton, Saint Francis, Hodder & Stoughton (1924) chapter 8.
^ For grants of various permissions and privileges to Francis as attributed by later sources, see, e.g., Tolan, pp.258-263. The first mention of the Sultan's alleged conversion occurs in a sermon delivered by Bonaventure on 4 October 1267. See Tolan, pp.168
^ Bulla Gratias agimus, commemorated by Pope John Paul II in a Letter dated 30 November 1992. See also Tolan, p.258. On the Franciscan presence, including an historical overview, see, generally the official website at Custodia and Custodian of the Holy Land

Comments

First off I would like to clarify things. The earlier discussion with the previous two editors was primarily about what they were doing and the lack of sources that they were providing for what they were doing. I am pretty versed in Franciscan history and know the contraversies about stories by Bonaventure and about what happened and what didn't happen. My main issue was the changes the other editors were making was being done without sources or anything else. As they were trying to change it, it was just OR. Now for your version, in general I feel it is a very good replacement for what should be there although some will probably argue issues like undue weight, but I would disagree if they did. My nitpick issues with it are:

"preached to the Saracens" all sources that I have read and more learned people then me have said that he only preached to the Sultans household not to the rest of the army.
Effects of the visit, an expert on this subject told me (but I don't have the references) "Whichever is the case, the end result is what is important here. Francis did not make a convert out of the Sultan, but he did make a friend. The Sultan made it easier for the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land to come into existence by granting the friars permission to enter the Holy Land through his territory, which today are divided between Egypt and Jordan."
"later sources improbably report" Not sure improbably is the best word here. Unless that is a quote from the sources you need to let the reader draw their own conclusion, maybe something like "later sources claim..." or something like that.
Not sure the section on the current status of things is clear. Beginning reader may think that the Franciscans own the sites in the Holy Land or something like that. It is technically correct as is since it is "juristictional privaleges" it just means the sites fall under the auspices of the Franciscans of the Holy land similar to a diocese or parish. The Franciscan may "run" the sites but they never own the sites and especially now when most of the sites are technically "owned" by the Orthodox churches of Jerusalum. Not sure what I am suggesting for this part.Marauder40 (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for your attentive reading of my suggested re-write which I sincerely appreciate, and for your introductory words. I realize there may have been some previous inter-action which made your initial responses to those other editors seem a little brusque to an outsider, and it was really none of my business to stir up old coals. I apologize for seeming to barge in on you, and (even more) for burdening the talk page with such a long critique. Most of it should have been in here, I think. Turning to your points (which I notice you are beguilingly diffident about), I don't see how to deal with them except at length and in a business-like way - and I know you have had a lot to digest from me already – but here goes:-

1. Preaching to whom- "Saracens" doesn't imply the soldiery. It was used to identify Arabs and later (by extension) all Muslims. I can't see any ground for changing my text which I took from de Vitry. Tommaso doesn't contradict it. What sources are you thinking of?

"For several days he preached the Word of God to the Saracens and made little progress" (De Vitry, Letter 6, 1220); and " . . for some days [the Sultan] listened very attentively to Francis as he preached the faith of Christ to him and his followers. But ultimately, fearing that some of his soldiers would be converted to the Lord by the efficacy of his words and pass over to the Christian army, he ordered that Francis be returned to our camp . ." (Historia orientalis, 1223-1225)

"With great strength of soul [Francis] spoke to [the Sultan] . . with eloquence and confidence he answered those who insulted the Christian law. [The Sultan was moved by [Francis'] words and listened to him very willingly" (Tommaso da Celano, Vita prima, 1228):

2. Effects of the visit – the sources agree on (and I mentioned) the benign reception Francis received. It is not in dispute. But (a) did Francis get a permit to travel overland to Acre; and (b) did the fellow-feeling he struck up with Sultan al-Kamil have any cause relation with the concessions first granted in 1333? I have to stick with a negative to both of those. For (a), look again at my argument at take (2) (1) [2]. For the context of these late assertions and the alleged causal relationship with the privileges granted in 1333, I refer to Tolan's discussion (which I summarise):-

Angelo of Clareno (1326, Tolan, p.263) was the first to claim that Francis visited Jerusalem – precisely at a time when the Dominicans and Franciscans were competing for privileges, courtesy of Aragonese intervention. Tolan (p.258-263) shows that the 14th c. concessions were granted after extensive negotiations conducted at a diplomatic level. King James II of Aragon had obtained privileges for the Dominicans in 1323, and for the Franciscans in 1327, but then he died in 1327 and the privileges seemingly lapsed – anyway, they were never exercised. Negotiations with the Sultan were renewed by Robert of Anjou, King of Naples, and it was he who obtained the 1333 concessions. Robert was allied with the French dynasty and the Sultan may conceivably have thought he was gaining a lever to forestall another crusade.

The chronological priority of privileges for the Dominicans demolishes any argument that a lingering memory of harmony between Francis and al-Kamil had resulted in the Franciscans obtaining any favoured status. Finally, the Mamelukes had no reason to pay any attention to what their Arab predecessors had done (or felt or thought) even if they knew about it which (given the silence of the Muslim sources) seems unlikely.

3. The alleged conversion of the Sultan- I wrote "improbably" because it is a notorious fact that apostasy from Islam means death, and for a leader to contemplate apostasizing is unthinkable. The Legenda major recognizes the weight of this bar in this passage which (if not in itself credible as history) is psychologically valid:-

"The Sultan replied that he did not dare to accept [the trial-by-fire offer] because he feared a revolt among his people. Nevertheless he offered [Francis] many precious gifts, which the man of God, greedy not for worldly possessions but the salvation of souls, spurned . . . Seeing that the holy man so completely despised worldly possessions, the Sultan was overflowing with admiration, and developed an even greater respect for him. Although he refused, or perhaps did not dare, to come over to the Christian faith, he nevertheless devoutly asked Christ’s servant to accept the gifts and give them to the Christian poor or to churches for his salvation."

Ditto the sermon for the feastday in 1267:-

"The Sultan replied: ‘I could not dare do that, for fear my people would stone me. But I believe that your faith is good and true.’ And from that moment the Christian faith was imprinted on his heart."

You might want to argue that's why it is said the Sultan "secretly" converted, but there is no way that that information could have emerged. The story of the death-bed conversion (involving a miraculous teleportation of friars to administer the sacrament) is a very late excess of piety.

The word "improbably" (or some equivalent) has to stay because there is no room to give the reader the necessary facts to enable them to reach their own conclusion here. If the article can assert (as it currently does) that Francis "probably" met Dominic at the 4th Lateran Council and that Francis "most probably" visited Palestine, then I can't see any valid objection to "improbably" in the context in which I have used it.

4. Modern status of the custodia - It's an interesting and important topic in its own right and its quite well covered in Custodian of the Holy Land (not that I have scrutinized it), but it's not particularly relevant here, is it? I'm not rejecting the idea, but I can't yet see how to bring it in. The link I provided (in my critique) to the new website of the Custodia (along with a link to the wikipedia article) ought to be sufficient – how about if I add those to footnote 8? This is what Tolan wrote (p.258) about the privileges actually granted, by the way:-

In 1333, al-Naˆsir Muhammad, Mamluk sultan of Egypt, granted the Franciscans a presence in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, two chapels on the Mount of Olives, and a part of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. The possession and control of these sites was not complete: other Christians, subjects of the sultan—Georgians, Copts, Melkites, and others—claimed similar privileges.