Dagobert of Pisa

Dagobert (or Daibert or Daimbert) (died 1105) was the first Archbishop of Pisa and the second Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem after the city was captured in the First Crusade.

Little is known of Dagobert's early life, but he is thought to have originally been ordained by Wezilo,[1] Archbishop of Mainz 1084-88, a leading supporter of the emperor in the Investiture Controversy and of the Antipope Clement III.

Peter, Bishop of Pistoia, protested to the pope, and the cathedral chapter opposed it, but Urban's continued support allowed Dagobert to establish his authority.

He played an active role in Pisa's civic life, for example joining with other notables in 1090 to regulate the maximum height of houses, and by 1092 the clergy were signing his documents.

However, the other Crusader leaders, who saw the necessity for cooperation with the Byzantine Emperor and eastern Christians, were horrified and persuaded Dagobert to call off the blockade.

Baldwin, the future King of Jerusalem, was at this time Lord of Edessa, but he did not pay homage for it to Dagobert, and their relations do not seem to have been good.

Godfrey partly yielded, and at a ceremony on Easter Day, 1 April 1100, he announced that he would retain possession until his death, or until he conquered two great cities from the infidel, but he bequeathed Jerusalem to the Patriarch.

[11] The arrival of a Genoese squadron in April 1101 weakened Dagobert's position, as Baldwin no longer depended for sea power on the Pisan fleet.

He was charged with attacking fellow-Christians in his raids on Byzantine islands on his journey to the east, of conspiring to provoke a civil war between Bohemond and Baldwin, and keeping for himself money given for the welfare of pilgrims, and deposed as Patriarch.

He was succeeded as Archbishop of Pisa by Pietro Moriconi, who may have been elected by the Pisans before Dagobert's death, suggesting that he might have lost support after his long – and pluralistic – absence, but charters in the cathedral archives show that his actions during his tenure were later repeatedly cited and confirmed.

[17] In a 1998 study Michael Matzke defended Dagobert, arguing that his actions as patriarch were motivated by religious idealism, and that he was trying to carry out the intentions of Pope Urban.