John S. Ott (c2008, 2012,
2013, 2021)
Department of History
Portland State University
HST 355U - Late Medieval Europe, 1100-1450
READING
GUIDE #3 : STUDY QUESTIONS
for
(1) (ANONYMOUS), THE DEEDS OF THE FRANKS AND THE OTHER
JERUSALEM-BOUND PILGRIMS;
(2) ROBERT THE MONK, HISTORY OF THE FIRST CRUSADE (HISTORIA
IHEROSOLIMITANA);
(3) ANNA KOMNENA, THE ALEXIAD;
AND
(4) USAMA
IBN
MUNQIDH, THE BOOK OF CONTEMPLATION
This week we will be tackling readings on the First Crusade (1095-1101)
and on life in the near east, focusing on medieval Syria and Palestine,
that followed. We will also be reading a brief excerpt from the
famous history of her father's reign, The Alexiad, written by
Anna Komnena, rare in
being a medieval historical chronicle composed by a woman. Anna was a
Byzantine
princess, and made important observations about the first crusaders
from
her vantage point in Byzantium (Constantinople). We will also read two
accounts
describing the taking of Jerusalem in the course of the First Crusade: The Deeds of the Franks and the other
Jerusalem-Bound Pilgrims (the earliest history to survive, and a
story that Guibert "rewrote"), and Robert the Monk's History of the
Jerusalem Pilgrims. Unlike the author of the anonymous Deeds of
the Franks, Robert was an armchair historian, and did not go on the
crusade himself. Finally,
we'll read a Muslim account about the invading "Franks" (the generic
name
Muslims and Greeks applied to the crusaders, even if many of them were
not
from Francia), which offer an altogether different insight into the
crusades and the post-crusade settlement period in Syria and Palestine..
I. (Anonymous), The
Deeds of the Franks and the Other Jerusalem-Bound Pilgrims
Historians have long debated the authorship of this work, but we know
the following. First, it seems to have existed (whether in whole or in
part is unclear) by no later than 1101, which would make it the
earliest written history
of the First Crusade. Recent scholarship has argued that it was
assembled, not by an individual participant of the First Crusade, as
was long thought, but perhaps by a team of clerical or monastic
compilers, though drawing on eyewitness testimony. The earliest
surviving manuscript dates to the early twelfth century. Its style and
tone are spare, and it was precisely its lack of literary ornament that
led Guibert, Robert the Monk, and other writers to criticize and seek
to "improve" upon it. It has also led some scholars to argue that it
was composed by a layman, though this is unlikely. The text was
composed in 10 narratives which vary greatly in length and emphasis.
The longest are the ones dealing with the siege of Antioch and the
taking of Jerusalem, which includes a subsequent battle at Ascalon, on
the coast. The seige of Jerusalem began on June 7 and the final attack
commenced on July
13-14. A day later, on July 15, the city was taken.
1) How did the crusaders prepare for their siege of Jerusalem?
How did they react upon arriving before the city, and how did they act
as the siege unfolded? What was the mood in the crusader camp?
2) How does its storytelling differ from that of Guibert? To what
might we attribute this different?
II. Robert the Monk, History of the
Jerusalemites / History of the First Crusade
Robert “the Monk” or “of Saint-Rémy” of Reims (r. 1095-1097
(-1100), d. 1122) was formerly a monk of Marmoutier, an abbey in the
Loire region of
France. Robert attests that he was an eyewitness to Pope Urban II’s
speech at Clermont calling the crusade (see the "Sermo apologeticus"),
and that he
had been instructed to write by ‘a certain abbot Bernard’ in order to
improve
on a story of the crusade that Bernard had at hand, by adding ‘a
beginning’.
Thus, his account supplies an overview of the 1095 Council at Clermont,
which is lacking
in the Deeds of the Franks.
Robert wrote in 1107, thus eight years after
the conclusion of the Jerusalem siege in 1099. His account was easily
the
most popular of all of the many crusade histories, and survives in some
94
manuscripts.
1) Why do you think Robert was especially concerned to supply a
'beginning' to his narrative of the crusade? What does his account have
that the Deeds lacks? How does it differ from the narrative in
the Deeds?
2) What, according to Robert, did Pope Urban say in his speech
(remember, this was written about 12-13 years after the event)?
How did the pope whip up enthusiasm for crusading? What were the
crusade's ideological underpinnings?
3) Compare the two accounts of the taking of Jerusalem: do their
authors invest them with equal significance? why or why not?
III.
Anna Comnena, The
Alexiad,
and
Usama Ibn Munqidh, The
Book of Contemplation
Anna Komnena
(1083-1153), named for her grandmother, was the oldest child of Emperor
Alexius (r. 1081-1118) and had expected to inherit his throne but was
passed
over (along with her husband) in favor of her younger brother, John.
Anna
was extremely learned, and composed The
Alexiad around 1148, some fifty years after the events she
describes. The Bohemund in question in Anna's account was
Bohemund
of Taranto, a Norman Italian and one of the leaders of the First
Crusade. He was something of a johnny-come-lately, arriving in
Constantinople after the main crusading army had already passed through
southern Italy on their way to Jerusalem. He was also extremely
ambitious and, as a land-poor southern Italian aristocrat, had
very little to lose in the crusading venture. His conflict with the
Emperor Alexius seems to have centered around Bohemund's demand that
the emperor appoint
him commander of imperial forces in Asia, a concession Alexius was
unwilling
to make. More to the point, Emperor Alexius and Bohemund had for
a
while been staunch enemies in a series of wars in the early 1080s, as
Bohemond
and his father, Robert Guiscard, sought to take control of Byzantine
territory
in southern Italy and later in Greece.
Usama Ibn Munqidh (1095-1188) was born in the same year that
Urban pronounced the crusade and lived until 1131 in Shayzar, a small
city near Hama (in modern northwestern Syria).
His clan, the Banu Munqidh, ruled a small principality there on the borders of the Byzantine
Empire, in a region heavily populated by Eastern Orthodox
Christians. He grew up in an aristocratic and culturally refined
family. His father ensured that his sons received military training and
an education. As an adult he was exiled from Shayzar by his uncle, and
spent the next several decades in
the service of various princes, including the Egyptian Fatimids, the
Seljuk Turks, and the Sunni Salah al-Din. Usama was a warrior and
diplomat, and wrote vividly of his participation in military campaigns
against the
Franks and other Muslim groups. He kept (and lost, to the Franks) a
library,
and is credited with writing dozens of works, most of which do not
survive.
We do have some of his poetry, a work on the interpretation of dreams,
and
a work on manners called "Kernels of Refinement". His
work encompasses the broad category of adab, stories
and collections
of secular knowledge that elites were expected to know. The Book of Contemplation was
composed around 1175.
1) From Usamah's telling are encounters between Greeks/Muslims and
Christians purely hostile and antagonistic? Where do they find common
ground; that is, what qualities do Anna and Usamah admire in the
westerners? What qualities do they dislike, or find mystifying?
How do their accounts alter our perception of the crusaders and
contrast with the Latin accounts?
2) How do these authors assess Frankish (i.e., Latin Christian)
behavior? What do they claim as the crusaders' motivations for
their colonization of the eastern Mediterranean?
***************************
IV. Guibert of Nogent, Deeds of God through
the Franks
(composed 1108-1109) [text not assigned
in 2024]
We've already come to know Guibert through his memoirs, and by reading
his Deeds of God through the Franks
we will get yet another perspective on this idiosyncratic monk.
Guibert never travelled east with the crusading armies, but rewrote an
existing history of the First Crusade which he criticized for the
"stale, flat quality of its
language." In fact, Guibert's was one of several new histories of
the
First Crusade issued around the years 1107 and 1108, in response, it
seems,
to a recruiting mission launched in 1106 by Bohemond, the new Latin
lord
of Antioch and a leader on the First Crusade. However, Guibert is
not
acting as a mere copyist, however, but interjects his own information
and
opinions--in the form of praise and criticism--into the work. As
you
read, keep in mind that Guibert's account is that of a person who is
receiving
news from the Holy Land that has been filtered by time, distance, and
multiple
witnesses. [Note: The
eastern
("Greek") and western Christian churches split irrevocably in 1054 over
issues
of ritual practice, custom, and hierarchical authority, and remain
divided
to this day. The emperor of Constantinople appointed the
patriarch
(the highest-ranking member of the clergy), and remained the supreme
head
of the eastern church. At the center of the 1054 schism between
east
and west was one Humbert of Silva Candida--a hard-line member of the
papal
court--who, while the pope's legate to Constantinople, excommunicated
the
patriarch of the eastern Church. Guibert condemns the Greek
practice of using leavened bread (bread made with yeast) in the
Eucharist; the requirement of eastern parish clergy (but not bishops)
to marry; and their refusal to acknowledge the pope as supreme head of
the Catholic Christian church.]
The principal events in Guibert's account are (1) Pope Urban II's call
to crusade in November 1095 and the response, and (2) the siege of
Turkish-held Antioch (modern Hatay, Turkey) in the winter, spring and
summer of 1098, an event in which the crusading army first besieged,
then found itself besieged in, the massive fortress there. The
battle for Antioch proved to be a pivotal moment during the First
Crusade.
1) How does Guibert compare the crusaders' motives for waging war to
those of ancient warriors and kings?
2) In Book I, pp. 30-38, Guibert offers his readers an extended
condemnation of both the Greek Orthodox (eastern Christian) Church, and
of Islam and
its Prophet, Mohammed (on p. 32, Mathomus = Mohammed). Consider
his
characterization of their beliefs and practices. What distortions
does he commit? What is his view of eastern religions more
generally?
What purpose does this serve in his account?
3) How does Guibert characterize the Frankish peoples who take up the
call to crusade? To whom does he compare them? Is he
equally generous in his praise of the different groups who set out for
the Holy Land? Whom does he favor, and whom does he
disparage? On what basis?
4) What signs do the Franks receive of God's favor and protection in
their endeavor?