Robert the Monk's Version of Urban's Speech

[jeschenbrenner]

It is hard, I know to accept primary documents that have been written after the fact. So, that being said, I understand the dilemma that must come from accepting Robert the Monk's version of Urban's speech, especially 25 years after the speech was made. Looking from my own eyes, I can't remember what happened 9 years ago, let alone 25 years. So, my question, with this is mind is two folded coming from Robert's speech. The first question comes from Robert's speech: "Let the rich aid the needy; and according to their wealth, let them take with them experienced soldiers."1 If he meant that the knights should only go, why would he treat the common folk separately from the soldiers (and presumably knights) by saying that the common folk should take with them soldiers? This part contradicts part of the lecture pages where Knox states that "When Urban said that rich and poor alike should go, he probably only meant that knights should not plead poverty as an excuse." 2 Knox himself is backed by Fulcher of Chartres's version of the speech where he states "all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians".3 This version of the speech could be read from the point of view that the written syntax would conclude being separate soldiers and then the common folk who might be poor or rich, OR it could be read with an altered syntax as meaning: "foot-soldiers and knights [being] poor or rich" 4 and this would back up Knox's version. So basically my question is, who is right? Where is the evidence that Urban may have actually meant that the knights shouldn't "plead poverty"5 when asked to go? The second question comes from Robert the Monk's part of the speech which states that "The priests and clerks of any order are not to go without the consent of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they went without permission of these."6 Could this possibly be put in reference to Peter the Hermit since the speech was after the fact (in fact, it was after the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders, correct?)?

1. Dana C. Munro, "Urban and the Crusaders", Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol 1:2, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895), 5-8 quoted in Fordham University, "Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech," Robert the Monk, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/u ... html#gesta (accessed January 3, 2010).
2. E.L. Skip Knox, "The Call Goes Out," The Crusades: The First Crusade, http://boisestate.edu/courses/crusades/1st/03.shtml (accessed January 3, 2010).
3. Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, pp. 382 f., trans in Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513-17 quoted in Fordham University, "Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech," Fulcher of Chartres, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/u ... html#gesta (accessed January 3, 2010).
4. Bongars, Fulcher of Chartres
5. Knox, "The Call goes Out"
6. Munro, Robert the Monk

[csavage]

I am not sure that there is any simple answer for the first question pertaining to who is right and who is wrong. All sources of Urbans speech should be taken with some grains of salt. Keeping in my that the practice of history is not always about right and wrong, or finding black and white answers. Both accounts of the speech my have some true parts and some fictional parts. It could also be that Urban was not truly specific in his initial speech. At this late point in history it is nearly impossible to try and acertain Urbans exact meaning, but it is appropiate to analyze the issue in different frames of mind.
It would make sense that the Churches disaproval of the first part of the first crusade that was led by Peter could be addressed in a speech that came so many years after the fact.
I to wonder about the over all substance of all of the known accounts of Urban II speech with the amount of things that are contradictory, and remain vague overall.

[dmatier]

In reading through the different versions of the speech i feel there is not really good way to determine which one is more factual than the other. to really get to the truth one would have look at each person writing it and try to understand that reasons they transcribed. Robert the Monk wrote his accounts long after the speech was given, after he had witnessed accounts on what happend during the crusades. having that infromtation may have influenced what Robers writes.

[ProfKnox]

i feel there is not really good way to determine which one is more factual than the other

Why do you feel this? I can think of some ways in which it would be possible to make such a determination. For example, if one account claimed that the crusade went to Cairo, we have no other documents saying they went there, and all the documents we do have produce a timeline that would make an attack on Cairo impossible. We could therefore conclude that this document was factually wrong on one point and therefore might be challenged on other points as well.

Historians are not completely without tools for determining accuracy. Those tools are subtle and slip easily from the grasp, but tools they are.

[cgaipl]

When we find a primary document and there are errors in it, that does not discount this as being a useful document, right? In looking at the errors can we use this as a means of determining what was important to the person who wrote it? Possible motives? Glimpses into a society? I was curious because documents with errors, such as going to Cairo, are still used but the purpose for looking at these documents may be different than those determined more factual. I was just curious if there was no use why they would still be in existence.

[jeschenbrenner]

Chala,

I will try to answer your post. Primary documents are important even if they do not provide accurate information on certain things. This is what Professor Knox is saying I think. While the document may have some obvious and some inherent implications as to the historically important aspects of life at that time, there might be some events that are bluntly stated or again hinted at that are up for scrutiny. This all goes back to the scientific method, where the idea is to come up with a hypothesis, use research to back it up by finding points to a conclusion and analyzing this data, and then publish it for peer review. So, like Professor Knox uses an example of an army going to Cairo, if only that document says they went to Cairo, but there are no other sources that point to this conclusion, then obviously you must pass this off as one person's misinformation. However, if that same document has another aspect of life back then, or points to an event (like say the capture of Bohemond), and there are at least 3 other sources that point to that same conclusion (that Bohemond was in fact captured) then that document is accurate on that one topic, but discounted for the other topics it is not accurate about. It doesn't have to be just documents, too, like Professor Knox says, if historians have concluded that there was no way, with the figures they have, or maps, etc. that the troops would have made it to Cairo, then it is discounted. Basically it just goes back to trying to find multiple points of view in order to get as accurate picture of what happened as possible. I had a professor tell me that all historians really do is try to solve a crime that happened many years ago (even if it's not a crime we're investigating). We make an educated hunch, get the evidence, analyze it, put it out there, and scrutinize it for accuracy. Hope this helps.

[ktaylor]

Thanks, James. A wonderful explaination.