Historia Renarrata: Early Benedictine Revisions of the First Crusade University of Turku School of History, Culture and Arts Studies Cultural History Master’s thesis Lauri Härkänen September 2012 TURUN YLIOPISTO Historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos / Humanistinen tiedekunta HÄRKÄNEN, LAURI: Historia Renarrata: Early Benedictine Revisions of the First Crusade Pro gradu -tutkielma, 120 s. Kulttuurihistoria Syyskuu 2012 Tutkimukseni käsittelee ensimmäisen ristiretken (1095–1101) varhaista latinankielistä historiankirjoitusta. Tarkastelun keskiössä ovat kolmen benediktiinimunkin historiateokset, jotka perustuvat anonyymin kirjoittajan silminnäkijäkertomukseen nimeltä Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum. Benediktiinit ilmoittivat pyrkineensä ennen kaikkea korjaamaan kyseisen teoksen tyyliä. Samalla he kuitenkin tulivat tuottaneeksi varsin erilaista kuvaa ristiretkestä ja ristiritarista. Tutkimuksessani tarkastelen yksityiskohtaisesti ja eri versioita vertaillen sitä, miten ristiretken historiaa kirjoitettiin ja uudelleenkirjoitettiin. Mitä kohtia munkit pyrkivät muuttamaan, miten he sen tekivät ja miksi? Kiinnitän huomioni teoksissa käytettyyn retoriikkaan sekä siihen mitä jätettiin kertomatta. Oletetun lukijan käsitettä hyödyntäen pohdin myös teosten mahdollista ja todennäköistä kohdeyleisöä – siis sitä, kenelle historiaa ensimmäisestä ristiretkestä kirjoitettiin. Ensimmäistä ristiretkeä koskevat käsityksemme perustuvat suuressa määrin tarkastelemiini kertomuksiin ja niiden toisintoihin. Ilman lähteiden retorista analyysiä ja kontekstualisointia monet faktoina pitämämme tulkinnat uhkaavat kuitenkin osoittautua hiekkarakennelmiksi. Tutkimuksessani korostan toisaalta silminnäkijäkertomusten ja uudelleenkirjoitusten välisiä eroja, toisaalta sitä, että myös uudelleentulkintojen välillä oli huomattavia eroavuuksia. Tästä syystä on tärkeää, että ristiretkeä koskevat ajatukset ankkuroidaan lähteisiinsä, eikä yleistyksiä viedä liian pitkälle. Yhteistä näille kertomuksille on se, että ne kuvasivat menneisyyttä omasta ajastaan käsin ilman pyrkimystä menneisyyden tavoittamiseksi ”niin kuin se oikeasti oli”. Tutkimukseni osoittaa, että ensimmäisen ristiretken aikalaiskertomukset ovat tiettyjen tarkoitusperien vuoksi tuotettuja retorisia tekstejä, joita ei tulisi arvioida faktuaalisen totuuskäsityksen kautta. Ne kertovat meille vain vähän siitä, mitä oikeasti tapahtui, mutta varsin paljon siitä, miten tapahtunut ymmärrettiin ja miten se haluttiin esittää. Asiasanat keskiaika, ristiretket, historiankirjoitus, kirjallinen kulttuuri, benediktiinit, soturi- ideaalit, ritarit, kristinusko, paavi, pyhä sota, frankit Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Subject................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Sources and Contexts .......................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Methods, Perspectives and Research ............................................................................... 12 2. Revision ................................................................................................................................... 22 2.1 The Crusade as History ...................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Meaning and Legitimacy ................................................................................................... 35 3. Authority ................................................................................................................................. 51 3.1 The Papal Initiative ............................................................................................................ 51 3.2 Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 57 4. Images ..................................................................................................................................... 67 4.1 The New Knighthood ........................................................................................................ 67 4.2 The Chosen People ............................................................................................................ 81 4.3 Epic Hero and the Audience .............................................................................................. 90 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 103 6. Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 107 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Subject This is a study about rewriting the history of the First Crusade. The crusade was an armed expedition to Asia Minor conducted by western Christians. It was launched in November 1095 at Clermont by Pope Urban II, after which the participants set forth gradually in the next year. Despite tremendous difficulties during the journey, the crusaders1 succeeded in capturing several major cities, including Nicaea and Antioch. The expedition culminated in the conquest of Jerusalem in July 1099 and the subsequent victory over the Fatimid army at Ascalon.2 Militarily the crusade was a great success. Yet, in the contemporary thinking, it was regarded essentially as a religious victory over both the inner enemy of the Devil and the outer enemy of Islam. For the participants, the expedition was an enormous accomplishment – an exploit worthy of celebration and commemoration. Likewise, the supporters of the reformer papacy saw the expedition as a demonstration of the papal leadership of Christendom.3 It is therefore no wonder that many, participants and non-participants alike, wrote their accounts of these extraordinary events. Chronicles focusing on a single event were nevertheless relatively uncommon in the twelfth century. Most of the narratives of the age either described the great deeds (gesta) of kings, monasteries, or particular people. Another line of tradition was to narrate the past as a part of the universal, providential history.4 The crusade histories apparently drew on all these elements and merged them into a new kind of sub-genre: that of a spectacular event.5 They all described the exemplary deeds of “great men”. Most of them tried to set the narrative into a meaningful context by grounding it to other historical narratives – not least the Bible. Some, moreover, sought a deeper meaning for the event by employing the exegetical interpretations upon it. Still, the question of writing and rewriting the history of the First Crusade has been given relatively little 1 In the contemporary language, the participants were not called “crusaders”. Latin word crucesignatus, from which the vernacular terms are derived, established its later meaning gradually towards the turn of the century. For this, see Markowski 1984, 157–164. The participants were mostly referred as “soldiers of Christ”, “pilgrims”, “Franks”, or “Jerosolimites”. On these terms, see Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 in this study. 2 For general studies about the First Crusade, see the concise histories of Madden 1999 and Riley-Smith 1987, the influential works of Mayer 1988 (1965) and Runciman 1980 (1951), as well as those of Baldwin (ed.) 1969 (1955), and Tyerman 2006. For a military history, see France 1994. Chronological and narrative outlines along with short biographies about the authors and the main characters can be found in Lock (ed.) 2006. 3 On the legacy and remembrance of the crusade, see concisely Phillips 2007, 17–35; more profoundly, Packard 2011, passim. 4 Rubenstein 2005, 180. For an overview of the non-crusade historiography of the age, see Classen 1982, 387–417. 5 Packard 2011, 53–54. 2 attention. In my thesis, I am attempting to contribute to this shortcoming. The main objective of this study is to provide a comparative and critical analysis of three narratives compiled within a decade after the fall of Jerusalem. These are Baldric of Bourgueil’s Historia Jerosolimitana, Guibert of Nogent’s Dei Gesta per Francos, and Robert the Monk’s Historia Iherosolimitana.6 All the authors wrote within the Benedictine monastic community, and they all explicitly proclaimed to rework an earlier history of the expedition – an anonymous text which we now know as Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum.7 This context, and the issues involved, will be discussed in detail later in this introduction. The main question under consideration is twofold. Firstly, what did the monks change in their main source? Which parts or interpretations of the story they deemed acceptable and which not? Secondly, how were these texts written, and how were the alterations carried out? My primary method has been to read all the versions side by side and to compare them in relation to their main source. This approach enables me to discern the interpolations, digressions, omissions, and emendations in the narratives. Furthermore, any analysis of alterations should be followed by the question of purposes of committing. That is to ask, why were the revisions produced in the first place? In this regard, it is extremely important to investigate the intended audiences, that is, for whom 6 Baldric of Bourgueil. Historia Jerosolimitana. RHC Occ. vol. 4, pp. 1–111. [Henceforth “BB”];