Historicize Artifacts Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

This essay is breaking down the "Speech at Council of Clermont". It goes into the different interpretations of it, the meaning, my opinion and any intellectual, professional and ethical issues Historians need to be aware of. ...

Description

Historicizing Artifacts: Speech at Council of Clermont

(Your Name) HIS-306: Historians in Theory and Practice September 10, 2017

1

Hernandez

Using journal article provided, examine how historians have interpreted the speech.

The Speech at Council of Clermont was given by Pope Urban II in 1095. It was given after the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos contacted him for help against the Turks. 1 The original version of the speech was interpreted by Fulcher of Chartes, Robert the Monk, Balderic of Dol, and Guilbert de Nogent. Each historian has interpreted this speech in a different way that they saw fit. Fulcher of Chartes was one of the interpreters that focused on the disorder in the world and our actions. He mentions that leaders should be guiding their people correctly just how a shepherd would guide his sheep and to be the salt in the world. Fulcher ends the speech by stating that “let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide”. 2 Robert the Monk wrote the interpretation on the same speech twenty-five years later. Robert had the same view as Fulcher but he went on say that you should not let the materialistic possessions, your family affairs or land get in the way of you following God’s will. The Gospel is mentioned throughout most the interpretation and he made sure to include his message clearly. Something different he did was that he included the reaction of the crowd that day of the speech. He finished the interpretation by telling people to pick up their cross and follow God. Balderic was the third historian that interpreted Urban II’s speech. Balderic’s main source was the Gesta version of the speech and he focused more on Jerusalem and how Jesus already died for our sins. This version of the speech was written in the early twelfth century. Guilbert de Nogent’s version of the speech goes into the past of their ancestors and the trials they went through. This version seems to focus 11. Paul Halsall, Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech. Accessed September 07, 2017, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.asp 2 2. . Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905).

Hernandez

2

a lot more on the idea of martyrdom because he says, “ we now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever”. 3

Explain how these historians position their interpretation of the speech differently. How do they support their arguments? Is anything left unanswered? Each historian had similarities with each other when translating the speech but all were different overall. Many of the main points were different because of the way the historians thought or the year they were written. In Munro’s article, the author goes into detail of how the historians interpreted the speech, what were the differences and how all four were on a different focus point overall. Each historian supported their arguments mostly by using scripture throughout everything they said. That was one of the similarities each historian had in my opinion. If they left anything unanswered, it would be the open-ended questions they used to get their points across. For example, in Robert the Monk’s interpretation he says, “ on whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you?” 4 he never answers it but leaves the idea in the reader’s head. At the end of the article, Munro stated what he thought was the final outline of Urban II’s speech. The question Munro leaves open is whether the outline is actually accurate.

State your own interpretation of the speech, explaining why you agree or disagree with the authors’ interpretations. 3. 3. August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921). 4 4. 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).

Hernandez

3

After looking at all the interpretations I believe that Urban the Pope’s speech was mostly like Fulcher’s. While reading it over again after Munro’s analysis, I feel like he did a good job and didn’t go overboard on any points. My own interpretation for the speech would be that he wanted everyone to go and protect the land, help your brother in need and guide your people the way the Gospel teaches you. I feel that Pope Urban II was trying to encourage people to go fight but not to the extent where excessive violence was needed. A crusade may have been suggested but not for a long period of time. I agree with the interpretations but up to a certain extent. I do not believe all are right 100% but they all have truth and are were headed in the right direction. What might be some intellectual, ethical, and professional issues historians need to be aware of while interpreting this speech. Explain why. When looking at a speech like Pope Urban II’s, historians must be careful to interpret it but not change the true meaning behind it. They need to pay attention to what was happening during that moment and try to comprehend everything the Pope said. The setting is important as well, for example, the audience and location are important because it tells them more as to why the Pope could have said something a certain way. Depending on the time the interpretation was written, the culture and language could have been different making it difficult. Professionally, a historian needs to do the background research as to what was happening in the current events to get more information and who exactly was Pope Urban II. It would be unfortunate to read the speech, and later imply something that is wrong and that the Pope was against. Historians cannot contradict the original author. For example, in Balderic of Dol’s interpretation it says, “ Over and above this, he won from the Pope the command that all should obey him, and that he should hold sway over all the army in behalf of the Pope” 5 It would not be accurate if this scenario did not 55. August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921).

Hernandez actually happen and he made it up. Most importantly, he could have seen it or heard about it but the meaning could easily be changed. It is very important to remain true to the original historical artifact. .

4

5

Hernandez Bibliography

August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921). Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905). 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). Accessed September 07, 2017 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1834642? seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Paul Halsall, Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech. Accessed September 07, 2017, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.asp...