History and Christian Themes
Telling truth to power has always been a problem for intellectuals and writers, with no time more difficult than the early medieval period in Europe. This period saw the struggle between religious and political (read monarchs) leaders to determine the course of the continent and leave a lasting image for future generations. One example of this conflict came with presentations of the divided East and Western Christian Empires, between pro-papal and pro-imperial sides of the argument over investing bishops. Lampert of Hersfeld’s “Annals” was pro-papal with the hopes of driving Henry IV to ask the pope for absolution for his sins. On the other hand, Sigebert was pro-imperial and Ekkehard of Aura was indifferent, focusing on historical analysis of the Crusades. Three other areas showed the conflict between imperial and religious historians during this period: the use of biographies for emperors and popes, the use of the chronicle to outline medieval history, and portrayal of the Crusades.
At this period in historical study, the question of whether Christian emperors should be written on biographically was raised. Was it proper for a Christian to be written about as the victor when it was God’s will and strength that won on the battlefield? Or could this be overcome because biography was a means to show the masses that the emperor was pious and an example of a good Christian? To many, justification for biography was found in the Old Testament, which contained within its many books biographical information about Abraham and other biblical luminaries. As well, meticulous recordings by those writing imperial biographies were important to maintain order and balance between Christian morals and the sanctity of historical study.
Another interesting mechanism of historical study at this time was the production of chronicles by monastic clerics to counter those details given by imperial historians. Several factors made these chronicles important to contemporary maintenance of fact and provided information to future clerics. The clerics kept this information anonymous for the most part in order to keep the focus on historical fact, the chronicles were widely copied, there was little competition from the outside world as to the quality of these works, and history remained a practice more of rhetoric (which monastic clerics were more apt at than historians) than of deep analysis of primary sources. As well, monastic clerics were good at using the vernacular to endear themselves to the few literates within their communities. While modern historians bemoan the use of some arbitrary facts and connections to make their points, the monastic clerics were excellent writers considering the dearth of historical formalities at this point and time.
Finally, the Crusades provided another opportunity for tensions to arise between secular and religious writers over the development of a Christian commonwealth. The arguments in favor of the Crusades and the mission of Christian warriors in the Middle East were overwhelming compared to any critical analyses written during this time. The pro-Crusades historians were mostly French and Norman nobles who told stories of Christian militancy, deep distrust between Eastern and Western Christians, brave knights, and an ecstatic enthusiasm for the sacred cause. However, one voice of dissension came with Fulcher of Chartres “History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127.” As Ernst Breisach says, Fulcher “…painted a realistic picture of pious pilgrims, of miserable conditions which killed many crusaders, of greedy and riotous soldiers, and of a not always nobly behaving nobility.” Of course, Fulcher was the exception to the rule of romanticizing the First Crusade. All three of these examples show the tensions between religion and nobility at this point, but certainly both crossed into each others’ disciplines and were not mutually exclusive.
