Papers:: Reconstructing the Council of Claremont

Reconstructing the Council of Claremont

A Paper by M. Rinn

http://www.shoelesswander.net

Please do not redistribute without permission

The council of Claremont in 1095 is best remembered because of the speech given by Pope Urban II that lead to the first crusade. However, it is highly difficult to configure what it is that Urban said at the council, due to the fact that no one at the time wrote down his words. It is only after the first crusade occurred that any accounts of the speech he gave at the council have surfaced, and these accounts contain a variety of deviations from each other due to author biases, theological agendas and motivations for writing the account. It is possible to reconstruct a rough approximation of what occurred at Claremont in 1095, but doing so is extremely hard.

One account that has survived comes from Fulcher of Chartes, a member of the clergy, who was present at the council of Claremont and went on the first crusade. Fulcher began to write his account in 1095, but the work was not completed until the late 1120s. His account may be the only eye witness account of the council. Fulcher’s portrayal of Urban is very positive, saintly almost, as Fulcher writes that Urban called the council because “he saw that the faith of Christianity was being destroyed” [1] by everyone in Western Europe. This matches with the historical record, as during this time western Europe was in chaos due to lack of centralized government, knights causing violence, and clergy abusing power. He then proceeds to call for the council and for the most part treats it like any other council called concerning these abuses at the time. It is only at the end that Urban makes any sort of allusion to Eastern Christianity. When he does, he makes specific reference to the fact that it the Turks who have invaded Christian lands and “have laid waste to God’s kingdom.” [2] He immediately asks the council to “expel that wicked race from our Christian lands before its too late,” [3] asking both nobles and lay people to go, adding that “Christ commands it.” [4] In addition he promises the remission of sins, appealing to nobility “who are accustomed to waging private war”[5] to turn their violence into a productive mission. Overall Fulcher’s account seems to contain minimum amounts of smudging in it. The request for both nobles and laypeople to go on the Crusade is at odds from what is known of the speech and instead seems to be inserted to explain all of the regular people who went on the crusade along with the nobility and knights.

Another major account comes from the Gesta Francorum, written in 1101 by an unknown crusader. Chances are that this writer was not at the council and would have heard what was said second hand. This account contains more religious connotations in it, focusing on the remission of sins promised to the crusaders. There is also emphasis placed on suffering, with Urban’s statement of, “we must endure much suffering…misery, poverty, nakedness, persecution, want, illness, hunger, thirst and others…”[6] This also mirrors what happened to the crusaders themselves as they fought against the Turks on their way to Jerusalem, suggesting that the author of the Gesta was attempting to justify all of the ills that happened during the crusade. Also in this account the author includes the statement that the news of the council spread quickly, again alluding to the laypeople that went on the crusade along with knights.

Most other accounts of the speech use the Gesta account as a source. The account given by Robert of Rheims, written in approximately 1107, is one such version, although he might have been at the council as well. Here Urban’s speech is more dramatic, addressing the Franks directly and then proceeding to extol the horrors of the Christians living under Turkish control, who are described as a “race utterly alienated from God.” [7] The accounts are not only gruesome but portray horrible blasphemies, such as the destruction of alters, circumcision and torturing people to death by disembowelment. The horrors go on for quite some time, each portraying the Turks as horrible savages perpetuating the worst of tortures on innocent people. This is the first time that Jerusalem is specifically mentioned as a target as well, describing her desire “to be liberated” [8] from the hands of the Turks. There is a greater emphasis on religion in this account than the other two, suggesting that its details are further away from what actually occurred. In addition the amount of time and detail paid to the Turks’ treatment of the Christians suggests that this document was also meant to demonise them further so that the Christians in the city would continue to work against and prevent them from gaining the city again.

Baldric the Dol’s account is another piece that relied on the Gesta and was written in 1108. In Baldric’s version of the speech, there is a great amount of sympathy given towards those under the rule of the Turks. However, what is being done to them is not described at all, which is in sharp contrast to the amount detail heaped upon the abuses by Robert. Baldric does emphasize the idea that knights should channel their violent tendencies into helping the church when he reports Urban saying, “You rage against your brothers and cut each other in pieces. That is not the [true] solidery of Christ!” [9] He goes on to offer remission of sins for those who channel their violence into helping Jerusalem, describing the task as “the only warfare that is righteous” [10] as it helps the rest of Christianity. The theological angles are very different from those found in the account of Robert, as sympathy and wailing is used instead of the emphasis on intense violence. Both accounts demonstrate that as the talk about the crusade went on, the more theological ideas and justifications were explored in justification for what had happened to the Holy Land as well as how it should be fixed and why, relying primarily on the concept of duty to fellow Christians.

The final major account of the speech at Claremont comes from Guibert of Nogent and was written from 1104 to 1108. He was not present at the council itself, nor did he go on the crusade, but he used the Gesta as a source. Like Robert and Baldric he relies heavily on the theological justifications for the crusade and takes great care to emphasize how important Jerusalem is. To do this he draws on many stories from the Old Testament, suggesting that protecting the holy city is comparable to what figures like the Macabees would do if they were still around. It is only at the end of the text does Guibert give any time to what is currently occurring in Jerusalem, writing about the demands of taxes from Christians under Turkish rule, causing people to vomit or be disembowelled out of suspicion that they are hiding money in their body to avoid paying taxes. Urban also implores people to, “Remember…the thousands who have perished vile deaths and strive for the holy places from which the beginnings of your faith have come.” [11] This again emphasizes Guibert’s means of justification for the crusade with emphasizing that the holy land is where Christianity came from in both the Old and New Testaments and to allow it to fall under Turkish control would be shameful.

Individually the various accounts of the speech of Claremont seem to portray very different interpretations of what occurred. However, the accounts do have several themes and ideas in common that can help to create a more complete picture of what was said. The Gesta and the account of Fulcher are most likely the best sources, as the Gesta was written so early after the crusade concluded that very little information could be changed and Fulcher was at the council himself and would probably change very little. These two accounts agree that the word of the council’s contents spread very quickly and that there was no special emphasis placed on Jerusalem itself. Unlike later accounts there are no reports of violence done by Turks to Christians and there are no major theological arguments for justification in the text, as compared to Guibert or Baldric. However, Guibert, Baldric and Robert as well as Fulcher contain the idea that Christian knights should make their swords productive and instead of perpetuating violence against fellow Christians, they should take arms against those harming Christians. However, the similarities between the two most reliable sources and the derivatives end there. Guibert, Baldric and Robert’s accounts all place emphasis on violence done to other Christians and contain more theological reasoning for going on the crusade, but the fact that they are not in the more reliable sources suggests that the ideas were added in later and are not likely to have been said at the council of Claremont. What was said is clear, though. Urban made a statement about Christians in Byzantium being under the rule of the Turks and had reasons for asking western European nobility to channel their violent tendencies against the Turks and promised the remission of sin in the process. From that point, word of this offer spread like wildfire through Europe and soon the People’s crusade was underway.

While we may never know what Urban II said at the Council of Claremont, the various accounts help to provide some insight. Major themes included the treatment of Christians by the Turks, a desire to stop the violence in Western Europe and the remission of sins for those who undertook the assignment. Moreover, the sources also show how people viewed the crusade afterwards and took it in a religious context, which is perhaps more important than the speech itself.