Professor S. B. Harding's Life of George R. Smith (Sedalia, Mo., privately printed) is a contribution to the history of Missouri between 1840 and 1870. General Smith, known as the founder of Sedalia, was, although a slave-owner, an ardent Union man and was violently opposed to secession. At the beginning of the war he was adjutant-general of the provisional loyal government and had much to do with equipping the Union forces in the state. The Mormon war, slavery and the Kansas troubles, the Civil War and Reconstruction, all receive due attention and the correspondence of Mr. Smith throws considerable light on politics and affairs.

A History of the Pacific Northwest, by Joseph Schafer (Macmillan, pp. 321) is a compact account of the history of the territory covered by the states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Early voyages and explorations, the development of the fur trade, and the joint occupation by British and Americans receive the larger share of attention.

Under the auspices of the Oregon Historical Society an historical congress was held at Portland, August 21-23, in connection with the Lewis and Clark Exposition.

Dr. William A. Mowry has returned to the charge and in Marcus Whitman and the Early Days of Oregon (Silver, Burdett and Company) sets forth at length his already well known views respecting the relation of the missionary to the “ saving” of Oregon.

A meeting at Toronto, May 17, 1905, resulted in calling into existence the Champlain Society, intended to perform for Canada functions like those of the Surtees, Hakluyt and Prince Societies. Mr. B. E. Walker, general manager of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, was provisionally made president; vice-presidents, Sir Louis A. Jetté, lieutenant-governor of the Province of Quebec, and Sir D. H. McMillan, lieutenant-governor of Manitoba; treasurer, Mr. James Bain of the Toronto Public Library; secretaries, Professors C. W. Colby of Montreal and G. M. Wrong of Toronto. The membership is limited to two hundred and fifty; the annual dues are ten dollars. It is expected that two volumes will be issued each year.

Noteworthy articles in periodicals: A. F. Bandelier, Traditions of Precolumbian Landings on the Western Coast of South America (American Anthropologist, April-June); P. H. Woodward, The True Story of the Regicides (Connecticut Magazine, July-September); Victor Tantet, Les Réfugiés Politiques Français en Amérique sous la Convention (La Revue, August 1); L. de Norvins, Les Bonaparte d'Amérique (La Revue, July 15); G. P. Garrison, Connecticut Pioneers Founded Anglo-American Texas (Connecticut Magazine, July-September); J. S. Sewall, With Perry in Japan (Century, July); U. B. Phillips, The Economic Cost of Slave-Holding (Political Science Quarterly, June); W. G. Brown, The Tenth Decade of the United States: III. Westward by Sea and Land: IV. Lincoln's Policy of Mercy (Atlantic, July, September); T. A. Ashby, Gen. R. E. Lee as a College President (Confederate Veteran, August); M. A. De Wolfe Howe, editor, Letters and Diaries of George Bancroft, I. Student Days in Europe (Scribner's, September); C. H. Ambler, Disfranchisement in West Virginia, II. (Yale Review, August); W. L. Fleming, Immigration to the Southern States (Political Science Quarterly, June); O. S. Straus, Historical Relations of Russia and the United States (North American Review, August).


American Historical Review



HE belief that Peter the Hermit was the instigator of the first

crusade has long been abandoned. To Pope Urban II. belongs the credit, or the responsibility, for the movement. On November 27, 1095," at the Council of Clermont, he delivered the address which led so many thousands to take the cross. There are several versions of this speech, but it cannot be proved that: any one of them was written until a number of years after the: Council. As these differ decidedly in their expressions, it has been assumed that it is impossible to determine what the pope actually said. It is the purpose of this paper to show by an examination of the various versions that, in spite of the verbal differences, there is a remarkable agreement among the contemporary reporters, and consequently that it is possible to ascertain the subjects which the pope discussed.

1 See Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, No. 9, in Revue de l'Orient Latin, VI. 222.

2 Ekkehard, MGSS., VI. 213, says that one hundred thousand took the cross at Clermont. For the results of his speech, cf. Wilken, Kreuzzüge, I. 52.

3 Sybel, Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzugs (2d ed.), 185: "Dem rechten Historiker, wenn er nicht auf die Darstellung der umgebenden Thatsachen und auf eine bereite Phantasie seines Lesers vertrauen will, bleibt hier nichts übrig, als eine selbständige Schöpfung, eine erdichtete Wahrheit zu versuchen."

* Almost all modern historians of the crusades have given a summary of Urban's speech. Generally they have been content to take one version (those given by William of Tyre, Robert, and Fulcher have been most frequently selected) and follow it. Others have combined arbitrarily statements from different ver- , sions. The best and latest summary is by Röhricht, in his Geschichte des Ersten Kreuszuges, 20: Die Rede Urbans ist uns vielfach überliefert, aber nicht genau. Ohne Frage bildete den Inhalt ein Klageruf über die von den Ungläubigen gegen die Christen im heiligen Lande verübten Gewaltthaten, ein Kriegsruf an die gesammte Christenheit des Abendlandes, die Feinde aus dem Lande der Verheissung hinauszutreiben und es wieder den Christen zurückzugeben, ein Trostruf, dass Christus den Seinen helfen und Sieg verleihen werde.” The best discussion is also by Röhricht, ibid. 235-239.

AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XI.-16. (231)

The important versions are given by Fulcher of Chartres, Robert the Monk,Baldric of Dol, Guibert of Nogent,* and William of Malmesbury. Those of William of Tyre, Ordericus Vitalis, Roger of Wendover, and others are, as will be noted later, of little importance.

Fulcher of Chartres, in his Historia Therosolymitana, gives a very brief account of Urban's exhortation. But he prefaces it by a summary of the pope's speech relative to the evil conditions in the West." This was an address to the clergy who were at the Council. At its close the Truce of God was proclaimed and all who were present promised to observe it. Then Urban began his exhortation. This is the portion of Fulcher's account which must be compared with the versions given by the others. It is accepted as the most trustworthy of all by Hagenmeyers and Röhricht." They state that Fulcher was present at the Council.10 Hagen; meyer thinks that his account was written down within a short time, surely not later than about 1100." The date usually given for the completion of the first part of his history is 1105.12

Robert the Monk, in his Historia Therosolymitana, gives a somewhat longer account. He states in his preface that he was commissioned to write the history because he was at Clermont.13 · It is not possible to determine the time when he wrote; certainly it was not before 1101-11024; probably it was a few years later.'s He does not have the first speech of Urban to the clergy, but he does give a summary of the pope's second speech to the clergy,' after

i Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Occidentaux, III. 322–324. (Hereafter this series will be cited as Recueil.) 2 Recueil, III. 727-730.

3 Ibid., IV. 12-15.

Ibid., IV. 137-140. 5 De Gestis Regum Anglorum, edited by Stubbs, Rolls Series, II. 393-398.

6 Ch. 3.

7 Ch. 2.

[ocr errors]

8 Ekkehard's Hierosolymita, p. 90. (Hereafter quoted as HE.) 9 Op. cit., p. 239.

10 In 1877, Hagenmeyer wrote (HE, p. 90), “Ohne Zweifel war er selbst auch auf dem Concil anwesend." In 1879, in Peter der Eremite, p. 72, he referred to him as an Ohrenzeuge", and he has used the same term in his later writings. Röhricht, op. cit., also called him an Ohrenzeuge”. (Molinier, Les Sources de l'Histoire de France, No. 2123, says he was present.) They give no reference and I have not been able to find in his writings any proof that he was present. Whether present or not, he was well informed, as will be apparent later. 11 HE, p. 90.

12 Molinier, Sources, No. 2123. 13“ Praecipit igitur mihi ut qui Clari Montis Concilio interfui,” Recueil, III. 721. 14 Riant, Alexii Comneni Epistola ad Robertum Flandrensem, p. xli. 15 Cf. Molinier, Sources, No. 2118.

!6 The pope made three speeches. First he addressed the clergy, urging a reform. (Fulcher, bk. 1., ch. 2. Baldric, quae ad fidem pertinebant praemissis," Recucil, IV. 12F. Cf. William of Malmesbury's opening sentences, $ 347.) This speech was probably made on the same day as, and just before, the exhortation


the completion of the exhortation. This portion of his account should be omitted in comparing it with the other versions. His version has frequently been preferred by later historians.

Baldric of Bourgueil, archbishop of Dol, probably wrote his Historia Jerosolimitana soon after 1107.He states in two different passages that he was at the Council. He does not give the first speech of Urban to the clergy, but has a brief summary of the second. His account was regarded by Ranke as the best.*

Guibert, abbot of Nogent, wrote the first portion of his Gesta Dei per Francos not later than 1108. Sybel, Hagenmeyer, and Röhricht state that he was present at Clermont.' Guibert knew Fulcher's Historia and used it for the later portions of his work, but he did not copy Fulcher's version of the speech. His report differs decidedly from those given by the others. He makes no mention of either address to the clergy.

William of Malmesbury, although a contemporary, did not write his version until thirty or more years after the Council.o It has been regarded as of little value. Hagenmeyer and Röhricht state that it is based upon Fulcher's account. This is true for portions but not for the whole of William's version. He has some points that he could not have drawn from Fulcher. He says that his

[ocr errors]

to take the cross. The third speech was to the clergy (cf. Baldric and Robert), probably on the following day, the last day of the Council (Histoire Générale de Languedoc, ed. Privat, III. 480). It consisted of practical directions to insure the success of the undertaking.

i Recueil, III. 729 to end of chapter. The two speeches, however, are represented by Robert as continuous.

2 Molinier, Sources, No. 2120.

3“ Inter omnes autem in eodem concilio, nobis videntibus,” in Recueil, IV. 15G. “Solutum est concilium, et nos unus quisque properantes redivimus ad propria,ibid., 16D.

Weltgeschichte, VIII. 82. 5 See Thurot, in Revue Historique, pp. 104-111, and in Recueil, IV. xv-xx. 6 Geschichte des Ersten Kreuszugs (2d ed.), p. 33.

HE, p. 89; Peter der Eremite, p. 72. $ Op. cit., p. 235.

9 They cite no reference, and I have not been able to find any proof of his presence. Some passages in his work would indicate that he was not present : (1) He gives the date for the Council as 1097 and the thirty-seventh year of Philip's reign; of course, this error may have been due to a copyist. Bongars corrected it in his edition of Guibert. (2) He apologized for his ignorance of the name of the bishop of Puy, who was appointed papal legate at Clermont. De nomine autem Podiensis episcopi diu haesi, ... non enim in meo habebatur exemplari.” Preface, Recueil, IV. 121. “ Podiensis urbis episcopo (cujus nomen doleo, quia neque usquam repperi nec audivi).” Bk. II., ch. 5, ibid., 140.

10 Stubbs's preface to Vol. I., R. S., p. xliii.

11 HE, p. 89; Röhricht, op. cit., p. 239. The latter, however, quotes William's own statement as to his sources.

« ForrigeFortsett »