Nec signis nec testibus creditur …”: The Problem of Eyewitnesses in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

Abstract

This article challenges the widely accepted convention that medieval authors hardly ever dared to question the veracity of first-hand accounts. It demonstrates that the concept of “witness” as defined in Christian theology had a significant impact on the writing of history in the Middle Ages. This concept discounts the importance of observation and emphasizes divine inspiration as the source of superior knowledge. The goal of this article is to trace its influence on the chronicles of the First Crusade. The article begins by examining the instances when second-hand chroniclers chose to disagree with an interpretation of events offered by first-hand observers. It then analyses the attempts by the former to justify their decision to correct the accounts of the enterprise written by its participants. Some of these chroniclers, especially Guibert of Nogent, worked to undermine the prestige of eyewitnesses by arguing that senses could mislead and, more important, that observation did not necessarily entail understanding.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.