In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Galbert of Bruges and the Historiography of Medieval Flanders
  • Frederick H. Russell
Galbert of Bruges and the Historiography of Medieval Flanders. Edited by Jeff Rider and Alan V. Murray. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 2009. Pp. xiv, 297. $37.95 paperback. ISBN 978-0-813-21719-2.)

With J. B. Ross’s 1959 English translation, Galbert’s seemingly eyewitness account of the murder of Count Charles of Flanders in 1127 and its aftermath has long been a staple in medieval history courses. Charles intended to reduce the Erembald family to serfdom and was subsequently murdered by members of the family, setting off a contest to determine his successor that involved most segments of Flemish society. This book by Galbert experts brings their earlier works conveniently together, with full footnotes and an extensive, up-to-date bibliography. Coeditor Jeff Rider has also produced a critical edition of Galbert’s work. [End Page 353]

The introduction sets the tone with a discussion of how to read medieval sources. The editors contrast the older “scientific” readings with the rhetorical, discursive, and intellectual aspects discussed here (pp. 9, 241). This is then a book about some of the mentalities lurking under Galbert’s narrative. Thus, for example, Galbert is seen as a theorist of medieval bourgeoisie (p. 10) and his work as an autobiography (p. 35). In neither case, however, is the claim nailed down.

Perhaps the most striking new material here concerns gender relationships. We learn from Nancy Partner and Martina Häcker that Galbert found women to be subpolitical (p. 117). Bert Demyttenaere conjectures that Charles may have had a homoerotic relationship with Fromuold the Younger, but concludes that Charles’s sexual behavior is a mystery (p. 168). At the same time there are problems with Demyttenaere’s argument, since Bertulf married either his niece or his grand-niece to the same man (p. 147), and the canons of “the castral church” (p. 152) are not identified with the secular canons of St. Donatian (p. 159). These areas probably can be explained, but here they are not.

Galbert’s account is widely seen as trustworthy and “journalistic,” but throughout the book we are warned not to take Galbert’s use of “facts” at face value and urged to see how he embellished his interpretation. Partner warns of the “artificiality of history through its emplotment” and the “fictionality of non-fiction” (p. 112). Specifically, we should be suspicious of Galbert’s judgment of the Erembalds (p. 199). Galbert was living in a world where his assumptions were turned upside down, hence the struggle within himself to explain the meaning of events. (Ross already alluded to this.) It is thus no surprise that he turns to an eschatological view of sin and revenge as receiving divine punishment (pp. 252, 259).

Given its plan, there is much repetition between the articles, as if the authors are talking past each other and giving slightly different emphases to the same passages. Thus God’s countermove (p. 147) is the same as God’s stratagem (p. 134). A heavier editorial hand would have helped.

There is no need to choose between “scientific” and “artistic” readings of Galbert, as a fuller understanding requires both. Missing here is any discussion of consensus politics, as well as sufficient coverage of Galbert’s rhetoric of persuasion. R. C. Van Caenegem’s “scientific” reading is represented here, but his 1990 claim that Ivan of Aalst advocated popular sovereignty receives little mention.

Clearly, Galbert can be read on many levels, but there is little here that lends itself to an undergraduate audience. An overview of the main outlines of the story would have helped, as would a more thorough discussion of the main sources for our knowledge of Flanders in 1127. Something has been gained—an appreciation of Galbert’s historical craft—but the earlier emphasis [End Page 354] on the legal aspects has been slighted. However, it cogently points out new ways to study Galbert’s work and pushes the discussion in new directions. No longer should Galbert’s work be studied just as history.

Frederick H. Russell
Rutgers University, Newark

pdf

Share