It is rare for us to have a critique of a medieval text by a number of contemporary authors, and even more uncommon for it to be roundly panned. But this is what happened to the Gesta Francorum, a history of the First Crusade written by an anonymous witness to those events. Guibert of Nogent said it was ‘pieced together in words more simple than was appropriate’, while Robert the Monk called it ‘uncertain and unsophisticated in its style and expression’. These critical appraisals were written in northern France less than ten years after the composition of the Gesta and reflect an understanding of the purpose of written history and the authorial standards set by two members of the ‘literati’ of that region.

Baldric of Bourgueil shared this view and wrote in the prologue to his Historia Ierosolimitana:

Non tamen huic beate interesse promerui militiae, neque uisa narraui; sed nescio quis compilator, nomine suo suppresso, libellum super hac re nimis rusticanum ediderat; ueritatem tamen texuerat, sed propter inurbanitatem codicis, nobilis materies uiluerat; et simpliciores etiam inculta et incompta lectio confestim a se auocabat.

Baldric, having been made aware through the Gesta of the narrative of the First Crusade, seems disappointed that the ‘nobility’ of the subject had been cheapened by the poor way in which it was presented and reported. For Baldric, as for Guibert and Robert, it seems the theological significance of these events, their meaning and potential as an exemplum to Christians had been lost, because they had been reported without what they thought of as the appropriate level of sophistication, cultivation, or organization. Baldric continues in his prologue to explain that he felt compelled to apply what talent he had to recapitulating the Gesta, going over the main points of the narrative again, including stories he had garnered from his own sources and adding the polish and elegance he felt the Gesta lacked.

Some modern historians have assumed that this added polish and elegance meant simply improvements to the Gesta’s ‘literary style’:6 an understandable response given Baldric’s fame as a poet. He certainly added flowery phrases, made clever use of alliteration and assonance, and inserted impressive classical and Biblical allusions, but other more notable textual changes indicate that he believed the Gesta lacked something much more vital than poetic language, a lack which Baldric thought significantly undervalued the memory of the First Crusade.