Bergeron Prospectus

[Cara Bergeron]

Introduction and Thesis:

1. Teleological history and moral purpose in WM's view

2. Intention is, in William’s view, a predictable indicator of historical consequences. He centers several of his narratives around this central idea, engaging his readers in debates both religious and political. One political debate pertains to faithful naming: was the Norman Conquest an invasion of the politically strong against the morally weak--a "scourge of God"--or was it a genuine accession? Another religious debate pertains to the Investiture Conflict: was it the duty and right of the Western Roman Church to take the power of investiture away from the kings of Christendom and upon itself?

WM’s Teleological Approach to History: A Brief Description

1.    1. Gospel example & the strengthened church: Anselm’s beginning and end

2.    2. Noble beginnings & papal vindication: Wilfrid’s beginning and end

3.    3. Mockery & Disaster: King Ecgfrith and Queen Eormenberg’s beginning and end

 

A Political Debate: The Norman Conquest

1.    1. King Harold: jealous usurper or government by consent?

a. WM’s “unraveling” of Harold’s motives

2.    2. King William: able governor or scourge of God?

a. WM’s “unraveling” of William I and William II’s motives

 

An Ecclesiastical Debate: The Investiture Conflict

1.    1. Argument by custom: William II’s assertions and considerations raised by Miller

2.  Argument by moral reason: Gregory VII and Urban’s assertions and considerations raised by Miller

4.    4. WM sides with the popes based on intention

 

Conclusion: How far must the historian "pull back" in order to see history teleologically? Do motives predict the end before the story is written?

[Chris Schlect]

Cara,

This looks promising. Of course, early on in your paper you will need to explain what WM's concept of intentionality is, and how intentions relate to actions or events. You are probably planning to do this already, but I'm saying it just in case.

It is unclear to me, from what you have here, how the "naming" and the investiture conflict relate to intentionality. Same for WM's "theological approach" to history. Perhaps you have the connection worked out in your mind, and I don't see it due to the brevity of a prospectus. Be sure that connection is brought out clearly in your paper. You indicate that you will display the connection with the Norman Conquest.

CRS

P.S. Here's an aside that may or may not be relevant to your paper. Harold's oath to William came up briefly in our face-to-face interaction, and I see that you want to address it in your paper. It happens that several years ago I presented a conference paper on this subject. A backburner project of mine is to clean up, refine, and update the paper and get it ready for publication. Alas, the longer I wait, more publications come out that I will need to take into account in my revision. Alas, the project remains on the back burner while I focus on my dear Presbyterians. Don't know whether you would find it interesting or helpful, but I have attached it here.

[Cara Bergeron]

Mr. Schlect,

Once my Latin exam is over (Saturday), I will e-mail a more thorough outline to you. Or I can post it to the forum if you want. I already have one that is much more robust than what I posted, but I need to take a look at your questions and see if I've already addressed them, or if I should keep working through the issues you mention. I feel like I have a great case, with several examples from both GR and GPA, for WM's focus on intentions, and how they relate to final outcomes. 

I think you mentioned a "theological approach," but I meant "teleologic approach." I hope I'm using the word correctly; I'm attempting to address WM's assumption that a spiritual/moral metannarative pervades English history. I may need to talk over teleology with you, because I just begin to think I have a handle on the word and it seems to squirm around in my mind. Somehow I feel like WM's approach is related to his hero Anselm's approach to the argument for God--the ontological argument. They both begin by zooming out from history or theology (i.e. WM already knows that God conquers and that righteous men thrive; Anselm already knows that God exists--even before they begin their arguments). They begin with their thesis, but they don't say so; isn't that teleology? Then they begin to unravel the common threads which link events and people (in WM's case) or logical premises (in Anselm's case). Then, once they get to the thread's "beginning," they start narrating (or writing down assumptions and premises). And then they build the narrative from what seems to be that beginning--even though they've begun with some grand assumptions in mind--which they believe to be true from holy scripture and experience. I want to explain this in my paper, but I'm wrestling with how to do it succinctly.

I have to finish Miller's book before I have an adequate handle on investiture, though WM's GPA was full of primary source commentary as you know. Of course, it's his sort of "zoom in/zoom out" commentary, trying to link his metanarrative with the motives of England's founding fathers. I need Miller's "modern"--or I should say "contemporary" (if the book is recent--I haven't looked yet) perspective to get an alternative look at some of the characters William sanctifies or villifies.

Thanks for the paper on Harold's oath; no doubt it will be helpful. You'll hear more from me early next week. Any comments or corrections that you (or anyone else has) on my ramblings about teleology and motive/intentionality would be much appreciated.

Blessings, Cara

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hist-504/-/xdEgpEy1MJ4J.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Chris Schlect]

From what I can tell so far, you appear to be headed in a good direction. Look forward to the mature product, and happy to interact with questions between now and then.

CRS