Document 1:
It appears that the first document, written by Rabbi Benjamir, was intended as a historical document. It went into great detail about the city of Constantinople, and about King Manuel. It is this impression that leads me to believe that the document might be written from the viewpoint of someone close to the government within the city, as was written with an air of flattery. However, it appears to be a reliable source by a Rabbi who was interested in documenting the splendor of the city.
Document 2:
Document two does not seem as reliable as document one was. It tends to exaggerate on details, and seems to have been written from an outsider of the city for the sole reason of displaying the grandeur of the city in writing, so it could be known to people in the future. Document 2 was written by Robert of Clari, and seems of be an account of the height of Constantinople.Document 3:
Document 3 was written by Nicetas, and is clearly written by an outsider of the city looking from a perspective of someone thoroughly opposed to Latin rule. The passage explains how the Latin people had ruined the city, and brought it down into a wasted civilization of liars and corruption. The document was written by someone with a clear bias towards the inhabitants of Constantinople, perhaps by a foreign tribe. The document is not a reliable source of information at all.Document 4:
Document 4 was a painted map of Constantinople and the areas around it. The map, which shows the structures of Constantinople towering over those of neighboring cities. The document, by its nature was most likely devised by a person from within the empire for a historical purpose, perhaps commissioned by a ruler of government official for the documentation of Constantine. The Document may be reliable in some ways, but the inaccurate cartography the denoted the maps of the era denotes that the map should not be used as a measure of size in comparison to the land and sea/straights around Constantinople.Document 5:
The 5th is unique in that it is modern photograph, and therefore incredibly reliable. The motive behind the photographer who appears to have been of a foreign nation was most likely taking pictures of the Chapel (now a Mosque) as documentation of the incredible architecture of the ancient city. By its nature, it is a very reliable resource to document Constantinople, but gives a very limited view.Document 6:
Document 6 seemed to emphasize the importance of religion and glorify its effect and influences. The document was written by Acropolis, who from the context of the passage would appear to be a religious official of the time in the city of Constantinople. The effect of the passage seems to be to bring people to religion or convince them of the power of religion. Although an interesting document, it seems to be a little biased and again to give a limitless scope of Constantinople.Document 7:
Document 7 appears to be a document detailing the privileges that would be received by the Venetians in return for the soldiers that they contributed towards the Byzantium army. It was written by Chysobull, who from the passage seems to be an official of the government. It appears that the document was written as a historical document and appears to be accurate, but has room for exaggerations and biases.I think the most credible document was document number one. Written by a rabbi from a very factual perspective, it gives a wide perspective of Constantinople and offers viewpoints that can help us gain thorough insight into Constantinople. It was also written in a historical aspect and gives clear insight that seems to be relatively free of wild exaggerations and enhancement, which gives a view free of overwhelming biases, which leads to clarity and accuracy in the document.
No comments:
Post a Comment