The Hereford Mappamundi is extremely valuable for providing an insight into the religious and historical significance of the Medieval world. The creator intended to produce “a projection of historical events on a geographical framework” whilst also highlighting the prominence of religion in the Middle Ages.
It is difficult to argue the creator was trying to produce a map purely to clarify geographical structure. At first glance, the map lacks geographical sense but as argued by Lovosky, the map shows careful consideration of spatial relationships and has an impressive level of detail. A remarkable example of accuracy on the map is the British Isles, which although lacks true scale and measurement, resembles a similar place to the Britain we know today. Nevertheless, this is a controversial opinion with many scholars rebuking this outlook. For example, Bevan and Phillott argue the map is crawling with “inaccuracy, carelessness and ignorance” which can be inferred from the lack of a consistent scale of measurement and a larger focus on the religious aspects of their world, with Jerusalem placed in the centre of the map. Therefore, it is evident that the purpose of this Mappamundi is fundamentally different from the purpose of modern-day maps, with such a large focus on their religious and historical values.
The significance of religion in the Medieval world was discussed by Evelyn who claimed that all the geographical information on the map had been adapted to give it a Christian meaning .For example, Christ at the top of the map, overlooking the scene of the Last Judgement, emphasises how religion is a central theme to the map’s structure. Therefore, it can be inferred that the map’s creator was attempting to provide a “visual narrative of Christian history cast in a geographical framework” which is reflected in Christ and Jerusalem being a large focus on the map. This suggests the creator was trying to produce a multi-layered document that incorporated their spiritual, historical and religious world into one, perhaps to create an encyclopaedic type summary of the Middle Ages for generations to come. This is potentially evident from the great lengths the creator went to in order to create an elaborative, high quality, 5’2” by 4’4” map, suggesting it was produced to outlive the Middle Ages. This encyclopaedic purpose is confirmed by Wogan-Browne who discusses the significance of the inscription ‘cest estoire’ , translating as a compilation of information or a narrative.
Additionally, the historical significance of the map suggests a further educational purpose. For example, the map highlights the importance of Rome in the Middle Ages, thus providing insight into the historical context at the time. The Latin inscriptions around Rome on the map depict it as the capital of the world and highlights its status as head of the Catholic church. Evelyn argues that due to this significance of Rome and additional pilgrimage sites, “the map was thus organized for the reader…to imagine a pilgrimage or to arrange” their journey. Therefore, despite inaccuracies on the map, it still provided a useful geographical instrument when looking at the world in spatial terms.
In conclusion, the Hereford Mappamundi provides a rich and detailed summary of the “knowledge and culture of the Middle Ages” . Criticism from various historians over the inaccuracies of the geographical structure does not degrade the value the map holds in terms of providing a “unified view of the world in terms of time and space” . It was not created to only provide insight into the spatial organisation of the world, but also to give insight into the spiritual and historical values of the Middle Ages, shown through the references to Alexander the Great, the Holy Roman Empire and the biblical references throughout. Although at first glance the map reflects “a world completely out of touch with reality” , it is clear that the map instead shows fascinating parallels between the Medieval world and our world today.
My second chosen source is a narrative produced by William of Rubruck in 1255. His account of his journey to the Mongols was written in great detail with the aim of providing an insight into the political and cultural world of the Mongolian Empire. Additionally, William’s accurate writing suggests that he intended to make a type of intelligence report for Louis IX, who he worked closely with.
Therefore, the level of detail at which he wrote, suggests William was aiming to produce an insightful piece of writing for which the king could fully understand the customs and traditions of the Mongolian Empire. For example, Husain claims that the writings of William were “typically detailed… [and] also very visual” which is evident through his vivid descriptions such as the milk he drank on his journey. Such specific detail exemplifies how much William experienced on his travels and thus highlights how important his writing is as a source of intelligence of the Mongolian Empire. However, Khanmohamadi suggests that William’s source experiences “neglect” from historians questioning how far this source is useful as an intelligence report for medieval history today. Nevertheless, Khanmohamadi is quick to ensure that Williams’s writing is in fact a “major ethnographic source for medieval Mongolian practices” lending significant weight to the argument that William’s narrative was in fact a valuable source of knowledge.
Additionally, William aimed to voice his profound discoveries of Mongolia that challenged his own expectations. For example, at the very end of William’s narrative, he mentions his enquiries into the “monsters” he had previously heard of and how by the end of his journey he doubted their existence. Therefore, as Husain argues, William’s work is also about his “cultural judgements that mark Mongol difference” and how his pre-conceptions about such monsters were hugely challenged. This supports the view that William wrote to enlighten Louis IX and the wider world. As a result, historians have gained a greater understanding of Mongolian culture.
William’s account, although written for King Louis, could also be seen as an “autobiographical account of his journey” which may have served as a journal to remember his long and extensive expedition. In his narrative, he exclaims how he intended to write everything he saw among the Mongols which, as agreed by many historians, was done successfully. In addition, his writing seems truthful, with William voicing the cultural boundary that made the journey so challenging. With William being the first European to successfully complete the journey, he would have been likely to document his experiences whether the King had requested it or not. This is supported by Husain who claimed that his account was more than just an intelligence report for the King, especially due to his inclusion of his emotions and thoughts throughout the journey. As a result of such useful writing, Watson claims the source holds great value and is a “gift within cross-cultural contexts” .
In conclusion, William of Rubruck’s account of his journey to the Mongols is a source of much value. William produced “detailed descriptions of Mongol life and habits” suggesting he intended to create an insight into Mongolian life that was unknown to Europe at the time. In doing so his writing achieved much more than William ever intended. In hoping to provide a detailed account of the Mongols for King Louis IX, William went above and beyond, enabling historians to become more educated on the Mongolian Empire. William’s impressive detail fulfilled his intentions of creating an account full of insightful discoveries of Mongolian culture.