William of Newburgh (1135-1198) Augustinian canon and historian, whose major work
Historia rerum Anglicarum
was written between 1196-8. The work is divided into 5 books including a
Prologue from which the extract in the reader is taken which itself
looks back largely with approval to the work of Gildas and Bede. Book I
covers 1066-1154; Book II deals with the reign of Henry II from 1154-74;
Book III covers from 1175 to Henry's death in 1189; Book IV covers
1187-94 and Book V covers the remaining years until William's death
(1194-98). William of Newburgh is a writer whose reputation has remained
consistently high among modern readers largely because of the high
order of his historical ability. His critical judgement is well
demonstrated in his repose to the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
 |
| William of Newburgh's Historia rerum Anglicarum |
|
|
Henry of Huntingdon (1088-1157) was a historian and poet whose major work was
Historia Anglorum
covering the period between the invasions of Julius Caesar and the
coronation of Henry II in 1154. There was a moral purpose to this work
which was to interpret the five invasions of Britain 1) by the Romans;
2) by the Picts and Scots; 3) by the Angles and Saxons; 4) by the Danes;
and 5) by the Normans; as five punishments or plagues inflicted by God
on a faithless people (sound familiar?). The letter of the excerpt in
the reader, addressed to Warin the Briton (Breton?) concerns the origin
of the "British kings who reigned in this country down to the coming of
Julius Caesar" and is pretty much taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth.
 |
| MS Illustration from Historia Anglorum |
|
|
Gerald of Wales (1146-1220) author and ecclesiastic. After a long period
of education mainly in Paris, Gerlad entered the service of King Henry
II in 1184. His
Itinerarium Cambriae (1191) is remarkable for the
detailed narrative it provides of specific events but also for its
acute coments on social customs.
 |
| Gerald of Wales |
Ranulf Higden (d.1364) was a Benedictine monk and chronicler whose major
work was his universal chronicle in seven books known as the
Polychronicon.
This work offered to the educated audience of fourteenth century
England a picture of world history based on medieval tradition but with
an interest in antiquity and with the early history of Britain related
as part of the whole.
 |
| Ranulf Higden's world view |
|
QUESTION: Select one of the four primary source extracts provided in
the unit reader for this week's work and analyse the view expressed
about Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum britanniae. What do you think?
My chosen primary source is William of Newburgh, who harshly criticizes Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘historical’ account of Brittany.
ReplyDeleteAlthough William does not take into account that Bede relied entirely on Anglo-Saxon sources, so wouldn’t have mentioned someone as powerful and successful as Arthur, he nevertheless gives insightful comments on why and how Geoffrey made up the character of Arthur that are extremely convincing.
He first demonstrates how he doesn’t believe at all that Aurelius Ambrosius, Utherpendragon and Arthur could have been Kings, as it doesn’t correlate to any other accounts of that time, most notably Bede’s, who William thinks of as having the definitive truth.
He is more convincing when he does not simply rely on “it’s not in Bede’s book so it’s not true”, like when he points out how there are no mentions of Arthur in other foreign sources. Geoffrey accredits Arthur with many fantastic and amazing feats, like defeating the Gauls easily, but which took Julius Ceasar ten years to grasp a hold on them. He also states that Arthur beats all the great kings of the world in a single battle, yet if this was really true, how is it that there is no instance of Arthur appearing in any of the historical accounts of that time? Historians from these areas recorded more modest affairs, so it would be logical to assume that something as huge and important as Geoffrey makes it out to be should be written down somewhere.
This is what convinced me of William of Newburgh’s argument. The ease of Arthur’s extraordinary triumphs and the lack of foreign sources about his victories against their own notions leads me to believe that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account is nearly all fiction.
I believe to understand both William’s critique as well as Geoffrey’s exaggeration we must identify the historical agenda of each writer. It is evident that William follows the authority and tradition set by Bede who like him is exclusively Anglo-Saxon and therefore unlikely to mention a successful British leader. However, William also asserts that the early British sources such as Gildas, historian of the Britons, also do not mention anything about Arthur. Anti-Briton sentiment is evident in William’s statement that Gildas’ writing is ‘unpolished and lacks flavour’. Furthermore, the Britons are ‘barbaric’, in their belief that Arthur will one day return. However, apart from the inherent Anglo-Saxon bias within his writing, William also identifies gaps and discrepancies in Monmouth’s historical writing, such as Arthur’s relatively easy conquest of Gaul, and the presence of Christianity in Arthur’s time, as well as the conquest of the Viking peoples, when it was infact the Vikings who invaded England prior to the Norman Conquest. What therefore is Geoffrey’s historical agenda? It has been argued that Geoffrey who was of Welsh background, wished to exalt the status of Britons in a society dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture. The Welsh had been invaded and overrun by invaders and had no heritage of their own. Could it be that Geoffrey responded to this and hence ‘created’ a past where the original Britons were extolled? This argument could have some weight. However we see nothing of this sort in the writings of Gerald of Wales who also had a Welsh background. It seems implausible that Geoffrey who was an educated cleric could make up such stories and present them as history. Could it be that Geoffrey intended for us to read his work not as history but as something else. Perhaps, his accounts of Arthur were simply to give an account of what good kingship looks like?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is hardly surprising that William of Newburgh's "Historia rerum Anglicarum" has merited high regard from modern scholars, as his incisive inquiry certainly aligns more fully with modern understandings of history as an academic discipline than works of earlier authors, including Geoffrey of Monmouth whom William reproaches. Indeed, the extract from William's work seeks to point out the anachronism and invention that he sees embedded within Geoffrey's "Historia Regum Britanniae", and the main thrust of his criticism is embedded in Geoffrey's departure from the works of the "venerable" Bede, whom he considers to be a source of authority on English history. He derives this conclusion based on Bede's tendency to excoriate the actions of the British, whereas William condemns Geoffrey for he has the "opposite tendency" and seeks to make recompense for the faults of the Britons by resorting to "shameless vainglory" in extolling their virtues as a nation.
ReplyDeleteThough undoubtedly biased in his preference for Bede as a point of reference, William is concerned with logically exposing the chronological flaws riddled throughout Geoffrey's writings. He provides a bloodline of the Britons from Hengist through to Oswald, and concludes that if the succession of Kings outlined in Geoffrey's work is to be believed, then Arthur's reign should have coincided with the arrival of Augustine in Britain - and alas, such fortunate synchronicity did not occur. William also draws attention to the fact that Arthur ostensibly feasts in the company of archbishops of London, Caerleon and York at a time when the Britons did not even have an archbishop. For William, the lack of writings corroborating the story of Arthur is reason enough to dispel Geoffrey's writings as mere fiction, for, as he laments, "how could the historians of old...have passed over in silence this man beyond compare and his achievements so notable beyond measure?" It does seem rather too tidy that the achievements of a King so competent and important as Arthur are conspicuously absent from other histories of the period.
William proceeds to call into question Geoffrey's exposition on the military competence of Arthur by invoking such great leaders as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, and such great empires as that of the Romans. William accuses Geoffrey of "making Arthur's little finger broader than the back of Alexander the Great", and points out that the thirty kingdoms "speedily" subjugated by Arthur number more than those taken by the Romans after decades of persistent conquest. William also accuses Geoffrey of fabricating the prophecies of Merlin and giving them the appearance of proper history by "embellishing them in the Latin tongue". He also notes that the the events that occurred after Geoffrey's death have proved the author's prophecies to be false.
Ultimately William's account is thorough and aggressive in its dismantling of Geoffrey's Arthurian 'history'. Though his dependence upon Bede and obvious disdain for Geoffrey are somewhat obstructive in terms of the bias inherent in his account, he also provides reasonable historical evidence to convince readers that they cannot ascribe any fragrance of truth to Geoffrey's writings.
William of Newburgh's "History of English Affairs" reveals a detailed, in-depth exploration into the truth behind Geoffrey Arthur's book. He is convincing in his argument as he provides possible explanations for Geoffrey's desire to falsify events and claim them as history: "either an uncontrolled passion for lying, or secondly a desire to please the Britons." The evidence that supports this is the contrast of Bede and Gildas' work, who both provide critical commentary on their societies rather than praise them as Geoffrey does. He is scathing in his comments on Geoffrey, routintely referring to him as "shameless", in juxtaposition to his obvious veneration of Bede, who embodies one of his arguments. While Bede's history includes no mention of such a man as Arthur, William goes further than to just rely on this, despite his clear trust in Bede's account as the most honest of the time. His emphasis is on other accounts from the time (including ones from other countries) that also do not include any mention of Arthur or events that took place in Geoffrey's book. He investigates events and people Geoffrey claims as real, managing to prove that in reality the country of Briton was not as Geoffrey stated it to be. While his bias for Bede and distrustworthy attitude towards Geoffrey are noteworthy, he provides a thorough exploration with support from evidence of his argument that Geoffrey was a liar. Despite this, perhaps a more subtle skepticism, or a search for the possible reasoning behind Geoffrey's decision to create such a fable, is required in regards to his account.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the (near) contemporaries of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Ranulf Higden's response to Geoffrey's work is one of the clearest in its argument. Although William of Newburgh supplies a well-argued and evidenced view (as has been expressed in the responses above), Higden's Polychronicon builds a strong case against Geoffrey's work. By analysing the Historia regum Britanniae, Higden points out all the issues with it, using sources such as Bede and Gildas as well as pointing to sources (or the lack there of) from France and Rome. Higden builds the inaccuracies within Geoffreys work on top of one another until he has produced an incredibly strong case for the highly fictitious nature of Geoffrey's work in relation to the figure of Arthur. Beginning with the implausibility of Arthur's supposed feats, Higden concentrates the majority of his argument on what sources contemporary, or near contemporary, to Arthur, such as the lack of mention of Arthur within the chronicles of Rome, France and Saxony. As well as this, he points out the number other so called 'historical' figures that Arthur interacts with in France and Rome of whom there are no records of. Higden concludes by pointing out that although Geoffrey himself wondered at why Bede and Gildas didn't mention Arthur, why Geoffrey would give so much praise to a figure who seems to be non-existant in previous histories. This well constructed argument speaks to the historians of today through its analytical and well-referenced response to the writing of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and, it is my belief, that this paper would have been of distinction potential in a modern university.
ReplyDeleteIn William of Newburgh’s “Historia rerum Anglicarum”, the author condemns Geoffrey of Monmouth’s fabrications about the Britons and their leader Arthur, claiming that “he weaves a laughable web of fiction about them.” William goes on to explain how and to what extent Geoffrey had embellished his story, listing as false and impossible Merlin’s “supernatural” predictions, Arthur’s victories over many powerful nations in (so William claims) a miraculously short time, and the presence of archbishops before such a position had been created. William is convincing in his argument not only because of its common sense (even if the Britons had been reunited under Arthur, it does appear highly unlikely that these formerly disorganised and demoralised tribes could have defeated the Romans and other allied nations in so short a time) and secondly because of his reliance upon other historical evidence. He points out that Bede and Gildes did not mention many of the feats that Geoffrey attributed to Arthur- furthermore, if William is correct and there were no archbishops before his and Geoffrey’s time, then this clear anachronism sheds doubt upon the validity of Geoffrey’s historicity. However, it is important for modern readers to note William’s complete reliance upon the works of Bede- such a focus on a single work possibly means William’s works themselves are heavily biased and miss important facts noted by other older historians.
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh's "Historia rerum Anglicarum" is a rather harsh critisim of Geoffrey's "History". He uses Bede as the basis for his argument that Geoffrey completely fabricated the legend of Arthur and tell this "lie" as a historical truth. William clearly idolises Bede (as many writers of his time probably did), and this has resulted in him being entirely biased, it appears, in favour of Bede, and thus to naturally scathingly dismiss any historical wrtings that are in contradiction to him, as "Historia rerum Anglicarum" is. Moreover, as White says in his introduction to William, he does not take into account that Bede's sources for the 5th century would have likely to have been mainly Anglo-Saxon sources, and these would have been unlikely to contain any mention of a successfull British leader. In addition to this, William was writing after the time of the Saxon rule of Britain, rendering anyother source he uses, in addition to Bede, most likely to have been purely from the Saxon perspective.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while William's remarks may be formed from extreme bias, he does address the issue of historians constructing stories, or aspects of stories and telling them as history. Moreover, he also discusses the ridiculousness of claims such as the profectic Merlin, and the impossibility of the scale of Arthur's victories. William contends that Geoffrey has exulted Arthur to a higher status than that of Julius Caeser and Alexander the Great, and he even argues that he has compared Arthur to Biblical figures.
In conclusion, William's critisim of Geoffrey has some credibility as he argues against the ridiculousness of some of his claims. However, due to his bias towards Bede, he completely dismisses any chance that Arthur, or a figure much like him ever existed, and this arguement does not take into account the Saxon influence on Bede's writings, or in fact the arguement of anyother source.
William of Newburgh's "History of English Affairs" can be considered one of the most blatant attacks on the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia regum britanniae", thus it provides a strong example of a contrasting work. William defiantly refutes Geoffrey's writings, passing them off as fictitious and embellished stories rather than actual history, regarding Geoffrey's topic of Arthur with particular significance. William contends that because Arthur is left unmentioned in various other histories, namely Bede's, he did not exist and was therefore created by Geoffrey in an attempt of embellishing the British history.
ReplyDeleteI find William's theory of history through omission to be particularly interesting. What William is contending is that because authors such as Bede did not mention Arthur, he therefore must not be real. Personally, I consider this theory to have both merit and downfalls. On one hand, the mystical and often magical elements surrounding Merlin and Arthur (particularly Merlin in Geoffrey's work) is hugely improbable, thus it does call to question this authenticity of Geoffrey's history. However, to blatantly ignore a possible history that has been mentioned in more than Geoffrey's work just because it wasn't discussed in Bede's is just as bias.
William of Newburgh discussed the legitimacy of Geoffrey on Monmouth's Historia Regun Britanniae in his Historia rerum Anglicarum (1196-8). He praises the work of Gildas and Bede, but has only negative things to say about Monmouth. He passes Monmouth's entire work off as a piece of fiction and condemns him for trying to claim that it is history. He gives evidence using the work of Bede and Gildas to explain Monmouth's inaccuracies, such as Arthur apparently being fourth in line from Vortigern, when Bede says Augustine was fourth in line from Hengist, which means that "Arthur's reign and Augustine's arrival in Britain ought to have coincided". He also points out that if Arthur was so great, even greater than Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great, wouldn't we have heard more about him from other sources? And the same goes for Merlin, who Monmouth paints as being equal to Isaiah as a prophet. The reasoning he gives for this is either a passion for lying, or a "desire to please the Britons", which I think is more likely, because he does extoll them "far above the virtue of the Macedonians and the Romans".
ReplyDeleteI agree with William of Newburgh on most points. I agree that Monmouth's work is on the whole a work of fiction and I think he makes a lot of relevant points, however, he highly praises the work of Gildas and especially Bede as completely true, but it is very possible that these works too may have faults, which should be considered. Arthur may not have been mentioned by Bede, but that does not necessarily mean he did not exist, he may have just played a different role in Britain's history.
William of Newburgh in his "History of English Affairs" shows a remarkably hypocritical approach in his discussion of Bede and Monmouth's work. I am reminded of earlier in the semester, where one of the guidelines for good history was 'a good historian is aware of his own biases and seeks to surmount them'. William shows why failing to address personal bias can completely shoot a point of view in the foot. In the second sentence of William's work he showered praise on the way Bede handles history, referring to him as treating the historical canon with 'elegant brevity', and his praise only gets more flowery. This, in and of itself, leads me to mistrust anything that he has to say on the subject of Bede and his application of Bede's work to Monmouth's, as he is clearly more interested in exemplifying Bede than he is at getting at any semblance of historical truth.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, agree with William of Newburgh's assessment of Monmouth as cloaking blatant falsehoods in Latin in order to give them the legitimacy of history. Monmouth quite clearly embellished the truth in his works, and it is rampant to any modern reader that a large portion of Monmouth's writings are fantastical and should be taken with a grain of salt. Where I think William goes wrong, though, is giving no weight to Monmouth on the grounds that Bede did not mention Arthur. Respected though Bede is, given the factitious nature of historical records at the time, no source should be completely omitted just because another source does not back it up - there is something to be learned from any text, no matter how fantastical. I also approved of Newburgh's assessment of Gildas as admirable in his condemnation of the Britons as being a people of great evil, but I am slightly disappointed that no thought is given to what biases Gildas may have held to write such things. This is just further proof that William of Newburgh has not given sufficient thought to historical bias, and thus his assessment of Monmouth's work, though not without merit, is shackled by William's inadequacies as a historian.
The extract from Henry of Huntington provides an interesting contrast to the other three sources. We can see that Henry was recommending Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History to an associate, as a ‘great book’ and reliable resource from which one could gain information of the period between Brutus and Caesar. After describing the difficulty of finding much information from this period, he mentioned his surprise at being introduced to Geoffrey’s work. Regardless of this, from the extract of his letter to Warin the Briton we can confidently gather that Henry had a positive view of the text.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to consider that Henry encountered Geoffrey’s work quite soon after it was completed, making him the first person to write about it. He wouldn’t have heard many other opinions or criticisms. Additionally, although Henry’s own work relied on evidence from Bede and Nennius, it is clear that his focus was on a morally driven narrative. As explained above in the main post, he wanted to present the five invasions of Britain as punishments from God for a faithless people. As such, he would have been more interested in promoting this discussion rather than being as strictly based in critical evidence as William of Newburgh for example. Perhaps one of reasons he admired the work was that his own perspective wasn’t coming from such a strong desire for facts like the other writers from this week’s reading.
In Book V of the Polychronicon, Ranulf Higden clearly suggests his scepticism of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. Hidgen's argument is of particular value in that he seems to withhold from outright condemnation of Monmouth's work. Rather, his tone is almost contemplative, as he considers fact after fact, concluding that each seems to point to the falsehood of Monmouth's Historia. The mildness of his tone, in phrases such as "if [Arthur] did indeed ... it is peculiar that...", suggests a balanced and impartial author, but the implications of the facts he presents leave little room for disagreement from the reader. Higden asserts that Geoffrey "relates how [Arthur] conquered thirty different realms", but if this is true it is strange that "the chronicles of Rome, France, or the Saxons never mention such a noble ruler in their accounts". Such comments appeal to the logic of the audience, clearly implying that such feats are surely untrue. He concludes by saying that he "must wonder why Geoffrey gives so much praise to a man upon whom the old authorities, those renowned writers of histories, never touch". There can be no doubt, then, that Higden doubts the veracity of Monmouth's piece.
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh's 'History of English Affairs' harshly criticises Geoffrey of Monmouth's work on Arthur. He contends that Geoffrey was basically a liar who fabricated the truth and created a story about Arthur which he claims to be 'history'. The fact that William was heavily influenced by Bede, a writer heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon writings, means that it is unlikely that William would believe the 'history' put forward by Geoffrey to be true. It makes sense that William was critical of Geoffrey's claims of Merlins doings and Arthur's victory epic battles, that would have be impossible to achieve. These 'lies' as Williams describes them take much credibility from the writing of Geoffrey and help explain WIlliams criticisms of his work. However, William fails to realise the possibility that a man of Arthurian character ever even existed and dismisses it entirely.
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales was of high birth (though a bit remote) and had received education in a Benedictine house as well as in Paris. His little story on Geoffrey of Monmouth's book involves a very mystic figure in the Welsh countryside who would likely be claimed as heretic if in the continent. While Gerald seemed to be writing a journey with interesting stories without demonstrating any serious issues, it is quite clear that his intention was to ridicule Geoffrey rather than the mystic person. The reason for that is he mentioned the good deeds of the Gospel of John in the same scene. Considering the long years of his education in Paris it could be assume that he was highly educated and took no interest on the zeal towards heretics. His book was published in 1188. At that age the society was already aware of the problem of heretics and the Albigensian Crusade was not far away. Could it be suggested that Gerald was among those criticised by Bernard of Clairvaux just like Peter Abelard?
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales completely annihailates Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia. Most notably is his use of sarcasm through the relation of the story of Meilyr, so outlandish is this story and its features: "upon inspecting a mendacious book...he was immediately able to place his finger upon the lie, even though he was almost completely illiterate," that it makes an absolute mockery of Geoffrey's work. To add insult to injury, Gerald makes a direct reference to the History of the Kings of Britain, depciting the book as a magnet for devils and in relation to the afore mentioned story of Meilyr, an attraction for lies, clearly stating Gerald's opinion of the History as a bunch of lies. I think that Gerald, in his own creative way, makes a valid point about the falsity that rings through the History, however, I am not inclined to totally disregard Geoffrey's work completely, as I think that the work itself can provide some useful information through its own falsehood and exaggerations.
ReplyDeleteIn analysing William of Newburgh's work, it appears he holds Geoffrey of Monmouth's work in some contempt. This is largely due to Geoffrey's inclusion of the figure of King Arthur, as William interpreted most of his historical information from Bede, who has no mention of Arthur in his works. William states that Geoffrey praises Britons "far above the virtue" of historically noble races, such as the Macedonians and Romans. William is emphasising Geoffrey's tendency to highlight the triumphs and progress of the Britons, rather than their failures. William dismisses Geoffrey's work on the grounds that the latter is abusing the value and importance of history by giving this label to a fictitious character. William draws comparisons between the history of Bede and Geoffrey's work; as William follows Bede's account of history very closely, he is able to dismiss all of Geoffrey's works which do not align with Bede's. William argues that Geoffrey did not write his account for historical accuracy, but either as plain trickery (as his work was blatantly exaggerated and false, according to William) or in order to "please the Britons", and provide them with a history they could extol. Overall, William is highly dismissive and unimpressed by Geoffrey's work, using the description of Geoffrey's King Arthur as the grounds to discredit his work.
ReplyDelete