From the dedicatory letter serving as preface to the Historia Regum Britanniae
"Oftentimes in
turning over in mine own mind the many themes that might be subject-matter of a
book, my thoughts would fall upon the plan of writing a history of the Kings of
Britain, and in my musings thereupon meseemed it a marvel that, beyond such
mention as Gildas and Bede have made of them in their luminous tractate, nought
could I find as concerning the kings that had dwelt in Britain before the
Incarnation of Christ, nor nought even as concerning Arthur and the many others
that did succeed him after the Incarnation, albeit that their deeds be worthy
of praise everlasting and be as pleasantly rehearsed from memory by word of
mouth in the traditions of many peoples as though they had been written down.
Now, whilst, I was thinking upon such
matters, Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man learned not only in the art of
eloquence, but in the histories of foreign lands, offered me a certain most
ancient book in the British language that did set forth the doings of them all
in due succession and order from Brute, the first King of the Britons, onward
to Cadwallader, the son of Cadwallo, all told in stories of exceeding beauty.
At his request, therefore, albeit that never have I gathered gay flowers of
speech in other men's little gardens, and am content with mine own rustic
manner of speech and mine own writing-reeds, have I been at the pains to
translate this volume into the Latin tongue.
For had I besprinkled my page
with high-flown phrases, I should only have engendered a weariness in my
readers by compelling them to spend more time over the meaning of the words
than upon understanding the drift of my story."
QUESTION:
Is the "most ancient book in the British language" a source awaiting
discovery or is it the fabrication of a great storyteller seeking
authority for his own invention? What do you think?
It sounds like a complete cop-out to me, to be honest. In the tutorial readings this week, I believe the question was "Take out the fanciful bits and are you left with history?"
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to that is no. If somebody is already taking obvious liberties, who's to say that they haven't taken little ones too? Just because we'll swallow a big lie in their mind doesn't mean they won't try to sneak a little one past us.
That might sound a little bit cynical, but I think of it this way. If I were to submit a history essay and fill it with wild allegations about Arthur being nine foot tall and capable of breathing fire and immaculate conception, and Carol asked me where I had got this information (and rightly so), I would be forced to explain myself. If my explanation was "I found this book in the library that told me, and it had awesome references to a long-lost library where all of this stuff was readily available, but I'm afraid the book was only three hour loan and I had to give it back so I can't show it to you" I'd probably get a fail grade.
'Great storytellers' seeking authority for their own inventions using long lost books that they cannot produce should also get a fail grade.
This "most ancient book in the British language" could possibly be an actual source that Geoffrey used to construct his Historia. However, as Lupack points out in his excerpts, Geoffrey of Monmouth was greatly given to inventing his own sources to give authority to his works, as many medieval authors were likewise inclined. As such, it seems more credible to believe that this "ancient book" is indeed a fabrication by a great storyteller. Yet, it is also remiss to completely rule out the possibility of this book actually existing as that would entail a close-mindedness that would curtail our quest, as historians, for the truth and the reality of what happened in years past.
ReplyDeleteIt is not uncommon for people to fabricate details in order to tell a good story. In order to explain things they don't understand or know for certain, humans seem to revert to their imagination, a tool which has often been relied upon to explain mysteries in history. Geoffrey's claim of having been in possession of a "most ancient book in the British language" which comprised a detailed history all of the kings of Britain, may have been one of those times. Such a book would be a great asset, and it would be assumed that had someone with a passion for history and writing been in possession of it, he would ensure its preservation somehow. Though it may be possible that such a book existed and Geoffrey is telling the truth, I believe that he fabricated the existence of it in order to make his claims seem more legitimate.
ReplyDeleteIt is a great possibility that the most influential work in regards to the Arthurian legend is based upon a lie. Geoffrey of Monmouth claims he had access to the "most ancient book in the British language", with which he constructed his history on Arthur and early Briton. While it is entirely possible that this book did indeed exist, it is a known fact that Geoffrey exaggerated the events he wrote about, using elaboration and imagination in order to create a fantastical tale for his readers. As human beings, it is hard for us not to do this when telling a story, if only for the effect it has on an audience, and this comes into play when writing a book. Alan Lupack reveals that "it is likely that Geoffrey created much of the Arthurian matter himself", as the existence of such a book would lend a hand in legitimising Geoffrey's claims and the book as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhilst Geoffrey of Monmouth is at pains to imply that his Historia Regum Britanniae is a true translation of “the most ancient book in the British language” which was given to him by the Archdeacon of Oxford, it seems doubtful that the original source ever existed. Firstly, Monmouth clearly states that Gildas and Bede only “mentioned” the ancient British kings- thus raising the question of why these writers did not have access themselves to this comprehensive ancient source. Since both these historians are renowned for being learned, it is perhaps surprising that they had not found or made use of the book, if it existed. Therefore apart from Monmouth’s mention of this source, there is no other historical, literary or physical evidence to prove its existence. The most plausible explanation for Monmouth’s inclusion of the “ancient book” is that it provided him with an “authoritative” background for his own literary work or inventions. Thus the available evidence seems to indicate the “ancient book” is solely a fabrication.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the 'most ancient book in the British language' was used by Geoffrey of Monmouth as a key source in his work and yet no copy of it has survived today, that we have found, seems unlikely. A text of that importance would have been copied out, or if it was originally part of an oral tradition, that there would be a record of it in other works. There is also evidence of its fabrication within Geoffrey's own words when he says that Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, requested a translation of the volume into the Latin tongue. Evidence of this can be seen in the long and, in my opinion, rather 'flowery' way that Geoffrey goes about telling us this, and emphasising that the language which he will use is his 'own rustic manner of speech' and his 'own writing-reeds' after he declares that he has never 'gathered gay flowers of speech in other men's little gardens.' That his dedicatory letter prefacing the work uses such language and also the imaginative, innovations Geoffrey adds to the story of Arthur, as are covered in this weeks reading by Alan Lupack, leads one to believe that this 'most ancient book in the British language' was merely a fabrication of the author in order to give his work authority. That such a book might exist and may someday be discovered would be of invaluable worth to our knowledge of the ‘Arthurian Age’ but until (if ever) such a discovery is made, the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteIt is my suspicion that the phrase "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" is one particularly applicable to Geoffrey of Monmouth's recount of the Arthurian narrative. Despite his claims to its historical veracity, Geoffrey's "Historia Regum Britanniae" seems to be a narrative potion concocted from a number of earlier sources - including Gildas and Nennius - and it elaborates extensively upon the framework put in place by these earlier authors. His claim to have used a "certain most ancient book" as source material for his work is hardly surprising considering that Medieval 'histories' deviate considerably from contemporary historiographic ideals. Lupack notes that many medieval authors were in the habit of inventing sources in order to lend their work a certain credibility - the fact that such a source has never been uncovered and that Geoffrey's work also appears to have a political agenda (what Echard defines as "the need for strong and legitimate central rule") seems to suggest that the source was fabrication designed to underscore the Historia's credibility. Though, as Lupack suggests, it is "impossible to say" whether or not Geoffrey was indeed endowed with knowledge from an ancient source, it seems far more likely that the source was a fanciful stamp upon a work already peppered with many imaginative embellishments.
ReplyDeleteIt is more likely, I believe, that this 'most ancient book' was a collection of sources, rather than a single text. However, it is not far reaching for medieval historians to fabricate sources to give their work a greater level of legitimacy. We do know that medieval historians had a vastly different view of the way in which history was to be recorded, so possibly this likely fabrication, while it may seem to be the work of a man attempting to improve the status of his work, in the context of Geoffory's own time, this may have not been as 'unacceptable' as today. In saying that, however, Geoffory would have had to draw on the writings of Nennius, Gildas and Bede most likely, so it is clear that his writings definitly have their basis in older sources.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Monmouth's account differs so drastically from the earliest available sources of Gildas and Bede suggests that his supposed source is probably a fabrication. To begin, Monmouth's description of Arthur's battles is extremely one-sided, and is apparently contradicted by Gildas' claim that "victory went now to our countrymen, now to their enemies". This "most ancient book" could not have been compiled much before Gildas' account, which was written in around AD548, approximately one hundred years after the death of the Briton war leader. Either Gildas (and Bede and Nennius after him) wrote a seriously flawed account omitting countless key details, or Monmouth simply invented his source to enhance the credibility of his own story. To me, it seems clear that Monmouth faked the existence of such a source. This is not even taking into account the sensational claims of sorcery and mythical creatures such as giants, which apart from defying our contemporary understanding of reality, are also not corroborated in any of the other earlier sources. Undoubtedly Monmouth did have sources no longer available to us, which did inform truthful aspects of his story, but the countless improbabilities in his account suggest the near certainty that this "most ancient book in the British language" is a falsity.
ReplyDeleteRather than assert wholeheartedly that Geoffry of Monmouth's tales were based on a falsified text, I think it is easier to look at what is reasonably obvious from a factually objective point of view. Therefore we can see that, Geoffry, an aspiring clergyman whose vocabulary rarely failed him, wrote a text that filled a void in British history that was a good 700 years before his time, based on a text that has never been referenced by anyone else. It seems far too easy for this suspicious 'most ancient book' to be a reworking of his own ideas using 'gay flowers of speech'. The fact that it is such an easily read story, with delicate wording and solid plot line, signposts an all too easily drawn conclusion, it is a story. Monmouth may have drawn from texts written before him, but it seems all too likely that Monmouth decided on a whim to immortalise both himself and Arthur in myth, because there was a gap and because he could.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey Monmouth's claims that he used 'the most ancient book in all of Britain' as a key source in his historical writings on Arthur and the history of Britain. The fact that this book no longer exists greatly lowers the credibility of this claim by Monmouth. If such a book did exist or was used by Monmouth, it is highly unlikely that the book would have been lost or destroyed. A book of such significance, being the oldest book in the British language would have been duplicated and preserved as many other ancient texts have been. It is much more likely that Monmouth, as other historians have been known to have done, wrote his history on Arthur, based on a falsified text, which enabled him to exaggerate and glorify the history of Arthur and Britain in order to excite and intrigue the audience. The way the text is written is very similar to the way a story is written, and as such it was probably based on some fact but fleshed out with hyperbole to create a better story to render Monmouth a seemingly prolific historian and Arthur a truly heroic figure.
ReplyDeleteTo say that Geoffrey's "Historia Regum Britanniae" was based purely on fact and that it was a key source would be ruling out many other possibilities. It is highly likely that there was influence from a number of various sources including Nennius, Gildas and Bede. There was also the fact that the 'most ancient book' may have been replicated or some parts may have been lost. So while it may want to be classified as a reliable source, the evidence to make it so is not there and it cannot be labelled as vaild or reliable.
ReplyDeleteThe audience of Geoffrey's work seemed to be scholars from the continent who would read it to get some knowledge of the British Islands which was unknown to them. For this purpose the introduction of a person of authority from the church and a "most ancient book in the British language" certainly sets up his tone of being the supposed expert in the issues of British historiography. It will be ridiculous if somebody today actually bother to look for this particular book as Geoffrey's contemporaries had already critised Geoffrey's false authenticity. What Geoffrey had actually borrowed besides reconised academic writings might very likely be various stories told among British folks at that time.
ReplyDeleteWhile Geoffrey claims that he came into possession of a "most ancient book" which served as a source for Arthur's story, it is very possible that this was a claim he made in order to verify his own work. It appears quite convenient that this source has not survived, and it was claimed to be kept secretly enough for few to have read it, although many great histories of this time did not in fact survive completely intact. However, as no other histories exist which contain content regarding the reign of King Arthur, particularly highly resourced historians such as Bede and Nennius, it would appear that Geoffrey's claims of a historical source for his work are too good to be true. It is mentioned in the text that Geoffrey's other sources were mostly oral traditions; this being so, it is easily apparent as to why Geoffrey would feel the need to reference a more reliable or intellectual source. The idea that Geoffrey's main body of history was reliant on the oral tales of Britons only serves to further the notion that his inclusion of Arthur and his kingdom are less than credible.
ReplyDelete