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?
Lupack rather strongly asserts that Geoffrey most likely invented many elements of what we would now recognise as the ‘standard’ Arthurian legend himself. It is his claim that the ‘most ancient book in the British language’ Geoffrey claims he was given by the Archdeacon merely follows the trend of medieval writers to invent ‘ancient’ sources to give their work authority and validity.
ReplyDeleteI lean more towards Lupack’s argument that though possible such an ancient source is unlikely given the difficulty of preserving books in that era and environment (a country that was not only rife with war and therefore widespread arson and doesn’t have the most book-friendly weather). However I can acknowledge the possibility that Geoffrey may have had access to some sources unavailable today, though probably not a comprehensive book on the British kings, the importance and scope of which became exaggerated.
I find my own thoughts on this matter very closely resembling Lupack's arguments.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is more plausible that Geoffrey of Monmouth spent a great deal more time "elaborating" on the Arthurian tales he read about, whilst he also had access to documents no longer available today.
His elaboration could have served many purposes; to create a link between folklore and history, or to give himself credibility. However, his specific reference to this "most ancient book in British language" could serve the purpose of further unifying the traditional Britonnic heritage of the land with it's freshly integrated Roman influence from the Church (as Geoffrey was a Romano-Christian bishop). He praises the language of the original book as "high-flown" and of "exceeding beauty", whilst his Latin is "rustic".
The fact that this source no longer exists adds to my doubt as to whether or not Geoffrey was just fabricating stories to add to the legend he sought to create. However, I do agree with Erin, that a war-torn country, with 'wide-spread arson' is not quite the best environment for books to be preserved.
I agree with both the responses above in the idea that it was "not unheard of for medieval authors to invent sources to give their works authority".
ReplyDeleteHowever i wish to raise a further point to support this claim, and that is that, if this "most ancient book in the British language" was said to exist, why not name its title and possible author or authors. This leads me to question its existence thoroughly. Leaning towards the conclusion that it did not exist at all.
The fact remains that the Arthurian legend presented by Geoffrey has left a "permanent legacy" and it will take some very particular and solid evidence to unseat these stories from popular belief, I believe that since this work has been so influential in providing the tales of the Arthurian legend, the mere fact that a book used as a reference cannot be found will not be able to persuade believers in Arthur, that these stories are not true.
Despite how Geoffrey claims that he translated an ancient British book into Latin, the content that is presented suggests that the ‘most ancient book in British language’ is more inclined to be the result of a great storyteller rather than a source to be discovered. This chronicle aims to depict the history of British kings, yet Lupack notes how the section dedicated to Arthur is more than any of the other kings. This is peculiar in the sense that there are not many accounts regarding Arthur beforehand, hence many of the elements in the book are likely to be created by Geoffrey (such as the figure Merlin who is first introduced by Geoffrey). As Lupack points out and Erin already mentioned, Geoffrey could also be elaborating on Arthur from other sources we are unaware of as well as solely translating the ancient book, which provides some legitimacy to Geoffrey’s portrayal of Arthur.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry, I was meant to post as Tiffany Leong >.<
DeleteUnless a copy of Geoffrey’s “alleged” source turns up, it is of course impossible to answer this question definitively. It is possible that there was an earlier account of the “history” of the kings of Britain, written in the Britons’ language, which Geoffrey used, but I consider it most unlikely.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a genuine earlier British source, it is unusual that Nennius did not know or make use of it in his own work, written some three centuries earlier. Also, main elements of Geoffrey’s work, especially the more ‘extraordinary’ and ‘fantastical’ passages, appear to be based on Nennius’ Historia Britonum (i.e the passage about. Vortigern, Merlin, the tower, and the dragons), suggesting much less original authorship that Geoffrey implies. Geoffrey’s reference to whom would have presumably been a real person (Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford), may lend credence to his claim, but it could have been that the archdeacon was dead by the time Geoffrey’s work was completed, resulting in his claim being unverifiable. Finally, Geoffrey’s self-deprecating manner in his introduction is quite similar to classical authors and historians such as Livy, and tends to suggest a false modesty about the quality of his work. In my opinion, therefore, it is more than likely that this “earlier” history is a convenient invention of Geoffrey to cause his History to stand out from among the multitude of others.
In my opinion, all evidence points towards the book not existing at all, and merely being a fabricated device to lend credibility to his argument and enhance the validity of the Arthurian legend. Lupack’s scepticism is evident and well-argued – he doesn’t accuse Geoffrey of Monmouth of being an out-and-out liar, but voices his belief that medieval authors often “invented sources to give their works authority”. References to Geoffrey’s “fertile imagination” are also made. The relative obscurity of such a book – why hasn’t the existence of such a valuable source been more widely publicised and cited by other earlier historians? – also brings its existence into question. The scope of Geoffrey’s claim must also be analysed – it is proclaimed to be the “most ancient book in the British language”. The exaggeration and hyperbole of this claim is unmistakeable, and lends weight to Lupack’s insinuation that the book was not real.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is often stranger than fiction. But we have to ask ourselves whether we can conceive of a British kingship founded by a Trojan exile 'Brute'. A kingship the knowledge of which had somehow been established and concealed right through from archaic pre-Roman times. This history would also have had to be somehow maintained for well more than a millenia without the benefit of a supporting culture equivalent in scope to the Ancient Greek city-states. The sensible answer to this possibilty is a profound no.
ReplyDeleteSince this 'source' emulates certain elements of classical Latin narrative with which Geoffrey was no doubt familiar, we should conclude that he manufactured it with a text such as the Aeneid in mind.
Were we to discover this text it would not assist with identifying the line of British kingship or the history of such. It would instead serve as a source shedding light on the 'literary' development of fraudulent documents during the middle ages.
It is most likely that the book never in fact existed. If we assume that it did exist there are too many questions to validate this assumption. Geoffrey was not the first person to conceive of Arthur and knowledge of him was already widespread before Geoffrey wrote his History. Considering this it is difficult to believe that a previous historian did not stumble upon this “most ancient book” and use it themselves. This lack of reference to the book prior to Geoffrey and the fact that later historians use Geoffrey as a reference and not this original text suggest that Geoffrey fabricated the story in order to lend credence to his History. Additionally, the assumption that Geoffrey fabricated the story has a much more compelling argument. As Lupack contends that many medieval historians would invent stories to give their works authority, it is not far-fetched to suggest that this is what Geoffrey did. While today historians are often only interested in ‘facts’, the field was probably not viewed in the same light during Geoffrey’s time and his invention, though not representing any historical fact, represented historical ‘truth’ to its readers.
ReplyDeleteHmmm yes it would be v. convenient if such a book existed/still exists! N/less it’s more likely Geoff of M’s invention (or artistic license which is not entirely the same) to support his own authority. It seems to have been common practice to construct one’s history from numerous sources as evinced in Gildas’, Nennius’ and Bede’s prologues. So G of M is conforming to an established tradition, in this wk’s extract itself he mentions this “British treatise” yet also oral testimony from an authority on all things historical(p.37) – which proves he was combining at the v. least two sources (quite similar to Bede being fastidious about distinguishing written and verbal testimony). It could be a metaphorical rather than physical book comprised of all G's sources! I was thinking perhaps this has something to do w/ vicariousness – if we believe Gabrielle Spiegel that one aim of medieval historiography was to make contemporary readers believe they were actually amongst past events as they happened – then maybe truth (in this case Geoff of M’s artistic license) and fact are not actually opposed but serve one another.
ReplyDeleteIt is most likely that there is is no ancient book, that it is just a fabrication of Geoffrey's. However it could be a metaphor by Geoffrey as a way to tell the truth (Geoffrey's use of language was creative, allowing for progression in literature according to Lupack). For example, Geoffrey could use an allegory to say that the ancient book was actually himself who took from other sources and wrote his own history. Lupack shows us that Geoffrey did use historical sources, such as Gildas and Bede, however also invented many aspects. Geoffrey mentioning an ancient book could be his way of saying that he has used other resources and his own ideas to create his work and all these references together he calls an ancient book to sound credible. Also, Geoffrey could be using a metaphor to make reference to an oral tradition. This 'ancient book' might actually be oral tales passed down from generation to generation, being an oral ancient book. It has been suggested by some historians that Geoffrey did use oral tales from the Britons in the writing of his history. We are aware that Geoffrey used other sources for his history however have no evidence that an ancient book was part of these resources. Therefore it is unlikely Geoffrey had such an ancient book however it could be a metaphor by Geoffrey as a way to tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteIf this "most ancient book in the British language" did in fact exist, there are questions that must be raised in regards to Geoffrey of Monmouth's work. These would be questions such as who was the author, when was it written, what is the name of the book, and what style was it written in (history/chronicle or fable?), etc. Alan Lupack suggests that Geoffrey would have had access to oral history sources as well as written. Could this be Geoffrey's way of disguising the fact that he merely heard a tale of Arthur from a storyteller? When reading works such as the Historia regum Britanniae it is important to keep in mind that "historical" writings are not what we think of them today. They tell "truths" but not "facts" and it is known for some Middle Ages writers to invent sources to add credibility to their work. Taking that into mind as well as Lupack's suggestion that a lot of Geoffrey's account of Arthur were imaginative innovations on behalf of the author himself, it seems unlikely that this "most ancient book in the British language" ever existed.
ReplyDeleteIt is most likely, as most people have suggested above, that there was no 'ancient text'. Tammy's suggestion that the book may have been discovered previously is a valid one, particularly with the prominence of the Arthur legend. Even if there was such a book, it is possible that Geoffrey of Monmouth was completely exaggerating it's impotence and perhaps it was just a document where Arthur or an Arthur like figure was merely mentioned. If there was no book, a further question would be how much did Geoffrey of Monmouth rely on other sources in the creation of his version of the Arthur tale? It is evident that there were other sources used, but to what extent we are unaware. Without access to the mythical source, it will most likely never be known.
ReplyDeleteI think that "most ancient book in the British language" is a fabrication by Geoffrey made in order to lend authority and credibility to his own work. As Lupack suggests most of Geoffrey’s history of Arthur is more than likely “the product of his fertile imagination”. Lupack further notes that the invention of sources was not necessarily out of the ordinary for writers of this period. He probably did have access to sources that have since been lost, but a single secret book as he describes seems a little too convenient. Besides, surely a work of such importance would have been noted by others? In my opinion it is more than likely his work is the final product of a number of sources (such as Gildas and Bede, as well as oral/popular tales) and his own inventiveness.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'd love to think that this "ancient book" is just waiting to be discovered, its existence does seem unlikely. It seems more likely that Geoffrey of Monmouth made simply made it up, and as Lupack points out "it is not unheard of for medieval authors to invent sources to give their works authority". The fact that Geoffrey provides no author for the previous work suggests it never had one, because it wasn't real, and he simply claimed it was given to him by "Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford" because who would question a book given to Geoffrey by such an intelligent, esteemed man? Another problem which arrises when we assume the book exists is the question of why no previous historians referenced it and why later historians simply reference Geoffrey talking about it. I wish I could say I believed it was real, but on the balance of probability it's far more likely that Geoffrey invented it, and its being given to him by "Walter" as a means of giving authority to his own texts.
ReplyDeleteIt could very well be a fabrication, but there is no proof to the argument either way and we are unlikely to discover it unless we find a copy of the ‘most ancient book’, which would then prove that there was indeed such a book. However, if there was no such book then we will never find such a book to prove that there was and thus will never be able to prove that there was never one.
ReplyDeleteThe phase ‘a certain most ancient book in the British language’ is ambiguous to say the least. If there was such a book you would think that Geoffrey would at least quote the title to add authenticity to his claim; however, even if he did that still does not prove that he did not simply make the title up. The lack of evidence in either case makes constructing a definite statement on the subject nigh on impossible. All one can say is that Geoffrey would have drawn on ancient sources that we no longer have – whether passed down through oral tradition or written text – and without access to those same sources it is hard to separate narrative from fact. However, we can say that Geoffrey writes with a certain storyteller flare and that when he refers to such things as the lake with “sixty islands” with “sixty streams” and “sixty crags” with “the same number of eagles’ nests”, I think it is safe to say that such a place never existed in the form that he describes. How could anyone be absolutely certain that there were only sixty eagle nests on the islands? Who has the time and patience to count them all? And what about the variable of human error?
I would believe that this book is a fabrication that Geoffrey made up, as giving exact proof of your sources was understandably nowhere near as stringent as it is today. He cites the ‘most ancient book in the British language’ to give his version more credit and believability, so that others would take what he says as truth.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many texts from this era and afterwards have been lost to time, their manuscripts all destroyed, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to claim that this is what happened to the book Geoffrey bases his own writings on, but the fact that he is so vague about the title of the book and no other author has mentioned this source makes the existence questionable. Furthermore, Lupack also believes that “the Arthurian portion of [Geoffrey’s] history is almost certainly the product of his fertile imagination”, and that “it is not unheard of for medieval authors to invent sources to give their works authority”, which would definitely explain the inability to locate this ‘most ancient book’.
It would appear that the "most ancient book in the British language" is more likely to be the invention of Geoffrey, who had a great gift for storytelling, than an actual ancient manuscript. Like any good storyteller, Geoffrey wished to add credibility to his tale by including a "source" of dubious historical origin,which was possibly straight from his imagination. To assume that he was given this book which detailed the history of the kings of Britain in a chronological manner, and in an (ancient?) language, are we giving him too much credit for his translating abilities? Presumably this "most ancient book" was not in the best condition, nor easily readable, so if it was directly translated by Geoffrey, he did a good job.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Geoffrey made up this so called book. A list of kings in chronological order from an ancient language? Where's the proof and more importantly what experience or knowledge does he have to translate an ancient language?
ReplyDelete