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?
I focused on the source written by William of Newburgh in relation to this question and throughout the piece William is quite disparaging of both Geoffrey of Monmouth and his Historia. William begins by praising Bede and Gildas as historians who seek the truth and are not afraid to state it, even if it means painting the Britons in an unsavoury light. He introduces his discussion on Geoffrey by stating that he is the opposite of these ‘real historians’ and categorises his Historia as a fiction. These attacks come in the prologue to Williams’ own history which could explain the outright disapproval of Geoffrey’s works. It is safe to assume that William did not include Arthur in his history and therefore in order to prove that his history is the right one, he must discredit the works that suggest his history is wrong. However William himself appears to be quite small-minded in his thinking as while he rejects entirely Geoffrey’s works, he accepts wholeheartedly the works of Bede as the truth and this was probably the basis from which he wrote his own history. William assumes that because Bede did not mention Arthur, he is clearly a character imagined by Geoffrey, however there were other historians, such as Nennius who make reference to Arthur. Williams’ rejection of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia is not well founded and he does not consider that Bede may not have mentioned Arthur because it was an Anglo-Saxon sourced history and therefore unlikely to include a British leader. By taking Bede at his word, his analysis on Geoffrey’s works is not very reliable and may simply be a way to add credit to his own history.
ReplyDeleteI also have chosen to examine William of Newburgh.
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh begins his criticism of Geoffrey by contrasting Geoffrey’s ‘history’ with that of the earlier Gildas He argues that since Gildas was a Briton but criticised rather than praised his own people, then his account must not be biased, whereas Geoffrey’s account, following the “opposite tendency” of “shameless vainglory”, must be. Yet he completely ignores the possibility that Gildas’ very harsh criticism of his own people may reflect a biased account in being too critical. He then attacks Geoffrey’s account of Merlin’s prophecies, arguing that they in their very nature are contradicted by the Bible and so cannot be true. He also accuses Geoffrey of inventing the prophecies himself and argues that events following Geoffrey’s death have exposed Merlin’s ‘prophecies’ as false.
He uses historical criticism to disprove Geoffrey by pointing out anachronism and impossibilities in Geoffrey’s text: there were no archbishops in Briton at the time of Arthur, so Arthur could not have had his triumph with them. There are no records of any king equalling the conquests of Alexander the Great, so Arthur could not have conquered the lands which Geoffrey claims he did. He then makes an interesting analysis, claiming that Geoffrey is deliberately twisting his account to connect Arthur in with the achievements of the classical Greek and Roman past and to excel them.
William does, however, tend to place an unhelpful emphasis upon Bede as the sole historical authority. Because Arthur is not mentioned by Bede, he concludes that he (Arthur) was simply a result of Geoffrey’s “uncontrolled passion for lying” and his “desire to please the Britons.” Given Nennius’ mention of Arthur some three centuries earlier, this seems a little unfair
But overall I tend to agree with most of William’s criticisms. Geoffrey portrayed his work as a “history” in his title: Historia regum Britanniae. Since it is clear that even by medieval standards, Geoffrey’s work greatly departed from the discipline of history, his work deserves to be subject to the harsh historical criticism of scholars such as William of Newburgh. On this level, I agree that many of the criticisms William raises are valid, and show that much of the historicity of Geoffrey’s account could be disproven even in his own time. If, however, one views Geoffrey’s Historia as a work of literature, rather than history, then one can excuse the historical inaccuracies as an intentional weaving of classical events, language, and imagery into history to create a magnificent piece of literature.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have chosen to analyse the excerpt of Ranulf Higden of Chester. It is not difficult to ascertain Higden’s point of view – he is neither measured nor moderate, and leaves no doubt in his reader’s mind that he considers Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work to be utterly exaggerated, and almost completely devoid of truth. Higden details his unadulterated scepticism convincingly, by touching on the various historical inaccuracies and factual errors which Geoffrey, Nennius and other Arthurian historians seem to gloss over so easily. Higden’s main complaint of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work is that even though he (Geoffrey) writes extensively on Arthur’s magnificent adventures and heroic deeds, why aren’t the tales of Arthur recorded elsewhere? Higden is brutally logical in his assessment of Geoffrey’s work, demanding why famous world kings and leaders – such as the King of France and Lucius Hiberius – fail to mention so (apparently) great a warrior and legend. He continues in this vein by highlighting the historical inconsistencies of Geoffrey’s work, such as Geoffrey’s insistence that Arthur slew Hiberius. According to Higden, at the time of Hiberius’ supposed death, there was no such figure governing Rome.
ReplyDeleteThough Higden’s vicious scepticism is biting, one cannot help but agree with him when he drives his point home so hard. The indisputable inaccuracies in Geoffrey’s work, coupled with Arthur’s marked absence from the historical records of great leaders at the time, lead me to side with Higden wholeheartedly.
I've chosen to analyse the (rather confusing) excerpt of Gerald of Wales' "Journey Through Wales".
ReplyDeleteHe uses the figure of "Meilyr", a Welshman with the ability to see demons and to distinguish between lies and truth, to illustrate his view that Goeffrey's "Historia Regum Britanniae" is, fundamentally, a bunch of lies. The way he goes about establishing this viewpoint is rather tedious though; he describes in detail the abilities of Meilyr, recounting how he had such terrific sight that he could tell the difference between the types of demons which influenced the lies people told. He tells us how any "falsehood" spoken was "immediately detected" by Meilyr, and that he could even tell you which monks were not practising religion "from the heart" by the demons on their bed.
His work "Itinerarium Cambriae" is known for its social commentary and insights into his contemporary culture, and this excerpt demonstrates the legitimacy given to those who performed this somewhat bastardised form of necromancy, but an inability to accept the epic writing of Geoffrey. This discrepancy may be because the audience was reading the "Historia Regum Britanniae" much later, and were therefore more inclined to be sceptical.
On this note, it is interesting that he should compare it to St John's Gospel. He says that the Gospel dispelled the demons, whereas the Historia would have encouraged them, and made them settle "for longer than usual and [be] even more annoying." It is interesting because we today view the Gospel in something of a similar light, as something of little truth, and predominantly myth.
Personally, I don't really agree with Gerald's view, but I can see it's convincing nature for his contemporary readers.
My focus is on the excerpt of Gerald of Wales' "Journey Through Wales.
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales critics Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'Historia regum britanniae'. This follows most early post-Galfridian writings who criticized Geoffrey's work. Gerald of Wales provides insight into social customs, in this particular extract making reference to a local legend of a seer of demons who is able to detect "falsehood". Gerald of Wales states that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia is fictional however does not provide historical evidence for his argument. Gerald of Wale's work is therefore more about revealing a commonly held view during this period about Geoffrey's work being fictional instead of explaining what is actually historically inaccurate about it. Gerald of Wales was also an ecclesiastic so his inclusion of demons associates Geoffrey's work with the anti-religious, a powerful accusation in the medieval period when religion was very important in society. This again gives insight into social customs but does not give historical evidence for why Geoffrey's work should be so condemned. For historians today, Gerald of Wales' The Journey Through Wales is used for analyzing social customs and commonly held views about Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia however is not in itself an accurate historical critic of why Geoffrey of Monmouth's work should be regarded as fictional.
I’ve decided to focus on the extract by Henry of Huntington, which is written in the form of a letter addressed to Warin the Briton. To deduce Henry’s view on Geoffrey is rather difficult with only brief descriptions on Geoffrey, but assumptions can still be drawn. The majority of the letter is spent justifying the reasons why Henry focuses explicitly on one aspect of Britain’s history, where Geoffrey is briefly mentioned at the end. Henry directs the receiver of the letter to Geoffrey’s account if he wants to learn about ‘the kings of the ancient Britons’, and sends along a few excerpts of Geoffrey’s book. Henry is likely to regard Geoffrey’s book as factual and rather magnificent as he labels the book as ‘great’ and believes Warin’s queries are ‘discussed diligently and at great length’ by Geoffrey. Furthermore, it is rather peculiar that someone would direct an associate to something that is misleading and not worthy of attention. Hence, Henry most likely considered Geoffrey as a reliable historian as Henry does not write about period in history as he probably believes Geoffrey has already provided a decent coverage of that era.
ReplyDeleteIn the passage from Journey Through Wales, Gerald of Wales expresses the view that the Historia regum britanniae is a fictional work. He uses the story of Meilyr, a Welshman able, according to Gerald, to detect lies in both spoken and written form through perception of demons. In his description of Meilyr, Gerald contrasts the reaction of these "unclean spirits" when the Gospel of St John is given to Meilyr (and the spirits vanish) as opposed to when the Historia regum britanniae is given to him (and he is swarmed by these demons, who are "even more annoying" than usual). By using this contrast Gerald highlights the extremity of Geoffrey's "lies". Unlike many of Geoffrey's other critics, Gerald cites no historical evidence of his beliefs, simply presenting the story with its accusations of falsehood without proof or explanation. In this sense it seems more like a commentary intended to entertain rather than convince readers - on this basis we might assume the criticism of Geoffrey was a widely held view that Gerald was simply referencing or supporting with a clever story, rather than attempting to provide a serious argument for.
ReplyDeleteSimply calling Geoffry Arthur a liar was not enough for Gerald of Wales, his contempt was so strong that he wished to create imagry out of it. It does not use any historical argument or critical evaluation, rather just the simple magary of "Meilyr" the Welshman as some sort of magical, mythical lie detector who judges History of the Kings of Britaina as false. This could almost be consdidered ironic, as Gerald is using a story to call something else just a story. However, the imagry and metaphore gets the point across quite clearly, Geoffry of Arthur is lying and compared to the honest word of the gospel it makes the deamons (who can tell the truth" be "even more annoying."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI chose the extract from William of Newburgh's Historia Rerum Anglicarium. William’s colourful description leaves nothing behind. While the works of Bede and Gildas are venerated as authorities of English history, William denies legitimacy to Geoffrey of Monmouth and his History of the Britons. It is only through, according to William, the capacity to critique oneself [the Britons] completely that one can speak the truth. Bede’s work, which draws from some of Gildas’ ‘rougher’ locutions, is seen to be a proper source of historical evidence. The integrity of Bede’s work as a Briton himself cannot be questioned as he writes of both the positive and negative aspects of the Britons, and does not seek to paint a farcical British history. Geoffrey of Monmouth however, wrote ‘fantastic’ lies, that glorified the history of the Britons and cloaked the “true” nature of history. William of Newburgh also denigrates Geoffrey’s brazen myth of Merlin’s origin through the teachings of the Holy Scripture. Geoffrey’s “doggerel” is thus resigned to the ‘tailored’ fictitious imaginations, written as a grandiose prophecy and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteAurora Sands
Ranulf Higden, author of the Polychronicon, makes use of Geoffrey's account of the early history of Britain in pre-Saxon times. However, he does retain some skepticism in regards to Geoffrey's portrayal of King Arthur. Higden begins "men may indeed wonder how the things that have been said about this Arthur...could be true," acknowledging that those who inhabit the educated circles may well find Geoffrey's Historia unbeleivable. He then provides some examples of why this audience would be wary of taking Geoffrey at his word. The first, and excellent, point raised is that, should King Arthur have defeated the kings of France and Rome, why is there no documentary evidence for any of this? Especially as "men of humbler position" are mentioned in both Saxon and French chronicles of the time. Another seemingly fatal flaw of Geoffrey's is to proclaim that King Arthur defeated a Procurator of Rome, whom Higden argues was not emperor at the time, nor was Arthur born in that time. I find it interesting that, like many contemporary views, Higden is unwilling to totally leave Arthur out of history. More realistically, he points to the hyperbole of Geoffrey in creating an unbelievable character, rather than outright denying Arthur's existence.
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales, in his Journey Through Wales, openly critiques the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is clear that Gerald believes the Historia regum Britanniae written by Geoffrey is a work of fiction. He frames his argument by using the story of Meilyr, a man who was "most knowledgable about the future and the occult" and could detect "any falsehood", whether written or spoken, through the appearance of demons. Using this, he claims that when Geoffrey's "History" was placed on Meilyr's lap, the demons would "land in greater numbers" and they would appear for longer and be "even more annoying". Essentially, Gerald is implying that the Historia regum Britanniae is one of, if not THE, greatest lie ever written. Unfortunately though, this passage of Journey Through Wales does not use any historical evidence to support his claim. A reason for this may be that he shared the general view of the time and was making a joke or perhaps made it more readily accessible (by being in the form of a story rather than a history) to the wider population.
ReplyDeleteI have chosen the first passage written by William of Newburgh
ReplyDeleteWilliam is flattering in his assessment of Bede and Gildas as historians to the point that he omits them of any bias, but harsh in his assessment of Geoffrey, whom he dubs a “story-teller”. I find many of William’s arguments convincing as he highlights many of the outrageous elements in Geoffrey’s text. One of the most convincing arguments I found was the one concerning Alexander the Great. At one point he highlights the fact that Geoffrey claims that Arthur defeated the kings of a great number of countries in a single battle and then compares this feat to the conquests of Alexander the Great, whom achieved a similar feat but took a lot longer to achieve it—twelve years as it were. William then goes on to point out that if someone whose conquests eclipse that of Alexander’s he would surely have been noted down in history for this by other historians—which it would seem did not happen.
William claims that there are only two possible motives for Geoffrey’s writing; one being a “passion for lying” and the other “a desire to please to Britons”. I think this too harsh a judgment. William did place a lot of emphasis on the fantastic, but I would not say that he did this for the sake of lying or to butter up his fellow Britons. What he did was record the legend of Arthur that had most likely been passed down through oral tradition, which, in my mind, is also a part of history in that legends are stories that people believe to possibly be true and this reflects the values and beliefs of the people at the time.
William of Newburgh appears to hold a rather disparaging view of the Historia Regum Britanniae, arguing that it was a piece of fiction by Geoffrey. Indeed, he states that Geoffrey “weaves a laughable web of fiction” around the Britons to make up for their shortcomings. According to William, Geoffrey also “doctored the events which took place before or during his own time”, and that his book is full of “wanton and shameless lying”, which is illustrative of William’s view of the book.
ReplyDeleteHe also notes the large numbers of inaccuracies in the work, such as introducing the archbishops at Arthur’s triumphant feast despite there being no archbishops at that time in Briton, as well as Arthur’s reign coinciding with that of Ethelbert, as named by Bede. He also argues that as other historians had “made not the slightest mention of these persons”, referring to Arthur, his ancestors, and Merlin. William uses this to illustrate his point that surely this indicates that they are fabrications by Geoffrey. As David notes above though, Nennius did mention an Arthur some centuries before. It might however be expected that such an exceptional king would leave behind more evidence during his reign than the limited sources that currently exist.
Additionally William suggests that Geoffrey has greatly exaggerated the character and exploits of Arthur, in order “to make this Briton’s little finger appear thicker than the mighty Caesar’s loins”. Nevertheless, William’s critique of the Historia is not without faults such as his heavy reliance on historians like Bede, mentioning him with reverence as a man “whose wisdom and integrity it is sacrilegious to doubt” which suggests a lack of objectivity. Overall I agree with the view of William, that the Historia is most likely a work of fiction, though I do not agree that it was done with any malicious intent. Ultimately though It does not seem to hold up to historical scrutiny, given the number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the tale.
Will of N basically lambasts G of M for elevating to the level of authentic history the dubious tales from “the British tongue” by codifying them in official Latin. He opposes Arthur’s existence and Merlin’s prophecies because they’re not to be found in venerable Bede or Gildas whose scholarly integrity he exalts. Two things interested me in this excerpt – the insinuation that Geoff’s ancient Book was in fact Nennius’ Historia Brittonum (unless I’ve misinterpreted this), and his comment towards the end: “so that I too…can put something from my slender store into the treasure-chest of the Lord.” I’ve been reading a little about Memory in the Middle Ages, and it was common to refer to this as a “treasure chest.” Nennius in his prologue calls upon his readers and listeners to search the storehouse of their memory, so I’m wondering what role memory played in these histories’ composition. Did Gildas, Bede, Nennius, Will of M, G of M, Will of N compose their histories entirely in their minds prior to committing them to paper, did they commit them to paper themselves or dictate them to a scribe? (I think maybe they did compose them in their heads first, there might be a link with History’s muse Clio, and the fact her mother is Mnemosyne, was the concept of History in part derived from this?) The other note about W of N’s comment is the imagery he evokes, and the Medieval concept of rhetoric (which probably has a more Classical origin?) The idea of the interplay between text, image, sight, sound and transferal from one of these to another (what we now call synaesthesia) is actually what we experience in “popular” culture such as film, so I thought Will’s comment about Geoff elevating folk tales (if in fact he did) to the level of history somewhat akin to the common practice of elevating folklore to the high art stage, and then how this is utilised in mass culture.
ReplyDeleteBy referencing Geoffrey's accounts of Pre-Saxon times,Ranulph Higden's Polychronichon V seems to be acknowledging its value as a history but I would instead suggest that this is due only to the popular acceptance of Geoffrey's account rather than its value as a record.
ReplyDeleteIf this excerpt is indicative of Higden's position on the whole, it suggests to me that Higden is framing a scholarly position on Geoffrey's methods so as to maintain his credibility among the community of scholars, whilst keeping those most invested in the Arthur myth -potential patrons- onside.
The examples Ranulf Higden gives are appropriate and his cross-referencing is damning of Monmouth 'as history'. With any skill as a historian Monmouth ought to have avoided such obvious inaccuracies. That considered, Geoffrey seems more and more a fantasist.
Looking at the exert from Ranulf Higden, who questions Geoffrey of Manmouth over the story of Arthurs conquests in Britain. First of all he questions the fact that if Arthur did indeed defeat the king of France and slay the Procurator of Rome, why this doesn’t show up in any of the written records of these civilizations. This is an excellent point as an event as big as this would surely be recorded, especially by the romans who had extensive texts on their history already written. Higden then backs this acquisition up by showing that Geoffrey states that Arthur defeated Frollo, the King of France, however the records show that no one of this name existed in France. This again unsettles Geoffrey’s claim to a legitimate story as if the person he claims didn’t exist then the story might not be reality.
ReplyDeleteRanulf Higden finishes with the idea that Geoffrey wonders why neither Bede nor Guildus mentioned Arthur in their narratives; however Higden wonders why Geoffrey does when renowned historians don’t. This is an interesting concept as Higden is pointing out the fact renowned historians may not mention the Arthur story as it is not history and hence suggesting that Geoffrey may have fabricated some of the story.
Looking at the exert by William of Newburgh he completely disagrees with Geoffrey of Manmouth's account of Arthur and his existence. He states that they are nothing but fiction even though he has written them in latin. He isn't shy about his belief that Geoffrey lied about his stories to keep the people of Briton happy. The fact that neither Bede nor Gildas mention any existence of Arthur William of Newburgh disregards Geoffrey's 'history' as lies and dismisses Arthur as real.
ReplyDelete