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?
According to Lupack, 'it is not unheard of for medieval authors to invent sources to give their works authority'. I agree with Lupack. I think that the text that Geoffrey refers to does not exist. His history is told in a story-like way, is elaborate and includes much more detail than any previous primary sources we have encountered. It reads like a fictional novel and I struggle to understand how it can be used as a credible historical source about Briton. It tells us more about the biased nature of Medieval historiography, the development of the Arthurian myth, and Geoffrey's contribution to the romance tradition, than to the history of Arthur as a historical king.
ReplyDeleteThere is a possibility that “the most ancient book in the British language” could exist but not in the manner presented by Geoffrey of Monmouth as he claimed this book to recount the deeds of all the kings of Britain. In other words, he rather relied on the other oral and written sources to write the History of the Kings of Britain, however, in order others to believe him he stated “one ancient book” as his reference (e.g., verification). Basically, any sources he relied on or any material used in his work can be perceived as “one ancient book”. Additionally, he needed alibi and “the story” for other people to believe him (e.g., popularisation of the story). Moreover, according to Lupack, it is impossible to say whether one ancient book provided all the material; also he states that much of the Arthurian portion is the product of Geoffrey’s imagination. Personally, I believe that “one ancient book” could not exist as one single source, but, theoretically, as material from other sources to which Geoffrey could give the name “one ancient book”. Also, in my opinion, much of his story does have imaginative elements.
ReplyDeleteMaria S. (22504079).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that the 'most ancient book in the British language' is most likley the use of fabricated evidence, as I find it hard to fathom that other sources previous to him would not have used such a text had they known of one. While it could be possible that he is refering to an amalgamation of texts I think that he seems to make far to much use of embellishment, with the piece appearing rather fanciful. Considering his lack of ability to even give the book a proper title I think it becomes rather difficult to view it as a factual source, possibly another work of fiction but even then I think that would be a long bow.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous blog posts. I think if such an ancient source did exist, then it would be, as Lachlan noted, an amalgamation of different sources. However, to me the subject matter and the way in which is was written seems to worryingly resemble Nennius'. Basically to me it seems an embroidered tale, sprinkled with hints of an ancient source that seems to only be a device to give it more authority. Poor Geoffrey! Can't catch a break.
ReplyDelete