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?
William of Newburgh, like myself, was not a supporter of Geoffrey of Monmouth. He provides a critical analysis of Geoffrey's work and concludes that Geoffrey must have invented the characters of Arthur and Merlin, and weaved a fictional tale to please the Britons. Moreover, he accused Geoffrey of disguising his lies in the form of Latin, so as to make his claims more believable. Some points made by William were:
ReplyDeletea) Bede did not mention Arthur
b) by the Bible and logical sense, we know that ordinary people cannot predict the future
c) Geoffrey claims that there were 3 archbishops present at a feast but Britons had no archbishops at this time
d) Arthur's outstanding achievements were not possible when compared to the achievements of other great men such as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great
Even prior to this week, I already did not approve of Geoffrey of Monmouth's work. Therefore, I tend to agree with William of Newburgh. I think that William's detailed analysis of Geoffrey's work demonstrates many of the limitations of 'Historia regum britaniae'.
William of Newburgh's writings clearly indicate that he himself does not believe in the existence of Arthur or Merlin and finds the workings of Geoffrey of Monmouth fictitious and self-serving. In order to clearly outline the reasons by which William denies Geoffrey's work any historical relevance William outlines many of the holes in the story as told by Geoffrey. The main points are that Geoffrey makes claim to magical occurrences that are unworldly, that there is no other historical record of Arthur despite apparent global domination and that the feats accorded to Arthur are seemingly beyond possibility. All these points are true and after reading William of Newburgh's piece it is even more difficult to believe the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth. However, to discredit Merlin's future telling abilities on the basis that demon's posses a refined understanding of how events influence the future rather than clear foresight into the future seems like an irrelevant point and also discredits the integrity of William of Newburgh as he accepts the existence of demons of demonic incubus's. Lastly, whilst it is highly unlikely in my mind that Arthur did exist, it is also naive of William of Newburgh to assume that were not at least 30 kingdoms worldwide that Arthur could have potentially conquered thus such reasoning is void in my mind
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey’s “History of the Kings of Britain” is questionable at best. It is rash to state that “one ancient book” existed and served as a single source for his work. As mentioned previously in my post he rather relied on the combination of oral and written material and used “one ancient book” as propaganda to make readers interested and get some credibility for his work. Therefore, I would agree with William of Newburgh and his negative attitude towards Geoffrey’s work who claims that his Historia regum britanniae is rather fictional than historical. Moreover, this work is the product of Geoffrey’s imagination who rather tried to atone for the faults of the Britons and tailored the prophecies of Merlin to fit a variety of events before and after him. William of Newburgh defines Geoffrey’s Historia as fables with no substance; basically, he states that it is impossible to be historically true since other historians didn’t mention anything about persons described by Geoffrey in his work. Subsequently, William of Newburgh brings in arguments that provide evidence for shameless falsehood of Geoffrey’s Historia regum britanniae such as coincidence of Arthur’s reign and Augustine’s arrival in Britain and impossibility of three archbishops to present at the feast after the manifold triumph of Arthur. Moreover, even if Arthur conquered all the great kingdoms (e.g., Egypt, Africa, Spain, and the Medes) than other sources would contain information about Arthur and his achievements so notable beyond measure. Therefore, I agree with William of Newburgh who actually ridicules Geoffrey’s of Monmouth “History of the Kings of Britain”.
ReplyDeleteMaria S. (22504079).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh Geoffrey Geoffrey Geoffrey! So much criticism, so little time. Although William of Newburgh's historically based writings may ring somewhat truer, I will always hold a soft spot in my heart for your 'fallacious fables'. William's somewhat drier and less magical writings conclude that both Arthur and Merlin did not exist. This is based on the fact that logically a magical cape-wearing beard-sporting staff-bearing man is unlikely, more's the pity. Similarly, William contests that Arthur, not mentioned in Bede's writings, and unlikely to have slain 900, did not exist. Geoffrey also, quite skilfully weaves in a few too many Archbishops, neglecting the fact Britain at the time had none! Nothing like a few Archbishops to make Britain sound more important and exciting! In conclusion Geoffrey's title 'History of Britain' may have been rash, and perhaps it should have been instead called, A Collection of Trifling Stories and Fallacious Fables. I think we all know who would have approved of that title!
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh cites several issues with Geoffrey of Monmouths work, primarily the sheer fanciful nauture of the events in question.
ReplyDeleteHistorical inaccuracies seem rife within his work not only due to logic over fantasy, but also things such as Geoffrey's claim that Arhbishops were present despite the fact that none existed at this time. While this could be seen as merely a source of legitamancy it does weaken the work as a whole.
Other clear factors are the lack of mention of this particular text by other well reputed scholars such as Bede.
As such while it is possible that parts of the 'Historia regum britanniae' could be true their is a far more likley possibility that it is all a simple falsehood to plese his patrons.