| |
KeySources:
Geoffrey's "Historia Regum Britanniae"
Click Here to Read Online
Download Book VI
Download Book VII
Download Book VIII
Download Book IX
Download Book X
Download Book XI
KeyWords:
Geoffrey of Monmouth
"History of the Kings of Britain"
Arthurian legend
Arthurian romance
Monmouth Priory
Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford
Bede
Gildas
Nennius
Annales Cambriae
Battle of Camlann
"Brut y Bryttaniait"
"Chronicle of the Early Britons"
"Tysilio Chronicle"
W. Flinders Petrie
Breton, British, Welsh
"Chronique de Saint Brieuc"
Legend of St. Goeznovious
Maximianus (Magnus Maximus)
Constantine III
Riothamus
Anthemius
Leo I
Jordanes
"Gothic History"
Caradoc of Llancarfan
William of Malmesbury
Henry of Huntingdon
"Historia Anglorum"
"Brut"
"Brut y Tywysogion"
"Chronicle of the Princes"
Warinus
Alfred of Beverley
"Aluredi Beverlacensis Annales"
William of Newburgh
Gerald of Wales
Polydore Vergil
"Anglica Historia"
William Camden
Brutus
Albion
Vortigern
Saxons
Hengist & Horsa
Picts and Scots
Merlin
Ambrosius Aurelianus
Uther "Pendragon"
Ygerna
Gorlois
Tintagel Castle
Caerleon
Mordred (Medraut)
Sir Kay
Sir Bedivere
Isle of Avalon
Mount Badon (Mons Badonicus)
Aneirin
"Y Gododdin"
"Mabinogion"
St. Asaph
Robert, Earl of Gloucester
|
Introduction
 Some 870 years ago, Geoffrey of Monmouth distinguished himself for all time by writing "Historia Regum Britanniae" (History of the Kings of Britain = HKB), the first continuous, written account of the deeds of the British people, from their beginning, said to have been sometime around 1100 BC, to the final triumph of the Saxons, which we are told came with the demise of Cadwallader in 689 AD.
Geoffrey's work, written in Latin, was audacious in its approach, in that he dared to make the Britons co-equal in terms of antiquity and glory with the Romans and the Greeks, and served as Geoffrey's revenge on actual history which had been generally unkind to the Britons. Gildas hinted that maybe history's unkindness was for good reason when he said:
"It became a mocking proverb, far and wide, that the Britons are cowardly in war and faithless in peace"
The HKB's chief impact went far beyond an attempt to build British self-esteem, however, by changing the perceptions of the "civilized" world (i.e. France) about the Arthurian legend, which had previously been seen as merely the heritage of barbarians and thus unworthy of a cultured person's attention or interest. In this way, it inspired a whole new genre of creative writing which spread very quickly throughout the continent in the form of the Arthurian romance (about which more later).
Over the generations, the "History" has been alternatively praised and vilified, accepted and rejected. It has been called a triumph of the creative imagination, suggesting that it is rather higher in literary merit than in factual value. E.K. Chambers, the author of the seminal work of early 20th century Arthurian scholarship, "Arthur of Britain," says,
"It is, on the whole, safer to abandon any attempt to treat Geoffrey as a serious historical authority".
Safer, perhaps, but does that mean that the "History" is nothing more than lies and clever fabrications? At this point, it would be well to ask where did Geoffrey get all his material from and does the "History" have any real basis in fact?
Geoffrey's Sources
First, let it be said that Geoffrey didn't use his sources in the same way that modern historians use theirs. He wasn't as concerned with absolute fidelity to his sources and finding corroborating evidence for the things he said as he was with presenting history, as he saw it, in a literary form. To him, the story and what he hoped to accomplish with it was the main thing.
Geoffrey used a number of sources that can be identified. In his preface, he mentions Bede (History of the English Church and People) and Gildas (On the Ruin of Britain), and from even a superficial reading of the "History," we are aware of his dependence upon Nennius (Historia Britonnum). It may be that he also had the Annales Cambriae (Annals of Wales) and other Welsh chronicles available to him. Having had access to these sources could account for Geoffrey's dating of the Battle of Camlann in 542 AD. The Annals state that Camlann took place 93 years after the coming of the Saxons (variously dated between about 447-50 AD), but from all other late fifth and early sixth century time calibrations, this seems to be a very late date for Arthur's final departure from history.
As for other source materials, scholars cite Taliesin's panegyric to Urien Rheged, "Culhwch and Olwen," the "Life of St. David," other hagiographic material, Livy, Orosius, Virgil and the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Fletcher suggests that while Geoffrey didn't use William of Malmesbury's and Henry of Huntingdon's histories as sources, he may have used them as inspiration and/o motivation (Fletcher, p.54-5).
Least tangible but most intriguing, though, is another source that Geoffrey tells us about:
"At a time when I was giving a good deal of attention to such matters, Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man skilled in the art of public speaking and well-informed about the history of foreign countries, presented me with a certain very ancient book written in the British language. This book, attractively composed to form a consecutive and orderly narrative, set out all the deeds of these men, from Brutus, the first King of the Britons, down to Cadwallader, the son of Cadwallo. At Walter's request, I have taken the the trouble to translate the book into Latin, although, indeed, I have been content with my own expressions and my own homely style and I have gathered no gaudy flowers of speech in other men's gardens. If I had adorned my page with high-flown rhetorical figures, I should have bored my readers, for they would have been forced to spend more time in discovering the meaning of my words than in following the story."
Here we are told about an old book (in Latin, liber vetustissimus") given to Geoffrey which he claimed provided the factual basis for his narrative, but of which no trace can be found today. He doesn't tell us the title of the book or give us any other pertinent information except to say that it was ancient and written in the British language. In using the term "British," Geoffrey may have meant Breton, a language which stemmed from the original British, and not Welsh, as there are no known early Welsh texts that would qualify as Geoffrey's original source.
A Breton historian, one M. Arthur de la Borderie, may have found traces of such an early book in the late fourteenth century "Chronique de Saint Brieuc." The chronicle cites a "legenda sancti Goeznovii" or Legend of St. Goeznovious, in whose dedication certain references are made to the conquest of Albion (England) by Brutus and Corineus and attributed to a work, now lost to us, called the "Ystoria Britannica." Perhaps this was Geoffrey's "very ancient book." Geoffrey also may have taken advantage of the fact that his associate, Walter, was "well-informed about the history of foreign countries" and learned much in conversations with him.
| |
Another candidate for Geoffrey's lost source may be a manuscript that has long been overlooked by scholars. The manuscript, entitled "Brut y Bryttaniait" or "Chronicle of the Early Britons", resides in the archives of Jesus College, Oxford, catalogued as MS LXI. It has also been called the "Tysilio Chronicle."
The document on hand is a 15th century copy of a twelfth century original and is believed by many modern scholars to be based on Geoffrey's HKB. There are some, however, who think differently and believe that it is possible that "Tysilio" may, in fact, pre-date Geoffrey and be the "certain very ancient book written in the British language" that he was given by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford.
 Click to Download PDF
 Read "Neglected British History," a 1917 lecture by famed archaeologist, W. Flinders Petrie, in which he supports an early composition of "Tysilio" and laments the fact that the document has been ignored by establishment historians through the years.
Click to Download PDF
|
Another Source Used for the "History"?
The outlines of another source that Geoffrey may have used begin to appear when we look at the following examples:
In the decades immediately prior to the beginning of the Arthurian period (383 AD), Geoffrey tells us about a leader named Maximianus (Magnus Maximus) who took an army from Britain to Gaul for the purpose of challenging the Roman Emperor, Gratian. In the course of events, Maximianus is betrayed by a close associate, Gracianus, and, as a result, fails in his mission and is never heard from again.
We then hear about a leader named Constantine (Constantine III) who took an army from Britain to Gaul, Spain and Italy for the purpose of challenging the Roman Emperor, Honorius (407 AD). In the course of events, Constantine is betrayed by a close associate, Gerontius, and, as a result, fails in his mission and is never heard from again.
Some years later (c. 468-70 AD), another great leader named Arthur takes his army from Britain to Gaul for the purpose of challenging the Roman Emperor, Lucius (a fictitious character). In the course of events, Arthur is betrayed by his nephew, Mordred, and, as a result, fails in his mission and is never heard from again.
We see a very similar series of events, but in another source. It is reported to us by Jordanes, a historian of the Goths, who tells of a British (or perhaps Breton) king named Riothamus, who was called with his army to Gaul to assist the Roman Emperor, Anthemius, is betrayed by an Imperial official, Arvandus, and, as a result, fails in his mission and is never heard from again.
The timing of Riothamus' foray into Gaul is not specifically stated, but we can deduce it to be around 470 AD, give or take a couple of years. This assumption is based on the following excerpt from Jordanes' "Gothic History":
"Severus succeeded him and died at Rome in the third year of his reign. When the Emperor Leo, who had succeeded Marcian in the Eastern Empire, learned of this, he chose as emperor his Patrician Anthemius and sent him to Rome. Upon his arrival he sent against the Alani his son-in-law Ricimer, who was an excellent man and almost the only one in Italy at that time fit to command the army. In the very first engagement he conquered and destroyed the host of the Alani, together with their king, Beorg.
Now Euric, king of the Visigoths, perceived the frequent change of Roman Emperors and strove to hold Gaul by his own right. The Emperor Anthemius heard of it and asked the Brittones for aid. Their King Riothamus came with twelve thousand men into the state of the Bituriges by the way of Ocean, and was received as he disembarked from his ships.
Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them with an innumerable army, and after a long fight he routed Riothamus, king of the Brittones, before the Romans could join him. So when he had lost a great part of his army, he fled with all the men he could gather together, and came to the Burgundians, a neighboring tribe then allied to the Romans. But Euric, king of the Visigoths, seized the Gallic city of Arverna; for the Emperor Anthemius was now dead."
The key time calibrations. here, are with Leo I, who ruled in the Eastern Empire from 457-74 AD and Anthemius, who ruled in the West from 467-72 AD. Since Anthemius was alive to ask for Riothamus' help, our window of opportunity is between 467 and 472 AD. Geoffrey's account also mentions the Eastern Emperor, Leo, so we can assume that these two reports are talking about roughly the same timeframe.
Geoffrey appears to have taken a very specific progression of events . . .
1) A leader
2) takes an army
3) from Britain
4) to the continent
5) to either fight against or assist the sitting Roman Emperor.
In the midst of the process,
6) the leader is betrayed,
7) causing the mission to fail and
8) resulting in the leader's disappearance from the pages of history.
. . . and used them as a template for not only his story of Arthur, but for his accounts of Constantine III and Magnus Maximus, as well. It strains credulity to believe that very same sequence of events, involving the same antagonists and protagonists, would occur four times in eighty-some years of history, so we believe that it is not farfetched to conclude that Geoffrey might have been aware of Jordanes' "Gothic History" and used it as one of the sources in writing the HKB*.
The Matter of Britain
As we have just seen, Geoffrey had access to a variety of sources, but it seems that he molded the figure of King Arthur mostly out of Breton and Welsh oral traditions. The bardic tales of Arthur that he used came from the localities where Britons were still to be found: Wales, Brittany, Cornwall, Strathclyde, Cumbria. This material, which later came to be known as "The Matter of Britain," related to Britain at around the time of the break-up of Roman rule and extended forward in time a century or two. Let's look at some of the historical background for this interesting time, keeping in mind that Geoffrey had access to all the sources we have, today, and possibly some that are lost to us.
We know that in other parts of the empire (such as Gaul), the barbarian invasions helped or caused the break-up of Roman control. In those places, the fighting of the barbarians was done by the Roman troops, not the local populations. Britain was the only example of a people who
had become self-governing and independent before the barbarians came, and so were left to deal with them on their own, without Roman support.
Gildas says that Ambrosius Aurelianus led the counter-offensive against the Saxons and managed a degree of balance in back-and-forth fighting. He also tells us that the British forces won a decisive battle over the Saxons at Mons Badonicus (Mount Badon), resulting in a generation of peace and stability. Most scholars date this event sometime between the years 490-500 AD, but it is impossible to be absolutely accurate, given the dearth of reliable information available to us.
Gildas goes on to tell us that after Badon, with the enemy under control, British society began to break down. The people began to quarrel among themselves; the young were apathetic; the towns began to decay; the language began to disintegrate; and, with the Saxon population steadily growing, the balance of population began to turn against the Britons. In addition, a large number of Britons, including many churchmen, fled to safety across the channel in Brittany. Over the next century and a half, British society would completely collapse (except in the areas mentioned above) and the country fell under the control of the invaders, becoming Angle-Land (i.e. England).
During this time, heroic legends were created and enhanced by the Britons who remained (i.e. Aneirin's poem, Y Gododdin). Stories of Arthur were incorporated into this body of material (i.e. The Mabinogion), but he was portrayed as a successful war-leader and an important figure in the period of British resistance, not as the towering giant created by Geoffrey of Monmouth. The Welsh legends appeared to spread Arthur's career over a century (mid fifth-mid sixth) and that may be an indication that what we think about the man, Arthur, is really a composite portrait of several men. Another possibility is that there may have been an "original" Arthur (See Arthur, King of the Britons for more on Arthurian originals) and that the deeds of his heirs and followers may have been added to his account.
But, is it history?
As we have seen, Geoffrey occasionally flirted with real history, but he seemed to prefer to make it up as he went along. He ended his narrative in the year 689 AD at a point so sufficiently remote from his own day and so sufficiently unknown to most of his readers that any concrete challenge to the accuracy of his "History" by scholars of his day would have been extremely difficult to sustain. In an epilogue or postscript to the "History," Geoffrey says that he will leave it to other historians to write of the more recent kings and events:
"The Welsh, once they had degenerated from the noble state enjoyed by the Britons, never afterwards recovered the overlordship of the island. On the contrary, they went on quarrelling with the Saxons and among themselves and remained in a perpetual state of either civil or external warfare. The task of describing their kings, who succeeded from that moment onwards in Wales, I leave to my contemporary, Caradoc of Llancarfan. The kings of the Saxons I leave to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. I recommend these last to say nothing at all about the kings of the Britons, seeing that they do not have in their possession the book in the British language which Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, brought from Brittany (ex British History Club). It is this book which I have been at such pains to translate into Latin in this way, for it was composed with great accuracy about the doings of these princes and in their honour."
Impact of the "History"
 With its publication in 1136, the "History" (a page of which is pictured at left) became an overnight best seller, finding eager acceptance in Britain and all across the continent. It came to be known by the term, "Brut" (a derivative of the name "Brutus"), indicating any account of early British history, and it eventually became a generic term for any national history, such as the Welsh "Brut y Tywysogion," (Chronicle of the Princes, also known as the Gwentian 'Brut'). The historian, Henry of Huntingdon, who was working on a history of his own called "Historia Anglorum," thought Geoffrey's HKB to be reliable enough to include an excerpt from it in a letter to Warinus.
It would be no understatement to say that the HKB spawned a whole literary renaissance that began not long after its publication and lasted for nearly a century (granted, there were many later works whose creation could be traced back to Geoffrey, but the bulk of the activity was in the first hundred years after the HKB was released). A whole new category of literature was inspired by it, as well: the historical romance. The most interesting point to be aware of, here, is that this renaissance was mainly based in France. The Bretons had been telling Arthur stories for eons and the cultural elites in other (i.e. non-Celtic) parts of France had been ignoring them for an equal length of time. As mentioned before, the Arthurian material was just so much barbarian nonsense to the sophisticated tastes of the French. But, Geoffrey's HKB and, more particularly, the way it was re-cast by French writers, made the Arthurian stories all the rage on the continent.
A whole range of writers and poets, about whom we would likely have known nothing at all, are known to us because of Geoffrey's HKB: Chretien de Troyes, Robert de Boron, Beroul, Marie de France, Wace, Geoffrey Gaimar, Layamon, Thomas d'Angleterre, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Hartmann von Aue, Gottfried von Strassburg and others are recognized today chiefly because of their contributions to Arthuriana.
Lewis Thorpe, a modern scholar and translator of the HKB, states that as history, the HKB was quickly and severely criticized (see below), but
"...as a sourcebook for the imaginative writing of others, as an inspiration for poetry, drama and romantic fiction down the centuries, it has few if any equals in the whole history of European literature."
Other imaginative uses were found for the HKB, as well. For example, it was even used throughout the Middle Ages as the basis for numerous histories and chronicles. Claims of sovereignty (particularly over Scotland) were pressed by English monarchs on the basis of Arthur's conquests, as told by Geoffrey. The "History" was immediately and widely accepted as the definitive account of Britain's history (except, as already mentioned, by the historians of the day), if only by default since there were no other contenders for the honor, and it retained its lofty status for nearly 600 years, until a more critical world became skeptical of its claims. By any standard, though, it was a runaway medieval 'bestseller.' No one knows how many copies were made of Geoffrey's work, but about 200 are still extant, today.
Critical Reaction to the "History"
As we have mentioned, peer acceptance was not universal. Alfred (Alured) of Beverley was probably the first of the medieval writers to voice some concern about Geoffrey's claims. In his chronicle, "Aluredi Beverlacensis Annales" of 1151, he questions: why, if the Britons were so great and so glorious in battle, do not the historians of the world acknowledge their accomplishments?; why, if the Britons crushed the Romans, did not a single Roman, Greek or Frankish writer ever mention it? It should be noted that Alfred used Geoffrey's HKB as the historical basis for the early years of his own chronicle (apparently, only the Arthurian conquests were a problem for him). Alfred also said, commenting on the HKB, that it was such a universal subject for conversation that anyone who did not know its stories was regarded as a clown (Fletcher, p.116).
William of Newburgh, a careful historian and not one to mince words, was a bit more direct in his criticism when he called Geoffrey of Monmouth the "father of lies." He said that Geoffrey "cloaked fables about Arthur under the honest name of history" and called the "History" "a tissue of impudent and shameless lies." He reasoned that if Arthur had actually done the deeds attributed to him by Geoffrey, his fame would have been widespread; he concluded that Arthur and Merlin were entirely fictitious and creations of Geoffrey.
Gerald of Wales tells the tale of a man named Meilyr who had been plagued by evil spirits for years and, although illiterate, could unerringly pick out false or deceitful passages in books. When the oppression of the spirits became unbearable for the man, the Gospel of John was laid upon his breast as a remedy. Immediately, the spirits vanished, "flying away like so many birds," but when the Gospel was replaced with Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History," the demons returned, more numerous and horrible than before.
Despite these "carpings" of scholars, HKB maintained a firm hold on the public imagination for many years. It was not until Polydore Vergil, an Italian living in England, published his "Anglica Historia" in 1534 that Geoffrey's near universal acceptance began to erode. The attacks on the HKB continued when William Camden, in his 1607 edition of "British History Club," told of the belief that "Francio, a Trojane, King Priams sonne, was the founder of the French nation." and makes the point that the British thought it a "foule dishonour" to be outdone by the French in "nobilitie of Stocke." He then tells us what the solution was:
"Therefore that Geffrey Ap Arthur of Monmouth, foure hundred yeeres agoe, was the first, as they thinke, that to gratifie our Britans produced unto them the Brutus, descended from the gods, by birth also a Trojane, to be the author of the British nation. And before that time verily not one man, as they say, made any mention at all of the said Brutus..."
The questioning and debunking process would continue for another four centuries until, in our own time, the HKB is equally universally regarded, according to Professor Treharne, as a "concoction of nonsense and baseless imagination."
However harsh our judgments of the HKB as reliable history, the fact remains that it is a great story, and we give a brief summary, below:
Britain's History According to Geoffrey
Brutus, the great-grandson of Aeneas and late of the royal family of Italy, leads his people out of Greece and settles on the island of Britain (in those days called Albion), where he becomes its first king, roughly 1100 years before the birth of Christ. The story develops around a succession of kings, most of whose names will be unknown to most people. A few, though, may seem vaguely familiar such as Bladud's son, Leir (upon whom Shakespeare's King Lear was based) and Coel, who is better known to readers of nursery rhymes as Old King Cole (i.e. ". . .and a merry old soul was he").
In reading the "History," one gets the impression that most of it is there only to provide a backdrop for the story of Arthur. Fully one fifth of the narrative focuses on his times and deeds, and it is that part that is most interesting to us.
After the Roman departure from Britain (around 410), society became fragmented and power devolved upon local officials and chieftains who became petty kings. Vortigern achieved pre-eminence by driving his two principal rivals,
the rightful princes Uther and Ambrosius, into exile in Brittany.
His way clear, Vortigern then makes a treaty with the Saxons under Hengist & Horsa for the protection of the Island from invading Picts and Scots, in return for land.
The Saxons, appreciating the weakness of Vortigern, begin to spread out
beyond their enclaves. Raids begin, ending in the overt murder of many of
Vortigern's nobility. Vortigern flees to Wales where Merlin, a young seer depicted in the painting at right, prophesies of a great king who will come to save Britain (symboliozed by the red dragon) in its struggle with the Saxon (symbolized by the white dragon) invaders. He also tells of the return of the two princes and foretells Vortigern's death.
The elder prince, Aurelius Ambrosius (Geoffrey's counterpart to the historical
Ambrosius Aurelianus) becomes king and defeats the Saxons who, somehow,
manage to get their revenge by poisoning him. He is succeeded by his brother, Uther "Pendragon" (foremost leader). Uther wisely retains his contact with Merlin.
At an Easter feast in London, Ygerna, the ravishing wife of Gorlois, Duke
of Cornwall, innocently attracted the attentions of Uther Pendragon, the high
king. Gorlois, realizing the potential for danger in this situation, wisely
departs the feast with his entourage to return to his own castle at Tintagel,
on the wild, rocky seacoast of northern Cornwall. Flushed with unfulfilled desire for the maddeningly beautiful Ygerna, and angry at the insult of Gorlois'
premature departure, Uther pursued Gorlois back to his lands.
Gorlois recieved word of the pursuit, and after making sure of his wife's
safety in his castle, went out to lead his men in the coming battle against
the hormone-driven king. Merlin, the shadowy character, who, according to
later legends, would use his special abilities as adviser, seer and magician
in the service of Arthur, enters the picture, and by means of a deception,
makes it possible for Arthur to be born.
In a rather flamboyant display of his powers, Merlin transforms Uther's
appearance to look exactly like that of Gorlois, so that while the real
Gorlois is out in the trenches hacking away at Uther's men and being hacked
away at by them, Uther walks past the guards, unrecognized and unquestioned,
into Tintagel Castle for a tryst with the object of his inflamed passions,
Ygerna. Merlin's transformation of Uther is so convincing, that Ygerna thinks that he is really Gorlois, and, since she believes the danger to have been averted, she gives herself to him without reservation.
The rest was history, as they say, and Arthur was conceived. Fortunately
for Uther and the monarchy, Gorlois found himself unequal to the challenge
of Uther's armies and passed into history without the knowledge that his
wife, the spectacular Ygerna, would, in nine short months, become the mother
of the greatest legend of the Dark Ages and the rest of all English history.
The story is completed by Uther and the ever-steadfast Ygerna living happily ever after and having one son, Arthur and one daughter, Anna.
When Arthur is born, Merlin hides him for the duration of his minority (in
Brittany, as suggested by some modern romancers).
Arthur succeeds to the throne (high-kingship?) at an early age, around 14-15.
He shows military genius by holding the Saxons at bay and conquering the
Picts, Scots, Ireland and Iceland. He marries Guinevere, a lady of Roman
descent, and reigns peacefully for 12 years, generally loved by all. He conquers Denmark, Norway and parts of Gaul. Kay and Bedivere are appointed as Arthur's chief officers on the continent.
The young king holds court at Caerleon and receives emmisaries from Rome who demand tribute for the emperor. Arthur is incensed and responds by leading an army against the emperor as far as Burgundy, where he receives word that Mordred
(the "Annales Cambriae" refers to him as Medraut), his nephew, had proclaimed
himself king and taken Guinevere as his queen.
Arthur returns to Britain to deal with the traitor and engages in the final
battle by the River Camel in Cornwall (the "Annales Cambriae" refers to it as Camlann). Mordred is killed and Arthur sustains a grevious wound. He
is carried off to the Isle of Avalon so that his wounds might be attended
to. He transfers the crown to his cousin, Constantine, and leaves lesser men to continue the struggle.
Wrapping It All Up: Some Final Opinions
Much has already been said about Geoffrey's personal, partriotic and political motives in writing the HKB. Keeping them in mind, it is likely that most of the HKB is pure fantasy, created and cleverly packaged by Geoffrey for quick 'sale' to the broadest possible market. He depended upon the credulity of the age for the HKB's acceptance, and used the whole sweep of British history as 'packaging' for his real product, Arthur.
Are we being too harsh on Geoffrey? Higham says that medieval histories were written to serve a purpose, either political, ethnic or religious. If we can accept that, then Geoffrey is an opportunist par excellence, and as all good opportunists do, he assessed the potential when an opportunity presented itself and then took full advantage of what was given to him.
Geoffrey didn't invent Arthur, he didn't pull him out of thin air, but he was certainly the first to realize the broad potential this undeveloped legend had. Existing oral and written traditions had been telling of Arthur for centuries, so it was nothing new. But, before Geoffrey, the legend was amorphous, unsystematic and uncouth. Geoffrey smoothed off all Arthur's rough edges (dark age warrior, brigand, ruffian) and made him a world conqueror, an empire builder and a stately medieval king. Before Geoffrey, Arthur, as he was commonly pictured, was completely unsuitable for acceptance by the more refined layers of society (i.e. the French) and it was no accident or fortuitous discovery that caused the change. We believe it was Geoffreys' intention, all along.
The HKB systematized and refined the old stories and traditions about King Arthur and became, not only Geoffrey's personal 'meal ticket,' as he no doubt intended, but a framework which would give shape to the growing legend of King Arthur in the centuries to come.
Click for a biography of "Geoffrey of Monmouth."
For Analysis of Other Arthurian Sources:
 Gildas' "De Excidio Britanniae"
Nennius' "De Excidio Britanniae"
The Welsh Annals "Annales Cambriae"
--------------------------------------------
* Both Fletcher and Ashe have noted Jordanes' possible contribution to Geoffrey's HKB, but have limited it to dating Arthur' foray to the continent to the late 460's. Neither has noticed this template that Geoffrey used in four different cases.
--------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
Ashe, Geoffrey, "King Arthur's Avalon: The Dream of a Golden Age", Thames & Hudson, London, 1990
Chambers, E. K., "Arthur of Britain", Speculum Historiale, Cambridge, 1964 (original published in 1927
Cooper, Wm.R., trans., "The Chronicle of the Early Britons (Brut y Bryttaniait), Oxford, 2002
Dumville, David N., "Histories and Pseudo-histories of the Insular Middle Ages", Variorum, Aldershot, England, 1990
Fletcher, Robert Huntington, "The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles", Burt Franklin, New York, 1966 (2nd edition, original published in 1905)
Higham, N. J., "King Arthur: Myth-making and History" Routledge, London, 2002
Reed, Trelawney Dayrell, "Battle for Britain in the Fifth Century", Methuen, London, 1944
Thorpe, Lewis, trans., "Geoffrey of Monmouth: The History of the Kings of Britain", Penguin Books, London, 1966
Thorpe, Lewis, trans., "Gerald of Wales: 'The Journey Through Wales' and 'The Description of Wales' ", Penguin Books, London, 1978
Treharne, Reginald Francis, "The Glastonbury Legends", Cresset Press, London, 1967
|
