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?
In my opinion, it is a source that we no longer have access to. I think if Geoffrey of Monmouth wanted to add legitimacy to his work he would have invented numerous sources for his collection rather than just claiming his work as a translation. I would think falsely claiming his work as a translation would take away some of the credit of the work he would feel he deserved.
ReplyDeleteI so hope this is true as it gives us some hope that this fabulous source will one day be rediscovered and answer all the questions we have about Arthur.
ReplyDeleteThis is from Maddi Ball:
ReplyDeleteThe conclusions I drew were that the source did not exist. Geoffrey of Monmouth elaborated many of the so called ‘facts’ of that time period and I believe that saying such a source existed helped Geoffrey add legitimacy to his work, as he was insinuating that what he discusses is the truth and that can be supported by this document. Whereas Bec believes this adds to the argument that it did exist, I believe it was just a pretend source he could cite without having to produce it.
Idealistically I would like to believe that this book is awaiting discovery and was used by Geoffrey of Monmouth to write his Historia regum Britanniae. It bothers me to think that somebody who claims to write on the History of the Kings of Britain would invent a story as thoroughly and meticulously as this. Whilst I struggle to believe that fifty pages worth of Arthurian story was a result of Geoffrey’s vivid imagination, I also do not necessarily believe the work is an exact translation of an ancient Welsh chronicle. Essentially I think it is an amalgamation of both, where Geoffrey borrowed from several sources, perhaps including this chronicle, and included his own imagination to fill gaps in, and add detail to the King Arthur story.
ReplyDeleteThis is from Emma Nobel:
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a man we would see an a historian, who penned the history of Britain, would so abruptly switch foot and invent the story of Arthur, armed only with his imaginings and his knowledge of the myth, is as awful as it is plausible. Like Ellyse, I would like to think that a historian would be unable to commit to painting fiction as history. What could be more plausible is the idea that Geoffrey of Monmouth, when his sources failed him, rather than leaving gaping holes in the myth, could have indulged in a few embellishments to make the stories more amazing, the sources more credible and the timeline more plausible. Being able to find histories where there were none could have given him some status and credibility amongst his contemporaries.
Like Ellyse and Emma, I too wish that this story were true, however I remain sceptical. While as an historian, Geoffrey should recount only factual information of true history, I believe that he did indeed fabricate this ‘ancient source’. As Lupack pointed out, as undesirable as untruthfulness is, it is not unheard of for medieval authors to invent sources to give their works authority. My question is, seeing as this source was never recovered, was it ever written about by any other historians who could vouch for its existence? Whatever the case, it does make for an interesting read, and as I’m sure we will discuss in the tute tomorrow, it is enhanced by the romanticised elements, but these elements also lead me to believe that it is predominantly a fictional story, and not a historically accurate chronicle.
ReplyDeleteI concur!
DeleteHear, hear!
DeleteAll for one and one for all!
DeleteI also agree that it would be fantastic if this "Ancient Source" was found and did truly exist. However, I am also not convinced of its existence. I feel that Geoffrey wanted to add legitimacy and authority to his work and claimed he used this source. He did use Nennius and other writings in order to form his own unique story. Because Arthur makes up for more than a third of the book; It does appear that Geoffrey had a strong contention that Arthur was a great leader of Briton and he wanted to prove this. Geoferry needed to use the "Ancient Source" to help add power and truth to his claims.
ReplyDeleteElouise Johnson