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?
The view expressed in Ranulf Higden’s Polychronicon is one of cynicism and disbelief, that Geoffrey could discuss the mythical figure of Arthur as being as factual as was his account of pre-Saxon Britain and he further wonders why Geoffrey would write about Arthur, when 'renowned writers of histories' such as Bede and Gilda, make no mention of him. I think Higden’s cautious approach to what Geoffrey puts forward about Arthur is a reasonable one, as some of the statements that Higden’s points out are highly improbable due to other historical facts.
ReplyDelete-Maddi
William of Newburgh is a highly critical man and uses engaging and colourful language to disparage Geoffrey of Monmouth and others. William’s basic claim is that Arthur is a fictional character that is derived from Geoffrey’s imagination in the effort of providing the Britons with their own hero. His outright incredulity of Geoffrey’s work is evident in his insulting statements that his work is “laughable,” “infantile,” and that he is a “liar.” He mocks Geoffrey further by asking “is he dreaming,” and suggests that his work is less than that of a person with “dim mental vision.” The strength of William’s words also suggests that he is defensive of his clear historical idol Bede, and further criticizes Geoffrey for writing a history that conflict with Bede’s account.
ReplyDeleteHenry of Huntington's letter to Warin the Briton appears to show Henry was quite pleased with his discovery. He shows his despair as he "never turned anything up" in regards to the ancient Britons. Unlike William of Newburugh, he does not disparage Geoffrey of Monmouth work. He instead tells Warin if he wishes to read further he should look at the "great book" by Geoffrey. He feels the book discusses these issues "diligently and at great length." His mention of monk Robert of Torigny, and his devotion to research of subjects both religious and secular is interesting as it appears to show that Henry is using the monks credentials to help highlight Geoffrey's book was shown to him by an individual that believes in its significance.
ReplyDeleteElouise Johnson :)
I just had to pick the excerpt from William of Newburgh; I laughed out loud on the train more than once! William of Newburgh absolutely refutes Geoffrey as a reputable source; least of all compared to his most precious and venerable Bede. He is extremely cynical about every aspect of Geoffrey’s work, referring to it as a ‘laughable web of fiction’, which he adds to himself by embellishing it in Latin, and has the nerve to call it History. He claims that Geoffrey doctored events and added to them with figments of his own imagination, and then questions – and this is my favourite part – whether Geoffrey’s motive was an ‘uncontrollable passion for lying’ or a desire to please the Britons. He believes Merlin to be Geoffrey’s own creation, and talks Arthur up so much that even one such as Alexander the Great doesn’t compare. He goes on to say that “even a person of dim mental vision can observe how much the unadulterated historical truth preempts the falsehood which has been compiled at this point”. All in all, William of Newburgh is not a fan, and how dare Geoffrey contest Bede’s works with his own works of ‘fiction’.
ReplyDeleteI agree and have little to add. This man clearly has it in for Geoffrey. At times he appears to be making facetious comments such as one regarding the Britons who are apparently still waiting for the future coming of Arthur and aren't bright enough to accept his death. A little harsh
DeleteWilliam Newburgh, in his hilariously critical take on Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain', dismisses his work as a fictitious tale, doctored mostly from his own imagination. Not only does he call Geoffrey a "lair" outright and his book a "laughable web of fiction... with shameless vainglory..." which is "clearly false", Newburgh also mocks believers of Geoffrey's work as "those ignorant of ancient histories". Newburgh illustrates the reasoning behind his critical perspective of Geoffrey’s work when he wholly dismisses the Briton race as “so barbaric that they are said to be still awaiting the future coming of Arthur, being unwilling to entertain the fact of his death”. His aim is to belittle the history of the Britons, whether fact or fiction. Perhaps controversially, is it possible to view some modern day religions under Newburgh’s same contemptuous gaze?
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh's 'Historia Rerum Anglicarum' undoubtedly ridicules and mocks Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'Historia Regum Britanniae' in fantastically insulting language and hyperbole. William uses phrases such as "a laughable web of fiction" and "wanton and shameless lying virtually throughout his book" to leave his reader, in no uncertain terms, aware of how he feels about Geoffrey's 'history'. He nearly guilts his reader into disbelieving Geoffrey's account: "so to ensure that confidence in all matters is reposed in Bede, whose wisdom and integrity it is sacrilegious to doubt, that story-teller and all his tales must be unhesitatingly spurned by all". What I find interesting however, is the way in which he aims to disprove Geoffrey's account - a way which does not stand up to a modern audience, I feel. While yes, Bede and Geoffrey do differ in their histories, William belittles his own argument through his other reasonings. For example, to disprove Geoffrey's version of Merlin's prophecies, he argues that it wouldn't be possible for Merlin to prophecise, given that he is the spawn of a demonic incubus, and that we know from "sacred writings that demons are shut out from God's light and are wholly unable to have prior knowledge of the future by mentally observing it". And to disprove Geoffrey's tale of Arthur felling a giant, "we read of no giants after David's day". While these reasonings to disbelieve Geoffrey's history may have been uphelp in William's time, to a modern audience, his writings seem to be possibly as fictious as Geoffrey's.
ReplyDelete