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?
The writings of Geofery of Monmouth are claimed by him to be a translation of nan ancient text. However the factual nature of this ancient writing is debatable,if Geofery's work was truely based of the ancient writing, it would seem to be more of a historical narrative more fiction than fsct. Examples of the friction being Arthur's conception involving Uther's appearance being changed by Merlin. However the book may also have historical elements and can help historians with reference to battles being fought and the names of kings, as these things may have occured. Examples being a king named Arthur or Uther and the battle between the Britons and the Irish. However even in this regard much of these legendary tales listed of Arthur such as the defeat of Emperor Lucius and the roman army must be fictional.
ReplyDeleteThe question surrounding the authenticity regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth's account of being given a book recording the events and history of the kings of Britain is, to a certain degree, an unanswerable one (unless, of course, such a book is discovered). If such a source did exist, its factual nature is undeniably in question, as the Historia Regum Britanniae contains numerous historical inaccuracies. However, this doesn't answer the question of whether or not Geoffrey of Monmouth based his work on a real source, however fictitious the source may be.
ReplyDeleteSince the date of Historia Regum Britanniae is c. 1136, and Walter of Oxford did not die until 1151, it is curious that Geoffrey would refer to a document that could be proved as reliably false, as an inquiring reader could ask Walter of Oxford to verify Geoffrey of Monmouth's story. Furthermore, it is possible that Walter of Oxford would have seen the reference to him in the dedication and denied his involvement if it was false. It would seem to be more convenient for Geoffrey of Monmouth, if he was writing a pure fabrication in order to provide authority to his Historia Regum Britanniae to either chance upon a manuscript, or credit the book to an obscure or dead person.
It is also interesting that Geoffrey of Monmouth and Walter of Oxford seemed to have known each other for at least seven years prior to the writing of Historia Regum Britanniae (this is apparent when it is noted that of the six charters that Geoffrey of Monmouth was a signatory on, so was Walter of Oxford.) Therefore, when taking into consideration that Geoffrey of Monmouth's tale of a book given to him by Walter of Oxford could have been proven false by Walter, and that Geoffrey and Walter knew each other prior to the writing of the Historia Regum Britanniae, I think that either Walter wrote the "most ancient book" (as would suit his nature being "a man learned not only in the art of eloquence, but in the histories of foreign lands") to give to Geoffrey to publish for his own agenda, or the Historia Regum Britanniae is the result of a collaboration between Geoffrey and Walter.
Whether such a source as this ancient English book existed is impossible to disprove, however short of its direct evidence, it cannot be proved either. The probability of it’s existence is almost impossible to judge, however if it did exist, that does not mean it would be admitted as a truthful historical text. Some element s of the story such as Vortigern’s collapsing tower, Arthur slaying hundreds of men at a time, and Arthur defeating the Giant at St Michael’s are naturally impossible. Although it may lend weight to the existence of an Arthurian character, it would not be omitted as a reliable text. Because there is no other evidence of this ancient text, many would come to the conclusion that Geoffrey used some writing’s of Gildas and Bede, combined with his imagination to write about a fantastical tale.
ReplyDeleteThe most likely explanation seems to me that the "most ancient book in the British language" is a fabrication, particularly given Lupack's observation that "it is not unheard of for medieval authors to invent sources to give their works authority". I agree with Lupack that it is impossible to state with accuracy whether the ancient book exists or not, and whatever the truth about the text, much of the Arthurian portion of the history is a product of Geoffrey's imagination. It has been noted that his romantic embellishments to the story developed romantic literature, for example, details about the betrayal of Modred and Guinevere's infidelity seem to be mythical innovations and do not have a basis in history. Lupak's analysis of the romantic elements versus the historical elements of the legend of Arthur as told by Geoffrey certainly persuaded me that it is not likely the Arthurian story came from an artefact such as an ancient text. I agree with Jordan above that Geoffrey probably used writings of his fellow historians including GIldas and Bede when recounting the legend of Arthur and then added his own embellishments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Jordan and Alexandra, it makes a lot of sense for Geoffrey to use the writings of other historians to help add weight to the stories he told of the legend of Arthur. I also agree that it is impossible to disprove, and/or prove that such a text did exist. Even if it did, and there is a good chance either way, the truthfulness of the writings in the text would forever be questioned and it would remain historic fiction. Of course, going by what Lupack said about giving one's work 'authority,' I think that Geoffrey realised that by having this text mentioned in his way of explaining how he came to learn and begin to create 'his invention,' he has supported himself and given his work weight and worth for further academics.
ReplyDeleteUntil such a text is discovered (if it ever is) the cynical among us will see the "most ancient book in the British language" upon which Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae as non-existant, a fabrication made up by Geoffrey in an attempt to lend weight to his history. Like Alexandra said, instances of fabrication were not uncommon during the medieval period.
ReplyDeleteWhen/if this text is discovered it will definitely lend weight to Geoffrey's history but in the mean time works of others can help to both substantiate or discredit the events in the Historia regum Brittaniae.
I agree with the comments above: it is unlikely that the “most ancient book in the British language” is lying somewhere, waiting to be discovered. It is, for want of a better phrase, too good to be true, it’s almost sort of like when movies say things like, “the following events are based on a true story…” at the beginning and your internal bull**** radar is set off!
ReplyDeleteIn his dedicatory letter serving as a preface to his Historia regum Britanniae, Geoffrey makes reference to Bede and Gildas, which highlights that he did have access to legitimate original historical sources, so while aspects of his work may be true, no doubt large portions can be attributed to his own invention – one thing there is no doubt of is that Geoffrey is an excellent story teller. White notes that Welsh chronicles (similar to the one apparently presented to Geoffrey by Walter Archdeacon) exhibit influences from Geoffrey’s work. Furthermore, Lupack acknowledges that is it “not unheard of” for medieval authors to fabricate sources to add to the credibility of their own work. Hence, I think it is unlikely that this ancient source exists and that a more likely explanation is that it is another construction from the creative mind of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
I'm finding myself agreeing with the common consensus: it is quite difficult to believe that the "most ancient book in the British language" is waiting to be discovered under layers of rubble (maybe there is an angel guarding it and only the 'chosen man' can retrieve it).
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, any author would be willing to conjure some sort of evidence (whether fact or fiction) to lend credibility to his or her text. This text is no exception.
If such a book did exist and even if it were to be discovered, its content would not be exempt from scrutiny and we cannot take it for gospel; there are always two sides to a story and this "most ancient book in the British language" may also be a fabrication of one-sided tales.
The cynic in me is definitely not buying the claim that it is the "most ancient book in the British language." I would say that it's more likely a ploy by Geoffrey of Monmouth to give his work more credit. Indeed, as Lupack pointed out, medieval writers often resorted to such tactics in order to "give their works authority". As with anything though, there is some elements of truth to the claim; no doubt he had access to works by Bede and Gildas, indicating that he at least endeavoured to base his stories in some version of historical truth.
ReplyDeleteSarah Field
Like many sources surrounding Arthur it is difficult to prove or disprove the truth or existence of such artefacts, or their contents. Considering this, it is difficult to say with 100% certainty that such an "ancient book" did not exist, but it does seem unlikely. Subsequently, it is given that this was most likely a ploy by Geoffrey to add weight to his text, while also seemingly proposing that he, himself is highly important. For, he was specifically given this "most ancient book in British language" and no other. In saying this there must be considered that some historical truths be contained with in his retelling of Arthur's story.
ReplyDeleteI think that regardless of whether or not the “most ancient book in the British language" exists, its legitimacy as a source, like Geoffrey of Monmouth's own work, will also be questioned. Indeed, Lupack notes that not only do Medieval writers 'invent sources to give their works authority', but a majority of Geoffrey's account of Arthur is most likely a creation by Geoffrey himself. Furthermore, regardless of the credibility of Geoffrey's account of Arthurian history, many writers (such as Gaimar and Wace, Perceforest) make use of the elements of the account that are most likely fabricated in their own writings.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, I wish that the "most ancient book in the British language" is out there somewhere waiting for someone to descovery it because that might provide hope that Arthur really did exsist and perform heroic deeds- though probably not the slaying of giants. However deep down it seems more likely that this book is a fabrication used by Geoffrey of Monmouth to provide authenticity for his story. Maybe in the same way that Daniel Defoe made out "Robinson Crusoe" to be a true story. There is no way of truly knowing because we cannot prove or disprove the existence of such a book. However what does seem to be apparent is that Geoffrey of Monmouth wanted to tell a great story rather than a factual one. Maybe his perspective was that great stories have giants and boring ones do not.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a question that cannot really be answered without more concrete evidence. It is difficult to completely discount the possibility of finding such a book simply on the basis that you cannot disprove its existence (although I don't think this is really the best theory to go by), and Geoffrey of Monmouth's mention of it could be counted as some form of evidence relating to its existence. However, without further references to such a book by other writers of the time, Geoffrey's mention cannot be construed as reliable or definitive evidence. The more likely scenario, as many have already stated, is that Geoffrey of Monmouth used this description of an ancient book to justify his own story, as it suggests that the Arthurian tradition he describes stretches far back into the history of Britain and is therefore legitimate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in Lupack's descriptions of other Arthurian stories based around Geoffrey of Monmouth's, he mentions that some Latin Chronicles showing "knowledge of various sources, including...Geoffrey" also describe "other traditions not found in the standard histories". Although again not definitive proof of the existence of this "ancient book", this comment suggests that some sources do not match others of their day, and that there is a possibility of an unknown text or texts that describe these alternative traditions instead. However, such unheard-of Arthurian traditions may simply have been oral stories told at the time that were never passed on through writings into the present day.
I agree with the points people have presented in the posts above.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Geoffrey had argued that his work was a translation of an ancient Welsh chronicle, this "most ancient book in the British language" is likely to be an invented account. This is mainly due to the fact that it has been written in a literary style rather than historical, making use of devices such as loaded language, third-person narrative, imagery and descriptive language. Geoffrey even invents dialogue between his subjects, such as "'I am desperately in love with Ygerna,' said Uther, 'and if I cannot have her I am convinced that I shall suffer a physical breakdown.'"
There are also exaggerated events, such as Arthur killing hundreds of enemies in battle all at once, and defeating a giant, as mentioned by someone's post above.
Eleanor Jackson
I must admit I don’t have anything ground-breaking to add – I agree with the consensus that it is impossible to prove the existence of this fantastic book, if only because it would not exactly be labelled “most ancient book in the British language” and “extensively used by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his legendary writings about Arthur” in a manner like we would expect to see on modern editions of classics. It would be impossible to tell from any new text discovered, or even amongst previously existing texts, whether it had a great influence on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work (to the point of being his sole source) if it was any less than a direct translation. The nature of the heavily descriptive and detailed narrative that he sets forward, unlikely to be conveyed with accuracy, suggests to me that he is taking liberties with historical fact for entertainment value. This in turn proposes that he is most likely working off selected snippets of several previous sources, including the influence of Gildas, Bede and Nennius, but has added much of his own invention. Geoffrey then decided (cleverly) to give credit to his work by claiming a single all-encompassing and credible source, with a likewise reliable backer in Walter the Archdeacon of Oxford.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, without a working time machine, we are unable to ask him to confirm or deny such claims...
I pretty much agree with others above that we're unlikely to discover the original source. Whether the source is a fabrication or not is a trickier question. It is possible that it did exist but that does not make it truthful. If it was a legitimate source, then it may have been based on the oral traditions and stories that were created around Arthur and therefore Geoffrey's writings may be faithful and the original source at fault. If it was invented, it's easy to assume that Geoffrey made it up himself but it's also possible that he may even have been deceived himself regarding its authenticity.
ReplyDeleteWhile the best guess could be that the source may have been conveniently invented by Geoffrey, there are too many other alternatives that cannot be disproved and so must be considered as viable.