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 is critical of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain. In his prologue he ridicules Geoffrey's book as "a laughable web of fiction." In particular William attacks the stories about Arthur claiming that by writing fiction in Latin Geoffrey aims to give the stories historical credibility. In addition William is critical of the character of Merlin calling the stories "infantile." William uses Bede's work to discredit Geoffrey's narrative in relation to the royal succession. In doing so he points to what he believes are several historical inaccuracies in Geoffrey's work. William also believes that Geoffrey has exaggerated any of Arthur's possible military triumphs, dismissing them as hyperboles. William regards Geoffrey's work as false history.
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales' 'Journey Through Wales' utilises a descriptive tale to demonstrate the view that Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was regarded as untrue. He retells the story of Meilyr, a Welshman who could detect lies through the presence of a demon. Gerald retells how the demons "would land in greater numbers not only all over his own body but all over the book as well" whenever Geoffrey's 'History' was placed on Meilyr's lap. This portrays the view that Geoffrey's work was a collection of lies significant in number and gravity, given that the demons would settle in "for longer than usual and being even more annoying". This certainly accords with William of Newburgh's view that Geoffrey's work is false history.
ReplyDeleteThe brief reference that Ranulf Higden makes to Geoffrey’s work in his Polychronicon is much less scathing than William of Newburgh’s prologue, which immediately dismisses the idea of there being any truth whatsoever in the History of the Kings of Britain. Higden instead calls into question the validity of Geoffrey’s work due to the lack of corroborative sources to the smaller facts of the Arthur narrative, such as the names of the different kings, the lack of thirty different realms to conquer and the omission of references to him in the works of Bede and Gildas. In this way he is using a much more objective method to eventually conclude that Geoffrey’s History cannot be regarded as wholly accurate, as opposed to the vicious personal attack made by William of Newburgh which describes the work as a “laughable web of fiction” made up of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “wanton and shameless lying”. Whilst William uses similar evidence to that mentioned in the Polychronicon, he appears determined not to even consider the possibility of some of Geoffrey’s narrative being true, and has a much more vehemently disgusted tone than the more balanced style of Higden. Higden therefore appears a more trustworthy source to my mind simply through his ability to be objective and focused on evidence, and his choice to only on reflection of this evidence express his calmly phrased scepticism.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Ranulf Higden, Gerald of Wales and William of Newburgh, Henry of Huntingdon appears to have the least critical view of Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia regum britanniae". He mentions in his letter that ‘…though [he]…often made verbal and written inquiries regarding the history of [that] period, [he] never turned anything up.’ However, upon discovering a ‘great book by Geoffrey Arthur’ he found information relevant to his own research ‘discussed diligently and at great length’. It is clear that Henry of Huntingdon viewed Geoffrey of Monmouth's work as carefully written and convenient for his own work. In fact, Henry found it useful enough to recommend it to others as a legitimate source.
ReplyDeleteEleanor Jackson
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh's opinion on Geoffrey of Monmouth's History is quite an amusing read. He clearly expresses his disdain for the chronicler, stating that his work is 'wanton and shameless lying'. From reading this, William provides many clear reasons as to why Geoffrey's History would not be a reputable source, with the main point being that Geoffrey has evidently invented his own events and occurrences. Most notably, William mentions that Geoffrey's History goes against 'evidence of historical truth' from the time of Julius Caesar, as well as taking false predictions made by "Merlin" and calling them 'authentic prophecies'.
Also noteworthy is his view of Geoffrey's sycophancy towards the Britons, as Arthur is presented in a light that shows him too good to be a true historical figure. Geoffrey reports impossible military victories of Arthur; fighting giants, and conquering nations in one battle which Alexander the Great in turn took 12 years to defeat.
An interesting note to make though is that of Richard White in his introduction to the chapter in the provided excerpt, in which he states, 'William fails to consider that Bede's sources for the fifth century would probably have been exclusively Anglo-Saxon, and so unlikely to mention a successful British leader.'
William of Newburgh writes a criticial analysis of Geoffrey's writings concerning the mysterious 'Arthur' character. He expunges all concepts of the man and all the stories revolving around him. He claims that all stories are lies motivated by a desire to please the Britons and that the story tellers need to be spurned. William draws all his knowledge from the 'Venerable Bede' and some of Gildas wrtings. He believes that Gildas wrote with an even perspective and that Bede wrote with admiration. Thus their absent mention of Arthur is something to note. This culminated with what William believes are obvious errors (like Merlin being able to tell the future) means he finds Geoffrey's writings as delusional at best.
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales suggests that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum britanniae is false through the telling of another story whereby an illiterate man named Meilyr can determine if something is false or not by the presence of demons who inform him of this. By suggesting that ‘demons would land in greater numbers’ if he came into contact with Geoffrey’s History of the kings of britain, it makes clear that Gerald of Wales sees this history as false. Also, by having a larger number of demons appear for a longer period of time, Gerald seems to suggest that the book is full of great lies without an ounce of truth.
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales, in his "Journey through Wales", relates an account in order to denigrate Geoffrey of Monmouth's (or Geoffrey Arthur as he is called) "History of the Kings of Britain". He begins this diatribe with the story of a man named "Meilyr", who is able to discern truth from lies due to the indication of demons who appear when something is false. When Meilyr is in possession of "History of the Kings of Britain", he sees a greater number of demons than he normally would, and they land on his body and on the book, and are "even more annoying". This is in direct apposition to the Gospel of St. John, which causes the demons to vanish.
ReplyDeleteGerald of Wales' statement is clear: "History of the Kings of Britain" contains many lies and is the opposite of the Gospel of St. John (which, to Gerald as an ecclesiastic would have been seen as being pure and entirely true). This opposition to Geoffrey's work is probably exacerbated by Gerald's attention to, and emphasis on, the detail of events as evidenced in his "Itinerarium Cambriae"
Ranulf Higden criticises Geoffrey of Monmouth's disputed version of Arthur's achievements, believing the retelling to be full of historical inaccuracies and falsehoods. Explaining, that he finds it difficult to believe that Arthur is not found in the "chronicles of, Rome, France, or the Saxons never mention such a noble ruler" and still have done everything that Geoffrey claims. Furthermore, Higden goes on to point out some of the historical inaccuracies of Geoffrey's account, for example there is no record that a ruler of Rome named Lucius Hiberius ever existed, therefore how could Arthur have defeated someone who did not exist.
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh's reflections upon Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain" is rather harsh and it is clear from his response that he gives little credibility to Geoffrey's work. William believes that Geoffrey's piece is "wanton and shameless lies", and draws on his knowledge of Bede's work in order to prove his point. He acknowledges Bede's true depiction of the Britons, he wrote them to have faults and doesn't write to hide their bad qualities. Whereas Geoffrey creates "fantastic lies" about the Britons and their lack of sin. He criticises Geoffrey's depiction of Merlin, as it is clear that through his translation into Latin, he has created a number of events, "cloaking them with the name of actual history". Therefore, William's opinion of Geoffrey's work is as negative as it is because he sees it as a creation of his imagination written to glorify the Britons rather than convey history.
ReplyDeleteJessica Arnephy
William of Newburgh gives a vicious and unforgiving view of Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History". He writes that Geoffrey created "...infantile stories...and according to well-founded belief added considerably to them from his own imagination." William writes that Geoffrey's motive can only be either "...an uncontrolled passion for lying, or secondly a desire to please the Britons...". William suggests that Geoffrey has absolutely no integrity and in my mind, creates an image of an imaginative ten year old who doesn not let the truth get in the way of a good story. However, William of Newburgh seems exaggeratedly offended by Geoffrey's assertion that his 'History" is factual. This leads me to think that there may be more behind his dismisal of Geoffrey's "History". As to what that could be, I have no idea. Maybe someone said the Geoffrey was a better historian than William?
ReplyDeleteWillam of Newburgh's clear lack of credibility to Georffrey of Monmouth's work actually shocked me. It is as if he had no option other than to assert his own authority and his own credibility was to put Geoffrey's work in a bad light. Yes, he does acknowledge Bede's 'true depiction' of the Britons but to deem and criticise Geoffreys work as a 'fantastic lie,' to me seemed harsh. I understand that Geoffrey on Monmouths work, chronologically does not have as much supportive evidence, or little for the matter, but I was still very surprised to see a great historian use the basis of other great historians such as Bede, to form and construct an argument against someone's 'infantile stories.' By saying that all of Geoffrey of Monmouth's stories were merely written to please the Britons and for no other purpose is clear when he supports the idea with outlining that historian's like Bede did not outrightly speak of Arthur. I guess by understanding how passionate he was about his work as a historian, that William of Newburgh of course would perhaps be offended by Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'lies,' and not appreciate the creativity. I agree with Emily that perhaps a good question to ask is if it was theorised that Geoffrey was a better historian than William.
ReplyDeleteRanulf Hidgen was a skeptic of Geoffrey's work from the get go. He questions how a man as great as Arthur could have existed, if his enemies never documented his existence and especially when the enemies that Arthur had defeated may have never existed.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, this leaves me at a cross-road: I now absolutely have no idea whether Arthur was a real hero, or whether the tales of Arthur were bedtime stories that were passed down. Is it wrong to say that I am completely and utterly confused?
Much like William of Newburgh, Ranulf Hudgen's skepticism of the Arthurian legend seems to be based somewhat on his own knowledge of the history of this time, but also, and perhaps more significantly, on the influence that previous historians have had on his way of thinking. For example, he claims that the "old authorities" on the history of Britain (i.e. Bede and Gildas) "never touch" the topic of Arthur. Therefore to Hudgen, Arthur must not have existed. He also praises such historians by describing them as "renowned writers of histories", which again seems to be his way of justifying that because they are so well-known and respected, they are therefore correct. Somewhat ironically, Ranulf Hudgen (and perhaps William of Newburgh also) praises these historians in such a way that they become similar to the legendary figure of Arthur himself - they are referred to so often and seem to be so renowned for what they did that they must have therefore been great and reliable men, although possible bias and a lack of concrete evidence (especially surrounding Gildas and when he wrote) may suggest otherwise. Without more evidence on how reliable Hudgen or his renowned sources are, the reliability of all these sources technically comes into question.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Hudgen's rejection of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthurian narrative also seems to be based on his own knowledge of the time, as he suggests that Geoffrey's claims do not add up in terms of the chronology that Hudgen himself is aware of (for example, Hudgen's opinion that Lucius Hiberius did not exist during Arthur's time). Again though, as with many of these sources, it is difficult to discern how or through whom any of these authors came to know such historical facts, and whether they are based on any kind of evidence or simply hearsay.
**Higden. Oops!
DeleteHenry of Huntington is cautiously optimistic about the Historia regum britanniae. Though he willingly admits to not being able to discover anything of the time period, Geoffrey seems to fill in the missing gaps for him in a way that makes sense and is believable to him. Adding weight to his perceived reliability of the writings is that it is endorsed to him by Robert of Torigny, a monk "devoted to researching and collecting writings on subjects both secular and religious". He is so convinced by it as to recommend the Historia regum britanniae as additional reading to his own work to Warin the Briton.
ReplyDelete