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?
Well I think the first question that needs to be asked is do we have evidence of this book in other places. Is it listed in archives or referenced by any other scholars who could have possibly had access to this book, or information in the book not reproduced in the Historia Regum Britanniae?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that Geoffrey's "little black book" is a complete one-off: there is no evidence of its contents in other sources that we can detect. It might mean that its content refects that of, say, the HB, but we can't tell. Clearly the content that Geoffrey claims from this unknown source far exceeds that for the sources that have survived in terms of an 'historic Arthur'. Hence the scepticism.
ReplyDeleteGodfrey makes reference to a “most ancient book in the British language” as a source for his history, this source does not exist today. The fact that it is no longer extant does not mean that it is entirely fabricated, it is almost certain the Godfrey would have had access to contemporary sources importantly oral but also textual, which would have faded from the record in the progression of time. What is not in doubt is that this source is mentioned for a reason, that is either as a reference or as suggested as a construction to legitimise his conjecture. The source ought to be treated with scepticism, but the information derived is not valueless even if one sees it as a hoax as it may provide a window into the intentions of the author.
ReplyDeleteTom Daley
I think Lupack's assessment is fair. It is impossible to know but of course much of Geoffrey's account is a figment of either his imagination or folk tales. On the one hand there is no evidence of an ancient text, on the other we might consider that Geoffrey probably would not have been keen to lie blatantly in his own time. While it is difficult for us to disprove his claim, scholar's of his own time may have found it relatively easy. Thus either the Archdeacon and others were involved in a con or some such text existed. Whether the ancient text in itself was not some sort of fabrication passed on to Geoffrey is impossible to know. What is probable though, is that if the text did not exist then most likely this portrayal of Arthur would surely have been somewhat consistent with the popular beliefs. Or else it might have been exposed as a hoax. If the text did on the other hand exist, then it too shows that particular portrayal was an element of the construct of the legend of King Arthur.
ReplyDeleteI think it can be compared to other written histories where authors for the sake of convenience have condensed king's list etc. or have claimed the use of other sources. Now if he did in fact have the book (though unlikely) he would probably have had other texts used by previous authors which doesn't seem to be the case. Just by the phrase 'most ancient book' is strange as he doesn't seem to know what it was called or who it was written by leading to question not only the book's existence but also its own validity.
ReplyDeleteGood debate: the attitude to the 'ancient book' reminds me of the attitude to 'arthur's grave'. Perhaps the best way to look at Geoffrey and his claims to authenticity is to look at how his contemporaries viewed his opus? So, how was the HRB viewed at the time of publication?
ReplyDeleteI think that, as is already mentioned that it is unlikely that Geoffrey would've fabricated the whole story, however what is interesting is the lengths he takes to justify his work, his mentioning of the archdeacon ' a man most learned in all branches of history' and his admission that he has refrained from flowery language to represent the facts as they are, seems to me to be a little excessive, and seems to be an elaborate backstory to legitimise his story. What is also interesting is that his work is of such notoriety that there must've been some novelty to it, there must be facts which had not been heard before and I question if these were directly derived from an ancient book surely the stories had been passed down through the centuries and were known to the public or if the book was known to the archdeacon already why did it take till Geoffrey to have it translated into latin, if it held such important information i can't see why it wasn't translated earlier.
ReplyDelete