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 in his History of English Affairs is deeply critical of the Historian Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of English history. In particular he is critical of the facts he presents regarding King Arthur. William is suspicious of the deeds ascribed to Arthur, which are not apparent in any other particular chronicle. Large events such as the conquest of France and the defeat of the Roman Emperor are oddly unremembered for such great events. William is sceptical of the lack of correlation of kings and events between Geoffrey’s account of Dark Age Britain and that of Bede and Gildas. William views Geoffrey of Monmouth as an unworthy source owing to is tendency for hyperbole and the unsupported nature of many of his facts. William seeks to criticize Geoffrey for his lack of adherence to older sources, Roman writers, other English historians and the Bible in particular. These sources are to him unquestionable owing to their antiquity and providence. Just because Geoffrey’s version is in conflict with other sources does not mean that it can be written out entirely as a source. Its points of conflict and inconsistency must be examined closely and those points that do not conflict taken equally as carefully into account when reviewing the historical record.
ReplyDeleteTom Daley
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the first primary source extract, History of English Affairs by William of Newburgh, William criticises much of Geoffrey of Monmouth's work in the Historia regum Britanniae. Geoffrey shows little recognition of key events from English history and his information relating to the many deeds of Arthur is absent from other chronicles. William finds this somewhat suspicious and cites significant differences in Geoffrey’s recounts and the account of Dark Age Britain given by Bede or Gildas as reason for further scepticism. Geoffrey seems to pay little attention to these older sources of information and other historians in the area. His facts are not supported by much evidence or research and he occasionally 'exaggerates' the truth; as such he cannot be counted as a reliable source, according to William. While I do agree with that Geoffrey may be slightly unreliable, I do not think we should ignore and discount everything he has done without a moments hesitation. If we take what he has written with a grain of salt and look deeper into what he has found, perhaps some usefulness can be found amongst his works. We should be careful to read too deep into his 'facts' but if we carefully and thoroughly research what he is discussing we may find some truth to his story.
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh's review of Geoffrey of Monmouth's work is extremely critical and overall quite disparaging, claiming that the entire piece is fictitious, an attempt to pacify Geoffrey's contemporary British neighbours by presenting local folklore and mythology as historical fact. William's reasons for this are primarily that Geoffrey's work does not match up with Bede's or other historians from earlier points in time. While William makes some logical observations about the lack of verification in other sources of events that Geoffrey claims to be true - i.e. the impossibility of Geoffrey's claim that Arthur conquered 30 kingdoms, when there weren't that many in existence at the time - he also relies quite heavily on the work of "Venerable Bede", without at any point providing any definitive reason as to why one historian's source should be entirely more trustworthy than another. One can only assume that William was taking Bede's word as Gospel since Bede lived nearer to the time to which Arthur is traditionally attributed. However, it is not prudent to disregard all of Geoffrey's work simply because it does not tie in with everything that Bede wrote. While it is true that there are many flaws and historical inaccuracies within Geoffrey's work which at no point appear in any other historical sources, it would be wrong to say that his History of the Kings of Britain is a fictional fantasy, passed off as history without further analysis.
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newburgh is pretty vicious toward Geoffrey. He constantly refers to his "shameless lying", "lunacies" and "shamelessness" towards his History of the Kings of Britain. Williams firm tone make's Geoffrey intelligence seem minimal, not to mention question ALL his 'historical' evidence toward King Arthur. However, although he is extremely critical, his does make some very important points that Geoffrey does not support, for example; Geoffrey states that the preceding rulers of Britain after Aurelius Ambrosius was Vortigern, Utherpendragon and finally his son Arthur. However, Bede names the fourth succeeding of the kingdom of Britain Ethelbert, not Arthur. Interestingly enough, Bede associates Ambrosius with the battle and Badon Hill, while 'Nennius' associated the battle at Badon with Arthur. Strangely enough, both sources disagree. Well, Geoffrey gives Arthur conquest of Gaul, and the Roman Empire. Now these are some pretty big statements, not easily justified, as William is highly suspect to the deeds of Arthur. He also puts Arthur in among the greatest leaders in history, with reference to Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, Geoffrey immortalises him. Although Arthur existence is a puzzling topic, some of the references by Geoffrey make it hard to except his existence since he is changing historical fact. Ultimately, since Geoffrey does this, the potential truth of an Arthur diminishes, as some with not take it seriously when myth in this case overshadows truth. I found the last lines of Ranulf Higden's source very true, why does Geoffrey go where the old historians didn't.
ReplyDeleteIn the first primary source, "History of English Affairs" By William of Newburgh, he critcally analysies the work of Geoffrey's of Monmouth's work: "Historia regum Britanniae". William carefully pieces through Geoffrey's work and completely disregards it. In one instance he claims that Geoffrey's work is "Old fictitious accounts of the Britons" and that he has "cloaked them with the honourable title of history.", in this way William clearly shows his disregard for Geoffrey and that his work has been invented to coincide with tales of Arthur. William claims that Geoffrey's facts are not supported with any earlier evidence from any historians such as Bede or Gildas. What i think is that Geoffrey's work is not a history, and should not be regarded as such, but we could still examine his work and from where he calimed his sources came from and dig deep into what he regarded as fact.
ReplyDeleteThe Geoffrey backlash that had to happen. It is interesting that the key backbone to this backlash are Arthur's 'continental campaigns', campaigns that are not supported by other sources, particularly Roman ones. What can we do? Well, as I always say, you have to work with what you've got. Geoffrey's HRB exists - it had an impact. It cannot be wished away.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we are only provided with a brief excerpt of the Polychronicon, it is clear from what we have that Ranulf Higden is also extremely critical of Geoffrey's portrayal of Arthur. Unlike the other sources, Ranulf's writings are on 'world' history rather than purely british history, therefore we can assume he has had access to a great number of foreign texts, and where he criticises the absence of a mention of Arthur in such texts as the Roman, Saxon and French his case is believable due to his authoritative position. In a similar fashion, he considers other historical figures mentioned in arthur's battles and the discrepancies therein attached, such as the non-existent Frollo of France or that Lucius Hiberius was placed in Geoffrey's history well before he is said to have lived according to Ranulf. Interestingly, Ranulf does not discount the existence of an Arthur, but his accomplishments and the praise he is given by Geoffrey as he is apparently of little importance to the "old authorities". What we can infer is although Geoffrey's Arthur may not fit in chronologically and factually within what Ranulf considered true world history, it is by no means any reason to discount the text; we can learn much from what Geoffrey's influences were and where he did conjure up characters such as Frollo from and the reasons for his elaborate story of Arthur, irrespective its historical standing.
ReplyDeleteWilliam of Newborough's contention is clearest out of all the primary sources. To him, Geoffreys tales of Arthur are based on no evidence, false, and ridiculous. He even dares to call the priest and monk 'our story-teller' whose history could be clearly understood as lies by even those with 'dim mental vision.'
ReplyDeleteWilliam certainly deserves some credit for pointing out the lack of credible sources in Geoffrey's work. However, whilst he puts much emphasis on the truth in Bedes 7th/8th century historical writings (which do not mention Arthur), Geoffrey does not consider that Bede's sources wouldve been purely Anglo-Saxon (and so would not have mentioned a successful British King like Arthur). Indeed I further believe William's work is flawed in that such a critical, cynical account of history is unlikely to sustain a passionate study of history as a discipline itself (which is by a and large fabricated and altered as time goes by). Though the ever-increasing demand for historical accuracy and scientific evidence in University's today suggest sadly suggest otherwise.