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?
I am inclined to believe that such a book existed, but maybe was contradictory to some of the beliefs held at the time and maybe it has since been destroyed or was lost over time as many texts have been. I wouldn't have thought that a religious man being an Archdeacon of the church, would have fabricated this story and tried to pass it off as actual history. Many elements which have been mentioned about what happened could have been mis-interpreted, taking into account strong religious iconography and mythical aspects such at premonitions. Some aspects such as the dragons could be referring in his mind to a demonic creature which to a religious man would not have entirely been out of the question.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the "most ancient book in the British language", like the previous blogger stated did exist but has subsequently been lost throughout time.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that someone of the church even though they were some of the very few who were literate would have produced such a book because they would still be inclined to be writing in latin (Correct me if I have mixed up the centuries here terribly). To me it seems more likely that an academic without religious sways would have written such a book outlining unbiased parts of history. Furthermore with the story presented by Geoffrey of Monmouth and how he bases it on Arthur, I find it hard to fully accept this as a purely factual piece of writing. This is due to me believing that there was an Arthur around the time as stated but in saying that I also believe that he wasn't the great conquering King that legends tell us. Thus I do not agree with Geoffrey of Monmouth writing the "most ancient book in the British language".
Ollie
Personally, I believe that whilst there may have been a 'most ancient book in the British language', it isn't likely to have been in the hands of the priesthood, as they only wrote in Latin, and I doubt that those most likely to tell stories about Arthur - the native British - would have been literate. I strongly doubt that Geoffrey of Monmouth, whilst he based his story on aspects of history, would have found such a wonderful source. If something seems to be to good to be true, it likely is. So yes, I believe he was probably attempting to 'seek authority for his own invention'.
ReplyDeleteAli
Honestly, I do not believe there was a 'most ancient book in the British Language' for many reasons. It would have been all too easy for Geoffrey to fabricate such a book and quite easily go unquestioned about it. Many would believe him because of his reputation alone. There were much fewer scholars in his day and many would not be near him so unable to verify if he possessed this book or not. It is to convenient that the book happens to support all his claims which he is notoriously known for. Also how does Geoffrey know that this is the most ancient book in the British Language? We are to this day always discovering items that outdate others that we previously thought were the oldest, so this is a bold claim I do not think a scholar, who should have a critical type of view on a new source, should be making.
ReplyDeleteI think that this book may have existed but as others have mentioned has been lost in time. Also I doubt that Geoffrey of Monmouth ever had this book in his possession. Rather he probably claimed that he did to support his inventions which he creates in The History of the Kings of Briton. I think if this book had actually existed at the time it has said to have been in the possession of Geoffrey of Monmouth, more would have been written or known about its disappearance.
ReplyDelete