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?
I have chosen to reflect on William of Newburgh's opinion of Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings. Basically William thinks Geoffrey's work is fictitious. He is scathing in his remarks about William claiming that his work has no historical value and that much of it is blatant lies. He goes even further stating that it is a laughable web of fiction. Referring to Merlin, William clearly believes that Merlin is demonic rather than possibly being anywhere close to being a prophet. According to William, Geoffrey had either a passion for lying or a strong desire to please the Britons. William's motivations for being so strongly against Geoffrey are not clear. I wonder whether there is something to do with him wanting his own writings to appear more credible by praising the works of Bede by stating that if Bede didn't mention Arthur, then surely Arthur didn't exist. William paints a less glorious picture of the Britons, indicating they are weak and pitiful, which contrasts with that of Geoffrey's as being a mighty nation under the rule of Arthur a mighty King.
ReplyDeleteI have also chosen to look at WIlliam of Newburgh's Historia rerum Anglicarum. William believes Geoffrey's historical account to be completely fictitious and is not just critical of his work but Geoffrey himself. William thinks that Geoffrey hides his fallacies through translating his work into Latin. He also believes that Geoffrey's logic on Merlin's creation is invalid as Merlin is half demon and according to William, demons cannot predict the future as they are "excluded from the light of God". William criticises Geoffrey's Arthur, wondering how Arthur could achieve what Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great could not. He also criticises Geoffrey's details of geography and compares Arthur's place in the history of British kings to Bede’s claims. He also wonders why Bede does not mention such a glorious king.
ReplyDeleteWilliam's hostility is strange however. He states: "Therefore, let Bede, of whose wisdom and integrity none can doubt, possess our unbounded confidence, and let this fabler, with his fictions, be instantly rejected by all." It is interesting that William is so angry by Geoffrey's account of history and is so loyal to Bede. Possibly some form of religious or personal factors are at play in William's critique of Geoffrey's work.
I too have chosen to comment on William of Newburgh's opinion of Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings. William instantly states that he considers Geoffrey's work to be of "no historical value". Furthermore William continues to belittle Geoffrey by talking about how his references to the Britons are fictitious and false as well as undermining his intention to put the writing in Latin. I think this particular attack by William on Geoffrey's decision is rather harsh and lacks any sort of substance in terms of backing up his argument, rather it is purely a personal attack. However I do agree with William's comment that Williams 'A history of the Britons' is a book of fables rather than an accurate historical document due to the many mythological references he adds to his book.
ReplyDeleteWilliam justifies his claim that Geoffrey's book was fable like, by referring to how Bede's text states the real historical truth of the time and thus illegitimising Geoffrey's work.
Finally I too agree with Elizabeth that William obviously favours Bede over Geoffrey. But I don't think it's because of religious or personal factors rather it is because Geoffrey claimed his book to be the "history of Britain" where as in fact it is more a story or fable as referred to before rather than a historically constructed document.
Ollie Szymanski
I have chosen to look at Ranulf Higden's take on Monmouth's work in his Polychronicon. While Ranulf clearly does not think that Arthur could have possibly performed all the deeds Geoffrey mentions, he does not doubt Arthur's historicity when he writes that "[Arthur] lived in the time of Justinian". The Benedictine lists a number of reasons for his opinion, namely various contradictions occuring between Geoffrey's texts and Roman sources as well as generally hardly believable statements such as Arthur's conquering of 30 realms.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to William of Newburgh, Ranulf sees Gildas and Bede as "old authorities" and "renowned writers of history", implying that their writings should be taken very seriously and not doubted without olid evidence.
William of Newburgh dismisses Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia , saying that much of the work is simply lies or something invented completely by Geoffrey or someone else. William attacks Geoffrey's sources as he says that Bede from the fifth century makes no mention of Arthur. From criticism I have read, it seems that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia is just 'Hysteria', a medieval invention to suit a time and purpose, creating a myth to suit English royalty and a sort of propaganda for the history and legitimacy of English rule.
ReplyDelete