"König Artus lebt!" As the title of Stefan Zimmer’s book illustrates, the fame of the English myth around King Arthur and his deeds seem to be as alive today as when his first reports appeared. The vast literary canon connected to the Arthurian legend alone proves its omnipresence and importance. Arthur’s merits are primarily known thanks to Geoffrey of Monmouth (~1100-1155), one of “the Fathers of Arthurian literature”, who published his Latin best-seller Historia Regum Britanniae, the History of the Kings of Britain, in the Anglo-Norman period, between 1136 and 1138. Another major milestone in connection with Arthur is “the discovery of Arthur’s remains at Glastonbury Abbey, in 1191.” Those twelfth century events contributed to Arthur’s popularity and had “[…] such an impact on contemporary minds that Arthur acquired a reality and a dimension that he had never had before”.
This paper focuses on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s literary legacy. Little is certain about Geoffrey of Monmouth’s life and even the scarce details that exist are not necessarily reliable. He probably originated from Monmouth and thus paid homage to his birthplace through his name. Geoffrey’s exact date of birth is unknown, but some sources suggest that he died in 1155. Interestingly, he used his father’s name, Arthur, at the beginning of his career . Therefore, his alias already showed a link to the legend of the famous warrior king, he later on wrote about. Geoffrey was ordained bishop in Saint Asaph and Lambeth and taught as magister at Oxford . Moreover, Geoffrey was said to be part British, because he paints a positive image of the Bretons in his Historia. His literary career was based on three major works: The Prophecies of Merlin, The History of the Kings of Britain, and The Life of Merlin, which he later on incorporated in his Historia. Whether Geoffrey wrote parts of the Book of Llandaff is still an ongoing debate . By all means, the Historia’s reputation made it known as one of the most important books of the Middle Ages.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historia Regum Britanniae (1136-1138) - a true account?
2.1. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s motivation and his sources
2.2. Shaping of the Arthurian legend
2.3. Historiography (Fact)
2.3.1. His own claim
2.3.2. References to proper names and places
2.3.3. Positive reception until the sixteenth century
2.4. Pseudo-History (Fiction)
2.4.1. Twelfth century historians: William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntington and William of Newburgh
2.4.2. Critical modern reception
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the historical reliability of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae, exploring whether it functions as a credible historiographical account or as a work of fiction. It analyzes Geoffrey’s patriotic motivations, his synthesis of source material, and the enduring debate surrounding his narrative techniques and historical legitimacy.
- The role of patriotism and national identity in Geoffrey’s historical narrative.
- The examination of Geoffrey’s claimed sources and his use of historical references.
- The construction and evolution of the King Arthur legend within the text.
- The reception of the Historia by contemporary twelfth-century critics versus modern scholarship.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2. Shaping of the Arthurian legend
Geoffrey’s Historia circulates around King Arthur and his merits which can be seen in the fact alone that Arthur’s prehistory and history occupies approximately half of the work. The long series of kings described culminates in Arthur’s reign and is announced by Merlin’s prophecies. The prophet informs Uther that he will have “a most potent son, to whose power all those kingdoms shall be subject over which the ray reaches” (Monmouth, Book VII, Chapter xv., l. 15f). Walter Schirmer reaffirms that the Historia contains two poles, namely the prophecies of Merlin and the reign of Arthur, which are connected by joined threads31. The prophecies appear to be a matter of destiny and hence, legitimate Arthur’s reign.
The earlier sources barely discuss Arthur and often contradict themselves32. Gildas’ De excidio et conquest Britanniae (540/545) does not yet refer to Arthur, but to his uncle Ambrosius Aurelianus, and Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum borrows his predecessor’s version unaltered33. Nennius’ Historia Brittonum (~ 800 AD) mentions Arthur for the first time and introduces him as a war leader, a dux bellorum34. Further sources, regarded reliable at the time and which show traces of Arthur’s existence, are the Annales Cambria, containing lives of saints, and early 14th century Latin texts35.
On the whole, details about Arthur are scarce; therefore, Geoffrey’s main merit is his detailed description of the historical Arthur. Michael Curley believes that Geoffrey answers “William of Malmesbury’s claim about the absence of veraces historiae concerning Arthur”36. The success of the Arthurian matter is surprising if one takes into account that Arthur technically is a bastard: he is an illegitimate child conceived out of an adulterous act37. At this birth, he is already presented as “the most renowned Arthur, whose heroic and wonderful actions have justly rendered his name famous to prosperity” (Monmouth, Book VII., Chapter xix, l. 82f). Furthermore, the Norman castle Tintagel in which he grows up is a symbol of power, as it cannot be taken by force.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the significance of King Arthur in literature and outlines the paper's focus on Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia, presenting the research question regarding its historical accuracy.
2. Historia Regum Britanniae (1136-1138) - a true account?: This section sets the stage for the investigation into the text's reliability by introducing the scope of the work and the methodology of the analysis.
2.1. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s motivation and his sources: This chapter analyzes Geoffrey's patriotic intentions and his reliance on both traditional and potentially invented sources to establish Britain's glorious past.
2.2. Shaping of the Arthurian legend: This chapter details how Geoffrey transformed the scarce historical references to Arthur into a central, monumental figure of chivalry and power.
2.3. Historiography (Fact): This chapter discusses arguments favoring the work’s reliability, focusing on the author's claims and the usage of historical names and places.
2.3.1. His own claim: This section examines how Geoffrey employs traditional historical prologues and the modesty topos to validate his work as authentic history.
2.3.2. References to proper names and places: This section evaluates the use of historical figures and place names to lend an air of legitimacy to the Historia.
2.3.3. Positive reception until the sixteenth century: This section covers how contemporaries accepted the Historia as genuine, shaping the perception of the Arthurian legend for centuries.
2.4. Pseudo-History (Fiction): This chapter addresses the critical reception of the work as fictional pseudo-history by contemporaries and later scholars.
2.4.1. Twelfth century historians: William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntington and William of Newburgh: This section reviews early critiques from contemporary historians who doubted the accuracy of the narrative.
2.4.2. Critical modern reception: This section summarizes current scholarly views that largely categorize the work as historical fiction rather than factual history.
3. Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the arguments, acknowledging the work as a mix of fact and fiction while emphasizing its profound cultural influence.
Keywords
Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae, King Arthur, Historiography, Pseudo-History, Arthurian Legend, Medieval Literature, British History, Sources, William of Newburgh, Fact and Fiction, Narrative, Chronicles, Medieval Reception, Patriotism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae to determine whether it should be classified as a reliable historical account or as a work of creative fiction.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Central themes include the intersection of history and legend, the role of nationalistic motivation in historical writing, the evolution of the Arthurian myth, and the critical responses to the work from the 12th century to the present.
What is the central research question?
The core inquiry is how far the Historia can be regarded as trustworthy historiography versus being viewed as a fictional construct.
What research methods were utilized?
The author analyzes historical sources, compares contemporary and modern interpretations, and evaluates internal textual evidence such as dedication prologues and character development.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body treats the motivations behind the writing of the Historia, the specific shaping of Arthur as a legendary figure, and a comparative analysis of both supportive historical evidence and critical rebuttals.
Which keywords best describe the paper's contents?
Key terms include Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae, Arthurian legend, historiography, and pseudo-history.
How does the paper treat the existence of the "ancient book" mentioned by Geoffrey?
The paper notes that the book's existence is a matter of speculation, as there is no empirical proof, leading many modern scholars to believe it was a literary invention.
Why did William of Newburgh strongly criticize the work?
Newburgh criticized it for being pseudo-history, citing the inclusion of mythical elements like giants and dragons, as well as logical inconsistencies regarding historical timelines.
- Citation du texte
- Eliana Briel (Auteur), 2012, Fact or Fiction? Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" (1136-1138), Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/287925
