King Arthur was mean

[j***@gmail.com]

Just reading History of the Kings of Britain for the first time.
Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthur is mean. He commits near total genocide
of the picts and conquers Scotland, Ireland, then Europe just because
he feels like it. That was rather surprising.

Did people really used to think that History of the Kings of Britain
was real history? I know it's fake, but I seem to recall reading that
only recently did people realise it was fake.

[Franklin Cross]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Just reading History of the Kings of Britain for the first time.
Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthur is mean. He commits near total genocide
of the picts and conquers Scotland, Ireland, then Europe just because
he feels like it. That was rather surprising.

He also had a Pharoah-esque episode in which he ordered all babies born at a
certain time to be sent to their deaths, all because Merlin predicted that
one of them would kill him. Of course the only baby that survived the
ordeal, as in any story with this element, was the target baby (Sir Joe aka
Modred).

[WebSlave]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Did people really used to think that History of the Kings of Britain
was real history?

Probably not. At the time of writing (and still) Latin "historia" (as in
Historia Regum Britanniae) didn't mean history as we understand it. It
also meant a story, a tale. You also had to be able to read and
understand Latin to read it, which means you had to be fairly civilized
and educated.

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Did people really used to think that History of the Kings of Britain
was real history? I know it's fake, but I seem to recall reading that
only recently did people realise it was fake.

No, there were some fairly strong condemnations of Geoffrey's writings
within a very short time of it being published. Probably the best known and
easiest to find are:

1) the Questioning (or Academic?) approach of Ranulf Higden (about 1352?, so
a bit late?)

"Concerning Arthur, whom Geoffrey , alone of chronologers extols, many
wonder how teh things related of him can be true; because if Arthur, as
Geoffrey relates, acquired 30 kingdoms, subdued the king of France, killed
Lucius, governor of the republic of Italy, why have all historians, Roman
French, saxon and British omitted so many great acts of such a man, when
they have related so many deeds of inferior men"

Ranulf Higden "Polychronicon" cited in footnote to Llanerch reprint's
William of Malmesbury (see below)


2) But from an earlier age is the 'Direct and Straight to the Point'
approach of William of Newburgh (circa 1190)

"That everything that this man [Geoffrey] wrote about Arthur and his
successors, or indeed about his predeccessors from Vortigern onwards, was
made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate
love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons"
W of N "Historia Rerum Anglicarum" cited Introduction of Penguin Classics
Edn of G of M

3) Then there is the more Poetic or Allegoric denouement of Gearld of Wales
(1188)

"Whenever anyone told a lie in his presence, Meilyr was immediately aware of
it, for he saw a demon dancing and exulting on the liar's tongue. Althougth
he was completely illiterate, if he looked at a book which was incorrect,
which contained some false statement, or which aimed at deceiving the
reader, he immediately put his finger on the offending passage. If you
asked him how he knew this, he said a demon first pointed out the place with
its finger.............
................When he was harrased beyond endurance by these unclean
spirits, Saint John's Gospel was placed on his lap, and then they all
vanished immediately, flying away like so many birds. If the Gospel were
afterwards removed and the History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of
Monmouth put there in its place, just to see what would happen, the demons
would alight all over his body , and on the book too, staying there longer
than usual and being even more demanding.

Gerald of Wales "Journey Through Wales" Penguin Classics

4) or the more subtle, but just as damning, critique of William of
Malmesbury (contemporary with Geoffrey)

" "........Ambrosius, the sole survivor of the Romans, who became monarch
after Vortigern, quelled the presumptuous barbarians by the powerful aid of
the warlike Arthur. This is that arthur, of whom the Britons *fondly fable
even to the present day*; a man worthy to be celebrated, *not by idle
fictions, but in authentic history * [my emphasis].

William of Malmesbury "Kings before the Norman Conquest" Llanerch Reprints

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London UK

[patrick boyd]

Post by Malcolm Martin
4) or the more subtle, but just as damning, critique of William of
Malmesbury (contemporary with Geoffrey)
" "........Ambrosius, the sole survivor of the Romans, who became monarch
after Vortigern, quelled the presumptuous barbarians by the powerful aid of
the warlike Arthur. This is that arthur, of whom the Britons *fondly fable
even to the present day*; a man worthy to be celebrated, *not by idle
fictions, but in authentic history * [my emphasis].
William of Malmesbury "Kings before the Norman Conquest" Llanerch Reprints

Hmm. It strikes me that the idle fictions he refers to are those of the
Britons and the fanciful myths that developed around the name of Arthur,
with the usual Celtic panoply of magical beasts and heroic feats.

Although in the absence of any real evidence to the contrary (pity
William didn't give a bibliography, eh?) I am much more inclined to
believe Gildas, that Ambrosius was the victor at the seige of Badon Hill
(and that was the REAL business of that period) and Arthur was a
mythical Robin Hood-like figure subsequently historicised.

-- patrick

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by patrick boyd
Hmm. It strikes me that the idle fictions he refers to are those of the
Britons and the fanciful myths that developed around the name of Arthur,
with the usual Celtic panoply of magical beasts and heroic feats.

Patrick

I take it that you are thinking of tales as are found in The Mabinogion?
Whilst you could be right, I think his main objective is to counter
Geoffrey, for the folowing reasons:

a) the circulation of Geoffrey's work of 1136, a work of which William would
have been well aware

b) whether William *of Malmesbury*, a historian of *English* history, would
have been so aware of the oral British tales circulating in Wales (not a
strong point, I accept);

c) Williams own second denunciation "a man worthy to be celebrated, not by
idle fictions, but in authentic history" in which he contrasts "idle
fictions" with "authentic history". Such a contrast has mplicit within it
that the two things being contrasted have both similarity and
dissimilarity - both books in circulation, but one fiction, the other
authentic.

c) Geoffrey's own reaction to William of M: "The kings of the saxons I leave
to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. I recommend these last to
say nothing at all about the kings of the Britons, seeing that they do not
have in their possession the book in the British language which Walter,
Archdeacon of Oxford, brought from Wales"

Post by patrick boyd
Although in the absence of any real evidence to the contrary (pity William
didn't give a bibliography, eh?)

Only it seems with regard to English History - Bede (cited with approval),
Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Elward (cited with disapproval) and Elmer
(disapproval) according to the preface.

Post by patrick boyd
I am much more inclined to believe Gildas, that Ambrosius was the victor at
the seige of Badon Hill (and that was the REAL business of that period) and
Arthur was a mythical Robin Hood-like figure subsequently historicised.

Ahhh!!!! The age old debate. Did he exist? If not, did we invent him?

Kind regards

Malcolm

[Ian Weir]

Post by Malcolm Martin
c) Geoffrey's own reaction to William of M: "The kings of the saxons I leave
to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. I recommend these last to
say nothing at all about the kings of the Britons, seeing that they do not
have in their possession the book in the British language which Walter,
Archdeacon of Oxford, brought from Wales"

EXACTLY equivalent to the argument advanced by apologists for Blackett
and Wilson and their ilk. Plus ca change...

(And thanks for the post, Malcolm -- marvellously informative, as
always.)

Best
Ian

[Heather Rose Jones]

Post by Ian Weir

Post by Malcolm Martin
c) Geoffrey's own reaction to William of M: "The kings of the saxons I leave
to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. I recommend these last to
say nothing at all about the kings of the Britons, seeing that they do not
have in their possession the book in the British language which Walter,
Archdeacon of Oxford, brought from Wales"

EXACTLY equivalent to the argument advanced by apologists for Blackett
and Wilson and their ilk. Plus ca change...

Funny -- I was thinking exactly the same thing!

Heather

[patrick boyd]

Post by Malcolm Martin
I take it that you are thinking of tales as are found in The Mabinogion?
Whilst you could be right, I think his main objective is to counter
a) the circulation of Geoffrey's work of 1136, a work of which William would
have been well aware

Perhaps, although he could have made it clearer. Or maybe he didn't wish
to indulge in an academic slanging match.

Post by Malcolm Martin
b) whether William *of Malmesbury*, a historian of *English* history, would
have been so aware of the oral British tales circulating in Wales (not a
strong point, I accept);

It's one of the difficult things about cultural studies, isn't it, to
accurately place historical cultures in context, relative to the shared
meanings we accept as timeless and natural today. Were they ignorant,
xenophobic, supersticious rustics who knew little more of the world than
the confines of their own villages? Or could their scholars and their
ideas circulate freely throughout Christendom to an extent which might
shatter some of our preconceptions about medieval Europe?

Chrétien de Troyes certainly had access to Celtic myths and legends in
the mid 12 century. Perhaps they were more widely spread than we imagine.

Post by Malcolm Martin
c) Williams own second denunciation "a man worthy to be celebrated, not by
idle fictions, but in authentic history" in which he contrasts "idle
fictions" with "authentic history". Such a contrast has mplicit within it
that the two things being contrasted have both similarity and
dissimilarity - both books in circulation, but one fiction, the other
authentic.
c) Geoffrey's own reaction to William of M: "The kings of the saxons I leave
to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. I recommend these last to
say nothing at all about the kings of the Britons, seeing that they do not
have in their possession the book in the British language which Walter,
Archdeacon of Oxford, brought from Wales"

Geoffrey made several obscure references to his sources, didn't he?
What's your take on the works in question, Malcolm?

...

Post by Malcolm Martin
Ahhh!!!! The age old debate. Did he exist? If not, did we invent him?

The Jury is out until further notice, I suppose.

For me, the buck stops with Gildas. I have never accepted any of the
optimistic arguments as to why the only real contemporary writer should
omit Arthur entirely unless he was (a) a minor although perhaps heroic
figure not worthy of major political mention, (b) later than Gildas, or
from the North, or both; and therefore not a player in the halting of
Saxon expansion in the 6th century, or (c) a mythical figures later
historicised.

It's not possible to say definitively of course, but for me the balance
is weighted against Arthur, or at least against THE Arthur, until
further evidence is found.

-- patrick

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by patrick boyd

Post by Malcolm Martin
b) whether William *of Malmesbury*, a historian of *English* history, would
have been so aware of the oral British tales circulating in Wales (not a
strong point, I accept);

It's one of the difficult things about cultural studies, isn't it, to
accurately place historical cultures in context, relative to the shared
meanings we accept as timeless and natural today. Were they ignorant,
xenophobic, supersticious rustics who knew little more of the world than
the confines of their own villages? Or could their scholars and their
ideas circulate freely throughout Christendom to an extent which might
shatter some of our preconceptions about medieval Europe?
Chrétien de Troyes certainly had access to Celtic myths and legends in
the mid 12 century. Perhaps they were more widely spread than we imagine.

Well, recent work in *northern Spain* indicates that the Arthurian
legend was well enough known in even non-elite and rural contexts that
folks were naming their children after Arthur and Gawain before both
Geoffrey of Monmouth's influence would, or could, have been felt and,
in some cases, _before_he_even_wrote_... Interesting, no? :-)

Cheers,

Tom Green
Who talks about this at some length in 'Concepts'... You know, there's
a suprising amount of interesting stuff hidden in the dark corners of
university library stacks if you have a spare hour or so to browse...

http://www.arthuriana.co.uk

[patrick boyd]

Post by h***@hotmail.com
Well, recent work in *northern Spain* indicates that the Arthurian
legend was well enough known in even non-elite and rural contexts that
folks were naming their children after Arthur and Gawain before both
Geoffrey of Monmouth's influence would, or could, have been felt and,
in some cases, _before_he_even_wrote_... Interesting, no? :-)
Cheers,
Tom Green
Who talks about this at some length in 'Concepts'... You know, there's
a suprising amount of interesting stuff hidden in the dark corners of
university library stacks if you have a spare hour or so to browse...
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk

Hey Tom, just took a look at your site. It's bigger than Ben Hur!
There's some serious scholarship in there. Disappointing that only a
couple of links in the Concepts section work but I guess that's the
material for the book you refer to, and you (quite rightly) want to make
some money out of it. Sign me up to buy a copy the minute it's out.

I'm just an enthusiastic amateur whose modest library is virtually
limited to Morris, Alcock and Ashe but from your bibliography I can see
there's a lifetime's reading out there on the subject for the dedicated
scholar.

Padel seems to be the man of the moment for several of you guys and I
see "Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature" is available on Amazon so I
might go there next. Interesting to note that Padel's sphere of interest
is mainly Cornish -- a much neglected corner of the Celtic world I feel.

-- patrick

[h***@hotmail.com]

Hi Patrick,

Glad you like the site - it expands as and when I get the time (there
is a half-finished piece on the Tristan legend that I keep meaning to
return to, which may fit with your Cornish interests... Incidentally
there is evidence of an early 12th-century at least transmission of
this legend to N. Spain too...)

I think almost everyone out there started out with Alcock, Ashe and
Morris so you're in good company :-) Padel has some very interesting
ideas and his book is well worth getting, though it will drive you mad
with its lack of index and detailed references...

Cheers,

Tom Green

http://www.arthuriana.co.uk

Post by patrick boyd
Hey Tom, just took a look at your site. It's bigger than Ben Hur!
There's some serious scholarship in there. Disappointing that only a
couple of links in the Concepts section work but I guess that's the
material for the book you refer to, and you (quite rightly) want to make
some money out of it. Sign me up to buy a copy the minute it's out.
I'm just an enthusiastic amateur whose modest library is virtually
limited to Morris, Alcock and Ashe but from your bibliography I can see
there's a lifetime's reading out there on the subject for the dedicated
scholar.
Padel seems to be the man of the moment for several of you guys and I
see "Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature" is available on Amazon so I
might go there next. Interesting to note that Padel's sphere of interest
is mainly Cornish -- a much neglected corner of the Celtic world I feel.
-- patrick

[Malcolm Martin]

Geoffrey made several obscure references to his sources, didn't he? What's
your take on the works in question, Malcolm?

Patrick

Before I try to answer that, which works are you meaning? GoM? His
detractors? His 'sources'?

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London UK

[patrick boyd]

Post by Malcolm Martin

Geoffrey made several obscure references to his sources, didn't he? What's
your take on the works in question, Malcolm?

Patrick
Before I try to answer that, which works are you meaning? GoM? His
detractors? His 'sources'?

The sources. I have read that Geoffrey referred mysteriously to some
ancient texts that he based his Arthurian story on. Do you know of any
further information on this subject?

And this book in the British language that Walter brought out of Wales
-- do you suppose this is the (so-called) works of Nennius? If it was,
there's not much to go on there to support Geoffrey's fanciful Arthur
disinformation.

-- patrick

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by patrick boyd
The sources. I have read that Geoffrey referred mysteriously to some
ancient texts that he based his Arthurian story on. Do you know of any
further information on this subject?
And this book in the British language that Walter brought out of Wales --
do you suppose this is the (so-called) works of Nennius? If it was,
there's not much to go on there to support Geoffrey's fanciful Arthur
disinformation.

Patrick

Your questions raise a series of issues. It's late for me at present, and I
have a full day tomorrow and Thursday. I'll try to get back to you in a day
or two with a bit of detail about my views. In brief, and with regard to
the Arthurian section of GoM - (i) yes, I think GoM had 'sources', and that
one or more of those sources had information dating back to circa 500CE, and
one probably earlier than that; (ii) that he conflated his sources, never
being prepared to let the facts get in the way of a good story; (iii) he
also interacted with, and adapted, his sources for reasons which were known
to him but of which some (at least) may be lost to us; (iv) I am undecided
as to whether one of those sources was the alleged book of Walter - it seems
to me that to assume it did not exist means that Walter, Archdeacon of
Oxford was in on the joke/deception, (as all anyone had to do was ask dear
Walter as to whether the book existed) - but there is no evidence to suggest
that Walter might not have been in on it.

When I respond, I will probably start a new thread under 'Geoffrey and his
sources' - but now, to close this machine, and find my way to my slumbers.

Kind regards

Malcolm

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by Malcolm Martin
b) whether William *of Malmesbury*, a historian of *English* history, would
have been so aware of the oral British tales circulating in Wales (not a
strong point, I accept);

<<At this time (1066-87) was found in the province of Wales called
R(h)os the tomb of Walwen, who was the not degenerate nephew of Arthur
by his sister. He reigned in that part of Britain which is still called
Walweitha... But the tomb of Arthur is nowhere beheld, whence ancient
ditties fable that he is yet to come. The tomb of the other, however,
as I have said, was found in the time of King William upon the sea
shore, fourteen feet in length [Tom: compare Amr m. Arthur's grave in
HB 73]; and here some say he was wounded by his foes and cast out in a
shipwreck, but according to others he was killed by his fellow-citizens
at a public banquet. Knowledge of the truth therefore remains doubtful,
although neither story would be inconsistent with the defence of his
fame.>>

Looks like a bit of Welsh topographic folklore to me... Indeed, an
allusion to the same tale would seem to be present in the Old Welsh
*Englynion Y Beddau* if we follow Sims-Williams' recent analysis of the
text, as is the claim that 'the world's wonder [*anoeth* = something
very difficult/impossible to find/achieve etc.] [is] a grave for
Arthur' which can be compared to William's 'But the tomb of Arthur is
nowhere beheld, whence ancient ditties fable that he is yet to come'.

Post by Malcolm Martin

Post by patrick boyd
I am much more inclined to believe Gildas, that Ambrosius was the victor at
the seige of Badon Hill (and that was the REAL business of that period) and
Arthur was a mythical Robin Hood-like figure subsequently historicised.

Ahhh!!!! The age old debate. Did he exist? If not, did we invent him?

I'm not sure Robin Hood is the best comparison for the majority of the
early Arthurian legend, though the framework of *Culhwch ac Olwen*
might be seen in this light, I guess. IMHO the most Robin Hood-like
part of the early legend is perhaps in late 11th-century or very early
12th-century *Vita Sancti Cadoci* where Cei states that 'we are
accustomed to aid the penniless and distressed' - though we shouldn't
forget that Cei is here trying to persuade Arthur not to 'violently'
snatch a pretty young princess and rape her...

Cheers,

Tom, just passing through...
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by Malcolm Martin
4) or the more subtle, but just as damning, critique of William of
Malmesbury (contemporary with Geoffrey)
" "........Ambrosius, the sole survivor of the Romans, who became monarch
after Vortigern, quelled the presumptuous barbarians by the powerful aid of
the warlike Arthur. This is that arthur, of whom the Britons *fondly fable
even to the present day*; a man worthy to be celebrated, *not by idle
fictions, but in authentic history * [my emphasis].
William of Malmesbury "Kings before the Norman Conquest" Llanerch Reprints

Umm... *De Gestis Regum Anglorum* was written c.1125.... if you catch
my drift :-)

Tom Green
(who has very nearly finally finished 'Concepts of Arthur' - last
chapter being written as we type...)

Arthurian Resources: http://www.arthuriana.co.uk

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by h***@hotmail.com

Post by Malcolm Martin
William of Malmesbury "Kings before the Norman Conquest" Llanerch Reprints

Umm... *De Gestis Regum Anglorum* was written c.1125.... if you catch
my drift :-)
Tom Green
(who has very nearly finally finished 'Concepts of Arthur' - last
chapter being written as we type...)

Tom

Hot diggedy damn!! I thought it was written after GoM! Ah well, it just
goes to show I should always check my assumptions before writing, and
certainly before posting. Many thanks for the correction.

Good to see you posting again, and congratulations on getting to the end of
that which I assume to be your book (not going to make any assumption
there.....) I suppose it is too much to hope for that, in your research and
writing you may have come to a refutation of Padel's
position......................or maybe it's just safe to assume that that is
a stupid question...................?

But - publication date?

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London UK

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by Malcolm Martin
Good to see you posting again, and congratulations on getting to the end of
that which I assume to be your book (not going to make any assumption
there.....) I suppose it is too much to hope for that, in your research and
writing you may have come to a refutation of Padel's
position......................or maybe it's just safe to assume that that is
a stupid question...................?

Good call ;-) Seriously, 'Concepts' seems to have grown into a
full-blown re-examination and analysis of the Welsh Arthurian legend
and it does, I have to admit, differ on several important points with
Padel. Nevertheless, I'm still convinced that, fundamentally, Padel is
right to view the historical Arthur as a secondary development of a
folkloric or even a mythical figure (the first part of the book is now
focussed on delving deep into these issues and offering, it's hoped,
some new perspectives on this debate).

I'll let you know when it's out :-)

All the best,

Tom Green

http://www.arthuriana.co.uk