This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6299A.FD1D8330
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A couple of weeks or so ago, on 23 January 2006 "patrick boyd" =
<boyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message=20
news:43d42547@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Geoffrey made several obscure references to his sources, didn't he? =
What's=20
> your take on the works in question, Malcolm?
>
and I promised to reply. First, my apologies for the delay in doing =
this. My work became filled with deadlines etc just after I said I =
would reply, and it is only now that I can start to put down some ideas =
on paper. In doing this, I will not try and deal with the whole =
subject, but have a brief look at the issue in general, and then look at =
some specific examples that lead me to think (on the balance of =
probabilities) that Geoffrey of Monmouth [GoM] had a specific source or =
sources, that some of those sources go back (with accuracy?) to about =
500CE or possibly even earlier, and that GoM was not adverse to =
altering, amalgamating, adapting or otherwise adulterating his sources =
to suit his purposes - and that one (but, probably, not the only one) of =
those purposes was to make the story a better story, and Arthur a =
'greater' individual.=20
General
In about 1136 GoM wrote " Walter, archdeacon of Oxford,.....presented me =
with a certain very ancient book written in the British Language.." =
Here, GoM claims he has a source which he has translated into Latin.
In about 1190 William of Newburgh wrote 'everything this man wrote about =
Arthur...[and others]....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'. In this WoN suggests that GoM both wrote some =
himself, but also used the lies of others (ie used sources - that were =
unreliable), but without specifying what those sources might be.
In 1976 Lewis Thorpe, after suggesting GoM had something akin to MS Harl =
3859 (Nennius, Annales Cambriae, Welsh king-lists/genealogies), and knew =
other Welsh literature, or was thinking symbolically of Walter's oral =
knowledge, or had what is now considered to be a 'variant version' in =
front of him, wrote "We are presented then with a nigh-on insoluble =
mystery.........it remains true that much, if not most, of his material =
is unacceptable as history; and yet history keeps peeping through the =
fiction". He then goes on to quote Acton Griscom (circa 1917) as 'the =
last word here' How much allowance must be made for expansion and =
embellishment is admittedly hard to determine, because first and =
foremost, Geoffrey was bent on turning chronicle history into =
literature". Thorpe then goes on to provide his own last word, that =
from the great number of borrowings from Gildas and Nennius "his debt to =
those two early chroniclers is certainly a considerable one. Some =
scholars have suggested that our search for sources might well and begin =
there." [Introduction to Penguin Edn of GoM - p14-19]
The following year, 1977, David Dumville writes "We know as yet almost =
nothing of Geoffrey's native sources and of the way in which he handled =
them; in no modern sense is he a historian, however, and few today would =
care to use his work in writing our early history" [History vol 62 No =
205 June 1977 p175]
I find it deeply dispiriting that, in 800 years, we appear to have moved =
little further forward from the respective 12th century positions of GoM =
and WoN, as, effectively, set out by Thorpe and Dumville in the 20th =
Century. Some will say that I am asking too much, because (they will =
say) it is only possible to consider which sources GoM may have used =
when copies of those sources are found still to be in existence. But =
that criticism is to misunderstand the very nature of 'source criticism' =
- which starts from the text itself. Let me acknowledge from the outset =
that the 'source criticism' is a tool that can also be mis-used to slice =
the text into ever smaller pieces - but the very fact that a knife can =
be misused in stabbing and mutilating, does not prevent us using the =
knife for appropriate separate or dissection. I suggest, however, =
whether that which is being done is inappropriate mutilation or =
appropriate dissection is a matter for open debate, rather than either =
the "Oh yes he did have a book....Oh, no he didn't" style of debate; or =
the current, almost dismissive, silence about GoM and his sources.=20
Source criticism, as a method of consideration of the text, is not new. =
It has been widely used in Biblical and theological studies for many =
years (with some good, and some poor, results), and its apparent lack of =
serious application to a Geoffrey's text is something I have difficulty =
in understanding. I acknowledge there has been some - GoM's patron was =
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, so any town that is mentioned in the text =
that is connected with Robert is frequently dismissed as having been =
inserted solely to curry favour with his patron, and so have no =
historical reality. That may be so, but that sword is, as I shall hope =
to show in the next post about Silchester, a double edged sword.
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6299A.FD1D8330
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A couple of weeks or so ago, on 23 =
January 2006=20
"patrick boyd" <</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:boyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>boyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote in=20
message <BR></FONT><A href=3D"news:43d42547@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:43d42547@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
></A><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...<BR>><BR>> Geoffrey made several obscure references to =
his=20
sources, didn't he? What's <BR>> your take on the works in question,=20
Malcolm?<BR>><BR><BR>and I promised to reply. First, my =
apologies for=20
the delay in doing this. My work became filled with deadlines etc =
just=20
after I said I would reply, and it is only now that I can start to put =
down some=20
ideas on paper. In doing this, I will not try and deal with the =
whole=20
subject, but have a brief look at the issue in general, and then look at =
some=20
specific examples that lead me to think (on the balance of =
probabilities) that=20
Geoffrey of Monmouth [GoM] had a specific source or sources, that some =
of those=20
sources go back (with accuracy?) to about 500CE or possibly even =
earlier, and=20
that GoM was not adverse to altering, amalgamating, adapting or =
otherwise=20
adulterating his sources to suit his purposes - and that one (but, =
probably, not=20
the only one) of those purposes was to make the story a better =
story, and=20
Arthur a 'greater' individual. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>General</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In about 1136 GoM wrote " Walter, =
archdeacon of=20
Oxford,.....presented me with a certain very ancient book written in the =
British=20
Language.." Here, GoM claims he has a source which he has =
translated into=20
Latin.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In about 1190 William of =
Newburgh wrote=20
'everything this man wrote about Arthur...[and others]....was made up =
partly by=20
himself and partly by others either from an inordinate love of lying or =
for the=20
sake of pleasing the Britons'. In this WoN suggests that GoM both =
wrote=20
some himself, but also used the lies of others (ie used sources - that =
were=20
unreliable), but without specifying what those sources might =
be.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In 1976 Lewis Thorpe, after suggesting =
GoM had=20
something akin to MS Harl 3859 (Nennius, Annales Cambriae, Welsh=20
king-lists/genealogies), and knew other Welsh literature, or was =
thinking=20
symbolically of Walter's oral knowledge, or had what is now considered =
to=20
be a 'variant version' in front of him, wrote "We are presented =
then with a=20
nigh-on insoluble mystery.........it remains true that much, if not=20
most, of his material is unacceptable as history; and yet history =
keeps=20
peeping through the fiction". He then goes on to quote Acton =
Griscom=20
(circa 1917) as 'the last word here' How much allowance must be made for =
expansion and embellishment is admittedly hard to determine, because =
first and=20
foremost, Geoffrey was bent on turning chronicle history into =
literature". =20
Thorpe then goes on to provide his own last word, that from the great =
number of=20
borrowings from Gildas and Nennius "his debt to those two early =
chroniclers is=20
certainly a considerable one. Some scholars have suggested that =
our search=20
for sources might well and begin there." [Introduction to Penguin =
Edn of=20
GoM - p14-19]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The following year, 1977, David =
Dumville writes "We=20
know as yet almost nothing of Geoffrey's native sources and of the =
way in=20
which he handled them; in no modern sense is he a historian, =
however, and=20
few today would care to use his work in writing our early history"=20
[<EM>History</EM> vol 62 No 205 June 1977 p175]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I find it deeply dispiriting that, in =
800 years, we=20
appear to have moved little further forward from the respective 12th =
century=20
positions of GoM and WoN, as, effectively, set out by Thorpe and =
Dumville in the=20
20th Century. Some will say that I am asking too much, =
because=20
(they will say) it is only possible to consider which sources GoM may =
have used=20
when copies of those sources are found still to be in existence. =
But that=20
criticism is to misunderstand the very nature of 'source criticism' =
<STRONG>-=20
which starts from the text itself</STRONG>. Let me acknowledge =
from the=20
outset that the 'source criticism' is a tool that can also be mis-used =
to slice=20
the text into ever smaller pieces - but the very fact that a knife can =
be=20
misused in stabbing and mutilating, does not prevent us using the knife =
for=20
appropriate separate or dissection. I suggest, however, whether =
that which=20
is being done is inappropriate mutilation or appropriate dissection is a =
matter=20
for open debate, rather than either the "Oh yes he did have a =
book....Oh,=20
no he didn't" style of debate; or the current, almost dismissive, =
silence=20
about GoM and his sources. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Source criticism, as a method of =
consideration of=20
the text, is not new. It has been widely used in Biblical and =
theological=20
studies for many years (with some good, and some poor, results), =
and its=20
apparent lack of serious application to a Geoffrey's text is something I =
have=20
difficulty in understanding. I acknowledge there has been some - =
GoM's=20
patron was Robert, Earl of Gloucester, so any town that is mentioned in =
the text=20
that is connected with Robert is frequently dismissed as having been =
inserted=20
solely to curry favour with his patron, and so have no historical =
reality. =20
That may be so, but that sword is, as I shall hope to show in the next =
post=20
about Silchester, a double edged sword.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6299A.FD1D8330--
|
