1136 Geoffrey of Monmouth - History - King Arthur and Politics - 1937

7/29/2019 1136 Geoffrey of Monmouth - History - King Arthur and Politics - 1937

1/20

Medieval Academy of America

King Arthur and PoliticsAuthor(s): Gordon Hall GerouldReviewed work(s):Source: Speculum, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan., 1927), pp. 33-51Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2849595 .

Accessed: 07/03/2013 09:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:09:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacadhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2849595?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2849595?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad


2/20

KING ARTHUR AND POLITICSBY GORDON HALL GEROULDTHERE is nothingew nthestatementhat GeoffreyfMon-mouthwas inspired o writehisgreatHistoriaRegumBritanniaeby other considerations han a passion forhistoricaltruth;nor isthere any doubt in the mindsof scholars that it was owingto theinfluencefthisbook,direct nd indirect, hat theArthurian toriesleapt ntogeneral iterary opularityustat this ime.' In all the writ-ing about thesematters,however, cannot find that anyonehasever suggested line of inquirythat seems to me veryhelpful oan understanding f whyand how the Arthurian omancescameintobeing.There has been a greatdeal ofdiscussion, omeof t fruitfulndsome of it barren, bout the geneticsof theseworks, s well as aconsiderable mountof sheerquarrelling bout the relative contri-

butionsofWales and Armorica o the storiesuponwhichtheywerebased; but therehas been too little efforto studytheirorigins nrelationshipo otherphenomena,iterary, olitical, nd religious, fthe twelfth entury.Yet it shouldbe evidentto all ofus that thesuddendevelopment fArthurian omancemusthave come aboutthrough deas and impulsesmore or less consciouslyoperativeinpeople of the time. Scholarshave too oftentreated this suddenflorescencef romanceas if it werea trueand not a metaphoricalflowering: omething botanical, uncontrolledby human action,which s to lose sightoftheplainfactthatneither purioushistorynoracknowledged iction omes intobeingofitself.Of course we do know that stories about Arthur nd at leastsomeofhis followers ad longbeen toldby theCelts. There is thereferencen Nennius,which takes us back to the seventh century;thereis the entry n the tenth-century nnales Cambriae,whichmentionsthe battle betweenArthurand Mordred; thereare themonksofLaon, who found n 1113 thatpeoplein Cornwallbelieved

1 J.D. Bruce, The Evolution f Arthurian omance 1923), I, 20.33

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:09:45 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

34 King Arthur ndPoliticsArthurobe alive, ustas did theBretons;nd there s the llusiontoArthurromboutthe ame time nthe ife ftheCornishaintCarantoc. William fMalmesbury,ritingn1125,wascognizantofthese ales,but condemnedhem s unworthyftherealArthur,whom non allaces omniarentabulae,edveracesraedicarentis-toriae." Accordingo WilliamtheseweremereBritonumugae,althoughe recordedn anotherassage thediscoveryfGawain'stombnWales, xplaininghat t wasthe gnoranceboutArthur'sburial lacewhich adgiven ise o the popular ongs"prophesyinghisreturn.William's ccount ftheSaxonconquests a sober ne,dependingponNennius nd Bede. It is noteworthyhatHenryof Huntingdon, howrotehis HistoriaAngloruMbefore 133,added nothingo the account f ArthuroundnNennius, houghhearrangedhematerialtherwisehanWilliam.Gifteds hewaswithmore maginationhancritical ense, apablefor nstance fdescribingattlesof theArthurianeriodwith nvented etail,HenryneverthelessealtwithArthur imselfn a single hapter,lacking,twould ppear, ny mpulseoenlarge pon hetheme.Thewaysof folkegend,fnotpastfindingut,areundeniablydark; ndwe shallprobablyever nowwith nydegreef ertaintytheextent ndprecise haracterf the naeniae o whichWilliamofMalmesburyeferred.hephenomenoneare nowconsideringis this:afterGeoffreyfMonmouthublished isastounding is-toria, here ollowed,hough otso immediatelys we sometimesrather arelessly hink, successionf writers homadeArthur,before he twelfthentury ad run ts course, hegreatkingofromancewhichhe has remained rom hatday to this. Geoffreyissuedhishistory, e are fortunatenbeing ble to saywithpre-cision, etween 136and1138.5

1 For a convenient ummary fthesereferences,ee Bruce, op. cit., , 6, 12.2 De GestisRegum, , 8, ed. Stubbs, 1887,Rolls Ser. XC, 1, 11-12.3 iii, 287, Stubbs, II, 342. 4 Ed. T. Arnold,1879 (Rolls Ser. LXXIV).5 See Sir F. Madden, The Archaeological ournal,XV (1858), 299-312; A. Leitzmann,

Arch. .d. Stud.d. neueren prachen,CXXXIV (1916), 373-75,and Bruce,op. cit., , 18, note.Of even greater mportance s Acton Griscom,"The Date of Compositionof Geoffrey fMonmouth'sHistoria," Speculum, (1926), 129-156,which embodies the resultsof the firstsystematic xamination f MSS evermade. It is regrettable hat one cannotaccept as any-thingbetterthan an interesting ossibilityMr Griscom's suggestion hat the Historia wascompleted y thespring f1136.



4/20

King Arthur nd Politics 35Several uestionst once ome omindwith eferenceoGeoffrey,only woofwhich oncern s atpresent,ince heverynatural nd

importantneabouthissources asbeenadmirablytudied y thelate Professorletcher nd by many ther cholars,' hilewe maynowhopefor ew ight romMrActonGriscom.Quite s importantas anyothermatters, owever,rethe questions f the extent owhichGeoffrey'sork ifferedn emphasis rom revioushronicles,and ofplausible easons orhis becoming he father fArthurianromance.Was his history,n the first lace,so newa departure?In the secondplace,what ed himto give Arthuro importantplace? If we could nswer hese uestions and I can pretendodo no more han make certain uggestionss to the second weshould ome o a better nderstandingf theArthurianlorescenceinthesecond alf fthetwelfthentury.The firstuestion, appily,s not a difficultne. We needonlycompareheoutline fGeoffrey'sookwith hose fhis mmediatepredecessorso see that even his ostensible urposewas differentfrom heirs. William f Malmesburyalled hisbook Deeds of theEnglishKings,Henry f Huntingdon ntitled is a History f theEnglish, utGeoffreyrote History f heKingsofBritain,whichat once imited isscope n onesense nd enlargedt in another.William, sober ndsophisticatedistorian,nd an honest neas modern esearchas proved,2ivided is historyntofive ooks.Thefirstanfrom he conquest f Britain yJulius aesar to thereign f Egbert; he secondwenton from gbert o the NormanConquest; hethird ealtwith he reign fWilliam ; the fourthhad to do withEnglish nd Continentalffairsuring he timeofWilliamRufus;and the fifth oncernedtselfwith the days ofHenry . To Arthur e devotedpart of one chapter n Book i,giving im smuch paceas the ources vailablewarranted and

I R. H. Fletcher,ArthurianMaterials in theChronicles,Harv.] Studies and Notes inPhilol. and Lit., Vol. X (1906), remains he most mportantandmark. See Bruce, op. cit.,I, 20-23, for reviewof nvestigationsn thisfield.2 The crucialtest s his littlework On theAntiquityfGlastonbury,hichW. XV.Newellstrippedof its later accretions Publ. Mod. Lang. Assn., XVIII, 1903,459-511) as didDeanJ. ArmitageRobinsoneven moreclearly (SomersetMistorical ssays, London: H. Milford,1921, pp. 1-25). It is unfortunatehatDean Robinsonfailedto read theearliermonographand give due credit o it.



5/20

36 King Arthurnd Politicsno more.Whatever aultmaybefoundwithWilliam'sudgmentndealingwith hisdetailor that, here an be no question hat hehadboth sense fproportionnd a sense ffact. He was, n short,a worthy xampleof twelfth-centurycholarship,nd he wroteafter hebestmannerfhiskind.Whenwe turn rom im oHenry fHuntingdon's istory f heEnglish, efindurselvesna differenttmosphere. isfirstditionwas divided nto sevenbooks, nlytwo of whichwere oncernedwith heNormanConquest nd later vents. He beganwith de-scriptionfBritainndtook verfrom ennius heTrojanfounda-tion, utdevotedmost fthefirstook otheRomans. The secondbookdescribedheSaxonconquest,ndthereforencluded rthur,butonly na single hapter likeWilliam.His third ookwasanaccount fthe conversionf theEnglish ndScots;the fourth fEnglishhistory own o the deathofEgbert; nd the fifthhieflyoftheDanishwars.There snothing rong ith isoutline,here-fore, ut every vidence fcarelessnessnthetreatmentf events.ComparedwithWilliam fMalmesbury,enrywasa veryncom-petent erson,who houghto makeupfor eneral ullnessy pas-sages fflashy hetoricnd whowasobviouslyncapable f he riti-cal effortfhispredecessor. etHenry,hough ithout istinctionof manner rcloseveracityfsubstance, aswriting survey fEnglish istory own o hisownday and wasnot emptedo ndulgehis imaginationxceptn details. What hemight avedone,hadGeoffreyurnishedimwith thematerials, is famous etter oWarinus,writtenn 1139, hows nly oowell.Yet GeoffreyfMonmouth ad an entirelyifferenturpose,accordingo his ownstatement,nd therefore differentcope.He had wonderedmuch,he says, even before etting is "veryancient ook" fromWalter f Oxford, hyGildas and Bede hadfailed otellofthekingswhoruledBritainn thepre-Christianra,andfailed lso totellofothers,ikeArthur, ho ived n succeedingcenturies. t is significanthat, ccordingo his ownavowal,hehad thus"wondered."Walter'sbook, ofcourse, nabledhimtosupply helack; and nothingwas evermore ordly han his epi-logue, nwhich egrants oWilliam fMalmesburynd Henry f



6/20

King Arthurnd Politics 37Huntingdonheir axonkingsbutenjoins ilence bout thekingsof heBritons,ince hey o notpossess hebook hatWalter roughtfromWales.1His themewas thereforehegloryndthedecadence fRomanandCelticBritain, ndwith his hemeheentirewelve ooks ntowhich edivided is work reconcerned. o fullywasheinformedthathedoes notreach he nvasion yJulius aesaruntilBook v,althoughWilliam fMalmesbury eganwith his vent ndHenryofHuntingdoname to it early n thefirstfsevenbooks. ThatGeoffreyncludednthis ection fhisnarrativearious tories hathave enrichedater iteratures beside hepoint fthepresent is-cussion.Afterwobooksdevoted o theRomans, e arrivest thePictishnvasions,nd so at hisArthurian aterial, hich xtendspastthebeginningfBook xi,while heremainderfthatbook ndthetwelfthregivenup toArthur's uccessors ownto Ivor andIny,who werekings fWalesonlyand endedthedayof Britishsupremacy.

Thus, lthough rthur'sctualreign ccupies nly lightly orethan twobooks,more han halfof theentirework s devoted opersonsonnected ith is tory.NowonderhatGeoffreyemarkedofArthurnhisPropheciesfMerlin,which onstituteheseventhbook: "et actus jus cibus ritnarrantibus." As Fletcher o wellsaid,"in hisHistoryGeoffreyidnothingessthan o create hehis-toricalromance f Arthur or themediaevalworld; 3 and hisworkas a whole s nothingess than theromance fCelticBritain.Inthematter epresented e wasnorivalofWilliam fMalmesburyandHenry fHuntingdon,orhepretendedobe thehistorianotof thedominantaces n the slandbut of the subdued nd back-ward-drivenelts.Why we comenowto thesecond nd difficultuestion ro-pounded bove should n aspiringcholar avethoughttworthhis while ogather hescatteredmaterials eused, ndstretch isimaginations he stretchedt, to write historyf CelticBritain?

1 If ex Britannia can bear thismeaning, s I believe. It seems to me that chapters 17and 18 of Geoffrey's ook xii, coming as they do just before the passage cited, make hisusage plain.2 Ed. San Marte, p. 93. 3 Op.cit., p. 56.



7/20

38 King Arthurnd PoliticsThe suggestionrofferedt the end of the twelfthentury yWilliam fNewburghhatGeoffreynd otherswhomadeupstoriesaboutArthur idso either romn inordinateove f ying r or hesakeofpleasingheBritons is clearlynadequate,venthough hefamous tory y GiraldusCambrensis thatthe devilswho wererouted y theGospel fJohn eturned henGeoffrey'sistory assubstituted,hows he sametendencyfcritical ersons o lookuponhimwithdistrust.The explanation illnotdo,becausenoone has ever iedat such engthndat such painssimply or hesake of ying,whiletis unreasonableo suppose hatGeoffreyadanyspecialwishto placate the Welshthemselves. he Welshofthatday did notfurnishrimeministersoEngland,with eaneriesandbishopricsn their ift. ThatGeoffrey as an ardent atriothas beenmore hanoncesuggested,utitdoesnotseemprobableonany score.In the first lace, there s no evidence, espite he BritonumnugaementionedyWilliam fMalmesbury,hat coherentegen-dary equence boutArthur xisted ntilGeoffreyreatedt. In-deed,thewayhe playeduponpassagesfromNennius nd Bede,using hem s so many pring-boardsorhisairyflights,ndicatespretty learly islack ofany source hathe couldfollowtraighton. Moreover,here anscarcely ave been 'Celticmovement'oinspire im. In the second lace,hewasconnectedhroughoutiscareerwith heNormansnd English, ndcertainly rote or hem.Be itnoted hathe dedicated isPropheciesfMerlin o thegreatAlexander fLincoln nd hisHistory exclusivelyn its final ormto the stillgreater obert, arl ofGloucester,lthough e didnotachieve bishopricortake full rders s a priest) ntil1152.In addressinghesemen,he was unquestionablyutting imselfunder hepatronagefthetwopersonsnhigh lacemost ikely oappreciateiteraryffortsnd torewardhem.Robert fGloucester,s the onesurvivingon ofHenry , wasa power nEnglandnotonlybefore isfather'seathbutstillmore

1 Historia RerumAnglicarum,roemium, d. Howlett,Chronicles f Stephen Rolls Ser.LXXXII, 1, 14). I quote thetranslation y Fletcher, p. cit.,p. 102.2 Itin. Cambriae, , 5, ed. J. F. Dimock (Rolls Ser. XXI, p. 58).



8/20

King Arthurnd Politics 39duringhereign fStephen,whenhe became hechief tayofhishalf-sister,heEmpressMatilda,andofherson,Henry fAnjou.Between 136 nd1138,however,hedateofGeoffrey'sistory,ewasatpeacewith tephen, avingworn conditionalathoffealtyin theformerear,whichhe renouncedn thelatter.1Althoughillegitimate,e hadreceived reat onorsndwealth rom enry,andgainedmuch hroughismarriage.ndeed,hewas ike vassalkingn the westernounties nd theWelshmarches,ndhe waswithal ccounted manof earning Beauclercikehis father.TohimWilliamfMalmesburyddressed isGesta egumn 1125 ndlaterhisHistoriaNovella. fhe couldnever uitehopeto be king,hewascertainlygoodperson ohavefor riend.t isperhaps otwithoutignificancehatGeoffreynhisdedicationeferredohimas if notherenry.AlexanderfBlois,too,whobecameBishopof Lincolnn 1123,was a greatpersonagen hisday. William fMalmesburyays ndownrightashion:Therewere hen womost owerfulishopsnEngland, oger fSalisburynd his brother'son,AlexanderfLin-coln.2Rogerwas usticiar fEngland ndin Stephen's eign apallegate,buthe was scarcelymoremagnificenthanhis nephew,worldly orman relatemore oncerned ith oliticshanwith hepractice freligionerhaps, uta patron f etterswithal.HenryofHuntingdon,ho about1133 dedicated o himhisHistory,saysthathewrote he work t thebishop's ommand, hichmayverywellbe true. Alexander as considered learnedman,eventhoughtwasprobably latteryn Geoffrey'sartto saythathewouldhave sung"prae ceterisudacilyra" ifhe had not beencalled ohigherhings.My point n citing hesemagnates fstate and churchs notmerelyo show hatGeoffreyfMonmouth asambitious, hichssufficientlvvidentrom hatwe know fhiscareer s a whole,4or

I Williamof Malmesbury, listoria Novella, , ed. Stubbs, I, 541 and 545.2 list. Novella, i, ed. Stubbs, II, 547.3 vii, 2, ed. San Marte,p. 92.4 It is certainly ignificant hat he never visitedhis remotebishopricof St Asaph's,though ppointedto it twoyearsbeforehisdeath.



9/20

40 King Arthurnd Politicsthathe was aware f thechief ountain-headsf honor n his time.The point s rather,t seems ome,thathe shouldhavehopedtointerest he prince f the royalhouse and the greatprelate n theromance f British istory,nd that, udgedbythe aterfame fthebook,he should ave been o successfulndoing his. It mightbe argued, o be sure, hatEarlRobert, s lordoftheWest,wouldhave likedto know he pastof hisWelshneighbors; ut it couldhardlyhave been expected hathe wouldwelcome glorificationoftheir ings. t couldnothavebeen xpected,hat s, unless herewere easons ther han ropinquityo account or t.To understandhe ituations I see t,onemust iewboth idesoftheChannel t onceandnotice ertain arallelsnthehistoryfthe Capetian nd Norman ynasties, hich an scarcely e fortui-tous and which hrow very nterestingight nliterarys well spolitical vents f thetwelfthentury.Hugh Capet dispossessedhe astofthe feeble arlovingiansn987, nd nthat ameyearhadhis onRobertI (thePious)crownedandanointed,hedouble itehaving een nstitutedn816 for ouisthePious, the son of Charlemagne. s Professor arcBloch hasshown n hiswhollydmirable ork, es rois haumaturges,1t wasquite possiblyRobert I, whoreigned rom 96 until1031,whofirst touched"for crofula. ertainly is grandson hilip (1060-1108) exercisedhis regaland dynastic ift, nd by thetime ofLouis VI (1108-1137) he ustomwasfirmlystablishedntradition.M. Blochpertinentlyemarksthatonehas difficultyn believingthat thiscrystallizationfthaumaturgicower ookplacewithnothoughtf tspolitical earingn a dynastytill ar rom ure f tsposition. It must be remembered,urthermore,hattheFrenchkings onsideredhemselvesuccessorsfClovis,nconnection ithwhose aptism, ccordingo a legend irst ecordedyHincmar fRheims in the ninth entury,he SainteAmpoulewas divinelyprovided. Thisphial ontainingelestial almwas preservedntheAbbeyofSaint-ReJmi,ndwasproducedt theconsecrationf all

I Publicationsde la Facultedes Lettres e l'Universite e Strasbourg, asc. 19, 1924, pp.29-41.2 Idem,p. 81.



10/20

King Arthurnd Politics 41kings fFrance,whothushad a sanction o which nglishkingscouldnotaspireuntil far aterdate.'

By theendof theeleventh entury,hehouse fCapetwas thusbuttressedya set ofbeliefsndpracticeshatwere f nestimableadvantage o monarchsurroundedyhostile ivals ndambitiousvassals. TheCapetiansmightack theenergynd sagacity fthehouseofAnjou,for xample, uttheyweremorehighly avored fHeaventhananyother overeignsn Europe;and in the ongruntheygainedsolidpowerfrom uch imponderabless miraculousunctionnd thegift fhealing.Robert I, Henry , and Philipwere otgreat ings,s theworld ounts uccess, uttheymanagedto attain, r their ounsellorsttained or hem, uniqueposition.It maybe surmisedhatthefinal mergencefFrance, s France,fromhewelter f trugglingukedoms asdue, na farhigher e-gree hanhistoriansave beenaccustomedotellus, to thefactorsherementioned. eeling s, after ll, oneof thegreatrealities fpoliticsnany age.SincetheCapetian ynastyegardedtself,nd wasregarded,scarryingn the succession fMerovingianndCarlovingianulers,it benefitedlso,withoutmuchdoubt, rom he extraordinaryndcomplicatedrowthfthechansonse gestenthe econd alf ftheeleventhentury.Whatevermaybe thoughtf Professoredier'sconclusions s to themakingof the FrenchEpics,2 t is scarcelydis-putable hat he has shown hem o be a product and whatwe

may ustly erm literary roduct oftheeleventhentury,ndof no earlier ate. Theirdevelopmenthus ynchronizedith heaccessionf anctityttained ytheCapets. It would e absurd oargue, fcourse,hat heroyal ineofFrance osteredhegrowthftheCharlemagneegendnorder o strengthentsownposition; orthatwould ttributeo thosemonarchsmachiaevellianhrewdnesscertainlyottheirs,nd itwouldhave been mpossibleeographi-callybesides. t is almost ertain, owever,hat hey rofitedromthepopularfame nto which he great emperormerged.HowI See Bloch,pp. 924-229,for heFrench egend, nd pp. 238-242,for he English mitation.Henry V, be it noted, was the first ing to use the sacredoil in England: Henry V, whoserightswerefar from lear.2 J. 1Bedier, es legendes piques,4 vols., 2d ed., 1914-21.



11/20

42 King ArthurndPoliticscouldhave t beenotherwise,ince hey raced heir acred escentfarbackofhistime oClovishimself? eeble houghheywere, hedivine anctionwas there,nd it musthave cometo theminds fmen s theyistened othe alesof heheroeswho urroundedhar-lemagne.Bedier's uggestion1hattheverynsignificancefsuchkings s Robert I, Henry , and Philip recalled heglories fCharlemagneycontrast,ndwaspartlyesponsibleor hedevelop-ment fthechansonsegeste,maypossibly eright; ut tseems ome moreprobable,n viewofCapetiansuccessduring hesameperiodn asserting distinctivelaimto sovereignty,hatthero-manticalesmerelytrengthenedevenffortuitouslya growingsentimentfnationality,hich ookedto thekings fFrancefortitulareadership.Across heChannel, Duke ofNormandy eizedtheEnglishthronen 1066,when hilipofFrancewas still t thebeginningfhis ong eign.Duke Williamwon ndheldhiskingdomyrightfconquest; ut he tookpains, s everyonenows,omake tappearthathe andnotHaroldwasthe egitimateuler fthe andand theproper eirofEdwardtheConfessor.He waswiseenough o seethatonlybya process fadaptation nd amalgamationouldhissuccessorsnd the Normannobleskeepwhattheyhad won. Theresults fhispolicy redescernibleven nthereign fhis notverywiseorsuccessfulldest on,whenn thewarsofRufus ndRobertthe hangef eelinghowstselfn the lteredseofnames; he ppel-lations Norman' nd 'French' rereservedxclusivelyorthedukeand his llies, ndthe upportersf he ing fEnglandre llcountedtogetherndiscriminatelys English.2Henry , whowasan astute fnot a brilliantmonarch,married granddaughterf EdwardtheConfessor,hus inking ishousemorefirmly ith he old lineofSaxonkings.Their onWilliam, orn n 1103, eemed estinedosettle or ll time nyquestion fNorman ightso the throne fEngland.But William erished hen heWhite hipwent ownn1120, ndbyhisdeathmadeperhapsnevitablehe truggleetweenStephen fBloisand theEmpressMatilda thatfollowed135.

I Op.cit., V, 454.2 K. Norgate,England under heAngevin ings (London and New York, 1887), I, 94.



12/20

King ArthurndPolitics 43Henry eauclerc,s M. Blochhas shown,' robablyouched ortheevil, althoughheevidence or t is an indirect eferencey

William f Malmesbury,2howas concernedt the moment ithEdward he Confessoratherhanhis ownking.M. Bloch's nfer-encethatHenry beganthepracticen England s strengthened,however,by the quite unequivocaltestimony f Peter ofBlois 3 asto itscustomaryndconventionalizedsebyHenry I. It wouldbe extremelynterestingoknow, lthough eareunlikelyver odiscover, hether enryBeauclerc ssumed hepowern the ife-time fPrinceWilliam,ronlywhenhishopeof eaving is crownto a sonwho united heEnglish nd Normandynastieswas soviolentlyhattered.n anycase, t wouldhavebeenverynaturalforHenry o takeupthepractice,ery asyfor im o believenthethaumaturgicfficacyfhistouch, orhemusthaveregarded im-self s quite s good king s his feudalord ndrival, ouis VI ofFrance.We know againthroughheresearchesf M. Bloch thatHenryBeauclercwasnot averse romaking dvantage fhiscon-nectionwith heEnglish ouse.4 nsteadofacknowledgingis mi-tation ftheCapetiansn thematterfhealing, e- orthemonksof Westminsterorhim developed suitable egendwith egardto Edward the Confessor,ccording o whichthe Saxon king"touched successfullyyvirtuefhisroyalty.WilliamfMalmes-bury'sotherwise omewhat quivocalreference akesit abun-dantly lear hat n1124 hebeliefwas current a falsity, illiamthought thatEdward'shealing ower amenon xsanctitate,edexregalis rosapiae ereditate.enryundoubtedlyrofitedythisbelief,s hedidbytheriseof thecultofSt Edwardwhich ccom-panied t.Thestoryfthisdevelopment,ndeed,s an interestingne, ndpertinento our nquiry.Edward,whodiedat theopening ftheyear1066,had acquiredno reputationor anctityuring islife-time, ordoreferenceshat mmediatelyollowed isdeath ndicate

Op. cit.,pp. 41-49. 2 De GestisRegum, d. Stubbs, I, 273.3Migne, Patr.Lat.,CCVII, col.440.4 Bloch,op. cit.,pp. 47-49, 82-84; and,moreparticularly,La viede S. ldouard le Con-fesseur ar Osbertde Clare," AnalectaBollandiana,XLI (1923), 17-44.



13/20

44 King Arthur ndPoliticsthat he was regardeds a person fdistinguishedoliness.Thetendencyo elevatehim to sainthoodmusthave begun re ong,however,incetwowrits romhetimeof AbbotGilbert rispin,whoruledWestminsteretween 085 (or thereabouts)nd 1117,state hatrefugeesought anctuaryt "the ltar fSt Peterndthebody fKingEdward." The movement,uitepossibly egunbypopularveneration, as equallyuseful o the abbeyand to theNorman ings,whofrom hefirst advirtuallydopted dward stheir wnandintheperson fHenry had alliedthemselves ithhis blood. Howcleverlyhemonks osteredhecult s shown y aprophecyttributedo the Confessor,hichs foundn an anony-mousVita writtenetween 093 nd 1120 ndreferredobyWil-liamofMalmesburyowards 125.3 This prophecy learly ndi-catedyoungWilliam,he onofHenry, s destinedo healthe andof ts lls,hebeing bough eunitedotheancestral tock.Although he busypropagandist ho invented he prophecywasdoomed odisappointmentn theearlydeathof theprince, eand hisfellow-workersucceedednattachingotheNorman ousethe egend fa saint n themaking.Osbert fClare, n1138, ouldwrite life fEdward hat howed imready or anonization,nddoubtless ouldwrite t in all sincerity,lthought was not till1161,when morepolitickingthanStephenwas on thethrone,thattheSaxonmonarchwas finallymadea saint. ForAilred fRievaulx,who n1l60wroteheofficialita, tEdward's ropheticvisionwasadequately ulfillednthefusionfraces hathadtakenplace.TheNorman ynasty ad thus cquired eforeheendofHenryBeauclerc'sreignnot only power,but mostof the trappingsfpower o valuablebywayof nspiringespect. t had not,to besure, heroyal almdescendedrom lovis,which avetheFrenchkings special anction; ut t had coronationsndanointings,ndithadestablishedelations ith memberf formerynasty hoserepute or anctity asgrowingndwas certaino eadtocanoniza-

I J. ArmitageRobinson,Gilbert rispin Cambridge: University ress, 1911), p. 37.2 Ed. Luard, Livesof Edward theConfessor,858,pp. 430-31 (Rolls Ser. III). For thedate, see Bloch's masterly iscussion, p. cit.,pp. 17-44.3 De GestisRegum, ., ed. Stubbs, II, 495.



14/20

King Arthurnd Politics 45tion nduetime.Perhaps, fter ll,itwasquiteas satisfactoryoleanfor upportnthedivine avor ccorded o thegrandfatherfa living ueen s onsomeoneo remotes Clovis. Furthermore,heNormanine gave proof f ts egitimacyyitsthaumaturgicift:Henry ya touch f his handcouldhealtheevilas well s Louis,andmust hereforee anequally acred ing.In oneessential espect nlywas theEnglishdynastyesswellprovidedhan he Frenchwith hepomp ndcircumstancefroy-alty. Therewasnot n thebackgroundnyfigurefheroic izesuchas Charlemagnead come o be in the maginationftheeleventhcentury.The Capetians ouldnotlay claimto descent rom hemightymperor,ut thelegitimacyf their uccession rom imwas attested y thesacredgifts heypossessed.Englandhad nosuchworld-conqueroro boast; and a dynasty ecomeEnglish nsentiment,f not n mannersnd speech, ouldnot wellencourageitssupporterso chant SongofRoland s a Norman ukecouldaffordodoin1066. Therewere lentyfAnglo-Saxonoyal aints,tobe sure,whowerenotneglectedn thenewera,1 utnowherenEnglishhistory as there universal loryikeCharlemagne.It isGeoffreyfMonmouth'sne clear itle ogenius, believe,thathe sawthesituations it was: thatonlyfrom ritish istorycouldthewantbe supplied.He welldeservedll thefamehewonin hisownday,andall thefame hathas beenhisever ince inspite fdetractors ifonlyfor hemomentf nspirationhenheconceivedhenotion fhis " librumetustissimum,uia Bruto rimorege ritonumsque dCadwaladrumfiliumadwalonis,ctus mniumcontinuetexordineerpulcrisrationibusroponebat."Indeed,hedeserved muchgreater eward hanwashis in hisown ifetime,sincewhathe accomplishedyhispenwas somethingfinestim-able advantage o hiscountry something orthnfinitely orethan he nconspicuousishopricfStAsaph's.Somestrokes fpolitical enius, owever,nd most iteraryn-spirationsan scarcely e paidfor nworldly onors,hemore othat frequentlyheir mportances not understoodt the time.

1 See Gerould, Saints' Legends (Boston: Houghton MifflinCo., 1916), pp. 132-136,140-142. 2 HistoriaRegum, , 1, ed. San Marte, p. 3.



15/20

46 King Arthurnd PoliticsOfnecessity,t seems o me,Geoffreyad to veilhimselfehindhis "veryold book" and Walter fOxford, ho was erudite inexoticis istoriis."There s no sense n regarding eoffreys avulgarforgerr a humorist.He could notwellpose as the dis-covererfhiddenhings; e must ppearmerelys thedisseminatorof nformationhatought obe commonnowledge. et it smorethanpossible hathe won esspersonal eputation yhisbookbe-causehewrote imself own implys translatorndcompiler.It has never een uggested,believe, ut t s a point oconsiderinconnection ithGeoffrey'sntentionshathisseventh ook, heProphecies f Merlin, o curiously ivalsand outdoesthe singleprophecyttributedo Edwardthe Confessor,iscussed bove.This seventh ook,perhapsn a longer orm,ppears ohavebeenissuedas a separateworkbefore hepublicationftheHistory.'It wasdedicated,s we haveseen, oAlexanderfLincoln.Now,Professorupert aylornhisvery sefulmonograph,hePoliticalProphecynEngland,2as shownt to be a peculiarityfGeoffreythathe usedanimals nd trees s prophetic ymbols, hich on-nectshis workwith aterWelshpoemsnwhich hesamedevice sfound.We havenoted hat heEdwardian rophecymploys treewithtsbrancheso hide tsmeaning; oted, oo,thatby1120theprophecy asfamous.3 eoffreyouldperfectlyellhave receivedthe inspirationorhis libellus rom hissource, arryingut theideawith hethoroughnesso characteristicfhim. In saying his,I donot mply, owever,hathemaynothaveobtainedmaterialorsome fhispropheciesromWelsh rBreton ources,utmerelyheprobabilityhathe was stimulatedy the successof the earliervision.4

1 The evidencerestson Geoffrey'swnstatement nd on thequotationsmadeby Order-icusVitalis,HistoriaEcclesiastica, ii, 47, ed. LePrevost, V, 486-492.2 New York: ColumbiaUniversity ress, 1911, pp. 45-47.3 Professor aylor's slighting eferenceo theVisionof Edward,p. 8, is notstrange, inceits importancehad not been demonstrated t the time he wrote.4 In viewofGeoffrey'seference o his shepherd'spipe (fistula),his rusticpipe (agrestiscalamus), as well as to his folkmelody (plebeiomodulamine),n the epistle whichhe sent,according o his ownstatement,with theProphecies fMerlin to Bishop Alexander, t seemsevidentthat he couldnot have had inmindsimply heproseprophesies s they re found nBook vii of the Historia. He says of Alexander,furthermore:ui prae ceteris udaci lyracaneres.What does all thismean? It has neverbeenexplained.



16/20

King Arthurnd Politics 47In manyways, hough heidea and its execution ere o ad-mirably daptedfor uccess, he dateofpublicationfGeoffrey's

Historiawasa bad one. As I havealready aid,we know hatthebookmusthave beengiven o theworld etween 136and 1138.Stephen fBloishadmadehiscoup 'e'tatfter enry's eath t theendof1135, nd inthe followingpring obert fGloucesteradgiven is conditionalathoffealty; utnothoughtfulerson ouldhavefailedohavemisgivingsbout henew eign.Hopetheremusthavebeen,nevertheless,hat Stephen impulsivend likablewouldkeephis oath to follow ut thepolicies fhis late uncle.Actuated ysome uchhope,nodoubt,Geoffrey,hohad ustded-icatedhis bookto the Earls of Gloucesternd Mellent, hangedthe dedicationo exclude he latter, utting he new king nfirstplace. One extantmanuscriptthus inks tephen ndRobert. tis not nconceivablehatthe ambitiousuthormayhave believedthetime ropitiouso aunch history esigned t onceto put suchfellows s William fMalmesburynd HenryofHuntingdonntheir lace,2 o flatterhe followersf Earl Robertwhohad Celticblood, nd to show o all theworld hatyoungKing Stephen adpredecessorss glorious s anyof whomKing Louis could boast.Therewas Arthur, is whole ifenow made clearto anyonewhocouldreadLatin Arthur,efore hom hekings f heContinentboweddown ithernfehltyrfear Arthur, howorstedven heEmperorfRome. Charlemagne asnogreater,nd he wasmuchless ancient.Unfortunatelytephen idnotkeepthepeace withGloucester,but nthe ummerf1138 eizedhiscastles ndplunged he ountry

I Codex 568, Staatsbibliothek, ern. The description y Acton Griscom, p. cit., uper-sedes all previous accounts. Mr Griscom'sargument hat Geoffrey's ouble dedication toRobert of Gloucester nd Waleran, Earl of Mellent, preceded that to Stephen and Robertseems to me as sound as it is brilliant. I take the morepleasure n saying his, ince cannotaccept as proved his attempt to give a precisedate forthe double dedications. Similarly,Mr Griseom's "The Book ofBasingwerknd MS. Cotton Cleopatra B. V," Y CymmrodorXXXV (1925), 49-116, XXXVI (1926), 1-33, has the great value of showing uite conclu-sively the need forproper exts nd textual tudiesof the Welsh chronicles osterior o Geof-frey, ven though hearguments or he existence f Walter's book seem to me negligible.

2 It is interestinghatthisgibe s not found none CambridgeMS., as Mr Griscom hows,Speculum, (1926), 137, but it does not affectmyargument.



17/20

48 King Arthur ndPoliticsinto devastatingivilwar. It musthave seemed oeveryonehenthatGeoffreyad hitupon very nauspiciousime ocelebratehesplendorsf thepast,unless ndeed s consolation orthe sorrypresent.Some mmediateuccess heHistoriamusthavehad,or so weare edtobelieve ythe win ouble edications.Weknow romhecaseofOsbert fClare,whopresentedisVitaofEdward heCon-fessor othenewpapal egaten1138, ndtook ttoRome, ogetherwith ther ocuments,resumablynthefollowingear,' hatwhatwe nowadays all propaganda id notcease whenStephen uar-relledwithRobert fGloucester.t isperhapsignificant,owever,thatexcept orGaimarnowriternthevernaculariteraturehowsthe influencefGeoffreyntilthe end of Stephen's eign. Thefloweringfromance, s I have alreadyhinted, id notcomeatonce. It wasdelayed or ometwodecades, ndbegan lmost m-mediatelyfter enryI cametothethrone.2 ne s ledtobelievethattheadvent fHenry lantagenet, ith court cknowledgedto be one of themostbrilliantnEurope,brought eoffrey'sorkintoprominencend gave riseto theromanceshatdrewupon tformaterial.What anbe saidsafelys this:the oincidencenthe ultivationofvariousmeans alculated o increase heprestige ftheNormandynasty, o curiously arallelingimilarmovementsn France,showsthatGeoffrey's istorywas evenmore mportant hanithashithertoeen onsidered. he researchesfmany cholars avedemonstratedhatstories bout Arthurwerecirculatingoth nWales and in BrittanywhenGeoffrey rote.3They have notshown, owever,hatthe "popular ongs"mentionedyWilliamofMalmesbury ere oherent, ell-organizedales. Since nvesti-gationhas proved hatGeoffrey, hileusingNennius nd Bedeextensively, hile dapting hemes rom he Old Testamentndcertainlyicking pmuch romurrentradition,nventednd em-broidered ith heutmost reedom,eareforcedo the conclusion

1 See Bloch, op. cit.,pp. 13-14.2 Wace's Brut,1155, and Thomas's Tristan, 155-70, are, by common greement, mongthe earliest.3 Abouttheevidencefrom he reliefs n Lombardy, here s still the gravestdoubt.



18/20

King Arthur nd Politics 49thatwithout imtheremightneverhave beenanyArthuriano-mances t all.

Geoffreyormedrthurn the mage fCharlemagne for erygoodand sufficienteasons, s I have tried o show. Whetherrnothe waswhollyonscious f these easonsmattersittle, houghI cannot elpbelievinghathe was. His wasthenotion fArthur,1 need carcely ay,thatpersistedn all theromancesxcept fewlateonesofEnglish erivation.fArthurecame hecentre or heexploitsftheknightsftheRoundTable,but himselfook mallpart nthem,t wasbecausehisposition adbeenfixed y Geoffreyas a world-conqueror:e was too lofty person o be involvednadventuresy theway. M. Bedierhas pointed ut that Charle-magne,n the amefashion, asalmost ever iven he entref hestage n thechansonse geste. t is notwithoutignificancehatGeoffreyisted heTwelve eersofFrance mongArthur'sords.'Iftheviews havebeenpresentingavevalidity,tfollowshatthe question s to theWelshversusArmorican erivationfthematerial sedbyGeoffrey,ndbytheromancersfter im, aslessimportancehanhasbeenassumed. f,that s to say,thegenre fArthurianomance e conceived ot as a self-directedndsponta-neous growth,ut as a kind of fictionultivated y story-tellersperfectlyonsciousfwhat heywere oing, heres noreasonwhythestory-tellershould othave derived uggestionsromhefolk-loreofboth BrittanyndWales,at thesametimeadapting ndinventing ithoutcruple.The sanctity fpopular raditions afetish fmoderncholarship:twasno affairfmediaevalwriters.Thatmaterialwas readily ccessible rom ornwall,s wellasWalesandBrittany,carcely eededdemonstration,houghthasbeensufficientlyrovedmanytimesover. Undertheconditionsthatexisted, herewasno strictineofseparation etween elticand non-Celticopulations. id notthemonks fLaonvisitCorn-wall as well s Devonin1113? Did notHenry plant colony fFlemish olkn the heart fWales? Was notBrittany lliednowwithAnjouand now withNormandy;nd didnotBreton roops

I ix, 12,ed. San Marte, pp. 132-3.2 William of Malmesbury,De GestisRegum,v, ed. Stubbs, II, 477.



19/20

.50 King Arthurnd Politicsserve nderWilliamheConqueror?t is notunlikelyhatGeoffreyof Monmouth imself ad Bretonblood,though orn n Wales.'Such waifs nd strays ftradition s would erve heturn f ro-mancerswere o be had fromvery ide; and it is quite apparentthatwriterswerenot too particularbout the genuinely elticproveniencefeverythinghatwent nto Breton ay or anArthur-ian romance.Should nyone nquirehow thappenedhat setofstories e-veloped n England to enhance he glory f Englishkingsandministero the pride fnobleswhohad learned o call themselvesEnglish, o servewithal s a balanceagainst he talesofCharle-magne, ame to be woven ntoromanceshieflyt therivalcourtofFrance,my nswersready.Suchwasnotthe ase. Weknow lltoo ittle bout heArthurianomancersfthetwelfthentury,utwe can saywith onsiderablessurance hat t was neither ouisnorPhilipAugustus hofosteredheir ndertakings.Gaimarwroteforthe benefit f an Anglo-Normanady,andWace, accordingoLayamon, resentedisBrut oQueenEleanorofPoitou. The enigmatic arie deFrance,whoeverhe mayhavebeen,wassomehowonnected,veryoneowagrees,with he ourtofHenryI.2 The equally nknownuthors fthetwo arly oemson Tristan, homas nd Beroul,wererespectively nglo-Normanand Norman.Chretiene Troyeshad as patronsMarie de Cham-pagne,the daughter fEleanorofPoitou, and Philip,Count ofFlanders.Robert eBoron'sdialecthas beenmuch ndispute, uthas beenthought o have Anglo-Normanharacteristics,houghprevailinglyhatofPicardy. Attempts ave beenmadetoidentifyhimwith woknightsoldingand nEngland; ndhe himselfefersto Gautierde Mont-Belial s his lord,Mont-Belial eing nter-preted s MontbeliardnBurgundy.Wauchier e Denain,finally,appearsto have written is continuationf Chretien's ercevalwhile nder heprotectionfPhilippe,Marquisde Namur.

Whatcanbe ascertainedrom ialect nddedicationsndicates,accordingly,hattheArthurian aterialwasused nthefirst laceI See Bruce, op. cit., , 19.2 See, Die Lais de Marie de France,ed. K. Warnke BibliothecaNormannica,Vol. III, 3ded.,1925), p. iii-ix.



20/20

King Arthur ndPolitics 51by writers hoeither ad English rNorman onnections,r atleastwere otnearlyoncerned ith heprestigef heFrench ingsas set overagainst heEnglish.Oncepopularized, fcourse, hestories elonged o all the world, nd wereobviously sed andembroideredyContinentalriters ithouthoughtf nydynasticor national onsiderations.hretien e Troyes,who cannothavebeena nationalistfany stripenymore hanhisroyalpatroness(orhermother,or hatmatter)maywellhavebeen he hiefnstru-ment ywhich hematter fBritain assed nto he realm fpurefancy.But GeoffreyfMonmouth,meanwhile,ad accomplishedhispurpose:he had romanticizedngland'spast,and done t soeffeetuallyhatwe areunder hespellofCeltictraditionven tothisday.PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.

Documents

1136 Geoffrey of Monmouth - History - King Arthur and Politics - 1937