Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:22:10.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sources of Geoffrey of Monmouth. I. The ‘Pre-Roman’ King-List

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Stuart Piggott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of Geoffrey's book and of the allied Welsh texts is a subject of such complexity, and has produced such a mass of technical literature, that the intrusion of a newcomer into these jealously guarded preserves of recondite scholarship is naturally liable to direct at once the cold stare of disapproval, or at best the wan smile of tolerance upon one so rash. I am not unmindful that in a previous world-conflict Sir (Emeritus Professor) Flinders Petrie put forward views on the Historia from an outsider's standpoint which were instantly demolished in a few quietly incisive notes by Professor R. W. Chambers. But, despite the vast tangle of adherent commentary which now envelops Geoffrey's book to an extent that all too often dwarfs the actual text, it seems likely that certain basic questions—is it a work of fiction or of fact, or if both, in what proportions—should be answerable to some extent by enquiring whether certain passages read convincingly as sheer invention, and if not, what prevented the author from making them so. I hope to show that one can trace in the Historia a use of certain documentary sources which to the best of my knowledge have not been recognized in full before. I venture therefore to put forward these tentative ideas in the hope that they may be followed up or refuted by those more qualified for the task than myself, examining the problem for the first time and from the outside, and in those enforced circumstances in which the only really accessible works of reference are the King's Regulations and the Manual of Military Law. As a contrast it is a pleasure to record my thanks to those who have aided me, notably Professor Ifor Williams, who has given me invaluable advice and helped to eradicate the more egregious errors from my argument.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 15 , Issue 59 , September 1941 , pp. 269 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Proc. Brit. Academy, 1917-18, pp. 251–78.

2 History, 1919–20, N.S. III, 225–28; IV, 34–45.

3 Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion 1898–99, p. 56.

4 I follow Griscom’s dating as set out in the Introduction to his edition of the Historia (1929).

5 Hist. Rerum. Angl., Proem.

6 All quotations from the Historia are taken from Griscom’s edition of MS. 1706 (12th century) in the University Library, Cambridge.

7 With this may be compared William of Malmesbury’s phrase about Arthur—de quo Britonum nugae hodieque délirant. (Gest. Regum. Angl. i, 8).

8 Mon. Hist. Germ., Chronica Minora, III, 133. Henry of Huntingdon similarly attributes Nennian material to Gildas.

9 Nennitis Vindicatus (1893), passim, esp. 16, 268.

10 History, 1920, N.S. IV, 35. Cf. also Anscombe’s note, ibid. 89.

11 For these in general see Griscom’s Introduction, eh. VII et seq.

12 Prof. Henry Lewis, writing of the earliest (13th century) MS. of the Brut gives it as his view that ‘ to all intents and purposes it is a translation of Geoffrey’s Historia—not a literal translation word-for-word version of course. It gives in Welsh, with insignificant additions and omissions, what Geoffrey gives in Latin ‘ (in litt., Jan. 1941).

13 Y Cymmrodor, 1887, VIII, 90.

14 E. W. B. Nicholson, The Dynasties of Cunedag and the ‘ Harleian Genealogies ‘, Y Cymmrodor, 1908, XXI, 81.

15 loc. cit. 260.

16 loe. cit. 86.

17 Published in Y Cymmrodor, 1888, IX, 141–83.

18 Ibid., 1887, VIII, 83–92.

19 Published in Y Cymmrodor, 1906, XIX, 18–50.

20 References to the genealogies in Harl. 3859 and Jesus College MS. 20 are given as ‘HG’ and ‘JC’ respectively, followed by the number of the pedigree.

21 Published by Skene, Four Ancient Books of Wales, 1868, 11, 455.

22 Trans. St. Albans & Herts. Arch. Soc., 1934, p. 161.

23 loc. cit. 159–65.

24 On the name ‘Nennius’ in early Welsh documents see Zimmer, Nen. Vind. 130–1.

25 I am indebted to Professor Henry Lewis for the information that the Welsh Bruts give this list with progressively increased omissions according to the date of the manuscript. Dingestow Court MS. (early 13th century) gives it complete. Shortened versions appear in the Red Book of Hergest (c. 1380) and Hafod I (first half of 14th century), where only six names remain, while Jesus College MS. LXI (15th century) omits it entirely.

26 Y Cymmrodor, 1908, XXI, 65.

27 op. cit. 277.

28 Mon. Hist. Germ., Chronica Minora, III, 133.

29 A Romano-British nucleus ending in 547 has been assumed by Foord (Last Age of Roman Britain, 26). Even Liebermann admits some such source for the Vortigern information (Essays in Medieval History presented to T. F. Tout, 1925, no. 3, p. 40).

30 For these dates I follow Nicholson in Y Cymmrodor, XXI.

31 Collect. Rerum Memorab., Bk. 22.

31A Professor Ifor Williams, commenting on this, notes that the Welsh Bruts translate crocea mors by angan glas, and the flava pestis is known zsyfadfelyn, with the adjective melyn=yellow, whereas glas is used of all shades of colour from grey to purple, including blue and green. In the Gododin glas is used of mead, and in Mod. Welsh angan glas is still used for pallida mors, and the verb glasu for becoming ‘ blue ‘ with cold, and so glas might equate with yellowish-green. On the other hand, with angan glas as a plausible name for a blue steel blade, he suggests a possible mistranslation by Geoffrey of glas into crocea, this presupposing the note in the original to have been in Welsh, and not in Latin as I visualize.

32 For the Celtic (mainly Irish and Scottish) sources of information on the recurrent plagues affecting Britain in the Dark Ages see Zimmer, op. cit. 302 ff. The death of Mailcun is not recorded by Nennius nor by Geoffrey, although the Bruts insert a note recording his death in a church (e.g. in the Dingestow Court MS.— Ac or diwedyd aethy mywn eglwys ger Haw y Castell e hun yn dygannwy ac yno y bu uarw) and Jesus College LXI further adds that he died because he saw the ‘ yellow spectre ‘, which may show a folk- memory in the 15th century of the flava pestis. The plague was presumably borne along the western seaways from the Mediterranean by rats in the ships, and consequently affected the Highland Zone to a greater degree than the rest of Britain, though the plague of c. 685 seems to have decimated the monasteries at Jarrow (Lives of the Abbots, cap. 14) and Lindisfarne (Bede, Life of St. Cuthbert, cap. 27) and to have affected other coastal regions such as Selsey (Bede, Eccl. Hist. Bk iv cap. 14). I am indebted to the National Library of Wales for the reading from the Dingestow Court Brut.

33 As suggested by Meissner {The Celtic Church after the Synod of Whitby, 66). I cannot however agree with his arguments in favour of the use of the same ancient Celtic sources by Geoffrey and the writer of the Life of Oswald in 1165. The latter seems merely to have copied direct from the Historia.

34 Foord, op. cit. 52.