Prolegomena
By way of a preface I'd like to note that, in medieval thought, belief begets behavior. The discipline of Philosophy recognizes three sub-disciplinary branches: Epistemology, which is concerned with how we know what we know, and with how we know we know it; Metaphysics, which is concerned with what is true and what is real; and Ethics, which is concerned with how we ought to live, both as individuals and as a society. Epistemology is the newest of these branches—most of us in Literature encounter it in the form of theory—and was not a major topic of discussion in Western thought until Descartes. Metaphysics is older than the oldest writing, as it encompasses not only the laws and facts of our world, but the less-easily-justified truths of that which is unseen. Metaphysics is often construed as entailing the Philosophy of Religion and the Philosophy of Aesthetics, among others. Religious truth claims, on which religious ethical precepts are founded, fall within the locus of the sub-discipline of Metaphysics. Because religious truth claims are difficult to prove, evidences that are accessible to all humanity are often sought as means of justification or substantiation of said claims; such evidences, when they form a cohesive line of argument, are called an "apologetic" (Gk., "a[n attorney's] case").
Combat-as-Apologetic
Geoffrey's inclusion of Eldadus' comparison of Hengist with Agag of Amalek raises an important metaphysical issue: that of divine right. I commented in class two weeks ago that Geoffrey has made a habit of alluding to biblical history in order to demonstrate the historical relationship between the Holy Land and Britain, which he later uses to establish the Britons' Christian heritage. Moreover, he also seems to use it to legitimate the truly British kings, such as Arthur (cf. Hengist, Horsa, and in some respects, Vortigern).
But how exactly does religious justification for the death of an enemy king allude to divine right? Simply put, it's a justification of divine right. As the establishment of Christendom progressed, divine right became an important justification of prevailing power structures, governing bodies, and of course, of specific regents. But in the period of history that Geoffrey has chronicled, we catch only glances of an incipient (awareness of? appeal to?) divine right because the entire basis of divine right—the matter of which deity has the authority—is still at issue.
In the bout between the Norse (and under Claudius, the Roman) pantheon and the Christian godhead, the sign of authority is victory. Essentially, battle is the apologetic. The army that's left serves the more powerful deity. Interestingly enough, this was not a new concept at the time Geoffrey was writing, but one that predated him by some two millennia. The reference to 1 Samuel (Geoffrey of Monmouth, 193) is a reference to a similar story from Hebrew history, one in which an enemy king with (apparently) weaker gods is put to death at the behest of YHWH. The chief issues at stake are the law of the land and the moral purity of the people of Israel, both of which hinge on the recognition of YHWH's authority and the imperative of human compliance with His statutes.
The issues are no different in Geoffrey's history; only the players have changed. The threats of paganism as viewed by the Christianized Britons are exemplified in the volatile political behavior of the Picts (Geoffrey of Monmouth, 151-155), or the duplicity of Renwein (162-163), Hengist, and Horsa (159-166). The theory thus went that the allegiance of all members of society, or at the very least that of a social majority, to the same deity assured a kind of social solidarity, inasmuch as said deity served as the legitimacy for the prevailing power structure, its leaders' regimes, and whatever policies (i.e., ethical statutes) they instituted.
Victory justified deity; deity justified regency; Geoffrey chronicled—and glorified—victory. It's safe to conclude that one function of The History of the Kings of Britain is the establishment of a nationally recognized metaphysic, one which would ultimately set the ethical parameters for social policy and political legislation in what would become one of the most influential nations in the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment