While reading The History of the Kings of Britain, I increasingly began to think about what Geoffrey of Monmouth’s purpose in writing the text was. As a medieval clergyman, he was evidently, or supposedly, dedicated to spread the Christian faith. According to Charles Dunn, he was probably a secular Agustinian canon. That is, he lived among religious men without being ordained. However, around the date in which he wrote the book, he was ordained priest and immediately named Bishop of St. Asaph in north Wales. Nevertheless, the number of contradictions with the Christian faith that are spread throughout the text make the role he is playing in writing the text interesting to ponder. If we add to this, the unreliability of the historical aspect of it, then we can only wonder what moved him to write such a book.
Not only is its historicity scarce, but also the number of tales that one would consider dangerous to the true Christian faith abound in a confusing, curious and interesting mix along with elements and beliefs of this religion. One of these is Vortimer desiring to build a pyramid with his dead body at the port to scare the Saxons away. Then Merlin’s origin, resembling the strangest cross between the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary and something disturbingly pagan. Regardless of this, Merlin is admired and respected by all. His prophecies are a strange mix between the Apocalypses and a series of superstitions. Then he helps King Uther change his physical form to be able to possess Ygerna, the Duke of Cornwall’s wife, making her the mother of King Arthur.
From these thoughts I get the impression that Monmouth was a member of the Church in order to live the intellectual life he wished, a scholarly life that implied, not a disciplined knowledge, but a possibility of writing about the topics that interested him.
Natalie, I agree with your analysis. I am eally sceptical of Monmouth and his "morals." It could be that you have hit the nail on the head when you say that he joined the monastry in order to have intellectual free-reign. Moreover,I am suspicious that being a Welshman, he became wrapped up iin trying to establish the glory of the Welsh past. He seems to be politically astute seeing how he dedicated his history to Henry and Matilda. I suppose Saxon or English "bashing" was acceptable as the rulers were Normans. Before I read this history, I honestly believed it was an authentic account of the rulers of Britain.
ReplyDeleteNatalia's right that a lot of Pagan elements existence within the text--they pretty much smack you in the face at times. However, I am a bit wary of proclamations which refer to "the (underscored)true Christian faith." Granted, Geoffrey's incorporation of talking eagles, magic, and giants (oh wait, these big things also appear in Genesis) doesn't always seem congruent with Christianity. At the same time, Christianity as a wholly unified philosophy has never really existed.
ReplyDeleteBy this, I mean that arguments about "the" true Christianity have been going on since the time of the historical Jesus. The council of Nicea wasn't until the fourth century, and this was called by Constantine I to address doctrinal squabbling between Christian groups. In the council's attempt to define orthodox Christianity, it moved to discredit many groups who at this point considered themselves followers of Christian philosophy. It's also famous for the Nicene creed which emerged. While this council in many ways laid the foundation for what we might consider "True Christianity," this was not the last meeting to discuss orthodoxy.
There have been many disagreements with and divergences from "True Christianity" (by this, I'm assuming you mean the Roman Catholic Church) over the years. Some of the big ones include--the second council at Nicea (8th c.), the Protestant Reformation (16th c.), and most recently, Vatican II (1960s), which led to a modernization of Roman Catholic doctrine. What I'm basically trying to say here, is that "True Christianity" is a very loaded term. And it means a lot a different things to different people.
So, back to Arthur. A lot of groups which have been colonized by Christian nations have incorporated native beliefs into their understandings of Christianity. I'm just speculating here, but I bet that the appropriation of old symbols and myths makes the transition to Christianity easier for people unfamiliar with the version of the faith being introduced. I know that enough ancient Celtic mystical beliefs survived the introduction of Christianity in order to warrant something we now call Celtic Christianity. Perhaps Geoffrey's use of these pagan images does the same thing. If we believe he's addressing a Welsh audience, then this audience may appreciate these familiar myths. Maybe his incorporation of pagan imagery with Christianity allows for his audience to comfortably transition to the "correct" beliefs.