Content area
Full Text
A survey of Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae suggests that it is a work transmitted over many centuries, incorporating narratives mis-sychronized from different periods. Accounts from earlier known exemplars display a consistent variation, with those farthest in time from the twelfth century displaying the greatest degree of change. (EP)
The essence of humor is incongruity. Whether it is fair Rosalind dressed as a man, or a dead parrot in a cage, we laugh when we see the unexpected or the seemingly impossible. And when considering the many incongruities in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (hereafter HRB), laughter is now the overwhelming reaction of most scholars. Geoffrey claimed he was merely translating from 'Britannici sermonis librum uetustissimum' [a very old book in the British tongue].1 While this might have seemed plausible to a credulous medieval audience, more sophisticated modern readers find Geoffrey's claims either fantastic or downright fraudulent. Even more so is any idea that the HRB has much to do with history. That a Dark Age British ruler called Arthur was able to launch powerful naval expeditions that conquered Ireland, Iceland, and even Gotland, seems incredible. That Britain was devastated by an invasion of 160,000 Africans, led by a king called Gormand, only makes us smile. It is thus hard to avoid the conclusion that Geoffrey was making most of this up-and hugely enjoying himself in the process.2
It must be said, however, that scholars have often employed a kind of 'revelatory' methodology in making the case that Geoffrey set out to deceive.3 In a number of instances it can be shown that his references to earlier known sources are simply wrong. The exhaustive work of Neil Wright, for example, has shown several cases where Geoffrey seems to knowingly misquote Gildas and Bede.4 John S.P. Tatlock notes dozens of names used by Geoffrey that certainly had nothing to do with post-Roman Britain.5 This does not explain where most of Geoffrey's narratives come from. But it is argued that such manifest incongruities and anomalies prove that the rest of the HRB must be just as fraudulent. They allow us to 'see through' Geoffrey's other, more cleverly concealed fabrications, unmasking his work as the very opposite of history. The direct result of this is that any...