What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of the Kings of Britain
Completed in 1136, The History of the Kings of Britain traces the story of the realm from its supposed foundation by Brutus to the coming of the Saxons some two thousand years later. Vividly portraying legendary and semi-legendary figures such as Lear, Cymbeline, Merlin the magician and the most famous of all British heroes, King Arthur, it is as much myth as it is history and its veracity was questioned by other medieval writers. But Geoffrey of Monmouth's powerful evocation of illustrious men and deeds captured the imagination of subsequent generations, and his influence can be traced through the works of Malory, Shakespeare, Dryden and Tennyson.
373 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1136
About the author
Geoffrey of Monmouth
84 books78 followersGeoffrey of Monmouth (Latin: Galfridus Monemutensis, Galfridus Arturus, Welsh: Gruffudd ap Arthur, Sieffre o Fynwy) (c. 1100 – c. 1155) was a Welsh cleric and one of the major figures in the development of British historiography and the popularity of tales of King Arthur. Much of his work is considered to be pseudo-history.
He is best known for his chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain); his document of quotations attributed to Merlin, Prophetiae Merlini (Prophecies of Merlin); and his poem Vita Merlini (Life of Merlin).
He is best known for his chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain); his document of quotations attributed to Merlin, Prophetiae Merlini (Prophecies of Merlin); and his poem Vita Merlini (Life of Merlin).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 366 reviews
Read
February 14, 2020Very odd, but popular medieval English work it survives in a (relatively) large number of manuscripts and is mostly fictional.
It is an entirely remarkable book coming from a remarkable place, from the edge of Norman rule, it creates or assumes a new identity, rooted in the mythical past of Wales but looking deep into mainland Europe. Britain is the island of immigrants, but Merlin provides an autochthonous voice - naturally evil advisers try to trick the king into murdering him, but the boy Merlin outwits them and orders that a great pit be dug - in which the assembled notables see two dragons coiled together - all the symbolism bangs our heads on the notion of rootedness, which itself is a curious turn of events in a text dedicated to one of King Henry I's (many) bastard children. Not that Geoffrey suggests that the new comers graft themselves onto the ancient root stock, no in a twist he uses the career of King Arthur - specifically the part were he rampages with a victorious army across France to demonstrate political continuity despite changing identities - the Norman Kings did as the Angevin kings would do - just as Arthur did and project power out deep into mainland Europe from among the deep roots of the mountains of Wales. National unity in this telling is not about shared ancestry but combination in a common (aggressive) cause. It is a slightly odd vision maybe and yet at this time such voices from the fringes were carrying odd legends deep into the European mainstream which pop up in Chrétien de Troyes among others to haunt our imaginations for centuries to come.
It is an entirely remarkable book coming from a remarkable place, from the edge of Norman rule, it creates or assumes a new identity, rooted in the mythical past of Wales but looking deep into mainland Europe. Britain is the island of immigrants, but Merlin provides an autochthonous voice - naturally evil advisers try to trick the king into murdering him, but the boy Merlin outwits them and orders that a great pit be dug - in which the assembled notables see two dragons coiled together - all the symbolism bangs our heads on the notion of rootedness, which itself is a curious turn of events in a text dedicated to one of King Henry I's (many) bastard children. Not that Geoffrey suggests that the new comers graft themselves onto the ancient root stock, no in a twist he uses the career of King Arthur - specifically the part were he rampages with a victorious army across France to demonstrate political continuity despite changing identities - the Norman Kings did as the Angevin kings would do - just as Arthur did and project power out deep into mainland Europe from among the deep roots of the mountains of Wales. National unity in this telling is not about shared ancestry but combination in a common (aggressive) cause. It is a slightly odd vision maybe and yet at this time such voices from the fringes were carrying odd legends deep into the European mainstream which pop up in Chrétien de Troyes among others to haunt our imaginations for centuries to come.
May 2, 2024
This book is not only about
Or
It is about a bunch of crazy people that lived throughout the history of Britain, all the way to the time this book was written (and the hopeful return of the Once and Future King), from the Trojans to the Anglo-Saxons, with a lot of myth mixed in. The book itself is very inaccurate, but it has early accounts of King Lear and Arthur Pendragon, so I do not care how imprecise it is, I love it. I mean, Monmouth said that "someone gave him the text for him to translate."
This is required reading for every Arthurian-Legend-Lover-Because-It-Is-Amazing-Because-I-Say-So!!!
Or
It is about a bunch of crazy people that lived throughout the history of Britain, all the way to the time this book was written (and the hopeful return of the Once and Future King), from the Trojans to the Anglo-Saxons, with a lot of myth mixed in. The book itself is very inaccurate, but it has early accounts of King Lear and Arthur Pendragon, so I do not care how imprecise it is, I love it. I mean, Monmouth said that "someone gave him the text for him to translate."
This is required reading for every Arthurian-Legend-Lover-Because-It-Is-Amazing-Because-I-Say-So!!!
April 22, 2019
"Si fuimos capaces de vencer en batallas de tanto fuste, obtendremos sin duda el triunfo en ésta más ligera, si ponemos igual empeño en aplastar a esos afeminados. ¡Cuántos honores les aguardan si obedecen fielmente mis órdenes, como leales camaradas que son! Tan pronto los hayamos derrotado, nos pondremos en marcha hacia Roma; una vez allí, conquistaremos la ciudad, y cuando la hayamos conquistado, entraremos en posesión de todo lo que encierra: suyos serán el oro y la plata, los palacios, las torres, los castillos, ciudades y demás tesoros de los vencidos"
Esta "Historia de los reyes de Britania" conocida clásicamente como "Historia Regum Britanniae" fue escrita por el clérigo Godofredo de Monmouth aproximadamente en el 1136 donde cuenta la historia de la antigua Inglaterra. Me interesó al poder encontrar la versión en español de esta obra que sirve de base para asentar la leyenda del rey Arturo, que a su vez inspiró numerosas interpretaciones sobre todo francesas de María de Francia en sus "Lais" y de Chrétien de Troyes en sus novelas sobre el ciclo artúrico, donde ya se tiñen ambas de un componente más romántico y caballeresco de alguna manera anacrónico pero que nutre la leyenda tal y como muchos la conocemos ahora. Estas obras todavía no las he leído y las tengo en pendiente por lo que leer la "Historia de los reyes de Britania" me ha sido muy interesante.
Monmouth cuenta en este relato que más parece crónica a manera de historia, a manera de relato mitológico tal cual como leer a Apolodoro o a Julio César, la historia de los reyes que han gobernado a la Inglaterra antigua llamada Britania, a raíz de su primer digamos fundador que es Bruto. Este personaje es emparentado como bisnieto del troyano Eneas, que así como él tuvo que hacer muchos viajes para poder llegar al fin desde Italia hasta la isla de Bretaña, durante su viaje mostró un valor, crueldad y poder fuera de lo normal y cuando llegó a la lejana isla que cuentan estaba habitada por gigantes la desalojó y posteriormente la empezó a poblar con (supuestamente) los sobrevivientes de los troyanos y sus descendientes. A partir de ahí nos viene un sinfín de reyes que pasaron, muchos de ellos dieron su trono a su hermano, a su hijo, sus hijos muchas veces se pelearon entre ellos desatando numerosas guerras civiles, es imposible recordar desde luego todo lo que acontece a pesar que el autor nombra de vez en cuando sucesos contemporáneos como la predicación de los profetas judíos, el nacimiento de Jesús y un largo etcétera.
Pasan por este listado el famoso rey Lear (que la verdad salté unas páginas hasta leer primero la tragedia de "Shakespeare"), luego los hermanos muy belicosos Belino y Brenio quienes en algún momento invadieron Francia y luego Roma misma. Posterior a ello viene la conquista romana por Julio César, nos describen de buena manera las invasiones dirigidas por éste y cómo le fue difícil llegar a conquistar la isla. Debo necesariamente leer documentos históricos para ver el grado de parcialidad con los ingleses desde luego. Y después viene la invasión Sajona (alemanes bárbaros) que fue una de las más duras para los ingleses.
En realidad todo el libro es un conjunto de matanzas, traiciones, guerras que fueron interesantes aunque no están tan bien descritas como uno quisiera (táctica sobre todo), los caudillos permanentemente pierden la cabeza por el oro, las tierras o alguna mujer; y eso tiene mucho de medieval en realidad por lo que mucho de lo que se cuenta debe tener bastante de verdad.
Tras mucho tiempo de invasión sajona aparece Arturo, personaje que reúne todas las cualidades posibles para ser un gran monarca y desde luego cuenta con la protección divina. No lo dije pero desde mucho tiempo los britanos se convirtieron al catolicismo por lo que la narración tiene bastante de religiosa y relaciona los hechos a todo ello. También se habla del mago Merlín y muchas otras cosas más que no veo necesidad de contar.
En realidad me ha gustado mucho, tiene un estilo directo, simple, te narra los acontecimientos principales aunque a veces en 10 líneas ya han pasado 5 reyes y los excesivos nombres confunden y marean un poco. Sin embargo el conocer el origen de la leyenda del rey Arturo, la poca participación de lo mágico en su relato (desde luego se habla de Excalibur, Merlín pero no tanto como creo en los libros posteriores de la leyenda artúrica) le da ese aspecto medieval, oscuro, terrestre y bárbaro que se me hace muy real.
Desde luego ya estoy listo para poder leer más libros sobre este ciclo heroico.
Esta "Historia de los reyes de Britania" conocida clásicamente como "Historia Regum Britanniae" fue escrita por el clérigo Godofredo de Monmouth aproximadamente en el 1136 donde cuenta la historia de la antigua Inglaterra. Me interesó al poder encontrar la versión en español de esta obra que sirve de base para asentar la leyenda del rey Arturo, que a su vez inspiró numerosas interpretaciones sobre todo francesas de María de Francia en sus "Lais" y de Chrétien de Troyes en sus novelas sobre el ciclo artúrico, donde ya se tiñen ambas de un componente más romántico y caballeresco de alguna manera anacrónico pero que nutre la leyenda tal y como muchos la conocemos ahora. Estas obras todavía no las he leído y las tengo en pendiente por lo que leer la "Historia de los reyes de Britania" me ha sido muy interesante.
Monmouth cuenta en este relato que más parece crónica a manera de historia, a manera de relato mitológico tal cual como leer a Apolodoro o a Julio César, la historia de los reyes que han gobernado a la Inglaterra antigua llamada Britania, a raíz de su primer digamos fundador que es Bruto. Este personaje es emparentado como bisnieto del troyano Eneas, que así como él tuvo que hacer muchos viajes para poder llegar al fin desde Italia hasta la isla de Bretaña, durante su viaje mostró un valor, crueldad y poder fuera de lo normal y cuando llegó a la lejana isla que cuentan estaba habitada por gigantes la desalojó y posteriormente la empezó a poblar con (supuestamente) los sobrevivientes de los troyanos y sus descendientes. A partir de ahí nos viene un sinfín de reyes que pasaron, muchos de ellos dieron su trono a su hermano, a su hijo, sus hijos muchas veces se pelearon entre ellos desatando numerosas guerras civiles, es imposible recordar desde luego todo lo que acontece a pesar que el autor nombra de vez en cuando sucesos contemporáneos como la predicación de los profetas judíos, el nacimiento de Jesús y un largo etcétera.
Pasan por este listado el famoso rey Lear (que la verdad salté unas páginas hasta leer primero la tragedia de "Shakespeare"), luego los hermanos muy belicosos Belino y Brenio quienes en algún momento invadieron Francia y luego Roma misma. Posterior a ello viene la conquista romana por Julio César, nos describen de buena manera las invasiones dirigidas por éste y cómo le fue difícil llegar a conquistar la isla. Debo necesariamente leer documentos históricos para ver el grado de parcialidad con los ingleses desde luego. Y después viene la invasión Sajona (alemanes bárbaros) que fue una de las más duras para los ingleses.
En realidad todo el libro es un conjunto de matanzas, traiciones, guerras que fueron interesantes aunque no están tan bien descritas como uno quisiera (táctica sobre todo), los caudillos permanentemente pierden la cabeza por el oro, las tierras o alguna mujer; y eso tiene mucho de medieval en realidad por lo que mucho de lo que se cuenta debe tener bastante de verdad.
Tras mucho tiempo de invasión sajona aparece Arturo, personaje que reúne todas las cualidades posibles para ser un gran monarca y desde luego cuenta con la protección divina. No lo dije pero desde mucho tiempo los britanos se convirtieron al catolicismo por lo que la narración tiene bastante de religiosa y relaciona los hechos a todo ello. También se habla del mago Merlín y muchas otras cosas más que no veo necesidad de contar.
En realidad me ha gustado mucho, tiene un estilo directo, simple, te narra los acontecimientos principales aunque a veces en 10 líneas ya han pasado 5 reyes y los excesivos nombres confunden y marean un poco. Sin embargo el conocer el origen de la leyenda del rey Arturo, la poca participación de lo mágico en su relato (desde luego se habla de Excalibur, Merlín pero no tanto como creo en los libros posteriores de la leyenda artúrica) le da ese aspecto medieval, oscuro, terrestre y bárbaro que se me hace muy real.
Desde luego ya estoy listo para poder leer más libros sobre este ciclo heroico.
February 14, 2018
Rule Brittania
14 February 2018 – Siem Reap
Maybe I should have written my review on A Farewell to Arms on Valantine's Day as opposed to some semi-mythological text about a bunch of British kings that probably never existed, but then again I've never been a big fan of Valantine's Day, especially when I started working only to discover that in an office environment you suddenly have this huge competition among the ladies as to whose partner loves them the most (based on the biggest bunch of flowers). I still remember that first Valantine's Day, seeing lady after ladying going down stairs and returning with a bunch of flowers, and one particular woman going down three times, returning with ever bigger bunches (and it was from the same person, or so she claimed).
Anyway, this is the second time I've read this book, and the first time I absolutely loved it, but then again back then I was one of those people who believed anything. At that time I never realised that Britain was originally colonised by the Trojans, that the British were the ones who sacked Rome (and that Brennius was a Brit as opposed to a Gaul). Nor did I realise that Constantine was a Brit, and that it was King Arthur that brought an end to the Roman Empire. Well, as it turns at I'm not entirely sure whether that really is the case anyway, but as Chopper Read once said, why let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.
So, the Historia Regum Britanae was a history written by Geoffrey of Monmouth sometime in the 10th Century, which puts it after the Norman invasion. Geoffrey, in his introduction, explains that he was always interested in who the kings of Britain were before the Roman invasion, and while he had been doing some research on the kings that came later (namely referring to sources such as Bede, Nennias, and Gildas), he was mystified as to what went on before. Well, to his surprise he was handed a mysterious Red Book, which gave him his answers so he then proceeded to write his own history. While many of his claims are dubious in the least, I suspect that this red book may have actually existed.
It is a great story, and a great history, though Geoffrey focuses more on battles as opposed to any real philosophical or political dialogue. In this text we learn of the origins of the British people – they were Trojan. A man named Brutus, who was about two generations after Aeneas, accidentally killed his mother and father so was exiled. He took a group with him to Greece to establish a new land, and in doing so went to war with his neighbours. In a act of deceit he slaughtered some of his enemies, only to be told that it would be best to leave because he had pretty much upset everybody else around him and that he would never have any rest from war if he remained. So he travelled around, landing in some places only to discover that the locals really didn't want him there, so instead of wasting manpower by constantly fighting, he moved on until he came to the British Isles.
As we make our way through the history we encounter Brennius, the aforementioned Gaul who sacked Rome, except that he wasn't a Gaul but actually a Briton. We encounter King Lear (however in this text it is Leir), who doesn't go mad in the moors and ends up dying along with all of his daughters, but flees to France, raises an army, and returns and reclaims his kingdom. We also encounter the Roman invasion of Britain, but Geoffrey writes this from the perspective of the British, and thus paints them as being much more capable, and unified (as opposed to the tribal structure that historians believe was actually the case). Finally, as we come to the 4th Century, we encounter the famous Uther Pendragon (which he suggests is a corruption of the name Uther ben Dragon, or son of the Dragon), who as a child flees to France when his Uncle Vortigern seizes the throne for himself. This then sets the stage for the final part of the book, where there is a constant struggle between the British and the Saxons, where in the end, as we all know, the Saxons win (and the British are confirmed to a small section of the island that we now know as Wales – it is Geoffrey's assertion that the Welsh are the true descendants of the Britons).
There is a suggestion that this history is the springboard for the Arthurian romances that come into play in both England and France. I noticed that when I read Bede, he skips over the period of time where Geoffrey places the story of Arthur. I suspect Geoffrey used this jump to insert the story (which probably was in the form of an oral legend at the time anyway, or at least in that Little Red Book), and it is one of the longest in the book. Geoffrey's account goes that Vortigern was ruling the island with an iron fist and with the help of the Saxons, but the alliance was coming apart. When Uther and his older brother Aurelius, came of age, they returned and fought against Vortigern and the Saxons, and of course won. However, both of them died, and this is where Arthur ascends the throne. Arthur does have a powerful sword, but it isn't Excalibur, nor does he pull it from a stone. Merlin also appears, but he has more to do with Vortigern and Uther than he does with Arthur (though Geoffrey does make mention that they do meet on one occasion). Interestingly there is an entire chapter dedicated to a series of apocalyptic style prophecies told by Merlin, who foresees the coming of Arthur. The way these prophecies are written suggest a heavy Biblical influence (though Geoffrey does refer to Biblical events as he is telling his story).
The story of the cuckolding of Arthur does not appear here, however while Arthur is away in France fighting the Romans, he does leave Mordred in charge of Britain (along with Guinevere). Once the Romans had been dealt with, he discovers that Mordred had claimed the throne of Britain for himself, so he returns with an army to take it back, which could flag the Lancelot affair down the track. Interestingly, I notice that Arthur is basically perpetually at war, but then again this isn't so much a defensive war because not only does he invade Gaul (Geoffrey seems to use Gaul and France interchangeably), but he goads the Romans into attacking him as well. Thus it is not surprising that we he eventually dies (sort of – he is mortally wounded and taken off to Avalon never to be seen again, sort of because the suggesting is that he may return), it is in battle.
I suspect that this work is very much like the Aenead was to Rome, and I do note that Geoffrey does start his book from where the Aenead ends. In one sense he is claiming British heritage from the Romans, thus suggesting, that like Rome, Britain is destined for greatness. While many of his battles aren't resounding victories, and his kings immortal killing machines, he does have the British conquer large swathes of Europe at least three times, as well as making certain well known figures British. Mind you, this was the 10th Century, and Britain had just been conquered by the Normans – except, they were really British.
Geoffrey seems to refer back to a part of France called Little Britain (or Brittany as it is known today). In a way what Geoffrey seems to be trying to establish here is not so much a justification for the Norman invasion – that had happened about fifty years ago, but probably still in living memory of many of the older people – but rather suggesting that Britain was now returning to her original roots, and the Saxon domination now being over turned. Then again, the Norman invasion, within a a couple of hundred years, suddenly evolved into a struggle between the English and the French, and a part of me wonders whether the Historia Regum Brittanae was playing in the back of the king's minds, particularly since that for quite a while Geoffrey's text was considered history (and I believe even Holinshed includes Brutus in his history).
14 February 2018 – Siem Reap
Maybe I should have written my review on A Farewell to Arms on Valantine's Day as opposed to some semi-mythological text about a bunch of British kings that probably never existed, but then again I've never been a big fan of Valantine's Day, especially when I started working only to discover that in an office environment you suddenly have this huge competition among the ladies as to whose partner loves them the most (based on the biggest bunch of flowers). I still remember that first Valantine's Day, seeing lady after ladying going down stairs and returning with a bunch of flowers, and one particular woman going down three times, returning with ever bigger bunches (and it was from the same person, or so she claimed).
Anyway, this is the second time I've read this book, and the first time I absolutely loved it, but then again back then I was one of those people who believed anything. At that time I never realised that Britain was originally colonised by the Trojans, that the British were the ones who sacked Rome (and that Brennius was a Brit as opposed to a Gaul). Nor did I realise that Constantine was a Brit, and that it was King Arthur that brought an end to the Roman Empire. Well, as it turns at I'm not entirely sure whether that really is the case anyway, but as Chopper Read once said, why let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.
So, the Historia Regum Britanae was a history written by Geoffrey of Monmouth sometime in the 10th Century, which puts it after the Norman invasion. Geoffrey, in his introduction, explains that he was always interested in who the kings of Britain were before the Roman invasion, and while he had been doing some research on the kings that came later (namely referring to sources such as Bede, Nennias, and Gildas), he was mystified as to what went on before. Well, to his surprise he was handed a mysterious Red Book, which gave him his answers so he then proceeded to write his own history. While many of his claims are dubious in the least, I suspect that this red book may have actually existed.
It is a great story, and a great history, though Geoffrey focuses more on battles as opposed to any real philosophical or political dialogue. In this text we learn of the origins of the British people – they were Trojan. A man named Brutus, who was about two generations after Aeneas, accidentally killed his mother and father so was exiled. He took a group with him to Greece to establish a new land, and in doing so went to war with his neighbours. In a act of deceit he slaughtered some of his enemies, only to be told that it would be best to leave because he had pretty much upset everybody else around him and that he would never have any rest from war if he remained. So he travelled around, landing in some places only to discover that the locals really didn't want him there, so instead of wasting manpower by constantly fighting, he moved on until he came to the British Isles.
As we make our way through the history we encounter Brennius, the aforementioned Gaul who sacked Rome, except that he wasn't a Gaul but actually a Briton. We encounter King Lear (however in this text it is Leir), who doesn't go mad in the moors and ends up dying along with all of his daughters, but flees to France, raises an army, and returns and reclaims his kingdom. We also encounter the Roman invasion of Britain, but Geoffrey writes this from the perspective of the British, and thus paints them as being much more capable, and unified (as opposed to the tribal structure that historians believe was actually the case). Finally, as we come to the 4th Century, we encounter the famous Uther Pendragon (which he suggests is a corruption of the name Uther ben Dragon, or son of the Dragon), who as a child flees to France when his Uncle Vortigern seizes the throne for himself. This then sets the stage for the final part of the book, where there is a constant struggle between the British and the Saxons, where in the end, as we all know, the Saxons win (and the British are confirmed to a small section of the island that we now know as Wales – it is Geoffrey's assertion that the Welsh are the true descendants of the Britons).
There is a suggestion that this history is the springboard for the Arthurian romances that come into play in both England and France. I noticed that when I read Bede, he skips over the period of time where Geoffrey places the story of Arthur. I suspect Geoffrey used this jump to insert the story (which probably was in the form of an oral legend at the time anyway, or at least in that Little Red Book), and it is one of the longest in the book. Geoffrey's account goes that Vortigern was ruling the island with an iron fist and with the help of the Saxons, but the alliance was coming apart. When Uther and his older brother Aurelius, came of age, they returned and fought against Vortigern and the Saxons, and of course won. However, both of them died, and this is where Arthur ascends the throne. Arthur does have a powerful sword, but it isn't Excalibur, nor does he pull it from a stone. Merlin also appears, but he has more to do with Vortigern and Uther than he does with Arthur (though Geoffrey does make mention that they do meet on one occasion). Interestingly there is an entire chapter dedicated to a series of apocalyptic style prophecies told by Merlin, who foresees the coming of Arthur. The way these prophecies are written suggest a heavy Biblical influence (though Geoffrey does refer to Biblical events as he is telling his story).
The story of the cuckolding of Arthur does not appear here, however while Arthur is away in France fighting the Romans, he does leave Mordred in charge of Britain (along with Guinevere). Once the Romans had been dealt with, he discovers that Mordred had claimed the throne of Britain for himself, so he returns with an army to take it back, which could flag the Lancelot affair down the track. Interestingly, I notice that Arthur is basically perpetually at war, but then again this isn't so much a defensive war because not only does he invade Gaul (Geoffrey seems to use Gaul and France interchangeably), but he goads the Romans into attacking him as well. Thus it is not surprising that we he eventually dies (sort of – he is mortally wounded and taken off to Avalon never to be seen again, sort of because the suggesting is that he may return), it is in battle.
I suspect that this work is very much like the Aenead was to Rome, and I do note that Geoffrey does start his book from where the Aenead ends. In one sense he is claiming British heritage from the Romans, thus suggesting, that like Rome, Britain is destined for greatness. While many of his battles aren't resounding victories, and his kings immortal killing machines, he does have the British conquer large swathes of Europe at least three times, as well as making certain well known figures British. Mind you, this was the 10th Century, and Britain had just been conquered by the Normans – except, they were really British.
Geoffrey seems to refer back to a part of France called Little Britain (or Brittany as it is known today). In a way what Geoffrey seems to be trying to establish here is not so much a justification for the Norman invasion – that had happened about fifty years ago, but probably still in living memory of many of the older people – but rather suggesting that Britain was now returning to her original roots, and the Saxon domination now being over turned. Then again, the Norman invasion, within a a couple of hundred years, suddenly evolved into a struggle between the English and the French, and a part of me wonders whether the Historia Regum Brittanae was playing in the back of the king's minds, particularly since that for quite a while Geoffrey's text was considered history (and I believe even Holinshed includes Brutus in his history).
March 18, 2020
As a number of people who know me well could easily attest to, I am fascinated by history books which contain very little actual history. Although these books are often of very little value in the field of history (The History of the Kings of Britain definitely contains very little historical fact), they remain very valuable when studying the culture of a place or time, and often illustrate a great deal about a people or a culture's sense of self. It's for largely the same reasons that I am so fascinated by The Book of Mormon which, although largely discredited by historians, nevertheless speaks much of an American sense of self.
This narrative history speaks much of a Medieval British sense of self. It has an almost schizophrenic approach when dealing with the Romans. Did they bring a great deal of culture to Britain? Or is it true, as a speaker in this narrative claims, that:
Greater than all its other evils is the harm done to [Britain] by the overlordship of the Romans: for no man is able to hold lasting power there without losing his freedom and being forced to bear the yoke of servitude.
The great irony is that these words were composed in Latin, and all through the narrative, the (likely subconscious) influence of the Romans is apparent. Not least of all in a tendency to drop in Latin names among the British characters as if such a thing were perfectly natural. But we should not let ourselves dwell on such discrepancies. This is a narrative in which pagans call upon the one true God, and Julius Caesar himself performs hand to hand battle with British soldiers.
In all, it's a fascinating narrative. One should not come to it for history, but for the study of a medieval culture, it is truly invaluable.
This narrative history speaks much of a Medieval British sense of self. It has an almost schizophrenic approach when dealing with the Romans. Did they bring a great deal of culture to Britain? Or is it true, as a speaker in this narrative claims, that:
Greater than all its other evils is the harm done to [Britain] by the overlordship of the Romans: for no man is able to hold lasting power there without losing his freedom and being forced to bear the yoke of servitude.
The great irony is that these words were composed in Latin, and all through the narrative, the (likely subconscious) influence of the Romans is apparent. Not least of all in a tendency to drop in Latin names among the British characters as if such a thing were perfectly natural. But we should not let ourselves dwell on such discrepancies. This is a narrative in which pagans call upon the one true God, and Julius Caesar himself performs hand to hand battle with British soldiers.
In all, it's a fascinating narrative. One should not come to it for history, but for the study of a medieval culture, it is truly invaluable.
October 26, 2013
Au XIIème siècle, en Angleterre, quelques décennies après l'invasion normande de Guillaume le Conquérant, Geoffroy de Monmouth, clerc érudit, rédigea cette Histoire des rois de Bretagne afin de doter sa nation de toute le lustre d'une antiquité riche en hauts faits. A l'instar d'un Virgile, il invente une dynastie qu'il fait remonter à l'ancienne Troie, et lui donne la même parenté que celle de la ville éternelle. On découvre ainsi l'origine du Roi Lear qui a ici trois fille, et non trois fils comme dans Kurosawa. Les luttes avec Caïus César sont présentées sous un jour nouveau, ou le conquérant n'arrache la victoire qu'à la faveur d'une trahison, après avoir essuyé maintes défaites. On trouve également le fameux Merlin, Uther Pendragon et le Roi Arthur, tels qu'ils seront décrits par les plumes enthousiastes et habiles de Robert de Boron et de Chrétien de Troyes. Les exploits d'Arthur le conduiront à menacer la puissante Rome, avant qu'il ne soit blessé et ne périsse en l'île d'Avalon, et que les Celtes ne succombent sous les assauts de la peste, des Pictes, des Angles, des Saxons, des Danois et autres Germains.
April 19, 2021
Historia Regum Britanniae is as historically accurate as I am Ryan Gosling, and the fact Geoffrey begins his text by essentially saying 'my source is one book and I've shoved in some extra details off the top my head', I wonder why it took till the Renaissance before anyone really called bullshit.
Pride was probably the reason, with The History performing the same glorifying act for Britain as Virgil's The Aeneid did for Rome. Almost exactly the same actually, since apparently my ancestors were also displaced Trojans, led by Brutus (no, not that one), who enjoyed some dashing adventures before hitting the Isles and comitting mass genocide against the native British giants.
The History covers about 1100BC to almost 700AD and details the lives of many Kings with no historical basis, how we colonised half of Europe, married British nobility to Roman Emporers and built huge cities that rivalled Rome, all of which we lost due to the Isles' oldest and most diabolical nemesis, the Saxons. Geoffrey also hates the Scots, the Welsh and 'effeminate degeneracy' with all the growling passion of a complete gammon.
I found this book hysterical. It's dry, pompous and unforgivably long in places, but that po-facedness makes it wonderfully funny when we have chapter titles like this:
Despite the ludicrous stories of Julius Ceasar being beaten back by his own sword (after it lodges in his British opponent's helmet and he can't retrieve it), or the rapist giants, magicians, angels and dragons that appear in this "history", we do have to thank Geoffrey for providing the basis for three British legends that later, better writers would improve upon: King Lear, Merlin and Arthur.
These first references to the Arthurian legend are partly why I read this, and you can recognise the foundation stones for later works. There's Merlin changing Uther Pendragon's appearance into that of a woman's husband, so he can molest her. Arthur has a decent sword called Caliburn, which would become Excalibur. We have the villainous Mordred, who is Arthur's nephew but not his incestuous love child, and Arthur has a wife called Guanhumara (Guinevere) . There's also a weird chapter where Arthur pauses conquering half of Europe to praise a pond with unusual fish activity, and it's never mentioned again. I'm guessing someone went 'Why is this bit in here? Sod it, I'll dunk in a magic sword throwing woman in my version'. As the earliest account of the Arthurian legend, it's entertaining enough, save for when we first meet Merlin and the infamous wizard gives what must have been fifteen bloody pages of one long, nonsense, cryptic prophecy.
The weird and magical stuff is still a fairly small part of The History, and Geoffrey mostly discusses battles, battle speeches, who begat who and whether they ruled peacefully. You will need to sift through that to find the truly ridiculous realms, and sadly it's not an easy book to read. My edition had some spelling mistakes (not Geoffrey's fault), and it's not always clear who's speaking or being referred to (Geoffrey's fault). But what's worse is that there are no dates given until almost the very end, when Geoffrey says 'and in the year of our Lord, 689, this bloke died'. Determining any other date requires guess work, like when real life Roman Emporers appear, but since the vast majority of the people Geoffrey writes about don't exist, it becomes a timeless maze of meaningless names and deeds.
It's an extremely flawed piece of fiction that will make any history lover weep with frustration, but very important for its influence on British culture and literature. It ultimately gave us Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and for that film alone I love that this silly book exists.
Pride was probably the reason, with The History performing the same glorifying act for Britain as Virgil's The Aeneid did for Rome. Almost exactly the same actually, since apparently my ancestors were also displaced Trojans, led by Brutus (no, not that one), who enjoyed some dashing adventures before hitting the Isles and comitting mass genocide against the native British giants.
The History covers about 1100BC to almost 700AD and details the lives of many Kings with no historical basis, how we colonised half of Europe, married British nobility to Roman Emporers and built huge cities that rivalled Rome, all of which we lost due to the Isles' oldest and most diabolical nemesis, the Saxons. Geoffrey also hates the Scots, the Welsh and 'effeminate degeneracy' with all the growling passion of a complete gammon.
I found this book hysterical. It's dry, pompous and unforgivably long in places, but that po-facedness makes it wonderfully funny when we have chapter titles like this:
Malgo, king of Britain, and a most graceful person, addicts himself to sodomyor this:
Constantine, having murdered the two sons of Mordred, is himself killed by Conanwhich, when taken out of context, sounds like the synopsis of an epic crossover fanfiction.
Despite the ludicrous stories of Julius Ceasar being beaten back by his own sword (after it lodges in his British opponent's helmet and he can't retrieve it), or the rapist giants, magicians, angels and dragons that appear in this "history", we do have to thank Geoffrey for providing the basis for three British legends that later, better writers would improve upon: King Lear, Merlin and Arthur.
These first references to the Arthurian legend are partly why I read this, and you can recognise the foundation stones for later works. There's Merlin changing Uther Pendragon's appearance into that of a woman's husband, so he can molest her. Arthur has a decent sword called Caliburn, which would become Excalibur. We have the villainous Mordred, who is Arthur's nephew but not his incestuous love child, and Arthur has a wife called Guanhumara (Guinevere) . There's also a weird chapter where Arthur pauses conquering half of Europe to praise a pond with unusual fish activity, and it's never mentioned again. I'm guessing someone went 'Why is this bit in here? Sod it, I'll dunk in a magic sword throwing woman in my version'. As the earliest account of the Arthurian legend, it's entertaining enough, save for when we first meet Merlin and the infamous wizard gives what must have been fifteen bloody pages of one long, nonsense, cryptic prophecy.
The weird and magical stuff is still a fairly small part of The History, and Geoffrey mostly discusses battles, battle speeches, who begat who and whether they ruled peacefully. You will need to sift through that to find the truly ridiculous realms, and sadly it's not an easy book to read. My edition had some spelling mistakes (not Geoffrey's fault), and it's not always clear who's speaking or being referred to (Geoffrey's fault). But what's worse is that there are no dates given until almost the very end, when Geoffrey says 'and in the year of our Lord, 689, this bloke died'. Determining any other date requires guess work, like when real life Roman Emporers appear, but since the vast majority of the people Geoffrey writes about don't exist, it becomes a timeless maze of meaningless names and deeds.
It's an extremely flawed piece of fiction that will make any history lover weep with frustration, but very important for its influence on British culture and literature. It ultimately gave us Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and for that film alone I love that this silly book exists.
October 3, 2023
122nd book of 2023. And this handily doubles up as #2 in my challenge with Alan: read something published before 1800.
Historia regum Britanniae / De gestis Britonum / The History of the Kings of Britain is a text written in the 12th century about the creation of Britain and some of our first kings. It was, somehow, considered historical until well into the 16th century. This is strange because within the pages you can find giants, dragons, magicians (notably, of course, Merlin), King Arthur and his magically empowered sword Caliburn, created on the ethereal island of Avalon and King Lear (spelt Leir), the basis of Shakespeare's later play.
The book itself feels like some weird postmodern game: Monmouth claims that Walter the Archdeacon presented him with 'a certain very ancient book written in the British language', which Monmouth then translated into Latin. Monmouth, in the chapter about King Arthur, mentions Walter again, saying he heard about the battle of Camlann from him, a man who was 'most learned in all branches of history.' So whether Walter truly gave Monmouth a physical book, or whether he had simply told him stories which Monmouth decided to write down, is unknown.
I'm embarking on a chunk of research regarding Arthurian myth and legends, so this was my first foray into it. Most Arthurian myth was invented at a later date, by the French, so here King Arthur is less a theological/spiritual tale and quest but rather a man spun to be a true historical King of Britain. Despite his semi-magical sword, Monmouth describes Arthur as being a strong, passionate and skilled leader. It reaches into the hyperbolic often: at one point, Arthur charges into battle with Caliburn and calling upon the 'Blessed Virgin', kills 'four hundred and seventy men'.
The familiar love triangle with Arthur and Lancelot had yet been invented, but Monmouth does relay, in brief, Arthur's nephew Mordred, crowning himself in Britain whilst Arthur is away and living adulterous with his wife, Guinevere. Humorously, this is written, 'About this particular matter, most noble Duke, Geoffrey of Monmouth prefers to say nothing.' He knows his limits. I was hoping to learn a little about the mythical place of Avalon, but Monmouth only mentions it once in saying that Arthur was wounded and retreated there to rest/heal.
As for Merlin, he spouts a lot of prophecies, tells a king about two dragons and steals the rocks that would later become Stonehenge from Ireland where they were placed by giants. In keeping with a lot of British history, Utherpendragon goes and slaughters the Irish who wanted to keep their rocks, and steals them. Later, Uther is buried at their site near Salisbury.
Next up is the French texts that takes these stories and creates them into spiritual fables and romances. And lots of poetry.
Historia regum Britanniae / De gestis Britonum / The History of the Kings of Britain is a text written in the 12th century about the creation of Britain and some of our first kings. It was, somehow, considered historical until well into the 16th century. This is strange because within the pages you can find giants, dragons, magicians (notably, of course, Merlin), King Arthur and his magically empowered sword Caliburn, created on the ethereal island of Avalon and King Lear (spelt Leir), the basis of Shakespeare's later play.
The book itself feels like some weird postmodern game: Monmouth claims that Walter the Archdeacon presented him with 'a certain very ancient book written in the British language', which Monmouth then translated into Latin. Monmouth, in the chapter about King Arthur, mentions Walter again, saying he heard about the battle of Camlann from him, a man who was 'most learned in all branches of history.' So whether Walter truly gave Monmouth a physical book, or whether he had simply told him stories which Monmouth decided to write down, is unknown.
I'm embarking on a chunk of research regarding Arthurian myth and legends, so this was my first foray into it. Most Arthurian myth was invented at a later date, by the French, so here King Arthur is less a theological/spiritual tale and quest but rather a man spun to be a true historical King of Britain. Despite his semi-magical sword, Monmouth describes Arthur as being a strong, passionate and skilled leader. It reaches into the hyperbolic often: at one point, Arthur charges into battle with Caliburn and calling upon the 'Blessed Virgin', kills 'four hundred and seventy men'.
The familiar love triangle with Arthur and Lancelot had yet been invented, but Monmouth does relay, in brief, Arthur's nephew Mordred, crowning himself in Britain whilst Arthur is away and living adulterous with his wife, Guinevere. Humorously, this is written, 'About this particular matter, most noble Duke, Geoffrey of Monmouth prefers to say nothing.' He knows his limits. I was hoping to learn a little about the mythical place of Avalon, but Monmouth only mentions it once in saying that Arthur was wounded and retreated there to rest/heal.
As for Merlin, he spouts a lot of prophecies, tells a king about two dragons and steals the rocks that would later become Stonehenge from Ireland where they were placed by giants. In keeping with a lot of British history, Utherpendragon goes and slaughters the Irish who wanted to keep their rocks, and steals them. Later, Uther is buried at their site near Salisbury.
Next up is the French texts that takes these stories and creates them into spiritual fables and romances. And lots of poetry.
August 24, 2018
It's best to stick to the Penguin version. This one is from "Createspace," a subsidiary of a large retailer.
November 14, 2022
This is a very interesting read, especially for Arthurian buffs. The book's description of Geoffrey as a "sometimes less than reliable" historian is some serious understatement - even Geoffrey's more learned contemporaries understood this "history" to be largely a product of the author's own imagination. But it's an important book nonetheless. In the course of Geoffrey's 2,000 year tale, he presents the earliest known version of the King Lear story and the first major English (non-Welsh) telling of the King Arthur legend, among many others.
So, readers interested in an early look at British history may be disappointed. But those who want to trace the Matter of Britain back to its beginnings will eat this up. Geoffrey's history influenced countless writers and artists for centuries, and it still has appeal today. 3.5 stars, recommended.
So, readers interested in an early look at British history may be disappointed. But those who want to trace the Matter of Britain back to its beginnings will eat this up. Geoffrey's history influenced countless writers and artists for centuries, and it still has appeal today. 3.5 stars, recommended.
April 6, 2020
I don’t like Monmouth. Dim-witted and blinded by a vulgar dislike of the Welsh, who he calls “unworthy successors to the noble Britons”, he has cut Arthur’s metaphorical right hand; in this account there is no Lady of the Lake bestowing him an enchanted sword. Instead, Arthur wields Caliburnus, which is not Excalibur, it’s just a sword and if Arthur wields just a sword, then he is just another king, wherein lies another issue with Monmouth’s histories. For King Arthur is not just a king, he is the King that will raise again. But these are subtleties Monmouth cannot comprehend, he is a mere English mortal, whereas Nennius will live forever.
This account is the equivalent of “a friend of a friend said that…”; Monmouth himself says he writes by inspiration from stories his friend told him and a mysterious book that Walter, archdeacon of Oxford brought from Brittany. I can safely say this is bollocks, as Monmouth has translated ad litteram from Nennius, from the first paragraph where he laments the lack of information regarding the islands in his classics (Bede, Gildas) to the scene when Merlin explains the symbolism of the fighting dragons.
There are several points of interest in the account, the genealogy of the British from Brutus and Aeneas, descendants of Troy, to the origins of the kings of East-Anglia, the genealogy of the Mercians, however these are shadowed by a multitude of inaccuracies, such as suggesting it was Merlin who brought Stonehenge to its current location, but this is rather ridiculous, as the stones predate Arthurian lore.
The only points that rose my interest were the ‘fact’ that Sir Gawain is Arthur’s nephew and that Uther Pendragon is buried at Stonehenge.
This account is the equivalent of “a friend of a friend said that…”; Monmouth himself says he writes by inspiration from stories his friend told him and a mysterious book that Walter, archdeacon of Oxford brought from Brittany. I can safely say this is bollocks, as Monmouth has translated ad litteram from Nennius, from the first paragraph where he laments the lack of information regarding the islands in his classics (Bede, Gildas) to the scene when Merlin explains the symbolism of the fighting dragons.
There are several points of interest in the account, the genealogy of the British from Brutus and Aeneas, descendants of Troy, to the origins of the kings of East-Anglia, the genealogy of the Mercians, however these are shadowed by a multitude of inaccuracies, such as suggesting it was Merlin who brought Stonehenge to its current location, but this is rather ridiculous, as the stones predate Arthurian lore.
The only points that rose my interest were the ‘fact’ that Sir Gawain is Arthur’s nephew and that Uther Pendragon is buried at Stonehenge.
May 15, 2018
Ova knjiga je fascinantan spoj istorije i fikcije!
Uživanje za ljubitelje njihovog spoja.
Uživanje za ljubitelje njihovog spoja.
February 17, 2016
"... it is easier for a kite to be made to act like a sparrow-hawk than for a wise man to be fashioned at short notice from a peasant. He who offers any depth of wisdom to such a person is acting as though he were throwing a pearl among swine."
Well, the short way to express my opinion of The History of the Kings of Britain is simply to say this: this book is a big freakin' deal.
Although this account is not seen as anything more than fiction or at the most very, very twisted bits and pieces of truth, I have to hand it to Geoffrey of Monmouth that it covers a very long span of time and manages to remain interesting through and through. Going into History, I knew there was going to be talk of Merlin and Arthur, which got me all excited to begin with. But to find out that the story of King Lear was told as well? That completely blew my mind. Not only does the reader get the bit of the story that Shakespeare adapted into his famous tragedy, but also the aftermath of how it all went down. As to not ramble for too long, I can summarize my thoughts: I love knowing that History is a big deal for Arthurian nerds such as Tennyson and even as far back as Malory himself. I also love knowing that the Bard got one of his stories from the same exact work! How amazing is that???
Now, History's account of Arthur is not nearly as embellished or famous as Malory's, of course, but one of the biggest highlights of the novel as a whole is Geoffrey's depiction of Merlin, from his origin to his prophecies. Although some of the symbolism in the chapter about Merlin's prophecies is somewhat undecipherable to modern-day scholars, a lot of it has to do with events to come later in Geoffrey's account or even events that took place in Geoffrey's lifetime or soon before it.
I do also appreciate how Geoffrey implements the use of Biblical events to give the reader an idea of what was going on in other parts of the world at the same time as events in Britain. To me, that helps me to put everything into perspective, as well as see at what approximate time Christianity began to spread northward and westward.
Well, the short way to express my opinion of The History of the Kings of Britain is simply to say this: this book is a big freakin' deal.
Although this account is not seen as anything more than fiction or at the most very, very twisted bits and pieces of truth, I have to hand it to Geoffrey of Monmouth that it covers a very long span of time and manages to remain interesting through and through. Going into History, I knew there was going to be talk of Merlin and Arthur, which got me all excited to begin with. But to find out that the story of King Lear was told as well? That completely blew my mind. Not only does the reader get the bit of the story that Shakespeare adapted into his famous tragedy, but also the aftermath of how it all went down. As to not ramble for too long, I can summarize my thoughts: I love knowing that History is a big deal for Arthurian nerds such as Tennyson and even as far back as Malory himself. I also love knowing that the Bard got one of his stories from the same exact work! How amazing is that???
Now, History's account of Arthur is not nearly as embellished or famous as Malory's, of course, but one of the biggest highlights of the novel as a whole is Geoffrey's depiction of Merlin, from his origin to his prophecies. Although some of the symbolism in the chapter about Merlin's prophecies is somewhat undecipherable to modern-day scholars, a lot of it has to do with events to come later in Geoffrey's account or even events that took place in Geoffrey's lifetime or soon before it.
I do also appreciate how Geoffrey implements the use of Biblical events to give the reader an idea of what was going on in other parts of the world at the same time as events in Britain. To me, that helps me to put everything into perspective, as well as see at what approximate time Christianity began to spread northward and westward.
March 19, 2024
Pseudo historical (and very entertaining) account of British history, written around 1136. It chronicles the lives of the kings of the Britons over two thousand years, starting with the Trojans founding the British nation and continuing until the Anglo-Saxons took over control of much of Britain around the 7th century. Considered historic until the 16th century, it remains a valuable piece of medieval literature, as it helped to popularize the legend of King Arthur.
August 13, 2023
Crazy how something that used to be history is now literature, don't you think? There were some very interesting moments, I had fun with them.
May 24, 2009
Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain is the story of all the legendary kings of Britian, from the founder, Brutus, the grandson of Aeneas, down to the last king of Britain, Cadwalladr. On the way, Geoffrey recounts the tales of King Leir, Cymbeline, and Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain. Most importantly, however, one fifth of the book is devoted to retelling the life story of King Arthur. Geoffrey was actually the first person to do this. Immensely popular in the Middle Ages—over 200 manuscripts have survived, as opposed to 80 of The Canterbury Tales and 50 of Piers Plowman—this is the book that started the fashion for Arthurian romance that continued throughout the Middle Ages, and is still being felt today in modern novels and movies.
Although Lewis Thorpe's translation is inaccurate in places, it's still the most readable translation available, and it has an extensive glossary/index of proper names. Michael Faletra's translation from Broadview Press is more accurate, and it contains a full translation of Geoffrey's other important work, the "Life of Merlin." The History of the Kings of Britain
Although Lewis Thorpe's translation is inaccurate in places, it's still the most readable translation available, and it has an extensive glossary/index of proper names. Michael Faletra's translation from Broadview Press is more accurate, and it contains a full translation of Geoffrey's other important work, the "Life of Merlin." The History of the Kings of Britain
March 7, 2024
This book was completed in 1136 and traces the story of the kings of Britain from Brutus - the great-grandson of Aeneas who escaped from Troy - to Cadwallader who died in 689AD. Along the way the reader encounters familar names such as King Lear, Cymbeline, Merlin, and especially King Arthur. Most of the kings probably didn't exist, but with great skill Geoffrey makes them more believable by providing synchronisms of actual true events such as Julius Caesar invading Britain, King Solomon reigning in Judea, Hengist and Horsa coming to Britain etc.
This book has the most wonderful index of over 80 pages that is really needed if you're getting confused between Assaracus the nobly-born Greek whose mother was a Trojan and Assaracus the nineteenth son of Ebraucus, King of Loegria.
This is a very entertaining read. The constant battles between various tribes do become rather repetitive after a few hundred years especially as most people die terrible, painful deaths that make them vomit their souls.
This book has the most wonderful index of over 80 pages that is really needed if you're getting confused between Assaracus the nobly-born Greek whose mother was a Trojan and Assaracus the nineteenth son of Ebraucus, King of Loegria.
This is a very entertaining read. The constant battles between various tribes do become rather repetitive after a few hundred years especially as most people die terrible, painful deaths that make them vomit their souls.
November 21, 2020
ENGLISH: A history of Britania invented by the author. In other words, as history its value is nil. But it has provided material for many masterpieces of literature, such as "King Lear" (Shakespeare), and the entire medieval cycle of King Arthur, which transcended from Great Britain to almost the whole of Western Europe: in France, it influenced Chretien de Troyes and the anonymous French Arthurian cycle ("La Queste du Graal" and "La Morte d'Artur"); in England, Malory; and in Germany Wolfram von Eschenbach (Parzival).
In some places where it wouldn't have been necessary to invent anything, as in the story of Julius Caesar's expeditions to Britain, Geoffrey also gives free rein to his imagination, citing an alleged letter from Cassivellaunus to Caesar in which he denounces him for trying to conquer Britannia, when both parties (Romans and Britons) descend from Aeneas the Trojan; a genealogy that Virgil made famous in Rome, but that Geoffrey has invented regarding those he considers the first settlers of Britain, which before their arrival was populated only by giants.
I think this book should be read, not as history, which it is not, but as a novel, remotely based on the ancient history of Great Britain, and written in the 12th century.
ESPAÑOL: Una historia de Britania inventada por el autor. O sea, como historia no vale nada. Pero ha proporcionado material para muchas obras maestras de la literatura, como "El Rey Lear" (Shakespeare), y a todo el ciclo medieval del Rey Arturo, que trascendió de Gran Bretaña a casi todo el Occidente Europeo: en Francia, influyó a Chretien de Troyes y al ciclo arturiano anónimo francés ("La Queste du Graal" y "La Morte d'Artur"); en Inglaterra, a Malory; y en Alemania a Wolfram von Eschenbach (Parzival).
Incluso en la parte en que no habría hecho falta inventar nada, como en la historia de las expediciones de Julio César a Britania, Geoffrey da también rienda suelta a su imaginación, citando una supuesta carta de Casivelauno a César en la que le afea que trate de conquistarlos, cuando ambas partes (romanos y britanos) descienden de Eneas el troyano; una genealogía que Virgilio hizo famosa en Roma, pero que Geoffrey se ha inventado respecto a los, para él, primeros pobladores de Britania, que antes de su llegada estaba poblada únicamente de gigantes.
Creo que este libro hay que leerlo, no como historia, que no lo es, sino como una novela basada remotamente en la historia antigua de Gran Bretaña y escrita en el siglo XII.
In some places where it wouldn't have been necessary to invent anything, as in the story of Julius Caesar's expeditions to Britain, Geoffrey also gives free rein to his imagination, citing an alleged letter from Cassivellaunus to Caesar in which he denounces him for trying to conquer Britannia, when both parties (Romans and Britons) descend from Aeneas the Trojan; a genealogy that Virgil made famous in Rome, but that Geoffrey has invented regarding those he considers the first settlers of Britain, which before their arrival was populated only by giants.
I think this book should be read, not as history, which it is not, but as a novel, remotely based on the ancient history of Great Britain, and written in the 12th century.
ESPAÑOL: Una historia de Britania inventada por el autor. O sea, como historia no vale nada. Pero ha proporcionado material para muchas obras maestras de la literatura, como "El Rey Lear" (Shakespeare), y a todo el ciclo medieval del Rey Arturo, que trascendió de Gran Bretaña a casi todo el Occidente Europeo: en Francia, influyó a Chretien de Troyes y al ciclo arturiano anónimo francés ("La Queste du Graal" y "La Morte d'Artur"); en Inglaterra, a Malory; y en Alemania a Wolfram von Eschenbach (Parzival).
Incluso en la parte en que no habría hecho falta inventar nada, como en la historia de las expediciones de Julio César a Britania, Geoffrey da también rienda suelta a su imaginación, citando una supuesta carta de Casivelauno a César en la que le afea que trate de conquistarlos, cuando ambas partes (romanos y britanos) descienden de Eneas el troyano; una genealogía que Virgilio hizo famosa en Roma, pero que Geoffrey se ha inventado respecto a los, para él, primeros pobladores de Britania, que antes de su llegada estaba poblada únicamente de gigantes.
Creo que este libro hay que leerlo, no como historia, que no lo es, sino como una novela basada remotamente en la historia antigua de Gran Bretaña y escrita en el siglo XII.
July 30, 2016
Geoffrey of Monmouth's tales I heartily take at face value--far more than the stuffy modern historian would approve of.
March 1, 2023
When Geoffrey of Monmouth published Historia Regum Britanniae in 1136, serious scholars of his day and a little later, including Gerald of Wales, criticized the work as obviously fabrication. Even in the twelfth century its contents weren’t believable. Almost nine hundred years later its legacy is not of being an important historical work but, as translator Lewis Thorpe puts it, as a legitimately incredible prose epic. Remember Geoffrey of Monmouth not as a historian but as an artist in the vein of Homer or Virgil. He’s right. Whatever historical merits this book has are unimportant next to its greatness as epic literature that fed the creativity of European writers over the next millennium.
As for those historical merits, I’m not sure how much of this history constitutes real history. There are real people and battles and events in here. Geoffrey pulls mostly from Gildas, Bede, and Nennius for his real history, and from the latter also for the bones of many of his myths. But the real history is overshadowed by the main attractors in the narrative, the enormous characters of myth who never existed, the raging battles that are brought to life with surprising detail and invention, despite never occurring, and a blend of people and battles and happenings that did exist, or maybe existed, but historians aren’t confident enough to say for sure. In short, this is myth-history that really stands tall as world epic.
What Geoffrey’s sources were for many of his more imaginative tales no one knows. There is speculation only. He claims to have been translating an old document from British to Latin, but that document, if it existed, has been lost in the hundreds of years that have passed. Some scholars think there is evidence that such a source manuscript existed, and that other histories were written from its information, but this has never been conclusively proven. Others contend that Geoffrey’s source for his wild tales were the stories of learned men of the church or the schools, who passed these tales down through oral tradition. But of these traditions nothing else has been learned. Many rest on the assumption that Geoffrey was the inventor of everything in this book.
Whatever the truth is, it’s a brilliant book. It can safely be said this is the book that brought the Arthurian legend to life, turning a minor character from Nennius’s bare bones history into the immortal hero of an entire continent for the next nine hundred years. Arthur and his court appeared in earlier tales from the Mabinogion, as a recurring character. This is where he really got his start in mythology. But he was never given such extensive development, nor was he the central focus of any of the stories, he was a supporting character, sometimes in the background. Here he takes up almost 20% of the book, and his heroic legend is fleshed out in grand detail. But there’s so much more to the book than the Arthurian angle that it warrants our attention and adoration from all sides.
Geoffrey was attempting a sweeping history of Britain, covering nineteen hundred years, from the legendary fall of Troy in about 1260 BC to the departure of King Cadwallader from Britain in 689 AD after the plagues. He was writing after the Normans had taken over England, and intended to produce a record of the island’s long genealogy of kings and battles to showcase the glory and heritage of its rulers, descending, as he believed, from Aeneas after he escaped from Troy, to the invasions of the Saxons. Geoffrey’s history claims Aeneas’s great-great-grandson Brutus was England’s founder, after a prophecy predicted he would discover the land on his voyage away from Italy and Greece.
The sprawling saga begins in the world and myths of Homer, and treats this setting as authentic history, colored with drama and battle and violence. These ingredients will almost never be missing from Geoffrey’s huge work. Brutus leads the Trojans into battles and eventually across the seas to their new home, not without conflict against pirates and monsters and hardship. Those who conquer the island with Brutus, like Corineus, go on to have their own side adventures and minor storylines, until we are generations later and many battles have been fought. We find ourselves in the years before the Romans came, when all manner of heroes and kings have arisen from long lineages of warlords and nobility. Brothers Belinus and Brennius, sons of Dunvallo Molmitus, quarrel and first oppose one another in Northumbria, but later reconcile at the behest of their mother, and work together to sack Gaul and later Rome. Their exploits and vicissitudes serve as the turbulent, exhilarating prequel to Rome’s invasion of Britain, which is dressed in elements of truth, like Julius Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul and his attacks on Britain.
King Leir, made famous by Shakespeare, first appears here in Geoffrey’s history, as the last in the line of Brutus’s male heirs. His drama is told in full, with his three daughters, their differing dispositions toward their father, and the grueling battles that would finally erupt as the aging king fought to regain his kingdom with one daughter’s help. This book seems to be either the origin or the oldest existent record of many pieces of folklore, myth, and legend that are now canon in European literature. One has to assume that Geoffrey had at least oral traditions as his sources, because if he made up everything he is credited with, he’s Britain’s real bard, a more original and inventive and creatively gifted inventor than all of those who would come later and have their names raised to everlasting fame.
There are anachronistic flourishes throughout the work. Early in Britain’s history, even before the coming of the Romans, Geoffrey refers to the Norwegians and Danes, and the rulers of these lands having conflicts with the British. The inhabitants of England didn’t have any encounters with, or knowledge of, Scandinavia at this time. He also has men in Arthur’s time and before, in the fifth and sixth centuries, traveling to and invading Norway and Denmark. I’d love to know the way this mythos developed, since to my knowledge the British didn’t become aware of the people of the north until the Viking invasions in the 8th and 9th centuries. Were these traditions that began with different people and evolved to depict the Scandinavians after their invasions of the Isles? I haven’t found any commentary on this so all I can offer is baseless speculation.
The Roman invasions of the island present us with many new kings, warlords, battles, and stories of excellent quality, an unwinding series of marvels and conflicts between Picts and Huns and Scots and Britons and Romans and barbarians of all types. The House of Constantine brings into focus the lineage of Roman descended rulers in England, until we arrive at King Vortigern, and the coming of Saxons Hengist and Horsa to the island. The king’s turbulent relationship with these men and their Saxon hordes climaxes in the Night of the Long Knives, and Merlin’s prophecies foreshadow the glorious rise of Arthur, son of Utherpendragon and nephew of Aurelius Ambrosius.
There is overlap with Nennius’s history, and Geoffrey tells of similar events but with an artist’s creative embellishment and force of imagination. The story of Merlin told by Nennius is here, with the dragons in the stones under the pools buried beneath the land upon which Vortigern plans to build his tower. The white and red dragons represent Britain and its Saxon invaders, with the red dragon to this day being the symbol of Wales. But Geoffrey goes the extra mile and reveals to us Merlin’s prophecies, many pages of obscure, esoteric riddles and word puzzles and metaphoric musings purported to have been uttered by Merlin himself. Where Geoffrey found these, or if he made them up, is not clear to me. I think some of them he took from old Welsh sources, like the Black Book of Carmarthen.
Knowing what we do about King Arthur’s later conquests against the Saxons, some of these prophecies can be pieced together into a coherent interpretation. Others remain an amazing mystery of animal references, strange observations of natural power, vague ruminations about war and victory, objects imbued with color and charms and light. Almost all of Merlin’s prophecies are indecipherable but sound convincingly magical so that legions of writers of later eras could have grabbed them as sparks of stories and critical moments in a plot.
There’s an extended tale of Merlin’s involvement in bringing over the Giant’s Ring from Ireland, better known as Stonehenge. Aurelius Ambrosius needs a monument for his fallen soldiers in their victory over the Saxons. Merlin’s brilliance allows him to transport these massive stones from one island to another. Merlin here is not magical so much as scientifically gifted, and it is through his skill in this area that he achieves most of his amazing feats. His only involvement with King Arthur is from a distance, giving a potion to Utherpendragon to disguise him as the husband of a woman he has fallen for, so that he may sneak into the castle at Tintagel where she has been hidden. In this way he impregnates her with Arthur.
The King Arthur of Geoffrey’s magnum opus is a ruthless conqueror who grows his kingdom far beyond the borders of the island, invading Gaul and most of Northern and Western Europe, taking what he wants by force. He fights giants, he marches against the Romans, and he backs down from nothing. He is portrayed as noble though not as virtuous as his later writers would have him. There is no round table, but he does have a court of knights in Caerleon-on-Usk: Cador, Gawain, cup bearer Bedevere, and Seneschal Kay. Arthur is heroic and virtually undefeatable. When he finally falls in battle he is only wounded, and is taken to the Isle of Avalon where, we can guess, he will one day rise to return to liberate England from the Saxons.
After Arthur’s betrayal by his nephew Mordred the kingdom is split among many rulers, which by now is the rule more than the exception in this island’s mythical and real history. Again, war and blood cover the land, and uncertainty reigns, the country lies in ruins as numerous conquerors lay waste in their campaigns, until plagues drive from the island King Cadwallader and his people, leaving behind only the Welsh to carry forward the memory of the ancients. Many surprising stories still are told in these unfolding centuries. It’s amazing how eclectic the numerous sagas and tales are, no two throughout the whole book sharing more than surface similarities, like grueling warfare, or feuding kings, or deceptive conspirators. Beyond that, every new thread of the narrative, whether a brief half page or 40 pages, feels new and unique, with historical patterns chugging below the surface, but the details and the people and the stakes always different. Every thread unravels in ways ghastly or fantastic or triumphant or awesome. Geoffrey discusses the Britons’ fall from grace, the ruination of their country, and its changing identity as it becomes England.
The book is an exceptionally thrilling story of these kings, their people, and their wars, their endless trials and conquests and failures. It is told with the skill of a master storyteller straining his fantasy through the lens of history. Though his scope is vast and covers many centuries, Geoffrey of Monmouth manages to expand many of the most fascinating characters and events into well contained sagas that bleed together into something greater. It has the same romantic qualities that made chanson de gests so popular, the Icelandic sagas so amazing, and that make the Middle Ages stand out as a time of remarkable beauty, oddness, and intrigue. This is one of the sourcebooks of Europe’s medieval imagination. I can’t praise it highly enough. It is a rare marvel of scholarship that appears deceptively serious and well researched at first, but is also an artist’s careful rendition of how he wishes history had unfolded. Geoffrey’s world of antiquity and dark ages is the model for all fantasy authors who came later.
As for those historical merits, I’m not sure how much of this history constitutes real history. There are real people and battles and events in here. Geoffrey pulls mostly from Gildas, Bede, and Nennius for his real history, and from the latter also for the bones of many of his myths. But the real history is overshadowed by the main attractors in the narrative, the enormous characters of myth who never existed, the raging battles that are brought to life with surprising detail and invention, despite never occurring, and a blend of people and battles and happenings that did exist, or maybe existed, but historians aren’t confident enough to say for sure. In short, this is myth-history that really stands tall as world epic.
What Geoffrey’s sources were for many of his more imaginative tales no one knows. There is speculation only. He claims to have been translating an old document from British to Latin, but that document, if it existed, has been lost in the hundreds of years that have passed. Some scholars think there is evidence that such a source manuscript existed, and that other histories were written from its information, but this has never been conclusively proven. Others contend that Geoffrey’s source for his wild tales were the stories of learned men of the church or the schools, who passed these tales down through oral tradition. But of these traditions nothing else has been learned. Many rest on the assumption that Geoffrey was the inventor of everything in this book.
Whatever the truth is, it’s a brilliant book. It can safely be said this is the book that brought the Arthurian legend to life, turning a minor character from Nennius’s bare bones history into the immortal hero of an entire continent for the next nine hundred years. Arthur and his court appeared in earlier tales from the Mabinogion, as a recurring character. This is where he really got his start in mythology. But he was never given such extensive development, nor was he the central focus of any of the stories, he was a supporting character, sometimes in the background. Here he takes up almost 20% of the book, and his heroic legend is fleshed out in grand detail. But there’s so much more to the book than the Arthurian angle that it warrants our attention and adoration from all sides.
Geoffrey was attempting a sweeping history of Britain, covering nineteen hundred years, from the legendary fall of Troy in about 1260 BC to the departure of King Cadwallader from Britain in 689 AD after the plagues. He was writing after the Normans had taken over England, and intended to produce a record of the island’s long genealogy of kings and battles to showcase the glory and heritage of its rulers, descending, as he believed, from Aeneas after he escaped from Troy, to the invasions of the Saxons. Geoffrey’s history claims Aeneas’s great-great-grandson Brutus was England’s founder, after a prophecy predicted he would discover the land on his voyage away from Italy and Greece.
The sprawling saga begins in the world and myths of Homer, and treats this setting as authentic history, colored with drama and battle and violence. These ingredients will almost never be missing from Geoffrey’s huge work. Brutus leads the Trojans into battles and eventually across the seas to their new home, not without conflict against pirates and monsters and hardship. Those who conquer the island with Brutus, like Corineus, go on to have their own side adventures and minor storylines, until we are generations later and many battles have been fought. We find ourselves in the years before the Romans came, when all manner of heroes and kings have arisen from long lineages of warlords and nobility. Brothers Belinus and Brennius, sons of Dunvallo Molmitus, quarrel and first oppose one another in Northumbria, but later reconcile at the behest of their mother, and work together to sack Gaul and later Rome. Their exploits and vicissitudes serve as the turbulent, exhilarating prequel to Rome’s invasion of Britain, which is dressed in elements of truth, like Julius Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul and his attacks on Britain.
King Leir, made famous by Shakespeare, first appears here in Geoffrey’s history, as the last in the line of Brutus’s male heirs. His drama is told in full, with his three daughters, their differing dispositions toward their father, and the grueling battles that would finally erupt as the aging king fought to regain his kingdom with one daughter’s help. This book seems to be either the origin or the oldest existent record of many pieces of folklore, myth, and legend that are now canon in European literature. One has to assume that Geoffrey had at least oral traditions as his sources, because if he made up everything he is credited with, he’s Britain’s real bard, a more original and inventive and creatively gifted inventor than all of those who would come later and have their names raised to everlasting fame.
There are anachronistic flourishes throughout the work. Early in Britain’s history, even before the coming of the Romans, Geoffrey refers to the Norwegians and Danes, and the rulers of these lands having conflicts with the British. The inhabitants of England didn’t have any encounters with, or knowledge of, Scandinavia at this time. He also has men in Arthur’s time and before, in the fifth and sixth centuries, traveling to and invading Norway and Denmark. I’d love to know the way this mythos developed, since to my knowledge the British didn’t become aware of the people of the north until the Viking invasions in the 8th and 9th centuries. Were these traditions that began with different people and evolved to depict the Scandinavians after their invasions of the Isles? I haven’t found any commentary on this so all I can offer is baseless speculation.
The Roman invasions of the island present us with many new kings, warlords, battles, and stories of excellent quality, an unwinding series of marvels and conflicts between Picts and Huns and Scots and Britons and Romans and barbarians of all types. The House of Constantine brings into focus the lineage of Roman descended rulers in England, until we arrive at King Vortigern, and the coming of Saxons Hengist and Horsa to the island. The king’s turbulent relationship with these men and their Saxon hordes climaxes in the Night of the Long Knives, and Merlin’s prophecies foreshadow the glorious rise of Arthur, son of Utherpendragon and nephew of Aurelius Ambrosius.
There is overlap with Nennius’s history, and Geoffrey tells of similar events but with an artist’s creative embellishment and force of imagination. The story of Merlin told by Nennius is here, with the dragons in the stones under the pools buried beneath the land upon which Vortigern plans to build his tower. The white and red dragons represent Britain and its Saxon invaders, with the red dragon to this day being the symbol of Wales. But Geoffrey goes the extra mile and reveals to us Merlin’s prophecies, many pages of obscure, esoteric riddles and word puzzles and metaphoric musings purported to have been uttered by Merlin himself. Where Geoffrey found these, or if he made them up, is not clear to me. I think some of them he took from old Welsh sources, like the Black Book of Carmarthen.
Knowing what we do about King Arthur’s later conquests against the Saxons, some of these prophecies can be pieced together into a coherent interpretation. Others remain an amazing mystery of animal references, strange observations of natural power, vague ruminations about war and victory, objects imbued with color and charms and light. Almost all of Merlin’s prophecies are indecipherable but sound convincingly magical so that legions of writers of later eras could have grabbed them as sparks of stories and critical moments in a plot.
There’s an extended tale of Merlin’s involvement in bringing over the Giant’s Ring from Ireland, better known as Stonehenge. Aurelius Ambrosius needs a monument for his fallen soldiers in their victory over the Saxons. Merlin’s brilliance allows him to transport these massive stones from one island to another. Merlin here is not magical so much as scientifically gifted, and it is through his skill in this area that he achieves most of his amazing feats. His only involvement with King Arthur is from a distance, giving a potion to Utherpendragon to disguise him as the husband of a woman he has fallen for, so that he may sneak into the castle at Tintagel where she has been hidden. In this way he impregnates her with Arthur.
The King Arthur of Geoffrey’s magnum opus is a ruthless conqueror who grows his kingdom far beyond the borders of the island, invading Gaul and most of Northern and Western Europe, taking what he wants by force. He fights giants, he marches against the Romans, and he backs down from nothing. He is portrayed as noble though not as virtuous as his later writers would have him. There is no round table, but he does have a court of knights in Caerleon-on-Usk: Cador, Gawain, cup bearer Bedevere, and Seneschal Kay. Arthur is heroic and virtually undefeatable. When he finally falls in battle he is only wounded, and is taken to the Isle of Avalon where, we can guess, he will one day rise to return to liberate England from the Saxons.
After Arthur’s betrayal by his nephew Mordred the kingdom is split among many rulers, which by now is the rule more than the exception in this island’s mythical and real history. Again, war and blood cover the land, and uncertainty reigns, the country lies in ruins as numerous conquerors lay waste in their campaigns, until plagues drive from the island King Cadwallader and his people, leaving behind only the Welsh to carry forward the memory of the ancients. Many surprising stories still are told in these unfolding centuries. It’s amazing how eclectic the numerous sagas and tales are, no two throughout the whole book sharing more than surface similarities, like grueling warfare, or feuding kings, or deceptive conspirators. Beyond that, every new thread of the narrative, whether a brief half page or 40 pages, feels new and unique, with historical patterns chugging below the surface, but the details and the people and the stakes always different. Every thread unravels in ways ghastly or fantastic or triumphant or awesome. Geoffrey discusses the Britons’ fall from grace, the ruination of their country, and its changing identity as it becomes England.
The book is an exceptionally thrilling story of these kings, their people, and their wars, their endless trials and conquests and failures. It is told with the skill of a master storyteller straining his fantasy through the lens of history. Though his scope is vast and covers many centuries, Geoffrey of Monmouth manages to expand many of the most fascinating characters and events into well contained sagas that bleed together into something greater. It has the same romantic qualities that made chanson de gests so popular, the Icelandic sagas so amazing, and that make the Middle Ages stand out as a time of remarkable beauty, oddness, and intrigue. This is one of the sourcebooks of Europe’s medieval imagination. I can’t praise it highly enough. It is a rare marvel of scholarship that appears deceptively serious and well researched at first, but is also an artist’s careful rendition of how he wishes history had unfolded. Geoffrey’s world of antiquity and dark ages is the model for all fantasy authors who came later.
April 21, 2020
Epic tales of the founding and ancient kings of Britain.
June 7, 2022
absolute dogshit but i love that merlin is a 12 year old boy who constantly bursts into tears and then builds stonehenge. 10/10
April 16, 2011
Have you ever heard of the Reduced Shakespeare Company? They were a comedy troupe who specialized in abbreviated versions of Shakespeare's plays. Supposedly, they hold the record for the quickest performance of Hamlet, clocking in at 43 seconds. Impressive, huh?
No less impressive is Geoffrey of Monmouth. In The History of the Kings of Britain, he blazes through about 2000 years in less than 300 pages (actually closer to 200 when you take out the introduction.)
Centuries fly by like seconds, and before you know it, it's 524 AD, and King Arthur has just kicked the bucket. Hey, wait a minute, it wasn't that many pages ago when Julius Caesar was invading Britain!
You know who else I thought of while reading this? My grandpa. When I was a little kid, I would sit in rapt attention as he told fascinating, exciting stories from his youth. And I believed every word. I would go home and relate them to my mom, and she would just shake her head. He was a great story teller, but most of it was pure fantasy.
Much like ol’ Geoffrey. When it was written (1136) and up until about the 17th century, it was taken as a bona fide work of history. In fact, most of it is just made up, with a smattering of historical figures thrown in to give it some weight. You would think the story about the two hollow stones at the bottom of a pool which contained two dragons might have tipped them off.
He also claims that his book was actually the translation he did of a very ancient book, I suppose to add even more credulity to it. But nope, another whopper. You know, the more I think about it, the more Geoffrey reminds me of a cousin of mine about whom someone once asked, “How do you know when Steve is telling a lie? His lips are moving.”
But anyways, aside from suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder, and being a compulsive liar Geoffrey could spin a good yarn. Lots of good old bloody battle scenes: heads being lopped off, bodies cut clean in half, … Plus, lots of sex. Well, okay, maybe not lots of it. But what there is, is pretty racy. In this version of King Arthur, Guinevere is getting it on with Mordred while Arthur is off doing battle somewhere. And as you know, Mordred was Arthur's nephew (in this version just his nephew, in Malory's version he's his son/nephew/whatever.) Still pretty kinky.
So, when all is said and done, a very entertaining read. Just don't expect it to help you pass that English history test.
No less impressive is Geoffrey of Monmouth. In The History of the Kings of Britain, he blazes through about 2000 years in less than 300 pages (actually closer to 200 when you take out the introduction.)
Centuries fly by like seconds, and before you know it, it's 524 AD, and King Arthur has just kicked the bucket. Hey, wait a minute, it wasn't that many pages ago when Julius Caesar was invading Britain!
You know who else I thought of while reading this? My grandpa. When I was a little kid, I would sit in rapt attention as he told fascinating, exciting stories from his youth. And I believed every word. I would go home and relate them to my mom, and she would just shake her head. He was a great story teller, but most of it was pure fantasy.
Much like ol’ Geoffrey. When it was written (1136) and up until about the 17th century, it was taken as a bona fide work of history. In fact, most of it is just made up, with a smattering of historical figures thrown in to give it some weight. You would think the story about the two hollow stones at the bottom of a pool which contained two dragons might have tipped them off.
He also claims that his book was actually the translation he did of a very ancient book, I suppose to add even more credulity to it. But nope, another whopper. You know, the more I think about it, the more Geoffrey reminds me of a cousin of mine about whom someone once asked, “How do you know when Steve is telling a lie? His lips are moving.”
But anyways, aside from suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder, and being a compulsive liar Geoffrey could spin a good yarn. Lots of good old bloody battle scenes: heads being lopped off, bodies cut clean in half, … Plus, lots of sex. Well, okay, maybe not lots of it. But what there is, is pretty racy. In this version of King Arthur, Guinevere is getting it on with Mordred while Arthur is off doing battle somewhere. And as you know, Mordred was Arthur's nephew (in this version just his nephew, in Malory's version he's his son/nephew/whatever.) Still pretty kinky.
So, when all is said and done, a very entertaining read. Just don't expect it to help you pass that English history test.
January 24, 2008
This is a classic example of crafting a national identity. Geoffrey promulgated a completely new history for the Normans--Vikings who settled in northern France for a while before accumulating enough money and arms to invade Britain--that cast them as the noble descendents of Romans (Brutus, no less!) who briefly left their true and native Britain while the real invaders, the Saxons, occupied it. You see, the Normans didn't conquer Britain. No, it was theirs all along. And the Welsh and Britons were Normans too, so they should side with their new overlords-- I mean, brothers in any continued conflict. And all those local myths and pagan traditions? No, no. That is all good Norman history, and Christian no less. You are all confused.
While a thousand intervening years might give the modern reader the perspective to see this particular example for what it is, the same story of adopted or enforced history plays out over and over today. Tibetans who never knew they were Chinese all this time. Waves of immigrants who all claim one colony of dour English radicals exiled to the coast of Massachusetts as their forbearers, in spirit if not blood. Children in the southern United States taught that the Confederacy won the US Civil War but decided to rejoin the Union anyway. Identity is a story we choose to believe. Might was well make it a good one.
While a thousand intervening years might give the modern reader the perspective to see this particular example for what it is, the same story of adopted or enforced history plays out over and over today. Tibetans who never knew they were Chinese all this time. Waves of immigrants who all claim one colony of dour English radicals exiled to the coast of Massachusetts as their forbearers, in spirit if not blood. Children in the southern United States taught that the Confederacy won the US Civil War but decided to rejoin the Union anyway. Identity is a story we choose to believe. Might was well make it a good one.
January 14, 2012
There are too many things to review here. Geoffrey's history is refreshingly well written for a medieval latin work, and the translation is very well done. It's not, of course, 'history' in any sense, and it can be pretty hard work slogging through the parts that don't deal with dramatic or fabulous stories. Parts of this felt like the bible's begats, and nobody needs more of that. The good stories, on the other hand, were genuinely interesting- Arthur of course, but also Locrinus' love for Estrildis, the story of King Leir, and the various narratives of battle trickeration.
The other thing to review is this edition. Good translation, but awful apparatus. I really needed something to tell me what, if anything, was historically accurate and what was pure fantasy. As it is, I kind of sort of remembered some names from Bede or recent histories of dark ages Britain (Penda, for instance). I would have loved some footnotes giving me a bit more information; it also would have made the text itself more interesting.
In any case, well worth reading. I'm ready to move on to some later Arthuriana.
The other thing to review is this edition. Good translation, but awful apparatus. I really needed something to tell me what, if anything, was historically accurate and what was pure fantasy. As it is, I kind of sort of remembered some names from Bede or recent histories of dark ages Britain (Penda, for instance). I would have loved some footnotes giving me a bit more information; it also would have made the text itself more interesting.
In any case, well worth reading. I'm ready to move on to some later Arthuriana.
January 23, 2015
A very beautiful book by Geoffrey of Monmouth, which was written around 1136! The book is not exactly a historical book, as it combines historical accounts and (inaccurate) facts with legend; however, it is an enchanting book of the medieval times. The book narrates the lives of key kings of Britain throughout a period of two thousand years, from its foundation (allegedly) by the Trojan Brutus (descendant from Aeneas) to the control of the Anglo-Saxon. The book sheds lights on the pagan life and rituals then, the invasion of the Romans to Britain by Julius Caesar, includes the first version of King Lear and his three daughters, the conversion to Christianity and the persecution of Christians by Diocletian, narrates the life of King Arthur and his cousin Gawain, and finally describes the domination of the Saxons of Most of Britain. I particularly loved the chapters on King Lear and the prophecies of the magician Merlin. The book is very interesting and beautiful but it includes too many names and details, which makes it sometimes difficult to follow. Anyway, the narration captivates one’s imagination and makes it difficult to put the book away before its completion.
May 24, 2009
This translation can be compared with Lewis Thorpe's older translation for Penguin.
The History of the Kings of Britain
Michael A. Faletra's translation is more accurate than Thorpe's though a bit stilted in places. The great advantage of Faletra's translation, though, is the appendices, in which Faletra reprints long passages from other Arthurian works such as Nennius' History of the Britons and Gildas' On the Ruin of Britain, as well as the complete text of Geoffrey's own later Life of Merlin. On the whole, this is excellent value for money.
The History of the Kings of Britain
Michael A. Faletra's translation is more accurate than Thorpe's though a bit stilted in places. The great advantage of Faletra's translation, though, is the appendices, in which Faletra reprints long passages from other Arthurian works such as Nennius' History of the Britons and Gildas' On the Ruin of Britain, as well as the complete text of Geoffrey's own later Life of Merlin. On the whole, this is excellent value for money.
July 31, 2019
Geoffrey of Monmouth, a Welsh cleric (although possibly his family came from Brittany), wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae around 1135 and, almost immediately, it was dismissed by other chroniclers and historians as almost complete nonsense. It tells the story of the Kings of Britain, that is the native kings before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, finding the origins of the Britons in the fall of Troy and another princely Trojan refugee, Brutus in this instance. Virgil, the poet of imperial Rome, had of course mined a similar seam of history in his Aeneid, linking the origins of Rome to Prince Aeneas. So by linking the history of the Britons to that of Troy, Geoffrey was also implicitly making them cousins to Rome. It was a bold stroke for a marginalised people. He then went on to tell the stories of the kings of ancient Britain: in these pages you will find King Lear and his daughters, Old King Cole and, of course, Arthur. Geoffrey expands the few nuggets about Arthur that had appeared in previous works hugely, adding in the key figure of Merlin to the mix.
Despite the book being treated as nothing buy fantasy by historians such as William of Newburgh, it quickly became famous and widely read, introducing these kings into the folklore and folk memory of Britain. Having read the History of the Kings of Britain I can now see why. It is simply such great fun to read. Geoffrey breezes through the centuries, sometimes spending just a sentence on a king, at other times opening up the story to a chapter length or more. It's a great piece of storytelling, dressed up as history.
Despite the book being treated as nothing buy fantasy by historians such as William of Newburgh, it quickly became famous and widely read, introducing these kings into the folklore and folk memory of Britain. Having read the History of the Kings of Britain I can now see why. It is simply such great fun to read. Geoffrey breezes through the centuries, sometimes spending just a sentence on a king, at other times opening up the story to a chapter length or more. It's a great piece of storytelling, dressed up as history.
Read
September 17, 2023This was a lot of fun to read, surprisingly, since I don't enjoy reading about battle scenes all that much. But it was thrilling to read the legend of how the Britons were descended from the Trojans, and had at one point sacked Rome(!), not to mention the tale of King Lear, which is very different from Shakespeare's reimagining of it. There was much less on King Arthur than I was hoping for, however.
April 14, 2017
4.5/5.
I really thought I wouldn't like this, as it sounded just like a boring pseudo-history book; instead, I loved it, and while it was a slow read, it was also incredibly fascinating.
I really thought I wouldn't like this, as it sounded just like a boring pseudo-history book; instead, I loved it, and while it was a slow read, it was also incredibly fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 366 reviews