Invention? Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Nature of De Gestis Britonum

Solomatin, Sarah (2024) Invention? Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Nature of De Gestis Britonum. Masters thesis, University of Wales Trinity Saint David.

Text Solomatin_S_MA_2024.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License CC-BY-NC-ND Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (1MB)

Abstract

Geoffrey of Monmouth has long been credited with inventing the bulk of British history, and more especially the Arthurian legend, through his composition of De Gestis Britonum, also known as Historia Regum Britonum. Because so little of the text can be corroborated by other sources, Geoffrey is, however affectionately, referred to as a fraud, and scholars of early Arthuriana tend to dismiss material that shares commonalities with his work as being unrepresentative of the legend as it may have existed prior to Geoffrey’s influence. This dissertation examines the assumptions behind the charges of fraud and invention and how they have held back attempts to reconstruct the ‘pre-Galfridian’ Arthurian mythos. First, it examines the nature of history as a literary genre in Geoffrey’s era and lays rest to arguments that Geoffrey was deliberately attempting to pass off his work as a factual account of past events. Second, it looks at interactions between the Saxons and the Bretons—events corroborated by extant sources—to show how Geoffrey’s account manipulates but does not invent material ex-nihilo. It will also examine some assumptions surrounding details and events, such as Arthur’s invasion of Rome, that are not corroborated elsewhere, and how the political nature of these events shed light of the possible existence and provenance of a ‘very old book’ despite the long-held assumption that such a text was also the invention of Geoffrey’s imagination. Finally, it will examine one of the most iconic aspects of the Arthurian legend—Modred’s treason—and evidence that Geoffrey’s account is actually based on Welsh traditions despite the fact that no corroborating sources survive. The overall conclusion is that Geoffrey did not invent as much as he’s credited with, and further critique of such assumptions will only add to our understanding of early Arthuriana.

Item Type:	Thesis (Masters)
Subjects:	D History General and Old World > DA Great Britain
Divisions:	Theses and Dissertations > Masters Dissertations
Depositing User:	Victoria Hankinson
Date Deposited:	24 Jan 2025 13:32
Last Modified:	24 Jan 2025 13:32
URI:	https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/3351

Administrator Actions (login required)

Edit Item - Repository Staff Only