 |
| http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/09/ article-2024083-0D5D754800000578-860_468x305.jpg |
 |
| http://tubtub.deviantart.com/art/ Geoffery-of-Monmouth-41451678 |
If looking at Geoffrey of Monmouth as a storyteller/historian, I do not think he can be considered trustworthy. In Senior Seminar, we are focusing on the "unreliable narrator", and that is what I felt about him. Clearly, there were parts in his accounts that were fiction or legend, but the parts that could be seen as history seemed to be weighed down with his own biases. Why would Geoffrey of Monmouth be biased? The main reason would be because he is from Britain. The accomplishments Arthur achieves, benefits his people and decedents, and Geoffrey of Monmouth falls under this category. However, the people who Arthur conquers or battles might not be as willing to call a just and merciful king.
 |
| http://www.freewebs.com/300spartanhq/helmet%20arthur.bmp |
When taking away all the compliments and praises that Geoffrey of Monmouth gives to King Arthur, it is easy to see how in situations the King is not compassionate and kind, but rather tyrannical. In one description, after Arthur had conquered a land, and the people were trying to repair their homes, he was reported to feel "exalted that he was a source of dread to everyone, and he longed to win all of Europe for himself" (Romance of Arthur, 69). King Arthur is ruling in a dictatorship, leaving me to ask, what happened to the "natural goodness" that Geoffrey of Monmouth describes (Romance of Arthur, 65)?
After seeing this side of King Arthur, I question the reliability of Geoffrey of Monmouth's word. He might not be trying to mislead people, but his perspective of Arthur is weighted, based on the group that Geoffrey of Monmouth identifies with in this case Britain. His perspective is understandable, but it buries some of the ideas that King Arthur was not the perfect ideal king that he was glorified to be.
How reliable Geoffrey of Monmouth is depends on: who his intended audience is; who is paying his bills; and is he faithfully representing their interests. If he has a patron, then his patron's interest is the only thing of consequence. Looking back to the class discussion on "history," the truthfulness of facts may not be as important as the values and qualities displayed in the narrative. The real question is "what is truth?" Is truth found in actual names and dates or in something like the virtue of honor? What is honor? What was considered ideal behavior in Geoffrey's time? Better yet, what is ethical behavior in his time or our time?
ReplyDeleteIn geoffreys time, i would argue that it might have been more ethical to commit acts of cruelty in order to consolidate your rule, than to be seen as weak and not eliminate threats to your rule. Time and again, arthur is shown in two lights, the conqueror, and the king who makes froends of his enemies. I think he made peace when he could, and committed these massacres when he had to so that there was peace. Whats more cruel ultimately, to be a tyrant running an orderly state? Or to be an honorful ruler who lets his kingdom dissolve into bloodshed?
DeleteI think its really interesting that geoffrey would cast arthur as a conqueror, and that legends of his conquests grew from historic reality in the centuries after a hypothetical arthur would have been around. Britain at the time was considered a sprt of cultural and economic backwater so i think its great thatt he figure of arthur would be this epic hero who ruled most of europe with britain at the center. To me thats just one of geoffreys biases. Also... As to the reliability of geoffrey, i would take most of what he says with a grain of salt, same as any 10th century historian. Its just really interesting to read these things because you can read between the lines to see how people back then lived and thought about their world.
ReplyDelete