An Enriching Resurrected Medieval History of Britain
David W. Burchmore, Ed. The History of the Kings of Britain: The First Variant Version: Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library. $35. 544pp, 6X9”, hardback. ISBN: 978-0674241367. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, November, 2019.
*****
During my research into British Renaissance theater, I have realized how important the few histories accessible in English were for the writers who turned these facts into fiction. With barely any libraries and an education system that focused on studying Latin, English history was a subject mostly familiar to the wealthier aristocrats or to writers and scholars with access to the short print runs of treasures such as Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain, “the earliest work to detail the legendary foundation of Britain by Brutus the Trojan and the life of King Arthur”. The inaccessibility of such evidence forced writers to create plotlines with main geographic, political and cultural details that were repeated across several plays and the like; this being the reason for repetitions of storylines when the same kings such as Richard III were covered. If any of these Renaissance writers came across this compact and brilliantly edited version in a single book of what used to be 11 separate sloppily printed books, they would have been ecstatic. It would have also helped students of Latin due to this edition being split into both English and Latin, allowing for readers to move between languages to check their own attempts at translation. The blurb advertises it as “among the most widely read books throughout the Middle Ages. Its sweeping account of the Britons began long before the Romans and challenged the leading histories of the twelfth century.” While it is easy to imagine that our most recent history books are more accurate than earliest attempts, every new history can insert fictions or mis-interpretations into the narrative, so all historians need to check originating texts for these storylines such as this book to understand how and why the initial plot has been since altered. “Merlin, Guinevere, Mordred, Yvain, Gawain, and other popular Arthurian figures first come to life in Geoffrey’s chronicle.” While many of these characters are myths that are being related as if they are historically accurate, the early date of these myths makes it more likely there is a basis of truth in these accounts over any later retellings. “It was the ultimate source of tales retold in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, Shakespeare’s Cymbeline and King Lear, and Tennyson’s Idylls of the King.” This is just as I was saying: the British Renaissance fed on this particular book because so few early histories were available and this one was comprehensive on many curious and intriguing topics. The editor explains that the “History survives in hundreds of manuscripts in Geoffrey’s standard text. This volume presents the first English translation of what may have been his source, the anonymous First Variant Version. This shorter and less polished Latin version of the History is attested in just a handful of manuscripts. It belonged to and was probably written by Archdeacon Walter of Oxford, who died in 1151.” The employment of the earliest surviving edition is particularly useful for scholars of British history and literature: as I was noting, each re-print and editing layer can insert new characters, new words, or subtract points that become censorable as political preferences change.
This particular version of this history is special because it is the first translation of the “First Variant”. As I was reviewing the “Introduction”, I spotted this note: “On the basis of fundamental differences in vocabulary, syntax, and style, all scholars agree that Geoffrey himself did not write the Variant” (ix). This topic is picked up in a section called “Authorship”, which explains that Geoffrey’s name “appears in only a handful of documents between 1139 and 1151”. The alternative author proposed is Archdeacon Walter, who merely gave Geoffrey the Latin version of the book that Geoffrey translated (xv). This presents an interesting puzzle for my own attribution research, but I would imagine this would be an extremely difficult puzzle to solve. In my tests, the translator’s authorial signature is stronger than the original author, so checking the earliest English translation against potential authors might work, but there are so few surviving texts from this period that the number of alternative signatures is absurdly limited.
This book is written in a dramatic style, which explains its popularity with fiction writers over the ages. Here is an example from a midst of a surprise attack: “The Trojans rising up more boldly and much more sharply to avenge the death of Turnus, scattered the Gauls and butchered them everywhere without pause. Finally, the Gauls took flight and hastened to abandon the camp; the Trojans followed, striking them furiously all the way” (35). Those who enjoy modern war movies should enjoy reading this type of narrative casually; it offers similar emotional turbulence with enough detail for readers to visualize the different dimensions of these clashes.
There are several revealing histories compressed into these books. For example, King Lucius is described as the “first of all the kings of the Britons to earn for the name of Christ”, so that he solicited this knowledge from Pope Eleutherius, who “sent two doctors of religion, Fagan and Duvian, from his side to Britain to preach about the word of God…” (139). It is surprising to learn that professors were sent to spread Christianity rather than knights or other typical character-types who bring new religions in popular representations.
Near the end of the book, the story becomes tragic as the Saxons take over Britain, while the Britons lose “the crown of the kingdom” and withdraw “partly into Wales, where they hid for a long while, passing their time among the wild beasts, concealed among the mountains in forests and caves until, recalling their courage, they attempted to make repeated attacks against the Anglo-Saxons…” (391).
Lengthy notes on the various time-sensitive phrases, terms, names of places and the like accompany each of the books to guide modern readers into these strange times. Given the breadth of topics and times covered, the “Index” should help researchers searching for specific historical personalities or events to find them in this rich text.
There should be more books like this one that resurrect historical texts. Renovating an ancient castle or digging up dinosaur bones reveals fragments in comparison with the volume of valuable research enclosed in histories like this one. And whoever the writer was behind this project, he wrote this story to be read as he inserted excitement and passion into ancient history.