Britons, Trojans, Saxons, Normans

There's a great deal more to Geoffrey of Monmouth's History than you were given to read. It begins with the supposed origin of the Britons (i.e. the Welsh who had been driven to the periphery of Britain after the successive invasions of Anglo-Saxons), through the exploits of Arthur (which you read), and the fall of Britain to the Saxons, up to the time of the Norman invasion. In Geoffrey's version of history, the Norman conquerors are treated as ethnically and culturally allied with the long-suffering Britons. But more importantly, Geoffrey invents a pre-history of the Britons that allies them with the greatest story of antiquity, and makes them past conquerors of an empire that was, for a time, even greater than Rome.

Brutus comes to Albion

Brutus, grandson of Aeneas, kills his own father accidentally by an unlucky shot with an arrow - he is exiled from Italy. After many travels reminiscent of Aeneid 1-5, he gains allies in Greece and accomplishes a re-conquest of Greece, but leaves after being directed to Britain by an oracle of Diana.

"Brutus, beyond the setting of the sun, past the realms of Gaul, there lies an island in the sea, once occupied by giants. Now it is empty and ready for your folk. Down the years this will prove an abode suited to you and your people; and your descendants it will be a second Troy. A race of kings will be born there from your stock and round circle of the whole earth will be subject to them" (65).

"Brutus called the island Britain after his own name, and his companions he called Britons. . . A little later the language of the people, which had up to then been known as Trojan or crooked Greek, was called British for the same reason" (72).

MacDougal:

"Geoffrey's motivation . . .  was a desire to provide an heroic epic on the origins and exploits of a people subdued successively by Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. By portraying the British as a once great people with extensive domains he could a t once raise their status is the eyes of their new Norman overlords and suggest a precedent to the new Norman kings in their imperialistic ambitions" (1).

How do we read Arthur's heroic exploits and final defeat at the hands of his (incestuous) nephew? If Geoffrey's tale of Arthur becomes a kind of prose epic, does it matter than his hero is ultimately defeated? Or is "defeat" the right way to characterize this tale? Given Geoffrey's rather explicit desire to please his Norman patrons, how does the identification of the Britons and Arthur with Armorica (northern France) play into our reading of this text?

Comments

[martin]

I would have to consider Geogffrey's Arthur being in the tradition of an epic. One must consider thet it was key in developing an identity for a community, much like in the previous epics we have studied. After all MacDougall is correct when he states that the Arthur helped to develop a sense of nationalism, "it arouse and matured in response to the needs of a restless people...that led to national and iimperial greatness(3). Arthur suffering a early deat is afterall what Achillies struggled with. If Geoffrey's account was a presentation of past kings achievements to please the Normans, it followed in the tradition of Homer who wrote to please Caesar. Much like the previous epics, whether these were based on factual events or oral traditions that changed ans shifted over time must be viewed through the lens of who it was written to please.
Like the previous epics, Arthur is directed by the divine will of God which is really nothing more than what fate was to those of antiquity. I find it a bit ironic that orgins of early inhabitants of British were descendet of Troy and that Arthur was ordained by divine providence to defeate the Romans, also descendents of Troy.

[martin]

As far as the identification of the Britons and Arthur with Armorica I am not sure how to read into it other than the French took advantage of a situation that was presented to them. I recall reading somewhere that there was a lost version of Geoffry's History and that the idea of "the round table" was written by the French. I also recall that there were many French writers who contributed to the legend of Arthur not long after Geoffrey. This may all speculation and I would love some clarification if needed.

[lynda]

Arthur, another supernationalist, is given his death because that is what happens to epic heros. I don't know why the nephew draws the lot in this story, other than that is what family members did to each other in our merry old Anglo-Saxon epics. What is more interesting to me is how in the Romans are "effeminate" and "put out their hands like women to prolong their lives" when surrendering. The "other" in these epics are "bitches." I suppose that the Gauls were more immediately attractive and Frankish than the Romans, and lent more Saxon to the Anglo-Saxon identity. Perhaps, the French romanticed Arthur when he became one of them with the Gauling of Briton.

[Libby]

I agree with Martin that this correlates greatly with Homer and Achilles. Achilles was a flawed main character who as well and Homer did write to please. I feel like the writing of Arthur was similar to Virgil as well because Virgil was influenced greatly by Augustus as it was their national epic. Whether this classifies the text as an epic, I am still not sure. But I don’t feel that just because the main character is killed it no longer qualifies. I think we have seen from the readings we have done in this class that who the main character of an epic is can change with differing scenes. When reading about Arthur, I found it difficult to see how much of tyrant he was and I had always envisioned a nice and gentle King. He seemed to not listen to his people or respect anyone or anything but his power, so I guess it is no wonder he was eventually taken out. It seems fitting that it would be by a relative considering an epic. I think what is interesting here is there is yet another piece of Homer used to explain why they are here. This seems to be a common theme, all people what to know where they come from and more elaborate the story the better.

[Karen]

I find Geoffrey of Monmouth's take on Arthur to be quite like Beowulf. Arthur is in the habit of taking over kingdoms, so that he can keep his men well paid. He doesn't see the problem with harrying the Saxons, or other neighboring kingdoms, so that he can reward his men with their wealth. And his pursuit of the Saxons when they flee from his armies borders on tyrrany. What he doesn't seem to understand is, like Beowulf, while he lives, he may be quite capable of commanding the known world, but is he destined to live forever? And if he isn't smart, like when he misinterprets the dream with the dragon and the bear, or should I say when his advisors misinterpret it, and he goes along with their interpretation, he finds himself off in a foreign land trying to squelch a Roman rebellion, while Mordred is stealing his kingdom and his wife. Even though he defeats Mordred in the end, at what price does that victory come? He is mortally wounded himself, and has to be sent off to Avalon where he can be healed, so he hands off his crown to cousin Constantine. The remaining men continue battling with even greater fervor then, so the fate of the kingdom certainly appears like it coule be up for grabs, even with the kingship of Constantine.

Naturally wanting to please his Norman patrons, Monmouth gives Arthur a lineage which links back to Rome, a great and powerful civilization which accomplished many great things. The Normans also believed in their lineage to the Romans, so by giving Arthur that same lineage, now conquerors and conquered people could be united by the belief in a common ancestry and a collective sense of enduring pride.

[Erica]

I feel that the story of Arthur can be considered an epic because it does discuss the origins of Britain and Arthur is such a large mythical figure for the Britons as Achilles is for the Greeks and Aeneas for the Romans. I, like Libby, did not realize how ruthless Arthur was.."Arthur raised the siege and began to turn his armed strength against the Irish. He cut them to pieces mercilessly and foreced them to return home." Like Karen suggested, Arthur is similar to Beowulf in his generosity to those who served under him. It seems that it was his selling point.

[nikki]

I also read Arthur to be different than the very brief experience I had watching him when I was young. There were 2 things apparent to me in the readings. Like the other epics read in class, Arthur's stories share the explanation that a community needs to gain assurance and confidence to move forward. This was essential to have the community work together. And that there was an explanation to the difficulties and dilemmas in the community's existence.
The brutality of war battle and the viciousness of attack is apparent. There is just a strong force within the community to put forth the same kind of devastation that the enemy had already done. It seems that in an epic, war is inevitable. Some overconfident mortal or an angry monster decides to either acquire power at whatever cost and\or render punishment to those they deem subserviant.