Talk:Historia Regum Britanniae

Summary

I've leapt in started expanding the summary, as the tag says; I hope that's alright. I'll come back and finish at some point, but if anyone else wants a go be my guest. Questingbeast (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Excised section

The article had said: "... although the Brut itself claims to have been translated from Latin by Walter of Oxford."

This however is not what page 68 says. It does not say, this is a translation from Latin, it says that Walter translated the book from WELSH into Latin, and then "in his old age" translated it from Latin back into Welsh again. So the original was in Welsh.

Another editor wishes to force his/her personal, uncited, unsourced opinion upon the article. That is original research. If you want to cite a scholarly discussion of the issue, then you can do that. Wjhonson 18:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncited? Only because you removed the cite. The so-called Brut Tysilio claims to be a translation from Latin into Welsh. I quote, "I Walter of Oxford, translated this book from Welsh into Latin, and in my old age have translated it again from Latin into Welsh." The Brut Tysilio, on its own testimony, cannot possibly be Geoffrey's source. The "original", if it existed, may have been Welsh, but the Brut Tysilio is not the original. This is cited, to page 68 of the online Cooper translation. The fact that the Brut Tysilio is a translation of Geoffrey's Latin and dates to the late 13th century, after Geoffrey, is also cited, to A. O. H. Jarman's Geoffrey of Monmouth. If you want to change cited material you'd better come up with better cites of your own. --Nicknack009 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. You are using half of the statement to try to *prove* the GoM could not have used Brut as his source because it was in Latin. That is false. Brut was in Welsh that's what the quote says. It was in Welsh, then translated into Latin, then translated again back into Welsh. Why? I have no idea why Walter did that, maybe he was bored. But you cannot use half a quote to try to prove the exact opposite of what the quote actually says. The Brut can indeed be Geoffrey's source, because it was originally in Welsh. That's the point you keep missing, and not only was it originally in Welsh, but the *third* edition, if you will, was once more, in Welsh. So your argument is specious from beginning to end. Wjhonson 01:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, argumentation is a form of original research which is forbidden. You must cite some other authority, not yourself, for this line of reasoning. Wjhonson 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Argument is original research? From a man who trumpets his logic skills on his user page?

Let's take this slowly. Taking the above quote from the Brut Tysilio at face value: Walter had a Welsh original. He translated it into Latin. Many years later, he took the Latin translation, and translated that into Welsh. That Welsh translation, the so-called Brut Tysilio, which survives, is, on its own testimony, not the same document as the Welsh document Walter translated into Latin, which does not survive. That original Welsh document could conceivably have been Geoffrey's source. However, as it does not survive, we cannot be certain it existed. The Brut Tysilio is, at best, a translation of a translation of Geoffrey's source. However, scholarly opinion, for example the Jarman book, which I have cited down to page number, regards it as a translation of Geoffrey.

As for your "citation needed" tag, which I have removed, that paragraph, including the assertion that few scholars take Geoffrey's claim to have had a source seriously, is cited to the introduction of Thorpe's translation, again, down to page number. You, on the other hand, have cited nothing, and even gone so far as to remove citations in an attempt to support your entirely destructive edits. --Nicknack009 13:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you check the policy on original research you will see that argumentation that serves to advance a position is indeed forbidden. We are at most compilers of other peoples' opinions. We are not here to state our own opinions. We can draw trivial inferences, but nothing beyond that. To your other point, the Brut Tysilio as it currently exists, that is, as a Welsh document, could indeed have been GoM's source since he only claims the book was in Welsh, and the Welsh book is certainly in Welsh. In addition, although the current version is called the Brut Tysilio that does not change the fact that it's a translation. When you do a translation, you don't change it's name. A German version of the Bible is still called the Bible. The mere fact that we have only the last version of the Brut doesn't change the issue of what GoM's source was. If he used the original Welsh version or the doubly-translated version, also in Welsh, he still used the Brut Tysilio. Wjhonson 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The name Brut Tysilio was given to it by the editors of The Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales in the early 1800s. The Bible is called das Bibel in German, la Biblia in Spanish, an Bíobla in Irish and y Beibl in Welsh. You know nothing of the subject, you have cited no sources, and you accuse me of "original research" for backing up what I write. You are a troll. Go away. --Nicknack009 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're playing semantics. Even if it was called MS 504 beforehand, a translation does not alter the fact that the work is the work. And you still have not provided a source for the "few scholars" claim.

Third opinion

I am here as the result of a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I have a few:

• Wjohnson and Nicknack009 are in danger of violating WP:3RR, if they haven't done so already.
• I see in the edit history a semblance of consensus so I'm not sure that this third opinion is necessary. Sources have been cited as asked; and Wjohnson's latest edit preserves the statement Nicknack009 wants.
• Wjohnson's accusation of original research doesn't hold water, but at the same time neither does Nicknack009's accusation of trollery. See WP:Assume good faith, which neither party is doing.
• I don't see the need to assert as fact what seems to be asserted only as evidence in the cited sources; namely, that Geoffrey of Monmouth's source was the original book. The disagreement seems to be settled not by the text of the sourced document, but by a footnote in that document, which says:

  This colophon, written by Walter of Oxford, which appears on folio 135v. of our chronicle, Jesus College MS LXI, is one of the most telling items of evidence against the modern supposition that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s claim to have translated an original book is an invention on his part. Conversely, in support of the colophon’s statement, Geoffrey of Monmouth makes no mention of a Welsh translation of the chronicle, simply because, as the colophon here tells us, that translation was made only after he had completed his Latin translation. It is, however, obvious when comparing Geoffrey’s Historia with the Welsh chronicle, that the Welsh is not in fact a straightforward translation of Geoffrey’s Latin as is often supposed and as the colophon would imply if interpreted too literally. It omits material that Geoffrey includes - Merlin’s Prophecies, for example - and includes items that Geoffrey omits - the story of Llefelys, for instance. Moreover, Geoffrey often takes licence to fill out his narrative with speeches and so on, which may or may not have been copied from other sources, but which are entirely absent in the Welsh chronicle. In other words, it would appear from Geoffrey’s additions that Jesus College MS LXI is a lot closer to the contents of the original source book than is Geoffrey’s Latin version.

• Given what I see in the source document, the current edit as it stands seems accurate enough:

  One of these Welsh translations, the so-called Brut Tysilio, was proposed in 1917 by the archaeologist Sir William Flinders Petrie to be the ancient British book that Geoffrey translated, although the Brut itself claims to have been translated from Latin by Walter of Oxford, based on his own earlier translation from Welsh to Latin.

• This opinion isn't binding, but I hope it helps. -Axlq 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. The problem arises because the other editor wishes to use the word "although" to try to refute the premise that the Brut was the book GoM used based on it's being a translation *from* Latin. That logic makes no sense. The basis for the refutation is not whether or not it was in Latin, but rather, that GoM's work, as you correctly pointed out, is not a straightforward translation from the Brut in any case. The situation should be clarified not muddied by a pretense to a situation which does not exist based on a faulty half-reading of a quote which doesn't state what the editor wants it to. You can't simply lift a partial quote out-of-context and then argue using it, a situation which has nothing to do with the actual known facts.

By the way, I haven't even yet attacked the position that Flinders Petrie said it was the *source* of GoM. That's still coming :) Wjhonson 02:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Title of article

As this is the English Wikipedia should it not refer to the work by its English title? PatGallacher 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What are we to make of Lewis' claim

that "Geoffrey takes it from the second-century De Deo Socratis of Apuleius"?

"See also Illegitimacy in fiction"

Sorry, the reason for this link doesn't seem immediately obvious. Am I missing something here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that The History of the Kings of Britain "focuses much attention on the disputable bastardy of King Arthur, as well as the illegitimate origins of the wizard Merlin." However, if you feel that this is not the case, I will defer to your judgment. Nihil novi (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The article's lead paragraph advises that the fictional work is "a chronological narrative spanning a time of two thousand years". From a quick skim of the work, Merlin's father is a "spirit". Arthur's illegitimate conception is in two sentences from book eight, but he is crowned without opposition at the start of book nine. I'm still not sure that the link is relevant.

Thanks for the elucidation. I've deleted the "See also." Nihil novi (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—glad we are in agreement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Breton tongue"

I've decorated this with a direct quote from the cited source: it shouldn't be changed. There is a feasible explanation for the edit in the summary, but the sources (two) take precedence. Reasons not to revert to the cited version please?--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There are actually three sources given. The quoted passage "a very ancient book in the British tongue" is actually taken directly from Wright; you're edit moved the citation away from the quote. The Thorpe book also says "British" (Wright goes into more detail about what this means before dismissing it entirely). The only one of the three sources that categorically has "Breton" is Lang, which was written in 1912. "British" is correct here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

True, I did collect together the citations at the end; does having them there make a difference? Both Wright and Lang specify "Breton" (or "Welsh"), and not "British" although you have deleted one of the supporting quotes containing this. Where does "a very ancient book in the British tongue" come from: is it in these refs, some refs yet to be added, or a translation from the Latin? I'm happy to acknowledge the difficulty in specifying in translation which variation of Brythonic was originally meant and would willingly accept any sourced opinion on this. As you say, a source more recent than 1911, with benefit of modern scholarship, would be preferable; do you have any in mind? At present, though, we only have sources for "Breton" and so, according to the firm WP:V policy, that's what the article should say. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the sources; Wright and Thorpe both have "British". The relevant part of Wright is p. xvii (1st complete paragraph): "Geoffrey claims that the Historia is a translation of a 'very ancient book in the British tongue' which Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford brought Ex Britannia". Our line is a direct quote from that, which is why the citation initially followed it directly. Wright goes on to explain that it's not clear what language (Welsh or Breton), is intended by this, but that few believe the claim anyway. Thorpe (p. 14) says "...Geoffrey stated categorically that Walter the Archdeacon presented him with 'a certain very ancient book written in the British language'..." Both Wright and Thorpe are more recent than Lang and should be preferred.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's the original language that Wright refers to, it's the supposed country of origin. Is adding a further quote from Wright, page xvii, out of the question: "Scholarly opinion is divided as whether Geoffrey intended this to be understood as a Welsh book brought from Wales or a Breton book from Brittany."? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. He's clearly talking about the language in the line "British tongue" and in his discussion of whether it was supposed to be a "Welsh book" or "Breton book". He's talking about the territory of origin in the line "ex Britannia" and the discussion of whether it was a "book from Wales" or a "book from Brittany". At any rate a line about the ambiguity of the statement would be fine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Move

This article was located at its Latin title Historia Regum Britanniae from the time it was created in 2004 until earlier this year. It was moved to the English translation The History of the Kings of Britain by Codenamecuckoo citing WP:BOLD, which is fine, but there was no discussion at the time. A quick Google Books and Google Scholar search reveals the former[1][2] is much more common than the latter.[3][4] English sources such as the New Arthurian Encyclopedia and standard reference works like The Arthur of the Welsh, The Arthurian Handbook, and Medieval Arthurian Literature all refer to the work as Historia Regum Britanniae. We should too.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree: the Latin name instantly puts the article into its historical context, so that readers can distinguish the particular work being discussed, by its actual title; it conveys that here we are talking about the specific, ancient book dealing with the mythology of the kings of the Britons, otherwise it could be just any "history of British kings". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that WP:UCN should apply and would support a move back to the former title. (Presumably the Latin title remains a redirect, and yet some pages on my watchlist had the link piped to the English, an action that will obscure data about frequency of use of the Latin title if one checks "What links here".) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nearly a week has passed, and I think the consensus is clear. I'm going to move the page back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to Latin text

The text of googlebook at second extlink seems to be German. Can someone found Latin one? We have part in Source: s:la:Historia_Regum_Britanniae/Liber_I. Ignatus (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Book Three Missing

This article contains books 1-2, then 4-12, with no book 3. Is there a mistake, or is Book 3 a "lost" book?

I have fixed it. Cagwinn (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is to keep the English name as a redirect, and that the WP:COMMONNAME of this subject is the Latin one. (non-admin closure) Bradv 14:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Historia Regum Britanniae → The History of the Kings of Britain – Wikipedia articles generally use the translated name for works and authors (e.g. Geoffrey of Monmouth, not Galfridus Monemutensis; The City of God, not De ciuitate Dei). Further, the Latin title has now been demonstrated to have been De gestis Britonum in the earliest manuscripts, and is not a stable point of reference. AndrewNJ (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily use translated titles. This has come up on articles like, for example, Lebor Gabála Érenn, and the consensus has been, in the case of pre-modern works that have little presence in popular culture, to use the title preferred in scholarship, which is often the untranslated one. Look it up in the indexes of scholarly books that discuss it, and you'll probably find it under Historia Regum Britanniae. (See also the brief discussion under "Move" a little further up this page.) As for your assertion that "the Latin title has now been demonstrated to have been De gestis Britonum in the earliest manuscripts", Michael D. Reeve's 2007 edition argues for that title, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has superceded Historia Regum Britanniae as the accepted title - just that one scholar prefers it. You'd need to show more of a consensus than that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Cagwinn (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Reeve argument isn't a matter of opinion: objectively, the title De gestis Britonum appears in the earliest manuscripts, Geoffrey of Monmouth used it himself, and the name was the most widely used for most of the Middle Ages; it was only with the introduction of printing that Historia regum Britanniae became common. It has now been nearly a decade since that edition was published, and it is considered to be authoritative; nobody to my knowledge has published an article to counter the restored title, but I would be happy to see a citation to the contrary. But given that there is any argument over the Latin title at all, it makes most sense to go with the English translation, which is undisputed and certainly most widely used for Latin historiography: compare, for instance, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, The City of God. AndrewNJ (talk)

The full title of the Reeve/Wright edition is of course Geoffrey of Monmouth. The history of the kings of Britain: an edition and translation of De gestis Britonum (Historia regum Britanniae). On the dust jacket it's just Geoffrey of Monmouth. The history of the kings of Britain, the English versions of the author's name and the title - which seems to give the English title preference. But I've got no strong feelings either way. John O'London (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Within the field of Arthurian studies, you will most often find Geoffrey's book referred to as Historia Regum Britanniae. Reeves' & Wright's suggestion on the title is factually sound but has not yet been adopted by the Arthurian scholarly community at large. Cagwinn (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Historia regum Britanniae is more widely used, but De gestis Britonum is by no means uncommon, especially in terms of scholarship on the book itself, as can be seen from a search on Google Scholar. Most people can't afford the latest critical editions. But we also need to take into account the evidence that the author himself called it De gestis Britonum, and that in the Middle Ages this was probably a more common name for the work. The English name is a reasonable translation of both titles, and I would suggest that this is an excellent compromise, especially in the light of this already being widely done elsewhere on Wikipedia. AndrewNJ (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, "The History of the Kings of Britain" is not a reasonable translation of De gestis Britonum, which translates as "On the deeds of the Britons". Even if that title is now the widely accepted title of the work, it doesn't support changing Historia Regum Britanniae to the English translation of Historia Regum Britanniae. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Um - but surely most of the hits on Google Scholar are references to the title of the Reeve/Wright edition? John O'London (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, "The History of the Kings of Britain" isn't a translation of De gestis Britonum, but it's a very common title for the work, including in Reeve's version.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That is fair: I did not express myself very accurately. I realize that The History of the Kings of Britain is not a literal translation, but On the Deeds of the Britons is hardly poetic, and given that some modification would be needed to make it marketable, it's probably best just to leave the established English title as it stands. Translations tend to take on their own lives (Thorpe's translation being a case in point here), and will never absolutely reflect the author's intentions. By using the English variant, we at least wouldn't be making a strong claim for the accuracy of either Historia or De gestis. But I am happy to put that point aside. It has been pointed out below that there are examples of several other equivalent works that use the original title as well as the English translations I pointed out, so that also cannot be used to sway it either way.

That leaves us with the commonality issue: what evidence do we have that either the English or Latin titles are in fact more frequently used? Another user below points out that the English title appears from Google frequencies to be more common. Another way of looking at it: I think it is fair to say that most WIkipedia articles would use the same title as that put on a popular (e.g. Oxford or Penguin) translation of a work. For instance, English translations of the Summa theologica are still published under that title. But in our case, all translations published within recent memory seem to be called The History of the Kings of Britain. AndrewNJ (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In academic secondary literature - especially in the fields of Arthurian and Celtic Studies - the Latin title is, by far, the one that is most commonly used. Cagwinn (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a Latin book and known by the Latin title. The English title could refer to other books. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment only. I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, Historia Regum Britanniae is certainly more common in the literature and continues to be used today, despite Reeve's edition. On the other hand, Reeve's point is spot on, and indeed decades before that "The History of the Kings of Britain" was a well established title. It is actually more common in Google Books than Historia Regum Britanniae: [5] vs. [6].--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: per WP:COMMONAME, Historia Regum Britanniae is by far the most used name for this work. Ebonelm (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: if we look at articles on other related medieval British pseudo-historical, annalistic, and Arthurian-related texts, the Latin title is used; cf. Annales Cambriae, Historia Brittonum, Vita Merlini, and Gesta Regum Britanniae. Cagwinn (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONAME and the several reasons given by Cagwinn. Narky Blert (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. We should use the most common English-language name of the subject, per WP:USEENGLISH. The most popular translations are titled either The History of the Kings of Britain or Histories of the Kings of Britain as you can see here. Ten versions pop up on Amazon, and not one of them uses the Latin name. You will certainly see the Latin name in scholarly writing, but it is generally given as Latin rather than as an English language name. Pandas and people (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bournemouth University study: Miles Russell

Apparently not pseudohostory entirely after all. Its long irritated me that exactly the same story appear sin Monmouth and classical sources but one is considered myth the other history (eg sacking of rome). I just think there is a massive prejudice against British vs Anglo Saxon/Classical accounts of history to this day. Anyway Id like to bring this to peoples attention - on person undid this because they said it was self promotion by this academic - nonsense - I included it because I thought it was a thoughtful study that made complete sense - whther its conclusive is not the point - the point is its a very recent serious academic study and excluding it is a sign of poor scholarship at best and censorship at worst : "In 2017 the initial results of the Lost Voices of Celtic Britain Project established at Bournemouth University were published by the lead author Miles Russell.[20] The main conclusion of the study was that the Historia Regum Britanniae, despite being compiled many centuries after the period it describes, appears to contain significant demonstrable archaeological fact. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.167.61 (talk • contribs)

Miles Russell's book is as fringe as they come - totally bonkers!! Russell has no qualifications in the field of Arthurian studies and it really shows. No Arthurian scholars that I am aware of take this book seriously - it's generally considered to be a cash grab and nothing else. Cagwinn (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, the text this editor keeps copy-pasting over from Geoffrey of Monmouth doesn't say what he thinks it does. All it says is that Russell has posited the existence of a couple of hypothetical oral traditions as sources. That doesn't make the Historia reliable history! Oral tradition is by definition unreliable. The project's website also concedes that you have to break up the Historia into individual stories to find elements that have some historical basis, but that doesn't make the book as a whole reliable history. In any case, all you have to do is read his account of Caesar's invasions (a historical event) and compare it to Caesar's own account, and you'll see that, just because Geoffrey had a source, doesn't mean what he wrote was in any way accurate. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed to realise that this same overblown and uncritical account of Russell's theories has been sitting unchallenged over on the Geoffrey of Monmouth page for about a year (I thought that page was on my watchlist, but apparently not). Personally I've no objection to Wikipedia mentioning fringe theories, but this one certainly doesn't deserve so much emphasis. I've got Russell's book, but so far I haven't plucked up the courage to read it (I'd probably lose my temper!) - and frankly I doubt whether any academic who knows the subject is going to find the time or inclination to write a proper review. I'd like to know more about the status of the Bournemouth University Lost Voices of Celtic Britain project. Its webpage is peculiarly unhelpful. The only 'staff' listed is Miles Russell himself - I really hope no university funds or resources are being devoted to it! The introductory paragraph is misleading nonsense "For centuries, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s medieval best-seller, the Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), the book that first brought the exploits of King Arthur to the world’s attention, has been cast as a work of pure make-believe. Yet, once you look beyond the tales of magic, wizards and giants, what you have is a potential insight into what life was really like for the inhabitants of late prehistoric and Roman Britain." Seems to have been drafted in ignorance of both the content of HRB (there's no magic and no wizards - yes, there are giants but there's nothing "make-believe" about them) and the history of its critical reception. Why is it always archaeologists who make fools of themselves when faced with Geoffrey of Monmouth? John O'London (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There are fragments of probable history in Geoffrey. I think it's plausible that Geoffrey had a source of some sort that told him Kimbelinus was Tenvantius's son (we know from coins that the historical Cunobelinus was the son of Tasciovanus) and was brought up at the court of Augustus (Augustus did take hostages of the sons of client rulers and educate them in Rome). The decapitation of the Roman legion by Asclepiodotus at the river Gualobroc is probably related to the skulls found in the river Walbrook, which may be related to the historical massacre of Allectus' Frankish allies in London by Asclepiodotus. The claims that Russell's project is actually making are quite modest (although that's not how they're being presented). The problem here is that our anonymous editor friend has read those overstated modest claims and decided that, if anything in Geoffrey can be shown to have some relationship to history, that suddenly makes everything in the Historia reliable history. This absolutist all-or-nothing approach is absurd. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Kimbelinus and Tenuantius are not drawn from any ancient source (as is plainly obvious to anyone familiar with Brittonic and Welsh historical phonology); Geoffrey simply picked up the names (i.e., Cinbelin map Teuhant) from the Old Welsh pedigrees as found in Harley MS 3859 (and we know that Geoffrey used as one his main sources a manuscript closely related to Harley MS 3859, which contains the Historia Brittonum, Annales Cambriae, and the Old Welsh pedigrees). Geoffrey was highly inventive and perfectly capable of inventing intricate stories for people who are little more than names in Welsh pedigrees. As for the Walbrook skulls, people in Geoffrey's era easily could have come across them and assumed that they were ancient and associated with the Roman invasion. Cagwinn (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If not for Augustus' practice of taking hostages of client kings' sons (see Creighton's Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain) and the massacre of the Franks at London during Asclepiodotus' invasion (known from the Panegyric to Constantius Chlorus) I'd agree with you. Geoffrey could have had a source that told him Cunobelinus was a hostage. Or yes, he could have invented it. The association of the massacre at the Walbrook with Asclepiodotus is probably beyond coincidence and is more suggestive of some kind of source, perhaps an oral tradition given how badly Geoffrey misunderstands who Asclepiodotus was and what side he was on, but more likely a badly garbled or misunderstood written one, given that he gets the spelling of his name right. But that's speculation and original research on my part. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for Original Research, Nicknack009 - see the latest issue of the magazine London Archaeologist for an article on the subject. - even some speculation that Geoffrey might have drawn on a lost written source for his knowledge of the 296 London massacre. It doesn't seem to have been the Constantius Chlorus Panegyric (which was only rediscovered in a supposedly unique surviving manuscript in a monastic library in Germany in 1433). The suggestion that skulls were being found in the Walbrook in Geoffrey's own time and that he came up with a story of a massacre to explain them has been around since the 1950s, and is now pretty well the consensus view among London archaeologists; the actual origin of the skulls is still disputed - they are certainly nothing to so with the events of 296! An earlier generation of archaeologists suggested that the skulls might relate to the massacre carried out by Boudica's followers in AD 60/61 (which Geoffrey of Monmouth didn't know about) - but the circumstances and dates don't suit that either. John O'London (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The laudatory paragraph about Russell's theories, recently copied and pasted here, was originally added to the Geoffrey of Monmouth page last year by user Avebury123 - whose other contributions show an interesting correlation with the interests and publications of Russell himself - such as Piltdown Man, the Durotriges, the Legio IX Hispana - and even Miles Russell. John O'London (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource link in the box

Improperly displayed (wikicode insto href). And can English and Latin ones be there together? Ignatus (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing "pseudohistory"

I've removed the term "pseudohistory" from the lede, and [[Category:Pseudohistory]] from the footer. Put simply, there is no source that calls the Historia this, as pseudohistory is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record and not simply a synonym for "historically inaccurate" or "false." Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing centuries before the development of modern historiography, writing in a well-attested medieval tradition (see the precursors in the Sources section) where propaganda, drama, and history were not entirely seperate genres. wound theology◈ 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nicknack009: do you have any reasoning as to why pseudohistory is a an appropriate term here, especially over "chronicle"? wound theology◈ 10:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's widely recognised that while it presents itself as historical, it's not. This is not controversial. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confused -- I'm not arguing that the events in the Historia actually happened. Pseudohistory is not the same as "not factual" or "false." It means something particular, something which does not describe the Historia. It fits into a much older tradition of quasi-mythological historiography which were common until the Enlightenment. I would not object to describing it as a "fictitious history" or something similar -- there is scholarly consensus that it has no value as a historical document and that it is derived from older cycles of Welsh poetry and genealogies. Pseudohistory best describes ancient alien cranks like Erich von Däniken or holocaust deniers like David Irving, not the work of medieval historiographers who predate the modern historical method by centuries. (Furthermore, it isn't actually described as such in any of the sources.) wound theology◈ 12:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Entirely agree. It's widely recognised and uncontroversial that the Historia incorporates a great deal of folklore and legend (not to mention outright invention), and is not to be trusted as historical fact. This is already made clear in the second paragraph of the lede ("now considered to have no value as history ... can be seen to be wildly inaccurate"). But the reason is that it was written well before modern historiographical concepts of constructing a historical narrative on reliable primary sources were conceived. Geoffrey was writing in good faith, according to the conventions of his age: he did not deliberately attempt to "distort or misrepresent the historical record". Pseudohistory is a modern concept that only makes sense in an era in which there are accepted standards of historical scholarship that are appropriated and mimicked to promote a fake narrative. It is not the appropriate term to use here. GrindtXX (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey was not writing in good faith, and he absolutely did deliberately attempt to distort and misrepresent the historical record. He is not passively passing on traditions, he's actively making stuff up and passing it off as history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

But "actively making stuff up and passing it off as history" was an accepted form of historical writing at that time. It is completely different to pseudohistory. GrindtXX (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely was not an acceptable form of historical writing at the time, and he was called out for it by contemporaries and near-contemporaries like Gerald of Wales and William of Newburgh. The nearest think I can think of to Geoffrey's Historia is the Aeneid, which is not historical writing and didn't pretend to be. Geoffrey did pretend to be writing history. He also, famously, pretended he had an ancient source he was translating. he absolutely was writing pseudohistory, not just unreliable history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that the Aeneid is the only example of quasi-historical writing describing things that clearly didn't happen, I suggest reading the works which Geoffrey of Monmouth used as sources for his work. Or really any ancient history. wound theology◈ 01:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is another one of those Wikipedia arguments where I justify my position with arguments and examples, and my opponents just say WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Back it up, or stop it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? To reiterate what GrindtXX (talk · contribs) argued: Pseudohistory is a modern concept that only makes sense in an era in which there are accepted standards of historical scholarship that are appropriated and mimicked to promote a fake narrative. It is not the appropriate term to use here. You argued that the Historia is something unique and that you can't name any other historical writing like it: it wasn't unqiue and there were clear precedents in the historical record (again, see the Sources section). Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing according to the generic conventions of his time. Pseudohistory is not an appropriate description of the work at hand, to beat a dead horse, as it only makes sense in an era in which there are accepted standards of historical scholarship. And again, the sources in the article do not actually call it this.

Saying that our arguments are WP:IDON'TLIKEIT isn't a "gotcha." "Pseudohistory" is not equivalent to "fake" or "made up" or what have you. It means something specific in the context of modern historical scholarship, not medieval Welsh monks synthesizing old cycles and legends into a coherent narrative.

To make my previous compromise more explicit: would you be opposed to revising it to "fictitious history" or something similar? No one is opposed to pointing out Bladud was not a real figure. We're opposed to misusing the term pseudohistory. wound theology◈ 08:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You are not listening. I am not arguing that the Historia is pseudohistory because there's stuff in it that's not true. I am arguing it's pseudohistory because it contains stuff that the author made up, fully understood he was making up, and presented as genuine history. That's the definition.

The fact that some of it has sources is irrelevant. Even when it has sources, Geoffrey distorts and falsifies them - and they are not the source he claims to be using. The fact that there are other works with unreliable or untrue content is also irrelevant. For the most part, they either didn't present it as history (e.g. the Aeneid), or were honestly passing on what they had found in their sources (e.g. Herodotus). The Historia Regum Britanniae is a dishonest work, not merely an unreliable one or one with standard metholodology but bad sources. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate: Pseudohistory is a modern concept that only makes sense in an era in which there are accepted standards of historical scholarship that are appropriated and mimicked to promote a fake narrative. It is not the appropriate term to use here. No source cited on the page uses this term to describe it. If you want to write a paper on how it really is pseudohistory despite the ahistorical nature of such a claim, do so and then we can discuss it; but until then there are far more accurate things to call the Historia that are supported in the sources. Also, pseudohistory is not the same as "made up" history -- that is not the definition, as there is no single or solid definition of pseudohistory (again, similar to pseudoscience.) Also, as far as I can see, there is no evidence that Geoffrey of Monmouth was purposefully distorting history or being dishonest. He was, as many medieval historians did, embellishing, synthesizing, and hypothesizing based on older cycles of Welsh poetry. wound theology◈ 12:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that, you haven't read him or any scholarship about him. But life's too short, do what you want. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you are actively working against coming to a consensus here. Are you opposed to revising pseudohistory to fictitious history? If so, do you have another idea? wound theology◈ 00:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Geoffrey of Monmouth was deliberately attempting to misrepresent the historical record. The historical record he was drawing from had many of the same legends and myths. wound theology◈ 14:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)