Religion and the Church in Geoffrey of Monmouth

B. Lewis
{"title":"Religion and the Church in Geoffrey of Monmouth","authors":"B. Lewis","doi":"10.1163/9789004410398_016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Few authors inspire as many conflicting interpretations as Geoffrey of Monmouth. On one proposition, however, something close to a consensus reigns: Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote history in a manner that shows remarkable indifference toward religion and the institutional church. Antonia Gransden, in her fundamental survey of medieval English historical writing, says that “the tone of his work is predominantly secular” and even that he “abandoned the Christian intention of historical writing” and “had no moral, edificatory purpose”, while J.S.P. Tatlock, author of what is still the fullest study of Geoffrey, speaks of a “highly intelligent, rational and worldly personality” who shows “almost no interest in monachism ... nor in miracles”, nor indeed in “religion, theology, saints, popes, even ecclesiastics in general”.1 Yet, even if these claims reflect a widely shared view, it is nonetheless startling that they should be made about a writer who lived in the first half of the 12th century. Some commentators find Geoffrey’s work so divergent from the norms of earlier medieval historiography that they are reluctant to treat him as a historian at all. Gransden flatly describes him as “a romance writer masquerading as an historian”.2 More cautiously, Matilda Bruckner names Geoffrey among those Latin historians who paved the way for romance by writing a secular-minded form of history “tending to pull away from the religious model (derived from Augustine and Orosius) that had viewed human history largely within the scheme of salvation”.3 This Christian tradition of historiography, against which Geoffrey of Monmouth is said to have rebelled, had its origins in late antiquity in the works of Eusebius, Augustine, and Orosius. Leaving aside the important differences between these authors, their legacy may be summarized as follows. History had a clear beginning in Creation, and it would come to an equally clear end with the final Judgement. Everything that happened between those two points","PeriodicalId":206404,"journal":{"name":"A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth","volume":"135 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004410398_016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Few authors inspire as many conflicting interpretations as Geoffrey of Monmouth. On one proposition, however, something close to a consensus reigns: Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote history in a manner that shows remarkable indifference toward religion and the institutional church. Antonia Gransden, in her fundamental survey of medieval English historical writing, says that “the tone of his work is predominantly secular” and even that he “abandoned the Christian intention of historical writing” and “had no moral, edificatory purpose”, while J.S.P. Tatlock, author of what is still the fullest study of Geoffrey, speaks of a “highly intelligent, rational and worldly personality” who shows “almost no interest in monachism ... nor in miracles”, nor indeed in “religion, theology, saints, popes, even ecclesiastics in general”.1 Yet, even if these claims reflect a widely shared view, it is nonetheless startling that they should be made about a writer who lived in the first half of the 12th century. Some commentators find Geoffrey’s work so divergent from the norms of earlier medieval historiography that they are reluctant to treat him as a historian at all. Gransden flatly describes him as “a romance writer masquerading as an historian”.2 More cautiously, Matilda Bruckner names Geoffrey among those Latin historians who paved the way for romance by writing a secular-minded form of history “tending to pull away from the religious model (derived from Augustine and Orosius) that had viewed human history largely within the scheme of salvation”.3 This Christian tradition of historiography, against which Geoffrey of Monmouth is said to have rebelled, had its origins in late antiquity in the works of Eusebius, Augustine, and Orosius. Leaving aside the important differences between these authors, their legacy may be summarized as follows. History had a clear beginning in Creation, and it would come to an equally clear end with the final Judgement. Everything that happened between those two points
蒙茅斯的杰弗里的宗教与教会
很少有作家能像蒙茅斯的杰弗里那样激发出如此多相互矛盾的解读。然而,在一个观点上,某种接近共识的东西占据了主导地位:蒙茅斯的杰弗里以一种对宗教和机构教会表现出明显冷漠的方式写历史。安东尼娅·格兰斯登(Antonia Gransden)在她对中世纪英国历史写作的基本调查中说,“他的作品的基调主要是世俗的”,甚至说他“放弃了历史写作的基督教意图”,“没有道德、教化的目的”,而J.S.P.塔洛克(J.S.P. Tatlock)是对杰弗里(Geoffrey)进行最全面研究的作者,他说杰弗里是一个“高度聪明、理性和世俗的人”,“对君主主义几乎没有兴趣……也不相信奇迹”,也不相信“宗教、神学、圣徒、教皇,甚至一般的教会”然而,即使这些说法反映了一种普遍的观点,但对于一个生活在12世纪上半叶的作家来说,这样的说法仍然令人吃惊。一些评论家发现杰弗里的作品与早期中世纪史学的规范大相径庭,以至于他们根本不愿意将他视为历史学家。格兰斯登直截了当地把他描述为“一个伪装成历史学家的浪漫主义作家”更为谨慎的是,玛蒂尔达·布鲁克纳将杰弗里列为拉丁历史学家之一,这些历史学家通过写一种世俗的历史形式为浪漫主义铺平了道路,“倾向于摆脱宗教模式(源自奥古斯丁和奥罗修斯),这种模式在很大程度上是在救赎的框架内看待人类历史的”据说蒙茅斯的杰弗里反对这种基督教史学传统,这种传统起源于古代晚期尤西比乌斯、奥古斯丁和奥罗修斯的著作。撇开这些作者之间的重要差异不谈,他们的遗产可以概括如下。历史在创造中有一个清楚的开端,在最后的审判中也有一个同样清楚的结束。这两点之间发生的一切
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信