Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Conventions of History Writing in Early 12th-Century England

Modern critics of Insular 12th-century history have tended to view Geoffrey of Monmouth’s historiographical project in terms of its differences from the other Latin works of Insular history of his time (particularly William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, Orderic Vitalis, and John of Worcester), reading him as an outlier departing from the conventions of his contemporaries by penning something previously unknown, outside the historical mode, and likely spurious. Yet when viewed in tandem, the works of Geoffrey and his contemporaries are in fact united by key similarities in form, structure, classical allusion, and scope, even as they are separated by treatment of sources, content and focus, and reception. In this chapter, I situate Geoffrey’s De gestis Britonum in the context of the longform histories of his contemporaries, particularly William of Malmesbury’s Deeds of the English Kings (Gesta regum Anglorum) and Henry of Huntingdon’s History of the English (Historia Anglorum), establishing their shared adherence to the conventions of history writing and its attendant rhetorical strategies, and noting where Geoffrey departs – perhaps subversively – from such conventions. Though Caradog of Llancarfan seems to have been an important contemporary of Geoffrey as well, given that Geoffrey mentions him by name, I do not compare Geoffrey’s work to Caradog’s saints’ lives, focusing instead on longform narrative history; nor do I discuss other contemporaries due to constraints of space. Following an assessment of the conventions of the genre and how they are satisfied by each of the three authors, I examine the three works according to the unifying theme of conquest, demonstrating that Geoffrey’s departure from his contemporaries lies primarily in his treatment of sources and his focus on the Britons, not on the flagrant departure from history conventions as is sometimes claimed. These key differences have nevertheless resulted in a vastly different reception history for his work, including modern critical reception, compared to William and Henry. I conclude by offering an interpretation of Geoffrey’s motives for writing in light of this comparison.