Harrell - Formal Post 4: William of Malmesbury

[George Harrell]

William of Malmesbury’s historical work on the kings of England is an attempt to charter a passage between the “Scylla and Charybdis” of his history as a literary work on the one hand and the historical facts he deals with on the other (WM, Preface to book IV). Throughout his entire work he is acutely aware of his readers, the literary style of his work, and the need to attempt historical veracity in the midst of unreliable sources. Like Bede (Bede, Preface) he understands a historical piece “by a certain agreeable recapitulation of past events, excites its readers, by example, to frame their lives to the pursuit of good, or to aversion from evil” (WM, Preface to book II). To that end he set out to write his own account of the kings of England, as well as to correct the terrible lack of well written historical material. The Saxon Chronicle, he finds, fails to do justice to the events it blandly lists, and even the work of Edmer he describes as having been written in such a manner as to have left a massive historical gap (WM, Preface to book I). Thus to William, his book is not a show piece of his own learning, but rather an attempt to reveal and “bring to light events lying concealed in the confused mass of antiquity” (WM, Preface to book II). However, in writing about the past he is forced to rely on the authors from the past, and their narration of those events, so, while studiously avoiding “vague opinions,” he is still required to rely on their historical honesty, for which he says: “I vouch nothing for the truth of long past transactions, but the consonance of the period; the veracity of the relation itself must rest with its authors” (WM, Preface to book I). Not simply content to dig up ancient truth, he also extends this goal into his own present day, for which, like Herodotus, he chooses to rely purely on that which he has heard from reliable authorities or personally seen (WM, Preface to book I). He continues even here to provide his readers with such tales as may “be matter of incitement to the indolent, of example to the enterprising, useful to the present age, and pleasing to posterity” (WM, Preface to book III). But in relating the deeds of his contemporaries he admits that truth is often abandoned in favour of that which is salacious, and authors are far too eager to describe that which will garner them applause (WM, Preface to book IV). Instead of declaring what is the author finds himself describing his own opinions—the opposite problem of the Saxon Chronicles. Thus, William of Malmesbury carefully navigates between these two rocks in an attempt to tell both that which is true and factual, and that which is interesting and inspiring.  

[Abby Thornton]

George,

 

I really appreciate your last line - excellent way to sum William's works up.

 

~~Abby

[Laura King]

Great job, George. Maybe I was just slow or something during my undergrad but now that I am reading these works again, I'm starting to see Mr. Schlect's stronger themes of reading these works as windows into the philosophy of writing history. I loved how you tied in Herodotus and Bede. I understood that William was continuing the traditions and ideas from Bede but you showed me the continuity between the Greeks and William. Amazing and thank you!

[George Harrell]

Isn't it so funny, Laura, how we go back and read books we thought we had nailed as a freshman or sophomore, and we think, 'Wow, I totally missed so much.' Amazing what a few more years can do.

-George

[Chris Schlect]

There you go again, George, invoking the Herodotean archetype! (Keep it up.)

A couple observations...

1. You (and others) have done well to pay close attention to William's prefaces. Indeed, they are very important. So keep going back to them.

2. A topic you raise that merits further consideration is William's use of sources. For William, what constitutes historical authority? faithful testimony of the past? Every historian has some notion of what is and is not authoritative or credible. Can you (or anyone else) unpack this in the case of William?

3. This relates to no. 2 above... William's Gesta Pontificum is fascinating for getting at questions of authority, and also of method. Bear in mind that the GP was written later and reflects a more mature stage in William's self-awareness of what it means to be an historian. Thoughts, anyone?

CRS

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:45:03 AM UTC-7, George Harrell wrote:

[Jasmine]

I could be off, but I do think the part of the answer lies in this quote: "[Eadmer] included the letter, so that no one could accuse him of lying and so that the solid truth of his words should remain unassailed," (WM GPA 74). One of the ways to ensure people will believe your work is credible is to include primary documents, which have themselves hopefully been authenticated. 

[Cara Bergeron]

All,

I think it may have been Doug Jones in Angels in the Architecture who made the point that medievals were both blessed and cursed to have a very small selection of books in their libraries. This forced them to contend with anything written that came their way, whether of great workmanship or poor, whether of tenaciously reliable stock or paltry and "salacious" stock (to use George's apt word). This blessing/conundrum of few books seems very evident in GR, where William is "forced" to relate tales from sources which have "fallen into his hands" and derive from "generally received opinion" (Book II, Ch.X). These dubious tales--which he implies are dubious--are a mixed blessing, in that they are necessary to the continuity of his narrative; but, as in the tales surrounding the pontiff Gerbert, the unbelievable is inextricably linked with the believable. WM, for all his discernment, seems to find the dilemma troubling, but he chooses to include the stories in the interest of the greater story. He frames these unresolved stories in a sort of philosophical manner, appealing to previous historical patterns, as when he compares Solomon's knowledge of magical spells (according to Josephus) with Gerbert's similar knowledge. In WM's mind, because Solomon was a patriarch, his control over demons as related by Josephus was probably valid and profitable; but he insinuates that Gerbert's was not the same situation. This conclusion by WM seems a bit far-fetched, in that Josephus, although speaking of biblical times, was not divinely inspired as the writers of the Old Testament were. 

[George Harrell]

As far as the sources that William relied on for his own work, he says that he mostly leaned on the Saxon Chronicles for his information on the kings of England. I was under the impression that part of the reason he felt he could rely on them was because they were simply the 'hard facts,' as it were, without elaboration or embellishment (although, admittedly he thought that made poor readable history). Also, they were the official records, so he wasn't relying purely on local folk legends for his narrative. In his preface to the Deeds of the Bishops of England he writes about his use of the Chronicles: "and these borrowings, like a light shining from  high watchtower, kept my steps from straying by their guidance." He also characterizes his own historical goal to "record the truth in its fullness without faltering and to preserve the brevity which is my aim," and then going on, "An author who does not neglect these two things will be neither absurd nor a nuisance." This isn't really an unpacking of William's view of other historians, but it is how he sees his own attempt to be authoritative and accurate. 

-George

[Joe Rigney]

An idea that might be related to William's sources: Part of his concern appears to be the need for localized history, that is, history of one's own people. Faricius' deficiency as a historian of the English is owing to his birth "under Tuscan skies" (GP Book 5, Prologue). That is, he is an Italian and thus is not a native speaker of English, and thus is unable to make full use of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman sources, and thus his work must be superseded by an English historian (like William). Historians should fundamentally tell the story of their own people. Thus, I wonder if part of what increases the credibility of a source is whether it was written by a member of that people.

I also wonder if this might relate to some of the Christendom discussions. William is clearly aware of something called "Western Christendom." He also has strongly local (and even provincial) opinions, regarding the dialect of Northumbria as "grating on the ears" of southerners like himself, and finding the Latin of Elward "disgusting." William seems to self-identify in a micro-Micro-Christendom: he is English (Micro-Christendom), and driven to write his history by "a love of his country," but he is from southern England (micro-Micro-Christendom), and thus feels free to mock and belittle the accents and dialect of others.

Joe Rigney

612.455.3420

joe.r...@gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HIST 504: Medieval History and Historiography" group.
To post to this group, send email to hist...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hist-504+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hist-504/-/G6ztHOt2b3sJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Cara Bergeron]

It seems that as we discuss William's idea of a "good source," we should note that he has several ideas of what constitutes one. Some sources, such as ballads and folks stories, are entertaining. He includes them; therefore, in at least the entertainment respect, he considers these "good sources." Other sources, such as the Chronicles--Anglo-Saxon and Norman--he considers "good sources" because they are reliable. But he doesn't hesitate to communicate information from "good sources" while still issuing a warning to the reader, implying that the entertaining sources shouldn't be trusted entirely--or the factual sources might bore us to death.