Bergeron Post 4: Historiographical Challenges in WM
Cara Bergeron
How does a historian dare to speak into a 400 year void? William of Malmesbury, writing approximately 400 years after the death of Bede, states in his preface to Book I, “from the time of Bede there is a period of two hundred and twenty three years left unnoticed in his history.” To confound the 223 year dearth of quality historical sources, the reference which finally asserts itself in England is utterly lacking in decorum or literary flair. WM comments on this resource, the Saxon Chronicle: “So it is that if anything disgraceful occurs, it is not concealed; if anything fortunate, it is not sufficiently noted in the Chronicle; whether it be done designedly, or whether it arise from that bad quality of the human mind which makes gratitude for good transient; whereas the recollection of evil remains forever” (GR, Book I, Ch.I). In other words, the Chronicle is not simply inadequate; its brevity and lack of commentary make it immoral by omission. William sets out to correct these historiographical/moral ills, but his challenge is confounded by the fact that his meager sources, though he seeks them in libraries throughout Northern Europe, do not always agree. Additionally, he realizes he must prioritize his information; the student’s brain will lose focus without an organizational hierarchy. This forces him to omit some histories, such as those of the East Angles and East Saxons (GR, Book I, Preface). He also admits the possibility that he may tell an incomplete story for one of two reasons. Either the reader may know more about the situation than WM himself (not very likely in our century, but perhaps more likely in his own) or his original sources, despite his arduous journeys in their pursuit, may be dishonest or untrustworthy in other regards. He begs the reader’s mercy for the first possibility and, in the second possibility, adjures the reader to allow the “veracity of the relation (to) rest with its authors” (GR, Book I, Preface). A topping idea! Yet WM’s historiographical standards extend far beyond truthfulness, source agreement, and adequate references. Style and organization are the head and tail of his historical silver dollar; they allow him to “carry on (his) earthly warfare to the highest pitch” (GR, Book I, Ch. II). He attributes their presence to righteousness and their lack to moral turpitude. Nowhere is this more evident than in Book I when he begins to discuss Northumbria’s moral and religious decline. Yet WM’s is not a pedantic, disconnected tirade about the decline of the good old days. Instead, he links his discussion through a series of biographies. Thus Williams’ account of the northerner Bede—and the pitiful epitaph constructed by his Wearmouth brothers in the wake of his death—links to a retelling of the Frankish kings. These histories culminate brilliantly with the moral assumptions of Alcuin, a Northumbrian scholar worthy of the appellation, serving in the Carolingian court of Charlemagne himself. William uses Alcuin to posits that, in a degenerate country, “almost perished through internal dissensions and perjury,” one should not expect a literary epitaph, decent manners, or the sort of exemplary history written by a man whose name became synonymous with the very word “venerable.” If history is to inspire men to remember and pursue the good while being checked in their desire to follow those whose end is destruction, William/Alcuin imply that the community which gives voice to that history must first BE good itself. Perhaps this is William’s own hope--the hope that feeds his courage to write history. For, in his account, Malmesbury is a place where such histories might begin. The hope that he may bring his own literary talent and researches to bear for a moral and eternal purpose, the love of his native country, and fealty to his own abbey, inspire him triply to intrude upon the 400 year historical void in England.
Chris Schlect
From Chicago after two days in an archive (not as exotic as the monastic libraries that William consulted),
CR Schlect
How does a historian dare to speak into a 400 year void? William of Malmesbury, writing approximately 400 years after the death of Bede, states in his preface to Book I, “from the time of Bede there is a period of two hundred and twenty three years left unnoticed in his history.” To confound the 223 year dearth of quality historical sources, the reference which finally asserts itself in England is utterly lacking in decorum or literary flair. WM comments on this resource, the Saxon Chronicle: “So it is that if anything disgraceful occurs, it is not concealed; if anything fortunate, it is not sufficiently noted in the Chronicle; whether it be done designedly, or whether it arise from that bad quality of the human mind which makes gratitude for good transient; whereas the recollection of evil remains forever” (GR, Book I, Ch.I). In other words, the Chronicle is not simply inadequate; its brevity and lack of commentary make it immoral by omission. William sets out to correct these historiographical/moral ills, but his challenge is confounded by the fact that his meager sources, though he seeks them in libraries throughout Northern Europe, do not always agree. Additionally, he realizes he must prioritize his information; the student’s brain will lose focus without an organizational hierarchy. This forces him to omit some histories, such as those of the East Angles and East Saxons (GR, Book I, Preface). He also admits the possibility that he may tell an incomplete story for one of two reasons. Either the reader may know more about the situation than WM himself (not very likely in our century, but perhaps more likely in his own) or his original sources, despite his arduous journeys in their pursuit, may be dishonest or untrustworthy in other regards. He begs the reader’s mercy for the first possibility and, in the second possibility, adjures the reader to allow the “veracity of the relation (to) rest with its authors” (GR, Book I, Preface). A topping idea! Yet WM’s historiographical standards extend far beyond truthfulness, source agreement, and adequate references. Style and organization are the head and tail of his historical silver dollar; they allow him to “carry on (his) earthly warfare to the highest pitch” (GR, Book I, Ch. II). He attributes their presence to righteousness and their lack to moral turpitude. Nowhere is this more evident than in Book I when he begins to discuss Northumbria’s moral and religious decline. Yet WM’s is not a pedantic, disconnected tirade about the decline of the good old days. Instead, he links his discussion through a series of biographies. Thus Williams’ account of the northerner Bede—and the pitiful epitaph constructed by his Wearmouth brothers in the wake of his death—links to a retelling of the Frankish kings. These histories culminate brilliantly with the moral assumptions of Alcuin, a Northumbrian scholar worthy of the appellation, serving in the Carolingian court of Charlemagne himself. William uses Alcuin to posits that, in a degenerate country, “almost perished through internal dissensions and perjury,” one should not expect a literary epitaph, decent manners, or the sort of exemplary history written by a man whose name became synonymous with the very word “venerable.” If history is to inspire men to remember and pursue the good while being checked in their desire to follow those whose end is destruction, William/Alcuin imply that the community which gives voice to that history must first BE good itself. Perhaps this is William’s own hope--the hope that feeds his courage to write history. For, in his account, Malmesbury is a place where such histories might begin. The hope that he may bring his own literary talent and researches to bear for a moral and eternal purpose, the love of his native country, and fealty to his own abbey, inspire him triply to intrude upon the 400 year historical void in England.
--
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/-/d5JL3Ibyo8IJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.