Passages for comments (20 points)
This passage is very important as it brings out some of the events which happened in England during the visit by Robert, the Duke of Norman. The passage gives an account of the history of the English people; it documents the events which occurred between the King of England and the Duke of Norman. What is interesting about this piece as historical writing is that it gives an account of these events as they happened. The historian has provided the happenings systematically, he wrote this piece specifically because he wanted to document the exact time and place in which these events took place; it also explains how they were carried out, they also include the perceptions of the people involved towards each other. For instance, “he was aware of the king’s cunning to pardon him the 3000 marks which the king owed him every year.” It also documents the reasons for their meeting, it is understood that the Duke of Normans, Robert owed the king about 3000 marks; this was the main reason for their meeting; and for this, the Duke hoped that he was going to be pardoned for it. This document is reliable as a historical piece since it provides for the time and place where each action that took place is situated, and moreover gives the name of the place, the period, and the people involved in doing it.
This passage raises issues concerning the ancient histories, and especially concerning religion. The interesting part of the paragraph as a historical work concerns the issue that affects the society; that is religion and idleness. A historical piece documents exact events of what happened through the eyes of the historian. In this perspective, the historian was motivated by the changes in the society brought about by religion and idleness of people. The historian argues that the current religion is the cause of people ignoring their histories since they can no longer read. This is an observation made by the historian on religion, and its reliability as a work of history is genuine since the accounts of happenings were from a firsthand experience.
What characteristics as historians do Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Huntington share?
Historians just like any other writer are inspired by some events in which they encountered. They are not based on fiction since they tell accounts of memorable events that they feel should not be forgotten; the best historian is one who had the first-hand experience of whatever they were doing. They draw their writing from different inspirations; some may be inspired by the leadership they are working under, the wars they are experiencing and many other aspects of history. Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Huntington historical work can be identified with some of the historiographies of other writers such as Flavius Josephus and Titus Livy.
Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Huntington as historians have a lot of characteristics which can be identified with other historians such as Livy, Tacitus, Josephus, Eusebius, and Herodotus. Geoffrey of Monmouth is responsible for writing the “History of the Kings of Britain” while Henry of Huntington wrote the “History of the English.” These two historians dedicated their work to writing the long histories which mainly focused on their patrons. They specifically wrote their work to please their patrons. Geoffrey and Henry presented their patrons as heroic figures. Their work became some of the popular texts in the middle ages. Josephus has the same characteristics as Geoffrey and Henry; Josephus has a very close link to his patrons and therefore this influences his historical work. His history just as those of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Huntington, his work was aimed at pleasing their patrons. According to T. Rajak, “this analysis of Josephus’ partisanship explores the shady borderline area between genuine commitment and irresponsible bias. Furthermore, since Josephus’ Jewish War was also influenced by another personal factor, his connection with the emperors, it raises also a related issue, making us reflect on the various ways in which patrons might influence the literature which they support” (Rajak 6). Josephus disowned his Jewish roots and took a Roman citizenship where he was treated among the royalties, therefore, his loyalty to the patrons was not wavering thus his historiography had to have a lighter touch on them, despite his Jewish origins. Just as Rajak analyses his work, “while the Jewish War is formally centered on Roman-Jewish relations, and does contain much about the Roman campaign, what stands out as most alive is the author’s concern with internal questions” (Rajak 107).
The other accounts of the history of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Josephus history that they share include their accounts of wars; they have both given an account of wars in which they witnessed. Josephus was there during the Jewish war, the invasion of Rome. He wrote of the accounts of the war as he witnessed them, he says the “two wars occur side by side, with sometimes the one taking precedence, sometimes the other. Furthermore, there are in essence two sides to the conflict; this is not controverted by the activities of a would-be center group (which included Josephus himself) in the early stages. As it proceeds, the civil war changes shape, producing, as revolutions will, unremitting” (Rajak 107). Geoffrey, on the other hand, gave an account of the Roman Empire invasion of Britain under the influence of Julius Caesar.
Titus Livy also shares similar characteristics to Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Huntington; just like these historians, Livy also wrote of his patrons. Despite the fact that the people of Rome had been writing histories, Livy took it to another level and exploring some of the things left out. Just like Geoffrey and Henry who wrote about their country, Livy also concentrated his work on the history of Rome right from its foundation up to his own time. His work was, therefore, become famous and known throughout Rome and became a source of influence on the philosophy as well as the style of writing all the way to the 18th century.
Most of the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth despite being famous and mostly relied on as the source Roman History, it has since been seen as historically inaccurate since some of the works such as the invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar is something that could have been identified in other works of history. This is the same case in Livy’s; according to P. G Walsh, it does not mean that Livy’s work is not important, but his work was highly dependent on the earlier work that was already written by early historians (Walsh 277). It should be noted that at the time Livy was writing history, there were already written accounts of history by other historians thus the possibility that Livy relied on these sources to base his accounts.
Their historical works, therefore, share a number of characteristics that can be identified to their time. Historians, as indicated earlier, can be motivated by different events or happenings in their environment. Josephus, Livy, Geoffrey, and Henry have some things in common on the way they present their history, a common thing that these authors share is their affiliation to their patrons. They hold them high in a manner showing that they respect them.
References
Rajak, Tessa. Josephus.
Walsh, P. G. Livy: His Historical Aims And Methods. University Press, 1961.