MEMORY, HISTORY, DISCOURSE1 PATTERNS OF HISTORICAL DISCOURSE IN A MEDIEVAL CHRONICLE SABINA STANILA 1.

Introduction It is the purpose of this paper to uncover patterns of historical discourse by studying the linguistic features of a work whose status as historical chronicle has been long debated and finally discarded. Although form the Middle Ages, through Renaissance and Restoration, the work was taken at face value and accepted by most as a true history, it has been called a triumph of the creative imagination, suggesting that it is rather higher in literary merit than in factual value. The source material for this analysis is the History of the Kings of Britain2 completed in 1138 by Geoffrey of Monmouth.3 The History intended to give an account of the deeds of the British people from the beginning, sometime around 1100 BC, to the final triumph of the Saxons, which we are told came with the demise of Cadwallader in 689 AD. As mentioned above, the History was looked upon as a regular historical chronicle until the 17th century brought about a shift of perspective: the author has been largely defamed as a forger who made up his stories from an inordinate love of lying.4 Modern historians tend to be slightly more sympathetic. Parts of Geoffreys work certainly seem to have their origins in ancient Celtic mythology, others could have come from works by authors such as Gildas, Nennius, Bede and also the Mabinogion. 5 But there are also hints that he had access to at least one other work unknown to us today. His King Tenvantius of Britain, for example, was otherwise unknown to historians until archaeologists began to uncover Iron Age coins struck for a tribal leader in Hertfordshire named Tasciovantus. Some people consider the several copies of a Welsh version of Geoffrey known as the Brut y Brenhinedd to be his original ancient book. However, the Chronicle of Saint Brieuc makes reference to several of Geoffreys characters apparently from a source called the Ystoria Britannica. What seems of interest is to see how the History could be regarded as a chronicle, as history writing in the twelfth century and which were the discursive traits that made it look so. To do that one has to look into the relation between memory, history, and discourse, on the one hand, and the linguistic features of such discourse, on the other. How could Geoffreys discourse be viewed as a repository of history and memory? How can it be that it is just fiction? In order to approach these issues I will resort to discourse analysis, that is the analysis of language beyond the sentence level. The methodological tools to be used here are those of discourse analysis as put forth by Norman Fairclough.6 According to Fairclough, discourse is a three-dimensional conception, namely every discourse is simultaneously a piece of text, an instance of a discursive practice, and an
1

The title is tributary to, and a paraphrase of, Paul Ricoeurs La Mmoire, lhistoire, loubli (Memory, History, Forgetfulness) (Paris: Seuil, 2000) (henceforth: Ricoeur, Memory). 2 Historia Regum Britanniae in original. Geoffrey's "History" has been one of the great influences in English literature, making itself especially felt in the national romance from Layamon to Tennyson. Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Wordsworth have all used his legends, while many of the earlier chroniclers followed him as an historian. But the twelve books of his "History", recounting how Brut, great-grandson of Aeneas, founded the kingdom, and narrating the adventures of subsequent kings, are in truth not history at all but the beginning of English story-telling. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06428a.htm, accessed May 20, 2004). 3 Geoffrey of Monmouth was born sometime around 1100, perhaps in Monmouth in southeast Wales. His father was named Arthur. Geoffrey was appointed archdeacon of Llandsaff in 1140 and was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph in 1152. He died c. 1155. Geoffrey of Monmouth, History of the Kings of Britain. Tr. Sebastian Evans (London: Everymans Library, 1963) (henceforth: Geoffrey, History), v-viii. 4 See http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/geofmon.html, accessed May 29, 2004. 5 See http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/geofmon.html, accessed May 29, 2004. 6 Norman Faircoulgh, Discourse and Social Change. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), 62-73. 1

instance of a social practice. It is my intention to dwell mostly upon the History at the level of the discursive practice and of social practice. This involves: 1) a discussion of the production (writer, drawing on other texts and intertextuality), consumption (interpretation of the audience), and, to a lesser extent, distribution of the text; and 2) the conflictual relationship existing between the History and other discourses, as discursive events. 2. Patterns of discourse 2.1. Authorial discourse: representations of authorship The History opens with an epistle dedicatory to Robert earl of Gloucester in which the authorial voice makes itself present pervasively by the personal pronoun I. The personal pronoun is only one time replaced by the proper name: To you, therefore, Robert earl of Gloucester, this work humbly sues for the favour of being so corrected by your advice, that it may not be thought to be the poor offspring of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but when polished by your refined wit and judgment, the production of him who had Henry the glorious king of England for his father, and whom we see an accomplished scholar and philosopher7 One can notice the fact that the authors name is preceded by that of the one to whom the book was dedicated, which is indicative of a discourse in relation with ideology. It is obvious that the author is in less powerful position than his patron (the book was commissioned by the earl). The way people negotiate power has been a constant preoccupation of discourse analysts and there were claims that there is not a clear-cut distinction to be made between powerful talk, on the one hand, and powerless talk on the other, 8 as negotiation can bring powerful positions in the hierarchy for those who are economically powerless. As to the readership, it may seem strange at first that Geoffrey wanted to address his History to an Anglo-Norman audience, given that the subject matter of his book was the kings of Britain, which the Normans had subjugated. Though it could have been considered an offending gesture, Geoffrey knew what he was doing: the Normans were flattered to know that by force of arms they had overcome a people so martial and a land so richly chronicled.9 In the epistle the authorial voice tends to efface itself behind many subordinate clauses: At his request, therefore, though I had not made fine language my study, by collecting florid expressions from other authors, yet contented with my own homely style, I undertook the translation of that book into Latin. This self-effacement is explainable if we remember that, throughout the Middle Ages, auctores were first of all texts, not people.10 The authors intention was identified by Albertus Magnus in a tautolgy that equates it with the words in the text. Isidore of Seville also believed that the litterae of writing are representation both of a voice and of words spoken. With Geoffrey of Monmouth, The authorial voice is no longer instantiated by the personal pronoun I elsewhere in the book. Moreover, at no time does Geoffrey identify himself with the Britons. In other words, we do not come across the plural first person we to signify the author and his people. This could be accounted by the fact that, on the one hand, he was writing for a Norman audience, and on the
7

Geoffrey of Monmouth, History of the Kings of Britain. Tr. Aaron Thompson (Cambridge, Ontario: In parentheses Publications Medieval Latin Series, 1999) (henceforth: Monmouth, History), 2. 8 Sara Mills, Discourse. (London: Routledge, 1997) (henceforth: Mills, Discourse), 40. 9 Geoffrey, History, ix. 10 Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) (henceforth: Carruthers, Book), 190. 2

other, the Middle Ages could not possibly value a national spirit as frontiers and national states were at the time fluid and constantly shaping. The History then begins with a geographical description of Britain, its natural resources, form of relief, information about its inhabitants: Britain, the best of islands, is situated in the Western Ocean, between France and Ireland, being eight hundred miles long, and two hundred broad. It produces every thing that is useful to man, with a plenty that never fails. It abounds with all kinds of metal, and has plains of large extent, and hills fit for the finest tillage, the richness of whose soil affords variety of fruits in their proper seasons.11 2.2. Time, tense, and sequence Since the History opens with a geographical description of Britain, which points to a spatial representation, one would expect to find a time frame as well. Dates and years, as we know, anchor historical discourse in time. They determine the sequence of events, and sequentiality is a landmark of historical discourse. these ensure the flow, the history repeating, the progress, since European thought conceptualizes time as a linear progress starting in the past and oriented toward future. No time reference is given in the text in the form of numerals representing dates or years, so as to confer upon it the characteristic of the historical discourse. Consequently, the book does not follow the conventions of such a discourse. The reader can only infer historical time from the clues offered by Geoffrey: After the Trojan war, Aeneas, flying with Ascanius from the destruction of their city, sailed to Italy. There he was honourably received by king Latinus, which raised against him the envy of Turnus, king of the Rutuli, who thereupon made war against him.12 This could be explained by the well-known fact that medieval scholarship manifested an utter indifference to the pastness of the past, to its uniqueness and integrity. This omnitemporality in medieval thought, as Erich Auerbach called it, is usually attributed to a prevailing belief in the eternity of God and consequent emphasis upon divine continuity in human history.13 Geoffrey of Monmouth has been metaphorically called King Arthurs biographer, for at no time does his discourse resemble that of a biography. It is evident from the amount of space devoted to the story of Arthur that he saw it as the core of his book and in this his audience from the twelfth to the twentieth has agreed with him. In general Geoffreys contemporaries and successors believed in the truth of his narrative. Fellow chroniclers promptly began to make use of him. Within fifty years he was a main authority for historical writings; and before the thirteenth century was out his status was spectacularly enhanced when both Llywelyn ap Gruffydd of Wales and Edward I of England justified dynastic claims by reference to his writings. This led to a construction of memory and history. The process is explained by Sanda Golopentia in the following way: Memory could be thus essentially founded on a polymorphous dialogism and extended among insiders [of a group]. It is only by confronting our fluid and memory to the memory of the people around us that we get to complete the undecided/blurred zone of our memories.14 And thus, history is built upon a so-called memorial discourse by members of the same (professional) group, in this case chroniclers. It is not only that the events recounted by Geoffrey are not verifiable by means of objective historical methods, but also one can see that they are fables even at the level of discourse. Let us
11 12

Monmouth, History, 3. Ibid., 4. 13 Carruthers, Book, 190. 14 Sanda Golopentia, Intermemoria: studii de pragmatic i antropologie (Intermemoria: studies in pragmatics and anthropology) (Cluj:Dacia, 2001), 35. 3

now focus upon the description of a battle between the Romans headed by Lucius Hiberius and the Britons under the leadership of Arthur: On both sides the battle rageth as though it had been but just begun. On this side, as hath been said, Arthur many a time and often smiting the enemies, exhorted the Britons to stand firm. [] The Romans thus scattered, betook them, some to the wastelands and forests, some to the cities and towns, each fleeing to the refuge he deemed safest. The Britons pursue them, take them prisoner, plunder them, put them miserably to the sword What is noticeable here is the alternation of tenses, past and present, in the dynamics of the battle. This is a common feature of story-telling which can be at times borrowed by historical discourse. It may be due to translation, as translation sometimes implies and necessitates the betrayal of the original, and therefore a comparison with the Latin original would be beneficial. 3. Building discourse and reality Discourse constitutes objects (Foucault, quoted by Mills).15 It is not only about material objects, but discourse can also construct events and sequences of events into narratives which are recognised by a particular culture as real or serious events. The chief impact of his History was in changing the perceptions of the "civilized" world, that is France, about the Arthurian legend, which had previously been seen as merely the heritage of barbarians and thus unworthy of a cultured person's attention or interest. In addition to this, it helped shape the mediaeval reality of chivalry and courtesy. After this, having invited over to him all persons whatsoever that were famous for valour in foreign nations, he began to augment the number of his domestics, and introduced such politeness into his court, as people of the remotest countries thought worthy of their imitation. So that there was not a nobleman who thought himself of any consideration, unless his clothes and arms were made in the same fashion as those of Arthurs knights. At length the fame of his munificence and valour spreading over the whole world, he became a terror to the kings of other countries, who grievously feared the loss of their dominions, if he should make any attempt upon them. 4. Uses and abuses of memory We are somehow used to the notion of memory as image, icon. And yet, according to Paul Ricoeur, memory is not only about receiving an image of the past, but also a quest, an action. 16 Constructing events to be acknowledged as real is similar to searching, or doing something. And doing something implies that memory is exerted. Geoffrey of Monmouth tries to retrieve an image at the end of a quest, but in fact he simply creates a new one, which had an influence on reality. Exerting memory means actually using it, and usage engenders the possibility of abuse. Through discourse, Geoffrey of Monmouth operates a manipulation of memory. By taking out any time reference, his history reduces itself to a nice fable or to ideology. He relates events that are not anchored in time and transforms them into memory. They become history when further used by later chroniclers. Geoffreys discourse becomes fictional and ideological discourse. Before becoming historical discourse, the History is an example of ideological discourse through which memory is manipulated by distorting reality. Going down from the surface into depth, the three effects of ideology are: distortion of reality, legitimation of the power system, and integrating the common world by means of symbolic
15

One of the most productive ways of thinking about discourse is not as a group of signs or a stretch of text, but as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak (Foucault. 1972:49). In Mills, Discourse, 17. 16 Ricoeur, Memory, 67. 4

systems inherent in action.17 One could postulate that Geoffreys historical discourse manipulated memory by distorting reality so as to legitimate Briton non-existing power, here embodied by the legendary figure of Arthur, at a time of Norman rule. Thanks to the popularity of the legend of King Arthur in the courtly literature of France, Geoffrey was able to attenuate the opposition of Saxon and Norman traditions, while offering a version of insular history that was meaningful to the ruling Anglo-Norman aristocracy. Evidently Geoffreys history met with huge success, to judge from the enormous number of copies and translations of the text, some 200 of which are still extant.18 5. Factual and/or fictional discourse If there is one aspect that has so far been overlooked, that could be the interplay of the kin words story-history. This interface of two distinct fields of study, namely literature and history, has become subject to controversy since literature made more and more inroads into history realm. With reserve and reluctant to tread on quick sands, historians have stood their ground until recently in an effort to keep the pretence of history being an exact science. They may have been right as we all need some firm ground after all. Nevertheless, there seems to be an underground current among historians, subverting old ideas and putting them to test. What these historians actually do is reassess literary discourse and transform it into source for historical analysis, that is, assigning it historical value. Thus the representatives of the Annales School19 have attempted to bring together factual and fictional discourses. I chose to authors for illustration. One of them is Jacques Le Goff who, in his chapter Warriors and Conquering Bourgeois: the Image of the City in Twelfth-Century French Literature of The Medieval Imagination,20 uses Chretien de Troyes works to retrieve an image of the medieval city. An even more relevant case is that of Natalie Zemon Davies who treats letters of remission (historical sources) as pardon tales (literature) by identifying their story-telling features, such as narrative techniques and motifs.21 She finds that remission tales show that a fund of narrative techniques was shared by a broad range of social groups, linking peasant discourses with high literary culture.22 Geoffreys History could benefit from a similar treatment. Being nowadays considered a sample of fictional discourse, although intended as a chronicle at the time when it was written, it could be re-valued and some images or perceptions of life in the Middle Ages could be drawn out of it for it stands at the crossroads of literature and history. The circle would then have been closed with a return to history and drawing factual discourse out of fiction.

17 18

Ricoeur, Memory. Paolo Delogu, An Introduction to Medieval History. Tr. Matthew Moran (London: Duckworth, 2002), 129. 19 Established by Lucien Febvre (1878-1956) and Marc Bloch (1886-1944), this school of historiography has its roots in the journal Annales: economies, socits, civilisations, Febvres reconstituted version of a journal he had earlier formed with Marc Bloch. Under Fernand Braudels direction, the Annales school promoted a new form of history, replacing, on the one hand, the study of leaders with the leves of ordinary people, and on the other, the examination of politics, diplomacy and wars with inquiries into climate, demography, agriculture, and communication, as well as social groups and mentalities. While aiming at a total history, it also yielded dazzling microstudies of villages and regions. In http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article? tocId=9355426&query=annales%20school&ct=, accessed May 20, 2004. 20 Jacques Le Goff, The Medieval Imagination. Tr. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988). 21 Natalie Zemon Davis, Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France. (The Harry Camp lectures at Stanford University. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press; Cambridge: Polity, 1987). 22 Jonathan Dewald Fiction in the Archives (book review). In American Historical Review, December 1989, vol. 34, issue 5, 767-769. 5

6. Conclusion The problem of establishing the type of discourse and the discursive patterns in Geoffrey of Monmouths History of the Kings of Britain is not a simplistic one or easy to answer. Although it definitely lacks the traditional features of historical discourse, mainly the ones pertaining to time reference and content, the History cannot be easily discarded either. Since the source material for the present study was the English translation of the Historia, the researcher cannot overlook one important aspect of the historical discourse, namely the length of sentences and their word order which are somehow reminiscent of Latin texts. Therefore, a further comparative study of the Latin text and its English translation could yield interesting results.
References Carruthers, Mary. The Book of Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Delogu, Paolo, An Introduction to Medieval History. Tr. Matthew Moran. London: Duckworth, 2002. Dewald, Jonathan. Fiction in the Archives (book review). In American Historical Review, December 1989, vol. 34, issue 5, 767-769. Faircoulgh, Norman. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992. Geoffrey of Monmouth, History of the Kings of Britain. Tr. Aaron Thompson. Cambridge, Ontario: In parentheses Publications Medieval Latin Series, 1999. Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Kings of Britain. Tr. Sebastian Evans. London: Everymans Library, 1963. Golopentia, Sanda. Intermemoria: studii de pragmatic i antropologie (Intermemoria: studies in pragmatics and anthropology). Cluj:Dacia, 2001. Le Goff, Jacques. The Medieval Imagination. Tr. Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. Mills, Sara. Discourse. London: Routledge, 1997. Ricoeur, Paul. La Mmoire, lhistoire, loubli (Memory, History, Forgetfulness). Paris: Seuil, 2000. Zemon Davis, Natalie. Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France. The Harry Camp lectures at Stanford University. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press; Cambridge: Polity, 1987.