THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA PUBLICATION No. 57 GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH VARIANT VERSION OF HIS HISTORIA REGUM BRITANNIAE GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH HISTORIA REGUM BRITANNIAE A VARIANT VERSION EDITED FROM MANUSCRIPTS BY JACOB HAMMER HUNTER COLLEGE THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS 1951 The publication of this book was made possible by grants of funds to the Academy from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Study, and an Anonymous Donor COPYRIGHT BY THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA 1951 Printed in U.S.A. TO E. A. LOWE AND THE MEMORY OF ERNST RIESS PREFACE In 1927 Professor Chambers wrote: Critical work on the manuscripts (of Geoffrey of Monmouth) is still in its infancy, and in these circumstances speculation as to the original form of the Historia and any revision which it may have undergone can only be tentative.1 Two years later, in 1929, two editions of Geoffrey appeared,2 which constitute a real advance over the older, uncritical editions. The present edition which offers the first critical text of a Variant Version of the Historia, based on manuscripts that hitherto passed under the name of Geoffrey, is only another step in this advance. It represents the first fruits of an investigation undertaken many years ago and is preliminary to a critical edition of the Historia, based on all manuscripts known to scholars, the larger portion of which (135 in actual numbers) has already been col- lated. A task of this scope could not have been undertaken without outside assistance. It was thanks to the generous grants (and publication sub- vention) from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation and the American Council of Learned Societies that it was possible to visit the various libraries of Europe and collect the material necessary for the project. The gracious leaves received from the Trustees of Hunter College, New York, and the kind invitation and subvention from the Institute for Advanced Study of Princeton, N. J., made the final preparation of this volume pos- sible. The relatively rapid progress made in the accomplishment of the task was due in large measure to the congenial and scholarly atmosphere at the Institute. It is also a pleasure and a duty to acknowledge the help received from the librarians of Trinity College, Dublin, and Cardiff Public Library and especially from Sir H. I. Bell, former keeper of manuscripts in the British Museum, who at all times was ready with his advice and assistance. My thanks are also due to Professor Roger S. Loomis of Columbia University and to Professor John J. Parry of the University of Illinois for their many helpful suggestions. Nor can I omit to express my gratitude to Dr. Henry A. Moe and Mr. Charles Liebman, Jr. for their timely assistance. But above all I am deeply indebted to Professor E. A. Lowe of the Institute for Advanced Study and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and to my late *E. K. Chambers, Arthur of Britain, p. 30 (Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1927). 'See Introduction, p. 3 and note 4. viii Preface colleague at Hunter College, Professor Ernst Riess. Their friendship and encouragement have meant more to me than I can say. To dedicate the present volume to these two scholars is a privilege. Lastly, I take the opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Me- diaeval Academy of America for encouraging my studies and to its able officer, Dr. Charles R. D. Miller, as well as to Dr. Van Courtlandt Elliott, for their valuable editorial advice and most generous assistance in seeing this volume through the press. A glance at the printed page (beginning with p. 136), will show the difficulties of composition inherent in setting up parallel texts of sharply varying length, each with its own testimonia and critical apparatus. An effort has been made to facilitate the reader's labor; for the difficulty which must inevitably remain his indulgence is asked. For the portion of the text where C and DEH (pp. 136-264) differ so sharply that each must be presented separately, the text of C is given first (pp. 136-208), and is followed by DEH (pp. 209-264). As for the rest, Habent sua fata libelli. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE vii INTRODUCTION 3 TEXT 22 INDEX OF PASSAGES QUOTED OR REFERRED TO 265 INDEX A. PROPER NAMES 271 B. TOPOGRAPHICAL NAMES 281 C. VARIA 291 GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH VARIANT VERSION OF HIS HISTORIA REGUM BRITANNIAE INTRODUCTION The existence of nearly two hundred Latin manuscripts of the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth is in itself eloquent testimony to its author's popularity.1 Extensive borrowings from the Historia by chroniclers in prose and verse, and the numerous versions in Welsh as well as other languages only served to enhance a reputation that was growing apace. The opinion of Geoffrey's contemporaries bears this out. Alfred of Beverley (ca 1150), who "inaugurated the custom of inserting Geoffrey's narrative in serious prose chronicles," 2 seems to have felt the importance of this work when he remarked that "anyone not acquainted with the History of the Kings of Britain puts himself down as unculti- vated (notam rusticitatis incurrebat)." 8 However, this is not the place to discuss Geoffrey's popularity as a historian, but rather to ask whether most of the manuscripts of the His- toria have been examined, their family groups established and the results made available to scholars. The answer to this question is in the negative and this notwithstanding the fact that two editions of Geoffrey have appeared as recently as 1929.4 Both of them, as was pointed out elsewhere, "suffer from an inherent weakness in so far as they merely touch the sur- face of the problem."8 Both Faral and Griscom base their text on too small a number of manuscripts and employ the method of classification by the dedications, a method that fails to take account of the important internal evidence which can be derived only from a detailed study of the 1 See the list of Geoffrey manuscripts in Acton Griscom's edition of the Historia Regum Britanniae, pp. 551-580 (Longmans, Green, New York, 1929); for an additional list, see J. Hammer, Some Additional Manuscripts of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae" {Modern Language Quarterly, 3 [1942], 235-242); cf. also Brut y Brenbinedd, edited and translated by John J. Parry, p. ix (The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cam- bridge, 1937). *See Robert Huntington Fletcher, The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles especially those of Great Britain and France, p. 125 (Ginn and Co., Boston, 1906). On pp. 169-177 Fletcher gives a long list of chroniclers who drew from Geoffrey. *See Thomas Hearne's edition of Alfred's Annales, p. 2 (Oxford, 1716); see also the interpretation of this passage by R. S. Loomis, "The Arthurian Legend before 1139" {The Romanic Review, February 1941), 13-14 * The first is that of Griscom (see note 1); the editor of the second is Professor Edmond Faral, in the third volume of his La Legende Arthurienne (Champion, Paris, 1929). 'J. Hammer, "Remarks on the Sources and Textual History of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. With an Excursus on the Chronica Tolonorum of Wincenty KadJubek (Magister Vincentius)." The Quarterly Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, 3 (1944), 501-564; see p. 525. Quoted hereafter as Remarks. 4 Historla Regum Britanniae entire text contained in the manuscripts themselves.6 Only such a study — if any — can hope to bring to light the modifications and alterations intro- duced into the text by various scribes and editors in the course of trans- mission; only such a study can hope to throw into relief the character of the authentic text of Geoffrey. It will reveal the existence of more than one recension7 prepared either by Geoffrey himself or by others. The main problem that confronts an editor of Geoffrey's work has been suc- cinctly stated by Professor A. G. van Hamel: "What is wanted most at present," he says, "is a minute study of all the Latin texts that are still buried in British and continental libraries." And he adds: "At the same time, an absolute reserve must be recommended in drawing conclusions from the Welsh Bruts, as long as this preliminary task has not been accom- plished." 8 Though different editions and recensions of his work must have been due to Geoffrey himself — the different dedications preceding the Historia clearly suggest that —it is only in the last half century that a recension which presents significant deviations from the vulgate text9 has been brought to the attention of scholars. In his brief analysis of the Harley manuscript 6358 — used in the preparation of the present edition, — H. L. D. Ward called attention to the fact10 that this manuscript shows more or less serious departures from the printed editions. This hint ought to have excited the curiosity of Geoffrey scholars sufficiently to make them look deeper into the matter, a step which would have led to the discovery of a vari- ant version or versions. Yet it was not until 1932 that students of Geoffrey became aware of the existence of such a version. In a paper entitled A Variant Version of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia,11 Professor John J. Parry reproduced ff. 63-72 of manuscript Panton 37, an eighteenth century copy preserved in the National Library of Wales, containing chapters 2-3 and part of chapter four of Book I, the first two chapters of Book IV, and 'Remarks, pp. 524-530. 'The present writer has called attention to the existence of such a recension, with an entirely different text, in Books VI-XII of the Historia.