Scholars have already noted that the flexible ambiguity of Geoffrey’s Historia proved useful in the context of twelfth-century Anglo-Norman aristocratic enmity. Shichtman and Finke remind us of the awkwardness of Geoffrey’s multiple dedicatees, a group of enemies, key figures from both sides of the bitter dynastic struggles following Henry I’s death.35 As a result, they describe Geoffrey’s Historia, following the work of Pierre Bourdieu, as symbolic capital, “the creation of a past which could ease the [genealogical] anxieties of a powerful ruling class concerned with discovering family origin” (35). Geoffrey’s work was so popular because of its ability to accommodate such a diverse and fractured audience. I am suggesting that there is an even broader and more diverse audience to which we must attend. For Geoffrey’s popularity ventured far beyond a court circle interested in the particularities of dynastic politics. And it pertained as well to a set of contestations between the Welsh and Anglo-Normans rooted in divergent interpretations of the Merlin Prophecies.
We thus still need to address the crucial question of these traditions, asking why the history Geoffrey chose to tell was, unlike Malmesbury’s Gesta regum Anglorum or Bede’s Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum, not the story of an English past, but of a British one.36 How did this story of British kings help create an insular future, and what might this mean for our understanding of the category of “Britain?” The legacy of Geoffrey’s matter of Britain in the later Middle Ages—its appearance in texts of futuristic prophesy and political propaganda, its uses as genealogical data for aristocratic pedigree, its elaboration in regionalist romances of Arthur, or in the plans of English (or Scottish) sovereigns who name their first-born sons after the mythical king—means that Monmouth’s fantasy offered an enduring imaginary ground for creating (and contesting) the identity of an historic British community. I turn now to examine how and why Geoffrey’s “Britons,” and the ambiguity of Merlin’s futuristic prophecies of their return, prompt these uses. The Britain Geoffrey describes evokes a doubled history: one specifically linked to a remnant Welsh population, and another linked to an insular return, and to a British totam insulam.
Doubled Time and Spaces: The Riches of British History
Francis Ingledew has shown that the genealogical impulse in the Historia links with territorial claims to land, arguing that as Geoffrey’s text eased Anglo-Norman genealogical disputes, it also came to sponsor territorial claims for an entire class of aristocrats. This is because, Ingledew argues, Geoffrey advanced the very definition of what constitutes a “national” history, where “the possession of territory and power came to correlate distinctively with ownership of time; time came to constitute space—family and national land—as home, an inalienable and permanent, private and public territory” (669).37 Ingledew offers a view of time that is useful for imagining, and then claiming, the unified space of a realm. Geoffrey’s Historia imagines a genealogical union (across time) that can prefigure the imagination of territorial unity, in the united (broadly familial) ownership of a realm. Yet, like so many other insightful analyses of the Historia, Ingledew’s work does not consider the significance of Geoffrey’s relation to Welsh traditions, wherein we might find a different account of the broad family descended from Brutus. Instead Ingledew emphasizes Geoffrey’s book as an exclusively Trojan history. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s genealogy of the Britons, while a Trojan story, also depends upon a view of British territory borrowed from very old popular Welsh traditions.38 Indeed Monmouth’s genealogical narrative will help sponsor Welsh claims to London’s crown.
At the time Geoffrey wrote, “Briton” was an equivocal category, referring both to the Welsh and to their linguistic kin in Brittany. While there is the sense that, for modern scholars, the early medieval term is liable to slippage between these two referents, scholars rarely consider what that slippage might have meant for Monmouth, or how its doubleness might have been useful to him. Instead scholars imagine Geoffrey’s identity in singular terms—he was, they assert, a Breton. Yet questions of flexibility and of cultural doubleness remain important to Monmouth who represents it as an important strategy for dealing with complicated cultural relations.39 Ambivalence and doubleness emerge in Geoffrey’s representation of the Welsh, a group he describes as both vulnerable and noble. Geoffrey’s Welsh do appear poor and vulnerable (vi, 2), yet it is their “nobility in bearing” (vi, 4) that gains for them a hearing with Aldroenus’ King of Brittany, implying that their fortunes are tarnished but not bankrupt. An army of the most illustrious Britons conquer Amorica for Maximianus and Coranus Meriadorus, settling there and leaving their lower-born kinspeople in Britain. Yet it is through the politicking of what Brynley Roberts calls the “listless, low-born, and timid remnant” (x) left behind that the dynasty destined to produce Arthur—the glorious king and narrative center of Geoffrey’s work—returns to the island. Geoffrey’s representation of the conquest of Brittany implies a ruthlessness (rather than a forthright glory) of the invading Maximianus.40 Those left behind by Maximianus, moreover, testify to the losses this conquest wrought for his own kin, counting themselves “poverty-stricken” since “Maximianus despoiled [the] island of its soldiers.” And when Aldroenus, King of Brittany, refuses to accept the crown of Britain—an episode frequently cited as prime evidence of Geoffrey’s Breton, rather than Welsh, loyalties—he nonetheless keeps the crown in the family, offering his brother Constantine in his place, describing an island in “peace and tranquillity” as the most “fertile country in existence” (vi, 5). Finally Arthur, the central figure in Geoffrey’s monument to British kings, is descended from both insular and continental ancestors.
According to Monmouth’s story the Britons are a doubled people, occupying two places at once: they remain in the western reaches of the island, but have also migrated to the continent. The cultural migrations of the Britons offer a long history of continental and insular interaction. Geoffrey’s tale of the conquest of Amorica is, moreover, a direct inversion of Norman Conquest of the island of Britain; Norman migration from continent to island mirrors a previous, and British, migration from island to continent. In light of Geoffrey’s story of British conquest throughout all of Gaul, Norman invasion of the island of Britain amounts not to a new conquest so much as a recurrence: Britons left the island, conquering the continent; the Normans leave the continent, conquering the island. This conjunction of interactions implies geographic settlement is fluid; cultural exchange between continent and island has a long, and specifically British, history.
From an Anglo-Norman point of view, this double geography of Britain (as a number of scholars have suggested) marks Briton and Norman as distinct yet related cultures. Insular Britons, by virtue of their affiliation with this continental kin, deserve respect. Yet, as readers repeatedly point out, the Welsh Britons have none of the glory of the Normans, appearing debased and lost by the end of Geoffrey’s story. Their history is strikingly glorious, but their present is weak and unsteady. Despite such weakness, it is the Britons in Wales who offer hope for a future recovery: “Living precariously in Wales, in the remote recesses of the wood” Welsh Britons