Analysis of Geoffrey of Monmouth by David Nash Ford - Essay Example

Modern historians trace much of the content of Geoffreys “History” to Celtic mythology and other Breton writings, as well as some historical works tying the content back to actual events of the period. “Life of Merlin”, another of Geoffrey's writings, was both written and placed into the timeline after “History of the Kings of Britain”. However, since Merlin appeared in the original “History” as well, his role was made more mythical by extending his lifespan to an impossible degree.

Geoffrey did this to make the events in “Life of Merlin” and “History” agree with each other, even though it is most likely that the Merlin from “History” and the Merlin in “Life of Merlin” were two different people. As a reward for his work, Geoffrey was first named Bishop of St. Asaphs and then Archbishop Theobald. However, he was unable to fill this role well due to the Welsh revolution that was taking place. In addition, he died shortly after being named Archbishop and was never really able to enjoy being elected to the position.

I selected this reading because it is more interesting for me to learn about real historical figures and the background of the stories than it is to study the life of characters that never existed. Geoffrey of Monmouth is the man responsible for the popularity of the Arthur stories we know and love today; this alone makes him worthy of further study. This reading attempts to be as historically accurate as possible. There are probably errors, given the scarcity of records that remain about Geoffrey of Monmouth as well as how popular folklore differs from the historical records, but it seems to be a true account of the man's life.

However, as a historical reading, it is difficult to determine a moral for the story. This essay was written to convey information, not to prove a point or give a moral. About the only moral factor that can be considered is how 17th-century scholars were quick to condemn Geoffrey for embellishing and exaggerating the stories of Arthur. Modern viewpoints make a distinction between “lying” and “fiction” that historical scholars and readers do not.