Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

After the appearance and rapid initial dissemination of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (“History of the Kings of Britain”), full-scale chronicles of British/English history written in England between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries almost invariably included an extensive narrative of the reign of King Arthur (Fletcher 1906/66; Matheson 1990). Such accounts were either directly or ultimately based on Geoffrey's work, though often with additions and modifications arising from the spread of Arthurian materials in other genres such as the romance, or reflecting changes in contemporary political conditions and literary or propagandist agendas.By their nature, the various chronicles of England had a prima facie claim and even an inherent generic obligation to historical “truth,” and the chronicle writers are often scrupulous in asserting the authenticity of their narratives (cf. Moll 2003; Given-Wilson 2004). Self-justification probably served two purposes: it reassured readers and, perhaps more importantly, warned would-be chroniclers, potential rivals, of the accuracy and definitive nature of the work in hand. The chronicles, therefore, served, or purported to serve, as the “received” or “official” history of King Arthur and his reign, a historical context within which readers could then view Arthurian romances and other quasi-historical tales.When considering ... log in or subscribe to read full text