¹ Edmond Faral (ed.), La Légende Arthurienne: Études et documents (Paris 1929) III 63–303 (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, fasc. 257). All quotations from Geoffrey's Historia are taken from this text. I give the more conventional book and chapter numbers first, followed by Faral's chapter number. Google Scholar

² The texts of Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britanniae, and Nennius, Historia Britonum, are both available in Theodor Mommsen, MGH Auctores Antiquissimi 13 (Berlin 1899). A more recent edition of Nennius is Ferdinand Lot, Nennius et l'Historia Brittonum (Paris 1934; Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, fasc. 263), which I have used in the present study. It should perhaps be added that I employ the name ‘Nennius’ in this paper as a convenience, without intending to argue the question of authorship of various parts of the Historia Brittonum. Google Scholar

³ Many peoples (including Americans) have, in the last two millenia, identified themselves symbolically with the Israelites. But it is interesting to note that others besides the Britons made the identificaton before and during Geoffrey's own time. Note the instructions given Rollo by a ‘vox divina’ in Dudo of St. Quentin's De moribus et actibus primorum Normanniae ducum (PL 141.632B): ‘Rollo, velociter surge, pontum festinanter navigio transmeans, ad Anglos perge: ubi audies quod ad patriam sospes reverteris, perpetuaque pace in ea sine detrimento frueris.’ This theme is developed in the following columns, especially 633–634. Compare Genesis 12.1, 13.14ff. etc. Google Scholar

⁴ Scholarship on Geoffrey and the Bible is listed in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 30 (1947) 293 n.1. It is not extensive, seen in comparison with the amount of work don^e on the Historia generally. Paul Feuerherd, in Geoffrey of Monmouth und das Alte Testamen^t (Halle 1915), has done the most thorough study to date. He points out that details from the lives of many of Geoffrey's British heroes appear to be derived from Old Testament stories of the patriarchs (Rivallo, Conan), judges (Eldol), and the Israelite kings, especially Saul, David, and Solomon (Ebraucus, Dunwallo, Cassibellaunus, Vortigern, Arthur). ‘Das ganze Werk macht den Eindruck,’ he says, ‘als habe es Galfred in Parallele zu der Geschichte des Judenvolkes geschrieben’ (p. 13). His most interesting comment, however, is his explanation of the scarcity of overt biblical references in Geoffrey: ‘Auf den ersten Blick könnte es befremdend erscheinen, dass der Geistliche Galfredus Monumentensis in seiner verhältnismässig umfangreichen Darstellung nicht öfter das alte Testament anführt. Doch glaube ich, dass es Absicht des Chronisten war. Er wollte es seine Leser nicht merken lassen, dass er seine Historia der Geschichte der Juden nachschrieb’ (p. 15). But he does not develop this point. The most thorough general studies of Geoffrey's Historia are those by Edmond Faral op. cit. [note 1 above] II 68–340) and Tatlock, J. S. P. (The Legendary History of Britain [Berkeley 1950]). Neither scholar, however, has much to add to Feuerherd's work as far as the Bible is concerned. Faral occasionally provides a valuable corrective to Feuerherd. For example, in pointing out (II 286–7) echoes of Virgil in the battle between Arthur and the giant of Mont-Saint-Michel (10.3; Faral 165), Faral seems to me on much safer ground than Feuerherd, who thinks Geoffrey's description of this incident owes something to the famous encounter of David and Goliath. Mention should also be made of the valuable article on Geoffrey's use of the Bible by the late Jacob Hammer (‘Geoffrey of Monmouth's use of the Bible in the Historia Regum Britanniae,’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 30 [1947] 293–311), and of the extensive biblical references included in his edition of a variant version of the Historia (Cambridge 1951). His particular interest in Geoffrey's use of words and phrases from the Vulgate, however, involves an emphasis on style and language which is not a part of my purpose in the present paper.Google Scholar

⁵ If Geoffrey's version of Nennius had the variant account of Constans’ (Constantine's) death mentioned above (‘ quasi dolo uoraciter occisus’), he may have expanded his description from this. But of course Geoffrey's details are still not explained. It might be worth noting that Bede's account in the Historia Ecclesiastica (2.9) of the attempt on King Edwin's life by the assassin Eumer bears some resemblance to Geoffrey's description of the assassination of Constantine, but the differences between the two stories are extensive enough to suggest that Bede's influence here is unlikely. The most remarkable feature in Geoffrey, the pretense of a secret message and the consequent dismissal of everyone from the king's presence, is lacking in Bede. Eumer wounds Edwin (he fails to kill him) through the body of Lilla, the king's counselor. Google Scholar

⁶ Discussed by Feuerherd, op. cit. 96–97; Lot, F., Historia Brittonum 84–85.Google Scholar