The Vikings in 1014

The Vikings are getting lots of positive press in England at the moment. But 1000 years ago the English regarded them with rather less enthusiasm. Here's an excerpt from the famous sermon by Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, delivered in 1014:

'Things have not prospered now for a long time neither at home nor abroad, but there has been destruction and hate in every district time and again, and the English have been entirely defeated for a long time now, and very truly disheartened through the anger of God. And pirates [i.e. Vikings] are so strong through the consent of God, that often in battle one drives away ten, and two often drive away twenty, sometimes fewer and sometimes more, entirely on account of our sins. And often ten or twelve, each after the other, insult the thane's woman disgracefully, and sometimes his daughter or close kinswomen, while he looks on, he that considered himself brave and strong and good enough before that happened. And often a slave binds very fast the thane who previously was his lord and makes him into a slave through God's anger. Alas the misery and alas the public shame that the English now have, entirely through God's anger. Often two sailors [i.e. Vikings], or three for a while, drive the droves of Christian men from sea to sea - out through this nation, huddled together, as a public shame for us all, if we could seriously and properly know any shame. But all the insult that we often suffer, we repay by honouring those who insult us. We pay them continually and they humiliate us daily; they ravage and they burn, plunder and rob and carry to the ship; and lo! what else is there in all these happenings except God's anger clear and evident over this nation?'

The Headlines in 1204 (according to the Dunstable Annalist)

In the year 1204 the king confirmed a gift to us of his houses and garden at Dunstable.
In the same year a vicarage was assigned to Pulloxhill church on the authority of William, bishop of Lincoln.
Also Godfrey, bishop of Winchester, died.
And Suffredus, bishop of Chichester.
And Eleanor the king's mother.
And Normandy was lost.

Just a bunch of stuff some guy made up

The History of the Kings of Britain was written in the 1130s by a mischievous Welsh monk called Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is an elaborate literary hoax – a sustained work of fiction, laced with just enough snippets of more sober chronicles to convince the credulous. Geoffrey, for example, explains in his first chapter that Britain was named after its first settler, Brutus, a Trojan who arrived following the fall of Troy, and fought against the giants he found in Cornwall. He also tells us that that London was founded by Lud, Carlisle by King Leil, Colchester by Old King Cole: you get the idea. The part of the book that everyone loved was Geoffrey's tall tales about King Arthur, which at a stroke transformed an obscure Celtic legend into the most popular figure in medieval European literature.

Not everyone was taken in. ‘It is quite clear’, wrote William of Newburgh, half a century later, ‘that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, and indeed his predecessors... was made up!’. But Geoffrey’s book became a runaway success, a medieval best-seller. Even today, some 215 manuscript copies of the History still survive, putting it second only to the Bible.

Geoffrey would undoubtedly by cheered, as I was, to read the reviews of his book, good and bad, on Amazon.com. Here are the edited highlights (with original spelling, punctuation etc):

'Definately plausible, whatever the critics may say. Well written and quite readable, for all history buffs, this one is a must.'

 

'Too tedious and detailed for me. It read like a doctorate thesis. One star rating should have been one moon.'

 

'This is a very interesting book about the Kings of Britain, more detail on their lives than in history books I have read before. If your interest lies in this area, as mine does, I believe you would enjoy this book too.'

 

'The major flaw in the content is that the history is totally fictitious. If you want to learn the history of the kings of Britain, choose another book. Unless, that is, you believe that King Arthur ruled from Paris (as one example).'

 

'Excellent historical background for all you folks who like the middle ages and are interested in the succession of the English throne.'

 

'Surprise and delight rolled over me every time I closed this book. I wish it was a standard read for all students in our nation.'

 

'I don't know why I got this book. Seems like I had heard about it being a classic. It's mostly just a bunch of stuff some guy made up a long time ago.'

 

'The history is an example of a reference book to keep on hand. It is not an easy read straight through if one wants to remember any of the important kings and few will remember the very early kings of England. Some are obviously of more significance than others.'

'The Kings of Britain is well written and well received. It gives me insight to the dimention of the UK.'

'I had to read this for a class. It tells you the history of Britain, from the first kings, to Arthur and so on. I just read the Arthur part, because the class was about King Arthur.'

 

'It's a book for learning and reference == not to enjoy the same as a novel. There is so much information in it, you have to read it over and over, but the information is as good as it gets.'

 

'This is an excellant history book but was rather dull to read. The research disclosed efficient and enthusiastic diligence and awed many readers with the disclosure of the relevant details. I do my own research into written history products and can reveal this book is not widely read.'

 

'I give this book 5 stars as I think it covered all I was looking for if you are interested in English history.'

 

'This book is essential reading for those interested in the early origins of British royalty and the associated political traditions.'

 

'Don't waste even the $0.99 this book costs. It only covers that period prior to the Roman invasion up to a bit after it. If you want to learn about the monarchs of Britain in later centuries, go elsewhere. I was very disappointed.'