giraldiana

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd

GiraldianaAuthor(s): Michael RichterSource: Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 22, No. 84 (Sep., 1979), pp. 422-437Published by: Irish Historical Studies Publications LtdStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30005674 .

Accessed: 23/06/2014 10:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIrish Historical Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:44:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ihsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30005674?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Giraldiana

History has an attraction for the amateur as well as for the profes-

sional, and though the attraction may be of a similar kind, the amateur is rarely given access to primary sources. Yet it is from these that history is written and fundamentally experienced. Giraldus Cambrensis (1146-1223) wrote about Ireland and his native Wales in the late twelfth century in such a fashion that his works can be read with pleasure, profit and, if correctly presented, understanding by both amateur and professional. Most of his works have been available to professional historians for a century in the edition published in the Rolls Series; the rest of his works have been edited since then.' Yet surprisingly, rather little use was made of them until very recently. Only over the past decade has the work of this colourful and controversial individual attracted more than passing attention.

In Ireland, Giraldus is by no means unknown, but his partisanship and bias has long been taken as an excuse for not studying him seriously. Partisan and biased he most certainly was, but, while in other historical material authorship as well as partisanship are often extremely hard to determine and thus difficult to take fully into account, enough is known about Giraldus to prevent his bias from deceiving the careful reader. We know more or less where his sympathies lay, and we can read his works, including the famous Conquest of Ireland, with this knowledge in mind.

The year 1978 marks an important advance in the possibilities of appreciating Giraldus. It saw the publication of a new critical edition, complete with English translation, full scholarly apparatus and ample historical annotation, of one ofGiraldus's major works, The Conquest of

'Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, J.F. Dimock, G. F. Warner, 8 volumes, Rolls Series 21 (London, 1861-91); Giraldus (Camibrensis, De Inectionibus, ed. W. S. Davies in rY Clmmrodor xxx (1920); Giraldus (Cambrensis, Speculum Duorum, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, Yves Lefevre, General Editor Michael Richter (Cardiff, 1974).

422



(;IRALD)IANA 423

Ireland (iEixpugnatio Hibernica)2; furthermore, it saw the publication ofa modern translation into English of two other major works, Thejournev through Ilales (Ilinerarium Kambriae) and The description of I1 'ales (I~escriptio Kamnbriae), in the collection of Penguin Classics.3 These

publications, together with some smaller pieces of research published recently,' offer the opportunity of taking stock and assessing the

importance of Giraldus Cambrensis.

The E.pugnatio The Expugnatio is the fullest near-contemporary account of the arrival of the 'Normans'" in Ireland which began in 1169 and formed part ofa more general Norman expansion which brought them from Normandy to southern Italy, England and the Holy Land from the eleventh century onwards. Thus the events of 1169 and subsequent years have a European as well as a national dimension. Since the national dimension was of more than passing importance, it is still remembered even outside the world of professional historians. Giraldus wrote about the coming of the Normans to Ireland, completing his Histor q ofthe conquest twenty years after the beginning of that conquest. He was not an eye-witness of the events (none of the eye- witnesses wrote an account), but he was closely related to some of the first conquerors, the Cambro-Norman lords, and he spent a considerable time in Ireland in 1183 and 1185-6 gathering material for the Expugnatio, so that he was informed by eye-witnesses; this makes his account particularly valuable. In two parts (he calls them'books') he relates the story from 1169 to the arrival of Prince John, the newly

S2Extuignatio Hibernica. The Conquest of Ireland by Giraldus (Cambrensis, edited with translation and historical notes by A. B. Scott and F. X. Martin. Pp lxxix, 393, ill. Dublin, Royal Irish Academy (New History of Ireland ancillary publications III, Irish Medieval Texts, 1) (1978).

3Gerald oJf 1 ales. The journer through I Iales. Thedescription o 1 1 T ales, translated with an introduction by Lewis Thorpe. Pp 333. (Harmondsworth, 1978).

'R. W. Hunt, 'The preface to the "Speculum Ecclesiae" of Giraldus Cambrensis' in I'iator viii (1977), pp 189-213; A. A. Goddu and R. H. Rouse, 'Gerald of Wales and the Florilegium Angelicum' in Speculum; lii (1977), pp 488- 521: M. Richter, 'Giraldus Cambrensis and Llanthony Priory' in Studia Celtica, xii-xiii (1977-8), pp 182-132.

sThis term will be discussed more fully below p. 429; since it is still widely used, it will not be put in inverted commas from now onwards, though I Ibelieve that historians have to reconsider what these newcomers to Ireland should be called. The Norman dynasty of English kings ended in 1135 with Henry I. At the time of the conquest of Ireland, England was under her first Angevin ruler, Henry 11(1154-1189).



424 GIRALDIANA

created Lord of Ireland, in 1185. He concludes his work with advice on how the conquest should be completed, and, when completed, how the Irish should be governed. From this it is immediately obvious where Giraldus's sympathies lay: the success of his kinsmen in Ireland was as yet incomplete. At the same time, Giraldus makes it very clear that the conquest itself was a very difficult affair, and that even in its earliest and most spectacularly successful years it went through several phases.

The background to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland is not easy to determine; here the Expugnatio remains obscure, perhaps because the author was not sufficiently aware ofall the events leadingup to it. It seems clear to modern historians that the initial proposal for the coming of the Normans to Ireland came originally from Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and his secretary, John of Salisbury, who obtained papal permission for the English to goto Ireland, ostensibly to reform the corrupt Irish church.6 This permission was granted c. 1155 in a document known as the bull Laudabiliter, an incomplete version of which is contained in the Expugnatio. The papal grant of Ireland to the English king was couched in such terms, however, that Henry II did not take up the offer; Laudabiliter passed unused into the royal archives at Winchester. It would be unnecessary even to mention this first abortive attempt of the English king to go to Ireland if this were the end of the matter. Laudabiliter was never used by the English king, as far as we know, but later generations, in England as well as in Ireland, believed that Laudabiliter had been used.7

The initiative for bringing the foreigners to Ireland fell to Dermot MacMurrough (Diarmait Mac Murchada), king of Leinster, who recruited help in Wales for regaining his kingship. The Cambro- Norman lords went to Ireland with the knowledge, if not the explicit permission, of King Henry II. Their initial success and progress was slow and costly, but when their fortunes improved and when they began to carve out powerful lordships for themselves, the English king became concerned. He crossed over personally in 1171, a time convenient for him for other reasons because he was out of favour with the pope after the murder ofarchbishop Thomas Becket in 1170. While in Ireland, Henry II received the submission not only of his Cambro- Norman subjects, but also of most of the Irish leaders, and he set in motion the 'reform' of the Irish church, the initial pretext for casting his eye on Ireland. It is by no means clear whether in 1171 Henry II had'a

6For a fuller treatment of this aspect see M. Richter. 'The first century of Anglo-Irish relations' in History, lix (1974), pp 195-210.

7See below at note 24.



GIRALDIANA 425

policy towards Ireland'. His contribution to Irish politics down to 1185, the grant of the lordship to his son John, merits detailed inves- tigation beyond what has been established by Professor Lewis Warren who wrote his monumental assessment of Henry II primarily from English sources.8 What is of importance here is that Henry II received papal approval of what he had done in Ireland in 1171. Pope Alexander III, faced with imperially-created anti-popes, could not afford tojeopardise English support for the recognition ofhis universal authority. So, within less than twenty years of English interest in Ireland, the wheel had turned full circle. Part of the message of Laudabiliter was put into practice. But Henry II left Ireland with the basic problem of the effective recognition of his over-lordship unsettled.

Giraldus's Expugnatio covers the crucial initial years of English involvement in Ireland. His is one of two non-Irish accounts for these events. The other is contained in an anonymous courtly poem written in French, The song of Dermot and the earl, about a generation later, and not extending as far as the Expugnatio. The Expugnatio and the Song have to be taken together with the Irish sources for a full evaluation of the coming of the Normans to Ireland. The Expugnatio as well as the

Song tell us that the driving power in the conquest of Ireland, incom-

plete as it was and remained, were enterprising individuals rather than the English king and his policy-makers. Both Giraldus and the author of the Song have their special heroes and villains, and their sub-

jective points of view have to be taken into account. We know enough about Giraldus to know what shaped his preferences, and, in the

Expugnatio, he presents a unique challenge to the historian to extract the maximum of information about this crucial period of Irish history.

Giraldus wrote the Expugnatio in Latin, the appropriate scholarly medium of the period, benefiting from his long years of study at the University of Paris. There, in a course preparing him for a career as a scholar, he had learned to write Latin freely and creatively, qualities which justify the inclusion of Giraldus among the leading humanistsof the twelfth century.9 Years of extensive reading ofclassical authors did more than perfect his Latin; they seem to have. heightened his

perception. Colin Morris's profound remark that 'what cannot be

'W. L. Warren, Hen r lI (London, 1973). The section on Ireland in this book is an only slightly revised version of Warren's acclaimed though controversial article, 'The interpretation of twelfth-century Irish history' in Historical Studies, vii, ed. J. C. Beckett (London, 1969), pp 1-19.

'See R. W. Southern, Medieval humanism andother studies (New York, 1970).



426 GIRALDIANA

verbalised can scarcely be thought',"' is confirmed by the qualities of the Expugnatio. When Giraldus applied this craft of verbalising to the conquest of Ireland, a subject where he could not rely on older authorities, he produced what is, generally speaking, a masterpiece.

The qualities of such a book make great demands on the editors. Dr A. B. Scott and Professor F. X. Martin show that they are excellently qualified to deal with the immense challengesofthe text, its translation into English and its elucidation and evaluation by historical annotations. A daunting task was approached with enthusiasm and dedication. The amount of overlap in the lavish introduction, Professor Martin's essay on Giraldus as historian, and the historical notes is minimal. What there is ofoverlap is educative in itselfbecause it shows that there remains some measure of disagreement over several points even between two scholars who have co-ordinated their work closely.

Dr Scott presents a Latin text which differs only marginally from that of Dimock's in the Rolls Series, although he consulted a number of manuscripts unknown to Dimock. The new text has a better and fuller apparatus criticus than that of Dimock. Misprints rather than variant readings are few." In line with modem practice, quotations and allusions to other texts are printed in italics, and there is a list of quotations and allusions on p. 359f. Not all quotations and allusions have been identified, though Scott improves on Dimock.'2 The quotations raise a problem in regard to Giraldus's education: to what extent were the quotations of classical authors the fruit of his independent reading of these texts as opposed to his use of the medieval collections of quotations, the florilegia?13 This question cannot be answered on the basis ofthe Expugnatio alone and would requireequally scholarly editions of Giraldus's other works, but the new edition of the Expugnatio is an indispensable contribution to its solution. Besides acknowledged authors, Giraldus was also fond of quoting himself, or merely repeating himself unwittingly, in his voluminous writings. Parallels of this kind are noted in the first band of the apparatus criticus;

7 Cf.OColin Morris, The discovery of the individual 1050-1200 (London, 1972), p.

"I noticed the following misprints in the Latin text: p. 24, 1. 14: fierent for fieret; p. 38, 1. 64 sollicitus for solicitus; p. 52, 1. 11 tociens for tocies; p. 146, 1. 65 Terch for Tertii.

"'There are some inconsistencies in e.g. giving the allusion to Macrobius, Saturnalia II, 4, 30 in italics on p. 254 but not on p. 204, 1. 57; similarly Ovid, Remedium Amoris 91, printed in italics on p. 56 but not on p. 44, 1. 40.

"-See Goddu and Rouse (as above, note 4).



GIRALDIANA 427

this is a distinct improvement on Dimock. I should like to make a small addition here, which has wider implications. In the speech attributed by Giraldus to Ruidri there occurs a sentence which re-occurs almost verbatim in a letter written by Giraldus", and this provides as conclusive a proof as possible that Giraldus was the author of the speeches in the Expugnatio. This conclusion was reached independently by both editors of the book, though they differ in their evaluation of its significance.'s Elsewhere Giraldus was quite candid about his authorship of these speeches which he called orationes rhetorice compositas.'6 The value of these speeches to the modern reader is a matter of personal opinion. For my part, I was impressed by the sentiments contained in some of them, the most realistic and informative in my view being that attributed to Hervey de Montmorency.'7

On the whole, the reader is presented with what is a sound and well- presented Latin text prepared by an expert in medieval Latin. It is most unlikely that a new edition ofthe Latin text will ever be required again. Unfortunately, the edition does not contain in the introduction an assessment ofGiraldus's Latinity, a subject ofimmense interest and one for which Dr Scott is particularly well qualified. To me Giraldus's Latin is, generally speaking, clear and pleasant to read, but a more explicit judgment would have been welcome, especially as the use of the Latin language to describe the twelfth-century Irish milieu has caused problems and obscurities of interpretation. This has a bearing on the English translation.

The adage that 'translators are traitors' applies to this translation only to a very limited extent and those who do not read Latin can be firmly recommended the English version of the Expugnatio, which is an exceptionally attractive feature of the new edition. It is as readable as Giraldus's Latin while remaining remarkably close to it, and it ensures that undergraduates and the general public will be able to form their own opinion of this important historical source. Those who have Latin also have reason to be grateful to Dr Scott for his assistance in understanding the text. Inevitably, a translation cannot reproduce exactly some of the more terse passages of Giraldus, and Dr Scott wisely opted for solid work, avoiding the temptation to put Latin

"Rolls Series, Op. i, p. 227. "SExpugnatio, pp xx and 279, references which are not contained in the

index, s.v. 'speeches'. 60p. i, p. 199. 7Expugnatio, book I, ch. 15, p. 60ft.



428 GIRALDIANA

plays on words into English where this would have done harm to the text. He also wisely chose to give Latin verse in English prose.

There are only few points where I would take issue with this translation. Giraldus's inconsistency of writing variously in the first person singular and plural is not reproduced, and nothing is gained by such streamlining. Inconsistencies are not, however, all Giraldus's. Perhaps the most serious case for the medievalist is the manner in which royal titles are translated. Rex Anglorum, 'king of the English', is almost invariably given as 'King of England' (the translation is particularly poor on p. 19 in the heading ofch. 26); rexAngliedoesoccuron p. 106, 1. 25, p. 216, 1.10. Likewise, rex Francorum occurs as 'king of France' (p. 108, 1.10). regnum Teutonicum, p. 208, 1. 33 is not the 'German empire' but the 'German kingdom' (which was only one component part ofthe empire); vicus, p. 240, 1. 75, would be better rendered as 'settlement' than 'town'.18 It is regrettable (especially to somebody who uses this text frequently in class) that the opening words of Laudabiliter (p. 145) are not given as 'Laudably and profitably' as they are in the translation in English Historical Documents.'" In the same bull, the term domus is wrongly translated as 'household' instead of (religious) 'house'; domus does not carry in medieval Latin the meaning of 'hearth'. There are instances in which Giraldus is ambiguous, and my interpretation differs from that of Dr Scott: concilia subscripta sunt, p. 98, ch. 35, 1. 14, I take to mean 'the statutes are written below'; regiastirpepreclarus, p. 220 1. 67, I take to mean 'of noble royal stock'. The historical note on this phrase requires the information that Henry of Blois descended, through his mother, from William the Conqueror, rather than that he was the brother of King Stephen.

Taking text and translation together, I noted some peculiarities in Giraldus's vocabulary which are of more than passing interest. Three are especially relevant:

There is almost consistent use of the term urbs for 'town' where one might have expected civitas (though not late classical vicus); civitas occurs only twice, in conjunction with Down, p. 174, 1. 15-16 (but Down is also referred to as urbs, p. 234, 1.22), and in conjunction with Cashel, p. 98, ch. 35, 1. 9 (in conjunction with Cashel the term urbs never occurs). While the evidence is not conclusive, this usage might

'"On vicus in late classical Rome and early medieval England see P. H. Sawyer, From Roman Britain to Norman England (London, 1978), pp 157, 221, 223.

"9English Historical Documents, vol. ii, 1042-1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway (London, 1953), p. 776.



GIRALDIANA 429

suggest that in ch. 35 Giraldus drew on an exemplar not composed by himself, i.e. that he did not reword this part of the decrees of the Synod of Cashel.20

Even more important are the terms used by Giraldus for the people who came to Ireland from 1169 onwards. The term used frequently, indeed very frequently, is Angli, 'English' (the index entry for this term is incomplete); cf. the famous phrase p. 80: sicut Hibernicis Angli, sic et

Anglis Hibernici sumus. This choice of term is surely to be taken as a 'self- manifestation' of the newcomers: they regarded themselves as English, not as Normans or French ('Normans' occurs in the text only twice, p. 236, 1. 14; p.244, ch. 37, 1. 2; 'French' occurs only once, in a rhetorical

passage, p. 48). Historians should consider seriously whether they should not follow Giraldus's usage and refer to 'the coming of the

English' (rather than 'the Normans', 'the Cambro-Normans' etc.) to Ireland.21

Another Giraldine idiosyncracy is the term oppidum which, in a

passage which re-occurs in the Itinerarium Kambriae, appears to mean 'castle' rather than 'town', p. 108ff. The correct meaning can be

gathered from contextual analysis of the term in the Welsh works; in the

Expugnatio, by contrast, the term castrum appears frequently. The English translation is lavishly annotated, a herculean task of

Professor F. X. Martin, pp 285-357. In these notes, Giraldus's account is put into perspective by comparison with other sources, especially, down to 1174-5, the Song, but also the Irish annals and other material. In addition, reference is made to secondary works on many points, reaping the harvest of almost a century of historical scholarship of the widest possible range. Personal names and place-names are identified, and cryptic passages are elucidated. These notes are a mine of

2'CI: the assessment I)y F. X. Martin, Expugnatio, p. 280, which dillffrs from the above suggestion but is not based on Giraldus's vocabulary.

2)ne of the chief characteristics of the Normans was their adaptability; they merged with, and adopted the speech of, the native population in ever) country in which they established themselves. Were they still Normans when they, lived in England as their ancestors had done for a century and spoke English as their mother tongue? It has been stated most recently that 'at all social levels except that ofthe king'scourt native French speakersseem to have been rapidly and repeatedly assimilated into the local population', M. T.

Clanchv, From menmor'r to wrillen record, England 1066-1307 (London, 1979), p. 168. I myself have tried to demonstrate the same on a larger scale and have suggested t hat Giraldus's mother-tongue was English, IM. Richter, Spracheund Gesellschaft in .\ littelalier. I ntersuc/hungen zur mtindlichen Konumunikation in England ion der .1 lille des

el./en his zum eginn des ierzehnien.7ahrhunderts (= - Monographien

zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 18, Stuttgart, 1979), see esp. p. 159.



430 GIRALDIANA

information, which will be used profitably by future generations of scholars and students. It is in the light of these notes that the full

importance of the Expugnatio becomes clear and a serious analysis of 'the coming of the English to Ireland' and, more particularly, the crucial role of King Henry II has become feasible.

Above and beyond these detailed points, there is the sheer joy of

reading Giraldus again in a scholarly edition. The social reality of the feudal age is forcefully brought home by the casual reference to the extent that the armies relied on booty as part of their remuneration, p 134, 158. The dealing between the English and the Irish is particularly well described in book I, ch. 41; incidentally, we hear that Maurice FitzGerald and Hugh de Lacy parleyed with O'Rourke (Ua Ruairc) through an interpreter, p. 114. Finally, there is Giraldus's curiously attractive and sometimes surprisingly rational mind, evoked suddenly by such a remark as:'I had a vision which perhaps had its origin in some residual recollection of these thoughts', p. 243.

These are some of the qualities which have been brought within the reach of people who are not specialists in medieval Latin, and

posterity's gratitude to Dr Scott and Professor Martin for their joint venture and immense efforts is assured. But it must be emphasized that

specialists also have been provided with material for further research.

Take, for example, the bull Laudabiliter. Problems connected with Laudabiliter are raised by Professor Martin

in his essay as well as in the historical notes, but they are left unresolved. Professor Martin concentrates on the textual problems: did Giraldus

copy a document in which Pope Adrian IV granted Henry II the right to come to Ireland (Giraldus's version of Laudabiliter will subsequently be referred to as G), or did he give us, in his own words, merely the gist of such a papal grant? The versions of Laudabiliter found in the writings of other English medieval historians are so close to G as to permit the conclusion that G was their exemplar. Yet other versions ofthe bull are

preserved which have not been analysed so far and which throw new

light on this old controversy. A mid-thirteenth-century copy is in the Book of Leinster (henceforth referred to as L);22 and there is another

thirteenth-century version copied on a single sheet preserved in the Public Record Office, London (henceforth referred to as p).23

22The Book of Leinster, ed. Robert Atkinson (Dublin, 1880), p. 342. I am greatly indebted to Dr M. T. Flanagan for drawing my attention to thiscopy.

23P.R.O. London SC 8/177. I found the reference to thisdocument in M. P. Sheehy, Pontificia Hibernica. Medieval papal chancery documents concerning Ireland, 640-1261, vol. i (Dublin, 1962), p. 16. Sheehy did not collate this version.



GIRALDIANA 431

Comparison ofG, L, and Pshows that Land Phave sufficient significant variant readings to conclude that their exemplar is not G. Ldiffersfrom G in twenty instances while P differs from L in eight instances, four of which agree with G. It is clear that P and L derive from a common exemplar which is not G. P seems to be the better version and thus would appear to be closer to the exemplar than L. But since the exemplar of P and L is not G it must be concluded that, despite the variant readings, G preserves a copy of an authentic text rather than Giraldus's rewording of a papal grant. It is no longer permissible to doubt the authenticity of Laudabiliter.

What must still be discussed, however, is its historical significance. It seems that this bull became notorious to modern readers for the wrong reason. The grant was made, but on such terms as to be unacceptable to Henry II, presumably because it would have implied royal recognition of papal overlordship not only over Ireland but also over England.24 We have already seen that Henry II did not come to Ireland on the basis of Laudabiliter. The historian has to realize that the knowledge of the non-use of the papal grant by the English king got lost. Pand L testify to a renewed interest in the grant in thirteenth-century England and Ireland. There is more evidence of such interest still later. In 1317, when Donal 0 Neill sent the Remonstrace of the Irish to Avignon, it is clear that he or the drafter of that document was of the opinion that the English in Ireland should be judged by the extent to which they had failed to fulfil the terms set out in Laudabiliter. By that time, then, it was assumed that Laudabiliterhad been acted upon as well as granted. It had been my opinion until now that the Irish obtained their knowledge of Laudabiliter from the Expugnatio. This assumption is no longer necessary. The copy of the papal bull in the Book ofLeinster, not derived from the Expugnatio, shows independent Irish interest in that bull in the thirteenth century. P demonstrates that similar interest existed in

England. Laudabiliter thus became contentious and assumed a historical importance in the thirteenth century which it had not had in the twelfth. Irish medievalists should look into this exciting issue in more depth.25

24See esp. Expugnatio, p. 144, 1. 37ff: Sane Hiberniam et omnes insulas quibussol iusticie Christus illuxit... adiusbeatiPetrietsacrosancteRomaneecclesie, quodtua etiam nobilitas recognoscit, non est dubium pertinere.

"A new evaluation ofthe Remonstrance and the establishment ofacritical textual edition of it is highly desirable. Attention may here be drawn to a contemporary, somewhat similar, dispute before the papal court at Avignon between the kingdom of Poland and the Order of the Teutonic Knights over the lordship of Pomerellia which is amply recorded, see Lites ac res gestae inter



432 GIRALDIANA

The Itinerarium Kambriae and the Descriptio Kambriae A year before he completed his Expugnatio, Giraldus accompanied Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury on a five-week tour of Wales in order to recruit crusaders the leadership of whom had been offered, unsuccessfully, to the Angevin royal house in England. The impressions obtained on the tour of his native country seem to have pushed the Expugnatio to a premature conclusion. Instead Giraldus turned to what became perhaps the most important and original ofhis books, the Itinerarium Kambriae and the Descriptio Kambriae, completed around 1194. The preaching tour through Wales in Lent 1188 provided the pretext for Giraldus to bring together a lot of information about twelfth-century Wales, mixing in his inimitable way the trivial and the important. Here also Giraldus provides invaluable information, as the notes to SirJohn Edward Lloyd's History of lI'ales make impressively clear. Due to the geographical origin of the first group of the conquerors of Ireland, many of whom came from Wales, there is a certain amount of overlap between Giraldus's Irish and Welsh works. The latter testify to his growing accomplishment as an author. They are written more concisely, and his bias is less obvious than in the Irish works.

The Welsh works have long been popular, unlike those on Ireland, appearing in print several times from the late sixteenth century onwards. A translation into English by Sir Richard Colt Hoare in 1804, respectable by the standards of the time, was re-issued in Everyman Library in 1908 and guaranteed a fairly wide audience for nearly a century and a half. The new translation by Lewis Thorpe, which appeared posthumously in 1978, gave Giraldus at last the long- overdue admission to the charmed and distinguished circle of Penguin Classics. Unfortunately, however, this new translation fails to do justice to the author, which is all the more lamentable because it will probably have many more readers than the Expugnatio. Thorpe's book, which was in proof stage at the time of his death, is similar in layout to the edition of the Expugnatio. It contains a general essay on Giraldus, lists the manuscripts of the Welsh works, and gives a translation of the recension printed by Dimock in the edition of the Rolls Series, Op. vi. The translation is supplied with numerous though short notes, and an. appendix and index.

Polonos ordinemque cruciferorum, 2 vols. (Poznan, 1890-2). One volume has appeared to date of a new edition of this text, Lites as res gestae etc. ed. Helena Chlopocka (Breslau, Warschau, Krakau, 1970).



GIRALDIANA 433

But here the similarity to the edition of the Expugnatio ends. In quality none of the sections individually matches those of the latter, and the appearance of this translation must be deeply deplored. The discussion of the manuscripts is a simplified and abbreviated version of Dimock's introduction to his Latin text published in 1869; it adds nothing, and a cross-reference to the Rolls Series would have been sufficient. The historical introduction fails to take modern research into account. The translation is ofa similarly poor standard. Unlike the editors of the Expugnatio, experts in relevant fields who pooled their knowledge, Lewis Thorpe was neither historian nor Latinist but professor of medieval French; he remained largely oblivious of research undertaken in Welsh history since the publication of Lloyd's monumental if by now somewhat dated History of lt ales in 1911. Two examples may be taken to be representative. Note 364 is taken almost verbatim, though unacknowledged, from Lloyd despite the existence of a modern discussion of the problem involved: J. G. Edwards,'Henry II and the fight at Coleshill', 1l'elsh History Review 3, 1966-7, pp 251-263, a reference which could have been added in the Expugnatio at note 420.

Thorpe's note 165 is a wrong transcription of Lloyd since Thorpe con- fuses the information given here for two Cistercian houses, Whiteland and Cwm Hir.

The poor quality throughout of Thorpe's translation may be illustrated by some random examples. Where Scott is literal, economical and terse, Thorpe is verbose, very free and often highly misleading; he translates Latin metric lines into English rhymed verse with results which are (unintentionally) comical rather than accurate.

Thorpe lacked knowledge of the history of the period and area; anachronisms are persistent. Prior to the conquest by the English kings, i.e. the late thirteenth century, Wales was not subdivided into shires but instead maintained older traditional subdivisions. In Thejourney through WIales, Thorpe guides the reader through Brecknockshire, Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire, etc. Similarly, the title 'privy Councillor for Henry II's closest advisors places this office a century too early, see pp 75, 94 (the term was also used by Sir Richard Colt Hoare, but the lack of knowledge about administrative history in the early nineteenth century makes this forgivable). Henry I's daughter Mathilda is given as 'Empress of Rome' instead of' Roman empress', p. 89; Bangor is called 'the metropolitan see ofGwynedd', p. 1 85, a dignity which neither Gwynedd nor Bangor has ever enjoyed. It is embarrassing to have to record that Hibernia is translated as 'Spain' (Latin: Hispania) p. 86, even more so since the reference is sandwiched



434 GIRALDIANA

between a reference to St Patrick and to Giraldus's Topography of Ireland. More subtle points, requiring a sound knowledge of history as well as Latin, are missed entirely. In the introduction Gratian's Concordia Discordantium Canonum, commonly known as the Decretum Gratiani, is given as the 'Decretals' p. 14, n. 17 (decretals are papal letters of legal importance). In the text, we are treated to a Rule of the Cistercians, p. 107, who in fact followed the Rule of St Benedict and where Giraldus's message is completely distorted. His Latin should be translated by something like: 'in the Cistercian general chapter it has been ruled'; Thorpe: 'a clause has been added to their rule'.

A conglomeration of misunderstandings occurs in the translation of a subtle passage relating to translations of Latin texts into the West Saxon vernacular. Thorpe's version reads: 'you will find that, when Bede, Rhabanus Maurus, King Alfred and many other such people wrote in English, they used this particular dialect' (p. 231) and then adds a note to the effect that 'this does not make much sense'. But Giraldus wrote something different: 'all English books (i.e. translations into English) ofBede, Rhabanus Maurus, King Alfred and some others you will find written in this particular dialect'. Giraldus alludes here to the particular strength of the Old English West Saxon tradition of vernacular writing and displays a truly remarkable sense ofperception and judgment completely missed in Thorpe's translation.

Giraldus's Latin is not always straightforward, as has already been pointed out with reference to the Expugnatio, but Thorpe's translation introduces mistakes which are not at all warranted by the text. Op. vi, pp 217-18 refers to primi tres .Vormannorum reges.. . trium sequentium tempore, a straightforward comparison. Thorpe's translation (and free interpretation) runs: 'the first three kings of the Normans ... the first three Norman kings', p. 266, a double blunder in that sequentes, 'the following', is translated wrongly and the second set of kings is called 'Norman' which they were not (nor does Giraldus say so). They were Stephen of Blois and the two Angevins Henry II and Richard I. Another inexplicable mistake: Op. vi, p. 167: Descendentes tantum Sudwalliam obtinuerunt, sicut et pater eorum, correctly: 'the descendants (of Tewdwr) obtained only south Wales, like their father'; Thorpe: 'they were, like him, rulersofthe whole ofWales', p. 222. A last example: Op. vi. p. 202: Praeterea olim, longeque ante excidium Britannicum, quia per annos circiter ducentos, which, as the note to that phrase shows, refers to the alleged coming of christianity to Britain in AD 156 (as reported by Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, iv) should run like this: 'once, long ago, about two hundred years before the fall of Britain'. Thorpe translates:



GIRALDIANA 435

'about two hundred years ago, long before the fallofBritain'. Giraldus clearly refers to Gildas and his celebrated book De excidio Britanniae which was written c. 547; Thorpe is unaware of this, and it is uncertain which fall of Britain he thought Giraldus referred to.

The list of mistakes and misunderstandings could be multiplied several times over. The translation as well as the notes are a positive hindrance to an adequate appreciation of Giraldus's importance and value as a writer. His idiosyncracies, so vital toa proper appreciation of him, need to be presented in their true light. Readers who do not understand Latin must expect the translation to Ibe reliable, which this is not; on the contrary, in vital sections it is highly misleading.

In spite of such a verdict, a close re-reading of the Welsh works has rewards which are also relevant to a better understanding of the Expugnatio. In the Itinerarium IKambriae, Giraldus uses interchangeably the terms castellum/castrum and oppidum.26 The context clearly shows that the English equivalent of all three is 'castle'. On the basis of this evidence it can be argued that this is also the meaning of oppidum in the Cardiff episode, Ex~ugnatio, pp 109-113; repeated later in Itinerarium Kambriae, pp 62-4.2 This sense seems to fit the narrative much better: Henry II moving about eight paces towards the castle gate; the knight and a lad being the only men left with the king in the castle. In this section Giraldus is ambiguous in his terminology, using urbs once, castrum twice, and oppidum three times. This section shows particularly clearly that translators have to interpret the text since no two languages can express the same nuances adequately. We are also once again reminded that Giraldus's Latin would merit detailed analysis.

Conclusion Giraldus completed his Welsh works in about 1194. Thus, within a decade, he had written four works which immortalised him. While popularity is not necessarily a sign of quality, in this case the relatively large number of manuscripts of the works on Ireland and Wales are of great credit to Giraldus as an author and his posthumous reputation down to the seventeenth century is almost exclusively linked to these four famous books. Yet after completing The description of II 'ales, Giraldus lived and wrote copiously for another thirty years, but never again reached the high standard attained in the early stages of his literary career. How is this to be explained?

260p. vi, pp 18, 49 n. 2, 60, 61. 27It was understood in this sense byJ. E. Lloyd, History o1f I ales (London,

1911), p. 543, a passage obviously not consulted by Thorpe.



436 GIRALDIANA

It has been said, with some measure ofjustification, that in his works on Ireland (and this also applies to his works on Wales) Giraldus was a kind of reporter,28 ready with his pen, trained in a sound mastery of Latin, to transpose what he perceived, not too worried about references, and moreover under no strain of having to compete with more competent predecessors. He was the first medieval author to write comprehensively about Ireland and Wales, and this is one of the reasons why we value these works so much.

The subsequent lack of success of Giraldus as a writer is closely linked to the subject of the later books he wrote. He became conventional and unoriginal in writing hagiography and in attempting to apply himself to canon law and even theology. The more he aged as a writer, the more he fell back on older authorities, the more his works became strings of quotations from earlier authorities. Interestingly, he remained ambivalent towards his new choice ofsubjects. This comesout clearly in the spirited way in which he later defended his works on Ireland and Wales against such contemporary critics as the chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral, Master William de Montibus. The letter of Giraldus to William which contains this defence is, it must be emphasized, apologetic in tone. Giraldus excused himself by saying that these works were the products of his younger years, that he had since matured and had written more respectable books since then. The tenor of the letter to William de Montibus is just as important to an understanding of Giraldus as is the main message expressed so clearly: We... took pains in our youth to distil the histories of Ireland and Wales, our home grounds, from hitherto untouched material, and managed to extract the hidden pearls, as it were, from the hardest shells... We firmly believe and indeed know for certain that... [our] writings will protect themselves by their own worth.29

The novelty of the subject matter, rightly underlined by Giraldus, assumes a new importance in the light of Colin Morris's The discovery of the individual. This discovery can be associated with only a few major thinkers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and with twelfth-century humanism and the cathedral schools. It entails, as so well brought out by Morris, the element of choice, in thinking, living, and writing. Individuals stood out against conformity, indulged in self-examination, and were repeatedly forced by their contemporaries to justify their choice. St Bernard of Clairvaux's indictment ofPeter Abelard seems to epitomise the clash between tradition and novelty, between

28F. X. Martin, 'Gerald of Wales; Norman reporter on Ireland' in Studies lviii (1969), pp 279-292.

29Giraldus Cambrensis, Speculum Duorum (as above, note 1), p. 173.



GIRALDIANA 437

conformity and individualism: "'All think thus, but I (Abelard) do not think so". And who mayyou be? What have you to give that is better?'3""

In a smaller way, Giraldus experienced the same uncomfortable loneliness which resulted from his choosing subjects for writing which were outside the convention. I have indicated that he did not continue in the same vein, that he later conformed and became conventional. Morris's study of the discovery of the individual ends in about 1170. Giraldus wrote the works on Ireland and Wales fairly soon after his long years of study at Paris where he had been exposed to the last phase of this important and exciting central European development. Helen Waddell pointed out with approval that he regarded himselfas the last of the humanists.3" Those who study his works will notice a waning of the cosmopolitan quality in his later writings which does not mean that he lost touch with what was going on in the intellectual sphere elsewhere.

I believe that we should, in agreement with Giraldus, esteem him for his masterpieces on Ireland and Wales, controversial though they are. Their originality was the result of various factors, choice of topics, sound mastery of Latin, and courage to believe in the worth of what he was doing. He had learned to verbalise and had thereby sharpened his perception. His individual, original contribution is what we value him for. Originality was a gift that did not bring sweetness. The path of individualism was painful and thorny. In this respect Giraldus can justly be compared to Peter Abelard: both men seem to have followed some inner urge to go in a direction not encouraged by their environment. Abelard and Giraldus Cambrensis were truer to themselves than other, less enlightened, contemporaries.

Posterity finds it much easier to value such individuals for their original contributions. The opportunity is now there to appreciate adequately one of the major figures of the twelfth-century European scene: Giraldus Cambrensis. The assistance of a great variety of specialists is needed. It is to be hoped that the opportunity will be grasped.

MICHAEL RICHTER.

s3Quoted by Colin Morris, Thediscoverv ofthe individual (as above, note 10), p. 62.

"Helen Waddell, The wandering scholars, first published in 1927, Fontana paperback ed. 1968, p. 149.

