Rhetoric and the Writing of History, 400-1500

633 Pages·2012·108.489 MB·English

by  Matthew Kempshall

Copyright © Niau.hew Ken1pshall 2011
The right of l\1at.thew Ken1pshall to be identified as the author of
this work has been asserted by hin1 in accordance with
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Published by 1vlanchester University Press
Oxford Road, Manchester 1vl 13 9NR, UK
and Roo1n 400, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA
www. n1ancheste run iv ersi typ ress.co. u k
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available fron1 the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Dara applied for
ISBN 978 0 7190 7030 3 hardback
First published 201 1
The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of U RLs
for any external or third-party internet websites refe rred to in this book,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will re1nain, accurate
or appropriate.
J.
Typeset by R. Footring Ltd, Derby
Printed in Great Britain
by 1v!PG Books Group, UK
For Helen
CONTENTS
Ackno\vledgn1ents jJage viii
Introduction 1
I History and historiography 34
2 Rhetoric and history 121
3 Invention and narrative 265
4 Verisin1ilitude and truth 350
5 Historiography and history 428
Conclusion 536
Bibliography 552
Index 601
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Intellectual debts and the debts of friendship are, for this book,
happily hard to disentangle. This is the case for the Centre for
J\iledieval Studies at the University of York, 'vhere a lot of the
thinking, reading and talking about this volume took place, and
it is especially true of Peter Biller, Natasha Matthe\v
Glaisye1~
To\vnend and Elizabeth \vho, individually and
Tyle1~ togethe1~
offered inuch of its stin1ulation and support. More recently, at
Oxford, David Leopold, Myfan,vy Lloyd and J ane Garnett have
syn1pathised and cajoled in equal measure, each of them provid
ing a source of patience, counsel and perspective for 'vhich I \viii
ahvays be grateful. To Kirstin G\vyer I O\ve all this but also so
much more - a debt 'vhich, '"ith Zoe Elizabeth, \viii take at least
a lifetin1e, I hope, to reciprocate. In addition, Marianne Ailes,
Katya Andreyev, Henry Bainton, Susan Brigden, Geoff Cubitt,
Cliff Davies, David d'Avray, Simon Ditchfield, J\ilark Ed,vards,
Brian FitzGerald, Roy Flechner, David Ganz, Perry Gauci, Gyorgy
Gereby, Peter Ghosh, Matthe'v Grimley, Gillian Hargreaves, Kin1
Ken1pshall, Sylvia Ke1npshall, Jorn Leonhard, Sin1on Loseby,
Caroline J\ifa,vson, Mark Philpott, Tom Pickles, Gervase
Rosse1~
Lucinda Ru1nsey, David Rundle, John Sabapathy, Hannah Skoda,
George Southcombe, Jeremy Trevett, Martin \l\'hittingha1n, Mark
\l\'hittO\v and Lucy v\iooding have all, at various stages, been
kind enough to be, as \veil as sound, encouraging. So too has a
succession of undergraduate and graduate historians at Oxford,
mostly at \l\'adham College, for 'vhon1 this book 'vas largely
\vritten. Other debts are 111ore straightfor,vard and material - to
the Arts and H un1anities Research Council, to the Fello\\ of
1S
\l\'adham College, and to the Faculty ofJ\ilodern History at Oxford,
•
\J' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS \J' IX
all of \vhom supported a year's sabbatical leave. Publication of
this book, mean,vhile, is due pri1narily to the long-suffering
kindness of En1ma Brennan at l\ilanchester University Press and
of Ralph Footring, freelance production editor. Its dedication to
Helen vVhittinghan1, finally, is a s1nall token of 1ny appreciation
for the love, support and exa1nple she has unfailingly provided
to a devoted brother.
Oxford
22 January 2011
INTRODUCTION
\!\That follo,vs has its i1nmediate origins in a series of lectures offered
to undergraduate historians at Oxford in the su1nmer of 2004. It
should therefore begin 'vith an apology, in the strictest sense of
the '"'ord, to those of my early-n1odern and 1nodern colleagues
'vithin the History Faculty \vho thought that an undergraduate
paper on the history of historiography should begin in c.1500
because that is \vhen, and I quote, 'proper' historiography really
began. \l\iithout \ViShing tO be vague, Or get into a jam, had those
colleagues said that to a classicist, they 'vould have been met 'vith
a derisory laugh; having said it to a 1nedievalist, they got eight
lectures. In that respect, at least, '"'hat follO\\'S is the product of
both anger and com1nitment - anger that there 'vould still seem to
be stubborn vestiges of the sort of functionalist secularism 'vhich
used to be clai1ned as historiographical orthodoxy in Oxford in
the mid-l 980s by 'lVfan and the Natural \i\Torld'; co1nmit1nent in
that it is intended to be useful to a different generation of students
'vho 1night no'"' \velcome a digest of material that can son1etimes be
off-putting in ter1ns of both the nature and the quantity in \Vhich it
'vas originally 'vritten. A5 such, there are, I suspect, many people
for '"'ho1n this book may not, in fact, be necessary - classicists,
theologians, philosophers and students of 1nedieval literature - or
for 'vhom it may si1nply serve as a convenient ren1inder of \vhat
they already kno,v. For historians, I hope it \vill prove instruc
tive and, if not entertain, then at least n1ove them to consider the
potential sophistication and co1nplexity '"'ith 'vhich the 'vriting of
history in the Nfiddle Ages 'vas conducted.
To give the scepticism of my early-n1odern and modern col
leagues its due, ho,vever, or at least the benefit of the doubt, the
2
\I' RHETORIC AND THE WRITING OF HISTORY \J'
prospects for any syste1natic analysis of historiography in the
medieval period 1night, at first sight, indeed see1n poor. First
of all, there is the sheer breadth 'vith \vhich the ter1n 'history'
appears to have been understood. \iVorse still, at least fron1 a
t\ventieth-century perspective, is the fact that the 'vriting of
history does not seem to have possessed a separate disciplinary
status. For those modernists brought up on the need to assert a
discrete and distinctive 'scientific' methodology for their subject,
such dissolution into other disciplines presents clear problems of
both integrity and classification. Finally, there is the by no means
isolated in1pression that \vriting history in the Middle Ages \vas
an activity \Vhich 111ight need excusing, on grounds of youthful
i1nmaturity,1 for example, or, in the case of\iVillian1 ofNe,vburgh,
as the result of an enforced leisure produced by illness - the ease
of narrating history, v\Tillia1n \vas inforn1ed, \vould refresh his
mind '"ithout posing the difficulties presented by scrutinising
elevated matters or exploring the 1nysteries of theology.2 If the
study of the past in the J\iliddle Ages '"as 'never a field in itself,
\vith its O\vn program1ne and curriculu1n','1 and if even co1nmit
ted medievalists have conceded that the \\ riting of history \vas
1
a 'fringe subject', an auxiliary, subsidiary or 'secondary' activity,4
then it does at least see1n reasonable to ask '"hether there \vas, in
fact, such a thing as 'medieval historiography' at all.5
1 Willia1n of f\llaln1esbu1»» Commentary on Lamentations, ed. H. Fanner, 'Willia1n of
l'vlalniesbury's Con1n1entary on La1nen1.ations', S/1.(.{lia A1onastica, 4 (1962), p. 288;
cf. Gerald of\•Vales, Descrijilio Camlrriae, I.rans. L. -rhorpe, 77ze journ.e)' 711rough I-Vales
and the Description of (Hannondsworth, 1978), pref., pp. 212-13; Gerald
~Vales
of \·Vales, Letter '.I, to Willia1n de lvfontibus, Chancellor of Lincoln, ed. R.B.C.
Huygens, I.rans. B. Dawson, in Y. Lefevre and R.B.C. Huygens (eds), Speculuin
Duoruin or a A1irror of 71vo 1\llen (Cardiff, 1974), pp. 170-1 .
.J.
2 Willia1n of Newburgh, 71ie Histmy of English Affafrs, trans. P.G. \•Valsh and f\11
Kennedy (Warniinster 1988), Ep.ded., pp. 26-7.
3 L.B. l'vlortensen, ·1-he Glorious Past: Entertainnient, Exaniple or History?
Levels of-rwelfth-Centu1·y Historical Culture', Cu/Jure and Histmy, 13 (1994), p. 66.
4 B. Snialle)>, Historians in. the 1\lliddle Ages (London, 1974), p. 18; B. Guenee, Histoire
et Culti11e Historique d1J.ns l'Occident 1._,fedieval (Paris, 1980), pp. 27, 35, 44, 45, 52, 91;
J.
Knape, 'Historia, -rextuality and EjJisteme', in -r.l'vl.S. Lehtonen and P. lvfehtonen
(eds), Historia: 711e Concept and Genies in the A1id1Jle Ages (Helsinki, 2000), p. 16.
1
5 B. Guenee, 'Y a-t-il une Historiographie lvtedievale?', Revue Historique, 258
(1977), pp. 261-75, reprinted in B. Guenee, Politique et Histoi?e ati 1\lloyen Age:
Receuil d'Articles sur l'Histoi1e Politique et l'Historiographie 1._,fe dievale 1956-1981 (Paris,
1981), pp. 205-19.
\I' INTRODUCTION \I' 3
It \vould, of course, be redundant to restate here \vhat has been
set out at greater length, and \Vith n1uch greater expertise and
authority, in a nu1nber of existing scholarly surveys.1 By the san1e
;
token, ho\vever, it n1ight also be helpful for students tackling such
a co1nplex and protean subject 'vere so1neone to concentrate on
a din1ension 'vhich, it is probably fair to say, has been rather less
'veil covered in the general secondary literature and \Vhich, as a
result, is rather less \videly accessible to modern historians. Of
the various influences on medieval historiography, the principles
of classical rhetoric constitute one of the n10St in1portant but also
one of the most open to n1isinterpretation. The chief stu1nbling
block 'vould seem to be a prevailing assun1ption, amongst son1e
historians at least, that historiography becomes more 'properly'
historical as a result of losirig its connection \vith rhetoric, that is,
once its 'literary' nature is discarded. In part, this process of 'de
rhetoricisation' is one n1ore legacy of a 'long' eighteenth century,
but its influence often still proves pervasive. Even Beryl S1nalley,
for exa1nple, sa\v fit to observe that 'the history of historiography
centres on its struggle to free itself from the sister disciplines
of ethics and rhetoric. Sallust \velded the three subjects firmly
together to the detriment of history. t.'ledieval \vriters could not
possibly have distinguished bet\veen n1oralist, rhetor and historian
'vhen they read their Sallust. The emancipation of history has
n1eant the exorcis1n of his spell'. 7 Discuss and, preferably, disagree.
Treating the literary and the moral as layers 'vhich have to be
removed in order to uncover the 'true' history that lies beneath
see1ns an unhelpful starting point fron1 \vhich to approach 'vorks
of n1edieval history, an 'extractive, one-dimensional approach' as
6 R.\•V. Southern, 'A5pects of 1.he European -rradition of Historical \•Vriting
1-1 V', 7ittnsactions of the Royal Historical Society, 20-23 (1970-73), reprinted in
R. Bartlett (ed.), History• and Historians: Selected Papers of R. Southeni, C)xford,
M~
,
2004); B. Lacroix, CHistorien au A1oyen Age (l'vlontreal, 1971 ); S1nalley, Historians
in the 1l;fidtlle Ages; D. Hay, Annalists and Historians: 1¥estern. Historiography front the
Vllflh to the XVI/Ith Centu'')' (London, 1977), chs 1-5; Guenee, Histoire et Culture
Historique; F.-J. Schniale, Funktion u1ul Ftmnen mi!telalterlicher (;eschichtsscl1reibung:
Eine Einfiihrung (Dannstadt, 1985). See also La Storiografia Allmnedievale [Setti111ane
di Studio], 17 ( 1970). 1\-lore recently, see H. W. Goetz, (;eschichtsschreilning untl
(;eschichtsbew1.1.Sstsein iin !when 1l;fit1elalter (Berlin, 1999); D.l'vl. Deli)'annis (ed.),
Historiography in the 1Hiddle Ages (Leiden, 2003).
7 B. S1nalley, 'Sallust in the J'vliddle Ages', in R.R. Bolgar (ed.), Classical Influences
on Eurttpean Culture AD 500-1500 (Ca1nbridge, 1971 ), p. 175.
4 \I' RHETORIC AND THE WRITING OF HISTORY \J'
opposed to one \vhich reconstructs and appreciates \vhat might
conveniently be ter1ned their narrative strategies.8
Instead of seeking to get round, or get rid of, the role of rhetoric,
a much closer and more positive understanding of the instru1nental
value of language is vitally important in medieval historiography,
and for t\VO basic reasons. In the first instance, the principles articu
lated in the discipline of rhetoric can help us understand the theory
behind the \Vriting of history in the J\iliddle Ages, the 1nethodology
\vhich is encapsulated in the very texts 'vhose historiographical
sophistication some early-1nodern and modern historians seem
so keen to underestin1ate. If it is, in fact, no exaggeration to say
of the n1edieval period that 'the only available theoretical rules
for reconstructing the past lay in the rhetorical manuals',9 then
it 'vould seen1 only reasonable to have some of these theoretical
rules spelled out. Indeed, if it is this n1ethodology, these narrative
strategies, \vhich led 1nedieval \vriters to compose \VOrks of'history'
in the 'vay in \vhich they did, then it can also provide so1ne idea of
ho'v their \VOrks \vere actually read and understood - \vhat applies
to the processes of reading and 'vriting on the part of 1nedieval
historians can be extended to their readers and audiences too,
in that there \Vere clear expectations 'vhich an author needed to
satisfy and could exploit. In the second instance, fan1iliarity 'vith
the principles of rhetoric can help us appreciate the 'vays in \vhich
medieval historians could conceive of combining the classical tradi
tions of ho'v - and 'vhy - one should \vrite about the past 'vith
the principles to \vhich they \Vere the1nselves conditioned through
their fan1iliarity \Vith the Bible. v\ihatever the Enlightenment n1a)'
B Southern, 'Aspec1.s of the European l radition of His1.orical Writing I - -rhe
Classical li·adition froni Einhard 1.0 Geoffrey of lvlonn1outh', p. I 73.
9 R. Ray, 'Rhetorical Scep1.icisn1 and \lerisi1nilar Narrative in John of Salisbury's
Histori.a Pontificalis', in E. Br eisach (ed.), Classical Rheloric a.1ul Aledieval Historiography
1
(Kalan1azoo, 1985), p. 69; cf. K. Hahn, Rhelores Latini A1inores (Leipzig, 1863),
pp. 588-9. Lucian's How lo Wl'ite History was a discrete work which had been
co1nposed, in Greek, in c. 166 AD, but its influence on Latin historiography
began to be fell only fro1n the 1nid-fifleenth century onwards (see pages 489-94):
Lucian, H()w to Histmy, trans. C.D.N. Cos1.a, Selected Dialogues (()xford,
~Vrite
2005), pp. 181-202. For the subsequen1. genre, and popularity, of the ars historica
in the late fifteenth and sixteenth cen1.uries, see E. Kessler, 111eoreliker humanis
tischer Geschichtsschreibung (lvfunich, 197 I); R. Black, •-rhe New Laws of History',
Renaissance Studies, I ( 1987), pp. I 26-56; and, now, A. Grafton, Mlhat I-Vas Histmy?
The Ar/ of Histmy in Early Alodeni Eur()J>e (Canibridge, 2007).
1