Bibliography
Julia C. (Julia Catherine)
Crick
2020
article
2010
article
2009
article
1999
article
1998
article
Banham, Debby, Martha Bayless, Alicia Corrêa, Julia Crick, Mary Garrison, Joan Hart-Hasler, Peter Jackson, Michael Lapidge, Vivien Law, Rosalind Love, Richard Marsden, Andy Orchard, Charles D. Wright, and Neil Wright, “Text and translation; Commentary”, in: Martha Bayless, and Michael Lapidge (eds), Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, 14, Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1998. 121–197; 199–286.
From the preface (p. vii): “The present edition of the Collectanea pseudo-Bedae is essentially the production of a research seminar in the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic (University of Cambridge) which met, under the direction of Michael Lapidge [...] As a result, the present text and translation are the corporate responsibility of the members of the seminar; in the individual Commentary, by contrast, individual contributions are signed.”
From the preface (p. vii): “The present edition of the Collectanea pseudo-Bedae is essentially the production of a research seminar in the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic (University of Cambridge) which met, under the direction of Michael Lapidge [...] As a result, the present text and translation are the corporate responsibility of the members of the seminar; in the individual Commentary, by contrast, individual contributions are signed.”
1992
article
Crick, Julia C., “Geoffrey of Monmouth, prophecy and history”, Journal of Medieval History 18:4 (1992): 357–371.
abstract:
Geoffrey of Monmouth in his History of the Kings of Britain is widely considered to have transgressed the historiographical canons of his time. The work provides a lengthy and detailed account of a prehistoric period for which no history in any currently accepted sense can be written. Among Geoffrey's greater departures from historical credibility is his championship of two mythical figures, Arthur and Merlin, both of whom are given a central place in his History. In this article, the author considers the evidence for the reception of Merlin's Prophecies and its implications for the reception of the history in which they were located. Besides reviewing the testimony of twelfth-century authors who used or criticised the Prophecies, she looks at commentaries on the Prophecies, both published and unpublished, written by contemporaries. She concludes that the Prophecies were attacked not because of any perceived historical inaccuracy but primarily because of political considerations. Indeed, the presence of Merlin's Prophecies at the heart of the History served to enhance its credibility and validity.
abstract:
Geoffrey of Monmouth in his History of the Kings of Britain is widely considered to have transgressed the historiographical canons of his time. The work provides a lengthy and detailed account of a prehistoric period for which no history in any currently accepted sense can be written. Among Geoffrey's greater departures from historical credibility is his championship of two mythical figures, Arthur and Merlin, both of whom are given a central place in his History. In this article, the author considers the evidence for the reception of Merlin's Prophecies and its implications for the reception of the history in which they were located. Besides reviewing the testimony of twelfth-century authors who used or criticised the Prophecies, she looks at commentaries on the Prophecies, both published and unpublished, written by contemporaries. She concludes that the Prophecies were attacked not because of any perceived historical inaccuracy but primarily because of political considerations. Indeed, the presence of Merlin's Prophecies at the heart of the History served to enhance its credibility and validity.
1991
work
1989
work