Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Translation of Female Kingship by Fiona Tolhurst (review)

Fiona Tolhurst’s Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Translation of Female Kingship, a companion piece to her Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Feminist Origins of the Arthurian Legend(Palgrave, 2012), is an ambitious book. As its title states, her subject is the role of women in the non-Arthurian sections of Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Brittaniaeas female kings—women rulers whom Geoffrey distinguishes from queen-consorts or women serving as regents. Tolhurst’s argument is twofold: first, that Geoffrey, whom Tolhurst characterizes as a ‘feminist’ historian in a twelfth-century context, fashioned female rulers in the Historiaboth in imitation of and as inspiration for Empress Matilda; second, that Geoffrey’s major redactors, Wace, Laʒamon, Henry of Huntingdon, and Matthew Paris, increasingly degrade, undermine, and erase the Galfridian concept of female kingship by substituting stereotypical and conventional characterizations of women for Geoffrey’s strong female characters; in so doing, Tolhurst points out how Geoffrey stands apart from both his predecessors and followers in his preference for female rule. Tangentially, Tolhurst reconsiders Matilda’s significance as rightful heir of Henry I and as a female king. Tolhurst offers an original approach to her subject that promises to reinvigorate debate about the nature of female rulers in Galfridan historiography and Matilda’s place in the roll of medieval English rulers.

Tolhurst’s introductory chapter, ‘Re-reading Empress Matilda,’ surveys historical texts of the period to characterize Matilda as an able, experienced, and respected ruler, providing context for an examination of Geoffrey. In the process, Tolhurst takes to task dominant scholarship that tends either to downplay Matilda’s role in the succession crisis of the mid-twelfth century or to demonize her as the catalyst for unrest. This chapter offers valuable information to readers unfamiliar with the character of Empress Matilda and her struggle with her cousin Stephen for control of the realm, specifically about Matilda’s training, her role in continental politics prior to her return to England, the prestige she enjoyed in both England and Europe, and her training for the kingship. Although these points are well taken, Tolhurst could have qualified and nuanced her discussion by addressing in more detail evidence of Matilda’s shortcomings, such as her alienation of the citizens of London (precipitating an uprising) and her failure to consolidate power after Stephen’s imprisonment. Nonetheless, she succeeds in demonstrating Matilda’s preparation for kingship and her legitimacy, making the case that the Empress deserves official historical recognition alongside—if not instead of—Stephen as a rightful monarch.

In the ensuing chapter, ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth as Preparation for a Female King,’ Tolhurst analyzes female figures of the non-Arthurian segments of the Historia. Directing attention to implicit connections between Empress Matilda’s preparation to serve as king and Geoffrey’s favorable depiction of female rule, a concept she sees beginning in the Prophecies of Merlin, Tolhurst argues that Geoffrey holds up female kingship as a possible corrective to the violent infighting by Norman kings. She sees the Historialargely as ‘an account of the British past [that] offers a potential solution to the problems of male kings’ immorality and incompetence: female rule’ (p. 82). Tolhurst further examines the ‘problematic or disastrous (p. 83)’ consequences of opposition to female rule, an implicit warning to Stephen’s adherents. In the process, Tolhurst challenges the bulk of scholarly opinion that has characterized Geoffrey’s depictions of women as conventional and marginal. She convincingly analyzes the language Geoffrey uses to stress the status of ruling women such as the vindictive militant Guendolena, the scholar Marcie, and Leir’s loyal daughter Cordeilla (Cordelia) as female kings rather than as simply regents or consorts. To her credit, Tolhurst does acknowledge the presence of morally dubious women in Geoffrey in a subchapter titled ‘“Bad Girls” Who Are Not So Bad,’ but qualifies it by juxtaposing their evil with male violence. For...