AFTERLIVES OF ARGUMENTA

Monks used various forms of textual organization to structure their pasts, including charters, copies in gospel books, booklets, cartularies, or narratives which were not primarily historical. By describing these arrangements as “stories,” I argue that they represented the past in usable ways, even though they have not generally been regarded as “histories” by conventional medieval or modern definitions. Yet because these “stories” did rewrite the past, it is useful to think about them as historical writings. Here one should recall Isidore of Seville's tripartite distinction of historia, argumentum, and fabula. Argumentum (plausible narration) was between historia and fabula, since it described events which could have happened, but neither had actually happened nor were impossible. Although none of the eleventh-century monks studied here used the word argumentum in this manner, it is worth considering their “stories” – either expressed or implied – using the concept of plausible narration. This way of looking at the stories of Saint-Peter’s, Ghent, Saint-Denis, and Christ Church, Canterbury helps make sense of the forgeries invented by these monks. Their stories were argumenta in that they rewrote the past plausibly because their composers hoped to convince various audiences. They were attempts by monks to create a usable past, either for themselves or close associates, often in response to specific crises or local circumstances. But after their immediate use, were they simply forgotten? In some places, this must have happened, as stories became irrelevant or were superseded as new circumstances demanded overwriting them. Thus, they were forgotten, either through omission or deliberately. Yet monastic argumenta could persist or be adapted and so had potential utility for later historical writing in recognized genres (historia, gesta or chronicon). Indeed, the very selectivity of these “stories” has influenced how modern scholars regard monastic historical writings in the Middle Ages. So, it is worth investigating the afterlives of argumenta, especially if they were incorporated into house histories.

While “Twice Told Tales” explored monastic stories at moments in time (or over a narrow span of years), this chapter offers a broader temporal view. It traces “stories” or plausible narratives forward in time, examining if (and how) textual production became more overtly historicizing.