Lucius Hiberius

I’ve just been reading Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain, which to my shame I have to admit I’d never read in full before.

Which is a pity, for while it is a work of fiction, it was treated in Medieval times as at least being partly true, and was used by Shakespeare as a source for Lear (and probably some others)

The interesting thing about the book is that while some of it is clearly made up Geoffrey repeats stories known from Nennius and Gildas, suggesting that he had done some research and possibly had access to other, now lost accounts. This does not mean that he had access to some books now lost, but he may have heard tellings and retellings of older stories and blended them in.

About two thirds through the Arthur stories Geoffrey introduces the character of Lucius Hiberius (or in some texts Lucius Tiberius), Procurator of the Senate of Rome who writes to Arthur, King of the Britons, in quite rude terms requesting that he pay fealty to him.

There are things about the story that are clearly wrong, for example there could have been no king of Iceland as Iceland was unknown to Europeans at the time, and the king of Spain has a Muslim name, Ali Fatima, which predates the Muslim conquest of Spain by around two hundred years.

But other aspects of the story are puzzling. Some of the Senators have proper sounding Roman names, including ‘proper’ triple names such as Gaius Metellus Cocta, and Lucius Hiberius, when initially defeated is counselled to wait for reinforcements from the Emperor Leo, and of course Lucius Tiberius is identified as Procurator of the Senate, and in his letter refers to the Republic, which was a Roman fiction used to describe the state in even late Imperial times, suggesting someone had some familiarity with the organisation of both the late Roman state and the Byzantine exarchate in Italy.

Some researchers have identified Lucius Hiberius with Tiberius Constantine who reinforced Ravenna, intervened in Frankish affairs, allied himself with the Visigothic kings of Spain and generally attempted to assert the authority of Byzantium over the post Roman west.

The reign of Tiberius Constantine also roughly coincides with the presumed time of the historical Arthur – which is also kind of interesting.

Tiberius was also heavily involved in wars against Parthia and in Mesopotamia – all even more interesting given Geoffrey’s inclusion of various middle eastern rulers among Lucius’s allies.

The use of the term Procurator is also interesting – suggesting a letter from a senior state official and not from the Emperor himself – again what might happen if the letter was sent by the Exarch or on orders from Byzantium.

The story itself is clearly fiction. But enough of the details sound right to suggest that perhaps there was once a Byzantine embassy to the Romano British ruler or rulers of Britain requesting them to pledge allegiance, and perhaps also at the same time there was an expeditionary force from the Exarchate that tried to push north into Gaul and extend its boundaries.

We will obviously never know. Reconstructing history from Geoffrey of Monmouth is a bit like reconstructing the history of the Russian 1917 revolution from Dr Zhivago and Mikail Bulgakov’s ‘White Guard’ – we would be able to identify some events as real, some as probable, and some as fictional, and we would never be quite sure as to which of the latter two were which.

Or for a more modern analogy, trying to reconstruct the story of the Viking incursions into Northern Europe from the screenplay of Vikings but with no access to the sagas or the Anglo Saxon Chronicle.

So is the case of Lucius Hiberius – some of the story is fictional, but some also sounds true, feels true ….

About dgm

Former IT professional, previously a digital archiving and repository person, ex research psychologist, blogger, twitterer, and amateur classical medieval and nineteenth century historian ...
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Lucius Hiberius

  1. Pingback: E-books and the medieval book trade | stuff 'n other stuff

  2. Pingback: Lucius Hiberius (again) | stuff 'n other stuff

  3. Maybe Lucius Hiberius was Belisarius, Justinian’s general, who won the Iberian Wars and therefore was called Hiberius. He was sent to Italy to restore the West-Roman Empire and might have met Arthur in the Battle of Saussy, which I date around 540 a few years before the Battle of Camlann (542 according to Monmouth). Lucius Hiberius was killed by a spear in the stomach. Just like Liberius was wounded by a Gothic spear around 526, during Arthur’s 1st invasion in Gaul. Liberius was a praetorian prefect in the Provence and miraculously recovered, built a cathedral in Orange, where was held the 2nd Counsel of Orange in 529. The story of Liberius was taken to another battle that Arthur fought with Romans (or German Giants, as Malory told, Ostrogoths of Italy). So Liberius and Belisarius Hiberius might have been the historical personages behind the fictional Lucius Hiberius (or Tiberius).
    About another battle that Arthur fought at the citygates of Paris, Clovis’ capital since 496, Monmouth mentions a fight between Arthur and tribune Frollo. I wonder if this mighty Frollo could be the consul Clovis I in the reign of Emperor Anastasius I (instead of Emperor Leo I, who had already died before Arthur’s birth, if I am not mistaken around 480).
    King Claudas, mentioned in Malory might be the same person as tribune Frollo, as they both are the Frankish king and Roman consul Clovis (Lodowich) I, who held his capital in Paris. I think Arthur was born in 480 and died in 542 at the age of 62. That means he lived during Clovis’ reign and Belisarius’ and Liberius’ commanding years. Might the story of Monmouth be real history after all? Why don’t we know for sure when Clovis I died and what he died of? Did he and Arthur meet in battle and was Clovis I defeated? Clovis I became the hero of the catholic Frankish Merovingian dynasty. Gregory of Tours was the first to write Clovis’ story. Didn’t he like Arthur and did he obliterate his memory from the European chronicles? The Franks and the Anglosaxons didn’t like Arthur as well. That might have been the reason for degrading him to a hero of fables.

  4. Howard Wiseman says:

    Interesting idea. I hadn’t heard of Tiberius II being suggested in that context. However I can’t see that the exarchate of Ravenna would be in the position to undertake any military activity in Gaul. (And indeed, I can’t see that any “Roman” state could have done that after the fall of Syagrius in 486, which is always the problem with trying to find some truth in Geoffrey’s history). I wonder if the first commentator on your post has read my quasihistorical book _Then Arthur Fought_ where I indeed have Arthur take part in the (historically recorded) wounding of Liberius, Prefect of Gaul. The other idea I explore in my book is based on the later Latinized form Thibertus of the name of the Theudibert, who ruled at *exactly* the time Geoffrey has Arthur making war against Tiberius in Gaul.

    • Howard Wiseman says:

      I meant I wonder if the first commentator on your post *had* read my book, published in 2015.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s