Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.52 AVERAGE
3.52 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
slow-paced
Very interesting at times, especially at the start and with the Arthur passages, but overall very repetitive, and I kinda had to force myself to finish it. It's just a lot of "and this guy was raised king and killed this guy and another guy raised against Britain and fought against the kind and..." It all blends together. And it doesn't help that none of the characters are given much depth. I know that's not necessarily a fair criticism because that's not the point of this book, but it made it less engaging nonetheless.
Overall, it was a fun read. There were some interesting parts, and I don't regret reading it, but I don't ever plan on revisiting this.
Overall, it was a fun read. There were some interesting parts, and I don't regret reading it, but I don't ever plan on revisiting this.
I'm gonna use a phrase that my professor used in class to describe this book. It's not a novel it's a recitation of events. This is Monmouths account of the "history" of Britain.
I give the sassy footnotes for this book five stars, the rest was medieval fan fiction. There were a lot of kings mentioned, a lot of fighting either against each other or against Saxons or against Romans. Merlin's introduction was the most interesting part. He was fathered by an incubus, which explains why he's so awful, like that time he made Uther look like Gorlois so Uther could rape Gorlois's wife while Gorlois was dying in battle.
The footnotes constantly pointed out how fictional everything was, and most of the king Arthur section was him fighting Saxons or Romans or a Spanish Giant who murdered a princess and violated her old nursemaid. It's also odd to think about where King Arthur is placed in the historic timeline, way later than I would have guessed. Long after Julius Caesar, who per the footnotes, did NOT build the tower of London.
This is an important stop on the Arthurian Legend journey, but I'm hoping for better in the future.
The footnotes constantly pointed out how fictional everything was, and most of the king Arthur section was him fighting Saxons or Romans or a Spanish Giant who murdered a princess and violated her old nursemaid. It's also odd to think about where King Arthur is placed in the historic timeline, way later than I would have guessed. Long after Julius Caesar, who per the footnotes, did NOT build the tower of London.
This is an important stop on the Arthurian Legend journey, but I'm hoping for better in the future.
122nd book of 2023. And this handily doubles up as #2 in my challenge with Alan: read something published before 1800.
Historia regum Britanniae / De gestis Britonum / The History of the Kings of Britain is a text written in the 12th century about the creation of Britain and some of our first kings. It was, somehow, considered historical until well into the 16th century. This is strange because within the pages you can find giants, dragons, magicians (notably, of course, Merlin), King Arthur and his magically empowered sword Caliburn, created on the ethereal island of Avalon and King Lear (spelt Leir), the basis of Shakespeare's later play.
The book itself feels like some weird postmodern game: Monmouth claims that Walter the Archdeacon presented him with 'a certain very ancient book written in the British language', which Monmouth then translated into Latin. Monmouth, in the chapter about King Arthur, mentions Walter again, saying he heard about the battle of Camlann from him, a man who was 'most learned in all branches of history.' So whether Walter truly gave Monmouth a physical book, or whether he had simply told him stories which Monmouth decided to write down, is unknown.
I'm embarking on a chunk of research regarding Arthurian myth and legends, so this was my first foray into it. Most Arthurian myth was invented at a later date, by the French, so here King Arthur is less a theological/spiritual tale and quest but rather a man spun to be a true historical King of Britain. Despite his semi-magical sword, Monmouth describes Arthur as being a strong, passionate and skilled leader. It reaches into the hyperbolic often: at one point, Arthur charges into battle with Caliburn and calling upon the 'Blessed Virgin', kills 'four hundred and seventy men'.
The familiar love triangle with Arthur and Lancelot had yet been invented, but Monmouth does relay, in brief, Arthur's nephew Mordred, crowning himself in Britain whilst Arthur is away and living adulterous with his wife, Guinevere. Humorously, this is written, 'About this particular matter, most noble Duke, Geoffrey of Monmouth prefers to say nothing.' He knows his limits. I was hoping to learn a little about the mythical place of Avalon, but Monmouth only mentions it once in saying that Arthur was wounded and retreated there to rest/heal.
As for Merlin, he spouts a lot of prophecies, tells a king about two dragons and steals the rocks that would later become Stonehenge from Ireland where they were placed by giants. In keeping with a lot of British history, Utherpendragon goes and slaughters the Irish who wanted to keep their rocks, and steals them. Later, Uther is buried at their site near Salisbury.
Next up is the French texts that takes these stories and creates them into spiritual fables and romances. And lots of poetry.
Historia regum Britanniae / De gestis Britonum / The History of the Kings of Britain is a text written in the 12th century about the creation of Britain and some of our first kings. It was, somehow, considered historical until well into the 16th century. This is strange because within the pages you can find giants, dragons, magicians (notably, of course, Merlin), King Arthur and his magically empowered sword Caliburn, created on the ethereal island of Avalon and King Lear (spelt Leir), the basis of Shakespeare's later play.
The book itself feels like some weird postmodern game: Monmouth claims that Walter the Archdeacon presented him with 'a certain very ancient book written in the British language', which Monmouth then translated into Latin. Monmouth, in the chapter about King Arthur, mentions Walter again, saying he heard about the battle of Camlann from him, a man who was 'most learned in all branches of history.' So whether Walter truly gave Monmouth a physical book, or whether he had simply told him stories which Monmouth decided to write down, is unknown.
I'm embarking on a chunk of research regarding Arthurian myth and legends, so this was my first foray into it. Most Arthurian myth was invented at a later date, by the French, so here King Arthur is less a theological/spiritual tale and quest but rather a man spun to be a true historical King of Britain. Despite his semi-magical sword, Monmouth describes Arthur as being a strong, passionate and skilled leader. It reaches into the hyperbolic often: at one point, Arthur charges into battle with Caliburn and calling upon the 'Blessed Virgin', kills 'four hundred and seventy men'.
The familiar love triangle with Arthur and Lancelot had yet been invented, but Monmouth does relay, in brief, Arthur's nephew Mordred, crowning himself in Britain whilst Arthur is away and living adulterous with his wife, Guinevere. Humorously, this is written, 'About this particular matter, most noble Duke, Geoffrey of Monmouth prefers to say nothing.' He knows his limits. I was hoping to learn a little about the mythical place of Avalon, but Monmouth only mentions it once in saying that Arthur was wounded and retreated there to rest/heal.
As for Merlin, he spouts a lot of prophecies, tells a king about two dragons and steals the rocks that would later become Stonehenge from Ireland where they were placed by giants. In keeping with a lot of British history, Utherpendragon goes and slaughters the Irish who wanted to keep their rocks, and steals them. Later, Uther is buried at their site near Salisbury.
Next up is the French texts that takes these stories and creates them into spiritual fables and romances. And lots of poetry.
This is not the Arthur of the Romance. It is about Arthur as the conqueror of Europe, and less about the Arthur we know and love. If you enjoy stories about military exploits, read it. Personally, I only read the section on Arthur, so I am hesitant to judge it too harshly. However, I doubt I will ever finish the entire book based on my lack of interest in tales of battle.
This book was read for a collage course. Only certain parts were required to be read.
I skimmed through this, it was for a school project.
informative
medium-paced
A solid translation. It was easy to follow and understand. And kinda fun to see who medieval historians thought came before them.