Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.52 AVERAGE
3.52 AVERAGE
This can't be called history, but it's a fun romance. There's the tale of how ancient Britons are really displaced Trojans. The tale of King Lear, but with a happier ending (at least for Lear). The most important story, of course, is the tale of Arthur. The "history" is nonsense, of course, but it's great to read the first written account of the Arthurian legend. Much of the tale as we know it today--Uther falling in love with the Duke of Cornwall's wife, Igraine, and his seduction/rape of her while pretending to be her husband, the Round Table, Mordred as the arch-traitor-is there, but other aspects--growing up in anonymity, the Sword in the Stone--are missing. One of Geoffrey's contributions is tying Arthur firmly into a family that rescues Britain from invaders, a family history that Mary Stewart builds on in her Arthurian cycle. Arthur is the son of Uther, the brother of Ambrosius, who began the liberation of Britain by defeating Vortigern, a regicide who relied on the Saxons to support his corrupt regime. Uther continued to keep the borders, and Arthur achieves the total liberation of Britain (and then supposedly goes on to conquer the Roman Empire).
The Kindle edition is okay, but there are a lot of typographical errors. It doesn't impair reading comprehension, but they are annoying.
The Kindle edition is okay, but there are a lot of typographical errors. It doesn't impair reading comprehension, but they are annoying.
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
4.5/5.
I really thought I wouldn't like this, as it sounded just like a boring pseudo-history book; instead, I loved it, and while it was a slow read, it was also incredibly fascinating.
I really thought I wouldn't like this, as it sounded just like a boring pseudo-history book; instead, I loved it, and while it was a slow read, it was also incredibly fascinating.
This is the authoritative text on all things relating to Britain. Honestly, this book is a must read for anyone interested in British literature or history, especially if they’re going into a career in English Lit. It offers a lot of contextualization for references made throughout English lit. and I found it incredibly helpful
It's interesting that so many people in the reviews seem to be denouncing this text as ahistorical, given that it is a retelling of fiction. There is no "true" version of Arthurian legend, because Arthurian legend is not the story of real people but rather a mythology cobbled together from folk tales, knightly stereotypes, and actual historical kings. No, this book is not historically accurate in the sense that it does not accurately depict the eponymous history of British kings, but that's not the point.
I really enjoyed learning about the mythos of King Arthur and the legends and kinds that came before him and shaped his reign. Seriously, if you are at all into King Arthur and you want context on how these legends came about, pick this book up, it is worth the read.
In addition to this, I would read Pseudo-Ninnias' Historia Brittonum, Gildas' The Ruin of Britain, and Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. They will all help to understand all of the source material for the Arthurian Romances.
In addition to this, I would read Pseudo-Ninnias' Historia Brittonum, Gildas' The Ruin of Britain, and Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. They will all help to understand all of the source material for the Arthurian Romances.
Not my favorite translation and not the one I usually use for academic work, but I left my proper copy in my dorm and needed to quote passages, this is what I had access to. A basic standard translation, with useful introduction chapters.
Then, in another whiplash-inducing switch of topic, I read The History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth, written in 1136 or thereabouts. Geoffrey, like Steinbeck, is a bit of a King Arthur fanboy. He spends more time on him than on any of the other kings, and seems to lose interest in the history pretty quickly after Arthur’s death. I found the book to be unexpectedly fascinating, albeit very dense. Geoffrey told the story of a king named Leir, and after a minute I realized this was where Shakespeare got King Lear from. I had no idea the story was so old: Shakespeare was as temporally removed from Geoffrey as we are from Shakespeare. I’m not sure how historical Geoffrey is—not very, evidently. He uses Nennius and Gildas, among others, as his sources, but they loved to make things up, and so does he.
I was interested in Geoffrey’s portrayal of Arthur in particular (as well I might be) because it differs so much from the Malory version. This is no courtly knight. Geoffrey’s Arthur is brutal, as even Geoffrey indirectly acknowledges, even if he is a strong and successful leader. Young Arthur immediately hangs his Saxon hostages after the Saxon leaders break their truce and has no problem urging his men to “leave not one alive” in various battles. According to Geoffrey, he conquers 30 kingdoms, including Norway, Iceland, Germany, etc. Rome gets mighty nervous and demands that Arthur pay tribute and acknowledge their superiority. Arthur sends the body of their messenger back and says that Rome should pay tribute to HIM instead. He gathers an army to take Rome itself, defeats the Roman army sent out to meet him, and is only distracted from taking the city when he hears Mordred (left in charge back home) is causing all kinds of ruckus. Yet Britain prospered under his rule, and enjoyed relative peace for a change. In many ways this portrayal felt far more realistic and historical (or pseudo-historical, anyway, since Geoffrey’s book is considered to be a pseudo-history) than the Arthur we know so much better from Malory, The Sword in the Stone, etc. There’s no Lancelot, no jousting, just Arthur conquering Northern Europe by the edge of the sword and making darn sure he keeps it. Until Mordred wounds him and floats off to Avalon, anyway.
I was interested in Geoffrey’s portrayal of Arthur in particular (as well I might be) because it differs so much from the Malory version. This is no courtly knight. Geoffrey’s Arthur is brutal, as even Geoffrey indirectly acknowledges, even if he is a strong and successful leader. Young Arthur immediately hangs his Saxon hostages after the Saxon leaders break their truce and has no problem urging his men to “leave not one alive” in various battles. According to Geoffrey, he conquers 30 kingdoms, including Norway, Iceland, Germany, etc. Rome gets mighty nervous and demands that Arthur pay tribute and acknowledge their superiority. Arthur sends the body of their messenger back and says that Rome should pay tribute to HIM instead. He gathers an army to take Rome itself, defeats the Roman army sent out to meet him, and is only distracted from taking the city when he hears Mordred (left in charge back home) is causing all kinds of ruckus. Yet Britain prospered under his rule, and enjoyed relative peace for a change. In many ways this portrayal felt far more realistic and historical (or pseudo-historical, anyway, since Geoffrey’s book is considered to be a pseudo-history) than the Arthur we know so much better from Malory, The Sword in the Stone, etc. There’s no Lancelot, no jousting, just Arthur conquering Northern Europe by the edge of the sword and making darn sure he keeps it. Until Mordred wounds him and floats off to Avalon, anyway.
informative
slow-paced
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
fascinating read. It helps to view this book similarly to how one views Homer or Virgil— as legendary history grounded in some fact, but mostly just an epic narrative that shows the pride of a people. The translation I read was fabulous, very simple and matter-of-fact. It does get slow in parts as there are many descriptions of battles, but if you enjoy that sort of thing, it won’t bog you down.