Customer Reviews

The Age of Arthur: A History of the British Isles from 350 to 650

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

John Morris's The Age of Arthur is an excellent reference guide for anyone interested in the historical Arthur, or the Dark Ages in general. It's as old as I am and I found it in a used book shop. At more than six-hundred pages, it is incredibly detailed and a bit hard to read cover-to-cover, but you can get the gist of it with some judicious skipping.

Some historians may have trouble with the conclusions that Morris draws. He relies heavily on folklore as his source. His thinking is, if there's smoke there's fire - if all these chroniclers write about a King Arthur who lived during the time of their fathers, then there's probably some truth to it.

As far as I can tell, the majority of historians (including Simon Schama) believe that there was a warlord named Arthur - he was the last Brit to fight off the Saxon hoards. The details of his life and the character of the man are unknowable. Morris would agree with that - he doesn't give us details of Arthur's life. There are snippets provided from historical writings - some of which portray Arthur as a tyrant. There is a Vortigern in this book, but no Merlin. Who knows how true Morris's assertions are, but in all fairness, like Herodotus, he does provide his source materials so you can make up your own mind.

Ahh, the incredulous acceptance of youth. Yes, to think there once was a time, not so long ago as I might wish it were, when I accepted every pearl of Dr. Morris' wisdom without question. I'm much more well-read on the subject now, and much more academically rigorous, or so I'd like to think. No doubt this review will pain me one day as well, but for now, I must set my mistakes aright!

The Age of Arthur is a very big book on an age we really don't know very much about. How do you put together that much material on such a scanty base of primary sources? Why, by accepting your sources without question, of course! Dr. Morris, bless his soul, was a widely respected scholar in Britain, until he published this book. And while I may not like the vitrolic, rabid attacks launched against his late person because of this publication, the fact remains that there's too many holes in its historical content to use in any way except with the utmost caution. Dr. Morris uses here sources of often questionable reliability, and is often too scanty in his citations to pick apart the reliable history, from the unreliable source material, from Dr. Morris' own conclusions. It is a wonderful book, as historical fiction if nothing else, but as a history book ... be careful. Be very, very, very careful. And please, if that is what you intend to use it for, know your conventional history books backwards and forwards, before you pick this one up.

The subtitle is a much better indicator of this book than is the title: it is a history of the British Isles, including Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and also Brittany, during this period (more like 400-700, actually) in the context of contemporary continental history and the history of religion, particularly the rise of monasticism; it is not especially about King Arthur. (I got the book many years ago and have tried several times to read it for the history of Arthur himself, unsuccessfully. I went back to it now after my recent studies of continental Late Antiquity/Dark Ages, and got a lot more out of it.)

On the other hand, the title proper does give warning of the book's main weakness: Morris approaches the period with some very old-fashioned ideas. He takes for granted the existance of a real historical King Arthur, for instance, despite a lack of much to actually say about him. When he covers Germanic peoples settling in Roman territory in Gaul, his language is all conquest and occupation, not hospitalitas and Roman policy. He is very happy to be cozily English.

And when Morris tries to propose a new, revisionist interpretation, he does it in some of the oddest places: Geoffrey of Monmouth was just kidding! His history of King Arthur was a parody, a joke that got out of hand, never meant to be taken seriously! The legend of Arthur that grew up from reading Geoffrey was, according to Morris, like treating "1066 and All That" as a straight textbook. (I'd be more willing to entertain this analogy if he took the trouble to get Sellar's and Yeatman's names right--he calls them Selman and Yeats.)

The material on Ireland and the North was new to me, readable and interesting; the back matter is full of useful-looking documentation and lists of sources. Sadly, I just don't know how far I can trust it.

The trouble with writers who can write good English is that they can present bad arguments attractively. Let's face it: John Morris was a crank, a very learned, impressive crank, but a crank. My copy of his work is dotted with pencil notes that question his sanity; and while that was the immediate, unmediated response to the impact of a first reading, a subsequent and more placid view does not really mitigate the effect of some of his enormities.
His worst feature was a complete inability to tell the difference between legend and historical fact - understandable, perhaps, in a novice, but incomprehensible in a man who had spent all his life in scholarship. It is typical of his methods (to dignify them by that name) that he should take seriously the Kentish legend of Hengist and Horsa (as related by Nennius), in spite not only of its obviously legendary features but of the fact that it plainly contradicts everything that our best properly historical source, Gildas, has to tell about the first Saxon war. Gildas tells us that the war was a blitzkrieg caused by the sudden fury of starved barbarians; the legend makes it a long-prepared plan. Gildas tells us that it reached as far as the West Country; the legend restricts it to Kent. Gildas tells us that it was bloody but swift; the legend makes it last ten years. How does Morris get over these hurdles? Why, by a simple and airy remark: "accounts of the war north of the Thames have not survived". He should have said not only north of the Thames but west of the Medway; but let that pass, since at any rate it shows the level of his critical intellect. This sort of thing is highly damaging, not only because it legitimated the destructive scepticism of the currently prevalent Cambridge school of David Dumville and his followers, but because it has a lethal fascination for the unprepared reader, impressed (as some of the earlier reviews show) by the show of learning, and by the cohesive picture offered. The learning is not fake (although on a few occasions, especially when dealing with Rigothamus and Brittany, Morris leaves the impression of having invented sources, or at least read them very "creatively"); but learning is not enough, and a poorly grounded overall picture is worse than none at all. I have written myself about this period of British history, and am continuously surprised at Morris' blindness to obvious fact when inconvenient for his theories.
This book escapes getting only one star for two reasons: first, its genuinely excellent prose style; and second, that in the middle of the scholarly ordure there are a good few diamonds. From time to time, Morris comes up with genuinely brilliant ideas and insights (such as his argument for the existence of an individual insular idea of Empire, or his defence of the currently unpopular early dating of St.Patrick). But these are too widely scattered among a fluent tide of nonsense to be a reason to recommend the book. Though addressed to lay readers, this book is dangerous for them; it should be restricted to those who, having as much learning as Morris himself, are able to judge and condemn his arguments.

If John Morris never wrote another book, his AGE OF ARTHUR would have to be described as a lifetime achievement. I bought this book because I've been fascinated with King Arthur for some time, and this book is THE history of the period before, during and after Arthur. Only about one-fifth of the pages in the book are about Arthur's life, but Morris convincingly describes Arthur's time and his lasting effect on the cultures and governments of the British Islands. He also makes a convincing case that history is not predestined.

THE AGE OF ARTHUR covers a period that has been condescendingly labeled the "dark ages" by some. Morris suggests this age is not so much obscure as it has been overlooked. (Or was at the time he published his book. Many new "early Medieval studies" were published in the 1990s). Morris demonstrates that scholarship about this era can be carried out by using annals; lives of the saints; law codes; land grants and religious charters; "histories" such as those written by Gildas and Bede; graffiti and tomb inscriptions; poetry; chronicles; wills; genealogical records; archeological evidence from cemeteries, burial mounds, and barrows, houses, villages, encampments, battle fields and other sites; and linguistics analysis. He has done a magnificent job of identifying and synthesizing much of the extant material. His book is loaded with suggestions for scholars who want to continue investigating this era. I doubt you will find a better book for an overview of this period or for research leads.

Among other topics, I was intrigued with the various ways the Welsh (Angle for foreigner), Irish, Scots (Latin for Irish), and German peoples including the Angles of Arthur's age dealt with everyday issues. Their social and legal problems were not so very different, but the Irish and the Welsh (Roman Britains) appear to have been somewhat more practical and humane. They were much more concerned with compensation than revenge or punishment and more than once Morris refers to them as early humanists. For example, an (adulterous wife) was expected to compensate her offended husband by paying him "face money." Some of the old laws from this age are still "on the books." For example, the notion that seven years cohabitation by persons of opposite sex creates a "common-law marriage" is at least 1500 years old and is the law in places such as the Commonwealth of Virginia which follows English Common Law.

John Morris's "The Age of Arthur" lives within the rare category of historical books that bring to light the vision of the world-in-development. In the 20th century, few attempts have been undertaken on such a sweeping scale with such elegance and discernment. One of these, Charles Norris Cochrane's "Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine," likewise opens the door to an explosion of understanding of the extraordinary process by which Western civilization came to forge its identity. As such, "The Age of Arthur" excels in revealing the governing dynamics of societal development - the astonishing choreography of battles, leaders, institutions, and movements of peoples that combined to produce the unique vintage that became the West: Christendom in the face of warlords, the Saxon hordes, the revival of monasticism in Ireland and - surprise of surprises - the Peace of Arthur that galvanized it. Professor Morris's judicious and generous use of scattered historical, archeological, and anthropological records reminds one of a paleontologist patiently reconstructing bone fragments until a prehistoric beast emerges to astound with unmistakable clarity of form and function.
The object and result of Professor Morris's work could not be more important to give form to - again, akin to Professor Cochrane's equally stunning account of the evolution of Christian Rome. The forces under Charles Martel that held out against the Muslim conquest of Europe at Tours in 732 knew who they were, what was at stake, and why defeat was not an option. The genesis of this societal identity solidification is the stuff of macrohistory which has been skillfully, assembled and chronicled with streamlined lucidity by Professor Morris. Consider the conciseness with which he describes the significance of Saint Columba's (Columcille's) decision to accept exile from the Ireland that was essentially his for the asking. Always understood, it is elevated to a level of intellectual precision empowering the student of history to implement it as a central guidepost of thought and historical utility. Nowhere is Morris's skill more evident than in his presentation of the dilemma and its resolution:
"To have condemned Columba then and there invited the convocation of a counter-synod in UI Neill lands, whose opposite anathema might threaten a religious war fought with sword and spear. If Columba's actions were condoned, then the churchman's prayer became a military weapon necessary to the armament of all kings; if he were excommunicated at Diarmait's behest, the church submitted to the will of the High King on earth. Exile without excommunication, voluntarily accepted, removed an appalling danger. Columba remained head of the community of Columban monasteries; his exile stilled the threat inherent in his royalty, and warned future churchmen against over-involvement in the political ambition of kings. The lesson was learnt, and the records of the next century are rich in the stories of monks and abbots who deemed it proper to aid their kings with prayer in defence of their own subjects against enemy invaders, but condemned their own rulers when they attacked their neighbours. This was the attitude that Irish monks were to bring to Northumbria, and to teach to Bede, and that the Irish and English were to impress upon the churchmen of Europe."
And so the lessons of the early Middle Ages in the British Isles spring to life in the professor's expert hands and evidence acquires meaning, a coherent process of history arising out of seemingly disparate notes of a masterful symphony of history. The desire for meaning is balanced by an insistence on evidence-based conclusions and distinguishing fact from trend and from speculation. This is scholarship burning with a bright luster - the invitation for all to join in the search for roots as a means of evaluating the tree that has sprung from it. It would be hard to leave this book without the feeling of having climbed a high peak under the guidance of one who pursued history for what it enables us to understand about who we are and how we became what we are.

Robert Emmett Henry
March 7, 2011

I, for one, am happy to see this work back in print. As others have noted, Morris weaves a grand tapestry from a few threads; but what a tapestry! He guesses, he extrapolates, he leaps, over evidentiary chasms at which more cautious historians blanche, to conclusions. Bully for him. Read it together with more cautious historians such as Salway and Wachter, and have fun.

Bought as a gift, but I read it first and enjoyed it very much! Thanks

John Morris's "The Age of Arthur" is over 600 pages long - and worth every sheet. In this one book, one can find not only one of the best scholarly evaluations of Dark Age British history ever written, but the publication which, perhaps more than any other,began the quest for the "historical Arthur." Anyone with an interest in this fascinating epoch should own this book, for use at the very least as a reference book!