Most Helpful Customer Reviews
18 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A modern overview of the search for Arthurian "fact", May 14, 2000
Let me state up front that, yes, as another Amazon reviewer noted, Rodney Castleden did indeed mess up by confusing a passage from Nennius' 9th Century Historia Brittonum with the material in Constantius'5th Century Life of Germanus. I suspect the error lay in how Castleden assembled his notes, getting something in the wrong file, and it is disconcerting that the mistake was not picked up during the editing process. And I think that this error does highlight the fact that Castleden is something of an outsider in Arthurian matters, not a professional in the area like Ashe or Alcock or an amateur enthusiast such as those who reguarly churn out the latest "final answer" to the old mysteries. Rather, he is a writer on archaeological subjects asked by his publisher to write a book on this always intriguing subject. As such, he brings a fresh, albeit imperfect, eye to familiar ground, along with a certain degree of expertise. Perhaps the most solid portions of "King Arthur: The Truth behind the Legend" are those where he is reviewing various books and theories on the subject, including quite a few from the last couple decades which produced "final answers" (none of them agreeing with one another, of course). At the same time, Castleden does present a good summary of the evidence (even if he does get that Nennius passage in the wrong place) and an even better tour of some of the major sites associated with Arthur. Of course, Castleden has his own version of a "final answer". His Dumnonian Arthur, perhaps based in Killisbury/Kelliwic and Tintagel, falls in line with the theories of some who have come before him and is reasonably persuasive (always assuming, of course, that you start with the premise that there was a real Arthur), if not ironclad. His extension of Arthur's story beyond this, however, (that Arthur survived the Battle of Camlann and found refuge of a sort in a Galloway monastery seems to me to be something of a reach, more speculation than deduction. I would recommend the book to persons strongly interested in the historical facts behind Arthur, not as a "final answer" but as a worthy enough attempt to supply at least some of the truth.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A valiant speculation, but not the Holy Grail, February 15, 2000
This book uses a detailed analysis of archaeological evidence and textual references in an attempt to reconstruct the world in which King Arthur would have lived and to try to determine if he really occupied it. Castleden constructs a plausible thesis: that Arthur was local king of Trigg in present-day Cornwall; that he became high king and war leader of the united Britonnic front against the Saxon conquest; that he was likely a first-generation Christian who retained some elements of Celtic and Roman influence; that his itinerant court occupied various castles including a site at Killibury in peacetime and the Tintagel stronghold in wartime and ceremonial occasions; that Tintagel's alternate name of Myrddin (sea-fort) was confused with a northern bard of the same name, leading to the legend of Merlin as Arthur's protector; that the battle of Camlan where Arthur's career ended was at the convergence of the Gamlan and Eden rivers, where he was attacked by the forces of Maelgwn, who succeeded him as high king; and that a crippled, defeated Arthur may have abdicated by retiring to a monastery, explaining the discrepancy in his reported death dates as well as the legend of his disappearance and inevitable return. It's a credible scenario, consistent with the evidence Castleden presents, and Castleden's grasp of that evidence is excellent. He shows some keen insights, for instance realizing that an contemporary reference seeming to state that Arthur bore a cross on his shoulders for three days and nights (a superhuman feat) was probably mistranslated, and that he actually bore the cross symbol on his shield. But his "biography" of Arthur can't be proven, and Castleden seems too willing to take it as fact, to the point of glossing over other theories. He mentions the possibility that Arthur was a composite of more than one figure, including an Arthmael whose wife was named Gwenhwyfar (Guinevere); but despite this compelling datum he dismisses the theory with a brief, unsatisfying argument. In the end, when he attempts to identify the specific site of Arthur's retirement and burial, he speculates much too far beyond the existing data. He spends much of the book out on a limb, but by this point his argument is hanging by a thread. Castleden is clearly far too convinced of his own thesis, and this damages his credibility. This work is a valuable contribution to the discussion of the historical Arthur, and raises many interesting questions which deserve to be debated; but it should by no means be taken as the "truth" its title asserts it to be.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Not quite the worst "Historical Arthur" book I've read., April 9, 2000
"King Arthur - the Truth behind the legend" is not as bad as many books purporting to find the historical King Arthur. At least the suggestions for Arthur's location etc. are plausible. However, it is not a work of scholarship. This became obvious in the second chapter "The documents" where Castleden makes the unbelievable howler of confusing the part of the Historia Brittonum (c. 800) concerning St Germanus with the "Life of Germanus" by Constantius (c. 470). You'd think he would have noted something wrong since he himself points out that the manuscript indicates 10 generations instead of one generation between the events described and the time of writing. Obviously Castleden has not read the primary sources he quotes. He relies heavily on John Morris (as do many authors with similar books). Even though Morris is questionable sometimes in his interpretation, at least he knows his sources. As a reader, you are better of with Morris' "The Age of Arthur", or Alcock's "Arthur's Britain" or Snyder's "The Age of Tyrants".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
