Scan barcode
readingthroughthelists's review
4.0
I start with a confession: I did not completely finish this book. This was not my fault, but rather due to the fact that it was borrowed from the professor I wrote the term paper for. And once the paper was finished...well it might have negatively influenced my grade to have kept it.
*Ahem*
Of the 10 to 15 books I read for my term papers this semester (both Arthurian in nature) this was one of the three most helpful. Gidlow's main position is that there is ample literary evidence for the existence of a historical Arthur, a man with a similar name living in the 5th-6th century who was indeed the victor of Mt. Badon. This is not the Arthur of Malory or Geoffrey of Monmouth but a real British (or possibly Scottish) warrior of his time, an Arthur who gained so much fame that he would eventually be remembered in legend.
Gidlow's work read plausibly and convincingly. His greatest strength, I believe, is the respect he has for literary sources. Instead of treating them as the fanciful wish-fulfillments of lonely Welsh monks, he actually treats them as works that deserve, if not complete trust, than at least respectful consideration. Just because something is old does not mean it is all made up. This is not, unfortunately, the universal view of other Arthurian scholars. Cough, cough. Now I will admit that Gidlow's arguments seemed particularly convincing to me because my professor is a firm believer in a historical Arthur and I am easily influenced. And I love Arthur. What can I say?
So if you feel that Gidlow doesn't do a fair job, and perhaps gives too much credit to literary sources, than as a counter, I recommend Worlds of Arthur by Guy Halsell, which takes the opposite stance on just about every issue. Read both and then decide which better addresses the question. But either way if you have even the least bit of interest in Arthur do not fail to read this or other credible works; nothing can make you appreciate both Dark Age history and Arthurian literature more.
*Ahem*
Of the 10 to 15 books I read for my term papers this semester (both Arthurian in nature) this was one of the three most helpful. Gidlow's main position is that there is ample literary evidence for the existence of a historical Arthur, a man with a similar name living in the 5th-6th century who was indeed the victor of Mt. Badon. This is not the Arthur of Malory or Geoffrey of Monmouth but a real British (or possibly Scottish) warrior of his time, an Arthur who gained so much fame that he would eventually be remembered in legend.
Gidlow's work read plausibly and convincingly. His greatest strength, I believe, is the respect he has for literary sources. Instead of treating them as the fanciful wish-fulfillments of lonely Welsh monks, he actually treats them as works that deserve, if not complete trust, than at least respectful consideration. Just because something is old does not mean it is all made up. This is not, unfortunately, the universal view of other Arthurian scholars. Cough, cough. Now I will admit that Gidlow's arguments seemed particularly convincing to me because my professor is a firm believer in a historical Arthur and I am easily influenced. And I love Arthur. What can I say?
So if you feel that Gidlow doesn't do a fair job, and perhaps gives too much credit to literary sources, than as a counter, I recommend Worlds of Arthur by Guy Halsell, which takes the opposite stance on just about every issue. Read both and then decide which better addresses the question. But either way if you have even the least bit of interest in Arthur do not fail to read this or other credible works; nothing can make you appreciate both Dark Age history and Arthurian literature more.
elentarri's review
3.0
Gidlow provides a comprehensive, scholarly analysis of ancient texts with a comparison of what is known of 5th and 6th century British life in an effort to determine if the fabled Arthur is a real person. Gidlow also examines how a 5th/6th century warrior became the "King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table". Interesting, but after a while all the picking apart of old texts and the "could have been", "might have been", "it is plausible" just got tedious. A bit more archaeological evidence would have been useful. Arthur fanatics will find the book interesting.
More...