164 pages, Alan
Sutton, ISBN-13: 978-0862993986
Sad
to say, but the tales surrounding Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table are
pure fiction, brought to our attention by one Sir Thomas Malory in his seminal
work Le Morte d’Arthur, “The Death of
Arthur”, in which he gathered (and rewrote!) several existing tales about the Once
and Future King, Queen Guinevere, Sir Lancelot du Lac, Merlin and several of the
other Knights, as well (for me these tales will always be linked to “Monty
Python and the Holy Grail”, for better or for worse…better, I think). But they
are no less entertaining for all that, and R.W. Dunning adds to the enjoyment
with his book Arthur: The King in the
West. Unlike several of his predecessors who have labored soberly to
advance their theories of who the legendary Arthur really was, or which of the
many postulated sites is the real Camelot, or so on and so forth, Dunning
seasons scholarly debate with some of the tall tales used by past generations
of true blue, died-in-the-wool Arthurians to promote themselves and their
versions of ancient British history; if some of these accounts are patently
absurd, well then there’s so much more fun to be had in reading them. In
particular, Dunning focuses on the connections between the Arthur myth and the
legends involving the origins of Glastonbury Abbey: to many, questioning the
historicity of these links is tantamount to heresy, but by identifying the origins
of the many stories and putting them in context with the Abbey’s place in a
world of intense competition for prestige and pilgrims, Dunning provides an
informative and often amusing look at the art of myth making, yet without
forgetting that nearly all legends conceal a kernel of fact. Some may be
disappointed because the book offers no radical new conclusions about Arthur’s
identity, but then theories enough can already be found, and should a
definitive version of the story ever be told, a great deal of the fun will go
out of it. In the meantime, Dunning shows that scholarship and legend are not
an incompatible pair.
No comments:
Post a Comment