|
Wednesday, 17 January 2007 06:59 |
| | David Forbes |
King Arthur has always been a figure Iëve found fascinating. Apparently Iëm not the only one. He has gone through countless vicissitudes in popular culture, from the musical "Camelot" to Monty Pythonës wide satire to mediocre cinematic efforts, such as "King Arthur."
His literary mutations, stretching back more than a thousand years, have been nearly as varied. Just in the last century, he and his legends have been told and retold in such masterpieces as T.H. Whiteës "The Once and Future King" and Marion Zimmer Bradleyës "The Mists of Avalon" and less-exalted fare like Patricia Keneally-Morrisonës Arthur-in-space dreck.
Yet
the question of who the historical Arthur actually was remains murky,
covered in a mass of contradictory myths. Fortunately, French poet and
historian Jean Markaleës "King of the Celts" (Inner Traditions, 320
pp., $16.95) is a well-written and in-depth attempt to shed some light
on the Dark Ages-era warlord that "Arthur" probably was ÇƒÓ and just as
importantly, how and why he became the stuff of legend.
Markale is the
pen name of Jean Bertrand, a writer whose specialty is the Celtic world
and in particular the Arthurian legendary cycles.
While Markale
has attracted controversy for some of the conclusions he has drawn,
"King of the Celts" contains nothing glaringly outside the realm of
historical possibility. I have no doubt that he has deviated from the
strictly conservative methods of some historians in this work, but the
result is far more readable than much of the dry, academic stuff out
there. He also has a point, I believe, when he asserts that many more
traditional academics ignore or downplay oral traditions in their
research.
Markale tackles
those head-on. I have never seen a more thorough delving into every
mythical incarnation of Arthur, from Celtic chieftain to the chivalric
king of medieval romance. Anyone interested in Arthur would do well to
pick up the book for this section alone.
At the same
time, Markale splices in a savvy understanding of culture and politics
to explain many of Arthurës actions that might seem strange to outside
eyes. After all, each era looked upon Arthur, "the ideal king,"
differently. Propagandists for the Norman conquerors of England hoped
to use epics of Arthur to simultaneously gain sway with their own
people and put forward an alternative to the French legends of
Charlemagne.
 The wide-ranging
intellect of this work is its greatest strength. Arthurës influence
draws from and extends through many different areas and Markale is up
to the task of weaving all of those together.
The picture that
emerges, ironically, is not of a king at all, but more, to use a modern
title, a "commander-in-chief." The historical Arthur was probably not
born into ruling nobility. He instead, in Markaleës view, led an elite
force of Romanized British cavalry (his "knights") personally loyal to
him.
Over time, he became renowned for his martial skill and ability to
solve problems. Aggressive and intelligent (not to mention fairly
ruthless), he managed to get many of the petty British kings of the era
to make him a "war leader" responsible for the common defense against
Saxon invaders, whom he eventually drove back for a time.
Markale unearths
the fact that this was not uncommon among the defiant Celtic peoples,
who generally distrusted putting too much power in the hands of any one
leader. Arthur also ended up attracting the ire of the church because
he insisted that they too contribute money and manpower to the war
effort, which may explain why church chronicles of the era largely omit
him (with a few notable exceptions).
While this
explanation is far from the only one, given the historical evidence, it
is at least plausible, and fits the oral traditions far better than
many others (Arthur was a Roman general) that have been suggested.
"King of the
Celts" is not perfect, of course. Markale is a Marxist, a fact that
intrudes upon the otherwise riveting narratives he draws together every
once in awhile. If you ignore the occasional tangents about "historical
dialectics," you wonët miss anything. Annoying as they may be, however,
theyëre the exception rather than the rule and the book as a whole is
not harmed.
All in all, itës
fascinating stuff, especially because he tackles the reasons why Arthur
remains relevant, why he, out of all the medieval mythical figures, has
had such staying power ÇƒÓ and what we can learn from what the Celts got
right.
After all, alone
of all areas of the old Roman Empire, Celtic Britain stopped the wave
of barbarian invasions in their tracks, at least for a time. The
ferocious spirit that Arthur personified, both in myth and in history,
must have had something to do with that. As Markale shows, Arthur may
not have been as ideal as the myths made him out to be, but his example
still stands as proof that even the most seemingly hopeless of
struggles can be won ÇƒÓ and that nothing good is ever entirely forgotten.
ï
David Forbes, who writes book reviews and covers news for the Daily Planet, may be contacted at marauderAVL-at-hotmail.com.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
