The discovery of King Arthur Book

Brief summary: Interesting, but also a bit annoying. Details follow.

Ashe is a well-known scholar of the "historical Arthur" (or, perhaps to be more accurate, on the historical events on which the Arthur legends may be based.) My understanding is that "The Discovery of King Arthur," which is directed at a popular audience rather than a scholarly one, is one of his most important publications.

Ashe's main argument here is that the historical Arthur was the same person as Riothamus, a late 5th century Romano-British military leader (whose name may actually be a title meaning 'high king') who is reported in various sources to have led British troops across the channel to fight against the Goths in Gaul and Burgundy in the 470s, as an ally of one of the last Western Roman Emperors. This thesis is largely based on Ashe's innovative reading of Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain" (the first medieval work to present a fully detailed account of the Arthur legend within a historical-- or at least quasi-historical background). Specifically, Ashe takes seriously Geoffrey's claim to have based his work on a prior book (possibly of Breton origin), and takes even more seriously Geoffrey's lengthy account of Arthur's activities outside of Britain-- most notably, his account of Arthur's expeditions to the continent where he fought (among others) the crumbling Western Roman Empire itself. Ashe bolsters this with corroborative work from earlier medieval chronicles, from archaeology, and from toponymy-- and makes a reasonable effort to counter objections, contradictions, and other possible explanations.

Now, I'm certainly not a scholar on this subject, but I know a bit about it-- and I find Ashe's identification of Arthur and Riothamus to be a creative, compelling, and plausible suggestion. (I don't think he's closed the case on the subject, but I think he's made a very interesting argument about it.)

That said, I can't say that I really enjoyed this book (thus the 2-star rating). Even though Ashe offers an interesting interpretation and supports it with reasonable evidence, there's a lot about "The Discovery of King Arthur" that was frustrating.

Part of my frustration stemmed from the book's organization, which seemed muddled. Ashe begins by summarizing Geoffrey's account of Arthur, then jumps back to late Roman and post-Roman Britain to provide general context, then spends some time talking about Welsh medieval chroniclers who mention Arthur. It's not until halfway through the book that he actually reveals what his thesis actually is, and starts arguing for it. The last third of the book then consists of a discussion of subsequent legend-building about Arthur, that doesn't really do much (IMHO) to expand on or clarify his thesis.

Also, I find that Ashe seems a bit too convinced of his own conclusions. It seems pretty clear that he thinks he has "discovered" the historical basis for King Arthur once and for all, rather than simply having proposed a compelling theory. (This is evident not just from the title, but also from chapter titles like "New Discoveries," which really are not so much about "discoveries"-- but rather his speculations and attempts to prove them.) I would have preferred a bit more skepticism and tentativeness on his part as to his conclusions.

Finally, on the 'things that I didn't like' list, there's Ashe's style, which often slips into an intrusive first-person narration. The text is filled with phrases like "This brought me back to the claim..." "Maybe I could detect traces of an unrecognized source...," "I guessed therefore...", "I had established two facts...", "As I reflected further..." "Based on these facts, I judged..." At times, it seemed like Ashe was writing an autobiographical account of his own quest for the historical Arthur, as much as a book about Arthur himself.

Ultimately, this book offered some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure that I would necessarily recommend it to others.