Scan barcode
lindseysparks's review against another edition
4.0
I don't know why we still debate how Stonehenge was formed because Geoffrey clearly explains that giants brought stones from Africa to Ireland and built it, then Merlin magicked them over to England because of their healing powers when you bathe under them with water that runs over the stones. Obviously. I had wanted to read this for years because Shakespeare uses it as a source for story ideas (King Lear, Cymbeline) and it has the first written King Arthur story. I thought it would be kind of dry but it was so hilarious I kept having to read bits to my husband the world history teacher. It was full of stories like how the Britons sacked Rome, how Merlin discovered that the reason a fortress kept sinking was due to dragons, King Lear's dad tried to make like Icarus and fly, etc. Also, I'm not sure when Arthur had time to find the holy grail because he was busy conquering Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Norway! There were a few bits that read like an actual history and weren't nearly as fun. I'm glad I finally took the time to read this!
berlinbibliophile's review against another edition
4.0
All in all, a good story as well as a historically significant text. The parts about Arthur are, of course, the most in-depth portrayal of a British King in the book, but the other, shorter biographies were interesting as well. I was especially fascinated by this early version of King Lear and by Gwendolen, who defeated her husband in battle and ruled the kingdom in her own right for many years.
But of course most of the kings mentioned by Geoffrey only get very short descriptions, often no more than whether they were a good ruler or not, and those passages can get tedious.
I was wondering about the internal morality of the book, though. Often, when Geoffrey describes a king as hateful to God, it is a sign that something terrible will happen to him. Not so in the case of the gay king, who has a long and successful rule, or in the case of the king who ate human flesh but was not punished. Strange to see Geoffrey change his tune like that.
But of course most of the kings mentioned by Geoffrey only get very short descriptions, often no more than whether they were a good ruler or not, and those passages can get tedious.
I was wondering about the internal morality of the book, though. Often, when Geoffrey describes a king as hateful to God, it is a sign that something terrible will happen to him. Not so in the case of the gay king, who has a long and successful rule, or in the case of the king who ate human flesh but was not punished. Strange to see Geoffrey change his tune like that.
arinnroberson's review against another edition
3.0
Mostly just a lot of religion but an interesting pseudo history. And the Arthur section was fun
alliebarlow's review against another edition
1.0
No star rating.
I read Geoffrey of Monmouth's History for a university module. The language was easy to read and it helped shaped the early interpretations of Arthur for my module.
I read Geoffrey of Monmouth's History for a university module. The language was easy to read and it helped shaped the early interpretations of Arthur for my module.
scipio_africanus's review against another edition
5.0
Epic tales of the founding and ancient kings of Britain.