The History of the Kings of Britain (Geoffrey of Monmouth)

I believe I posted this before, but books are considered classics for at least one of the following reasons:
1) they're well written and interesting
2) they're valuable historical or social commentaries
3) they had a profound and lasting impact on culture
4) they're really old

The History of the Kings of Britain, written in 1136, falls predominantly into the third and fourth categories.  It chronicles the kings from Britain's founding to around the 800s.  Geoffrey, the author, labels it as history, but even his contemporaries disputed much of the content of this work.  And, reading it, you see why.  There are a number of places where the text contradicts itself, and a number of things that don't seem possible, like talking eagles and giants.  There are historical figures mentioned, and Geoffrey drew from earlier accounts from notable historians like Gildas, Nennius, and Bede, but it's still more fiction than fact.  So, what's the value here?  One word: Arthur.

Geoffrey's account is not the first time King Arthur appears- Nennius' work, Historia Brittonum, was written about 300 years earlier and mentions him- but History is the first time we get any details.  Nennius mentions Arthur almost in passing, stating only that he won many battles; Geoffrey really expounds.  Here, at a high level, are some of the things Geoffrey writes about that still hold true in the more modern tales:
- Uther Pendragon is Arthur's father
- Merlin is a magician who serves in Uther's time
- Arthur marries Guinevere
- Guinevere is unfaithful
- Arthur has a sword called "Caliburn," clearly related to the modern "Excalibur"
- Arthur has relatives Gawain and Mordred
- Mordred tries to take the kingdom from Arthur
- Kay serves Arthur
- Arthur receives a mortal wound at the battle of Camlann and is carried off to Avalon, prophesied to return and once more be king at a time in the future when Britain is restored to the Britons

There are some concepts presented aren't generally held in the modern legends.  Merlin does not know/advise Arthur, and Guinevere cheats on Arthur with Mordred (vice Lancelot).  Arthur spends a good deal of time on continental Europe, fighting various factions, to include Romans- indeed, he's marching to Rome when he hears of Mordred's treachery, and turns back to reclaim his isle from the usurper.  In this account, there's no mention of the knights of the round table, Sir Lancelot, or any of the other now-famous knights.  In short, there are many similarities, but many differences, too.

The Arthur portion was interesting; aside from that, I took little from this work.  The account is told with little "flair," and I wasn't really interested in most of it.  It was too fictitious to be history, so one couldn't glean much from it in that regard, yet it was not fantastic enough to be interesting.  If you're going to put talking eagles into this thing, run with it and spice it up a little.  On the whole, I found this more readable than Bede's account, due to content, but it wasn't as fun as I hoped it would be.  If you're heavily into the Arthurian legend, read the Arthur portions of this book (about 1/3 of it).  Else, move on to other pastures.

Rating: C+