Full Title: UnRoman Britain: Exposing the Great Myth of Britannia
Authors: Miles Russel and Stuart Laycock
Publisher: The History Press, Stroud, England
Earliest Copyright: 2010
ISBN: 978-0-7524-5566-2
Critique:
Over all, I have very positive remarks about the first eight chapters of this book. What's not to love? Erudite with photos! I am a little curious as to why the authors didn't choose to use the standard alphabetical listing of their names. Repeatedly Mr. Russel's name appears before Mr. Laycock. If two people are going to write together, I'd like to think they work as equal partners, so I'm a little dismayed that this may not be the case.
From the introduction through Chapter 8 ("Leaving the Empire"), I found myself really enthused with the authors' thesis which is, simply put, that Britain was never as Roman as traditional historians would have us believe. Of course, to be fair, some historians have been saying something similar for decades now, but the authors go to great pains to provide real archaeological and documentary evidence. From time to time (it would be nice to know whom to blame for it), they do enter into a bit too much speculation, but rarely. They stick to the facts, and even though they come at this topic with a typical, English bias, through sticking to the facts, they produce an introduction and eight thought-provoking chapters that held my interest even through the end of a semester. Most of their examples come from England, and they largely ignore Wales where I think they would have found even more evidence to support their thesis. On the other hand, if they could show that the supposedly most-Romanized area of Britain was not so very Roman, they make their case even stronger. I personally would have added material about hill forts such as Tre'r Ceri in North Wales, or even Din Lligwy where it appears the traditional Celtic way of life continued all through the Roman occupation.
I enjoyed Chapter 8. The authors did a wonderful job of chronicling the end of the Roman empire. They describe in almost minute detail how Rome fell now with a single death knell, but it horrifying fits of rebellion in Britain (which they underscore mark so much of the occupation), but also in the establishment of the Gallic Empire. They do good service to "all involved", explaining how some view the Gallic Empire as nothing more than an up-start rebel fiefdom while others see it as a legitimate, albeit temporary, successor to Rome. They vividly describe the descent of Rome and do so succinctly without turning their book into a history of the empire.
In Chapters 9 and 10, they begin, however, to enter the world of fancy. Perhaps it was not they but their publishers who forced to name Chapter 9 "From UnRoman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England". While the contents of the chapter have a great deal of merit, the title of this chapter is ethnocentric and spurious. UnRoman Britain did not just transform into Anglo-Saxon England; indeed, the Anglo-Saxons did not occupy all of present day England at all. It took the Normans around another six centuries to accomplish that goal. While the authors appear to have been very deliberate in their work so far, on p 194, they make a comparison of Celtic Britain, Brittany and northern Spain with Mauretania, stating that what all these areas "have in common among other things, is that they are relatively remote, relatively UnRomanised; in each instance there is evidence of the locals developing an independent military capability of their own..." An obvious, and missed, sub-thesis here is that, except Mauretania, all the other territories had a Celtic presence. I'm heretofore unfamiliar with the ethnographic history of Mauretania, but I would be delighted to discover someday that it had Celtic settlements!
Later on on Chapter 9, the authors go one to make the statement that place names in Cornwall aren't very much more Celtic than in eastern parts of England. I assume here that they mean pre-Roman Celtic. Cornwall is replete with Cornish names; perhaps the authors fail to realize that Cornwall's Celtic language still exists, though tenuously, and that certain English place names there, like Padstow have Cornish names (Lannwedhenek in Cornish); of course that said, Padstow's English origins are in Cornish anyhow. Nonetheless, how the authors cane make such a claim without data is difficult to accept.
Finally, Chapter 10 is a wistful flight of fantasy and is better off without a dross of commentary. It centers (thankfully briefly) around old harped on clap-trap about how wonderful Roman in fact was, including a jolting reminder of how the Victorians saw themselves as Roman (but only in the nice ways...)
Overall Grade: B+/A- - If it weren't for Chapters 9 and 10, it would be an A-. These guys even use citations (most of the time, sort of...), so you can check their sources!
About the Authors: Dr. Russell works at Bournemouth University (http://onlineservices.bournemouth.ac.uk/academicstaff/Profile.aspx?staff=russellm); his co-author, Mr. Laycock seems to be a bit more intermittent in his academic work, but maintains a keen interest. A little more about him at: http://www.wansdyke21.org.uk/wansdyke/wanart/laycock.htm.
About the Publisher: The History Press (http://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/) appears to be a legitimate, relatively large volume publisher; they do, however, publish on a very, very wide range of topics, and one wonders if a somewhat more erudite publisher would not have better fit this work.
About Me
- Robert Jones
- I'm a 39 year old college professor who teaches foreign language, linguistics and world literature in a small community college in Upstate New York. I have a special interest in Celtic languages and cultures. While the content of this blog in English, in addition, I'm happy to receive comments and reply in Welsh, French, Spanish and German.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
"The Celtic Revolution" by Simon Young
Full Title: The Celtic Revolution: In Search of Two Thousand Years That Changed Our World
Author: Simon Young
Publisher: Gibson Square (United Kingdom?)
Earliest Copyright: 2009
ISBN: 978-1906142-43-8
Critique:
Dr. Young provides the reader with a complex set of narratives that are only loosely connected in the world of Celtic studies. They are all indeed of interest to the Celtophile, but they are very, very disparate. In fact my biggest criticism (note, not critique) of the work is the lack of a central thesis. Given the title, one might expect a book relating the story of Celtic history in some long trajectory from the ancient world to somewhere closer to the present. Instead, Dr. Young provides at least three different theses treating three very different notions, at least one of which is quite novel and interesting.
His first thesis relates to how the ancient Celts essentially helped build Rome. He portrays the Celts in a very classical sense: as war mongering barbarians with little to no civilization. He concentrates on the years of Celtic history chronicled by Classical writers and never delves into the work of linguists or archaeologists except to mention them briefly. He also states, in his prologue, that in the 1990's archaeologists had come to the notion that the Celts never existed. Unfortunately, aside from relating the events of what can only be described as an "interesting" dinner party, he doesn't reveal the names of those archaeologists. I know I would like to have their names so I can read what they have to say (that said, a general critique I have is a noted lack of direct citations - I realize he is writing for a general audience, but from time to time, it wouldn't have killed him to be a better name dropper!). Of course, I reject that notion outright, but I'd still like to know who these ladies and gentlemen are. At the end, I remain unsatisfied with his defense of this thesis. He has elucidated nothing that couldn't be gleaned from very old sources. His answers are predictable, pat. And, moreover, for me a little too easy. Certainly the ancient Celts weren't of the same ilk as the Romans or Greeks, but given their art and what we can logically extrapolate about their customs and social structure (granted, using back building), it seems to me that the elusive truth lie somewhere between the wistful longings of New Agers and the Classical writers. Dr. Young explored none of those possibilities. Fair play to him, he is an historian, and I believe he only used sources he felt reliable. He is not, however, the first to do this, and I wonder why he bothered with the first thesis at all.
His second thesis has also been treated, albeit more elaborately by Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization. Granted, Cahill's book has been lambasted as much as it has been lauded, but I think the basic premise is the same. Young is of course more conservative in his treatment of the role of Irish monastic society in the preservation of European Christianity. That said, I did learn some very interesting history in his second section. On the other hand, what is omnipresent in this work of Simon Young is what can only be called something akin to derision or simple snarkiness. He doesn't seem to like his subjects. Rather, he observes them as though he were some Roman dilettante. He portrays the ancient Celts as unwitting and accidental catalysts in European history; he paints the Irish monks as surly, unruly ne'er-do-wells perched on the edge of Europe in hostile, un-Romanized lands. He makes the incredible leap in logic that because little remains of Irish influence in today's Catholic Church, that the Continentals view the Celtic lands of the Middle Ages as barbaric and uneducated.
His final thesis is my favorite because it touches on a man close to my heart: King Arthur. As far as I know, Young is the first person to treat this topic seriously: how King Arthur became so well known throughout Europe. I would go further than he, however, and say that King Arthur is probably in the top two or three of world-wide literary characters! I like the general track of his thesis, but in his third endeavor, he becomes downright unkind. On p 215 he dons a new hat, that of culture psychologist, and declares that for the British Celts, my dear Welsh in particular, Arthur became a national psychosis! On p 202 be again declares that the British Celts are viewed as provincial barbarians during the 1100's.
Both these sub-theses are wholly unnecessary and demonstrate what I interpret as the author's own culture prejudice. If he has proof that Europeans felt the medieval Celts were barbarians, he needs to produce it (in direct contrast to their adoption of British Celtic material for their popular fiction which he explores). If he understands the conditions of the medieval-to-modern Welsh, I would expect more sympathy (He does make a nod that this psychosis is one, if not the main, reason Welsh is still spoken today - never mind the millennia of oral literary tradition, never mind that Welsh has one of the oldest literary traditions in the world, never mind the struggle for identity in the belly of the largest empire human kind has known up to now, [add scores of other factors here that have aided in the survival of the Welsh {the Irish, the Cornish...}]...). What is otherwise a novel and interesting approach to a topic ends up tainted by prejudice and ad hominem.
Yet I have not touched on his main thesis in this section which, much to the chagrin of those of us who teach research papers and argumentation in the United States, is posed in the form of a question, and that late in the third part of his book: Did the Celts Create the Modern Mind?
As a 21st century Welsh speaker and sometimes-rabble-rouser, I would love to think so. Of course, he kicks his own thesis in the teeth. The modern mind is a complex issue on all fronts. Did the ancient Celts have a stake in modern European thinking? I think the answer is a complicated and qualified "yes". After all, the sub-stratum of so much of modern Europe (like France, Spain, southern Germany, much of Britain, and other places) is Celtic. That said, one could write a Foucault-esque treatise on the topic. Perhaps some day in the future, were I to win the Megamillions Lottery, I just might.
More generally, his (not original) attack on Geoffrey of Monmouth and his History of the Kings of Britain scandalizes the old Cymro-Breton boy of not using verifiable sources. Since in-text citation is all but absent from Young's work, the irony should be lost on no one!
In conclusion, I think Dr. Young has offered an interesting and at times enlightening look at Celtic history (albeit quirky and disjointed), but he does so through very particularly colored lenses. Without direct, in-text citations, he makes the reader decide what is fact and what is his opinion. I enjoyed learning some new facts (which I guarded very safely off to one side in a special place), but I despaired of his dilettantry and what I will call a clear anti-Celtic prejudice. Perhaps I simply do not understand his supposed Cambridge education, but I like to see some empathy on the part of a writer with his subject; Young appears to have very little.
At the end of the day, I would only recommend this book to people who have already read widely on the subject of the Celts. It is not a primer. It is a compendium of academic papers or ideas bound together under a beguiling title; both the notion of a revolution and "2,000 years" are questionable. It is a polemic work which should have appeared with in-text citations.
Overall Grade: C- (some really good historical tid-bits, but too many personal overlays, almost no in-text citation of even the most rudimentary sorts)
About the Author: Dr. Simon Young is not described at all in the text. From the dust jacket, we learn that he has won awards at Cambridge and received his doctorate at the University of Florence (I see no reason to equate this degree to the American Ph.D., Italian universities defaulted to a doctorate until recently, much as German ones defaulted to "masters" (Magister)). His dust-jacket-bio claims he has written many academic articles, but I have found it difficult to trace his academic steps at all. I have at least one more book of his in "The Pile". I will reserve final judgment for now.
About the Publisher
The publisher's website has not been updated for a while, and it contains no pertinent information regarding headquarters, standards, themes, etc.
Author: Simon Young
Publisher: Gibson Square (United Kingdom?)
Earliest Copyright: 2009
ISBN: 978-1906142-43-8
Critique:
Dr. Young provides the reader with a complex set of narratives that are only loosely connected in the world of Celtic studies. They are all indeed of interest to the Celtophile, but they are very, very disparate. In fact my biggest criticism (note, not critique) of the work is the lack of a central thesis. Given the title, one might expect a book relating the story of Celtic history in some long trajectory from the ancient world to somewhere closer to the present. Instead, Dr. Young provides at least three different theses treating three very different notions, at least one of which is quite novel and interesting.
His first thesis relates to how the ancient Celts essentially helped build Rome. He portrays the Celts in a very classical sense: as war mongering barbarians with little to no civilization. He concentrates on the years of Celtic history chronicled by Classical writers and never delves into the work of linguists or archaeologists except to mention them briefly. He also states, in his prologue, that in the 1990's archaeologists had come to the notion that the Celts never existed. Unfortunately, aside from relating the events of what can only be described as an "interesting" dinner party, he doesn't reveal the names of those archaeologists. I know I would like to have their names so I can read what they have to say (that said, a general critique I have is a noted lack of direct citations - I realize he is writing for a general audience, but from time to time, it wouldn't have killed him to be a better name dropper!). Of course, I reject that notion outright, but I'd still like to know who these ladies and gentlemen are. At the end, I remain unsatisfied with his defense of this thesis. He has elucidated nothing that couldn't be gleaned from very old sources. His answers are predictable, pat. And, moreover, for me a little too easy. Certainly the ancient Celts weren't of the same ilk as the Romans or Greeks, but given their art and what we can logically extrapolate about their customs and social structure (granted, using back building), it seems to me that the elusive truth lie somewhere between the wistful longings of New Agers and the Classical writers. Dr. Young explored none of those possibilities. Fair play to him, he is an historian, and I believe he only used sources he felt reliable. He is not, however, the first to do this, and I wonder why he bothered with the first thesis at all.
His second thesis has also been treated, albeit more elaborately by Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization. Granted, Cahill's book has been lambasted as much as it has been lauded, but I think the basic premise is the same. Young is of course more conservative in his treatment of the role of Irish monastic society in the preservation of European Christianity. That said, I did learn some very interesting history in his second section. On the other hand, what is omnipresent in this work of Simon Young is what can only be called something akin to derision or simple snarkiness. He doesn't seem to like his subjects. Rather, he observes them as though he were some Roman dilettante. He portrays the ancient Celts as unwitting and accidental catalysts in European history; he paints the Irish monks as surly, unruly ne'er-do-wells perched on the edge of Europe in hostile, un-Romanized lands. He makes the incredible leap in logic that because little remains of Irish influence in today's Catholic Church, that the Continentals view the Celtic lands of the Middle Ages as barbaric and uneducated.
His final thesis is my favorite because it touches on a man close to my heart: King Arthur. As far as I know, Young is the first person to treat this topic seriously: how King Arthur became so well known throughout Europe. I would go further than he, however, and say that King Arthur is probably in the top two or three of world-wide literary characters! I like the general track of his thesis, but in his third endeavor, he becomes downright unkind. On p 215 he dons a new hat, that of culture psychologist, and declares that for the British Celts, my dear Welsh in particular, Arthur became a national psychosis! On p 202 be again declares that the British Celts are viewed as provincial barbarians during the 1100's.
Both these sub-theses are wholly unnecessary and demonstrate what I interpret as the author's own culture prejudice. If he has proof that Europeans felt the medieval Celts were barbarians, he needs to produce it (in direct contrast to their adoption of British Celtic material for their popular fiction which he explores). If he understands the conditions of the medieval-to-modern Welsh, I would expect more sympathy (He does make a nod that this psychosis is one, if not the main, reason Welsh is still spoken today - never mind the millennia of oral literary tradition, never mind that Welsh has one of the oldest literary traditions in the world, never mind the struggle for identity in the belly of the largest empire human kind has known up to now, [add scores of other factors here that have aided in the survival of the Welsh {the Irish, the Cornish...}]...). What is otherwise a novel and interesting approach to a topic ends up tainted by prejudice and ad hominem.
Yet I have not touched on his main thesis in this section which, much to the chagrin of those of us who teach research papers and argumentation in the United States, is posed in the form of a question, and that late in the third part of his book: Did the Celts Create the Modern Mind?
As a 21st century Welsh speaker and sometimes-rabble-rouser, I would love to think so. Of course, he kicks his own thesis in the teeth. The modern mind is a complex issue on all fronts. Did the ancient Celts have a stake in modern European thinking? I think the answer is a complicated and qualified "yes". After all, the sub-stratum of so much of modern Europe (like France, Spain, southern Germany, much of Britain, and other places) is Celtic. That said, one could write a Foucault-esque treatise on the topic. Perhaps some day in the future, were I to win the Megamillions Lottery, I just might.
More generally, his (not original) attack on Geoffrey of Monmouth and his History of the Kings of Britain scandalizes the old Cymro-Breton boy of not using verifiable sources. Since in-text citation is all but absent from Young's work, the irony should be lost on no one!
In conclusion, I think Dr. Young has offered an interesting and at times enlightening look at Celtic history (albeit quirky and disjointed), but he does so through very particularly colored lenses. Without direct, in-text citations, he makes the reader decide what is fact and what is his opinion. I enjoyed learning some new facts (which I guarded very safely off to one side in a special place), but I despaired of his dilettantry and what I will call a clear anti-Celtic prejudice. Perhaps I simply do not understand his supposed Cambridge education, but I like to see some empathy on the part of a writer with his subject; Young appears to have very little.
At the end of the day, I would only recommend this book to people who have already read widely on the subject of the Celts. It is not a primer. It is a compendium of academic papers or ideas bound together under a beguiling title; both the notion of a revolution and "2,000 years" are questionable. It is a polemic work which should have appeared with in-text citations.
Overall Grade: C- (some really good historical tid-bits, but too many personal overlays, almost no in-text citation of even the most rudimentary sorts)
About the Author: Dr. Simon Young is not described at all in the text. From the dust jacket, we learn that he has won awards at Cambridge and received his doctorate at the University of Florence (I see no reason to equate this degree to the American Ph.D., Italian universities defaulted to a doctorate until recently, much as German ones defaulted to "masters" (Magister)). His dust-jacket-bio claims he has written many academic articles, but I have found it difficult to trace his academic steps at all. I have at least one more book of his in "The Pile". I will reserve final judgment for now.
About the Publisher
The publisher's website has not been updated for a while, and it contains no pertinent information regarding headquarters, standards, themes, etc.
The Purpose of This Blog
Like most of you who come across this blog, I enjoy reading on the Celts, both their ancient and modern history. Like most you, I'm also a critical reader, so I thought I would start this blog to share my critiques of books, articles and visual media I read or observe on Celtic history, culture or language. I'm of Welsh descent, so my choices in these materials are bound to lean that way. I'm certainly open to having others contribute to this blog as long as you follow my basic outline and structure (if you're interested, please contact me). My hope is that in time this blog will become a resource for people looking for good sources of information on Celtic peoples of the past and present. I also hope this blog will become a discussion forum. I welcome comments from readers, and as long as they are thoughtful and respectful, I welcome discordant views as well.
You might be asking yourself what this Gwlad yr Haf is. In Welsh, it's two things. One, it's the name of Celtic Other World. The name seemed à propos because a little like old Celtic heroes, I will be tilting windmills periodically with some pretty impressive foes in the world of Celtic scholarship (and after all, I'm a "lowly community college professor..."). Gwlad yr Haf is also the Welsh translation of Somerset in England. Fear not, unless it has to do with Celtic history or culture, I won't be writing on Somerset, England even though it's a lovely place.
For more about me, feel free to click through to my profile where you will also find a link to my professional website where you can read more about me, my credentials and my work. I hope to post one blog a month. I enjoy reading and watching film, and I do a lot of it, but not only about the Celts! And, of course, I do a lot of reading for my work, so sometimes, it may take me longer to post new entries.
Finally, I've decided to monetize this blog, not to get rich (which seems patently unlikely), but primarily to give easy access to the books and other materials I'm writing about when available.
All that said, croeso mawr a chynnes i (a warm welcome to) "Notes from Gwlad yr Haf"
You might be asking yourself what this Gwlad yr Haf is. In Welsh, it's two things. One, it's the name of Celtic Other World. The name seemed à propos because a little like old Celtic heroes, I will be tilting windmills periodically with some pretty impressive foes in the world of Celtic scholarship (and after all, I'm a "lowly community college professor..."). Gwlad yr Haf is also the Welsh translation of Somerset in England. Fear not, unless it has to do with Celtic history or culture, I won't be writing on Somerset, England even though it's a lovely place.
For more about me, feel free to click through to my profile where you will also find a link to my professional website where you can read more about me, my credentials and my work. I hope to post one blog a month. I enjoy reading and watching film, and I do a lot of it, but not only about the Celts! And, of course, I do a lot of reading for my work, so sometimes, it may take me longer to post new entries.
Finally, I've decided to monetize this blog, not to get rich (which seems patently unlikely), but primarily to give easy access to the books and other materials I'm writing about when available.
All that said, croeso mawr a chynnes i (a warm welcome to) "Notes from Gwlad yr Haf"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)