> From: ERATRIANO@...
> In a message dated 02/23/2000 10:14:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> WendellWag@... writes:
> << It's an extended theory of what the Holy Grail
> So, it's up there with "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and "The Temple and the
> Lodge" (Templars and Masons), and suchlike? They were fun reads. There is
> some Taliesin stuff by Matthews that is tons of fun to read but I don't take
> them too seriously either (who is it? John and Caitlin?).
> "Off-topic posts follow me everywhere"
John and Caitlin Matthews are two people I tend to avoid when I see
books on Celtic literature. Their scholarship is suspect, and the
stances they tend to take are outrageous in the same way that many
Afrocentric scholars make outrageous claims and base their claims on
feelings, or pseudo-science. I do have one book by Goodrich on Merlin,
but got it used (Merlin is someone who could easily be "over the top").
Barry Cunliffe is rather uneven in scholarship, and so is Peter
Beresford Ellis (who has not convinced me yet that the Roman roads in
Britain were built by Celts---except insofar as the Celts might have
been draft labor for the Romans.)
I'd look at such works as somewhere between non-fiction and fiction. I
don't know if there's a literary term for this genre, but it can be fun,
so long as you keep reminding yourself, "this is pseudo-history, more
fiction and wish-fulfillment than fact." Real Celtic scholars like
Joseph Nagy, Myles Dillon, Prionsias MacCana, Rachel Bromwich and others
simply don't get consulted: understandably in some ways, since Celtic
languages can be very daunting. Yet it seems that there should be some
one who could popularize the facts rather than fiction. ---djb.
> The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org