Martin@YALE.ARPA (07/13/83)
From: "Charles E. Martin" <Martin@YALE.ARPA> Two outstanding sources: Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain" -- which is SF&F's idea of a history; Geoffrey's credibility with real scholars is non-existent. This is a source which Mary Stewart drew upon for "The Crystal Cave", which I haven't read and don't intend to. Very old (14th century?), and reads it. Fun though. Sir Thomas Mallory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" ("The Death of Arthur") -- which is what most people should think of when they think of Arthurian legend. T.H. White mentions Mallory throughout "The Once and Future King" (including the droll semi-self- reference at the end), which should have tipped off readers that this source existed, if their high-school English courses didn't do the job. Old (18th century?), but reads extremely well (he wrote it for the bucks, as I understand it--but I could be mistaken). Lots of fun--though be warned: "The Sword in the Stone" is White's invention, and what you'll find in Mallory will resemble most closely "The Ill-Made Knight". But that was my favorite part of "The Once and Future King", anyway. (C&S fans, take note!) There are Mallory's sources, also, but by this time we're into the realm of the Master's in Medieval Literature. T.H. White's "The Book of Merlyn" -- was a book I found to be disappointing. If you really liked "The Sword in the Stone" much more than the other three books of "The Once and Future King", then you /might/ go for this. It gave me a bad taste, though, and semi-spoiled the atmosphere built up by "The Once and Future King". -- CEM -------
asente@decwrl.UUCP (Paul Asente) (07/18/83)
Both Malory and "History of the Kings of Britain" are excellent books, but each is quite a bit older than reported. Malory is about 14th century, and "History" (by Geoffrey of Monmouth) is about 10th century. In addition to the Arthur story, "History" contains the stories of King Lear and of King Coel ("Old King Cole was a merry old soul..."). Two more books, both heavy going but worth it, are "Tristan" by Gottfried von Strasbourg and "Parzifal" by Wolfram von Eschenbach. (not sure about the spelling of the names) These are more or less contemporary with Mallory but are much closer to the original source versions than Mallory. "Parzifal" is very long and has about a million characters; a little notetaking as you go along helps a lot so you can go check out what happened with the characters when you meet them again 150 pages later. "Tristan" is much more romantic (in the modern sense) and contains a number of derogatory references to "Parzifal", which came out about the same time. It just goes to show that cattiness is nothing new. Unfortunately "Tristan" is unfinished; however, most books contain the fragments of "Tristram" by Thomas. This was Gottfried's source and most of it has been lost, but between the two you get the whole thing. The difference in style between the two is interesting; while Thomas just basically tells you what happened, Gottfried goes into great detail about the court and personal motivations. This isn't a novel (they weren't invented yet) so it doesn't go into character development very much, but it's a lot closer to being one than Mallory or "Parzifal". Also, if you're interested in this from a scholarly point of view, there is a weighty tome called "Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages" which has discussions on all these books and many others. It's big and expensive but quite easy to read. Have fun, -paul
bmcjmp@burdvax.UUCP (07/19/83)
Sir Thomas Mallory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" is not an 18th Century work, but a fifteenth century work, and was published by Caxton on July 31, 1485. The ease of its reading depends on the facility of its translator. Barb Puder, burdvax!bmcjmp