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,
-paulbmcjmp@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