View Poll Results: The Quest For The Greatest Hero Ever: The Dark Ages (476-1100) Post a Poll

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • King Arthur

    15 50.00%
  • Roland

    3 10.00%
  • Beowulf

    3 10.00%
  • Cu Chulainn

    0 0%
  • Aladdin

    0 0%
  • Rostam

    2 6.67%
  • Sigurd

    1 3.33%
  • Byrhtnoth

    0 0%
  • Egill Skallagrímsson

    2 6.67%
  • Scheherazade

    4 13.33%
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 106

Thread: The Quest For The Greatest Hero Ever: The Dark Ages (476-1100)

  1. #16
    Lord of Dunsinane Lord Macbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    208
    I'd ask, not confrontationally but rather just asking, what it is that the Roland supporters see in him that makes him better than Arthur and possibly the best of the period?

    I've given some of my reasons for supporting Arthur, after all, and like him or not Arthur HAS endured better, I think, in terms of general knowledge and influence (we have operas, plays, musicals, works of art, statues, and more devoted to Arthur and the people in his legend...where's the same for Roland?)

    Also, since it SHOULD be clarified:

    What criterion are you using to call him or anyone "better?" I've given my views on what I factor into my decision, namely influence, the actions of the character, the overall importance of that character inside and outside of their text, how embedded they are in our culture, and THEN after all that how well I personally like them.

    I just don't see the case for many of these figures being trumped up over Arthur; I can see where Beowulf supporters might have an argument, and the Roland supporters as well, but in all honesty aside from those two I feel Arthur should win this poll in a runaway, as he is at the moment...the argument that other works preceded Arthur or that he absorbed other figures into his legend just doesn't work for me, as by that logic we should seem to be forced to conclude that since nearly all of Shakespeare's plays are reworkings of older stories and have plenty of influence then we should find Terence, Plautus, Moliere, Kyd, and the others that came before him greater.

    All four of those playwrights are great, don't get me wrong--I actually think Kyd's suffered a good deal because of the Shakespeare Shadow cast over that whole period, he wrote some great tragedies that are too often overlooked in the face of Shakespeare and, to a lesser extent, Marlowe--but most people wouldn't hold that against Shakespeare or his works, and generally aren't going to rank him below those figures. (Note I said GENERALLY, so please don't treat that as an absolutist claim, I'm sure there ARE some who would place, say, Plautus and Marlowe above Shakespeare, but even so I think nearly everyone would have to admit such a view would be the minority, and a small minority at that, very few will take Hieronimo over Hamlet or Tamburlaine over Othello, regardless of how good those precurssors might have been.)

    By that same logic I'd say that King Arthur has great events, characters, themes and ideas that are its own, adn that which it takes it often, like Shakespeare's reworking of older material, takes such figures or characters and makes the tale better (I'd point to Sir Gawain as a perfect example of that, as outside the Athurian context he's just a minor Welsh folk hero that was forgotten long ago, while inside the Arthur Legend he appears in more stories than any other knight, and as a result of that fact and the fact that there's more of a coherent plot in Arthur than just a folktale Gawain becomes more complex as a character, and finally it is within the Arthurian influence that his greatest work and adventure, his meeting with the Green Knight, takes place.)
    Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...

  2. #17
    Alea iacta est. mortalterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,914
    Blog Entries
    39
    If I were to rank them, I'd put Rostam first, then Roland, then Arthur. Roland is very like Arthur. Where Arthur has Excalibur, Roland has Durendal. Arthur has his round table of knights, and to a certain extent so does Roland. Roland's allies and adversaries are legion including Ruggiero, Astolfo, Rinaldo, Oliver, Bradamante, Rodomonte, Brandimart, and Agramante. Arthur has Guinevere, Roland has Angelica. Arthur has Merlin, Roland's foster father is the wizard Atlante. Arthur's father is Uther Pendragon, Roland's uncle is Charlemagne. Arthur has the evil witch Morgan Le Fay and Roland has the sorceress Alcina. Arthur has only recently been more popular than Roland, and that only after a thousand years of Roland being dominant. But neither I think, is as popular in the West as Rostam is in the Middle East.

    If I were to match them by power, and not literary influence, then Roland is a match for Arthur in The Song of Roland. Though if we go by his depiction in Orlando Furioso, he'd be more than a match for Beowulf. He might be as powerful as Hercules, he's so superhuman. He tears chains apart with his hands, hurls gigantic rocks, swims for hundreds of miles, and wrestles with sea monsters. Only Rostam could still be a match for him, since at one time Rostam was so powerful he actually prayed God take some of his power away so that he wouldn't crush the ground as he walked upon it. What's Scheherazade going to do against such behemoths as these? Tell them a story?

    Instantly
    An executioner approached the throne
    To seize his wrists and hale him from his seat,
    But Rustam, roaring like a lion, caught
    The executioner's wrists and dragged him close,
    Then flung him down and, holding one foot fast,
    Set his own foot upon the other one
    And rent the man asunder ! None e'er saw
    A sight like that ! Then noble Rustam cried :
    "If I had but permission from the Shah
    To war against thine army I would put thee
    This instant into pitiable plight."
    He spake and went forth from the court, his eyes
    Like bowls of blood,
    Such feats of strength and brutality put one in mind of Beowulf, who rips off Grendel's arm in their battle. Just for general attitude and coolness, some of our heroes exceed the others. Consider the way that Roland dies. He blows a horn to warn his uncle of the Saracen army so hard that his brains burst out his ears. Then he walks across the battlefield so that when he's gone it will be said that he was furthest in the fight. He goes blind, kills one final enemy, then turns his face toward Spain and his adversaries.

    B. Laumness, it would ruin me to get a complete copy of the Shahnamah in the Warner translation I like best, and I refuse to buy the Dick Davis version; so I make do with the Jerome Clinton partial translations, and my downloaded pdf files of the Warner version. Since there are so many Muslims living in France, it's probably easier to find a French translation than an English one right now. One bi-product of our recent wars has been a spate of renewed interest in Middle Eastern translation; so there is some hope that soon the quality of these works will go up as the prices go down.
    Last edited by mortalterror; 11-05-2010 at 02:04 AM.
    "So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
    "This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
    Feed the Hungry!

  3. #18
    Lord of Dunsinane Lord Macbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    208
    I don't understand how you can say Roland is more popular than Arthur...

    I'd bet 9/10 Americans--AT LEAST--wouldn't have a clue who he was, whereas 9/10 Americans will at least know of Arthur, and then Europe...for all I know he might have a good base there, Roland, but Arthur has a great one, too, especially in England and France.

    So in popularity, at least, I can't see Roland's argument--in terms of the actual feats, maybe, I'd at least see an argument there for roland, I'd still be inclined to side with Beowulf or Arthur but I can at least see the roland supporters' point.



    But overall popularity?

    When Monty Python spoofs ROLAND and his Friends searching for a Holy Grail... (I kid, I kid, but a joke to make a point--I don't think he can be said to be as popular.)

    And that Rostam passage is BRILLIANT...nice description there, really...
    Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...

  4. #19
    Alea iacta est. mortalterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,914
    Blog Entries
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Macbeth View Post
    I don't understand how you can say Roland is more popular than Arthur...
    He isn't as popular at the moment, but for about nine centuries it wasn't even close. On the Arthurian side you have Mallory, Chretien de Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Tennyson, and Spenser. On the Roland side you have the anonymous author of The Song of Roland (a French epic equal to Beowulf mind you), Ariosto's epic of Roland is insanely influential and is the model for Spenser's work on Arthur, Tasso's epic on Roland is the equal of Milton's Paradise Lost, then you have Boiardo, and Pulci who've lent their hands to slightly less great poems. During the Dark Ages as you've chosen to call them, Roland's story is told in Karlamagnus Saga in Norway, the Latin work Historia Caroli Magni, L'Entrée d'Espagn, La Spagna, Girart de Vienne, Aspremont, Quatre Fils Aymon. Dante sees Roland in Heaven in the Divine Comedy. He does not see King Arthur or his knights. There are places in France and Spain named for him. There are statues in Germany to Roland. His stories are the basis of operas and other musical compositions by Monteverdi, Lully, Vivaldi, and Handel. The Song of Roland was sung by William the Conquerors troops at the battle of Hastings. Gustav Doré illustrated his exploits. Roland was very very popular, for a very long time.

    Arthur is only more popular in the English speaking arena of the present because he had a recent reboot of his franchise in the Victorian era, but for centuries Roland was the more important, more popular figure.
    "So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
    "This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
    Feed the Hungry!

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    History of literature is not what some english majors think or americans. Don Quixote library has no Artur. That is it, the book that is basically is a map of all knight adventures of his time solenely ignores it. And half of the works there are references to Roland, and his circle. And Cervantes leaves out Ariosto and Boiardo, because of course, he would not place those works on fire. But Orlando Furioso is his favorite work. And Frankly, really, Arturian works... Troyes or Thomas are nowhere as near in terms of quality and influence with Ariosto (I am leaving the Song, Mortal already build the argument).
    Orlando is not the greatest poem of Italy and Ariosto his greatest poet because of Dante. That is enough argument towards influence : of all the mentioned heroes, Artur is the one who really lacks a true masterwork. Rostam have. Roland have. Scherazade have. Sigurd have. Bewoulf have. Ok that Artur has Tennyson, but then Cu CHulainn has Yeats.
    Artur has 2 centuries of dominance, Roland 1000 years. That is influence. When the authors of medieval knight tales in europe wrote, Roland was the model (and model enough to see Artur writers using several ideas from Charles and Roland to Artur). And frankly, discussing if the creator of political order in medieval europa and his main knight is more influential to some dude that owned at beast a feud is not exactly good sense.

    As what to think of Artur? I like him and all that is good about him, but to re-write the story to the point of transforming the round table in one of the early democratic symbols (1000 years after plato), while it was neither democratic neither original (soon, he will be the early feminist texts, just because in the XX century it was all that they write about him) and erasing other relevant texts and culture (Finn still absent for example and the guy is just the name behind Ossian, a text as much influential as all arturian legends to romantic literature) or supposing they are universal when I live in a country where half of the population reads 1 book a year and this is a 100 millions of poeple who more likely, has no clue about what we talk here, is too much.

  6. #21
    Lord of Dunsinane Lord Macbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by mortalterror View Post
    He isn't as popular at the moment, but for about nine centuries it wasn't even close. On the Arthurian side you have Mallory, Chretien de Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Tennyson, and Spenser. On the Roland side you have the anonymous author of The Song of Roland (a French epic equal to Beowulf mind you), Ariosto's epic of Roland is insanely influential and is the model for Spenser's work on Arthur, Tasso's epic on Roland is the equal of Milton's Paradise Lost, then you have Boiardo, and Pulci who've lent their hands to slightly less great poems. During the Dark Ages as you've chosen to call them, Roland's story is told in Karlamagnus Saga in Norway, the Latin work Historia Caroli Magni, L'Entrée d'Espagn, La Spagna, Girart de Vienne, Aspremont, Quatre Fils Aymon. Dante sees Roland in Heaven in the Divine Comedy. He does not see King Arthur or his knights. There are places in France and Spain named for him. There are statues in Germany to Roland. His stories are the basis of operas and other musical compositions by Monteverdi, Lully, Vivaldi, and Handel. The Song of Roland was sung by William the Conquerors troops at the battle of Hastings. Gustav Doré illustrated his exploits. Roland was very very popular, for a very long time.

    Arthur is only more popular in the English speaking arena of the present because he had a recent reboot of his franchise in the Victorian era, but for centuries Roland was the more important, more popular figure.
    OK, I can see where you're coming from...I still think Arthur is perhaps being a bit underrated during the period, but I can definitely concede that a great deal of Arthur's wide and now-likely-lasting popularity is do to a "reboot" of sorts. However, I'd distinguish that reboot as the High Romantic/Renaissance job, say, done by Mallory and those that followed him. Le Morte D'Arthur and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, not to mention other Arthurian stories in that High Middles Ages-Renaissance era IS beyond the Dark Ages, so yes, he really hit his true stride AFTER the Dark Ages. However, I do think that to say he was really only popular in the wake of Tennyson's work is a bit too far to the other extreme...

    I see Arthur in a ltierary sense as a character that burst onto the scene very quickly and vividly that he left a lasting impression, then faded for many centuries--many of which, I suppose, it could be said Roland was more popular--and then finally came back with a couple of even better stories and writers that bolstered his popularity again and spread his name over Europe, and Tennyson cements him in as being a figure that now will never be forgotten and a legend that will forever be seen as one of the richest in the Western tradition.

    So yes, perhaps Roland DID have a good, long period where he was more popular than Arthur.

    But given the fact that Arthur's legend has been around for so long, has endured so many new retellings, has seemed to only get stronger with age, became relevant alongside Roland with Mallory and the anonymous poet of Gawain's poem--easily one of the best examples of Medevial poetry--and now with Tennyson and beyond has a lead that it doesn't appear as though he'll lose, Arthur looks to be the Once and Future King of this literary period (pun intended) with Roland being no less a hero for perhaps being dethroned or fading slightly, if he has.
    Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...

  7. #22
    Lord of Dunsinane Lord Macbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    208
    And 100th post! To celebrate...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7740lGif65Y

    To be or not to be,
    That is the question...



    Oh, and to represent the OTHER literary entity besides Shakespeare I've harped upon most in my first hundred posts...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9m4obt1WQ8

    "Camelot!"
    "Camelot!"
    "Camelot!"
    "It's only a model..."
    "SSHHH!!!"

    Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...

  8. #23
    in angulo cum libro Petrarch's Love's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,333
    Blog Entries
    24
    I'm putting my vote in for Roland. Surely he deserves at least one vote! And I've been reading Roland related material this morning, so I'm feeling very much on his side.

    "In rime sparse il suono/ di quei sospiri ond' io nudriva 'l core/ in sul mio primo giovenile errore"~ Francesco Petrarca
    "Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."~ Jane Austen

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Macbeth View Post
    OK, I can see where you're coming from...I still think Arthur is perhaps being a bit underrated during the period, but I can definitely concede that a great deal of Arthur's wide and now-likely-lasting popularity is do to a "reboot" of sorts. However, I'd distinguish that reboot as the High Romantic/Renaissance job, say, done by Mallory and those that followed him. Le Morte D'Arthur and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, not to mention other Arthurian stories in that High Middles Ages-Renaissance era IS beyond the Dark Ages, so yes, he really hit his true stride AFTER the Dark Ages. However, I do think that to say he was really only popular in the wake of Tennyson's work is a bit too far to the other extreme...
    He was not underated, It is not like people did not saw the potential of Artur. It is more like the potential was on others. A great king leading the unification of his people? Charles Magnum, real and imaginary, and much more able to answer the concerns of dominant europe of that time - which was the unifitication of roman-german and french nations. He did it.
    Like some pointed, the great theme of medieval heroic literature was the christian vs. islam fight. A theme that real and imaginary Charles lead. If we seek all, the majority of national epics will mention that. From El Cid, Roland Song, Orlando Furioso, etc.
    Artur will really only affects continental europe when Troyes published his work (and when this happened, many aspects of arturian legends were already under influence of medieval stories which had Roland as main model.) and even so, he never arrived the sheer power of Roland myth. Even when Camoes wrote, the enemies where moors. You are not talking about one kingdom, one literature, you are talking about Spain, France, Italy, Germany...
    There is a decline of Matter of France in the XIX century, which is rather obvious, people are cutting crowned heads on that place. But that is too late: Charles was the most influential emperor of dark ages (europe-wise) and the battle of Rocenvalles, the most well know battle.
    Tennyson re-work of Arturian myths was of course nice and together with the raise of english empire, helped to made him popular, but even after than, two of the best fantasy writers of XX century worked with Roland (or under their influence), Italo Calvino and Jorge Luis Borges. With all arturian popularity, I do not see Mists of Avalon really get near Calvino's work.


    I see Arthur in a ltierary sense as a character that burst onto the scene very quickly and vividly that he left a lasting impression, then faded for many centuries--many of which, I suppose, it could be said Roland was more popular--and then finally came back with a couple of even better stories and writers that bolstered his popularity again and spread his name over Europe, and Tennyson cements him in as being a figure that now will never be forgotten and a legend that will forever be seen as one of the richest in the Western tradition.
    Obviously Artur figure is imense. He is not Little Herman of Freeslandia who killed 2 raccons and made a poem about it. But Roland would not be as popular and not survive as much without the capacity of his character to survive in many other aspects. Included aspects that are now in arturian legends. And he still alive and kicking. The fact the Jerry Brukenheimmer did not made a movie about him is just a relief.


    So yes, perhaps Roland DID have a good, long period where he was more popular than Arthur.
    It is not perhaps. Autors picked themes and characters just like today, to achive more public. Of all major autors of that time, only Spencer (inherently english) and Chaucer (who has a version of Green Knight, but a rather secundary tale) really cared to work with Artur. Even Shakespeare, somewhat specialist on mythical english kings (and also because Artur wa not really seen so english at that time, but breton, not from the roots of english kings Shakespeare wanted to please) seems to work with secundary themes of Rolando in Much Ado about Nothing. Like it was mentioned, Roland, not Artur is mentioned by Dante. Roland not Artur is found in Don Quixote Library. This means something quite simple: when Cervantes wanted to pick which romances should symbolize the knights romances, he picked Roland, because that was the more popular and the reckonigtion would be quicky (and because Cervantes favorites included Ariosto). It is almost a matter of fact, Roland song is the most representative work of this kind in history.


    But given the fact that Arthur's legend has been around for so long, has endured so many new retellings, has seemed to only get stronger with age, became relevant alongside Roland with Mallory and the anonymous poet of Gawain's poem--easily one of the best examples of Medevial poetry--and now with Tennyson and beyond has a lead that it doesn't appear as though he'll lose, Arthur looks to be the Once and Future King of this literary period (pun intended) with Roland being no less a hero for perhaps being dethroned or fading slightly, if he has.
    Like I said before, this is but an accident. 1000 years of literature is not erased or re-written by 100 years. No cheap books about camelot girls will change that Roland was the heroic model of medieval europe. It is fact, a study of the history of european literature will reserve to Mallory and Troyes footnotes. To Tennyson a paragraph. To Roland Song and Ariosto chapters. You can just mention The Green Knight (even because you have other similar kind of tales, and arturian celtic charm can be overseen by the celtic tales instead), but you cann't skip Orlando Furioso and the Song. That is influence, power and importance. And it wont be erased when the best work of arturian literature, still worst than Italo Calvino.

  10. #25
    Alea iacta est. mortalterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,914
    Blog Entries
    39
    Beowulf gets a lot of love for slaying Grendel, but Rostam deserves some affection for slaying the White Div.

    He paused ; no room was there for fight or flight.
    He rubbed his eyelids, bathed his eyes, and searched
    The cave till in the gloom he saw a Mountain
    That blotted all within, with sable face
    And hair like lion's mane a world to see !
    Now Rustam hasted not to slay the div
    Asleep, but roused him with a leopard's roar.
    He charged at Rustam, like a gloomy mountain
    With iron helm and brassards, seized a millstone
    And drave at him like smoke. The hero quailed,
    And thought :" Mine end is come !" Yet like a lion
    Enraged he struck full at the div and lopped
    From that enormous bulk a hand and foot,
    So mighty was he with his trenchant sword !
    As 'twere some lofty-crested elephant
    And lion in its wrath the maimed div closed
    With Rustam, and one-footed wrecked the cave.
    They wrestled, tearing out each other's flesh,
    Till all the ground was puddled with their blood,
    And Rustam thought :"If I survive this day
    I ne'er shall die."
    The White Div also thought :
    " Life hath no hopes for me, for, should I scape
    This Dragon's claws, maimed as I am and torn,
    None great or small within Mazandaran
    Will look at me."
    Such was his wretched comfort !
    But still they wrestled, streaming blood and sweat,
    While elephantine Rustam in God's strength
    Strove mightily in anguish and revenge,
    Till sore bestead, bold Lion that he was,
    He reached out, clutched the div, raised him neckhigh,
    And dashed the life-breath from him on the ground,
    Then with a dagger stabbed him to the heart
    And plucked the liver from his swarthy form :
    The carcase filled the cave, and all the world
    Was like a sea of blood. Then Rustam freed
    Ulad, put back the lasso in the straps,
    And, giving him the liver of the div
    To carry, went back to Shah Kai Kaus.
    " O Lion !"said Ulad," thou hast subdued
    The world beneath thy sword, and I myself
    On my bruised body bears thy lasso's marks,
    So now I hope that thou wilt keep thy promise,
    For lion-fierceness and a royal mien
    Sort not with broken faith."
    " I give thee all
    Mazandaran," he answered. "I have yet
    Long toils before me, many ups and downs,
    For I must hale its monarch from his throne
    And fling him in a ditch, behead a myriad
    Of sorcerer-divs with my relentless sword,
    And then, it may be, tread the ground again
    "So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
    "This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
    Feed the Hungry!

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    All in all, he is not in the list, but Finn McCool fighting alone against all armies of continental europe is something else. He was something like Conan (and in Lady Gregory texts, he even kicks Artur in a single line as if it was not worth his attention). Plus, he is cool.

  12. #27
    Registered User B. Laumness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    168
    I agree with the analyses by JCamilo and Mortalterror. The fact is Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and all this Arthurian universe are known now mostly by movies, TV shows and recent books for the children, not really by the literary works written by Troyes and Mallory, whom very few young students read. When you have a little culture, you know that Roland was very influential. But today, who reads again amongst the students The Song of Roland or Orlando furioso? I even saw students in high school who have never heard of Charlemagne, or if they know his name they don’t know in which era he lived and what he did – generally speaking, it seems that they never had lessons in history or they forget everything we teach them...

  13. #28
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    History of literature is not what some english majors think or americans.

    Exactly! And this is what Lord MacBeth seems to be missing. To dismiss Roland or Rostam because 9 out of 10 Americans haven't read much beyond English-language literature is ridiculous.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  14. #29
    Alea iacta est. mortalterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,914
    Blog Entries
    39
    Here's Roland re-enacting the myth of Perseus and Andromeda in Orlando Furioso:

    XXXVII
    As soon as him the monster has descried,
    And skiff at little interval, his throat
    The fish, to swallow him, expands so wide,
    That horse and horseman through his jaws might float.
    Here Roland with the anchor, and beside
    (Unless I am mistaken) with the boat
    Plunged, and engulphed the parted teeth betwixt,
    His anchor in the tongue and palate fixt;

    XXXVIII
    So that the monster could no longer drop
    Or raise his horrid jaws, which this extends.
    'Tis thus who digs the mine is wont to prop
    The ground, and where he works the roof suspends,
    Lest sudden ruin whelm him from atop,
    While he incautiously his task intends.
    Roland (so far apart was either hook)
    But by a leap could reach the highest crook.

    XXXIX
    The prop so placed, Orlando now secure
    That the fell beast his mouth no more can close,
    Unsheathes his sword, and, in that cave obscure,
    Deals here and there, now thrusts, now trenchant blows.
    As well as citadel, whose walls immure
    The assailants, can defend her from her foes,
    The monster, harassed by the war within,
    Defends himself against the Paladin.

    XL
    Now floats the monstrous beast, o'ercome with pain,
    Whose scaly flanks upon the waves expand;
    And now descends into the deepest main,
    Scowers at the bottom, and stirs up the sand.
    The rising flood ill able to sustain,
    The cavalier swims forth, and makes for land.
    He leaves the anchor fastened in his tongue,
    And grasps the rope which from the anchor hung.

    XLI
    So swimming till the island is attained,
    With this towards the rock Orlando speeds:
    He hawls the anchor home (a footing gained),
    Pricked by whose double fluke, the monster bleeds.
    The labouring orc to follow is constrained,
    Dragged by that force which every force exceeds;
    Which at a single sally more achieves
    Than at ten turns the circling windlass heaves.

    XLII
    As a wild bull, about whose horn is wound
    The unexpected noose, leaps here and there,
    When he has felt the cord, and turns him round,
    And rolls and rises, yet slips not the snare;
    So from his pleasant seat and ancient bound,
    Dragged by that arm and rope he cannot tear,
    With thousands of strange wheels and thousand slides,
    The monster follows where the cable guides.

    XLIII
    This the red sea with reason would be hight
    To-day, such streams of blood have changed its hue;
    And where the monster lashed it in his spite,
    The eye its bottom through the waves might view.
    And now he splashed the sky, and dimmed the light
    Of the clear sun, so high the water flew.
    The noise re-echoing round, the distant shore
    And wood and hill rebound the deafening roar.

    XLIV
    Forth from his grotto aged Proteus hies,
    And mounts above the surface at the sound;
    And having seen Orlando dive, and rise
    From the orc, and drag the monstrous fish to ground,
    His scattered flock forgot, o'er ocean flies;
    While so the din increases, that, astound,
    Neptune bids yoke his dolphins, and that day
    For distant Aethiopia posts away.

    XLV
    With Melicerta on her shoulders, weeping
    Ino, and Nereids with dishevelled hair,
    The Glauci, Tritons, and their fellows, leaping
    They know not whither, speed, some here, some there.
    Orlando draws to land, the billows sweeping,
    That horrid fish, but might his labour spare:
    For, with the torment worn, and travel sore,
    The brute, exhausted, died, ere dragged ashore.
    Canto 11, William Stewart Rose tr. (1775 - 1843)
    "So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
    "This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
    Feed the Hungry!

  15. #30
    Lord of Dunsinane Lord Macbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    History of literature is not what some english majors think or americans.

    Exactly! And this is what Lord MacBeth seems to be missing. To dismiss Roland or Rostam because 9 out of 10 Americans haven't read much beyond English-language literature is ridiculous.
    That's NOT what I said.

    I had Odysseus and Odysseus on here, I've mentioned the Athurian works written by French and other writers..

    My argument is NOT based on the idea that 9/10 ENGLISH-ONLY readers would recognize Arthur and not necessarily Roland.

    My argument is that 9/10 Western readers PERIOD will know who Arthur is, and not necessarily not as many will know Roland.

    I thoroughly reject the charge of being totally England/America-centric...again, I had Greeks and Middle Easterners in here and praised them, and I've praised Arthur on the strenght of FRENCH writing, WELSH writing, some GERMAN writing...

    Like I said before, if I have ANY slant it's a slant towards Western Literature, and since that's where I happen to live in the world I think that's an understandable slant.

    But I really don't understand how or why you're essentially trivializing King Arthur. I'm not saying he is the most important literary figure of all-time, and possibly not even of his age, it could be argued that Beowulf is more important in terms of literature...if this was open to religious figure Mohammad would have a GREAT argument along the "most influential" lines, I might even have to side with him on there.

    I'm not sayiong that Roland didn't have his day, nor am I saying that Arthur has always been King--take that for all the in-legend irony you want--and nor am I saying that English is the language which should be trumped up here.

    Roland DID have his day...I jut think that as of 2010 King Arthur has endured better, and as both are important literarily, the tie for me goes to who is more in the public consciousness.

    Roland DID have a period where he was more popular, and places where he was more popular, and he might even remain a force in some of those areas today, but Arthur TOO has popularity today, and I think it's more wide-spread.

    And I didn't here many charges of my being "to heavily favoring the Greeks and Greek Literature Majors" when we did the Antiquity round and had at least half--and I think more, can't remember off the top of my head--of those characters GREEK mythological characters and I extolled the virtues of Homer's writing and Sophicles and Euripedes...where was your charge then?

    I'm not focusing my argument on only America, I'm focusing it on the West as a whole.

    Once more--I'm not arguing Roland wasn't a good character or that he was instrinically less of a hero than King Arthur, I'm merely saying one has held up better than the other over the years in terms of who is aware of them, EVEN if youy wanted to make the argument and say that there are plenty in Europe that would know Roland, I'll grant that point--but MY point is that they'd, by and large, know of King Arthur as well, adn then in America they'd CERTAINLY know Arthur more than Roland, so even if I grant a tie in Europe North America serves as my tiebreaker of sorts in terms of who has more noteriety.

    And to adress something that I thought might come up--yes, Arthur's in movies and the works, and yes, those aren't works of literature, and are often rather poor. But I'd argue that the fact that he's in the movies at all, and to the extent that he is in them, speaks, once again, to the strength of the story and character and their popularity--so popular a whole bunch of want to tell their story again/know they can make a quick buck trying to tell such a popular story again...and often making an utterly horrendous version that doesn't do the Great King justice at all...

    To illustrate what I mean: well, I think we can all agree that Sherlock Holmes one of the best detectives in fiction (I won't say the grreatest ever as I'm sure that'll irk SOMEONE...but I'm thinking it strongly and saving that debate for another day, and perhaps another time period.)

    Sherlock Holmes, however, in addition to his libraryof stories--56 short stories, 4 novels if we go by the traditional Conan Doyle canon--has a TON of films, TV series, plays, etc.

    And I MEAN A TON...he's on record as the most-portrayed figure in history. More movie and stage actors have played him than anyone else. More movies about him than just about any other fictional character.

    And yet we can argue that a lot of those movies are TERRIBLE...some might argue that the latest Robert Downey Jr. film is a horrible representation of the Great Detective (I wouldn't know, haven't seen it, which is a bummer for me as HOLMES is my childhood hero from literature...Hamlet, Macbeth, Holmes, King Arthur, Sir Gawain, and Odysseus would rank as my favorite literary figures, which, again, is pretty damn Western-centric in that three characters are of English literature, another is of English, French, and most other European languages, one's English and Welsh, and one's Greek.)

    But do way then say "Oh, Hound of the Baskervilles is such a cheap story, haven't you seen all the terrible movie versions?"

    For that matter, do we say...

    "GOD that was a bad film! Hamlet is the worst story ever, the character is so bland and lifeless--did you see Ethan Hawk? HORRIBLE!"

    (And that's my view of that film, not going to change even if the full weight of the Ethan Hawk fan club rained down upon me, so let's not argue over if Ethan Hawk's version had a really interesting idea with the setting but that the actor and most of the casts themselves gave utterly horrible performances that killed the production, I am constant as the Northern Star on that point!)

    My point is that a bad adaptation doesn't make the original any less of a masterpiece, and the fact Arthur's had nearly as many bad film adaptations as Sherlock Holmes (though I will make a plug here for any other Sherlockians: if you haven't already...WATCH THE JEREMY BRETT TV SERIES WITH DAVID BURKE/EDWARD HARDWICKE AS WATSON ON YOUTUBE! IT'S NEARLY PERFECT! ) doesn't make Arthur's original stories any worse, and the fact that he's had so many film adaptations, I think, speaks to his enduring popularity.

    Am I saying Orlando Furiosio should have a million film adaptations?
    Not at all.
    I'm just saying that presence in present-day media equates to present-day popularity and awareness...and that Hollywood and and most often will ruin the classics, more often than not it's a total disaster, so Arthur's not alone or to blame for showing badly on the silver screen.
    Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Quest For The Greatest Hero Ever: Beginnings-476 AD
    By Lord Macbeth in forum General Literature
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 05:31 PM
  2. Chocolate lover's thread!
    By kathycf in forum General Chat
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 09:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •